Debt ceiling negotiators reach a deal: 5 essential reads about the tentative accord, brinkmanship and the danger of default

Biden speaks to reporters about the tentative accord. AP Photo/Susan Walsh

Bryan Keogh, The Conversation and Matt Williams, The Conversation

President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on May 27, 2023, agreed in principle to a tentative deal that would raise the debt ceiling while capping some federal spending at current levels.

The accord, if approved by both houses of Congress, would avert an unprecedented default that threatens to derail the economy and put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work. Negotiators agreed to lift the ceiling for two years – past the 2024 presidential election – while putting a temporary cap on most nondefense spending at 2023 levels. It would also reduce planned funding for the IRS, impose new work requirements on some people who receive benefits from the federal program known as SNAP and claw back billions of unspent funds from pandemic relief programs.

The Conversation has been covering the debt ceiling drama since January, when Republicans took over the House, raising fears that brinkmanship would lead to an economic catastrophe. Here are five articles from our archive to help you make sense of a couple key aspects of the tentative deal and provide context on the debt ceiling fight.

1. What is the debt ceiling

First some basics. The debt ceiling was established by the U.S. Congress in 1917. It limits the total national debt by setting out a maximum amount that the government can borrow.

Steven Pressman, an economist at The New School, explained the original aim was “to let then-President Woodrow Wilson spend the money he deemed necessary to fight World War I without waiting for often-absent lawmakers to act. Congress, however, did not want to write the president a blank check, so it limited borrowing to US$11.5 billion and required legislation for any increase.”

Since then, the debt ceiling has been increased dozens of times. It currently stands at $31.4 trillion – a figure reached in January. The Treasury has taken “extraordinary measures” to enable the government to keep borrowing without breaching the ceiling. Such measures, however, can only be temporary – meaning at one point Congress will have to act to lift the ceiling or default on its debt obligations, which is expected to happen by June 5, according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, if the deal isn’t approved in time.

2. The trouble with work requirements

One of the biggest sticking points toward the end of negotiations was work requirements for recipients of government aid. The tentative deal would raise the age for existing work requirements from 49 to 54 years on able-bodied adults who have no children. This is less than what Republicans had earlier sought. There are exceptions for veterans and the homeless.

But if the goal is to help people find jobs and make more money, work requirements don’t actually do the job, wrote Kelsey Pukelis, a doctoral student in public policy at Harvard Kennedy School who has studied the issue. Rather, they make it much harder for people who need food aid to get it.

“Our findings do suggest that work requirements restrain federal spending by reducing the number of people getting SNAP benefits,” she explained. “But our work also indicates that in today’s context, these savings would be at the expense of already vulnerable people facing additional economic hardship at a time when a new recession could be around the corner.”

3. IRS funding takes a hit

The deal also takes aim at a big boost in spending Congress gave the Internal Revenue Service beginning in 2022 to crack down on tax cheats and upgrade its software. Democrats agreed to a Republican demand to cut the extra IRS funding from $80 billion to $70 billion.

Back in August 2022, Nirupama Rao, an economist at the University of Michigan, explained why Democrats included all that funding in their Inflation Reduction Act and how it would help the IRS collect more tax revenue, since the agency does not fully collect all the taxes that are owed.

“The main target of this spending is the so-called tax gap, which is currently estimated at about $600 billion a year,” she wrote. “While an $80 billion investment that returns $204 billion already sounds pretty impressive, it may be possible that it’s a conservative estimate.”

4. The hard road to compromise

It took a long time for Republicans and Democrats to get the current agreement.

Yellen warned in January that the government was about to hit the debt limit and would be unable to pay all its bills by May or June. McCarthy and House Republicans, who hold a razor-thin majority, appeared unwilling to raise the debt ceiling unless they could extract deep spending cuts. Meanwhile, Biden refused to negotiate, insisting on a clean debt ceiling bill. Both of those positions were dropped during negotiations.

Why did it take so long for them to reach a compromise?

Blame political trends that have been accelerating for decades, explained Laurel Harbridge-Yong, a specialist in partisan conflict and the lack of bipartisan agreement in American politics at Northwestern University. Many Republicans come from very safe districts, which means their primary against other conservatives is more important than the general election. This makes it more important to stand firm and fight until the bitter end.

“So you now have many Republicans who are more willing to fight quite hard against the Democrats because they don’t want to give a win to Biden,” she wrote. “Democrats are also resistant to compromising, both because they don’t want to gut programs that they put in place and also because they don’t want to make this look like a win for Republicans, who were able to play chicken and get what they wanted.”

5. Latest in a long line of fiscal crises

This was hardly the first fiscal crisis the U.S. government has faced. In fact, there have been many – including 22 government shutdowns since just 1976.

Raymond Scheppach, a professor of public policy at University of Virginia, offered a brief history of recent crises and the damage they’ve caused – and why a default would be far more consequential than past crises.

“While these were very disruptive and damaged the economy and employment, they pale in comparison to the potential effects of failing to lift the debt ceiling, which could be catastrophic,” he wrote. “It could bring down the entire international financial system. This in turn could devastate the world gross domestic product and create mass unemployment.”

Editor’s note: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives. Portions of this article originally appeared in a previous article published on May 2, 2023.

Bryan Keogh, Deputy Managing Editor and Senior Editor of Economy and Business, The Conversation and Matt Williams, Senior Breaking News and International Editor, The Conversation

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

After Covid-19, can mRNA vaccines help with cancer as well?

The pandemic put the technology, long in development, to the test. Here’s a look at the status of its application to cancer and when it might reach patients.

By Tim Vernimmen

Vaccines against Covid-19 were delivered with remarkable and unprecedented speed. The ones pioneered by Moderna in the US and BioNTech in Germany introduced the lay public to a new kind of shot: one that includes mRNA, the nucleic acid that normally carries genetic instructions from the cell nucleus to the part of the cell where proteins are made.

How could this novel technology have come together so rapidly?

In fact, the approach had long been in the works, although it was not initially intended to prevent viral disease. Rather, it was focused on treating cancer, explains Özlem Türeci, cofounder and chief medical officer of BioNTech, the company that developed the Covid-19 vaccine with Pfizer.

