Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Dipangkar Dutta, Professor of Nuclear Physics, Mississippi State University

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.

---

What is dark matter and what is antimatter? Are they the same or different? – Namrata, age 13, Ghaziabad, India

---

Imagine an epic video game with your favorite hero as a character. Another character is a mirror-image twin who shows up occasionally, exploding everything they touch. And, to add an extra level of difficulty, the game includes a mysterious hive of minions hiding at every corner, changing the rules of the game, but never showing themselves.

If you think of these characters as types of matter, this video game is basically how our universe works.

The hero is regular matter, which is everything we can see around us. Antimatter is the mirror-image explosive twin that scientists understand well but can barely find. And dark matter is the invisible minions. It is everywhere, but we cannot see it, and scientists have no idea what it is.

Despite having similar-sounding names, dark matter and antimatter are completely different. Interestingly, physicists like me know exactly what antimatter is, but there is almost none of it around. On the other hand, we have no idea what dark matter is, but there is a lot of it everywhere.

Antimatter: The mirror-image twin

All the regular matter around you is made of basic building blocks called atoms. Atoms have positively charged particles called protons surrounded by tiny negatively charged electrons.

Think of antimatter as regular matter’s oppositely charged twin.

All particles, like protons and the electrons, have antimatter siblings. Electrons have positrons, which are anti-electrons, while protons have antiprotons. Antiprotons and positrons make up antimatter atoms, or anti-atoms. They’re like mirror images, but with their electric charges flipped. When matter and antimatter meet, they destroy each other in a flash of light and energy and vanish.

Luckily, antimatter is very rare in our universe. But some special regular matter atoms, such as potassium, can decay to produce antimatter. For example, when you eat a banana, or any food rich in potassium, you are eating tiny amounts of these antimatter-producing atoms. The amount is too small to affect your health.

Antimatter was discovered almost 100 years ago. Today, scientists can create, store and study antimatter in the laboratory. They understand its properties very well. Doctors even use it for PET scans. They inject tiny amounts of antimatter-producing atoms into your body, and as these atoms travel through your body, the scan takes pictures of the flashes of light from the annihilation of the antimatter and regular matter in your body. This process lets doctors see what is happening inside your body.

Scientists have also figured out that when the universe was born, there were almost equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They met and annihilated each other. Fortunately, just a tiny bit more regular matter survived to make stars, planets and all of us.

Dark matter: The invisible minions

Dark matter is far more mysterious. Have you ever spun very fast on a merry-go-round? If so, you know how hard it is to stay on it without getting thrown off, especially if you’re the only one on the merry-go-round.

Now imagine there are a bunch of invisible minions on that merry-go-round with you. You can’t see them and you can’t touch them, but they hold you and keep you from flying off as it spins super-fast. You know they’re there because the merry-go-round is heavier than it looks, and it is harder to push and get it spinning. The invisible minions don’t play or talk to anybody; they just hang around, adding their weight to everything.

About 50 years ago, astronomer Vera Rubin discovered a similar mystery in spiral galaxies. She looked at spinning galaxies, which are like cosmic merry-go-rounds, and noticed something strange: The outer stars in these galaxies were spinning much faster than they should. They should have gone flying off into space like sparks from a firework display. But they did not.

It was like watching kids on a merry-go-round move at incredible speed but somehow stay perfectly in place.

The only explanation? There must be a sea of invisible “stuff” holding everything together with their extra gravity. Scientists called this mystery material “dark matter.”

Since then, astronomers have observed similar strange behavior happening throughout the universe. Galaxies within large clusters move in unexpected ways. Light gets bent around galaxies more than it should be. Galaxies stick together far more than the visible matter alone can explain.

It is as if our cosmic playground has swings moving by themselves, and seesaws tipping with nobody visible sitting on them.

Dark matter is just a placeholder name until scientists figure out what it is. For the past 50 years, many scientists have been running experiments that are trying to detect dark matter or produce it in the lab. But so far, they have come up empty-handed.

We don’t know what dark matter is, but it’s everywhere. It could be unusual particles scientists have not discovered yet. It could be something completely unexpected. But astronomers can tell by observing how fast galaxies rotate that there is about five times more dark matter than all the regular matter in the entire universe.

---

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.

Dipangkar Dutta receives funding from US Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.

– ref. How are dark matter and antimatter different? – https://theconversation.com/how-are-dark-matter-and-antimatter-different-270362

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Shuang-Ye Wu, Professor of Geology and Environmental Geosciences, University of Dayton

The summer of 2025 brought unprecedented flash flooding across the U.S., with the central and eastern regions hit particularly hard. These storms claimed hundreds of lives across Texas, Kentucky and several other states and caused widespread destruction.

At the same time, every hurricane that formed, including the three powerful Category 5 storms, steered clear of the U.S. mainland.

Both scenarios were unusual – and they were largely directed by the polar jet stream.

What is a jet stream?

Jet streams are narrow bands of high-speed winds in the upper troposphere, around four to eight miles (seven to 13 kilometers) above the surface of the Earth, flowing west to east around the entire planet. They form where strong temperature contrasts exist.

Each hemisphere hosts two primary jet streams:

The polar jet stream is typically found near 50 to 60 degrees latitude, across Canada in the Northern Hemisphere, where cold polar air meets warmer midlatitude air. It plays a major role in modulating weather systems in the midlatitudes, including the continental U.S. With winds up to 200 mph, it’s also the usual steering force that brings those bitter cold storms down from Canada.

The subtropical jet stream is typically closer to 30 degrees latitude, which in the Northern Hemisphere crosses Florida. It follows the boundary between tropical air masses and subtropical air masses. It’s generally the weaker and steadier of the two jet streams.

These jet streams act like atmospheric conveyor belts, steering storm systems across continents.

Stronger (faster) jet streams can intensify storm systems, whereas weaker (slower) jet streams can stall storm systems, leading to prolonged rainfall and flooding.

2025’s intense summer of flooding

Most summers, the polar jet stream retreats northward into Canada and weakens considerably, leaving the continental U.S. with calmer weather. When rainstorms pop up, they’re typically caused by localized convection due to uneven heating of the land – picture afternoon pop-up thunderstorms.

During the summer of 2025, however, the polar jet stream shifted unusually far south and steered larger storm systems into the midlatitudes of the U.S. At the same time, the jet stream weakened, with two critical consequences.

First, instead of moving storms quickly eastward, the sluggish jet stream stalled storm systems in place, causing prolonged downpours and flash flooding.

Second, a weak jet stream tends to meander more dramatically. Its broad north-south swings in summer 2025 funneled humid air from the Gulf of Mexico deep into the interior, supplying storm systems with abundant moisture and intensifying rainfall.

This moisture surge was amplified by unusually warm conditions over the Atlantic and Gulf regions. A warmer ocean evaporates more water, and warmer air holds a greater amount of moisture. As a result, extraordinary levels of atmospheric moisture were directed into storm systems, fueling stronger convection and heavier precipitation.

Finally, the wavy jet stream became locked in place by persistent high-pressure systems, anchoring storm tracks over the same regions. This led to repeated episodes of heavy rainfall and catastrophic flooding across much of the continental U.S. The same behavior can leave other regions facing days of unrelenting heat waves.

