James' World 2

Click the link below the picture

.

Humans are creatures of Earth and, in turn, at the mercy of Earth’s gravity. When we leave the confines of our home planet and enter the microgravity environment of space, our brain and body change. Studies have shown how microgravity can affect astronauts: it can throw off their balance, blur their vision, change the shape of their heart, and nudge the position of their brain inside their skull. And now a new study shows that microgravity, colloquially referred to as zero g, affects astronauts’ motor skills, too. Understanding these changes is critical for the future of human space exploration.

“It’s so important to interact with our environment,” says Philippe Lefèvre, senior author of the new study and a professor of biomedical engineering at the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium. Unlike on Earth, in space, if an astronaut lets an object slip from their grasp, the consequences are not just different (that object doesn’t drop to the floor) but also possibly dire.

“This study highlights the brain’s remarkable ability to adapt to its physical environment,” says Lionel Bringoux, a professor at Aix-Marseille University in France, who also researches the effects of gravity on motor ability but was not involved in the new paper.

The new research involved 11 astronauts who lived onboard the International Space Station for at least five months. While on the station, they performed a series of experiments that tested how their rhythm and grip changed while they manipulated objects in zero g. Lefèvre and his colleagues found that astronauts tended to move slower in weightlessness and to grip an object more firmly than they would on Earth, as if the object was heavier than they knew it to be.

That was a surprise, Lefèvre says: “The fact that we were exposed to gravity from early childhood for years and decades, we cannot forget it, even after five to six months.” The astronauts knew that the object would feel weightless in zero g, but their brain predicted that it would feel as heavy as it would on Earth. And if the object was moving at speed, the astronauts would grab it and grip it even more tightly, he adds.

Bringoux says that this finding suggests “astronauts tend to apply a larger safety margin” than is strictly necessary for holding on to and moving objects to prevent any unexpected slips. It also suggests that astronauts reach an “optimal” level of adaptation to their weightless surroundings—their sensorimotor skills change enough to ensure they can safely and accurately hold on to and move things around in microgravity but not more than that.

The team ran further experiments to see how the astronauts’ motor skills readapted to the planet’s gravitational force just a day after they returned to Earth—both their grip and ability to move an object at a steady rhythm recovered quickly. “The adaptation that we had to gravity for decades [means] we do not fully adapt to microgravity, but the advantage is that when we go back to Earth, we readapt that very quickly to the Earth’s environment,” Lefèvre says. All in all, the study, which was published on Monday in the Journal of Neuroscience, took about 20 years from when it was first proposed to be completed.

Knowing how human brains adapt to different gravitational environments will be crucial for future space missions—although it’s an open question whether future astronauts traveling to the moon or Mars will show the same adaptations, Lefèvre says. There is some gravity on these worlds, and that could introduce risks, he adds. “Maybe the astronaut will feel gravity, and they will just go back to Earth mode, which is not appropriate because gravitational force [on Mars] is reduced,” he says.

“Studying these differences helps us anticipate and better prepare astronauts for such conditions,” Bringoux agrees.

.

NASA

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

From

Click the link below the picture

.

This week’s Star Gazing roundup features appearances across film, fashion, and culture, with artists and actors showing up for major moments and smaller gatherings alike. From red carpets to private events, the past few days reflect how active the calendar has been, with familiar faces stepping out in cities across the country.

In San Diego, Swizz Beatz and Alicia Keys brought their Dean Collection to the Museum of Contemporary Art for its West Coast debut, drawing out Kelly Rowland and Tim Witherspoon for the opening night celebration. Just up the coast in Los Angeles, the AFI honored Eddie Murphy with its Lifetime Achievement Award, bringing together Colman Domingo, Nia Long, Jaafar Jackson, Tracy Morgan, Spike Lee, Da’Vine Joy Randolph, and more for a night centered on his legacy.

