Doctors Believe Kennedy’s Proposal for Nutrition Education in Medicine is Sound in Theory

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is advocating for enhanced nutrition education for doctors.

On Wednesday, he revealed that a specialized team within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will address the “serious lack of nutrition education in medicine.” Their aim is to significantly incorporate nutrition into the medical curriculum, licensing exams, residency training, board accreditation, and continuing education requirements for physicians.

“We can reverse the chronic disease epidemic by simply modifying our diet and lifestyle, but for that to happen, nutrition must be an essential part of every physician’s training,” Kennedy stated. Watch the video on X. “We’ll initiate this by integrating nutrition into the pre-med programs at universities and assessing it through the MCAT.”

This shift includes cutting vaccine research and reducing federal health agencies as Kennedy makes more controversial decisions to reform American public health.

HHS did not answer specific inquiries but highlighted an NBC News press release.

The department has instructed medical education institutions to present written plans for integrating nutrition education by September 10th. The American Association of Medical Colleges has established the Medical College Entrance Examination (MCAT), which sets coursework requirements or recommendations that pre-med students should follow.

Numerous doctors commended the announcement, acknowledging nutrition’s vital role in managing and preventing chronic diseases. Kennedy’s personal commitment aims to elevate the importance of the policies he championed upon taking office. However, while some worry about insufficient time for nutritional counseling, HHS advocates believe it is preferable to bolster hospital staffing with nutritionists or enhance counseling coverage. Others contend that Kennedy’s announcement could undermine trust in physicians and raise concerns about their patient care capabilities.

In June, Texas and Louisiana enacted laws aligning with Kennedy’s proposed medical education reforms. In Texas, physicians must complete nutrition courses to renew their licenses, while medical schools are required to include nutrition education to access certain public funds. Louisiana mandates that some doctors undergo at least one hour of continuing education in nutrition every four years.

Dr. Natewood, a primary care physician at Yale School of Medicine and director of culinary medicine, endorsed the need for doctors to be well-trained in nutrition. However, he questioned whether this approach is the most effective means of addressing chronic diseases.

“It’s somewhat short-sighted to assume that providing nutritional counseling is the solution to this chronic disease crisis,” he asserted.

“Many appointments are for sick patients who seek quick solutions to multiple complex issues,” Wood added.

In a Wall Street Journal editorial, Kennedy expressed concern that healthcare providers tend to “overlook” nutrition education requirements. He referenced a 2022 Journal of Wellness Survey, which indicated that medical students receive less than one hour of formal nutrition training annually. He also cited findings from Nutrition for Journal’s Research Advances in 2024, reporting that 75% of U.S. medical schools require coursework in clinical nutrition.

Previously, Kennedy proposed withholding funds from medical schools lacking nutrition courses.

“This motivated me to enter this field, as nutrition is a primary health factor for many of my patients, yet it was largely absent from my education.”

He expressed support for Kennedy’s policy initiatives regarding nutrition education in medicine.

“The federal government is essentially stating, ‘If you’re not fulfilling your duties—if you’re not training your doctors accordingly—we’ll halt funding.’ And they will heed that warning,” Mozaffarian remarked.

However, the American Association of Medical Colleges contends that medical students do receive training on dietary impacts on health. According to their recent surveys of U.S. and Canadian medical schools, all 182 institutions now include nutrition as a crucial aspect of the curriculum, up from 89% five years ago.

“The School of Medicine acknowledges the significant role nutrition has in preventing, managing, and treating chronic health conditions, and thus incorporates essential nutrition education into the core curriculum,” stated AAMC Chief Academic Officer Alison Wehrran.

Kennedy’s appeal for enhanced nutrition education has ignited discussions about the realistic expectations patients can have from primary care physicians.

Mozaffarian emphasized that the aim is not to transform doctors into nutritionists, but to equip patients with the knowledge needed to identify dietary concerns and refer them to specialists.

Conversely, Dr. Jake Scott, an infectious disease expert at Stanford Medicine, believed that physicians already possess this foundational knowledge.

“I am not uninformed about nutrition; that’s the implication,” he remarked.

Scott pointed out that malnutrition in the U.S. is not solely due to a lack of awareness regarding healthier food choices; it’s also a consequence of systemic barriers, such as lack of affordable healthcare or limited access to healthy food options. Approximately 18.8 million people in the U.S. live in food deserts, which are low-income areas far from grocery stores.

