Chef Chun Lei (l.) and restaurant owner Charles Lu (r.) in the kitchen of Shanghailander Palace in Arcadia.; Credit: Josie Huang/KPCC

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court is no stranger to controversy, but it still gets higher marks in public opinion polls than the other branches of government. Now though, for the first time in memory, the court is not just split along ideological lines, but along political lines as well: All the conservatives are Republican appointees, all the liberals Democratic appointees. That division could put the court in the crosshairs of public opinion if it is forced to make decisions that affect the 2020 election.

Chief Justice John Roberts has worked hard to persuade the public that the justices are fair-minded legal umpires--not politicians in robes. That image got pretty scuffed up earlier this month when the conservative court majority shot down accommodations for the coronavirus that would have allowed six more days for absentee ballots to be received in Wisconsin's election for 500 school board seats, over 100 judicial seats, and thousands of other state and local positions.

In the weeks leading up to the election, the COVID-19 pandemic had become a public health crisis. Encouraged by local officials, about a million more voters than usual requested absentee ballots, and local officials were unable to keep up with the surge. To mitigate that problem, the lower courts allowed an extra six days for election officials to receive completed absentee ballots.

But the day before the election, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling by a 5-to-4 vote. The result was that tens of thousands of people who had not yet even received their absentee ballots were forced to, as the dissenters put it, choose between their health and their right to vote.

The TV footage of people wearing masks waiting for hours to vote at the very few precincts that were open amid the pandemic was, to say the least, not a good look. Health officials in Milwaukee have since identified six voters and one poll worker who appear to have contracted the virus during the election.

The majority opinion was unsigned, so no one knows who the principal author was. But we do know some things.

First, the emergency appeal in the case came through the justice assigned to that region of the country, Brett Kavanaugh. Typically, when a justice refers a case to the full court, he or she writes a memo about the issues, likely with a recommendation. Kavanaugh almost certainly did that. But other justices would then chime in. And in a voting case, Chief Justice Roberts assuredly would have played a pivotal role.

"John Roberts' fingerprints are on this as chief justice and as someone who has owned this area of the law," says Joan Biskupic, a Supreme Court biographer and CNN legal analyst who is the author of a critically acclaimed biography about Roberts.

Indeed, Roberts was invested in voting-rights law as far back as 1982 when he was a staffer in the Reagan administration. Back then, he led the effort to narrow the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. When that failed, President Reagan signed the broad extension of the law, rejecting advice to veto it. But years later, on the Supreme Court, Roberts wrote the decision in Shelby County v. Holder, gutting a key provision of that law.

So, it was no surprise when the conservative majority refused to make even a modest accommodation to the pandemic. What was surprising was the tone of the opinion. Critics of the opinion, including some Roberts defenders, called the language "callous," "cynical," and "unfortunate."

In fact, the word "pandemic" appears not once in the court's unsigned opinion. Rather, the majority sought to portray the issue before the court as a "narrow, technical question." The majority said the lower court had overstepped the Supreme Court's established rule that courts should "ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election."

The dissenters replied that the court's treatment of the current situation as ordinary "boggles the mind." Writing for the dissenters, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opined that "a voter cannot deliver...a ballot she has not yet received. Yet tens of thousands of voters who timely requested absentee ballots" are being asked to do just that.

"I do think there's something to this idea that we need to stick with the rules even in the context of an emergency," says law professor Rick Hasen, an election expert at the University of California, Irvine.

He and others see the legal question before the court as a close call, but say the decision was, at the very least, tone deaf in light of the reality of a pandemic.

Hasen says that the court could have recognized "the inhumanity of making people vote in this way," but that instead the tone of the opinion was "really dismissive of the entire threat facing these voters."

Chief Justice Roberts has, on some occasions tried to bridge the two wings of the court, in a couple of big cases siding with the court's liberals, or sometimes trying to fashion a compromise. But as Hasen observes, "there really is not any case I can think of involving elections where Roberts has forged a larger consensus."

Roberts must have anticipated at least some of the outcry over the Wisconsin decision. He is, after all, an astute political observer.

But as any student of the court knows, Roberts is a reliable, and often leading member of the conservative majority when it comes to a whole host of issues involving campaigns, voting and elections. That includes decisions he has written striking down laws aimed at limiting the role of big money in campaigns and decisions upholding partisan gerrymanders. Moreover voting rights in particular "is an area of the law where John Roberts has not been deterred by anticipated public criticism," says Biskupic, his biographer.

For the chief, says Biskupic, "It's not just voting rights. It's a broader overlay of representation" in his decisions, a pattern that "often will favor Republicans, but more fundamentally, it seems to favor entrenched powers, the status quo in many states, against ordinary citizens. And we certainly saw that in Wisconsin."

Uncertainties around COVID-19 remain, with states facing decisions about when to reopen and what size of public gatherings are safe. As November inches closer, those decisions could affect the 2020 election. Who gets to vote, when, and how, are unanswered questions and states are surely exploring different plans to keep voters safe. But Roberts' Supreme Court may be the ultimate arbiter of what changes and accommodations to voting are allowed.

The majority opinion "tried to tell the public that this was a very small decision," says Biskupic. "But as the dissent pointed out, it laid down a very serious marker about how voters will be accommodated in the middle of the coronavirus crisis."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Rick Bright, former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, is seen here in 2018.; Credit: Toya Sarno Jordan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Updated at 6:14 p.m. ET

The federal scientist who was ousted from his role as director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority has filed a whistleblower complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.

Rick Bright was a high-ranking federal scientist focused on vaccine development and a deputy assistant secretary with the Department of Health and Human Services. Last month, Bright said he was transferred to a "less impactful position" at the National Institutes of Health after he was reluctant to promote the use of drugs such as hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients.

In the complaint, Bright alleges a range of government wrongdoing by Dr. Robert Kadlec, the assistant secretary of preparedness and response at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and others. Bright's boss was Kadlec, who in turn reported to HHS Secretary Alex Azar.

At the time of his removal, Bright said he had been ousted because of his "insistence" that the government spend funds on "safe and scientifically vetted solutions" to address the coronavirus crisis and not on "drugs, vaccines and other technologies that lack scientific merit."