In Los Angeles, Tina Knowles hosted a luncheon tied to a Mother’s Day campaign with Kurt Geiger London, joined by Vanessa Bell Calloway, Holly Robinson Peete, Lela Rochon, and Vivica A. Fox. Las Vegas stayed busy with CinemaCon, where Michael B. Jordan previewed his next project, Queen Latifah received the Cultural Impact in Film Award, and LaKeith Stanfield took the stage as one of the night’s honorees. Dwayne Johnson also made an appearance during studio presentations, keeping attention on upcoming releases.

Take a look at who was seen out and about this week.

Swizz Beatz, Alicia Keys, Kelly Rowland, and Tim Witherspoon

LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA – APRIL 17: (L-R) Swizz Beatz, Alicia Keys, Kelly Rowland, and Tim Witherspoon attend the opening of the west coast showing of Giants- Art from The Dean Collection of Swizz Beatz and Alicia Keys at Museum Of Contemporary Art San Diego on April 17, 2026, in La Jolla, California. (Photo by Jerod Harris/Getty Images for ABA)

 

.

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA – APRIL 15: Michael B. Jordan speaks during CinemaCon 2026 – Amazon MGM Studios Invites you to an Exclusive Presentation of its Upcoming Slate at The Dolby Colosseum at Caesars Palace during CinemaCon, the official convention of Cinema United, on April 15, 2026, in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by David Becker/Getty Images for CinemaCon)

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Democrats maintained their electoral momentum on Tuesday by securing the passage of an aggressively gerrymandered House map in Virginia, which could deliver the party up to four extra seats as it tries to win back control of Congress.

National party leaders had been heavily invested in the outcome, with Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader, helping orchestrate the statewide Virginia referendum with Democratic state legislators. Speaker Mike Johnson, hanging on to a slim majority, tried to rally the state’s Republicans.

Democrats sought to focus the campaign on President Trump, who instigated the nationwide redistricting fight last summer in Texas to help House Republicans in the midterms. A vote for a gerrymandered House map, Democrats argued, was a vote to help their party stop Mr. Trump’s agenda. The president stayed out of the contest until the final hours before Election Day, when he urged Virginians to block the map.

“Donald Trump tried to rig the midterm elections by gerrymandering the national congressional map,” Mr. Jeffries said in an interview on Tuesday night. “He has failed.”

Here are four takeaways from the election:

Changed maps

Action taken to change maps

+5+1+5+1

+1–2

+1

+2-4

+1–5

Democrats have fought to a draw in the clash over maps — for now.

 

The vote in Virginia erased the small structural advantage that Republicans had built in the country’s redistricting battle.

Republicans could still seize back their edge, however, with the prospect of a new map in Florida. And the Supreme Court may well set off a political earthquake with a ruling that upends a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, which could lead to more Republican gains.

But for now, Democrats have averted their fears from the start of the gerrymandering fight that Republicans could gain an overwhelming cartographic advantage. And with the political environment shifting in their favor, they are increasingly optimistic about winning back the House.

.

National party leaders were heavily invested in Virginia’s referendum, and tens of millions of dollars flowed in. Credit…Win McNamee/Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

https://www.nytimes.com

.

__________________________________________

Hmmmm …  Sic Semper Tyrannis!

Click the link below the picture

.

President Donald Trump’s recent executive order to accelerate research on psychedelic substances and their potential to treat mental health conditions could have wide-ranging science consequences. Experts say the directive could expedite studies on how psychedelic and hallucinatory drugs such as MDMA, psilocybin, LSD and ibogaine may be useful in medicine.

The executive order is “timely,” says Frederick Barrett, director of the Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research at Johns Hopkins University. “If this executive order can help us to really push forward promising therapies more quickly, then I think that is a good thing,” he says.

The order directs the administration to promptly evaluate and possibly approve psychedelics for medical purposes, which could also make it easier for researchers to study these substances. It also calls for allocating $50 million to support states’ psychedelic research, including on ibogaine, a compound found naturally in a Central African plant. Some early research suggests that ibogaine could help treat depression and substance use disorders in some people, but it has been shown to have serious side effects.

