Tag Archives: Achievable

Parents, Stay Calm: Achievable Tips for Healthy Screening Times for Kids | Kaitlyn Regehr

Posted on by
Reply

this summer, technology secretary Peter Kyle revealed that he is contemplating a two-hour “screen time” limit for children’s use of social media apps. This approach is not just insufficient; it has become outdated.

While the timing of this announcement is appropriate, coinciding with the onset of summer holidays and the imperative for parents to oversee their children’s safety in digital spaces, it is rooted in older screen time recommendations. While it’s vital to think about limiting screen time, the suggested cap only addresses usage duration without considering quality. Thankfully, as someone who teaches digital literacy and is also a parent, I recognize there are ways to cultivate healthier habits for our children this summer, even if the government hasn’t fully adapted yet.

Screen time limits have dominated the discourse on digital engagement for parents, educators, and society over the past decade. This guidance emerged after research indicated that increased screen time correlates with a higher risk of obesity among children and adolescents. While this was beneficial advice for promoting physical health, it failed to robustly address how the nature and quality of online content impact mental health.

For instance, adhering to this guidance allows one child to enjoy CBeebies alongside their family, stimulating conversation, while another child is isolated with headphones, consuming algorithm-driven YouTube Shorts. The existing “Screen Time” guidance treats both scenarios equivalently. However, they are qualitatively distinct. In the first case, one child experiences interactive and communal viewing with a parent, fostering discussion and connection, while the other child’s viewing experience remains isolated and fragmented. They consume short-form content with limited narratives and character development, often lacking regulatory oversight.

YouTube has become a primary platform for our children’s screen time and is now the leading choice for Generation Alpha’s first television experience. Remarkably, 88% of UK children aged 3 to 17 are using the platform. Yet, YouTube is often overlooked in discussions about social media restrictions, including in Kyle’s statement.

Attempts have been made to differentiate between types of screen time, such as “passive” versus “active” engagement. The Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health aims for policies that emphasize habits and behavior, categorizing “active screen time” as involving cognitive or physical engagement—like gaming or homework activities—while passive screen time entails low levels of interaction and intellectual involvement. Similarly, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry recommends engaging with children about what they watch, fostering opportunities for social, educational, and creative screen time. Unfortunately, these insights have not been fully embraced in public or political dialogues.

While encouraging intentional choices regarding children’s screen content, I do not imply that individual responsibility is the sole solution. We are experiencing a digital public health crisis, as highlighted by General Vivek Murthy, the U.S. Surgeon General, who noted that social media can heighten the risks of anxiety and depression in youth. There is an urgent need for comprehensive policies that tackle the technological and economic frameworks underpinning these platforms. This is where Kyle should focus his efforts.

Meanwhile, the proposals from Kyle should not rely on outdated public guidance. They must be rooted in a nuanced understanding of varied screen use, addressing both physical and mental health concerns while tackling systemic issues in digital platform design. Crucially, they must consider not just the quantity, but also the quality of children’s digital engagement.

Until such changes are made, the onus of responsibility falls on individuals—particularly parents—to ensure their children are learning, engaging, proactive, and safe during screen time. I know this may feel overwhelming. To help, here are some strategies to implement with my kids this summer.

  • For younger children, limited screen time is generally preferable. If screens are used, I recommend watching live TV on platforms like CBeebies or CBBC, emphasizing quality engagement.

  • Prioritize content that encourages active participation over passive consumption. Content that fosters creativity and dialogue supports cognitive engagement and enhances communication skills, often leading to meaningful discussions.

  • Begin instilling critical thinking about digital content early. Use tools like SightEngine to analyze images, helping to distinguish between real and potentially misleading content. This sparks conversation about online misinformation.

  • Engage older children in discussions about a healthy digital diet. Together, commit to actively seeking out positive content for 30 minutes each week, deliberately avoiding uninteresting or negatively skewed material. Teach them that even negative engagement, such as liking or commenting on unfavorable content, contributes to its visibility.

  • As a family, regularly declutter your digital spaces by removing content that no longer inspires or educates. This includes unfollowing unwanted accounts, personalities, and brands to refine your feed to what truly resonates with you.

