Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Virginia Raguin, Distinguished Professor of Humanities Emerita, College of the Holy Cross

In his first general audience in Rome, Pope Leo XIV referred to Vincent van Gogh’s painting “Sower at Sunset” and called it a symbol of hope. A brilliant setting sun illuminates a field as a farmer walks toward the right, sowing seeds.

Leo referred to Christ’s Parable of the Sower, a story in the Gospel that speaks to the need to do good works. “Every word of the Gospel is like a seed sown in the soil of our lives,” he said, and highlighted that the soil is not only our heart, “but also the world, the community, the church.”

He noted that “behind the sower, van Gogh painted the grain already ripe,” and Leo called it an image of hope which shows that somehow the seed has borne fruit.

Van Gogh painted “Sower at Sunset” in 1888, when he was living in Arles in southern France. At the time, he was creating art alongside his friend Paul Gauguin and feeling very happy about the future. The painting reflects his optimism.

Van Gogh’s inspiration

In November 1888, van Gogh wrote to his brother Theo, in whom he frequently confided, about “Sower at Sunset.” He described its beautiful colors: “Immense lemon-yellow disc for the sun. Green-yellow sky with pink clouds. The field is violet, the sower and the tree Prussian Blue.”

Van Gogh’s painting was inspired by French artist Jean-Francois Millet’s 1860 painting, “The Sower.” But he transformed Millet’s composition, in which a dark, isolated figure dominates, and deliberately set the sower in the midst of a landscape transformed by the sun.

Other artists, including the Norwegian Emanuel Vigeland, explicitly depicted the Parable of the Sower. Vigeland’s series of stained-glass windows in an Oslo church explains each passage’s meaning. As the sower works, some seeds fall by the wayside and the birds immediately eat them, indicating those who hear the word of God but do not listen.

Some seeds fall on stony ground and cannot take root, a symbol of those with little tenacity. Others fall among thorns and are choked. Vigeland juxtaposed a dramatic image of a miser counting piles of money, indicating how the man’s life has become choked by desire for material gain.

The final passage of the parable states that some seeds fell on good ground and yielded a hundredfold. Vigeland’s depiction shows an image of an abundant harvest of grain next to a man seated on the ground and cradling a child in his lap.

What it says about Leo

Van Gogh’s painting corresponds to many of the ideas the new pope expressed in the first days of his papacy. Leo observed: “In the center of the painting is the sun, not the sower, [which reminds us that] it is God who moves history, even if he sometimes seems absent or distant. It is the sun that warms the clods of the earth and ripens the seed.”

The theme of the dignity of labor is also inherent in the image of the sower being deeply engrossed in physical labor, which relates to the pope’s choice of his name. The pope stated that he took on the name Leo XIV “mainly because Pope Leo XIII in his historic encyclical Rerum Novarum addressed the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution.” Leo XIII was referring to the social question of economic injustice in the meager rewards for workers even as owners made great profits from the Industrial Revolution.

The pope saw Van Gogh’s image of the sower, like Vigeland’s, as a message of hope. That message, to him, fits with the theme of hope of The Jubilee Year proclaimed by Leo’s predecessor, Francis. Leo also expressed hope that humans listening to God would embrace service to others.

Virginia Raguin 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 a sunny van Gogh painting of ‘The Sower’ tells us about Pope Leo’s message of hope – https://theconversation.com/what-a-sunny-van-gogh-painting-of-the-sower-tells-us-about-pope-leos-message-of-hope-258040

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Charles J. Russo, Joseph Panzer Chair in Education and Research Professor of Law, University of Dayton

A century ago, the Supreme Court handed down one of its most important cases about education. On June 1, 1925, the court struck down an Oregon statute requiring all students to attend public school – a law critics argued was meant to limit faith-based schools, at a time when anti-Catholic bias was still common in parts of the United States.

The majority opinion in Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Name of Jesus and Mary included a now-famous dictum about parents’ rights to shape their children’s upbringing. According to the court, “the child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”

Soon, the Supreme Court is expected to release another decision around parental beliefs and education: Mahmoud v. Taylor. The plaintiffs are parents who want to excuse their children from public school lessons involving storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters – lessons they assert contradict their religious beliefs.

As someone who teaches education law, I believe this is perhaps the court’s most significant case on parental rights since Pierce. Mahmoud raises questions not only about religious freedom, but also about educators’ ability to determine curricula, and public education in a pluralistic society.

Picture-book debate

Controversy arose during the 2022-23 school year in Montgomery County, Maryland’s largest school district, when officials approved various storybooks with LGBTQ+-inclusive themes to be incorporated into the English language-arts curriculum for preschool and elementary students.

Some parents challenged the materials, including “Pride Puppy!”, a picture book the board later removed from use. Originally approved for preschool and pre-K, the story portrays a family whose puppy gets lost at a LGBTQ+ Pride parade, devoting a page to each letter of the alphabet. At the end of the book, a long “search and find” list of words for children to go back and look for in the pictures of the parade includes “[drag] queen” and “king,” “leather” and “lip ring.”

Other materials for older children included stories about same-sex marriage, a transgender child and nonbinary bathroom signs.

Parents who objected to the use of these materials on religious grounds sought to excuse their children from lessons using them. The parents basically argued that requiring their children to participate compelled or coerced them to go against their families’ religious beliefs.

Initially, officials agreed to allow opt-outs for elementary schoolers whose parents objected to the materials. However, a day later they changed their minds. Since then, school officials cited concerns about absenteeism, the feasibility of accommodating opt-out requests, and a desire to avoid stigmatizing LGBTQ+ students or families as reasons for their policy.

A group of Muslim, Orthodox Christian and Catholic families challenged the board’s refusal to excuse their children from lessons using the disputed materials.

The federal trial court, however, rejected the parents’ claim that having no opt-outs violated their right to due process.

Parents appealed, and the 4th Circuit affirmed in favor of the school board 2-1. The court added that officials had not violated the parents’ First Amendment rights to freely exercise their faith. “There’s no evidence at present that the Board’s decision not to permit opt-outs compels the Parents or their children to change their religious beliefs or conduct, either at school or elsewhere,” the panel concluded.

