Latest news with #NationalAcademies
Medscape
14-05-2025
- Health
- Medscape
Marijuana Use Is Rising, But Is It a Cancer Risk?
The trends are clear: Americans are in the midst of a marijuana high. Over the past 30 years, daily or near-daily marijuana use soared 15-fold, surpassing daily alcohol use for the first time in 2022. That same year, marijuana use reached historic levels among Americans aged 19-50 — with 11% of 19- to 30-year-olds saying they used the drug every day. A key reason for the surge is that more states are legalizing both medical and recreational marijuana use. Another driver, which is closely tied to legalization, is the changing public perceptions around marijuana: Many people just don't see much harm in the habit, or at least view a daily marijuana joint as safer than smoking cigarettes. And they're not necessarily wrong: Although it's obvious marijuana use can have consequences — including intoxication, dependence, and respiratory symptoms such as chronic bronchitis — there is little, or not enough, evidence to definitively conclude that it's a cancer risk. But that also doesn't mean marijuana is completely in the clear. 'Insufficient evidence doesn't mean the risk isn't there,' said Nigar Nargis, PhD, senior scientific director of tobacco control research, American Cancer Society (ACS). 'The Crux of the Problem' Marijuana smoke does contain many of the same carcinogens found in tobacco smoke, so it seems logical that a cannabis habit could contribute to some cancers. Yet studies have largely failed to bear that logic out. In 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) published a comprehensive research review on cannabis smoking and cancer risk. It found modest evidence of an association with just one cancer: a subtype of testicular cancer. In the cases of lung and head and neck cancers, studies indicated no significant association between habitual cannabis use and risk for these cancers. When it came to other cannabis-cancer relationships, the evidence was mostly deemed insufficient or simply absent. However, the overarching conclusion from the NASEM review was that studies to date have been hampered by limitations, such as small sample sizes and survey-based measurements of cannabis use that lack details on frequency and duration of use. In addition, many marijuana users may also smoke cigarettes, making it difficult to untangle the effects of marijuana itself. 'That's the crux of the problem,' Nargis said. 'We have a huge knowledge gap where existing evidence doesn't allow us to draw conclusions.' That long-standing gap is becoming more concerning, she said, because legalization may now be sending a 'signal' to the public that cannabis is safe. This concern prompted Nargis and her colleagues to explore whether studies conducted since the 2017 NASEM report have lifted the marijuana-cancer risk haze at all. Their conclusion, published in February in The Lancet Public Health : not really. 'Unfortunately, the evidence base hasn't improved much,' Nargis said. However, she added, some studies have hinted at links between cannabis use and certain cancers beyond testicular. Although these studies have their own limitations, Nargis stressed, they do point to directions for future research. Head and Neck Cancers While the NASEM report cited reassuring data on head and neck cancers, a study published last year in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery reached a different conclusion. The researchers tried to overcome some limitations of prior research — including small sample sizes and relatively light and self-reported marijuana use — by analyzing records from patients diagnosed with cannabis use disorder at 64 US healthcare organizations. The study involved over 116,000 patients with cannabis use disorder, matched against a control group without that diagnosis. Head and neck cancers were rare in both groups, but the overall incidence over 20 years was about three times higher among patients with cannabis use disorder (0.28% vs 0.09%). After propensity score matching — based on factors such as age and tobacco and alcohol use — patients with cannabis use disorder had a 2.5-8.5 times higher risk for head and neck cancers, especially laryngeal cancer: any type (risk ratio [RR], 3.49), laryngeal cancer (RR, 8.39), oropharyngeal cancer (RR, 4.90), salivary gland cancer (RR, 2.70), nasopharyngeal cancer (RR, 2.60), and oral cancer (RR, 2.51). But although the study was large, 'it's not particularly strong evidence,' said Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist and senior research fellow at the University of Wollongong, Australia. Meyerowitz-Katz pointed to some key limitations, including the focus on people with cannabis use disorder, who are not representative of users in general. The study also lacked information on factors that aren't captured in patient records, such as occupation — which, Meyerowitz-Katz noted, is known to be associated with both head and neck cancer risk and cannabis use. Beyond that, the risk increases were generally small, even with extensive use of the drug. 