#breakthrough innovation 2021

[black-arcana]

SPIRITBOX Reunites With MEGAN THEE STALLION For 'Tyg' Song

In an electrifying and unexpected new collaboration, Grammy-nominated heavy music trailblazers SPIRITBOX have joined forces once again with global hip-hop powerhouse Megan Thee Stallion for her latest project, "Megan: Act II". Produced by Bankroll Got It, Dan Braunstein, Mike Stringer (SPIRITBOX) and Shawn "Source" Jarrett, "TYG" showcases Megan's hard-hitting verses fused with SPIRITBOX's signature dynamic production and explosive riffs.

This marks the band's second team-up with the Houston icon, following the successful rock remix of Megan's hit single "Cobra", which made waves earlier this year. The collaboration was hailed as adding a "booming, reverb-drenched cascade of arena rock attitude" by Billboard, and "an extra layer of edge to the vulnerable track" by BET.

Joining Megan's highly anticipated project are other exciting features, including Flo Milli, RM of BTS and TWICE, further solidifying "Megan: Act II" as a groundbreaking moment in music. Fans of both SPIRITBOX and Megan can look forward to an unforgettable mix of heavy and hip-hop sounds on "TYG", which pushes boundaries and proves that the most unexpected partnerships can yield the most exhilarating results.

Most recently, SPIRITBOX released their newest single "Soft Spine", a standout track showcasing their evolving sound. The band is currently thrilling fans nationwide as part of KORN's 30th-anniversary tour, further cementing their reputation as one of metal's most dynamic and innovative forces.

For many artists, a meteoric rise can often mean a sudden plateau. However, for Grammy-nominated progressive heavy metal mainstays SPIRITBOX, there appears to be no end in sight on their near-constant ascent to the top. Formed in 2017 in the picturesque yet isolated region of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada by vocalist Courtney Laplante and guitarist Mike Stringer, SPIRITBOX would fully cement themselves as a household name in the summer of 2020 with the release of their blistering breakout single "Holy Roller", along with a host of other captivating singles shortly after, resulting in a media firestorm of hype.

With new and existing fans eagerly watching their next move, SPIRITBOX exceeded every expectation imaginable in 2021 with the release of their genre-defining debut studio album "Eternal Blue" via Pale Chord/Rise Records. "Eternal Blue", which debuted at #13 on the Billboard 200, kicked open the doors of the heavy metal scene and rewrote the genre's playbook with 12 stunning tracks that incorporated everything from djent and post-metal to infectious synth-laden pop sensibilities and cinematic arrangements, brought fully to life by the inimitable Laplante's ethereal and commanding vocal performances.

The album cycle for "Eternal Blue" saw SPIRITBOX not only grace the covers of esteemed music publications such as Revolver, Alternative Press, Rock Sound and Kerrang!, among many others but would also solidify the band as one of the most in-demand groups in live music today with their one-hundred percent sold out, first-ever headlining tour in support of the album which saw ticket sales over 40,000. The band would also share the stage with seasoned metal veterans such as LIMP BIZKIT and GHOST and win "Best International Breakthrough Band" at the 2021 Heavy Music Awards.

In 2022, SPIRITBOX secured highly-coveted spots at numerous major U.S. rock and metal festivals and were nominated for two JUNO Awards, respectively. SPIRITBOX would also round out their current lineup with the inclusion of drummer Zev Rose and bassist Josh Gilbert in addition to releasing their sonically experimental EP "Rotoscope" in June of that year as well as a cross-genre collaboration with dubstep artist Illenium for the track "Shivering".

During another whirlwind year for the band, including a U.S. tour with SHINEDOWN and PAPA ROACH, SPIRITBOX wrote and recorded their critically acclaimed EP, "The Fear Of Fear", released in November 2023. The EP features the single "Jaded", which was nominated for "Best Metal Performance" at the 66th annual Grammy Awards. In the same month, the band would make another genre-bending splash with a high-profile collaboration with rapper Megan Thee Stallion for a remix of her song "Cobra".

Photo credit: Jonathan Weiner

[outbrrk]

OUTBREAK (아웃브레이크) is a fictional boy group under VENOM RECORDS , consisting of seven members: DOHYUN, JINSIK, RHYSE, SEONJIN, CODY, KANGHYUN, and MAX. The group debuted on August 22, 2024, with their hard-hitting single “DISTRICT 9” and a self-titled album that quickly established them as a force to be reckoned with in the K-pop industry.

Formed in early 2020, Outbreak was conceived as Venom Revords’ answer to the growing demand for innovative and powerful boy groups. The label, known for its experimental and edgy approach to music, sought to create a group that would not only resonate with fans but also challenge the norms of the industry. Each member was handpicked for their unique talents and distinct personalities, forming a dynamic team capable of taking on any concept or challenge thrown their way.

Before their official debut, Outbreak gained attention through various pre-debut activities, including performance videos and reality show appearances that showcased their intense training and chemistry as a group. Their concept revolves around a dystopian world where they lead a rebellion against an oppressive system, symbolizing their determination to break free from constraints and spread their influence like a powerful outbreak. This theme is deeply embedded in their music, choreography, and visual storytelling.

Despite being a rookie group, Outbreak’s debut was nothing short of explosive. “DISTRICT 9,” a powerful anthem that blends aggressive beats with impactful lyrics, resonated with a broad audience, quickly earning them a solid fanbase known as “Virus” (비루스). The self-titled album featured a mix of hard-hitting tracks and introspective songs, highlighting the group’s versatility and ability to tackle a wide range of themes and emotions.

THE GROUP

GROUP NAME :: OUTBREAK (아웃브레이크)

RECORD LABEL :: VENOM RECORDS (베놈 레코드)

FANDOM NAME :: VIRUS (비루스)

OFFICIAL GREETING :: "BREAK THE CODE! HELLO, WE ARE OUTBREAK!"

NUMBER OF MEMBERS :: SEVEN

DEBUT DATE :: NOVEMBER 29TH 2020

DEBUT SONG :: DISTRICT 9

DEBUT ALBUM :: OUTBREAK

DOHYUN (96): Leader, Main Vocalist, Sub Rapper

JINSIK (97): Main Dancer, Sub Rapper, Sub Vocalist

RHYSE (97): Lead Vocalist, Lead Rapper

SEONJIN (98): Main Rapper, Sub Dancer

CODY (98): Main Vocalist, Center

KANGHYUN (98): Main Dancer, Lead Rapper, Sub Vocalist, Visual

MAX (99): Lead Vocalist, Lead Dancer, Rapper, Maknae

THE DISCOGRAPHY

OUTBREAK (2020)

OUTFUSE (2021)

OUTRUN (2021)

OUTFIGHT (2021)

BREAKFREE (2022)

BREAKTHROUGH (2022)

BREAKAGE (2023)

REBEL CODE (2023)

[mariacallous]

Threatened by values that are at the core of the NATO alliance and shared by Ukraine and many other countries around the world, the Kremlin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 with the intention to wipe the country off the map, crush freedom, and weaken democracy. In doing so, Russia receives significant support, including the provision of advanced technology, from its authoritarian friends, not least China, Iran, and North Korea. More than Ukraine’s survival, Europe’s security is at stake. As a global fight is being played out on the battlefield in Ukraine, innovative technologies are being rolled out at unprecedented speed.

For centuries, security in Western democratic societies has been tied to their ability to innovate. From the bow and arrow to battle tanks and from hand grenades to hypersonic missiles, new military inventions not only changed the way we fight and win wars. They also underpinned our ability to shape successful and resilient societies. Now, with a massive technological revolution underway, which has seen the rise of artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, and quantum technologies, it is not enough to just be able to innovate. We must remain at the forefront of innovation. By leading innovation, we can continue to shape our security environment. If we don’t, others will.

