Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Caroline Lynn Kamerlin, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology

The questions of how humankind came to be, and whether we are alone in the universe, have captured imaginations for millennia. But to answer these questions, scientists must first understand life itself and how it could have arisen.

In our work as evolutionary biochemists and protein historians, these core questions form the foundation of our research programs. To study life’s history billions of years ago, we often use clues called molecular “fossils” – ancient structures shared by all living organisms.

Recently, we discovered that an important molecular fossil found in an ancient protein family may not be what it seems. The dilemma centers, in part, on a simple question: What does it mean if a simple molecular structure – the fossil – is found in every single organism on Earth? Do molecular fossils point to the seeds that gave rise to modern biological complexity, or are they simply the stubborn pieces that have resisted erosion over time? The answers have far-reaching implications for how scientists understand the origins of biology.

Follow the phosphorus to follow life

Life is made of many different building blocks, one of the most important of which is the chemical element phosphorus. Phosphorus makes up part of your genetic material, powers complex metabolic reactions and acts as a molecular switch to control enzymes.

Phosphorus compounds – specifically a charged form called phosphate – have a number of unique chemical properties that other biological compounds cannot match. In the words of the pioneering organic chemist F.H. Westheimer, they are chemically able to “do almost everything.”

Their unique combination of stability, versatility and adaptability is why many researchers argue that following phosphorus is key to finding life. The presence of phosphorus both close to home – in the ocean or on one of Saturn’s moons – and in the farthest reaches of our galaxy is strong evidence for the potential for life beyond Earth.

If phosphorus is so critical to life, how did early biology predating cells first use it?

Today, biological organisms are able to make use of phosphates through proteins – molecular machines that regulate all aspects of life. By binding to proteins, phosphates regulate metabolism and cellular communication, and they serve as a source of cellular energy.

Further, the process of phosphorylation, or adding a phosphate group to a protein, is ubiquitous in biology and allows proteins to perform functions their individual building blocks cannot. Without proteins, the existence of organisms such as bacteria and humans may not be possible.

Given how essential phosphorus is to life, scientists hypothesize that phosphate binding was among the first biological functions to emerge on Earth. In fact, current evidence suggests that the first phosphate-binding proteins are truly ancient – even older than the last universal common ancestor, the hypothetical mother cell to all life on Earth that existed around 4 billion years ago.

A mysterious phosphate-binding fossil

One family of phosphate-binding proteins, called P-loop NTPases, regulates everything from the communication between cells to the storage of energy and are found across the tree of life. Because P-loop NTPases are among the most ancient protein families, analyzing their properties can provide key insights into both the emergence of proteins and how primitive life used phosphates.

Although P-loop NTPases are diverse in structure, they share a common motif called a P-loop. This component binds to phosphate by wrapping a nest of amino acids – the building blocks that make up proteins – around the molecule. Every known organism has multiple families of P-loop NTPase, which makes the P-loop an excellent example of a molecular fossil that can provide clues about the evolution of life. Our crude analysis of the human genome estimates that humans have about 5,000 copies of P-loops.

When part of a larger protein structure, the P-loop folds like origami into a shape that is ideal for hugging a phosphate molecule. These nests are extremely similar to each other, even when the surrounding proteins are only distantly related in function. A landmark study in 2012 argued that even if the P-loop nest is extracted from a protein, it can still bind to phosphate. In other words, the ability of a P-loop to form a nest is determined by its interactions with phosphate, not its protein scaffold.

This study provided the first evidence that some forms of the P-loop sequence could have functioned billions of years ago, even before the emergence of large, complex proteins. If true, this implies that P-loop nests may have seeded the emergence and evolution of many of the phosphate-binding proteins seen today.

Interrogating the history of the P-loop

The pioneer of bioinformatics, Margaret Oakley Dayhoff, hypothesized in 1966 that the large collection of big proteins seen today arose from small peptides that were duplicated and fused over long periods of time. Although P-loops may have evolved in a different way, Dayhoff’s realization was the first to clarify how complex forms could have arisen from much simpler ones.

Inspired by Dayhoff’s hypothesis, we sought to interrogate the role that simple P-loops may have played in the evolution of the complex proteins key to life. Our findings challenge what’s currently known about these molecular fossils.

Using computer models, we compared a range of P-loops from the P-loop NTPase family to a control group made of the same amino acids but in a different order. While these control loops are also found in proteins, they do not form nests.

Although the P-loops and the control loops are very different in their nest-forming ability, we found that they both are able to form transient nests when embedded in proteins. This meant that, contrary to popular belief, the amino acid sequence of P-loops aren’t special in their ability to form nests – as would be expected if they alone were the seeds for many modern proteins.

A fossil eroded over time

Our work strongly suggests that while the P-loop is a molecular fossil, the true nature of its form billions of years ago may have been eroded by the sands of time.

For example, when we repeated our simulations in a different solvent – specifically methanol – we found that P-loops situated in their parent proteins were able to regain some of their ability to form nests. This doesn’t mean that being in methanol drove the first proteins with P-loops to form the nests critical for life. But it does emphasize the importance of considering the surrounding environment when studying peptides and proteins.

Just as archaeologists know to be careful in how they interpret physical fossils, historians of protein evolution could take similar care in their interpretation of molecular fossils. Our results complicate the current understanding of early protein evolution and, consequently, some aspects of the origins of life.

In resetting the field’s broader understanding of how these crucial proteins emerged, scientists are poised to start rewriting our own evolutionary history on this planet.

Caroline Lynn Kamerlin receives funding from the NASA Exobiology program.

Liam Longo receives funding from the NASA Exobiology program.

– ref. Molecular ‘fossils’ offer microscopic clues to the origins of life – but they take care to interpret – https://theconversation.com/molecular-fossils-offer-microscopic-clues-to-the-origins-of-life-but-they-take-care-to-interpret-259271

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

Women in the U.S. typically earned 85% as much as men for every hour they spent working in 2024. However, working women are faring much better than their moms and grandmothers did 40 years ago. In the mid-1980s, women were making only 65% as much as men for every hour of paid work.

Women’s wages have improved relative to what men earn in part because of gains in their education and work experience, and because women have moved into higher-paying occupations. But progress toward pay equality has stalled.

As sociologists and demographers, we wanted to know whether changes in American families might also have helped women come closer to pay equality with men. In an article published in June 2025 in Social Forces, an academic journal, we argued that this pay gap is becoming smaller in part because women are having fewer children.

Moms earn less but dads earn more

In the U.S. and elsewhere, ample evidence shows that parenthood affects men’s and women’s wages differently.

