All posts by: Magazine Editor


In the Work-From-Home Battle for Space, Women Are the Reluctant Nomads

By Elizabeth Patton, assistant professor, Media and Communication Studies, UMBC

It’s just past 10 a.m. and my partner, on his third virtual meeting today, is working non-stop in our home office. My son has taken over the family room to attend a virtual science camp and video-editing classes and to play video games. I now realize that this will be his work space to attend distance learning classes in the fall.

For this reason, each morning, I find myself carrying my laptop and tea around my house trying to find a quiet place to work. Before the pandemic, I never needed a dedicated space at home for work. But now I’m faced with teaching online this fall and won’t have access to my campus office, which closed in March.

With Google announcing that its 200,000 employees can work from home until June 2021 – and Twitter, Square and Slack announcing that employees could still continue working remotely after the pandemic ends – I’m sure others find themselves in the same boat of not having their own dedicated professional workspace.

And as I explain in my recent book on the social history of the home office, historically, it’s been women who have been the ones left searching for space.

The emergence of the ‘chamber room’

To better understand the makeshift nature of workspaces in the home – and why the spaces are often gendered – it’s important to look at how the home office first emerged as a distinct space.

In the 18th century, three separate spheres of domestic activity started to appear in middle-class and wealthy single-family homes. There was a social area for hosting guests, such as dining and living rooms; a service zone, which included the kitchen, cellar and laundry areas; and a sleeping area, which was the most private part of the house.

What we now call the home office emerged from generically named “chamber” rooms used by both men and women prior to the 19th century. The majority of the chamber rooms were later simply labeled “bedrooms” on builders’ floor plans. However, beginning in the 19th century, some of these spaces depicted on floor plans were interchangeably referred to as the library, den or study.

By the late 19th century, the study became primarily a space reserved for male professionals to conduct business at home, indulge in scholarly pursuits and entertain friends. For example, clergy, merchants and doctors needed a study or “interview room” because their work was more likely to be conducted at home.

The study was often separated from the private zones of the house and placed as close to the front door as possible – in the home’s social zone – to maintain family privacy.

But then, in the early 20th century, the study largely disappeared from standard, middle-class homes, which were getting smaller, remaining only in houses built for upper-middle-class professionals, creative professionals and the wealthy.

Selling the idea of working from home

Even though the study was a male space for leisure and occasional work, the home was largely seen – and championed – as a place that fostered family life.

Yet companies that sold office supplies saw the home as an untapped market. All they needed to do was convince Americans that being able to work from home was a form of convenience. Through advertisements, these companies encouraged Americans to create distinct spaces for work that needed to be properly outfitted with office equipment.

An advertisement for a portable typerwriter depicts women huddling around a man typing.
An early ad for the portable typewriter. Remington Rand Papers: Advertising and Sales Promotion Department—Typewriter Division; Hagley Museum, Wilmington, Del., Author provided

For example, in 1921, Remington Rand began marketing portable typewriters, with advertisements that tried to sell consumers on the idea of flexibility and the ability to work in the comfort of one’s home. And in the 1950s, Bell Telephone teamed up with the builders of middle-class homes to market the installation of additional telephone lines as a way to combine work and leisure under one roof.

When PCs replaced typewriters, computer companies such as Apple and IBM geared their ads towards professionals, depicting their products as tools that would allow them to telecommute, run a business out of the home or make it easier for their kids to complete homework.

Separate but unequal spaces

As these technologies started appearing in more and more homes, families started to wonder where to put them.

Popular culture offered some models. In the sitcom “Leave It to Beaver,” the study of the father, Ward Cleaver, is equipped with bookshelves, a globe, two leather chairs, a desk and a telephone. It’s a place where Ward occasionally works from home in the evening and relaxes during the weekend.

By then, however, most middle-class homes lacked studies.

Furthermore, during the postwar period, typewriter and telephone companies didn’t just advertise their products to men. They also sought to entice middle-class women into using their products to better manage tasks like corresponding with schools, insurance brokers and doctors, as well as keeping family records and paying bills. However, unlike men, women’s workspaces in advertisements, newspapers and on television were often depicted as a planning desk in the kitchen or as a little desk in the master bedroom. Rarely, if ever, did they have their own space.

Where to put office equipment was another issue. Placing it in the master bedroom interfered with the perceived functions of the bedroom: intimacy and relaxation. A PC in the living room competed with the television, while office equipment in the kitchen or dining room impeded the ability to work uninterrupted by other family members. For these reasons, advertisements and computing magazines in the 1980s began to recommend new spaces dedicated exclusively to PCs, such as the home office or a “hobby room.”

The home office works well as a quiet room to concentrate and work, but in homes that do have one – and when both partners are at home, as is increasingly the case – that space often defaults to the man.

In the end, all those companies’ advertising dollars paid off. We were working from home in greater numbers before the pandemic, and the number has since risen as offices around the country shuttered. But we’re still stuck with the same issues of too much work and not enough space to do it – with women often getting the short end of the stick.

*****

Elizabeth Patton, Assistant Professor of Media and Communication Studies, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

Header image: Ward Cleaver of the popular sitcom ‘Leave It to Beaver’ in his study. Universal Pictures

Rapid Screening Tests That Prioritize Speed Over Accuracy Could Be Key to Ending the Coronavirus Pandemic

By Zoë McLaren, associate professor, Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Broad access to testing is one of the most powerful tools to keep the COVID-19 pandemic under control until there’s an effective vaccine in use. Diagnostic testing, which is used in medical settings to determine whether someone is infected with the coronavirus, is costly, slow and overstretched in the U.S. But that’s not the only type of test that can be used.

I study public health policy to combat infectious disease epidemics. To slow the spread of the virus, public health programs need to catch more COVID-19 cases and catch them before they spread. Innovative screening tests offer promise because they are inexpensive, rapid, easily mass produced and don’t require laboratory processing. They can be implemented at large scale for frequent testing in schools, workplaces, airports and even at home. With screening tests, huge numbers of people could be tested regularly and contagious people would be identified before they could spread the virus far and wide.

What is screening testing?

Ideally, the U.S. could provide frequent, accurate diagnostic testing to the whole population, but diagnostic capacity is struggling to keep up with demand. Screening tests make it possible to test large groups of people frequently, including those without any symptoms.

Screening tests are designed to work in a similar way to the X-ray screening of carry-on baggage at airports. X-ray screening is imperfect – some harmless items may prompt a more thorough search and some dangerous items might slip through – but it is fast enough to screen every bag and good enough to catch the majority of potential weapons.

The key, for any screening test, is that it must have a consistent rate of false positives and false negatives. If the user knows exactly how accurate it is, then they can correctly interpret their likelihood of having COVID-19. The Food and Drug Administration generally verifies the test accuracy during the approval process, but it could also be done by another government agency.

