Suicide rates for doctors and young physicians among highest in the US population

Alex Johnson

Doctors in the United States confront a high suicide rate as a result of stressful working conditions and excessively long work hours.

Director and chairman of the Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Dr. Edward Wilson, told CNBC that it is estimated that one doctor dies every day by suicide in the US due to “stress and rigorous work schedules.”

Doctors and health professionals within the US, according to Ellison, are “stressed to the breaking point” due to stifling work schedules and mounting pressures that stem from patient care.

Depression, the primary cause of suicidal ideation, affects an estimated 12 percent of male physicians and 19.5 percent of female physicians, but doctors are often hesitant to seek treatment due to the stigma associated with mental health problems.

As a result, doctors have the highest suicide rate among any profession in the country: 28 to 40 per 100,000 persons compared to 12.3 per 100,000 for the general population.

According to Ellison, recent data shows that 44 percent of physicians show signs of physical and emotional exhaustion, or “burnout,” which can lead to further mental health problems as doctors have difficulty adequately taking care for themselves, such as eating and sleeping properly.

Changes made to the way hospitals and medical centers operate in recent years may have improved the efficiency of the American healthcare system, but at the cost of longer and more exhaustive work schedules for doctors. Doctors are now spending less time with patients in traditional care settings and more time fulfilling extraneous tasks traditionally performed by adjunct staff and employees.

As a result, the suicide rate among physicians has exploded in recent decades. The suicide rate among male and female physicians is 1.41 and 2.27 times higher than that of the general male and female population, respectively.

For example, Dr. Benjamin Shaffer, a renowned surgeon from Washington D.C., hung himself in 2015 after taking his son to school. He had struggled his entire life with anxiety and a severe form of insomnia, which afforded him little time to sleep before operating on and treating patients.

Just days before he committed suicide and in the face of growing personal turmoil, his psychiatrist prescribed two new drugs which merely exacerbated his anxiety and insomnia and even led to paranoia. After he was told that he would need medication for the rest of his life, he concluded that he could never live a normal life again and decided to kill himself.

High suicide rates are also prevalent among medical students. Suicide is the second leading cause of death for medical students. They are three times more likely to kill themselves than their peers in the same age group. As many as 30 percent of medical students suffer from depression.

The work schedules for young doctors transitioning from medical school, customarily referred to as “residents,” are extremely onerous. Residents are expected to work up to 80 hours a week with single shifts that can last up to 28 hours.

These grueling schedules are largely the result of the centralized matching system for residency applicants in the hospital labor market and the monopoly held by a handful of hospital chains. Although employer-controlled labor markets are typically prohibited by anti-trust laws, the system remains the only avenue for residents to become fully licensed doctors.

Centralized matching, commonly referenced as “the match,” allows a handful of employers to select residency applicants without them having any legal right or ability to negotiate the terms of their contracts. This grants hospital conglomerates free rein to implement excessive hours and lower pay.

In 2002, a group of residency students filed a lawsuit against the for-profit selection system, deeming it an unlawful “contract” or “conspiracy” designed to undermine federal antitrust laws. After a federal district court initially ruled that “the match” may be illegal and give an unfair advantage to healthcare institutions, Congress passed legislation immunizing medical training programs from antitrust lawsuits.

Thus, residency programs give hospital employers access to a well-educated, but super-exploited and over-burdened workforce. As a 2017 article in The Atlantic noted, “while residency-program administrators no doubt take their educational obligations seriously, residents are also a cheap source of skilled labor that can fill gaps in coverage.” Resident salaries are generally equivalent to those of the hospital cleaning staff and about half of what nurse practitioners get paid even though residents typically work much longer hours.

The long hours residents are compelled to work causes tremendous physical and psychological stress. In response, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (AGGME) implemented a “duty-hour” reform policy in 2003, which lowered the maximum weekly hospital working hours from 120 to 80 and the length of single shifts from 48 to 28 hours.

