Latest news with #HungarianAmerican
Korea Herald
16-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Korea Herald
Yang Sung-won reflects on 50 years with cello
Yang marks milestone with album, 'marathon concert' Unlike many musicians who celebrate the anniversary of their public debut, South Korean cellist Yang Sung-won is marking something more personal: 50 years since a life-altering performance inspired a 7-year-old to trade the piano for the cello. That moment dates back to March 10, 1975, when Hungarian American cellist Janos Starker gave a performance in Seoul — one that would set the course of Yang's life. Years later, he became not only his student, but also his assistant, entrusted to teach in his place. 'I received a letter saying I was accepted into Starker's class. That may have been one of the happiest moments of my life,' he recalled at a press conference in Seoul on Tuesday. He joined Starker's class at the Indiana University Jacobs School of Music in 1987, where the legendary cellist taught from 1958 until his death in 2013. Yang is now a professor of cello at Yonsei University's School of Music in Seoul and a visiting professor at the Royal Academy of Music in London. He also serves as artistic director of the Music in PyeongChang classical music festival and has been awarded the Chevalier of the Order of Arts and Letters by the French government. 'I probably won't have another 50 years but in the time I have left, I hope to encourage younger musicians so they can pursue this profession with a greater sense of courage," the 57-year-old said. Yang highlighted the next generation of Korean musicians: Cho Seong-jin, Lim Yunchan, Clara-Jumi Kang, Song Ji-won, Kim Han, Kim Ki-hoon and more. 'There are so many I can't even list them all. It is important to note that beneath the very top-tier artists, there are many more outstanding musicians in Korea. That's one of the country's greatest strengths,' he said. He credited their brilliance to not just education or training, but to something deeper. 'It's in our blood. Our gugak tradition gives us expressive emotion. That's how these young musicians conquered the world,' Yang remarked. In an age defined by acceleration and automation, Yang said classical music is more relevant than ever. "AI might surprise me, but it won't move me,' he said. 'And in that sense, I feel lucky. I really have a good job.' Still, there were times he nearly walked away from the cello. The first time was when he was in Paris studying at Conservatoire National Superieur de Musique de Paris, where a competitive atmosphere left him feeling displaced. 'I thought music is about going deeper, not about competition. At that time, I was even thinking about studying something again,' he recalled. The second time was in the early 1990s. Life on the road — planes, trains, rehearsals — wore him down. 'I thought about living peacefully in nature but it never lasted long. Two or three days at most.' What brought him back each time were great performances. 'Some concerts move you so deeply, they remind you why you began. That's what opened the cello case again,' he recalled. Now Yang is celebrating 50 years of the cello with an album and a "marathon concert." On Tuesday, via Decca Records, he released the album 'Echoes of Elegy: Elgar," which pairs Op. 84 and Op. 85 — two pieces rarely featured together. The centerpiece of the album is Edward Elgar's Piano Quintet, Op. 84, a deeply introspective work composed in the shadow of World War I. Yang noted that this was one of the last pieces Elgar heard before his death. 'It shows his inner world,' he said. On May 27, Yang will perform a 'marathon concert' featuring Tchaikovsky's Rococo Variations, Elgar's Cello Concerto and Dvorak's Cello Concerto — each the only cello concerto written by its composer. Despite the title "marathon concert," for Yang it is not so much about stamina or display. 'This concert is actually a 'marathon of gratitude' — a chance to express my gratitude to my parents, my teachers, my colleagues and my family,' he said. 'These three pieces carry all the pivotal moments in my life. I'm afraid I might not be able to concentrate — there's too much memory inside them.'