“There are numerous creative and feasible solutions, but if I were leading HHS, this medical education requirement would be the least of my priorities,” he commented.

Wood suggested that a more effective approach would be to advocate for increased access to nutritionists covered by insurance. For instance, while Medicare may cover these services, it usually requires patients to have diabetes or develop kidney disease. Coverage may vary for private insurances and Medicaid patients, he noted.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Met Chief Dismisses Proposal to Abandon Live Facial Recognition at Notting Hill Carnival

The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has reiterated calls during the Notting Hill Carnival this weekend to halt the use of live facial recognition cameras amid concerns about racial bias and ongoing legal disputes.

In a letter, Mark Lowry stated that the technology would be utilized “in a non-discriminatory manner” at Europe’s largest street carnival, employing an algorithm that “is not biased.”

This response came after letters from 11 anti-racist and civil liberty organizations were revealed in The Guardian, urging the Met to discontinue the technology’s use at events honoring African-Caribbean communities.

Among those organizations are Runnymede Trust, Liberty, Big Brother Watch, The Race on the Agenda, and Human Rights Watch. They emphasized in a letter to Rowley on Saturday that such technology would only “increase concerns about state authority and racial misconduct within your forces.”

Critics argue that the police lack a legal framework, allowing them to “self-regulate” their technological practices, which leads to the deployment of biased algorithms affecting ethnic minorities and women.

Last month, the Met announced plans to deploy a specialized camera at the exit of the two-day event in west London. Annually, the carnival attracts over two million attendees, making it the world’s second-largest street festival during the August bank holiday weekend.

In his correspondence with NGOs and charities, Rowley recognized that previous technology deployments at the 2016 and 2017 carnivals failed to foster public trust. The Met’s earlier facial recognition system has since been enhanced, with 102 individuals mistakenly identified as suspects without being arrested.

“We have made significant strides since then. The latest version of the algorithm has undergone substantial improvements with independent testing and validation, achieving a much higher standard,” said Laurie.

He mentioned that the technology would focus on “minority individuals” involved in severe crimes, such as violence and sexual offenses.

Laurie noted that in 2024, there were 349 arrests made at the event for serious offenses including murder, rape, and possession of weapons.

“These crimes pose a threat to those wanting to enjoy the carnival safely. The use of LFRs is part of a broader strategy to identify, disrupt, and prevent threats from minority groups,” he explained.

Civil Liberties Group urged the Met to cease the use of LFR cameras last month following a high court challenge by anti-knife activist Sean Thompson. Thompson, a Black man from the UK, was wrongly identified by LFR technology as a suspect and faced police questioning due to fingerprint misidentification.

Laurie’s letter did not reply to Thompson’s claims but countered the assertion that police operate without a legal framework, noting that the Equality Act 2010 obligates public institutions to eliminate discrimination. He also mentioned that the use of LFR technology is covered under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Data Protection Act.

In response to Laurie’s letter, Rebecca Vincent, interim director of Civil Liberties Group Big Brother Watch, remarked: “Participants in this cultural celebration.”

“Everyone wants to ensure public safety, but transforming the Carnival into a police lineup is not the solution.”

Quick Guide

Please contact us about this story





show


The best public interest journalism relies on direct accounts from knowledgeable individuals.

If you have anything to share regarding this subject, please contact us confidentially using the following methods:

Secure Messages in the Guardian App

The Guardian app offers a feature for sending tips. Messages are encrypted end-to-end and hidden within standard operations of the Guardian mobile app. This ensures observers cannot discern that you are communicating with us.

If you still need the Guardian app, you can download it (iOS/Android) and navigate to the menu. Select Secure Messaging.

SecureDrop, Instant Messenger, Email, Phone, and Post

If you’re able to browse the TOR network securely without being monitored, you can send messages and documents to the Guardian via the SecureDrop platform.

Lastly, our guide at theguardian.com/tips provides various secure contact methods and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each.


Illustration: Guardian Design / Rich Cousins

Thank you for your feedback.


Source: www.theguardian.com

Rayner Calls Farage a “Failed Young Woman” Over Proposal to Repeal Online Safety Law

Angela Rayner has stated that Nigel Farage has “failed a generation of young women” with his plan to abolish online safety laws, claiming it could lead to an increase in “revenge porn.”

The Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks are the latest in a series of criticisms directed at Farage by the government, as Labour launches a barrage of attack ads targeting British reform leaders, including one featuring Farage alongside influencer Andrew Tate.

During a press conference last month, reform leaders announced initiatives that encourage social media companies to restrict misleading and harmful content, vowing not to promote censorship and avoiding the portrayal of the UK as a “borderline dystopian state.”

In retaliation, Science and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle accused Farage of siding with child abusers like Jimmy Savile, prompting a strong backlash from reform leaders.


In comments made to the Sunday Telegraph, Rayner underscored the risks associated with abolishing the act, which addresses what is officially known as intimate image abuse.

“We recognize that the abuse of intimate images is an atrocity, fostering a misogynistic culture on social media, which also spills over into real life,” Rayner articulated in the article.

“Nigel Farage poses a threat to a generation of young women with his dangerous and reckless plans to eliminate online safety laws. The absence of a viable alternative to abolish safety measures and combat the forthcoming flood of abuse reveals a severe neglect of responsibility.”

“It’s time for Farage to explain to British women and girls how he intends to ensure their safety online.”

Labour has rolled out a series of interconnected online ads targeting Farage. An ad launched on Sunday morning linked directly to Rayner’s remarks, asserting, “Nigel Farage wants to make it easier to share revenge porn online,” accompanied by a laughing image of Farage.

According to the Sunday Times, another ad draws attention to Farage’s comments regarding Tate, an influencer facing serious allegations in the UK, including rape and human trafficking, alongside his brother Tristan.

Both the American-British brothers are currently under investigation in Romania and assert their innocence against numerous allegations.

Labour’s ads depict Farage alongside Andrew Tate with the caption “Nigel Farage calls Andrew Tate an ‘important voice’ for men,” referencing remarks made during an interview on last year’s Strike IT Big podcast.

Lila Cunningham, a former magistrate involved in the reform, wrote an article for the Telegraph on Saturday, labeling the online safety law as “censorship law” and pointed out that existing laws already address “revenge porn.”

“This law serves as a guise for censorship, providing a pretext to empower unchecked regulators and to silence dissenting views,” Cunningham claimed.

Cunningham also criticized the government’s focus on accommodating asylum seekers in hotels, emphasizing that it puts women at risk and diverting attention from more pressing concerns.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Republican Proposal to Eliminate EV Tax Credits May Impact GM and Ford Negatively

In recent years, the popularity of electric vehicles has surged, fueled by a $7,500 tax credit from the federal government aimed at making purchases more affordable.

However, the budget bill unveiled by House Republicans on Monday suggests eliminating this tax credit. This proposal also introduces new limitations on other tax incentives that motivate automakers to invest significant sums into establishing new battery facilities in the United States.

Starting next year, the legislation is set to abolish the $7,500 tax credit for new electric vehicle buyers, as well as a $4,000 credit applicable to used car and truck acquisitions.

If signed into law, these changes could lead to a spike in electric vehicle sales in the near term, as consumers rush to take advantage of tax credits before they vanish. Nonetheless, analysts predict that sales may drop or slow drastically once the credits are no longer available.

“This will undoubtedly slow down the adoption rate significantly,” remarked Stephanie Valdez Streaty, director of industry insights at Cox Automotive.

Cox anticipates that electric vehicles will comprise 10% of all new vehicle sales this year. If Congress does not alter the tax credit, that figure is expected to increase by nearly a third by 2030, according to their estimates.

However, if Congress eliminates the credits, Valdez Streaty projects that electric vehicles could make up only 20-24% of new car sales by 2030.

Eliminating these credits would further financially burden automakers who are already dealing with increased costs stemming from a 25% tariff on imported cars and auto parts established during the Trump administration.

The Republican tax proposals could adversely affect numerous automakers striving to launch new models, particularly General Motors and Ford, both of which have made substantial investments in their manufacturing facilities and supply chains with the goal of producing millions of electric vehicles annually.

GM has inaugurated two battery plants located in Ohio and Tennessee, developed through a joint venture with LG Energy Solution. Ford is currently constructing three battery plants, including one in Michigan, in collaboration with two South Korean firms, SK-ON, in Kentucky and Tennessee.

Both Detroit-based automakers are also investing in mining operations to secure domestic lithium supplies, which is crucial for battery production.

Tesla, the leading electric vehicle seller in the U.S., is also facing challenges. Its sales have decreased in recent months due to consumer backlash against CEO Elon Musk, associated with the Trump administration, coupled with the absence of a new affordable model.

