ReportWire

Tag: Research

  • The Key to Elevating Your Market Research Strategy | Entrepreneur

    The Key to Elevating Your Market Research Strategy | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Like all science, research began as an entirely manual process. Responses to surveys were gathered in person or by mail in the 1940s, and the results underwent rigorous coding, tabulation and analysis for insights. Since then, developments in computer science and the internet have made it possible for researchers to collect data swiftly and affordably at scale.

    Today, thanks to further advancements in data collection, researchers can gather insights from anywhere in the world (through various channels like email, social media and websites). What’s more, they can leverage the enormous computing capacity of the cloud to simultaneously examine billions of data points — all made possible through market research software.

    As SaaS market research platforms become widely available, we no longer require a team of researchers to carry out a study. Anyone in an organization, including marketers and product analysts, can initiate a research study at the press of a button and obtain real-time insights.

    Let’s start from the basics and discover more about market research platforms and the role they play in the market research industry today.

    Related: 4 Phases of Market Research to Ensure Success

    What is an integrated market research platform?

    An integrated market research platform takes care of end-to-end market research, including conception, recruitment, sampling, data gathering and analysis. It streamlines market research methodology and processes into an online platform for ease of use and ongoing insight creation.

    Companies, individuals and research agencies utilize research platforms to gather and analyze data, aiding in decision-making. Users can conduct a study, acquire results and turn data into insights — all on one platform — due to the combination of survey tools, analytics and reporting tools.

    Why do we need market research platforms?

    Researchers are less traditional now than they were, and this can be owed to the demands of the market research industry today. Researchers are required to strike the balance between accuracy and speed. They are expected to embrace technology while staying true to research methodologies. They are asked to surface richer insights but deliver them succinctly.

    These demands, however, are easier stated than done.

    Not only are these tasks extremely challenging and time-consuming to pull off, but they also create roadblocks to what could be an otherwise straightforward market research process by using a tool.

    Related: The Impact of Technology on Market Research

    The benefits of integrated market research platforms

    Integrated research platforms provide several benefits that address the current industry’s anticipated demands:

    • For the convenience of every user on the platform, all the tools needed for market research can be integrated into one single space. For instance, qualitative and quantitative research are used for different use cases and hence require different tools. With an integrated market research tool, both functionalities can be consolidated.

    • Since market research platforms are hosted online, they can be accessed anytime, anywhere, ensuring seamless collaboration between all stakeholders (thereby improving the transformation of insights into action). Studies indicate the future is SaaS-powered; according to Statista, the SaaS market was worth approximately $145.5 billion in 2021 and hit $172 billion in 2022 and is only expected to grow further.

    • Unlike disparate market research solutions, singular platforms do not require programming knowledge and are easy to use, thereby removing the skills gap or the training required to implement them.

    • Through direct access to pre-profiled participant panels, integrated platforms are equipped to accommodate both short-term and continuous (long-term) research projects.

    • By using a tool, you can run multiple studies at once and generate insights more quickly, boosting the likelihood that your ROI will increase. For instance, a marketer can test different advertisements and launch the one that’s the most engaging for the best reach.

    Qualtrics’ Market Research Trends report suggests that 67% of organizations planned to acquire new market research technology in 2022 (depicting a 7% increase from 2021).

    Steps to adopt market research platforms

    There are numerous market research tools available today. Here are some objectives to keep in mind before implementing one:

    • Prioritize speed and accuracy: In an era of wavering customer loyalty, generating insights isn’t enough. The key is to generate higher-quality insights faster — before your competitors beat you to it.

    • Move your consumer research online: To ensure maximum speed and efficiency in research without compromising quality, moving research-based activities online is the solution in the digital era we live in currently.

    • Increase adoption with research and marketing teams: While it is true that researchers aren’t as traditional today, the change is unfortunately not fast enough to keep up with the changes in the market. It is critical to convey the benefits of integrated market research software within research agencies and organizations to increase its awareness and in the long run, its adoption.

    • Choose an integrated research platform: There is a difference between a market research platform and an integrated research platform. It is advisable to implement a tool that can integrate seamlessly with your present (and future) systems to ensure less development and implementation effort and an overall smoother research process.

    Related: 3 Ways to Win Consumer Confidence with Market Research

    Because integrated platforms are naturally adaptable, they allow for continuous development and innovative evolution (as they can incorporate any future tools and methodologies). This means that businesses can shape research platforms to meet their specific requirements at any time. New demands can be incorporated to the greatest extent possible, allowing for longevity that other non-integrated platforms cannot achieve.

    Streamlining processes such as researcher-participant communication, data reporting and visualization techniques, while fully automating research, is no longer just a concept, but an attainable reality, thanks to integrated market research platforms.

    [ad_2]

    Reshu Rathi

    Source link

  • Institute for Economics & Peace, Lloyds Register Foundation Release Safety Perceptions Index 2023: Severe Weather & Rising Anxiety Lead Global Risk Poll

    Institute for Economics & Peace, Lloyds Register Foundation Release Safety Perceptions Index 2023: Severe Weather & Rising Anxiety Lead Global Risk Poll

    [ad_1]

    The second edition of the Safety Perceptions Index finds an increase in harm from severe weather and rising global anxieties associated with the state of employment, economic conditions, and ‘ambiguous risk.’ Uzbekistan leads the Index while Mali falls to last place, primarily driven by internal conflict and terrorism.

    Today marks the launch of the second edition of the Safety Perceptions Index (SPI), a collaboration between Lloyd’s Register Foundation, a global safety charity, and the Institute for Economics & Peace, an international think tank.

    Key results

    • There was a 5-percentage point increase in the number of people saying they felt less safe in 2021. 
    • There has been a global rise in ‘ambiguous risk,’ the feeling that people are at risk but are unsure from what. 
    • Both worry and the experience of harm in relation to food and water improved; however, low-income and conflict-ridden countries have recorded substantial deteriorations.
    • In 2021, more people reported experiencing harm from severe weather than in 2019, but levels of worry decreased.
    • Anxieties associated with employment and economic conditions rose between 2019 and 2021, likely caused by the economic downturn.
    • The country most impacted in the SPI was Mali, which has experienced two recent coups and has been racked by multiple violent conflicts.
    • Counterintuitively, the overall SPI score improved following the onset of COVID-19, likely due in part to COVID-related lockdowns and the restriction on movement globally. 

    The second Safety Perceptions Index report, released today, provides a comprehensive measure of global perceptions of safety. The report is based on two iterations of the Lloyd’s Register Foundation World Risk Poll, the first conducted in 2019 and the second in 2021, and provides commentary, trends, and insights into these two sets of data.

    In 2021, the SPI improved globally across two domains – food and water and violent crime – and deteriorated in two – severe weather and mental health. Uzbekistan recorded the best overall score, while Mali recorded the worst overall score. Mali is currently suffering from a violent internal conflict, has high rates of terrorism, and saw its government overthrown in successful coups in both 2020 and 2021.

    Sub-Saharan African countries are the most risk-impacted in the world. Many countries in the region are among those with the highest worry rates globally and are represented in the top five most impacted countries for food and water, mental health, and workplace safety.

    The only domain in which the average levels of both worry and experience of harm increased was the mental health domain, likely due in part to the proliferation of COVID-19 lockdowns and other disruptions to regular social life. The World Health Organisation estimates that COVID-19 led to a 25% increase in rates of anxiety and depression, with women and young people hit the hardest. 

    “The Safety Perceptions Index 2023 report digs deeper into the World Risk Poll data to provide us with valuable insights into how perceptions of safety differ across countries, and how the various aspects of risk are connected,” said Sarah Cumbers, Director of Evidence & Insight at Lloyd’s Register Foundation. “The report will be useful in the decades ahead as it will provide insight into the shifts in perception that might be associated with any future pandemics or other global shocks, and how to manage those changes.”

    Safety perceptions – the shifting risk landscape

    Over half of the countries surveyed recorded substantial deteriorations in feelings of safety compared to five years earlier. In Myanmar, 11% of the population reported feeling less safe in 2019, rising to 59% in 2021. In Vietnam, 37% of the population also reported feeling less safe, an increase of 26 percentage points from 2019. However, many countries improved. In Sweden, the percentage of the population feeling more safe rose from 12% in 2019 to 32% in 2021. Zambia recorded a notable increase, rising from 19% to 37%. 

    Rise in ‘ambiguous risk’

    The 2023 SPI report finds a rise in ‘ambiguous risk.’ This refers to people’s feeling that they are at risk, but are unsure from what. The rise in ambiguous risk can be seen in the responses to the World Risk Poll question on the greatest perceived threat in people’s daily lives. Between 2019 and 2021, the largest changes in response rates were for those saying that no risk existed in their lives, which fell by half, and those saying they did not know what their greatest risk was, which nearly doubled. 

    COVID-19 and risk

    The 2023 SPI highlights the changing dynamics of risk that accompanied the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The world is less certain about its future than at any time since the Cold War. The pandemic continues to impact every corner of the globe, inflation is rising, Russia’s war in Ukraine has disrupted international relations, and economic growth has slowed and, in some cases, reversed. As COVID-19 only ranked as the fourth most cited threat to people’s daily safety, these findings suggest that it was the societal experience of the pandemic – more than the virus itself – that most impacted worries and experiences of risk. 

    Regional & country findings 

    • Uzbekistan was the highest-scoring country overall and, on average, the Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia region had the best scores globally. This is a noteworthy result, given that countries in the region do not typically rank highly in other measures of security and development. 
    • The worst-scoring country in the 2023 SPI was Mali, which has experienced two recent coups and has been racked by multiple violent conflicts. 
    • On average, sub-Saharan Africa was the worst-scoring region in the SPI; all five countries with the worst scores are in the region, with four of them currently suffering from violent conflict.

    For more information, visit visionofhumanity.org and https://wrp.lrfoundation.org.uk

    ENDS

    NOTES TO EDITORS

    The SPI report is available at: https://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SPI-2023-1.pdf

    The SPI report focuses on the risks with the potential to cause the most disruption and have the most significant impact on the lives of people across the world. It measures two themes: worry about harm and recent experience of serious harm, analysing them across five domains: food and water, violent crime, severe weather, mental health, and workplace safety. These themes and domains are combined into a composite score which reflects perceptions of safety by country and region. The survey was completed prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has significantly stressed global food supply chains.

    About Lloyd’s Register Foundation and the World Risk Poll

    Lloyd’s Register Foundation is an independent global safety charity that supports research, innovation, and education to make the world a safer place. Its mission is to use the best evidence and insight, such as the World Risk Poll, to help the global community focus on tackling the world’s most pressing safety and risk challenges. The Lloyd’s Register Foundation World Risk Poll is the first global study of worry about, and harm from, risks to people’s safety. 

    lrfoundation.org.uk | https://wrp.lrfoundation.org.uk

    About the Institute for Economics & Peace 

    The Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) is the world’s leading think tank dedicated to developing metrics to analyse peace and to quantify its economic value. It does this by developing global and national indices, calculating the economic cost of violence, analysing country-level risk, and understanding Positive Peace. The research is used extensively by governments, academic institutions, think tanks, non-governmental organisations and by intergovernmental institutions such as the OECD, The Commonwealth Secretariat, the World Bank, and the United Nations.

    Related Links

    http://economicsandpeace.org

    Source: Institute for Economics & Peace

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Vilcek Foundation Awards $100,000 Prize in Biomedical Science to Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado

    Vilcek Foundation Awards $100,000 Prize in Biomedical Science to Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado

    [ad_1]

    Born in Venezuela, developmental and molecular biologist Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado receives the $100,000 prize for his contributions to the field of regeneration.

    Press Release


    Feb 22, 2023 10:45 EST

    For his contributions to the field of regeneration, Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado receives the Vilcek Prize in Biomedical Science. The Vilcek Prize in Biomedical Science is a $100,000 prize awarded annually by the Vilcek Foundation as part of its prizes program. 

    Awarded annually since 2006, the Vilcek Foundation prizes recognize and celebrate immigrant contributions to scientific research and discovery, and to artistic and cultural advancement in the United States. The prizes provide direct support to individual immigrant scientists and artists and help to raise greater public awareness of the value of immigration for a robust society. In 2023, the Vilcek Foundation awards four prizes in Biomedical Science, comprising the $100,000 Vilcek Prize and three $50,000 prizes—the Vilcek Prizes for Creative Promise in Biomedical Science. 

    Born in Caracas, Venezuela, molecular and developmental biologist Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado grew up using the scientific method to understand the things that fascinated him in the natural world. As a budding scientist, Sánchez Alvarado moved to the United States to pursue studies in molecular biology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Now a leader in the field of regeneration, he is the executive director and chief scientific officer of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, Missouri.

    “Through the combination of rigorous research and new tools and technologies, Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado has worked to illuminate the important functions that epigenetics and signaling have on the process of regeneration,” says Vilcek Foundation Chairman and CEO Jan Vilcek. “His work has important implications on the understanding of cellular and organismal regeneration, and holds enormous promise for our further understanding of core biological concepts.”

    Says Vilcek Foundation President Rick Kinsel, “Research Institutions in the United States have drawn scientists from around the globe, and many groundbreaking discoveries in research and development in biology, physics, and medicine have been by immigrant scientists. The perspective and insight that foreign-born scientists bring to research and development, and the value of diversity in seeking answers to science and medicine’s most perplexing questions, cannot be overstated.”

    Sánchez Alvarado credits being an immigrant and being bilingual as having a profound impact on his work as a scientist, noting how the syntax interpretations of problems or ideas in two different languages—English and Spanish—help him to form more nuanced ideas and hypotheses. “Because every language is an interpretation of the universe, the more interpretations one has access to, the richer our comprehension of the world becomes,” he says. 

    He also reflects on the sacrifices that immigrants make to pursue the subjects and work they are passionate about in the United States. “We left everything behind to pursue an idea,” he says. “[We were] not looking for fame or fortune. [We] are looking for answers to questions.” 

    As part of the Vilcek Foundation’s prizes campaign, the foundation has published a biographical profile and video highlighting Sánchez Alvarado’s life and work on the Vilcek Foundation website, Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado: “Making the improbable possible.”

    The Vilcek Foundation

    The Vilcek Foundation raises awareness of immigrant contributions in the United States and fosters appreciation of the arts and sciences. The foundation was established in 2000 by Jan and Marica Vilcek, immigrants from the former Czechoslovakia. The mission of the foundation was inspired by the couple’s respective careers in biomedical science and art history. Since 2000, the foundation has awarded over $7 million in prizes to foreign-born individuals and supported organizations with over $6 million in grants.

    The Vilcek Foundation is a private operating foundation, a federally tax-exempt nonprofit organization under IRS Section 501(c)(3). To learn more, please visit vilcek.org

    Source: The Vilcek Foundation

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Entrepreneur | The World’s Oldest Flush Toilet May Have Been Found in China

    Entrepreneur | The World’s Oldest Flush Toilet May Have Been Found in China

    [ad_1]

    The invention of the first flush toilet is said to have been in 1596 by English courtier Sir John Harington. However, a new discovery may prove that another civilization was far ahead of the game.

