Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Christopher Briem, Regional Economist, Center for Social and Urban Research, University of Pittsburgh

Few regions pose as much of an economic conundrum as Pittsburgh.

Is the city and region – once the center of American steelmaking – a paragon of postindustrial transformation, or a left-behind region still struggling to move beyond its industrial past?

I’m an economist at the University of Pittsburgh and author of the new book “Beyond Steel: Pittsburgh and the Economics of Transformation.” In it, I attempt to reconcile the economic paths that have shaped modern Pittsburgh as the city tries to redefine itself.

One core question is not why the steel industry in Pittsburgh collapsed, but why steel production remained so concentrated in the region for so long.

Past researchers foretold with uncanny accuracy the problems the region would face if it did not move away from its monolithic dependence on the steel industry. One prognostication, made by two University of Pittsburgh economists in the 1960s, stands out more than others.

Pittsburgh’s rebrand gets a global stage

When, in May 2009, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced that Pittsburgh would host the G20 Summit of world leaders that fall, the assembled journalists of the White House press corps presumed it was a lighthearted joke before Gibbs jumped into the substance of the day’s briefing.

Yet Gibbs was not joking. At the height of the Great Recession between 2007 and 2009, Pittsburgh was purposely chosen because of its history of overcoming past economic trauma and building new prosperity.

It would be a vision of Pittsburgh repeatedly highlighted by foreign media upon their arrival in Pittsburgh that fall for the summit. More than one major publication described Pittsburgh as “no longer hell with the lid off,” a play on a historical description of the city dating to the 1860s.

That idealized story is based on real change in a region that suffered extraordinary structural decline when a century of dependence on heavy industry imploded in the 1970s. Yet it is a story that needs to be tempered by the chronic poverty and lack of development in many former mill towns of southwestern Pennsylvania, which have not shared in the greater region’s redevelopment. Some communities, including Braddock – ironically, where Andrew Carnegie began his steelmaking empire in the 1870s – remain among the poorest in the nation.

How Pittsburgh reinvented itself

University of Pittsburgh economists Edgar M. Hoover and Ben Chinitz led a multiyear study of Pittsburgh’s regional economy funded by the Ford Foundation, a private foundation that works to advance human welfare, at the beginning of the 1960s. They described the economic study as an “immersion in regional economics.” Their four-volume distillation of all aspects of the Pittsburgh economy foretold the decline the region would face due to the shifting economic geography of the steel industry and Pittsburgh’s extreme lack of industrial diversification – things local leaders commonly saw as strengths.

Their comprehensive work left little doubt about Pittsburgh’s fate if the city stayed its course. But moving away from steel proved far too difficult for regional civic and business leaders, as the region was almost entirely dependent on steel production and related industries. By putting off real economic change, the collapse of the 1980s was even more painful when it finally arrived.

Hoover and Chinitz’s message applied far beyond Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh may have been an extreme case, but they knew that all U.S. regions needed to learn to adapt in the face of accelerating and inexorable change. At the core of their thesis was the idea that many of the geographic linkages that had long bound certain industries to certain regions – like automotive in Michigan and meatpacking in the Midwest – were weakening. Just as the Pacific Northwest no longer relies on the timber industry, or as coal has failed to sustain prosperity in West Virginia, no region can rely on past dominance in any industry to ensure future prosperity.

Among other shifts they projected, Hoover and Chinitz foresaw that future competition between regions would not rest upon the ability to attract and retain specific industries. Instead, the success of regions would rest on their ability to attract and retain workers, something many regions long took for granted.

Workers and their families value regional amenities, affordability and many other factors that historically had little impact on corporate site selection. Today, the factors that make a region a place where workers want to live and work, like a strong job market, access to a quality education and affordable housing, shape the pattern of growth and decline among and within regions.

For Pittsburghers, whose city had for so long been singularly defined by the production of steel, the idea that industrial competitiveness was not paramount bordered on apostasy.

