Tag: catch

  • Most Americans Believe in the Effectiveness of Childhood Vaccines — But There’s a Catch – The 74

    Most Americans Believe in the Effectiveness of Childhood Vaccines — But There’s a Catch – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    This story was originally reported by Barbara Rodriguez of The 19th. Meet Barbara and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

    Although a majority of Americans are confident that childhood vaccines are highly effective against serious illness, Republicans’ trust in vaccine safety and support of school requirements is dropping, according to new polling from Pew Research Center.

    Sixty-three percent of Americans are extremely or very confident in the effectiveness of childhood vaccines, according to a survey published Tuesday. But Democrats and those who lean Democrat are much more likely than Republicans and Republican-leaners to hold that view — 80 percent versus 48 percent.

    And while the majority of Americans believe in the safety of vaccines — 53 percent believe childhood vaccines have been tested enough for safety and 51 percent agree that the childhood vaccine schedule is safe — there is significantly more uncertainty among Republicans. For Democrats, 74 percent show high confidence in the safety testing of vaccines and 71 percent believe the childhood vaccine schedule is safe. For Republicans, those numbers are 35 percent and 32 percent, respectively.

    “Both things can be true, that people believe in vaccines’ effectiveness overall and the confidence is a little softer on safety,” said Eileen Yam, director of science and society research at Pew who was part of the primary research team. “But writ large, that’s been pretty stable to see confidence in vaccines. But at the same time, when it comes to things like school requirements, or ‘telling me what to do,’ or requiring me to do something — that’s where you see the bristling on the Republican side.”

    Americans have become more skeptical of requiring that children get the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine to attend public school. Sixty-nine percent support it, a decline from 82 percent in 2016. Most of the drop can be attributed to Republicans — with just 52 percent believing in the requirement, compared to 79 percent in 2016. For Democrats, that support was 83 percent in 2016 and actually climbed to 86 percent this year.

    This all comes amid a major measles outbreak in the United States that started in Texas and has spread to multiple other states. And while students are required in each state to get the MMR vaccine to attend public school, officials in Florida have indicated a willingness to drop that requirement.

    Pew found broad and consistent support for the MMR vaccine: 84 percent believe its benefits outweigh its risks (of which there are minor side effects). When Pew first started asking about this in 2016, support was at 88 percent. Yam said the findings show some agreement on the benefits of the MMR vaccine. While 92 percent of Democrats believe the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks, 78 percent of Republicans do, too.

    Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, an anti-vaccine activist who has revamped a key panel that helps decide vaccine policy, has questioned the safety of the MMR vaccine without evidence. He has the backing of President Donald Trump, who has perpetuated misinformation this year about childhood vaccines.

    Pew surveyed parents and found a majority with minor children (57 percent) say they are extremely or very confident in childhood vaccines’ effectiveness. Republican parents are far less likely than Democratic parents to have that confidence (45 percent versus 71 percent), belief in safety testing (29 percent versus 63 percent) and the childhood vaccine schedule (27 percent versus 58 percent).

    Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say medical scientists should have a major role in decisions about childhood vaccines (85 percent vs. 62 percent). There are more partisan fissures on the role of parents: 71 percent of Republicans say that parents of young children should have a major role in policy decisions about childhood vaccines. For Democrats, it’s 46 percent.

    “That speaks to just a divergence in trust in science that we’ve been tracking since before the pandemic,” Yam said. “Just Republicans since the pandemic, their confidence in scientists, the way they look at the CDC has just dropped off much more than on the Democrat side. Democrats have had fairly stable views on scientists and on the CDC, in contrast to Republicans.”

    Pew also examined how recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations have influenced Americans’ decisions around getting a COVID-19 shot. The agency recently agreed with Kennedy’s new vaccine panel to stop recommending the shot to everyone and to instead leave the choice up to people. Forty-four percent say they have heard nothing at all about the CDC’s changes to recommendations. Among those who have heard at least a little, 63 percent say it has had no influence on whether they got an updated vaccine.