    Archaeologists at the Yueyang archaeological site in Xi’an, Shaanxi province in China unearthed what could be the world’s oldest manual flush toilet. It was first discovered last summer in a series of broken parts and studied by researchers for months before putting together the discovery and releasing details, China Daily first reported. The toilet was found at the No. 3 site of the ancient city complex of Yueyang.

    “It is the first and only flush toilet to be ever unearthed in China. Everybody at the site was surprised, and then we all burst into laughter,” Liu Rui, a researcher at the Institute of Archeology at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the outlet.

    Related: A 15-Year-Old From Quebec Bested Indiana Jones and Discovered an Ancient Mayan City Without Leaving Home

    The lavatory includes a bent flush pipe and is said to be 2,400 years old. The researchers describe the toilet as a “luxury object,” possibly located inside a palace, and likely used by Qin Xiaogong (381-338 BC) or his father Qin Xian’gong (424-362 BC) of the Qin Kingdom during the Warring States Period (475-221 BC), or by Liu Bang, the first emperor of the Han Dynasty (206 BC-AD 220), China Daily reported.

    “The flush toilet is concrete proof of the importance the ancient Chinese attached to sanitation,” Liu told the outlet.

    The researchers are now digging deeper into the discovery and hoping to learn about diet and eating habits by examining the soil found in the lavatory for traces of human feces.

    Related: Most Vintage Jeans Sell for About $100. These 19th-Century Levi’s Found in a Mine Shaft Just Sold for Much, Much More.

    [ad_2]

    Madeline Garfinkle

    Source link

  • Inside the deal: How Boris Johnson’s departure paved the way for a grand Brexit bargain

    Inside the deal: How Boris Johnson’s departure paved the way for a grand Brexit bargain

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    LONDON — It was clear when Boris Johnson was forced from Downing Street that British politics had changed forever.

    But few could have predicted that less than six months later, all angry talk of a cross-Channel trade war would be a distant memory, with Britain and the EU striking a remarkable compromise deal over post-Brexit trade rules in Northern Ireland.

    Private conversations with more than a dozen U.K. and EU officials, politicians and diplomats reveal how the Brexit world changed completely after Johnson’s departure — and how an “unholy trinity” of little-known civil servants, ensconced in a gloomy basement in Brussels, would mastermind a seismic shift in Britain’s relationship with the Continent.

    They were aided by an unlikely sequence of political events in Westminster — not least an improbable change of mood under the combative Liz Truss; and then the jaw-dropping rise to power of the ultra-pragmatic Rishi Sunak. Even the amiable figure of U.K. Foreign Secretary James Cleverly would play his part, glad-handing his way around Europe and smoothing over cracks that had grown ever-wider since 2016.

    As Sunak’s Conservative MPs pore over the detail of his historic agreement with Brussels — and await the all-important verdict of the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland — POLITICO has reconstructed the dramatic six-month shift in Britain’s approach that brought us to the brink of the Brexit deal we see today.

    Bye-bye Boris

    Johnson’s departure from Downing Street, on September 6, triggered an immediate mood shift in London toward the EU — and some much-needed optimism within the bloc about future cross-Channel relations.

    For key figures in EU capitals, Johnson would always be the untrustworthy figure who signed the protocol agreement only to disown it months afterward.

    In Paris, relations were especially poisonous, amid reports of Johnson calling the French “turds”; endless spats with the Elysée over post-Brexit fishing rights, sausages and cross-Channel migrants; and Britain’s role in the AUKUS security partnership, which meant the loss of a multi-billion submarine contract for France. Paris’ willingness to engage with Johnson was limited in the extreme.

    Truss, despite her own verbal spats with French President Emmanuel Macron — and her famously direct approach to diplomacy — was viewed in a different light. Her success at building close rapport with negotiating partners had worked for her as trade secretary, and once she became prime minister, she wanted to move beyond bilateral squabbles and focus on global challenges, including migration, energy and the war in Ukraine.

    “Boris had become ‘Mr. Brexit,’” one former U.K. government adviser said. “He was the one the EU associated with the protocol, and obviously [Truss] didn’t come with the same baggage. She had covered the brief, but she didn’t have the same history. As prime minister, Liz wanted to use her personal relationships to move things on — but that wasn’t the same as a shift in the underlying substance.”

    Indeed, Truss was still clear on the need to pass the controversial Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which would have given U.K. ministers powers to overrule part of the protocol unilaterally, in order to ensure leverage in the talks with the European Commission.

    Truss also triggered formal dispute proceedings against Brussels for blocking Britain’s access to the EU’s Horizon Europe research program. And her government maintained Johnson’s refusal to implement checks on goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain, causing deep irritation in Brussels.

    But despite the noisy backdrop, tentative contact with Brussels quietly resumed in September, with officials on both sides trying to rebuild trust. Truss, however, soon became “very disillusioned by the lack of pragmatism from the EU,” one of her former aides said.

    “The negotiations were always about political will, not technical substance — and for whatever reason, the political will to compromise from the Commission was never there when Liz, [ex-negotiator David] Frost, Boris were leading things,” they said.

    Former British Prime Minister Liz Truss announces her resignation outside 10 Downing Street in central London on October 20, 2022 | Daniel Leal/AFP via Getty Images

    Truss, of course, would not be leading things for long. An extraordinary meltdown of the financial markets precipitated her own resignation in late October, after just six weeks in office. Political instability in Westminster once again threatened to derail progress.

    But Sunak’s arrival in No. 10 Downing Street — amid warnings of a looming U.K. recession — gave new impetus to the talks. An EU official said the mood music improved further, and that discussions with London became “much more constructive” as a result.

    David Lidington, a former deputy to ex-PM Theresa May who played a key role in previous Brexit negotiations, describes Sunak as a “globalist” rather than an “ultra-nationalist,” who believes Britain ought to have “a sensible, friendly and grown-up relationship” with Brussels outside the EU.

    During his time as chancellor, Sunak was seen as a moderating influence on his fellow Brexiteer Cabinet colleagues, several of whom seemed happy to rush gung-ho toward a trade war with the EU.

    “Rishi has always thought of the protocol row as a nuisance, an issue he wanted to get dealt with,” the former government adviser first quoted said.

    One British official suggested the new prime minister’s reputation for pragmatism gave the U.K. negotiating team “an opportunity to start again.”

    Sunak’s slow decision-making and painstaking attention to detail — the subject of much criticism in Whitehall — proved useful in calming EU jitters about the new regime, they added.

    “When he came in, it wasn’t just the calming down of the markets. It was everyone across Europe and in the U.S. thinking ‘OK, they’re done going through their crazy stage,’” the same official said. “It’s the time he takes with everything, the general steadiness.”

    EU leaders “have watched him closely, they listened to what he said, and they have been prepared to trust him and see how things go,” Lidington noted.

    Global backdrop

    As months of chaos gave way to calm in London, the West was undergoing a seismic reorganization.

    Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine triggered a flurry of coordinated work for EU and U.K. diplomats — including sanctions, military aid, reconstruction talks and anti-inflation packages. A sense began to emerge that it was in both sides’ common interest to get the Northern Ireland protocol row out of the way.

    “The war in Ukraine has completely changed the context over the last year,” an EU diplomat said.

    A second U.K. official agreed. “Suddenly we realized that the 2 percent of the EU border we’d been arguing about was nothing compared to the massive border on the other side of the EU, which Putin was threatening,” they said. “And suddenly there wasn’t any electoral benefit to keeping this row over Brexit going — either for us or for governments across the EU.”

    A quick glance at the electoral calendar made it clear 2023 offered the last opportunity to reach a deal in the near future, with elections looming for both the U.K. and EU parliaments the following year — effectively putting any talks on ice.

    “Rishi Sunak would have certainly been advised by his officials that come 2024, the EU is not going to be wanting to take any new significant initiatives,” Lidington said. “And we will be in election mode.”

    The upcoming 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday peace agreement on April 10 heaped further pressure on the U.K. negotiators, amid interest from U.S. President Joe Biden in visiting Europe to mark the occasion.

    “The anniversary was definitely playing on people’s minds,” the first U.K. official said. “Does [Sunak] really want to be the prime minister when there’s no government in Northern Ireland on the anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement?”

    The pressure was ramped up further when Biden specifically raised the protocol in a meeting with Truss at the U.N. General Assembly in New York in late September, after which British officials said they expected the 25th anniversary to act as a “key decision point” on the dispute.

    The King and I

    Whitehall faced further pressure from another unlikely source — King Charles III, who was immediately planning a state visit to Paris within weeks of ascending the throne in September 2022. Truss had suggested delaying the visit until the protocol row was resolved, according to two European diplomats.

    The monarch is now expected to visit Paris and Berlin at the end of March — and although his role is strictly apolitical, few doubt he is taking a keen interest in proceedings. He has raised the protocol in recent conversations with European diplomats, showing a close engagement with the detail. 

    One former senior diplomat involved in several of the king’s visits said that Charles has long held “a private interest in Ireland, and has wanted to see if there was an appropriately helpful role he could play in improving relations [with the U.K].”

    By calling the deal the Windsor framework and presenting it at a press conference in front of Windsor Castle, one of the king’s residences, No. 10 lent Monday’s proceedings an unmistakable royal flavor.

    The king also welcomed von der Leyen for tea at the castle following the signing of the deal. A Commission spokesperson insisted their meeting was “separate” from the protocol discussion talks. Tory MPs were skeptical.

    Cleverly does it

    The British politician tasked with improving relations with Brussels was Foreign Secretary Cleverly, appointed by Truss last September. He immediately began exploring ways to rebuild trust with Commission Vice-President and Brexit point-man Maroš Šefčovič, the second U.K. official cited said.

    His first hurdle was a perception in Brussels that the British team had sabotaged previous talks by leaking key details to U.K. newspapers and hardline Tory Brexiteers for domestic political gain. As a result, U.K. officials made a conscious effort to keep negotiations tightly sealed, a No. 10 official said.

    “The relationship with Maroš improved massively when we agreed not to carry out a running commentary” on the content of the discussions, the second U.K. official added.

    This meant keeping key government ministers out of the loop, including Northern Ireland Minister Steve Baker, an arch-Brexiteer who had been brought back onto the frontbench by Truss.

    British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly is welcomed by European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič ahead of a meeting at the EU headquarters in Brussels on February 17, 2023 | Kenzo Tribouillard/AFP via Getty Images

    The first U.K. official said Baker would have “felt the pain,” as he had little to offer his erstwhile backbench colleagues looking for guidance while negotiations progressed, “and that was a choice by No. 10.”

    Cleverly and Šefčovič “spent longer than people think just trying to build rapport,” the second U.K. official said, with Cleverly explaining the difficulties the protocol was raising in Northern Ireland and Šefčovič insistent that key economic sectors were in fact benefiting from the arrangement.

    Cleverly also worked at the bilateral relationship with German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, while Sunak made efforts to improve ties with French President Emmanuel Macron, Lidington noted.

    A British diplomat based in Washington said Cleverly had provided “a breath of fresh air” after the “somewhat stiff” manner of his predecessors, Truss and the abrasive Dominic Raab.

    By the Conservative party conference in early October, the general mood among EU diplomats in attendance was one of expectation. And the Birmingham jamboree did not disappoint.

    Sorry is the hardest word

    Baker, who had once described himself as a “Brexit hard man,” stunned Dublin by formally apologizing to the people of Ireland for his past comments, just days before technical talks between the Commission and the U.K. government were due to resume.

    “I caused a great deal of inconvenience and pain and difficulty,” he said. “Some of our actions were not very respectful of Ireland’s legitimate interests. I want to put that right.”

    The apology was keenly welcomed in Dublin, where Micheál Martin, the Irish prime minister at the time, called it “honest and very, very helpful.”

    Irish diplomats based in the U.K. met Baker and other prominent figures from the European Research Group of Tory Euroskeptics at the party conference, where Baker spoke privately of his “humility” and his “resolve” to address the issues, a senior Irish diplomat said.

    “Resolve was the keyword,” the envoy said. “If Steve Baker had the resolve to work for a transformation of relationships between Ireland and the U.K., then we thought — there were tough talks to be had — but a sustainable deal was now a possibility.”

    There were other signs of rapprochement. Just a few hours after Baker’s earth-shattering apology, Truss confirmed her attendance at the inaugural meeting in Prague of the European Political Community, a new forum proposed by Macron open to both EU and non-EU countries.

    Sunak at the wheel

    The momentum snowballed under Sunak, who decided within weeks of becoming PM to halt the passage of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill in the House of Lords, reiterating Britain’s preference for a negotiated settlement. In exchange, the Commission froze a host of infringement proceedings taking aim at the way the U.K. was handling the protocol. This created space for talks to proceed in a more cordial environment.

    An EU-U.K. agreement in early January allowed Brussels to start using a live information system detailing goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, seen as key to unlocking a wider agreement on physical checks under the protocol.

    The U.K. also agreed to conduct winter technical negotiations in Brussels, rather than alternating rounds between the EU capital and London, as was the case when Frost served as Britain’s chief negotiator.

    Trust continued to build. Suddenly the Commission was open to U.K. solutions such as the “Stormont brake,” a clause giving the Northern Ireland Assembly power of veto over key protocol machinations, which British officials did not believe Brussels would accept when they first pitched them.

    The Stormont brake was discussed “relatively early on,” a third U.K. official said. “Then we spent a huge amount of effort making sure nobody knew about it. It was kept the most secret of secret things.”

    Yet a second EU diplomat claimed the ideas in the deal were not groundbreaking and could have been struck “years ago” if Britain had a prime minister with enough political will to solve the dispute. “None of the solutions that have been found now is revolutionary,” they said.

    An ally of Johnson described the claim he was a block on progress as “total nonsense.”

    The ‘unholy trinity’

    Away from the media focus, a group of seasoned U.K. officials began to engage with their EU counterparts in earnest. But there was one (not so) new player in town.

    Tim Barrow, a former U.K. permanent representative to the EU armed with a peerless contact book, had been an active figure in rebuilding relations with the bloc since Truss appointed him national security adviser. He acquired a more prominent role in the protocol talks after Sunak dispatched him to Brussels in January 2023, hoping EU figures would see him as “almost one of them,” another adviser to Sunak said.  

    Ensconced in the EU capital, Barrow and his U.K. team of negotiators took over several meeting rooms in the basement of the U.K. embassy, while staffers were ordered to keep quiet about their presence.

    Besides his work on Northern Ireland trade, Barrow began to appear in meetings with EU representatives about other key issues creating friction in the EU-U.K. relationship, including discussions on migration alongside U.K. Home Secretary Suella Braverman.

    Barrow “positioned himself very well,” the first EU diplomat quoted above said. “He’s very close to the prime minister — everybody in Brussels and London knows he’s got his ear. He’s very knowledgeable while very political.”

    But other British officials insist Barrow’s presence was not central to driving through the deal. “He has been a figure, but not the only figure,” the U.K. adviser quoted above said. “It’s been a lot of people, actually, over quite a period of time.”

