livescience--2020-11-01--7 ways the election will shape the future of science, health and the environment

When all the votes are cast and counted in this year ’ s momentous November 3 election , the results will have deep and potentially long-lasting impacts on numerous areas of society , including science .
President Donald Trump and his challenger , former vice president Joe Biden , have presented vastly different visions for handling crucial issues—ranging from the deadly coronavirus pandemic to the damaging impacts of climate change and immigration policies .
The election ’ s outcome—not just who wins the White House but who controls Congress—will determine what laws get passed , how budgets are allocated and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ) will take .
The past four years have been marked by extensive deregulatory efforts that affect climate and public health .
The Trump administration has also taken various steps that could undercut access to health care .
And it has appointed industry officials to scientific advisory boards and made other moves that are likely to diminish the role and influence of scientific expertise .
This approach has shown up acutely in what many public health experts see as the disastrous handling of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in turn , undermined the reputation of storied agencies , including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
Here , Scientific American takes a look at how the election could shape a few key scientific issues , depending on who wins .
Will we bend the pandemic curve ?
Undoubtedly the most immediate issue Biden or Trump will face as president is the COVID-19 pandemic , which has killed more than 227,000 people in the U.S. to date .
Trump and his administration have consistently downplayed the threat to the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing shortages , flouted basic public health guidelines by holding large rallies and refusing to wear masks ( while mocking those who do ) , and even proved unable to contain outbreaks in the White House itself .
The administration has been accused of interfering with federal health agencies for political gain .
It has refused funding to the hardest-hit states and communities and , in concert with Republicans in the Senate , opposed pandemic relief bills that included extending the extra unemployment benefits of $ 600 , thus letting them lapse .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final testing stages , none are on track for approval before the election .
The president himself has repeatedly spread misinformation about COVID-19 , promoting ineffective and dangerous therapies and falsely calling the disease no worse than the flu .
He has , again and again , claimed the U.S. is “ turning the corner ” on the public health crisis , despite record-high numbers of cases and hospitalizations .
His own chief of staff recently admitted that “ we are not going to control the pandemic.
” Biden , by contrast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan to make testing more widely available and to guarantee that testing and treatment are free .
The plan would also continue supporting vaccine development and ensure states have adequate protective equipment and staffing .
Further , it would provide economic relief for workers and small businesses and paid emergency leave .
Biden has pledged to put scientists and public health experts front and center in daily pandemic briefings .
His plan additionally includes preparing the country for future pandemics by supporting research and developing robust disease-surveillance programs .
He has promised that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. would rejoin the World Health Organization ( which the Trump administration pulled out of earlier this year ) .
He also aims to restore the White House ’ s National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense , which was established by then president Barack Obama in 2014—and disbanded by the Trump administration in 2018 .
Biden has stopped short of calling for a national mask mandate but has said he would require masks in all federal buildings and interstate transportation .
“ The biggest priority will be ending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” says Angela Rasmussen , a virologist at Columbia University .
“ That ’ s going to be very challenging because of the loss of trust in health agencies like the CDC.
” Biden would need to reengage the public and rebuild that trust , and he should also invest heavily in research and pandemic preparedness and response , Rasmussen adds .
How clean will the air be ?
Despite Trump ’ s pledges to ensure the U.S. has clean air and water , his administration has undertaken significant environmental deregulations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rules addressing greenhouse gases and other air pollutants .
The administration has repealed the Obama-era Clean Power Plan ( which set limits on carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants ) and now allows states to set their own rules .
It has also weakened the fuel-efficiency standards for cars , permitting more tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases , and has loosened restrictions on toxic mercury emissions from oil- and coal-fired power plants .
A second Trump term would likely continue down the same path .
It could , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not always followed clearly set procedures for rulemaking , which leaves some Trump-era changes open to being overturned by the courts .
“ This administration ’ s track record in court is pretty bad , ” notes Hillary Aidun , a fellow at Columbia ’ s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law .
The Trump administration ’ s existing rollbacks would add the equivalent of an estimated 1.8 billion metric tons of excess carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2035 , according to an analysis by the Rhodium Group , an independent research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Environmental Protection Agency have shown that less stringent air pollution regulations can lead to thousands of premature deaths and cause or exacerbate lung illnesses .
Biden has been vocal about reversing Trump ’ s actions and strengthening regulations—as well as addressing the disproportionate harm pollution causes in Black , brown and low-income communities .
Some actions would be easier to undo than others .
It would be relatively simple to revoke or alter executive orders and guidance , such as the Trump administration ’ s directive not to use Obama-era estimates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden can also issue his own executive orders , as he has pledged to do to set a target for reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 .
Rule changes completed within the past 60 legislative days could be overturned by the new Congress , though this is only likely to happen if Democrats win control of both chambers .
Some older regulations , such as the revisions to fuel-efficiency standards , would have to be altered through the laborious federal rulemaking process , which can take years .
( There is one exception to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could rescind the withdrawal of California ’ s waiver to set its own more stringent regulations—which other states would then be free to adopt . )
Who will have reliable and affordable health care ?
Trump and congressional Republicans have repeatedly tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act , or ACA .
The law provides health insurance to more than 20 million Americans and protects up to 129 million people with preexisting conditions ( which could include COVID-19 ) .
Repeal efforts have thus far failed , and the Trump administration has not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead Trump has issued a toothless executive order claiming he will protect insurance for those with preexisting conditions .
He has signed several other executive orders that he contends will reduce drug prices , but the details are murky , and the orders are far from being implemented .
Meanwhile , in a highly unusual and widely condemned move , his Republican party rammed through Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s Supreme Court seat—just a week before the election .
In early November the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decide whether the entire ACA is unconstitutional because of its individual mandate to purchase health insurance .
The court ’ s six-to-three conservative majority could also threaten to overturn Roe v. Wade , the landmark 1973 ruling that guarantees the right to an abortion .
The Trump administration has already chipped away at women ’ s reproductive rights through a series of rules that threaten insurance coverage for abortions and contraception .
If reelected , he could roll these rights back even further .
Biden was part of the Obama administration , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that if he is elected , he will build on it rather than replace it .
His health plan would add a public option to the ACA , increase tax credits in order to lower premiums and provide coverage for Americans who would have become eligible for Medicaid if their state had not refused to expand it .
Biden ’ s plan aims to make health care more affordable by allowing the public option section to negotiate costs with providers and by repealing the exception that allows pharmaceutical companies to avoid negotiating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would also work to shore up access to contraception and abortion by protecting Roe v. Wade , restoring funding to Planned Parenthood and rescinding the so-called Mexico City Policy that bars federal funding to global health organizations that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning .
Biden also says he wants to reduce the unacceptably high maternal mortality rate among women of color and to guard the ACA ’ s health care protections , regardless of gender , gender identify or sexual orientation .
He supports paid leave for workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun violence .
But Biden ’ s ideas face some potential roadblocks .
“ One thing that ’ s really important to realize , [ with a six-to-three conservative majority in the Supreme Court and 200 confirmed judges nominated by Trump ] , is : anything Biden does is going to be immediately challenged , ” says Tim Jost , an emeritus professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law .
And of course , in order to pass any health care legislation , he would likely need a Democratic majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S.—and the world—safe ?
In the high-stakes arena of nuclear weapons , the differences between the two candidates could not be clearer .
Biden has expressed support for existing arms-control agreements as a way to prevent nuclear proliferation—and annihilation .
In contrast , Trump has consistently sought to weaken U.S. participation in such agreements , arguing that unilateral freedom of action is better than accepting safety-boosting norms set by international partnerships .
This “ America First ” approach has led to numerous setbacks in nuclear nonproliferation during Trump ’ s first term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018 .
More commonly known as the “ Iran deal , ” this 2015 agreement between Tehran and the member nations of the United Nations Security Council was meant to halt Iran ’ s nuclear-weapons program in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions—many of which the Trump administration has now reinstated .
Iran has responded in kind by continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons .
Biden has stated he would seek for the U.S. to rejoin the deal .
Similarly , Trump has denounced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. and Russia—the New START treaty enacted in 2010 , which aims to prevent a ruinous cold war–style arms race by limiting the sizes of both nations ’ nuclear arsenals .
The treaty expires in February , 15 days after the next presidential inauguration , but it includes a provision that it can be renewed for up to five years .
Trump had previously called for China to join the treaty ( which would be unlikely ) before the U.S. would renew , placing New START in limbo .
Russia and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward a short-term extension , but the treaty ’ s fate remains uncertain .
Biden has said his administration would renew it .
Despite his high-profile courting of North Korea ’ s authoritarian leader Kim Jong-un , Trump has failed to contain the rogue nuclear state ’ s ongoing development of warhead-carrying missiles that threaten the U.S. and its allies .
Biden , in contrast , has compared Kim to Hitler and vowed to take a tougher stance against his regime ’ s aggressive nuclear aspirations .
But even so , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Middlebury Institute of International Studies , in the aftermath of Trump ’ s actions , “ it ’ s not clear that [ a Biden administration ] can put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
” As for another four years of Trump ?
“ It ’ s probably back to the arms race and proliferation , ” Lewis says .
Who will be allowed to enter the country ?
Trump has followed through on his campaign promise to restrict immigration , establishing a number of barriers to reduce the number of both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden has pledged not only to tear down Trump ’ s restrictions but also to reform the U.S. immigration system to encourage entry .
“ Currently , we are not taking advantage of America ’ s ability to attract the best and brightest workers in the world , ” reads a statement on his campaign Web site .
Evidence suggests that immigrants boost the economy in general—and they play a particularly significant role in academia and technology .
The president ’ s anti-immigrant policies and rhetoric are already impacting U.S. ’ s ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of new international students has fallen each year since 2016 , depriving colleges and universities of their tuition—and the tech sector of their abilities .
After graduation , many such people continue working here : for example , more than 80 percent of international students who earn doctorates in artificial intelligence at U.S. institutions remain in the country after graduation .
In fact , more than half of the nation ’ s AI workers were born abroad , and as China strives to overtake it in this field , the U.S. ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vital .
Artificial intelligence is only one example .
Any highly technical research field , such as quantum computing , relies on skilled workers with specialized knowledge , many of whom come from beyond U.S. borders .
This reliance is so important to both academia and technology companies that the Trump administration ’ s onerous new visa rules for skilled workers have drawn lawsuits from entities in both fields .
If Biden wins the election , his proposed immigrant-friendly policies could restore the U.S. ’ s reputation as an attractive destination for scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump remains in power , his administration will likely continue to restrict people born elsewhere from entering the country , driving many stars of artificial intelligence , quantum computing and other fields to take their valuable talents elsewhere .
Where will we go in space ?
The next administration must decide whether to push on toward Trump ’ s goal of sending astronauts back to the moon by 2024 and then on to Mars in the 2030s under the Artemis program .
Budget uncertainties and technical challenges make the deadline for a moon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returning to Earth ’ s satellite is transportation , and NASA is developing its Space Launch System ( SLS ) heavy-lift rocket for the mission .
It is also contracting with three commercial companies to develop vehicles to touch down on the moon ’ s surface and then launch astronauts back to lunar orbit for the return trip .
New presidential administrations have a history of changing space-exploration plans , with the inevitable result of delaying any eventual goal by forcing NASA to change gears .
Former president George W. Bush had instructed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the Constellation program , but his successor Obama cancelled Constellation and directed NASA to make a charge for an asteroid instead .
When Trump took office , the U.S. set its sights back on the moon—resulting in neither goal being achieved so far .
If Trump wins again , he will presumably continue on the current course .
Biden has not explicitly stated his space goals , but he might at least push back the Artemis time line , as suggested by a U.S. House bill introduced in January 2020 .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fate of more than a quarter of the nation ’ s land—and with it , a sizable chunk of its greenhouse gas emissions—is in the hands of the next president .
The federal government owns some 640 million acres of land in the U.S. , managing its use for purposes ranging from conservation to energy development .
Nearly 20 percent of the country ’ s emissions come from producing and using oil , gas and coal extracted from these public lands , which encompass ecologically important wilderness areas , as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tensions over how to balance preservation of the land with natural-resource development have always existed .
But against the backdrop of the unfolding climate crisis , the stakes are now higher than ever before .
Trump ’ s administration has made vast tracts of public land available for resource extraction .
It has opened up parts of Alaska ’ s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development—and now proposes to do the same with most of the nearby National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska .
The latter is the country ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it contains critical habitats for polar bears , caribou and other animals .
In September the administration released its plan to open more than half of Alaska ’ s Tongass National Forest—an intact temperate rain forest that stores about 8 percent of the carbon held in all the forests in the lower 48 states combined—to logging , which would release greenhouse gases back into the atmosphere .
In Utah , Trump has drastically downsized the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments , which contain hundreds of key fossil and archaeological sites .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of previously protected land open to uranium mining , oil and gas drilling , and road construction .
In New Mexico , his administration is looking to sell oil and gas leases in the area around Chaco Canyon , the sacred ancestral grounds of Navajo and Pueblo peoples .
Since taking office , the Trump administration has offered millions of acres of public lands across the country for fossil-fuel-lease sales .
And in July it rewrote the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ) —a foundational conservation law—to limit environmental review of , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projects , among other changes .
In his pursuit of his “ energy dominance ” agenda , Trump will continue to push for deregulation , exploration and fossil-fuel extraction on public land if he is reelected .
If Biden is elected , he has pledged to take executive action on day one that would include “ permanently protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other areas impacted by President Trump ’ s attack on federal lands and waters ” and “ banning new oil and gas leasing on public lands and waters.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominate new people to lead the Department of the Interior and its subagencies , including the Bureau of Land management , which control most public land .
And he could , with the support of a Democratic Congress , undo Trump ’ s changes to NEPA .
*Editor ’ s Note ( 10/30/20 ) : This sentence was edited after posting to correct the figure for extra unemployment benefits .

