#Behavioral Science Congress

[neurologyeventss]

Join Us at the International Conference on Psychology!

We are delighted to invite you to the International Conference on Psychology, taking place on August 18-19, 2025, in London, UK. This prestigious event will bring together leading psychologists, researchers, and mental health professionals from around the world to explore the theme:

“Innovations and Advances in Psychological Research”

🔬 Discover groundbreaking studies 🤝 Engage with global experts 💡 Gain insights into the latest psychological innovations

📍 Location: London, UK 📅 Date: August 18-19, 2025

Don’t miss this opportunity to connect, collaborate, and contribute to the future of psychology!

www.neurologyevents.com

[neurologyevents]

Exploring Psychology and Mental Health: Key Conferences and Events in 2025

Psychology plays a vital role in understanding human behavior, mental health, and cognitive processes. With increasing awareness and research in the field of psychology, attending specialized conferences and events is essential for professionals, researchers, and clinicians. In this blog, we’ll explore major events such as the Psychology Conference and highlight prominent gatherings like the International Psychology Conference 2025 and Psychiatry Conferences.

Psychology Conference 2025

The Psychology Conference 2025 is a premier event that brings together psychologists, researchers, and clinicians from around the globe to discuss the latest developments in psychological research, practice, and mental health care. This conference focuses on exploring new research, evidence-based practices, and innovative approaches to mental health and behavioral sciences.

International Psychology Conference

The International Psychology Conference is a global gathering of professionals dedicated to advancing the field of psychology. It offers a platform for experts to present their research, share knowledge, and discuss strategies for improving mental health outcomes.

Psychology Meetings and Psychiatry Conferences

The Psychology Meetings and Psychiatry Conferences provide valuable opportunities for professionals to exchange insights, collaborate on research, and stay updated on the latest trends and developments in mental health care, treatment strategies, and psychological therapies.

Mental Health Conferences and Psychology Events

The Mental Health Conferences and Psychology Events explore key topics such as depression, anxiety, stress management, and other mental health issues. These conferences aim to foster discussions on prevention strategies, clinical practices, and innovative treatment approaches.

Behavioral Science Congress and Behavioral Science Conference

The Behavioral Science Congress and Behavioral Science Conference emphasize the intersection of psychology, neuroscience, and behavioral research. These events provide insights into human behavior, mental health, and cognitive processes.

Neuroscience Symposium and Depression Meetings

The Neuroscience Symposium highlights the connection between neuroscience and psychology, exploring how brain function impacts mental health. The Depression Meetings focus on the latest research, treatment options, and interventions for managing depression.

Psychology Forum and Psychology Conferences

The Psychology Forum is an interactive platform for professionals to engage in discussions, workshops, and networking opportunities. The Psychology Conference provides a comprehensive look at current research, practices, and challenges in the field of psychology.

Upcoming Conferences:

Conf 7

Psychology conferences 2025 | Mental Health conferences 2025 | Upcoming psychology conferences 2025 | International psychology conferences | International psychology conferences 2025 | Mental health Meetings | Psychological Summits 2025 | Psychology meetings | Depression meetings | Psychiatry Conferences | Behavioral Science Congress | Upcoming Medical Psychiatry Conference | Best Psychology Forum | Future Psychiatry Meetings | Important Psychology Conferences | Leading Behavioral Science Conferences | Best 10 Behavioral Science Meetings | Best Psychology Conferences | Upcoming Behavioral Science Workshops | Best Psychology Events | Upcoming Psychiatry Meetings | Top 50 Behavioral Science Conferences | Leading Psychiatry Symposiums | Psychiatry Seminars | Psychology events | Neurology summits | Neuroscience symposium | Mental health conferences

Attending psychology-related conferences and events is crucial for professionals looking to stay updated on the latest trends, research, and advancements in mental health care. To explore more about upcoming Psychology Conferences in 2025, visit Neurology Events.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Derek Thompson at The Atlantic:

For decades, America’s young voters have been deeply—and famously—progressive. In 2008, a youthquake sent Barack Obama to the White House. In 2016, voters ages 18 to 29 broke for Hillary Clinton by 18 points. In 2020, they voted for Joe Biden by 24 points. In 2024, Donald Trump closed most of the gap, losing voters under 30 by a 51–47 margin. In one recent CBS poll, Americans under 30 weren’t just evenly split between the parties. They were even more pro-Trump than Boomers over 65. Precisely polling teens and 20-somethings is a fraught business; some surveys suggest that Trump’s advantage among young people might already be fading. But young people’s apparent lurch right is not an American-only trend.

[...]

There is another potential driver of the global right turn: the pandemic.

Pandemics might not initially seem to cash out in any particular political direction. After all, in the spring of 2020, one possible implication of the pandemic seemed to be that it would unite people behind a vision of collective sacrifice—or, at least, collective appreciation for health professionals, or for the effect of vaccines to reduce severe illness among adults. But political science suggests that pandemics are more likely to reduce rather than build trust in scientific authorities. One cross-country analysis published by the Systemic Risk Center at the London School of Economics found that people who experience epidemics between the ages of 18 and 25 have less confidence in their scientific and political leadership. This loss of trust persists for years, even decades, in part because political ideology tends to solidify in a person’s 20s.

The paper certainly matches the survey evidence of young Americans. Young people who cast their first ballot in 2024 were “more jaded than ever about the state of American leadership,” according to the Harvard Political Review. A 2024 analysis of Americans under 30 found the “lowest levels of confidence in most public institutions since the survey began.” In the past decade alone, young Americans’ trust in the president has declined by 60 percent, while their trust in the Supreme Court, Wall Street, and Congress has declined by more than 30 percent.

