Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Eli Elster, Doctoral Candidate in Evolutionary Anthropology, University of California, Davis

On Feb. 22, 2020, “Mad” Mike Hughes towed a homemade rocket to the Mojave Desert and launched himself into the sky. His goal? To view the flatness of the Earth from space. This was his third attempt, and tragically it was fatal. Hughes crashed shortly after takeoff and died.

Hughes’ nickname – Mad Mike – might strike you as apt. Is it not crazy to risk your life fighting for a theory that was disproven in ancient Greece?

But Hughes’ conviction, though striking, is not unique. Across all recorded cultures, people have held strong beliefs that seemed to lack evidence in their favor – one might refer to them as “extraordinary beliefs.”

For evolutionary anthropologists like me, the ubiquity of these kinds of beliefs is a puzzle. Human brains evolved to form accurate models of the world. Most of the time, we do a pretty good job. So why do people also often adopt and develop beliefs that lack strong supporting evidence?

In a new review in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences, I propose a simple answer. People come to believe in flat Earth, spirits and microchipped vaccines for the same reasons they come to believe in anything else. Their experiences lead them to think those beliefs are true.

Theories of extraordinary belief

Most social scientists have taken a different view on this subject. Supernatural beliefs, conspiracy theories and pseudoscience have struck researchers as totally impervious to contrary evidence. Consequently, they have assumed that experience is not relevant to the formation of those beliefs. Instead, they’ve focused on two other explanatory factors.

The first common explanation is cognitive biases. Many psychologists argue that humans possess mental shortcuts for reasoning about how the world works. For instance, people are quite prone to seeing intentions and intelligence behind random events. A bias of this kind might explain why people often believe that deities control phenomena such as weather or illness.

The second factor is social dynamics: People adopt certain beliefs not because they’re sure that they’re true but because other people hold those beliefs, or they want to signal something about themselves to others. For example, some conspiracy theorists may adopt strange beliefs because those beliefs come with a community of loyal and supportive co-believers.

Both of these approaches can partly explain how people come to hold extraordinary beliefs. But they discount three ways that experience, in tandem with the other two factors, can shape extraordinary beliefs.

1. Experience as a filter

First, I propose that experience can act as a filter. It determines which extraordinary beliefs can successfully spread throughout a population.

Take the flat Earth theory as an example. We know with absolute certainty that it’s false, but it’s no more or less wrong than a theory that the Earth is shaped like a cone. So what makes flat Earth so much more successful than this equally incorrect alternative?

The answer is as obvious as it seems – the Earth looks flat when you’re standing on it, not cone-shaped. Visual evidence favors one extraordinary belief over the others. Of course, scientific evidence clearly shows that the Earth is round; but it’s not surprising that some people prefer to trust what their eyes are telling them.

2. Experience as a spark

My second argument is that experience acts as a spark for extraordinary beliefs. Strange experiences, such as auditory hallucinations, are difficult to explain and understand. So people do their best to explain them – and in doing so, they come up with beliefs that seem fittingly strange.

For this pathway, sleep paralysis is a good case study. Sleep paralysis happens in the space between sleeping and waking – you feel like you’re awake, but you can’t move or speak. It’s terrifying and quite common. And interestingly, sufferers usually feel like there’s a threatening agent sitting on their chest.

As a scientist, I interpret sleep paralysis as the result of neural confusion. But it’s not difficult to picture how someone without a scientific background – that is, nearly every human being in history – might interpret the experience as evidence of supernatural beings.

3. Experience as a tool

To me, the third potential route to extraordinary beliefs is especially intriguing. In many cases, people don’t just develop extraordinary beliefs; they develop immersive practices that make those beliefs feel true.

For instance, imagine that you’re a farmer living in the highlands of Lesotho in southern Africa, where I conduct ethnographic fieldwork. You suffer a series of miscarriages, and you want to know why. So you go to a traditional healer – she tells you that you can learn the answer from your ancestors by drinking a hallucinogenic brew. You drink the brew. Soon after, you begin to see spirits; they speak to you and explain your misfortune.

Clearly, an experience like this one might reinforce your belief in the existence of spirits. Such immersive practices – such as prayer, ritualistic dance and the religious use of psychoactive substances – create evidence that makes the associated beliefs feel true.

What’s next?

Extraordinary beliefs are not inherently good or bad. In particular, religious beliefs provide meaning, security and a sense of community for billions of people.

But some extraordinary beliefs are sources of serious concern: Misinformation about science and politics is rampant and immensely dangerous. By recognizing how those beliefs are shaped by experience, researchers can find better ways to combat their spread.

Just as importantly, though, my suggested perspective might encourage more compassion and kinship toward people who hold beliefs that seem very different from yours. They are not “mad” or insincere. Like any other human being, they think the evidence is on their side.

Eli Elster 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. Flat Earth, spirits and conspiracy theories – experience can shape even extraordinary beliefs – https://theconversation.com/flat-earth-spirits-and-conspiracy-theories-experience-can-shape-even-extraordinary-beliefs-271145

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Adrienne Marshall, Assistant Professor of Geology and Geological Engineering, Colorado School of Mines

Ski season is here, but while the eastern half of the U.S. digs out from wintery storms, the western U.S. snow season has been off to a very slow start.

The snowpack was far below normal across most of the West on Dec. 1, 2025. Denver didn’t see its first measurable snowfall until Nov. 29 – more than a month past normal, and one of its latest first-snow dates on record.

But a late start isn’t necessarily reason to worry about the snow season ahead.

Adrienne Marshall, a hydrologist in Colorado who studies how snowfall is changing in the West, explains what forecasters are watching and how rising temperatures are affecting the future of the West’s beloved snow.

What are snow forecasters paying attention to right now?

It’s still early in the snow season, so there’s a lot of uncertainty in the forecasts. A late first snow doesn’t necessarily mean a low-snow year.

But there are some patterns that we know influence snowfall that forecasters are watching.

For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is forecasting La Niña conditions for this winter, possibly switching to neutral midway through. La Niña involves cooler-than-usual sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean along the equator west of South America. Cooler ocean temperatures in that region can influence weather patterns across the U.S., but so can several other factors.

La Niña – and its opposite, El Niño – don’t tell us what will happen for certain. Instead, they load the dice toward wetter or drier conditions, depending on where you are. La Niñas are generally associated with cooler, wetter conditions in the Pacific Northwest and a little bit warmer, drier conditions in the U.S. Southwest, but not always.

