United States National Science Foundation (NSF) ; Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) of the United Kingdom ; Max-Planck Society ; State of Niedersachsen/Germany ; Australian Research Council ; Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research ; EGO consortium ; Council of Scientific and Industrial Research of India ; Department of Science and Technology, India ; Science & Engineering Research Board (SERB), India ; Ministry of Human Resource Development, India ; Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad ; Conselleria d'Economia i Competitivitat and Conselleria d'Educacio Cultura i Universitats of the Govern de les Illes Balears ; National Science Centre of Poland ; European Commission ; Royal Society ; Scottish Funding Council ; Scottish Universities Physics Alliance ; Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA) ; Lyon Institute of Origins (LIO) ; National Research Foundation of Korea ; Industry Canada ; Province of Ontario through Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation ; National Science and Engineering Research Council Canada ; Canadian Institute for Advanced Research ; Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation ; Russian Foundation for Basic Research ; Leverhulme Trust ; Research Corporation ; Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan ; Kavli Foundation ; Australian Government ; National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy ; Government of Western Australia ; United States Department of Energy ; United States National Science Foundation ; Ministry of Science and Education of Spain ; Science and Technology Facilities Council of the United Kingdom ; Higher Education Funding Council for England ; National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ; Kavli Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago ; Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics at the Ohio State University ; Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy at Texas AM University ; Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) ; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) ; Ministerio da Ciencia, Tecnologia e Inovacao ; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft ; Collaborating Institutions in the Dark Energy Survey ; National Science Foundation ; MINECO ; Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa ; European Research Council under European Union's Seventh Framework Programme ; ERC ; NASA (United States) ; DOE (United States) ; IN2P3/CNRS (France) ; CEA/Irfu (France) ; ASI (Italy) ; INFN (Italy) ; MEXT (Japan) ; KEK (Japan) ; JAXA (Japan) ; Wallenberg Foundation ; Swedish Research Council ; National Space Board (Sweden) ; NASA in the United States ; DRL in Germany ; INAF for the project Gravitational Wave Astronomy with the first detections of adLIGO and adVIRGO experiments ; ESA (Denmark) ; ESA (France) ; ESA (Germany) ; ESA (Italy) ; ESA (Switzerland) ; ESA (Spain) ; German INTEGRAL through DLR grant ; US under NASA Grant ; National Science Foundation PIRE program grant ; Hubble Fellowship ; KAKENHI of MEXT Japan ; JSPS ; Optical and Near-Infrared Astronomy Inter-University Cooperation Program - MEXT ; UK Science and Technology Facilities Council ; ERC Advanced Investigator Grant ; Lomonosov Moscow State University Development programm ; Moscow Union OPTICA ; Russian Science Foundation ; National Research Foundation of South Africa ; Australian Government Department of Industry and Science and Department of Education (National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy: NCRIS) ; NVIDIA at Harvard University ; University of Hawaii ; National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Planetary Defense Office ; Queen's University Belfast ; National Aeronautics and Space Administration through Planetary Science Division of the NASA Science Mission Directorate ; European Research Council under European Union's Seventh Framework Programme/ERC ; STFC grants ; European Union FP7 programme through ERC ; STFC through an Ernest Rutherford Fellowship ; FONDECYT ; Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO) ; NASA in the US ; UK Space Agency in the UK ; Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI) in Italy ; Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia (MinCyT) ; Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnologicas (CONICET) from Argentina ; USA NSF PHYS ; NSF ; ICREA ; Science and Technology Facilities Council ; UK Space Agency ; National Science Foundation: AST-1138766 ; National Science Foundation: AST-1238877 ; MINECO: AYA2012-39559 ; MINECO: ESP2013-48274 ; MINECO: FPA2013-47986 ; Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa: SEV-2012-0234 ; ERC: 240672 ; ERC: 291329 ; ERC: 306478 ; German INTEGRAL through DLR grant: 50 OG 1101 ; US under NASA Grant: NNX15AU74G ; National Science Foundation PIRE program grant: 1545949 ; Hubble Fellowship: HST-HF-51325.01 ; KAKENHI of MEXT Japan: 24103003 ; KAKENHI of MEXT Japan: 15H00774 ; KAKENHI of MEXT Japan: 15H00788 ; JSPS: 15H02069 ; JSPS: 15H02075 ; ERC Advanced Investigator Grant: 267697 ; Russian Science Foundation: 16-12-00085 ; Russian Science Foundation: RFBR15-02-07875 ; National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Planetary Defense Office: NNX14AM74G ; National Aeronautics and Space Administration through Planetary Science Division of the NASA Science Mission Directorate: NNX08AR22G ; European Research Council under European Union's Seventh Framework Programme/ERC: 291222 ; STFC grants: ST/I001123/1 ; STFC grants: ST/L000709/1 ; European Union FP7 programme through ERC: 320360 ; FONDECYT: 3140326 ; Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO): CE110001020 ; USA NSF PHYS: 1156600 ; NSF: 1242090 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: Gravitational Waves ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/L000946/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/K005014/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/N000668/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/M000966/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/I006269/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/L000709/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/J00166X/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/K000845/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/K00090X/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/N000633/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/H001972/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/L000733/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/N000757/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/M001334/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/J000019/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/M003035/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/I001123/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/N00003X/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/I006269/1 Gravitational Waves ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/N000072/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/L003465/1 ; UK Space Agency: ST/P002196/1 ; This Supplement provides supporting material for Abbott et al. (2016a). We briefly summarize past electromagnetic (EM) follow-up efforts as well as the organization and policy of the current EM follow-up program. We compare the four probability sky maps produced for the gravitational-wave transient GW150914, and provide additional details of the EM follow-up observations that were performed in the different bands.
In: Preston , G R , Dilley , B J , Cooper , J , Beaumont , J , Chauke , F , Chown , S L , Devanunthan , N , Dopolo , M T , Fikizolo , L , Heine , J , Henderson , S , Jacobs , C A , Johnson , F , Kelly , J , Makhado , A B , Marais , C , Maroga , J , Mayekiso , M , McClelland , G T W , Mphepya , J , Muir , D , Ngcaba , N , Ngcobo , N , Parkes , J P , Paulsen , F , Schoombie , S , Springer , K , Stringer , C , Valentine , H , Wanless , R M & Ryan , P G 2019 , South Africa works towards eradicating introduced house mice from sub-Antarctic Marion Island : the largest island yet attempted for mice . in C R Veitch , M N Clout , A R Martin , J C Russell & C J West (eds) , Island Invasives : Scaling up to Meet the Challenge . vol. 62 , Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission , vol. 62 , IUCN , Gland Switzerland , pp. 40-46 .
House mice ( Mus musculus ) were introduced to South Africa's sub-Antarctic Marion Island, the larger of the two Prince Edward Islands, by sealers in the early 19th century. Over the last two centuries they have greatly reduced the abundance of native invertebrates. Domestic cats ( Felis catus ) taken to the island in 1948 to control mice at the South African weather station soon turned feral, killing large numbers of breeding seabirds. An eradication programme finally removed cats from the island by 1991, in what is still the largest island area cleared of cats at 290 km2. Removal of the cats, coupled with the warmer and drier climate on the island over the last half century, has seen increasing densities of mice accumulating each summer. As resources run out in late summer, the mice seek alternative food sources. Marion is home to globally important seabird populations and since the early 2000s mice have resorted to attacking seabird chicks. Since 2015 c. 5% of summer-breeding albatross fledglings have been killed each year, as well as some winter-breeding petrel and albatross chicks. As a Special Nature Reserve, the Prince Edward Islands are afforded the highest degree of protection under South African environmental legislation. A recent feasibility plan suggests that mice can be eradicated using aerial baiting. The South African Department of Environmental Affairs is planning to mount an eradication attempt in the winter of 2021, following a partnership with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to eradicate mice on Gough Island in the winter of 2020. The eradication programme on Marion Island will be spearheaded by the South African Working for Water programme – Africa's biggest conservation programme focusing on the control of invasive species –which is already driving eradication projects against nine other invasive species on Marion Island.
Background: Alzheimer's disease is a common debilitating dementia with known heritability, for which 20 late onset susceptibility loci have been identified, but more remain to be discovered. This study sought to identify new susceptibility genes, using an alternative gene-wide analytical approach which tests for patterns of association within genes, in the powerful genome-wide association dataset of the International Genomics of Alzheimer's Project Consortium, comprising over 7 m genotypes from 25,580 Alzheimer's cases and 48,466 controls. Principal Findings: In addition to earlier reported genes, we detected genome-wide significant loci on chromosomes 8 (TP53INP1, p = 1.4×10-6) and 14 (IGHV1-67 p = 7.9×10-8) which indexed novel susceptibility loci. Significance: The additional genes identified in this study, have an array of functions previously implicated in Alzheimer's disease, including aspects of energy metabolism, protein degradation and the immune system and add further weight to these pathways as potential therapeutic targets in Alzheimer's disease ; The i-Select chips was funded by the French National Foundation on Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. The French National Fondation on Alzheimer's disease and related disorders supported several I-GAP meetings and communications. Data management involved the Centre National de Génotypage,and was supported by the Institut Pasteur de Lille, Inserm, FRC (fondation pour la recherche sur le cerveau) and Rotary. This work has been developed and supported by the LABEX (laboratory of excellence program investment for the future) DISTALZ grant (Development of Innovative Strategies for a Transdisciplinary approach to ALZheimer's disease) and by the LABEX GENMED grant (Medical Genomics). The French National Foundation on Alzheimer's disease and related disorders and the Alzheimer's Association (Chicago, Illinois) grant supported IGAP in-person meetings, communication and the Alzheimer's Association (Chicago, Illinois) grant provided some funds to each consortium for analyses. EADI The authors thank Dr. Anne Boland (CNG) for her technical help in preparing the DNA samples for analyses. This work was supported by the National Foundation for Alzheimer's disease and related disorders, the Institut Pasteur de Lille and the Centre National de Génotypage. The Three-City Study was performed as part of a collaboration between the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (Inserm), the Victor Segalen Bordeaux II University and Sanofi-Synthélabo. The Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale funded the preparation and initiation of the study. The 3C Study was also funded by the Caisse Nationale Maladie des Travailleurs Salariés, Direction Générale de la Santé, MGEN, Institut de la Longévité, Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé, the Aquitaine and Bourgogne Regional Councils, Agence Nationale de la Recherche, ANR supported the COGINUT and COVADIS projects. Fondation de France and the joint French Ministry of Research/INSERM «Cohortes et collections de données biologiques» programme. Lille Génopôle received an unconditional grant from Eisai. The Three-city biological bank was developed and maintained by the laboratory for genomic analysis LAG-BRC - Institut Pasteur de Lille. Belgium sample collection: The patients were clinically and pathological characterized by the neurologists Sebastiaan Engelborghs, Rik Vandenberghe and Peter P. De Deyn, and in part genetically by Caroline Van Cauwenberghe, Karolien Bettens and Kristel Sleegers. Research at the Antwerp site is funded in part by the Belgian Science Policy Office Interuniversity Attraction Poles program, the Foundation Alzheimer Research (SAO-FRA), the Flemish Government initiated Methusalem Excellence Program, the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) and the University of Antwerp Research Fund, Belgium. Karolien Bettens is a postdoctoral fellow of the FWO. The Antwerp site authors thank the personnel of the VIB Genetic Service Facility, the Biobank of the Institute Born-Bunge