    When it came to the tough, detailed technical negotiations, the burden fell on the shoulders of Mark Davies — the head of the U.K. taskforce praised for his mastery of the protocol detail — and senior civil servant and former director of the Northern Ireland Office, Brendan Threlfall.

    The three formed an “unholy trinity,” as described by the first U.K. official, with each one bringing something to the table.

    Davies was “a classic civil servant, an unsung hero,” the official said, while Threlfall “has good connections, good understanding” and “Tim has met all the EU interlocutors over the years.”

    Sitting across the table, the EU team was led by Richard Szostak, a Londoner born to Polish parents and a determined Commission official with a great CV and an affinity for martial arts. His connection to von der Leyen was her deputy head of cabinet until recently, Stéphanie Riso, a former member of Brussels’ Brexit negotiating team who developed a reputation for competence on both sides of the debate. 

    Other senior figures at the U.K. Cabinet Office played key roles, including Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and senior official Sue Gray.

    The latter — a legendary Whitehall enforcer who adjudicated over Johnson’s “Partygate” scandal — has a longstanding connection to Northern Ireland, famously taking a career break in the late 1980s to run a pub in Newry, where she has family links. More recently, she spent two years overseeing the finance ministry.

    Gray has been spotted in Stormont at crunch points over the past six months as Northern Ireland grapples with the pain of the continued absence of an executive.

    Some predict Gray could yet play a further role, in courting the Democratic Unionist Party as the agreement moves forward in the weeks ahead.

    For U.K. and EU officials, the agreement struck with Brussels represented months of hard work — but for Sunak and his Cabinet colleagues, the hardest yards may yet lie ahead.

    This story was updated to clarify two parts of the sourcing.

    [ad_2]

    Cristina Gallardo and Esther Webber

    Source link

  • Entrepreneur | How User Research Helps You Win Before a New Product Launch

    Entrepreneur | How User Research Helps You Win Before a New Product Launch

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Creating and launching new products is an exciting yet daunting period for both startups and enterprises. If the new product succeeds, it will lead to huge sales and business success. However, this is not always what happens. According to research from Harvard Business School, 95% of new products introduced each year fail.

    When you’ve poured millions of dollars and immeasurable labor into launching a new product, and it tanks, this is a crushing blow for the business.

    While there is no definitive way to guarantee success with a new product launch, you can dramatically improve your chances by understanding your users and their needs. It seems obvious, but you’d be surprised to know that 50% of businesses still don’t invest in deep user research.

    When you understand your users’ goals, struggles and anxieties, you will not have to guess what to build. Read on to dive deep into how to conduct user research correctly so that you can read your user’s mind and build successful products and stronger startups.

    Related: How to Nail a Successful Product Launch

    1. Deeply understand your user behaviors and motivators

    Have an idea for a new product? It’s easy to think that’s what your users want, and that’s why most businesses start with a solution. But if you want to create products that your users want, it’s crucial that you don’t put solutions in front of potential users while doing user research.

    Instead, spend your time deeply understanding the space you’re trying to operate in and the people for whom you’re trying to solve it. A deeper understanding of your users will help you avoid confirmation bias, and it will help you create products your users need, not just something you need to sell. If you fail to do this, you won’t be able to launch a successful product.

    Remember, it’s easy to get attached to an idea or solution you’re sure will be great without getting the real users’ input; it happens to the best of us. But creating and launching successful products requires listening to your users and adapting to their needs.

    2. Focus on the right users — don’t build for everyone

    Building great products is difficult — we all know that. But do you know you reduce your chances of launching a successful product if you make it for multiple users?

    Why? Because not all users are equally important, especially in the enterprise world of buyers. So, to launch successful products, you must make the hard decisions about which users are more critical.

    Still, many businesses don’t differentiate, so they don’t make hard decisions. But to succeed, you must be clear about which users are crucial for your product and business success.

    So, the first step to creating and launching a successful product is not just to understand your users but to understand all the people who are going to use your product. So, you can pick and build your product for the right users.

    Related: Why Research Is Key to Startup Growth and Customer Centricity

    3. Combine qualitative and quantitative research

    Most new products fail because companies take shortcuts and don’t invest in collecting data — mainly qualitative data. They feel they “know” their users or that the collection process is too expensive or time-consuming. So, they rely on quantitative research, which helps them confirm their assumptions.

    Remember, it is crucial to collect qualitative data when exploring new opportunities. In fact, qualitative research is vital for every business’s success. With qualitative data, you can get a deeper understanding of user attitudes about product adoption and interest.

    With today’s integrated market research platforms becoming more accessible, affordable and faster, there’s no reason to launch products under a cloud of dust and gas. You can collect data about people’s perceptions of an idea, product or brand. If you use qualitative information to calibrate the quantitative research before launch, you will be more likely to start down the right path.

    4. Pay attention to the user’s unstated responses

    Most new products fail because, while researching, we discount users’ unstated preferences. You should never discount users’ unstated preferences — even when the data says something completely different.

    Before you invest time and money into creating a new product, you need to confirm your product is something people want. And gathering unstated feedback will help you refine your original idea and can even generate a pivot to an entirely new and better product idea. It’s not a step you want to skip.

    Now, I am not saying you shouldn’t listen to what users say. But you should pay equal attention to what they do as well.

    Deeper user research will allow you to discover your users’ true needs, wants and motivations, which will help you create successful products — the ones your users really want and need. And with solutions such as eye-tracking and facial coding, it has become easy to read your user’s minds and uncover their true responses.

    Related: Developing a New Product? Here’s How to Make It a Hit Success

    [ad_2]

    Reshu Rathi

    Source link

  • New Harris Poll Survey Finds America’s Singles Are Happy, Fulfilled, and Seeking Dates, Not Mates

    New Harris Poll Survey Finds America’s Singles Are Happy, Fulfilled, and Seeking Dates, Not Mates

    [ad_1]

    New survey from Harris Poll Thought Leadership Practice finds most single people enjoy time and freedom for personal growth, friendships

    Rom-coms, Hallmark movies and even Valentine’s cards may need a rewrite: Most single people say they don’t need a mate for their life story to have a happy ending. That’s according to “Singles in America Survey,” the latest research from The Harris Poll, Thought Leadership Practice, released today.  

    Among other findings: Whether to expect a man to pick up the check on Valentine’s Day; what Americans have in common with penguins, dogs and cats; what singles prefer: cleaning toilets or going on online dates.

    The poll was conducted in late January 2023 using a nationally representative sample of 2,004 U.S. adults. Its central finding is that most single people actually like being single – they’re happy to be pursuing their own passions, they feel more in control of their finances, and they’re tired of society and media saying otherwise. 

    “Our perceptions of single Americans need to be reexamined,” says Libby Rodney, futurist and chief strategy officer at The Harris Poll. “We need to shift the dialogue from something society needs to fix, like in your standard rom-com, to something many people are finding fulfilling and are doing by choice.”

    Census data shows that roughly half of Americans are single. The Harris Poll research found that 56% of single respondents don’t want to change that status, saying that the statement “I am not looking for a relationship” best describes them. That result is strong across generations, selected by 35% of Gen Z and 30% of Boomer respondents. 

    Why do they feel that way? The Harris Poll survey suggests that singles are happier and more fulfilled. Nearly half of American singles (48%) agreed that “Singlehood is the most meaningful, authentic and fulfilling way of life.” And when asked for details, they provided many reasons why: 

    • Having more time to pursue my interests and passions (cited by 86% of singles)
    • Focusing more on my personal growth (84%)
    • Having more time and energy to devote to friendships (82%)
    • Not worrying about a partner’s debt or financial obligations (81%)
    • Having more time to grow and develop my career (79%)

    Single life fosters financial independence  but costs more

    Indeed, financial and career issues played a large role in singles’ preferences. American singles strongly agreed that flying solo helps them financially – but that government policies also hurt them. 

    Seven out of 10 (71%) singles agreed “being single taught me how to work with my money really well,” and nearly as many (68%) say that they “feel financially empowered and more in control by being single.” Six out of 10 (59%) say they don’t plan to ever merge their finances with a partner.

    However, people recognize that the single life can be more expensive – and they’re not happy about it. Strong majorities of singles “dislike paying more taxes than married couples” (74%) and “paying more for healthcare and social benefits than married couples” (68%). 

    And all Americans, single and in relationships, see that as a problem: Three-quarters (76%) recognize that it “can be more affordable to be in a relationship” because of cost-sharing and tax policies, and just as many (79%) say the government should “offer more tax breaks for single people.”

    That may be a sign of a growing realization by all Americans, both single and those in relationships, that the single life can be a rewarding one – and that single life gets a raw deal from the media. 

    • Eight in 10 Americans (79%) say “You don’t need to get married to have a happy and fulfilling life.”
    • Two-thirds (68%) say they believe “the stigma of being single is gradually diminishing.”
    • Two-thirds (68%) also say “I’m tired of media and advertising showing a false idealistic image that being in a relationship is the only way to live a happy life.” 

    Not only are most singles uninterested in finding a partner, they’re being more cost-conscious about dating, saying they’ve made or would be open to making changes due to rising inflation:

    • 69%: choosing an activity, like going for a hike, over going out for dinner or drinks
    • 55%: hosting a first date at home 
    • 50%: cutting back or eliminating gift-giving
    • 50%: filtering their potential dates to “only financially secure candidates”

    While 44% say they’ve tried or would be willing to go on a virtual date in order to reduce expenses, many singles would do almost anything other than an online date:

    • 44% of Gen Z “would rather clean the toilet than go another online date”
    • 30% of Gen Z “would rather walk across hot coals than go on another online date”
    • 22% of Millennials “would rather have their tooth pulled than go on another online date.”

    For Gen Z and Millennial singles wondering if they need to buy a gift for a Valentine’s Day date, the poll results offer guidance on how to tell if you’re in a relationship. For example, both groups say attending a party together is just dating, while attending a family holiday event is being in a relationship. 

    But the groups differ on the significance of “middle ground” activities: For Gen Z, meeting friends, parents, or posting a couple’s picture on social media is just dating – but to Millennials, all of those are relationship territory.   

    Preferred relationship style varies by generation

    Finally, the poll examines just what types of relationships singles may seek and found generational differences there as well. About half of all people see themselves as penguins – one mate for life. Roughly equal shares saw themselves as birds (19% want a partner but are free to explore) and dogs (16% want to experience as many partners as possible), while 11% saw themselves as cats, indifferent to partners, who may come and go.

    Some differences, as expected, appear age-related – two-thirds (66%) of Boomers choose “penguin” (one mate for life), compared to 40% of Gen Z. Others, though, are more surprising: One in five Gen Zs went with “cat” (indifferent, allow partners to come and go), almost twice as many as the other four groups (9% to 11%). And one in four Millennials (24%) prefers a dog’s life, wanting to experience as many partners as possible, far more often than the other groups (9% to 18%). 

    One possible reason: it’s just hard to find the right person. Nearly eight in 10 of all respondents said that “finding the right partner is harder than finding the right job.”

    Rodney says single people are showing us the need to rethink how society sees and values personal relationships.

    “It’s worth noting that being single isn’t void of anything,” she said. “There is a spectrum of deep and meaningful relationships single people are involved in, and it’s important to recognize the richness of their relationship choices.”

    To learn more about The Harris Poll for Thought Leadership and the Singles in America poll, visit this link

    About the Singles in America Survey

    This survey was conducted online within the U.S. by The Harris Poll from Jan. 20 to 22, 2023, among a nationally representative sample of 2,004 U.S. adults. This research includes 700 singles and 1,262 of those who are not, as well as 181 Gen Z (ages 18-25), 611 Millennials (ages 26-41), 522 Gen X (ages 42-57), and 655 Boomers (ages 58 and older).

    About Harris Poll Thought Leadership Practice

    Building on 50+ years of experience pulsing societal opinion, we design research that is credible, creative, and culturally relevant. Our practice drives thought leadership and unearths trends for today’s biggest brands. We are focused on helping our clients get ahead of what’s next.

    Source: The Harris Poll

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Don’t We Have a Cure for Alzheimer’s?

    Why Don’t We Have a Cure for Alzheimer’s?

    [ad_1]

    In November of 1901, a young German psychiatrist and neuroanatomist, Alois Alzheimer, found what appeared to be misfolded proteins forming sticky clumps, or plaques, between the neurons in the brain tissue of a patient who had died from dementia. Inside the neurons he found threadlike twists, called neurofibrillary tangles, of another protein. Eventually these plaques and tangles came to define the disease named after him: Alzheimer’s disease.

    By the mid 1980s, these strange proteins had been identified as beta-amyloid proteins, and by the 1990s it was widely accepted that an excess of these proteins caused the formation of the plaques, which in turn caused the disease. The tangles, which turned out to be malformed strands of a protein called tau, were thought to be a result of the amyloid plaques. For the past 30 years, the bulk of research on Alzheimer’s, and most of the efforts to find a cure, have been based on the amyloid hypothesis.

    However, after decades of research based on this hypothesis, drug trials have mostly struck out. No drug tested has produced meaningful improvement in the symptoms of the disease. Even drugs that reduce amyloid levels in the brain haven’t done what really matters: improve the lives of people with Alzheimer’s disease.

    In January of this year, a new Alzheimer’s drug, lecanemab, was approved by the FDA even after the deaths of several trial participants raised questions about the drug’s safety. Safety issues aside, lecanemab is far from a cure. It did not stop the progression of the disease, and it reduced cognitive decline by only a small amount. “It’s a small step in the right direction,” says Donald Weaver, MD, PhD, clinical neurologist and Alzheimer’s researcher at the University of Toronto, “not a big stride.”

     

    Are We in a Rut?

    These disappointing results have led many researchers to ask if the amyloid hypothesis needs rethinking. Marissa Natelson Love, MD, is a neurology researcher at the Heersink School of Medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Natelson Love has focused her research on anti-amyloid therapies based on the amyloid hypothesis and is recruiting patients for further studies on lecanemab. Still, she says, “Every time we have a meeting, someone asks, ‘Are we on the wrong track?’” Perhaps, as Weaver once put it, Alzheimer’s research is in an “intellectual rut.”

    There’s a reason science sometimes gets in these ruts. Science is a slow, accretive process that builds upon work — often decades of work — that came before.

    Researchers complete PhDs on a particular topic, then go on to be postdocs in the lab of an established scientist in the same area. Soon there’s an entire body of researchers with years of training and experience in one approach to a given problem, explains Michael Strevens, PhD, philosopher of science at New York University. “There’s a protocol, what you might call a recipe book, for doing the science. Whereas with a new, untested hypothesis, no one has yet written the recipe book.” This isn’t laziness, but momentum. Like a giant ocean liner, research can’t turn on a dime. When it comes to Alzheimer’s, the momentum is mostly behind the amyloid hypothesis. The roles of other processes in the course of the disease, such as inflammation, prior infections, or autoimmune illness, have gotten short shrift.