However, Tesla enjoys several advantages. While most manufacturers still incur losses on electric vehicles, Tesla has been profitable for over a year, allowing the company to lower prices to stimulate demand if credits are eliminated. Additionally, Tesla relies less on imported components compared to other U.S. manufacturers.

Many large automakers are racing to catch up with Tesla in the electric vehicle landscape, particularly in states with a significant number of Republican lawmakers, by establishing numerous new factories.

Toyota has constructed a battery facility in North Carolina, while Hyundai is set to begin electric vehicle production at its Georgia site, which will also house battery manufacturing. Stellantis, along with its partners, is currently developing two battery plants in Indiana, with the local economies relying on the jobs these plants will create.

Should tax regulations undergo significant changes, automakers may reconsider, scale back, or postpone their plans.

“If the government wishes for the U.S. to effectively compete with China and the rest of the world in the expansive EV sector, as well as encourage GM and Ford to make considerable long-term investments in EV development and domestic production, we must enhance the tax credits instead of causing whiplash,” Valdez Streaty stated.

China dominates global electric vehicle production and is a primary supplier of essential materials for batteries and electric motors, such as processed lithium and rare earth minerals. The elimination of the tax credit would significantly hinder the U.S. automotive industry’s ability to keep pace.

“This could adversely impact our global standing and the competitive capabilities of the U.S. automotive sector,” Valdez Streaty remarked. “It’s likely to slow us down when we are already trailing China.”

Neither Ford nor Stellantis had comments to share, and neither did the policy group, the Automotive Innovation Alliance.

The federal government initially introduced $7,500 in credits during President Barack Obama’s administration, maintaining this incentive throughout President Trump’s first term. These credits were subsequently updated and expanded under the Inflation Reduction Act, enacted by President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Given the higher costs of electric vehicles compared to traditional combustion engines, such credits have been vital in encouraging consumer purchases.

The credits are applicable to sports utility vehicles and pickups priced under $80,000, as well as sedans priced below $55,000. The vehicle must be assembled in North America, with the battery meeting specifications based on the country of origin for its materials. Additionally, to qualify, individual buyers must earn less than $150,000 per year, while joint filers must earn under $300,000.

Many of these criteria do not apply to leased vehicles. However, tax credits for cars and trucks are typically transferred to leasing companies, which are divisions of automakers. Many leasing firms have passed on their savings to customers, contributing to the notable increase in electric vehicle leases.

According to Valdez Streaty, approximately 595,000 electric vehicles were leased in 2024, a significant rise from roughly 96,000 in 2022, prior to the availability of leasing incentives.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Republican Budget Proposal Seeks to Halt the IRA Clean Energy Surge

In the United States, there are at least 24 factories manufacturing electric vehicles that meet credit qualifications. According to research by Atlas Public Policy.

Hyundai has invested $7.5 billion in a factory near Savannah, Georgia, to produce some of its most sought-after electric vehicle models. Local officials, who have lobbied for Hyundai’s establishment in the area for years, are worried about potential legal changes.

“For a company, it’s challenging to commit to an area and then face changing conditions,” noted Bert Brantley, CEO of the Savannah Regional Chamber of Commerce. “Our perspective is that stability is beneficial, especially when companies are making significant investments.”

Nevertheless, Brantley expressed hope that Georgia can maintain its position as a frontrunner in electric vehicle production, regardless of any alterations to the tax incentives. “This is a long-term strategy. We hope to be engaged in this for an extended period,” he remarked.

Over the last three years, the federal government has backed a variety of emerging energy technologies that are still in the developmental stage, including low-carbon hydrogen fuels suitable for trucks, innovative methods to manufacture steel and cement without emissions, and carbon dioxide extraction technologies.

Many of these initiatives could benefit from tax reductions under the Inflation Reduction Act. Additionally, several are funded by billions in grants and loans from the Department of Energy.

In western Minnesota, DG Fuel aims to construct a $5 billion facility to generate aviation fuel from agricultural waste. Meanwhile, in Indiana, cement producer Heidelberg Material is working on capturing the carbon dioxide it generates and storing it underground. In Louisiana, a company is set to produce low-carbon ammonia for use in fertilizers.