NATO nations, and the United States in particular, have long had technological primacy. But they are being challenged. China is not only rapidly developing technologies, but it is also connecting new technologies together, multiplying their potential disruptive impact on our societies, our economies, and our security. Semiconductors from China are a critical component of the phones and computers we use every day—but also of the high-end military systems and capabilities we rely on for our security. Russia’s war against Ukraine is shedding light on the incredible speed of innovation. Ukrainians are innovating fast but not fast enough. In just weeks, Russians managed to neutralize the innovative software that Ukrainians have been putting into drones.

To keep its 1 billion citizens safe, NATO must ensure it out-competes any strategic competitor and potential adversary. That is why we are doubling down on efforts to accelerate technological innovation in the field of security and defense. This is not something NATO does alone but together with the drivers of innovation in the private sector. Today, they produce 90 percent of the dual-use technologies used for our defense and security. The private sector is an indispensable partner.

When I took up my job as deputy secretary-general at NATO in 2019, Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg asked me to be NATO’s innovation champion. One of my first tasks was to help establish the NATO Innovation Board. As its chair, I prioritized innovation across the alliance, and as a result, NATO has significantly sped up its technological transformation. At the Brussels summit in 2021 and after, NATO leaders launched two breakthrough initiatives to tighten the links between NATO and the dual-use innovation ecosystem. One was the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic, which brings together innovators across the alliance to cooperate on critical technologies. The other was the NATO Innovation Fund, a 1 billion euro venture capital fund that provides strategic investments in start-ups developing technologies in areas that are critical to allied security. NATO has also already established a regular high-level dialogue with private sector leaders, including with companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Amazon Web Services. More recently, NATO stood up a Transatlantic Quantum Community to ensure a secure, resilient, and competitive quantum ecosystem and launched a commercial space platform (SPACENET) to further cooperation with commercial space industries. The alliance has come a long way. Yet the epochal moment we are confronted with requires even bigger and bolder adjustments.

NATO needs to innovate more and faster. Above all, we need to dare to innovate differently. This means rethinking the way we structure our partnerships with the private sector in the area of defense. NATO has worked for decades to achieve interoperability between national militaries. Now, it needs to achieve interoperability with the trans-Atlantic innovation ecosystem to future-proof our security.

In particular, NATO needs to adjust the mechanisms and procedures it has built and relied on for decades to develop and purchase defense capabilities. Defense plans, procurement cycles, and acquisition models are important and necessary to guardrail innovation and help minimize financial risk. But they are also lengthy, rigid, and complex. They can be a roadblock to innovation and a risk for our security. Our procurement timelines are set to the acquisition of large pieces of hardware that we hang on to for decades. New aircraft that NATO is acquiring now to replace the aging fleet of Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft will only be operational in 2031. In the information technology arena, where requirements are different and change very rapidly, more flexible procedures are essential to ensure allied and partner nations get what they need when they need it—and not five or 10 years down the line.

At the same time, as we rethink our partnership with the private sector to accelerate innovation, we must stay aligned with our values. Technological innovation, especially in the field of defense, can be used to curb freedom and control and manipulate people. This is what our competitors do. Moscow and Beijing do not face up to the important ethical dimensions in their race to develop and deploy technologies. But NATO does. It has already integrated so-called principles of responsible use in all its strategies on emerging and disruptive technologies, including AI, autonomy, biotechnologies and human enhancements, space, and quantum. These principles ensure that the use of these new technologies complies with international law and respects our democratic values. Rather than stifling innovation, they enable it by creating a predictable, trustworthy, and responsible environment in which everyone—innovators, adopters, end users, and our publics—feels confident using these technologies and cooperating with one another.

Looking ahead to the next NATO summit in The Hague in June 2025, NATO will pursue its work to foster the development of the long-term revolutionary innovation required to maintain the alliance’s technological edge. A new Rapid Adoption Strategy, to be delivered at the summit next year, will provide recommendations to enable allies to streamline acquisition and procurement processes while at the same time respecting the fundamental principles of fairness, transparency, integrity, openness, competition, and accountability underlying acquisition and procurement in the defense and security environment. With work underway on this new strategy, the alliance is seeking to include small and medium enterprises developing battle decisive technology in the NATO procurement mechanisms. The immediate needs arising from the battlefield in Ukraine are lessons NATO is taking on board as it prepares for the future.

Last week, I concluded my tenure as NATO’s deputy secretary-general and ended my duties as NATO’s innovation champion. Looking back, I am impressed by how profoundly NATO has been adapting to technological advances in a fast-changing world. As threats have evolved and multiplied—on land, sea, and air and in space and cyberspace—so has NATO’s response, in both the physical and the digital world. I leave an alliance that is driving faster toward new, different, and responsible ways of innovating. Looking ahead, I am confident this will keep NATO competitive, our values safe, and the trans-Atlantic area more secure—now and for generations to come.

[unpluggedfinancial]

Bitcoin Going Parabolic: A Closer Look at the Factors Driving the Surge

Bitcoin has been a subject of fascination and debate for over a decade. Recently, the buzz around its potential parabolic rise has reached new heights. With multiple presidential nominees proposing to make Bitcoin a strategic reserve asset and groundbreaking legislative efforts, the cryptocurrency is poised for a significant breakthrough. In this blog post, we will explore the factors contributing to Bitcoin's potential meteoric rise and what this could mean for the future of finance.

Current Market Overview

The Bitcoin market has seen remarkable stability and growth over the past year. Despite global economic uncertainties, Bitcoin's price has maintained an upward trajectory, driven by increased adoption and growing institutional interest. The market's resilience has only strengthened the belief that Bitcoin is here to stay.

Factors Driving Bitcoin's Potential Parabolic Rise

Institutional Adoption Institutional investment in Bitcoin has been one of the most significant drivers of its price surge. Companies like MicroStrategy, Tesla, and Square have made substantial Bitcoin purchases, demonstrating their confidence in its long-term value. Recently, MicroStrategy announced plans to raise $2 billion to buy more Bitcoin, adding to its already significant holdings of 226,500 BTC. This move exemplifies the growing trend of institutions recognizing Bitcoin as a hedge against inflation and economic instability.

Regulatory Developments Positive regulatory changes are also contributing to Bitcoin's upward momentum. Notably, several presidential nominees in the upcoming election have expressed their support for Bitcoin, proposing to make it a strategic reserve asset for the United States. Additionally, Senator Cynthia Lummis has introduced a groundbreaking bill to establish a U.S. Bitcoin reserve. This legislation aims to treat Bitcoin like gold or oil, strengthening the country's economy and positioning Bitcoin as a permanent national asset. Such initiatives could legitimize Bitcoin on a national level, potentially triggering a wave of similar actions from other countries.

Monetary Policy Shifts The Federal Reserve is expected to cut interest rates in September, a move that historically leads to Bitcoin price pumps. Lower interest rates often result in increased liquidity in the financial system, driving investors to seek alternative stores of value like Bitcoin. Moreover, the global M2 money supply is skyrocketing, indicating a significant increase in the amount of money in circulation. This surge in money supply can lead to inflation, further underscoring the appeal of Bitcoin as a deflationary asset.

Technological Advancements Bitcoin's underlying technology continues to evolve, enhancing its security, efficiency, and scalability. Innovations such as the Lightning Network and Taproot upgrade are making Bitcoin transactions faster and more cost-effective, further cementing its position as a superior financial instrument.