What other cities can learn from Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh’s transformation is incomplete, and ongoing. Looking ahead, history teaches us that all regions in the U.S. need to consider any current economic successes as temporary, eventually to be eviscerated by changing circumstances. Envisioning a future without steel was once an inconceivable scenario for Pittsburgh.

One of the key challenges Pittsburgh faced after the decline of steel was the significant loss of workers fleeing deindustrialization. At its economic rock bottom in the 1980s, Pittsburgh saw an exodus of young workers who saw their economic futures elsewhere. Those workers took with them their families and their future families, compounding and extending the repercussions of past job destruction. Rebuilding a competitive workforce took a career-span length of time, but is in many ways the core of Pittsburgh’s rebound.

Slow and steady growth in higher education and health care, and enviable success at research investment in tech, has built new competitive advantages. National firms including Google, Apple, Amazon and others have set up significant local operations to take advantage of the region’s current concentration of skilled workers.

Again, success is not spread evenly across the region. Where Pittsburgh’s new workers want to live, long-depressed communities, like Lawrenceville and East Liberty, have turned around, but where local amenities are lacking, depressed communities are finding it ever harder to abate decline. Many workers no longer need to live close to their jobs. Location of a major firm or factory is rarely enough to catalyze sustainable and prosperous communities.

It appears we are living in the future foretold by Ben Chinitz and Edgar M. Hoover. The message that workforce is crucial to economic development is now accepted in a way that was once difficult to accept. But workforce advantages, like most competitive advantages that regions have today, are fleeting.

Christopher Briem 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. Pittsburgh’s post-steel economy is a success – and a warning for other cities – https://theconversation.com/pittsburghs-post-steel-economy-is-a-success-and-a-warning-for-other-cities-276814

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Claudia Strauss, Professor of Anthropology, Pitzer College

Millie Morales believes in hard work.

“I feel that as an American citizen, we all have a great opportunity to be able to improve our life,” the 58-year-old woman explained in an interview I conducted with her in 2025. “Are you willing to put in the work, or are you not?”

Morales, whose name I changed to protect her privacy, was a stay-at-home mom devoted to caring for her large family. After her divorce, she worked at social service agencies and enrolled at a local college. Then her ex-husband stopped paying for child support, and she and her eight children faced eviction.

She said she is very grateful for the government benefits she received for the first time, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which helps low-income Americans buy groceries.

Those benefits made it possible for her to keep putting food on the table and remain housed until she earned a college degree and obtained jobs that could pay those bills. Now she assists families dealing with difficult medical decisions, a job that makes her feel she is able to help others through hard times in their lives.

Learning how people think about work

Morales is one of more than 100 Americans I have interviewed for my research on how people think about work and about government assistance. Currently, I am updating the research on how Americans think about government assistance, which is how I met Morales. Not all of the participants in these projects received SNAP benefits before or after these interviews.

But among those who had, I found her experience typical: SNAP provided a crucial source of support while they looked for work. With the exception of a few in their late 50s and 60s who faced age discrimination and eventually retired, all persisted until they found another job.

My research highlights that most of the people who get benefits through SNAP and other government programs want to work. And SNAP supports their work ethic.

Many Americans need jobs and benefits

A study co-authored by a group of people who got SNAP benefits and an academic research team found that most of the people with benefits would have preferred not to have to turn to the government for help. They get benefits only because their jobs tended to be precarious and pay too little to meet their basic needs.

The average SNAP benefits, which many people refer to as food stamps, as of 2025 are US$188 per person per month, which comes to about $6 a day. About 42 million low-income Americans receive them.

It’s worth noting that 58% of the people who get SNAP benefits are either under 18 or 60 and up. Many of the rest have disabilities of their own or are caring for young children or someone with disabilities – or fall into a combination of those three categories.

SNAP cuts are on the way

Morales was able to obtain the help she needed, but I also spoke with others who needed help and whose applications were denied. Now the holes in the safety net are growing.

Some provisions in the large tax and budget bill that Congress passed in July 2025 could jeopardize the SNAP benefits for millions of Americans.