The jet stream buffered US in hurricane season

The jet stream also played a role in the 2025 hurricane season.

Given its west-to-east wind direction, the southward dip of the jet stream – along with a weak high pressure system over the Atlantic – helped steer all five hurricanes away from the U.S. mainland.

Most of the year’s 13 tropical storms and hurricanes veered off into the Atlantic before even reaching the Caribbean.

Climate change plays a role in these shifts

So, how does climate change influence the jet stream?

The strength of jet streams is controlled by the temperature contrast between the equatorial and polar regions.

A higher temperature contrast leads to stronger jet streams. As the planet warms, the Arctic is heating up at more than twice the global average rate, and that is reducing the equator-to-pole temperature difference. As that temperature gradient weakens, jet streams lose their strength and become more prone to stalling.

This increases the risk of persistent extreme rainfall events.

Weaker jet streams also meander more, producing larger waves and more erratic behavior. This increases the likelihood of unusual shifts, such as the southward swing of the jet stream in the summer of 2025.

A recent study found that amplified planetary waves in the jet streams, which can cause weather systems to stay in place for days or weeks, are occurring three times more frequently than in the 1950s.

What’s ahead?

As the global climate continues to warm, extreme weather events driven by erratic behavior of jet streams are expected to become more common. Combined with additional moisture that warmer oceans and air masses supply, these events will intensify, producing storms that are more frequent and more destructive to societies and ecosystems.

In the short term, the polar jet stream will be shaping the winter ahead. It is most powerful in winter, when it dips southward into the central and even southern U.S., driving frequent storm systems, blizzards and cold air outbreaks.

Shuang-Ye Wu 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. 2025’s extreme weather had the jet stream’s fingerprints all over it, from flash floods to hurricanes – https://theconversation.com/2025s-extreme-weather-had-the-jet-streams-fingerprints-all-over-it-from-flash-floods-to-hurricanes-270641

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Sherry Thatcher, Regal Distinguished Professor of Management and Entrepreneurship, University of Tennessee

More than 20% of Americans will be diagnosed with mental illness in their lifetimes. They will, that is, experience conditions that influence the way they think, feel and act – and that may initially seem incompatible with the demands of work.

Our new research suggests that what people living with chronic mental illnesses need most to succeed at work is for their managers to be flexible and trust them.

This includes the freedom to adjust their schedules and workloads to make their jobs more compatible with their efforts to manage and treat their symptoms. For that to happen, managers need to trust that these workers are committed to their jobs and their employers.

We’re management professors who reviewed hundreds of blog and Reddit posts and conducted in-depth interviews with 59 people. And those are the most significant findings from our peer-reviewed study, published in the October 2025 issue of the Academy of Management Journal.

Scouring Reddit posts and conducting interviews

We gathered our data from three sources: anonymous blog posts from 171 people, Reddit posts from 781 people, and in-depth interviews with 59 workers employed in a variety of jobs across multiple industries.

All these people worked while dealing with chronic mental illness, such as major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and bipolar disorder. The blog posts were maintained by a nonprofit concerned with the experiences of individuals living with mental illness. We focused on posts tagged “work.”

To identify relevant data on Reddit, we searched using a combination of the word “work” with several terms associated with mental illness. Additionally, we restricted our data collection to unsolicited narratives published prior to mid-March 2020 to avoid overlap with the employment changes that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because this data was gathered from the internet, we couldn’t obtain details about participants’ gender, age, profession or education.

We also recruited people to interview through social media postings, advertising in a public university’s alumni listserv and contacting an organization that focuses on men’s mental health. We also made requests of those we’d already interviewed to see whether they had recommendations for other people to possibly interview.

The interviews took place in 2020 and 2021.

Speaking with people from all walks of working life

About 37% of the people we interviewed identified as women, and their average age was 41.5 years. Approximately 80% of them identified as Caucasian, 3.5% Black, 3.5% Hispanic, and less than 2% identified as either Indian, Korean American, mixed race or Middle Eastern and North African. About 3.5% chose not to answer.

They held a variety of jobs, including lawyer, professor, touring musician, consultant, teacher, real estate manager, chief technology officer, salesperson, restaurant server, travel agency manager, graphic designer, tester for manufacturing plant, chemical engineer and bus driver. Several worked in tech fields.

When the employees who we studied were trusted and given flexibility, they became better able to do their jobs while also attending to their well-being.

Employees who had lived with their condition for years used what we call “personalized disengagement and engagement strategies” to manage their symptoms. That refers to the fact that people with mental illness respond best to different coping strategies depending on their own preferences and symptoms, instead of using generic techniques they learned from self-help resources or peers.

Examples of personalized disengagement strategies ranged from leaving workspaces to meditate to taking a walk, to finding a quiet space to cry.

Engagement strategies included immersing more deeply into work and having conversations with co-workers. These coping strategies will sound familiar to most people, including those without any chronic mental health conditions. But workplaces don’t always give employees, regardless of their disability status, the flexibility and self-determination necessary to enact their strategies. In fact, a recent survey by Mind Share Partners found that nearly half of employees didn’t even feel like they could disconnect from their jobs after working hours or while on vacation.

Many employees also told us that they benefited from trust and flexibility in the period after they were diagnosed, when they needed to explore different therapies and treatment techniques.

When managers allow for flexibility, trust workers to do what they need to do to address their symptoms, and convey their compassion, employees with chronic mental illness are more likely to keep their jobs and get their work done.

Affecting most employers

Mental illnesses became more prevalent in the aftermath of COVID-19,especially among adolescents and young adults.

So, if you’re an employer, chances are that our research is relevant to your workforce.

Depression, a common mental illness, had an estimated cost of US$1 trillion annually in lost productivity in 2019, the World Health Organization has estimated.

People with anxiety and mood disorders, including bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, may periodically have symptoms that interfere with their ability to do their jobs.

And while doing those jobs, they risk being stigmatized by co-workers who may know little about mental illness or be judgmental about people with those chronic conditions. That adds further stress beyond what others would experience at work.

Employee assistance programs could be falling short

In response, many employers offer benefits to help employees cope with mental and emotional problems, such as employee assistance programs, mental-wellness app subscriptions and stigma-reduction efforts.

These one-size-fits-all initiatives can help improve functioning for those with occasional or short-term emotional problems, and they can help improve leaders’ ability to respond to employees’ distress, which is crucial.

But as a whole, they are not enough to solve the problem.

Employee assistance programs, which nearly all big companies offer, have not proved systematically helpful to workers in achieving their goals. One study found that they reduced employees’ absences but did not reduce their work-related distress.

Another study even found that workers who used these programs became more inclined to leave their jobs.

Not missing out on peak performers

Contrary to stereotypes, people with chronic anxiety and depression, such as those we studied, are generally as capable of success in the workplace as anyone else in the right context.

Extremely high performers, such as the late actor Carrie Fisher and the Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps, are two such examples of people with a mental illness who were top achievers in their field.

If you were a manager, wouldn’t you want people of this caliber working for you? If so, then it’s important to create the right conditions, which many employers fail to do despite their best efforts.

Needing more mental health support

Companies will face increasing pressure to support those with mental illness and other mental health challenges.

