NewzIntel.com

Category: Science

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: UK approach to freedom of religion or belief: Lord Collins’ speech, July 2025

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments 3

    Speech

    UK approach to freedom of religion or belief: Lord Collins’ speech, July 2025

    Minister responsible for human rights, Lord Collins of Highbury, gave a speech at an event outlining the UK’s approach to freedom of religion or belief.

    Welcome everyone. It’s great to see you all this morning.

    It was here in this magnificent room last year that the Foreign Secretary and I set out the United Kingdom’s approach to human rights and governance.  

    A few days later, the Prime Minister appointed David Smith MP as the UK’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief – or FoRB.

    Thank you to David for the energy and commitment he has brought to the role over the last 7 months.

    Before I hand over to him to outline our approach to freedom of religion or belief, I want to reflect on why it matters so deeply to the UK and how we’re making a difference.

    Many of you will know that this is a cause I have championed for a long time. As the Foreign Secretary has said, the rights and freedoms of individuals must be front and centre of all our work.

    We promote human rights, including FoRB, not just because it is in our national interest but also because it is the right thing to do. Human rights, the rule of law and good governance are not just ideals we aspire to. They are the foundations that drive this government’s missions.  

    The evidence is clear. Countries that uphold rights and the rule of law tend to be more stable, more prosperous and more resilient. That’s why I wrote to all Heads of Mission last month, underlining the importance of embedding our human rights priorities into every aspect of our work.

    Doing so supports our partners, strengthens our alliances, and helps us tackle shared challenges, whether that’s conflict, climate, growth or migration. And I encouraged our diplomats to draw on the expertise of our dedicated Special Envoys, including David.

    As you know, the right to freedom of religion or belief sits at the heart of our human rights approach and is central to the UK’s foreign policy. Because championing FoRB is about championing equal rights for all.  

    We know that where this freedom is under threat, other rights are often at risk too. And we know that violations disproportionately affect women and minorities.

    So this is about standing up for people who face discrimination, harassment, or even violence, simply for what they do, or do not, believe. 

    Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

    But these rights still remain out of reach for too many people. From Uyghurs in China, to Church members in Nicaragua, to religious and ethnic minorities caught up in Sudan’s civil war, and Ukrainians under siege by Russia, persecution and repression are a daily reality.

    We know this work is complex. There is no one size fits all. In that context, we must prioritise approaches that deliver results on the ground. Sometimes that requires speaking out publicly. Sometimes it means engaging privately. We have and will continue to do both.

    We are not afraid to raise issues and we do so regularly. But we also know that real progress comes through partnership. That’s why we work with others across governments, civil society, and multilateral institutions, to find common ground and deliver change.  

    Earlier this year, I was relieved to hear of the release of Mubarak Bala, a Nigerian atheist and president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria. He had been imprisoned for sharing posts on Facebook which allegedly insulted the prophet Muhammad. His release was the result of a long running campaign by Humanists International, which the UK was pleased to support, along with many of you here today.  

    Similarly, I know many of you were actively seeking the release of Pastor Lorenzo Rosales Fajardo in Cuba, jailed for peaceful protest. Our Foreign Secretary wrote an open letter to him in December to express solidarity and publicly call on the Cuban authorities to release him. And we were delighted to hear of his release in January.  

    These are powerful reminders that our collective efforts can have real impact. And we must also learn from the past to meet the challenges of the present. That’s why the UK was proud to hold the presidency of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance over the last year.

    We used our initiative to lead international efforts to promote Holocaust remembrance, tackle distortion, strengthen the fight against antisemitism, and ensure that future generations remember the lessons of the past. This is exactly the kind of collaboration essential for making FoRB a reality for all.

    So let me end by reaffirming this government’s commitment. We will use the strength of our global network to protect and promote freedom of religion or belief. We will work with all of you, across sectors and borders, to turn principles into progress.

    Because only by working together can we build a world where everyone, everywhere, can live with dignity, free to believe – or not believe – without fear.

    Thank you.

    Updates to this page

    Published 8 July 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: UK approach to freedom of religion or belief: UK Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief speech, July 2025

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Speech

    UK approach to freedom of religion or belief: UK Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief speech, July 2025

    The UK Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, David Smith MP, gave a speech outlining the UK’s approach to freedom of religion or belief at a recent event held at the FCDO

    Welcome

    Thank you, Lord Collins.

    My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen, Your Excellencies, fellow Parliamentarians, Foreign Office colleagues, and representatives of civil society, welcome to the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, and the heart of the UK’s relationship with the rest of the world.

    As Lord Collins has said, collaboration and partnerships are critical to making Freedom of Religion or Belief for all a reality.  So, what does that look like?  Today I am pleased to be here to set out the UK’s approach to achieving this goal.

    I would like to suggest that our place on the international stage must continue to revolve around our values as a country, values which we aim to humbly share with the rest of the world.

    It’s easy to talk about principles like ‘freedom’, ‘human rights’, ‘respect’, ‘tolerance’ or ‘justice’ – and far harder to live up to their meaning in our actions.

    And yet the history of this country is one in which we have worked hard to create a plural society based on these values. We don’t always get it right, but I am proud that in the UK today you are free to practice your religion or belief, without fear of persecution.

    I am also proud of the UK’s history of championing these values within the international rules-based order, not least as an original supporter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966.

    The foundation for the right to Freedom of Religion or Belief for all is clearly set out in Article 18 of both documents.

    And our shared commitment to upholding the rights enshrined in these documents is a phenomenal strength.  When we look around the world today and see growing evidence of persecution based on religion or belief, we know we must act.

    The challenge

    Most of you in this room are well aware of the challenge we face. But some facts bear repeating.

    You will know that, according to the Pew Research Centre, the number of countries with “high” or “very high” levels of government restrictions on FoRB, is at its highest level since 2007. At the community level, social hostilities involving religion (including violence and harassment by private individuals, organisations, or groups) are also on the rise, further reducing respect for human rights in general and FoRB in particular.

    You will know that, according to the charity Open Doors, 380 million Christians alone are persecuted worldwide because of their faith.

    Persecution on the basis of religion or belief, enacted by States themselves and social groups, is taking place on every continent in the world.

    It includes social ostracism, police harassment, arbitrary detention, denial of citizenship, assault, destruction of sites of religious worship, torture, and killings.

    In Pakistan, Ahmadiyya Muslims are not recognised as Muslims by the State, and their mosques have repeatedly been desecrated by extremist groups.

    In Iran, the Baha’i are acutely vulnerable to scapegoating, incitement and threats of violence from authorities.

    In North Korea, those seeking to exercise their right to freedom of religion or belief face surveillance and arbitrary detention, with Christians and others treated as political criminals if their faith is discovered.

    Lord Collins has mentioned Mubarak Bala. Humanists International’s Freedom of Thought Report underlines the risks humanists and atheists face globally.

    As their latest edition states, “blasphemy” laws exist in 89 countries across the globe.  7 countries have the death penalty for blasphemy, and a further 63 countries have prison sentences for related “offences”.

    So what is to be done?

    These are not niche issues. FoRB is central to the problems of the world today and to our efforts to build a better world at peace with itself.

    Horrific acts such as the murder of worshippers in a church in Damacus last month are not only attacks on people for what they believe in, but also attempts to destabilise societies and spread division.

    FoRB demonstrates the core principle that human rights are interdependent and mutually reinforcing.

    If you have no freedom to worship, you have no freedom of assembly.

    If you have no freedom of belief, you have no freedom of conscience.

    If you have no freedom to share your faith, you have no freedom of speech.

    If you have no freedom to practice your faith or belief you are not equal in dignity and rights.

    And so, today, the UK makes a new commitment to the centrality of FoRB in our foreign policy.

    Countries that respect FoRB and in which all constituent communities can flourish are more stable, more secure and more prosperous.

    And respect for FoRB internationally is good for the UK domestically. Shared values of FoRB with other countries promotes secure, stable and prosperous partners that can contribute to UK security, growth, development, and management of migration.

    I was honoured to take on the role of UK Special Envoy for FoRB in December last year. Since then, I have met with a wide range of experts, activists and international partners; as well as UK officials and the FCDO ministerial team to listen and build my understanding of the opportunities we have to make a difference.

    This engagement, and close collaboration with Lord Collins has resulted in the framework I will set out today. As Lord Collins has underlined, our approach to FoRB is situated clearly within the FCDO’s wider human rights approach.

    Our overarching goal is a reduction in the number of countries in which the right to FoRB is significantly curtailed, and to promote internationally the right to FoRB as fundamental to human flourishing.

    There are 5 core strands to our work

    As I have said, the international standards for FoRB and the system that supports them are central to defending the rights of individuals. That is why the first strand of our approach is to uphold and maintain support for this framework within multilateral fora.

    This means working through, and with, institutions such as the UN and OSCE to promote FoRB for all. I have been to the Human Rights Council twice, including last week where I spoke alongside the UN Special Rapporteur for FoRB about FoRB in Tibet. And I am delighted to have Eleanor Sanders, the UK Human Rights Ambassador, here with us today. 

    We will continue to work with international partners to take country-specific action where appropriate, for example through the UN’s Universal Periodic Review Process in which the UK regularly raises FoRB, and on promoting and protecting FoRB in multilateral resolutions.  

    Secondly, we will work to achieve better outcomes on FoRB through targeted bilateral relationships. FoRB matters everywhere and we will deploy our extensive diplomatic presence around the world to encourage partners towards behaviour, legislation and policies that enable individuals to exercise their right to FoRB, and encourage more inclusive and tolerant societies.

    As I’m sure Eleanor agrees, even Special Envoys can’t be everywhere, all the time. So, working with the teams here, I will be focussing on countries where the need is greatest; where opportunities exist to make positive change; and where the UK, specifically, has the relationships and partnerships to help achieve this.

    Our approach here is about partnership and shared learning. This is demonstrated with a broad range of countries including Vietnam, where there are concerns, but also an opportunity to work together on Vietnam’s constructive response to their Universal Periodic Review recommendations. We stand ready to support them, and other partners such as Algeria, another focus country, in realising our objectives on FoRB.

    The UK is privileged to have diverse diaspora communities including from India, Nigeria and Pakistan where we have much to share on FoRB and I look forward to strengthening my relationships on FoRB in these countries too.

    Our approach to FoRB is inextricably interwoven with our wider human rights efforts. For example in China, we raise our concerns at the highest levels. I will support these efforts, encouraging China to meet its international obligations on FoRB.

    And as I have said, respect for FoRB is vital to peaceful, strong societies. Religious intolerance and persecution can fuel instability and conflict. So it is right that our approach works to support those countries navigating the impact of conflict – past and present – to protect FoRB for all. This is why we will also focus on Syria,  Ukraine,  Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Our focus in seeking to journey with these 10 countries is an important stepping stone towards our overarching goal of a reduction in the number of countries in which the right to FoRB is significantly curtailed.

    However, it is important to say that a more targeted approach does not limit us. Situations such as that in Eritrea and in Yemen are also on my mind, and I will be championing FoRB for all wherever and whenever I can. As Lord Collins has said, we will continue to do so, including through public and private advocacy for prisoners of conscience.

    We know that we cannot deliver change alone. This is why the third strand of our approach is to strengthen international coalitions for collective action. The UK is proud to be a member of the Article 18 Alliance and the International Contact Group on FoRB and it’s great to see many of our fellow members represented here today. The UK is committed to working with you to continue increasing the impact of these important groupings.

    Where FoRB is under attack, other rights are threatened too and vice versa. The fourth strand of our approach is, therefore, ensuring that FoRB considerations are mainstreamed throughout the FCDO’s work and the need for a holistic human rights approach understood. This means bolstering our efforts to increase awareness and understanding of FoRB within the organisation – today’s event, open to all staff, being a case in point.

    As well as ensuring that tools, training and research are available to staff, I will report annually on our work, including at the highest levels of government. By the end of tomorrow, I will have met with every FCDO Minister to discuss how we can collaborate to promote FoRB in their respective areas of responsibility.

    Finally, and I must confess a slight bias given my life before politics, perhaps most importantly, the fifth strand of our approach is stronger and wider engagement with civil society and human rights champions.

    From sharing information to fostering understanding and respect between different religion or belief communities on the ground, your engagement is central to the protection and promotion of FoRB.

    And I know that this can come at personal cost. I want to take this opportunity to underline that the UK stands with you in your work to defend FoRB for all.

    In closing I would like to refer to the Hebrew scriptures – what Christians call the Old Testament – which contain a book of wisdom called Proverbs.

    In Proverbs 31, we find an injunction which is a challenge to us all – wherever we call home, and whatever we believe – when it comes to championing Freedom of Religion or Belief for all, one which I will leave us with today:

    Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and  judge fairly: defend the rights of the poor and needy.

    Thank you.

    Updates to this page

    Published 8 July 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: SPbU Enters Top 5 Russian Universities According to Forbes Education | Saint Petersburg State University

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: Saint Petersburg State University –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    In 2025, the ranking included 564 universities with Russian accreditation, entitled to issue state diplomas. Universities were assessed based on five key indicators: quality of networking, global reputation, authority among employers, development of the academic environment, and the Forbes factor. The calculations used data from monitoring the activities of higher education institutions by the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia in 2024 and the results of a survey of Russian companies with the highest ESG indicators.

    The full Forbes rating “Best Russian Universities – 2025” is available here Here.

    With a score of 61.49 points, Saint Petersburg State University took fifth place in the ranking, ahead of such universities as the National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, the National Research University ITMO, the Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation and others.

    The authors awarded St Petersburg University 19.85 points in the Networking category, while employers rated the level of trust in the quality of specialist training at 20.77 points. The University scored another 8.63 points in the International Recognition metric due to its regular inclusion in global and subject rankings. According to the authors of the rating, the quality of the academic environment formed at St Petersburg University deserves 8.24 points out of 10 possible. In the Forbes Factor category, which takes into account the number of university graduates on the list of Russian billionaires in 2025, St Petersburg University scored 4 out of 5 points.