Bright says in the complaint that he raised concerns about the need to prepare for the coronavirus in January but encountered opposition from Trump administration officials. He says he was transferred out of BARDA in retaliation.

According to the complaint, relations between Bright and Kadlec had been strained since 2018 or so, when Bright began "raising repeated objections to the outsized role Dr. Kadlec allowed industry consultants to play in securing contracts that Dr. Bright and other scientists and subject matter experts determined were not meritorious."

"Once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, however, Dr. Bright became even more alarmed about the pressure that Dr. Kadlec and other government officials were exerting on BARDA to invest in drugs, vaccines, and other technologies without proper scientific vetting or that lacked scientific merit," the complaint continues. "Dr. Bright objected to these efforts and made clear that BARDA would only invest the billions of dollars allocated by Congress to address the COVID-19 pandemic in safe and scientifically vetted solutions and it would not succumb to the pressure of politics or cronyism."

The complaint alleges that Bright made repeated efforts to get the U.S. government to make adequate preparations for coronavirus, but was stymied by political appointees leading the HHS, including Azar.

HHS did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.

Bright says that in an effort to get the word out to the public about the risks associated with hydroxychloroquine, he shared with a reporter nonclassified emails between HHS officials that "discussed the drug's potential toxicity and demonstrated the political pressure to rush these drugs from Pakistan and India to American households." He says Azar and Kadlec removed him from his post within days of publication of an article about chloroquine because they suspected he was the article's source.

Bright says he stopped receiving a paycheck on April 20 and has not been assigned any further duties.

News of the whistleblower complaint was made public by his attorney on Tuesday.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Among those protesting stay-at-home orders this week at the California Capitol in Sacramento were activists who oppose governments requiring vaccinations for school children.; Credit: Katie Orr/KQED

Protests over stay-at-home orders because of COVID-19 have become more common around the country. In California, a surprising group is behind some of them: those who oppose mandatory vaccinations.

On Thursday, a mash-up of people mingled on the sidewalk in front of California's state Capitol in Sacramento. There were Trump supporters wearing MAGA hats and waving American flags. There were Christians, singing along to religious rock songs and raising their hands in prayer. The event's MC. urged Gov. Gavin Newsom to tune into their event.

"Everybody up at the Capitol, tell Gavin Newsom [to tune in to] 107.9 FM, if he wants to hear what we have to say," the MC told the crowd over loudspeakers. "It could be kind of good for him!"

There were also mothers with their children at the rally. Many people were not wearing face masks or observing social distancing protocols.

They'd all come out to protest California's stay-at-home order, put in place to slow the spread of COVID-19. This week's event was built around the National Day of Prayer, and featured pastors and sermons. But it was organized by a group called Freedom Angels, which was originally formed to fight mandatory vaccine laws in the state.

At the beginning of the rally, the group's founders took the stage, including Denise Aguilar.

"Hello everybody, my name is Denise, I'm one of the founders of Freedom Angels," Aguilar said to a cheering crowd. "Thank you guys for being out here to let Gov. Newsom know we're not going away! We've said this for years!"

The group has become a fixture at the Capitol ever since California passed a law requiring school students to be vaccinated and a second law tightening restrictions on medical exemptions for those vaccines. But another Freedom Angels founder, Stefanie Fetzer, said they're not a single-issue group. She said these events are about promoting personal freedom.

"I think what we're seeing now is the predictive modeling that they came out with in the beginning didn't hold true. We aren't seeing the numbers that they predicted," Fetzer said. "And instead of backing off of the shutdown and the restrictive measures that Gov. Newsom implemented, he seems to be doubling down."

Attention-seeking strategy

Public health advocates point out that the reason those early predictions didn't come true is that aggressive social distancing measures — including stay-at-home orders — worked. Democratic state Senator Richard Pan, who authored California's vaccine laws, believes this anti-vaccine group is aligning with others protesting the stay-at-home order as a way to promote their cause. After all, Pan said, a vaccine would eventually allow the economy to reopen.

"They have staged these protests to basically find a way to get media attention for themselves. They fund raise off of their activities as well," Pan said. "So, frankly, many of the anti-vaxxers who are involved in this are really there for their own interests."

It's common for anti-vaccine groups to latch onto other controversial issues, according to epidemiologist and vaccine educator René Najera. For instance, he points to abortion.

"They try to say that there are aborted fetal cells in vaccines — which there are not — to try to get the anti-abortion people on their side," he said. "And then they flip it around and say, also, 'My body, my choice.'"

Najera said those tactics can have dangerous outcomes, including making people think twice about getting vaccines. In fact, he said, in 2019 the World Health Organization named vaccine hesitancy, or people's reluctance to consider vaccination, as one of the world's top 10 public health challenges.

"And we saw the effects of that," Najera said. "We saw a rise of measles in the United States to the point where the elimination status of the United States for measles was in jeopardy."

Najera is confident vaccine opponents aren't going away. He says, if anything, the rise of social media has made it easier for them to spread their message. What he finds most frustrating is that these anti-vaccines protesters aren't just making choices that affect their own families. Najera says choosing not to vaccinate their children and joining other large protests to spread their message puts the health of everyone at risk.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: LA Johnson/NPR

When Congress allocated money for higher education in the coronavirus rescue package, it set aside nearly $350 million for colleges that had "significant unmet needs."

Most of that money has now been allotted by the U.S. Department of Education to small, private colleges that serve just a fraction of U.S. college students. Meanwhile, public colleges — which serve more than 70% of all college students — are facing a steep drop in state funding.

The 20 institutions that received the most amount of money from the unmet-need fund serve less than 3,000 students combined, and about half are religious schools — including Bible colleges and seminaries — several of which serve less than 100 students.

Don't see the graphic above? Click here.

Lawmakers designed this unmet-need fund to give priority to any higher education institution that has received less than $500,000 through the CARES Act's other pots of funding. As a result, a school like Virginia Beach Theological Seminary, which serves 47 students, is eligible to receive $496,930 in federal aid.

"Imagine you had a special reserve fund to deal with a big crisis and you spent over 90% of that in one fell swoop on vacation tickets," or something that "wasn't as necessary in the moment," says Ben Miller, the vice president for postsecondary education at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Miller argues larger public colleges, including community colleges that serve tens of thousands of students, should be getting more financial support. He calculates the department allocated more than $320 million of the $350 million on relief for small colleges, most of them private.