New Orleans, a key center for natural gas exports, has experienced a surge in new industries like carbon capture and hydrogen, which may help mitigate future emissions. “We are very diverse,” stated Michael Hecht, chairman of Greater New Orleans and the Southeast Louisiana Economic Development Bureau.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Trump’s Proposal Will Connect Certain Drug Prices to State Payments

Updated May 12th: Additional insights Executive Order and its implications .

On Monday, President Trump is set to sign an executive order aimed at reducing various drug prices in the US by aligning them with what other prosperous nations pay. This was reported by True Social on Sunday evening.

He noted that his proposal cannot alter federal policies, describing it as the “most favored nation” pricing approach. While specifics regarding the types of insurance covered or the number of drugs affected were not shared, Trump emphasized that the US must secure the lowest prices compared to its counterparts.

“In the end, our nation will be treated equitably and citizens’ healthcare expenses will decrease significantly,” he stated in a social media update.

This kind of plan is likely to face legal challenges, and it remains uncertain whether it will succeed without input from Congress.

During his first term, Trump attempted to implement a similar Medicare strategy, targeting 68 million Americans aged 65 and older or those with disabilities. This plan would have focused on 50 medications administered in healthcare settings funded by Medicare. However, it was blocked by a federal court, which ruled that the administration bypassed necessary procedures in policy formulation.

The pharmaceutical sector strongly opposes this concept, arguing it may severely impact their profit margins. They have ramped up lobbying efforts against the proposal as discussions revive in Washington. Industry leaders caution that such measures will hinder research funding and limit patient access to innovative treatments.

“Every form of government pricing is detrimental to patients in America,” declared Alex Schriver, a staff member of a prominent pharmaceutical lobbying organization. He added: “Policymakers should prioritize reforming flaws in the US system instead of adopting ineffective strategies from abroad.”

Trump’s support for these ideas distinguishes him from the majority of Republicans, who are generally hesitant about government pricing. Meanwhile, Democrats are advancing a similar proposal.

Amiet Salpatwali, a pharmaceutical policy specialist at Harvard Medical School, noted that Trump is capitalizing on ideas that resonate with populist sentiments.

Trump has long expressed concerns about the significant disparity in drug prices that the US faces compared to other wealthy nations. He is correct; in the United States, the cost of branded medications is, on average, three times higher than that in peer countries.

This is despite the fact that a substantial portion of the research leading to new drugs is conducted in American laboratories and hospitals.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers generate a significant majority of global profits from US sales, typically developing their strategies with the US market in mind.

The pharmaceutical industry contends that the elevated prices in the US provide additional advantages. Analyses funded by the industry have indicated that US patients tend to access medications more swiftly and face fewer insurance restrictions compared to their counterparts in other countries.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Trump’s Proposal Ties Certain Drug Prices to State Payments

On Monday, President Trump plans to sign an executive order intending to reduce various US drug prices by aligning them with the rates paid by other affluent nations. True Social reported on Sunday evening.

The proposal, referred to as the “most favored nation” pricing model, cannot alter federal policies. Trump did not specify which insurances or drugs would be included, but asserted that the US should secure the lowest price among comparable countries.

“Our nation will be treated fairly, and citizens’ healthcare costs will drop to unprecedented levels,” he stated in a social media update.

This initiative may face legal challenges, and it remains uncertain if it can proceed without legislative action.

During his first term, Trump attempted to implement a version of this Medicare concept. It would have affected 68 million Americans aged 65 and older or those with disabilities. The proposal would have targeted only 50 drugs given in clinics and hospitals reimbursed by Medicare, but a federal court blocked it, citing procedural oversights by the administration.

The pharmaceutical sector staunchly opposes this notion, fearing significant cuts to their profits. They have been actively lobbying against it as policy discussions have intensified in Washington in recent weeks. Companies caution that such measures could lead to reduced research funding and limit patient access to new medications.

“Government pricing in any form is detrimental to patients in America,” stated Alex Schriver, an employee of a prominent pharmaceutical lobbying group. He added, “Policymakers should concentrate on addressing flaws in the US system rather than adopting unsuccessful policies from abroad.”

Trump’s openness to these ideas distinguishes him from the majority of Republicans, who are generally skeptical of government pricing. Democrats are also proposing a version of the concept.

Amiet Salpatwali, a pharmaceutical policy expert at Harvard Medical School, noted that Trump is capitalizing on ideas that carry “populist appeal.”

