Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Carl Lipo, Professor of Anthropology and Associate Dean for Research, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Rapa Nui, also known as Easter Island, is often portrayed in popular culture as an enigma. The rationale is clear: The tiny, remote island in the Pacific features nearly 1,000 enormous statues – the moai. The magnitude and number of these monuments defy easy explanation.

Since European ships first encountered these stone giants in the 18th century, outsiders have branded the island as fundamentally mysterious, possibly beyond archaeologists’ ability to explain. This characteristic is part of what makes the island famous. Tour operators market the inexplicable. Documentaries promise unsolved puzzles. Popular books ask how “primitive people” could possibly move 70-ton megaliths.

Archaeological researchers have put forward various explanations for the statues, which were made between 1200 and 1700, but there remains no consensus. For decades, experts offered plausible scenarios: powerful chiefs commanding workers, elite-controlled statue quarries, wooden sleds drawn by hundreds of islanders, roller systems, wooden rails and ceremonial pathway markers. Based on authoritative assertions and compelling narratives, these accounts are rarely connected to archaeological evidence.

I’m an archaeologist who has been studying Rapa Nui for more than two decades. In newly published research, my colleagues and I believe we’ve solved the mystery in three essential ways.

First, using 11,686 photographs taken by drone, we created a comprehensive, three-dimensional model of Rano Raraku, the volcanic crater where 95% of Rapa Nui’s moai were carved. It was a systematic documentation – every slope, every carved surface, every production feature captured at a resolution down to the centimeter. The model generated predictions that we and other researchers could test: If production had been centralized, workshops would have been clustered; if they’d been hierarchical, we’d find differences in resources used at each level; if it had been dictated by elites, techniques would be standardized.

Our data revealed the opposite: Drone imagery shows 30 independent workshops working simultaneously. Instead of top-down organization, small, clan-level groups seem to have used innovative human engineering.

Previous attempts to understand Rano Raraku failed not because the quarry held impenetrable secrets but due to the lack of published documentation and the limitations of traditional mapping methods. Two-dimensional maps couldn’t capture three-dimensional relationships. Statues emerge from cliff faces at various angles. Production areas overlap vertically. Carving sequences intersect across time. Traditional archaeological methods provided impressions but missed details and couldn’t capture the system as a whole.

Our 3D model changes that. We identified 426 moai in various stages of production, 341 extraction trenches, 133 voids where completed statues were removed, and previously unmapped quarrying areas on the exterior slopes. Each workshop was self-contained, demonstrating decentralization. Three distinct carving techniques emerge, showing that different groups employed different approaches while producing standardized forms.

The walking moai

Second, we generated data to resolve the age-old question about moai transport: How did Rapanui people move these megalithic giants? Despite many decades of attempts, previous transport theories all shared a fatal flaw: They made no predictions that were testable, meaning that scientists could prove or disprove.

Our walking hypothesis – based on oral traditions, ideas by our colleague Sergio Rapu Haoa and tested by Czech engineer Pavel Pavel – made specific, testable predictions. We found that “road moai,” those statues that were abandoned along constructed roads used for transport, differ morphologically from those that reached their final destinations, large platforms called ahu.

We measured 62 moai abandoned along ancient roads. The road moai proved distinct, characterized by wider bases, D-shaped cross sections and a forward lean of 5-15 degrees. These features wouldn’t be necessary if the moai were transported in a horizontal position. They make vertical transport – “walking” the statues – possible.

In 2013, we built a 4.35-ton concrete replica scaled from road moai. It wasn’t an artistic interpretation but a precise reproduction of measurable features from a statue found along the road and abandoned during transport. With 18 people and three ropes, the statue walked 100 meters in 40 minutes.

In recently published work, we documented that physics confirmed what walking the replica demonstrated about the road moai shape. The forward lean creates an inverted pendulum that converts lateral oscillation into forward progress.

Those moai that reached ahu must have been altered in order for them to stand upright stably, while those along the roads would retain the features that enabled them to be “walked.”

The distribution data for moai across the landscape provided another test: The locations of road moai leading from the quarry follow an exponential decay curve, meaning that probability of a moai falling in transport is highest near the quarry and decreases with distance since those that fall over never get any farther. Fracture patterns on those road moai with breaks align with vertical impact stresses, meaning the broken moai were damaged by falling from a standing position.

Our testable predictions held.

Deforestation without collapse

The third “mystery” is how an advanced society could destroy its own environment. The island was deforested by the end of the 17th century. This mystery also yielded to systematic analysis. We analyzed data from previous archaeological excavations. Rather than finding increased rat consumption by people, indicating dietary stress from a lack of other food sources, remains of rats eaten by people decreased over time while seafood dominated throughout.

Ecological modeling revealed what we think really happened. Polynesian rats, introduced with the arrival of the first Polynesian colonists around 1200, could grow into a population of millions within just a few years. By eating 95% of the island’s tree seeds, rats prevented forest regeneration. Humans cleared land for cultivation, but rats made the recovery of the palm forests impossible. The synergistic interaction seems to have accelerated deforestation within five centuries.

This wasn’t “ecocide” – intentional self-destruction – but rather unintended ecological transformation caused by an introduced species. Our research also demonstrated that the Rapanui adapted through the use of rock mulch agriculture, which improved soil productivity. They continued to eat seafood and produce monuments for 500 years after deforestation began.

To tackle Rapa Nui’s mysteries, we used systematic documentation. We specified testable predictions, gathered data that could prove us wrong and accepted what the evidence showed. Rapa Nui shows that even entrenched mysteries yield to methodical investigation.

Carl Lipo receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Geographic Society.

– ref. Drones, physics and rats: Studies show how the people of Rapa Nui made and moved the giant statues – and what caused the island’s deforestation – https://theconversation.com/drones-physics-and-rats-studies-show-how-the-people-of-rapa-nui-made-and-moved-the-giant-statues-and-what-caused-the-islands-deforestation-270023

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Tevis Garrett Graddy-Lovelace, Provost Associate Professor of Environment, Development and Health, American University School of International Service

The U.S. government has caused massive food waste during President Donald Trump’s second term. Policies such as immigration raids, tariff changes and temporary and permanent cuts to food assistance programs have left farmers short of workers and money, food rotting in fields and warehouses, and millions of Americans hungry. And that doesn’t even include the administration’s actual destruction of edible food.

The U.S. government estimates that more than 47 million people in America don’t have enough food to eat – even with federal and state governments spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on programs to help them.

Yet, huge amounts of food – on average in the U.S., as much as 40% of it – rots before being eaten. That amount is equivalent to 120 billion meals a year: more than twice as many meals as would be needed to feed those 47 million hungry Americans three times a day for an entire year.