"As a result, they only have about 8% of the dollars they originally got here left to help any other college in the country that might be most affected," he says.

As with other CARES Act funding, in order to receive the money, an institution would still need to request it from the Department of Education.

Much of the CARES Act's more than $14 billion for higher education is being distributed according to the number of full-time low-income students a college serves, which is measured through federal Pell Grants.

The $350-million unmet-need fund followed a different formula. Miller says for this particular pot, schools that did not receive $500,000 or more from other available CARES Act funds were given the difference between what they did receive and $500,000 limit.

"So the result is that the smaller you are and the less money you've already gotten, the more you get from this program," Miller says.

But $350 million can only go so far. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was given the discretion to choose which schools would benefit from the fund, and by how much.

Some schools were baffled when they learned they had been allotted hundreds of thousands of dollars in relief, and many weren't aware they were even eligible for the money. Brad Smith, the president of Bakke Graduate University in Dallas, which was allotted $497,338 in federal aid, says he didn't learn of his school's eligibility until he was contacted by NPR.

"I don't know anything about this," Smith says, noting that his school hadn't asked for additional federal help. "I'm taking responsibility to find out what it means."

An Education Department spokesperson tells NPR, "In order to receive this funding, an institution will need to request it. Any institution that does not need this money should simply decline to request it so schools will not be in the position of having to return unneeded funds."

The department says, once the requests are processed, any remaining funds will be redistributed through competitive grants.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

KJ Apa and Britt Robertson in "I Still Believe" ; Credit: Lionsgate/I Still Believe (2020)

Larry Mantle and KPCC film critics Amy Nicholson and Wade Major review this weekend’s new movie releases.

• "I Still Believe" on VOD

• "Banana Split" on VOD 

• "Vivarium" on VOD

• "Resistance" on VOD

• "Vitalina Varela" on GrasshopperFilm.com

• "Uncorked" on Netflix

• "Dosed" on film's website

• "The Occupant" on Netflix

• "Tape" on VOD

• "There's Something In The Water" on Netflix

Guests:

Amy Nicholson, film critic for KPCC, film writer for The Guardian and host of the podcasts ‘Unspooled’ and the podcast miniseries “Zoom”; she tweets @TheAmyNicholson

Wade Major, film critic for KPCC and CineGods.com

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Closing Night Party at last year's 2019 TCM 10th Annual Classic Film Festival in Hollywood, California. ; Credit: Presley Ann/Getty Images for TCM

Like all public events following the start of widespread stay-at-home orders from the state and federal government, the 2020 TCM Classic Film Festival was unfortunately cancelled this year due to health concerns posed by COVID-19. But festival faithful and classic film buffs won’t be left hanging this year.

Instead of a live, in person event, TCM decided to do a Special Home Edition of the annual festival that will air on the TCM Channel. The festival kicked off Thursday evening with a screening of the 1954 version of “A Star is Born” starring Judy Garland and James Mason and will include a number of films from past years’ festival lineups as well as ones that were slated for this year’s event. It ends late Sunday night (technically early Monday morning) with a screening of the 1982 film Victor/Victoria, for which Julie Andrews was slated to be in attendance at the 2020 festival before it was cancelled.

Today on FilmWeek, Turner Classic Movies hosts Ben Mankiewicz and Dave Karger join Larry Mantle to preview this year’s Special Home Edition of the TCM Classic Film Festival, talk about having to pivot due to the pandemic, and sharing some of their favorite films that are screening at this year’s event.

For a list of films and showtimes, click here.

Guests:

Ben Mankiewicz, host for Turner Classic Movies; he tweets @BenMank77

Dave Karger, host for Turner Classic Movies and special correspondent for the Internet Movie Database (IMDb); he tweets @DaveKarger

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: LA Johnson/NPR

When Congress allocated money for higher education in the coronavirus rescue package, it set aside nearly $350 million for colleges that had "significant unmet needs."

Most of that money has now been allotted by the U.S. Department of Education to small, private colleges that serve just a fraction of U.S. college students. Meanwhile, public colleges — which serve more than 70% of all college students — are facing a steep drop in state funding.

The 20 institutions that received the most amount of money from the unmet-need fund serve less than 3,000 students combined, and about half are religious schools — including Bible colleges and seminaries — several of which serve less than 100 students.

Don't see the graphic above? Click here.

Lawmakers designed this unmet-need fund to give priority to any higher education institution that has received less than $500,000 through the CARES Act's other pots of funding. As a result, a school like Virginia Beach Theological Seminary, which serves 47 students, is eligible to receive $496,930 in federal aid.

"Imagine you had a special reserve fund to deal with a big crisis and you spent over 90% of that in one fell swoop on vacation tickets," or something that "wasn't as necessary in the moment," says Ben Miller, the vice president for postsecondary education at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Miller argues larger public colleges, including community colleges that serve tens of thousands of students, should be getting more financial support. He calculates the department allocated more than $320 million of the $350 million on relief for small colleges, most of them private.

"As a result, they only have about 8% of the dollars they originally got here left to help any other college in the country that might be most affected," he says.

As with other CARES Act funding, in order to receive the money, an institution would still need to request it from the Department of Education.

Much of the CARES Act's more than $14 billion for higher education is being distributed according to the number of full-time low-income students a college serves, which is measured through federal Pell Grants.

The $350-million unmet-need fund followed a different formula. Miller says for this particular pot, schools that did not receive $500,000 or more from other available CARES Act funds were given the difference between what they did receive and $500,000 limit.

"So the result is that the smaller you are and the less money you've already gotten, the more you get from this program," Miller says.

But $350 million can only go so far. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was given the discretion to choose which schools would benefit from the fund, and by how much.

Some schools were baffled when they learned they had been allotted hundreds of thousands of dollars in relief, and many weren't aware they were even eligible for the money. Brad Smith, the president of Bakke Graduate University in Dallas, which was allotted $497,338 in federal aid, says he didn't learn of his school's eligibility until he was contacted by NPR.

"I don't know anything about this," Smith says, noting that his school hadn't asked for additional federal help. "I'm taking responsibility to find out what it means."

