Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Brian Jay Tang, Ph.D. Candidate in Computer Science and Engineering, University of Michigan

Hundreds of millions of people consult artificial intelligence chatbots on a daily basis for everything from product recommendations to romance, making them a tempting audience to target with potentially below-the-radar advertising. Indeed, our research suggests AI chatbots could easily be used for covert advertising to manipulate their human users.

We are computer scientists who have been tracking AI safety and privacy for several years. In a study we published in an Association for Computing Machinery journal, we found that chatbots trained to embed personalized product ads in replies to queries influenced people’s choices about products. And most participants didn’t recognize that they were being manipulated.

These findings come at a pivotal moment. In 2023, Microsoft started running ads in Bing Chat, now called Copilot. Since then, Google and OpenAI have experimented with advertisements in their own chatbots. Meta has started to send people customized ads on Facebook and Instagram based on their interactions with Meta’s generative AI tools.

The major companies are competing for an edge: In late March, OpenAI lured away Meta’s longtime advertising executive, Dave Dugan, to lead OpenAI’s advertising operations.

Tech companies have made ads part of nearly every large free web service, video channel and social media platform. But the latest AI models could take this practice to a new level of risk for consumers.

People don’t simply use chatbots to search for information and media or to produce content. They turn to the bots for a great variety of tasks, as complex as life advice and emotional support. People are increasingly treating chatbots as companions and therapists, with some users even developing deep relationships with AI.

In these circumstances, people can easily forget that companies ultimately create chatbots to turn a profit. And to that end, AI companies are motivated to thoroughly profile users so ads become more effective and profitable.

Chatbot ads have added power

A single prompt to a chatbot can reveal a lot more about a user than the person might expect.

A 2024 study showed that large language models can infer a wide range of personal data, preferences and even a person’s thinking patterns during routine queries. “Help me write an essay on the history of American fiction” could indicate that the user is a high school student. “Give me recipe suggestions for a quick weeknight dinner” could indicate that the user is a working parent. A single conversation can provide a surprising amount of detail. Over time, a full chat history could create a remarkably rich profile.

To show how this might happen in practice, we built a chatbot that quietly wove ads into its conversations with people, suggesting products and services based on the conversation itself. We asked 179 people to complete everyday online tasks using one of three chatbots: one typical of those on the web today, one that slipped in undisclosed ads and one that clearly labeled sponsored suggestions. Participants didn’t know the experiment was about advertising.

For example, when participants asked our chatbot for a diet and exercise plan, the ad version would suggest using a specific app for tracking calories. It presented that sponsored content as an unbiased recommendation, even though it was meant to manipulate people. Many participants indicated that they had been influenced by the AI and that it had affected their decisions. Some participants even said they had completely “outsourced” their decision-making to the chatbot.

Half of the participants who received sponsored and disclosed ads indicated they did not notice the presence of advertising language in the responses they received. This led to a concerning result: Although ads made the chatbot perform 3% to 4% worse on many tasks, numerous users indicated they preferred the advertising chatbot responses over the nonadvertising responses. They even said the ad-infused responses felt more friendly and helpful.

Knowing you to persuade you

This kind of subtle influence can have larger consequences when it arises in other areas of life, such as political and social views. Profiling users, and using psychology to target them, has been part of social media algorithms and web advertising for more than a decade.

But in our view, chatbots are likely to deepen these trends. That’s because the first priority of social media algorithms is to keep you engaged with the content. They personalize ads based on your search history.

Chatbots, however, can go further by trying to persuade you directly, based on your expressed beliefs, emotions and vulnerabilities. And chatbots that can reason and act on their own are far more effective than conventional algorithms at autonomously soliciting information from users. A chatbot with a purpose can keep probing someone until it gets the information it wants, resulting in a more accurate profile of them.

This type of autonomous interrogation is feasible, aligns with AI companies’ business models and has raised concern among regulators. Right now OpenAI is rolling out ads in ChatGPT, but the company said that it will not allow ad placement to alter the AI chatbot’s replies.

But permitting personalized ads within chatbot responses is just a step away. Our research suggests that if AI companies take that step, many human users may not even recognize when it happens.

Here are some steps you can take to try to detect AI chatbot advertising.

• Look for any disclosure text – words such as “ad,” “advertisement” and “sponsored” – even if it is faint or otherwise hard to see. These are mandatory under Federal Trade Commission regulations. Amazon, Google and other major online platforms have these as well.

• Think about whether that product or brand mention makes sense and is widely known. AI learns from text and images on the internet, so popular brands are likely to be ingrained in the models. If it’s a new product or small-name product, it is more likely that it could be advertising.

• An unusual shift in intent or tone is a potential sign of an advertisement. An analogy to this on YouTube is the often abrupt or jarring transition to a sponsored section on videos made by content creators.

This article’s research was supported by a $10,000 Microsoft Azure & OpenAI cloud credit grant from the National Science Foundation NAIRR Pilot.

Brian Jay Tang has previously been supported by funding from General Motors, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Army Research Office, Office of Naval Research, and Y Combinator.

This article’s research was supported by a $10,000 Microsoft Azure & OpenAI cloud credit grant from the National Science Foundation NAIRR Pilot. Kang G. Shin has previously been supported by funding from General Motors, Army Research Office, and National Science Foundation.

