When assessing the outgoing Biden administration, much of the news has focused on inflation, immigration or Hunter's laptop. But as an authority To national competitiveness in science and technologyI even have a rather different focus. My research shows that the US Prosperity and security rely on it depends heavily on the country's ability to provide cutting-edge science and technology.

So how has the Biden administration moved on this direction?

Advancing pandemic science and technology

President Joe Biden's immediate challenge after the inauguration was to finish the COVID-19 pandemic after which return the economy to normal operations.

First, he put his government's weight behind the production and distribution of vaccines. Thanks to President Donald Trump's Operation Warp Speed The vaccinations began in mid-December 2020. However, there was no nationwide rollout and there have been no plans for it. When Biden took office there have been only about 5% of Americans were vaccinated.

The Biden administration worked with private retail chains to construct cold storage and distribution capability. To ensure sufficient vaccine supply, Biden worked on it support the large pharmaceutical manufacturers. And all of the while, Biden ran a public relations campaign to tell, educate and motivate Americans to get vaccinated.

Within the primary 10 weeks of Biden's presidency, a 3rd of the US population had done so have received no less than one dosehalf by the top of May and over 70% by the top of the 12 months. And when Americans were vaccinatedTravel bans were lifted, school operations resumed, and business operations regularly returned to normal.

A later study noted that Biden's vaccination program It prevented greater than 3.2 million American deaths and 18.5 million hospitalizations, saved $1.15 trillion in medical costs and lost economic output.

In the wake of the economic hardship attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, Biden signed two bills with direct and far-reaching impacts on science and technology. Previous administrations had promised infrastructure investments, but Biden delivered. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs ActPassed in late 2021 with bipartisan support, it provided $1.2 trillion for infrastructure of all types.

Instead of simply rebuilding, the law emphasized technological upgrades: clean water, clean energy, high-speed rural web, public transit and airport modernization, and electric grid reliability.

In August 2022, Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act $739 billion in tax credits and direct spending. That was that largest climate change laws within the history of the USA. It implemented an intensive repertoire of subsidies and incentives to develop and disseminate the vital science and technology clean and renewable energyEnvironmental protection and too address climate change.

Science and technology tents and sleepers

Some of the Biden administration's scientific and technological achievements have been quite obvious. For example, Biden successfully pushed for increased federal funding for research and development. Federal research and development funding increased by 25% from 2021 to 2024. Recipients included the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, NASA and the Department of Defense. In addition, Biden oversaw investments in latest technologies similar to AI and their responsible governance.

Biden also maintained or increased Trump's tariffs and continued his predecessor's skepticism about latest free trade agreements, cementing a protectionist turn in American trade policy. Biden's addition should add Protectionist industrial policy – Subsidies for domestic production and innovation in addition to “buy-american” mandates.

Other successes remained under the radar. For example, Biden created one as a part of the National Science Foundation Technology, Innovation and Partnerships Directorate to enhance U.S. economic competitiveness. Its mission is to speed up the event of breakthrough technologies, speed up their transition to market, and retrain and upskill American staff in high-quality jobs with higher wages.

Biden implemented measures to strengthen and improve Federal scientific integrity to offer residents the sensation that they’ll trust government-funded science and its use. He also proposed latest measures to enhance research security, aimed toward stopping government-funded research from being illegally acquired by foreign firms.

The CHIPS & Science Act

The crown jewel of Biden's science and technology agenda was the bipartisan Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act, which was intended to spice up U.S. manufacturing Capabilities in advanced semiconductor chips. It has taken approx $40 billion to American chipmakersleading to an extra $450 billion private investment over 90 latest manufacturing projects in 28 states.

The CHIPS Act's subsidies, covering all the things from advanced packaging to memory chips, have reduced private costs domestic semiconductor production. CHIPS can be pushing for these latest manufacturing jobs to go to well-paid American staff. While the U.S. produced few of probably the most advanced chips just two years ago, the industry believes the U.S. may have such chips 28% of worldwide capability until 2032.

Less well-known are the “scientific” parts of the CHIPS Act. For example, it invested half a billion dollars in dozens regional innovation and technology centers across the country. These hubs give attention to a wide selection of strategic sectors, including critical materials, sustainable polymers, precision medicine and medical devices. Over 30 tech hubs have already been named, including this Expand the Quantum Tech Hub in Denver and the Wisconsin Biohealth Tech Hub.

The CHIPS Act also goals to expand participation in science. This is finished through improved tracking and funding of research and STEM education previously underrepresented Americans – by district, occupation, ethnicity, gender, institution and socioeconomic background. It also seeks to expand the impact of government-funded research to handle global challenges similar to: Supply chain disruptionsWaste of resources and energy security.

Missed opportunities and future possibilities

Despite these successes, the Biden administration has faced criticism within the science and technology sector. Some critics contend that U.S. research security still doesn’t adequately defend American science and technology Theft or counterfeiting by competitors.

Others insist that federal spending on research and development stays too low. In particular, they call for more investment within the US research infrastructure – similar to modern laboratories and data systems – and latest technologies.

That of the administration government-centric approach to AI has also attracted criticism as suffocating and unsuitable.

