How a multi-Billion dollar campaign to arm Ukraine might fuel the illicit arms trade; How Iran's board game cafes allowed young people to imagine a different future; Bayonetta 3 is out this week — should you play it?; a brief history of targeting art for political protest; author Andy Campbell says the era of political violence the Proud Boys helped usher in is here to stay; and more.

Over the past two decades, Google has hosted two different internal platforms for predictions. Why did the first one fail — and will the other endure?

Gambling, Risky Pranks and Lucrative Contracts: Inside the Streaming Site Kick

Backs against the wall and jobs on the line.

Bermuda Hospitals Board [BHB] is is reminding the public that the risk of stroke can be reduced with physical activity. A spokesperson said, “Bermuda Hospitals Board’s Emergency Department sees an average of five people every week who are experiencing a stroke. That’s over 200 people every year.” Dr Srinath Meadipudi, BHB Primary Stroke Centre Director, […]

Joe Biden said, if you're fully vaccinated, the chances that you can get severely ill, not even die just get severely ill, are very low. And the statistic that he gave is, out of every 160,000 people who have been vaccinated, only one ends up going to the hospital with a serious illness. So the risk if you're vaccinated is almost zero, which means what danger do unvaccinated people pose to people like me who listened to that and went and got the vaccine? Continue reading →

NEWS – Govee Smart Space Heaters are being recalled due to fire and burn risks. We’ve reviewed many Govee products here including the H7135 and the H7134. Govee says the listed models do not pass the UL safety standard and they are voluntarily recalling these smart space heater models. Recall details are at the Govee […]

In light of a recent series of fires in high-rise buildings with combustible facades, including the Grenfell tower fire, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has initiated a project to develop a fire risk assessment tool for these types of buildings to assist local authorities globally with fire safety in their communities.

HO CHI MINH CITY -- Vietnam is mulling data consent and foreign transfer rules for the technology sector that critics say threaten to stifle innovation and widen the trade imbalance with America, at a time when the incoming U.S. president is expected to strike out at trade rivals. Vietnam, which…

HONG KONG/WASHINGTON -- China has vowed to strengthen security after a hit-and-run attack in the southern city of Zhuhai killed 35 people, shocking the nation and highlighting what some experts see as an alarming pattern. On Tuesday evening, authorities revealed the scope of the devastation left…

In This Article: (Bloomberg) -- The yen weakened beyond 155 per dollar for the first time since July, raising the risk that Japan will enter the currency market to try to slow the depreciation. Most Read from Bloomberg The Japanese currency slid as much as 0.4% to 155.15 against the dollar,…

read more

Between two ponds in Southampton, New York, you will find one home that looks different from all the rest. The location of Tamsen House posed a lot of environmental challenges and this design by Fernando Fisbein Architect truly rose to the occasion.[...]

A threat actor with ties to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has been observed targeting cryptocurrency-related businesses with a multi-stage malware capable of infecting Apple macOS devices. Cybersecurity company SentinelOne, which dubbed the campaign Hidden Risk, attributed it with high confidence to BlueNoroff, which has been previously linked to malware families such as

William Dudley, senior advisor, Griswold Center for Economic Policy Studies, Princeton University; and former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York In conversation with Markus Brunnermeier, Edwards S. Sanford Professor of Economics, and Director of the Bendheim Center for Finance, Princeton University Wednesday, November 20, 2024, from 4:30-5:30 p.m. Julis Romo Rabinowitz Building, Room 399 Co-sponsored by The Griswold Center for Economic Policy Studies (GCEPS) and Bendheim Center for Finance (BCF) Open to the Princeton University Community Group of 30 Report Publication, G30 Working Group on the 2023 Banking Crisis, chaired by William Dudley

The underlying cause of multiple sclerosis is not yet known, but Epstein-Barr virus is a possible culprit, Harvard researchers say.

Climate change and sea ice loss leaves polar bears exposed to more diseases, research suggests.

velocityconf: What Is the Risk That Amazon Will Go Down (Again)? http://t.co/DgnfQynjcM Thank you @bergstrom_johan for the awesome #velocityconf post.

If Trump's proposed 60% tariff against China is enacted and the country responds aggressively, it could pressure some of America's largest companies.

Over the past decade, parent advocacy groups led a grassroots movement resulting in most states adopting dyslexia-specific legislation, with many states mandating the use of the Orton-Gillingham (OG) approach to reading instruction. Orton-Gillingham is a direct, explicit, multisensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive approach to reading for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities (WLRD). Evidence from a prior synthesis and What Works Clearinghouse reports yielded findings lacking support for the effectiveness of OG interventions.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Families are at risk under the biden/HARRIS regime promoting taking away parental rights in the name of helping..

Now that there is a Republican majority in the next Congress, it’s time for the party to bare its internal fault lines. That is likely to take place Wednesday, according […]

The post Another House Speaker Battle? Mike Johnson's Position May Be at Risk as Conservative Anger Heats Up appeared first on The Western Journal.

