It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Friday, May 02, 2025
More men with prostate cancer are avoiding unnecessary surgery
Between 2010 and 2024, the number of men undergoing surgery for low risk prostate cancer dropped more than fivefold
Prostate cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death among men in the United States.
Despite this, widespread adoption of prostate cancer screening has been controversial.
Many primary care doctors worry that screening will lead to unnecessary surgery for men with low risk prostate cancer and current guidelines recommend screening only after discussing the risk of overtreatment with the patient.
In a study, published in JAMA Oncology, researchers at University of Michigan showed that the proportion of patients undergoing prostatectomy for the lowest-risk type of cancer dropped over fivefold between 2010 to 2024.
They concluded that efforts to increase active surveillance and improved diagnostic methods have helped more men avoid unnecessary surgery.
Nearly 300,000 men in the U.S. are expected to be diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2024 alone.
However, not all prostate cancers are the same. Some grow so slowly that they’re unlikely to ever cause problems, especially in older men.
“The discrepancy between how common prostate cancer is and the hesitance in adopting screening exists because, historically, prostate cancer has been considered overtreated,” said Steven Monda, M.D., urologic oncology researcher and first author of the study.
“Prostate cancer in many men does not require treatment. However, in the past, most of these men still underwent surgery or radiation after their diagnosis, which led to hesitance in the widespread adoption of screening.”
Guidelines on screening have also been inconsistent.
In 2012, the U.S. Preventative Task Force recommended against routine screening of prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, levels due to concerns about overtreatment.
Prostate cancer in many men does not require treatment. However, in the past, most of these men still underwent surgery or radiation after their diagnosis, which led to hesitance in the widespread adoption of screening.”
This stance was softened in 2018 to allow PSA screening only after patients discussed the risks and benefits with their doctor.
“Even though the 2012 USPTF guidelines were revised, many primary care doctors never went back to screening,” said Tudor Borza, assistant professor of urology and senior author on the study.
“As a result, even people at a higher risk, such as African American men or those with a family history of prostate cancer, aren't being offered screening.”
In the current study, the group analyzed data from over 180,000 men who had prostate cancer surgery between 2010 and 2024.
They focused on patients with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer, which is the lowest-risk category.
These are the men most likely to be good candidates for active surveillance, an approach in which doctors monitor the cancer with regular tests and intervene only if it worsens.
Using two prostate cancer registries—one national and one based in Michigan—the researchers showed that the proportion of patients undergoing prostatectomy for the lowest risk type of cancer dropped over fivefold from 2010 to 2024.
In 2010, one in three men who had prostate cancer surgery nationally had the low risk type. By 2020, that number dropped to less than one in 10.
In Michigan, where urologists have been working for years on quality improvement through a program called MUSIC, the proportion dropped from about one in five in 2012 to less than one in 35 in 2024.
The study also found that, across different surgical practices throughout the state, rates of unnecessary surgery declined consistently.
“The results who that this is a system-wide improvement,” Monda said.
“We’re seeing progress at the local practice, statewide and national levels.”
These results align with other studies that showed increased use of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer since 2010.
“The decrease in the number of surgeries for low-grade prostate cancer shows that active surveillance helps,” Monda said.
“Routine PSA checks, MRIs and biopsies can ensure that prostate cancer doesn't progress to a condition that requires treatment.”
Credit: Ecological Society of America; University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Linhao Xu, University of Miami; Robert Fletcher; Kyle Palmquist; Bob Sterner; Jill Baron; University of Notre Dame; Richard Tracy; Jim Koepnick & Ripon College; Travis Caperton; Joey Bernhardt; Alexandra Phillips; Erich Saide; Ann Olsson; Max Olenick; Flavio Rocha; Loren Merrill; Sarah Taylor
The Ecological Society of America is pleased to announce its 2025 Fellows. The Society’s fellowship program recognizes the many ways in which its members contribute to ecological research, communication, education, management and policy. This year, the ESA Governing Board has confirmed eight new Fellows and ten new Early Career Fellows.
Fellows are members who have made outstanding contributions to a wide range of fields served by ESA, including, but not restricted to, those that advance or apply ecological knowledge in academics, government, non-profit organizations and the broader society. They are elected for life.
Early Career Fellows are members within eight years of completing their doctoral training (or other terminal degree) who have advanced ecological knowledge and applications and show promise of continuing to make outstanding contributions to a wide range of fields served by ESA. They are elected for five years.
