You might also like...
Check out some other posts from University of Connecticut
A recent study authored by the University of Connecticut's Mark Urban found that close to one third of species across the globe would be at risk of extinction by the end of the century if greenhouse gases continue to increase at current levels.
His study, published in the journal Science, looked at more than three decades of biodiversity and climate change research.
The findings are alarming.
The study found that if global temperatures rise to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above the pre-industrial average temperature, exceeding the target of the Paris Agreement, extinctions would rapidly accelerate — especially for amphibians; species in mountain, island and freshwater ecosystems; and species in South America, Australia and New Zealand. Earth has already warmed about 1.8 F (1 C) since the Industrial Revolution. Climate change causes shifts in temperatures and precipitation patterns, altering habitats and species interactions. For instance, warmer temperatures have caused monarch butterfly migration to mismatch with the blooming of plants they pollinate. Many animal and plant species are shifting their ranges to higher latitudes or elevations to follow more favorable temperatures. While some species might adapt or migrate in response to changing environmental conditions, some can't survive the drastic environmental changes, resulting in population declines and sometimes extinction. Global assessments have predicted rising extinction risks for over a million species, but scientists have not clearly understood how exactly this growing risk is linked to climate change. The new study, published Thursday (Dec. 5) in the journal Science, analyzed over 30 years of biodiversity and climate change research, encompassing over 450 studies of most known species. If greenhouse gas emissions are managed in accordance with the Paris Agreement, nearly 1 in 50 species worldwide — an estimated 180,000 species — will be at risk of extinction by 2100. When the climate model's temperature is increased to a 4.9 F (2.7 C) rise, which is predicted under current international emissions commitments, 1 in 20 species around the world would be at risk of extinction. Hypothetical warming beyond this point makes the number of species at risk rise sharply: 14.9% of species were at risk of extinction under a 7.7 F (4.3 C) warming scenario, which assumes high greenhouse gas emissions. And 29.7% of all species would be at risk of extinction under a 9.7 F (5.4 C) warming scenario, a high estimate, but one that is possible given current emissions trends. The increase in the number of species at risk increases steeply beyond the 1.5 C warming target, study author Mark Urban, a biologist at the University of Connecticut told Live Science. "If we keep global warming to below 1.5 C, in accordance with the Paris Agreement, then the [extinction] risk from today to 1.5 C is not a large increase," Urban said. But at a 2.7 C rise, the trajectory accelerates. Species in South America, Australia and New Zealand face the greatest threats. Amphibians are the most threatened because amphibians' life cycles depend heavily on weather, and are highly sensitive to shifting rainfall patterns and drought, Urban said. Mountain, island and freshwater ecosystems have the most at-risk species, likely because these isolated environments are surrounded by inhospitable habitats for their species, making it difficult or impossible for them to migrate and seek more favorable climates, he added. Limiting greenhouse gas emissions can slow warming and halt these growing extinction risks, but understanding which species and ecosystems are most affected by climate change can also help target conservation efforts where they're needed most. Urban hopes the results have an impact on policymakers. "The main message for policymakers is that this relationship is much more certain," Urban said. "There's no longer the excuse to do nothing because these impacts are uncertain." December 5, 2024 - Live Science This is an important topic, and if you're a journalist looking to learn more, we can help.
Mark Urban is an international award-winning scientist; a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and the Arden Chair Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at UConn; and a global expert on climate change impacts on nature.
He is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
It's the right of every citizen - and with a presidential election less than two weeks away, a team of social workers from UConn are working to make sure every voice is heard as the U.S. choses a new leader on Nov. 5.
Voting Is Social Work - a campaign led by Tanya Rhodes Smith, director of the Nancy A. Humphreys Institute for Political Social Work at the UConn School of Social Work - is getting a lot of attention for its work engaging social workers to help empower some of the most vulnerable and disenfranchised groups to get registered and cast their ballots in local elections.
“Voting is complicated, and it’s intimidating, especially for vulnerable populations, like the unhoused, the formerly incarcerated, or those living in congregate care,” says Rhodes Smith. “We know that being a non-voter is a very isolating space, because voting is highly relational. Campaigns generally ignore non-voters— you don’t get campaign materials, or someone knocking on your door. Information on candidates in state and local elections in communities with low turnout can be very hard to find or even nonexistent.” That’s where social workers, explains Rhodes Smith, can play an important role in helping disenfranchised voters understand their rights – and register to vote. Money, Power, and Resources As co-founders since 2015, UConn’s Humphreys Institute has been the institutional home for Voting Is Social Work. Also known as the National Social Work Voter Mobilization Campaign, Voting Is Social Work supports nonpartisan voter engagement as central to social work’s mission, ethical mandate, and impact. “We’ve always believed that social work has the power to transform democracy,” says Rhodes Smith, “and we believe every social worker – and social service agency – should include nonpartisan voter engagement into their practice and work. Because we reach non-voters – those who are least likely to vote.” October 16 - UConn Today It's an initiative catching attention across the country. Research has linked voting to higher earning and education, better health outcomes, and lower rates of recidivism. But education is key, particularly for individuals with special circumstances, like the formerly incarcerated, people living in congregate care, and the unhoused.