The anti-cancer rationale goes like this: Since each tumor contains a multitude of genetic mutations that do not occur elsewhere in the body, this should in theory allow our immune system to recognize and destroy those cells. Alas, tumors are known to suppress the immune system. In response, scientists have developed various drugs and treatments to stimulate the immune system in cancer patients.

But another problem is that many tumor mutations slip through the net. So some researchers have proposed a more focused approach to alert immune cells to cancer mutations they do not spontaneously target — something more like a vaccine, which usually works by exposing people to an inactivated pathogen or some of its signature molecules. This primes the immune system for immediate action should the active pathogen show up. In a similar vein, the scientists reasoned it might be possible to present the patient’s immune system with specific bits of cancer tissue, to train it to attack the tumor more vigorously.

The benefit of using mRNA for this job is not just that it can be manufactured relatively quickly, but that it is also very flexible. The genetic signature of a tumor is different in every person and, as time progresses, it continues to change. This means that vaccines would ideally be tailor-made, and repeatedly so — an expensive and time-consuming proposition if one is manufacturing bits of key tumor protein in the lab, which was a very common way of producing vaccines before mRNA arrived. Proteins are built from a score of different amino acids, have complicated three-dimensional structures and tend to clump together when something goes wrong.

So, what if we could just make specific pieces of mRNA instead, inject them into the body, and let the cells build the corresponding proteins themselves? Wouldn’t that be much easier?

In the approach BioNTech developed, explains Türeci, mRNA can be injected into the body and targeted towards the lymph nodes, where it is translated into protein by immune cells known as dendritic cells. These cells then display the protein on their surfaces, where they train the T cells that patrol our tissues to find and eliminate any intruders that display the same signature.

The Covid-19 pandemic put the strategy to the test: Within a year, two highly effective mRNA vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus were developed, tested and rolled out — one from Pfizer-BioNTech, one from Moderna, each slightly different. Both vaccines contained the code for making a stabilized version of the spike protein that the virus uses to get into cells. The spike protein code was inserted into mRNA with a backbone that had been optimized by decades of research. This mRNA was then packaged in specific lipids to ensure it would reach its lymph-node destination.

Türeci, who coauthored an article about mRNA vaccines against cancer for the Annual Review of Medicine in 2019, recently talked with Knowable Magazine about the development of mRNA vaccines for cancer and how close they are to reaching patients, for whom new therapies are sorely needed.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

When did you start developing cancer vaccines, and why did you think mRNA would work best?

This did not happen overnight. It was a decades-long journey that started in the 1990s. We had a vision that was considered science fiction at the time: We wanted to develop cancer vaccines to shrink tumors. Every patient’s cancer is unique, because it is the result of random mutations, so we wanted to develop individualized vaccines that would activate the patient’s immune system against their own tumor.

We tested various approaches and identified mRNA as the one with the highest potential for the purpose of developing truly individualized cancer vaccines. Synthetic mRNA is produced by a simple process, and it looks very much like natural mRNA. It delivers the blueprint of the protein — the vaccine antigen — for the body’s cells to produce.

Yet we also realized that significant improvements would be needed. Over the past decades, we have addressed these shortcomings.

Our discoveries led to the mRNA technology platform that we use today for our product candidates against cancer, infectious diseases and other severe diseases. In addition to our own research in the 1990s, a small group of other scientists also worked on mRNA. Our advances as well as theirs provided the tailwind for the broader scientific community.

What have been the most crucial breakthroughs that allowed you to get to this point?

The fundamental problem of mRNA was its low potency. Even large doses of mRNA produce little protein and, consequently, had little effect. That is why, in the late 1990s, few in the industry believed in mRNA as a new class of drugs; mRNA vaccines tested at that time elicited poor immune responses.

Our team spent years researching each element of the mRNA backbone and discovered various modifications that increased the stability of the mRNA and its translation into protein. This way, we created mRNA backbones with a more than thousandfold increased efficacy to trigger immune responses.

The next piece of the puzzle was to find out how to get the mRNA vaccine to the right cells in the body, and which cells these might be. In 2004, we made an interesting observation: The direct injection of an mRNA vaccine with our improved backbone into a lymph node elicited a much stronger immune response than injection of mRNA into the skin or muscle, which were the commonly explored routes.

Why would it be so much more effective to inject the mRNA directly into the lymph nodes?

We realized that directing mRNA vaccines into dendritic cells in the lymph nodes had to become a critical part of the solution. In the years that followed, we explored various methods to deliver mRNA to these specific locations in the body, and discovered that mRNA vaccines encapsulated in a particular lipid nanoparticle — a technology we have developed and that we call RNA lipoplexes — were specifically taken up by resident dendritic cells in lymphoid tissues.

These cells are the high-performance trainers of the immune system and can mediate particularly strong immune responses. We found that they have a specific mechanism to engulf foreign bodies and use them to train the immune system. Vaccine-induced T-cell responses were extremely strong and eradicated large tumors in mice. So, with these discoveries and optimizations of our technology, we went back to the bedside, to the patient.

How exactly did you make the step from humans to mice?

We started human studies and pioneered, in 2015, the first systemic delivery of mRNA nanoparticle vaccines to humans. In a portion of our patients with treatment-resistant melanoma, we could observe shrinkage of tumors with the vaccine, alone or in combination with immune-stimulating medication. We published these findings in the journal Nature in 2017. They provided the blueprint for the development of highly effective mRNA vaccines.

These advances allowed us to come closer to our original vision of cancer vaccines tailored to the patient’s tumor. The approach involves genomic analysis of a patient’s tumor by next-generation sequencing to find the cancer-specific mutations by comparison to the patient’s normal tissue. This set of cancer mutations is unique for every patient. We then select a number of mutations that provide the highest likelihood for the immune system to recognize the cancer and design a vaccine tailored to the patient’s individual cancer mutation profile.

How many people have been treated with your mRNA cancer vaccines so far?

With our individualized vaccine candidates, we have treated more than 450 patients. These are designed to target mutations that are unique to the patient’s specific cancer. We also have a number of personalized off-the-shelf mRNA cancer vaccine candidates. These candidates consist of a fixed combination of mRNA-encoded non-mutated tumor antigens that are known to frequently be produced within specific cancer types. We are currently investigating these candidates in clinical studies — for example, in patients with advanced melanoma, prostate cancer or head and neck cancer — and have treated more than 250 patients so far.