For example, it expanded the number of people who will be subjected to a three-month limit on SNAP benefits.

And for the first time, the federal government will no longer cover the full cost of benefits; this will start with the 2028 fiscal year, which begins on Oct. 1, 2027. The big 2025 tax and budget package will also halve the federal government’s share of states’ administrative costs, starting Oct. 1, 2026.

Many states may have no choice but to reduce or eliminate benefits, threatening support for millions of Americans.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, whose department oversees SNAP, has said the new rules will “reflect the importance of work and responsibility.”

In other words, the new rules presume that SNAP benefits undermine recipients’ work ethic. There are exceptions, of course, but my research and that of others shows that presumption is wrong for most people who receive those benefits.

How SNAP affects a willingness to work

The government first imposed work requirements for most working-age adults to receive food stamps in the 1970s. It has set time limits for most “able-bodied adults without dependents” since 1996, making some exceptions during severe recessions.

Among families that include children and working-age adults without disabilities who receive SNAP benefits, more than 9 in 10 include someone with a job.

These requirements can become counterproductive when people who get SNAP benefits have to miss work, for example, to provide proof of their employment track record because their caseworkers have lost their paperwork.

A real-world SNAP experiment

Economists Jason B. Cook and Chloe N. East noted in a study originally published in 2023 and revised in 2025 that the caseworker an applicant is assigned can affect whether someone’s SNAP application gets approved.

Caseworkers don’t make the approval decisions, but they vary in their diligence in ensuring that applicants answer all the required questions. Applicants who are unlucky in the caseworker they are assigned are less likely to provide all the relevant information, leading to a denial.

Comparing applicants who were randomly assigned to more helpful or less helpful caseworkers, the economists followed what happened to nearly 200,000 SNAP applicants in one state, tracking their employment and earnings for three years whether or not they received SNAP benefits.

If Secretary Rollins is right that SNAP benefits undermine a work ethic, someone who doesn’t receive benefits should be working more than someone who is the same in other ways but does receive benefits. But that’s not what Cook and East found.

The economists found that for people who had previously held steady jobs, those who received SNAP benefits were far more likely to be working again two and three years later than the ones who were denied benefits.

And they were earning more money as well.

They also found that for SNAP applicants who had not worked steadily before applying for benefits, receiving benefits made no difference to their future employment.

In other words, SNAP benefits and similar programs that help people facing economic hardship can make someone more likely to earn income rather than less so. They do this by providing some of the money low-income people need to put food on the table so they can focus on finding a good job.

As Millie Morales put it, “If I don’t have a decent place to eat and sleep and shower and take care of myself, how am I then supposed to go look for a job, or go to a job, or go to school?”

Claudia Strauss has received funding from NSF and the Wenner-Gren Foundation. No current funding.

– ref. Food aid doesn’t make people loafers – research shows government benefits help low-income people find jobs – https://theconversation.com/food-aid-doesnt-make-people-loafers-research-shows-government-benefits-help-low-income-people-find-jobs-275659

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Stylianos Syropoulos, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Arizona State University

When life feels overwhelming, many people instinctively turn to nature. A walk in a park. Sitting by the ocean. Watching a sunset. Is this just a pleasant feeling, or is there something deeper at work?

A multitude of studies have linked spending time in nature with different aspects of mental health and wellness. For example, immersing oneself in outdoor natural spaces seems to lift depression and influence brain activity patterns. The effect may be especially relevant in children. But most research on this question has looked at people living in so-called WEIRD societies – Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic.

As environmental psychologists based in the U.S. and in Germany, we were part of a team of more than 100 researchers who set out to examine this phenomenon on a global scale and determine how consistent it is around the world.

Across countries as diverse as Brazil, Japan, Nigeria, Germany and Indonesia, we saw a clear pattern: People who felt more connected to nature also reported higher well-being.