    “The one big takeaway there is that policies really can’t influence behaviors if people haven’t heard about the policies or the recommendations,” Yam said. “And in this case, a lot of people haven’t heard about it, and some when they have, their minds were made up. They’ve already kind of decided, and it really didn’t influence their behavior one way or the other.”

    This story was originally published on The 19th.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Why ideas of graduate success need to catch up with portfolio careers

    Why ideas of graduate success need to catch up with portfolio careers

    For many graduates in the creative industries, the question “what do you do?” has never had a simple answer.

    A graduate might be holding down part-time work in a gallery, freelancing in digital design, tutoring on the side, stage managing in the summer, and selling their own work online. It’s a patchwork, a blend, a portfolio.

    And yet when we measure their success through Graduate Outcomes, the official data collection exercise on graduate employment, they’re told to tick a single box. The reality of hybridity is flattened into the illusion of underemployment.

    This is not a trivial issue. Policymakers rely on Graduate Outcomes (and reports based on the collection, like this year’s What do graduates do? out today) to make judgements about which subjects, courses and institutions are “succeeding” in employability terms. Yet in the creative arts, where portfolio working is both the norm and, in many ways, a strength, these categories misrepresent lived reality. The result is a story told back to government, employers and students in which creative graduates appear more precarious, less stable, and less successful than they often are.

    Portfolio careers are current and they’re the future

    The creative economy has been pointing towards this future for years. In What Do Graduates Do? , the creative arts overview that Elli Whitefoot and I authored, we found repeated evidence of graduates combining multiple sources of income, employment, freelancing, self-employment, often in ways that nurtured both security and creativity. The forthcoming 2025 overview by Burtin and Halfin reinforces the same point: hybridity is a structural feature, not a marginal quirk.

    This hybridity is not inherently negative. Portfolio work can provide resilience, satisfaction and autonomy. As Sharland and Slesser argued in 2024, the future workforce needs creative thinkers who can move across boundaries. Portfolio careers develop precisely those capabilities. At the Advance HE Symposium earlier this year, I led a workshop on future-proofing creative graduates through AI, entrepreneurship and digital skills, all of which thrive in a portfolio setting.

    Policy writers and senior leaders need to wake up quickly to realise that creative graduates are early adopters of what more of the labour market is beginning to look like. Academic staff, for example, increasingly combine research grants, teaching roles, consultancy and side projects. Tech and green industries are also normalising project-based work, short-term contracts and hybrid roles. In other words, the creative industries are not an outlier; they are a preview.

    Why measurement matters

    If the data system is misaligned with reality, the consequences are serious. Universities risk being penalised in performance frameworks like TEF or in media rankings if their graduates’ outcomes are deemed “poor.” Students risk being discouraged from pursuing creative courses because outcomes data suggests they are less employable. Policymakers risk designing interventions based on a caricature rather than the real graduate experience.

    As Conroy and Firth highlight, employability education must learn from the present, and the present is messy, hybrid, and global. Yet our data systems remain stuck in a single-job paradigm.

    The wider sector context is equally pressing. Graduate vacancies have collapsed from around 180,000 in 2023 to just 55,000 this year, according to Reed. Almost seven in ten undergraduates are now working during term-time just to keep going according to the latest student academic experience survey. And international graduates face higher unemployment rates, around 11 per cent, compared with 3 per cent for UK PGT graduates. The labour market picture is not just challenging, it is distorted when portfolio working is coded as failure.

    Without intervention, this issue will persist. Not because creative graduates are difficult to track, but because our measurement tools are still based on outdated assumptions. It is therefore encouraging that HESA is taking steps to improve the Graduate Outcomes survey questionnaire through its cognitive testing exercise. I am currently working with HESA and Jisc to explore how we can better capture hybrid and portfolio careers. These efforts will help bridge the gap in understanding, but far more nuanced data is needed if we are to fully represent the complex and evolving realities of creative graduates.