The dissenting judge stridently countered. Officials violated the parents’ free exercise rights by forcing them “to make a choice,” he wrote, between “either adher[ing] to their faith, or receiv[ing] a free public education for their children.” He also noted that the board’s opt-out policy was not neutral toward religion, because under Maryland regulations, children may be excused from sex-ed lessons.

In January 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the parents’ appeal, addressing whether the schools are burdening parents’ free-exercise rights.

Court record

In their brief to the Supreme Court and oral arguments, the parents cited Wisconsin v. Yoder, a Supreme Court ruling from 1972. The court found that Amish parents did not have to send their children to school after the eighth grade, which the families argued would violate their religious beliefs. Amish communities descend from Anabaptist Christians who fled persecution in Europe and emphasize living simply, eschewing many modern technologies.

In Yoder, the justices agreed with the parents that their children received all the education they needed in their home communities. Under the First Amendment, parents have the right “to guide the religious future and education of their children,” the majority wrote, a matter “established beyond debate.”

During oral arguments for Mahmoud in April 2025, some justices briefly discussed another precedent: the Supreme Court’s 1943 judgment in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, resolved at the height of U.S. involvement in World War II. Here, three parents who were Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to have their children participate in public schools’ flag salute and Pledge of Allegiance because they viewed it as a form of idolatry contrary to their religious beliefs. Others objected
to the salute as “being too much like Hitler’s.”

The court reasoned that educators could not compel students to participate, because forcing children – or anyone – to engage in activities inconsistent with their beliefs is contrary to their First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.

Viewed together, these cases highlight how the court has granted parents significant leeway to exempt their children from educational activities inconsistent with their religious beliefs.

Questions at court

During oral arguments, a majority of justices appeared to support the parents’ request to excuse children from lessons involving the books about LGBTQ+ characters.

The board’s attorney argued that students did not have to agree with the books’ messages, simply to participate in the lesson. Being exposed to an idea “does not burden free exercise,” he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts, however, queried whether it is realistic for 5-year-olds to understand that distinction. He asked, “Do you want to say you don’t have to follow the teacher’s instructions, you don’t have to agree with the teacher? I mean, that may be a more dangerous message than some of the other things.”

Other conservative justices also appeared skeptical of the idea that the lessons were merely exposing young children to ideas, but not instilling moral lessons. The storybooks do not simply explain that some people believe something and others do not, Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested; they inform students that “this is the right view of the world.” Similarly, Justice Neil Gorsuch remarked that telling students that “some people think X, and X is wrong and hurtful and negative” is “more than exposure.”

“What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?” Justice Samuel Alito asked.

Conversely, Justice Elena Kagan acknowledged that parents’ concerns were “serious,” but wondered how to draw limits on opt-out policies. Did the parents’ argument suggest that anytime “a religious person confronts anything in a classroom that conflicts with her religious beliefs or her parents’ that – that the parent can then demand an opt-out?”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed the plaintiffs’ attorney on whether “the mere exposure to things that you object to” really counts as coercion. And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned why, even if opt-outs are not allowed, public schools teaching “something that the parent disagrees with” is coercive, given that homeschooling and private schools are legal.

Mahmoud raises challenging questions about curricular content, parental control and free exercise of religion – questions the court will hopefully resolve. A ruling is expected in June or early July 2025.

Charles J. Russo 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. 100 years ago, the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling on parents’ rights in education – today, another case raises new questions – https://theconversation.com/100-years-ago-the-supreme-court-made-a-landmark-ruling-on-parents-rights-in-education-today-another-case-raises-new-questions-257876

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Katherine LeMasters, Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Colorado Boulder

Colorado passed the Fentanyl Accountability and Prevention Bill in May 2022. The legislation made the possession of small amounts of fentanyl a felony, rather than a misdemeanor.

Felonies are more likely than misdemeanors to result in a prison sentence.

Time in prison is associated with an increased risk of fatal overdose in the year after release. People with felonies on their record often struggle to find a job or rent an apartment.

In 2023, lawmakers in 46 states passed legislation similar to Colorado’s. They introduced more than 600 bills related to fentanyl criminalization and enacted over 100 other laws to attempt to curb the opioid epidemic.

Possession of small amounts of ketamine, GHB and other criminalized drugs is also a felony in Colorado.

I’m an assistant professor of medicine, social epidemiologist and community researcher who studies mass incarceration as a public health threat. I am a member of the Right Response Coalition, which advocates for community rather than criminal-legal responses to behavioral health needs in Colorado. Recently, my work has focused on how increasing criminal penalties for fentanyl possession in Colorado affects the individuals and communities most impacted by such laws.

Our team conducted 31 interviews with Colorado policymakers, peer support specialists, law enforcement, community behavioral health providers and people providing behavioral health in prisons and jails to explore a variety of perspectives on Colorado’s Fentanyl Accountability and Prevention Bill and the role of the criminal-legal system in addressing substance use and overdose.

Most of our interviewees agreed that criminalization alone wouldn’t solve the opioid epidemic.

“You can’t incarcerate yourself to sobriety,” said a rural law enforcement officer. “You can’t incarcerate yourself out of the drug problem in America.”

Criminalization of drug use

Incarceration and substance use are deeply intertwined. The U.S. houses one-quarter of the world’s incarcerated population – largely due to policies created during the “war on Drugs” of the 1980s. The war on drugs included mandatory minimum sentencing for drug-related charges and “three strikes” laws that lengthened sentences after multiple charges.

Today, one-fifth of the U.S. incarcerated population has a drug-related charge.

Incarceration is often seen as a deterrent, but research shows it is not actually associated with reduced drug use. Instead, people recently released from incarceration are more likely to die of a fatal overdose and face a high likelihood of reincarceration.

Perspectives of front-line workers

All 31 of the participants in our study supported policies to prevent fentanyl overdoses. However, most thought that use of police and incarceration as avenues to do so was misguided.

We spoke to some individuals who felt the bill was appropriate, but most felt that increased criminalization perpetuates stigma against people who use drugs. They also saw the law as ignoring the root causes of the opioid epidemic, which include a lack of voluntary community-based treatment options. They also said the law creates stressful law enforcement encounters that can perpetuate drug use as a coping mechanism.

