Tuesday, February 18, 2025

 

Rapid environmental change can threaten even a peaceful Daisyworld



A basic model highlights the hidden potential vulnerability of our ecosystems.




American Institute of Physics

Daisyworld is a basic planet filled with two kinds of daisies 

image: 

Daisyworld is a basic planet filled with two kinds of daisies that together regulate the temperature to maintain ideal conditions. If the planet heats up or cools down too quickly, all the daisies will go extinct, even if they would otherwise have been able to survive just fine under those conditions. This discovery mirrors similar observations found in other models and observed in real-life ecosystems.

view more 

Credit: Hannah Daniel/AIP




WASHINGTON, Feb. 18, 2025 – Imagine a world filled only with daisies. Light-colored daisies reflect sunlight, cooling down the planet, while darker daisies absorb sunlight, warming it up. Together, these two types of daisies work to regulate the planet’s temperature, making the world more habitable for all of them.

And yet, even in this flowery paradise, a simple change can cause the entire ecosystem to collapse.

In Chaos, by AIP Publishing, researchers from the University of Cambridge and University College Cork found that this simple daisy-filled ecological model was vulnerable to collapse after experiencing relatively small, but rapid, changes to the environment.

The hypothetical planet full of daisies is more than an idle curiosity. It has a name — Daisyworld — and was invented in the 1980s as a model to help scientists understand how organisms could help regulate their environment. Since then, researchers have used it to explore topics like biodiversity and climate change.

“The Daisyworld model is a classic thought experiment regarding the co-evolution of life and the environment and has been widely used in the teaching of Earth system science,” said author Constantin Arnscheidt.

Because of its basic and fundamental nature, the authors wanted to use it to study the idea of ecological tipping points, points of no return beyond which an ecosystem is doomed to collapse. This can occur if the environment gets too extreme, but it can also happen if the environment changes too fast. This second type of tipping point is what they were interested in.

“Essentially, if you push the system quickly enough, you can trigger a collapse even if you don’t push it that hard,” said Arnscheidt. “This is called rate-induced tipping: The rate of change is the key factor in determining whether the system tips.”

Using mathematical modeling, the authors discovered that rate-induced tipping can happen even in Daisyworld. If the planet heats up or cools down too quickly, all the daisies will go extinct, even if they would otherwise have been able to survive just fine under those conditions.

This discovery mirrors similar observations found in other models and observed in real-life ecosystems.

“Rate-induced tipping has been shown to be relevant in more and more systems, especially complex ones like those in Earth science and ecology,” said Arnscheidt. “It’s also a phenomenon that will likely be quite relevant for humanity as we continue to navigate an era marked by rapid human-driven rates of change.”

Understanding rate-induced tipping is crucial because these collapse conditions are less obvious, but just as deadly. Without a clear picture of how these ecosystems respond to rapid environmental changes, we could unwittingly doom far more than a planet of hypothetical daisies.

“The fact that we can find rate-induced tipping in a model as classic and well-studied as Daisyworld, more than four decades since its inception, suggests that rate-induced tipping might be present in many other classic models if we only look for it,” said Arnscheidt.

###

The article “Rate-induced biosphere collapse in the Daisyworld model” is authored by Constantin W Arnscheidt and Hassan Alkhayuon. It will appear in Chaos on Feb. 18, 2025 (DOI: 10.1063/5.0240983). After that date, it can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0240983.

ABOUT THE JOURNAL

Chaos is devoted to increasing the understanding of nonlinear phenomena in all areas of science and engineering and describing their manifestations in a manner comprehensible to researchers from a broad spectrum of disciplines. See https://pubs.aip.org/aip/cha.

###


Abortion changes among residents of an abortion rights protective state



 News Release 

JAMA Network Open




About The Study: 

This cross-sectional study found a statistically significant increase in abortions for Colorado residents in association with the implementation of Texas SB8. This aligns with reports from area clinicians who experienced dramatic increases in patient demand after SB8, also reported by the media, resulting in delayed appointments for everyone.


Corresponding author: To contact the corresponding author, Kelly A. DeBie, J.D., email kelly.debie@colostate.edu.