[...]

These changes may not be durable. But many people’s political preferences solidify when they’re in their teens and 20s; so do other tastes and behaviors, such as musical preferences and even spending habits.

[...]

New ideologies are messy to describe and messier still to name. But in a few years, what we’ve grown accustomed to calling Generation Z may reveal itself to contain a subgroup: Generation C, COVID-affected and, for now, strikingly conservative. For this micro-generation of young people in the United States and throughout the West, social media has served as a crucible where several trends have fused together: declining trust in political and scientific authorities, anger about the excesses of feminism and social justice, and a preference for rightward politics.

The Atlantic had a story on why a portion of Gen Z went rightwards, and COVID played a large role in that.

[eugenedebs1920]

One of the beautiful things about how our representative democratic constitutional republic works is the varying opinions. The array of views and theories, the proposals and approaches, from the patchwork of ideology America has attracted, gives us the opportunity to select the peak ideas of so many backgrounds and cultures. Many of the founders, Washington in particular, were against the formation of political parties. Because of such contrasting views this was unavoidable.

There used to be a dozen or more political parties in the U.S. Wigs, federalist, socialists, labor and others brought their perspectives and that of their constituency to Congress. This enabled a more zoomed in viewpoint of the issues across the nation.

Our Population in this country, and the planet as a whole, has BOOMED! With it, so have perspectives, concerns and opinions. It becomes harder and harder to address everyone’s needs when the diversity and size of those you’re representing is so vast. This becomes even more burdensome when there’s red and blue to choose from. The puppet on the left or the puppet on the right.

I’ll have to do more research into why exactly but some time between the beginning on the twentieth century and 1940’s the cluster of political parties that had existed before pretty much consolidated in the two that dominate now. Sure, there are other parties out there, but not with much influence, or power as there was before the Second World War.

From a business perspective this makes sense, you buy out your rival for less competition so you can set market value to your liking. But this is not a business, some will argue the federal government is the largest business on earth. It goes beyond the financial side to the personal level. These are policies and practices that have real world implications. That affect real people lives in droves.

This “big tent” approach sounds wonderful in theory, but when you start looking at the details it becomes much more complicated. The extremes of both sides tend to be the loudest voices while representing the smallest fraction of the party.

It has proven to be detrimental to the functioning or our democracy! With just the two sides, when one side is unhealthy, unhappy and unwilling to compromise the system bogs. This last House term being an excellent example. These MAGA obstructionist sinking the ship. Making an ass out of themselves and the entire Republican Party. A party that used to be a proud, noble group, resorted to lacking leadership for months, failed vote counts and the title as the least productive Congress in this century. The “big tent” approach for the Republican Party has the loudest voices being heard while the mature, responsible, more centered Republicans are lumped in with them.

The same can be true of the left to an extent. Dems will kick those with unacceptable behavior words or conduct to the curb though, which is a huge difference. Yet there are extremes on the left that don’t necessarily reflect the views of most Democrats.

This, winner take all grasp for power has lessened the effectiveness and stature of the political spheres in this country. So it’s down to the puppet on the left or the puppet in the right. A brown paper bag with a name on it.

So we have the two parties with the two extremes. One party despite its downfalls wants to govern. Wants to see progress. Wants to enact change.

The other is fighting culture wars, denying science, and tiptoeing a line on bigotry that is stepped over habitually. Their method as the “party of no” which they labeled themselves during the Obama years does NOTHING for the citizens of this country. The obstructionist approach of saying no because the other side proposed it is not helpful, if you’d call it governing at all! The “war on woke” and this owning the libs thing is some childish, useless sh*t! Cutting off your nose to spite your face. Can we have representatives who actually work together and find compromise to accomplish SOMETHING!!!?

Anyway… There’s only one healthy party in America right now. And it sure ain’t the Republican MAGA Party…

[trump-executive-orders]

American Heart Month, 2025

Issued February 3, 2025.

Every day, untold numbers of our friends, relatives, neighbors, and coworkers are affected by the devastating affliction of heart disease. As the Nation's leading cause of death, cardiovascular disease has stolen infinite lives, crushed countless families, and imposed unimaginable heartbreak upon Americans of every walk of life. This American Heart Month, we mourn and pray for those we have lost and recommit ourselves to ending the deadly plight of heart disease once and for all.

Thanks to advancements in medicine, science, and technology, our Nation has made tremendous strides in combatting heart disease -- and the American people are now better equipped than ever before to receive lifesaving treatments, respond to medical complications, and modify behavior and habits to ensure they can lead long and healthy lives.

But even one soul lost to heart disease is a tragedy beyond comprehension. To that end, my Administration will work diligently to save lives, lower healthcare costs, and foster a stronger, safer, and healthier future for every citizen. For as long as I am President, I will always be an unwavering advocate for improving the health of every American.

The first step in confronting the cardiac disease crisis is taking concrete action to lower the odds of diagnosis -- and encouraging those in our lives to take all necessary measures to root out unhealthy habits. Research has consistently shown that risk factors contributing to heart disease include obesity, high blood pressure and cholesterol, lack of exercise, excessive alcohol use, and smoking. Making small adjustments to our health and routines can yield extraordinary and even life-saving results. My Administration is also steadfastly committed to cracking down on Big Pharma and ending the chronic disease epidemic. And we will fulfill our pledge to investigate what has caused the decades-long increase in health problems and childhood diseases -- including obesity, autoimmune disorders, infertility, and autism. As Americans, we owe it to ourselves and our families to take care of our bodies -- and to cherish God's gift of life for as long and as vigorously as we can.