Junyi Xie
J. Amer. Math. Soc. 38 (), 1-62.
Abstract, references and article information

Business Briefing: US election geopolitical and economic risk scenarios 10 October 2024 — 11:45AM TO 1:00PM Anonymous (not verified) 23 September 2024 Chatham House

Please join us for this critical discussion of the US Election related global business risks.

The outcome of the US presidential election will have significant, intersecting implications for global as well as American business. At stake will be the degree of continuity and stability on both the domestic and international fronts, with a Harris presidency pursuing policies building broadly on the Biden Administration and a second Trump Administration departing sharply from them—with both shaped and limited by control of Congress.

An already volatile geopolitical environment and global economy may become even more unpredictable in the face of potential American political instability and uncertain leadership in the international community.

Please join us for this critical session to discuss:

• How might trade policy differ between a Harris and Trump presidency? Will national security pressures, especially over China, lead to greater policy commonalities than expected?

• What might differing approaches to decarbonization and the energy transition mean for the future of policy toward EVs, critical mineral supply chains, and ‘green’ industrial subsidy?

• How might each Administration approach fiscal policy? Will either push for a tightening to the current loose policy—and what may be implications for US debt and the dollar?

• What economic effects can we expect in the case of a disputed election result or non-peaceful transfer of power—and will Corporate America be compelled to make public statements?

Managing Risks Along the Belt and Road 27 March 2018 — 8:30AM TO 11:30AM Anonymous (not verified) 5 March 2018 Chatham House, London

China’s ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ offers potential benefits in connectivity, infrastructure and trade, through significantly increased Chinese engagement across many different countries. However, many of these countries face internal tensions and have relatively underdeveloped market structures, legal systems and governance frameworks. While Belt and Road investments can make positive contributions in host countries, there is also the potential for these investments to exacerbate tensions and risks.

This roundtable, held in partnership with the Security & Crisis Management International Centre (Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences-UNITO), will seek to examine risk management along the Belt and Road, differentiating between roles that can be played by public sector and private sector actors.

Attendance at this event is by invitation only.

Managing Risk to Build a Better Belt and Road Expert comment sysadmin 4 July 2018

Risk management is a key part of economic development. China could use some simple principles for managing risk to improve the prospects of its flagship infrastructure initiative.

One of the original motivating forces for China’s Belt and Road Initiative is risk management: the aim being to use infrastructure to drive economic development, so improving political stability and creating a favorable impression of China in countries bordering China and beyond.

Yet these investments themselves are inherently risky: large-scale, debt-financed, long-term infrastructure projects in countries that often have weak governance, undefined or poorly-executed rule of law and corruption. China has experience managing infrastructure risks within its borders in its own ways, but it has much less experience overseas.

And, while well-executed investments can enhance stability, the same investments, executed poorly, can create their own backlash in countries that see costs exceed benefits. This increases rather than reduces risks – not just the risks of defaulting on loans, but also the risk of damage to physical assets, loss of life and deteriorating relations with China.

Moreover, China states its desire for greater private sector and non-Chinese involvement in Belt and Road. This will be needed if China is to realize some of its larger ambitions for the initiative. But companies seek attractive returns – adjusted for risk. It is the perceived and actual riskiness of projects that makes commercial involvement a challenge. Focusing on the risk rather than return may be the better place to start to attract partners alongside Chinese institutions.

The risks on the Belt and Road

Overall, these risks fall into four categories.

The first and most critical issues are when projects cannot even get initial funding. Concerns about compliance, corruption and project governance combined with high costs and low revenues mean that the numbers simply do not add up. Working on any of these dimensions to improve them means more projects will get off the ground.

Secondly, there are the familiar risks during construction – budget overruns, unforeseen design issues and work delays, all commonplace in such challenging operating environments. Alongside these are risks to personnel caused by internal tensions and security challenges.

Thirdly, once completed, financial and non-financial risks remain. At its simplest, revenues may fall short and the project debt cannot be repaid. A series of other factors may reduce willingness to pay: difficulties in enforcing penalties against non-repayment; fiscal pressures elsewhere in the budget; popular resistance to sending money to overseas financiers. And the completed projects and individuals operating them often remain at risk to local political tensions and security challenges.

Finally, throughout the whole process, projects risk stirring up resentment and hostility rather building stability through economic growth. Incumbent governments may make project commitments that fit their own interests rather than those of the country – or at least are perceived to do so. Sri Lanka and Malaysia offer current examples. The way in which projects are implemented can compound the problem – for example, if promised job creation among local contractors does not happen or local ethnic rivalries are not taken into account.

Approaches to risk

How then to address these risks? Some simple principles about risk management highlight avenues to explore and institutions to get involved.

First, what can actions be taken to mitigate or reduce the risks and who is best-placed to do this?