Two teachers standing with masks on checking students for fever with temperatures guns
Temperature checks are one form of screening, but miss many COVID-19 cases since 40% of infected people are asymptomatic. AP Photo/LM Otero, File

Many fields of public health employ screening test strategies. For example, thermometer-based screening was used during the SARS and Ebola epidemics. Unfortunately, temperature checks miss a lot of COVID-19 cases because an estimated 40% of people with COVID-19 show no symptoms at all. Many COVID-19 reopening plans incorporate temperature checks since they will catch some cases, but a better screening method is needed.

Which tests work for COVID-19 screening?

Several COVID-19 screening tests that cost $1 to $5 each and give a result in around 15 minutes have been developed, and many more are in the pipeline. These tests don’t require a laboratory and can be processed on-site. Many use antigen-based testing, which detects specific proteins on the surface of the virus.

Screening tests come in many different forms. The FDA recently granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to Quidel and BD for antigen tests that use a small portable point-of-care machine to process samples. Though Quidel reports accuracy rates above 95%, the FDA cautions that the rate could be lower because the test hasn’t undergone the full FDA approval process.

One of the most versatile options for testing is the saliva-based paper-strip test, which only requires a paper strip and a test tube. It could easily be used at home.

A man inserting a swab into his mouth while holding tube to contain the sample.
A good screening test could be done at home and give results within minutes. Circle Creative Studio/E+ via Getty Images

Moderately accurate screening tests still reduce transmission

Many inexpensive COVID-19 screening tests may not be as accurate as diagnostic tests. But screening tests with even moderate levels of accuracy can actually still effectively slow the spread of the virus, as long as the results are interpreted correctly.

Here’s how this works.

First, frequent testing catches the vast majority of cases. Someone who is infected but gets a false-negative and slips through the cracks is likely to be caught the next time they’re tested. For a test that misses 20% of positive cases, the chance of an infected person getting two false negatives in a row may be as low as 4%. It’s like bailing a boat with a leaky bucket: You just have to bail more quickly to get the job done.

Second, most people who get false-negative results are unlikely to be contagious. Antigen-based screening tests are good at detecting the high virus levels needed to be contagious. By design, screening tests sacrifice accuracy where it matters least to achieve low costs, speed and ease of use.

Finally, those who get a screening test need to know how to interpret the results. Diagnostic tests can tell you whether you’re infected with a high level of certainty. An inexpensive screening test is not as certain, but is still useful. For example, a positive result would mean that you have a high chance of being contagious, in which case you may want to take a diagnostic test for confirmation and quarantine if possible in the meantime. A negative result would mean that you have a low chance of being contagious, but it couldn’t be ruled out. In this case, it would still be important to stay vigilant about COVID-19 transmission.

While screening tests are not as accurate as diagnostic tests, they are a big improvement over flying blind because they provide useful information about whether someone is contagious. The weather report may not be able to tell you with certainty whether it will rain or not, but it can tell you whether it’s a good idea to bring an umbrella.

A view of a pane of glass with the FDA logo on it with the FDA building in the background
Currently, the FDA has few approval pathways for COVID-19 screening tests, which is a barrier to widespread use. AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File

What’s preventing widespread use of screening tests?

Several companies are ready to scale up production of screening tests. The primary barrier is the delay in government approval. It’s difficult for screening tests like saliva-based paper-strip tests to achieve the performance required for approval as a COVID-19 diagnostic test while remaining inexpensive and easy enough to allow for widespread and frequent testing. By creating new approval pathways specifically for screening tests, the FDA or another government agency could quickly put more of these tests into use.

Those who see the potential of rapid screening tests are already taking action. A group of governors plan to secure rapid tests that have been granted an Emergency Use Authorization without waiting for full FDA approval. This will make it easier for those states to get back to in-person school and work safely. It is no exaggeration to say that innovative screening tests are a game-changing tool to fight the coronavirus and keep it at bay.

*****

Zoë McLaren, Associate Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

[Research into coronavirus and other news from science Subscribe to The Conversation’s new science newsletter.]

Header image: Vaidas Bucys/EyeEm via Getty Images

Why Does Some Rain Fall Harder Than Other Rain?

By Jeffrey B. Halverson, professor, Geography & Environmental Systems, Associate Dean of the Graduate School, UMBC

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.


Why does some rain fall harder than other rain?
– Naomi B., age 9, San Francisco, California


There are some days when the rain falls peacefully and gently, nourishing the Earth. But on some other days the rain comes down in a torrential downpour that meteorologists like me call a cloudburst. Standing outside in one of these intense rainstorms can feel like being smothered in a heavy, wet towel. These storms can flood the lands below them and lead to great destruction.

So what causes this difference?

All rain comes from a combination of two things: moisture in the air – usually in the form of clouds – and currents of air moving upwards. As moist air rises up through a cloud, the air cools and the water in it turns into tiny raindrops.

This is the same thing that happens when you can see your breath on a cold evening. The temperature change from warm to cool causes water droplets to form in your breath.

In a cloud, these tiny raindrops are very light and float as the rising air pushes them up. But the higher they go, the larger and heavier they get. Eventually, they get so heavy that they fall to the Earth as rain.

People cross a street holding umbrellas and in long coats during a winter storm in Philadelphia.
All-day drizzles come from steady storms that don’t have much upward wind flow. AP Photo/Matt Rourke

Cold air storms are steady and slow

Cold air can hold much less moisture than warm air, so wintertime clouds don’t have much water in them; they are thin and layered rather than puffy and tall and full of water.

Since cold air likes to sink to the ground, it’s difficult to get that air to rise quickly, so these wintertime clouds have only gentle upward air currents. As these slow currents sweep up through the thin clouds that don’t have much moisture, small raindrops form. Gravity easily pulls them down against the air current before they get too big. When clouds are thin and the air is moving slowly, you get nice calm rain.

A large mushroom shaped cloud formation against a blue sky in New Mexico
Massive thunderstorms called supercells can form when the right weather ingredients come together. Greg Lundeen/NOAA

Thunderstorms and big winter storms are quick and intense

Hard rainstorms happen when there is a lot of moisture in the air and the air moves upwards very fast. Summer thunderstorms are the perfect example.

The warm, moist air rises very quickly – like a hot air balloon – and can be moving as fast as 30 to 40 miles per hour. The air also holds much more moisture than winter clouds – up to five times as much.

All of this creates very tall, thick clouds that are full of moisture. Water droplets form quickly as the air moves up through the clouds. But since the wind is blowing upwards so fast, the droplets can get huge before gravity drags them down to Earth. When the weight of all the water droplets gets to be too much for the wind, the wind current collapses, and all the raindrops in the cloud come crashing down at once. These are summer thunderstorms.

Thunderstorms can drop one, two or even three inches of rain in less than an hour. These sudden torrential downpours, called cloudbursts, can lead to flash flooding that can overflow streams and roads and trap people wherever they are.

Thankfully, because thunderstorms are so violent and relatively small, they don’t last very long. Once the rain falls from the clouds and squashes the upward air currents, the clouds disappear and you often see a nice blue sky.

