Johansen.se

We’ve all found ourselves trying to avoid the swarms of midges that are so common in late summer. But as you try to avoid them, what you may not know is that they are equally keen to avoid each other.

It’s strange behaviour for creatures that typically move around together. But physicist Andrew Reynolds from research centre Rothamsted Research recently investigated swarms of the non-biting midge Chironomus riparius, and found something very strange happening.

While they may move around in swarms, they do so in a way that ensures they keep their distance from each other. And it might be why, paradoxically, they are so successful at breeding.

Swarming, where animals form large and dense groups, is common in a lot of animals. A lot of us are familiar with the murmuration of starlings at sunset as they dance in the setting sun, for example. In water, animals form shoals, pods and schools. They may vary in their cohesiveness and the species that they contain, but are all essentially different types of swarms.

It helps animals evade predators and gives them safety in numbers. Large numbers of animals in these aggregations make it difficult for predators to single out a target. This is known as the selfish herd effect where animals seek positions towards the centre of a herd, shoal or flock where there’s less risk of being attacked.

Animals sometimes behave differently as part of a bigger system where the animal is interacting with it’s nearest neighbour. Fish for example align themselves and match speed with their nearest neighbour to shoal together and avoid collisions. Birds operate in a similar way.

Social insects such as ants often swarm in the summer, in mate-finding nuptial flights. Locusts defoliate large patches of land before moving on. Some researchers suggest that this social aggregation behaviour is linked to elevated serotonin the locusts get from close contact.

However, in the midge C. riparius we see something different.

Reynold’s research showed that these midges maintain maximum distance from one another. In the lab based models of these midges he studied, the midges are almost, by equal measure attracted to the centre of a swarm, but also away from each other.

Birds in a flock move in the same direction, staying close to one another (positive correlation). But C. riparius midges position themselves apart, so if one moves left, others tend to move right for example (maximal anticorrelation).

The swarms of C. riparus are predominantly for reproductive purposes and they are made up of males. Midges maximise their potential to find a mate by collecting at the same time, in the same place. You could argue that’s how bars and pubs work for humans.

When a female enters the swarm however, and is pursued by a male, the swarm maintains cohesion. The other members of the swarm are still drawn towards her. But this force of attraction is weaker than the negative “impulse” for the males to stay away from each other.

Staying evenly spaced means there is less competition between males. Which means that, as a group, they spend less energy and have more overall mating success.

The repellent effect also has other advantages. When midges are spaced apart in an organised and distributed way, the swarm can collectively respond to disruptions, such as changes in weather or predators, without losing its structure. Because each midge’s relative position to each other is defined by the maximal anticorrelation, a disturbance to one part of the swarm can quickly be compensated by the whole group.

We might learn a thing or two from the midge. In social situations, let’s take a step back, wait our turn, and give each other some space. Don’t interrupt your friend in conversation, don’t barge in at the self-service checkouts in the supermarket… and certainly don’t flirt with your friend’s partner. Läs mer…

Music is woven into the fabric of our everyday lives. Whether it’s lifting our spirits, pushing us to run faster or soothing us to sleep, we can all recognise its power. So it’s no wonder it is increasingly being used in medical treatment.

As well as proving very useful in cancer treatment, managing chronic pain and even helping the brain recover after a stroke, researchers have also been making great strides in using music to help patients with dementia.

It reduces patients’ anxiety and depression, and improves wellbeing both for them and their carers by enhancing everyone’s ability to adapt and cope with adversity or stress.

Music therapy in the form of playing, singing or listening to music can also have a positive effect on cognitive function – particularly for older adults either with dementia or memory issues.

So why does music appear to have such a powerful effect for people with dementia?

Music and the brain

About a decade ago, researchers discovered that when people listened to music, multiple areas of the brain were involved in processing it. These included the limbic (which processes emotions and memory), cognitive (involved with perception, learning and reaction) and motor areas (responsible for voluntary movement). This challenged preconceptions that music was processed more narrowly in the brain – and helped explain why it has such a unique neurological impact.

Not only that, research has shown that music might help regenerate the brain and its connections. Many causes of dementia centre around cell death in the brain, raising the possibility that music could help people with dementia by mending or strengthening damaged neural connections and cells.

Many brain areas are activated when we listen to music.
Toa55/ Shutterstock

It’s not just any music that has a regenerative effect on the brain, though. Familiar and favourite music has been shown to have the biggest impact on the way we feel, and is closely linked with memory and emotions. This is because listening to our favourite songs releases feel-good hormones that give us a sense of pleasure. Curated music playlists of favourite music could be the key in helping us deal with the stress of everyday life.

This is relevant to Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia because researchers have discovered that parts of the brain linked with musical memories are less affected by these conditions than other areas of the brain. This explains why memories and experiences that are linked to favourite music are often preserved for people with such conditions.

Listening to music can also help manage their experiences of distress, agitation and “sundowning” – where a person is more confused in the afternoon and evening.

In a small study conducted by us and our colleagues at the Cambridge Institute for Music Therapy Research, we showed just how great of an effect listening to music can have for people with dementia. We found that when people with dementia repeatedly listened to their favourite music, their heart rate and movements changed in direct response.

This showed that people’s physical responses were affected by musical features like rhythm and arrangement. Their heart rate also changed when they sang along to music, or when they began reminiscing about old memories or stories while listening to a song or thinking about the music. These changes are important because they show how music affects movement, emotions and memory recall.

Studies have also shown that during and after listening to music, people with dementia experienced less agitation, aggression and anxiety, and their general mood was improved. They even needed less medication when they had regular music sessions.

Read more:
Why researchers are turning to music as a possible treatment for stroke, brain injuries and even Parkinson’s

Other researchers have even begun testing the effects of music training programmes to support cognition for people with dementia. Results have been promising so far – with adults in the study showing improved executive functioning (problem solving, emotion regulation and attention) compared to those who took part in just physical exercise.

