Category: Science

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Review: BRICS officials expect media and think tank collaboration to boost Global South’s profile and power

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    RIO DE JANEIRO, July 15 (Xinhua) — Xinhua News Agency Director General Fu Hua met with media representatives and think tanks from Russia, Vietnam and Cuba in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on Tuesday.

    The parties discussed in depth issues such as deepening cooperation between the media and think tanks of the Global South and strengthening the authority and power of the Global South, reaching a consensus on advancing cooperation within the “greater BRICS” and the development of the Global South.

    Fu Hua invited representatives from various countries to participate in the BRICS Media and Think Tank Forum, noting that China has a long tradition of friendship and a positive basis for cooperation with countries such as Russia, Vietnam and Cuba.

    According to Fu Hua, in the future, Xinhua is ready to work with partners from different countries to expand areas of cooperation, update cooperation models, and establish close coordination and interaction within the framework of multilateral mechanisms.

    Xinhua will join forces with its partners to better tell the development stories of different countries and highlight examples of successful cooperation so as to make greater contributions to strengthening the international voice of the Global South and promoting a more equitable and diverse world order in the field of communications, Fu Hua added.

    First Deputy Director General of the Russian news agency TASS Mikhail Gusman said that TASS is ready to strengthen cooperation with Xinhua within the framework of multilateral mechanisms, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Media and Think Tanks Summit and the BRICS Media and Think Tanks Forum, in order to jointly build a system of narratives from the position of the Global South, increasing representation and strengthening the voice of developing countries in international affairs.

    Alexey Nikolov, Director General of the Russian television channel Russia Today (RT), noted that RT values its friendly relations with Xinhua and expects to implement the consensus reached by the heads of the two states at the peak of strategic cooperation.

    According to him, RT intends to deepen exchanges and expand cooperation with Xinhua, as well as make a positive contribution to promoting the sustainable development of multilateral media mechanisms and strengthening international influence.

    Vice President of the Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences Ta Minh Tuan said he is very pleased to establish contacts with Xinhua and is willing to use the forum to institutionalize cooperation between the two sides and make it regular, make the collective voice of the Global South louder in the international arena, and give lasting impetus to the sustainable and long-term development of cooperation within the framework of the “greater BRICS”.

    Maridée Fernández López, deputy head of the Ideological Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba, along with the heads of several Cuban media outlets, expressed gratitude to Xinhua for its commitment to objective and fair news reporting and for its indelible contribution to spreading the true voice of Latin America.

    Cuban officials expressed their willingness to learn from Xinhua’s experience in using new technologies such as artificial intelligence and big data.

    They agreed that the extension and renewal of the news exchange and cooperation agreements between the two countries will make new contributions to promoting exchanges between Latin American and Chinese media and deepening mutual understanding between the peoples. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Slap a label on it! Making it easier for consumers to shop for Internet services

    Source: Government of Canada News

    Remarks by Brad Callaghan, Associate Deputy Commissioner of the Policy, Planning and Advocacy Directorate; and Jonathan Fonberg, Senior Behavioural Scientist, Behavioural Insights Unit 

    Opening statement at CRTC public hearing re: Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2024-318

    June 13, 2025

    Gatineau, Quebec

    (As prepared for delivery)

    Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Commissioners and Commission staff. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today on unceded Algonquin Anishinabeg land just north of the Kichi Zibi.

    My name is Brad Callaghan, and I am the Associate Deputy Commissioner of the Policy, Planning and Advocacy Directorate at the Competition Bureau of Canada.

    Let me begin by introducing the members of our panel. To my right is:

    • Ben Klass: Competition Law Officer, Policy, Planning and Advocacy Directorate; and
    • Derek Leschinsky: Senior Counsel, Competition Bureau Legal Services.

    To my left is:

    • Jonathan Fonberg, Senior Behavioural Scientist, Behavioural Insights Unit; and
    • Émilie-Ève Gravel, head of the Competition Bureau’s Behavioural Insights Unit.

    The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that protects and promotes competition for the benefit of Canadian consumers and businesses. We are an evidence-based agency we’re not influenced by commercial interests, but by the public interest just like the CRTC.

    We hope that our participation in this consultation will help to deliver outcomes that serve the public interest by creating the conditions for competition.

    Telecommunications services like home internet and mobile connectivity have become an essential part of modern life. Since the pandemic, Canadians across the country have come to rely on their connections more than ever before to stay in touch with family and community, to learn, work, play, and to do business.

    Policies promoting marketplace competition are helping get us to a place where most people have access to a range of innovative services that meet their needs at affordable prices.

    At the same time, your consumer codes for wireless, internet, and television services have helped empower consumers to make choices between services and providers on their own terms.

    Despite these positive steps, there are signs telling us there’s still work to be done and competition is key to achieving your policy objectives.

    So, as technology, markets, and patterns of communication evolve, we see this consultation as an opportunity to build on past successes and keep the momentum going.

    In our submission, we’ve shared several recommendations that we hope will help improve competitive dynamics and consumer choice in Canada’s telecom markets.

    Our recommendations are grounded in the general principle that good information and freedom from barriers to switching are key ingredients in the recipe for competition. When either or both of these components are lacking, it makes room for the exercise of market power, which can be harmful for consumers and the economy more broadly.

    To develop our input, we conducted desk research, consulted with stakeholders including other domestic and international regulators and engaged our behavioural insights experts, who are here with us today, to sharpen the focus on providing evidence-based best practices for empowering consumers.

    So, with that in mind, I’ll now briefly outline our recommendations and some of the key ideas why we think adopting them will help.

    First, we support the adoption of a ‘nutrition label’ format for providing customers with information.

    Four out of five participants in the CRTC’s public opinion research felt that ‘standardized information in a recognizable format, like the nutrition label but for home Internet services’ would be beneficial.

    We agree the label is a good idea and Canadians are already familiar with it: their experience in the food products sector shows that labels are an effective, adaptable tool for conveying complex yet crucial information about goods and services.

    From a competition perspective, enabling people to more easily compare services and providers gives them the power to make choices based on their own specific needs and circumstances. When consumers have good information that they can act on to switch, providers will work harder to make sure people’s needs are being met.

    The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has already put in the legwork to adapt the nutrition label for the fixed and mobile broadband services. We believe that the record of their extensive rulemaking process represents a helpful resource to consult as the CRTC develops its own ‘made for Canada’ version of the label.

    So what does a ‘made for Canada’ label look like?

    For the most part, we think it should look a lot like the FCC’s label information about price, performance, and other important service characteristics is presented in a format that’s already familiar for Canadian consumers from their experience in the grocery aisle with just a few key differences.

    In our view, the monthly price on a ‘made for Canada’ label should show an ‘all-in’ price that includes all fixed and obligatory charges or fees as opposed to the approach favoured by the FCC where a baseline monthly price is followed by additional monthly fees. The reason is that Canada’s Competition Act prohibits ‘drip pricing’. Keeping the label consistent with the drip pricing provisions means making sure that the carriers can not be permitted to display a price that is unattainable because of additional fixed and obligatory charges or fees that drive up the price consumers ultimately pay for their services.

    Adopting an ‘all-in’ approach to pricing would help the label to work in harmony with the Competition Act’s provisions on drip pricing.

    Similarly, all relevant ads and information contained in policies and disclaimers must be consistent with information in the label. To the extent that the label refers or links to disclaimers, they cannot be used or relied upon to restrict, contradict, or negate any marketing messages, or otherwise cure misleading or deceptive marketing practices.

    Overall, this approach would help keep information simple, relevant, and it would facilitate apples-to-apples comparisons.

    Second, we think the label would benefit wireless phone customers and competition in that market, too.

    Like home internet services, wireless phones are essential for nearly all Canadians. CCTS and CRTC data show that Canadians have similar issues with both services, too.

    Every Canadian wireless network operator also offers home Internet – meaning that they will already be developing labels as a result of this proceeding.

    From our perspective, extending the labels’ application to wireless phone services could deliver significant benefits for minimal additional cost. Doing so would help to simplify and harmonize the consumer information environment in general while avoiding the need to duplicate efforts down the road.

    Third, we think the labels would be especially beneficial for customers who are actively shopping, and for subscribers whose contracts are about to expire.

    Dr. Fonberg will explain how we can think about making sure the labels are as useful for consumers as possible.

    [Jonathan Fonberg, Senior Behavioural Scientist]

    Thank you.

    Consumers are less likely to engage with information if the effort required to identify and understand that information is high.

    That means difficulties in accessing critical information about broadband plans and alternatives can create barriers to switching.

    Our recommendations draw on key principles and best practises from behavioural science.

    They aim to empower consumers by reducing the effort required to identify and understand critical information; thereby reducing barriers to switching.

    To that end, these recommendations address both the format and availability of the label.

    First, the label design should allow consumers to quickly grasp key information. It should be easily accessible and comprehensible.

    This is intended to reduce the effort required by customers to interpret complex plan information.

    But beyond what’s in the label, when and where it’s found is also important.

    We recommend that it be widely available anywhere specific plan information is displayed. We are also asking that the label be included in notices sent to customers whose contracts are set to expire.

    This will reduce the need for customers to search for key details buried in the fine print, making the process more convenient and increasing their chances of engaging with it.

    These recommendations are intended to ensure that customers will be able to easily access the label when they need it the most, maximizing its benefit.

    [Brad Callaghan, Associate Deputy Commissioner]

    Thank you, Dr. Fonberg.

    The CRTC has taken important steps in recent years to empower consumers in their relationships with their service providers. Ensuring that phone numbers are portable, placing limits on contract length, and unlocking devices are just some of the actions the CRTC has taken to foster competition in the marketplace for the benefit of consumers and the economy.

    The Competition Bureau is pleased that the CRTC continues to build on these achievements. A broadband nutrition label can put consumers in the driver’s seat of the switching process and improve competition in telecommunication markets. With clear, standardized information to compare their options, consumers can take advantage of competition more easily, and companies will compete harder to keep them.

    We’d like to thank the Commission for the opportunity to participate in these proceedings. We will endeavour to answer any questions you may have.

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-Evening Report: What is astigmatism? Why does it make my vision blurry? And how did I get it?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Flora Hui, Research Fellow, Centre for Eye Research Australia and Honorary Fellow, Department of Surgery (Ophthalmology), The University of Melbourne

    Ground Picture/Shutterstock

    Have you ever gone to the optometrist for an eye test and were told your eye was shaped like a football?

    Or perhaps you’ve noticed your vision is becoming increasingly blurry or hard to focus?

    You might be among the 40% of people in the world who live with astigmatism.

    What causes astigmatism?

    The eye acts like a camera, capturing light through the front surface (the cornea) and focusing it onto the “film” at the back of the eye (retina).

    To get a clear picture, the eyeball and all of its surfaces (cornea, lens and retina) have to meet certain specifications of size and shape.

    Otherwise, vision can appear blurred and out-of-focus, known as “refractive error”.

    Astigmatism (uh-STIG-muh-tiz-um) is a type of refractive error where one or more of the eye’s surfaces are not smooth and/or round. It is broadly classified into two types: regular and irregular.

    Regular astigmatism is the most common. It typically comes from changes in the shape of the cornea. Instead of being round, it is more oval, like a football or an egg. We don’t fully understand why some people develop regular astigmatism, but it’s partly due to genetics.

    Irregular astigmatism is rarer. It occurs when a part of the cornea is no longer smooth (from scarring or growths on the cornea), or its shape has changed in an uneven or asymmetrical way.

    Eye conditions such as keratoconus – where the cornea weakens over time and becomes cone-like in shape – causes irregular astigmatism.

    If the cornea is no longer round or smooth, light entering the eye is scattered across the retina. This can cause blurry or distorted vision, reduced sensitivity to contrast, shadows or double vision and increased sensitivity to bright lights.

    Is astigmatism a new condition?

    In 1727, Sir Isaac Newton was the first to describe the physics of how an irregular surface might affect the focus of light passing through it.

    This was followed in 1800 by Thomas Young, a scientist who had astigmatism and described how it affected his vision in a lecture.

    In 1825, Sir George Airy, an astronomer who also had astigmatism, discovered he could see more clearly when he tilted his glasses on an angle. He became the first person to suggest using cylindrical lenses to correct for astigmatism. These are still used today.

    The name “astigmatism” came last, coined by William Whewell in 1846. The name was derived from Greek: “a-” (“without”), and “stigma” (“a mark/spot”), literally translating as “without a point”, referring to the lack of a single, clear focal point of vision.

    How is astigmatism measured?

    Optometrists usually detect and measure regular astigmatism during refraction, when they place different lenses in front of the eye to determine a spectacle prescription.

    As irregular astigmatism can involve very small rough patches or bumps, it is best seen with specialised imaging such as corneal topography. This creates a 3-dimensional map to show local bumps and irregularities on the cornea.

    I’ve got astigmatism, what do I need to know?

    Astigmatism can present at any age but becomes more common as we get older.

    You can develop astigmatism over time, and the level of astigmatism can change as well.

    With mild astigmatism, you may not notice any problems with your vision. With increasing levels of astigmatism, your vision becomes less crisp. This can lead to reduced vision, eye strain, or fatigue.

    You may need astigmatism correction to see clearly and effortlessly. Correcting astigmatism aims to compensate for the differing curvatures of the cornea, to ensure that light entering the eye focuses correctly on the retina.

    To correct regular astigmatism, cylindrical lenses compensate for each curvature in the “football”. Cylindrical lenses are prescribed as either glasses, contact lenses.

    Astigmatism can also be corrected with laser eye surgery.

    Orthokeratology (ortho-k) can also be used. This involves wearing specialised hard contact lenses overnight. These hard contact lenses temporarily reshape the cornea, allowing the wearer to be glasses-free during the day.

    To manage irregular astigmatism, it is important to treat the underlying condition causing astigmatism as well. But often, hard contact lenses are needed for clear vision during the day, as they can sit on the surface of the eye to compensate for local uneven patches in a way that glasses or soft contact lenses cannot.

    Surgery, such as corneal transplants, is also sometimes needed as a last resort to replace a damaged, misshapen cornea and manage the irregular astigmatism.

    Do I need to worry about astigmatism in my children?

    In children, if there is enough astigmatism present to cause blurred or distorted vision, it can impact their learning and development both in the classroom and during sporting activities.

    Untreated astigmatism is not dangerous, but high levels of astigmatism in young children can cause other vision problems such as “eye turns” or “lazy eye” (amblyopia).

    But don’t worry, regular eye checks with the optometrist for children (and adults as well) allows for early detection and management, when needed.

    Flora Hui works part-time in private practice as an optometrist.

    Angelina Duan works in private practice as an optometrist.

    ref. What is astigmatism? Why does it make my vision blurry? And how did I get it? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-astigmatism-why-does-it-make-my-vision-blurry-and-how-did-i-get-it-256235

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: What is astigmatism? Why does it make my vision blurry? And how did I get it?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Flora Hui, Research Fellow, Centre for Eye Research Australia and Honorary Fellow, Department of Surgery (Ophthalmology), The University of Melbourne

    Ground Picture/Shutterstock

    Have you ever gone to the optometrist for an eye test and were told your eye was shaped like a football?

    Or perhaps you’ve noticed your vision is becoming increasingly blurry or hard to focus?

    You might be among the 40% of people in the world who live with astigmatism.

    What causes astigmatism?

    The eye acts like a camera, capturing light through the front surface (the cornea) and focusing it onto the “film” at the back of the eye (retina).

    To get a clear picture, the eyeball and all of its surfaces (cornea, lens and retina) have to meet certain specifications of size and shape.

    Otherwise, vision can appear blurred and out-of-focus, known as “refractive error”.

    Astigmatism (uh-STIG-muh-tiz-um) is a type of refractive error where one or more of the eye’s surfaces are not smooth and/or round. It is broadly classified into two types: regular and irregular.

    Regular astigmatism is the most common. It typically comes from changes in the shape of the cornea. Instead of being round, it is more oval, like a football or an egg. We don’t fully understand why some people develop regular astigmatism, but it’s partly due to genetics.

    Irregular astigmatism is rarer. It occurs when a part of the cornea is no longer smooth (from scarring or growths on the cornea), or its shape has changed in an uneven or asymmetrical way.

    Eye conditions such as keratoconus – where the cornea weakens over time and becomes cone-like in shape – causes irregular astigmatism.

    If the cornea is no longer round or smooth, light entering the eye is scattered across the retina. This can cause blurry or distorted vision, reduced sensitivity to contrast, shadows or double vision and increased sensitivity to bright lights.

    Is astigmatism a new condition?

    In 1727, Sir Isaac Newton was the first to describe the physics of how an irregular surface might affect the focus of light passing through it.

    This was followed in 1800 by Thomas Young, a scientist who had astigmatism and described how it affected his vision in a lecture.

    In 1825, Sir George Airy, an astronomer who also had astigmatism, discovered he could see more clearly when he tilted his glasses on an angle. He became the first person to suggest using cylindrical lenses to correct for astigmatism. These are still used today.

    The name “astigmatism” came last, coined by William Whewell in 1846. The name was derived from Greek: “a-” (“without”), and “stigma” (“a mark/spot”), literally translating as “without a point”, referring to the lack of a single, clear focal point of vision.

    How is astigmatism measured?

    Optometrists usually detect and measure regular astigmatism during refraction, when they place different lenses in front of the eye to determine a spectacle prescription.

    As irregular astigmatism can involve very small rough patches or bumps, it is best seen with specialised imaging such as corneal topography. This creates a 3-dimensional map to show local bumps and irregularities on the cornea.

    I’ve got astigmatism, what do I need to know?

    Astigmatism can present at any age but becomes more common as we get older.

    You can develop astigmatism over time, and the level of astigmatism can change as well.

    With mild astigmatism, you may not notice any problems with your vision. With increasing levels of astigmatism, your vision becomes less crisp. This can lead to reduced vision, eye strain, or fatigue.