Compared to remaining childless, motherhood leads to wage losses for women. And those losses are larger when women have more kids.

By contrast, after men become fathers their wages usually rise.

Because having kids tends to push women’s wages down and men’s wages up, parenthood widens the gender pay gap.

Decline in birth rate plays a role

Americans are having fewer kids in general. Women, including those who don’t work outside the home, had an average of about three children by their 40s in 1980. By 2000, that average had fallen to 1.9, and it has been fairly stable since then.

To see whether changes in how many kids working American moms have affects what they earn relative to men, we analyzed data collected from a nationally representative sample of U.S. families. We tracked trends over time in the number of children that employed Americans ages 30-55 have.

We found that employees’ average number of children fell significantly between 1980 and 2000, declining from around 2.4 to around 1.8. That average stabilized after 2000; employees had an average of about 1.8 children in 2018 – the most recent year in our analysis.

At the same time, the pay that women in this age range earned per hour relative to men rose steeply. It climbed from 58% in 1980 to 69% by 1990 and then rose more gradually to 76% by 2018. That is, as people were having fewer kids, the gender pay gap got smaller. For both trends, there was rapid change in the 1980s, followed by slower change after 1990.

We next estimated whether declines in the number of children men and women have can explain the narrowing of the gender pay gap between 1980 and 2018.

We found that, even after adjusting for other factors, such as years of education, prior work experience and occupation, about 8% of the decline in the gender pay gap can be explained by the lower number of children working women and men are having.

Next, we showed that the number of children American employees had declined faster in the 1980s than later on. That slowdown coincided with a deceleration of women’s gains in pay relative to men. Once the average number of children that U.S. employees had stabilized around 2000, so did women’s progress toward earning as much as men.

Questions about the future of US fertility

U.S. scholars and policymakers are debating whether and why Americans are having fewer children today than one or two decades ago, and what the government should do about it.

We agree that these are important questions.

Our research shows that any future changes in how many children Americans have are very likely to affect how quickly women and men reach pay equality. But it’s not inevitable.

The number of children Americans have affects the gender pay gap only because parenthood decreases women’s wages while increasing men’s wages. As long as these unequal effects of parenthood on what men and women earn persist, they will continue to act as a brake on women’s progress toward equal pay.

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. US women narrowed the pay gap with men by having fewer kids – https://theconversation.com/us-women-narrowed-the-pay-gap-with-men-by-having-fewer-kids-261811

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jay L. Zagorsky, Associate Professor Questrom School of Business, Boston University

Mortgage fraud is back in the news. Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor, is being investigated by the Department of Justice for allegedly making false statements when applying for a mortgage. Members of Donald Trump’s Cabinet are accused of similar wrongdoings. Could any of these people go to prison?

Mortgage fraud is not a new problem. Subprime mortgage fraud fueled the 2008 financial meltdown, when large numbers of very risky mortgages defaulted. Mortgage fraud was also a key feature of the savings and loan crisis in the 1980s.

Mortgage applications are very long, so there’s plenty of opportunity to make mistakes. Plus, they require borrowers to declare that everything is “true, accurate, and complete.” Misrepresentation can trigger potentially large civil and criminal penalties.

As a business school professor, I was curious how many people are convicted of mortgage fraud today. After all, relatively few people went to jail for fraudulent loans back in 2008. Since most mortgage fraud violates federal law, I looked at more than a decade of federal conviction data. What I found was clear: Almost no one has gone to federal prison recently for lying on a mortgage application.

What is mortgage fraud?

Mortgage fraud is when someone intentionally misrepresents facts in order to obtain a property loan. People can lie about many things on a mortgage application, such as their income, assets or employment status, or whether they will occupy the home being purchased or rent it out.

Being caught lying to get a mortgage can be costly. The maximum federal sentence is 30 years, with fines of up to US$1 million. Because more than a quarter of all mortgages are guaranteed by federal agencies, and many are acquired by quasi-government organizations like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, most mortgage fraud is a federal crime.

However, just because there are laws on the books doesn’t mean they’re enforced. For example, I work in Boston, where for years jaywalking has been illegal – but as any visitor quickly notices, no one pays any attention to this rule.

How many people are convicted?

The U.S. Sentencing Commission provides detailed data on every person convicted of federal crimes since 2013. The database is large, since federal courts convict almost 70,000 people each year.

However, very few people are convicted of federal mortgage fraud. Just 38 people in the country were sentenced for such crimes in 2024, and among that small group, four of the convicted got no prison time. A year earlier, just 34 people were convicted and seven avoided prison.

Over the past dozen years, fewer than 3,000 people were convicted of federal mortgage fraud, and the number of people sentenced fell steadily each year.

Three thousand people are a tiny fraction of mortgages issued. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimates that almost 100 million new mortgage loans were written to purchase or refinance a home over the past 12 years. For those who like precision, 3,000 is only 0.003%.

The Sentencing Commission’s files also offer insight into who gets convicted of mortgage fraud. Three-quarters were men. More than 90% were U.S. citizens. The typical person convicted of mortgage fraud is a man in his late 40s with an associate degree, the data suggests.

The real penalty

While the maximum penalty is 30 years, almost no one serves that long a sentence. In 2024, the maximum sentence handed out was just 10 years. Since 2013, 15% of those convicted got no jail time. The average sentence for people who did get jail time was 21 months, which is less than two years behind bars.

Fines are also much lighter in practice than the maximum $1 million penalty. In 2024, the maximum fine passed down was a quarter-million dollars. Since 2013, the average person convicted of mortgage fraud paid a fine of less than $6,000, with over half of all those convicted paying no fine at all.

Now not paying a fine or only paying a small one doesn’t mean there’s no financial penalty. The courts required most of those convicted to make restitution. In 2024, half of all people convicted had to pay at least a half-million dollars to reimburse their victims, such as lending companies. Over the dozen years I looked at, the average person convicted paid $2 million in restitution for their misdeeds.

More lightning strikes than convictions

It’s impossible to know how common mortgage fraud really is. Some mortgage applications are rechecked in a “post-closing audit.” However, these audits happen within 90 days after the mortgage money is disbursed. Beyond that window, if a loan is paid back on time and without problems, there’s little incentive for a bank or mortgage service provider to recheck an applicant’s information.

What is clear is that while millions of mortgages are written each year, only a tiny fraction of mortgage recipients go to jail for fraud. One way to put this tiny fraction into perspective is to compare it with the National Weather Service estimates of the approximately 270 people hit by lightning yearly. Last year, lightning hit over seven times more people than the federal government convicted of mortgage fraud.