'If we assume the study results are causal,' Meyerowitz-Katz said, 'they suggest that people who use cannabis enough to get a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder get head and neck cancer at a rate of around 3 per 1000 people, compared to 1 per 1000 people who don't use cannabis.' Cannabis and Childhood Cancers As marijuana use has shot up among Americans generally, so too has prenatal use. One study found, for instance, that the rates almost doubled from about 3.4%-7% of pregnant women in the US between 2002 and 2017. Many women say they use it to manage morning sickness. Given the growing prenatal use, however, there is a need to better understand the potential risks of fetal exposure to the drug, said Kyle M. Walsh, PhD, associate professor in neurosurgery and pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. The fortunate rarity of childhood cancers makes it challenging to study whether maternal substance use is a pediatric cancer risk factor. It's also hard to define a control group, Walsh said, because parents of children with cancer often have difficulty recollecting their exposures before and during pregnancy. To get past these limitations, Walsh and his colleagues took a different approach. Instead of trying to track cannabis use and tie it to cancer risk, Walsh's team focused on families of children with cancer to see whether prenatal substance use was associated with any particular cancer subtypes. Their study, published last year in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, surveyed 3145 US families with a child diagnosed with cancer before age 18. The study, however, did not focus on just marijuana; it looked at illicit drug use during pregnancy more generally. Although the authors assumed that would mostly mean marijuana, it could include other illicit drugs, such as cocaine. Overall, 4% of mothers reported using illicit drugs during pregnancy. Prenatal use of illicit drugs was associated with an increased prevalence of two tumor types: intracranial embryonal tumors, including medulloblastoma and primitive neuroectodermal tumors (prevalence ratio [PR], 1.94), and retinoblastoma (PR, 3.11). 'Seeing those two subtypes emerge was quite interesting to us, because they're both derived from a cell type in the developing fetal brain,' Walsh said. That, he added, 'aligns in some ways' with research finding associations between prenatal cannabis use and increased frequencies of ADHD and autism spectrum disorders in children. Interestingly, Walsh noted, prenatal cigarette smoking — which was also examined in the study — was not associated with any cancer subtype, suggesting that smoking might not explain the observed associations between prenatal drug use and central nervous system tumors. But, he stressed, it will take much more research to establish whether prenatal marijuana use, specifically, is associated with any childhood cancers, including studies in mice to examine whether cannabis exposure in utero affects neurodevelopment in ways that could promote cancer. Testicular Cancer Testicular cancer is the one cancer that has been linked to cannabis use with some consistency. But even those findings are shaky, according to Meyerowitz-Katz. A 2019 meta-analysis in JAMA Network Open concluded that long-term marijuana use (over more than a decade) was associated with a significantly higher risk for nonseminomatous testicular germ cell tumors (odds ratio, 1.85). But the authors called the strength of the evidence — from three small case-control studies — low. All three had minimal controls for confounding, according to Meyerowitz-Katz. 'Whether this association is due to cannabis or other factors is hard to know,' he said. 'People who use cannabis regularly are, of course, very different from people who rarely or never use it.' In their 2025 Lancet Public Health review, Nargis and her colleagues pointed to a more recent study, published in 2021 in BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, that looked at the issue in broader strokes. The study found parallels between population marijuana use and testicular cancer rates, as well as higher rates of the cancer in US states where marijuana was legal vs those where it wasn't. However, Nargis said, observational studies such as this must be interpreted with caution because they lack data on individuals. If regular cannabis use does have effects on testicular cancer risk, the mechanisms are speculative at best. Researchers have noted that the testes harbor cannabinoid receptors, and there is experimental evidence that binding those receptors may alter normal hormonal and testicular function. But the path from smoking weed to developing testicular cancer is far from mapped out. Risk for Other Cancers? The recent Lancet Public Health overview also highlights emerging evidence suggesting a relationship between cannabis use and risks for a range of other cancer types. A handful of observational studies, for instance, showed correlations between population-level cannabis use and risks for several cancers, such as breast, liver, thyroid, and prostate. The observational studies, mostly from a research team at the University of Western Australia, made headlines last year with a perspectives piece published in Addiction Biology, claiming there is 'compelling' evidence that cannabis is 'genotoxic' and raises cancer risk. But, as Meyerowitz-Katz pointed out, the paper is only a perspective, not a study. And the human data it cites are from the same limited evidence base critiqued in the NASEM and ACS reports. Meyerowitz-Katz does not discount the possibility that marijuana use contributes to some cancers. 'I wouldn't be surprised if we find that extensive cannabis use — particularly smoking — is related to cancer risk,' he said. But based on the existing evidence, he noted, the risk, if real, is 'quite small.' Where to Go From Here? What's needed, Nargis said, are large-scale cohort studies like those that showed cigarette smoking is a cancer risk factor. For the ACS, she said, the next step is to analyze decades of data from its own Cancer Prevention Studies, which included participants with a history of cannabis use and cancer diagnoses verified using state registries. Nargis also noted that nearly all studies to date have focused on marijuana smoking, and 'almost nothing' is known about the long-term health risks of newer ways to use cannabis, including vaping and edibles. 'What's concerning,' she said, 'is that the regulatory environment is not keeping up with this new product development.' With the evolving laws and attitudes around cannabis use, Nargis said, it's the responsibility of the research community to find out 'the truth' about its long-term health effects. 'People should be able to make their choices based on evidence,' she said.
