Alcohol, whether consumed regularly or only on special occasions, takes a toll on your body. From your brain and heart, to your lungs and muscles, to your gastrointestinal and immune systems, alcohol has broad harmful effects on your health – including causing cancer.

Alcohol is the third-leading preventable cause of cancer in the U.S., responsible for about 100,000 cases of cancer and 20,000 cancer deaths annually. In comparison, alcohol-related vehicle crashes cause around 13,500 deaths each year in the U.S.

As early as the 1980s, researchers suspected that alcohol can cause cancer. Epidemiological studies have shown that alcohol is causally linked to cancer of the oral cavity, throat, voice box, esophagus, liver, colon and rectum, and breast. Another study reported an association between chronic and binge drinking and pancreatic cancer.

In 2000, the U.S. National Toxicology Program concluded that consuming alcoholic beverages is a known human carcinogen. In 2012, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization, classified alcohol a Group 1 carcinogen, the highest classification indicating there is enough evidence to conclude a substance causes cancer in people. Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health concur that there is conclusive evidence that alcohol causes several types of cancer.

U.S. dietary guidelines state that even low amounts of alcohol – less than a single drink a day – increase cancer risk. Despite this, many Americans are not aware that alcohol causes cancer. A 2019 survey found that less than 50% of U.S. adults are aware of the cancer risks of alcohol consumption. The 2023 National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that over 224 million Americans ages 12 and older drank alcohol at some point in their lifetime – over 79% of people in this age group. Alcohol consumption was increasing even before the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting an alarming public health issue.

I am a researcher studying the biological effects of moderate and long-term alcohol consumption. My team is working to uncover some of the mechanisms behind how alcohol increases cancer risk, including damage to immune cells and the liver.

How does alcohol cause cancer?

Cancer occurs when cells grow uncontrollably in the body. Alcohol may lead to tumor formation by damaging DNA, causing mutations that disrupt normal cell division and growth.

Researchers have identified several mechanisms associated with alcohol and cancer development. A 2025 report from the U.S. surgeon general highlights four distinct ways alcohol can cause cancer: alcohol metabolism, oxidative stress and inflammation, alterations in hormone levels, and interactions with other carcinogens such as tobacco smoke.

Alcohol metabolism is the process by which the body breaks down and eliminates alcohol. When alcohol breaks down, its first byproduct is acetaldehyde, a chemical that is itself classified as a carcinogen. Researchers have found that certain genetic mutations can lead the body to break down alcohol faster, resulting in increased levels of acetaldehyde.

There is also considerable evidence that alcohol can trigger the body to release harmful molecules called free radicals. These molecules can damage DNA, proteins and lipids in cells in a process called oxidative stress. My lab has found that free radicals formed from alcohol consumption can directly affect how well cells make and break down proteins, resulting in abnormal proteins that promote inflammation that favors tumor formation.

Alcohol can also directly affect hormone levels in ways that increase cancer risk. For instance, estrogens can increase breast cancer risk. Moderate alcohol drinking can both elevate estrogen levels and promote further drinking. Alcohol also amplifies breast cancer risk by reducing levels of vitamin A, a compound that regulates estrogen.

People who drink and smoke have an elevated risk of developing cancer of the mouth, pharynx and larynx. Alcohol makes it easier for the body to absorb the carcinogens in cigarettes and e-vapes. Smoking by itself can also cause inflammation and induce free radicals that damage DNA.

How much alcohol is safe?

You may be wondering how much alcohol you can safely drink and avoid harm. If you ask clinicians and scientists, you might not like the answer: none.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American dietary guidelines recommend consuming no more than one drink a day for women and no more than two drinks for men. The National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the U.S. surgeon general’s recent advisory have similar recommendations to limit alcohol consumption.

Alcohol consumption is a highly preventable cause of cancer. However, there isn’t currently a way to determine someone’s personal cancer risk from alcohol. Each person’s individual genetic background, lifestyle, diet and other health factors can all influence the effects of alcohol on tumor formation. Nevertheless, rethinking your alcohol drinking habits can help protect your health and reduce your cancer risk.

Pranoti Mandrekar 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.

In the early 1990s when I was a young pediatrician, I was responsible for evaluating children with developmental and learning problems. Two unrelated boys, ages 7 and 9, were found to have IQs in the range of 60-70, which indicates a severe cognitive disability.

During my medical review, the mothers revealed that their children were shaken violently as infants and that afterward behaved as if “the wind had been knocked out of them.” Both mothers reported shaking by a boyfriend or a father. No child was seen for medical care at the time.

At the same period of my career I was working with a renowned pediatrician who was studying shaken baby syndrome. The link between shaking and later cognitive impairment was not lost on me.

This scenario of shaken babies having neurological and developmental disabilities has played out over the past 30 years of my career as a child abuse pediatrician.

The high rates of death and disability

Shaken baby syndrome is a condition that can injure babies and young children, and in some cases lead to death.

A 2024 study on babies with shaken baby syndrome found that 20% to 25% of infants die, another 20% to 25% look normal on discharge from the hospital, and fully half are left with long-term disabilities. These include learning and behavioral problems that appear later in life.

The dangers of shaking babies have been recognized for over 50 years.

In the early 1970s, John Caffey, a pediatric radiologist, coined the term “Whiplash Shaken Infant Syndrome.” Caffey linked permanent brain damage and bleeding in the backs of the retina to violent shaking of infants. Caffey suggested a multipronged approach to prevention of this severe form of abuse that included educating and supporting young families, especially mothers. As primary caregivers, mothers are often most easily reached by the message, but the message of prevention can involve fathers, babysitters and any other caregivers.

Since Caffey’s original description, there have been tremendous advancements in the research behind shaking babies and infant head trauma. In 2009, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that medical providers use the term “abusive head trauma” to include many actions other than shaking that can injure the brains of infants and children. The use of shaken baby syndrome is still recommended for public education and prevention, and health care providers and other experts also recommend the use of the term because it’s commonly recognized by the lay public and understood by parents.

How the brain is affected

What happens to the brain of an infant when they are shaken?

Infants – the most common population to be shaken – are small and have undeveloped neck muscles.

In these incidents, the infant is typically grabbed around the chest and shaken back and forth several times. Small blood vessels around the brain break and bleed, causing blood to flow around the brain. This condition is called a subdural hematoma. In some cases, similar forces occur in the back of the eye, and hemorrhages in the retina can occur.

In the most severe forms of shaking, the tissue of the brain itself is injured, and the child may experience unconsciousness or even stop breathing. Neck injuries occur when shaking causes injuries to ligaments and muscles that support the neck. Sometimes children have other injuries after being thrown down or impacted against something. Skull fractures or fractures of other bones, bruising and other injuries are often found.

A complex diagnosis

An infant or child must be diagnosed as having abusive head trauma by a team of pediatric specialists. Usually, a concerned parent or caregiver who may or may not know an infant has been injured becomes concerned that the child is not behaving normally. The child may have symptoms ranging from persistent vomiting to seizures or even seem unconscious.