Of course, winter can deliver some strong storms too – especially over the warmer ocean water. When strong winter storms drop lots of heavy rain, the same principles are at work: lots of moisture in the air, fast upwards wind currents and tall clouds.

No two rainstorms are ever the same. Sometimes clouds can rain so hard it feels like you are standing in the shower. Other times they bring only a nice peaceful drizzle. Now, whether you are soaked or singing in the rain, you’ll know why.


Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.

Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

Jeffrey B. Halverson, Professor of Geography & Environmental Systems, Associate Dean of the Graduate School, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Header image: David Pinzer Photography/Moment via Getty Images

[The Conversation’s science, health and technology editors pick their favorite stories. Weekly on Wednesdays.]

Yes, most workers can collect more in coronavirus unemployment than they earn – but that doesn’t mean Congress should cut the $600 supplement

By David Salkever, professor emeritus of Public Policy, UMBC

Americans who lost their jobs because of the pandemic had been getting a US$600 bump on top of state benefits in their weekly unemployment checks since March. That ended on July 31, and lawmakers are debating whether to extend the program and if so by how much.

Senate Republicans are arguing it’s too generous to the 18 million who are unemployed and serves as a disincentive to returning to work. Their initial proposal in the ongoing negotiations would slash the benefit to $200 a week.

As an empirical economist, I wanted to see if their concerns about the disincentive were valid. So I analyzed data on earnings and unemployment benefits to estimate the share of benefit-eligible workers who could collect more on the dole than on the job.

Replacement wages

I started my analysis by looking at 2019 Current Population Survey data to estimate weekly earnings of private-sector employees, both nationally and state by state. I then adjusted the numbers for wage inflation and compared the results with jobless benefits and “replacement wages,” which vary from state to state.

Iowa is the most generous and replaces 49% of a worker’s weekly wages with a cash benefit when he or she loses a job involuntarily, while Alaska is the stingiest and replaces only 28% of income. I estimated that on average the replacement rate for all workers in the U.S. was about a third.

Once the $600 federal supplement is added in, the national average wage replacement rate soars to 127%. On an individual basis, I found that 56% of eligible workers would receive more in benefits than they would earn gainfully employed. Among those workers, the average excess benefit was $253.

This figure also varies in each state, depending on replacement rates as well as average weekly earnings. For example, benefits exceed their earnings for little more than a third of workers in Washington, D.C., while that figure is 75% in New Mexico.

If Congress passes a lower federal supplement of $200, the result would drastically change the picture. As a result, I estimate only 9.5% of workers across the country would receive more in benefits than what they could earn – on average about $61 – and the replacement rate would drop by half to about 65%.

The Republican plan would eventually have the $200 supplement replaced with a system that provides workers with a combined state and federal benefit equal to a replacement rate of 70%. The federal share would be capped at $500.

Why $600 is still important

While Republicans are right that the $600 jobless benefit may seem high, that alone does not mean it should be cut.

The unemployment insurance program started in 1935 soon after the Great Depression ended with two major objectives: to provide temporary partial wage replacement to unemployed workers and to help stimulate the economy during recessions.

The second objective is important. With the U.S. economy sinking into recession, a more generous supplement acts as a powerful stimulus. Consumer spending makes up more than 70% of the economy, and most of those who receive the benefit will spend it quickly. This powerful and ongoing jolt would help revive the economy – or at least keep it alive – as well as offset worries that economic inequality will soar as a result of the pandemic.

In addition, unemployment insurance only replaces wages. A job often comes with other benefits, such as health insurance and retirement plans. Even full-time service workers in the private sector, who as a group earn less than $15 per hour in wages, receive an average of $1.99 per hour in employer-paid insurance, mostly for health care.

Overall, non-cash job benefits amount on average to 19% of total employee pay. Factoring in that non-cash dollar value reduces the average replacement rate to 108% and lowers the share of employees receiving excess benefits from 56% to 43%.

Finally, employment insurance works in a way that limits its ability to act as a disincentive to work. People who quit their jobs voluntarily are ineligible for benefits. And someone without a job who receives a suitable offer of employment is no longer eligible to continue receiving benefits. That’s one explanation cited in a recent study by Yale economists that found no evidence that the $600 federal supplement reduced employment.

Altogether, I find Republican concerns that the $600 supplement dissuades work unpersuasive in the context of the current pandemic. A generous policy that helps support the economy and aids those at risk of losing their homes or struggling to feed their families seems more sensible than one that assumes someone collecting unemployment benefits could just as easily be working.

*****

David Salkever, Professor Emeritus of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

Header image: The $600 federal jobless benefit expired on July 31. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Parents with Children Forced to Do School at Home Are Drinking More

By Susan Sonnenschein, professor, Applied Development Psychology, UMBC and Elyse R. Grossman, M.P.P. ’08, Ph.D. ’14, public policy, policy fellow, Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

The big idea

We found that parents who are stressed by having to help their children with distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic drink seven more drinks per month than parents who do not report feeling stressed by distance learning. These stressed parents are also twice as likely to report binge drinking at least once over the prior month than parents who are not stressed, according to our results. Binge drinking, which varies by gender, is when women consume at least four, or men have at least five alcoholic beverages (which includes beer, wine, or liquor) within a couple hours of each other.

We learned this from our online survey, which 361 parents with children under 18 years old currently living with them completed in May 2020. Seventy-eight percent of the parents had children who did distance learning in the Spring of 2020. Of those, 66% reported that the experience caused them stress because they were not sure how to help.

We sent the survey out through social media sites and listservs to people throughout the U.S. However, this is not a nationally representative sample. As is common with such surveys, most of the parents who responded were middle-income or higher. The results of the study have not yet been published.

Why it matters

While many people joke about how booze is getting them through the COVID-19 pandemic, drinking can be harmful. More people die each year from drinking alcohol than from motor vehicle crashes, guns or illegal drugs. Increased drinking is also related to many public health problems, such as violence, crime, poverty and sexually transmitted diseases.

Drinking alcohol is especially dangerous during COVID-19 because alcohol use weakens your immune system. Drinking increases your likelihood of getting COVID-19 and, if you do get it, of having worse outcomes.

People increase their alcohol consumption after stressful times, such as tsunamis and hurricanes. Research has shown that this pattern has held before during disease outbreaks, including SARS in 2003, and following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

COVID-19 is another stressful situation. One study in Poland with over 1,000 participants found that people are currently drinking more wine, beer and liquor than before the pandemic.

Given that distance learning is going to continue for the near future, we believe it is warranted to decrease stressors that lead to parents’ drinking.

What other research is being done

Parents are drinking more during the COVID-19 pandemic than people without children. Our survey is the first one to look at the relationship between alcohol use and the stress caused by distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.

What still isn’t known

School systems throughout the U.S. currently are planning for the upcoming year. In many cases, that will require more distance learning. For distance learning to be successful for children and parents, more needs to be known about what makes it stressful.