However, this change did little to lessen the severity of residents’ schedules. Surveys show that the reforms led to virtually no changes in work and sleep hours.

A large reason behind the failure of the reforms is that hospitals have not increased the rate of new hires to keep up with the rising demands of healthcare operations. Between 1990 and 2010, the number of patients admitted to teaching hospitals rose 46 percent, but the number of residency spots only increased 13 percent.

Spain’s Supreme Court endorses 1936 fascist coup

Alejandro López

Spain’s Supreme Court has issued a ruling endorsing the 1936 fascist coup led by Generalissimo Francisco Franco. It led to the three-year Spanish Civil War, in which the victory of Francoite forces backed by Hitler and Mussolini established a fascist dictatorship that lasted until 1978.

The Supreme Court handed down an injunction halting the acting Socialist Party (PSOE) government’s plans to remove Franco’s remains from a state-run mountaintop monument, the “Valley of the Fallen.” It argued that removing Franco’s remains to a less prominent location would be “extraordinarily harmful” not only to the general’s family but to the “public interest.” It added that the public interest required understanding the “significance of don Francisco Franco,” don being an honorific prefix in Spanish.

Explaining why it had decided to suspend the planned exhumation to give Franco’s family more time to appeal, the court referred to him as “head of state from 1 October 1936 until his death in November 1975.” Court sources told media outlets who sought confirmation that there was no mistake in the document, and that the court has no intention to rectify the ruling.

Traditionally, Franco was treated as the head of state starting on 1 April 1939, amid his final victory in the civil war and the ensuing mass murder of his political opponents. The ruling’s unprecedented wording signifies that Spain’s highest court considers the proclamation of Franco as generalissimo and head of state by a gang of fascist generals and coup plotters on October 1, 1936 as legitimate. Mass opposition of millions of workers and peasants in the civil war and the ensuing four decades of the dictatorship would be illegitimate, even criminal.

Franco’s proclamation came only months after his July 17-18 coup against the elected Popular Front government and head of state Manuel Azaña. The resulting civil war shattered cities across Spain and led to the murder of 200,000 political oppositionists, left-wing intellectuals and militant workers, and the detention of 400,000 people in concentration camps. For four decades thereafter, the Francoite regime and its secret police arrested, tortured and killed thousands, outlawed strikes, political parties and trade unions, and censored newspapers and books.

In the international court of working class opinion, Franco was never accepted as head of state, despite his regime’s savage repression. He was an odious and bloodstained criminal. The only powers to recognize Franco as “head of state” in October 1936 were fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, led by Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, respectively—along with the pope in the Vatican, which described the fascist uprising as a “crusade” against communism.

The fact that Spain’s highest court publicly defends one of the most brutal counterrevolutions in the 20th century is a warning. After nearly three decades of increasing war and militarism since the Stalinist dissolution of the Soviet Union, and a decade of deep austerity since the 2008 global economic crisis, ruling circles worldwide are again envisaging such policies.

The ruling class is reacting to the emergence of mass “yellow vest” protests in France, mass strikes in Portugal and Poland, and mass movements demanding the overthrow of military dictatorships in Algeria and Sudan with a sharp shift to the right.

The international character of the ruling elite’s shift to the far right underscores its political significance. It is a warning to the working class. French President Emmanuel Macron has made statements extolling Vichy regime head Pétain, and a renewed effort, led by Humboldt University Professor Jörg Baberowski, is underway in Germany to whitewash the crimes of the Nazi regime. Far-right parties and politicians are already in government in Italy, Hungary, Poland, Austria, Brazil and beyond.

Terrified by growing anti-capitalist and socialist sentiment, the ruling class is reviving all the political filth of the 20th century. As the WSWS has repeatedly warned, fascism was not an accident of the 20th century, but the inevitable political outgrowth of capitalism. If Franco is rehabilitated, it is because powerful factions of the ruling class are again considering a break with legality and democratic forms of rule.