An estimated 15.4 million adults in the U.S. live with severe mental illness, according to the National Institutes of Health. Veterans are at particular risk: Research shows that suicide rates are nearly twice as high among veterans as they are in the general population. And existing drugs, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), that are designed to treat depression and other mental health conditions, aren’t always effective or accessible for everyone. An increasingly vocal cadre of researchers believe psychedelic substances could offer more effective treatments. And in some clinical trials, psilocybin, MDMA, and LSD have been found to have promising results in treating mental health conditions.

“We need better treatments,” says Alan Davis, director of the Center for Psychedelic Drug Research and Education at the Ohio State University. “We need to be able to help people, and I think psychedelic therapies will offer a new way in which to do that.”

But research into these drugs is slow and hard to do, not least because the U.S. government categorizes many psychedelics as Schedule I drugs, which means they are considered to be dangerous and to have a high potential for abuse and “no currently accepted medical use,” according to the definition in the Code of Federal Regulations. In most cases, the possession of such drugs is federally criminalized, and that adds significant hurdles for researchers who are trying to study their effects.

That’s part of the reason why very few therapies that use psychedelic drugs have been approved for use in the U.S. One of the most well studied psychedelics, MDMA, was set back in 2024 when, citing insufficient and flawed research, the Food and Drug Administration rejected a proposal to approve it as a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.

An FDA approval for one of these drugs would make further research “much less difficult” for scientists, Davis says. “You would change the requirements involved, which means we could do a lot more research for a lot less money on those treatments.”

He hopes that the executive order signals a change in the government’s approach. “It is really quite remarkable that a sitting president has made this statement as part of official executive orders,” Davis says.

“That act, in and of itself, is, I think, going to really escalate the research in this space,” he adds, “and hopefully make these treatments available to people that need them as quickly as possible.”

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

President Donald Trump came out swinging on Monday, refuting a comment made by one of his cabinet members over the weekend. On Sunday, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said that gas prices may not dip below $3 per gallon until 2027.

“I think he’s wrong on that. Totally wrong,” Trump told The Hill on Monday of Wright’s remarks. Rather, the president said that gas prices will drop “as soon” as the Iran war ends, though there’s no timeline for that.

While Wright also said that he expects gas prices to go down once there’s a resolution to the conflict, he said he didn’t when they would dip below that key $3 threshold. “That could happen later this year, that might not happen until next year, but prices have likely peaked and will start going down,” he said during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union”.

While gas prices under $3 per gallon is “pretty tremendous” in inflation-adjusted terms, according to Wright, he’s confident it will happen again during Trump’s presidency. “We’ll get back there, for sure,” he said.

Trump famously campaigned on $2-per-gallon gas prices and seems intent on reassuring Americans that relief is on the way. But the Iran war has caused a spike in energy prices because of blockades in the Strait of Hormuz, where roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply passes through. 

Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent predicted last week that gas prices could, at the very least, fall below $4 per gallon soon. “I’m ‌optimistic ⁠that during the summer we will see gas with a ​three ​in ⁠front of it, sooner rather ​than later,” he ​told ⁠reporters at a briefing, as Reuters reported. 

GAS PRICES REMAIN HIGH

Bessent’s prediction is the most achievable given where gas prices are now. 

The average price of an unleaded gallon of gasoline is now averaging $4.04 nationwide, according to AAA, down slightly from a peak of $4.16 earlier this month. Even so, drivers are paying an average of $1.23 more per gallon than even a few months ago, when the nationwide average hit a nearly five-year low of $2.81 in early January, AAA figures show. That works out to about $20 extra for a sedan driver each time they fill up their tank.

Drivers are currently feeling the brunt of the pain caused by the shock in energy prices, as airlines have—for now—mostly focused on reducing the number of low-capacity flights and have jacked up bag fees in recent weeks. 