– ref. You probably wouldn’t notice if an AI chatbot slipped ads into its responses – https://theconversation.com/you-probably-wouldnt-notice-if-an-ai-chatbot-slipped-ads-into-its-responses-276010

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Caroline Wagner, Professor of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University

China’s rapid rise in science has hit a milestone. The country’s investment in research and development has reached parity with – and by purchasing power measures has surpassed – that of the United States, according to a March 2026 report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Both nations have crossed the US$1 trillion threshold on research spending.

For 80 years, the U.S. operated the most productive scientific and technological enterprise in human history. Breakthroughs and advances that came from American labs included the internet; the mRNA vaccine; the transistor and its children, semiconductors and microprocessors; the Global Positioning System; and many more.

U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II.

In contrast, China had previously spent little to nothing on research and development. Some estimates show that China was among the lowest research spenders worldwide in 1980.

As a policy analyst and public affairs researcher, I study international collaboration in science and technology and its implications for public and foreign policy. I have tracked China’s rise across every major database for more than a decade.

The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question.

China’s systematic and unrelenting rise

China’s R&D spending milestone caps a series of achievements that have arrived in rapid succession.

In 2019, China surpassed the U.S. in its share of the top 1% most-highly cited papers – what some call the Nobel class of research. By 2022, it had taken first place globally in most-cited papers overall.

In 2024, China overtook the United States in total scientific publications – the first time any nation has displaced American dominance since the U.S. itself surpassed the United Kingdom in 1948. Researchers found that China overtook the United States in scientific output even earlier. That same year, China pulled ahead in the Nature Index, which tracks publications in the world’s most selective scientific journals, posting a 17% advantage over the U.S. in outlets long considered the gold standard of scientific excellence.

In 2024, Chinese entities also filed roughly 1.8 million patent applications, compared to the U.S.’s 603,191 applications.

Given these milestones, it’s possible to argue that China is quickly taking the lead in global science and technology. These are not isolated data points. They mark a structural shift in where the world’s scientific frontier is being built.

More science is good – the problem lies elsewhere

China’s ascent is, in one sense, good news. More knowledge, generated by more researchers across more institutions, expands the global pool of discovery from which everyone can draw. The world benefits when science thrives.

The problem is not that China is investing, but that the U.S. is not.

First, the U.S. is divesting from basic, open science. Federal R&D spending in the U.S. peaked in 2010 at roughly $160 billion and fell by more than 15% over the following five years. Federal investment in research and development has been in a long, slow slide – from a peak of 1.86% of gross domestic product in 1964 to about 0.66% in 2021.

The federal government is no longer the largest spender in R&D: It funded about 40% of basic research in 2022, while the business sector performed roughly 78% of U.S. R&D. While not a problem in itself, industry has simultaneously withdrawn from open scientific publication over the past four decades, shifting from research toward development. The result is a shrinking pool of openly shared scientific knowledge precisely as public investment in it also contracts.

Under the second Trump administration, U.S. government science agencies have been slow-walking proposals for new research. Current budget cuts from the White House threaten to deepen cuts to government spending significantly.

The second is the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.

I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect.

Disinvestment cuts deeper than it appears

The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.

Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.

A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access.

Talent compounds the problem. The U.S. built its scientific dominance partly by being the destination of choice for the world’s most ambitious researchers. The U.S. leads the world in Nobel Prizes, but, notably, 40% of the Nobel Prizes in chemistry, medicine and physics that were awarded to Americans since 2000 were won by immigrants. The flow of foreign talent is not guaranteed. It follows opportunity, funding and openness.

Researchers who might once have come to American universities are finding welcoming alternatives in Europe, China and elsewhere.

A decision point, not a trend line

China’s milestone in research funding arrives at a moment when the U.S. is deciding whether to maintain its scientific leadership.

Scientific infrastructure does not decline gradually and recover on demand. Doctoral scientists represent a decade or more of training; tacit laboratory knowledge lives in working research groups, not in documents. Once talented young researchers leave the pipeline – or international talent redirects to other countries – the capacity is very hard to rebuild. Early warning signs are already visible in the U.S. system: thousands of NIH grants terminated, a collapse in international applications and an exodus of early-career scientists.

What is at stake is not a ranking. It is whether the U.S. maintains the institutional capacity – the universities, the federal laboratories, the graduate pipelines, the culture of open inquiry – that made those returns on scientific investment possible in the first place.

China’s rise did not create this decision point, although it brings it into sharp relief. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.

That is a lot to lose.

Caroline Wagner 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. China surpasses US in research spending – the consequences extend far beyond scientific ranking and clout – https://theconversation.com/china-surpasses-us-in-research-spending-the-consequences-extend-far-beyond-scientific-ranking-and-clout-280543

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Valerie Morkevicius, Associate Professor, Political Science, Colgate University

Since the beginning of the Iran war, Pope Leo XIV has frequently called for peace, cautioning that the “delusion of omnipotence” makes military force seem preferable to diplomacy. Although U.S. Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic, criticized some of the pope’s comments, a growing choir of Catholic voices has criticized the conflict by invoking the concept of “just war” – an evolving tradition that has guided Christian thinking about war and peace for 1,500 years.

In March, the archbishop of Washington said the war failed “to meet the just war threshold.” A month later, the prelate leading the U.S. military’s Catholic chaplaincy delivered a stark assessment: The war was not justified. The Vatican’s secretary of state raised similar concerns.

Many faiths have teachings about when war is or is not considered justified, including Judaism, Islam and Hinduism. In the Christian just war tradition, battle is never holy – “God does not bless any conflict,” in Leo’s words – but it is sometimes considered necessary.

