Konzert: Tourauftakt von Apache 207 in Hannover: eine Tankstelle für Glück

A Georgia appeals court has agreed to take up Donald Trump's appeal of the Fani Willis disqualification ruling, which could delay the election case against Trump.

Former President Trump is showing support for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's push to take funding from Special Counsel Jack Smith's office.

The Georgia Court of Appeals has granted former President Donald Trump's application to appeal Judge Scott McAfee's ruling that kept District Attorney Fani Willis on the case.

Last month, the Pomona College economist Gary N. Smith calculated that the number of tenured and tenure-track professors at his school declined from 1990 to 2022, while the number of administrators nearly sextupled in that period. “Happily, there is a simple solution,” Smith wrote in a droll Washington Post column. In the tradition of Jonathan Swift, his modest proposal called to get rid of all faculty and students at Pomona so that the college could fulfill its destiny as an institution run by and for nonteaching bureaucrats. At the very least, he said, “the elimination of professors and students would greatly improve most colleges’ financial position.”Administrative growth isn’t unique to Pomona. In 2014, the political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg published The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters, in which he bemoaned the multi-decade expansion of “administrative blight.” From the early 1990s to 2009, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew 10 times faster than tenured-faculty positions, according to Department of Education data. Although administrative positions grew especially quickly at private universities and colleges, public institutions are not immune to the phenomenon. In the University of California system, the number of managers and senior professionals swelled by 60 percent from 2004 to 2014. How and why did this happen? Some of this growth reflects benign, and perhaps positive, changes to U.S. higher education. More students are applying to college today, and their needs are more diverse than those of previous classes. Today’s students have more documented mental-health challenges. They take out more student loans. Expanded college-sports participation requires more athletic staff. Increased federal regulations require new departments, such as disability offices and quasi-legal investigation teams for sexual-assault complaints. As the modern college has become more complex and multifarious, there are simply more jobs to do. And the need to raise money to pay for those jobs requires larger advancement and alumni-relations offices—meaning even more administration. But many of these jobs have a reputation for producing little outside of meeting invites. “I often ask myself, What do these people actually do?,” Ginsberg told me last week. “I think they spend much of their day living in an alternate universe called Meeting World. I think if you took every third person with vice associate or assistant in their title, and they disappeared, nobody would notice.”In an email to me, Smith, the Pomona economist, said the biggest factor driving the growth of college admin was a phenomenon he called empire building. Administrators are emotionally and financially rewarded if they can hire more people beneath them, and those administrators, in time, will want to increase their own status by hiring more people underneath them. Before long, a human pyramid of bureaucrats has formed to take on jobs of dubious utility. And this can lead to an explosion of new mandates that push the broader institution toward confusion and incoherence.The world has more pressing issues than overstaffing at America’s colleges. But it’s nonetheless a real problem that could be a factor in rising college costs. After all, higher education is a labor-intensive industry in which worker compensation is driving inflation, and for much of the 21st century, compensation costs grew fastest among noninstructional professional positions. Some of these job cuts could result in lower graduation rates or reduced quality of life on campus. Many others might go unnoticed by students and faculty. In the 2018 book Bullshit Jobs: A Theory, David Graeber drew on his experience as a college professor to excoriate college admin jobs that were “so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence even though, as part of the conditions of employment, the employee feels obliged to pretend that this is not the case.” Another reason to care about the growth of university bureaucracy is that it siphons power away from instructors and researchers at institutions that are—theoretically—dedicated to instruction and research. In the past few decades, many schools have hired more part-time faculty, including adjunct professors, to keep up with teaching demands, while their full-time-staff hires have disproportionately been for administration positions. As universities shift their resources toward admin, they don’t just create resentment among faculty; they may constrict the faculty’s academic freedom.“Take something like diversity, equity, and inclusion,” Ginsberg said. “Many colleges who adopt DEI principles have left-liberal faculty who, of course, are in favor of the principles of DEI, in theory,” he said. But the logic of a bureaucracy is to take any mission and grow its power indefinitely, whether or not such growth serves the underlying institution. “Before long, many schools create provosts for diversity, and for equity, and for inclusion. These provosts hold lots of meetings. They create a set of principles. They tell faculty to update their syllabi to be consistent with new principles devised in those meetings. And so, before long, you’ve built an administrative body that is directly intruding on the core function of teaching.”Bureaucratic growth has a shadow self: mandate inflation. More college bureaucrats lead to new mandates for the organization, such as developing new technology in tech-transfer offices, advancing diversity in humanities classes through DEI offices, and ensuring inclusive living standards through student-affairs offices. As these missions become more important to the organization, they require more hires. Over time, new hires may request more responsibility and create new subgroups, which create even more mandates. Before long, a once-focused organization becomes anything but.In sociology, this sort of muddle has a name. It is goal ambiguity—a state of confusion, or conflicting expectations, for what an organization should do or be. The modern university now has so many different jobs to do that it can be hard to tell what its priorities are, Gabriel Rossman, a sociologist at UCLA, told me. “For example, what is UCLA’s mission?” he said. “Research? Undergraduate teaching? Graduate teaching? Health care? Patents? Development? For a slightly simpler question, what about individual faculty? When I get back to my office, what should I spend my time on: my next article, editing my lecture notes, doing a peer review, doing service, or advancing diversity? Who knows.”Goal ambiguity might be a natural by-product of modern institutions trying to be everything to everyone. But eventually, they’ll pay the price. Any institution that finds itself promoting a thousand priorities at once may find it difficult to promote any one of them effectively. In a crisis, goal ambiguity may look like fecklessness or hypocrisy.[George Packer: The campus-left occupation that broke higher education]For example, in the past few years, many elite colleges and universities have cast themselves as “anti-racist” and “decolonial” enterprises that hire “scholar activists” as instructors and publish commentary on news controversies, as if they were editorial boards that happened to collect tuition. This rebranding has set schools up for failure as they navigate the Gaza-war protests. When former Harvard President Claudine Gay declined to tell Congress that calls for Jewish genocide were automatic violations of the school’s rules of harassment, she might not have caused a stir—if Harvard had a reputation for accommodating even radical examples of political speech. But Gay’s statements stood in lurid contrast to the university’s unambiguous condemnation of students and professors who had offended other minority groups. This apparent hypocrisy was goal ambiguity collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions: one mandate to police offensive speech versus another mandate to allow activist groups to speak offensively.Confronted with the Gaza-war protests, colleges are again struggling to balance competing priorities: free speech, the safety of students and staff, and basic school functions, such as the ability to walk to a lecture hall. That would be hard enough if they hadn’t sent the message to students that protesting was an integral part of the university experience. As Tyler Austin Harper wrote in The Atlantic, university administrators have spent years “recruiting social-justice-minded students and faculty to their campuses under the implicit, and often explicit, promise that activism is not just welcome but encouraged.” But once these administrators got exactly what they asked for—a campus-wide display of social-justice activism—they realized that aesthetic rebelliousness and actual rebellion don’t mix well, in their opinion. So they called the cops.Complex organizations need to do a lot of different jobs to appease their various stakeholders, and they need to hire people to do those jobs. But there is a value to institutional focus, and the past few months have shown just how destabilizing it is for colleges and universities to not have a clear sense of their priorities or be able to make those priorities transparent to faculty, students, donors, and the broader world. The ultimate problem isn’t just that too many administrators can make college expensive. It’s that too many administrative functions can make college institutionally incoherent.

