Science and Technology

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Should No Labels Run a Presidential Candidate?

      by

      More from our inbox:Oppenheimer’s Lessons on Politics and ScienceDisease Outbreaks in Animal IndustriesCans on the Newlyweds’ Car Jacquelyn Martin/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “With Centrist Platform, No Labels Pushes Cause and Latent Third-Party Bid” (news article, July 16):Although I would love to see our two-party system evolve and I think less acrimony is essential to moving forward, I have two basic problems with the No Labels party idea.First, the U.S. system simply doesn’t support the creation of viable alternate parties. Until the barriers in place are removed, all third parties can do is play spoiler.Second, I firmly believe that our first priority should be defending our democratic foundation. For the first time in U.S. history, we have one party actively and unashamedly undermining the rule of law and democracy itself. We need to defend and shore up our democracy first. Then it will be a great time to change the rules so we don’t have this seemingly black or white constraint for our choice of candidate.Since Harlan Crow, the Texas billionaire who gives generous gifts to Justice Clarence Thomas, is a contributor to No Labels, I am suspicious of the rest of the donors whom we don’t know about.I see this movement as a political effort designed to prey on the public’s good faith, good intentions and frustration with the chaos caused by anti-democracy forces in the U.S.The way forward is to stick together for democracy — not splinter.Deb GarriesCalgary, AlbertaThe writer is an American citizen.To the Editor:The article mentions the possibility of the No Labels movement in the U.S. seeking to be listed on state ballots as a political party. This is no easy job. Of the two largest American minor political parties, Libertarians and Greens, only the Libertarians have been getting their candidates on the ballot in all 50 states.Each state has its own often complex rules and requirements to be listed on its ballots. Any group such as No Labels could also face legal challenges by one or both of the major parties. Such an effort to gain ballot access for a new party typically requires years of work and much money.No Labels could cause problems in battleground states for President Biden’s re-election bid, but No Labels’ major battle would be just trying to get on state ballots.Dan DonovanBrooklynTo the Editor:The third-party scam must have the Trump wing of the G.O.P. chuckling with glee. Currently, only a Republican or Democrat can win the presidency, and that’s not going to change in a year and a half. Donald Trump’s followers will not be moved by persuasion or facts, so he will be a nominee.This week you reported on Mr. Trump’s intent to concentrate power in the executive branch, weakening the courts and Congress. He plans the end of the republic as we know it. Yet his followers will vote for him.The Republicans’ path to power is a continual drumbeat of “President Biden’s too old, we need fresh blood,” etc., shifting attention away from Mr. Biden’s effectiveness. The strategy: Persuade Democratic voters that they are too “sophisticated” (No Labels) to accept the binary choice, and should go for a Manchin, a Kennedy.In 2000, Ralph Nader voters helped elect George W. Bush, who attacked Iraq and ballooned the national debt. Many “Bernie Bros” in 2016 refused to vote for Hillary Clinton, helping clear the way for Mr. Trump.Thanks for nothing.This search for political purity, or just novelty, could ironically result in the beginning of American dictatorship next year. It is unrealistic to think that third-party votes will lead anywhere else.Howard SchmittGreen Tree, Pa.To the Editor:I’d like to propose an alternative way to refer to No Labels. It should be called what it is: Republicans Only Not in Name (RONIN). Not only is that resonant with the term RINO (Republicans in Name Only), which is used by many Republicans to refer to other Republicans they disapprove of. It’s also consistent with the Japanese term “ronin,” a kind of loose cannon in the feudal social structure.Ron GroveFlagstaff, Ariz.Oppenheimer’s Lessons on Politics and ScienceJ. Robert Oppenheimer in an undated photo.Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “‘Oppenheimer’ Shows the Danger of Politicizing Science,” by Kai Bird (Opinion guest essay, July 18):Mr. Bird’s excellent essay about J. Robert Oppenheimer illustrates all too well the dangers to our democracy in allowing political rhetoric and policies to alter scientific facts and theories.Such lessons do not belong only to the McCarthy era. The politicization of the Covid vaccine and the far right’s attack on Dr. Anthony Fauci are recent history. And indeed, as we speak, Republican strategists are planning increased executive and presidential political control over scientific and other now independent agencies.Let’s not let the lessons of Oppenheimer be lost. They are as relevant now as they were in the McCarthy era.Ken GoldmanBeverly Hills, Calif.To the Editor:Whether it’s harsh truths about atomic power or the merits of vaccines against Covid-19, influenza and childhood illnesses, it’s science — regularly, honestly and clearly explained — that is sanity’s ultimate home-field advantage.Peter J. PittsNew YorkThe writer, a former F.D.A. associate commissioner, is president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and a visiting professor at the University of Paris School of Medicine.Disease Outbreaks in Animal IndustriesThe United States produces 10 billion animals for food every year, including more pigs and poultry, which can harbor and transmit influenza, than nearly any other country.Gerry Broome/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Risk Seen in U.S. Animal Industries” (Science Times, July 11), about the risk of infectious disease outbreaks:This article is illuminating, but one element of the crisis is missing: the degree to which animals suffer in these appalling situations.Consider the complete lack of hygiene to which animals confined in farming operations and live animal markets are subjected without relief until they die, either at the hands of slaughterers or from chronic stress and disease.I doubt that much will be done to control the animal industries identified in the article until more people speak out against what these animals are forced to endure.The cruelty and contamination are linked. We might stretch our imaginations to make this connection and act on it.Karen DavisMachipongo, Va.The writer is the president of United Poultry Concerns, a nonprofit that promotes the respectful treatment of domesticated birds.Cans on the Newlyweds’ CarTo the Editor:Re “Where Those Cans Behind the Car Came From” (Traditions, Sunday Styles, July 16):When my wife, Laurie, and I were married, my brothers affixed a “Just Married” sign and a bouquet of cans to the bumper of my Jeep Cherokee.On our way to the airport that evening, we were pulled over by the Suffield, Conn., police. We weren’t speeding, and there was no one else on the road. Perhaps the officer wanted to congratulate the newlyweds?No; apparently a can had come loose from the vehicle. We were issued a warning — and informed that a ticket would have cost us $82 (more than $200 today) — for “operating with an unsecure load.”Despite that inauspicious start, my wife and I will celebrate our 34th anniversary in November.David CecchiAgawam, Mass. More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      The Prisoner Exchange That Freed Brittney Griner