When all the votes are cast and counted in this year’s momentous November 3 election, the results will have deep and potentially long-lasting impacts on numerous areas of society, including science. President Donald Trump and his challenger, former vice president Joe Biden, have presented vastly different visions for handling crucial issues—ranging from the deadly coronavirus pandemic to the damaging impacts of climate change and immigration policies.
The election’s outcome—not just who wins the White House but who controls Congress—will determine what laws get passed, how budgets are allocated and what direction key science-related agencies (such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) will take. The past four years have been marked by extensive deregulatory efforts that affect climate and public health. The Trump administration has also taken various steps that could undercut access to health care. And it has appointed industry officials to scientific advisory boards and made other moves that are likely to diminish the role and influence of scientific expertise. This approach has shown up acutely in what many public health experts see as the disastrous handling of the pandemic at the federal level—which has, in turn, undermined the reputation of storied agencies, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Here, Scientific American takes a look at how the election could shape a few key scientific issues, depending on who wins.
Will we bend the pandemic curve?
Undoubtedly the most immediate issue Biden or Trump will face as president is the COVID-19 pandemic, which has killed more than 227,000 people in the U.S. to date. Trump and his administration have consistently downplayed the threat to the public. They have failed to address severe testing shortages, flouted basic public health guidelines by holding large rallies and refusing to wear masks (while mocking those who do), and even proved unable to contain outbreaks in the White House itself. The administration has been accused of interfering with federal health agencies for political gain. It has refused funding to the hardest-hit states and communities and, in concert with Republicans in the Senate, opposed pandemic relief bills that included extending the extra unemployment benefits of $600, thus letting them lapse.* Although several potential vaccines are in the final testing stages, none are on track for approval before the election. The president himself has repeatedly spread misinformation about COVID-19, promoting ineffective and dangerous therapies and falsely calling the disease no worse than the flu. He has, again and again, claimed the U.S. is “turning the corner” on the public health crisis, despite record-high numbers of cases and hospitalizations. His own chief of staff recently admitted that “we are not going to control the pandemic.”
Biden, by contrast, has put forth a detailed COVID-19 plan to make testing more widely available and to guarantee that testing and treatment are free. The plan would also continue supporting vaccine development and ensure states have adequate protective equipment and staffing. Further, it would provide economic relief for workers and small businesses and paid emergency leave. Biden has pledged to put scientists and public health experts front and center in daily pandemic briefings. His plan additionally includes preparing the country for future pandemics by supporting research and developing robust disease-surveillance programs. He has promised that on his first day in office, the U.S. would rejoin the World Health Organization (which the Trump administration pulled out of earlier this year). He also aims to restore the White House’s National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which was established by then president Barack Obama in 2014—and disbanded by the Trump administration in 2018. Biden has stopped short of calling for a national mask mandate but has said he would require masks in all federal buildings and interstate transportation.
“The biggest priority will be ending the pandemic and continuing to shepherd vaccines,” says Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University. “That’s going to be very challenging because of the loss of trust in health agencies like the CDC.” Biden would need to reengage the public and rebuild that trust, and he should also invest heavily in research and pandemic preparedness and response, Rasmussen adds.
How clean will the air be?
Despite Trump’s pledges to ensure the U.S. has clean air and water, his administration has undertaken significant environmental deregulations. Some of the biggest changes have been to rules addressing greenhouse gases and other air pollutants. The administration has repealed the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (which set limits on carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants) and now allows states to set their own rules. It has also weakened the fuel-efficiency standards for cars, permitting more tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases, and has loosened restrictions on toxic mercury emissions from oil- and coal-fired power plants.
A second Trump term would likely continue down the same path. It could, however, face some legal challenges: agencies have not always followed clearly set procedures for rulemaking, which leaves some Trump-era changes open to being overturned by the courts. “This administration’s track record in court is pretty bad,” notes Hillary Aidun, a fellow at Columbia’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
The Trump administration’s existing rollbacks would add the equivalent of an estimated 1.8 billion metric tons of excess carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2035, according to an analysis by the Rhodium Group, an independent research outlet. Analyses from both academic scientists and the Environmental Protection Agency have shown that less stringent air pollution regulations can lead to thousands of premature deaths and cause or exacerbate lung illnesses.
Biden has been vocal about reversing Trump’s actions and strengthening regulations—as well as addressing the disproportionate harm pollution causes in Black, brown and low-income communities. Some actions would be easier to undo than others. It would be relatively simple to revoke or alter executive orders and guidance, such as the Trump administration’s directive not to use Obama-era estimates for the social cost of carbon.
Biden can also issue his own executive orders, as he has pledged to do to set a target for reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. Rule changes completed within the past 60 legislative days could be overturned by the new Congress, though this is only likely to happen if Democrats win control of both chambers. Some older regulations, such as the revisions to fuel-efficiency standards, would have to be altered through the laborious federal rulemaking process, which can take years. (There is one exception to the fuel-standards rule: a Biden administration could rescind the withdrawal of California’s waiver to set its own more stringent regulations—which other states would then be free to adopt.)
Who will have reliable and affordable health care?
Trump and congressional Republicans have repeatedly tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. The law provides health insurance to more than 20 million Americans and protects up to 129 million people with preexisting conditions (which could include COVID-19). Repeal efforts have thus far failed, and the Trump administration has not revealed a plan for replacing the coverage. Instead Trump has issued a toothless executive order claiming he will protect insurance for those with preexisting conditions. He has signed several other executive orders that he contends will reduce drug prices, but the details are murky, and the orders are far from being implemented. Meanwhile, in a highly unusual and widely condemned move, his Republican party rammed through Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat—just a week before the election. In early November the court is scheduled to hear a case to decide whether the entire ACA is unconstitutional because of its individual mandate to purchase health insurance. The court’s six-to-three conservative majority could also threaten to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that guarantees the right to an abortion. The Trump administration has already chipped away at women’s reproductive rights through a series of rules that threaten insurance coverage for abortions and contraception. If reelected, he could roll these rights back even further.
Biden was part of the Obama administration, which created the ACA, and he has said that if he is elected, he will build on it rather than replace it. His health plan would add a public option to the ACA, increase tax credits in order to lower premiums and provide coverage for Americans who would have become eligible for Medicaid if their state had not refused to expand it. Biden’s plan aims to make health care more affordable by allowing the public option section to negotiate costs with providers and by repealing the exception that allows pharmaceutical companies to avoid negotiating with Medicare over drug prices. He would also work to shore up access to contraception and abortion by protecting Roe v. Wade, restoring funding to Planned Parenthood and rescinding the so-called Mexico City Policy that bars federal funding to global health organizations that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. Biden also says he wants to reduce the unacceptably high maternal mortality rate among women of color and to guard the ACA’s health care protections, regardless of gender, gender identify or sexual orientation. He supports paid leave for workers and has floated a plan to address gun violence.