    You may need astigmatism correction to see clearly and effortlessly. Correcting astigmatism aims to compensate for the differing curvatures of the cornea, to ensure that light entering the eye focuses correctly on the retina.

    To correct regular astigmatism, cylindrical lenses compensate for each curvature in the “football”. Cylindrical lenses are prescribed as either glasses, contact lenses.

    Astigmatism can also be corrected with laser eye surgery.

    Orthokeratology (ortho-k) can also be used. This involves wearing specialised hard contact lenses overnight. These hard contact lenses temporarily reshape the cornea, allowing the wearer to be glasses-free during the day.

    To manage irregular astigmatism, it is important to treat the underlying condition causing astigmatism as well. But often, hard contact lenses are needed for clear vision during the day, as they can sit on the surface of the eye to compensate for local uneven patches in a way that glasses or soft contact lenses cannot.

    Surgery, such as corneal transplants, is also sometimes needed as a last resort to replace a damaged, misshapen cornea and manage the irregular astigmatism.

    Do I need to worry about astigmatism in my children?

    In children, if there is enough astigmatism present to cause blurred or distorted vision, it can impact their learning and development both in the classroom and during sporting activities.

    Untreated astigmatism is not dangerous, but high levels of astigmatism in young children can cause other vision problems such as “eye turns” or “lazy eye” (amblyopia).

    But don’t worry, regular eye checks with the optometrist for children (and adults as well) allows for early detection and management, when needed.

    Flora Hui works part-time in private practice as an optometrist.

    Angelina Duan works in private practice as an optometrist.

    ref. What is astigmatism? Why does it make my vision blurry? And how did I get it? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-astigmatism-why-does-it-make-my-vision-blurry-and-how-did-i-get-it-256235

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Jayapal, Schakowsky, Raskin, Senate Colleagues Fight for Children’s Fundamental Right to a Healthy, Livable Planet

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (7th District of Washington)

    WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Representatives Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), and Jamie Raskin (MD-08) led over 40 Representatives in the introduction of a new resolution to protect the fundamental rights of the nation’s children to a safe, habitable environment in the face of climate chaos’ increasingly destructive and deadly impacts.

    “Every single one of us — no matter our age, our background, our race, our income — has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But those rights are in jeopardy, because the future of our planet is in jeopardy. I applaud the young people who are taking their futures into their own hands and standing up to the Trump administration’s efforts to sell out our clean air and water to the highest fossil fuel bidder. Inaction is not an option and we all must stand up for climate justice and a future where we can all thrive,” said Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal.

    “There is no room for debate: climate change is real, and as this crisis grows, our increasingly paying the price. The movement to protect our planet is more important than ever before because we have a president who continues to ignore the science and cozy up to the fossil fuel industry,” said Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. “I am introducing the Children’s Fundamental Rights to Life and a Stable Climate System Resolution to emphasize that we as leaders have a duty to ensure that all people, especially our young people, are protected from the existential threat of climate change. Our children and grandchildren should not be forced to suffer the consequences of our lack of action. Together we can save our planet.”

    “Children have a right to live and therefore a right to a livable planet,” said Congressman Jamie Raskin. “But the Trump Administration wants to carve out more giveaways to the Carbon Kings rather than protect the climate for children and future generations of Americans. Our Resolution with Representatives Jayapal and Schakowsky and Senator Merkley is about uplifting the voices of those who will be most affected by this climate irresponsibility and corruption—young people and children—and sounding the alarm on America’s accelerating climate disaster. The time to act for public accountability is right now. I salute everyone involved in this important campaign.”

    The resolution — led in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) — responds to the Trump Administration’s ‘Polluters over People’ agenda that has enriched Big Oil, fueled climate chaos, and increased energy costs for working families. The resolution calls for leadership to put the United States on a trajectory to avoid the worst impacts of climate chaos.

    “Every child in America deserves a healthy and prosperous future, but the Trump Administration is selling out our health, safety, planet, and future to make billionaire corporate polluters even richer,” said Senator Jeff Merkley. “We stand with these courageous young activists in Oregon and across the country who are taking matters into their own hands with immediate and decisive steps to fight for themselves and future generations, address climate chaos, and tackle environmental injustice.”

    The resolution highlights the principles underpinning Lighthiser v. Trump, a youth-led lawsuit that was filed by 22 young plaintiffs from five states, challenging the Trump Administration’s Executive Orders that “unleash fossil fuels” and endanger the lives of children and future generations.

    In addition to Reps. Schakowsky, Jayapal, and Raskin, cosponsors of the resolution include Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Summer L. Lee, Shri Thanedar, Delia C. Ramirez, Yassamin Ansari, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Andre Carson, Nydia M. Velázquez, Nanette Barragán, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Dina Titus, Maxwell Frost, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Steve Cohen, Mary Gay Scanlon, Lateefah Simon, Jerrold Nadler, Kathy Castor, Kevin Mullin, Danny Davis, Julia Brownley, Dave Min, Sara Jacobs, Judy Chu, Maxine Dexter, David Scott, Mark Takano, Gabe Amo, Jared Huffman, Sydney Kamlager-Dove, Valerie Foushee, Becca Balint, Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr., Ro Khanna, Alma S. Adams, Ritchie Torres, James P. McGovern, Jill Tokuda, Darren Soto, Stephen F. Lynch, LaMonica McIver, Val Hoyle, and Jahana Hayes.

    Issues: Environment

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sherrill Votes to Pass Bipartisan NDAA to Strengthen National Security and Protect Service Members

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11)

    Washington, D.C. — Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11), former Navy helicopter pilot and member of the House Armed Services Committee, secured over $20 million in additional funds for Picatinny Arsenal programs and the New Jersey innovation economy in a mark-up of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). 

    The NDAA is critical legislation that Congress authors each year to establish defense priorities, make organizational shifts to military posture, and provide direction on how military funding can be spent.

    “One of my chief responsibilities is to craft national defense legislation that strengthens our fighting forces across the globe, bolsters the New Jersey economy by investing in Picatinny Arsenal, and expands protections for our service members and their families. With Pete Hegseth, the most incompetent Secretary of Defense in history, leading our armed forces, it’s more important than ever that we pass commonsense legislation that invests in our fighting forces and the men and women who have stepped up to serve our country. 

    “I ensured that Picatinny Arsenal continues to have the resources it needs to keep our soldiers safe across the world, bolster our New Jersey economy, and support the Ukrainian fight against Russian oppression. I continued my fight to ensure that our servicewomen and military families have access to abortion care, no matter where they are stationed; I stood up to protect women in combat roles across our armed forces; and I advocated to expand year-long contraception prescriptions for all active duty service members and families. I fought to strengthen guardrails to provide additional congressional oversight if the President or the Secretary of Defense tries to unilaterally relocate troops and protect the National Guard from being politicized. And I successfully included an amendment in the bill to reverse the Trump Administration’s attempt to legalize racial segregation in our armed forces.

    “Our service members and their families make incredible sacrifices to protect the rights, freedoms, and democracy we hold dear. There is far too much at stake right now to allow political fights and partisan gamesmanship to endanger our national security and weaken our fighting forces,” said Mikie Sherrill

    Rep. Sherrill championed a pilot program for remote blood pressure monitoring for pregnant and postpartum women, successfully included an amendment that would expand access to apprenticeship training for service members transitioning to civilian life, and improve training and resources for firefighters serving on military installations.

    She spoke up against Republican attempts to strip women from combat roles, highlighted Pete Hegseth’s dangerous use of Signal, and defended U.S. funding for our ally, Ukraine.

    The NDAA also includes provisions that will strengthen Picatinny Arsenal, one of the largest employers in NJ-11, and support the critical work conducted there. Rep. Sherrill championed additional funding for Picatinny programs, including:
     

    • Scalable Counter Small Unmanned Aerial Systems (CsUAS) Munition delivered Air Defense payloads
    • Tier 1 Blast Over Pressure Reduction Technologies
    • Low Cost Armaments-based Counter Drone / Counter Small Unmanned Aerial Systems (CsUAS) Protection
    • Critical Energetic Materials and Manufacturing Industrial Base Supply Chain Technology 
       

    Rep. Sherrill offered and successfully secured inclusion of 12 amendments to the NDAA, including:
     

    • Requiring TRICARE to cover up to twelve-month supplies of contraception for service members and their families;
      • This amendment expands on Rep. Sherrill’s effort to require private insurance to allow patients to receive a full year’s supply of birth control instead of the typical three month supply.
    • Requiring DoD contractors to certify that they do not have segregated facilities
      • This amendment comes in response to the Trump Administration reversing a policy that required Department of Defense contractors to have nonsegregated facilities.
    • Establishing a pilot program to utilize remote monitoring of blood pressure for at-risk pregnant and postpartum military women;
    • Expanding bereavement leave to include service members and the spouse of the service member who experience the loss of a pregnancy or stillbirth;
    • Increasing the participation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) positions in the Armed Forces;
    • Increasing access to registered apprenticeships in the Skillbridge program for service members transitioning to civilian careers;
    • Requiring the Department of Defense to conduct a study on the training and equipment of Firefighter Rapid Intervention Teams on military facilities.
    • Prohibiting the Trump administration from eliminating US military bases in Europe to protect our NATO allies. 

    Rep. Sherrill is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and served in the Navy for almost 10 years as a helicopter pilot and Russian policy officer. As a Russian policy officer, she worked on the implementation of our nuclear treaty obligations and oversaw the relationship between the U.S. Navy and Russian Federation Navy. She serves on the House Armed Services Committee and sits on the Tactical Air and Land Forces (TAL) and Cyber, Innovative Technologies, and Information Systems (CITI) Subcommittees.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI: The Elon Code Releases 2025 Transparency Update on Digital Cognitive Optimization

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    San Antonio, July 16, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) —

    What You’ll Learn

    This release outlines The Elon Code’s updated 2025 structure as a digital-first cognitive enhancement platform. Readers will explore how the program integrates non-ingestible neuro-alignment techniques, behavioral science models, and performance training sequences rooted in theta/gamma brainwave logic. Discover why more users are turning to structured digital routines over traditional pills or supplement stacks — and what separates this MIT-modeled system from standard brain-training apps.

    Visit the Official The Elon Code Site to explore the latest digital training system transparency update.

    Disclaimer

    This content is for informational purposes only. The Elon Code is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. No medical claims are made or implied. Always consult a healthcare provider before use.

    Inside the 2025 Shift in Cognitive Training Protocols

    The performance enhancement landscape in 2025 has shifted toward precision, agency, and non-pharmaceutical tools. The Elon Code has aligned its evolution with this shift, focusing on fully digital experiences rather than supplement-based approaches. Consumers are increasingly seeking structured behavioral systems that support clarity and consistency, without the variables associated with physical ingredients or proprietary compounds. As a result, the brand has eliminated any association with nutritional interventions and instead built its system entirely around cognitive scaffolding, identity-driven repetition, and modular behavior design.

    Explore the Full Elon Code Stack Lineup to understand how this approach contrasts with physical supplementation models.

    The Elon Code’s new model is a software-first framework. Users don’t ingest anything. Instead, they engage with digitally sequenced experiences designed to mirror core neurobehavioral functions. The 2025 update enhances flexibility, reduces friction, and increases clarity around what the product is—a structured system for building habits, not a treatment protocol.

    Understanding the Science Behind The Elon Code’s Digital Strategy

    Scientific inspiration behind The Elon Code stems from neural learning models, cognitive psychology, and performance rhythm research. This system embraces theta-gamma phase synchronization — a neural coupling pattern seen during learning and working memory tasks — as the conceptual engine for its structured delivery method.

    Rather than replicating research directly, The Elon Code applies metaphorical alignment: modules are time-gated and layered to simulate the rhythm of neuroplastic reinforcement. Tools include:

    • Guided focus sessions using language-based priming
    • Audio protocols designed for internal pacing and external structure
    • Workflow builders modeled after known cognitive sequencing patterns

    See Details for The Elon Code and how its architecture avoids chemical dependency by design.

    This approach doesn’t diagnose or treat. It simply maps routines to predictable patterns of engagement using behavior science as a guide. In this way, the program becomes a mirror, enabling users to self-regulate and shape their daily performance rituals.

    Who This Digital Optimization System Might Serve Best in 2025

    While many tools in the cognitive space target specific ailments or use claims to drive conversion, The Elon Code focuses solely on voluntary behavior alignment. Its ideal audience includes:

    • Founders, freelancers, and digital strategists optimizing workflow depth
    • Learners and knowledge workers building focus and routine autonomy
    • Professionals avoiding stimulant-based energy tools
    • Creators building identity-driven routines anchored in rhythm, not hype

    Users who value control, minimalism, and clarity often find this system a compelling alternative to overstimulated cognitive stacks or vague promise-based apps. Its structure favors those who want to earn their transformation through consistency, not dependency.

    Digital Module Highlights: A Closer Look at What’s Inside

    The Elon Code consists of interactive routines, reflection prompts, and digital tools for reinforcing cognitive anchoring. There are no physical ingredients. No downloads. Just access to:

    • Morning Alignment Modules (mental rehearsal, sequence priming)
    • Midday Momentum Tracks (focus retention, emotional reset)
    • Evening Integration Protocols (learning lock-in, rhythm review)

    These modules are arranged in a non-linear path users can revisit or repeat. Unlike generic productivity courses, these sequences use targeted language design and anchored repetition principles to train consistency over novelty. The goal is rhythm, not stimulation.

    Discover the Structure Behind Flow State Support Protocols that power this rhythm-first model.

    How The Elon Code Compares to Traditional Cognitive Products

    Most cognitive products in the performance category fall into one of two camps: pharmacological (nootropics, energy boosters) or content-based (books, lectures, apps). The Elon Code stands apart by functioning as neither. It is not a product in the traditional sense. It is a protocol.

    Whereas many competitors emphasize what goes into the brain, The Elon Code emphasizes what comes out through behavior. The structure is its benefit. There are no bioactive compounds or passive videos. Everything is interactive, time-released, and designed to close the intention-action gap.

    This transparency-first model rejects trends and builds trust through clarity: no testimonials, no exaggerated claims, no urgency. Just rhythm, repetition, and scaffolding. This resonates with a 2025 audience tired of empty promises and quick fixes.

    Realistic Experiences: What Users Might Notice with Regular Use

    While outcomes vary, users consistently report improved execution behavior. These experiences often begin as small shifts—waking with clearer purpose, initiating tasks with less internal resistance, or noticing fewer interruptions in daily concentration. Rather than positioning itself as a tool for instant gratification, The Elon Code builds a momentum loop. The more users engage with the modules, the more reliable their behavioral anchors become.

    Some users have noted greater resilience during high-pressure work cycles, fewer instances of digital drift, and smoother transitions between focus modes. These responses aren’t presented as universal truths but as common experiential trends linked to routine-based reinforcement. Importantly, users who journal or track mood alongside program usage may see amplified outcomes due to the reflection component baked into the platform.

    Because The Elon Code is not a supplement, there is no expectation of a “kick in.” Instead, the system relies on:

    • Repeat exposure to internal cues
    • Environmental rhythm pairing
    • Daily decision reduction

    Learn More About The Elon Code’s 2025 Formulations and how they emphasize neural rhythm training without artificial triggers.

    Key Considerations When Exploring Digital Neuro-Tools in 2025

    With growing interest in behavioral enhancement, the risk of pseudoscience has never been greater. Platforms that promise effortless transformation or make unsupported medical claims often dominate headlines, but savvy users in 2025 are digging deeper. They’re evaluating frameworks not by aesthetic or testimonials but by epistemological integrity—how clearly the system explains what it does and what it doesn’t.

    The Elon Code takes a position of radical transparency. Every module, prompt, and progression track is described in terms of rhythm, repetition, and behavioral alignment—not vague neuroscience. The language used avoids jargon unless it’s grounded in well-established cognitive science. That makes the system approachable without dumbing down the underlying principles.

    It’s also designed for users who value experimentation. The Elon Code supports layered habit stacking, time-of-day testing, and internal state journaling so users can personalize their optimization cycle without needing external validation. This level of self-direction is rare in commercial cognitive tools, and it’s something high-agency users specifically seek out.

    The Elon Code meets these criteria while staying within clear ethical and regulatory boundaries. Its commitment is to clarity and calibration, not hype or health claims.

    Inside The Elon Code’s Digital Platform for 2025

    Beyond individual modules, what distinguishes The Elon Code in 2025 is its ecosystem approach. Users aren’t just given content—they’re given infrastructure. From the moment a user signs in, the interface guides them toward self-calibration. The platform encourages morning planning rituals, midday rhythm rechecks, and evening wind-down analysis without requiring external tools.

    The platform is responsive to user data in non-invasive ways. It flags skipped modules, tracks focus windows, and offers nudges when energy dips are detected through pattern analysis. While it collects no biometric data, the behavioral model adapts based on engagement timing and duration.

    The full system includes access to:

    • Sequence Map Dashboard
    • Habit Stack Engine
    • Identity Prompt Archive

    The 2025 update adds:

    • Session tracking
    • Rhythm deviation feedback
    • Expanded user onboarding for flow state compatibility

    This infrastructure replaces supplements, stack plans, and guru systems with something simple: your own system, reflected back and restructured for scale.

    Where to Learn More

    Readers can Explore the Full Elon Code Stack Lineup to dive into every element of its 2025 system architecture.

    Or See Details for The Elon Code through a behavioral lens by visiting the transparency portal.

    Or Discover the Structure Behind Flow State Support Protocols to examine how each module fits into broader neural rhythm theory.

    Contact & Company Info

    The Elon Code
    Program Support: https://theeloncode.com/help/contact/?
    Order Support: https://www.clkbank.com/#!/
    Toll-Free (US): +1 800-390-6035
    International: +1 208-345-4245 (24/7)

    Disclaimer

    This content is for informational purposes only. The Elon Code is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Always consult a healthcare provider before use.