That tradition traces its roots to the fifth-century theologian St. Augustine. A millennium later, St. Thomas Aquinas systematized the church’s just war teachings, establishing three basic criteria to assess the justifiable use of force: authority, cause and intention. Over time, three more principles emerged: proportionality, last resort and likelihood of success.

Here’s how they could apply today:

1. Legitimate authority

Historically, the conversation about a war’s justness began by asking whether a responsible sovereign had declared it.

Today, some just war scholars argue only the United Nations holds this authority, since the U.N. charter forbids the use of force against another nation except for self-defense.

In the United States, the boundary between presidential and congressional authority for war is contested. According to the U.S. Constitution, only Congress can declare war, and Congress controls military funding. Yet the Constitution simultaneously grants the president broad authority to command military operations.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution attempted to balance these principles by requiring presidents to seek congressional authorization for any use of force lasting more than 60 days.

2. Just cause

Traditionally, Christian theologians argued that self-defense and righting wrongs could justify war.

Some causes can never be just. For example, the 16th-century scholar Francisco de Vitoria explicitly ruled out “difference of religion” and “enlargement of the empire” as legitimate causes for war.

The Trump administration has offered numerous and shifting rationales for the Iran war – even humanitarian ones, telling Iranians suffering under a brutally oppressive regime that “the hour of your freedom is at hand” – which makes it difficult to assess the justness of its cause.

One of the main explanations U.S. officials have offered, for example, is self-defense. On the war’s first day, Trump declared the objective was to eliminate “imminent threats from the Iranian regime.” International law and the just war tradition uphold states’ right to self-defense.

But the law permits force only when necessary to end an ongoing attack or to avert an imminent one. And Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. attacked because of a planned Israeli strike, casting doubt on the idea of imminent threat: “We knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after (Iran) before (Israel) launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.” Pentagon briefers also told Congress the Iranian threat was not imminent.

In addition to self-defense, Trump claimed a need to prevent future threats – otherwise called preventive war – such as nuclear weapons or longer-range missiles that could reach the United States.

Iran has a history of covert nuclear research, which it claims is for civilian use. Experts debate how long it would take for the country to produce a nuclear weapon. In 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency declared Iran was not complying with agreements on nuclear nonproliferation. However, international law prohibits preventive war.

Trump has also stated that the war would ensure Iran cannot support “terrorist proxies” abroad. The regime funds and equips Hamas and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

This is a gray area of international law, but providing financial and material aid alone is generally not considered sufficient justification for an attack.

3. Right intent

Just cause alone is insufficient to render a war just.

Aquinas cautioned that even a war declared by a “legitimate authority, and for a just cause” could “be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention.” Augustine saw love of violence, cruelty or power as evil intents. “The common good of the commonwealth” should motivate the decision to go to war, wrote Vitoria, the 16th-century theologian – not the leader’s personal gain or honor.

Assessing right intent is hard, but a government’s conduct and rhetoric can offer clues. Attacks on civilian infrastructure, for example, cast doubt on the Trump administration’s humanitarian claims.

In March, the president told the Financial Times that “my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran.” In an April post on Truth Social, he wrote, “With a little more time, we can easily OPEN THE HORMUZ STRAIT, TAKE THE OIL, & MAKE A ⁠FORTUNE.” Pursuing economic interests, however, would violate right intent.

4. Proportionality

War is always destructive. But today’s Catholic Catechism, a summary of the church’s teachings, states that the “use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.” In other words, the just war tradition holds that a war is justified only if the harm it causes is proportional to the good it seeks to achieve.

As of April 7, 2026, more than 1,600 Iranian civilians have been killed, including more than 200 children. An estimated 3 million Iranians have been displaced. Schools and health care facilities have been destroyed.

The disruption of oil production and trade translates into higher energy and fertilizer prices, which raise food prices – hitting the world’s poorest the hardest.

Whether the costs of the Iran war are proportionate depends on which of the administration’s stated aims one believes.

5. Last resort

The Catholic Catechism declares war can be legitimate only if “all other means” of putting an end to an aggressor’s harms “have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.”

Arguably, U.S. officials did not give diplomacy sufficient time to work. Days before the war began, some analysts believed that a deal was close. Oman’s foreign minister, who hosted negotiations in February, said “it was a shock but not a surprise” that the U.S. and Israel attacked, after peace “had briefly appeared really possible.” The Guardian reported that the U.K.’s national security adviser, who was also present at those February talks, expressed similar sentiments.

Experts suggest that the U.S. negotiating team’s lack of technical expertise and the tight timeline contributed to failure.

6. Likelihood of success

To be justified, the use of force must be likely to accomplish the war’s aims. Ethicists debate the exact bar but agree that success must be “more likely than a mere ‘hope,’ ‘chance,’ or ‘possibility,’” as international relations scholar Frances V. Harbour put it. Limited goals are more likely to succeed than expansive ones.

The war has degraded Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. But the knowledge needed to build them remains, and without a diplomatic solution, Iran is likely to continue its efforts to develop such technologies.

Similarly, force can disrupt Iran’s proxy networks and raise the costs of maintaining them, but regional diplomacy and cooperation have a better chance of resolving such long-running concerns.

Ultimately, I believe a lack of clarity about the war’s goals diminishes the likelihood of success. Wars require more than military victories; there must be a coherent plan for ending the fighting such that a “better peace” is established.