But Biden’s ideas face some potential roadblocks. “One thing that’s really important to realize, [with a six-to-three conservative majority in the Supreme Court and 200 confirmed judges nominated by Trump], is: anything Biden does is going to be immediately challenged,” says Tim Jost, an emeritus professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. And of course, in order to pass any health care legislation, he would likely need a Democratic majority in the Senate.
Who will keep the U.S.—and the world—safe?
In the high-stakes arena of nuclear weapons, the differences between the two candidates could not be clearer. Biden has expressed support for existing arms-control agreements as a way to prevent nuclear proliferation—and annihilation. In contrast, Trump has consistently sought to weaken U.S. participation in such agreements, arguing that unilateral freedom of action is better than accepting safety-boosting norms set by international partnerships.
This “America First” approach has led to numerous setbacks in nuclear nonproliferation during Trump’s first term, most notably the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018. More commonly known as the “Iran deal,” this 2015 agreement between Tehran and the member nations of the United Nations Security Council was meant to halt Iran’s nuclear-weapons program in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions—many of which the Trump administration has now reinstated. Iran has responded in kind by continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Biden has stated he would seek for the U.S. to rejoin the deal.
Similarly, Trump has denounced the only active nuclear arms agreement between the U.S. and Russia—the New START treaty enacted in 2010, which aims to prevent a ruinous cold war–style arms race by limiting the sizes of both nations’ nuclear arsenals. The treaty expires in February, 15 days after the next presidential inauguration, but it includes a provision that it can be renewed for up to five years. Trump had previously called for China to join the treaty (which would be unlikely) before the U.S. would renew, placing New START in limbo. Russia and the Trump administration now seem to be moving toward a short-term extension, but the treaty’s fate remains uncertain. Biden has said his administration would renew it.
Despite his high-profile courting of North Korea’s authoritarian leader Kim Jong-un, Trump has failed to contain the rogue nuclear state’s ongoing development of warhead-carrying missiles that threaten the U.S. and its allies. Biden, in contrast, has compared Kim to Hitler and vowed to take a tougher stance against his regime’s aggressive nuclear aspirations. But even so, according to Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear-arms expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, in the aftermath of Trump’s actions, “it’s not clear that [a Biden administration] can put Humpty Dumpty back together again.” As for another four years of Trump? “It’s probably back to the arms race and proliferation,” Lewis says.
Who will be allowed to enter the country?
Trump has followed through on his campaign promise to restrict immigration, establishing a number of barriers to reduce the number of both authorized and unauthorized entrants to the U.S. Biden has pledged not only to tear down Trump’s restrictions but also to reform the U.S. immigration system to encourage entry. “Currently, we are not taking advantage of America’s ability to attract the best and brightest workers in the world,” reads a statement on his campaign Web site. Evidence suggests that immigrants boost the economy in general—and they play a particularly significant role in academia and technology.
The president’s anti-immigrant policies and rhetoric are already impacting U.S.’s ability to attract foreign-born talent. The number of new international students has fallen each year since 2016, depriving colleges and universities of their tuition—and the tech sector of their abilities. After graduation, many such people continue working here: for example, more than 80 percent of international students who earn doctorates in artificial intelligence at U.S. institutions remain in the country after graduation. In fact, more than half of the nation’s AI workers were born abroad, and as China strives to overtake it in this field, the U.S.’s ability to attract AI researchers will be vital. Artificial intelligence is only one example. Any highly technical research field, such as quantum computing, relies on skilled workers with specialized knowledge, many of whom come from beyond U.S. borders. This reliance is so important to both academia and technology companies that the Trump administration’s onerous new visa rules for skilled workers have drawn lawsuits from entities in both fields.
If Biden wins the election, his proposed immigrant-friendly policies could restore the U.S.’s reputation as an attractive destination for scientists from all over the world. If Trump remains in power, his administration will likely continue to restrict people born elsewhere from entering the country, driving many stars of artificial intelligence, quantum computing and other fields to take their valuable talents elsewhere.
Where will we go in space?
The next administration must decide whether to push on toward Trump’s goal of sending astronauts back to the moon by 2024 and then on to Mars in the 2030s under the Artemis program. Budget uncertainties and technical challenges make the deadline for a moon landing tight. The main hurdle in returning to Earth’s satellite is transportation, and NASA is developing its Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket for the mission. It is also contracting with three commercial companies to develop vehicles to touch down on the moon’s surface and then launch astronauts back to lunar orbit for the return trip.
New presidential administrations have a history of changing space-exploration plans, with the inevitable result of delaying any eventual goal by forcing NASA to change gears. Former president George W. Bush had instructed the agency to head for the moon under the Constellation program, but his successor Obama cancelled Constellation and directed NASA to make a charge for an asteroid instead. When Trump took office, the U.S. set its sights back on the moon—resulting in neither goal being achieved so far. If Trump wins again, he will presumably continue on the current course. Biden has not explicitly stated his space goals, but he might at least push back the Artemis time line, as suggested by a U.S. House bill introduced in January 2020.
What will happen to our shared lands?
The fate of more than a quarter of the nation’s land—and with it, a sizable chunk of its greenhouse gas emissions—is in the hands of the next president. The federal government owns some 640 million acres of land in the U.S., managing its use for purposes ranging from conservation to energy development. Nearly 20 percent of the country’s emissions come from producing and using oil, gas and coal extracted from these public lands, which encompass ecologically important wilderness areas, as well as culturally and scientifically significant national monuments. Tensions over how to balance preservation of the land with natural-resource development have always existed. But against the backdrop of the unfolding climate crisis, the stakes are now higher than ever before.
Trump’s administration has made vast tracts of public land available for resource extraction. It has opened up parts of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development—and now proposes to do the same with most of the nearby National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The latter is the country’s largest single piece of public land; it contains critical habitats for polar bears, caribou and other animals. In September the administration released its plan to open more than half of Alaska’s Tongass National Forest—an intact temperate rain forest that stores about 8 percent of the carbon held in all the forests in the lower 48 states combined—to logging, which would release greenhouse gases back into the atmosphere.
In Utah, Trump has drastically downsized the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments, which contain hundreds of key fossil and archaeological sites. This change leaves nearly two million acres of previously protected land open to uranium mining, oil and gas drilling, and road construction. In New Mexico, his administration is looking to sell oil and gas leases in the area around Chaco Canyon, the sacred ancestral grounds of Navajo and Pueblo peoples. Since taking office, the Trump administration has offered millions of acres of public lands across the country for fossil-fuel-lease sales. And in July it rewrote the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—a foundational conservation law—to limit environmental review of, and public input on, proposed infrastructure projects, among other changes. In his pursuit of his “energy dominance” agenda, Trump will continue to push for deregulation, exploration and fossil-fuel extraction on public land if he is reelected.
If Biden is elected, he has pledged to take executive action on day one that would include “permanently protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other areas impacted by President Trump’s attack on federal lands and waters” and “banning new oil and gas leasing on public lands and waters.” Importantly, Biden would be able to nominate new people to lead the Department of the Interior and its subagencies, including the Bureau of Land management, which control most public land. And he could, with the support of a Democratic Congress, undo Trump’s changes to NEPA.
*Editor’s Note (10/30/20): This sentence was edited after posting to correct the figure for extra unemployment benefits.


