community – Page 3 – Zittrex Store

Zooming in on zoonotic diseases – Digital Science

Post By Science And Technology community, Dimensions, How we support funders, How we support government, Sustainable Development Goals

This blog addresses the impact of climate change on infectious diseases, in particular infectious diseases with the potential to transmit from animals to humans, also known as zoonotic diseases. To set the scene for this, we first consider the wider context of how global warming has far-reaching consequences for humans and the planet. The global changes that we are currently experiencing have never happened before, with climate change representing one of the principal environmental and health challenges. We use Dimensions to explore published research, research funding, policy documents and citation data. To help us perform a deeper analysis of the data, we access the Dimensions data through its Google BigQuery (GBQ) provision. This allows us to integrate data from Dimensions with one of the publicly available World Bank datasets on GBQ.

We also look at the research in conjunction with two United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – SDG3 Good Health and Well-being and SDG13 Climate Action – and assess how they add to the narrative. Many of the health impacts associated with climate change are a particular threat to the poorest people in low- and middle-income countries where the burden of climate sensitive diseases is the greatest. This also suggests that the impact in these regions, based on the UN SDGs, may reach beyond climate (SDG13) and health (SDG3) to affect those who live in extreme poverty (SDG1) and/or those who experience food insecurity (SDG2).

“The climate crisis is a health crisis”

Introduction

1. Climate change and zoonotic diseases

Climate change has far-reaching implications for human health in the 21st century, with significant increases in temperature extremes, heavy precipitation, and severe droughts.¹ It directly impacts health through long-term changes in rainfall and temperature, climatic extremes (heatwaves, hurricanes, and flash floods), air quality, sea-level rise in low-land coastal regions, and many different influences on food production systems and water resources.²

In terms of human health, climate change has an important impact on the transmission of vector-borne diseases (human illnesses caused by parasites), in particular zoonotic infectious diseases (infections transmitted from animal to humans by the bite of infected arthropod species, such as mosquitoes and bats), and has a particular relevance due to the most recent COVID-19 and Zika virus outbreaks. Arthropods are of major significance due to their abundance, adaptability, and coevolution to different kinds of pathogens.³

Zoonotic infectious diseases are a global threat because they can become pandemics, as we have seen in the case of COVID-19, and are currently considered one of the most important threats for public health globally. The COVID pathogen spread worldwide, recording 255,324,963 cases with 5,127,696 deaths as of November 2021.⁴

One reason for this turnaround could be related to the widespread adoption of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and in particular SDG6, which sets out to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”.⁹ The achievement of this Goal, even if partially, would greatly benefit people and the planet, given the importance of clean water for socio-economic development and quality of life, including health and environmental protection. SDG6 considers improvement of water quality by reducing by half the amount of wastewater that is not treated by 2030.

The changes in climatic conditions have forced many pathogens and vectors to develop adaptation mechanisms. For example, in the case of African Ebola, climate change is a factor in the rise in cases over the past two decades, with bats and other animal hosts of the virus being driven into new areas when temperatures change, potentially bringing them into closer contact with humans.

Examples highlighting how the acceleration of zoonotic pathogens is attributable to changes in climate and ecology due to human impact are common. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), almost six out of every 10 infectious diseases can be spread from animals to humans; three out of every four emerging infectious diseases in humans originate from animals.⁵ Zoonotic diseases, such as those spread by mosquitoes and other related vectors, have increased in recent years. This is because the rise in global temperatures has created favourable conditions for breeding specific pathogens, especially in poorly developed countries predominantly in the Global South.⁶ Further, climate change is causing people’s general health to deteriorate, making it easier for zoonotic infections to spread, as seen with the Zika and dengue viruses.⁷

The changes in climatic conditions have forced pathogens and vectors to develop adaptation mechanisms. Such development has resulted in these diseases becoming resistant to conventional treatments due to their augmented resilience and survival techniques, thus further favouring the spread of infection.

Figure 1: Effect of climatic changes on infectious diseases.⁸

2. Exploring links between climate change and zoonotic diseases as evidenced by mentions in policy documents

Developments in policy are generally rooted in academic research. Applying research to policy relevant questions is increasingly important to address potential problems and can often identify what has been successful or not successful elsewhere. Citations to the research that underpins policy documents is known to be an important (proxy) indicator of the quality of the research carried out. Awareness and the course of action taken by governments, NGOs and other health-focused institutions is evident by their activity in this area. For example, in the UK the government has recently allocated £200 million to fight zoonotic diseases.⁹ Actions that are taken relevant to this are communicated by, for example, relevant policy documents which mention the research influencing public policy decision making in this area. Policy documents provide us with a different perspective for analysis, allowing a closer proximity to ‘real world’, society-facing issues.

3. The SDG3 and SDG13 crossover: research outputs associated with zoonotic diseases and climate change

The UN launched the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to address an ongoing crisis: human pressure leading to unprecedented environmental degradation, climatic change, social inequality, and other negative planet-wide consequences.¹⁰ There is growing evidence that environmental change and infectious disease emergence are causally linked and there is an increased recognition that SDGs are linked to one another. Thus, understanding their dynamics is central to achieving the vision of the UN 2030 Agenda. But environmental change also has direct human health outcomes via infectious disease emergence, and this link is not customarily integrated into planning for sustainable development.¹¹

Two of the 17 UN SDGs of most relevance to zoonotic diseases and climate change are SDG3 and SDG13.

Looking specifically at SDG3, reducing global infectious disease risk is one of the targets for the Goal (Target 3.3), alongside strengthening prevention strategies to identify early warning signals (Target 3.d).¹² Given the direct connection between environmental change and infectious disease risk, actions taken to achieve other SDGs also have an impact on the achievement of SDG3. Moreover, strengthening resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters is one of the targets for SDG13 (Target 13.1).¹³ The two SDGs perhaps highlight two sides of the same coin – SDG3 focusing on preventing and reducing disease risks and SDG13 focusing on strengthening resilience of climate-related hazards (infectious disease being an obvious hazard).

Exploring the crossover between SDG3 and SDG13 using Dimensions, reveals interlinkages with other SDGs – SDG1 No Poverty and SDG2 Zero Hunger. We know that living in poverty has negative impacts on health, and in respect of climate change, economic loss attributed to climate-related disasters is now a reality. Experiencing hunger can be a consequence of vulnerable agricultural practices that negatively impact food productivity and production. In 2020, between 720 and 811 million persons worldwide were suffering from hunger, as many as 161 million more than in 2019.¹⁴ Moreover, climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters progressively deteriorate land and soil quality, severely affecting the cost of food items.

4. Funding of research associated with SDG3 and SDG13 – increases in SDG research funding

Scientific advances reveal empirical observations of the association between climate change and shifts in infectious diseases. Using Dimensions we can examine the scientific evidence for this by looking at the impact of climate change on zoonotic diseases. We can also track the science, through the lens of research outputs associated with both SDG3 and SDG13.

Being able to assess publishing and funding behaviours by comparing the Global North and Global South countries provides us with an insight into where research is both funded and ultimately published. Moreover, one question we might ask is, given that the Global South is currently hardest hit by the consequences of climate change from an infectious disease perspective, will we see changes in publishing and funding practices in the future? Furthermore, climate change has exacerbated many influencing factors. It has generated habitat loss, pushed wild animals from hotter to cooler climates where they can mix with new animals and more people, and it has lengthened the breeding season and expanded the habitats of disease-spreading mosquitoes, ticks, etc.,¹⁵ and so we could potentially see more zoonotic infectious disease spreading to countries in the Global North. Given these factors, and the capability of Dimensions, we can make comparisons over time and geolocation to track where changes are occurring.

Dimensions search strategy and data investigation

i. Search strategies

Research data were retrieved using Digital Science’s Dimensions database and Google BigQuery (GBQ). For initial searches we created a specific search term to identify publications associated with zoonotic/infectious diseases and climate change. Two sets of terms were used to define the searching keywords. The first was made up of keywords associated with zoonotic and infectious diseases, and the second was simply one word, ‘Climate’, as follows:

Zoonoses OR "zoonotic diseases" OR "parasitic diseases" OR "zoonotic pathogens" OR "vector borne diseases" OR "climate-sensitive infectious diseases" OR "infectious disease risk" OR "infectious diseases" AND Climate.

**Figure 2: Word cloud illustrating the strength of association of research that includes both climate change and zoonotic (infectious) diseases and their variants.**

Dimensions’ inbuilt SDG classification system allowed for the linking of research outputs associated with SDGs both individually and in combination. On this basis we were able to include SDG3 Good Health and Well-being and SDG13 Climate Action to the search, allowing us to include outputs associated with both Goals. The main focus of the search carried out was on peer-reviewed articles and government policy documents between 2010 and 2022. A set of 1,436 research publications were retrieved and entered into further analyses separately. The research outputs retrieved shared a focus on the impact of climate change on pathogen, host and transmission of human zoonotic/infectious diseases.

A dataset based on the research outputs retrieved from Dimensions was created within GBQ. This allowed integration with publicly available datasets from the World Bank to ascertain low and high income countries and regions. The Dimensions GBQ provision also facilitates in-depth targeted analyses. This allowed us to look solely at the publications resulting from our search in order to identify trends in concepts, citations, policy documents and collaborations by geographic region.

ii. Findings

a) Publication timeline trends for research outputs tagged in Dimensions jointly with SDG3 and SDG13 and associated with zoonotic/infectious diseases and climate change were plotted.

*Figure 3: Publications on climate change and zoonotic diseases, and their variants that have been linked to both SDG3 and SDG13 using Dimensions’ SDG classification system*

Figure 3 highlights the trajectory over a 13-year time period for publications associated with both SDG3 and SDG13 in Dimensions. Of note, following implementation of the UN SDGs in January 2016, the upward trend in numbers of publications begins to rise sharply until the end of 2021, with a dip in 2022.

b) Co-authorship analysis: Collaboration by geographic region

Figure 4: 4a) One in 40 publications from researchers in high-income countries have been co-authored with researchers from a low-income country; 4b) Two in three publications from researchers in low-income countries have been co-authored with researchers from a high-income country.

Figure 4a reveals that for every 40 publications authored in a high-income country, one publication was in collaboration with a low-income country-based researcher. Figure 4b reveals that two in three publications authored by low-income country based researchers have been in collaboration with high-income country based researchers. We conclude from this that it is proportionately more likely for low-income country researchers to collaborate with researchers in the Global North than for researchers in the Global North to collaborate with researchers in the Global South. However, it is important to note here that numbers of research outputs are disproportionate between the global regions (see Table 1 below).

2010-2022	Number and percentage of authors publishing climate change and infectious (zoonotic) diseases research	Number of authors publishing research outputs associated with SDG13	Number of authors publishing research outputs associated with SDG3	Total number of authors publishing in each geographic income region
Global South
Low-income countries	52 (0.11%)	2,818 (6.22%)	26,649 (58.85%)	45,285 (100%)
Lower-middle-income countries	468 (0.03%)	85,931 (6.07%)	409,355 (28.93%)	1,415,019 (100%)
Global North
High-income countries	618 (0.01%)	365,917 (4.73%)	2,337,971 (30.22%)	7,736,160 (100%)
Upper-middle-income countries	2,419 (0.06%)	194,187 (4.56%)	850,954 (19.97%)	4,260,966 (100%)

Table 1: Number and proportion of authors by geographic income region publishing research on climate change and infectious (zoonotic) diseases, and SDG3 and SDG13

Table 1 outlines the combined total number of authors of published research in the Global South and Global North, including the proportion of researchers against the total number of researchers in each of these regions. The figures in the table reveal that proportionally the number of researchers publishing research on zoonotic diseases and climate change is higher than that of higher-income countries. We argue here that this research focus is not necessarily a niche area for Global South countries (even though their number of research outputs and activity is low in real terms). Consideration of the number of authors publishing zoonotic diseases and climate change research papers against numbers of authors publishing in areas associated more generally with SDG3 and SDG13 provides a glimpse of the breadth of sustainable development research of which our topic area is just one component.