    So what should change?

    Data collection needs to become more granular, capturing the combination of employment, self-employment, freelancing and further study rather than forcing graduates into a false hierarchy. Recognising hybridity would make Graduate Outcomes a more accurate reflection of real graduate lives.

    One complicating factor is that students who do not complete a creative programme, for example, those who transfer courses or graduate from non-creative disciplines but sustain a creative portfolio, are even less likely to record or recognise that work within Graduate Outcomes. Because it isn’t linked to their area of study, they rarely see it as a legitimate graduate destination, and valuable evidence of creative contribution goes uncounted.

    We also need to value more than salary. The “graduate premium” may be shrinking in monetary terms, but its non-monetary returns, civic participation, wellbeing, and resilience, are expanding. Research from Firth and Gratrick in BERA Bites identifies clear gaps in how universities support learners to develop and articulate these broader forms of employability.

    Evidence must also become richer and longer-term. The work of Prospects Luminate, AGCAS CITG and the Policy and Evidence Centre on skills mismatches shows that snapshot surveys are no longer sufficient. Graduates’ careers unfold over years, not months, and portfolio working often evolves into sustainable, fulfilling trajectories.

    Beyond the UK there are instructive examples of how others have rethought the link between learning and employability. None offers a perfect model for capturing the complexity of graduate working lives, but together they point the way. The Netherlands Validation of Prior Learning system recognises skills gained from outside formal education, Canada’s ELMLP platform connects education and earnings data to map real career pathways, and Denmarks register-based labour statistics explicitly track people holding more than one job. If the UK continues to rely on outdated, single-job measures, it risks being left behind.

    Beyond the creative industries

    This is not an argument limited to art schools or design faculties. The wider labour market is moving in the same direction. Skills-based hiring is on the rise, with employers in AI and green sectors already downplaying traditional degree requirements in favour of demonstrable competencies. Academic precarity is, in effect, a form of portfolio career. The idea of a single linear graduate role is increasingly a historical fiction.

    In this context, the creative industries offer higher education a lesson. They have been navigating portfolio realities for decades. Rather than treating this as a problem to be solved, policymakers could treat it as a model to be understood.

    The full beauty of graduate success

    When we collapse a graduate’s career into a single tick-box, we erase the full beauty of what they are building. We turn resilience into precarity, adaptability into instability, creativity into failure.

    If higher education is serious about employability, we need to update our measures to reflect reality. That means capturing hybridity, valuing breadth as well as salary, and designing policy that starts with the lived experiences of graduates rather than the convenience of categories.

    Portfolio careers are not the exception. They are the shape of things to come. And higher education, if it is to remain relevant, must learn how to see them clearly.

    Source link

  • The UK as a Global Partner of Choice for R&D – will it catch on?

    The UK as a Global Partner of Choice for R&D – will it catch on?

    This blog was kindly authored by Alice Routledge, Policy Labs Adviser at Wellcome Trust.

    The UK’s unsustainably funded university sector is not just a domestic challenge to research innovation and growth. It also risks undermining the UK’s global standing. A new Wellcome report highlights the critical role of research and development (R&D) in shaping international partnerships and influencing how the UK is perceived around the world.

    Five years ago, Wellcome published The UK’s role in global research, calling for the UK Government to embrace its strengths in research and development and live up to its place in the world. That report spoke to the optimism for R&D and boosterism of Boris Johnson’s government, leaning into the UK being a science superpower and the idea of a global Britain, following the UK’s exit from the European Union.

    The change in geopolitics over the last five years has been stark, and the world has changed dramatically. A global pandemic, war on mainland Europe, the proliferation of conflict across the Middle East, and a new UK Government are reshaping the context in which UK research operates. With the scaling back of science funding in the US, worries about the future and effectiveness of multilateralism, and internationally diverging trends in the trust of science itself, it was time to think up a new narrative for UK international science collaboration.