    The top lines of the ranking are occupied by universities with the largest endowments, which include the endowment management fund “Development of St. Petersburg State University”. In 2024, the value of its net assets increased to 1.6 billion rubles. Thanks to contributions from donors, the fund supports students and postgraduates who have achieved particular success in their academic and research activities. Endowment fund scholarships are paid to university athletes, and large grants are provided to teams that win the annual competition of interdisciplinary innovative projects “Start-up St. Petersburg State University”. Funding is allocated for events in the fields of culture, science and education. A full list of programs is presented on the website of the St. Petersburg State University Endowment Fund.

    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 Analysis: Nearly two-thirds of voters think Starmer doesn’t respect them – new poll

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marc Stears, Director of UCL Policy Lab and Professor of Political Science, UCL

    Simon Dawson/Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

    Exhausted from a long campaign but buoyed by an extraordinary victory, Keir Starmer stood on the steps of Downing Street just over one year ago to deliver his victory speech. “Your government,” the new prime minister said, “should treat every single person in this country with respect.”

    This message of respect resonated strongly in the year leading up to the campaign, coming as close as anything to providing a central argument to Labour’s case for government. And, according to polling and focus groups that my team at UCL Policy Lab designed along with polling company More in Common, it seemed to work.

    As our research at the time showed, voters felt that “respecting ordinary people” was the most important attribute that any politician could have, more important than having ideas for the future, managing effectively or having real experience. And they thought Starmer was the leader who displayed that respect most.

    A year later, the picture looks quite different. In new polling, we asked a representative sample of over 7,000 people to evaluate the government one year on. On respect, the judgement has not been good.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    During the general election campaign, 41% of the electorate said that they believed that Starmer “respected people like them”. One year on, that stands at only 24%. At the same time, the number who say that he does not respect them has risen from 32% to 63%. Starmer is now outstripped on that question by Nigel Farage – 33% say the Reform UK leader respects people like them.

    Losing support

    This view has had crucial political consequences. Of those who voted for Labour in the general election, only 60% of our respondents say they would vote for the party in an election held tomorrow.

    And that is not because some other political party is suddenly swooping in for their supporters. Labour’s voters are defecting in a host of different directions: 11% say they would vote Reform; 8% would vote Liberal Democrat; 4% would vote Green and 4% would vote Conservative. A further one in ten say they simply don’t know how they would vote.

    Labour’s losses have been most dramatic among their first-time voters. Of those who voted for Labour in 2024 but not in any other general election since 2010, barely a third still support the party, while a fifth would vote for Reform UK.

    These political failures, our report contends, are directly related to the declining sense of respect. The top reason voters gave for turning away from Labour are the broken promises and U-turns made by Labour in government, followed by the party’s failure to reduce the cost of living and changes to the winter fuel payment.

    The idea of “respect” being key to the public’s sense of whether a government is on their side or not has been growing for many years now, both in academia and in politics itself. Since at least the 2007/8 financial crisis there has been a sense that large swathes of the public feel neglected, overlooked and even disdained by those who govern them.

    When people talk about wanting to see “change” in Britain, this is often what they mean. It was a theme I touched on recently in two books, Out of the Ordinary and, with my co-author Tom Baldwin, England.

    Just over a year ago, a happier Starmer delivers his victory speech.
    Shutterstock

    But respect is not just an abstract idea. People appear to judge whether they are respected by those who govern them or not primarily on the basis of whether the government stands up for them against powerful vested interests.

    Our earlier research demonstrated that there is a widespread sense among the British public that certain groups have had it too easy for too long. This is either because they have been able to intimidate the government, or because government ministers and advisers have themselves been recruited from among these groups.

    In our new report, therefore, we see that the new government’s most popular act was their willingness to raise the minimum wage by £1,400 in April, against the objections of some in business who suggested that such a move was too burdensome on them.

    Changes to the winter fuel allowance and proposed changes to the disability benefits system, on the other hand, registered poorly. They suggest that the interests of ordinary and vulnerable people count for too little in decision-making.

    These judgements currently shape the mood of the country and probably top the list of issues that the government now needs to address. There is still time for the government to rebuild its appeal, of course. Indeed, our respondents who said they would vote for Labour said they would do so because the party needs more time to fix the problems they inherited.

    But as it seeks to do so, voters will want to know who this government stands for. Whose interests does it put first? What kind of people does it respect?

    Much of the electorate thought they knew the answer to these questions one year ago. Now they’re not so sure.

    Marc Stears directs the UCL Policy Lab, a non-partisan think tank based at University College London. He was previously chief speechwriter to the UK Labour Party.

    – ref. Nearly two-thirds of voters think Starmer doesn’t respect them – new poll – https://theconversation.com/nearly-two-thirds-of-voters-think-starmer-doesnt-respect-them-new-poll-260606

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: New therapy teplizumab could delay type 1 diabetes by years – if caught early

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Richard Oram, Professor of Diabetes and Nephrology, University of Exeter

    Dorde Krstic/Shutterstock.com

    For more than a century, type 1 diabetes has meant one thing: a lifetime administering insulin. But for the first time, science is breaking that paradigm – not by managing the disease, but by intercepting it before symptoms even appear.

    As the first patients in the UK begin receiving the groundbreaking new therapy, teplizumab, we are developing ways to identify who might benefit from a drug that only works if given before any symptoms appear. At the Royal Devon NHS, we are currently treating the first UK adult, Hannah Robinson, who was found to have early type 1 diabetes by chance during routine pregnancy screening.

    About 10% of people with diabetes have type 1, while the remaining 90% have type 2, a condition linked to lifestyle factors where insulin is still produced but does not work properly. Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition that leads to complete loss of insulin production from the pancreas. Without insulin, blood sugar levels rise dangerously, increasing the risk of blindness, kidney failure and early death.

    Although type 1 is often thought of as a disease of childhood, research from the University of Exeter has highlighted that more than half of all new cases occur in adults.

    For millions around the world living with type 1 diabetes, treatment to keep blood sugar in check means lifelong daily insulin. However, using insulin comes with its own risks.

    If blood sugar drops too low, it can cause hypoglycaemia, or “hypos”, which in severe cases may lead to seizures or even death. It is no surprise that constantly balancing between high and low blood sugars takes a heavy toll on both physical and mental health. During her pregnancy, Robinson needed insulin and saw firsthand how “life completely revolves around balancing your blood glucose”.

    Teplizumab offers a completely different approach. Instead of simply replacing insulin, it targets the immune attack that causes type 1 diabetes.

    Our immune system is usually remarkably good at telling friend from foe, protecting us from infections and cancer while leaving our own organs alone. But sometimes, for reasons still not fully understood, this balance breaks down in a process known as autoimmunity. In type 1 diabetes, the immune system mistakenly attacks the pancreas, destroying insulin-producing cells.

    Diabetes symptoms.

    Teplizumab works by retraining the immune system and dialling down the specific cells that target the pancreas. Studies show it can delay the disease and the need for insulin therapy by two to three years, with generally mild side-effects. For Robinson, who knows all too well from pregnancy and the full-time job that is living with type 1 diabetes, the possibility of a few extra years without insulin really mattered.

    The drug is already approved in the US and is under review for routine NHS use, although a few children and teenagers in the UK have also received it through special access programmes.

    Finding people early

    There is a catch. By the time people develop symptoms of type 1 diabetes, such as thirst, weight loss and fatigue, more than three-quarters of their insulin-producing capacity is already destroyed.

    For teplizumab and similar therapies to work, they need to be given before symptoms appear, while blood sugar levels are still normal. This means these treatments are not an option for people who already have established type 1 diabetes.

    So how do we find people at this early stage? Fortunately, it is possible to detect the beginnings of the autoimmune attack many years before symptoms show using simple blood tests that measure immune markers called pancreatic autoantibodies.

    Just a few drops from a finger prick can reveal whether the immune system has started to target the pancreas. Finding people early not only offers the chance to delay disease progression, it can also help avoid the life-threatening emergencies that sometimes come with a first diagnosis – such as diabetic ketoacidosis.

    With type 1 diabetes affecting roughly one in 200 people, there is still the question of who to test. Not everyone’s risk is the same. When we think of inherited diseases, we often imagine conditions caused by a single gene change, such as cystic fibrosis.

    Type 1 diabetes does have a genetic component, but it involves many different genes, each nudging a person’s risk up or down. Having genetic risk alone is not enough, with unknown environmental factors also needed to tip the balance.

    Nine in ten people who develop type 1 diabetes have no family history. While testing relatives of people with type 1 is a logical first step, research at the University of Exeter suggests that combining all these genetic factors into a single risk score could help predict who might develop the disease and identify babies who should be monitored more closely. This could become an important tool as we move towards wider genomic screening.

    It is still early days, but we are seeing a fundamental shift in how we approach type 1 diabetes. For more than a century, treatment has meant patients taking on the daily burden of replacing the insulin their bodies can no longer make. Now, the focus is turning to therapies that tackle the immune problem at its source, with the hope of stopping the disease before it fully develops and opening the door to an insulin-free future.

    Richard Oram has received research grants or contracts from Randox and Sanofi. He has also received royalties and license from Randox, consulting fees from Sanofi, Provention Bio, and Janssen and payment or honoraria from Sanofi and Novo Nordisk. He has served on data safety monitory board or advisory board for Sanofi.

    Nicholas Thomas serves on an advisory boards for Sanof (manafacturer of Teplizumab) guiding the technical delivery of therapy within the NHS. He is currently employed by Exeter University as an NIHR Academic Clinical Fellow.

    – ref. New therapy teplizumab could delay type 1 diabetes by years – if caught early – https://theconversation.com/new-therapy-teplizumab-could-delay-type-1-diabetes-by-years-if-caught-early-259814

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • PM Modi accorded ceremonial welcome at Brazil’s Presidential Palace, holds talks with Lula

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Prime Minister Narendra Modi was given a ceremonial welcome by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva at the Alvorada Palace in Brasília on Tuesday.

    “Good morning. We are now back in Brasilia. Today, I will welcome Prime Minister Narendra Modi for a State Visit. We will sign new agreements and take another important step in strengthening bilateral relations between Brazil and India,” Lula said in a post on X ahead of the ceremony.

    PM Modi’s motorcade was escorted by 114 horses and received full military honours at the Presidential Palace. After the ceremony, the two leaders held a restricted-format meeting, which will be followed by delegation-level talks and the signing of several agreements.

    The Prime Minister is also scheduled to attend a state lunch hosted by Lula.

    According to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), the state visit will be an opportunity to review all aspects of the India-Brazil partnership. This includes cooperation in trade, investment, energy, mining, defence, security, agriculture, healthcare, tourism, space, science and technology, and digital infrastructure.

    The two leaders are also expected to discuss global issues of common interest and ways to strengthen people-to-people ties.

    IANS

  • MIL-OSI Russia: “Economic development without the AI factor is no longer possible”

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: State University “Higher School of Economics” –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    The International Summer Institute on Artificial Intelligence in Education Research, organized by Institute of Education HSE University together with East China Normal University (ECNU). It was attended by over 50 participants and key speakers from more than ten countries in Asia, Europe, North and South America. They discussed the use of AI technologies in education and other areas.

    Opening the program, Professor Meng Yu and Vice Dean of the School of Computer Science at East China Normal University Xu Fei emphasized that the rapid development of AI technologies requires international cooperation and interdisciplinary research. “We are pleased to join forces with the Institute of Education at the Higher School of Economics and are confident that the week in Shanghai will become a starting point for long-term joint projects,” said Meng Yu and Xu Fei.

    Director of the Institute of Education Evgeny Terentyev recalled that research alliances between Russian and Chinese universities are acquiring strategic importance and opening up new horizons for cooperation. He also presented the results of one of the latest studies by InoBra — a typology of Russian universities’ reactions to generative AI: from ban to active implementation. The analysis showed that most universities are still in the grey zone, not formalizing the rules for using new technologies.

    In his speech, HSE Academic Director Yaroslav Kuzminov outlined five areas in which AI is already transforming higher education. First, this is the need to change educational practices and educational routines. Second, the new role of human cognitive skills. Third, the possibility of overcoming educational failure by establishing a mechanism for personalized feedback. In addition, these are new learning formats (including gaming). The fifth area is new mechanisms for integrating into the labor market, based on real skills, and not on the ability to perform routine operations.

    He also emphasized possible areas of using AI for good, to strengthen a person. “Efficient (competent) implementation of AI in education, based on transparent rules, motivation of students to perform more complex tasks with the help of AI than without it, as well as personalized recommendations – all this together can reduce educational failure and release economic potential, creating equal opportunities for the formation of a competitive workforce and ensuring sustainable development. Therefore, let’s move towards the literacy of the future and AI literacy with the understanding that economic development without the AI factor is no longer possible, but regression in the case of careless, illiterate use is quite likely,” said Yaroslav Kuzminov.

    This leitmotif was continued by Ekaterina Kruchinskaya, senior lecturer Department of Higher Mathematics HSE University. She spoke about the results of a survey of students from ten selective (top) universities in Russia. The survey showed that students most often use generative models to retell texts, analyze data, and program, but the time savings remain minimal due to the need to check the results. At the same time, the practices of use are still not organized, and students mainly use AI to relax more, but not to use the capabilities of generative models to perform more complex, creative tasks.

    “The danger of using generative AI will be significantly reduced when these practices of its use become more institutionalized, and students are motivated not to imitate, but to improve their real results,” Ekaterina Kruchinskaya summed up.

    The lecture was given by Okan Bulut, a professor at the University of Alberta (Canada), who spoke about the problems of using artificial intelligence in education. He highlighted the key challenges in assessing the use of AI and discussed how this technology can be used for the benefit of learning. Continuing the topic, Associate Professor Mick Funghi of the Education University of Hong Kong spoke about changing traditional ideas about computer-supported collaborative learning. He explained that if previously technologies were viewed only as a means for students to interact with each other, now AI tools themselves are becoming full-fledged participants in the process. Using the example of group work with text, Professor Funghi also highlighted the new risks of freeriding – cases when students use AI primarily to save time, rather than to deepen collaboration – and proposed a research agenda focusing on the behavior of individual participants.

    The first day ended with academic “speed dating”: the participants exchanged ideas for their projects and outlined the tasks they would work on during the week in Shanghai. Ahead of them are a series of lectures, master classes and workshops on research methods. Following the work, each participant will present their research, taking into account the recommendations received during the summer institute from experts from the Institute of Education of the National Research University Higher School of Economics and the Higher Communist Party of Ukraine.