livescience--2020-11-02--Coronavirus outbreak: Live updates

Coronavirus outbreak: Live updates

Refresh
90-year-old woman in the UK receives first dose of Pfizer vaccine, FDA review confirms vaccine is safe and effective A 90-year-old woman (who will turn 91 next week) became the first in the world to be given Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine outside of clinical trials, according to the BBC. Margaret Keenan, who is originally from Northern Ireland, was given the vaccine at the University Hospital in Coventry, England. She received the first of 800,000 doses expected to be administered in the U.K. in the coming weeks, according to the BBC. "I feel so privileged to be the first person vaccinated against Covid-19," Keenan said, according to the BBC."It's the best early birthday present I could wish for because it means I can finally look forward to spending time with my family and friends in the new year after being on my own for most of the year." "My advice to anyone offered the vaccine is to take it. If I can have it at 90, then you can have it too," she added. Up to four million doses of Pfizer's vaccine is expected to be given to people in the U.K. by the end of the month. Meanwhile, a 53-page Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review published Tuesday (Dec. 8) confirmed that Pfizer's vaccine is safe and effective, according to The Washington Post.
Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine starts to work just 10 days after 1st dose Pfizer's new COVID-19 vaccine starts to protect people from the novel coronavirus just 10 days after the first dose, according to new documents from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The documents were released on Tuesday (Dec. 8), two days before a meeting of the FDA's vaccine advisory panel, which will vote on whether to recommend authorization of the vaccine in the U.S, Live Science reported . The FDA analyzed data from Pfizer's phase 3 clinical trial, which included some 44,000 people in the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Germany and Turkey, about half of whom received the vaccine while the other half received a placebo. Both groups received two shots, 21 days apart. About 10 days after the first dose, there was a noticeable drop-off in new COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group compared with the placebo group, indicating that even one dose provides some protection, the report said. However, scientists don't know how long the protection from a single dose will last, so it will still be important for people to receive two shots, according to The New York Times . Overall, the vaccine was 52% effective after the first dose and 95% effective after the second dose, the report said.
People with significant allergies should avoid Pfizer vaccine, UK warns The U.K.'s Regulatory Agency is advising people with a history of "significant" allergic reactions to avoid Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine, after two National Health Service members developed severe allergic reactions to it on Tuesday (Dec. 8), Live Science reported. "As is common with new vaccines the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) have advised on a precautionary basis that people with a significant history of allergic reactions do not receive this vaccination after two people with a history of significant allergic reactions responded adversely yesterday," Stephen Powis, the national medical director for England's National Health Service said in a statement on Wednesday (Dec. 9). Both workers have a history of severe allergies and carry adrenaline auto injectors (such as EpiPens) around with them, according to The Guardian. Shortly after receiving the vaccine, both NHS workers developed anaphylaxis-like symptoms, or severe allergic reactions, but have recovered after receiving treatment. The MHRA will investigate further and Pfizer and BioNTech will support their investigation, according to Reuters. "Allergic reaction occurs with quite a number of vaccines, and perhaps even more frequently with drugs. So it is not unexpected," Stephen Evans, a professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said in remarks to journalists published by Britain's Science Media Center. “What would be wise, as the MHRA have already advised, would be for anyone who has known severe allergic reaction such that they need to carry an EpiPen, to delay having a vaccination until the reason for the allergic reaction has been clarified," he said. For the general population this does not mean that they would need to be anxious about receiving the vaccination, he added. "One has to remember that even things like marmite [a quintessential British food spread] can cause unexpected severe allergic reactions.”
Canada approves Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine Canada has authorized Pfizer's new COVID-19 vaccine, with the first doses expected to be administered there as early as next week. Health Canada, the country's health regulatory agency, said in a statement on Wednesday (Dec. 9) that it had determined that the vaccine "meets the Department's stringent safety, efficacy and quality requirements for use in Canada," according to CTV News . "We expect vaccines to arrive maybe as early as Monday [Dec. 14]. It takes time to prepare the vaccine," said Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin, the top military general leading the vaccine rollout for the Public Health Agency of Canada, according to CTV News. The first doses could be administered by the middle of next week, he said. Canada is the third country in the world to authorize the Pfizer vaccine, following the United Kingdom and Bahrain. The country should receive up to 249,000 doses of the vaccine by the end of December, and has purchased 20 million doses total, with the option to purchase more, CTV News reported.
Daily COVID-19 death toll in the U.S. reaches record-high, surpassed 9/11 On Wednesday (Dec. 9), the U.S. recorded 3,124 new COVID-19 deaths, the highest daily death toll to date, according to CNN . In comparison, 2,977 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. has now recorded 280,488 deaths related to the virus, according to The COVID Tracking Project . A forecast from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predicts that the total death toll can increase to between 332,000 and 362,000 by January 2, according to CNN. There are currently 106,671 people hospitalized with the virus in the U.S.; 20,903 of them are currently in the ICU and 7,621 are currently on a ventilator, according to the COVID Tracking Project. On Thursday (Dec. 10), the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is set to meet to discuss an emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine.
FDA panel recommends authorization of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine A panel of experts for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended that the agency authorize Pfizer's new COVID-19 vaccine in the United States. On Thursday (Dec. 10), the panel voted 17 to 4 to recommend that the vaccine receive emergency use authorization (EUA) for people ages 16 and older, according to The New York Times . The FDA typically follows the advice of its panels, and so today's vote is an important step towards the vaccine's authorization. It is anticipated that the agency will officially authorize the vaccine on Saturday (Dec. 12), the Times reported. Several countries have already authorized Pfizer's vaccine, including Canada, the United Kingdom and Bahrain.
Vaccine approval could come this weekend, as U.S. continues to record high daily death tolls On Thursday (Dec. 10), the U.S. recorded another 2,902 COVID-19 deaths, a day after the country set a record of 3,253 deaths, according to Reuters . “Probably for the next 60 to 90 days, we’re going to have more deaths per day than we had on 9/11 or we had at Pearl Harbor,” Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the Council on Foreign Relations on Thursday, according to Reuters. "The reality is the vaccine approval this week is not going to really impact that, I think, to any degree for the next 60 days." On Thursday, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee discussed, voted and recommended that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should grant an emergency use authorization for Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine. The Pfizer vaccine has already been approved in the U.K. and in Canada, and FDA approval for use in the U.S. could come this weekend.
Australia abandons local COVID-19 vaccine after it caused false-positive HIV tests An Australian COVID-19 vaccine that had shown promising results in early trials is being abandoned after researchers found that the shot caused false-positive results on HIV tests. On Friday (Dec. 11), Australian officials said they had canceled an order for some 51 million doses of the vaccine, which was being developed by The University of Queensland and CSL Ltd., a local biotech company, according to The New York Times . In an early trial with 216 participants, the vaccine appeared to be safe and to produce a robust immune response against COVID-19, according to a statement from CSL . But some volunteers falsely tested positive for HIV, which officials feared would undermine trust in the vaccine, the Times reported. The vaccine contained small fragments of an HIV protein, which helped stabilize the vaccine. Some of the participants developed antibodies against these fragments, and these antibodies triggered false positive results on some HIV tests. It's important to note that there is no way for the vaccine to cause an HIV infection, because it contains harmless fragments of the virus.