The medical team begins addressing the child’s condition through blood testing and X-rays. Often a CT scan is performed in order to determine if there is a brain injury or some other abnormality. Bleeding around the brain is an indicator of trauma. However, other conditions can also cause this type of bleeding, including bleeding disorders, vitamin deficiency or genetic problems.

Carefully assessing a child for all of these possibilities may lead to discovery of other areas of trauma, such as broken bones and bruises. A child abuse physician is often called in to assist with the evaluation when trauma becomes a leading diagnosis. That trauma could be accidental, or it could be a sign that someone has abused or hurt an infant.

There are other medical conditions and even accidental injuries to a child that may resemble abusive head trauma. Experienced clinicians will evaluate a child carefully for these well-described conditions. Controversy about many of these conditions may exist in the courtroom, but in the medical setting it is often clear which conditions are present and when injuries are caused by trauma versus other medical conditions.

All 50 states and territories of the U.S. require that a report is made to child protective services agencies, with law enforcement often being involved when someone suspects or knows that a baby has been shaken.

Investigators and doctors work together along with parents and caregivers to try to determine what led to the infant or child’s condition. Bruising, fractures and retinal hemorrhages may support a diagnosis of child abuse, specifically shaken baby syndrome.

During an investigation, a rare accidental cause may be determined. The purpose is to make sure infants and children are not being harmed or that a medical condition is uncovered that can be treated.

As a pediatrician working in a children’s hospital and trauma center, it will never get easier for me to see infants and children with abusive injuries as well as other head traumas. The U.S. has come a long way in ensuring the safety of children through the use of car seats and many safety devices.

Education can help

Crying in infancy is a common trigger in cases where shaking occurs. Other risk factors include isolation, poverty, domestic violence and substance use. During severe economic downturns, the rate of shaken baby incidents rises, since research shows that social stressors often contribute.

Although anyone can injure a baby in a moment of frustration, most prevention research has focused specifically on helping parents understand why infants cry or become fussy. Recognizing your infant’s needs and addressing those needs is an important piece of learning how to parent. Studies have shown that focused education for new parents in maternity wards by nurses is effective.

If you or someone you know is concerned that a child or infant is being harmed in any way, each state has a process for reporting these concerns to appropriate authorities. Reporting can help prevent further harm to an infant and provide assistance to families.

The National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offer some helpful resources.

Lori Frasier is has been a paid consultant to testify for both prosecution and defense in medical legal child abuse cases.
I am on the governing board of the national center for shaken baby syndrome, this is volunteer position.

The measles outbreak that started in Texas in late January continues to grow. As of March 18, 2025, confirmed cases in the outbreak, which now spans Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma, reached 321, surpassing the number of confirmed cases recorded for all of the U.S. in 2024. The vast majority of cases are in people who are not vaccinated. Meanwhile, a lack of clarity from health authorities is leaving people with questions about whether they need to get revaccinated.

In a Q&A with The Conversation U.S., Daniel Pastula, a neurologist and medical epidemiologist from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Colorado School of Public Health, explained how and when you should take action.

Should adults get another shot of the measles vaccine?

The measles vaccine, which first became available in the U.S. in 1963, contains a live but significantly weakened strain of the measles virus. This modified strain is too weak to cause measles, but it is similar enough to the wild type measles virus to train the immune system to recognize it. Most people who have received the live measles vaccine won’t need an additional shot now, but here is what you need to know:

People born before 1957 are presumed to have lifelong immunity because measles was so contagious that almost everyone contracted it before age 15. Unless there are special circumstances, they probably don’t need a vaccine now.

Most people born after 1957 would have received the shot as children, so they should be set for life. Physicians and public health experts don’t recommend most people in this group get a second measles shot, though there are exceptions.

In 1989, a limited outbreak of measles occurred among vaccinated school children. In response, the recommendations changed from one dose of the live measles vaccine to two doses for children. People fully vaccinated as children after that year do not need any additional doses.

Exceptions to these guidelines

There are two special circumstances where the previous recommendations may not hold.

First, if you were vaccinated between 1963 and 1967, one of the measles vaccines available at the time consisted of just proteins from the virus rather than a live, weakened version of it. Researchers soon realized this inactivated, or “killed,” vaccine was less effective and didn’t provide long-term immunity. Unless you know for certain you received the live vaccine, physicians and public health experts recommend that people vaccinated during those years get one dose of the live vaccine at some point.

Second, if you fall into a high-risk group – for example, if you are a health care provider, are traveling internationally or attending college, physicians and public health experts generally recommend getting a second dose if you have only had one.

For most adults without such risk factors, physicians and public health experts do not routinely recommend a second dose if you have previously received one dose of a live measles vaccine. If you have questions or concerns about your situation, make sure to ask your health care provider.

Except in very rare circumstances, there is no recommendation for a third dose of the measles vaccine.

Can you find out whether you’ve been vaccinated?

You might be able to! It’s worth checking. States actually keep vaccine records specifically for this reason, where you can look up your vaccine records or that of your kids. Your high school or college may still have your records, and so might your pediatrician’s office.

Should you get your antibody levels checked?

For most people, probably not.

A titer test checks the level of antibodies in your blood, and some people are asking their doctor to check their titers to determine whether they are still immune to measles. The problem is, the level of antibodies in your blood does not necessarily reflect your level of immunity. That’s because antibodies are just one part of your immune system’s infection-fighting force. Having a low level of antibodies does not necessarily mean your immunity has waned.

Other crucial elements of your immune response include B cells, T cells and other immune cells, but a titer test does not show their capabilities. For example, memory B cells might not currently be making antibodies against the virus but are primed to quickly do so the next time they see it. This is why antibody and titer tests should be used only in specific cases, in consultation with your doctor.

One example of when an antibody test may be warranted is if you are a health care provider born before 1957 and you want to make sure you don’t need another dose of the vaccine. You would use a test to see whether you have measles antibodies. But in this case you would be looking for a yes or no answer; the total amount of antibodies may not be very informative.

Is natural immunity better than vaccine-induced immunity?

Natural immunity – that is, the immunity you get after having measles – is effective. However, the downside is that natural infection with a wild virus is very risky. Before 1963, measles caused close to 50,000 hospitalizations and about 500 deaths each year in the United States, usually in children. It also caused over 1,000 cases of severe brain inflammation every year and carried several other long-term risks, such as permanent hearing loss or the wipe out of immunity to other diseases.

The point of vaccines is to create immunity without the risks of severe infection. It is basically a dress rehearsal for the real thing. The immunity from a vaccine is effectively the same immunity you get from having measles itself – but vastly safer than encountering the wild virus unprotected. One dose is 93% effective at preventing measles and two doses are 97% effective, and any breakthrough cases are likely to be much milder than a full-blown case of measles.

Can the vaccine cause measles?

