 |
|
|
|||||
The Senate on Thursday confirmed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as President Donald Trumps health secretary, putting the prominent vaccine skeptic in control of $1.7 trillion in federal spending, vaccine recommendations and food safety as well as health insurance programs for roughly half the country. Republicans fell in line behind Trump despite hesitancy over Kennedy’s views on vaccines, voting 52-48 to elevate the scion of one of Americas most storied political and Democratic families to secretary of the Health and Human Services Department. Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, who had polio as a child, was the only no vote among Republicans, mirroring his stands against Trump’s picks for the Pentagon chief and director of national intelligence. All Democrats opposed Kennedy. The GOP has largely embraced Kennedys vision to Make America Healthy Again by directing the public health agencies to focus on chronic diseases such as obesity. Kennedy, 71, whose name and family tragedies have put him in the national spotlight since he was a child, has earned a formidable following with his populist and sometimes extreme views on food, chemicals and vaccines. His audience only grew during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Kennedy devoted much of his time to a nonprofit that sued vaccine makers and harnessed social media campaigns to erode trust in vaccines as well as the government agencies that promote them. With Trump’s backing, Kennedy insisted he was uniquely positioned to revive trust in those public health agencies, which include the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes for Health. Last week, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he hoped Kennedy goes wild in reining in health care costs and improving Americans’ health. But before agreeing to support Kennedy, potential holdout Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a doctor who leads the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, required assurances that Kennedy would not make changes to existing vaccine recommendations. During Senate hearings, Democrats tried to prod Kennedy to deny a long-discredited theory that vaccines cause autism. Some lawmakers also raised alarms about Kennedy financially benefiting from changing vaccine guidelines or weakening federal lawsuit protections against vaccine makers. Kennedy made more than $850,000 last year from an arrangement referring clients to a law firm that has sued the makers of Gardasil, a human papillomavirus vaccine that protects against cervical cancer. If confirmed as health secretary, he promised to reroute fees collected from the arrangement to his son. Kennedy will take over the agency in the midst of a massive federal government shakeup, led by billionaire Elon Musk, that has shut off even if temporarily billions of taxpayer dollars in public health funding and left thousands of federal workers unsure about their jobs. On Friday, the NIH announced it would cap billions of dollars in medical research given to universities and cancer being used to develop treatments for diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s. Kennedy, too, has called for a staffing overhaul at the NIH, FDA and CDC. Last year, he promised to fire 600 employees at the NIH, the nation’s largest funder of biomedical research. Amanda Seitz, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
I recently helped my mom sort through boxes she inherited when my grandparents passed away. One box was labeled either ironically or genuinely toothpick holders and other treasures. Inside were many keepsakes from moments now lost to history although we found no toothpick holders. My favorite of the items we sorted through was a solitary puzzle piece, an artifact reflecting my late grandmothers penchant for hiding the final piece to a jigsaw puzzle just to swoop in at the last moment and finish it. After several hours of reminiscing, my mom and I threw away 90% of what we had sorted. Why did I keep this? is a question I hear frequently, both from my family and friends and from patients. I am a licensed clinical psychologist whose research focuses on the characterization, assessment and treatment of hoarding disorder, particularly for adults 60 years of age or older. As such, I spend a great deal of my time thinking about this question. What drives the need to keep stuff? Hoarding disorder is a psychiatric condition defined by urges to save items and difficulty discarding current possessions. For adults with clinically severe hoarding disorder, this leads to a level of household clutter that impairs daily functioning and can even create a fire hazard. In my professional experience, however, many adults struggle with clutter even if they do not meet the clinical criteria for hoarding disorder. Holding on to things that have sentimental