Home – The Conversation

---

• Russian troops fought for control of a nuclear power plant in Ukraine – a safety expert explains how warfare and nuclear power are a volatile combination
• Meet Russia’s oligarchs, a group of men who won't be toppling Putin anytime soon
• Economic sanctions may deal fatal blow to Russia's already-weak domestic opposition
• How Zelenskyy emerged as the antithesis of Putin and proved you don't need to be a strongman to be a great leader
• Hambruna, subyugación y desastre nuclear: cómo la experiencia soviética sembró el resentimiento de los ucranianos hacia Rusia
• Indiana, Iowa and Texas advance anti-transgender agendas – part of a longtime strategy by conservatives to rally their base
• How to responsibly donate to Ukrainian causes
• Women's History Month: 5 groundbreaking researchers who mapped the ocean floor, tested atomic theories, vanquished malaria and more
• The sex of your cells matters when it comes to heart disease
• Your chances of getting rid of student loan debt depend on who you are
• Clarifying the CDC's COVID-19 quarantine and isolation guidelines – an infectious disease doc looks at the latest research

Russian troops fought for control of a nuclear power plant in Ukraine – a safety expert explains how warfare and nuclear power are a volatile combination Posted: 04 Mar 2022 03:36 PM PST Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, points to the training facility hit by Russian artillery at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. AP Photo/Lisa Leutner Russian forces have taken control of Europe's largest nuclear power plant after shelling the Zaporizhzhia facility in the Ukrainian city of Enerhodar. The overnight assault caused a blaze at the facility, prompting fears over the safety of the plant and evoking painful memories in a country still scarred by the world's worst nuclear accident, at Chernobyl in 1986. The site of that disaster is also under Russian control as of Feb. 24, 2022. On March 4, Ukrainian authorities reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency that the fire at Zaporizhzhia had been extinguished and that Ukrainian employees were reportedly operating the plant under Russian orders. But safety concerns remain. The Conversation asked Najmedin Meshkati, a professor and nuclear safety expert at the University of Southern California, to explain the risks of warfare taking place in and around nuclear power plants. How safe was the Zaporizhzhia power plant before the Russian attack? The facility at Zaporizhzhia is the largest nuclear plant in Europe, and one of the largest in the world. It has six pressurized water reactors, which use water to both sustain the fission reaction and cool the reactor. These differ from the reaktor bolshoy moshchnosty kanalny reactors at Chernobyl, which used graphite instead of water to sustain the fission reaction. RBMK reactors are not seen as very safe, and there are only eight remaining in use in the world, all in Russia. The reactors at Zaporizhzhia are of moderately good design. And the plant has a decent safety record, with a good operating background. Ukraine authorities tried to keep the war away from the site by asking Russia to observe a 30-kilometer safety buffer. But Russian troops surrounded the facility and then seized it. What are the risks to a nuclear plant in a conflict zone? Nuclear power plants are built for peacetime operations, not wars. The worst thing that could happen is if a site is deliberately or accidentally shelled and the containment building – which houses the nuclear reactor – is hit. These containment buildings are not designed or built for deliberate shelling. They are built to withstand a minor internal explosion of, say, a pressurized water pipe. But they are not designed to withstand a huge explosion. It is not known whether the Russian forces deliberately shelled the Zaporizhzhia plant. It may have been inadvertent, caused by a stray missile. But we do know they wanted to capture the plant. Tracer rounds and flames can be seen in this video of the fight for control of the nuclear power plant. If a shell hit the plant's spent fuel pool – which contains the still-radioactive spent fuel – or if fire spread to the spent fuel pool, it could release radiation. This spent fuel pool isn't in the containment building, and as such is more vulnerable. As to the reactors in the containment building, it depends on the weapons being used. The worst-case scenario is that a bunker-buster missile breaches the containment dome – consisting of a thick shell of reinforced concrete on top of the reactor – and explodes. That would badly damage the nuclear reactor and release radiation into the atmosphere. And because of any resulting fire, sending in firefighters would be difficult. It could be another Chernobyl. What are the concerns going forward? The biggest worry was not the fire at the facility. That did not affect the containment buildings and has been extinguished. The safety problems I see now are twofold: 1) Human error The workers at the facility are now working under incredible stress, reportedly at gunpoint. Stress increases the chance of error and poor performance. One concern is that the workers will not be allowed to change shifts, meaning longer hours and tiredness. We know that a few days ago at Chernobyl, after the Russians took control of the site, they did not allow employees – who usually work in three shifts – to swap out. Instead, they took some workers hostage and didn't allow the other workers to attend their shifts. At Zaporizhzhia we may see the same. There is a human element in running a nuclear power plant – operators are the first and last layers of defense for the facility and the public. They are the first people to detect any anomaly and to stop any incident. Or if there's an accident, they will be the first to heroically try to contain it. 2) Power failure The second problem is that the nuclear plant needs constant electricity, and that is harder to maintain in wartime. Even if you shut down the reactors, the plant will need off-site power to run the huge cooling system to remove the residual heat in the reactor and bring it to what is called a "cold shutdown." Water circulation is always needed to make sure the spent fuel doesn't overheat. Spent fuel pools also need constant circulation of water to keep them cool. And they need cooling for several years before being put in dry casks. One of the problems in the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan was the emergency generators, which replaced lost off-site power, got inundated with water and failed. In situations like that you get "station blackout" – and that is one of the worst things that could happen. It means no electricity to run the cooling system. Spent nuclear fuel rods are stored at the bottom of this pool, which requires constant circulation. Guillaume Souvant/AFP via Getty Images In that circumstance, the spent fuel overheats and its zirconium cladding can cause hydrogen bubbles. If you can't vent these bubbles they will explode, spreading radiation. If there is a loss of outside power, operators will have to rely on emergency generators. But emergency generators are huge machines – finicky, unreliable gas guzzlers. And you still need cooling waters for the generators themselves. My biggest worry is that Ukraine suffers from a sustained power grid failure. The likelihood of this increases during a conflict, because pylons may come down under shelling or gas power plants might get damaged and cease to operate. And it is unlikely that Russian troops themselves will have fuel to keep these emergency generators going – they don't seem to have enough fuel to run their own personnel carriers. How else does a war affect the safety of nuclear plants? One of the overarching concerns is that war degrades safety culture, which is crucial in running a plant. I believe that safety culture is analogous to the human body's immune system, which protects against pathogens and diseases; and because of the pervasive nature of safety culture and its widespread impact, according to psychologist James Reason, "it can affect all elements in a system for good or ill." It is incumbent upon the leadership of the plant to strive for immunizing, protecting, maintaining and nurturing the healthy safety culture of the nuclear plant. War adversely affects the safety culture in a number of ways. Operators are stressed and fatigued and may be scared to death to speak out if something is going wrong. Then there is the maintenance of a plant, which may be compromised by lack of staff or unavailability of spare parts. Governance, regulation and oversight – all crucial for the safe running of a nuclear industry – are also disrupted, as is local infrastructure, such as the capability of local firefighters. In normal times you might have been able to extinguish the fire at Zaporizhzhia in five minutes. But in war, everything is harder. So what can be done to better protect Ukraine's nuclear power plants? This is an unprecedented and volatile situation. The only solution is a no-fight zone around nuclear plants. War, in my opinion, is the worst enemy of nuclear safety. [Over 150,000 readers rely on The Conversation's newsletters to understand the world. Sign up today.] Najmedin Meshkati received research funding from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC in mid-1990s.

