Where you live may impact how much you drink Science Daily ... neighborhood factors that are relevant, then this might point to population-level strategies to modify or improve the environments where people live," said Isaac Rhew, a research assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral ... and more »

Original post:
Where you live may impact how much you drink - Science Daily

Refugee Nonprofits Slash Staffs as Administration Slows Arrivals: The nine organizations designated by the government to oversee U.S. refugee resettlement have frozen hiring or laid off workers in some cases, by the hundreds as the State Department cuts spending on such programs amid efforts to sharply curb new arrivals, reports The Wall Street Journal (subscription). Charities Find Trump's Fla. Estate a Bigger Draw Since Election: Several nonprofits that hold fundraising events at Mar-a-Lago told The Washington Post they saw increased revenue this gala season as the possibility of the president dropping in juiced ticket sales. Controversy over Trump administration policies prompted a handful of other groups to relocate future galas.

Obama Presidential Center to Eschew Federal Money: The Chicago institution is opting out of the National Archives and Records Administration's presidential-library network, forgoing millions of dollars a year in government funding but freeing the Obama Foundation from costly endowment, design, and other requirements that would come with the government support, the Chicago Tribune writes.

Then-Harvard Endowment Chief Was Paid $14.9 Million in 2015: Stephen Blyth's compensation for running the university's investment arm was more than seven times that of Harvard's president, Bloomberg reports, citing tax filings. Mr. Blyth left the Harvard Management Company last May after about 18 months at the helm, during which time the fund's returns lagged behind those of peer institutions.

Appeals to Individuality Boost Giving by Wealthy, Study Suggests: A trio of psychology and behavioral-science scholars summarize in The New York Times their research on framing charity appeals for donors of different socioeconomic backgrounds, which found that people of means respond better to calls for individual action than to pitches that emphasize the common good.

$48 Million in Grants Back Veterans' Care at U. of Colorado: Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus's foundation committed $38 million to create an institute at the university's Anschutz Medical Campus to help ex-service members suffering from brain injuries and post-traumatic stress, and hedge-fund mogul Steven Cohen's Cohen Veterans Network pledged $9.8 million to establish a mental-health clinic for Denver-area veterans, reports the Associated Press. Read a Chronicle article about Mr. Cohen's giving for veterans' causes.

Ex-Minn. Charity Leader Gets 4 Years for Misappropriating $800,000: Prosecutors said Bill Davis, the longtime leader of Community Action of Minneapolis who pleaded guilty to fraud charges last June, used the now-defunct social-service nonprofit as a "personal piggy bank," drawing on its assets to buy himself a car and fund vacations to destinations like Las Vegas and the Bahamas.

Read more from the original source:
Daily News Roundup: Trump's Refugee Crackdown Hits Resettlement Charities' Budgets - Chronicle of Philanthropy (subscription)

Photo by AdobeStock/assetseller

We all want our top investigative bodies to be headed by competent officials. We also all want to ensure that these officials can freely investigate other branches of the government including the presidential administration without fear of retribution. How can we tell whether Donald Trumps firing of FBI Director James Comey was meant to ensure competent leadership of the FBI, as Trump claims, or to prevent Comey from digging deeper into Trumps potential connections with Russia, as many Democrats claim.

Our personal political perspectives will strongly influence us to favor one explanation or the other, regardless of the truth. According to behavioral science research, our minds tend to interpret new information in accordance with our past beliefs a thinking error known as theconfirmation bias. Fortunately, we can fight the confirmation bias in such situations by evaluating the opinions of people who both have the most information and have political motivations to support one side, but fail to do so or even support the other side.

In this case, we can observe a number of prominent Republicansexpressing concernsover Comeys firing. Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican who heads the Senates Russia investigation, stated that he was troubled by the timing and reasoning of Comeys firing, which confuses an already difficult investigation for the Committee. So did a number of other influential Republican Senators, such as Bob Corker, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and stated in response to Trump firing Comey that "It is essential that ongoing investigations are fulsome and free of political interference until their completion. Representative Justin Amash, who belongs to the conservative House Freedom Caucus, even stated that he intends to introduce legislation calling for creating an independent commission to investigate Russia's interference in the election. Pat Tiberi, a conservative member of the House, expressedpotential support for a special prosecutor of the Trump and Russia connection and stated that the White House needs to come clean.

Altogether, about 40 Republican members of Congress have expressed concerns over Comeys firing, while virtually every Democrat is calling for an independent commission or special prosecutor to evaluate Comeys firing. While some of these Republicans are known for breaking ranks at times, such as Senator John McCain, many others such as Corker and Burr are mainstream Republicans who generally toe the party line. This data on many of those in the know federal lawmakers who have clear political motivation to align with Trump firing Comey instead broke ranks provides strong evidence that the decision to fire Comey is less about incompetence and more about the Russia investigation than anything else.

Another thinking error playing a role in clouding our judgment isillusory correlation, namely an incorrect illusory perception of a connection between two events. Trumps administration claimed, in a memo by deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein thatTrump referencedin his firing of Comey, that Comey lost support due to his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clintons email server. Democrats claimed that Trump fired Comey because of Comeys investigation into the Trump-Russia connection as part of Russias meddling in the US presidential elections.