A former roommate of two of the University of Idaho students killed in an ambush attack in November 2022 has broken her silence as she pushes for campus safety around the U.S.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis suggested she would not comply with a subpoena to appear before the Georgia Senate committee investigating her.

The popular protest song "Glory to Hong Kong" is now banned in the city, stoking fears of government crackdown on dissidents and restriction of the internet.

China's aging rural migrant population faces challenges as they approach retirement age. Many migrants must return to their villages with minimal financial support.

As world institutions aim toward a carbon-free future, it is essential to recognize the crucial role that carbon has played in life and innovation.

A Berlin politician was violently assaulted during an event at a library. Police reported that a 74-year-old man struck her with a bag containing a hard object.

The law has long shielded tech giants. Ethan Zuckerman’s lawsuit wields it against Meta.

From electronics that take the ouch out of pet care to everyday pet essentials -- grab some big deals during Amazon's Pet Day event.

The Catholic Church's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith will release guidance later this month to help believers discern "supernatural phenomena" such as "apparitions."

Ukraine tycoon Ihor Kolomoisky is suspected of orchestrating a murder attempt on a lawyer over a corporate dispute 20 years ago, authorities have confirmed.

One user said: "Grandma's are literally the worst best thing."

King Charles will not see Prince Harry in London, but he has a "very good opportunity" to make up for it, an expert told Newsweek.