Meet Russia’s oligarchs, a group of men who won't be toppling Putin anytime soon Posted: 04 Mar 2022 02:36 PM PST Putin has kept most oligarchs at a distance – literally and figuratively. Alexey Nikolsky/Sputnik/AFP via Getty Images U.S. President Joe Biden and other world leaders are setting their sights on Russia's oligarchs as they seek new ways to punish Vladimir Putin – and those who have enabled him and profited from his reign – for waging war in Ukraine. Biden singled out wealthy oligarchs in his State of the Union address, promising to "seize your yachts, your luxury apartments, your private jets." "We are coming for your ill-begotten gains," he said. And in the U.K., two more rich Russians were added to the nine other oligarchs who have been personally sanctioned over the invasion. Yet who are these oligarchs, and what is their relationship with Putin? And more importantly, will eroding their wealth do anything to end the war in Ukraine? The oligarchs come to power As a scholar of emerging markets, corporate strategy and the post-Soviet political economy, I have studied the oligarchs in depth. Oligarchs, in the Russian context, are the ultrawealthy business elites with disproportionate political power. They emerged in two distinct waves. The first group emerged out of the privatization of the 1990s, particularly the all-cash sales of the largest state-owned enterprises after 1995. This process was marred by significant corruption, culminating in the infamous "loans for shares" scheme, which transferred stakes in 12 large natural resource companies from the government to select tycoons in exchange for loans intended to shore up the federal budget. The government intentionally defaulted on its loans, allowing its creditors – the oligarchs-to-be – to auction off the stakes in giant companies such as Yukos, Lukoil and Norilsk Nickel, typically to themselves. In essence, then-President Boris Yeltsin's administration appeared to enrich a small group of tycoons by selling off the most valuable parts of the Soviet economy at a hefty discount. After Putin came to power in 2000, he facilitated the second wave of oligarchs via state contracts. Private suppliers in many sectors such as infrastructure, defense and health care would overcharge the government at prices many times the market rate, offering kickbacks to the state officials involved. Thus, Putin enriched a new legion of oligarchs who owed their enormous fortunes to him. French authorities seized the yacht Amore Vero, which is linked to sanctioned Putin ally Igor Sechin, in the Mediterranean resort of La Ciotat. AP. Photo/Bishr Eltoni Oligarchs lose their grip – keep their wealth In the 1990s, the oligarchs had the upper hand with the Kremlin and could even dictate policy at times. Under Yeltsin, multiple oligarchs assumed formal positions in the government, and anecdotes abounded describing coffers of cash being carried into the Kremlin in exchange for political favors. But since the 2000s Putin has been calling the shots. Essentially, Putin proposed a deal: The oligarchs would stay out of politics, and the Kremlin would stay out of their businesses and leave their often illegitimate gains alone. Furthermore, popular disappointment with the privatization of the 1990s facilitated its partial rollback in the 2000s. Putin's Kremlin applied political pressure on oligarchs in strategic industries like media and natural resources to sell controlling stakes back to the state. Putin also passed laws that gave preferential treatment to the so-called state corporations. These moves secured the Kremlin's control over the economy – and over the oligarchs. The three shades of oligarchy Today, three types of oligarchs stand out in terms of their proximity to power. First come Putin's friends, who are personally connected to the president. Many of Putin's close friends – particularly those from his St. Petersburg and KGB days – have experienced a meteoric rise to extreme wealth. A few of Putin's closest oligarch friends from St. Petersburg are Yuri Kovalchuk, often referred to as Putin's "personal banker"; Gennady Timchenko, whose key asset is the energy trading firm Gunvor; and the brothers Arkady and Boris Rotenberg, who own assets in construction, electricity and pipelines. All of these individuals have been sanctioned. The second group includes leaders of Russia's security services, the police and the military – known as "siloviki" – who have also leveraged their networks to amass extreme personal wealth. Some of these so-called "silovarchs" are former KGB, and now FSB, intelligence officers who had eyed the Yeltsin-era oligarchs' power and wealth jealously and obtained both under Putin. The man reputed to be the informal leader of the siloviki is Igor Sechin, chairman of oil giant Rosneft, widely seen as the second-most powerful person in Russia. Finally, the largest number of Russian oligarchs are outsiders without personal connections to Putin, the military or the FSB. Indeed, some current outsiders are the 1990s-era oligarchs. While Putin selectively crushed politically inconvenient or obstreperous oligarchs after coming to power, he did not seek to systematically "eliminate oligarchs as a class," as he had promised during his initial election campaign. For example, oligarchs such as Vladimir Potanin and Oleg Deripaska, who accumulated their wealth in the 1990s, regularly feature in the lists of richest Russians today. Putin's enablers Make no mistake: Regardless of their type, the oligarchs have helped Putin stay in power through their political quiescence and economic support of the Kremlin's domestic initiatives. Furthermore, my research highlights instances in which oligarchs used their wealth – in terms of jobs, loans or donations – to influence politicians in other countries. For example, in 2014 the Russian bank FCRB lent 9.4 million euros (US$10.3 million) to the populist anti-EU party of Marine Le Pen in France, creating a political debt to Russia. And in 2016, Lukoil, Russia's second-largest oil company, paid a $1.4 million government fine for Martin Nejedly, a key adviser to the Czech president in 2016, which allowed Nejedly to keep his influential position. This helped make Czech President Milos Zema "one of the Kremlin's most ardent sympathizers among European leaders." Some oligarchs appear to initiate such geopolitically significant transactions voluntarily to create rapport with the Kremlin. While it is difficult to establish direct causal links between what I dub the oligarchs' "geopolitical volunteering" and their beneficiaries' pro-Kremlin policies, there is strong anecdotal evidence that oligarchs' financing facilitates the adoption of pro-Putin positions in countries outside Russia. Furthermore, my research on the concealment of corporate political activity suggests that using ostensibly nonpolitical intermediaries such as private companies is a key strategy through which organizations like the Kremlin can hide their political activity. Putin's hostages This brings us to the most important question on many people's minds: As the sanctions decimate oligarchs' wealth, could that prompt them to abandon Putin or change the course of the war? Some oligarchs are already speaking out against the war, such as Alfa Group Chairman Mikhail Fridman and metals magnate Oleg Deripaska – both of whom have been sanctioned by the West. Lukoil also called for the war's end. Although Lukoil is not currently under direct sanctions, oil traders are already shunning its products in anticipation. I believe we will see increasingly vocal opposition to the war from the oligarchs. At the very least, their willingness to do the Kremlin's dirty work by trying to influence Western politicians will likely subside significantly. But there are two crucial limits to their influence and ability to affect Putin's behavior. For one thing, the oligarchs do not work well together. In Russia's "piranha capitalism," these billionaires have mostly sought to outcompete their rivals for government largesse. Individual survival with a view to the Kremlin, not the defense of common interests such as sanctions' removal, has been the oligarchs' modus operandi. The Kremlin, for its part, has promised state support to sanctioned companies, especially in the banking sector. More importantly, it is the guns, not the money, that speak loudest in the Kremlin today. As long as Putin retains his control over the siloviki – the current and former military and intelligence officers close to Putin – the other oligarchs, in my view, will remain hostages to his regime. The generals are more likely to sway Putin than the oligarchs – and an economic collapse may be even more convincing still. [Over 150,000 readers rely on The Conversation's newsletters to understand the world. Sign up today.] Stanislav Markus does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Economic sanctions may deal fatal blow to Russia's already-weak domestic opposition Posted: 04 Mar 2022 01:43 PM PST Russian police have detained thousands of Russians who have taken to the streets to protest the invasion of Ukraine. AP Photo/Dmitri Lovetsky The West has responded to Russia's invasion of Ukraine by imposing harsh economic sanctions. Most consequentially, key Russian banks have been cut out of the SWIFT payments messaging system, making financial transactions much more difficult. The United States, European Union and others also moved to freeze Russian Central Bank reserves. And U.S. President Joe Biden is weighing a total ban on Russian oil imports. These sanctions are aimed at generating opposition from both Russian President Vladimir Putin's inner circle and everyday Russians. As a scholar who studies regime change, I believe the risk is that they will actually drive the Kremlin's weak opposition further into obscurity. A 'punishment logic' Economic sanctions follow a "punishment logic": Those feeling economic pain are expected to rise up against their political leaders and demand a change in policies. Everyday Russians have already felt the pain from the newest sanctions. The ruble plummeted in value, and Russia's stock market dipped. The effects of Western sanctions were seen in the long lines at ATMs as Russians tried to pull out their cash before it was lost. But the odds of an uprising are not great. Empirical research suggests that sanctions rarely generate the sorts of damage that compel their targets to back down. Their greatest chance of success is when they are used against democratic states, where opposition elites can mobilize the public against them. In authoritarian regimes like Putin's, where average citizens are the most likely to suffer, sanctions usually do more to hurt the opposition than help it. Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has been behind bars since early 2021. AP Photo/Denis Kaminev How Putin has quelled dissent Putin has used a variety of tools to try to quell domestic opposition over the past two decades. Some of these were subtle, such as tweaking the electoral system in ways that benefit his party. Others were less so, including instituting constitutional changes that allow him to serve as president for years to come. But Putin has not stopped at legislative measures. He has long been accused of murdering rivals, both at home and abroad. Most recently, Putin has criminalized organizations tied to the opposition and has imprisoned their leader, Alexei Navalny, who was the target of two assassination attempts. Despite a clampdown on activism, Russians have repeatedly proved willing to take to the streets to make their voices heard. Thousands demonstrated in the summer and fall of 2020 to support a governor in the Far East who had beaten Putin's pick for the position only to be arrested, ostensibly for a murder a decade and a half earlier. Thousands more came out last spring to protest against Navalny's detention. Putin has even begun facing challenges from traditionally subservient political parties, such as the Communist Party and the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party. Flickers of opposition Importantly, Putin has occasionally shown a willingness to back down and change his policies under pressure. In other words, as much as Putin has limited democracy in Russia, opposition has continued to bubble up. The result is a president who feels compelled to win over at least a portion of his domestic audience. This was clear in the impassioned address Putin made to the nation setting the stage for war. The fiery hourlong speech falsely accused Ukrainians of genocide against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. "How long can this tragedy continue? How much longer can we put up with this?" Putin asked his nation. Since Russia invaded Ukraine, Russians have continued to show their willingness to stand up to Putin. Thousands have gathered to protest the war in Ukraine, despite risking large fines and jail time. They have been aided by a network of "hacktivists" outside Russia using a variety of tactics to overcome the Kremlin's mighty propaganda machine. These groups have blocked Russian government agencies and state news outlets from spreading false narratives. Controlling the narrative Despite these public showings, the liberal opposition to Putin is undoubtedly weak. In part, this is because Putin controls state television, which nearly two-thirds of Russians watch for their daily news. Going into this war, half of Russians blamed the U.S. and NATO for the increase in tensions, with only 4% holding Russia responsible. This narrative could be challenged by the large number of Russians – 40% – who get their information from social media. But the Kremlin has a long track record of operating in this space, intimidating tech companies and spreading false stories that back the government line. Just on Friday state authorities said they would block access to Facebook, which around 9% of Russians use. Putin has already shown he can use his information machine to convert past Western sanctions into advantage. After the West sanctioned Russia for its 2014 takeover of Crimea, Putin deflected blame for Russians' economic pain from himself to foreign powers. The result may have fallen short of the classic "rally around the flag" phenomenon, but on balance Putin gained politically from his first grab on Ukraine. More forceful economic sanctions this time around may unleash a broader wave of nationalism. More importantly, sanctions have a long track record of weakening political freedoms in the target state. As the situation in Russia continues to deteriorate, Putin will likely crack down further to stamp out any signs of dissent. And former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev reacted to the country's expulsion from the Council of Europe by suggesting Russia might go back on its human rights promises. Authorities blocked access to the website of Russian TV channel Dozhd, and the chief editor has fled the country. AP Photo/Denis Kaminev Another casualty of the war This has already begun. In the first week of the war, Russian authorities arrested more than 7,000 protesters. They ramped up censorship and closed down a longtime icon of liberal media, the Ekho Moskvy radio station. The editor of Russia's last independent TV station, TV Dozhd, also announced he was fleeing the country. Russia already ranked near the bottom – 150 out of 180 – in the latest Reporters Without Borders assessment of media freedom. And a new law, passed on March 4, 2022, punishes the spread of "false information" about Russia's armed forces with up to 15 years in jail. Ironically, then, the very sanctions that encourage Russians to attack the regime also narrow their available opportunities to do so. Ultimately, the opposition seen on the streets in Russia today and perhaps in the coming weeks may be the greatest show of strength that can be expected in the near future. The West may have better luck using targeted sanctions against those in Putin's inner circle, including Russia's infamous oligarchs. But with their assets hidden in various pots around the world, severely hurting these actors may prove difficult. Even in the best of circumstances, economic sanctions can take years to have their desired effect. For Ukrainians, fighting a brutal and one-sided war, the sanctions are unlikely to help beyond bolstering morale. The danger is that these sanctions may also make average Russians another casualty in Putin's war. [The Conversation's Politics + Society editors pick need-to-know stories. Sign up for Politics Weekly.] Brian Grodsky has received funding from various governmental and non-governmental sources. He is not currently receiving funding.

How Zelenskyy emerged as the antithesis of Putin and proved you don't need to be a strongman to be a great leader Posted: 04 Mar 2022 11:43 AM PST Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been lauded for his resistance to the Russian invasion Photo by Laurent Van der Stockt for Le Monde/Getty Images Whatever happens in the coming weeks, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will go down as the face of Ukrainian resilience during the Russian invasion of his country. His response to the Russian invasion of his country has been widely praised, both at home and abroad. His speech to the European Parliament in early March received a standing ovation. Western press outlets have referred to him as a "hero," as the "voice" of his nation, and as a "focal point" for democratic resistance to tyranny. Some of this acclaim can be explained simply with reference to the fact that Zelenskyy is the president of a beleaguered nation standing up against a powerful and belligerent aggressor. The Russian invasion is widely regarded as a brutal act of violence, cynically clothed in the language of "de-Nazification." Any president who resisted this invasion would likely receive some portion of moral praise. As a political philosopher, however, I would argue that something else is at work in the widespread reverence shown to Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy has demonstrated, during the invasion, a style of political presentation that is the antithesis of that shown by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Matters of political style – the choices made by leaders about the words they use, the jokes they tell, even the clothes they wear – are frequently taken to be unrelated to matters of substantive political justice. The history of thinking about authoritarian politics, however, demonstrates that anti-democratic politics, and a certain sort of personal style, often come together. Putin demonstrates a tendency toward authoritarianism in both political action and in political style. Zelenskyy, in contrast, presents a more modest and understated vision of political leadership – one more appropriate for democratic institutions, in which the leader is not thought to be morally superior to the governed. If the world is increasingly suspicious of democratic ideals and practices, then Zelenskyy might represent one of the few recent signs that those in favor of democracy have reasons for hope. Masculinity and authoritarianism There are three key aspects worth noting about Putin's carefully crafted political image. Putin is particularly concerned to present himself as a traditionally masculine male, frequently appearing shirtless and often competing in – and (improbably) winning – athletic competitions, including both ice hockey and judo. A bare-chested Putin. AP Photo/RIA Novosti, Dmitry Astakhov, Government Press Service He presents himself as shrewd and contemptuous of his opponents, frequently showing a smirk in response to any showing of weakness. He was, for instance, visibly happy to see German Chancellor Angela Merkel's discomfort in the presence of his dog Konni. This casual cruelty is expressed even toward his own subordinates, as seen in his recent public humiliation of spy chief Sergei Naryshkin. He is, finally, keen to present himself as uniquely chosen by history to restore an empire he believes unjustly dismantled – in particular, the Soviet Union, whose dissolution Putin described as the "greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century." Italian philosopher and novelist Umberto Eco noted that traits such as these three may seem superficial – but that they speak of an authoritarian hostility to disagreement, and ultimately to democracy itself. Eco notes that when a leader emerges who promises to use traditional masculinity, and thereby restore the former greatness of the nation or the polity, that leader is inevitably drawn toward the rejection of limits to centralized power. Such limits include, in the end, such notions as democratic accountability and human rights. In Eco's words: For such a leader, disagreement is treason, and those who are weak deserve nothing but contempt. Zelenskyy's leadership style If these arguments are correct, however, then Zelenskyy's style of leadership represents a symbolic repudiation of Putin's authoritarianism. Zelenskyy is, to begin with, unconcerned with presenting himself as traditionally masculine. Before his life in politics, for instance, he appeared – in a variety of vaguely comic costumes – on the Ukrainian edition of "Dancing With the Stars." He has, as the Russian invasion continues, presented himself unshaven and exhausted – as vulnerable, frightened, but nonetheless unbowed. He is, finally, inclined more often to speak about Ukrainian unity in the present than about any glorious history. As a Ukrainian of Jewish descent, many of whose relatives were murdered in the Holocaust, he invokes history more as warning than as aspiration. Democracy and the freedom to speak plainly In this, Zelenskyy represents an image of not only resistance to authoritarianism, but also how leaders might appear as they engage in such resistance. Eco, who grew up in fascist Italy, describes his surprise at how simple was the