Historical Parabolic Trends in Bitcoin

Bitcoin's history is marked by several parabolic rises, each driven by different factors but sharing common themes of increased adoption and market maturation. The 2017 bull run, fueled by retail investor interest, and the 2020-2021 surge, driven by institutional adoption, provide valuable insights into the current trend. Studying these patterns helps us understand the potential trajectory of Bitcoin's price movement.

Expert Predictions and Analysis

Experts in the field of cryptocurrency are making bold predictions about Bitcoin's future. Influential figures like Michael Saylor, CEO of MicroStrategy, and Cathie Wood, CEO of ARK Invest, have forecasted Bitcoin reaching new all-time highs. Their analyses are based on Bitcoin's scarcity, growing adoption, and its role as digital gold.

Potential Challenges and Risks

While the outlook for Bitcoin is promising, it is essential to acknowledge the potential challenges and risks. Regulatory hurdles, market volatility, and technological vulnerabilities could impact Bitcoin's growth. Investors must remain vigilant and informed to navigate these challenges effectively.

Conclusion

Bitcoin's potential to go parabolic is underpinned by strong institutional support, favorable regulatory developments, and continuous technological advancements. As multiple presidential nominees propose to make Bitcoin a strategic reserve asset and Senator Lummis's groundbreaking bill aims to establish a U.S. Bitcoin reserve, the stage is set for a significant transformation in the financial landscape. With MicroStrategy's aggressive strategy to raise $2 billion for more Bitcoin purchases and the expected interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve, the momentum is undeniable. Additionally, the skyrocketing global M2 money supply highlights the growing need for a deflationary asset like Bitcoin. Whether you're an investor, a crypto enthusiast, or a curious observer, staying informed about these developments is crucial as we witness the evolution of Bitcoin.

Take Action Towards Financial Independence

If this article has sparked your interest in the transformative potential of Bitcoin, there's so much more to explore! Dive deeper into the world of financial independence and revolutionize your understanding of money by following my blog and subscribing to my YouTube channel.

🌐 Blog: Unplugged Financial Blog Stay updated with insightful articles, detailed analyses, and practical advice on navigating the evolving financial landscape. Learn about the history of money, the flaws in our current financial systems, and how Bitcoin can offer a path to a more secure and independent financial future.

📺 YouTube Channel: Unplugged Financial Subscribe to our YouTube channel for engaging video content that breaks down complex financial topics into easy-to-understand segments. From in-depth discussions on monetary policies to the latest trends in cryptocurrency, our videos will equip you with the knowledge you need to make informed financial decisions.

👍 Like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell to stay updated with our latest content. Whether you're a seasoned investor, a curious newcomer, or someone concerned about the future of your financial health, our community is here to support you on your journey to financial independence.

[thoughtportal]

For patients battling diabetes, a group of Chinese scientists and clinicians may offer a glimmer of hope. For the first time in the world, a patient’s diabetes has reportedly been cured using cell therapy.

The patient, a 59-year-old man who had been living with type 2 diabetes for 25 years, was at serious risk of complications from the disease. He had a kidney transplant in 2017, but had lost most of his pancreatic islet function which controls blood glucose levels, and relied on multiple insulin injections every day.

“He was at great risk of serious diabetes complications,” Yin Hao, a leading researcher at Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, told Shanghai-based news outlet The Paper earlier this month.

The patient received the innovative cell transplant in July 2021. Eleven weeks after the transplant, he was free of the need for external insulin, and the dose of oral medication to control blood sugar levels was gradually reduced and completely stopped one year later.

“Follow-up examinations showed that the patient’s pancreatic islet function was effectively restored,” Yin said. The patient has now been completely weaned off insulin for 33 months.

The medical breakthrough, achieved by a team of doctors and researchers from institutions including Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, the Centre for Excellence in Molecular Cell Science under the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Renji Hospital, all based in Shanghai, was published in the journal Cell Discovery on April 30.

“I think this study represents an important advance in the field of cell therapy for diabetes,” said Timothy Kieffer, a professor in the department of cellular and physiological sciences at the University of British Columbia in Canada.

Diabetes is a chronic condition that affects the way our bodies convert food into energy.

What we consume is broken down into glucose – a simple sugar – and released into the bloodstream. Insulin, produced by the islets of the pancreas, is essential for regulating blood sugar levels.

In diabetes, this system is hijacked: either the body does not produce enough insulin, or it cannot use the insulin it produces effectively.

There are several types of diabetes, of which type 2 is the most common, affecting almost 90 per cent of sufferers. It is largely diet-related and develops over time.

Regardless of the type of diabetes, failure to maintain normal blood glucose levels over time can lead to serious side effects, including heart disease, vision loss and kidney disease.

According to the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, “there isn’t a cure yet for diabetes”.

Along with losing weight, eating well and taking medication, insulin is the mainstay of treatment for some, but this requires frequent injections and monitoring.

Scientists around the world are researching islet transplant as a promising alternative, mainly by creating islet-like cells from human stem cell cultures. Now, after more than a decade of work, the group of Chinese scientists has come a step closer.

The team used and programmed the patient’s own peripheral blood mononuclear cells, Yin said, which were then transformed into “seed cells” and reconstituted pancreatic islet tissue in an artificial environment.

While preclinical data from Kieffer’s team supports the use of stem cell-derived islets for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the report by Yin and colleagues is, to Kieffer’s knowledge, “the first evidence in humans”.

Yin said the breakthrough was another step forward in the relatively new field of regenerative medicine – where the body’s own regenerative capabilities are harnessed to treat illness.

“Our technology has matured and it has pushed boundaries in the field of regenerative medicine for the treatment of diabetes.”

Globally, China has the highest number of people with diabetes. According to the International Diabetes Federation, there are 140 million people with diabetes in the country. Of those, about 40 million depend on lifelong insulin injections.

China’s diabetic population is disproportionately high, according to Huang Yanzhong, a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations.

In an article last year, he pointed out that while China accounted for 17.7 per cent of the world’s population, the country’s diabetic population made up a staggering quarter of the global total, placing a huge health burden on the government.

If this approach for cell therapy ultimately works, Kieffer said, “it can free patients from the burden of chronic medications, improve health and quality of life, and reduce healthcare expenditures”.

But to get there, he added, studies in more patients based on the findings of this Chinese study were needed.

[jcmarchi]

Susan Solomon wins VinFuture Award for Female Innovators

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/susan-solomon-wins-vinfuture-award-for-female-innovators/

Susan Solomon wins VinFuture Award for Female Innovators

Lee and Geraldine Martin Professor of Environmental Studies Susan Solomon has been awarded the 2023 VinFuture Award for Female Innovators. Solomon was picked out of almost 1,400 international nominations across four categories for “The discovery of the ozone depletion mechanism in Antarctica, contributing to the establishment of the Montreal Protocol.” The award, which comes with a $500,000 prize, highlights outstanding female researchers and innovators that can serve as role models for aspiring scientists.

“I’m tremendously humbled by that, and I’ll do my best to live up to it,” says Solomon, who attended the ceremony in Hanoi, Vietnam, on Dec. 20.

The VinFuture Awards are given annually to “honor scientific research and breakthrough technological innovations that can make a significant difference” according to their site. In addition to Female Innovators, the award has two other special categories, Innovators from Developing Countries and Innovators with Outstanding Achievements in Emerging Fields, as well as their overall grand prize. The awards have been given out by the Vietnam-based VinFuture Foundation since 2021.

“Countries all around the world are part of scientific progress and innovation, and that a developing country is honoring that is really very lovely,” says Solomon, whose career as an atmospheric chemist has brought her onto the international stage and has shown her firsthand how important developing countries are in crafting global policy.