An Education Department spokesperson tells NPR, "In order to receive this funding, an institution will need to request it. Any institution that does not need this money should simply decline to request it so schools will not be in the position of having to return unneeded funds."

The department says, once the requests are processed, any remaining funds will be redistributed through competitive grants.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Among those protesting stay-at-home orders this week at the California Capitol in Sacramento were activists who oppose governments requiring vaccinations for school children.; Credit: Katie Orr/KQED

Protests over stay-at-home orders because of COVID-19 have become more common around the country. In California, a surprising group is behind some of them: those who oppose mandatory vaccinations.

On Thursday, a mash-up of people mingled on the sidewalk in front of California's state Capitol in Sacramento. There were Trump supporters wearing MAGA hats and waving American flags. There were Christians, singing along to religious rock songs and raising their hands in prayer. The event's MC. urged Gov. Gavin Newsom to tune into their event.

"Everybody up at the Capitol, tell Gavin Newsom [to tune in to] 107.9 FM, if he wants to hear what we have to say," the MC told the crowd over loudspeakers. "It could be kind of good for him!"

There were also mothers with their children at the rally. Many people were not wearing face masks or observing social distancing protocols.

They'd all come out to protest California's stay-at-home order, put in place to slow the spread of COVID-19. This week's event was built around the National Day of Prayer, and featured pastors and sermons. But it was organized by a group called Freedom Angels, which was originally formed to fight mandatory vaccine laws in the state.

At the beginning of the rally, the group's founders took the stage, including Denise Aguilar.

"Hello everybody, my name is Denise, I'm one of the founders of Freedom Angels," Aguilar said to a cheering crowd. "Thank you guys for being out here to let Gov. Newsom know we're not going away! We've said this for years!"

The group has become a fixture at the Capitol ever since California passed a law requiring school students to be vaccinated and a second law tightening restrictions on medical exemptions for those vaccines. But another Freedom Angels founder, Stefanie Fetzer, said they're not a single-issue group. She said these events are about promoting personal freedom.

"I think what we're seeing now is the predictive modeling that they came out with in the beginning didn't hold true. We aren't seeing the numbers that they predicted," Fetzer said. "And instead of backing off of the shutdown and the restrictive measures that Gov. Newsom implemented, he seems to be doubling down."

Attention-seeking strategy

Public health advocates point out that the reason those early predictions didn't come true is that aggressive social distancing measures — including stay-at-home orders — worked. Democratic state Senator Richard Pan, who authored California's vaccine laws, believes this anti-vaccine group is aligning with others protesting the stay-at-home order as a way to promote their cause. After all, Pan said, a vaccine would eventually allow the economy to reopen.

"They have staged these protests to basically find a way to get media attention for themselves. They fund raise off of their activities as well," Pan said. "So, frankly, many of the anti-vaxxers who are involved in this are really there for their own interests."

It's common for anti-vaccine groups to latch onto other controversial issues, according to epidemiologist and vaccine educator René Najera. For instance, he points to abortion.

"They try to say that there are aborted fetal cells in vaccines — which there are not — to try to get the anti-abortion people on their side," he said. "And then they flip it around and say, also, 'My body, my choice.'"

Najera said those tactics can have dangerous outcomes, including making people think twice about getting vaccines. In fact, he said, in 2019 the World Health Organization named vaccine hesitancy, or people's reluctance to consider vaccination, as one of the world's top 10 public health challenges.

"And we saw the effects of that," Najera said. "We saw a rise of measles in the United States to the point where the elimination status of the United States for measles was in jeopardy."

Najera is confident vaccine opponents aren't going away. He says, if anything, the rise of social media has made it easier for them to spread their message. What he finds most frustrating is that these anti-vaccines protesters aren't just making choices that affect their own families. Najera says choosing not to vaccinate their children and joining other large protests to spread their message puts the health of everyone at risk.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Birth control pills in 1976 in New York. The birth control pill was approved by the FDA 60 years ago this week.; Credit: /Bettmann/Getty Images

Updated at 9:44 a.m. ET

As a young woman growing up in a poor farming community in Virginia in the 1940 and '50s, with little information about sex or contraception, sexuality was a frightening thing for Carole Cato and her female friends.

"We lived in constant fear, I mean all of us," she said. "It was like a tightrope. always wondering, is this going to be the time [I get pregnant]?"

Cato, 78, now lives in Columbia, S.C. She grew up in the years before the birth control pill was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, on May 9, 1960. She said teenage girls in her community were told very little about how their bodies worked.

"I was very fortunate; I did not get pregnant, but a lot of my friends did. And of course, they just got married and went into their little farmhouses," she said. "But I just felt I just had to get out."

At 23, Cato married a widower who already had seven children. They decided seven was enough.

By that time, Cato said, the pill allowed the couple to avoid having more babies — and she eventually was able to go on to college.

"It was just like going from night to day, as far as the freedom of it," Cato said. "And to know that I had control, that I had choice, that I controlled my body. It gave me a whole new lease on life."

Loretta Ross, an activist and visiting women's studies professor at Smith College, was among the first generation of young women to have access to the birth control pill throughout their reproductive years.

Ross, now 66, said by the time she came of age around 1970, the pill was giving young women more control over their fertility than previous generations had enjoyed.

"We could talk about having sex – not without consequences, because there were still STDS ... but at the same time, with more freedom than our foremothers had," Ross said. "So it changed the world."

For all it's done for women, Ross said that the pill has a complex and controversial history; it was first tested on low-income women in Puerto Rico. Ross said the pill also has limitations; she'd like to see it made available over the counter, as it is in some countries – not to mention, a pill for men.

When the pill was approved in 1960, women had few relatively few contraceptive options, and the pill offered more reliability and convenience than methods like condoms or diaphragms, said Dr. Eve Espey, chair of the Department of Ob/Gyn and Family Planning at the University of New Mexico.

"There was a huge, pent-up desire for a truly effective form of contraception, which had been lacking up to that point," Espey said.

By 1965, she said, 40% of young married women were on the pill.

For Pat Fishback, now 80 and living in Richmond, Va., the newly-available pill allowed her to delay having children in her early 20s until she'd been married for a couple of years.