As we enter into this American Heart Month, let us seek to improve our health, lengthen our lives, and nurture a culture, a government, and a Nation that upholds the dignity of life and protects the human heart.

In acknowledgement of the importance of the ongoing fight against cardiovascular disease, the Congress, by Joint Resolution approved on December 30, 1963, as amended (36 U.S.C. 101), has requested that the President issue an annual proclamation designating February as American Heart Month.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim February 2025 as American Heart Month, and I invite all Americans to participate in the National Wear Red Day on February 7, 2025. I also invite the Governors of the States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, officials of other areas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and the American people to join my Administration in recognizing and restating our pledge to fighting heart disease in all its forms.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of February, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from the Audubon Society:

Too often, the debate over climate solutions centers on perceived trade-offs between habitat conservation and the clean energy transition, preserving community and allowing development, or reducing pollution and maintaining profitability. But responsible clean energy deployment can be balanced with the needs of communities and wildlife, representing a win-win that doesn’t give rise to insurmountable trade-offs. Audubon’s new report, Offshore Wind and Birds: Developing the Offshore Wind that Birds Need, confirms that offshore wind can have immense benefits for birds, people, and the economy. This report advocates for the rapid adoption of offshore wind to combat the climate crisis while protecting birds, supporting coastal communities, and addressing the growing demand from advanced manufacturing and emerging technologies.

Audubon produced the Birds and Offshore Wind report to examine the best available science regarding the risks to birds. While persistent myths claim widespread and devastating effects of offshore wind turbines on wildlife, the science tells a different story. Our findings clearly indicate that we can responsibly deploy offshore wind in a manner that still protects birds and their habitats. That said, it is important to acknowledge that offshore wind turbines, like all infrastructure, can pose a risk to birds. These risks include turbine collisions, habitat displacement, and avoidance behavior. Fortunately, our research shows developers can effectively manage these risks without significantly increasing project costs. 

To tackle the existing risks, Audubon calls for a four-step planning process:

Identify and remove critically important areas for birds from consideration for leasing.

Implement proven strategies to minimize the potential for turbines to impact birds.

Offset unavoidable impacts, when necessary, through investments in conservation.

Monitor bird movements and population trends to ensure solutions are working.

The impact of offshore wind on wildlife is neither disproportionate nor insurmountable. Proven strategies, such as reducing visible lights on turbines and using perching deterrents on turbines, have been effective in addressing bird impacts. 

Effective policy will be crucial in helping the U.S. fully capitalize on offshore wind opportunities and ensure development happens quickly and responsibly. Measures federal legislators and agencies can take include: 

Providing certainty by safeguarding existing investments and supports like the tax credits included in the Inflation Reduction Act.

Taking measures that improve outcomes for birds, like requiring developers to embrace new technologies and best management practices that reduce bird collisions. 

Bolstering investments in research and technology to help developers better understand wildlife interactions with turbines and improve turbine efficiency. 

Collaborating with developers on Community Benefit Agreements (CBAs) to help ensure coastal communities benefit from nearby offshore wind projects, with Congress taking steps to formally incentivize CBAs during the leasing process.

Improving project siting and federal permitting to speed the deployment of responsible offshore wind projects. Congress can facilitate timely permitting by increasing investments in the permitting workforce at relevant agencies.

State and local governments also play a key role in offshore wind development. States like New York and Massachusetts provide valuable models for working with local communities, Tribes, commercial interests, and the federal government to deploy offshore wind responsibly and rapidly. States are also instrumental in the siting, permitting, and infrastructure development that connects offshore wind energy to the grid, as well as conducting regionally specific environmental studies to help inform the federal permitting process. 

[mariacallous]

In 2014, Brookings began studying all the candidates running for Congress through The Primaries Project. Unlike many studies of congressional elections in political science and unlike most journalists’ coverage of congressional elections, the Brookings studies focused on all candidates who got themselves on the primary ballot, whether they were serious challengers in competitive races or dilletantes who were not expected to win. We chose to study the universe of congressional primaries for one main important reason: Over the years, congressional districts have become less competitive and safer for one party or another.1 As a result, attention has shifted toward primaries as an important factor in the motivations of representatives and senators, who fear being “primaried.”2 Even though in congressional primaries, as in the general election, very few challenges to incumbents succeed, the fear of being primaried leads incumbent representatives and senators to anticipate challenges and adapt to the possibility of being primaried. This is one important contributor to the political polarization that has become such a feature of modern American politics.3

Past qualitative research by Elaine Kamarck and James Wallner on incumbent members of Congress has found that incumbents:

Worry about a primary threat.

Believe contested primaries hurt their chances in the general election.

Exaggerate the importance of successful primary challenges and;

Believe that changes in their behavior can help defer or defeat primary challenges.4

A December 2024 qualitative study by J.D. Rackey and Michael Thorning interviewed members of Congress and reached similar conclusions. They found that “primary elections do play a major role in both the structure of the congressional floor agenda and individual member’s voting decisions.”5 They also found that primary elections affected member communications. “Members calibrate their message and tone to ward off or defend against primary challenges…”6

Thus, primary challenges—real or potential—affect member behavior. This is why the study of congressional primaries has become more and more important. This is the fifth study Brookings has conducted on the candidates who run for Congress in both parties. As in the previous studies (2014, 2016, 2018 and 2022), we designed a coding sheet and over the course of the 2024 primary season, a team of coders combed the websites, social media, and public interviews of all 2,048 people who made it onto their party’s 2024 primary ballot. We obtained information on demographics, issue positions, and overall political ideology. To maintain inter-coder reliability, we met twice a week to share findings and ensure consistency in how we characterized candidates

We will start by looking at the demographics of who runs for Congress. Then we’ll look at where they place themselves, if at all, within the factions that exist within their political party. Finally, we will examine the issues they run on. These fall into two groups: issues which many candidates ran on and those which were less frequently mentioned. On all issues, we will look at differences between parties and within parties. Tables that are not in the text can be found in the comprehensive appendix at the end of this paper. 