In 1986 Solomon led an expedition of 16 scientists to Antarctica to measure the degradation of the ozone layer; she was the only woman on the team. She and her collaborators were able to figure out the atmospheric chemistry of chlorofluorocarbons and other similar chemicals that are now known as ozone-depleting substances. This work became foundational to the creation of the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement that banned damaging chemicals and has allowed the ozone to recover.

Solomon joined the MIT faculty in 2012 and holds joint appointments in the departments of Chemistry and Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. The success of the Montreal Protocol demonstrates the ability for international cooperation to enact effective environmental agreements; Solomon sees it as a blueprint for crafting further policy when it comes to addressing global climate change.

“Women can do anything, even help save the ozone layer and solve other environmental problems,” she says. “Today’s problem of climate change is for all of us to be involved in solving.”

[eudella]

What is STEM?

An educational program developed to prepare primary and secondary students for college, graduate study and careers in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, these four fields share an emphasis on innovation, problem-solving, and critical thinking and together they make up a popular and fast-growing industry. This designed to nurture senior high school students’ curiosity, problem solving abilities, and communication skills.

The STEM Strand's objectives are that the individual has increased their creativity and ingenuity, which is critical for producing new ideas and breakthroughs. Be more willing to try new things and take risks. Apply their classroom information effectively in real-life settings, particularly in subsequent courses. Students have the core skills needed to flourish in their chosen courses and qualify for careers in the STEM.

The benefits of STEM strand promotes teamwork among students, allowing them to solve problems, record data, write reports, present presentations, and prepare them for STEM strand jobs by allowing students to experiment and naturally experience failures as part of the learning process. The program teaches students the importance of technology in the digital world and promotes adaptation in the face of unforeseen problems.

Possible Jobs in the STEM Strand

Our senior high school students excel in STEM strand jobs, showcasing their skills and knowledge, and have numerous opportunities for employment and higher education, leading to fulfilling and successful careers in following jobs in the STEM strand:

Pilot

Architect

Astrophysicist

Biologist

Chemist

Industrial Engineer

Chemical Engineer

Dentist

Nutritionist

Doctor

Nursing

Marine Engineer

References;

text;

https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/what-is-stem/#:~:text=STEM%20is%20an%20acronym%20for,day%2Dto%2Dday%20jobs.

https://www.onlineshs.com/stem/#:~:text=The%20STEM%20strand%20is%20designed,with%20new%20ideas%20and%20innovations

https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/STEM-science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics#:~:text=STEM%20is%20an%20educational%20program,engineering%20and%20mathematics%20(STEM).

image:

https://sciencedemoguy.com/stem/

https://poetsandquants.com/2021/02/15/study-30-of-non-stem-mba-programs-considering-the-move/

[houseofbrat]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11741011/Prince-William-directs-Duchy-Cornwall-focus-mental-health-climate-change.html

This will go down well 🤦. Someone tell Willy there's no need to improve things that are already doing great.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11741011/Prince-William-directs-Duchy-Cornwall-focus-mental-health-climate-change.html

For decades, its fields, farms and towns were shaped by the ideals of King Charles – but now the Duchy of Cornwall is undergoing radical change as Prince William takes charge, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

Its new priorities are mental health – particularly that of Duchy tenants and staff – and battling climate change.

The Duchy will also no longer be driven by Charles’s architectural crusade, and its former opaque style will be replaced by greater transparency.

On Thursday, William and Kate made their first official visit to the county since becoming Duke and Duchess of Cornwall last year.

The new order for the Duchy links it to the environmental Earthshot Prize and Heads Together mental health charity, both championed by the couple.

Sources say William recognises his father’s passion for ‘forward-thinking, sustainable, innovative communities’.

But he wants to focus on energy-efficient housing projects rather than traditionally-designed ones.

The first meeting of the ruling body of the Duchy, the Prince’s Council, since William became Duke of Cornwall took place at the end of last year, with the King also present.

There was also a reception at St James’s Palace, which a source described as a ‘handing over of the baton’, adding: ‘It was almost a celebration of everything the King has done for the Duchy.

'But William is looking at how we raise that bar – encourage tenants to think differently and raise their game on sustainability, drive improvement around the land that’s managed and use Earthshot ideas to achieve all this. The Prince wants to move the needle on climate change.’

The source said William wants officials to play a key role in mental health, adding: ‘How can they promote good mental health across the Duchy, for tenants, employees and the communities that are cared for.’

Earthshot gives five £1 million annual prizes for ‘breakthrough solutions’ to protect nature, clean the air, revive oceans, fight climate change and ‘build a waste-free world’.

In 2021, the 130,000-acre estate made £23 million for Charles’s public, private and charitable work as Duke of Cornwall.

It has 21 tenant farms across the country, with half its land on Dartmoor. One farmer said William’s plans would be ‘generally welcomed’.

Charles has always championed local & sustainable agriculture, so that’s nothing new. 

The mental health angle seems really weird. As in, who wants their landlord or their boss involved in their mental health? It’s almost a cult-like devotion to the mental health topic/campaign. 

[wavecorewave]

If we are trying to frame more interesting questions to ask of history, this might be one: is there a positive correlation between what is usually called ‘gender equality’ (which might better be termed, simply, ‘women’s freedom’) and the degree of innovation in a given society? Choosing to describe history the other way round, as a series of abrupt technological revolutions, each followed by long periods when we were prisoners of our own creations, has consequences. Ultimately it is a way of representing our species as decidedly less thoughtful, less creative, less free than we actually turn out to have been. It means not describing history as a continual series of new ideas and innovations, technical or otherwise, during which different communities made collective decisions about which technologies they saw fit to apply to everyday purposes, and which to keep confined to the domain of experimentation or ritual play. What is true of technological creativity is, of course, even more true of social creativity. One of the most striking patterns we discovered while researching this book – indeed, one of the patterns that felt most like a genuine breakthrough to us – was how, time and again in human history, that zone of ritual play has also acted as a site of social experimentation – even, in some ways, as an encyclopaedia of social possibilities.

From The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity (2021), by anthropologist David Graeber and archaeologist David Wengrow

[llpodcast]

(Literary License Podcast)

M (1931)

​

M is a 1931 German thriller film directed by Fritz Lang and starring Peter Lorre in his breakthrough role as Hans Beckert, a serial killer of children. An early example of a procedural drama, the film centers on the manhunt for Lorre's character, conducted by both the police and the criminal underworld. The film's screenplay was written by Lang and his wife Thea von Harbou and was the director's first sound film. It features many cinematic innovations, including the use of long, fluid tracking shots, and a musical leitmotif in the form of "In the Hall of the Mountain King" whistled by Lorre's character. Now considered a timeless classic, the film was deemed by Lang to be his magnum opus. It is widely considered one of the greatest films of all time, and an indispensable influence on modern crime and thriller fiction.

​

Badlands (1973)

​

Badlands is a 1973 American neo-noir period crime drama film written, produced and directed by Terrence Malick, in his directorial debut. The film stars Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek, and follows Holly Sargis (Spacek), a 15-year old who goes on a killing spree with her lover, Kit Carruther (Sheen); the film also stars Warren Oates and Ramon Bieri. While the story is fictional, it is loosely based on the real-life murder spree of Charles Starkweather and his girlfriend, Caril Ann Fugate, in 1958.  Badlands was released in 1973 to positive reviews from critics, who particularly praised its cinematography, soundtrack—which includes pieces by Carl Orff—and the lead performances. At the 49th British Academy Film Awards, Spacek was nominated for the Most Promising Newcomer to Leading Film Roles award; at the San Sebastián International Film Festival, Sheen won the Best Actor award. Badlands is often cited by film critics as one of the greatest and most influential films of all time

 Opening Credits; Introduction (1.05); Background History (21.48); M (1931) Film Trailer (23.11); The Original (25.06); Let's Rate (1:16.10); Introducing the Double Feature (1:18.39); Badlands (1973) Film Trailer (1:20.07); The Attraction (1:23.11); How Many Stars (2:25.39); Amazing Designs Advertisement (2:29.32); End Credits (2:30.44); Closing Credits (2:31.45)

 Opening Credits– Epidemic Sound – copyright 2021. All rights reserved

 Closing Credits:  Amor De Los Muertos by LVCRFT featuring La Llorona & Devil Dahlia.  Taken from the album Dia De Los Muertos  

​

Original Music copyrighted 2020 Dan Hughes Music and the Literary License Podcast. 