    Still, we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. The problem may not be with the amyloid hypothesis, but with the specific drugs being tested. Maybe researchers just haven’t found the right drug. Or maybe these are the right drugs and they’re just being given at the wrong time; it could be that in order to be successful, anti-amyloid treatments need to start long before symptoms appear.

    Another possibility is that the selection of trial participants has not been ideal. Until the past decade or so, Alzheimer’s couldn’t be definitively diagnosed until after death. “If we go back and look at the autopsies from previous Alzheimer’s disease studies,” says Natelson Love, “not everyone in the study actually had Alzheimer’s.” Not only might that explain why a particular trial was unsuccessful, but it could also have a downstream effect on future research. If researchers were unknowingly testing a potential Alzheimer’s treatment on patients who didn’t have Alzheimer’s, that data would be flawed — and later research that drew on it could be flawed, too.

    New techniques make it possible to diagnose Alzheimer’s before death. Imaging tests like MRI can rule out other reasons for memory loss; specialized PET scans can detect beta-amyloid plaques and tau proteins. Cerebrospinal fluid can now be tested for biomarkers of amyloid and tau, and though not yet widely available, some new blood tests can detect the presence of amyloid. While these techniques are not enough to diagnose the illness alone, they are making it much easier to confirm it in living patients.

    Traffic Jams in the Brain

    New approaches to studying amyloid plaques might also change the trajectory of Alzheimer’s research. Rather than just trying to rid the brain of plaques and tangles, researchers are now investigating the biological pathways that created them in the first place. As Scott Small, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at Columbia University, put it, “One of the reasons there’s been such frustration is because we haven’t yet fully understood what’s fundamentally broken in Alzheimer’s, what’s fundamentally wrong. If you don’t know what’s fundamentally broken, you can’t fix it.”

    Though Small says he has great respect for the amyloid hypothesis, he agrees that clearing plaques, while beneficial, results in only “subtle slowing of cognitive decline.” If you want to have a meaningful impact on the illness, he says, you need to get to the actual source of the pathology by addressing the cellular biology of the disease. He and his colleagues are pursuing that approach, looking for the source of the problem at the cellular level and trying to discover what is happening inside neurons to create the problems between neurons.

    Small and others are seeking the source of the problem in endosomes, organelles inside cells that regulate the movement of proteins. Proteins on their way out of the endosomes get blocked, creating what Small calls “traffic jams,” eventually leading to the buildup of amyloid and tau proteins and thus to Alzheimer’s. They’re working on therapies that would unjam endosomes.

    Meanwhile, a variety of other approaches to the problem are gaining traction. Weaver’s lab in Toronto is working on the hypothesis that Alzheimer’s disease is an autoimmune disorder in the brain. The hypothesis is that amyloid is not an abnormal protein, but a normal component of the brain’s immune system, produced in response to bacterial infections. The problem, as with all autoimmune illnesses, is that something goes wrong with the immune system, causing it to attack the body’s own tissues; in this case, the amyloid confuses healthy brain cells with infectious bacteria and attacks brain cells instead of or along with the bacteria. The result, of course, is Alzheimer’s disease. Because the drugs used to treat autoimmune illness in other parts of the body do not have a therapeutic effect in the brain, Weaver and colleagues are researching drugs that target the immune pathways specifically in the brain.

    Other researchers are looking into possible connections between infections and the inflammation associated with Alzheimer’s. Kristen Funk, PhD, a neuroimmunologist at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, studies how the body’s inflammatory response to viral infections, such as herpes simplex and viral encephalitis, affects cognition and might be linked to the development of Alzheimer’s.

    Some evidence suggests that Alzheimer’s could be a metabolic disorder, much like type 2 diabetes. In fact, some researchers have called Alzheimer’s “diabetes of the brain” or “type 3 diabetes.” Insulin resistance in the brain can lead to inflammation and oxidative stress, and eventually to amyloid plaques and Alzheimer’s. Bolstering this theory are findings that some diabetes drugs may reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s.

    Alzheimer’s takes a long time to develop. The damage to the brain that eventually results in the disease can begin 20 or even 30 years before memory loss or other symptoms. In a way, that’s a cause for hope: if we could only figure out how to stop it or slow it down, we’d have so much time to do it. Epidemiological studies, studies that look at who gets Alzheimer’s and when, offer some hints about prevention. Those studies suggest that although the end result is amyloid plaques in the brain, the disease could actually be caused by a number of factors at once.

    While genetics certainly plays a role, some of those risk factors are modifiable: obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, hearing loss, and depression are some known ones.

    As more evidence suggests that modifying those risk factors can prevent — or at least reduce the risk — of Alzheimer’s, many researchers are looking at what they call a multimodal approach to prevention. Lifestyle interventions, like an improved diet and more exercise, reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Existing medications that control blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar, for example, become a key part of this approach to prevention. Something as simple as fitting a patient with hearing aids or addressing their loneliness and isolation might be effective as well.

    The beauty of these interventions is that they’re mostly low risk. Treatments for the risk factors for Alzheimer’s have already been in constant use for years. They’re likely to be relatively inexpensive and are typically covered by Medicare and other insurance plans. Lecanemab, on the other hand, is expected to cost more than $25,000 per year.

    “Who can afford that?” asks Weaver. “Is it going to be restricted to wealthy people in wealthy countries? Ultimately, I hope that somebody comes up with an agent which is cost-effective to produce, cost-effective to distribute, and therefore may actually have a global impact on this disease.”

    Most researchers agree that the final answer will likely involve a combination of approaches. “I think, just like in cancer, [Alzheimer’s treatment] is eventually going to be a cocktail that will bolster people’s resilience to the breakdown of the nerve cells, as well as remove some of the things triggering it,” says Love.

    Any real hope for a cure for Alzheimer’s likely rests not on any one hypothesis, but with the willingness of scientists to question themselves, each other, and their prior assumptions. That doesn’t mean the years spent with a laser focus on amyloid have been wasted. But researchers do agree that it’s time to look more closely not only at the amyloid paradigm, but also further afield, in the hope of finally making progress against this devastating illness.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • So Are Nonstick Pans Safe or What?

    So Are Nonstick Pans Safe or What?

    [ad_1]

    I grew up in a nonstick-pan home. No matter what was on the menu, my dad would reach for the Teflon-coated pan first: nonstick for stir-fried vegetables, for reheating takeout, for the sunny-side-up eggs, garlic fried rice, and crisped Spam slices that constituted breakfast. Nowadays, I’m a much fussier cook: A stainless-steel pan is my kitchen workhorse. Still, when I’m looking to make something delicate, such as a golden pancake or a classic omelet, I can’t help but turn back to that time-tested fave.

    And what a dream it is to use. Nonstick surfaces are so frictionless that fragile crepes and scallops practically lift themselves off the pan; cleaning up sticky foods, such as oozing grilled-cheese sandwiches, becomes no more strenuous than rinsing a plate. No wonder 70 percent of skillets sold in the U.S. are nonstick. Who can afford to mangle a dainty snapper fillet or spend time scrubbing away crisped rice?

    All of this convenience, however, comes with a cost: the unsettling feeling that cooking with a nonstick pan is somehow bad for you. My dad had a rule that we could only use a soft, silicon-edged spatula with the pan, born of his hazy intuition that any scratches on the coating would cause it to leach into our food and make us sick. Many home cooks have lived with these fears since at least the early 2000s, when we first began to hear about problems with Teflon, the substance that makes pans nonstick. Teflon is produced from chemicals that are part of an enormous family of chemicals known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroakyl substances, or PFAS, and research has linked exposure to them to many health conditions, including certain cancers, reproductive issues, and high cholesterol. And that is about all we know: In kitchens over the past two decades, the same questions around safety have lingered unanswered amid the aromas of sizzling foods and, perhaps, invisible clouds of Teflon fumes.

    It is objectively ridiculous that the safety of one of the most common household items in America remains such a mystery. But the reality is that it is nearly impossible to measure the risks of PFAS from nonstick cookware—and more important, it’s probably pointless to try. That’s because PFAS have for many decades imparted a valuable stain- and water-resistance to many types of surfaces, including carpets, car seats, and raincoats.

    At this point, the chemicals are also ubiquitous in the environment, particularly in the water supply. Last June, the Environmental Protection Agency established new safety guidelines for the level of certain PFAS in drinking water; a study published around the same time showed that millions of deaths are correlated with PFAS exposure. By the Environmental Working Group’s latest count, PFAS have contaminated more than 2,850 sites in 50 states and two territories—an “alarming” level of pervasiveness, researchers wrote in a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report last year. But something about nonstick pans has generated the biggest freak-out. This is not surprising, given their exposure to food and open flames. After all, people do not heat up and consume raincoats (as far as I know).

    Since research into their health effects began, certain types of PFAS have been flagged as more dangerous than others. Two of them, PFOA and PFOS, were voluntarily phased out by manufacturers for several reasons, including the fact that they were deemed dangerous to the immune system; now many nonstick pans specify that their coatings are PFOA free. (If you’re confused by all the acronyms, you aren’t the only one.) But other types of PFAS are still used in these coatings, and their risks to humans aren’t clear. Teflon claims that any flakes of nonstick coating you might ingest are inert, but public studies backing up that claim are difficult to find.

    In the absence of relevant data, everyone seems to have a different take on nonstick pans. The FDA, for example, allows PFAS to be used in nonstick cookware, but the EPA says that exposure to them can lead to adverse health effects, and last year proposed labeling certain members of the group as “hazardous substances.” According to the CDC, the health effects of low exposure to these chemicals are “uncertain.” Food experts are similarly undecided on nonstick pans: A writer for the culinary site Serious Eats said he “wouldn’t assume they’re totally safe,” whereas a Wirecutter review said they “seem to be safe”—if used correctly.

    That’s about the firmest answer you’re going to get regarding the safety of nonstick cookware. “In no study has it been shown that people who use nonstick pans have higher levels” of PFAS, says Jane Hoppin, a North Carolina State University epidemiologist and a member of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee to study PFAS. But she also told me that, with regard to the broader research on PFAS-related health risks, “I haven’t seen anybody say it’s safe to use.”

    Certainly, more research could be done on PFAS, given the lack of relevant studies. There is no research, for example, showing that people who use nonstick pans are more likely to get sick. The one study on exposure from nonstick pans mentioned in the report that Hoppin and others published last year found inconclusive results after measuring gaseous PFAS released from heated nonstick pans, though the researchers tested only a few pans. Another study in which scientists used nonstick pans to cook beef and pork—and an assortment of more glamorous meats including chicken nuggets—and then measured the PFAS levels likewise failed to reach a conclusion, because too few meat samples were used.

    More scientists could probably be convinced to pursue rigorous research in this field if PFAS exposure came only from nonstick pans. Investigating the risks would be tough, perhaps impossible: Designing a rigorous study to test the risks of PFAS exposure would likely involve forcing unwitting test subjects to breathe in PFAS fumes or eat from flaking pans. But given that we are exposed to PFAS in so many other ways—drinking water being chief among them—what would be the point? “They’re in dental floss, and they’re in your Gore-Tex jacket, and they’re in your shoes,” Hoppin said. “The relative contribution of any one of those things is minor.”

    As long as PFAS keep proliferating in the environment, we might never fully know exactly what nonstick pans are doing to us. The best we can do for now is decide what level of risk we’re willing to accept in exchange for a slippery pan, based on the information available. And that information is frustratingly vague: Most nonstick products come with a disclosure of the types of PFAS they contain and the types they do not. Sometimes they also include instructions to avoid high heat, especially above 500 degrees Fahrenheit. Hoppin recommends throwing nonstick pans away once they start flaking; in general, it seems worth it to use the pans only when essential. There is likewise a dearth of guidance on breathing in the fumes from an overheated pan, though breathing in PFAS fumes in industrial settings has been known to cause flulike symptoms. If you’re concerned, Hoppin said, you could use any of the growing number of nonstick alternatives, including ceramic and carbon-steel cookware. (Her preference is well-seasoned cast iron.)

    Still, perhaps it’s time to accept that exposure to PFAS is inevitable, much like exposure to microplastics and other carcinogens. At this point, so many harmful substances are all around us that there doesn’t seem to be any point in trying to limit them in individual products, though such efforts are underway for raincoats and period underwear. “What we really need to do is remove these chemicals from production,” Hoppin said. The hope is that doing so would broadly reduce our exposure to PFAS, and there’s evidence that it would work: After PFOS was phased out in the early 2000s, its levels in human blood declined significantly. But until PFAS are more tightly regulated, we’ll continue our endless slide through nonstick limbo, with our grasp of the cookware’s safety remaining slippery at best.

    I’ve tried to cut down on my nonstick-pan use for sheer peace of mind. Many professional chefs reject nonstick pans as unnecessary if you know the proper technique; French chefs, after all, were flipping omelets long before the first Teflon pan was invented—by a French engineer—in 1954. Fancying myself a purist, I recently attempted to cook an omelet using All-Clad stainless steel, following a set of demanding instructions involving ungodly amounts of butter and a moderate amount of heat. Unlike my resolve to avoid nonstick pans, the eggs stuck.

    [ad_2]

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • Britain’s semiconductor plan goes AWOL as US and EU splash billions

    Britain’s semiconductor plan goes AWOL as US and EU splash billions

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    LONDON — As nations around the world scramble to secure crucial semiconductor supply chains over fears about relations with China, the U.K. is falling behind.

    The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the world’s heavy reliance on Taiwan and China for the most advanced chips, which power everything from iPhones to advanced weapons. For the past two years, and amid mounting fears China could kick off a new global security crisis by invading Taiwan, Britain’s government has been readying a plan to diversify supply chains for key components and boost domestic production.

    Yet according to people close to the strategy, the U.K.’s still-unseen plan — which missed its publication deadline last fall — has suffered from internal disconnect and government disarray, setting the country behind its global allies in a crucial race to become more self-reliant.

    A lack of experience and joined-up policy-making in Whitehall, a period of intense political upheaval in Downing Street, and new U.S. controls on the export of advanced chips to China, have collectively stymied the U.K.’s efforts to develop its own coherent plan.

    The way the strategy has been developed so far “is a mistake,” said a former senior Downing Street official.

    Falling behind

    During the pandemic, demand for semiconductors outstripped supply as consumers flocked to sort their home working setups. That led to major chip shortages — soon compounded by China’s tough “zero-COVID” policy. 

    Since a semiconductor fabrication plant is so technologically complex — a single laser in a chip lithography system of German firm Trumpf has 457,000 component parts — concentrating manufacturing in a few companies helped the industry innovate in the past.

    But everything changed when COVID-19 struck.

    “Governments suddenly woke up to the fact that — ‘hang on a second, these semiconductor things are quite important, and they all seem to be concentrated in a small number of places,’” said a senior British semiconductor industry executive.

    Beijing’s launch of a hypersonic missile in 2021 also sent shivers through the Pentagon over China’s increasing ability to develop advanced AI-powered weapons. And Russia’s invasion of Ukraine added to geopolitical uncertainty, upping the pressure on governments to onshore manufacturers and reduce reliance on potential conflict hotspots like Taiwan.