Vox
09-04-2025
- Science
- Vox
The self-inflicted death of American science has already begun
is an editorial director at Vox overseeing the climate, tech, and world teams, and is the editor of Vox's Future Perfect section. He worked at Time magazine for 15 years as a foreign correspondent in Asia, a climate writer, and an international editor, and he wrote a book on existential risk. Demonstrators take part in a 'Stand Up For Science' rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, on March 7, 2025. Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images In Ezra Klein and Derk Thompson's new book Abundance — which maybe you've heard of — they tell the story of Katalin Karikó, the Hungarian American scientist whose work ultimately led to the mRNA Covid vaccines. Related A longtime target of the right is finally buckling under Trump pressure When the research center she was working for in Hungary lost its state funding in the early 1980s, Karikó left her homeland, selling her car for 900 British pounds and sewing the cash into her daughter's teddy bear so her family had something to live on. Like countless other researchers around the world, she found her way to the country where a scientist had the best chance of finding the funding and support to further their work: America. Future Perfect Explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Thompson and Klein, one of Vox's founders, mostly use Karikó's story to illustrate the way risk aversion holds back science. Karikó was convinced that mRNA could be harnessed for new kinds of treatments and vaccines, but she experienced rejection after rejection from short-sighted grantmakers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It was only when the Covid pandemic struck that the enormous value of Karikó's mRNA work was finally recognized. The mRNA vaccines ultimately saved as many as 20 million lives in just one year, and Karikó won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2023. But wind the tape back. Even before her years of rejection in American academia, had Karikó never been able to immigrate, she might never have been in a position to further her research in the first place. Perhaps we never would have had the mRNA vaccines — or even if we had, they would have been the product of another nation, one that would have reaped the benefits that ultimately went to the US. Instead, Karikó is one of a long line of foreign scientists, with the support of America's unparalleled university system and government support, achieved greatness that benefited her and her adopted country. The US has won more Nobel Prizes in the sciences than any other country by far, and immigrant scientists won more than a third of those Prizes, a proportion that has only increased in recent years. America has become a scientific colossus not just because it has spent more than any other nation on research and development, but because it made itself a magnet for global scientific talent, from superstar researchers to lowly junior scientists like Karikó. That, in turn, has translated to enormous economic benefit. According to one study, government-funded research and development has been responsible for 25 percent of productivity growth since the end of World War II. Now the Trump administration is working to destroy all of that through catastrophic funding cuts and blatantly nativist immigration policies. And the result will be nothing less than an act of national suicide. That's what the money's for This is very bad. Sheer dollar power has always been a key ingredient in American scientific dominance, going back to the country's enormous advances during World War II. (As important as geniuses like J. Robert Oppenheimer were to the development of the atomic bomb, the US ultimately got there first because it had the resources, as the physicist Niels Bohr put it, to turn the entire country into a factory for nuclear material.) Universities have already resorted to hiring freezes to cope with the cuts, and some are even rescinding admissions offers to PhD students. Some young scientists may simply leave the field altogether, potentially robbing us of future Karikós. But there has already been some success in pushing back against these cuts. On Friday, a federal judge permanently barred the Trump administration from limiting funding from the NIH to support academic research, though the ruling is almost certain to be appealed. And even if funding is cut, future administrations could restore it, while alternative sources of money can be found in the interim. What the Trump administration is doing with funding is a body blow to American science, but doesn't have to be a fatal one. What is happening with immigration policy, however, is another matter altogether. Killing the golden goose The Trump administration has made no secret of the fact it is deliberately targeting foreign students in the US that have been involved — sometimes only peripherally — in pro-Palestinian protests. Mahmoud Khalil, a green-card holder from Algeria who was a grad student at Columbia University, is currently sitting in custody in Louisiana after his arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Another international student, Rümeysa Öztürk of Tufts University, was arrested and scheduled for deportation, apparently for the crime of co-writing a newspaper op-ed criticizing Israel's actions in Gaza. But those are just the most high-profile cases. The New York Times reported this week that nearly 300 international students at universities around the US have had their visas suddenly revoked and could face deportation. (That figure could be higher when you read this — every time I clicked on the headline yesterday, the number of visas revoked went up.) There have also been reports of harassment and detainment of foreigners legally crossing the US border, which adds to a state of fear for any noncitizens. A few hundred students may not seem like that much, given that the US granted more than 400,000 visas in 2024 alone. But the message from the administration, which is also apparently scouring student visa applicants' social media for evidence of 'hostile attitudes' toward America or Israel, is clear: We don't want you here. And students and scientists are listening. In a recent poll by the journal Nature of more than 1,200 scientists in the US, three-quarters said they were considering leaving the country. This was especially true of the young scientists who are set to form the next vanguard of American research. Foreign scientists who might otherwise come to the US for conferences or short-term positions are rethinking those plans, afraid — with reason — they might end up inside an ICE detainment facility. Other countries like China and Canada are already making overtures to scientists in the US, because they're smart enough to grab an opportunity when they see one. As one recent Times opinion piece put it, the Trump administration's actions 'could mean America's demise as the most powerful force for innovation in science, health and technology in the 21st century.' Could they be replaced by American students? Don't bet on it. To push out foreign scientists who are here and shut the door to those who would come would cause incalculable damage to the US. Jeremy Neufeld of the Institute for Progress has called the recruitment of brilliant immigrant scientists to the US the 'secret ingredient' in American dynamism. A 2022 study found that immigrants have accounted for 36 percent of total innovation in the US since 1990, as measured through patents, while more than half of the billion-dollar US startups over the last 20 years have an immigrant co-founder. And now, apparently, we don't want them anymore. Destroying our future A boutique industry has emerged recently trying to make sense of the seemingly senseless actions of Trump and Musk. One theory is that Musk is doing what he often did at his companies: cutting things to the bone, and then adjusting as he sees what breaks. This can work — Musk didn't build multibillion-dollar companies like Tesla and SpaceX by accident — but it depends on being able to see the effects of what is cut immediately, through a fast information feedback loop. If Musk makes a change to a SpaceX rocket and it blows up, well, there's his answer. But as Klein said on a recent podcast, 'the government doesn't have very fast feedback loops.' And that's especially true for something as long-term as science funding and talent. Katalin Karikó came to the US in 1985, but it wasn't until 35 years later that her true value as a scientist was borne out. We may not immediately feel the impact of fewer foreign scientists coming to the US and staying here, but the impact is real. We'll feel it when we see scientists in other countries take home Nobel Prizes, when China laps us in vital fields like biotechnology and AI, when we struggle to find the people and the ideas that can create the next world-beating companies. We'll feel it when America becomes just another country. A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!