    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 USA: NSF advances 29 semifinalists in the second NSF Regional Innovation Engines competition

    Source: US Government research organizations

    NSF announces the list of teams that will advance to the next stage of its major initiative aiming to advance critical technologies and grow regional economies nationwide

    The U.S. National Science Foundation Regional Innovation Engines (NSF Engines) program announced the 29 semifinalists advancing to the next stage of the second competition – spanning critical technologies and applications ranging from energy grid security to maximizing the yield of critical minerals mining to advanced optical sensors. The semifinalist teams, many of whom have been building their regional coalitions for a year or longer, are led by universities, nonprofits, private industry and other organizations from across the United States. View a map of the NSF Engines semifinalists.

    Credit: U.S. National Science Foundation

    A map showing the locations of the U.S. National Science Foundation Regional Innovation Engines (NSF Engines) program’s 29 finalists for 2025. Explore the map semifinalists in more detail.

    “This outstanding cohort of semifinalists clearly demonstrates that America’s technology competitiveness will depend as much on expanding our ability to unlock innovation capacity in every part of our country — from the rural plains and western ranges to cities with rich industrial and manufacturing legacies — as it will on advancing the technologies themselves,” said Erwin Gianchandani, NSF assistant director for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (NSF TIP). “Each team was selected because it brought strong public and private partners to the table and outlined a promising vision for research, innovation and workforce development in their respective regions of service, thereby advancing U.S competitiveness, national security and economic growth.”

    The NSF Engines program is beginning to see the fruits of the nation’s investment in the inaugural NSF Engines over the last two years. To date, the program has seen a tenfold return on taxpayers’ dollars — an initial investment of $135 million across nine NSF Engines has garnered more than $1 billion in matching commitments from private industry, philanthropy and state and local governments. 

    Now this second wave of NSF Engines will soon follow the initial investments, shoring up innovation ecosystems in new regions across the U.S. The NSF Engines are transformational for the nation, helping ensure the U.S. remains globally competitive in key technology areas for decades to come. Of note, this cohort of semifinalists includes 17 NSF Engines Development Awards teams who received two-year planning grants in 2023 and early 2024 that they leveraged to help build coalitions and refine visions for dynamic innovation ecosystems within their regions.

    In early summer 2024, NSF received nearly 300 letters of intent (LOI) in response to the second NSF Engines funding opportunity, an initial step required to demonstrate interest in applying for the program. NSF published data from the LOIs to encourage proposers to create regional teams and potentially collaborate before the preliminary proposal deadline in August 2024. From the teams that submitted a preliminary proposal, NSF selected 71 to advance to the next round of competition and submit a full proposal by the spring 2025 deadline. From those, NSF selected 29 teams to advance to the next round of competition through a merit review process that engaged panels of external experts.

    During the next stage, NSF will conduct live, virtual assessments of the semifinalist teams to gain further understanding of their regional coalitions, the alignment of their proposed leadership teams and core partners, and their visions for research and development (R&D) as well as translation. NSF will select the finalists for the NSF Engines program following these assessments. NSF anticipates announcing the final list of NSF Engines awards in early 2026.

    About NSF Regional Innovation Engines 

    Launched by NSF TIP, the NSF Engines program is building and scaling regional innovation ecosystems nationwide. Each NSF Engine is powered by a broad coalition of private sector, regional and scientific leaders and organizations to accelerate breakthrough emerging technology R&D that drives growth and ultimately bolsters U.S. economic competitiveness and national security.  

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: NSF advances 29 semifinalists in the second NSF Regional Innovation Engines competition

    Source: US Government research organizations

    NSF announces the list of teams that will advance to the next stage of its major initiative aiming to advance critical technologies and grow regional economies nationwide

    The U.S. National Science Foundation Regional Innovation Engines (NSF Engines) program announced the 29 semifinalists advancing to the next stage of the second competition – spanning critical technologies and applications ranging from energy grid security to maximizing the yield of critical minerals mining to advanced optical sensors. The semifinalist teams, many of whom have been building their regional coalitions for a year or longer, are led by universities, nonprofits, private industry and other organizations from across the United States. View a map of the NSF Engines semifinalists.

    Credit: U.S. National Science Foundation

    A map showing the locations of the U.S. National Science Foundation Regional Innovation Engines (NSF Engines) program’s 29 finalists for 2025. Explore the map semifinalists in more detail.

    “This outstanding cohort of semifinalists clearly demonstrates that America’s technology competitiveness will depend as much on expanding our ability to unlock innovation capacity in every part of our country — from the rural plains and western ranges to cities with rich industrial and manufacturing legacies — as it will on advancing the technologies themselves,” said Erwin Gianchandani, NSF assistant director for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (NSF TIP). “Each team was selected because it brought strong public and private partners to the table and outlined a promising vision for research, innovation and workforce development in their respective regions of service, thereby advancing U.S competitiveness, national security and economic growth.”

    The NSF Engines program is beginning to see the fruits of the nation’s investment in the inaugural NSF Engines over the last two years. To date, the program has seen a tenfold return on taxpayers’ dollars — an initial investment of $135 million across nine NSF Engines has garnered more than $1 billion in matching commitments from private industry, philanthropy and state and local governments. 

    Now this second wave of NSF Engines will soon follow the initial investments, shoring up innovation ecosystems in new regions across the U.S. The NSF Engines are transformational for the nation, helping ensure the U.S. remains globally competitive in key technology areas for decades to come. Of note, this cohort of semifinalists includes 17 NSF Engines Development Awards teams who received two-year planning grants in 2023 and early 2024 that they leveraged to help build coalitions and refine visions for dynamic innovation ecosystems within their regions.

    In early summer 2024, NSF received nearly 300 letters of intent (LOI) in response to the second NSF Engines funding opportunity, an initial step required to demonstrate interest in applying for the program. NSF published data from the LOIs to encourage proposers to create regional teams and potentially collaborate before the preliminary proposal deadline in August 2024. From the teams that submitted a preliminary proposal, NSF selected 71 to advance to the next round of competition and submit a full proposal by the spring 2025 deadline. From those, NSF selected 29 teams to advance to the next round of competition through a merit review process that engaged panels of external experts.

    During the next stage, NSF will conduct live, virtual assessments of the semifinalist teams to gain further understanding of their regional coalitions, the alignment of their proposed leadership teams and core partners, and their visions for research and development (R&D) as well as translation. NSF will select the finalists for the NSF Engines program following these assessments. NSF anticipates announcing the final list of NSF Engines awards in early 2026.

    About NSF Regional Innovation Engines 

    Launched by NSF TIP, the NSF Engines program is building and scaling regional innovation ecosystems nationwide. Each NSF Engine is powered by a broad coalition of private sector, regional and scientific leaders and organizations to accelerate breakthrough emerging technology R&D that drives growth and ultimately bolsters U.S. economic competitiveness and national security.  

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: INNOPROM-2025: the fight for technological leadership

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    The Polytechnic stand continues its work at the INNOPROM exhibition, and the official delegation of SPbPU takes an active part in the business program. On July 8, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin arrived in Yekaterinburg. At the forum, the Prime Minister assessed the exhibits and opened the main strategic session “Technological Leadership: Industrial Breakthrough”.

    “I would like to sincerely welcome the participants and guests of the main industrial exhibition of Russia. This year it has a significant anniversary. For the 15th time, Yekaterinburg has become the center of attraction for companies of industrial leaders – both our country and our friendly states. In order to identify new growth points, expand the range of business contacts,” said Mikhail Mishustin. – Today’s discussion is devoted to a very important topic – industrial breakthrough. President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum emphasized that the Russian economy must become more technological. This is a serious challenge, the solution of which will require combining the efforts of educational and scientific institutions, industry and other sectors, the expert community and investors, state corporations and development institutions, ministries and departments, regional authorities. I am absolutely convinced that together we will be able to achieve the goals set in this area. And a good support, of course, will be the success of domestic manufacturers.”

    The industrial world is currently experiencing a period of dramatic change and instability. In the context of growing uncertainty, the largest market players are actively looking for new growth points and strategic allies. Technological development is becoming a key area of production transformation. The priority vector is the creation of intelligent and automated systems, where artificial intelligence plays a central role in managing production processes. However, technological progress is only one component of success in the struggle for leadership. An equally important aspect is the formation of a reliable ecosystem of partnerships based on many years of experience of joint work and mutual trust. The key factors in this strategy are the painstaking work of higher education institutions in training qualified personnel, as well as close interaction between educational institutions, enterprises and business representatives.

    Thus, the chief designer for the key scientific and technological development area of SPbPU “System Digital Engineering”, director of the Advanced Engineering School of SPbPU “Digital Engineering” Alexey Borovkov was one of the key speakers of the round table “Implementation of strategic projects of technological leadership within the framework of the program “Priority-2030”. The participants of the meeting discussed the mechanisms of interaction of the program with the system of higher education, including the assessment of the implemented educational programs, methodological approaches to training and forms of cooperation between educational institutions and the business community.

    Alexey Ivanovich recalled that in 2025, each university included the section “Strategic Technological Leadership” in its comprehensive development program, identifying three strategic technological projects. Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, following the presentation of the University Development Program at the Council of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, entered the leading group of universities participating in the Priority-2030 program.

    It is important to note that in accordance with the Order of the Government of the Russian Federation dated May 20, 2023 No. 1315-r, the term “technological leadership” is defined as the superiority of technologies or products in key parameters (functional, technical, cost) over foreign analogues. It is for the purpose of achieving technological leadership according to this definition that SPbPU concentrates its efforts on three key scientific and technological areas (KST): KST-1 “Systemic digital engineering” – development of technologies and products superior to foreign analogues, based on digital twin technology and the CML-Bench® Digital Platform KST-2 “New materials, technologies, production” – creation of science-intensive industries for the repair and manufacture of products for various purposes; KST-3 “Artificial intelligence for solving cross-industry problems” – development of digital platform solutions for analyzing multimodal data, – said Alexey Ivanovich.

    A solemn and pleasant ceremony took place at our stand during business negotiations. SPbPU Academic Secretary Dmitry Karpov presented the SPbPU “For Merits” badge of distinction to Anatoly Sludnykh, General Director of the Ural Optical-Mechanical Plant named after E. S. Yalamov (UOMZ). The award was given by a unanimous decision of the Polytechnic Academic Council for his great contribution to the development of Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University. UOMZ is a long-standing and reliable partner of the Polytechnic. So, quite recently The plant’s delegation visited our university.

    According to Anatoly Sludnykh, the enterprise is interested in using technologies and materials developed by Polytechnic University scientists, as well as in additional training of its technologists and engineers at the university. SPbPU, in turn, is determined to strengthen ties and expand cooperation with the Ural Optical and Mechanical Plant and other enterprises of the Shvabe holding.

    We should add that the Polytechnic stand enjoys increased attention from specialists and visitors to the INNOPROM exhibition. They evaluate the advanced engineering developments of our university and communicate with the university specialists. But the exhibit of the SPbPU History Museum is of particular value – a fragment of the legendary “Cable of Life”. This is a gift from Polytechnic graduates who, after graduating from the university, made a successful career at Lenenergo.

    September 23, 1942 was a turning point in the history of Leningrad during the siege. On this day, the besieged city began receiving electricity from the Volkhov Hydroelectric Power Station. The unique project was completed in just 48 days. Power engineers had to lay 104 kilometers of overhead power lines and five 23-kilometer cable strands along the bottom of Lake Ladoga. The work was carried out under constant enemy fire near the front line. A three-core cable with a 120 mm² cross-section ensured the transmission of significant amounts of electricity. The system operated for almost two years, supplying not only industrial enterprises, but also the everyday needs of city residents.

    Director of the SPbPU History Museum Valery Klimov shared his memories of the outstanding engineer Nikodim Tumanov, who supervised the cable laying. In 1935, he graduated from the Leningrad Polytechnic Institute as an external student, defending his diploma project on the topic of “Expansion of the electrical network of the Central District of the Leningrad electrical network.”

    When he was assigned to lead the group, he said: “I understood that this task was impossible. But if I refused, someone else would refuse, a third – and the city would be left without electricity. I decided for myself that I had to try. Leningraders are those people who did not refuse. Perhaps that is why we survived. And as long as a person believes, he lives,” Valery Yuryevich quoted Nikodim Tumanov.

    I noticed that there are not many stands here that have the logo of the 80th anniversary of the Victory. Our stand has one. This year the country celebrated a great anniversary, and that is why we brought to Yekaterinburg one of the symbols of the Victory and the heroism of Leningraders – “Cable of Life”, – emphasized Valery Klimov.

    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: Graphenix Development Inc. Awarded $100,000 SuperBoost Grant to Extend Cycle Life of Silicon Anode Lithium-Ion Batteries

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    ROCHESTER, N.Y., July 08, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Graphenix Development Inc. (GDI), a Rochester-based battery materials company, has been awarded a $100,000 SuperBoost grant from the National Science Foundation’s Energy Storage Engine in Upstate New York. The funding will support GDI’s efforts to extend the cycle life of its 100% silicon anode technology through the development of a prelithiation method designed to improve battery durability and performance across sectors including defense, automotive, medical and wearable technologies.

    GDI’s silicon anodes are fabricated using a solvent-free, plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process. The result is a high energy-density electrode that eliminates graphite, powders, binders and toxic solvents — simplifying the manufacturing process and enabling a more sustainable, domestically sourced battery supply chain. The SuperBoost project will focus on integrating lithium iron oxide (LFO) into high-nickel cathodes to enable in situ prelithiation, a method that compensates for lithium loss during early charging cycles and helps extend battery life.

    National security and defense applications are a key focus of GDI’s work, particularly as the United States seeks to secure domestic supply chains and enhance energy resilience. The project builds on GDI’s existing industry collaborations, including a next-generation tactical battery initiative with a U.S.-based defense-sector customer and ongoing evaluations with automotive manufacturers.

    Experimental work will take place at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) Battery Development Center, where GDI will validate LFO-based cathode formulations in coin cells before scaling to pouch cells assembled in RIT’s dry room facility.