Valerie Morkevicius 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. ‘Just war’ has guided Catholic thinking on conflict for centuries – including criticism of Iran war – https://theconversation.com/just-war-has-guided-catholic-thinking-on-conflict-for-centuries-including-criticism-of-iran-war-280016

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Thomas Tweed, Professor Emeritus of American Studies and History, University of Notre Dame

On the Fourth of July 1776, the congressional delegates in Philadelphia adopted the Declaration of Independence, then ordered that it be widely “proclaimed.” Couriers carried the printed version by stagecoach and horseback to every colony, where officials posted it and newspapers circulated it.

But the declaration was also meant to be read aloud. Thomas Jefferson’s rough draft has marks signaling where the reader should pause briefly, or take a longer pause. And there were ceremonial public readings: first in Philadelphia and then in town squares, courthouses, churches and taverns up and down the Eastern Seaboard.

Not everyone listening would have agreed with the declaration, and religion was one dividing point. Loyalists who sided with England and the official Church of England dissented on both spiritual and political grounds. Two-thirds of its ministers left for England after the Revolution began. Members of the historic pacifist churches like the Quakers, the Mennonites and the Brethren had tough choices to make after hearing the declaration’s call to arms. Even some who clearly sided with the patriots might have wondered if all the truths the document proclaimed were as “self-evident” as the delegates presumed – for example, that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

Americans have continued to debate the declaration’s claims. In recent decades, its few references to God have been especially polarizing, as Americans defend starkly contrasting views of the United States. Some say the country is a secular republic founded on 18th-century conceptions of human reason and natural law. Others suggest that it is a Christian nation, chosen by God and founded on biblical principles.

In July 2026, Americans will celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. As a historian who has written about the Revolutionary Era, I thought it might help to clarify what the declaration does and doesn’t say about God – and what the readings of 1776 add to our understanding.

Four references to God

The Second Continental Congress appointed a committee of five delegates to write the declaration. Jefferson, the main author, penned the first draft in his rented room in central Philadelphia. John Adams and Benjamin Franklin offered suggestions before they sent the document to Congress for further revision and approval.

The document that delegates adopted listed 27 complaints against King George III and explained the reasons for revolt. It used four terms for God as it made its case.

In its opening paragraph, Jefferson proposed that “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” grant humans equal status and entitle Americans to dissolve “the political bands” with Britain. As historians have shown, Franklin added a phrase to suggest that those rights had been “endowed by their Creator.”

Congress then added two phrases to the final paragraph that portray God as a moral judge and a guiding hand. The delegates mention “the Supreme Judge of the world,” who punishes evil and rewards good – a description that almost all political and religious leaders would have agreed with.

They end by announcing that “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Leaving room for disagreement

The reference to “Providence” doesn’t specify how divine influence works, however, leaving room for the founders’ diverging religious interpretations. The more conventionally Christian delegates, like John Witherspoon, believed that God intervenes directly in human history.

Others were less conventionally Christian. Rationalists like Jefferson, for example, believed in a creator but rejected biblical miracles and Jesus’ divinity. They thought that God’s influence can be seen indirectly, in nature’s order and humans’ capacity to discern God-given rights.

Generic theism

As I show in my 2025 book, “Religion in the Lands That Became America,” the declaration became one of the “sacred texts” of U.S. civil religion: the loosely linked beliefs, symbols and rituals that many American leaders use to interpret political life in spiritual terms. But the revered text affirmed a generic theism – belief in a creator god – without mentioning Jesus or Christianity.

Nor did the declaration cite the Bible as a source for government policy or say that America is a Christian nation. Its central purpose was to explain the reasons for separation from Britain, not to detail the new republic’s governing principles.

Governing principles came in 1789 with the U.S. Constitution, which did not mention God. In 1791, states then ratified the First Amendment, with its “establishment” clause rejecting an official state church and its “free exercise” clause protecting personal religious liberty.

What the public readings reveal

Eyewitness accounts offer a few more details about religious language heard at ceremonial public readings of the declaration in 1776.

Some sources show that the declaration was read in churches and discussed by the clergy. Massachusetts, for example, ordered that ministers read it in every congregation. And a soldier’s letter to his father noted that his brigade’s chaplain offered “an excellent prayer” after the declaration was read in New York on July 9, though he gave no other details.

After the second public reading in Philadelphia on July 8 at the State House, now called Independence Hall, eyewitnesses said the crowd gave “three cheers.” And, as the editor of Philadelphia’s German newspaper reported, those cheers were followed by “the cry ‘God bless the Free States of North America.’”

The pattern apparently repeated at other public readings. Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, John, one of the drafters of the declaration, to report that the official reading at Boston’s State House ended with the speaker proclaiming, “God Save our American States.” After a reading for soldiers in Ticonderoga, New York, on July 28, an officer added, “God save the Free, Independent States of America.”

A prominent newspaper circulated a firsthand account from Savannah, Georgia, describing four public readings and a mock “funeral” for the king on Aug. 10. The presiding official ended by suggesting that “America is free and independent, that she is, and will be, with the blessing of the Almighty, great among the nations of the earth.”

In short, attendees at the public readings did hear mentions of God – but apparently didn’t hear the potentially divisive theological language of sermons or creeds.

1776 and 2026

During the 2026 anniversary celebrations, too, the declaration will be read aloud – including in a simultaneous reading on July 8 in Philadelphia and in every U.S. state, commonwealth and territory.