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Universities must become active launchpads for innovation
We are in an era of unprecedented technological advancement. Yet American universities — long considered beacons of innovation — are facing an equally unprecedented crisis of confidence. The Edelman Trust Barometer reveals a steady erosion of public trust across all pillars of society, with confidence in higher education falling to its lowest level ever. Critics from across the political spectrum increasingly label universities as elitist, self-interested, out-of-touch and unaccountable. While these criticisms deserve serious attention, the current remedies — especially cutting research funding and laying off young research staff — carry significant risk. The backbone of America's research and development enterprise is a unique partnership between government and universities, a model with deep historical roots. Since the founding of institutions like MIT in 1861 and the development of the America research university model by Johns Hopkins in 1876, universities have been mandated to advance the nation's 'useful arts and manufactures.' This mission thrives on sustained investment and shared goals — between governments and universities, supported and amplified by philanthropic and industrial partners — shaping a research system that is the envy of the world. Studies estimate that university-initiated innovation, alongside skilled workforce development, has driven about half of U.S. economic growth since World War II. This university-government alignment is not simply a driver of prosperity; it is fundamental to American security. Undermining this critical bond jeopardizes our national security and interests. This reliance is clearly seen in the Department of Defense, which depends heavily on university research for advancements shaping the future battlefield, spanning fields like quantum sensors, self-healing materials and transformative aerospace engineering. The need to strengthen our research universities comes at a moment when, according to a National Academies report, the U.S. 'no longer has a monopoly on the top science.' Other nations are aggressively investing to challenge America's lead in all aspects of research and development. China has massively ramped up research and development funding and now produces science at an unprecedented rate and scale, aiming to dominate sectors like AI, biotech, hypersonics and energy storage. China now nearly equals the U.S. in total research and development expenditures, and its whole-of-nation innovation push means America must run faster, not slower, in supporting science if we are to stay in the race. The traditional contributions of universities — advancing knowledge through research and patents — remain fundamental to America's economic and national security dynamism. These activities ensure a pipeline of talent and the diffusion of ideas, demonstrated by the fact that only the top 25 U.S. research universities contribute a very large portion of all U.S. university patents and train more first-time inventors than any other sector. However, as annual investment in university research and development climbs past the $100 billion mark, relying solely on these established mechanisms is no longer enough. To maintain their relevance and continue to support our national security, universities must codify translation and entrepreneurship as a crucial pathway for making a difference. Research labs must move beyond passive spillovers and become active launchpads for new companies that leverage federally funded research. University research translation is at best a serendipitous process. Making it more systematic represents an enormous opportunity for both more economic growth and better solutions to pressing national priorities. At a time when universities are on trial for being a resource drain, efforts to increase translation activity are desperately needed. We must make sure that the American public hears loud and clear about our focus on real-world impact. Through a program MIT started five years ago called Proto Ventures, teams are turning breakthroughs made in tech labs into real-world solutions that can help all Americans. Proto Ventures is designed to actively leverage research, much of which is supported by taxpayer dollars, into impactful, sustainable businesses — rather than just hoping it happens. To build companies from the ground up, we've brought a proactive and comprehensive approach to venture creation. We identify a technological field, industry or strategic challenge that is ripe for exploration. A dedicated small team then secures the agreement of our faculty in the relevant lab or center, and we bring in experienced venture builders. They and the wider Proto Ventures team do the essential work of identifying a robust pipeline of potential opportunities, reducing unsuccessful paths and propelling forward the ones with real potential. As ideas solidify, we help teams of founders form and eventually leave the university and start to grow. In that way, Proto Ventures builds companies to change the world within a framework of shared interest with the funders (often the government) and focused on problems that matter to our shared future. Programs like Proto Ventures show that universities aren't simply about education and research, although those are of central importance; they can also prioritize and configure entrepreneurial processes to increase real-world impact and directly contribute to national security and economic growth. By bridging the gap between groundbreaking research and tangible outcomes, universities can address their critics, strengthen the nation and focus on their highest purpose: advancing human progress through knowledge and innovation. Gene R. Keselman is a lecturer at MIT School of Management, the executive director of MIT Mission Innovation Experimental and managing director of MIT's Proto Ventures. He is also a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. Dame Fiona Murray is the William Porter professor of entrepreneurship and associate dean of innovation at the MIT School of Management. She is vice chair of the NATO Innovation Fund. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
