Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Levi Keller, Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

Spring means beautiful flowers, fragrant lilacs – and lots of tree pollen coating cars and setting off sneezing, wheezing and headaches.

As an allergist and immunologist at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, I help patients with seasonal allergies and associated allergic diseases manage their conditions, and one question comes up year in and out: Will this season be worse than last year?

With a record warm start to spring 2026 in much of the U.S., the answer is a teary-eyed “yes.”

What are allergies?

More than 1 in 4 U.S. adults suffer from seasonal allergies. That number is expected to increase as climate change results in longer and more intense pollen seasons.

When someone talks about having allergies, they are referring to a condition called allergic rhinitis or allergic conjunctivitis – inflammation of the nose or eyes related to allergen exposure. This results in itchy, watery eyes, runny nose, sneezing, congestion and nasal passage itching. They show up when allergens are in the air, during spring, summer and fall.

The big driver of seasonal allergies is a protein in pollen. Pollen is the male reproductive material that plants release to spread their species.

Those pollen proteins become problems when the immune system develops an allergic antibody known as IgE to these proteins. When several IgE molecules bind to the allergen when it lands on the tissues of the eye or nasal passages, the cells release molecules such as histamine, prostaglandins and leukotrienes. These molecules interact with blood vessels and nerves to trigger the symptoms that allergy sufferers know all too well.

Which pollens cause allergy symptoms?

Pollen season starts with the trees.

In late winter and early spring, trees begin releasing pollen in many places in the United States. Not all trees follow this schedule – mountain cedars, or juniper trees, for example, can release clouds of yellow pollen from November through January in Texas, causing a condition known as cedar fever.

As the year progresses, grasses will emerge and their pollen will cause symptoms through most of the summer – typically April to July.

Then ragweed and other weeds release pollen that causes symptoms into the fall until a freeze stops their pollen production.

What makes one pollen season worse than others?

Several factors can influence how bad a season can be when it comes to seasonal allergies. The two big ones are the length of the growing season and the amount of pollen in the air. Both are expanding.

Over the past several decades, as global temperatures have risen, the growing season has lengthened in many parts of North America. Once temperatures begin to be above about 40 degrees Fahrenheit (4 Celsius), trees will begin to emerge from dormancy.

That’s what the Western U.S. saw in 2026, as an unprecedented warm spring drove the early emergence of tree pollen. In some locations, growing season is two weeks longer on average than in the 1990s and more than four weeks longer than in the 1970s.

Another factor driving pollen production is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, largely from the burning of fossil fuels. Higher carbon dioxide levels increase plant growth, leading to longer pollination periods and more pollen produced by plants. With higher pollen counts, more people can develop symptoms. Consequently, I have been seeing more patients who are experiencing allergies for the first time.

Windy days can also blow pollen into the air and spread it over a wider area.

Rain and humidity can affect pollen counts as well. Rain can temporarily scrub pollen from the air. But humidity and moisture after the rain will result in ruptured pollen granules, resulting in pollen that is easier to carry on the wind and breathe in. This is particularly the case with grass pollen.

So, how can you avoid allergy symptoms?

There are many ways to manage allergy symptoms.

The first is to try to avoid the allergen by making changes in your home to reduce exposure. Keeping windows closed during the pollen season will reduce the amount of allergen that can enter your home. Wiping down pets with a damp towel can reduce the amount of allergens they bring in. Avoiding using clotheslines can reduce pollen levels on washed items.

Changing clothes or showering after being outdoors can reduce the amount of allergens that remain on you.

Using HEPA air purification in the home can reduce household allergen levels. Look for non-ionizing air purification; ionizing air filters can generate ozone, which worsens indoor air quality.

To know when allergens are getting worse outside, watch the pollen forecast from the National Allergy Bureau. As a general rule, pollen counts are highest in the morning. However, outdoor air pollutants can increase in the afternoon when pollution, including particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone, reach peak levels in the midday and afternoon heat.

Do medications work?

Medications can help alleviate symptoms. A saline nasal rinse can reduce mucus and allergens inside the nasal passages. For mild symptoms, daily nonsedating, or second-generation, antihistamine can be effective.

Daily use of nasal steroids can be helpful for people with moderate to severe allergies, but they can take several weeks to reach peak effect. A nasal antihistamine spray can provide additional benefits.

Antihistamine eye drops can also be helpful. In a dry climate like Colorado’s, nasal dryness can contribute to congestion, so using nasal hydration such as saline sprays can ease symptoms.

If medications don’t help, you could speak with an allergist about the possibility of immunotherapy – allergy shots – but they require weekly and monthly shots over several years. While allergy shots are effective at reducing allergy symptoms and the need for medications, they do have side effects, such as local site reactions and asthma symptoms, and they may trigger a severe allergic reaction called anaphylaxis.

Allergies can be miserable but manageable – even in an overproductive year like much of America is seeing in 2026. Understanding what’s causing them and finding the right solutions for you can make it easier to enjoy those flowers and walks in the sunshine.

Levi Keller 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. Pollen allergies are brutal this year – a doctor explains why, and how to find relief – https://theconversation.com/pollen-allergies-are-brutal-this-year-a-doctor-explains-why-and-how-to-find-relief-282011

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Danielle Wilhour, Assistant Professor of Neurology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

Many people finish the workday not just tired but wired. Their mind keeps racing, their body feels tense, and even in moments that should be restful they feel a lingering sense of urgency. Conversations replay in their mind, unfinished tasks resurface, and their nervous system seems unwilling to power down.

You may recognize this experience. It has become so common that it is often accepted as the norm in modern professional life. Yet this persistent state of activation carries consequences for physical health, especially for people prone to headaches.

As a board-certified neurologist who specializes in headache medicine, I see a lot of patients whose pain increases from the high-pressure work culture prevalent today. While it might seem beyond your control, there are some steps you can take.

Stress and the nervous system

Stress is not inherently harmful. In fact, when experienced in short bursts, stress can be beneficial by increasing focus, improving performance and preparing the body to handle challenges. However, problems arise when stress becomes chronic and relentless.