No, the measles vaccine cannot cause measles because it contains a significantly weakened strain that has limited ability to infect and damage cells.

Some have claimed without evidence that the current outbreak in Texas was caused by the measles vaccine.

As part of the outbreak investigation, however, CDC and the Texas Department of State Health Services analyzed the genome of the virus causing the current outbreak and identified it as a wild measles virus. Researchers classify measles virus strains based on their genetic characteristics, or genotypes. They identified the outbreak virus as wild type genotype D8, and not the weakened measles vaccine strain, which is genotype A.

What are the risks of the vaccine?

That is a very reasonable question. Because the measles vaccine is a live, weakened virus strain, it can cause a mild, measles-like syndrome. For example, some people might have a slight fever, a rash, or some slight joint pain. These symptoms generally go away in a day or two, and most people don’t experience them. But the vaccine cannot cause measles itself, as it does not contain the wild measles virus.

In extremely rare cases, people can experience more significant reactions to the measles vaccine. It is important to remember that every single medical or health intervention carries risks – and that includes all medications and over-the-counter supplements. According to all available evidence, however, comparing the potential benefits against potential risks reveals that the risks of a signficant reaction to the vaccine are much lower than the risks of severe outcomes from measles itself.

Being vaccinated not only protects you and your family, but it also protects vulnerable people in the community, such as infants, cancer patients and pregnant women, who cannot be vaccinated themselves.

Daniel Pastula 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.

Of the 8.7 million species on Earth, why are human beings the only one that paints self-portraits, walks on the Moon and worships gods?

For decades, many scholars have argued that the difference stems from our ability to learn from each other. Through techniques such as teaching and imitation, we can create and transmit complicated information over many generations.

So if a human finds, for instance, a better but more complex way to make a knife, they can pass along the new instructions. One of those learners might stumble upon their own improvement and pass it along in turn.

If this loop continues, you get a ratchet effect, in which small changes can accumulate over time to produce increasingly intricate behaviors and technologies. This process produces our uniquely complex cultures: Scientists call it cumulative cultural evolution.

But extensive data has emerged suggesting that other animals, including bees, chimpanzees and crows, can also generate cultural complexity through social learning. Consequently, the debate over human uniqueness is shifting in a new direction.

As an anthropologist, I study a different feature of human culture that researchers are beginning to think about: the diversity of our traditions. Whereas animal cultures affect just a few crucial behaviors, such as courtship and feeding, human cultures cover a massive and constantly expanding set of activities, from clothing to table manners to storytelling.

This new view suggests that human culture is not uniquely cumulative. It is uniquely open-ended.

What is cumulative culture?

In the early 2000s, a research team led by psychologist Michael Tomasello tested 105 human children, 106 adult chimpanzees and 32 adult orangutans on a battery of cognitive assessments. Their goal was to see whether humans held any innate cognitive advantage over their primate cousins.

Surprisingly, the human children performed better in only one capacity: social learning. Tomasello thus concluded that humans are not “generally smarter.” Rather, “we have a special kind of smarts.” Our advanced social abilities allow us to transmit information by accurately teaching and learning from each other.

Humans’ apparent social learning abilities suggested a clear explanation for our unique cultural traits. Knowledgeable humans – say, someone who discovers a better way to make a spear – can successfully transfer that skill to their peers. But an inventive chimp – one who discovers a better way to smash nuts, for example – can’t successfully share their innovation. Nobody listens to Chimp Einstein. So our inventions persist and build upon each other, while theirs vanish into the jungle floor.

Or so the theory went.

Now, though, scientists have hard evidence showing that, just like us, animals can learn from each other and thus maintain their cultures for long periods of time. Groups of swamp sparrows appear to use the same song syllables for centuries. Meerkat troops settle on different wake-up times and maintain them for a decade or more.

Of course, long-term social learning is not the same as cumulative culture. Yet scientists also now know that humpback whale songs can oscillate in complexity over many generations of learners, that homing pigeons create efficient flight paths by learning from each other and making small improvements, and that hooved mammals cumulatively alter their migration routes to exploit plant growth.

Once again, the animals have shot down our claim to uniqueness, as they have innumerable times throughout scientific history. You might wonder, at this point, if we should just settle the uniqueness question by answering: “We’re not.”

If not cumulative culture, what makes us unique?

But it remains the case that humans and their cultures are quite different from animals and their equivalents. Most scholars agree about that, even if they disagree about the reasons why. Since cumulative complexity appears not to be the most important difference, several researchers are sketching out a new perspective: Human culture is uniquely open-ended.

Currently, anthropologists are discussing open-endedness in two related ways. To get a sense of the first, try counting the number of things you’re engaged with, right now, that came to you through culture. For example, I picked my clothes today based on fashion trends I did not develop; I am writing in a language I did not invent; I tied my shoes using a method my father taught me; there are paintings and postcards and photographs on my walls.

Give me 10 minutes, and I could probably add 100 more items to that list. In fact, other than biological acts such as breathing, it is difficult for me to think of any aspect of what I’m doing right now that is not partially or completely cultural. This breadth is incredibly strange. Why should any organism spend time pursuing such a wide range of goals, particularly if most of them have nothing to do with survival?

Other animals are much more judicious. Their cultural variation and complexity pertains almost entirely to matters of subsistence and reproduction, such as acquiring food and mating. Humans, on the other hand, lip-synch, build space stations and, less grandiosely, have been known to do things such as spend six years trying to park in all 211 spots of a grocery store lot. Our cultural diversity is unparalleled.

Open-endedness, as a unique human quality, is not just about variety; it reflects the quantum leaps by which our cultures can evolve. To illustrate this peculiarity, consider a hypothetical example regarding the rocks that chimpanzees use to smash nuts.

Let’s say these chimps would benefit from using rocks that they can swing as hard and accurately as possible, but that they don’t immediately know what kind of rocks those would be. By trying different options and observing each other, they might accumulate knowledge of the best qualities in a nut-smashing rock. Eventually, though, they’d hit a limit in the power and precision available by swinging a rock with your fist.

How could they get past this upper limit? Well, they could tie a stick to their favorite rock; the extra leverage would help them smash the nuts even harder. As far as we know, though, chimpanzees aren’t capable of realizing the benefits of harnessing this additional quality. But we are – people invented hammers.

Crucially, discovering the power of leverage allows for more than just better nut-smashing. It opens up innovations in other domains. If adding handles to wielded objects allows for better nut-smashing, then why not better throwing, or cutting, or painting? The space of cultural possibilities, suddenly, has expanded.

Through open-ended cultural evolution, human beings produce open-endedness in culture. In this respect, our species is unparalleled.

What’s next?

Researchers have not yet answered most of the major questions about open-endedness: how to quantify it, how we create it, whether it has any true limitations.

But this new framework must shift the tides of a related debate: whether there is something obviously different about the way human minds work, other than social learning capacities. After all, every cultural trait emerges through interactions between minds – so how do our minds interact to produce such a degree of cultural breadth?

