Latest news with #NationalOpinionResearchCenter
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump and Harvard draw headlines, but UW is also imperiled by DOGE cuts
A funny thing happened on the way to the Trump Administration's all-out assault on the independence and productivity of American higher education. A majority of the American people decided they don't like it. An Associated Press/National Opinion Research Center poll conducted in early May found that 56% of Americans disapprove of the Republican president's approach to higher education. Six in 10 adults favor maintaining federal funding for scientific and medical research at colleges and universities while only about 3 in 10 support withholding federal funding from institutions for noncompliance with the president's goals or removing their tax-exempt status. Even Republicans are strongly divided on cutting funding to campuses that do not bow to Trump's demands. While about half are in favor, about one-quarter are opposed and a similar share are neutral. Americans are increasingly uncomfortable with government censorship that attempts to command and control what is studied and taught on our nation's campuses. The president's 'big beautiful' reconciliation bill, which narrowly passed in the House of Representatives May 22, proposes a staggering $351 billion in cuts to education and workforce programs. Almost all of that comes at the expense of low-income students and student loan borrowers. The bill would exclude one in five current Pell Grant recipients at community colleges, not Harvard, thereby disproportionately impacting low-income students and forcing hundreds of thousands out of college altogether. Opinion: As Wisconsin takes to water this spring, share your view on wake-enhanced boats The AP interviewed a 68-year-old Trump supporter who did not go to college herself, but made sure her children and grandchildren did. She worries that funding cuts will make it harder for people who need tuition aid to get an education. She sees it as the government 'getting in the way' of an educated society. She's right. The poll demonstrated that support for maintaining federal funding for scientific and medical research is bipartisan, with 75% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans in favor. They're right, too. Just look at Wisconsin. We now have 400-plus start-up companies in the state related to UW research, supporting 232,000 jobs. To highlight just one area of UW-Madison's life-saving research driven by federal funds, our scientists are working on screening for Alzheimer's with blood tests, as well as prevention therapies that would remove the plaques that cause the disease. Federally sponsored research at the UW makes vital contributions to the health of our economy and our citizens. For this boon to Wisconsin to continue, we need to attract and retain brilliant researchers here. A different poll conducted in March of this year by the journal "Nature" found that 75.3% of American scientists have been considering leaving the United States because of the disruptions to their research caused and threatened by federal funding reductions. Yet more disturbing, for early career scientists, the figure rose to 79.4%. Making America great is hardly about reversing the flight of scientists and intellectuals to this country from Europe during and after World War II. Continue to decimate the budgets of federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, and we will lose both our scientists and our competitive edge. This at a time when China has announced an 8.3% increase in its research and development technology funding. Before my stint as president of the University of Wisconsin System, I served four years as chancellor of UW-Extension and four years before that as extension provost. UW-Extension then had offices in all 72 counties, as well as Wisconsin Public Broadcasting studios and reporters, and Small Business Development Centers, across the state. I spent those eight years traveling around Wisconsin, asking farmers, small business owners, and local government officials what the UW could do to improve their quality of life. Many of our fellow citizens I talked with did not have a college degree. Nevertheless, when I scratched down a little ways I found the pride they felt in the University of Wisconsin and what it was doing for their farms, their communities, their children and grandchildren. It's on you now, my Wisconsin senators, to defend the higher education system they built over many generations from the damage short-sighted federal idealogues would do to it. We need you to listen to the shifting opinions of the American people, including your Wisconsin constituents, who the AP/NORC poll shows want you to do just that. Kevin P. Reilly is president emeritus of the University of Wisconsin system. He served as president of the system from 2004 to 2013. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: UW system could be hit by Trump attack on higher education | Opinion
Medscape
21-05-2025
- Health
- Medscape
AI in Healthcare Faces Growing Skepticism Among Patients