    “This support from the NSF Energy Storage Engine will allow us to advance a key part of our technology roadmap,” said Robert Anstey, CEO of GDI. “Improving cycle life through prelithiation will further enhance GDI’s performance advantages in Li-ion. We have already proven >30% energy density, and 15-minute fast charging with defense cell makers. Extending cycle life further and improving durability will be particularly important for dual-use applications.”

    Fernando Gómez-Baquero, director of the Translation Pillar at the NSF Energy Storage Engine, emphasized the role of the grant in strengthening battery innovation in the region. “Cycle life is a major challenge for silicon anode batteries,” he said. “GDI’s approach to addressing this through prelithiation aligns with the Engine’s mission to accelerate high-impact technologies that bolster U.S. manufacturing and national security.”

    Meera Sampath, CEO of the NSF Energy Storage Engine, noted the broader goals of the SuperBoost initiative. “Our SuperBoost program is designed to reduce the time it takes to bring cutting-edge energy storage technologies to market — from five years to fewer than two,” said Sampath. “GDI’s work reflects the kind of advanced materials innovation that not only strengthens domestic supply chains but also supports critical defense applications, positioning upstate New York as a center for next-generation battery solutions.”

    About Graphenix Development Inc.

    Graphenix Development Inc. (GDI) is developing a next-generation battery anode platform based on 100% silicon. Its proprietary PECVD fabrication process eliminates graphite, solvents, and binders, resulting in a cleaner, more scalable pathway to high energy-density lithium-ion batteries. Proving in 3rd party testing to increase energy density by >30% up to 900Wh/L, and enabling hundreds of repeated <15-minute charging cycles. GDI is headquartered in Rochester, NY. Learn more at www.gdinrg.com.

    Contact:
    Robert Anstey
    CEO and Founder
    Graphenix Development Inc.
    rob.anstey@graphnx.com

    About the NSF Energy Storage Engine in Upstate New York

    The NSF Energy Storage Engine in Upstate New York, led by Binghamton University, is a National Science Foundation-funded, place-based innovation program. The coalition of 40+ academic, industry, nonprofit, state, and community organizations includes Cornell University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Syracuse University, Griffiss Institute, Launch-NY and NY-BEST as core partners. The Engine advances next-gen battery technology development and manufacturing to drive economic growth and bolster national security. Its vision is to transform upstate New York into America’s Battery Capital.

    For more information on the NSF Energy Storage Engine in Upstate New York, visit https://upstatenyengine.org/.

    Contact:
    Fernando Gómez-Baquero Ph.D.
    Translation Pillar Director
    NSF Upstate New York Energy Storage Engine
    fernando@cornell.edu

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Northern B.C. shows how big resource projects can strain rural health care

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gary N. Wilson, Professor of Political Science, University of Northern British Columbia

    American tariffs and fears of a prolonged recession have increased calls to expand resource development and infrastructure projects in Canada. The pace and scope of expansion projects like these have major implications for Canada on many levels, including: commitments to environmental sustainability, relations with Indigenous Peoples and the quality of local health services.

    In a study that I conducted with environmental health researcher Barbara Oke in northern British Columbia, we found that major resource projects can strain local health-care services in rural and remote regions. In particular, the influx of workers connected with development projects puts significant pressures on health-care providers. This is especially concerning as local health-care services are already experiencing funding, infrastructure and staff shortages.

    Therefore, it’s critical that government and industry actively consider these pressures when planning new projects.

    Health-care services under pressure

    In recent years, northern British Columbia has been home to some of the biggest capital investment projects in Canada, including a major hydroelectric dam, liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities, pipelines and mines.

    Our interviews with leaders from Northern Health, the region’s main health-care provider, have highlighted the link between major development projects and the pressures experienced by their health-care system.

    Pressures on the local health-care system mainly stem from the influx of a non-local workforce when compared to the size of the nearest community, and local contexts. The smaller the community, the more vulnerable its health-care system is to additional pressures, especially if capacity challenges already exist.

    How well a project manages its health service impacts clearly matters. When project workers resided in well-managed camps supported by competent onsite medical service providers, the pressures on the local system were less than when workforces did not have adequate accommodation and health supports.

    An older workforce

    Contrary to some popular assumptions that itinerant project workforces consist mainly of young, risk-taking individuals, most workers seeking health-care services were older and managing multiple chronic illnesses or disease risk factors.

    Therefore, most of the pressure on health-care services did not come from what one would consider typical “workplace injuries” but, rather, from workers experiencing injuries and illnesses common within any population.

    One health-care interviewee said: “It’s not that [project workers] are asking for special services, but just having more people needing health care adds to [the] pressure.”

    Emergency departments

    Impacts to the health-care system were felt primarily in the emergency departments of local hospitals and health-care centres.

    Many communities in northern B.C. do not have walk-in clinics and most doctor’s offices are already at patient capacity.

    So if a project does not provide its own on-site medical supports, the only option for workers is to seek care at a local emergency department, which are supposed to respond to urgent issues.

    When staff have to deal with non-urgent needs, such as prescription renewals, sick notes or to manage regular ailments, it compounds the challenges and congestion faced by emergency departments.

    Cumulative impacts on health services

    Beyond emergency departments, industry pressures have cascaded throughout the system, affecting services such as primary care, infectious disease, diagnostic and lab services, and administrative and ambulance transfer services.

    Rising workloads, combined with higher private-sector wages and an industry-driven increase in the cost of living, have made it harder to retain and recruit staff — especially in housekeeping, food services, laundry, administration, ambulance services and care aide roles.

    Several people interviewed noted the consistent and cumulative pressures of projects on the health-care system.

    While the pressures from a single project may seem inconsequential, the impacts from multiple projects in the same area pose a significant challenge to health-care services.

    Balancing resource development and health care

    The strategic and economic value of resource development is difficult to ignore.

    Major infrastructure projects contribute to both local and provincial economies. When managed well, the economic benefits of such projects can positively contribute to community health.

    But when not managed properly, the pressures that major infrastructure projects place on local health-care services can be significant. Therefore, we strongly urge governments and businesses to consider their impacts on overburdened and hard-working health-care providers in rural and remote communities.

    Barbara Oke contributed to this article. She recently completed her Master’s of Arts in Political Science at UNBC.

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

    – ref. Northern B.C. shows how big resource projects can strain rural health care – https://theconversation.com/northern-b-c-shows-how-big-resource-projects-can-strain-rural-health-care-256059

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: There are many things American voters agree on, from fears about technology to threats to democracy

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emma Connolly, Research Fellow, Digital Speech Lab, UCL

    During his recent public spat with Donald Trump, Elon Musk tweeted a poll asking if a new political party would better represent the 80% of voters in the middle. Hundreds of thousands of people responded and more than 80% answered “yes”.

    The middle is still overlooked in US politics. This is because there is a perception that Republicans and Democrats have nothing in common, and therefore no issue will win support from both centrist Republicans and Democrats.

    Polarisation is problematic as it is linked to “democratic backsliding” – the use of underhand tactics in political processes. Worst of all, it poses a threat to democracy.

    Many think that polarisation is fuelled by echo chambers created on social media platforms. These only expose people to beliefs similar to their own.

    However, I study how narratives emerge on social media, and ways to investigate them. My work has two aims: first, to identify political issues that are likely to cross party lines, and a wider goal of exploring the role of social media in mitigating, rather than exacerbating, levels of polarisation.

    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.

    Earlier this year, for example, I sorted through 12,000 posts from Republican and Democrat voters on subreddits (online forums discussing specific topics). Using a technique I developed in my PhD research, I analysed attitudes to contested political issues around the time of Trump’s inauguration. Like other researchers, I am finding that there are things both sides often agree on, and that not every issue splits neatly across party lines.

    Pew Research shows what Democrats and Republicans agree on.

    Although it’s a complex topic, people from both parties are worried about levels of free speech on social media. According to my work and other sources, some Democrats accuse TikTok of censoring hashtags such as #FreeLuigi (a reference to Luigi Mangione, accused of murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson).

    Meanwhile, some Republicans are saying they are flooded with what they see as left-wing content pushed by the algorithms. Despite their differences, Republicans and Democrats agree that social media platforms need to be more transparent about the way they work.

    Both sides worry about the rise of authoritarianism and the growing negative influence of artificial intelligence in shaping the US’s future. There is a sense among some members of the two parties that the real enemies aren’t each other, but powerful corporations who hold too much power.

    People on both sides of the political divide can be distrustful of tech companies and big businesses, where billionaires have power regardless of who’s in charge. Divisions of “up v down” could be alternatives to seeing divisions as “left v right”.

    Some people are worried about the creation of a massive database of citizens’ details, and how their details could be used, or abused. Recently Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene said she would have opposed Trump’s “big, beautiful, bill”, had she read the AI clause thoroughly. The clause stops states from passing laws to regulate AI systems for the next ten years.

    What do people agree on?

    On the topic of protecting democracy, there are some suggestions that many Republicans and Democrats agree this is important, and under threat. In my study, some Republican and Democrat voters object to the possibility of Trump having a third term, aligning with the findings of several recent polls on the subject, and even among Trump’s most loyal support groups.

    Both Republicans and Democrats want “the best” leaders who could get things done fast and efficiently. But it would appear that people on both sides are concerned about the “slash-and-burn” way that Doge (the Department for Government Efficiency, the new agency tasked with cutting federal spending) is working.

    Also, deciding who is the best leader isn’t always about agreeing with specific policies. Instead, it’s about delivering decisive, efficient action. Even Republicans who don’t back everything Trump is doing say that at least he is doing something, especially in relation to immigration.

    Many Republicans criticise the left, and former Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris in particular, but for unclear messaging, as much as any one policy. They (and others) put her loss down to a lack of direction and clarity on key issues (among other things). This probably resulted in failing to win votes from independents and moderate Republicans and many Democrats are frustrated that the party still hasn’t addressed this.

    Research suggests that Democrat and Republican voters often agree that polarisation causes gridlock and prevents progress, but believe voices from the middle are not being heard. Some Republicans and Democrats also share a concern that both parties are more focused on fighting each other than on solving problems, with 86% of Americans believing this.

    Some Republican voters in the posts I am analysing suggest that working together to get things done would be positive, supporting findings from the US and abroad. Other important factors rather than political party, such as religion or family or everyday life experiences can bring people from both sides together.

    So, Americans might not be as divided as one might think. Levels of polarisation feel high but this could be skewed by the extreme views of a minority on both sides. And it isn’t helped by some sensationalist media reporting.

    Lots of people get their news from social media platforms which reward and monetise engagement. Posts that fuel division are often the most visible, but they rarely tell the whole story. Divisive views are also often shared by those who are themselves the most polarised.

    Like Musk’s online poll, research is starting to suggest that there is still a sizeable moderate middle in the US today who are open to compromise through clear messaging. These voters can make all the difference, especially if parties can frame issues in ways that appeal across the divide. With the 2026 midterm elections on the horizon, both sides might want to listen to them more.

    Emma Connolly 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. There are many things American voters agree on, from fears about technology to threats to democracy – https://theconversation.com/there-are-many-things-american-voters-agree-on-from-fears-about-technology-to-threats-to-democracy-258440

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Universities in every state care for congressional papers that document US political history − federal cuts put their work at risk

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Katherine Gregory, Assistant Professor, University Libraries, Mississippi State University

    The papers of members of Congress are fertile ground for research into Congress’ role in shaping U.S. history. cunfek, iStock/Getty Images Plus

    In 1971, the president of Mississippi State University, Dr. William L. Giles, invited President Richard Nixon to attend the dedication of U.S. Sen. John C. Stennis’ papers to the university library’s archives.

    Nixon declined, but the Republican president sent a generous note in support of the veteran Democrat Stennis.

    “Future students and scholars who study there will … familiarize themselves with the outstanding record of a U.S. Senator whose … judgment in complex areas of national security have been a source of strength and comfort to those who have led this Nation and to all who are concerned in preserving the freedom we cherish.”

    Nixon’s prediction came true, perhaps ironically, considering the legal troubles over his own papers during the Watergate crisis. Congress passed the Presidential Records Act of 1978 after Nixon resigned.

    Stennis’ gift to his alma mater caused a windfall of subsequent congressional donations to what is now the Mississippi Political Collections at Mississippi State University Libraries.

    Now, 55 years later, Mississippi State University holds a body of records from a bipartisan group of officials that has positioned it to tell a major part of the state’s story in national and global politics. That story is told to over 100 patrons and dozens of college and K-12 classes each year.

    The papers are fertile ground for scholarly research into Congress’ role in shaping U.S. history, with its extraordinary powers over lawmaking, the economy and one of the world’s largest militaries.

    Mississippi State University, where I work as an assistant professor and director of the Mississippi Political Collections, is not alone in providing such a rich source of history. It is part of a national network of universities that hold and steward congressional papers.

    But support for this stewardship is in jeopardy. With the White House’s proposed elimination of independent granting agencies such as the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, it is unclear what money will be available for this work in the future.

    A 1963 letter from Sen. John Stennis to a constituent about agricultural legislation and also Russians in Cuba.
    Mississippi State University

    From research to public service

    Mississippi State University’s building of an expansive political archive is neither unique nor a break from practices by our national peers:

    • The Richard Russell Library for Political Research and Studies at the University of Georgia – named after the U.S. senator from Georgia from 1933 to 1971 – has grown since its founding in 1974 into one of America’s premier research libraries of political history, with more than 600 manuscript collections and an extensive oral history collection.

    • Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin donated his papers to Drake University to form The Harkin Institute, which memorializes Harkin’s role as chief sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act through disability policy research and education.

    • Sens. Robert and Elizabeth Dole’s papers are the bedrock of the Dole Institute of Politics at Kansas University.

    • In 2023, retiring Sens. Richard Shelby and Patrick Leahy donated their archives – Shelby to the University of Alabama and Leahy to the University of Vermont.

    By lending their papers and relative political celebrity, members of Congress have laid the groundwork for repositories like these to promote policy research to enable local and state governments to shape legislation on issues central to their states.

    More complete history

    When the repositories are at universities, they also provide educational programming that encourages public service for the next generations.

    At Mississippi State University, the John C. Stennis Institute for Government and Community Development sponsors an organization that allows students to learn about government, voting, organizing and potential careers on Capitol Hill with trips to Washington, D.C.