When we look at the consequences for snow, La Niña does tend to mean more snow in the Pacific Northwest and less in the Southwest, but, again, there’s a lot of variability.

Snow conditions also depend heavily on individual storms, and those are more random than the seasonal pattern indicated by La Niña.

If you look at NOAA’s seasonal outlook maps, most of Colorado and Utah are in the gap between the cooler and wetter pattern to the north and the warmer and drier pattern to the south expected during winter 2026. So, the outlook suggests roughly equal chances of more or less snow than normal and warmer or cooler weather across many major ski areas.

How is climate change affecting snowfall in the West?

In the West, snow measurements date back a century, so we can see some trends.

Starting in the 1920s, surveyors would go out into the mountains and measure the snowpack in March and April every year. Those records suggest snowfall has declined in most of the West. We also see evidence of more midwinter melting.

How much snow falls is driven by both temperature and precipitation, and temperature is warming

In the past few years, research has been able to directly attribute observed changes in the spring snowpack to human-caused climate change. Rising temperatures have led to decreases in snow, particularly in the Southwest. The effects of warming temperatures on overall precipitation are less clear, but the net effect in the western U.S. is a decrease in the spring snowpack.

When we look at climate change projections for the western U.S. in future years, we see with a high degree of confidence that we can expect less snow in warmer climates. In scenarios where the world produces more greenhouse gas emissions, that’s worse for snow seasons.

Should states be worried about water supplies?

This winter’s forecast isn’t extreme at this point, so the impact on the year’s water supplies is a pretty big question mark.

Snowpack – how much snow is on the ground in March or April – sums up the snowfall, minus the melt, for the year. The snowpack also affects water supplies for the rest of the year.

The West’s water infrastructure system was built assuming there would be a natural reservoir of snow in the mountains. California relies on the snowpack for about a third of its annual water supply.

However, rising temperatures are leading to earlier snowmelt in some areas. Evidence suggests that climate change is also expected to cause more rain-on-snow events at high elevations, which can cause very rapid snowmelt.

Both create challenges for water managers, who want to store as much snowmelt runoff as possible in reservoirs so it’s available through the summer, when states need it most for agriculture and for generating hydropower to meet high electricity demand. If the snow melts early, water resource managers face some tough decisions, because they also need to leave room in their reservoirs to manage flooding. Earlier snowmelt sometimes means they have to release stored water.

When we look at reservoir levels in the Colorado River basin, particularly the big reservoirs – Lake Powell and Lake Mead – we see a pattern of decline over time. They have had some very good snow and water years, and also particularly challenging ones, including a long-running drought. The long-term trends suggest an imbalance between supply and growing demand.

What else does snowfall affect, such as fire risk?

During low-snow years, the snowpack disappears sooner, and the soils dry out earlier in the year. That essentially leaves a longer summer dry period and more stress on trees.

There is evidence that we tend to have bigger fire seasons after low-snow winters. That can be because the forests are left with drier fuels, which sets the ecosystem up to burn. That’s obviously a major concern in the West.

Snow is also important to a lot of wildlife species that are adapted to it. One example is the wolverine, an endangered species that requires deep snow for denning over the winter.

What snow lessons should people take away from climate projections?

Overall, climate projections suggest our biggest snow years will be less snowy in anticipated warmer climates, and that very low snow years are expected to be more common.

But it’s important to remember that climate projections are based on scenarios of how much greenhouse gas might be emitted in the future – they are not predictions of the future. The world can still reduce its emissions to create a less risky scenario. In fact, while the most ambitious emissions reductions are looking less likely, the worst emissions scenarios are also less likely under current policies.

Understanding how choices can change climate projections can be empowering. Projections are saying: Here’s what we expect to happen if the world emits a lot of greenhouse gases, and here’s what we expect to happen if we emit fewer greenhouse gases based on recent trends.

The choices we make will affect our future snow seasons and the wider climate.

This article has been updated to correct the references to Denver, which saw one of its latest snowfalls on record.

Adrienne Marshall receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United States Geological Survey, the Colorado Department of Transportation, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and has received previous funding from the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

– ref. Winter storms blanket the East, while the US West is wondering: Where’s the snow? – https://theconversation.com/winter-storms-blanket-the-east-while-the-us-west-is-wondering-wheres-the-snow-270928

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Stephen Mattingly, Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington

High-speed rail systems are found all over the globe. Japan’s bullet train began operating in 1964. China will have 31,000 miles (50,000 kilometers) of high-speed track by the end of 2025. The fastest train in Europe goes almost 200 mph (320 kph). Yet high-speed rail remains absent from most of the U.S.

Stephen Mattingly, a civil engineering professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, explains why high-speed rail projects in much of the country so often go off track.

The Conversation has collaborated with SciLine to bring you highlights from the discussion, edited for brevity and clarity.

How is high-speed rail different from conventional trains?

Stephen Mattingly: With conventional rail, we’re usually looking at speeds of less than 80 mph (129 kph). Higher-speed rail is somewhere between 90, maybe up to 125 mph (144 to 201 kph). And high-speed rail is 150 mph (241 kph) or faster. There’s also a difference in the infrastructure for these different rail lines.

Is there anything in the U.S. that’s considered high-speed rail?

Mattingly: The Acela train operates in the Northeast Corridor and serves Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. In some parts of the corridor, the Acela runs on infrastructure that accommodates the train’s maximum 150 mph (241 kph) speed.

Why has the U.S. been slow to adopt this?

Mattingly: Except for some in the northeastern U.S., not many cities have enough travel between them and are at the correct distance to support an investment in high-speed rail, because it’s not necessarily going to take a huge number of cars off the road. Trains are not a replacement for auto travel; they compete more directly with air.

High-speed rail competes best with air when the trip is between one-and-a-half to three hours. Within that range, a train’s door-to-door travel time is typically faster than air. That’s because of the additional security time required for air travel: sitting around in the airport, the time it takes to load and unload and all of that.

For longer distances – more than three hours – the train’s travel time starts to get noncompetitive with air. That’s because for every three or four hours of high-speed rail travel, air travel only takes one hour.

Go lower than that – a trip of less than an hour-and-a-half – and cars become the more attractive choice.

That said, what are the advantages of high-speed rail?

Mattingly: First, the environmental benefit is an advantage. High-speed rail has lower carbon emissions than air travel, especially on a per passenger basis. You can load more people onto a train than most planes.

Then, of course, its speed makes it a viable way to commute when compared with conventional rail. Our current Amtrak system, outside the Northeast Corridor, is really a leisure travel mode, as opposed to business travel mode.