In general, we find several important results:

Women represent only around a quarter of congressional candidates.

About two-thirds of candidates are white.

Congressional candidates are more highly educated than the general public.

The two largest categories were MAGA Republicans and Mainstream Democrats.

Most candidates focused on just a few issues, with Republicans focusing on immigration, guns, law and order, and taxes while Democrats emphasized abortion, climate change, and health care.

Issues such as transgender rights and critical race theory attracted relatively little attention from the candidates.

Open primaries where Independents could vote helped elect more moderate candidates, suggesting a way election reform could nibble away at political polarization.

[uwmadarchives]

50 Years Ago: APA Removes "Homosexuality" From DSM Diagnoses

Written by Bailey Watson, LGBTQ+ Archive Student Processing Assistant

12/18/2023

December 15, 1973 - By a vote of 5,854 to 3,810, the American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in the DSM-II Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Content advisory: This post discusses the history of homosexuality in Western psychiatry and may contain offensive language or topics.

Last Thursday marked 50 years since the APA (American Psychiatric Association) removed “homosexuality” from its list of mental disorders. This change was made to the DSM-II Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the current edition as of 2023 is the DSM-5-TR). The long history of homosexuality being included with physical and mental disorders dates back to the 19th century with Western European theorists working towards an understanding of same-sex attraction, leading to the coinage of the term “homosexuality” or “homosexual.” While these early theories positioned same-sex attraction or desires as unnatural, other theorists of the same decades aimed to prove that homosexuality was not abnormal but instead a natural variance of human sexuality.

Photo Dr. Franklin Kameny from David Carter papers, Collection no. uac 183,  Box 5, Folder 49. 

The conversation around homosexuality as a disorder took a turn during the post-WWII period in the United States, during a phenomenon referred to as the “lavender scare.” This period, parallel to the “red scare” was a reaction to the Cold War policies and politics, resulting in the massive purge of homosexuals or suspected homosexuals from the federal government, and even further down to local governments (see here for information on UW-Madison’s history with the gay purges). Similarly, communists and suspected communists were also barred or purged from public service and government-contracted sectors. 

In response to these purges, the early gay rights movement, then known as the homophile movement focused on organizing and protesting the conditions that made up the lavender scare. These conditions included the DSM’s classification of homosexuality as a diagnosable disorder. To the early homophile movement, as to some early theorists, homosexuality was perfectly natural, and therefore they could not pose a threat to national security. 

One aspect of activism from this period was addressing the DSM's use of homosexuality as a diagnosable disorder. The homophile movement argued that sexuality had no bearing on mental health, and by stigmatizing the gay community, the DSM and APA were adding to the problem. Furthermore, by diagnosing people as "homosexual" the APA created a way to dismiss those voices and placed a barrier on the conversation on who was fit to participate in society freely and who was not.

Finally, in 1973 after years of protest and activism, the influence of activism, including the voice of Dr. Franklin Kameny (pictured above) and internal changes led to a new definition of mental disorder within the APA and thus removed homosexuality from diagnoses. A win for the homophile movement and a change that brought lasting and positive impacts to many people's lives, even 50 years later.

References and for further consideration:

Drescher, Jack. 2015. "Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality" Behavioral Sciences 5, no. 4: 565-575. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5040565 (open access)

For more on Kameny and the early homophile movement, explore the David Carter papers, uac 182, located in the Madison LGBTQ+ Archive (housed at the University Archives, Steenbock Library)

[strokes-of-everything]

Look,

I don’t care if you’ve gotten every COVID booster or never wore a mask.

It is NOT fine to completely toss aside covering your mouth when sneezing or coughing in public.

I have studied behavioral sciences. I expected people to go from being manic about not sneezing/coughing in public to not giving a flying f*ck.

But if I have to be in a crowded place with people thinking they can hack their wet cough into a closed fist inches from their face as if that does ANYTHING to protect people around you from getting your nasty snot virus in their own systems, I’m going to riot.

And I say this as someone who called bullshit on shutting schools down for such an extended period of time, to which Fauci admitted in front of Congress that it did nothing after the initial lockdown period and was a mistake.

Cover your sick, nasty mouth and nose when you’re a walking petri dish of illness, please. It’s not that fucking difficult.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 24, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the nation’s highest-ranking military officer and the principal military advisor to the president, secretary of defense, and national security council. The current chairman, Army General Mark Milley, has served in the military for 44 years, deploying in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Panama, Haiti, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia, Somalia, and the Republic of Korea. He holds a degree in political science from Princeton University, a master’s degree in international relations from Columbia University, and a master’s degree from the U.S. Naval War College in national security and strategic studies. 

Former president Trump chose Milley for that position, but on Friday night, Trump posted an attack on Milley, calling him “a Woke train wreck” and accusing him of betraying the nation when, days before the 2020 election, he reassured his Chinese counterpart that the U.S. was not going to attack China in the last days of the Trump administration, as Chinese leaders feared.  

Trump was reacting to a September 21 piece by Jeffrey Goldberg about Milley in The Atlantic, which portrays Milley as an important check on an erratic, uninformed, and dangerous president while also warning that “[i]n the American system, it is the voters, the courts, and Congress that are meant to serve as checks on a president’s behavior, not the generals.” 