speech of those who took over after fascism's fall. Democracy, Eco marveled, entailed the freedom to speak plainly. It was not only freedom from fascist political institutions, but also freedom from rhetoric. When Zelenskyy is lauded for his resistance to the Russian invasion, it is because he is demonstrating a number of central virtues – including the courage to remain where he is, in the line of Russian fire. But at least some of this praise, I am convinced, is the result of his style of governance, in which he resists not only authoritarian violence, but the authoritarian style of political presentation – including Putin's assertions that he is unique in both destiny and in masculine strength. There is, however, some irony at work in the moral symbolism ascribed to Zelenskyy. The democratic hope ascribed to Zelenskyy reflects the thought that the leader is no better than those who are led; that the president does not have to be uniquely strong, or endowed with a unique historical destiny. He has frankly admitted that he is afraid of dying, afraid of his family's dying – and that he remains in Kyiv out of duty, rather than any desire for glory or for warfare. The president, instead, is a person much like anyone else. [Over 150,000 readers rely on The Conversation's newsletters to understand the world. Sign up today.] It is natural for the West to pin a great many hopes on Zelenskyy, in his resistance to the authoritarianism of Putin. The West should, however, not forget the most central lesson of democratic politics – that the leaders are no better, morally speaking, than those they lead. If Zelenskyy represents a democratic hero, it should nonetheless be remembered that democracy does not need – and should not seek – the sorts of hero worship that authoritarians like Putin demand. Michael Blake receives funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Hambruna, subyugación y desastre nuclear: cómo la experiencia soviética sembró el resentimiento de los ucranianos hacia Rusia Posted: 04 Mar 2022 06:30 AM PST Una estátua conmemora la hambruna en la que murieron millones de ucranianos. A statue of a girl during the Ukrainian famine, in which someone has placed wheat and flowers. Ucrania y Rusia comparten una gran cantidad de historia y cultura; de hecho, durante largos periodos, los países vecinos formaron parte de imperios más grandes que abarcaban ambos territorios. Pero esa historia – especialmente durante el periodo soviético de 1922 a 1991, en el que Ucrania fue absorbida por el bloque comunista – también ha generado resentimiento. Las opiniones sobre los méritos de la Unión Soviética y sus líderes son divergentes, y los ucranianos son mucho menos propensos a ver ese periodo de forma favorable que los rusos. Sin embargo, el presidente ruso Vladimir Putin sigue reivindicando los fundamentos soviéticos de lo que él considera la "Rusia histórica", una entidad que incluye a Ucrania. Como estudiosos de esa historia, creemos que un examen de las políticas de la época soviética en Ucrania puede ofrecer una lente útil para entender por qué tantos ucranianos albergan un profundo resentimiento hacia Rusia. La hambruna de Stalin A lo largo del siglo XIX y principios del XX, Ucrania era conocida como el granero de Europa y posteriormente de la Unión Soviética. Su rico suelo y sus amplios campos la convertían en un lugar ideal para cultivar el grano que ayudaba a alimentar a todo el continente. Después de que Ucrania fuera absorbida por la Unión Soviética a partir de 1922, su agricultura fue sometida a políticas de colectivización, en las que los soviéticos se apoderaban de las tierras privadas para trabajarlas en común. Todo lo que se produjera en esas tierras se redistribuiría en toda la unión. En 1932 y 1933, una hambruna devastó la Unión Soviética como resultado de la agresiva colectivización unida a las malas cosechas. ¿Una hambruna deliberada? Daily Express/Hulton Archive/Getty Images Millones de personas murieron de hambre en toda la Unión Soviética, pero Ucrania se llevó la peor parte de este horror. Las investigaciones estiman que entre 3 y 4 millones de ucranianos murieron a causa de la hambruna, alrededor del 13% de la población, aunque la cifra real es imposible de establecer debido a los esfuerzos soviéticos por ocultar la hambruna y sus consecuencias. Los expertos académicos señalan que muchas de las decisiones políticas del régimen soviético de Joseph Stalin – como impedir que los agricultores ucranianos viajaran en busca de alimentos y castigar severamente a quienes sacaran productos de las granjas colectivas – agravaron mucho la hambruna para los ucranianos. Estas políticas eran específicas para los ucranianos dentro de Ucrania, así como para los ucranianos que vivían en otras partes de la Unión Soviética. Algunos historiadores afirman que las medidas de Stalin se llevaron a cabo para sofocar un movimiento independentista ucraniano y se dirigieron específicamente a los ucranianos étnicos. Por ello, algunos estudiosos califican la hambruna de genocidio. En ucraniano, el suceso se conoce como "Holodomor", que significa "muerte por hambre". El reconocimiento de toda la magnitud del Holodomor y la implicación de los dirigentes soviéticos en las muertes sigue siendo una cuestión importante en Ucrania hasta el día de hoy, y los dirigentes del país luchan desde hace tiempo por el reconocimiento mundial del Holodomor y su impacto en la Ucrania moderna. Países como Estados Unidos y Canadá han hecho declaraciones oficiales calificándolo de genocidio. Pero este no es el caso en gran parte del resto del mundo. Al igual que el gobierno soviético de la época negó que hubiera decisiones que privaran explícitamente a Ucrania de alimentos – señalando que la hambruna afectó a todo el país – también los líderes rusos actuales se niegan a reconocer la culpabilidad. La negativa de Rusia a admitir que la hambruna afectó de forma desproporcionada a los ucranianos ha sido interpretada por muchos en Ucrania como un intento de restar importancia a la historia y la identidad nacional ucranianas. La anexión soviética de Ucrania occidental Este intento de suprimir la identidad nacional ucraniana continuó durante y después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. En los primeros años de la Unión Soviética, el movimiento nacional ucraniano se concentraba en las zonas occidentales de la actual Ucrania, que formaba parte de Polonia hasta la invasión nazi en 1939. Antes de la invasión, la Unión Soviética y la Alemania nazi firmaron un acuerdo secreto, bajo la apariencia del pacto de no agresión Molotov-Ribbentrop, que delimitaba las esferas de influencia alemana y soviética sobre partes de Europa central y oriental. Una caricatura famosa del artista David Low, que representa el acuerdo sobre Polonia entre Stalin y Hitler. David Low/British Cartoon Archive at the University of Kent Después de que Alemania invadiera Polonia, el Ejército Rojo se trasladó a la parte oriental del país con el pretexto de estabilizar la nación en decadencia. En realidad, la Unión Soviética estaba aprovechando las disposiciones establecidas en el protocolo secreto. Los territorios polacos que ahora conforman la Ucrania occidental también fueron incorporados a la Ucrania soviética y a Bielorrusia, subsumiéndolos en el amplio mundo cultural ruso. Al final de la guerra, los territorios siguieron formando parte de la Unión Soviética. Stalin se dedicó a suprimir la cultura ucraniana en estas tierras recién anexionadas en favor de una mayor cultura rusa. Por ejemplo, los soviéticos reprimieron a los intelectuales ucranianos que promovían la lengua y la cultura ucranianas mediante la censura y el encarcelamiento. Esta supresión también incluyó la liquidación de la Iglesia greco-católica ucraniana, una iglesia autónoma con lealtad al Papa y que era una de las instituciones culturales más destacadas en la promoción de la lengua y la cultura ucranianas en estos antiguos territorios polacos. Sus propiedades fueron transferidas a la Iglesia Ortodoxa Rusa, y muchos de sus sacerdotes y obispos fueron encarcelados o exiliados. La destrucción de la Iglesia greco-católica ucraniana sigue siendo una fuente de resentimiento para muchos ucranianos. Creemos que es un ejemplo claro de los esfuerzos intencionados de los soviéticos por destruir las instituciones culturales ucranianas. El legado de Chernóbil en Ucrania Al igual que el desastre marcó los primeros años de Ucrania como república soviética, también lo hicieron sus últimos años. En 1986, un reactor nuclear de la central nuclear soviética de Chernóbil, en el norte de Ucrania, entró en fusión parcial. Sigue siendo la peor catástrofe nuclear en tiempos de paz que ha visto el mundo. Fue necesario evacuar a cerca de 200.000 personas en los alrededores de la central. Y a día de hoy, aproximadamente 1.000 millas cuadradas de Ucrania forman parte de la Zona de Exclusión de Chernóbil, donde la lluvia radiactiva sigue siendo alta y el acceso está restringido. Las mentiras soviéticas para ocultar el alcance del desastre – y los errores que habrían limitado la lluvia radiactiva – no hicieron sino agravar el problema. El personal de emergencia no recibió el equipo ni la formación adecuados para tratar el material nuclear. El resultado fue una gran cantidad de muertes y una incidencia más alta de lo normal de enfermedades y complicaciones inducidas por la radiación, como cáncer y defectos de nacimiento, tanto entre los antiguos residentes de la región como entre los trabajadores enviados para hacer frente al desastre. Otras repúblicas soviéticas y países europeos se enfrentaron a las consecuencias de Chernóbil, pero fueron las autoridades de Ucrania las encargadas de organizar las evacuaciones a Kiev mientras Moscú intentaba ocultar el alcance del desastre. Todo esto llevó a que, hoy en día, la Ucrania independiente se ocupa de miles de ciudadanos con enfermedades crónicas y discapacidades causados por el accidente. Una feria abandonada, a dos kilómetros de la central nuclear Chernóbil. Martin Godwin/Getty Images El legado de Chernóbil se cierne sobre el pasado reciente de Ucrania y sigue definiendo la memoria de muchas personas sobre su vida en la era soviética. Recuerdos de un pasado doloroso Esta dolorosa historia de la vida bajo el régimen soviético constituye el telón de fondo del resentimiento que existe hoy en Ucrania hacia Rusia. Para muchos ucranianos, no se trata de meras historias de los libros de texto, sino de partes centrales de la vida de la gente: muchos ucranianos siguen viviendo con las consecuencias sanitarias y medioambientales de Chernóbil, por ejemplo. La presencia de soldados rusos en terreno de Ucrania sirve como recordatorio de los esfuerzos anteriores, hechos por el país vecino, de destrozar la independencia ucraniana. Este artículo fue traducido por Infobae. Emily Channell-Justice no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado. Jacob Lassin recibe fondos de the National Council for Russian and East European Research.