What large-scale projects are in the works here in the U.S.?

Mattingly: Some higher-speed rail is in Florida, and Brightline, a private train company, is proposing to improve the existing line with more of a high-speed capability. There’s also a proposed line in Texas to run between Dallas and Houston.

The Texas project has a lot of challenges with eminent domain, which is the right of government to take private property for public use after providing compensation. A federal grant to help fund the line was recently terminated, and a strategic partner pulled out of the project. With delays, costs inevitably begin to increase.

California’s high-speed rail project for its Central Valley actually has about 120 miles (193 kilometers) of track laid down. And it’s working on slowly building that out. There are some other proposals in the Pacific Northwest, but those are more ideas than projects at this point.

When these systems are proposed, they’re often positioned as a replacement for auto travel. But I’m incredibly skeptical that auto travel will significantly decrease with a new public transit mode that deposits you within a larger metropolitan destination, which may not even have the public transportation to take you to your final destination.

Regional networks of high-speed rail could connect more exurban or rural areas to hub airports and enhance economic development in these regions. In this case, a public high-speed rail system could receive public money, just like the federal government has done with the interstate highway system and all the other road investments that we’ve made over the past century and longer.

But I’m not sure that high-speed rail will be a solution for congested freeways between cities for any place outside of the Northeast Corridor.

What is your central message about high-speed rail?

Mattingly: I love high-speed rail as a technology. For specific applications, it’s beneficial, especially from an environmental perspective. But the country has to be very careful in its choices on where those public investments in high-speed rail would actually make sense and be worthwhile investments. So I’m hesitant to make large investments without really understanding what the outcomes are.

SciLine is a free service based at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a nonprofit that helps journalists include scientific evidence and experts in their news stories.

Stephen Mattingly receives funding from the United States Department of Transportation, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Federal Aviation Administration, National Science Foundation, Texas Department of Transportation, Oregon Department of Transportation, Washington Department of Transportation, California Department of Transportation, Texas General Land Office, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, City of Arlington, City of Dallas and Caruth Foundation.

Stephen Mattingly is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation Research Board, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the president of the International Professional Association for Transport & Health.

– ref. High-speed rail moves millions throughout the world every day – but in the US, high cost and low use make its future bumpy – https://theconversation.com/high-speed-rail-moves-millions-throughout-the-world-every-day-but-in-the-us-high-cost-and-low-use-make-its-future-bumpy-266205

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kaitlyn M. Sims, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, University of Denver; Institute for Humane Studies

A record number of Colorado children died in 2024 as a result of domestic violence, despite a statewide reduction in overall homicide.

Of the eight children who died, five were involved in active custody disputes. These deaths took place when families faced high stress but also when legal systems should have been well placed to intervene. Multiple children were killed alongside a sibling or a parent.

As a researcher studying domestic violence, crime and anti-violence policy, I have watched these numbers with a sense of resignation rather than surprise.

Domestic violence homicide is persistent. Local, state and federal governments spend millions of dollars each year to operate hotlines, fund shelters and engage in prevention programs for victims of domestic violence. Yet more than one-third of homicides of women are still perpetrated by intimate partners. And there has been a steady increase nationally in domestic violence-related deaths of children over the past 20 years.

It’s clear that something is different about domestic violence that resists our attempts to reduce overall violent crime. But researchers have struggled to identify exactly what those differences are in ways that can inform effective policy.

To start addressing these deaths, we first need to effectively measure them, a task that is more challenging than one might expect.

Measuring domestic violence

Studying domestic violence is, at best, difficult — not least because data is highly limited.

Researchers often try to ask causal questions about what works to prevent domestic violence. To do this, they use large-scale national datasets, including the Uniform Crime Reporting Program and the National Incident-Based Reporting System. However, these datasets are often incomplete or have inconsistent reporting from responding agencies.

Law enforcement may not recognize and interpret a fatality as resulting from domestic violence if abuse was not previously reported. It is particularly challenging to identify whether a death involved dating or sexual partners unless witnesses who knew the victim closely cooperate with the investigation.

Additionally, the vast majority of victims of domestic abuse do not contact law enforcement or seek medical care. Often, this is due to fears that police will not believe them or that their abuser will find out. Parents may worry their abuser could take custody of their children, or that calling 911 will instigate child welfare system involvement.

The result is that half of the perpetrators of domestic violence fatalities in Colorado in 2024 did not have a prior domestic violence-related arrest. Only one-fifth had been previously convicted of domestic violence.

Domestic violence affects more than intimate partners

Domestic violence affects more than intimate partners or spouses. It can also affect siblings, roommates and even neighbors, co-workers or bystanders. These are collateral victims – people harmed by domestic violence without directly being part of the abusive relationship.

Colorado and Wisconsin have expanded their definition of domestic violence fatalities to account for some of these collateral deaths. For years, Colorado has included abusers who died by suicide, or whom law enforcement killed in the line of duty, in statewide counts. But states disagree on how wide to cast the net, making comparisons between states difficult.

These fatality reviews are further hamstrung by the boundary between domestic violence and child abuse.

In Colorado, deaths due to child abuse and neglect are counted in the Domestic Violence Fatality Report only if the death can be traced to violence between intimate partners. Children can therefore get lost in the count when violence between parents or caregivers is hidden behind closed doors.

What we don’t know can hurt us

These data gaps present challenges to understanding, predicting and preventing domestic violence. Policymakers struggle to gather up-to-date information to make effective public safety policy, including over how and when to detain alleged abusers before their day in court.

In Colorado, pretrial detention recommendations are made using a rigid scoring rubric. This rubric includes the accused’s prior criminal sentences or time served in jail or prison. However, it does not include information about domestic violence protection orders or prior charges that did not result in conviction.

In general, this is a well-intended policy that upholds the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” But in domestic violence cases, it creates a catch-22. The vast majority of abusers have never been found guilty in court. This can be due to dropped charges, lack of victim cooperation or unclear evidence. These abusers can have long histories of abusive behavior that aren’t visible to a judge when making pretrial detention decisions.

Designing effective prevention and response

Despite these challenges, policymakers have made substantial steps forward.

In 2022, the national Bipartisan Safer Communities Act closed the so-called “boyfriend loophole” whereby married individuals convicted of domestic violence offenses were prohibited from gun ownership but dating partners were exempt. This is particularly important given that the majority of firearm mass shootings in the U.S. are domestic violence-related.

