Latest news with #Nobels
NZ Herald
26-04-2025
- Entertainment
- NZ Herald
Miramar surprise hideaway in imaginative retelling of Marie Curie
Miramar is the surprise hideaway of the glowing scientist in Tracy Farr's imaginative retelling. Photos / Supplied In 1912, Marie Curie – the first female professor at the University of Paris, first woman to be awarded the Nobel Prize, and first person to be awarded two Nobels – decided to disappear for a while. She was one of the most famous women in the world; her public
Washington Post
25-04-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Trump is destroying 100 years of competitive advantage in 100 days
As the Trump administration floods the zone with one radical shift after another, its tariffs have gotten the most attention. But the policy that could end up costing the United States even more in the long run is the White House's assault on universities and on research more broadly. The U.S. has led the world in science for so long that it's easy to believe this has always been one of the country's natural strengths. In fact, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the U.S. was more a follower than a leader. British industrialists often complained about American businesses stealing their technology and violating their patents. In the first decades of the 20th century, the country that walked away with the most Nobel Prizes in science was Germany — with one-third of all the awards. Next was Britain with almost 20 percent. The United States took just 6 percent of the Nobels in science. Three powerful forces transformed the scientific landscape in the mid-20th century. The first was Adolf Hitler, who drove a generation of the best scientific minds in Europe — many of them Jewish — to seek refuge in America. (Of Germany's Nobel Prizes in science won by 1932, about a quarter were won by Jews, who made up less than 1 percent of the German population.) Many of these scientists came to America and formed the backbone of its scientific establishment. After the 1965 immigration reform, the United States continued to attract the best minds in the world — many from China and India — who would come to study, then stay and build research labs and technology companies. The second force was the two world wars. By 1945, Britain, France and, most of all, Germany had been devastated, with millions of citizens dead, cities reduced to rubble and governments crippled with mountains of debt. The Soviet Union came out of World War II victorious but lost around 24 million people in the conflict. The United States, by contrast, emerged from the conflict utterly dominant economically, technologically and militarily. The third force that propelled the United States forward was the visionary decision by the U.S. government to become a massive funder of basic science. During the 1950s, total research and development spending in the U.S. reached nearly 2.5 percent of gross domestic product, the most of such spending on the planet. And it did so by creating an innovative model. Universities around the country, public and private, competed for government research funds. The federal government wrote the checks but did not try to run the programs itself. That competition and freedom created the modern American scientific establishment, the most successful in human history. All three of these forces are now being reversed. The Trump administration is at war with the country's leading universities, threatening them with hostile takeovers and withholding billions of dollars in research funding. America's crown jewels of science, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, are being gutted. The United States' second advantage, towering over the rest of the world, has obviously ebbed since 1945. But it is worth pointing out that during the last decade, China has become the world leader in many key measures of science. China has a larger share than the U.S. of articles published in the leading 82 scientific journals that the Nature Index tracks. In engineering and technology articles, China is also now well ahead of the U.S. In patent applications, there is no longer any contest: China receives almost half of all applications in the world. And even in leading universities, China has gone from having 27 universities in the top 500 in 2010 to 76 in 2020 by one measure. The U.S. has gone in the other direction, from 154 to 133. The final advantage that the United States has, and one that China could not match, is that it attracts the world's best and brightest. Between 2000 and 2014, more than one-third of the Americans who won Nobel Prizes in science were immigrants. In 2019, almost 40 percent of all software developers were immigrants, and in the major cancer centers, in 2015 the percentage of immigrants ranged from around 30 percent (Fred Hutchinson) to 62 percent (MD Anderson.) But this is changing fast. Hundreds of visas are being revoked, students are being rounded up to be deported, and graduate students and researchers from China now face the prospect of constant FBI investigations. China has created generous incentives to welcome its best and brightest back home. Many others are choosing to go elsewhere — from Europe to Canada to Australia. Last month, Nature magazine asked its readers who are American researchers whether they were thinking of leaving the country. Of the more than 1,600 who responded, a stunning 75 percent said they were considering it. These are the building blocks of America's extraordinary strength, created over the last 100 years. They are now being dismantled in just 100 days.
