June 3, 20255 min readAre We Ready for Death in Space?NASA has quietly taken steps to prepare for a death in space. We need to ask how nations will deal with this inevitability now, as more people start traveling off the planetBy Peter Cummings edited by Lee Billings SciePro/Science Photo Library/Getty ImagesIn 2012 NASA stealthily slipped a morgue into orbit.No press release. No fanfare. Just a sealed, soft-sided pouch tucked in a cargo shipment to the International Space Stationalongside freeze-dried meals and scientific gear. Officially, it was called the Human Remains Containment Unit. To the untrained eye it looked like a shipping bag for frozen cargo. But to NASA it marked something far more sobering: a major advance in preparing for death beyond Earth.As a kid, I obsessed over how astronauts went to the bathroom in zero gravity. Now, decades later, as a forensic pathologist and a perennial applicant to NASA’s astronaut corps, I find myself fixated on a darker, more haunting question:On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.What would happen if an astronaut died out there? Would they be brought home, or would they be left behind? If they expired on some other world, would that be their final resting place? If they passed away on a spacecraft or space station, would their remains be cast off into orbit—or sent on an escape-velocity voyage to the interstellar void?NASA, it turns out, has begun working out most of these answers. And none too soon. Because the question itself is no longer if someone will die in space—but when.A Graying CorpsNo astronaut has ever died of natural causes off-world. In 1971 the three-man crew of the Soviet Soyuz 11 mission asphyxiated in space when their spacecraft depressurized shortly before its automated atmospheric reentry—but their deaths were only discovered once the spacecraft landed on Earth. Similarly, every U.S. spaceflight fatality to date has occurred within Earth’s atmosphere—under gravity, oxygen and a clear national jurisdiction. That matters, because it means every spaceflight mortality has played out in familiar territory.But planned missions are getting longer, with destinations beyond low-Earth orbit. And NASA’s astronaut corps is getting older. The average age now hovers around 50—an age bracket where natural death becomes statistically relevant, even for clean-living fitness buffs. Death in space is no longer a thought experiment. It’s a probability curve—and NASA knows it.In response, the agency is making subtle but decisive moves. The most recent astronaut selection cycle was extended—not only to boost intake but also to attract younger crew members capable of handling future long-duration missions.NASA’s Space MorgueIf someone were to die aboard the ISS today, their body would be placed in the HRCU, which would then be sealed and secured in a nonpressurized area to await eventual return to Earth.The HRCU itself is a modified version of a military-grade body bag designed to store human remains in hazardous environments. It integrates with refrigeration systems already aboard the ISS to slow decomposition and includes odor-control filters and moisture-absorbent linings, as well as reversed zippers for respectful access at the head. There are straps to secure the body in a seat for return, and patches for name tags and national flags.Cadaver tests conducted in 2019 at Sam Houston State University have proved the system durable. Some versions held for over 40 days before decomposition breached the barrier. NASA even drop-tested the bag from 19 feet to simulate a hard landing.But it’s never been used in space. And since no one yet knows how a body decomposes in true microgravity, no one can really say whether the HRCU would preserve tissue well enough for a forensic autopsy.This is a troubling knowledge gap, because in space, a death isn’t just a tragic loss—it’s also a vital data point. Was an astronaut’s demise from a fluke of their physiology, or an unavoidable stroke of cosmic bad luck—or was it instead a consequence of flaws in a space habitat’s myriad systems that might be found and fixed? Future lives may depend on understanding what went wrong, via a proper postmortem investigation.But there’s no medical examiner in orbit. So NASA trains its crews in something called the In-Mission Forensic Sample Collection protocol. The space agency’s astronauts may avoid talking about it, but they all have it memorized: Document everything, ideally with real-time guidance from NASA flight surgeons. Photograph the body. Collect blood and vitreous fluid, as well as hair and tissue samples. Only then can the remains be stowed in the HRCU.NASA has also prepared for death outside the station—on spacewalks, the moon or deep space missions. If a crew member perishes in vacuum but their remains are retrieved, the body is wrapped in a specially designed space shroud.The goal isn’t just a technical matter of preventing contamination. It’s psychological, too, as a way of preserving dignity. Of all the “firsts” any space agency hopes to achieve, the first-ever human corpse drifting into frame on a satellite feed is not among them.If a burial must occur—in lunar regolith or by jettisoning into solar orbit—the body will be dutifully tracked and cataloged, treated forevermore as a hallowed artifact of space history.Such gestures are also of relevance to NASA’s plans for off-world mourning; grief and memorial protocols are now part of official crew training. If a death occurs, surviving astronauts are tasked with holding a simple ceremony to honor the fallen—then to move on with their mission.Uncharted RealmsSo far we’ve only covered the “easy” questions. NASA and others are still grappling with harder ones.Consider the issue of authority over a death and mortal remains. On the ISS, it’s simple: the deceased astronaut’s home country retains jurisdiction. But that clarity fades as destinations grow more distant and the voyages more diverse: What really happens on space-agency missions to the moon, or to Mars? How might rules change for commercial or multinational spaceflights—or, for that matter, the private space stations and interplanetary settlements that are envisioned by Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and other tech multibillionaires?NASA and its partners have started drafting frameworks, like the Artemis Accords—agreements signed by more than 50 nations to govern behavior in space. But even those don’t address many intimate details of death.What happens, for instance, if foul play is suspected?The Outer Space Treaty, a legal document drafted in 1967 under the United Nations that is humanity’s foundational set of rules for orbit and beyond, doesn’t say.Of course, not everything can be planned for in advance. And NASA has done an extraordinary job of keeping astronauts in orbit alive. But as more people venture into space, and as the frontier stretches to longer voyages and farther destinations, it becomes a statistical certainty that sooner or later someone won’t come home.When that happens, it won’t just be a tragedy. It will be a test. A test of our systems, our ethics and our ability to adapt to a new dimension of mortality. To some, NASA’s preparations for astronautical death may seem merely morbid, even silly—but that couldn’t be further from the truth.Space won’t care of course, whenever it claims more lives. But we will. And rising to that grim occasion with reverence, rigor and grace will define not just policy out in the great beyond—but what it means to be human there, too. #nasa #ready #death #space

/May 30, 2025/4:28 p.m. ETTrump Attacks Harvard With Social Media Screening for All VisasThis pilot program will soon be expanded across the country.Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesThe Trump administration has begun carrying out its expanded vetting for student visa applicants, surveilling their social media accounts to make sure they aren’t posting anything in support of Palestine, which the administration considers antisemitic. This vetting will start with Harvard visa applicants but is expected to be adopted nationwide.Secretary of Stato Marco Rubio sent a cable to all U.S. embassies and consulates on Thursday ordering them to “conduct a complete screening of the online presence of any nonimmigrant visa applicant seeking to travel to Harvard University for any purpose.” That would apply not just to students but also to faculty, staff, and researchers visiting the university.The Trump administration is taking particular interest in people who have their social media accounts on “private,” an obvious, ominous crossing of boundaries.The State Department has ordered officers to examine “whether the lack of any online presence, or having social media accounts restricted to ‘private’ or with limited visibility, may be reflective of evasiveness and call into question the applicant’s credibility.”This is yet another instance of Harvard serving as a test subject for the administration’s larger crackdown on free speech and international students at American universities. Trump has already revoked billions of dollars in research funding from the Massachusetts school, and even banned it from admitting any international students at all, although the latter policy was temporarily revoked by a judge. Most Recent Post/May 30, 2025/3:53 p.m. ETStephen Miller Grilled on Musk’s Drug Use as Wife Lands New GigTrump’s chief adviser seems desperate to avoid questions on Elon Musk. Does that have anything to do with his wife’s new job? Francis Chung/Politico/Bloomberg/Getty ImagesStephen Miller had a dismissive response Friday to new reports of Elon Musk’s drug use during Trump’s campaign last year. CNN’s Pamela Brown asked the far-right Trump adviser if there was “any drug testing or requests for him to drug test when he was in the White House given the fact that he was also a contractor with the government.”  A chuckling Miller ignored the question and said, “Fortunately for you and all of the friends at CNN, you’ll have the opportunity to ask Elon all the questions you want today yourself,” before he then segued into the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda. “The drugs I’m concerned about are the drugs that are coming across the border from the criminal cartels that are killing hundreds of thousands of Americans,” Miller said. Perhaps Miller laughed instead of answering because his wife, Katie Miller, has left her job as adviser and spokesperson for the Department of Government Efficiency to work full-time for Musk and his companies. Miller has probably had enough of Musk, as he has also been subtweeting the tech oligarch, trying to refute Musk’s criticisms that the Republican budget bill would raise the deficit. “The Big Beautiful Bill is NOT an annual budget bill and does not fund the departments of government. It does not finance our agencies or federal programs,” Miller said, in a long X post earlier this week. Is there bad blood between Miller and Musk that has now spiraled because Miller’s wife is working for the tech oligarch and fellow fascism enthusiast? Most Recent Post/May 30, 2025/3:19 p.m. ETOld Man Trump Repeatedly Fumbles in Weird Speech Praising Elon MuskDonald Trump couldn’t keep some of his words straight as he marked the supposed end of Elon Musk’s tenure at the White House.Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesHours after reports emerged Friday that Elon Musk had been under the influence of heavy drugs during his time advising the president, Musk and Donald Trump stumbled and fumbled their way through a White House press conference recognizing the end of the tech billionaire’s special government employee status.The wildly unusual joint conference featured Musk’s black eye, a giant gold key that Trump said he only gives to “very special people,” cringe-worthy regurgitations by Musk of Trump’s take on his Pulitzer Board defamation suit, and claims that Musk’s unpopular and controversial time in the White House was not quite over.But as Trump continued to praise Musk and his time atop the Department of Government Efficiency, the president’s verbal gaffes became more apparent. He claimed that DOGE had uncovered million in wasteful spending, referring to expenditures related to Uganda, which Trump pronounced as “oo-ganda.” The 78-year-old also mentioned he would have Musk’s DOGE cuts “cauterized by Congress,” though he quickly corrected himself by saying they would be “affirmed by Congress,” instead. Trump’s on-camera slippage has gotten worse in recent weeks: Earlier this month, Trump dozed off while in a meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. That is despite the fact that the president received a clean bill of health in a medical report released in April that described Trump as being in “excellent health,” including neurological functioning.Musk, meanwhile, refused to acknowledge emerging reports of his alleged drug use. But the news of White House drug use under Trump’s helm is nothing new: In fact, if the reports prove true, it would be little more than a return to form. Last year, a report by the Department of Defense inspector general indicated that the West Wing operated more like a pill mill than the nation’s highest office. Common pills included modafinil, Adderall, fentanyl, morphine, and ketamine, according to the Pentagon report. But other, unlisted drugs—like Xanax—were equally easy to come by from the White House Medical Unit, according to anonymous sources that spoke to Rolling Stone.While other presidents were known to take a mix of drug cocktails to fight off back painor bad moods, no previous administrations matched the level of debauchery of Trump’s, whose in-office pharmacists unquestioningly handed out highly addictive substances to staffers who needed pick-me-ups or energy boosts—no doctor’s exam, referral, or prescription required.“It was kind of like the Wild West. Things were pretty loose. Whatever someone needs, we were going to fill this,” another source told Rolling Stone in March 2024.Meanwhile, pharmacists described an atmosphere of fear within the West Wing, claiming they would be “fired” if they spoke out or would receive negative work assignments if they didn’t hand pills over to staffers. about the press conference:Trump and Elon Musk Have Ominous Warning About Future of DOGEMost Recent Post/May 30, 2025/3:00 p.m. ETElon Musk Gives Strange Excuse for Massive Black EyeMusk showed up a press conference with Donald Trump sporting a noticeable shiner.Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesElon Musk sported what looked like a black eye during his DOGE goodbye press conference with President Trump on Friday. When asked about it, he blamed the bruise on his 5-year-old son punching him in the face. “Mr. Musk … is your eye OK? What happened to your eye; I noticed there’s a bruise there?” one reporter finally asked near the end of the press conference.