Monster’s 2024 State of the Graduate Report found that Gen Z employees, people born between 1996 and 2010 and are currently in their teens and 20s, are increasingly prioritizing support for mental health at work, with 92% of 18- to 24-year-olds surveyed wanting a job where they are comfortable discussing their mental health at work.

This trend suggests that employers wishing to attract top entry-level talent will need to effectively support mental health, highlighting the importance of continuing to research this issue.

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. Best way for employers to support employees with chronic mental illness is by offering flexibility – https://theconversation.com/best-way-for-employers-to-support-employees-with-chronic-mental-illness-is-by-offering-flexibility-270368

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Anjana Susarla, Professor of Information Systems, Michigan State University

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Dec. 11, 2025, that aims to supersede state-level artificial intelligence laws that the administration views as a hindrance to innovation in AI.

State laws regulating AI are increasing in number, particularly in response to the rise of generative AI systems such as ChatGPT that produce text and images. Thirty-eight states enacted laws in 2025 regulating AI in one way or another. They range from prohibiting stalking via AI-powered robots to barring AI systems that can manipulate people’s behavior.

The executive order declares that it is the policy of the United States to produce a “minimally burdensome” national framework for AI. The order calls on the U.S. attorney general to create an AI litigation task force to challenge state AI laws that are inconsistent with the policy. It also orders the secretary of commerce to identify “onerous” state AI laws that conflict with the policy and to withhold funding under the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program to states with those laws. The executive order exempts state AI laws related to child safety.

Executive orders are directives to federal agencies on how to implement existing laws. The AI executive order directs federal departments and agencies to take actions that the administration claims fall under their legal authorities.

Big tech companies have lobbied for the federal government to override state AI regulations. The companies have argued that the burden of following multiple state regulations hinders innovation.

Proponents of the state laws tend to frame them as attempts to balance public safety with economic benefit. Prominent examples are laws in California, Colorado, Texas and Utah. Here are some of the major state laws regulating AI that could be targeted under the executive order:

Algorithmic discrimination

Colorado’s Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence is the first comprehensive state law in the U.S. that aims to regulate AI systems used in employment, housing, credit, education and health care decisions. However, enforcement of the law has been delayed while the state legislature considers its ramifications.

The focus of the Colorado AI act is predictive artificial intelligence systems, which make decisions, not newer generative artificial intelligence like ChatGPT, which create content.

The Colorado law aims to protect people from algorithmic discrimination. The law requires organizations using these “high-risk systems” to make impact assessments of the technology, notify consumers whether predictive AI will be used in consequential decisions about them, and make public the types of systems they use and how they plan to manage the risks of algorithmic discrimination.

A similar Illinois law scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2026, amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to make it a civil rights violation for employers to use AI tools that result in discrimination.

On the ‘frontier’

California’s Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act specifies guardrails on the development of the most powerful AI models. These models, called foundation or frontier models, are any AI model that is trained on extremely large and varied datasets and that can be adapted to a wide range of tasks without additional training. They include the models underpinning OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini AI chatbots.

The California law applies only to the world’s largest AI models – ones that cost at least US$100 million and require at least 10²⁶ – or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 – floating point operations of computing power to train. Floating point operations are arithmetic that allows computers to calculate large numbers.

Machine learning models can produce unreliable, unpredictable and unexplainable outcomes. This poses challenges to regulating the technology.

Their internal workings are invisible to users and sometimes even their creators, leading them to be called black boxes. The Foundation Model Transparency Index shows that these large models can be quite opaque.

The risks from such large AI models include malicious use, malfunctions and systemic risks. These models could potentially pose catastrophic risks to society. For example, someone could use an AI model to create a weapon that results in mass casualties, or instruct one to orchestrate a cyberattack causing billions of dollars in damages.

The California law requires developers of frontier AI models to describe how they incorporate national and international standards and industry-consensus best practices. It also requires them to provide a summary of any assessment of catastrophic risk. The law also directs the state’s Office of Emergency Services to set up a mechanism for anyone to report a critical safety incident and to confidentially submit summaries of any assessments of the potential for catastrophic risk.

Disclosures and liability

Texas enacted the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act, which imposes restrictions on the development and deployment of AI systems for purposes such as behavioral manipulation. The safe harbor provisions – protections against liability – in the Texas AI act are meant to provide incentives for businesses to document compliance with responsible AI governance frameworks such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework.

What is novel about the Texas law is that it stipulates the creation of a “sandbox” – an isolated environment where software can be safely tested – for developers to test the behavior of an AI system.

The Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act imposes disclosure requirements on organizations using generative AI tools with their customers. Such laws ensure that a company using generative AI tools bears the ultimate responsibility for resulting consumer liabilities and harms and cannot shift the blame to the AI. This law is the first in the nation to stipulate consumer protections and require companies to prominently disclose when a consumer is interacting with generative AI system.

Other moves

States are also taking other legal and political steps to protect their citizens from the potential harms of AI.

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said he opposes federal efforts to override state AI regulations. He has also proposed a Florida AI bill of rights to address “obvious dangers” of the technology.

Meanwhile, the attorneys general of 38 states and the attorneys general of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands called on AI companies, including Anthropic, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Perplexity AI and xAI, to fix sycophantic and delusional outputs from generative AI systems. These are outputs that can lead users to become overly trusting of the AI systems or even delusional.

It’s not clear what effect the executive order will have, and observers have said it is illegal because only Congress can supersede state laws. The order’s final provision directs federal officials to propose legislation to do so.

Anjana Susarla 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. What’s at stake in Trump’s executive order aiming to curb state-level AI regulation – https://theconversation.com/whats-at-stake-in-trumps-executive-order-aiming-to-curb-state-level-ai-regulation-266668

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Mary Dzon, Associate Professor of English, University of Tennessee

Manger scenes displayed around Christmastime usually feature an ox and an ass beside the infant Jesus. According to the Gospel of Luke, Mary placed her child in a manger – an animal feeding bin – “because there was no room for them in the inn.”

No mere babysitters, the ox and ass harken back to the Book of Isaiah 1:3, a verse early Christians interpreted as a prophecy of the birth of Christ. In some early artwork, these beasts of burden kneel to show their reverence – recognizing this swaddled babe, who entered the world in humble circumstances, as lordly.

The canonical Gospels, the accounts of Jesus’ life included in the Bible’s New Testament, make no mention of those animals welcoming the newborn. Yet the motif was already seen in art from the fourth century. It was further popularized by the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, an apocryphal text – that is, one not included in the canon of Scripture. Pseudo-Matthew was composed by an anonymous monk, probably in the seventh century, and includes many tales about Jesus growing up.

After its account of Jesus’ birth, the Bible is almost entirely silent on his childhood. Yet legends about Jesus’ early years circulated widely in the Middle Ages – the focus of my 2017 book. While the detail of the ox and ass is quite familiar to many Christians today, few are aware of the other striking tales transmitted by the apocrypha.

Wonder-worker

The Bible does include one famous scene from Jesus’ youth: the incident when 12-year-old Jesus stayed behind at the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, unbeknownst to his parents. Searching for him with great anxiety, they find him conversing with religious teachers, both asking questions and astounding them with his answers. Fourteenth-century painter Simone Martini’s “Christ Discovered in the Temple” portrays him standing before his parents with crossed arms – a stubborn youth, apparently unapologetic about making them worry for days.