"She's pretty smart, though. I'll give her that," the dog's owner said in the viral video with more than 600,000 views.

Antonio Brown addressed Caitlin Clark's social media beef with him and praised the WNBA rookie phenom, but not without dropping another crude remark about her.

The SS Tilawa was carrying hundreds of passengers and thousands of silver bars when it sank in 1942.

"Please be careful my stomach sank when I saw you were tubing in a harbor - sharks are drawn there," a viewer wrote.

The 49-year-old host of “The Drew Barrymore Show” just listed the converted barn estate is listed for $8,450,000.

A pair of Chinese navy warships have embarked on another Pacific operation, Japan says.

Bodil Janssen received an unexpected insight into a rare condition she was born with after eating a carrot in a bar in the Netherlands.

Chaotic video footage captured a brawl that broke out on a long-haul flight from Taiwan to California when one passenger stole the other’s seat. The fight broke out between two passengers mere hours into an 11.5-hour lengthy journey on May 7 when one of them decided to switch seats because his neighbor was coughing —...

Kamala Harris' approval ratings have slightly risen in recent months as she has hit the campaign trail.

The Mets face Sonny Gray and the Cardinals for the second time in 10 days, hoping for better results this time.

"I love these, I don't know why. It's just such a cool deposit of history," said one commenter.

FTX says that nearly all of its customers will receive the money back that they are owed, two years after the cryptocurrency exchange imploded, and some will get more than that

TikTok filed a lawsuit over U.S. legislation that could ban the social media app. It says a new law demanding it sever ties with the Chinese government is unconstitutional and is a free speech issue. However, supporters of the law say it's essential for national security.

Unseasonably high temperatures are scorching the state this week.

Multiple vulnerable House Democrats running for re-election have accepted funds from the Pritzker family, which has bankrolled organizations participating in anti-Jewish protests.

The head of a Hamas-cheering radical activist group was among the dozens nabbed when cops cleared out an anti-Israel encampment at the Fashion Institute of Technology in Manhattan, The Post has learned. Manolo De Los Santos, 35, was spotted being hauled away by two NYPD officers in riot helmets near the West 27th Street campus on Tuesday....

Michael Douglas is no stranger to sex scenes and on the edge of 80, the star is sharing his thoughts on onscreen intimacy.

"We hope to have an important impact on this flow of homelessness in our state," said a woman who has helped migrants since 2023.

The government sends out benefits weekly depending on when your birthday is during the month and how long you've been receiving benefits.

The costs take into account the loss of 12,000 cattle across farmlands and ranches, as well as infrastructure repair across the area.

