Making sense of many universes

Q&A — Theoretical physicist John Donoghue

The idea of a multiverse — multiple realms of space differing in basic properties of physics — bugs some scientists. Others find it a real possibility that should not be ignored.

Almost anybody who has ever thought deeply about the universe sooner or later wonders if there is more than one of them. Whether a multiplicity of universes — known as a multiverse — actually exists has been a contentious issue since ancient times. Greek philosophers who believed in atoms, such as Democritus, proposed the existence of an infinite number of universes. But Aristotle disagreed, insisting that there could be only one.

Today a similar debate rages over whether multiple universes exist. In recent decades, advances in cosmology have implied (but not proved) the existence of a multiverse. In particular, a theory called inflation suggests that in the instant after the Big Bang, space inflated rapidly for a brief time and then expanded more slowly, creating the vast bubble of space in which the Earth, sun, Milky Way galaxy and billions of other galaxies reside today. If this inflationary cosmology theory is correct, similar big bangs occurred many times, creating numerous other bubbles of space like our universe.

Properties such as the mass of basic particles and the strength of fundamental forces may differ from bubble to bubble. In that case, the popular goal pursued by many physicists of finding a single theory that prescribes all of nature’s properties may be in vain. Instead, a multiverse may offer various locales, some more hospitable to life than others. Our universe must be a bubble with the right combination of features to create an environment suitable for life, a requirement known as the anthropic principle.

But many scientists object to the idea of the multiverse and the anthropic reasoning it enables. Some even contend that studying the multiverse doesn’t count as science. One physicist who affirms that the multiverse is a proper subject for scientific investigation is John Donoghue of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

As Donoghue points out in the 2016 Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, the Standard Model of Particle Physics — the theory describing the behavior of all of nature’s basic particles and forces — does not specify all of the universe’s properties. Many important features of nature, such as the masses of the particles and strengths of the forces, cannot be calculated from the theory’s equations. Instead they must be measured. It’s possible that in other bubbles, or even in distant realms within our bubble but beyond the reach of our telescopes, those properties might be different.

Maybe some future theory will show why nature is the way it is, Donoghue says, but maybe reality does encompass multiple possibilities. The true theory describing nature might permit many stable “ground states,” corresponding to the different cosmic bubbles or distant realms of space with different physical features. A multiverse of realms with different ground states would support the view that the universe’s habitability can be explained by the anthropic principle — we live in the realm where conditions are suitable — and not by a single theory that specifies the same properties everywhere.

Knowable Magazine quizzed Donoghue about the meaning of the multiverse, the issues surrounding anthropic reasoning and the argument that the idea of a multiverse is not scientific. His answers have been edited for brevity and clarity.

Can you explain just what you mean by multiverse?

For me, at least, the multiverse is the idea that physically out there, beyond where we can see, there are portions of the universe that have different properties than we see locally. We know the universe is bigger than we can see. We don’t know how much bigger. So the question is, is it the same everywhere as you go out or is it different?

If there is a multiverse, is the key point not just the existence of different realms, but that they differ in their properties in important ways?

If it’s just the same all the way out, then the multiverse is not relevant. The standard expectation is that aside from random details — like here’s a galaxy, there’s a galaxy, here’s empty space — that it’s more or less uniform everywhere in the greater universe. And that would happen if you have a theory like the Standard Model where there’s basically just one possible way that the model looks. It looks the same everywhere. It couldn’t be different.

Isn’t that what most physicists would hope for?

Probably literally everyone’s hope is that we would someday find a theory and all of a sudden everything would become clear — there would be one unique possibility, it would be tied up, there would be no choice but this was the theory. Everyone would love that.

But the Standard Model does not actually specify all the numbers describing the properties of nature, right?

The structure of the Standard Model is fixed by a symmetry principle. That’s the beautiful part. But within that structure there’s freedom to choose various quantities like the masses of the particles and the charges, and these are the parameters of the theory. These are numbers that are not predicted by the theory. We’ve gone out and we’ve measured them. We would like eventually that those are predicted by some other theory. But that’s the question, whether they are predicted or whether they are in some sense random choices in a multiverse.

The example I use in the paper is the distance from the Earth to the sun. If you were studying the solar system, you’d see various regularities and a symmetry, a spherically symmetrical force. The fact that the force goes like 1 over the radius squared is a consequence of the underlying theory. So you might say, well, I want to predict the radius of the Earth. And Kepler tried to do this and came up with a very nice geometric construction, which almost worked. But now we know that this is not something fundamental — it’s an accident of the history. The same laws that give our solar system with one Earth-to-sun distance will somewhere else give a different solar system with a different distance for the planets. They’re not predictable. So the physics question for us then is, are the parameters like the mass of the electron something that’s fundamentally predictable from some more fundamental theory, or is it the accident of history in our patch of the universe?

How does the possibility of a multiverse affect how we interpret the numbers in the Standard Model?

We’ve come to understand how the Standard Model produces the world. So then you could actually ask the scientific question: What if the numbers in the Standard Model were slightly different? Like the mass of the electron or the charge on the electron. One of the surprises is, if you make very modest changes in these parameters, then the world changes dramatically. Why does the electron have the mass it does? We don’t know. If you make it three times bigger, then all the atoms disappear, so the world is a very, very different place. The electrons get captured onto protons and the protons turn into neutrons, and so you end up with a very strange universe that’s very different from ours. You would not have any chance of having life in such a universe.

Are there other changes in the Standard Model numbers that would have such dramatic effects?

My own contribution here is about the Higgs field [the field that is responsible for the Higgs boson]. It has a much smaller value than its expected range within the Standard Model. But if you change it by a bit, then atoms don’t form and nuclei don’t form — again, the world changes dramatically. My collaborators and I were the ones that pointed that out.

There’s some maybe six or seven of these constraints — parameters of the Standard Model that have to be just so in order to satisfy the need for atoms, the need for stars, planets, et cetera. So about six combinations of the parameters are constrained anthropically.

By “anthropically,” you mean that these parameters are constrained to narrow values in order to have a universe where life can exist. That is an old idea known as the anthropic principle, which has historically been unpopular with many physicists.

Yes, I think almost anybody would prefer to have a well-developed theory that doesn’t have to invoke any anthropic reasoning. But nevertheless it’s possible that these types of theories occur. To not consider them would also be unscientific. So you’re forced into looking at them because we have examples where it would occur.

Historically there’s a lot of resistance to anthropic reasoning, because at least the popular explanations of it seem to get causality backwards. It was sort of saying that we [our existence] determine the parameters of the universe, and that didn’t feel right. The modern version of it, with the multiverse, is more physical in the sense that if you do have these differing domains with different parameters, we would only find ourselves in one that allows atoms and nuclei. So the causality is right. The parameters are such that we can be here. The modern view is more physical.