This colossal waste has enormous economic costs and renders useless all the water and resources used to grow the food. In addition, as it rots, the wasted food emits in the U.S. alone over 4 million metric tons of methane – a heat-trapping greenhouse gas.

As a scholar of wasted food, I have watched this problem worsen since Trump began his second term in January 2025. Despite this administration’s claim of streamlining the government to make its operations more efficient, a range of recent federal policies have, in fact, exacerbated food wastage.

Immigration policy

Supplying fresh foods, such as fruits, vegetables and dairy, requires skilled workers on tight timelines to ensure ripeness, freshness and high quality.

The Trump administration’s widespread efforts to arrest and deport immigrants have sent Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Border Patrol and other agencies into hundreds of agricultural fields, meat processing plants and food production and distribution sites. Supported by billions of taxpayer dollars, they have arrested thousands of food workers and farmworkers – with lethal consequences at times.

Dozens of raids have not only violated immigrants’ human rights and torn families apart: They have jeopardized the national food supply. Farmworkers already work physically hard jobs for low wages. In legitimate fear for their lives and liberty, reports indicate that in some places 70% of people harvesting, processing and distributing food stopped showing up to work by mid-2025.

News reports have identified many instances where crops have been left to rot in abandoned fields. Even the U.S. Department of Labor declared in October 2025 that aggressive farm raids drive farmworkers into hiding, leave substantial amounts of food unharvested and thus pose a “risk of supply shock-induced food shortages.”

Foreign aid cuts

When the Trump administration all but shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development in early 2025, the agency had 500 tons of ready-to-eat, high-energy biscuits worth US$800,000, stored to distribute to starving people around the world who had been displaced by violence or natural disasters. With no staff to distribute the biscuits, they expired while sitting in a warehouse in Dubai.

Incinerating the out-of-date biscuits reportedly cost an additional $125,000.

An additional 70,000 tons of USAID food aid may also have been destroyed.

Tariffs

In the late 20th century, as globalized trade patterns grew, U.S. farmers struggled with agricultural prices below their production costs. Yet tariffs in the first Trump administration did not protect small farms.

And the tariffs imposed in early 2025, after Trump regained the White House, severed U.S. soybean trade with China for months. Meanwhile, there’s nowhere to store the mountains of soybeans. An October 2025 agreement may resume some activity, but at lower price levels and a slower pace than before, as China looks to Brazil and Argentina to meet its vast demand.

Though the soybeans were intended to feed the Chinese pig industry, not humans, the specter of waste looms both in terms of the potential spoilage of soybeans and the actual human food that could have been grown in their place.

Other efforts lead to more waste

Since taking office, the second Trump administration has taken many steps aimed at efficiency that actually boosted food waste. Mass firings of food safety personnel risks even more outbreaks of foodborne diseases, tainted imports, and agricultural pathogens – which can erupt into crises requiring mass destruction, for instance, of nearly 35,000 turkeys with bird flu in Utah.

In addition, the administration canceled a popular program that helped schools and food banks buy food from local farmers, though many of the crops had already been planted when the cancellation announcement was made. That food had to find new buyers or risk being wasted, too. And the farmers were unable to count on a key revenue source to keep their farms afloat.

Also, the administration slashed funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency that helped food producers, restaurants and households recover from disasters – including restoring power to food-storage refrigeration.

The fall 2025 government shutdown left the government’s major food aid program, SNAP, in limbo for weeks, derailing communities’ ability to meet their basic needs. Grocers, who benefit substantially from SNAP funds, announced discounts for SNAP recipients – to help them afford food and to keep food supplies moving before they rotted. The Department of Agriculture ordered them not to, saying SNAP customers must pay the same prices as other customers.

Food waste did not start with the Trump administration. But the administration’s policies – though they claim to be seeking efficiency – have compounded voluminous waste at a time of growing need. This Thanksgiving, think about wasted food – as a problem, and as a symptom of larger problems.

American University School of International Service master’s student Laurel Levin contributed to the writing of this article.

Garrett Graddy-Lovelace received funding from the NSF Multiscale RECIPES for Sustainable Food Systems project.

– ref. As US hunger rises, Trump administration’s ‘efficiency’ goals cause massive food waste – https://theconversation.com/as-us-hunger-rises-trump-administrations-efficiency-goals-cause-massive-food-waste-270027

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Stephen Siff, Associate Professor of Journalism, Miami University

As the Detroit Lions barrel toward a Thanksgiving Day game with the Green Bay Packers, some die-hard fans may be fantasizing about what it would be like to be on the field themselves: calling plays from the Lions huddle, accepting the snap from between a crouching center’s thighs, and spinning to hand off the football before the defensive linemen come crashing down.

In 1963, Lions head coach George Wilson allowed writer and Paris Review editor George Plimpton to enact that fantasy.

With a Sports Illustrated contract in hand, Plimpton convinced Lions management to allow him to enter preseason training camp at Cranbrook, the private boys school in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. His plan was to go undercover as a rookie quarterback for a magazine article that would reach dramatic culmination when he called a series of plays in a game of professional football.

No one expected the amateur athlete to survive for long on a field with real-life Lions. But in writing about the experience, Plimpton turned off-field fandom and on-field bumbling into literary gold.

His resulting 1966 book, “Paper Lion: Confessions of a Last-String Quarterback,” became a bestseller that was praised by The New York Times as “one of the greatest books written on sports, and the most thoroughly engaging book on any subject in recent memory.”

A 1968 movie based on the book starred Alan Alda as Plimpton and members of the 1967 Lions team as themselves.

Decades before I became a journalism professor at Miami University of Ohio, I discovered Plimpton’s sportswriting from reading the paperback versions I found on my parents’ bookshelves. Plimpton was a leading member of a mid-20th-century class of literary journalists, including Tom Wolfe, Truman Capote, Gay Talese and Norman Mailer, who were becoming known for applying novelistic techniques and sometimes personal, subjective perspectives to nonfiction.

While the other literati tackled heavy topics, Plimpton’s engaging, conversational prose goofed around on the fringes of pro sports. Many of his books followed the same “participatory journalism” formula. He wrote about pitching against MLB all-stars, traveling with the PGA tour, boxing a bout against Archie Moore and playing with the Boston Bruins.

Those were just the full-length books. Other television and magazine projects had Plimpton competing in tennis and bridge; performing stand-up comedy; acting in a Western; playing with the New York Philharmonic; and attempting to be an aerialist with the circus.

However, he is best known for trying his hand quarterbacking for the Lions.