ICU nurse in New York becomes first person in the US to receive a coronavirus vaccine outside of clinical trials New York, the worst-hit state at the start of the pandemic, just became the first to administer a coronavirus vaccine outside of clinical trials, kicking off a long, massive effort to vaccinate the American people, Live Science reported. Around 9 a.m. E.T. on Monday (Dec. 14), the very first dose of Pfizer and BioNTech's coronavirus vaccine was given to Sandra Lindsay, an intensive care nurse in Long Island Jewish Medical Center in Queens, New York, according to The New York Times. This comes as the U.S. continues to battle a massive wave of the virus that has more than 109,000 people currently hospitalized, according to The COVID Tracking Project. Since the start of the pandemic, New York has recorded more than 780,000 cases of COVID-19 and more than 35,100 deaths, according to The Times. "This vaccine is exciting because I believe this is the weapon that will end the war," Gov. Andrew Cuomo said during a live broadcast of the first vaccination. "It's the beginning of the last chapter of the book, but now we just have to do it."
FDA analysis confirms Moderna's vaccine is safe and effective, emergency authorization is likely to come Friday A new briefing document from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released on Tuesday (Dec. 15) confirmed that Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective, according to NPR . Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine is 94% effective and has "a favorable safety profile," according to the document. A panel of experts is set to meet on Thursday (Dec. 17) to discuss the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine and vote on whether or not the FDA should grant emergency approval to the vaccine. Last week, the same panel voted that the FDA should grant emergency approval to Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine; the authorization came a day late and the first doses were given on Monday (Dec. 15). The FDA will likely approve Moderna's vaccine for emergency use on Friday (Dec. 18), according to The New York Times .
FDA authorizes first over-the-counter COVID-19 test The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized the first over-the-counter COVID-19 test, which can be done at home and does not need a prescription. The test, made by the Australia-based company Ellume, provides results in as little as 20 minutes, according to a statement from the FDA . It is a "lateral flow antigen test," meaning it works in a similar way to a home pregnancy test, by running a "liquid sample along a surface with reactive molecules," the FDA said. The test works in conjunction with a smartphone app. Users take a nasal swab and place their sample in an analyzer, which communicates to the smartphone app via Bluetooth. The results are delivered through the app, and also reported to public health authorities (based on a user's zip code) through a secure cloud connection, the company said . Ellume is ramping up production of its test, and expects to produce three million tests in January 2021, and 20 million within the first half of 2021.
A wild mink tested positive for the coronavirus, it may be the first wild animal to have a confirmed case A wild mink in Utah may be the first "free-ranging, native wild animal" confirmed to be infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Live Science reported. The mink was found near a mink farm and likely picked up the infection from the farmed mink. There's no evidence that the virus spread to other minks or wild animals; but if the virus does begin circulating in wild animals, it could pick up mutations that COVID-19 vaccines may not protect well against if it spreads back to humans, according to the report. "If it does [establish a reservoir], then we've got a long-term issue here, where this virus has the potential to be with us for millennia," Sarah Olson, associate director of the health program at the Wildlife Conservation Society, told Vox. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has screened other animal species for the virus near mink farms in Utah, Michigan and Wisconsin, but all of them have tested negative so far, according to a statement.
An FDA advisory panel will meet today to vote on whether to recommend Moderna's coronavirus vaccine for emergency approval On Thursday (Dec. 17), a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee will meet to determine whether to recommend that Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine for emergency approval, according to The New York Times . This panel, composed of independent experts, will vote on whether to recommend the vaccine after hearing from the company, FDA scientists and the public, according to The Times. Last week, the same panel of experts met to discuss Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine and voted to recommend emergency authorization; the authorization came the next day. There have now been more than 16.9 million cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. and more than 307,000 deaths, according to the Johns Hopkins dashboard . There are currently 113,090 people hospitalized across the country with more than 21,900 of them in the ICU and 7,778 on a ventilator, according to The COVID Tracking Project .
California becomes new epicenter of COVID-19 in U.S. California, once praised for its early pandemic response, is now the new U.S. hotspot for COVID-19 infections. The state has reported an alarming surge in cases, breaking previous records for daily cases. On Thursday (Dec. 17), the state reported some 50,000 COVID-19 infections in 24 hours, and nearly 100,000 in 48 hours, according to The Washington Post . That's more than the daily cases reported in many countries, including India, Germany and Britain, the Post reported. The state also set a record for daily deaths on Thursday, with 379 fatalities reported, up from the previous high of 293. Capacity in intensive care units has also dropped dramatically, with hospitals in Southern California reporting zero percent capacity on Thursday. "I want to be very clear: Our hospitals are under siege, and our model shows no end in sight," said Christina Ghaly, director of Los Angeles County's Department of Health Services, the Post reported.
FDA expected to authorize Moderna's vaccine on Friday The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected to authorize Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine on Friday (Dec. 18). Once authorized, it will be the second coronavirus vaccine to get the green light from the agency in just a week, with Pfizer's vaccine gaining authorization on Dec. 11. Moderna is expected to begin shipping 5.9 million doses of its vaccine on Sunday (Dec. 20), with the first deliveries arriving Monday (Dec. 21), according to The New York Times . Unlike the Pfizer vaccine, Moderna's vaccine does not require storage in extremely cold temperatures, and states are hoping to distribute the vaccine to rural hospitals and community health centers, the Times reported.
COVID-19 cases continue to surge across the U.S. There have now been more than 17 million cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. and more than 300,000 deaths, according to The COVID Tracking Project . There are currently 114,237 people hospitalized across the country and 21,900 people in the ICU. California is facing a massive surge in cases; the state reported 41,012 new COVID-19 cases and 300 new deaths on Thursday (Dec. 17), according to the state's COVID-19 dashboard . By comparison, at the start of November, California was reporting a seven-day average of 4,183 cases, compared to an average of 38,774 on Thursday, according to CNN . "We're experiencing an explosive and very deadly surge," Dr. Barbara Ferrer, Los Angeles County Public Health Director said, according to CNN. Intensive care unit beds are rapidly filling up across the state; there are only 1,234 ICU beds left available in California, according to the dashboard. Current closures across California are impacting around 98% of the state's population, according to CNN.
London and southeast England are under an emergency lockdown Following concerns of a new version of the coronavirus that might be more transmissible, London and most of southeast England are now under an emergency lockdown, according to The New York Times . Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the lockdown on Saturday (Dec. 19) citing concerns that the mutated virus — which was detected a couple of weeks ago in southeast England — may be as much as 70% more transmissible than previous versions, according to the Times. The new version of the coronavirus is detected in more than 60% of new infections in London and have also been detected in several other countries, according to the Times. But it's not yet clear if this coronavirus version is any more infectious than the last and thorough analyses will need to be conducted before conclusions are made, scientists cautioned. In South Africa, a similar version of the virus has been found in up to 90% of new cases detected since mid-November, according to The Times . It's common for viruses to mutate, and this particular coronavirus has mutated many times since the start of the pandemic. But experts told The Times that it would take years for the virus to mutate enough such that it would make the current vaccines developed to fight COVID-19 ineffective.
Biden gets Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine President-elect Joe Biden received a dose of Pfizer's new COVID-19 vaccine on Monday (Dec. 21), according to The New York Times . He received the shot on camera at the Christiana Hospital in Newark, Delaware. "I'm doing this to demonstrate that people should be prepared when it's available to take the vaccine. There's nothing to worry about," Biden said.
Antarctica has its 1st COVID-19 outbreak The first COVID-19 cases have been reported in Antarctica , meaning the disease has now spread to every continent in the world. On Tuesday (Dec. 22), Chilean officials reported an outbreak of 36 COVID-19 cases at the Chilean research base General Bernardo O'Higgins Riquelme on the Antarctic Peninsula, according to the BBC . Of these, 26 cases were military personnel and 10 were maintenance workers, the BBC reported. All of these cases have been evacuated from Antarctica to Punta Arenas, Chile, according to The Guardian . Antarctica had been COVID-19 free up until the current outbreak. The continent has no permanent residents, but about 1,000 people, including scientists and other workers, stayed there this past winter, The Guardian reported.
Live updates will continue in 2021!


livescience--2020-11-02--Does vitamin D protect against COVID-19?