Vox
09-04-2025
- Science
- Vox
The slow death of American science has already begun
is an editorial director at Vox overseeing the climate, tech, and world teams, and is the editor of Vox's Future Perfect section. He worked at Time magazine for 15 years as a foreign correspondent in Asia, a climate writer, and an international editor, and he wrote a book on existential risk. Demonstrators take part in a 'Stand Up For Science' rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, on March 7, 2025. Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images In Ezra Klein and Derk Thompson's new book Abundance — which maybe you've heard of — they tell the story of Katalin Karikó, the Hungarian American scientist whose work ultimately led to the mRNA Covid vaccines. Related A longtime target of the right is finally buckling under Trump pressure When the research center she was working for in Hungary lost its state funding in the early 1980s, Karikó left her homeland, selling her car for 900 British pounds and sewing the cash into her daughter's teddy bear so her family had something to live on. Like countless other researchers around the world, she found her way to the country where a scientist had the best chance of finding the funding and support to further their work: America. Future Perfect Explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Thompson and Klein, one of Vox's founders, mostly use Karikó's story to illustrate the way risk aversion holds back science. Karikó was convinced that mRNA could be harnessed for new kinds of treatments and vaccines, but she experienced rejection after rejection from short-sighted grantmakers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It was only when the Covid pandemic struck that the enormous value of Karikó's mRNA work was finally recognized. The mRNA vaccines ultimately saved as many as 20 million lives in just one year, and Karikó won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2023. But wind the tape back. Even before her years of rejection in American academia, had Karikó never been able to immigrate, she might never have been in a position to further her research in the first place. Perhaps we never would have had the mRNA vaccines — or even if we had, they would have been the product of another nation, one that would have reaped the benefits that ultimately went to the US. Instead, Karikó is one of a long line of foreign scientists, with the support of America's unparalleled university system and government support, achieved greatness that benefited her and her adopted country. The US has won more Nobel Prizes in the sciences than any other country by far, and immigrant scientists won more than a third of those Prizes, a proportion that has only increased in recent years. America has become a scientific colossus not just because it has spent more than any other nation on research and development, but because it made itself a magnet for global scientific talent, from superstar researchers to lowly junior scientists like Karikó. That, in turn, has translated to enormous economic benefit. According to one study, government-funded research and development has been responsible for 25 percent of productivity growth since the end of World War II. Now the Trump administration is working to destroy all of that through catastrophic funding cuts and blatantly nativist immigration policies. And the result will be nothing less than an act of national suicide. That's what the money's for This is very bad. Sheer dollar power has always been a key ingredient in American scientific dominance, going back to the country's enormous advances during World War II. (As important as geniuses like J. Robert Oppenheimer were to the development of the atomic bomb, the US ultimately got there first because it had the resources, as the physicist Niels Bohr put it, to turn the entire country into a factory for nuclear material.) Universities have already resorted to hiring freezes to cope with the cuts, and some are even rescinding admissions offers to PhD students. Some young scientists may simply leave the field altogether, potentially robbing us of future Karikós. But there has already been some success in pushing back against these cuts. On Friday, a federal judge permanently barred the Trump administration from limiting funding from the NIH to support academic research, though the ruling is almost certain to be appealed. And even if funding is cut, future administrations could restore it, while alternative sources of money can be found in the interim. What the Trump administration is doing with funding is a body blow to American science, but doesn't have to be a fatal one. What is happening with immigration policy, however, is another matter altogether. Killing the golden goose The Trump administration has made no secret of the fact it is deliberately targeting foreign students in the US that have been involved — sometimes only peripherally — in pro-Palestinian protests. Mahmoud Khalil, a green-card holder from Algeria who was a grad student at Columbia University, is currently sitting in custody in Louisiana after his arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Another international student, Rümeysa Öztürk of Tufts University, was arrested and scheduled for deportation, apparently for the crime of co-writing a newspaper op-ed criticizing Israel's actions in Gaza. But those are just the most high-profile cases. The New York Times reported this week that nearly 300 international students at universities around the US have had their visas suddenly revoked and could face deportation. (That figure could be higher when you read this — every time I clicked on the headline