If there is a multiverse, then doesn’t that change some of the goals of physics, such as the search for a unified theory of everything, and require some sort of anthropic reasoning?

What we can know may depend on things that may end up being out of our reach to explore. The idea that we should be searching for a unified theory that explains all of nature may in fact be the wrong motivation. It’s certainly true that multiverse theories raise the possibility that we will never be able to answer these questions. And that’s disturbing.

Does that mean the multiverse changes some of the questions that physicists should be asking?

We certainly still should be trying to answer “how” questions about how does the W boson decay or the Higgs boson, how does it decay, to try to get our best description of nature. And we have to realize we may not be able to get the ultimate theory because we may not be able to probe enough of the universe to answer certain questions. That’s a discouraging feature. I have to admit when I first heard of anthropic reasoning in physics my stomach sank. It kills some of the things that you’d like to do.

Don’t some people even argue that though a multiverse would seem to justify anthropic reasoning, that approach should still be regarded as not scientific?

It’s one of the things that bothers me about the discussion. Just because you feel bad about the multiverse, and just because some aspects of it are beyond reach for testing, doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. So if it’s worth considering, and looking within the class of multiverse theories to see what it is that we could know, how does it change our motivations? How does it change the questions that we ask? And to say that the multiverse is not science is itself not science. You’re not allowing a particular physical type of theory, a possible physical theory, that you’re throwing out on nonscientific grounds. But it does raise long-term issues about how much we could understand about the ultimate theory when we can just look locally. It’s science, it’s sometimes a frustrating bit of science, but we have to see what ideas become fruitful and what happens.

An important part of investigating the multiverse is finding a theory that includes multiple “ground states.” What does that mean?

The ground state is the state that you get when you take all the energy out of a system. Normally if you take away all the particles, that’s your ground state — all the background fields, the things that permeate space. The ground state is described by the Standard Model. Its ground state tells you exactly what particles will look like when you put them back in; they will have certain masses and certain charges.

You could imagine that there are theories which have more than one ground state, and if you put particles in this state they look one way and if you put particles in another state they look another way — they might have different masses. The multiverse corresponds to the hypothesis that there are very many ground states, lots and lots of them, and in the bigger universe they are realized in different parts of the universe.

Even if a theory of particles and forces can accommodate multiple ground states, don’t you need a method of creating those ground states?

Two features have to happen. You have to have the possibility of multiple ground states, and then you have to have a mechanism to produce them. In our present theories, producing them is easier, because inflationary cosmology has the ability to do this. Finding theories that have enough ground states is a more difficult requirement. But that’s a science question. Is there one, is there two, is there a lot?

Superstring theory encompasses multiple ground states, described as the “string landscape.” Is that an example of the kind of theory that might imply a multiverse?

The string landscape is one of the ways we know that this [multiple ground states] is a physical possibility. You can start counting the number of states in string theory, and you get a very enormous number, 10 to the 500. So we have at least one theory that has this property of having a very large number of ground states. And there could be more. People have tried cooking up other theories that have that possibility also. So it is a physical possibility.

Don’t critics say that neither string theory nor inflationary cosmology has been definitely established?

That’s true of all theories beyond the Standard Model. None of them are established yet. So we can’t really say with any confidence that there is a multiverse. It’s a physical possibility. It may be wrong. But it still may be right.

Tom Siegfried is a science writer and editor in the Washington, DC, area. He writes the Context blog for Science News and is at work on a book about the history of the multiverse.

What to Do When Your Academic Research Agenda is Stalled

by Dr. Sarah Ruth Jacobs

Days, months, and years pass by, and still, that book and those articles remain unpublished. Perhaps you have submitted an article to multiple journals, only to be rewarded with harshly worded rejections or a seemingly impossible set of revisions. Whether you are on or off the tenure track, it is easy to fall into a state of paralysis or even quiet despair when it comes to research productivity. No matter how much time has passed, it is never too late to change your patterns and restart your research and publication agenda.

Take Careful Stock of Your Materials

Perhaps you have spent a long time focusing on a single project, and it might be a good time to revive a different project or change your approach. Take some time to look over all of your unpublished work, and consider which projects are the most promising and which should be archived indefinitely or forever. Perhaps some of your material is outdated, but it could still be repurposed or folded into a new project. You might want to first go for the "easy wins" (the projects that need the smallest amount of revising) and return to the more complex projects later on. Dr. Jason Brennan, author of "Good Work If You Can Get It: How to Succeed in Academia" and the Robert J. and Elizabeth Flanagan Family Professor of Strategy, Economics, Ethics, and Public Policy at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, advises that "One way to keep on track is to always have multiple projects at different stages. For instance, have some that are just percolating in the back of the brain, some that you are actively drafting, and others that are nearly polished. That way, when you get stuck on one thing, you can work on something else for a bit and then come back to the first thing two weeks later with fresh eyes."

Take on Your Internal Blocks

Maybe you have been burned by a great deal of rejection, and you have fallen into avoidance and procrastination. Perhaps you are a perfectionist who pours every last bit of time and energy into teaching because it feels more pressing and impactful than research. Journaling a little bit about the state of your research agenda, your concerns and frustrations, and where you want to see things go could help you identify and address some inner roadblocks. If you are struggling with depression, anxiety, or a potential attention disorder, having the courage to seek out evaluation and treatment could transform your life in multiple ways.

Say No Where You Can

Perhaps you have taken on too many commitments that have diminished the time that is available to you for research. Dr. Robert Kelchen, the head of the department of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, recommends that you divide your working hours based on how you are evaluated for tenure, "So that if 30% of your evaluation is based on research, make sure that you are doing that to the extent possible." If your service and teaching commitments are standing in the way of doing productive research, it is time to ruthlessly reduce your time spent on these endeavors and say no wherever possible.

Set a Specific Agenda and Honor Your Scheduled Time

Only revise a piece when you have a particular publication or publisher in mind. You should have both read recent articles from that publication and searched for articles on your topic across all of your discipline's journals before revising. Schedule time for a specific project, and honor that commitment by being willing to struggle with putting words on the page. Dr. Brennan states, "My best advice for avoiding writer's block is simply to give yourself permission to write bad work. When you have a puzzle, write down as much as you can, train-of-thought-style, about that topic. Then, walk away for a few weeks. Come back, comb over what you read, and see if there's anything there. Write first, edit second. Many of us get stuck on writing because we won't let ourselves put something on the page until we have it perfectly thought out in our heads. But, on the contrary, writing is thinking."