08-04-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Universities must become active launchpads for innovation
We are in an era of unprecedented technological advancement. Yet American universities — long considered beacons of innovation — are facing an equally unprecedented crisis of confidence. The Edelman Trust Barometer reveals a steady erosion of public trust across all pillars of society, with confidence in higher education falling to its lowest level ever. Critics from across the political spectrum increasingly label universities as elitist, self-interested, out-of-touch and unaccountable. While these criticisms deserve serious attention, the current remedies — especially cutting research funding and laying off young research staff — carry significant risk. The backbone of America's research and development enterprise is a unique partnership between government and universities, a model with deep historical roots. Since the founding of institutions like MIT in 1861 and the development of the America research university model by Johns Hopkins in 1876, universities have been mandated to advance the nation's 'useful arts and manufactures.' This mission thrives on sustained investment and shared goals — between governments and universities, supported and amplified by philanthropic and industrial partners — shaping a research system that is the envy of the world. Studies estimate that university-initiated innovation, alongside skilled workforce development, has driven about half of U.S. economic growth since World War II. This university-government alignment is not simply a driver of prosperity; it is fundamental to American security. Undermining this critical bond jeopardizes our national security and interests. This reliance is clearly seen in the Department of Defense, which depends heavily on university research for advancements shaping the future battlefield, spanning fields like quantum sensors, self-healing materials and transformative aerospace engineering. The need to strengthen our research universities comes at a moment when, according to a National Academies report, the U.S. 'no longer has a monopoly on the top science.' Other nations are aggressively investing to challenge America's lead in all aspects of research and development. China has massively ramped up research and development funding and now produces science at an unprecedented rate and scale, aiming to dominate sectors like AI, biotech, hypersonics and energy storage. China now nearly equals the U.S. in total research and development expenditures, and its whole-of-nation innovation push means America must run faster, not slower, in supporting science if we are to stay in the race. The traditional contributions of universities — advancing knowledge through research and patents — remain fundamental to America's economic and national security dynamism. These activities ensure a pipeline of talent and the diffusion of ideas, demonstrated by the fact that only the top 25 U.S. research universities contribute a very large portion of all U.S. university patents and train more first-time inventors than any other sector. However, as annual investment in university research and development climbs past the $100 billion mark, relying solely on these established mechanisms is no longer enough. To maintain their relevance and continue to support our national security, universities must codify translation and entrepreneurship as a crucial pathway for making a difference. Research labs must move beyond passive spillovers and become active launchpads for new companies that leverage federally funded research. University research translation is at best a serendipitous process. Making it more systematic represents an enormous opportunity for both more economic growth and better solutions to pressing national priorities. At a time when universities are on trial for being a resource drain, efforts to increase translation activity are desperately needed. We must make sure that the American public hears loud and clear about our focus on real-world impact. Through a program MIT started five years ago called Proto Ventures, teams are turning breakthroughs made in tech labs into real-world solutions that can help all Americans. Proto Ventures is designed to actively leverage research, much of which is supported by taxpayer dollars, into impactful, sustainable businesses — rather than just hoping it happens. To build companies from the ground up, we've brought a proactive and comprehensive approach to venture creation. We identify a technological field, industry or strategic challenge that is ripe for exploration. A dedicated small team then secures the agreement of our faculty in the relevant lab or center, and we bring in experienced venture builders. They and the wider Proto Ventures team do the essential work of identifying a robust pipeline of potential opportunities, reducing unsuccessful paths and propelling forward the ones with real potential. As ideas solidify, we help teams of founders form and eventually leave the university and start to grow. In that way, Proto Ventures builds companies to change the world within a framework of shared interest with the funders (often the government) and focused on problems that matter to our shared future. Programs like Proto Ventures show that universities aren't simply about education and research, although those are of central importance; they can also prioritize and configure entrepreneurial processes to increase real-world impact and directly contribute to national security and economic growth. By bridging the gap between groundbreaking research and tangible outcomes, universities can address their critics, strengthen the nation and focus on their highest purpose: advancing human progress through knowledge and innovation. Gene R. Keselman is a lecturer at MIT School of Management, the executive director of MIT Mission Innovation Experimental and managing director of MIT's Proto Ventures. He is also a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. Dame Fiona Murray is the William Porter professor of entrepreneurship and associate dean of innovation at the MIT School of Management. She is vice chair of the NATO Innovation Fund.