    Against this backdrop, many of the U.K.’s allies are investing billions in domestic manufacturing.

    The Biden administration’s CHIPS Act, passed last summer, offers $52 billion in subsidies for semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S. The EU has its own €43 billion plan to subsidize production — although its own stance is not without critics. Emerging producers like India, Vietnam, Singapore and Japan are also making headway in their own multi-billion-dollar efforts to foster domestic manufacturing.

    US President Joe Biden | Samuel Corum/Getty Images

    Now the U.K. government is under mounting pressure to show its own hand. In a letter to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak first reported by the Times and also obtained by POLITICO, Britain’s semiconductor sector said its “confidence in the government’s ability to address the vital importance of the industry is steadily declining with each month of inaction.”

    That followed the leak of an early copy of the U.K.’s semiconductor strategy, reported on by Bloomberg, warning that Britain’s over-dependence on Taiwan for its semiconductor foundries makes it vulnerable to any invasion of the island nation by China.  

    Taiwan, which Beijing considers part of its territory, makes more than 90 percent of the world’s advanced chips, with its Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) vital to the manufacture of British-designed semiconductors.

    U.S. and EU action has already tempted TSMC to begin building new plants and foundries in Arizona and Germany.

    “We critically depend on companies like TSMC,” said the industry executive quoted above. “It would be catastrophic for Western economies if they couldn’t get access to the leading-edge semiconductors any more.”

    Whitehall at war

    Yet there are concerns both inside and outside the British government that key Whitehall departments whose input on the strategy could be crucial are being left out in the cold.

    The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) is preparing the U.K.’s plan and, according to observers, has fiercely maintained ownership of the project. DCMS is one of the smallest departments in Whitehall, and is nicknamed the ‘Ministry of Fun’ due to its oversight of sports and leisure, as well as issues related to tech.

    “In other countries, semiconductor policies are the product of multiple players,” said Paul Triolo, a senior vice president at U.S.-based strategy firm ASG. This includes “legislative support for funding major subsidies packages, commercial and trade departments, R&D agencies, and high-level strategic policy bodies tasked with things like improving supply chain resilience,” he said.

    “You need all elements of the U.K.’s capabilities. You need the diplomatic services, the security services. You need everyone working together on this,” said the former Downing Street official quoted above. “There are huge national security aspects to this.”

    The same person said that relying on “a few [lower] grade officials in DCMS — officials that don’t see the wider picture, or who don’t have either capability or knowledge,” is a mistake. 

    For its part, DCMS rejected the suggestion it is too closely guarding the plan, with a spokesperson saying the ministry is “working closely with industry experts and other government departments … so we can protect and grow our domestic sector and ensure greater supply chain resilience.”

    The spokesperson said the strategy “will be published as soon as possible.”

    But businesses keen for sight of the plan remain unconvinced the U.K. has the right team in place for the job.

    Key Whitehall personnel who had been involved in project have now changed, the executive cited earlier said, and few of those writing the strategy “have much of a background in the industry, or much first-hand experience.”

    Progress was also sidetracked last year by lengthy deliberations over whether the U.K. should block the sale of Newport Wafer Fab, Britain’s biggest semiconductor plant, to Chinese-owned Nexperia on national security grounds, according to two people directly involved in the strategy. The government eventually announced it would block the sale in November.

    And while a draft of the plan existed last year, it never progressed to the all-important ministerial “write-around” process — which gives departments across Whitehall the chance to scrutinize and comment upon proposals.

    Waiting for budget day

    Two people familiar with current discussions about the strategy said ministers are now aiming to make their plan public in the run-up to, or around, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s March 15 budget statement, although they stressed that timing could still change.

    Leaked details of the strategy indicate the government will set aside £1 billion to support chip makers. Further leaks indicate this will be used as seed money for startups, and for boosting existing firms and delivering new incentives for investors.

    U.K. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt | Leon Neal/Getty Images

    There is wrangling with the Treasury and other departments over the size of these subsidies. Experts also say it is unlikely to be ‘new’ money but diverted from other departments’ budgets.

    “We’ll just have to wait for something more substantial,” said a spokesperson from one semiconductor firm commenting on the pre-strategy leaks.

    But as the U.K. procrastinates, key British-linked firms are already being hit by the United States’ own fast-evolving semiconductor strategy. U.S. rules brought in last October — and beefed up in recent days by an agreement with the Netherlands — are preventing some firms from selling the most advanced chip designs and manufacturing equipment to China.

    British-headquartered, Japanese-owned firm ARM — the crown jewel of Britain’s semiconductor industry, which sells some designs to smartphone manufacturers in China — is already seeing limits on what it can export. Other British firms like Graphcore, which develops chips for AI and machine learning, are feeling the pinch too.

    “The U.K. needs to — at pace — understand what it wants its role to be in the industries that will define the future economy,” said Andy Burwell, director for international trade at business lobbying group the CBI.

    Where do we go from here?

    There are serious doubts both inside and outside government about whether Britain’s long-awaited plan can really get to the heart of what is a complex global challenge — and opinion is divided on whether aping the U.S. and EU’s subsidy packages is either possible or even desirable for the U.K.

    A former senior government figure who worked on semiconductor policy said that while the U.K. definitely needs a “more coherent worked-out plan,” publishing a formal strategy may actually just reveal how “complicated, messy and beyond our control” the issue really is.

    “It’s not that it is problematic that we don’t have a strategy,” they said. “It’s problematic that whatever strategy we have is not going to be revolutionary.” They described the idea of a “boosterish” multi-billion-pound investment in Britain’s own fabricator industry as “pie in the sky.”

    The former Downing Street official said Britain should instead be seeking to work “in collaboration” with EU and U.S. partners, and must be “careful to avoid” a subsidy war with allies.

    The opposition Labour Party, hot favorites to form the next government after an expected 2024 election, takes a similar view. “It’s not the case that the U.K. can do this on its own,” Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy said recently, urging ministers to team up with the EU to secure its supply of semiconductors.

    One area where some experts believe the U.K. may be able to carve out a competitive advantage, however, is in the design of advanced semiconductors.

    “The U.K. would probably be best placed to pursue support for start-up semiconductor design firms such as Graphcore,” said ASG’s Triolo, “and provide support for expansion of capacity at the existing small number of companies manufacturing at more mature nodes” such as Nexperia’s Newport Wafer Fab.

    Ministers launched a research project in December aimed at tapping into the U.K. semiconductor sector’s existing strength in design. The government has so far poured £800 million into compound semiconductor research through universities, according to a recent report by the House of Commons business committee.

    But the same group of MPs wants more action to support advanced chip design. Burwell at the CBI business group said the U.K. government must start “working alongside industry, rather than the government basically developing a strategy and then coming to industry afterwards.”

    Right now the government is “out there a bit struggling to see what levers they have to pull,” said the senior semiconductor executive quoted earlier.

    Under World Trade Organization rules, governments are allowed to subsidize their semiconductor manufacturing capabilities, the executive pointed out. “The U.S. is doing it. Europe’s doing it. Taiwan does it. We should do it too.”

    This story has been updated. Cristina Gallardo contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Graham Lanktree and Annabelle Dickson

    Source link

  • What happens to Europe when the balloon goes up?

    What happens to Europe when the balloon goes up?

    [ad_1]

    BERLIN — The saga of the Chinese spy balloon has plunged relations between Washington and Beijing into fresh crisis. For European governments, that spells all kinds of trouble.

    With relations worsening between the two superpowers, EU leaders seem likely to come under intensifying pressure from the White House to pick sides and join forces against China, just as they were hoping for a thaw in tricky relations with Beijing. 

    And then there’s the war. 

    Russia is preparing a major offensive in Ukraine over the next few weeks but EU diplomats fear the balloon incident risks distracting President Joe Biden’s team at exactly the moment when American support for Kyiv will be needed most. 

    “We never expected 2023 to be easy, but this is off to a really tough start,” one European diplomat said. 

    On Saturday, the U.S. shot down what it identified as a Chinese surveillance balloon off the coast of South Carolina with an air-to-air missile from an F-22 stealth fighter jet. 

    Secretary of State Antony Blinken indefinitely postponed a visit to Beijing that had been scheduled for this week, the first such trip planned for a U.S. cabinet-level official under Biden’s presidency.

    Images of the incident have circulated in dramatic video footage on social media, taken mostly by excited onlookers cheering the theatrical show of military might.

    Beijing insists the giant solar panel-powered object was a “civilian airship” that went off course while conducting “mainly meteorological” research. In response to the missile strike, the Chinese government expressed “strong dissatisfaction” and protested against the use of force by the U.S. to attack the unmanned, civilian craft. It added that it would “reserve the right to take further necessary responses.”

    U.S. foreign policy, while still heavily invested in supporting Ukraine militarily, may be distracted by the sharpening clashes with Beijing. Right-wing U.S. politicians have been calling for more attention on China since Russia invaded Ukraine a year ago. 

    As the “U.S.-China rivalry sharpens, there will be more pressure on Europeans, whose approach to China is very diverse, to pick sides,” said Ricardo Borges de Castro, head of the Europe in the World Program at the European Policy Centre, a Brussels-based think tank. “The reality is, if the world becomes increasingly dominated by two poles — U.S. and China — the EU and Europeans will need to pick sides for as long as Europe’s security and defense depends on the U.S. umbrella.”

    Russia, in the meantime, is expected to launch massive offensives in just a few weeks, when the harshest winter season comes to an end, according to Ukrainian officials.

    A plane flies past the Chinese spy balloon (top right) | Nell Redmond/EPA

    “Washington will be busy with Beijing for some time now,” a senior EU diplomat said on Sunday. “It’s not goodnews for the EU because Russia is still the main concern.”

    Bad timing

    For Europe, the incident also comes at an inconvenient moment as senior officials have been preparing to re-engage with Beijing.

    The EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, is understood to be making plans for a trip to Beijing in April, when he would also be expected to travel to Japan for a G7 ministerial meeting. Separately, French President Emmanuel Macron has also announced his intention to meet President Xi Jinping in the Chinese capital early this year; he would be interested in taking a top official from the European Commission to join him, according to an official with knowledge of the plans.

    The latest U.S.-China flare-up “means that we would now have to be watching how badly China reacts, and whether these [planned] trips will be treated as a propaganda success by Beijing in splitting up the transatlantic ties,” a diplomat said on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to speak on this subject.

    “In the wake of the Ukraine war, the China policy coordination between both sides of the [the Atlantic is] losing steam,” said Reinhard Bütikofer, chair of the European Parliament’s delegation on relations with China. “While Washington D.C. enhances pressure against Beijing particularly on the technological front and in the Taiwan context, Brussels, Berlin and Paris show new hesitancy.” 

    Further complicating matters is Beijing’s apparent lack of interest in helping the West put pressure on Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine.

    Worse, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal, China has emerged as the dominant supplier of dual-use goods to Russia, providing technology that Moscow’s military needs to prosecute its invasion. Chinese state-owned defense companies have shipped navigation equipment, jamming technology and fighter-jet parts to sanctioned Russian government-owned defense companies, according to the article.

    European leaders have repeatedly warned Beijing not to aid Moscow militarily.

    China’s top foreign policy official, Wang Yi, has dropped a plan to visit Brussels even though he would be traveling to Germany for the Munich Security Conference in February, two diplomats told POLITICO. 

    Europe’s reaction to the balloon incident was muted. The EU merely noted the U.S.’s right to defend its airspace. “Safety and protection of airspace is an issue of national security and therefore a competence, responsibility and prerogative” of the specific state or states involved, an EU spokesperson said on Sunday. 

    China’s Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu visited Moscow last week to reassure his Russian counterparts | Johannes Eisele/ AFP via Getty Images

    Few European countries supported the Biden administration’s decision in public, highlighting a general sense of reluctance to aggravate Beijing. One of the exceptions was Estonia, where Foreign Minister Urmas Reinsalu, retweeting a BBC report about the balloon’s downing, said: “I support USA operation to defend its sovereignty. I fully condemn provocations jeopardising USA national security.”

    Other U.S. allies did not hold back. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau praised the operation, tweeting “Canada strongly supports this action — we’ll keep working together … on our security and defense.”

    South Korea’s Foreign Minister Park Jin, during a visit to Washington, said “I sufficiently understand the decision to postpone Secretary [Blinken]’s visit to China and I think that China should make a swift and very sincere explanation about what happened.”

    Tom Tugendhat, U.K. security minister and a long-time skeptic of Beijing, called for concern over other forms of Chinese threats. “Worried about being spied on from the sky? Look at what some apps are collecting on your phone and consider your cyber security. Some risks are much closer to home,” he tweeted.  

    EU foreign policy in 2023 may be defined by which of these expires first: European  indecision over China, or America’s appetite for providing Europe’s defense. 

    [ad_2]

    Stuart Lau

    Source link

  • The Great British Walkout: Rishi Sunak braces for biggest UK strike in 12 years

    The Great British Walkout: Rishi Sunak braces for biggest UK strike in 12 years

    [ad_1]

    LONDON — Public sector workers on strike, the cost-of-living climbing, and a government on the ropes.

    “It’s hard to miss the parallels” between the infamous ‘Winter of Discontent’ of 1978-79 and Britain in 2023, says Robert Saunders, historian of modern Britain at Queen Mary, University of London.

    Admittedly, the comparison only goes so far. In the 1970s it was a Labour government facing down staunchly socialist trade unions in a wave of strikes affecting everything from food deliveries to grave-digging, while Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives sat in opposition and awaited their chance. 

    But a mass walkout fixed for Wednesday could yet mark a staging post in the downward trajectory of Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives, just as it did for Callaghan’s Labour. 

    Britain is braced for widespread strike action Wednesday, as an estimated 100,000 civil servants from government departments, ports, airports and driving test centers walk out alongside hundreds of thousands of teachers across England and Wales, train drivers from 14 national operators and staff at 150 U.K. universities.

    It follows rolling action by train and postal workers, ambulance drivers, paramedics, and nurses in recent months. In a further headache for Sunak, firefighters on Monday night voted to walk out for the first time in two decades.

    While each sector has its own reasons for taking action, many of those on strike are united by the common cause of stagnant pay, with inflation still stubbornly high. And that makes it harder for Sunak to pin the blame on the usual suspects within the trade union movement.

    Mr Reasonable

    Industrial action has in the past been wielded as a political weapon by the Conservative Party, which could count on a significant number of ordinary voters being infuriated by the withdrawal of public services.

    Tories have consequently often used strikes as a stick with which to beat their Labour opponents, branding the left-wing party as beholden to its trade union donors.

    But public sympathies have shifted this time round, and it’s no longer so simple to blame the union bogeymen.

    Sunak has so far attempted to cast himself as Mr Reasonable, stressing that his “door is always open” to workers but warning that the right to strike must be “balanced” with the provision of services. To this end, he is pressing ahead with long-promised legislation to enforce minimum service standards in sectors hit by industrial action.

    Sunak has made tackling inflation the raison d’etre of his government, and his backbenchers are reasonably content to rally behind that banner | POOL photo by Oli Scarff/Getty Images

    Unions are enraged by the anti-strike legislation, yet Sunak’s soft-ish rhetoric is still in sharp relief to the famously bellicose Thatcher, who pledged during the 1979 strikes that “if someone is confronting our essential liberties … then, by God, I will confront them.”

    Sunak’s careful approach is chosen at least in part because the political ground has shifted beneath him since the coronavirus pandemic struck in 2020.

    Public sympathy for frontline medical staff, consistently high in the U.K., has been further embedded by the extreme demands placed upon nurses and other hospital staff during the pandemic. And inflation is hitting workers across the economy — not just in the public sector — helping to create a broader reservoir of sympathy for strikers than has often been found in the past. 

    James Frayne, a former government adviser who co-founded polling consultancy Public First, observes: “Because of the cost-of-living crisis, what you [as prime minister] can’t do, as you might be able to do in the past, is just portray this as being an ideologically-driven strike.”

    Starmer’s sleight of hand

    At the same time, strikes are not the political headache for the opposition Labour Party they once were. 

    Thatcher was able to portray Callaghan as weak when he resisted the use of emergency powers against the unions. David Cameron was never happier than when inviting then-Labour leader Ed Miliband to disown his “union paymasters,” particularly during the last mass public sector strike in 2011.

    Crucially, trade union votes had played a key role in Miliband’s election as party leader — something the Tories would never let him forget. But when Sunak attempts to reprise Cameron’s refrains against Miliband, few seem convinced.

    QMUL’s Saunders argues that the Conservatives are trying to rerun “a 1980s-style campaign” depicting Labour MPs as being in the pocket of the unions. But “I just don’t think this resonates with the public,” he added.

    Labour’s current leader, Keir Starmer, has actively sought to weaken the left’s influence in the party, attracting criticism from senior trade unionists. Most eye-catchingly, Starmer sacked one of his own shadow ministers, Sam Tarry, after he defied an order last summer that the Labour front bench should not appear on picket lines.

    Starmer has been “given cover,” as one shadow minister put it, by Sunak’s decision to push ahead with the minimum-service legislation. It means Labour MPs can please trade unionists by fighting the new restrictions in parliament — without having to actually stand on the picket line. 

    So far it seems to be working. Paul Nowak, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, an umbrella group representing millions of U.K. trade unionists, told POLITICO: “Frankly, I’m less concerned about Labour frontbenchers standing up on picket lines for selfies than I am about the stuff that really matters to our union” — namely the government’s intention to “further restrict the right to strike.”

    The TUC is planning a day of action against the new legislation on Wednesday, coinciding with the latest wave of strikes.

    Sticking to their guns

    For now, Sunak’s approach appears to be hitting the right notes with his famously restless pack of Conservative MPs.

    Sunak has made tackling inflation the raison d’etre of his government, and his backbenchers are reasonably content to rally behind that banner.

    As one Tory MP for an economically-deprived marginal seat put it: “We have to hold our nerve. There’s a strong sense of the corner (just about) being turned on inflation rising, so we need to be as tough as possible … We can’t now enable wage increases that feed inflation.”

    Another agreed: “Rishi should hold his ground. My guess is that eventually people will get fed up with the strikers — especially rail workers.”

    Furthermore, Public First’s Frayne says his polling has picked up the first signs of an erosion of support for strikes since they kicked off last summer, particularly among working-class voters.

    “We’re at the point now where people are feeling like ‘well, I haven’t had a pay rise, and I’m not going to get a pay rise, and can we all just accept that it’s tough for everybody and we’ve got to get on with it,’” he said.

    More than half (59 percent) of people back strike action by nurses, according to new research by Public First, while for teachers the figure is 43 percent, postal workers 41 percent and rail workers 36 percent.

    ‘Everything is broken’

    But the broader concern for Sunak’s Conservatives is that, regardless of whatever individual pay deals are eventually hammered out, the wave of strikes could tap into a deeper sense of malaise in the U.K.

    Inflation remains high, and the government’s independent forecaster predicted in December that the U.K. will fall into a recession lasting more than a year.

    More than half (59 percent) of people back strike action by nurses, according to new research by Public First, while for teachers the figure is 43 percent, postal workers 41 percent and rail workers 36 percent | Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images

    Strikes by ambulance workers only drew more attention to an ongoing crisis in the National Health Service, with patients suffering heart attacks and strokes already facing waits of more than 90 minutes at the end of 2022.

    Moving around the country has been made difficult not only by strikes, but by multiple failures by rail providers on key routes.

    One long-serving Conservative MP said they feared a sense of fatalism was setting in among the public — “the idea that everything is broken and there’s no point asking this government to fix it.”

    A former Cabinet minister said the most pressing issue in their constituency is the state of public services, and strike action signaled political danger for the government. They cautioned that the public are not blaming striking workers, but ministers, for the disruption.

    Those at the top of government are aware of the risk of such a narrative taking hold, with the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, taking aim at “declinism about Britain” in a keynote speech Friday.

    Whether the government can do much to change the story, however, is less clear.

    Saunders harks back to Callaghan’s example, noting that public sector workers were initially willing to give the Labour government the benefit of the doubt, but that by 1979 the mood had fatally hardened.

    This is because strikes are not only about falling living standards, he argues. “It’s also driven by a loss of faith in government that things are going to get better.”

    With an election looming next year, Rishi Sunak is running out of time to turn the public mood around.

    Annabelle Dickson and Graham Lanktree contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Esther Webber

    Source link

  • Fauci Q&A: On Masking, Vaccines, and What Keeps Him Up at Night

    Fauci Q&A: On Masking, Vaccines, and What Keeps Him Up at Night

    [ad_1]

    Jan. 30, 2023 – When he was a young boy growing up in Brooklyn, Anthony Fauci loved playing sports. As captain of his high school basketball team, he wanted to be an athlete, but at 5-foot-7, he says it wasn’t in the cards. So, he decided to become a doctor instead. 

    Fauci, who turned 82 in December, stepped down as the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that same month, leaving behind a high-profile career in government spanning more than half a century, during which he counseled seven presidents, including Joe Biden. Fauci worked at the National Institutes of Health for 54 years and served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for 38 years. In an interview last week, he spoke to WebMD about his career and his plans for the future. 

    This interview has been edited and condensed.

    It’s only been a few weeks since your official “retirement,” but what’s next for you?

    What’s next for me is certainly not classical retirement. I have probably a few more years of being as active, vigorous, passionate about my field of public health, public service in the arena of infectious diseases and immunology. [I’ve] had the privilege of advising seven presidents of the United States in areas that are fundamentally centered around our response and preparation for emerging infections going back to the early years of HIV, pandemic flu, bird flu, Ebola, Zika, and now, most recently the last 3 years, with COVID. What I want to do in the next few years, by writing, by lecturing, and by serving in a senior advisory role, is to hopefully inspire young people to go into the field of medicine and science, and perhaps even to consider going into the area of public service. 

    Almost certainly, I’ll begin working on a memoir. So that’s what I’d like to do over the next few years.

    Are you looking forward to going back and seeing patients and being out of the public eye?

    I will almost certainly associate myself with a medical center, either one locally here in the Washington, DC, area or some of the other medical centers that have expressed an interest in my joining the faculty. I am not going to dissociate myself from clinical medicine, since clinical medicine is such an important part of my identity and has been thus literally for well over 50 years. So, I’m not exactly sure of the venue in which I will do that, but I certainly will have some connection with clinical medicine.

    What are you looking forward to most about going back to doctoring?

    Well, I’ve always had a great deal of attraction to the concept of medicine, the application of medicine. I have taken care of thousands of patients in my long career. I spent a considerable amount of time in the early years of HIV, even before we knew it was HIV, taking care of desperately ill patients. I’ve been involved in a number of clinical research projects, and I was always fascinated by that because there’s much gratification and good feeling you get when you take care of, personally, an individual patient, when you do research that advances the field, and those advances that you may have been a part of benefit larger numbers of patients that are being taken care of by other physicians throughout the country and perhaps even throughout the world. 

    So those are all of the aspects of clinical medicine that I want to encourage younger people that these are the opportunities that they can be a part of, which can be very gratifying and certainly productive in the sense of saving lives.

    Looking back over your career, what were some of the highs and lows, or turning points?

    I first became involved in the personal care and research on persons with HIV, literally in the fall of 1981. [That was] weeks to months after the first cases were recognized. My colleagues and I spent the next few years taking care of desperately ill patients, and we did not have effective therapies because the first couple of years, we did not even know what the ideologic agent was. Even after it was recognized after 1983 and 1984, it took several years before effective therapies were developed, so there was a period of time where we were in a very difficult situation. We were essentially putting Band-Aids on hemorrhages, metaphorically, because no matter what we did, our patients continued to decline. That was a low and dark period of our lives, inspired only by the bravery and the resilience of our patients. A very high period was in [the late 1990s] and into the next century [with the development] of drugs that were highly effective in prolonged and effective suppression of viral loads to the point where people who were living with HIV, if they had access to therapy, could essentially lead a normal lifespan..

    We put together the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief program know as PEPFAR, which now, celebrating its 20th anniversary, has resulted in saving 20-25 million lives. So, I would say that is … the highest point in my experience as a physician and a scientist, to have been an important part in the development of that program.

    Do you feel like there’s any unfinished business? Anything you would change? 

    Certainly, there’s unfinished business. One of the goals I would have liked to have achieved, but that is going to have to wait another few years, is the development of a safe and effective vaccine for HIV. A lot of very elegant science has been done in that regard, but we’re not there yet, it’s a very challenging scientific problem. 

    The other unfinished business is some of the other diseases that cause a considerable amount of morbidity and mortality globally, diseases like malaria and tuberculosis. We’ve made extraordinary progress over the 38 years that I’ve been director of the institute We have a vaccine, though it isn’t a perfect vaccine [for malaria]; we have monoclonal antibodies that are now highly effective in preventing malaria; we have newer drugs, better drugs for tuberculosis, but we don’t have an effective vaccine for tuberculosis. So, malaria vaccines, tuberculosis vaccines, those are all unfinished business. I believe we will get there.

    These new COVID-19 variants keep getting more and more contagious. Do you see the potential for a serious new variant that could plunge us back into some level of public restrictions?

    Anything is possible. One cannot predict, exactly, what the likelihood of getting yet again another variant that’s so different that it eludes the protection that we have from the vaccines and from prior infection. Again, I can’t give a number on that. I don’t think it’s highly likely that will happen. 

    Ever since Omicron came well over a year ago, we have had sublineages of Omicron that progressively seem to elude the immune response that’s been developed. But the one thing that’s good and has been sustained is that protection against severity of disease seems to hold out pretty well. I don’t think that we should be talking about restrictions in the sense of draconian methods of shutting things down; I mean, that was only done for a very brief period of time when our hospitals were being overrun. I don’t anticipate that that is going to be something in the future, but you’ve got to be prepared for it. There are some things that have been highly successful, and that is the vaccines that were developed in less than 1 year. And now, our challenge is to get more people to get their updated boosters. 

    There’s already been criticism of the FDA’s discussion about of an annual COVID-19 vaccine. One criticism is that the COVID vaccines’ effectiveness appears to wane after several months, so it would not offer protection for much of the year. Is that a legitimate criticism?

    There’s no perfect solution to keeping the country optimally protected. I believe that it gets down to, “It’s not perfect, but don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” We want to get into some regular cadence to get people updated with a booster that is hopefully managed reasonably well to what the circulating variant is. There are certainly going to be people – perhaps the elderly, some of the immune-compromised, and perhaps children – who will need a shot more than once per year, but the FDA’s leaning towards getting a shot that is [timed] with the flu shot, would at least bring some degree of order and stability to the process of people getting into the regular routine of keeping themselves updated and protected to the best extent possible. 

    Do you think we need to move on from mRNA vaccines to something that hopefully has longer-lasting protection?

    Yes, we certainly want next-generation vaccines – both vaccines that have a greater degree of breadth, namely covering multiple variants, as well as a greater degree of duration. So, the real question is, “Is it the mRNA vaccine platform that is inducing a response that is not durable, or is the response against coronaviruses not a durable response?” That’s still uncertain. Yes, we need to do better with a better platform, or an improvement on the platform; that could mean adding adjuvants, that could mean a [nasal] vaccine in addition to a systemic vaccine. 

    Do you always wear a mask when you go out into the world? How do you evaluate the relative risk of situations when you go out in public?

    I’ve been vaccinated, doubly boosted, I’ve gotten infected, and I’ve gotten the bivalent boost. So, I evaluate things depending upon what the level of viral activity is in the particular location where I’m at. If I’m going to go on a plane, for example, I have no idea where these people are coming from, I generally wear a mask on a plane. I don’t really go to congregate settings often. Many of the events I do go to are situations where a requirement for [attending] is to get a test that’s negative that day. 

    When you’re in a situation like that, even if it’s a crowded congregant setting, I don’t have any problem not wearing a mask. But when I’m unsure of what the status is and I might be in an area where there is a considerable degree of viral activity, I would wear a mask. I think you just have to use [your] judgment, depending on the circumstances that you find yourself in.

    Doctors and health care professionals have been through hell during COVID. Do you think this might bring a permanent change to how doctors perceive their jobs?

    Health care providers have been under a considerable amount of stress because this is a totally unprecedented situation that we find ourselves in. This is the likes of which we have not seen in well over 100 years. I hope this is not something that is going to be permanent, I don’t think it is, I think that we are ultimately going to get to a point where the level of virus is low enough that it’s not going to disrupt either society or the health care system or the economy. 

    We’re not totally there yet. We’re still having about 500 deaths per day, which is much, much better than the 3,000 to 4,000 deaths that we were seeing over a year ago, but it is still not low enough to be able to feel comfortable. 

    As a scientist, even a semi-retired one, what scares you? What wakes you up at night with worry? 

    The same thing I have been concerned about for, you know, 40 years: the appearance of a highly transmissible respiratory virus that has a degree of morbidity and mortality that could really be very disruptive of us in this country and globally. Unfortunately, we’re in the middle of that situation now, finishing our third year and going into year 4. So what worries me is yet another pandemic. Now that could be a year from now, 5 years from now, 50 years from now. Remember, the last time a pandemic of this magnitude occurred was well over 100 years ago. My concern is that we stay prepared. [We may] not necessarily prevent the emergence of a new infection, but hopefully we can prevent it from becoming a pandemic.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The GastroIntestinal Research Foundation Awards Grants to Two Cancer Research Powerhouses

    The GastroIntestinal Research Foundation Awards Grants to Two Cancer Research Powerhouses

    [ad_1]

    Press Release


    Jan 24, 2023

    Treating and curing cancer remains an urgent health research priority. The GastroIntestinal Research Foundation (the Foundation) has made bold and innovative grant awards to advance the development of immunotherapies and personalized vaccines for colorectal cancer. With a focus on improving patient outcomes, it has identified and evaluated science from across the country, including two recent awards to the MD Anderson Cancer Clinic at the University of Texas and Mayo Clinic. 

    The Foundation’s Executive Director, Jackie Casey, said, “The Foundation designed CA CURE to get vital research dollars quickly into the hands of investigators. Far too many people are developing cancer, many after living with a digestive disease such as ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s, fatty liver disease, and others. Research is the pathway to preventing and curing cancer. With focused funding on immunotherapies and vaccines and by taking multiple shots on goal with multiple research grants, we hope to see new successful treatments on the horizon.”     

    The Foundation awarded a $3.5 million grant over the next three years to MD Anderson to conduct three interrelated projects designed to improve survival in patients with BRAF-mutated (BRAFmut) colorectal cancer (CRC), seen in about 10% of patients and with poor survival prognosis. These projects will evaluate treatment combinations to block common ways that BRAFmut tumors escape treatment by targeting defects in DNA repair. The research will identify optimal treatment regimens for these tumors. Project 2 will evaluate the diversity of BRAFmut tumors over time and between patients to understand the changes in BRAF biology over multiple lines of therapy. Innovative methodologies will allow tracking of individual cancer cells to compare these changes after targeted therapies. Project 3 will identify novel immunotherapy combinations in tumors without DNA repair defects. An ongoing clinical trial combining immunotherapy and targeted therapy will be expanded. This trial examines treatment-related changes in the immune response in and around the tumor, by examining patient tumor biopsies, to determine if the observed immune responses are related to the clinical response. 

    Dr. Scott Kopetz, the lead investigator on this research project, said, “One of our greatest strengths is moving today’s most promising laboratory findings into new, more effective, treatments. Collectively, this work will support translation of these findings into new clinical trials and provide support for novel treatment approaches in the clinic. Like the GI Research Foundation, we are committed to improved patient outcomes, and we are grateful for its support.”  

    The Foundation awarded a $6 million grant over the next three years to Mayo Clinic to conduct three translational projects with a focus on individualized molecularly-targeted therapies to enhance survival and potentially cure metastatic CRC. Project 1 will conduct a clinical trial focused upon vaccinating CRC patients against multiple mutated proteins (neoantigens) specific to a patient’s own tumor. This strategy is called neoantigen vaccination and uses a novel homegrown bioinformatics workflow for neoantigen detection from tumor DNA/RNA sequencing data. Unlike most cancer treatments, vaccines have little to no side effects and greatly improve anti-tumor responses to other FDA-approved immunotherapies. Dr. Keith Knutson, an expert in cancer immunotherapy, is the principal investigator of this project. Project 2 aims to develop a novel chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy that arms T cells to target a specific protein expressed on the outer cell membrane of CRC tumor cells. The project, which will also include an early-phase clinical trial, is led by Dr. Saad Kenderian, an expert in CAR T engineering and CAR T clinical trials. Lastly, Project 3 is focused on developing precision medicine drug combinations that target multiple patient-specific tumor mutations. The study will use innovative CRC patient tumor tissue-derived preclinical ‘avatar’ models, each with unique mutational signatures, to develop cancer-killing drug combinations that can be readily advanced to patients into the clinic. This project is led by Dr. John Copland, whose expertise is in the development and clinical translation of novel combination molecular inhibitors.  

    Co-principal investigators, Drs. Copland, Knutson and Kenderian, said, “Our labs’ overarching goals are to explore novel cancer genes, to better understand molecular mechanisms of cancer formation and tumor progression, as well as the immune system, to develop effective molecular-targeted therapeutics with less toxicity and improved patient outcomes. We are grateful for the GI Research Foundation grant as it will allow us to take successes in the study of other cancers and apply them to colorectal cancer.” 

    About the GastroIntestinal Research Foundation 

    In 1961, the GI Research Foundation was founded by grateful patients and friends of the late Dr. Joseph B. Kirsner, a pioneer in gastroenterology, who devoted his life to medicine, teaching, and patient care. Since then, in partnership with University of Chicago Medicine Digestive Diseases Center and with gifts from generous donors, the Foundation has given millions to support research. Your donation will drive improved treatment of, help discover prevention pathways for and ultimately cure digestive diseases.  

    Source: GastroIntestinal Research Foundation

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 3D-Printed Tumor Models Could Advance New Cancer Therapies

    3D-Printed Tumor Models Could Advance New Cancer Therapies

    [ad_1]

    Jan. 20, 2023 – Scientists have made big strides in the fight against cancer. A person’s risk of dying of cancer in the U.S. fell by 27% in the past 2 decades, thanks in large part to researchers who continue to uncover the complex details of how cancer works and to make advances in treatment. 

    Now the emerging technology of 3D bioprinting – like 3D printing for the human body, using actual human cells – promises to speed up that research, by enabling scientists to develop 3D tumor models that better represent samples from patients.   

    The impact could be “huge,” says Y. Shrike Zhang, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate bioengineer at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who studies 3D bioprinting. “It is not the only technology that may allow modeling of tumors in vitro, but it certainly is one of the most capable.” 

    Why does that matter? Because the 2D cell cultures that scientists often use now may not capture all the complexities of how cancer grows, spreads, and responds to treatment. It’s one reason why so few potential new cancer drugs – 3.4%, according to one estimate – can pass all clinical trials. Results may not carry over from the culture dish to the patient

    A 3D-bioprinted model, on the other hand, may be better at copying a tumor’s “microenvironment” – all the parts (cells, molecules, blood vessels) that surround a tumor. 

    “The tumor microenvironment plays an integral role in defining how cancer progresses,” says Madhuri Dey, a PhD candidate and researcher at Penn State University. “In-vitro 3D models are an attempt at reconstituting a [cancer] microenvironment, which sheds light on how tumors respond to chemo or immunotherapeutic treatments when they are present in a native-like microenvironment.”

    Dey is the lead author of a study (funded by the National Science Foundation) in which breast cancer tumors were 3D-bioprinted and successfully treated. Unlike some previous 3D models of cancer cells, this model did a better job of imitating that microenvironment, explains Dey. 

    So far, “3D bioprinting of cancer models has been limited to bioprinting of individual cancer cells laden in hydrogels,” she says. But she and her colleagues developed a technique (called aspiration-assisted bioprinting) that lets them control where blood vessels are located relative to the tumor. “This model lays the foundation for studying these nuances of cancer,” Dey says. 

    “This is a quite cool work,” Zhang says of the Penn State study (which he was not involved in). “Vascularization is always a key component in [a] majority of the tumor types.” A model that incorporates blood vessels provides a “critical niche” to help tumor models reach their full potential in cancer research. 

    A 3D Printer for Your Body

    Chances are you’ve heard of 3D printing and may even own (or know someone who owns) a 3D printer. The concept is like regular printing, but instead of spewing ink onto paper, a 3D printer releases layers of plastic or other materials, hundreds or thousands of times, to build an object from the ground up

    Three-dimensional bioprinting works much the same way, except those layers are made of living cells to create biological structures like skin, vessels, organs, or bone. 

    Bioprinting has been around since 1988. So far, it’s mainly used in research settings, such as in the field of regenerative medicine. Research is underway for ear reconstruction, nerve regeneration, and skin regeneration. The technology was also recently used to create eye tissue to help researchers study eye diseases. 

    The technology’s potential for use in cancer research has yet to be fully realized, Dey says. But that may be changing. 

    “The use of 3D-bioprinted tumor models is getting close to translations in cancer research,” says Zhang. “They are being increasingly adopted by the research field, and [the technology] has started to be explored by the pharma industry for use towards cancer drug development.” 

    Because bioprinting can be automated, it could allow researchers to create high-quality, complex tumor models at scale, Zhang says.

    Such 3D models also have the potential to replace or reduce the use of animals in tumor drug testing, Dey notes. They “are expected to provide a more accurate drug response compared to animal models, as animal physiology does not match humans’.” 

    The FDA Modernization Act 2.0, a new U.S. law eliminating the requirement that drugs be tested in animals before humans, has “further paved the way for such technologies in the drug development pipeline,” Zhang says.

    What if We Could Build a Custom Tumor Model for Each Patient? 

    Possible uses for bioprinting go beyond the lab, Dey says. Imagine if we could customize 3D tumor models based on biopsies from individual patients. Doctors could test many treatments on these patient-specific models, letting them more accurately predict how each patient would respond to different therapies. This would help doctors decide which course of treatment is best. 

    In Dey’s study, the 3D model was treated with chemotherapy and with immunotherapy, and it responded to both. This highlights the potential for such 3D models to reveal the body’s immune response and be used to screen therapies, Dey says. 

    “We hope is that in the future, this technique can be adapted in the hospital, which would speed up the course of cancer treatment,” says Dey.

    To that end, she and her colleagues are now working with real breast cancer tumors removed from patients, re-creating them in the lab in 3D to use for chemo and immunotherapy screening. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Thierry Breton: Brussels’ bulldozer digs in against US

    Thierry Breton: Brussels’ bulldozer digs in against US

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    Thierry Breton is winning the war of ideas in Brussels.

    The ex-CEO is a political whirlwind with a gigantic portfolio as internal market chief, the backing of French President Emmanuel Macron and lots of proposals. He’s been touring European Union capitals to win support for plans to shield Europe’s industry from crippling energy prices, American subsidies and “naive” EU free traders.

    France’s decades-long push for more state intervention is finally finding some echo in Berlin and the 13th floor of the Berlaymont building, occupied by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who largely owes her job to Macron.

    Omnipresent and ebullient, Breton is playing a key role in marshaling industry and political support for sweeping but so far vague plans to boost clean tech, secure key raw materials and overhaul EU checks on government support that he blasts as too slow to help companies.

    “Of course there is resistance; my job is precisely to manage and align everyone,” he told French TV this week of his January meetings with Spanish, Polish and Belgian leaders to flog a forthcoming industrial policy push that could be a turning point in how far European governments will finance companies.

    Time is short. Von der Leyen wants to line up proposals for a February summit. European industry is complaining that it can’t swallow far higher energy prices and tighter regulation for much longer, with at least one announcing a European shutdown and an Asian expansion.

    Breton said governments don’t need convincing on the need for rapid action. But he’s running up against one of Europe’s sacred cows — EU state aid rules run by Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager that curb government support with lengthy checks to make sure companies don’t get unfair help. She’s also under intense pressure to preserve a “level playing field” as smaller countries worry about German and French financial firepower.

    The French internal market commissioner’s bullish style often sees him act as if he’s got a role in subsidies. In the fall, he sent a letter to EU countries asking them to send views on emergency state aid rules to the internal market department, which is under his supervision, two EU officials recalled. 

    In a meeting with European diplomats, a Commission representative had to correct it, the EU officials said, asking capitals to make sure the input goes instead to the competition department overseen by Vestager. 

    Europe First

    While Breton doesn’t like to be called a protectionist, his latest mission has been to protect Europe from its transatlantic friend.

    As early as September, one Commission official said, the Frenchman was mandated by Europe’s industry to speak out against U.S. President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which provides tax credits for U.S.-made electric cars and support to American battery supply chains.

    U.S President Joe Biden gives remarks during an event celebrating the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act on September 13, 2022 | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

    His Paris-backed campaign charged ahead while EU officials and diplomats tiptoed around the subject. Some within the Commission headquarters found his bad cop routine helpful in keeping pressure on the U.S. 

    “He’s been constructive, though clearly disruptive,” said Tyson Barker, head of the technology and global affairs program at the German Council of Foreign Relations.

    The Frenchman has even pitched himself as the bloc’s “sheriff” against Silicon Valley giants, warning billionaire Elon Musk that an overhaul of the Twitter social network can only go so far since “in Europe, the bird will fly by our rules.”

    “Big Tech companies only understand balances of power,” said Cédric O, a former French digital minister who worked with Breton during the French EU Council presidency. “When [Breton and Musk] see each other, it necessarily remains cordial, but Breton shows his teeth and rightly so. It’s his job.”

    Breton can even surprise his own services, according to two EU officials. In May, the Commission’s department responsible for digital policy — DG CONNECT — was caught off guard when Breton announced in the press that he would unveil plans by year-end to make sure that technology giants forked out for telecoms networks. 

    In so doing, Breton — who was CEO of France Télécom in the early 2000s — resurrected a long-dormant and fractious policy debate that had been put to rest almost a decade ago, when erstwhile Digital Commissioner Neelie Kroes ordered Europe’s telecoms operators to “adapt or die” rather than seek money from content providers.

    After Breton’s commitments, the Commission’s services were soon scrambling to develop some sort of a coherent policy program to deliver on the Frenchman’s comments. A consultation is scheduled for early this year. 

    Carte blanche

    Breton is a rare creature in the halls of the Berlaymont, where policy is hatched slowly after extensive consultation. To a former CEO with a broad remit — his portfolio runs from the expanse of space to the tiniest of microchips — rapid reaction matters more than treading on toes or singing from the hymn sheet. This often sees him floating ideas and then pulling back.

    Last year he alarmed environmentalists by raising the prospect of a U-turn on the EU’s polluting car ban. He wagged his finger at German Chancellor Olaf Scholz for a solo trip to China. He called for nuclear energy to be considered green. He has pushed out grand projects — such as industrial alliances on batteries and cloud, or a cyber shield — that he doesn’t always follow up on.

    He’s even pushed forward a multibillion-euro EU communication satellite program dubbed Iris², a favorite of French aerospace companies, that will see the bloc build a rival to Musk’s space-based Starlink broadband constellation.

    “It’s clear that he’s been given more free rein than others,” said one EU official. “He has von der Leyen’s ear,” the official added, noting that Breton enjoys “privileged access” to the Commission president — who may be mindful that she’ll need French support for a second term.

    According to an official, Breton “has von der Leyen’s ear” and enjoys “privileged access” to the Commission president | Valeria Mongeli/AFP via Getty Images

    Indeed, Breton’s massive role was partly designed as a counterweight to a German president.

    “There is a criticism of von der Leyen for being too German,” explained Sébastien Maillard, director of the Jacques Delors Institute think tank. “There may inevitably be a division of roles between them — [where Breton is] a counterbalance.”

    He’s been called an “unguided missile,” but more often than not, the Frenchman has Paris’ backing when going off script. His October op-ed with Italian colleague Paolo Gentiloni, which called for greater European financial solidarity, was part of France’s agenda, according to one high-ranking Commission official.

    “When he went out in the press with Gentiloni against Scholz’s €200 billion, he was clearly doing the job for Macron,” the official said. 

    His November call for a rethink on the 2035 car engine ban came just after a week after critical green legislation had been finalized by Commission Executive Vice President Frans Timmermans and jarred with the EU’s own position at the COP 27 climate summit in Indonesia. But it aped the position of French auto industry captains, such as Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares and Renault’s Luca de Meo, who wanted Brussels to slam the brakes on the climate drive.

    Breton had not coordinated his car comments with colleagues in advance, according to two Commission officials.

    Less than 10 days later, French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne echoed caution about the “extremely ambitious” engine ban and warned that pivoting to electric car manufacturing was daunting.

    Going A-list

    Breton acknowledged himself that he wasn’t Macron’s first choice for the critical EU post, telling POLITICO at a live event that he was a “plan B commissioner.”