So, music is likely to continue to be a useful medical treatment for people with dementia. But based on what we know so far, it’s important that it comes from the patient’s own music collection – and is used alongside other management techniques such as using drugs that can slow the progression of dementia or help manage symptoms to support self-care and wellbeing. Läs mer…

The vampire story dwells among the undead of literary and cinematic genres, ever available for reanimation. This year alone has seen the publication of more than 30 vampire novels in the US (from Rachel Harrison’s So Thirsty to K. M. Enright’s Mistress of Lies), alongside the release of several vampire movies, including Abigail (with Nosferatu, rebooting the silent German classic, due at Christmas).

Now comes Salem’s Lot. Written and directed by Gary Dauberman, it’s the first feature-film adaptation of the 1975 novel in which Stephen King set himself the thought experiment of transposing Bram Stoker’s Dracula to contemporary New England. The book has been adapted twice before, in 1979 and 2004, but each time as a TV miniseries.

Of these precursors, the more interesting is the first, directed by Tobe Hooper. Made five years after The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, it signified Hooper’s move towards the mainstream, while retaining some gory scenes and choppy editing reminiscent of his old grindhouse aesthetic.

The new Salem’s Lot begins with a series of maps that trace how the master vampire, concealed in a chest, has reached Maine. The film’s own passage, stalled for years by the calculations of marketers and schedulers, has been equally arduous. It arrives now rather belatedly and without blockbuster flourish. While UK King fans can enjoy it on the big screen, it is consumable in most other locations only via the streaming service Max.

The trailer for Salem’s Lot.

Literary and film scholar Robert Stam offers a profusion of terms to describe the work undertaken by screen adaptations. They may, for example, “rewrite”, “transmute” or even “critique” their source-texts. Indicating a gentler kind of process, however, Stam also allows that an adaptation can offer an “incarnation” or “performance” of the material it is adapting. Performing Salem’s Lot in this sense, responding in audio-visual form to King’s prompts and refusing major reinventions, appears to be Dauberman’s goal.

King is a successor not only to Stoker and other horror writers such as H. P. Lovecraft, but to the late-19th century “local colorists” in New England, who attentively documented the sights and sounds of their region. On the page, Salem’s Lot is visually abundant. The new adaptation attempts to be similarly conscientious.

Dauberman takes care in matters of colour and lighting. A church’s doors, shut against the vampiric menace, glow a vivid red. Two boys walk through a wood silhouetted at sunset, their bodies ominously already lacking substance against a sky that is turning from pink to black. There are other visual pleasures, too, representing a shift away from Hooper’s version, where the shots are rougher-edged and decidedly non-pictorial.

The cast of this Salem’s Lot is likeable and struggles gamely, in the face of regular jump scares, to solicit audience engagement. Unlike Hammer’s Dracula adaptations, say, in which the monster has all the charisma, this is something of a democratic vampire film and devolves interest to members of the opposing force.

A pleasing modification is also made to the overbearing whiteness of King’s narrative world, with two of the pluckiest vampire hunters reimagined as African American.

Salem’s Lot attempts to recreate the visual abundance of King’s novel.
Warner Brothers

Beyond the scare

But if this latest adaptation of Salem’s Lot is easy enough on the eye, intellectually it is shallow. This matters, because the best vampire fictions prompt us not merely to be terrified, but to start interpreting – they generate meanings as well as scares.

What, precisely, is signified by their monstrous protagonists? As expert in Victorian literature, Nina Auerbach, wrote in her still valuable book Our Vampires, Ourselves (1995): “No fear is only personal: it must steep itself in its political and ideological ambience, without which our solitary terrors have no contagious resonance.”

For King, the vampire was an apt metaphor for power and cruelty in America.
Sueddeutsche Zeitung Photo/Alamy Stock Photo

Writing his novel in 1975, as the progressive dreams of the 1960s faded, King found in the vampire an apt image of power and cruelty in America. In his own words, from the afterword to Salem’s Lot: “I saw a metaphor for everything that was wrong with the society around me, where the rich got richer and the poor got welfare … if they were lucky.” When vampires strike in the book, there is therefore the sense of a nation at risk, not merely a few families or a handful of individuals.

The new adaptation, by contrast, represses rather than invites such interpretive effort on our part. It carries across the novel’s mid-1970s setting, but is interested more in accurate period detailing – the right model of car, the appropriate hairstyle – than in substantive historical exploration. It also doesn’t use the category of the vampire movie to say something insightful about our own time: the post-COVID moment, for example, or the era of Donald Trump (a figure with rich vampiric possibilities).

Dauberman’s version of Salem’s Lot is certainly respectful of its source-text (unsurprising, perhaps, with King himself listed among its executive producers). And it functions perfectly well as a showcase for the varied skills of props designer, prosthetic artist and special effects engineer. But, as a work of cultural and social inquiry, this latest vampire story is disappointingly de-fanged.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here. Läs mer…

The trauma of natural disasters doesn’t end when the storm or wildfire is gone, or even when communities are being put back together and homes have been rebuilt.

For many people, being displaced by a disaster has long-term consequences that often aren’t obvious or considered in disaster aid decisions.

We study public policy and disaster response. To get a better understanding of the ongoing challenges disaster victims face – and how officials can respond more effectively – we analyzed U.S. Census Bureau surveys that ask people nationwide about their disaster displacement experiences, as well as their stress and anxiety.

The results show how recovery from disasters such as hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes and flooding involves more than rebuilding, and how already vulnerable groups are at the greatest risk of harm.

Millions are displaced every year

The Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey has been continually collecting data on people’s social and economic experiences since 2020. Since late 2022, it has specifically asked respondents whether they had been displaced from their homes because of natural disasters.

Nearly 1.4% of the U.S. adult population reported being displaced in the previous year, equating to more than 3 million Americans. The most common cause of those displacements was hurricanes, responsible for nearly one-third of the displacements.

Some groups faced a higher chance of being displaced by a natural disaster than others.

