Science

A team of Chinese scientists has studied the first lunar farside samples brought back by the Chang’e-6 mission. The findings mark a significant milestone in lunar exploration science and technical exploration capability. The study was published in National Science Review on Sept. 16.

“As the first samples collected from the moon’s far side, these samples will provide an unparalleled opportunity for lunar research,” said Prof. Li Chunlai from National Astronomical Observatories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (NAOC), one of the corresponding authors of this study.

The samples help to advance the understanding of several key aspects of lunar science, including the moon’s early evolution, the variability of volcanic activities between the nearside and farside, the impact history of the inner solar system, the record of galactic activity preserved in the lunar weathering layer, the lunar magnetic field and its anomalies and duration, and the composition and structure of the lunar crust and mantle.

The samples were gathered from the lunar surface using drilling and scooping techniques. The team analyzed their physical, mineralogical, petrographic, and geochemical properties. The analysis showed that the collected samples reflect a mixture of “local” basaltic material and “foreign” non-mare material. The rock fragments are mainly basalt, breccia, and agglutinates. The primary constituent minerals of the soils are plagioclase, pyroxene, and ilmenite, with very low olivine abundance. The lunar soil in the samples is mostly a mixture of local basalts and non-basaltic ejecta materials.

The lunar surface is divided into three very distinct geochemical provinces based on variations in geochemical characterization and petrologic evolutionary history. These are the Procellarum KREEP Terrane (PKT), the Feldspathic Highland Terrane (FHT), and the South Pole-Aitken Terrane (SPAT).

“These local mare basalts document the volcanic history of lunar farside, while the non-basaltic fragments may offer critical insights into the lunar highland crust, South Pole-Aitken impact melts, and potentially the deep lunar mantle, making these samples highly significant for scientific research,” said Prof. Li.

“These insights are expected to lead to new concepts and theories regarding the origin and evolution of the moon, and refine its use as an interpretive paradigm for the evolution of the terrestrial planets,” added Prof. Li.

Adding together the lunar samples gathered from the six Apollo missions, three Luna missions, and the Chang’e-5 mission, a total of 382.9812 kg of lunar samples have been collected. These lunar samples have provided scientists with critical information on the formation and evolutionary history of the moon. “Returned lunar samples are essential to planetary science research, as they provide key laboratory data to link orbital remote sensing observations to actual surface ground truth,” said Prof. Li.

The samples have contributed to the development of hypotheses, such as the moon’s giant impact on early Earth’s origin, the lunar magma ocean, and the Late Heavy Bombardment. These earlier studies of lunar samples, all of them collected from the lunar nearside, have significantly advanced the discipline of planetary science. “Nearside samples alone, without adequate sampling from the entire lunar surface, especially from the farside, cannot fully capture the geologic diversity of the entire moon. This limitation hampers our understanding of the moon’s origin and evolution,” said Prof. Li.

Scientists gained the much-needed farside lunar samples when the Chang’e-6 mission collected 1,935.3 grams of lunar samples from the South Pole-Aitken Basin on June 25, 2024.

The lunar samples collected from the nearside by the Apollo, Luna, and CE-5 missions included samples from the PKT and the FHT. Until now, no samples had been collected from the unique SPAT on the lunar farside. Scientists believe the South Pole-Aitken Basin was formed 4.2 to 4.3 billion years ago in the Pre-Nectarian period. It is the largest confirmed impact basin in the solar system.

A search for aliens communicating between planets in one of the most promising systems to look for life has come up empty.

Discovered in 2017, TRAPPIST-1 is a system of seven Earth-sized planets orbiting a red dwarf star much dimmer than our sun, about 40 light years away. The planets all orbit closer than Mercury does to our sun and pass in front of their star from our point of view. Three of the planets orbit in the star’s habitable zone, where liquid water can exist, and they…

Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), in collaboration with the Georgia Institute of Technology, have made a significant breakthrough in understanding the impact of carbon dioxide (CO₂) on the stability of amine-functionalized porous solid materials, a crucial component in direct air capture (DAC) carbon-capture technologies.

This new research, published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society and featured on the journal cover, sheds light on the complex interactions between CO₂ and poly(ethylenimine) sorbents, offering important insights that could enhance the efficiency and durability of DAC systems.