No one knows yet. Interestingly, this shifting debate over how cognition influences culture coincides with a spate of research bridging psychology and anthropology, which explores why certain behaviors – such as singing lullabies, curative bloodletting and storytelling – recur across human cultures.

Human minds produce unparalleled diversity in their cultures; yet it is also true that those cultures tend to express variations on a strict set of themes, such as music and marriage and religion. Ironically, the source of our open-endedness may illuminate not only what makes us so diverse, but also what makes us so often the same.

Eli Elster 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.

About 10% of Americans say they have chronic insomnia, and millions of others report poor sleep quality. Ongoing research has found that bad sleep could lead to numerous health problems, including heart disease.

Dr. Julio Fernandez-Mendoza is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral health, neuroscience and public health sciences at Penn State College of Medicine. He discusses the need for sleep, why teenagers require more sleep than adults, and how you can get a good night’s sleep without medications.

The Conversation has collaborated with SciLine to bring you highlights from the discussion that have been edited for brevity and clarity.

How much sleep is enough for adults and for adolescents?

Julio Fernandez-Mendoza: Adults who report getting about seven to eight hours of sleep per night generally have the best health, in terms of both physical and mental health, and longevity.

But that recommendation changes with age. Adults over age 65 may need just six to seven hours of sleep per night. So older people, if otherwise healthy, should not feel anxious if they’re getting just six hours. Young people need the most – at least nine hours – and some younger children may need more.

How can insufficient sleep harm our health?

Fernandez-Mendoza: Our team was the first to show that those complaining about insomnia – difficulty falling or staying asleep – were more likely to have high blood pressure and be at risk for heart disease.

In both teens and adults, we found that insomnia and shortened sleep may lead to elevated stress, hormone levels and inflammation. These problems tend to show up before you develop heart disease.

What about people who have more serious sleep problems?

Fernandez-Mendoza: Good sleep hygiene habits include cutting down on caffeine and alcohol, quitting smoking and exercising regularly. I also recommend not skipping meals, not eating too late at night and not eating too much.

But people with a persistent sleep problem may need to make more behavioral changes. Research studies point to a set of six rules that can improve your sleep. You can follow these changes consistently in the short term, and then choose how to adapt them into your lifestyle down the road.

First, get up at the same time no matter what. No matter how much sleep you get. This will anchor your sleep/wake cycle, called your circadian rhythm.

Second, do not use your bed for anything except sleep and sexual activity.

Third, when you can’t sleep, don’t lie in bed awake. Instead, get out of bed, go into another room if you can, and do an activity that’s enjoyable or relaxing. Go back to bed only when you’re ready to sleep.

Fourth, get going with daily activities even after a poor night’s sleep. Don’t try to compensate for sleep loss. If you have chronic insomnia, don’t nap, sleep in, or doze during the day or evening even after poor sleep the previous night.

Fifth, go to bed only when you’re actually sleepy enough to fall asleep.

And sixth, start with the amount of sleep you’re now getting – with the lowest limit at five hours – and then increase it weekly by 15 minutes.

These six rules are evidence-based and go above and beyond simple sleep hygiene habits. If they don’t work, see a provider who can help you.

Do you have advice specifically for adolescents?

Fernandez-Mendoza: Adolescence is a unique developmental period. It’s not just the obvious physical, emotional and behavioral changes that occur during adolescence and puberty – there are changes in a teenager’s brain that can alter their sleep patterns.

When an adolescent goes through puberty, their internal clock changes so that their sleep schedule shifts to later hours. While it’s true that adolescents are more engaged at night because of their social relationships, there’s also biology behind why they want to stay up late – their internal clocks have shifted. It’s not just choice.

School start times for most adolescents are at odds with that biological shift. So they don’t get enough sleep, which affects their performance in school. Research suggests that schools with later start times are more closely aligned with the science on child development and don’t put adolescents at risk by making them wake up earlier than their bodies are biologically inclined to.

Parents can help their teens get better sleep. Set a time for kids to stop doing homework and put away electronics. Instead, they can watch TV with the family or read – something relaxing and enjoyable that will help them wind down before bed.

You can also gradually move back their wake-up time. Start on weekends, waking them up 30 minutes earlier every day, including school days, until the child reaches the desired wake-up time. Don’t try to reshift them suddenly – for example, waking up a teenager at 5 a.m. like it’s the military – because that doesn’t work. They won’t get used to it, since it’s at odds with their internal clock. So, do it little by little. If that doesn’t work, see a clinical provider.

What kind of treatments can a sleep clinician provide?

Fernandez-Mendoza: People should get help if they feel they sleep poorly, if they’re fatigued during the day, or if they snore or grind their teeth. All these issues deserve attention.

Some people may think a sleep provider just prescribes expensive medication, but that’s not true. There are behavioral, non-drug-based treatments that work. Cognitive behavioral therapy is the first-line treatment recommended for insomnia. Light therapy may also help, which is the use of a bright light therapy lamp at a given time during the day or evening, depending on the person’s sleep problem.

Watch the full interview to hear more.

SciLine is a free service based at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a nonprofit that helps journalists include scientific evidence and experts in their news stories.

Julio Fernandez-Mendoza currently receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. He sits on the Board of Directors of the Sleep Research Society, a US-based not-for-profit professional association of sleep and circadian scientists.

In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers struggled to grasp the rate of the virus’s spread and the number of related deaths. While hospitals tracked cases and deaths within their walls, the broader picture of mortality across communities remained frustratingly incomplete.

Policymakers and researchers quickly discovered a troubling pattern: Many deaths linked to the virus were never officially counted. A study analyzing data from over 3,000 U.S. counties between March 2020 and August 2022 found nearly 163,000 excess deaths from natural causes that were missing from official mortality records.

Excess deaths, meaning those that exceed the number expected based on historical trends, serve as a key indicator of underreported deaths during health crises. Many of these uncounted deaths were later tied to COVID-19 through reviews of medical records, death certificates and statistical modeling.

In addition, lack of real-time tracking for medical interventions during those early days slowed vaccine development by delaying insights into which treatments worked and how people were responding to newly circulating variants.

Five years since the beginning of COVID-19, new epidemics such as bird flu are emerging worldwide, and researchers are still finding it difficult to access the data about people’s deaths that they need to develop lifesaving interventions.

How can the U.S. mortality data system improve? I’m a technology infrastructure researcher, and my team and I design policy and technical systems to reduce inefficiency in health care and government organizations. By analyzing the flow of mortality data in the U.S., we found several areas of the system that could use updating.

Critical need for real-time data

A death record includes key details beyond just the fact of death, such as the cause, contributing conditions, demographics, place of death and sometimes medical history. This information is crucial for researchers to be able to analyze trends, identify disparities and drive medical advances.