 All rights reserved.  Used by Kind Permission.

 All songs available through Amazon Music.

[impactfulpitch]

Trends in Start-up Ecosystem: 7 Industries Will Be Ruling 2023

The startup ecosystem is not an exception to the rule that anything can happen, as the world has discovered over the past two years. Whether you're an entrepreneur or an investor, the year 2023 is full of opportunities as the world prepares for a world without pandemics.

However, not all possibilities are equally worthwhile; certain trends forecast rapid expansion and higher profits. We are aware of the difficulties and obstacles that many startup teams encounter, and we continually keep an eye out for the latest developments in technology, innovation, and venture capital funding.

The top seven startup trends that, in our opinion, will shape and upend the business landscape in 2023 and beyond are listed below.

Trend #1: Artificial Intelligence

It should come as no surprise that artificial intelligence (AI) will be a popular technology for entrepreneurs and investors in 2023. AI has emerged as a crucial tool for a wide range of businesses. AI was originally only a concept, but in recent years, it has grown significantly, from automated chatbots to self-driving automobiles. 

However, AI also has disadvantages, including a lack of clear ethics, insufficient security, and data privacy issues. On the other hand, AI has some flaws which provide a plethora of opportunities for entrepreneurs in 2023. 

Trend #2: Climate Tech & GreenTech

Opportunities exist for entrepreneurs working in climate tech and GreenTech in 2023 and beyond as the threat posed by climate change increases. Early in the pandemic, global energy emissions actually decreased, and 45% more renewable energy was produced in 2020—both excellent signs that this industry is poised for future expansion. Biofuels and liquid hydrogen are two microtrends inside the overall climate tech trend to keep an eye on.

Investors are eager to support GreenTech companies and SMEs as the cost of renewable energy continues to decline and demand rises. Additionally, as national governments make increasingly ambitious climate commitments, they are avidly searching for breakthroughs and technologies that will enable them to fulfill these promises.

Trend #3: BioTech & Life Sciences

COVID-19 has shown that there is still more progress to be made in the biological sciences, medicine, and biotechnology. This pattern won't change in 2023.

Synthetic biology, genomics, nanobiotech, tissue engineering/regeneration, and the use of AI in medicine are important trends and technologies to watch in 2023 as investors and entrepreneurs.

The biotech industry, which is now estimated to be worth close to USD 300 billion, is expected to grow at a CAGR of 15.83% between 2021 and 2028. Startup owners that take advantage of these chances have the potential to not only significantly expand their company but also have an effect on the direction of biology and human health in the future.

Trend #4: Blockchain Technology

Blockchain technology has been developing for more than a decade, much like artificial intelligence, but 2023 may be the year it truly takes off. Decentralized finance (Defi) and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which each utilize their own blockchains, saw a rise in 2022. A further layer of safe authentication and financial transactionality that circumvents current banks and governments is promised by the blockchain-powered Web3 concept.

In 2023, as more businesses, governments, and people begin to use blockchain technology, companies that provide distinctive blockchain-driven solutions will be in a prime position to benefit.

Trend #5: Cybersecurity

As hackers become more advanced across all industries, everyone from startups to corporations has to secure their data, thus expect cybersecurity to rule market trends this year. Cyber scoring, which functions like a credit score for cybersecurity, will be widely used in business by 2023. 

Traditional cybersecurity perimeters are obsolete since more people worldwide are working from home. Instead, to connect security solutions across devices and places, IT administrators will use a cybersecurity "mesh architecture" (CSMA).

Trend #6: AR & VR

In the coming years, it is predicted that augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) would grow at a 35% annual rate, with the potential to increase the global GDP to 1.5 trillion USD by 2030. In 2023, it is expected that headset sales alone would total 9.7 billion USD. 

Because it can offer ratings and recommendations to customers while they explore brick-and-mortar stores, augmented reality is now gaining popularity with retail entrepreneurs. Many industries will be impacted by AR and VR in 2023, but healthcare will undoubtedly be the most significant.

Trend #7: Distributed Enterprises

The COVID-19 epidemic brought remote work to the commercial sector on an unimaginable level. Distributed enterprises—companies that employ remote and hybrid workers globally without expecting a centralized geography—will continue the work-from-anywhere trend in 2022. These distributed organizations must not only reinvent the nature of work in the future but also provide a smooth and secure working environment for all of their workers. 

Today's startups have been using remote work from the start. However, possibilities abound for creative product and service offerings as well as investment for major businesses and governments that are currently going through the transformation.

75% of dispersed enterprise organizations will outperform their rivals in terms of revenue growth by 2023. In 2022, this tendency will seem like a logical progression of the strategy used by remote-only enterprises.

Conclusion

These seven startup trends are sure bets for success in 2022, whether you're introducing a new product, increasing the scope of your service offerings, or searching for a new funding opportunity.

Entrepreneurs, startup teams, and investors that take advantage of these chances will see their companies grow and thrive in the years to come, regardless of what else may occur in the upcoming year.

[mariacallous]

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces the nation’s antitrust and consumer protection laws. We focus primarily on domestic markets and the U.S. economy. Through this work, we get a ground-level view of how markets are structured in America—and of how the extent of competition or consolidation drives outcomes that affect us all.

Like many across government, the FTC is watching closely as the release of sophisticated AI tools creates both opportunities and risks. Our work is already tackling the day-to-day harms these tools can turbocharge, from voice-cloning scams to commercial surveillance.

But beyond these immediate challenges, we face a more fundamental question of power and governance. Will this be a moment of opening up markets to free and fair competition, unleashing the full potential of emerging technologies? Or will a handful of dominant firms concentrate control over key tools, locking us into a future of their choosing?

The stakes of how we answer this question are enormously high. Technological breakthroughs can disrupt markets, spur economic growth, and change the nature of war and geopolitics. Whether we opt for a national policy of consolidation or of competition will have huge consequences for decades to come.

As in prior moments of contestation, we are starting to hear the argument that America must protect its domestic monopolies to ensure we stay ahead on the global stage. Rather than double down on promoting free and fair competition, this “national champions” argument holds that coddling our dominant firms is the path to maintaining global dominance.

We should be extraordinarily skeptical of this argument and instead recognize that monopoly power in America today is a major threat to America’s national interests and global leadership. History and experience show that lumbering monopolies mired in red tape and bureaucratic inertia cannot deliver the breakthrough technological advancements that hungry start-ups tend to create. It is precisely these breakthroughs that have allowed America to harness cutting-edge technologies and have made our economy the envy of the world. To stay ahead globally, we don’t need to protect our monopolies from innovation—we need to protect innovation from our monopolies. And one of the clearest illustrations of how consolidation threatens our national interests is the risk monopolization poses to our common defense.