“This study underscores the importance of considering all atmospheric components in the design of DAC processes and materials,” said Simon Pang, corresponding author and principal investigator of the project. “Our findings will be instrumental in developing next-generation sorbents with enhanced durability, contributing to more efficient and cost-effective carbon-capture solutions.”

Amine-based sorbents are at the forefront of DAC technology due to their exceptional ability to efficiently capture CO₂ even at ultra-dilute conditions. However, the long-term stability of these materials has been a significant challenge, primarily due to oxidative degradation.

The research team investigated the previously unresolved role of CO₂ in the oxidative degradation process of these sorbents, reconciling conflicting data in existing literature. The study reveals that CO₂ exerts a non-monotonic effect on the oxidation kinetics of poly(ethylenimine) sorbents, with its impact varying significantly depending on temperature and CO₂ concentration.

“Our research highlights the dual role of CO₂ in the oxidation process,” said Sichi Li, lead author of the paper and co-investigator of the project. “On one hand, CO₂ catalyzes critical oxidation reactions, while on the other, it reduces polymer branch mobility, which slows down radical propagation. These contrasting effects are key to understanding the complex degradation profiles we observed.”

The study’s conclusions extend beyond reconciling existing literature, offering practical implications for the future of DAC technology. By identifying polymer side chain mobility and the presence of acidic environments as major factors accelerating oxidation, the research suggests new strategies to enhance sorbent longevity. Potential solutions include the introduction of functional groups, additives or oxide supports with surface chemistry designed to reduce polymer mobility or neutralize acidic conditions, thereby mitigating the rate of oxidative degradation.

Millennial Black women feel they have autonomy and flexibility in navigating beauty standards in their personal lives, according to a new qualitative study. But at work, they feel compelled to adapt to a more restrictive beauty standard.

“Outside of work, they were more expressive with their hair and makeup styles, which aligned with their generation’s approach to beauty. They also explored how they fashioned themselves in response to existing beauty standards in public places, but were more self-conscious about their appearance in the workplace,” said Jaleesa Reed, author of the study and assistant professor of human centered design in the College of Human Ecology.

“Participants were aware, from personal experience and anecdotes, of repercussions for Black women who did not subscribe to the appearance expectations at work. Eurocentric beauty standards reinforced through popular media also taught them, from an early age, that women with lighter skin tones, and long, straight hair were considered to be more beautiful,” Reed said.

The study, “Millennial Agency and Liberation Within Black American Beauty Standards,” appears in the new edited volume Embodiment and Representations of Beauty.

Reed, an expert in the processes of self-definition and consumption within Black American beauty culture, interviewed 20 millennial Black American women about their experiences in navigating beauty standards in relation to their identity. The study participants were born between 1981 and 1996, the upper and lower ranges of the millennial generation.

To be American and beautiful is to be “white,” “thin,” “blonde” and “blue-eyed,” the participants said. Though this image reflects ideal beauty representations in popular culture, it is also a standard that the majority of white Americans do not meet, Reed points out. In their personal lives, the study participants embraced an “intracultural” beauty standard—one that reflects the variety of hair textures, body sizes and skin tones present in the African diaspora. The mainstream media has at least superficially incorporated aspects of Black American standards, they said.

But in professional settings, the participants felt they had to make style choices that balanced their identities with achieving their career goals and meeting workplace expectations.

“Decisions around how to style their hair, what jewelry to wear, or how much makeup to put on are tied to their economic livelihood and their ability to support themselves and their families,” Reed said. “On one hand, it feels like, ‘Oh, it’s just how you do your hair.’ But on the other hand, they must also consider their workplace environment, which led them to question their style choices.”

Angelique, a multiracial study participant and a young professional, examined her work appearance and behavior before and during work by asking herself: “Am I coming off too aggressive? Am I using my hands too much? Is my hair looking professional? Can I wear braids? Can I wear my hoop earrings to work or is that going to look too urban for them?”

The study participants were aware that choosing to follow an intracultural beauty standard in a predominantly white environment could result in the loss of a job and a source of financial support for their family, Reed wrote: “… Due to the potential loss of a career opportunity, millennial Black women cannot afford to ignore mainstream beauty standards.”