    Depositing congressional papers in states and districts, to be cared for by professional archivists and librarians, extends the life of the records and expands their utility.

    When elected officials give their papers to their constituents, they ensure the public can see and use the papers. This is a way of returning their history to them, while giving them the power to assemble a more complete, independent version of their political history. While members of Congress are not required by law to donate their papers, they passed a bipartisan concurrent resolution in 2008 encouraging the practice.

    Users of congressional archives range from historians to college students, local investigative journalists, political memoirists and documentary filmmakers. In advance of the 2020 election, we contributed historical materials to CNN’s reporting on Joe Biden’s controversial relationship with the Southern bloc of segregationist senators in his early Senate years.

    A copy of a letter from U.S. Rep. Carl Albert of Oklahoma, who ultimately became the 46th speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.
    Carl Albert Center Congressional and Political Collections, University of Oklahoma

    Preserving the archives

    While the results contribute to the humanities, the process of archival preservation and management is as complex a science as any other.

    “Congressional records” is a broad term that encompasses many formats such as letters, diaries, notes, meeting minutes, speech transcripts, guestbooks and schedules.

    They also include ephemera such as campaign bumper stickers, military medals and even ceremonial pieces of the original U.S. Capitol flooring. They contain rare photographs of everything from natural disaster damage to state dinners and legacy audiovisual materials such as 8 mm film, cassette tapes and vinyl records. Members of Congress also have donated their libraries of hundreds of books.

    Archival preservation is a constantly evolving science. Only in the mid-20th century was the acid-free box developed to arrest the deterioration of paper records. After the advent of film-based photographs, archivists later learned to keep them away from light and heat, and they observed that audiovisual materials such as 8mm tape decompose from acid decay quickly if not stored in proper conditions.

    Alongside preservation work comes the task of inventorying the records for public use. Archivists write finding aids – itemized, searchable catalogs of the records – and create metadata, which describes items in terms of size, creation date and location.

    Future congressional papers will include born-digital content such as email and social media. This means traditional archiving will give way to digital preservation and data management. Federal law mandates that digital records have alt-text and transcription, and they need specialized expertise in file storage and data security because congressional papers often contain case files with sensitive personal data.

    With congressional materials often clocking in at hundreds or thousands of linear feet, emerging artificial intelligence and automation technologies will usher this field into a new era, with AI speeding metadata and cataloging work to deliver usable records for researchers faster than ever.

    No more funding?

    All of this work takes money; most of it takes staff time. Institutions meet these needs through federal grants – the very grants at risk from the Trump administration’s proposed elimination of the agencies that administer them.

    For example, West Virginia University has been awarded over $400,000 since 2021 from the National Endowment for the Humanities for the American Congress Digital Archives Portal project, a website that centralizes digitized congressional records at the university and a growing list of partners such as the University of Hawaii and the University of Oklahoma.

    Past federal grants have funded other congressional papers projects, from basic supply needs such as folders to more complex repair of film and tape.

    The Howard Baker Center for Public Policy at the University of Tennessee used National Endowment for the Humanities funds to purchase specialized supplies needed to store the papers of its namesake, the Republican senator who also served as chief of staff to President Ronald Reagan.

    National Endowment for the Humanities funds helped process U.S. Rep. Pat Williams’ papers at the University of Montana, resulting in a searchable finding aid for the 87 boxes of records documenting the Montana Democrat’s 18 years in Congress.
    President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, “I have an unshaken conviction that democracy can never be undermined if we maintain our library resources and a national intelligence capable of utilizing them.”

    With the current threat to federal grants – and agencies – that pay for the crucial work of stewarding these congressional papers, it appears that these records of democracy may no longer play their role in supporting that democracy.

    Katherine Gregory received funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities and is a member of the Society of American Archivists.

    – ref. Universities in every state care for congressional papers that document US political history − federal cuts put their work at risk – https://theconversation.com/universities-in-every-state-care-for-congressional-papers-that-document-us-political-history-federal-cuts-put-their-work-at-risk-256053

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Universities in every state care for congressional papers that document US political history − federal cuts put their work at risk

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Katherine Gregory, Assistant Professor, University Libraries, Mississippi State University

    The papers of members of Congress are fertile ground for research into Congress’ role in shaping U.S. history. cunfek, iStock/Getty Images Plus

    In 1971, the president of Mississippi State University, Dr. William L. Giles, invited President Richard Nixon to attend the dedication of U.S. Sen. John C. Stennis’ papers to the university library’s archives.

    Nixon declined, but the Republican president sent a generous note in support of the veteran Democrat Stennis.

    “Future students and scholars who study there will … familiarize themselves with the outstanding record of a U.S. Senator whose … judgment in complex areas of national security have been a source of strength and comfort to those who have led this Nation and to all who are concerned in preserving the freedom we cherish.”

    Nixon’s prediction came true, perhaps ironically, considering the legal troubles over his own papers during the Watergate crisis. Congress passed the Presidential Records Act of 1978 after Nixon resigned.

    Stennis’ gift to his alma mater caused a windfall of subsequent congressional donations to what is now the Mississippi Political Collections at Mississippi State University Libraries.

    Now, 55 years later, Mississippi State University holds a body of records from a bipartisan group of officials that has positioned it to tell a major part of the state’s story in national and global politics. That story is told to over 100 patrons and dozens of college and K-12 classes each year.

    The papers are fertile ground for scholarly research into Congress’ role in shaping U.S. history, with its extraordinary powers over lawmaking, the economy and one of the world’s largest militaries.

    Mississippi State University, where I work as an assistant professor and director of the Mississippi Political Collections, is not alone in providing such a rich source of history. It is part of a national network of universities that hold and steward congressional papers.

    But support for this stewardship is in jeopardy. With the White House’s proposed elimination of independent granting agencies such as the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, it is unclear what money will be available for this work in the future.

    A 1963 letter from Sen. John Stennis to a constituent about agricultural legislation and also Russians in Cuba.
    Mississippi State University

    From research to public service

    Mississippi State University’s building of an expansive political archive is neither unique nor a break from practices by our national peers:

    • The Richard Russell Library for Political Research and Studies at the University of Georgia – named after the U.S. senator from Georgia from 1933 to 1971 – has grown since its founding in 1974 into one of America’s premier research libraries of political history, with more than 600 manuscript collections and an extensive oral history collection.

    • Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin donated his papers to Drake University to form The Harkin Institute, which memorializes Harkin’s role as chief sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act through disability policy research and education.

    • Sens. Robert and Elizabeth Dole’s papers are the bedrock of the Dole Institute of Politics at Kansas University.

    • In 2023, retiring Sens. Richard Shelby and Patrick Leahy donated their archives – Shelby to the University of Alabama and Leahy to the University of Vermont.

    By lending their papers and relative political celebrity, members of Congress have laid the groundwork for repositories like these to promote policy research to enable local and state governments to shape legislation on issues central to their states.

    More complete history

    When the repositories are at universities, they also provide educational programming that encourages public service for the next generations.

    At Mississippi State University, the John C. Stennis Institute for Government and Community Development sponsors an organization that allows students to learn about government, voting, organizing and potential careers on Capitol Hill with trips to Washington, D.C.

    Depositing congressional papers in states and districts, to be cared for by professional archivists and librarians, extends the life of the records and expands their utility.

    When elected officials give their papers to their constituents, they ensure the public can see and use the papers. This is a way of returning their history to them, while giving them the power to assemble a more complete, independent version of their political history. While members of Congress are not required by law to donate their papers, they passed a bipartisan concurrent resolution in 2008 encouraging the practice.

    Users of congressional archives range from historians to college students, local investigative journalists, political memoirists and documentary filmmakers. In advance of the 2020 election, we contributed historical materials to CNN’s reporting on Joe Biden’s controversial relationship with the Southern bloc of segregationist senators in his early Senate years.

    A copy of a letter from U.S. Rep. Carl Albert of Oklahoma, who ultimately became the 46th speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.
    Carl Albert Center Congressional and Political Collections, University of Oklahoma

    Preserving the archives

    While the results contribute to the humanities, the process of archival preservation and management is as complex a science as any other.

    “Congressional records” is a broad term that encompasses many formats such as letters, diaries, notes, meeting minutes, speech transcripts, guestbooks and schedules.

    They also include ephemera such as campaign bumper stickers, military medals and even ceremonial pieces of the original U.S. Capitol flooring. They contain rare photographs of everything from natural disaster damage to state dinners and legacy audiovisual materials such as 8 mm film, cassette tapes and vinyl records. Members of Congress also have donated their libraries of hundreds of books.

    Archival preservation is a constantly evolving science. Only in the mid-20th century was the acid-free box developed to arrest the deterioration of paper records. After the advent of film-based photographs, archivists later learned to keep them away from light and heat, and they observed that audiovisual materials such as 8mm tape decompose from acid decay quickly if not stored in proper conditions.

    Alongside preservation work comes the task of inventorying the records for public use. Archivists write finding aids – itemized, searchable catalogs of the records – and create metadata, which describes items in terms of size, creation date and location.

    Future congressional papers will include born-digital content such as email and social media. This means traditional archiving will give way to digital preservation and data management. Federal law mandates that digital records have alt-text and transcription, and they need specialized expertise in file storage and data security because congressional papers often contain case files with sensitive personal data.

    With congressional materials often clocking in at hundreds or thousands of linear feet, emerging artificial intelligence and automation technologies will usher this field into a new era, with AI speeding metadata and cataloging work to deliver usable records for researchers faster than ever.

    No more funding?

    All of this work takes money; most of it takes staff time. Institutions meet these needs through federal grants – the very grants at risk from the Trump administration’s proposed elimination of the agencies that administer them.

    For example, West Virginia University has been awarded over $400,000 since 2021 from the National Endowment for the Humanities for the American Congress Digital Archives Portal project, a website that centralizes digitized congressional records at the university and a growing list of partners such as the University of Hawaii and the University of Oklahoma.

    Past federal grants have funded other congressional papers projects, from basic supply needs such as folders to more complex repair of film and tape.

    The Howard Baker Center for Public Policy at the University of Tennessee used National Endowment for the Humanities funds to purchase specialized supplies needed to store the papers of its namesake, the Republican senator who also served as chief of staff to President Ronald Reagan.

    National Endowment for the Humanities funds helped process U.S. Rep. Pat Williams’ papers at the University of Montana, resulting in a searchable finding aid for the 87 boxes of records documenting the Montana Democrat’s 18 years in Congress.
    President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, “I have an unshaken conviction that democracy can never be undermined if we maintain our library resources and a national intelligence capable of utilizing them.”

    With the current threat to federal grants – and agencies – that pay for the crucial work of stewarding these congressional papers, it appears that these records of democracy may no longer play their role in supporting that democracy.

    Katherine Gregory received funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities and is a member of the Society of American Archivists.

    – ref. Universities in every state care for congressional papers that document US political history − federal cuts put their work at risk – https://theconversation.com/universities-in-every-state-care-for-congressional-papers-that-document-us-political-history-federal-cuts-put-their-work-at-risk-256053

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI China: Children across China enjoy summer vacations through colorful activities

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

    Children across China enjoy summer vacations through colorful activities

    Updated: July 8, 2025 20:30 Xinhua
    A kid plays with a device for science popularization at a science and technology hall in Shijiazhuang City of north China’s Hebei Province, July 8, 2025. Children across the country are enriching their summer vacations through colorful activities. [Photo/Xinhua]
    Kids make potteries under their teacher’s guidance in Xinghua City, east China’s Jiangsu Province, July 8, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
    Kids visit an aquarium in Qingdao, east China’s Shandong Province, July 8, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
    Kids learns to play drums in Daoxian County of Yongzhou City, central China’s Hunan Province, July 7, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
    A kid has fun with beach-combing in Rizhao, east China’s Shandong Province, July 6, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
    Children read books at a bookstore in Zunhua City, north China’s Hebei Province, July 8, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: President Trump’s tug-of-war with the courts, explained

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul M. Collins Jr., Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass Amherst

    The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg

    The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a big win on June 27, 2025, by limiting the ability of judges to block Trump administration policies across the nation.

    But Trump has not fared nearly as well in the lower courts, where he has lost a series of cases through different levels of the federal court system. On June 5, a single judge temporarily stopped the administration from preventing Harvard University from enrolling international students.

    And a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade blocked Trump on May 28 from imposing tariffs on China and other nations. The Trump administration has appealed this decision. It will be taken up in July by all 11 judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

    After that, the case can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

    I’m a scholar of the federal courts. The reasons why some courts have multiple judges and others have a single judge can be confusing. Here’s a guide to help understand what’s going on in the federal courts.

    Federal District Courts

    The U.S. District Courts are the trial courts in the federal system and hear about 400,000 cases per year. A single judge almost always presides over cases.

    This makes sense for a jury trial, since a judge might make dozens of spur-of-the-moment decisions during the course of a trial, such as ruling on a lawyer’s objection to a question asked of a witness. If a panel of, say, three judges performed this task, it would prolong proceedings because the three judges would have to deliberate over every ruling.

    A more controversial role of District Courts involves setting nationwide injunctions. This happens when a single judge temporarily stops the government from enforcing a policy throughout the nation.

    There have been more than two dozen nationwide injunctions during Trump’s second term. These involve policy areas as diverse as ending birthright citizenship, firing federal employees and banning transgender people from serving in the military.

    President Donald Trump speaks at the White House on June 27, 2025, after the Supreme Court curbed the power of lone federal judges to block executive actions.
    Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

    Trump and Republicans in Congress argue that the ability to issue nationwide injunctions gives too much power to a single judge. Instead, they believe injunctions should apply only to the parties involved in the case.

    On June 27, the Supreme Court agreed with the Trump administration and severely limited the ability of District Court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This means that judges can generally stop policies from being enforced only against the parties to a lawsuit, instead of everyone in the nation.

    In rare instances, a panel of three District Court judges hears a case. Congress decides what cases these special three-judge panels hear, reserving them for especially important issues. For example, these panels have heard cases involving reapportionment, which is how votes are translated into legislative seats in Congress and state legislatures, and allegations that a voter’s rights have been violated.