“Well, I wasn’t anywhere near France,” Musk said, in a weak attempt at a joke regarding footage of French President Emmanuel Macron’s wife slapping him in the face.“I was just horsing around withlittle X and said, ‘Go ’head and punch me in the face,’ and he did. Turns out even a 5-year-old punching you in the face actually does—”“That was X that did it? X could do it!” Trump chimed in. “If you knew X …”“I didn’t really feel much at the time; I guess it bruises up. But I was just messing around with the kids.”Musk chose an impeccable time to show up to a press conference with a black eye. Earlier in the day, The New York Times reported on Musk’s rampant drug use on and off the campaign trail, as the world’s richest man frequently mixed ketamine and psychedelics and kept a small box of pills, mostly containing Adderall. The shiner only adds to speculation around his personal habits.More on that Times report:Elon Musk Was on Crazy Combo of Drugs During Trump CampaignMost Recent Post/May 30, 2025/2:51 p.m. ETTrump and Elon Musk Have Ominous Warning About Future of DOGEElon Musk’s time as a government employee has come to an end, but his time with Donald Trump has not.Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesDespite the fanfare over Elon Musk’s supposed departure from the Department of Government Efficiency, Donald Trump says that the billionaire bureaucrat isn’t really going anywhere.“Many of the DOGE people are staying behind, so they’re not leaving. And Elon’s not really leaving. He’s gonna be back and forth, I think. I have a feeling. It’s his baby, and he’s gonna be doing a lot of things,” Trump said during a press conference in the Oval Office Friday.The press conference was held to mark the end of Musk’s time as a so-called “special government employee,” a title that allowed him to bypass certain ethics requirements during his 134-day stint in Trump’s administration. The president made sure to give Musk a gaudy golden key—what it actually unlocks went totally unaddressed—to make sure he could get back into the White House. “This is not the end of DOGE, but really the beginning,” Musk said, promising that DOGE’s “influence” would “only grow stronger” over time.Earlier Friday, the billionaire bureaucrat shared a post on X asserting that the legacy of DOGE was more psychological than anything else. Surely, it will take longer than four months to forget the image of Musk running around with a chainsaw. about Musk:Elon Musk Was on Crazy Combo of Drugs During Trump CampaignMost Recent Post/May 30, 2025/1:21 p.m. ETDem Governor Vetoes Ban on Surprise Ambulance Bills in Shocking MoveThe bill had unanimous support in both chambers of the state legislature.Michael Ciaglo/Getty ImagesColorado’s Democratic Governor Jared Polis has vetoed a bill that would ban surprise billing by ambulance companies, over the unanimous objections of both chambers of the state legislature. Why would Polis veto a bill that’s popular with everyone, even Colorado Republicans? The governor wrote in his veto statement that drafting errors in the bill made it “unimplementable” and estimated that it would make insurance premiums go up by as much as to per person. “I am committed to working with proponents and sponsors to protect Coloradans from surprise bills, but I encourage all parties to work towards a more reasonable reimbursement rate that mitigates premium impacts and nets a better deal for Colorado families,” Polis wrote. In Colorado, if legislators in both chambers repass the bill with a two-thirds majority, they can override the governor’s veto, especially considering that the bill passed with the support of every single legislator. But the legislature adjourned on May 7, meaning that the bill has to be passed again when the legislature reconvenes in January.  For some reason, ending surprise ambulance billing nationally is not the slam-dunk issue it should be. Congress ended most surprise medical bills in 2020 but exempted ground ambulances from the bill. Was Polis’s veto due to badly drafted language and aprice hike in insurance premiums, as he said, or was it for a different, more nefarious reason? We might not know unless and until the bill is reintroduced next year. More on surprise ambulance bills:Congress Doesn’t Care About Your Surprise Ambulance Bill Most Recent Post/May 30, 2025/12:21 p.m. ETTrump’s Pardons Since Jan 6 Spree Show an Infuriatingly Corrupt TrendSince his January 6 pardon spree, Donald Trump has tended to grant clemency a little closer to home.Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty ImagesA good chunk of the white-collar criminals pardoned by Donald Trump after his massive “Day One” pardoning spree either have a political or financial tie to him.The president has issued 60 pardons since he offered political forgiveness to some 1,600 individuals charged in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. But out of those subsequent 60 unrelated to the attack, 12 people—or roughly one in five—were already in Trump’s orbit, according to ABC News.They included several politicos, including former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who was convicted on several counts of corruption, including for an attempt to sell Barack Obama’s Senate seat after he left the position for the White House; former Republican Representative Michael Grimm, who pleaded guilty to tax fraud; former Nevada gubernatorial candidate Michele Fiore, who allegedly stole public funds intended to commemorate a slain police officer; and former Tennessee state Senator Brian Kelsey, who pleaded guilty to campaign finance fraud in 2022.Trump also pardoned major financiers of his presidential campaigns. Trevor Milton, the founder of the Nikola electric vehicle company, donated nearly million toward Trump’s 2024 campaign. Imaad Zuberi, who has donated to both parties, issued “at least to committees associated with Trump and the Republican Party,” ABC reported.Others helped Trump advance his retribution campaign against his political enemies, or helped advance his own image in the broader Republican Party. Devon Archer and Jason Galanis, both former business partners of Hunter Biden, accused the younger Biden of leveraging his father’s name and influence in order to conduct business overseas. Archer had defrauded a Native American tribal entity, while Galanis was serving time for multiple offenses. Trump also forgave Todd and Julie Chrisley—reality TV stars known for their show Chrisley Knows Best who were sentenced to a combined 19 years on fraud and tax evasion charges—after their daughter Savannah Chrisley spoke at the 2024 Republican National Convention.Speaking to press Friday after her parents’ release, Savannah Chrisley said that the “biggest misconception right now is I either paid for a pardon or slept for a pardon—,” but she couldn’t finish her sentence before Todd interjected: “That’s something I would have done,” he said.Read who else Trump is thinking of pardoning:Trump Considering Pardons for Men Who Tried to Kill Gretchen WhitmerMost Recent Post/May 30, 2025/12:04 p.m. ETTrump Knew He Was Deporting Innocent People to El Salvador All AlongMany of the people deported to El Salvador have no criminal record, and Donald Trump knew it.Michael M. Santiago/Getty ImagesDonald Trump’s administration was well aware that many of the 238 Venezuelan immigrants it shipped off to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador had no criminal records at all, according to a Friday report from ProPublica.  While Trump officials claimed that the deportees were brutal gang members and “the worst of the worst,” only 32 of the deportees had actually been convicted of crimes, and most of them were minor offenses such as traffic violations, according to data from the Department of Homeland Security reviewed by ProPublica, The Texas Tribune, and a team of journalists from Venezuelan media outlets. One of the men, 23-year-old Maikol Gabriel López Lizano, faced a misdemeanor charge after he was arrested in 2023 for riding his bike and drinking a can of beer.Little more than half of the deportees, 130 of the 238, were charged only with violating U.S. immigration laws. Twenty of them had criminal records from other countries. The U.S. government data showed that 67 individuals had pending charges, with only six being for violent crimes. In several cases, the government data about the pending charges differed from what ProPublica was able to find. In some cases, the men had actually been convicted, and in one, the charges had been dropped. But in many cases, these individuals were remanded to a foreign prison before their criminal cases were ever resolved. The Trump administration has touted allegations of gang affiliation as a justification for denying the deportees their due process rights. But none of the men’s names appeared on a list of roughly 1,400 alleged Tren de Aragua members kept by the Venezuelan government, ProPublica reported. Trump’s border czar Tom Homan tried desperately in March to downplay reporting that many of these individuals did not have criminal records. “A lot of gang members don’t have criminal histories, just like a lot of terrorists in this world, they’re not in any terrorist databases, right?” Homan said on ABC News. But the methods the government relies on to classify individuals as gang members—such as identification of gang-affiliated tattoos—have been disproven by experts. Not only were many of the men who were deported not proven gang members, they weren’t even criminals, and by denying them the right to due process, they were remanded to a foreign prison notorious for human rights abuses without ever getting to prove it. Trump has continued to pressure the Supreme Court to allow him to sidestep due process as part of his massive deportation campaign, claiming that the judiciary has no right to intrude on matters of “foreign policy.” But immigrants residing on U.S. soil—who are clearly not the bloodthirsty criminals the administration insists they are—are still subject to protections under U.S. law.  about the deportations:Trump Asks Supreme Court to Help Him Deport People Wherever He WantsMost Recent Post/May 30, 2025/11:41 a.m. ETJoni Ernst Stoops to Shocking Low When Told Medicaid Cuts Will KillSenator Joni Ernst had a disgusting answer when confronted by a constituent at her town hall about Trump’s budget bill.Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesRepublican Senator Joni Ernst had a particularly unhinged response to questions from her constituents at a town hall in Parkersburg, Iowa, on Friday.Ernst was asked about the GOP’s budget bill kicking people off of Medicaid, and her condescending answer quickly became callous and flippant as the Iowa politician smirked at the audience.“When you are arguing about illegals that are receiving Medicaid, 1.4 million, they’re not eligible, so they will be coming off, so—” Ernst began, before an audience member shouted, “People are going to die!”“People are not—well, we all are going to die,” Ernst responded, as the audience drowned her in loud protests.What was Ernst thinking with that answer? Almost every Republican town hall this year has gone badly for the politician holding it, thanks to President Trump upending the federal government, and Ernst surely knew that choosing death over Medicaid wouldn’t go over well with the crowd. Earlier this week in Nebraska, Representative Mike Flood was heckled after he admitted that he didn’t read the budget bill.Ersnt’s town hall wasn’t even the first one in Iowa to go badly for a Republican. On Wednesday, Representative Ashley Hinson was met with jeers and boos, with audience members in Decorah, Iowa calling her a fraud and a liar. But at least Hinson had the good sense not to seemingly embrace death over a vital, lifesaving government program. More on Trump’s bill:Here Are the Worst Things in Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill Most Recent Post/May 30, 2025/11:35 a.m. ETKetanji Brown Jackson Blasts “Botched” Supreme Court Ruling on TPSSupreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a scathing disssent, called out the rest of the court for allowing Trump’s harmful executive order to stand.Anna Moneymaker/Getty ImagesSupreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson thinks the Supreme Court “botched” a decision to allow the Trump administration to revoke the Temporary Protected Status protections of about 500,000 Haitian, Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan immigrants.Jackson and fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor were the only two dissenters.“The Court has plainly botched this assessment today. It requires next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm,” Jackson wrote in the dissent. “And it undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives of and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.”TPS is a long-standing program that allowed those 500,000 immigrants to stay in the U.S. after they fled violence and risk in their home countries. After the Supreme Court’s ruling, all of them are at high risk of sudden deportation. “It is apparent that the government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum predecision damage,” Jackson wrote.Read the full dissent here.View More Posts #trump #attacks #harvard #with #social