“For Black women,” Reed wrote, “hairstyle choices for professional spaces are laden with cultural meaning and likely to be misinterpreted. Protective styles, such as cornrows, twists or locs … are often deemed unprofessional as evidenced by the cases of hair discrimination … .”

Black women are 1.5 times more likely than other women in the U.S. to be sent home from work due to their hairstyle, leading to social and economic impacts on their lives, according to the 2019 C.R.O.W.N. Research Study. And Black women with straighter hair are less likely to experience microaggressions in the workplace compared to Black women with coils or textured hair, according to the C.R.O.W.N. study and other studies.

In addition to workplace expectations, the industrial beauty complex compels people, especially women, to participate in these standards, Reed said.

“The beauty industrial complex profits from insecurity,” she said. “There’s a reason why you would be made to feel, ‘Oh, maybe I could be thinner, or my hair could be longer, or my skin could be lighter.’ And, magically, here’s a product to fix that for you.”

In contrast, if people can recognize that’s how the industrial beauty complex operates, they can choose to define themselves on their own terms.

“Within the framework of Black feminist thought, millennial Black women have to first raise their consciousness and realize that the beauty industry profits from promoting an imagined deficit which can be fixed by buying a product to make you appear closer to the beauty standard of the time,” Reed said. “From there, individuals can determine for themselves, ‘Well, do I really want my skin to be lighter, or do I want my hair to be straighter or longer? And then from there, decide how much they want to engage with the beauty industry.”

In some instances, beauty culture’s association with self-care can offer others a respite from the inability to meet a beauty standard that was not constructed for or by them, she said.

“Recognizing the range of beauty standards across cultures around the world can also offer a path towards stepping outside of restrictive beauty norms,” Reed said.

Should Americans be bracing for bloodshed if Donald Trump loses the 2024 presidential election?

As a political scientist who studies American politics, I can easily imagine a repeat of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection—or worse—following this November’s presidential election.

Flashback to 2020

Four years ago, in an attempt to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential election, then-President Donald Trump and his surrogates furiously challenged its results. Lodging 63 lawsuits, Trump and his surrogates tried to discredit or override vote counting, election processes and certification standards in nine states.

None of these attempts was successful. Many were dismissed as baseless—often by Trump-appointed judges—before they even saw trial. Simply put, there is no evidence of widespread fraud. Even a voter data expert hired by Trump concluded that the 2020 election was not stolen.

The U.S. legal system agreed, demonstrating that the courts remain an important bulwark protecting American democracy. Yet the legal system cannot prevent political violence wrought by election denialism, as the country soon learned.

On Jan. 6, 2021, over 2,000 people stormed the United States Capitol to forcibly prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election. Four people died and 138 police officers were injured during the riot, which inflicted nearly US$3 million of damage. Four officers who responded to the riot would later kill themselves.

The mob was spurred, at least in part, by Trump’s rousing speech at a rally in Washington, D.C., earlier that day. There, he reiterated his claims that the 2020 election had been “stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats” and warned the crowd of approximately 53,000 that “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Many legal scholars consider this to be incitement.

“He clearly knew there were people in that crowd who were ready to and intended to be violent,” legal scholar Garrett Epps told the BBC. “He not only did nothing to discourage it, he strongly hinted it should happen.”

Trump: A sore loser … and winner

Trump has a long history of denying the results of any contest whose outcome he does not like.

Before entering the political arena, Trump called the 2012 Emmys “dishonest” because his show, “The Apprentice,” did not win. In 2012, he dismissed then-President Barack Obama’s reelection as a “total sham” and questioned the accuracy of vote tallies and voting machines. Unleashing a barrage of tweets, Trump urged citizens to “fight like hell” against a “disgusting injustice.”

As a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump called the Republican primaries fraudulent after his competitor Sen. Ted Cruz won in Iowa, tweeting that the Texan “stole it.”

Ultimately, Trump won the Republican primaries and the national presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2016. Nonetheless, he falsely claimed that he only lost the popular vote—Trump fell 2 million short of Clinton’s 65.8 million votes—due to massive voting among illegal immigrants.

Attacking the 2024 election

Trump has doubled down on his election denial this election cycle. By May 2024, The New York Times had documented 550 such statements, up from roughly 100 in the entire 2020 campaign.

Continuing to insist that the 2020 election was “rigged,” Trump predicts a repeat in 2024.