Posh writer meets the gridiron

In some ways, Plimpton seemed exactly the wrong person for this job. The possessor of a distinctively old money accent and patrician wealth and manners, he was founding editor of The Paris Review and in 1967 a mainstay of literary salons in Paris and New York. “Author, critic, interviewer, party-giver … friend of everybody, gifted, personable, energetic, bright, with-it, rich, a legend in his own time,” The New York Times gushed.

Just the kind of person whom your average football fan might enjoy seeing knocked flat.

Plimpton joined a team he described as recovering from scandal. After ending the 1962 season with an 11-3 record and a Playoff Bowl victory for third place in the NFL, the NFL commissioner’s office fined six Lions for gambling on the championship game between Green Bay and New York. More significant on field, the commissioner suspended Lions great defensive tackle and future Pro Football Hall of Famer Alex Karras for one year. Without him, the Lions would end the 1963 season 5-8-1.

Plimpton wrote his way onto the team by promising to “just hang around on the periphery of things and not bother anyone, just try to participate enough to get the feel of things.”

Wilson agreed, and Plimpton arrived at training camp a few months later with his own football, purchased from an army-navy store in Times Square, and a “mild fiction” about having played quarterback at Harvard and for the nonexistent Newfoundland Newfs.

Plimpton’s attempt at deception might raise ethical questions; however, the joke is always on him. The coaching staff seemed to have thought it would be hilarious if anyone on the team actually took the gangly 36-year-old with the nasal accent as a professional football player. It seems unlikely that anyone did.

“I never had the temerity to pretend I was something that I wasn’t,” Plimpton wrote. “The team caught on quickly enough.”

At camp, Plimpton hung around the dining hall and sat in the back of team meetings. A master of small talk, he lets the reader eavesdrop on conversations with Hall of Famers Karras, Dick “Night Train” Lane and Joe Schmidt.

Plimpton takes us with him one night to a bar frequented by coaches, where we listen in rounds of liars’ poker with Wilson, Scooter McLean and Les Bingaman. We tag along as he chats with Karras at Lindell’s A.C., the bar the player owned in downtown Detroit at the time.

Lessons in grit

At training camp, Plimpton faced the teasing of players but earned respect by facing the brutality of sport and by persisting despite the inevitability of pain. He never played football in school, beyond a beery game between Harvard Crimson and Harvard Lampoon, and did not know the basics of playing quarterback.

Several days into camp, he was allowed to participate in a play where, as quarterback, he was supposed to quickly hand off the ball to another player.

“At ‘two’ the snap back came,” Plimpton wrote. “I began to turn without the proper grip on the ball, moving too nervously, and I fumbled the ball, gaping at it, mouth ajar, as it fell and bounced twice, once away from me, then back, and rocked back and forth gaily at my feet. I flung myself on it (…) and I heard the sharp strange whack of gear, the grunts, and then a quick sudden weight whooshed the air out of me.”

The same thing happened when Plimpton was allowed to take the field in an annual intra-squad game played in Pontiac. Over his first three plays he lost 20 yards by falling down, getting knocked over by his own teammates and being literally picked from the ground by a zealous defender. On the bus ride home, Plimpton admitted to Wilson that he didn’t like being hit.

The coach gently explained that “love of physical contact” was necessary to make it in pro football.

“When kids, out in a park, chose of sides for tackle rather than touch, the guys that want to be ends and go out for the passes, or even quarterback, because they think subconsciously they can get rid of the ball before being hit, those guys don’t end up as football players,” Wilson mused. “They become great tennis players, or skiers, or high jumpers. It doesn’t mean they lack courage or competitiveness.”

“But the guys who put up their hands to be tackles or guards, or fullbacks who run not for daylight but for trouble – those are the ones who will make it as football players.”

This quality of great football players – an irrational enthusiasm for bruising physical contact – is celebrated by Plimpton in the veteran Lions who take him into their orbit. He becomes friends with Karras and offensive lineman John Gordy, in particular, and shoots the breeze on topics ranging from the NFL commissioner to Adolf Hitler.

In a subsequent book, Plimpton goes with the pair to a madcap golf tournament and starts a ridiculous business venture, suggesting the on-field madness necessary to succeed in football bleeds into off-field life as well.

But it is not Plimpton’s way to delve into the psychology of his idols. Rather, he listens as they spin tales that show how reckless the grown men who run toward trouble really are.

Stephen Siff 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. George Plimpton’s 1966 nonfiction classic ‘Paper Lion’ revealed the bruising truths of Detroit Lions training camp – https://theconversation.com/george-plimptons-1966-nonfiction-classic-paper-lion-revealed-the-bruising-truths-of-detroit-lions-training-camp-267946

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Saif Khan, Ph.D. Candidate in Biology, University of Southern California

Naloxone, also known by the brand name Narcan, is one of the most important drugs in the United States’ fight against the opioid crisis. It reverses an opioid overdose nearly instantly, restarting breathing in a person who was unresponsive moments before and on the brink of death. To bystanders witnessing it being administered, naloxone can appear almost supernatural.

Although the Food and Drug Administration approved naloxone for medical use in 1971 and for over-the-counter purchase in 2023, exactly how it works is still unclear. Researchers know naloxone acts on opioid receptors, a family of proteins responsible for the body’s response to pain. When opioids such as morphine and fentanyl bind to these receptors, they produce not only pain relief and euphoria but also dangerous side effects. Naloxone competes with opioids for access to these receptors, preventing the drugs from triggering effects in the body. How it does this at the molecular level, however, has been an ongoing question.

In our recently published research in the journal Nature, my team and I were able to provide some definitive evidence of how naloxone works by capturing images of it in action for the first time.

Biology of opioids

To better grasp how naloxone works, it’s helpful to first zoom in on the biology behind opioids.

One member of the family of opioid receptors, MOR – short for µ-opioid receptor – is a central player in regulating the body’s response to pain. It sits on the surface of neurons, mostly in the brain and spinal cord, and acts as a communication hub.

When an opioid – such as an endorphin, the body’s natural painkillers – interacts with MOR, it changes the structure of the receptor. This change in shape allows what’s called a G protein to bind to the receptor and trigger a signal to the rest of the body to reduce pain, induce pleasure, or – in the case of overdose – dangerously slow breathing and heart rate.

In everyday terms, MOR is like a lock on the outside of the cell. The G protein is the mechanism inside the lock that turns when the correct key – in this case, an endorphin or a drug like fentanyl – goes in. For decades, scientists believed that an opioid’s ability to enable this signaling cascade was linked to how effectively it reshaped the structure of the receptor – essentially, whether the lock could open wide enough for the internal mechanism of the G-protein to engage.