To access the embargoed study: Visit our For The Media website at this link https://media.jamanetwork.com/

(doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.60460)

Editor’s Note: Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, conflict of interest and financial disclosures, and funding and support.

#  #  #

Embed this link to provide your readers free access to the full-text article This link will be live at the embargo time

 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.60460?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=021825

About JAMA Network Open: JAMA Network Open is an online-only open access general medical journal from the JAMA Network. On weekdays, the journal publishes peer-reviewed clinical research and commentary in more than 40 medical and health subject areas. Every article is free online from the day of publication.

Americans willing to pay nearly $100 billion to reduce gun violence


OR THEY COULD DO IT FOR FREE!


Duke University






Gun violence takes many forms—whether it’s a mass shooting at a school, the assassination of a public figure, or the everyday reality of gang-related crime and armed robbery. Beyond the tragic loss of life, the presence of gun violence shapes where people choose to live, affects local economies, and weighs heavily on public well-being. A new study finds that Americans are willing to pay nearly $100 billion for policies that reduce gun violence by 20%, underscoring the widespread desire for stronger intervention.

The research, co-authored by Philip J. Cook and Marc Jeuland of Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy, uses a nationally representative survey to measure willingness to pay (WTP) for gun violence prevention programs. The findings show that there is widespread support from Americans of all stripes to invest financially in solutions.

Gun Violence: A Public Concern with Real Costs

Gun violence is more than just a crime statistic—it affects how people live their daily lives. Many Americans experience gun violence not just as a tragic event, but as a persistent threat that influences their personal choices. While 48% did not consider their community in danger of gun violence, more than half of survey respondents said they were either concerned or uncertain about gun violence as a serious problem in their community. An even more striking finding was that 43% believed it was at least somewhat likely that they themselves would be victims of gun violence within the next five years. The weight of these concerns is evident in long-term decisions as well—more than one-third of respondents said that fears about gun violence played an important role in deciding where to live.

Jeuland explained the complex effects of gun violence. “Understanding the full costs of gun violence is difficult because this problem affects people in many ways. For example, perceptions of safety influence decisions people make daily and over the long term, like which places they regularly frequent or visit, as well as where they choose to live. And then, the fear of gun violence imposes direct financial costs on people in the form of investments in security systems or the costs of treatment for injuries. But it also imposes non-financial costs such as the feeling of insecurity many people feel in their lives, or the mental health burdens from losing close friends and family when deaths occur.”

Ludwig agreed, “The large amount the public is willing to pay here is consistent with the idea that gun violence is a social problem that sits upstream of so many other social problems.”

While many Americans express support for policies to address gun violence, talk is cheap, said Cook. “It’s easy to say you support better-funded police investigations or school-based programs for at-risk youth when there’s no price tag attached. We wanted to know: How much are people actually willing to pay?”

A Willingness to Invest in Prevention

To answer this question, the researchers used contingent valuation, a well-established method used to assess the value of public goods like clean air and water. They asked a cross-section of Americans whether they would vote for or against a state ballot measure that would raise their taxes to fund programs aimed at reducing gun violence by 20%.

“Their answers, pro and con, help establish that the concern about gun violence is widely shared,” Jeuland explained. “Most households are willing to pay a substantial amount to reduce this grave threat.”

The study found that the average household was willing to pay $744 annually, adding up to a national WTP estimate of $97.6 billion.

“Some benefits of reducing gun violence are tangible, like rising property values and increased commercial activity in impacted communities,” Cook said. “But others—like peace of mind, less shared trauma, and an overall higher quality of life—are just as real.”

A New Perspective on the Costs of Gun Violence

This research provides a more comprehensive view of the burden of gun violence compared to traditional public health calculations. Previous estimates have often relied on the cost-of-illness (COI) method, which focuses on direct costs like medical bills and lost wages. But the COI approach can miss the broader societal impact of gun violence—things like fear, disruption to communities, and the daily anxiety that so many Americans now feel.

By contrast, contingent valuation captures the full range of public concerns as people perceive them.