    In response, Wellcome has released a report urging the Government to resist the trend towards isolationism, and build on its strengths in R&D and diplomacy to become: The Global Partner of Choice for R&D.

    Why R&D as a tool for diplomacy?

    The UK excels in research. It ranks first globally for the quality of academic publications and leads the G7 in international collaboration. Its universities are world-renowned, with three or four regularly ranked among the global top 10. Its tech sector boasts more tech unicorns than any other European country.  UK research is naturally international, with over 60 per cent of the UK’s academic publications in 2022 being co-authored by international researchers – the highest proportion in the G7.

    It creates growth. Public investment in R&D delivers strong returns: £1 invested in public R&D leverages double that in private investment and generates £7 in net benefits to the UK economy in the long run. In internationally neglected disease research alone, sustained investment could generate more than £4.8 billion of private sector investment in R&D and create nearly 4,000 UK jobs.

    R&D also strengthens the UK’s diplomatic reach, with international research partnerships and alumni networks serving as powerful tools of soft power and global influence.

    There is no national security without health security. Investment in global health research helps to prevent future pandemics by funding the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness, and finding solutions for infectious diseases such as malaria, TB and meningitis. The report recommends that the Ministry of Defence ensure that it uses its increasing R&D budget to invest in research that supports health security while welcoming the government funding for the collaboration between the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and the Pandemic Institute for vital research into emerging infectious diseases.

    UK leadership in emerging technologies, from AI to genomics, offers a chance to shape global norms and standards in line with democratic values. The report urges the Government to use the UK’s unique ability in both science and diplomacy to convene an international coalition with a common focus on the regulation of emerging technology.

    A new narrative for a new era

    Wellcome recommends the Government move beyond the language of science superpower or innovation powerhouse. These terms can sound self-congratulatory, and as quoted in the report, “just falls completely flat globally.” Instead, the UK should position itself as the global partner of choice for R&D, a country that others want to work with because of the excellence of its universities as research institutions, its openness, and its commitment to mutual benefit.

    This shift in narrative is not just semantic. It requires a change in how the UK approaches international collaboration.

    • Modernising partnerships: The UK must move from a model of paternalism to one of partnership. This means co-created partnerships based on mutual benefit, nurtured for the long term and where possible led by researchers
    • Choosing partners strategically:  partnering with countries for top-down research relationships should focus on research impact. The UK should deepen ties with the European Union and forge new partnerships with low- and middle-income countries. This will require a rethink of the UK’s approach to Official Development Assistance (ODA), ensuring it supports long-term, equitable research collaborations.
    • The global exchange of people and ideas:  The Government should prioritise reducing the barriers to the global exchange of people and ideas. The Government could encourage an exchange of research talent at all stages with strategic partners around the world by including provisions in Free Trade Agreements and science and innovation agreements, or through joint PhD or exchange schemes and by reducing the costs of moving to the UK.

    Implications for higher education

    To become the global partner of choice for R&D, the UK must ensure that its higher education sector is financially sustainable. Universities play a central role in the UK’s research ecosystem – convening global talent, producing world-class research, and cultivating international alumni networks that serve as diplomatic assets. Yet they will struggle to play this role if they remain under-resourced. Up to 72% of providers are facing an income deficit in 2025-26, and many universities are currently consulting on redundancies.

    While the recent Spending Review did not deliver the funding uplift many hoped for, exploring more stable funding streams must not come at the expense of fundamental research. Funders, institutions, and the Government must work together to ensure the UK remains an attractive place to collaborate on research.

    You can read the full report here.

    Source link

  • Gen Z craves purpose. Universities must catch up – Campus Review

    Gen Z craves purpose. Universities must catch up – Campus Review

    Speak to young university students today and a picture emerges of deep concern for justice, hunger for real-world connection, and an urgent desire to belong to something bigger than themselves.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link