Another study of ours, currently underway, suggests that one reason that parents are stressed is that they are not getting enough guidance from teachers or schools. This is a particular concern for low-income families whose children, in general, already fare worse in school than more affluent children.

It is important to realize that teachers and other school staff are also experiencing stress and not getting enough guidance on how to do distance learning.

Our results were collected in May 2020. As distance learning becomes the new normal, at least for now, it is important to see what, if anything, changes in how well schools provide distance learning and how it affects parents.

*****

Susan Sonnenschein, Professor, Applied Development Psychology, University of Maryland, Baltimore County and Elyse R. Grossman, Policy Fellow, Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

[Get facts about coronavirus and the latest research. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

Header image: More people turn to alcohol in the wake of disasters, research has found. Kerkez/GettyImages

Making coronavirus testing easy, accurate and fast is critical to ending the pandemic – the US response is falling far short

By Zoe McLaren, associate professor of public policy, UMBC

For many people in the U.S., getting tested for COVID-19 is a struggle. In Arizona, testing sites have seen lines of hundreds of cars stretching over a mile. In Texas and Florida, some people were waiting for five hours for free testing.

The inconvenience of these long waits alone discourages many people from getting tested. With the surge in cases, many public testing sites have been reaching maximum capacity within hours of opening, leaving many people unable to get tested for days. Those that do get tested often face a week-long wait to get their test results.

Every person who isn’t tested could be spreading COVID-19 unknowingly. These overstretched testing programs are a weak link in the U.S. pandemic response.

study public health policy to combat infectious disease epidemics. The key to overcoming this pandemic is to slow transmission of the virus by preventing contagious people from infecting others. A widespread quarantine would accomplish this, but is economically and socially burdensome. Testing offers a way to identify contagious people so they can be isolated to prevent the spread of the disease. This is especially important for COVID-19 because an estimated 40% or more of all people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have few or no symptoms so testing is the only way to identify them.

Some states are doing much better than others. But as a whole, the U.S. is falling far short of the amount of testing needed to control the pandemic. What are the challenges the U.S. is facing? And what is the way forward?

A lab technician using a swab to put a sample into a rapid test machine.
Currently, rapid tests that take about 15 minutes to process are a quick and easy way to diagnose COVID-19 infections, but there are concerns about accuracy. AP Photo/Carlos Osorio

Testing should be free, easy, fast and accurate

The ultimate goal of testing is for everyone, regardless of symptoms, to know at all times whether they are infected with the coronavirus. To achieve this level of testing, tests should be free, very easy to perform and provide accurate results quickly.

Ideally, free COVID-19 tests would be delivered to everyone directly. The tests would be simple to perform – like a saliva test – and would give a perfectly accurate result within minutes. Everyone could test themselves weekly or anytime they were going to be in close contact with other people.

In this ideal scenario, most, if not all, contagious people would be detected before they could spread the virus to others. And because of the rapid results, there would be no burden of quarantining between doing the test and getting the result.

Researchers are working on better-quality tests, but access is a problem of infrastructure, not science. Right now, nowhere in the U.S. comes close to meeting surging demand for testing.

A line of people waiting in cars in front of a sign for COVID-19 testing.
Long lines, slow turnaround times for results and shortages of testing capacity all make Texas one of the worst places to get a test in the U.S. AP Photo/David J. Phillip

One of the worst cases: Texas

The difficulty of getting a COVID-19 test varies by state, but currently, people in Texas face some of the biggest obstacles, which results in far fewer tests being done than is needed to control the pandemic.

First, Houston – which is experiencing a surge in cases – and many testing sites across the state recommend or offer testing only to people who have symptoms, were exposed to a COVID-19 case or are a member of a high-risk group.

Even people recommended for testing still face challenges. It is possible to request an appointment for a free COVID-19 test, but testing facilities can handle only so many patients a day and testing slots fill up quickly. Even if someone gets an appointment, they may face an hours-long wait at the testing site.

Finally, public health experts recommend that people who may have been exposed to COVID-19 should quarantine at home for 14 days or until they receive a negative test result. In Texas, patients are supposed to get results through an online portal in three to five days, but many labs have been taking seven to nine days to return results. These long delays mean people face a much higher burden of quarantining while waiting for results.

All of these challenges make it clear that Texas is simply not testing enough people to keep the spread of COVID-19 in check.

To gauge the success of COVID-19 testing programs, epidemiologists use a measure called test positivity. This is simply the percentage of tests that come back positive. The lower the test positivity, the better, because that means very few cases are going undetected. A high test-positivity rate is usually a sign that only the sickest people are getting tested and many cases are being missed.

The World Health Organization guidelines say that if more than 1 out of 20 COVID-19 tests comes back positive – a test positivity of more than 5% – this is an indication that a lot of cases are not diagnosed and the epidemic is not under control. Texas currently has a test-positivity of around 16%, which means that a lot of infected people are not getting tested and may be unknowingly spreading the disease.

A doctor using a nasal swab to test a state senator of New Mexico.
In New Mexico, it is relatively easy to get a test, so more people are getting tested. AP Photo/Cedar Attanasio

One of the best cases: New Mexico

In stark contrast to Texas is New Mexico, which has one of the strongest testing programs in the U.S.

First, public health officials there encourage everyone to get tested for COVID-19 regardless of symptoms or exposure. The state has also prohibited health providers from charging patients for tests. People seeking a test have the option to walk in or to make an appointment ahead of time, whichever is more convenient.

All of this relatively good access to testing has resulted in one of the highest per capita testing rates in the country, at over 20,000 tests per 100,000 people, and a test-positivity rate of around 4%. New Mexico’s testing program is diagnosing a relatively high proportion of cases despite the state experiencing a recent surge.

[Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get expert takes on today’s news, every day.]

New Mexico still has room for improvement. Long lines, wait times and limited capacity are becoming more common as cases surge, but the foundation of a strong testing program has helped the state cope with the increase in cases.

The big-picture problems

The pre-pandemic infectious disease testing capabilities in the U.S. are clearly unable to meet the current demand. A nationwide response is needed, and there are three things that Congress, the federal government and local governments can do to help ensure COVID-19 tests will be easy to get, fast and accurate.

First, Congress can provide funding to stimulate the testing supply chain, scale up existing testing programs and promote innovation in test development. Second, governments can improve the management and coordination of testing programs to more efficiently use existing resources. And third, innovative testing methods that reduce the need for lab capacity – like paper-strip tests and pooled testing – need be approved and implemented more quickly.

Every little improvement in testing capabilities means more COVID-19 cases can be caught before the virus is transmitted. And slowing the spread of the virus is the key to overcoming the pandemic.

* * * * *

The Conversation

Zoe McLaren, Associate Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Why Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine Don’t Block SARS-CoV-2 Infection of Human Lung Cells

By Katherine Seley-Radtke, professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry, UMBC

The big idea

A paper came out in Nature on July 22 that further underscores earlier studies that show that neither the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine prevents SARS-CoV-2 – the virus that causes COVID-19 – from replicating in lung cells.