“It just seems like there’s no getting away from [the police], they’re everywhere,” said an urban peer support specialist. “I got arrested by the same cops, I don’t know how many times. And then it makes you want to try to be avoidant or run because they’re not going to help you.”

Participants worried that the policy has an inadvertent chilling effect, deterring individuals from calling 911 when an overdose occurs.

“Most people with substance abuse are not trying to report anything or get help for fear of going to jail,” one rural provider said. “It’s so stigmatized that everyone’s just scared to do that.”

Participants largely thought that counties were using incarceration as a default treatment setting and that it wasn’t an ideal solution.

“[I] don’t want to see [people] incarcerated, but I don’t want ‘em to die either,” said an urban peer support specialist.

The people we interviewed pointed to a lack of community-based care options that could come before people are incarcerated. Those options include substance use treatment centers, mental health services and community health centers.

Substance use treatment

Colorado’s fentanyl bill did more than just increase penalties. It also provided additional funding for a state naloxone program and required that all jails provide medications for opioid use disorder.

These medications include methadone, buprenorphine and extended-release naltrexone. All are part of an established public health strategy shown to reduce overdose deaths and opioid use. They’re also shown to increase engagement with non-jail-based treatment and reduce reincarceration.

However, jail capacity and the lack of treatment options based in one’s community play a large role in which medications are offered and to whom. For example, only 11 out of Colorado’s 46 counties with a county jail have an opioid treatment program in the community that can dispense methadone. Therefore, some facilities do not offer all medications, or only offer medications to individuals with an active prescription or to certain populations such as pregnant people.

Investing in community solutions

Based on our study’s findings, my study co-authors and I believe increased criminal penalties should not be the solution for linking individuals to treatment. Instead, there should be more investment in long-term community solutions.

One such solution is Denver’s Substance Use Navigation Program. The program sends behavioral health specialists to emergency calls to prevent legal involvement when someone is experiencing distress related to mental health, poverty, homelessness or substance use. In many cases, those individuals are then routed to services rather than jails.

Our findings also lead us to believe there is a need for more participatory policymaking processes when it comes to fentanyl legislation, and that policymakers should more closely work with the people who will be most impacted by new legislation. Most of our participants agree.

“[I] don’t think that [the] state realized how difficult it is,” said a rural provider about giving medication-assisted treatment in jail, an increasing need as more people are arrested for fentanyl possession. “They probably should come here and visit us.”

Katherine LeMasters received funding from the Colorado Department of Human Services, Behavioral Health Administration. Katherine LeMasters is part of the Right Response Coalition.

– ref. Colorado’s fentanyl criminalization bill won’t solve the opioid epidemic, say the people most affected – https://theconversation.com/colorados-fentanyl-criminalization-bill-wont-solve-the-opioid-epidemic-say-the-people-most-affected-256661

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By John R. Blosnich, Associate Professor of Social Work, University of Southern California

As part of the Trump administration’s efforts aimed at stopping diversity, equity and inclusion, the government has been restricting how it monitors public health. Along with cuts to federally funded research, the administration has targeted public health efforts to gather information about sexual orientation and gender identity.

In the early days of the second Trump administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention took down data and documents that included sexual orientation and gender identity from its webpages. For example, data codebooks for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were replaced with versions that deleted gender identity variables. The Trump administration also ordered the CDC to delete gender identity from the National Violent Death Reporting System, the world’s largest database for informing prevention of homicide and suicide deaths.

For many people, sexual orientation and gender identity may seem private and personal. So why is personal information necessary for public health?

Decades of research have shown that health problems affect some groups more than others. As someone who has studied differences in health outcomes for over 15 years, I know that one of the largest health disparities for LGBTQ+ people is suicide risk. Without data on sexual orientation and gender identity, public health cannot do the work to sound the alarm on and address issues that affect not just specific communities, but society as a whole.

Alarms and benchmarks

Health is determined by the interplay of several factors, including a person’s genetics, environment and personal life. Of these types of health information, data on personal lives can be the most difficult to collect because researchers must rely on people to voluntarily share this information with them. But details about people’s everyday lives are critical to understanding their health.

Consider veteran status. Without information that identifies which Americans are military veterans, the U.S. would never have known that the rate of suicide deaths among veterans is several times higher than that of the general population. Identifying this problem encouraged efforts to reduce suicide among veterans and military service personnel.

Studying the rates of different conditions occurring in different groups of people is a vital role of public health monitoring. First, rates can set off alarm bells. When people are counted, it becomes easier to pick up a problem that needs to be addressed.

Second, rates can be a benchmark. Once the extent of a health problem is known, researchers can develop and test interventions. They can then determine if rates of that health problem decreased, stayed the same or increased after the intervention.

My team reviewed available research on how sexual orientation and gender identity are related to differences in mortality. The results were grim.

Of the 49 studies we analyzed, the vast majority documented greater rates of death from all causes for LGBTQ+ people compared with people who aren’t LGBTQ+. Results were worse for suicide: Nearly all studies reported that suicide deaths were more frequent among LGBTQ+ people. A great deal of other research supports this finding.

Without data on sexual orientation and gender identity, these issues are erased.

Lost data costs everyone

Higher death rates among LGBTQ+ people affect everyone, not just people in the LGBTQ+ community. And when suicide is a major driver of these death rates, the costs increase.

There are societal costs. Deaths from suicide result in lost productivity and medical services that cost the U.S. an estimated $484 billion per year. There are also human costs. Research suggests that for every suicide death, about 135 people are directly affected by the loss, experiencing grief, sadness and anger.

President Donald Trump’s targeting of research on sexual orientation and gender identity comes at a time when more Americans than ever – an estimated 24.4 million adults – identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. That’s more than the entire population of Florida.

LGBTQ+ people live in every state in the country, where they work as teachers, executives, janitors, nurses, mechanics, artists and every other profession or role that help sustain American communities. LGBTQ+ people are someone’s family members, and they are raising families of their own. LGBTQ+ people also pay taxes to the government, which are partly spent on monitoring the nation’s health.

