Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By William D. Spangler, Associate Professor Emeritus of Management, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Niccolò Machiavelli, the infamous author of “The Prince,” wrote in the 1500s that the ideal leader makes and breaks solemn agreements. He creates alliances with weak allies to defeat a powerful enemy and then eliminates them one by one. He blames his next-in-charge for his own mistakes, and he executes opponents in public.

St. Francis of Assisi was the antithesis of a Machiavellian leader. Born in 1181, the future saint renounced his father’s wealth, then spent the remainder of his life wandering around northern Italy as a beggar and preacher. Francis gained a reputation for extreme humility – but certainly he was not weak. He dealt with popes, nobles and even an Egyptian sultan. He founded a religious order, the Franciscans, that survives today.

In modern times, Machiavellian leaders abound in the corporate world. Perhaps more surprisingly, many other business leaders resemble Francis: humble and self-effacing, but by no means weak. In our research, we argue that two types of motivation help to explain these vast and enduring differences in leadership.

‘Two faces of power’

Psychologists have long been fascinated by people’s nonconscious motives – and how to measure them. One influential assessment, developed in the 1930s, is the Thematic Apperception Test, or TAT. People write short stories about ambiguous pictures, and researchers then analyze the stories to see which themes emerge: what the writer cares or worries about, and how they see the world.

In 1970, psychologist David McClelland coined the phrase “the two faces of power” to describe two different types of power that motivate people, based on his TAT analyses: personal power and socialized power. Personal power is the motivation to dominate others. McClelland noted that people with a desire for personal power tend to use imagery that evokes “the ‘law of the jungle’ in which the strongest survive by destroying their adversaries.” Socialized power, on the other hand, aims to benefit others.

McClelland noted that personal power was associated with behavior like heavy drinking, gambling, aggressive impulses and collecting “prestige supplies,” like convertibles. People concerned with the more socialized aspect of power, meanwhile, join more organizations and are more apt to become officers in them, including sports teams.

A few years later, McClelland and consultant David Burnham published an article titled “Power is the Great Motivator,” elaborating on this basic link between power motivation and leader effectiveness. Through a series of biographical vignettes and an analysis of a large company, they showed that managers exhibiting a high degree of socialized power were more effective than managers motivated by personal power.

Measuring motivation

It seemed to us that personal power, the “law of the jungle,” motivates the kinds of behavior approvingly described by Machiavelli. Likewise, socialized power seemed to underlie the forceful but altruistic behavior of St. Francis and modern so-called humble leaders.

But we faced a problem: how to measure motivation. Powerful people such as world-class CEOs have little inclination to take TATs or answer questionnaires for admittedly humble scholars.

In the 1990s, psychologist David Winter showed that speeches, interviews and diplomatic texts reveal nonconscious motivation in the same way as the Thematic Apperception Test – demonstrating a way to study leaders’ views of power. For example, someone driven by a desire for personal power often tries to control or regulate people around them; attempts to persuade and convince; and is concerned with fame, status and reputation.

However, Winters’ procedures for analyzing texts are manual and complex; it is difficult to process a large number of documents. Also, he focused on personal power; socialized power was not included in his coding procedures.

Words and action

In order to overcome these limitations, we used computer-aided text analysis to analyze the language of CEOs in interviews and conference calls.

In a series of 2019 studies, which were peer-reviewed and summarized in the Academy of Management Proceedings, our team identified 40 Machiavellian and 40 humble CEOs. First, we took a close look at the types of words and phrases that distinguished the two groups, shedding light on the kind of power that motivates each one.

Using these patterns, we created two “dictionaries” of words and phrases that expressed personal power and socialized power. Language about strong, forceful actions, control, managing impressions, punishment and fear of failure, to name a few themes, constituted the personal power dictionary. “Defeat,” “overrun” and “strafe,” for example, appeared among the words on the personal power list. Themes such as rewards, mentoring and positive relationships characterized the socialized power dictionary.

Then, we used a computer program to scan hundreds of interviews and quarterly conference calls. The computer program calculated personal and socialized power scores for each of the CEOs.

Our team also developed indexes of Machiavellian and humble leader behavior – such as smearing competitors and backing out of agreements, or making significant donations to charity, respectively – and measured all 80 CEOs.

We found very high correlations between power motivation and CEO behavior. CEOs with high personal power scores, based on our analysis of their interviews and conference calls, also tended to show Machiavellian behavior. CEO humble behavior was positively related to socialized power.

People and profits

Do these abstract statistical results really mean anything? Evidently.

Numerous CEOs from our list of humble executives have founded or managed exceptionally successful and people-oriented companies, including Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway, Danny Wegman of Wegmans, and James Goodnight of the SAS Institute. Several of the “humble” CEOs have appeared multiple times on Fortune’s annual Best Companies to Work For list.

The Machiavellian CEO list included Kenneth Lay of Enron fame and John Rigas, one of the founders of Adelphia Communications Corporation, who was convicted of fraud. Mark Hurd, one-time CEO of Hewlett Packard, appeared on Complex’s list of the worst chief executive officers in tech history. In general, criticisms of “profits over people,” poor treatment of employees, scandals, lavish spending, lawsuits and accusations or convictions of fraud characterize many of our Machiavellian CEOs.

McClelland and Burnham were right. Power really is the “great motivator,” but it’s the type of power that makes the difference.

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. Personal power v. socialized power: What Machiavelli and St. Francis can tell us about modern CEOs – https://theconversation.com/personal-power-v-socialized-power-what-machiavelli-and-st-francis-can-tell-us-about-modern-ceos-258016

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Chanam Lee, Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University

Stress on college students can be palpable, and it hits them from every direction: academic challenges, social pressures and financial burdens, all intermingled with their first taste of independence. It’s part of the reason why anxiety and depression are common among the 19 million students now enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities, and why incidents of suicide and suicidal ideation are rising.

In the 2024 National College Health Assessment Report, 30% of the 30,000 students surveyed said anxiety negatively affected their academic performance, with 20% at risk for symptoms that suggest severe psychological distress, such as feelings of sadness, nervousness and hopelessness. No wonder the demand for mental health services has been increasing for about a decade.

Many schools have rightfully responded to this demand by offering students more counseling. That is important, of course, but there’s another approach that could help alleviate the need for counseling: Creating a campus environment that promotes health. Simply put, add more green space.

We are scholars who study the impact that the natural environment has on students, particularly in the place where they spend much of their time – the college campus. Decades of research show that access to green spaces can lower stress and foster a stronger sense of belonging – benefits that are particularly critical for students navigating the pressures of higher education.

Making campuses green

In 2020, our research team at Texas A&M University launched a Green Campus Initiative to promote a healthier campus environment. Our goal was to find ways to design, plan and manage such an environment by developing evidence-based strategies.

Our survey of more than 400 Texas A&M students showed that abundant greenery, nature views and quality walking paths can help with mental health issues.

More than 80% of the students we surveyed said they already have their favorite outdoor places on campus. One of them is Aggie Park, 20 acres of green space with exercise trails, walking and bike paths and rocking chairs by a lake. Many students noted that such green spaces are a break from daily routines, a positive distraction from negative thoughts and a place to exercise.

Our survey confirms other research that shows students who spend time outdoors – particularly in places with mature trees, open fields, parks, gardens and water – report better moods and lower stress. More students are physically active when on a campus with good walkability and plenty of sidewalks, trails and paths. Just the physical activity itself is linked to many mental health benefits, including reduced anxiety and depression.

Outdoor seating, whether rocking chairs or park benches, also has numerous benefits. More time spent talking to others is one of them, but what might be surprising is that enhanced reading performance is another. More trees and plants mean more shaded areas, particularly during hot summers, and that too encourages students to spend more time outside and be active.

Less anxiety, better academic performance

In short, the surrounding environment matters, but not just for college students or those living or working on a campus. Across different groups and settings, research shows that being near green spaces reduces stress, anxiety and depression.

Even a garden or tree-lined street helps.

In Philadelphia, researchers transformed 110 vacant lot clusters into green spaces. That led to improvements in mental health for residents living nearby. Those using the green spaces reported lower levels of stress and anxiety, but just viewing nature from a window was helpful too.

Our colleagues discovered similar findings when conducting a randomized trial with high school students who took a test before and after break periods in classrooms with different window views: no window, a window facing a building or parking lot, or a window overlooking green landscapes. Students with views of greenery recovered faster from mental fatigue and performed significantly better on attention tasks.

It’s still unclear exactly why green spaces are good places to go when experiencing stress and anxiety; nevertheless, it is clear that spending time in nature is beneficial for mental well-being.

Small can be better

It’s critical to note that enhancing your surroundings isn’t just about green space. Other factors play a role. After analyzing data from 13 U.S. universities, our research shows that school size, locale, region and religious affiliation all make a difference and are significant predictors of mental health.

Specifically, we found that students at schools with smaller populations, schools in smaller communities, schools in the southern U.S. or schools with religious affiliations generally had better mental health than students at other schools. Those students had less stress, anxiety and depression, and a lower risk of suicide when compared with peers at larger universities with more than 5,000 students, schools in urban areas, institutions in the Midwest and West or those without religious ties.

No one can change their genes or demographics, but an environment can always be modified – and for the better. For a relatively cheap investment, more green space at a school offers long-term benefits to generations of students. After all, a campus is more than just buildings. No doubt, the learning that takes place inside them educates the mind. But what’s on the outside, research shows, nurtures the soul.

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. Adding more green space to a campus is a simple, cheap and healthy way to help millions of stressed and depressed college students – https://theconversation.com/adding-more-green-space-to-a-campus-is-a-simple-cheap-and-healthy-way-to-help-millions-of-stressed-and-depressed-college-students-251461

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Leo S. Lo, Dean of Libraries; Advisor to the Provost for AI Literacy; Professor of Education, University of Virginia

Artificial intelligence systems are thirsty, consuming as much as 500 milliliters of water – a single-serving water bottle – for each short conversation a user has with the GPT-3 version of OpenAI’s ChatGPT system. They use roughly the same amount of water to draft a 100-word email message.

That figure includes the water used to cool the data center’s servers and the water consumed at the power plants generating the electricity to run them.

But the study that calculated those estimates also pointed out that AI systems’ water usage can vary widely, depending on where and when the computer answering the query is running.

To me, as an academic librarian and professor of education, understanding AI is not just about knowing how to write prompts. It also involves understanding the infrastructure, the trade-offs, and the civic choices that surround AI.

Many people assume AI is inherently harmful, especially given headlines calling out its vast energy and water footprint. Those effects are real, but they’re only part of the story.

When people move from seeing AI as simply a resource drain to understanding its actual footprint, where the effects come from, how they vary, and what can be done to reduce them, they are far better equipped to make choices that balance innovation with sustainability.

2 hidden streams

Behind every AI query are two streams of water use.

The first is on-site cooling of servers that generate enormous amounts of heat. This often uses evaporative cooling towers – giant misters that spray water over hot pipes or open basins. The evaporation carries away heat, but that water is removed from the local water supply, such as a river, a reservoir or an aquifer. Other cooling systems may use less water but more electricity.

The second stream is used by the power plants generating the electricity to power the data center. Coal, gas and nuclear plants use large volumes of water for steam cycles and cooling.

Hydropower also uses up significant amounts of water, which evaporates from reservoirs. Concentrated solar plants, which run more like traditional steam power stations, can be water-intensive if they rely on wet cooling.

By contrast, wind turbines and solar panels use almost no water once built, aside from occasional cleaning.

Climate and timing matter

Water use shifts dramatically with location. A data center in cool, humid Ireland can often rely on outside air or chillers and run for months with minimal water use. By contrast, a data center in Arizona in July may depend heavily on evaporative cooling. Hot, dry air makes that method highly effective, but it also consumes large volumes of water, since evaporation is the mechanism that removes heat.

Timing matters too. A University of Massachusetts Amherst study found that a data center might use only half as much water in winter as in summer. And at midday during a heat wave, cooling systems work overtime. At night, demand is lower.

Newer approaches offer promising alternatives. For instance, immersion cooling submerges servers in fluids that don’t conduct electricity, such as synthetic oils, reducing water evaporation almost entirely.

And a new design from Microsoft claims to use zero water for cooling, by circulating a special liquid through sealed pipes directly across computer chips. The liquid absorbs heat and then releases it through a closed-loop system without needing any evaporation. The data centers would still use some potable water for restrooms and other staff facilities, but cooling itself would no longer draw from local water supplies.

These solutions are not yet mainstream, however, mainly because of cost, maintenance complexity and the difficulty of converting existing data centers to new systems. Most operators rely on evaporative systems.

A simple skill you can use

The type of AI model being queried matters, too. That’s because of the different levels of complexity and the hardware and amount of processor power they require. Some models may use far more resources than others. For example, one study found that certain models can consume over 70 times more energy and water than ultra‑efficient ones.

You can estimate AI’s water footprint yourself in just three steps, with no advanced math required.

Step 1 – Look for credible research or official disclosures. Independent analyses estimate that a medium-length GPT-5 response, which is about 150 to 200 words of output, or roughly 200 to 300 tokens, uses about 19.3 watt-hours. A response of similar length from GPT-4o uses about 1.75 watt-hours.

Step 2 – Use a practical estimate for the amount of water per unit of electricity, combining the usage for cooling and for power.

Independent researchers and industry reports suggest that a reasonable range today is about 1.3 to 2.0 milliliters per watt-hour. The lower end reflects efficient facilities that use modern cooling and cleaner grids. The higher end represents more typical sites.

Step 3 – Now it’s time to put the pieces together. Take the energy number you found in Step 1 and multiply it by the water factor from Step 2. That gives you the water footprint of a single AI response.

Here’s the one-line formula you’ll need:

Energy per prompt (watt-hours) × Water factor (milliliters per watt-hour) = Water per prompt (in milliliters)

For a medium-length query to GPT-5, that calculation should use the figures of 19.3 watt-hours and 2 milliliters per watt-hour. 19.3 x 2 = 39 milliliters of water per response.

For a medium-length query to GPT-4o, the calculation is 1.75 watt-hours x 2 milliliters per watt-hour = 3.5 milliliters of water per response.

If you assume the data centers are more efficient, and use 1.3 milliliters per watt-hour, the numbers drop: about 25 milliliters for GPT-5 and 2.3 milliliters for GPT-4o.

A recent Google technical report said a median text prompt to its Gemini system uses just 0.24 watt-hours of electricity and about 0.26 milliliters of water – roughly the volume of five drops. However, the report does not say how long that prompt is, so it can’t be compared directly with GPT water usage.

Those different estimates – ranging from 0.26 milliliters to 39 milliliters – demonstrate how much the effects of efficiency, AI model and power-generation infrastructure all matter.

Comparisons can add context

To truly understand how much water these queries use, it can be helpful to compare them to other familiar water uses.

When multiplied by millions, AI queries’ water use adds up. OpenAI reports about 2.5 billion prompts per day. That figure includes queries to its GPT-4o, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-3.5 and GPT-5 systems, with no public breakdown of how many queries are issued to each particular model.

Using independent estimates and Google’s official reporting gives a sense of the possible range:

• All Google Gemini median prompts: about 650,000 liters per day.
• All GPT 4o medium prompts: about 8.8 million liters per day.
• All GPT 5 medium prompts: about 97.5 million liters per day.

For comparison, Americans use about 34 billion liters per day watering residential lawns and gardens. One liter is about one-quarter of a gallon.

Generative AI does use water, but – at least for now – its daily totals are small compared with other common uses such as lawns, showers and laundry.

But its water demand is not fixed. Google’s disclosure shows what is possible when systems are optimized, with specialized chips, efficient cooling and smart workload management. Recycling water and locating data centers in cooler, wetter regions can help, too.

Transparency matters, as well: When companies release their data, the public, policymakers and researchers can see what is achievable and compare providers fairly.

Leo S. Lo 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 has a hidden water cost − here’s how to calculate yours – https://theconversation.com/ai-has-a-hidden-water-cost-heres-how-to-calculate-yours-263252

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Shari Edelson, Ph.D. Candidate in Recreation, Park and Tourism Management, Penn State

If you’re one of the 63 million Americans who went hiking last year, chances are you’ve found yourself needing to go, with no toilet in sight.

Aside from personal inconvenience, why is this such a big deal?

Human fecal contamination is a public health concern in natural areas. Pathogens in human poop can remain active for a long time – over a year in outdoor environments – meaning that waste left behind today can cause severe gastrointestinal disease and other sicknesses for future visitors. Fecal waste can enter waterways after storms or snowmelt, harming water quality. Finally, it can be upsetting – or at the least, unpleasant – to encounter someone else’s poop and used toilet paper in nature.

As a researcher and a Ph.D. candidate who study human impacts on parks and protected areas, we have been thinking quite a lot about poop and ways people can tread more lightly on the landscape. Our focus is on Leave No Trace, an environmental education framework – created by an organization with the same name – that helps people implement minimal-impact practices in the outdoors.

Poop is causing problems in parks and protected areas

From the Appalachian Trail and Mount Everest – known as Sagarmatha in Nepali – to national parks in Norway and Aotearoa – known as New Zealand to English speakers, researchers have documented the negative impacts our bodily wastes are causing in the sensitive environments where we seek recreation and restoration.

In Colorado, the problem has gotten so bad that land managers have decided to take action. In the Eagle-Holy Cross District of the White River National Forest, for example, the U.S. Forest Service now requires visitors to take their human waste out with them.

Best practices for dealing with your poo in the great outdoors

One of us – Derrick Taff – works as a science adviser to Leave No Trace, an organization that has educated outdoor recreationists on this issue for more than 30 years and has provided concrete guidance based on scientific research.

The first rule of thumb is to avoid the possibility of contamination entirely by not leaving waste in natural areas to begin with. Toilet facilities are regarded as the most effective method to reduce human waste in the backcountry. If there’s a toilet at the trailhead, use it before you head out.

Current research we’re doing in Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming and San Isabel National Forest in Colorado confirms that hikers prefer to use trailhead toilets when they’re available.

But as anyone who’s been out in the woods is aware, remote wilderness areas do not necessarily offer such infrastructure. Access for maintenance and waste removal costs are major barriers for land management agencies considering installing backcountry toilets.

And then there’s the very real likelihood that even when trailhead facilities do exist, you may be far away when nature calls. In our own research, pending publication, we surveyed hikers on Colorado’s Mount Elbert. Up to 70% of those needing to poop ended up doing so in the backcountry despite the presence of a trailhead toilet.

Issues develop because hikers aren’t prepared

This issue may persist because people aren’t aware of the current rules. In our soon-to-be-published study of Grand Teton hikers, 66% of backcountry trail visitors reported that they had not received any information on how to dispose of human waste in the park.

Other reasons why people may not follow the rules are because they may consider them onerous or unimportant.

Research shows that clear, actionable messaging including relevant environmental and moral appeals does make a difference in shifting people’s behaviors in the outdoors. Although individual choices may seem inconsequential, they add up to big impacts in the aggregate.

How to poop in the backcountry

So what to do when there really is no potty? Leave No Trace advises us of two main options.

The first is to dig a little pit, commonly called a cat hole, and deposit your poop in there. Can’t aim? No worries – Just poop next to the hole and scoop it in afterward.

The use of cat holes is recommended in areas where it’s possible to dig roughly the length of your hand deep in the soil, where moist ground indicates that material buried there will decompose, and where digging is not likely to disturb fragile environments. Make sure you’re about 70 steps away from any water source, trail or campsite to avoid water contamination and reduce the likelihood that someone else will accidentally come upon your waste.

You can typically leave toilet paper in a cat hole, but check local regulations and carry it out in a sealed bag if not. Never leave wet wipes behind. They don’t biodegrade.

Outdoor companies are now making lightweight trowels designed for digging cat holes in the backcountry. But there are also places where it’s difficult if not impossible to dig a cat hole because of snow, frozen ground, shallow soil or exposed bedrock, or where leaving human waste in the outdoors is not recommended due to environmental conditions. These typically include high-mountain zones above tree line, alpine environments inhabited by delicate and slow-growing flora, and deserts and other arid places characterized by low soil moisture.

In places like this, it’s best to remove all poop and toilet paper and dispose of it in a proper location such as a trash can at the trailhead or even back at your home. Before you recoil in horror, remember that dog owners do this with their pets’ waste when on a walk.

Wag bags – short for waste aggregation and gelling – are used to pack out poop. Wag bag kits typically include an inner and an outer bag as well as a drying agent to prevent odor and leakage. Our current research, as well as a recent study of Norwegian park users, has demonstrated that people are willing to use them.

Our study found that among people who defecated while on a hike to the summit of Mount Elbert, 30% used a wag bag to carry their waste off the mountain, and 87% expressed willingness to use one on future trips.

These results suggest that people are willing to do the right thing when given the proper tools and information, and that it’s possible to effectively teach people how to care for our wild spaces.

Shari Edelson has received research funding from the National Park Service, the National Science Foundation and PACT Outdoors.

B. Derrick Taff is an Assistant Dean of Research and Graduate Education in the College of Health and Human Development, and an Associate Professor in the Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Management at Penn State University; he also serves as the Leave No Trace organization’s science advisor. Derrick is the Suzie and Allen Martin Professor through Penn State University.

– ref. How to poop outdoors in a way that won’t harm the environment and other hikers – https://theconversation.com/how-to-poop-outdoors-in-a-way-that-wont-harm-the-environment-and-other-hikers-262426

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jedediah Blanton, Assistant Professor of Kinesiology, Recreation and Sport Studies, University of Tennessee

Coach Smith was an easy hire as the head coach of a new high school lacrosse team in Tennesseee: She had two decades of coaching experience and a doctorate in sport and exercise science.

After signing the paperwork, which guaranteed a stipend of US$1,200, Smith – we’re using a pseudonym to protect her identity – had four days to complete a background check, CPR and concussion training and a Fundamentals of Coaching online course. After spending $300 to check all these boxes, the job was hers.

The Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association’s mission statement highlights how high school athletes should be molded into good citizens and have their educational experiences enhanced by playing sports.

Yet Coach Smith hadn’t received any guidance on how to accomplish these goals. She didn’t know how a high school coach would be evaluated – surely it went beyond wins, losses and knowing CPR – or how to make her players better students and citizens.

Over the past 15 years, our work has focused on maximizing the benefits of high school sports and recognizing what limits those benefits from being reached. We want to know what high school sports aspire to be and what actually happens on the ground.

We have learned that Coach Smith is not alone; this is a common story playing out on high school fields and courts across the country. Good coaching candidates are getting hired and doing their best to keep high school sports fixtures in their communities. But coaches often feel like they’re missing something, and they wonder whether they’re living up to those aspirations.

Does the mission match reality?

Dating back to the inception of school-sponsored sport leagues in 1903, parents and educators have long believed that interscholastic sports are a place where students develop character and leadership skills.

Research generally backs up the advantages of playing sports. In 2019, high school sports scholar Stéphanie Turgeon published a review paper highlighting the benefits and drawbacks of playing school sports. She found that student-athletes were less likely to drop out, more likely to be better at emotional regulation and more likely to contribute to their communities. While athletes reported more stress and were more likely to drink alcohol, Turgeon concluded that the positives outweighed the negatives.

The governing body of high school sports in the U.S., the National Federation of State High School Associations, oversees 8 million students. According to its mission statement, the organization seeks to establish “playing rules that emphasize health and safety,” create “educational programs that develop leaders” and provide “administrative support to increase opportunities and promote sportsmanship.”

Digging deeper into the goals of sports governing bodies, we recently conducted a study that reviewed and analyzed the mission statements of all 51 of the member state associations that officially sponsor high school sports and activities.

In their missions, most associations described the services they provided – supervising competition, creating uniform rules of play and offering professional development opportunities for coaches and administrators. A majority aimed to instill athletes with life skills such as leadership, sportsmanship and wellness. Most also emphasized the relationship between sports and education, either suggesting that athletics should support or operate alongside schools’ academic goals or directly create educational opportunities for athletes on the playing field. And a handful explicitly aspired to protect student-athletes from abuse and exploitation.

Interestingly, seven state associations mentioned that sports participation is a privilege, with three adding the line “and not a right.” This seems to conflict with the National Federation of State High School Associations, which has said that it wants to reach as many students as possible. The organization sees high school sports as a place where kids can further their education, which is a right in the U.S. This is important, particularly as youth sports have developed into a multibillion-dollar industry fueled by expensive travel leagues and club teams.

We also noticed what was largely missing from these mission statements. Only two state athletic associations included a goal for students to “have fun” playing sports. Research dating back to the 1970s has consistently shown that wanting to have fun is usually the No. 1 reason kids sign up for sports in the first place.

Giving coaches the tools to succeed

Missions statements are supposed to guide organizations and outline their goals. For high school sports, the opportunity exists to more clearly align educational initiatives and evaluation efforts to fulfill their missions.

If high school sports are really meant to build leadership and life skills, you would think that the adults running these programs would be eager to acquire the skill set to do this. Sure enough, when we surveyed high school coaches across the country in 2019, we found that 90% reported that formal leadership training programs were a good idea. Yet less than 12% had actually participated in those programs.

A recent study led by physical education scholar Obidiah Atkinson highlighted this disconnect. While most states require training for coaches, the depth and amount of instruction varied significantly, with little emphasis on social–emotional health and youth development. In another study we conducted, we spoke with administrators. They admitted that coaches rarely receive training to effectively teach the leadership and life skills that high school sports promise to deliver.

This type of training is available; we helped the National Federation of State High School Associations create three free courses explicitly focused on developing student leadership. Thousands of students and coaches have completed these courses, with students reporting that the courses have helped them develop leadership as a life skill. And it’s exciting to see that the organization offers over 60 courses reaching millions of learners on topics ranging from Heat Illness Prevention and Sudden Cardiac Arrest, to Coaching Mental Wellness and Engaging Effectively with Parents.

Yet, our research findings suggest that if these aspirational missions are to be taken seriously, it’s important to really measure what matters.

Educational programs can be evaluated to determine whether and how they are helping coaches and students, and coaches ought to be evaluated and retained based on their ability to help athletes learn how to do more than kick a soccer ball or throw a strike. Our findings highlight the opportunity for high school athletic associations and researchers to work together to better understand how this training is helping coaches to meet the promises of high school sports.

Taking these steps will help to make sure coaches like Coach Smith have the tools, support and feedback they need to succeed.

Jedediah Blanton received funding from the Michigan High School Athletic Association. The contract was to build online courses for the NFHS Learn platform.

Scott Pierce has consulted with the Michigan High School Athletic Association and Illinois High School Association to support student leadership initiatives. He has received funding from the Michigan High School Athletic Association. The contract was to build online courses for the NFHS Learn platform.

– ref. Are high school sports living up to their ideals? – https://theconversation.com/are-high-school-sports-living-up-to-their-ideals-256770

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By David Kroll, Professor of Natural Products Pharmacology & Toxicology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

David Bregger had never heard of kratom before his son, Daniel, 33, died in Denver in 2021 from using what he thought was a natural and safe remedy for anxiety.

By his father’s account, Daniel didn’t know that the herbal product could kill him. The product listed no ingredients or safe-dosing information on the label. And it had no warning that it should not be combined with other sedating drugs, such as the over-the-counter antihistamine diphenhydramine, which is the active ingredient in Benadryl and other sleep aids.

As the fourth anniversary of Daniel’s death approaches, a recently enacted Colorado law aims to prevent other families from experiencing the heartbreak shared by the Bregger family. Colorado Senate Bill 25-072, known as the Daniel Bregger Act, addresses what the state legislature calls the deceptive trade practices around the sale of concentrated kratom products artificially enriched with a chemical called 7-OH.

7-OH, known as 7-hydroxymitragynine, has also garnered national attention. On July 29, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that products containing 7-OH are potent opioids that can pose significant health risks and even death.

As kratom and its constituents are studied in greater detail, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and university researchers have documented hundreds of deaths where kratom-derived chemicals were present in postmortem blood tests. But rarely is kratom deadly by itself. In a study of 551 kratom-related deaths in Florida, 93.5% involved other substances such as opioids like fentanyl.

I study pharmaceutical sciences, have taught for over 30 years about herbal supplements like kratom, and I’ve written about kratom’s effects and controversy.

Kratom – one name, many products

Kratom is a broad term used to describe products made from the leaves of a Southeast Asian tree known scientifically as Mitragyna speciosa. The Latin name derives from the shape of its leaves, which resemble a bishop’s miter, the ceremonial, pointed headdress worn by bishops and other church leaders.

Kratom is made from dried and powdered leaves that can be chewed or made into a tea. Used by rice field workers and farmers in Thailand to increase stamina and productivity, kratom initially alleviates fatigue with an effect like that of caffeine. In larger amounts, it imparts a sense of well-being similar to opioids.

In fact, mitragynine, which is found in small amounts in kratom, partially stimulates opioid receptors in the central nervous system. These are the same type of opioid receptors that trigger the effects of drugs such as morphine and oxycodone. They are also the same receptors that can slow or stop breathing when overstimulated.

In the body, the small amount of mitragynine in kratom powder is converted to 7-OH by liver enzymes, hence the opioid-like effects in the body. 7-OH can also be made in a lab and is used to increase the potency of certain kratom products, including the ones found in gas stations or liquor stores.

And therein lies the controversy over the risks and benefits of kratom.

Natural or lab made: All medicines have risks

Because kratom is a plant-derived product, it has fallen into a murky enforcement area. It is sold as an herbal supplement, normally by the kilogram from online retailers overseas.

In 2016, I wrote a series of articles for Forbes as the Drug Enforcement Administration proposed to list kratom constituents on the most restrictive Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act. This classification is reserved for drugs the DEA determines to possess “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse,” such as heroin and LSD.

But readers countered the DEA’s stance and sent me more than 200 messages that primarily documented their use of kratom as an alternative to opioids for pain.

Others described how kratom assisted them in recovery from addiction to alcohol or opioids themselves. Similar stories also flooded the official comments requested by the DEA, and the public pressure presumably led the agency to drop its plan to regulate kratom as a controlled substance.

But not all of the stories pointed to kratom’s benefits. Instead, some people pointed out a major risk: becoming addicted to kratom itself. I learned it is a double-edged sword – remedy to some, recreational risk to others. A national survey of kratom users was consistent with my nonscientific sampling, showing more than half were using the supplement to relieve pain, stress, anxiety or a combination of these.

Natural leaf powder vs. artificially concentrated extracts

After the DEA dropped its 2016 plan to ban the leaf powder, marketers in the U.S. began isolating mitragynine and concentrating it into small bottles that could be taken like those energy shots of caffeine often sold in gas stations and convenience stores. This formula made it easier to ingest more kratom. Slowly, sellers learned they could make the more potent 7-OH from mitragynine and give their products an extra punch. And an extra dose of risk.

People who use kratom in the powder form describe taking 3 to 5 grams, the size of a generous tablespoon. They put the powder in capsules or made it into a tea several times a day to ward off pain, the craving for alcohol or the withdrawal symptoms from long-term prescription opioid use. Since this form of kratom does not contain very much mitragynine – it is only about 1% of the powdered leaf – overdosing on the powder alone does not typically happen.

That, along with pushback from consumers, is why the Food and Drug Administration is proposing to restrict only the availability of 7-OH and not mitragynine or kratom powder. The new Colorado law limits the concentration of kratom ingredients in products and restricts their sales and marketing to consumers over 21.

Even David Bregger supports this distinction. “I’m not anti-kratom, I’m pro-regulation. What I’m after is getting nothing but leaf product,” he told WPRI in Rhode Island last year while demonstrating at a conference of the education and advocacy trade group the American Kratom Association.

Such lobbying with the trade group last year led the American Kratom Association to concur that 7-OH should be regulated as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. The association acknowledges that such regulation is reasonable and based in science.

Benefits amid the ban

Despite the local and national debate over 7-OH, scientists are continuing to explore kratom compounds for their legitimate medical use.

A $3.5 million NIH grant is one of several that is increasing understanding of kratom as a source for new drugs.

Researchers have identified numerous other chemicals called alkaloids from kratom leaf specimens and commercial products. These researchers show that some types of kratom trees make unique chemicals, possibly opening the door to other painkillers. Researchers have also found that compounds from kratom, such as 7-OH, bind to opioid receptors in unique ways. The compounds seem to have an effect more toward pain management and away from potentially deadly suppression of breathing. Of course, this is when the compounds are used alone and not together with other sedating drugs.

Rather than contributing to the opioid crisis, researchers suspect that isolated and safely purified drugs made from kratom could be potential treatments for opioid addiction. In fact, some kratom chemicals such as mitragynine have multiple actions and could potentially replace both medication-assisted therapy, like buprenorphine, in treating opioid addiction and drugs like clonidine for opioid withdrawal symptoms.

Rigorous scientific study has led to this more reasonable juncture in the understanding of kratom and its sensible regulation. Sadly, we cannot bring back Daniel Bregger. But researchers can advance the potential for new and beneficial drugs while legislators help prevent such tragedies from befalling other families.

David Kroll 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. Balancing kratom’s potential benefits and risks − new legislation in Colorado seeks to minimize harm – https://theconversation.com/balancing-kratoms-potential-benefits-and-risks-new-legislation-in-colorado-seeks-to-minimize-harm-261914

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Brian Robert Boulay, Associate Professor of Medicine, University of Illinois Chicago

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com.

---

How does your body make poop? Owen, 4, Wakefield, Massachusetts

---

Much of the food you eat is absorbed by your digestive system, which includes your stomach and your intestines.

But some of what you eat makes it all the way through those twists and turns and comes out the other end as poop. How does that happen?

Imagine you start your day by eating a bowl of crunchy cereal with milk. The process of digestion begins as you start to chew.

Your teeth grind up the cereal into smaller particles, making it easier to swallow and digest. Your saliva contains an enzyme, a kind of chemical, called amylase that starts breaking down the cereal on a molecular level.

I’m a doctor who regularly treats children and adults with digestive problems. Some of my patients have problems absorbing nutrients from their food and others poop too often or not often enough. When they describe their symptoms, I consider the process of how our bodies make poop and which steps can go wrong.

Your stomach is full of enzymes and acid

Everything you eat contains three types of molecules that provide your body with the energy you need to live: carbohydrates, fats and proteins.

Amylase, an enzyme in saliva, begins breaking down the starches, a kind of carbohydrate, while the cereal is still in your mouth.

After you swallow, the milky cereal travels down your esophagus, a tube that carries swallowed food from your mouth to your stomach. That’s where digestion really gets going.

Your stomach contains hydrochloric acid, which breaks the food down into much smaller pieces. Over several hours, that acid and additional enzymes continue to pulverize the carbohydrates and protein from your bowl of cereal.

Your long and winding small intestine

Two or three hours later, your breakfast will leave your stomach and enter the small intestine, which is a long and coiled tube that is contained in your abdomen behind your belly button. By that point, the digestive process will have turned those big chunks of cereal into tiny particles that are small enough for your body to absorb.

By coursing through your bloodstream, these teeny particles will deliver energy and the building blocks for growth to the cells all over your body.

The small intestine is perfectly suited to perform the job of absorbing nutrients partly because it’s gigantic. Regardless of your height, it can be over 20 feet (6 meters) long, and its surface is covered with villi, tiny protrusions with a texture that resembles a shag carpet.

Those millions of villi create a huge amount of surface area, which is ideal for absorbing the nutrients in what you’ve eaten once it has been digested. The small intestine also contains many types of bacteria, which assist in breaking down the food particles.

The small intestine also produces more enzymes to help break down the carbohydrates in breads and pasta into simple sugars that are easily absorbed. As food enters into the small intestine, other organs also contribute their digestive juices to the mix.

The liver and gallbladder mix a greenish liquid called bile into the food.

Bile helps break down fats contained in food. Pancreatic enzymes help break down the carbohydrates, fats, proteins and the other nutrients in the food you eat.

Your slow and short colon

The journey through your small intestine takes between two and six hours to complete. By this point, your bowl of cereal is unrecognizable. It has turned into chyme, a greenish liquid. Chyme gets its color from the bile made in the liver.

As the chyme reaches the end of the small intestine, it enters into your large intestine, also known as the colon. The large intestine gets its name due to being wider than the small intestine, even though it is much shorter.

The colon is about 5 feet (1.5 meters) long. Unlike the villi-lined small intestine, it doesn’t absorb any nutrients. Instead it does another important job: It absorbs water from the slimy green chyme your digestive system made from your breakfast. The small intestine also absorbs water into the bloodstream, where it is delivered to your kidneys to make urine.

So the intestines also play a small part in making your pee, as well as your poop.

This process is much slower than those earlier steps. It can take a whole day, and up to three days, to complete. By the time the chyme reaches the end of the colon, it has solidified and probably turned from green to brown.

The brown color of poop comes from the bile that is added by the liver to your bowl of cereal as it makes its way through the small intestine. The bile is changed by bacteria from green to brown. Without bile your poop would be a pale silver or clay color.

Lots of bacteria

What’s in your poop?

When it leaves your body, poop contains some leftover water, as well as undigested food such as plant fiber, as well as some dead intestinal cells. And, it may surprise you to learn, almost half of it, measured by weight, consists of bacteria.

Your intestines contain trillions of these bacteria, which help you digest what you eat. Unlike some other kinds of bacteria, they do not make you sick. The ones that come out as part of your poop give it that stinky smell.

Each part of your digestive system, from your mouth to your colon, plays an important role in extracting from what you eat the energy and water that your body needs. They all work together to help you absorb most of that energy and water, while eliminating what you do not need.

---

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

Brian Robert Boulay 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 does your body make poop? – https://theconversation.com/how-does-your-body-make-poop-261911

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Barbara Kates-Garnick, Professor of Practice in Energy Policy, The Fletcher School, Tufts University

When the Trump administration announced it was moving to eliminate dozens of U.S. climate policies, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin said he was sending “a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.”

That drive – to both repeal environmental regulations and cast doubt on science – reflects the Trump administration’s approach to environment policy.

Deregulation has long been a key theme in Republican environmental policy. The conflict between the obligation to protect public health and the desire to boost markets traces back to Ronald Reagan’s presidential administration. Reagan’s perspective that government is not a solution to problems, but is the problem instead, set the stage for Republican administrations that followed.

Reagan argued that the growth of government spending and business regulation had stymied economic prosperity. Environmental regulations were a prime target.

Forty years later, America is seeing many of the same concepts in the Trump administration. However, its strategy could have a greater effect than Reagan ever envisioned.

Slashing budgets and staffing

There are many ways to kneecap government agencies: Instituting massive budget cuts, cutting staff with critical functions and appointing leadership whose goal is limiting the reach and effectiveness of the very agencies they direct are just a few.

In these efforts, Reagan and Trump had similar approaches to the EPA, although with different levels of intensity.

Trump’s EPA budget plan for 2026 includes a draconian 50% cut from the previous year and the lowest budget proposal, when adjusted for inflation, since Reagan. Staff cuts in just the first six months of the second Trump administration put the agency’s total employment at 12,448, down from 16,155 in January.

Reagan dissolved the EPA Office of Enforcement to limit “unnecessary regulation,” which resulted in a 80% decline in actions to enforce environmental regulations. Trump is also stopping enforcement actions, dismantling the EPA’s Science and Research Office and politicizing the agency’s science by putting political appointees in charge, moves that undermine EPA’s independence and expertise.

Both cut EPA’s budget, but that alone does not reduce an agency’s effectiveness.

Politicizing EPA leadership

When the EPA was founded in 1970 during the Nixon administration, it represented a bipartisan consensus: After decades of auto exhaust, polluted waterways and smog-filled air, environmental protection had become a national policy priority.

But industries that EPA regulated argued that the costs of implementing the agency’s mandates were too high. That created tension between economics and science and enforcement.

As part of his “government is not the solution” approach, Reagan issued an executive order shortly after taking office in 1981 requiring federal agencies to submit all proposed rules to the White House Office of Management and Budget before making them public. In Reagan’s eyes, this approach centralized power in the White House and was a way to eliminate burdensome regulations before the agencies announced them to the public.

He also appointed an EPA administrator who shared his anti-government perspective. Anne Gorsuch Burford was a lawyer and state legislator from Colorado, where she routinely voted against toxic waste cleanup and auto pollution controls.

Once in Washington, she appointed several people to the EPA’s leadership team with direct ties to industries the EPA regulated. An example was Rita Lavelle, head of the EPA’s toxic waste programs, who was later convicted of perjury for lying to Congress about when she knew her former employer, a defense contractor, was disposing of toxic waste at a now notorious dump site.

These appointments were an example of regulatory capture by the industries EPA was in charge of overseeing. Anne Gorsuch Burford was held in contempt of Congress for not turning over records related to the Superfund cleanup of the same hazardous waste site, which led to her resignation. The Superfund program to clean up toxic waste dumps was new and one of EPA’s largest programs at the time.

The scandals, broken staff morale, stripped budgets and fights over policy discredited the agency.

Going after government scientists

Anne Gorsuch Burford’s deregulation efforts weren’t fully successful, in part because EPA staff experts rallied to preserve science and regulatory functions. They leaked materials about delays in the Superfund site cleanup to sympathetic congressional staff, who in turn found support from Republican and Democratic senators.

That history may have influenced the Trump administration’s strategy toward the federal bureaucracy’s staff experts, who Trump calls “the Deep State.”

The Department of Government Efficiency, an unofficial group Trump set up in early 2025 headed by Elon Musk, directed the firing of tens of thousands of government scientists and other staff with expertise that government agencies rely on. Thousands more have resigned amid intimidation tactics such as surveillance.

Trump’s head of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, has been clear about targeting bureaucrats. He said in 2023: “We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can’t do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so. We want to put them in trauma.”

There is a clear focus today on EPA programs that don’t align with the administration’s views. Programs related to environmental justice for low-income communities are in the line of fire. The appointment of people from the chemical, fossil fuel and corporate industries to high-level regulatory and legal positions raises questions about regulatory capture – whether their focus will be more on the health of the industries they oversee than on the health of the public.

An example is decision-making related to who bears the costs of cleaning up pollution from PFAS “forever chemicals” − persistent, harmful chemicals that are now found in drinking water and in people’s bloodstreams. Steven Cook, a Trump appointee who once represented chemical companies that are fighting the rule, has proposed shifting what are expected to be billions of dollars in costs from the companies to taxpayers, The New York Times reports. That would be a significant shift away from the 45-year Superfund mantra that “the polluter pays.” Such actions blur the lines between ethics, policymaking and consumer and company interests.

The first Trump administration had a focus on reforming permitting and bureaucracy. While appearing radical at the time, the revamping of scientific boards to include more industry representatives, the undoing of power plant rules and the lessening of enforcement hobbled but did not completely undo the agency.

The second Trump administration, in actively supporting fossil fuel “energy dominance,” is taking steps to not just eliminate regulations but to ensure future administrations can’t bring the regulations back, by using a complex set of legal arguments related to the regulation of greenhouse gases.

At the same time, the administration is trying to discredit scientific research to downplay the risks of a warming planet.

The Reagan administration, while it also pushed for deregulation and expanded permitting of oil, gas and coal leases, embraced some elements of environmental protection. Reagan designated more than 10 million acres as protected wilderness and signed the Coastal Barriers Resources Act, which helped protect 3.5 million acres of shoreline from development. When Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol in 1988 to help protect the ozone layer, he cited scientific data showing the growing risks of ozone-depleting substances.

When Congress doesn’t push back

There is another critical difference between the first and second Trump administrations: The current Republican-controlled Congress is consenting to almost every request the president makes.

Congress has a constitutional responsibility to be a check on the executive branch, and a bipartisan Congress has long taken an active role in oversight and investigation involving environmental issues.

In 2025, however, Congress has approved most of Trump’s demands, including voting to repeal much of the Inflation Reduction Act, a package of pro-environment spending it had just passed two years earlier and that included many projects in Republican districts.

The administration’s effort to eliminate U.S. climate policies will take time and face lawsuits.

In an irony of history, Anne Gorsuch Burford’s son Neil Gorsuch now sits on the Supreme Court. His vote when those cases come before the court may be the ultimate Reagan legacy on the Trump EPA.

This article, originally published Aug. 26, 2025, has been updated with a recommendation within EPA to shift PFAS cleanup costs from companies to taxpayers.

Barbara Kates-Garnick 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. Like Reagan, Trump is slashing environment regulations, but his strategy may have a far deeper impact – https://theconversation.com/like-reagan-trump-is-slashing-environment-regulations-but-his-strategy-may-have-a-far-deeper-impact-262929

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Juliette Becker, Assistant Professor of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison

The Sun will someday die. This will happen when it runs out of hydrogen fuel in its core and can no longer produce energy through nuclear fusion as it does now. The death of the Sun is often thought of as the end of the solar system. But in reality, it may be the beginning of a new phase of life for all the objects living in the solar system.

When stars like the Sun die, they go through a phase of rapid expansion called the Red Giant phase: The radius of the star gets bigger, and its color gets redder. Once the gravity on the star’s surface is no longer strong enough for it to hold on to its outer layers, a large fraction – up to about half – of its mass escapes into space, leaving behind a remnant called a white dwarf.

I am a professor of astronomy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In 2020, my colleagues and I discovered the first intact planet orbiting around a white dwarf. Since then, I’ve been fascinated by the prospect of life on planets around these, tiny, dense white dwarfs.

Researchers search for signs of life in the universe by waiting until a planet passes between a star and their telescope’s line of sight. With light from the star illuminating the planet from behind, they can use some simple physics principles to determine the types of molecules present in the planet’s atmosphere.

In 2020, researchers realized they could use this technique for planets orbiting white dwarfs. If such a planet had molecules created by living organisms in its atmosphere, the James Webb Space Telescope would probably be able to spot them when the planet passed in front of its star.

In June 2025, I published a paper answering a question that first started bothering me in 2021: Could an ocean – likely needed to sustain life – even survive on a planet orbiting close to a dead star?

A universe full of white dwarfs

A white dwarf has about half the mass of the Sun, but that mass is compressed into a volume roughly the size of Earth, with its electrons pressed as close together as the laws of physics will allow. The Sun has a radius 109 times the size of Earth’s – this size difference means that an Earth-like planet orbiting a white dwarf could be about the same size as the star itself.

White dwarfs are extremely common: An estimated 10 billion of them exist in our galaxy. And since every low-mass star is destined to eventually become a white dwarf, countless more have yet to form. If it turns out that life can exist on planets orbiting white dwarfs, these stellar remnants could become promising and plentiful targets in the search for life beyond Earth.

But can life even exist on a planet orbiting a white dwarf? Astronomers have known since 2011 that the habitable zone is extremely close to the white dwarf. This zone is the location in a planetary system where liquid water could exist on a planet’s surface. It can’t be too close to the star that the water would boil, nor so far away that it would freeze.

The habitable zone around a white dwarf would be 10 to 100 times closer to the white dwarf than our own habitable zone is to our Sun, since white dwarfs are so much fainter.

The challenge of tidal heating

Being so close to the surface of the white dwarf would bring new challenges to emerging life that more distant planets, like Earth, do not face. One of these is tidal heating.

Tidal forces – the differences in gravitational forces that objects in space exert on different parts of a nearby second object – deform a planet, and the friction causes the material being deformed to heat up. An example of this can be seen on Jupiter’s moon Io.

The forces of gravity exerted by Jupiter’s other moons tug on Io’s orbit, deforming its interior and heating it up, resulting in hundreds of volcanoes erupting constantly across its surface. As a result, no surface water can exist on Io because its surface is too hot.

In contrast, the adjacent moon Europa is also subject to tidal heating, but to a lesser degree, since it’s farther from Jupiter. The heat generated from tidal forces has caused Europa’s ice shell to partially melt, resulting in a subsurface ocean.

Planets in the habitable zone of a white dwarf would have orbits close enough to the star to experience tidal heating, similar to how Io and Europa are heated from their proximity to Jupiter.

This proximity itself can pose a challenge to habitability. If a system has more than one planet, tidal forces from nearby planets could cause the planet’s atmosphere to trap heat until it becomes hotter and hotter, making the planet too hot to have liquid water.

Enduring the red giant phase

Even if there is only one planet in the system, it may not retain its water.

In the process of becoming a white dwarf, a star will expand to 10 to 100 times its original radius during the red giant phase. During that time, anything within that expanded radius will be engulfed and destroyed. In our own solar system, Mercury, Venus and Earth will be destroyed when the Sun eventually becomes a red giant before transitioning into a white dwarf.

For a planet to survive this process, it would have to start out much farther from the star — perhaps at the distance of Jupiter or even beyond.

If a planet starts out that far away, it would need to migrate inward after the white dwarf has formed in order to become habitable. Computer simulations show that this kind of migration is possible, but the process could cause extreme tidal heating that may boil off surface water – similar to how tidal heating causes Io’s volcanism. If the migration generates enough heat, then the planet could lose all its surface water by the time it finally reaches a habitable orbit.

However, if the migration occurs late enough in the white dwarf’s lifetime – after it has cooled and is no longer a hot, bright, newly formed white dwarf – then surface water may not evaporate away.

Under the right conditions, planets orbiting white dwarfs could sustain liquid water and potentially support life.

Search for life on planets orbiting white dwarfs

Astronomers haven’t yet found any Earth-like, habitable exoplanets around white dwarfs. But these planets are difficult to detect.

Traditional detection methods like the transit technique are less effective because white dwarfs are much smaller than typical planet-hosting stars. In the transit technique, astronomers watch for the dips in light that occur when a planet passes in front of its host star from our line of sight. Because white dwarfs are so small, you would have to be very lucky to see a planet passing in front of one.

Nevertheless, researchers are exploring new strategies to detect and characterize these elusive worlds using advanced telescopes such as the Webb telescope.

If habitable planets are found to exist around white dwarfs, it would significantly broaden the range of environments where life might persist, demonstrating that planetary systems may remain viable hosts for life even long after the death of their host star.

Juliette Becker 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. Earth-size stars and alien oceans – an astronomer explains the case for life around white dwarfs – https://theconversation.com/earth-size-stars-and-alien-oceans-an-astronomer-explains-the-case-for-life-around-white-dwarfs-262301

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul M. Collins Jr., Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass Amherst

During the 2016 presidential election campaign, candidate Donald Trump took the unprecedented move of releasing a list of his potential Supreme Court nominees.

But Trump didn’t assemble this list himself. Instead, he outsourced the selection of his judicial appointments to leaders of the Federalist Society, an organization in the conservative legal movement.

As Trump explained in a 2016 interview, “We’re going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society.”

This was a strategic decision by Trump. By turning to the Federalist Society, he was able to court conservative and evangelical voters who may have been otherwise uneasy with supporting the former New York City real estate mogul.

In his first presidential term, Trump appointed three justices affiliated with the Federalist Society – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett – in addition to hundreds of lower federal court judges. Federalist Society affiliates are current or former members of the organization, as well as individuals who interact with the group, such as by attending Federalist Society events, but who may not claim membership.

We are political science scholars who recently published research in a peer-reviewed journal showing that Supreme Court justices affiliated with the Federalist Society are more conservative and more consistently conservative than other justices, meaning they seldom deviate from their conservative voting behavior.

Our research suggests that, despite Trump’s recent criticism of the organization and its leadership, justices affiliated with the Federalist Society will advance the conservative legal agenda decades into the future. But this won’t always involve supporting Trump’s agenda.

Here’s what you should know, and why it matters.

The Federalist Society

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies was founded in 1982 with the goal of providing intellectual spaces for conservative law students who felt their views were dismissed by the legal field. It has grown tremendously over the past 40 years. Today, it boasts more than 200 chapters and over 70,000 members.

Unlike other conservative public interest groups, it does not advocate for specific issue positions. Instead, it promotes its goals primarily through education and networking.

The Federalist Society’s educational mission is pursued chiefly in law schools. That’s where it trains the next generation of lawyers in the approaches and goals of the conservative legal movement. This includes promoting the judicial philosophy of originalism – the idea that the best way to interpret the U.S. Constitution is according to how it was understood at the time of its adoption.

Originalism is often used to justify conservative outcomes.

For example, Justice Clarence Thomas, a prominent member of the Federalist Society, has called for using originalism to reconsider Supreme Court precedents involving the right to contraception, same-sex marriage and same-sex consensual relations.

The Federalist Society network also connects junior members with more senior members, helping young lawyers obtain prestigious clerkships and positions in government and the legal profession. These lawyers tend to associate with the Federalist Society throughout their careers.

Federalist Society affiliates learn that promoting the group’s interest is also a way of promoting their self-interests as they move up in the legal world.

For Supreme Court justices, this networking has tangible benefits. For instance, Justice Samuel Alito accepted a luxury fishing vacation in 2008 organized by Leonard Leo, the former executive vice president and current co-chair of the Federalist Society. The estimated cost of the fishing trip was more than $100,000.

And Thomas was treated to decades of high-end vacations and private school tuition for his grandnephew – whom he raised as a son – by billionaire businessman Harlan Crow, a Federalist Society donor.

In short, the Federalist Society is a network of lawyers and judges who share a conservative outlook on the world and aspire to etch the conservative agenda into law through judicial decisions.

Our research

Our research sought to answer two interrelated questions. Are justices affiliated with the Federalist Society more conservative than nonaffiliated justices, and are they more consistently conservative?

To illustrate this, consider former Justice David Souter, whom President George H.W. Bush appointed in 1990 and who had no connections to the Federalist Society. Despite being a Republican appointee, Souter often voted with the court’s liberal members, such as upholding abortion rights in 1992. In 2005, he wrote the majority opinion in a ruling that prevented the Ten Commandments from being displayed in courthouses and public schools.

To determine whether justices affiliated with the Federalist Society are different from even other judges appointed by Republican presidents, we examined almost 25,000 votes cast by Supreme Court justices between 1986 and 2023. We started with 1986 because that’s when the first justice affiliated with the Federalist Society – Antonin Scalia – joined the high court.

We classified votes as conservative or liberal according to a well-established methodology. For example, conservative votes support the restriction of reproductive freedom, are anti-business regulation and generally disfavor policies that promote the rights of vulnerable populations, such as the LGBTQ+ community. Liberal votes do the opposite.

We found that justices connected to the Federalist Society are about 10 percentage points more likely to cast a conservative vote than other justices, even other justices appointed by Republican presidents. And they are more consistent in their voting behavior, seldom casting votes that go against their conservative values.

The Federalist Society’s lasting impact

These findings have important implications. Justices on the modern Supreme Court serve for about a quarter century on average. And every current Republican-appointed member of the court is affiliated with the Federalist Society.

This means that Americans are likely to see justices affiliated with the Federalist Society advance the agenda of the conservative legal movement for decades to come. This has already happened in recent decisions that curtailed reproductive freedom, eliminated affirmative action in college admissions and expanded the powers of the president, including immunizing the president from criminal prosecution.

President Trump has recently had a high-profile breakup with the Federalist Society, calling Leo a “sleazebag” and expressing his disappointment with the organization.

Trump’s outburst followed a ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade that blocked his sweeping tariff program against China and other nations. This happened despite one of Trump’s first-term judicial appointees sitting on the panel.

Notwithstanding this acrimony, this term will give justices affiliated with the Federalist Society the opportunity to further solidify the conservative agenda. Cases involving LGBTQ+ rights and federal elections are on the docket. And the court will be adding other important issue areas as it fills out its caseload for the 2025-26 term, which starts on the first Monday in October.

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. How the conservative Federalist Society will affect the Supreme Court for decades to come – https://theconversation.com/how-the-conservative-federalist-society-will-affect-the-supreme-court-for-decades-to-come-263397