States and counties nationally are improving the way courts assign pretrial detention and arrest and charge offenders. Mandatory arrest policies require law enforcement to make an arrest when they suspect abuse. No-drop orders prevent abusers from intimidating survivors into dropping charges.

However, these laws have limited effectiveness and introduce new harms, including increasing domestic violence homicides. Colorado’s own mandatory arrest law has been criticized for increasing arrests of victims of domestic violence. This can threaten victims’ own custody of their children and cause further economic precarity, increasing the risk of lethal violence.

Because laws and law enforcement cannot do everything or support every survivor, solutions must come from outside of the criminal-legal system. Community-based services and programs such as emergency housing, counseling and cash assistance help survivors to overcome barriers to safety.

However, access to these programs and services varies. Not all counties – in Colorado or most other states – have emergency domestic violence shelters. Recent federal funding cuts threaten many programs’ continued operations. Even when programs exist, local availability of housing and services can limit service providers’ effectiveness for their adult clients and their children.

Failing to effectively measure, prevent and respond to domestic violence can be a matter of life and death. Given how survivors’ needs vary, policymakers need to recognize that policy solutions and programs are not one-size-fits-all. And tailored, local policy solutions require improved data and better resources.

Read more of our stories about Colorado.

Kaitlyn M. Sims receives funding from the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, the Arnold Ventures Foundation, and the Institute for Humane Studies.

– ref. Why protecting Colorado children from dying of domestic violence is such a hard problem – https://theconversation.com/why-protecting-colorado-children-from-dying-of-domestic-violence-is-such-a-hard-problem-268836

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ismar Volić, Professor of Mathematics, Director of Institute for Mathematics and Democracy, Wellesley College

American democracy is straining under countless pressures, many of them rooted in structural problems that go back to the nation’s founding. Chief among them is the “pick one” plurality voting system – also called winner-take-all – used to elect nearly all of the 520,000 government officials in the United States.

In this system, voters select one candidate, and the candidate who receives the highest number of votes wins.

Plurality voting is notorious for producing winners without majority support in races that have more than two candidates. It can also create spoilers, or losing candidates whose presence in a race alters the outcome, as Ralph Nader’s did in the 2000 presidential election. And it can result in vote-splitting, where similar candidates divide support, paving the way for a less popular winner. This happened in the 2016 Republican primaries when Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and John Kasich split the anti-Donald Trump vote.

Plurality can also encourage dishonest voting. That happens when voters are pressured to abandon their favorite candidate for one they like less but think can win. In the 2024 elections, for example, voters whose preference for president was Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee, might have instead cast their vote for Democrat Kamala Harris.

An increasingly well-known alternative to plurality voting is ranked choice voting. It’s used statewide in Maine and Alaska and in dozens of municipalities, including New York City.

Better performance

Whereas plurality voting allows voters to select only one candidate, ranked choice lets them rank candidates. If a candidate secures a majority of first-place rankings, they are the winner just like they would be under plurality.

But the two systems diverge when there is no majority winner. Plurality simply chooses the candidates with the most first-place votes, while ranked choice voting eliminates the person with the fewest first-place votes and transfers their votes to the next candidate on each ballot. The process is repeated until there is a majority winner.

Ranked choice voting makes use of more information from the voters than plurality, but does it avoid some of the problems plurality suffers from?

We are a team of mathematicians who recently concluded a study aimed at answering this and related questions. We analyzed some 2,000 ranked choice elections from the U.S., Australia and Scotland. We supplemented those real-world results with 60 million simulated elections.

The results were clear: Ranked choice voting performed much better across all the measures we tested, including spoiler, vote-splitting, strength of candidates and strategic voting.

Empowering voters

Plurality voting produced a spoiler up to 15 times more often than ranked choice voting. And it was 50% more likely to elect an extreme candidate. Plurality, furthermore, was highly susceptible to vote-splitting, while ranked choice voting was nearly impervious to it.

Ranked choice voting picked strong candidates up to 18 times more frequently than plurality voting, where by “strong” we mean candidates who received many first-place votes and also had broad support, even among their noncore supporters. This method also rarely elects a weak or fringe candidate and typically elects a candidate near the electorate’s ideological center.

Ranked choice voting is also more resistant to various forms of strategic behavior such as bullet voting, where voters choose only one candidate despite the ability to rank more, and burying, where voters disingenuously rank an alternative candidate lower in the hopes of defeating them.

Our research also studied the ways in which election systems can influence behavior. In a plurality election, voters are afraid that their ballot could be “wasted” on a candidate who doesn’t have a shot at winning, or that they might contribute to a spoiler. Our study shows that ranked choice voting largely avoids these pitfalls, empowering voters to express their true preferences rather than being strategic.

We found that candidates in ranked choice voting elections do best when they adopt the policies the greatest number of people support, meeting the voters where they are.

In Alaska’s 2022 special U.S. House election, for example, Democrat Mary Peltola positioned herself firmly within Alaska’s center-left base – while still embracing some positions considered conservative outside of Alaska. She won by garnering enough second-place votes from supporters of Republican Nick Begich.

And in the New York mayoral primary in June 2025, Zohran Mamdani won by creating a coalition with another progressive candidate, Brad Lander, and occupying a progressive space representing a range of voters.

The Alaska and New York examples highlight some differences with plurality voting, which often favors appealing to a narrow base without the necessity of reaching out beyond it.

Mending a broken system

A mathematically interesting feature of Alaska’s 2022 special U.S. House election is that Begich beat both Peltola and Republican Sarah Palin in head-to-head contests – meaning that more people ranked Begich above Peltola than the other way around – but lost the ranked choice voting election to Peltola.

Critics seize on such cases as reasons to avoid ranked choice voting. But our work shows that these are statistical outliers, occurring fewer than 1% of the time.

Overall, our research shows that ranked choice voting elects candidates with broader support and greater democratic legitimacy than plurality. It therefore seems sensible that voting reform advocates continue to pursue this method as an alternative to plurality voting.

At a time when Americans are losing faith in democracy, voters cannot afford systems that hand victory to unrepresentative candidates and force them to play tactical games. The math is in, and the evidence is overwhelming: Plurality voting is broken. Ranked choice voting will not solve every democratic ailment, but it is a good step toward mending them.

Ismar Volić receives funding from Schwab Charitable.

Andy Schultz receives funding from Schwab Charitable. He is a registered Democrat.

David McCune receives funding from Schwab Charitable.