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Canada: B.C. fast-tracks recruitment of international doctors as U.S. campaign delivers results

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    In just two months, B.C. has received almost 780 job applications from qualified health professionals across the United States, reflecting strong momentum from the Province’s co-ordinated U.S. recruitment campaign.

    Building on this success, new strategies are underway to further attract internationally trained doctors.

    “When we began recruiting in the U.S. in March, we were confident it would yield strong results, and this success confirms that British Columbia’s universal health-care system and vibrant communities continue to stand out,” said Josie Osborne, Minister of Health. “With the support of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C., we’re now making it easier than ever for internationally trained doctors to bring their skills to our province.”

    Since the campaign began, more than 2,250 doctors, nurse practitioners, nurses and allied health professionals have signed up for webinars and expressed interest in working in B.C. This includes 827 physicians, 851 nurses, 254 nurse practitioners and 256 allied health professionals.

    To further improve recruitment, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. (CPSBC) implemented bylaw changes on July 7, 2025, that benefit doctors trained outside of Canada. Since then, CPSBC has received 29 registration applications from U.S. doctors.

    “CPSBC is always looking to evolve its bylaws, processes and procedures as health-care needs evolve,” said Dr. Patrick Rowe, CPSBC registrar and CEO. “These bylaw amendments are part of our work with government to find opportunities that will help British Columbians receive more accessible and timely care.”

    The bylaw changes implemented by CPSBC are:

    • U.S.-trained doctors can now become fully licensed in B.C., without the need for further assessment, examination or training if they hold certification from the American Board of Medical Specialties, American Board of Family Medicine or the American Osteopathic Board of Family Physicians. It means that U.S.-trained and certified doctors can often be registered in a matter of weeks.
    • Doctors trained outside of Canada and the U.S. who are applying for registration and licensure in B.C. are no longer required to hold the Licentiate of the Medical Council of Canada. This change saves applicants approximately $1,500, which is the cost of the Medical Council of Canada Qualify Examination Part 1, and shortens the licensing process by several weeks.

    Additionally, CPSBC is doing public consultations on a proposed bylaw change to further streamline the registration and licensure process for certain specialties from jurisdictions where training is recognized and approved by the Canadian national certification bodies, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.

    Internationally trained physicians wishing to practise in B.C. would have a direct pathway to full licensure if they completed a minimum of two years of accredited postgraduate training in family medicine in the U.S., Australia, United Kingdom or Ireland, or if they have completed postgraduate training and received a completion of training certificate and certification in certain specialties from Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, United Kingdom or Ireland.

    Quotes:

    Dr. Avi Kopstick, Canadian doctor in Texas who will move to Kelowna soon –

    “I am joining the team at Kelowna General Hospital in mid-August. I have taken the decision to relocate, together with my husband and my two Maine coons, Rummy and Bella, because I’m drawn by B.C.’s values-driven health-care system and the opportunity to help expand local access to higher levels of care.”

    Dr. Kyle McIver, Canadian doctor previously based in Massachusetts who is now practising in Terrace –

    “Originally from Ontario, I fell in love with B.C. on a ski trip to Whistler at 10 years old. I did medical school in Ireland, my residency in Kelowna and Fort St. John, and then my return of service in Terrace. I went to Massachusetts to be closer to my wife who was doing her residency as an obstetrician gynecologist. With hopes and dreams we moved back to B.C. to raise our family in the place we wanted to be. We are involved with our community, we love our jobs and happy to help our colleagues from the U.S. make the jump.”

    Dr. Adam Hoverman, a U.S. East Coast doctor now practising in Nanaimo –

    “I chose to move from the U.S. to practise family medicine in B.C. as I can see the future of health care being born here, with improvement science and co-production of health and social care at the core of a system with the spirit, energy, optimism and cultural humility needed to improve. It is deeply inspiring and joyful to work in a system that values asking and meaningfully answering the question, ‘What matters to you?’ ”

    Dismus Irungu, Los Angeles nurse now practising in Vancouver –

    “I was drawn to B.C. mainly by the technologically advanced Blusson Spinal Cord Centre at Vancouver General Hospital, where I now work in Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. It’s one of the best in North America. The team is cohesive and supportive, and I go home from work each day feeling very fulfilled. When I calculated my costs, I am now able to save more and keep more money in my bank account than before my move. The transition was seamless and with this beautiful B.C. scenery, it has been a really great lifestyle choice.”

    Quick Facts:

    • The changes to the bylaws follow similar changes recently adopted in Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
    • Between May and June 2025, B.C. has received nearly 780 job applications spanning all health regions: 181 for Interior Health, 154 for Fraser Health, 121 for Vancouver Coastal Health, 112 for Island Health, 70 for Providence Health Care, 66 for Provincial Health Services Authority and 63 for Northern Health (some applicants may have applied to more than one health authority).
    • The Province is taking a Team B.C. approach to recruiting health-care workers from the U.S., and is working in collaboration with health authorities, regulatory colleges and other partners.
    • The Province launched a targeted U.S. marketing campaign on June 2, 2025, in Washington, Oregon and select cities in California.

    Learn More:

    To learn about B.C.’s measures to attract doctors, nurses and other health professionals from the U.S., visit: https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2025HLTH0013-000194

    To learn more about health career opportunities in B.C., visit: https://bchealthcareers.ca/

    To learn more about B.C.’s actions to strengthen health care, visit: https://strongerbc.gov.bc.ca/health-care/

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Tuberville Introduces Dr. Brian Christine of Mountain Brook in Senate HELP Hearing

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Tommy Tuberville (Alabama)

    WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) introduced Dr. Brian Christine during his nomination hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (HELP). President Trump nominated Dr. Christine of Mountain Brook, Alabama to be Assistant Secretary for Health at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). During their exchange, Sen. Tuberville and Dr. Christine discussed the importance of the Make America Health Again movement, along with Dr. Christine’s goals for improving rural healthcare.

    Read excerpts from their exchange below or on YouTube or Rumble.

    TUBERVILLE: “Thank you very much. It’s an honor to introduce my friend and constituent, Dr. Brian Christine. Also thrilled to welcome today his wife, Helena, and sister, Kathleen. Thank you for being here.

    Dr. Christine is a board-certified urologic surgeon with nearly 30 years of clinical experience serving patients in Birmingham, Alabama. A recognized medical expert, Dr. Christine is known for teaching and demonstrating advanced surgical techniques, both nationally and internationally. Born in West Germany to a decorated U.S. Army combat veteran and the grandson of Italian immigrants, he will bring a lifelong dedication to service, resilience, and American values to this role. Dr. Christine attended college in Georgia, what’s going on here? And earned his medical degree from Emory University. He later moved to Birmingham for his residency and has since dedicated his career to caring for the men and women of Alabama. Beyond the operating room, he has supported local law enforcement by volunteering as a trauma surgeon with tactical police units. If confirmed, Dr. Christine will oversee critical public health programs, regional health offices and U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps where he has pledged to accept a commission and lead with a Main Street medicine approach. 

    His top priorities include addressing chronic disease such as diabetes, hypertension, pediatric obesity, mental health, and the nation’s physician shortage crisis. He is particularly focused on expanding access to primary care and improving health in rural and underserved communities.

    With deep medical expertise, leadership experience, and a clear vision for reform, he is well equipped to serve as Assistant Secretary for Health, and I hope my federal colleagues will support his nomination – Dr. Christine.”

    DR. CHRISTINE: “Senator Tuberville, thank you so much for your kind words. Thank you also for the service that you’ve rendered to our nation here in the U.S. Senate and the service you have and will render to our home state of Alabama.”

    TUBERVILLE: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Christine, in my lifetime, I’ve never seen the deterioration of an institution like we have in the trust of the American people after COVID. How are you gonna try to put that back together? Because we desperately need some help in getting a positive attitude towards our hospitals and our doctors back to the American people.”

    DR. CHRISTINE: “Yes, Senator Tuberville, number one, thank you so much for being here. Again, thank you for your introduction. Thank you for meeting with me before today’s hearing. I’m truly appreciative. The loss of trust that we have seen in our healthcare institutions and the healthcare policies emanating from this city are the worst that I’ve seen in over three decades of practice. People feel that during the pandemic particularly they were led astray, some people feel they were lied to. We have to work to restore that trust. Secretary Kennedy is 100% committed to doing that, as is President Trump.

    In my career as a surgeon, I’ve had to earn the trust of my patients, allowing me to operate on them, literally take their life within my hands. I believe I have the ability to communicate to patients and now hopefully to the American public at large and approach them and give them a sense that what I’m saying, what I’m telling is truly for the good of the country [and] comes from a position of honesty and transparency. I’ve had to do that for over 30 years as a surgeon and as a physician. I truly believe I can bring that skillset to the office of the Assistant Secretary for Health.”

    TUBERVILLE: “Yeah. The American people are tired of being lied to about their food, the ingredients, things that we’re now finding out that are detrimental to our health. And up here, you know, we seem to overlook all that, but we need to start looking out for the American people. How do you plan to help the Secretary with that?”

    DR. CHRISTINE: “Well, we know that Secretary Kennedy is absolutely committed to the Make America Healthy Again agenda to remove toxins from our foods, to make sure that all have access to clean water, that we focus on not just treating chronic disease, but finding out what causes chronic disease, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and work to not only cure those diseases, but really prevent and eliminate those diseases. Secretary Kennedy is always wanting to approach things from the foundation of science. He truly believes in that. I agree with the Secretary on all of those things. I intend to support him. I intend to work diligently if I have the privilege of being confirmed. To support him in that quest to make Americans healthier than they’ve ever been.” […]

    TUBERVILLE: “Dr. Christine, rural America. We got problems getting healthcare. Our state is 60% rural in Alabama. Most of the south is rural. How do we handle that problem?”

    DR. CHRISTINE: “Yes, Senator. [I think] one of the things you’re speaking about are healthcare deserts – those areas where men, women and their children don’t have ready access to primary care services such as pediatrics or gynecologic services or family practice. We have to find ways to bridge those gaps. I think that absolutely telehealth can help provide a bridge to these individuals. We’ll see what AI brings in the future. But again, technology can help bridge this gap. We absolutely must encourage and must increase the number of primary care physicians, family practitioners, pediatricians, gynecologists and opticians and primary care nurses […] to help bridge this gap as well. Now that takes a while to spin that up. But in the interim, we have to find ways to bridge the gaps. We do have to use technology. I believe that I, as Assistant Secretary for Health, one of the things that I intend to do, if I’m privileged to be in that position, will be to be a true evangelist to really go out and encourage young men and women who are in medical school and nursing school to serve in these areas. Young men and women getting into healthcare, they want a mission. Wanna help them understand that that mission to serve our brothers and sisters in rural America and healthcare deserts is truly noble and is worthwhile.”

    TUBERVILLE: “And one thing we need to sell to in rural hospitals is loyalty to the people in these communities to go to these rural hospitals so we can save them. It’s not just that they’re not being served. It’s just we have to have loyalty in those areas. Thank you.”

    Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP and Aging Committees.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cranial Drill Recall: Integra LifeSciences Recalls Codman Disposable Perforators Due to Risk of Device Disassembly

    Source: US Department of Health and Human Services – 3

    This recall involves removing certain devices from where they are used or sold. The FDA has identified this recall as the most serious type. This device may cause serious injury or death if you continue to use it.
    Affected Product

    Product Name
    Unique Device Identifier (UDI)

    Codman Disposable Perforator 14 mm
    10381780513599

    Codman Craniotomy Kit Containing Disposable Perforator 14 mm, Cranio-blade, Wire Pass Drill
    10381780513629

    Lot/Serial Numbers: Full List of Affected Lots
    What to Do:

    Stop using and immediately quarantine all affected products.
    Review inventory and identify affected lot numbers using the provided lot list.

    On April 11, 2025, Integra LifeSciences sent all affected customers an Urgent Medical Device Recall Notification recommending the following actions:

    Stop using and quarantine all affected product immediately.
    Review your inventory and identify impacted lot numbers.
    Complete and return the appropriate Acknowledgement Form to Integra via email at FCA3@integralife.com or fax to 1-609-750-4220.
    Notify all appropriate clinical or distribution staff.
    Return affected product after receiving a Return Material Authorization (RMA). Credit will be provided for returned affected lots.

    Reason for Recall
    Integra LifeSciences is recalling specific Codman Disposable Perforators and Craniotomy Kits due to an inadequate ultrasonic weld (a “proud weld”) on the outer sleeve of the device. This weld defect may cause the perforator to disassemble before, during, or after use in craniotomy procedures. In some cases, the device may fail to disengage, preventing the device from stopping immediately.
    The use of affected product may cause serious adverse health consequences, including damage to the dura, bleeding, brain injury, extended surgery, irreversible brain damage, and death.
    There have been 10 reported injuries including those from procedural delay, device becoming lodged in the patient’s skull during use, difficulty removing device fragments, bleeding, dural injury, and cerebral injury. There have been no reports of death.
    Device Use
    Codman Disposable Perforators are single-use surgical tools used in neurosurgical procedures to drill access holes into the skull. They are designed to automatically disengage once drilling is complete.
    Contact Information
    Customers in the U.S. with questions about this recall should contact Integra LifeSciences at 1-800-654-2873.
    Additional FDA Resources (listed in order of most to least recent):
    FDA’s Enforcement Report:

    Medical Device Recall Database:

    Unique Device Identifier (UDI)
    The unique device identifier (UDI) helps identify individual medical devices sold in the United States from manufacturing through distribution to patient use. The UDI allows for more accurate reporting, reviewing, and analyzing of adverse event reports so that devices can be identified, and problems potentially corrected more quickly. 

    How do I report a problem? 
    Health care professionals and consumers may report adverse reactions or quality problems they experienced using these devices to MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program. 

    Content current as of:
    07/16/2025

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: NASA Citizen Science and Your Career: Stories of Exoplanet Watch Volunteers

    Source: NASA

    Doing NASA Science brings many rewards. But can taking part in NASA citizen science help your career? To find out, we asked participants in NASA’s Exoplanet Watch project about their experiences. In this project, amateur astronomers work together with professionals to track planets around other stars.
    First, we heard from professional software programmers. Right away, one of them told us about getting a new job through connections made in the project.
    “I decided to create the exoplanet plugin, [for citizen science] since it was quite a lot of manual work to check which transits were available for your location. The exoplanet plugin and its users got me in contact with the Stellar group… Through this group, I got into contact with a company called OurSky and started working for them… the point is, I created a couple of plugins for free and eventually got a job at an awesome company.”
    Another participant talked about honing their skills and growing their confidence through Exoplanet Watch.
    “There were a few years when I wasn’t actively coding. However, Exoplanet Watch rekindled that spark…. Participating in Exoplanet Watch even gave me the confidence to prepare again for a technical interview at Meta—despite having been thoroughly defeated the first time I tried.”
    Teachers and teaching faculty told us how Exoplanet Watch gives them the ability to better convey what scientific research is all about – and how the project motivates students! 
    “Exoplanet Watch makes it easy for undergraduate students to gain experience in data science and Python, which are absolutely necessary for graduate school and many industry jobs.”
    “Experience with this collaborative work is a vital piece of the workforce development of our students who are seeking advanced STEM-related careers or ongoing education in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, & Mathematics) fields after graduation… Exoplanet Watch, in this way, is directly training NASA’s STEM workforce of tomorrow by allowing CUNY (The City University of New York) students to achieve the science goals that would otherwise be much more difficult without its resources.”
    One aspiring academic shared how her participation on the science team side of the project has given her research and mentorship experience that strengthens her resume. 
    “I ended up joining the EpW team to contribute my expertise in stellar variability… My involvement with Exoplanet Watch has provided me with invaluable experience in mentoring a broad range of astronomy enthusiasts and working in a collaborative environment with people from around the world. … Being able to train others, interact in a team environment, and work independently are all critical skills in any work environment, but these specific experiences have also been incredibly valuable towards building my portfolio as I search for faculty positions around the USA.”
    There are no guarantees, of course. What you get out of NASA citizen science depends on what you put in. But there is certainly magic to be found in the Exoplanet Watch project.  As one student said:
    “Help will always be found at Hogwarts, to those who need it.” Exoplanet Watch was definitely Hogwarts for me in my career as an astronomer!”
    For more information about NASA and your career, check out NASA’s Surprisingly STEM series highlighting exciting and unexpected jobs at NASA, or come to NASA Career Day, a virtual event for students and educators. Participants must register by September 4, 2025. The interactive platform will be open from September 15-19, with live panels and events taking place on September 18.

    Exoplanet Watch volunteer Bryan Martin
    Credit: Bryan Martin

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ejection Mechanism Design for the SPEED Test Architecture

    Source: NASA

    The The Stratospheric Projectile Entry Experiment on Dynamics (SPEED), a two-stage stratospheric drop test architecture, is currently under development to bridge the state-of-the-art gap that many NASA flagship missions require to reduce system risk and enable more optimized designs via margin reduction. To do this, a two-stage vehicle will drop from a high-altitude balloon and use the first stage (an LV-Haack cone aeroshell) to accelerate the sub-scale test model to supersonic conditions. The onboard avionics will then release the test model into freestream flow at the proper altitude in Earth’s atmosphere for dynamic Mach scaling to the full-scale flight trajectory. SPEED leverages low-cost methods of manufacturing such as 3D printing and laser/water-jet cutting to enable 8 or more two-stage vehicles to be dropped in a single test, making the science-to-dollar density much higher than any current ground-test facility NASA has at its disposal. The goal is to develop a robust ejection system that can reliably introduce the test models into supersonic flow with a tight variance on initial condition perturbation. The separation system must be capable of handling a range of initial angle-of-attacks, keep the test model secure in the first stage during take-off and descent, and eject the test model in such a way that it does not linger behind the first stage and be affected by the resulting wake. As current ejection system designs are conceptual, complex, and untested, NASA is looking for alternative ideas that can be incorporated into the design of their next iteration of SPEED flight vehicles to increase system reliability. We are challenging the public to design innovative concepts for a separation mechanism that can be used to assess NASA and commercial reentry vehicle stability.
    Award: $7,000 in total prizes
    Open Date: July 14, 2025
    Close Date: September 8, 2025
    For more information, visit: https://grabcad.com/challenges/ejection-mechanism-design-for-the-speed-test-architecture

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: NASA Glenn Experts Join Baseball Fans in Omaha

    Source: NASA

    Thousands of baseball fans travel across the country annually to watch teams compete in Omaha, Nebraska, during the NCAA Men’s College World Series in June. This year, NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland swung for the fences to celebrate the city’s Diamond Anniversary of hosting the event and to highlight the intersections of sports and STEM.  

