Against baseball’s new pitch clock

During the 2023 season, pitchers and hitters will be on the clock for the first time. Julio Aguilar/Getty Images

Alva Noë, University of California, Berkeley

Baseball moves very fast. That’s how it seems to me, anyway.

Just try coaching a Little League game; decisions pile up like branches on a tree, as tactical and strategic considerations multiply.

And as a player, when it’s time to act, you need to do so before you even get to the “t” in “think,” as a coach I know used to say.

That’s why it’s hard for me to shake the worry that the executives who restlessly tinker with the rules in an effort to speed up the game are doing so less as its reliable custodians and more as marketers.

Why else would they have adopted the new pitch clock rule?

Beginning this season in Major League Baseball, pitchers will have 15 seconds to throw when the bases are empty and 20 seconds when there’s a runner on base. Hitters need to be in the box, looking at the pitcher, with 8 seconds left on the clock. Violators will be punished by automatic balls or strikes. There are new time limits on managers’ deliberations on whether to challenge calls on the field, too.

But to me, the idea that you need to get things to move faster because it might seem to you – or to potential customers – as if nothing is going on is either a brazen sellout or a remarkable piece of ignorance.

During these purported empty spaces of inaction, the game’s drama is actually unfurling right there in front of you. As I explain in my book “Infinite Baseball,” you just have to know what to look for.

Seeing the game better

Every plate appearance – that willful and wily exchange between batter and pitcher – unfolds at the center of attention of every player and spectator.

Hitters develop ways of excelling – or, I should say, coping – and to some extent their strategy consists in scratching out seconds and milliseconds to collect their thoughts, to read the signals, to settle themselves in the box by breathing in, breathing out.

Pitchers, meanwhile, work to control the rhythm and keep the hitters off guard by concealing what’s coming next.

The scrutiny can be vicious. Twelve-year-old baseball players routinely burst into tears when they have struck out or grounded out yet again.

Former pitcher Felix Hernandez screams into his glove after losing his battle with a hitter and surrendering a home run during a game in 2014. Stephen Brashear/Getty Images

Professional baseball players, no less than their younger counterparts, need tactical guidance and emotional support. The manager is cool in the dugout, surrounded by consiglieri, and in constant contact with coaches on the first and third baselines, who, for their part, are talking to the players.

It’s not rocket science, to be sure; but there is a lot to think about – whether to take a pitch, or fake bunt, or run on contact, or hold, or steal, or sacrifice, and on and on, with answers depending on the situation that itself varies pitch to pitch. Players need all the help they can get.

Clock time is not the only time. Pitches and plate appearances and outs and innings are another way to mark time, the way time in tennis is counted in service games, sets and match points.

In my view, baseball’s problem is not that it is too slow. It’s that it’s too fast. There’s a lot of action; it’s just that novice fans may not have the eyes to see it.

That’s what baseball should be helping viewers do: Slow the game down so they can see it better; or rather, teach them to see it better.

Baseball is an opportunity to learn to see, to notice the detail, to pay attention and uncover the decisions that inform everything that happens on the field. Fielders shift their positions, batters adjust their stances, catchers vary the target they provide, runners shorten or extend their leads.

It all carries information.

The game only shows up if you do

But baseball executives who sell the game, and are willing to sell it out, do so by making the game itself expendable. Your typical MLB game is drowned out in distracting bright lights, ear-splitting music, sideline games and giveaways. Roving cameras encourage fans to dance for the public or make out with the person next to them.

Fun is good, and I enjoy the carnival atmosphere, too. (Although if it’s a circus you want, you might prefer the Savannah Bananas, a wildly popular minor league team whose players wear kilts and who have adopted a rule calling a home run an out if a fan catches the ball.) And I don’t begrudge baseball’s entrepreneurs their payday. But no wonder the game seems boring beside all that. The game shows up only if you do.

The problem is not change. Imagine if baseball had never evolved from its past incarnations – the dead ball era when home runs were a rarity, segregated leagues and no free agency. And baseball responded to the remarkable 1968 season, known as “the year of the pitcher,” by actually lowering the pitcher’s mound to shift advantage back to batters.

Baseball, like the law – and like society itself – evolves.

Actually, there is another respect in which baseball is like the law. In baseball, the events on the field of play matter less than the assignments of responsibility and the judgments of praise – and blameworthiness.

Real baseball is in the scorebook, for it is there that hits are sorted from physically indiscernible patterns of action that count as fielder’s choices, or errors, or sacrifices. It is there that mere runs separate themselves from earned runs, and that stolen bases assert themselves as achievements that don’t come down to mere defensive indifference.

Each game tells a story. Brace Hemmelgarn/Minnesota Twins via Getty Images

This is why keeping score in baseball is never just marking down what happens, like hatch marks on a prison wall marking the passage of time; it is always, rather, a thoughtful reflection on the meaning of events, and so is more like a daily journal.

And it is baseball’s problems – pertaining not only to the question of who’s winning, but rather who deserves credit or blame for this rapid-fire thing that just happened on the field – that define the game and preoccupy players, coaches and fans.

It is this space, one that is not limited to the physical field of play, that finally defines the national pastime and joins players and fans alike in its preservation and celebration.

I certainly appreciate that shorter games, like shorter books, have a certain attraction. They are less demanding and more user-friendly. And there is no doubt that games in MLB have gotten much longer than they used to be.

But baseball’s executives should avoid ruining the game in order to save it.