In the absence of a COVID-19 cure or vaccine , scientists are investigating whether can reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection or the severity of the disease .
Indeed , the idea of taking a vitamin to ward off COVID-19 infection certainly is appealing .
But although some recent studies have suggested a link between low vitamin D levels and a higher risk of catching the disease , experts say it 's not enough to prove that vitamin D itself protects against the disease , or if other factors are playing a role .
One study , published Sept. 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 infection in people with vitamin D deficiency was nearly two times higher than in people with sufficient levels of the vitamin .
Another study , published Oct. 27 in , found that hospitalized COVID-19 patients had higher rates of vitamin D deficiency than a control group of patients who did n't have COVID-19 but whose vitamin D status was measured pre-pandemic .
These associations do n't prove that vitamin D deficiency causes increased COVID-19 risk , said Adrian Martineau , who studies respiratory infections and immunity at Queen Mary University of London @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with either study .
`` But it 's suggestive and it 's enough to justify doing further research to find out whether or not there is a true cause-effect relationship , '' Martineau told Live Science .
There are several reasons to hypothesize that vitamin D might reduce COVID-19 risk , Martineau said .
Vitamin D has been shown to boost the immune system 's response to viruses and dampen its inflammatory response ; an excessive inflammatory response characterizes severe COVID-19 cases , he said .
According to a meta-analysis by Martineau , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and updated to include more recent studies this July on the preprint server , vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of acute respiratory tract infections in general compared with a placebo .
( However , the meta-analysis did not include studies about COVID-19 . )
Additionally , there 's an overlap between the groups of people with higher risk of vitamin D deficiency , such as older people and people with darker skin , and those at higher risk for COVID-19 , Martineau said .
`` People put two and two together and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a striking coincidence , if it is indeed a coincidence. ''
.
An earlier study published May 6 in the journal found that in 20 European countries , the lower the average vitamin D levels , the higher the rate of coronavirus cases and deaths were for a given country .
Still , not all studies have suggested a protective effect .
A study published May 7 in the journal found no statistically significant association between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 risk once the researchers took into account other factors that could affect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ egg In the JAMA Network Open study , the researchers examined the relationship between likely vitamin D levels and COVID-19 risk in 489 people who took a COVID-19 test at the University of Chicago Medicine between March 3 and April 10 and whose vitamin D levels had been measured within the previous year .
The study researchers found that the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people whose vitamin D levels were likely deficient — patients with low vitamin D at their last test and who had n't changed their treatment — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients whose vitamin D levels were likely sufficient .
That 's according to the researchers ' analysis which accounted for other differences between the two groups that could affect COVID risk .
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism study compared the vitamin D levels of 216 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at University Hospital Marqués de Valdecilla in Santander , Spain , from March 10 to March 31 with a control group of 197 patients who had their vitamin D levels tested the previous year as part of a different study .
Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vitamin D deficiency compared with 47 % of control patients , a statistically meaningful difference .
A strength of the University of Chicago study is that vitamin D levels were measured before patients ' COVID-19 tests , Martineau said .
For the Spanish study , on the other hand , patients had vitamin D levels measured after they had tested positive for COVID-19 .
`` You ca n't tell the chicken from the egg .
In other words , the COVID might have caused the low vitamin D or it might be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Because the University of Chicago study was observational — participants were not randomly assigned to take vitamin D or not — it still does n't prove that vitamin D deficiency increases COVID risk , Martineau said .
Dr. David Meltzer , a University of Chicago researcher who led the study there , agrees .
`` None of that proves that vitamin D deficiency is causing COVID , '' Meltzer said , referring to his study and to other associations between vitamin D and COVID risk .
`` It may be that people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to have low vitamin D levels , '' he added .
To try to answer the chick-and-egg question , Martineau is leading a in which participants are randomized to take differing doses of vitamin D , then followed to see whether taking more vitamin D reduces COVID-19 risk or severity .
The database ClinicalTrials.gov lists about 30 such studies of vitamin D and COVID , according to .
While studies are underway , should people start popping supplements ?
Martineau 's advice would be yes , but only if they are n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intake from food .
In the U.S. , the daily recommended vitamin D intake is 600 international units ( IUs ) for adults up to age 70 and 800 IUs for adults 71 and up , according to the National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary of Dietary Supplements .
`` My recommendation would be to follow that advice because it 's well established that this will have benefits for bone and muscle , and there 's a chance , a good chance , perhaps , that it may also have some benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Martineau said .
Martineau does not , however , recommend that people start taking higher doses of the vitamin in the absence of more data about how dosage and COVID-19 risk are related .

In the absence of a COVID-19 cure or vaccine, scientists are investigating whether vitamin D can reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection or the severity of the disease. Indeed, the idea of taking a vitamin to ward off COVID-19 infection certainly is appealing.
But although some recent studies have suggested a link between low vitamin D levels and a higher risk of catching the disease, experts say it's not enough to prove that vitamin D itself protects against the disease, or if other factors are playing a role.
One study, published Sept. 3 in JAMA Network Open , found that the risk of COVID-19 infection in people with vitamin D deficiency was nearly two times higher than in people with sufficient levels of the vitamin. Another study, published Oct. 27 in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism , found that hospitalized COVID-19 patients had higher rates of vitamin D deficiency than a control group of patients who didn't have COVID-19 but whose vitamin D status was measured pre-pandemic.
These associations don't prove that vitamin D deficiency causes increased COVID-19 risk, said Adrian Martineau, who studies respiratory infections and immunity at Queen Mary University of London, and , who was not involved with either study. "But it's suggestive and it's enough to justify doing further research to find out whether or not there is a true cause-effect relationship," Martineau told Live Science.
Related: 9 Good Sources of Disease-Fighter Vitamin D
A protective effect?
There are several reasons to hypothesize that vitamin D might reduce COVID-19 risk, Martineau said. Vitamin D has been shown to boost the immune system's response to viruses and dampen its inflammatory response; an excessive inflammatory response characterizes severe COVID-19 cases, he said.
According to a meta-analysis by Martineau, first published in 2017 in the journal BMJ and updated to include more recent studies this July on the preprint server medRxiv , vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of acute respiratory tract infections in general compared with a placebo. (However, the meta-analysis did not include studies about COVID-19.)
Additionally, there's an overlap between the groups of people with higher risk of vitamin D deficiency, such as older people and people with darker skin, and those at higher risk for COVID-19, Martineau said. "People put two and two together and thought, 'Well, this is quite a striking coincidence, if it is indeed a coincidence.".
An earlier study published May 6 in the journal Aging Clinical and Experimental Research found that in 20 European countries, the lower the average vitamin D levels, the higher the rate of coronavirus cases and deaths were for a given country.
Still, not all studies have suggested a protective effect. A study published May 7 in the journal Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome found no statistically significant association between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 risk once the researchers took into account other factors that could affect COVID-19 risk.
The chicken or the egg
In the JAMA Network Open study, the researchers examined the relationship between likely vitamin D levels and COVID-19 risk in 489 people who took a COVID-19 test at the University of Chicago Medicine between March 3 and April 10 and whose vitamin D levels had been measured within the previous year. The study researchers found that the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people whose vitamin D levels were likely deficient — patients with low vitamin D at their last test and who hadn't changed their treatment — was 1.77 times greater than that of patients whose vitamin D levels were likely sufficient. That's according to the researchers' analysis which accounted for other differences between the two groups that could affect COVID risk.
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism study compared the vitamin D levels of 216 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at University Hospital Marqués de Valdecilla in Santander, Spain, from March 10 to March 31 with a control group of 197 patients who had their vitamin D levels tested the previous year as part of a different study. Of the COVID-19 patients, 82% had vitamin D deficiency compared with 47% of control patients, a statistically meaningful difference.
A strength of the University of Chicago study is that vitamin D levels were measured before patients' COVID-19 tests, Martineau said. For the Spanish study, on the other hand, patients had vitamin D levels measured after they had tested positive for COVID-19. "You can't tell the chicken from the egg. In other words, the COVID might have caused the low vitamin D or it might be a consequence of it," Martineau said. Because the University of Chicago study was observational — participants were not randomly assigned to take vitamin D or not — it still doesn't prove that vitamin D deficiency increases COVID risk, Martineau said.
Dr. David Meltzer, a University of Chicago researcher who led the study there, agrees. "None of that proves that vitamin D deficiency is causing COVID," Meltzer said, referring to his study and to other associations between vitamin D and COVID risk. "It may be that people who are sicker in general are more likely to have low vitamin D levels," he added.
To try to answer the chick-and-egg question, Martineau is leading a study in which participants are randomized to take differing doses of vitamin D, then followed to see whether taking more vitamin D reduces COVID-19 risk or severity. The database ClinicalTrials.gov lists about 30 such studies of vitamin D and COVID, according to The Scientist .
While studies are underway, should people start popping supplements? Martineau's advice would be yes, but only if they aren't already meeting current guidelines for vitamin D intake from food. In the U.S., the daily recommended vitamin D intake is 600 international units (IUs) for adults up to age 70 and 800 IUs for adults 71 and up, according to the National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary of Dietary Supplements . "My recommendation would be to follow that advice because it's well established that this will have benefits for bone and muscle, and there's a chance, a good chance, perhaps, that it may also have some benefit against COVID, although that remains unproven," Martineau said. Martineau does not, however, recommend that people start taking higher doses of the vitamin in the absence of more data about how dosage and COVID-19 risk are related.