This narrative of pervasive victimization has been bolstered by a flurry of lawsuits and criminal investigations brought against the former president. Since 2020, state and federal prosecutors have charged Trump with 94 crimes, including business fraud, mishandling classified documents and interfering with the federal election.

In New York, he was convicted of 34 counts of corporate fraud and found liable for sexual abuse in a civil case filed by author E. Jean Carroll.

Trump has cast these legal challenges as a deliberate attempt by President Joe Biden to interfere with the 2024 election over 350 times.

“My legal issues, every one of them, civil and the criminal ones, are all set up by Joe Biden,” Trump told a New York City crowd in January 2024. “They’re doing it for election interference.”

His surrogates amplify this message. For instance, Mike Howell, director of the right-leaning Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, proclaimed on June 6, 2024, at a public Washington event that there is a “0% chance of a free and fair election.”

From denialism to violence: Warning signs

Lying about election results is no mere tantrum. It is a cornerstone of Trump’s strategy to paint himself as the victim of an elitist deep state—an image that appeals to his base, particularly among white working-class voters, some of whom feel that they are victims themselves of globalization and shadowy elites.

This strategy is working.

A September 2023 survey by the independent pollster PRRI showed that 32% of Americans believe that the 2020 election was stolen. Even though the question has been comprehensively litigated and dismissed in the courts, many American citizens simply do not believe, under any circumstances, that Trump can lose in a fair election.

That fact, combined with other statistics from the same poll, explains why I believe another Jan. 6 is possible.

About 23% of Americans and 33% of Republicans believe that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country”—a 5% increase among Republicans and 8% among the general public since 2021.

Meanwhile, 75% of Americans believe that American democracy is at risk in the 2024 election. That, too, may be something worth fighting for—especially when 39% of Trump supporters and 42% of Biden supporters report having no friends who support the opposing candidate. When people do not trust or socialize with people unlike them, violence between groups is more likely.

I fear little can be done to prevent such violence.

In 2022, Congress, acting in rare bipartisan fashion, approved the Electoral Count Reform and Transition Improvement Act of 2022, which closed many doors that President Trump attempted to use to thwart the 2020 election. Yet, as history shows, the rule of law is not a certain brace against violence.

Given the perceived stakes of the election for most Americans, along with Trump’s ever-sharpening incendiary rhetoric, it is hard to imagine that Jan. 6, 2021, was an isolated chapter in American history.

Indeed, it may have been just a prelude.

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

All major supermarkets and retailers that sell groceries, such as Kroger, Walmart and Costco, give large amounts of food to food banks and pantries. In 2022, retailers donated close to 2 billion pounds of food across the United States, which amounted to US$3.5 billion that year. The estimated value of donated food was a little less than $2 per pound in 2022.

Retailers donate products that are typically packaged, palatable and safe for consumption, yet unsuitable for sale due to quality concerns, such as minor blemishes. Since these items can go a long way to feeding hungry people, donations represent one of the best uses of leftover or surplus food.

Donations are also technically acts of charity, and the companies responsible for them get tax breaks. This means that donations boost profits by lowering costs. There’s a second effect of donations on a store’s bottom line: They improve the quality of food on the store’s shelves and increase revenue from food sales.

As a supply chain scholar who studies food banks, I worked with a team of economists to estimate the effects of retail food donations. We used sales data for five perishable food categories sold by two competing retail chains, with stores located in a large, Midwestern metropolitan area. We found that stores that remove items on the brink of expiration, donate them to food banks and fill up the emptied shelf space with fresher inventory get more revenue from sales and earn higher profits.

Retailers donate 30% of what food banks give their clients

U.S. food banks, which have been operating for more than 50 years, give away over 6 billion pounds of food annually.

They get about 30% of that food for free from supermarkets and big-box retailers that sell groceries. Prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, retailers supplied more than twice as much food to food banks as the federal government did. The volume of food supplied by federal programs administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, such as the Emergency Food Assistance Program, has steadily increased since 2020, to now almost match the volume of food donated by retailers.

In 2022, for example, the network of more than 200 Feeding America member food banks procured about 2 billion pounds from retailers and almost 1.5 billion pounds from government programs.