Indiana, Iowa and Texas advance anti-transgender agendas – part of a longtime strategy by conservatives to rally their base Posted: 04 Mar 2022 05:22 AM PST Conservatives see anti-transgender bills as fair game. AP Photo/Michael Conroy Transgender girls in Iowa will no longer be allowed to compete in girls' sports – the latest in a rash of anti-trans initiatives sweeping across the United States. On March 3, 2022, Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law legislation that affects transgender girls and women wanting to compete in accordance to their gender identity. It comes just days after legislators in Indiana advanced a similar bill aimed at K-12 trans students. That proposed legislation will now go to the Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb, who has previously indicated a willingness to sign the bill into law. Meanwhile, in Texas, it emerged that officials had begun investigating the parents of transgender boys and girls for alleged child abuse. This follows an order by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott requiring "doctors, nurses and teachers" to report as child abuse any instance of a young person using puberty blockers or other gender-affirming medical treatments. The order allows for criminal penalties to be imposed on those who refuse to comply and on the parents of transgender children. A judge has halted the investigation into the parents of one trans teen, but set aside a broader ruling on the directive until a hearing on March 11. Indiana, Iowa and Texas are far from being the only states advancing an anti-transgender agenda. More than 30 states initiated anti-trans legislation in 2021 alone, and at least seven more have done so this year to date. These anti-transgender health care bills and legal interpretations are part of a package of initiatives that mark 2021 as a "record-breaking year" for anti-LGBTQ policies introduced in state legislatures across the country according to the advocacy group Human Rights Campaign. And 2022 is already on track to surpass this record. These efforts include bills that will bar transgender athletes from participating in student sports, such as in Indiana and Iowa, and prohibit, or require parental notification of, any school curriculum that references sexual orientation or gender identity. One additional variety – signed into law in April 2021 by Republican Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte – requires gender reassignment surgery before any individual can change the sex marker on their birth certificate. So far, anti-transgender athlete bills have gained the most traction. Despite consistent public opposition, more than 30 states have now considered barring transgender athletes from playing on teams that match their gender identity. Ten states have already enacted bans on transgender student athletes through legislation or executive order. As a civil rights scholar, I have found that campaigns that mischaracterize LGBTQ-supportive policies as harmful to young people are a staple strategy conservatives use to galvanize their base. Andrew Bostad, center, his mother, Brandi Evans, and stepdad, Jimmy Evans, at their home in Bauxite, Arkansas, on April 15, 2021. Andrew is one of hundreds of transgender youth in Arkansas who could have their hormone therapy cut off under a new state law. AP Photo/Andrew DeMillo 'Save our Children' Anti-gay activist and Florida orange juice queen Anita Bryant first perfected the strategy in the 1970s to oppose ordinances prohibiting sexuality-based discrimination. Bryant's "Save our Children" campaign demonized gays and lesbians as "recruiting children." Bryant successfully encouraged voters to oppose legislative attempts to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination and prompted Florida legislators to bar same-sex couples from adopting children, a law that was overturned in 2010. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, conservatives prompted over 40 states to bar same-sex marriage on the basis that all children could be at risk – those raised by same-sex couples and those introduced to marriage equality at school. In 2015, when the Supreme Court overturned these bans in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges, conservatives began targeting transgender rights. Conservatives again trained their focus on nondiscrimination measures – this time those prohibiting gender identity discrimination. They misleadingly argued that any measure protecting transgender individuals would place cisgender girls and women – individuals whose gender identity and birth-assigned sex are both female – at risk by allowing men dressed as women to use women's locker rooms and restrooms. There is no evidence supporting this claim. Yet there is significant evidence of health and safety risks to transgender students if they are prohibited from using bathrooms that reflect their gender identity. Significant costs Anti-transgender athlete and health care bills follow a similar approach. Advocates for bills targeting trans female athletes claim that transgender teammates will "ruin women's sports forever." Supporters of anti-trans health care bills claim that children are being pressured to employ these therapies, by physicians and parents, and describe the effects as permanent and scarring. There is little empirical evidence to back up these assertions. Puberty blockers are an increasingly common treatment precisely because they provide a reversible and less invasive option for transgender adolescents and are provided only with the patient's fully informed consent. Cross-gender hormone treatments, which are typically provided in later adolescence, are also relatively low-risk. And there is little evidence to suggest that transgender female athletes in K-12 settings are unfairly outcompeting their cisgender competitors – particularly if they have been on puberty blockers. In fact, conservative legislators have pointed to only one instance in their campaigns, when two trans female athletes in Connecticut took first and second place in a 2017 statewide track tournament. Several cisgender female athletes who lost, unsuccessfully attempted to sue state officials for permitting transgender athletes to compete. A far more common story is the relative obscurity of transgender athletes in women's sports and their similarities with their cisgender teammates. Many of the states considering the legislation have no known trans female athletes or have trans female athletes who are performing on par with cisgender female teammates. And even the cisgender Connecticut athletes who attempted to sue state officials had prevailed in several championship races against their transgender competitors shortly after filing their lawsuit. But none of this has prevented bill supporters from stoking fears. Researchers and healthcare providers do know, however, that the bills will harm transgender young people. Prohibiting gender-affirming care, like puberty blockers, or barring transgender-inclusive athletic teams imposes real and devastating risks on transgender youths. Transgender people who do not have access to the kinds of hormone therapies that are being outlawed are four times more likely than cisgender people to struggle with depression. They are also nine times more likely than cisgender individuals to attempt suicide. Put simply, gender-affirming policies and supportive health care therapies are lifesaving. Furthermore, if upheld in court, the athlete bills could require any female athlete to "prove" their gender to participate, potentially through invasive physical examinations. The 'Free Speech Bus,' painted with the words 'boys are boys' and 'girls are girls,' is parked on a Boston street on March 30, 2017. A spokesman for the group behind the bus said organizers are pushing back against greater acceptance of transgender people. AP Photo/Steven Senne Political landscape Conservatives may be using these bills – which some describe as "erasing transgender youth" – to catalyze Republican voters to participate in upcoming midterm elections. And the strategy could work. Attempts to bar transgender athletes appeal to at least some self-described feminists. And some high-profile women's athletes have joined the fray, convening the Women's Sports Policy Working Group in order to "protect" cisgender female athletes from trans athlete inclusion. Conservatives also used anti-trans-athlete talking points to oppose the Equality Act, a bill that would have added prohibitions against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination to existing federal civil rights bills. The House passed a similar measure in 2021, but it failed to pass the Senate. Transgender advocates have some recourse to fight the bills. Corporate backlash is one option. Litigation is another. Advocates for transgender rights have secured legal victories in state and federal court challenges involving bathrooms and locker rooms. More recently, a federal judge in Idaho blocked that state's anti-transgender athletes bill passed in 2020. And the Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which protects LGBTQ individuals from certain forms of discrimination, seems at first blush to support transgender student equality. But the Bostock case is relatively new, its application to sports and health care untested and political fervor is mounting. With a solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court – and in federal courts across the country – legal battles may be unreliable. In the meantime, transgender young people across the country are contemplating a more uncertain and dangerous future for themselves and their parents. Some are working with their parents to find out-of-state sources for puberty blockers. Others are contemplating moves to less hostile states. All of this because conservatives have channeled trumped-up claims into harmful legislation that outlaws and endangers transgender youth, in an attempt to further divide American voters. This is an updated version of an article originally published on May 6, 2021. [The Conversation's Politics + Society editors pick need-to-know stories. Sign up for Politics Weekly.] Alison Gash does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