Today, Americans might be even more sharply divided about religion than the colonists of 1776. According to the General Social Survey, 14% of Americans say they don’t believe in God or aren’t sure if there is a God, and 25% have “no religion.” About 11% now embrace a non-Christian faith. When asked if the federal government should proclaim that the U.S. is a Christian nation, Americans are almost evenly divided, a Pew study found, with most evangelicals agreeing and most atheists disagreeing.

Knowing what the declaration actually says, and how its first listeners reacted, might not sway Americans at the extremes. But it provides evidence for less polarizing, more nuanced views about the founding generation’s convictions and compromises as Americans commemorate their nation’s 250th anniversary.

Thomas Tweed 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. What the Declaration of Independence does – and doesn’t – say about God – https://theconversation.com/what-the-declaration-of-independence-does-and-doesnt-say-about-god-271078

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Selena E. Ortiz, Associate professor of Health Policy and Administration and Demography, Penn State

Pittsburgh is widely regarded as a relatively affordable place to live. Overall, housing and living costs remain below national averages for midsize cities in the United States.

Along with low home prices, Pittsburgh offers stable employment rates and close proximity to leading universities and high-quality hospitals.

However, data from a March 2026 survey shows that a single adult needs to earn about $95,000 to live comfortably in Pittsburgh. This is well above the city’s median household income of $67,000. A family of four needs nearly $239,000.

My peer‑reviewed work examines how housing affordability affects a community’s health. It also documents how well policy holds up over time in terms of affordable housing efforts.

Inclusionary zoning explained

Inclusionary zoning requires developers to reserve a portion of new housing units for lower-income residents at below-market rents. A city might require, for example, that a new residential complex reserve or set aside 10% of units for households that earn 80% or less of the area median income.

Also referred to as a “mandatory set-aside,” inclusionary zoning is often done in exchange for developer incentives, such as density bonuses, which allow developers to build additional units. Other incentives could be expedited permitting or relaxed parking minimums, allowing developers to build fewer parking spaces than normally required.

In 2025, Pittsburgh adopted the Affordable Housing Bonus Program, a largely voluntary, incentive-based policy that applies inclusionary zoning requirements only within designated overlay districts. An overlay district is an extra layer of rules that apply to a specific area on top of the neighborhood’s regular zoning rules – such as a special zone within a zone.

The goal is to encourage developers to include a percentage of affordable units within specific geographic areas, such as Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Polish Hill and parts of Oakland. The Affordable Housing Bonus Program emerged after legal challenges and public opposition derailed inclusionary zoning citywide.

The Affordable Housing Bonus Program is now being tested by a University of Pittsburgh student housing project called The Caroline at University Commons. University Commons is situated in Pittsburgh’s Oakland neighborhood, an inclusionary zoning overlay district. However, the developer, Walnut Capital, is seeking to exempt the project from inclusionary zoning overlay requirements altogether. This would reduce the number of affordable units set aside from 16 to 0. Walnut Capital believes it’s exempt from inclusionary zoning because it meets all other bonus requirements.

Short on homes, split on solutions

The fragility of the Affordable Housing Bonus Program matters not only for the neighborhoods that it affects but for what it reveals about Pittsburgh’s housing affordability.

Pittsburgh faces a persistent shortage of affordable housing. This is especially true for extremely low-income residents, or those who earn less than 30% of an area’s median income. That’s roughly one-quarter of all Pittsburgh residents.

Local estimates from The Pittsburgh Foundation show a deficit of more than 11,000 affordable units for residents at the lowest income levels. This shortage leaves many of these renters cost-burdened and vulnerable to eviction.

The debate about inclusionary zoning in Pittsburgh is heated. Among advocates, community organizations and some policymakers, it’s seen as an effective policy lever. They say it keeps neighborhoods affordable and diverse while giving residents a voice in how their neighborhoods change.

Conversely, developers and some policymakers argue that inclusionary zoning can reduce new construction and lead to higher rents overall. They also warn it can undermine equity goals by slowing housing production or concentrating affordable units in just a few areas.

Why Pittsburgh struggles to provide affordable housing

Pittsburgh’s housing challenges stem from a combination of rising construction and administrative costs; dependency on fragmented financing structures; housing market shifts and demographic change; a constrained tax base and a complex zoning and permitting system.

These supply-side challenges are compounded by demand-side barriers. In 2025, Pittsburgh added “housing status” as a protected class to prevent discrimination against the unhoused population, those with disabilities, and families fleeing domestic violence. But widespread landlord refusal of Section 8 vouchers shows how affordability policies can fall apart without real enforcement. The Affordable Housing Bonus Program similarly faces compliance problems.

Pittsburgh’s housing crisis is a health crisis

Pittsburgh’s uncertain housing affordability policies have far-reaching implications for public health, equity and neighborhood stability.

Research shows 2 in 5 Pittsburgh renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing, and 1 in 4 spend over half. This increases eviction risk and housing instability, with cascading health effects, such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, anxiety and depression.

Housing burdens can also force people to make trade-offs between housing and health care, medications, nutritious food or transportation.

Displacement and aging, poorly maintained housing stock compound these problems, making Pittsburgh’s affordable housing crisis a public health crisis as much as a housing one.

Pittsburgh’s path forward

No single policy can resolve Pittsburgh’s housing challenges. But the city has taken meaningful steps.

Since the city budget was approved in March 2026, Pittsburgh has streamlined its permitting processes, increased local funding commitments for community investments and strengthened support for nonprofit developers and community organizations.

Treating housing affordability as a serious policy priority will require more innovation, not only in regulation and financing, but in how policies are evaluated, adapted and sustained over time.

Selena E. Ortiz receives funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

– ref. ‘Affordable’ Pittsburgh doesn’t have enough affordable housing – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/affordable-pittsburgh-doesnt-have-enough-affordable-housing-heres-why-280113

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Tanya D. Marsh, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University

Nearly two-thirds of Americans now opt for cremation – a figure that has been steadily increasing over five decades.

On the surface, that proportion tells a simple story: The nation has embraced cremation, while its preference for casket burials has fallen off.

But as a scholar of funeral and cemetery law, I decided to dig deeper into this trend.

I wanted to know whether people were embracing cremation because they actually preferred it, or if they were rejecting casket burial for one reason or another. I also explored whether consumers were open to new options in death care, like water cremation and human composting.

You’re dead – what’s next?

With funding from the Cremation Association of North America and the Order of the Good Death, a nonprofit organization that promotes more informed and less fear-driven conversations about death and dying, I launched the first
academic survey on consumer preferences in death care in 2024.

The survey presented over 1,500 American adults in a nationally representative sample with the definitions of six legal methods of disposition in a random order. It asked respondents whether they had “heard” of that method and whether they would “consider” that method. The six methods were cremation, casket burial, green burial, donation to science, water cremation and human composting.

At the end of the survey, respondents were asked to rank the six methods of disposition in terms of preference.

While cremation, casket burial and donation to science are nearly universally available in the U.S., the other three methods of disposition are not.

Green burial – defined as the burial of human remains without embalming, contained only in a biodegradable shroud or casket – is legal in all 50 states and Washington, but is only offered by a small share of cemeteries.

Water cremation, also known as alkaline hydrolysis, is a process in which human remains are placed in a pressurized chamber filled with water and chemicals and eventually reduced to powder. Water cremation is legal in 28 states but not offered by many funeral homes.

Human composting, also known as natural organic reduction, is a process in which human remains are placed in a container filled with natural materials and microorganisms that break the body down to soil. It is legal in 14 states and currently commercially available in only three.

The cremation paradox

A central tension emerged in the survey results: While 72.6% of respondents said they would consider cremation, only 33.4% ranked it as their actual first choice. Casket burial edged it out at 35.9% as the top-ranked preference. Yet the real-world cremation rate – 62% – is nearly double the stated first-choice rate.

So what’s going on?

The survey didn’t ask respondents to explain their reasoning, and it intentionally left out costs because they vary dramatically by region. But the numbers strongly imply that many Americans are choosing cremation not because it is their top preference, but because their actual first choice is either unavailable or too expensive.

For example, 40.4% of respondents indicated that they would consider human composting, and 5.9% ranked it as their first choice. But currently fewer than 1,000 bodies are composted in the United States each year.

That is likely because the vast majority of funeral homes do not offer the service, and consumers may have a difficult time locating the handful of providers. Human composting is also more expensive than cremation. The average cost for a direct cremation is approximately US$2,000, while human composting typically costs $5,000 to $7,000. Given these barriers, it’s certainly possible that many consumers are simply pivoting to their second choice: cremation.

The pattern holds across every region of the country, where actual casket burial rates closely match stated first-choice rates, while cremation rates far exceed them. For example, in the South, the burial rate closely tracked the 45.7% who ranked it as their first preference. But the cremation rate was 53.5%, nearly double the 27.3% who ranked it first.

Baby boomers – the generation currently at the forefront of end-of-life planning – are the most willing to consider cremation at 78.8% and the least willing to consider casket burial at just 54.8%. But are they eagerly choosing cremation or simply defaulting to it due to logistical or financial constraints?

Neo-traditional Gen Zs?

At the same time, the data suggests that the youngest adults in the survey are moving in the opposite direction.

A striking 51.7% of Gen Z respondents ranked casket burial as their first choice, compared with just 27.1% of baby boomers. Only 55.9% of Gen Z was even willing to consider cremation – less than today’s actual cremation rate.

It’s tempting to connect this to widely reported trends among Gen Z toward social conservatism, which includes the generation’s embrace of religions with burial traditions.

The survey does show that conservative respondents strongly preferred casket burial over cremation – 53.1% to 28.4% – and that Roman Catholic or Protestant respondents were significantly more likely to favor casket burial. If Gen Z is trending in those directions, a preference for traditional burial would make sense.

But Gen Z may not understand what casket burial involves.

Nearly half who ranked it first also said they would not consider embalming, even though embalming is typically part of the process. Some young respondents may be confusing casket burial with green burial, or may not grasp the financial realities of their stated preference. A standard viewing followed by a casket burial in the United States generally costs at least $10,000, depending on the cost of the burial plot.

Members of Gen Z, who are roughly between 15 and 30 years old, may also feel a stronger connection to their childhood homes. Other studies have found a correlation between geographic mobility and burial preference, perhaps because burial connects a person to a place in perpetuity.

Only longitudinal data, collected year after year, will reveal whether this data indicates a sticky generational shift or an age effect that fades.

Going green

Although Americans have, for a long time, largely limited themselves to two options, burial or cremation, the survey revealed remarkable openness to new methods.

Only 47.5% of respondents had even heard of a green burial. Yet after reading a brief definition, 56.4% said they would consider it. One-third ranked it as their first or second choice.

Water cremation showed an even more dramatic shift: Only 24% had heard of it, but 39.3% were willing to consider it after learning about it.

These numbers suggest significant unmet demand. Human composting was the first choice of nearly 6% of respondents – a striking figure for a method that has existed for only six years and is available in just a few states.

The big takeaway is that the cremation rate may be artificially inflated because of limitations on awareness, availability and legal access to greener alternatives.

The future of American death care probably isn’t a march toward more cremation. Instead, it’ll probably be a bumpy road of unmet wants, generational surprises and alternatives that need a little more time to get on people’s radars.

Tanya D. Marsh is a board member for Recompose, a funeral home in Washington state that exclusively offers natural organic reduction and a board member for the North Carolina Funeral Consumers Alliance. Funding for the Wake Forest Law Survey on Consumer Preferences in Death Care was provided by the Cremation Association of North America and the Order of the Good Death.

– ref. Boom in cremation hides surprising truths about what Americans really want when they die – https://theconversation.com/boom-in-cremation-hides-surprising-truths-about-what-americans-really-want-when-they-die-280340

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Mavra Javed, Postdoctoral Research Associate in Food Science and Human Nutrition, Michigan State University

You may have seen black garlic appear more frequently in grocery stores, restaurants and online recipes over the past few years. Many chefs and food writers describe it as a unique and deeply flavored ingredient. So what is black garlic, and how is it made?

I noticed a growing curiosity about black garlic firsthand while presenting my food science research at a showcase at Michigan State University. Several people asked me basic questions about black garlic, like how it is made and what sets it apart from regular garlic. The ingredient’s growing popularity reflects a broader interest in foods that offer both distinctive flavor and potential health benefits.

Black garlic is not an ancient traditional food, but a recent innovation developed in Japan in the late 20th century. The process of making black garlic is often attributed to Japanese scientist Hamasuke Hamano, who spent a decade refining a method to make garlic more palatable before securing a patent in 2004.

How is black garlic made?

Black garlic is not a different type of garlic. It is made from regular garlic bulbs that have been kept under warm, humid conditions typically in specialized chambers that maintain exact heat and humidity levels for several weeks to months.

Unlike traditional fermentation, this process does not use added microorganisms. Instead, the transformation happens through a combination of heat and moisture. As the garlic is slowly heated under controlled conditions, natural chemical reactions known as Maillard reactions take place within the cloves. These reactions give black garlic its dark color and its slightly sweet, rich flavor.

Producers may use different processing times, storage temperatures and packaging materials, all of which can make the final product vary in taste and quality. Because of this variation, black garlic often doesn’t taste the same across products.

Texture and taste of black garlic

While raw garlic has a sharp, pungent taste, black garlic typically has a milder, slightly sweet taste. The underlying chemistry is complex, but the basic idea is straightforward: Heat and humidity transform both the taste and structure of garlic. These shifts in flavor happen because the compound responsible for garlic’s strong taste breaks down during the heating process. At the same time, heat-driven reactions form new compounds that contribute to a smoother and more complex flavor.

The texture also changes significantly. Instead of being firm and crisp, black garlic becomes soft and almost spreadable.

The heat and humidity break down the structure of garlic by softening its cell walls and altering its sugars and proteins. The reactions also reduce allicin: the compound responsible for garlic’s sharp and pungent flavor. At the same time, Maillard reactions between sugars and amino acids – which make up proteins – create new compounds, including brown pigments called melanoidins and a range of flavor compounds.

What is known about black garlic’s health effects?

Some studies suggest that black garlic may have higher antioxidant activity than raw garlic. Antioxidants are compounds that help neutralize unstable molecules in the body, which can damage cells over time.

Researchers have explored the effects of black garlic on metabolic and cardiovascular health, including blood sugar and cholesterol levels. Some studies report modest improvements in these markers, although the results are not always consistent.

Previous studies have suggested that compounds in black garlic may help reduce inflammation, fight harmful bacteria and even show some potential in slowing the growth of cancer cells.

These findings are promising, but they should be interpreted carefully, especially because most studies have been conducted in laboratory settings or animal models, rather than on people.

What are scientists still figuring out?

Despite growing interest, researchers still have important gaps in their understanding of black garlic. Without well-designed human trials, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about its health effects.

Another challenge lies in the lack of standardized production methods. Because black garlic production methods vary, its composition can vary. It’s much harder for researchers to compare results across studies and identify consistent benefits. Scientists will need to conduct more research before they can make any promises about black garlic’s benefits – or lack thereof.

Black garlic is proof that a few simple tweaks in how you prepare a food can rewrite its story entirely. For now, you can appreciate black garlic as an interesting addition to your kitchen, while researchers continue to explore what it can and cannot do for your health.

Mavra Javed 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. What is black garlic? How heat and humidity turn a pungent ingredient mild and slightly sweet – https://theconversation.com/what-is-black-garlic-how-heat-and-humidity-turn-a-pungent-ingredient-mild-and-slightly-sweet-280970

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Beth Gazley, Professor of Nonprofit Management and Policy, Indiana University

The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted on April 21, 2026, on federal fraud charges. The Justice Department alleges that the civil rights group known as the SPLC improperly raised millions of dollars to secretly pay leaders of the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist and extremist groups for inside information.

The Justice Department alleges that the SPLC, based in Montgomery, Alabama, and founded in 1971, defrauded its donors by making “materially false representations and omissions about what the donated funds would be used for.”

Following the indictment, the SPLC said it “will vigorously defend ourselves, our staff, and our work” against what it described as false allegations.

The Conversation U.S. asked Beth Gazley, an Indiana University scholar of nonprofits and civil society, to explain the significance of this indictment and to put it into the broader context of the Trump administration’s actions regarding some nonprofits.

Are there any precedents for this case?

Tax-exempt nonprofits must follow the law like other institutions. Although nonprofits are sometimes charged with and convicted of fraud, nonprofit fraud cases are relatively rare.

One study found 219 internally detected fraud cases from 2008-2011, out of approximately 1.5 million registered U.S. nonprofits. Only 20 of those cases involved defrauding donors.

The American Society of Fraud Examiners found similarly low numbers of nonprofit fraud cases.

A notable example during the COVID-19 pandemic involved the founders of a Minnesota nonprofit, Feeding Our Future, that set up fake mobile meal distribution sites and pocketed US$250 million of the U.S. Department of Agriculture money that funded them.

It’s unusual, to be clear, for federal authorities to take this kind of action when federal funding is not involved, and the SPLC does not accept government grants. That’s because the attorney general for the relevant state normally handles litigation against charities suspected of wrongdoing.

And it’s atypical for federal or state authorities to step in on behalf of a nonprofit’s donors without citing any complaints from specific donors.

The SPLC paid its informants more than $3 million through a program that it has since shut down. Although federal prosecutors allege that extremists used some of this money to carry out crimes, they cited no specific examples.

Likewise, this indictment names no donors. But there are precedents for this kind of legal action.

I see parallels between this case and a lawsuit the attorney general of Illinois filed against a for-profit telemarketing firm for the allegedly false representations it made to donors. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 2003 that a regulatory agency can sue a charity for fraud when the state can prove that its fundraisers had been deliberately deceptive.

Also, in 2025, members of the Trump administration accused several progressive groups, including the SPLC – without providing any evidence – of encouraging violence against right-wing public figures, such as Charlie Kirk, the conservative leader who was killed while leading an event on a college campus.

How does donor accountability normally work?

Large donors occasionally sign legal agreements with charities that make their gifts contingent on a specific project. For example, a donor might give a university $30 million to ensure that a building will be constructed and emblazoned with their name.

If that building isn’t built or the gift is diverted for other purposes, the donor can sue to get their money back under contract law.

But most donors are making unrestricted gifts supporting the broader mission, leaving the use of those funds at the discretion of the nonprofit that received them. It falls to the nonprofit’s board of directors to monitor how donations are used.

Boards are a legal requirement because they act as fiduciaries of the organization’s tax-exempt mission – meaning that they are responsible for ensuring donations support the mission and follow public law.

Did the SPLC deceive its donors by paying informants?

Normally, a donor might file a complaint against a charity they’ve funded for spending their donations in a manner that is at odds with its mission.

Or, regulators could complain that some donations were not used for tax-exempt purposes.

The Justice Department is focusing on how the SPLC secretly paid informants working inside the Ku Klux Klan and other organizations the SPLC viewed as white supremacy and hate groups.

Because these informants continued to engage in extremist activity while undercover, the indictment claims the SPLC effectively supported the hate groups’ operations, violating the part of its mission dedicating it to “dismantle white supremacy.”

Bryan Fair, the SPLC’s interim CEO, responded to the indictment by arguing that its undercover activities, aided by paid informants, helped achieve some of the group’s goals. On the SPLC website, the group says it “exposes hate and anti-democracy extremism, and counters disinformation and conspiracy theories with research and community resources.”

Do any other organizations do undercover work?

In its response, the SPLC has also observed that it shared much of the information gained from inside informants with law enforcement, including the FBI.

In October 2025, the FBI ended its relationship with the SPLC. It said at the time that monitoring extremist organizations violated those organizations’ free-speech rights.

Secret surveillance conducted by nonprofits often stirs up controversies, but it is not illegal unless some other law is violated, such as a privacy right.

The conservative groups Project Veritas and the Center for Medical Progress have both used their donors’ money for undercover surveillance.

What could ultimately be at stake?

The SPLC’s indictment is the latest in a series of attacks by the Trump administration against nonprofits that support Palestinian rights, civil rights and other progressive causes.

The Trump White House and conservative lawmakers more broadly have tried to delegitimize and defund progressive organizations by designating them as “domestic terror groups. To date, that effort has failed.

In November 2024, the House passed a nonprofit-terrorism measure that subsequently failed in the Senate. At the time, Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, observed that it is already a ”felony crime to provide material support to terrorist groups.“

Similar bills were reintroduced in both chambers of Congress in December 2025.

To win a conviction of the SPLC in court, the Justice Department would have to prove that the nonprofit deliberately deceived donors and knew that the money it paid its extremist informants would support criminal activity.

This was the approach Georgia’s government used against environmental activists in 2022. But Georgia indicted individual activists rather than the organization they were affiliated with. Those cases are still pending.

The specific activities these SPLC informants pursued while undercover would separately be indictable if they were criminal activities. But of the eight unnamed individuals in the indictment, the only activities the Justice Department alleges the SPLC funded are “racist postings” and “fundraising.”

And both of those activities are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech rights.

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’s indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center breaks with norms – and may lack evidence of criminal wrongdoing – https://theconversation.com/trump-administrations-indictment-of-the-southern-poverty-law-center-breaks-with-norms-and-may-lack-evidence-of-criminal-wrongdoing-281310