The situation is far more dire in Europe, where closure of the Strait of Hormuz threatens supply shortages. Even in the U.S., however, until there’s a resolution, higher energy prices could dampen the all-important summer travel season, which kicks off with the Memorial Day weekend less than five weeks away.

And price relief may not come as quickly to air travelers, as one airline industry analyst recently cautioned.

“Presuming there is a lasting ceasefire—or better yet, peace agreement—it will take a few months for normal levels of jet fuel production and delivery to resume,” Henry Harteveldt, president of Atmosphere Research Group, recently told The Associated Press. 

.

[Images: Adobe Stock]

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

The military declared the soldier’s conduct “wholly inconsistent with the values expected of its troops” and said it was working to assist the community in Lebanon to restore the statue to its place.

Late Monday afternoon, the military said it had identified the soldier who wielded the sledgehammer and that an investigation by the army’s Northern Command was ongoing.

Akl Naddaf, the mayor of Debl, said the statue was in the garden of a private home in an area where residents have been barred since they were forced to flee about a month ago by Israel’s offensive.

“We also hope that the Israeli army will open an investigation into the homes they are destroying in Debl and into the breaking of statues of saints inside them,” he said.

Lebanon is home to the largest proportion of Christians of any country in the region. Christians are one of the country’s three dominant demographic groups, along with Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

Christians in Israel said they were shocked by the photograph, which went viral on Sunday night.

“I wanted to believe it wasn’t real,” said Farid Jubran, a spokesman for the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which oversees Latin Catholics in Israel, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, and Cyprus.

“It’s heartbreaking to see such an act of aggression against such an important symbol — the symbol for Christians around the world,” Mr. Jubran added. He called for a firm enough punishment to ensure some measure of deterrence.

Mr. Netanyahu said in a social-media post that “Israel cherishes and upholds the Jewish values of tolerance and mutual respect between Jews and worshipers of all faiths.”

Yet Israeli attacks on Christians and Christian places have become increasingly commonplace since the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which set off the two-year war in Gaza and prompted a rightward lurch among many Israelis.

An annual report by the Rossing Center for Education and Dialogue, an interreligious group in Jerusalem, documented “a continued and expanding pattern of intimidation and aggression” of harassment or violence directed at Christians in Israel by Israeli Jews in 2025.

It described 155 incidents, including 61 physical attacks on people and 52 attacks on church properties. The most common expression of hostility was spitting at churches and clergy members, often in broad daylight or even in front of police officers, the report found.

Such hostility stems in part from Jewish concerns about Christian proselytizing and from a belief among some that Christianity is idolatry, the center wrote in a separate report.

The center noted a sharp rise in cases of verbal harassment, which it said reinforced the perception among Christians that they are seen as “unwanted guests” in Israel rather than a legitimate and integral part of the Holy Land’s religious and social fabric.

Hana Bendowsky, who leads a Rossing Center project to teach Israeli Jews about Christianity, said that hostility toward non-Jews was being fueled by the rise of Israeli nationalism, and by a growing sense that “the whole world’s an antisemite, that everyone who’s not us should be rejected and should not be here.”

She cited widespread ignorance and an attitude among some Israelis of “Jewish superiority,” and said that many failed to appreciate that, as the majority in their country, Jews had “a responsibility to the minority.”

Ms. Bendowsky lamented that no one around the soldier stopped him.

“There’s not enough education about how inappropriate and damaging this kind of thing is, not just to our image,” she said. “It’s damaging to our souls, to our identity, to our humanity.”

.

An undated image that was released on social media on Sunday shows an Israeli soldier damaging the head of a statue of Jesus, in Debl, a Christian village in southern Lebanon. Credit…via Reuters

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

https://www.nytimes.com

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

In an unexpected turnaround, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) on Sunday handed out a record 2,599 of its prestigious graduate fellowships to young researchers — after briefly slashing the number to a low of just 1,000 last year.