The nervous system perceives and processes both stress and pain. Built to be highly adaptable, it continually responds to internal signals and external factors, constantly recalibrating to maintain balance. When the brain continuously perceives ongoing demands without adequate recovery, it keeps the body in a prolonged state of alertness.

During these periods of ongoing stress, hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline remain persistently elevated. In this sensitized state, signals that would typically be ignored or interpreted as minor can start to feel much more intense.

This state leads to an increase in heart rate and sustained muscle tension, with the nervous system transitioning into continuous fight or flight mode. In the context of headaches, this sensitization can lower the threshold for pain, making it easier for a headache to start and harder for it to stop.

Over time, this constant activation can disrupt the body’s natural balance and create an environment for headache disorders to develop or worsen.

Chronic stress acts as both a trigger and an exacerbating factor for migraines. The neurological system of people who experience migraines is comparatively more responsive to environmental changes, including variations in sleep patterns, the environment, hormonal fluctuations and stress intensity.

This means that persistent exposure to stress may drive up frequency and severity of migraine episodes. In addition, muscle tension in the neck, shoulders and scalp – a frequent effect of stress – can cause tension headaches, too.

Extended periods of sitting, sustained concentration and physical tension during the workday can contribute to the development of tension headaches in the later hours of the day.

The role of sleep

Chronic stress can also have a profound impact on sleep quality. Many people who feel persistently wired at the end of the workday struggle to fall asleep or stay asleep. That fitful sleep may lack the restorative qualities necessary for recovery.

Poor sleep can, in turn, perpetuate the stress cycle, leaving the brain further sensitized and increasing the likelihood of headaches the following day. This loop can be difficult to break, as fatigue reduces resilience and amplifies the sense of being overwhelmed that comes with stress.

In addition to affecting sleep, chronic stress impairs concentration and cognitive function. When the brain remains in a state of constant vigilance, scanning for demands and threats, it becomes harder to focus, be creative and solve problems. As a result, productivity declines, errors become more frequent and frustration mounts, adding to the overall stress burden.

Headaches that occur alongside these cognitive challenges can further disrupt daily life, making even routine tasks feel difficult.

Managing work stress

Understanding the connection between stress and the nervous system points to some steps you can take to shift the nervous system out of its constantly activated state. You’ll never eliminate stress entirely – that’s neither realistic nor necessary. But it is possible to create intentional space for the body to reset:

• Build small transitions into your day. Instead of immediately jumping from work to other obligations, take five to 10 minutes between activities to pause, breathe deeply, stretch or sit quietly. Even brief pauses can reduce muscle tension and lower stress hormone levels.

• Add physical activity into your routine. Regular movement, such as walking, yoga or gentle stretching, helps regulate the nervous system by processing stress hormones more efficiently. It also improves blood flow and promotes the release of endorphins, which are natural pain modulators.

• Pay attention to posture and ergonomics. Change the chair or screen height, take breaks to move, and relax your shoulders and jaw to prevent tension headaches.

• Explore mindfulness-based practices. Techniques such as meditation, body scanning and focused breathing may retrain the brain to respond to stress with greater flexibility.

• Try to set boundaries around work. When possible, limit after-hours email, define a clear end to your day and designate certain areas within your home as work-free zones.

• Seek support if headaches persist. A medical evaluation can look for underlying causes and guide appropriate treatment options. Physical therapy, behavioral therapy and pain reprocessing therapy can address physical and emotional contributors to headaches.

Small, consistent strategies that address both biological and lifestyle causes of headaches can minimize the effects of chronic stress and encourage nervous system regulation. Over time, these strategies can gradually reduce headache frequency and severity, improving overall quality of life.

Danielle Wilhour 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. How workplace stress hijacks the nervous system to cause headaches − and a neurologist’s guide to managing them – https://theconversation.com/how-workplace-stress-hijacks-the-nervous-system-to-cause-headaches-and-a-neurologists-guide-to-managing-them-275037

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Lindsay Stark, Professor of Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis

When the world shut down due to the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, another crisis quietly grew behind closed doors. Reports from around the globe suggested that violence against women and girls was increasing. Governments, nongovernmental organizations and advocates began referring to the phenomenon as a “shadow pandemic.”

To determine whether these headlines and informal reports reflected reality, we led the first-ever comprehensive review of studies tracking violence against women and girls during infectious disease outbreaks across low- and middle-income countries. We focused on those regions because less research on the topic has been done there, and women and girls face specific risks, such as child marriage, that are less prevalent in wealthier nations.

Our findings, published in BMJ Global Health and co-authored with UNICEF, are both clear and concerning: Violence against women and girls tends to increase during outbreaks, and the very measures used to control disease spread can lead to that rise.

Across 53 studies measuring changes in violence against women and girls in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority found increases, with some studies showing no change and relatively few showing declines. This pattern held across different types of violence – for example, physical domestic violence, sexual domestic violence, psychological violence or online violence – particularly committed within the home.

But even more striking was how little evidence there was from other infectious disease outbreaks. Despite the growing frequency of global health emergencies, only one study examined violence against women and girls during an outbreak other than COVID-19, specifically examining violence in Sierra Leone during both Ebola and COVID-19.

How outbreaks contribute to gender-based violence

Infectious disease outbreaks do more than spread illness. They can disrupt economies, burden health systems and reshape daily life. These shifts can amplify existing inequalities and, in many cases, increase the risk of violence.

Our research identified five key pathways through which outbreaks contribute to violence against women and girls.

First, job loss, reduced income and financial stress were the most consistently identified contributors to violence. When households experience economic strain, tensions rise – and women and girls often bear the consequences. In some contexts, economic stress was linked not only to intimate partner violence but also to harmful practices like child marriage.

Second, movement restrictions like lockdowns and quarantines can trap women and girls with abusive partners or family members. While these outbreak response measures are designed to reduce disease transmission, they can also isolate women from social networks and limit opportunities to seek both formal and informal help.