View of the south façade before construction of a new residential project that now conceals Le Christin from Boulevard René Lévesque. PROJECT Le Christin, Montreal, Quebec ARCHITECT Atelier Big City PHOTOS James Brittain   PROJECT Les Studios du PAS, Montreal, Quebec ARCHITECT L. McComber in collaboration with Inform  PHOTOS Ulysse Lemerise   Nighttime, April 15, 2025. A thousand volunteers are gathering in Montreal, part of a province-wide effort to try and put numbers on a growing phenomenon in cities like Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and many others. The volunteers are getting ready to walk around targeted areas in downtown Montreal and around certain subway stations. Temporary shelters are also visited. First conducted in the spring of 2018, this survey showed that 3,149 people were in a vulnerable situation at the time. Four years later, a similar effort revealed that Montreal’s homeless population had risen to 4,690 people—and that there were some 10,000 people experiencing homelessness in the whole of the province. The 2025 numbers are expected to be significantly higher. For the organizers, this one-night snapshot of the situation is “neither perfect nor complete.” However, for nonprofit organizations and governmental bodies eager to prevent a vulnerable population from ending up on the streets, the informal census does provide highly valuable information.  Two recent initiatives—very different from one another—offer inspiring answers. The most recent one, Le Christin, was designed by Atelier Big Cityand inaugurated in 2024. Studios du PAS, on the other hand, was designed by Montreal firm L. McComber, and welcomed its first tenants in 2022. Both projects involved long-standing charities: the 148-year-old Accueil Bonneau, in the case of Le Christin, and the 136-year-old Mission Old Brewery for Studios du PAS. Le Christin was spearheaded, and mostly financed, by the Société d’habitation et de développement de Montréal, a non-profit, para-municipal corporation created in 1988. Studios du PAS was first selected by the City of Montreal to be built thanks to the Rapid Housing Initiativeprogram run by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Le Christin also received a financial contribution from the CMHC towards the end of the process. Boldly coloured blind walls signal the presence of Le Christin in the center of a densely occupied city block, with entrance to the left along Sanguinet Stree. Le Christin Although sited in a very central location, near the buzzing St. Catherine and St. Denis streets, Le Christin is hard to find. And even when one suddenly spots two seven-storey-high walls, coloured lemon-zest yellow and mango orange, it’s difficult to figure out what they are about. A stroll along the tiny Christin Street finally reveals the front façade of this new facility, now home to some of Montreal’s most vulnerable citizens.  View of Le Christin’s modulated front façade. Galvanized steel panels at ground level add a soft touch while protecting the building from potential damage caused by snow plows. Le Christin is unique for a number of reasons. First among them is its highly unusual location—at the centre of a dense city block otherwise occupied by university buildings, office towers, and condo blocks. Until a few years ago, the site was home to the four-storey Appartements Le Riga. The Art Deco-style building had been built in 1914 by developer-architect Joseph-Arthur Godin, who was a pioneer in his own right: he was one of the first in Montreal to experiment with reinforced concrete structures, a novelty in the city at the time. A century later, Le Riga, by then the property of SHDM, was in serious need of repair. Plans had already been drafted for a complete renovation of the building when a thorough investigation revealed major structural problems. Tenants had to leave on short notice and were temporarily relocated; the building was eventually demolished in 2019. By that time, Atelier Big City had been mandated to design a contemporary building that would replace Le Riga and provide a “place of one’s own” to close to 150 tenants, formerly homeless or at risk of becoming so.    Le Christin – Site Plan and Ground Floor Plan The entire operation sparked controversy, particularly as Le Christin started to rise, showing no sign of nostalgia. The architects’ daring approach was difficult to fathom—particularly for those who believe social housing should keep a low profile.  The program, originally meant for a clientele of single men, gradually evolved to include women. In order to reflect societal trends, the architects were asked to design 24 slightly larger units located in the building’s east wing, separated from the rest of the units by secured doors. Thus, Le Christin is able to accommodate homeless couples or close friends, as well as students and immigrants in need. A tenants-only courtyard is inserted in the south façade. In order to provide the maximum number of units requested by SHDM, each of the 90 studios was reduced to 230 square feet—an adjustment from Atelier Big City’s initial, slightly more generous plans. In a clever move, an L-shaped kitchen hugs the corner of each unit, pushing out against the exterior wall. As a result, the window openings recede from the façade, creating a sense of intimacy for the tenants, who enjoy contact with the exterior through large windows protected by quiet Juliet balconies. Far from damaging the initial design, the added constraint of tightened units allowed the architects to modulate the building’s façades, creating an even stronger statement. On the unit levels, corridors include large openings along the south façade. Each floor is colour-coded to enliven the space; overhead, perforated metal plates conceal the mechanical systems. An extra floor was gained thanks to the decision to expose the various plumbing, electrical, and ventilation systems. Well-lit meeting rooms and common areas are found near Le Christin’s front entrance, along with offices for personnel, who are present on the premises 24 hours a day. Apart from a small terrace above the entrance, the main exterior space is a yard which literally cuts into the building’s back façade. This has a huge impact on the interiors at all levels: corridors are generously lit with sunlight, a concept market developers would be well advised to imitate. The adjacent exit stairs are also notable, with their careful detailing and the presence of glazed openings.  The fire stairs, which open onto the exterior yard at ground level, feature glazing that allows for ample natural light. Le Christin has achieved the lofty goal articulated by SHDM’s former director, architect Nancy Schoiry: “With this project, we wanted to innovate and demonstrate that it was possible to provide quality housing for those at risk of homelessness.” The low-slung Studios du PAS aligns with neighbourhood two-storey buildings. Studios du PAS In sharp contrast with Le Christin’s surroundings, the impression one gets approaching Studios du PAS, 14 kilometres east of downtown Montreal, is that of a small town. In this mostly low-scale neighbourhood, L. McComber architects adopted a respectful, subdued approach—blending in, rather than standing out.  The project uses a pared-down palette of terracotta tile, wood, and galvanized steel. The footbridge links the upper level to shared exterior spaces. The financing for this small building, planned for individuals aged 55 or older experiencing or at risk of homelessness, was tied to a highly demanding schedule. The project had to be designed, built, and occupied within 18 months: an “almost impossible” challenge, according to principal architect Laurent McComber. From the very start, prefabrication was favoured over more traditional construction methods. And even though substantial work had to be done on-site—including the installation of the roof, electrical and mechanical systems, as well as exterior and interior finishes—the partially prefabricated components did contribute to keeping costs under control and meeting the 18-month design-to-delivery deadline. Les Studios du PAS The building was divided into 20 identical modules, each fourteen feet wide—the maximum width allowable on the road. Half the modules were installed at ground level. One of these, positioned nearest the street entrance, serves as a community room directly connected to a small office for the use of a social worker, allowing staff to follow up regularly with tenants. Flooded with natural light, the double-height lobby provides a friendly and inclusive welcome. The ground level studios were designed so they could be adapted to accommodate accessibility needs. Some of the ground floor units were adapted to meet the needs of those with a physical disability; the other units were designed to be easily adaptable if needed. All studio apartments, slightly under 300 square feet, include a full bathroom, a minimal kitchen, and sizeable storage space hidden behind cabinet doors. Most of the apartments include a small exterior alcove, which provides an intimate outdoor space while creating a subtle rhythm along the front façade. Inside the studio units, storage cupboards for clothes and belongings were added as an extension of the kitchen wall. Conscious of the tradition of brick residential buildings in Montreal, yet wanting to explore alternate materials, the architects selected an earth-toned terracotta tile from Germany. The 299mm x 1500mm tiles are clipped to the façade, allowing for faster installation and easier maintenance. All units enjoy triple-glazed windows and particularly well insulated walls. A high-performance heat pump was installed to lower energy demand—and costs—for heating and cooling needs. Wood siding was used to soften the upper-level balconies, which provide protected outdoor spaces for residents.   Pride and Dignity Le Christin and Les Studios du PAS have little in common—except, of course, their program. Architecturally speaking, each represents an interesting solution to the problem at hand. While Le Christin is a high-spirited, flamboyant statement, Studios du PAS is to be praised for its respectful attitude, and for the architects’ relentless search for interesting alternatives to traditional construction norms. Atelier Big City is one of few firms in Canada that has the guts—and the talent—to play with bold colours. Decades of experimentation, led up to Le Christin, which is perhaps their strongest building to date. Their judicious choices of colour, brick type, and materials transmit a message of pride and dignity. Both projects demonstrate enormous respect and generosity to their residents: they provide architecture that treats them not as an underclass, but as regular people, who need the stability of dignified housing to start rebuilding their lives. Odile Hénault is a contributing editor to Canadian Architect.   Le Christin CLIENT Société d’habitation et de développement de Montréal| ARCHITECT TEAM Anne Cormier, Randy Cohen, Howard Davies, Fannie Yockell, Gabriel Tessier, Sébastien St-Laurent, Lisa Vo | STRUCTURAL DPHV | MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL BPA | CIVIL Genexco | LIGHTING CS Design | AREA 4,115 m2 | Construction BUDGET M | COMPLETION November 2023   Les Studios du PAS  CLIENT PAS de la rue | ARCHITECT TEAM L. McComber—Laurent McComber, Olivier Lord, Jérôme Lemieux, Josianne Ouellet-Daudelin, Laurent McComber. Inform—David Grenier, Élisabeth Provost, Amélie Tremblay, David Grenier | PROJECT MANAGEMENT Groupe CDH | STRUCTURAL Douglas Consultants | MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL Martin Roy & associés | CIVIL Gravitaire | CONTRACTOR Gestion Étoc | AREA 1,035 m2 | BUDGET M | COMPLETION September 2022 As appeared in the June 2025 issue of Canadian Architect magazine The post A Place to Call Home: Le Christin and Les Studios du PAS, Montreal, Quebec appeared first on Canadian Architect. #place #call #home #christin #les

Aiming Inc. is a Japan-based game developer responsible for hits like Dragon Quest Tact and CARAVAN STORIES. They wanted to bring in more revenue from their newest hit, Charast Magical Academy a spin-off app of the hit game "CARAVAN STORIES, but had never used an ad monetization model - so the ironSource team helped them get started.ironSource’s Yusuke Toyoshima and Shuichiro Mine sat down with Aiming, to learn all about why they chose ironSource rewarded video and the Tapjoy offerwall, what they learned, and how they managed to boost their engagement rate 80% in the process.Choosing to work with ironSourceMine: This was the company’s first time using ad monetization, right?Saito: Yes. Aiming has a stance that when we see good market trends, we want to adopt and test it by ourselves - so it was only natural to start monetizing with ads. Originally, our company specialized in midcore games, but there were already many competing apps in the market. To generate a stable source of revenue, we decided to develop a hybrid revenue modelbased on "CARAVAN STORIES," which already has a large fan base.Mine: Now you’re monetizing with ironSource and using Tapjoy’s offerwall - why did you decide to go with us?Sakaino: This was our first time integrating ads into our app, so we needed a platform that offered extensive support and a full suite of products. We compared companies from all over the globe, but ironSource was the only one completely that fulfilled our needs.Yusuke: We're glad you chose us! Sakaino: We felt the support immediately - the ironSource quickly responded and drafted financial projections for us.Mine: Publishers who integrate ads in their apps for the first time often don’t have enough information about performance benchmarks. Since ironSource has experience across all game genres in Japan and globally, we can provide our customers with practical ad monetization plans.Sakaino: There were other local options with good products for early-stage companies, but we wanted to get as much operational know-how as possible. That's why we chose ironSource - they offer a variety of report data with a UI that allows us to intuitively understand what’s important at first glance. There was a strong connection between Aiming’s attitude of "challenge new trends and accumulate know-how" and ironSource's push to "provide actionable data for publishers."Mine: At ironSource, we care about providing actionable data. In the long run, we think it is very important to understand the factors behind fluctuations - not be overwhelmed by the ups and downs of CPMs. Ad revenue is always important, but what’s most important for publishers is the success of the game itself. We provide data in a format and UI that every publisher can understand - not just the specific person in chargePerforming beyond expectationYusuke: How was the integration process?Sakaino: It took about two weeks to develop and integrate rewarded video and offerwall into our game. Since the dashboard was easy to understand, even for beginners, we were able to issue and set up placements in one day.Suzuki: From the planning phase, everyone on the team had a shared strategy of how to put ads into our game - so I think it went really smoothly.Mine: I feel that your monetization and game management teams work seamlessly together. For many publishers, this can be challenging - different teams usually have different goals and opinions.Sakaino: Since I joined the project, from the game planning phase to leading ad monetization, I think everyone, including the development team, shared a common goal.Suzuki: It may seem unusual to have someone in charge of ad monetization during the planning phase. Normally people tend to give higher priority to their own department, so perhaps our company's strength is the way that each department can share and coordinate all goals.Yusuke: How was the ad revenue performance?Sakaino: The result was much better than we expected. eCPM for ironSource rewarded videos was more than double our original estimation, and engagement rate reached 80% - even though our original estimation was 65%.Mine: Since the players are mainly from "CARAVAN STORIES," the user quality may be different from the other casual game players. If your game has been around for a while and has a certain income level, eCPM might be higher as a result.Sakaino: I think that’s right.Suzuki: Since the game story is a prequel about the