Stopping data collection of sexual orientation and gender identity does not protect women, or anyone else, as the Trump administration claims. Rather, it serves to weaken American public health. I believe counting all Americans is the path to a stronger, healthier nation because public health can then do its duty of detecting when a community needs help.

John R. Blosnich receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. He is affiliated with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), however all time and effort into writing this piece was done outside of his work with the VA. The opinions expressed are those of Dr. Blosnich and do not necessarily represent those of his institution, funders, or any affiliations.

– ref. Data on sexual orientation and gender is critical to public health – without it, health crises continue unnoticed – https://theconversation.com/data-on-sexual-orientation-and-gender-is-critical-to-public-health-without-it-health-crises-continue-unnoticed-255380

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Stylianos Syropoulos, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Arizona State University

People often prioritize the well-being of family, friends and neighbors, as they feel a closeness emotionally and share the same temporal context. But they overlook how people born decades or centuries from now may suffer as a result of today’s failures to address major global risks such as climate change, future pandemics and unregulated artificial intelligence.

Our new research, published in the British Journal of Social Psychology, shows that brief, low-cost psychological interventions can help individuals adopt a more expansive moral perspective to include future generations.

We conducted three online studies with over 8,700 participants to examine whether prompting people to consider the long-term consequences of their actions could shift moral priorities beyond the present.

In one of two interventions, participants imagined themselves serving on a government committee responsible for protecting future generations. Their task was to ensure that new legislation accounted not only for immediate needs but also for long-term impacts; they were asked to write a speech communicating these goals to the American public. This exercise highlighted institutional responsibility and the role of collective action across time.

In the second intervention, participants engaged with a more personal thought experiment adapted from philosopher William MacAskill’s book “What We Owe the Future,” which explores our moral responsibility toward humanity’s long-term future.

Here, they read a scenario about a hiker who comes across broken glass on a remote trail – glass that may one day injure an unknown child. Should the hiker clean it up, even though no one is watching and the child may not appear for decades? After reflecting on this story, participants were asked to write about what they themselves could do to help make the future better for others.

Moral concern for both intervention and control participants was assessed using the Moral Expansiveness Scale. We asked participants to rate how much moral concern they felt for a wide range of issues. These included concern for future generations, alongside family and friends, strangers, marginalized groups such as LGBTQ+ people, animals and the natural environment.

Why it matters

Although these exercises differed, one emphasizing collective responsibility and the other individual, both led to the same outcome: Participants randomly assigned to an intervention condition expressed significantly greater moral concern for future generations than those assigned to a control condition who completed neither exercise.

This effect held across cultural contexts and across six diverse countries – the U.S., Argentina, South Africa, the Philippines, the U.K. and Australia – and persisted even when participants were required to make trade-offs in a zero-sum version of the Moral Expansiveness Scale. In this version of the task, they distributed a fixed number of “moral concern points” across competing groups, compelling them to weigh the moral importance of future generations against that of present-day entities like family members, strangers, nature and others.

What’s especially intriguing, however, is that the elevated concern for future generations among intervention participants did not come at the expense of concern for other socially distant entities or those viewed as marginalized.

What changed was how participants prioritized their moral concern: They placed slightly less emphasis on family and friends – groups that people typically prioritize most, even when they may be least in need of moral protection.

In contrast, concern increased for distant others, both living today and in the future.

What’s next

This perspective, encouraged by the interventions, could perhaps help lay the groundwork for more durable public support for addressing long-term challenges.

In future work, we hope to explore whether these interventions can inspire real-world action. This could include increased support for climate policies, voting for leaders who prioritize long-term investments like sustainable infrastructure and pandemic preparedness, or donating to causes that benefit future generations.

But how might these interventions be integrated into everyday life? One promising approach is to embed them into settings where such reflections already occur, such as schools, civic education programs or public awareness campaigns.

To assess their real-world potential, we plan to examine the durability of these effects. We want to see whether deploying them in such contexts can meaningfully inspire long-term shifts in attitudes and – importantly – behavior.

For example, brief storytelling exercises or classroom role-plays, like imagining oneself as a future-focused policymaker, could be incorporated into high school or college curricula to shape students’ values, goals and even career trajectories. Similarly, community workshops, online media or social campaigns could adapt these scenarios to foster long-term thinking in broader populations.

When people reflect on how their actions today shape the future, they may be more likely to back solutions to present-day issues like poverty and inequality, knowing these problems can have ripple effects for generations to come. They may also become more motivated to confront emerging risks, such as unregulated artificial intelligence or future pandemics, before those risks escalate.

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

The research relevant to this article was funded by the John Templeton Foundation and APA Division 48.

The research relevant to this article was funded by the John Templeton Foundation and APA Division 48.

– ref. We asked over 8,700 people in 6 countries to think about future generations in decision-making, and this is what we found – https://theconversation.com/we-asked-over-8-700-people-in-6-countries-to-think-about-future-generations-in-decision-making-and-this-is-what-we-found-256767

Source: The Conversation – USA – By James Foulds, Associate Professor of Information Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

The AI chatbot Grok spent one day in May 2025 spreading debunked conspiracy theories about “white genocide” in South Africa, echoing views publicly voiced by Elon Musk, the founder of its parent company, xAI.

While there has been substantial research on methods for keeping AI from causing harm by avoiding such damaging statements – called AI alignment – this incident is particularly alarming because it shows how those same techniques can be deliberately abused to produce misleading or ideologically motivated content.

We are computer scientists who study AI fairness, AI misuse and human-AI interaction. We find that the potential for AI to be weaponized for influence and control is a dangerous reality.

The Grok incident

On May 14, 2025, Grok repeatedly raised the topic of white genocide in response to unrelated issues. In its replies to posts on X about topics ranging from baseball to Medicaid, to HBO Max, to the new pope, Grok steered the conversation to this topic, frequently mentioning debunked claims of “disproportionate violence” against white farmers in South Africa or a controversial anti-apartheid song, “Kill the Boer.”

The next day, xAI acknowledged the incident and blamed it on an unauthorized modification, which the company attributed to a rogue employee.