    As part of a larger outreach program across the region, NASA Glenn, the only NASA center in the Midwest, continues to meet audiences where they are to make space relatable to all.  
    “We brought NASA to Omaha during the College World Series to connect with a broader audience through one of the country’s most celebrated sporting events,” said NASA Glenn Public Engagement Specialist Heather Brown, who led the event. “Our goal was to spark curiosity, inspire the next generation, and demonstrate how science and exploration intersect with everyday passions — like baseball.” 

    Situated next to the Kiewit Luminarium on the Lewis and Clark Landing of Omaha’s RiverFront, NASA Glenn engaged fans with Artemis-themed displays, interactive kiosks, a Space Launch System inflatable rocket, and the 53-foot Journey to Tomorrow traveling exhibit. In addition, Omaha-born NASA Flight Director Brandon Lloyd greeted visitors and participated in an event at the Branched Oak Observatory, where a large crowd of space enthusiasts asked questions and learned more about NASA’s missions.  
    “This was an incredible opportunity to tell NASA’s story and showcase our work in a setting that was already energized and ready to engage,” Brown said. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Stresses Urgent Need to Modernize Our Air Traffic Control Systems at Summit

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    July 15, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)—a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (CST) and Ranking Member of the Aviation Subcommittee—today underscored both the long-term and immediate actions the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must take to improve and modernize our air traffic control systems in order to safeguard our aviation system and the flying public. At today’s Air Traffic Control Modernization Summit hosted by aviation industry stakeholders, Duckworth also emphasized her grave concerns over the Trump Administration firing hundreds of FAA employees and appointing a new FAA Administrator with an established track record of opposing the 1,500-hour pilot training standard, which is critical to ensuring our nation’s pilots are experienced and prepared for any scenario. Photos of the event can be found on Senator Duckworth’s website.

    “The deadly DCA crash, spike in near misses and air traffic control equipment outages our nation has seen are terrifying, but they are not surprising,” said Duckworth. “I’ve been sounding the alarm about close calls and aging equipment for years because the urgent need to overhaul our air traffic control systems, which will take years, has been so clear for so long. But in addition to that long-term overhaul, FAA needs to ensure our current system remains safe—not fire hundreds of staff or reduce our nation’s pilot training gold standard.”

    For years, Duckworth has been sounding the alarm that we must make these critical aviation safety investments immediately to prevent all-too-often near-misses from becoming catastrophic tragedies. Last Congress, Duckworth chaired two CST Aviation Subcommittee hearings—one last December and the other a year prior—to address our aviation industry’s chilling surge in near-deadly close calls and underscore the urgent need to improve air traffic control systems to protect the flying public.

    Last week, Duckworth voted against the nomination of Bryan Bedford to serve as FAA Administrator after he refused to commit to upholding the 1,500-hour rule when she pressed him on the issue during his nomination hearing. Duckworth criticized Bedford for leaving the door open for him to unilaterally attempt to weaken this standard and produce less-prepared pilots despite the serious challenges our nation is facing with regard to aviation safety.

    -30-



    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Schatz: Congress Controls Purse Strings, Not Trump

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i), lead Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, today urged his colleagues to reject President Donald Trump’s efforts to enact a harmful $9 billion cut to foreign aid and public broadcasting. The Republican rescissions bill would devastate public TV and radio stations across the country, making it more difficult for people – especially those in Native communities and rural areas – to get news and critical emergency alerts. The bill would also gut lifesaving foreign aid programs that millions of people around the world rely on.
    “Being part of the Article One branch means something very specific, and it means that we’re the legislature, and we control the purse strings,” said Senator Schatz. “This bill reduces funding for Ukraine. It reduces funding for global health. It continues to reduce funding for public television and public radio. Republicans don’t actually have to do this.”
    The full text of Schatz’s remarks can be found below. Video is available here. 
    Republicans don’t actually have to do this. I understand as well as anybody wanting to go along with your party’s president, especially in the early months. But being part of an independent and co-equal branch has to mean something. Being part of the Article One branch means something very specific, and it means that we’re the legislature and we control the purse strings.
    Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that if the president wants something, you must do it. And what worries me the most about this rescissions package, if it passes it is one thing for the president’s signature accomplishment, signature policy priority to be supported by Republicans in the legislature. I understand that. I understand the inevitable political momentum behind that. But this isn’t that. And we have now gone six months. Without a single instance of Republicans and Democrats coming together and establishing that there are some limitations on this president’s power.
    And if you remember the first Trump term, there were a couple of moments when the legislature actually stood up to the president, overrode a veto of his rejected a rescissions package. They stood up for their prerogatives. And you know what happened next? Nothing. Why? Because that’s actually how the system is supposed to work. We are not a parliamentary system. We are not a monarchy where the president says by tweet, by tweet, if you don’t adopt this exactly how it’s written, you will not receive my political support. Thank you for your attention to this matter. And that set us on a course towards passing this legislation, which I know a dozen, at least a dozen Republicans hate.
    It reduces funding for Jordan. It reduces funding for Ukraine. It reduces funding for global health. It did reduce funding for PEPFAR. It continues to reduce funding for public television and public radio. By the way, public radio is not just National Public Radio. If you were on a reservation. If you were in a very rural part of your state, it’s often not just the only radio station, the only communications infrastructure that exists in a rural area. So it’s the only platform for news. That’s true. It’s also the only emergency communications infrastructure, because still many places across the United States lack internet. And so Mike Rounds got his deal so that his tribes will be taken care of and I’m glad for him. But there are 49 other states where your emergency communications infrastructure is about to be defunded. Nobody likes that. Some people are pissed off about NPR’s coverage or PBS’s coverage. But come on, you defund an agency because you disagree with their editorial choices? Which country is this? Which country is this?
    I want to tell you something a little technical, but I think it gives away the whole game. So I’m the top Democrat on the foreign ops subcommittee. What does that mean? We do funding for U.S. aid in the State Department and a few other things. When we do the appropriations process, we get letters from every other member. They’re private letters, and a lot of people sign them and they say, “could you please give more money to whatever it is, maternal and child health or malaria prevention or, the PEPFAR program, the initiative to prevent HIV/AIDS transmission.” So we get a bunch of letters saying “please plus up this, please, plus up that” bipartisan letters. And we are trying to write a bill that accommodates all these needs. A lot of people who are about to vote to cut all the stuff are on the side writing me a letter saying, “please increase these accounts.” And why does this matter? This matters because nobody’s voting – I shouldn’t say nobody – many, many people are not voting their conscience tonight. And that’s just a fact.
    There’s a there’s a characterization in poker when you know you’re beat and someone puts money in on the river and you call anyway, it’s called a crying call. You give away your money sort of crying. This is a crying call. This is a “I know I’m beat, I vote aye,” and here’s the thing: we don’t actually have to do this.
    President Trump’s attention is famously divided, and if something pops next week, he will be on that thing next week. He did not wake up every morning thinking, I want to defund UNICEF. I want to defund PEPFAR. His attention will be divided, and the moment the legislature stands up for himself, usually what he does is he understands power and he says, “okay, those guys are asserting themselves. They’re a co-equal branch of government, and I’m going to have to move on from this.” Because why do I know this? We literally did the same thing. There was a rescissions package, which nobody remembers. Why? Because we quietly with Dick Shelby and others appropriators, all said “no, we hold the purse strings here. We write the laws that determine appropriations.” We’re not going to do this thing on a bipartisan basis, enact a spending plan, and then come in on a partisan basis and say, you know, that wasn’t actually the spending plan. That was just the spending cap. And the administration is going to come in and do whatever it wants on a partisan basis. And so what happened is they rejected the rescissions package on the motion to discharge, which is happening in about an hour and five minutes. And then you know what happened? Nothing. Nothing politically. Nothing substantively, except that we kept the appropriations process alive. We kept the filibuster alive. We kept bipartisanship alive. And in this instance, it’s not just about this institution. It is literally about people being kept alive.
    For the last five months, because of the United States’ actions, tens of thousands, at least, maybe hundreds of thousands of babies have gotten HIV/AIDS from their moms because we pulled funding. Because Elon Musk had some bug in his ear about USAID. And one weekend he said, we’re going to feed this thing to the woodchipper. And because Democrats too and pundits decided, you know what, foreign aid isn’t so important to voters. I don’t care if it’s important to voters, if it ranks on the number one, number two, or number three. We’re the United States of America and one of the reasons that we have such a strong reputation is that we do things that are right because they’re right, not because our voters are going to reward us immediately, not because we get some geopolitical advantage, but because we’re the damn good guys.
    And right now, we are ratifying a bunch of decisions against our will. We don’t have to do this. Donald Trump will move on to the next thing tomorrow. And if it’s not on this thing which has low salience for the voters, is 18 months from the next election. If it’s not on this, at what point are my Republican colleagues going to stand up for this branch of government?
    I remain ready to work with anybody on anything. I have talked to Chairman Graham about the possibility of literally enacting these rescissions, or at least a portion of them in the state and foreign ops mark, and yet they choose this legislative violence. We don’t have to do this. We don’t have to operate under the assumption that this man is uniquely so powerful. He’s the most powerful president. He owns the legislature in a way that no president has ever owned the legislature. And we all act like we’re just sort of observers, like clicking on the TV and seeing how our fantasy football team is doing this Sunday.
    We have agency tonight to reestablish that. We are the Article One branch of government, and that means something.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Latta, DeGette, Crenshaw and Dingell Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Reauthorize Improved Access to Over-the-Counter Medicines

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Bob Latta (R-Bowling Green Ohio)

    Recently, Congressman Bob Latta (OH-5), Congresswoman Diana DeGette (CO-1), Congressman Dan Crenshaw (TX-2) and Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (MI-6) introduced the Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Amendments (OMFUA), a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Over-the-Counter Monograph User Fee Act that has improved access to over-the-counter medicines.   

    “The over-the-counter monograph drug user fee program (OMUFA) allows consumers to manage their own care safely and affordably. Five years ago, as the original sponsor of this legislation, my colleagues and I modernized how the FDA regulates most over-the-counter medicines by enacting OMUFA. These reforms transformed a 40-year-old system, making it more efficient, transparent, and open to innovation. I’m proud to lead the reauthorization of this critical program,” Latta said.  

    “Millions of Americans rely on over-the-counter medications every day, and FDA’s over-the-counter medicines program ensures those products are safe, effective, and accessible. I was proud to play a role in creating OMUFA and to see it through its first five years. Now, as we approach reauthorization, it’s time to build on that success and continue giving FDA the tools it needs to deliver trusted medicines to Amerians’ shelves,” DeGette said.

    “This bipartisan bill empowers the FDA to review over-the-counter medicines quickly and efficiently — without compromising safety. It ensures Americans can trust that the products on their shelves are backed by the latest science, and spares the taxpayer a new obligation,” Crenshaw said.    

    “Nearly nine out of ten Americans regularly use over the counter medications to quickly, easily, and effectively manage a range of conditions. The Over-the-Counter Monograph Safety, Innovation, and Reform Act has been highly successful in improving OTC drug availability and safety. I’m leading this reauthorization with my bipartisan colleagues to ensure consumers continue to have safe access to the OTC products they depend on, and the U.S. remains a global leader in health and innovation,” Dingell said.  

    Today, Congressman Latta joined the Health Subcommittee hearing on legislative proposals to maintain and improve the public health workforce, rural health, and over the counter drugs, to discuss his bill, OMUFA. Watch the Congressman’s remarks here. 

    The OMUFA bill is endorsed by the Consumer Healthcare Products Association:   

    “CHPA applauds Representatives Latta, DeGette, Crenshaw and Dingell for their leadership in introducing this important reauthorization and for their continued support of self-care,” said CHPA President & CEO Scott Melville. “As the industry works to deliver safe, effective, and innovative OTC products to consumers, we look forward to working with Congress on refinements to the bill to ensure the final legislation maximizes the potential of monograph reform and can continue to provide savings and innovation to consumers. That includes inserting provisions into OMUFA to clarify how FDA evaluates the Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective (GRASE) standard, creating a clearer path for early agreement on data needs, and improving the efficiency of making product improvements while maintaining strong safety standards.” 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hoyle, Houchin, LaLota Lead Bipartisan Effort to Get Fire Fighters the Parkinson’s Care They Need

    Source: US Representative Val Hoyle (OR-04)

    July 16, 2025

    For Immediate Release: July 16, 2025 

    WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Today, U.S. Representatives Val Hoyle (OR-04), Erin Houchin (IN-09), and Nick LaLota (NY-01) introduced the bipartisan Parkinson’s Protection for Fire Fighters Act of 2025 to provide medical coverage and increased support for federal fire fighters who develop symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. 

    Despite clear evidence linking fire fighting to an increased risk for developing Parkinson’s, the federal government has yet to officially recognize the connection. As a result, fire fighters living with Parkinson’s face needless bureaucratic barriers when seeking thecare they need. This bill would change that by formally recognizing Parkison’s as a job-related illness for fire fighters to access the care they have earned and deserve.

    “Fire fighters are exposed to significantly more toxins than the civilian population. They put their lives on the line to protect and serve our communities. It is our responsibility to ensure that the medical issues that disproportionately arise as a result of their service are covered. Fire fighters shouldn’t have to fight to prove the link between their service and Parkinson’s disorders, given the data. This is the least we can do to those who dedicated their lives to protecting and serving us,” Rep. Hoyle said.

    “Our fire fighters put their lives on the line every day, facing extreme risks most of us will never fully understand. The science is clear—chemical exposure and head trauma from fire fighting significantly increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease. The Parkinson’s Protection for Fire Fighters Act ensures these heroes aren’t left to fight this battle alone. This bill is about honoring their service with the care and support they’ve earned,” Rep Houchin said.

    “The risks fire fighters face don’t end when the fire is out, and the science is clear: repeated exposure to toxic chemicals on the job significantly increases their risk of developing Parkinson’s. That’s why I support federal legislation to establish a presumptive link. Our fire fighters deserve more than praise—they deserve care, support, and the full backing of the country they serve,” said Rep. LaLota.

    “The research is clear: fire fighters face an increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease due to frequent, repeated exposure to toxins on the job. That’s why the Parkinson’s Protection for Fire Fighters Act is so important. This bipartisan legislation will help ensure fire fighters have access to the care and support needed following a Parkinson’s diagnosis,” said International Association of Fire Fighters General President Edward Kelly. “The IAFF is proud to endorse this bill, and we’re grateful to Reps. Hoyle, Houchin, and LaLota for their leadership on this critical issue.”

    “The sacrifices made by federal fire fighters extend far beyond the immediate risks of responding to fires and other emergencies,” said NFFE National President Randy Erwin. “Many suffer from job-related injuries and illnesses, including Parkinson’s, long after their federal service ends. NFFE is proud to endorse the Parkinson’s Protection for Fire Fighters Act to ensure these brave men and women receive the workers’ compensation benefits they deserve should they be diagnosed with Parkinson’s. Thank you to Representatives Hoyle, Houchin, and LaLota for their leadership on this important issue.”

    “Fire fighters are exposed to numerous neurotoxic chemicals as they do their vital work. The American Parkinson Disease Association (APDA) is proud to endorse Representative Hoyle’s efforts to support fire fighters who develop Parkinson’s disease as they bravely protect our communities,” said Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, Chief Mission Officer, APDA.

    The Parkinson’s Protection for Fire Fighters Act of 2025 is also cosponsored by U.S. Representatives Carbajal (CA-24) and Neguse (CO-02).

    The bill is also supported by 6 organizations including the: International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), American Parkinson Disease Assocation, Davis Phiney Foundation for Parkinson’s Power Over Parkinson’s, National Fallen Firefighters Foundation, and Power Over Parkinson’s.

    Background

    Parkinsonism (PD) is a term used to describe a group of disorders that impacts movements and motor controls. Studies show that certain consistent chemical exposures and head injuries are linked to increased risk of PD. 

    Fire fighters are routinely exposed to chemicals such as carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide through their service, both of which have well documented links to developing PD.

    Fire fighters are also at greater risk of concussions, which has been shown toincreased risk of developing PD.

    The Bill

    The Parkinson’s Protection for Fire Fighters Act of 2025 would officially establish PD as one of the “certain illnesses and diseases deemed to be proximately caused by employment in fire protection activities.”

    Adding PD to the list of diseases linked to fire fighting would make it easier for fire fighters with PD to get medical coverage, care, and benefits without each individual fire fighter having to prove their occupation caused it.

    The bill helps to ensure that current and future generations of federal fire fighters get the protection, support, and care they earned and deserve.

    The full text of the bill can be found here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Video: Kaine Speaks on Senate Floor to Slam Republican Defunding of Faith-Based Organizations

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Virginia Tim Kaine

    BROADCAST-QUALITY VIDEO IS AVAILABLE HERE.

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last night, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC), spoke on the Senate floor slamming President Trump and congressional Republicans’ rescissions package, which includes massive cuts to funding for faith-based organizations that provide important services, such as implementing foreign assistance and national security programming overseas and supporting refugee resettlement in the United States. The Republican rescissions bill, which Kaine opposes, cancels $9.4 billion in federal funding previously appropriated by a bipartisan majority in Congress for public broadcasting and national security programs.