Yet, recent research – including our work – has revealed that the critical step to how opioids work is not how wide they open the lock but how well the mechanism works. G proteins act like a switch, releasing one molecule in exchange for another molecule that triggers the protein to send the signal that sets off opioid effects.

In essence, drugs like fentanyl, by acting on the receptor, transmit physical changes to G proteins that result in the switch flipping more rapidly. What we now see is that naloxone jams the mechanism, preventing the switch from flipping and sending the signal.

Capturing the switch

Researchers know that the effects of opioids are triggered when the G protein switch is flipped. But what does this process look like?

For years, attempts to visualize this mechanism were largely limited to two states – before the G protein binds to the µ-opioid receptor, and after the molecule was released from the G protein. The states in between were considered too unstable to isolate. My team and I wanted to capture these unseen states moment by moment as the switch flips and the molecule is released.

To do this, we used a technique called cryo-electron microscopy, which freezes molecules in motion to visualize them at near-atomic resolution. For both naloxone and the opioid drug loperamide (Imodium), we trapped the G protein bound to the opioid receptor right before it released the molecule.

We captured four distinct structural states leading up to the release of the molecule from the G protein.

The first of these, which we call the latent state, is the earliest form of the opioid receptor and G protein after they make contact. We found that both the opioid receptor and the G protein are inactive at this point. Moreover, naloxone stabilizes this latent state. What this means is that naloxone effectively jams the mechanism right at the start, preventing all subsequent steps required for activation.

In the absence of naloxone, an opioid drug promotes a transition to the remaining three states: The G-protein rotates and aligns itself with the receptor (engaged), swings open the door blocking the molecule that would trigger the switch from flipping (unlatched), and holds that door open so the molecule can be released (primed) and send the signal to carry out the drug’s effects.

To confirm that our snapshots reflect what’s really happening, we performed extensive computational simulations to watch these four states change over time. Together, these findings point to the molecular root of naloxone’s therapeutic effects: By stalling the opioid receptor and G protein at a latent state, it shuts down opioid signaling, reversing an opioid overdose within minutes.

Visualizing new drugs

Designing a new key for a lock is most successfully done when you know exactly what that lock looks like. By mapping the exact sequence of how opioids interact with opioid receptors and pinpointing where different drugs can intervene in this process, our findings provide a blueprint for engineering the next generation of opioid medicines and overdose antidotes.

For example, one of the persistent challenges with naloxone is that it must often be administered repeatedly during an overdose. This is especially the case for fentanyl overdoses, where the opioid can outcompete or outlast the effects of the treatment.

Knowing that naloxone works by stalling the µ-opioid receptor in an early, latent state suggests that molecules that can bind more tightly or more selectively to this form of the receptor could be more effective at stabilizing this inactive state and thus preventing an opioid’s effects.

By uncovering the structure of molecules involved in opioid signaling, researchers may be able to develop drugs that provide longer-lasting protection against overdose.

This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

– ref. How does Narcan work? Mapping how it reverses opioid overdose can provide a molecular blueprint for more effective drugs – https://theconversation.com/how-does-narcan-work-mapping-how-it-reverses-opioid-overdose-can-provide-a-molecular-blueprint-for-more-effective-drugs-269706

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Mark Louie Ramos, Assistant Research Professor of Health Policy and Administration, Penn State

Should you believe the findings of scientific studies? Amid current concerns about the public’s trust in science, old arguments are resurfacing that can sow confusion.

As a statistician involved in research for many years, I know the care that goes into designing a good study capable of coming up with meaningful results. Understanding what the results of a particular study are and are not saying can help you sift through what you see in the news or on social media.

Let me walk you through the scientific process, from investigation to publication. The research results you hear about crucially depend on the way scientists formulate the questions they’re investigating.

The scientific method and the null hypothesis

Researchers in all kinds of fields use the scientific method to investigate the questions they’re interested in.

First, a scientist formulates a new claim – what’s called a hypothesis. For example, is having some genetic mutations in BRCA genes related to a higher risk of breast cancer? Then they gather data relevant to the hypothesis and decide, based on the data, whether that initial claim was correct or not.

It’s intuitive to think that this decision is cleanly dichotomous – that the researcher decides the hypothesis is either true or false. But of course, just because you decide something doesn’t mean you’re right.

If the claim is really false but the researcher decides, based on the evidence, it’s true – a false positive – they commit what’s called a Type 1 error. If the claim is really true but the researcher fails to see that – a false-negative conclusion – then they commit a Type 2 error.

Moreover, in the real world, it gets a little messier. It’s really hard to decide about the truth or falsity of a claim just based on what’s observed.

For that reason, most scientists employ what is called the null hypothesis significance testing framework. Here’s how it works: A researcher first states a “null hypothesis,” something that’s contrary to what they want to prove. For instance, in our example the null hypothesis is that BRCA genetic mutations are not associated with increased breast cancer occurrence.

The scientist still gathers data and makes a decision, but the decision is not about whether the null is true. Instead, a researcher decides whether there’s enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis or not.

What rejecting the null does and doesn’t mean

Understanding this distinction is crucial. Rejecting the null is equivalent in practice to acting as though it is false – in the example, rejecting the null means claiming that those with some BRCA gene mutations do have a higher risk of breast cancer. Along with other evidence, such as the size of the increased risk, this outcome can justify recommending early breast cancer screening for people with the identified BRCA mutations.

But failing to reject the null hypothesis doesn’t imply that it’s true – in this case, it doesn’t mean there is no association between the BRCA mutations and breast cancer. Rather, such a result is inconclusive; there’s not enough evidence to claim there is an association. A negative result – inadequate evidence to say the null is false – does not necessarily invite the researcher to believe the null is true.

This is because null hypothesis significance testing is set up to control for Type 1 error (false positive) at a level defined in advance by the researcher but at the cost of having less control over Type 2 error (false negative).

A researcher’s chances of correctly rejecting the null if there is increased risk can depend on how much data they have, how complex the design of the study is and, most importantly, how large the effect actually is. It’s much easier to reject the null if BRCA mutations truly increase cancer risk many times than it is if the risk is only slightly elevated. A researcher can end up with a result that is not statistically significant but cannot rule out the possibility of an increased risk that is too small for the study to detect.

Which results are more often publicized

Once they have their result and the researchers want to disseminate their work, they typically do so through peer-reviewed publication. Journal publishers consider a researcher’s write-up of their study, send it out for other scientists to review, and then decide whether to publish it.

In this process, the publishers tend to favor studies that rejected their null hypothesis over those that failed to reject it. This is called positive publication bias.

It is natural for publishers to prefer studies that support new claims since they objectively carry more information than studies that failed to reject their null hypothesis. Journals want to publish something new and noteworthy.