The apocryphal Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew – especially versions that incorporate material from an even earlier apocryphal gospel, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas – focuses on the years of Jesus’ childhood. Like the temple story, they show the boy Jesus as sometimes difficult and having preternatural wisdom that amazes and even offends his would-be teachers. More dramatically, the apocryphal legends depict Jesus exercising divine power from a very young age.

Like the adult Jesus of the New Testament, this apocryphal Christ child often works wonders to help others in need. According to the biblical Gospel of Matthew, Mary and Joseph take the infant Jesus to Egypt after an angel warns in a dream that Herod, King of Judea, would kill the child. In Pseudo-Matthew’s elaboration of this episode, we see Jesus, not yet 2 years old, bravely stand on his feet before dragons emanating from a cave, where his family has stopped to rest.

The terrifying dragons worship him and then depart, while Jesus boldly assures those around him that he is the “perfect man” and can “tame every kind of wild beast.” He later commands a palm tree to bend down so that a weary Mary can partake of its fruits, and he miraculously shortens their journey in the desert.

At times, the Jesus of these legends is largely to blame for the troubles around him. The 14th-century Tring Tiles, now in the British Museum, depict one of Jesus’ friends imprisoned by his father in a tower. Christ pulls him out of a tiny hole, like a gallant medieval knight rescuing a maiden in distress. The father had tried to insulate his son from Jesus’ influence – understandable, considering that many legends show Jesus causing the death of his playmates or other boys who somehow irked him.

In a story summarized by one scholar as “death for a bump,” a boy runs into Jesus. He curses the child, who instantly drops down dead – though Jesus brings him back to life after a brief reprimand from Joseph.

In another tale, included in an Anglo-Norman narrative that survives in an illustrated manuscript, Jesus takes off his coat, places it upon a sunbeam and sits upon it. When the other children see this, they “thought they would do the same …. But they were too eager, and they all fell down at once. One and another jumped up quickly onto the sunbeam, but it turned out badly for them, since each one broke his neck.” Jesus heals the boys at his parents’ prompting.

Joseph admits to his neighbors that Jesus “was indeed too wild” and sends him away. The 7-year-old Jesus becomes apprenticed to a dyer, who gives him very precise directions about dyeing three pieces of cloth in three different vats. Once his master has left, Jesus ignores his instructions, throwing all the cloth into one vat – yet still achieves the desired outcome. When the master returns, he at first thinks he has been “ruined by this little rascal,” but then realizes that a wonder has occurred.

Bond with animals

These apocryphal legends also show the boy Jesus having power over the animal world. When he enters a dreaded lion’s cave, cubs “ran about around his feet, fawning and playing with him,” while “the older lions … stood at a distance and worshipped him, and wagged their tails before him.” Jesus tells bystanders that the beasts are better than they are, because the animals “recognize and glorify their Lord.”

Indeed, these tales characterize Jesus as a rather haughty boy, conscious of his divinity and not happy with those who treat him as a mere child. At the same time, they depict him as a real child who likes to play. The boy Jesus is childlike in the way he often acts on impulse, not paying much attention to the admonitions of his elders.

His affinity for animals, too, makes him seem childlike. Strikingly, beasts in the apocrypha, beginning with the ox and ass, often seem to realize that Jesus is no ordinary child before human characters do.

The legends’ insidious insinuation that many of the Jews around Jesus were not as perceptive as the animals is part of medieval Europe’s widespread antisemitism. In one fifth-century sermon, Quodvultdeus, the bishop of Carthage, asks why the animals’ recognition of Jesus in the manger was not a sufficient sign for the Jews.

In the Bible, Jesus works his first miracle as an adult, at a wedding feast in Cana. The apocryphal tales, however, toy with the idea of the God-man revealing his power early on. The legends suggest that the childishness of Christ distracted many of those around him, preventing them from concluding that he was the Messiah. This allows the apocrypha to avoid contradicting the Bible’s reference to Jesus as simply “the carpenter’s son,” the opposite of a wonder child.

Each Christmas, modern Christians in the Western world tend to celebrate Jesus’ birthday, then quickly drop the theme of the Christ child. Medieval Christians, in contrast, were fascinated by tales about the Son of God growing up. Despite acting as a dragon tamer, physician and magician, the young Jesus of the apocrypha largely flies under the radar, cloaking his divinity with “little rascal” boyishness.

Mary Dzon 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. The Bible says little about Jesus’ childhood – but that didn’t stop medieval Christians from enjoying tales of him as holy ‘rascal’ – https://theconversation.com/the-bible-says-little-about-jesus-childhood-but-that-didnt-stop-medieval-christians-from-enjoying-tales-of-him-as-holy-rascal-207475

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Amirali Aghazadeh, Assistant Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology

When NASA scientists opened the sample return canister from the OSIRIS-REx asteroid sample mission in late 2023, they found something astonishing.

Dust and rock collected from the asteroid Bennu contained many of life’s building blocks, including all five nucleobases used in DNA and RNA, 14 of the 20 amino acids found in proteins, and a rich collection of other organic molecules. These are built primarily from carbon and hydrogen, and they often form the backbone of life’s chemistry.

For decades, scientists have predicted that early asteroids may have delivered the ingredients of life to Earth, and these findings seemed like promising evidence.

Even more surprising, these amino acids from Bennu were split almost evenly between “left-handed” and “right-handed” forms. Amino acids come in two mirror-image configurations, just like our left and right hands, called chiral forms.

On Earth, almost all biology requires the left-handed versions. If scientists had found a strong left-handed excess in Bennu, it would have suggested that life’s molecular asymmetry might have been inherited directly from space. Instead, the near-equal mixture points to a different story: Life’s left-handed preference likely emerged later, through processes on Earth, rather than being pre-imprinted in the material delivered by asteroids.

If space rocks can carry familiar ingredients but not the chemical “signature” that life leaves behind, then identifying the true signs of biology becomes extremely complicated.

These discoveries raise a deeper question – one that becomes more urgent as new missions target Mars, the Martian moons and the ocean worlds of our solar system: How do researchers detect life when the chemistry alone begins to look “lifelike”? If nonliving materials can produce rich, organized mixtures of organic molecules, then the traditional signs we use to recognize biology may no longer be enough.

As a computational scientist studying biological signatures, I face this challenge directly. In my astrobiology work, I ask how to determine whether a collection of molecules was formed by complex geochemistry or by extraterrestrial biology, when exploring other planets.

In a new study in the journal PNAS Nexus, my colleagues and I developed a framework called LifeTracer to help answer this question. Instead of searching for a single molecule or structure that proves the presence of biology, we attempted to classify how likely mixtures of compounds preserved in rocks and meteorites were to contain traces of life by examining the full chemical patterns they contain.

Identifying potential biosignatures

The key idea behind our framework is that life produces molecules with purpose, while nonliving chemistry does not. Cells must store energy, build membranes and transmit information. Abiotic chemistry produced by nonliving chemical processes, even when abundant, follows different rules because it is not shaped by metabolism or evolution.

Traditional biosignature approaches focus on searching for specific compounds, such as certain amino acids or lipid structures, or for chiral preferences, like left-handedness.