    Asked if he was targeting an A-list job for the new Commission mandate in 2024, he said he “may be able to consider a new plan B assignment — if it is a plan B.”

    “He is thinking about the future,” said one EU official. “Look at his LinkedIn posts. He is thinking past the next European elections. He definitely wants to convince Macron to get an expanded portfolio.” 

    Grabbing the Commission’s top job may be tricky, relying on how EU leaders will line up, according to multiple EU and French officials. 

    There are other jobs, including overturning the unwritten law that no French or German candidate can hold the economically powerful competition portfolio. Another option could be becoming Europe’s official digital czar, combining the enforcement powers of the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act into a supranational digital enforcement agency, one EU official said.

    Breton has shrugged off speculation on his long-term plans.

    “All my life, I have been informed of my next potential job 15 minutes before,” he said last month.

    Jakob Hanke Vela, Stuart Lau, Barbara Moens, Camille Gijs and Mark Scott contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Laura Kayali, Samuel Stolton and Joshua Posaner

    Source link

  • What’s Next in MS Treatment

    What’s Next in MS Treatment

    [ad_1]

    By Benjamin Segal, MD, as told to Kara Mayer Robinson

    We’ve come a long way in treating MS — it’s been one of the biggest success stories in medicine. Over the last 20 years, there has been a revolution in drugs that change the course of the disease, particularly relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS).

    Back when I was in training, we had no drugs that altered the prognosis of MS or prevented attacks. The only thing we had were steroids. We gave them to people during serious attacks to speed recovery. But we had nothing to lower someone’s chances of developing the disease. We also couldn’t stop future attacks, put off disability, or make it less serious.

    Now there are more than 20 FDA-approved drugs that do just that. They include shots you can give yourself, pills, and intravenous infusions. But they differ in how effective they are and the side effects they have. And we don’t have a way to predict which patient will respond best to which drug.

    The goal of MS specialists now is what we call “no disease activity.” This means no relapses, no new lesions, and no ongoing development of disability. For many patients, we can achieve that, especially those with RRMS.

    There have also been changes in how we look at secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS). In the last several years, three drugs have been approved for both RRMS and SPMS. Before that, there were no drugs approved for SPMS, except one very potent chemotherapy that we don’t use anymore.

    We now have evidence that early treatment, and particularly treatment with certain drugs, may delay the conversion of RRMS to SPMS. In some cases, patients don’t have gradual decline over the course of decades.

    What’s on the Horizon

    Many new therapies are being studied to advance MS treatment even more. Two important areas of study are how to promote repair in MS and how to treat progressive MS.

    Remyelination and Repair

    In people with MS, myelin is destroyed, which causes a lot of symptoms. Researchers are looking at different strategies to help the body form new myelin, the protective coating around nerves.

    Some clinical trials target molecules that normally suppress the growth of myelin. Researchers are now looking at a protective or pro-regenerative part of the immune system that we can manipulate to protect damaged neurons and stimulate new fiber growth.

    My group at the Ohio State University just published a paper about our discovery of an immune cell that rescues damaged nerve cells from dying. It also stimulates nerve fiber regrowth. It may not only stop further damage of the central nervous system, but it may also reverse damage and restore function.

    Treating Secondary Progressive MS

    We’ve made progress with SPMS medication, but there’s more to be done.

    Data suggests three drugs recently approved for SPMS are somewhat effective in a subset of younger people who still have new inflammatory lesions. But they’re unlikely to help those who are further along with the disease. So the quest is to find treatments for those people.

    A few pills being tested in trials show promise. One of them suppresses the immune cells that are normally found in the brain and spinal cord. It stops the body from activating them. In a recent phase II trial, it slowed the progress of disability in people with inactive, progressive MS.

    Finding the Right Treatment for Each Person

    Right now, we can’t predict which patient will respond best to which drug. But there are a lot of ongoing studies that predict which drug will be the most effective in a given individual.

    Researchers are also looking for biomarkers to develop blood tests that may tell us if someone’s more likely to respond to one drug versus another.

    Vitamin D, Antioxidants, and Gut Microbiome

    Some studies show that very low levels of vitamin D raise your chances of developing MS. Now there are studies to see if boosting vitamin D levels with extra supplements may tamp down new attacks or new lesions for people who already have it.

    There are also studies that look at the gut microbiome and if you can manage MS better by changing the bacteria in your gut.

    It’s not conclusive yet, but researchers are looking at whether certain antioxidants may alter treatment or management of MS. One is called lipoic acid. A few studies suggest it may slow the loss of brain tissue in people with MS. There will likely be future studies that look at lipoic acid and other antioxidants in greater detail.

    New Ways to Manage Symptoms

    One of the most common and hard-to-manage symptoms of MS is fatigue. There are studies on pills and cognitive rehabilitation therapy to treat it. There’s also a lot of research into improved prosthetics and robotics to help patients with MS to function better.

    Early, Aggressive Treatment

    Now that we have highly potent drugs to treat MS, there’s a debate about whether it’s better to start early treatment with aggressive drugs or to start with lower-potency drugs and then step up (escalate) to more potent ones.

    A recent study suggests that people treated with higher-potency drugs from the start are less likely to transition to SPMS years down the line. New studies that compare aggressive early treatment to escalation therapy may help us know more.

    The Outlook

    Right now, many of my patients with MS are living full lives. I’ve seen people who’ve been relapse-free for 2 decades with no new lesions. No one would know that they had MS.

    This is a completely different situation from when I was a resident in training. Then, most people we saw went on to need assistance devices and had to stop working.

    A cure is very difficult to predict. We’re more likely to find treatments that help relapsing-remitting disease and maybe completely stop the progress of the disease. A cure may take a little longer.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nuclear fusion: The one relationship Russia and the West just can’t break

    Nuclear fusion: The one relationship Russia and the West just can’t break

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    SAINT-PAUL-LEZ-DURANCE, France — Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine has ripped apart Moscow’s ties with the EU and the U.S. on everything from energy to trade to travel — but there’s one partnership they can’t escape.

    Tucked away in a quiet sun-soaked corner of southern France, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) — an effort to harness the power of nuclear fusion to unleash vast amounts of clean energy — continues to purr along with the participation of Russian scientists and Russian technology.

    Earlier this month, scientists at ITER hailed a major breakthrough announced by the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, which said it had overcome a major barrier — producing more energy from a fusion experiment than was put in.

    The 35-nation ITER — born out of U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s 1985 meeting after decades of Cold War tensions — has no way of removing a member gone rogue; there’s no path to kicking Russia out of the experiment without torpedoing the entire scheme.

    The €44 billion project aims to test nuclear fusion — a process occurring in the center of stars — as a viable source of carbon-free energy that’s minimally radioactive. By injecting hot plasma that reaches 150 million degrees Celsius into a device and confining it with magnetic fields, hydrogen nuclei fuse into a helium nucleus and additional neutrons, releasing huge amounts of energy.

    The EU shoulders around half of ITER’s costs and manages its participation through the bloc’s Barcelona-based Fusion 4 Europe (F4E) agency; India, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea and the U.S. each have a roughly 9 percent share.

    As an active participant in ITER, Russia still has around 50 staff, including engineers, working onsite.

    Flags of participant nations fly outside the ITER complex | Photo by Victor Jack/POLITICO

    Immediately after Moscow launched its full-scale assault on Ukraine in February, the project was left in a tight spot, especially as Russian government representatives form part of the high-level decision-making board, the ITER Council, alongside their European and American counterparts.

    “It’s a difficult balance between condemning a member and facing the consequences for the project,” said ITER Communication Officer Sabina Griffith, who adds that there were initially intensive discussions about how to respond. Staff even briefly discussed putting a banner on the project’s website condemning the war, before scrapping the idea.

    Even if “the organization itself is apolitical … many people were questioning” what to do after the invasion began, according to ITER’s chief engineer Alain Bécoulet, who added that there was “a lot of sadness” among the staff.

    “The political situation so far is stable, [with] all members … declaring that they want to continue to work together,” he said, adding that the first ITER Council meeting after the invasion in June was “very constructive.”

    ITER Council members again “reaffirmed their strong belief in the value of the ITER mission” when they met at the site for their latest gathering in October.

    The experiment — over budget and over deadline — has already had its fair share of controversies. France’s nuclear safety authority in January suspended the assembly of the fusion reactor over safety concerns. F4E has been plagued by accusations of a high-pressure and overwork culture that critics have linked to at least one suicide.

    Vladimir Tronza | Photo by Victor Jack/POLITICO

    Unlike Geneva-based particle physics laboratory CERN — a collaborative research center that suspended its ties with Russia after the war began — ITER is an international agreement like the U.N., making it hard to suspend Moscow, said Bécoulet.

    That’s because up to 90 percent of the funding comes not in the form of cash but “in-kind” contributions of equipment, with participant countries each manufacturing a one-of-a-kind bespoke piece of the overall reactor that is then put together like a giant puzzle.

    While the set-up was designed to create specialized fusion expertise across the world and stimulate domestic manufacturing, it now means that if one member doesn’t deliver a part, the entire project could collapse, wasting billions.

    Even if they wanted to, countries couldn’t formally kick Russia out of the project, as there’s no clause in ITER’s constitution that would allow them to do so — instead, every other country would have to pull out.

    Going nuclear

    But that doesn’t mean the project hasn’t been impacted by Russia’s war.

    For one, Western sanctions and Moscow’s counter-sanctions have made it a minefield to procure Russian-made parts, according to Bécoulet.

    “It turns out 2022 is one very important year in terms of Russian deliveries” for the project, he said, with Moscow producing crucial parts including busbars — aluminum bars feeding the reactor with a huge electric current — and a 200-ton ring-shaped magnet that shapes the plasma and keeps it suspended in the reactor, called a poloidal field coil.

    Transporting the busbars by truck and the field coil — which is on its way from St. Petersburg to Marseille — by ship required “more paperwork, more justification to explain to the various European countries that no, we are not subject to sanctions — we have derogations,” he said. The “painful” process delayed deliveries by up to two months, he added.

    It also left Russian staff in the lurch, including Moscow-born assembly engineer Vladimir Tronza, who’s worked onsite since 2016.

    “In the beginning, everyone was like, ‘What’s going to happen? Should we look for another job? Should we pack and go back?’” he said, adding that Russian staff members were initially concerned that Moscow would exit the project.

    But Tronza said he hasn’t heard of Russian staff going home, with the “majority not interested to go back” given many have settled in southeastern France.

    “Collaboration is important — it’s important to keep the ties and … talk,” he said, adding that the project is “a global good.”

    [ad_2]

    Victor Jack

    Source link

  • Elon Musk ‘a perfect recruitment tool’ for organized labor, says new UK unions boss

    Elon Musk ‘a perfect recruitment tool’ for organized labor, says new UK unions boss

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    LONDON — Elon Musk’s controversial Twitter firing spree is sending workers into the arms of organized labor, according to the new head of Britain’s Trades Union Congress.

    “Elon Musk is a perfect recruitment tool for the trade union movement,” Paul Nowak told POLITICO. Since the Tesla billionaire took over the social media platform in October, Prospect, one of the trade union federation’s 48 affiliates, “has seen its membership in Twitter go up tenfold,” he said.

    The influx is “precisely in response” to Musk, argued Nowak, who “thinks he can issue a directive from San Francisco that somehow just happens all around the world with no regard to employment law.”

    Musk has fired roughly 3,700 employees — nearly half of Twitter’s workforce — in a round of mass layoffs since buying the company.

    U.K. Twitter employees earmarked for an exit received an email saying their job would be “potentially” impacted or “at risk,” because, under British law, firms are required to consult with staff over mass redundancies.

    In November, Musk meanwhile gave staff an email ultimatum to either go “extremely hardcore” by “working long hours at high intensity” or quit the company.

    Musk’s behavior is, Nowak said, “a great recruiting tool for us.”

    “If I was a young worker in tech, I’d be thinking that being a union member might be a good investment at the moment,” he said. “If it can happen at Twitter, it can happen anywhere.”

    Unions have in recent years ramped up their activity in another part of the tech world: the gig economy. Uber and food delivery service Deliveroo recently signed agreements with unions, while some Apple stores have voted for union recognition. Last year also saw the first-ever industrial action ballots at a U.K. Amazon warehouse.

    Organized labor is “beginning to make inroads” in tech, Nowak said — but it still needs “to step up that work.” Twitter had not responded to a request for comment by the time of publication.

    Strikes

    Nowak takes the helm at the TUC at a time of major industrial unrest in the U.K, as employees in a host of sectors rail against stagnant wages amid soaring inflation.

    U.K. Twitter employees earmarked for an exit received an email saying their job would be “potentially” impacted or “at risk” | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

    “It doesn’t matter whether it’s railway workers, postal workers, nurses, paramedics, our members aren’t on strike for the sake of it,” he said.

    Since the financial crisis in 2008, the median income in Britain has fallen behind neighboring countries in Europe. An analysis by the TUC shows workers are £20,000 poorer, on average, since 2008 because pay has failed to keep up with inflation. By 2025 the union group expects that gap to increase to £24,000, with even larger gulfs for frontline healthcare staff who are striking.

    Britain’s Retail Price Index measure inflation reached 14 percent last year, and economists forecast inflation — in part spurred by the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — will persist longer in the U.K. than among its G7 partners.  

    “Households can’t afford as much as they have been able to in the past,” said Josie Dent, managing economist at the Centre for Economics and Business Research. “Naturally that creates weaker demand.”

    Against that backdrop, Novak said he wants the British government to stimulate domestic demand by putting more pay in workers’ pockets. The government argues boosting public sector pay will further fuel inflation and push its already shaky public finances further into the red.

    “What do our members do when our members get paid and get decent pay rises? They go and spend that money in local shops, hotels, restaurants,” said Nowak, and “they don’t squirrel it away in offshore bank accounts, or save it away for a rainy day.”

    “You have to create demand internally in the economy as well,” he added. “We’ve had the government sort of turn that common sense on its head.”

    [ad_2]

    Graham Lanktree

    Source link

  • BioVie Shares jump Premarket on Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s Studies >BIVI

    BioVie Shares jump Premarket on Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s Studies >BIVI

    [ad_1]

    By Colin Kellaher

    Shares of BioVie Inc. rose sharply in premarket trading Tuesday after the clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company reported positive results from a pair of Phase 2 studies assessing the potential of its NE3107 drug candidate in Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease.

    The Carson City, Nev., company said the study of NE3107 in Parkinson’s met both main objectives, with patients treated with a combination of the drug and levodopa seeing meaningful improvements in their motor score and an absence of adverse interactions of NE3107 with levodopa.

    BioVie said that based on the study findings, it will proceed with planning the Phase 3 program for discussion with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

    Meanwhile, BioVie said patients treated with NE3107 in the Alzheimer’s study experienced improved cognition and biomarker levels, with no drug-related adverse events observed.

    BioVie shares, which closed Monday at $5.21, were recently up 15% to $5.98 in premarket trading.

    Write to Colin Kellaher at colin.kellaher@wsj.com

    [ad_2]

    Source link