"It also made having children a positive experience," Fishback said. "Because we had actually, emotionally and intellectually, gotten to the point where we really desired to have children."

It took a bit longer for unmarried women to gain widespread access to the pill and other forms of contraception: Linda Gordon, 80, a historian at New York University, remembers the stigma around single women and contraception at the time.

"When I was in college, a number of women had a wedding ring – a gold ring –that we would pass around and use when we wanted to go see a doctor to get fitted for a diaphragm," Gordon said. "In other words, there were people finding their way to do that, even then."

The pill also gave rise to a variety of other forms of hormonal contraception, many of which are popular today, Gordon said. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 13% of American women of reproductive age use the pill — making it the second most popular form of contraception, after female sterilization.

Gordon said that 60 years after the pill's approval, contraception remains a contentious political issue.

Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving the birth control mandate in the Affordable Care Act. A decision on whether some institutions with religious or moral objections can deny contraceptive coverage to their employees is expected in the months to come.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Ron Struthers of Struthers' Resource Stock Report details the value proposition of Bam Bam Resources and its flagship prospect.

As the world turns to technology to track and contain the COVID-19 pandemic, could this spell the end of digital privacy rights?

The post Public health vs. personal privacy: Choose only one? appeared first on WeLiveSecurity

The seemingly insatiable demand among people and businesses alike helps reveal a rash of privacy and security issues facing the platform

The post Zoom’s privacy and security woes in the spotlight appeared first on WeLiveSecurity

While in France, a citizen of Brazil who resides in California books a bungee jump in New Zealand. Is it a leap of faith into the unknown, for both the operator and the thrill-seeker?

The post Is “global privacy” an oxymoron? appeared first on WeLiveSecurity

Source: Streetwise Reports   04/22/2020

In an April 19 research note, ROTH Capital Partners analyst Yasmeen Rahimi reported that the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) awarded Moderna Inc. (MRNA:NASDAQ) $483 million in funding, in part for development of its COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA-1273.

Rahimi discussed how Massachusetts-based Moderna will use the funds, which will be provided in tranches to reach certain milestones.

Half of the $483 million award will be used to help cover clinical development costs of mRNA-1273, from trial operations to the filing of a biologics license application.

Currently, the vaccine is in Phase 1 in the clinic. Recently, the biopharma decided to add to the study a cohort of patients aged 51 years and up, which "will be key for demonstrating mRNA-1273's safety and immunogenicity in this vulnerable population," Rahimi noted.

The analyst explained that for mRNA-1273 to advance to Phase 2, the results from Phase 1 must be optimal. The data must demonstrate the vaccine is safe and tolerable. They must show that the vaccine produced a sufficient number of neutralizing antibodies, crucial for stopping viral replication and proving the vaccine's method of action. Phase 1 safety data from the group aged 18–55 years are expected in spring followed by immunogenicity results, likely in mid-July or early August.

Rahimi relayed that as soon as safety data are available, Moderna plans to launch a Phase 2 study of mRNA-1273 rather than wait for the remaining results to become available, according to CEO Stéphane Bancel.

"Pending favorable safety data from Phase 1, we point out that a potential Phase 2 study would enroll hundreds of patients, and that the BARDA funding could potentially allow Moderna to pursue trials in patient populations who are at greater risk, such as patients who have underlying comorbidities, those who are overweight and patients with cancer," commented Rahimi.

Moderna will spend the second half of the $483 million BARDA funding on the engineering and optimization work required to scale up the manufacturing of its messenger RNA (mRNA).

"With the current focus on SARS-CoV-2 and mRNA-1273, Moderna was now able to present BARDA its strategic plans (amount, time and people) of how to be ready for commercial launch," wrote Rahimi. "This preparation was likely helpful in expediting discussions with BARDA and awarding of the grant."

Also regarding mRNA production, Ginkgo Bioworks, a company with expertise in organism biology and genetically engineering bacteria to replace certain industrial applications, is helping Moderna optimize certain parts of the process.

Rahimi, who is closely tracking COVID-19 data, highlighted that April 18 was the first day in five on which the daily death tally, 1,867, was less than that predicted by Dr. Christopher Murray's model, 2,194.

ROTH has a Buy rating on Moderna.

Disclosure:
1) Doresa Banning compiled this article for Streetwise Reports LLC and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an independent contractor. She or members of her household own securities of the following companies mentioned in the article: None. She or members of her household are paid by the following companies mentioned in this article: None.
2) The following companies mentioned in this article are billboard sponsors of Streetwise Reports: None. Click here for important disclosures about sponsor fees.
3) Comments and opinions expressed are those of the specific experts and not of Streetwise Reports or its officers. The information provided above is for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security.
4) The article does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports' terms of use and full legal disclaimer. This article is not a solicitation for investment. Streetwise Reports does not render general or specific investment advice and the information on Streetwise Reports should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company mentioned on Streetwise Reports.
5) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their immediate families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise from the time of the interview or the decision to write an article until three business days after the publication of the interview or article. The foregoing prohibition does not apply to articles that in substance only restate previously published company releases.

Disclosures from ROTH Capital Partners, Moderna Inc., Company Note, April 19, 2020

Regulation Analyst Certification ("Reg AC"): The research analyst primarily responsible for the content of this report certifies the following under Reg AC: I hereby certify that all views expressed in this report accurately reflect my personal views about the subject company or companies and its or their securities. I also certify that no part of my compensation was, is or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the specific recommendations or views expressed in this report.

Within the last twelve months, ROTH has received compensation for investment banking services from Moderna, Inc.

ROTH makes a market in shares of Moderna, Inc. and as such, buys and sells from customers on a principal basis.

Within the last twelve months, ROTH has managed or co-managed a public offering for Moderna, Inc.

ROTH Capital Partners, LLC expects to receive or intends to seek compensation for investment banking or other business relationships with the covered companies mentioned in this report in the next three months.