      by

      More from our inbox:Selective Prosecution of TrumpTwo Views of BidenDiversity in Tech JobsA ‘Friend’ for Solo EldersA still from a video distributed by Russian state media shows Brittney Griner, in red, and Viktor Bout, holding a yellow envelope, on the tarmac at the Abu Dhabi International Airport on Thursday.To the Editor: Re “Griner Is Freed; Leaves Russia After a Trade” (front page, Dec. 9):On Thursday, the American basketball star Brittney Griner was freed from a Russian prison. This is indisputably joyous news, but it is bittersweet. To secure her release, President Biden had to agree to release a notorious Russian arms dealer whose weapon sales have supported death and misery around the world.It is great news, of course, for Ms. Griner and her family. Sadly, Paul Whelan, another American, remains in Russian custody, where he has been illegitimately detained for the past four years. The great news about Ms. Griner is blemished by the continued imprisonment of Mr. Whelan.President Biden has shown perseverance and dedication to securing the freedom of unjustly imprisoned Americans. But let us not forget that these deals come at a cost. Freeing Brittney Griner required that the U.S. release a soulless man who might now resume his arms dealing.Geopolitics sometimes requires painful compromise, and this moment clearly illustrates this point.Ken DerowSwarthmore, Pa.To the Editor:The exchange of a basketball player for a convicted arms dealer, leaving a former U.S. Marine in Russian custody, is a disgrace, patently wrong, unbalanced by any sense of equity and an affront to American values. President Biden should be ashamed.Richard M. FrauenglassHuntington, N.Y.To the Editor:While it is to be celebrated that Brittney Griner is coming home, my heart breaks for the family of Paul Whelan and for the families of other unjustly detained Americans all over the world.Ms. Griner’s release underscores the power of celebrity to drive more vigorous action. No doubt the advocacy of LeBron James and Stephen Curry, for example, on behalf of Ms. Griner played a significant role in pressuring the White House to get a deal done to bring her home, while Mr. Whelan and countless others continue to languish behind bars.Mark GodesChelsea, Mass.To the Editor:Viktor Bout, the Russian arms dealer, would have been out in seven years, back in business (maybe). So should we have let Brittney Griner stay in prison?Good for President Biden and our persistent officials. I travel internationally to dangerous places, and it’s good to know the U.S. has my back.Norbert HirschhornMinneapolisSelective Prosecution of TrumpProsecutors told jurors that Donald J. Trump personally paid for some perks and approved a crucial aspect of the scheme. Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesTo the Editor: Re “In a Blow to Trump, a Jury Finds His Business Guilty of Tax Fraud” (front page, Dec. 7):It is possible to view Donald Trump as deserving of accountability, retribution, even loathing, while recognizing that this tax fraud prosecution was selective.The money at stake is not worth the costs to pursue the case, and the nature of the crime seems unexceptional, especially in a private business. It is not a case prosecutors would ordinarily pursue.It may be noble in a larger or proportionate sense, but that can be respected while questioning the claims of prosecutors that it shows how everyone is equally subject to the law.Edward AbahoonieSparkill, N.Y.Two Views of Biden Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor: The other day I discovered a book by Joe Biden from 2017, “Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship and Purpose,” which focuses on his late son Beau’s battle with brain cancer. I was moved to discover that the book reveals not just his memories of his beloved son, but also his role as a husband, devoted father and seasoned politician familiar with the vicissitudes of dealing with bigwigs, foreign and domestic.What strikes one in reading