and the Departments of Neurology and Memory Clinics at the Hospital Network Antwerp and the University Hospitals Leuven. Finish sample collection: Financial support for this project was provided by the Health Research Council of the Academy of Finland, EVO grant 5772708 of Kuopio University Hospital, and the Nordic Centre of Excellence in Neurodegeneration. Italian sample collections: the Bologna site (FL) obtained funds from the Italian Ministry of research and University as well as Carimonte Foundation. The Florence site was supported by grant RF-2010-2319722, grant from the the Cassa di Risparmio di Pistoia e Pescia (Grant 2012) and the Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze (Grant 2012). The Milan site was supported by a grant from the «fondazione Monzino». The authors thank the expert contribution of Mr. Carmelo Romano. The Roma site received financial support from Italian Ministry of Health, Grant RF07-08 and RC08-09-10-11-12. The Pisa site is grateful to Dr. Annalisa LoGerfo for her technical assistance in the DNA purification studies. Spanish sample collection: the Madrid site (MB) was supported by grants of the Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia and the Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo (Instituto de Salud Carlos III), and an institutional grant of the Fundación Ramón Areces to the CBMSO. The authors thank I. Sastre and Dr. A. Martínez-García for the preparation and control of the DNA collection, and Drs. P. Gil and P. Coria for their cooperation in the cases/controls recruitment. The authors are grateful to the Asociación de Familiares de Alzheimer de Madrid (AFAL) for continuous encouragement and help. Swedish sample collection: Financially supported in part by the Swedish Brain Power network, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council (521-2010-3134), the King Gustaf V and Queen Victoria's Foundation of Freemasons, the Regional Agreement on Medical Training and Clinical Research (ALF) between Stockholm County Council and the Karolinska Institutet, the Swedish Brain Foundation and the Swedish Alzheimer Foundation. CHARGE AGES: The AGES-Reykjavik Study is funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) contract N01-AG-12100 (National Institute on Aging (NIA) with contributions from the National Eye Institute, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)), the NIA Intramural Research Program, Hjartavernd (the Icelandic Heart Association), and the Althingi (the Icelandic Parliament). ASPS/PRODEM: The Austrian Stroke Prevention Study and The Prospective Dementia Register of the Austrian Alzheimer Society was supported by The Austrian Science Fond (FWF) grant number P20545-P05 (H. Schmidt) and P13180; The Austrian Alzheimer Society; The Medical University of Graz. Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS): This CHS research was supported by NHLBI contracts HHSN268201200036C, HHSN268200800007C, N01HC55222, N01HC85079, N01HC85080, N01HC85081, N01HC85082, N01HC85083, N01HC85086, and HHSN268200960009C; and NHLBI grants HL080295, HL087652, HL105756 with additional contribution from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Additional support was provided through AG023629, AG15928, AG20098, AG027058 and AG033193 (Seshadri) from the NIA. A full list of CHS investigators and institutions can be found at http://www.chs-nhlbi.org/pi. The provision of genotyping data was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, CTSI grant UL1TR000124, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease Diabetes Research Center (DRC) grant DK063491 to the Southern California Diabetes Endocrinology Research Center. Framingham Heart Study (FHS): This work was supported by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's Framingham Heart Study (Contract No. N01-HC-25195) and its contract with A_ymetrix, Inc for genotyping services (Contract No. N02-HL-6-4278). A portion of this research utilized the Linux Cluster for Genetic Analysis (LinGA-II) funded by the Robert Dawson Evans Endowment of the Department of Medicine at Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center. This study as also supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging: AG08122 and AG033193 (Seshadri). Drs. Seshadri and DeStefano were also supported by additional grants from the National Institute on Aging: (R01 AG16495; AG031287, AG033040), the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01 NS17950), and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (U01 HL096917, HL093029 and K24HL038444, RC2-HL102419 and UC2 HL103010. Fundació ACE would like to thank patients and controls who participated in this project. This work has been funded by the Fundación Alzheimur (Murcia), the Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (PCT-010000-2007-18), (DEX-580000-2008-4), (Gobierno de España), Corporación Tecnológica de Andalucía (08/211) and Agencia IDEA (841318) (Consejería de Innovación, Junta de Andalucía). The authors thank to Ms. Trinitat Port-Carbó and her family for their generous support of Fundació ACE research programs. The Rotterdam Study: The Rotterdam Study was funded by Erasmus Medical Center and Erasmus University, Rotterdam; the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly; the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science; the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sports; the European Commission;and the Municipality of Rotterdam; by grants from the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly (014-93-015; RIDE2), Internationale Stichting Alzheimer Onderzoek, Hersenstichting Nederland, the Netherlands Genomics Initiative–Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (Center for Medical Systems Biology and the Netherlands Consortium for Healthy Aging), the Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013), the ENGAGE project (grant agreement HEALTH-F4-2007-201413), MRACE-grant from the Erasmus Medical Center, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW Veni-grant no. 916.13.054). ARIC: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC) is carried out as a collaborative study supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute contracts N01-HC-55015, N01-HC-55016, N01-HC-55018, N01- HC-55019, N01-HC-55020, N01-HC-55021, N01-HC-55022 and grants R01-HL087641, RC2-HL102419 (Boerwinkle, CHARGE-S), UC2 HL103010, U01-HL096917 (Mosley) and R01-HL093029; NHGRI contract U01- HG004402; and NIH contract HHSN268200625226C and NIA: R01 AG033193 (Seshadri). Infrastructure was partly supported by Grant Number UL1RR025005, a component of the National Institutes of Health and NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. GERAD Cardiff University was supported by the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council (MRC), Alzheimer's Research United Kingdom (ARUK) and the Welsh Government. ARUK supported sample collections at the Kings College London, the South West Dementia Bank, Universities of Cambridge, Nottingham, Manchester and Belfast. The Belfast group acknowledges support from the Alzheimer's Society, Ulster Garden Villages, N. Ireland R & D Office and the Royal College of Physicians/Dunhill Medical Trust. The MRC and Mercer's Institute for Research on Ageing supported the Trinity College group. DCR is a Wellcome Trust Principal Research fellow. The South West Dementia Brain Bank acknowledges support from Bristol Research into Alzheimer's and Care of the Elderly. The Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust supported the OPTIMA group. Washington University was funded by NIH grants, Barnes Jewish Foundation and the Charles and Joanne Knight Alzheimer's Research Initiative. Patient recruitment for the MRC Prion Unit/UCL Department of Neurodegenerative Disease collection was supported by the UCLH/UCL Biomedical Centre and their work was supported by the NIHR Queen Square Dementia BRU. LASER-AD was funded by Lundbeck SA. The Bonn group would like to thank Dr. Heike Koelsch for her scientific support. The Bonn group was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF): Competence Network Dementia (CND) grant number 01GI0102, 01GI0711, 01GI0420. The AgeCoDe study group was supported by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research grants 01 GI 0710, 01 GI 0712, 01 GI 0713, 01 GI 0714, 01 GI 0715, 01 GI 0716, 01 GI 0717. The Homburg group was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF): German National Genome Research Network (NGFN); Alzheimer's disease Integrated Genome Research Network; AD-IG: 01GS0465. Genotyping of the Bonn case-control sample was funded by the German centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Germany. The GERAD Consortium also used samples ascertained by the NIMH AD Genetics Initiative. Harald Hampel was supported by a grant of the Katharina-Hardt-Foundation, Bad Homburg vor der Höhe, Germany. The KORA F4 studies were financed by Helmholtz Zentrum München; German Research Center for Environmental Health; BMBF; German National Genome Research Network and the Munich Center of Health Sciences. The Heinz Nixdorf Recall cohort was funded by the Heinz Nixdorf Foundation (Dr. Jur. G.Schmidt, Chairman) and BMBF. Coriell Cell Repositories is supported by NINDS and the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Aging. The authors acknowledge use of genotype data from the 1958 Birth Cohort collection, funded by the MRC and the Wellcome Trust which was genotyped by the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium and the Type-1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International. The Nottingham Group (KM) are supported by the Big Lottery. MRC CFAS is part of the consortium and data will be included in future analyses. ADGC The National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging (NIH-NIA) supported this work through the following grants: ADGC, U01 AG032984, RC2 AG036528; NACC, U01 AG016976; NCRAD, U24 AG021886; NIA LOAD, U24 AG026395, R01 AG041797; MIRAGE R01 AG025259; Banner Sun Health Research Institute P30 AG019610; Boston University, P30 AG013846, U01 AG10483, R01 CA129769, R01 MH080295, R01 AG017173, R01AG33193; Columbia University, P50 AG008702, R37 AG015473; Duke University, P30 AG028377, AG05128; Emory University, AG025688; Group Health Research Institute, UO1 AG06781, UO1 HG004610; Indiana University, P30 AG10133; Johns Hopkins University, P50 AG005146, R01 AG020688; Massachusetts General Hospital, P50 AG005134; Mayo Clinic, P50 AG016574; Mount Sinai School of Medicine, P50 AG005138, P01 AG002219; New York University, P30 AG08051, MO1RR00096, and UL1 RR029893; Northwestern University, P30 AG013854; Oregon Health & Science University, P30 AG008017, R01 AG026916; Rush University, P30 AG010161, R01 AG019085, R01 AG15819, R01 AG17917, R01 AG30146; TGen, R01 NS059873; University of Alabama at Birmingham, P50 AG016582, UL1RR02777; University of Arizona, R01 AG031581; University of California, Davis, P30 AG010129; University of California, Irvine, P50 AG016573, P50, P50 AG016575, P50 AG016576, P50 AG016577; University of California, Los Angeles, P50 AG016570; University of California, San Diego, P50 AG005131; University of California, San Francisco, P50 AG023501, P01 AG019724; University of Kentucky, P30 AG028383; University of Michigan, P50 AG008671; University of Pennsylvania, P30 AG010124; University of Pittsburgh, P50 AG005133, AG030653, AG041718; University of Southern California, P50 AG005142; University of Texas Southwestern, P30 AG012300; University of Miami, R01 AG027944, AG010491, AG027944, AG021547, AG019757; University of Washington, P50 AG005136; Vanderbilt University, R01 AG019085; and Washington University, P50 AG005681, P01 AG03991. The Kathleen Price Bryan Brain Bank at Duke University Medical Center is funded by NINDS grant # NS39764, NIMH MH60451 and by Glaxo Smith Kline. Genotyping of the TGEN2 cohort was supported by Kronos Science. The TGen series was also funded by NIA grant AG034504 to AJM, The Banner Alzheimer's Foundation, The Johnnie B. Byrd Sr. Alzheimer's Institute, the Medical Research Council, and the state of Arizona and also includes samples from the following sites: Newcastle Brain Tissue Resource (funding via the Medical Research Council, local NHS trusts and Newcastle University), MRC London Brain Bank for Neurodegenerative Diseases (funding via the Medical Research Council), South West Dementia Brain Bank (funding via numerous sources including the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), Alzheimer's Research Trust (ART), BRACE as well as North Bristol NHS Trust Research and Innovation Department and DeNDRoN), The Netherlands Brain Bank (funding via numerous sources including Stichting MS Research, Brain Net Europe, Hersenstichting Nederland Breinbrekend Werk, International Parkinson Fonds, Internationale Stiching Alzheimer Onderzoek), Institut de Neuropatologia, Servei Anatomia Patologica, Universitat de Barcelona. Marcelle Morrison-Bogorad, PhD., Tony Phelps, PhD and Walter Kukull PhD are thanked for helping to co-ordinate this collection. ADNI Funding for ADNI is through the Northern California Institute for Research and Education by grants from Abbott, AstraZeneca AB, Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai Global Clinical Development, Elan Corporation, Genentech, GE Healthcare, Glaxo-SmithKline, Innogenetics, Johnson and Johnson, Eli Lilly and Co., Medpace, Inc., Merck and Co., Inc., Novartis AG, Pfizer Inc, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Schering-Plough, Synarc, Inc., Alzheimer's Association, Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation, the Dana Foundation, and by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering and NIA grants U01 AG024904, RC2 AG036535, K01 AG030514. Data collection and sharing for this project was funded by the ADNI (National Institutes of Health Grant U01 AG024904). ADNI is funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and through generous contributions from the following: Alzheimer's Association; Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation; BioClinica, Inc.; Biogen Idec Inc.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Eisai Inc.; Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and its affiliated company Genentech, Inc.; GE Healthcare; Innogenetics, N.V.; IXICO Ltd.; Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & Development, LLC.; Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC.; Medpace, Inc.; Merck & Co., Inc.; Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC.; NeuroRx Research; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Pfizer Inc.; Piramal Imaging; Servier; Synarc Inc.; and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is providing funds to support ADNI clinical sites in Canada. Private sector contributions are facilitated by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (www.fnih.org). The grantee organization is the Northern California Institute for Research and Education, and the study is coordinated by the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study at the University of California, San Diego. ADNI data are disseminated by the Laboratory for Neuro Imaging at the University of California, Los Angeles. This research was also supported by NIH grants P30 AG010129 and K01 AG030514. The authors thank Drs. D. Stephen Snyder and Marilyn Miller from NIA who are ex-o_cio ADGC members. Support was also from the Alzheimer's Association (LAF, IIRG-08-89720; MP-V, IIRG-05-14147) and the United States Department of Veterans Affairs Administration, Office of Research and Development, Biomedical Laboratory Research Program. Peter St George-Hyslop is supported by Wellcome Trust, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the Canadian Institute of Health