Alva Noë, Professor of Philosophy, University of California, Berkeley

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Drones over Ukraine: What the war means for the future of remotely piloted aircraft in combat

A Ukrainian soldier uses a commercial drone to monitor the front line in eastern Ukraine. Diego Herrera Carcedo/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Roberto J. González, San José State University

Over the past year, images from Ukraine have often portrayed a war resembling other conflicts from the past half-century. Russian forces deploy tanks, fighter planes, warships, amphibious vehicles and attack helicopters. Ukrainians fight back with anti-tank weapons, grenade launchers and anti-aircraft missiles. This is how much of the war appears on the ground.

But there’s another side to the conflict – a hypermodern battleground where drones play a crucial role in surveillance, reconnaissance and combat missions. These technologies may foreshadow a world in which armed conflicts are conducted largely by remote control – and perhaps someday, by artificial intelligence.

What lessons does the drone war in Ukraine hold for the future?

Commercial and portable drones

One lesson is that drones have been democratized, accessible to anyone with a few hundred dollars and a bit of technical knowledge. In Ukraine, DIY hobbyists have modified and weaponized small, inexpensive commercial drones by outfitting them with high-resolution cameras and explosives.

Ukraine’s Aerorozvidka air reconnaissance unit made headlines early in the war when its drones helped stop a Russian convoy headed for Kyiv. Aerorozvidka personnel use spiderlike hexacopters, octocopters and other remote-controlled devices as weapons.

These gadgets typically fly at low altitudes – less than 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) – and limited distances – less than 19 miles (31 kilometers). Russia’s fighter jets aren’t designed to prevent attacks from such small drones.

‘Suicide’ drones

Both sides in the war have also unleashed loitering munitions — sometimes called “suicide” drones. These self-destructing devices can circle around targets for hours before attacking. Ukraine’s arsenal includes U.S.-made Switchblade and Phoenix Ghost models, while Russian forces use domestically manufactured Lancet-3 drones. Some of these weapons are small enough to fit in a backpack. Ukrainian forces have also fashioned DIY loitering munitions by attaching explosives to off-the-shelf quadcopters.

Russian troops have also used Iranian-made Shahed-136 drones, which recently terrorized Kyiv. At about 11 feet (3.5 meters) long, these fixed wing drones resemble a small plane. Loitering munitions typically cost US$10,000-$20,000 each, and have a longer range – 932 miles (1,500 kilometers) or more – than cheap commercial drones. Most have swarming capability, which allows multiple drones to attack a target and inflict greater damage.

An Iranian-made Shahed-136 suicide drone seconds before it hit buildings in Kyiv, Ukraine, on Oct. 17, 2022. AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky

In the Ukraine war, it’s much more expensive to intercept loitering munitions than to deploy them. Using MiG-29 jet fighters, C-300 cruise missiles and other Cold War-era weapons to stop these drones far exceeds the cost of the disposable robots. New high-tech battles of attrition could become a regular feature of future conflicts, with each side attempting to exhaust its enemy’s resources.

Loitering munitions hold another lesson. When used against civilians, low-altitude drones can unnerve an entire city. Russia’s October 2022 drone attacks on Kyiv not only killed four people, but they terrorized thousands more. A Stanford-NYU research project on the long-term impact of America’s drone war in Pakistan reveals that it has deeply traumatized civilian populations.

Remotely piloted aircraft

Another class of drones includes those capable of flying longer distances – 124 miles (200 kilometers) or more – and at higher altitudes – 2.5 to 5 miles (4 to 8 kilometers) – than those mentioned above. They can also be armed with laser-guided missiles, boosting their lethality. In the Ukraine war, these drones – essentially remotely piloted fighter planes – include the Turkish-produced Bayraktar TB2. The Ukrainian military has acquired several dozen, at a cost of about $5 million each.

Some call it the “Toyota Corolla of drones” because of its affordability and reliability. Among other things, the Bayraktar TB2 inspired a Ukrainian rap song that went viral, pointing to the potential propaganda value of new technologies.

Ukrainian forces have made extensive use of the Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drone. Birol Bebek/AFP via Getty Images

Russian forces have used comparable drones, most notably the domestically produced Orion series. Other drones in this class (none of which have been used in Ukraine) include the Israeli Hermes 450, the American-made MQ-1C Gray Eagle, China’s recently unveiled Wing Loong 3 and dozens more. China now surpasses Israel as the world’s biggest drone exporter. Drone proliferation is likely to accelerate their battlefield presence.

High-end military drones

High-end drones aren’t likely to be used in Ukraine anytime soon. It’s hard to imagine that the Rolls-Royce of drones, the U.S.-made RQ-4 Global Hawk, will ever be deployed in Ukraine, given its high cost. (The $200 million behemoth is, in fact, powered by a Rolls-Royce AE 3700 turbofan engine).

But it’s plausible that one day, the U.S. government might provide Ukraine with RQ-9 Reapers, which cost about $50 million apiece. And although China has so far been reluctant to send weapons to Russian forces, its state-of-the-art CH-5 Rainbow strike drones could dramatically alter the course of the war. This advanced aircraft would provide Russian troops with far greater firepower, endurance and range than its current drones.

How drones are changing war

Over the past 20 years, researchers have observed that drone warfare simultaneously stretches and compresses the battlefield. It does so both physically and psychologically by increasing the geographic distance between targeter and targeted. When American forces launch drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen, the attacks are secret, targeted assassinations, more like a form of hunting than airstrikes on military targets.

But the ways in which drones are being used in Ukraine are strikingly different from how the U.S. has deployed them in the war on terror. In Ukraine, both sides use drones as a tactical technology for a range of missions, including battlefield surveillance, artillery spotting and attacking armored vehicles and missile launchers.

An interview in the field with Ukrainian drone pilots.

One year on, missiles and drones dominate the air war over Ukraine, raising the question: Where are the pilots? Future wars may incorporate yet more advanced drones — and counter-drone systems for jamming command or GPS signals, or intercepting drones before they strike. Russia’s failure to adequately use such systems gave Ukrainian forces an edge in the early months of the war.

Flying ‘killer robots’

Perhaps the most troubling prospect is the possibility of a new global arms race in which the U.S., China, Russia, Iran, Israel, the European Union and others rush to develop fully autonomous drones. The U.S. Air Force is already testing an AI-controlled fighter jet.

Several factors are driving this process. As GPS and control signal jammers become more sophisticated, drones are likely to become less reliant on remote control and more autonomous, using systems that incorporate AI, such as simultaneous location and mapping, LiDAR technology and celestial navigation.

Another factor propelling the long-term adoption of autonomous weapons is the psychological impact of remote-controlled warfare on drone pilots, many of whom suffer from serious mental illnesses like post-traumatic stress disorder after killing targeted people. To some observers, autonomous drones might seem to offer a way of eliminating the psychological trauma of killing remotely. Yet many rank-and-file soldiers and pilots are reluctant to use autonomous weapons because they don’t trust them, something confirmed by my own research.

Finally, there are ethical concerns: Autonomous weapons tend to absolve humans of any responsibility for life-and-death decisions. Who will be held accountable when an autonomous drone kills civilian noncombatants?

As the Ukraine war drags on — and as autonomous weapons research surges forward — the possibility of a robot war looms on the horizon.

Roberto J. González, Professor of Anthropology, San José State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Human genome editing offers tantalizing possibilities – but without clear guidelines, many ethical questions still remain

DNA editing has the capacity to treat many diseases, but how to do this safely and equitably remains unclear. KTSDESIGN/Science Photo Library via Getty Images

André O. Hudson, Rochester Institute of Technology and Gary Skuse, Rochester Institute of Technology

The Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing, a three-day conference organized by the Royal Society, the U.K. Academy of Medical Sciences, the U.S. National Academies of Sciences and Medicine and The World Academy of Sciences, was held this week in March 2023 at the Francis Crick Institute in London. Scientists, bioethicists, physicians, patients and others gathered to discuss the latest developments on this technology that lets researchers modify DNA with precision. And a major topic at the summit was how to enforce research policies and ethical principles for human genome editing.

One of the first agenda items was how to regulate human genome editing in China in light of its misuse in 2018, when scientists modified the DNA of two human embryos before birth to have resistance against HIV infection. The controversy stems from the fact that because the technology is relatively early in its development, and its potential risks have not been reduced or eliminated, editing human embryos in ways they could pass on to their own offspring could lead to a variety of known and unknown adverse complications. The summit speakers noted that while China has updated its guidelines and laws on human genome editing, it failed to address privately funded research – an issue other countries also face. Many countries, including the U.S., do not have sufficiently robust regulatory frameworks to prevent a repeat of the 2018 scandal.

We are a biochemist and a geneticist who teach and conduct research in genomics and ethics at the Rochester Institute of Technology. As in our classrooms, debate about genome editing continues in the field.

Listening to different perspectives about CRISPR could lead to more balanced discussions about how to regulate it.

What is genome editing?

The human genome typically consists of 23 pairs of chromosomes made of approximately 3.2 billion nucleotides – the building blocks of DNA. There are four nucleotides that make up DNA: adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C). If the genome were a book, each chromosome would be a chapter, each gene on a particular chromosome would be a paragraph and each paragraph would be made of individual letters (A, T, G or C).

One can imagine a book with over 3 billion characters might need editing to correct mistakes that occurred during the writing or copying processes.

Genome editing is a way for scientists to make specific changes to the DNA in a cell or in an entire organism by adding, removing or swapping in or out one or more nucleotides. In people, these changes can be done in somatic cells, those with DNA that cannot be inherited by offspring, or in gamete cells, those containing DNA that can be passed on to offspring. Genome editing of gamete cells, which includes egg or sperm, is controversial, as any changes would be passed on to descendants. Most existing guidelines and policies prohibit its use at this time.

Geneticist Jennifer Doudna is one of the co-inventors of CRISPR/Cas9.

How CRISPR works

In 2012, scientists published a groundbreaking study demonstrating how CRISPR, or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, can be used to accurately change specific DNA sequences.

CRISPR’s natural origins are as a kind of immune response for bacteria. Bacteria that can be infected with viruses have evolved mechanisms to combat them. When a bacterium is infected with a particular virus, it keeps a small piece of the viral DNA sequence called a “spacer” in its own genome. This spacer is an exact match to the viral DNA. Upon subsequent infection, the bacterium is able to use the spacer to recruit a scissorlike protein called Cas9 that can sever new viral DNA attempting to integrate into the bacterium’s genome. This cut to the genetic material prevents the virus from replicating and killing its bacterial host.

After this discovery, scientists were able to fine-tune the system in the lab to be highly precise. They can sever DNA from a variety of cells, including human cells, at a specific location in the genome and subsequently edit it by adding, removing or swapping nucleotides. This is similar to adding or removing letters and words from a book.

This technology has the potential to treat diseases that have genetic origins. One of the summit’s sessions covered CRISPR’s ongoing experimental use to treat patients with sickle cell anemia and beta-thalassemia, two blood disorders caused by mutations in the genes. Notably, genetic modification to treat sickle cell anemia and beta-thalassemia involves editing somatic cells, not germline cells. But as the summit speakers noted, whether these likely expensive therapies will be accessible to the people who need them most, especially in low- and middle-income countries, is a problem that requires changes to how treatments are sold.

Scientists have been testing ways to use CRISPR/Cas9 to treat sickle cell anemia.

Ethics of human genome editing

Many questions remain concerning the safety of genome editing, along with its potential to promote eugenics and exacerbate inequities and inequality.

A number of the summit’s sessions involved discussion on the ethics and regulation of the use of this tool. While the landmark 1979 Belmont Report outlined several ethical pillars to guide human research in the U.S., it was published before human genome editing was developed. In 2021, the World Health Organization issued recommendations on human genome editing as a tool to advance public health. There is no current international law governing human genome editing.

There is still a debate regarding how to use this technology. Some people equate genome editing to interfering with the work of God and argue that it shouldn’t be used at all, while others recognize its potential value and weigh that against its potential risks. The latter focuses on the fundamental question of where to draw the line between which applications are considered acceptable and which are not. For example, some people will agree that using genome editing to modify a defective gene that may lead to an infant’s death if untreated is acceptable. But these same people may frown upon the use of genome editing to ensure that an unborn child has specific physical features such as blue eyes or blond hair.

Nor is there consensus about what diseases are desirable targets. For example, it may be acceptable to modify a gene to prevent an infant’s death but not acceptable to modify one that prevents a disease later in life, such as the gene responsible for Huntington’s disease.

The potential for positive applications of human genome editing is both numerous and tantalizing. But establishing informed regulatory legislation everyone can agree on is and will continue to be a challenge. Conferences such as the human genome editing summit are one way to continue important discussions and educate the scientific community and the public on the benefits and risks of genome editing.

André O. Hudson, Interim Dean/Professor-College of Science, Rochester Institute of Technology and Gary Skuse, Professor of Bioinformatics, Rochester Institute of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Presidential hopefuls are considering these 5 practical factors before launching their 2024 campaigns

Former U.N. Ambassador and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley announces her presidential run in Charleston, S.C, on Feb. 15, 2023. Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images

Robbin Mellen Jr., University of South Florida

The 2024 race for the White House is in motion. Democratic incumbent President Joe Biden said in October 2022 that he intends to seek a second term, even if he stopped short of making an official announcement. But – in what is expected to be a crowded Republican field – only a few candidates had announced their bids by late March 2023.

Former President Donald Trump, the last Republican to hold the office and party standard-bearer, said in November 2022 that he will seek the party’s nomination. And Republican Nikki Haley, one-time U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and former governor of South Carolina, announced in February 2023 that she is running.

In the weeks and months ahead, more presidential hopefuls likely will enter the race. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, for example, is expected to jump in after his state’s legislative session ends in May. And Sen. Tim Scott, of South Carolina, appears ready to announce soon.

Each candidate, along with their campaigns, makes decisions about the right time to jump into the race. But how do they decide?

The Conversation asked Rob Mellen Jr., a political scientist who studies the presidency, to explain five things presidential hopefuls consider before running for the highest office in the land.

President Joe Biden speaks on March 14, 2023, in Monterey Park, Calif. Mario Tama via Getty Images

1. Incumbent eligibility

The first thing potential presidential candidates consider is whether the incumbent president or, for the party out of office, the standard-bearer, is eligible to seek office.

Candidates who oppose incumbents - and popular past presidents of the same party - face nearly insurmountable obstacles, largely due to incumbent popularity. It offers officeholders seeking reelection a significant advantage. Between 1952 and 2000, for example, incumbent presidents enjoyed a 6 percentage point bonus in the popular vote.

Typically, incumbents have advantages because of their track records, name recognition – which affects a candidate’s level of voter and financial support – and their ability to direct federal money to the geographic areas that support them.

While the incumbent’s advantages typically cause potential challengers to think twice before running for president, there have been exceptions. In 1980, Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts unsuccessfully challenged incumbent President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination. Kennedy failed, though, and his bid divided the Democratic Party.

Republican Ronald Reagan, a former governor of California, beat Carter in the general election and became the nation’s 40th president.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signs a copy of his book in Des Moines, Iowa, on March 10, 2023. Rachel Mummey/The Washington Post via Getty Images

2. The number of possible opponents

Potential candidates also consider the number of opponents they will have to compete against. A crowded field with numerous candidates makes it difficult for more than a three or four to gain traction before the first primary contests, which are usually held in January and February of election year.

If they are not the incumbent, a party standard-bearer or someone with otherwise significant name recognition, candidates with a lot of opponents typically find it tough to get their messages across, especially if they are competing against political stars.

During the 2016 Republican campaign, for example, 17 candidates entered the race, but only Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz stood out. Because of Trump’s celebrity status – earned from years of marketing himself as a billionaire and through reality television fame – Trump got a lot of attention from the media. His bombastic personality also played well with a segment of the Republican base. He drew significant media attention that other candidates could not match. And Cruz gained traction by finishing first in the Iowa caucuses, which allowed him to be competitive in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries that followed.

3. Likely voters

Candidates have a few ways to identify their likely voters. They can visit early contest states and test their messages, just like Trump, DeSantis, Haley and Scott have been doing in Iowa and South Carolina. Or, they can deliver speeches at major gatherings of party loyalists, such as the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

Conducting polls is another way for candidates to figure out how broad, or narrow, their bases of support are.

Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina speaks in Des Moines, Iowa, on Feb. 22, 2023. KC McGinnis/The Washington Post via Getty Images

4. Campaign Finance

Most presidential candidates also have to figure out how to finance what could become a lengthy bid for the party nomination. The main question they have to answer for themselves is, where will the money come from for sustained primary battles?

Connecting with wealthy backers who can can contribute large sums to a super PAC that supports the candidate can be the key to a candidate’s staying power.

Sometimes, committed large donors enable candidates to stay in the race much longer than expected, just as having backing from wealthy supporters and a super PAC prolonged former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s failed presidential bid in 2012.

But, as Gingrich’s run proved, having the backing of a super PAC, which is legally prohibited from coordinating efforts with candidates and their campaigns, is not a guarantee of success.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s 2016 campaign had the backing of the super PAC Right to Rise with a budget of over US$100 million. But his run for president ended after a disappointing fourth-place finish in the South Carolina primary.

Whether or not potential candidates have access to significant financial support influences their decisions to enter the race. It is extremely expensive to run a competitive campaign because of costs associated with staffing, travel, advertising and more. But candidates who fare well in the early contests tend to raise more money and survive longer in the primary process.

Former President Donald Trump delivers remarks on Feb. 22, 2023, to a crowd in East Palestine, Ohio, site of the Norfolk Southern train derailment earlier that month. Michael Swensen via Getty Images News

5. The mood of the electorate

The mood of the electorate also influences potential candidates’ decisions about whether to run. If the incumbent president is very popular – a rarity in modern American politics – it may scare off some would-be challengers.

But the public can be fickle. An incumbent may be popular a year before the general election, just as George H.W. Bush was in early 1991, only to see their popularity fade the following year. Bush lost the election to Bill Clinton in 1992.

The political fortunes of unpopular incumbents also can shift. In 1983, Reagan’s favorability ratings were very weak, but he rebounded by 1984 and beat Democratic candidate and former Vice President Walter Mondale in a 49-state landslide victory.

During presidential election years when there is no incumbent, as in 2008 and 2016, potential candidates’ calculations don’t have to include incumbent popularity. In 2016, both Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who sought the Democratic nomination, were able to tap into an electorate looking for change by appealing to supporters with populist messages.

Trump’s effort successfully secured the Republican nomination, while Sanders’ effort came up short as the Democratic party favored its first female nominee, former Sen. Hillary Clinton.

From determining whether an incumbent president is vulnerable to a challenge from within the party to the likelihood of defeating an incumbent of the opposite party, a significant amount of strategic planning is involved in any effort to win the presidency. And the planning begins long before the day candidates announce their intention to run.

Robbin Mellen Jr., Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of South Florida

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What is xylazine? A medical toxicologist explains how it increases overdose risk, and why Narcan can still save a life

Although xylazine is not an opioid, naloxone can reverse the effects of the fentanyl and heroin it is often mixed with. AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

Kavita Babu, UMass Chan Medical School

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration issued a warning on Mar. 21, 2023, about an increase in trafficking of fentanyl adulterated with xylazine, which can increase the risk of overdosing on an already deadly drug. Xylazine is increasingly appearing within the U.S. supply of illicit opioids like fentanyl and heroin. The agency noted that it has seized mixtures of xylazine and fentanyl in 48 of 50 states.

Xylazine, commonly referred to as tranq, is a drug adulterant – a substance intentionally added to a drug product to enhance its effects. Illicit drugmakers may include xylazine to prolong opioid highs or prevent withdrawal symptoms.

As a physician who cares for people who use fentanyl, I worry about the ways xylazine increases their risk for overdose. I worry even more that misunderstandings about xylazine can make bystanders less likely to administer the lifesaving drug naloxone (Narcan) during an overdose. If you suspect an overdose, calling emergency medical services and administering naloxone are still the critical first steps to saving a life.

Learning what to do when someone overdoses can help save a life.

Tranq overdoses and fentanyl

Xylazine was originally developed as a veterinary anesthesia. It was first identified as an adulterant in heroin supplies in the early 2000s. Although xylazine is not an opioid, it induces opioidlike effects, including sedation, slowed heart rate and small pupils, similar to the effects produced in people by its pharmaceutical cousin clonidine. Xylazine use is also associated with serious skin and soft tissue ulcers and infections.

The use of opioids with sedating medications like xylazine increases the risk of fatal overdose. Historically, people who use drugs have been unaware that xylazine is in the drug supply and are unable to tell whether they have been exposed to it. Routine hospital drug testing does not detect xylazine, further complicating surveillance.

Xylazine overdoses rarely occur in isolation. Xylazine detection in heroin- and fentanyl-associated deaths in Philadelphia has grown from less than 2% before 2015 to more than 31% in 2019. Similarly, one study of 210 xylazine-associated deaths in Chicago from 2017 to 2021 found that fentanyl or a chemically similar substance was detected in 99.1% of overdoses. This data underscores the key role that fentanyl plays in causing fatal overdoses in cases where xylazine is found, and anecdotal evidence suggests the problem is only increasing.

Xylazine overdoses often occur in the presence of fentanyl or heroin. AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

Naloxone and xylazine

Unfortunately, increasing awareness of xylazine has contributed to the myth of “naloxone-resistant” overdoses. Unlike overdoses with opioids only, patients experiencing xylazine-associated overdoses may not immediately wake up after naloxone administration. While naloxone may not reverse the effects of xylazine, it is still able to reverse the effects of the fentanyl it is often mixed with and should be used in all suspected opioid overdoses.

The critical goal of administering naloxone is to prevent patients from dying of dangerously low breathing rates. Bystanders who suspect an overdose should always call 911 to bring in experts in case treatment is required.

Kavita Babu, Professor of Emergency Medicine, UMass Chan Medical School

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A Traditional Breakfast with a Twist

(Culinary.net) The same bowl of cereal can get boring after eating it for breakfast day in and day out. You may find yourself looking for something new and exciting to start your whole family’s morning off on the right foot.

Kids can be picky when it comes to breakfast foods, but this recipe for Sausage Fresh Toast Roll-Ups is a quick and easy way to fill their bellies with a taste of several flavors they may already love. It’s a perfect way to fill your morning with joy, no matter if the hours ahead are filled with work, school or play.

A sizzling sausage link wrapped with French toast, it combines a favorite breakfast protein and traditional deliciousness in one little roll. Drizzled with warm maple syrup at the end, even adults can’t help but indulge in these breakfast bites.

This is a quick dish too, using few kitchen utensils, which makes for more time in the morning to enjoy the little things that matter most like moments with family before rushing out the door. This recipe can also be made when your family is craving breakfast for dinner.

Find more breakfast recipes at Culinary.net.

If you made this recipe at home, use #MyCulinaryConnection on your favorite social network to share your work.

Watch video to see how to make this recipe!

Sausage French Toast Roll-Ups

Servings: 12

• 12        sausage links
• 2          eggs
• 2/3       cup milk
• 3          teaspoons almond extract
• 1/2       teaspoon ground cinnamon
• 6          bread slices, crust removed, cut in half
• 3          tablespoons butter
• syrup

1. In skillet, cook sausage links according to package directions. Set aside.
2. In medium bowl, whisk eggs, milk, almond extract and cinnamon.
3. Dip bread slice in egg mixture. Wrap bread slice around cooked sausage link, pressing seam to keep from unrolling. Repeat with remaining bread slices and sausage links.
4. In large skillet over medium-high heat, melt butter. Place roll-ups in skillet, seam-side down, and cook until all sides are browned, approximately 10 minutes.
5. Drizzle with syrup.

SOURCE:
Culinary.net

A shortage of native seeds is slowing land restoration across the US, which is crucial for tackling climate change and extinctions

Planting native plant seeds on sand dunes at Westward Beach in Malibu, Calif., to stabilize the dunes. Al Seib / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Julia Kuzovkina, University of Connecticut and John Campanelli, University of Connecticut

Spring is planting time for home gardeners, landscapers and public works agencies across the U.S. And there’s rising demand for native plants – species that are genetically adapted to the specific regions where they are used.

Native plants have evolved with local climates and soil conditions. As a result, they generally require less maintenance, such as watering and fertilizing, after they become established, and they are hardier than non-native species.

Many federal, state and city agencies rank native plants as a first choice for restoring areas that have been disturbed by natural disasters or human activities like mining and development. Repairing damaged landscapes is a critical strategy for slowing climate change and species loss.

But there’s one big problem: There aren’t enough native seeds. This issue is so serious that it was the subject of a recent report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. The study found an urgent need to build a native seed supply.

As plant scientists who have worked on ecological restoration projects, we’re familiar with this challenge. Here’s how we are working to promote the use of native plants for roadside restoration in New England, including by building up a seed supply network.

Landscapers and land managers explain the benefits of planting native plants.

The need for native plants

Many stressors can damage and degrade land. They include natural disasters, such as wildfires and flooding, and human actions, such as urbanization, energy production, ranching and development.

Invasive plants often move into disturbed areas, causing further harm. They may drift there on the wind, be excreted by birds and animals that consume fruit, or be introduced by humans, unintentionally or deliberately.

Ecological restoration aims to bring back degraded lands’ native biological diversity and the ecological functions that these areas provided, such as sheltering wildlife and soaking up floodwater. In 2021, the United Nations launched the U.N. Decade on Ecosystem Restoration to promote such efforts worldwide.

Native plants have many features that make them an essential part of healthy ecosystems. For example, they provide long-term defense against invasive and noxious weeds; shelter local pollinators and wildlife; and have roots that stabilize soil, which helps reduce erosion.

Restoration projects require vast quantities of native seeds – but commercial supplies fall far short of what’s needed. Developing a batch of seeds for a specific species takes skill and several years of lead time to either collect native seeds in the wild or grow plants to produce them. Suppliers say one of their biggest obstacles is unpredictable demand from large-scale customers, such as government and tribal agencies, that don’t plan far enough ahead for producers to have stocks ready.

Wyoming Big Sage seedlings growing in a greenhouse. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe are working together to produce native seedlings to restore public lands in Idaho that have been damaged by wildfires. Bureau of Land Management Idaho/Flickr, CC BY

Restoring roadsides in New England

Most drivers give little thought to what grows next to highways, but the wrong plants in these areas can cause serious problems. Roadsides that aren’t replanted using ecological restoration methods may erode and be taken over by invasive weeds. Ecological restoration provides effective erosion control and better habitat habitats for wildlife and pollinators. It’s also more attractive.

For decades, state transportation departments across the U.S. used non-native cool-season turfgrasses, such as fescue and ryegrass, to restore roadsides. The main benefits of using these species, which grow well during the cooler months of spring and fall, were that they grew fast and provided a quick cover.

Then in 2013 the New England Transportation Consortium – a research cooperative funded by state transportation agencies – commissioned our research team to help the states transition to native warm-season grasses instead. These grasses grow well in hot, dry weather and need less moisture than cool-season grasses. One of us, John Campanelli, developed the framework for selecting plant species based on conservation practices and identified methods for establishing native plant communities for the region.

We recommended using warm-season grasses that are native to the region, such as little bluestem, purple lovegrass, switchgrass and purpletop. These species required less long-term maintenance and less-frequent mowing than the cool-season species that agencies had previously used.

Switchgrass is native to the U.S. Northeast. It grows very upright, can tolerate dry soil and drought, and produces seeds that are a good winter food source for birds. Peganum via University of New Hampshire Extension, CC BY-SA

To ensure sound conservation practices, we wanted to use seeds produced locally. Seeds sourced from other locations would produce grasses that would interbreed with local ecotypes – grasses adapted to New England – and disrupt the local grasses’ gene complexes.

At that time, however, there was no reliable seed supply for local ecotypes in New England. Only a few sources offered an incomplete selection of small quantities of local seeds, at prices that were too expensive for large-scale restoration projects. Most organizations carrying out ecological restoration projects purchased their bulk seeds mainly from large wholesale producers in the Midwest, which introduced non-local genetic material to the restoration sites.

Improving native seed supply chains

Many agencies are concerned that lack of a local seed supply could limit restoration efforts in New England. To tackle this problem, our team launched a project in 2022 with funding from the New England Transportation Consortium. Our goals are to increase native plantings and pollinator habitats with seeds from local ecotypes, and to make our previous recommendations for roadside restoration with native grasses more feasible.

As we were analyzing ways to obtain affordable native seeds for these roadside projects, we learned about work by Eve Allen, a master’s degree student in city planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. For her thesis, Allen used supply chain management and social network analysis to identify the best methods to strengthen the native seed supply chain network.

Her research showed that developing native seed supplies would require cooperative partnerships that included federal, state and local government agencies and the private and nonprofit sectors. Allen reached out to many of these organizations’ stakeholders and established a broad network. This led to the launch of the regional Northeast Seed Network, which will be hosted by the Massachusetts-based Native Plant Trust, a nonprofit that works to conserve New England’s native plants.

We expect this network will promote all aspects of native seed production in the region, from collecting seeds in the wild to cultivating plants for seed production, developing regional seed markets and carrying out related research. In the meantime, we are developing a road map for new revegetation practices in New England.

We aim to build greater coordination between these agencies and seed producers to promote expanded selections of affordable native seeds and make demand more predictable. Our ultimate goal is to help native plants, bees and butterflies thrive along roads throughout New England.

Julia Kuzovkina, Professor of Horticulture, University of Connecticut and John Campanelli, PhD Student in Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Connecticut

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Addressing Your Children's Challenging Behaviors

Many parents of young children face behavioral concerns like children not listening, throwing tantrums, biting and more. While every situation is unique, parents can rest assured they aren’t alone and these behaviors aren’t atypical.

“As young children grow and develop, behavioral challenges are to be expected,” said Dr. Lauren Starnes, senior vice president and chief academic officer, The Goddard School. “That said, just because these behaviors are often normal doesn’t mean they are easy for the parents addressing them or the young children experiencing them.”

While eliminating undesired behaviors like defiance, tantrums and biting is likely unrealistic, it’s not a lost cause for parents. Understanding why certain behaviors occur and the appropriate techniques to address them can help parents mitigate their impact and lessen their frequency, duration and severity.

Starnes recommends these ways to understand and address challenging behaviors in young children.

Biting
Infants often bite when teething. Young toddlers bite out of excitement, exploration or in response to inconsistencies in their environment. Older toddlers and 2-year-olds frequently bite as a communication method, such as when they fail to have the language to communicate frustration.

For children who are 3 years of age or older, biting is typically an aggressive behavior. Understanding the root cause can help tailor the response more appropriately to curb the behavior. For example, giving infants various textured teething toys can lessen the likelihood they will bite. For 2-year-olds, modeling how to use words and phasing out oral soothing items like pacifiers can also reduce the likelihood of biting.

Defiance
Raising young children means preparing to hear them say, “No.” One of the primary developmental milestones of early childhood is emerging independence. The overt exertion of independence tends to peak at or around age 2 and can continue at varying degrees of intensity, depending in part upon the personality of the child.

One important factor about defiant behavior is that while it is independence exertion, it is also attention-seeking. Behavior is communication and some defiant actions may simply be a means of obtaining attention and situational control. By giving children more independence – for example, asking “Can you please put your shoes on for me?” or “Can you pick which one of these dresses you want to wear today?” – you may be able to help them become compliant.

Logical consequences can also help. For example, if children refuse to sit in their chair to eat, have them stand for dinner or remove their snack until they sit.

Tantrums
The American Academy of Pediatrics defines tantrums as a behavioral response by young children who are learning to be independent and desire to make choices yet lack the coping and self-regulation skills to handle frustration. Whether a tantrum is triggered by communication gaps, frustration or a reinforced behavior to control a situation, there are specific techniques that can be used to deescalate the behavior and help children regain emotional composure.

Your reaction to a tantrum is a direct predictor of its intensity and longevity. Taking an opposite position to children in terms of volume, speed of movement and pace of speech can be enough to counterbalance the tantrum.

Another effective technique to curb a tantrum is sportscasting. Using a soft tone of voice, sportscasting is the verbal, non-biased account of what is happening in the moment retold in third-person as though telling a story or broadcasting a sport. While this may feel awkward at first, it often catches children’s attention and deescalates their reaction. For example, “Lou wanted more gummy bears. Mom said no. Lou is yelling and crying.”

There is no silver bullet to stop biting, defiance and tantrums. These behaviors, for better or worse, are expected parts of early childhood. However, by gaining an understanding of their root causes and employing appropriate techniques to address these behaviors, parents can mitigate their impact while helping children develop and grow socially and emotionally.

For more actionable parenting insights, guidance and resources – including a webinar with Starnes providing additional tips for behavioral guidance – visit GoddardSchool.com.

 

Photos courtesy of Getty Images

 

SOURCE:
The Goddard School

Why inequality is growing in the US and around the world

Elon Musk is the world’s wealthiest person. Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images for The Met Museum/Vogue

Fatema Z. Sumar, Harvard Kennedy School

U.S. income inequality grew in 2021 for the first time in a decade, according to data the Census Bureau released in September 2022.

That might sound surprising, since the most accurate measure of the poverty rate declined during the same time span.

But for development experts like me, this apparent contradiction makes perfect sense.

That’s because what’s been driving income inequality in the United States – and around the world for years – is that the very rich are getting even richer, rather than the poor getting poorer.

In every major region of the world outside of Europe, extreme wealth is becoming concentrated in just a handful of people.

Gini index

Economists and other experts track the gap between the rich and the poor with what’s known as the Gini index or coefficient.

This common measure of income inequality is calculated by assessing the relative share of national income received by proportions of the population.

In a society with perfect equality – meaning everyone receives an equal share of the pie – the Gini coefficient would be 0. In the most unequal society conceivably possible, where a single person hoarded every penny of that nation’s wealth, the Gini coefficient would be 1.

The Gini index rose by 1.2% in the U.S. in 2021 to 0.494 from 0.488 a year earlier, the Census found. In many other countries, by contrast, the Gini has been declining even as the COVID-19 pandemic – and the deep recession and weak economic recovery it triggered – worsened global income inequality.

Inequality tends to be greater in developing countries than wealthier ones. The United States is an exception. The U.S. Gini coefficient is much higher than in similar economies, such as Denmark, which had a Gini coefficient of 0.28 in 2019, and France, where it stood at 0.32 in 2018, according to the World Bank.

Wealth inequality

The inequality picture is even bleaker when looking beyond what people earn – their income – to what they own – their assets, investments and other wealth.

In 2021, the richest 1% of Americans owned 34.9% of the country’s wealth, while average Americans in the bottom half had only US$12,065 – less money than their counterparts in other industrial nations. By comparison, the richest 1% in the United Kingdom and Germany owned only 22.6% and 18.6% of their country’s wealth, respectively.

Globally, the richest 10% of people now possess nearly 76% of the world’s wealth. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% own just 2%, according to the 2022 World Inequality Report, which analyzes data and the work of more than 100 researchers and inequality experts.

Drivers of extreme income and wealth

Large increases in executive pay are contributing to higher levels of income inequality.

Take a typical corporate CEO. Back in 1965, he – all CEOs were white men then, and most still are today – earned about 20 times the amount of an average worker at the company he led. In 2018, the typical CEO earned 278 times as much as their typical employees.

But the world’s roughly 2,700 billionaires make most of their money not through wages but through gains in the value of their stocks and other investments.

Their assets grow in large part because of a cascade of corporate and individual tax breaks, rather than salaried wages granted by shareholders. When the wealthy in the United States earn money from capital gains, the highest tax rate they pay is 20%, whereas the highest income earners are on the hook for as much as 37% on every additional dollar they earn.

This calculation does not even count the effects of tax breaks, which often slash the real-world capital gain tax to much lower levels.

Tesla, SpaceX and Twitter CEO Elon Musk is currently the world’s richest man, with a fortune of $240 billion, according to a Bloomberg estimate. The $383 million he made per day in 2020 made it possible for him to buy enough Tesla Model 3 cars to cover almost the whole of Manhattan had he wished to do so.

Musk’s wealth accumulation is extreme. But the founders of several tech companies, including Google, Facebook and Amazon, have all earned many billions of dollars in just a few years. The average person could never make that much money through a salary alone.

Another day, another billionaire

A new billionaire is created every 26 hours, according to Oxfam, an international aid and research group where I used to work.

Globally, inequality is so extreme that the world’s 10 richest men possess more wealth than the 3.1 billion poorest people, Oxfam has calculated.

Economists who study global inequality have found that the rich in large English-speaking countries, along with India and China, have seen a dramatic rise in their earnings since the 1980s. Inequality boomed as deregulation, economic liberalization programs and other policies created opportunities for the rich to get richer.

Why inequality matters

The rich tend to spend less of their money than the poor. As a result, the extreme concentration of wealth can slow the pace of economic growth.

Extreme inequality can also exacerbate political dysfunction and undermine faith in political and economic systems. It can also erode principles of fairness and democratic norms of sharing power and resources.

The richest people have more wealth than entire countries. Such extreme power and influence in the hands of a select few who face little accountability is raising concerns that are part of a robust debate on whether and how to address extreme inequality.

Many proposed solutions call for new taxes, regulations and policies, along with philanthropic strategies like using grants and community-based investments to dismantle inequality.

Voters in some states, like Massachusetts, voted to raise taxes on the income earned by their richest residents in ballot initiatives in November 2022. Proponents of these initiatives claim the revenue raised would boost funding for public services, such as education and infrastructure. President Joe Biden is also proposing to almost double the top capital gains tax for those making over $1 million.

However societies choose to act, I believe change is needed.

Fatema Z. Sumar, Executive Director of the Center for International Development, Harvard Kennedy School

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.