In 2021, an errant spark in an explosives factory in Louisiana destroyed the only plant in the United States that makes black powder, a highly combustible product that is used to make mortar shells, artillery rounds, and Tomahawk missiles. There is no substitute for black powder, and it has hundreds of military applications. So when that factory blew up, and we didn’t have any backup plants, it destroyed the only black powder production in all of North America. There’s a simple lesson here: Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

This is but one of many examples of how consolidation threatens our national interests. We know that monopolies and consolidated markets can result in higher prices and lower output. But monopolies also foster systemic vulnerabilities, since concentrating production also concentrates risk. Someone could probably argue it was more efficient to put all black powder production in one plant in Louisiana. And maybe it was—until it wasn’t.

Defense officials now identify the problem of monopoly in our country as a strategic weakness. The Pentagon has been warning about vulnerabilities in our national security supply chain for years. One top official recently noted that our increased reliance on a small number of contractors for critical capabilities impacts our ability to ramp up production.

One early victory in my tenure as FTC chair was blocking the proposed merger between Lockheed and Aerojet. Aerojet is the last independent U.S. supplier of key missile inputs, and our investigation showed that the deal would have allowed Lockheed to cut off rivals’ access to this key input and jack up the price that our government, and ultimately the public, has to pay. It was the first time in decades that our government sued to halt consolidation in the defense industrial base.

It’s not just our defense industrial base where we have a problem. The pandemic exposed fragilities across our supply chains, with shortages in everything from semiconductors to personal protective equipment. And it’s not just a once-in-a-century pandemic. Even more routine disruptions like plant contaminations or hurricanes have revealed how, in a concentrated system, a single shock can have cascading effects, yielding shortages in products ranging from baby formula to IV bags.

Consolidation causes problems beyond supply chains. For years, successive administrations have sought to strengthen our cybersecurity defenses against a catastrophic attack. A few weeks ago, one of the main medical benefit claims networks in America, Change Healthcare, was taken down for weeks due to a cyberattack, depriving hospitals and medical providers of the ability to bill for their services—and wreaking havoc across our health care system. That network is owned by UnitedHealth Group, which was allowed to buy Change despite a Department of Justice lawsuit seeking to block the deal. Quite simply, we have a resiliency problem in America. Consolidation and monopolization have left us more vulnerable and less resilient in the face of shocks.

But what about AI and the innovation economy? Black powder and baby formula shortages are one thing, but the corporations that run big data centers and large language models are highly technical operations, with tens of billions of dollars of capital to deploy, trillions in market capitalization, and some of the most highly skilled professionals.

Again, we should be guided by history. In the 1970s, Walter Wriston, the CEO of Citibank and a key leader on Wall Street, asked why antitrust enforcers were filing suits against high-tech American darlings like IBM and AT&T: “What is the public good of knocking IBM off?” he said. “The conclusion to all this nonsense is that people cry, ‘Let’s break up the Yankees—because they are so successful.’” By contrast, Europe and Japan were protecting their national champions to win in the international arena.

We chose to promote competition, and that choice to bring antitrust lawsuits against IBM and AT&T ended up fostering waves of innovation—including the personal computer, the telecommunications revolution, and the logic chip. The national champions protected by Japan and Europe, meanwhile, fell behind and are long forgotten. In the United States, we bet on competition, and that made all the difference.

Imagine a different world, where today’s giants never had a chance to get their start and innovate, because policymakers decided that it was more important to protect IBM and AT&T from competition and allowed them to maintain their monopolies. Even when monopolies do innovate, they will often prioritize protecting their existing market position. Famously, an engineer at Kodak invented the first portable digital camera in the ’70s—but Kodak didn’t rush it to market in part because it didn’t want to cannibalize its existing sales. More generally, significant research shows that while monopolies may help deliver marginal innovations, breakthrough and paradigm-shifting innovations have historically come from disruptive outsiders. It is our commitment to free and fair competition that has allowed America to harness the talents of its citizens, reap breakthrough innovations, and lead as an economic powerhouse. But what about those times when we have accepted the national champions argument? One prominent example serves as a cautionary tale.

In the 1990s, a White House advisor noted that there was one very high-tech firm that was “de facto national champion,” so important that “you can be an out-and-out advocate for it” in government. And we did support it, provide it with government contracts, and allow it to consolidate the industry. That national champion was Boeing, whose trajectory illustrates why this strategy can be catastrophic.

In 1997, Boeing became the only commercial aerospace maker in the United States. It came to enjoy this status after buying up McDonnell Douglas, the only other domestic producer of commercial airplanes—a merger reviewed by the FTC. Boeing is the clearest example of a purposeful decision to bet on national champions on behalf of American interests. Policymakers wanted a national champion, and they got it.

Three things happened after Boeing eliminated its domestic competition. First, according to commenters such as United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby, the merger allowed Boeing to slow innovation and to reduce product quality. Boeing’s R&D budget is consistently lower than that of its only rival, Airbus. Worse quality is one of the harms that most economists expect from monopolization, because firms that face little competition have limited incentive to improve their products.

Second, reporting suggests that Boeing executives began to view their knowledgeable workforce as a cost, not an asset, with tragic outcomes. As one consultant put it in 2000, “Boeing has always been less a business than an association of engineers devoted to building amazing flying machines.” This corporation’s engineers designed the B-52 in a single weekend. But the new post-merger Boeing decimated its workforce, offshored production, and demanded wage concessions.

Third is the risk that Boeing effectively became too big to fail and a point of leverage for countries seeking to influence U.S. policymaking.

Relying on a national champion creates supply chain weaknesses and taxpayer liabilities, but it also creates geopolitical vulnerabilities that can be exploited both by global partners and rivals. As it was buying McDonnell Douglas, Boeing held a board meeting in Beijing and lobbied Congress to end the annual review of China’s trading rights so that it could sell more planes. The Chinese government would order Boeing planes contingent upon certain U.S. policies, like whether the U.S. held off on sending warships into the Strait of Taiwan, or whether the U.S. lifted bans on the export of certain technologies.

National champions are still corporations first. They have earnings calls, shareholders, and quarterly profit targets. When policymakers in Washington decide to back a single monopoly, their objectives are but one concern among many for that corporation’s senior executives. As then-Exxon CEO Lee Raymond said, “I’m not a U.S. company and I don’t make decisions based on what’s good for the U.S.”

These days, the national champions argument often gets made in the context of our dominant tech firms. We often hear that pursuing antitrust cases against or regulating these firms will weaken American innovation and cede the global stage to China. These conversations often assume a Cold War-like arms race, with each country’s firms in a zero-sum quest for dominance.

The reality today is that some of these same tech firms are fairly integrated in China and are seeking greater access to the Chinese market. While there is nothing intrinsically improper about these ties, we should be clear-eyed about how they shape business incentives. Various incidents in recent years have highlighted how when U.S. corporations are economically dependent on China, it can spur them to act in ways that are contrary to our national interests.

Even if America’s dominant firms are not prioritizing America’s national interests, what should we make of the idea that they can keep America in the lead, if only they are left alone? This, too, is an argument we should treat with great skepticism.

We need to choose competition over national champions, and there are steps we are taking to put that into practice.

In 2021, the FTC sued to block Nvidia’s $40 billion acquisition of Arm, what would have been the largest semiconductor chip merger in history. Our investigation found that the merger would’ve allowed a major chip provider to control key computing technologies that rival firms depend on to develop their own competing chips. Our lawsuit alleged the deal would have risked stifling the innovation pipeline for next-generation technologies, affecting everything from data centers to self-driving cars. Two years on, Nvidia has continued to provide innovative products at a lower cost than we estimated they would have charged businesses after completing the acquisition of Arm. Arm itself is thriving, with its stock price doubling since it went public last year.