The remaining 2.88 billion pounds of food were either purchased directly, provided by farmers, donated by food processing companies or donated by people and organizations in local communities.

Despite several federal programs that help low-income people get food and the nation’s robust network of food banks and food pantries, nearly 50 million Americans are experiencing food insecurity. That means they can’t get enough nutritious food to eat at least some of the time.

Retail donation routines are established but inconsistent

When food on a store’s shelves is on the verge of expiration, store managers have three options. They can donate or discard it, or sell it at a discount.

Stores that regularly donate food have established routines for when they set aside about-to-expire food to give away. However, these routines are often inconsistent.

Many stores donate only on a seasonal basis or just give away certain kinds of food. For example, they might donate only meat, baked goods or fruits and vegetables. In many cases, donations take a backseat to more immediate priorities, such as customer service.

Those realities can increase the likelihood that food will land at the dump instead of on somebody’s table.

Although millions of Americans struggle to find their next meal, close to 40% of food gets thrown out along the supply chain, as food moves between agricultural producers, factories, retailers and consumers. This is largely due to logistical challenges: It’s hard to transport and distribute highly perishable food.

Discounts on food can undercut sales

Stores often prefer to sell food on the brink of expiration at a discount rather than donate it or throw it out due to the money they recoup that way. This option, however, also keeps the discounted food on the shelf, where it takes up valuable space that could otherwise hold fresher inventory.

Shelf space dedicated to the sale and promotion of full-priced products competes with that for price-discounted food. Stocking perishable foods that are starting to look iffy—such as bananas with brown spots sold alongside unblemished yellow bananas—could harm a retailer’s image if shoppers start to question the store’s quality.

In other words, if consumers make judgments based on all the produce that’s on display, then it may be better for stores if they don’t sell sad-looking bananas and instead just give them away.

My research team calls this practice “preemptive removal.” Increasing the average quality level of food on display does more than improve a store’s appearance. We used panel data with over 20,000 observations, and we included 21 retail stores that compete in a similar market geography. The five fresh food categories were bakery, dairy, deli, meat and produce.

Stores that donated food, instead of discounting it, may have made better use of the limited room to display fresher inventory. My research team found that food donations can increase average food prices by up to 1%, which corresponds to a 33% increase in profit margins. Profit margins for supermarkets and other food retailers are quite low and typically hover below 3%.

That means even a small increment in food prices, even a 1% bump up, can translate into significantly higher profits for retailers. At the same time, increasing the volume of retail food donations would get more food to people who need it, limit hunger and reduce food insecurity.

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

The number of educational opportunities that children accrue at home, in early education and care, at school, in afterschool programs, and in their communities as they grow up are strongly linked to their educational attainment and earnings in early adulthood, according to new research. The results indicate that the large opportunity gaps between low- and high-income households from birth through the end of high school largely explain differences in educational and income achievement between students from different backgrounds.

These findings come from a 26-year longitudinal study published in the Educational Researcher journal. The research was conducted by Eric Dearing (Boston College), Andres S. Bustamante (University of California–Irvine), Henrik D. Zachrisson (University of Oslo), and Deborah Lowe Vandell (University of California–Irvine).

Their study is the first to directly document opportunities and opportunity gaps as they accrue across early childhood, middle childhood, and adolescence in multiple key areas of child development.

Using a 12-point index of opportunities, the authors found that about two thirds of children from low-income households experience no more than one opportunity between birth and high school. Most high-income youth experience six or more opportunities.

The strength of the relationship between opportunities and early adult outcomes was strongest for low-income children. Moving from zero to four opportunities increased the odds of low-income children graduating from a four-year college from about 10% to 50% and increased annual salaries by about $10,000 per year.

“For the first time, we are able to directly measure how large opportunity gaps are and how seriously they impact outcomes of low- and high-income students,” said study co-author Eric Dearing, a professor at Boston College and executive director of the Mary E. Walsh Center for Thriving Children. “These gaps are very large and appear to be a primary explanation for large gaps in attainment for children born into low- versus high-income households.”

The authors found that the opportunity gap was a more powerful predictor of educational attainment than early childhood poverty.

The study was part of the National Institutes of Health’s NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, in which 814 children from low-, middle-, and high-income families were followed from birth through age 26 with frequent gold standard measurements of their developmental contexts and experiences from early childhood through adolescence, between 1991 and 2017.