Approximately 2.8 million death records are added to the U.S. mortality data system each year. But in 2022 – the most recent official count available – when the world was still in the throes of the pandemic, 3,279,857 deaths were recorded in the federal system. Still, this figure is widely considered to be a major undercount of true excess deaths from COVID-19.

In addition, real-time tracking of COVID-19 mortality data was severely lacking. This process involves the continuous collection, analysis and reporting of deaths from hospitals, health agencies and government databases by integrating electronic health records, lab reports and public health surveillance systems. Ideally, it provides up-to-date insights for decision-making, but during the COVID-19 pandemic, these tracking systems lagged and failed to generate comprehensive data.

Without comprehensive data on prior COVID-19 infections, antibody responses and adverse events, researchers faced challenges designing clinical trials to predict how long immunity would last and optimize booster schedules.

Such data is essential in vaccine development because it helps identify who is most at risk, which variants and treatments affect survival rates, and how vaccines should be designed and distributed. And as part of the broader U.S. vital records system, mortality data is essential for medical research, including evaluating public health programs, identifying health disparities and monitoring disease.

At the heart of the problem is the inefficiency of government policy, particularly outdated public health reporting systems and slow data modernization efforts that hinder timely decision-making. These long-standing policies, such as reliance on paper-based death certificates and disjointed state-level reporting, have failed to keep pace with real-time data needs during crises such as COVID-19.

These policy shortcomings lead to delays in reporting and lack of coordination between hospital organizations, state government vital records offices and federal government agencies in collecting, standardizing and sharing death records.

History of US mortality data

The U.S. mortality data system has been cobbled together through a disparate patchwork of state and local governments, federal agencies and public health organizations over the course of more than a century and a half. It has been shaped by advances in public health, medical record-keeping and technology. From its inception to the present day, the mortality data system has been plagued by inconsistencies, inefficiencies and tensions between medical professionals, state governments and the federal government.

The first national efforts to track information about deaths began in the 1850s when the U.S. Census Bureau started collecting mortality data as part of the decennial census. However, these early efforts were inconsistent, as death registration was largely voluntary and varied widely across states.

In the early 20th century, the establishment of the National Vital Statistics System brought greater standardization to mortality data. For example, the system required all U.S. states and territories to standardize their death certificate format. It also consolidated mortality data at the federal level, whereas mortality data was previously stored at the state level.

However, state and federal reporting remained fragmented. For example, states had no unifom timeline for submitting mortality data, resulting in some states taking months or even years to finalize and release death records. Local or state-level paperwork processing practices also remained varied and at times contradictory.

To begin to close gaps in reporting timelines to aid medical researchers, in 1981 the National Center for Health Statistics – a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – introduced the National Death Index. This is a centralized database of death records collected from state vital statistics offices, making it easier to access death data for health and medical research. The system was originally paper-based, with the aim of allowing researchers to track the deaths of study participants without navigating complex bureaucracies.

As time has passed, the National Death Index and state databases have become increasingly digital. The rise of electronic death registration systems in recent decades has improved processing speed when it comes to researchers accessing mortality data from the National Death Index. However, while the index has solved some issues related to gaps between state and federal data, other issues, such as high fees and inconsistency in state reporting times, still plague it.

Accessing the data that matters most

With the Trump administration’s increasing removal of CDC public health datasets, it is unclear whether policy reform for mortality data will be addressed anytime soon.

Experts fear that the removal of CDC datasets has now set precedent for the Trump administration to cross further lines in its attempts to influence the research and data published by the CDC. The longer-term impact of the current administration’s public health policy on mortality data and disease response are not yet clear.

What is clear is that five years since COVID-19, the U.S. mortality tracking system remains unequipped to meet emerging public health crises. Without addressing these challenges, the U.S. may not be able to respond quickly enough to public health crises threatening American lives.

Dylan Thomas Doyle 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.

Sturgeons are one of the oldest groups of fishes. Sporting an armor of five rows of bony, modified scales called dermal scutes and a sharklike tail fin, this group of several-hundred-pound beasts has survived for approximately 160 million years. Because their physical appearance has changed very little over time, supported by a slow rate of evolution, sturgeon have been called living fossils.

Despite their survival through several geological time periods, many present-day sturgeon species are at threat of extinction, with 17 of 27 species listed as “critically endangered.”

Conservation practitioners such as the Virginia Commonwealth University monitoring team are working hard to support recovery of Atlantic sturgeon in the Chesapeake Bay area. But it’s not clear what baseline population level people should strive toward restoring. How do today’s sturgeon populations compare with those of the past?

We are a molecular anthropologist and a biodiversity scientist who focus on species that people rely on for subsistence. We study the evolution, population health and resilience of these species over time to better understand humans’ interaction with their environments and the sustainability of food systems.

For our recent sturgeon project, we joined forces with fisheries conservation biologist Matt Balazik, who conducts on-the-ground monitoring of Atlantic sturgeon, and Torben Rick, a specialist in North American coastal zooarchaeology. Together, we wanted to look into the past and see how much sturgeon populations have changed, focusing on the James River in Virginia. A more nuanced understanding of the past could help conservationists better plan for the future.

Sturgeon loomed large for millennia

In North America, sturgeon have played important subsistence and cultural roles in Native communities, which marked the seasons by the fishes’ behavioral patterns. Large summertime aggregations of lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in the Great Lakes area inspired one folk name for the August full moon – the sturgeon moon. Woodland Era pottery remnants at archaeological sites from as long as 2,000 years ago show that the fall and springtime runs of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) upstream were celebrated with feasting.

Archaeological finds of sturgeon remains support that early colonial settlers in North America, notably those who established Jamestown in the Chesapeake Bay area in 1607, also prized these fish. When Captain John Smith was leading Jamestown, he wrote “there was more sturgeon here than could be devoured by dog or man.” The fish may have helped the survival of this fortress-colony that was both stricken with drought and fostering turbulent relationships with the Native inhabitants.

This abundance is in stark contrast to today, when sightings of migrating fish are sparse. Exploitation during the past 300 years was the key driver of Atlantic sturgeon decline. Demand for caviar drove the relentless fishing pressure throughout the 19th century. The Chesapeake was the second-most exploited sturgeon fishery on the Eastern Seaboard up until the early 20th century, when the fish became scarce.

At that point, local protection regulations were established, but only in 1998 was a moratorium on harvesting these fish declared. Meanwhile, abundance of Atlantic sturgeon remained very low, which can be explained in part by their lifespan. Short-lived fish such as herring and shad can recover population numbers much faster than Atlantic sturgeon, which live for up to 60 years and take a long time to reach reproductive age – up to around 12 years for males and as many as 28 years for females.

To help manage and restore an endangered species, conservation biologists tend to split the population into groups based on ranges. The Chesapeake Bay is one of five “distinct population segments” the U.S. Endangered Species Act listing in 2012 created for Atlantic sturgeon.