( Companies Mentioned: MRNA:NASDAQ, )

Source: Streetwise Reports   04/24/2020

Mesoblast Ltd. (MESO:NASDAQ; MSB:ASX) today announced that it had achieved an "83% survival in ventilator-dependent COVID-19 patients (10/12) with moderate/severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) treated during the period March-April 2020 with two intravenous infusions of Mesoblast's allogeneic mesenchymal stem cell product candidate remestemcel-L within the first five days." The company stated that of the 12 patients treated, 75% (9/12) successfully came off ventilator support after a median timeframe of 10 days. The firm advised that all of the patients were treated under an emergency Investigational New Drug (IDA) application or expanded access protocol at Mt. Sinai hospital in New York City and so far seven of the patients have been discharged from the hospital. The company noted that each of the patients had received a variety of experimental agents prior to being treated with remestemcel-L.

The firm explained that until now only about 9% (38/445) of ventilator-dependent COVID-19 patients at a major referral hospital network in New York City were able to come off ventilator support when treated with existing standard of care treatments during March and April 2020. The company reported that at a second major referral hospital network in New York City over the same period, there was 88% mortality with only 12% survival (38/320) among ventilator-dependent COVID-19 patients.

The company's CEO Dr. Silviu Itescu commented, "The remarkable clinical outcomes in these critically ill patients continue to underscore the potential benefits of remestemcel-L as an anti-inflammatory agent in cytokine release syndromes associated with high mortality, including acute graft versus host disease and COVID-19 ARDS. We intend to rapidly complete the randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 2/3 trial in COVID-19 ARDS patients to rigorously confirm that remestemcel-L improves survival in these critically ill patients."

Dr. Fred Grossman, Mesoblast's Chief Medical Officer, added, "There is a significant need to improve the dismal survival outcomes in COVID-19 patients who progress to ARDS and require ventilators. We have implemented robust statistical analyses in our Phase 2/3 trial as recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in order to maximize our ability to evaluate whether remestemcel-L provides a survival benefit in moderate/severe COVID-19 ARDS."

Mesoblast Ltd. is headquartered in Melbourne, Australia, and is a developer of industrial-scale, cryopreserved, off-the-shelf allogeneic cellular medicines. The company utilizes its proprietary mesenchymal lineage cell therapy technology platform in order to create a wide portfolio of commercial products and late-stage product candidates. The firm indicated that "the Biologics License Application to seek approval of its product candidate RYONCIL™ (remestemcel-L) for steroid-refractory acute graft versus host disease has been accepted for priority review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration." The company has offices in Australia, the U.S. and Singapore.

Mesoblast began the day with a market capitalization of around $687.9 million with approximately 106.7 million shares outstanding. MESO shares opened nearly 142% higher today at $15.59 (+$9.14, +141.71%) over yesterday's $6.45 closing price and reached a new 52-week high price this morning of $20.57. The stock has traded today between $13.01 and $20.57 per share and is presently trading at $14.76 (+$8.30, +128.76%).

Disclosure:
1) Stephen Hytha compiled this article for Streetwise Reports LLC and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an independent contractor. He or members of his household own securities of the following companies mentioned in the article: None. He or members of his household are paid by the following companies mentioned in this article: None.
2) The following companies mentioned in this article are billboard sponsors of Streetwise Reports: None. Click here for important disclosures about sponsor fees.
3) Comments and opinions expressed are those of the specific experts and not of Streetwise Reports or its officers. The information provided above is for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security.
4) The article does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports' terms of use and full legal disclaimer. This article is not a solicitation for investment. Streetwise Reports does not render general or specific investment advice and the information on Streetwise Reports should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company mentioned on Streetwise Reports.
5) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their immediate families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise from the time of the interview or the decision to write an article until three business days after the publication of the interview or article. The foregoing prohibition does not apply to articles that in substance only restate previously published company releases.
6) This article does not constitute medical advice. Officers, employees and contributors to Streetwise Reports are not licensed medical professionals. Readers should always contact their healthcare professionals for medical advice.

( Companies Mentioned: MESO:NASDAQ; MSB:ASX, )

Source: Streetwise Reports   04/27/2020

Avadel Pharmaceuticals Plc (AVDL:NASDAQ) today announced "positive topline data from its pivotal Phase 3 REST-ON trial assessing the safety and efficacy of FT218, an investigational, once-nightly formulation of sodium oxybate for the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy in patients with narcolepsy." The firm pointed out that it met all three of the co-primary efficacy endpoints in the study for each of three dosage levels which it claims demonstrates "highly significant, clinically meaningful improvements on the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test, Clinical Global Impression-Improvement and mean weekly cataplexy attacks."

The company's Chief Medical Officer Jordan Dubow, M.D., commented, "We are excited to see these positive topline data from the REST-ON study, where all three dose levels of once-nightly FT218 demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement on the measures of the two prominent symptoms of narcolepsy, as well as an improvement in overall functioning compared to placebo...Once-nightly FT218 delivered a clinically meaningful response within three weeks of treatment initiation, which was sustained through each treatment period...We think once-nightly FT218, if approved, has the potential to be a meaningful contributor to patient care."

Avadel Pharma's CEO Greg Divis remarked, "The successful outcome of the REST-ON study strengthens our belief that, if approved, once-nightly FT218 has the potential to be a significant advancement for patients in the estimated $1.7 billion twice-nightly sodium oxybate market. Our proprietary market research with physicians and patients informs us that there is a strong interest in a once-nightly sodium oxybate formulation. We look forward to sharing the results from the REST-ON study with the FDA and progressing toward a potential approval that would allow us to bring this important treatment to the patients who need it most. If approved, FT218 would be the first once-nightly therapy to address both excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy in patients with narcolepsy."

The REST-ON study is a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 3 trial to assess the efficacy and safety of once-nightly FT218, a formulation of sodium oxybate using Avadel's proprietary Micropump technology for extended-release oral suspension in the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy in patients suffering from narcolepsy. The company stated that 212 patients were enrolled in the study and result "showed that the 9 g dose of once-nightly FT218 demonstrated a highly significant and clinically meaningful improvement compared to placebo across all three co-primary endpoints."

The company advised that FT218 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation from the U.S. FDA for the treatment of narcolepsy. The firm added that the designation was granted on basis that FT218 may be clinically superior to a formulation of sodium oxybate that is already approved by the FDA for the same indication.

Avadel Pharmaceuticals is biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. The company's primary focus is on the development and potential FDA approval for FT218, which just completed its Phase 3 REST-ON clinical trial for the treatment of narcolepsy patients suffering from excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy. The firm also develops and markets sterile injectable drugs for use in hospital settings.