ESA established its Fellows program in 2012 with the goal of honoring its members and supporting their competitiveness and advancement to leadership positions in the Society, at their institutions, and in broader society. Past ESA Fellows and Early Career Fellows are listed on the ESA Fellows page.
“It’s an honor to recognize this year’s Fellows and Early Career Fellows of ESA,” said ESA President Stephanie Hampton. “These individuals exemplify excellence in ecological science through their research, mentorship and service. Their leadership in advancing both knowledge and application of ecology strengthens our field and supports communities and ecosystems around the world. We applaud this cohort’s accomplishments and look forward to the continued impact of their work.”
ESA will formally acknowledge and celebrate its new Fellows for their exceptional achievements during a ceremony at ESA’s 2025 Annual Meeting in Baltimore, Maryland.
Fellows elected in 2025 in recognition of their contributions to the science of ecology:
Paul R. Armsworth, Professor, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Paul Armsworth is a theoretical ecologist whose research examines how ecology can be integrated with social sciences to inform effective conservation decisions, including the design of protected areas, the benefits of biodiversity and ecosystem services and the role of institutions in shaping conservation outcomes. His work bridges theory and practice to inform management and policy decisions at the local and national levels. As such, he collaborates widely with state and federal agencies, non-governmental organizations and other groups. He received a Ph.D. in Biological Sciences from Stanford University, as well as a Ph.D. in Mathematics from James Cook University.
Donald L. DeAngelis, Research Professor, University of Miami, Department of Biology
Donald DeAngelis is a theoretical ecologist who uses modeling in the area of restoration ecology, with a primary focus on the Florida Everglades. He is a pioneer in the use of individual-based modeling, which he is currently using to simulate methods of control of invasive species. After 21 years in the Environmental Sciences Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, he worked for many years at the U.S. Geological Survey and as a Research Professor at the University of Miami. DeAngelis received a Ph.D. in Engineering and Applied Science from Yale University.
Robert J. Fletcher, Professor, University of Cambridge, Department of Zoology
Robert Fletcher is an ecologist and conservation biologist who works at the interface of landscape ecology, conservation science, ornithology and quantitative modeling. He conducts long-term field research in the Florida Everglades and in southern Africa, where his team addresses the effects of environmental change, such as habitat loss and invasive species, on species and ecosystems. Additionally, Fletcher serves on the Executive Boards for the Savannah Research Centre in Eswatini and the Student Conference for Conservation Science, and he is a Council Member for the Cambridge Conservation Initiative. He received his Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from Iowa State University.
Daniel C. Laughlin, Professor, University of Wyoming, Department of Botany
Daniel Laughlin is a plant ecologist whose research links information about plant physiology and population models to improve our understanding of plant biology and enhance restoration of plant communities. His research group develops statistical frameworks that use multiple data types to predict the dynamics of plant populations and communities at local and global scales. In addition to writing journal publications, Laughlin is the author and co-author of two textbooks on plant strategies and community ecology. He received his Ph.D. from Northern Arizona University.
Elena Litchman, Professor, Michigan State University, Kellogg Biological Station and Department of Integrative Biology
Elena Litchman is an ecologist interested in community assembly, resilience and eco-evolutionary responses of microbial communities to forces like anthropogenic global change. Her work examines the consequences of ecological change for biodiversity, biogeochemical cycles and ecosystem functioning around the world. Having pioneered trait-based approaches to studying phytoplankton, she now extends those approaches to other microbial systems, from freshwater lakes to gut microbiota to algal synthetic communities. She is the recipient of many awards and honors, among them the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers and the G. Evelyn Hutchinson Award from the Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography, where she is also a Fellow. Litchman received her Ph.D. in Ecology from the University of Minnesota.
Dennis S. Ojima, Interim Director and Emeritus Professor, Colorado State University, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory
Dennis Ojima is an ecosystem scientist who conducts research and assessments on global change impacts on ecosystems in the U.S. and around the globe. A leader in the science of anthropogenic change, he promotes social-ecological approaches to address adaptation to environmental change in dryland systems. Ojima has received numerous recognitions, including the Champion of the Environment award from the Mongolian Minister of the Environment and Green Development, the Zayed International Prize for the Environment shared with his co-contributors to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize shared with his fellow members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 2022 Ojima served as President of the Ecological Society of America. He received his Ph.D. from Colorado State University.