Plan for Meaningful Breaks

Honoring your "off" time and planning rewarding and fun activities could motivate you to be more focused and productive during your work hours. Dr. Mary McKinney, a psychotherapist and an academic career coach, states "I find that many people who view themselves as procrastinators actually rarely take any guilt-free time off. Because they are inefficient, they think they should be working all the time. Procrastination becomes the only way they get a break! I advise everyone I work with to take off at least one full, guilt-free day each week. It is surprising how hard this is for some people. After a bit of rest and relaxation, it is often easier to focus on tasks that have been avoided."

Submit as Much as Possible

Rejection can sting, but like any skill, academic publication is a learning curve, and your results will improve with practice. Dr. Brennan insists that "The main thing is to submit. Journals are swamped, sure, and as an editor myself, I'm not craving getting excessive submissions. But, despite that, you need to take the shot. There is significant randomness in publishing. If you wait until you have everything perfect, you won't publish much. In general, I recommend everyone in a job track that depends on publishing success to have at least three papers under review, at all times, no matter what."

Find Accountability

Setting hard deadlines and finding someone who will hold you accountable in a serious way (such as by supervising your donation to a cause that you despise when you miss a goal) can add a hard layer of reality to goals that otherwise could remain loose.

If All Else Fails, Look at the State of Your Field

Perhaps a lot of time has passed since you were actively involved in research, and all of your projects are a bit dated. You might, therefore, look at what is happening in the preeminent conferences and journals of your field in order to get some ideas for new directions and topics. Dr. Brennan suggests that "There are strategies for finding new projects. Ask questions such as, does this whole debate assume some premise which might be false? Might people in my field learn something from a cognate field? Are two opposing ideas really the same thing? Do big theories or principles have implications others haven't noticed and perhaps would not endorse? Do people say the word 'obviously' and 'of course' about things that we should instead question?"

Disclaimer: HigherEdJobs encourages free discourse and expression of issues while striving for accurate presentation to our audience. A guest opinion serves as an avenue to address and explore important topics, for authors to impart their expertise to our higher education audience and to challenge readers to consider points of view that could be outside of their comfort zone. The viewpoints, beliefs, or opinions expressed in the above piece are those of the author(s) and don't imply endorsement by HigherEdJobs.

This article is republished from HigherEdJobs^® under a Creative Commons license. 

War in Ukraine at 2 years: Destruction seen from space – via radar

Satellite radar data shows the complete destruction of the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut. Xu et al. (2024), CC BY-NC-ND

Sylvain Barbot, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

As soldiers and citizens provide information from the front lines and affected areas of the war in Ukraine – two years old as of Feb. 24, 2024 – in quasi-real time, an active open-source intelligence community has formed to keep track of troop activity, destruction and other aspects of the war.

Remote sensing complements this approach, offering a safe means to study inaccessible or dangerous areas. For example, seismologists have documented the high pace of bombardments and firing of artillery around Kyiv during the first few months of the war.

Previously, Teng Wang, a professor at the Peking University in China, and I – both Earth scientists – studied illegal nuclear tests in North Korea with satellite data.

Putting our skills to good use once again, we, with graduate student Hang Xu, have analyzed the development of the war from space. We exclusively used open-source, freely accessible data to ensure that all our findings could be reproduced, guaranteeing transparency and neutrality.

View from above

Sensors on satellites record electromagnetic waves radiated or reflected from Earth’s surface with wavelengths ranging from hundreds of nanometers to tens of centimeters, enabling semi-continuous monitoring on a global scale, unimpeded by political boundaries and natural obstacles.

Optical images, the equivalent of photographs taken from space, help governments, researchers and journalists monitor troop movements on the front and the destruction of equipment and facilities. Although optical images are easily interpreted, they suffer from cloud cover and operate only during daylight.

To counter these issues, we used radars onboard satellites. Space-borne radar systems beam long-wavelength electromagnetic waves toward the Earth and then record the returning echos. These waves – about 0.4 to 4 inches (1 to 10 centimeters) – can penetrate clouds and smoke. Radar interferometry has already proved to be an invaluable tool to monitor widespread damage caused by natural disasters.

Satellite photography like these ‘before’ and ‘after’ images can provide a visceral sense of the destruction in the war in Ukraine. Satellite image (c) 2023 Maxar Technologies via Getty Images

Radar from space

Free and publicly available radar data for civilian applications is rare – the United States is scheduled to launch its first one in March 2024 – but the European Space Agency has made such data available since the early 1990s. Data from the European Space Agency’s Sentinel-1 satellite radar is freely accessible via their data hub.

Two radar images formed over the same area can be used to detect changes to structures and other surfaces. Interferometry measures the difference in travel time between two radar signals, which is a measure of change in the shape or position of surfaces. Another measure of surface change is the coherence of the reflected signals – that is, the degree of similarity between two different images when comparing neighboring pixels at the same position in the two images. A large coherence implies little change and thus the preservation of a building or other structure. On the other hand, a loss of coherence in the context of a battlefield implies damage or destruction of a building or structure.

Sentinel-1 radar’s spatial resolution of 66 feet (20  meters) over a swath of 255 miles (410  kilometers) combined with 12-day updates makes its radar data ideal for monitoring urban warfare. Previous research efforts have used satellite radar data to assess damage in Kyiv and Mariupol. We used the data to analyze the evolution of damage to cities over time during several lengthy battles.

Changes in radar data during the battle of Bahkmut show increasing amounts of destruction. Red pixels imply damaged or destroyed buildings. Xu et al. (2024), CC BY-NC-ND

Measure of destruction

We flagged highly damaged areas by comparing radar coherence before and after the war, within the areas classified as artificial surfaces by the European Space Agency’s WorldCover 2021 dataset. Using this approach, we first analyzed the battle of Bakhmut, one of the longest and bloodiest of the war, which began on Oct. 8, 2022, and ended with a Russian victory on May 20, 2023.

When Hang Xu showed Teng Wang and me the data he had processed, we were puzzled. We saw a checkerboard pattern all over the city. We quickly realized the horror of the situation. The only thing that survived after the yearlong battle was the network of roads in the city. All buildings had partially or completely collapsed due to the continuous bombardment.

We then took a look at the battles of Rubizhne, Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk that started in April 2022 and ended with a Russian victory on July 2, 2022. The comparatively lower destruction of Lysychansk is explained by the rapid encirclement of the city from the south instead of continued frontal assaults, as was the case in Bakhmut. The radar data reveals destruction away from the front line within cities, showing the whole extent of the devastation.