Personally, I’m agnostic on these issues, but they’re legitimate concerns. In my opinion, investments in science and technology take an extended time to repay, so early judgments about Biden's success or failure are probably premature.

Nevertheless, the following government has quite a bit ahead of it. International cooperation is prone to be crucial. The most difficult global problems require scientific and technological advances that transcend the capabilities of any single country. The challenge for the United States is to cooperate in ways in which complement American competitiveness.

National priorities will probably be included the event of productive and ethical AI that helps the US be more competitive, in addition to a brand new one Quantum computing industry. Neuroscience and “Healthspan” research are also promising Improving U.S. competitiveness while also changing Americans' life satisfaction.

Consistently sustaining America's entire science and technology enterprise requires two elements from the federal government: increased resources and a competitive environment. America's greatness will rely on President-elect Trump's ability to realize these goals.

Artificial intelligence harm, problematic social media content, data breaches – the problems are the identical, however the policymakers and regulators who address them are facing a change.

As the federal government transitions right into a recent term under the renewed leadership of Donald Trump, the technology regulatory landscape within the United States is poised for significant change.

The Trump administration's stated approach to those issues signals change. It is probably going that it’s going to move away from the civil rights aspect of the Biden administration's policies and give attention to innovation and economic competitiveness. While some potential policies would roll back strict federal regulations, others suggest recent approaches to content moderation and ways to support AI-related business practices. They also suggest avenues for state laws.

I'm studying this Interface between law and technology. Here are the important thing technology law issues more likely to shape the brand new administration's agenda in 2025.

AI Regulation: Innovation vs. Civil Rights

The rapid development of AI technologies has led to an expansion of AI policies and regulatory activities, bringing each opportunities and challenges. The federal government's approach to AI regulation is more likely to undergo significant changes under the brand new Trump administration.

The Biden administration AI Bill of Rights And Implementing regulation on AI established basic principles and guardrails to guard security, privacy and civil rights. This included requirements for developers of powerful AI systems Report security test resultsand a mandate for the National Institute of Standards and Technology create strict safety standards. They also demanded this from government authorities Use AI responsibly.

Unlike the Biden era, the Trump administration's approach to deregulation points in a distinct direction. The president-elect has signaled his intention Repeal of Biden's executive order on AIciting the necessity for support freedom of expression. Trump's nominee to steer the Federal Trade Commission, Andrew Fergusonhas confirmed this opinion. He has explained his objection on restrictive AI regulations and the adoption of a comprehensive federal AI law.

With limited prospects for federal AI laws under the Trump administration, states are expected to paved the way in addressing recent challenges AI is harmful. At least in 2024 45 states introduced draft laws related to AI. For example, Colorado has passed comprehensive laws Address algorithmic discrimination. In 2025, state lawmakers could either follow Colorado's lead and enact comprehensive AI regulations or give attention to targeted laws for specific applications, akin to: automated decision making, Deepfakes, facial recognition And AI chatbots.

Data protection: federal or state leadership?

Privacy stays a key focus for policymakers, and 2025 is an important yr to see whether Congress will enact federal privacy law. The suggested one American Privacy Rights ActIntroduced in 2024, represents a bipartisan effort to create a comprehensive federal privacy framework. The bill incorporates provisions for override state laws and permit private rights of motionmeaning individuals can sue for alleged violations. The bill goals to simplify compliance and reduce the patchwork of presidency regulations.

These issues are more likely to cause sparks Key debates in the approaching yr. Lawmakers can even likely struggle to balance the regulatory burdens on smaller corporations with the necessity for comprehensive data protection.

Without federal motion, states could proceed to dominate privacy regulation. Since California passed this Consumer Data Rights Act In 2019 there have been 19 states passed comprehensive data protection laws. Recent state privacy laws have various scope, rights, and obligations, leading to a fragmented regulatory environment. In 2024 Key topics These included defining sensitive data, protecting the privacy of minors, incorporating data minimization principles, and addressing compliance challenges for medium and small businesses.

At the federal level, the Biden administration issued one in 2024 Implementing regulation Authorizing the U.S. Attorney General to limit cross-border data transfers to guard national security. These efforts can proceed under the brand new administration.

Cybersecurity, health protection and online security

States have turn into key players in strengthening cybersecurity protections 30 states require corporations to comply with cybersecurity standards. The California Privacy Protection Agency Board did this, for instance proposed rulemaking on cybersecurity audits, data protection risk assessments and automatic decision-making.

There is now a growing trend towards empowerment Data protection in healthcare And Protect children online. Washington state And NevadaFor example, they’ve passed laws that expand health information protections beyond federal jurisdiction Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Numerous states, akin to California, Colorado, Utah And Virginiahave recently expanded protection for young users' data. In the absence of federal regulation, state governments will likely proceed to steer efforts to handle pressing privacy and cybersecurity concerns in 2025.

Social media and Section 230

Regulation of online platforms has been a contentious issue under each the Biden and Trump administrations. There are federal efforts to reform Section 230, which exempts online platforms from liability for user-generated content, in addition to federal and state efforts to combat misinformation and hate speech.

During Trump's previous administration criticized Section 230 for allegedly enabling the censorship of conservative voices, which the Biden administration has focused on Increase transparency and accountability for corporations that fail to remove questionable content.