    The logic behind having three judges hear such important cases is that they will give more careful consideration to the dispute. This may lend legitimacy to a controversial decision and prevents a single judge from exercising too much power.

    There are also specialized courts that hear cases involving particular policies, sometimes in panels of three judges. For instance, three-judge panels on the U.S. Court of International Trade decide cases involving executive orders related to international trade.

    The federal Court of Appeals

    The U.S. Court of Appeals hears appeals from the District Courts and specialized courts.

    The 13 federal circuit courts that make up the U.S. Court of Appeals are arranged throughout the country and handle about 40,000 cases per year. Each circuit court has six to 29 judges. Cases are decided primarily by three-judge panels.

    Having multiple judges decide cases on the Court of Appeals is seen as worthwhile, since these courts are policymaking institutions. This means they set precedents for the judicial circuit in which they operate, which covers three to nine states.

    Supporters of this system argue that by having multiple judges on appellate courts, the panel will consider a variety of perspectives on the case and collaborate with one another. This can lead to better decision-making. Additionally, having multiple judges check one another can boost public confidence in the judiciary.

    The party that loses a case before a three-judge panel can request that the entire circuit rehear the case. This is known as sitting en banc.

    Because judges on a circuit can decline to hear cases en banc, this procedure is usually reserved for especially significant cases. For instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has agreed to an en banc hearing to review the Court of International Trade’s decision to temporarily halt Trump’s sweeping tariff program. It also allowed the tariffs to remain in effect until the appeal plays out, likely in August.

    The exception to having the entire circuit sit together en banc is the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, which has 29 judges, far more than other circuit courts. It uses an 11-judge en banc process, since having 29 judges hear cases together would be logistically challenging.

    Cargo ships are seen at a container terminal in the Port of Shanghai, China, in May 2025. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade blocked Trump from imposing tariffs on China and other nations.
    CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty Images

    The US Supreme Court

    The U.S. Supreme Court sits atop the American legal system and decides about 60 cases per year.

    Cases are decided by all nine justices, unless a justice declines to participate because of a conflict of interest. As with other multimember courts, advocates of the nine-member makeup argue that the quality of decision-making is improved by having many justices participate in a case’s deliberation.

    Each Supreme Court justice is charged with overseeing one or more of the 13 federal circuits. In this role, a single justice reviews emergency appeals from the District Courts and an appellate court within a circuit. This authorizes them to put a temporary hold on the implementation of policies within that circuit or refer the matter to the entire Supreme Court.

    In February, for example, Chief Justice John Roberts blocked a Court of Appeals order that would have compelled the Trump administration to pay nearly US$2 billion in reimbursements for already completed foreign aid work.

    In March, a 5-4 majority of the high court sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, who subsequently ordered the Trump administration to release some of the funds.

    The federal judicial system is complex. The flurry of executive orders from the Trump administration means that cases are being decided on a nearly daily basis by a variety of courts.

    A single judge will decide some of these cases, and others are considered by full courts. Though the nine justices of the Supreme Court technically have the final say, the sheer volume of legal challenges means that America’s District Courts and Court of Appeals will resolve many of the disputes.

    Paul M. Collins Jr. does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. President Trump’s tug-of-war with the courts, explained – https://theconversation.com/president-trumps-tug-of-war-with-the-courts-explained-258234

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Scientific norms shape the behavior of researchers working for the greater good

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeffrey A. Lee, Professor of Geography and the Environment, Texas Tech University

    Mentors model the ethical pursuit of scientific knowledge. sanjeri/E+ via Getty Images

    Over the past 400 years or so, a set of mostly unwritten guidelines has evolved for how science should be properly done. The assumption in the research community is that science advances most effectively when scientists conduct themselves in certain ways.

    The first person to write down these attitudes and behaviors was Robert Merton, in 1942. The founder of the sociology of science laid out what he called the “ethos of science,” a set of “values and norms which is held to be binding on the man of science.” (Yes, it’s sexist wording. Yes, it was the 1940s.) These now are referred to as scientific norms.

    The point of these norms is that scientists should behave in ways that improve the collective advancement of knowledge. If you’re a cynic, you might be rolling your eyes at such a Pollyannaish ideal. But corny expectations keep the world functioning. Think: Be kind, clean up your mess, return the shopping cart to the cart corral.

    I’m a physical geographer who realized long ago that students are taught biology in biology classes and chemistry in chemistry classes, but rarely are they taught about the overarching concepts of science itself. So I wrote a book called “The Scientific Endeavor,” laying out what scientists and other educated people should know about science itself.

    Scientists in training are expected to learn the big picture of science after years of observing their mentors, but that doesn’t always happen. And understanding what drives scientists can help nonscientists better understand research findings. These scientific norms are a big part of the scientific endeavor. Here are Merton’s original four, along with a couple I think are worth adding to the list:

    Universalism

    Scientific knowledge is for everyone – it’s universal – and not the domain of an individual or group. In other words, a scientific claim must be judged on its merits, not the person making it. Characteristics like a scientist’s nationality, gender or favorite sports team should not affect how their work is judged.

    Also, the past record of a scientist shouldn’t influence how you judge whatever claim they’re currently making. For instance, Nobel Prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling was not able to convince most scientists that large doses of vitamin C are medically beneficial; his evidence didn’t sufficiently support his claim.

    In practice, it’s hard to judge contradictory claims fairly when they come from a “big name” in the field versus an unknown researcher without a reputation. It is, however, easy to point out such breaches of universalism when others let scientific fame sway their opinion one way or another about new work.

    When asked about patenting his polio vaccine, Jonas Salk replied, ‘There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?’
    Bettmann via Getty Images

    Communism

    Communism in science is the idea that scientific knowledge is the property of everyone and must be shared.

    Jonas Salk, who led the research that resulted in the polio vaccine, provides a classic example of this scientific norm. He published the work and did not patent the vaccine so that it could be freely produced at low cost.

    When scientific research doesn’t have direct commercial application, communism is easy to practice. When money is involved, however, things get complicated. Many scientists work for corporations, and they might not publish their findings in order to keep them away from competitors. The same goes for military research and cybersecurity, where publishing findings could help the bad guys.

    Disinterestedness

    Disinterestedness refers to the expectation that scientists pursue their work mainly for the advancement of knowledge, not to advance an agenda or get rich. The expectation is that a researcher will share the results of their work, regardless of a finding’s implications for their career or economic bottom line.

    Research on politically hot topics, like vaccine safety, is where it can be tricky to remain disinterested. Imagine a scientist who is strongly pro-vaccine. If their vaccine research results suggest serious danger to children, the scientist is still obligated to share these findings.

    Likewise, if a scientist has invested in a company selling a drug, and the scientist’s research shows that the drug is dangerous, they are morally compelled to publish the work even if that would hurt their income.

    In addition, when publishing research, scientists are required to disclose any conflicts of interest related to the work. This step informs others that they may want to be more skeptical in evaluating the work, in case self-interest won out over disinterest.

    Disinterestedness also applies to journal editors, who are obligated to decide whether to publish research based on the science, not the political or economic implications.

    Organized skepticism

    Merton’s last norm is organized skepticism. Skepticism does not mean rejecting ideas because you don’t like them. To be skeptical in science is to be highly critical and look for weaknesses in a piece of research.

    By the time new research is published in a reputable journal, it’ has made it past several sets of skeptical eyes.
    gorsh13/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    This concept is formalized in the peer review process. When a scientist submits an article to a journal, the editor sends it to two or three scientists familiar with the topic and methods used. They read it carefully and point out any problems they find.

    The editor then uses the reviewer reports to decide whether to accept as is, reject outright or request revisions. If the decision is revise, the author then makes each change or tries to convince the editor that the reviewer is wrong.

    Peer review is not perfect and doesn’t always catch bad research, but in most cases it improves the work, and science benefits. Traditionally, results weren’t made public until after peer review, but that practice has weakened in recent years with the rise of preprints, reducing the reliability of information for nonscientists.

    Integrity and humility

    I’m adding two norms to Merton’s list.

    The first is integrity. It’s so fundamental to good science that it almost seems unnecessary to mention. But I think it’s justified since cheating, stealing and lazy scientists are getting plenty of attention these days.

    The second is humility. You may have made a contribution to our understanding of cell division, but don’t tell us that you cured cancer. You may be a leader in quantum mechanics research, but that doesn’t make you an authority on climate change.

    Scientific norms are guidelines for how scientists are expected to behave. A researcher who violates one of these norms won’t be carted off to jail or fined an exorbitant fee. But when a norm is not followed, scientists must be prepared to justify their reasons, both to themselves and to others.

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

    – ref. Scientific norms shape the behavior of researchers working for the greater good – https://theconversation.com/scientific-norms-shape-the-behavior-of-researchers-working-for-the-greater-good-255159

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: What is the ‘Seven Mountains Mandate’ and how is it linked to political extremism in the US?

    Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Art Jipson, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Dayton

    People pray before Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance at a town hall hosted by Lance Wallnau on Sept. 28, 2024, in Monroeville, Pa. AP Photo/Rebecca Droke

    Vance Boelter, who allegedly shot Melissa Hortman, a Democratic Minnesota state representative, and her husband, Mark Hortman, on June 14, 2025, studied at Christ for the Nations Institute in Dallas. The group is a Bible school linked to the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR.

    The NAR is a loosely organized but influential charismatic Christian movement that shares similarities with Pentecostalism, especially in its belief that God actively communicates with believers through the Holy Spirit. Unlike traditional Pentecostalism, however, the organization emphasizes modern-day apostles and prophets as authoritative leaders tasked with transforming society and ushering in God’s kingdom on Earth. Prayer, prophecy and worship are defined not only as acts of devotion but as strategic tools for advancing believers’ vision of government and society.

    After the shooting, the Christ for the Nations Institute issued a statement “unequivocally” denouncing “any and all forms of violence and extremism.” It stated: “Our organization’s mission is to educate and equip students to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through compassion, love, prayer, service, worship, and value for human life.”

    But the shooting has drawn attention to the school and the larger Christian movement it belongs to. One of the most important aspects of NAR teachings today is what is called “the Seven Mountain Mandate.”

    The Seven Mountain Mandate calls on Christians to gain influence, or “take dominion,” over seven key areas of culture: religion, family, education, government, media, business and the arts.

    With over three decades of experience studying extremism, I offer a brief overview of the history and core beliefs of the Seven Mountains Mandate.

    ‘Dominion of Christians’

    The Seven Mountains concept was originally proposed in 1975 by evangelical leader Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ. Now known as “Cru,” the Campus Crusade for Christ was founded as a global ministry in 1951 to promote Christian evangelism, especially on college campuses.

    United by a shared vision to influence society through Christian values, Bright partnered with Loren Cunningham, the founder of Youth With A Mission, a major international missionary training and outreach organization, in the 1970s.

    The Seven Mountains Mandate was popularized by theologian Francis Schaeffer, who linked it to a larger critique of secularism and liberal culture. Over time, it evolved.

    C. Peter Wagner, a former seminary professor who helped organize and name the New Apostolic Reformation, is often regarded as the theological architect of the group. He developed it into a call for dominion. In his 2008 book “Dominion! How Kingdom Action Can Change the World,” he urged Christians to take authoritative control of cultural institutions.

    For Wagner, “dominion theology” – the idea that Christians should have control over all aspects of society – was a call to spiritual warfare, so that God’s kingdom would be “manifested here on earth as it is in heaven.”

    Bill Johnson.
    Doctorg via Wikimedia Commons

    Since 1996, Bill Johnson, a senior leader of Bethel Church, and Johnny Enlow, a self-described prophet and Seven Mountains advocate, among others, have taken the original idea of the Seven Mountains Mandate and reshaped it into a more aggressive, political and spiritually militant approach. Spiritual militancy reflects an aggressive, us-vs.-them mindset that blurs the line between faith and authoritarianism, promoting dominion over society in the name of spiritual warfare.

    Their version doesn’t just aim to influence culture; it frames the effort as a spiritual battle to reclaim and reshape the nation according to their vision of God’s will.

    Lance Wallnau, another Christian evangelical preacher, televangelist, speaker and author, has promoted dominion theology since the early 2000s. During the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Wallnau, along with several prominent NAR figures, described Donald Trump as anointed by God to reclaim the “mountain” of government from demonic control.

    In their book “Invading Babylon: The 7 Mountains Mandate,” Wallnau and Johnson explicitly call for Christian leadership as the only antidote to perceived moral decay and spiritual darkness.

    The beliefs

    Sometimes referred to as Seven Mountains of Influence or Seven Mountains of Culture, the seven mountains are not neutral domains but seen as battlegrounds between divine truth and demonic deception.

    Adherents believe that Christians are called to reclaim these areas through influence, leadership and even, if necessary, the use of force and to confront demonic political forces, as religion scholar Matthew Taylor demonstrates in his book “The Violent Take It By Force.”

    Diverse perspectives and interpretations surround the rhetoric and actions associated with the New Apostolic Reformation. Some analysts have pointed out how the NAR is training its followers for an active confrontation. Other commentators have said that the rhetoric calling for physical violence is anti-biblical and should be denounced.

    NAR-aligned leaders have framed electoral contests as struggles between “godly” candidates and those under the sway of “satanic” influence.

    Similarly, NAR prophet Cindy Jacobs has repeatedly emphasized the need for “spiritual warfare” in schools to combat what she characterizes as “demonic ideologies” such as sex education, LGBTQ+ inclusion or discussions of systemic racism.

    In the NAR worldview, cultural change is not merely political or social but considered a supernatural mission; opponents are not simply wrong but possibly under the sway of demonic influence. Elections become spiritual battles.

    This belief system views pluralism as weakness, compromise as betrayal, and coexistence as capitulation. Frederick Clarkson, a senior research analyst at Political Research Associates, a progressive think tank based in Somerville, Massachusetts, defines the Seven Mountains Mandate as “the theocratic idea that Christians are called by God to exercise dominion over every aspect of society by taking control of political and cultural institutions.”

    The call to “take back” the culture is not metaphorical but literal, and believers are encouraged to see themselves as soldiers in a holy war to dominate society. Some critics argue that NAR’s call to “take back” culture is about literal domination, but this interpretation is contested.