Changes in radar data during the battles of Rubizhne, Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk show increasing amounts of destruction. Urban areas are shown in gray with damage in red. Xu et al. (2024), CC BY-NC-ND

Devastation in focus

Remote sensing images offer the means to safely monitor the impact of armed conflicts, particularly as high-intensity wars in urban environments proliferate. Open-access satellite instruments complement other forms of open-source intelligence by offering unimpeded access to high-resolution, unbiased information, which can help people grasp the true impact of war on the ground.

The picture is clear: The real story of war is destruction.

Sylvain Barbot, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

March 5th Amendment

 by Prince Cleveland

Back when I was younger, I was a slightly uninformed voter.

Not about candidates, I always knew who I would vote for. But a lot of times I was uninformed about proposed amendments to the Alabama Constitution. I would read the legal jargon on the fly in the voting booth, hoping I understood clearly enough to make the wisest decision. If I wasn’t confident in my understanding, a no vote would be my default.

After family and friends asked for my opinion on the amendments, I decided the time had come to break the cycle and educate myself in the same way I would educate myself on candidates I would vote for.

So, every election I make a point to have a better understanding of what I’m voting for… and against.

On March 5^th, Alabamians will vote for party nominees for office and an amendment to the Alabama Constitution that will change the way the Alabama Legislature considers certain legislation it will vote on.

The Alabama House of Representatives and Senate’s single constitutional duty is to pass the state budgets, the General Fund and the Education Trust Fund. The legislature also passes numerous bills that are not budget related and of major public interest… usually.

Currently, the legislature cannot consider bills until the budgets are passed and sent to the governor, unless 3/5 of the legislature allows consideration of those bills. In essence, those non-budget related bills must clear a threshold of 60% just to bring legislation to the floor for debate and final passage.

Some legislators have said that those votes rarely fail, and non-budget related legislation is considered after such votes of 3/5 of the legislature.

A YES vote on March 5th will allow for local bills and local proposed constitutional amendments to be considered by the legislature, even if the state budgets have not been passed. Other non-local legislation would still require a 3/5 vote of the legislature to be considered before the budgets are passed.

A NO vote would maintain the status quo. All bills would still require a 3/5 vote in each house of the legislature to be considered before the state budgets are passed.

It seems benign enough to warrant a yes vote. If you are unsure, the default path I used to take could be an option, but I hope I have provided you with enough information to make a wise decision for yourself.

See you at the polls!

Spice Up Weeknights with Better-for-You Mac and Cheese

Spice Up Weeknights with Better-for-You Mac and Cheese

(Culinary.net) Macaroni and cheese is a beloved comfort food that’s easy to make during a busy week. With just a few extra ingredients and steps, you can turn boxed mac and cheese into a filling dinner.

To make this Taco Mac and Cheese, simply prepare your favorite boxed mac and cheese according to the package instructions and stir fry the meat and vegetables together. (Hint: You can even chop vegetables the night before to make cooking the next day even easier.) Then add taco seasoning and combine for a better-for-you take on a classic dish.

Visit Culinary.net to find more quick and simple recipes.

Watch video to see how to make this recipe!

Taco Mac and Cheese

• 1          box macaroni and cheese
• 1/4       cup milk
• 4          tablespoons butter
• 1          pound ground turkey
• 1          red bell pepper, diced
• 1          yellow bell pepper, diced
• 1          orange bell pepper, diced
• 1          onion, diced
• 2          teaspoons taco seasoning

1. Prepare boxed mac and cheese with milk and butter according to package instructions.
2. In skillet, brown ground turkey over medium heat. Add bell peppers and onion. Add taco seasoning.
3. Stir turkey mixture with mac and cheese to combine.

SOURCE:
Culinary.net

3 Ways to Use Propane in Your Home

 

A reliable, environmentally friendly energy source, propane can help power key home systems and appliances. Readily available in the United States, the portable, low-carbon energy source is stored on-site, meaning it’s always accessible to help keep homes running regardless of severe weather or other interruptions to the power grid.

Watch this video for helpful tips this season!

Consider these ways to integrate the clean energy source into your home from the experts at the Propane Education & Research Council:

Home Heating
Whether you use a furnace, fireplace or boiler to heat your home, propane can power your heating source in any climate. Propane-powered heating sources are highly efficient, typically cost less overall due to their longer expected lifespans and emit fewer greenhouse gases than electric or wood- or oil-burning alternatives.

Backup Power
When power from the electric grid is interrupted, a propane-powered generator can provide supplemental power in as little as 10 seconds to keep vital systems like smoke and fire detection, refrigeration, heating and cooling, Wi-Fi and other health and safety equipment operational for several days and nights. Plus, propane doesn’t degrade over time, unlike diesel or gasoline, making it an ideal standby power fuel.

Appliances
Because of their high performance and energy efficiency, propane-powered appliances such as cooking ranges and stoves, clothes dryers and tankless water heaters can increase the value of a home and decrease the strain on the electrical grid. Generating fewer greenhouse gas emissions than their electric counterparts, propane-powered appliances can heat and cool quicker, reduce standby losses and dry clothing faster, reducing energy usage and cost.

Learn more about propane and its benefits at Propane.com/ForMyHome.

SOURCE:
PERC

Register to VOTE!

CLICK HERE!

Important Note! The Alabama Voter Registration application is for use by residents of the State of Alabama only! If you reside in a state other than Alabama, please contact your state or local election officials for information on registering to vote.

Register to VOTE!

CLICK HERE!

Important Note! The Alabama Voter Registration application is for use by residents of the State of Alabama only! If you reside in a state other than Alabama, please contact your state or local election officials for information on registering to vote.

Why is free time still so elusive?

Massive gains in productivity haven’t led to more time free from work. J Studios/DigitalVision via Getty Images

Gary Cross, Penn State

There have been massive gains in productivity over the past century.

So why are people still working so hard for so long?

Output per worker increased by almost 300% between 1950 and 2018 in the U.S. The standard American workweek, meanwhile, has remained unchanged, at about 40 hours.

This paradox is especially notable in the U.S., where the average work year is 1,767 hours compared with 1,354 in Germany, a difference largely due to Americans’ lack of vacation time.

Some might argue that Americans are just more hardworking. But shouldn’t more productive work be rewarded with more time free from work?

This is the central theme of my new book, “Free Time: The History of an Elusive Ideal.”

Keynes misses the mark

Many economists see the status quo mostly as a choice: People would simply rather have more money. So they prioritize work over free time.

However, in the past, many economists assumed that people’s need for more stuff would eventually be met. At that point, they would choose more free time.

In fact, one of the most famous economists of the 20th century, John Maynard Keynes, confidently predicted in 1930 that within a century, the normal workweek would decrease to 15 hours. Yet Americans in their prime working age are still on the job 41.7 hours per week.