Secondly, who is best-placed to bear and accept risks that cannot be reduced at an economical cost? Should the risk be diversified across many different parties so that each bears only a portion of the risk or rather concentrated and held by those who are knowledgeable on the specifics of the risk?

Thirdly, for those who end up bearing the remaining risk, how large is it and what actions are needed now to protect against future loss?

The myriad of risks along the Belt and Road suggests a myriad of risk solutions and participants. Putting that all together is in itself a skill and will not happen of its own accord. It requires active planning and structuring of which partners to involve where in a way that makes sense for all involved. Three areas stand out.

Successful construction is more than an engineering exercise. It requires positive engagement with local communities; credible, active communication of the benefits that the project brings; and protection of the people and equipment involved in the work. Doing this well means understanding the specific situation on the ground in often remote regions and acting accordingly.

Donor agencies, NGOs, other multinationals and provincial and national governments all have experience to bring to the table. Chinese contractors have demonstrated success in rapid, low-cost implementation and are learning about how to work in a wide range of countries. This is, though, an opportunity to draw on the experience of contractors from other countries, local subcontractors and the experience of multilateral organizations.

Financing is at core about the risk/return-based allocation of capital. The raison d’etre of the insurance sector is risk management. Multilateral institutions have a complementary role to play alongside private sector financial institutions. Drawing on this experience can play an important role in making investment projects economically attractive and bankable.

The opportunity to match the investment portfolios of long-term institutional investors with the long-term financing needs of infrastructure has long been a topic of discussion: the Belt and Road provides a new menu of projects. These approaches all thrive on verifiable data, standardization and transparency clarity and standardization.

Not all projects will fit these requirements, but some will. And in all cases, drawing on sector- and country-specific risk management experience from banks and insurers can reduce risks.

Government can be thought of as the ultimate back-stop, a risk manager for its people across the entire risk spectrum. Actions that strengthen the capacity of all governments involved to assess and address risk mean more effective risk management, greater success and the avoidance of ‘debt traps’.

Examples include sharing experience between countries; multilateral or bilateral support with the assessment of financial burden and debt terms; support to strengthen governance and oversight of project implementation; and approaches that ensure the involvement of affected local populations. Making use of dispute resolution procedures that are accepted by the key participants reduces risk all round.

Countries, businesses and individuals grow through the judicious taking of risks. But unnecessary risk-taking is wasted effort. Belt and Road projects will be most effective when those best-placed to tackle risks and opportunities are encouraged to do so.

Nuclear stability for all put at risk by Putin's speech Explainer NCapeling 22 February 2023

Explaining the risks of Russia’s decision to suspend the New START nuclear treaty with the US, and the wider implications for international relations.

Why is New START important?

Following the collapse of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF), New START is the only remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the US and Russia.

This means that without it there would be no limits on numbers or the type of Russian and US deployed nuclear warheads. The limits set under New START are lower than those set under its predecessor, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

It is also important for maintaining some form of strategic arms control between Russia and the US. The treaty provides the US and Russia with mechanisms for transparency and confidence-building, for instance through regular biannual data exchanges, as well as measures for verification.

What is Russia able to do next after suspending participation?

President Vladimir Putin’s decision to suspend its participation could pave the way for Russia to increase the number of deployed warheads, delivery vehicles and launchers, potentially exceeding the limits placed on numbers under the new START.

Putin stated he would resume testing of nuclear weapons if the US resumed – Russia is a full state party to the nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) negotiated in 1996, as is the UK and France. The US has signed, as has China, but neither state has yet ratified the treaty.

Other countries required to ratify the treaty for it to enter into force include Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan.

Although the US is modernizing its nuclear weapons forces, there is no need – or plan – for the US to test nuclear warheads, and it is the same for the UK and France.

Concerns are now rising that Russia could point to no-fissionable yield experiments – which are allowed under the treaty and which the US and other nuclear weapons possessors conduct primarily for safety purposes – and then falsely declare those to be nuclear weapons tests, thus paving the way for a narrative to justify the resumption of nuclear testing by Russia.

Conducting a nuclear weapons test would be seen clearly as a further step on the escalation scale towards nuclear use for Russia.

While inspections of nuclear weapons sites had not resumed since COVID-19, Russia’s suspension of its participation could result in the further halting of other transparency and verification measures under New START, including the regular mutual data exchanges between the US and Russia – for example on warhead numbers, locations, and technical information on weapons systems and their sites – which are conducted through the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC).

What is the difference between withdrawing from New START and ‘suspending’ participation?

In his speech, Putin announced the suspension of Russian participation in New START. While this does not mean Russia has formally withdrawn from the treaty, the suspension could enable Russia to continue preventing the US from inspecting its nuclear weapons sites and halt Russia’s participation in other obligations, such as the routine reporting and data exchanges on nuclear weapons as well as meetings of the BCC.