The rebound “is a significant boost for early-career researchers and the future of US science,” says Joshua Weitz, a biologist at the University of Maryland in College Park.

The surprise increase comes at a time when many in the US science community have been worrying about the fate of the NSF, a major funder of basic science, and its Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP). Last year, and again this year, the administration of US President Donald Trump called to cut the NSF’s budget by more than half.

The GRFP seemed to be in further trouble when the call for the programme’s 2026 applications went out more than two months late, and the eligibility criteria for the fellowships changed. As of this year, undergraduates and first-year master’s and PhD students can apply — but second-year graduate students, as had been the norm for decades, cannot. Between January and April, at least 65 applications were also ‘returned without review’ (sent back to applicants without a score), according to data shared with Nature by Grant Witness, a watchdog project that tracks changes to research funding. This has sparked concerns that the type of science that NSF would fund had also changed.

But some of these worries have been allayed with the announcement of a record-breaking number of GRFP awardees this year.

Brian Stone, who is standing in as NSF director until a permanent one is confirmed, said in a statement that the continuation of the programme reflects the Trump administration’s “strong focus on building talent and investing in individual researchers”. He added: “I’m excited to see how these emerging STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] leaders will shape the future.”

The agency did not respond to Nature’s queries about changes to the programme or applications returned without review. On its website, the NSF states that “the number of applications returned without review this year has not changed substantially since last year.”

Award winners

Almost 14,000 young researchers applied for a 2026 GRFP award, submitting a research plan and personal statement that were reviewed by an independent panel of researchers. Typically, only about one in every six applicants receive one of the prestigious fellowships.

In addition to covering tuition, the fellowships come with an annual stipend of US$37,000 for three years. Since 1952, when the GRFP began, it has supported more than 70,000 researchers, and at least 40 of those have gone on to receive Nobel prizes.

After rumours swirled that the Trump administration would request a massive cut to the NSF’s approximately $9-billion budget for the 2026 fiscal year, in April last year, the agency cut in half the approximately 2,000 GRFP awards usually handed out. Months later, however, 500 awards were added — mostly in areas in which the Trump administration wants the United States to be a world leader, including artificial intelligence and quantum science — bringing the total to 1,500.

In February this year, NSF leaders announced at a board meeting that they intended to reshape the agency to fund more research on quantum science and AI, something reflected in the newly announced awards. Fifty-three of the latest GRFP awards are categorized as being for quantum science, a 39% increase from the previous year, and 103 are listed under AI or machine learning, a 17% increase.

Meanwhile, research fields funded by the agency’s engineering directorate saw the largest boost in GRFP awardees in 2026, from 406 (or 27% of the total) last year to 914 (or 35% of the total) this year.

But there were gains in other fields, too. Research funded by the biological sciences directorate rebounded, going from 214 awardees (or 14% of the total) last year to 486 (or 19% of the total) this year. Many researchers had been particularly worried about the biological sciences, given the reorientation of the NSF to focus on quantum and AI. With the exception of 2025, biological sciences applicants have received between 21% and 27% of the GRFP awards during the past decade.

After the awards were announced on Sunday, many of the awardees from the record-breaking cohort took to the Internet to celebrate. “Beyond grateful and still in disbelief,” posted Lena Kemmelmeier, a psychology PhD student at the University of California, San Diego, on the social-media platform Bluesky. “Thank you to my wonderful lab mates.”

Another student, posting anonymously on the social-media platform Reddit, where many GRFP hopefuls have commiserated, shared their excitement: “I’m a first-gen PhD student, and this is such a huge accomplishment for me!! I’m tearing up in the middle of writing this, and my hands are shaking!”

.

gorodenkoff/Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Hmmmm … Warmongers forgot the Strait of Hormuz!

Click the link below the picture

.

Tehran’s refusal, reported Sunday by its state news agency IRNA, cited what it described as Washington’s “excessive demands,” “unrealistic expectations,” and the continuation of a U.S. naval blockade. The report did not name a specific official.