This is but the latest example of antitrust laws in action. The FTC was created in part to protect the innovative boons of open markets by ensuring that market outcomes—who wins and who loses—are determined by fair competition rather than by private gatekeepers. Protecting open and competitive markets means that the best ideas win. It means that businesses get ahead by competing on the merits of their skill, not by exploiting special privileges or bowing down to incumbent monopolists.

One final argument against protecting monopolies over competition is that it can leave our democracy more brittle.

Over the last couple of years, I’ve had the chance to hear from thousands of people across America—from nurses, farmers, and grocery store workers to tech founders, hotel franchisees, and writers in Hollywood. A recurring theme across their stories is a sense of fear, anxiety, and powerlessness. People from strikingly different walks of life have shared accounts of how markets monopolized by dominant middlemen enable coercive tactics—of how they feel their ability to make a decent living or thrive in their craft is, too often, not a function of their talents or diligence but instead is dictated by the arbitrary whims of distant giants.

A basic tenet of the American experiment is that real liberty means freedom from economic coercion and from the arbitrary, unaccountable power that comes with economic domination. Our antitrust laws were passed as a way to safeguard against undue concentration of power in our economic sphere, just as the Constitution creates checks and balances to safeguard against concentrated power in our political sphere.

Recommitting to robust antitrust enforcement and competition policy is good for America because it will make us safer, our technologies more innovative, and our economy more prosperous—but also because it is essential for safeguarding real opportunity for Americans and for ensuring that people in their day-to-day dealings experience liberty rather than coercion. When people believe that government has stopped fighting on their behalf, it can become a strategic weakness that outsiders are only too happy to exploit.

Thankfully, over the last few years we have seen significant progress across government in ensuring that we are centering everyday Americans in our policy decisions. From trade to industrial policy to competition, this administration has learned from past experiences and adopted new paradigms. A common throughline across these approaches is a commitment to revisiting old assumptions and updating our thinking in light of real-life experience and evidence.

Fighting back against the challenges we face is about more than enforcing the antitrust laws. But by promoting fair competition, by showing the American people that we will fight for their right to enjoy free, meaningful lives outside the grip of monopolists, we can help rebuild not just people’s confidence in the economy, but also a belief in American government, and its leadership both at home and abroad.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Christopher F. Rufo

Published: Oct 24, 2024

The National Institutes of Health, which provides funding for breakthroughs in medical science, has long enjoyed a trustworthy reputation. But, in keeping with the Biden administration’s “whole-of-government equity agenda,” the NIH has shifted its priorities away from science and toward “the science of scientific workforce diversity,” subordinating medicine to the latest ideological fad: diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI.

With the help of Open the Books, a nonprofit research organization, we have obtained documents detailing the NIH’s descent into left-wing racialism. The agency, which is supposed to prioritize hard science, has made DEI a top priority, shelling out millions on “diversity” initiatives that do nothing to advance medical research.

At the beginning of his term, President Biden signed an executive order implementing DEI throughout the federal bureaucracy and Congress directed the NIH to develop “a strategic plan with long-term and short-term goals to address the racial, ethnic, and gender disparities at NIH.” In short: less focus on curing cancer, and more attention to making sure no one cures cancer without acknowledging his “responsibility to correct systemic racism and inequities.”

The NIH immediately got to work implementing the executive order across the mammoth agency. The plan, which applied to fiscal years 2023 through 2027, required “the participation of all 27 Institutes and Centers (ICs); Offices within the Office of the Director (OD); and working groups, staff committees, advisory groups, and employee groups across NIH.” Altogether, the agency reported, it had “identified a community of almost 100 offices, committees, and groups working within the NIH-wide DEIA ecosystem.”

Overseeing this bureaucracy is the NIH’s Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which has more than 50 employees. The office’s mission: to “identify and eliminate discrimination from the agency’s personnel policies, practices, and working conditions.” As part of its efforts, it has created digital information hubs on “Understanding Systemic Racism” and “Racism in Health,” and planned an “Anti-Bullying Training” session for employees—all methods to advance racialist ideology, rather than the department’s scientific mission.

The leader of NIH’s DEI apparatus is Marie Bernard, the agency’s chief officer for scientific workforce diversity. Bernard, to whom ten NIH employees report, has been thoroughly involved in the organization’s diversity efforts, co-leading the development of its DEI plan and co-chairing multiple diversity projects. One of these projects, NIH UNITE, which was established in 2021, “acts as a think tank to promote equity” and “identifies and addresses any structural racism that may exist within the NIH and throughout the biomedical and behavioral workforce.” In other words, the agency has 11 full-time employees focused on combatting “structural racism.” By their own account, they’re making progress.

In addition to ramping up internal DEI measures, the NIH has overhauled its external funding efforts. One major priority is “Health Equity,” a trendy new academic discipline that, in theory, studies health disparities between groups—for example, African-Americans’ disproportionately high rates of Alzheimer’s—and tries to identify causes and find solutions. In practice, however, Health Equity is critical race theory’s window into medical science, yielding trifling grievance reports focused not on medical outcomes but on the demographics of the medical-research workforce itself.

The programs vary in complexity. Some are simple: the NIH, through UNITE’s DEIA Prize Competition, launched at the beginning of President Biden’s term, cumulatively has sent $1 million to ten universities that have “implement[ed] innovative strategies to enhance DEIA in research environments.” Others are more sophisticated: the Diversity Program Consortium, a cross-institutional initiative first established by President Obama, is designed to train students and develop faculty “from groups underrepresented in biomedical research.” These initiatives are supposedly intended to help the underprivileged, but they are, in practice, highly ideological, promoting, for example, “liberatory race-conscious mentorship” done “through the framework of critical race theory.”

The permanent bureaucracy within the NIH was already fertile ground for this kind of thinking. Even under President Trump, who ostensibly opposed this ideology, the agency was a significant funder of left-wing racial science—a practice that the Biden administration continued.

Consider several of NIH’s funded projects, which began under Trump and endured under Biden. The agency allotted $3 million to Columbia University, for example, to use Twitter “to enhance the social support for Hispanic and Black dementia caregivers” and to study the “ethical use of minority detection algorithms.” Remarkably, this award funded the creation of a “Black Tweet detection algorithm” to help curate posts “tailored to Black and Hispanic dementia caregivers.”

The NIH also bankrolled several bizarre initiatives focused on LGBT issues. It granted Yale University $3 million to study HIV risk by tracking gay men with GPS monitors; the project’s ultimate goal was to develop “a real-time phone app” partially on the tracking data. The agency also awarded Stanford $3.7 million to study “[s]ex hormone effects on neurodevelopment” in “transgender adolescents,” which researchers hope will “advanc[e] the empirical basis of clinical care for this vulnerable population of youth.”

These examples point to a key nexus: that between NIH, which controls billions in taxpayer funds, and major universities, which receive them in the name of DEI. The agency has spent an astonishing amount of taxpayer money under the current administration on DEI-inflected projects in research, undergraduate recruitment and retention, and faculty hiring—all to entrench the ideology in academia.

The most important of these initiatives is the NIH Common Fund’s Faculty Institutional Recruitment for Sustainable Transformation (FIRST) program, which was created in 2021 and “aims to enhance and maintain cultures of inclusive excellence in the biomedical research community” by funding the “recruitment of a diverse group of faculty” at research universities. NIH FIRST has subsidized such programs at 16 universities, including Cornell, USCD, Northwestern, and Drexel. The agency says that its efforts to make faculty more “diverse” will help to “ensure[] that the most creative minds have the opportunity to contribute to realizing our national research and health goals.”

The program has been used explicitly to justify increasing minority hiring. Cornell, which received $5,141,750 in FIRST funding, admitted to using the program “to increase the number of minoritized faculty in the biological, biomedical, and health sciences . . . . across six colleges and 20 departments. Remarkably, the university says it “is in an excellent position to test the hypothesis” —note the uncertainty—“that FIRST Cohort faculty will be successful.”