Despite the crossover with SDG3 and SDG13 not being high, it shows that the engagement of researchers in low-income countries with zoonotic diseases research is notable and contributes to research progress in this area. However, the research is better represented if we look proportionally. For example, 52 researchers in low-income countries represent 8% of the number of zoonotic disease researchers in high-income countries (618), but the total number of researchers publishing overall in low-income countries (45,285) represents just 0.5% of all researchers in high-income countries (7.7 million) making the proportional contribution by low-income country researchers 40 times greater than high-income country researchers in this research area.

c) Research publications by geographic region

*Figure 5: Research outputs by year of publication pre- and post-SDG time period.*

Figure 5 above reveals a total of 1,419 research publications pre- and post-SDG period from 2010-2022 by country income group have been captured by Dimensions. The numbers represented in the chart reveal that publications have at least one author in the country income groupings outlined. In order to incorporate collaborations, a publication is included twice if it includes an author within each income group. This only applies for the analysis of country income groups. It allows us to see any increases/decreases in collaborative behaviour. In this respect, we note the contribution (either through collaborating or writing their own publications) from low/low-medium-income (Global South) countries has risen both in number and as a proportion of the outputs from 2010.

d) Citation analysis by geographic regions

*Figure 6a – Number of publications and corresponding citation counts that include authors in low- and low -medium income countries*.

*Figure 6b Number of publications and corresponding citation counts that include authors in high- and high-medium income countries*.

The data in Figure 6a and 6b above reveal that:

1. South-East Asia as a producer of this research is dominant in the Global South (see Fig. 6b).

2. In the Global South, South-East Asia both publishes research and favourably cites research from the same region (see Fig. 6a).

3. Research output in South-East Asia is not as highly cited by the Global North (see Fig. 6b). What is notable however, is the overall dominance of the Global North for both research output and citation counts. We conjecture one reason for why this might be the case is that the Global South may not have access to the same level of funding or collaboration opportunities. Moreover, differences in research focus could account for the distinction. Moreover, interest in these areas by high-income country research(ers) may be less pronounced than those research areas elsewhere in the Global South (eg, Africa) where there is more collaboration, or more ‘gain’ for Global North countries (Ebola, Zika etc). For example, if India’s research focus was local to aspects of zoonotic diseases that only affect this country, then it might be less likely that higher income countries would cite the research. This warrants a deeper dive into the data to uncover such findings but is outside the scope of the blog.

In conclusion, it is perhaps the case that areas which are most affected by climate change and zoonotic diseases have become publication ‘hotspots’ which are not yet attractive to researchers in Global North countries.

e) Funding – by income/geography; Funder type

*Figure 7: Breakdown of Country groupings by income and type of funding organisation revealed by Dimensions.*

The general trend seen in Fig. 7 above reveals government funding to be the major driving force in zoonotic diseases and climate change research in all of the country groupings. What Dimensions reveals in this respect is that governments in the Global North provide 100% of the government funding that is held in the Dimensions database for research on these topics in the Global South. This would explain perhaps why low-income countries in the Global South, where research infrastructure isn’t as well funded, receives less government funding as it is awarded by the Global North. Looking at funding from non-profit sources, which includes organisations such as Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Science and Technology Development Fund, we note that such organisations provide nearly a quarter of all research funding held in Dimensions, in the Global South. As with government funding, 98% of all non-profit research funding in both regions comes from non-profit organisations in the Global North. It is interesting to note, given the focus of the research, that only a very small proportion of funding is received across all funder types from the healthcare sector. All other funders included in Fig. 7 92.5% of funding comes from the Global North (healthcare funding is included in this figure).¹⁶

f) Policy documents and their citing publications

*Figure 8: Top 12 publishers of policy documents citing research on climate change and zoonotic diseases (based on our Dimensions search criteria – see above in “Search strategies”).*

In Dimensions, policy sources and document types range from government guidelines, reports or white papers; independent policy institute publications; advisory committees on specific topics; research institutes; and international development organisations. The top 12 policy publishers that are outlined in Fig. 8 above represent those publishers of policies citing research outputs associated with climate change and zoonotic diseases. It is perhaps not unexpected that the number of publications cited by the World Health Organization would be high given its global vision to eliminate the disease burden globally and to reverse climate change. Zoonotic diseases are very much on the radar of the global agencies concerned with global health which, given climate change, means that spread of these diseases in the Global North is more likely.

Takeaway findings

Using Dimensions’ capability to take a deep dive into research exploring zoonotic diseases and climate change in the context of SDGs has enabled us to uncover a number of interesting findings that are illuminating in the context of a world view.

Our investigations have revealed several interesting findings, including:

Research publications in this area have increased more than two-fold since the implementation of the SDGs.
Collaboration patterns in the Global North and Global South reveal that researchers in Global South countries are more likely to collaborate with researchers in the Global North than vice versa.
The total number of authors publishing research on zoonotic diseases and climate change in the lowest-income countries represents 8% of the total number of zoonotic disease researchers in high-income countries (see Table 1). Expanding this out across all research publications, the total number of researchers publishing in low-income countries represents just 0.5% of all researchers in high-income countries, making the proportional representation of low-income country researchers 40 times greater than high-income country researchers. Although actual numbers would reveal a different story, we believe that depicting the data in this way provides a balanced representation of the research output.
Research carried out on zoonotic diseases and climate change in the lower income countries is less well cited by higher income countries.
The data in Dimensions highlights that government organisations in the Global North award much of the funding for research in the Global South, and likewise for funding from non-profit agencies. What we might consider here as an explanation is that numerous organisations in the Global North such as Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the SCI Foundation, along with governments, are committed to the elimination of zoonotic diseases and in helping reduce carbon emissions to reverse climate change at a global level.

Conclusion

What is apparent is that governments around the world are investing large sums of money as part of the global mission to halt the spread of animal diseases and to protect the public against zoonotic disease outbreaks before they become pandemics that pose a risk globally.

Digital Science’s Dimensions database provided us with enormous opportunities for the interrogation of data to gather insights on zoonotic diseases and climate change (much more than could be included in this blog). The comprehensiveness of the database in terms of its coverage of publications, policy documents, grant funding and SDG-associated output (among others) in the Global North and Global South allows for creating the most value. As a linked research database, the possibilities for generating downstream link- and flow- analyses across geographies means it is an invaluable tool for the widest possible discovery across the research ecosystem.

About Dimensions

Part of Digital Science, Dimensions is the largest linked research database and data infrastructure provider, re-imagining research discovery with access to grants, publications, clinical trials, patents and policy documents all in one place. www.dimensions.ai

Source link

#Zooming #zoonotic #diseases #Digital #Science

TOME sheds light on sustainable open access book publishing – Digital Science

Post By Science And Technology community, How we support Academic Institutions, How we support books, How we support Researchers, Publisher

A five-year open access publishing pilot has come to an end, offering key insights into a future of sustainable open access publishing for monographs.

In December of 2022, Emory University in Atlanta hosted the fifth and final stakeholders meeting for TOME (Toward an Open Monograph Ecosystem).

TOME launched in 2017 as a five-year pilot project of the Association of American Universities (AAU), Association of Research Libraries (ARL), and Association of University Presses (AUPresses). The goal of the pilot was to explore a new model for sustainable monograph publishing, one in which participating universities commit to providing baseline grants of $15,000 to support the publication of monographs by their faculty, while participating university presses commit to producing digital open access editions of TOME volumes, openly licensing them under Creative Commons licenses, and depositing the files in selected open repositories.

The December meeting gave stakeholders (publishers, librarians, authors, and representatives from a number of societies and foundations) the opportunity to gather—both virtually and in person—and assess the outcomes of the initiative while also deliberating on next steps. In this post I briefly discuss one discrete piece of the assessment: What did we learn from the pilot about eBook usage and the impact of the OA edition on print sales.

Over the course of the pilot, more than 130 scholarly monographs have been published in OA editions with funding from the 20 participating TOME institutions. Given the long lead time associated with monograph publishing, most of the books (over 70%) were released in the final two years of the pilot, which means that any usage data collected by the publishers would be preliminary at best, so the initial analysis focused on the first 25 books, which were published between May 2018 and September 2019. Prior to the December meeting, the publishers of these 25 books were asked to collect usage data from each of the platforms hosting the OA editions. In addition, they provided print sales figures, both for the TOME editions and for comparable titles on their list. The resulting data were compiled into a spreadsheet for analysis.

Not surprisingly, the main challenge to analysis of these data was the apples-to-apples problem. Some repositories and platforms collect downloads while others track views only. Some base their stats on single chapters; others on the entire book. Meanwhile, publishers do not all place their OA editions on the same platforms. As a result, the spreadsheet ended up looking a bit like a checkerboard with pieces on some squares but not others. For instance, here’s how a small portion of the spreadsheet looked when the data were filled in:

*Figure 1: Sample spreadsheet of downloads/views.*

“TOME’s usage stats stand out even more when seen alongside the sales figures for the print editions of the same titles.”

Peter Potter

Still, when all the data were collected, one thing was clear: the OA editions have been heavily accessed online. By July 2022, the first 25 TOME books tallied nearly 195,000 downloads and views. The average per book was 7,754.¹

These findings are in line with those of other OA book initiatives. In November 2022 MIT Press reported that the 50 books published OA in 2022 through its Direct to Open program were downloaded over 176,000 times.² This works out to roughly 3,520 per book. Likewise, the University of Michigan Press reported in January 2023 that the 40 Fund to Mission books released OA in 2022 were downloaded over 149,000 times up to the end of December, reaching an average of 3,826 per book.³ While the per book numbers for both D2O and Michigan are lower than that of TOME, the TOME books accumulated their stats over a longer period of time.

TOME’s usage stats stand out even more when seen alongside the sales figures for the print editions of the same titles. As can be seen in this bar chart, the average number of downloads/views per book (7,754) is significantly higher than the average unit sales per book (590).

*Figure 2: TOME usage/sales (first 25 books)*.

We also considered one of the biggest questions that publishers continue to ask about OA books: How does the OA edition affect sales of the print edition? With this question in mind, publishers provided not just the sales figures for TOME books but sales figures for comparable titles on their list. (Each publisher was left to decide what it deemed a “comparable” book.) As this chart shows, the print editions of TOME books actually outsold their comps.

*Figure 3: Print sales: TOME vs. Comps (first 25 books)*.

“The print editions of TOME books actually outsold their comps.”

Peter Potter

These findings should be taken with a grain of salt. As several publishers pointed out, identifying comps for any single title is mostly guesswork. Furthermore, the sample size (25) is too small to warrant drawing any firm conclusions. For instance, most of the 25 TOME titles had print sales between 300 and 500 copies. Only in four cases did sales exceed 1,000 copies, and if these four titles are excluded from the sample the average drops to a number more consistent with the comps. Understandably, therefore, most presses were reluctant just yet to draw any conclusions about OA’s impact on sales.⁴

Of course, we know that the impact of scholarly books goes well beyond downloads, views, and sales figures. A future post will look at the Altmetric data for TOME books to see what they tell us about alternative measures of impact. Meanwhile, a final report on TOME, including an in-depth examination of attitudes and motivations of the stakeholder groups, is due to be released in the coming weeks.

¹ The median was 5,243, with a minimum of 800 and a maximum of 27,470.
² https://mitpress.mit.edu/mit-press-direct-to-open-books-downloaded-more-than-176312-in-ten-months/
³ https://ebc.press.umich.edu/stories/2023-02-01-so-how-did-they-do-in-2022/. These figures filter out a digital project with very high usage, which was considered an outlier.
⁴ A larger study of OA impact on sales, sponsored by the NEH, is forthcoming from AUPresses. https://aupresses.org/news/neh-grant-to-study-open-access-impact/

Source link

#TOME #sheds #light #sustainable #open #access #book #publishing #Digital #Science

Tindered out? How to avoid creeps, time wasters and liars this Valentine’s Day

Post By Stock Advertising, Advertising/Marketing/Public Relations, Applications Software, article_normal, arts, bars, beverages, business, Business/Consumer Services, C&E Executive News Filter, commentary, Commentary/Opinion, community, computers, Computers/Electronics, Computing, Consumer Affairs, Consumer Products, consumer services, Content Types, corporate, Corporate/Industrial News, dairy products, divorce, electronics, Factiva Filters, food, food products, Food/Beverages, general news, hotels, Hotels/Motels, industrial news, Internet, Internet/Online Services, leisure, Leisure/Arts, lifestyle, living, Living/Lifestyle, Lodgings, Lodgings/Restaurants/Bars, market research, Market Research/Public Relations, Marketing, Marriage, Marriage/Divorce, Match Group Inc., Mobile Applications Software, motels, MTCH, online services, opinion, Personal Finance, Personal Technology, political, Political/General News, public relations, restaurants, society, Society/Community, Software, Technology, tourism

Michelle has had her fair share of bad dates.

A divorced mother of four children, Michelle, 52, resolved to maintain her sense of humor when she returned to the dating market, and signed up for Hinge, an online dating service that includes voice memos, in addition to audio and video functions that enable two interested parties to talk to each other without sharing their phone numbers.