    A transcript of Kaine’s speech is below:

    Mr. President.

    I wish I could tell you my speech will be short. I don’t think it will be long, but I will try to make it interesting. I want to tell you a story, and it’s not a story about anything that’s happened in this building. It’s a story about a very humble Catholic parish in Northside Richmond, Virginia called St. Elizabeth of Hungary.  

    It’s a very humble parish. It’s a small parish. It’s slightly over 100 years old. It’s the church where my wife and I were married more than 40 years ago, where all three of our children were baptized, where we attended Mass just this last Sunday to hear the Gospel reading, the story of the Good Samaritan.

    The church was founded more than 100 years ago in an unusual way.

    There were Italian and German immigrants in Richmond who felt looked down upon because of where they had come from and because of the accents that they spoke with and that their English wasn’t so good. And in the aftermath of World War I, people looked at German Americans and Italian Americans with some suspicion. German language was being criminalized in some of our states in the aftermath.

    And these immigrant refugee Catholics decided that they wanted a place where they could feel welcomed, loved, and safe as they worshipped in accord with the American value of freedom to worship. And so they set up this little parish in the Highland Park neighborhood of Northside Richmond, Virginia, where they could go and be together and feel safe.

    They chose an interesting name: St. Elizabeth of Hungary. St. Elizabeth of Hungary lived 1,000 years ago. She was a teenager and queen in a time of great poverty, and against the wishes of her husband and other officials, she would take bread and put the bread inside of her garments and go out and distribute it to the poor.

    And once she was caught and she was made to open her garment—and when she did open her garment, the bread had turned into roses—and that’s the miracle attributed to her. She lived only a short time and died, but she was made a saint by the Catholic Church.

    And these immigrants who started my parish chose that name because they felt like that was what was needed in the world—people who would try to serve others in need.

    100 years later, we celebrated the centennial of my church, Mr. President, a couple of years ago. And I was sitting there—I’ve now been a member of the parish for 40 years—and I was looking around, and I realized times change, and they don’t.

    Catholic Relief Services, which is one of the largest agencies in the United States that helps settle refugees who are legal immigrants—refugees are legal immigrants—about 15 years ago, settled a Congolese family into my church who had been in a refugee camp after fleeing violence in the Congo. Catholic, French, and Swahili-speaking. One Congolese family came to my church.

    And then over time, Catholic Relief Services decided, ‘well, this family likes St. Elizabeth, and they feel welcomed here.’ And other families started to come to my church. And so by now, as we were celebrating our centennial and I’m looking around the parish where I go, this small, very humble parish, it is sizably a Congolese refugee population—legal immigrants to the United States who have been settled through the Catholic Relief Service—and they’ve come to a place where they feel loved and cared for and safe and welcome.

    The color of their skin, the accent that they use, the fact that they’re unfamiliar with American culture might make them feel not so welcome in other venues, but in my church, they feel welcome.

    And it made me realize, as we celebrated that centennial, that my church looks real different in some ways than when it was founded 100 years ago, but in other ways it’s exactly the same. It’s a haven for people who are legal immigrants to the United States, but need a place where they can gather with others and feel welcome.

    Why do I tell that story? How is it connected to the rescission bill that we’re going to be voting on tomorrow?

    President Trump has sent a bill to Congress, and one of the pillars of that bill is to rescind the funding for refugee resettlement programs in the United States—run by churches.

    Seven of the ten organizations that resettle refugees in the United States are faith-based organizations. The largest two are the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops operating through Catholic Relief Services and the Evangelical organization World Vision. But it’s not just them. Church World Service, Lutheran Social Services, the Episcopal Church of the United States, World Relief. Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society—founded more than 100 years ago to try to bring Jews, at that point, from Europe to the United States and make sure that as legal immigrants, yes, they would be allowed to be here legally, but they needed someone to teach them about American culture and integrate into American life.

    The practice of American religious organizations assisting in legal immigration goes back more than a century, and President Trump’s rescissions package that is before us wipes out funding to a dramatic degree for virtually all of them.

    Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society has had to lay off hundreds of staff.

    World Relief said this, ‘President Trump said he will defend persecuted Christians, but the U.S. refugee resettlement program is one of the primary ways that the U.S. government protects Christians and others fleeing persecution.

    The Episcopal Church of the United States has had to end its long standing refugee resettlement program because of President Trump’s budget cuts.

    Lutheran Social Services has … struggled to make payroll. They’ve had to lay off so many people. They’ve reduced the services that they’re able to provide, especially to Afghan allies who were in the United States because they worked with the United States military in Afghanistan to protect our troops.

    Catholic Charities has laid off all kinds of staff.

    The families at my church, they come up to me after Mass on Sunday, and they’re so frightened about what might happen because many of them have families still in refugee camps who might want to come here as legal refugees, as legal immigrants.

    I don’t know of a president who has attacked religious organizations—Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish—that have been doing this work, in many instances for more than a century, in such an orchestrated, intentional, and calculated way as President Trump.

    Matthew: I was a stranger and you welcomed me in. I was sick and you cared for me. I was hungry and you fed me.

    This is a bedrock belief of our nation’s religious organizations. That they will follow the law—legal refugee program—but they will help the person who is accessing legal refugee programs to be able to integrate into a society so they can live with some sense of dignity and have some chance of success.

    Why cut these programs? Why look in the face of these religious organizations that, out of a motivation of conscience, for decades, even a century, have decided that they will try to smooth that path, to integrate people into American life who are here lawfully. Why cut their funding? Why force them to be laid off? Why debilitate their ability to provide services?

    It’s an attack on the religious organizations so that they cannot do the work that their faith in their Creator compels them to do.

    I’m not surprised that President Trump would propose this. The language and the rhetoric and the behavior that he has exhibited toward even legal refugees, legal immigrants to this country, lead me to not be surprised that this important funding is on the chopping block in the bill that he sent to the Senate.

    But I have to admit that I am surprised that it seems to be just moving on a path to being accepted. It was accepted in the House without much drama, including by a whole lot of people who go to churches just like me and hear sermons preached about the Good Samaritan, just like I do every Sunday.

    And we’ll have an opportunity tomorrow to grapple with it here. I intend to, at least, offer an amendment to try to strip this piece of the bill out so that the bill will not be an attack on religious organizations doing what they feel compelled by their faith to do.

    And it is my prayer that the entire rescission bill fail for the reasons my colleagues have said. A deal is a deal, and we shouldn’t backtrack on it.

    But if we can’t defeat the entire rescission bill, it is my hope that we will allow organizations like Catholic Relief Services and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and the Episcopal Church and World Vision and World Relief and Lutheran Social Services. It is my hope that we will at least allow them to practice the faith they sincerely believe and do it in a way consistent with what their practices have been for decades and in some cases, even more than a century.

    And so that’s what I’m going to be praying for tonight, that there’s a bit of a an epiphany in this body, and we realize that the work that these church-based organizations are doing isn’t bad. This work isn’t something that should be slashed and cut with these valuable faith workers laid off.

    My hope is that the Senate will realize this is good work that is really at the core of who we are as Americans. And tiny little parishes like St. Elizabeth of Hungary or synagogues or other churches all over this country who pride themselves on offering a welcoming environment for people who are here lawfully and want to make a way in America will be able to continue to do just that.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senate Unanimously Passes Peters’ Bipartisan Bill to Advance U.S. Manufacturing Policy and Competitiveness

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Michigan Gary Peters

    WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Senate unanimously passed bipartisan legislation authored by U.S. Senator Gary Peters(MI) to establish a National Manufacturing Advisory Council at the U.S. Department of Commerce. Peters’ National Manufacturing Advisory Council Act would establish the National Manufacturing Advisory Council as a key component in developing federal manufacturing policy to help strengthen U.S. leadership in global manufacturing. 

    “To support manufacturers in Michigan and throughout the United States, we need our industry partners, economic developers, lawmakers, and workers reading from the same playbook,” said Senator Peters. “A National Manufacturing Advisory Council would help bring together and amplify the voices of manufacturers, workers, and industry experts to strengthen our federal manufacturing policy. In doing so, we can proactively address rising challenges in the industry and better seize opportunities that will propel American manufacturing to new heights in the coming decades.”

    Peters’ bipartisan legislation – which he introduced with U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) – would establish a National Manufacturing Advisory Council made up of manufacturing, labor, and education leaders to advise both Congress and the Secretary of Commerce on how best to ensure the United States remains the top destination globally for investment in manufacturing. It would serve as a bridge between the manufacturing sector and federal government to improve communication and collaboration, and better support the industry and its workforce.

    The National Manufacturing Advisory Council would meet at least twice a year to advise the Secretary of Commerce on policies and programs that impact U.S. manufacturing. It would also propose solutions to challenges and problems facing manufacturers in the United States. The Advisory Council would be required to: 

    • IDENTIFY AND ASSESS the effects of technological developments, production capacity, skill availability, investment patterns, and emerging needs for United States manufacturing competitiveness.  
    • SOLICIT INPUT from the public and private sectors – including businesses and labor groups – as well as academia on emerging trends in manufacturing. 
    • PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS to the Secretary addressing global and domestic manufacturing trends threatening the U.S. manufacturing sector, including supply chain interruptions, logistical challenges, and technological changes. The Advisory Council would also advise the Secretary on ways to increase federal attention with respect to manufacturing – as well as matters relating to the U.S. manufacturing workforce such as the impact of new technology and worker training and education priorities.  
    • IDENTIFY REGULATORY ISSUES encountered by the domestic manufacturing sector and provide advice on how to mitigate issues through a favorable environment for manufacturers, workers, and consumers.  

    “This initiative, the National Manufacturing Advisory Council Act, is designed to improve the resources and support for our nation’s small and medium-size manufacturers, which are a truly vital driver of our economy. I applaud Senator Peters for his steadfast, unwavering commitment to American manufacturing,” said Ingrid Tighe, President of the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center, the Michigan representative of the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).  

    “We applaud Senator Gary Peters for introducing this bill to improve the federal government’s planning and coordination of efforts to strengthen domestic manufacturing,” said Scott Paul, President of the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM). “Recent supply chain disruptions have made clear that it is time for the United States to shore up its critical manufacturing capabilities, which will not only better prepare us for the next crisis but also create jobs and boost the economy. This increased coordination between the many programs designed to support our manufacturers and their workers is an important step towards rebuilding our industrial base. We are grateful to Senator Peters for his efforts to bolster American manufacturing.”  

    “The Association of Equipment Manufacturers applauds Senator Gary Peters and Senator Marsha Blackburn for their continued leadership on behalf of the manufacturing sector and for introducing legislation that will prioritize a national strategy focused on ensuring American manufacturing policy can rapidly respond to changes in the global marketplace,” said Kip Eideberg, American Equipment Manufacturers (AEM), Senior Vice President of Government and Industry Relations. “Our economic prosperity and national security depend on a strong manufacturing sector, and establishing a National Manufacturing Advisory Council will help unleash innovation and mobilize a comprehensive, coordinated, and competent national effort in support of the manufacturing sector and its workforce.”    

    “We commend Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) and Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) for introducing legislation to establish a National Manufacturing Advisory Council,” said Ana Meuwissen, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), The Vehicle Suppliers Association. “This council will be a forum for manufacturers and other key stakeholders to provide input to the Department of Commerce (DOC) on important long-range issues such as workforce, supply chain, technology, and defense industrial base. The NMAC legislation would also foster better coordination of federal manufacturing policy in the DOC and across the federal government. When this legislation is enacted, it will be an asset to assist in retaining U.S. competitiveness in critical manufacturing sectors like motor vehicle parts.”    

    Peters’ National Manufacturing Advisory Council for the 21st Century Act is also supported by the American Small Manufacturers Coalition (ASMC).   

    Peters has consistently prioritized strengthening domestic manufacturing and supply chains. Peters helped author and pass into law the CHIPS and Science Act to boost U.S. manufacturing of semiconductor chips, strengthen critical domestic supply chains, and create good-paying American jobs. The CHIPS and Science Act additionally increased funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, which has been a priority for Peters. In May, Peters’ bipartisan Securing Semiconductor Supply Chains Act passed the Senate, which builds upon the Chips and Science Act to strengthen federal efforts to attract investment in U.S. semiconductor manufacturers and supply chains.

    Peters additionally supported and helped pass the Inflation Reduction Act, which will strengthen domestic manufacturing, onshore our supply chains, combat the climate crisis, and create millions of American jobs.  

    In May 2024, the Senate unanimously passed Peters’ bipartisan Strengthening Support for American Manufacturing Act to bolster federal efforts supporting U.S. manufacturing and American workers. Last year, the Senate also unanimously passed Peters’ bipartisan legislation to strengthen federal efforts to expand domestic manufacturing of semiconductor chips.   

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Why drones and AI can’t quickly find missing flood victims, yet

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Robin R. Murphy, Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University

    The landscape In the aftermath of a flood makes it challenging to spot victims. AP Photo/Gerald Herbert

    For search and rescue, AI is not more accurate than humans, but it is far faster.

    Recent successes in applying computer vision and machine learning to drone imagery for rapidly determining building and road damage after hurricanes or shifting wildfire lines suggest that artificial intelligence could be valuable in searching for missing persons after a flood.

    Machine learning systems typically take less than one second to scan a high-resolution image from a drone versus one to three minutes for a person. Plus, drones often produce more imagery to view than is humanly possible in the critical first hours of a search when survivors may still be alive.

    Unfortunately, today’s AI systems are not up to the task.

    We are robotics reseachers who study the use of drones in disasters. Our experiences searching for victims of flooding and numerous other events show that current implementations of AI fall short.

    However, the technology can play a role in searching for flood victims. The key is AI-human collaboration.

    Drones have become standard equipment for first responders, but floods pose unique challenges.
    Eric Smalley, CC BY-ND

    AI’s potential

    Searching for flood victims is a type of wilderness search and rescue that presents unique challenges. The goal for machine learning scientists is to rank which images have signs of victims and indicate where in those images search-and-rescue personnel should focus. If the responder sees signs of a victim, they pass the GPS location in the image to search teams in the field to check.

    The ranking is done by a classifier, which is an algorithm that learns to identify similar instances of objects – cats, cars, trees – from training data in order to recognize those objects in new images. For example, in a search-and-rescue context, a classifier would spot instances of human activity such as garbage or backpacks to pass to wilderness search-and-rescue teams, or even identify the missing person themselves.

    A classifier is needed because of the sheer volume of imagery that drones can produce. For example, a single 20-minute flight can produce over 800 high-resolution images. If there are 10 flights – a small number – there would be over 8,000 images. If a responder spends only 10 seconds looking at each image, it would take over 22 hours of effort. Even if the task is divided among a group of “squinters,” humans tend to miss areas of images and show cognitive fatigue.

    The ideal solution is an AI system that scans the entire image, prioritizes images that have the strongest signs of victims, and highlights the area of the image for a responder to inspect. It could also decide whether the location should be flagged for special attention by search-and-rescue crews.

    Where AI falls short

    While this seems to be a perfect opportunity for computer vision and machine learning, modern systems have a high error rate. If the system is programmed to overestimate the number of candidate locations in hopes of not missing any victims, it will likely produce too many false candidates. That would mean overloading squinters or, worse, the search-and-rescue teams, which would have to navigate through debris and muck to check the candidate locations.

    Developing computer vision and machine learning systems for finding flood victims is difficult for three reasons.

    One is that while existing computer vision systems are certainly capable of identifying people visible in aerial imagery, the visual indicators of a flood victim are often very different compared with those for a lost hiker or fugitive. Flood victims are often obscured, camouflaged, entangled in debris or submerged in water. These visual challenges increase the possibility that existing classifiers will miss victims.

    Second, machine learning requires training data, but there are no datasets of aerial imagery where humans are tangled in debris, covered in mud and not in normal postures. This lack also increases the possibility of errors in classification.

    Third, many of the drone images often captured by searchers are oblique views, rather than looking straight down. This means the GPS location of a candidate area is not the same as the GPS location of the drone. It is possible to compute the GPS location if the drone’s altitude and camera angle are known, but unfortunately those attributes rarely are. The imprecise GPS location means teams have to spend extra time searching.

    How AI can help

    Fortunately, with humans and AI working together, search-and-rescue teams can successfully use existing systems to help narrow down and prioritize imagery for further inspection.

    In the case of flooding, human remains may be tangled among vegetation and debris. Therefore, a system could identify clumps of debris big enough to contain remains. A common search strategy is to identify the GPS locations of where flotsam has gathered, because victims may be part of these same deposits.

    A machine learning algorithm identified piles of debris large enough to contain bodies in an aerial image of a flood aftermath.
    Center for Robot-Assisted Search and Rescue and University of Maryland

    An AI classifier could find debris commonly associated with remains, such as artificial colors and construction debris with straight lines or 90-degree corners. Responders find these signs as they systematically walk the riverbanks and flood plains, but a classifier could help prioritize areas in the first few hours and days, when there may be survivors, and later could confirm that teams didn’t miss any areas of interest as they navigated the difficult landscape on foot.

    Robin R. Murphy receives funding from the National Science Foundation. She is affiliated with the Center for Robot-Assisted Search and Rescue.

    Thomas Manzini is affiliated with the Center for Robot Assisted Search & Rescue (CRASAR), and his work is funded by the National Science Foundation’s AI Institute for Societal Decision Making (AI-SDM).

    ref. Why drones and AI can’t quickly find missing flood victims, yet – https://theconversation.com/why-drones-and-ai-cant-quickly-find-missing-flood-victims-yet-261035

    MIL OSI

  • ICAR marks 97th Foundation Day with focus on agricultural innovation and farmer welfare

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Union Minister of Agriculture, Farmers Welfare, and Rural Development Shivraj Singh Chouhan on Wednesday celebrated the 97th Foundation Day of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) at the Bharat Ratna C. Subramaniam Auditorium, NASC Complex, Pusa, New Delhi. Addressing a gathering of scientists, farmers, and officials, he hailed ICAR’s contributions to India’s agricultural revolution under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership, describing scientists as “modern-day rishis” dedicated to farmer welfare.