For educational institutions and their leaders, Dearing stressed that educational initiatives that tackle children’s lives inside and outside of the classroom offer uniquely powerful chances to narrow cumulative opportunity gaps.

“Beyond what schools are able to do, narrowing gaps in attainment will likely require comprehensive public policies that offer systemic changes to the children’s chances of educational opportunities,” Dearing said.

The Family Research Council is a conservative advocacy group with a “biblical worldview.” While it has a church ministries department that works with churches from several evangelical Christian denominations that share its perspectives, it does not represent a single denomination. Although its activities are primarily focused on policy, advocacy, government lobbying and public communication, the Internal Revenue Service granted the council’s application to be treated as “an association of churches” in 2020.

Concerned that the IRS had erred in allowing the council and similar groups to be designated churches or associations of churches, Democratic members of the House of Representatives sent the Treasury secretary and the IRS commissioner letters in 2022 and 2024 expressing alarm. The House Democrats pointed to what appeared to be “abuse” of the tax code and asked the IRS to “determine whether existing guidance is sufficient to prevent abuse and what resources or Congressional actions are needed.”

As a professor of nonprofit law, I believe some groups that aren’t churches or associations of churches want to be designated that way to avoid the scrutiny being a charitable organization otherwise requires. At the same time, some other groups that should qualify as churches may have difficulty doing so because of the IRS’ outdated test for that status.

Together with my colleague Ellen P. Aprill, I recently published a paper outlining two main arguments in favor of revising the federal government’s definitions of churches as they pertain to tax law.

No 990s means less scrutiny

All charitable nonprofits, including churches, get the same basic benefits under federal tax law. This means they don’t have to pay taxes on their revenue and that donors can deduct the value of their gifts from their taxable income—as long as they itemize deductions on their tax return.

Unlike other tax-exempt charities, churches don’t have to file 990 forms. That means the public does not have access to churches’ staff pay, board membership and funding details, which are in this publicly available tax form that all other charities must complete every year. The availability of 990 forms enhances the transparency and accountability of the nonprofit sector.

And churches and associations of churches are unlikely to get audited by the IRS. Federal law requires that a senior IRS official “reasonably believes” the church or association has violated federal tax rules before beginning an investigation. This means that an official must have reason to believe the organization has violated federal tax law before obtaining any information from the organization.

This standard is higher than what’s needed before an audit can begin for all other tax-exempt organizations and indeed all taxpayers. For everyone else, the IRS is free to begin an examination based only on a suspicion of a violation or even based on random selection.

Also, unlike other tax-exempt charities, churches and church associations are automatically eligible for their tax-exempt status. They don’t have to apply for it.

Why churches get special treatment

Congress has passed laws granting churches and what it calls “integrated auxiliaries” and “conventions or associations of churches” special protections because the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedom.

Churches include houses of worship ranging in size from a handful of parishioners to megachurches with 10,000 or more people attending weekly services. Houses of worship of all faiths, including synagogues, mosques and temples, count as churches, according to the IRS.

Integrated auxiliaries are church schools and other organizations affiliated with churches or conventions and primarily supported by internal church sources, as opposed to by the public or government.

Conventions or associations of churches are organizations that have houses of worship from either a single denomination or from multiple denominations as their members. Most denominational bodies, such as the executive committee of the Southern Baptist Convention and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are likely conventions or associations of churches, although the IRS does not publish a list of such entities.

Not every religious nonprofit belongs in one of these categories.

For example, the University of Notre Dame, where I teach law students and conduct legal research, and World Vision, a global humanitarian group, are both religious organizations that do not fall into any of these categories. This makes sense, because Notre Dame and World Vision are primarily engaged in activities other than fostering a religious congregation or coordinating the activities of churches within a single denomination.

The IRS has long relied on a 14-factor test to distinguish churches from other religious nonprofits. Examples of those factors include having ordained ministers, a formal doctrine, a distinct membership and a regular congregation attending religious services.

It’s not necessary for all the factors to apply to pass this test.

Yet for almost as long, courts have been uncomfortable with this test because it draws heavily on the traditional characteristics of Protestant Christian churches, as the U.S. Court of Federal Claims explained in a 2009 ruling. This system therefore may be a poor fit for houses of worship of other faiths, especially given the increasing diversity of faith communities.