livescience--2020-11-02--Drones are flying straight into volcanoes, for life-saving science

With an estimated 300 active volcanoes on Earth , the challenge is how to monitor them all to send out early warnings before they erupt .
Measuring volcanic gas emissions is also no easy task .
Now researchers have designed specially-adapted drones to help gather data from an active volcano in Papua New Guinea ( PNG ) .
The drones could help local communities monitor nearby volcanoes and forecast future eruptions .
Their measurements could also tell us more about the most inaccessible , highly active volcanoes on the planet and how volcanoes contribute to the global carbon cycle .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ island just 10 kilometers ( 6 miles ) wide that sits off the northeast coast of PNG .
The island is home to over 9,000 people and Manam Motu , as it 's known locally , is one of the most active volcanoes in the country .
In 2004 , a major eruption from Manam forced the entire island to evacuate to the mainland and devastated people 's crops and homes .
Scientists have a few ways of forecasting when a volcano is going to blow .
They can monitor earthquake activity in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always precede eruptions , and look out for bulging in the volcano 's sloping walls as magma builds up underneath .
When clear skies allow , satellites can also rapidly detect and measure volcanic emissions of gases such as sulphur dioxide ( SO2 ) .
Changes to these gas emissions can signal more activity in the volcano below .
`` Manam has n't been studied in detail but we could see from satellite data that it was producing strong emissions , '' said volcanologist Emma Liu from University College London , who led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aerospace engineers .
`` We [ also ] wanted to quantify the carbon emission [ s ] from this very large carbon dioxide emitter , '' added geochemist Tobias Fischer , from the University of New Mexico .
Although volcanoes emit just a fraction of the carbon emissions humans do , researchers still want to be able to estimate what carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) they do emit , to factor this into the carbon budget we have left to limit the effects of climate change .
Traveling to PNG , the international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-range drones equipped with gas sensors , cameras , and other devices during two field campaigns on Manam Island , in October 2018 and May 2019 .
Manam 's steep slopes make it incredibly dangerous to even contemplate collecting gas samples on foot whereas the drones could safely fly right into the billowing plumes , helping the research team measure its volcanic gas emissions more accurately .
The drones flew over 2,000 meters ( 6,561 feet ) high into Manam 's highly turbulent volcanic plumes and some 6 kilometers ( 3.7 miles ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of sight of their pilots .
On each flight , the drones took images of Manam and its two craters , measured the gas composition right above the rising plumes and collected four bags full of extra gas for rapid analysis when the aircraft touched down .
Aerial images from the drone fly-overs showed that degassing at Manam 's southern crater intensified between October 2018 and May 2019 .
In fact , the volcano soon erupted in June , just one month after the researchers ' second field trip .
But rising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicator of whether an eruption is imminent or likely , so the researchers also looked at the ratio between different gases , namely CO2 and SO2 , in Manam 's plumes .
This can help detect the ascent of hot magma to the surface and expulsion of CO2-rich emissions that reportedly precede big eruptions .
However , the researchers found that the mixture of gases emitted from Manam was much the same during both field trips .
Integrating their drone measurements with satellite data , the researchers were able to show that Manam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ volcanoes in the world , emitting an estimated 3,700 tons of CO2 and roughly 5,100 tons of SO2 each day – higher than previous estimates .
The team also deduced that most of Manam 's emitted carbon is likely derived from the upper mantle , and not sediments from Earth 's shallower crust , which they figured out by analyzing different carbon isotopes in the gaseous mix .
`` Our novel approach - that is , long-range and high-altitude [ drone ] operations enabling in situ measurements - is presently the only feasible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chemistry at steep , hazardous , and highly active volcanoes like Manam , '' the research team concluded in their paper .
Future research will take more diligent work from scientists and flying time from drones , since the measurements from this study spanned just 10 days .
With enough funding for equipment and training for local scientists , the strategy could be used elsewhere to monitor other dangerously inaccessible volcanoes , such as Mayon in the Philippines , and Sinabung in Indonesia .
The research was published in Science Advances .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Read the original article here .

Manam Volcano in Papua New Guinea, as seen from space on June 16, 2010.
With an estimated 300 active volcanoes on Earth, the challenge is how to monitor them all to send out early warnings before they erupt. Measuring volcanic gas emissions is also no easy task.
Now researchers have designed specially-adapted drones to help gather data from an active volcano in Papua New Guinea (PNG).
The drones could help local communities monitor nearby volcanoes and forecast future eruptions. Their measurements could also tell us more about the most inaccessible, highly active volcanoes on the planet and how volcanoes contribute to the global carbon cycle.
The Manam volcano is located on an island just 10 kilometers (6 miles) wide that sits off the northeast coast of PNG. The island is home to over 9,000 people and Manam Motu, as it's known locally, is one of the most active volcanoes in the country. In 2004, a major eruption from Manam forced the entire island to evacuate to the mainland and devastated people's crops and homes.
Scientists have a few ways of forecasting when a volcano is going to blow. They can monitor earthquake activity in the area to detect tremors which almost always precede eruptions, and look out for bulging in the volcano's sloping walls as magma builds up underneath.
When clear skies allow, satellites can also rapidly detect and measure volcanic emissions of gases such as sulphur dioxide (SO2). Changes to these gas emissions can signal more activity in the volcano below.
"Manam hasn't been studied in detail but we could see from satellite data that it was producing strong emissions," said volcanologist Emma Liu from University College London, who led the research team of earth scientists and aerospace engineers.
"We [also] wanted to quantify the carbon emission[s] from this very large carbon dioxide emitter," added geochemist Tobias Fischer, from the University of New Mexico.
Although volcanoes emit just a fraction of the carbon emissions humans do, researchers still want to be able to estimate what carbon dioxide (CO2) they do emit, to factor this into the carbon budget we have left to limit the effects of climate change.
Traveling to PNG, the international team set about testing two types of long-range drones equipped with gas sensors, cameras, and other devices during two field campaigns on Manam Island, in October 2018 and May 2019.
Manam's steep slopes make it incredibly dangerous to even contemplate collecting gas samples on foot whereas the drones could safely fly right into the billowing plumes, helping the research team measure its volcanic gas emissions more accurately.
The drones flew over 2,000 meters (6,561 feet) high into Manam's highly turbulent volcanic plumes and some 6 kilometers (3.7 miles) away from their launching pad, well out of sight of their pilots.
On each flight, the drones took images of Manam and its two craters, measured the gas composition right above the rising plumes and collected four bags full of extra gas for rapid analysis when the aircraft touched down.
Aerial images from the drone fly-overs showed that degassing at Manam's southern crater intensified between October 2018 and May 2019. In fact, the volcano soon erupted in June, just one month after the researchers' second field trip.
But rising volcanic emissions are not alone a reliable indicator of whether an eruption is imminent or likely, so the researchers also looked at the ratio between different gases, namely CO2 and SO2, in Manam's plumes.
This can help detect the ascent of hot magma to the surface and expulsion of CO2-rich emissions that reportedly precede big eruptions.
However, the researchers found that the mixture of gases emitted from Manam was much the same during both field trips.
Integrating their drone measurements with satellite data, the researchers were able to show that Manam ranks among the top 10 strongest degassing volcanoes in the world, emitting an estimated 3,700 tons of CO2 and roughly 5,100 tons of SO2 each day – higher than previous estimates.
The team also deduced that most of Manam's emitted carbon is likely derived from the upper mantle, and not sediments from Earth's shallower crust, which they figured out by analyzing different carbon isotopes in the gaseous mix.
"Our novel approach - that is, long-range and high-altitude [drone] operations enabling in situ measurements - is presently the only feasible means by which we can characterize gas chemistry at steep, hazardous, and highly active volcanoes like Manam," the research team concluded in their paper.
Future research will take more diligent work from scientists and flying time from drones, since the measurements from this study spanned just 10 days.
With enough funding for equipment and training for local scientists, the strategy could be used elsewhere to monitor other dangerously inaccessible volcanoes, such as Mayon in the Philippines, and Sinabung in Indonesia.
The research was published in Science Advances.
This article was originally published by ScienceAlert. Read the original article here.


livescience--2020-11-02--Why is red for Republicans and blue for Democrats?