Longevity research may not let us live forever — but it could still make our lives better in smaller ways. Jonathan An tries to ignore the hype about new life-extension treatments, but it’s caught up to him anyway. He has heard the gospel of the longevity influencers, including that one multimillionaire who has been on a media campaign for months claiming that the 111 pills he takes each day will help him live forever. An, an assistant professor of oral sciences at the University of Washington, doesn’t buy it. But he recently found himself inadvertently ensnared by the fervor around anti-aging — thanks to his mice. An has studied mice suffering from periodontal disease, a bacterial-induced inflammatory infection of the gums that can lead to tooth loss. Mice (and more than 60 percent of human adults over 65) have to deal with this uncomfortable oral illness — and they don’t have much choice but to cope. When people’s teeth fall out, dentists like An replace them. But he would rather not have to remove so many. While studying for his doctorate in dentistry at the University of Washington, An pursued a joint PhD to research preventive dental measures. He experimented with giving mice chow infused with the drug rapamycin each day to see if it would improve their oral health. It worked. Mice treated for eight weeks with the drug — traditionally used to help prevent organ-transplant rejection — not only experienced delayed symptoms of periodontal disease, but saw regrowth of their tooth-supporting jaw bones. This year, An is planning to test rapamycin in humans. If it has the same effect in adults as it did in mice, people might eventually be able to pick up a drug at the pharmacy that helps them avoid unwanted trips to the dentist’s office. Better dental health would be a pleasant effect, but that’s not why An’s research drew an unusual amount of attention. Because the drug An chose to test was rapamycin, the longevity field took notice. In separate lab experiments over the past decade, rapamycin has been found to extend the lifespan of yeast, nematodes, fruit flies, and mice. It has helped mice delay or reverse immunity decline, muscle decline, cognitive decline, and cancer growth. This string of successes for rapamycin, which belongs to a class of drugs that stifle one biological pathway for cell growth, has caught the eyes of renowned longevity researchers. It’s also attracted the attention of wealthy lifehackers and the clinics, supplement companies, and biotech investors who — out of true belief, opportunism, or a combination — stand to make money from people seeking an elixir for longer life. Since An’s study was published in 2020, longevity clinics from across the country have asked him how they can incorporate rapamycin into their practices. Some scientists consider rapamycin a strong candidate for life-extension purposes both because it has helped lab species live longer and because it has already been approved as an immunosuppressant in humans. Today, doctors can and do prescribe rapamycin for off-label use — including for longevity. An wants to believe that these clinics — part of a fledgling longevity industry that includes between 50 and 800 providers across the US, according to the Wall Street Journal — are genuinely trying to improve their clients’ health. But he suspects that may not always be the case. He tells the longevity crowd what he does know, which is less exciting than they might hope. When it comes to human health, “I don’t know what rapamycin does,” he said. “But I always tell them to make sure to have a dentist on hand because some of the side effects are oral-related.” Other companies want him to help with their own studies, the results of which they plan to keep private. An says no. “I’m a dentist,” An said. “Not a salesperson.” A longer, healthier life is one of the easiest products in the world to sell. According to a Deloitte report, the 50 biggest longevity companies raised more than $1 billion in venture capital funding as of 2020 — a number that the company said would rise “due to the growing conviction that the longevity market could outstrip the existing health care market.” Altos Labs, a “rejuvenation” biotech whose investors include Jeff Bezos, announced in 2022 that it had raised $3 billion in funding. An astronomer’s discovery of a neutron star has much less commercial potential and therefore generates much less interest than a researcher’s discovery that the micronutrient resveratrol helps yeast live longer — even if it’s likely that neither ultimately affects human lifespan. The attention paid to billionaire-funded research risks obscuring whether the longevity field is genuinely on the verge of a breakthrough or whether a clinic is just saying that to promote their experimental blood transfusion. In reality, longevity research is advancing — but slowly. Clinical trials are moving forward on select uses for longevity drugs, younger researchers are taking the field more seriously, and private organizations are pledging significant support to research: The Saudi-based Hevolution Foundation has promised up to $1 billion in funding annually for biotech startups and academic researchers. But while there likely remain many promising treatment candidates that have yet to be identified, they would take decades to reach clinical trials. Even academics who are bullish on the promise of