In Spain, a fascist party openly defending the legacy of Francoism, Vox, has entered parliament for the first time since the Franco era and is backing right-wing coalitions in regions and cities throughout Spain. Promoted in the media, it has recruited six former generals. Two signed the pro-Franco manifesto signed by over 1,000 officers, including 70 former generals and admirals, roughly one-third of the total active number of general officers in the Spanish armed forces.

The Supreme Court’s endorsement of Francoism testifies to the criminalisation of the Spanish bourgeois state after the brutal crackdown on the 2017 Catalan independence referendum. The political establishment came out in favor of the brutal police crackdown and the ongoing show trial of Catalan bourgeois nationalists who organized it. This went hand in hand with the holding of pro-Francoite, anti-separatist rallies legitimating fascism and the Vox party.

The same court has denied the leader of the Catalan Republican Left, Oriol Junqueras—who is standing in the show trial—permission to leave prison to be sworn in as a member of European parliament. This strips the millions who voted for Junqueras of their vote, as Junqueras will not be able to assume his position as an MEP. This enjoys the full support of Brussels, and the acquiescence of the PSOE government and its ally, the pseudo-left Podemos party.

The only way to oppose the bourgeoisie’s drive to rehabilitate fascism is to mobilize the working class in political struggle independently of these parties. There is powerful opposition in the working class to Francoism, which is well within living memory of Spain’s population. But this historically-rooted opposition to fascism finds no expression through Podemos or the PSOE. The only reason that the court feels free to announce its fascist colors is that popular opposition is suppressed by Podemos and its various pseudo-left allies.

Podemos is currently trying to form a pro-austerity and militarist coalition government with the PSOE, and reacted to the Supreme Court ruling with a few minor and impotent protests. Podemos leader Pablo Iglesias tweeted that the court’s wording was “a real travesty”. The leader of the Stalinist Communist Party of Spain, Alberto Garzon, said that it “says a lot, too much, about the high judicial bodies we have in this country.”

The PSOE itself, which is running a caretaker government since last month’s elections, has not commented on the ruling.

The fact that the ruling class itself hails Franco vindicates the International Committee of the Fourth International’s (ICFI) defense of the heritage of Leon Trotsky, who fought the Stalinists and centrists to bring a revolutionary perspective to the struggles of the working class during the Spanish Civil War. The “Transition to Democracy” in Spain during the 1970s, hailed by the Stalinist and Pabloite forces that built Podemos, is proving to have been only a passing episode. Amid a new era of capitalist crisis, the European Union is again incubating fascistic regimes.

The critical question today is the intersection of the radicalization of the working class with a worked-out perspective to oppose the ruling classes’ drive to war and fascistic rule. This requires the building of a revolutionary vanguard in the working class. It underscores the urgency to build sections of the ICFI in Spain and around the world, to link the growth of workers struggles to a socialist, internationalist and anti-imperialist political movement aiming at transferring state power to the working class.

Millions march in Hong Kong against extradition law

Ben McGrath

Two million Hong Kong protesters, nearly one-third the city’s population, marched Sunday to demand the complete withdrawal of the proposed extradition bill and the resignation of the city’s top official, Chief Executive Carrie Lam.

Demonstrators filled the Hong Kong downtown areas of Central, Wan Chai, Causeway Bay, and Admiralty where the government complex is located, chanting “Withdraw” and “Resign.” Many of the protesters were youth and students, including those in high school. The protest was double the size of the previous Sunday, with two of every seven people in the city taking part.

The mass protests in Hong Kong are another indication of the resurgence of working class struggles internationally. While the official protest leadership is determined to limit the demands, there is undoubtedly widespread underlying discontent over the vast social disparities in the city between the ultra-rich elite that dictates policy and broad layers of the population who are struggling to make ends meet.