Trump posted that Milley “was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States. This was an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH! A war between China and the United States could have been the result of this treasonous act. To be continued!!!”

In fact, the calls were hardly rogue incidents. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, another Trump appointee, endorsed Milley’s October call, and Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, who replaced Esper when Trump fired him just after the election, gave permission for a similar call Milley made in January 2021. At least ten officials from the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department were on the calls. 

Trump is suggesting that in acting within his role and through proper channels, our highest ranking military officer has committed treason and that such treason in the past would have warranted death, with the inherent suggestion that we should return to such a standard. It seems much of the country has become accustomed to Trump’s outbursts, but this threat should not pass without notice, not least because Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) echoed it today in his taxpayer-funded newsletter.

In the letter, Gosar refers to Milley as “the homosexual-promoting-BLM-activist Chairman of the military joint chiefs,” a “deviant” who “was coordinating with Nancy Pelosi to hurt President Trump, and treasonously working behind Trump’s back. In a better society,” he wrote, “quislings like the strange sodomy-promoting General Milley would be hung. He had one boss: President Trump, and instead he was secretly meeting with Pelosi and coordinating with her to hurt Trump.”

Trump chose Milley to chair the Joint Chiefs but turned on him when Milley insisted the military was loyal to the Constitution rather than to any man. Milley had been dragged into participating in Trump’s march across Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020, to threaten Black Lives Matter protesters, although Milley peeled off when he recognized what was happening and later said he thought they were going to review National Guard troops. 

The day after the debacle, Milley wrote a message to the joint force reminding every member that they swore an oath to the Constitution. “This document is founded on the essential principle that all men and women are born free and equal, and should be treated with respect and dignity. It also gives Americans the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly…. As members of the Joint Force—comprised of all races, colors, and creeds—you embody the ideals of our Constitution.”

“We all committed our lives to the idea that is America,” he wrote by hand on the memo. “We will stay true to that oath and the American people.” 

Milley’s appearance with Trump as they crossed Lafayette Square drew widespread condemnation from former military leaders, and in the days afterward, Milley spoke to them personally, as well as to congressional leaders, to apologize. Milley also apologized publicly. “I should not have been there,” he said to graduates at National Defense University’s commencement. “My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.” Milley went on to defend the Black Lives Matter protesters Trump was targeting, and to say that the military must address the systematic racism that has kept people of color from the top ranks. 

Milley’s defense of the U.S. military, 43% of whom are people of color, drew not just Trump’s fury, but also that of the right wing. Then–Fox News Channel personality Tucker Carlson made a special effort to undermine the man he said was “not just a pig, he’s stupid!” “The Pentagon is now the Yale faculty lounge, but with cruise missiles. That should concern you,” he told his audience. As Carlson berated the military for being “woke,” his followers began to turn against the military they had previously championed. 

Trump has made it clear he intends to weaponize the government against those he perceives to be his enemies, removing those who refuse to do his bidding and replacing them with loyalists. Ominously, according to Goldberg, another area over which Trump and Milley clashed was the military’s tradition of refusing to participate in acts that are clearly immoral or illegal. Trump overrode MIlley’s advice not to intervene in the cases of three men charged with war crimes, later telling his supporters, “I stuck up for three great warriors against the deep state.” 

Goldberg points out that in a second Trump administration packed with loyalists, there will be few guardrails, and he notes that Milley has told friends that if Trump is reelected, “[h]e’ll start throwing people in jail, and I’d be on the top of the list.”

But Milley told Goldberg he does not expect Trump to be reelected. “I have confidence in the American people,” he said. “The United States of America is an extraordinarily resilient country, agile and flexible, and the inherent goodness of the American people is there.” Last week, he told ABC’s Martha Raddatz that he is “confident that the United States and the democracy in this country will prevail and the rule of law will prevail…. These institutions are built to be strong, resilient and to adapt to the times, and I'm 100% confident we'll be fine."

Milley’s statement reflects the increasingly powerful reassertion of democratic values over the past several years. In general, the country seems to be moving beyond former president Trump, who remains locked in his ancient grievances and simmering with fear about his legal troubles—Adam Rawnsley and Asawin Suebsaeng of Rolling Stone recently reported he has been asking confidants about what sort of prison might be in his future—and what he has to say seems so formulaic at this point that it usually doesn’t seem worth repeating. Indeed, much of his frantic posting seems calculated to attract headlines with shock value.

But, for all that, Trump is the current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination. He has suggested that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation’s senior military advisor, has committed treason and that such a crime is associated with execution, and one of his loyalists in government has echoed him. 

And yet, in the face of this attack on one of our key national security institutions, an attack that other nations will certainly notice, Republican leaders remain silent. 

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[coriakin-wandering]

Public Comment on the Proposal to Rescind the Regulatory Definition of 'Harm' Under the Endangered Species Act

Docket ID: FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0034-0001

I am writing to respectfully oppose the proposal to rescind the current regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As someone with a deep concern for biodiversity, I believe that removing habitat modification from the definition of harm would critically undermine the Act’s purpose—to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.

The ESA was designed not only to prevent the outright killing of endangered and threatened species but to ensure their long-term survival. Scientific consensus shows that habitat loss and degradation are among the leading drivers of species decline and extinction. For many species, “harm” occurs not only through direct injury but when key behaviors like breeding, nesting, or migration are disrupted by human alteration of their environment. Without intact, functional ecosystems, species cannot survive—let alone recover.