The decision to suspend participation rather than withdraw from the treaty means Russia retains the option to return to compliance at a later point. However, it is not yet clear under what conditions Russia would opt to return to compliance with the treaty, or whether this means the US will, in turn, suspend their own obligations.

The treaty text itself does not provide for a suspension of participation by parties to the treaty. However, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does address the mechanisms for suspension of participation in a treaty. Russia is a full state party to the Vienna Convention, but the US has remained a signatory without ratification since 1970.

There is a precedent of Russia suspending its membership in arms control treaties rather than withdrawing, which is when Russia suspended its participation in the original Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) in 2007.

The US does not recognize Russia’s suspension of its participation in the CFE treaty, but this does not make a material difference to Russian actions.

What does the suspension mean for the wider international treaty regime?

Russia’s suspension of the New START could signal the end of strategic arms control between the two countries. There is now virtually no regular scheduled arms control communication between the two countries bilaterally – this is a dangerous position to be in, especially in times of crisis.

The suspension of New START further erodes limited recourse for communication between the two countries, by suspending information exchange and meetings of the BCC under the treaty.

This is likely to have wider implications for progress on nuclear non-proliferation under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), as well as the wider international security treaty regime.

Will this increase the nuclear threat or the likelihood of nuclear use?

New START provides both the US and Russia with a degree of transparency surrounding nuclear weapons systems. Without an avenue for regular data exchange and notification, and mechanisms for verification through mutual nuclear weapons site inspections, the risk of misperception or misunderstanding could increase and fuel uncertainty which could increases the perception of threat between Russia and the US.

What are Putin’s reasons for suspending Russia’s participation?

Putin and various members of his government have been linking the future of New START to the war in Ukraine rhetorically for several months now, threatening that Russia may not be willing to negotiate a follow-on treaty for when New START expires in Feb 2026 because of US support for Ukraine.

By announcing Russia’s suspension of the treaty in his main address on the anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine, Putin is sending a signal about Russia’s intent for the future.

Russia’s new hypersonic glide vehicle Avangard was already counted under New START and it is likely follow-on negotiations would have focused on some of Russia’s other hypersonic capabilities or other new nuclear systems.

Without the treaty, Russia might be less inhibited in its development of new nuclear systems.

Have both the US and Russia been compliant with the treaty until now?

Both the US and Russia have remained within the central limits of the treaty since its entry into force in 2011. Following the outbreak of COVID-19, both sides agreed to suspend in-person inspections due to restrictions on travel, and attempts to recommence in-person inspections in 2022 were unsuccessful.

In August 2022, Russia prevented US on-site inspections under New START and a November 2022 meeting of the BCC was called off by Russian officials. Russia has blamed both the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the sanctions burden on Russia as reasons for not wanting to resume inspections.

The UK must focus on how the Chagos decision is implemented to gain its benefits and minimize risks Expert comment jon.wallace 11 October 2024

The UK decision was welcomed by India and the US, and shows a capacity for fresh thinking. But the transfer of sovereignty must be handled carefully.

The UK announced on 3 October that it would cede sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius.

There are potential strategic and reputation-related upsides for the UK from the decision – but these can only be realized if the deal is implemented in ways that meet the UK’s stated goals.

First, the UK aims to safeguard the utility and security of the joint US–UK base on Diego Garcia. It also intends for the decision to benefit the Chagossians, who were displaced by the British decision in 1965 to separate the Archipelago from Mauritius as part of a deal to grant Mauritian independence.

The decision has already proved deeply controversial in the UK, provoking sustained criticism from former Conservative government ministers and commentary that has branded it naive, dangerous, and a blow to British prestige.

Part of the reason for the welter of criticism may be the apparent suddenness of the announcement. The impression that this was a hasty decision is likely because it came just three months after the Labour government came to office. But this belies the far longer gestation period around the decision.

World opinion

In fact, the previous Conservative UK government decided to begin negotiations over sovereignty of Chagos – following Mauritius bringing the matter to the International Court of Justice. In 2019, the court issued a non-binding opinion in favour of Mauritius.

The same year the UN General Assembly voted 116 in favour to 6 against, and with 56 abstentions, for a resolution ‘welcoming a 25 February 2019 International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legal consequences of separating the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, demanding that the UK unconditionally withdraw its colonial administration from the area within six months’ to ‘enable Mauritius to complete the decolonization of its territory.’

But returning the islands will not necessarily boost the UK’s international standing. Issues relating to the Archipelago are complex, and it will take work to convince interested international parties that the UK is acting fairly against a colonized and displaced population.

Mauritius has no pre-colonial history of controlling the Chagos islands, which are located some 1,500 miles away from Mauritius across a vast sprawl of the Indian Ocean. It is true that the Chagos Islands were a colonial remnant, but to ensure that UK is seen by global audiences to be acting fairly, the handover of sovereignty must be carefully handled. Perhaps the greatest reputational risk will come from failing to adequately account for the rights of Chagossians.  