PUBLISHED ; BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease is a common debilitating dementia with known heritability, for which 20 late onset susceptibility loci have been identified, but more remain to be discovered. This study sought to identify new susceptibility genes, using an alternative gene-wide analytical approach which tests for patterns of association within genes, in the powerful genome-wide association dataset of the International Genomics of Alzheimer's Project Consortium, comprising over 7 m genotypes from 25,580 Alzheimer's cases and 48,466 controls. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In addition to earlier reported genes, we detected genome-wide significant loci on chromosomes 8 (TP53INP1, p?=?1.4?10-6) and 14 (IGHV1-67 p?=?7.9?10-8) which indexed novel susceptibility loci. SIGNIFICANCE: The additional genes identified in this study, have an array of functions previously implicated in Alzheimer's disease, including aspects of energy metabolism, protein degradation and the immune system and add further weight to these pathways as potential therapeutic targets in Alzheimer's disease. ; The i-Select chips was funded by the French National Foundation on Alzheimer?s disease and related disorders. The French National Fondation on Alzheimer?s disease and related disorders supported several I-GAP meetings and communications. Data management involved the Centre National de Ge ? notypage,and was supported by the Institut Pasteur de Lille, Inserm, FRC (fondation pour la recherche sur le cerveau) and Rotary. This work has been developed and supported by the LABEX (laboratory of excellence program investment for the future) DISTALZ grant (Development of Innovative Strateg ies for a Transdisciplinary approach to ALZheimer?s disease) and by the LABEX GENMED grant (Medical Genomics). The French National Foundation on Alzheimer? s disease and related disorders and the Alzheimer?s Association (Chicago, Illinois) grant supported IGAP in-person meetings, communication and the Alzheim er?s Association (Chicago, Illinois) grant provided some funds to each consortium for analyses. EADI The authors thank Dr. Anne Boland (CNG) for her techn ical help in preparing the DNA samples for analyses. This work was supported by the National Foundation for Alzheimer?s disease and related disorders, the Instit ut Pasteur de Lille and the Centre National de Ge ? notypage. The Three-City Study was performed as part of a collaboration between the Institut National de la Sante ? et de la Recherche Me ? dicale (Inserm), the Victor Segalen Bordeaux II University and Sanofi-Synthe ? labo. The Fondation pour la Recherche Me ? dicale funded the preparation and initiation of the study. The 3C Study was also funded by the Caisse Nationale Maladie des Travailleurs Salarie ? s, Direction Ge ? ne ? rale de la Sante ? , MGEN, Institut de la Longe ? vite ? , Agence Franc ?aise de Se ? curite ? Sanitaire des Produits de Sante ? , the Aquitaine and Bourgogne Regional Councils, Agence Nationale de la Recherche, ANR supported the COGINUT and COVADIS projects. Fondation de France and the joint French Ministry of Research/INSERM ?Cohortes et collec tions de donne ? es biologiques? programme. Lille Ge ? nopo ? le received an unconditional grant from Eisai. The Three-city biological bank was developed and maintained by the laboratory for genomic analysis LAG-BRC - Institut Pasteur de Lille. Belgium sample collection: The patients were clinically and pathologica l characterized by the neurologists Sebastiaan Engelborghs, Rik Vandenberghe and Peter P. De Deyn, and in part genetically by Caroline Van Cauwenberghe, Karolien Be ttens and Kristel Sleegers. Research at the Antwerp site is funded in part by the Belgian Science Policy Office Interuniversity Attraction Poles program, t he Foundation Alzheimer Research (SAO-FRA), the Flemish Government initiated Methusalem Excellence Program, the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) and the Uni versity of Antwerp Research Fund, Belgium. Karolien Bettens is a postdoctoral fellow of the FWO. The Antwerp site authors thank the personnel of the VIB Genetic S ervice Facility, the Biobank of the Institute Born-Bunge and the Departments of Neurology and Memory Clinics at the Hospital Network Antwerp and the Univers ity Hospitals Leuven. Finish sample collection: Financial support for this project was provided by the Health Research Council of the Academy of Finland , EVO grant 5772708 of Kuopio University Hospital, and the Nordic Centre of Excellence in Neurodegeneration. Italian sample collections: the Bologna site (FL) obtained funds from the Italian Ministry of research and University as well as Carimonte Foundation. The Florence site was supported by grant RF-2010-2319722, gran t from the the Cassa di Risparmio di Pistoia e Pescia (Grant 2012) and the Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze (Grant 2010 ?fondazione Monzino?. The authors thank the expert contribution of Mr. Carmelo Romano. The Roma site received financial support from Italian Minist ry of Health, Grant RF07-08 and RC08-09-10-11-12. The Pisa site is grateful to Dr. Annalisa LoGerfo for her technical assistance in the DNA purification st udies. Spanish sample collection: the Madrid site (MB) was supported by grants of the Ministerio de Educacio ? n y Ciencia and the Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo (Instituto de Salud Carlos III), and an institutional grant of the Fundacio ? n Ramo ? n Areces to the CBMSO. The authors thank I. Sastre and Dr. A. Mart? ? nez-Garc? ? afor the preparation and control of the DNA collection, and Drs. P. Gil and P. Coria for their cooperation in the cases/controls recruitment. The authors ar e grateful to the Asociacio ? n de Familiares de Alzheimer de Madrid (AFAL) for continuous encouragement and help. Swedish sample collection: Financially supported in part by the Swedish Brain Power network, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council (521-2010-3134), the King Gust af V and Queen Victoria?s Foundation of Freemasons, the Regional Agreement on Medical Training and Clinical Research (ALF) between Stockholm County Cou ncil and the Karolinska Institutet, the Swedish Brain Foundation and the Swedish Alzheimer Foundation. CHARGE AGES: The AGES-Reykjavik Study is funded b y National Institutes of Health (NIH) contract N01-AG-12100 (National Institute on Aging (NIA) with contributions from the National Eye Institute, N ational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)), the NIA Intramural Research Progra m, Hjartavernd (the Icelandic Heart Association), and the Althingi (the Icelandic Parliament). ASPS/PRODEM: The Austrian Stroke Prevention Study an d The Prospective Dementia Register of the Austrian Alzheimer Society was supported by The Austrian Science Fond (FWF) grant number P20545-P05 (H. Schmid t) and P13180; The Austrian Alzheimer Society; The Medical University of Graz. Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS): This CHS research was supported by NH LBI contracts HHSN268201200036C, HHSN268200800007C, N01HC55222, N01HC85079, N01HC85080, N01HC85081, N01HC85082, N01HC85083, N01HC85086, and HHSN268200960009C; and NHLBI grants HL080295, HL087652, HL105756 with additional contribution from the National Institute of Neurological Disor ders and Stroke (NINDS). Additional support was provided through AG023629, AG15928, AG20098, AG027058 and AG033193 (Seshadri) from the NIA. A full list of CH S investigators and institutions can be found at http://www.chs-nhlbi.org/pi. The provision of genotyping data was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, CTSI grant UL1TR000124, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease Diabetes Resear ch Center (DRC) grant DK063491 to the Southern California Diabetes Endocrinology Research Center. Framingham Heart Study (FHS): This work was supported by th e National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute?s Framingham Heart Study (Contract No. N01-HC-25195) and its contract with A_ymetrix, Inc for genotyping s ervices (Contract No. N02-HL-6-4278). A portion of this research utilized the Linux Cluster for Genetic Analysis (LinGA-II) funded by the Robert Dawson Evan s Endowment of the Department of Medicine at Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center. This study as also supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging: AG08122 and AG033193 (Seshadri). Drs. Seshadri and DeStefano were also supported by additional grants from the Nati onal Institute on Aging: (R01 AG16495; AG031287, AG033040), the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01 NS17950), and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (U01 HL096917, HL093029 and K24HL038444, RC2-HL102419 and UC2 HL103010. Fundacio ? ACE would like to thank patients and controls who participated in this project. This work has been funded by the Fundacio ? n Alzheimur (Murcia), the Ministerio de Educacio ? n y Ciencia (PCT-010000- 2007-18), (DEX-580000-2008-4), (Gobierno de Espan ? a), Corporacio ? n Tecnolo ? gica de Andaluc? ? a (08/211) and Agencia IDEA (841318) (Consejer? ? a de Innovacio ? n, Junta de Andaluc? ? a). The authors thank to Ms. Trinitat Port-Carbo ? and her family for their generous support of Fundacio ? ACE research programs. The Rotterdam Study: The Rotterdam Study was funded by Erasmus Medical Center and Erasmus University, Rotterdam; the Netherlands Organization for Health Researc h and Development; the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly; the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science; the Ministry for Health, Welfare an d Sports; the European Commission;and the Municipality of Rotterdam; by grants from the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly (014-93-015; RIDE2), Inte rnationale Stichting Alzheimer Onderzoek, Hersenstichting Nederland, the Netherlands Genomics Initiative?Netherlands Organization for Scientific Resea rch (Center for Medical Systems Biology and the Netherlands Consortium for Healthy Aging), the Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013), the ENGAGE project (gra nt agreement HEALTH-F4-2007-201413), MRACE-grant from the Erasmus Medical Center, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Developmen t (ZonMW Veni-grant no. 916.13.054). ARIC: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC) is carried out as a collaborative study supported by N ational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute contracts N01-HC-55015, N01-HC-55016, N01-HC-55018, N01- HC-55019, N01-HC-55020, N01-HC-55021, N01-HC-55022 and grants R01-HL087641, RC2-HL102419 (Boerwinkle, CHARGE-S), UC2 HL103010, U01-HL096917 (Mosley) and R01-HL093029; NHGRI contract U01- HG004402; and NIH contract HHSN268200625226C and NIA: R01 AG033193 (Seshadri). Infrastructure was partly supported by Grant Number UL1RR025005, a component of the National Institutes of Health and NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. GERAD Cardiff University was supported by the Wellcome Trust, Medical Resear ch Council (MRC), Alzheimer?s Research United Kingdom (ARUK) and the Welsh Government. ARUK supported sample collections at the Kings College London, the South West Dementia Bank, Universities of Cambridge, Nottingham, Manchester and Belfast. The Belfast group acknowledges support from the Alzheime r?s Society, Ulster Garden Villages, N. Ireland R & D Office and the Royal College of Physicians/Dunhill Medical Trust. The MRC and Mercer?s Institute for Research on Ageing supported the Trinity College group. DCR is a Wellcome Trust Principal Research fellow. The South West Dementia Brain Bank acknowledges suppo rt from Bristol Research into Alzheimer?s and Care of the Elderly. The Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust supported the OPTIMA group. Washington Univers ity was funded by NIH grants, Barnes Jewish Foundation and the Charles and Joanne Knight Alzheimer?s Research Initiative. Patient recruitment for the MRC Pr ion Unit/ UCL Department of Neurodegenerative Disease collection was supported by the UCLH/UCL Biomedical Centre and their work was supported by the NIHR Queen Square Dementia BRU. LASER-AD was funded by Lundbeck SA. The Bonn group would like to thank Dr. Heike Koelsch for her scientific support. The Bonn group was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF): Competence Network Dementia (CND) grant number 01GI0102, 01GI0711, 01GI0420. The AgeCoDe study group was supported by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research grants 01 GI 0710, 01 GI 0712, 01 GI 0713, 01 GI 0714, 01 GI 0715, 01 GI 0716, 01 GI 0717. The Homburg group was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF): German National Genome Research Network (NGFN); Alzheimer?s disease Integrated Genome Research Network; AD-IG: 01GS0465. Genotyping of the Bonn case-control sample was funded by the German centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Germany. The GERAD