Many sources flag this phenomenon as “bad science,” but is it really? Remember, the framework used to make decisions about scientific claims is intentionally only capable of either rejecting the null hypothesis – in other words, supporting the claim – or alternatively declaring inconclusive results.

The framework isn’t designed to be able to prove the null hypothesis. That said, researchers can reverse the design of a scientific investigation so that a previous claim becomes the null hypothesis in a new study with fresh data.

For instance, rather than a null hypothesis that there is no association between BRCA mutations and breast cancer, the null hypothesis becomes that the increased breast cancer risk from BRCA mutations is equal to or greater than some value the researcher settles on before gathering fresh data.

Rejecting the null this time would mean the increased risk is smaller than that set value, thus supporting the claim consistent with what had previously been the null hypothesis on prior data. In the example, rejecting the null means the effect of BRCA genes is small enough to be practically negligible in terms of developing breast cancer.

It’s critical for a researcher to structure their study so that what they’re interested in proving is aligned with the rejection of the null. Publishers are naturally less inclined to consider studies that failed to reject their null hypothesis, not because they do not want to publish studies that support negative statements but because null hypothesis significance testing does not actually support negative statements. Failure to reject the null just means your results are inconclusive – and may perhaps seem less newsworthy.

What positive publication bias does

So what does the practice of preferring to publish studies that reject their null hypothesis do?

While we can’t know for certain, we can see how this plays out under different circumstances. You can explore the scenarios in this app I made.

If scientists are acting in good faith, using null hypothesis significance testing appropriately, it turns out that positive publication bias on the part of scientific journal publishers will increase the proportion of true discoveries in their pages much more than it will increase the proportion of false positives.

If editors did not exercise any positive publication bias, journals would be almost entirely full of studies with inconclusive results.

Of course, if scientists are not acting in good faith and are just interested in getting published while ignoring proper use of statistical tests, that can lead to false-positive rates being as high or higher than the rate of true discoveries. But this possibility is true even without positive publication bias.

Mark Louie Ramos 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. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – and that affects what scientific journals choose to publish – https://theconversation.com/absence-of-evidence-is-not-evidence-of-absence-and-that-affects-what-scientific-journals-choose-to-publish-264854

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Gregory A. Daddis, Professor and Melbern G. Glasscock Endowed Chair in American History, Texas A&M University

In an unprecedented step, the Department of Defense announced online on Nov. 24, 2025, that it was reviewing statements by U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, a Democrat, who is a retired Navy captain, decorated combat veteran and former NASA astronaut.

Kelly and five other members of Congress with military or intelligence backgrounds told members of the armed forces “You can refuse illegal orders” in a video released on Nov. 18, reiterating oaths that members of the military and the intelligence community swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. The legislators said they acted in response to concerns expressed by troops currently serving on active duty.

President Donald Trump called the video “seditious behavior, punishable by death.”

Retired senior officers like Kelly can be recalled to duty at any time, which would make it possible for the Pentagon to put Kelly on trial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, although the Defense Department announcement did not specify possible charges. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote online that “Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately.”

This threat to punish Kelly is just the latest move by the Trump administration against perceived enemies at home. By branding critics and opponents as disloyal, traitorous or worse, Trump and his supporters are resurrecting a playbook that hearkens back to Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s crusade against people he portrayed as domestic threats to the U.S. in the 1950s.

As a historian who studies national security and the Cold War era, I know that McCarthyism wrought devastating social and cultural harm across our nation. In my view, repeating what I believe constitutes social and political fratricide could be just as harmful today, perhaps even more so.

Targeting homegrown enemies

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, many Americans believed the United States was a nation under siege. Despite their victory in World War II, Americans saw a dangerous world confronting them.

The communist-run Soviet Union held Eastern Europe in an iron grip. In 1949, Mao Zedong’s communist troops triumphed in the bloody Chinese civil war. One year later, the Korean peninsula descended into full-scale conflict, raising the prospect of World War III – a frightening possibility in the atomic era.

Anti-communist zealots in the U.S., most notably Wisconsin Republican Sen. McCarthy, argued that treasonous Americans were weakening the nation at home. During a February 1950 speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, McCarthy asserted that “the traitorous actions of those who have been treated so well by this nation” were undermining the United States during its “final, all-out battle” against communism.

When communist forces toppled China’s government, critics such as political activist Freda Utley lambasted President Harry Truman’s administration for what they cast as its timidity, blundering and, worse, “treason in high places.” Conflating foreign and domestic threats, McCarthy claimed without evidence that homegrown enemies “within our borders have been more responsible for the success of communism abroad than Soviet Russia.”

As ostensible proof, the senator pointed to American lives being lost in Korea and argued that it was possible to “fully fight a war abroad and at the same time … dispose of the traitorous filth and the Red vermin which have accumulated at home.”

Political opponents might disparage McCarthy for his “dishonest and cowardly use of fractional fact and innuendo,” but the Wisconsinite knew how to play to the press. Time and again, McCarthy would bombastically lash out against his critics as he did with columnist Drew Pearson, calling him “an unprincipled liar,” “a fake” and the owner of a “twisted perverted mentality.”

While McCarthy focused on allegedly disloyal government officials and media journalists, other self-pronounced protectors of the nation sought to warn naive members of the public. Defense Department pamphlets like “Know Your Communist Enemy” alerted Americans against being duped by Communist Party members skilled in deception and manipulation.

Virulent anti-communists denounced what they viewed as inherent weaknesses of postwar American society, with a clearly political bent. Republicans asserted that cowardly, effeminate liberals were weakening the nation’s defense by minimizing threats both home and abroad.

Censure and worse

In such an anxiety-ridden environment, “red-baiting” – discrediting political opponents by linking them to communism – spread across the country, leaving a trail of wrecked lives. From teachers to public officials, anyone deemed un-American by McCarthyites faced public censure, loss of employment or even imprisonment.

Under the 1940 Smith Act, which criminalized promoting the overthrow of the U.S. government, hundreds of Americans were prosecuted during the Cold War simply for having been members of the Communist Party of the United States. The act also authorized the “deportation of aliens,” reflecting fears that communist ideas had seeped into nearly all facets of American society.

The 1950 Internal Security Act, widely known as the McCarran Act, further emphasized existential threats from within. “Disloyal aliens,” a term the law left purposefully vague, could have their citizenship revoked. Communist Party members were required to register with the government, a step that made them susceptible to prosecution under the Smith Act.

Immigrants could be detained or deported if the president declared an “internal security emergency.” Advocates called this policy “preventive detention,” while critics derided the act as a “Concentration Camp Law,” in the words of historian Masumi Izumi.

Scapegoating outsiders

The scaremongering wasn’t just about people’s political views: Vulnerable groups, such as gay people, were also targeted. McCarthy warned of links between “communists and queers,” asserting that “sexual perverts” had infested the U.S. government, especially the State Department, and posed “dangerous security risks.” Closeted gay or lesbian employees, the argument went, were vulnerable to blackmail by foreign governments.

Fearmongering also took on a decidedly racist tone. South Carolina Governor George Bell Timmerman, Jr., for instance, argued in 1957 that enforcing “Negro voting rights” would promote the “cause of communism.”

Three years later, a comic book titled “The Red Iceberg” insinuated that communists were exploiting the “tragic plight” of Black families and that the NAACP, a leading U.S. civil rights advocacy group, had been infiltrated by the Kremlin. Conservatives like Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater criticized the growing practice of using federal power to enforce civil rights, calling it communist-style social engineering.

A new McCarthyism

While it’s never simple to draw neat historical parallels from past eras to the present, it appears McCarthy-like actions are recurring widely today. During the Red Scare, the focus was on alleged communists. Today, the focus is on straightforward dissent. Critics, both past and present, of President Donald Trump’s actions and policies are being targeted.

At the national level, Trump has called for using military force against “the enemy from within.” On Sept. 30, 2025, Trump told hundreds of generals and admirals who had been called to Quantico, Virginia, from posts around the world that the National Guard should view America’s “dangerous cities as training grounds.”

The Trump administration is making expansive use of the McCarran Act to crack down on immigrants in U.S. cities. White House adviser Stephen Miller has proposed suspending the constitutionally protected writ of habeas corpus, which entitles prisoners to challenge their detentions in court, in order to deport “illegal aliens,” alleging that the U.S. is “under invasion.”

In my home state of Texas, political fearmongering has taken on an equally McCarthyesque tone, with the Legislature directing the State Board of Education to adopt mandatory instruction on “atrocities attributable to communist regimes.”

Perhaps it is unsurprising, then, that right-wing activist Laura Loomer has unapologetically called for “making McCarthy great again.”

Disagreement is democratic

The history of McCarthyism shows where this kind of action can lead. Charging political opponents with treason and calling the media an “enemy of the people,” all without evidence, undercuts democratic principles.

These actions cast certain groups as different and dehumanize them. Portraying political rivals as existential threats, simply for disagreeing with their fellow citizens or political leaders, promotes forced consensus. This diminishes debate and can lead to bad policies.

Americans live in an insecure world today, but as I see it, demonizing enemies won’t make the United States a safer place. Instead, it only will lead to the kind of harm that was brought to pass by the very worst tendencies of McCarthyism.

Gregory A. Daddis 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. Pentagon investigation of Sen. Mark Kelly revives Cold War persecution of Americans with supposedly disloyal views – https://theconversation.com/pentagon-investigation-of-sen-mark-kelly-revives-cold-war-persecution-of-americans-with-supposedly-disloyal-views-265964

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Andrew Cowell, Professor of Linguistics, University of Colorado Boulder

I was hired at the University of Colorado Boulder in 1995 as a language professor. I relocated from Hawaii, where I had learned the Hawaiian language.

When I arrived in Colorado, I decided I needed to learn about the Indigenous language of the Boulder and Denver area, Arapaho. The Arapaho people had occupied the area for many years until they were forced to leave in the 1860s.

I first visited the Northern Arapaho people on the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming in 1999. At that time, there were hundreds of speakers of the Arapaho language.

Today, there are less than 100, and all are over the age of 70.

The Arapaho people in Wyoming and Colorado believe their language can still survive, and so do I. That’s why I am working to combine decades of language documentation with new technological approaches in order to help revive the language.

Loss of Native languages

Many Native American languages currently have few Native speakers, and the speakers are typically the oldest members of the community. The languages of the Wichita and Kansa people, for example, are among many that are no longer spoken at all.

Native American languages have been in decline in the face of Euro-American pressure for centuries.

On the Great Plains, this decline accelerated after World War II when Native soldiers came home after seeing prosperity off the reservation.

Arapaho elders tell me that bilingual parents decided to speak only English to their children to improve their chances of success in life. They were certain the tribal languages would come “later.”

But “later” didn’t happen. Boarding schools had already been suppressing the language, and now economic improvements brought cars, radios and televisions to Wind River, further promoting the use of English. Without language exposure in the home, children were not able to acquire good speaking abilities.

Today, however, tribal communities around the country increasingly want to maintain or reacquire their languages. Efforts to do this have been going on for several decades, with some successes, such as the Mohawk language of New York and Canada, Cherokee in Oklahoma and North Carolina and the Blackfoot language of northern Montana.

In most places however, numbers of Native speakers continue to decline, while learning among younger speakers progresses slowly.

Uses of data for curriculum

My early work focused on documenting the Arapaho language. Past linguists working with Native languages typically focused on traditional storytelling, as well as audio-recorded data. But my interest in anthropology led me to focus on conversation and everyday interaction. I also recorded on video to capture social settings, gestures and sign language. And to better understand the role of the language in daily use, I worked to become a good speaker myself.

I have compiled my documentation into a database that contains over 100,000 sentences of natural Arapaho speech. All of this has been transcribed, translated into English and accompanied by detailed linguistic analysis.

The database is further supported by an online learning site and an online dictionary of around 25,000 entries. They are among the largest such resources for an Indigenous language, though resources do exist for other languages, such as Yurok.

From documentation to curriculum

In response to the Arapaho people’s goal of language revitalization, my own work has shifted from documentation to assisting teachers, students and curriculum developers. The database turns out to have great value in this area.

Adult learners can watch the videos along with the Arapaho transcriptions or English translations, or both, and review the detailed grammatical analysis.

However, it is quite difficult for young learners to immediately benefit from listening to natural discourse. That’s why carefully graded curricula are crucial. Unlike for commonly taught languages such as French or Spanish, materials for most Native American languages are just being developed.

Arapaho can be challenging to learn because its structure is quite different from English. Many small chunks of meaning are combined to produce long, complex words. For example, an English speaker can start with “happy” and produce “un-happi-ness.” Arapaho speakers typically add three, four or even five prefixes, and multiple suffixes as well. A speaker can say the word “niibeetwonwoteekoohunoo” – which has six separate meaningful chunks. This translates to English, “I want to go and drive to town.”

There is little value in memorizing such complex words, just as English learners don’t memorize entire sentences. Instead, Arapaho learners need to understand the separate parts, and how they combine.

Previous efforts have succeeded in teaching children to speak basic Arapaho. The challenge now is to keep improving their Arapaho language abilities, using a graded curriculum that continues through all school levels.