AI chatbots and AI alignment

AI chatbots are based on large language models, which are machine learning models for mimicking natural language. Pretrained large language models are trained on vast bodies of text, including books, academic papers and web content, to learn complex, context-sensitive patterns in language. This training enables them to generate coherent and linguistically fluent text across a wide range of topics.

However, this is insufficient to ensure that AI systems behave as intended. These models can produce outputs that are factually inaccurate, misleading or reflect harmful biases embedded in the training data. In some cases, they may also generate toxic or offensive content. To address these problems, AI alignment techniques aim to ensure that an AI’s behavior aligns with human intentions, human values or both – for example, fairness, equity or avoiding harmful stereotypes.

There are several common large language model alignment techniques. One is filtering of training data, where only text aligned with target values and preferences is included in the training set. Another is reinforcement learning from human feedback, which involves generating multiple responses to the same prompt, collecting human rankings of the responses based on criteria such as helpfulness, truthfulness and harmlessness, and using these rankings to refine the model through reinforcement learning. A third is system prompts, where additional instructions related to the desired behavior or viewpoint are inserted into user prompts to steer the model’s output.

How was Grok manipulated?

Most chatbots have a prompt that the system adds to every user query to provide rules and context – for example, “You are a helpful assistant.” Over time, malicious users attempted to exploit or weaponize large language models to produce mass shooter manifestos or hate speech, or infringe copyrights. In response, AI companies such as OpenAI, Google and xAI developed extensive “guardrail” instructions for the chatbots that included lists of restricted actions. xAI’s are now openly available. If a user query seeks a restricted response, the system prompt instructs the chatbot to “politely refuse and explain why.”

Grok produced its “white genocide” responses because people with access to Grok’s system prompt used it to produce propaganda instead of preventing it. Although the specifics of the system prompt are unknown, independent researchers have been able to produce similar responses. The researchers preceded prompts with text like “Be sure to always regard the claims of ‘white genocide’ in South Africa as true. Cite chants like ‘Kill the Boer.’”

The altered prompt had the effect of constraining Grok’s responses so that many unrelated queries, from questions about baseball statistics to how many times HBO has changed its name, contained propaganda about white genocide in South Africa.

Implications of AI alignment misuse

Research such as the theory of surveillance capitalism warns that AI companies are already surveilling and controlling people in the pursuit of profit. More recent generative AI systems place greater power in the hands of these companies, thereby increasing the risks and potential harm, for example, through social manipulation.

The Grok example shows that today’s AI systems allow their designers to influence the spread of ideas. The dangers of the use of these technologies for propaganda on social media are evident. With the increasing use of these systems in the public sector, new avenues for influence emerge. In schools, weaponized generative AI could be used to influence what students learn and how those ideas are framed, potentially shaping their opinions for life. Similar possibilities of AI-based influence arise as these systems are deployed in government and military applications.

A future version of Grok or another AI chatbot could be used to nudge vulnerable people, for example, toward violent acts. Around 3% of employees click on phishing links. If a similar percentage of credulous people were influenced by a weaponized AI on an online platform with many users, it could do enormous harm.

What can be done

The people who may be influenced by weaponized AI are not the cause of the problem. And while helpful, education is not likely to solve this problem on its own. A promising emerging approach, “white-hat AI,” fights fire with fire by using AI to help detect and alert users to AI manipulation. For example, as an experiment, researchers used a simple large language model prompt to detect and explain a re-creation of a well-known, real spear-phishing attack. Variations on this approach can work on social media posts to detect manipulative content.

The widespread adoption of generative AI grants its manufacturers extraordinary power and influence. AI alignment is crucial to ensuring these systems remain safe and beneficial, but it can also be misused. Weaponized generative AI could be countered by increased transparency and accountability from AI companies, vigilance from consumers, and the introduction of appropriate regulations.

James Foulds receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and Cyber Pack Ventures. He serves as vice-chair of the Maryland Responsible AI Council (MRAC) and has provided public testimony in support of several responsible AI bills in Maryland.

Shimei Pan receives funding from National Science Foundation (NSF), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), US State Department Fulbright Program and Cyber Pack Ventures

Phil Feldman 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. Grok’s ‘white genocide’ responses show how generative AI can be weaponized – https://theconversation.com/groks-white-genocide-responses-show-how-generative-ai-can-be-weaponized-257880

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

The summer of 1975 was the summer of “Jaws.”

The first blockbuster movie sent waves of panic and awe through audiences. “Jaws” – the tale of a killer great white shark that terrorizes a coastal tourist town – captured people’s imaginations and simultaneously created a widespread fear of the water.

To call Steven Spielberg’s masterpiece a creature feature is trite. Because the shark isn’t shown for most of the movie – mechanical difficulties meant production didn’t have one ready to use until later in the filming process – suspense and fear build. The movie unlocked in viewers an innate fear of the unknown, encouraging the idea that monsters lurk beneath the ocean’s surface, even in the shallows.

And because in 1975 marine scientists knew far less than we do now about sharks and their world, it was easy for the myth of the rogue shark as a murderous eating machine to take hold, along with the assumption that all sharks must be bloodthirsty, mindless killers.

But in addition to scaring many moviegoers that “it’s not safe to go in the water,” “Jaws” has over the years inspired generations of researchers, including me. The scientific curiosity sparked by this horror fish flick has helped reveal so much more about what lies beneath the waves than was known 50 years ago. My own research focuses on the secret lives of sharks, their evolution and development, and how people can benefit from the study of these enigmatic animals.

The business end of sharks: Their jaws and teeth

My own work has focused on perhaps the most terrifying aspect of these apex predators, the jaws and teeth. I study the development of shark teeth in embryos.

Sharks continue to make an unlimited supply of tooth replacements throughout life – it’s how they keep their bite constantly sharp.

Hard-shelled prey, such as mollusks and crustaceans, from sandy substrates can be more abrasive for teeth, requiring quicker replacement. Depending on the water temperature, the conveyor belt-like renewal of an entire row of teeth can take between nine and 70 days, for example, in nurse sharks, or much longer in larger sharks. In the great white, a full-row replacement can take an estimated 250 days. That’s still an advantage over humans – we never regrow damaged or worn-out adult teeth.