longevity research fear that, for all the fanfare, the field has become too fixated on a few drugs and lifestyle adjustments that have been under investigation for years, while neglecting the basic research that could reveal novel pathways to slow down human aging. For now, the three best ways to extend your life remain boring: eating a healthy diet, exercising regularly, and sleeping well. We aren’t going to add decades to human life any time soon; living to 150 or 200 remains in the realm of science fiction. But in decades to come, advancements in the science of aging may still lead to therapeutic breakthroughs that lengthen human healthspan — the period of life spent in good health. Perhaps a few more people will become centenarians, but the real success would be having more years when you can live well. How longevity went mainstream in academia Matt Kaeberlein, a longevity researcher at the University of Washington, remembers a time when few in academia took the study of aging — much less the idea of longevity — seriously. “When I came into the field as a graduate student in 1998, there was nobody who went to graduate school to study aging,” he said. “The perception among the broader scientific community was that it was mostly snake oil and crap. There’s still a lot of snake oil and crap, but it is more accepted now than it used to be.” The field began gaining wider recognition in 1993 when Cynthia Kenyon, a pioneer in aging research who now works at the Alphabet-owned life sciences company Calico Labs, discovered that mutating a single gene of the roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans doubled its lifespan. Other scientists soon figured out why. Gary Ruvkun, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School, and his colleagues found that the altered gene regulated an insulin-signaling pathway similar to one in humans that might play a role in slowing cell growth and metabolism. Researchers like Andrzej Bartke found similar mechanisms in mice, which have been the subject of much of the relevant research so far. “One of the key things that’s happened is that the evidence that you can actually slow down and interfere with the aging process in mammals … has become so overwhelming that only the willfully blind can ignore it,” Richard A. Miller, who leads the University of Michigan’s Paul Glenn Center for Biology of Aging Research, told me. In the last two decades, scientists have performed hundreds of lab experiments — mostly on animals — on drugs like rapamycin, canagliflozin, acarbose, empagliflozin, metformin, and on interventions like calorie restriction in diets and removal of nondividing senescent cells. Instead of testing the effects of these treatments on specific illnesses, many of these studies test whether certain interventions slow down animals’ aging processes and help them live longer. The expansion of longevity research has unearthed some potentially useful information about which biological mechanisms control aging and how to alter them. In mice and other species, changing a single pathway has the power to extend life by significant margins, raising hopes that if humans respond similarly, certain drugs could extend human lives by years. “We just have a better understanding of what those pathways are,” said Tom Rando, director of the UCLA Broad Stem Cell Research Center, “even if we don’t have a complete understanding of why they work and why they extend lifespan.” Though most experiments with potential longevity drugs and other interventions like blood transfusions are still being tested on lab animals, two dozen candidate drugs have moved to clinical trials with human patients. Daniel Promislow, a University of Washington professor of medicine and pathology, told me that when he got into the field three decades ago, researchers talked hopefully about early developments someday making it to the lab. “Fast forward 25, 30 years, and many of these lab-based discoveries are now at the heart of a large number of clinical trials,” he said. The clinical trials could allow researchers to produce evidence for interventions — besides diet, exercise, and sleep — that might help people live longer. Coleen T. Murphy, professor of molecular biology at Princeton, wrote in her 2023 book How We Age that, “What drugs can I take to live longer?” is becoming an increasingly tangible goal. “A few years ago I might have chuckled at the naivety of this question,” she wrote, “but now it’s not so crazy to think that we will be able to take some sort of medicine to extend our healthy lifespans in the foreseeable future.” The horizon for this future is still far off. Most researchers I spoke to didn’t believe that humans were going to experience a rapid increase in life expectancy any time soon — or maybe ever. They believed progress would instead be made in healthspan, helping people stay healthier for longer and avoiding long periods of physical and cognitive decline as they get older. Such results probably won’t lead to someone living an extra decade. But they could make old age less burdensome. That would matter enormously for individuals, who could enjoy more years in good health, and society, by potentially reducing the high costs of late-in-life medical care. “I can’t fathom saying, ‘Yeah, we’re going to try to extend someone’s lifespan by nine years,’” An told me. “There’s really no way to