– ref. Ranked choice voting outperforms the winner-take-all system used to elect nearly every US politician – https://theconversation.com/ranked-choice-voting-outperforms-the-winner-take-all-system-used-to-elect-nearly-every-us-politician-267515

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Vitaliy Skorodziyevskiy, Assistant Professor of Management and Entrepreneurship, University of Louisville

When you hear the phrase “family business,” you might think of the backstabbing Roys of “Succession” or the dysfunctional Duttons of “Yellowstone.” But while TV’s family companies are entertaining, their real-life counterparts may be even more compelling.

Around the world, family businesses produce about two-thirds of all economic output and employ more than half of all workers. And they can be very profitable: The world’s 500 largest family businesses generated a collective US$8.8 trillion in 2024. That’s nearly twice the gross domestic product of Germany.

If you’re not steeped in family business research – and even if you are – their ubiquity might seem a little strange. After all, families can come with drama, conflict and long memories. That might not sound like the formula for an efficient company.

We are researchers who study family businesses, and we wanted to understand why there are so many of them in the first place. In our recent article published in the Journal of Management, we set out to understand this different kind of “why” – not just the purpose of family firms, but why they thrive around the world.

The usual answers don’t really explain it

The standard answer to “Why do family companies exist?” is straightforward: They allow owners to generate income and potentially create a legacy for future generations.

A related question is: “Why do entrepreneurs even want to involve their relatives in their new ventures?” Research suggests entrepreneurs do so because family members care and can help when resources are limited.

But that might not be unique to family businesses. All companies – whether run by a family or corporate executives – balance short-term profit and long-term goals. And all of them want reliable workers who are willing to pitch in.

So those answers don’t explain why family companies, specifically, are so common worldwide.

A different angle: Winning without fighting

For our study, we considered decades of research about family firms to conclude that family businesses are uniquely skilled at keeping competitors out of their market space – often without actually competing with them.

How? We think a quote from Sun-Tzu’s “The Art of War” captures the idea:

To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.

Family-owned businesses often do exactly this, which is why there are so many of them. Here’s how it works in practice:

Three key differences

Research on family businesses has shown that they differ from other types of companies in three key ways: the types of goals they pursue, the governance structures they establish, and the resources they have. Together, these three characteristics explain how family businesses may use their property rights to get an edge over their competitors.

The first is goals. Unlike other types of enterprises, family businesses prioritize noneconomic goals involving the reputation, legacy and well-being of the family – both now and in the future.

Of course, they still have to worry about making a profit. But their interest in family-centered goals can lead them to choose projects that may yield lower returns but still fulfill their noneconomic goals. These sorts of projects may not be attractive to other types of firms. As a result, family businesses may find themselves operating in spaces where there’s not much competition to start with.

For instance, take Corticeira Amorim, a family-run Portuguese company that dominates the global market for cork stoppers and other cork products. The cork industry is a classic narrow niche: There are only a handful of serious global competitors, and Amorim is widely described as the world’s largest cork processing group, with a sizable share of global wine and Champagne corks.

The second key factor is governance. Family members who work together often know each other well, care about each other and want the best for both the family and the firm, which may stay in the family’s possession for generations. This fact may reduce operating costs and the cost of contracting.

Why? When they make decisions, they don’t always need to hire a fancy, Harvey Specter-like lawyer from the show “Suits.” They can decide on the next move for the company while having dinner together. This significantly reduces the costs associated with decision-making. In other words, because they rely less on formal contracts and monitoring, family businesses can operate more cheaply.

Finally, family firms use resources like information and money differently. Since many established family businesses have been around for decades, relatives who work together accumulate information that’s hard to acquire and transfer, and might not even be useful elsewhere. Being a family member means not only doing business with relatives but also going through life together acquiring a unique perspective about the family itself.

As a result, family businesses have lower transaction costs than other companies. Sometimes this shows up in very concrete ways. An uncle may invest money in the business and never ask for it back. Would that happen at a nonfamily business? Probably not. This dedication makes family members a special type of human asset that’s hard to replace.

Put simply, nonfamily businesses are unlikely to hire someone who cares as much about the company’s success as a deeply invested relative does. And because these relationships aren’t for sale on the open market, competitors can’t easily access them. That fact helps family businesses keep competitors at bay while essentially being themselves – which in turn explains why there are so many of them.

Family businesses are so common worldwide that there are several holidays celebrating them, including International Family Business Day on Nov. 25, U.S. National Mom and Pop Business Owners Day on March 29 and the United Nations’ Micro-, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Day on June 27. This holiday season, you might consider spreading a little extra cheer with the family-run retailers in your community.

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. Why do family companies even exist? They know how to ‘win without fighting’ – https://theconversation.com/why-do-family-companies-even-exist-they-know-how-to-win-without-fighting-266329

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Ramesh Agarwal, Professor of Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis

As AI data centers spring up across the country, their energy demand and resulting greenhouse gas emissions are raising concerns. With servers and energy-intensive cooling systems constantly running, these buildings can use anywhere from a few megawatts of power for a small data center to more than 100 megawatts for a hyperscale data center. To put that in perspective, the average large natural gas power plant built in the U.S. generates less than 1,000 megawatts.

When the power for these data centers comes from fossil fuels, they can become major sources of climate-warming emissions in the atmosphere – unless the power plants capture their greenhouse gases first and then lock them away.

Google recently entered into a unique corporate power purchase agreement to support the construction of a natural gas power plant in Illinois designed to do exactly that through carbon capture and storage.

So how does carbon capture and storage, or CCS, work for a project like this?

I am an engineer who wrote a 2024 book about various types of carbon storage. Here’s the short version of what you need to know.

How CCS works

When fossil fuels are burned to generate electricity, they release carbon dioxide, a powerful greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for centuries. As these gases accumulate in the atmosphere, they act like a blanket, holding heat close to the Earth’s surface. Too high of a concentration heats up the Earth too much, setting off climate changes, including worsening heat waves, rising sea levels and intensifying storms.

Carbon capture and storage involves capturing carbon dioxide from power plants, industrial processes or even directly from the air and then transporting it, often through pipelines, to sites where it can be safely injected underground for permanent storage.

The carbon dioxide might be transported as a supercritical gas – which is right at the phase change from liquid to gas and has the properties of both – or dissolved in a liquid. Once injected deep underground, the carbon dioxide can become permanently trapped in the geologic structure, dissolve in brine or become mineralized, turning it to rock.

The goal of carbon storage is to ensure that carbon dioxide can be kept out of the atmosphere for a long time.

Types of underground carbon storage

There are several options for storing carbon dioxide underground.

Depleted oil and natural gas reservoirs have plentiful storage space and the added benefit that most are already mapped and their limits understood. They already held hydrocarbons in place for millions of years.