The likelihood of displacement was above average for people with incomes of less than $50,000 (1.9% of that population was displaced), disabled people (2.7%), African Americans (2.3%) and Latinos/Hispanics (1.8%), as well as for those who identified their sexual orientation as gay/lesbian, bisexual, something else, or said that they don’t know (2.2%).

The problems of displacement go beyond immediate evacuation. People may have to stay in temporary shelters such as stadiums, churches or disaster relief areas. During this time, they are likely unable to work and earn income. Others with nowhere else to go may return to still-damaged homes after the storm passes.

Many people who were displaced by a hurricane faced weeks without power or lacked access to enough food, clean water or other basic necessities. After being displaced, 64% of adults said they lacked electricity some or all of the time, 37% lacked enough food, 29% lacked drinkable water, and 25% indicated that they experienced unsanitary conditions some or all of the time.

Going without enough clean water or electricity can expose people to diseases and other health risks, on top of the stress of dealing with the damage, displacement and uncertainty about the future.

About 36% of those displaced were out of their homes for more than one month. Nearly 16% of them indicated that they never were able to return. Vulnerable groups, especially people of color and disabled people, were least likely to return home quickly.

Impacts on health

Being displaced also piles on stress and creates instability. People displaced by storms may bounce among family members’ houses, hotel rooms or even vehicles as they wait to return to a home that has been damaged. They may have lost jobs or be unable to find temporary housing nearby, creating feelings of uncertainty about the future.

People who feel that their safety or security is threatened are more likely to experience mental stress and, potentially, post-traumatic stress disorder. The effects can accumulate over time and have long-term health consequences. Chronic stress can contribute to hypertension and heart disease and make rebuilding lives even harder as people struggle with more than just the damage around them.

The Household Pulse Survey also collects information on the symptoms of anxiety and depression that individuals experience.

Among those who have been displaced by a hurricane, 38% indicated experiencing generalized anxiety, a much higher percentage than the 23% of the population who did not experience displacement.

Similarly, 33% of those who were displaced experienced symptoms of major depressive disorder compared with 18% of the population who did not face displacement.

Better policies for long-term recovery

The survey results highlight the need to restore water and power to homes quickly after disasters. The results also point to prioritizing communities that are least able to afford being displaced.

Studies have shown that low-income communities often wait longest for power to be restored after hurricanes. The survey shows that these communities and other disadvantaged groups also face higher levels of displacement after disasters.

Beyond the immediate responses to a disaster, the survey suggests that federal, state and local policymakers will have to consider long-term assistance for both housing recovery and for health care.

A young man stares at what is left of his family’s homes after Hurricane Helene flooded parts of Hendersonville, N.C., in September 2024.
AP Photo/Brittany Peterson

Currently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency primarily focuses on providing short-term disaster relief. The large majority of its disaster funding goes toward evacuation, temporary shelter for people displaced, emergency supplies, insurance and rebuilding community infrastructure. While other federal programs provide rebuilding assistance for individuals, they don’t sufficiently address the long-term challenges, in our view.

Some ways government could help include providing targeted cash transfers to ensure vulnerable households can rebuild, investing in affordable and climate-resilient housing that can limit losses in future disasters, and funding long-term mental health services for disaster survivors at free or reduced cost.

As the climate warms, extreme storms are becoming more common in every region of the country. That’s raising the risks and the need for policymakers to prepare communities to limit harm from disasters and recover afterward. We believe rebuilding lives will require support long term, both for building more resilient homes and infrastructure and for recovering from the trauma. Läs mer…

Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance infamously said in 2021 that the Democratic Party is run by “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices they’ve made” – and do not have a “direct stake” in the future of the United States.

Three years later, after Vance’s selection as Trump’s vice presidential pick, these comments resurfaced and quickly became a cultural touchstone.

In July 2024, Vance clarified his controversial comments, saying that what he meant was that the Democratic Party has become anti-family and anti-child.

At a September 2024 campaign event alongside Donald Trump, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders echoed Vance’s sentiments about Democrats being anti-family. “My kids keep me humble. Unfortunately, Kamala Harris doesn’t have anything keeping her humble,” she said.

The single cat lady theme was amplified further when singer Taylor Swift used it to sign off on her Instagram endorsement of Harris.

While the cat lady framing is new, politicians making parenthood and family a centerpiece in their appeals to the American public has a long history.

As we show in our 2012 book, “The Politics of Parenthood,” and subsequent research, politicians have been using messages about parenthood as a way to appeal to voters since the 1980s. eg: link wouldn’t work for me

Content analysis of party platforms and speeches by presidential candidates reveals that both parties have devoted more and more time and space to making the case that they are the true pro-family party. Republicans argue that lower taxes and smaller government strengthen American families, while Democrats argue that strengthening social welfare programs represents the best way to support families.

Despite the parties’ contrasting pro-family messages and the image conjured by Vance’s childless cat lady comments, Republicans and Democrats are not really that different when it comes to their actual experiences having and raising children.

Our analysis shows that the age at which Americans have children, how many children they have and whether parents work outside the home are surprisingly similar across partisan lines.

A woman attends a CatCon event in Pasadena, Calif., in August 2024 and wears a ‘Childless cat ladies for Kamala’ shirt.
Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Democrats and Republicans find parenting rewarding

To explore whether there are differences between Republicans and Democrats in terms of their families, we analyzed data from the 2022 General Social Survey, which had 4,149 respondents. GSS is a nationally representative and well recognized survey of American adults that has been conducted since 1972. We also analyzed data from a 2022 Pew survey of 3,757 mothers and fathers focused on parenting in America.

This data shows that both Republicans and Democrats deeply value their roles as parents. In the Pew survey, 87% of parents said that their role as a parent is the most important or one of the most important aspects of their identity. Our analysis shows this is true for parents in both parties – 86% of Democrats and 88% of Republicans said they value their role as parents as the most or one of the most important aspects of their identity.

Similarly, our analysis of the Pew data reveals that Democrats and Republicans both enjoy being parents – 84% of Republicans say they find parenting enjoyable most or all of the time, compared with 81% of Democrats.

That said, contemporary parenting is also challenging.

The 2022 Pew survey showed that 29% of parents describe raising children as stressful most or all of the time. And 42% of parents report that raising children is tiring all or most of the time. Our analysis shows that this is equally true for Republicans and Democrats.

Indeed, the stresses of modern parenthood led the U.S. surgeon general in August 2024 to issue a public health advisory about parents’ declining mental well-being.

One of the reasons for this stress is that most parents today are balancing parenthood with work. The Republican Party has long embraced “traditional marriage,” meaning a marriage between a man and a woman, where the mother stays home to raise the children. Yet the reality is that most moms have jobs outside the home. In our analysis of the 2022 Pew data, we find that about the same portion of Republican moms – 67% – work outside the home as Democratic moms, who totaled 69%.

Both Republican and Democratic moms do more parenting

Another way that the experience of parenthood is similar across partisan lines is that moms spend more time parenting than dads. Pew asked parents with partners and spouses about the division of labor around a variety of child care tasks in 2022.

In our analysis of the full set of this data, which Pew provided us, we found that 77% of Democratic mothers and 80% of Republican mothers report doing more than their spouse or partner when it comes to managing their children’s activities. And 60% of Democratic mothers and 58% of Republican mothers report providing more comfort and emotional support to their children than their spouses or partners do.

This may account for why the Pew data reveals that mothers, more so than fathers, report parenting being tiring most or all of the time – 47% for moms, compared with 34% for dads. Once again, our analysis shows that mothers’ higher levels of fatigue hold true for both Republican and Democratic mothers compared with Republican and Democratic dads.

To assess the demographics of parenthood, we analyzed the 2022 General Social Survey data and found that Republicans and Democrats start their families at a similar age, just as they did a decade ago.

On average, male and female Democrats are 26 when they have their first kid, while Republicans are 25. Higher levels of education are associated with starting families later, but this is true for those in both parties.

Looking at women specifically, we find that Democratic women have their first child at 25 years old, and Republican women at 24. There is no evidence that Democratic women – more so than Republican women – are delaying having children so that they can pursue their careers, as suggested by Vance and Sanders in their critiques of the Democratic Party and Harris specifically.

It is true that Americans are having fewer children compared with a few decades ago. But this drop in having children is nearly universal in high-income democracies, even despite some government policies that seek to increase the birth rate in the U.S.

Our analysis reveals that the gap between Republicans and Democrats on this issue is modest. On average, Democrats are having 1.53 children, compared with 1.86 for Republicans.

And the 2022 General Social Survey data shows that Democrats do report having no children at a modestly higher rate than Republicans, but it is men – more than women – who report being childless at higher rates. Among Americans over 40, 22% of Democratic men and 16% of Republican men have no kids, compared with 17% of Democratic women and 10% of Republican women.

Despite political rhetoric suggesting there is a deep partisan divide among Americans on issues of families and child-rearing, the data tells a different story. It paints a picture of Americans, whether Democrats or Republicans, as remarkably similar in the basic demographics of parenting, as well as in their views about the joys and challenges of parenthood. Läs mer…

Though crime and criminal justice policy are central issues in many elections, that’s not true in 2024. Surveys show that relatively few American voters rank crime as their most important concern.

Yet both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris say they take those problems seriously. Trump and the Republicans have focused attention on the problem of illegal immigration and the crimes that he says immigrants commit.

Harris, as The Economist noted, “is using her history as a prosecutor in San Francisco to burnish her tough-on-crime bona fides.” She has mentioned that background in connection with immigration, drug policy and corporate wrongdoing.

As someone who studies crime and justice in the United States, it is clear to me that there are substantial differences between the two candidates, though each of their records contains some interesting twists and turns.

Kamala Harris gives her first news conference as attorney general of California in November 2010.
AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes

Kamala Harris, the prosecutor

Harris has a long record of working in the criminal justice system. She worked in the Alameda County district attorney’s office in California, starting in 1990, where she specialized in child sexual assault cases. She then served as district attorney in San Francisco from 2004 to 2010 and as attorney general of California from 2010 to 2017, when she was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Axios reported that during her term as district attorney, “the number of violent crimes rose steadily in the city of San Francisco during her first five years in office then fell 15% in her last two years.” And when she served as the state’s attorney general, “the violent crime rate in the state was 439.6 per 100,000 residents the year before she took office and fell to 396.4 by 2014. … However, violent crime surged to 444.8 in 2016 during her last year in office to a six-year high,” Axios reported.

In both offices, Harris undertook a number of reforms in criminal justice policy.

For example, in San Francisco she developed a “Back on Track” initiative“ that aimed to help nonviolent drug offenders between the ages of 18 and 30. According to The New York Times, its key promise was that ”after a full year of employment, education, community service, regular meetings with a supervising judge and crime-free behavior, the charge would be expunged from the offender’s record.“ It was generally well received, especially among progressives.

When Harris became the state’s attorney general, she reformed California’s approach to school truancy by focusing on the parents of truant children. As The New York Times reported, she threatened them ”with fines or even imprisonment if they did not ensure that their children attended class.“ FactCheck.org found that as a result of her policy, ”district attorneys reported prosecuting 3 to 6 … cases per year,“ on average.

Considering Harris’ record in California, The Desert Sun (Palm Springs, California) said Harris ”earned a reputation as tough on sexual abuse, human trafficking and organized crime, and did not shy away from pursuing incarceration.“

Throughout her career, Harris has been an opponent of the death penalty. During her first campaign for San Francisco district attorney, she promised that she would never seek a death sentence no matter how heinous the crime. She stuck to that promise, but as attorney general she went to court to defend death sentences that had been imposed under prior administrations.

The Los Angeles Times said her decision to do so was an appropriate one for the attorney general, ”putting professional responsibility over personal politics.“

CNN summarized her record on capital punishment by saying it ”broke hearts on both sides.“

Donald Trump speaks at a meeting about prison reform in 2018.
AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

Donald Trump’s record as president

Trump, by contrast, was a strong proponent of the death penalty during his time in the Oval Office. In March 2018, he directed the Department of Justice to seek the death penalty in cases involving drug traffickers. The department also vigorously pursued new death penalty prosecutions in other areas and defended existing death sentences in court.

After a long time without any federal executions, the Trump administration carried out 13 of them in the last seven months of his term. ProPublica said Trump’s administration ”executed more federal prisoners than any presidency since Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s” and more than the prior 10 presidents combined.

In other areas, the Trump administration stepped in to stop some criminal justice reform initiatives. For example, according to ABC News, Trump’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, stopped former President Barack Obama’s effort to end prison privatization, and then began distributing contracts for new privately run detention centers.

But during his presidency, Trump was not consistent in being tough on crime. For instance, in March 2018, he signed an executive order creating the Federal Interagency Crime Prevention and Improving Reentry Council. He charged it with identifying ways “to provide those who have engaged in criminal activity with greater opportunities to lead productive lives” and to develop “a comprehensive strategy that addresses a range of issues, including mental health, vocational training, job creation, after-school programming, substance abuse, and mentoring.”

The Biden administration built on and extended those efforts.

And in December 2018, Trump supported the so-called “First Step Act,” which passed Congress with bipartisan support. It funded efforts to reduce the likelihood that inmates would be convicted again after their release, including by providing addiction treatment, mental health care, education and job training.

Trump also commuted the sentences of more than 90 people and pardoned more than 140 others. His use of clemency power was quite controversial, as some of its beneficiaries were Trump associates, such as Steve Bannon and Paul Manafort, who led Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and had committed financial fraud.

As far as the crime rate during Trump’s presidency, the Dallas Morning News reported that “During the first three years of Trump’s presidency, the violent crime rate per 100,000 population … fell each year. But, the Morning News – citing Politifact – said that in 2020, ”the violent crime rate spiked,” though it was slightly lower than it had been in Obama’s final year in office.

Crime and criminal justice in the next administration

The next president will have choices to make about the crime and justice policies that the federal government will pursue and about whether to emphasize reform or harsh punishment. He or she will also have to decide whether, and how, the federal government should use grants and other funding, guidelines and enforcement to further those goals.

Their records suggest that Harris and Trump would make very different choices about those and other crime and criminal justice issues. Läs mer…

Ever since he was chosen as Donald Trump’s running mate back in July, U.S. Sen. JD Vance, a Republican from Ohio, has come under a level of scrutiny typical for a vice presidential candidate, including for some of his eyebrow-raising public statements made in the past or during the campaign.

One line of critique has persisted through the news cycles: that his lack of political experience may make Vance less qualified than others, including his opponent, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, to be vice president.

Do more politically experienced politicians have advantages in elections? And if they enjoyed such advantages in the past, do they still in such a polarized political moment?

The answers are complicated, but political science offers some clues.

Why experience should matter

Previously holding political office, and for a longer period of time, is in some ways an obvious advantage for candidates making the case to potential voters. If you were applying for a job as an attorney, previous legal experience would be favorably looked upon by an employer. The same is true in elections: If you want to run for office, experience as an officeholder could help you perform better at the job you’re asking for.

This approach has been taken by a number of high-profile politicians over the years. For example, in Hillary Clinton’s first campaign for president in 2008, the U.S. senator from New York and future secretary of state made “strength and experience” the centerpiece of her argument to the voters.

Experience also might matter for the same reasons as incumbency – that is, when a candidate is currently holding the office they are seeking in an election. Incumbents typically have much higher name recognition than their challenger opponents, distinct fundraising advantages and, at least in theory, a record of policy achievement on which to base their campaigns. Even for nonincumbents, these advantages are more prevalent for previous officeholders rather than someone who is a newcomer to politics.

Barack Obama and his family on Nov. 4, 2008, the day he won the presidential election, showing that a lack of political experience can be used as a benefit.
Emmanuel Dunand/AFP via Getty Images

Inexperienced, or an ‘outsider’?

But Hillary Clinton was, of course, unsuccessful in her first bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. She was beaten by a relatively inexperienced candidate named Barack Obama; like Vance, Obama had served less than a full term in the Senate before running for higher office.

Obama’s 2008 win shows that a lack of political experience can be leveraged as a benefit.

One of the few things Obama and Donald Trump have in common is that both benefited from an appeal to voters as a political “outsider” in elections in which Americans were frustrated with the political status quo. As outsiders, they appeared uniquely positioned to fix what voters believed was wrong with politics.

Does experience equal ‘quality’?

The “outsider” label isn’t always a ticket to victory.

In 2020, for example, voters were frustrated with the chaos of having a political outsider in the White House and turned to Joe Biden – possibly the most experienced presidential candidate in modern history at that point, with eight years as vice president and several decades in the Senate under his belt. Voters were hungry for political normalcy in the White House and made that choice for Biden.

Does U.S. Sen. JD Vance’s lack of political experience make him less qualified than his opponent, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, to be vice president?
Scott Olson/Getty Images

Political science has other important lessons about when experience matters and when it doesn’t. In Congress, electoral challengers – those running against incumbents – enjoy more of a boost from prior experience in places such as the state legislature. In fact, the typical indicator for challenger “quality” used in political science research is a simple marker of whether the challenger has prior political experience.

But even this finding is more complicated than it seems: Political scientists such as Jeffrey Lazarus have found that high-quality – that is, politically experienced – challengers do better in part because they are more strategic in waiting for better opportunities to run in winnable races.

Experience matters only sometimes – and maybe less than ever

The usefulness of a lengthy political resume also depends on which stage of the election candidates are in.