Lam had announced on Saturday at a press conference that the bill would be postponed, though the government still plans to pass it in the future. Lam hoped this would be enough to dissipate public anger, saying, “This is time to restore as quickly as possible calmness in society.”

The opposite has been the case. Lam’s decision only further fueled public anger as the bill, which would allow extraditions to mainland China, has not been completely withdrawn. Protesters denounced Lam for ignoring the broad public hostility to the bill and are deeply concerned that, if made law, Beijing would use it to arrest political activists and opponents of the Stalinist regime.

Savana Ho, a 25-year-old student protesting against the government, expressed the anger felt by many, saying, “Hong Kong people are running out of ways and ideas to save their city. The government is forcing citizens to just make any effort we can.”

Another demonstrator, surname Wong, denounced the police violence that occurred during the march on Wednesday. She stated the protest was “much bigger today. There are many more people. I came today because of what happened on Wednesday, with the police violence.”

On Wednesday, police used tear gas, water cannon, and rubber bullets against tens of thousands of peaceful demonstrators as they protested outside the Legislative Council. Lam then denounced the protesters as “rioters.”

Opposition to the extradition bill did not begin on June 9. Since the legislation was introduced in February, public discontent has been growing. This was evident on June 4 during the annual vigil in Hong Kong to mark the anniversary of Tiananmen Square massacre, which drew a record number 180,000 people for the event. Many of the attendees demonstrated against the extradition bill.

The Stalinist regime in Beijing knows that it cannot allow a center of political opposition to exist, especially so close to major industrial regions like Shenzhen, where working-class anger is growing. It fears that the mass protests in Hong Kong will spread to the mainland.

Han Zheng, the central government’s chief on Hong Kong and one of the seven members of the Chinese Communist Party’s top Politburo Standing Committee, met with Lam Friday night. The next day, she announced the decision to postpone the bill. A spokesperson for the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of China’s State Council stated, “We support, respect and understand the decision (to postpone the bill).”

The official opposition in Hong Kong, a grouping known as the pan-democrats, is seeking to exploit the protests for their own gain. Claudia Mo, from the right-wing chauvinist Hong Kong First party, has postured as a radical opponent of Lam and the extradition bill. She said Sunday, “My resentment has been pent-up. The suspension is just a postponement. The plan is just being delayed. It’s not the matter of what, it’s a matter of when. So I am coming out.”

The bill’s postponement is meant to give Lam or a future chief executive time to work out a deal with the pan-democrats behind the scenes.

Lam held out a hand to the pan-democrats at her Saturday press conference, stating that the government had suspended the bill so as to “restart our communication with all sectors of society, do more explanation work and listen to different views of society. I want to stress that the government is adopting an open mind to heed comprehensively different views in society towards the bill.”

Like the pro-Beijing Lam administration, the pan-democrats are fearful that the mass protests over the extradition bill could become the focus for wider discontent among workers over deteriorating living conditions and social inequality.

Twenty percent of the Hong Kong population, or 1.37 million people, live in poverty and face a severe housing crisis. The median cost of a home is 18 times the median household income. By the government’s count, over 200,000 people live in illegal and dangerous subdivided apartments, barely large enough to fit one person, where safety and hygiene standards are ignored. Hundreds of thousands more live in makeshift shacks on the top of apartment buildings or factories.

“In Hong Kong, residence rights, one of the fundamental human rights, are being ignored and we want you to know the serious reality,” Gordon Chick Kui-wai said last year. He is in charge of housing assistance at a non-governmental group Hong Kong Society for Community Organization.

Hong Kong workers have some of the longest working hours in the world. The Census and Statistics Department released data in April that showed 1 in 5 people works 55 hours a week on average. Those most impacted by long hours worked in food service industries, security, land transportation, construction, and retail. Yet between 2008 and 2018, workers saw only a 0.7 percent annual increase in wages, taking inflation into account.