With Trump returning to office, Congress will likely consider suggestions Ban certain types of content moderation within the name of protecting free speech.

On the opposite hand, states like California And Connecticut recently passed a law requiring platforms to reveal details about hate speech and misinformation. Some existing state laws regulating online platforms are being challenged by the U.S. Supreme Court Reasons for the First Amendment.

In 2025, debates about the right way to balance platform neutrality and accountability at each the federal and state levels are more likely to proceed.

Changes within the wind

Overall, federal efforts on issues akin to Section 230 reform and online child protection could also be moving forward, but AI regulation and federal privacy laws could potentially slow attributable to the administration's deregulatory stance. Whether long-standing legislative efforts akin to federal privacy protections are implemented is determined by the balance of power between Congress, the courts and the brand new administration.

California air quality regulators late Friday approved a plan to tighten limits on greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline and diesel fuels, a move expected to boost gas prices while providing public health advantages.

Members of the California Air Resources Board approved changes to the state's low-carbon fuel standard during an 11-hour meeting in Riverside that featured quite a few speakers. Twelve of the appointed board members voted in favor of the changes and two voted against. The recent standard sets lower carbon intensity limits for fuels that could be sold within the state without penalties.

The board estimates the stricter regulations will reduce asthma symptoms in greater than 70,000 Californians and drive $100 billion in private investment in clean energy infrastructure over the following twenty years. Chief Executive Liane Randolph said it will help protect residents from air pollution and climate-related natural disasters, in addition to price increases by gas firms.

“We cannot afford to continue with the status quo,” Randolph said.

But the change is controversial. The state's Republicans have denounced the board and Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose appointees dominate the board, for driving up gasoline prices, a hot-button issue across the statewhich currently has the second-highest price per gallon within the country after Hawaii, in accordance with AAA.

The vote got here amid intense political debate over inflation. Observers say that contributed to Democrats' overwhelming vote locally and nationally in Tuesday's election.

It also comes a month after a special legislative session wherein Democrats approved a plan to create a state fuel reserve. The board decides air pollution and climate policy for California, which is commonly adopted by other states. Of its 16 members, 12 were appointed by Newsom and confirmed by the state Senate. The other members are appointed by the state legislature.

Last yr, the board estimated that the proposed change could lead to a price increase of 47 cents in 2025, reaching 79 cents in 2035 as refiners pass the associated fee on to customers. Chief Executive Steven Cliff and board staff now say it's unimaginable to know whether the changes will raise gasoline prices.

Currently, the fuel standard adds about 8 cents per gallon to gasoline, said Aaron Smith, an economics professor on the University of California, Davis. He estimates that increased regulations could range from 20 to 84 cents per gallon by 2030, depending on the regulatory market.

“We don’t need lower CARB emissions – my goodness!” said California resident Melanie Arace in a public comment. “If this is just about air quality, one part of our country will not clean the air of the entire planet. Stop taxing us to death!”

Environmentalists and economists claimed at Friday's marathon meeting, where greater than 100 people addressed the board, that this system was flawed. Many were parents of youngsters with lung disease and environmental justice activists who said the usual didn’t go far enough to cut back air pollution and climate change.

Although California is prioritizing electric vehicle adoption, the lion's share of the $22 billion in private investment generated by the fuel standard largely benefited biofuel firms. This helps finance deforestation and enormous dairy farms, the critics said.

“We need clean air,” Jose Avalos, a San Bernardino resident and member of the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, told the board. “Both you and I know that these fuels produce polluting emissions that cause more people to suffer from asthma and cancer.”

Biofuel firms, including Nebraska-based agricultural technology giant Green Plains and Brazil-based Raízen, urged the board to approve the brand new standard.

The fuel standard sets a limit on the carbon intensity of fuels. Companies that comply with the boundaries receive credits, and firms that don't – resembling oil refineries – must buy credits from people who do. Over time the limit decreases.

The recent standard lowers carbon intensity limits and increases those limits through the 2040s. The limit will increase by 10% in 2030 and fall to 90% in 2045.

The board says the usual has led to major changes within the state's fuel market – particularly the rapid adoption of renewable diesel constituted of vegetable oil. Two oil refineries within the Bay Area are currently converting to renewable diesel production.

The rapid adoption of renewable diesel led to a flood of loans, reducing incentives under this system, experts told the Bay Area News Group. That's considered one of the explanations the board lowered the usual.

Renewable diesel is taken into account lower-carbon than conventional diesel and now dominates the state's heavy-duty fuel market. However, it’s increasingly constituted of palm oil and soybean oil produced in deforested areas abroad. Global forest loss is a serious threat to biodiversity and climate change.

In response, the board is introducing “guidelines” that restrict the usage of these oils in renewable diesel produced under the usual. But the rule likely won't prevent deforestation abroad because that international market is booming, Colin Murphy, co-director of the UC Davis Low Carbon Fuel Policy Research Initiative, said in public comment.

On Thursday, the board postponed a scheduled hearing on fuel standards for gas-powered motorcycles and the primary statewide requirements for the sale of electrical motorcycles.