Most Americans probably remember that hydroxychloroquine became the focus of numerous clinical trials following the president’s statement that it could be a “game changer.” At the time, he appeared to base this statement on anecdotal stories, as well as a few early and very limited studies that hydroxychloroquine seemed to help patients with COVID-19 recover.

Many in the antiviral field, including myself, questioned the validity of both, and in fact, one of the papers was later disparaged by the scientific society and the editor of the journal that published it.

Since then, HQC has had a bumpy ride. It was initially approved by the FDA for emergency use. The FDA then quickly reversed its decision when numerous reports of deaths caused by heart arrhythmias emerged. That news brought many clinical trials to a halt. Regardless, some scientists continued to study it in hopes of finding a cure for this deadly virus.

How the work was done

The new study was carried out by scientists in Germany who tested HCQ on a collection of different cell types to figure out why this drug doesn’t prevent the virus from infecting humans.

Their findings clearly show that that HQC can block the coronavirus from infecting kidney cells from the African green monkey. But it does not inhibit the virus in human lung cells – the primary site of infection for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

In order for the virus to enter a cell, it can do so by two mechanisms – one, when the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein attaches to the ACE2 receptor and inserts its genetic material into the cell. In the second mechanism, the virus is absorbed into some special compartments in cells called endosomes.

Depending on the cell type, some, like kidney cells, need an enzyme called cathepsin L for the virus to successfully infect them. In lung cells, however, an enzyme called TMPRSS2 (on the cell surface) is necessary. Cathepsin L requires an acidic environment to function and allow the virus to infect the cell, while TMPRSS2 does not.

In the green monkey kidney cells, both hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine decrease the acidity, which then disables the cathepsin L enzyme, blocking the virus from infecting the monkey cells. In human lung cells, which have very low levels of cathepsin L enzyme, the virus uses the enzyme TMPRSS2 to enter the cell. But because that enzyme is not controlled by acidity, neither HCQ and CQ can block the SARS-CoV-2 from infecting the lungs or stop the virus from replicating.

Why it matters

This matters for several reasons. One, much time and money has been spent studying a drug that many scientists said from the very beginning was not going to be effective in killing the virus.

The second reason is that the studies that have reported antiviral activity for hydroxychloroquine were not in epithelial lung cells. Thus, their results are not relevant to properly studying SARS-CoV-2 infections in humans.

What’s next?

As scientists proceed with investigating new drugs as well as trying to repurpose old ones, like hydroxychloroquine, it is critical that researchers take the time to think about their study design.

In short, those of us involved in antiviral drug development should all take a lesson from this study. It is important not only to focus our efforts on pursuing drugs that will directly shut down viral replication, but also to study the virus in the primary site of infection.

*****

Katherine Seley-Radtke, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry and President-Elect of the International Society for Antiviral Research, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

Header image: Chloroquine is an antimalarial drug originally developed in 1934; it doesn’t block coronavirus infection in humans. Brasil2 / Getty Images

Electoral College Benefits Whiter States, Study Shows

By William Blake, assistant professor, Political Science, UMBC

States can force members of the Electoral College to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state’s presidential primary, the Supreme Court recently ruled. The July 6 decision removed one of the two reasons why the framers of the U.S. Constitution created this election system: to empower political elites who may know more about the candidates than ordinary voters. Now, the founders’ only remaining justification for the Electoral College is structural racism.

Though the Electoral College has changed since it was first used to elect George Washington to the presidency in 1789, my research shows that the system continues to give more power to states whose populations are whiter and more racially resentful.

Electoral College myths and realities

The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College in large part because they feared voters would not know all the candidates who would be running for president. In that era, most people never left their home states, so they were not likely to know candidates from other states.

The founders did not foresee the development of political parties and campaigns, which help teach voters about their options. Instead, Alexander Hamilton argued that those serving in the Electoral College would be “most likely to possess the information and discernment” needed to choose a president.

With its recent decision, the Supreme Court has abandoned the possibility that electors might vote for people other than the candidate who wins the popular vote in their state.

The other reason for the Electoral College was to bridge a major divide among the states: slavery. As James Madison said at the Constitutional Convention: “[T]he great division of interests in the U. States did not lie between the large & small States; it lay between the Northern & Southern” because of “their having or not having slaves.”

The original 13 U.S. colonies and their territorial changes from 1782 to 1802.
The 13 colonies had competing land claims in the early years of the United States. Kmusser, CC BY

Race in early America

By the time the founders discussed how to pick a president, they had already made the so-called “three-fifths compromise,” counting enslaved people as three-fifths of a person in the census and allotting seats in the House of Representatives accordingly. That gave Southern slave states an advantage over the Northern states in the House.

Slave states – with many people and with fewer – insisted on the Electoral College to preserve this advantage to give them a similar advantage in presidential selection. Ultimately, delegates to the Constitutional Convention decided that each state would receive votes in the Electoral College equal to their representation in both houses of Congress.

As a result, after the 1790 census, Virginia got 21 electoral votes and Pennsylvania got 15, though both were home to just over 110,000 free white male adults, who were then the only Americans allowed to vote. That’s because Virginia had 292,627 enslaved residents, to Pennsylvania’s 3,737, the country’s very first census shows.

Similarly, South Carolina and New Hampshire had nearly identical numbers of free white men – right around 36,000. But South Carolina got two more electoral votes, for a total of eight, because more than 100,000 enslaved people lived there, compared to New Hampshire’s 158 enslaved people.

Congressman Samuel Thatcher of Massachusetts.
U.S. Rep. Samuel Thatcher, in 1806. Fevret de Saint Memin/Wikimedia Commons

In 1803, the 1800 census was about to shift the balance even more toward slave states. Representative Samuel Thatcher of Massachusetts complained that counting enslaved people added significant numbers to the slave states’ delegations.

The slavery bonus ensured that the nation’s first 18 presidential elections delivered a slave-owner as either president, vice president or both. Only in 1860, with the victory of Abraham Lincoln from Illinois and his running mate, Hannibal Hamlin of Maine, did a team of Northern politicians manage to beat the Electoral College’s skew toward white Southerners.

After the Civil War

Following the Civil War, the 14th Amendment removed the three-fifths clause, and the 15th Amendment should have protected African Americans’ legal right to vote. But that didn’t fix the Electoral College’s anti-Black bias. It actually made the problem worse, because Southern state governments were happy to get the representation from their large numbers of Black citizens – while keeping them from voting through discriminatory practices like literacy tests and poll taxes.

Judicial decisions at the time upheld Jim Crow restrictions on the right to vote, but those practices are illegal today.

This system benefited the Democratic Party, which was dominant in the South. Republicans tried to counter that power by strategically admitting new states from the Great Plains and Mountain West. In part because of racially disparate postwar settlement policies, these states – such as Nebraska, the Dakotas and Wyoming – were unusually thinly populated, heavily white and reliably Republican.