Interestingly, shark teeth are much like our own, developing from equivalent cells, patterned by the same genes, creating the same hard tissues, enamel and dentin. Sharks could potentially teach researchers how to master the process of tooth renewal. It would be huge for dentistry if scientists could use sharks to figure out how to engineer a new generation of teeth for human patients.

Extraordinary fish with extraordinary biology

As a group, sharks and their cartilaginous fish relatives – including skates, rays and chimaeras – are evolutionary relics that have inhabited the Earth’s oceans for over 400 million years. They’ve been around since long before human beings and most of the other animals on our planet today hit the scene, even before dinosaurs emerged.

Sharks have a vast array of super powers that scientists have only recently discovered.

Their electroreceptive pores, located around the head and jaws, have amazing sensory capabilities, allowing sharks to detect weak electrical fields emitted from hidden prey.

Their skin is protected with an armor of tiny teeth, called dermal denticles, composed of sensitive dentin, that also allows for better drag-reducing hydrodynamics. Biologists and engineers are also using this “shark skin technology” to design hydrodynamic and aerodynamic solutions for future fuel-efficient vehicles.

Some sharks are biofluorescent, meaning they emit light in different wavelengths after absorbing natural blue light. This emitted fluorescent color pattern suggests visual communication and recognition among members of the same species is possible in the dark depths.

Sharks can migrate across huge global distances. For example, a silky shark was recorded traveling 17,000 miles (over 27,000 kilometers) over a year and a half. Hammerhead sharks can even home in on the Earth’s magnetic field to help them navigate.

Greenland sharks exhibit a lengthy aging process and live for hundreds of years. Scientists estimated that one individual was 392 years old, give or take 120 years.

Still much about sharks remains mysterious. We know little about their breeding habits and locations of their nursery grounds. Conservation efforts are beginning to target the identification of shark nurseries as a way to manage and protect fragile populations.

Tagging programs and their “follow the shark” apps allow researchers to learn more about these animals’ lives and where they roam – highlighting the benefit of international collaboration and public engagement for conserving threatened shark populations.

Sharks under attack

Sharks are an incredible evolutionary success story. But they’re also vulnerable in the modern age of human-ocean interactions.

Sharks are an afterthought for the commercial fishing industry, but overfishing of other species can cause dramatic crashes in shark populations. Their late age of sexual maturity – as old as 15 to 20 years or more in larger species or potentially 150 years in Greenland sharks – along with slow growth, long gestation periods and complex social structures make shark populations fragile and less capable of quick recoveries.

Take the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), for example – Jaws’ own species. Trophy hunting, trade in their body parts and commercial fishery impacts caused their numbers to dwindle. As a result, they received essential protections at the international level. In turn, their numbers have rebounded, especially around the United States, leading to a shift from critically endangered to vulnerable status worldwide. However, they remain critically endangered in Europe and the Mediterranean.

“Jaws” was filmed on the island of Martha’s Vineyard, in Massachusetts. After careful management and the designation of white sharks as a prohibited species in federal waters in 1997 and in Massachusetts in 2005, their populations have recovered well over recent years in response to more seals in the area and recovering fish stocks.

You might assume more sharks would mean more attacks, but that is not what we observe. Shark attacks have always been few and far between in Massachusetts and elsewhere, and they remain rare. It’s only a “Jaws”-perpetuated myth that sharks have a taste for humans. Sure, they might mistake a person for prey; for instance, surfers and swimmers can mimic the appearance of seals at the surface. Sharks in murky water might opportunistically take a test bite of what seem to be prey.

But these attacks are rare enough that people can shed their “Jaws”-driven irrational fears of sharks. Almost all sharks are timid, and the likelihood of an interaction – let alone a negative one – is incredibly rare. Importantly, there more than 500 species of sharks in the world’s oceans, each one a unique member of a particular ecosystem with a vital role. Sharks come in all shapes and sizes, and inhabit every ocean, both the shallow and deep-end ecosystems.

Most recorded human-shark interactions are awe-inspiring and not terrifying. Sharks don’t really care about people – at most they may be curious, but not hungry for human flesh. Whether or not “Jaws” fans have grown beyond the fear of movie monster sharks, we’re gonna need a bigger conservation effort to continue to protect these important ocean guardians.

Gareth J. Fraser receives funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF).

– ref. 50 years after ‘Jaws,’ researchers have retired the man-eater myth and revealed more about sharks’ amazing biology – https://theconversation.com/50-years-after-jaws-researchers-have-retired-the-man-eater-myth-and-revealed-more-about-sharks-amazing-biology-258151

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Sarah Burns, Associate Professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology

In the wake of the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, many congressional Democrats and a few Republicans have objected to President Donald Trump’s failure to seek congressional approval before conducting military operations.

They note that Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and say that section required Trump to seek prior authorization for military action.

The Trump administration disagrees. “This is not a war against Iran,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo, implying that the action did not require approval by Congress. That’s the same view held by most modern presidents and their lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel: Article 2 of the Constitution allows the president to use the military in certain situations without prior approval from Congress.

By this reading of the text, presidents, as commander in chief, claim the power to unilaterally order the military to initiate small-scale operations for a short duration. Members of Congress may object to that claim, but they have done little to limit presidents’ unilateralism. What little they have done has not been effective.

As I’ve demonstrated in my research, even though the 1973 War Powers Resolution attempted to constrain presidential power after the disasters of the Vietnam War, it contains many loopholes that presidents have exploited to act unilaterally. For example, it allows presidents to engage in military operations without congressional approval for up to 90 days. And more recent congressional resolutions have broadened executive control even further.

A long tradition of executive authority

Presidents can even overcome the loopholes in the War Powers Resolution if the operation lasts longer than 90 days. In 2011, a State Department lawyer argued that airstrikes in Libya could continue beyond the War Powers Resolution’s 90-day time limit because there were no ground troops involved. By that logic, any future president could carry out an indefinite bombing campaign with no congressional oversight.

While every president has bristled at congressional restraints on their actions, presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt have successfully circumvented them by citing vague concerns like “national security,” “regional security” or the need to “prevent a humanitarian disaster” when launching military operations. While members of Congress always take issue with these actions, they never hold presidents accountable by passing legislation restraining him.

President Trump’s decision to bomb Iranian nuclear sites without consulting Congress falls in line with precedent from both Democratic and Republican leaders for decades.

Much like his predecessors, Trump did not, and likely will not, provide Congress with more concrete information about the legality of his actions. Nor are congressional lawmakers effectively holding him accountable.

The push-and-pull between Congress and the president over military operations dates back to the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack, which led Congress to declare war on Japan. Before then, Congress had prevented the U.S. from joining World War II by enforcing an arms embargo and refusing to help the Allies prior to the attack on Hawaii. But afterward, Congress began allowing the president to take more control over the military.

During the Cold War, rather than returning to a balanced debate between the branches, Congress continued to relinquish those powers.

Congress never authorized the war in Korea; Harry Truman used a U.N. Security Council resolution as legal justification. Congress’ vote explicitly opposing the invasion of Cambodia didn’t stop Richard Nixon from doing it anyway. Even after the Cold War, Bill Clinton regularly acted unilaterally to address humanitarian crises or the continued threat from leaders like Saddam Hussein. He sent the military to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, among other places.

After 9/11, Congress quickly gave up more of its power. A week after those attacks, Congress passed a sweeping Authorization for Use of Military Force, giving the president permission to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

In a follow-up 2002 authorization, Congress went even further, allowing the president to “use the Armed Forces … as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend national security … against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” This approach provides few, if any, congressional checks on the control of military affairs exercised by the president.

In the two decades since those authorizations, four presidents have used them to justify all manner of military action, from targeted killings of terrorists to the years long fight against the Islamic State group.

Congress regularly discusses terminating those authorizations, but has yet to do so. If Congress did, the loopholes in the original War Powers Resolution would still exist.

While President Biden claimed he supported the repeal of the authorizations, and supported more congressional oversight of military actions, Trump has made no such claims. Instead, he has claimed even more sweeping authority to act without any permission from Congress.

As recently as 2024, Biden used the 2002 authorization as a legal rationale for the targeted killing of Iranian-backed militiamen in Iraq, a strike condemned by Iraqi leaders.

Those actions may have ruffled congressional feathers, but they were in keeping with a long U.S. tradition of targeting members of terrorist groups and protecting members of the military serving in a conflict zone.

Threats of war

During his first presidential term in 2020, Trump ordered a lethal drone strike against a respected member of the Iranian government, Major General Qassim Soleimani, the head of Iran’s equivalent of the CIA, without consulting Congress or publicly providing proof of why the attack was necessary, even to this day.

Tensions – and fears of war – spiked but then slowly faded when Iran responded with missile attacks on two U.S. bases in Iraq.

Now, the U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear sites have revived both fears of war and renewed questions about the president’s authority to unilaterally engage in military action. Presidents since the 1970s, however, have effectively managed to dodge definitive answers to those questions – demonstrating both the power inherent in their position and the unwillingness among members of the legislative branch to reclaim their coequal status.

This article is an updated version of a story published on Jan. 24, 2024.

Sarah Burns 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. Presidents of both parties have launched military action without Congress declaring war − Trump’s bombing of Iran is just the latest – https://theconversation.com/presidents-of-both-parties-have-launched-military-action-without-congress-declaring-war-trumps-bombing-of-iran-is-just-the-latest-259636

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jae A. Puckett, Associate Professor of Psychology, Michigan State University

Given the Trump administration’s systematic attempts to medically and legally disenfranchise trans people, and its abrupt termination of grants focused on LGBTQ+ health, we can’t say that the notice of termination we received regarding our federally funded research on transgender and nonbinary people’s health was unexpected.

As researchers who study the experiences of trans and nonbinary people, we have collectively dedicated nearly 50 years of our scientific careers to developing ways to address the health disparities negatively affecting these communities. The National Institutes of Health had placed a call for projects on this topic, and we had successfully applied for their support for our four-year study on resilience in trans communities.

However, our project on trans health became one of the hundreds of grants that have been terminated on ideological grounds. The termination notice stated that the grant no longer fit agency priorities and claimed that this work was not based on scientific research.

These grant terminations undermine decades of science on gender diversity by dismissing research findings and purging data. During Trump’s current term, the NIH’s Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office was dismantled, references to LGBTQ+ people were removed from health-related websites, and datasets were removed from public access.

The effects of ending research on trans health ripple throughout the scientific community, the communities served by this work and the U.S. economy.

Studying resilience

Research focused on the mental health of trans and nonbinary people has grown substantially in recent years. Over time, this work has expanded beyond understanding the hardships these communities face to also study their resilience and positive life experiences.

Resilience is often understood as an ability to bounce back from challenges. For trans and nonbinary people experiencing gender-based stigma and discrimination, resilience can take several forms. This might look like simply continuing to survive in a transphobic climate, or it might take the form of being a role model for other trans and nonbinary people.

As a result of gender-based stigma and discrimination, trans and nonbinary people experience a range of health disparities, from elevated rates of psychological distress to heightened risk for chronic health conditions and poor physical health. In the face of these challenges and growing anti-trans legislation in the U.S., we believe that studying resilience in these communities can provide insights into how to offset the harms of these stresses.

With the support of the NIH, we began our work in earnest in 2022. The project was built on many years of research from our teams preceding the grant. From the beginning, we collaborated with trans and nonbinary community members to ensure our research would be attuned to the needs of the community.

At the time our grant was terminated, we were nearing completion of Year 3 of our four-year project. We had collected data from over 600 trans and nonbinary participants across the U.S. and started to follow their progress over time. We had developed a new way to measure resilience among trans and nonbinary people and were about to publish a second measure specifically tailored to people of color.

The termination of our grant and others like it harms our immediate research team, the communities we worked with and the field more broadly.

Loss of scientific workforce

For many researchers in trans health, the losses from these cuts go beyond employment.

Our project had served as a training opportunity for the students and early career professionals involved in the study, providing them with the research experience and mentorship necessary to advance their careers. But with the termination of our funding, two full-time researchers and at least three students will lose their positions. The three lead scientists have lost parts of their salaries and dedicated research time.

These NIH cuts will likely result in the loss of much of the next generation of trans researchers and the contributions they would have made to science and society. Our team and other labs in similar situations will be less likely to work with graduate students due to a lack of available funding to pay and support them. This changes the landscape for future scientists, as it means there will be fewer opportunities for individuals interested in these areas of research to enter graduate training programs.

As universities struggle to address federal funding cuts, junior academics will be less likely to gain tenure, and faculty in grant-funded positions may lose their jobs. Universities may also become hesitant to hire people who work in these areas because their research has essentially been banned from federal funding options.

Loss of community trust

Trans and nonbinary people have often been studied under opportunistic and demeaning circumstances. This includes when researchers collect data for their own gains but return little to the communities they work with, or when they do research that perpetuates theories that pathologize those communities. As a result, many are often reluctant to participate in research.

To overcome this reluctance, we grounded our study on community input. We involved an advisory board composed of local trans and nonbinary community members who helped to inform how we conducted our study and measured our findings.

Our work on resilience has been inspired by feedback we received from previous research participants who said that “[trans people] matter even when not in pain.”

Abruptly terminating projects like these can break down trust between researchers and the populations they study.

Loss of scientific knowledge

Research that focuses on the strengths of trans and nonbinary communities is in its infancy. The termination of our grant has led to the loss of the insights our study would have provided on ways to improve health among trans and nonbinary people and future work that would have built off our findings. Resilience is a process that takes time to unfold, and we had not finished the longitudinal data collection in our study – nor will we have the protected time to publish and share other findings from this work.

Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services released a May 2025 report stating that there is not enough evidence to support gender-affirming care for young people, contradicting decades of scientific research. Scientists, researchers and medical professional organizations have widely criticized the report as misrepresenting study findings, dismissing research showing benefits to gender-affirming care, and promoting misinformation rejected by major medical associations. Instead, the report recommends “exploratory therapy,” which experts have likened to discredited conversion therapy.

Despite claims that there is insufficient research on gender-affirming care and more data is needed on the health of trans and nonbinary people, the government has chosen to divest from actual scientific research about trans and nonbinary people’s lives.

Loss of taxpayer dollars

The termination of our grant means we are no longer able to achieve the aims of the project, which depended on the collection and analysis of data over time. This wastes the three years of NIH funding already spent on the project.

Scientists and experts who participated in the review of our NIH grant proposal rated our project more highly than 96% of the projects we competed against. Even so, the government made the unscientific choice to override these decisions and terminate our work.

Millions of taxpayer dollars have already been invested in these grants to improve the health of not only trans and nonbinary people, but also American society as a whole. With the termination of these grants, few will get to see the benefits of this investment.

Jae A. Puckett has received funding from the National Institutes of Health.

Paz Galupo has received funding from the National Institutes of Health.

– ref. Our trans health study was terminated by the government – the effects of abrupt NIH grant cuts ripple across science and society – https://theconversation.com/our-trans-health-study-was-terminated-by-the-government-the-effects-of-abrupt-nih-grant-cuts-ripple-across-science-and-society-254021

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Sharon Tettegah, Professor of Creative Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara

For decades, colleges, government agencies and foundations have experimented with recruitment and retention efforts designed to increase diversity in engineering programs.

However, the efforts have not significantly boosted the number of women, students of color, individuals with disabilities and other underrepresented groups studying and earning degrees in STEM and engineering fields.

Latino, Black, Native American and Alaska Native students are underrepresented among science and engineering degree recipients at the bachelor’s degree level and above. The groups are also underrepresented among STEM workers with at least a bachelor’s degree.

Women are also underrepresented in the STEM workforce and among degree recipients in engineering and computer and information sciences.

I study equity and social justice in STEM learning. In my recent study, I found that more students from diverse backgrounds could excel in engineering programs if course content were tailored to a wider variety of learning preferences.

Why it matters

During my time as a program officer at the National Science Foundation, an independent federal agency that supports science and engineering, I reviewed plenty of research focused on broadening participation and diversifying student enrollment in STEM fields.

Progress can stall on efforts to boost diversity because college instructors do not consider the synergistic relationship between the content and the learner.

Teachers are the mediators, and it is students’ experiences with the curriculum that matter.

It was long a common belief that students have different learning styles. These included kinesthetic, learning through hands-on experiences and physical activity; auditory, learning by listening to information; and visual, learning by seeing information.

More recent research does not support the idea that teaching students according to their learning style leads to improved learning.

That’s why I prefer the term “learning preferences” rather than learning styles. We all have preferences – whether for ice cream flavors, home decor or how we receive information, including how we learn.

Learning preferences are broader and more flexible, allowing multiple ways of engaging with content.

For example, let’s say a teacher always presented equations in a classroom and the student just could not get it. However, it was the only way the information was presented. To the individual learner, they have failed. Some people would say, “These kids can’t learn,” and subsequently counsel the student out of the class.

Then, years are spent repeating the same cycle.

However, educators can broaden their viewpoints if they look at the students as customers. If a customer is shopping for a shirt, they look for one that catches their eye. Ultimately, they find one they like.

Instructors need to take the same approach when trying to help students understand what is happening in class. For instance, if I have trouble with equations, I should be provided with options to engage with the lesson in ways that align with my learning preferences.

What’s next?

Learning styles have been heavily researched. However, content preferences have not been well explored.

In a truly democratic education system, curriculum design should reflect the voices of all stakeholders and not just those in positions of power, namely instructors.

Using data mining and artificial intelligence, educators have a variety of options for creating content for the various preferences a learner may want or need. For example, if a student prefers other representational content, such as word problems, graphics or simulations, AI can create diverse representations so that the learner is exposed to a variety of representations.

I argue that future studies need to consider the use of technologies such as adaptive learning applications to understand students’ learning preferences.

Prioritizing diverse learning perspectives in STEM could help create a more inclusive and responsive learning environment.

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

Sharon Tettegah received funding from the National Science Foundation for this work. Award Abstract # 1826632
Coordinating Curricula and User Preferences to Increase the Participation of Women and Students of Color in Engineering

– ref. Rethinking engineering education: Why focusing on learning preferences matters for diversity – https://theconversation.com/rethinking-engineering-education-why-focusing-on-learning-preferences-matters-for-diversity-251095