Consortium also used samples ascertained by the NIMH AD Genetics Initiative. Harald Hampel was supported by a grant of the Katharina-Hardt-Foundation, Bad Homburg vor der Ho ? he, Germany. The KORA F4 studies were financed by Helmholtz Zentrum Mu ? nchen; German Research Center for Environmental Health; BMBF; German National Genome Research Network and the Munich Center of Health Sciences. The Heinz Nixdorf Recall cohort was funded by the Heinz Nixdorf Foundation (Dr. Jur. G.Schmidt, Chairman) and BMBF. Coriell Cell Repositories is supported by NINDS and the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Agin g. The authors acknowledge use of genotype data from the 1958 Birth Cohort collection, funded by the MRC and the Wellcome Trust which was genotyped by the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium and the Type-1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive a nd Kidney Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institute of Child Hea lth and Human Development and Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International. The Nottingham Group (KM) are supported by the Big Lottery. MRC CFAS is part of the consortium and data will be included in future analyses. ADGC The National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging (NIH-NIA) supported thi s work through the following grants: ADGC, U01 AG032984, RC2 AG036528; NACC, U01 AG016976; NCRAD, U24 AG021886; NIA LOAD, U24 AG026395, R01 AG041797; MIRAGE R01 AG025259; Banner Sun Health Research Institute P30 AG019610; Boston University, P30 AG013846, U01 AG10483, R01 CA129769, R01 MH080295, R01 AG017173, R01AG33193; Columbia University, P50 AG008702, R37 AG015473; Duke University, P30 AG028377, AG05128; Emory University, AG025688; Group Health Research Institute, UO1 AG06781, UO1 HG004610; Indiana University, P30 AG10133; Johns Hopkins University, P50 AG005146, R01 AG020688 ; Massachusetts General Hospital, P50 AG005134; Mayo Clinic, P50 AG016574; Mount Sinai School of Medicine, P50 AG005138, P01 AG002219; New York University, P30 AG08051, MO1RR00096, and UL1 RR029893; Northwestern University, P30 AG013854; Oregon Health & Science University, P30 AG008017, R 01 AG026916; Rush University, P30 AG010161, R01 AG019085, R01 AG15819, R01 AG17917, R01 AG30146; TGen, R01 NS059873; University of Alabama at Birmingham, P50 AG016582, UL1RR02777; University of Arizona, R01 AG031581; University of California, Davis, P30 AG010129; University of Californ ia, Irvine, P50 AG016573, P50, P50 AG016575, P50 AG016576, P50 AG016577; University of California, Los Angeles, P50 AG016570; University of California, San Die go, P50 AG005131; University of California, San Francisco, P50 AG023501, P01 AG019724; University of Kentucky, P30 AG028383; University of Michigan, P50 A G008671; University of Pennsylvania, P30 AG010124; University of Pittsburgh, P50 AG005133, AG030653, AG041718; University of Southern California, P50 AG0 05142; University of Texas Southwestern, P30 AG012300; University of Miami, R01 AG027944, AG010491, AG027944, AG021547, AG019757; University of Washing ton, P50 AG005136; Vanderbilt University, R01 AG019085; and Washington University, P50 AG005681, P01 AG03991. The Kathleen Price Bryan Brain Bank at Duk e University Medical Center is funded by NINDS grant # NS39764, NIMH MH60451 and by Glaxo Smith Kline. Genotyping of the TGEN2 cohort was supported by Kronos Science. The TGen series was also funded by NIA grant AG034504 to AJM, The Banner Alzheimer?s Foundation, The Johnnie B. Byrd Sr. Alzheimer?s Institute, the Medical Research Council, and the state of Arizona and also includes samples from the following sites: Newcastle Brain Tissue Resourc e (funding via the Medical Research Council, local NHS trusts and Newcastle University), MRC London Brain Bank for Neurodegenerative Diseases (funding via the Medical Research Council), South West Dementia Brain Bank (funding via numerous sources including the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) , Alzheimer?s Research Trust (ART), BRACE as well as North Bristol NHS Trust Research and Innovation Department and DeNDRoN), The Netherlands Brain Bank (funding via numerous sources including Stichting MS Research, Brain Net Europe, Hersenstichting Nederland Breinbrekend Werk, International Par kinson Fonds, Internationale Stiching Alzheimer Onderzoek), Institut de Neuropatologia, Servei Anatomia Patologica, Universitat de Barcelona. Marcel le Morrison- Bogorad, PhD., Tony Phelps, PhD and Walter Kukull PhD are thanked for helping to co-ordinate this collection. ADNI Funding for ADNI is through the Nort hern California Institute for Research and Education by grants from Abbott, AstraZeneca AB, Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai Globa l Clinical Development, Elan Corporation, Genentech, GE Healthcare, Glaxo-SmithKline, Innogenetics, Johnson and Johnson, Eli Lilly and Co., Medpace, Inc., Merck and Co., Inc., Novartis AG, Pfizer Inc, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Schering-Plough, Synarc, Inc., Alzheimer?s Association, Alzheimer?s Drug Discovery Foun dation, the Dana Foundation, and by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering and NIA grants U01 AG024904, RC2 AG036535, K01 AG030514. Data collection and sharing for this project was funded by the ADNI (National Institutes of Health Grant U01 AG024904). ADNI is funded by the National Insti tute on Aging, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and through generous contributions from the following: Alzheimer?s Assoc iation; Alzheimer?s Drug Discovery Foundation; BioClinica, Inc.; Biogen Idec Inc.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Eisai Inc.; Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ; Eli Lilly and Company; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and its affiliated company Genentech, Inc.; GE Healthcare; Innogenetics, N.V.; IXICO Ltd.; Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & Development, LLC.; Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC.; Medpace, Inc.; Merck & Co., Inc.; Meso Sc ale Diagnostics, LLC.; NeuroRx Research; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Pfizer Inc.; Piramal Imaging; Servier; Synarc Inc.; and Takeda Pharm aceutical Company. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is providing funds to support ADNI clinical sites in Canada. Private sector contributions are fa cilitated by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (www.fnih.org). The grantee organization is the Northern California Institute for Research an d Education, and the study is coordinated by the Alzheimer?s Disease Cooperative Study at the University of California, San Diego. ADNI data are disseminated by th e Laboratory for Neuro Imaging at the University of California, Los Angeles. This research was also supported by NIH grants P30 AG010129 and K01 AG03051 4. The authors thank Drs. D. Stephen Snyder and Marilyn Miller from NIA who are ex-o_cio ADGC members. Support was also from the Alzheimer?s Association (LAF, IIRG-08-89720; MP-V, IIRG-05-14147) and the United States Department of Veterans Affairs Administration, Office of Research and Developmen t, Biomedical Laboratory Research Program. Peter St George-Hyslop is supported by Wellcome Trust, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the Canadian Institute of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Women's legal landmarks : an introduction / Erika Rackley and Rosemary Auchmuty -- Cyfraith Hywel (the laws of Hywel Dda), c. 940 / Carol Howells -- A vindication of the rights of woman, Mary Wollstonecraft, 1792 / Anna Jobe -- Gaols act 1823 / Ruth Lamont -- The Slave, Grace (1827) / Rosemary Auchmuty -- A brief summary of the most important laws concerning women, Barbara Leigh Smith Bodichon, 1854 / Joanne Conaghan -- Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 / Penelope Russell -- Married Women's Property Act 1882 / Andy Hayward -- First woman prospective parliamentary candidate, Helen Taylor, 1885 / Janet Smith -- Section 5(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 / Lois Bibbings -- Match women's strike, 1888 / Jacqueline Lane -- R v Jackson (1891) / Teresa Sutton -- A pageant of great women, Cicely Hamilton, 1909-12 / Katharine Cockin -- Representation of the People Act 1918 / Mari Takayanagi -- Maternity and Child Welfare Act 1918 / Hazel Biggs -- Article 7 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, 1919 / Aoife O'Donoghue -- Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 / Mari Takayanagi -- First women justices of the peace, 1919 / Anne Logan -- First woman to be admitted to an inn of court, Helena Normanton, 1919 / Judith Bourne -- Committee on the Employment of Women on Police Duties, 1920 / Colin R Moore -- First woman law agent, Madge Easton Anderson, 1920 / Alison Lindsay -- Foundation of the Association of Women Solicitors, 1921 / Elizabeth Cruickshank -- First woman to practise as a barrister in Ireland and the (then) United Kingdom, Averil Deverell, 1921 / Liz Goldthorpe -- First woman solicitor in England and Wales, Carrie Morrison, 1922 / Elizabeth Cruickshank -- Matrimonial Causes Act 1923 / Penelope Russell -- First woman member of the Faculty of Advocates, Margaret Kidd, 1923 / Catriona Cairns -- First woman professor of law in Ireland, Frances Moran, 1925 / Emma Hutchinson -- DPP v Jonathan Cape and Leopold Hill (1928) / Caroline Derry -- Edwards v Attorney-General of Canada (1929) / Sarah Mercer -- Education Act 1944 / Harriet Samuels -- Family Allowances Act 1945 / Lucy Vickers -- British Nationality Act 1948 / Helen Kay and Rose Pipes -- Married Women (Restraint upon Anticipation) Act 1949 / Rosemary Auchmuty -- Life Peerages Act 1958 / Supuni Perera -- First woman to hold regular judicial office in England and Wales, Rose Heilbron, 1964 / Laura Lammasniemi -- Married Women's Property Act 1964 / Sharon Thompson -- First woman High Court judge in England and Wales, Elizabeth Lane, 1965 / Judith Bourne and Frances Burton -- Abortion Act 1967 / Nicky Priaulx and Natalie Jones -- National Health Service (Family Planning) Act 1967 / Leonora Onaran -- Dagenham car plant strike, 1968 / Dawn Watkins -- First woman professor of law in the United Kingdom, Claire Palley, 1970 / Fiona Cownie -- First women's refuge, 1971 / Felicity Kaganas -- Section 25 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 / Anne Logan -- Sex Discrimination Act 1975 / Anne Morris -- First rape crisis centre, 1976 / Alison Diduck -- Section 4 of the Sexual Offences (amendment) Act 1976 / Clare McGlynn and Julia Downes -- Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 / Laura Binger and Helen Carr -- Davis v Johnson (1978) / Susan Edwards -- Health (Family Planning) Act 1979 / Máiréad Enright -- Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland (1980) / Rosemary Auchmuty -- Greenham Common women's peace camp, 1981-2000 / Elizabeth Woodcraft -- Gill and Coote v El Vino Co ltd (1982) / Anne Morris -- Women and the law, Susan Atkins and Brenda Hoggett, 1984 / Brenda Hale and Susan Atkins -- Warnock report, 1984 / Kirsty Horsey -- Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 / Phyllis Livaha -- Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority (1985) / Emma Nottingham -- Grant v Edwards (1986) / Joanne Beswick -- Section 32 of the Finance Act 1988 / Ann Mumford -- First woman Court of Appeal judge in England and Wales, Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, 1988 / Dana Denis-Smith -- Section 5 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (amendment) Act 1990 / Susan Leahy -- First woman president of Ireland, Mary Robinson, 1990 / Leah Treanor -- Foundation of the Association of Women Barristers, 1991 / Frances Burton -- R v Ahluwalia (1992) / Siobhan Weare -- Feminist legal studies journal, 1993 / Rosemary Hunter -- Barclays Bank v O'brien (1993) / Sarah Greer -- Webb v Emo Air Cargo (UK) ltd (no 2) (1994) / Debra Morris -- First woman to lead a top 10 law firm in England and Wales, Lesley Macdonagh, 1995 / Steven Vaughan -- Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act 1995 / Laura Cahillane -- St George's Healthcare NHS Trust v S (1998) / Kay Lalor, Anne Morris and Annapurna Waughray -- Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 / Sonia Kalsi -- Islam v Secretary of State for the Home Department, R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and another, ex parte Shah (1999) / Nora Honkala -- White v White (2000) / Jonathan Herring -- Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 / Susan Atkins -- Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 / Nikki Godden-Rasul -- National Assembly for Wales Election, 2003 / Catrin Fflur Huws -- Mental Capacity Act 2005 / Rosie Harding -- UK ratification of the optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (OP-CEDAW), 2005 / Meghan Campbell -- Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 / Pragna Patel -- First woman attorney general for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Patricia Scotland, 2007 / Linda Mulcahy -- Section 14 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 / F Vera-Grey -- Radmacher v Granatino (2010) / Marie Parker -- Concluding observations of the UN Committee against Torture, recommendation to Iireland regarding the Magdalene Laundries, 2011 / Maeve O'Rourke -- Birmingham City Council v Abdulla (2012) / Harini Iyengar -- Electoral (amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012 / Ivana Bacik -- Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013 / Fiona de Londras -- R v Nimmo and Sorley (2014) / Kim Barker -- Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure 2014 and Canon c2, "of the consecration of bishops", 2014 / Miranda Threlfall-Holmes -- In the matter of an application for judicial review by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (2015) / Marie Fox and Sheelagh McGuiness -- Violence Against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015 / Olga Jurasz -- Section 2 of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 / Erika Rackley -- First woman president of the UK Supreme Court, Brenda Hale, 2017 / Erika Rackley -- Thirty-sixth amendment of the Irish constitution, 2018 / Fiona de Londras.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