Third, deeming certain services as nonessential reduces people’s access to support. During COVID-19, many health, social and legal services were scaled back or became harder to access. School closures also meant that girls in some contexts faced increased risks of exploitation, early pregnancy or forced marriage.

Fourth, perpetrators may use women’s and girls’ fear of infection to control or manipulate them. For example, men sometimes discouraged their partners from leaving the home or seeking care in order to avoid disease risk.

Finally, women’s and girls’ past experiences with health systems can influence their intention to seek services in the future. In settings affected by earlier outbreaks, such as the 2014 Ebola outbreak, mistrust of health services discouraged some survivors from seeking care after experiencing violence, especially if doing so might lead to quarantine or mistreatment.

These pathways are not isolated. They often interact and reinforce one another, creating conditions in which violence becomes more likely during crises.

Building better evidence

Public health emergencies are becoming more frequent, and measures like lockdowns and limiting access to schools, clinics and other services can have unintended consequences.
Our findings show that protecting women and girls needs to be part of how public health experts respond to outbreaks from the start and not something to address only after violence has already increased.

Tracking the issue in different types of outbreaks – such as cholera, influenza or Ebola – could help determine which policy responses are most protective.

But even within COVID-19 research, we uncovered important limitations. First, most studies focused on adult women, with far less attention to girls. And second, many studies relied on metrics such as the number of hotline calls or clinic visits, which can be misleading. A drop in reports does not necessarily mean a drop in violence; it may reflect reduced access to services or greater barriers to reporting.

Despite the data gaps we uncovered, our study already points to targeted strategies that can protect women and girls: reducing households’ financial stress, making services safe and easy to reach, ensuring girls’ continued access to school, and building stronger community support.

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. Financial strain, lockdowns and fear of infection during disease outbreaks magnify violence against women and girls − new research – https://theconversation.com/financial-strain-lockdowns-and-fear-of-infection-during-disease-outbreaks-magnify-violence-against-women-and-girls-new-research-280210

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Nausheena Hussain, Doctoral Candidate in Philanthropic Leadership, Indiana University

Nonprofits led by Muslim women remain extensively engaged in a wide range of civic activities, even though 72% say they have experienced Islamophobia in their work.

That’s one of the main findings of the study that we conducted together. It is the basis of the applied research project – a type of dissertation – that one of us (Hussain) completed for her professional doctorate in philanthropic leadership. It will be posted online in mid-2026 to Indiana University’s scholarship repository.

We surveyed 292 Muslim women who lead nonprofits across the U.S. We connected with these organizations through national networks, including the Muslim Women Leadership Circle and Islamic Schools League of America. We interviewed people who lived in 18 states; the largest numbers of respondents were in California, New York, Florida and Texas.

About 19% of the nonprofits these women lead focus on religious and cultural programming. Another 17% are centered on education, while 16% focus on direct social services, such as family support and crisis intervention.

The other most common issues the nonprofits address include gender, healthcare, mental health, civil rights, anti-racism efforts, housing and environmental protection.

We found that 93% of these organizations engage in advocacy activities – actions aimed at influencing government policy or decisions. The organizations used an average of 3.6 different advocacy approaches.

Their most common approaches focused on building relationships with government officials. About 57% discussed obtaining grants or contracts with those officials, while 35% worked in planning or advisory groups. Roughly 54% said they regularly released research reports to the media, policymakers and the public, establishing themselves as experts on issues affecting their communities.

About 34% went beyond advocacy by engaging in some lobbying for policy proposals they support, while 39% encouraged their organizations’ members to contact policymakers about issues affecting their communities, including civil rights protections, immigration reform and healthcare access.

The majority of these groups had experienced Islamophobia. We heard them describe those incidents in detail.

“Staff and volunteers have experienced anxiety, fear and trauma due to verbal harassment, microaggressions and bias incidents,” one of the Muslim women who lead nonprofits that we interviewed said.

Organizations also said their property had been damaged in acts of suspected vandalism. Another nonprofit leader said her organization had experienced “broken windows, graffiti and damaged signage.”

Why it matters

We conducted this survey from December 2024 through February 2025, a period when anti-Muslim discrimination surged to record levels, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights group. It compiled a list of 8,658 complaints of anti-Muslim incidents in 2024, the most it has ever tracked.

Following the onset of the Gaza conflict in October 2023, anti-Muslim hate crimes in major U.S. cities increased 18% in 2024 – marking the fourth consecutive annual rise. This climate of heightened discrimination persists: After our survey concluded, anti-Muslim incidents have continued at elevated levels since the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran began in March 2026.

Research on civic engagement suggests that experiencing discrimination leads marginalized groups to become less engaged in civic life.

But these Muslim women leaders aren’t waiting to be invited into democratic processes. They’re building influence by cultivating relationships, producing research and engaging in direct advocacy.

The emphasis these leaders place on building ongoing relationships shows that they understand that lasting political influence requires sustained connection. Their work – including the research they produce and their lobbying efforts – demonstrates their resilience: They have remained civically active despite systemic discrimination.

What still isn’t known

This survey captured a snapshot of Muslim women nonprofit leaders’ civic engagement at one point in time. Future research examining these patterns over a longer period could indicate whether advocacy strategies shift as organizations mature, how leaders respond to changing political climates, and whether experiencing discrimination affects their civic engagement over the long term.

Studies covering a longer stretch of time could also track whether the relationship between Islamophobia and advocacy activity remains consistent over time, or if certain strategies become more or less effective when conditions change.

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

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. Muslim women-led nonprofits are engaging in advocacy despite facing a surge in Islamophobia – https://theconversation.com/muslim-women-led-nonprofits-are-engaging-in-advocacy-despite-facing-a-surge-in-islamophobia-278138

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Sonali Chakravarti, Professor of Government, Wesleyan University

“Mercy,” a film released in January 2026, depicts a dystopian Los Angeles in the near future: a city riddled with violence, homelessness and civic disorder. California’s response is to set up the Mercy Capital Court, run entirely by an AI bot that goes by the name Judge Maddox. The judge can analyze evidence, determine whether the threshold for guilt has been met and execute the defendant – all in a matter of 90 minutes.