A woman looks at papers.
Staff of the House of Representatives review Illinois’ Electoral College vote report in January 2017. Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Race and the Electoral College now

Those statehood decisions made a century and a half ago still reverberate today. States with smaller populations have more electoral votes per resident because, no matter how few people they might have, they still get two senators and one House member.

I recently performed a quantitative analysis of race and the allocation of electoral votes. The data indicate that whiter states consistently wield more electoral power partly because of their population.

On average, as a state’s racial composition gets whiter, its electoral power increases. For instance, in 2016, North Dakota was the seventh whitest state and 47th on the list in terms of adult population. It had more than 5.2 electoral votes per million adult residents, when an average state had just 2.2 electoral votes per million adult residents. According to my analysis, a state that is 10% whiter than the average state tends to have one extra electoral vote per million adult residents than the average state.

I also found that states whose people exhibit more intense anti-Black attitudes, based on their answers to a series of survey questions, tend to have more electoral votes per person.

Statistically speaking, if two states’ population numbers indicate each would have 10 electoral votes, but one had substantially more racial resentment, the more intolerant state would likely have 11.

This is not an ironclad rule, and the inherent bias isn’t always decisive. For instance, Donald Trump owes his presidency to winning Wisconsin, a state that is whiter than the average state, but that has slightly less electoral votes per capita than average.

In addition, the centuries-old racial bias in the Electoral College could disappear with future population changes. Perhaps other states with relatively few people will follow the pattern of Nevada, whose population has recently become larger and more racially diverse. But the Electoral College remains a system born from white supremacy that will likely continue to operate in a racially discriminatory fashion.

*****

William Blake, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

[Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.]

Header image: A congressional staffer opens the boxes containing the Electoral College ballots in January 2017. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call

Alumni Business Q&A: Precise Software Solutions

UMBC alumni businesses are doing what they can to stay strong and build community during these troubled times. UMBC Magazine will be publishing occasional interviews with alumni business owners to show their resilience in the face of this global pandemic.

Find more alumni businesses at the UMBC Alumni Business Directory.

* * * * * *

Founded by alumnus Zhensen Huang, M.S. ’00, Ph.D. ’04, information systems, Precise Software Solutions “helps their customers capitalize on the efficiencies offered by technological advancements and ensures the integrity of their IT systems and programs so they can perform their public mission more effectively.” Today, Huang reflects on the challenges of the last few months, and why he continues to be filled with gratitude and hope.

Can you tell us a little bit about what you do? What’s your favorite part of the work?

My background is in IT/technology, and this is my first time serving as the CEO of a company. So, the experience of starting up and leading a new company has involved a big learning curve for me. But I love learning and finding solutions to complex problems, and there have been endless opportunities for me to learn and grow along with the company. As for my favorite part, I love working with people. I have been blessed with an amazing team of extremely smart, dedicated, and innovative people. I also love working with our growing customer base, which has included developing productive, trusting relationships, serving as a problem solver in helping them achieve their mission, and driving organic growth for the company with the help of the successes and accolades of our customers.

Image courtesy of Huang.

How do you connect your work back to your experience at UMBC? 

I am eternally grateful for the excellent education, support, and mentorship I received as a UMBC student, and I attribute much of my success in my career and this Precise business venture to the solid launch I achieved with the help of the school. I went back to teach some courses at UMBC, and I remain in regular contact with the school through the Development Office. I continue to look for ways to reinforce the connection between myself, Precise, and UMBC, ensuring that the mutual benefits we’ve enjoyed are nurtured and expanded.

Precise also has several alumni on staff, including Kaustav Lahiri, M.S. ’14, computer science; Fan Ping, M.S. ’15, computer science; and Edison Trickett ’13, business technology administration.

In these tough times, how do you keep going? What inspires you?

It’s true, we’ve been experiencing some very tough times. The pandemic has been a real test to our resilience, as individuals, as a community, and as a company. It has been difficult to witness the terrible suffering that the virus has caused, not to mention the more recent unrest following the killing of George Floyd. In the midst of these crises, my overwhelming feeling has been one of gratitude—for the health and safety of my family and the ability of Precise to continue our work. These feelings of gratitude have inspired in me a great sense of responsibility. I am constantly looking for ways to give back, to offer support and assistance to those who have not been as fortunate as I have been.

Are there specific ways you’re giving back to the community right now?

In general, our company has actively engaged in community service events. We regularly organize company service events such as coordinating groups of Precise employee volunteers to support the work of the Manna Food Center, an wonderful organization that collects, purchases, and distributes food to the needy in our community. More recently, at the outset of the coronavirus epidemic, Precise organized a donation challenge in which we raised over $22,000 dollars for Manna. We also purchase company gift cards from some of our local food vendors as a way to infuse some cash flow into their businesses which were suffering huge losses due to the lockdown.

Image courtesy of Precise website.

As part of our response to the protests following the killing of George Floyd, Precise organized internal discussions and listening sessions to ensure we are identifying and addressing any racial inequities that may exist within the company. In addition to donating $20,000 to the ACLU in support of social justice in our community and across the country, we also gave to UMBC’s Stay Black and Gold Emergency Fund. Supporting UMBC students during this time seemed to be a logical step, to help these students stay on track for their academic careers.

What advice would you give to others looking to start their own business?

I recommend following one’s passion, as that is the surest way to develop and sustain inspiration and resilience in what is a very difficult endeavor. Seek out mentors who have blazed the trail before you. I am constantly seeking out guides to help me navigate this business terrain. Again, this is my first experience building a business and being a CEO, so I am painfully aware of how much I still don’t know and need to learn. I have had many generous people who have more experience in this domain who have been willing to offer useful advice and guidance as I’ve worked to grow the company.

Another piece of advice I would offer is to practice humility and always work to keep your ego in check. You can’t learn and grow—and can’t succeed in business or any professional endeavor—if you don’t actively seek out your blind spots.

*****

Header image: Zhensen Huang and Julia Zhuhui Chen, M.S. ’02, information systems, at an SBA (Small Business Administration) event in 2019. Photo courtesy of Chen.

Sending International Students Home Would Sap US Influence and Hurt the Economy

By David L. Di Maria, Associate Vice Provost for International Education, UMBC

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, made a decision on July 6 regarding international students in the U.S. that will affect far more than just the roughly 870,000 international students themselves.

Based on what I know about the power and influence of higher education in the U.S., this decision could increase the tuition American students pay, cost thousands of jobs throughout the nation and erode America’s stature in the world.

Under this new rule, international students may stay in the country only if they attend a college or university offering in-person classes this fall. Otherwise, they won’t be able to get visas, enter the country or stay here if they plan to attend one of the many schools that are teaching students entirely online.

In effect, thousands of students from other countries who attend schools that do not plan any in-person instruction this fall may have to immediately transfer to another school or leave the country. Otherwise, they could face deportation.

Against the backdrop of what top U.S. public health officials describe as an out-of-control virus, this new immigration rule puts U.S. colleges in a jam. Schools must choose between bringing students together on campus to comply with the immigration restrictions, or adhere to public health precautions related to physical distancing.