Years ago, I filled in a mortgage application to buy a home. I was consumed with dread wondering if any application mistake would result in my being sent to jail. After looking at the mortgage fraud conviction data, I should have been more worried about being hit by lightning.

Jay L. Zagorsky 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. Does anyone go to prison for federal mortgage fraud? Not many, the numbers suggest – https://theconversation.com/does-anyone-go-to-prison-for-federal-mortgage-fraud-not-many-the-numbers-suggest-265242

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jason Reed, Associate Teaching Professor of Finance, University of Notre Dame

The Federal Reserve is in a nearly impossible spot right now.

Markets are expecting a quarter-point interest rate cut to a range of 4% to 4.25% when the Fed policy-setting committee concludes its latest meeting on Sept. 17, 2025. After all, the slowdown in the jobs market, as well as a massive revision to past figures showing close to a million fewer jobs were created than previously reported, makes a strong case for lower interest rates to shore up the economy.

But at the same time, inflation – the other component of the Fed’s dual mandate – has begun to accelerate again. As rising tariffs squeeze consumer spending in sectors exposed to the harshest tariffs – such as clothing and electronics – other inflationary pressures loom over the horizon.

A slowing economy or rising inflation is a circumstance that policymakers want to avoid. But as an economist and finance professor, I’m increasingly concerned about the risk that they happen at the same time – a horrible economic condition known as stagflation – and that the Fed may be too slow in responding.

Between a rock and a hard data point

The Fed has been under pressure to cut rates for some time – including from President Donald Trump.

The reason markets and the White House are so interested is because what the Fed does matters. The central bank’s decision at its near-monthly meetings helps banks and other lenders to determine rates on auto loans, mortgages, credit cards and more. Lower rates usually lead more businesses and consumers to borrow and spend more, boosting economic activity. This also can drive up inflation.

For the better part of three years, the central bank has been focused on its generational fight against inflation. But now, with inflation down significantly from its 40-year high of 9% reached in 2022 and the jobs market sputtering, conditions finally seemed right to resume cutting rates.

The labor market has seen continued deterioration, most notably with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ revisions to nonfarm payrolls – in effect reducing the number of jobs economists thought the U.S. gained by almost 1 million for the year ending in March 2025.

But a recent uptick in inflation has made the Fed’s call more complicated.

Over the past four months, the consumer price index has consistently ticked up, with the most recent CPI figure indicating year-over-year inflation of 2.9% – well above the Fed’s target of 2%.

Switching focus to jobs

At the Fed’s last meeting in August, Chair Jerome Powell said that the risks to the labor market now exceed the risks of inflation.

For example, for the first time since 2021, the number of unemployed people have outpaced job vacancies as companies have moved to eliminate open positions before laying off workers.

Most compelling is the so-called U6 unemployment rate – which includes those in the regular unemployment figures and people who have stopped looking for jobs, as well as those who are working part time but are looking for full-time opportunities. That has increased over the past three months to 8.1%.

The evidence suggests that businesses are reluctant to add workers as tariff policy and broad economic uncertainty appear to drive hiring decisions.

The worst of both worlds

The short-term risk here is that a quarter-point cut won’t be enough to shore up the jobs market, and it may be too late to prevent the economy from tipping into recession.

The longer-term risk is more concerning: Not only could the economy contract, but it could do so while inflation accelerates.

The last time the U.S. experienced stagflation was in the 1970s, when an oil embargo caused the price of crude to double. This drove up inflation while causing unemployment to soar and the economy to stall. Policies aimed at reducing inflation typically exacerbate slowing growth, and vice versa. In other words, there were fewer dollars to go around – and those dollars were worth a little less every day.

The pain experienced during this previous bout of stagflation convinced a generation of economists and policymakers that the condition was to be avoided at all costs.

The Fed, which has consistently shown its hand and has guided the markets toward this week’s rate cut, now has to make what seems like an impossible decision: cut rates even if doing so will add inflationary pressures.

And there are other potential headwinds for the U.S. economy. For example, it has yet to fully absorb the impact of Trump’s immigration crackdown on productivity and output due to the loss of workers. Waning consumer confidence suggests consumer spending could soon drop. And a potential federal government shutdown looms in September.

In my view, it’s clear that a cut is warranted. But will it drive up inflation? Economists like me will be watching this closely.

Jason Reed 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. Fed, under pressure to cut rates, tries to balance labor market and inflation – while avoiding dreaded stagflation – https://theconversation.com/fed-under-pressure-to-cut-rates-tries-to-balance-labor-market-and-inflation-while-avoiding-dreaded-stagflation-265361

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Lee Bebout, Professor of English, Arizona State University

Shortly following the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, many politicians and pundits were quick to highlight the importance of civil discourse.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox called for an “off-ramp” to political hostilities, while California Gov. Gavin Newsom released a statement condemning political violence. He lauded Kirk’s “commitment to debate,” adding, “The best way to honor Charlie’s memory is to continue his work: engage with each other, across ideology, through spirited discourse.” Political commentator Ezra Klein wrote, “You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way.”

With so many Americans consuming political content via siloed social media feeds and awash in algorithms that stoke outrage, these ideals may seem quaint, if not impossible.

Clearly, murder is a no-go. But what does it mean to practice politics “the right way?” How can people engage “across ideology” in a “spirited” way?

Well, one way to not practice politics the right way is to limit the other side from having a voice of authority. Since 2016, the organization Kirk co-founded, Turning Point USA, has hosted the Professor Watchlist. The online database generated harassment campaigns against professors, leading to calls for firings, hate mail and death threats. To be sure, the left has not been without its own excesses of harassment in recent years.

Kirk was also known for going to college campuses and speaking to students: entering the lion’s den and affably challenging audiences to “change my mind.”

To me, the impulse to shut down the other side, combined with the “change my mind approach” to debate, has only exacerbated political polarization and entrenchment. Instead, I propose a few different ways of thinking about conversations with people whose views differ from your own.

The fantasy of swiftly changing minds

In my forthcoming book, “Rules for Reactionaries: How to Maintain Inequality and Stop Social Justice,” I explore the language strategies used to advance white supremacy and anti-feminism across U.S. politics and culture.

Deliberative democracy is the idea that decision-making and governance are arrived at through thoughtful, reasoned and respectful dialogue. This may take the shape of debates in Congress or robust questioning in town halls. But deliberative democracy also shapes the way all neighbors or citizens treat each other, whether on the street or at the dinner table.

I contend that a big stumbling block that prevents the U.S. from tackling its biggest problems is how Americans conceptualize deliberative democracy: There’s a fantasy that people’s minds can be easily changed, if only they’re given certain information or hear certain arguments.

In the 1990s, this was epitomized through former President Bill Clinton’s Initiative on Race, a program that he framed as a vehicle for social and political transformation. Clinton believed that an advisory board of experts could foster a meaningful national dialogue and produce necessary healing.

In response, conservative political figures objected both to the need for a conversation in the first place and to the makeup of the committee leading it.

By the time Clinton’s second term ended, the initiative quietly disappeared, only to be mentioned in passing in Clinton’s memoir. Yet with each subsequent racial flash point, from the arrest of Henry Louis Gates in 2009 to the murder of George Floyd, calls resurfaced for the national conversation. But race remains a politically and culturally salient issue.

Similarly, many Americans view friends, relatives and colleagues as targets for conversion. Because of the nature of my research, I often get a version of this question from my students: “How do you change someone’s mind if they say they’re a socialist?” Or they may frame it as, “I’ve got Thanksgiving with my family coming up, and my Uncle Johnny is so transphobic. How do I convince him to support trans rights?”

Cultural theorist Lauren Berlant would describe these encounters as moments of cruel optimism. There’s the belief that what you’re about to do is good and worthy. But time and again, you’re met with feelings of futility and frustration.

When debating politics, many people crave a chance to engage with someone they disagree with. There’s the hope of changing hearts and minds. But few minds – if any – change that quickly, and approaching these conversations as small windows of opportunity ends up being their downfall.

Opening minds instead of changing them

There are more fruitful approaches to conversation than merely trying to best someone in an argument by deploying buzzwords or “gotcha!” moments.

Rather than trying to immediately change someone’s mind, what if you entered a conversation with the goal of simply planting seeds? This approach transforms the dialogue from an attempted conversion into a legitimate conversation, wherein you’re merely offering your partner something to consider after the fact.

Another strategy involves remembering that conversations often have multiple audiences.

Consider the Thanksgiving dinner with Uncle Johnny. What if, instead of focusing on trying to convert him, the speaker recognized that there were other listeners at the table? Perhaps they could rethink their encounter not as converting an opponent, but as modeling to relatives how to have a conversation about one’s values with a loved one whom they vehemently disagree with. Or perhaps the speaker could recognize that a cousin at the table may be closeted, and take it upon themselves to model how to push back against transphobia.

In both cases, the conversion of Uncle Johnny ceases to be the objective. Civic dialogue and persuasion remain.

Change is slow but never futile

If the U.S. is going to heal its civic life through dialogue, I think it will require Americans to not just speak with those they disagree with, but to listen to them as well.

Krista Ratcliffe, a scholar of rhetoric at Arizona State University, has written about her concept of “rhetorical listening.” Listeners, she argues, must not simply be attuned to the words a speakers says, but also to the life experiences and ideologies that shape those words.

Rhetorical listening means avoiding the urge to one-up the opponent or convert the unwashed masses. Instead, you’re entering into dialogue from a position of curiosity, with a willingness to learn and grow.

Many people believe that the U.S. is at an inflection point. Will families and friendships continue to be torn apart? Will greater political polarization lead to more violence? Often it feels hopeless.

Like Sisyphus, many Americans probably feel like they continue to push a boulder up a hill, only for it to roll down the other side. The error would be for Americans to be surprised when the boulder rolls back down – shocked that there was no progress and that everyone has to start over again.

While the Sisyphean task of deliberative democracy requires that citizens push the boulder day in and day out, they should also recognize that as they push, the weight of the boulder as it’s collectively pushed will gradually and imperceptibly alter the terrain.

Moreover, as the French philosopher Albert Camus once wrote, it’s important to “imagine Sisyphus happy” – to continue to seize what joy can be had as this hard work plods along.

Lee Bebout 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. After Charlie Kirk’s murder, the US might seem hopelessly divided – is there any way forward? – https://theconversation.com/after-charlie-kirks-murder-the-us-might-seem-hopelessly-divided-is-there-any-way-forward-265248

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Arash Javanbakht, Professor of Psychiatry, Wayne State University

On Sept. 10, 2025, the nation’s attention was riveted by the fatal shooting of the conservative activist Charlie Kirk on a college campus in Utah. At nearly the exact same time, a state away − in Colorado − an active shooting was underway on a high school campus in a sleepy mountain town, leaving two teens in critical condition and the shooter, a fellow student, dead from a self-inflicted gunshot.

While differing in context, these events share devastating commonalities that will haunt many Americans for decades and possibly generations to come. And they are only the latest of a very long string of violent acts, some politically motivated and some motivated simply by the intention to harm as many people as possible.

I am a trauma psychiatrist and researcher, and I know that the direct and indirect effects of such violence reach millions. While those in the immediate surroundings are most affected, the rest of society suffers, too.

First, the immediate survivors

No two people experience exposure to public violence in the same way. The extent of the trauma, stress and fear can vary, depending on variables ranging from someone’s genetic makeup to where they were during the incident, and what they saw and heard. A hallmark of exposure to such life-threatening experiences is post-traumatic stress disorder.

PTSD is a debilitating condition that develops after exposure to serious traumatic experiences such as war, natural disasters, rape, assault, robbery and gun violence. Nearly 8% of the U.S. population deals with PTSD. Symptoms include high anxiety, avoidance of reminders of the trauma, emotional numbness, hypervigilance, frequent intrusive memories of trauma, nightmares and flashbacks. The brain switches to fight-or-flight and survival mode, and the person is always waiting for something terrible to happen. Survivors of a shooting may avoid the neighborhood where the shooting occurred or the contexts related to the shooting.

When the trauma is caused by people, as in a public shooting, the impact can be profound. The rate of PTSD in people directly exposed to mass shootings may be as high as 36% among survivors. Depression, another debilitating psychiatric condition, occurs in as many as 80% of people with PTSD. Because of the human nature of such events, avoidance often extends to all public situations. In my work as a psychiatrist, I often see people with PTSD socially debilitated to the point they cannot leave home even for grocery shopping.

People may also experience survivor’s guilt, the feeling that they failed others who died or did not do enough to help them, or just guilt at having survived.

PTSD can improve by itself, but many people need treatment. The more chronic PTSD is, the more negative the impact on the brain. Hence, it is important for those who are exposed to receive proper screening, prevention and care when needed.

Psychotherapy and medications offer effective treatments. And new advances in artificial intelligence and mixed reality technologies are allowing me and other clinicians to help people feel safe again in public situations through simulations in the clinic.

Children and adolescents, who are developing their worldview and learning how safe it is to live in this society, may suffer even more. Exposure to horrific experiences such as school shootings or related news can fundamentally affect the way children and youth perceive the world as a safe or unsafe place.

They can carry such a worldview for the rest of their lives and transfer it to their children. Research is also abundant on the long-term detrimental impact of childhood trauma on a person’s mental and physical health through their adult life.

The effect on those close by or arriving later

PTSD can also develop via indirect exposure to others’ severe trauma. People in the vicinity of a shooting may see exposed, disfigured or dead bodies. They may also see injured people in agony, hear extremely loud noises and experience chaos and terror after the shooting.

A group whose chronic exposure to horrific trauma is often overlooked is the first responders. While survivors try to run away from an active shooter, the police, firefighters and paramedics rush into the danger zone. In addition, dispatchers hear firsthand the highly disturbing details of the event as it is underway but may not receive the support needed to process the events.

Many first responders might have their own children in that school or nearby. They frequently face uncertainty; threats to themselves, their colleagues and others; and terribly upsetting post-shooting scenes. This type of exposure happens to them too frequently. As a result, PTSD has been reported in up to 20% of first responders to mass violence.

Widespread panic and pain

People who were not directly exposed to the disaster but who were exposed to the news also experience distress, anxiety or symptoms of PTSD. Every time there is a mass shooting in a new location or setting, such as a synagogue, a concert or a day care center, people may begin to believe that this type of place is no longer safe. People worry not only about themselves but also about the safety of their children and other loved ones.

Repeated media exposure to the circumstances surrounding a tragic event, including images of the aftermath of a shooting, can be highly stressful to survivors, those who lost loved ones and first responders. In my clinic, I hear from affected people that repeatedly seeing the event on the news, and others asking them about their experiences, can bring painful memories to the surface. Some first responders I’ve worked with try to hide their occupation from others to prevent being asked about such events.

However, as the graphic assassination of Kirk shows – videos of it ran unedited on many social media platforms for hours before they were taken down – exposure to violent images now reach a far wider population.

Is there any good to come of such tragedy?

In my book “Afraid: Understanding the Purpose of Fear and Harnessing the Power of Anxiety,” I explain that the combination of toxic politics, a media economy built on fear and outrage, and social media algorithms have brought Americans to a place where half of the population believes the other half is either stupid or evil.

Demonizing or attempting to eliminate those who think differently – literally or symbolically – has become a dangerous norm, which is all too evident in the wake of the Kirk shooting. This violence plays out not only in political rhetoric on the debate stage but also on the streets.

I believe events like these should be a wake-up call before it is too late, a stark agreement that as Americans we still share far more than we differ.

Americans can channel the collective agony and frustration to encourage meaningful change, cooling down the division, making gun laws safer, opening genuinely constructive discussions, informing the public about the risks and calling on lawmakers to take real action. In times of hardship, humans often can raise the sense of community, support one another and advocate for their rights, including the right to be safe at schools, concerts, churches and movie theaters.

Negative emotions carry energy. If left unchecked, they will consume us. But sadness, anxiety, anger and frustration can be channeled into actions such as becoming involved in activism and volunteering to help the survivors and society at large.

Finally, exposure to media coverage for several hours daily following a collective trauma can lead to high stress. Check the news a couple of times a day to be informed, but don’t continue seeking out coverage and exposure to graphic images and news. The news cycle tends to report the same stories without much additional information.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on March 26, 2021 and republished Jan. 23, 2023.

Arash Javanbakht 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. 2 shootings, 2 states, minutes apart − a trauma psychiatrist explains how exposure to shootings changes all of us – https://theconversation.com/2-shootings-2-states-minutes-apart-a-trauma-psychiatrist-explains-how-exposure-to-shootings-changes-all-of-us-265160

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Nina Fontana, Researcher in Native American Studies, University of California, Davis

It took decades, stacks of legal paperwork and countless phone calls, but, in the spring of 2025, a California Chuckchansi Native American woman and her daughter walked onto a 5-acre parcel of land, shaded by oaks and pines, for the first time.

This land near the foothills of the Sierra National Forest is part of an unusual category of land that has been largely left alone for more than a century. The parcel, like roughly 400 other parcels across the state totaling 16,000 acres in area, is held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of specific Indigenous people – such as a family member of the woman visiting the land with her daughter.

Largely inaccessible for more than a century, and therefore so far of little actual benefit to those it is meant for, this land provides an opportunity for Indigenous people to not only have recognized land rights but also to care for their land in traditional ways that could help reduce the threat of intensifying wildfires as part of a changing climate.

In collaboration with families who have long been connected to this land, our research team at the University of California, Davis is working to clarify ownership records, document ecological conditions and share information to help allottees access and use their allotments.

California’s unique historical situation

As European nations colonized the area that became the United States, they entered into treaties with Native nations. These treaties established tribal reservations and secured some Indigenous rights to resources and land.

Just after California became a state in 1850, the federal government negotiated 18 treaties with 134 tribes, reserving about 7.5 million acres, roughly 7.5% of the state, for tribes’ exclusive use.

However, land speculators and early state politicians considered the land too valuable to give away, so the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the treaties – while allowing the tribes to think they were valid and legally binding. As a result, most California Native Americans were left landless and subject to violent, state-sanctioned removals by incoming miners and settlers.

Then, in 1887, Congress passed the Dawes Act, which allowed Native people across the U.S. to be assigned or apply for land individually. Though it called the seized land – their former tribal homelands – the “public domain,” the Dawes Act presented a significant opportunity for the landless Native people in California to secure land rights that would be recognized by the government.

These land parcels, called allotments, are not private land, public land or reservation land – rather, they are individual parcels held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of allottees and their descendants.

Many of these allotments were remote – ecologically rich, yet hard to access. They were carved out of ancestral territories but often lacked access to infrastructure like roads, water or electricity. In some cases, allotments were separated from traditional village sites, ceremonial areas or vital water resources, cutting them off from broader ecosystems and community networks.

Federal officials often drew rough or incorrect maps and even lost track of which parcels had been allotted and to whom, especially as original allottees passed away. As a result, many allotments were claimed and occupied by others, coming into private hands without the full knowledge or consent of the Native families they were held in trust for.

There were once 2,522 public domain allotments in California totaling 336,409 acres. In 2025, approximately 400 of these allotments remain, encompassing just over 16,000 acres. They are some of the only remaining, legally recognized tracts of land where California Native American families can maintain ties to place, which make them uniquely significant for cultural survival, sovereignty and ecological stewardship.

The allotments today

Because of their remoteness, many of these lands remained relatively undisturbed by human activity and are home to diverse habitats, native plants and traditional gathering places. And because they are held in trust for Native people, they present an opportunity to exercise Indigenous practices of land and resource management, which have sustained people and ecosystems through millennia of climate shifts.