This book will suggest new agendas for identity and heritage studies by means of presenting contentious issues facing archaeology and heritage management in a globalized world. The book is not only present the variability of heritage objectives and experiences in the New and Old World, and opens a discussion, in a shrinking world, to look beyond national and regional contexts. If the heritage sector and archaeology are to remain relevant in our contemporary world and the near future, there are a number of questions concerning the politics, practices and narratives related to heritage and identity that must be addressed. Questions of relevance in an affluent, cosmopolitan setting are at odds with those relevant for a region emerging from civil war or ethnic strife, or a national minority battling oppression or ethnic cleansing. A premise is that heritage represents a broad scope of empirically and theoretically sound interpretations - that heritage is a response to contemporary forces, as much as data. It is therefore necessary constantly to evaluate what is scientifically accurate as well as what is valid and relevant and what can have a contemporary impact. Dr. Peter F. Biehlis a Professor of Anthropology and the current Chair of the Department of Anthropology at the University at Buffalo. He is also Director of the Institute for European and Mediterranean Archaeology (IEMA) and is an executive board member for the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA). He has developed an international Master's Program in Cultural Heritage with the Sorbonne University and teaches an introduction course to cultural heritage and an advanced course on digital heritage. He is the organizer of the interdisciplinary symposium 'The Future of Heritage: Laws, Ethics and Sustainability' which is funded by the Baldy Center for Law and Social Policy of the University at Buffalo. He is the representative for the organization of the EAA meeting in Istanbul 2014 which is planned to run under topic of 'Archaeology, Heritage and Tourism'. He directs the international West Mound research project at Çatalhöyük in Turkey and supervises a PhD on heritage management in Turkey. He also co-directs the Sinking Ponds Excavation project near Buffalo, which includes a heritage management project in collaboration with the Seneca tribe. He has published widely on Neolithic and Copper Age Europe and Near East, archaeological method and theory, cognitive archaeology and the social meaning of visual imagery and representation, archaeology of cult and religion, museums and archaeological collections, and multimedia in archaeology. Dr. Douglas C. Comeris President of Cultural Site Research and Management (CSRM) and the CSRM Foundation, and Co-President of the International Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM) for ICOMOS. A Fulbright Scholar in cultural resource management, he served for 15 years as Chief of the United States National Park Service Applied Archaeology Center and nine years as Chair of the Maryland Governor's Advisory Committee on Archaeology. After two terms on the Board of Trustees for the United States Committee for ICOMOS (US/ICOMOS), he now represents the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) on the Board. He is Senior Editor of the Conservation and Preservation Section of the Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, Senior Editor for the Springer Press/ICAHM publication series Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Archaeological Heritage Management, Fellow at the Whiting School of Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, and Visiting Independent Advisor with the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory at Caltech (JPL/NASA). He has published extensively on archaeology, aerial and satellite remote sensing, and heritage management, and has conducted research and provided management , tourism, and interpretive planning and design at numerous archaeological sand historic sites on five continents. Dr. Christopher Prescottis Professor of Archaeology and Head-of Research at the Department of Archaeology, Conservation and History, University of Oslo, Norway, and Docent at Gothenburg's University, Sweden. He has served as section and program leader in Bergen and Oslo, as well as Head-of-Department for archaeology, conservation and art history (Oslo). From 1997 to 2002 he was dean of studies at the humanities faculty, University of Oslo. He was editor-in-chief of the Norwegian Archaeological Review from 1997 to 2001, and has edited several anthologies. He has published articles and monographs concerning Neolithic to Early Iron Age prehistory in Scandinavia and Italy, history of archaeology and theoretical and political issues. Prescott has been on the board of numerous rescue archaeological projects, and has participated in several public outreach initiatives (exhibitions, lectures, media appearances), and he has also worked on issues concerning illicit trade in antiquities and questions concerning how to train archaeologists and conduct outreach in a population becoming increasingly heterogeneous due to migration. Dr. Hilary A. Soderlanddirects the PhD in Law Program at the University of Washington School of Law and teaches interdisciplinary courses to law as well as social science and humanities graduate students. Specializing in archaeology, cultural heritage, and the law, Soderland received her MPhil and PhD from the University of Cambridge and her Juris Doctorate (JD) from the University of California-Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law. A Registered Professional Archaeologist, her publications include articles, commissioned work, and a co-edited book manuscript concerning archaeology legislation,cultural heritage law, repatriation, and archaeological resource protection and heritage management. She has been a Visiting Scholar at the American Bar Foundation in Chicago and at Tel Aviv University's Cegla Center for Interdisciplinary Research of the Law. Her museum work on three continents has encompassed curation, accessioning protocol, exhibition preparation, and legal compliance. For the Society for American Archaeology, she co-founded and served as co-chair of the Heritage Values Interest Group and she currently serves on the Committee on Ethics, the International Governmental Affairs Committee, and as a legal advisor to the Repatriation Committee. Soderland also is a manuscript reviewer and editorial board advisor for journals in the fields of anthropology, law, cultural heritage, and museology. Her professional service further includes pro bono legal work.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Was im neuen Nationalen Bildungsbericht steht und warum Autorensprecher Kai Maaz davor warnt, Einwanderer für die schlechte Performance des Bildungssystems verantwortlich zu machen.
Schaubild aus dem Nationalen Bildungsbereich 2024. CC BY-SA 3.0 DE.
ER GILT ALS DIE große Bestandsaufnahme des deutschen Bildungswesens. Das ist Verdienst und Problem zugleich. Denn der Nationale Bildungsbericht, der seit 2006 alle zwei Jahre mit inzwischen jedes Mal fast 400 Seiten Analysen, Grafiken, Tabellen veröffentlicht wird, ist so umfassend, dass Bildungspolitiker seinen Verfassern gelegentlich vorwerfen, dass vor lauter Details und Trends die politisch verwertbaren Empfehlungen auf der Strecke bleiben.
Am Montagnachmittag wurde nun die aktuelle Ausgabe des Bildungsberichts veröffentlicht, Förderer sind wie immer das Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung und die Kultusministerkonferenz. Und erneut lieferten die beteiligten Bildungsforscher und Statistiker parallel eine nicht einmal 30-seitige Kompaktfassung, die entlang der gesamten Bildungskette wichtige Kennzahlen im Überblick präsentiert und dazu – tatsächlich sehr klare – "zentrale Herausforderungen" benennt.
Fragt man Kai Maaz, was für ihn persönlich die wichtigste Aussage des neuen Berichts ist, antwortet der Sprecher der Autorengruppe: "Die sozialen Disparitäten in unserem Bildungssystem von der Kita bis zur Weiterbildung sind ein riesiges Dauerproblem, die Politik schafft es nicht, daran etwas zu ändern."
"Wir sollten uns fragen", fügt Maaz, Chef des DIPF Leibniz-Instituts für Bildungsforschung und Bildungsinformation, hinzu: "Warum haben all die lobenswerten Bildungsinitiativen von Bund und Ländern, all das Geld, das in sie hineingesteckt wurde, keine messbare Wirkung erzielt hin zu einer flächendeckenden Verbesserung von Bildungschancen und Bildungsqualität?"
19 Prozent der Viertklässler können nicht adäquat lesen
Ein paar Zahlen aus dem Bericht. 264 Milliarden Euro hat Deutschland 2022 in Bildung investiert, nur geringfügig mehr als in den Jahren zuvor. Deutlicher stiegen die Ausgaben für die Kitas, trotzdem gibt es weiter viele Eltern, die keinen Krippenplatz für ihre Kleinkinder finden. Bedarf bei Einjährigen: 65 Prozent. Tatsächlich zur Kita gingen 2023: 38 Prozent. Immerhin dreimal so viele wie 2006 (zwölf Prozent). Besonders Kinder aus Einwandererfamilien sind unterrepräsentiert, bei den 3- bis 5-Jährigen ging die Kitaquote seit 2014 sogar um sieben Prozentpunkte auf 78 Prozent zurück – gegenüber 100 Prozent bei Kindern, deren Eltern beide in Deutschland geboren sind.
19 Prozent der Viertklässler verfehlten 2021 die Mindeststandards beim Lesen, die Hälfte mehr als 2011 (zwölf Prozent). Im Osten nehmen 84 Prozent der Grundschulkinder an Ganztagsangeboten teil, im Westen nur 50 Prozent. Unterdessen steigt der Anteil der Schulabgänger ohne Abschluss seit Corona wieder deutlich auf 6,9 Prozent im Jahr 2022. Und während von 100 Akademikerkindern 78 ein Studium aufnehmen, tun das von 100 Nicht-Akademikerkindern nur 25.
Alte Erkenntnisse und Altlasten der Politik
Die Zahlen sind nicht neu – können sie auch nicht sein, weil für den Bildungsbericht keine eigenen Studien erstellt, sondern vorhandene Untersuchungen und Statistiken zusammengetragen werden. Viele der Ergebnisse haben bei ihrem Bekanntwerden bereits einmal Debatten ausgelöst. Das Besondere ist aber der Gesamtüberblick, der durch ihre Kombination entsteht.
Der, so Maaz, nur Schlussfolgerungen zulässt: "Wir müssen aufhören, uns kurzfristig über bildungspolitische Krisenmeldungen aufzuregen und ansonsten immer weitermachen wie bisher." Und: Die Politik müsse sich ehrlich machen und sagen: "Es liegt an der Art, wie wir unsere Bildungspolitik organisieren, wie wir unsere Bildungseinrichtungen steuern."
Und damit fordere er keine weitere Grundsatzdebatte über den Bildungsföderalismus, "weil die uns nicht weiterbringt. Im Gegenteil, wir könnten aus dem Föderalismus Honig saugen, indem wir systematisch evaluieren, warum etwa ein Land wie Hamburg mit geringeren Pro-Kopf-Ausgaben weit mehr Qualität und Chancengerechtigkeit in der Bildung schafft als Berlin." Es sei richtig und normal, die Schülerleistungen regelmäßig zu überprüfen, so der Bildungsforscher. Aber: "Ebenso, wie wir die Schülerleistungen testen, muss auch die bildungspolitische Steuerlogik und Koordinationsleistung der einzelnen Bundesländer Teil des nationalen Bildungsmonitorings werden."
Mancherorts sind die Hälfte aller neueingestellten Lehrer Seiteneinsteiger
Zwischen Bund und Ländern müsse diskutiert werden, wie all die nebeneinanderher laufenden Bildungsprogramme von "QuaMath" (für besseren Matheunterricht) über "SchuMaS" (Schulentwicklung für benachteiligte Schüler) bis hin zu dem milliardenschweren Startchancen-Programm so "miteinander koordiniert und verknüpft werden könnten, dass sie eine nachhaltige Wirkung erzielen".
Es wird spannend sein zu sehen, ob die Bildungspolitik in Bund und Ländern sich auf die damit geforderte öffentliche Nabelschau einlässt, auf die systematische Untersuchung und Evaluierung des Zusammenspiels etwa von Ministerien, Schulträger und Schulämtern. Oder ob sie sich lieber auf die üblichen Narrative stützt, die allesamt auch ihre statistischen Belege im Bildungsbericht finden.
Etwa, dass die Bildungskrise eng mit dem gewaltigen Mangel an Fachkräften in allen Bildungsbereichen zusammenhänge. Laut Bildungsbericht waren 2023 11,9 Prozent der bundesweit neu eingestellten Lehrkräfte Seiteneinsteiger, bei gewaltigen Länderunterschieden allerdings: In Sachsen-Anhalt lag ihr Anteil bei 53 Prozent, in Bayern und Rheinland-Pfalz nur ein Prozent. An den Berufsschulen wiederum hatten insgesamt 21 Prozent des Kollegiums keine Lehramtsausbildung.
Zuwanderung ist "Ausrede" für Qualitätsmangel in der Bildung
Oft wird von Bildungspolitikern auch das zweite Erklärungsmuster angeführt: der hohe und weiter steigende Prozentsatz neu eingewanderter Kinder und Jugendliche. Auch hierzu eine eindrückliche Statistik aus dem Bildungsbericht: Im Jahr 2022 kamen rund 535.000 Menschen zwischen sechs und 19 neu ins Land – gegenüber 114.000 zehn Jahre davor.
Und doch: "Dass wir die Qualität wegen der Zuwanderung oder des Lehrkräftemangels nicht steigern können, halte ich für Ausreden", sagt Kai Maaz. "Wir hätten seit 50 Jahren einen Bevölkerungsrückgang und würden uns als Gesellschaft abschaffen, gäbe es keine Einwanderung." Deutschland habe es allerdings nie vermocht, seine "Bildungssteuerung so auszurichten, dass sie der Wirklichkeit eines Einwanderungslands entspricht: mit einem kontinuierlichen Zustrom und immer wieder größeren Peaks."
Neben dem DIPF am Bericht beteiligt sind das Deutsche Institut für Erwachsenenbildung, das Deutsche Jugendinstitut, das Deutsche Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung, das Soziologische
Forschungsinstitut Göttingen (SOFI) an der Georg-August-Universität, das Leibniz-Institut für Bildungsverläufe und die Statistischen Ämter des Bundes und der Länder. Ein Schwerpunkt liegt dieses Jahr auf der beruflichen Bildung.
Neben dem großen politischen Steuerungsproblem benennt der Bericht weitere zentrale Herausforderungen für die Bildung in Deutschland: dort pro Kopf am meisten Geld in Schulen & Co zu schicken, wo die Missstände am größten sind, wobei die "Startchancen" als zukunftsweisendes Beispiel genannt werden. Außerdem kurzfristige und langfristige Strategien dafür zu entwickeln, dass nicht nur genug, sondern auch genug gut ausgebildetes pädagogisches Personal zur Verfügung steht, wobei es besonders auf die Weiterbildung ankomme. Schließlich brauche es mehr Datenerhebung und -nutzung in allen Bildungsbereichen und auf allen Ebenen, damit die vorhandenen Bildungsangebote nicht am Bedarf vorbeigingen, inklusive der statistischen Erfassung individueller Lernverläufe und der Evaluation von Reformmaßnahmen.