The move follows Trump accusing Iran of committing a “total violation” of a cease-fire after Iranian forces fired on ships near the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday. 

“Iran decided to fire bullets yesterday in the Strait of Hormuz — A Total Violation of our Ceasefire Agreement!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday morning. He warned that unless Iran agreed to a deal, the United States would “knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran.”

Trump said U.S. envoys would arrive in Pakistan on Monday evening for a new round of talks, in what appeared to be the first official confirmation that negotiations would resume after an earlier round ended without a breakthrough.

Earlier on Sunday, a White House official told TIME that Vice President JD Vance, who led the previous round of talks with Iran, was planning to once again lead the U.S. delegation in Islamabad. The plan marked a shift after Trump told a reporter that Vance would not make the trip. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and a former adviser on Middle East negotiations, would also attend, the official said.

The renewed push comes amid concerns from former diplomats, who in recent reporting by TIME questioned whether Witkoff and Kushner have the experience needed to secure a deal and warned that missteps could prolong the conflict.

The Strait of Hormuz, a flashpoint in the talks, remained effectively closed on Sunday. Tracking data showed almost no vessel movement through the strait after Saturday’s attacks, when at least two ships reported being fired upon by gunboats linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Iranian officials said they would not allow ships to pass while the U.S. blockade remained in place. “It is impossible for others to pass through the Strait of Hormuz while we cannot,” Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, said in remarks broadcast on state television, according to the Associated Press.

The confrontation has raised fears of further escalation in a waterway that normally carries roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply. Iran’s closure of the strait has stranded hundreds of vessels in the Gulf and driven up shipping costs, with crews avoiding the area amid fears of attacks.

In a sign of limited exceptions to the shutdown, the cruise operator Tui said on Sunday that two of its ships, Mein Schiff 4 and Mein Schiff 5, had passed through the strait after receiving approval from relevant authorities and would proceed to the Mediterranean.

The main sticking points remain Iran’s nuclear program, particularly its stockpile of enriched uranium, and control over the Strait of Hormuz.

“There is still a big distance between us,” said Qalibaf, Iran’s chief negotiator, while insisting that Iran remained committed to diplomacy.

Security measures were tightened in Islamabad ahead of the expected talks, with Pakistani authorities restricting movement near the site of last week’s discussions. 

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said on Saturday that American forces were continuing to enforce the naval blockade, with 23 ships complying with orders to turn around since it began. The U.S. military is now preparing to board Iran-linked oil tankers and seize commercial vessels in international waters in the coming days, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing U.S. officials.

.

Donald Trump speaks about the conflict in Iran in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House on April 6, 2026.Brendan Smialowski-AFP

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Some 60 years ago, American legislators set out to tackle a problem that was driving employment and education rates down, driving health care and welfare costs up, and making American family life significantly less stable: Many American women, and particularly poor women and teenagers, were having more children than they wanted or could afford. Close to half of births were to women who had not intended to get pregnant.

Decreasing the unintended pregnancy rate was a bipartisan wish. In 1969, President Richard Nixon recognized that “unwanted or untimely childbearing is one of several forces which are driving many families into poverty.” A year later, Congress passed Title X: the first federal program entirely dedicated to family planning and reproductive health care.

It would go on to become one of the most successful federal programs of the last century, with one study finding it prevented some 20 million unintended pregnancies in just 20 of its 50 years by providing women with free and low-cost birth control. It has significantly reduced child poverty. In 1957, nearly one in 10 teenage girls gave birth. Today, the rate is closer to one in 100. For every dollar spent on family planning funds, the government saves $7 in Medicaid costs.

But President Trump seems intent on killing Title X. This month, the Department of Health and Human Services quietly issued new funding guidelines that have effectively subverted the program’s entire purpose. Instead of getting highly effective contraception methods to the country’s poorest women so that they may decide if and when to have children, Title X under Mr. Trump seems aimed at getting more women pregnant, whether they want to be or not. And it appears to cater to three influential parts of the Trump coalition: The anti-abortion movement, the MAHA, or Make America Healthy Again, movement, and pronatalists who want to see birthrates rise at nearly any cost.