Winnipeg Free Press
25-04-2025
- Business
- Winnipeg Free Press
The tough positions an economist takes
Opinion Here are three statements for your consideration. 1) The minimum wage should be set at $0 per hour; 2) Landlords should be allowed to raise rents by any amount; and 3) The costs of expropriating Lemay Forest are higher than most imagine. Saying these things on a first date will guarantee a tart refusal for a second date. That is why economists have difficulty procreating; they cannot get that second date. Let us double down and take each statement in turn. Most view minimum wages as part of society's social safety net and a key tool in fighting poverty. When provinces decide to raise the rate, advocacy groups invariably argue that the proposed increase fails to meet families' basic needs. MIKAELA MACKENZIE / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS Lemay Forest. For many years, conventional economic wisdom held that minimum wages had several adverse effects. By making workers more expensive, employers have an incentive to invest in technology that replaces labour. Minimum wages have little benefit for the unemployed, especially those needing a first job to start their resumes. David Card and Alan Krueger conducted a natural experiment in 1994 that compared employment levels of young workers in two states, one of which had increased its minimum wage while the other had not. Their findings upset the conventional wisdom as they found that employment levels did not decline because of the minimum wage increase. This paper not only upset standard theory but also won Card the Nobel prize (Krueger had died in the interim, and Nobels only go to the living.) The story does not end there. Subsequent research sought to fix limitations to the Card/Krueger study by extending the measurement of effects beyond the original 11 months, broadening the impacts to all industries in a region, and using official payroll data instead of surveys of fast-food managers, which have biases. The more comprehensive study conducted in Seattle restored the conventional wisdom of the adverse effects of minimum wage and showed it triggered more poverty. Investment in technology and resource-led growth, supported by an educated workforce, cures poverty. Another important finding is that property rights and the rule of law promote growth and reduce poverty. Finally, Adam Smith, often (and wrongly associated with pure laissez-faire, advocated for investments in key public services as essential for a functioning economy. Now, consider rent control. It seems intuitive that to cap rents, one needs a regulation limiting the power of property owners. But this is like controlling boiling pots by adding lids — the more you press down, the worse the problem. Eliminating rent control, increasing housing supply by relaxing regulations, managing public debt to reduce pressure on interest rates, ensuring the availability of land, and creating a fiscal structure to service land are the time-tested ways to moderate housing prices. This brings us to Lemay Forest. On the one hand, we have the developer, who is easy for most to dismiss. On the other hand, we have a small group of greenspace advocates who point to the existence of a cemetery, abundant wildlife, and the spiritual significance of the forest. But on the third hand — and there is always a hidden third hand — we have a large amorphous group comprising potential homeowners and the taxpayer. Consider this third and its hidden costs. First, the Manitoba taxpayer bears the costs of compensating the developer. The law requires this, but it creates a disincentive for future development. The developer had proposed 2,500 assisted-living housing units. The City of Winnipeg and Municipal Board rejected this proposal but noted that the development of 800 units might be feasible. As boomers age, the demand for this type of housing will increase in the next few years. During Elections Get campaign news, insight, analysis and commentary delivered to your inbox during Canada's 2025 election. This development would have relieved pressure on personal care homes. It also would have added to the overall housing supply, as seniors downsize, yielding housing for younger families. The cost of creating another park will increase housing prices in the future. Finally, the housing development would have generated future tax revenue in perpetuity. The feel-good creation of a park will have enduring costs for Winnipeg. Of course, this decision to create a park instead of housing will not produce a noticeable increase in housing prices. However, when political expediency becomes the norm, the cumulative effect emerges, and we suffer death by a thousand shaving nicks. That second date? After dousing ice water on curing poverty by raising minimum wages, creating affordable housing through abolishing rent controls, and dissing parks over housing, it is fair to wonder how economists get even the first date. Gregory Mason is an associate professor of economics at the University of Manitoba.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Letters to the Editor: Telling Ukraine to surrender won't win Trump the Nobel Peace Prize
To the editor: President Trump may have trouble securing a Nobel Peace Prize for a reason not analyzed in Jackie Calmes' column. ("Is this the way to win a Nobel Peace Prize?" Opinion, Feb. 23) He and his most ardent advocates fail to recognize that the Norwegian pattern in naming a Nobel laureate for peace tends to be aspirational. Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee hope the prize will help a group or stimulate a result that will be good and long-lasting for mankind. The Swedes, on the other hand, tend to award the scientific and literature Nobels based on the staying power and demonstrable benefits mankind reaps from the discoveries — using years, even decades, of evidence to be able to demonstrate the point. The Trump campaign for the peace prize assumes his efforts to end hostilities among nations have been "unfairly" overlooked. The likelihood is that Norwegians view the "deals" he fashions as harshly conceived, short-term fixes that may fall apart or cause harm in the future. Godfrey Harris, Los Angeles .. To the editor: Calmes very aptly compares Trump's claim of candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's failed appeasement of Nazi Germany in 1938. Chamberlain, at least, prepared his country for a possible war by increasing military spending, which helped stall Adolf Hitler's aerial blitz two years later. By then, Chamberlain was no longer in office, his gesture of appeasement not having worked. The comparison might have been even more apt if the prime minister had called on Poland to capitulate after Hitler's attack in 1939, the year after the Nazis seized the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. By that time, however, Europe had seen where appeasement led, and Britain and France declared war on Germany in response to the attack on Poland. No one wants war, even the aggressor, who would just as soon help himself to seizing what belongs to his neighbor without a fight. But sometimes, a war must be fought in self-defense. That's why we and our allies have the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Urging the surrender of a nation that has been invaded is not a qualification for the Nobel Peace Prize, nor is demanding exorbitant ransom from the country seeking to defend itself. Bill Seckler, Riverside This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
30-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Head Start programs returning to normal operations
LANSING Mich. (WLNS) – People are looking for answers as Head Start programs throughout Mid-Michigan were closed on Wednesday due to funding concerns—and officials gave 6 News those answers. Parents with children at Head Start programs through Capital Area Community Services, or CACS, are confused and frustrated, stemming from an executive order by President Trump that froze federal funding. This led to an announcement on Tuesday by CACS, that these programs would close indefinitely. They were closed Wednesday, but after some clarifications, all of the schools will be open again on Thursday and return to normal operations. That executive order was Wednesday afternoon, but before that happened, CACS could not access its funding on Tuesday which caused concern. So, , and staff was informed that they were temporarily laid off. Some facilities were able to stay open on Wednesday because they have other funding sources. Reynaldo Medrano's 2 year old grandson Frankie attends a Head Start Program. 'There's no school, they don't know where to take these children,' Medrano said. On Wednesday morning, Medrano still wasn't sure what was going on. He thought he was going to have to take care of Frankie. 'I told my son, If I have to bring baby Frankie to work with me, I'll put a paintbrush in his hand and bring him to work,' Medrano said. It was a relief for Medrano to hear that Head Start programs will be back open Thursday. 'He loves coming here, it's a great school, these are great teachers,' Medrano said. CACS Associate Director, Dr. Nolana Nobels, said changes in executive leadership always come with a level of confusion. She said this level of confusion though is unprecedented. Nobels said CACS could not access its payment after the executive order came down. Since it seemed their funding was paused and the school day was ending, they started preparing and let parents and staff know they were closed until further notice and temporary layoffs were activated. 'It's a fiscal responsibility to make sure you have the money behind your actions,' Nobels said. Soon after the Federal Government announced that it was an outage that kept Head Start Programs from accessing their funding. It then clarified that Head Start Programs were not part of the freeze. Around the same time, Dr. Nobels said CACS was able to get into their funding account. 'However, the access did not include the confirmation of the ability to draw funds,' Nobels said. The doctor said it wasn't until around 9 A.M. Wednesday that officials felt comfortable to let staff and parents know things would go back to normal on Thursday and the temporary layoffs were lifted. Because that's when CACS finally got confirmation they could draw funds. 'We're feeling pretty good about things right now,' Nobels said. Nobels appreciates the community's patience. 'Our intention was to make sure we were being good stewards of federal dollars, good stewards of the responsibilities we share with our community, and our actions that we took are based on that,' Nobels said. CACS leaders say they are no longer under the impression their 'federal funding' is in jeopardy. All the confusion seems to have come from things happening so fast. The White House announced the freeze Monday night with little to no direction, leaving organizations frantically trying to figure things out. Dr. Nobels said 1,600 kids across 4 counties rely on this program. All buildings will be open again on Thursday. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