Originally published: November 9, 2024 at 11:00 am PST

On a muggy afternoon in July 2020, Belinda Ramones received a call that her brother was within the hospital. The call got here from a lady on the Florida landscaping company he had joined that week, Davey Tree Expert Co., Ramones said. When she arrived, she said, “My brother was swollen from his hands to his toes.”

Two days later, her brother Jose Leandro-Barrera died at age 45 of acute kidney failure as a consequence of heat stroke, based on a Hillsborough County coroner's report. His temperature within the ambulance was 108 F, the report said.

It described the circumstances leading as much as his death, which were recorded by a nurse. At the development site, Leandro-Barrera had told his supervisor that he was not feeling well, and the supervisor told him to stay in a vehicle until he felt higher. While there, he “urinated, had seizure-like activity,” and have become unresponsive.

“The employee is experiencing heat exhaustion while gardening,” he said an investigation informed of the incident by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The agency fined Davey Tree Expert Co. $9,639. The company didn’t reply to requests for comment.

Without national regulations to forestall heat-related illnesses and deaths, OSHA generally has difficulty protecting staff before it is just too late, said Paloma Rentería, a spokeswoman for the Labor Department.

Workers have suffered as summers have lengthened increasingly hotter with climate change. But health policy and occupational safety researchers say employee deaths usually are not inevitable. Employers can save lives by providing loads of water and breaks and preparing recent staff ahead of time so that they can acclimate to the acute heat.

That's the logic behind proposed national regulations signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2021, geared toward protecting an estimated 36 million staff exposed to extreme heat. The Bureau of Labor Statistics averages about 480 employee deaths from heat exposure every year. But these are “significant underestimates” based on OSHAbecause heat stress is an underlying factor that is commonly not accounted for in medical records.

The advocacy group Citizens' estimates It is estimated that as much as 2,000 U.S. staff die from heat annually, based on projections from heat injury data.

Both estimates are troubling, said Linda McCauley, dean of Emory University's nursing school and an occupational health researcher. “No one should go to work expecting to die,” she said.

The proposed rules — an OSHA heat standard — reach a milestone on Dec. 30, when the public comment period closes. However, it’s unlikely to be finally resolved before Biden leaves office.

Vice President Kamala Harris would likely implement the warmth rules if she had won the presidency, said Jordan Barab, who was OSHA's deputy assistant secretary through the Obama administration. In 2020, she advanced California's heat regulations.

If Donald Trump wins, the foundations would come to a standstill, Barab predicts. In general, Republicans have opposed workplace safety regulations last 20 yearsand said they’re costly for businesses and consumers. And through the first Trump administration, the variety of OSHA inspectors tasked with monitoring workplace safety reached an all-time low within the agency's 48-year history. Workplace inspections for warmth stress have fallen by half under Trump's leadership, based on a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services evaluation National Labor Law Project.

OSHA regulations require employers to supply adequate cool drinking water and shade or air-con for breaks when temperatures exceed 80 degrees. Above 90 degrees, employers could be required to schedule paid 15-minute breaks every two hours.

Two other elements of the usual address missed issues that contribute to heat-related deaths within the workplace. More than 70% of employees Anyone who dies from heat dies throughout the first week of labor. And delayed medical care is a standard theme.

“We need to stop telling people who complain about passing out to sit in the car or take a break,” McCauley said. “Rest is necessary to prevent the problem, but once someone has symptoms they need quick help.”

The proposed rules would require employers to present recent staff time to acclimate to the high temperatures and to implement protocols resembling a buddy system in order that staff receive rapid medical care as soon as they show signs of warmth illness, resembling dizziness, confusion and cramps.

When an emergency medical team arrived to assist a employee in July 2021, he had stopped respiratory, based on a labor ministry statement Press release. A supervisor from the ecological restoration company EarthBalance had seen him earlier that day, they said, and he was “sweating profusely, his hands were shaking and he appeared confused.” He was resting. “Just 30 minutes later, the supervisor returned to the man and found him unresponsive.”

That evening, Gilberto Macario-Gimenez died within the hospital, a coroner's case report said. It said “the deceased was overheated” and attributed his death to heart disease and hypertension. Heat could make these conditions worse.

OSHA investigated the situation. It fined EarthBalance $9,216. find that “The employer failed to ensure that a person was adequately trained to provide first aid to employees [was] Working in an area where there was no health clinic.”

EarthBalance didn’t reply to requests for comment.

OSHA received at the very least 12,980 comments on its proposals published within the Federal Register. A girl wrote about her cousin who died while clearing brush for a rancher in Texas when temperatures topped 100 degrees: “He was only 34. There was no water or rest.”

After the comment period closes in December, OSHA will hold a public hearing, incorporate changes, and finalize the rule. If Harris becomes president, the agency could complete the method by 2026, Barab said. For the rule to work, Congress would should do that OSHA Fund enough to rent people to show employers how one can implement the standards and enough investigators to implement them.

Several industry groups have spoken out against the usual. The Associated General Contractors of America called it “unnecessary, impractical and impractical.” A single algorithm just isn’t fair when the climate and workplaces, in addition to staff' tolerance for warmth, vary greatly, the group wrote in a single Online declaration.