The current definition rightly includes significant habitat modifications that “actually kill or injure wildlife” by impairing essential behavior patterns. This is supported by decades of ecological research showing that species rely on specific habitat structures and timing cues for survival. For example, wetland drainage may not immediately injure a frog population, but if it eliminates their breeding grounds, it leads to population collapse. Removing this protection under a narrow interpretation of ‘harm’ ignores the scientific understanding of how ecosystems function and how animals experience injury.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo emphasized statutory clarity, but the ESA clearly states its purpose is to “provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.” This language shows Congress intended to protect more than just individual animals—it intended to protect the habitats they need to live.

I urge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to retain the existing definition of “harm” to preserve the integrity and purpose of the ESA. Rolling back this definition would render the statute reactive rather than proactive, forcing action only after species have already been pushed to the brink.

Thank you for considering this comment. Please preserve the full scope of protection the ESA has long provided, grounded in ecological science and consistent with the law’s original intent.

Sincerely,

Name

On April 16th 2025 the US federal government has proposed to change the interpretation of the endangered species act so that it no longer protects habitat.

This is open for public comment until the end of May 19th. Please comment and make your voice heard.

Wildlife need their habitat. If the ESA redefines harm so that habitat is no longer protected, the implications for wildlife would be catastrophic.

[ijcpgroup]

Medical Communication in the Digital Age: Redefining Engagement through Specialized Healthcare Marketing

In today’s rapidly evolving healthcare ecosystem, medical communication plays a pivotal role in bridging the gap between scientific innovation and real-world clinical practice. With the continuous growth of digital platforms, the landscape of how medical information is delivered, consumed, and applied has transformed significantly. As this transformation unfolds, digital marketing agencies for healthcare have emerged as crucial partners in ensuring that medical communication remains relevant, evidence-based, and impactful.

The Changing Face of Medical Communication

Medical communication is no longer limited to academic journals, conference presentations, or CME events. While these traditional channels remain valuable, there is a growing demand for accessible, timely, and targeted content that resonates with diverse stakeholders – from physicians and pharmacists to patients and caregivers.

In this context, medical communication has expanded beyond static dissemination of information. It now involves strategic content creation, scientific storytelling, digital engagement, and multi-platform delivery tailored to audience behavior and preferences. Whether it’s a concise infographic on disease burden or a full-length white paper on therapeutic innovation, content must be both scientifically accurate and digitally optimized.

The Role of Digital Marketing Agencies in Healthcare

The rise of digital marketing agencies for healthcare is not just a trend, it’s a response to the specialized needs of this highly regulated and scientifically complex sector. These agencies bring together expertise in digital strategy, compliance, creative design, and scientific content to deliver communication solutions that are both engaging and credible.

Unlike general marketing firms, healthcare-focused digital agencies understand the nuances of medical communication, be it aligning with regulatory frameworks (like MCI, DCGI, or global GxP standards), ensuring ethical promotional practices, or tailoring communication for varied healthcare audiences. Their role includes:

Content strategy and creation: Developing scientifically robust and audience-relevant content, including blogs, explainer videos, patient education tools, e-detailers, white papers, and medical newsletters.

Platform optimization: Ensuring content reaches the right audience through the right channels—whether it's professional platforms like LinkedIn and Medscape or patient-facing platforms like YouTube, WhatsApp, and Instagram.

Data-driven campaigns: Leveraging analytics and real-world insights to design outcome-based engagement models that track impact across touchpoints.

Omnichannel medical engagement: Integrating webinars, virtual congress booths, emailers, podcasts, and social campaigns to maintain a consistent and cohesive scientific narrative.

Why This Matters Now

Post-pandemic, digital transformation in healthcare has accelerated, and so has the need for agile, personalized, and continuous medical communication. Doctors expect value-based interactions rather than generic promotions. Patients demand empowering education that goes beyond awareness to drive behavioral change. Regulatory bodies are increasingly vigilant about compliance and transparency.

In this setting, effective medical communication becomes a cornerstone of trust-building and behavior modification. It helps disseminate guideline updates, promote rational prescribing, improve patient adherence, and support shared decision-making.

Collaborating with digital marketing agencies that specialize in healthcare allows pharma, med-tech, and diagnostic companies to:

Stay compliant while being creative

Scale content across regions and languages

Respond quickly to market changes or scientific updates

Engage healthcare professionals (HCPs) through personalized journeys

Position themselves as science-driven, patient-centric brands

Looking Ahead: Communication as a Strategic Imperative

Medical communication is no longer just an operational function, it is a strategic imperative. Its success lies in striking the right balance between scientific depth, digital fluency, and emotional intelligence.

As the healthcare sector becomes more digitally mature, partnerships with specialized digital marketing agencies will be key to driving meaningful conversations that can shape clinical practice and public health outcomes.

In conclusion, the synergy between robust medical communication and digitally enabled healthcare marketing holds immense potential. It is not just about broadcasting information, it is about fostering understanding, building credibility, and influencing decisions at every stage of the healthcare journey.