Jason R. Rohr, Department Chair and Professor, University of Notre Dame, Department of Biological Sciences
Jason Rohr is a scientist working at the nexus of ecology and public health, focusing on how natural and anthropogenic environmental changes affect wildlife populations, species interactions and the spread of both wildlife and human diseases. His work takes a particular focus on the impacts of climate change, pollution and alterations to biodiversity. The primary aim of his research is to understand, and develop solutions to, environmental problems in order to improve human health and promote a sustainable co-existence with the natural world. Rohr received his Ph.D. in Ecology from Binghamton University.
C. Richard Tracy, Professor Emeritus, University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Biology
Richard Tracy is a biologist and ecologist with a diverse research program including pure and applied projects in physiology, ecology and conservation biology, as well as an extensive record of teaching and mentorship. An advisor for dozens of graduate students and postdocs, as well as director of graduate programs at Colorado State University and the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), he is the recipient of numerous awards for his academic mentorship, including the Nevada System of Higher Education Most Outstanding Graduate Advisor and Best Graduate Director from UNR. Tracy is also a Guggenheim Fellow, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Distinguished Scholar at Pepperdine University and Fellow of the Association of Western Universities. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin.
Early Career Fellows (2025–2029) elected for advancing the science of ecology and showing promise for continuing contributions:
Sarah M. Anderson, Natural Resource Specialist, USDA National Forest Service, Natural Resources Directorate
Sarah Anderson is a landscape ecologist who works to implement ecosystem-based management of the nation’s forests. In her current role, she coordinates the U.S. Forest Service’s Terrestrial Condition Assessment and the annual reporting that the model and its key performance indicator inform. She also supports Agency initiatives including a significant role developing the National Reforestation Strategy. A first-gen college student, she is a dedicated mentor, guiding students from elementary through graduate levels. Anderson served as a Knauss Fellow in the U.S. Senate and later served as a Presidential Management Fellow at the Forest Service. She received her Ph.D. from Washington State University.
Daniel J. Becker, Assistant Professor, University of Oklahoma, School of Biological Sciences
Daniel Becker is a scientist working at the intersection of disease ecology, ecological immunology and predictive analytics. His research focuses on the spread of zoonotic pathogens within and between populations and species, as well as the impacts of environmental change on infectious disease. Much of his research concerns pathogens in bats and songbirds. A member of the executive committee for the Verena Institute (a collaboration working on pandemic prevention), he also serves on The Lancet-PPATS Commission on Prevention of Viral Spillover. In 2020 he received the Sidnie Manton Award from the British Ecological Society. He received his Ph.D. from the Odum School of Ecology at the University of Georgia.
Joanna R. Bernhardt, Assistant Professor, University of Guelph, Department of Integrative Biology
Joanna (Joey) Bernhardt is an integrative ecologist whose research aims to advance our fundamental understanding of the drivers of biodiversity change and the consequences of these changes for human well-being. She does this by combining theory, experiments and synthesis to investigate metabolic processes (how organisms obtain, store and use energy, matter and information from their surroundings) and how living systems change as the environment changes. Bernhardt received her Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of British Columbia.
Joan C. Dudney, Assistant Professor, University of California, Santa Barbara, Bren School and the Environmental Studies Program
Joan Dudney is an ecologist broadly interested in understanding the causes and consequences of global change impacts on forests and terrestrial ecosystems. She leverages big data from synthesis projects and field-based insights from her long-term research in the Sierra Nevada mountains to understand how forest disturbance interactions — including fire, drought and disease — affect tree mortality and lead to shifts in ecosystem states. Dudney is recognized for her innovative quantitative approaches to disentangle the impacts of climate change and disturbance on ecosystems, while informing conservation decisions. She received her Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley.
Benjamin G. Freeman, Assistant Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Biological Sciences
Benjamin Freeman is an ecologist studying why species live where they do and how their ranges may respond in an era of climate change. To that end, he created the Mountain Bird Network to compile systematic survey data on mountain birds across the globe, and he also leads the Mountain Bird Lab at Georgia Tech. Freeman is recognized for his elegant integration of evolutionary and ecological approaches to address fundamental questions in bird biology, and for his science communication to the public. He received his Ph.D. from Cornell University.