The database can identify and label the individual chunks of words, and assign meanings to each chunk. A beginner’s dictionary of 1,300 entries has been created by calculating the overall frequency of base words in the 100,000 sentences, and then selecting only the most common ones.

The list has been broken down further to produce target vocabulary for each grade level. Smaller chunks of prefixes and suffixes are also measured, and sequential grammar-learning goals can be produced based on frequency and complexity.

A draft Arapaho learning sequence has been created, with 44 stages. It is now possible for the first time to produce a full, progressive language curriculum for Arapaho. The next step is to develop more curricular materials and train teachers to use them.

The sequence of 44 stages is now being introduced at Wyoming Indian Elementary School, the first school on the Wind River Reservation to pioneer dual-language classrooms.

Limitations of technology

Technology is not a magic bullet, however. Only Native people can save their languages, by choosing to learn and speak them.

Because artificial intelligence works using large language models, it needs billions of words of discourse to be trained effectively in a language. No Indigenous language has nearly that amount of data, so the capacity of AI to address Native language endangerment is limited. Moreover, many Indigenous communities are wary of AI due to concerns over data sovereignty and cultural property rights.

My own old-fashioned experience as a learner and teacher has proved crucial. I can see where difficulties lie for learners, and how to fine-tune computational measurements and predictions. I’ve learned that success in helping revitalize Native languages depends on researchers building long-term relationships with Native peoples and, ideally, speaking Native languages. Only then can new technologies be applied most productively.

Andrew Cowell currently receives funding from National Science Foundation. Past funding related to the work described here has come from the American Council of Learned Societies and Hans Rausing Endangered Language Documentation Programme.

He has received compensation from elements of the Northern Arapaho Tribe and the Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribe for some of his assistance and consultation.

– ref. A database could help revive the Arapaho language before its last speakers are gone – https://theconversation.com/a-database-could-help-revive-the-arapaho-language-before-its-last-speakers-are-gone-269592

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Joslyn Brenton, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Ithaca College

The 2025 government shutdown drew widespread attention to how many Americans struggle to get enough food. For 43 days, the more than 42 million Americans who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits had to find other ways to stock their cupboards.

When asked how she felt about her benefits being suspended, one woman in West Virginia told a New York Times reporter, “We’re angry. Because we do count!”

Her sentiment reflects an often underappreciated fact about food. Food is not just a matter of survival. What and how you eat is also a symbol of your social status. Being unable to reliably feed your family healthy and nutritious foods in a way that aligns with your values can feel undignified. It can make people feel unseen and less important than others.

As researchers who study food inequality, nutrition and food justice, we have spent decades surveying and interviewing Americans about how they eat. We have witnessed firsthand how food assistance does help people meet their basic needs, but how it can also be stigmatizing and diminish their sense of dignity.

We have also studied alternatives to typical charitable food programs that, despite good intentions, tend to induce shame. We have learned that it is possible to help people put food on the table while preserving their dignity.

Dignity and food assistance

Addressing the root causes of food insecurity – what happens when people lack steady access to the food they need for a nutritious diet that’s in keeping with their preferences – is a persistent problem in the United States.

Thus, the demand for SNAP benefits, which help Americans buy groceries, other government nutrition programs, and food banks and food pantries rarely declines much – even when the economy is strong. Yet relying on food assistance programs does not tend to support a healthy diet and can take a toll on mental health.

As interviewers and clinicians, we have heard mothers describe the shame they feel when SNAP benefits do not cover the entire grocery bill. We have witnessed the frustration that comes with walking down a food pantry aisle lined with signs instructing hungry people to “take only 1 item!”

“The stuff looks like almost trash, but they give it to you,” one woman we interviewed said of her experience with food pantries and the like.

These kinds of stories are not uncommon. Charitable food programs receive leftover items from grocery stores, donations from community food drives and local businesses, and sometimes surplus from local farms. Food is often damaged in transport or from being handled too many times. A review of the research found that many people who use food pantries described the food as unhealthy, moldy or inedible. Being given unhealthy and unappealing food in a time of need is a double burden.

While free food may fill the stomach, it does not satisfy the desire to feel fully human and worthy of nourishment.

People who visit food banks have told researchers that they have come to expect low-quality food and few choices. When food aid is provided that way, it can leave the people it is supposed to help feeling powerless and ashamed.

These indignities are compounded by the fact that people who visit food banks and food pantries routinely face suspicion and surveillance around what they buy and how they eat, intensifying the stress associated with food insecurity.

In our research, we saw cashiers hovering over mothers using SNAP EBT cards in the self-checkout line. Politicians routinely suggest that SNAP is corrupt, contributing to nationwide perceptions that people who rely on this program are unfairly gaming the system. One study found that more than two-thirds of the Americans people who get food assistance have been the target of hostile comments and interactions from strangers at the grocery store.

Minimizing stigma

Several studies have shown that food programs do not need to sacrifice dignity to offer help. Programs that offer opportunities for people with lower incomes to receive and give back are important.

In Canada, bulk-buying food cooperatives did just that. Food assistance programs confer dignity when they make people feel good. People seeking help feel more satisfied after visiting food pantries that keep convenient hours or offer fresh produce.

SNAP has also tried to promote client dignity by ensuring that benefits are accepted in major grocery stores and distributing the funds to debit cards, allowing people to look and feel like everyday shoppers.

Yet despite these efforts social stigma persists. People who are enrolled in the SNAP program are still routinely devalued and judged for being poor in a society that assigns social value and worth based on one’s position on the economic ladder.

Cultivating dignity in food assistance

Minimizing stigma improves food assistance. Intentionally cultivating food dignity may be the next step.

Our assessment of a nationwide meal kit program demonstrated how dignity can be cultivated when food assistance programs consider the nutritional, emotional, aesthetic and cultural dimensions of food and eating.

In 2021, we conducted 116 interviews with participants of a meal kit program called Pass the Love. The program was free and anyone could enroll, no questions asked. The meal kits contained the necessary food and recipes to make three vegetarian meals a week, such as sesame coconut noodle salad or carrot coconut dal with rice. The program ran for four consecutive weeks.

When we interviewed participants about their experiences during and after the program, we learned that while they were thankful for the free food, what mattered more was the high quality, how it was packaged and how it conveyed care and respect.

Most participants had incomes at or well below the poverty line. They described what we came to call a “high dignity food experience,” meaning that it generated positive feelings and a sense of worth.

Opening the nicely packaged meal kit boxes each week felt like “Christmas,” to some people and a “gift” to others. Many found the “thought and care” that went into the program remarkable. Offering high-quality food to make nutritious, complete meals symbolized that low-income or food-insecure people deserve to eat well and feel good.

