The best South Shore stories of the week
The best South Shore stories of the week
This is Jen Wagner, executive editor at The Patriot Ledger. Welcome to this week's edition of Your Week on the South Shore. Only for subscribers.
Bill Belichick made some local news this week. A South Shore high school football standout got a college offer from the UNC coach. And, Belichick made a recruiting visit to a Boston-area school.
As always, be sure to scroll all the way to the bottom of this newsletter for more stories. Thanks for reading and for subscribing.
Bird flu coverage
Development stories not to miss
Dining (and brewery) to feast on
Bonus USA Today stories
Want more newsletters from us in your inbox?
We know this newsletter is great. But do you subscribe to any others? The most popular newsletter is the Daily Briefing – in your inbox early each morning with the biggest South Shore headlines. You can sign up here. (There are others, too – obituaries, Fore River Bridge alerts and more.)
Download The Patriot Ledger mobile app and get the latest news first
Want to get your news sooner? Download our app – iOS or Android – and turn on the alerts. Doesn't get much more convenient. Be the first to get your South Shore news.
Thank you for subscribing and reach out to us any time to let us know what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like to see here. Reach Jen Wagner at jwagner@patriotledger.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
40 minutes ago
- Forbes
Harvard Fires Honesty Researcher For Research Fraud - Why That's OK
Harvard Business School dismissed prominent researcher and tenured professor Francesca Gino. Harvard Business School has dismissed Francesca Gino, a tenured professor whose research on honesty and ethical behavior ironically became the foundation for one of academia's most damaging fraud scandals. The firing is the first time Harvard has terminated a tenured faculty member in approximately 80 years. For her part, Gino maintains she is innocent. As I'll explain, this is actually good news for marketers and others who use behavioral science to drive better business outcomes. Gino built her career studying why people lie, cheat, and behave unethically. Her most influential work, published in 2012, found that people were more honest when signing truthfulness declarations at the top of forms rather than at the bottom. This research became a go-to example in behavioral economics circles. The study seemed to offer a simple, cost-free way to reduce fraud in everything from insurance claims to tax filings. Companies and government agencies actually implemented "sign at the top" policies based on Gino's findings. Part of the appeal of this intervention was that it seemed intuitive, not unlike Nobel winner Richard Thaler's work showing that changing retirement plans from opt-in to opt-out resulted in higher enrollment numbers. There was one big difference, though. Thaler's interventions worked, resulting in millions more people saving for retirement. But, when organizations tested 'sign at the top' forms, they were surprised that it made no significant difference in honest form completions. Sometimes, even sound research doesn't scale well in real-world settings. But, Harvard's investigation concluded that Gino fabricated some of the data supporting her honesty research. (All parties agree that the various studies include fabricated data, but disagree on its origin.) The study that promised to reduce dishonesty was itself dishonest. For CMOs and executives who regularly apply behavioral science insights to enhance their strategies, Gino's downfall offers three crucial lessons: Gino wasn't a fringe academic—she was a full professor at Harvard Business School, published prolifically, and spoke at major conferences. Her work appeared in prestigious journals and was covered by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. At one point, she was one of Harvard's highest paid employees, earning $1 million per year. If someone with these credentials could publish fabricated data for years, no researcher should be above scrutiny. Cornell's Brian Wansink, known for his food psychology research, produced work with results that were often surprising, simple, and highly actionable. He, too, faced serious misconduct allegations that led to his resignation. The "sign at the top" intervention moved from an academic theory to a tool that organizations implemented widely. How many companies are still using policies derived from fabricated data? The business impact of academic fraud or poorly designed experiments can extend beyond university walls. At least in this case, a signature at the top has no effect on honesty, good or bad. Behavioral science has struggled with a "replication crisis" where many published findings can't be reproduced by other researchers. Most of these are due to legitimate methodological differences, small sample sizes, unrepresentative subjects, etc. Occasionally, though, they stem from statistical manipulation and even fraud. Major scientific research results that are erroneous or fraudulent often get exposed as other researchers try to build on them. Most research doesn't automatically get replicated, though. The rewards for replication experiments are limited. At best, one confirms the original research. At worst, one ends up in a messy dispute with a fellow scientist. But, some researchers do devote time to research integrity. The Data Colada blog, run by three behavioral scientists, has exposed multiple instances of apparent data manipulation across the field. There's also a site, Retraction Watch, that keeps tabs on retracted papers. Ultimately, most bad research with major findings will be rooted out. Either fellow academics will discover the problem, or data-driven businesses will show real world results don't match the findings. Gino's firing shows that publishing questionable findings can have consequences, even for a star professor and researcher. It's a reminder to other researchers to be sure their data is sound. Published research papers almost always have more than one author. I expect we'll see more of these co-authors