Given that she had not dated since she was in her 20s, Michelle, who asked for her surname to be withheld, was thrown into the world of online dating, right swipes, ghosting, men who were actually living overseas, married men, men who lied about their age and men who posted photos that were 10 years old. She split from her husband of nearly two decades in 2014.

Hinge is part of Match.com’s
MTCH,
+1.22%
group of apps along with OKCupid, Tinder, Bumble, and Christian Mingle, among others. The company promotes itself as the app that is designed to be deleted by its users. It’s a bold statement in the era of online dating, when people scroll through profiles — swiping right for yes and left for no — in search of their perfect mate.

But Hinge, like many other dating apps, introduced a video function in 2020 to help push people to “meet” during the worst days of the coronavirus pandemic. Dating experts advise applying the same rules you would to a Zoom
ZM,
+3.06%
call: dress smartly, use an overhead light rather than a backlight that casts you in shadow, and don’t sit in front of yesterday’s pile of dirty laundry.

“‘It’s amazing how many guys use a picture from 10 years ago. You can barely recognize them when you meet them.’”

— Michelle, 52, a divorced mother of four who searched for love online

A video date will reveal a lot more than a profile picture. “It’s amazing how many guys use a picture from 10 years ago,” Michelle said. “You can barely recognize them when you meet them. I discovered that someone who is very quick to ask for your email address or your number is more likely to be a scammer. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of scamming on dating apps.”

She’s not wrong. Nearly 70,000 Americans lost $1.3 billion to romance scams through social media and dating apps last year, up from 56,000 the year before, according to the Federal Trade Commission. That’s broadly in line with the amount of money lost the previous year, but up significantly from the $730 million lost in 2020.

Through her work as a social worker, Michelle has learned to evaluate people and look for red flags. She has used those skills when online dating. She watches out for “goofy stuff” like a man who is writing like a character from a romance novel. “The Lifetime Channel Christmas Love Story is not happening on Hinge,” she said. “Those are the things that I kind of find funny.”

Other red flags: Someone who lies about their age, is unwilling to meet, won’t turn on the video chat function — what have they got to hide? — and a man who is cheap. “Why did I drive 45 minutes to meet you and you can’t even buy me a cup of coffee? I don’t want someone who is stingy. Either they’re really miserly, have poor judgment, or poor people skills.”

The perilous side of handheld love machines

Dating apps are the ultimate love machine, churning out potential partners every two seconds, someone who is taller, younger, hotter, richer, broader, slimmer, sexier, kookier, weirder — and the list goes on. All of life’s parade is a swipe away. Millions of people use dating apps — from Grindr for gay men to Facebook Dating for pretty much everyone.

There is a balance between keeping people swiping and helping them find love. It’s a numbers game, and can be as addictive as playing the slots. EHarmony promotes its Compatibility Score, while OKCupid asks users to answer an almost limitless number of questions in order to match with more appropriate people. But critics say it leads to the gamification of people’s love lives.

Jenny Taitz, author of “How to Be Single and Happy: Science-Based Strategies for Keeping Your Sanity While Looking for a Soul Mate,” said one of the most common complaints about dating apps is the constant game of cat and mouse. Each user is probably talking to several people at the same time, and it’s tough to get people off the apps and into the real world.

If you like someone, she says, move to a video chat to test the chemistry. “It’s time-consuming, but you need to move from a pen pal to an in-person meetup,” she said. “It could be something that you do all the time, so you really have to have limits. If you’re having four dates a week, does that mean you’re not making time for friendships where you have an investment?”

“‘The same person who volunteers at a soup kitchen might easily ghost someone. There is so much detachment.’”

— Jenny Taitz, author of ‘How to Be Single and Happy’

Anonymity can often lead to ghosting, when people just disappear or stop answering messages. “We need to treat people like they would treat their future child or best friend,” Taitz said. “Bad behavior is so pervasive, and people are not held accountable for their actions. The same person who volunteers at a soup kitchen might easily ghost someone. There is so much detachment.”

Some studies have linked dating apps with depression, while other studies have found that online dating has led to a string of robberies through hook-ups on Grindr, and can also make it easier for sexual predators to find victims. These problems obviously exist in the real world, but social media and dating apps can provide an easier path for bad actors.

Julie Valentine, a researcher, sexual-assault nurse examiner, and associate dean of Brigham Young University’s College of Nursing, analyzed 1,968 “acquaintance” sexual assaults that occurred between 2017 and 2020. She and her fellow researchers concluded that 14% of these sexual assaults resulted from a dating-app’s first in-person meeting.

“One-third of the victims were strangled and had more injuries than other sexual-assault victims,” the study found. “Through dating apps, personas are created without being subjected to any criminal background checks or security screening. This means that potential victims have the burden of self-protection.”

All those coffees take time and money

A spokeswoman for Match.com said it does not release data on how many people have actually used the video chat function. If people did use the function more often without sharing their phone number, it would in theory provide a layer of protection, help weed out bad actors, and help people decide whether a prospective date is compatible early in the process.

Cherlyn Chong, the Las Vegas-based founder of Get Over Him, a program to help women get over toxic relationships, does not believe the video chat function is as widely used as it should be. Chong, who describes herself as a dating coach and a trauma specialist, encourages her clients to use every method available to screen dates, in addition to meeting in a public place.

So what if a man did not want to video chat? “If they didn’t want to video, that’s fine,” Chong said. “But their reaction to the request would be a litmus test. We would know he is probably not someone to date, as he is not flexible. It’s also very telling if a woman explains that it’s a safety issue. The response of the guy in that situation would also be another litmus test.”

“Once you give someone their phone number, you don’t know what they are going to do with it,” Chong said. She said one of her clients encountered a man who shared her phone number with others, and sent it to a spam site on the internet. “You want to believe in the best of people,” she said, “but there are people who misuse your number because they can’t handle rejection.”

“‘A couple of cocktails in New York City? You’re looking at $60 to $100, or a few hundred dollars for a pricier meal.’”

— Connell Barrett, author of ‘Dating Sucks, But You Don’t’

Connell Barrett, author of “Dating Sucks, But You Don’t,” said video dates are a good first step. “You can see your date, and read their body language,” he said. “Because physical contact is off the table for a video date, it can free both singles to let go and not worry about the pressure about moving in for the first kiss. Good chemistry happens when there’s less pressure.”

Video dating also saves you time and money, especially if you’re the one who picks up the tab. “A couple of cocktails in New York City? You’re looking at $60 to $100, or a few hundred dollars for a pricier meal,” he said. Regular daters could end up spending up to $1,500 a month in bigger cities, if they’re dating a lot and eating out, Barrett added.

How much you spend will clearly depend on your lifestyle. Members of The League, a dating app that’s geared towards professionals, spend up to $260 a month on dates, followed by $215 a month for singletons using Christian Mingle, $198 for people signed up to Match.com, and $174 for Meta’s
META,
+3.03%
Facebook Dating subscribers, according to a recent survey.

A video call allows people to get a sense of the person’s circumstances and personality, and can avoid wasting an hour having coffee with someone you will never see again. Be fun, be playful, don’t ask about exes or grill the other person “60 Minutes”-style, Barrett said. “A big mistake people make in dating is trying to impress the other person,” he said.

Video dating goes back to the 1970s

Jeff Ullman created the first successful video-dating service in Los Angeles in 1975 called Great Expectations. People recorded messages direct-to-camera. “We started with Betamax, moved to VHS, and upgraded to CD-ROMs,” he said. “As long as there are adults, there will be the hunt for love, and there will be the longing for ‘I’m missing someone, I’m missing something,’” he told MarketWatch.

“The best and the brightest did not go into dating services in the 1970s and 1980s,” he said. “I only went into it because I wanted to change the world. What I wanted to do was turn pity to envy. Our videos were 5 or 6 minutes long. There were no stock questions. They had to be ad-libbed. The only similar question was the last one: ‘What are the qualities that are most important in a relationship?’”

He turned Great Expectations into a national franchise where customers paid $595 to $1,995 a year for membership ($1 in 1975 is around $5 today). “We did not hard sell you. We did a ‘heart sell.’ We had all kinds of Type As — doctors, lawyers, studio production chiefs, who all thought they were God’s gift, or God’s gift to womankind, but when they talked about their loneliness, they cried.”

People will always be searching for that perfect mate, Ullman said, whether it’s through videos, words, photos, psychological compatibility, A.I., or through arranged marriages or matchmakers. “But there is no perfect match. My wife Cindy and I are well matched. She’s not perfect. I’m not perfect. The moment either one of us begins to think we’re perfect is the moment we introduce negative forces.”

“‘What I wanted to do was turn pity to envy. Our videos were 5 or 6 minutes. There were no stock questions.’”

— Jeff Ullman, created Great Expectations, a video-dating service in Los Angeles in 1975

Before TikTok and Skype, people were not as comfortable in front of the camera, particularly if they had to talk about themselves. “We always hid the camera,” Ullman said. The 1970s decor of dark wood and indoor plants made that easier. “When we were finished, they’d say, ‘When are you going to start?’” But they were already on tape. They were, he said, happy with the first take 95% of the time.

Ullman required his franchisees to give members a three-day right to cancel for any reason — including “I’m not going to tell you” — if they changed their terms of service. “They just had to mail us or fax us their notice. Half of my franchisees were about to revolt.” Until, he said, they realized they could not afford to have a bad reputation in an industry where people were putting their hearts on the line.

It all started with a Sony-Matic Portable Videocorder gifted to him by his parents when he graduated from UC Berkeley in 1972. “They were very expensive, but they were portable. Whenever I went anywhere, whether it was a parade or a demonstration, which were common back then, they always let me in because they thought I was from “60 Minutes.” It gave us a sense of power.”

Fast forward to 2023: That power is in the hands of the $3 billion online dating industry and, perhaps to a lesser extent, in the hands of the singletons who are putting their own messages out into the world through words and pictures. In the 1970s, most people were still meeting in person. These days, your online competition is, well, almost every single person within a 50-mile radius.

Watching out for those ‘green flags’

Video dating has come in handy for singletons like Andrew Kneeshaw, a photographer and publican in Streete, County Westmeath, a small town in the Irish midlands. He’s currently active on three dating sites: Plenty of Fish, Bumble and Facebook Dating. In-app video calls have saved him — and his potential dates — time, gasoline and money spent on coffee and lunch.

“Even someone local could be 15 or 20 miles away,” he said. He’s currently talking to a woman in Dublin, which is more than an hour away. “Hearing someone’s voice is one thing, but seeing that they are the genuine person they are supposed to be on the dating site definitely does help.” He could spend upwards of 20 euros ($21.45) on coffee/lunch, excluding gasoline.

He did go on a dinner date recently without having a video call, and he regretted it. “Neither of us felt there was a spark,” Kneeshaw said. So they split the check as they would likely never see each other again? “That sounds terrible, but yes,” he said. “I go on a date at best once a week. If you’re doing it a few times a week, it does add up very quickly.”

Ken Page, a Long Beach, N.Y.-based psychotherapist and host of the Deeper Dating podcast, is married with three children, and has compassion for people like Kneeshaw who live in more remote areas. In New York, he said, some people won’t travel uptown if they live downtown, and many more people won’t even cross the river to New Jersey.

“‘If it’s a video chat, you have the opportunity to get to know them more, and have that old-fashioned courtship experience.’”

— Ken Page, a psychotherapist and host of the Deeper Dating podcast

He said green flags are just as important as red flags when deciding to move from a video date to an in-person date. “Is their smile warm and engaging? Are you attracted to the animation they have in their face? You just get tons more data when you see the person. You save money, and you save time before you get to the next step.”

In-person first dates can be brutal. “Your first reaction is, ‘they’re not attractive enough, I’ve got to get out of here,’” Page said. “If it’s a video chat, you have the opportunity to get to know them more, and have that old-fashioned courtship experience where attraction starts to grow. The ‘light attractions’ have more opportunity to grow without the pressure of meeting in person.”

Dating apps are a carousel of romantic dreams. The focus is on looks rather than personality or character. “There are so many people waiting online,” Page said. “That does not serve us. Unless the person really wows us, we swipe left. If you do a video chat, you will be more likely to get to know that person — instead of only getting to know the ‘9s’ and ‘10s.’”

And Michelle? The divorced Californian mother of four said she finally met a guy on Hinge last October, and they’ve been dating since then. “He’s just a fabulous guy. He actually moved slower than what I had experienced with other guys I had dated.” She kept her sense of humor and perspective, which helped. “He said, ‘You’re so funny.’ I didn’t have anything to lose.”

“It’s almost going to Zara
ITX,
+1.55%,
” she said. “Nine times out of 10 you may not find something you like, but one time out of 10 you do.”