value or could be useful in the future is a natural part of growing older. For some people, though, this tendency to hold on to objects grows over time, to the point that they eventually do meet criteria for hoarding disorder. Age-related changes in executive function may help explain the increase in prevalence of hoarding disorder as we get older; increasing difficulty with decision-making in general also affects decisions around household clutter. The traditional model behind hoarding disorder suggests that difficulty with discarding comes from distress during decision-making. However, my research shows that this may be less true of older adults. When I was a graduate student, I conducted a study in which we asked adults with hoarding disorder to spend 15 minutes making decisions about whether to keep or discard various items brought from their home. Participants could sort whatever items they wanted. Most chose to sort paper items such as old mail, cards or notes. We found that age was associated with lower levels of distress during the task, such that participants who were older tended to feel less stressed when making the decision about what to keep and what to discard. We also found that many participants, particularly those who were older, actually reported positive emotions while sorting their items. In new research publishing soon, my current team replicated this finding using a home-based version of the task. This suggests that fear of making the wrong decision isnt a universal driver of our urge to save items. In fact, a study my team published in August 2024 with adults over 50 with hoarding disorder suggests that altruism, a personality trait of wanting to help others, may explain why some people keep items that others might discard. My colleagues and I compared our participants personality profiles with that of adults in the general population of the same gender and age group. Compared with the general population, participants with hoarding disorder scored almost universally high on altruism. Altruism also comes up frequently in my clinical work with older adults who struggle with clutter. People in our studies often tell me that they have held onto something out of a sense of responsibility, either for the item itself or to the environment. I need it to go to a good home and my grandmother gave this to me are sentiments we commonly hear. Thus, people may keep things not out of fear of losing them but because saving them is consistent with their values. Leaning into values In a 2024 study, my team demonstrated that taking a values-based approach to decluttering helps older adults to decrease household clutter and increases their positive affect, a state of mind characterized by feelings such as joy and contentment. Clinicians visited the homes of older adults with hoarding disorder for one hour per week for six weeks. At each visit, the clinicians used a technique called motivational interviewing to help participants talk through their decisions while they sorted household clutter. We found that having participants start with identifying their values allowed them to maintain focus on their long-term goals. Too often, people focus on the immediate ability of an object to spark joy and forget to consider whether an object has greater meaning and purpose. Values are the abstract beliefs that we humans use to create our goals. Values are whatever drives us and can include family, faith or frivolity. Because values are subjective, what people identify as important to keep is also subjective. For example, the dress I wore to my sisters wedding reminded me of a wonderful day. However, when it no longer fit I gave it away because doing so was more consistent with my values of utility and helpfulness: I wanted the dress to go to someone who needed it and would use it. Someone who more strongly valued family and beauty might have prioritized keeping the dress because of the aesthetics and its link to a family event. Additionally, we found that instead of challenging the reasons a person might have for keeping an item, it is helpful to instead focus on eliciting their reasons for discarding it and the goals they have for their home and their life. Tips for sweeping away the old My research on using motivational interviewing for decluttering and my observations from a current clinical trial on the approach point to some practical steps people can take to declutter their home. Although my work has been primarily with older adults, these tips should be helpful for people of all ages. Start with writing out your values. Every object in your home should feel value-consistent for you. For example, if tradition and faith are important values for you, you might be more inclined to hold onto a cookbook that was made by the elders at your church and more able to let go of a cookbook you picked up on a whim at a bookstore.