Homelessness comes with a new, unique set of challenges during an election cycle. However, homeless residents have protections, including voting rights. Nationwide, only 10% of unhoused people vote each year, according to the Institute of Political Social Work at the University of Connecticut. Many social workers in Connecticut are working to educate unhoused residents about their voting rights, according to UConn Social Work professor Tanya Rhodes Smith, director of the Nancy A. Humphreys Institute for Political Social Work. “When you ask somebody if they would like to check their voter registration, they may say, ‘I'm not eligible,’ or ‘I've never voted,’ and that's really important information for you to know,” Rhodes Smith said. “It really tells a story about them.” About 60% of eligible voters turnout in presidential election years, but increasing voting rates is important for local elections as well, Rhodes Smith said. “When you have 10% to 15% [voter turnout], that's not an accountable government, that's a government that's accountable to the 10% to 15%,” Rhodes Smith said. “We've seen it over and over in Bridgeport, that nothing changes because that turnout rate doesn't go up, and so there is no accountability when you have an unhealthy democracy.” October 10 - WNPR Looking to know more about this important work? If so, let us help.
Tanya Rhodes Smith specializes in policy development, nonprofit administration, voter engagement and legislative advocacy. She's available to speak with media about this important topic - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview.
The popularity -- and price -- of brand-name injectable drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound has skyrocketed.
But the soaring demand for these drugs -- used for weight loss as well as to control blood sugar levels and reduce the risk of heart disease -- and the limited supply as well as lack of generic options has also led to a flood of non-brand alternatives in the market.
In a recent article for The Conversation, UConn expert C. Michael White, Distinguished Professor of Pharmacy Practice, issued a warning to consumers about the potential undisclosed risks of these off-brand products:
High demand is driving GLP-1 wannabes The dietary supplement market has sought to cash in on the GLP-1 demand with pills, teas, extracts and all manner of other products that claim to produce similar effects as the brand names at a much lower price. Products containing the herb berberine offer only a few pounds of weight loss, while many dietary supplement weight loss products contain stimulants such as sibutramine and laxatives such as phenolphthalein, which increase the risk of heart attacks, strokes and cancer. The role of compounding pharmacies Unlike the dietary supplements that are masquerading as GLP-1 weight loss products, compounding pharmacies can create custom versions of products that contain the same active ingredients as the real thing for patients who cannot use either brand or generic products for some reason. These pharmacies can also produce alternative versions of brand-name drugs when official drug shortages exist. Since the demand for GLP-1 medications has far outpaced the supply, compounding pharmacies are legally producing a variety of different semaglutide and tirzepatide products. These products may come in versions that differ from the brand-name companies, such as vials of powder that must be dissolved in liquid, or as tablets or nasal sprays. Just like the brand-name drugs, you must have a valid prescription to receive them. The prices range from $250-$400 a month – still a steep price for many consumers. Compounding pharmacies must adhere to the FDA’s sterility and quality production methods, but these rules are not as rigorous for compounding pharmacies as those for commercial manufacturers of generic drugs. In addition, the products compounding pharmacies create do not have to be tested in humans for safety or effectiveness like brand-name products do. Proper dosing can also be challenging with compounded forms of the drugs. Companies that work the system For people who cannot afford a compounding pharmacy product, or cannot get a valid prescription for semaglutide or tirzepatide, opportunistic companies are stepping in to fill the void. These include “peptide companies,” manufacturers that create non-FDA approved knockoff versions of the drugs. From November 2023 to March 2024, my team carried out a study to assess which of these peptide companies are selling semaglutide or tirzepatide products. We scoured the internet looking for these peptide companies and collected information about what they were selling and their sales practices. We found that peptide sellers use a loophole to sell these drugs. On their websites, the companies state that their drugs are for “research purposes only” or “not for human consumption,” but they do nothing to verify that the buyers are researchers or that the product is going to a research facility. By reading the comments sections of the company websites and the targeted ads on social media, it becomes clear that both buyers and sellers understand the charade. Unlike compounding pharmacies, these peptide sellers do not provide the supplies you need to dissolve and inject the drug, provide no instructions, and will usually not answer questions. Peptide sellers, since they allegedly are not selling to consumers, do not require a valid prescription and will sell consumers whatever quantity of drug they wish to purchase. Even if a person has an eating disorder such as anorexia nervosa, the companies will happily sell them a semaglutide or tirzepatide product without a prescription. The average prices of these peptide products range from $181-$203 per month. Skirting regulations Peptide sellers do not have to adhere to the rules or regulations that drug manufacturers or compounding pharmacies do. Many companies state that their products are 99% pure, but an independent investigation of three companies’ products from August 2023 to March 2024 found that the purity of the products were far less than promised. One product contained endotoxin – a toxic substance produced by bacteria – suggesting that it was contaminated with microbes. In addition, the products’ promised dosages were off by up 29% to 39%. Poor purity can cause patients to experience fever, chills, nausea, skin irritation, infections and low blood pressure. In this study, some companies never even shipped the drug, telling the buyers they needed to pay an additional fee to have the product clear customs. If a consumer is harmed by a poor-quality product, it would be difficult to sue the seller, since the products specifically say they are “not for human consumption.” Ultimately, consumers are being led to spend money on products that may never arrive, could cause an infection, might not have the correct dose, and contain no instructions on how to safely use or store the product. Dr. C. Michael White is an expert in the areas of comparative effectiveness and preventing adverse events from drugs, devices, dietary supplements, and illicit substances.
Dr. White is available to speak with media -- click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