Winslow D. Hansen, Assistant Scientist, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies; Director, Western Fire and Forest Resilience Collaborative
Winslow Hansen is an ecologist whose research deepens our understanding of forest resilience to fire, climate change and other disturbances. His novel techniques to integrate remote sensing and simulations — scaling from individual trees up to entire biomes — allows researchers to view current and future forest health across backyards, watersheds and the planet. As Director of the Western Fire and Forest Resilience Collaborative, Hansen oversees the production of synthetic research meant to guide fire policy and management in the western U.S. Hansen received his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Lisa C. McManus, Assistant Professor, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Hawaiʻi Institute of Marine Biology
Lisa McManus is a theoretical marine ecologist investigating climate change impacts on coral reef ecosystems. Her research uses ecological theory to understand and predict the responses of marine organisms to changing ocean conditions. Current projects examine coral-algal regime shifts, coral adaptive potential and marine conservation strategies. Through this work, McManus aims to inform conservation policies that address the long-term resilience of coral reefs. She earned her Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from Princeton University.
Bruno E. Soares, Adjunct Professor, University of Regina, Department of Biology; Quantitative Scientist, University of Regina, Institute for Environmental Change and Society
Bruno Soares is an ecologist whose research is focused on the processes structuring aquatic communities and food webs. He investigates how different land uses affect biodiversity and food web structure in the Neotropical region to better predict the effects of anthropogenic impacts on the functioning of ecosystems. A 2022 ESA Excellence in Ecology Scholar, Soares is recognized for his commitment to creating inclusive spaces to support peers and for his advocacy for open science. He obtained his Ph.D. in Ecology at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Tara E. Stewart Merrill, Assistant Scientist, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Tara Stewart Merrill is an ecologist conducting empirical and theoretical research at the intersection of disease ecology and aquatic ecology. Her work is largely focused on understanding the drivers and consequences of infectious disease in freshwater systems. She asks how organismal and ecological processes interact to shape parasite transmission, as well as how disease impacts scale up from individuals and populations to communities and ecosystems. Stewart Merrill received her Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Benton N. Taylor, Assistant Professor, Harvard University, Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology
Benton Taylor is an ecosystem ecologist working to understand how terrestrial ecosystems will respond to global change, and what the consequences will be for future carbon cycling. His work spans from tropical rainforests to the arctic tundra, focusing primarily on how plant-microbial partnerships impact ecosystem responses to rising carbon dioxide levels, warming, drought, severe weather, nutrient pollution and human land use. Ongoing projects in his lab focus on how shifts in environmental conditions will impact plant growth and reliance on belowground partnerships such as mycorrhizal fungi, nitrogen-fixing bacteria and rhizosphere microbes. He received his Ph.D. in Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology from Columbia University.
###
Learn more about the upcoming ESA Annual Meeting, August 10–15, on the meeting website.
ESA invites press and institutional public information officers to attend for free. To register, please contact ESA Public Affairs Manager Mayda Nathan directly at mayda@esa.org
The Ecological Society of America, founded in 1915, is the world’s largest community of professional ecologists and a trusted source of ecological knowledge, committed to advancing the understanding of life on Earth. The 8,000 member Society publishes six journals and a membership bulletin and broadly shares ecological information through policy, media outreach, and education initiatives. The Society’s Annual Meeting attracts 4,000 attendees and features the most recent advances in ecological science. Visit the ESA website at https://www.esa.org.
Few phrases send chills up a CEO’s spine like “activist shareholder.” In the past year, investment funds such as Elliott Investment Management have successfully pressured companies such as Starbucks and Southwest Airlines to overhaul their boards and their operations.
But there’s a different species of activist shareholder, says Jonathan Cohn, associate professor of finance at Texas McCombs. He calls them the quasi-insider. They’re a former leader, such as CEO, director, or founder, who left the target company for various reasons but still owns an ample amount of stock. They have an intimate knowledge of its inner workings.
In new research, Cohn finds that campaigns by quasi-insiders are both surprisingly common and surprisingly effective.
“These things happen with some degree of regularity,” he says. But because many occur out of public view, “we wanted to try to document how common these types of instances are.”
With Mitch Towner and Aazam Virani, both from the University of Arizona, Cohn analyzed a trove of third-party data on shareholder activism and federal financial filings. The team found:
Campaigns are common. Between 1995 and 2021, 327 quasi-insiders took part in some 280 public campaigns.