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello. I'm Dr Markman, from City of Hope. I'd like to briefly discuss two separate but related articles that recently appeared, which touch on the evolving and critically important topic of artificial intelligence. The first paper is 'Patients' Trust in Health Systems to Use Artificial Intelligence.'The second paper is 'Public Attitudes Toward Notification of Use of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care.' Both of these manuscripts were published in JAMA Network Open . In both cases, the studies were surveys of US adults from the National Opinion Research Center. The first study was from June to July 2023. There were 2039 respondents (51% female) and very reasonable representation based upon various ethnic subgroups. The general trust in the healthcare system was asked of this group. On a scale of 0 to 12, the mean score was 5.38. This is already telling you that perhaps there may be a bit of a concern here. Now, turning to the question that we're highlighting here, which is about trust in the system to use AI responsibly. I'm going to say this and repeat it: 65.8% had low levels of trust in the healthcare system to use AI responsibly — 65.8%. Two out of three patients said they had low levels of trust in the system to use AI responsibly. This is, in my opinion, a really serious statement about how the public is viewing the situation. Furthermore, 57.7% had low levels of trust in their healthcare system to be sure that AI would not harm them — more than half said they had a low level of trust that their system would make sure that AI would not harm them. This isvery concerning. In the second study, there were 2021 respondents; a slight majority, 52%, were female. There was a statement posed: 'It is important that I am notified about the use of AI in my healthcare.' The question was, "How important is that statement?" and 62.7% of respondents said — and this is the highest level — it was very true that they wanted to be notified if AI was being used in their healthcare. Only 4.8%, or 1 out of 20 patients, said they didn't want to be notified. Clearly, patients want to know it's being used and they don't want it to be used without their knowledge. Second, they are fearful and concerned. I think all members of the healthcare environment, including doctors, nurses, healthcare administrators, and payers, need to listen to this. The public is concerned, based upon what they've read, what they've heard, podcasts they've listened to, and social media. They're concerned about the potential risk of harm, and they don't necessarily trust their own healthcare system to do what's best for them. It's a critical message that needs to be heard. I actually agree with the opinion of the majority of the public about that potential concern. Thank you for your attention.
Japan Today
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Japan Today
From defenders to skeptics: The sharp decline in young Americans' support for free speech
By Jacob Mchangama For much of the 20th century, young Americans were seen as free speech's fiercest defenders. But now, young Americans are growing more skeptical of free speech. According to a March report by The Future of Free Speech, a nonpartisan think tank where I am executive director, support among 18- to 34-year-olds for allowing controversial or offensive speech has dropped sharply in recent years. In 2021, 71% of young Americans said people should be allowed to insult the U.S. flag, which is a key indicator of support for free speech, no matter how distasteful. By 2024, that number had fallen to just 43% – a 28-point drop. Support for pro‑LGBTQ+ speech declined by 20 percentage points, and tolerance for speech that offends religious beliefs fell by 14 points. This drop contributed to the U.S. having the third-largest decline in free speech support among the 33 countries that The Future of Free Speech surveyed – behind only Japan and Israel. Why has this support diminished so dramatically? Shift from past generations In the 1960s, college students led what was called the free speech movement, demanding the right to speak freely about political matters on campus, often clashing with older, more censorious generations. Sociologist Jean Twenge has tracked changes in attitudes using data from the General Social Survey, a biennial survey conducted by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. Since the 1970s, this survey has asked Americans whether controversial figures – racists, communists and anti-religionists – should be allowed to speak. Support for such rights generally increased from the Greatest Generation, born between 1900-1924, to Gen X, born between 1965-1979. But Gen Z, those born between 1995-2004, has reversed that trend. Despite the fact that the Cold War, which pitted the communist Soviet Union and its allies against the democratic West, ended more than three decades ago, even support for the free speech rights of communists has declined. Political drift and cultural realignment At the same time, some data suggests that young Americans may be drifting rightward politically. A Harvard Institute of Politics poll in late 2024 found that men ages 18–24 now identify as slightly more conservative than those ages 25–29. Another Gallup survey showed that Gen Z teens are twice as likely as millennials to describe themselves as more conservative than their parents were at the same age. This shift may help explain changes in speech attitudes. Today's young