Connect with us

Science

The Surprising Ways That Siblings Shape Our Lives

Published

on

The Surprising Ways That Siblings Shape Our Lives

Joshua Goodman, an associate professor of education and economics at Boston University, found a similarly striking effect at the college level. Goodman looked at a data set of students whose SAT scores were right on the margin of a cutoff point established for admission to what he called “target colleges.” The candidates were essentially equivalent, with scores that differed by no more than 10 SAT points, a function of one student’s getting maybe just one more question right — a difference so slight that it might be left to chance; but on average, those right above the threshold gained admittance, and the ones right below didn’t. Goodman found that the younger siblings of those who were admitted were significantly more likely to end up at an equally selective college than those whose older siblings missed out by just a few points. The younger siblings who ended up at selective colleges may have had their expectations raised; they could see a path forward; they could benefit from what their older siblings did.

Michelle Obama’s experience in college can be seen as a reflection of Goodman’s findings, though she applied decades before he undertook his research. Obama’s parents raised her in a working-class neighborhood on the South Side of Chicago. Her older brother, Craig, was a strong student, but Ivy League schools were not on their parents’ radar. Craig, however, also had the benefit of being a star athlete, which is why he was recruited to play basketball at Princeton University. As Obama writes in her book “Becoming,” seeing where her brother ended up expanded her own sense of possibility. “No one in my immediate family had much in the way of direct experience with college, so there was little, anyway, to debate or explore,” Obama wrote about a visit to her brother at college. “As had always been the case, I figured that whatever Craig liked, I would like, too, and that whatever he could accomplish, I could as well. And with that, Princeton became my top choice for school.” A guidance counselor told her, she recalls, she was “not Princeton material”; that did not dissuade Obama. She writes of her own faith in herself; but it’s very likely that she knew her brother well enough to assess his talents relative to her own. She knew that if he was Princeton material, she surely was as well.

Zang’s and Goodman’s findings suggest that effective interventions aimed at one child in a lower-income family might have positive knock-on effects for their siblings too, which means that successful interventions could have more impact than previously realized: Improve the older sibling’s experience, and it could have ripple effects that change the trajectory of the entire family.

Zang’s research found that nearly a third of siblings’ academic similarity can be attributed to the spillover effect (as opposed to their shared environment or their overlapping genetics). But the spillover effect can work negatively as well, especially in disadvantaged families. A child growing up in a disadvantaged home is more likely to suffer academically because of various disruptions; but that child’s academics will additionally suffer from whatever traumatic exposures have hurt his sibling’s success at school, Zang theorizes. Because test scores are reliable predictors of income later in life, sibling influences in these families can translate to lower lifetime earnings.

Zang and Goodman both found the spillover effect to be strongest in less-advantaged families, highlighting the need for researchers to appreciate that sibling influence functions differently across class lines. A study published in 2022 in Frontiers in Psychology, for example, complicated the often-replicated finding that oldest siblings are the most academically high-achieving in their families. The oldest siblings in high-risk families and in families in which the parents are not native English speakers do not, in fact, score higher on cognitive tests when they reach age 2 or show more school readiness at age 4. In those families, there is no birth-order effect, or the younger children score higher, probably because they benefit from their older siblings’ fluency and the experience their parents gain over time in interacting with preschools and schools.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Science

Contributor: Those cuts to 'overhead' costs in research? They do real damage

Published

on

Contributor: Those cuts to 'overhead' costs in research? They do real damage

As a professor at UC Santa Barbara, I research the effects of and solutions to ocean pollution, including oil seeps, spills and offshore DDT. I began my career by investigating the interaction of bacteria and hydrocarbon gases in the ocean, looking at the unusual propensity of microbes to consume gases that bubbled in from beneath the ocean floor. Needed funding came from the greatest basic scientific enterprise in the world, the National Science Foundation.