These signals can be powerful, but they are based entirely on the molecular patterns used by life on Earth. If we assume that alien life uses the same chemistry, we risk missing biology that is similar – but not identical – to our own, or misidentifying nonliving chemistry as a sign of life.

The Bennu results highlight this problem. The asteroid sample contained molecules familiar to life, yet nothing within it appears to have been alive.

To reduce the risk of assuming these molecules indicate life, we assembled a unique dataset of organic materials right at the dividing line between life and nonlife. We used samples from eight carbon-rich meteorites that preserve abiotic chemistry from the early solar system, as well as 10 samples of soils and sedimentary materials from Earth, containing the degraded remnants of biological molecules from past or present life. Each sample contained tens of thousands of organic molecules, many present in low abundance and many whose structures could not be fully identified.

At NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, our team of scientists crushed each sample, added solvent and heated it to extract the organics — this process is like brewing tea. Then, we took the “tea” containing the extracted organics and passed it through two filtering columns that separated the complex mixture of organic molecules. Then, the organics were pushed into a chamber where we bombarded them with electrons until they broke into smaller fragments.

Traditionally, chemists use these mass fragments as puzzle pieces to reconstruct each molecular structure, but having tens of thousands of compounds in each sample presented a challenge.

LifeTracer

LifeTracer is a unique approach for data analysis: It works by taking in the fragmented puzzle pieces and analyzing them to find specific patterns, rather than reconstructing each structure.

It characterizes those puzzle pieces by their mass and two other chemical properties and then organizes them into a large matrix describing the set of molecules present in each sample. It then trains a machine learning model to distinguish between the meteorites and the terrestrial materials from Earth’s surface, based on the type of molecules present in each.

One of the most common forms of machine learning is called supervised learning. It works by taking many input and output pairs as examples and learns a rule to go from input to output. Even with only 18 samples as those examples, LifeTracer performed remarkably well. It consistently separated abiotic from biotic origins.

What mattered most to LifeTracer was not the presence of a specific molecule but the overall distribution of chemical fingerprints found in each sample. Meteorite samples tended to contain more volatile compounds – they evaporate or break apart more easily – which reflected the type of chemistry most common in the cold environment of space.

Some types of molecules, called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, were present in both groups, but they had distinctive structural differences that the model could parse. A sulfur-containing compound, 1,2,4-trithiolane, emerged as a strong marker for abiotic samples, while terrestrial materials contained products formed through biological process.

These discoveries suggest that the contrast between life and nonlife is not defined by a single chemical clue but by how an entire suite of organic molecules is organized. By focusing on patterns rather than assumptions about which molecules life “should” use, approaches like LifeTracer open up new possibilities for evaluating samples returned from missions to Mars, its moons Phobos and Deimos, Jupiter’s moon Europa and Saturn’s moon Enceladus.

Future samples will likely contain mixtures of organics from multiple sources, some biological and some not. Instead of relying only on a few familiar molecules, we can now assess whether the whole chemical landscape looks more like biology or random geochemistry.

LifeTracer is not a universal life detector. Rather, it provides a foundation for interpreting complex organic mixtures. The Bennu findings remind us that life-friendly chemistry may be widespread across the solar system, but that chemistry alone does not equal biology.

To tell the difference, scientists will need all the tools we can build — not only better spacecraft and instruments, but also smarter ways to read the stories written in the molecules they bring home.

Amirali Aghazadeh receives funding from Georgia Tech.

– ref. Can scientists detect life without knowing what it looks like? Research using machine learning offers a new way – https://theconversation.com/can-scientists-detect-life-without-knowing-what-it-looks-like-research-using-machine-learning-offers-a-new-way-271066

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jennifer C. Greenfield, Associate Professor of Social Work, University of Denver

In Colorado, full-time workers need to earn an hourly wage of at least $36.79 to afford $2,000 in monthly rent, which is below the federal fair market rate for a Denver-area two-bedroom unit.

More than 87% of low-income Coloradans spend more than one-third of their pretax income on housing — a common benchmark for housing affordability. High costs of housing, child care and transportation in Colorado are key drivers of a statewide cost of living that is 12% above the national average.

For many Coloradans, a few hundred extra dollars a month would go a long way. Yet today, the U.S. safety net appears more tenuous than ever and is unlikely to meet all their needs.

Nationally, over the 43-day government shutdown that began on Oct. 1, 2025, 1.4 million federal workers went without paychecks. More than 150,000 jobs were cut in the U.S. private sector in October alone.

As layoffs increase, fewer people are being hired into new positions. At the same time, the federal government shutdown put families receiving federal food assistance on an emotional roller coaster as aid was promised and then pulled away.

This recent federal funding uncertainty has resurfaced the idea of state or local programs that give people money without any strings attached.

Rise of guaranteed income programs

First proposed nationally during the Nixon administration in the 1970s, guaranteed income programs have grown more popular in the U.S.

The concept got a big boost when entrepreneur Andrew Yang proposed a $1,000 monthly stipend during his bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Yang’s proposal called for giving all Americans money to help them deal with economic problems brought on by job losses tied to automation and new technologies.

In Colorado, both Boulder and Denver have piloted guaranteed income programs. In both cases the programs were studied using rigorous randomized-control trial research designs.

We are an academic research team comprised of a social scientist with a background in economic analysis, a social work scholar who studies policy approaches to reducing health and wealth disparities, and an urban planning scholar with expertise in state and local policy.

We were contracted to provide an independent evaluation and cost assessment of administering a statewide cash assistance program for Coloradans. Our estimates include projections for population changes, such as the aging workforce, and three tiers of support: from low, $25 per month, to medium, $100 per month, to high, $500 per month.

Rolling out a state government program that gives everyone money would be expensive, so we also estimated what it would cost to introduce a program just for the lowest-income Coloradans.

What are guaranteed income programs?

Guaranteed income programs are policies that support a population by giving people money on a regular basis — regardless of their income. They’re called universal basic income programs.

More common in practice are cash dividends. Dividends offer cash assistance to a qualifying group or segment of the population, such as people below a certain income or with a qualifying disability. An example of this is Michigan’s Rx Kids Program, which provides cash assistance for pregnant people, new parents and babies.

Guaranteed income programs can be administered at the neighborhood, city or state level. Programs in Cambridge, Massachusetts; Richmond, California; and Baltimore have all shown efficacy in targeting the needs of local communities.

For example, people who were enrolled in the Rise Up Cambridge program became more likely to be employed, get enough to eat and have housing – while making more money — than those who didn’t get cash assistance.

Most cash assistance programs have succeeded. Research by GiveDirectly and the Stanford Basic Income Project likewise find that beneficiaries of cash assistance programs are more likely to get involved in their local communities.

These programs can support people who have lost their jobs or are experiencing health crises. In Colorado, a statewide guaranteed income program could help low-income Coloradans facing high housing and child care costs.

Similarly, the program could help Colorado’s growing population of older people with fixed incomes.

It could also address fears that the rise of artificial intelligence will cause job losses and result in lower wages for many workers. Columbia Business School researchers have predicted a 5% decline in how much of the country’s total economic output goes to workers’ wages due to artificial intelligence.