yesterday, the number of visas revoked went up.) There have also been reports of harassment and detainment of foreigners legally crossing the US border, which adds to a state of fear for any noncitizens. A few hundred students may not seem like that much, given that the US granted more than 400,000 visas in 2024 alone. But the message from the administration, which is also apparently scouring student visa applicants' social media for evidence of 'hostile attitudes' toward America or Israel, is clear: We don't want you here. And students and scientists are listening. In a recent poll by the journal Nature of more than 1,200 scientists in the US, three-quarters said they were considering leaving the country. This was especially true of the young scientists who are set to form the next vanguard of American research. Foreign scientists who might otherwise come to the US for conferences or short-term positions are rethinking those plans, afraid — with reason — they might end up inside an ICE detainment facility. Other countries like China and Canada are already making overtures to scientists in the US, because they're smart enough to grab an opportunity when they see one. As one recent Times opinion piece put it, the Trump administration's actions 'could mean America's demise as the most powerful force for innovation in science, health and technology in the 21st century.' Could they be replaced by American students? Don't bet on it. To push out foreign scientists who are here and shut the door to those who would come would cause incalculable damage to the US. Jeremy Neufeld of the Institute for Progress has called the recruitment of brilliant immigrant scientists to the US the 'secret ingredient' in American dynamism. A 2022 study found that immigrants have accounted for 36 percent of total innovation in the US since 1990, as measured through patents, while more than half of the billion-dollar US startups over the last 20 years have an immigrant co-founder. And now, apparently, we don't want them anymore. Destroying our future A boutique industry has emerged recently trying to make sense of the seemingly senseless actions of Trump and Musk. One theory is that Musk is doing what he often did at his companies: cutting things to the bone, and then adjusting as he sees what breaks. This can work — Musk didn't build multibillion-dollar companies like Tesla and SpaceX by accident — but it depends on being able to see the effects of what is cut immediately, through a fast information feedback loop. If Musk makes a change to a SpaceX rocket and it blows up, well, there's his answer. But as Klein said on a recent podcast, 'the government doesn't have very fast feedback loops.' And that's especially true for something as long-term as science funding and talent. Katalin Karikó came to the US in 1985, but it wasn't until 35 years later that her true value as a scientist was borne out. We may not immediately feel the impact of fewer foreign scientists coming to the US and staying here, but the impact is real. We'll feel it when we see scientists in other countries take home Nobel Prizes, when China laps us in vital fields like biotechnology and AI, when we struggle to find the people and the ideas that can create the next world-beating companies. We'll feel it when America becomes just another country. A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!
Associated Press
13-03-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Two billionaires that are villains of the left and right take the spotlight in a key Wisconsin race
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — When Republicans are looking for a political bogeyman, they point to liberal megadonor George Soros. Democrats recently have been answering with a villain of their own: the world's wealthiest man and close adviser to President Donald Trump, Elon Musk. Now, the billionaires' influence on politics is colliding in a spring election that will decide whether conservatives or liberals control the supreme court in an important presidential battleground state. Both Musk and Soros have spent large sums on the race for an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, making them easy targets in a debate between the two candidates Wednesday. While the race is officially nonpartisan, Democrats and Republicans have lined up behind each candidate. Former state Attorney General Brad Schimel, who is backed by Republicans, called Soros a 'dangerous person to have an endorsement from.' The philanthropist has spent $1 million to benefit his opponent, Democratic-supported Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford. She fired back by saying Musk 'has basically taken over Brad Schimel's campaign.' The Tesla and SpaceX CEO who is running Trump's massive federal cost-cutting initiative has funded two groups that have together spent more than $10 million to promote Schimel. The exchange highlighted how the April 1 election, which will affect looming cases on abortion, voting rules, congressional district boundaries and more, has drawn national scrutiny in a year when there are just a handful of consequential elections. It also showed how the two polarizing billionaires are playing an outsized role in the race, as each side seeks to weigh down the other with political baggage. Those tactics make sense in an off-year, spring election when voters may not know the candidates or be paying much attention, said Matt Gorman, a Republican strategist. 'You've got to tie it to national themes,' he said. 