One of these is an illusory connection, but which is it? Due to confirmation bias, Republicans will be likely to see the Trump-Russia connection as illusory. Democrats will tend to see the Clinton investigation connection as illusory.

Fortunately, we can use another technique from behavioral science to correct for this thinking error consider the alternative. Consider a situation where Trumps true concerns lay with Comeys Clinton email server investigation. When would Trump fire Comey if this was the case? Trump would fire Comey when Trump entered office, asTrump didwith a number of federal attorneys. Instead, Trump specificallymade a decisionto keep Comey in office when he took the presidency, despite knowing about Comeys handling of the email server. Trump specifically indicated, in a message loud and clear for the government investigative bodies, that he would not pursue any further investigation into Clintons email servershortly afterhe was elected. As late as April 12, long after Trump had access to any secret information about Comeys handling of Clintons email server and any other information relevant to Comeys pre-election activities, Trump saidin an interviewwith Fox Business Network I have confidence in [Comey]." Given this evidence, it seems quite unlikely that the real reason for Comeys firing is the Clinton email scandal.

What about the Trump-Russia investigation?According to Fox News, a conservative source, the day before he was fired, Comey met with the Republican and Democrat Senators on the Senate intelligence committee, Senators Richard Burr and Mark Warner. At the meeting, he discussed the inquiry into Russian hacking in the presidential election and potential involvement of Trump and members of his administration in this hacking. Burr and Warner both wanted Comey to speed up the investigation, and Comey responded that he needed more resources to conduct the investigation. Earlier, Comey allegedlymade a requestfor more resources for this investigation from Rosenstein, whose later memo was used by Trump as a reason to fire Comey. Given the evidence of the closeness of the timing of Comeys requests for more resources and Trump firing Comey, the connection between the investigation into Russian hacking and the firing of Comey appears to be true rather than illusory.

Now, this behavioral science-based conclusion does not favor the conservative perspective, and instead favors the liberal one. Will it mean that conservatives dismiss it out of hand? To determine if this is the case, I went on the conservative radio network 700WLW to speak on this topic with the well-known radio show hostScott Sloan two days after Comeys dismissal. Sloan is known as a strong proponent ofChristian and conservativevalues but not someone who practicespost-truth politicsby dismissing the truth in favor of his personal beliefs. We had acivil discussion, during which Sloan acknowledged the validity of this behavioral science-informed perspective and accepted that the evidence pointed against Trumps narrative. It is highly likely that our conversation swayed some of his conservative audience to change their perspective as well.

This interview shows the benefits of using such behavioral science-based approaches to bridge the political divide and have reasonable conversations that result in people going against their current values and changing their minds. What it takes is knowing why our minds are likely to lead us astray and addressing these internal biases using science-informed strategies to do so. In this case, the evidence once corrected for political bias points conclusively, in a way that both reasonable conservative and liberals can agree on, to Trump firing Comey due to concerns over the FBIs investigation into Russian interference in the election.

See the original post:
How Can We Tell Whether Comeys Firing Was Justified - Utne Reader Online

Genetic alterations that can be modulated by stress have been identified in children at high risk for bipolar disorder, according to a recently published study by researchers at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth). Results appeared in Translational Psychiatry, a Nature Publishing Group journal.

"We've known that children of patients with bipolar disorder have a higher risk of developing the illness but the biological mechanisms are largely unknown," said Gabriel R. Fries, Ph.D., first author and a post-doctoral research fellow in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at McGovern Medical School at UTHealth. "By analyzing the blood of children of controls and comparing it to children of bipolar patients, we identified several genes or markers that can explain the increased risk."

Researchers analyzed peripheral blood mononuclear cells from a total of 18 children and adolescents in three matched groups: bipolar patients, unaffected offspring of bipolar parents and children of parents with no history of psychiatric disorders.

The analysis revealed that, compared to children in the control group, bipolar patients and unaffected offspring of bipolar parents had genetic alterations that can influence the response to stress.

"All combine to modulate the response to stress in these children," Fries said. "We know from clinical studies of behavior and the environment that when children are chronically exposed to stressors, they are at a higher risk of developing bipolar disorder. Bipolar parents may struggle because of their disease, leading to higher environmental stress. Their children, because of the genetic markers they have, could be more vulnerable to stress."

The genetic alterations that researchers discovered were validated in blood samples of unrelated adult bipolar patients, Fries said.

New avenues of research could include the effects of reducing environmental stress, as well as whether pharmacological agents might be able to reverse the genetic alternations in vulnerable children before the disorder develops.

Blood samples for the research came from the innovative Pediatric Bipolar Registry at the UTHealth Center of Excellence on Mood Disorders. The research was supported in part by grants from the Pat Rutherford, Jr. Endowed Chair in Psychiatry and the John S. Dunn Foundation.

Senior author is Jair C. Soares, M.D., Ph.D., professor, chairman and the Pat R. Rutherford, Jr. Endowed Chair in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at McGovern Medical School.

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

See the original post here:
Genes in children linked to stress, bipolar disorder -- ScienceDaily - Science Daily

NCCU awards first doctorates in a half century Durham Herald Sun The program's focus is the study of health disparities, incorporating knowledge from various fields such as biology, biomedical and behavioral sciences, chemistry, physics, bioinformatics, computer science/information science, environmental sciences ... and more »

See more here:
NCCU awards first doctorates in a half century - Durham Herald Sun