Program, not panacea

While guaranteed income programs can help the people who get money from them, they are complicated, expensive and hard to administer.

Administering a guaranteed income program requires massive capacity to deploy and manage. The state would have to facilitate enrollment, keep mailing addresses or bank information updated and supervise transfers for more than 5 million Coloradans every single month. Some of this data may already exist at state agencies, but no one agency has all of this information at its disposal.

For instance, only 80% of adults, roughly 3.3 million people, in Colorado filed a tax return in 2023; only 175,000 workers filed a Family and Medical Leave Insurance claim in 2024; and just about 1 million adults are enrolled in Health First Colorado, the state’s Medicaid program. Even merging data across these agencies — an effort that is underway but is just getting started — would miss some households across the state.

In a world of finite budgets, a statewide universal program would have to be smaller per person, limiting its benefits. Giving all Colorado residents $100 per month would cost more than $7 billion each year. That’s more than half of Colorado’s annual general fund. However, it would cost half as much — $3.3. billion — to provide $500 per month to the 554,000 Coloradans who are below the federal poverty line, which is $32,150 for a family of five.

Finding this money within the state budget could require cutting spending elsewhere — potentially from other state-funded programs that benefit low-income families.

Trade-offs for policymakers

If federal food assistance, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is disrupted again, either by more funding freezes or new changes in eligibility rules, a statewide supportive assistance program could help offset the impact.

In 2024, the average American getting SNAP benefits received $6.11 per day, or less than $200 a month. One in 10 Coloradans, 584,500 people, receive SNAP benefits.

However, a guaranteed income program might risk pushing some households’ income above the eligibility cutoff for programs like SNAP — creating unintended consequences that harm household welfare. It’s unclear whether assistance from a basic income program would count as reportable income.

Where AI-driven job loss is concerned, guaranteed income programs could smooth transitions for laid-off workers needing to upskill or move industries. However, guaranteed income programs are not likely to be sufficient in scope or generous enough to cushion workers from a potential restructuring of the labor market, which may have already begun.

Assessing public support

Given the high costs of creating a statewide guaranteed income program for Colorado, getting substantial public buy-in would be necessary.

Recent election results, in which voters approved a new tax to fund free school meals for all students, suggest that Coloradans can support programs that help the most vulnerable families.

A recent privately funded poll in Colorado, which was informed by our evaluation’s estimates, found that 56% of voters would support a monthly $500 payment for all new parents, people experiencing homelessness, and low-income households. The poll found that Coloradans were less likely to support a program providing a smaller stipend to all Coloradans, regardless of their income.

Taken together, these polling results suggest that many Coloradans would support some form of need-based income assistance. However, the price of operating any statewide guaranteed income program could give them sticker shock.

Read more of our stories about Colorado.

Jennifer C. Greenfield was hired by Thinking Forward, LLC and the Denver Basic Income Project as a consultant to provide cost estimates and analysis of a potential cash dividend program in Colorado, as described in this article.

Kaitlyn M. Sims receives funding from the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, the Arnold Ventures Foundation, and the Institute for Humane Studies. She was contracted by Thinking Forward, LLC, and the Denver Basic Income Project to provide a cost-benefit assessment of a statewide cash dividend for the state of Colorado.

Stefan Chavez-Norgaard was contracted by Thinking Forward, LLC, to provide a cost-benefit analysis and broad assessment of a statewide cash dividend program for the State of Colorado. He has also connected with organizations mentioned in this article, including the Denver Basic Income Project (DBIP) and the Fund 4 Guaranteed Income, supporter of the Compton Pledge.

– ref. A Colorado guaranteed income program could help families, but the costs are high – https://theconversation.com/a-colorado-guaranteed-income-program-could-help-families-but-the-costs-are-high-269082

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Seth T. Kannarr, Ph.D. Candidate in Geography, University of Tennessee

The culture wars have arrived at the U.S. Mint.

Commemorative coins aimed at celebrating America’s 250th anniversary in 2026 were unveiled by the mint on Dec. 10, 2025, and they reflect the country’s currently divided politics and views of history.

In an unexpected move, most of the original designs for the “America 250” coins that were approved by two official committees in 2024 were abandoned and replaced. Most notably, the Black Abolition, Women’s Suffrage and Civil Rights quarters were replaced with quarters that instead commemorate the Mayflower Compact, Revolutionary War and the Gettysburg Address.

As a cultural geographer and coin collector, I believe the release of these new dimes, quarters and half-dollars offers a reminder that coins, despite their small size, share important messages about what it means to be an American.

This isn’t the first time politics has invaded the design of U.S. coins. The history contained in their designs is often negotiated and politicized, which is manifested into coins as public memory.

From Congress to your pocket

The production of these America 250 coins, part of the celebration formally referred to as the “American Semiquintennial,” was authorized by the Circulating Collectible Coin Redesign Act of 2020, which was signed into law by President Donald Trump in January 2021.

This reflects the long-standing formal process for designing and producing U.S. coins, both regular circulating ones and commemorative ones.

First, Congress calls for the production of new coins. Then, design ideas and draft art are solicited from medallic artists at the U.S. Mint, who create the raised, three-dimensional designs that are sculpted into models.

Two groups – the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, which exists to advise the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury on the designs of all U.S. coins and medals, and the federal Commission of Fine Arts, which provides advice to the federal government on matters of design and aesthetics, including memorials, buildings and coins – work together over time, including through public meetings, to review proposed designs and recommend revisions and selections of specific designs.

The recommendations of the advisory committee and the commission have in the past proved valuable to shaping the final depictions portrayed in coin engravings, but the final authority and decisions come from the Secretary of the Treasury.

In the case of the America 250 coins, the designs were discussed across multiple meetings in 2024, with the final report from the Commission of Fine Arts published on Oct. 24, 2024.

The final recommendations were for a dime that bears a “Liberty Over Tyranny” design; five quarters that would have the “Declaration of Independence,” “U.S. Constitution,” “Abolitionism,” “Suffrage” and “Civil Rights” as their respective designs; and a half-dollar that would bear a “Participatory Democracy” design.

Why the big switch?

The original dime and half-dollar images remained unchanged in the officially accepted designs unveiled on Dec. 10, 2025. However, all quarter designs were changed, eliminating the proposed images representing the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Abolitionism, Suffrage and Civil Rights, with the exception of the reverse side of the Declaration of Independence quarter.

No official explanation for these changes were provided during the U.S. Mint’s design unveiling event. But it is not hard to see how the nation’s current political climate, in which President Donald Trump has complained that the Smithsonian focuses too much on “how bad slavery was” and not enough on the “brightness” of the country’s history, may have played a role.

This is significant for two primary reasons. One, the process for choosing the design was supposed to reflect public input, via the public meetings with the two advisory committees regarding these changes. But these fundamental changes were ultimately decided by the Secretary of the Treasury out of the public eye, likely in concert with other members of the Trump administration.

Second, these changes of the America 250 quarters reinforce a more traditional and exclusionary view of nation’s founding and continued progress. The new designs sideline Americans’ historical struggle against oppression and social injustice and are demonstrative of the Trump administration’s collective efforts to bar government statements and initiatives related to diversity, equity and inclusion.