'The overall strategy is, how can you scare your base into making sure they show up at the polls?' Soros has been reviled by conservatives for years for his donations to liberal prosecutors and other left-wing and anti-authoritarian causes. Musk, a newer power player in political giving, has angered liberals because of his role in Trump's campaign last year — his super PAC spent about $200 million to help get Trump elected — and his efforts to slash federal government services and staff through the new Department of Government Efficiency. Soros has been a longtime target of conservatives The 94-year-old Hungarian American and Jewish billionaire has been a conservative target for decades. Core to their ire is the spending he and affiliated groups have done to elect liberal prosecutors — officials that Republicans argue are too soft on crime. GOP lawmakers have called attention to Soros' donations in efforts to recall those prosecutors, saying the people he supports have put communities at risk. Trump also has used Soros to tarnish the credibility of people and groups he doesn't like. In a recent executive order aiming to punish the law firm Perkins Coie, he said the firm 'has worked with activist donors including George Soros to judicially overturn popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws.' Attacks on Soros often veer into antisemitic and conspiratorial territory, with some falsely casting him as backing violent protesters or having secretive family ties. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán — an ally of Trump — has boosted that trope by promoting the belief that Soros is engaged in covert plots to destabilize Hungary. Pressure from the autocratic leader prompted a university Soros founded to move its programs from Budapest to Vienna in 2018. Ahead of the 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court race, Soros gave $1 million to the Wisconsin Democratic Party. He made a donation in the same amount ahead of this year's race, prompting Schimel and his supporters to invoke Soros in campaign messaging and ads. 'Susan Crawford takes her marching orders from George Soros, (Illinois Gov.) JB Pritzker, anti-ICE sheriffs, and Defund the Police radicals,' Schimel's campaign wrote on X earlier this month. 'Which side are you on?' Musk's new political relevance gives Democrats a rebuttal Musk hurtled onto the political scene in the last couple of years, spending big money to secure Republican control of the federal government and in states where he has businesses. Last year, he spent nearly $300 million on Republican campaigns, according to Federal Election Commission filings. The bulk of that was to boost Trump, but a super PAC he founded also spent millions on U.S. House races. Musk also has dabbled in state politics in Texas, where he has moved several of his businesses. He became involved in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race shortly after Tesla sued the state in a dispute over a law barring automakers from operating or controlling vehicle dealerships. The case ultimately could end up before the state Supreme Court. The curious timing, his unabashed support for Trump and his chaotic moves in the federal government, make Musk a dream target for the left, said Wisconsin Democratic strategist Joe Zepecki, who is not involved in the race. 'Having a villain makes everything easier,' he said. 'It's not a cue to the partisans – it's a clarion call. Crawford is with us, and Schimel is in the pocket of Elon Musk, the most unpopular person in America right now who can't get off the front page.' Crawford has leaned into the attacks, referring to Musk as 'Elon Schimel' in the debate. She also reminded voters of Musk's actions at DOGE, such as recommending the firing of government workers helping to fight the avian flu outbreak. The race, which is seen as a litmus test of how a battleground state's voters are responding to the first months of the Trump presidency, also might offer clues into how they view Musk's role in the administration. The strategy isn't without risk A challenge both candidates face is that as they attack each other for being supported by notorious high-dollar donors, they must rationalize having their own wealthy benefactors. Crawford needs to associate Schimel with Trump as much as possible to win, said Brandon Scholz, a former Republican strategist in Wisconsin who now identifies as an independent. The Musk donations help with that – as do flyers distributed to voters by Musk's America PAC that say Schimel will ' support President Trump's agenda.' There could soon be more opportunities to show those ties: A Monday town hall billed as a get-out-the-vote effort for Schimel will be co-hosted by one of Trump's sons, Donald Trump Jr., and political activist Charlie Kirk. Schimel, meanwhile, needs diehard Trump voters to come out to the polls, said Scholz. It's a 'double-edged sword,' he said, because it means the candidate will have to gamble with turning off some voters. Soros also has less name recognition than Musk right now, Scholz said. That could be one reason why Schimel has relied more in recent weeks on traditional conservative messaging, such as accusing his opponent of letting criminals off with lenient sentences. During the debate, he said he has no control over outside donations or the messages they spread. He also said he wouldn't give Trump or Musk special treatment if he's elected to the court. Instead, Schimel said, he treats the courtroom like a baseball umpire would — 'not rooting for any team.' Crawford also distanced herself from Soros' donation by noting it was made to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, which has endorsed her. She said while Schimel has revealed how he'll vote on some pending cases, she has 'never promised anything, and that is the difference.' ___ Swenson reported from New York. ___