Our research, like similar studies that others have conducted, shows that treating food as a basic human right requires more than just giving people something to eat. It means ensuring unconditional access to the culturally appropriate fresh and nutritious food people need to thrive not just physically, but psychologically and socially.

Joslyn Brenton received funding from Partnership for a Healthier America as an external research expert.

Dr. Virudachalam received funding from the Edna G. Kynett Memorial Foundation, Rite Aid Foundation, and Partnership for a Healthier America in the last 36 months. She is a member of The Food Trust Board of Directors, the National Produce Prescription Collaborative Steering Committee, and Philadelphia City Council’s Food and Nutrition Security Task Force.

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

– ref. How food assistance programs can feed families and nourish their dignity – https://theconversation.com/how-food-assistance-programs-can-feed-families-and-nourish-their-dignity-269171

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Christina Hymer, Assistant Professor of Management and Entrepreneurship, University of Tennessee

When you picture Santa Claus, a white, bearded, overweight and jolly man who dashes around delivering gifts to children during the Christmas season probably comes to mind. Yet, not everyone who dons the red suit fits this stereotype.

That’s what Bethany Cockburn, Borbala Csillag and I learned when we teamed up to study professional Santas. For our study, we looked into how these professional Santas were able to “be” Santa, even if they didn’t fully fit the image.

As we explained in a forthcoming article in the Academy of Management Journal, many who do this work don’t see it as just a job – it’s a calling. For some professional Santas, it’s especially important that they look and feel like Santa to experience that sense of purpose in their work.

We surveyed 849 professional Santas who live across the U.S. and interviewed 53 of them, collecting data between 2018 and 2021. We identified three types of professional Santas: prototypical (64%), semi-prototypical (23%) and nonprototypical (13%).

Prototypical Santas look the part. They are white and overweight, have real beards and express confidence that they are the right fit.

Semi-prototypical Santas looked the part, too, but felt like they weren’t quite suitable for a range of reasons. They might be introverted or use a fake beard.

Nonprototypical Santas had characteristics at odds with the stereotype. They might be nonwhite, female or gay, or have a physical disability.

Whereas prototypical Santas could easily slide into the Santa role, the process was more complex for the others.

Semi-prototypical Santas did things like come up with stories they’d tell themselves or share with children to explain away their fake beards. Nonprototypical Santas had values aligned with the Santa image, such as being peaceful, loving and kind. But they still made a big effort to look like what people expect when they visit a Santa.

“Should it be a difference if you’re a Jewish Santa Claus or a Catholic Santa Claus?” asked an atheist professional Santa we called “Santa Aquila.” “No. You’re Santa Claus. What do you do? You’re not even supposed to preach anything.”

Another Santa whom we called “Santa Lynx” hid that she was female in part by flattening her chest.

Why it matters

While anyone can take a turn being their neighborhood potluck’s Santa, the one you meet at the mall probably attended some combination of Santa schools, webinars and training.

For instance, the Charles W. Howard Santa Claus School was founded in 1937 and conducts an annual Santa training each year. National networks also exist, such as the Fraternal Order of Real Bearded Santas, which says it has 1,000 members, – and the IBRBS, formerly known as the International Brotherhood of Real Bearded Santas, offering meetups and professional support.

There are also local organizations, such as the Lone Star Santas network in Texas.

Although most professional Santas are paid for their work, many do this voluntarily.

It’s not uncommon for there to be some sort of expectation around who should have a particular occupation. Pilots tend to be male, most schoolteachers are female, and salespeople are often seen as extroverted.

But that doesn’t mean that women can’t be pilots, men can’t be teachers or that introverts can’t work in sales.

What’s next

I’m now looking at how broader institutional environments, current events and social movements can shape how people experience their callings and find meaning at work.

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

Christina Hymer 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 makes a true Santa is inside – and comes with the red suit – https://theconversation.com/what-makes-a-true-santa-is-inside-and-comes-with-the-red-suit-269569

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ray Brescia, Associate Dean for Research and Intellectual Life, Albany Law School

A federal judge on Nov. 24, 2025, dismissed the indictments against former FBI Director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, blocking the Department of Justice’s efforts to prosecute two of President Donald Trump’s perceived adversaries.

But U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie qualified her dismissals, saying she did so “without prejudice.”

What does that legal term mean?

Unaddressed charges

In her ruling, Currie concluded that the appointment of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, who filed the cases against Comey and James, was unlawful. Currie wrote:

“Because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.”

She wrote the same about the case against James.

Currie’s “without prejudice” reference means the dismissal did not address what legal scholars like me call the merits or substance of the underlying criminal charges.

A “without prejudice” dismissal is legalese for “you can try again if you can fix the problems with your case.” Had the judge ruled that the dismissals were “with prejudice,” that would have meant the government could not have brought the cases again.

Here’s what prosecutors would need to fix to be able to bring cases against Comey and James again.

Federal law provides that whenever a U.S. attorney’s position is vacant, the attorney general may appoint an interim U.S. attorney for a period of 120 days. At the end of that period, it’s up to the federal judges of the district where that position is vacant to appoint someone to continue in that role unless and until the president nominates, and the Senate confirms, a U.S. attorney through the normal appointments process.

The Trump administration appointed Halligan’s predecessor, U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert, in that interim role in January 2025. And when the 120 days from his appointment lapsed, the district judges of the Eastern District of Virginia selected him to continue on in his interim role.

Currie found that when Siebert resigned after his reappointment, that did not empower the Trump administration to appoint a new interim prosecutor. The power still resided with the District Court judges. Because of that, Halligan’s appointment and her efforts to secure the Comey and James indictments were void.

The end of the beginning

The Department of Justice can certainly appeal these rulings and could get them reversed on appeal, or it could refile them after a new U.S. attorney is named in accordance with law.

It may be too late for the case against Comey, however, because the statute of limitations on those charges has already run out. As Currie noted in her Comey ruling, while the statute of limitations is generally suspended when a valid indictment has been filed, an invalid indictment, like the one against Comey, would not have the same effect on the statute of limitations.

That means the time has likely run out on the claims against the former FBI director.

If Currie’s rulings stand, the Justice Department can’t just file the cases again, with Halligan still in this role, unless the Trump administration follows the procedures set forth in the law for her proper appointment.

While this is not the beginning of the end for these prosecutions, it is, at least, the end of the beginning.

Ray Brescia 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. ‘Without prejudice’: What this 2-word legalese means for the dismissed charges against James Comey and Letitia James – https://theconversation.com/without-prejudice-what-this-2-word-legalese-means-for-the-dismissed-charges-against-james-comey-and-letitia-james-270559