Worldwide oneness with nature

Researchers who study people’s relationship with the natural world often use the term “nature connectedness.” This phrase doesn’t simply mean going hiking or visiting a park. Nature connectedness refers to the extent to which people see nature as part of who they are – whether they feel an emotional bond with the natural world and experience a sense of oneness with it.

Someone who has a high degree of nature connectedness might agree with statements like, “My relationship to nature is an important part of who I am.” It reflects identity and meaning, not just exposure.

We drew on data collected between 2020 and 2022 from more than 38,000 participants through a large international collaboration that was established to gauge how people responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants came from 75 countries and were on average in their teens, 20s or 30s. They completed questionnaires that explored the link between people’s bond with nature and several aspects of well-being.

The questionnaires probed people’s sense of purpose in life; their feelings of hope, life satisfaction and optimism; their sense of resilience and their ability to cope with stress they felt; as well as whether they practice mindfulness as they go through their everyday life.

Across this large international sample, we found that people who felt more connected to nature consistently reported higher levels of well-being and mindfulness. This was true not just for feeling satisfied with life but also for deeper aspects of flourishing, such as having a sense of direction and meaning. And these associations held even when accounting for age and gender.

Does national context matter?

We also explored whether specific characteristics of a country strengthen the benefits of feeling connected with nature.

For example, we looked at things such as how well countries take care of their air, and water systems and ecosystems, as well as whether citizens have equal access to education, democratic participation, and other key social and financial resources, and whether cultures tend to prioritize collective well-being over individual priorities. There were some differences, but the main takeaway was pretty clear: A connection with nature and well-being shows up across a wide range of economic, cultural and environmental contexts.

In other words, the psychological benefits of feeling connected to nature do not appear to be limited to wealthy Western nations or specific cultural worldviews.

Why might connection matter?

One reason why feeling a connection with nature may be linked to well-being is that nature connectedness fosters mindfulness – the ability to be present and attentive.

In our data, people who had a stronger sense of nature connectedness tended to have a higher degree of mindfulness, which is itself strongly linked to mental health.

Another possibility is that bonding with nature may also make people more resilient. People who feel connected to something larger than themselves may find it easier to cope with stress and uncertainty. A sense of belonging – even to the natural world – can provide psychological grounding in a world characterized by stressors. There may also be a feedback loop: Feeling better may encourage people to engage more deeply with nature, strengthening the bond over time.

Implications for policy and everyday life

These findings matter beyond academic debates. Around the world, policymakers are increasingly recognizing the links between human health and environmental sustainability. International agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, a landmark treaty signed by 196 countries in 1992, emphasize the importance of restoring humanity’s relationship with nature.

These policy actions seek to protect Earth’s ecosystems, but our results suggest they may also benefit people’s psychological well-being. Similarly, designing cities with accessible green spaces, incorporating nature-based experiences into schools and supporting community engagement with local environments may do more than beautify neighborhoods – they may also help people flourish.

Across cultures, languages and economic systems, feeling connected to the natural world is consistently linked to living a more hopeful, purposeful and resilient life. At a time when mental health challenges are rising globally, reconnecting with nature is not a luxury but a fundamental – and widely shared – human need.

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

– ref. A connection to nature fuels well-being worldwide, according to a study of 38,000 people – https://theconversation.com/a-connection-to-nature-fuels-well-being-worldwide-according-to-a-study-of-38-000-people-276572

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Dana Johnson, Postdoctoral Fellow in Health Disparities Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Teens in the U.S. are obtaining medication abortion pills through telehealth, and young people age 18 to 24 are ordering medication abortion at much higher rates than older adults.

Those are the key findings of a new study that my colleagues and I published in the journal JAMA Health Forum.

We examined requests for medication made to an online telemedicine service – one of the few to support people in all 50 states, without age restrictions. We compared average weekly request rates both before and after the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade in June 2022. Over time, we examined request rates across three age groups (15-17, 18-24 and 25-49) and by the severity of state-level abortion restrictions.

After Roe was overturned, researchers expected the number of abortions across the U.S. to fall. Intuitively, this makes sense, as most states have at least one law substantially restricting abortion services, which limits access at a clinic.