    During the event, Shri Chouhan conferred the National Agricultural Science Awards to exceptional scientists, including women researchers and young innovators. He inaugurated the Viksit Krishi Exhibition, showcasing advanced agricultural technologies, released 10 new publications, and launched several Memoranda of Understanding to strengthen research collaborations. The event was attended by Union Minister of State for Agriculture Bhagirath Choudhary, Secretary of Agriculture Devesh Chaturvedi, ICAR Director General Dr. M.L. Jat, and directors of various agricultural research institutes.

    Chouhan expressed gratitude to ICAR on behalf of India’s 800 million citizens benefiting from the public distribution system and countries importing Indian agricultural products. He emphasized that the Foundation Day is a moment of pride, akin to a festival, and praised scientists for their unparalleled dedication to advancing farmer welfare.

    Highlighting India’s agricultural progress, the minister noted that foodgrain production has surged from an annual growth of 3.9 million tonnes (2000–2013) to 8.1 million tonnes (2013–2025), a 2.5 to 3-fold increase. Horticulture production has grown by 7.5 million tonnes annually over the past 11 years, while milk production has risen from 4.2 million tonnes annually (2000–2014) to 10.2 million tonnes (2014–2025). These achievements, driven by advanced technologies, have bolstered food reserves, enabling wheat exports and necessitating additional rice storage facilities.

    Despite challenges like climate change, fragmented landholdings, and pest infestations, Shri Chouhan credited ICAR’s scientific community for sustained agricultural growth. He urged scientists to prioritize natural farming, enhance pulses and oilseeds productivity, and develop compact machinery suited for marginal farmers. The minister emphasized that research must be driven by farmers’ needs rather than centralized decisions from Delhi-based institutes.

    The Viksit Krishi Sankalp Abhiyan, described as the world’s largest agricultural initiative, has identified 500 critical research topics for focused pursuit, following crop-specific consultations on soybean, cotton, sugarcane, and maize. Shri Chouhan addressed concerns over declining cotton yields due to viral attacks, including on Bt cotton, and called for collaborative efforts between ICAR and the agriculture department.

    To protect farmers from exploitation, the minister announced a forthcoming toll-free grievance helpline and strict action against the sale of substandard seeds, fertilizers, or unauthorized bio-stimulants, noting that over 30,000 bio-stimulants are currently sold unregulated. Letters have been sent to state Chief Ministers urging prompt action. Shri Chouhan also proposed affordable fertilizer outlets, modeled on Jan Aushadhi Kendras, to ensure fair pricing for farmers.

  • MIL-OSI USA: Scientists Develop High-Performance MRI Scanner in Effort to Define Microscopic Brain Structures

    Source: US Department of Health and Human Services – 2

    Wednesday, July 16, 2025

    Next-generation system noninvasively images tiny nerve structures disrupted in brain disorders.

    Closeups of the midline sagittal view for Connectome 2.0 (left) and Connectome 1.0 (right) protocols, showing diencephalic and brainstem pathways. Tractography results are shown superimposed onto the underlying fibre orientation distribution functions.

    A scientific team supported in part by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has developed a new, ultra-high-resolution brain imaging system that can reconstruct microscopic brain structures that are disrupted in neurological and neuropsychiatric brain disorders. The new system is a significant advance over conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners that cannot visualize these tiny but clinically important structures.
    The system, called the Connectome 2.0 human MRI scanner, overcomes a significant hurdle for neuroscientists: being able to bridge different brain regions and probe tiny structures necessary to define the “connectome,” the complex matrix of structural connections between nodes in the nervous system, and to do it noninvasively in living humans.
    “This research is a transformative leap in brain imaging – pushing the boundaries of what we can see and understand about the living human brain at a cellular level,” said John Ngai, Ph.D., Director of NIH’s Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies® Initiative, or The BRAIN Initiative®. “The new scanner lays essential groundwork for the BRAIN CONNECTS program’s ultimate goal of developing a wiring diagram for the human brain.”
    The scanner is innovative in two major ways: it fits snugly around the heads of living people, and it has many more channels than typical MRI systems. These advances greatly increase the signal-to-noise ratio of the system, providing much sharper images of very small biological brain structures than previously possible. These technical upgrades will enable scientists to map human brain fibers and cellular architecture down to nearly single-micron precision to study how subtle changes in cells and connections relate to cognition, behavior, and disease.
    In addition, the team showed that the scanner was safe in healthy research volunteers, revealing subtle microstructural differences (individual axon diameter or cell size) between individual brains. Before this new system, this was only feasible in postmortem or animal studies.
    “Our goal was to build an imaging platform that could truly span scales – from cells to circuits,” said senior author Susie Huang, M.D., Ph.D., of the Department of Radiology at Mass General Hospital. “It provides researchers and clinicians with a powerful new tool to study brain architecture in health and disease, in real time.”
    This work is an important step toward developing a complete wiring diagram of the brain, an achievement that requires novel approaches to map the brain at different scales: across large brain regions and circuits, as well as at the level of tiny cells and connections. It also opens the door for future advances in precision neuroscience, in which noninvasive brain stimulation may help treat brain disorders tailored to an individual’s unique brain circuitry.
    The research was funded in part by The BRAIN Initiative®. It supports the BRAIN Initiative Connectivity Across Scales (BRAIN CONNECTS) program, which aims to develop the research capacity and technical capabilities to generate wiring diagrams that can span entire brains across multiple scales. The findings were reported July 16 in Nature Biomedical Engineering.
    The Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies® Initiative and The BRAIN Initiative® are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
    The NIH BRAIN Initiative, a multidisciplinary collaboration across 10 NIH Institutes and Centers, is uniquely positioned for cross-cutting discoveries in neuroscience to revolutionize our understanding of the human brain. By accelerating the development and application of innovative neurotechnologies, The BRAIN Initiative® is enabling researchers to understand the brain at unprecedented levels of detail in both health and disease, improving how we treat, prevent, and cure brain disorders. The BRAIN Initiative involves a multidisciplinary network of federal and non-federal partners whose missions and current research portfolios complement the goals of The BRAIN Initiative. 
    About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.
    NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health®
    Reference
    Ramos-Llordén, G and Lee H-H et al. Ultra-high gradient connectomics and microstructure MRI scanner for imaging of human brain circuits across scales. Nature Biomedical Engineering. 2025. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41551-025-01457-x

    Institute/Center

    https://www.ninds.nih.gov

    Contact

    NIH Office of Communications and Public Liaison

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Vitaly Savelyev held an extended meeting on the development of the unmanned aircraft systems industry

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: Government of the Russian Federation – Government of the Russian Federation –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    An extended meeting on the development of the unmanned aircraft systems industry was held at the Government Coordination Centre under the chairmanship of Deputy Prime Minister Vitaly Savelyev. The event was attended by representatives of the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Education and Science, subjects, as well as manufacturers of unmanned aircraft systems and their operators.

    Participants presented up-to-date data on the production and use of advanced unmanned systems for various sectors of the economy, and discussed a number of opportunities that could contribute to the further development of the industry in terms of increasing production volumes and the use of UAS.

    An important issue of stimulating the use of UAS at various levels remains the development of means of their identification and further integration of unmanned aircraft systems into the airspace. The introduction of a new class of airspace – H with the use of a simplified procedure for using airspace for the performance of flights of unmanned aircraft is at the final stage of development. In addition, a unified system for identifying unmanned transport is being created based on the state information system “ERA-GLONASS”. The practical implementation of these solutions will create additional opportunities for opening the skies in the regions for the use of unmanned aircraft.

    In 2024, the production volume of civil unmanned aircraft systems increased more than 2.5 times – from 6 thousand units to 16.4 thousand units compared to 2023. In total, there are currently more than 600 UAS and component manufacturers.

    In addition, all participants of the meeting noted the importance of training personnel for UAS management, including the integration of veterans of the Air Defense Forces into civilian professions in the UAS industry. Thanks to the activities of the federal project “Personnel for Unmanned Aircraft Systems” of the national project “Unmanned Aircraft Systems”, more than 10 thousand people were trained in 2024. This year, it is planned to train 5.6 thousand people. In total, about 68 thousand people are undergoing training under the programs of the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of Education and the NTI Fund in various areas related to UAS.

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar 2025: Last date for nominations set for July 31

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    The Ministry of Women and Child Development has issued a final call for nominations for the Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar (PMRBP) 2025, a prestigious award recognizing the exceptional achievements of children aged 5 to 18 years. The application window, which opened on April 1, will close on July 31. All nominations must be submitted online through the official portal at https://awards.gov.in.

    The PMRBP celebrates young trailblazers who have demonstrated excellence in fields such as sports, social service, science and technology, environment, arts and culture, or shown extraordinary bravery in challenging circumstances. Nominations can be made by any citizen, school, institution, or organization, and children are also encouraged to apply through self-nomination.

    Applicants are required to provide basic personal details, specify the award category, and upload a recent photograph along with supporting documents. Additionally, a write-up of up to 500 words detailing the achievement and its impact must be submitted.

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Worries about the UK economy are justified, but can the government afford to gamble on raising taxes?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alan Shipman, Senior Lecturer in Economics, The Open University

    Gloomy economic figures have heaped more pressure on the British government and its promise to improve growth. And if that wasn’t enough, there have also been some stark warnings about public finances and the country’s ability to service its debts.

    All of this has led to a growing expectation that the UK chancellor Rachel Reeves will have to bring in some significant tax hikes later this year, or reduce government spending.

    But both of these options could worsen the long-term economic outlook, by further constraining GDP growth. That was precisely the fate of governments that pursued an agenda of “austerity” – cuts in spending and higher taxes – to tackle the expanded public debt after the financial crisis of 2008.

    It was a strategy that ultimately led to higher public debt. Put simply, when governments spend less, GDP tends to fall. And when GDP falls and a country is less productive, tax revenues go down too.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    To make things even more complicated for the chancellor, the UK government has also widened its debt risk by changing its fiscal rules to acknowledge extra financial responsibilities.

    This adjustment gave the government more financial assets, including student loans and public pension holdings. But it also meant taking on more liabilities, including the pension schemes it would have to bail out if necessary.

    In July 2025, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) identified several other sectors – including universities, housing associations and water companies – whose large debts could become government liabilities in the future.

    A bigger balance sheet automatically means more public financial risk. And climate change further raises these risks, the OBR says, by forcing the government to spend more on dealing with environmental damage and eroding fossil-fuel taxes, which still raise around £24 billion for the Treasury.

    The OBR is also concerned about the rising cost of pensions for an ageing population. In fact, the UK’s system is not particularly expensive, partly due to its reliance on private pensions (funded by employers and employees).

    Yet this reliance brings a different kind of government cost. For these private sector schemes have attempted to insulate themselves against the strains of an ageing population, as more employees retire than join the workforce (and as retirees live longer).

    Often this has involved shifting from “defined benefit” plans, which guarantee retirement income, to “defined contribution” plans, where payouts depend on how much members pay in and how well funds are invested.

    But that shift has also made it harder for the government to borrow the money it needs for public spending.

    Defined benefit funds, seeking a steady long-term return, used to be big buyers of UK government bonds (gilts) – the financial assets that the government sells to raise money. In contrast, defined contribution funds invest mainly in equities (company shares), which promise a higher return on investment that can grow pension pots faster.

    UK industrial policy supports this shift from gilts to other assets. It wants pension funds to invest in innovation and infrastructure as a way of stimulating its often mentioned mission of economic growth.

    The growth gamble

    Yet the move by pensions towards equities is steadily deflating demand for new government bonds. This then forces the government to pay higher interest rates to attract enough buyers, often from overseas.

    There is also pressure on the government to relax the “triple lock” on state pensions. This pledge – to raise the basic state pension by at least 2.5% every year, and maintained by all parties since 2011 – is costing around three times as much as was projected at launch, despite fewer pensioners escaping poverty since it was introduced.

    Overall, inflation and an ageing population have lifted state spending on pensions to around 5% of GDP.

    These pressures all strengthen the view that the government will need another tax-raising budget this year. How else will it pay for its plans for spending on healthcare, housing, infrastructure and defence?

    Reeves sought to assure voters that £40 billion in tax hikes in October 2024 rises were enough to plug an inherited “black hole”. But she is already struggling to preserve those projections, after a politically painful retreat from welfare changes designed to save £5 billion.

    Hopes that a faster-growing economy would narrow the deficit, by boosting tax receipts and reducing spending requirements, have not been fulfilled.

    Yet calls for significant tax increases – which could dampen growth – may still be be resisted.

    Under pressure, she may well consider a compromise like a “wealth tax” targeting the richest, that would also satisfy the Labour left. Yet the only way to really raise significant extra funds is to increase income tax, VAT or national insurance, which would be extremely risky politically.

    But all economic policy comes with risk. And she may end up sticking with her position and putting her (taxpayers’) money on the hope that today’s deficit will eventually be narrowed by faster growth. Relying on more investment to solve economic problems depends on investors trusting the economic stability of the UK, which is a gamble. But it is a gamble the government may still be willing to take.

    Alan Shipman has received funding from the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust and the Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas at Austin.

    ref. Worries about the UK economy are justified, but can the government afford to gamble on raising taxes? – https://theconversation.com/worries-about-the-uk-economy-are-justified-but-can-the-government-afford-to-gamble-on-raising-taxes-260880

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Britons are less likely than Americans to invest in stocks – but they may not have the full picture

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sam Pybis, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Manchester Metropolitan University

    ymgerman/Shutterstock

    UK chancellor Rachel Reeves would like Britons to invest more in stocks – particularly UK stocks – rather than keep their money in cash. She has even urged the UK finance industry to be less negative about investing and highlight the potential gains as well as the risks.

    Stock ownership is important for governments for a variety of reasons. Boosting capital markets can encourage business expansion, job creation and long-term economic growth. It can also give people another source of income in later life, especially as long-term investing can offer greater returns than saving.

    But in the UK, excluding workplace pensions, only 23% of people have invested in the stock market, compared to nearly two-thirds in the US. Survey results suggest that American consumers are generally more comfortable with financial risks.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    And it appears that a greater degree of risk translates into closer political engagement. During market shocks driven by US president Donald Trump’s tariff chaos, many Americans tracked headlines – and their portfolios – closely. This contrasts with the UK, where most people keep their savings in safer assets like cash savings accounts or premium bonds.

    If Britons are more risk-averse, media coverage that tends to be noisier when markets fall than when they recover may be having an impact. While concerns regarding market volatility may be valid, they can overshadow the long-term benefits of investing.

    One key opportunity that many British consumers have missed out on is the rise of low-cost, diversified exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which have made investing more accessible and affordable. An ETF allows investors to buy or sell baskets of shares on an exchange. For example, a FTSE100 ETF gives investors exposure to the UK’s top 100 companies without having to buy each one individually.

    This is exactly the kind of long-term, low-cost investing that Reeves appears to be promoting. But should savers be worried about current market volatility – much of it driven by trade tensions and tariff uncertainty? One view, of course, is that volatility is simply part of investing.

    But it could also be argued that big shifts within the space of a single month are often exaggerated. People are also likely to be put off by news headlines, which tend to exaggerate the swings in the market.

    Examining daily excess returns in the US stock market from November 2024 to April 2025, I plotted cumulative returns (which show how an investment grows over time by adding up past returns) within each month. April 2025 stands out. Despite experiencing several sharp daily losses, the market rebounded swiftly in the days that followed.

    This pattern isn’t new. Historically, markets have shown a remarkable ability to recover from short-term shocks. Yet many potential investors could be deterred by alarming headlines that, while factually accurate, often highlight single-day declines without broader context.

    The reality is that the stock market is frequently a series of short-lived storms. These are volatile, yes, but often followed by calm and recovery.

    Fear and caution

    During market downturns, it’s common for people to try to understand why this time is worse or analyse if this crash is more serious than previous ones.

    The fear these headlines generate could feed into barriers to long-term investing in the UK. And that’s one of the challenges the chancellor faces in encouraging more Britons to invest.

    For those already invested in the stock market, short-term declines are part of the journey. They are risks that can be borne with the understanding that markets tend to recover over time.

    My analysis of daily US stock market data since 1926 shows that after sharp daily drops, the market often rebounds quickly (see pie chart below). In fact, more than a quarter of recoveries occur within just a few days.

    But this resilience is rarely the focus of media coverage. It’s far more common to see headlines reporting that the market is down than to see follow-ups highlighting how quickly it bounced back.

    Research has shown that negative economic information is likely to have a greater impact on public attitudes. For example, a sharp drop in the stock market might dominate front pages, while a steady recovery over the following weeks barely gets a mention. The imbalance reinforces a sense of crisis, even when the broader picture is less bleak.

    Markets went on to recover in April 2025… but did the headlines reflect this?
    David G40/Shutterstock

    Unbalanced reporting can distort perceptions, discouraging potential investors who might otherwise benefit from long-term participation in the market. It appears that American perceptions of their finances are also affected by news coverage in a similar way.

    Over the long term, the difference between stock market returns and the generally lower returns from government bonds is known as the “equity risk premium puzzle”. Economists have long debated why this gap is so large. Some observers argue it may narrow in the future. But many others, including the chancellor, believe that investing in the stock market remains a beneficial long-term strategy.

    If more people are to benefit from long-term investing, it’s vital to tell the full story. That means not just highlighting when markets fall, but following up on how they recover afterwards.