Actor Chris Pratt plays a police officer named Chris Raven, who stands accused of murdering his wife. If he wants to leave the Mercy Court alive, he must do everything he can to lower his “guilt score” – the AI’s assessment of whether he’s the killer – from 97.5% to 92%.

AI judges may still be in the realm of science fiction, but AI tools are entering the courtroom. Risk-assessment tools now help judges make decisions about bail, and lawyers and judges have used AI to research legal precedent. Some judges are even experimenting with it to formulate rulings, and simulations have used AI tools to stand in for human jurors.

“Mercy” does not appear to take itself too seriously as a commentary on the legal system. But the idea that an AI bot can determine a verdict by assessing evidence distorts the meaning of legal judgment.

As a scholar who studies juries, I believe AI obscures the importance of what human decision-makers bring to the task, and why they are essential for the legitimacy of the legal system. Since the Middle Ages, jurors have had to grapple with the weight of determining guilt – including having serious reservations about the quality of the evidence, the legitimacy of punishment and the impossibility of complete knowledge about the case.

Features, not bugs

Weighing the evidence in a criminal case cannot easily be measured on a scoreboard. Interpreting what it means is often difficult – not just intellectually but emotionally. The gravity of possibly inflicting pain on an innocent person is an essential part of judgment.

Jurors are linked in a web of relationships to the defendant, the victim and others affected by the crime. They can’t help but consider the consequences of the crime and of the verdict, and they imagine what it would feel like to be in the defendant’s shoes. How could a juror not feel doubt about their decision with all these factors weighing on them?

AI systems are trained to maximize predictive certainty: That is, they offer suggestions based on previous patterns or on the training they have received. They cannot weigh different outcomes in light of prior experiences or collective ideals. Getting information from AI can feel like a salve for the thorny work of complex moral and legal decision-making, but it is the wrong kind of answer for the question of whether someone should be punished by the state.

Philosopher Brian Cantwell Smith argued that while AI can make powerful, calculative decisions, judgment requires something else: human deliberation about how to apply ethical ideals under particular conditions, and grappling with others’ views about what is at stake. It is neither purely rational nor purely emotional. In order to take responsibility for its own decision, a jury needs judgment, not mere calculation inspired by what a machine considers the optimal outcome.

Wrestling with doubt

AI systems will likely continue to improve their performance on benchmarked tasks relevant to law and jurisprudence – aiding with research, identifying patterns in large troves of evidence, expediting administrative tasks – but they cannot perform the task of jurors themselves. This is especially true as relates to doubt: Whereas the AI tool considers the quantity of uncertainty, jurors must be attuned to the quality of their uncertainty. They must weigh whether it signals the need for more discussion or whether the evidence is not sufficient.

Jurors are told to determine whether the prosecution has proved its case “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That is meant to set a very high bar for the evidence and for jurors’ confidence about its meaning. Yet grappling with what the reasonable doubt standard means is one of the most intellectually challenging aspects of being a juror. Judges tend to give a minimal description to jurors – saying that jurors should be firmly convinced before convicting someone, for example. Each group of jurors must discuss how to interpret the standard and whether the threshold for evidence has been met.

Legal scholar James Q. Whitman’s research on the history of reasonable doubt traces its origins back to the Middle Ages. Christian jurors were afraid to take on the tasks of judgment and punishment, which they believed were properly held by God.

Eventually, by the 1700s, courts codified the phrase “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” to acknowledge human hesitation over jurors’ role in punishment. Jurors are not asked to be omnipotent. Confidence in a conviction can coexist with appropriate ambivalence about the process and their own fallibility.

In order to convict, a jury must be unanimous – a requirement that Whitman suggested can provide “moral comfort” to mortals issuing a guilty verdict. Unanimity raises the bar for evidence and also allows “the twelve to share the heavy moral responsibility for judgment, and therefore to diffuse it among themselves.”

It is a distinct moral landscape: neither divine judgment nor algorithmic reckoning. A room of people deliberating may seem less efficient than AI, but it is a necessary component of the justice system’s moral legitimacy. Wrestling with doubt about the evidence, the verdict and its impact on the world is a way for jurors to remember their responsibility; it is not a step to be erased en route to the verdict. A jury decision symbolizes willingness to bear accountability for imposing a punishment.

Uniquely human

AI cannot replace human judges and jurors, but perhaps it can help them see their task more clearly.

In the 1800s, Karl Marx used the term “species-being” to refer to conscious, purposeful activities that only humans can do, especially creative activities. Today, in light of AI’s pervasiveness, there is value in considering where we want to experience a sense of species-being.

By cordoning off certain parts of our lives from AI, we can practice the feeling of unease that can come from not having an easy tool to tell us what we should do – whether in a jury room or anywhere else. Decisions that cause unease are often ones that make us choose between different values, and we must be prepared to live with the consequences.

Fantasizing that AI tools will deliver us from the messy, tedious and emotionally wrenching work of criminal legal decisions is understandable. But collective governance is something only humans can achieve – acutely aware of our capacities for both good and evil.

Sonali Chakravarti 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. AI is showing up in court cases – but only a human jury can grapple with the moral weight of assessing guilt – https://theconversation.com/ai-is-showing-up-in-court-cases-but-only-a-human-jury-can-grapple-with-the-moral-weight-of-assessing-guilt-281833

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Mathew Schmalz, Professor of Religious Studies, College of the Holy Cross

When he was elected pope on May 8, 2025, Robert Prevost, who took the name Leo XIV, greeted the crowd with Christ’s words to his disciples: “Peace be with you.”