Some of these faculty members aren’t even focused on medical research. One new hire is an assistant professor of interpersonal communication who studies “how undocumented immigrants draw on communication identity management and advocacy strategies to challenge [structural] barriers.” Another is a behavioralist who “applies social theories to public health, focusing on the intersections between individual, interpersonal, and structural factors contributing to health inequities.”

Taken together, these initiatives raise a troubling point: taxpayers have agreed to fund the NIH on the understanding that their money will be used by talented scientists to expand our knowledge of the natural world and to cure illness and disease. But the federal government, blinded by a corrosive left-wing ideology, is using that money to fiddle with the demographics of elite institutions, design an HIV tracking app, and build AI that can tweet like a black person—whatever that means.

The deeper lesson is this: racialism erodes competence and quality. It has already done great damage to American universities. We should not be surprised that an approach guided by critical race theory, which denies the very existence of objective truth, is incapable of producing real science.

The only way to clean up our medical research institutions, and, by extension, our federal grantmaking agencies, is put the science back in medical science—and leave the ideology at the door.

==

Make merit matter.

[amrutatbrc1]

Lupus Therapeutics Market 2024-2033 : Demand, Trend, Segmentation, Forecast, Overview And Top Companies

The lupus therapeutics global market report 2024 from The Business Research Company provides comprehensive market statistics, including global market size, regional shares, competitor market share, detailed segments, trends, and opportunities. This report offers an in-depth analysis of current and future industry scenarios, delivering a complete perspective for thriving in the industrial automation software market.

Lupus Therapeutics Market, 2024 report by The Business Research Company offers comprehensive insights into the current state of the market and highlights future growth opportunities.

Market Size -

The lupus therapeutics market size has grown strongly in recent years. It will grow from $2.53 billion in 2023 to $2.74 billion in 2024 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.6%. The growth in the historic period can be attributed to the increased prevalence of lupus, increased investment in healthcare infrastructure, high disposable income, high demand for effective therapies, and rising geriatric population.

The lupus therapeutics market size is expected to see strong growth in the next few years. It will grow to $3.83 billion in 2028 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.7%. The growth in the forecast period can be attributed to rising drug approvals and launches, emerging markets, improvements in disease awareness and diagnosis, rising awareness initiatives, and immunosuppressive products. Major trends in the forecast period include chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, small molecule therapeutics for lupus, CAR-NK therapy for lupus, combined inhibition of human plasmacytoid dendritic cell activity during systemic lupus, erythematosus (SLE), urine proteomics.

Order your report now for swift delivery @

The Business Research Company's reports encompass a wide range of information, including:

1. Market Size (Historic and Forecast): Analysis of the market's historical performance and projections for future growth.

2. Drivers: Examination of the key factors propelling market growth.

3. Trends: Identification of emerging trends and patterns shaping the market landscape.

4. Key Segments: Breakdown of the market into its primary segments and their respective performance.

5. Focus Regions and Geographies: Insight into the most critical regions and geographical areas influencing the market.

6. Macro Economic Factors: Assessment of broader economic elements impacting the market.

Market Drivers -

The increasing research and development activities are expected to propel the growth of the lupus therapeutics market going forward. Research and development activities refer to systematic investigation and experimentation aimed at advancing knowledge, technology, or product development in various fields. The increasing research and development activities is often driven by the need for innovation, advancements in technology, addressing emerging challenges, improving healthcare outcomes, and fostering economic growth through scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs. Research and development activities help advance lupus therapeutics by discovering new treatments, improving existing therapies, and understanding the underlying mechanisms of the disease. For instance, in March 2023, according to a report published by the Congressional Research Service, a US-based federal legislative branch agency, the national institutes of health received $49.183 billion in 2023 for research and development activities, marking an increase from $42.941 billion allocated in 2021. Therefore, the increasing research and development activities are driving the growth of the lupus therapeutics market.

Market Trends -

Major companies operating in the lupus therapeutics market are focused on developing advanced blood tests with predictive artificial intelligence to enhance diagnostic accuracy and treatment efficacy. Blood tests with predictive artificial intelligence refer to diagnostic tools that use AI algorithms to analyze biomarkers in blood samples, predicting disease outcomes or treatment responses with greater accuracy. For instance, in March 2024, AMPEL BioSolutions LLC, a US-based precision medicine company, launched the LuGENE blood test, which predicts lupus flares and drug targets from gene expression utilizing predictive artificial intelligence (AI). The test is designed to revolutionize the management of lupus, an autoimmune disease, by providing personalized treatment options for patients. It identifies real-time abnormalities in gene expression that lead to inflammation and immune system dysfunction, which are targetable by medication.

The lupus therapeutics market covered in this report is segmented –

1) By Disease Type: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus, Drug-Induced Lupus Erythematosus, Neonatal Lupus

2) By Treatment Type: Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), Biologics, Antimalarial Drugs, Corticosteroids, Other Treatment Types

3) By Route Of Administration: Oral, Subcutaneous, Intravenous, Other Routes Of Administration

4) By End User: Hospitals And Clinics, Diagnostic Laboratories, Other End Users

Get an inside scoop of the lupus therapeutics market, Request now for Sample Report @

Regional Insights -

North America was the largest region in the lupus therapeutics market in 2023. Asia-Pacific is expected to be the fastest-growing region in the forecast period. The regions covered in the lupus therapeutics market report are Asia-Pacific, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, North America, South America, Middle East, Africa.

Key Companies -

Major companies operating in the lupus therapeutics market are <b>Pfizer Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co. Inc., AbbVie Inc., Sanofi SA, AstraZeneca PLC, Novartis AG, Roche Holdings Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, Eli Lilly and Company, Viatris Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Bausch Health Companies Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Aurobindo Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Lupin Ltd, Zydus Lifesciences Limited, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited</b>

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

2. Lupus Therapeutics Market Report Structure

3. Lupus Therapeutics Market Trends And Strategies

4. Lupus Therapeutics Market – Macro Economic Scenario

5. Lupus Therapeutics Market Size And Growth

…..

27. Lupus Therapeutics Market Competitor Landscape And Company Profiles

28. Key Mergers And Acquisitions

29. Future Outlook and Potential Analysis

30. Appendix

Contact Us:

The Business Research Company

Europe: +44 207 1930 708

Asia: +91 88972 63534

Americas: +1 315 623 0293

Email: info@tbrc.info

Follow Us On:

LinkedIn: https://in.linkedin.com/company/the-business-research-company

Twitter: https://twitter.com/tbrc_info

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheBusinessResearchCompany

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC24_fI0rV8cR5DxlCpgmyFQ

Blog: https://blog.tbrc.info/

Healthcare Blog: https://healthcareresearchreports.com/

Global Market Model: https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/global-market-model

[allthenewzworld]

Japanese telecom giants have teamed up to create the world's first 6G device, boasting data speeds 20 times faster than 5G and reaching up to 100 Gbps within 100 meters.

The alliance, featuring DOCOMO, NTT Corporation, NEC Corporation, and Fujitsu, has been advancing sub-terahertz technology since 2021.

Operating in the higher frequency range of 100 to 300 GHz, this breakthrough introduces new challenges and demands innovative wireless devices.

Each company played a vital role, pushing forward in areas like wireless transmission, high-end devices, antenna tech, and compound semiconductors.

This technology promises revolutionary applications, from ultra-HD streaming to real-time control in autonomous vehicles, thanks to its unmatched data speeds.

Read more at link in our bio.

#news #japan #technology #telecommunications #japanese #allthenewz