Quasi-insiders are high up. Of the 327, about 38% were former CEOs, 30% company founders, and 21% former directors.
Campaigns often succeed. Of the campaigns,43% achieved their main objective, such as gaining control of the target company’s board of directors. Cohn calls this rate “strikingly high.”
Wall Street approves. Stock prices of the target companies saw short-term boosts, with a mean increase of 3.9% from a day before the campaign announcement to 10 days after.
Longer-term impacts on profitability were too difficult to quantify, Cohn says. But he found no indication the campaigns were financially harmful.
Small Companies, Large Egos
Unlike high-profile investors such as Elliott, the researchers found that quasi-insiders primarily targeted smaller companies that weren’t doing well financially.
“Hedge funds may not find it worthwhile financially to target small companies, which creates scope for quasi-insiders to play an activist role,” Cohn says. The biggest corporate names on his list include Humana, Hewlett-Packard, and Darden Restaurants.
A more typical target was the internet media company Destiny Media Technologies. After it fired its founder as CEO in 2017, he nominated himself to the board — along with four others — arguing that he was wrongfully terminated and that current leadership was failing. His effort was unsuccessful.
Although it’s not clear from the data, Cohn suspects “these campaigns are more about fights among personalities than they are fights over ideas. CEOs of publicly traded companies often have big egos. So, a lot of times it’s more about, ‘I think that I can run this company better than you can.’”
Companies might lessen the risks of quasi-insider campaigns by de-personalizing conflicts, he says, and by taking the advice of Michael Corleone in “The Godfather Part II”: Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
Managers should consider keeping people “who were important and influential in the company in the past close at some level,” he says. “In principle, the former CEO, the founder of the company, probably has ideas that are at least worth listening to.”
AI generated essays don’t yet live up to the efforts of real students - according to new research from the University of East Anglia (UK).
A new study published today compared the work of 145 real students with essays generated by ChatGPT.
While the AI essays were found to be impressively coherent and grammatically sound, they fell short in one crucial area – they lacked a personal touch.
As the line between human and machine writing continues to blur, the study underlines the importance of fostering critical literacy and ethical awareness in the digital age.
It is hoped that the findings could help educators spot cheating in schools, colleges and universities worldwide by recognising machine-generated essays..
Prof Ken Hyland, from UEA’s School of Education and Lifelong Learning, said: “Since its public release, ChatGPT has created considerable anxiety among teachers worried that students will use it to write their assignments.
“The fear is that ChatGPT and other AI writing tools potentially facilitate cheating and may weaken core literacy and critical thinking skills. This is especially the case as we don’t yet have tools to reliably detect AI-created texts.
“In response to these concerns, we wanted to see how closely AI can mimic human essay writing, particularly focusing on how writers engage with readers.”
The research team analysed 145 essays written by real university students and another 145 generated by ChatGPT.
“We were particularly interested in looking at what we called ‘engagement markers’ like questions and personal commentary,” said Prof Hyland.
“We found that the essays written by real students consistently featured a rich array of engagement strategies, making them more interactive and persuasive.
“They were full of rhetorical questions, personal asides, and direct appeals to the reader – all techniques that enhance clarity, connection, and produce a strong argument.
“The ChatGPT essays on the other hand, while linguistically fluent were more impersonal. The AI essays mimicked academic writing conventions but they were unable to inject text with a personal touch or to demonstrate a clear stance.
“They tended to avoid questions and limited personal commentary. Overall, they were less engaging, less persuasive, and there was no strong perspective on a topic.
“This reflects the nature of its training data and statistical learning methods, which prioritise coherence over conversational nuance,” he added.
Despite its shortcomings, the study does not dismiss the role of AI in the classroom.
Instead, the researchers say that tools like ChatGPT should be used as teaching aids rather than shortcuts.
“When students come to school, college or university, we’re not just teaching them how to write, we’re teaching them how to think - and that’s something no algorithm can replicate,” added Prof Hyland.
This study was led by UEA in collaboration with Prof Kevin Jiang of Jilin University, China.
‘Does ChatGPT write like a student? Engagement markers in argumentative essays’ is published in the journal Written Communication.
ENDS
Journal
Written Communication
Method of Research
Observational study
Subject of Research
People
Article Title
Does ChatGPT write like a student? Engagement markers in argumentative essays