[nursingwriter]

¶ … Medical Ethics Concerns Results of requested research on medical ethics concerns; recommendation Gracie and Keith, You had asked me to investigate the current state of medical ethics, and to make a recommendation, based upon my research, as to whether or not we should request an affidavit from Dr. Smathers that she is not involved in ethically questionable behavior. Based on my research, which will be detailed here, I would recommend that we not request this of Dr. Smathers. Questions Raised about Relationships to Medical Providers Pharmaceutical and medical device suppliers depend on a close relationship with medical practitioners for new ideas, and to develop and test their new devices or pharmaceutical products. Quite apart from their ultimate commercial needs, there is a need to relate real-world clinical practice to innovation; without such close collaboration, the pace of medical innovation would slow down. This note outlines two areas of potential concern: (1) collaboration on research and clinical trials, and (2) collaboration on marketing and clinical presentations. Research and Clinical Trials There are a number of physicians whose opinion is sought out more than others. To some degree, this attraction is governed by the physicians' talents as researchers or in conducting clinical trials. Clinical trials and research require a good deal of record-keeping, scientific rigor and ethical probity. These requirements therefore limit close collaboration to a limited number of physicians who have both the interest and aptitude to support such research. These physicians are generally well-respected in the medical community, are well-published, and have a reputation for presenting good work. Although a physician may have a number of projects under way with several pharmaceutical companies, it is not in the physician's interest to shade the data, or to make a device or pharmaceutical product appear better than it actually is. The reasons for this include The recent decision of the FDA to make all data available to the public, thus allowing a 'second look' at clinical trial participants, their modes of data collection, and the accuracy of their conclusions. These standards are incorporated in government and private enterprise bodies, such as CDISD (CDISD 2007). Clinical trial watchdogs, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Citizen (Wolfe 2006), pore over such data to insure that the trials are run in an unbiased fashion In addition, those journals which publish the results of such studies are judged by professionals, who require any indication of sponsorship or bias to be declared by the participants in studies (NEJM 1993). There have been exceptions to the above, where physicians have, in the opinion of their peers, overstepped their boundaries and represented the medical suppliers' interest more than their patients or the value of their science. A recent case, involving Dr. Martin Leon of Columbia, was particularly egregious. Dr. Leon revealed evidence from a clinical trial prior to its 'unveiling' date, which caused a significant movement in the stocks of several medical device companies. The response of the medical community was immediate and severe. Dr. Leon was suspended from editorial boards of the Journal of the American Cardiology Society and the New England Journal of Medicine for at least five years (Wood 2007). Dr. Leon's reputation as a clinical trials clinical investigator and participant was therefore permanently disadvantaged. Training and Presentation in Medical Conferences Physicians such as Dr. Smathers participate in colloquia and congresses, and present teaching seminars about the use of medical devices and new pharmaceutical regimens. A concern of some is that this representation of the company can result in an endorsement of the company. A second concern is that the physician may allow his or her judgment to be compromised by their relationship with the company. On the first concern, there is a pressing need for experienced physicians to teach others how to improve their practice. The rules (as above for clinical trials) are strict about what is presented, and how it is presented. The physician must present all sides, supported by clinical evidence, with a clear indication of side-effects and contraindications. On the second concern, there may be an effect on the physician's prescribing behavior if he/she believes in the product. There is, by law, no direct relationship between the prescription of drugs or medical devices and pharmaceutical products and physician remuneration. Even the conversations between physicians and "drug reps" are carefully scripted, and bounded by the need to disclose negative and positive points of a drug or device. Additional Reasons for Dr. Smather's Concerns Dr. Smathers is bound by peer review, reputation and the conditions of her Hippocratic Oath. She may have been taken aback by our request for her to file an affidavit certifying that she is not "a crook" (a la Richard Nixon). This negative assertion would, in Dr. Smather's mind, be already covered by her oath and reinforced by the strictures of her profession. Additionally, Dr. Smathers' role with our company is on a part-time basis for relatively benign medical treatments. She may regard her service to our company as a public service, rather than a necessary major component of her compensation. Maintaining the services of a well-reputed physician is in the interests of our company. Recommendation We make the assumption that all our employees, consultants and suppliers operate in an ethical manner. All of us are susceptible to forms of bribery, theft or malfeasance. While we rely on the criminal justice system and personal morality to prevent such occurrences, these actions can happen from time to time. As managers, we agree that the incidence of such transgressions is low. In Dr. Smathers' case, she is additionally bound by oath, peer review and reputation which she would not want to besmirch by accepting untoward gifts from medical suppliers. Bibliography CDISD. "Clinical Data." CDISD. 2007. http://www.cdisc.org / (Accessed November 21, 2007). NEJM. "Understanding Financial Conflicts of Interest." New England Journal of Medicine, 1993: 573-576. Wolfe, S. "Testimony Before FDA Advisory Committee Concerning the Protocol for Biopure's Blood Substitute HBOC-201 (HRG Publication #1795)." Public Citizen. December 14, 2006. http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7492 (Accessed November 21, 2007). Wood, S. "NEJM bars Martin Leon from reviewing research or authoring reviews and editorials post-COURAGE embargo breach." The Heart, April 20, 2007: n.p. Medical Memo - Results of Requested Research on Medical Ethics Concerns Read the full article

[pshychiatrysummit]

International Conference on

Addiction Therapy

Join the International Conference on Addiction Therapy

The International Conference on Addiction Therapy is a pivotal event designed for professionals, researchers, and advocates in the field of addiction recovery and mental health. This global platform fosters discussions on innovative treatments, preventive measures, and comprehensive care for individuals battling addiction.

Key Highlights

This year’s Addiction Therapy Conference promises a diverse agenda that delves into the complexities of addiction and its impact on society. Whether you're interested in treatment approaches, prevention strategies, or public policy, this conference has something for everyone.

Featured Sessions and Topics

Addiction Conference: Gain insights into the latest advancements in addiction science and therapy.

Drug Addiction Conference: Explore evidence-based interventions for combating drug addiction and promoting recovery.

Substance Abuse Conferences: Examine the multifaceted impact of substance abuse and its treatment options.

Social Media Addiction Conference: Address the growing concern of social media addiction and its psychological consequences.

Forensic Psychology Conference: Learn how addiction intersects with criminal behavior and legal frameworks.

Collaborative Events

This conference includes interactive forums and discussions that encourage collaboration and shared learning:

Addiction Symposium: Engage in deep-dive sessions with experts on the latest addiction therapies and research.