The more pertinent historical injustice has been to them. And reporting by the BBC has shown that at least some Chagossians were dismayed by not having been consulted in negotiations between the UK and Mauritius.

The UK government announcement on the deal did state that that ‘the welfare of Chagossians’ will be paramount and that ‘the UK will capitalize a new trust fund, as well as separately provide other support, for the benefit of Chagossians’. But for the Chagossians, there will be a clamour to see this realized in full.

Strategic interests

On the strategic question, the utility of the joint US–UK military base on Diego Garcia has been guaranteed in a 99-year lease. As the UK negotiator Jonathan Powell has explained, this deal was reached in close consultation with US officials and puts the base on legally safe ground for the first time in decades. 

Indeed, Powell has explained that Joe Biden was keen to reach agreement ahead of the US elections so that US military access to Diego Garcia was safeguarded against any possible contrary decision by a possible returning Trump presidency.

There are understandable concerns that, as a result of the decision, China may develop commercial ports in the region and seek to compete with India for economic and strategic relationships. But this is a long-term matter of concern to monitor, regardless of the UK’s decision on Chagos.

Chinese naval influence in the Indian Ocean is currently limited, compared to its assertiveness in the South China Sea, where it is building artificial islands, or in the South Pacific where it is pursuing policing assistance deals like that secured with the Solomon Islands.

And the strategic situations in the Pacific and Indian Oceans are not at all alike. Indeed, the Chagos Islands are far closer to India and its economic influence than they are to any other major economic power. 

The fact that India has welcomed the UK’s decision over Chagos sovereignty is noteworthy, given the UK’s separate attempts to modernize and expand its bilateral relations with New Delhi.

In the long run, it is likely that India will play a leading role in Indian Ocean security, and the UK will want to be well-placed to explore how to play a role as an effectively partner.

The more pertinent immediate concern is the implications for other overseas UK territorial responsibilities. There are legitimate questions to be raised over setting a precedent that could undermine RAF Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, which remained sovereign UK bases after Cyprus’s independence in 1960.

Monitoring of trade deals needs a risk-based approach Expert comment NCapeling 24 May 2021

On human rights issues, trading partners must do more than trust to luck.

The recent row within the UK government about the treatment of agricultural products in a proposed new trade deal with Australia provides a reminder that changes to trading arrangements can have social and environmental costs, as well as benefits.

Although the UK government clearly feels political pressure to demonstrate its ‘Global Britain’ credentials with some speedily concluded new deals, rushing ahead without a full understanding of the social, environmental, and human rights implications risks storing up problems for later. In the meantime, calls for better evaluation and monitoring of trade agreements against sustainability-related commitments and goals – ideally with statutory backing – will only get stronger.

EU experiences with these kinds of processes are instructive. For more than 20 years the Directorate General for Trade of the European Commission (DG Trade) has been commissioning sustainability impact assessments (SIAs) from independent consultants in support of trade negotiations, and since 2012 these assessments have explicitly encompassed human rights impacts as a core part of the analysis.

These processes have since been augmented with a programme of periodic ‘ex post’ evaluations of trade agreements to ‘analyse the observed economic, social, human rights, and environmental impacts’ of live trade deals and to make recommendations about any mitigation action which may be needed.

For credibility and objectivity, the Commission outsources much of its sustainability assessment and ex post evaluation activities to independent consultants, who are encouraged to innovate and tailor their approaches subject to broad methodological parameters laid down by the Commission. Over time, experiences with specific assessment and monitoring assignments have enabled external SIA practitioners – and the Commission itself – to progressively strengthen these processes and underlying methodologies.

Yet despite the improvements there remains legitimate questions about whether the human rights aspects of these SIA processes – and subsequent evaluations – are having real policy impact. The difficulty of predicting human rights impacts of trade agreements in advance – as the COVID-19 crisis amply demonstrates – suggests a need for realism about the extent to which a ‘one off’ process, often carried out at a time when there is only ‘agreement in principle’ as to future trading terms, can produce a robust roadmap for heading off future human rights-related risks.

Human rights impact assessments have a potentially valuable role to play in laying down the substantive and structural foundations for future human rights monitoring as part of a broader, iterative, human rights risk management strategy. But the fragmented manner in which many trade agreements approach human rights issues, and the fact that outcomes are the product of negotiation rather than necessarily design, make it difficult to turn this vision into reality.

Controversies surrounding the SIA process for the EU-Mercosur agreement illustrate why striving for more coherence in the identification and subsequent management of human rights-related risks is important. In June 2019, the Commission decided to wrap up negotiations with the South America Mercosur bloc, even though the SIA process for the proposed agreement was still incomplete and the interim and final SIA reports yet to be delivered. Frustrated NGOs made their feelings clear in the form of a formal complaint – and a slap on the wrist from the EU Ombudsman duly followed.