Dieser Beitrag erschien heute zuerst im Tagesspiegel.
Kostenfreien Newsletter abonnieren
In eigener Sache: Bitte unterstützen Sie meine Arbeit hier im Blog
Zuletzt hat sich die Blogfinanzierung verbessert, besten Dank dafür! Bitte helfen Sie auch im Juni mit, damit alle Artikel weiter für alle kostenfrei zugänglich bleiben können. Mehr lesen...
Wie Sie Blog und Newsletter unterstützen können, erfahren Sie hier...
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Israel's attacks in Gaza reflect a "systematic disregard for fundamental principles of international law" and "raise grave concerns regarding the [Biden] Administration's compliance with both U.S. and international law," according to an explosive new report from a prominent group of former U.S. officials and legal scholars."The Israeli government [has] demonstrated a clear pattern of negligent targeting along this campaign, [as well as] indifference and callousness to civilian harm and suffering and a disregard for international law," Wes Bryant, an Air Force master sergeant and a targeting expert who contributed to the report, said during a Wednesday press conference."Their campaign has been executed in a manner wholly inconsistent with U.S. targeting methodologies and best practices," Bryant added, noting that "the majority of strikes" that he has reviewed would not have been approved by U.S. officials.The report, which the group submitted to the State Department last week, is meant to inform the administration's thinking ahead of a May 8 deadline to determine whether Israel's actions in Gaza have complied with U.S. law regarding arms transfers. Members of the task force also plan to brief members of Congress on the results of their inquiry next week.The State Department's report would force a suspension of certain U.S. weapons transfers to Israel if its findings reflect the publicly available evidence included in the task force's report, the authors say. Meanwhile, the Biden administration is reportedly planning to block a notorious Israeli unit from receiving U.S. military grant aid due to allegations of human rights violations.As the task force released its report, President Joe Biden was set to sign off on an additional $17 billion in military aid for Israel, part of a broader aid package for U.S. partners abroad. The package also blocks funding for the primary United Nations aid organization operating in Gaza, a measure that could further complicate the humanitarian crisis on the ground.Josh Paul — a former State Department official who resigned in protest last year — led the inquiry alongside Noura Erakat, a Palestinian-American legal scholar. Other members of the task force include Bryant and Charles Blaha, who led the State Department's human rights bureau until August of last year. Legal experts Adil Haque and Luigi Daniele also contributed to the report.From a list of thousands of different incidents, the task force identified 16 cases in which it could conclude with high certainty that Israeli forces used American weapons in attacks that likely violated the laws of war or U.S. targeting standards. In 11 of the 16 cases, the report found that Israel has still not identified its intended target or justified its attack.One alleged violation came on Oct. 10 of last year, when the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) flattened a six-story residential building in Gaza City with a U.S.-made bomb, killing 40 civilians and failing to hit the apparent target — a low-level Hamas militant who was not home at the time. A similar set of strikes killed at least 106 civilians near the Nuseirat refugee camp on Oct. 31, the report notes.The task force also cited the recent killing of seven international aid workers from World Central Kitchen, as well as a November attack on a clearly marked ambulance that led to 21 casualties, including five children.The task force found several Israeli violations of a U.S. law that bans the provision of U.S. weapons to any state that blocks the flow of American humanitarian aid. The report notes that Israel has repeatedly refused U.S. demands to increase the amount of aid entering Gaza, adding that the IDF has directly attacked humanitarian convoys on several occasions.The aid-related violations are notable given the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, where famine has begun to take hold. Multiple members of Congress have called on the Biden administration to cut off certain military aid to Israel under the law.Following the recent Israeli killing of Western aid workers, Israel says it plans to increase the flow of aid into Gaza. A United Nations tracker showed a slight uptick in the number of humanitarian trucks entering the besieged strip, but aid groups say the amount of aid entering the strip remains far too low to slow the growing famine.The task force's report highlights the difficulties of the Biden administration's attempt to balance its desire to show ironclad support for Israel with widespread outrage at the IDF's actions in Gaza, which have left at least 34,000 Palestinians dead and displaced nearly everyone living in the strip, according to local officials.In response to pressure from prominent lawmakers, led by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), President Joe Biden issued a memorandum in February mandating that the U.S. get assurances from partners that their use of U.S. weapons does not violate U.S. or international law. The memo also forces the State Department to report to Congress by May 8 on whether those assurances are credible.The White House may have hoped that the war would be over by the time it had to submit the upcoming report. But, with no ceasefire in sight, the administration will now have two options: ignore a mountain of publicly available evidence of Israeli violations, or acknowledge that the IDF's actions should disqualify it from receiving U.S. weapons.Paul says there is "room for skepticism as to whether" the Biden administration's report will "accurately reflect" the available evidence of alleged Israeli violations, especially "given the constant assertions from podiums in the White House, the Pentagon and State Department that the U.S. has not identified any violations of international law by the Israel Defense Forces." But he and his colleagues hope that their independent report will add pressure on the White House to recognize the impact that U.S. weapons are having in Gaza."In our report, we detail a number of clear, credible and compelling incidents that should certainly be included in the administration's upcoming reporting to Congress," Paul said at a Wednesday press conference. "These are just the tip of the iceberg but demonstrate the inescapable truth of how U.S.-provided weapons and security assistance are being used by Israel."
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
U.S. President Joe Biden, in his rousing State of the Union speech, warned that Vladimir Putin's Russia is on the march, "invading Europe and sowing chaos throughout the world." There's no doubt that Russia is a rogue, nuclear-armed state which crushes dissent at home, exports war abroad, and endangers what the United States and its allies call the "rules-based international order."But many people around the world — especially civil society activists from the Global South — are not just concerned about Putin's threats to the rules-based order. We also worry about Biden's commitment to it. As Israel's death toll tops 30,000 in Gaza with Washington's material support and diplomatic cover, many of us shake our heads at Biden's moral dualism on international norms.Indeed, if President Biden truly wants to save the rules-based order, he should start by looking at the United States' own behavior. Then, he should urgently push for United Nations reform that checks both Putin's influence, and America's own. Biden's administration should also back systemic changes that put the world's people, not the world's powers, at the center of global decision-making.Our research — based on over 250 interviews and articles we published over the last year on civil society activism — shows that the Biden administration's hypocrisy on Gaza is seriously undermining the rules-based international order. Crucial global governance systems like the UN Security Council, already weakened by Russia, are now at their breaking points. The unrelenting carnage in Gaza makes clear that the UN cannot stop wars as long as the belligerents have leverage in New York.It's easy for us to call out Putin. His atrocities in Syria and Ukraine confirm — in the worst way possible — that he is willing to go to any length to preserve his power.That's why many activists — including from Ukrainian and Russian civil society, who suffered the brunt of the invasion — applaud American support for Kyiv. But Gaza's wreckage has all but buried the goodwill the U.S. gained in support of Ukraine.Israel, like Russia in Ukraine, has disregarded almost every rule of international humanitarian law in its response to the October 7 Hamas massacre. Yet Biden has put no restrictions on American weapons flows to Israel, even as they are used to bomb and starve innocent people.At the Security Council, where the U.S. has often called out Russia's self-serving obstruction on Ukraine, the Biden administration has used its veto power just as cynically to cover for Israel's actions in Gaza — which the International Court of Justice says is plausibly genocide — and to block a ceasefire.With such hypocrisy at the helm, it's no wonder the UN system's response has pivoted to trying to supply never-enough humanitarian relief, rather than proactive diplomacy to stop the fighting and hold perpetrators accountable.The U.S. isn't the only country exercising double-standards in international affairs.When The Gambia brought genocide charges against Myanmar before the International Court of Justice, Britain stood with the Rohingya and argued that blocking aid to civilians was a war crime. But when South Africa used the same argument at the ICJ against Israel, a UK spokesperson derided the suit as "wrong and provocative."Sadly, South Africa is not immune to hypocrisy, championing the Palestinians while withholding criticism of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and China's persecution of the Uyghur people.Indeed, double-standards are hardly the West's purview. The expanded BRICS coalition claims to be an alternative to Western hegemony, but its members include the most repressive countries on Earth, some of whom have exported war and suffering to Sudan, Yemen, and elsewhere.Hypocrisy reigns in "peaceful" forums, too. The UAE used the COP28 climate summit to ink oil deals. And from the UN General Assembly to the G20, world leaders in 2023 spoke the language of democracy and rights on the one hand, while repressing citizen activism or sidelining civil society on the other.The results of these double-standards are all around us: a world beset by war, economic inequality, and rising temperatures.No country can fix these problems alone — all must work together. Despite his record on Gaza, Biden in particular has an opportunity to pull the rules-based international order from the brink.First, he should change tack on Gaza to prove he believes human rights apply equally regardless of who is the perpetrator and who is the victim.Second, his administration should champion UN Security Council reform to either abolish the much-abused veto or allow a UN General Assembly vote to override it. The perfect time to achieve such a change is September's Summit of the Future in New York.Biden's administration can also use the Summit of the Future to challenge the UN's state-centric approach to diplomacy. Currently, the UN, despite its public commitment to human rights, favors governments even if they are unelected or unaccountable to their own people.To boost popular participation and oversight instead, the U.S. should push for the UN to adopt the five recommendations of the UNmute Civil Society initiative at the Summit of the Future. These modest reforms include appointing a UN civil society envoy, mandating a civil society day at the UN, and providing wider public access to the UN through digital technologies.More boldly, in the spirit of the UN Charter which begins with the words, 'We the Peoples', Biden's team should back a world citizens' initiative, modeled on European Union processes, to allow people to petition to put issues directly before the General Assembly. Even better: a UN parliamentary assembly of elected representatives alongside the General Assembly to further balance state power with people power.All these reforms would curb powerful states' ability to act with impunity — including the US, Russia, China and their respective allies. But trading double standards for diplomacy is a worthy price if it means reducing the risk of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide across the board.Above all, U.S. leadership on global governance reform would show that Washington doesn't just talk about the rules, it plays by them, too. Putin would hate nothing more.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Carson Christiano, CEGA Executive Director, outlines CEGA's top priorities in 2024, designed to expand the way we define and achieve "impact" in the evidence-informed policy ecosystem.Credit: Ronald Cuyan via UnsplashFor fifteen years, CEGA has supplied decision-makers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with rich evidence, insights, and tools they can use to identify cost-effective solutions for reducing poverty and improving lives. As we've matured, we have become wiser to the ways in which our efforts may — and may not — be driving meaningful and lasting policy change. In recent years, we have turned the microscope on ourselves, looking closely at our successes and failures and contemplating ways to boost the return on investment in CEGA's work. We are especially proud of the investments we've made to make evidence more cost-effective, more transparent and reproducible, and more inclusive.This year, we're re-committing to driving systematic change in the global development community and expanding our imagination of what our impact can be. Our priorities include:1. Launching new research initiatives in priority areas.As the world continues to contend with overlapping crises, there are several thematic areas where more evidence is urgently needed. CEGA faculty and staff are working to build research agendas and partnerships to support for new work in the areas of Gender & Agency, Conflict & Security, and Forced Displacement. Meanwhile, we are working to ensure that all of our thematic areas address the persistent threat of climate change, which in turn has exacerbated both conflict and forced displacement, especially for marginalized groups — and low-income women and children in particular.2. Building open science infrastructure.A key pillar of CEGA's work is to make evidence better. As such, we're constantly striving to improve the quality and credibility of the data, tools, and analytical methods used to make consequential policy decisions and drive large-scale social impact. This year, we're expanding investments in our Cost Transparency Initiative (CTI), which is developing tools and standards for rigorous intervention costing. We're promoting adoption of the Social Science Prediction Platform (SSPP), which enables timely predictions of social science research, and the Social Science Reproduction Platform (SSRP), which crowdsources and catalogs attempts to assess and improve the computational reproducibility of social science research. We're also excited to contribute a highly collaborative, novel effort to build a comprehensive, open-access, and searchable library of results from social science RCTs in low- and middle-income countries. By consistently documenting