double-checking the data and methods to be sure they don't get embroiled in a replication/retraction mess later. Smart marketing leaders should exert healthy skepticism about behavioral science claims: Demand multiple sources. Don't base major strategy decisions on a single study, no matter how compelling or well-publicized. Look for independent replications by different research teams. Focus on established science. Robert Cialdini's principles of influence, for example, have endured for decades because they've been tested countless times in real business environments. Newer, flashier findings should be viewed with more caution. Watch for claims that seem too good to be true. A simple change in form design that dramatically reduces dishonesty sounds almost magical. In retrospect, the "sign at the top" finding's elegance should have raised more skepticism. Test everything. The most important behavioral science principle for marketers isn't any specific psychological finding, it's the commitment to testing. What works in a psychology lab or even for another brand may not work for your customers, your product, or your market. The bad data in the original honesty study wasn't spotted for years. Then, Harvard's investigation took years after that, with Gino remaining on the faculty during much of that time. Academic institutions move slowly, business decisions happen quickly. This creates a problematic gap where bad research can influence corporate tactics long before misconduct is discovered and corrected. The Gino scandal shouldn't make business leaders overly wary of behavioral science. Legitimate research in this field has produced valuable insights about consumer psychology, decision-making, and persuasion. Visit any successful travel website, for example, and you'll see behavior-based tactics everywhere. For marketers, the lesson is clear: approach novel behavioral science findings with the same critical thinking you'd apply to any other business intelligence. Evaluate the claims, verify the sources, and test everything. Remember that in both research and business, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
USA Today
43 minutes ago
- USA Today
Doritos, Mountain Dew could get warning labels in this state
Doritos, Mountain Dew could get warning labels in this state Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has yet to indicate if he plans to sign the bill into law. Show Caption Hide Caption FDA redefines what foods can be labeled as 'healthy' Foods will be required to contain certain ingredients and be under specific limits for added sugar, saturated fat and sodium to be marketed as "healthy." Scripps News A bipartisan bill out of Texas, awaiting Gov. Greg Abbott's signature, could change food and drink packaging as we know it nationwide. Texas Senate Bill 25 passed unanimously in the state senate before being forwarded to Abbott's desk on June 1, where it is under review. Among provisions for education on nutrition and health, one set of proposed regulations would require that packaging for food or drink items contain warnings about ingredients "not recommended for human consumption." The commonly used ingredients listed in the bill are legal to use in the U.S., but most are subject to some sort of ban or more stringent regulation in other countries State lawmaker Rep. Lacey Hull told Bloomberg that Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called her to voice his support for the bill, which aligns with initiatives in his "Make America Healthy Again" movement. HHS press secretary Emily G. Hilliard told USA TODAY in an email that, "Secretary Kennedy encourages states to promote healthy practices and enhance consumer transparency in food labeling. Americans deserve to know what's in their food so they can make informed choices for themselves and their families." While the bill managed to reach across a contentious political aisle, it is not universally popular. John Hewitt, Senior Vice President of State Affairs for the Consumer Brands Association, urged the governor not to sign it in a statement shared with USA TODAY, saying, "The ingredients used in the U.S. food supply are safe and have been rigorously studied following an objective science and risk-based evaluation process. The labeling requirements of SB 25 mandate inaccurate warning language, create legal risks for brands and drive consumer confusion and higher costs." Gov. Abbott has yet to indicate if he plans to sign the bill into law. In a statement to USA TODAY on Tuesday, June 3, press secretary Andrew Mahaleris said, 'Governor Abbott will continue to work with the legislature to ensure Texans have access to healthy foods to care for themselves and their families and will thoughtfully review any legislation they send to his desk.' What's in Texas Senate Bill 25 about food labels? Texas Senate Bill 25 would require that specific warning labels be placed on products intended for human consumption if they use certain ingredients like bleached flour, food dyes, sweeteners, oils and preservatives. Because manufacturers generally aim for uniformity and efficiency, as reported by Bloomberg, they will often expand practices employed to comply with state laws nationwide, meaning this change could impact the packaged food industry on a larger scale. The bill would require that manufacturers display the warning label prominently if their product contains one of 44 listed ingredients, most of which have some form of ban, warning or regulation in other Western countries despite being legal in the U.S. The proposed label reads as follows: "WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom." Manufacturers, and in some cases retailers, would also be required to post a similar statement on websites on which applicable products are offered for sale. This requirement would not apply to products not intended for human consumption; food prepared, served, or sold in restaurants or retail locations; drugs or dietary supplements; or agricultural products on which pesticides or other such chemicals were used in their production, storage or transportation. Regulations set by federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Surgeon General would supersede these state-level rules, meaning products already overseen or required to utilize certain labels by these agencies would not need an additional warning. The FDA deeming ingredients safe or setting new guidelines for their use would also exempt them from labeling. Which ingredients are listed in the bill? acetylated esters of mono- and diglycerides (acetic acid ester) anisole azodicarbonamide (ADA) butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) bleached flour blue 1 (CAS 3844-45-9) blue 2 (CAS 860-22-0) bromated flour calcium bromate canthaxanthin certified food colors by the United States Food and Drug Administration citrus red 2 (CAS 6358-53-8) diacetyl diacetyl tartaric and fatty acid esters of mono- and diglycerides (DATEM) dimethylamylamine (DMAA) dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate (DSS) ficin green 3 (CAS 2353-45-9) interesterified palm oil interesterified soybean oil lactylated fatty acid esters of glycerol and propylene glycol lye morpholine olestra partially hydrogenated oil (PHO) potassium aluminum sulfate potassium bromate potassium iodate propylene oxide propylparaben red 3 (CAS 16423-68-0) red 4 (CAS 4548-53-2) red 40 (CAS 25956-17-6) sodium aluminum sulfate sodium lauryl sulfate sodium stearyl fumarate stearyl tartrate synthetic trans fatty acid thiodipropionic acid titanium dioxide toluene yellow 5 (CAS 1934-21-0) yellow 6 (CAS 2783-94-0) Which foods could be impacted? Packaged and processed foods of all kinds could be impacted by the bill. If it passes, consumers will begin seeing the warning on labels developed and copyrighted beginning in 2027. Chips, candy and snack products like Doritos, Ruffles, Lay's flavored chips, microwaved popcorn, M&Ms, Sour Patch Kids and Skittles would need to be labeled, along with cereals like Froot Loops and Cap'n Crunch. Sweets like Twinkies or Hostess snack cakes and packaged cookies like Oreos and Chips Ahoy! contain the offending ingredients, along with frozen dinners, instant noodles, some breads and even processed meats like sausages and hot dogs. Drinks like Mountain Dew, Gatorade, Capri Sun, Hawaiian Punch and Juicy Juice would also be affected. RFK Jr.'s push for ingredient reviews, tighter regulations In April, the FDA and RFK announced plans to "phase out" petroleum-based synthetic dyes previously allowed under FDA regulations from the U.S. food and drug supply by the end of 2026. No formal agreement or legislation was passed officially banning the substances. Instead, HHS and the FDA have a "mutual understanding" with the food industry that the dyes will be progressively removed, according to Kennedy. Are food dyes getting banned in the US?: What know to about 8 dyes being phased out During an April 22 press conference, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said the agency intended to revoke the approval of some dyes and work with industry leaders to substitute petrochemical dyes with "natural" ones. A press statement released by the FDA also said it plans to establish a "national standard and timeline for the transition from petrochemical-based dyes to natural alternatives." The FDA will authorize four new natural color additives and expedite the approval of more, according to its statement. The agency will also partner with the National Institutes of Health to research the effect food additives have on children's health and development.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Keller: Political ad targets Boston's Mayor Wu over bike lanes, White Stadium
The opinions expressed below are Jon Keller's, not those of WBZ, CBS News or Paramount Global. An independent political action committee supporting Josh Kraft is behind the first TV ad in Boston's mayoral race. Does the ad, which is critical of Mayor Michelle Wu, pass the truth test? What the ad says "Too often, Mayor Wu acts as if she alone has all the answers," said challenger Josh Kraft in his campaign kickoff speech last winter. And the first TV ad of the Boston mayoral race - purchased by an independent political action committee supporting Kraft - picks right up on that theme. "We tried to tell Mayor Wu her ideas would only make things worse, but she ignored us," says the narrator, who rolls out Exhibit A: Wu's acceleration of bike lane installations around the city, in some cases over the vocal objections of neighborhood residents and businesses. In support of that claim, the city's April review of its bike lane policy found "consistent feedback" that "communications and community engagement were seemed predetermined," and "neighborhood feedback was not weighed as heavily as others." The mayor says changes will be made, but Kraft and his allies say it's proof of Wu's arrogance. Wu targeted over traffic, White Stadium The ad continues: "Bike lanes - all we got was worse traffic," citing a recent study of Boston's traffic woes. But that linkage is a stretch. In fact, that traffic study cited in the ad found Boston driver time stuck in traffic actually dropped by 10% last year, and an analyst for the company that did the study credits increased bike usage as a positive factor. More: "White Stadium? Luxury boxes and beer gardens, while Boston Public Schools are closed." The ongoing conversion of a decrepit public stadium in the heart of Franklin Park into a facility shared with a private pro soccer team has been a source of controversy. But linking it to the closure of some city schools is a real reach. Years of declining enrollments are behind the shutdowns, and it's unfair to imply Wu is prioritizing the party needs of soccer fans over the needs of Boston schoolkids. The big finish: "Boston's headed in the wrong direction, and a vote against Mayor Wu is a message she can't ignore." Are voters angry at Wu? That's the key question of this race. Most elections where an incumbent is running for another term wind up being a referendum on that incumbent and their record. Mayor Wu is trying to make it a referendum on Kaft by attacking his plans, experience and allies. Whoever wins the battle over framing the choice will likely win in November.