We and our UC Davis research team partner with allottee families; legal advocates including California Indian Legal Services, a Native-led legal nonprofit; and California Public Domain Allottee Association, an allottee-led nonprofit that supports allottees to access and care for their lands. Together, we are studying various aspects of the remaining allotments, including seeking to understand how vulnerable they are to wildfire and drought, and identifying options for managing the land to reduce those vulnerabilities.

An opportunity for learning

So far, our surveys of the vegetation on these lands suggest that they could serve as places that sustain both flora and fauna as the climate changes.

Many of these parcels are located in remote, less-developed foothills or steep terrain where they have remained relatively intact, retaining more native species and diverse habitats than surrounding lands. Many of these parcels have elements like oak woodlands, meadows, brooks and rivers that create cooler, wetter areas that help plants and animals endure wildfires or periods of extreme heat or drought.

Allotment lands also offer the potential for the return of stewardship methods that – before European colonization – sustained and improved these lands for generations. For example, Indigenous communities have long used fire to tend plants, reduce overgrowth, restore water tables and generally keep ecosystems healthy.

Guided by Indigenous knowledge and rooted in the specific cultures and ecologies of place, this practice, often called cultural burning, reduces dry materials that could fuel future wildfires, making landscapes more fire-resilient and lowering both ecological and economic damage when wildfires occur. At the same time, it brings back plants for food, medicine, fiber and basketry for California Native communities.

Challenges on allotments

The Chuckchansi family who reached their land for the first time in the spring of 2025 would like to move onto the land. However, the parcel is surrounded by private property, and they need to seek permission from neighboring landowners to even walk onto their own parcel.

In addition, a small number of employees at the Bureau of Indian Affairs are responsible for allotments, and they must also deal with issues on larger reservations and other tribal lands.

Further, because the lands are held in federal trust, allottees’ ability to engage in traditional management practices like cultural burning often face more stringent federal permitting processes than state or private landowners – including restrictions under the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

To our knowledge, no fire management plans have been approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on California Native American public domain allotments. Nonetheless, many families are interested in following traditional practices to manage their land. These efforts were a key topic at the most recent California Public Domain Allottees Conference, which included about 100 participants, including many allottee families.

Why it matters

As California searches for ideas to help its people adapt to climate change, the allotment lands offer what we believe is a meaningful opportunity to elevate Indigenous leadership in climate adaptation. Indigenous land stewardship strategies have shown they can reduce wildfire risk, restoring ecosystems and sustaining culturally important plants and foods. Though the parcels are small, the practices applied there – such as cultural burning, selective gathering and water stewardship – are often low-cost, community-based and potentially adaptable to larger parcels elsewhere around the state.

One option could be to shift some of the regulatory authority from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the allottees themselves. Shifting authority to Indigenous peoples has improved forest health elsewhere, as found in a collaborative study between University of California Extension foresters and Hoopa Tribal Forestry. That research found that when the Hoopa Tribe gained control of forestry on their reservation along the Klamath River basin in northern California, tribal members moved away from large-scale clear-cutting. They decreased allowable logging amounts, created buffers around streams and protected species that were culturally important, while still reducing the buildup of downed or dead wood that can fuel wildfires.

At a time when California faces record-breaking wildfires and intensifying climate extremes, allotments offer rare pockets of intact habitat with the potential to be managed with cultural knowledge and ecological care. They show that adapting to change is not just about infrastructure or technology, but also about relationships – between people and place, culture and ecology, past and future.

Kristin Ruppel from Montana State University, author of “Unearthing Indian Land, and Jay Petersen from California Indian Legal Services also contributed to the drafting of this article.

This research was funded by the California Climate Action Seed Grant (#R02CP7261: Planning Landscape Resilience for California Indian Allotment Lands) and the United States Geological Survey (G22AC00076-00, Indigenous-Led Climate Adaptation Strategies: Integrating Landscape Condition, Monitoring, and Cultural Fire with the North Fork Mono Tribe, and G23AC00682-00, Future of Fire Phase II: Learning by Doing with Cultural Fire Practitioners).

This research was funded by the Climate Action Grant (California Climate Action Seed Grant #R02CP7261: Planning Landscape Resilience for California Indian Allotment Lands) and the United States Geological Survey (G22AC00076-00, Indigenous-Led Climate Adaptation Strategies: Integrating Landscape Condition, Monitoring, and Cultural Fire with the North Fork Mono Tribe, and G23AC00682-00, Future of Fire Phase II: Learning by Doing with Cultural Fire Practitioners).

– ref. What Native-held lands in California can teach about resilience and the future of wildfire – https://theconversation.com/what-native-held-lands-in-california-can-teach-about-resilience-and-the-future-of-wildfire-260859

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Sarah J. Morath, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for International Affairs, Wake Forest University

Microplastics seem to be everywhere – in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat. They have turned up in human organs, blood, testicles, placentas and even brains.

While the full health consequences of that exposure are not yet known, researchers are exploring potential links between microplastics and negative health effects such as male infertility, inflammation, liver disease and other metabolic problems, and heart attack or stroke.

Countries have tried for the past few years to write a global plastics treaty that might reduce human exposure to plastic particles and their harm to wildlife and ecosystems, but the latest negotiations collapsed in August 2025. Most plastics are made with chemicals from fossil fuels, and oil-producing countries, including the U.S., have opposed efforts that might limit plastics production.

While U.S. and global solutions seem far off, policies to limit harm from microplastics are gaining traction at the state and local levels.

As an environmental lawyer and author of the book “Our Plastic Problem and How to Solve It,” I see four promising policy strategies.

Banning added microplastics: Glitter, confetti and turf

Some microplastics are deliberately manufactured to be small and added to products. Think glitter in cosmetics, confetti released at celebrations and plastic pellet infill, used between the blades in turf fields to provide cushion and stability.

These tiny plastics inevitably end up in the environment, making their way into the air, water and soil, where they can be inhaled or ingested by humans and other organisms.

California has proposed banning plastic glitter in personal care products. No other state has pursued glitter, however some cities, such as Boca Raton, Florida, have restricted plastic confetti. In 2023, the European Union passed a ban on all nonbiodegradable plastic glitter as well as microplastics intentionally added to products.

Artificial turf has also come under scrutiny. Although turf is popular for its low maintenance, these artificial fields shed microplastics.

European regulators targeted turf infill through the same law for glitter, and municipalities in Connecticut and Massachusetts are considering local bans.

Rhode Island’s proposed law, which would ban all intentionally added microplastics by 2029, is broad enough to include glitter, turf and confetti.