Carbon dioxide can also be injected into working oil or gas reservoirs to push out more of those fossil fuels while leaving most of the carbon dioxide behind. This method, known as enhanced oil and gas recovery, is the most common one used by carbon capture and storage projects in the U.S. today, and one reason CCS draws complaints from environmental groups.

Volcanic basalt rock and carbonate formations are considered good candidates for safe and long-term geological storage because they contain calcium and magnesium ions that interact with carbon dioxide, turning it into minerals. Iceland pioneered this method using its bedrock of volcanic basalt for carbon storage. Basalt also covers most of the oceanic crust, and scientists have been exploring the potential for sub-seafloor storage reservoirs.

In the U.S., a fourth option likely has the most potential for industrial carbon dioxide storage – deep saline aquifers, which is what Google plans to use. These widely distributed aquifers are porous and permeable sediment formations consisting of sandstone, limestone or dolostone. They’re filled with highly mineralized groundwater that cannot be used directly for drinking water but is very suitable for storing CO2.

Deep saline aquifers also have large storage capacities, ranging from about 1,000 to 20,000 gigatons. In comparison, the nation’s total carbon emissions from fossil fuels in 2024 were about 4.9 gigatons.

As of fall 2025, 21 industrial facilities across the U.S. used carbon capture and storage, including industries producing natural gas, fertilizer and biofuels, according to the Global CCS Institute’s 2025 report. Five of those use deep saline aquifers, and the rest involve enhanced oil or gas recovery. Eight more industrial carbon capture facilities were under construction.

Google’s plan is unique because it involves a power purchase agreement that makes building the power plant with carbon capture and storage possible.

Google’s deep saline aquifer storage plan

Google’s 400-megawatt natural gas power plant, to be built with Broadwing Energy, is designed to capture about 90% of the plant’s carbon dioxide emissions and pipe them underground for permanent storage in a deep saline aquifer in the nearby Mount Simon sandstone formation.

The Mount Simon sandstone formation is a huge saline aquifer that lies underneath most of Illinois, southwestern Indiana, southern Ohio and western Kentucky. It has a layer of highly porous and permeable sandstone that makes it an ideal candidate for carbon dioxide injection. To keep the carbon dioxide in a supercritical state, that layer needs to be at least half a mile (800 meters) deep.

A thick layer of Eau Claire shale sits above the Mount Simon formation, serving as the caprock that helps prevent stored carbon dioxide from escaping. Except for some small regions near the Mississippi River, Eau Claire shale is considerably thick – more than 300 feet (90 meters) – throughout most of the Illinois basin.

The estimated storage capacity of the Mount Simon formation ranges from 27 gigatons to 109 gigatons of carbon dioxide.

The Google project plans to use an existing injection well site that was part of the first large-scale carbon storage demonstration in the Mount Simon formation. Food producer Archer Daniels Midland began injecting carbon dioxide there from nearby corn processing plants in 2012.

Carbon capture and storage has had challenges as the technology developed over the years, including a pipeline rupture in 2020 that forced evacuations in Satartia, Mississippi, and caused several people to lose consciousness. After a recent leak deep underground at the Archer Daniels Midland site in Illinois, the Environmental Protection Agency in 2025 required the company to improve its monitoring. Stored carbon dioxide had migrated into an unapproved area, but no threat to water supplies was reported.

Why does CCS matter?

Data centers are expanding quickly, and utilities will have to build more power capacity to keep up. The artificial intelligence company OpenAI is urging the U.S. to build 100 gigawatts of new capacity every year – doubling its current rate.

Many energy experts, including the International Energy Agency, believe carbon capture and storage will be necessary to slow climate change and keep global temperatures from reaching dangerous levels as energy demand rises.

Ramesh Agarwal 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. Google plans to power a new data center with fossil fuels, yet release almost no emissions – here’s how its carbon capture tech works – https://theconversation.com/google-plans-to-power-a-new-data-center-with-fossil-fuels-yet-release-almost-no-emissions-heres-how-its-carbon-capture-tech-works-270425

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By José Lemos, Professor of Oral Biology, University of Florida

Between Halloween candy, Thanksgiving pies and holiday cookies, the end of the year is often packed with opportunities to consume sugar. But what happens in your mouth during those first minutes and hours after eating those sweets?

While you’re likely aware that eating too much sugar can cause cavities – that is, damage to your teeth – you might be less familiar with how bacteria use those sugars to build a sticky film called plaque on your teeth as soon as you take that first sweet bite.

We are a team of microbiologists that studies how oral bacteria cause tooth decay. Here’s what happens in your mouth the moment sugar passes your lips – and how to protect your teeth:

An acid plunge

Within seconds of your first bite or sip of something sugary, the bacteria that make the human mouth their home start using those dietary sugars to grow and multiply. In the process of converting those sugars into energy, these bacteria produce large quantities of acids. As a result, just a minute or two after consuming high-sugar foods or drinks, the acidity of your mouth increases into levels that can dissolve enamel – that is, the minerals making up the surface of your teeth.

Luckily, saliva comes to the rescue before these acids can start corroding the surface of your teeth. It washes away excess sugars while also neutralizing the acids in your mouth.

Your mouth is also home to other bacteria that compete with cavity-causing bacteria for resources and space, fighting them off and restoring the acidity of your mouth to levels that aren’t harmful to teeth.

However, frequent consumption of sweets and sugary drinks can overfeed harmful bacteria in a way that neither saliva nor helpful bacteria can overcome.

An assault on enamel

Cavity-causing bacteria also use dietary sugars to make a sticky layer called a biofilm that acts like a fortress attached to the teeth. Biofilms are very hard to remove without mechanical force, such as from routinely brushing your teeth or cleaning at the dentist’s office.

In addition, biofilms impose a physical barrier that restricts what crosses its border, such that saliva can no longer do its job of neutralizing acid as well. To make matters worse, while cavity-causing bacteria are able to survive in these acidic conditions, the good bacteria fighting them cannot.

In these protected fortresses, cavity-causing bacteria are able to keep multiplying, keeping the acidity level of the mouth elevated and leading to further loss of tooth minerals until a cavity becomes visible or painful.

How to protect your (sweet) teeth

Before eating your next sugary treat, there are a few measures you can take to help keep the cavity-forming bacteria at bay and your teeth safe.

First, try to reduce the amount of sugar you eat and consume your sugary food or drink during a meal. This way, the increased saliva production that occurs while eating can help wash away sugars and neutralize acids in your mouth.