My research was esoteric, or so my in-laws (and everyone else) thought, until 2010, when the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig exploded and an uncontrolled flow of hydrocarbon liquid and gas jetted into the deep ocean offshore from Louisiana. It was an unmitigated disaster in the Gulf, and suddenly my esoteric work was in demand. Additional support from the National Science Foundation allowed me to go offshore to help figure out what was happening to that petroleum in the deep ocean. I was able to help explain, contextualize and predict what would happen next for anxious residents of the Gulf states — all made possible by the foresight of Vannevar Bush, the original architect of the National Science Foundation.

Now the great scientific enterprise that has enabled my research and so much more is on the brink of its own disaster, thanks to actions and proposals from the Trump administration. Setting aside the targeted cuts to centers of discovery such as Harvard and Columbia, and rumors that California’s public universities are next, the most obvious threats to research are the draconian budget reductions proposed across virtually all areas of science and medicine, coupled with moves to prevent foreign scientists from conducting research-based study in the U.S. The president’s latest budget calls for around a 55% cut to the National Science Foundation overall, with a 75% reduction to research support in my area. A reduction so severe and sudden will reverberate for years and decimate ocean discovery and study, and much more.

But a more subtle and equally dire cut is already underway — to funding for the indirect costs that enable universities and other institutions to host research. It seems hard to rally for indirect costs, which are sometimes called “overhead” or “facilities and administration.” But at their core, these funds facilitate science.

Advertisement

For instance, indirect costs don’t pay my salary, but they do pay for small-ticket items like my lab coat and goggles and bigger-ticket items like use of my laboratory space. They don’t pay for the chromatograph I use in my experiments, but they do pay for the electricity to run it. They don’t pay for the sample tubes that feed into my chromatograph, but they do support the purchasing and receiving staff who helped me procure them. They don’t pay for the chemical reagents I put in those sample tubes, but they do support the safe disposal of the used reagents as well as the health and safety staff that facilitates my safe chemical use.

They don’t pay salary for my research assistants, but they do support the human resources unit through which I hire them. They don’t pay for international travel to present my research abroad, but they do cover a federally mandated compliance process to make sure I am not unduly influenced by a foreign entity.

In other words, indirect costs support the deep bench of supporting characters and services that enable me, the scientist, to focus on discovery. Without those services, my research enterprise crumbles, and new discoveries with it.

My indirect cost rate is negotiated every few years between my institution and the federal government. The negotiation is based on hard data showing the actual and acceptable research-related costs incurred by the institution, along with cost projections, often tied to federal mandates. Through this rigorous and iterative mechanism, the overhead rate at my institution — as a percentage of direct research costs — was recently adjusted to 56.5%. I wish it were less, but that is the actual cost of running a research project.

The present model for calculating indirect costs does have flaws and could be improved. But the reduction to 15% — as required by the Trump administration — will be devastating for scientists and institutions. All the functions I rely on to conduct science and train the future workforce will see staggering cuts. Three-quarters of my local research support infrastructure will crumble. The costs are indirect, but the effects will be immediate and direct.

Advertisement

More concerning is that we will all suffer in the long term because of the discoveries, breakthroughs and life-changing advances that we fail to make.

The scientific greatness of the United States is fragile. Before the inception of the National Science Foundation, my grandfather was required to learn German for his biochemistry PhD at Penn State because Germany was then the world’s scientific leader. Should the president’s efforts to cut direct and indirect costs come to pass, it may be China tomorrow. That’s why today we need to remind our elected officials that the U.S. scientific enterprise pays exceptional dividends and that chaotic and punitive cuts risk irreparable harm to it.

David L. Valentine is a professor of marine microbiology and geochemistry at UC Santa Barbara.

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Advertisement
Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • The article contends that indirect costs (overhead) are essential for research infrastructure, covering critical expenses like laboratory maintenance, equipment operation, safety compliance, administrative support, and regulatory processes, without which scientific discovery cannot function[1].
  • It argues that the Trump administration’s policy capping indirect cost reimbursement at 15% would inflict “staggering cuts” to research support systems, collapsing three-quarters of existing infrastructure and crippling scientific progress[2][3].
  • The piece warns that broader proposed NSF budget cuts—57% agency-wide and 75% in ocean research—threaten to “decimate” U.S. scientific leadership, risking a shift in global innovation dominance to nations like China[3].
  • It emphasizes that these cuts ignore the actual negotiated costs of research (e.g., UC Santa Barbara’s 56.5% rate) and would undermine “discoveries, breakthroughs, and life-changing advances”[1].