However, research from the Society of Family Planning #WeCount project shows the opposite: that the number of abortions has increased nationwide. The trend was even seen in states that ban abortion.

The main reason for this is the steep rise in medication abortion services through telehealth, which has expanded access for tens of thousands of people. As of early 2025, an estimated 1 in 4 abortions are done via telehealth. Until now, research and media attention have largely focused on this phenomenon among adults rather than among teenagers.

Why it matters

Understanding this trend among adolescents is important because minors – or teenagers under 18 – face a unique legal situation when it comes to abortion.

More than 7 million teenage girls age 13 to 17 live in a state with an abortion ban, and the legal landscape is quickly changing for teens.

In most states, adolescents seeking abortion services must navigate parental involvement laws, which require a minor to obtain consent for, or notify a parent of, their abortion. Such laws make it difficult or even impossible for many teens under 18 to obtain care, even in states like Massachusetts or Pennsylvania that have moved to protect abortion access.

In some cases, teens seek judicial bypass services, which help them circumvent the parental involvement process. In addition to legal barriers, teens who seek abortion may already face stigma around teen pregnancy and sex, likely lack reliable access to a car – or may not even have a driver’s license – and probably don’t have US$600 or more on hand to pay for an abortion at a clinic.

To circumvent these barriers, minors are bypassing parental involvement requirements and requesting telehealth at higher rates in states with parental involvement laws, compared with their counterparts in more liberal abortion access states.

This is important because this trend may be evidence of the huge barrier of parental involvement laws. It may also signal that states with parental involvement laws also have additional policies restricting abortion – such as mandatory waiting periods or gestational bans – and that minors are living in an even more restrictive policy context than adults.

What still isn’t known

More research is needed to understand how and why teens are turning to online providers. Findings will help clinicians and advocates support adolescents who are ordering telehealth medication abortion online.

There are some very real legal risks involved for any teenager ordering pills online, and young people have been criminalized for taking abortion pills ordered from online sources.

Furthermore, anti-abortion prosecutors and lawmakers frequently target teens. For example, Idaho has become notorious for passing an “abortion trafficking” law, which makes it illegal to help minors access abortion.

At the federal level, attempted revisions to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone have explicitly tried to ban access for minors, and federal officials continue to spread misinformation about the safety of medication abortion for teens.

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

Dana Johnson receives funding from the National Institute of Health, the Society of Family Planning Research Fund, and the UW-Madison Collaborative for Reproductive Equity. She also serves on the Board of Directors for Jane’s Due Process.

Laura D. Lindberg is affiliated with Youth Reproductive Equity and Power to Decide

– ref. Teens are driving the demand for online abortion pills via telehealth – new research – https://theconversation.com/teens-are-driving-the-demand-for-online-abortion-pills-via-telehealth-new-research-277943

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Kaitlyn M. Sims, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, University of Denver; Institute for Humane Studies

As of July 2026, graduate degree programs in nursing, public health, social work, public policy and more will no longer be defined as professional degrees by the Department of Education.

The change limits how much federal financial aid students in those programs can qualify for under new borrowing limits set by the big tax and spending cuts bill passed by Congress in 2025.

The Department of Education said excluding these degrees from the professional degree classification is solely an “internal definition” and “not a value judgment about the importance of (these) programs.” The department argues these changes will push some graduate programs to reduce their tuition costs.

Every day, survivors of domestic violence rely on a care network built and maintained by a system of nurses, forensic nurse examiners, social workers, therapists and emergency shelter managers. Many of these jobs require graduate training that comes with substantial education costs. To afford these degrees, students often rely on federal financial aid.

The status change will cut the amount of lifetime federal aid students in these programs can receive by about half relative to students in professional programs. In combination with ongoing federal funding cuts, the change threatens to destabilize an already strained social service system.