lives of popular characters, fans are highly motivated to play.Mine: It's a successful app strategy for using IP.Sakaino: Tapjoy’s offerwall also performed better than we originally expected. Especially in the beginning, it performed better than the rewarded videos.Yusuke: Since Offerwall provides bigger rewards than rewarded videos, it’s particularly compatible with games that have many users who are willing to pay.Saito: In particular, Android has good KPI compatibility with the offerwall. Android users usually have a lower retention rate, but the offerwall increased revenue and stabilized it.Showing ads to domestic and global usersMine: Did you get any negative user feedback about ads?Sakaino: I don't think there were any noticeably negative reactions.Mine: The key to user-initiated ads like rewarded videos and offerwall is motivating the users to see the ads. "Charast Magical Academy" was designed to use ad monetization from the start, so I think it shows ads to users in the best way possible.Suzuki: Since we set the right rewards for both the offerwall and rewarded video, users connect with the ads and feel satisfied with them.Saito: The rewards we offer are valuable to users. To ensure that users who want to receive rewards don’t miss them, we added badges to places where there are ads that have not yet been seen, and added a jump button that auto-scrolls to that point. However, it seems that some new users thought that they couldn't progress in the game without clearing the ads, so now we only display badges for users who have progressed to a certain stage.Yusuke: I see.Saito: Impressions grew about 2.5x the normal rate during the offerwall's currency sale, but when we displayed the badge on the game screen and directed users to the ad page, it grew 8x - a huge revenue increase.Yusuke: It's a device that tells users that an offerwall event is currently being held.Sakaino: Also, Charast Magical Academy is only available on Japan’s app store, but some overseas fans download and play it. Thanks to the Tapjoy offerwall’s global support, it’s been great to be able to show global ads and rewards to overseas users.Yusuke: Global support is the Tapjoy offerwall's strength. There is no need to separate campaigns, and global ads are automatically displayed for access from overseas, to accommodate overseas users. Also, the offerwall is optimized with an algorithm to automatically display ads that users are interested in on the top of the list, so publishers can maximize their revenue without spending too much time and effort.Continuing to use ad monetization modelsMine: What are your plans for the future?Sakaino: We are satisfied with ironSource’s usability and profitability, and will continue to use both their rewarded video and the Tapjoy offerwall. For the offerwall, thanks to their global support and compatibility with Apple/Google’s regulations - we’re sticking with Tapjoy.Yusuke: That's great news for us.Saito: We plan to continue releasing games with an ad revenue model. Thanks to our new know-how from Charast Magical Academy, I'm including ads in all the proposals for our new games. Since it generates additional revenue and doesn’t discourage in-app purchases, there’s no reason to not use it.Sakaino: In the future, it would be nice to have a verification function that can segment users according to their in-app purchase status and level of loyalty, and optimize ads accordingly.Thank you to Mr. Sakaino, Mr. Suzuki, and Mr. Saito for participating in the interview. And congratulations on your half anniversary! #how #aiming #used #tapjoy #offerwall

After what felt like an age of tech industry tea-leaf reading, OpenAI has officially snapped up “io,” the much-buzzed-about startup building an AI device from former Apple design guru Jony Ive and OpenAI’s chief, Sam Altman. The price tag? billion.OpenAI put out a video this week talking about the Ive and Altman venture in a general sort of way, but now, a few more tidbits about what they’re actually cooking have slipped out.And what are they planning with all that cash and brainpower? Well, the eagle-eyed folks at The Washington Post spotted an internal chat between Sam Altman and OpenAI staff where he set a target of shipping 100 million AI “companions.”Altman allegedly even told his team the OpenAI device is “the chance to do the biggest thing we’ve ever done as a company here.”To be clear, Altman has set that 100 million number as an eventual target. “We’re not going to ship 100 million devices literally on day one,” he said. But then, in a flex that’s pure Silicon Valley, he added they’d hit that 100 million mark “faster than any company has ever shipped 100 million of something new before.”So, what is this mysterious “companion”? The gadget is designed to be entirely aware of a user’s surroundings, and even their “life.” While they’ve mostly talked about a single device, Altman did let slip it might be more of a “family of devices.”Jony Ive, as expected, dubbed it “a new design movement.” You can almost hear the minimalist manifesto being drafted.Why the full-blown acquisition, though? Weren’t they just going to partner up? Originally, yes. The plan was for Ive’s startup to cook up the hardware and sell it, with OpenAI delivering the brains. But it seems the vision got bigger. This isn’t just another accessory, you see.Altman stressed the device will be a “central facet of using OpenAI.” He even said, “We both got excited about the idea that, if you subscribed to ChatGPT, we should just mail you new computers, and you should use those.”Frankly, they reckon our current tech – our trusty laptops, the websites we browse – just isn’t up to snuff for the kind of AI experiences they’re dreaming of. Altman was pretty blunt, saying current use of AI “is not the sci-fi dream of what AI could do to enable you in all the ways that I think the models are capable of.”So, we know it’s not a smartphone. Altman’s also put the kibosh on it being a pair of glasses. And Jony Ive, well, he’s apparently not rushing to make another wearable, which makes sense given his design ethos.The good news for the impatient among usis that this isn’t just vapourware. Ive’s team has an actual prototype. Altman’s even taken one home to “live with it”. As for when we might get our hands on one? Altman’s reportedly aiming for a late 2026 release.Naturally, OpenAI is keeping the actual device under wraps, but you can always count on supply chain whispers for a few clues. The ever-reliableApple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo has thrown a few alleged design details into the ring via social media.Kuo reckons it’ll be “slightly larger” than the Humane AI Pin, but that it will look “as compact and elegant as an iPod Shuffle.” And yes, like the Shuffle, Kuo says no screen.According to Kuo, the device will chat with your phone and computer instead, using good old-fashioned microphones for your voice and cameras to see what’s going on around you. Interestingly, he suggests it’ll be worn around the neck, necklace-style, rather than clipped on like the AI Pin.Kuo’s crystal ball points to mass production in 2027, but he wisely adds a pinch of salt, noting the final look and feel could still change.So, the billion-dollarquestion remains: will this OpenAI device be the next big thing, the gamechanger we’ve been waiting for? Or will it be another noble-but-failed attempt to break free from the smartphone’s iron grip, joining the likes of the AI Pin in the ‘great ideas that didn’t quite make it’ pile?Altman, for one, is brimming with confidence. Having lived with the prototype, he’s gone on record saying he believes it will be “the coolest piece of technology that the world will have ever seen.”Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is co-located with other leading events including Intelligent Automation Conference, BlockX, Digital Transformation Week, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo.Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here. #details #leak #jony #ives #ambitious

May 21, 202522 min readMildred Weeks Wells’s Work on Airborne Transmission Could Have Saved Many Lives—If the Scientific Establishment ListenedMildred Weeks Wells and her husband figured out that disease-causing pathogens can spread through the air like smoke Dutton; Lily WhearAir-Borne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe, by Carl Zimmer, charts the history of the field of aerobiology: the science of airborne microorganisms. In this episode, we discover the story of two lost pioneers of the 1930s: physician and self-taught epidemiologist Mildred Weeks Wells and her husband, sanitary engineer William Firth Wells. Together, they proved that infectious pathogens could spread through the air over long distances. But the two had a reputation as outsiders, and they failed to convince the scientific establishment, who ignored their findings for decades. What the pair figured out could have saved many lives from tuberculosis, SARS, COVID and other airborne diseases. The contributions of Mildred Weeks Wells and her husband were all but erased from history—until now.LISTEN TO THE PODCASTOn supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.TRANSCRIPTCarl Zimmer: Mildred is hired in the late 1920s to put together everything that was known about polio. And she does this incredible study, where she basically looks for everything that she can find about how polio spreads.At the time, the idea that it could spread through the air was really looked at as being just an obsolete superstition. Public health experts would say, look, a patient's breath is basically harmless. But the epidemiology looks to her like these germs are airborne, and this goes totally against the consensus at the time.Carol Sutton Lewis: Hello, I'm Carol Sutton Lewis. Welcome to the latest episode of Lost Women of Science Conversations, where we talk with authors and artists who've discovered and celebrated female scientists in books, poetry, film, and the visual arts.Today I'm joined by Carl Zimmer, an award-winning New York Times columnist and the author of 15 books about science. His latest book, Airborne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe, focuses on the last great biological frontier: the air. It presents the history of aerobiology, which is the science dealing with the occurrence, transportation, and effects of airborne microorganisms.The book chronicles the exploits of committed aerobiologists from the early pioneers through to the present day. Among these pioneers were Mildred Weeks Wells and her husband, William Firth Wells.Airborne tells the story of how Mildred and William tried to sound the alarm about airborne infections, but for many reasons, their warnings went unheard.Welcome, Carl Zimmer. It's such a pleasure to have you with us to tell us all about this fascinating woman and her contributions to science.Can you please tell us about Mildred Weeks Wells—where and how she grew up and what led her to the field of aerobiology?Carl Zimmer: She was born in 1891, and she came from a very prominent Texas family—the Denton family. Her great-grandfather is actually whom the city of Denton, Texas is named after. Her grandfather was a surgeon for the Confederate Army in the Civil War, and he becomes the director of what was called then the State Lunatic Asylum.And he and the bookkeeper there, William Weeks, are both charged with embezzlement. It's a big scandal. The bookkeeper then marries Mildred's mother. Then, shortly after Mildred's born, her father disappears. Her mother basically abandons her with her grandmother. And she grows up with her sister and grandmother in Austin, Texas. A comfortable life, but obviously there's a lot of scandal hanging over them.She is clearly incredibly strong-willed. She goes to medical school at the University of Texas and graduates in 1915, one of three women in a class of 34. That is really something for a woman at that point—there were hardly any women with medical degrees in the United States, let alone someone in Texas.But she books out of there. She does not stick around. She heads in 1915 to Washington, D.C., and works at the Public Health Service in a lab called the Hygienic Laboratory. Basically, what they're doing is studying bacteria. You have to remember, this is the golden age of the germ theory of disease. People have been figuring out that particular bacteria or viruses cause particular diseases, and that knowledge is helping them fight those diseases.It's there in Washington at this time that she meets a man who will become her husband, William Firth Wells.Carol Sutton Lewis: Just a quick aside—because we at Lost Women of Science are always interested in how you discover the material in addition to what you've discovered. How were you able to piece together her story? What sources were you able to find? It seems like there wasn't a lot of information available.Carl Zimmer: Yeah, it was a tough process. There is little information that's really easy to get your hands on. I mean, there is no biography of Mildred Wells or her husband, William Firth Wells.At the Rockefeller archives, they had maybe 30 document boxes full of stuff that was just miraculously conserved there. There are also letters that she wrote to people that have been saved in various collections.But especially with her early years, it's really tough. You know, in all my work trying to dig down for every single scrap of information I could find of her, I have only found one photograph of her—and it's the photograph in her yearbook. That’s it.Carol Sutton Lewis: You talked about that photograph in the book, and I was struck by your description of it. You say that she's smiling, but the longer you look at her smile, the sadder it becomes. What do you think at that young age was the source of the sadness?Carl Zimmer: I think that Mildred grew up with a lot of trauma. She was not the sort of person to keep long journals or write long letters about these sorts of things. But when you've come across those clues in these brief little newspaper accounts, you can kind of read between the lines.There are reports in newspapers saying that Mildred's mother had come to Austin to pay a visit to Mildred because she had scarlet fever when she was 10, and then she goes away again. And when I look at her face in her yearbook, it doesn't surprise me that there is this cast of melancholy to it because you just think about what she had gone through just as a kid.Carol Sutton Lewis: Oh. Absolutely. And fast forward, she meets William and they marry. They have a son, and they start collaborating. How did that begin?Carl Zimmer: The collaboration takes a while. So William Wells is also working at the Public Health Service at the time. He is a few years older than Mildred and he has been trained at MIT as what was called then a sanitarian. In other words, he was going to