In 2003, half a million people marched in Hong Kong to oppose a National Security Bill that would have effectively extended China’s police-state measures to the city. The bill was shelved indefinitely and Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa was forced to step down in early 2005.

As in 2005, Beijing is seeking to defuse the huge protests to the extradition bill, so as to prevent it from triggering mass opposition among working people on the Chinese mainland. It remains determined to silence critics and opponents on its doorstep in Hong Kong that can likewise fuel anti-government sentiment throughout China.

Toward Post Terror Stability in Sri Lanka

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera


A few weeks ago, a security expert who has studied the so-called Islamic State (IS) rightly said to this author, that “Your country was ‘staged’.” While the IS attempted to take credit for the attacks, they do not appear to have been directed by the group. Those who perpetrated the attacks seem to have been influenced by the IS, but the precise manner and extent of it is unclear. Nonetheless, the claims of responsibility by the IS have had a significant impact on national morale in Sri Lanka due to their concurrence with geopolitical concerns the country faces. The Easter Sunday attacks worsen the prevailing crisis of national morale connected in significant ways to Sri Lanka’s position in relation to great power rivalry between the US and China.

Geopolitical ContextWith the expansion of the geopolitical reach of global liberal hegemony, the Indian Ocean has been a vital highway of the global energy market. The US naval presence in the island of Diego Garcia, located equidistant from several littoral states of the Indian Ocean, has aided US liberal hegemonic foreign policy as a base for small and large missions carried out over the past few decades in the region. Many more future military expeditions may be carried out from this flexible strategic hub, projecting US military power in and beyond the Indian Ocean. However, in February 2019, the International Court of Justice ruled that Diego Garcia, which has insofar been administered by the UK, be transferred to Mauritius, signaling the need for the US to consider exploring alternative locations in the Indian Ocean.

Meanwhile, located less than 2000 kilometres from Diego Garcia and at the center of Indian Ocean sea lines of communications is Sri Lanka. While Sri Lanka took a non-aligned position in its foreign policy during the Cold War period, today, its foreign policy is multi-aligned, struggling to strike a balance in the context of great power rivalries and internal political disunity. Akin to a tight-rope walker without a pole, any significant measure of stability remains elusive.

Small nations have always owed their independence either to the international balance of power or rejection of imperial aspirations. For Sri Lanka, crucial is its position in the global balance of power between the US and a rising China, increasingly viewed by the US as a national security threat (as evidenced by recent US trade sanctions). Former US Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Robert Blake, highlighted this in his recent interview in Colombo, where he said, “First, my advice to America is that it should not ask the countries to choose between China and the U.S. They do not want to choose. They want to have good relations with the US, China, India and others.” Yet this cannot be achieved with US liberal hegemonic aspirations in the Indian Ocean. In this context, any Sri Lankan foreign security agreement with global powers should be vetted by Sri Lanka’s parliamentary body with inputs from national security researchers, for otherwise Sri Lanka might be unprepared for unanticipated national security implications in the future.

A rigorous process must avoid conjecture and unsubstantiated allegations, instead feeding careful observations and research inputs into the security establishment. The independence of Sri Lanka will be in jeopardy if the US or China take a decisive turn to pull Sri Lanka closer towards their respective orbits, such as in the past when China has sought to gain a decisive and permanent advantage. The recalibration towards achieving a balance by Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe was viewed as a threat by China, as certain policies made the island country vulnerable to US-led liberal hegemony. It is essential, then, for Sri Lanka to stabilise itself on the metaphorical tight-rope, especially given that the US has stated in its most recent National Security Strategy that its number one threat is China and Russia, and number two is the IS.

The Need to Uplift National MoraleNational morale is the degree of determination with which a country supports the foreign policies of its government in times of peace or war. According to International Relations theorist Hans Morgenthau, it permeates all activities of a country including its military establishment and diplomatic service.