John Maynard Keynes. Library of Congress

Why was Keynes wrong?

Obviously, people’s needs or wants were not fully met. In the first half of the 20th century, advertising shifted in ways that emphasized emotions over utility, making consumers feel like they needed to buy more stuff; planned obsolescence shortened how long products remained functional or fashionable, spurring more frequent purchases; and new, exciting – but costly – goods and services kept consumerism churning.

So workers continued to labor for long hours to earn enough money to spend.

Furthermore, as wages rose, the opportunity cost of time spent away from work also grew. This made more free time less economically appealing. In a consumption-saturated society, time spent neither producing nor consuming goods increasingly appeared as wasted time.

Interest in slower, cheaper activities – reading a book, meeting a friend to catch up over coffee – started to seem less important than buying a pickup truck or spending an hour at the casino, pursuits that demand disposable income.

Forced labor

It’s still important to consider whether there’s even any choice to be made.

Almost everyone who works 40 hours a week or more does so because they have to. There are bills to pay, health insurance coverage to maintain and retirement to squirrel away money for. Some jobs are more precarious than others, and many workers even forego earned vacation time for fear of losing promotions.

This hardly makes for a free choice.

But the 40-hour week isn’t the result of a personal calculation of costs and benefits. Rather, it’s the result of a hard-fought political battle that culminated in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which established the standard 40-hour workweek, along with a minimum wage.

Pressed by a labor movement that was far more powerful than today’s, the government implemented a range of progressive economic policies during the 1930s to help the nation emerge from the Great Depression.

Many government officials viewed setting a standard workweek as a way to curtail exploitation and unfair competition among employers, who would otherwise be motivated to push their employees to work for as long as possible. It was an emergency measure, not a choice of more time over more personal income. Nor was it a step toward the progressive reduction of hours worked, as Keynes had envisioned.

In fact, it was hardly a radical measure.

Labor leaders had initially proposed a 30-hour week, which government officials resoundingly rejected. Even New Deal liberals saw a shortening of working hours as a potential threat to economic growth.

So the 40-hour week ended up as the compromise, and the standard hasn’t been updated since.

Woolworth’s employees strike for a 40-hour workweek in 1937. Underwood Archives/Getty Images

For most Americans, this was an acceptable trade-off. They might be working long hours, but they could afford television sets, cars and homes in the suburbs. Many families could live on the wages of the full-time work of the father, making the 40-hour week seem reasonable, since the mother had time to care for the family and home.

But this consensus has long since been undermined. Since the 1970s, inflation-adjusted wages haven’t risen with economic growth. In many households that include married or partnered couples, a single wage earner has been replaced by two earners, both of whom find themselves working at least 40 hours per week.

It’s almost as if the 40-hour week has been replaced by an 80-hour week – at least in terms of hours worked per household.

Who has time to raise kids? Who can afford them? It’s no wonder the birth rate has declined.

Separating economic growth from well-being

For decades, the amount of work we do has been talked about as “just the way things are” – an inevitability, almost. It doesn’t seem possible for society to take a different tack and, like flipping a switch, work less.

To me, this resignation points to a need to reconsider the social contracts of the past. Most Americans will not abandon their work ethic and their insistence that most people work. Fair enough.

Many people prefer working over having vast stores of free time, and that’s OK. And there’s still immense value in work that doesn’t produce a paycheck – caregiving and volunteering, for example.

But reducing the standard workweek, perhaps by transitioning to a four-day week, could ease stress for overworked families.

These changes require political action, not just individuals making the personal choice to arrive at a better work-life balance. And yet a national reduction in the standard workweek seems almost impossible. Congress can’t even pass legislation for paid family leave or guaranteed vacation time.

It doesn’t help that elected leaders continue to insist that well-being be measured mostly by economic growth, and when the U.S. media breathlessly reports quarterly economic growth data, with increases deemed “good” and decreases deemed “bad.”

Why shouldn’t free time and its benefits be included in the equation? Why aren’t figures on the social costs of unlimited growth publicized? Does it even matter that the Dow Jones Industrial Average has doubled in less than a decade when economic security is so fragile and so many people are overstressed?

The idea that stratospheric increases in productivity can allow for more time for life is not simply a romantic or sentimental idea. Keynes viewed it as entirely reasonable.

Opportunities like the one that led to the 40-hour workweek in the 1930s rarely appear. But some sort of paradigm shift is urgently needed.

Something has to give.

Gary Cross, Distinguished Professor of Modern History, Penn State

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

6 Tips to Improve Sleep Quality for Overall Well-Being

Despite a rising number of people searching for the term “sleep” in 2023, nearly 1 in 3 U.S. adults report not getting enough of it, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As a foundation for overall well-being, getting quality sleep is key to achieving goals and being present in daily life. Without it, you’re more likely to lack the stamina and energy to follow through on your ambitions.

To help people realize the foundational role sleep plays in everyday successes, Natrol – a leading sleep, mood and stress supplement brand based on Nielsen data – alongside Dr. Jess Andrade are working together to help people improve their sleep quality and habits so they can conquer their wellness goals this year and beyond.

“From consistent exercise to eating healthy and even daily journaling, it may seem like all your priorities are in order, but without sleep, you won’t be able to reap the full benefits of your hard work,” Andrade said. “Often overlooked, getting quality sleep is a fundamental piece to improving overall wellness and it doesn’t have to be complicated. Creating small, achievable changes in our daily sleep routines can lead to long-lasting lifestyle habits for the better.”

Consider these tips from Andrade to help improve your sleep quality so you can achieve your goals.

1. Prioritize Movement and Light Exposure in the Morning
Whether you’re a yogi or prefer a simple stretch when your feet hit the floor, movement and light during the day can help stimulate quality sleep later that night.

2. Understand Sleep Gains are Just as if Not More Important Than Gym Gains
If you’re focusing on fitness goals, you’ll need adequate sleep to see successful results. If you’re a morning workout warrior, schedule earlier bedtimes to ensure you get the recommended 7-8 hours of sleep. For evening workouts, aim to end your sweat session as early in the evening as possible; too much physical activity before bed can keep you up at night.

3. Make Your Bedroom a Sanctuary
Make your bedroom a sleep sanctuary. Keep the room dark, noise-free and comfortable with the thermostat set at 65-67 F for better sleep conditions.

4. Set Nightly Rituals to Unwind
Create nightly rituals that activate circadian rhythms and allow your body to unwind. Consider activities that relax you the most, like taking a bath, reading a book, journaling or sipping decaffeinated nighttime tea.