Some Republican lawmakers have described the administration's rule as overreach. Rick Roth, a Republican state representative from Florida, said Al Jazeera that staff push for paid breaks because they “don’t want to work that hard.” If they didn't feel protected, they may change jobs. “Go work for someone else,” he said.

Critics also say the regulations will cost employers. But a UCLA evaluation of staff' compensation claims in California suggest that a national heat standard saves money overall. The study estimated the associated fee of heat-related injuries in California alone at $750 billion to $1.25 billion per yr, including medical bills, lost wages and disability claims.

Because six states have different rules for reducing heat-related illnesses—California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington—researchers and union officials were in a position to discover where policies need strengthening. One problem with enforcement is that OSHA relies largely on employees to report hazards. A study found that only 14% of the nearly 600 California farmworkers surveyed knew about acclimatization and water needs in high temperatures.

Although there aren’t any specific heat regulations in Florida, Dominique O'Connor of the Farmworker Association of Florida said the largest obstacle to making sure employee safety is that staff fear being fired for filing a criticism with OSHA have.

Leaders in several Republican-led states are more likely to keep off against the federal standard whether it is enacted. Last April, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis passed a law that bars local governments from requiring employers to supply water and shade to staff when temperatures rise.

And the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the “Chevron Doctrine” this yr could encourage employers to challenge OSHA's ability to implement the foundations. For many years, the Chevron doctrine had required courts to depend on the expertise of regulators to interpret regulations, however the Supreme Court ruling put an end to that. “We are in uncharted territory,” Barab said.

©2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Originally published: November 8, 2024 at 6:30 am PST

Bitcoin rallied overnight to hit an all-time high as former President Donald Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris to win the White House.

The price of the flagship cryptocurrency hit a record $75,000 late Tuesday evening. According to Coin Metrics, the worth was last up 6% at $73,841.00, still above its previous record of $73,797.68, which it first reached on March 14.

ether rose by 8% while the token was pegged to its competitor, Solanashot up 11%. Payment token XRP rose by greater than 4%. Meanwhile, memecoins rose rapidly Dogecoin increased by greater than 20%.

In stocks, crypto exchange Coinbase rose 13% in premarket trading. Microstrategywhich trades as a high-beta currency to the Bitcoin price, rose 14%.

While Bitcoin advantages from its inflation-hedging narrative, investors in other cryptocurrencies and Coinbase are betting that the regulatory environment within the US shall be more supportive of the crypto industry, as Trump promised in the course of the campaign.

Voters this election were concerned in regards to the state of the federal deficit, which rose 8% in fiscal yr 2024 1.8 trillion dollarsand increased tax cuts promised by each Trump and Vice President Harris. Bitcoin, like gold, is viewed by many investors as a hedge against potential fiscal and monetary policy measures that mix to lower the worth of the dollar and spur inflation.

At the beginning of the race, Trump presented himself as a pro-crypto candidate and courted the industry directly. These included statements that in his first 100 days in office he would establish a crypto advisory council, introduce favorable regulation to advertise domestic Bitcoin mining made within the USA, launch a strategic national Bitcoin stockpile and – what with the Perhaps the industry's hottest alternative was to exchange Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Gary Gensler.

Gensler has change into an opponent of the crypto industry, which has long been frustrated that the SEC under his leadership has refused to offer clear guidance to U.S. crypto firms — opting as a substitute for regulation through enforcement, in response to the industry. Largely because of this, this yr's presidential election is being called crucial within the history of the crypto industry.

“While President-elect Trump claims to make the US the 'crypto capital' of the world, the details of his plans remain to be seen and I expect it will be some time before we truly understand his stance on crypto.” said Anthony Yeung, global head of strategic development at CoinCover.

“It is in the interest of the industry for the U.S. to act sooner rather than later in developing a regulatory framework,” he said. “What is needed is targeted and proportionate regulation that prioritizes consumer protection and promotes innovation. Achieving this balance requires close collaboration between regulators, policymakers and industry participants.”

In the 2012, 2016, and 2020 elections, Bitcoin returned roughly 87%, 44%, and 145% within the 90 days following Election Day, respectively. This is partly because election years occur to coincide with Bitcoin halving years, when the provision of the cryptocurrency declines. Post-election returns also tended to coincide with major policy changes on the Federal Reserve. This yr the market is looking forward to further rate of interest cuts.

Not surprisingly, technology regulation is a serious issue within the 2024 US presidential election campaign.

Over the last decade, advanced technologies, from social media algorithms to large artificial intelligence language models, have had a profound impact on society. These changes, which spanned the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations, led to calls for the federal government to manage the technologies and the powerful corporations that use them.

As a researcher in information systems and AII reviewed each candidates' technology regulatory filings. Here are the necessary differences.

Algorithmic damage

With artificial intelligence now widespread, governments world wide are grappling with the right way to do it regulate various points of the technology. The candidates offer different visions for US AI policy. One area where there’s major disparity is the detection and treatment of algorithmic harm attributable to the widespread use of AI technology.

AI is impacting your life in ways you may miss. Bias in algorithms used for lending and hiring decisions could end This reinforces a vicious cycle of discrimination. For example, a student who cannot take out loans for school would have less of a likelihood of getting the education they need free yourself from poverty.