Since then, conservationists have pioneered genetic studies on Atlantic sturgeon, demonstrating through the power of DNA that natal river – where an individual fish is born – and season of spawning are both important for distinguishing subpopulations within each regional group. Scientists have also described genetic diversity in Atlantic sturgeon; more genetic variety suggests they have more capacity to adapt when facing new, potentially challenging conditions.

Sturgeon DNA, then and now

Archaeological remains are a direct source of data on genetic diversity in the past. We can analyze the genetic makeup of sturgeons that lived hundreds of years ago, before intense overfishing depleted their numbers. Then we can compare that baseline with today’s genetic diversity.

The James River was a great case study for testing out this approach, which we call an archaeogenomics time series. Having obtained information on the archaeology of the Chesapeake region from our collaborator Leslie Reeder-Myers, we sampled remains of sturgeon – their scutes and spines – at a precolonial-era site where people lived from about 200 C.E. to about 900 C.E. We also sampled from important colonial sites Jamestown (1607-1610) and Williamsburg (1720-1775). And we complemented that data from the past with tiny clips from the fins of present-day, live fish that Balazik and his team sampled during monitoring surveys.

DNA tends to get physically broken up and biochemically damaged with age. So we relied on special protocols in a lab dedicated to studying ancient DNA to minimize the risk of contamination and enhance our chances of successfully collecting genetic material from these sturgeon.

Atlantic sturgeon have 122 chromosomes of nuclear DNA – over five times as many as people do. We focused on a few genetic regions, just enough to get an idea of the James River population groupings and how genetically distinct they are from one another.

We were not surprised to see that fall-spawning and spring-spawning groups were genetically distinct. What stood out, though, was how starkly different they were, which is something that can happen when a population’s numbers drop to near-extinction levels.

We also looked at the fishes’ mitochondrial DNA, a compact molecule that is easier to obtain ancient DNA from compared with the nuclear chromosomes. With our collaborator Audrey Lin, we used the mitochondrial DNA to confirm our hypothesis that the fish from archaeological sites were more genetically diverse than present-day Atlantic sturgeon.

Strikingly, we discovered that mitochondrial DNA did not always group the fish by season or even by their natal river. This was unexpected, because Atlantic sturgeon tend to return to their natal rivers for breeding. Our interpretation of this genetic finding is that over very long timescales – many thousands of years – changes in the global climate and in local ecosystems would have driven a given sturgeon population to migrate into a new river system, and possibly at a later stage back to its original one. This notion is supported by other recent documentation of fish occasionally migrating over long distances and mixing with new groups.

Our study used archaeology, history and ecology together to describe the decline of Atlantic sturgeon. Based on the diminished genetic diversity we measured, we estimate that the Atlantic sturgeon populations we studied are about a fifth of what they were before colonial settlement. Less genetic variability means these smaller populations have less potential to adapt to changing conditions. Our findings will help conservationists plan into the future for the continued recovery of these living fossils.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Windstorms can seem like they come out of nowhere, hitting with a sudden blast. They might be hundreds of miles long, stretching over several states, or just in your neighborhood.

But they all have one thing in common: a change in air pressure.

Just like air rushing out of your car tire when the valve is open, air in the atmosphere is forced from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure.

The stronger the difference in pressure, the stronger the winds that will ultimately result.

Other forces related to the Earth’s rotation, friction and gravity can also alter the speed and direction of winds. But it all starts with this change in pressure over a distance – what meteorologists like me call a pressure gradient.

So how do we get pressure gradients?

Strong pressure gradients ultimately owe their existence to the simple fact that the Earth is round and rotates.

Because the Earth is round, the sun is more directly overhead during the day at the equator than at the poles. This means more energy reaches the surface of the Earth near the equator. And that causes the lower part of the atmosphere, where weather occurs, to be both warmer and have higher pressure on average than the poles.

Nature doesn’t like imbalances. As a result of this temperature difference, strong winds develop at high altitudes over midlatitude locations, like the continental U.S. This is the jet stream, and even though it’s several miles up in the atmosphere, it has a big impact on the winds we feel at the surface.

Because Earth rotates, these upper-altitude winds blow from west to east. Waves in the jet stream – a consequence of Earth’s rotation and variations in the surface land, terrain and oceans – can cause air to diverge, or spread out, at certain points. As the air spreads out, the number of air molecules in a column decreases, ultimately reducing the air pressure at Earth’s surface.

The pressure can drop quite dramatically over a few days or even just a few hours, leading to the birth of a low-pressure system – what meteorologists call an extratropical cyclone.

The opposite chain of events, with air converging at other locations, can form high pressure at the surface.

In between these low-pressure and high-pressure systems is a strong change in pressure over a distance – a pressure gradient. And that pressure gradient leads to strong winds. Earth’s rotation causes these winds to spiral around areas of high and low pressure. These highs and lows are like large circular mixers, with air blowing clockwise around high pressure and counterclockwise around low pressure. This flow pattern blows warm air northward toward the poles east of lows and cool air southward toward the equator west of lows.

As the waves in the jet stream migrate from west to east, so do the surface lows and highs, and with them, the corridors of strong winds.

That’s what the U.S. experienced when a strong extratropical cyclone caused winds stretching thousands of miles that whipped up dust storms and spread wildfires, and even caused tornadoes and blizzards in the central and southern U.S. in March 2025.

Whipping up dust storms and spreading fires

The jet stream over the U.S. is strongest and often the most “wavy” in the springtime, when the south-to-north difference in temperature is often the strongest.

Winds associated with large-scale pressure systems can become quite strong in areas where there is limited friction at the ground, like the flat, less forested terrain of the Great Plains. One of the biggest risks is dust storms in arid regions of west Texas or eastern New Mexico, exacerbated by drought in these areas.

When the ground and vegetation are dry and the air has low relative humidity, high winds can also spread wildfires out of control.

Even more intense winds can occur when the pressure gradient interacts with terrain. Winds can sometimes rush faster downslope, as happens in the Rockies or with the Santa Ana winds that fueled devastating wildfires in the Los Angeles area in January.

Violent tornadoes and storms

Of course, winds can become even stronger and more violent on local scales associated with thunderstorms.

When thunderstorms form, hail and precipitation in them can cause the air to rapidly fall in a downdraft, causing very high pressure under these storms. That pressure forces the air to spread out horizontally when it reaches the ground. Meteorologists call these straight line winds, and the process that forms them is a downburst. Large thunderstorms or chains of them moving across a region can cause large swaths of strong wind over 60 mph, called a derecho.

Finally, some of nature’s strongest winds occur inside tornadoes. They form when the winds surrounding a thunderstorm change speed and direction with height. This can cause part of the storm to rotate, setting off a chain of events that may lead to a tornado and winds as strong as 300 mph in the most violent tornadoes.

Tornado winds are also associated with an intense pressure gradient. The pressure inside the center of a tornado is often very low and varies considerably over a very small distance.