do that.” Behind the hype, longevity research is moving — but slowly In a way, some of the biggest improvements to human lifespans have already been made. Initiatives in public health — water sanitation, vaccination campaigns, sewage systems — have added decades to the average person’s life over the past few centuries. Since 1900, the average lifespan of a newborn has more than doubled worldwide — from 32 years old to 71 years old. But the very fact that humans already live far longer than a lab animal is part of the reason that longevity research is so slow and difficult. For experimental purposes, laboratory mice live less than three years. Researchers have tested rapamycin in both young and old mice at a range of doses and then waited for them to die. Doing the same in humans would be far more expensive and take much longer. It’s also not strictly legal. The Food and Drug Administration doesn’t classify aging as a disease, which means that clinical trials can’t set out solely to test how much longer an intervention keeps someone alive. Instead, researchers must study age-related indicators like cardiovascular function and cognitive impairment instead of “aging” itself. To compensate, longevity researchers are looking for other ways to measure aging that don’t require a patient’s death. They have identified several biomarkers that could serve as surrogate endpoints, but none have reached a scientific consensus. These include “aging clocks,” predictive models that purport to measure biological age or the age of specific biological organs; Bryan Johnson, the multimillionaire tech founder who calls himself a “professional rejuvenation athlete,” touts such data as proof that he has reversed his aging. These tests are ostensibly based on the research of Steve Horvath, a former professor at UCLA who now works at Altos Labs. He has used age-related DNA methylation to determine biological age. Though most researchers I spoke to expressed cautious optimism about the potential of Horvath’s findings, they were skeptical of the extant consumer tests. “We’re not really sure if the age we tell you is accurate and if it’s going to be the same tomorrow and whether it has any value,” said Tony Wyss-Coray, a Stanford professor of neurology who has found that elderly mice given the blood of younger mice see improvements in brain function. “And of course, no company wants to tell you that, but that’s just a fact.” Most longevity researchers think about their research environment the same way: The flashiest stories are usually pretty removed from the actual state of the field. A drug that just helped mice live 50 percent longer is unlikely to do exactly the same for humans, no matter what a press release implies. Human bodies are much better at repairing their DNA than mice are, which makes them less susceptible to diseases like cancer. Plus, studies that would definitively prove a certain intervention would aid human life would take decades, and experts believe they could struggle to demonstrate their effectiveness to the FDA. “You’ll rarely find a scientist funded by the [National Institutes of Health] who’s doing work in the biology of aging who would claim that their research could or will allow people to live to 140,” Rando told me. “It’s really coalesced around the idea that our main successes will be in reducing the burden of disease.” It reflects a realism among the real experts. In longevity, there is not going to be a moment when a chrysalis bursts and a butterfly flies out, Miller said, a sudden leap forward in people’s life expectancy. “It’s more like the evolution of land plants. Gradually, they creep up over the beach, and then onto the meadow and then into the meadows. This is sort of creeping through the scientific community — too slowly.” According to many researchers, part of the reason for the relatively slow progress in longevity treatments is lack of funding in the field. For all the flashy announcements about companies like Calico and Altos Labs, academic researchers struggle to find financial support. The National Institute on Aging, the NIH division that funds research on the aging process, projects that it will spend about 9 percent of its budget on the biology of aging in 2024 and just under 60 percent on neuroscience-specific research. (The NIA’s total projected budget in 2024 is about $4.4 billion of the NIH’s $47.1 billion.) Promislow and Kaeberlein, who co-run a long-term study on biological and environmental factors that could contribute to aging in dogs, are currently fighting to keep their project alive with their NIH funding expected to end in June. “I think there’s an assumption by a lot of people that there’s a ton of money in aging research,” Murphy told me. “If you’re an academic trying to get funding from the NIH, it’s actually not true.” The lack of funding also draws university researchers out of their scholarly institutions and to companies like Calico and Altos Labs. “The idea of working with very smart people with lots of resources, all that’s really attractive,” Miller told me. But that drift to the private sector could actually slow down aging research, already a sluggish endeavor, even more in the long run. The field is trending toward investor-driven research, while the basic research studies necessary for the next generation of possible interventions languish because they depend on public