take the germ theory of disease and was going to save people's lives.He was very clever. He could invent tests that a sanitarian could use, dip a little tube into a river and see whether the water was safe or not, things like that. He was particularly focused on keeping water clean of bacteria that could cause diseases like typhoid or cholera and he also, gets assigned by the government to study oysters because oysters, they sit in this water and they're filtering all day long. And you know, if there's bacteria in there, they're going to filter it and trap it in their tissues. And oysters are incredibly popular in the early nineteen hundreds and a shocking number of people are keeling over dying of typhoid because they're eating them raw. So William is very busy, figuring out ways to save the oyster industry. How do we purify oysters and things like that? They meet, they get married in 1917.In 1918 they have a child, William Jr. nicknamed Bud. But William is not around for the birth, because he is drafted into the army, and he goes off to serve. in World War I.Carol Sutton Lewis: So Mildred is at home with Bud and William's off at the war. But ultimately, Mildred returns to science. A few years later, where she is hired as a polio detective. Can you tell me a little bit about what the state of polio knowledge was at the time and what precisely a polio detective did?Carl Zimmer: It doesn't seem like polio really was a thing in the United States until the late 1800s. And then suddenly there's this mysterious disease that can strike children with no warning. These kids can't. walk, or suddenly these kids are dying. Not only are the symptoms completely terrifying to parents, but how it spreads is a complete mystery. And so Mildred, seems to have been hired at some point in the late 1920s To basically put together everything that was known about polio to help doctors to deal with their patients and to, you know, encourage future science to try to figure out what is this disease.You know, Mildred wasn't trained in epidemiology. So it's kind of remarkable that she taught herself. And she would turn out to be a really great epidemiologist. But, in any case, She gets hired by the International Committee for the Study of Infantile Paralysis, that was the name then for polio. And she does this incredible study, where she basically looks for everything that she can find about how polio spreads. Case studies where, in a town, like this child got polio, then this child did, and did they have contact and what sort of contact, what season was it? What was the weather like? All these different factors.And one thing that's really important to bear in mind is that, at this time, the prevailing view was that diseases spread by water, by food, by sex, by close contact. Maybe like someone just coughs and sprays droplets on you, but otherwise it's these other routes.The idea that it could spread through the air was really looked at as being just obsolete superstition. for thousands of years, people talked about miasmas, somehow the air mysteriously became corrupted and that made people sick with different diseases. That was all thrown out in the late 1800s, early 1900s when germ theory really takes hold. And so public health experts would say, look, a patient's breath is basically harmless.Carol Sutton Lewis: But Mildred doesn't agree, does she?Carl Zimmer: Well, Mildred Wells is looking at all of this, data and she is starting to get an idea that maybe these public health experts have been too quick to dismiss the air. So when people are talking about droplet infections in the 1920s, they're basically just talking about, big droplets that someone might just sneeze in your face. But the epidemiology looks to her like these germs are airborne, are spreading long distances through the air.So Mildred is starting to make a distinction in her mind about what she calls airborne and droplet infections. So, and this is really the time that the Wellses collectively are thinking about airborne infection and it's Mildred is doing it. And William actually gives her credit for this later on.Carol Sutton Lewis: Right. and her results are published in a book about polio written entirely by female authors, which is quite unusual for the time.Carl Zimmer: Mm hmm. Right. The book is published in 1932, and the reception just tells you so much about what it was like to be a woman in science. The New England Journal of Medicine reviews the book, which is great. But, here's a line that they give, they say, it is interesting to note that this book is entirely the product of women in medicine and is the first book.So far as a reviewer knows. by a number of authors, all of whom are of the female sex. So it's this: Oh, look at this oddity. And basically, the virtue of that is that women are really thorough, I, guess. so it's a very detailed book. And the reviewer writes, no one is better fitted than a woman to collect data such as this book contains. So there's no okay, this is very useful.Carol Sutton Lewis: PatronizeCarl Zimmer: Yeah. Thank you very much. Reviewers were just skating over the conclusions that they were drawing, I guess because they were women. Yeah, pretty incredible.Carol Sutton Lewis: So she is the first to submit scientific proof about this potential for airborne transmission. And that was pretty much dismissed. It wasn't even actively dismissed.It was just, nah, these women, nothing's coming outta that, except William did pay attention. I believe he too had been thinking about airborne transmission for some time and then started seriously looking at Mildred's conclusion when he started teaching at Harvard.Carl Zimmer: Yeah. So, William gets a job as a low level instructor at Harvard. He's getting paid very little. Mildred has no income. He's teaching about hygiene and sanitation, but apparently he's a terrible teacher. But he is a clever, brilliant engineer and scientist; he very quickly develops an idea that probably originated in the work that Mildred had been doing on polio. that maybe diseases actually can spread long distances through the air. So there are large droplets that we might sneeze out and cough out and, and they go a short distance before gravity pulls them down. But physics dictates that below a certain size, droplets can resist gravity.This is something that's going totally against what all the, the really prominent public health figures are saying. William Wells doesn't care. He goes ahead and he starts to, invent a way to sample air for germs. Basically it's a centrifuge. You plug it in, the fan spins, it sucks in air, the air comes up inside a glass cylinder and then as it's spinning, if there are any droplets of particles or anything floating in the air, they get flung out to the sideS.And so afterwards you just pull out the glass which is coated with, food for microbes to grow on and you put it in a nice warm place. And If there's anything in the air, you'll be able to grow a colony and see it.Carol Sutton Lewis: Amazing.Carl Zimmer: It is amazing. This, this was a crucial inventionCarol Sutton Lewis: So we have William, who is with Mildred's help moving more towards the possibility of airborne infection, understanding that this is very much not where science is at the moment, and he conducts a really interesting experiment in one of his classrooms to try to move the theory forward. We'll talk more about that experiment when we come back after the break.MidrollCarol Sutton Lewis: Welcome back to Lost Women of Science Conversations. We left off as the Wellses were about to conduct an experiment to test their theories about airborne infections. Carl, can you tell us about that experiment?Carl Zimmer: Okay. it's 1934, It's a cold day. Students come in for a lecture from this terrible teacher, William Wells. The windows are closed. The doors are closed. It's a poorly ventilated room. About 20 minutes before the end of the class, he takes this weird device that's next to him, he plugs it into the wall, and then he just goes back and keeps lecturing.It's not clear whether he even told them what he was doing. But, he then takes this little pinch of sneezing powder. out of a jar and holds it in the sort of outflow from the fan inside the air centrifuge. So all of a sudden, poof, the sneezing powder just goes off into the air. You know, there are probably about a couple dozen students scattered around this lecture hall and after a while they start to sneeze. And in fact, people All the way in theback are sneezing too.So now Wells turns off his machine, puts in a new cylinder, turns it on, keeps talking. The thing is that they are actually sneezing out droplets into the air.And some of those droplets contain harmless bacteria from their mouths. And he harvests them from the air. He actually collects them in his centrifuge. And after a few days, he's got colonies of these bacteria, but only after he had released the sneezing powder, the one before that didn't have any.So, you have this demonstration that William Wells could catch germs in the air that had been released from his students at quite a distance away, And other people can inhale them, and not even realize what's happening. In other words, germs were spreading like smoke. And so this becomes an explanation for what Mildred had been seeing in her epidemiology..Carol Sutton Lewis: Wow. That was pretty revolutionary. But how was it received?Carl Zimmer: Well, you know, At first it was received, With great fanfare, and he starts publishing papers in nineteen thirty he and Mildred are coauthors on these. And, Mildred is actually appointed as a research associate at Harvard, in nineteen thirty it's a nice title, but she doesn't get paid anything. And then William makes another discovery, which is also very important.He's thinking okay, if these things are floating in the air, is there a way that I can disinfect the air? And he tries all sorts of things and he discovers ultraviolet light works really well. In fact, you can just put an ultraviolet light in a room and the droplets will circulate around and as they pass through the ultraviolet rays, it kills the bacteria or viruses inside of them. So in 1936, when he's publishing these results, there are so many headlines in newspapers and magazines and stuff about this discovery.There's one headline that says, scientists fight flu germs with violet ray. And, there are these predictions that, we are going to be safe from these terrible diseases. Like for example, influenza, which had just, devastated the world not long beforehand, because you're going to put ultraviolet lights in trains and schools and trolleys and movie theaters.Carol Sutton Lewis: Did Mildred get any public recognition for her contributions to all of this?Carl Zimmer: Well not surprisingly, William gets the lion's share of the attention. I mean, there's a passing reference to Mildred in one article. The Associated Press says chief among his aides, Wells said, was his wife, Dr. Mildred Wells. So, William was perfectly comfortable, acknowledging her, but the reporters. Didn't care,Carol Sutton Lewis: And there were no pictures of herCarl Zimmer: Right. Mildred wasn't the engineer in that couple, but she was doing all the research on epidemiology. And you can tell from comments that people made about, and Mildred Wells is that. William would be nowhere as a scientist without Mildred. She was the one who kept him from jumping ahead to wild conclusions from the data he had so far. So they were, they're very much a team. She was doing the writing and they were collaborating, they were arguing with each other all the time about it And she was a much better writer than he was., but that wasn't suitable for a picture, so she was invisible.Carol Sutton Lewis: In the book, you write a lot about their difficult personalities and how that impacted their reputations within the wider scientific community. Can you say more about that?Carl Zimmer: Right. They really had a reputation as being really hard to deal with. People would politely call them peculiar. And when they weren't being quite so polite, they would talk about all these arguments that they would get in, shouting matches and so on. They really felt that they had discovered something incredibly important, but they were outsiders, you know, they didn't have PhDs, they didn't have really much formal training. And here they were saying that, you know, the consensus about infectious disease is profoundly wrong.Now, ironically, what happened is that once William Wells showed that ultraviolet light could kill germs, his superior at Harvard abruptly took an intense interest in all of this and said, Okay, you're going to share a patent on this with me. My name's going to be on the patent and all the research from now on is going to happen in my lab. I'm going to have complete control over what happens next. And Mildred took the lead saying no way we want total autonomy, get out of our face. She was much more aggressive in university politics, and sort of protecting their turf. And unfortunately they didn't have many allies at Harvard and pretty soon they were out, they were fired. And William Wells and his boss, Gordon Fair, were both named on a patent that was filed for using ultraviolet lamps to disinfect the air.Carol Sutton Lewis: So what happened when they left Harvard?Carl Zimmer: Well, it's really interesting watching them scrambling to find work, because their reputation had preceded them. They were hoping they could go back to Washington DC to the public health service. But, the story about the Wells was that Mildred, was carrying out a lot of the research, and so they thought, we can't hire William if it's his wife, who's quietly doing a lot of the work, like they, for some reason they didn't think, oh, we could hire them both.Carol Sutton Lewis: Or just her.Carl Zimmer: None of that, they were like, do we hire William Wells? His wife apparently hauls a lot of the weight. So no, we won't hire them. It's literally like written down. It’s, I'm not making it up. And fortunately they had a few defenders, a few champions down in Philadelphia.There was a doctor in Philadelphia who was using ultraviolet light to protect children in hospitals. And he was, really, inspired by the Wellses and he knew they were trouble. He wrote yes, I get it. They're difficult, but let's try to get them here.And so they brought them down to Philadelphia and Mildred. And William, opened up the laboratories for airborne infection at the University of Pennsylvania. And now actually Mildred got paid, for the first time, for this work. So they're both getting paid, things are starting to look betterCarol Sutton Lewis: So they start to do amazing work at the University of Pennsylvania.Carl Zimmer: That's right. That's right. William, takes the next step in proving their theory. He figures out how to actually give animals