  • Consider exploring alternative search engines as a family to minimize targeted ads. DuckDuckGo and Firefox Focus do not track users for advertising purposes, and Startpage allows users to utilize Google while maintaining privacy.

While the government may not effectively regulate digital technology, parents still hold the power to guide intentional screen use. By doing so, we can instill concepts of healthy and critical screen engagement from a young age.

  • Dr. Kaitlyn Regehr is the Programme Director for Digital Humanities at University College London, where she lectures on digital literacy and the ethical implications of social media and AI. She is also the author of Smartphone Nation: Exploring our obsession with screens and actionable solutions.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Synthetic Pork-based Blood Coagulant Now Achievable

Posted on by
Reply

Heparin prevents blood clotting and is used in many surgeries

Luca Medical / Alamy

Currently, an anticoagulant called heparin is widely used. Collected from the intestines of 1 trillion pigs a yearThis means there is a risk of infection as well as accidental or intentional contamination. Now, methods of creating it synthetically have the potential to eliminate most of these risks.

“We think it could be sold within the next four to five years, maybe even less,” he says. Jonathan Dordick At New York’s Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the team developed a process to make heparin from scratch.

The drug was discovered in 1916 and has been used to prevent blood clotting since the 1930s. It is used to treat a wide range of conditions, as well as during kidney dialysis and various surgeries.

A major advantage of heparin is that it can be safely administered in large doses. “It’s very difficult to take an excessive dose,” Dordik says. And if someone takes too much, another drug can reverse the effect.

In contrast, other anticoagulants, such as warfarin, can be fatal if given in excess, and there is no antidote, which is why warfarin is used as a rat poison, he says.

A major disadvantage of heparin is that, unlike most drugs, heparin is not a single small molecule but a diverse mixture of large chains of sugars. “Heparin doesn’t have a specific size or a specific structure,” Dordik says. Heparin is derived from pigs because complex sugars are difficult to produce.

Ideally, animal-based medicines would be sourced from small herds that are isolated to prevent viral transmission. But extracting the 100 tons of heparin used around the world each year requires processing so many pig intestines that the only way to obtain enough intestines is through regular pig farming. It is to collect them from the field. Most heparin comes from China because heparin is the largest pork. producer.

As a result, the early stages of heparin production are unregulated as pharmaceutical manufacturing standards are not applicable to regular farms. There is a risk of accidental contamination or the deliberate addition of counterfeit heparin analogs to increase profits. In the worst case in 2008, about 800 people in the United States suffered side effects and at least 81 died. This risk remains, Dordik says. “That’s always possible.”

Despite all precautions, products of animal origin also carry the risk of contracting diseases caused by viruses and pathogens called prions. However, Dordik said there is no known case of this happening with heparin.

Dependence on pigs also causes shortages when pig farms are hit by conditions such as swine fever. Some people object to the use of pig-derived products for ethical or religious reasons.

Therefore, although synthetic heparin should have many advantages, its production has proven to be extremely difficult. The first task is to create a branched sugar chain that will serve as the backbone. The four enzymes then make various additional modifications to the chain, which must be done in a precise order.

After years of research, Dordik’s team has now licensed the process they developed to a pharmaceutical company to scale up for commercial production. One of the things that took him the most time was isolating and manufacturing the enzymes involved, Dordik says.

Since first producing a few micrograms 20 years ago, the team says they have successfully scaled up production a million times. Kuberan Balagulnathan He was involved in this early study but is no longer part of the team. “The next major challenge will be to increase the scale another million times, from grams to metric tons,” he says.

Balagurunathan believes this is achievable with sufficient investment. “We hope that synthetic heparin will replace heparin in animals in the same way that recombinant insulin replaces bovine and porcine insulin.”

but Jiang Liu A professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill isn’t so sure. “It remains to be seen whether this process can be translated to synthesis on the scale of thousands of kilograms.”

Many other companies are working on making synthetic heparin, but commercial confidentiality makes it difficult to gauge their progress, Balagulnathan said.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com