In addition, avoid snacking on sweets and sugary drinks throughout the day, especially those containing table sugar or high-fructose corn syrup. Continually exposing your mouth to sugar will keep its acidity level higher for longer periods of time.

Finally, remember to brush regularly, especially after meals, to remove as much dental plaque as possible. Daily flossing also helps remove plaque from areas that your toothbrush cannot reach.

José Lemos receives funding from NIH and Vaxcyte.

Jacqueline Abranches receives funding from NIH/NIDCR and Vaxcyte.

– ref. Sugar starts corroding your teeth within seconds – here’s how to protect your pearly whites from decay – https://theconversation.com/sugar-starts-corroding-your-teeth-within-seconds-heres-how-to-protect-your-pearly-whites-from-decay-269352

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Elinor Harrison, Faculty Affiliate, Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis

On the first Sunday after being named leader of the Catholic Church in May 2025, Pope Leo XIV stood on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome and addressed the tens of thousands of people gathered. Invoking tradition, he led the people in noontime prayer. But rather than reciting it, as his predecessors generally did, he sang.

In chanting the traditional Regina Caeli, the pope inspired what some have called a rebirth of Gregorian chant, a type of monophonic and unaccompanied singing done in Latin that dates back more than a thousand years.

The Vatican has been at the forefront of that push, launching an online initiative to teach Gregorian chant through short educational tutorials called “Let’s Sing with the Pope.” The stated goals of the initiative are to give Catholics worldwide an opportunity to “participate actively in the liturgy” and to “make the rich heritage of Gregorian chant accessible to all.”

These goals resonated with me. As a performing artist and scientist of human movement, I spent the past decade developing therapeutic techniques involving singing and dancing to help people with neurological disorders. Much like the pope’s initiative, these arts-based therapies require active participation, promote connection, and are accessible to anyone. Indeed, not only is singing a deeply ingrained human cultural activity, research increasingly shows how good it is for us.

The same old song and dance

For 15 years, I worked as a professional dancer and singer. In the course of that career, I became convinced that creating art through movement and song was integral to my well-being. Eventually, I decided to shift gears and study the science underpinning my longtime passion by looking at the benefits of dance for people with Parkinson’s disease.

The neurological condition, which affects over 10 million people worldwide, is caused by neuron loss in an area of the brain that is involved in movement and rhythmic processing – the basal ganglia. The disease causes a range of debilitating motor impairments, including walking instability.

Early on in my training, I suggested that people with Parkinson’s could improve the rhythm of their steps if they sang while they walked. Even as we began publishing our initial feasibility studies, people remained skeptical. Wouldn’t it be too hard for people with motor impairment to do two things at once?

But my own experience of singing and dancing simultaneously since I was a child suggested it could be innate. While Broadway performers do this at an extremely high level of artistry, singing and dancing are not limited to professionals. We teach children nursery rhymes with gestures; we spontaneously nod our heads to a favorite song; we sway to the beat while singing at a baseball game. Although people with Parkinson’s typically struggle to do two tasks at once, perhaps singing and moving were such natural activities that they could reinforce each other rather than distract.

A scientific case for song

Humans are, in effect, hardwired to sing and dance, and we likely evolved to do so. In every known culture, evidence exists of music, singing or chanting. The oldest discovered musical instruments are ivory and bone flutes dating back over 40,000 years. Before people played music, they likely sang. The discovery of a 60,000-year-old hyoid bone shaped like a modern human’s suggests our Neanderthal ancestors could sing.

In “The Descent of Man,” Charles Darwin speculated that a musical protolanguage, analogous to birdsong, was driven by sexual selection. Whatever the reason, singing and chanting have been integral parts of spiritual, cultural and healing practices around the world for thousands of years. Chanting practices, in which repetitive sounds are used to induce altered states of consciousness and connect with the spiritual realm, are ancient and diverse in their roots.

Though the evolutionary reasons remain disputed, modern science is increasingly validating what many traditions have long held: Singing and chanting can have profound benefits to physical, mental and social health, with both immediate and long-term effects.

Physically, the act of producing sound can strengthen the lungs and diaphragm and increase the amount of oxygen in the blood. Singing can also lower heart rate and blood pressure, reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases.

Vocalizing can even improve your immune system, as active music participation can increase levels of immunoglobulin A, one of the body’s key antibodies to stave off illness.

Singing also improves mood and reduces stress.

Studies have shown that singing lowers cortisol levels, the primary stress hormone, in healthy adults and people with cancer or neurologic disorders. Singing may also rebalance autonomic nervous system activity by stimulating the vagus nerve and improving the body’s ability to respond to environmental stresses. Perhaps this is why singing has been called “the world’s most accessible stress reliever.”

Moreover, chanting may make you aware of your inner states while connecting to something larger. Repetitive chanting, as is common in rosary recitation and yogic mantras, can induce a meditative state, inducing mindfulness and altered states of consciousness. Neuroimaging studies show that chanting activates brainwaves associated with suspension of self-oriented and stress-related thoughts.

Singing as community

Singing alone is one thing, but singing with others brings about a host of other benefits, as anyone who has sung in a choir can likely attest.

Group singing provides a mood boost and improves overall well-being. Increased levels of neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin during singing may promote feelings of social connection and bonding.

When people sing in unison, they synchronize not just their breath but also their heart rates. Heart rate variability, a measure of the body’s adaptability to stress, also improves during group singing, whether you’re an expert or a novice.

In my own research, singing has proven useful in yet another way: as a cue for movement. Matching footfalls to one’s own singing is an effective tool for improving walking that is better than passive listening. Seemingly, active vocalization requires a level of engagement, attention and effort that can translate into improved motor patterns. For people with Parkinson’s, for example, this simple activity can help them avoid a fall. We have shown that people with the disease, in spite of neural degeneration, activate similar brain regions as healthy controls. And it works even when you sing in your head.

Whether you choose to sing with the pope or not, you don’t need a mellifluous voice like his to raise your voice in song. You can sing in the shower. Join a choir. Chant that “om” at the end of yoga class. Releasing your voice might be easier than you think.

And, besides, it’s good for you.

Elinor Harrison received funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Endowment for the Arts and the Grammy Museum Foundation. She is affiliated with the International Association of Dance Medicine and Science and the Society for Music Perception and Cognition.