Research has found, for example, that a candidate’s experience matters much more in settings such as party primaries, where differences between the candidates on policy issues are typically much narrower. That leaves nonpolicy differences such as experience to play a bigger role.

In the general election, voters supportive of one party are unlikely to factor candidate experience in that heavily, even, or especially, when the candidate they support lacks it.

The political science phenomenon known as negative partisanship means that, more and more, voters are motivated not by positive attributes of their own party’s candidates but rather by the fear of losing to the other side. This has only been exacerbated as the two parties have polarized further.

Voters are therefore more willing than ever to lower the standards they might have for their favored candidates’ resumes if it means beating the other side. Even if a Democrat is clearly more qualified than a Republican in terms of political experience, that advantage is unlikely to sway many Republican voters, and vice versa.

What about 2024?

In 2024, the experience factor is complicated. Trump, of course, has been president before – the ultimate prior experience for someone running for exactly that office.

But he has continued to run as an outsider from the political establishment, casting Kamala Harris – who, as vice president, has little actual institutional power – as an incumbent who is responsible for the current state of the country. Since polls show consistently that a majority of Americans believe the country is not headed in the right direction, we can see why Trump might try to frame the race in this way.

Whether Trump’s strategy ends up working will be more apparent after the election is over. For now, Trump and Harris can rest assured that most of their supporters don’t appear to care how much – or how little – experience they have. Läs mer…

Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.

Title of course:

Contested U.S. Presidential Elections

What prompted the idea for the course?

I was looking for a way to make history relevant to students. Since I research and teach a lot about U.S. politics, I decided to focus on presidential elections that had contested results. Contested elections have happened when candidates failed to win a majority of electoral votes, meaning the House of Representatives had to decide the election; when electoral votes themselves were contested; when problems with vote counts necessitated courts intervening in an election; or when states or candidates refused to accept the results.

Coming out of 2020, I saw a lot of anxiety among students – and in society in general – about gearing up for the 2024 election. Offering historical context seemed like a good way to enrich students’ current civic engagement.

What does the course explore?

We are studying the most-contested U.S. presidential elections: 1800, 1824, 1860, 1876, 2000 and 2020.

Candidates failed to win a majority of electoral votes in 1800 and 1824. Sectional rancor over slavery caused states to reject the results in 1860. Disputed electoral votes in 1876 led to a political compromise that resolved the electoral votes in favor of Rutherford B. Hayes in exchange for ending Reconstruction.

Problems with vote counting in Florida in 2000 led the Supreme Court to essentially decide the election in Bush v. Gore. And most recently in 2020, then-President Donald Trump disputed the results unsuccessfully.

We are covering a wide swath of U.S. political history in just eight weeks. Students are also writing a blog for public audiences and submitting other public writing, like op-ed pieces, to stretch their own historical thinking and communication skills and help the public contextualize the present election.

Why is this course relevant now?

People are asking whether U.S. democracy can survive the 2024 election. Students are learning how the system has been shaped by previous crises in legitimacy.

One example is when the electoral tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr in 1800 led to the ratification of the 12th Amendment that established separate electoral votes for the president and vice president. The worst crisis came when Southern states rejected Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860 and decided to secede from the United States, leading to the Civil War.

What’s a critical lesson from the course?

History can’t predict the future, but it can provide key context to understand the present. The U.S. electoral system has weaknesses, such as the Electoral College, built in by the Constitution, but the acceptance of the results by losers has been a key to U.S. political stability through many different contested elections over time. Before 2020, no presidential candidate had ever contested the final election results.

For instance, Andrew Jackson won both the popular vote and a plurality of the Electoral College vote in 1824, but Jackson accepted John Quincy Adams as the legitimate president when the House of Representatives decided the winner. Jackson, however, accused Speaker of the House Henry Clay of a “corrupt bargain” to hand Adams the presidency in return for appointing Clay as secretary of state. Jackson still recognized Adams as the legitimate president but beat him badly in the next election in 1828.

What materials does the course feature?

The students have analyzed scholarly articles and many primary sources, mostly collected by the Library of Congress. Several important books have also shaped their thinking: Jim Downs’ 2024 “January 6 and the Politics of History”; E. J. Dionne and William Kristol’s 2001 “Bush v. Gore: The Court Cases and the Commentary”; and Kate Cote Gillin’s 2014 “Shrill Hurrahs: Women, Gender, and Racial Violence in South Carolina, 1865-1900.”

What will the course prepare students to do?

Students in the class are using historical skills and ways of thinking to help themselves, their friends and anyone else to put the current election into perspective. They are all doing final projects that use what they’ve learned in class to communicate with the public through op-eds, social media projects, websites and other creative projects in the lead-up to the 2024 election. They are prepared for their own civic engagement and with skills in journalism and public communication. Läs mer…

I teach a course on New England witchcraft trials, and students always arrive with varying degrees of knowledge of what happened in Salem, Massachusetts, in 1692.

Nineteen people accused of witchcraft were executed by hanging, another was pressed to death and at least 150 were imprisoned in conditions that caused the death of at least five more innocents.

Each semester, a few students ask me about stories they have heard about dogs.

In 17th century Salem, dogs were part of everyday life: People kept dogs to protect themselves, their homes and their livestock, to help with hunting, and to provide companionship.

However, a variety of folklore traditions also associated dogs with the devil – beliefs that long predated what happened in Salem. Perhaps the most famous example of such belief is the case of a poodle named Boy who belonged to Prince Rupert, an English-German cavalry commander on the Royalist side during the English Civil War. Between 1643 and 1644, stories spread across Europe that Boy the poodle had supernatural powers, including shape-shifting and prophecy, that he used to aid his master on the battlefield.

There is no mention in the official records of Salem’s trials of any dogs being tried or killed for witchcraft. However, dogs appear several times in the testimony, typically because an accused witch was believed to have had a dog as a “familiar” who would do her bidding, or because the devil appeared in the form of a dog.

Numerous testimonies in the Salem trial records claim that dogs were in league with the devil, adding to the paranoia of this community that was spinning out of control.