More than half of patients at Title X clinics use modern contraceptive methods to prevent pregnancy. But the word “contraception” comes up just once in the Title X funding document, and only in a section on “reducing overmedicalization in health care.” Instead, in a change pulled directly from Project 2025, H.H.S. tells Title X clinics to emphasize “fertility-awareness-based methods,” a broad category that includes things like tracking your periods or your body temperature to estimate which days you might be fertile. These methods can be helpful for getting pregnant, but are generally far less so for preventing pregnancy. Fertility awareness methods have typical-use failure rates between 12 and 24 percent in the first year, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The intrauterine device, by contrast, has a failure rate of less than 1 percent.

The health department seems to want to shift taxpayer dollars away from reliable contraception and toward counseling men on erectile dysfunction, testosterone levels, and sperm motility, each of which merits three mentions in the new guidance, while IUDs and birth control pills earn none. The document is a mishmash of Make America Healthy Again talking points on lifestyle changes, conservative bromides on marriage before babies, and pronatalist nods to fertility.

Some of the guidance sounds sensible on its face. H.H.S. cribs from MAHA when it says it will focus on chronic disease in order to promote “healthy pregnancies and family formation.” But contraception use is a significant part of how women ensure they have healthy pregnancies and form the families they desire, and it’s also a common treatment for chronic diseases, including endometriosis and polycystic ovarian syndrome. Yet it doesn’t come up in the section spelling out the department’s top Title X spending priorities. What does? Addressing “exposure to harmful chemical and environmental toxins,” low sperm count, and pornography use.

The new Title X guidance also includes many mentions of infertility. It’s true that men and women desire more support in having wanted pregnancies, but H.H.S.’s prescription, which includes “sleep” and counseling on “marriage prior to childbearing,” is unsatisfying. On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump declared himself the “father” of in vitro fertilization, yet I.V.F. is absent from his administration’s family planning funding goals.

The good news is that, at least for now, Title X funds are still required to go to clinics that provide or refer out for a range of modern contraceptive options. The bad news is that this is only because of a Biden-era rule that the administration has already signaled it might try to rescind. The threat to the program is all the more concerning because, according to the most recent data available, it still hasn’t fully recovered from draconian regulations put in place during Mr. Trump’s first term, which led to an exodus of clinics and cut the number of patients served by half.

An H.H.S. employee told Politico that the new guidance was catering to the anti-abortion wing of the G.O.P. There’s a terrible irony here — by reducing unintended pregnancy, Title X has prevented more than 9 million abortions — but it’s not surprising: Most of the major “pro-life” groups in the United States either oppose contraception or stay mum on the topic. The old anti-abortion movement strategy was to attack contraception as immoral, though few Americans share that view. The new tactic is more MAHA-coded, and with a pronatalist twist: Sow fear that modern contraceptives are unnatural, and push holistic alternatives instead; generate alarm about declining birthrates and blame the dip on working women (in reality, it largely comes from fewer teen pregnancies).

Women who are able to plan their pregnancies wind up in better physical and psychological health, birth healthier infants, make more money, are less likely to get divorced, are less likely to rely on public assistance, and invest more in their children, who, in turn, do better educationally and behaviorally. Modern contraception is nothing short of a medical miracle — one that has saved the lives of millions of women and babies worldwide.

Not satisfied with the end of legal abortion in America, the anti-abortion movement seems poised to end the era of affordable contraception. The result isn’t just the end of Title X as we knew it. It’s the demise of a long-held bipartisan consensus that a woman’s ability to shape her own future, even if she was poor, was worth something — and certainly worth the government’s investment.

.