5. Try Incorporating a Drug-Free Sleep Aid
If you follow good bedtime habits but still occasionally struggle to fall or stay asleep, try a low-milligram melatonin supplement, like those from Natrol, that are designed to help you get a good night’s sleep so you wake up refreshed and ready to conquer your goals.†

6. Follow the 10-3-2-1-0 method
To help you fall asleep and wake up feeling revitalized, Andrade recommends the 10-3-2-1-0 method: Decrease caffeine intake at least 10 hours before bed. Avoid eating bothersome foods 3 hours prior to heading to off to sleep. Engage in relaxing activities like reading at the 2-hour mark and cut out screentime with 1 hour to spare. Ultimately, these habits can lead to zero times hitting snooze the next morning.

Find more ways to improve sleep habits by visiting Natrol.com.

† These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

SOURCE:
Natrol

Thinking about work as a calling can be meaningful, but there can be unexpected downsides as well

A sense of calling can provide workers a feeling of higher purpose in their jobs. megaflopp/Getty Images

Elaine Howard Ecklund, Rice University; Brenton Kalinowski, Rice University, and Denise Daniels, Wheaton College (Illinois)

Many Americans – especially young adults – want to do work that feels meaningful. Creating meaning for oneself may be especially important as fewer workplaces provide good pay and benefits to their employees.

Those who are religious or spiritual often want to connect their faith to their work through a sense of calling. But there can be unexpected downsides for those who do so. People who say they feel “called” report better work and life satisfaction, but they may also be less likely to address workplace problems or unfair treatment when it arises.

Faith in workplaces

As scholars who study religion in the workplace, we have found that about 1 in 5 American workers agree with the statement, “I see my work as a spiritual calling.” Most of those who see their work in this way link it to religious sensibilities and practices.

Even though faith can be deeply connected to work, there are few comprehensive studies on this topic. In 2018 and again in 2021, we gathered responses from across the United States on how people see their faith in relation to their work.

Over 15,000 people representing a cross section of American adults filled out our surveys. These respondents included individuals from many different faith traditions and also those who did not follow a religious tradition. We also conducted in-depth interviews with over 250 of our survey-takers.

We found that 53% of Americans who feel called to their work are “very satisfied” with their current job compared with 39% of those who do not feel called.

Religious calling in work

The “concept of calling” has roots in Christian history, where people felt called to serve the church. More recently, calling has been extended to a possibility for any person in any job that serves the world.

There is no widely agreed-upon definition of what a modern-day spiritual calling might entail. Business scholars Mitchell Neubert and Katie Halbesleben define it as “a summons from God to approach work with a sense of purpose and a pursuit of excellence in work practices.”

Viewing work as a calling has a positive effect on mental health and well-being. Thomas Barwick/Getty Images

Findings that relate calling to positive workplace outcomes are consistent with previous research that shows viewing work as a calling has a positive effect on worker satisfaction, mental health and well-being, including feeling one’s talents are being well used. As one respondent whom we interviewed told us, “I definitely feel more fulfilled in my work because of my faith, and vice versa. I feel like I’m being a better Christian by doing the work that I do …”

Yet, less is known about the specifics of how people see their work as a calling. Interviews we conducted found that a sense of calling provides workers with higher purpose in their work, especially when facing work that is either extremely challenging or mundane.

For example, teachers talked about dealing with the bureaucracy of state educational systems, and medical service workers discussed the daily grind of mopping floors and handling bodily waste. However, despite the challenges of their work, these people also acknowledged that they were able to get through the day-to-day aspects of their jobs because they felt spiritually called to their work.

Being called to work has downsides

There is reason to be cautious, however, in touting the advantages of viewing work as a calling without also considering the detrimental effects that can emerge.

For example, people who feel that God intended them to be in their current workplace or industry might be more disposed to stay in their current role regardless of unfair treatment or working conditions that take advantage of them, such as being underpaid or overworked. Specifically, in previous work we found that people who do feel called to their work report higher job satisfaction – even when they are experiencing discrimination – than people who do not feel called to their work.

A sense of calling may make people less likely to initiate changes to problematic workplace situations. Indeed, as we found in our research, those who view their work as a calling but also perceive discrimination in the workplace report being less likely to speak up in these situations compared with those who do not attach the same meaning to their work.

This can be especially detrimental for those of racial and religious minority groups who are more likely to experience discrimination at work in the first place. As one woman who works in government told us, “It is difficult being an African American woman in my field, so my faith allows me to step back sometimes and remove myself from the situation.”

This also shows how religion may help individuals cope with discrimination at work, but sometimes in a way that could detract from actively seeking change.

The double-edged sword

Experiencing work as a calling can be a double-edged sword. Because those who feel called to their work have a high level of commitment to their jobs, they tend to be more likely to tolerate, endure or ignore work situations that are unreasonable, inequitable or even discriminatory.

Surveys have found that workers who believe in calling are more likely to tolerate exploitative situations. shironosov/Getty Images

According to organizational ethics scholars Stuart Bunderson and Jeffery Thompson, workers who feel called to their jobs are “more likely to see their work as a moral duty, and to sacrifice pay, personal time and comfort for their work.” Thus, it can become easier for organizations to exploit these employees, whether they do so intentionally or unintentionally.

Having and being led by a sense of calling is also linked to financial stability. According to our data, 68% of people who do not feel called to their work agree that “the primary reason” they do the work is to make money. In comparison, 47% of those who experience a sense of calling view making money as their primary reason for working.

The discrepancy could also speak to gender, race and class privileges. In her research on the “passion principle” – the idea that Americans feel the need to follow their passion and choose jobs they find fascinating, intriguing or fulfilling – sociologist Erin Cech notes how the concept of pursuing paid work that one loves or feels called to can inadvertently foster structural and cultural inequalities. According to Cech, race and class can influence the freedom to choose their work. Not surprisingly, Cech found that white, upper-class men who did not need to worry about money as much enjoyed the most liberty to do so.

Our research also shows that when workers see their job as a spiritual calling, it can blind them to the difficulties others experience at work. They may be less able to empathize with those who feel stuck in their job because of money concerns, are unhappy or unfulfilled in their work, or are struggling to find a job.

Our surveys reveal that 60% of those who view their work as a calling agree that “anyone can find a good job if they try hard enough,” whereas only 49% of those who do not view their work as a calling concur.

Based on these findings, we suggest that leaders in organizations can help cultivate a sense of calling in workers by helping them identify their particular gifts and interests and facilitate their development along these pathways. At the same time, they can and should encourage feedback that can lead to a healthier workplace for everyone.