or philanthropic funding. Drugs like rapamycin have already taken decades to enter clinical trials, but it’s possible that none of the current leading longevity candidates work. Researchers don’t even agree on which of the current drugs and interventions is the most promising: Miller, for example, told me he thinks that rapamycin is “the wrong drug” and that more funding should go to canagliflozin, which has increased median survival age in male mice by 14 percent and for which human side effects are better known due to its use in treating type 2 diabetes since 2013. Still, he doesn’t think it’s easy, “from our limited amount of knowledge, to be confident as to whether rapamycin, or canagliflozin, or any other promising drug would produce major benefits in people with acceptably low side effects.” Most aging-related biotechnology companies use investor money to test aging interventions already proven in mice. Few are conducting the basic research to find new possible pathways for future therapies. The more aging-related pathways scientists can find, the more possible targets for longevity drugs they would have. Each discovery opens the possibility for new interventions. Kaeberlein said that though the field has expanded in terms of the number of studies on certain drugs and mechanistic pathways, it’s also become in a sense more narrow. “We think, ‘This is how the system works. So we’re going to test these parts of the model,’ instead of the more exploratory science that was being done when I was a graduate student, which was, ‘We have no frickin’ clue how the system works. Let’s go do some unbiased screens to figure out what’s happening here,’” he said. Longevity researchers may be playing in a tiny corner of the sandbox, investigating just a few pathways while ignoring other possibilities. Scientists blame such myopia for the long gap between breakthroughs. The most consistently effective intervention for extending animal lifespan has been known for decades: restricting the number of calories they eat. “I think that shift in mentality has led to more incremental results and fewer big, exciting, new discoveries,” said Kaeberlein, “and I think, personally, that’s why nobody has done better than rapamycin in 15 years and no one has done better than caloric restriction in 50 years.” There’s also the possibility that drugs that have worked consistently across different species will work for some humans but not others. “The vast majority of studies in our field are done in one genetically identical strain of mouse,” Rando said. “It’s sort of like running a clinical trial in humans and only using identical twins. … Even if something could work, it’s likely to work in a subset of the population and not in everybody.” Oddly, even the most brazen of the (non-expert) anti-aging boosters have uninspiring perceptions of the current state of longevity research. I was surprised when Bryan Johnson explained to me that, despite having a team of doctors who track the age of his organs and feed him a daily canister of pills, his choices weren’t really made based on today’s advancements in health and wellness. He instead puts his faith in the continued evolution of artificial intelligence capabilities, which has advanced greatly over the past few years. He sees AI continuing to develop at an exponential rate — and longevity research eventually progressing at a more rapid speed than human researchers could hope to replicate. “It’s an observation that we are baby steps away from super intelligence,” Johnson told me, “and it’s improving at a speed that we can’t imagine.” It’s that, he hopes, that will bring about eternal life. The mice studies are less relevant. A more realistic future for the longevity field Immortality is enticing, but it’s not coming anytime soon. Neither is living to 150. Some people — hopefully more than now — will live to 100, but they will still be the exception. The way longevity research might push the field forward could look very similar to the treatments we already have. For people with a high risk of cardiovascular disease, statins are a sort of longevity drug. For those dealing with certain cancers, chemotherapy can be considered a longevity treatment. The future of longevity likely looks more like the world where we discover that rapamycin — a drug that can extend the lives of mice and help humans accept a new organ — can also treat elderly patients for periodontal disease. It could mean that people take a blood sugar-regulating drug like canagliflozin and suffer from fewer heart attacks and cancers. “I don’t really care about life extension because there’s no way to measure it,” An said. “It’s really about your health.” Even in slow motion, the field keeps advancing. Murphy told me she was excited to see trial results from the longevity company Unity Biotechnology back in 2020. The drug UBX0101, which interacts with a tumor-suppressing pathway, cleared a phase 1 clinical trial. When it moved to phase 2, though, it failed to achieve its aim of helping patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. A success could have been a promising sign for treatments to get rid of non-dividing senescent cells. But even a failure was valuable. It might not have been the result that anyone wanted, but it was a result, and it was public. “That’s progress for our field,” she told me. “This is moving forward.”