One of the most striking findings is that the burden of gun violence, as measured by willingness to pay for prevention, is much more widely shared than traditional cost estimates suggest. As Cook details, “A COI estimate from 2022 put the total cost of gun violence at about half of what we found. That method, based on actual victimization, shows the costs falling overwhelmingly on young Black males. But our study finds that Americans across demographics experience gun violence as a national problem—and they’re willing to pay to fix it.”

Implications for Policy

This research provides policymakers with a powerful economic rationale for investing in gun violence prevention. WTP estimates are a key tool in evaluating federal regulations, offering a forward-looking and comprehensive approach to measuring the value of proposed interventions.

Jeuland noted the utility of these findings. “The results of this study provide valuable information on the benefits that would result from reducing gun violence in the U.S. This can be used alongside information on the costs and effectiveness of different gun violence prevention policies to make the case for such interventions.”

Cook confirmed: “In conducting a cost-benefit analysis of gun-violence-prevention programs, we need an estimate of the benefit in dollar terms. This study provides that estimate.”

The findings suggest that public investment in gun violence prevention—such as better-resourced police investigations and conflict resolution programs for at-risk youth—could be widely supported. With gun violence remaining a pressing issue nationwide, this study offers a key takeaway:

Americans value solutions—and they’re willing to pay for them.

The full study is available here.

 

KahramanmaraÅŸ earthquake study showcases potential slip rate errors




King Abdullah University of Science & Technology (KAUST)





Accurate assessment of the land surface damage (such as small-scale fracturing and inelastic deformation) from two major earthquakes in 2023 can help scientists assess future earthquake hazards and therefore minimize risk to people and infrastructure. However, attaining precise extensive measurements in earthquake zones remains challenging.

The two earthquakes that struck on 6 February 2023 were devastating: they were of magnitude 7.8 and 7.6 and occurred in quick succession near the border between Syria and Turkey. They caused widespread infrastructure destruction and resulted in tens of thousands of deaths across multiple provinces.

Using the two KahramanmaraÅŸ earthquakes as a case study, KAUST researchers have demonstrated that the surface damage and inelastic deformation away from main faults probably extend more widely than previously thought[1].

“The KahramanmaraÅŸ earthquakes offered us a unique opportunity to gain insights into details of the co-seismic surface displacement,” says Jihong Liu, postdoctoral fellow in KAUST’s Crustal Deformation and InSAR Group, who carried out the study in collaboration with colleagues from KAUST and IPGP in France. “Our results suggest that the width of the crustal damage zone can reach up to five kilometers from the fault itself, rather than just a few hundred meters as suggested by previous case studies.”

Large earthquakes occur when two tectonic plates that are stuck together move suddenly, instead of moving steadily past one another a few centimeters per year. This sudden slip, which yields meter-scale movement within seconds, causes extensive crustal damage. This damage is not just in the immediate vicinity of a plate boundary or fault, but also “off-fault damage” (OFD) away from the main fault. Measuring OFD accurately is a critical element of estimating fault slip rates and earthquake cycles, yet most case studies of major earthquakes appear to have significantly underestimated OFD. 

The team used image data from Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) satellites to quantify the OFD and 3D surface displacement caused by the two earthquakes. They used images taken before and after the two earthquakes.

“Radar satellites have transformed the study of earthquake zones, enabling us to visualize and analyze large areas in depth without requiring field observations,” says Liu.

Liu developed the SM-VCE method, an advanced co-seismic 3D surface displacement measurement technique, which the team used to precisely determine the 3D motion, OFD and surface deformation across a wide area around the two earthquakes. They showed that OFD consumed up to 35% of the co-seismic displacement, suggesting that slip rates in different parts of the world could be underestimated by as much as one-third. They also found that geometrically complex fault sections experienced a higher level of OFD than simple straight fault sections.

“Our results hold implications for geologic measurements of fault slip rates. If the OFD is larger than previously thought, it means that the plate boundary may be moving faster and could trigger more large earthquakes than anticipated,” says Sigurjón Jónsson, who led the team. “This increases the estimated earthquake hazard, with serious implications for planned infrastructure, buildings and decision making. Accurate OFD should also be factored into computer models of earthquake zones.”