    Many within the movement see the language of warfare as spiritually focused on prayer, evangelism and influencing hearts and minds. Still, the line between metaphor and mandate can blur, especially when rhetoric about “dominion” intersects with political and cultural action. That tension is part of an ongoing debate both within and outside the movement.

    Networks that spread the beliefs

    This belief system is no longer confined to the margins. It is spread widely through evangelical churches, podcasts, YouTube videos and political networks.

    It’s hard to know exactly how many churches are part of the New Apostolic Reformation, but estimates suggest that about 3 million people in the U.S. attend churches that openly follow NAR leaders.

    At the same time, the Seven Mountains Mandate doesn’t depend on centralized leadership or formal institutions. It spreads organically through social networks, social media – notably podcasts and livestreams – and revivalist meetings and workshops.

    André Gagné, a theologian and author of “American Evangelicals for Trump: Dominion, Spiritual Warfare, and the End Times,” writes about the ways in which the mandate spreads by empowering local leaders and believers. Individuals are authorized – often through teachings on spiritual warfare, prophetic gifting, and apostolic leadership – to see themselves as agents of divine transformation in society, called to reclaim the “mountains,” such as government, media and education, for God’s kingdom.

    This approach, Gagné explains, allows different communities to adapt the action mandate to their unique cultural, political and social contexts. It encourages individuals to see themselves as spiritual warriors and leaders in their domains – whether in business, education, government, media or the arts.

    Small groups or even individuals can start movements or initiatives without waiting for top-down directives. The only recognized authorities are the apostles and prophets running the church or church network the believers attend.

    The framing of the Seven Mountains Mandate as a divinely inspired mission, combined with the movement’s emphasis on direct spiritual experiences and a specific interpretation of scripture, can create an environment where questioning the mandate is perceived as challenging God’s authority.

    Slippery slope

    These beliefs have increasingly fused with nationalist rhetoric and conspiracy theories.

    The ‘Appeal to Heaven’ flags symbolize the belief that people have the right to appeal directly to God’s authority when they think the government has failed.
    Paul Becker/Becker1999 via Flickr, CC BY

    A powerful example of NAR political rhetoric in action is the rise and influence of the “Appeal to Heaven” flags. For those in the New Apostolic Reformation, these flags symbolize the belief that when all earthly authority fails, people have the right to appeal directly to God’s authority to justify resistance.

    This was evident during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, when these flags were prominently displayed.

    To be clear, its leaders are not calling for violence but rather for direct political engagement and protest. For some believers, however, the calls for “spiritual warfare” may become a slippery slope into justification for violence, as in the case of the alleged Minnesota shooter.

    Understanding the Seven Mountains Mandate is essential for grasping the dynamics of contemporary efforts to align government and culture with a particular vision of Christian authority and influence.

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

    – ref. What is the ‘Seven Mountains Mandate’ and how is it linked to political extremism in the US? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-seven-mountains-mandate-and-how-is-it-linked-to-political-extremism-in-the-us-260034

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The aftermath of floods, hurricanes and other disasters can be hardest on older rural Americans – here’s how families and neighbors can help

    Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Lori Hunter, Professor of Sociology, Director of the Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado Boulder

    Edith Schaecher, center, and her daughter and granddaughter look at a photo album recovered from her tornado-damaged home in Greenfield, Iowa, in May 2024. AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall

    Hurricanes, tornadoes and other extreme weather do not distinguish between urban and rural boundaries. But when a disaster strikes, there are big differences in how well people are able to respond and recover – and older adults in rural areas are especially vulnerable.

    If a disaster causes injuries, getting health care can take longer in rural areas. Many rural hospitals have closed, leaving patients traveling longer distances for care.

    At the same time, rural areas have higher percentages of older adults, a group that is more likely to have chronic health problems that make experiencing natural disasters especially dangerous. Medical treatments, such as dialysis, can be disrupted when power goes out or clinics are damaged, and injuries are more likely around property damaged by flooding or powerful winds.

    As a sociologist who studies rural issues and directs the Institute of Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado Boulder, I believe that understanding the risks is essential for ensuring healthier lives for older adults. I see many different ways rural communities are helping reduce their vulnerability in disasters.

    Disasters disrupt health care, especially in isolated rural regions

    According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 20% of the country’s rural population is age 65 and over, compared with only 16% of urban residents. That’s about 10 million older adults living in rural areas.

    There are three primary reasons rural America has been aging faster than the rest of the country: Young people have been leaving for college and job opportunities, meaning fewer residents are starting new families. Many older rural residents are choosing to “age in place” where they have strong social ties. And some rural areas are gaining older adults who choose to retire there.

    An aging population means rural areas tend to have a larger percentage of residents with chronic disease, such as dementia, heart disease, respiratory illness and diabetes.

    According to research from the National Council on Aging, nearly 95% of adults age 60 and older have at least one chronic condition, while more than 78% have two or more. Rural areas also have higher rates of death from chronic diseases, particularly heart disease.

    At the same time, health care access in rural areas is rapidly declining.

    Nearly 200 rural hospitals have closed or stopped providing in-patient care since 2005. Over 700 more — one-third of the nation’s remaining rural hospitals — were considered to be at risk of closing even before the cuts to Medicaid that the president signed in July 2025.

    Hospital closures have left rural residents traveling about 20 miles farther for common in-patient health care services than they did two decades ago, and even farther for specialist care.

    Those miles might seem trivial, but in emergencies when roads are damaged or flooded, they can mean losing access to care and treatment.

    After Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005, 44% of patients on dialysis missed at least one treatment session, and almost 17% missed three or more.

    When Hurricanes Matthew and Florence hit rural Robeson County, North Carolina, in 2016 and 2018, some patients who relied on insulin to manage their blood sugar levels went without insulin for weeks. The county had high rates of poverty and poor health already, and the healthy foods people needed to manage the disease were also hard to find after the storm.

    Insulin is important for treating diabetes – a chronic disease estimated to affect nearly one-third of adults age 65 and older. But a sufficient supply can be harder to maintain when a disaster knocks out power, because insulin should be kept cool, and medical facilities and drugstores may be harder for patients to reach.

    Rural residents also often live farther from community centers, schools or other facilities that can serve as cooling centers during heat waves or evacuation centers in times of crisis.

    Alzheimer’s disease can make evacuation difficult

    Cognitive decline also affects older adults’ ability to manage disasters.

    Over 11% of Americans age 65 and older – more than 7 million people – have Alzheimer’s disease or related dementia, and the prevalence is higher in rural areas’ older populations compared with urban areas.

    Caregivers for family members living with dementia may struggle to find time to prepare for disasters. And when disaster strikes, they face unique challenges. Disasters disrupt routines, which can cause agitation for people with Alzheimer’s, and patients may resist evacuation.

    Living through a disaster can also worsen brain health over the long run. Older adults who lived through the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami were found to have greater cognitive decline over the following decade, especially those who lost their homes or jobs, or whose health care routines were disrupted.

    Social safety nets are essential

    One thing that many rural communities have that helps is a strong social fabric. Those social connections can help reduce older adults’ vulnerability when disasters strike.

    Following severe flooding in Colorado in 2013, social connections helped older adults navigate the maze of paperwork required for disaster aid, and some even provided personal loans.

    Community support through churches, like this one whose building was hit by a tornado in rural Argyle, Wis., in 2024, and other groups can help older adults recover from disasters.
    Ross Harried/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    Friends, family and neighbors in rural areas often check in on seniors, particularly those living alone. They can help them develop disaster response plans to ensure older residents have access to medications and medical treatment, and that they have an evacuation plan.

    Rural communities and local groups can also help build up older adults’ mental and physical health before and after storms by developing educational, social and exercise programs. Better health and social connections can improve resilience, including older adults’ ability to respond to alerts and recover after disasters.

    Ensuring that everyone in the community has that kind of support is important in rural areas and cities alike as storm and flood risks worsen, particularly for older adults.

    Lori Hunter receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

    – ref. The aftermath of floods, hurricanes and other disasters can be hardest on older rural Americans – here’s how families and neighbors can help – https://theconversation.com/the-aftermath-of-floods-hurricanes-and-other-disasters-can-be-hardest-on-older-rural-americans-heres-how-families-and-neighbors-can-help-247691

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: 3 basic ingredients, a million possibilities: How small pizzerias succeed with uniqueness in an age of chain restaurants

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Paula de la Cruz-Fernández, Cultural Digital Collections Manager, University of Florida

    Variety is the sauce of life. Suzanne Kreiter/Boston Globe via Getty Images

    At its heart, pizza is deceptively simple. Made from just a few humble ingredients – baked dough, tangy sauce, melted cheese and maybe a few toppings – it might seem like a perfect candidate for the kind of mass-produced standardization that defines many global food chains, where predictable menus reign supreme.

    Yet, visit two pizzerias in different towns – or even on different blocks of the same town – and you’ll find that pizza stubbornly refuses to be homogenized.

    We are researchers working on a local business history project that documents the commercial landscape of Gainesville, Florida, in the 20th and 21st centuries. As part of that project, we’ve spent a great many hours over the past two years interviewing local restaurant owners, especially those behind Gainesville’s independent pizzerias. What we’ve found reaffirms a powerful truth: Pizza resists sameness – and small pizzerias are a big reason why.

    Why standardized pizza rose but didn’t conquer

    While tomatoes were unknown in Italy until the mid-16th century, they have since become synonymous with Italian cuisine – especially through pizza.

    Pizza arrived in the U.S. from Naples in the early 20th century, when Italian immigration was at its peak. Two of the biggest destinations for Italian immigrants were New York City and Chicago, and today each has a distinctive pizza style. A New York slice can easily be identified by its thin, soft, foldable crust, while Chicago pies are known for deep, thick, buttery crusts.

    After World War II, other regions developed their own types of pizza, including the famed New Haven and Detroit styles. The New Haven style is known for being thin, crispy and charred in a coal-fired oven, while the Detroit style has a rectangular, deep-dish shape and thick, buttery crust.

    By the latter half of the 20th century, pizza had become a staple of the American diet. And as its popularity grew, so did demand for consistent, affordable pizza joints. Chains such as Pizza Hut, founded in 1958, and Papa John’s, established in 1984, applied the model pioneered by McDonalds in the late 1940s, adopting limited menus, assembly line kitchens and franchise models built for consistency and scale. New technologies such as point-of-sale systems and inventory management software made things even more efficient.

    As food historian Carol Helstosky explains in “Pizza: A Global History,” the transformation involved simplifying recipes, ensuring consistent quality and developing formats optimized for rapid expansion and franchising. What began as a handcrafted, regional dish became a highly replicable product suited to global mass markets.

    Today, more than 20,000 Pizza Huts operate worldwide. Papa John’s, which runs about 6,000 pizzerias, built its brand explicitly on a promise rooted in standardization. In this model, success means making pizza the same way, everywhere, every time.

    So, what happened to the independent pizzerias? Did they get swallowed up by efficiency?

    Not quite.

    Chain restaurants don’t necessarily suffocate small competitors, recent research shows. In fact, in the case of pizza, they often coexist, sometimes even fueling creativity and opportunity. Independent pizzerias – there are more than 44,000 nationwide – lean into what makes them unique, carving out a niche. Rather than focusing only on speed or price, they compete by offering character, inventive toppings, personal service and a sense of place that chains just can’t replicate.

    A local pizza scene: Creativity in a corporate age

    For an example, look no farther than Gainesville. A college town with fewer than 150,000 residents, Gainesville doesn’t have the same culinary cache as New York or Chicago, but it has developed a very unique pizza scene. With 13 independent pizzerias serving Neapolitan, Detroit, New York and Mediterranean styles and more, hungry Gators have a plethora of options when craving a slice.

    What makes Gainesville’s pizza scene especially interesting is the range of backgrounds its proprietors have. Through interviews with pizzeria owners, we found that some had started as artists and musicians, while others had worked in engineering or education – and each had their own unique approach to making pizzas.

    The owner of Strega Nona’s Oven, for example, uses his engineering background to turn dough-making into a science, altering the proportions of ingredients by as little as half of a percent based on the season or even the weather.

    Satchel’s Pizza, on the other hand, is filled with works made by its artist owner, including mosaic windows, paintings, sculptures and fountains.

    Gainesville’s independent pizzerias often serve as what sociologists call “third places”: spaces for gathering that aren’t home or work. And their owners think carefully about how to create a welcoming environment. For example, the owner of Scuola Pizza insisted the restaurant be free of TVs, so diners can focus on their food. Squarehouse Pizza features a large outdoor space; an old, now repurposed school bus outfitted with tables and chairs to dine in, and a stage for live music.

    Squarehouse also is known for its unusual toppings on square, Detroit-style pies – for example, the Mariah Curry, topped with curry chicken or cauliflower and coconut curry sauce. It refreshes its specialty menus every semester or two.

    While the American pizza landscape may be shaped by big brands and standardized menus, small pizzerias continue to shine. Gainesville is a perfect example of how a local pizza scene in a small Southern college town can be so unique, even in a globalized industry. Small pizzerias don’t just offer food – they offer a flavorful reminder that the marketplace rewards distinctiveness and local character, too.

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

    – ref. 3 basic ingredients, a million possibilities: How small pizzerias succeed with uniqueness in an age of chain restaurants – https://theconversation.com/3-basic-ingredients-a-million-possibilities-how-small-pizzerias-succeed-with-uniqueness-in-an-age-of-chain-restaurants-259661

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: How slashing university research grants impacts Colorado’s economy and national innovation – a CU Boulder administrator explains

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Massimo Ruzzene, Vice Chancellor of Research and Innovation, University of Colorado Boulder

    Federal funding cuts to the University of Colorado Boulder have already impacted research and could cause even more harm. Glenn J. Asakawa/University of Colorado

    The Trump administration has been freezing or reducing federal grants to universities across the country.

    Over the past several months, universities have lost more than US$11 billion in funding, according to NPR. More than two dozen universities, including the University of Colorado Boulder and the University of Denver, have been affected. Research into cancer, farming solutions and climate resiliency are just a few of the many projects nationally that have seen cuts.