Arrests were also made hours after dozens left the site and marched to the university's president Ellen Granberg’s home.

"There's no pressure," Bill shared in a new interview. "We're just letting it be what it will be. Because no one is pushing it; there's no turmoil or issues."

The Southern California Independent Bookstore Bestsellers list for Sunday, May 12, 2024, including hardcover and paperback fiction and nonfiction.

With Darvin Ham fired, there are a lot of candidates out there to replace him. But the Lakers seem to be in no rush.

Body camera footage shared by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's office show moments before a deputy-involved shooting early Tuesday morning in Plant City.

As in the original production of “Hair,” getting naked is optional, but now Signature Theatre’s intimacy director is there to help each performer “find a discomfort that’s sustainable for you.”

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) walking the halls of Congress. | Nathan Howard/Getty Images Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis banned cell-cultivated or “lab-grown” meat. Why did Democratic Senator John Fetterman lend his support? Last week, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law to ban cell-cultivated or “lab-grown” meat from the Sunshine State. “Take your fake lab-grown meat elsewhere,” DeSantis said. “We’re not doing that in the state of Florida.” Cell-cultivated meat is made by feeding animal cells a mix of nutrients to produce real meat without slaughtering an animal. It’s an emerging technology — billed as a solution to factory farming’s enormous carbon footprint and horrific animal treatment — and was approved last June by the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Department of Agriculture as safe to eat and legal to sell. But it remains far from commercial viability and is not available for sale anywhere in the US. DeSantis banned the technology to protect Florida’s farmers and ranchers from future competition. But it was also a culture war win for the governor, as meat has become a hot topic in the right wing’s conspiracy-laden politics. The day DeSantis signed the bill, he posted a bizarre image on X accusing the World Economic Forum of an authoritarian plot to force people to eat cell-cultivated meat. The ban, unsurprisingly, earned DeSantis praise from fellow Republicans. But in a rare moment of political unity, a Democratic member of Congress supported the ban, too: Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. “Pains me deeply to agree with Crash-and-Burn Ron, but I co-sign this,” Fetterman posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, last week about the Florida ban. “As a member of @SenateAgDems and as some dude who would never serve that slop to my kids, I stand with our American ranchers and farmers.” Pains me deeply to agree with Crash-and-Burn Ron, but I co-sign this. As a member of @SenateAgDems and as some dude who would never serve that slop to my kids, I stand with our American ranchers and farmers. pic.twitter.com/zZLYf8t5lI— Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) May 2, 2024 (I’ve tried cell-cultivated chicken and it tastes like, well, chicken — not slop.) This isn’t the first time Fetterman has spoken out against various forms of alternative meat. He’s also co-sponsored a slate of bills supported by factory farm trade groups. Those include bills to ban plant-based egg and dairy companies from using words like “egg” and “dairy,” and to set restrictions on what plant-based meat companies can write on their labels. Fetterman’s office declined an on-the-record interview request for this story and didn’t respond to detailed questions. “The Senator has heard from constituents on this issue, and that’s what informs his views…All of this comes down to consumer choice and transparency,” a spokesperson said in an email, adding that Fetterman has introduced legislation to increase access to soy milk in school cafeterias. The soy milk legislation is important, especially since so many kids can’t digest lactose. But supporting a ban on cell-cultivated meat reduces rather than expands consumer choice. DeSantis’s ban goes against the Republican party’s free market platitudes, though it fits neatly into his culture war agenda. But it may seem odd that Fetterman lent his support. While the Democratic party doesn’t have much to say about meat alternatives, the nascent sector aligns with many of the party’s stated values and goals. Plant- and cell-based meat startups offer an alternative to the factory farm system, which produces virtually all of America’s meat, dairy, and eggs, and is a leading contributor to climate change, air and water pollution, pandemic risk, labor abuse, and animal torture. So why is Fetterman so opposed to slaughter-free meat? If you don’t like cell-cultivated meat factories, you really won’t like factory farms Allying with factory farming business interests will help Fetterman appear more moderate in the swing state of Pennsylvania — the state ranks high in dairy and egg production, and farm-state politicians tend to side with agribusiness. And it’s a move that’s relatively safe for a Democrat to take. Despite the widespread damage that factory farming inflicts on society, Americans of both parties eat lots of meat and dairy. Farmers and ranchers hold a mythic status in American culture, and questioning their practices or calling for even modest regulation is politically dangerous, even for Democrats. Fetterman’s opposition may also be explained by the “naturalistic fallacy”: the notion that anything “natural” — real animals slaughtered for food — is good, while anything new and “artificial,” like cell-cultivated meat, is bad. That was evident in a follow-up to his post in support of DeSantis’s ban, where he shared a picture of a bioreactor used to make cell-cultivated meat with a caption that read “btw, this is the thing that makes lab meat.” btw, this is the thing that makes lab meat pic.twitter.com/4GZIt4SnNN— Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) May 3, 2024 Users on X mocked the post, with many sharing photos of similar stainless steel machines used to make all manner of agricultural products, like milk, cheese, beer, and coffee. Some also replied with pictures of factory farms and slaughterhouses — images far more disturbing than a cell-cultivated meat factory. I assume ordinary sausages are made in a manner all would enjoy seeing. https://t.co/Vl2cxp2qkZ— Sridhar Ramesh (@RadishHarmers) May 3, 2024 Any critique of novel food technology must also include an honest reckoning with what it seeks to replace: in this case, conventional meat production, a highly industrialized system that depends on a slew of horrific practices, including: Feeding cattle chicken feces Feeding pigs feces from other pigs Forcibly impregnating animals (this is technically bestiality but most states have exempted it for agricultural purposes) Ripping out female shrimps’ eyes so they lay more eggs Force-feeding ducks Grinding up male chicks alive because they can’t lay eggs This list just skims the surface. Factory farming also commits widespread environmental pollution and subjects its workers to dangerous conditions on the farm and in slaughterhouses, where people lose fingers and limbs and some reportedly wear diapers because bathroom breaks are so limited. Many Democrats side with the factory farming industry. It won’t age well. I’d venture to guess that Fetterman’s membership of the US Senate Agriculture committee should give him a clear picture of what meat, dairy, and egg production entails, so his behavior can likely be chalked up to cold political calculation. Will it work? It’s hard to know what exactly consumers think about cell-cultivated meat, because poll methodology has varied widely, and it’s a hard issue to poll on — most people don’t know what it is and it’s not available for purchase. But we do know that most Americans are uncomfortable with factory farms, and when they have an opportunity at the ballot box to stop its cruelest practices, like locking pigs and egg-laying hens in tiny cages, they tend to take it, whether it’s in a red, purple, or blue state. Animal agriculture accounts for 15 to 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and is under increasing pressure to shrink its environmental footprint. It’s poised to be one of the next fronts in the fight against climate change, and alternative meat technologies could help achieve significant emissions reductions the same way electric vehicles and heat pumps can get us off fossil fuels. While we’ve come to expect Republicans to stand in the way of technological solutions to clean up the environment, Fetterman’s opposition to alternative meat and dairy — and that of others in his party — suggests we may need to brace ourselves for some Democrats to join them. A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!

For more than a century, school nurses have improved public health in schools and beyond.

It's not gold, Jerry!

Netflix is keeping things light and fun.

No injuries were reported in the emergency landing at Istanbul Airport.