“We will conduct OFD measurements on other typical earthquake cases to further validate and support the findings of this study,” concludes Liu.

 

Reference

  1. Liu, J., Jónsson, S., Li, X., Yao, W., & Klinger, Y. Extensive off-fault damage around the 2023 KahramanmaraÅŸ (Türkiye) earthquake surface ruptures. Nature Communications 16, 1286 (2025).| article.


U$ Medicare beneficiaries face much higher drug costs as plans quickly shift to coinsurance



Most stand-alone Part D plans now link out-of-pocket costs of many brand name drugs to list prices, which are often artificially inflated




University of Southern California

Stand-Alone Part D Plans Greatly Increased Use of Coinsurance, Tying Patient Costs of Often Inflated List Prices 

image: 

Expected out-of-pocket costs for many brand name drugs have surged amid rising rebates and discounts to middlemen.

view more 

Credit: USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics




Expected out of-pocket costs for commonly prescribed brand name medications have grown substantially for Medicare Part D beneficiaries as drug plans increasingly tie patient costs to list prices, according to new research from the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics published in JAMA.

Patients typically pay either a fixed dollar amount (known as a copayment) or a percentage of a drug’s list price (known as coinsurance), depending on their plan design. The researchers examined expected patient costs for preferred brand name drugs often lacking generic equivalents.

The share of stand-alone Part D prescription drug plans using coinsurance for preferred branded drugs sharply increased from 9.9% in 2020 to 71.9% in 2024, researchers found. By comparison, fewer than 5% of drug plans offered through more comprehensive Medicare Advantage coverage used coinsurance for preferred branded drugs last year.

As a result, Medicare beneficiaries in stand-alone drug plans, which account for 43% of the Part D market, are increasingly exposed to rising list prices. The coinsurance amount is usually around 25% of a drug’s price before any rebates or discounts negotiated by a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) or health plan are applied.

While rebates and discounts have also been increasing in recent years, those savings usually go to PBMs and health plans, rarely benefitting patients directly. Furthermore, steeper rebates and discounts demanded by PBMs may result in higher list prices, increasing the costs faced by patients with coinsurance.

“More and more Medicare beneficiaries who are taking highly rebated drugs are bearing the burden of artificially inflated list prices at the pharmacy counter,” said lead author Erin Trish, co-director of the Schaeffer Center and associate professor of pharmaceutical and health economics at the USC Mann School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences.  “They are paying more out of pocket and generating rebates that subsidize premiums for everyone else. That is the opposite of how insurance is supposed to work.”

Average expected costs more than double for some drugs

 

The study highlights the blockbuster blood thinner Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), which is taken by nearly 4 million Medicare beneficiaries and in 2024 had a list price of about $550 per month – within the typical range for branded, non-specialty drugs. The drug’s mean pharmacy cost, which is similar to list price, grew by 22% between 2020 and 2024, while its estimated Part D rebates recently averaged 45%.

Over that time, Eliquis’s average expected out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries in stand-alone Part D plans more than doubled, from $46.76 to $102.32, as the share of plans using coinsurance for the drug increased from 10.7% to 75%.

For those in Medicare Advantage drug plans, however, the average expected out-of-pocket cost for Eliquis increased just slightly from $44.57 to $46.93 between 2020 and 2024. Only 5% of Medicare Advantage plans used coinsurance for Eliquis last year.

Meanwhile, average expected out-of-pocket costs in standalone Part D plans also increased substantially for other common preferred branded drugs. Like Eliquis, some saw increases of more than double, including:

  • Trulicity (dulaglutide) for Type 2 diabetes, from $54.04 to $128.43
  • Xarelto (rivaroxaban) for blood clots, from $46.54 to $ 94.50
  • Ozempic (semaglutide) for Type 2 diabetes (and other indications), from $56.95 to $135.43.

“Medicare beneficiaries are often blindsided when they suddenly have to pay much more for the same drug they may have been taking for years,” Trish said. “While Part D’s new out-of-pocket cap will help beneficiaries over the full year, that initial sticker shock could make it harder for them to maintain their prescription, potentially leading to worse health outcomes.”