Avadel started off the day with a market capitalization of around $456.2 million with approximately 46.4 million shares outstanding and a short interest of about 14.00%. AVDL shares opened more than 34% higher today at $13.30 (+$3.37, +34.28%) over Friday's $9.83 closing price and reached a new 52-week high price this morning of $13.49. The stock has traded today between $11.90 and $13.49 per share and is currently trading at $12.27 (+$2.44 +24.82%).

Disclosure:
1) Stephen Hytha compiled this article for Streetwise Reports LLC and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an independent contractor. He or members of his household own securities of the following companies mentioned in the article: None. He or members of his household are paid by the following companies mentioned in this article: None.
2) The following companies mentioned in this article are billboard sponsors of Streetwise Reports: None. Click here for important disclosures about sponsor fees.
3) Comments and opinions expressed are those of the specific experts and not of Streetwise Reports or its officers. The information provided above is for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security.
4) The article does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports' terms of use and full legal disclaimer. This article is not a solicitation for investment. Streetwise Reports does not render general or specific investment advice and the information on Streetwise Reports should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company mentioned on Streetwise Reports.
5) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their immediate families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise from the time of the interview or the decision to write an article until three business days after the publication of the interview or article. The foregoing prohibition does not apply to articles that in substance only restate previously published company releases.
6) This article does not constitute medical advice. Officers, employees and contributors to Streetwise Reports are not licensed medical professionals. Readers should always contact their healthcare professionals for medical advice.

( Companies Mentioned: AVDL:NASDAQ, )

Source: Streetwise Reports   05/06/2020

In a May 4 research note, H.C. Wainwright & Co. analyst Ed Arce reported that Arcturus Therapeutics Holdings Inc. (ARCT:NASDAQ) formed a partnership with Catalent Inc. (CTLT:NYSE), which "raises the profile of LUNAR-COV19 as a leading vaccine candidate."

Arce reviewed Catalent's contribution to the partnership. The global contract development and manufacturing organization is to manufacture Arcturus' messenger RNA (mRNA) LUNAR-COV19 for protection against SARS-CoV-2 to be used first for human clinical trials and potentially, eventually commercially.

As for timing, Arce noted, San Diego, Calif.-based Arcturus intends to transfer its vaccine technology to Catalent this month and expects Catalent to manufacture the first batches of LUNAR-COV19 by June 2020. "Critically, Arcturus continues to anticipate initiation of Phase 1 testing of LUNAR-COV19 in the summer of 2020," Arce highlighted.

Catalent is to produce the vaccine at its biomanufacturing facility in Madison, Wisc. "This facility utilizes Catalent's flex-suite, a current good manufacturing practice manufacturing suite, that can produce batches at multiple scales and support Arcturus' proprietary mRNA manufacturing process," explained Arce.

Obtaining the vaccine from one facility domestically versus multiple entities worldwide should result in several benefits, Arce continued. They include easy development and production, accelerated delivery and improved costs. Arcturus believes Catalent can produce millions of doses of LUNAR-COV19 mRNA in 2020 and, if need be, hundreds of millions of doses each year subsequently for use globally.

Arce pointed out that LUNAR-COV19 differentiates itself from other similar vaccine candidates in that the technology and delivery platform behind it deliver an "extraordinarily low dose (perhaps 2 micrograms)" in "a potential single shot."

H.C. Wainwright has a Buy rating and a $62 per share price target on Arcturus, the stock of which is currently trading at about $42.12 per share.

Disclosure:
1) Doresa Banning compiled this article for Streetwise Reports LLC and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an independent contractor. She or members of her household own securities of the following companies mentioned in the article: None. She or members of her household are paid by the following companies mentioned in this article: None.
2) The following companies mentioned in this article are billboard sponsors of Streetwise Reports: None. Click here for important disclosures about sponsor fees.
3) Comments and opinions expressed are those of the specific experts and not of Streetwise Reports or its officers. The information provided above is for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security.
4) The article does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports' terms of use and full legal disclaimer. This article is not a solicitation for investment. Streetwise Reports does not render general or specific investment advice and the information on Streetwise Reports should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company mentioned on Streetwise Reports.
5) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their immediate families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise from the time of the interview or the decision to write an article until three business days after the publication of the interview or article. The foregoing prohibition does not apply to articles that in substance only restate previously published company releases.
6) This article does not constitute medical advice. Officers, employees and contributors to Streetwise Reports are not licensed medical professionals. Readers should always contact their healthcare professionals for medical advice.

Disclosures from H.C. Wainwright & Co., Arcturus Therapeutics Holdings Inc., First Take, May 4, 2020

Investment Banking Services include, but are not limited to, acting as a manager/co-manager in the underwriting or placement of securities, acting as financial advisor, and/or providing corporate finance or capital markets-related services to a company or one of its affiliates or subsidiaries within the past 12 months.

I, Ed Arce, certify that 1) all of the views expressed in this report accurately reflect my personal views about any and all subject securities or issuers discussed; and 2) no part of my compensation was, is, or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendation or views expressed in this research report; and 3) neither myself nor any members of my household is an officer, director or advisory board member of these companies.

None of the research analysts or the research analyst's household has a financial interest in the securities of Arcturus Therapeutics Holdings Inc. (including, without limitation, any option, right, warrant, future, long or short position).

As of April 30, 2020 neither the Firm nor its affiliates beneficially own 1% or more of any class of common equity securities of Arcturus Therapeutics Holdings Inc.

Neither the research analyst nor the Firm has any material conflict of interest in of which the research analyst knows or has reason to know at the time of publication of this research report.

The research analyst principally responsible for preparation of the report does not receive compensation that is based upon any specific investment banking services or transaction but is compensated based on factors including total revenue and profitability of the Firm, a substantial portion of which is derived from investment banking services.

The firm or its affiliates received compensation from Arcturus Therapeutics Holdings Inc. for non-investment banking services in the previous 12 months.

The Firm or its affiliates did receive compensation from Arcturus Therapeutics Holdings Inc. for investment banking services within twelve months before, and will seek compensation from the companies mentioned in this report for investment banking services within three months following publication of the research report.