diseases through the air. He builds a machine that gets to be known as the infection machine. a big bell jar, and you can put mice in there, or a rabbit in there, and there's a tube connected to it.And through that tube, William can create a very fine mist that might have influenza viruses in it, or the bacteria that cause tuberculosis. And the animals just sit there and breathe, and lo and behold, They get tuberculosis, they get influenza, they get all these diseases,Now, meanwhile, Mildred is actually spending a lot of her time at a school nearby the Germantown Friends School, where they have installed ultraviolet lamps in some of the classrooms. And they're convinced that they can protect kids from airborne diseases. The biggest demonstration of what these lamps can do comes in 1940, because there's a huge epidemic of measles. In 1940, there's, no vaccine for measles. Every kid basically gets it.And lo and behold, the kids in the classrooms with the ultraviolet lamps are 10 times less likely to get measles than the kids just down the hall in the regular classrooms. And so this is one of the best experiments ever done on the nature of airborne infection and how you can protect people by disinfecting the air.Carol Sutton Lewis: Were they then finally accepted into the scientific community?Carl Zimmer: I know you keep waiting for that, that victory lap, but no. It's just like time and again, that glory gets snatched away from them. Again, this was not anything that was done in secret. Newspapers around Philadelphia were. Celebrating this wow, look at this, look at how we can protect our children from disease. This is fantastic. But other experts, public health authorities just were not budging. they had all taken in this dogma that the air can't be dangerous.And so again and again, they were hitting a brick wall. This is right on the eve of World War II.And so all sorts of scientists in World War II are asking themselves, what can we do? Mildred and William put themselves forward and say we don't want soldiers to get sick with the flu the way they did in World War I. They're both haunted by this and they're thinking, so we could put our ultraviolet lamps in the barracks, we could protect them. Soldiers from the flu, if the flu is airborne, like we think, not only that, but this could help to really convince all those skepticsCarol Sutton Lewis: mm.Carl Zimmer: But they failed. The army put all their money into other experiments, they were blackballed, they were shut out, and again, I think it was just because they were continuing to be just incredibly difficult. Even patrons and their friends would just sigh to each other, like, Oh my God, I've just had to deal with these, with them arguing with us and yelling at us. And by the end of World War II, things are bad, they have some sort of split up, they never get divorced, but it's just too much. Mildred, like she is not only trying to do this pioneering work in these schools, trying to keep William's labs organized, there's the matter of their son. Now looking at some documents, I would hazard a guess that he had schizophrenia because he was examined by a doctor who came to that conclusion.And so, she's under incredible pressure and eventually she cracks and in 1944 she resigns from the lab. She stops working in the schools, she stops collaborating with her husband, but she keeps doing her own science. And that's really amazing to me. What kinds of things did she do after this breakup? What kind of work did she conduct? And how was that received?Mildred goes on on her own to carry out a gigantic experiment, in hindsight, a really visionary piece of work. It's based on her experience in Philadelphia. Because she could see that the ultraviolet lamps worked very well at protecting children during a really intense measles epidemic. And so she thought to herself, if you want to really make ultraviolet light, and the theory of airborne infection live up to its true potential to protect people. You need to protect the air in a lot more places.So she gets introduced to the health commissioner in Westchester County, this is a county just north of New York City. And she pitches him this idea. She says, I want to go into one of your towns and I want to put ultraviolet lights everywhere. And this guy, William Holla, he is a very bold, flamboyant guy. He's the right guy to ask. He's like, yeah, let's do this. And he leaves it up to her to design the experiment.And so this town Pleasantville in New York gets fitted out with ultraviolet lamps in the train station, in the fountain shops, in the movie theater, in churches, all over the place. And she publishes a paper with Holla in 1950 on the results.The results are mixed though. You look carefully at them, you can see that actually, yeah, the lamps worked in certain respects. So certain diseases, the rates were lower in certain places, but sadly, this incredibly ambitious study really didn't move the needle. And yeah, it was a big disappointment and that was the last science that Mildred did.Carol Sutton Lewis: Even when they were working together, Mildred and William never really succeeded in convincing the scientific community to take airborne infection seriously, although their work obviously did move the science forward. So what did sway scientific opinion and when?Carl Zimmer: Yeah, Mildred dies in 1957. William dies in 1963. After the Wellses are dead, their work is dismissed and they themselves are quite forgotten. It really isn't until the early 2000s that a few people rediscover them.The SARS epidemic kicks up in 2003, for example, and I talked to a scientist in Hong Kong named Yuguo Li, and he was trying to understand how was this new disease spreading around? He's looking around and he finds references to papers by William Wells and Mildred Wells. He has no idea who they are and he sees that William Wells had published a book in 1955 and he's like, well, okay, maybe I need to go read the book.Nobody has the book. And the only place that he could find it was in one university in the United States. They photocopied it and shipped it to him in Hong Kong and he finally starts reading it. And it's really hard to read because again William was a terrible writer, unlike Mildred. But after a while it clicks and he's like, oh. That's it. I got it. But again, all the guidelines for controlling pandemics and diseases do not really give much serious attention to airborne infection except for just a couple diseases. And it's not until the COVID pandemic that things finally change.Carol Sutton Lewis: Wow. If we had listened to Mildred and William earlier, what might have been different?Carl Zimmer: Yeah, I do try to imagine a world in which Mildred and William had been taken seriously by more people. If airborne infection was just a seriously recognized thing at the start of the COVID pandemic, we would have been controlling the disease differently from the start. We wouldn't have been wiping down our shopping bags obsessively. People would have been encouraged to open the windows, people would have been encouraged to get air purifiers, ultraviolet lamps might have been installed in places with poor ventilation, masks might not have been so controversial.And instead these intellectual grandchildren of William and Mildred Wells had to reinvent the wheel. They had to do new studies to persuade people finally that a disease could be airborne. And it took a long time. It took months to finally move the needle.Carol Sutton Lewis: Carl, what do you hope people will take away from Mildred's story, which you have so wonderfully detailed in your book, rendering her no longer a lost woman of science? And what do you hope people will take away from the book more broadly?Carl Zimmer: I think sometimes that we imagine that science just marches on smoothly and effortlessly. But science is a human endeavor in all the good ways and in all the not-so-good ways. Science does have a fair amount of tragedy throughout it, as any human endeavor does. I'm sad about what happened to the Wells by the end of their lives, both of them. But in some ways, things are better now.When I'm writing about aerobiology in the early, mid, even late—except for Mildred, it's pretty much all men. But who were the people during the COVID pandemic who led the fight to get recognized as airborne? People like Linsey Marr at Virginia Tech, Kim Prather at University of California, San Diego, Lidia Morawska, an Australian researcher. Now, all women in science still have to contend with all sorts of sexism and sort of baked-in inequalities. But it is striking to me that when you get to the end of the book, the women show up.Carol Sutton Lewis: Well,Carl Zimmer: And they show up in force.Carol Sutton Lewis: And on that very positive note to end on, Carl, thank you so much, first and foremost, for writing this really fascinating book and within it, highlighting a now no longer lost woman of science, Mildred Weeks Wells. Your book is Airborne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe, and it's been a pleasure to speak with—Carl Zimmer: Thanks a lot. I really enjoyed talking about Mildred.Carol Sutton Lewis: This has been Lost Women of Science Conversations. Carl Zimmer's book Airborne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe is out now. This episode was hosted by me, Carol Sutton Lewis. Our producer was Luca Evans, and Hansdale Hsu was our sound engineer. Special thanks to our senior managing producer, Deborah Unger, our program manager, Eowyn Burtner, and our co-executive producers, Katie Hafner and Amy Scharf.Thanks also to Jeff DelViscio and our publishing partner, Scientific American. The episode art was created by Lily Whear and Lizzie Younan composes our music. Lost Women of Science is funded in part by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the Anne Wojcicki Foundation. We're distributed by PRX.If you've enjoyed this conversation, go to our website lostwomenofscience.org and subscribe so you'll never miss an episode—that's lostwomenofscience.org. And please share it and give us a rating wherever you listen to podcasts. Oh, and please don't forget to click on the donate button—that helps us bring you even more stories of important female scientists.I'm Carol Sutton Lewis. See you next time.HostCarol Sutton LewisProducerLuca EvansGuest Carl ZimmerCarl Zimmer writes the Origins column for the New York Times and has frequently contributed to The Atlantic, National Geographic, Time, and Scientific American. His journalism has earned numerous awards, including ones from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academies of Sciences, Medicine, and Engineering. He is the author of fourteen books about science, including Life's Edge.Further Reading:Air-Borne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe. Carl Zimmer. Dutton, 2025Poliomyelitis. International Committee for the Study of Infantile Paralysis. Williams & Wilkins Company, 1932 “Air-borne Infection,” by William Firth Wells and Mildred Weeks Wells, in JAMA, Vol. 107, No. 21; November 21, 1936“Air-borne Infection: Sanitary Control,” by William Firth Wells and Mildred Weeks Wells, in JAMA, Vol. 107, No. 22; November 28, 1936“Ventilation in the Spread of Chickenpox and Measles within School Rooms,” by Mildred Weeks Wells, in JAMA, Vol. 129, No. 3; September 15, 1945“The 60-Year-Old Scientific Screwup That Helped Covid Kill,” by Megan Molteni, in Wired. Published online May 13, 2021WATCH THIS NEXTScience journalist Carl Zimmer joins host Rachel Feltman to look back at the history of the field, from ancient Greek “miasmas” to Louis Pasteur’s unorthodox experiments to biological warfare. #public #health #researcher #her #engineer

Looks like Ubisoft is giving Rayman an "AAA" revival after last year's "exploration phase" Never mind the Globox. Image credit: Ubisoft News by Matt Wales News Reporter Published on May 21, 2025 Remember Ubisoft's announcement last October it was currently in the "exploration phase" of a new Rayman project? Well, it seems full development has now been given the go ahead, with a recent job listing indicating the publisher is currently staffing up on a "AAA" Rayman game. To rewind a bit, all this came about following reports last year that Ubisoft had assembled a small group of developers - including around a dozen members of its now-disbanded Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown team - to work on a remake of Rayman. Somewhat unusually, Ubisoft didn't immediately reach for the 'does not comment on rumours or speculation' button, instead confirming that, yes actually, it was sort of true. "We are pleased to confirm Ubisoft Montpellier and Ubisoft Milan have recently started an exploration phase on the Rayman brand," it said at the time. "The project is still in its early stages, and we will share more details later." There was a sense, then, that nothing might come of the project if that "exploration phase" didn't bring encouraging results. But it now appears those initial experiments showed sufficient promise, because Ubisoft Milan is currently seeking a 3D gameplay animator to work on a "prestigious AAA title for the Rayman brand." There's also a second, slightly less specific job listing searching for a senior game designer to "work on the Rayman brand", but it seems likely both positions are related to the same project. More of this sort of thing please Ubisoft.Watch on YouTube So that's some encouraging news for Rayman fans, particularly given Ubisoft Montpellier and Milan's historically stellar output. Between them, the studios have released the acclaimed likes of Mario + Rabbids, the beautiful Valiant Hearts series, Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown, plus Rayman Origins and Rayman Legends - two absolutely gold-standard 2D platformers. The only troubling element of Rayman's revival is last year's controversial admission by Ubisoft that original Rayman creator Michel Ancel had been drafted in as a consultant. Ancel departed the publisher in 2020, allegedly following an investigation into employee complaints accusing him of toxic leadership, and his involvement with the new Rayman project was reported to have "raised some concerns among team members". It is, however, unclear if Ancel is still serving as a consultant now Ubisoft's initial "exploration phase" appears to be complete. Signs that Rayman may be making a "AAA" return come at a challenging time for Ubisoft. The publisher has faced a tumultuous few years amid tumbling share prices and a number of high-profile flops, resulting in a string of layoffs and studio closures. As part of its attempts to right the ship, Ubisoft announced it was launching a new subsidiary dedicated to its big three IPs - Assassin's Creed, Rainbow Six, and Far Cry - earlier this year. With those game under a new banner, Ubisoft itself will concentrate on a number of key areas, including "nurturing the development of iconic franchises" - which is presumably where Rayman comes in. #looks #like #ubisoft #giving #rayman