Addiction Meeting: Connect with professionals to discuss innovative treatment modalities and emerging trends.

Addiction Therapy Congress: Explore cutting-edge approaches in addiction therapy, from behavioral interventions to pharmacological treatments.

A Focus on Recovery

The conference emphasizes recovery as a cornerstone of its agenda. The Recovery Summit provides a platform to share personal stories, best practices, and emerging tools for sustainable recovery.

Specialized Tracks

Substance Use Conference: Analyze patterns of substance use and strategies to combat dependency effectively.

International Addiction Conference: Gain global perspectives on addiction treatment and policy development.

Addiction Therapy Events: Participate in workshops and panels designed to translate theory into practice.

Why Attend?

The Addiction Therapy Conference is more than just an event—it’s a movement to advance the science of addiction therapy and recovery. Attendees will benefit from:

Networking opportunities with global experts and peers.

Hands-on learning through workshops and case studies.

Access to the latest research and treatment innovations.

Organized by Psychiatry Summit

Brought to you by Psychiatry Summit, a leader in mental health conferences, this event is meticulously curated to provide an impactful and enriching experience for attendees.

Upcoming Conferences:

Addiction conference Spain | Addiction symposium | Drug addiction conference | Addiction therapy congress Spain | Addiction Therapy Events | Recovery summit | Substance use conference | International addiction conference | Forensic psychology conference | Social media addiction conference |  Substance abuse conferences Spain | Addiction meeting | Addictive Disorders Congress | Drug Addiction conferences 2025 | Addiction Therapy Meetings | Social Media Addiction Summits | Addiction Rehabilitation Meetings | Addiction Recovery Symposium | Addiction Counselling Events | Pathophysiology Addiction Conferences | Substance Abuse Conferences 2025 |Psychosomatic Medicine colloquium | Addiction Therapy Seminars 2025 | Psychiatry Summit | Psychology Events 2025 | Psychiatry Symposiums | Psychology Conferences | Psychiatry Workshops 2025 Spain

Be a Part of the Solution

If you’re passionate about addressing addiction and promoting recovery, the International Conference on Addiction Therapy is the place to be. Join us to shape the future of addiction treatment and make a lasting impact on individuals and communities worldwide.

Register today and take the first step toward transforming lives!

[rasagnachintha]

International Conference on Bio-inspired Robotics

The field of robotics is undergoing a remarkable transformation, increasingly drawing inspiration from the natural world. The International Conference on Bio-inspired Robotics is at the forefront of this revolution, bringing together researchers, engineers, and industry experts to Bio-inspired Robotics Conference explore the latest advancements and applications in biorobotics. As we dive into this fascinating topic, let’s highlight the significance of biorobotics conferences and events that showcase how nature inspires innovative robotic designs.

Understanding Bio-inspired Robotics

Bio-inspired robotics is an interdisciplinary approach that applies principles and mechanisms observed in biological systems to the design and engineering of robotic devices. By studying the remarkable adaptations found in nature—from the swift movements of Biorobotics Conferences cheetahs to the flexible forms of octopuses—scientists and engineers can develop robots that are not only more efficient but also capable of performing complex tasks in unpredictable environments.

The Role of Biorobotics Conferences

Conferences play a crucial role in advancing the field of bio-inspired robotics. The Biorobotics Summit serves as an important platform for networking and collaboration, allowing attendees to share their latest research findings and technological innovations. These gatherings are essential for fostering interdisciplinary dialogue among Biorobotics Events professionals in biology, engineering, and computer science, all working towards common goals.

Key Themes and Discussions

At the International Conference on Bio-inspired Robotics, participants engage in a variety of discussions centered on several key themes:

Adaptive Robotics: The conference highlights innovative designs that enable robots to adapt to their environments much like animals do. This includes research on locomotion inspired by various species, showcasing how legged robots can traverse rough terrains by mimicking animal gaits.

Soft Robotics: A significant focus of the conference is on soft robotics, which takes cues from soft-bodied organisms such as jellyfish and worms. These robots can manipulate delicate objects and navigate confined spaces, offering exciting possibilities for applications in healthcare and disaster response.

Swarm Robotics: Drawing inspiration from social insects, swarm robotics explores how multiple robots can work together to complete tasks efficiently. Presentations at the conference will illustrate real-world applications, such as environmental monitoring and search-and-rescue operations.

Innovations Showcased at Biorobotics Events

The Biorobotics Events provide a platform to showcase groundbreaking innovations in the field. Notable projects discussed at the conference include:

Robotic Pollinators: As bee populations decline, researchers are developing bio-inspired robotic pollinators that can replicate the behavior of bees, assisting in crop pollination and supporting agricultural sustainability.

Marine Exploration Robots: Biorobotics has led to the creation of robots that emulate fish movements, allowing for Robotics congress effective exploration and data collection in underwater environments. These innovations enhance our understanding of marine ecosystems.

Rehabilitation Robots: Robots designed for rehabilitation purposes are being developed to assist patients in recovery by mimicking human motion. This approach not only improves therapeutic outcomes but also ensures a more natural interaction between humans and robots.

Contact Us:

+1 630 768 1199

support@stripeconferences.com

jenny.smith@stripeconferences.com

#Bio-inspired Robotics Conference

#Biorobotics Conferences

#Biorobotics Events

#Biorobotics Summit

#Robotics congress

[narcissistpsychopath-abuse]

Sam Vaknin, Member of the Scientific Committee of 2nd International Congress on Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, London, June 2025

Additional international conferences on mental health, neuroscience, brain studies, psychology, and psychiatry