Peace has become a central theme of the pontificate of the first American pope. In recent months, opposing the war in the Middle East, Leo has said that the “world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants.” He led a “Prayer Vigil for Peace” on April 11, 2026, in which he criticized how the name of God has been used to justify war and death. He has also said that “military action will not create space for freedom” because true freedom can come only from patient dialogue.

Combined with his calls for peace is Leo’s equally outspoken emphasis on human dignity. In an age where power is concentrated in the hands of a few, the pope has urged Christians to make a “radical choice in favor of the weakest.” Technological advances, especially the rise of artificial intelligence, also endanger human dignity by threatening to override “human creativity, imagination and intellect,” he has cautioned.

In my view as a scholar of global Catholicism, the themes of peace and human dignity are crucial for understanding Leo’s first year as the 267th leader of the Catholic Church.

Calls for peace

During his speech for the 59th World Day of Peace, on Jan. 1, 2026, Leo echoed remarks he made after his election by saying the world should look to Jesus Christ as “our peace.” He called for “unarmed and disarming peace, humble and persevering,” contrasting peace built on military strength versus peace built on love.

In advocating for peace, Leo is echoing his predecessors. Pope Francis invited Presidents Shimon Peres of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian National Authority to pray for peace in 2014. Benedict XVI condemned “the useless slaughter of war” when recalling Benedict XV’s condemnation of World War I nearly 100 years earlier. Pope John Paul II also argued that war should be “part of humanity’s tragic past” when he visited Coventry, England, which had been devastated during World War II.

Leo has specifically criticized war in Gaza by rejecting the “collective punishment” and “forced displacement” inflicted on Palestinians after Hamas’ attacks on Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023.

Although he is repeating condemnations of war made by other popes, Leo has been drawn into an unprecedented conflict with a U.S. president. In criticizing the U.S. and Israel’s war with Iran, the pope has condemned the loss of life and the failure of negotiations.

In response, President Donald Trump has called the pope “terrible for Foreign Policy.” For his part, Leo has said that he does not look at policy through “the same perspective” as the U.S. president and his words should not be interpreted as a personal attack.

The Catholic Church does have a tradition of “just war theory,” which argues that war can be waged ethically. Vice President JD Vance has stated that the pope is ignoring this tradition. After World War II, however, the Catholic Church has stated its opposition to war clearly and consistently, since modern warfare is so destructive.

Affirming human dignity

In response to ongoing violence between and within nations of the world, Leo has called for dialogue and respect for humanitarian law. His emphasis on human rights affirms the God-given dignity of all people, especially those whom society has cast aside.

Human dignity has been an important theme among the popes who have come before Leo. John Paul II spoke about the dignity of the unborn and the elderly in his 1995 encyclical The Gospel of Life. Benedict XVI emphasized how each and every human being has dignity because they are made in the image of God. Francis called attention to “throwaway culture” that ignores the poor.

Leo has reiterated all these themes in various contexts.

Overall, however, Leo is most clearly following the teachings of Francis on human dignity and applying them more specifically to ongoing international crises.

He has spoken about the challenges to human rights and dignity in conflicts in many areas of the world: Ukraine, Venezuela, the Great Lakes region of Africa, the Caribbean Sea and Myanmar. As a missionary, teacher and bishop for over two decades in Peru, Leo’s perspective is shaped by his understanding of issues facing the Global South and how they relate to larger political and economic dynamics.

During his yearlong papacy he has given sustained attention to the challenges faced by migrants and the poor. Following his trip to Africa in April 2026, he stated that migrants and refugees are “treated worse than … house pets or animals.” His focus on migration is also reflected in his appointment of Evelio Menjivar-Ayala – a former undocumented migrant – as bishop of the diocese of Wheeling-Charleston, West Virginia.

In his Oct. 4, 2025, apostolic exhortation Dilexi Te – “I Have Loved You” – Leo says that “in every rejected migrant, it is Christ who knocks at the door of the community.” Using the words of Francis, Leo describes the Catholic Church’s mission to migrants as “welcome, protect, promote and integrate.”

Dilexi Te’s main focus is the conditions facing the poor. In criticizing the pursuit of wealth at “all costs,” Leo argues for a cultural change that removes the social and economic aspects of poverty. In making this argument, Leo identifies Jesus as the “Poor Messiah” who has a special love for those rejected by the world. The poor have dignity, the pope observes, precisely because they show society the face of Jesus.

The challenge of technology

An emerging concern for Leo is how advances in artificial intelligence also relate to peace and human dignity.

The pope has said that he is not against technological progress that aids human development. But, at the same time, he argues that society should be aware how technology can diminish human responsibility and true intimacy between people. For example, Leo has observed how social media algorithms create “bubbles of easy consensus and easy indignation” that prevent authentic dialogue.

For Leo, the struggle for peace and human dignity is not just a matter of war or economic systems. It is also shaped by the way people lead their everyday lives along with increasingly powerful technology.

Mathew Schmalz 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. Themes of peace and human dignity have been central to Pope Leo as he marks his first year in office – https://theconversation.com/themes-of-peace-and-human-dignity-have-been-central-to-pope-leo-as-he-marks-his-first-year-in-office-280722

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Mohammad Ahmad, Assistant Professor of Management Information Systems, West Virginia University

The cybersecurity community went on alert when Anthropic announced on April 7, 2026, that its latest and most capable general-purpose large language model, Claude Mythos Preview, had demonstrated remarkable – and unintended – capabilities. The artifical intelligence system was able to find and exploit software vulnerabilities – the most serious type of software bugs – at a rate not seen before.

The news ignited concern among the public, world governments and the information technology sector about the capabilities of today’s AI to undermine cybersecurity, with some people framing the model as a global cybersecurity threat.

Claiming that it would be too risky to release the model, and that the company had the moral responsibility to disclose these vulnerabilities, Anthropic said it would not immediately offer the model to the public. Instead, it granted exclusive access to tech giants to test the model’s capabilities, a process Anthropic dubbed Project Glasswing.

As a cybersecurity researcher, I think Mythos’ capabilities are impressive, but the AI system does not represent a radical departure. Mythos is less a new threat than a mirror reflecting how people behave and how fragile modern systems already are.

What Mythos did

During a controlled evaluation, engineers with minimal security experience prompted Mythos to scan thousands of software codebases for vulnerabilities. The model showed striking capabilities in conducting multistep, autonomous attacks that take experts weeks or even months to put together. Mythos was not only able to discover 271 vulnerabilities in Mozilla’s Firefox, it also developed exploits to take advantage of 181 of those.

Overall, Anthropic’s red team, which takes on the role of an attacker to test defenses, and the United Kingdom’s AI Security Institute reported that Mythos found thousands of zero-day, or previously unreported, vulnerabilities in major operating systems, web browsers and other applications – software flaws that have not yet been patched and can be turned into exploits immediately. National Security Agency officials testing Mythos have been impressed by the tool’s speed and efficiency in finding software vulnerabilities, according to a news report.

Among the most widely reported were Mythos’ ability to identify a dormant 27-year-old security flaw in OpenBSD, a security-focused operating system, and a 16-year-old bug in FFmpeg, a video/audio processing tool. Some of these flaws allow unauthenticated users to gain control of the machines hosting these applications.

Even more striking, the relatively inexperienced engineers running Mythos’ evaluations were able to use Mythos to complete attacks overnight, from finding vulnerabilities to exploiting them – something that can take human experts weeks to do. The model’s ability to chain multiple steps is what surprised Anthropic and organizations that tried it. In an evaluation by the AI Security Institute, Mythos was able to take over a simulated corporate network in three out of 10 tries, the first AI model to succeed at the task.

These results are real. They also paint an incomplete picture in ways that matter.

Where is the breakthrough?

At first glance, Mythos’ breakthrough sounds novel and could signal a new class of cyber threats. However, a closer look suggests something different. The vulnerabilities Mythos found are not new in nature. They generally don’t belong to unknown security flaws, and in many cases they are variations of well-known and well-understood classes of software vulnerabilities.

In cybersecurity, finding new instances of known types of flaws is not unusual. The most successful attacks rely on known, well-defined vulnerabilities that stay overlooked or unpatched. What concerned the researchers was not Mythos changing the nature of finding and exploiting vulnerabilities, but rather the intense scale and speed with which it was able to find and exploit those vulnerabilities.

This is not a breakthrough per se but rather a result of decades of research in both cybersecurity and AI. In that sense, Mythos is the natural – and expected – result of powerful automation and AI integration because it follows the same fundamental procedures used in standard offensive cybersecurity practices. These include scanning for vulnerabilities, identifying patterns and testing exploitability. Mythos and similar emerging models make it possible to chain these steps together at a speed that is hard to fathom.

So why were these vulnerabilities missed in the first place?

It is crucial to understand that not all vulnerabilities are cost effective to fix, and not all vulnerabilities are a priority. Mythos did not discover a new kind of weakness – it exposed the limits of how cybersecurity practitioners search for them.

New tech, age-old dynamic

Mythos highlights an important fact about the reality of cybersecurity threats. System defenders are always at a disadvantage because they need to always succeed. Attackers, however, need to succeed only once to break the security of a system. This cat-and-mouse game will always be the same, and Mythos does not change that – it simply reinforces it.

Mythos follows a familiar dynamic: A tool created to protect can also be used to attack and harm.

“The same improvements that make the model substantially more effective at patching vulnerabilities also make it substantially more effective at exploiting them,” Anthropic officials wrote in a blog post about Mythos.

What once may have required highly specialized skills can now be achieved with significantly less effort, which raises the most important question: Who will benefit first by using tools like Mythos – defenders or attackers?

Mohammad Ahmad 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. Mythos AI is a cybersecurity threat, but it doesn’t rewrite the rules of the game – https://theconversation.com/mythos-ai-is-a-cybersecurity-threat-but-it-doesnt-rewrite-the-rules-of-the-game-281268

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Barbara Clark Smith, Curator, Division of Political History, Smithsonian Institution

As the nation observes its 250th birthday, historians can help settle one present-day dispute: Is the United States a democracy or a republic?

For years, advocates have argued the point.

Yet the question itself is misleading. It assumes that the categories constructed by political theorists neatly describe actual practice.

As a historian of early America, I know this nation has always been unwieldy, its institutions hammered out from conflicting ideals and the pragmatic lessons of lived experience. Just as Britain today is both a monarchy and a democracy, so the U.S. has always been a hybrid.

Ideals of both republicanism and democracy have shaped the nation. To understand how requires a history lesson.

No purity

Let’s start with a famous definition. Here is the often-quoted “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, urging Americans to ratify the new frame of government proposed by the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

In Federalist essay No. 10, Madison distinguished two sorts of governments for his readers.

One was a “pure democracy,” which he described as “a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.” A New England town meeting might qualify for this definition, where voters assembled to choose town officers and approve local bylaws.

The other type of government was a “republic,” defined as “a government in which the scheme of representation takes place”
– meaning where the people’s chosen representatives made governing decisions for them.

That seems cut and dried. Surely no one thought the entire population of 13 states could work like a town meeting.

But Madison here was saying only that the possibility of a “pure” democracy was impractical. He was by no means banishing all democratic ideas and institutions.

As the French theorist Montesquieu had noted, republics were of varying sorts. Some republics were aristocratic, controlled by a relative few who were set above the rest. Other republics were democratic, engaging many more in the ongoing affairs of government.

What was at stake in the U.S. in 1787 wasn’t a “pure” democracy nor a “pure” republic. The issue was how aristocratic – and how democratic – the American scheme of representation would be.

Who would be represented – the many or the few?

‘Actual’ representation

America had never been the home of an aristocracy in the British sense. Besides, the Revolution had discredited the very idea of hereditary power. There would be no House of Lords, filled with titled men born into political power and a special set of legal privileges denied to ordinary people. The people alone would be sovereign, and all authority to govern derived, directly or indirectly, from them.