Source link

#Tindered #avoid #creeps #time #wasters #liars #Valentines #Day

‘My stepmother has been less than ethical’: I suspect my stepmom removed me as beneficiary from my late father’s life-insurance policy. What can I do?

Post By Stock accounting, Accounting/Consulting, article_normal, banking, Banking/Credit, business, Business/Consumer Services, C&E Executive News Filter, commentary, Commentary/Opinion, community, consulting, Consumer Affairs, Consumer Products, consumer services, Content Types, corporate, Corporate/Industrial News, credit, Factiva Filters, Financial Services, general news, Health Care, iewm, industrial news, Insurance, lifestyle, living, Living/Lifestyle, opinion, political, Political/General News, society, Society/Community

My dad passed away in March 2019. My stepmom told me I had an inheritance from my dad. She ceased communication with me after my dad passed away. I reached out to the Department of Financial Services website for lost life-insurance policies, and received a letter saying my dad was a participant, but had named someone other than me as a beneficiary.

My stepmother has been less than ethical at times. She previously stole money from her sister’s bank account while working for the financial institution that she now runs. Her sister did not press charges, so the matter was dropped by my dad, with whom she was having an affair. Is it possible that she changed the beneficiary, and could have forged anything on behalf of my dad?

My family also suspects she tried to cash another life-insurance policy for which I was a 51% beneficiary. She sent me a check after my dad passed saying it was a “gift,” and called me nearly two years later saying a policy had just been “found” with me as 51% beneficiary. I suspect she was the 49% beneficiary. To make matters worse, that policy was through her place of business.

Suspicious Daughter

Dear Suspicious,

Anything is possible. It sounds like you are dealing with an unknown quantity, and she should not be trusted with other people’s money. Your stepmother does not, from your account, appear to be on the up-and-up, given that she reportedly stole money from her sister’s bank account. It may be that she could not bring herself to cash a policy with you receiving 49% — hence the delay — but given the division outlined in the policy it seems unlikely that she could have kept the entire policy for herself. An executor has a responsibility to deal with an estate in a timely manner.

It’s not unheard of for people to question an amendment that was made to a trust, insurance policy or last will and testament. Priscilla Presley, the ex-wife of Elvis Presley, the “King of Rock and Roll” who died in 1977, filed legal documents in Los Angeles Superior Court last week, disputing the validity of an amendment to a living trust overseeing the estate of her late daughter Lisa Marie Presley, who died earlier this month. The 2016 amendment removed Priscilla Presley and a former business manager as trustees, the Associated Press reported.

Among the issues cited in the legal filing: Priscilla Presley was allegedly not notified of the change as required, an absence of a witness or notarization, Priscilla Presley’s name was misspelled in a document that was allegedly signed by her late daughter, and Lisa Marie Presley’s own signature was described as atypical, the news agency also reported. Aside from questions swirling over the authenticity of an amendment, changes to wills, trusts and — in your case — insurance policies must always meet certain legal standards.

“It’s not unheard of for people to question an amendment that was made to a trust, insurance policy or last will and testament.”

“Last-minute changes in beneficiaries can be a red flag for life-insurance companies,” according to LifeInsuranceAttorney.com. “Usually, the person insured by a life-insurance policy can change their beneficiaries whenever they want, so long as the change complies with any specific requirements in the life-insurance policy. However, when the insured person is elderly, severely ill or lacking mental capacity, and the change in beneficiary happens shortly before the insured person passes away, they may have been unduly influenced by others.”

“For example, a caretaker or estranged family member may convince or influence the vulnerable insured person to add them as a beneficiary on the insured person’s life-insurance policy or to remove other beneficiaries,” the firm says. What’s more, “Life-insurance companies may also deny claims if the beneficiary made a change in the beneficiary that did not comply with the requirements of the insured person’s life-insurance policy. Some policies may require that the insured person have a certain amount of witnesses present,” it adds.

Depending on the amount of money involved, you may wish to hire an attorney to see if you have a case and/or to put your mind at rest. The statute of limitations — that is, the amount of time you have to challenge the validity of a life-insurance policy — may vary, depending on the circumstances, the state where you live and/or whether new information has come to light. “The statute of limitations, in most cases, lasts for three years. But not always,” according to the Center for Life Insurance Disputes, an insurance agency in Washington, D.C.

She stopped talking to you after your father passed away: It could be that she was shoring up what was left of his estate, and figuring out what she could take for herself. Or it may be that you did not get along, and a breakdown of communication was inevitable. Or both. Were there any changes made to your father’s policy that would raise a red flag? That much is unclear. Your stepmother may have learned her lesson when she was not prosecuted by her sister for alleged financial malfeasance.

And, then again, maybe not.

You can email The Moneyist with any financial and ethical questions related to coronavirus at [email protected], and follow Quentin Fottrell on Twitter.

Check out the Moneyist private Facebook group, where we look for answers to life’s thorniest money issues. Readers write in to me with all sorts of dilemmas. Post your questions, tell me what you want to know more about, or weigh in on the latest Moneyist columns.

The Moneyist regrets he cannot reply to questions individually.

More from Quentin Fottrell:

My mother excluded me from her will — before she died, my sibling cashed out her annuity policy, on which I was a beneficiary. Should I sue my family?

‘I’m clean and sober’: My late father left me 25% of his estate, and my wealthy brother 75%. My brother died 10 months later. Should I ask his son for his share?

‘It’s still painful’: My wife of just one year left me, took all her belongings and won’t answer her phone. How do I protect my finances?

Source link

#stepmother #ethical #suspect #stepmom #removed #beneficiary #late #fathers #lifeinsurance #policy

White House OSTP public access recommendations: Maturing your institutional Open Access strategy – Digital Science

Post By Science And Technology community, Dimensions, figshare, How we support Academic Institutions, How we support funders, How we support government, How we support Researchers, symplectic

While the global picture of Open Access remains something of a patchwork (see our recent blog post The Changing Landscape of Open Access Compliance), trends are nevertheless moving in broadly the same direction, with the past decade seeing a move globally from 70% of all publishing being closed access to 54% being open access.

The White House OSTP’s new memo (aka the Nelson Memo) will see this trend advance rapidly in the United States, stipulating that federally-funded publications and associated datasets should be made publicly available without embargo.

In this blog post, Symplectic‘s Kate Byrne and Figshare‘s Andrew Mckenna-Foster start to unpack what the Nelson Memo means, along with some of the impacts, considerations and challenges that research institutions and librarians will need to consider in the coming months.

Demystifying the Nelson Memo’s recommendations

The focus of the memo is upon ensuring free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research.

The first clause of the memo is focused on working with the funders to ensure that they have policies in place to provide embargo-free, public access to research.

The second clause encourages the development of transparent procedures to ensure scientific and research integrity is maintained in public access policies. This is a complex and interesting space, which goes beyond the remit of what we would perhaps traditionally think of as ‘Open Access’ to incorporate elements such as transparency of data, conflicts of interest, funding, and reproducibility (the latter of which is of particular interest to our sister company Ripeta, who are dedicated to building trust in science by benchmarking reproducibility in research).

The third clause recommends that federal agencies coordinate with the OSTP in order to ensure equitable delivery of federally-funded research results in data. While the first clause mentions making supporting data available alongside publications, this clause takes a broader stance toward sharing results.

What does this mean for institutions and faculty?

The Nelson memo introduces a clear set of challenges for research institutions, research managers, and librarians, who now need to consider how to put in place internal workflows and guidance that will enable faculty to easily identify eligible research and make it openly available, how to support multiple pathways to open access, and how to best engage and incentivize researchers and faculty.

However, the OSTP has made very clear that this is not in fact a mandate, but rather a non-binding set of recommendations. While this certainly relieves some of the potential immediate pressure and panic around getting systems and processes in place, it is clear that what this move does represent is the direction of travel that has been communicated to federal funders.

Funders will look at the Nelson Memo when reviewing their own policies, and seek alignment when setting their own policy requirements that drive action for faculty members across the US. So while the memo does not in itself mandate compliance for institutions, universities, and research organizations, it will have a direct impact on the activities faculty are being asked to complete – increasing the need for institutions to offer faculty services and support to help them easily comply with their funders requirements.

How have funders responded so far?

We are already seeing clear indications that funders are embracing the recommendations and preparing next steps. Rapidly after the announcement, the NIH published a statement of support for the policy, noting that it has “long championed principles of transparency and accessibility in NIH-funded research and supports this important step by the Biden Administration”, and over the coming months will “work with interagency partners and stakeholders to revise its current Public Access Policy to enable researchers, clinicians, students, and the public to access NIH research results immediately upon publication”.

Similarly, the USDA tweeted their support for the guidance, noting that “rapid public access to federally-funded research & data can drive data-driven decisions & innovation that are critical in our fast-changing world.”

How big could the impact be?

While it will take some time for funders to begin to publish their updated OA Policies, there have been some early studies which seek to assess how many publications could potentially fall under such policies.

A recent preprint by Eric Schares of Iowa State University [Impact of the 2022 OSTP Memo: A Bibliometric Analysis of U.S. Federally Funded Publications, 20217-2021] used data from Dimensions to identify and analyse publications with federal funding sources. Schares found that:

1.32 million publications in the US were federally funded between 2017-2021, representing 33% of all US research outputs in the same period.
32% of federally funded publications were not openly available to the public in 2021 (compared to 38% of worldwide publications during the same period).

Schares’ study included 237 federal funding agencies – due to the removal of the $100m threshold, many more funders now fall under the Nelson memo than under the previous 2013 Holdren memo. This makes it likely that disciplines who previously were not impacted will now find themselves grappling with public access requirements.

*Source: Impact of the 2022 OSTP Memo: A Bibliometric Analysis of U.S. Federally Funded Publications, 2017 2021: https://ostp.lib.iastate.edu*

In Schares’ visualization here, where each dot represents a research institution, we can see that two main groupings emerge. The first is a smaller group made up of the National Laboratories. They publish a smaller number of papers overall, but are heavily federally funded (80-90% of their works). The second group is a much larger cluster, representing Universities across the US. Those organisations have 30–60% of their publications being federally-funded, but building from a much larger base number of publications – meaning that they will likely have a lot of faculty members who will now need support.

Where do faculty members need support?

According to the 2022 State of Open Data Report, institutions and libraries have a particularly essential role to play in meeting new top-down initiatives, not only by providing sufficient infrastructure but also support, training and guidance for researchers. It is clear from the findings of the report that the work of compliance is wearing on researchers, with 35% of respondents citing lack of time as reason for not adhering to data management plans and 52% citing finding time to curate data as the area they need the most help and support with. 72% of researchers indicated they would rely on an internal resource (either colleagues, the Library or the Research Office) were they to require help with managing or making their data openly available.

How to start?

Institutions who invest now in building capacity in these areas to support open access and data sharing for researchers will be better prepared for the OSTP’s 2025 deadline, helping to avoid any last-minute scramble to support their researchers in meeting this guidance.

Beginning to think about enabling open access can be a daunting task, particularly for institutions who don’t yet have internal workflows or appropriate infrastructure set up, so we recommend breaking down your approach into more manageable chunks:

1. Understand your own Open Access landscape

Find out where your researchers are publishing and what OA pathways they are currently using. You can do this by reviewing your scholarly publishing patterns and the OA status of those works.
Explore the data you have for your own repositories – not only your own existing data sets, but also those from other sources such as data aggregators or tools like Dimensions.
Begin to overlay publishing data with grants data, to benchmark where you are now and work to identify the kinds of drivers that your researchers are likely to see in the future.

2. Review your system capabilities

Is your repository ready for both publications and data?
Do you have effective monitoring and reporting capabilities that will help you track engagement and identify areas where your community may need more support? Are your systems researcher-friendly; how quickly and easily can a researcher make their work openly available??

3. Consider how you will support your research ecosystem

Identify how you plan to support and incentivize researchers, considering how you will provide guidance about compliant ways of making work openly available, as well as practical support where relevant.
Plan communication points between internal stakeholders (e.g. Research Office, Library, IT) to create a joined-up approach that will provide a shared and seamless experience to your researchers.
Review institutional policies and procedures relating to publishing and open access, considering where you are at present and where you’d like to get to.

How can Digital Science help?

Symplectic Elements was the first commercially available research information management system to be “open access aware”, connecting to institutional digital repositories in order to enable frictionless open access deposit for publications and accompanying datasets. Since 2009 through initial integration with DSpace – later expanding our repository support to Figshare, EPrints, Hyrax, and custom home-grown systems – we have partnered with and guided many research institutions around the globe as they work to evolve and mature their approach to open access. We have deep experience in building out tools and processes which will help universities meet mandates set by national governments or funders, report on fulfilment and compliance, and engage researchers in increasing levels of deposit.