However, when it eventually appeared in December 2020, the final SIA report for the EU-Mercosur deal did include a number of interesting recommendations for responding to specific areas of human rights-related risk identified through the pre-signing assessment process – such as flanking measures designed to address issues pertaining to health, equality, and protection of indigenous peoples, and stressing the need for ‘continuous monitoring’.

Hopefully these recommendations will be proactively followed up, but there are reasons not to be overly optimistic about that. To the extent that these recommendations might have required, or benefitted from, some tweaks to the terms of the trade agreement itself, it was clearly too late. And while there may be opportunities for EU institutions to follow up the recommendations through unilateral ex post evaluation processes, current legal, policy, and institutional arrangements provide few guarantees this will take place.

The credibility of the EU SIA programme has clearly taken a knock because of the problems with the EU-Mercosur process, and stakeholders could be forgiven for questioning whether expending time and effort on engaging in these processes is actually worthwhile. As a first step towards rectifying this, the Commission should be transparent about how it plans to respond to the EU-Mercosur SIA recommendations regarding flanking measures and follow up – ideally consulting with stakeholders about the various human rights monitoring options available.

Looking further ahead, the Commission should be urging SIA practitioners to deal more expansively with the options for follow up human rights monitoring in future SIA reports, setting out recommendations not just on the need for ongoing monitoring of human rights-related issues but on the detail of how this might be done, and how progress towards human rights-related goals could be tracked. And creativity should be encouraged because, as detailed in a newly-published Chatham House research paper, there may be more opportunities for human rights monitoring than first appear.

The SIA process could also provide a forum for exploring complementary measures needed to make future monitoring efforts as effective as possible – jointly and unilaterally; politically, structurally, and resources-wise; both within the framework of the trading relationship and extraneously. The credibility of the process – and hence stakeholder trust – would be further enhanced by commitments from the Commission to be more transparent in future about how different human rights monitoring recommendations laid out in SIAs have been taken into account in subsequent negotiations, in the supervisory arrangements developed for specific trading relationships, and in the implementation of EU trade policy more generally.

Expert

Artificial Intelligence Apps Risk Entrenching India’s Socio-economic Inequities Expert comment sysadmin 14 March 2018

Artificial intelligence applications will not be a panacea for addressing India’s grand challenges. Data bias and unequal access to technology gains will entrench existing socio-economic fissures.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is high on the Indian government’s agenda. Some days ago, Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the Wadhwani Institute for Artificial Intelligence, reportedly India’s first research institute focused on AI solutions for social good. In the same week, Niti Aayog CEO Amitabh Kant argued that AI could potentially add $957 billion to the economy and outlined ways in which AI could be a ‘game changer’.

During his budget speech, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley announced that Niti Aayog would spearhead a national programme on AI; with the near doubling of the Digital India budget, the IT ministry also announced the setting up of four committees for AI-related research. An industrial policy for AI is also in the pipeline, expected to provide incentives to businesses for creating a globally competitive Indian AI industry.

Narratives on the emerging digital economy often suffer from technological determinism — assuming that the march of technological transformation has an inner logic, independent of social choice and capable of automatically delivering positive social change. However, technological trajectories can and must be steered by social choice and aligned with societal objectives. Modi’s address hit all the right notes, as he argued that the ‘road ahead for AI depends on and will be driven by human intentions’. Emphasising the need to direct AI technologies towards solutions for the poor, he called upon students and teachers to identify ‘the grand challenges facing India’ – to ‘Make AI in India and for India’.

To do so, will undoubtedly require substantial investments in R&D, digital infrastructure and education and re-skilling. But, two other critical issues must be simultaneously addressed: data bias and access to technology gains.

While computers have been mimicking human intelligence for some decades now, a massive increase in computational power and the quantity of available data are enabling a process of ‘machine learning.’ Instead of coding software with specific instructions to accomplish a set task, machine learning involves training an algorithm on large quantities of data to enable it to self-learn; refining and improving its results through multiple iterations of the same task. The quality of data sets used to train machines is thus a critical concern in building AI applications.

Much recent research shows that applications based on machine learning reflect existing social biases and prejudice. Such bias can occur if the data set the algorithm is trained on is unrepresentative of the reality it seeks to represent. If for example, a system is trained on photos of people that are predominantly white, it will have a harder time recognizing non-white people. This is what led a recent Google application to tag black people as gorillas.

Alternatively, bias can also occur if the data set itself reflects existing discriminatory or exclusionary practices. A recent study by ProPublica found for example that software that was being used to assess the risk of recidivism in criminals in the United States was twice as likely to mistakenly flag black defendants as being at higher risk of committing future crimes.

The impact of such data bias can be seriously damaging in India, particularly at a time of growing social fragmentation. It can contribute to the entrenchment of social bias and discriminatory practices, while rendering both invisible and pervasive the processes through which discrimination occurs. Women are 34 per cent less likely to own a mobile phone than men – manifested in only 14 per cent of women in rural India owning a mobile phone, while only 30 per cent of India’s internet users are women.