Even so, the problem of aristocracy remained. After all, it had been the lower house of Parliament – the House of Commons, not of Lords – that had sparked the imperial debate when it tried to tax and legislate for the Colonists.

Not nobility, members of the Commons still formed a remote and ambitious elite. None was elected by American voters or even necessarily informed about the Colonists’ lives. Apologists for Parliament claimed that the Commons “virtually” represented the Colonies anyway.

But the Colonists watched the Commons ignore American grievances while favoring private interests – East India Company shareholders, for example – that served wealthy British gentlemen such as themselves.

Many concluded that the members of the House of Commons did not “actually” represent either the poor of Britain or the growing population of the continental Colonies.

In contrast, “patriot” Americans pointed to the legislative assemblies established in each colony soon after its founding.

Needing to attract British settlers, and following the British model, each colony established an elected house of the legislature to provide a check to governors and upper houses that were appointed by the king or a wealthy Colonial proprietor.

Law and custom required that delegates to these assemblies live among their constituents. Although they were men of some fortune and standing in their districts, assemblymen might plausibly “actually represent” their lesser neighbors.

In the lead-up to the Revolution, patriots used new measures to ensure their representatives’ fidelity: They called for vigilant popular oversight of government decision, publicized those decisions in the press, wrote constituent instructions for legislators and winnowed out noncompliant officeholders at election time.

Individual and collective liberties

With independence, Americans created a patchwork of new, representative state governments. South Carolina empowered its wealthy planter elite by setting a high property-holding requirement for voters and a higher one for officeholders. Pennsylvania and Vermont adopted unprecedentedly democratic systems that allowed a large proportion of the white male population to participate in government.

By 1787, some Americans thought there was too much popular democracy – too much power given to nonelite members of society, especially within state governments.

The Constitution adopted restraints on democracy – a Senate appointed by state legislatures, an electoral college that put the choice of president at a remove from the people, a supremacy clause that allowed national laws to supersede, or contravene, state laws.

At the same time, a commitment to democracy was also evident in the U.S. frame of government.

The Constitution set no property requirements for federal officeholders. It left suffrage requirements up to individual states, some of which already extended the vote to all male taxpayers.

Equally important, the ratification process produced a consensus that a bill of rights was necessary to protect ordinary people’s rights and liberties from government overreach.

These first 10 amendments would defend individual rights but also collective rights of the people, such as their right to assemble, to petition the government or even to change it.

The Bill of Rights also protected a free press. It ensured that ordinary free men would still serve in armed militias when their state needed protection. And they would still sit on grand and petit juries to enforce the law or prevent its overreach.

These were the sorts of institutions that the lawyer John Adams called “democratical.”

More and better democracy

Within a few decades, the common phrase for the American system became “democracy.”

Madison had been inconsistent in how he used the term. In the 1790s and 1800s he called himself a “Democratic Republican,” in opposition to the allegedly aristocratic party, the Federalists.
Decades later, Madison was frustrated when pushed to define the U.S. government more precisely. Ordinary “political vocabulary” fell short, he wrote. The American system was “so unexampled in its origin, so complex in its structure, and so peculiar in some of its features” that it was best understood as something new.

How aristocratic? How democratic? The question of 1787 has returned repeatedly to face Americans.

Elites with aristocratic aspirations have repeatedly tried to build permanent governing hierarchies. American history is partly the story of these contests – Free-Soilers against a slaveholding elite, reformers against wealthy “barons” of the Gilded Age, critics of inequality against billionaires who shape government policies today. In such cases, Americans have often turned to more and better democracy, their necessary resource for pressing their political leaders to actually represent the people.

Following Madison’s advice, Americans today can refuse to be misled into describing the U.S. in a single, inadequate term.

They might prize both of these historic commitments: to a republic that insists on the people’s right to be represented rather than ruled, and to a democracy that ensures that ordinary people might collectively make it so.

Barbara Clark Smith 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. A democracy or a republic? History shows that some Americans are asking the wrong question – https://theconversation.com/a-democracy-or-a-republic-history-shows-that-some-americans-are-asking-the-wrong-question-274798

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Nancy La Vigne, Dean of the Rutgers School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University – Newark

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is experimenting with a policy that has drawn national attention and local skepticism: providing cash compensation to people confined in the Allegheny County Jail in the city of Pittsburgh. The funds include monthly disbursements to all those incarcerated and additional pay tied to work assignments and participation in educational programming.

At first glance, the policy may sound counterintuitive. Why pay people who are in jail, especially when many law‑abiding residents are struggling to afford housing, food and transportation? That reaction is understandable. But it often reflects a misunderstanding about who is held in the Allegheny County Jail, the amount of the disbursements and what the county is trying to accomplish.

Over the course of two decades, I have partnered with Allegheny County on policy relevant to justice research and served on the advisory board of the Allegheny County Jail Collaborative, a nationally recognized initiative launched in 2000 to better coordinate jail, health and community-based services. Long before many places began using data to rethink criminal justice, Allegheny County was already analyzing data from multiple sources to develop and test new approaches. With that history in mind, this policy may come as less of a surprise – though it still deserves scrutiny.

Most people in jail haven’t been convicted

Understanding the county’s rationale for compensating people in jail begins with understanding the jail population itself. Jail confinement is primarily about custody and court processing, not punishment after being convicted of wrongdoing.

According to county data, only about 8% of people housed in the jail have been convicted and sentenced to jail time. These individuals are serving a maximum incarceration term of less than two years for misdemeanor or lower-level felony convictions. Roughly half of those incarcerated at the Allegheny County Jail, or 46%, are awaiting trial and have not been convicted of a crime. Another 36% are detained based on an alleged probation violation. The remaining 10% are either on a legal hold placed by an outside agency – such as federal authorities or a correctional facility in another state – are awaiting transfer to a different facility or are ordered to be incarcerated for allegedly violating family court orders.