Our sister company Figshare is a leading provider of cloud repository software and has been working for over a decade to make research outputs, of all types, more discoverable and reusable and lower the barriers of access. Meeting and exceeding many of the ‘desirable characteristics’ set out by the OSTP themselves for repositories, Figshare is the repository of choice for over 100 universities and research institutions looking to ensure their researchers are compliant with the rising tide of funder policies.

Below is an example of the type of Open Access dashboard that can be configured and run using the various collated and curated scholarly data held within Symplectic Elements.

In this example, we are using Dimensions as a data source, building on data from Unpaywall about the open access status of works within an institution’s Elements system. Using the data visualizations within this dashboard, you can start to look at open access trends over time, such as the different sorts of open access pathways being used, and how that pattern changes when you look across different publishers or different journals, or for different departments within your organization. By gaining this powerful understanding of where you are today, you can begin to think about how to best prioritise your efforts for tomorrow as you continue to mature your approach to open access.

*Growing maturity of OA initiatives over time – not a “one and done”*.

You might find yourself at Level 1 right now where you have a publications repository along with some metadata, and you’re able to track a number of deposits and do some basic reporting, but there are a number of ways that you can build this up over time to create a truly integrated OA solution. By bringing together publications and data repositories and integrating them within a research management solution, you can enter a space where you can monitor proactively, with an embedded engagement and compliance strategy across all publications and data.

For more information or if you’d like to set up time to speak to the Digital Science team about how Symplectic Elements or Figshare for Institutions can support and guide you in your journey to a fully embedded and mature Open Access strategy, please get in touch – we’d love to hear from you.

This blog post was originally published on the Symplectic website.

Source link

#White #House #OSTP #public #access #recommendations #Maturing #institutional #Open #Access #strategy #Digital #Science

‘I am angry’: I’m an unmarried stay-at-home mother in a 20-year relationship, but my boyfriend won’t put my name on the deed of our house. Am I unreasonable?

Post By Stock accounting, Accounting/Consulting, article_normal, banking, Banking/Credit, business, Business/Consumer Services, C&E Executive News Filter, commentary, Commentary/Opinion, community, construction, Construction/Real Estate, consulting, Consumer Affairs, Consumer Products, consumer services, Content Types, credit, Factiva Filters, Financial Services, general news, lifestyle, living, Living/Lifestyle, opinion, Personal Finance, political, Political/General News, real estate, society, Society/Community

I have been in my relationship for almost 20 years. For personal reasons, we are not married but we have a 10-year-old child.

When our child was born, we decided that I would be a stay-at-home parent because my low-paying job didn’t cover the costs of child care, and at the time, we were stretched. I have been an at-home caregiver and homemaker for a decade.

About two years ago, we finally saved enough to buy our first home. It’s a condo, but it’s ours. Since it was my first house purchase, I didn’t fully understand the process, so by the time my partner closed on the condo, I realized I was not on the deed.

When I asked why I was left out, my partner made some noises about loan applications, the cost, etc. My credit score is higher than his, so if I were part of the loan process for the mortgage, wouldn’t it have been beneficial to us?

In the two years since we’ve bought and moved into our place, we’ve had several tense “discussions” about adding me to the deed. For me, even though I’m not an earner, I am still a working member of this household, so having my name on the deed is about equality in the relationship and family.

“When our child was born, we decided that I would be a stay-at-home parent because my low-paying job didn’t cover the costs of child care.”

Through my labor as a homemaker, which includes meal preparation, cleaning, laundry and home maintenance — not to mention 24/7 childcare — I feel my role as a “stakeholder” in this family should include legally owning my home. Am I wrong?

Through the various discussions we’ve had, it seems my partner is unwilling to add me to the deed. First, he got angry whenever I tried to discuss it, and tried to make it sound as if I was being completely unreasonable. But now he says it’s because it’ll cost several thousand dollars, and that in the end, it “really shouldn’t matter.”

But it does matter. To me, not being on the deed is a direct correlation to how I am devalued for my time and labor. I feel like I am considered “less than” simply because I am a woman, an at-home parent, and a homemaker. I am angry about my situation.

Adding to the complication, we JUST purchased an upstairs neighbor’s condo with the intention of renting it out. After all the fuss about being excluded, my partner made sure my name is on the deed for this second unit. But because of this, my partner says having my name on the original home is “unnecessary.”

I want to continue to fight for my name to be added — to fully own BOTH properties. But my partner is still making me sound completely unreasonable, to spend thousands of dollars just for a “piece of paper.” I know we can afford the costs, and I feel the cost is worth it so I can be on equal footing in this family. And legally, it is not just a piece of paper to me.

Am I really being unreasonable? Will the costs really outweigh the benefits? What can I do?

We live in New Jersey.

Thank you.

Not on the Deed

Dear Not on the Deed,

Common-law marriage is not recognized in New Jersey, so it’s up to unmarried couples to manage their joint assets the old-fashioned way. The father of your child has certainly done his best to do that, and has tipped the scales in his favor.

You are either a committed couple in a long-term relationship with a view to sharing your lives, or you’re not. Not putting you on the mortgage — assuming he did so given your good credit — or the deed of your home is sharp practice. At this point, you would likely need to finance to put you on the mortgage, and may need to inform the lender to do the latter.

Put bluntly, you’re not being unreasonable. There is a huge amount of physical, mental and emotional labor involved in being a stay-at-home parent and homemaker, and an equal amount of time devoted to raising your son and taking care of your home while your partner attends to his 9-to-5 job.

Being in a long-term unmarried relationship can affect everything from taxes to real estate. “Unmarried couples do not have the same rights as married couples when it comes to estate planning,” according to the New Jersey-based Bronzino Law Firm.

“They aren’t eligible to inherit a portion of their partner’s estate, for example; and they don’t receive tax breaks on property that they plan to leave their long-term partner after their death, the way that married couples do,” the law firm writes.

“There is a huge amount of physical, mental and emotional labor involved in being a stay-at-home parent and homemaker, and an equal amount of time devoted to raising your son.”

Your partner would have to file a grant or warranty deed with the county clerk. This could come with ramifications for insurance and should be done in consultation with a lawyer. It should, in theory, only cost a few hundred dollars.

I say “in theory” as that does not account for the closing costs and, of course, if there is a significantly higher interest rate now than when the loan was first signed.

“Deeds are characterized by ‘guarantees’ the grantor makes about their interest in the property, and ‘promises” of future action the grantor will take if their representations are challenged,” according to the law firm of Earl White.

“Covenants are the defining feature of each type of deed,” he writes. “Sellers often guarantee a property is sold free and clear of mortgages and liens, and that the seller has authority to make the sale.”

Some broader context: A few years ago, Oxfam released a study that estimated women contributed $10.8 trillion to the world’s economy every year in unpaid labor. That’s three times the size of the world’s technology industry.

The cost of you pursuing this does not outweigh the benefits. Your time is valuable. Your contribution to your partnership is valuable. Your sense of worth is valuable. And your role as a homemaker and a mother is also valuable.

You can email The Moneyist with any financial and ethical questions related to coronavirus at [email protected], and follow Quentin Fottrell on Twitter.

The Moneyist regrets he cannot reply to questions individually.

More from Quentin Fottrell:

• ‘I’ve felt like an outsider my whole life’: My father died without a will, leaving behind my stepmother and her 4 children. Do I have any rights to his estate?
• ‘He was infatuated with her’: My brother had a drinking problem and took his own life. He left $6 million to his former girlfriend who used to buy him alcohol
• ‘She had a will, but it was null and void’: My friend and her sister are fighting over their mother’s life-insurance policy and bank account. Who should win out?

Source link

#angry #unmarried #stayathome #mother #20year #relationship #boyfriend #wont #put #deed #house #unreasonable

Will we only ever dream of endless energy? – Digital Science

Post By Science And Technology community, Dimensions

The recent nuclear fusion ignition event at the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California is a triumph of modern science and of the persistence of scientists who continue to strive to solve some of the most difficult technical and engineering challenges of a generation. However, it is important to see this development in a broader context of global events as well as the research environment that has been created to support the nuclear energy developments upon which society is increasingly likely to depend in the coming years.

Did we vote for this?

It may be argued that geopolitics has been driven by an energy agenda since the late 19th century, when the industrial revolution had moved solidly beyond the borders of the UK and countries began competing for global resources to fuel their burgeoning industrial economies. As our economies have become larger so has our need for energy. Most recent wars (including the one in Ukraine) have been about control of energy resources – oil or gas. As supplies become more scarce or more expensive to extract, tensions will rise. While voters do not vote (in most cases) directly to support a specific energy-based geopolitical stance, in recent years energy has become a more overt topic in elections.

Even in countries where energy independence is a critical geopolitical issue, green parties do not command a large percentage of the vote, nor do mainstream political parties necessarily have well-articulated policies related to energy independence. In Germany, a country with significant foreign energy dependencies (63.7%) that have appeared in the news this year, the Greens garnered 20.5% of the vote in the 2021 federal elections. Meanwhile, in The Netherlands and Belgium next door, countries with even higher percentage dependencies on foreign energy (68.1% and 78% respective) than Germany, green parties have begun to slowly gain ground.

This is perhaps due to the fact that our homes have, until this winter, remained warm at a reasonably affordable cost. However, the phase change that we have all experienced in 2022 (for some very painfully) is a sign of things to come. Indeed, if electorates were to cast their votes more directly based on the growing issues of energy dependence, we might see a significant change in the political landscape in the next few years. Trading blocs like the EU may become more robust in their energy policy – we have already seen the establishment of the EU Energy Platform to start to mitigate the effects of dependency on Russian gas. Being outside such a bloc in current times appears foolish at best.

Enter the apparent saviour of the day, courtesy of a nuclear fusion experiment from the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. Hailed by a number of media outlets as a solution to our energy problems, we need to be careful about being overly optimistic. Anyone who has had an interest in nuclear fusion knows that we have been 30 years away from commercial nuclear fusion for the last 40 years. Indeed, it will come as a surprise to precisely no one who knows me that the seminar I gave in English class 31 years ago as a 14-year-old was on tokamak fusion. I clearly recall stating that nuclear fusion was 30 years away. Which just goes to show – I was wrong!

But, this all sounds a bit dangerous…

Perhaps unsurprisingly, some voters have been worried about the risks of developing nuclear solutions. Harnessing the energy source that, uncontrolled, underlies the most destructive weapons that our species has ever produced, and which powers the Sun, and consequently our entire lives, is an illusive and sometimes perilous pursuit. Classic science fiction novels such as Asimov’s Robot series, and TV shows like the 1980s adaptation of Buck Rogers have shown the post-apocalyptic atomic horrors that paint vivid pictures in our minds of both promises of success and failure with fusion. For many, fusion is not just a technology but a cultural phenomenon. As a technology it looms large in our collective consciousness partly because it is one that has been in development and which holds so much power both for positive and negative outcomes. As a young researcher, it is a beguiling field of study – some of the best minds on the planet, for several generations, have wrestled with taming nuclear fusion.

Figure 1: Timeline of the key developments in nuclear fusion research.

Our knowledge of both forms of nuclear energy – fission and fusion – originate in Einstein’s famous observation that energy and mass are equivalent: E = mc². In the case of nuclear fission (the process used in current nuclear power plants and in the earliest atomic weapons), heavy elements such as Uranium and Plutonium are used. A heavy element is one in which there are many protons and neutrons in the nucleus of each atom. A configuration of many protons and neutrons (beyond 92 protons) is unstable, which means that the energy required to keep the nucleus together is more than if the atom were to split into two (or more) lighter elements. Just a little interaction with, say, a free neutron is enough to break down the nucleus of some heavy elements into the nuclei of two or more lighter elements. As this process takes place a little energy is given off, which can be converted to heat to turn a turbine. The downside of nuclear fission is that you end up with residual elements that, while more stable than the original atoms in the reaction, are still radioactive and remain so for many years. Such waste products require careful storage in locations where they cannot damage living organisms.

Figure 2: Nuclear Fission versus Nuclear Fusion processes. In the left pane, a heavy element is broken apart via interaction with a neutron into two smaller (but still radioactive) elements and an amount of energy. In the right pane, a deuterium nucleus (a proton and a neutron) and a tritium nucleus (a proton and two neutrons) are brought together to form helium (two protons and two neutrons), a “spare” neutron and energy. In both cases, the right side of each pane is “energetically favourable”, which is to say that the configuration of protons and neutrons on the right of the interaction requires less energy than the configuration on the left, which means that energy is released.