H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC managed or co-managed a public offering of securities for Arcturus Therapeutics Holdings Inc. during the past 12 months.

The Firm does not make a market in Arcturus Therapeutics Holdings Inc. as of the date of this research report.

H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC and its affiliates, officers, directors, and employees, excluding its analysts, will from time to time have long or short positions in, act as principal in, and buy or sell, the securities or derivatives (including options and warrants) thereof of covered companies referred to in this research report.

( Companies Mentioned: ARCT:NASDAQ, )

There is a common assumption that plant species are more inclined to thrive in a non-native community than a native one, sometimes becoming 'invasive'. However, this behaviour is likely to be quite unusual and invasive alien plants are actually an important exception, according to a new study. Much can be learned from the population of a species 'at home' and should be included in official assessment criteria.

A recent study suggests that a single integrative assessment of marine fisheries can be used to monitor progress against several different marine environmental policies. It used a relative ecological risk model to demonstrate how closing marine protected sites to trawlers and reducing trawling to maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels would allow fisheries to meet the ecological objectives of both the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive.

New research has found evidence that a small Marine Protected Area (MPA) in the Mediterranean has the potential to deliver larvae of some fish species to surrounding, non-protected areas. This is one of few studies to investigate this desired role of MPAs and its design could be used to evaluate current and future MPAs elsewhere.

Urban vegetation could have been overlooked as valuable above-ground carbon storage, according to researchers. They estimated that 231,521 tonnes of carbon were stored in above-ground vegetation in a UK city, the majority of which (97 per cent) in trees. This was 10 times the amount estimated from national figures for the same city area.

Current knowledge on the availability of mineral resources is explored in a recent study, which focuses on phosphorus as a key example. Static measures of availability, such as the consumption-to-production ratio, are useful as early warning signals, the researchers suggest, but more dynamic indicators that consider technological development and population change are needed to better inform policy.

Assessing the potential of new environmental management tools often brings an ???innovation dilemma???: is it better to stick with what is known to work, or to implement new measures that are potentially more effective, but also more uncertain? Researchers have proposed an approach to deal with these dilemmas, and applied it to the case study of an invasive species programme in the US.

The development of Green Infrastructure (GI) in a UK case study has been researched in a recent study. Some issues caused by an imbalance in stakeholder power and conflicting roles played by major stakeholders were identified with the project. Stakeholder participation is central to the concept of GI and the research reiterates the importance for those implementing GI to ensure that participation is effective and balanced.

Neither the public nor conservation managers are fully aware of the different risks posed by invasive alien species (IAS), new research suggests. A study examining perceptions of five invasive species in the UK shows that both conservation managers and the public regard some highly damaging species as ???low risk???, and that their awareness does not increase with the amount of scientific research on the topic.

Efforts to address climate change and protect natural ecosystems can – and need to – benefit each other. But conflicts can arise. This Future Brief focuses on how land-based ecosystems are affected by wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) development, and how win-win solutions which maximise both conservation and climate benefits may be developed. Recommendations include careful site planning, regeneration and enhancement, and use of multi-level ecosystem data.

Wealthier nations protect biodiversity no better than poorer nations, suggests new research. The study found no link between national GDP and the effectiveness of countries at conserving the species for which they have responsibility.

Invasions of alien species are rising at an alarming rate, largely due to growing global trade and transport routes. Preventing the successful establishment of alien species by better understanding the factors determining success is a step toward limiting the threat of future biological invasions. Statistical modelling using observed bird invasion data — including location, event and species-level factors showed which factors were key to successful establishment by the alien species.

A survey of over 600 private boats docked in marinas throughout the Mediterranean showed that 71% are carrying non-indigenous species. In certain cases, non-indigenous species can become ‘invasive’ and have enormous and long-lasting impacts on ecosystems. The findings suggest that a common monitoring strategy may be necessary to prevent further disruptions to natural ecosystems.

Current knowledge on the availability of mineral resources is explored in a recent study, which focuses on phosphorus as a key example. Static measures of availability, such as the consumption-to-production ratio, are useful as early warning signals, the researchers suggest, but more dynamic indicators that consider technological development and population change are needed to better inform policy.

Staff in buildings that have been certified as ‘green’ under the LEED scheme are just as satisfied with their indoor working environment as people working in non-LEED buildings, according to research on commercial buildings. The study suggests that investment in the thermal and acoustic aspects of buildings, however, would further improve occupant satisfaction.

According to new research, improved communications and financial assistance could encourage private forest owners to engage more willingly in forest management. Personal economics, moral obligations, traditional ideas of how a forest should look and fear of forest fires were found to influence whether forest owners participate in management activities.

Alien plant invasions can have significant environmental, ecosystem and economic implications. Since ornamental horticulture is the primary pathway for invasive alien plant introductions, it is a suitable focus for prevention policies. A recent review of published evidence has examined the effectiveness of four major instruments: pre-border import restrictions, post-border sales bans, industry codes of conduct, and consumer education. The study highlights that, while each instrument has the potential to contribute to a reduction in plant invasion risk, none is sufficient to achieve this goal alone. The researchers, therefore, describe how the four instruments can be integrated along the ornamental horticulture industry supply chain to reduce risk more effectively, and outlines the role that government, industry and other stakeholders must play to achieve this goal.

Millions of years ago, Africa's savannas were covered with thick, ancient forests, which disappeared and turned into the grassy ecosystems that they are today.

read more

28 Aug 2016: The Mediterranean diet is associated with a reduced risk of death in patients with a history of cardiovascular disease, according to results from the observational Moli-sani study presented at ESC Congress 2016 today.1

read more

More people are eating gluten-free, although the prevalence of celiac disease appears to have remained stable in recent years, according to an article published online by JAMA Internal Medicine.

read more

Farber Cancer Institute investigators report they have discovered a type of immune antibody that can rapidly evolve to neutralize a wide array of influenza virus strains - including those the body hasn't yet encountered.

read more

Whilst there is interest in bioenergy as a renewable alternative to fossil fuels, there is also concern about its environmental impact. A recent study demonstrates that potential bioenergy crops in Hawaii are 2 to 4 times more likely to be invasive than other plants.