It’s no coincidence that localized violent winds from thunderstorm downbursts and tornadoes often occur amid large-scale windstorms. Extratropical cyclones often draw warm, moist air northward on strong winds from the south, which is a key ingredient for thunderstorms. Storms also become more severe and may produce tornadoes when the jet stream is in close proximity to these low-pressure centers. In the winter and early spring, cold air funneling south on the northwest side of strong extratropical cyclones can even lead to blizzards.

So, the same wave in the jet stream can lead to strong winds, blowing dust and fire danger in one region, while simultaneously triggering a tornado outbreak and a blizzard in other regions.

Chris Nowotarski receives funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and theDepartment of Energy (DOE).

Social media platforms tend not to be that bothered by national boundaries.

Take X, for example. Users of what was once called Twitter span the globe, with its 600 millions-plus active accounts dotted across nearly every country. And each of those jurisdictions has its own laws.

But the interests of national regulatory efforts and that of predominantly U.S.-based technology companies often don’t align. While many governments have sought to impose oversight mechanisms to address problems such as disinformation, online extremism and manipulation, these initiatives have been met with corporate resistance, political interference and legal challenges invoking free speech as a shield against regulation.

What is brewing is a global struggle over digital platform governance. And in this battle, U.S. platforms are increasingly leaning on American laws to challenge other nation’s regulations. It is, we believe as experts on digital law – one an executive director of a forum monitoring how countries implement democratic principles – a form of digital imperialism.

A rumble in the tech jungle

The latest manifestation of this phenomenon occurred in February 2025, when new tensions emerged between Brazil’s judiciary and U.S.-based social media platforms.

Trump Media & Technology Group and Rumble filed a lawsuit in the U.S. against Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, challenging his orders to suspend accounts on the two platforms linked to disinformation campaigns in Brazil.

The case follows earlier unsuccessful efforts by Elon Musk’s X to resist similar Brazilian rulings.

Together, the cases exemplify a growing trend in which U.S. political and corporate actors attempt to undermine foreign regulatory authority by pressing the case that domestic U.S. law and corporate protections should take precedence over sovereign policies globally.

From corporate lobbying to lawfare

At the core of the dispute is Allan dos Santos, a right-wing Brazilian influencer and fugitive from justice who fled to the U.S. in 2021 after De Moraes ordered his preventive arrest for allegedly coordinating disinformation networks and inciting violence.

Dos Santos has continued his online activities abroad. Brazil’s extradition requests have gone unanswered due to claims by U.S. authorities that the case involves issues of free speech rather than criminal offenses.

Trump Media and Rumble’s lawsuit attempts to do two things. First, it seeks to frame Brazil’s judicial actions as censorship rather than oversight. And second, it seeks to portray the Brazilian court action as territorial overreach.

Their position is that as the target of the action was in the U.S., they are subject to U.S. free speech protections under the First Amendment. The fact that the subject of the ban was Brazilian and is accused of spreading disinformation and hate in Brazil should not, they argue, matter.

For now, U.S. courts agree. In late February, a Florida-based judge ruled that Rumble and Trump Media need not comply with the Brazilian order.

Big Tech pushback to regulation

The case signals an important shift in the contest over platform accountability – a move from corporate lobbying and political pressure to direct legal intervention in foreign jurisdictions. U.S. courts are now being used to challenge overseas decisions regarding platform accountability.

The outcome and the broader legal strategy behind the lawsuit could have far-reaching implications not only for Brazil but for any country or region – such as the European Union – attempting to regulate online spaces.

The resistance against digital regulation predates the Trump administration.

In Brazil, efforts to regulate social media platforms have long faced substantial opposition. Big Tech companies – including Google, Meta and X – have used their economic and political influence to lobby against tighter regulation, often framing such policies as a threat to free expression.

In 2020, the Brazilian “Fake News Bill,” which sought to hold platforms accountable for the spread of disinformation, was met with strong opposition from these companies.

Google and Meta launched high-profile campaigns to oppose the bill, warning it would “threaten free speech” and “harm small businesses.” Google placed banners on its Brazilian homepage urging users to reject the legislation, while Meta ran advertisements questioning its implications for the digital economy.

These efforts, alongside lobbying and political resistance, were successful in helping to delay and weaken the regulatory framework.

Mixing corporate and political power

The difference now is that challenges are blurring the line between the corporate and the political.

Trump Media was 53% owned by the U.S. president before he moved his stake into a revocable trust in December 2024. Elon Musk, the free speech fundamentalist owner of X, is a de facto member of the Trump administration.

Their ascent to power has coincided with the First Amendment being wielded as a shield against foreign regulations on digital platforms.

Free speech protections in the U.S. have been applied unequally, allowing authorities to suppress dissent in some cases while shielding hateful speech in others.

This imbalance extends to corporate power, with decades of legal precedent expanding protections for private interests. The case law cemented corporate speech protections, a logic later extended to digital platforms.

U.S. free speech advocates in Big Tech and the U.S. government are seemingly escalating this trend to an even more extreme interpretation: that American free speech arguments can be deployed to resist the regulation of other jurisdictions and challenge foreign legal frameworks.

For instance, in response to the European Union’s Digital Services Act, U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, expressed concerns that the act could threaten American free speech principles.

Such an argument may have been fine if the same interpretation of free speech – and its appropriate protections – were universally accepted. But they are not.

The concept of free speech varies significantly across nations and regions.

Countries such as Brazil, Germany, France and others adopt what legal experts refer to as a proportionality-based approach to free speech, balancing it against other fundamental rights such as human dignity, democratic integrity and public order.

Sovereign countries using this approach recognize freedom of expression as a fundamental and preferential right. But they also acknowledge that certain restrictions are necessary to protect democratic institutions, marginalized communities, public health and the informational ecosystem from harms.

While the U.S. imposes some limits on speech – such as defamation laws and protection against incitement to imminent lawless action – the First Amendment is generally far more expansive than in other democracies.

The future of digital governance

The legal battle over platform regulation is not confined to the current battle between U.S.-based platforms and Brazil. The EU’s Digital Services Act and the Online Safety Act in the United Kingdom are other examples of governments trying to assert control over platforms operating within their borders.

As such, the lawsuit by Trump Media and Rumble against the Brazilian Supreme Court signals a critical moment in global geopolitics.

U.S. tech giants, such as Meta, are bending to the free speech winds coming out of the Trump administration. Musk, the owner of X, has given support to far-right groups overseas.

And this overlap in the policy priorities of social media platforms and the political interests of the U.S. administration opens a new era in the deregulation debate in which U.S. free speech absolutists are seeking to establish legal precedents that might challenge the future of other nations’ regulatory efforts.

As countries continue to develop regulatory frameworks for digital governance – for instance, AI regulation imposing stricter governance rules in Brazil and in the EU – the legal, economic and political strategies platforms employ to challenge oversight mechanisms will play a crucial role in determining the future balance between corporate influence and the rule of law.