How to responsibly donate to Ukrainian causes Posted: 04 Mar 2022 05:22 AM PST These charity leaders teamed up to fundraise on March 3, 2022, for refugees fleeing Ukraine. Stefan Rousseau/PA Images via Getty Images When Russia invaded Ukraine, I responded like many Americans: by making charitable donations. I was able to make my gift with confidence because I'm a scholar of nonprofits who has studied giving during disasters and other crises. Mostly I've studied how charities help local communities after events like hurricanes and earthquakes, rather than war zones. But I'm also a human being, with friends and colleagues who are Ukrainian. Empathy and a personal connection to a cause are often what motivates donors to act. You can wisely choose causes with the potential to do the most good in the middle of this humanitarian crisis by giving with your head as well as your heart. Here are the five guidelines I follow in my own giving decisions: 5 guidelines for donors 1) Send money to organizations, not strangers Crowdfunding and social media fundraising campaigns have become so common that when I recently searched GoFundMe, it pointed me to 1,008 separate appeals for aid for individuals, families or causes related to Ukraine. Most were posted by individuals, and I have no doubt that some will turn out to be fake. 2) Vet groups you're unfamiliar with before donating to them Verifying first that the cause is legitimate will make it easier to avoid funding scams. A useful shortcut is to look for organizations that have been vetted by others. I tried a simple keyword search "Ukraine charities," and that was enough to turn up some promising lists posted by media outlets. A good place to start your sleuthing on U.S.-based registered charities is the Internal Revenue Service. It also ensures you're giving to the right group, rather than another organization with a deceptively similar name. Many scammers abuse the name recognition of established nonprofits, hoping you won't notice the difference. 3) Give to charities with a track record in Ukraine Some examples include Razom for Ukraine, which leads a variety of cultural and democratization initiatives. Another is UNICEF, a United Nations agency that protects children worldwide and is in a good position not only to provide immediate relief but also to pressure Russia to allow unrestricted humanitarian access. Because these groups have already built local relationships, trust and infrastructure, they are likely to be more adept at operating in these dire circumstances than the charities popping up now or those that are still mobilizing from half a world away. 4) Dispatch cash, not goods Don't bundle up your spare clothing or other supplies and ship them to Eastern Europe, please. The fragile Ukrainian supply lines need to remain open for medicine and food. And while there is a time and place for restricting a gift to a specific purpose, a humanitarian crisis is not the right time. Trust the people that a charity has on the ground to know which needs are the highest priority. 5) Make gifts that reflect your values Giving is a deeply psychological act. Effective – and satisfied – donors act on values important to them. If helping refugees is your priority, consider organizations such as Fundacja Ocalenie, which means "the Rescue Fund" in Polish. About half a million Ukrainians had fled to Poland by March 3, 2022. If a free press is what matters most to you, given the strength of the Russian disinformation machine, consider Zaborona or the Kyiv Independent, two Ukrainian media outlets. A French volunteer prepares clothing to be sent to Ukrainian people in March 2022. Jeff Pachoud/AFP via Getty Images Buck the overhead myth A lot of guidance about what makes charities good or bad to support can be misleading. One common piece of advice I recommend you ignore is that donors should always support charities that spend as little money as possible on their overhead costs – things like rent and administrative pay. Even leading charity rating and assessment sites, such as Charity Navigator and the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, continue to rely in part on the outdated assumption that nonprofits with low overhead spending are automatically more efficient and let donors' dollars stretch further. Researchers have been disproving this assumption for years. Not only can reasonable amounts of overhead help nonprofits build their capacity, but many studies have demonstrated that pinching pennies to satisfy misguided donor assumptions can weaken nonprofits, especially in the long run. Some charity-evaluation websites do provide valuable information. Charity Navigator has a helpful "advisory" page that alerts donors about nonprofit misconduct. But to research U.S. charities supporting the Ukraine crisis, I recommend Candid, formerly known as Guidestar. It evaluates charities on the basis of broader performance metrics, such as transparency, good governance practices and outcomes. The IRS requires all nonprofits, except churches, to file 990 forms every year. Dean R Specker/iStock via Getty Images Plus A better signal of effectiveness than low overhead will be a responsive organization with real humans who are ready to answer your questions. It should also have a track record of working well with others and clearly communicates how it spends donors' dollars. Groups worth supporting are also likely to emphasize their results in their annual reports and other materials. Especially if you intend to make a big gift, you may find that the charity's 990 forms – paperwork the IRS requires – contain a lot of useful information. Making a choice In the end, I supported the International Committee of the Red Cross, the winner of several Nobel Peace Prizes. Based in Switzerland, it's already operating in Ukraine, and can help today. I hope that you will consider giving as well, and – like me – you'll stick with your support. The need is going to continue long after Ukraine is out of the headlines. [Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.] Beth Gazley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Women's History Month: 5 groundbreaking researchers who mapped the ocean floor, tested atomic theories, vanquished malaria and more Posted: 04 Mar 2022 05:21 AM PST Tu Youyou shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2015. Claudio Bresciani/AFP via Getty Images Behind some of the most fascinating scientific discoveries and innovations are women whose names might not be familiar but whose stories are worth knowing. Of course, there are far too many to all fit on one list. But here are five profiles from The Conversation's archive that highlight the brilliance, grit and unique perspectives of five women who worked in geosciences, math, ornithology, pharmacology and physics during the 20th century. Marie Tharp with an undersea map at her desk. Rolled sonar profiles of the ocean floor are on the shelf behind her. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the estate of Marie Tharp 1. Revealing and mapping the ocean floor As late as the 1950s, wrote Wesleyan University geoscientist Suzanne OConnell, "many scientists assumed the seabed was featureless." An illustration of Marie Tharp's mapping process. (a) Shows the position of two ship tracks (A, B) moving across the surface. (b) Plots depth recordings as profiles. (c) Sketches features shown on the profiles. The Floors of the Ocean, 1959, Fig. 1 Enter Marie Tharp. In 1957, she and her research partner started publishing detailed hand-drawn maps of the ocean floor, complete with rugged mountains, valleys and deep trenches. Tharp was a geologist and oceanographer. Aboard research ships, she would carefully record the depth of the ocean, point by point, using sonar. One of her innovations was to translate this data into topographical sketches of what the seafloor looked like. Her discovery of a rift valley in the North Atlantic shook the world of geology – her supervisor on the ship dismissed her idea as "girl talk," and Jacques Cousteau was determined to prove her wrong. But she was right, and her insight was a key contribution to plate tectonic theory. That's part of why, OConnell writes, "I believe Tharp should be as famous as Jane Goodall or Neil Armstrong." Read more: Marie Tharp pioneered mapping the bottom of the ocean 6 decades ago – scientists are still learning about Earth's last frontier 2. Sympathetic observation of bird behavior Margaret Morse Nice was a field biologist who got into the minds of her study subjects to garner new insights into animal behavior. Most famously she observed song sparrows in the 1920s and '30s. Rochester Institute of Technology professor of science, technology and society Kristoffer Whitney recounted what Nice called her "phenomenological method," acknowledging the obvious "affection and anthropomorphism" you can see in her descriptions. "When I first studied the Song Sparrows," Nice wrote, "I had looked upon Song Sparrow 4M as a truculent, meddlesome neighbor; but … I discovered him to be a delightful bird, spirited, an accomplished songster and a devoted