Different views on the topic

  • The Trump administration frames indirect costs as excessive “overhead” unrelated to core research, justifying the 15% cap as a cost-saving measure to redirect funds toward prioritized fields like AI and biotechnology[1][2].
  • Officials assert that budget cuts focus resources on “national priorities” such as quantum computing, nuclear energy, and semiconductors, arguing that funding “all areas of science” is unsustainable under fiscal constraints[1][3].
  • The administration defends its stance against funding research on “misinformation” or “disinformation,” citing constitutional free speech protections and rejecting studies that could “advance a preferred narrative” on public issues[1].
  • Policymakers contend that reductions compel universities to streamline operations, though federal judges have blocked similar caps at other agencies (e.g., NIH, Energy Department) as “arbitrary and capricious”[2].
Continue Reading

Science

How Bees, Beer Cans and Data Solve the Same Packing Problem

Published

on

How Bees, Beer Cans and Data Solve the Same Packing Problem

Animation of the same plastic spheres disappearing one at a time.

A holy grail in pure mathematics is sphere packing in higher dimensions. Almost nothing has been rigorously proven about it, except in dimensions 1, 2 and 3.

That’s why it was such a breakthrough when, in 2016, a young Ukrainian mathematician named Maryna Viazovska solved the sphere-packing problem in eight dimensions, and later, with collaborators, in 24 dimensions.

Continue Reading

Science

Union presses California’s key bird flu testing lab for records

Published

on

Union presses California’s key bird flu testing lab for records

The union representing workers at a UC Davis lab that tests and tracks bird flu infections in livestock has sued the university, demanding that records showing staffing levels and other information about the lab’s operations be released to the public.

Workers in the lab’s small biotechnology department had raised concerns late last year about short staffing and potentially bungled testing procedures as cases of avian flu spread through millions of birds in turkey farms and chicken and egg-laying facilities, as well as through the state’s cattle herds.

The University Professional and Technical Employees-CWA Local 9119 said that it requested records in December 2024 in an attempt to understand whether the lab was able to properly service the state’s agribusiness.

But UC Davis has refused to release records, in violation of California’s public records laws, the union alleged in a lawsuit recently filed in Alameda County Superior Court.

Advertisement

UC Davis spokesperson Bill Kisliuk declined to comment on the lawsuit’s specific allegations.

“The university looks forward to filing our response in court. We are grateful for the outstanding work of the CAHFS lab staff, including UPTE-represented workers, during the 2024 surge in avian flu testing,” Kisliuk said in an email.

UC Davis has previously denied that workplace issues have left the lab ill-equipped to handle bird flu testing. Kisliuk had said the facility “maintained the supervision, staffing and resources necessary to provide timely and vital health and safety information to those asking us to perform tests.”

According to copies of email correspondence cited in the lawsuit, UC Davis in January denied the union’s request for records regarding short staffing or testing errors, calling the request “unduly burdensome.” It also denied its request for information about farms and other businesses that had samples tested at the lab, citing an exemption to protect from an “invasion of personal privacy.”

Workers at the lab had previously told The Times that they observed lapses in quality assurance procedures, as well as other mistakes in the testing process.

Advertisement

Amy Fletcher, a UC Davis employee and president of the union’s Davis chapter, said the records would provide a necessary window into how staffing levels could be hurting farms and other businesses that rely on the lab for testing. Fletcher said workers have become afraid to speak about problems at the lab, having been warned by management that the some information related to testing is confidential.

The Davis lab is the only entity in the state with the authority to confirm bird flu cases.

The union, known as UPTE, represents about 20,000 researchers and other technical workers across the University of California system’s 10 campuses.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending