Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Ryan Herzog, Associate Professor of Economics, Gonzaga University

The Federal Reserve on Sept. 17, 2025, cut its target interest rate as it shifts focus from fighting inflation to supporting the choppy labor market.

As financial markets expected, the Fed lowered rates a quarter point to a range of 4% to 4.25%, its first cut since December 2024.

The Fed’s decision to begin cutting rates comes as evidence mounts that the U.S. labor market is losing momentum. The headline unemployment rate has stayed steady at near record lows, but the underlying trends are more concerning.

At the same time, the fight against inflation is not over yet. While a cooling jobs market could lead to a recession, cutting rates too much could drive inflation higher.

So if you’re the Fed, what do you do?

I’m an economist who tracks labor market data and monetary policy, examining how changes in hiring, wages and unemployment influence the Federal Reserve’s efforts to steer the economy. There’s an incredibly large amount of data the Fed, investors, economists like me and many others use to understand the state of the economy – and much of it often tells conflicting stories.

Here are some the data points I’ve been following most closely to better understand where the U.S. economy might go from here – and the tough choices the Fed has to make.

Underlying trouble in the labor market

The labor market looks stable on the surface, but more granular data tells a different story.

The unemployment rate has remained close to historic lows at 4.3% as of August 2025, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But the number of long-term unemployed – people out of work for 27 weeks or longer – rose to 1.9 million in August, up 385,000 from a year earlier. These workers now make up 25.7% of all unemployed people, the highest share since February 2022. Persistent long-term joblessness often signals deeper cracks forming in the labor market.

At the same time, new claims for unemployment benefits are spiking. Initial claims for unemployment insurance – a leading indicator of labor market stress – jumped by 27,000 to 263,000 for the week ending Sept. 6, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. That’s the sharpest increase in months and well above economists’ forecasts. It suggests layoffs are becoming more common.

We also got news that past payroll growth was overstated. In a process the Bureau of Labor Statistics undertakes annually to double-check its data, the bureau recently revised its jobs data downward from April 2024 through March 2025 by 911,000. In other words, the economy created roughly 75,000 fewer jobs per month than previously reported. This implies the labor market was weaker than it appeared all along.

Finally, workers are losing confidence. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported in August that confidence in finding a job fell to its lowest level – 44.9% – since it started surveying consumers in June 2013. That’s another sign workers are feeling less secure about their prospects.

Taken together, these data points paint a clear picture: The labor market is not collapsing, but it is softening. That helps explain why the Fed is beginning to cut rates now – hoping to stimulate spending – before the job market breaks more sharply.

Tariffs are complicating the inflation data

Even as the labor market softens, tariffs are pushing certain prices higher than they otherwise would be, complicating the Federal Reserve’s effort to bring inflation down.

Government data shows that businesses have begun passing the costs of President Donald Trump’s new import tariffs to consumers. In August, clothing prices rose 0.5% and grocery prices rose 0.6%, with especially strong gains for tariff-sensitive items such as coffee.

Lower-income households are getting hit hardest because they spend more of their budget on imported goods, which tend to be the lower-cost items most affected by tariffs. A report from the Yale Budget Lab found that core goods prices are about 1.9% above pre-2025 trends as tariffs raise costs for basic items such as appliances and electronics.

Phillip Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office, said recently that Trump’s tariffs have pushed inflation higher than CBO analysts had expected, even as overall economic activity has weakened since January.

Typically, a slowdown in the labor market is met with slower inflation. But while the CBO now projects that the tariffs will reduce the federal budget deficit by about US$4 trillion over the next decade – roughly $3.3 trillion in new revenue and $700 billion in lower debt service costs – but it will come at the cost of near-term upward pressure on prices.

This creates a difficult balancing act for the Fed: Cut rates too quickly, and tariff-driven price pressures could reignite inflation; move too slowly, and the softening labor market could tip into recession.

A narrow path to a soft landing

As it resumes cutting rates, the Federal Reserve is trying to thread a narrow needle – easing policy enough to keep the labor market from cracking while not reigniting inflation, which is proving stickier in part because of tariffs.

Markets are betting the Fed will keep cutting. The futures market is betting the Fed will cut rates by another half point by the end of the year. And the one-year Treasury yield has dropped about 150 basis points (1.5%) since June, signaling that investors expect a series of rate cuts through 2025 and into 2026.

At its latest meeting, the Fed signaled two more rate cuts in 2025 and at least one rate cut in 2026.

Such cuts would ultimately bring the federal funds rate closer to 3% and hopefully reduce 30-year mortgage rates to around 5% – from an average of 6.35% as of Sept. 11. If the labor market continues to weaken – with jobless claims climbing, payrolls revised down and more workers stuck in long-term unemployment – that expectation will likely harden into consensus.

But the path is far from certain. Cutting rates too quickly could cause inflation to spike, while going too slow could lead to further deterioration in the labor market. Either outcome would jeopardize the Fed’s credibility – whether by appearing unable to control prices or by allowing unemployment to rise unnecessarily. That would undermine its ability to influence markets and enforce its dual mandate of maximum employment and stable prices.

Another tricky issue is Trump’s public campaign to push the Fed to cut rates – appearing to do his bidding could also undercut Fed credibility. For what it’s worth, the Sept. 17 rate cut appears driven less by politics than by economic data. The Fed itself was projecting a year ago that rates would be much lower today than they actually are, suggesting it’s been following the data.

The economy appears to be slowing but remains resilient, which is why the Fed is likely to move gradually. The risk is that the window for a soft landing is closing. The coming months will determine whether the Fed can ease early enough to avoid recession, or whether it has already waited too long.

Ryan Herzog 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 rate cut is attempt to prevent recession without sending prices soaring – https://theconversation.com/fed-rate-cut-is-attempt-to-prevent-recession-without-sending-prices-soaring-265370

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Matt Motta, Assistant Professor of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston University

Trump officials intend to link 25 child deaths to COVID-19 vaccines, according to reporting from The Washington Post. These findings will reportedly be discussed during the Sept. 18-19, 2025, meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, with implications for who may be eligible for COVID-19 vaccines in the future.

These death reports are reportedly derived from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, a database co-managed by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration. It was originally established in 1990 to detect possible safety problems with vaccines. Unfortunately, the anti-vaccine movement has used this database to spread misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent anti-vaccine activist, has promulgated this misinformation through the Make America Healthy Again movement in efforts to limit access to COVID-19 vaccines.

VAERS is ripe for exploitation because it relies on unverified self-reports of side effects. Anyone who received a vaccine can submit a report. And because this information is publicly available, misinterpretations of its data has been used to amplify COVID-19 misinformation through dubious social media channels and mass media, including one of the most popular shows on cable news.

We are political scientists who study the social, political and psychological underpinnings of vaccine hesitancy in the U.S. In our research, we argue that VAERS, despite its limitations, can teach us about more than just vaccine side effects – it can also offer powerful new insights into the origins of vaccine hesitancy in the U.S.

What the side effects database was designed to do

Medical experts at the Department of Health and Human Services are well aware of VAERS’ limitations. Rather than taking each individual report at face value, regulators remove clearly fraudulent reports. Demonstrating this, anesthesiologist and autism advocate James Laidler once used the system to report that a vaccine turned him into the “Incredible Hulk,” which was removed only after he agreed to have the data deleted.

Regulators also look for reporting patterns that can be corroborated by additional evidence. For example, reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome should be more common in people over 50 than in younger adults. This can help researchers identify potential adverse events that were not detected in clinical trials.

Because VAERS claims are self-reported, they tell us something about what ordinary people, as opposed to doctors and medical researchers, think about vaccine safety. In other words, people who feel that a vaccine is responsible for a side effect they might be experiencing can log that concern with the federal government, whether or not those claims would stand scrutiny in rigorous clinical testing.

Consequently, VAERS reports might not only document people’s negative experiences with vaccination but also their attitudes toward vaccination. People may be more likely to report side effects, for example, in response to media stories about vaccine safety concerns. If reports to VAERS increase following these stories, then the reporting system may be functioning similarly to a public opinion poll. It could reflect, in part, public attentiveness to and concern about potential side effects.

To see whether this is the case, we examined a well-known case of vaccine misinformation: the since-retracted paper that claimed a link between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) to childhood autism.

Is a fraudulent study responsible for MMR vaccine skepticism?

In 1998, former physician Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues published a since-retracted paper claiming that the MMR vaccine could cause autism in children. Although the study was rife with unreported conflicting interests and data manipulation, it nevertheless garnered significant media attention in the late 1990s. Some journalists and researchers have since argued that the paper played a major role in inspiring MMR vaccine hesitancy.

While this is plausible, there hasn’t been evidence to support the argument. Virtually no opinion polling about MMR existed prior to the publication of Wakefield’s paper. Consequently, researchers have not been able to directly observe whether the study influenced how Americans think about the MMR vaccine.

VAERS data, however, could offer some clues. In our study, we examined whether the number of VAERS reports following publication of Wakefield’s paper was significantly greater than expected based on typical report numbers prior to its publication. We found that the number of adverse event reports for MMR increased by about 70 reports per month following publication of the paper. This is significantly greater than what we would expect by chance based on previous reporting frequencies. Notably, we did not find a similar effect for other childhood vaccines in the same time period. This further underscores the power this since-debunked study has had in shaping public opinion about the MMR vaccine.

Importantly, we also found that adverse event reporting rates rose in tandem with negative media coverage of the MMR vaccine. Following the publication of Wakefield’s paper, television and print news published significantly more stories about MMR than before the paper was published. These results suggest that Wakefield’s article influenced how much more attentive Americans were about the MMR vaccine.

VAERS: A double-edged sword

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, interest in the side effects reporting system had significantly grown. Google search engine trends suggest that more Americans were looking up VAERS than ever before shortly after emergency use authorization of the first COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. This trend continued to increase until a peak in August 2021.

This search behavior is likely a result of increased media attention to VAERS, particularly by right-leaning news outlets. According to the data from media research platform Media Cloud, there have been 459 stories in mainstream national news outlets, such as CNN or USA Today, mentioning VAERS between December 2020 and mid-August 2021. In right-wing media outlets such as Fox News, The Daily Caller and Breitbart, however, coverage soared to 3,254 stories – over seven times more than mainstream news media.

Consequently, VAERS data could be seen as something of a double-edged sword. On one hand, it has been weaponized by the anti-vaccine movement and political actors on the right to sow doubt and distrust about COVID-19 vaccinations. On the other hand, this data could also tell public health researchers something useful about how American vaccine skepticism might ebb and flow in response to events such as the brief pause in Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine administration or fluctuations in the tone of media coverage about COVID-19 vaccines.

VAERS data may even offer an important advantage over public opinion polls, which, with the exception of weekly vaccine uptake polls, have typically been administered much less frequently. Our research cautions that media attention to discredited vaccine-related claims may undermine public confidence in vaccination.

How to avoid another wave of misinformation

To ensure that VAERS is used properly, journalists and scientific researchers can team up to help the public interpret new findings. Journalists should, in our view, contextualize their coverage within a broader body of scientific evidence. Scientific researchers can aid in this by helping journalists accurately portray studies on vaccine side effects, clearly outlining their methodologies and results in accessible language.

By working together, researchers and journalists can take constructive action to address vaccine hesitancy before it has a chance to germinate.

This an updated version of an article originally published on Aug. 25, 2021.

Matt Motta has received funding from the National Science Foundation.

Dominik Stecuła receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

– ref. Vaccine death and side effects database relies on unverified reports – and Trump officials and right-wing media are applying it out of context – https://theconversation.com/vaccine-death-and-side-effects-database-relies-on-unverified-reports-and-trump-officials-and-right-wing-media-are-applying-it-out-of-context-265362

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Art Jipson, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Dayton

After the Sept. 10, 2025, assassination of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk, President Donald Trump claimed that radical leftist groups foment political violence in the U.S., and “they should be put in jail.”

“The radical left causes tremendous violence,” he said, asserting that “they seem to do it in a bigger way” than groups on the right.

Top presidential adviser Stephen Miller also weighed in after Kirk’s killing, saying that left-wing political organizations constitute “a vast domestic terror movement.”

“We are going to use every resource we have … throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again,” Miller said.

But policymakers and the public need reliable evidence and actual data to understand the reality of politically motivated violence. From our research on extremism, it’s clear that the president’s and Miller’s assertions about political violence from the left are not based on actual facts.

Based on our own research and a review of related work, we can confidently say that most domestic terrorists in the U.S. are politically on the right, and right-wing attacks account for the vast majority of fatalities from domestic terrorism.

Political violence rising

The understanding of political violence is complicated by differences in definitions and the recent Department of Justice removal of an important government-sponsored study of domestic terrorists.

Political violence in the U.S. has risen in recent months and takes forms that go unrecognized. During the 2024 election cycle, nearly half of all states reported threats against election workers, including social media death threats, intimidation and doxing.

Kirk’s assassination illustrates the growing threat. The man charged with the murder, Tyler Robinson, allegedly planned the attack in writing and online.

This follows other politically motivated killings, including the June assassination of Democratic Minnesota state Rep. and former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband.

These incidents reflect a normalization of political violence. Threats and violence are increasingly treated as acceptable for achieving political goals, posing serious risks to democracy and society.

Defining ‘political violence’

This article relies on some of our research on extremism, other academic research, federal reports, academic datasets and other monitoring to assess what is known about political violence.

Support for political violence in the U.S. is spreading from extremist fringes into the mainstream, making violent actions seem normal. Threats can move from online rhetoric to actual violence, posing serious risks to democratic practices.

But different agencies and researchers use different definitions of political violence, making comparisons difficult.

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security define domestic violent extremism as threats involving actual violence. They do not investigate people in the U.S. for constitutionally protected speech, activism or ideological beliefs.

Domestic violent extremism is defined by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as violence or credible threats of violence intended to influence government policy or intimidate civilians for political or ideological purposes. This general framing, which includes diverse activities under a single category, guides investigations and prosecutions.

Datasets compiled by academic researchers use narrower and more operational definitions. The Global Terrorism Database counts incidents that involve intentional violence with political, social or religious motivation.

These differences mean that the same incident may or may not appear in a dataset, depending on the rules applied.

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security emphasize that these distinctions are not merely academic. Labeling an event “terrorism” rather than a “hate crime” can change who is responsible for investigating an incident and how many resources they have to investigate. “investigate IT”?

For example, a politically motivated shooting might be coded as terrorism in federal reporting, cataloged as political violence by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, and prosecuted as homicide or a hate crime at the state level.

Patterns in incidents and fatalities

Despite differences in definitions, several consistent patterns emerge from available evidence.

Politically motivated violence is a small fraction of total violent crime, but its impact is magnified by symbolic targets, timing and media coverage.

In the first half of 2025, 35% of violent events tracked by University of Maryland researchers targeted U.S. government personnel or facilities – more than twice the rate in 2024.

Right-wing extremist violence has been deadlier than left-wing violence in recent years.

Based on government and independent analyses, right-wing extremist violence has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of fatalities, amounting to approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001.

Illustrative cases include the 2015 Charleston church shooting, when white supremacist Dylann Roof killed nine Black parishioners; the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue attack in Pittsburgh, where 11 worshippers were murdered; the 2019 El Paso Walmart massacre, in which an anti-immigrant gunman killed 23 people. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, an earlier but still notable example, killed 168 in the deadliest domestic terrorist attack in U.S. history.

By contrast, left-wing extremist incidents, including those tied to anarchist or environmental movements, have made up about 10& to 15% of incidents and less than 5% of fatalities.

Examples include the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front arson and vandalism campaigns in the 1990s and 2000s, which were more likely to target property rather than people.

Violence occurred during Seattle May Day protests in 2016, with anarchist groups and other demonstrators clashing with police. The clashes resulted in multiple injuries and arrests. In 2016, five Dallas police officers were murdered by a heavily armed sniper who was targeting white police officers.

Hard to count

There’s another reason it’s hard to account for and characterize certain kinds of political violence and those who perpetrate it.

The U.S. focuses on prosecuting criminal acts rather than formally designating organizations as terrorist, relying on existing statutes such as conspiracy, weapons violations, RICO provisions and hate crime laws to pursue individuals for specific acts of violence.

Unlike foreign terrorism, the federal government does not have a mechanism to formally charge an individual with domestic terrorism. That makes it difficult to characterize someone as a domestic terrorist.

The State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list applies only to groups outside of the United States. By contrast, U.S. law bars the government from labeling domestic political organizations as terrorist entities because of First Amendment free speech protections.

Rhetoric is not evidence

Without harmonized reporting and uniform definitions, the data will not provide an accurate overview of political violence in the U.S.

But we can make some important conclusions.

Politically motivated violence in the U.S. is rare compared with overall violent crime. Political violence has a disproportionate impact because even rare incidents can amplify fear, influence policy and deepen societal polarization.

Right-wing extremist violence has been more frequent and more lethal than left-wing violence. The number of extremist groups is substantial and skewed toward the right, although a count of organizations does not necessarily reflect incidents of violence.

High-profile political violence often brings heightened rhetoric and pressure for sweeping responses. Yet the empirical record shows that political violence remains concentrated within specific movements and networks rather than spread evenly across the ideological spectrum. Distinguishing between rhetoric and evidence is essential for democracy.

Trump and members of his administration are threatening to target whole organizations and movements and the people who work in them with aggressive legal measures – to jail them or scrutinize their favorable tax status. The administration’s focus is on left-wing organizations, but research shows that it’s organizations on the right that the government needs to focus on with prevention and investigation.

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. Right-wing extremist violence is more frequent and more deadly than left-wing violence − what the data shows – https://theconversation.com/right-wing-extremist-violence-is-more-frequent-and-more-deadly-than-left-wing-violence-what-the-data-shows-265367

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Michael Oxman, Professor of the Practice of Sustainable Business, Georgia Institute of Technology

Some major oil companies such as Shell and BP that once were touted as leading the way in clean energy investments are now pulling back from those projects to refocus on oil and gas production. Others, such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron, have concentrated on oil and gas but announced recent investments in carbon capture projects, as well as in lithium and graphite production for electric vehicle batteries.

National oil companies have also been investing in renewable energy. For example, Saudi Aramco has invested in clean energy while at the same time asserting that it’s unrealistic to phase out oil and gas entirely.

But the larger question is why oil companies would invest in clean energy at all, especially at a time when many federal clean energy incentives are being eliminated and climate science is being dismantled, at least in the United States.

Some answers depend on whom you ask. More traditional petroleum industry followers would urge the companies to keep focused on their core fossil fuel businesses to meet growing energy demand and corresponding near-term shareholder returns. Other shareholders and stakeholders concerned about sustainability and the climate – including an increasing number of companies with sustainability goals – would likely point out the business opportunities for clean energy to meet global needs.

Other answers depend on the particular company itself. Very small producers have different business plans than very large private and public companies. Geography and regional policies can also play a key role. And government-owned companies such as Saudi Aramco, Gazprom and the China National Petroleum Corp. control the majority of the world’s oil and gas resources with revenues that support their national economies.

Despite the relatively modest scale of investment in clean energy by oil and gas companies so far, there are several business reasons oil companies would increase their investments in clean energy over time.

The oil and gas industry has provided energy that has helped create much of modern society and technology, though those advances have also come with significant environmental and social costs. My own experience in the oil industry gave me insight into how at least some of these companies try to reconcile this tension and to make strategic portfolio decisions regarding what “green” technologies to invest in. Now the managing director and a professor of the practice at the Ray C. Anderson Center for Sustainable Business at Georgia Tech, I seek ways to eliminate the boundaries and identify mutually reinforcing innovations among business interests and environmental concerns.

Diversification and financial drivers

Just like financial advisers tell you to diversify your 401(k) investments, companies do so to weather different kinds of volatility, from commodity prices to political instability. Oil and gas markets are notoriously cyclical, so investments in clean energy can hedge against these shifts for companies and investors alike.

Clean energy can also provide opportunities for new revenue. Many customers want to buy clean energy, and oil companies want to be positioned to cash in as this transition occurs. By developing employees’ expertise and investing in emerging technologies, they can be ready for commercial opportunities in biofuels, renewable natural gas, hydrogen and other pathways that may overlap with their existing, core business competencies.

Fossil fuel companies have also found what other companies have: Clean energy can reduce costs. Some oil companies not only invest in energy efficiency for their buildings but use solar or wind to power their wells. And adding renewable energy to their activities can also lower the cost of investing in these companies.

Public pressure

All companies, including those in oil and gas, are under growing pressure to address climate change, from the public, from other companies with whom they do business and from government regulators – at least outside the U.S. For example, campaigns seeking to reduce investment in fossil fuels are increasing along with climate-related lawsuits. Government policies focused on both mitigating carbon emissions and enhancing energy independence are also making headway in some locations.

In response, many oil companies are reducing their own operational emissions and setting targets to offset or eliminate emissions from products that they sell – though many observers question the viability of these commitments. Other companies are investing in emerging technologies such as hydrogen and methods to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

Some companies, such as BP and Equinor, have previously even gone so far as rebranding themselves and acquiring clean energy businesses. But those efforts have also been criticized as “greenwashing,” taking actions for public relations value rather than real results.

How far can this go?

It is even possible for a fossil fuel company to reinvent itself as a clean energy operation. Denmark’s Orsted – formerly known as Danish Oil and Natural Gas – transitioned from fossil fuels to become a global leader in offshore wind. The company, whose majority owner is the Danish government, made the shift, however, with the help of significant public and political support.

But most large oil companies aren’t likely to completely reinvent themselves anytime soon. Making that change requires leadership, investor pressure, customer demand and shifts in government policy, such as putting a price or tax on carbon emissions.

To show students in my sustainability classes how companies’ choices affect both the environment and the industry as a whole, I use the MIT Fishbanks simulation. Students run fictional fishing companies competing for profit. Even when they know the fish population is finite, they overfish, leading to the collapse of the fishery and its businesses. Short-term profits cause long-term disaster for the fishery and the businesses that depend on it.

The metaphor for oil and gas is clear: As fossil fuels continue to be extracted and burned, they release planet-warming emissions, harming the planet as a whole. They also pose substantial business risks to the oil and gas industry itself.

Yet students in a recent class showed me that a more collective way of thinking may be possible. Teams voluntarily reduced their fishing levels to preserve long-term business and environmental sustainability, and they even cooperated with their competitors. They did so without in-game regulatory threats, shareholder or customer complaints, or lawsuits.

Their shared understanding that the future of their own fishing companies was at stake makes me hopeful that this type of leadership may take hold in real companies and the energy system as a whole. But the question remains about how fast that change can happen, amid the accelerating global demand for more energy along with the increasing urgency and severity of climate change and its effects.

In the past, Michael Oxman has worked with Chevron and consulted with other oil/gas companies. The views expressed in this article are his and do not necessarily reflect the views of Georgia Institute of Technology.

– ref. Why do big oil companies invest in green energy? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-big-oil-companies-invest-in-green-energy-260855

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jeffrey H. Cohen, Professor of Anthropology, The Ohio State University

Billions of people regularly eat insects. In the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca, chapulines – toasted grasshoppers – stand out as a beloved seasonal treat that follows the start of the rainy season, a period that runs from late May through September.

My new book, “Eating Grasshoppers: Chapulines and the Women who Sell Them,” dives into the history and cultural significance of entomophagy (eating insects) and this unique snack.

Chapulineras – the women who sell chapulines – often learn their craft from their mothers and grandmothers. Most will use nets or mesh bags to capture grasshoppers in their “milpa” – alfalfa and maize fields – during the cool, early morning hours.

Teresa Silva, whom I spoke with at her home in Zimatlán, Oaxaca, shared some of her experience:

“I began with my husband’s family, following their traditions after we married. My husband would bring me chapulines in large quantities, and with him and my in-laws’ support, I started to cook and sell [them]. It wasn’t easy at first … but I liked the money I made. Now, I have been selling chapulines for 23 years.”

Prepping chapulines isn’t hard. A dip in boiling water turns the grasshoppers a rich, deep red. Then you toss them on the “comal” – a ceramic or metal cooking surface – with a little garlic, lemon, chile and “sal de gusano,” a mixture of ground agave worms, salt and other seasonings. In a few minutes, the grasshoppers are ready to eat.

Culture and cuisine in Oaxaca

Chapulines have been a staple food for thousands of years. Like other insects and their by-products – including honey – grasshoppers are easily digestible, high in protein and an excellent source of vitamins and minerals.

They are also plentiful. Archaeologist Jeffrey Parsons estimates that harvests before the arrival of European settlers might have included 3,900 metric tons of insects and their eggs, if not more, annually.

One of the earliest references to chapulines appears in Franciscan Friar Bernardino de Sahagún’s 1577 “General History of the Things of New Spain.” Sometimes called the “first anthropologist,” Sahagún describes their importance as a beloved seasonal food in the local diet.

High praise. But perhaps it isn’t surprising that Spanish colonists largely ignored grasshoppers and other Indigenous foods while introducing new crops, animals and unique ways of eating. The Spanish also reorganized life according to the casta system – a racially based hierarchy that restricted the rights and opportunities of Indigenous people.

While chapulines and other insects remained critical to the local diet, the Spanish preferred eating dishes made from the animals and crops they’d brought with them, including wheat and cattle.

Nor were these new foods readily adopted by locals. Indigenous cuisine lacked Spanish parallels. Grains and livestock were not suited to local dishes; furthermore, even as the Spanish colonists had locals grow these new crops, they usually prohibited them from keeping any of the harvest.

An old reliable

Of course, with time, the introduced crops and livestock took hold, and local cuisine incorporated these foods into many of the dishes the world knows today as Mexican.

However, whenever there’s not enough to eat – whether due to discrimination, a natural disaster or a human-made crisis – Mexicans often fall back on edible insects. They were critical following floods and famines in the 18th and 19th centuries. And when Oaxacans fled their homes and farmland during the Mexican Revolution, they turned to chapulines as a replacement for more typical proteins like chicken, turkey, beef tripe and pork.

Most recently, when the COVID-19 lockdowns made it nearly impossible to shop for foods, chapulineras created a touchless economy that connected vendors and customers through messaging services like WhatsApp. Some chapulineras also provided no-interest loans to people who could not cover the costs of their orders.

Carmen Mendoza, whom I interviewed at Mercado Benito Juárez in Oaxaca City, described her experience of the lockdown:

“When the pandemic hit, I said to myself, ‘Look, you need to keep selling, but from home.’ I know where I am, and I know my clients. I also know how much people want, how many kilos of chapulines they will buy. So people came to my house. Sometimes they would bring me their harvest, other times they would call and ask for two or three kilos. I could do that.”

The meaning, use and value of chapulines are changing, as Oaxaca has become a popular tourist destination and has been commemorated as a UNESCO heritage site. For foodies and tourists, tasting chapulines is a way to consume and experience the past.

Chapulineras will happily sell to foodies who want to “eat bugs.” But they also know tourists cannot support their market. Visitors usually swoop in for a few days, buy a small handful of chapulines and leave. Most will never return.

And so chapulineras continue to depend on locals whose families have been eating the insects for generations. Many chapulineras have achieved financial security through their efforts, earning incomes that exceed that of most rural women in Oaxaca.

In Oaxaca, just as it was 3,000 years ago, chapulines are “what’s for dinner.”

Jeffrey H. Cohen received funding from the National Science Foundation (Household Producer Effects of Rural Diet Transformation, BCS award 1918324), National Geographic, Fulbright and the Ohio State University Institute for Population Studies to support this research.

– ref. Would you eat a grasshopper? In Oaxaca, it’s been a tasty tradition for thousands of years – https://theconversation.com/would-you-eat-a-grasshopper-in-oaxaca-its-been-a-tasty-tradition-for-thousands-of-years-263868

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Zachary W. Schulz, Senior Lecturer of History, Auburn University

Each year in the U.S., tens of thousands of deaths are categorized as “preventable” — meaning, in theory, they did not need to happen. A missed cancer screening, a fatal asthma attack or a death from untreated infection might all be counted as preventable.

The term is commonly used in public health reports, policy documents and local news coverage, and it generally implies that something went wrong and could have been prevented.

But it’s also deceptively simplistic. Researchers have noted that definitions of preventable death are often imprecise and shaped by subjective judgment. In clinical settings like intensive care units, reviews of mortality frequently focus on individual decisions or errors, while broader systemic issues — like hospital understaffing or regional disparities in access — may go unexamined.

I’m a historian of public health who studies how U.S. health systems have developed over time, especially in rural and underserved areas. I study how structural decisions — about Medicaid, dental care and regional health investment — shape health access and outcomes today.

The language of preventability is widely used and often well-intentioned. But it can make certain deaths appear to be caused by regrettable choices or the failures of an overburdened health system. This, in turn, can lead to policy choices based on mistaken assumptions about where responsibility lies and how solutions should be designed.

What does ‘preventable death’ really mean?

In epidemiology, a preventable death typically refers to a death that could have been avoided with timely and effective medical care, public health intervention or behavioral change. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention uses the term to describe deaths from conditions like heart disease, diabetes, respiratory illness and certain infections — illnesses that can often be managed or averted with adequate care.

This definition is useful: It helps health departments set priorities, allocate funding and measure progress.

But when the term circulates outside that context — in news articles, political speeches or everyday conversation — it often loses its technical grounding. In those settings, “preventable” can imply that prevention is merely a matter of personal knowledge or access, obscuring the deeper structural forces at play.

For example, a person who dies from untreated high blood pressure might be counted in preventable death statistics, since their death could likely have been avoided with routine medical care, effective treatment and support for managing blood pressure.

Health outcomes shaped by policy

But the label overlooks some deeper causes. For example, it doesn’t reflect whether a patient had stable health insurance, lived near a provider or faced cost barriers to filling a prescription. And it doesn’t show whether they were one of the millions of Americans living in states that have not expanded Medicaid, which provides government-supported health insurance for low-income Americans under the Affordable Care Act. These variables can be the determining factor for whether someone is able to receive the care they need that could have made the death preventable.

Since 2010, states have had the option to expand Medicaid, and many states did. But a number of states — primarily in the South — have chosen not to. This policy choice has left many low-income adults without access to affordable health coverage, especially in Southern and rural regions.

Research shows that these decisions have real consequences. Numerous studies have linked Medicaid expansion with lower rates of premature death, better cancer outcomes and improved management of chronic diseases.

Similarly, dental care is one of the most consistently under-resourced parts of the health system. Medicare does not include dental benefits, and Medicaid dental coverage varies widely by state. Dental disease can lead to serious medical complications, including infections that can become life-threatening — yet dental deserts, especially in rural America, leave many without timely access to care.

Rural hospitals and clinics also face persistent underinvestment. According to the Chartis Center for Rural Health, more than 141 rural hospitals have closed since 2010, with hundreds more at risk. Many rural areas struggle to attract and retain health care workers, leaving residents with long travel times and limited emergency coverage.

A pattern, not a fluke

National health statistics reflect these structural gaps. According to the CDC, rates of potentially preventable death are significantly higher in the South than in other regions of the U.S. They are also higher among Black, Native and Hispanic populations compared with white populations — disparities that track closely with differences in poverty rates, insurance coverage and local health infrastructure.

In other words, when one looks more closely at who is dying from so-called preventable causes — and where — consistent patterns emerge. These are not random tragedies, but outcomes that follow familiar policy lines. They are, in many cases, the foreseeable result of long-standing policy decisions and predictable outcomes shaped by structural inequities.

Yet the language of “preventable death” rarely points directly to those decisions. Instead, it implies that the right care simply wasn’t accessed — but not why it wasn’t available or affordable in the first place.

How language shapes perception

In public health, the terms used matter — they shape how both the public and the health system perceives risk, attribute responsibility and support reform.

Without context, calling a death preventable can imply individual failure — that someone didn’t eat right, didn’t take their medication, didn’t go to the doctor in time. The word erases the conditions that make such behaviors difficult or impossible, miscasting structural faults as personal shortcomings. Someone without transportation to a clinic, or without health insurance to cover basic treatment, may not be positioned to “prevent” anything. In that sense, the death is only preventable in theory — not in practice.

As public health experts increasingly embrace the importance of structural barriers to health, some are proposing alternatives to the phrase or are calling for clearer explanations when it is used.

As the health system grapples with widening inequities and eroding trust, speaking clearly about how individual choices interact with the systems in which people make them will help guide stronger policies, more equitable health systems and genuine access to health care. For patients and families, that clarity can mean something as basic as knowing a local clinic will be open when they need it, or that cost won’t keep them from filling a prescription.

Zachary W. Schulz 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. Calling deaths ‘preventable’ can obscure barriers to health care access and shift blame to individuals – https://theconversation.com/calling-deaths-preventable-can-obscure-barriers-to-health-care-access-and-shift-blame-to-individuals-260915

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Tazeen M. Ali, Assistant Professor of Religion and Politics, Washington University in St. Louis

For over a century, Hollywood has tended to portray Muslim men through a remarkably narrow lens: as terrorists, villains or dangerous outsiders. From shows such as “24” and “Homeland” to procedural dramas such as “Law and Order,” this portrayal has seldom allowed for complexity or relatability.

Such depictions reinforce Orientalist stereotypes – a colonial worldview that treats cultures in the East as exotic, irrational or even dangerous.

However, recent years have seen a noticeable increase in Muslim-led storytelling across platforms in the U.S. and U.K. While still a minority, these stories depart from decades of misrepresentation.

As a scholar of Islam and gender who has conducted research on masculinity, sexuality and national belonging in Muslim entertainment media, I analyze a new wave of critically acclaimed shows where Muslim characters are at the center of the narrative.

Historical stereotypes

Scholar of media and race Jack Shaheen has documented the systematic vilification of Arabs and Muslims in Western media. In his 2001 book “Reel Bad Arabs,” he analyzed over a thousand films and found that the vast majority depicted Arab and Muslim men almost exclusively as fanatics, oil-rich villains and misogynists.

More recently, a 2021 study from the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Inclusion Initiative looked at 200 popular movies and found that Muslim characters were either completely missing or shown as violent.

Despite the consistency of negative representations of Muslims on television following the rise in Islamophobia, the post-9/11 climate actually saw the introduction of more diverse Muslim characters. Such portrayals promoted the idea of the U.S. as a tolerant, liberal society.

Scholar of popular culture Evelyn Alsultany writes that Hollywood introduced Muslim characters who were often law-abiding citizens or patriotic allies. She explains that despite these positive attempts, these characters were still depicted in simplistic ways, as either “good Muslims” or “bad Muslims.” The “good Muslim/bad Muslim” framework was coined by scholar of postcolonialism Mahmood Mamdani to describe how Muslims are understood across this binary. The “good Muslims” distance themselves from their faith and align themselves with Western liberal values to gain acceptance.

Expanding on this theme, Islamic studies scholar Samah Choudhury explains how the mainstream success of South Asian Muslim male comedians such as Hasan Minhaj, Kumail Nanjiani and Aziz Ansari is shaped by their adoption of secular ideals.

Even so-called “positive” characters, such as Muslim FBI agents or loyal informants in shows like “NCIS” or “Homeland,” ultimately served to normalize state surveillance and justify the global war on terrorism, a global campaign initiated by the U.S. following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. These brown and sometimes Black Muslim characters are portrayed as “good” only when aligned with U.S. state power.

Effort in contemporary television

Hulu’s comedy drama series “Ramy” is a milestone in Muslim storytelling. Created by actor-comedian Ramy Youssef, the series, which debuted in 2019, follows a young Egyptian-American Muslim navigating family, faith and relationships in New Jersey.

Ramy is devoid of storylines about national security. Instead, the show foregrounds its main character’s grappling with religiosity, dating and identity. Moreover, as I have argued elsewhere, the protagonist’s religious devotion is never a punchline but a part of his everyday experience.

For instance, Ramy prays five times a day – at the mosque and at home, fasts during Ramadan, and abstains from alcohol as a matter of Islamic observance. At the same time, he also partakes in hookup culture and wrestles with guilt for falling short of Islamic ideals. By showcasing this duality, the show illuminates internal debates within American Muslim communities, including on gendered norms around marriage and sexual ethics.

Across the Atlantic, the BBC comedy series “Man Like Mobeen,” created by comedian-actor Guz Khan, offers a layered portrayal of Muslim life in inner-city Birmingham, England. The show follows Mobeen, a reformed British Pakistani gangster, striving and often failing to leave his criminal past behind and live as a devout Muslim while raising his teenage sister.

The show explores the struggles of the working class. It situates Muslim communities within broader class and racial dynamics whereby working-class Black and brown men are vulnerable to racial profiling by law enforcement and gang violence.

With incisive and dark humor, it challenges British racism against Muslims and offers social and political commentary on U.K. society. This includes critiques of British far-right movements and their racism, as well as the failures of the National Health Service.

Muslim women on screen

The flip side of stereotypical portrayals of Muslim men as violent and misogynist is the equally reductive portrayal of Muslim women as passive or oppressed. When Muslim women appear on screen, they are often presented as submissive or “liberated” only by a white non-Muslim male romantic interest. This process of liberation usually involves removing their hijab or distancing themselves from Islam.

A refreshing departure from such storytelling norms can be found in the British Channel 4 comedy “We Are Lady Parts,” created by filmmaker and writer Nida Manzoor, which debuted in 2021.

The show follows an all-female Muslim punk band in London. The bandmates are funny, creative and rebellious. While they defy Western views of Muslim women, they do not appear to be written solely to shatter stereotypes.

They reflect the contradictions that many Muslims live with, juggling faith, identity and politics in their music. The band’s songs include feminist themes but are diverse, subverting Islamophobic stereotypes against women with humor with songs like “Voldemort Under My Headscarf,” or lusting after a love interest in “Bashir with the good beard.”

The band members are also often seen engaged in ritual prayer together, a unified display of worship among women who otherwise have very different personalities, fashion sensibilities and goals in life. The show also addresses queerness, Islamophobia and intergenerational conflict with nuance and humor.

I explore all of these themes in further detail in my forthcoming book, in which I examine how this new wave of Muslim media offers insights about the lived religious experiences of American and British Muslims.

Narrative authority

What unites these series is their rejection of reductive and stereotypical narratives. Muslim characters in these shows are not defined by violence, trauma or assimilation. Nor do they serve as spokespeople for all Muslims; they are written as flawed and evolving individuals.

This wave of nuanced portrayals of Muslim life includes other recent productions such as Netflix’s 2022 series “Mo” and Hulu’s 2025 reality series “Muslim Matchmaker,” which centers real people whose lives and romantic journeys showcase American Muslim life in authentic ways. Muslims in the show are depicted as having various professions, levels of faith and life experiences.

These series and their creators signal that real progress comes when Muslim voices are telling their own stories, not simply reacting to the gaze of outsiders or the pressures of political headlines. By foregrounding daily ritual, spiritual aspiration and even awkwardness and desire, “Ramy,” “Man Like Mobeen” and “We Are Lady Parts” all refuse the burden of “representation.”

By moving away from the binary of “threatening other” versus “assimilated citizen,” this new wave of media challenges the legacy of Orientalism. Instead, they offer characters who reflect the complex realities of Muslim lives that are messy, joyful and evolving.

Tazeen M. Ali 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. Muslim men have often been portrayed as ‘terrorists’ or ‘fanatics’ on TV shows, but Muslim-led storytelling is trying to change that narrative – https://theconversation.com/muslim-men-have-often-been-portrayed-as-terrorists-or-fanatics-on-tv-shows-but-muslim-led-storytelling-is-trying-to-change-that-narrative-263404

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Tom Anchordoquy, Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

When the first cells appeared on Earth approximately 3.8 billion years ago, viruses were already here to greet them. Ever since, viruses have been devising ways to infect cells, and cells have been responding by evolving ways to stop these infections. This evolutionary dance eventually led to the development of your immune system.

A key aspect of your immune system is to distinguish “self” from “nonself” so it can destroy and remove foreign materials from your body. While this immune reaction protects you from viruses, it also has implications for how well foreign materials such as medications work.

I am a researcher studying ways to make drugs work better, including how to get them to the site of disease within the body before being removed or destroyed. One way to do this is to encapsulate drugs in nanoparticles – materials small enough to be taken up by cells. While these materials still trigger an immune response to get them out of the body, scientists like me have found that this reaction could actually be used to improve the effectiveness of cancer treatment.

The immune system and drug delivery

In addition to detecting pathogens, your immune system also responds to tissue damage. You might observe this reaction as inflammation – such as redness and swelling – when drugs are injected into your body with a needle.

Typically this inflammatory response is minimal. But the potential for a sustained reaction increases when drugs are administered slowly over a prolonged period of time, such as during chemotherapy infusions that can take an hour or more. For this reason, some patients are given anti-inflammatory medications before infusion to reduce the potential for an adverse immune response during treatment.

The most recent breakthroughs in getting drugs into the body is using nanoparticles. These materials – which can be made from lipids, proteins, gold or other components – have the advantage of being very small: The diameter of a typical nanoparticle is about 10-thousandths of a millimeter. Their small size allows diseased cells to easily take them up. So when nanoparticles contain drugs, they can act as a drug delivery system.

Despite being so small, nanoparticles can hold a large number of drug molecules, allowing them to deliver a potent cargo of treatment directly into a cell. They can also deliver drugs made of DNA and RNA. The most well-known example of this technology is the COVID-19 vaccine, which uses nanoparticles made of modified fat molecules to deliver mRNA that teaches the immune system to protect itself against COVID-19 infection.

Your innate immune system also identifies nanoparticles as foreign invaders when they are injected into your body. As a result, some patients experience an initial inflammatory reaction when the body tries to attack the nanoparticle.

But what if this reaction could actually be used to improve treatment?

Exploiting the innate immune response

For the past 30 years, my laboratory at the University of Colorado has been studying how nanoparticles deliver drugs. More recently, we have focused on understanding how the innate immune system responds to an injection of nanoparticles. While this immune reaction is typically considered a drawback, we wanted to explore whether it could enhance therapy.

In a 2022 study on how nanoparticles affect the immune response in mice, we found that the innate immune response triggered by an initial dose of nanoparticles carrying a drug will also reduce the effects of a second dose if it is injected shortly afterward – typically within days. It does this by clearing the drug out from the body more quickly. This reaction is similar to how an initial viral infection would trigger a short-term protective response against a subsequent infection from another virus.

One critical aspect of this protective effect involves the production of a protein called interferon lambda. This molecule “interferes” with the infection process by restricting viruses from gaining access to different tissues in the body. Researchers have previously tested this protein as a potential antiviral drug to treat COVID-19.

Similarly, the interferon lambda made in response to the first dose of nanoparticles limits the ability of the second dose to deliver the drug to healthy tissues in the body. However, it did not affect the nanoparticle’s ability to access tumors, possibly because tumors can impair the immune response.

In conventional cancer treatment, chemotherapy drugs are used to kill the tumor. Because these drugs are also toxic to healthy cells, patients often experience side effects such as hair loss, gastrointestinal problems and skin rashes. Using nanoparticles to deliver cancer treatment could help reduce these side effects, and combining them with interferon lambda could allow the nanoparticle-encapsulated drug to stay in the body long enough to have its full effects.

Our team is studying whether directly injecting interferon lambda before chemotherapy with nanoparticles could help limit the amount of drug that ends up in healthy tissues while increasing their concentration in tumors. In an initial test of this strategy in mice with colon cancer, all mice that received interferon lambda saw increased survival time and reduced weight loss. A better understanding of how this effect happens could help researchers eventually test this approach to cancer treatment in human patients.

Scientists have a long way to go in developing nanoparticles that are as efficient as viruses at getting into cells. But our hope is that exploiting an immune response that evolved approximately a billion years ago to prevent viral infections could help reduce the toxic side effects from treatment while improving its effectiveness.

Tom Anchordoquy receives funding for this work from the Nationals Institutes of Health through grant # RO1 CA289447.

– ref. Your immune system attacks drugs like it does viruses – paradoxically offering a way to improve cancer treatment – https://theconversation.com/your-immune-system-attacks-drugs-like-it-does-viruses-paradoxically-offering-a-way-to-improve-cancer-treatment-249824

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ari Koeppel, Earth Sciences Postdoctoral Scientist and Adjunct Associate, Dartmouth College

NASA’s search for evidence of past life on Mars just produced an exciting update. On Sept. 10, 2025, a team of scientists published a paper detailing the Perseverance rover’s investigation of a distinctive rock outcrop called Bright Angel on the edge of Mars’ Jezero Crater. This outcrop is notable for its light-toned rocks with striking mineral nodules and multicolored, leopard print-like splotches.

By combining data from five scientific instruments, the team determined that these nodules formed through processes that could have involved microorganisms. While this finding is not direct evidence of life, it’s a compelling discovery that planetary scientists hope to look into more closely.

To appreciate how discoveries like this one come about, it’s helpful to understand how scientists engage with rover data — that is, how planetary scientists like me use robots like Perseverance on Mars as extensions of our own senses.

Experiencing Mars through data

When you strap on a virtual reality headset, you suddenly lose your orientation to the immediate surroundings, and your awareness is transported by light and sound to a fabricated environment. For Mars scientists working on rover mission teams, something very similar occurs when rovers send back their daily downlinks of data.

Several developers, including MarsVR, Planetary Visor and Access Mars, have actually worked to build virtual Mars environments for viewing with a virtual reality headset. However, much of Mars scientists’ daily work instead involves analyzing numerical data visualized in graphs and plots. These datasets, produced by state-of-the-art sensors on Mars rovers, extend far beyond human vision and hearing.

Developing an intuition for interpreting these complex datasets takes years, if not entire careers. It is through this “mind-data connection” that scientists build mental models of Martian landscapes – models they then communicate to the world through scientific publications.

The robots’ tool kit: Sensors and instruments

Five primary instruments on Perseverance, aided by machine learning algorithms, helped describe the unusual rock formations at a site called Beaver Falls and the past they record.

Robotic hands: Mounted on the rover’s robotic arm are tools for blowing dust aside and abrading rock surfaces. These ensure the rover analyzes clean samples.

Cameras: Perseverance hosts 19 cameras for navigation, self-inspection and science. Five science-focused cameras played a key role in this study. These cameras captured details unseeable by human eyes, including magnified mineral textures and light in infrared wavelengths. Their images revealed that Bright Angel is a mudstone, a type of sedimentary rock formed from fine sediments deposited in water.

Spectrometers: Instruments such as SuperCam and SHERLOC – scanning habitable environments with Raman and luminescence for organics and chemicals – analyze how rocks reflect or emit light across a range of wavelengths. Think of this as taking hundreds of flash photographs of the same tiny spot, all in different “colors.” These datasets, called spectra, revealed signs of water integrated into mineral structures in the rock and traces of organic molecules: the basic building blocks of life.

Subsurface radar: RIMFAX, the radar imager for Mars subsurface experiment, uses radio waves to peer beneath Mars’ surface and map rock layers. At Beaver Falls, this showed the rocks were layered over other ancient terrains, likely due to the activity of a flowing river. Areas with persistently present water are better habitats for microbes than dry or intermittently wet locations.

X-ray chemistry: PIXL, the planetary instrument for X-ray lithochemistry, bombards rock surfaces with X-rays and observes how the rock glows or reflects them. This technique can tell researchers which elements and minerals the rock contains at a fine scale. PIXL revealed that the leopard-like spots found at Beaver Falls differed chemically from the surrounding rock. The spots resembled patterns on Earth formed by chemical reactions that are mediated by microbes underwater.

Together, these instruments produce a multifaceted picture of the Martian environment. Some datasets require significant processing, and refined machine learning algorithms help the mission teams turn that information into a more intuitive description of the Jezero Crater’s setting, past and present.

The challenge of uncertainty

Despite Perseverance’s remarkable tools and processing software, uncertainty remains in the results. Science, especially when conducted remotely on another planet, is rarely black and white. In this case, the chemical signatures and mineral formations at Beaver Falls are suggestive – but not conclusive – of past life on Mars.

There actually are tools, such as mass spectrometers, that can show definitively whether a rock sample contains evidence of biological activity. However, these instruments are currently too fragile, heavy and power-intensive for Mars missions.

Fortunately, Perseverance has collected and sealed rock core samples from Beaver Falls and other promising sites in Jezero Crater with the goal of sending them back to Earth. If the current Mars sample return plan can retrieve these samples, laboratories on Earth can scrutinize them far more thoroughly than the rover was able to.

Investing in our robotic senses

This discovery is a testament to decades of NASA’s sustained investment in Mars exploration and the work of engineering teams that developed these instruments. Yet these investments face an uncertain future.

The White House’s budget office recently proposed cutting 47% of NASA’s science funding. Such reductions could curtail ongoing missions, including Perseverance’s continued operations, which are targeted for a 23% cut, and jeopardize future plans such as the Mars sample return campaign, among many other missions.

Perseverance represents more than a machine. It is a proxy extending humanity’s senses across millions of miles to an alien world. These robotic explorers and the NASA science programs behind them are a key part of the United States’ collective quest to answer profound questions about the universe and life beyond Earth.

Ari Koeppel previously received funding from NASA science grants. He is affiliated with The Planetary Society. Any views represented in this article are those of the author. The budget cuts do not directly affect the author’s work and he is not currently formally connected to the rover campaign.

– ref. Mars rovers serve as scientists’ eyes and ears from millions of miles away – here are the tools Perseverance used to spot a potential sign of ancient life – https://theconversation.com/mars-rovers-serve-as-scientists-eyes-and-ears-from-millions-of-miles-away-here-are-the-tools-perseverance-used-to-spot-a-potential-sign-of-ancient-life-265144

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs, Boise State University

When the federal government threatened to cancel billions in research funds from Harvard University – as it has also done to other research universities – the message was clear: Institutions that speak or think in ways elected officials dislike can expect to pay a price.

But in a recent ruling that underscored a principle at the heart of American democracy, a federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s move. The “government-initiated onslaught against Harvard was much more about promoting a governmental orthodoxy in violation of the First Amendment than about anything else,” U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs wrote.

The Harvard controversy began when the Trump administration announced plans to cut off billions in federal research funds because it objected to the university’s public positions, campus culture and some of its academic scholarship. No one contended that Harvard had mismanaged money or failed to meet grant requirements.

Instead, the White House said the school had done too little to eliminate so-called woke diversity, equity and inclusion – DEI – policies and alleged that antisemitism proliferated on campus, as evidenced by student demonstrations against Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war.

Along with the American Association of University Professors, Harvard filed suit in response to the funding cuts, arguing that the administration’s action was punitive and unconstitutional – a textbook case of retaliation. By canceling funding, the government was deploying financial pressure to silence disfavored speech.

Protection for dissent and disagreement

In striking down the funding cut, Burroughs ruled that the administration’s move violated the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly by limiting government intrusion. While government officials may disagree with Harvard’s speech – whether that means faculty scholarship, public statements or the culture of campus debate – they cannot retaliate by pulling federal support, the judge wrote.

As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on free expression.

The principle at work in the Harvard case is simple: Free speech protections don’t just apply to individuals in the town square or in places where public decisions are being made.

First Amendment rights extend to private institutions, even when their views or policies contravene official government opinions, and even when they receive funding from the government. Government reprisal does more than chill speech – it sets up a system where only state-approved viewpoints can flourish.

Supreme Court has seen this before

The ruling in Harvard’s favor follows a long legal tradition of Supreme Court rulings that bar the government from demanding ideological acquiescence in exchange for support.

In the case Speiser v. Randall that was decided in 1958, the court struck down a California law requiring veterans to sign loyalty oaths to receive tax exemptions. The decision created the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, a principle that forbids government from making the receipt of a government benefit or entitlement conditional in a way that interferes with the exercise of a constitutional right.

In Perry v. Sindermann, a 1972 decision, a professor was denied reappointment at a state college after criticizing administrators. Even without tenure, the court held, the government could not retaliate against him for protected speech.

And in Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, the court in 2001 invalidated restrictions that barred federally funded legal aid lawyers from challenging welfare laws. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that such limits “distort the legal system” by preventing some members of the bar from making arguments on behalf of their clients, while the government would face no similar restriction in promoting their own views.

Supreme Court’s contemporary signals

More recent cases show the court wrestling with the same question in new contexts.

The court’s 2013 decision in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International struck down a requirement that nonprofits adopt a government-approved position opposing prostitution in order to receive global health funding.

The government, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, could not make program funds dependent on grant-seeking groups adopting particular political or moral beliefs. In this case, that meant the Alliance for Open Society did not have to condemn sex work in order to qualify for public health funding.

Likewise, in Janus v. AFSCME from 2018, the court struck down an Illinois law that required public employees who chose not to join a union to still pay fees to support it. The state had argued that these “fair-share fees” were necessary because unions bargain on behalf of all workers. But the court said that forcing nonmembers to pay was a form of compelled speech – subsidizing union political organizing – that abridged the First Amendment.

While the context is very different from Harvard’s funding dispute, both cases highlight the same principle: The government cannot use money – whether through subsidies, grants or mandatory fees – as a way to compel or suppress expression. These rulings show that the First Amendment protections apply to government funding and policy questions that quietly shape who gets heard and who does not.

Long history of retaliation

While American myth celebrates the idea that the United States welcomes dissent, the government has a history of punishing protesters.

The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 criminalized criticism of the federal government. During World War I, the Espionage and Sedition Acts were used to imprison activists and silence newspapers. In the 1950s, Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s crusade against alleged communists extended to universities, with faculty losing jobs and having their careers destroyed.

In each of those episodes, dissent was framed as dangerous to national security or social stability. And in each case, the tools of government – whether criminal law, congressional investigations or funding threats – were used to discipline voices that strayed from the party line. The impulse to punish institutions for perceived ideological deviance is part of a recurring American story.

What’s distinctive today is how the tactic has been folded into the culture wars.

Where earlier generations of politicians used criminal prosecution or loyalty oaths, the contemporary fight often plays out in budget spreadsheets. Defund public radio. Cut university budgets. Zero out grants to the arts.

These are not just fiscal decisions; they are symbolic moves aimed at disciplining institutions seen by conservatives as too liberal or too critical.

Why this matters beyond the courts

The latest ruling may protect Harvard in this instance, but the larger conflict is not going away.

The legal decision confirms that retaliation violates the First Amendment, but political leaders may continue to test the boundaries. And among the public, the idea that universities should play along with official doctrine in exchange for continued government funding may eventually gain traction. That possibility feels especially real given Trump’s promises, echoed by Vice President JD Vance and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, to wield federal power against universities and civic groups they portray – often inaccurately – as leftist, radical or violent.

A society where public funding flows only to institutions aligned with those in power is not a free society. It’s one where government can shape the landscape of knowledge and debate to its own ends.

The Harvard decision offers a reminder: The First Amendment is not just about the right to speak without fear of jail. It’s also about ensuring that the government cannot punish speech indirectly by threatening livelihoods and institutions. That’s why this case matters to the future of free expression in American democracy.

Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin 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. Harvard, like all Americans, can’t be punished by the government for speaking freely – and a federal court decision upholds decades of precedents saying so – https://theconversation.com/harvard-like-all-americans-cant-be-punished-by-the-government-for-speaking-freely-and-a-federal-court-decision-upholds-decades-of-precedents-saying-so-264743