The selective editing of American memory portrayed on the America 250 coins is not only a breach in established process, but it’s also a missed opportunity to provide new and diverse representation in an easy, yet meaningful, way.

Public memory in your pocket

Ever since the U.S. Mint opened in Philadelphia in 1792, coins and currency with depictions of American figures, symbolic representations and iconic inscriptions have circulated throughout the nation and the world.

For example, the Fifty States Quarters program, which ran from 1999 to 2008, was very popular among Americans who appreciated seeing different designs on quarters that were emblematic of their own state’s identity. For example, the Vermont version of the quarter included an image of Camel’s Hump Mountain and maple trees with sap buckets hung on them.

Scholars have argued that coins and currency are examples of everyday or banal nationalism, which refers to the often unnoticed expressions of national identity that persist throughout material culture and society.

Coins occupy sparing yet evident moments throughout our lives. You can find them in routine places, with little attention given to their presence, such as the bottom of your junk drawer, in the cup holder in your car or abandoned on the sidewalk.

To cultural geographers like me, coins serve as vessels of passive and active public memory. They subtly signal values and reinforce figures and events as important to American culture and history by being portrayed on government-issued coins.

This understanding further highlights the significance of the recent design changes to the America 250 coins. The removal of imagery of women, people of color and historic events important to marginalized people are not subtle choices.

Whether someone is an active coin collector or just looking to buy a candy bar at a convenience store, all people participate in the reproduction of American public memory. And they do this regardless of which narratives of public memory are chosen to be shared by the federal government.

What comes next?

Recent controversies regarding the end of production of the U.S. penny and the proposal for a new one-dollar coin commemorating President Donald Trump illustrate the American public’s continued interest and attention to coins and currency despite an increasingly digital age. The redesign of these America 250 coins is yet another story in this ongoing saga.

---

Read more:
Who wins and who loses as the US retires the penny

---

Historically, designs of coins or currency that are unpopular with the general public are ripe for being defaced, such as the scratching out of public figures or the complete destruction of the piece.

Although sometimes illegal, such an act sends a powerful political message of subversion against the government. This tends to be more common in other nations, beyond minor graffiti drawn onto paper currency in the U.S.

If the U.S. Mint maintains the product schedule of previous years, the America 250 coins should begin to circulate in February 2026. It may take time for the coins to arrive at banks, and even longer for them to show up as change from grocery stores, convenience shops and beyond.

Whether you believe in the appropriateness of the new designs or not, the coins and their backstory can serve as a prompt for discussion with friends and family, or even educating children, about what it means to be an American. The power – and the coins – will soon be in your hands.

Seth T. Kannarr does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Trump administration replaces America 250 quarters honoring abolition and women’s suffrage with Mayflower and Gettysburg designs – https://theconversation.com/trump-administration-replaces-america-250-quarters-honoring-abolition-and-womens-suffrage-with-mayflower-and-gettysburg-designs-271811

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Gareth J. Fraser, Associate Professor of Evolutionary Developmental Biology, University of Florida

The world’s oceans are home to an exquisite variety of sharks and rays, from the largest fishes in the sea – the majestic whale shark and manta rays – to the luminescent but rarely seen deep-water lantern shark and guitarfishes.

The oceans were once teeming with these extraordinary and ancient species, which evolved close to half a billion years ago. However, the past half-century has posed one of the greatest tests yet to their survival. Overfishing, habitat loss and international trade have cut their numbers, putting many species on a path toward extinction within our lifetimes.

Scientists estimate that 100 million (yes, million) sharks and rays are killed each year for food, liver oil and other trade.

The volume of loss is devastatingly unsustainable. Overfishing has sent oceanic shark and ray populations plummeting by about 70% globally since the 1970s.

That’s why countries around the world agreed in December 2025 to add more than 70 shark and ray species to an international wildlife trade treaty’s list for full or partial protection.

It’s an important move that, as a biologist who studies sharks and rays, I believe is long overdue.

Humans put shark species at risk of extinction

Sharks have had a rough ride since the 1970s, when overfishing, habitat loss and international trade in fins, oil and other body parts of these enigmatic sea dwellers began to affect their sensitive populations. The 1975 movie “Jaws” and its portrayal of a great white shark as a mindless killing machine didn’t help people’s perceptions.

One reason shark populations are so vulnerable to overfishing, and less capable of recovering, is the late timing of their sexual maturity and their low numbers of offspring. If sharks and rays don’t survive long enough, the species can’t reproduce enough new members to remain stable.

Losing these species is a global problem because they are vital for a healthy ocean, in large part because they help keep their prey in check.

Endangered and threatened species listings, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List, can help draw attention to sharks and rays that are at risk. But because their populations span international borders, with migratory routes around the globe, sharks and rays need international protection, not just local efforts.

That’s why the international trade agreements set out by the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES, are vital. The convention attempts to create global restrictions that prevent trade of protected species to give them a chance to survive.

New protections for sharks and rays

In early December 2025, the CITES Conference of the Parties, made up of representatives from 184 countries, voted to initiate or expand protection against trade for many species. The votes included adding more than 70 shark and ray species to the CITES lists for full or restricted protection.

The newly listed or upgraded species include some of the most charismatic shark and ray species.

The whale shark, one of only three filter-feeding sharks and the largest fish in the ocean, and the manta and devil rays have joined the list that offers the strictest restrictions on trade, called Appendix I. Whale sharks are at risk from overfishing as well as being struck by ships. Because they feed at the surface, chasing zooplankton blooms, these ocean giants can be hit by ships, especially now that these animals are considered a tourism must-see.

Whale sharks now join this most restrictive list with more well-known, cuddlier mammals such as the giant panda and the blue whale, and they will receive the same international trade protections.

The member countries of CITES agree to the terms of the treaty, so they are legally bound to implement its directives to suspend trade. For the tightest restrictions, under Appendix I, import and export permits are required and allowed only in exceptional circumstances. Appendix II species, which aren’t yet threatened but could become threatened without protections, require export permits. However, the treaty terms are essentially a framework for each member government to then implement legislation under national laws.

Another shark joining the Appendix I list is the oceanic whitetip shark, an elegant, long-finned ocean roamer that has been fished to near extinction. Populations of this once common oceanic shark are down 80% to 95% in the Pacific since the mid-1990s, mostly due to the increase in commercial fishing.

Previously the only sharks or rays listed on Appendix I were sawfish, a group of rays with a long, sawlike projection surrounded by daggerlike teeth. They were already listed as critically endangered by the IUCN’s Red List, which assesses the status of threatened and endangered species, but it was up to governments to propose protections through CITES.

Other sharks gaining partial protections for the first time include deep-sea gulper sharks, which have been prized for their liver oil used for cosmetics. Gulper shark populations have been decimated by unsustainable fishing practices. They will now be protected under Appendix II.

Appendix II listings, while not as strong as Appendix I, can help populations recover. Great white shark populations, for example, have recovered since the 1990s around the U.S. after being added to the Appendix II list in 2005, though other populations in the northwest Atlantic and South Pacific are still considered locally endangered.

Tope and smooth-hound sharks were also added to the Appendix II list in 2025 for protection from the trade of their meat and fins.