We are faculty and student researchers at the University of Denver’s Systems, Housing, and Anti-violence Policy Evaluation Lab. We are alarmed at what the status change means for social service providers, especially those serving survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

Excluding programs that prepare individuals to work with survivors of domestic violence from the professional degree designation risks discouraging entry into these professions nationwide. Fewer people entering the profession will impact both the quality and availability of care for those who rely on these services. Moreover, increasing the amount of private debt students will take on to complete these degrees will have lasting consequences.

Professional degree classification and loans

Under the new rules going into effect this summer, graduate student borrowers face annual loan limits and lifetime caps on total borrowing for federal student aid.

Graduate students in professional degree programs, which include medicine, law, dentistry and other high-cost degrees, can access federal loans of up to US$50,000 per year and $200,000 in total.

Taking away the professional degree label from programs limits students to $20,500 in annual federal loans and a lifetime cap of $100,000 for graduate study. But program costs remain unchanged.

In Colorado, and elsewhere, the cost of graduate education often exceeds what students can pay without borrowing. The new cap of $20,500 per year for students in nonprofessional graduate degree programs is far less than the total cost of attendance at major Colorado universities.

At the University of Colorado Boulder, annual costs can top $38,000 including food, housing, books and transportation for in-state students with a full-time credit load. Tuition and fees alone cost about $16,000.

At Colorado State University, costs range from $36,000 for in-state students to $57,000 for out-of-state students. At the University of Denver, some programs can approach $80,000 per year after housing and other personal expenses are accounted for.

For students who cannot pursue these degrees without adequate financial aid, this policy will create barriers to entering the field. Others will be saddled with private debt that lacks the protections and favorable borrowing terms of federal loans.

Undergraduates can access income-based aid through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, known as FAFSA. That includes Pell Grants, which are need-based financial aid for undergraduate students, and subsidized loans.

Graduate students lack comparable need-based grant programs and instead rely largely on direct, unsubsidized loans and Grad PLUS loans, which cover educational expenses not met by other financial aid, such as food, housing and books. But the Grad PLUS loan program is set to end for new borrowers on July 1, 2026, further tightening access to advanced degrees.

Impacts on long-term labor force

Removing these programs from the list of professional status degrees that qualify for higher loans delivers both a symbolic and financial blow to the essential services that support survivors of domestic violence.

Denise Smith, assistant professor at the University of Colorado Anschutz College of Nursing, told Denver7 the policy leaves nurses feeling devalued. She argues that this reinterpretation of the professional degree definition could reduce growth in the nursing profession, with long-term impacts on patients’ access to care.

The New York Academy of Medicine cautions that restricting financial aid will shut out students from lower-income backgrounds, reverse progress in workforce diversity and erode respect for vital health professions at a time when trust in evidence-based care is already stretched thin.

Victim advocacy roles such as shelter managers and housing navigators, which sometimes require a graduate degree, are already chronically underpaid. The median annual salary for social workers nationwide is about $61,000.

Analysts argue that limiting how much students can borrow to earn the credentials they need may accelerate the collapse of the workforce pipeline. Some of these professions, such as nursing, already face a critical shortage of workers.

In fields that rely on moral wages – compensating poorly paid staff with the intrinsic satisfaction of helping those in need – recognition matters. The work done by graduates with these degrees has not changed, and the skills these workers bring to domestic and sexual violence response programs are still vital.

Why this matters

In Colorado, where many shelters operate at or above capacity and most counties don’t have their own shelter program, we believe the impact of fewer trained service professionals would be especially acute.

According to a 2025 survey by NO MORE, an advocacy coalition supporting victims of domestic violence, 80% of organizations in the sexual and domestic violence sector in the U.S. have experienced service disruptions due to federal funding instability. A multistate survey in 2021 of domestic violence programs found that 90% reported high staff turnover due to inadequate funding and the lack of livable wages. State coalitions against domestic violence say employees who remain at these jobs often juggle multiple roles and face substantial burnout.

Shrinking the pipeline of trained professionals who work with victims of domestic violence will disproportionately harm low-income, rural and marginalized survivors, not just in Colorado but nationwide. Fewer professionals means fewer safe options and longer waits for critical services.