Forbes
06-04-2025
- Science
- Forbes
Lessons In Hubris And Humility Can Help Science Serve The Public
Scientific research and related advances are cornerstones for our way of life. Virtually every convenience, medication, or technology emerged from basic science research, technological developments, and even surprises along the way. However, many people do not fully appreciate how academic inquiry, research, and scholarship are embedded within their daily lives. In some cases, there is skepticism of the scientific enterpise itself. As the scientific research enterprise faces headwinds, I argue that a little introspection and humility are needed to improve science translation. A 2020 paper that I co-authored with an anthropologist and civil engineer provides a pathway for this discussion. In that paper, entitled 'From hubris to humility: Transcending original sin in managing hydroclimatic risk,' my colleagues Don Nelson (lead author), Brian Bledsoe and I argued that extreme weather events like flooding, drought, and hurricanes present growing risks to our water infrastructure and societal well-being. Hurricane Helene (2024), the Texas Winter Storm (2021), and extreme rainfall-related water supply disruptions in Jackson, Mississippi are case studies in the convergence of hydrometeorological extremes, risk and resilience. A White House Executive Order issued in March stated, 'This order empowers State, local, and individual preparedness and injects common sense into infrastructure prioritization and strategic investments through risk-informed decisions that make our infrastructure, communities, and economy resilient to global and dynamic threats and hazards.' Dr. Nelson and colleagues argued that effective risk management will require scholarly and application stakeholders to move beyond hubris and approach 21st Century challenges with humility. Essentially the point is that strategies must evolve beyond historical approaches not suited for contemporary events. Dr. Brian Bledsoe is the director of the Institute for Resilient Infrastructure Systems at the University of Georgia. He often talks about urban stormwater design being hampered by past assumptions of 'stationarity.' Unfortunately, the rainstorms of 1970 are different than the ones of today. Bledsoe is also a part of a consortium seeking to employ nature-based solutions to environmental stressors. Such innovations are not constrained by the 'hubris' of traditional engineered training and methods. So why does any of this matter to scientific translation and the ivory tower ecosystem? Big challenges require multiple perspectives The grand challenges facing society have components that cross several disciplines. Hurricane Helene is a tragic exemplar. This storm is what a recent National Academies report called a compound and cascading disaster that included flooding, wind damage, mudslides, power loss, communication challenges, misinformation, disinformation, agricultural losses, economic stress, transportation disruption, emergency response, and a public health crisis. Such complexity is similar to what we face with things measles cases or coronavirus pandemic. Siloed disciplinary expertise will not be sufficient. Never in my wildest dreams as a young graduate student at Florida State University did I envision publishing a scholarly paper with an anthropologist and a civil engineer. However, the moment warranted it. I collaborate frequently with them on multidisciplinary problems embedded within our ivory tower setting but relevant to society. In recent years, my scholarship has also been applied to the public health community. For example, a group of us recently reviewed the current knowledge space related to extreme heat and fetal health. The Currency Of Success In The Ivory Tower Must Evolve I once said that if experts are not willing to engage beyond the ivory tower, then people with agendas, misinformation, and disinformation will happily fill the void left behind. Studies continue to reveal that most Americans get information about science from general news sources, which includes social media and the Internet. A report from the National Science Foundation stated, 'That pattern of attention to general news outlets or social media content, which are often unmoderated by a professional science editor, is notable because that content typically differs substantively from content offered by specialized science information venues.' Here's where institutional hubris comes into the picture. The currency for scholars is the peer-reviewed literature, academic conferences, sprawling 200-page reports, and long-books. For the most part, the public is not consuming these sources, which leads to openings for blogs, grey literature, You Tube videos, and Tik Tok to inform them in accesible ways. The hubris is rooted in past perceptions that serious scholars do not engage in media interviews, social media posts, or all of that 'extra stuff' called broader engagement. In an essay written for the National Academy of Engineering, I tried to shatter that narrative. I argued, '…. Science popularization should not be considered as inferior to or detracting from traditional scientific research. Rather, science popularization is necessary to move us forward. Grand and wicked challenges in science and engineering require sound, public-facing expertise.' There are many barriers to moving this forward. First, many scholars are trained to be, well, scholars. There is very little attention paid to providing graduate