father." Despite earning no advanced degrees and being considered an amateur, Nice promoted innovations like the "use of colored leg bands to distinguish individual birds," gained the respect of her better-known peers and enjoyed a long, successful career. Read more: Margaret Morse Nice thought like a song sparrow and changed how scientists understand animal behavior 3. A medical researcher in Maoist China Tu Youyou in a pharmacology lab with a colleague in the 1950s. Xinhua News Agency via Getty Images At the height of China's Cultural Revolution, a young scientist named Tu Youyou headed a covert operation called Project 523 under military supervision. One of her team's goals was to identify and systematically test substances used in traditional Chinese medicine in an effort to vanquish chloroquine-resistant malaria. Historian Jia-Chen Fu described how "contrary to popular assumptions that Maoist China was summarily against science and scientists, the Communist party-state needed the scientific elite for certain political and practical purposes." Tu followed a hunch about how to extract an antimalarial compound from the qinghao or artemisia plant. By 1971, her team had successfully "obtained a nontoxic and neutral extract that was called qinghaosu or artemisinin." In 2015, she was honored with a Nobel Prize. Read more: The secret Maoist Chinese operation that conquered malaria – and won a Nobel 4. A mathematician who wouldn't be diverted Not everyone gets called a "creative mathematical genius" by Albert Einstein. But Emmy Noether did. Mathematician Tamar Lichter Blanks wrote about the roadblocks Noether faced as a Jewish woman who wanted to pursue a math career in early 1900s Germany. For a while, Noether supervised doctoral students without pay and taught university courses listed under the name of a male colleague. All the while, she conducted her own research in theoretical physics, contributing to Einstein's theory of relativity. Her most revolutionary work was in ring theory and is still pondered by mathematicians today. Noether died less than two years after emigrating to the U.S. to escape the Nazis. Read more: Emmy Noether faced sexism and Nazism – 100 years later her contributions to ring theory still influence modern math 5. Testing nuclear theories one by one A 2021 U.S. postage stamp featuring Chien-Shiung Wu. U.S. Postal Service While sometimes called the "Chinese Marie Curie" in her home country, nuclear physicist Chien-Shiung Wu is less well-known in the U.S., where she did the bulk of her work. Rutgers University-Newark physicist Xuejian Wu considered Chien-Shiung Wu (no relation) "an icon" who inspired his own career path. As a grad student, Wu traveled by steamship to California in 1936, where she fell in love with atomic nuclei research at UC Berkeley, home of a brand new cyclotron. She worked on the Manhattan Project during World War II. Among her many accomplishments, Wu's careful experimental work discovered what's called parity nonconservation – that is, that a physical process and its mirror reflection are not necessarily identical. Her colleagues who focused on the theoretical side of this breakthrough won the 1957 Nobel Prize in physics, but Wu was overlooked. Read more: New postage stamp honors Chien-Shiung Wu, trailblazing nuclear physicist Editor's note: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation's archives.

The sex of your cells matters when it comes to heart disease Posted: 04 Mar 2022 05:21 AM PST How many X chromosomes you have can affect your health. John M Lund Photography Inc/Digital Vision via Getty Images Most mammals, including humans, have two sex chromosomes, X and Y. One sex chromosome is usually inherited from each parent, and they pair up as either XX or XY in every cell of the body. People with XX chromosomes typically identify as female, and people with XY chromosomes typically identify as male. The genes on these chromosomes play a key role in development and function – including how heart disease develops. Before I became a biomedical engineer studying how sex chromosomes affect the heart, I learned about one curious function of X chromosomes in my high school science class, with the calico cat example. Female calico cats almost always have orange and black splotches of fur, because the gene that defines coat color is found on the X chromosome. When an orange cat mates with a black cat, female offspring, which typically inherit one X chromosome from each parent, will have a mixture of orange and black fur – one X chromosome encodes for orange fur while the other encodes for black fur. For this reason, male cats, which typically have one X and one Y chromosome, have solid orange or black coats. Calico and tortoiseshell cats have multicolored patches of fur because only one of their two X chromosomes is activated in each cell. How does this sex difference in fur color happen biologically? As it turns out, cells with XX chromosomes experience X-inactivation: The X chromosome from one parent is turned off in some cells, while the X chromosome inherited from the other parent is turned off in others. In the cells of female calico cats, X-inactivation can lead to splotches of orange and black fur if one X chromosome comes from a parent with orange fur and the other X chromosome comes from a parent with black fur. X-inactivation happens because organisms like cats and people need only one X chromosome to function properly. To ensure the correct "dosage," one of the X chromosomes is turned off in every cell. But some of the genes on the inactivated X chromosome escape inactivation and stay turned on. In fact, up to one-third of the genes on the X chromosome in people can escape inactivation, and they are thought to play a role in regulating health and disease. Because X-inactivation happens only in those people with more than one X chromosome, researchers like me have been looking at how the genes that escape inactivation on the second X affect the health of people with XX chromosomes. We've found that for certain conditions, cell sex may be at the heart of the matter. A change of heart One disease that X chromosome escape genes partially regulate is aortic valve stenosis, a condition in which the part of the heart that controls blood flow to the rest of the body stiffens and narrows. This makes the heart work harder to pump blood and can ultimately lead to heart failure. Much like a person trying to push open a door with rusty hinges, the heart gets tired. There are currently no effective drugs available to slow or halt AVS disease symptoms. Hearts with aortic valve stenosis must pump harder to push blood through a narrowed aortic valve to the rest of the body. SuneErichsen/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA My lab studies how sex chromosomes can affect cardiovascular conditions like AVS. Previous studies have shown that the valves of people with XX versus XY chromosomes can stiffen in different ways. Generally, people with XX chromosomes have increased scarring, called fibrosis, whereas people with XY chromosomes have increased calcium deposits. Given these differences, I suspected that giving the same drug to everyone might not be the best way to treat AVS. But what could be causing these differences? By and large, researchers think sex hormones drive sex differences in valve tissue stiffening. Indeed, decreasing estrogen levels during menopause can exacerbate heart fibrosis. However, studies on cardiovascular disease in XX and XY mice have found that sex differences still persist even after surgically excising the reproductive organs that produce sex hormones. My team and I hypothesized that the genes that escape X-inactivation, being unique to people with XX chromosomes, may be driving these differences in valve stiffening. To test this idea, we developed bioengineered models of valve tissue using hydrogels. Hydrogels mimic the stiffness of valve tissue better than the traditional petri dish medium, allowing us to study heart cells in an environment that more closely resembles the body. Heart tissue with XX chromosomes has a higher concentration of cells (colored green, with blue nuclei) that promote scarring than do cells with XY chromosomes. Brian Aguado, CC BY-NC-ND We found that the cells we grew on our hydrogel models were able to replicate the sex differences seen in valve tissue – namely, valve cells with XX chromosomes had more scarring than cells with XY chromosomes. Moreover, when we decreased the activity of genes that escaped X-inactivation, we were able to decrease scarring in XX chromosome cells. Our next step was to use our models to determine which treatments work best for AVS based on cell sex. We found that XX valve cells were less sensitive than XY cells to these drugs that targeted genes that promote scarring. Drugs that specifically target genes that escape X-inactivation, however, have a stronger effect on XX cells. Equitable care for all Sex and gender disparities in cardiovascular disease are rampant. For example, women are less likely than men to be prescribed cardiovascular medications despite guideline recommendations, and transgender individuals have higher rates of heart attacks than do cisgender folks. Our work takes one more step toward achieving equity in developing medical therapeutics for cardiovascular disease. By taking sex chromosomes into consideration, my team and I believe that treatment strategies can be optimized for everyone, irrespective of cell "seXX." [Like what you've read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation's daily newsletter.] Brian Aguado receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Burroughs Wellcome Fund.