Women’s participation in the labour force, currently at around 27 per cent, is also declining, and is one of the lowest in South Asia. Data sets used for machine learning are thus likely to have a marked gender bias. The same observations are likely to hold true for other marginalized groups as well.

Accorded to a 2014 report, Muslims, Dalits and tribals make up 53 per cent of all prisoners in India; National Crime Records Bureau data from 2016 shows in some states, the percentage of Muslims in the incarcerated population was almost three times the percentage of Muslims in the overall population. If AI applications for law and order are built on this data, it is not unlikely that it will be prejudiced against these groups.

(It is worth pointing out that the recently set-up national AI task force is comprised of mostly Hindu men – only two women are on the task force, and no Muslims or Christians. A recent article in the New York Times talked about AI’s ‘white guy problem’; will India suffer from a ‘Hindu male bias’?)

Yet, improving the quality, or diversity, of data sets may not be able to solve the problem. The processes of machine learning and reasoning involve a quagmire of mathematical functions, variables and permutations, the logic of which are not readily traceable or predictable. The dazzle of AI-enabled efficiency gains must not blind us to the fact that while AI systems are being integrated into key socio-economic systems, their accuracy and logic of reasoning have not been fully understood or studied.

The other big challenge stems from the distribution of AI-led technology gains. Even if estimates of AI contribution to GDP are correct, the adoption of these technologies is likely to be in niches within the organized sector. These industries are likely to be capital- rather than labour-intensive, and thus unlikely to contribute to large-scale job creation.

At the same time, AI applications can most readily replace low- to medium-skilled jobs within the organized sector. This is already being witnessed in the outsourcing sector – where basic call and chat tasks are now automated. Re-skilling will be important, but it is unlikely that those who lose their jobs will also be those who are being re-skilled – the long arch of technological change and societal adaptation is longer than that of people’s lives. The contractualization of work, already on the rise, is likely to further increase as large industries prefer to have a flexible workforce to adapt to technological change. A shift from formal employment to contractual work can imply a loss of access to formal social protection mechanisms, increasing the precariousness of work for workers.

The adoption of AI technologies is also unlikely in the short- to medium-term in the unorganized sector, which engages more than 80 per cent of India’s labor force. The cost of developing and deploying AI applications, particularly in relation to the cost of labour, will inhibit adoption. Moreover, most enterprises within the unorganized sector still have limited access to basic, older technologies – two-thirds of the workforce are employed in enterprises without electricity. Eco-system upgrades will be important but incremental. Given the high costs of developing AI-based applications, most start-ups are unlikely to be working towards creating bottom-of-the-pyramid solutions.

Access to AI-led technology gains is thus likely to be heavily differentiated – a few high-growth industries can be expected, but these will not necessarily result in the welfare of labour. Studies show that labour share of national income, especially routine labour, has been declining steadily across developing countries.

We should be clear that new technological applications themselves are not going to transform or disrupt this trend – rather, without adequate policy steering, these trends will be exacerbated.

Policy debates about AI applications in India need to take these two issues seriously. AI applications will not be a panacea for addressing ‘India’s grand challenges’. Data bias and unequal access to technology gains will entrench existing socio-economic fissures, even making them technologically binding.

In addition to developing AI applications and creating a skilled workforce, the government needs to prioritize research that examines the complex social, ethical and governance challenges associated with the spread of AI-driven technologies. Blind technological optimism might entrench rather than alleviate the grand Indian challenge of inequity and growth.

This article was originally published in the Indian Express.

Zinc is a critical element for insulin storage in the secretory granules of pancreatic beta cells. The islet-specific zinc transporter ZnT8 mediates granular sequestration of zinc ions. A genetic variant of human ZnT8 arising from a single nonsynonymous nucleotide change contributes to increased susceptibility to type-2 diabetes (T2D), but it remains unclear how the high risk variant (Arg-325), which is also a higher frequency (>50%) allele, is correlated with zinc transport activity. Here, we compared the activity of Arg-325 with that of a low risk ZnT8 variant (Trp-325). The Arg-325 variant was found to be more active than the Trp-325 form following induced expression in HEK293 cells. We further examined the functional consequences of changing lipid conditions to mimic the impact of lipid remodeling on ZnT8 activity during insulin granule biogenesis. Purified ZnT8 variants in proteoliposomes exhibited more than 4-fold functional tunability by the anionic phospholipids, lysophosphatidylcholine and cholesterol. Over a broad range of permissive lipid compositions, the Arg-325 variant consistently exhibited accelerated zinc transport kinetics versus the Trp-form. In agreement with the human genetic finding that rare loss-of-function mutations in ZnT8 are associated with reduced T2D risk, our results suggested that the common high risk Arg-325 variant is hyperactive, and thus may be targeted for inhibition to reduce T2D risk in the general populations.