Camille Grenier is Executive Director at the Forum on Information and Democracy, a non-profit entity led by civil society organisations and mandated to implement democratic principles.

Yasmin Curzi de Mendonça 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.

When I taught research methods to undergraduates, I would start by asking whether anyone in the class had $20. Though harder to come by thanks to digital payment options, inevitably someone would produce a $20 bill. I would then ask whether they knew how the bill came to look the way it does. Students would take guesses – often rooted in history and counterfeiting concerns.

While valid, the larger font and picture designs that came about in the 1990s and early 2000s were also the result of research intended to make the bills more accessible for the 3.5 million Americans with low vision. One of those Americans with low vision was a researcher on the team designing the new bill, experimental psychologist Gordon Legge.

These changes made it easier for those low-vision Americans, their families and others around the world to read and use American dollars. In other countries, bills and coins come in different sizes that pertain to their value, making them much easier for people with low vision and the blind to use. Legge’s research saved Americans the cost of having to completely redesign the currency to come in different sizes.

My goal in talking about the currency redesign with my students was to show them how research has shaped their lives, often in ways they didn’t even realize.

Now, following President Donald Trump’s executive order on federal projects related to DEIA – diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility – many research initiatives similar to the bill redesign project will lose funding.

As a social psychologist, I’ve worked on some studies considered DEIA work. Social psychology as a field grew, in part, during World War II as researchers tried to understand bias-motivated atrocities such as the Holocaust.

DEIA initiatives are projects that seek to reduce discrimination and promote equal opportunities and equal access in multiple spaces such as school and workplaces, as well as in legal, housing and medical systems.

While frequently focused on those who have faced long-standing barriers to these resources – for example, racial and ethnic minorities and people with disabilities – the results of research related to DEIA are often applied to help all people achieve their potential.

The Trump administration’s list of DEIA-related terms is so broad that it’s flagging non-DEIA related work for potential termination. I’ve heard many scientists discuss how their programs of research have been wrongfully included in the anti-DEIA sweeps because they use terms such as “biodiversity.”

However, research that would be considered DEIA work has made influential contributions to society over the past few decades – it raises the question of whether any flagging is actually right. The backlash to anti-DEIA research seems to have started with criticism of DEI-related human resources training in workplaces. But the word list goes well beyond what would appear in HR training.

DEIA research identifies the problems and proposes the solutions. Solutions such as translation services for the hearing impaired, parental leave for mothers and fathers, pay equity, time off for religious holidays and lactation rooms for nursing mothers all stem from what could be labeled DEIA research and advocacy.

For instance, lactation rooms came about based on research into what working mothers needed to ease their return to work after pregnancy. This included research into breast pumps and even architectural research on how to best design these rooms.

DEIA contributions

DEIA work is nothing new – just the label is. After all, it was DEIA research in the 1950s that psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark presented to the Supreme Court to argue that school segregation harmed children, leading to the banning of the policy.

This work continues today as new DEIA research reveals that schools are often still racially homogenous. That means many American students still go to schools where the student bodies are primarily white or primarily racial minorities. However, the reasons for these divides are no longer due to segregation being the law.

In the 1970s, it was DEIA research that inspired the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and led to the creation of special education practices for neurodiverse students. These practices have improved educational outcomes for students with dyslexia, ADHD, autism and a variety of other neurodiversities.

And DEIA research is continuing to review and improve these practices today.

Starting in the 1980s, it was also DEIA research that led to HIV/AIDS, a virus disproportionately affecting the LGBTQ+ community, no longer being a death sentence. Doctors now have a drug that prevents HIV, including preventing the transmission of HIV from mother to infant.

Just today, I received a news alert about scientific breakthroughs in the neurological study of postpartum depression. Because “women” and “pregnant people” are on the list of terms flagged as DEIA-related, studies on postpartum depression could be considered DEIA.

DEIA science on DEIA science

It is DEIA science that has demonstrated how diverse research teams promote innovative performance. This research would suggest that America’s diversity may very well be one of the key elements shaping its prosperity.

Some might say “of course DEIA research will show DEIA works,” but it is also DEIA research that critiques the limitations of training to reduce bias – such as human resources workshops intended to teach workers about inclusive language, cultural sensitivity or implicit bias. Other non-DEIA HR training also faces criticism.

Scientists discuss these limitations, and the scientific process is constantly self-correcting as researchers search for better solutions. Recommendations about better training are proposed based on new research.

For instance, racial colorblindness is an ideology that grew out of the civil rights era and a desire to treat individuals equally regardless of race. However, it has led to some problems where people say they ignore race when really they don’t. For instance, in one study looking at race and dating preferences, white people endorsing a colorblind ideology were actually more likely to say they wouldn’t date a Black person than those who didn’t endorse colorblindness.

Colorblindness can also make people feel uncomfortable bringing up race in any context. One study shows how young people, who are not yet wary of identifying people by race, can outperform adults, who avoid race, during a game of Guess Who.

These studies are just some examples of DEIA science that showed the colorblindness approach is a mixed bag at best. Other times, it is harmful for minority groups and majority groups alike, or even backfires, making people more, not less, discriminatory and uncomfortable.

Alleged alternatives to DEIA

Despite its shortcomings, many prominent figures in the anti-DEIA movement have seemingly endorsed colorblindness.

For example, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott created executive order GA-55 to end DEIA policies and institute a “color-blind” approach instead. Texas public universities had to eliminate DEIA offices and practices but not legacy admissions and scholarships that studies show disproportionately benefit white students.

In his second inaugural address, Trump promised that his administration would “forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based.” While a meritocracy may sound good on paper, DEIA research has suggested that meritocracies don’t work in the current society.

Meritocracies assume a level playing field and can ignore disparities, such as wealth, that may afford some more opportunities than others – social mobility between income levels is rare and can take generations.

Where we stand

Despite the anti-DEIA rhetoric present in American discourse, most Americans do not have negative attitudes toward DEIA; 52% even still think DEIA in the workplace is good. Most Americans, including white people, men and Republicans, also do not report having been harmed by DEIA policies. Overall, studies report that Americans value inclusivity.

Ultimately, blanket bans on anything remotely DEIA harm advancement across scientific disciplines. The disparities DEIA research examines still exist – in courts, in schools, in jobs, in health, in housing and in violent victimization rates.

Stopping cancer research because cancer prevention training doesn’t always work and sometimes backfires won’t stop cancer. Ignoring disparities will not make them go away. DEIA-related science is an ingrained part of the scientific enterprise, and cutting its funding could mean missing out on important breakthroughs.

H. Colleen Sinclair does not personally have any DEIA-related federal grants but she has received foundation research funding for math education research that includes looking at how to close disparities in achievement. The statements and opinions included in this The Conversation article are solely the author’s. Any statements and opinions included in these pages are not those of the Social Research and Evaluation Center, the College of Human Sciences & Education, the Louisiana State University, or the LSU Board of Supervisors.