Ming - stock.adobe.com Opinion UK Fraud Bill targets benefit claimants for mass surveillance The UK government’s proposed Fraud Bill will disproportionately place millions of benefit claimants under constant surveillance, creating a two-tier system where people are automatically suspected of wrongdoing for seeking welfare By Anna Dent Published: 21 May 2025 Earlier this month the House of Lords had its first debate on the Public AuthoritiesBill.  The Bill aims to reduce government losses to benefit fraud and error, and would give the Department for Work and Pensionsunprecedented powers of investigation to routinely and covertly check benefit claimants' bank accounts, the right to enter private homes, and to seize drivers' licenses or money from bank accounts. Expert organisations including Justice, the Public Law Project and Big Brother Watch warn that although the aim of the Bill is hugely important, the proposed powers are disproportionate and represent a breach of human rights. As Baroness Finn remarked in the Lords, "support for the goal must not mean silence about the means." The Bill promises an expanded regime of digital surveillance for people in receipt of Universal Credit, Employment and Support Allowance, and State Pension Credit. This includes the introduction of an 'Eligibility Verification Measure'which would enable DWP to direct banks to check millions of bank accounts for as yet unspecified indicators of benefit fraud and error.  DWP already has similar powers but crucially can only use them where it has 'reasonable grounds' to suspect fraud is taking place, which is the standard threshold for many comparable state powers. This Bill would completely remove that threshold, and enable intrusive surveillance without any justification. Details on exactly how the EVM will be used are sparse, but it could theoretically result in every single claimant’s bank account being checked, with no suspicion or indication of any fraud, error or over-payment needed.  Accounts flagged through these checks would then be passed to a member of DWP staff for further investigation, but what this will involve is still unclear. A code of practice to accompany the Bill is still unpublished, so we don't actually know what sequence of events would play out. Will individuals be informed when they are being investigated? Will their benefits be suspended during an investigation? Will their claim be assessed by other fraud algorithms? In some circumstances, the Department could automatically take money from the bank accounts of people no longer on benefits if they are deemed to have committed fraud or been accidentally overpaid. Banks will be prevented from informing their customers that this recovery process is happening, so the first that a customer might know is when money disappears from their account.  The finance industry has expressed concern about tensions between the obligations the Bill would create and financial institutions' consumer obligations, the risks of financial harm to vulnerable customers, and the lack of robust safeguards for the transfer of banking data. Others are concerned about the potential for miscarriages of justice which many will be unable to effectively challenge: the benefits covered by the Bill are only available to people on a low income, who are unlikely to have the means to engage in legal action. These powers would apply to both fraud and error, including over-payments caused by the Department's own mistakes. Overpayments can be caused by myriad mistakes on the part of DWP or claimant, or both, and the complexity of making claims is well known. But under the Bill, fraud and error will be treated the same, with the same digital surveillance deployed and the same powers to seize money and other assets. Universal Credit already appears to be particularly prone to mistakes and over-payments. Rather than punishing people after the fact, it would be better for DWP to work out why it is particularly vulnerable, do more to help people avoid mistakes, and reduce the rate at which their own mistakes cause over-payments. Treating all claimants like intentional fraudsters stigmatises people on benefits, and risks people who need financial support disengaging from the benefit system. Rather than focus on professional criminals who are actively defrauding the Department, the bill scoops everyone up and places them all under suspicion. It creates a two-tier system in which benefit claimants would be subject to an invasion of privacy not applied to the rest of the population: millions of people who have done nothing wrong will be laid open to mass surveillance. DWP officers would be given police-like powers of entry to private premises and seizure of private property. This is an extraordinary expansion of very serious powers targeted at one section of society. It fundamentally undermines basic rights to privacy and to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.  Whether the ends justify these heavy-handed means is doubtful. The Department's own impact assessment estimates that just 2% of social security fraud and error over-payments will be clawed back through the use of these powers over 10 years: a disproportionate invasion of privacy for little benefit. The finance industry also warns that the organised gangs who carry out large-scale benefit fraud using sophisticated methods to avoid detection will easily find ways to work around the new powers.  Also on its way through the legislative process is the Data Use and Access Bill, which proposes to reduce the requirement for human oversight of automated decisions within government. If both Bills pass into law as currently drafted, there is a potential future in which the human-in-the-loop safeguards relating to digital bank surveillance are no longer legally required. This leaves the door open to hugely consequential decisions being made entirely by automated systems. We know that existing DWP fraud algorithms generate bias; the introduction of more automation and digital surveillance and the potential for less human oversight should trouble us all.  Increasing the number of people that are flagged for investigation via these new powers could put thousands more through the difficult process of fraud investigation. DWP’s own figures show that three-quarters of people whose benefit claims are flagged as suspicious actually have no fraud or error related to their claim at all. Ten million people receive the benefits that will be covered by the new powers: if even 1% of claimants are wrongly investigated many thousands of people will be affected.  As well as the immediate impact of these disproportionate powers, politicians need to be aware of the precedents they are setting, and how the legislation could be used by other administrations in future. Eliminating the need for the government to justify wholesale digital surveillance removes a basic protection against state over-reach. Only the state pension is explicitly excluded from the powers in the Bill: a government with an even more single-minded obsession with efficiency and fraud could roll out the bank surveillance to many, many other people. What will affect a minority now could become the norm for the majority. Anna Dent is an independent researcher and policy consultant, working on the digital welfare state and human-centred technology about digital surveillance UK government outlines plan to surveil migrants with eVisa data: Electronic visa data and biometric technologies will be used by the UK’s immigration enforcement authorities to surveil migrants living in the country and to ‘tighten control of the border’, attracting strong criticism from migrant support groups. AI surveillance towers place migrants in ‘even greater jeopardy’: The use of autonomous surveillance towers throughout the English coast forces migrants into increasingly dangerous routes and contributes to their criminalisation. Invasive tracking ‘endemic’ on sensitive support websites: Websites set up by police, charities and universities to help people get support for sensitive issues like addiction and sexual harassment are deploying tracking technologies that harvest information without proper consent. In The Current Issue: UK critical systems at risk from ‘digital divide’ created by AI threats UK at risk of Russian cyber and physical attacks as Ukraine seeks peace deal Standard Chartered grounds AI ambitions in data governance Download Current Issue Microsoft entices developers to build more Windows AI apps – Cliff Saran's Enterprise blog Red Hat launches llm-d community & project – Open Source Insider View All Blogs #fraud #bill #targets #benefit #claimants

SSRN Meet the Author: Robert Bird Robert Bird is a professor of business law and the Eversource Energy Chair in Business Ethicsat the University of Connecticut. He conducts research in legal strategy, business ethics, compliance, employment law, and related fields. Bird has authored over eighty academic publications, including articles in the American Business Law Journal, Journal of Law and Economics, Law and Society Review, Boston University Law Review, Boston College Law Review, and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Robert has received sixteen research-related awards – including the Academy of Legal Studies in Businessbest international paper award, distinguished proceedings award, and the Holmes-Cardozo best overall conference paper award – and various teaching-related awards, such as the outstanding article of the year award two years in a row from the Journal of Legal Studies Education, and the student-selected Alpha Kappa Psi Teacher of the Year award. Robert is also a manuscript reviewer for several journals and is a past president of the Academy of Legal Studies in Business, the international academic organization for professors of law in schools of business. He spoke with SSRN about the importance of legal education within business schools and how legal knowledge provides value to organizations, both for their bottom line and for creating businesses for good. Q: Your main research and teaching focus has surrounded the intersection of business and law. What is it about the relationship between these two that led you to explore it further? A: As an undergraduate management information systems major at Fairfield University, I became interested in how legal issues impacted the development of new technologies. I remember writing a paper in the early 1990s on the legal and ethical implications of expert systems, a predecessor to today’s artificial intelligence. When I began my dual JD/MBA degree at Boston University, I found both fields fascinating. Business rewards people who have effective problem-solving skills, strong communication skills, and the ability to lead. Legal studies emphasize thinking on your feet, clear and persuasive legal writing, and an enduring sense of justice and fairness. Law school helped me to connect disparate ideas in a novel and creative way. Business school helped me solve complex problems and connect thought to action. The disciplines, at least to me, seemed to naturally work together, and I found it irresistible to explore more deeply. I do not teach in a law school. I’m a lawyer in a business school. For years I felt like a cat in a dog show. The disciplines think in a fundamentally different manner. Traditionally, business faculty research as social scientists, while law faculty emphasize the humanist side of knowledge. Business faculty are skilled at statistical analysis and modeling, while law faculty are adept with abstract ideas and interpretation of textual knowledge. This has its challenges and its opportunities. In a law school, I doubt any professor questions the importance of law in business. In a business school, I initially had to address fundamental questions: “Why do our business students need to know the law? Can’t they just call a lawyer?” Having to respond to these kinds of questions has made me a better teacher and scholar. Initially, my standard answer was that “lawyers are important because they keep our students out of trouble, and they prevent companies from being investigated by regulators that result in costly penalties.” No less important, however, is that lawyers can’t be present for every decision a manager makes, and some bad business decisions result in irreversible liability. Businesspeople need to know how the law works in order to minimize their legal risks. Today, I very much value my business school affiliation. Legal knowledge can also be used as a source of strategic value for the company. If business people see law as a domain that is just as value-creating as finance and marketing and operations, they will take the law more seriously. They will increase their respect for the rule of law. As a result, you’ll have a company that is inherently primed to act with integrity, follow ethical values, and be socially responsible. That is valuable because what is unethical today is often illegal tomorrow. I think studying business is interesting because company operations are intertwined with some of the most important issues in society. Companies are making money, but they’re also impacting the societies in which they sell products. Law focuses on justice, equity and fairness, and I was interested in how companies can not only add value to their bottom line but also help build a better world: business that respects human rights, business that aspires to ethical and sustainable goals. Business schools that know the importance of legal knowledge will give their students a legal education, and those students are more likely to graduate as moral agents for change. Q: In your new book, “Legal Knowledge in Organizations,”you discuss how legal knowledge can greatly benefit firms by providing them with a distinct competitive advantage. In doing so, you lay out five pathways that firms use to pursue legal strategies. So now going back a ways, in your paper “Pathways of Legal Strategy,” which was included in the Stanford Journal of Law, Business, and Finance in 2008 and was later posted on SSRN, you talk similarly about five pathways. How have you developed the concept of these pathways over time, leading now to your recent book? A: I have been interested in how legal knowledge can be a source of value since 2001, when I just started full-time teaching. I still have an inexplicably pink sheet of paper upon which I scribbled the date and title “Ideas for Managerial Law for Strategic Advantage.” Because legal knowledge is so important in the organization, I was interested in how legal knowledge is used by companies, how it can be a source of value for companies, and how legal experts within organizations can deploy legal