Your chances of getting rid of student loan debt depend on who you are Posted: 04 Mar 2022 05:20 AM PST Single mothers are more likely than single fathers to have their debts discharged in court. Heide Benser/Getty Images To get rid of student loan debt through bankruptcy, you must prove to the court that paying back your student loans would cause an "undue hardship." But in our peer-reviewed study of nearly 700 student loan discharge cases spanning 1985 to 2020, we found that judges' decisions to dismiss student loans are often influenced by personal factors, such as your gender. To determine whether repaying the student loan debt is causing the debtor to experience an undue hardship, most courts apply three criteria outlined in a case known as "Brunner." Under Brunner, to prove they are experiencing an undue hardship, debtors must first demonstrate that repaying their student loans would not allow them to maintain a minimal standard of living. In other words, repaying the debt would prevent them from meeting their basic needs, including food, clothing and shelter. Second, debtors must show that additional circumstances exist that indicate their finances are unlikely to improve. These additional circumstances could include having a medical condition or caring for dependents. Third, debtors must show that they have made good-faith efforts to repay their loans. This includes efforts to make payments on the loans or attempts to consolidate their debt. Meeting these three criteria is tough. Our data shows that about 38% of the debtors in the cases that we studied received a full or partial discharge of their student loans. But we also discovered other factors regularly come into play in the court's decisions. Here are three factors that stood out in our research. 1. Being a single mom helps, but not being a single dad In student loan discharge decisions, judges regularly consider the expenses associated with a debtor's children. Our research team found it also sometimes matters to the court whether the debtor is a single parent. Being a single parent more than doubled the chances of obtaining a discharge, but only for mothers. Single fathers did not experience any notable benefit from being a single parent. Courts are more likely to see the mother as a caregiver than they are a father. Fertnig/E+ via Getty Images We're not certain about why courts view single moms as more deserving of a discharge than single dads. It could have something to do with stereotypes about mothers being the "caregivers" in a family, whereas men are the "breadwinners." A mother's plea to help fulfill her role as a caregiver may be seen as more persuasive than a father's plea to be relieved of his financial obligations. Read more: Can you get rid of your student loans by filing for bankruptcy? 2. Disclosing a medical condition helps men, but not women When assessing a debtor's ability to repay a debt, case law suggests that judges must consider any difficulties a person has in trying to find a decent-paying job. Such struggles are captured by the "additional circumstances" mentioned in the second Brunner criterion. Those additional circumstances include medical conditions. However, judges appear to give medical conditions more consideration for men than they do for women. Our research found that men reporting a medical condition are 93% more likely to obtain a student loan discharge than men who did not report a medical condition. We did not find this same effect for women. This gender gap is highly relevant, given that female debtors outnumbered male debtors in our analysis almost 2 to 1. Women's medical concerns seem to be dismissed or overlooked in multiple arenas – from courts to hospitals. Psychologists theorize this may arise from stereotypes that suggest women may dramatize medical conditions and exaggerate their pain. 3. Not having an attorney hurts your cause Thanks to ubiquitous crime dramas, it is widely known that those who cannot afford an attorney can have one appointed. Lesser known is that this constitutional right applies only to criminal proceedings. In most civil trials, like bankruptcy proceedings, there is no right to an attorney. When debtors cannot afford an attorney, they often must represent themselves. Read more: Every year, millions try to navigate US courts without a lawyer In student loan bankruptcy proceedings, 33% of debtors represent themselves, often to their detriment. We found that debtors who retained an attorney improved their chances of getting their student loans discharged by at least 60%. This was true whether the debtor was male or female. The benefit of having an attorney in court is well-supported by research. Attorneys who specialize in bankruptcy are likely to be aware of the factors upon which judges rely and can build a strong case for discharge. Without an attorney, it can be difficult to know which details to disclose and how to present them. Potential solutions Getting student loan debt discharged can be difficult and emotionally draining. If you are thinking about seeking relief from student loan debt, the following suggestions may help. Develop a strategy that takes your gender into account: For single fathers, it might be advantageous to emphasize your "breadwinning" role, show the court that you have made efforts toward repaying the loans or have tried very hard to get a decent-paying job. For women with medical conditions, provide as much evidence as you can in the form of hospital visits, attempts to declare disability and the like. Regardless of gender, remember that having an attorney matters: Familiarize yourself with legal aid organizations in your area, which can offer free legal services. Also, be sure to search for other free legal information that can be found on court websites and similar venues. [Over 150,000 readers rely on The Conversation's newsletters to understand the world. Sign up today.] None of this advice matters if you fail to file a separate case to get your student loans discharged – as is the case with most student loan debtors who file a bankruptcy case. Without the separate proceeding, students loans cannot be discharged. Around 241,000 people with student loan debt filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. in 2017, but only 447 of those also filed a separate case to get rid of their student loans. Consult the free legal resources to learn how to file this separate case. Kelsey Lynne Hess receives funding from the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges. Andrea C. F. Wolfs receives funding from the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges. Deborah Goldfarb receives funding from the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, the National Institute of Justice, and the National Science Foundation. She is affiliated with the American Bar Association. Jacqueline R. Evans receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges.

Clarifying the CDC's COVID-19 quarantine and isolation guidelines – an infectious disease doc looks at the latest research Posted: 04 Mar 2022 05:20 AM PST The CDC's new recommendations have caused consternation among the public, the media and even among doctors. Justin Paget/DigitalVision via Getty Images In December 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its guidelines for how long people should isolate following a COVID-19 infection. The agency shortened the isolation from 10 days to five, followed by five days of wearing a mask for those no longer symptomatic. The change came during the height of the omicron variant's surge and related staffing shortages at hospitals, schools and businesses. Some critics suspected that the move was more practically motivated than science-based to allow workers, especially health care and other essential personnel, to return to their jobs quicker. As a result, I thought it useful to review the data behind the latest recommendations to help people think through best practices. I'm an infectious diseases specialist at the University of Virginia. I take care of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and conduct research on how the immune system responds to infection. The CDC's current strategy First, let's make a distinction between the terms "isolation" and "quarantine." During the pandemic, people have often used them interchangeably. But isolation is meant to separate infected people from those who aren't, whereas quarantine separates those who were exposed to COVID-19 but have not yet tested positive or are not symptomatic. That said: If you are infected with COVID-19, the CDC's latest guidelines have cut your isolation period by half, to five days from the onset of symptoms, or the first positive test if you do not have symptoms. After five days, as long as you are getting better, the CDC says you no longer need to isolate but should mask around others for five more days. Why the CDC changed its COVID-19 quarantine restrictions. If you are exposed to COVID-19 and have not had your booster shot, the CDC recommends that you quarantine for five days following exposure. Between days five to seven, you should be tested, and if the test is negative, you can end the quarantine. Consider yourself exposed if you are within 6 feet of an infected person for 15 minutes or more over a 24-hour period. And the CDC says if you are vaccinated and boosted, you don't need to quarantine at all after an exposure to COVID-19 – though you should get tested five days later and mask for at least 10 days after exposure. Regardless of vaccination status, the CDC recommends that you take a rapid antigen test or a PCR test five to seven days after exposure to confirm that you did not acquire COVID-19 prior to leaving quarantine. New studies support these CDC recommendations What is the evidence behind these recommendations? Although researchers are still learning about omicron – as the CDC says, "the science is evolving" – some reports suggest its symptoms appear more rapidly after exposure when compared with the delta variant. That includes the results of four small studies from Nebraska, Norway, Japan and the National Basketball Association in the U.S. In Nebraska, a family of six was exposed at the same time to the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Symptoms of infection appeared within one to three days of exposure, which is one to two days faster than the delta variant. This finding supports the CDC recommendations. In Norway, approximately 100 guests were exposed to omicron at a Christmas party; most got COVID-19, with symptoms appearing and infections detected within two to five days after exposure, again earlier than would have been expected for delta. In Japan, a study of 21 people infected with omicron found that the amount of virus was highest three to six days after diagnosis or symptom onset. And a study from the NBA COVID-19 surveillance system discovered that a person with omicron was typically no longer infectious by day five. [You're smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation's authors and editors. You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter.] Taken together, these studies suggest that most people who were infected with the omicron variant or who had an exposure no longer transmitted the virus by day five. These four studies illustrate the reasoning behind the CDC's shortening of its isolation and quarantine recommendations to five days. By that point post-infection, the vast majority of people aren't going to spread the virus to others, so it makes sense that they can get back to their normal routines. The follow-up test is critical if you were exposed and in quarantine But remember the caveat: Without a rapid antigen or PCR test five to seven days after the beginning of quarantine, transmission rates of COVID-19 might only be reduced by half. That's why both the CDC and the World Health Organization are recommending the follow-up tests within five to seven days of the start of quarantine. Mathematical models demonstrate that either rapid antigen or PCR testing allows for shortening of quarantine time without compromising public safety. And one footnote: As of early March 2022, nearly 57% of Americans who are fully vaccinated have not received the booster. That means tens of millions of Americans have yet to take this extra step to more fully protect themselves from this virus. William Petri receives funding from the NIH and the Gates Foundation.

You are subscribed to email updates from Home – The Conversation. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States