While jails provide food, clothing and basic hygiene items, those provisions often fall short of what people actually need. Commissary purchases make up the gap, yet many people in jail have little to no money. When even basic necessities, such as ramen noodles, toothpaste and tampons, become scarce, bartering can take place. Commissary items become currency. Debt, theft, intimidation and power imbalances emerge, leading to conflicts that can cause serious or fatal injury. Staff must manage these threats, sometimes at risk to their personal safety.

The county’s compensation policy addresses this reality in concrete ways. Since 2022, the Allegheny County Jail Oversight Board has approved monthly payments of about US$100 to every person housed in the jail through the Incarcerated Individuals Welfare Fund. The fund is financed by proceeds from jail commissary, phone and tablet contracts. These funds can be used for commissary items, phone access, fees, or to accrue savings for post-release needs.

$5 a day – and the research behind it

In addition, in March 2026 the county began compensating people confined in jail approximately $5 per day for voluntary work assignments, as well as for participation in some types of vocational and educational programming. Some of this compensated work is labor that keeps the jail running – including cooking, cleaning and maintenance – and benefits the institution directly. Some of it includes education and vocational training. Paying for it signals some level of fairness and respect. It is also pragmatic: When people perceive systems as legitimate, they are more likely to follow rules and less likely to engage in misconduct.

Offering compensation for education may also boost enrollment, much like how earned credits toward early release encourage participation in federal programs through the First Step Act. This may better prepare them for reentry into society while also reducing idle time, which is linked to misconduct.

Another reason for compensation comes at the point of release. People often leave jail with no cash and limited access to transportation. Providing even limited financial resources can help people make better choices during a well-documented critical transition period that can make or break successful reentry intro society.

Still experimenting

None of this means the policy will work as intended. Increased access to resources could shift, rather than eliminate, forms of conflict among those incarcerated. And the financial incentives may not meaningfully change behavior for everyone.

This makes rigorous, transparent evaluation essential. Research should measure both intended and unintended effects of this policy, including on institutional safety, program participation, reentry outcomes and overall cost effectiveness.

Paying people in jail is not about rewarding crime. In Allegheny County, it is a pragmatic experiment grounded in local data, institutional realities and a clear-eyed commitment to public safety. Whether it ultimately improves safety inside the jail or stability after release remains to be seen. But asking the question and measuring the answer is exactly what evidence-based justice policy should look like.

Nancy La Vigne 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. Is it wrong to pay incarcerated people in jail? This Pennsylvania county says no – https://theconversation.com/is-it-wrong-to-pay-incarcerated-people-in-jail-this-pennsylvania-county-says-no-280777

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Moncef Krarti, Professor of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder

Somewhere between 5% and 7% of U.S. households have rooftop solar panels. Many more Americans want them, but high costs, building locations and landlord restrictions are key obstacles.

As someone who has designed and evaluated a wide range of building energy efficiency technologies, including integrated photovoltaic systems, I know that other options are available elsewhere in the world – and are becoming available in the U.S. Plug-in solar systems, also referred to as balcony solar systems, are alternatives to rooftop panels that still generate electricity from sunlight, but without complex and expensive installations.

Plug-in solar systems are designed to be used without requiring specialized technicians, construction permits or permission from electricity utility companies. A typical system consists of small photovoltaic panels that can be placed on a balcony, in a backyard or on a deck or roof area. They are connected to the home’s electrical system by simply plugging them into a regular power outlet.

European popularity

In Europe, systems like this have been legal for more than a decade. They are wildly popular, especially for renters who do not have permission to install permanent solar panels on their buildings.

In Germany, the introduction of balcony solar raised the share of households with solar panels to about 10%.

Germans can buy plug-in solar kits in local retail stores and set them up quickly at home, with no help or oversight from technicians or utility companies. Estimates find that with current electricity prices in Germany, the systems generate enough power to pay for themselves in less than three years.

Legal changes afoot in the US

In the U.S., the main barrier to widespread availability and adoption of plug-in solar systems is that current laws and regulations do not distinguish them from larger rooftop panel systems.

In most cases, solar panels on buildings that are connected to the power grid must be installed by professionals, because they typically require additional equipment that prevents too much of the home-generated power from entering the grid. This process also requires a permit from a state or local government.

For balcony solar systems, the grid-protection equipment is built in to what consumers buy at the store. But in most states, the laws don’t recognize a difference and still require permits and professional installation for any solar panels at all.

However, in 2025, Utah passed a law that removes those requirements for plug-in solar panel systems that generate less than 1,200 watts of power. Maine has enacted a similar law, and one in Colorado awaits the governor’s signature. Both are slated to take effect at different points in 2026. The Vermont Senate passed one too, and the state’s General Assembly is considering it now. And lawmakers in 25 other states are considering similar legislation.

In addition, in early 2026, UL Solutions, an independent safety certification company, announced a new standard for plug-in solar systems in the U.S., which can help consumers feel confident they are buying something that is safe for them to use in their homes.

Costs and benefits

The potential benefits of balcony solar systems vary primarily with the local cost of electricity. Buying these systems can cost between US$1,200 and $2,000, but they can generate enough power to save several hundred dollars in electric bills each year.

They can’t power a whole home, but they can power relatively low loads, like refrigerators, LED lights, laptop computers, phone chargers, televisions and fans, even when a grid power outage occurs.

Depending on their configurations, balcony solar systems can offer additional benefits. Mounting them to movable bases that track the Sun’s path through the sky can boost power generation. Mounting the panels on overhangs can create shade, reducing the need for air conditioning, especially in hot climates.

Adding battery storage to balcony solar systems can also help households store extra energy from the daytime and use it at night, further lowering their utility bills, though buying batteries would raise the costs.

I expect U.S. demand for balcony solar systems to be significant, especially in places with lots of sunlight and high electricity prices. Householders will still need to select their equipment and its location carefully to maximize their power generation and cost savings.

Moncef Krarti 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. How balcony solar can help renters and homeowners save money – https://theconversation.com/how-balcony-solar-can-help-renters-and-homeowners-save-money-281620