In any 2020 electoral map , the color scheme is clear : Red is for Republicans , blue is for Democrats .
But where did this universal agreement on color-coding come from ?
It 's relatively new .
Though red and blue have often been used to stand in for opposing sides in U.S. political history , it 's only since the 2000 election that red and blue have been assigned to the political parties consistently .
That year , The New York Times and USA Today published full-color electoral maps for the first time , and according to , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` [ R ] ed begins with r , Republican begins with r , '' senior graphics editor Archie Tse told The Verge .
`` It was a more natural association . ''
Related : Why did the Democratic and Republican parties switch platforms ?
The political parties have now embraced their assigned colors , with Democrats urging citizens to `` Vote Blue ! ''
and supporters of Donald Trump donning red `` Make America Great Again '' hats .
But it could have easily gone the other way .
According to , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were broadcast in 1976 , but there was no consistency between networks as to what colors were used for which party .
Red often stood in for Democrats , and blue for Republicans .
Going back further in time , red and blue were common options for differentiating political parties or two sides of an issue .
For example , in the late 1800s and early 1900s , bosses of political parties in South Texas color-coded ballots red and blue for Republican and Democrat in order to `` assist '' illiterate or non-English-speaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often involved outright election fraud , according to the ) .
Republicans were often red in this system , though the colors varied from county to county .
According to , maps showing party affiliation by red and blue date back to at least 1883 , though red often stood in for Democrats and blue for Republicans .
The long , arduous election between George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000 cemented the red and blue designations for Republicans and Democrats .
According to The History Channel , the major news networks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colors consistent , which made reporting contested electoral college numbers and the Florida recount a less confusing task .
It took weeks to call the election , and by that time the color associations were set .
Using blue for a left-leaning party and red for a right-leaning party makes the United States odd among other nations , which often associate red with political parties on the left and blue with conservative parties .
For example , the Conservative party in the United Kingdom uses blue , while the Labour party is symbolized @ @ @ @ @

The association of red for Republicans and blue for Democrats was only cemented in U.S. politics relatively recently.
In any 2020 electoral map, the color scheme is clear: Red is for Republicans, blue is for Democrats. But where did this universal agreement on color-coding come from?
It's relatively new. Though red and blue have often been used to stand in for opposing sides in U.S. political history, it's only since the 2000 election that red and blue have been assigned to the political parties consistently.
That year, The New York Times and USA Today published full-color electoral maps for the first time, and according to The Verge , they assigned the colors fairly arbitrarily.
"[R]ed begins with r, Republican begins with r," senior graphics editor Archie Tse told The Verge. "It was a more natural association."
Related: Why did the Democratic and Republican parties switch platforms?
The political parties have now embraced their assigned colors, with Democrats urging citizens to "Vote Blue!" and supporters of Donald Trump donning red "Make America Great Again" hats. But it could have easily gone the other way. According to The History Channel , the first colorful electoral maps on television were broadcast in 1976, but there was no consistency between networks as to what colors were used for which party. Red often stood in for Democrats, and blue for Republicans.
Going back further in time, red and blue were common options for differentiating political parties or two sides of an issue. For example, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, bosses of political parties in South Texas color-coded ballots red and blue for Republican and Democrat in order to "assist" illiterate or non-English-speaking voters at the polls (this assistance often involved outright election fraud, according to the Texas State Historical Association ). Republicans were often red in this system, though the colors varied from county to county. According to Geography Realm , maps showing party affiliation by red and blue date back to at least 1883, though red often stood in for Democrats and blue for Republicans.
The long, arduous election between George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000 cemented the red and blue designations for Republicans and Democrats. According to The History Channel, the major news networks "banded together" to keep the colors consistent, which made reporting contested electoral college numbers and the Florida recount a less confusing task. It took weeks to call the election, and by that time the color associations were set.
Using blue for a left-leaning party and red for a right-leaning party makes the United States odd among other nations, which often associate red with political parties on the left and blue with conservative parties. For example, the Conservative party in the United Kingdom uses blue, while the Labour party is symbolized by a red flag.
Originally published on Live Science.


livescience--2020-11-02--Why did the Democratic and Republican parties switch platforms?

The Republican and Democratic parties of the United States did n't always stand for what they do today .
During the 1860s , Republicans , who dominated northern states , orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power , helping to fund the transcontinental railroad , the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders , and instating a national currency and protective tariff .
Democrats , who dominated the South , opposed those measures .
After the Civil War , Republicans passed laws that granted protections for Black Americans and advanced social justice .
And again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal power .
Sound like an alternate universe ?
Fast forward to 1936 .
Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal , a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions , the founding of welfare and pension programs , infrastructure development and more .
Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon , who opposed these exercises of federal power .
So , sometime between the 1860s and 1936 , the ( Democratic ) party of small government became the party of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power .
How did this switch happen ?
Eric Rauchway , professor of American history at the University of California , Davis , pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century , when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government 's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power — traditionally , a Republican stance .
But Republicans did n't immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades , both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice , '' Rauchway wrote in an archived 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education .
Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift to the counterarguments .
The party 's small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to the New Deal .
But why did Bryan and other turn-of-the-century Democrats start advocating for big government ?
According to Rauchway , they , like Republicans , were trying to win the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states to the union in the post-Civil War era created a new voting bloc , and both parties were vying for its attention .
Democrats seized upon a way of ingratiating themselves to western voters : Republican federal expansions in the 1860s and 1870s had turned out favorable to big businesses based in the northeast , such as banks , railroads and manufacturers , while small-time farmers like those who had gone west received very little .
Both parties tried to exploit the discontent this generated , by promising the little guy some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone to the business sector .
From this point on , Democrats stuck with this stance — favoring federally funded social programs and benefits — while Republicans were gradually driven to the counterposition of hands-off government .
From a business perspective , Rauchway pointed out , the loyalties of the parties did not really switch .
`` Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places , '' he wrote , `` their core supporters do n't — which is to say , the Republicans remain , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; it 's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they do n't . ''
In other words , earlier on , businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide , such as infrastructure development , a currency and tariffs .
Once these things were in place , a small , hands-off government became better for business .
• Where Did 'Separation of Church and State ' Come From ?
• People Are n't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish , Scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spell Words Differently ?
Originally published on Live Science .
This article was originally published on Sept. 24 , 2012 and updated on Nov. 2 , 2020 .

Abraham Lincoln, the 16th U.S. President and a Republican (left), and Franklin Roosevelt, the 32nd U.S. President and a Democrat. The Republican and Democratic parties effectively switched platforms between their presidencies.
The Republican and Democratic political parties of the United States didn't always stand for what they do today. The more liberal Democrats and the right-wing Republicans each have a defined set of belief systems, but these were once very different. So when did Democrats and Republicans switch platforms? And why?
First Republican and Democratic platforms
During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, described by the Free Dictionary as "a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units." This helped to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. The Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed those measures. Indeed, according to the author George McCoy Blackburn (" French Newspaper Opinion on the American Civil War , " (Greenwood Press, 1997) the French newspaper Presse stated that the Republican Doctrine at this time was "The most Liberal in its goals but the most dictatorial in its means."
Reconstruction Era to the New Deal
Portrait of Abraham Lincoln. The Republican Party expanded federal power in the 1860s. (Image credit: National Archives / Handout via Getty Images)
After the United States triumphed over the Confederate States at the end of the Civil Wa r, and under President Abraham Lincoln , Republicans passed laws that granted protections for Black Americans and advanced social justice (for example the Civil Rights Act of 1866 though this failed to end slavery). Again Democrats largely opposed these apparent expansions of federal power.
Sounds like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936.
Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal. This was a set of reforms designed to help remedy the effects of the Great Depression, which the FDR Presidential Library and Museum described as: "a severe, world -wide economic disintegration symbolized in the United States by the stock market crash on "Black Thursday," October 24, 1929." The reforms included regulation of financial institutions, the founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. It was these measures that ensured Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.
So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, pictured in 1936. (Image credit: Keystone Features / Stringer via Getty Images)
How did party switch happen?
Eric Rauchway , professor of American history at the University of California , Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan (best known for negotiating a number of peace treaties at the end of the First World War, according to the Office of the Historian) blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power — traditionally, a Republican stance.
But Republicans didn't immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government.
Related: 7 great congressional dramas
"Instead, for a couple of decades, both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice," Rauchway wrote in an archived 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education. Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift toward the counterarguments. The party's small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to Roosevelt’s New Deal.
But why did Bryan and other turn-of-the-century Democrats start advocating for big government?
The highly influential Democrat William Jennings Bryan. (Image credit: Shutterstock)
Big government
According to Rauchway, they, like Republicans, were trying to win the West. The admission of new western states to the union in the post-Civil War era created a new voting bloc, and both parties were vying for its attention.
Related: Busted: 6 Civil War myths
Democrats seized upon a way of ingratiating themselves to western voters: Republican federal expansions in the 1860s and 1870s had turned out favorable to big businesses based in the northeast, such as banks, railroads and manufacturers, while small-time farmers like those who had gone west received very little.
Both parties tried to exploit the discontent this generated, by promising the general public some of the federal help that had previously gone to the business sector. From this point on, Democrats stuck with this stance — favoring federally funded social programs and benefits — while Republicans were gradually driven to the counterposition of hands-off government.
From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."
In other words, earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business.
Originally published on Live Science on Sept. 24, 2012. This article was updated on Oct. 17, 2022.