Americans may be less likely to instinctively defend speech aligned with liberal or progressive causes. For example, support among 18- to 29-year-olds for same-sex marriage, generally considered a liberal or progressive cause, fell from 79% in 2018 to 71% in 2022, according to Pew Research. Attitudes toward hate speech The Future of Free Speech study found that younger Americans are especially hesitant to defend speech that offends minority groups. Only 47% of those ages 18 to 34 said such speech should be allowed, compared with 70% of those over 55. Similarly, tolerance for religiously offensive speech was 57% among younger respondents, down from 71% in 2021. This concern over harmful or bigoted speech is not new. A 2015 Pew survey found that 40% of millennials believed the government should be able to prevent offensive speech about minorities. More recently, a 2024 report by the nonpartisan free speech advocacy group FIRE found that 70% of U.S. college students supported disinviting speakers perceived as bigoted. Over a quarter said violence could be acceptable to stop campus speech in some cases. Broader implications Why does this matter? The First Amendment protects unpopular speech. It does not just shield offensive ideas, but it safeguards movements that once seemed fringe. Whether it's civil rights, LGBTQ+ rights or anti-war protests, history shows that ideas seen as dangerous or radical in one era often become widely accepted in another. Today's younger Americans will soon shape policies in universities, media, government, tech and the public square. If a growing share believes speech should be regulated to prevent offense, that could signal a shift in how free speech is interpreted and enforced in American institutions. To be sure, support for free speech in principle remains strong. The Future of Free Speech report found that 89% of Americans said people should be allowed to criticize government policy. But tolerance for more provocative or offensive speech appears to be eroding, especially among young people. This raises questions about whether these changes reflect a life-stage effect − will today's young people become more speech-tolerant as they age? Or are we seeing a deeper generational shift? The data suggests Americans across all generations still value free speech. But for younger Americans, especially, that support seems increasingly conditional. Jacob Mchangama is Research Professor of Political Science and Executive Director of The Future of Free Speech, Vanderbilt University. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
Hindustan Times
13-05-2025
- Health
- Hindustan Times
Managing loneliness in older adults: Study suggests a simple social hack
Older adults often face the pandemic of loneliness. The absence of having someone to talk to, do the mundane routine with, share conversations, can make them feel lonely and deprived. However, according to a new study, social networking can help older adults have a better quality of life, than previously known. Also read | Strategies to combat the impact of loneliness on the mental health of elderly The study, led by Lissette Piedra, a professor of social work at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and James Iveniuk, a senior research scientist at the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, was published in the Journal of Aging and Health, which observed how three types of social networking can affect older adults and their perspective on life. For the study, the researchers tracked 1,500 older adults for a decade. The team identified three types of social networking - enriched, focused and restricted – and how each of them helped older adults form their own social networks. Also read | World Mental Health Day 2024: Tips for your parents to mitigate loneliness and holistic approaches to mental wellness The authors observed that older adults who developed enriched social networks, marked by diverse groups, showed more improvement in overall wellbeing. However, older adults in focused and restricted social networks, reported significantly poorer health. Study lead Lissette Piedra said, 'Social isolation and loneliness can have corrosive effects on mental and physical health. Older adults' social circles may shrink due to poor health, loss of loved ones, poverty, discrimination, language barriers or living in rural or unsafe communities.' The study authors added that participants from Black, Hispanic or from other minoritised racial and ethnic groups demonstrated more loneliness than others, but over the course of the study, they developed their social networks. 'If you start off in a restricted network, the likelihood that you're going to move out of it is low. Many people who are vulnerable—such as women and people of color—are more likely to see their social connections decline and become restricted over time,' added Lissette Piedra. Also read | Loneliness is not 'just a first world problem': Why and how widespread is loneliness The study authors noticed that social networks are not fixed. They are a constant flowing source of networking, and with the right opportunity and time, older adults can develop the kind of social network that they find comfortable. Note to readers: This article is for informational purposes only and not a substitute for professional medical advice. Always seek the advice of your doctor with any questions about a medical condition.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Young Americans' support for free speech declines sharply