    The Conversation asked Massimo Ruzzene, senior vice chancellor for research and innovation at the University of Colorado Boulder, to explain how these cuts and freezes are impacting the university he works for and Colorado’s local economy.

    How important are federal funds to CU Boulder?

    Federal funding pays for approximately 70% of CU Boulder’s research each year. That’s about $495 million in the 2023-2024 fiscal year.

    The other 30% of research funding comes from a variety of sources. The second-largest is international partnerships at $127 million. Last year, CU Boulder also received $27 million in philanthropic gifts to support research and approximately $29 million from collaborations with industry.

    CU Boulder uses this money to fund research that advances fields like artificial intelligence, space exploration and planetary sciences, quantum technologies, biosciences and climate and energy.

    At CU Boulder, federal funding also supports research projects like the Dust Accelerator Laboratory that helps us understand the composition and structure of cosmic dust. This research allows scientists to reconstruct the processes that formed planets, moons and organic molecules.

    How much federal funding has CU Boulder lost?

    So far in 2025, CU Boulder has received 56 grant cancellations or stop-work orders. Those amount to approximately $30 million in lost funding. This number is not inclusive of awards that are on hold and awaiting action by the sponsor.

    This number also does not include the funds that have not been accessible due the considerable lag in funding from agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
    Nationwide, National Science Foundation funding has dropped by more than 50% through the end of May of this year compared to the average of the past 10 years. The university anticipates that our funding received from these agencies will drop a similar amount, but the numbers are still being collected for this year.

    What research has been impacted?

    A wide variety. To take just one example, CU Boulder’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research investigate how to monitor, predict, respond to and recover from extreme weather conditions and natural disasters.

    This research directly impacts the safety, well-being and prosperity of Colorado residents facing wildfires, droughts and floods.

    Michael Gooseff, a researcher from the College of Engineering and Applied Science, collects weather data from the McMurdo Dry Valleys in Antarctica.
    Byron Adams/University of Colorado Boulder

    Past research from these groups includes recovery efforts following the 2021 Marshall Fire in the Boulder area. Researchers collaborated with local governments and watershed groups to monitor environmental impacts and develop dashboards that detailed their findings.

    How might cuts affect Colorado’s aerospace economy?

    Colorado has more aerospace jobs per capita than any other state. The sector employs more than 55,000 people and contributes significantly to both Colorado’s economy and the national economy.

    This ecosystem encompasses research universities such as CU Boulder and Colorado-based startups like Blue Canyon Technologies and Ursa Major Technologies. It also includes established global companies like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies.

    At CU Boulder, the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics is one of the world’s premier space science research institutions. Researchers at the lab design, build and operate spacecraft and other instruments that contribute critical data. That data helps us understand Earth’s atmosphere, the Sun, planetary systems and deep space phenomena. If the projects the lab supports are cut, then it’s likely the lab will be cut as well.

    The Presidential Budget Request proposes up to 24% cuts to NASA’s annual budget. These include reductions of 47% for the Science Mission Directorate. The directorate supports more than a dozen space missions at CU Boulder. That cut could have an immediate impact on university programs of approximately $50 million.

    Scientists test the solar arrays on NASA’s Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution orbiter spacecraft at Lockheed Martin’s facility near Denver.
    Photo courtesy of LASP

    One of the largest space missions CU Boulder is involved in is the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution orbiter. MAVEN, as it’s known, provides telecommunications and space weather monitoring capabilities. These are necessary to support future human and robotic missions to Mars over the next decade and beyond, a stated priority for the White House. If MAVEN were to be canceled, experts estimate that it would cost almost $1 billion to restart it.

    Have the cuts hit quantum research?

    While the federal government has identified quantum technology as a national priority, the fiscal year 2026 budget proposal only maintains existing funding levels. It does not introduce new investments or initiatives.

    I’m concerned that this stagnation, amid broader cuts to science agencies, could undermine progress in this field and undercut the training of its critical workforce. The result could be the U.S. ceding its leadership in quantum innovation to global competitors.

    Massimo Ruzzene receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

    – ref. How slashing university research grants impacts Colorado’s economy and national innovation – a CU Boulder administrator explains – https://theconversation.com/how-slashing-university-research-grants-impacts-colorados-economy-and-national-innovation-a-cu-boulder-administrator-explains-257869

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI USA: The Rule of Law is Key to Capitalism − Eroding it is Bad News for American Business

    Source: US State of Connecticut

    Something dangerous is happening to the U.S. economy, and it’s not inflation or trade wars. Chaotic deregulation and the selective enforcement of laws have upended markets and investor confidence. At one point, the threat of tariffs and resulting chaos evaporated US$4 trillion in value in the U.S. stock market. This approach isn’t helping the economy, and there are troubling signs it will hurt both the U.S. and the global economy in the short and long term.

    The rule of law – the idea that legal rules apply to everyone equally, regardless of wealth or political connections − is essential for a thriving economy. Yet globally the respect for the rule of law is slipping, and the U.S. is slipping with it. According to annual rankings from the World Justice Project, the rule of law has declined in more than half of all countries for seven years in a row. The rule of law in the U.S., the most economically powerful nation in the world, is now weaker than the rule of law in Uruguay, Singapore, Latvia and over 20 other countries.

    When regulation is unnecessarily burdensome for business, government should lighten the load. However, arbitrary and frenzied deregulation does not free corporations to earn higher profits. As a business school professor with an MBA who has taught business law for over 25 years, and the author of a recently published book about the importance of legal knowledge to business, I can affirm that the opposite is true. Chaotic deregulation doesn’t drive growth. It only fuels risk.

    Chaos undermines investment, talent and trust

    Legal uncertainty has become a serious drag on American competitiveness.

    A study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that public policy risks — such as unexpected changes in taxes, regulation and enforcement — ranked among the top challenges businesses face, alongside more familiar business threats such as competition or economic volatility. Companies that can’t predict how the law might change are forced to plan for the worst. That means holding back on long-term investment, slowing innovation and raising prices to cover new risks.

    When the government enforces rules arbitrarily, it also undermines property rights.

    For example, if a country enters into a major trade agreement and then goes ahead and violates it, that threatens the property rights of the companies that relied on the agreement to conduct business. If the government can seize assets without due process, those assets lose their stability and value. And if that treatment depends on whether a company is in the government’s political favor, it’s not just bad economics − it’s a red flag for investors.

    When government doesn’t enforce rules fairly, it also threatens people’s freedom to enter into contracts.

    Consider presidential orders that threaten the clients of law firms that have challenged the administration with cancellation of their government contracts. The threat alone jeopardizes the value of those agreements.

    If businesses can’t trust public contracts to be respected, they’ll be less likely to work with the government in the first place. This deprives the government, and ultimately the American people, of receiving the best value for their tax dollars in critical areas such as transportation, technology and national defense.

    Regulatory chaos also allows corruption to spread.

    For example, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits businesses from bribing foreign government officials, has leveled the playing field for firms and enabled the best American companies to succeed on their merits. Before the law was enacted in 1977, some American companies felt pressured to pay bribes to compete. “Pausing” enforcement of the law, as the current presidential administration has done, increases the cost of doing business and encourages a wild west economy where chaos thrives.

    When corruption grows, stable and democratic governments weaken, opportunities for terrorism increase and corruption-fueled authoritarian regimes, which oppose the interests of the U.S., thrive. Halting the enforcement of an anti-bribery law, even for a limited time, is an issue of national security.

    Legal uncertainty fuels brain drain

    Chaotic enforcement of the law also corrodes labor markets.

    American companies require a strong pool of talented professionals to fuel their financial success. When legal rights are enforced arbitrarily or unjustly, the very best talent that American companies need may leave the country.

    The science brain drain is already happening. American scientists have submitted 32% more applications for jobs abroad compared with last year. Nonscientists are leaving too. Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs has witnessed a 50% increase in Americans taking steps to obtain an Irish passport. Employers in the U.K. saw a spike in job applications from the United States.

    Business from other countries will gladly accept American talent as they compete against American companies. During the Third Reich, Nazi Germany lost its best and brightest to other countries, including America. Now the reverse is happening, as highly talented Americans leave to work for firms in other nations.

    Threats of arbitrary legal actions also drive away democratic allies and their prosperous populations that purchase American-made goods and services. For example, arbitrarily threatening to punish or even annex a closely allied nation does not endear its citizens to that government or the businesses it represents. So it’s no surprise that Canadians are now boycotting American goods and services. This is devastating businesses in American border towns and hurts the economy nationwide.

    Similarly, the Canadian government has responded to whipsawing U.S. tariff announcements with counter-tariffs, which will slice the profits of American exporters. Close American allies and trading partners such as Japan, the U.K. and the European Union are also signaling their own willingness to impose retaliatory tariffs, increasing the costs of operations to American business even more.

    Modern capitalism depends on smart regulation to thrive. Smart regulation is not an obstacle to capitalism. Smart regulation is what makes American capitalism possible. Smart regulation is what makes American freedom possible.

    Clear and consistently applied legal rules allow businesses to aggressively compete, carefully plan, and generate profits. An arbitrary rule of law deprives business of the true power of capitalism – the ability to promote economic growth, spur innovation and improve the overall living standards of a free society. Americans deserve no less, and it is up to government to make that happen for everyone.

    Originally published in The Conversation. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: The Rule of Law is Key to Capitalism − Eroding it is Bad News for American Business

    Source: US State of Connecticut

    Something dangerous is happening to the U.S. economy, and it’s not inflation or trade wars. Chaotic deregulation and the selective enforcement of laws have upended markets and investor confidence. At one point, the threat of tariffs and resulting chaos evaporated US$4 trillion in value in the U.S. stock market. This approach isn’t helping the economy, and there are troubling signs it will hurt both the U.S. and the global economy in the short and long term.

    The rule of law – the idea that legal rules apply to everyone equally, regardless of wealth or political connections − is essential for a thriving economy. Yet globally the respect for the rule of law is slipping, and the U.S. is slipping with it. According to annual rankings from the World Justice Project, the rule of law has declined in more than half of all countries for seven years in a row. The rule of law in the U.S., the most economically powerful nation in the world, is now weaker than the rule of law in Uruguay, Singapore, Latvia and over 20 other countries.

    When regulation is unnecessarily burdensome for business, government should lighten the load. However, arbitrary and frenzied deregulation does not free corporations to earn higher profits. As a business school professor with an MBA who has taught business law for over 25 years, and the author of a recently published book about the importance of legal knowledge to business, I can affirm that the opposite is true. Chaotic deregulation doesn’t drive growth. It only fuels risk.

    Chaos undermines investment, talent and trust

    Legal uncertainty has become a serious drag on American competitiveness.

    A study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that public policy risks — such as unexpected changes in taxes, regulation and enforcement — ranked among the top challenges businesses face, alongside more familiar business threats such as competition or economic volatility. Companies that can’t predict how the law might change are forced to plan for the worst. That means holding back on long-term investment, slowing innovation and raising prices to cover new risks.

    When the government enforces rules arbitrarily, it also undermines property rights.

    For example, if a country enters into a major trade agreement and then goes ahead and violates it, that threatens the property rights of the companies that relied on the agreement to conduct business. If the government can seize assets without due process, those assets lose their stability and value. And if that treatment depends on whether a company is in the government’s political favor, it’s not just bad economics − it’s a red flag for investors.

    When government doesn’t enforce rules fairly, it also threatens people’s freedom to enter into contracts.

    Consider presidential orders that threaten the clients of law firms that have challenged the administration with cancellation of their government contracts. The threat alone jeopardizes the value of those agreements.

    If businesses can’t trust public contracts to be respected, they’ll be less likely to work with the government in the first place. This deprives the government, and ultimately the American people, of receiving the best value for their tax dollars in critical areas such as transportation, technology and national defense.

    Regulatory chaos also allows corruption to spread.

    For example, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits businesses from bribing foreign government officials, has leveled the playing field for firms and enabled the best American companies to succeed on their merits. Before the law was enacted in 1977, some American companies felt pressured to pay bribes to compete. “Pausing” enforcement of the law, as the current presidential administration has done, increases the cost of doing business and encourages a wild west economy where chaos thrives.

    When corruption grows, stable and democratic governments weaken, opportunities for terrorism increase and corruption-fueled authoritarian regimes, which oppose the interests of the U.S., thrive. Halting the enforcement of an anti-bribery law, even for a limited time, is an issue of national security.

    Legal uncertainty fuels brain drain

    Chaotic enforcement of the law also corrodes labor markets.

    American companies require a strong pool of talented professionals to fuel their financial success. When legal rights are enforced arbitrarily or unjustly, the very best talent that American companies need may leave the country.

    The science brain drain is already happening. American scientists have submitted 32% more applications for jobs abroad compared with last year. Nonscientists are leaving too. Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs has witnessed a 50% increase in Americans taking steps to obtain an Irish passport. Employers in the U.K. saw a spike in job applications from the United States.

    Business from other countries will gladly accept American talent as they compete against American companies. During the Third Reich, Nazi Germany lost its best and brightest to other countries, including America. Now the reverse is happening, as highly talented Americans leave to work for firms in other nations.

    Threats of arbitrary legal actions also drive away democratic allies and their prosperous populations that purchase American-made goods and services. For example, arbitrarily threatening to punish or even annex a closely allied nation does not endear its citizens to that government or the businesses it represents. So it’s no surprise that Canadians are now boycotting American goods and services. This is devastating businesses in American border towns and hurts the economy nationwide.

    Similarly, the Canadian government has responded to whipsawing U.S. tariff announcements with counter-tariffs, which will slice the profits of American exporters. Close American allies and trading partners such as Japan, the U.K. and the European Union are also signaling their own willingness to impose retaliatory tariffs, increasing the costs of operations to American business even more.

    Modern capitalism depends on smart regulation to thrive. Smart regulation is not an obstacle to capitalism. Smart regulation is what makes American capitalism possible. Smart regulation is what makes American freedom possible.

    Clear and consistently applied legal rules allow businesses to aggressively compete, carefully plan, and generate profits. An arbitrary rule of law deprives business of the true power of capitalism – the ability to promote economic growth, spur innovation and improve the overall living standards of a free society. Americans deserve no less, and it is up to government to make that happen for everyone.

    Originally published in The Conversation. 

    MIL OSI USA News –