Elaine Howard Ecklund, Professor of Sociology and Director of The Boniuk Institute for the Study and Advancement of Religious Tolerance, Rice University; Brenton Kalinowski, PhD Candidate, Rice University, and Denise Daniels, Hudson T. Harrison Endowed Chair of Entrepreneurship, Wheaton College (Illinois)

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

Celebrating Women Veterans: 5 meaningful ways to pay tribute

Veterans play an important role in U.S. history. Over time, the demographics of veterans have changed, but few realize the growing role of women in the armed forces. Today, women comprise 11% of the veteran population. According to the Pew Research Center, that number is expected to increase to 18% by 2048.

Fannie Griffin McClendon is one of those women. She enlisted during a tumultuous period of history that spanned World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Her more than two decades in the military included service in both the Army and Air Force.

In an oral history interview for the Library of Congress Veterans History Project, she recalled her proudest memory was her time with the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion during World War II. As the only all-African American, all-female unit deployed to Europe, it processed mountains of mail for U.S. servicemembers in Europe in 1945 and is credited with boosting the troops’ morale. McClendon also provided a unique perspective of life as a career military officer in an era when African American women faced bigotry and barriers.

Through the Veterans History Project, the Library of Congress collects and preserves the firsthand remembrances of U.S. military veterans like McClendon and makes them accessible for future generations to better understand veterans’ service and sacrifice. Stories are available to the public on the Library’s website and at the Washington, D.C. campus.

You can extend this work and honor women veterans in your community with simple acts of appreciation such as:

Support Women Veteran-Owned Businesses
Take your support for small businesses one step further and look for women veteran-owned businesses to support. These leaders are making waves in the business world and the nonprofit sector. If possible, provide mentorships for women veterans to help transition to civilian life.

Encourage Women Veterans to Share Their Stories
Interview the women veterans in your life and capture the details of their military experiences. Then share your documentation with the Veterans History Project, which helps preserve these stories for future generations.

Submit a 30-minute (or longer) unedited video or audio interview sharing service details and/or a collection of original photos or correspondence. Veterans, or families of deceased veterans, may also submit a minimum 20-page journal and/or unpublished memoir or 10 or more original photos or letters. Visit loc.gov/vets and click “How to Participate” for instructions.

Learn More About Women Veterans
Educate yourself, your children and those around you. Visit museums and memorials, many of which have specific displays to honor the sacrifices and triumphs of women veterans.

Advocate for and Empower Women Veterans
Support initiatives and programs that serve women veterans. Empower them to acknowledge their service and take advantage of the programs and resources available.

Say ‘Thank You’
This may be the easiest, yet most impactful, way you can support veterans, and there are many ways to do so. Shake her hand, buy her lunch or send her a card or letter. None of these take much time, but each can have a big impact.

Photos courtesy of the Library of Congress Veterans History Project, Fannie Griffin McClendon Collection, AFC2001/001/119440 and Fannie Griffin McClendon.

SOURCE:
Library of Congress Veterans History Project

A Roadmap for Crisis Management

Book Review – “Reputation First Second Edition: Building a Crisis Communication Strategy”

by Robert A. Scott

The leadership crises following the Congressional Hearing of the presidents of three elite universities underscored the need for a crisis communications plan. Legal preparation is not sufficient. The presidents seem to have been prepared for courthouse decorum but found themselves bullied in a manner they had not anticipated. Their preparation should have included a review of the items on the institutional risk management matrix. These include reputation along with legal, compliance, information security, and disaster recovery, among others.

In "Reputation First Second Edition: Building a Crisis Communication Strategy," Chris Komisarjevsky, retired CEO of Burson-Marsteller, a major public relations firm, sets out the elements of a strategy. He says reputation is the one element of leadership that earns support and makes it possible to survive and, better yet, thrive in the aftermath of a crisis. Furthermore, he asserts that reputation has four components: character, behavior, communication, and trust. Little is more important than "a comparison of what we say and what we do," according to him.

In the aftermath of the Congressional Hearing on antisemitism on college campuses, one president resigned and a second was saved for the time being by her board's affirmation of her appointment. "Reputation First Second Edition: Building a Crisis Communication Strategy" would be a good primer for leaders of universities and other organizations, including both corporate and religious.

In Part One, the book describes and develops the elements of "reputation," including behavior, i.e., the tone at the top; trust, meaning authenticity and transparency; the strength of personal character; and personal engagement in the era of "social skills." Each chapter includes examples from current and well-known past events such as the Boeing 727 Max crashes, Panama and the Pandora Papers that disclosed widespread corruption, and the British Petroleum and Deepwater Horizon crisis that resulted in guilty verdicts for manslaughter and putting profits over prudence, and a $4bn fine. The details help the reader understand the principles enunciated and the consequences found in action and in-action.

For example, he provides some "very clear action steps" that will affect how others judge the character of the leader and the organization:

• Check your ego at the door
• Be personal
• Be everywhere (Manage by walking around): Reach out in unusual and unexpected ways
• Take the pain to explain
• Don't be afraid to stand out
• Create a framework of caring
• Remember first impressions
• Be transparent
• Admit where you went wrong, among various other gems.

In Part Two, the focus is on "crisis," which Komisarjevsky describes as a fact of life that must be met head-on with a plan that is well-executed. Each chapter includes examples that describe the kinds of crises that occur, the actions required, the nature of a plan, the need for action as well as empathy for people, briefing the board, lessons learned and employed, and the basics of recovery.

The examples described are valuable in themselves. The author goes behind the headlines in describing the crises experienced by Novartis settling charges for kickbacks and payoffs, HSBC for money laundering, Goldman Sachs for an inhumane workplace, Apollo II and contingency planning, and Ernst & Young for cheating scandal and fine. From these experiences, he draws inferences from which he enumerates principles. Crises follow a pattern, and there are stages in each:

• Stage One: Look Forward -- Plan and Prepare
• Stage Two: Listen Carefully -- Early Warning
• Stage Three: Investigate -- Fact Finding
• Stage Four: Activate -- The Tactical Operations Center Goes Live
• Stage Five: Act Aggressively -- Time to Speak
• Stage Six: Monitor and Review -- How's it going?
• Stage Seven: Start Recovery -- New Phase Opens
• Stage Eight: Learn for the Future -- Evaluate
• Stage Nine: Start the Cycle Again - No Time to Relax

In addition, the book includes a foreword by Gene McCarthy, chairman of the Board of FootBalance System, Ltd.; lessons from Red Adair, the legendary oil well firefighter; and an afterword by Pat Ford, retired vice chairman of Burson-Marsteller. Their comments add additional wisdom from experience to the philosophy and examples included in the text.

In summary, leaders are responsible for the assets of an institution or organization, and reputation is a particularly valuable asset. We must guard it with all we can because it will make a difference in the recovery from a crisis. It will provide us with the benefit of the doubt during a troubling period, something the presidents testifying before Congress lacked. Chris Komisarjevsky provides a roadmap for preserving and enhancing reputations that can provide a benefit of the doubt at a critical time.