In 2015, the Sri Lankan government divided its portfolios, leaving the president with national security, and the prime minister with external affairs. After the 30/1 UNHRC resolution (on promoting reconciliation, accountability, and human rights in post-war Sri Lanka) and subsequent constitutional crisis, there was deep polarisation within the political establishment which triggered a national security threat which perhaps went unnoticed for some time, but whose instability was felt by the entire country from time to time. More recently, after the Easter Sunday attacks, the president flew to China to meet his Chinese counterpart, President Xi Jinping, while his Foreign Minister travelled to the US to meet US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Both left perhaps to bring in assistance from the two polarised camps.

This polarisation in the establishment harms the national morale of Sri Lanka. It threatens and limits the country’s power to carry its agenda forward or stabilise internal politics. In this vulnerable environment, the risk of external threats creeping in to take advantage is extremely real.

Sony World Photography Awards Competition 2020 for Student and Professional Photographers Worldwide (USD30,000 Prize Money)

Application Deadlines: 

• Professional: 14th January, 2020 – 1300 GMT
• Open: 7th January, 2019 – 1300 GMT
• Student Focus: 29th November, 2019 – 1300 GMT
• Youth Competition: 30th June 2019 (For June)

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): The hugely popular Sony World Photography Awards Exhibition, featuring a selection of winning, shortlisted and commended images, is curated at the prestigious Somerset House, London each Spring.

Fields of Competition:

• Professional – 10 categories, judged on a body of work
• Open – 10 categories, rewarding the best single images
  ○ National Awards – Entries submitted to the Open competition are automatically entered into the National Awards based on nationality (please check if your individual country is participating).
• Youth – for all photographers aged 12-19, a single image responding to one brief
• Student Focus – for those studying photography

About the Award: Open to all photographers, the Awards are an authoritative voice in the photographic industry that has the power to shape the careers of its winning and short-listed photographers. Each year the competition attracts both emerging talent and established artists and presents the world’s best photography from the last 12 months to a global audience.
The World Photography Organisation is a global platform for photography initiatives. Working across more than 180 countries, their aim is to raise the level of conversation around photography by celebrating the best imagery and photographers on the planet.
The Sony World Photography Awards has four competitions:

• Professional – Recognising outstanding bodies of work​
• Open – Rewarding the world’s best single images ​
• Youth – Best single images by photographers aged 12-19
• Student – For photography students worldwide

Type: Competition

Eligibility: All submitted images must have been taken in 2016.
View individual eligibility, selection criteria and procedure for each competition on the Competition Webpage (Right-Hand Corner)

Value of Competition: Global exposure is given to not only to the overall winners, but also to shortlisted and commended photographers.

Recognised photographers can receive:

• Exhibition at Somerset House, London
• Potential to be included in international exhibitions
• Inclusion in the annual Sony World Photography Awards book
• Potential to work with Sony and other partners on a variety of projects

How to Apply:

Visit Competition Webpage for details

Award Provider: World Photography Organisation

Important Note: You can only enter one of the following competitions: Professional, Open or Youth.

Abe Fellowship for International Researchers 2020

Application Deadline: 1st September, 2019.
Fellowship tenure must begin between April 1st and December 31st every year.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All countries

To be taken at (country): Japan and United States

Eligible Field of Study: Applications are welcome from scholars and nonacademic research professionals. The objectives of the program are to foster high quality research in the social sciences and related disciplines.

About the Award: The Abe Fellowship is designed to encourage international multidisciplinary research on topics of pressing global concern. The program seeks to foster the development of a new generation of researchers who are interested in policy-relevant topics of long-range importance and who are willing to become key members of a bilateral and global research network built around such topics. It strives especially to promote a new level of intellectual cooperation between the Japanese and American academic and professional communities committed to and trained for advancing global understanding and problem solving.