Mr. Biden’s own heartfelt words is the sheer faith he has in the human ties he cherishes. Despite the tragedies he has suffered, he has held fast to his best qualities — compassion and faith.In short, he is a man of great trustworthiness, patience and forbearance, whose comparison to any probable rival in 2024 of either party clearly renders him, yet again, the best candidate for president.Richard OrlandoWestmount, QuebecTo the Editor:Re “America Deserves Better Than Donald Trump” (editorial, Nov. 20):Your editorial should have been titled “America Deserves Better Than Joe Biden.”The Biden administration has wrecked our economy with out-of-control inflation and government spending, has allowed undocumented immigrants to flood our southern border, and has destroyed our credibility as an international leader with our disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.There has been a large rise in crime and lawlessness, and many of us feel that the current administration is using the Justice Department, the F.B.I. and intelligence agencies against its political enemies and those who do not support its far-left and green agenda.Yes, we deserve better! Because we are a country where the words “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” have real meaning to our citizens.Sam TaylorColorado SpringsDiversity in Tech JobsAnnalice Ni, 22, was disappointed when Meta laid her off from her job as a software engineer last month. Now she is using the opportunity to expand her career horizons.Jason Henry for The New York TimesTo the Editor: Re “Future in Big Tech Dims for Computing Students” (Business, Dec. 8):The article makes an important argument for students to seek jobs outside Big Tech, and look to start-ups and nontechnical industries that are hungry for fresh talent. However, it’s imperative for us to also address ways to support the most marginalized students, who are often left behind when the job market makes a significant shift.Today, only 26 percent of computer scientists are women, and only 8 percent are Black. Organizations like mine are working to correct this imbalance, but the onus remains on hiring managers to consider a wider range of qualified talent for technical roles.This could mean looking beyond Ivy League institutions and four-year universities, or placing less importance on technical interviews — which disproportionately benefit those with industry connections. Standards for computer science jobs should remain high, but we must be more nimble in how we measure a strong candidate.In moments of economic strain, we can’t forget that a diverse work force is critical for both equity and long-term success. All students, no matter their background, deserve access to the tech jobs they’ve worked so hard to secure.Tarika BarrettNew YorkThe writer is C.E.O. of Girls Who Code.A ‘Friend’ for Solo EldersJoan DelFattore, a retired English professor, objects to the perception that older people without immediate family are somehow needy.Karsten Moran for The New York TimesTo the Editor:A critical issue that wasn’t addressed in “Who Will Care for the Kinless Seniors?,” by Paula Span (The New Old Age, Dec. 6), is the absence of someone who could serve as a health care proxy in the event that a senior is not capable of making their own medical decision.There has been some research over the last several years about the increasing number of older people in that situation (sometimes called the “unbefriended”) and the programs that might provide a way to identify existing proxies or to develop new relationships in part to serve that function.Community organizations, together with the medical community, need to create joint initiatives, funded by the public and private sectors, to enable these seniors to have a “friend.”Alice YakerNew YorkThe writer served as a health care consultant on this issue with the New York Legal Assistance Group. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Russian Academics Aim to Punish Colleagues Who Backed Ukraine Invasion