At the AI ​​Safety Summit within the UK in November 2023, Harris spoke concerning the promise of AI, but in addition the hazards it brings algorithmic bias, deepfakes and wrongful arrests. Biden signed an executive order on AI on October 30, 2023, stating that recognized AI systems may pose unacceptable risks of harm to civil and human rights and individual well-being. In parallel, federal agencies reminiscent of the Federal Trade Commission have taken enforcement actions to guard against algorithmic harm.

In contrast, the Trump administration has made no public statement on mitigating algorithmic harm. Trump said it desires to repeal President Biden's AI regulation. However, in recent interviews, Trump has highlighted the hazards posed by technologies reminiscent of Deepfakes and security challenges of AI systems, suggesting a willingness to deal with the growing risks of AI.

Technological standards

The Trump administration signed this American AI Initiative Executive Order on February 11, 2019. The order committed to doubling investment in AI research and establishing the primary national AI research institutes. The order also included a AI technical standards plan and established guidelines for using AI by the federal government. Trump also signed an executive order on December 3, 2020. Promote using trustworthy AI within the federal government.

The Biden-Harris administration has tried to go further. Harris convened the heads of Google, Microsoft and other technology corporations on the White House on May 4, 2023 to accomplish that a series of voluntary commitments to guard individual rights. The Biden administration's executive order includes a very important initiative to check the vulnerability of very large, general-purpose AI models trained on massive amounts of information. The goal is to discover the risks hackers pose to those models, including those supporting OpenAI's popular ChatGPT and DALL-E.

Antitrust law

Antitrust enforcement – ​​restricting or conditioning mergers and acquisitions – is one other way the federal government can regulate the tech industry.

The Trump administration's antitrust dossier includes his try and block AT&T's acquisition of Time Warner. The merger was finally approved by a federal judge after the FTC filed a lawsuit under the Trump administration to dam the deal. The Trump administration Google also filed an antitrust lawsuit focused on its dominance in web searches.

Biden signed an executive order on July 9, 2021, to implement antitrust laws arising from the anti-competitive effects of dominant web platforms. The order also targeted acquisition of emerging competitors, data aggregation, unfair competition in attention markets and user surveillance. The Biden-Harris administration has filed antitrust lawsuits against it Apple and Google.

The Biden-Harris administration Merger guidelines in 2023 outlined rules to find out when mergers will be considered anticompetitive. While each administrations have filed antitrust lawsuits, the Biden administration's antitrust push appears to be stronger when it comes to its impact on a possible restructuring even stage a breakup from dominant corporations like Google.

Cryptocurrency

The candidates take different approaches to cryptocurrency regulation. Towards the tip of his term, Trump tweeted to support cryptocurrency regulation. Also late in Trump's term, the Federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network emerged proposed regulations To do that, financial corporations would have needed to record people's identities any cryptocurrency wallet a user has sent funds to. The regulations haven’t been issued.

Since then, Trump has modified his position on cryptocurrencies. He has criticized existing US laws and called for the United States to develop into a Bitcoin superpower. The Trump campaign is the primary presidential campaign Accept cryptocurrency payments.

The Biden-Harris administrationIn contrast, he established regulatory restrictions on cryptocurrencies with the Securities and Exchange Commission that led to this a spread of enforcement measures. The The White House vetoed it the Financial Innovation and Technology for the twenty first Century Act, which aimed to make clear accounting for cryptocurrencies, a bill preferred by the cryptocurrency industry.

Data protection

Biden's AI Implementing regulation Calls on Congress to pass data protection laws but provides no legal framework for doing so. The Trump White House's American AI initiative Implementing regulation only mentions data protection within the broadest sense and demands that AI technologies be protected.Civil Rights, Privacy and American Values.” The order didn’t mention how existing data protection could be enforced.

In the United States, several states have attempted to pass laws addressing privacy issues. There is currently a patchwork of nationwide initiatives and an absence of them comprehensive data protection laws on the federal level.

The lack of federal privacy protections is a stark reminder that while candidates address a number of the challenges posed by the event of AI and technology generally, there continues to be much work to be done to manage the technology in the general public interest.

Overall, the Biden administration's antitrust and technology regulation efforts appear largely focused on reining in tech corporations and protecting consumers. In addition, monopoly protection is being redesigned for the twenty first century. This appears to be the fundamental difference between the 2 governments.

Chicago Heights resident Stephanie Petersen was concerned about what number of food recalls she saw every day on the Food and Drug Administration website.

“There were (multiple) callbacks every day. And a lot of salmonella, listeria and a lot of different things,” Petersen said. “I thought: What’s going on? There are so many.”

Petersen, an occupational therapy student who often posts about health on social media, began creating TikTok videos in August, where she informed her followers concerning the latest recalls. It includes information corresponding to dates, severity, screenshots from the FDA website, and news sources.

“I’m just doing it to help and keep everyone safe,” Petersen said. “All I’m saying is: stay on top of the recalls.”

Recent food recalls have raised consumer concerns about food safety and regulation. But experts said the issue is complicated on account of aspects corresponding to increased regulation, higher technology and greater public awareness.

“There is no crystal ball that can ever protect us 100% just based on the type of food we eat and where it comes from,” said Brian Schaneberg, executive director of the Institute for Food Safety and Health at Illinois Tech.

Misunderstandings concerning the recall process

The FDA regulates about 78% of the U.S. food supply, excluding meat, poultry and a few seafood products, that are overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food recalls are issued when firms discover problems, consumers report health problems, or regulators conduct testing.

According to the FDASo far in 2024, almost 1,200 foods have been recalled. Two hundred products were recalled in August, the best monthly total this yr. But the entire variety of recalls to this point in 2024 is lower than last yr, when there have been just over 2,000 recalls, the best since 2017.

Overall, the common annual recalls during the last 4 years are lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019. More safety measures led to fewer inspections and fewer food production after the pandemic, Schaneberg said.

But not every recall is harmful. The FDA classifies recalls from Class III, which is unlikely to cause health problems, to essentially the most serious Class I, which may cause death. Most of the recalls in August were Class I recalls, but in September there have been only 20. Because of their severity, these recalls typically receive significant media attention.

For example, the delicatessen company Boar's Head about £7 million recalled of meat and poultry products this summer after listeria strains were present in its products. Ten people diedbased on the Centers for Disease Control, including one death in Illinois.

More recently, the Wisconsin-based company Milo's Poultry Farms has recalled certain eggs sold in Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin due to salmonella. The CDC says 65 persons are sickwith 11 cases in Illinois.

Because that is essentially the most serious variety of recall, there are very specific steps in communication from each the corporate and the FDA. However, things get tougher with regards to lower-class voluntary recalls, where firms withdraw products from circulation before they’re legally required by regulators.

“You'll see this in the language in which the company says, 'We are deciding to remove this product from the market even though we have no data to show that it is unsafe,'” Schaneberg said. The perception of accelerating recalls could come from this gray area. “Consumers don’t necessarily know the difference, and that’s difficult.”

Food recalls have gotten increasingly common since the products don’t correspond to the data on the packaging, for instance because they contain unknown allergens corresponding to milk or wheat. According to a, almost half of the recalls in 2023 were on account of allergens Public Interest Research Group Report. Pathogens corresponding to salmonella or listeria are behind 1 / 4 of the recalls last yr.

The increase in allergen-related recalls during the last yr is on account of the addition of sesame as a significant food allergen. The Food Allergy Safety, Treatment, Education, and Research Act, which went into effect in January 2023, required sesame labeling on all packaged foods regulated by the FDA.

While there’s a possible increase in recalls, it just isn’t necessarily on account of more people getting sick, Schaneberg said. Additional recalls could also be on account of a product not having the proper information to assist consumers make decisions, corresponding to: B. Information about allergens.

“You see things coming up in the media now in part because the U.S. has decided to improve its food safety practices,” he said.

Improving food systems

Food recalls could also increase because of higher regulatory standards, said Sara Bratager, a food safety and traceability scientist on the Institute of Food Technologists. In 2011, federal lawmakers passed the Food Safety Modernization Act, which led to lots of the technological and control improvements seen in today's food regulatory system

For example, by 2026, every company that sells products on the Food traceability list must maintain specific records of movement along the availability chain. Foods on this list are considered “high risk” for foodborne illness, corresponding to: B. some fresh produce, cheese and nut butters. Such records make it easier to trace a product within the event of a recall.

“It's hard to get to zero (recalls). To get there, you need to develop your preventative measures and investigative skills. And once you get better at doing research, you find more things,” Bratager said. When products that weren’t as easily traceable in previous years are examined more closely, problems arise.

Recalls indicate that the system is working properly and never a system failure, she said.

“Mistakes always happen,” Bratager said. “The fact that we have these systems in place to identify it, recall it and take it off the shelves is a good thing. I would be really worried if I lived in a place where I had never seen a memory.”

And the more aware people develop into about food-borne illnesses or problems with products, the more likely they’re to report symptoms to a health care provider or alert authorities.

The CDC estimates that roughly 48 million people develop into sick with foodborne illnesses annually. The agency also investigates outbreaks when two or more people develop into sick from eating the identical contaminated food. This is shown by essentially the most current data available from the CDC 79 outbreaks in multiple states were examined in 2022. This was a slight increase over 2021 and a return to pre-COVID-19 pandemic numbers.

From October ninth it’s CDC is investigating 18 multistate outbreaks of Salmonella, one outbreak of E. coli and 4 outbreaks of Listeria. Both outbreaks at Boar's Head and Milos Poultry Farm remained under investigation by the CDC and FDA.

Impact on food organizations

The Greater Chicago Food Depository, which distributes food to local pantries and organizations, conducts drills twice a yr to simulate a recall.

Man-Yee Lee, spokesman for the depot, said exercises are necessary, but their approach to recalls is preventive, not reactive. This means asking the food partners they work with – corporations, suppliers, firms – for verified safety reports. Lee said there has not been a recall issue since 2022, when some baby formula was recalled. Food banks have their very own robust systems for checking out recalled items, and most of those are discovered earlier in the availability chain.

But the impact of a widespread recall still impacts pantries without requiring the recalled products to be faraway from shelves.