Several species of guitarfishes and wedgefishes, odd-shaped rays that look like they have a mix of shark and ray features and have been harmed by local and commercial fishing, finning and trade, were assigned a CITES “zero-quota” designation to temporarily curtail all trade in their species until their populations recover.

These global protections raise awareness of species, prevent trade and overexploitation and can help prevent species from going extinct.

Drawing attention to rarely seen species

Globally, there are about 550 species of shark today and around 600 species of rays (or batoids), the flat-bodied shark relatives.

Many of these species suffer from their anonymity: Most people are unfamiliar with them, and efforts to protect these more obscure, less cuddly ocean inhabitants struggle to draw attention.

So, how do we convince people to care enough to help protect animals they do not know exist? And can we implement global protections when most shark-human interactions are geographically limited and often support livelihoods of local communities?

Increasing people’s awareness of ocean species at risk, including sharing knowledge about why their numbers are falling and the vital roles they play in their ecosystem, can help.

The new protections for sharks and rays under CITES also offer hope that more global regulations protecting these and other shark and rays species will follow.

Gareth J. Fraser is an Associate Professor at the University of Florida, and receives funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF).

– ref. Sharks and rays get a major win with new international trade limits for 70+ species – https://theconversation.com/sharks-and-rays-get-a-major-win-with-new-international-trade-limits-for-70-species-271386

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Theodore J. Kury, Director of Energy Studies, University of Florida

The amount of electricity data centers use in the U.S. in the coming years is expected to be significant. But regular reports of proposals for new ones and cancellations of planned ones mean that it’s difficult to know exactly how many data centers will actually be built and how much electricity might be required to run them.

As a researcher of energy policy who has studied the cost challenges associated with new utility infrastructure, I know that uncertainty comes with a cost. In the electricity sector, it is the challenge of state utility regulators to decide who pays what shares of the costs associated with generating and serving these types of operations, sometimes broadly called “large load centers.”

States are exploring different approaches, each with strengths, weaknesses and potential drawbacks.

A new type of customer?

For years, large electricity customers such as textile mills and refineries have used enough electricity to power a small city.

Moreover, their construction timelines were more aligned with the development time of new electricity infrastructure. If a company wanted to build a new textile mill and the utility needed to build a new gas-fired power plant to serve it, the construction on both could start around the same time. Both could be ready in two and a half to three years, and the textile mill could start paying for the costs necessary to serve it.

Modern data centers use a similar amount of electricity but can be built in nine to 12 months. To meet that projected demand, construction of a new gas-fired power plant, or a solar farm with battery storage, must begin a year – maybe two – before the data center breaks ground.

During the time spent building the electrical supply, computing technology advances, including both the capabilities and the efficiency of the kinds of calculations artificial intelligence systems require. Both factors affect how much electricity a data center will use once it is built.

Technological, logistical and planning changes mean there is a lot of uncertainty about how much electricity a data center will ultimately use. So it’s very hard for a utility company to know how much generating capacity to start building.

Handling the risks of development

This uncertainty costs money: A power plant could be built in advance, only to find out that some or all of its capacity isn’t needed. Or no power plant is built, and a data center pops up, competing for a limited supply of electricity.

Either way, someone needs to pay – for the excess capacity or for the increased price of what power is available. There are three possible groups that might pay: the utilities that provide electricity, the data center customers, and the rest of the customers on the system.

However, utility companies have largely ensured their risk is minimal. Under most state utility-regulation processes, state officials review spending proposals from utility companies to determine what expenses can be passed on to customers. That includes operating expenses such as salaries and fuel costs, as well as capital investments, such as new power plants and other equipment.

Regulators typically examine whether proposed expenses are useful for providing service to customers and reasonable for the utility to expect to incur. Utilities have been very careful to provide their regulators with evidence about the costs and effects of proposed data centers to justify passing the costs of proposed investments in new power plants along to whomever the customers happen to be.

Regulators, then, are left to equitably allocate the costs to the prospective data center customers and the rest of the ratepayers, including homes and businesses. In different states, this is playing out differently.

Kentucky’s approach to usefulness

Kentucky is attempting to address the demand uncertainty by conditionally approving two new natural gas-fired generators in the state. However, the utility companies – Louisville Gas & Electric and Kentucky Utilities – must demonstrate that those plants will actually be needed and used. But it’s not clear how they could do that, especially considering the time frames involved.

For instance, suppose the utility has a letter of agreement or even a contract with a new data center or other large customer. That might be sufficient proof for the regulator to approve charging customers for the costs of building a new power plant.

But it’s not clear what would happen if the data center ends up not being built, or needing much less power than expected. If the utility can’t get the money from the data center company – because they bill customers based on actual usage – that leaves regular consumers on the hook.

Ohio’s ‘demand ratchet’ and credit guarantee

In Ohio, the major power company AEP has a specific rate plan for data centers and other large electricity customers. One element, called a “demand ratchet,” is designed to mitigate month-to-month uncertainty in electricity consumption by data centers. The data center’s monthly bill is based on the current month’s demand or 85% of the highest monthly demand from the previous 11 months – whichever is higher.

The benefit is that it protects against a data center using huge amounts of electricity one month and very little the next, which would otherwise yield a much lower bill. The ratchet helps ensure that the data center is paying a significant share of the cost of providing enough electricity, even if it doesn’t use as much as was expected.

This ratchet effectively locks in the data center’s payments for 12 months, but regulators might expect a longer commitment from the center. For instance, Florida’s utilities regulator has approved an agreement that would require a data center company to pay for 70% of the agreed-upon demand in their entire electricity contract, even if the company didn’t use the power.

Another aspect of Ohio’s approach addresses the risk of changing business plans or technology. AEP requires a credit guarantee, like a deposit, letter of credit or parent company guarantee of payment, equal to 50% of the customer’s expected minimum bill under the contract. While this theoretically reduces the risk borne by other customers, it also raises concerns.

For example, a utility may not end up signing contracts directly with a large, well-known, wealthy technology company but with a subsidiary corporation with a more generic name – imagine something like “Westside Data Center LLC” – created solely to build and operate one data center. If the data center’s plans or technology changes, that subsidiary could declare bankruptcy, leaving the other customers with the remaining costs.

Harnessing strength in flexibility

A key advantage to these new types of customers is that they are extremely nimble in the way they use electricity.

If data centers can make money based on their flexibility, as they have in Texas, then a portion of those profits can be returned to the other customers that shared the investment risk. A similar mechanism is being implemented in Missouri: If the utility makes extra money from large customers, then 65% of that revenue increase is returned to the other customers.

Change is coming to the U.S. electricity system, but nobody is sure how much. The methods by which states are trying to allocate the cost of that uncertainty vary, but the critical element is understanding their respective strengths and weaknesses to craft a system that is fair for everyone.

Theodore Kury is the Director of Energy Studies at the University of Florida’s Public Utility Research Center, which is sponsored in part by the Florida electric and gas utilities, the Florida Public Service Commission and the Office of Public Counsel, the Consumer Advocate for the State. However, the Center maintains sole editorial control of this and any other work.

– ref. Data centers need electricity fast, but utilities need years to build power plants – who should pay? – https://theconversation.com/data-centers-need-electricity-fast-but-utilities-need-years-to-build-power-plants-who-should-pay-271048