15 July 2020

27 July 2020

27 August 2020

Juntuo Zhou
Nov 30, 2020; 0:RA120.002384v1-mcp.RA120.002384
Research

When you log on to the SAS Risk Governance Framework and choose a solution, the web application might fail to load the solution content. When the problem occurs, you continue to see "Loading..." on the screen, an

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a well-known risk factor for cardiovascular disease, but analysis on Lp(a) and renal dysfunction is scarce. We aimed to investigate prospectively the association of serum Lp(a) with the risk of reduced renal function, and further investigated whether diabetic or hypertensive status modified such association. Six thousand two hundred and fifty-seven Chinese adults aged ≤40 years and free of reduced renal function at baseline were included in the study. Reduced renal function was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m². During a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, 158 participants developed reduced renal function. Each one-unit increase in log₁₀-Lp(a) (milligrams per deciliter) was associated with a 1.99-fold (95% CI 1.15–3.43) increased risk of incident reduced renal function; the multivariable-adjusted odds ratio (OR) for the highest tertile of Lp(a) was 1.61 (95% CI 1.03–2.52) compared with the lowest tertile (P for trend = 0.03). The stratified analysis showed the association of serum Lp(a) and incident reduced renal function was more prominent in participants with prevalent diabetes [OR 4.04, 95% CI (1.42–11.54)] or hypertension [OR 2.18, 95% CI (1.22–3.89)]. A stronger association was observed in the group with diabetes and high Lp(a) (>25 mg/dl), indicating a combined effect of diabetes and high Lp(a) on the reduced renal function risk. An elevated Lp(a) level was independently associated with risk of incident reduced renal function, especially in diabetic or hypertensive patients.

The histopathological subtype of lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) is closely associated with prognosis. Micropapillary or solid predominant LUAD tends to relapse after surgery at an early stage, whereas lepidic pattern shows a favorable outcome. However, the molecular mechanism underlying this phenomenon remains unknown. Here, we recruited 31 lepidic predominant LUADs (LR: low-risk subtype group) and 28 micropapillary or solid predominant LUADs (HR: high-risk subtype group). Tissues of these cases were obtained and label-free quantitative proteomic and bioinformatic analyses were performed. Additionally, prognostic impact of targeted proteins was validated using The Cancer Genome Atlas databases (n=492) and tissue microarrays composed of early-stage LUADs (n=228). A total of 192 differentially expressed proteins were identified between tumor tissues of LR and HR and three clusters were identified via hierarchical clustering excluding eight proteins. Cluster 1 (65 proteins) showed a sequential decrease in expression from normal tissues to tumor tissues of LR and then to HR and was predominantly enriched in pathways such as tyrosine metabolism and ECM-receptor interaction, and increased matched mRNA expression of 18 proteins from this cluster predicted favorable prognosis. Cluster 2 (70 proteins) demonstrated a sequential increase in expression from normal tissues to tumor tissues of LR and then to HR and was mainly enriched in pathways such as extracellular organization, DNA replication and cell cycle, and high matched mRNA expression of 25 proteins indicated poor prognosis. Cluster 3 (49 proteins) showed high expression only in LR, with high matched mRNA expression of 20 proteins in this cluster indicating favorable prognosis. Furthermore, high expression of ERO1A and FEN1 at protein level predicted poor prognosis in early-stage LUAD, supporting the mRNA results. In conclusion, we discovered key differentially expressed proteins and pathways between low-risk and high-risk subtypes of early-stage LUAD. Some of these proteins could serve as potential biomarkers in prognostic evaluation.

Tectonic Politics: Global Political Risk in an Age of Transformation Book sysadmin 7 May 2019

Political risk now affects more markets and countries than ever before and that risk will continue to rise. But traditional methods of managing political risk are no longer legitimate or effective.

In Tectonic Politics, Nigel Gould-Davies explores the complex, shifting landscape of political risk and how to navigate it. He analyses trends in each form of political risk: the power to destroy, seize, regulate, and tax.

He shows how each of these forms reflects a deeper transformation of the global political economy that is reordering the relationship between power, wealth, and values. In a world where everything is political, the craft of engagement is as important as the science of production and the art of the deal.

The successful company must integrate that craft—the engager’s way of seeing and doing—into strategy and culture.

Drawing on a career in academia, business, and diplomacy, Gould-Davies provides corporate leaders, scholars, and engaged citizens with a groundbreaking study of the fastest-rising political risk today. ‘As tectonic plates shape the earth,’ he writes, ‘so tectonic politics forges its governance.’

The book is published as part of the Insights series.

Praise for Tectonic Politics

About the author

Nigel Gould-Davies was an associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House.

Purchase

• UK (via Amazon)
• Rest of world (via Brookings Institution Press)
• Students (via Browns Books)