Nuclear fusion, however, is a process that takes place at the other end of the periodic table with very light elements. The energy produced in the fusion reaction is around 5-10x larger than that in a fission reaction. In addition, the by-products are not radioactive – just helium, some neutrons, and energy. In essence, nuclear fusion is a completely clean energy source. Such is the promise of nuclear fusion that some of the best minds in physics have worked on nuclear fusion over the last century. Today, the best minds are also supplemented by AIs, which help to optimise calculations and design the next generation of test reactors.

There are many approaches being developed as a candidate for a commercial nuclear fusion reactor. The main ones include: Magnetic confinement fusion (the type involving ring-style devices – probably the most famous until the recent announcement from NIF), inertial confinement fusion (the type reported on recently); laser-driven fusion; magnetised-target fusion, acoustic inertial confinement fusion, Z-pinch fusion, Muon-catalysed fusion and Nuclear reaction control fusion. Each of these approaches has a different risk profile and different pros and cons, but a successful solution may well need learnings from several of these different technologies.

While the experiment reported recently from the NIF is a significant step in getting to nuclear fusion it is not actually a “break even” event – if you include all the energy used in creating the reaction, you’ll find that the reaction still didn’t get more energy out than was put in. There is still a long way to go but, there may be a value to making something out of this step. Returning science to the public consciousness in a positive way, especially in the face of recent developments in Ukraine and their fallout in the oil industry, may have its benefits. But, it will be important not to overplay the hand – presenting this as fusion being “just around the corner” can backfire badly.

OK, so when will we have it?

Given the increasing importance of this technology to the future of humanity, one would expect to see a significant amount of research funding going into the various different routes to fusion. And while the amount is substantial it is, perhaps, less than might be expected.

Global competitive grant funding for fusion research is at the level of around USD $800 million per year. Put another way, the US spends around USD $45 billion per year on the total budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the world spends around USD $32 billion annually on Sustainable Development Goal-related competitive research grants.

I contend neither that health research is not critical, nor that SDG-related research is not an excellent way to spend public money. However one may expect that an effectively limitless, clean energy source that would reduce global dependency on fossil fuels, make a considerable contribution not only to the reduction in greenhouse gases and the cost of living, but which would also reduce global geopolitical tensions, might warrant more than 1.5% of the annual funding spent on these other worthy and critical initiatives.

I don’t want to address issues of lobbying in this piece as the point is well known, rather I want to finish by exploring two points that are closer to research. Firstly, the observation that metrics are powerful drivers of behaviour and, secondly, that links to immediacy seem to be critical in decision making.

Over the last few years, the global nuclear fusion community has consistently produced around 4,000-5,000 research papers per year. However, over the same period the biomedical research community has produced between 800k and 1.25m papers per year; SDG communities have published between 400k and 1m articles per year. A naive argument would be that fusion papers look expensive relative to the more recent papers in either SDG-related research or biomedicine. But, while it is objectively clear that these areas of research are not comparable in their nature, the incentives in the research world are very much skewed toward paper production, which will tend to disadvantage nuclear fusion research. Of course, papers are only one measure of research output. The recent announcement with which I started this blog is a very tangible output of research and its media coverage is positive, but such events are few and far between and hence don’t easily play into a higher speed research narrative.

At a more fundamental level, immediacy plays a critical role in this discussion. It took the better part of 20 years to build momentum for research and funding of SDG-related research, but similar levels of research output and funding were achieved for COVID research in just 24 months. The threat of not understanding the SDGs is not immediately evident in the lives of those with established advanced economies or large continental territories that are not so directly at risk from rising water levels or energy challenges – it has not been a burning platform for them. While the threat of COVID is not as existential or as long-lived for humanity as either SDGs or the emerging energy crisis, the immediacy of the issue in the G20 made the topic instantly appealing both for funding and for publication.

At its heart, nuclear fusion suffers from a perception problem – it is always 30 years away. Because we don’t associate everyday challenges such as energy prices, war, and economic stagnation with not having nuclear fusion as one of our power options, we don’t make research decisions or political choices based on funding and solving this problem. We need a long-term alignment across the political spectrum that strives for nuclear fusion with consistent funding and clear strategic intent to gain this.

If the NIF announcement leads to a broad realisation that we are getting closer and that voters and hence politicians will take note of the seriousness of our situation, then perhaps another 30 years will not be needed.

Funding levels and publication counts in this article are sourced from Dimensions.

Source link

#dream #endless #energy #Digital #Science

‘Gaslighters have two signature moves’: Are you being gaslighted at work? Here’s how to recognize the signs.

Post By Stock accounting, Accounting/Consulting, Advice, article_normal, business, Business/Consumer Services, C&E Executive News Filter, C&E Industry News Filter, commentary, Commentary/Opinion, community, consulting, Consumer Affairs, Consumer Products, consumer services, Content Types, corporate, Corporate/Industrial News, Factiva Filters, general news, industrial news, labor, Labor/Personnel Issues, lifestyle, living, Living/Lifestyle, media, opinion, Personal Finance, personnel issues, political, Political/General News, society, Society/Community

Are you less happy at work since you befriended that new recruit? Have they told you stories about how colleagues have constantly undermined them? Maybe you have a boss who excludes you from key meetings and then asks why you did not attend a meeting even though you are pretty sure you were not invited to begin with. If any of this rings true, you may be working with a gaslighter.

Gaslighters, as the name suggests, cast themselves in a positive light — friend or confidante who is here to help — but actually are manipulating or undermining others, usually from the shadows, which adds to their potential power.

Merriam-Webster named “gaslighting” the word of the year. Searches for the word on Merriam-Webster.com surged 1,740% in 2022 over the prior year, despite there not being an event that the publisher — known for its dictionaries — could point to as a cause of the spike.

It defines gaslighting as “psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one’s emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.”

The term was coined in a 1938 play, “Gas Light,” a psychological thriller set in Victorian London and written by Patrick Hamilton.

George Cukor’s 1944 film, “Gaslight,” based on the play, further popularized the term. In that film, Gregory (Charles Boyer) tries to convince his wife Paula (Ingrid Bergman) that she has lost her reason. When he turns on the lights in the attic in his search for a treasure trove of hidden jewels, the gaslight flickers in the rest of the house. He tells Paula that she is merely imagining the dimming of the lights.

‘Jerks at work’ or actual gaslighters?

The workplace is fertile ground for such behavior, given what’s at stake: money, power, status, promotion, rivalry and the intrigue that often comes with office politics.

I’m in the business of helping people work out their conflicts at work. In fact, I dedicated a whole chapter in my book, “Jerks at Work,” to gaslighters.

“‘For gaslighters, slow and steady wins the race, and the best ones make friends with their victims first.’”

What has surprised me is how wide-ranging the definition of “gaslighting” has become. Everything from “not respecting personal boundaries” to “talking so much shit about me I couldn’t get hired for two years” seems to fall under the “gaslighting” umbrella.

What I’ve learned from my doom scrolling on social media is that the word “gaslighter” — probably the worst name to bestow on a colleague or boss — seems to refer to anyone who’s done a whole bunch of bad things to us at work, especially things that involve humiliation.

So what really is a gaslighter, and why is it important to distinguish one from, say, a demeaning boss with a chip on their shoulder and a penchant for public shaming?

If we stick to the clinical definition, gaslighters have two signature moves: They lie with the intent of creating a false reality, and they cut off their victims socially.

They position themselves as both savior and underminer, creating a negative and fearful atmosphere, spreading gossip and taking credit for other people’s work. They are often jealous and resentful, and aim to undercut others in order to further their own position.

“ In the workplace, you may also be an unwitting pawn in the gaslighting of another colleague. ”

You may also be an unwitting pawn in the gaslighting of another colleague. The gaslighter might try to convince you that Johnny is trying to steal your leadership role on a project, and encourage you to freeze him out in the cafeteria at lunch time, or simply be extra wary about sharing important information.

For gaslighters, slow and steady wins the race, and the best ones make friends with their victims first. For this reason, it could also be considered a form of workplace harassment.

They often flatter them, make them feel special. Others create a fear of speaking up in their victims by making their position at work seem more precarious than it is. And the lies are complex, coming at you in layers. It takes a long time to realize your status as a victim of gaslighting, and social isolation is a necessary part of this process.

“‘It takes a long time to realize your status as a victim of gaslighting, and social isolation is a necessary part of this process.’”

Take smart action — no direct confrontration

There’s a difference between an annoying coworker or micromanaging boss, and a gaslighter, who lies and conspires to undermine your position. “The gaslighter doesn’t want you to improve or succeed — they’re out to sabotage you,” according to the careers website Monster.com. “They will accuse you of being confused or mistaken, or that you took something they said the wrong way because you are insecure. They might even manipulate paper trails to “prove” they are right.”

Examples cited by Monster.com: “You know you turned in a project, but the gaslighter insists you never gave it to them. You can tell someone has been in your space, moving things around, or even on your computer, but you don’t have proof. You are the only one not included in a team email or meeting invite, or intentionally kept out of the loop. Then when you don’t respond or show up, you are reprimanded.”

Knowing this, what can you do to prevent yourself from becoming a target? First, recognize that gaslighters don’t wear their strategy on their sleeve. Flattery, making you feel like you’re a part of a special club, or questioning your expertise are not things that raise gaslighting alarm bells.

Rather than looking out for mean behavior by a boss or coworker, look out for signs of social isolation. A boss who wants to cut you off from coworkers and other leaders should raise red flags, even if the reason is that “you’re better than them.”

Second, recognize that lie detection is a precarious — and from a scientific perspective, almost impossible — business. Don’t try to become a lie detector, instead take notes, so you can put your “gaslighter” on notice that you are wise to their tactics. You can also use the notes as evidence if you decide to later raise the situation with your human resources department.

Here are some ways to beat the gaslighter: Send emails with “a summary of today’s meeting” so you can document the origin of ideas and make sure they don’t steal credit from you. Furthermore, document things that happened in person, and share it with your would-be gaslighter. And speak up at meetings. Don’t allow yourself to be browbeaten into submission.

The more you document, the more difficult it will be to be victimized. But a word of warning: Don’t try to confront gaslighters — instead, go to your social network to build your reality back up. Trying to beat these folks at their own game is a losing strategy.

Any of these actions, and especially a combination done early in a professional relationship, can work wonders protecting yourself and your career.

Tessa West is a New York University social psychology professor with a particular interest in workplace behavior, and author of “J erks at Work: Toxic Coworkers and What to Do About Them.“

People are seeking a genuine connection with their colleagues’ — one that goes beyond ‘Hollywood Squares’ Zoom meetings. Not all workers are happy with remote work.‘

The backlash to quiet quitting smacks of another attempt by the ruling class to get workers back under their thumbs:’ Am I wrong?

We want to hear from readers who have stories to share about the effects of increasing costs and a changing economy. If you’d like to share your experience, write to [email protected]. Please include your name and the best way to reach you. A reporter may be in touch.

Source link

#Gaslighters #signature #moves #gaslighted #work #Heres #recognize #signs

Pandemic exposes critical gaps in Japan’s health research – Digital Science

Post By Science And Technology community, COVID19, Dimensions

While Japan has weathered the COVID-19 storm better than most, new data shows Japan’s infectious diseases research effort has been lagging behind for years, drawing criticism from the country’s researchers.

“We are standing on the brink of a global crisis in infectious diseases. No country is safe from them. No country can any longer afford to ignore their threat.”

Dr Hiroshi Nakajima (1928–2013) Former Director-General of WHO (1996)

These prophetic words from the late Dr Hiroshi Nakajima headlined the release of the World Health Organization’s World Health Report 1996, warning of “fatal complacency among the international community” and urging preventative action in the face of impending crises for the globe. Just one generation later, all nations globally have been subjected to a one-in-100-year pandemic that has so far killed more than 6.6 million people and infected more than 650 million.

One wonders what Dr Nakajima would say of his home country, Japan, which has fared better during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with most nations, with 52,000 dead among more than 26 million cases (source: Johns Hopkins University). But new data and the voices of key researchers suggest Japan has been ignoring Dr Nakajima’s warning – and the threat – for too long, by not investing enough in infectious diseases research, despite Japan’s economic status and various strengths in research and innovation.

This exclusive analysis – using data from the Dimensions database of 130 million publications and journals included in the Nature Index – builds a picture of how infectious diseases research in Japan has stalled over the last few decades, and in particular in the years leading up to and including the start of the pandemic. It’s data that comes as no surprise to some of Japan’s leading researchers in the field.

“Cancer is king”

Concerns about the level of Japanese government funding for infectious diseases research have been held by scientists in Japan’s top universities, hospitals and research centres for years.