Marlen Mueller / Connected Archives

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

https://www.nytimes.com

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

In the wake of Anthropic’s announcement of its latest artificial intelligence model, Mythos, on April 7, the company has stood by an unusual decision: refusing to release it to the public. Not since OpenAI temporarily withheld its GPT-2 model in 2019 has a major developer deemed a system too dangerous for the public. More than a week later, that choice is still reverberating through finance and regulatory circles.

“The fallout—for economies, public safety, and national security—could be severe,” Anthropic said on its website. But while officials scramble to gauge the implications of the model’s unprecedented hacking capabilities, cybersecurity experts are divided over whether Mythos marks a major break from what came before or an expected step down an already troubling path.

Anthropic did not respond to a request for comment from Scientific American.

A 245-page technical document released alongside the announcement outlines what the company presents as a major leap in capability. The model operates like a senior software engineer, demonstrating an ability to spot subtle bugs and self-correct mistakes. It also scored 31 percentage points higher than Anthropic’s previous cutting-edge model, Opus 4.6, on the USAMO 2026 Mathematical Olympiad, a grueling, two-day proof-based competition.

But that same coding prowess makes Mythos a formidable offensive weapon, and Anthropic says it can outstrip all but the most skilled humans at identifying and exploiting software vulnerabilities. In tests, it found critical faults in every widely used operating system and web browser. Of those vulernabilities, 99 percent have not yet been patched. And Anthropic has disclosed only a fraction of what it says it has found. Independent evaluations suggest the danger is real, if more bounded than the company has implied: an assessment by the U.K.’s AI Security Institute (AISI), which was granted early access, found the model succeeded in expert-level hacking tasks 73 percent of the time. Prior to April 2025, no AI model could complete those tasks at all.

Instead of a public rollout, Anthropic is limiting access to a clutch of organizations to use defensively, allowing them to scan their networks and patch problems before the flaws become public knowledge. That initiative is called Project Glasswing. The initial group includes Microsoft, Google, Apple, Amazon Web Services, JPMorgan Chase, and Nvidia.

Mythos is the first of a new crop of AI models that have been trained on next-generation graphics processing units (GPUs)—the advanced chips that power AI training—and its capabilities have continued to rattle financial firms well beyond the initial announcement: on Thursday, German banks said they were consulting authorities and cyber experts about the risks, while the Bank of England said AI risk testing had intensified after Mythos came into view.

Yet the cybersecurity community remains split on the true severity of the threat. “The Anthropic announcement was very dramatic and was a PR success, if nothing else,” says Peter Swire, a professor at the School of Cybersecurity and Privacy at the Georgia Institute of Technology and former advisor to the Clinton and Obama administrations. Swire notes that among his colleagues, “a large fraction of the cybersecurity professors believe this is pretty much what was expected, and pretty much more of the same.”

Ciaran Martin, professor of practice at the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford and former CEO of the U.K.’s National Cyber Security Center, shares that view. “It’s a big deal, but it’s unlikely to prove to be the end of the world,” he says. “I would not be at the more apocalyptic end of the scale.”

AISI acknowledged limits to the AI’s abilities. During testing, Mythos faced near-nonexistent software defenses that lacked many protections present in the real world—a scenario Martin compares to a soccer forward scoring a goal against the world’s worst goalkeeper.

Neither expert denies that Mythos is a significant advance, but suggest the decisive regulatory action is partly driven by institutional self-preservation. “CISOs [chief information security officers] and cybersecurity vendors have a rational incentive to point out the potentially very severe consequences of a new development,” Swire explains, even if their internal estimates assume the actual impact will be a fraction of what Anthropic’s press release claims. As Martin notes, it is rare for any organization “to suffer commercial detriment by predicting calamity.”

“One risk after Mythos is that it will be easier to turn a vulnerability, a known flaw, into an exploit, something that somebody actually takes advantage of,” Swire says. “Every cybersecurity defender should take Mythos seriously, but the expected harm to defense is likely to be far lower than the worst-case scenarios would suggest.”

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________