This has all been in the context of clinical trials. The way treatments are developed within the regulatory framework is to go cancer by cancer, and independently for every line of treatment, for every cancer.

Our oncology pipeline currently counts 20 programs in 24 ongoing clinical trials, of which five candidates are in advanced clinical trials. For BNT111, an mRNA vaccine candidate for the treatment of advanced melanoma, we have received FDA fast track designation in the US. These designations are intended to facilitate and expedite the development of new drugs and vaccines for the treatment or prevention of serious diseases that have the potential to address unmet medical needs.

One of the challenges with personalized medicine, creating a specific treatment for one particular patient, is how to organize its official approval, since every patient gets a different product. Do you think we will need some legislative change there as well, or not necessarily?

Very early on, we started discussions with regulatory authorities. What is important, we believe, is that the process of manufacturing, and the mRNA backbone, stay the same. Within this frame, we just exchange the code for the cancer mutations.

The aim of such a framework would be that irrespective of the sequence of the mutations used to individualize a vaccine, if everything else stays the same, a complete approval process for an individualized version of the vaccine may not be required again, provided that the general product has been approved by the authorities for a certain tumor type. This is our aim, and I believe we are on the way to land there. This is new territory also for regulators, and we all need to learn.

Why has cancer been so difficult to cure, and is there a fundamental reason why you think mRNA vaccines could provide a way forward where other approaches haven’t?

The reason why cancer is so difficult is that it is a really complex disease. It is different in every person, and it shapeshifts over time. Because mRNA vaccines are versatile and can be manufactured on demand, we can personalize them. We can define the individual cancer fingerprint — its mutation profile — and design a specific vaccine to address these mutations.

And if the patient relapses because the cancer has changed, we can adapt the treatment accordingly, similar to how we are able to adapt our mRNA Covid-19 vaccines to new viral variants of concern.

The body does often produce immune cells that target a tumor. Why doesn’t it make the right ones — or enough of them — to suppress it? Why does it need help from a vaccine?

First of all, tumors have all sorts of tricks to suppress our immune cells, across the body but also within the tumor itself. In addition, many of the altered structures of the tumor are still recognized as part of the body, so they are tolerated by the immune system. Therefore, the ideal targets for the immune system are those in the tumor’s mutanome: the mutations that accumulate over time in cancer cells.

But only a tiny portion of those is recognized by spontaneously occurring, circulating T cells. With our mutation-based vaccine candidates, we aim to use the potential of the mutanome to help T cells get started.

Still, we find that we often need something to overcome the strong immune suppression from the tumor. These might be immune modulators such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, or chemotherapy, which results in the death of cancer cells, that can push the effect of a vaccine towards stronger activity.

One of the reasons you were able to act so fast when you realized that we had a pandemic on our hands was that in developing cancer vaccines, there is always time pressure, since an untreated tumor is growing every day. How far have you come in compressing development time, the time you need to get the vaccine into the patient, and how much further do you think you can go?

The process — starting with genome analysis of a patient’s tumor and ending with on-demand manufacturing of this customized mRNA vaccine ready to administer — has been a race against that specific patient’s growing tumor. Since 2014, we’ve made custom vaccines for hundreds of cancer patients in our clinical trials and shipped them worldwide. Back then, the process took us three to five months for each patient. Now we are at three to six weeks, and I would expect that we’ll become stable around three weeks at some point.

Do you think mRNA cancer vaccines will eventually be able to help everyone? Or are there some tumors that will always be out of reach?

In principle, we expect that cancer vaccines can be used universally, as there is currently no reason why there should be a tumor type that would not be approachable by this concept.

Having said that, I want to make clear that it would be a very romanticized view to think that we’ll have a cancer vaccine that will solve all problems. Again, cancer is a very complex disease.

However, cancer vaccines may be a potent option in the future that could complement the therapy toolkit and help to better treat patients with cancer.

Tim Vernimmen is a freelance science writer based in Antwerp, Belgium. He was grateful to receive a series of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 and realized he had never exactly understood how these vaccines worked before conducting this interview.

This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews.

How China is increasing its influence in central Asia as part of global plans to offer an alternative to the west

The Kazakh port of Aktau will be useful in the expansion of trade routes in the region. Matyas Rehak/Shutterstock

Stefan Wolff, University of Birmingham

As G7 leaders were preparing for their recent summit in Japan, China’s president Xi Jinping hosted his central Asian counterparts from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Central Asia is critical to China’s attempts to build an alternative to the US-led liberal order that is unquestionably dominated by Beijing and in which Russia will, at best, be a junior partner.

In his opening address, Xi outlined his “vision of a China-central Asia community with a shared future”. This will rest on four principles: mutual assistance, common development, universal security and everlasting friendship.

While the relationship between China and central Asia is often framed in terms of security and development, it also has a political side. This is all evident in the initiatives to create more regional cooperation launched at the summit in Xi'an.

These propose links between Chinese ministries and government agencies and their counterparts in central Asia, increasing educational and cultural exchanges, and creating mechanisms like the Central Asia–China Business Council. All of these are likely to further consolidate of China’s dominant regional role.

In return, China will insulate the mostly authoritarian leaders of central Asia from western economic and political pressure to move towards democracy and protect their sovereignty and territorial integrity against any Russian adventurism.

Summit achievements

The summit resulted in a staggering 54 agreements, 19 new cooperation mechanisms and platforms, and nine multilateral documents, including the Xi'an declaration.

Even if one were to discount most of these as having uncertain prospects of actual implementation, there can be no doubt about China’s regional significance. According to UN statistics, for example, the volume of trade in goods between China and the five countries of the region rose from a mere US$460 million (£370 million) three decades ago to more than US$70 billion in 2022 – a 150-fold increase.

Historically, Russia was the main partner for central Asia, harking back to the Soviet period and the first decade after its break-up. But Moscow can no longer match the value of Chinese investments and construction contracts in central Asia, which now totals almost US$70 billion since 2005.

China takes over from Russia

A shift towards China is also reflected in the declining importance of Russia’s regional integration project – the Eurasian Economic Union – in comparison to China’s massive global Belt and Road Initiative. This programme of infrastructure investment was launched by Xi in Kazakhstan in 2013 and has since drawn the region closer to China not just economically but also politically.

Shutterstock

The Belt and Road Initiative featured prominently in the Xi'an declaration, explicitly linking it to national development strategies in central Asia. Transport connections remain at its heart.

The countries at the summit recommitted to a China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway, to highways from China to Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and to transport infrastructure for trans-Caspian trade routes using seaports in Kazakhstan and in Turkmenistan.

This focus on transport infrastructure in, and importantly across, central Asia highlights how important the region is for China’s attempts to diversify its trade routes to Europe away from Russia. It also means that China, for now, will continue to use infrastructure development and trade to recruit more partners for its alternative international order.

The Russian “northern corridor” is now largely closed as a result of Ukraine war-related sanctions. So the route often referred to as the middle corridor has regained importance not only for China but also, crucially, for the G7 countries.

However, the middle corridor, which begins in Turkey and continues via Georgia and through central Asia, would be risky for China as a sole alternative. Its capacity is low (currently only about 5% of the northern corridor) because goods have to cross multiple borders and switch several times between road, rail and sea.

Afghanistan’s role

Another alternative – with similar geopolitical significance – is transport through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea via the Pakistani port of Gwadar. In the long term, a trans-Afghan route is in the interest of both China and central Asia.

It would contribute to (but also depend on) stability and security in Afghanistan. And it would reduce China’s exposure to the risks associated with the existing route along the China-Pakistan economic corridor, especially those arising from the ongoing Taliban insurgency in Pakistan.

In light of this, China and its central Asian partners committed to developing the transport capabilities of the Uzbek city of Termez, on the border with Afghanistan. China also now has an official position on the Afghan issue and Afghanistan was name-checked by Xi in his speech at the summit. So more regional engagement there is to be expected.

Despite the obvious risks associated with Afghanistan, China is likely to include a trans-Afghan trade route in its plans. This is also evident from the fact that Beijing appears reluctant to engage with Russia and Iran on their international north–south transport corridor. Both Russia and Iran face heavy international sanctions and recent tensions between Iran and Azerbaijan cast further doubt on the long-term viability of this route.

The enthusiasm with which the five central Asian presidents have welcomed these initiatives indicates the extent to which they are keen to embrace China. It remains to be seen, however, how sustainable, or popular, an approach this is in light of the considerable and widespread anti-China sentiment in the region.

Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

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

What is vernacular art? A visual artist explains

Henry Darger worked as a hospital custodian. After his death in 1973, hundreds of his illustrations were discovered. Brooklyn Taxidermy/flickr, CC BY

Beauvais Lyons, University of Tennessee

Vernacular art is a genre of visual art made by artists who are usually self-taught. They tend to work outside of art academies and commercial galleries, which have traditionally been the purview of white, affluent artists and collectors.

In the U.S., vernacular art – which can also be called folk art or outsider art – is dominated by the works of African American, Appalachian and working-class people. In many cases these artists took up making paintings, sculptures, quilts or textiles outside of a day job, or later in life.

In early 2023, Christie’s held an auction of outsider and vernacular art. Featuring work by American artists such as Henry Darger, Bill Traylor, Thornton Dial, Nellie Mae Rowe, Minnie Evans and Joseph Yoakum, the sale grossed more than US$2 million.

Awareness and recognition of this genre has grown over the past few decades, with the Smithsonian Museum of American Art in Washington, D.C.; the American Visionary Art Museum in Baltimore; Atlanta’s High Museum; and the Milwaukee Art Museum building significant collections.

Art history as artist history

Adolf Wölfli’s ‘General view of the island Neveranger’ (1911). Wikimedia Commons

In the 1940s, the French artist Jean Dubuffet came up with the term “art brut,” which translates as “raw art,” to describe art made by mental patients, prisoners or children. The drawings of Adolf Wölfli, who died in 1930, inspired Dubuffet’s term.

Wölfli was a patient with schizophrenia in a mental hospital in Bern, Switzerland, who was given pencils and paper as a form of therapy. Working mostly in pencil, Wölfli created elaborate drawings with decorative borders that included symbols, letters and his own system of musical notation.

In an effort to promote this genre, in 1972 the British art historian Roger Cardinal advanced the term “outsider art” to expand the canon and include more artists, such as Madge Gill, who died in 1961. Gill, a British self-taught artist who spent much of her childhood in an orphanage, started making highly patterned drawings at the age of 38, claiming to compose the works while communicating with spirits.

A detail from Madge Gill’s ‘The Transformation.’ Goggins World/flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

In his 2004 book “Everyday Genius: Self-Taught Art and Culture of Authenticity,” sociologist Gary Allen Fine explains that a common facet of vernacular art is an emphasis on the artist’s biography: their personal, family and employment history. Fine observed that to collectors and dealers, these stories seemed to imbue the art with more meaning – and value. Some curators have argued that vernacular art should be included in exhibitions of contemporary art and not merely exist in its own siloed category.

But the relationship between vernacular artists and their promoters can be complicated.

In her 1998 book “The Temptation: Edgar Tolson and the Genesis of Twentieth-Century Folk Art,” sociologist Julia Ardery explored the ways that Tolson, a self-taught woodcarver from rural Kentucky, interacted with faculty and students from the University of Kentucky, and she analyzed their influence on his art.

Much of Tolson’s work was acquired by Michael Hall, who taught at the University of Kentucky at the time. Hall helped Tolson receive a National Endowment for the Arts Individual Artist Fellowship in 1981, but he also ended up selling a portion of his collection to the Milwaukee Art Museum in 1989 for $1.5 million.

As the sale of Tolson’s work shows, when huge sums of money enter the picture, the line between appreciation and exploitation gets blurred.

Why vernacular art matters

Vernacular art extends the artistic canon in the same way that folk music reflects broader traditions of expression. It reminds everyone that art is a universal human pursuit.

As the late Chris Strachwitz, the founder of Arhoulie Records, has pointed out, Black traditions of blues and roots music were not formally taught but were passed down from one generation to the next in local communities.

Similarly, the architect Robert Venturi promoted vernacular architecture in his 1972 book “Learning from Las Vegas.” In it, he highlighted the ways that Las Vegas casinos and hotels were designed to accommodate the automobile and were meant to be seen as symbols, with massive, outlandish signs – an approach that most schools of architecture would have scoffed at. In doing so, Venturi ushered in more playful forms of architecture.

Concepts of authenticity are central to the appeal of vernacular art. Fine art and culture can sometimes be esoteric and exclusionary, and in a time when artificial intelligence has put authorship in question, vernacular art has even more resonance. It is made by the artists’ hands, using common materials, in ways that reflect their own unique life and artistic visions.

This work represents a pre-digital form of expression, accessible to anyone, that showcases what it means to be resourceful, creative and human.

Nellie Mae Rowe wasn’t able to pursue her artistic ambitions until she was in her late 60s.

Beauvais Lyons, Chancellor’s Professor of Art, University of Tennessee

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

Vatican centralizes investigations on claims of Virgin Mary apparitions – but local Catholics have always had a say

The shrine at Lourdes, France, where the Virgin Mary is venerated as ‘Our Lady of Lourdes,’ following several apparitions reported in 1858. LandFoto/iStock / Getty Images Plus

Deirdre de la Cruz, University of Michigan

The Vatican recently announced its plan to set up an “observatory” at one of its several academic institutions, the Pontificia Academia Mariana Internationalis, to investigate claims of apparitions and other mystical phenomena attributed to the Virgin Mary.

As a scholar of global Christianity whose first book focused on apparitions and miracles of Mary in the modern Philippines, I’ve spent years studying the ins and outs of how the Catholic Church authenticates apparitions and the impact of these decisions on devotion to the Virgin Mary. I believe that the creation of this office signals a major shift in how apparitions of Mary have been evaluated and authenticated in modern times.

Contrary to depictions in popular media that show the Vatican as the first and only arbiter in these matters, the actual process almost always takes place at the local level and only rarely reaches the Holy See.

Official and unofficial judgment

The Council of Trent, held between 1545 to 1563, first gave bishops the authority to recognize new miracles or relics. In the 1970s, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the office charged with defending and promulgating Catholic doctrine, established a set of norms prescribing how alleged apparitions should be judged at the local level.

However, most apparition claims don’t rise to the level of being investigated. Of the countless apparitions that have been reported throughout church history, only 25 have been approved by the local bishop, and 16 of those have been recognized by the Vatican.

Yet, throughout the Catholic world, hundreds of shrines commemorating a miraculous appearance of Mary enjoy devotional followings. What accounts for the difference between tacit and official church approval, and what is at stake when the church investigates an alleged sighting?

When personal revelations become public

Catholics the world over engage in deep relationships with Mary and the saints and take it for granted that their presence is real. In many places, furthermore, Catholic beliefs blended with Indigenous cultures and practices to produce apparition legends around which devotion has flourished for centuries.

Local priests and bishops navigate a fine line between popular religiosity and doctrinal orthodoxy. They readily accept diversity in how believers venerate Mary. But they also must remain vigilant against phenomena and messages that contradict the church’s teachings and threaten to undermine their authority. For many supernatural claims, the tipping point for investigation comes when a limited experience turns into a mass phenomenon.

A statue of the Virgin Mary outside the Sariaya Church in Quezon Province, Philippines. Mariano Sayno/Moment

To take two examples from my research in the Philippines: In Quezon City, northeast of Manila, in the early 2000s, a neighborhood group that met weekly to pray the rosary was led by a woman who, while in trance, claimed to channel the Virgin Mary. Although officials from the Archdiocese of Manila were aware of the group’s activities, they left them alone, since their devotional practice had little impact beyond their immediate circle, and the content of Mary’s messages gave no cause for concern.

By contrast, after tens of thousands of people journeyed to the small Philippine coastal town of Agoo, in the northwestern province of La Union, to witness an appearance of Mary foretold by the visionary Judiel Nieva in March 1993, the presiding bishop immediately formed an official commission to investigate. Two years later, the commission declared it a hoax.

The difference between how local church authorities treated the two cases came down to the scale of the phenomenon, whether profit was made from people’s beliefs, and the content of the messages allegedly spoken by Mary. As with most apparitions found “not worthy of belief” – that is, not supernatural in origin – the Agoo phenomenon eventually died down.

Who determines devotion?

Occasionally, however, devotees remain steadfast in their belief that Mary appeared despite a negative judgment from the Catholic Church. For example, the devotional figure of Mary as the “Lady of All Nations,” a title associated with the visions of Dutch woman Ida Peerdeman, who claimed to have sighted the Virgin 56 times between 1945 and 1959, maintains a robust global following to this day. This is in spite of the fact that Dutch bishops and the Vatican’s doctrinal office have urged Catholics not to promote the apparitions associated with that particular title.

Likewise, in Lipa, the Philippines, there was in the 1990s a revival of devotion and belief that Mary had appeared to a Filipino novice of the religious order of the Carmelites in 1948. The devotion continued even though a commission of Filipino bishops investigated the phenomenon and declared that it “excluded any supernatural intervention” in 1951.

In both cases, popular support for the apparitions influenced sitting bishops to reconsider, and even overturn, a previously negative judgment.

But the bishops’ approval didn’t last long. Asserting the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, the Vatican’s doctrinal office stepped in to uphold the original rulings that the apparitions were not authentic. Even so, many devotees remain undeterred in their belief.

Balancing act

According to the proposed Vatican observatory’s president, the Rev. Stefano Cecchin, the new office will serve both academic and pastoral purposes, acting as a centralized task force for the systematic and multidisciplinary study of apparition claims worldwide.

It remains to be seen how precisely they will coordinate with local bishops who have until now enjoyed the authority to determine whether the “Mother of God,” as Mary is often called, appeared in their jurisdiction.

For those of us observing from the outside, the new observatory is an intriguing development in the long history of balancing the universal claims of the Catholic Church with the myriad expressions of local devotion and belief.

Deirdre de la Cruz, Associate Professor of History and Asian Languages and Culture, University of Michigan

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

Three lessons from Aristotle on friendship

Aristotle (center), wearing a blue robe, seen in a discourse with Plato in a 16th century fresco, ‘The School of Athens’ by Raphael. Pascal Deloche/Stone via Getty Images

Emily Katz, Michigan State University

While most love songs are inspired by the joys and heartaches of romantic relationships, love between friends can be just as intense and complicated. Many people struggle to make and maintain friendships, and a falling-out with a close friend can be as painful as a breakup with a partner.

Despite these potential pitfalls, human beings have always prized friendship. As the 4th century B.C.E. philosopher Aristotle wrote: “no one would choose to live without friends,” even if they could have all other good things instead.

Aristotle is mostly known for his influence on science, politics and aesthetics; he is less well known for his writing on friendship. I am a scholar of ancient Greek philosophy, and when I cover this material with my undergraduates, they are astonished that an ancient Greek thinker sheds so much light on their own relationships. But maybe this should not be surprising: There have been human friendships as long as there have been human beings.

Here, then, are three lessons about friendship that Aristotle can still teach us.

1. Friendship is reciprocal and recognized

The first lesson comes from Aristotle’s definition of friendship: reciprocal, recognized goodwill. In contrast to parenthood or siblinghood, friendship exists only if it is acknowledged by both parties. It is not enough to wish someone well; they have to wish you well in return, and you must both recognize this mutual goodwill. As Aristotle puts it: “To be friends … [the parties] must feel goodwill for each other, that is, wish each other’s good, and be aware of each other’s goodwill.”

Aristotle illustrates this point with an early example of a parasocial relationship – a one-sided kind of relationship in which someone develops friendly feelings for, and even feels that they know, a public figure they have never met. Aristotle offers this example: A fan may wish an athlete well and feel emotionally invested in his success. But because the athlete does not reciprocate or recognize this goodwill, they are not friends.

This is as true today as it was in Aristotle’s time. Consider that you cannot even be Facebook friends with someone unless they accept your friend request. By contrast, you can be someone’s social media follower without their acknowledgment.

Still, it is perhaps more difficult today to distinguish friendships from parasocial relationships. When content creators share details about their personal lives, their followers may develop a one-sided sense of intimacy. They know things about the creator that, before the arrival of social media, would have been known by only a close friend.

The creator may feel goodwill toward her followers, but that is not friendship. Goodwill is not genuinely reciprocal if one party feels it toward an individual while the other feels it toward a group. In this way, Aristotle’s definition of friendship lends clarity to a uniquely modern situation.

2. Three kinds of friendship

Consider next Aristotle’s distinction between three kinds of friendship: utility-based, pleasure-based and character-based friendships. Each arises from what is valued in the friend: their usefulness, the pleasure of their company or their good character.

Aristotle saying friendships needs to be nurtured and maintained through activities. The Good Brigade/DigitalVision via Getty Images

While character-based friendship is the highest form, you can have only a few such intimate friends. It takes a long time to get to know someone’s character, and you have to spend a lot of time together to maintain such a friendship. Since time is a limited resource, most friendships will be based on pleasure or utility.

Sometimes my students protest that utility relationships are not really friendships. How can two people be friends if they are using one another? However, when both parties understand their utility friendship in the same way, they are not exploiting but rather mutually benefiting one another. As Aristotle explains: “Differences between friends most frequently arise when the nature of their friendship is not what they think it is.”

If your study partner believes you hang out because you enjoy her company, while you actually hang out because she is good at explaining calculus, hurt feelings can follow. But if you both understand that you are hanging out so that you may improve your calculus grade and she her writing grade, you can develop mutual goodwill and respect for each other’s strengths.

Indeed, the limited nature of a utility friendship can be just what makes it beneficial. Consider a contemporary form of utility friendship: the peer support group. Since you can have only a small number of character-based friends, many people dealing with trauma or struggling with chronic illness do not have close friends working through these experiences.

Support group members are uniquely positioned to help one another, even if they have very different personal values and beliefs. These differences may mean that the friendships never become character-based; yet the group members may feel deep goodwill toward one another.

In short, Aristotle’s second lesson is that there is a place for each kind of friendship, and that a friendship works when there is a shared understanding of its basis.

3. Friendship is like fitness

Finally, Aristotle has something valuable to say about what makes friendships last. He claims that a friendship, like fitness, is a state or disposition that must be maintained by activity: As fitness is maintained by regular exercise, so friendship is maintained by doing things together. What happens, then, when you and your friend cannot engage in friendship activities? Aristotle writes:

“Friends who are … parted are not actively friendly, yet have the disposition to be so. For separation does not destroy friendship absolutely, though it prevents its active exercise. If however the absence be prolonged, it seems to cause the friendly feeling itself to be forgotten.”

Contemporary research backs this up: The state of friendship can persist even without friendship activities, but if this goes on long enough, the friendship will fade. It might seem that Aristotle’s point has become less relevant, as communication technologies – from postal service to FaceTime – have made it possible to maintain friendships across great distances.

But while physical separation no longer spells the end of a friendship, Aristotle’s lesson remains true. Research shows that, despite having access to communication technologies, people who decreased their friendship activities during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic experienced a corresponding decrease in the quality of their friendships.

Today, as in ancient Athens, friendships have to be maintained by engaging in friendship activities.

Aristotle could not have imagined today’s communication technologies, the advent of online support groups or the kinds of parasocial relationships made possible by social media. Yet for all the ways in which the world has changed, Aristotle’s writing on friendship continues to resonate.

Emily Katz, Associate Professor of Ancient Greek Philosophy, Michigan State University

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

Reading the mind with machines

Researchers are developing brain-computer interfaces that would enable communication for people with locked-in syndrome and other conditions that render them unable to speak

By Marla Broadfoot

In Alexandre Dumas’s classic novel The Count of Monte-Cristo, a character named Monsieur Noirtier de Villefort suffers a terrible stroke that leaves him paralyzed. Though he remains awake and aware, he is no longer able to move or speak, relying on his granddaughter Valentine to recite the alphabet and flip through a dictionary to find the letters and words he requires. With this rudimentary form of communication, the determined old man manages to save Valentine from being poisoned by her stepmother and thwart his son’s attempts to marry her off against her will.

Dumas’s portrayal of this catastrophic condition — where, as he puts it, “the soul is trapped in a body that no longer obeys its commands” — is one of the earliest descriptions of locked-in syndrome. This form of profound paralysis occurs when the brain stem is damaged, usually because of a stroke but also as the result of tumors, traumatic brain injury, snakebite, substance abuse, infection or neurodegenerative diseases like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

The condition is thought to be rare, though just how rare is hard to say. Many locked-in patients can communicate through purposeful eye movements and blinking, but others can become completely immobile, losing their ability even to move their eyeballs or eyelids, rendering the command “blink twice if you understand me” moot. As a result, patients can spend an average of 79 days imprisoned in a motionless body, conscious but unable to communicate, before they are properly diagnosed.

The advent of brain-machine interfaces has fostered hopes of restoring communication to people in this locked-in state, enabling them to reconnect with the outside world. These technologies typically use an implanted device to record the brain waves associated with speech and then use computer algorithms to translate the intended messages. The most exciting advances require no blinking, eye tracking or attempted vocalizations, but instead capture and convey the letters or words a person says silently in their head.

“I feel like this technology really has the potential to help the people who have lost the most, people who are really locked down and cannot communicate at all anymore,” says Sarah Wandelt, a graduate student in computation and neural systems at Caltech in Pasadena. Recent studies by Wandelt and others have provided the first evidence that brain-machine interfaces can decode internal speech. These approaches, while promising, are often invasive, laborious and expensive, and experts agree they will require considerably more development before they can give locked-in patients a voice.

Engaging the brain — but where?

The first step of building a brain-machine interface is deciding which part of the brain to tap. Back when Dumas was young, many believed the contours of a person’s skull provided an atlas for understanding the inner workings of the mind. Colorful phrenology charts — with tracts blocked off for human faculties like benevolence, appetite and language — can still be found in antiquated medical texts and the home decor sections of department stores. “We, of course, know that’s nonsense now,” says David Bjånes, a neuroscientist and postdoctoral researcher at Caltech. In fact, it’s now clear that our faculties and functions emerge from a web of interactions among various brain areas, with each area acting as a node in the neural network. This complexity presents both a challenge and an opportunity: With no one brain region yet found that’s responsible for internal language, a number of different regions could be viable targets.

For example, Wandelt, Bjånes and their colleagues found that a part of the parietal lobe called the supramarginal gyrus (SMG), which is typically associated with grasping objects, is also strongly activated during speech. They made the surprising discovery while observing a tetraplegic study participant who has had a microelectrode array — a device smaller than the head of a push pin covered in scads of scaled-down metal spikes — implanted in his SMG. The array can record the firing of individual neurons and transmit the data through a tangle of wires to a computer to process them.

Bjånes likens the setup of their brain-machine interface to a football game. Imagine that your brain is the football stadium, and each of the neurons is a person in that stadium. The electrodes are the microphones you lower into the stadium to listen in. “We hope that we place those near the coach, or maybe an announcer, or near some person in the audience that really knows what’s going on,” he explains. “And then we’re trying to understand what’s happening on the field. When we hear a roar of the crowd, is that a touchdown? Was that a pass play? Was that the quarterback getting sacked? We’re trying to understand the rules of the game, and the more information we can get, the better our device will be.”

In the brain, the implanted devices sit in the extracellular space between neurons, where they monitor the electrochemical signals that move across synapses every time a neuron fires. If the implant picks up on the relevant neurons, the signals that the electrodes record look like audio files, reflecting a different pattern of peaks and valleys for different actions or intentions.

The Caltech team trained their brain-machine interface to recognize the brain patterns produced when a tetraplegic study participant internally “spoke” six words (battlefield, cowboy, python, spoon, swimming, telephone) and two pseudowords (nifzig, bindip). They found that after only 15 minutes of training, and by using a relatively simple decoding algorithm, the device could identify the words with over 90 percent accuracy.

Wandelt presented the study, which is not yet published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, at the 2022 Society for Neuroscience conference in San Diego. She thinks the findings signify an important proof of concept, though the vocabulary would need to be expanded before a locked-in patient could foil an evil stepmother or procure a glass of water. “Obviously, the words we chose were not the most informative ones, but if you replace them with yes, no, certain words that are really informative, that would be helpful,” Wandelt said at the meeting.

Thoughts into letters into words

Another approach circumvents the need to build up a big vocabulary by designing a brain-machine interface that recognizes letters instead of words. By trying to mouth out the words that code for each letter of the Roman alphabet, a paralyzed patient could spell out any word that popped into their head, stringing those words together to communicate in full sentences.

“Spelling things out loud with speech is something that we do pretty commonly, like when you’re on the phone with a customer service rep,” says Sean Metzger, a graduate student in bioengineering at the University of California San Francisco and the University of California, Berkeley. Just like static on a phone line, brain signals can be noisy. Using NATO code words — like Alpha for A, Bravo for B and Charlie for C — makes it easier to discern what someone is saying.

Metzger and his colleagues tested this idea in a participant who was unable to move or speak as the result of a stroke. The study participant had a larger array of electrodes — about the size of a credit card — implanted over a broad swath of his motor cortex. Rather than eavesdropping on individual neurons, this array records the synchronized activity of tens of thousands of neurons, like hearing an entire section in a football stadium groan or cheer at the same time.

Using this technology, the researchers recorded hours of data and fed it into sophisticated machine learning algorithms. They were able to decode 92 percent of the study subject’s silently spelled-out sentences — such as “That is all right” or “What time is it?” — on at least one of two tries. A next step, Metzger says, could be combining this spelling-based approach with a  words-based approach they developed previously to enable users to communicate more quickly and with less effort.

‘Still in the early stage’

Today, close to 40 people worldwide have been implanted with microelectrode arrays, with more coming online. Many of these volunteers — people paralyzed by strokes, spinal cord injuries or ALS — spend hours hooked up to computers helping researchers develop new brain-machine interfaces to allow others, one day, to regain functions they have lost. Jun Wang, a computer and speech scientist at the University of Texas at Austin, says he is excited about recent progress in creating devices to restore speech, but cautions there is a long way to go before practical application. “At this moment, the whole field is still in the early stage.”

Wang and other experts would like to see upgrades to hardware and software that make the devices less cumbersome, more accurate and faster. For example, the device pioneered by the UCSF lab worked at a pace of about seven words per minute, whereas natural speech moves at about 150 words a minute. And even if the technology evolves to mimic human speech, it is unclear whether approaches developed in patients with some ability to move or speak will work in those who are completely locked in. “My intuition is it would scale, but I can’t say that for sure,” says Metzger. “We would have to verify that.”

Another open question is whether it is possible to design brain-machine interfaces that do not require brain surgery. Attempts to create noninvasive approaches have faltered because such devices have tried to make sense of signals that have traveled through layers of tissue and bone, like trying to follow a football game from the parking lot.

Wang has made headway using an advanced imaging technique called magnetoencephalography (MEG), which records magnetic fields on the outside of the skull that are generated by the electric currents in the brain, and then translating those signals into text. Right now, he is trying to build a device that uses MEG to recognize the 44 phonemes, or speech sounds, in the English language — like ph or oo — which could be used to construct syllables, then words, then sentences.

Ultimately, the biggest challenge to restoring speech in locked-in patients may have more to do with biology than with technology. The way speech is encoded, particularly internal speech, could vary depending on the individual or the situation. One person might imagine scrawling a word on a sheet of paper in their mind’s eye; another might hear the word, still unspoken, echoing in their ears; yet another might associate a word with its meaning, evoking a particular feeling-state. Because different brain waves could be associated with different words in different people, different techniques might have to be adapted to each person’s individual nature.

“I think this multipronged approach by the different groups is our best way to cover all of our bases,” says Bjånes, “and have approaches that work in a bunch of different contexts.”

This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews.

Military drones are swarming the skies of Ukraine and other conflict hot spots – and anything goes when it comes to international law

The Ukraine military tests drones near Kyiv in August 2022. Sergei Supinsky/AFP via Getty Images

Tara Sonenshine, Tufts University

Loud explosions rock the evening sky. Streaks of light appear like comets. Missiles rain down. Below, people scramble for cover. The injured are taken on stretchers – the dead, buried.

That is daily life in Ukraine, where pilotless vehicles known as drones litter the sky in an endless video gamelike – but actually very real – war with Russia.

Both Russia and Ukraine are using drones in this war to remotely locate targets and drop bombs, among other purposes.

Today, drones are used in various other conflicts, but are also used to deliver packages, track weather, drop pesticides and entertain drone hobbyists.

Welcome to the world of drones. They range from small consumer quadcopters to remotely piloted warplanes – and all types are being used by militaries around the world.

As a scholar of public diplomacy and foreign policy – and a former United States under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs – I know how important it is for people to understand drones and their proliferation, given the risks of war, terrorism and accidental drone clashes in the world today.

A Ukrainian soldier launches a drone from his hand in November 2022 in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine. Elena Tita/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images

A buying spree

The U.S. is among more than 100 countries using drones in times of conflict.

Terrorists have also been known to deploy drones because they are relatively low-cost weapons with high degrees of civilian damage.

Consumer drone shipments, globally, topped 5 million units in 2020 and are expected to surpass 7 million by 2025.

Sales of drones globally were up 57% from 2021 to 2022.

With the exponential rise in drone purchases, there are few constraints for buyers, creating a wild, wild west of uncontrolled access and usage.

Each country is free to decide when and where drones fly, without answering to any other country or international authority governing drones. The skies are often filled with drone swarms, with little on-the-ground guidance on the rules of the sky.

Different purposes

Each country has a unique interest in getting and using drones.

China is increasingly using sophisticated drones for covert surveillance, especially in international waters to patrol the disputed islands in the South China Sea. Its expanding drone program has influenced other countries like the U.S. to also invest more in the technology.

Turkey’s military has a highly sophisticated drone, the Bayraktar TB2, which is capable of carrying laser-guided bombs and small enough to fit in a flatbed truck.

The United Arab Emirates imports drones from China and Turkey to deploy in Yemen and Libya to monitor warlords in case conflict breaks out.

And South Korea is considering starting a special drone unit after it failed to respond to a recent North Korean drone incursion. When North Korea deployed five drones towards it southern neighbor in December 2022, South Korea had to scramble its fighter jets to issue warning shots.

No rules in the air

The countries with armed drones are individually navigating their own rules instead of an international agreed-upon set of regulations.

International law prohibits the use of armed force unless the United Nations Security Council authorizes an attack, or in the case of self-defense.

But short of launching a full war, drones can legally be deployed for counterterrorism operations, surveillance and other non-self defense needs, creating a slippery slope to military conflict.

Figuring out the national and international rules of the sky for drone usage is hard.

For 20 years, experts have tried to create international agreements on arms – and some countries supported an informal 2016 U.N. agreement that recommends countries document the import and export of unmanned aerial vehicles.

But these efforts never evolved into serious, comprehensive standards and laws that kept pace with technology. There are several reasons for that: To protect their national sovereignty, governments do not want to release drone data. They also want to avoid duplication of their technology and to maintain their market share of the drone trade.

A MQ-9 Reaper drone awaits its next mission over the U.S.-Mexico border in November 2022. John Moore/Getty Images

US and drones

For decades, the U.S. has wrestled with how to balance drone warfare as it became involved in overseas operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and other conflict zones.

The U.S. killed a top al-Qaida leader with a drone strike in Afghanistan in 2022.

But there have been other instances of drone strikes that resulted in unintended casualties and damage.

In 2021, The New York Times reported that a U.S. drone strike on a vehicle thought to contain an Islamic State bomb resulted in the deaths of 10 children – not three civilians, as the U.S. said might have happened.

There is scant public opinion research on how American feel about the use of drones overseas, which makes building public support for their military use difficult.

Drone dangers

Drone dangers are real. Many drone experts, including myself, believe it is unsafe for each country’s military to make its own decisions on drones with no rules guiding drone transfers, exports, imports and usage – and no major forum to discuss drones, as the technology continues to evolve.

Multiple drones can communicate with each other remotely, creating shared objectives rather than an individual drone path or pattern. Like a swarm of bees, these drones form a deadly and autonomous aerial army ripe for accidents.

With the advent of artificial intelligence and more sophisticated unmanned aerial vehicles, drones can change speed, altitude and targeting in seconds, making them even more difficult to track and investigate. Attacks can happen seemingly out of the blue.

In my view, the world needs new and consistent rules on drone usage for the decade ahead – better international monitoring of drone incursions and more transparency in the outcome of drone attacks.

Information about the impact of military use of drones is not just important for historical purposes, but also to engage societies in action and temper the impulse to engage in conflict. It is time to talk seriously about drones.

Tara Sonenshine, Edward R. Murrow Professor of Practice in Public Diplomacy, Tufts University

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