Associating the devil with the dog

On May 16, 1692, a 45-year-old Amesbury, Massachusetts, man named John Kimball testified against Susanna Martin, a 71-year-old widow, saying, among other things, that she had caused a “black puppy” to appear before him when he was alone in the woods. Kimball testified that he was terrified by the dog, which he thought would tear out his throat. The dog disappeared when he began to pray.

This, among other testimony, would contribute to Martin’s conviction for witchcraft in June 1692; she was hanged on July 19, 1692.

In several instances recorded by the courts, accused witches confessed that the devil had appeared to them in the form of a dog. In September 1692, 19-year-old Mercy Wardwell testified that she had been conversing with the devil, and that he had appeared to her in the shape of a dog. Her confession caused her to be jailed, although she was later released when the hysteria died down.

During the same proceedings that September, 14-year-old William Barker Jr. testified that the “shape of a black dog” appeared to him and provoked anxiety; soon after this, the devil appeared. It’s hard to know if he was suggesting that the dog was the devil himself or his companion.

Barker confessed that he had “signed the devil’s book,” meaning that he had made a covenant with the devil and was a witch. Barker was jailed, though he would later be acquitted.

Tituba, a woman of color enslaved in the Rev. Samuel Parris’ household, also testified about a dog. When she was examined by magistrates on March 1, 1692, Tituba recounted how the devil had appeared to her at least four times, “like a great dog” and as “a black dog.” She also said she saw cats, hogs and birds, an entire menagerie of animals working for the devil.

An accused witch was believed to have a dog or another animal as a ‘familiar’ who would do her bidding,
© The Trustees of the British Museum, CC BY-NC-SA

Kimball’s, Wardwell’s, Barker’s and Tituba’s testimonies certainly may have contributed to the ongoing alarm that the residents of Salem were being led astray by a devil who might appear to them in the shape of a dog.

Sketchy evidence

Some popular accounts of the trials also suggest that at least two dogs were killed during the trials, but there is no evidence supporting this in the official legal testimony of the time. There is certainly some local legend that supports the claim, and many accounts of Salem have included these two dog deaths as a part of the story.

According to local historical researcher Marilynne K. Roach’s 2002 book, “The Salem Witch Trials: A Day-by-day Chronicle of a Community Under Siege,” some of the afflicted girls claimed that a man named John Bradstreet had bewitched a dog. Although the dog was a victim, it was killed. Roach’s history also notes that another dog was shot to death when a girl claimed that the dog’s specter had afflicted her.

Witchcraft belief at the time held that witches could send their “spectres,” or spirits, out to do their bidding.

While these are compelling stories, neither of these events can be verified in any existing official trial documents. The source that Roach cites for the Bradstreet case is Robert Calef’s book “More Wonders of the Invisible World,” which was published in 1700. Calef, who was a Boston merchant, objected to how the trials were conducted. However, he was not present at the trials, and it is not clear what his source was for the dog stories. Such stories – and Calef’s uncited retelling of it – do not have the same authority as the legal documents in the case.

The earliest account of a dog being shot for being a witch appears in a commentary on the Salem trials, “Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits,” published in 1693, in which the clergyman Increase Mather claims that “I am told by credible persons” that a dog was shot for bewitching a person.

But significantly, Mather did not name the human victim or the person who told him the story. Surprisingly, Mather actually defended the dog, saying that the fact that they had successfully killed it meant that “this dog was no Devil.”

Nearly every history of Salem recounts how when Samuel Parris’ daughters were having terrible fits that led people to believe they were bewitched, Tituba, the enslaved woman who lived in the household, baked a “witch cake” using urine from the afflicted girls and fed it to the family’s dog.

Somehow, this was supposed to cause the dog to reveal the identity of the witch. Indeed, Reverend Parris condemned the ritual, which itself seemed to be its own kind of witchcraft.

Fear and distrust

All around, Salem’s witch trials seem to have been bad for dogs. Although there is no official legal evidence that dogs were killed for being witches, it’s clear that there were strong associations between dogs and the devil, and that dogs were sometimes treated poorly because of superstition.

The Salem trials are a horrifying example of what happens when people use terrible logic and leap to indefensible conclusions with shoddy evidence. In an environment of fear and distrust, even man’s best friend could be suspected of dealings with the devil. Läs mer…

Billions of years of evolution have made modern cells incredibly complex. Inside cells are small compartments called organelles that perform specific functions essential for the cell’s survival and operation. For instance, the nucleus stores genetic material, and mitochondria produce energy.

Another essential part of a cell is the membrane that encloses it. Proteins embedded on the surface of the membrane control the movement of substances in and out of the cell. This sophisticated membrane structure allowed for the complexity of life as we know it. But how did the earliest, simplest cells hold it all together before elaborate membrane structures evolved?

In our recently published research in the journal Science Advances, my colleagues from the University of Chicago and the University of Houston and I explored a fascinating possibility that rainwater played a crucial role in stabilizing early cells, paving the way for life’s complexity.

The origin of life

One of the most intriguing questions in science is how life began on Earth. Scientists have long wondered how nonliving matter like water, gases and mineral deposits transformed into living cells capable of replication, metabolism and evolution.

Chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago conducted an experiment in 1953 demonstrating that complex organic compounds – meaning carbon-based molecules – could be synthesized from simpler organic and inorganic ones. Using water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen gases and electric sparks, these chemists formed amino acids.

The Miller-Urey experiment showed that complex organic compounds can be made from simpler organic and inorganic materials.
Yoshua Rameli Adan Perez/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Scientists believe the earliest forms of life, called protocells, spontaneously emerged from organic molecules present on the early Earth. These primitive, cell-like structures were likely made of two fundamental components: a matrix material that provided a structural framework and a genetic material that carried instructions for protocells to function.