Trump has long complained that the US pays much higher prices for the same drugs compared to other affluent countries. His claim holds merit: in the US, branded drug prices are on average three times higher than those in peer nations.

This disparity occurs even though a significant portion of the research that leads to new drugs is performed in American laboratories and hospitals.

Pharmaceutical firms generate a considerable majority of their global profits from US sales, often tailoring business strategies to the US market.

The industry asserts that higher prices in the US have certain advantages. According to industry-funded analyses, patients in the US access medications more rapidly and face fewer insurance restrictions compared to other nations.

Source: www.nytimes.com

UK arts and media oppose proposal to grant AI companies permission to utilize copyrighted content

Authors, publishers, musicians, photographers, filmmakers, and newspaper publishers have all opposed the Labor government’s proposal to create a copyright exemption for training algorithms by artificial intelligence companies.

Representing thousands of creators, various organizations released a joint statement rejecting the idea of allowing companies like Open AI, Google, and Meta to use public works for AI training unless owners actively opt out. This was in response to the ministers’ proposal announced on Tuesday.

The Creative Rights in AI Coalition (Crac) emphasized the importance of respecting and enforcing existing copyright laws rather than circumventing them.

Included in the coalition are prominent entities like the British Recording Industry, the Independent Musicians Association, the Film Institute, the Writers’ Association, as well as Mumsnet, the Guardian, the Financial Times, the Telegraph, Getty Images, the Daily Mail Group, and Newsquest.

The intervention from these industry representatives follows statements by Technology and Culture Minister Kris Bryant in Parliament, where he promoted the proposed system as a way to enhance access to content for AI developers while ensuring rights holders have control over its use. This stance was reinforced after Bryant mentioned the importance of controlling the training of AI models using UK content accessed from overseas.

Nevertheless, industry lobbying group Tech UK is advocating for a more permissive market that allows companies to utilize and pay for copyrighted data. Caroline Dinenage, chair of the Conservative Party’s culture, media, and sport select committee, criticized the government’s alignment with AI companies.

Mr. Bryant defended the proposed system to MPs by highlighting the need for a flexible regime that allows for overseas developers to train AI models with UK content. He warned that a strict regime could hinder the growth of AI development in the UK.

Creatives in the industry are urged to seek permission from generative AI developers, obtain licenses, and compensate rights holders if they wish to create or train algorithms for various media formats.

A collective statement from the creative industry emphasized the importance of upholding current copyright laws and ensuring fair compensation for creators when licensing their work.

Renowned figures like Paul McCartney, Kate Bush, Julianne Moore, Stephen Fry, and Hugh Bonneville have joined a petition calling for stricter regulations on AI companies that engage in copyright infringement.

Novelist Kate Mosse is also supporting a campaign to amend the Data Bill to enforce existing copyright laws in the UK to protect creators’ rights and fair compensation.

Skip past newsletter promotions

During a recent House of Lords debate, supporters of amendments to enforce copyright laws likened the government’s proposal to asking shopkeepers to opt-out of shoplifting rather than actively preventing it.

The government’s plan for a copyright exemption has faced criticism from the Liberal Democrats and other opponents who believe it is influenced by technology lobbyists and misinterpretations of current copyright laws.

Science Minister Patrick Vallance defended the government’s position by emphasizing the need to support rights holders, ensure fair compensation, and facilitate the development of AI models while maintaining appropriate access.

Source: www.theguardian.com

One controversial proposal to save coral reefs: replace them with new species.

Would drastic action help the reef recover?

Serge Melessane / Alamy

Corals are being hit hard by global warming, and the only way to save coral reef ecosystems may be to replace native species with more heat-tolerant species from other parts of the world. This is the view of two coral researchers, who call for a thorough evaluation of the benefits and risks of deliberately introducing non-native corals, rather than a quick dismissal.

Living coral is essential to the health of coral reefs and the people who depend on them. Michael Webster Professor at New York University: “Corals are not only beautiful to look at on reefs, they provide habitat for many different organisms, they protect against waves from shorelines, and they make up the sand on tropical beaches.”

But corals cannot tolerate temperatures outside the normal range of their habitat: Global warming has caused ocean temperatures to rise sharply, leading to widespread bleaching, in which corals expel the algal symbionts that provide them with much of their nutrients, and can ultimately lead to their death.

“Coral reefs are being lost at a rapid rate in many places around the world, and attempts to restore them through traditional means have had mixed results,” Webster says.