      by

      A campaign is circulating a list of dozens of researchers in the hopes they will be denied the prestige of election into the Russian Academy of Sciences.Some academic researchers in Russia are quietly working to prevent colleagues who have supported their country’s invasion of Ukraine from being elected to the Russian Academy of Sciences this month.If they succeed, they will deny those who back the war a prized credential that confers prestige in Russian institutions of higher learning. Their campaign could also show that some acts of protest remain possible despite a government crackdown on dissent.The Russian Academy of Sciences is a nonprofit network of research institutes in a variety of disciplines across the Russian Federation. It has just under 1,900 members in Russia and nearly 450 nonvoting foreign members.The academy elects new members every three years. The upcoming poll, starting on Monday, is for 309 seats, including 92 for senior academicians and 217 for corresponding members. The competition is steep: More than 1,700 candidates have applied.This month, a group of Russian researchers started circulating a list of dozens of candidates who have publicly supported Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by signing pro-war declarations or letters their universities or institutions released or by making such statements themselves.Hundreds of high-ranking officials at Russian universities, most of whom were administrators rather than prominent scientists, also signed a letter in support of the war in March.But many academic researchers have taken an antiwar stance. More than 8,000 Russian scientists and science journalists have signed an open letter opposing the invasion since it was first published in February.Three academic researchers — who were not identified because they risk job loss, imprisonment and their safety by publicly opposing the war — said in interviews that they helped create the list of those who supported the war to prevent them from being elected to the academy.Members of the leadership of the Russian Academy of Sciences did not respond to a request for comment.Some voters think the list could make a difference in the elections.“Most of the scientific community is definitely antiwar,” said Alexander Nozik, a physicist at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology who was not involved in creating the list. “Being in such a list could significantly reduce chances to be elected.”Some outside observers say that the Russian Academy is not as powerful as it once was.“It used to be a vast network of research institutes containing the best scientists in the country,” said Loren Graham, a historian who specializes in Russian science, with emeritus positions at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University. “Those institutes have now been stripped away by the Putin government, given to the Ministry of Education, and leaving the academy as an honorific society without genuine heft in science.”Members of the academy have also been implicated in ethical shortcomings in recent years. In 2020, a commission the body appointed found that Russian academic journals and research publications were riddled with plagiarism, self-plagiarism and gift authorship, where scientists were listed as co-authors of manuscripts without contributing to the work. As a result of the report, Russian journals retracted more than 800 research papers in which the authors were thought to have committed ethical violations.A separate 2020 exposé by the same commission at the academy found that several rectors and other senior university officials were guilty of publishing papers in questionable journals, listing fake collaborators and plagiarism.And some say such problems diminish the importance of the academy’s upcoming election.“A lot of people in Russian science still believe that the academy is the oldest structure that can do something — not because it is good but because others are worse,” said Dr. Nozik.Russia-Ukraine War: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 4In eastern Ukraine. More