Over time, these protocells would have gradually evolved the ability to replicate and execute metabolic processes. Certain conditions are necessary for essential chemical reactions to occur, such as a steady energy source, organic compounds and water. The compartments formed by a matrix and a membrane crucially provide a stable environment that can concentrate reactants and protect them from the external environment, allowing the necessary chemical reactions to take place.

Thus, two crucial questions arise: What materials were the matrix and membrane of protocells made of? And how did they enable early cells to maintain the stability and function they needed to transform into the sophisticated cells that constitute all living organisms today?

Bubbles vs droplets

Scientists propose that two distinct models of protocells – vesicles and coacervates – may have played a pivotal role in the early stages of life.

Miniature compartments, such as lipid bilayers configured into capsules like liposomes and micelles, are important for cellular organization and function.
Mariana Ruiz Villarreal, LadyofHats/Wikimedia Commons

Vesicles are tiny bubbles, like soap in water. They are made of fatty molecules called lipids that naturally form thin sheets. Vesicles form when these sheets curl into a sphere that can encapsulate chemicals and safeguard crucial reactions from harsh surroundings and potential degradation.

Like miniature pockets of life, vesicles resemble the structure and function of modern cells. However, unlike the membranes of modern cells, vesicle protocells would have lacked specialized proteins that selectively allow molecules in and out of a cell and enable communication between cells. Without these proteins, vesicle protocells would have limited ability to interact effectively with their surroundings, constraining their potential for life.

Coacervates, on the other hand, are droplets formed from an accumulation of organic molecules like peptides and nucleic acids. They form when organic molecules stick together due to chemical properties that attract them to each other, such as electrostatic forces between oppositely charged molecules. These are the same forces that cause balloons to stick to hair.

One can picture coacervates as droplets of cooking oil suspended in water. Similar to oil droplets, coacervate protocells lack a membrane. Without a membrane, surrounding water can easily exchange materials with protocells. This structural feature helps coacervates concentrate chemicals and speed up chemical reactions, creating a bustling environment for the building blocks of life.

Thus, the absence of a membrane appears to make coacervates a better protocell candidate than vesicles. However, lacking a membrane also presents a significant drawback: the potential for genetic material to leak out.

Unstable and leaky protocells

A few years after Dutch chemists discovered coacervate droplets in 1929, Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin proposed that coacervates were the earliest model of protocells. He argued that coacervate droplets provided a primitive form of compartmentalization crucial for early metabolic processes and self-replication.

Subsequently, scientists discovered that coacervates can sometimes be composed of oppositely charged polymers: long, chainlike molecules that resemble spaghetti at the molecular scale, carrying opposite electrical charges. When polymers of opposite electrical charges are mixed, they tend to attract each other and stick together to form droplets without a membrane.

Coacervate droplets resemble oil suspended in water.
Aman Agrawal, CC BY-SA

The absence of a membrane presented a challenge: The droplets rapidly fuse with each other, akin to individual oil droplets in water joining into a large blob. Furthermore, the lack of a membrane allowed RNA – a type of genetic material thought to be the earliest form of self-replicating molecule, crucial for the early stages of life – to rapidly exchange between protocells.

My colleague Jack Szostak showed in 2017 that rapid fusion and exchange of materials can lead to uncontrolled mixing of RNA, making it difficult for stable and distinct genetic sequences to evolve. This limitation suggested that coacervates might not be able to maintain the compartmentalization necessary for early life.

Compartmentalization is a strict requirement for natural selection and evolution. If coacervate protocells fused incessantly, and their genes continuously mixed and exchanged with each other, all of them would resemble each other without any genetic variation. Without genetic variation, no single protocell would have a higher probability of survival, reproduction and passing on its genes to future generations.

But life today thrives with a variety of genetic material, suggesting that nature somehow solved this problem. Thus, a solution to this problem had to exist, possibly hiding in plain sight.

Rainwater and RNA

A study I conducted in 2022 demonstrated that coacervate droplets can be stabilized and avoid fusion if immersed in deionized water – water that is free of dissolved ions and minerals. The droplets eject small ions into the water, likely allowing oppositely charged polymers on the periphery to come closer to each other and form a meshy skin layer. This meshy “wall” effectively hinders the fusion of droplets.

In the absence of salt, coacervate droplets eject ions into the surrounding water and develop a meshy wall.
Aman Agrawal/ Science Advances

Next, with my colleagues and collaborators, including Matthew Tirrell and Jack Szostak, I studied the exchange of genetic material between protocells. We placed two separate protocell populations, treated with deionized water, in test tubes. One of these populations contained RNA. When the two populations were mixed, RNA remained confined in their respective protocells for days. The meshy “walls” of the protocells impeded RNA from leaking.

In contrast, when we mixed protocells that weren’t treated with deionized water, RNA diffused from one protocell to the other within seconds.

Inspired by these results, my colleague Alamgir Karim wondered if rainwater, which is a natural source of ion-free water, could have done the same thing in the prebiotic world. With another colleague, Anusha Vonteddu, I found that rainwater indeed stabilizes protocells against fusion.

Rain, we believe, may have paved the way for the first cells.

Droplets with meshy walls resist fusion and prevent leakage of their RNA. In this image, each color represents a different type of RNA.
Aman Agrawal, CC BY-SA

Working across disciplines

Studying the origins of life addresses both scientific curiosity about the mechanisms that led to life on Earth and philosophical questions about our place in the universe and the nature of existence.

Currently, my research delves into the very beginning of gene replication in protocells. In the absence of the modern proteins that make copies of genes inside cells, the prebiotic world would have relied on simple chemical reactions between nucleotides – the building blocks of genetic material – to make copies of RNA. Understanding how nucleotides came together to form a long chain of RNA is a crucial step in deciphering prebiotic evolution.

To address the profound question of life’s origin, it is crucial to understand the geological, chemical and environmental conditions on early Earth approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Thus, uncovering the beginnings of life isn’t limited to biologists. Chemical engineers like me, and researchers from various scientific fields, are exploring this captivating existential question. Läs mer…