study design, intervention features and context, effect sizes, and measures of certainty and credibility, the envisioned Impact Data and Evidence Aggregation Library (IDEAL) will dramatically accelerate the translation of evidence into action by allowing users to quickly and painlessly access relevant information for a given set of studies. Once established, IDEAL will facilitate everything from qualitative systematic review to quantitative meta-analyses, making evidence-based decision-making easier for all across the development research ecosystem.3. Promoting the use of novel data science tools and approaches.CEGA's embrace of multidisciplinary and mixed methods has allowed us to generate new types of insights for decision makers, thus diversifying and expanding the number of tools in their toolkits. For example, the use of novel data sources (like satellite imagery and cell phone metadata) and data science approaches (including applications of AI and machine learning) by CEGA researchers allows them to paint a more complete or accurate picture of what's happening in a given geography or sector than they would relying on traditional data alone. This is particularly important in conflict or climate change-affected countries where household survey or government census data may be woefully out of date or insufficient for high-stakes decision-making. This year, CEGA is scoping new activities and partnerships that elevate the use of AI-based tools by researchers and policymakers for targeting, deploying, and rigorously testing a wide variety of global development solutions.4. Putting ethics and inclusion front and center.We're mindful of our position as a Global North institution working on challenges facing people in the Global South, and are deeply committed to driving both ethics and inclusion in this ecosystem. Our Global Networks program, which has brought over 70 scholars from East and West Africa to the US for semester-long fellowships in impact evaluation since 2012, continues to thrive and expand. This year, we announced a new collaboration with the Partnership for Economic Policy (PEP) to create more training and mentorship opportunities for promising African scholars. At the same time, we're helping to set new standards for ethics in development research, for example by studying the practices and preferences surrounding the returning of research results to communities. And our Collaboration for Inclusive Development Research (CIDR) is examining — using both qualitative and quantitative methods — how the inclusion of African scholars can influence evidence-informed policymaking, and the obstacles that remain in doing so.As CEGA matures and the world around us continues to shift, we're striving to update how we define and articulate "impact" — not only in terms of our investments in research and evidence, but also our investments in methods, training, and research dissemination. In other words, we're beginning to measure success not just by the specific programs or policies that have been informed by CEGA evidence — although that is important of course — but also by the ways in which the entire global development ecosystem has shifted towards the effective use of evidence. This year, we're prioritizing efforts to better track and learn from our past experience and proactively integrating these lessons into our work.At CEGA, we're motivated by the opportunities that lie ahead and stretching our imaginations about the kind of impact we can have. We can't do it alone — we're proud of our collaborations with public, private, and non-profit partners, especially with those in the Global South, and look forward to seeing what we can do together this year (and beyond!) to make global development decision-making more cost-effective, innovative, and inclusive.Innovating for Impact was originally published in CEGA on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
The so-called GOP "civil war" over the role the United States should play in the world made headlines earlier this week when the Senate finally passed a national security supplemental that provides $60 billion in aid for Ukraine and $14 billion for Israel. The legislation, which was supported by President Joe Biden and the overwhelming majority of the Senate's Democratic caucus, proved more controversial among Republicans. Twenty-two GOP Senators voted in favor of the legislation, while 27 opposed it.An analysis of the votes shows an interesting generational divide within the Republican caucus.Each of the five oldest Republicans in the Senate — and nine of the ten oldest — voted in favor of the supplemental spending package. Conversely, the six youngest senators, and 12 of the 14 youngest, opposed it. Equally striking was the breakdown of votes among Republicans based on when they assumed their current office. Of the 49 sitting GOP Senators, 30 were elected before Donald Trump first became the party's presidential candidate in 2016. Eighteen of those 30 supported the aid legislation. Of the members who came to office in 2017 or later, only four voted to advance the bill, while 15 voted against. The difference in votes among those elected since 2016 is likely partly attributable to Trump's unconventional approach to foreign policy. The Republican party establishment during the Cold War and Global War on Terror is often associated with hawkishness, including towards Russia. While the party has always carried some skepticism toward foreign aid, some of the most significant spending increases have taken place during the presidencies of Republicans Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Trump, however, won in 2016 in part for his open disdain for mission creep after the GWOT, what he called the failed war in Iraq, and foreign aid he believed made countries dependents rather than reciprocal partners and allies."[Trump] certainly created the cognitive space," Brandan Buck, a U.S. Army veteran and historian of GOP foreign policy, tells RS. "He's more of an intuitive thinker than a person of principle, but I think him being on the scene, prying open the Overton window has allowed for a greater array of dissenting voices." Others have argued that the trends are perhaps also indicative of the loyalty that Republicans who assumed their offices during the Trump presidency feel toward him. Trump spoke out forcefully against the legislation in advance of the vote. "WE SHOULD NEVER GIVE MONEY ANYMORE WITHOUT THE HOPE OF A PAYBACK, OR WITHOUT "STRINGS" ATTACHED. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SHOULD BE "STUPID" NO LONGER!," the former president wrote on the social media platform Truth Social the weekend before the vote. The vote cannot only be explained by ideology, as some typically hawkish allies of Trump, like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) ultimately voted against the package. Graham is a staunch supporter of Israel, has voted for previous Ukraine aid packages, and in the past called aid for Ukraine "a good investment" and "the best money we've ever spent." By the time the vote on the most recent spending package came around, Graham was lamenting the lack of border security provisions and echoing Trump's argument that aid to Ukraine should be a "loan."Meanwhile, Senators took note of the generational gap, and the debate spilled over into the public."Nearly every Republican Senator under the age of 55 voted NO on this America Last bill," wrote Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), 48, on the social media platform X. "Things are changing just not fast enough." Schmitt was elected in 2022."Youthful naivety is bliss, the wisdom of age may save the west," retorted Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) "Reagan may be dead, but his doctrine saved the world during less dangerous times than these. If the modern Marx (Putin for the youngsters) restores the USSR while we pretend it's not our problem, God help us." Cramer, 63, was sworn in in 2019, making him one of the handful of recently elected senators to support the aid legislation. "I like Kevin, but come on, man, have some self-awareness," Sen. J.D. Vance fired back. "This moment calls out for many things, but boomer neoconservatism is not among them."Vance, who at 39 is the youngest Republican member of the Senate, noted in his post that "the fruits of this generation in American leadership is: quagmire in Afghanistan, war in Iraq under false pretenses." He said younger Americans were disillusioned with that track record. Buck, who served several tours in the Afghanistan war, and whose research includes generational trends in U.S. foreign policy thinking, pointed out that there is strong historical precedent for believing that age and generation affect how members of Congress view America's role in the world. "It's certainly not unusual for there to be generational trends in foreign policy thinking, especially within the Republican Party," Buck told RS. Following the end of World War II, he said, it took "a full churning" of the conservative movement to replace old-school non-interventionist Republicans and to get the party in line with the Cold War consensus. "I think what we're seeing now is something similar but in reverse with a generation of conservatives."He added that the failures of the War on Terror resulted in a deep skepticism of the national security state and the Republican party establishment. Opinion polling and trends show that the American public that grew up either during or in the shadow of the disastrous military campaigns in the Greater Middle East is generally opposed to military intervention and more questioning of American institutions."All the energy on FP [foreign policy] in the GOP right now is with the younger generation that wants fundamental transformation of USFP [U.S. foreign policy]," noted Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, on X. "The self-satisfied, insular neocons who loathe their voters' FP views are a dying breed."
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
That didn't take long. In fact, what took so long for a challenge to come to Louisiana's recent reapportionment attempt that probably won't do much in the short term but could have an enormous impact long term?
Wednesday, a suit was filed against the state for its new congressional map carved into existence at the legislative special session in January. That plan deliberately created two majority-minority districts, with residents who identify at least partially as black holding narrow majorities, out of the six. It replaced a map with a single M/M district in a state where just about a third of residents identified as at least partially black that was under litigation with Middle District of Louisiana judge Shelly Dick, a Democrat former Pres. Barack Obama appointee who showed little patience for the existing map with her threatening to impose her own two M/M map as a result of a rushed ruling in 2022.
That decision became bolstered by the U.S. Supreme Court's Allen v. Milligan ruling last year, which consented to a special three-judge panel in Alabama, which had a black population of about a quarter, that determined a one-of-seven M/M plan by the state violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That ruling gave preference to race as a means of reapportionment over other principles such as compactness, contiguity, and community of interests preserved, by injecting race as something defining a community's interest.
The problem for Louisiana was the solution stumped for by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry and GOP legislative majorities looked awfully similar to the map invalidated in Hays v. Louisiana three decades ago, except drawn with six districts instead of seven. The compliant draws attention to that, perhaps not surprisingly as the same lead lawyer in that case headlines the just-filed Callais v. Landry.
No surprise as well that the filing savages the current map, drawing attention to characteristics that make it no more constitutional, if not even less so, than the rejected map back then. It piles on that the 2022 map so criticized by Dick even fares better than the 2024 map on certain quantifiable criteria of quality. In passing, it makes clear leftist critics of the 2022 map who hypocritically swooned over the 2024 map by that reaction ratify the fact that race had a predominant role in the latter's construction, which clearly violated Hays' admonition that race cannot play such a role absent compelling circumstances obviously missing in this case.
Nor does the outcome of Allen look promising to salvage the new map. While the Supreme Court accepted the special panel's (these are required when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts or the apportionment of any statewide legislative body) reasoning to invalidate the previous one-of-seven M/M plan, it thereupon produced a new map that explicitly rejected a two M/M plan in favor of one also a single M/M plan except a second district was created as a generous "opportunity" district or one with a black plurality (which had a 47 percent black proportion; a previous state attempt to create one at 40 percent the panel turned away). This map's districts score well on compactness and contiguity, plus separate more communities of interest than both of Alabama's rejected plans but not to absurd lengths.
By contrast, Louisiana skipped that possibility of having an additional opportunity district (one special session bill would have created two). Instead, it produced the two M/M map which, the text of the complaint illustrates extensively, has severe contiguity problems (multiple districts kept together at some points by borders only 1,500-2,000 yards wide), registers terrible quantified compactness scores, and does substantial violence to communities of interest, slicing up every single one of the state's major cities between two districts except Bossier City.
Note as well that it was a district court in Alabama, just as happened in Louisiana, that invalidated the former map, because the challenge presented was both one under law (the VRA) and the Constitution (14th Amendment) and the district court, and thus succeeding courts, addressed only the claim under law. The special panel provided the constitutional parameters for a new map once under law the old map was cast aside. The constitutional question of the entire approach wasn't directly adjudicated and, as Assoc. Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in a concurrence, ripe for visiting that could tank the Section 2 jurisprudence that declared the old Alabama map infirm and by extension threatened Louisiana's previous one.
However, the Callais challenge is strictly on constitutional grounds, treading the well-worn path of Hays. This invites not only the virtually-certain binning of the new Louisiana map, but also it opens up the possibility that the Kavanaugh concurrence will be explored in the process that could put Section 2 into forced retirement and actually permit the state to reinstate something like the old map.
Yet that won't be likely for 2024. As it is a constitutional challenge where the district court – the Western where it is assigned to David Joseph, the district's former attorney and a Republican former Pres. Donald Trump appointee – plays a lesser role of coordination and handling preliminary matters, giving a bit of a head start, little time remains in a practical sense.
That's because of the Purcell Principle the Court has enunciated where it won't change electoral boundaries too close to an election. The forthcoming election calendar suggests that everything involved in invalidating the map will have to be wrapped up by the end of May, in order for the state administratively to revert back to the map just set aside and be ready for the gathering of petitions by candidates to qualify. Four months would be tough.