For much of the 20th century, young Americans were seen as free speech's fiercest defenders. But now, young Americans are growing more skeptical of free speech. According to a March 2025 report by The Future of Free Speech, a nonpartisan think tank at at which I am executive director, support among 18- to 34-year-olds for allowing controversial or offensive speech has dropped sharply in recent years. In 2021, 71% of young Americans said people should be allowed to insult the U.S. flag, which is a key indicator of support for free speech, no matter how distasteful. By 2024, that number had fallen to just 43% -- a 28-point drop. Support for pro‑LGBTQ+ speech declined by 20 percentage points, and tolerance for speech that offends religious beliefs fell by 14 points. This drop contributed to the United States having the third-largest decline in free speech support among the 33 countries that The Future of Free Speech surveyed -- behind only Japan and Israel. Why has this support diminished so dramatically? Shift from past generations In the 1960s, college students led what was called the free speech movement, demanding the right to speak freely about political matters on campus, often clashing with older, more censorious generations. Sociologist Jean Twenge has tracked changes in attitudes using data from the General Social Survey, a biennial survey conducted by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. Since the 1970s, this survey has asked Americans whether controversial figures -- racists, communists and anti-religionists -- should be allowed to speak. Support for such rights generally increased from the Greatest Generation, born between 1900 and1924, to Gen X, born between 1965 and 1979. But Gen Z, those born between 1995 and 2004, has reversed that trend. Despite the fact that the Cold War, which pitted the communist Soviet Union and its allies against the democratic West, ended more than three decades ago, even support for the free speech rights of communists has declined. Political drift and cultural realignment At the same time, some data suggests that young Americans may be drifting rightward politically. A Harvard Institute of Politics poll in late 2024 found that men ages 18 to 24 now identify as slightly more conservative than those ages 25 to 29. Another Gallup survey showed that Gen Z teens are twice as likely as millennials to describe themselves as more conservative than their parents were at the same age. This shift may help explain changes in speech attitudes. Today's young Americans may be less likely to instinctively defend speech aligned with liberal or progressive causes. For example, support among 18- to 29-year-olds for same-sex marriage, generally considered a liberal or progressive cause, fell from 79% in 2018 to 71% in 2022, according to Pew Research. Attitudes toward hate speech The Future of Free Speech study found that younger Americans are especially hesitant to defend speech that offends minority groups. Only 47% of those ages 18 to 34 said such speech should be allowed, compared with 70% of those over 55. Similarly, tolerance for religiously offensive speech was 57% among younger respondents, down from 71% in 2021. This concern over harmful or bigoted speech is not new. A 2015 Pew survey found that 40% of millennials believed the government should be able to prevent offensive speech about minorities. More recently, a 2024 report by the nonpartisan free speech advocacy group FIRE found that 70% of U.S. college students supported disinviting speakers perceived as bigoted. Over a quarter said violence could be acceptable to stop campus speech in some cases. Broader implications Why does this matter? The First Amendment protects unpopular speech. It does not just shield offensive ideas, but it safeguards movements that once seemed fringe. Whether it's civil rights, LGBTQ+ rights or anti-war protests, history shows that ideas seen as dangerous or radical in one era often become widely accepted in another. Today's younger Americans will soon shape policies in universities, media, government, tech and the public square. If a growing share believes speech should be regulated to prevent offense, that could signal a shift in how free speech is interpreted and enforced in American institutions. To be sure, support for free speech in principle remains strong. The Future of Free Speech report found that 89% of Americans said people should be allowed to criticize government policy. But tolerance for more provocative or offensive speech appears to be eroding, especially among young people. This raises questions about whether these changes reflect a life-stage effect -- will today's young people become more speech-tolerant as they age? Or are we seeing a deeper generational shift? The data suggests Americans across all generations still value free speech. But for younger Americans, especially, that support seems increasingly conditional. Jacob Mchangama is a research professor of political science and executive director of The Future of Free Speech at Vanderbilt University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