It may be hard to do both if the online option is off the table when it comes to international students. Which means U.S. colleges and universities could take a significant financial hit in the form of lost tuition revenue beyond what they were anticipating as a result of COVID-19.

Colleges must scramble

As of July 6, more than 1,000 colleges and universities have already released plans for fall instruction. Of those, 60% plan currently plan to offer in-person classes, 24% plan to offer hybrid and 9% plan to offer courses online. The remaining colleges are still undecided.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

Now, some institutions will have to scramble to develop alternatives that can enable international students to remain enrolled without breaking the new rule. Schools must report how they plan to proceed by Aug. 1, based on the ICE announcement.

Far-reaching impact

The impact of this rule is not just limited to the hundreds of thousands of international students enrolled at U.S. colleges, who represent 4.39% of the 20 million people who currently attend U.S. colleges and universities. It also affects their institutions, their faculty and the local communities as well.

Consider that colleges and universities, which are the largest employers in 1 in 5 states, are already reeling from heavy financial losses associated with the pandemic.

While many schools have had to slash budgets due to refunds issued to students in the spring of 2020, disruptions to research, canceled athletic events and cuts to state funding, others are still waiting to see whether or not they will meet their enrollment targets for fall.

Still, more than 200 colleges and universities have already announced layoffs, furloughs or contract nonrenewals.

At a time when the U.S. is trying to overcome record unemployment and manage its biggest public health crisis in a century, international students seem to be caught in the middle of a partisan divide on reopening the country.

The new guidelines could place many colleges and universities in an impossible position: Increase the number of in-person classes and risk that COVID-19 will spread further.

What they bring to the table

Given how much international students contribute to the economy, you might assume ICE would find a way to keep them in the U.S.

The students affected by the new rule are the same people who help support about 460,000 American jobs.

The higher tuition and fees they pay helps keep tuition lower for American students. But their contributions transcend economics.

Their academic talents help advance scientific discoveries, which are more critical than ever given the nation’s ongoing battle against COVID-19. The fallout will be severe should these students choose to study in other countries instead. Australia and New Zealand, for example, have recently made their policies more welcoming.

Giving ground to other nations

Booting international students would surely reduce America’s influence in the world as well.

According to the State Department, the alumni of educational and cultural exchange programs include more than 75 Nobel Laureates and nearly 450 current and former heads of state and government. Having established personal ties, international students often return home as unofficial ambassadors for the U.S.

International alumni are more likely to look to the U.S. for ideas and trade agreements and to otherwise exert influence abroad that benefits U.S. interests.

While the share of international students studying in the U.S. has steadily declinedfrom 28% of the world’s 2.1 million international students in 2001 to 21% of the world’s 5.3 million international students in 2019 – other countries have made significant gains in attracting global talent due to national strategies.

Most notably, China now hosts nearly 1 in 10 students who study abroad globally, including more students from Africa than the U.K. and U.S. combined. One reason for China’s rise as a study destination is its leaders’ realization that it is lagging behind the U.S. in terms of soft power with only a few world leaders having graduated from Chinese institutions.

In my view, ICE’s new guidance is only the latest step in a steady retreat from global engagement that clears the path for other nations to attract more of the students that might otherwise study in the United States.

*****

David L. Di Maria, Associate Vice Provost for International Education, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Header image: Boston Globe/Getty Images

Medicine Without Borders

Coco Tang’s medical missions around the world would sound like a summer action movie if they weren’t a matter of life and death.

Just behind the front lines of the battle of Mosul in Iraq, Tang ’14, visual arts, history, and political science, dressed wounds of civilians and soldiers during the day and slept under windows rattling from shelling at night.

Dropped by Global Outreach Doctors into a camp surrounded by violent uprisings in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tang—a specially trained emergency medical technician—helped assess the victims of sexual violence perpetrated during the country’s 40-year war, then got stranded with one of her crew, a few locals, and nearly nonexistent cell service. After four days, a plane finally showed up.

Tang helped women, usually arriving by mule, deliver their babies at 10,000 feet in Ethiopia. She treated Rohingya Muslim refugees in a Bangladeshi camp. Ebola in Sierra Leone, earthquake in Nepal, typhoon in the Philippines, Tang was there for them all. She has worked or volunteered as a contract paramedic with Global Rescue, Medics Without Borders, All Hands Volunteer, and other nongovernmental organizations. After a few months as a camp medic in Afghanistan, she provided medical care at a San Diego-based coronavirus quarantine ward, then started 12-hour shifts in March supervising nurses on a COVID-19 surge floor in New York City.  

Coco Tang in Times Square during her time working on a COVID-19 unit.

If there’s a humanitarian emergency around the world, Tang heads into the eye of the chaos.   

“I’m a bit of an adrenaline junkie,” Tang says. “I wish I could say it was all altruistic reasons, but I like being in the thick of things. I like knowing I was part of a historical moment, and that I had something to contribute. I feel strongly that if you have the ability to help, the responsibility should be on you to do what you can.”

A Life in Extreme Medicine

A management consultant by profession, Tang takes leaves of absence to volunteer around the world on medical missions. She speaks Mandarin, Arabic, Japanese, German, and Russian. With an MBA from George Mason and a master’s degree in international security from Georgetown University, Tang has nearly finished a master’s in extreme medicine from Exeter University. And though “extreme medicine” may sound like a metaphor for her life, Tang explains that the degree focuses on medicine in extreme environments, such as deserts, jungles, polar ice, and the ocean. Eventually, she wants to go to medical school.

Tang started at UMBC as a visual arts major, but her time spent studying abroad led to learning more languages and history. She found her niche in the global studies program. When looking for a job during college, she started training as an emergency medical technician simply because it paid more than most undergraduate gigs, Tang says. 

On a Boren scholarship in Jordan, that training came in handy when she witnessed the Syrian refugee crisis. She volunteered as a medic, transporting wounded Syrian refugees from border crossings to field hospitals. Originally slated to study water rights, Tang changed her topic, and ended up filming a documentary about Syrian refugees fleeing ISIS and the Bashir Assad regime for her 2013 URCAD project. 

Her experience in the refugee camp, which melded her travel bug, her yen for danger, and her urge to help, cemented her future as a humanitarian medical worker. She returned to Jordan for a year on a Fulbright scholarship in 2014. 

Brigid Starkey, director of UMBC’s global studies program and Tang’s undergraduate advisor, recommended her for those scholarships. She remembers reading Tang’s first paper.

“I immediately recognized that her writing and her level of analysis was incredible,” Starkey says. “She’s that rare student who can move across the curriculum. She might be a kind of genius.”

Tang’s courage and hunger to travel, Starkey says, leads her to dangerous spots. “She’s uniquely talented and very, very dedicated to going to places that are the most grim in the world and trying to help,” Starkey says. “She does have a deep desire to go where no one has gone, not only geographically. I think that’s why she gravitates toward medical work. She has nerves of steel, an unflappability, and a curiosity.”

Eyes and Ears Around the World

In 2018, Andrew Lustig, founder and director of Global Outreach Doctors, a humanitarian medical organization, chose Tang as one of their 330 volunteers worldwide and she’s been working with the organization ever since. 

“She quickly became a great asset,” Lustig says. “She’s worked in areas that require an understanding of security, a strong understanding of business and guiding people, she has humanitarian medicine experience, she’s a great networker, a logical thinker, she’s exceptionally organized, which is required in places where there’s mostly chaos. She is basically our eyes and ears for the projects.”

Lustig described Tang’s mission to Congo. The medical crew landed in Rwanda, and had to go by air over the border, deep into remote Congo, where there was danger of violence, kidnapping, rape, illness. Tang, he says, knew the team needed to release tension and bond. She organized a trip to see the gorillas in Rwanda, Lustig says, which was perfect for the task.

“She has an ability to find something social, with laughter and peace in between all the tension, because otherwise you’ll burn out your team,” Lustig says.

Coming to Peace with Fear 

When Tang needs a break, she turns to playing her violin or Chinese zither, painting or drawing, or extreme sports—mixed martial arts, skydiving, SCUBA.

“If you’re standing on the edge of an airplane and have to make a decision to throw yourself out, there’s something about the Zen of it, coming to peace with that kind of fear, and overcoming it, it’s a good mental exercise for me,” Tang says.

Her dream job?

“Space doctor.” She’s not kidding. “If there ever is an opportunity for doctors to participate in space missions, or if there ever was a colonization mission where you don’t come back? I’d do that.”

Sounds like another action thriller in the works.

—Susan Thornton Hobby

*****

All photos courtesy of Coco Tang.

AI Could Help Solve the Privacy Problems It Has Created

By Zhiyuan Chen, associate professor, Information Systems, UMBC and Aryya Gangopadhyay, professor, Information Systems, UMBC

The stunning successes of artificial intelligence would not have happened without the availability of massive amounts of data, whether its smart speakers in the home or personalized book recommendations. And the spread of AI into new areas of the economy, such as AI-driven marketing and self driving vehicles, has been driving the collection of ever more data. These large databases are amassing a wide variety of information, some of it sensitive and personally identifiable. All that data in one place makes such databases tempting targets, ratcheting up the risk of privacy breaches.

The general public is largely wary of AI’s data-hungry ways. According to a survey by Brookings, 49% of people think AI will reduce privacy. Only 12% think it will have no effect, and a mere 5% think it may make it better.

As cybersecurity and privacy researchers, we believe that the relationship between AI and data privacy is more nuanced. The spread of AI raises a number of privacy concerns, most of which people may not even be aware. But in a twist, AI can also help mitigate many of these privacy problems.

Revealing models

Privacy risks from AI stem not just from the mass collection of personal data, but from the deep neural network models that power most of today’s artificial intelligence. Data isn’t vulnerable just from database breaches, but from “leaks” in the models that reveal the data on which they were trained.

Deep neural networks – which are a collection of algorithms designed to spot patterns in data – consist of many layers. In those layers are a large number of nodes called neurons, and neurons from adjacent layers are interconnected. Each node, as well as the links between them, encode certain bits of information. These bits of information are created when a special process scans large amounts of data to train the model.

For example, a facial recognition algorithm may be trained on a series of selfies so it can more accurately predict a person’s gender. Such models are very accurate, but they also may store too much information – actually remembering certain faces from the training data. In fact, that’s exactly what researchers at Cornell University discovered. Attackers could identify people in training data by probing the deep neural networks that classified the gender of facial images.

They also found that even if the original neural network model is not available to attackers, attackers may still be able to tell whether a person is in the training data. They do this by using a set of models that are trained on data similar, but not identical, to the training data. So if a man with a beard was present in the original training data, then a model trained on photos of different bearded men may be able to reveal his identity.

AI to the rescue?

On the other hand, AI can be used to mitigate many privacy problems. According to Verizon’s 2019 Data Breach Investigations Report, about 52% of data breaches involve hacking. Most existing techniques to detect cyberattacks rely on patterns. By studying previous attacks, and identifying how the attacker’s behavior deviates from the norm, these techniques can flag suspicious activity. It’s the sort of thing at which AI excels: studying existing information to recognize similar patterns in new data.

Still, AI is no panacea. Attackers can often modify their behavior to evade detection. Take the following two examples. For one, suppose anti-malware software uses AI techniques to detect a certain malicious program by scanning for a certain sequence of software code. In that case, an attacker can simply shuffle the order the code. In another example, the anti-malware software might first run the suspicious program in a safe environment, called a sandbox, where it can look for any malicious behavior. Here, an attacker can instruct the malware to detect if it’s being run in a sandbox. If it is, it can behave normally until it’s released from the sandbox – like a possum playing dead until the threat has passed.

Making AI more privacy friendly

A recent branch of AI research called adversarial learning seeks to improve AI technologies so they’re less susceptible to such evasion attacks. For example, we have done some initial research on how to make it harder for malware, which could be used to violate a person’s privacy, to evade detection. One method we came up with was to add uncertainty to the AI models so the attackers cannot accurately predict what the model will do. Will it scan for a certain data sequence? Or will it run the sandbox? Ideally, a malicious piece of software won’t know and will unwittingly expose its motives.

Another way we can use AI to improve privacy is by probing the vulnerabilities of deep neural networks. No algorithm is perfect, and these models are vulnerable because they are often very sensitive to small changes in the data they are reading. For example, researchers have shown that a Post-it note added to a stop sign can trick an AI model into thinking it is seeing a speed limit sign instead. Subtle alterations like that take advantage of the way models are trained to reduce error. Those error-reduction techniques open a vulnerability that allows attackers to find the smallest changes that will fool the model.

These vulnerabilities can be used to improve privacy by adding noise to personal data. For example, researchers from Max Planck Institute for Informatics in Germany have designed clever ways to alter Flickr images to foil facial recognition software. The alterations are incredibly subtle, so much so that they’re undetectable by the human eye.

The third way that AI can help mitigate privacy issues is by preserving data privacy when the models are being built. One promising development is called federated learning, which Google uses in its Gboard smart keyboard to predict which word to type next. Federated learning builds a final deep neural network from data stored on many different devices, such as cellphones, rather than one central data repository. The key benefit of federated learning is that the original data never leaves the local devices. Thus privacy is protected to some degree. It’s not a perfect solution, though, because while the local devices complete some of the computations, they do not finish them. The intermediate results could reveal some data about the device and its user.

Federated learning offers a glimpse of a future where AI is more respectful of privacy. We are hopeful that continued research into AI will find more ways it can be part of the solution rather than a source of problems.

*****

Header image from The Conversation.

[You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors. You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter.]

Zhiyuan Chen, Associate Professor of Information Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore County and Aryya Gangopadhyay, Professor, Information Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.