“Cancer is king, and the genome is queen. Infectious disease is just a pathogen,” quips Professor Makoto Suematsu, Dean of the School of Medicine at Keio University, one of Japan’s research hospital universities. Professor Suematsu, who is keenly interested in biology and public health, describes funding in Japan for infectious diseases research as being “very weak” and “very minor”, the majority of which goes to the government-controlled National Institute of Infectious Diseases (NIID) – with not enough to share around.

Exactly why “cancer is king” is a matter of demography. “The Japanese are suffering from an ageing population, so the budget has increased for taking care of old people. The budget for the elderly is huge – imagine it is a watermelon and one seed is the budget for infectious diseases research. But it [ageing] is a big problem – two-thirds of the Japanese population will be over 60 in 2040,” Professor Suematsu says.

He says funding is also hampered by regulations within Japan and a lack of private investment: “Unlike in the UK, there is no Wellcome Trust or similar bodies.

“Only prestigious institutions get funding from the government, so Tokyo University for example gets lots of funding. Keio and other private universities get limited government support so it’s quite tough for staff supporting COVID research.”

His comments are echoed by Dr Norio Ohmagari, Director of Disease Control and Prevention at Japan’s National Center for Global Health and Medicine (NCGM). He also is not surprised to learn that the data shows Japan lagging behind on infectious diseases research.

“There is little interest in infectious diseases in Japanese medical research,” says Dr Ohmagari, who is also Head of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Prevention, Preparedness and Response to Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“I have been an independent infectious disease physician for 18 years now. During this time, however, infectious disease research has been at a low ebb. The development of new drugs has gradually declined in activity.”

Dr Ohmagari confirms that the ageing population’s health is taking priority: “There is a high level of interest in regenerative medicine, genome medicine, cardiovascular disease, which has a large number of patients, lipid disorders and diabetes mellitus.”

Among the indicators of low research activity in the field, Dr Ohmagari points to a lack of collaboration between Japanese infectious disease researchers and colleagues internationally.

“I have the impression that there are not many researchers actively collaborating with foreign countries, perhaps because there are not many researchers in infectious diseases to begin with. Personally, I am conducting research in Vietnam, and I have exchanges and joint clinical trials with researchers in Europe and the United States,” he says.

Professor Masanori Fukushima raises a further issue: the pandemic could have enabled Japanese researchers to better understand the impact on patients, but due to a lack of access to patients at research hospitals this hasn’t been possible on a large scale.

“COVID-19 patients are not concentrated in university hospitals with research capabilities, and the annual number of COVID-19 patients at university hospitals itself is small,” says Professor Fukushima, Representative Director of the Learning Health Society Institute (LHSI) and Professor Emeritus at Kyoto University.

“Patients admitted to university hospitals are referred from other hospitals, seriously ill, and typically emergency cases, making it difficult for university hospitals to establish a system for continuous research on them.

“COVID-19 patients admitted to university hospitals are not treated by specialists in infectious diseases but by specialists in respiratory medicine and cardiology, as respiratory management is the primary treatment for these patients. In addition, hematologists will be in charge of treating patients with thrombosis; COVID-19 is out of the scope of the study due to their expertise (respiratory medicine, cardiology, and hematology).”

Professor Fukushima says that according to the Ministry for Health and Welfare’s policy, patient samples and other data have been concentrated at the NIID, which is under the direct control of the Ministry. “This makes it difficult for university hospitals with research capabilities to plan and develop virological studies,” he says.

He also says that expert advice has also not always been followed. In spring 2021, Professor Fukushima published a paper (Asking about measures to combat the novel coronavirus – Clinical recommendations: COVID-19 control – Critical appraisal and proposals; Rinsho Hyoka (Clinical Evaluation), May 2021) in which he proposed that all strategic and practical measures against COVID-19 in Japan be left to medical associations and university hospitals, and that specialized hospitals be created or designated and patients concentrated there. “Together with Dr Yokokura, the former president of the Japan Medical Association, I submitted the report to the government, the heads of local governments, and the media, but there has been little response so far,” he says.

“Japan used to be at the forefront of vaccination”

Despite these concerns about the lack of support for infectious diseases research, some scientists are quick to point out that Japan has fared relatively well during the pandemic compared with many nations, and in some ways has handled it better.

Professor Suematsu says: “Despite the size of the limited budget, researchers have very actively investigated infectious diseases. Data sharing has been good with COVID, but it should have been much better with infectious diseases.”

One leading researcher who was actively involved in the effort to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in Japan is Professor Hiroaki Kitano, President & CEO of Sony Computer Science Laboratories, Inc. and Professor at Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate School (OIST), who was contacted by the Japanese government to work with the Office for Promotion of Countermeasures against Novel Coronavirus Infections.

Professor Kitano assembled a team of researchers including Dr Makoto Tsubokura of RIKEN who carried out a series of hi-tech simulations to better understand and predict the impact of the contagion on Japanese people within real-world environments, including some important work on the spread of the virus in indoor environments, such as restaurants and bars, and on trains. He has also been involved in international collaborations to produce a global “COVID-19 Disease Map”. See below: Research critical to Japan’s success.

But even Professor Kitano says Japan’s lack of infectious diseases research had impacted on the country’s ability to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. “We’ve failed to create any effective vaccine so far,” he says. “We haven’t got a domestically developed vaccine approved yet – even now.

“Japan used to be at the forefront of vaccination; we had a very strong vaccination program, and very strong companies that would create vaccinations. Many companies have actually withdrawn from the vaccine business, so that has substantially reduced the capability for manufacturing and quick response. At the same time, the research funding for infectious diseases has not been that abundant.”

*Glove dispensers in a Japanese restaurant.*

Perhaps recognizing that it had been slow to develop its own vaccines and needing to catch up, the Japanese government recently pledged US$2 billion for vaccine research against future epidemics.

Professor Kitano’s assessment was that it could take up to three years before Japan has its own approved and manufactured COVID-19 vaccine. On that front, he says: “The game is pretty much over, unless vaccines desired for the next stage of infection control – such as nasal vaccines potentially more effective for infection prevention – are to be developed.”

Nevertheless, Professor Kitano praised the Japanese government for its handling of vaccine contracts with the major pharmaceutical companies, and for its leadership in appointing Mr Taro Kono as a Minister in charge of vaccinations. “I think the end result is that their actions saved many people’s lives – I’m sure of that,” he says.

Japan falls behind – what the data shows

In early 2022, data from Nature Index and Dimensions started to point to a disparity in Japan’s reputation as one of the world’s leaders in research, with the amount of research focusing on infectious diseases surprisingly low compared to other leading nations. Furthermore, it was dramatically lower in the case of COVID-19.

But Japan itself is highly regarded for its research, so how did this occur?

Stung by criticism of the lack of research funds by high-profile researchers such as 2012 Nobel Prize winner Shinya Yamanaka – and perhaps cognisant of league tables that show Japan slipping behind arch-rivals South Korea and China in publications – the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) announced a major overhaul of research funding in 2017, followed up in 2020 with the establishment of a ¥4.5 trillion (US$43 billion) fund for research. However, researchers such as Yamanaka have pointed out that funding allocation can be mixed, with some areas losing out over other hot topics.

When we look at how these factors play out on the world stage, we can see in data from Nature Index that Japan’s overall research output had been in steady decline from 2015-2019. It saw a rise in 2020 but resumed its decline in 2021 and into 2022. (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: All research outputs from Japan 2015-2021 that are tracked by Nature Index. (2022 data is for a 12-month period to 30 September 2022.) Output is measured by Japan’s share of authorship of articles in the index.

Data derived from Dimensions shows that while Japan ranked fifth in the world in terms of all article outputs in 2019-2021 (see Figure 2), it was ranked below 11th globally for infectious diseases articles (Figure 3).

All research articles in Dimensions (2019-2021)

United States	2,357,592
China	2,141,367
United Kingdom	729,785
Germany	612,787
Japan	568,577
India	565,016
Italy	402,965
Russia	400,272
Canada	388,198
France	383,458

Figure 2: World ranking of all research outputs from 2019-2021. (Source: Dimensions.)

All infectious diseases publications* in Dimensions (2019-2021)

United States	179,465
China	74,010
United Kingdom	61,122
India	42,280
Italy	33,113
Germany	26,830
Brazil	26,053
Canada	25,252
France	24,312
Spain	23,013
Australia	22,557
Japan	18,737

Figure 3: World ranking of all infectious diseases research outputs from 2019-2021. (Source: Dimensions.)
* includes articles, preprints and conference proceedings.

To put Japan’s research output across all areas in context, between the years 2015 and 2021 Japan accounted for 3.8% of total publications with nearly 1.3 million according to Dimensions data, making it the fifth biggest in the world in terms of output. However, while this position rises to fourth when it comes to cancer research with 5.5% of publications, it drops markedly to below 11th for infectious disease research, accounting for only 2.5%, and this drops to 2% when we look at just the last two years in 2020 and 2021 (see Figure 4).

Japan 2015-2021 – publications* and rank

Field	Japan Publications	Global Total	% of Global	Rank
All fields	1,279,452	34,108,770	3.8	5th
Cancer	105,924	1,926,313	5.5	4th
Infectious Disease	31,613	1,268,300	2.5	<11th
Infectious Diseases (2020-21 only)	15,206	745,496	2.0	<11th

Figure 4: Global ranking and comparison of all Japanese publications, compared with publications about cancer and infectious diseases. (Source: Dimensions.)
* includes articles, preprints and conference proceedings.

When we flesh this out with the performance of other countries in related areas, we can see that while China, the UK and Germany have surged ahead in recent years when it comes the output of research across 90 different infectious diseases in Nature Index (tracked in Dimensions), Japan has fallen behind the likes of Switzerland and The Netherlands. Even more starkly, it has failed to match the huge spikes in coronavirus-related research seen in other major industrialized countries (in Figure 5, the US has been removed due to it being so far ahead).

Figure 5: Global comparison (excluding the US) of infectious diseases research articles. (Source: Nature Index journals, tracked in Dimensions. NB articles tracked in Nature Index journals in Dimensions include review articles and news, whereas in Nature Index only primary research articles are tracked. But the trends for articles in Nature Index journals are very similar to the trends for Nature Index).

The search strings used to draw out infectious disease articles from Nature Index journals in Dimensions were based on those used in the 2021 Nature Index supplement on infectious disease: https://www.nature.com/nature-index/supplements/nature-index-2021-infectious-disease/tables/dimensions-search-strings

As stated earlier, while much of the Japanese government’s funding for infectious diseases research is directed to the National Institute of Infectious Disease (NIID), and despite being regarded as one of the top institutions in Japan for infectious diseases by Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW), NIID does not even appear in the top 10 of Japanese institutions by number of publications on COVID in 2020 and 2021, with only 287 articles out of a total of 14,960 articles for Japan – or only 1.9% of the country’s output – while the University of Tokyo had 1,417 articles or 10% of overall publications.

Patents pending?

Further to the earlier criticism about Japan’s reduced vaccine development capacity, by exploring data of patents recorded during the first two calendar years of the pandemic we can see that Japan’s activity has mirrored that of its research performance, ranking 11th in the total number of COVID-19 patents recorded. The countries and regions ahead of it, however, are quite different, with South Korea, India and Taiwan all well ahead of Japan (see Figure 6).

COVID-19 patents recorded in Dimensions (2020-2021)

United States	7,254
China	4,326
South Korea	1,883
India	1,600
Germany	804
Spain	524
United Kingdom	521
Taiwan	421
Canada	403
France	359
Japan	346

Figure 6: World ranking of all COVID-19-related patents recorded, 2020-2021. (Source: Dimensions.)

“We must prepare for the next pandemic.”

While COVID-19 isn’t showing any signs of going away, what lessons can Japan learn from its experience? And what does the future hold for its infectious diseases research and collaborations?

The recent announcement of a concerted vaccination research program to protect against future epidemics in Japan will see a US$2 billion injection of funds into this critical area, which is no doubt welcome news. And while the experts say there needs to be increased government funding for research, that’s not their sole focus.

Dr Ohmagari says despite the lack of infectious diseases research being conducted in Japan, the country already has a good base to build upon. “I think the level of Japanese research on infectious diseases, especially basic research, is high by global standards. However, epidemiological and clinical research is not so active. The number of researchers is small,” he says.

The pandemic might already be spurring on that change: “In recent years, young researchers have gradually become interested in clinical and research work on infectious diseases. I hope that they will quickly build up their strength and produce results.”