Webster calls for change in an opinion piece he co-authored with Daniel Schindler of Seattle University in Washington. “You might be able to find corals in a totally different place that are already adapted to the environment that's coming into one place, or that may come into that place in the future — you're trying to find pre-adapted corals,” he says. Many who want to save the reefs are horrified by the idea, but Webster says things are getting worse and it needs to be seriously considered.

For example, two species of branching corals native to the Caribbean are in very poor condition, Webster says. But there are more than 100 species of branching corals around the world, and some of them, if introduced to the Caribbean, could potentially recreate the habitat that the branching corals provided. “They won't necessarily be the same color,” Webster says, “but they're ecologically similar.”

Webster and Schindler acknowledge that there are risks: A worst-case scenario is that devastating diseases or predators are accidentally introduced along with the invasive corals, which could outcompete or hybridize with native species.

But there are also risks in waiting too long to act, Webster says. He thinks that replacing lost species with species that perform a similar role — so-called ecological replacement — is much more realistic than other options currently being considered, such as genetically engineering corals to survive higher temperatures. “The best thing for coral reefs is to maintain the diversity that's there,” he says.

Terry Hughes of James Cook University in Queensland, Australia, disagrees. “The innocuous term 'ecological replacement' is naive, dangerous and stunningly arrogant,” Hughes says. “The authors fail to acknowledge that the accidental or deliberate introduction of invasive species has already caused enormous ecological damage to coral reefs around the world.”

For example, in the 1980s, a previously unknown Pacific disease spread through the entrance to the Panama Canal, wiping out algae-eating sea urchins in the Caribbean and causing an algae bloom that killed millions of corals, Hughes says. “Invasive species are a problem for coral reefs, not a healthy solution.”

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Give Your Proposal Materials a Refresh with These Tips

The holidays are in full swing. So when people go on vacation, they might start receiving auto-reply emails.

But don’t let a relatively quiet holiday stop you from fundraising. According to DocSend’s report on funding trends, young startups don’t seem to be getting as much attention. This means that they have been trying to attract investors’ attention without success. For example, investors are spending less time on the “product” and “business model” slides, and significantly more time on the “competitor” slides.


All articles on TechCrunch+ are available to members only.
Use discount code TC Plus Roundup Save 20% on a 1-year or 2-year subscription.


Now is the perfect time to brush up your pitch deck, practice your pitch, and be ready for when it starts again next year, writes resident pitch deck expert Haje Jan Kamps.

thank you for reading!

Karin

secondary, venture secondary,

Image credits: We/Getty Images

As I wrote last week, if startup IPOs pick up in 2024, as many predict, the secondary market could start to return to normal. But what are investors in the secondary venture market thinking now? One of the things venture reporter Rebecca Skutak found in her research is that LPs don’t actually want liquidity as much as you think.

Deep tech startups should use these 4 techniques when raising capital

Image credits: oxygen (Opens in new window) / Getty Images

Roman Axelrod, founder of smart contact lens maker XPANCEO, knows a thing or two about raising capital for deep technology startups. His company just raised a $40 million seed round. He offers his four tips on what to focus on when raising capital for his own deep tech business.

Why internal platforms can undermine your business strategy

Image credits: henrik sorensen (Opens in new window) / Getty Images

That’s natural. It’s better to build tools in-house than to buy or subscribe to them from a vendor. Having control over every aspect of your business reduces costs and even increases efficiency.

But not so soon, says Asanka Abeysinghe, CTO of WSO2. Having complete control over everything is an “illusion” and “leads organizations down a path full of unforeseen challenges and constraints.” What may seem like a comprehensive solution at first, quickly becomes can turn into a quagmire of rising costs, lack of focus, and suffocating complexity. ”

Get the TechCrunch+ Roundup newsletter in your inbox!

To receive TechCrunch+ Roundups via email every Tuesday and Friday, scroll down on this page, find the “Subscribe to Newsletter” section, select “TechCrunch+ Roundups,” enter your email, and click ” Click “Subscribe.”

Click here to subscribe

Startups need to master operations

Image credits: Lujan Nagiyev/Getty Images

“While technological innovation gets most of the glory, operational innovation is the next big leap for companies looking to gain a competitive edge,” writes Accelsius CEO Josh Claman. He offers some tips on how companies should think about innovation rather than improvement and excellence.

Source: techcrunch.com