– ref. We are hardwired to sing − and it’s good for us, too – https://theconversation.com/we-are-hardwired-to-sing-and-its-good-for-us-too-262861

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Yana van der Meulen Rodgers, Professor of Labor Studies, Rutgers University

House lawmakers released damning correspondence between economist Larry Summers and the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein on Nov. 12, 2025. The exchanges, which were among more than 20,000 newly released public documents, documented how Summers – a former U.S. Treasury secretary and Harvard University president – repeatedly sought Epstein’s advice while pursuing an intimate relationship with a woman he was mentoring.

The two men exchanged texts and emails until July 5, 2019, the day before Epstein was arrested on federal charges of the sex trafficking of minors. That was more than a decade after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from a girl who was under 18. Epstein died by suicide that August, while in jail.

“As I have said before, my association with Jeffrey Epstein was a major error of judgement,” Summers wrote in a statement to The Crimson, Harvard’s newspaper, after the documents came to light. “I am deeply ashamed of my actions and recognize the pain they have caused,” he said in another statement.

The texts have ignited a new round of scrutiny of Summers and calls for Harvard to revoke his tenure.

Prestigious career is unraveling

These revelations are leading to the unraveling of Summers’ prestigious career.

The 70-year-old economist went on leave from teaching at Harvard on Nov. 19. He has also stepped down from several boards on which he was serving, including Yale University’s Budget Lab, OpenAI and two think tanks – the Center for American Progress and the Center for Global Development.

In addition, Harvard has launched an investigation into whether Summers and other people affiliated with the university broke university policies through their interactions with Epstein and should be subject to disciplinary action.

Many organizations have severed their ties with Summers. Summers’ withdrawal from public commitments include his role as a paid contributor to Bloomberg TV and as a contributing opinion writer at The New York Times. He also withdrew from the Group of 30, an international group of financial and economics experts.

Choice of a wingman was problematic

The correspondence that surfaced in late 2025 indicated that the prominent economist had engaged in more than casual banter with a convicted sex criminal.

Epstein called himself Summers’ “wing man.” Summers asked Epstein about “getting horizontal” with his mentee – a female economist who had studied at Harvard. And, not for the first time, Summers questioned the intelligence of women.

Summers, who is one of the nation’s most influential economists, also complained about the growing intolerance among the “American elite” of sexual misconduct.

These comments call into question Summers’ judgment, behavior and beliefs and the power dynamics between him and the women he has mentored.

As a female economist and a board member of the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession, I wasn’t surprised by the latest revelations, shocking as they may appear.

After all, it was Summers’ disparaging remarks about what he said was women’s relative inability to do math that led him to relinquish the Harvard presidency in 2006. And researchers have been documenting for years the gender bias that pervades the profession of economics.

A leaky pipeline in higher education

Summers taught my first-year Ph.D. macroeconomics course before he became a prominent policymaker during the Clinton administration, and he advised me during his office hours. Thankfully I did not experience any sexual harassment, but as an economics doctoral candidate at Harvard in the late 1980s, I did gain firsthand insight into the elitist culture of the nation’s top economics program.

Back then, only about 1 in 5 of the people who earned a Ph.D. in economics in the U.S. were women. This percentage rose to 30.5% by 1995 and has barely budged since then.

In 2024, according to the National Science Foundation, 34.2% of newly minted economics Ph.D.s – about 1 in 3 – in the U.S. were women, a considerably lower share than in other social sciences, business, the humanities and science.

After earning doctoral degrees in economics, women face a leaky pipeline in the tenure track, the highest-paid, most secure and prestigious academic jobs. The higher the rank, the lower the representation of women.

In 2024, 34% of assistant professors in economics were women, but only 28% of tenured associate professors – the next step on the ladder – were women. And just 18% of tenured full professors in economics were women.

The gender gap is wider in influential positions, such as economics department chairs and the editorial board members of economics journals. As of 2019, only 24% of the 55,035 editorial board members of economics journals were women. A brief look at the websites of the top 10 economics departments in late 2025 indicates that only one of those 10 department chairs is a woman.

Publication patterns also reflect this inequality. Women are substantially underrepresented as authors in the top economics journals, and this imbalance is not explained by quality differences. Rather, studies have found that women face higher hurdles in peer review, departmental support and finding productive co-authors.

Chilly climate

The data paints a clear picture of systemic bias in the profession’s practices and culture. That bias influences who succeeds and who is sidelined.

A 2019 survey by the American Economic Association, a professional association for economists, documented widespread sexual discrimination and harassment. Almost half of the women surveyed among the association’s members said that they had experienced sexual discrimination that interfered with their careers in some way, and 43% reported having experienced offensive sexual behavior from another economist.

A follow-up survey in 2023 indicated that the association’s new initiatives to improve the professional climate had resulted in little improvement.

Beyond academia

Economists can influence policymakers’ decisions on interest rates, taxation and social spending. In turn, the underrepresentation of women in economics can hamper policymaking by limiting the range of perspectives that inform economic decisions.

Researchers have found that arguments from female economists are roughly 20% more persuasive in shaping public opinion than identical arguments from men.

And yet the gender gap still pervades economics outside academia. At the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, for example, women constituted just 23% of 411 research track economists in 2022.

Following its own code of conduct

“Economists have a professional obligation to conduct civil and respectful discourse in all forums,” the American Economic Association’s code of conduct states. The code gives organizations in economics a clear basis for deciding whether to keep or cut ties with Summers.

The Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession has called for all economic institutions to undertake investigations into Summers’ conduct.

As of early December, the extent to which economic journals and other economics groups are responding to the controversy was still unclear.

I believe that eliminating inequity in economics would take more than an investigation of Summers’ conduct. In my view, institutions and professional associations, including the American Economic Association, should strengthen and enforce codes of conduct that cover harassment, conflicts of interest and misuse of mentorship roles.

In addition, I think that Summers’ ties to Epstein are a powerful reminder of why university economics departments need clearer standards and more transparency in hiring, promotions and leadership appointments. Strengthening those standards would help them root out the sexism and other forms of elitism that have historically marked the profession so that academic success is driven more by merit than self-perpetuating privilege.

It makes little sense to me that the economics profession is claiming to wield authority while tolerating inequity and ethical lapses. Taking these steps toward greater accountability would help to restore trust.

Yana Rodgers serves on the board of the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession. Dr. Summers taught her PhD macroeconomics course at Harvard University in 1988.

– ref. Larry Summers’ sexism is jeopardizing his power and privilege, but the entire economics profession hinders progress for women – https://theconversation.com/larry-summers-sexism-is-jeopardizing-his-power-and-privilege-but-the-entire-economics-profession-hinders-progress-for-women-270367