Programme Details: Applicants are invited to submit proposals for research in the social sciences and related disciplines relevant to any one or any combination of the four themes below. The themes are:
1) Threats to Personal, Societal, and International Security
Especially welcome topics include food, water, and energy insecurity; pandemics; climate change; disaster preparedness, prevention, and recovery; and conflict, terrorism, and cyber security.
2) Growth and Sustainable Development
Especially welcome topics include global financial stability, trade imbalances and agreements, adjustment to globalization, climate change and adaptation, and poverty and inequality.
3) Social, Scientific, and Cultural Trends and Transformations
Especially welcome topics include aging and other demographic change, benefits and dangers of reproductive genetics, gender and social exclusion, expansion of STEM education among women and under-represented populations, migration, rural depopulation and urbanization, impacts of automation on jobs, poverty and inequality, and community resilience.
4) Governance, Empowerment, and Participation
Especially welcome topics include challenges to democratic institutions, participatory governance, human rights, the changing role of NGO/NPOs, the rise of new media, and government roles in fostering innovation.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• This competition is open to citizens of the United States and Japan as well as to nationals of other countries who can demonstrate strong and serious long-term affiliations with research communities in Japan or the United States.
• Applicants must hold a PhD or the terminal degree in their field, or have attained an equivalent level of professional experience at the time of application.
• Previous language training is not a prerequisite for this fellowship. However, if the research project requires language ability, the applicant should provide evidence of adequate proficiency to complete the project.
• Applications from researchers in professions other than academia are encouraged with the expectation that the product of the fellowship will contribute to the wider body of knowledge on the topic specified.
• Projects proposing to address key policy issues or seeking to develop a concrete policy proposal must reflect nonpartisan positions.

Selection Criteria: Rather than seeking to promote greater understanding of a single country—Japan or the United States—the Abe Fellowship Program encourages research with a comparative or global perspective. The program promotes deeply contextualized cross-cultural research.
Successful applicants will be those individuals whose work and interests match these program goals. Abe Fellows are expected to demonstrate a long-term commitment to these goals by participating in program activities over the course of their careers.
All proposals are expected to directly address policy relevance in theme, project description, and project structure.

Number of Awardees: Several

Value of Fellowship: 

• The fellowship is intended to support an individual researcher totally, regardless of whether that individual is working alone or in collaboration with others.
• Candidates should propose to spend at least one third of the fellowship tenure in residence abroad in Japan or the United States. In addition, the Abe Fellowship Committee reserves the right to recommend additional networking opportunities overseas.
• Funds for language tutoring or refresher courses in the service of research goals will be included in the awards.

Duration of Fellowship: The program provides Abe Fellows with a minimum of 3 and maximum of 12 months of full-time support over a 24-month period

How to Apply: Visit Fellowship Webpage to apply

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership (CGP)


Important Notes: Please note that the purpose of this Fellowship is to support research activities. Therefore, projects whose sole aim is travel, cultural exchange, and/or language training will not be considered. However, funds for language tutoring or refresher courses in the service of research goals will be included in the award if the proposal includes explicit justification for such activities.

Cartier Women’s Initiative Awards 2020 for Women Entrepreneurs (USD100,000 to a winner from each region)

Application Deadline: 14th August, 2019 by 2pm Paris time (CEST)

Eligible Countries: Cartier reviews applications from 7 regions (Latin America, North America, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East & North Africa, Far East Asia, South-East Asia). One from each region wins this award.

To be taken at (country):exact location still TBC

About the Award:Since 2006, the Cartier Women’s Initiative has supported 219 female entrepreneurs worldwide. Each year, 21 finalists representing 7 regions (Latin America & the Caribbean, North America, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East & North Africa, East Asia and South Asia & Oceania) are selected during the first round of the competition. These finalists are then invited to attend the Awards week (exact location still TBC) during which the second round of the competition takes place. After the final jury evaluation, 7 laureates, one for each region, are announced on stage during the Awards ceremony.