    Sam Pybis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Britons are less likely than Americans to invest in stocks – but they may not have the full picture – https://theconversation.com/britons-are-less-likely-than-americans-to-invest-in-stocks-but-they-may-not-have-the-full-picture-259485

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: From tea towels to TV remotes: eight everyday bacterial hotspots – and how to clean them

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Manal Mohammed, Senior Lecturer, Medical Microbiology, University of Westminster

    Parkin Srihawong/Shutterstock

    From your phone to your sponge, your toothbrush to your trolley handle, invisible armies of bacteria are lurking on the everyday objects you touch the most. Most of these microbes are harmless – some even helpful – but under the right conditions, a few can make you seriously ill.

    But here’s the catch: some of the dirtiest items in your life are the ones you might least expect.

    Here are some of the hidden bacteria magnets in your daily routine, and how simple hygiene tweaks can protect you from infection.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    Shopping trolley handles

    Shopping trolleys are handled by dozens of people each day, yet they’re rarely sanitised. That makes the handles a prime spot for germs, particularly the kind that spread illness.

    One study in the US found that over 70% of shopping carts were contaminated with coliform bacteria, a group that includes strains like E. coli, often linked to faecal contamination. Another study found Klebsiella pneumoniae, Citrobacter freundii and Pseudomonas species on trolleys.

    Protect yourself: Always sanitise trolley handles before use, especially since you’ll probably be handling food, your phone or touching your face.

    Kitchen sponges

    That sponge by your sink? It could be one of the dirtiest items in your home. Sponges are porous, damp and often come into contact with food: ideal conditions for bacteria to thrive.

    After just two weeks, a sponge can harbour millions of bacteria, including coliforms linked to faecal contamination, according to the NSF Household Germ Study and research on faecal coliforms.

    Protect yourself: Disinfect your sponge weekly by microwaving it, soaking it in vinegar, or running it through the dishwasher. Replace it if it smells – even after cleaning. Use different sponges for different tasks (for example, one for dishes, another for cleaning up after raw meat).

    Chopping boards

    Chopping boards can trap bacteria in grooves left by knife cuts. Salmonella and E. coli can survive for hours on dry surfaces and pose a risk if boards aren’t cleaned properly.

    Protect yourself: Use separate boards for raw meat and vegetables. Wash thoroughly with hot, soapy water, rinse well and dry completely. Replace boards that develop deep grooves.

    Tea towels

    Reusable kitchen towels quickly become germ magnets. You use them to dry hands, wipe surfaces and clean up spills – often without washing them often enough.

    Research shows that E. coli and salmonella can live on cloth towels for hours.

    Protect yourself: Use paper towels when possible, or separate cloth towels for different jobs. Wash towels regularly in hot water with bleach or disinfectant.

    Mobile phones

    Phones go everywhere with us – including bathrooms – and we touch them constantly. Their warmth and frequent handling make them ideal for bacterial contamination.

    Research shows phones can carry harmful bacteria, including Staphylococcus aureus.

    Protect yourself: Avoid using your phone in bathrooms and wash your hands often. Clean it with a slightly damp microfibre cloth and mild soap. Avoid harsh chemicals or direct sprays.

    Toothbrushes near toilets

    Flushing a toilet releases a plume of microscopic droplets, which can land on nearby toothbrushes. A study found that toothbrushes stored in bathrooms can harbour E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus and other microbes.




    Read more:
    Toothbrushes and showerheads covered in viruses ‘unlike anything we’ve seen before’ – new study


    Protect yourself: Store your toothbrush as far from the toilet as possible. Rinse it after each use, let it air-dry upright and replace it every three months – or sooner if worn.

    Bathmats

    Cloth bathmats absorb water after every shower, creating a warm, damp environment where bacteria and fungi can thrive.

    Protect yourself: Hang your bathmat to dry after each use and wash it weekly in hot water. For a more hygienic option, consider switching to a wooden mat or a bath stone: a mat made from diatomaceous earth, which dries quickly and reduces microbial growth by eliminating lingering moisture.

    Pet towels and toys

    Pet towels and toys stay damp and come into contact with saliva, fur, urine and outdoor bacteria. According to the US national public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pet toys can harbour E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

    Protect your pet (and yourself): Wash pet towels weekly with hot water and pet-safe detergent. Let toys air dry or use a dryer. Replace worn or damaged toys regularly.

    Shared nail and beauty tools

    Nail clippers, cuticle pushers and other grooming tools can spread harmful bacteria if they’re not properly cleaned. Contaminants may include Staphylococcus aureus – including MRSA, a strain resistant to antibiotics – Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the bacteria behind green nail syndrome, and Mycobacterium fortuitum, linked to skin infections from pedicures and footbaths.

    Protect yourself: Bring your own tools to salons or ask how theirs are sterilised. Reputable salons will gladly explain their hygiene practices.

    Airport security trays

    Airport trays are handled by hundreds of people daily – and rarely cleaned. Research has found high levels of bacteria, including E. coli.

    Protect yourself: After security, wash your hands or use sanitiser, especially before eating or touching your face.

    Hotel TV remotes

    Studies show hotel remote controls can be dirtier than toilet seats. They’re touched by many hands and rarely sanitised.

    Common bacteria include E. coli, enterococcus and Staphylococcus aureus, including MRSA, according to research.

    Protect yourself: Wipe the remote with antibacterial wipes when you arrive. Some travellers even put it in a plastic bag. Always wash your hands after using shared items.

    Bacteria are everywhere, including on the items you use every day. You can’t avoid all germs, and most won’t make you sick. But with a few good habits, such as regular hand washing, cleaning and smart storage, you can help protect yourself and others.

    It’s all in your hands.

    Manal Mohammed does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. From tea towels to TV remotes: eight everyday bacterial hotspots – and how to clean them – https://theconversation.com/from-tea-towels-to-tv-remotes-eight-everyday-bacterial-hotspots-and-how-to-clean-them-260784

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Why Russia is not taking Trump’s threats seriously

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Patrick E. Shea, Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Global Governance, University of Glasgow

    The US president, Donald Trump, recently announced that Russia had 50 days to end its war in Ukraine. Otherwise it would face comprehensive secondary sanctions targeting countries that continued trading with Moscow.

    On July 15, when describing new measures that would impose 100% tariffs on any country buying Russian exports, Trump warned: “They are very biting. They are very significant. And they are going to be very bad for the countries involved.”

    Secondary sanctions do not just target Russia directly, they threaten to cut off access to US markets for any country maintaining trade relationships with Moscow. The economic consequences would affect global supply chains, targeting major economies like China and India that have become Russia’s commercial lifelines.

    Despite the dire threats, Moscow’s stock exchange increased by 2.7% immediately following Trump’s announcement. The value of the Russian rouble also strengthened. On a global scale, oil markets appear to have relaxed, suggesting traders see no imminent risks.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    This market reaction coincided with a nonplussed Moscow. While official statements noted that time was needed for Russia to “analyse what was said in Washington”, other statements suggested that the threats would have no effect. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, for example, declared on social media that “Russia didn’t care” about Trump’s threats.

    The positive market reaction and lack of panic from Russian officials tell us more than simple scepticism about Trump’s willingness to follow through.

    If investors doubted Trump’s credibility, we would expect market indifference, not enthusiasm. Instead, the reaction suggests that financial markets expected a stronger response from the US. As Artyom Nikolayev, an analyst from Invest Era, quipped: “Trump performed below market expectations.”

    A reprieve, not a threat

    Trump’s threat isn’t just non-credible – the positive market reaction in Russia suggests it is a gift for Moscow. The 50-day ultimatum is seen not as a deadline but as a reprieve, meaning nearly two months of guaranteed inaction from the US.

    This will allow Russia more time to press its military advantages in Ukraine without facing new economic pressure. Fifty days is also a long time in American politics, where other crises will almost certainly arise to distract attention from the war.

    More importantly, Trump’s threat actively undermines more serious sanctions efforts that were gaining momentum in the US Congress. A bipartisan bill has been advancing a far more severe sanctions package, proposing secondary tariffs of up to 500% and, crucially, severely limiting the president’s ability to waive them.

    By launching his own initiative, Trump seized control of the policy agenda. Once the ultimatum was issued, US Senate majority leader John Thune announced that any vote on the tougher sanctions bill would be delayed until after the 50-day period. This effectively pauses a more credible threat facing the Kremlin.

    This episode highlights a problem for US attempts to use economic statecraft in international relations. Three factors have combined to undermine the credibility of Trump’s threats.

    First, there is Trump’s own track record. Financial markets have become so accustomed to the administration announcing severe tariffs only to delay, water down or abandon them that the jibe “Taco”, short for “Trump always chickens out”, has gained traction in financial circles.

    This reputation for failing to stick to threats means that adversaries and markets alike have learned to price in a high probability of backing down.




    Read more:
    Investors are calling Trump a chicken – here’s why that matters


    Second, the administration’s credibility is weakened by a lack of domestic political accountability. Research on democratic credibility in international relations emphasises how domestic constraints – what political scientists call “audience costs” – can paradoxically strengthen a country’s international commitments.

    When leaders know they will face political punishment from voters or a legislature for backing down from a threat, their threats gain weight. Yet the general reluctance of Congress to constrain Trump undermines this logic. This signals to adversaries that threats can be made without consequence, eroding their effectiveness.

    And third, effective economic coercion requires a robust diplomatic and bureaucratic apparatus to implement and enforce it. The systematic gutting of the State Department and the freezing of United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programmes eliminate the diplomatic infrastructure necessary for sustained economic pressure.

    Effective sanctions require careful coordination with allies, which the Trump administration has undermined. In addition, effective economic coercion requires planning and credible commitment to enforcement, all of which are impossible without a professional diplomatic corps.

    Investors and foreign governments appear to be betting that this combination of presidential inconsistency, a lack of domestic accountability, and a weakened diplomatic apparatus makes any threat more political theatre than genuine economic coercion. The rally in Russian markets was a clear signal that American economic threats are becoming less feared.

    Patrick E. Shea does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Why Russia is not taking Trump’s threats seriously – https://theconversation.com/why-russia-is-not-taking-trumps-threats-seriously-261296

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: My liberal vision for a thriving economy

    Source: Liberal Democrats UK

    Read Ed’s speech in full

    Thank you very much. It’s lovely to see you all this afternoon – as I hope to make a splash… this time, on dry land!

    I don’t know if someone planned it, or if it is just a coincidence that my speech on the economy comes a day after the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech. But I’m grateful both to the Chancellor for being my warm-up act, and to the IPPR for such a timely invitation.

    Let me start by taking you back 12 months…

    Just a few weeks after taking office, the Government quietly decided to cancel plans for a brand new “exascale” supercomputer at Edinburgh University – a supercomputer that could perform a billion billion calculations every second. 50 times more powerful than any computer in the UK. The announcement didn’t attract much attention at the time. It was rather overshadowed by Labour’s incomprehensible decision to withdraw the Winter Fuel Payment from millions of struggling pensioners. But just like Winter Fuel Payments, Ministers were forced to admit they’d made a mistake, and last month they U-turned on that decision too.

    So why am I talking to you about a supercomputer? Partly because I think that computer in Edinburgh, and other projects like it, will be essential to growing our economy over the years and decades ahead. If we are going to support Britain’s amazing tech start-ups and scale-ups… If we are going to attract investment and entrepreneurs from around the world… If we are going to be the home of the next big breakthroughs in science and medicine and artificial intelligence… Then we have to show that we are absolutely committed to investing in the digital infrastructure that those companies and researchers need.

    So I am glad that Ministers U-turned, but they cost that project a year. And we all know that in the world of scientific and technological innovation – especially when it comes to artificial intelligence – a year is an awfully long time to lose. 

    But the other reason I bring up that story is that I think it encapsulates what has gone so badly wrong in government over the past year – especially when it comes to fixing the economy. Labour came into office, opened the books, and found a terrible mess left by the Conservative Party. In this case, Conservative Ministers had announced a new £800 million supercomputer in a glittering press release full of boosterish language and self-congratulation. Just one problem: the project was completely unfunded. So, faced with the challenge of finding the money to make this crucial investment, Labour chose short-term penny-pinching instead.

    Just like when it came to Winter Fuel Payments, or bus fares, or family farms, or Personal Independence Payments, or the National Insurance hike that is hurting British businesses so badly. Mistakes made by a government with no vision for our economy, no strategy for growth. Just a desire to find some cash to keep the Treasury spreadsheet happy, no matter what.

    Now let me be clear: fiscal responsibility is essential. The Conservatives showed what happens when you let borrowing spiral out of control and don’t grow the economy.

    Borrowing more than £100 billion a year, just to pay the interest on our existing debts. More than the entire education budget. Enough to fund the whole of the National Health Service for six months. At a time when government debt is 100% of national income. So managing the public finances carefully, to bring down those borrowing costs and the national debt, and to give businesses the confidence they need to invest, is critically important.

    Yet in truth, this started before the last Conservative Government – even before the 2008 financial crisis. For decades now, Britain’s long-term fiscal future has been weakened because the big budget challenges haven’t been faced up to – by governments or oppositions. And I think a key reason for this is the way we do the Budget itself.

    The Treasury, hoarding power behind those intimidating walls on Horse Guards Road. The Chancellor, emerging every six months to make a fiscal statement, with a new set of forecasts and a scorecard of policies carefully tuned to meet her fiscal rules. And then what? No real debate.

    In theory, MPs have to approve spending for each individual department every year. It’s called the “estimates” process. In practice, it’s a sham. Last month, Parliament “approved” £1.1 trillion in government spending with just three hours of debate. That’s about £6 billion every minute. So instead of real debate and scrutiny, all we get is endless speculation about what new black hole the Chancellor will face in six months’ time, and what tweaks she will make to bring the numbers back into line. 

    Having tough fiscal rules and sticking to them is critical. But the way we scrutinise the budgets prepared to meet those rules, is nothing short of lamentable. And we need nothing less than a major overhaul of the whole system.

    I think we should look at a budget process more like the one Sweden brought in when it faced its own budget crisis in the early nineties. When its debt soared to just over 70% of GDP. Now the Swedish Parliament gets to debate the Government’s budget – and can propose alternatives and amendments – before it is finalised, and gets a proper period of scrutiny and accountability in the months that follow. And now, Sweden’s debt is down to 30% of GDP.

    It matters how a country takes its decisions on the budget. It may be less exciting, but process matters. So I think we should put more power in MPs’ hands to hold the Treasury and every Department properly to account on behalf of our constituents. Supported by a new Office of the Taxpayer, based in Parliament. That alone would rock Whitehall to its core. It would make MPs roll up their sleeves, get their hands dirty and take more responsibility. The trade-offs and choices that get hidden and ignored by Britain’s opaque system, would become stark and unavoidable. And without such a major system change like this, I fear British politics will never deliver the fiscal responsibility so desperately needed.

    But let’s remember: fiscal responsibility alone is a means to an end. Not the end in itself. And certainly no substitute for an economic vision. You won’t be surprised to hear that my economic vision is a liberal one. With free trade, investment in education, support for enterprise. And rigorous competition policy to stop bigger businesses rigging the system. But if we are to build a liberal economy, we have to start with a clear-eyed analysis of where liberal economic policies have gone wrong in recent years.

    We cannot celebrate the advances in overall prosperity without recognising that, too often, that prosperity has not been properly shared. Individuals, communities – even whole regions have been left behind. Boris Johnson’s point about the need to “level up” was right, even if the execution left a lot to be desired. People from all over the world have enriched our economy and our society – but when governments lose control of immigration, as they so clearly did under the same Boris Johnson, it can impose social and financial costs too. And sometimes comfort and complacency has led liberal economists to neglect the importance of security. Food security. Personal security. National security.

    Our new liberal economics can’t afford to repeat those mistakes. It can’t be about going back to the world as it was – before Trump, before Covid, before Brexit, before the crash. What we need is Liberal Economics 2.0. Retaining all that worked so brilliantly in version one. But recognising its errors and correcting them, too. Grasping the new realities of our changing world – from AI to climate change, to demographic trends that make the fiscal outlook even more challenging. From the need to increase defence spending to the strength of new economic superpowers like China and India. 

    The era of interdependence is over. We need cooperation, but not dependence.

    But even in this new world, some old truths remain. Some are even truer than before. Like the importance of trade.

    Trade was how Victorian Liberals overturned protectionism imposed by the Tories – to usher in a period of free trade and growth. We champion free trade because it enlarges individual freedom. As one of my predecessors as Liberal leader put it – free trade “gives the freest play to individual energy and initiative and character, and the largest liberty both to producer and consumer”. And of course, free trade brings growth and lowers the cost of living.

    That is why we opposed the Conservatives’ Brexit deal – the biggest and most destructive act of protectionism in our lifetime. It’s why Liberal Democrats have pressed for a new bespoke UK-EU Customs Union. Why we are pressing Labour to go well beyond its timid “reset” with Europe and tear down Tory trade barriers as quickly as possible. To free British businesses from reels of costly red tape and bring down prices in our shops. And why Liberal Democrats are arguing for a new economic coalition of the willing, for more free trade not just with Europe, but with Commonwealth allies, and Asian allies too.

    The anti-free trade politics of Donald Trump have to be taken on. We can’t let the tariff man’s bullying approach to trade and geopolitics succeed. We know where that ends. That’s why appeasing the White House isn’t smart. Remember, Donald Trump isn’t forever. And as ordinary Americans suffer the costs of his idiocy, the tide will turn. Let the Conservatives and Nigel Farage champion Trump. We Liberal Democrats will champion Britain, and defend free trade so hard-won by those nineteenth century Liberals. 

    The party of trade. And as Liberals, we are also the party of people. Because underpinning our vision for the economy is an understanding of what the economy really is. It isn’t just a series of abstract percentages and meaningless slogans. We understand that, when you strip everything else away, an economy is its people.

    So growing the economy means getting the right people, with the right skills, in the right jobs. That starts with a new approach to education and training – which across the UK has got narrower and narrower, when the rest of the world has got broader.