By 2026, the present map will be history and districts at that time will look more like the map recently shunted aside. It's far less certain that will be the case for elections conducted this year.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
The most important security issue for the United States, the contest/competition/rivalry with China, may soon fade away.The plausibility of this proposition is enhanced if we take as a parallel not the rivalry with the USSR during the Cold War, but the one that smoked through the 1980s and early 1990s when Japan appeared to be becoming "Number One." The rather benign ending of that rivalry may have something to say about what will happen as China slides into what many suggest will be a lengthy period of slow growth or even stagnation.In both cases, the perceived threats have been primarily economic.JapanAs with China today, concerns about Japanese economic growth and business practices were once intense and widespread.In a 1987 best-seller, Yale's Paul Kennedy confidently listed a set of reasons why Japan was likely to expand faster than other major powers, stressing the country's "immensely strong" industrial bedrock and its docile and diligent work force. He also predicted that Japan was likely to become "much more powerful" economically. Meanwhile, Harvard's Samuel Huntington assured us, in phrases that sound much like what we are hearing about the China challenge today, that a need had suddenly arisen to fear not "missile vulnerability" but "semiconductor vulnerability," that "economics is the continuation of war by other means," and that there was danger in the fact that Japan had become the largest provider of foreign aid and had endowed professorships at Harvard and MIT. One book of the time was even entitled, "The Coming War with Japan," and some analysts argued that Japan by natural impulse would soon come to yearn for nuclear weapons.Fareed Zakaria, managing editor of Foreign Affairs at the time, recalled a few years ago his experience "sorting through manuscript after manuscript arguing that Japan was going to take over the world."The public responded to this threatening perspective — especially after the diabolical Japanese bought Rockefeller Center (which they later sold at a loss) and a major Hollywood film studio. By 1989, the Japanese "threat" was seen by the public to be nearly comparable to the one posed by the still heavily armed Soviet Union, and America was convinced that Japan would be the number one economic power in the next century.Politicians predictably followed suit, finding that Japan-bashing sold well. In 1987, several members of Congress publicly sledgehammered Toshiba products on the front steps of the Capitol. Meanwhile, Donald Trump complained at the time, "They come over here, they sell their cars, their VCRs. They knock the hell out of our companies," and, "First they take all our money with their consumer goods, then they put it back in buying all of Manhattan."These concerns evaporated in the early 1990s when Japan's "threatening" economy stagnated and the American one surged. Huntington quickly decided that, as it turned out, the real problem was actually a "clash of civilizations" like the one going on at the time in Bosnia, and Kennedy moved on to warn of the dangers from job‑stealing robots and — as the rise in world population began to stagnate or even reverse — population explosions.ChinaWhen he began his quest for the presidency in 2016, Trump tried Japan-bashing again, designating it along with China and Mexico as a country where "we are getting absolutely crushed on trade."However, by that time Japan's growth had been mostly flat, and trade friction had become much more subdued even though the United States continued (and still continues) to run large trade deficits with Japan while Japan can still make foreign investment difficult.China-bashing sold much better, as Trump found out in a speech in which his line, "We can't allow China to rape our country, and that's what we're doing," inspired an approving roar from the audience. Trump spent the rest of the 2016 campaign building on that theme and repeating much of it in his 2020 campaign, as did many other candidates.Something similar to the Japanese experience may now be happening with the China threat as its growth slumps and the U.S., far from being "displaced" in its GDP ranking as number one, retains its statistical advantage.Most troubling for China is a growing set of difficulties, most of them deriving from a determination to prioritize control by the antiquated and kleptocratic Chinese Communist Party over economic development. The list of resulting problems is substantial: endemic corruption, environmental degradation, slowing growth, capricious shifts in government policies (including the abruptly canceled "zero COVID" policy), inefficient enterprises, fraudulent statistical reporting, a rapidly aging population, enormous overproduction, huge youth unemployment, increasing debt, a housing bubble, restive minorities, the alienation of Western investors, and a clampdown on civil liberties. There also seems to be something of a decline in confidence in, and in the credibility of, the Communist Party's dictates, a change that could have dire long‐term consequences for the regime.The ComparisonThere are some non-comparable elements between the cases, of course. Despite books like "The Coming War with Japan," concerns about Tokyo were less military than they are for China, which has increased its defense expenditures and is accused of threatening to invade Taiwan and becoming a dominant "hegemon" in its area, while expanding its global reach.Nonetheless, the perceived threat remains mainly economic. For example, a recent report by a devotedly anti-China committee in Congress restricts its concerns to what it calls China's "economic aggression" (while recommending a series of changes including a rise in tariffs that might cost the American economy nearly two trillion dollars over five years).Although books entitled "Destined for War" may continue to sell for a while, China's economic stagnation (but not collapse) is in the air, and some elements of its counterproductive "wolf warrior" diplomacy have been relaxed. As a result, the political appeal of China-bashing may be headed for a degree of remission.When Toyota became the number one car maker in the U.S. in recent years, scarcely anyone noticed and fewer cared. If there's an electric car in the future, it may well be Chinese. But, if the Japan analogy holds, it is likely that the reaction will be much the same.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
The White House and its allies launched a full-court press to get a supplemental aid package, which included $60 billion for Ukraine, over the finish line this week. Despite this, their effort failed Wednesday night, leaving the fate of funding up in the air.Earlier on Wednesday, President Joe Biden delivered surprise remarks ahead of the vote, warning that lapsed funding for Kyiv would have dire consequences for Europe and the world. "If Putin takes Ukraine, he won't stop there. It's important to see the long run here. He's going to keep going. He's made that pretty clear," Biden said. "If Putin attacks a NATO Ally — if he keeps going and then he attacks a NATO Ally — well, we've committed as a NATO member that we'd defend every inch of NATO territory. Then we'll have something that we don't seek and that we don't have today: American troops fighting Russian troops." This came in the wake of a letter sent to congressional leadership by Shalanda Young, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, saying that the U.S. is "out of money to support Ukraine in this fight," and urging them to pass the supplemental before the end of the year."Cutting off the flow of U.S. weapons and equipment will kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield," the letter warned. But after the Senate vote failed 49-51 on Wednesday the possibility that 2023 comes to an end without Congress passing another tranche of aid for Ukraine appears increasingly likely.On Thursday, Bloomberg's Erik Wasson reported on X that lawmakers believe that there is "no way" the House will pass aid this calendar year, with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) committed to the House leaving by December 15. While the timeframe for current aid to dry up and the risk of Vladimir Putin expanding the war into Europe may be overstated, the sudden elimination of funding could be problematic nonetheless. As George Beebe of the Quincy Institute cautioned earlier this year, cutting off funding without warning would spell "bad news not only for those insisting on an unconditional Ukrainian victory, but also for those pressing for a diplomatic settlement of the conflict." "Avoiding such sobering possibilities will require compromise," Beebe continued. "The White House will have to compromise with domestic opponents of aid by making clear — at least behind closed doors — its plans for marrying military aid to a viable exit strategy. Opponents of aid will have to compromise with proponents to ensure that Ukraine does not collapse altogether, with all the attendant implications for the West and the world." Despite these dynamics, the Biden administration appears unwilling to shift its strategy and its rhetoric. In a phone call with Reuters this week, national security adviser Jake Sullivan reiterated Washington's position that it would not pressure Kyiv to enter negotiations with Moscow. "That's going to have to be up to them," Sullivan said. "We're just going to keep fighting day in and day out to try to secure this money." In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:—The Washington Post published a detailed analysis on why Ukraine's recent counteroffensive did not produce the desired results, highlighting, among other critical points, the gap in expectations between Washington and Kyiv."U.S. and Ukrainian officials sharply disagreed at times over strategy, tactics and timing. The Pentagon wanted the assault to begin in mid-April to prevent Russia from continuing to strengthen its lines. The Ukrainians hesitated, insisting they weren't ready without additional weapons and training," reports the Post. "As the expected launch of the offensive approached, Ukrainian military officials feared they would suffer catastrophic losses — while American officials believed the toll would ultimately be higher without a decisive assault."— Russian President Vladimir Putin made a rare overseas trip this week, visiting Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The purpose of the trip was to discuss global oil markets and the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine. The visit was partly intended to get arms and win over allies for his war effort, and possibly to "drive a wedge" between the Gulf States and the U.S., according to the Wall Street Journal.— Top Ukrainian officials came to Washington this week in an effort to bolster Kyiv's weapon making capabilities. The Ukrainian delegation, which was led by President Zelensky's adviser Andriy Yermak and Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, met with a number of high-ranking U.S. officials including Jake Sullivan, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, and Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo. The Ukrainians also met with lawmakers once the fight over aid took center stage on Capitol Hill. "Initially envisioned as a way for the Ukrainians to forge new contacts and commitments with the U.S. defense industry to bolster Kyiv's ability to build its own weapons, the meetings have taken on a deeper importance as the Biden administration pressures Congress to pass a $60 billion aid package, and as questions swirl over next steps in the war," reported Politico on Tuesday.Zelensky was also scheduled to address the U.S. Senate virtually on Tuesday, but he abruptly canceled his remarks shortly before the meeting. The meeting proceeded and eventually descended into chaos, according to multiple reports. "A classified briefing with administration officials called to shore up support devolved into a partisan screaming match on Tuesday afternoon, with Republicans angrily accusing Democrats of trying to steamroller over their demands for a border crackdown," reported the New York Times.U.S. State Department news:— In a Wednesday press briefing, State Department spokesman Matt Miller reacted to that Senate meeting, at which Secretary of State Antony Blinken was present. "I think the Secretary found it to be a frank and candid exchange of views on the Hill, mostly between members of the Senate, not involving the administration," Miller said. "But as we made clear in the statement we issued today about the drawdown package, we have nearly exhausted the available security assistance that is available to Ukraine. It is urgent that Congress act to support Ukraine; it is urgent that Congress act to support democracy."
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Congressional leaders stripped a measure from this year's defense policy bill that would have expanded compensation for victims of U.S. nuclear testing, drawing condemnation from lawmakers who had spearheaded the initiative and bitter disappointment from activists who hoped the blockbuster film "Oppenheimer" would bolster support for their efforts. "This is a grave injustice," Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who led the charge in favor of the expansion, said Thursday. "This bill turns its back on the people of the United States in defense of the lobbyists and the suits and the corporate entities who are going to get paid." The initiative had passed as an amendment to the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act, earning bipartisan support in a 61-37 vote. The measure would have significantly expanded the 1990 Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which gave financial relief to some uranium miners and victims living downwind of the Nevada Test Site, where the U.S. carried out most of its nuclear experiments. The original law is set to expire in May of next year, a deadline that will end benefits for those who have been receiving compensation. Activists hope that, in the short term, lawmakers will find a way to push that deadline back in order to keep the program alive. "Downwinders" have long reported unusually high rates of cancer and other radiation-related diseases. One activist who spoke with RS earlier this year said 21 members of her family had gotten cancer, and seven had died from it. The explosions disproportionately impacted poor Latino communities and Native American Pueblos, leaving many victims trapped under a mountain of medical debt. The amendment would have expanded RECA to include downwinders in New Mexico, where the first nuclear test took place, as well as a wider swathe of uranium miners and people living in Missouri who were exposed to waste from the Manhattan Project. The expansion would have also covered people in Montana, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and Guam. In a statement to RS, Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-N.M.) blamed the decision to kill RECA expansion on Republican House leaders, who quietly oppose the measure due to its projected cost of nearly $15 billion per year — a sharp increase from the $2.3 billion that RECA has paid out to date. "Downwinders and uranium workers suffer from debilitating and deadly diseases related to building and testing nuclear bombs," Leger Fernandez argued. "Our bipartisan coalition will not give up — we will fight to pass RECA and secure justice for our beloved New Mexico communities who unknowingly sacrificed so much for our nation's security." Activists note that the cost of RECA expansion, while large on its face, pales in comparison to the broader military budget, which the 2024 NDAA sets at roughly $874 billion. More than $30 billion of that budget came from programs that the Biden administration had not requested, and backers of the initiative suggested specific offsets for the increased cost, according to Hawley. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget argued in October that "any increase in expense should be fully paid for with higher revenue, lower spending, or some combination." "If lawmakers are committed to expanding benefits for deserving individuals, they should be equally committed to paying for those expansions," the group said in a blog post. So far, Hawley is the only lawmaker who has said he will vote against the NDAA in protest of the "backroom deal" to remove RECA expansion. Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), who blames his father's death on radiation exposure from work at Los Alamos, recently tweeted that "[a]ll options are on the table" for getting the initiative signed into law. RS reported in July that the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium had attempted to contact "Oppenheimer" director Christopher Nolan and ask him to include a message about the downwinders in his film, but activists were unable to secure a meeting. Despite the rejection, supporters of RECA expansion hoped that the movie would create an opportunity for a public discussion of the impacts of nuclear testing. Hawley's amendment passed in late July, roughly a week after the film's release. Activists stepped up their advocacy efforts in September and sent a group of advocates from throughout the west and Missouri to the Capitol to lobby lawmakers. The decision to strip the bill from the NDAA was both surprising and "shockingly immoral," argued Tina Cordova of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium in an interview with RS. "There have been so many people that I've spoken to in the last 24 hours that were so emotional, so heartbroken because they had such high hopes for this Congress," Cordova said. As Cordova mentioned, many of those who would receive compensation from RECA live in Republican states and House districts. "When the Republicans in the House refuse to acknowledge their responsibility for this, they're voting against their constituents," she argued. "I wouldn't be allowed to recklessly harm other people and walk away from responsibility for that," she continued. "It's like driving drunk and plowing into a van full of people and injuring them, and then telling the court that I simply don't have the resources to take care of the mess I've made." Cordova said that, in the near term, activists will need time to process their disappointment after having come so close to success. But she and her allies are prepared to keep fighting until RECA expansion is finally passed. "We all need time to dust ourselves off," she said. "But we will come back. We have developed a very broad coalition of people from all across this country from one coast to the other, and we will come back stronger than we were before."Sen. Lujan, who has introduced RECA-related legislation every year since 2008, said Thursday that he will continue pushing for expansion despite the setback. "I am not giving up on justice for New Mexicans and all those deeply impacted by radiation exposure and nuclear testing," he said in a statement. "Over the course of this process, our support has only grown and the fight doesn't end here."