Reducing secondary microplastics: Textiles and tires

Most microplastics don’t start small; rather, they break off from larger items. Two of the biggest culprits of secondary microplastics are synthetic clothing and vehicle tires.

A study in 2019 estimated that textiles accounted for 35% of all microplastics entering the ocean – shed from polyester, nylon or acrylic clothing when washed. Microplastics can carry chemicals and other pollutants, which can bioaccumulate up the food chain.

In an effort to capture the fibers before they are released, France will require filters in all new washing machines by 2029.

Several U.S. states, including Oregon, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, are considering similar legislation. California came close in 2023, passing legislation to require microfiber filters for washing machines, but it was ultimately vetoed due to concerns about the cost of adding the filters. Even so, data submitted in support of the bill showed that such filters could cut microplastic releases from laundry by nearly 80%.

Some states, such as California and New York, are considering warnings on clothing made with synthetic fibers that would alert consumers to the shedding of microplastics.

Tires are another large source of microplastics. As they wear down, tires release millions of tons of particles annually, many of which end up in rivers and oceans. These particles include 6PPD-quinone, a chemical linked to mass die-offs of salmon in the Pacific Northwest.

One approach would be to redesign the product to include safer alternatives. California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control recently added 6PPD-quinone to its priority product list, requiring manufacturers to explain how they will either redesign their product or remove it from the market.

Regulating disposal

Microplastics can also be dealt with at the disposal stage.

Disposable wipes, for example, contain plastic fibers but are still flushed down toilets, clogging pipes and releasing microplastics. States such as New York, California and Michigan have passed “no-flush” labeling laws requiring clear warnings on packaging, alerting consumers to dispose of these wipes another way.

Construction sites also contribute to local microplastic pollution. Towns along the New Jersey shore have enacted ordinances that require builders to prevent microplastics from entering storm drains that can carry them to waterways and the ocean. Such methods include using saws and drills with vacuums to reduce the release of microplastics and cleaning worksites each day.

Oregon and Colorado have new producer responsibility laws that require manufacturers that sell products in plastic packaging to fund recycling programs. California requires manufacturers of expanded polystyrene plastic products to ensure increasing levels of recycling of their products.

Statewide strategies and disclosure laws

Some states are experimenting with broader, statewide strategies based on research.

California’s statewide microplastic strategy, eg: link error. adopted in 2022, is the first of its kind. It requires standardized testing for microplastics in drinking water and sets out a multiyear road map for reducing pollution from textiles, tires and other sources.

California has also begun treating microplastics themselves as a “chemical of concern.” That shifts disclosure and risk assessment obligations to manufacturers, rather than leaving the burden on consumers or local governments.

Other states are pursuing statewide strategies. Virginia, New Jersey and Illinois have considered bills to monitor microplastics in drinking water. A Minnesota bill would study microplastics in meat and poultry, and the findings and recommendations could influence future consumer safety regulations in the state.

State and local initiatives in the U.S. and abroad – be they bans, labels, disclosures or studies – can help keep microplastics out of our environment and lay the foundation for future large-scale regulation.

Federal ripple effects

These state-level initiatives are starting to influence policymakers in Washington.

In June 2025, the U.S. House passed the bipartisan WIPPES Act, modeled on state “no-flush” laws, and sent it to the Senate for consideration.

Another bipartisan bill was introduced in July 2025, the Microplastic Safety Act, which would direct the FDA to research microplastics’ human health impacts, particularly on children and reproductive systems.

Proposals to require microfiber filters in washing machines, first tested at the state level, are also being considered at the federal level.

This pattern is not new. A decade ago, state bans on wash-off cosmetic microbeads paved the way for the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, the only federal law to date that directly bans a type of microplastic. That history suggests today’s state and local actions could again catalyze broader national reform.

Small steps with big impact

Microplastics are a daunting challenge: They come from many sources, are hard to clean up once released, and pose risks to our health and the environment.

While global treaties and sweeping federal legislation remain out of reach, local and state governments are showing a path forward. These microsolutions may not eliminate microplastics, but they can reduce pollution in immediate and measurable ways, creating momentum for larger reforms.

Sarah J. Morath is affiliated with the Global Council for Science and the Environment.

– ref. Solving the world’s microplastics problem: 4 solutions cities and states are trying after global treaty talks collapsed – https://theconversation.com/solving-the-worlds-microplastics-problem-4-solutions-cities-and-states-are-trying-after-global-treaty-talks-collapsed-263782

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Aeimit Lakdawala, Associate Professor of Economics, Wake Forest University

Republican-leaning economists tend to predict stronger economic growth when a Republican is president than Democrats do – and because of this partisan optimism, their forecasts end up being less accurate.

I’m an economist, and my colleagues and I found this by analyzing nearly 40 years of responses to The Wall Street Journal’s Economic Forecasting Survey. Unlike most such surveys, the Journal publishes each forecaster’s name, allowing us to link their predictions to their political affiliations.

The respondents were professional economists at major banks, consulting firms and universities whose forecasts help guide financial markets and business decisions. Out of more than 300 economists in our sample, we could identify the political affiliations of 122. We did this by looking at the forecasters’ political donation records, voter registration data and work histories with partisan groups.

The pattern was striking: Republican forecasters systematically predicted higher gross domestic product growth when their party controlled the presidency, representing roughly 10% to 15% of average growth rates during our study period.

When we examined forecast accuracy using real-time GDP data, Republican forecasters made larger errors when their preferred party held office. This suggests partisan optimism makes their professional judgment worse.

What makes this finding particularly notable is its asymmetry. The partisan gap emerged specifically during Republican presidencies. Under Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, Republican and Democratic forecasters made virtually identical predictions. That wasn’t the case when George W. Bush, and later Donald Trump, occupied the White House.

Interestingly, this bias appears only in GDP forecasts. When we analyzed predictions for inflation, unemployment and interest rates, we found no systematic differences between Republican and Democratic forecasters.

That makes sense, because GDP forecasts are inherently more uncertain than other economic predictions. Professional forecasters tend to disagree more and make more mistakes when predicting GDP compared to inflation or unemployment rates. This creates opportunities for partisan ideologies to sneak in.

We traced the bias to different views about the effectiveness of tax policies. Using Google Trends data to measure when tax cuts were in the news, we found Republican forecasters become systematically more optimistic precisely when tax policy discussions heat up.

Why it matters

Previous research has found that most people have a strong partisan bias when they make economic predictions. Our work is the first to show that professional economists can also succumb to such influences – despite their training and market incentives to be accurate.