students with media training, social media strategies, or science communication approaches. In 2016, I wrote an article laying out 9 tips for communicating science to the public. Exposing such information to the next generation of scientists is a start. Additionally, the incentive structure is still very much tied to 'publish or perish," maintaining robust funding to support students, labs, and equipment, and the opinions of peer references. Don't misunderstand what I am saying here. Those things are very important for establishing the integrity and credibility of scholarship. However, the tent needs to be expanded to incentivize (not discourage) scholars to share their insights and innovations more broadly rather than burying them in journals. Maddie Khaw, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, recently spoke to scientists who acknowledged the need to be more intentionally about public engagement to win back trust. Yes, highly cited journal publications are important, but only 30 people may read it. Let's amplify the value of that scholarship being mentioned in a popular media outlet read by a 1 million people, including key stakeholders. Humility and Co-Production Of Knowledge Dr. Amanda Townley is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. I value her perspective so reached out to her on this topic. She wrote, 'If we want a scientifically-literate public we have to embrace our place in that as much, if not more than we do our place in the sciences.' This is an important point because I often frame my own translation activities from the perspective of my family or the random person at the mall. Townley went on to say, 'We are social learners and the great disservice of the scientific system as we know it is that we have disconnected ourselves from the people we most want to learn from us.' A persistent problem that well-meaning academics, principal investigators, and scientists have with translational work is 'savior complex." Steeped in our academic 'bubbles,' we often believe our ideas and solutions are exactly what the community, business, or individual needs. However, hubris appears again. We don't ask them. Co-production of knowledge is a humble way to engage. During my time as Deputy Project Scientist for NASA's Global Precipitation Measurement Mission, we held a workshop of potential users of this novel dataset. We were excited because we knew the potential value of what the satellite mission had to offer farmers, water resource managers, and other stakeholders. However, we quickly learned after listening to them that there was a significant barrier to usage. They did not have the capacity to manage large scientific data formats. They wanted the data in simple GIS-ready formats. Humility in science translation looks more like initial engagement, listening, lessening mistrust, and developing solutions together. To be clear, many scholars do get it. Dr. J. Derrick Lemons is a professor and head of the Department of Religion at the University of Georgia. He also serves as the director of the Center for Theologically Engaged Anthropology. He told me, 'One of the most powerful duties a scholar can perform is to become a learner first.' Professor Lemons believes scholars must immerse themselves in the culture they hope to influence with humility and understanding. He added, 'As a Chinese wisdom reminds us: 'Go to the people, live among them, learn from them, start with what they know, build on what they have." The inertia of hubris within our systems is persistent. It is a very large ship that will not turn easily. However, the barriers and opportunities facing the research enterprise are a lighthouse in a foggy harbor. They are beacons for all of the tugboats to help with the turn now before it is too late.
Yahoo
16-02-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Are more elderly South Dakotans working?
This story is reported by , a non-profit news organization. Find more in-depth reporting at . A growing number of South Dakotans continue to work past retirement age. In 2018, a quarter of South Dakotans 65 and older were in the labor force. Five years later, that number climbed to 29%, above the national rate of 19%. Bill to end child marriage in SD clears first hurdle As of July 2024, 18% of South Dakotans were 65 and older. That's up from 14% in 2010. From 2000-2020 the nationwide share of workers 60 and older doubled, due in part to the aging population and falling birth rates. Other contributing factors include employers shifting away from pension type retirement plans, which encourage workers to retire at a specific age, and the Social Security system raising the age for when workers can receive full benefits from 65 to 67. This fact brief responds to conversations such as this one. South Dakota Department of Labor, 2018 Workforce Report South Dakota Department of Labor, 2023 Workforce Report United States Census, Population 65 and Older 2024 United States Census, Population 65 and Older 2010 National Academies, Understanding the Aging Workforce Pew Research Center, The growth of the older workforce South Dakota News Watch partners with Gigafact, a nonprofit network of nonpartisan newsrooms, to verify trending claims through fact briefs. Read previous fact briefs and our verification standards and other best practices policies. Have a question we can answer? Submit it at the South Dakota News Watch Tipline. Send questions or feedback to factbrief@ Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