Professor Suematsu says Japan must learn from the research and healthcare systems in place in other countries. In particular, he’s “very impressed” with the UK’s approach to foster researchers with integrated biotechnology training, something he says “has never happened in Japan”. He also envies the UK government’s central information overview and a network of data sharing.

Professor Kitano agrees that improved data sharing needs to be an outcome from the pandemic. He also proposes that the government pool all of its experts and learn from their collective experience, “in case the next thing comes”.

“That structure is yet to be seen but I am proposing that we need to have this – a group of people who have gone through this kind of ‘wartime emergency’ and understand how chaotic things can be.”

He says this group would be “more of a permanent structure, to provide the government with expert advice next time we have a pandemic”.

“There is a stronger awareness that Japan may need to do better on this front for the benefit of the population,” he says.

Dr Ohmagari says Japan needs to be ready now for what’s next. “COVID-19 has revealed that there is room for improvement in research and development in the field of infectious diseases in Japan. We must prepare for the next pandemic,” he says.

“We have already started to build a system in terms of policy in Japan. However, the same problem was pointed out after the 2009 pandemic influenza, but no measures had been taken. We must reflect on this. We must continue to promote these policies without interruption.

“This will require political will backed by a deep understanding of the public. And our generation of researchers must do our best to ensure that this trend will never be halted,” he says.

In the words of the late Dr Nakajima, Japan must learn the lessons of its past or risk “fatal complacency”.

In his book How to Prevent the Next Pandemic, Bill Gates suggests some harsh lessons the world should learn from its collective experience of COVID-19. Gates had famously published a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2015 expressing concern a worldwide pandemic could cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars. While Gates is critical of much of what happened before and during the pandemic, he reserves praise for some countries’ handling of the chaos. In particular he singles out Japan, referring to the country as the “King of masks”. Japan’s cultural differences have been its salvation.

In 2022, the world has, for the most part, tried to move on from the COVID-19 pandemic. In many countries, to walk around the streets of busy cities now, one would hardly notice that something so monumental had happened. One or two people wearing masks and some faded signs on shop windows pointing out abandoned policies for customers are all that is left of those days not so long ago when towns and cities were under lockdown.

In Japan, however, things are different. While restrictions are easing, many rules are still in effect, and mask-wearing is ubiquitous. Measures such as plastic panels between diners in restaurants and donning of plastic gloves when collecting food at buffets still persist in Tokyo and other major cities – measures that were ditched long ago in other countries, if they were ever adopted in the first place. Japan and its strict procedures have received more coverage than most in the global media, thanks in part to its relatively good record on COVID-19, but also because it hosted the single biggest global event of 2021 in the shape of the Tokyo Olympics, delayed from 2020 at the height of the pandemic, and held with hardly any spectators from outside Japan. The resolute approach to put on the Games no matter what and the mandate of strict adherence to social distancing and other measures meant that Japan was put under a huge amount of scrutiny in the Western media, intrigued about how the country and its government approached the event.

When it came to a critical test, the stereotypical image of Japan as an ordered, disciplined population, one that is prepared to comply with restrictions, has worked in its favour. Like many countries, Japan has also seen protests and political backlash. And like many, Japan has also been hit with additional waves of infections, continuing to test its resolve.

Despite criticism of a lack of research into infectious diseases and COVID-19 in Japan, the country also saw some outstanding examples of scientific and technological knowhow, helping to safeguard the community.

Professor Hiroaki Kitano, President and CEO of Sony Computer Science Laboratories Inc., played a central role in the early days of the pandemic to better understand the spread of the virus and how it could be protected against.

Professor Kitano was able to use the modelling his teams had produced to show the startling impact preventative measures had on the spread of the disease. In two areas – confined spaces, such as a karaoke bar (see image and video), and mask-wearing – Professor Kitano was able to show the efficacy of certain restrictions that could massively reduce infection of COVID-19 and its variants. This helped to justify lockdown procedures but also supported a measured opening up of society with certain behavioural guidelines, such as maintaining contact within your own community – known as the “Stay with your community” campaign in late 2021.

He also demonstrated an optimal vaccination strategy that was implemented during late spring to fall of 2021 possibly resulted in very low COVID-19 cases in Japan in the fall of 2021.

The ability of Professor Kitano and his colleagues in Japan in translating the data they had collected and impacting policy may have been crucial in keeping the number of deaths so low since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic; even more remarkable in an environment in which the country has faced declining levels of funding and publications in infectious disease research.

About Dimensions

Part of Digital Science, Dimensions is a modern, innovative, linked research data infrastructure and tool, re-imagining discovery and access to research: grants, publications, citations, clinical trials, patents and policy documents in one place. www.dimensions.ai

About Nature Index

The Nature Index is a database of author affiliations and institutional relationships. The index tracks contributions to research articles published in 82 high-quality natural-science journals, chosen by an independent group of researchers.

The Nature Index provides absolute and fractional counts of article publication at the institutional and national level and, as such, is an indicator of global high-quality research output and collaboration. Data in the Nature Index are updated regularly, with the most recent 12 months made available under a Creative Commons licence at natureindex.com. The database is compiled by Nature Portfolio, part of Springer Nature.

Image credits:
Main image: Masked commuters in Osaka, Japan. Source: Stock image.
Face masks on sale in Japan. Source: David Swinbanks.
Glove dispensers in a Japanese restaurant. Source: David Swinbanks.
Masked geisha dolls. Source: Rafael Randy Cardoso Garcia.
COVID-19 test and Tokyo 2020 Games concept. Source: Stock image.
Masked commuters in Tokyo, Japan. Source: Stock image.

**Simon Linacre**, Head of Content, Brand & Press | Digital Science

Simon has 20 years’ experience in scholarly communications. He has lectured and published on the topics of bibliometrics, publication ethics and research impact, and has recently authored a book on predatory publishing. Simon is also a COPE Trustee and ALPSP tutor, and holds Masters degrees in Philosophy and International Business. He lived and worked in Japan for three years in the 1990s.

**David Ellis**, Press, PR & Social Manager | Digital Science

David has 30 years’ experience in media and communications. With a background in broadcast journalism, his career focus has been in research communication – including science, health science and medicine – spanning 25 years of service in the university sector. His experience also includes both internal and external communications in the health and manufacturing sectors.

**David Swinbanks**, Chairman | Springer Nature Australia & NZ

David is Chairman for Springer Nature in Australia and New Zealand and Founder of Nature Index. He is also a Senior Advisor to Digital Science. Following a postdoc in deep-sea research at Tokyo University, David began his career with Nature as Tokyo Correspondent in 1986 and established Nature Japan KK in 1987 with two Japanese colleagues, which expanded to 120 employees by 2012 spanning the Asia-Pacific region.

Source link

#Pandemic #exposes #critical #gaps #Japans #health #research #Digital #Science

Financial Face-off: Should you opt for a high-deductible health plan with lower monthly costs?

Post By Stock accounting, Accounting/Consulting, article_normal, business, Business/Consumer Services, C&E Executive News Filter, C&E Industry News Filter, commentary, Commentary/Opinion, community, consulting, Consumer Affairs, Consumer Products, consumer services, Content Types, corporate, Corporate/Industrial News, Factiva Filters, Financial Services, general news, Health, Health/Medical Insurance, industrial news, Insurance, labor, Labor/Personnel Issues, lifestyle, living, Living/Lifestyle, medical insurance, Non-life Insurance, opinion, personnel issues, political, Political/General News, society, Society/Community

Hello and welcome to Financial Face-off, a MarketWatch column where we help you weigh financial decisions. Our columnist will give her verdict. Tell us whether you think she’s right in the comments. And please share your suggestions for future Financial Face-off columns by emailing our columnist at [email protected].

It’s the time of year to sign up for a new health insurance plan, either through an employer or through the government’s Health Insurance Marketplace.

The decision may feel especially fraught this year. High inflation, layoffs and a potential recession are weighing on people’s minds and finances. Americans have been tightening their budgets and may be looking for ways to save money on their health-insurance costs. One way to do that, at least in terms of upfront costs, could be to sign up for a high-deductible health plan. These plans typically have lower monthly costs (premiums), but they have higher deductibles, or, the amount of money that you have to pay out of your own pocket before the insurance kicks in to cover healthcare costs.

So is this the year to try to save some cash by signing up for a high-deductible health plan?

Why it matters

It’s no secret that healthcare is expensive in the U.S., but the language of health insurance often obscures that reality with euphemisms such as “cost-sharing,” “coinsurance,” “copay” and “deductible.” Here’s a quick translation: if you see one of those terms, just mentally replace it with a dollar sign, because it means you will be paying money.

Choosing a healthcare plan is important. Medical bills can strain a household’s finances, and healthcare debt is very common. More than half (57%) of Americans have incurred debt caused by a medical or dental expense in the last five years, according to a nationally representative survey released in June by KFF, an independent nonprofit that researches healthcare issues.

One of the survey’s more troubling findings was that even people who have health insurance fall into debt, with more than four in 10 insured adults reporting that they currently had health-related debt.

In other words, the decision about which health-insurance plan to choose can have far-reaching unintended consequences.

How much can you expect to pay for health insurance? If you get yours through your job, it depends on several factors including the size of your company and the age of its workforce. On average, workers with employer-based health insurance paid $6,106 per year toward family coverage and $1,327 for individual coverage, according to KFF. People at smaller companies typically have higher premiums and bigger deductibles.

The federal government defines a high-deductible health plan as one with a deductible of at least $1,400 for an individual and $2,800 for a family.

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) often — but not always — come with a health savings account (HSA) where people can store money tax-free to pay for medical expenses.

“ ‘Medical debt really can be the gift that keeps on giving.’”

— Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at KFF

HDHPs have lower premiums, but are they more affordable in the long run than traditional health plans? ValuePenguin compared HDHPs vs. traditional plans in three scenarios and found that the HDHP plan holder would end up paying more overall than the traditional plan holder if they had medical expenses of $5,000 or $10,000 in a year.

However, the HDHP holder had lower overall costs than the traditional plan holder if their medical expenses were $1,000. “But banking on such an outcome — and such low need for medical care — can be a gamble in an unpredictable world,” ValuePenguin wrote.

The verdict

If you can pay the higher monthly costs, avoid a high-deductible health plan.

My reasons

“It’s very difficult to accurately predict what your healthcare needs are going to be for the coming year. And for that reason, it’s a good idea to sign up for the most comprehensive plan option that you can afford,” said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at KFF. Buying the cheapest option can open you up to the possibility that something is going to happen — you’ll get hit by a car, find a lump — and then “you’re going to find out the hard way how much your plan doesn’t cover and what you’re going to owe out of pocket,” Pollitz said.

As the KFF survey found, medical debt is common even among people with health insurance, she noted. “There are lots of reasons for that, but high deductibles are one culprit,” Pollitz said.

That debt can have serious long-term consequences, including wrecking your credit score or forcing you to cut back on other household expenses including essentials like groceries, utilities, and rent. You may even get into a situation where doctors refuse to treat you if you’re not paying your bills on time, leading you to delay needed health care. “Medical debt really can be the gift that keeps on giving,” Pollitz said, referencing the ongoing negative impacts on people’s finances.

Is my verdict best for you?

On the other hand, HDHPs with health savings accounts attached to them can make good financial sense for “one group,” Pollitz said: people who are “wealthy enough to need a tax-preferred savings mechanism” and can afford to pay whatever health costs may arise. “Partners in law firms usually sign up for them, but the associates and secretaries usually would prefer not to,” she added.

Health savings accounts (HSAs) are a great way to grow wealth over time, said Eric Roberge, a certified financial planner and founder of Beyond Your Hammock, a Boston-based fee-only financial planning firm. “You get to contribute pre-tax dollars, and any growth on the money you invest within the HSA is tax-free as well,” he told MarketWatch. “If you withdraw money and use it on qualified medical expenses, that is also tax-free. It’s the only account that provides this triple tax advantage.” After age 65, you can use your HSA money for anything, not just medical expenses, but you will have to pay taxes on the withdrawals.

A high-deductible health plan with an HSA can work well if you are young, and healthy and don’t incur a lot of medical costs. But if you use medical services frequently or have a lot of high-cost prescriptions, for example, this might not be the best option, because the cost of the high-deductible health plan might not be worth the access to the HSA, Roberge noted. “For folks who can manage their healthcare bills without issue while they’re earning an income from their job and don’t usually have a lot of medical costs each year, opting for the HDHP can not only save you on premiums each year, but it also gives you a chance to grow wealth for the long-term in a highly tax-advantaged way via an HSA,” Roberge said.

Source link

#Financial #Faceoff #opt #highdeductible #health #plan #monthly #costs

Cart