Their errors can come at a high price. Financial markets, policymakers and businesses rely on economists’ forecasts to make major decisions. When the Federal Reserve sets interest rates, when companies plan investments and when investors allocate portfolios, they often reference these professional consensus forecasts.

Our research challenges a common assumption in economics: that aggregating diverse expert forecasts eliminates individual biases and improves accuracy.

This doesn’t mean professional forecasters are incompetent or dishonest. These are highly trained economists with strong financial incentives for accuracy. Rather, our findings reveal how even experts with the best intentions can be unconsciously influenced by their own ideological beliefs – especially when dealing with inherently uncertain data.

What still isn’t known

Several important questions remain unanswered. It’s unclear how this bias might be reduced. Would making forecasters more aware of their political leanings help reduce the effect? Or would developing new forecasting methods that weight predictions based on historical accuracy during different political regimes improve consensus forecasts?

We’re also curious whether institutional factors matter. Might forecasters at institutions with explicit political diversity policies show less bias? How do international forecasters viewing the U.S. economy compare to domestic ones?

Finally, our research focuses on U.S. forecasters during a period of increasing political polarization. Whether similar patterns emerge in other countries with different political systems, or during less polarized times, remains an open question.

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

Aeimit Lakdawala has previously received funding from NSF.

– ref. Even professional economists can’t escape political bias – https://theconversation.com/even-professional-economists-cant-escape-political-bias-263153

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Alice Zhang, Assistant Professor of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State

In the lobby of the YMCA in Reading, Pennsylvania, stands a row of vending machines – but one machine is different from the rest.

Instead of stocking chips or soda, this vending machine has drug-testing strips, hygiene kits, socks, soap, wound care supplies and naloxone, a medication also known by its brand name Narcan that is used to reverse opioid overdoses – all completely free.

The Health To Go vending machine has been in the Reading YMCA for over a year. Another one is in Harrisburg, outside of the UPMC Harrisburg Emergency Department. The machines list the names of resources such as mental health care, food banks, housing assistance and substance use disorder treatment on the screen and provide contact information and a QR code to scan for more info.

We are a physician and assistant professor of family and community medicine and a criminal justice professor at Penn State University and have been part of a collective effort to put these two Health To Go vending machines in place. The vending machines are part of a growing movement in the United States to provide easy access to harm-reduction resources.

Naloxone, wound care kits and more

Harm-reduction vending machines became popular in cities across the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic, when people could not easily access in-person services and when drug overdose deaths also rose dramatically.

Most machines dispense naloxone nasal spray to reverse overdoses and other items such as syringes and fentanyl test strips. Some, like the Health To Go machines, also offer general health and hygiene items such as soap, toothpaste and toothbrushes, and pregnancy tests. If a person is seen at the machine, they could be getting a toothbrush and socks or they could be getting naloxone – no one watching would necessarily know. Also, the nature of the vending machine means the people using them don’t need to interact with a person to obtain Narcan or drug-checking strips, as many people with substance use disorder feel stigma or embarrassment about their addiction.

The Health To Go vending machines are interactive, with a large touch screen in the front. The vending machine is connected to WiFi and cellular data and is able to capture anonymous information on how people are using the machine. The machine can also ask users survey questions to get their feedback, such as whether there are other items they would like to see in the machine or whether they think the machine is having an impact on reducing stigma on substance use.

These machines in Pennsylvania, where over 3,300 people died of drug overdose in 2024, down from over 5,300 in 2021, are funded by grants from Penn State College of Medicine, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, UPMC Pinnacle Foundation and opioid settlement funds from Dauphin and Berks counties.

All of this data helps the team know how to improve the machine to better serve people with opioid addiction, as well as people experiencing homelessness and having trouble affording basic needs. The touch screen is also able to play videos, such as a quick explainer on how to use fentanyl testing strips and testimonials from people in recovery, and display local community resources and services where people can get help.

Over the past year, the two Health To Go vending machines in Reading and Harrisburg have dispensed more than 11,000 items. The most popular items are the hygiene kits, with over 3,300 dispensed. The kits contain toothbrushes, toothpaste, socks, combs, nail clippers, ChapStick, mouthwash, soap and towels. The machines also have dispensed nearly 1,900 doses of naloxone, 1,700 wound care kits, and over 1,500 safer sex kits.

We interviewed 10 vending machine users in Reading in the winter and spring of 2025. “I was homeless and I didn’t have any money,” one woman shared with us. “It sounded too good to be true, and then I got here and got all that stuff for free. … Just having a clean pair of socks, that’s awesome.”

More than 2,300 distinct usernames were registered to the two machines in the past year. The usernames are the person’s birth year, a color and a nature or animal icon. This allows us to track individuals anonymously over time as they use the machine and get info as they answer survey questions. Nearly 40% of users reported being unemployed, and almost a quarter said they are experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.

Out of those surveyed, 4 in 5 said they had trouble paying for basic needs, and over a third had not seen a health care provider in the past year.

A judgment-free alternative

Health To Go vending machine users reported that they used the machines because the supplies were free, available 24/7, and they could get what they needed easily and without facing judgment.

For people who feel uncomfortable in traditional health care settings or talking to someone in person, these vending machines offer a judgment-free alternative.

“You don’t have no one looking over your shoulder, you have no one condemning you for, you know, getting an HIV kit or getting a pregnancy test kit or getting a wound kit,” a vending machine user we surveyed told us. “There’s no one there behind you, just like, ‘Oh my God, you have HIV.’”

“Nobody wants to walk up to somebody and say, ‘Hey, excuse me, can I get a Narcan kit, or can I get a fentanyl test strip?’” another vending machine user said. “It just makes you feel … like not whole. I don’t want other people to know that I’m in an addiction.”

We think that putting naloxone and drug-checking strips alongside other health and hygiene items helps to normalize them. We also believe calling it Health To Go puts the focus on health, not just on substance use.

The team plans to install at least two more machines in central Pennsylvania within the next year. By removing barriers such as cost, hours of operation and potential stigma, the Health To Go vending machines are able to reach people who may otherwise fall through the cracks of traditional health care.

As one machine user explained, “They are saving people from STDs and stuff like that. They’re saving people from overdosing. They’re saving people from dying.”

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania.

Alice Zhang receives funding from National Institute on Drug Abuse, UPMC Pinnacle Foundation, Dauphin County, Berks County, York County, and Penn State College of Medicine.

Jennifer Murphy 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. Harm-reduction vending machines offer free naloxone, pregnancy tests and hygiene kits – https://theconversation.com/harm-reduction-vending-machines-offer-free-naloxone-pregnancy-tests-and-hygiene-kits-263159