The ongoing outbreak of salmonella in eggs is having a big impact Shared pantry within the north center. Executive director Margaret O'Conor believes there hasn't been a big increase in food recalls within the seven years she's been working on the pantry. However, when there are problems with protein-rich staples corresponding to eggs, the impact is way more problematic than for grocery stores which have flexibility with other suppliers.

“Recalls impact us more because it's a product that we should have received and then that product goes away,” O'Conor said. “We don't necessarily have the budget to replace the product with a non-recalled brand. And so people give up on it.

She said staff have to be creative, whether it's splitting boxes in half to give away to families or considering buying eggs in bulk and using reusable boxes. The organization has already exceeded its annual budget to procure the eggs it needs. But O'Conor is proud that the pantry doesn't serve unsafe food. Food safety comes down to communication and trust, she said.

While there could be more recalls, Lee said, “This is an indication that the systems in place are really doing what they're supposed to do.” Her advice to consumers is to stay informed FDA safety warningswhich can be sent weekly via email. But also have trust in the regulatory process.

“I believe we should have more confidence that good systems are in place to prevent contaminated food from reaching consumers,” she said.

Originally published: October 18, 2024 at 11:16 am

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday vetoed what’s believed to be probably the most ambitious bill to manage artificial intelligence within the country.

A day before the deadline to take motion or sign the bill into law, Newsom rejected SB 1047, the Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act, saying it could burden AI corporations and criticizing the scope of the bill draft law is simply too broad.

“While SB 1047 is well-intentioned, it does not take into account whether an AI system is used in high-risk environments, requires critical decisions, or uses sensitive data,” Newsom said in an announcement. “Instead, the bill applies strict standards for even the most basic functions – as long as they are delivered across a large system. I don’t believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats from technology.”

In other words, Newsom believes the law doesn’t distinguish between AI systems utilized in high-risk environments and people used for essential tasks. He said the bill lacks nuance in differentiating every kind of AI inside large systems, no matter their function.

The bill would have required AI corporations to adopt security measures to guard the general public from cyberattacks, prevent AI from getting used to develop weapons, and stop automated crime. It would have required corporations to conduct security tests for giant AI products that might have cost no less than $100 million to develop and to activate a “kill switch” for brand spanking new AI technology.

The bill's lead writer, San Francisco Democrat Scott Wiener, said in an announcement Sunday: “This veto is a setback for everyone who believes in oversight of large companies that make critical decisions that affect safety and security the well-being of the public and the future of the country.” Planet.”

The bill was implemented quickly as it was only presented in February. It quickly polarized Silicon Valley and Washington, DC

Despite strong opposition from California's robust tech sector, the bill passed last month in the state Senate by a vote of 29-9 and in the Assembly by a vote of 41-9.

Tech giants like Meta, Google and OpenAI vehemently opposed the bill and lobbied the state parliament to argue that the bill would stifle AI innovation.

Meanwhile, the bill prompted Democratic lawmakers to take the rare step of interfering in Sacramento business given the national impact the bill would have had.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, San Francisco Mayor London Breed and Silicon Valley lawmakers Ro Khanna and Zoe Lofgren all spoke against the bill. While they agreed that regulations were needed, they called Wiener's AI law the wrong approach.

The bill has some fierce opponents, but it received support from strong AI advocates and major tech companies like the Center for AI Safety, major AI developer Anthropic and billionaire Elon Musk.

The pushback came even after several changes called for by the bill's previous critics, including Anthropic, were added.

Wiener agreed to remove criminal penalties from the bill and, among other things, to delete the creation of a new regulator, the Frontier Model Division.

Surprisingly, after Anthropic changed its mind and supported the bill, the normally regulation-shy Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk also supported it.

Meta, who continued to oppose the bill despite the changes, said she was pleased Newsom vetoed it.

“We are pleased that Governor Newsom vetoed SB1047. “This bill would have stifled AI innovation, hurt business growth and job creation, and broken the state’s long tradition of encouraging open source development,” a Meta spokesperson said. “We support responsible AI regulations and remain committed to working with lawmakers to promote better approaches.”

Teri Olle, director of Economic Security California Action and a co-sponsor of the bill, said the veto “ignores the overwhelming public support for Big Tech accountability.”

“Governor Newsom’s veto of SB 1047 squanders our country’s most promising opportunity to establish responsible guardrails for AI development today,” Olle said. “The failure of this bill demonstrates the continued power and influence of the deep-pocketed tech industry, driven by the need to maintain the status quo – a straightforward regulatory environment and exponential profit margins.”

Nathan Calvin, senior policy counsel at CAIS, said he was disheartened by the veto of the “urgent and common-sense security bill.”

“Experts have determined that catastrophic threats to society from AI could materialize quickly, so today’s veto represents an unnecessary and dangerous gamble on the public’s safety,” Calvin said.

While Wiener was disappointed by the governor's veto, he said the debate around the bill has increased discussion about the need for AI safety measures.

“At the same time, the debate over SB 1047 has dramatically advanced the issue of AI safety on the international stage. “Large AI labs have been forced to be specific about the protections they can provide the public through policies and oversight,” Wiener said. “The work of this incredible coalition will continue to bear fruit as the international community considers the best ways to protect the public from the risks of AI. California will continue to lead this conversation – we are not going anywhere.”

Originally published: September 29, 2024 at 3:17 p.m