These courts have instead adopted an “associational test.” It focuses on whether the organization’s congregants hold religious services on a regular basis and gather in person on other occasions.

With the growth of virtual and televised religious services, an update of this test is overdue.

Proposed solutions

Aprill and I recommend that the IRS change its definition for churches to the associational one adopted by some courts in rulings as early as 1980. As the U.S. Court of Federal Claims explained in that 2009 ruling, this test focuses on whether a body of believers assembles regularly to worship. Given technological advances, the IRS should also make it clear that this test can be satisfied through remote participation in religious services using interactive, teleconferencing apps such as Zoom.

This definition would also be better suited for congregations of all faiths because some faiths do not prioritize many of the factors included in the IRS test, such as having a formal code of doctrine or requiring members to not be associated with other houses of worship or faiths. And it would better reflect how some Americans participate in religious services today.

We recommend that the IRS revisit its test for being a church and that Congress pass a law that would change the definition of church associations. The new law could limit associations of churches to organizations that represent a single denomination, as Congress likely initially intended.

This latter change would make it harder for religious organizations that are primarily involved in bringing churches from multiple faiths together to engage in advocacy or other activities to obtain this status and the lack of transparency and accountability that come with it. We believe Congress, not the IRS, should make this change because of the potential political tensions that narrowing the definition could create.

We don’t think the changes would impinge upon the special role that churches have in our society. Indeed, the revised test for qualifying as a church would better fit with both the increasing variety of faiths in our country and technological advancements.

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

An interdisciplinary team of researchers led by the University of Massachusetts Amherst have published work in the journal Science calling into question the conclusions of a widely reported study—published in Science in 2023—finding the social platform’s algorithms successfully filtered out untrustworthy news surrounding the 2020 election and were not major drivers of misinformation.

The UMass Amherst-led team’s work shows that the research was conducted during a short period when Meta temporarily introduced a new, more rigorous news algorithm rather than its standard one, and that the previous researchers did not account for the algorithmic change. This helped to create the misperception, widely reported by the media, that Facebook and Instagram’s news feeds are largely reliable sources of trustworthy news.

“The first thing that rang alarm bells for us” says lead author Chhandak Bagchi, a graduate student in the Manning College of Information and Computer Science at UMass Amherst, “was when we realized that the previous researchers,” Guess and colleagues, “conducted a randomized control experiment during the same time that Facebook had made a systemic, short-term change to their news algorithm.”

Beginning around the start of November 2020, Meta introduced 63 “break glass” changes to Facebook’s news feed which were expressly designed to diminish the visibility of untrustworthy news surrounding the 2020 U.S. presidential election. These changes were successful.

“We applaud Facebook for implementing the more stringent news feed algorithm,” says Przemek Grabowicz, the paper’s senior author, who recently joined University College Dublin but conducted this research at UMass Amherst’s Manning College of Information and Computer Science.

Chhandak, Grabowicz and their co-authors point out that the newer algorithm cut user views of misinformation by at least 24%. However, the changes were temporary, and the news algorithm reverted to its previous practice of promoting a higher fraction of untrustworthy news in March 2021.

Guess’ study ran from September 24 through December 23, and so substantially overlapped with the short window when Facebook’s news was determined by the more stringent algorithm—but the paper did not clarify that their data captured an exceptional moment for the social media platform.

“Their paper gives the impression that the standard Facebook algorithm is good at stopping misinformation,” says Grabowicz, “which is questionable.”

Part of the problem, as Chhandak, Grabowicz, and their co-authors write, is that experiments, such as the one run by Guess and team, have to be “preregistered”—which means that Meta could have known well ahead of time what the researchers would be looking for. And yet, social media are not required to make any public notification of significant changes to their algorithms.

“This can lead to situations where social media companies could conceivably change their algorithms to improve their public image if they know they are being studied,” write the authors.

Though Meta funded and supplied 12 co-authors for Guess’ study, they write that “Meta did not have the right to prepublication approval.”

“Our results show that social media companies can mitigate the spread of misinformation by modifying their algorithms but may not have financial incentives to do so,” says Paik. “A key question is whether the harms of misinformation—to individuals, the public and democracy—should be more central in their business decisions.”