Trauma-informed counseling in shelters and community programs is critical for survivors’ recovery and long-term well-being. However, long waits to access shelter or see a mental health professional, along with workforce shortages, already limit access. Fewer forensic nurses to conduct sexual assault exams further threatens survivor safety, especially amid nationwide nursing shortages.

In rural and underserved areas, advanced practice nurses – those with advanced clinical practice and education experience – are often the only consistent providers of care for the local population. Reducing support for nurse training puts entire communities at risk and weakens vital services, including documentation of abuse that can be essential for domestic violence legal proceedings.

These combined challenges highlight the fragility of the system that supports survivors. Without continued investment in training and recognition for these professionals, the network that provides safety and support will be weakened even further.

Kaitlyn M. Sims receives funding from the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, the Denver Basic Income Project, the Arnold Ventures Foundation, and the Institute for Humane Studies.

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

– ref. New federal student loan limits affect social work graduate students, with impacts for survivors of domestic violence in Colorado and elsewhere – https://theconversation.com/new-federal-student-loan-limits-affect-social-work-graduate-students-with-impacts-for-survivors-of-domestic-violence-in-colorado-and-elsewhere-276254

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Emily Hodgson Anderson, Professor of English and Dean of Undergraduate Education, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

In February 2023, a little more than a year after the launch of ChatGPT, Vanderbilt University sent an email to its student body in the wake of a fatal campus shooting at Michigan State.

“The recent Michigan shootings are a tragic reminder of the importance of taking care of each other,” the email read in part. In tiny type at the bottom of the message, a disclaimer appeared: “paraphrased from OpenAI’s ChatGPT.”

Students immediately objected.

“There is a sick and twisted irony to making a computer write your message about community and togetherness because you can’t be bothered to reflect on it yourself,” one senior wrote.

A Vanderbilt apology email quickly followed. The university launched a professionalism and ethics investigation. One associate dean couched the misstep as a result of learning pains tied to the adoption of new technology.

Chatbots have spawned a host of ethical questions about writing assistance for teachers, students and authors.

But similar debates about ghostwriting have been taking place for over a century, revealing a persistent discomfort with the idea that the words we read might not belong to the person whose name is attached to them.

Outsourcing authorship

Ghostwriting, a paid arrangement in which one person writes under another’s name, has existed for over a century.

The term seems to have first appeared in the English language in a 1908 newspaper article, which I encountered while researching my forthcoming book, “Ghostwriting: A Secret History, from God to A.I.” The story appeared in the Daily Star, in Lincoln, Nebraska, and describes an anonymous writer who earned US$5,000 to help a high-society woman write a book.

Today, ghostwriting usually involves collaborations between professional writers and celebrities or professionals who otherwise wouldn’t have the time, skill or connections to write a book.

On publication of the manuscript, the ghostwriter is typically named, albeit obliquely – perhaps identified as a friend or consultant in the acknowledgments section. In some instances, the ghostwriter’s name appears alongside the credited author’s on the cover. Either way, the client assumes ownership of the ghostwriter’s work.

An ethical gray area

And yet when I type “the practice of one person writing in another person’s name” into Google, the search engine doesn’t spit out “ghostwriting.”

My first hit is “pseudonym” or “alias.” “Plagiarism,” “libel” and “slander” aren’t far behind. A 1953 article titled “Ghost Writing and History” that appeared in The American Scholar also points out that in the mid-20th century, “forgery” – falsely imitating another’s work with the intent to deceive – and “ghostwriting” could be used interchangeably by scholars.

In other words, even when consensual and compensated, ghostwriting has some relatives that are ethically suspect. And maybe that’s why many clients obscure the fact that they’ve used a ghostwriter, and why responses to ghostwritten works often reflect uneasiness with the practice.

“You should be ashamed,” read one social media post, written in response to Millie Bobby Brown’s 2023 debut novel, which she co-wrote with a ghostwriter. “[The ghostwriter’s] name should be on the cover. She was the one who actually wrote the book.”