knowledge. So much of what is written about law in business relates to litigation and conflict. I wanted to learn more about how legal and business experts can work together successfully. Those ideas scribbled on that sheet of paper later became the foundation for my recently published book. However, twenty years ago there was limited research on how to use legal knowledge as a source of value for organizations. I looked at a number of companies and how they behaved, and I noticed that there were five different pathways – or patterns – that companies seemed to follow. There’s an avoidance pathway, where the companies ignore legal rules and circumvent enforcement. A firm following the conformance pathway perceives law as little more than a box to be checked, after which you move on to the more important aspects of business. In the prevention pathway, firms will take business steps to avoid legal problems, such as implementing business policies that prevent legal liability from appearing in the first place. This is where most companies believe their best practices are, with legal and compliance experts. However, there are two additional pathways: the value pathway perceives law as a source of competitive advantage and shows how legal knowledge can help you open up new markets, manage legal risk more efficiently and have more resources than your competitors do. Then finally, the transformative pathway uses legal knowledge to fundamentally change how the organization works. That means building a culture of integrity in the organization, enduring respect for legal rules, and supporting a close partnership between legal experts and businesspeople that generates a long-term competitive advantage that rivals cannot easily match. These pathways are explored in more detail in my book. The book also highlights how legal knowledge helps managers better understand and manage legal risk in a dynamic fashion. This can result in a first mover advantage in a new market. Companies can use the law to capture value in a way their rivals haven’t, and sustain that advantage, because they’re more versed in how the laws work than their competitors. I have applied these pathways of legal strategy to business challenges ranging from whistleblower laws to cannabis regulation. There’s a rich volume of information in this book. I also focus on legal risk management, and I apply an acronym called VUCA, which stands for volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. Each of those four risk management techniques presents a distinct risk but also a distinct opportunity that can help companies assess risk, effectively avoid legal liability, and generate value through a well-coordinated response. The VUCA method perceives legal risk in a novel way, enabling firms to manage legal risk better than their rivals. Q: Of the five pathways you just discussed, the fifth, transformation, can bring significant benefits, but it is one that you’ve said few companies can successfully achieve, as it requires the company to rethink the way the entire organization works. What are some of the barriers that might prevent well-meaning companies from following the transformation pathway? A: The transformation pathway requires a fundamental change in the culture of the organization that fully embraces the value of legal knowledge as a strategic asset. However, there are two primary barriers that prevent this from happening. One barrier is that lawyers will sometimes be too risk averse and will focus on the technical nature of law rather than integrating their decisions into the strategy of the firm. The other barrier is that managers do not receive sufficient legal education to appreciate the importance of law or productively communicate with their legal team. If a manager does not know what the law is or how the law works, the manager can’t ask questions of their legal counsel such as, “Can you build me a legal strategy? Can you work with me as a strategic partner?” One of my key missions is to highlight the critical importance of legal education in business schools. At schools like the University of Connecticut, we are committed to that legal education. Every student that earns an undergraduate degree or an MBA receives at least one course in business law and ethics. These students understand what law is, how law works, and why it’s important to companies. Some business schools don’t require legal knowledge to get an MBA. Their students graduate with their business degree, and even though they have this elite pedigree, they don’t understand the law. They have not learned how to read a contract, legally hire and fire an employee, avoid insider trading, deal with regulators, negotiate with counter parties, protect the environment, and a variety of other legal issues that companies face every day. No business school should bestow a business degree on a student whose entire legal knowledge comes from watching reruns of Law & Order. Law is a critical part of business education. If they don’t get legal education, they’re not going to think of their lawyers as anything more than litigators. Lawyers can be so much more valuable than that: they can be strategic partners, they can be thought leaders, they can help change the culture of the organization to one that’s committed to integrity, which is not only good for society, but improves the bottom line. Legal knowledge is the last great untapped source of competitive advantage in organizations. My recently published book helps unlock that value for anyone who wants to read it. Q: What aspects of the book do you think are especially timely now? A: Right now, regulations are more complex, more comprehensive, and more punitive than at any other time in business history. Changes in presidential administrations, and radical shifts in how legal rules are enforced, do not create a steady state for companies. All that does is create turbulence for firms and increase their cost of operations. Companies can’t take efficient risks, and they can’t optimally plan for the future. Managers need legal knowledge now more than ever in order to handle the legal standards that are in a state of almost constant change. In addition, law is critical for the global economy. Today, respect for the rule of law and the adherence to following the rule of law is being challenged in a way that it hasn’t in decades. Companies need the rule of law to survive. Unwise firms see the rule of law as just another burden or obligation or another box that needs to be checked. In fact, legal mandates establish the rules of global markets. Legal rules provide certainty in terms of their regulatory obligations, especially when they’re well written. Legal knowledge also helps companies understand how to manage their workforce and how to protect the environment. Q: You’ve said in previous discussions, regarding why rules and regulations are so complex, that “words are finite and imprecise tools that are trying to govern and account for an infinite number of situations.” How would you suggest laws be structured in order to be succinct while still managing to capture an array of scenarios and account for possible loopholes? Where is that balance? A: Legal regulation needs to be as simple as it needs to be, and no simpler. What does that mean? That means there are a bunch of ways to make laws functional and effective. First is that legislators need to be careful to draft rules that do not have deliberate opacity. The more specificity you can provide, the more guidance you have for firms. That said, if there is too much specificity, where firms lack the flexibility to respond to mandates, then the law becomes convoluted. Complex laws aren’t necessarily bad. Sometimes laws have to be complex to meet their goals. Convoluted laws, however, are unnecessarily complex, and that’s the kind of law that drafters need to avoid. This may sound counterintuitive, but Americans enjoy the significant freedom where there is strong, consistent, and well-written regulation. For example, almost every city and town in the U.S. has traffic lights. Laws that require people to listen to traffic lights restrict freedom because they stop you from getting where you need to go, while others can cross the road. But if everyone just ignored traffic lights, there would be more traffic jams, accidents, and even deaths. Getting from one place to another would be much harder. Delivering goods and services would be more difficult. So, while traffic lights restrict freedom on one level, they actually increase the freedom of people overall to get where they need to go safely and quickly. The same goes for markets. Without strong and well-written regulation, you create chaos. Law is an accelerant for commercial transactions. Laws help prevent corruption in markets. Laws enable companies to make and enforce contracts. Laws protect intellectual property rights. Laws enable free and fair global trade. Laws keep the peace so that business can flourish. You want strong business; you need strong legal rules. You want an efficient market; you need efficient regulation. Law and business go hand-in-hand to make a functioning society and global market thrive. Q: You have many papers on SSRN, which have been frequently downloaded over the past twenty-plus years. Are there any in particular that you’d like to highlight? A: I am currently studying the harmful impact that corporate tax avoidance has on society, and how tax avoidance can be more effectively prevented. I have an article talking about the moral economy against tax avoidance. A moral economy in this context is a network of beliefs that society has about certain economic practices. These beliefs arise from collectively held notions of fairness and equitable opportunity. When a wealthy taxpayer uses aggressive tax avoidance to squeeze through loopholes of legal rules and avoid paying taxes, that hurts everyone in society. A moral economy against tax avoidance would empower individuals in society to condemn the practice, thereby discouraging all but the most aggressive avoiders from circumventing their obligations to contribute to the public good. I have also co-authored an article on an organization-centered approach to whistleblowing law. Most scholars study whistleblowing law from a legal perspective and how it applies to the organization. This article focuses on how organizations can engage in self-regulation in order to better manage whistleblowing risks. Whistleblowers may be perceived as just another cost of doing business, but whistleblowing laws can be a source of competitive advantage. Applying the five pathways of legal strategy researched earlier, this article shows how companies can leverage employees who are potential whistleblowers into valuable allies that create value for the organization. Q: In addition to business law, you also have an interest in business ethics. What are the essential principles that companies must know in order to be ethical? A: There are four principles of values-driven management that every organization should fully embrace. These four principles serve as four legs of a platform of responsible business practice. The first principle is business ethics, the internal values of the firm. Business ethics focuses on the individual decision-making in the organization that shapes how the organization functions on a day-to-day basis. Strong ethical principles can be the basis of a culture of integrity. By a culture of integrity, I mean ethical values that are so strong that employees comply with those values because they believe in them and not because they have to be asked to do so. The absence of ethical principles leaves companies morally adrift and prone to mistakes that can hurt the company’s reputation or trigger legal liability. The second principle is corporate social responsibility, which focuses on a company’s obligation to its stakeholders. These include shareholders, employees, neighbors, community, society, regulators, suppliers, creditors, the environment, and others. The third principle is sustainability. Sustainability focuses on management of collective resources over time. What responsibility do organizations have not just today, but also next year, 20 years, and 50 years from now? How do we sustain an environment that will be preserved for our grandchildren and our great grandchildren? The fourth principle is business and human rights. This focuses on inalienable rights that all persons have regardless of wealth or nationality. All people have a right to life, a right to education, a right to a fair wage, and a right to be able to raise a family in a safe environment, free from war and conflict. These rights are so strong they override the economic interests of corporations. Human rights are the vanguard of these values-driven principles. Finally, my colleagues and I have developed a new program at UConn, a Master’s in Social Responsibility & Impact in Business. The program trains students not only in business principles, but also in how companies can be a source of good for society. They can also be agents for cultural change, promoting sustainability and human rights, and advancing goals of business ethics. We’re training both change makers and change accelerators in organizations. We can show them not only that acting responsibly is good for society, but also that it’s good for business in the long term. An ethical company is a profitable company. A sustainable company is a profitable company. That’s something that we are showing our students now. Q: How do you think SSRN fits into the broader research and scholarship landscape? A: I joined SSRN over 20 years ago, and it has been my go-to mechanism to distribute scholarship to the wider academic community. Virtually every manuscript that I’ve drafted goes on SSRN before it gets submitted to publication. I find it to be a key vector for disseminating my research before it eventually gets published. SSRN is a living embodiment of tomorrow’s research today. Instead of waiting potentially years to be formally published, through SSRN my working paper is shared with a wide audience in a short time. I’m just a few quick clicks away from sharing my work with interested colleagues who will be able to easily find it. I don’t have to wait until publication. When you’re on SSRN, you’re in an ecosystem where people are looking for current knowledge, and if they find your work, they’re going to cite it before it gets to publication. SSRN also brings research to me. The eJournals are one of the primary ways that I learn about research that’s not within my immediate network. SSRN is also excellent for accessing international scholarship. There are scholars in other countries that I may never hear about except for on SSRN. SSRN is a gateway to world scholarship. You can see more work by Robert Bird on his SSRN Author page here #meet #author #robert #bird