Disclaimer: HigherEdJobs encourages free discourse and expression of issues while striving for accurate presentation to our audience. A guest opinion serves as an avenue to address and explore important topics, for authors to impart their expertise to our higher education audience and to challenge readers to consider points of view that could be outside of their comfort zone. The viewpoints, beliefs, or opinions expressed in the above piece are those of the author(s) and don't imply endorsement by HigherEdJobs.

This article is republished from HigherEdJobs^® under a Creative Commons license. 

Several companies are testing brain implants – why is there so much attention swirling around Neuralink? Two professors unpack the ethical issues

Brain-computer interfaces have the potential to transform some people’s lives, but they raise a host of ethical issues, too. Andriy Onufriyenko/Moment via Getty Images

Nancy S. Jecker, University of Washington and Andrew Ko, University of Washington

Putting a computer inside someone’s brain used to feel like the edge of science fiction. Today, it’s a reality. Academic and commercial groups are testing “brain-computer interface” devices to enable people with disabilities to function more independently. Yet Elon Musk’s company, Neuralink, has put this technology front and center in debates about safety, ethics and neuroscience.

In January 2024, Musk announced that Neuralink implanted its first chip in a human subject’s brain. The Conversation reached out to two scholars at the University of Washington School of Medicine – Nancy Jecker, a bioethicst, and Andrew Ko, a neurosurgeon who implants brain chip devices – for their thoughts on the ethics of this new horizon in neuroscience.

How does a brain chip work?

Neuralink’s coin-size device, called N1, is designed to enable patients to carry out actions just by concentrating on them, without moving their bodies.

Subjects in the company’s PRIME study – short for Precise Robotically Implanted Brain-Computer Interface – undergo surgery to place the device in a part of the brain that controls movement. The chip records and processes the brain’s electrical activity, then transmits this data to an external device, such as a phone or computer.

The external device “decodes” the patient’s brain activity, learning to associate certain patterns with the patient’s goal: moving a computer cursor up a screen, for example. Over time, the software can recognize a pattern of neural firing that consistently occurs while the participant is imagining that task, and then execute the task for the person.

Neuralink’s current trial is focused on helping people with paralyzed limbs control computers or smartphones. Brain-computer interfaces, commonly called BCIs, can also be used to control devices such as wheelchairs.

A few companies are testing BCIs. What’s different about Neuralink?

Noninvasive devices positioned on the outside of a person’s head have been used in clinical trials for a long time, but they have not received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for commercial development.

A visitor experiences a BCI system during the 2023 China International Fair for Trade in Services in Beijing. Li Xin/Xinhua via Getty Images

There are other brain-computer devices, like Neuralink’s, that are fully implanted and wireless. However, the N1 implant combines more technologies in a single device: It can target individual neurons, record from thousands of sites in the brain and recharge its small battery wirelessly. These are important advances that could produce better outcomes.

Why is Neuralink drawing criticism?

Neuralink received FDA approval for human trials in May 2023. Musk announced the company’s first human trial on his social media platform, X – formerly Twitter – in January 2024.

Information about the implant, however, is scarce, aside from a brochure aimed at recruiting trial subjects. Neuralink did not register at ClinicalTrials.gov, as is customary, and required by some academic journals.

Some scientists are troubled by this lack of transparency. Sharing information about clinical trials is important because it helps other investigators learn about areas related to their research and can improve patient care. Academic journals can also be biased toward positive results, preventing researchers from learning from unsuccessful experiments.

Fellows at the Hastings Center, a bioethics think tank, have warned that Musk’s brand of “science by press release, while increasingly common, is not science.” They advise against relying on someone with a huge financial stake in a research outcome to function as the sole source of information.

When scientific research is funded by government agencies or philanthropic groups, its aim is to promote the public good. Neuralink, on the other hand, embodies a private equity model, which is becoming more common in science. Firms pooling funds from private investors to back science breakthroughs may strive to do good, but they also strive to maximize profits, which can conflict with patients’ best interests.

Neuralink’s first human implant was announced on Elon Musk’s social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, in January 2024. NurPhoto via Getty Images

In 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture investigated animal cruelty at Neuralink, according to a Reuters report, after employees accused the company of rushing tests and botching procedures on test animals in a race for results. The agency’s inspection found no breaches, according to a letter from the USDA secretary to lawmakers, which Reuters reviewed. However, the secretary did note an “adverse surgical event” in 2019 that Neuralink had self-reported.

In a separate incident also reported by Reuters, the Department of Transportation fined Neuralink for violating rules about transporting hazardous materials, including a flammable liquid.

What other ethical issues does Neuralink’s trial raise?

When brain-computer interfaces are used to help patients who suffer from disabling conditions function more independently, such as by helping them communicate or move about, this can profoundly improve their quality of life. In particular, it helps people recover a sense of their own agency or autonomy – one of the key tenets of medical ethics.

However well-intentioned, medical interventions can produce unintended consequences. With BCIs, scientists and ethicists are particularly concerned about the potential for identity theft, password hacking and blackmail. Given how the devices access users’ thoughts, there is also the possibility that their autonomy could be manipulated by third parties.

The ethics of medicine requires physicians to help patients, while minimizing potential harm. In addition to errors and privacy risks, scientists worry about potential adverse effects of a completely implanted device like Neuralink, since device components are not easily replaced after implantation.

When considering any invasive medical intervention, patients, providers and developers seek a balance between risk and benefit. At current levels of safety and reliability, the benefit of a permanent implant would have to be large to justify the uncertain risks.

What’s next?

For now, Neuralink’s trials are focused on patients with paralysis. Musk has said his ultimate goal for BCIs, however, is to help humanity – including healthy people – “keep pace” with artificial intelligence.

This raises questions about another core tenet of medical ethics: justice. Some types of supercharged brain-computer synthesis could exacerbate social inequalities if only wealthy citizens have access to enhancements.

What is more immediately concerning, however, is the possibility that the device could be increasingly shown to be helpful for people with disabilities, but become unavailable due to loss of research funding. For patients whose access to a device is tied to a research study, the prospect of losing access after the study ends can be devastating. This raises thorny questions about whether it is ever ethical to provide early access to breakthrough medical interventions prior to their receiving full FDA approval.

Clear ethical and legal guidelines are needed to ensure the benefits that stem from scientific innovations like Neuralink’s brain chip are balanced against patient safety and societal good.

Nancy S. Jecker, Professor of Bioethics and Humanities, School of Medicine, University of Washington and Andrew Ko, Assistant Professor of Neurological Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Washington

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.