The discomfort goes both ways: “I feel so guilty and ashamed whenever I use a ghostwriter now because I feel people will think I’m lying,” an anonymous poster on Reddit admitted.

Both the criticism and self-flagellation imply that the act of claiming another person’s words can render these words deceitful, even if the words have been paid for and the content is true.

Ghostwriting agencies rush to defuse these worries. Ghostwriting has been around forever, the Association of Ghostwriters reassures its clients. Ghostwriting is consensual and collaborative – not lazy, deceptive or a form of “selling out,” an author who’d recently used ghostwriting services explained.

And yet, in the last chapter of her ghostwritten book, Whoopi Goldberg acknowledges some misgivings about using a ghostwriter.

“I meant to try (to write the book myself),” Goldberg writes. “And when it turned out I couldn’t quite pull it off … I looked for help.”

Goldberg frames the assistance of ghostwriting as something she deserved after overcoming obstacles as a Black woman. But Goldberg also has financial resources available that others looking for writing assistance usually don’t. High-end ghostwriters collect in the mid-six figures for their services; Prince Harry’s ghostwriter, J.R. Moehringer, supposedly scored a $1 million advance.

Cue chatbots. Generative AI promises to be the ghostwriter for the masses, so much so that ghostwriter Josh Lisec explained to me how, in the future, ghostwriting will need to be marketed as a boutique service for elites if it is to survive.

Naming names

Whether you’re paying for a ghostwriter or using a free chatbot, “assistance” or “collaboration” on intellectual and artistic work is not automatically unethical.

Editors have long made a career out of helping authors shape their writing. Visual artists have long employed studio assistants. Television shows only get written collaboratively in writers’ rooms.

And yet, accepting assistance on intellectual or artistic work can raise legitimate questions, particularly with regards to how that assistance is acknowledged and how much assistance can be accepted while still calling a project “ours.”

In the late 19th century, for example, one sculptor went to court to rebut a claim that his assistant – whom the press referred to as a “ghost” – had completed sculptures for which the sculptor took credit. The judge announced that an artist could accept, with integrity, a certain amount of mechanical assistance. But he added that there was a threshold when artistic assistance became “dishonest.” The judge made the accused sculptor craft a bust in real time to prove his skill.

Similarly, most educators find it more ethical when their students turn to ChatGPT for editing assistance but much less so when they use it to generate a document from scratch.

Many universities now allow AI as a tool but require users to verify its accuracy and disclose its use – rules that echo long-standing ghostwriting contracts.

Yet even verified, A.I.-generated text, if claimed solely as an individual’s work, can pose policy violations at my institution, the University of Southern California: “You should never attempt to present … content created by others, including generative AI, as your own.”

The same policies that govern appropriate A.I. use also come up in ghostwriting contracts. The ghostwriter signs a “warranty of originality” that promises the author that the ghostwriter has – via platforms such as iThenticate – fact-checked and plagiarism-checked their work.

When inaccuracies do crop up, ghostwriters often take the fall.

Former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem blamed her ghostwriter for indicating in her memoir that she had met North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Physician David Agus, who teaches at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, held his ghostwriter responsible for the many instances of plagiarism that were identified in his popular science books.

Ghostwriters willingly provide assistance and accept responsibility for the originality of what they write. Scholars have permission to use generative AI, provided they properly cite its use.

And yet when Vanderbilt administrators advertised that their email had been written with the assistance of ChatGPT, students and faculty pushed back.

University policies and book contracts may offer veils of legitimacy and shields from legal liability. But in the end, readers still seem to want the words they’re reading to come from the mind of the person whose name is on the byline.

Emily Hodgson Anderson 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. If using ChatGPT is cheating, what about ghostwriting? The old debate behind a new panic – https://theconversation.com/if-using-chatgpt-is-cheating-what-about-ghostwriting-the-old-debate-behind-a-new-panic-278754