    But my local university, Kingston, is reversing that trend with its Future Skills programme. Every undergraduate – whatever they are studying – now also studies everything from creative problem solving to digital competency and artificial intelligence, from empathy to resilience, from adaptability to being enterprising. Skills they need. And skills businesses say they want. That’s the kind of education I want for all our young people. And anyone else who wants it later in life.

    And because the economy is about people, I believe that means that to get growth, to boost productivity, we need to focus far more on incentives. We need to build an incentive economy. An economy that gets the incentives right – to motivate people, to encourage people, to reward people who do their bit and play by the rules. And to stop people who break the rules.

    In Government, Liberal Democrats focused on getting the incentives right. Introducing the pupil premium. An incentive for schools to take more of the most disadvantaged children – and focus on them. Raising the personal income tax allowance by four thousand pounds. Taking the lowest paid out of income tax. Incentivising work for everyone, but especially the less well-off. So the Liberal Democrat record shows we’ve long been the party of incentives – and so many of our big ideas today are about how we encourage people to do the right thing.

    When it comes to backing Britain’s small and growing businesses, for example. The start-ups and scale-ups. The entrepreneurs and the self-employed. They are the engines of our economy, the beating heart of local communities, but they’ve been so let down in recent years. Just remember how the Conservative Government shamefully excluded over a million self-employed people from financial support during Covid. Leaving only us – the Liberal Democrats – to stand up for them in Parliament.

    Because we prioritise growth, we have long championed the self-employed and the small business owners. For them too, it’s about government getting the incentives right. That’s why we’d abolish the unfair system of business rates and replace it with a better Commercial Landowner Levy – to increase the incentive to invest and grow. It’s why we’re opposing Labour’s misguided job tax and its unfair tax raid on family farms and other family businesses.

    It’s why I’ve proposed the idea of “Employment in a Box”, to force every Government department – especially HMRC – to come together to make the UK the easiest place in the world for a business to take on its first employees. Because we need to stop holding back small firms that want to grow, and free them – encourage them – to do so. 

    And getting the incentives right also means getting rid of the wrong incentives. So a ban on bonuses for water company CEOs who keep polluting our rivers and seas – and fines if they don’t stop – fit my vision of an incentive economy. We’ve got to stop rewarding failure.

    And, of course, we need to think totally afresh about how we incentivise more people into work. With our focus on care and carers, Liberal Democrats have argued for a special higher minimum wage for care workers – £2 an hour higher than the national minimum wage – to incentivise more people into the care sector. And for family carers – where millions have given up work to look after their loved ones, and millions more have had to reduce their hours – we have argued for an overhaul of the crazy Carer’s Allowance system. So it properly supports carers and enables them to juggle work and care – instead of penalising them for taking on more hours. Getting the incentives right.

    And that inevitably takes us to the unsustainable welfare bill – and the Government’s shambolic attempt to reform welfare. Cutting Personal Independence Payments from disabled people and their carers was indefensible and it’s right those plans were dropped. But what got lost in the Government’s desperation to make the sums add up was an important truth: we need to get more people who aren’t working into work. It’s better for their dignity. It’s better for their families. And it’s better for the economy. The problem is, the Government’s proposed solution would have made the problem worse. Taking away the very support that enables many disabled people to work at all.

    What we need to do – and what our party will always champion – is to put in place the flexibility, security and support people need in order to work. Working from home, if that’s what their condition requires. Part-time, if that’s all they can manage. Helping employers to make whatever reasonable adjustments their workers need. Again, it comes back to Liberal values. Seeing people as individuals, and treating them fairly.

    It’s what makes me so angry about the assessment process. The impenetrable forms that show no comprehension of what life is like for disabled people or their carers. The dehumanising nature of it all. Trying to turn everyone into a box to be ticked or crossed. Not an individual to be engaged with and understood. Let me give you an example. Before the pandemic, 83% of PIP assessments were done face-to-face. There were often problems with such face-to-face assessments, no doubt about it. But at least they happened. Then during lockdown, they understandably switched to being done on the phone or by video. But when the pandemic ended, Conservative Ministers chose to make that switch to phone assessments permanent. So, last year, just 5% of PIP assessments were face-to-face. I think that was a massive mistake. That Conservative policy opened the door to error, abuse and fraud. And I strongly suspect it’s one of the main reasons the welfare bill has ballooned – and why public trust in the system has been undermined. We must go back to face-to-face assessments as soon as possible – so those who need support get it, and those who don’t, don’t.

    And of course we need to invest in people’s health. Physical and mental health. To get the welfare bill down, and more people back into work. How can we rebuild the economy, when more than six million people are stuck on NHS waiting lists?  How can we grow the economy when 2.8 million people are shut out of the labour market by long-term illness? When people are waiting weeks for a GP appointment? A healthy economy needs a healthy population, and a healthy NHS. So Liberal Democrat campaigns on GPs and dentists and hospitals and social care are about giving people the healthcare they deserve, but they are also core to our economic vision too.

    And while we’re thinking about people, let me turn to the cost-of-living crisis people are facing right now, and the number one thing driving it: energy bills. With inflation rising to 3.6% last month, this needs tackling urgently. Families and pensioners are being clobbered with energy bills that are still more than £50 a month higher than they were five years ago. So many people, who were already struggling to make ends meet, having to find an extra £50 a month – just to keep the lights on, or keep their homes warm this winter.

    And businesses are suffering too. Even with the welcome extra help promised in the new Industrial Strategy, parts of British industry will continue to face some of the highest electricity prices in the OECD.

    We have to get those prices down – to boost living standards and grow our economy.

    A big part of that are the things Liberal Democrats have consistently championed… Generating far more electricity from cheap, clean, renewable sources: solar, wind, tidal, hydro-electric. Insulating people’s homes and making them more energy efficient, so they are much cheaper to heat. Things the Liberal Democrats had a great track record on in government. Things the Conservatives put into reverse after 2015. And – when it comes to home insulation especially – something I’m afraid this Labour Government simply hasn’t made enough of a priority so far.

    But there’s another part of this problem that we haven’t spoken enough about, that I want to address today. And that’s the narrative – seized upon by Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch – that says the reason energy bills are so high is that we’re investing too much in renewable power. And if we just stopped that investment – and relied more on oil and gas instead – bills would magically come down for everyone.

    The experience of record high gas prices in recent years shows that’s not true. And even when gas prices are softer, the long history of volatility in fossil fuel prices means it’s only a matter of time before high prices return. So we know that tying ourselves ever more to fossil fuels would only benefit foreign dictators like Vladimir Putin – which is probably why Farage is so keen on it.

    But I think we also have to be honest and admit that we have done a really bad job winning that argument. Those of us who understand how important renewable energy is for our economy – how only renewable energy can deliver permanently low and secure energy prices, today and in the future – have too readily dismissed the rantings of Farage. But refusing to engage hasn’t stopped his myths from spreading. From gaining traction in the new world of fake news.

    So we must change that. Starting with the kernel of truth that underpins the myth. People are currently paying too much for renewable energy. But not for the reasons Nigel Farage would have you believe.

    Because generating electricity from solar or wind is now significantly cheaper than gas – even when you factor in extra system costs for back-up power when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. But people aren’t seeing the benefit of cheap renewable power, because wholesale electricity prices are still tied to the price of gas – Even though half of all our electricity now comes from renewables, compared to just 30% from gas. That’s because the wholesale price is set by the most expensive fuel in the mix – and in the UK, that’s almost always gas. 97% of the time in 2021, the cost of electricity was set by the price of gas.

    And what does that mean for families, pensioners and businesses? It means we’re all paying that higher gas price in our bills, even though most of the energy we’re using comes from much cheaper sources. Not only is that manifestly unfair, but it is also undermining public support for the investment we need in renewable power. When people don’t see the benefits of cheap, clean energy in their bills, we shouldn’t be surprised if they’re sceptical about building more of it.

    So we have got to break the link between gas prices and electricity costs. We have to. It’s something both the Conservative Government and now Labour have spoken about. But when it came to it, both of them put it in the “too difficult” drawer, and just left the problem to fester. So, as with social care, as with sewage, it falls to us – the Liberal Democrats – to say: it might be difficult, but we have to do it. We can’t afford not to. Not when the price is Nigel Farage.

    Now this happens to be a problem we’ve grappled with before – that I grappled with before – back when we were in government. It was part of the thinking behind the incentive mechanism we created for new renewable projects: Contracts for Difference. These contracts give energy companies the certainty they need to invest in renewables. If the wholesale price drops below the agreed strike price, the government pays them the difference.

    But crucially, they give consumers a fair deal too. If the wholesale price goes above the strike price – like they did when gas prices soared when Russia invaded Ukraine – energy companies pay back the difference, taking money off household energy bills. If all renewables were on Contracts for Difference, the electricity market would be a lot fairer and people would see the benefits of cheap renewables in their bills when gas prices are high.

    The problem is, only about 15% of renewable power is generated under Contracts for Difference. The rest is still governed by the old Renewables Obligation Certificates scheme – or ROCs – introduced by the last Labour Government all the way back in 2002 – when ministers didn’t have the foresight to realise that renewable power would get so much cheaper over the next two decades. Unlike Contracts for Difference, companies with ROCs get paid the wholesale price – in other words, the price of gas – with a subsidy on top. Subsidies paid through levies on our energy bills – costing a typical household around £90 a year. It shouldn’t be this way, and it doesn’t have to be any longer. The Government should start today a rapid process of moving all those old ROC renewable projects onto new Contracts for Difference.

    It’s an idea from academics at the UK Energy Research Centre that they call “pot zero”. And in 2022 they estimated that it could save around £15 billion a year – not only encouraging the end of those Renewable Obligation Certificate levies, but in the process cutting the typical household energy bill by more than £200. So my challenge to ministers is this. If you want to bring people’s energy bills down, if you want to tackle the cost of living, if you want to build support for renewable power – stop tinkering, stop dithering, stop deliberating. Start phasing out those unfair Renewable Obligation Certificate schemes today, by offering instead new Contracts for Difference we Liberal Democrats brought in. The incentive scheme is there. We created it. Please – use it. One simple trick to save everyone at least £200 a year.

    And there are so many ways we could do more to cut electricity bills for people and businesses. One example: why aren’t we pushing much harder for more interconnectors, cables that allow us to import electricity from Europe when it’s more expensive here, and export electrons when it’s more expensive there? Of course, Brexit was bad news for this trade – for both existing interconnectors and worse news for new projects. But one potentially big benefit for the UK rejoining the EU’s internal energy market is greater cross-border trade in power, and so lower electricity bills for consumers.

    After nearly a decade of criminally negligent energy policies under the Conservatives, that pushed up everyone’s bills, I believe the right policies now could cut energy bills in half – at least – within ten years. That should be the goal. Nothing less.

    A Liberal Democrat energy policy in service of the British people. Not a Nigel Farage energy policy in service of Vladimir Putin. So just imagine what our economy could look like, in the next decade or so.

    Energy bills slashed – easing the pressures on families and businesses. People helped into work, instead of trapped on NHS waiting lists or discarded as “inactive”. Education and training to equip people with the skills for the future.

    British start-ups and scale-ups thriving with the support they need. Entrepreneurs and the self-employed recognised for the risks they take. Trade boosted, especially with our neighbours in Europe.

    The public finances, carefully managed and properly scrutinised in Parliament. And a supercomputer or two, hopefully not putting think tanks out of business!

    An economy growing strongly, where everyone feels the benefits. An economy underpinned by our proud Liberal Democrat values. Proud British values. An economy that is truly innovative, dynamic, prosperous and fair.

    That is our vision – and I can’t wait to make it happen.

    Thank you.
     

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Seclusion rooms don’t make schools safe, and Ontario needs a policy

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Hunter Knight, Assistant Professor of Childhood and Youth Studies, Western University

    A recent report entitled Crisis in the Classroom: Exclusion, Seclusion and Restraint of Students with Disabilities in Ontario Schools shares accounts of the frightening use of seclusion rooms in schools. It makes recommendations towards improving inclusion, belonging and educational achievement for disabled students.

    The report is from Community Living Ontario, a non-profit organization that advocates for people who have an intellectual disability. It analyzes the results from a survey of 541 caregivers of students with disabilities about their experiences in Ontario schools.

    Seclusion rooms are spaces where students can be kept in isolation and are not permitted to leave. Respondents to the Crisis in the Classroom report detailed incidents such as a student being secluded in a padded room, and a student being isolated in a small, closet-sized room.




    Read more:
    How school systems can honour the human rights of people with disabilities


    While some school boards have developed guidance independently, there is currently no provincial policy on the use of seclusion rooms in Ontario. The Crisis in the Classroom report calls for clear and enforceable provincial regulations and policy around seclusion and restraint.

    As an assistant professor of childhood and youth studies whose work examines constructions of the “problem child” and everyday injustices against disabled and racialized children, I believe it is critical for Ontario residents and policymakers to take stock of the negative effects of seclusion rooms and commit to alternatives.

    I am unaffiliated with this report, but earlier in my career, I worked as as a one-on-one educational aide for students who attended a special education school that used seclusion.

    Defining seclusion rooms

    As education researchers Nadine Alice Bartlett and Taylor Floyd Ellis show, there is inconsistent terminology used to describe seclusion in schools, meaning that “the conditions under which such practices may be used in some instances are subjective,” and this “may contribute to a broad interpretation of what is deemed acceptable … in schools.”

    As opposed to sensory rooms, which students can usually leave at will and are often designed with sensory tools available for self-regulation (like weighted toys), seclusion rooms serve to isolate or contain students.

    Across North America, there are reports of seclusion rooms being built into schools or constructed in classroom corners.

    In the Crisis in the Classroom report, 155 survey respondents said seclusion was used on their child in the 2022-23 school year, where seclusion means having a locked/blocked door (83 respondents) or being physically prevented from leaving (25 respondents).

    Regular, sustained seclusion

    Crisis in the Classroom notes that almost half of the students who had experienced seclusion were secluded on a regular basis, and more than 10 per cent were secluded for longer than three hours.

    Research shows that seclusion is often discriminatory along lines of race, class and ability. Reflecting these patterns identified in larger research, the report flags that students had a higher risk for being secluded if they came from households with lower parental education and income levels, and if they were labelled with a behavioural identification or a mild intellectual disability.

    More than half of the caregivers surveyed had never given permission for their children to be secluded, and the report includes quotes from caregivers who were never told it was happening.

    Response to perceived source of school violence

    Seclusion rooms are commonly justified as necessary tools to keep teachers and (other) students safe.

    This justification ignores the evidenced success of schools that have reduced seclusion or eliminated it entirely through adequate staff support and trauma-informed training that draws from research-proven de-escalation strategies.

    I argue that turning to these alternatives, as the report recommends, is of dire importance. Investigations elsewhere repeatedly find that seclusion rooms are most frequently used for discipline or punishment — not for safety.

    With adequate staffing and trauma-informed training, some schools have reduced or eliminated seclusion.
    (CDC/Unsplash)

    Outside Ontario, where policy requires tracking the reasons why children are sent into seclusion, seclusion has followed incidents like spilling milk or asking for more food at lunch.

    Seclusion rooms act primarily as a disciplinary tool that targets the most vulnerable students in our schools.

    Ineffective, dangerous tools

    Seclusion is an ineffective educational and therapeutic practice and highly dangerous: research shows that seclusion rooms increase injury and violence in schools.

    This appears in the physical harm (for students and staff) that can occur in the physical restraints often required to force a student into a seclusion room. It also appears in the trauma that can ensue from seclusion (for students and staff) that increases the likelihood of future physical confrontations.

    Placing students, often in high distress, into a locked space where they cannot be closely supervised can and has resulted in their deaths.

    Seclusion without regulation

    As the Crisis in the Classroom report and repeated exposés illustrate, a lack of policy does not mean seclusion isn’t happening in Ontario. It means seclusion is happening without provincial policy to regulate things like:

    • Which students can or cannot be secluded, for how long and how often;
    • What rooms for seclusion must look like and essential safety features;
    • What data staff must collect about why seclusion rooms are used;
    • When caregivers must be notified.

    Without these guidelines, sometimes no one knows that seclusion is happening — much less in what spaces, for which students and why — beyond the students and school staff who may be traumatized by this practice.

    Reports of violence in schools

    Crisis in the Classroom notes that teachers’ unions have reported there’s been an increase in violence by students against teachers, often presented in a way that suggests that disabled students are a primary source of this violence. The report acknowledges that the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario has said that students with special education needs have been “chronically under-served by the government.”

    News media coverage, the report suggests, “often takes the side of educational staff, and has an unfortunate habit of conflating disability with aggressive behaviour.”

    Unfortunately, the faulty perspective that disabled students are a source of school violence depends on an ableist logic that has worked historically to subject disabled people to over-incarceration. It effaces the fact that disabled children are actually more likely to be subjected to violence than their peers.




    Read more:
    Achieving full inclusion in schools: Lessons from New Brunswick


    The report points to the dire need to eliminate seclusion and turn towards possibilities that do not increase violence in schools and target disabled students.

    The report’s recommendations echo calls from teachers’ unions for appropriate, adequate staffing in schools and increased professional development, especially trauma-informed training, that would support teachers’ work delivering supportive and inclusive education that keeps everyone safe.

    And these recommendations make an urgent call for strong and clear policy on seclusion and restraint in Ontario that would severely limit it or eliminate it entirely — and at least track when it’s occurring.

    Safer and more humane schools

    This devastating report illustrates that we need policy on seclusion in Ontario now to protect everyone in our schools.

    I know first-hand that teaching, especially for educators working with students with disabilities, is underpaid and underappreciated work.

    More humane practices will keep schools safer for everyone, including teachers and all students, especially students who are still being subjected to seclusion today.

    Hunter Knight receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

    ref. Seclusion rooms don’t make schools safe, and Ontario needs a policy – https://theconversation.com/seclusion-rooms-dont-make-schools-safe-and-ontario-needs-a-policy-259010

    MIL OSI Analysis