Category:
E-Commerce
Welcome to AI Decoded, Fast Companys weekly newsletter that breaks down the most important news in the world of AI. You can sign up to receive this newsletter every week here. Vances Paris speech shows a brash American exceptionalism for the AI age Vice President JD Vances speech to world leaders at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit was by turns warm and conciliatory, and strident to the point of offensiveness. Vance emphasized that AI has the potential to bring significant benefits to the world, and its risks can be effectively managedprovided that the U.S. and its tech companies take the lead. Vance argued that the U.S. remains the leader when it comes to developing cutting-edge AI models, and suggested that other countries should collaborate with the U.S. on AI rather than competing against it. (Vance also said AI companies shouldnt try to dictate the political tenor of content or dialog their models will accept, citing the Google Gemini models failed attempt at generating correct images that resulted in a Black George Washington and female popes.) This administration will ensure that AI developed in the United States continues to be the gold standard worldwide, he said. And key to the U.S.s approach, according to Vance: leaving tech companies to regulate themselves on safety and security issues. Vances view that the U.S. should take a collaborative and open approach to AI with other Western countries, but stressed that the world needed an international regulatory regime that fosters the creation of revolutionary AI technology rather than strangles it. Vance went on to criticize the E.U. for its more intrusive regulatory approach. It would be a terrible mistake for your own countries if they tightened the screws on U.S. tech companies, he advised the assembly. But not everyone agrees: Every country attending the Paris summit signed a declaration ensuring artificial intelligence AI is safe, secure, and trustworthyexcept for the U.S. and the U.K. Vance said that his administration will take a different approachusing protectionist tactics to favor U.S. AI companies. The White House will continue the Biden-era chip bans, which restrict the sale of the most advanced AI chips to other countries. (The goal right now for the Trump administration is to hinder Chinese companies like DeepSeek.) Its possible that a Trump administration could tighten these restrictions further or explore additional measures to slow down foreign AI competitors. To safeguard Americas advantage, the Trump administration will ensure that the most powerful AI systems are built in the U.S. with American designed and manufactured chips, he said. OpenAIs models will no longer shy away from sensitive topics In his Paris speech, JD Vance said his administration believes that AI companies shouldnt try to restrict speecheven disinformation or outright propagandafrom their models and chatbots. Thats music to Silicon Valley bigwigss ears, many of whom dont love the expensive and demanding and human-intensive work of content moderation. Two days after the speech, OpenAI announced that its pushing a new, more permissive code of conduct (a model spec) into its AI models. Going forward, its models will be less conservative about what they will and wont talk about. The updated Model Spec explicitly embraces intellectual freedomthe idea that AI should empower people to explore, debate, and create without arbitrary restrictionsno matter how challenging or controversial a topic may be, the company said in a blog post published Wednesday. As an example, OpenAI said that an AI model should be kept from outputting detailed instructions for building a bomb or violating personal privacy, but should be trained not to default to simply saying I cant help you with that when given politically or culturally sensitive questions. In essence, we’ve reinforced the principle that no idea is inherently off limits for discussion, the blog post said, so long as the model isn’t causing significant harm to the user or others (e.g., carrying out acts of terrorism). This policy shift sounds very much in line with the permissive posture adopted by right wing sites such as Gab and Parler, then by X, then, recently, by Metas Facebook. Now OpenAI is getting in on Big Techs vibe shift on content moderation. Stay tuned for the results. PwC Champions Agentic AI as the Next Major Workplace Disruptor The professional services firm PwC recently released a report asserting that AI agents could dwarf even the transformative effects of the internet. PwC predicts these agents will reshape workforce strategies, business models, and competitive advantages, while combining with human creativity to form augmented intelligence, enabling unprecedented innovation and productivity. The report emphasizes collaboration between humans and AI: While AI agents offer remarkable autonomy, an effective model is one of collaboration and dynamic oversight. This principle of human-at-the-helm can guide the development of clear protocols that define the boundaries of AI autonomy and enable appropriate human intervention. PwC warns that businesses must reimagine work to adapt to this agentic world. But, the PwC authors stress, that shift is a necessary one, as evidenced by AI agents successful deployment in areas like software development and customer service. To facilitate this transition, PwC suggests a five-step approach: strategize, reimagine work, structure the workforce, help workers redefine their roles, and unleash responsible AI. The question is, the report states, have you transformed to become a winner in the age of AI-enhanced work, or are you racing and perhaps too late to catch up? More AI coverage from Fast Company: Instagrams AI bots are often sexually suggestiveand sometimes underage ChatGPTs latest feature is a transformative leap for web research Are you AI literate? Schools and jobs are insisting on itand now its EU law Zooms CEO explains the video conference giants next act Want exclusive reporting and trend analysis on technology, business innovation, future of work, and design? Sign up for Fast Company Premium.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||