Offered Since: 2006

Type: Entrepreneurship, contest

Eligibility: The Cartier Women’s Initiative Award is looking for committed female entrepreneurs heading initiatives with the potential to grow significantly in the years to come. The selection of the finalists and laureates of the competition is done by an independent international Jury of entrepreneurs, investors, business executives and other profiles engaged in the support of female entrepreneurship.
The project to be considered for the Cartier Women’s Initiative Awards must be an original for-profit business creation in its initial phase (2 to 3 years old) led by a woman:

• The “for-profit” requirement: the business submitted for the Award must be designed to generate revenues. We do not accept non-profit project proposals.
• The “originality” requirement: we want your project to be a new concept, conceived and imagined by the founder and her team and not a copy or subsidiary of an existing business.
• The “initial phase” requirement: the project you submit should be in the first stages of its development meaning between 2 and 3 years old.
• The main leadership position must be filled by a woman. A good command of English is required (both verbal and written) to take full advantage of the benefits the Award has to offer.
• All entrants must be aged 18 or the age of legal majority in their respective countries or states of citizenship, whichever is older, on the day of the application deadline.

Selection Criteria: The Jury evaluates the projects based on criteria of creativity, sustainability (potential for growth) and impact.

• The creativity criterion: the Jury looks at the degree of innovation shown by the overall business concept, the uniqueness of the project on the market or country where it is being developed.
• The sustainability criterion: the Jury examines the financial impact of the business, its revenue model, development strategy and other aspects indicating its chances of long-term success and future growth.
• The impact criterion: the Jury evaluates the effect of the business on society, in terms of jobs created or its effect on the immediate or broader environment.
• The overall quality and clarity of the material presented: the Jury is looking for motivated and committed entrepreneurs who are passionate about their initiatives. Being clear and concise, organizing your ideas and not repeating yourself will show that you are serious about your application.

Selection Process: 

• Round 1: The Jury selects 18 Finalists*, the top three projects of each of the 7 regions (Latin America, North America, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East & North Africa, Far East Asia, South-East Asia), on the basis of their short business plans. They receive coaching from experienced business-people to move to the next round.
• Round 2: The Finalists are invited to the final round of competition which includes submitting a detailed business plan and presenting their projects in front of the Jury.

Number of Awardees: Based on the quality of the plan and the persuasiveness of the verbal presentation, one Laureate for each of the seven regions is selected

Value of Competition: The 21 finalists, representing the top 3 businesses from each of the 7 regions, will receive:

One-to-one personalized business coaching prior to the Awards week

A series of business coaching workshops and networking sessions during the Awards week

Media visibility for the finalists and their businesses in the months leading up to the Awards week and interview opportunities with local & international press during the Awards week

PRIZE MONEY
The 7 laureates (1 from each region) will receive:

US$ 100 000 in prize money

The 14 finalists (the two runners-up from each region) will receive:

US$ 30 000 in prize money

AWARDS PACKAGE
In addition to the prize money, all 21 finalists will be awarded:

A scholarship to attend the six-day INSEAD Social Entrepreneurship Executive Education Programme (pending admission to the programme based on eligibility criteria and selection process)

Ongoing support for the further growth and development of their business

How to Apply: Go here to apply

Visit Competition Webpage for details

Alfred Friendly Press Partners Fellowship 2019 for Journalists from Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 31st  August 2019

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To be taken at (country): Missouri School of Journalism and U.S. newsrooms, USA

About the Award: The Alfred Friendly Press Fellowships are aimed at providing fellows with experience in reporting, writing and editing that will enhance future professional performance; transferring knowledge gained during the program to colleagues at home; and fostering ties between journalists in the United States and other countries.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: To be eligible, candidates must be:

• Early-career professional journalists from developing countries with proficiency in English
• 25-35 years old
• have at least three years of experience as a journalist at a print, online or broadcast media outlet.
• Participants who work as staff reporters in their host newsrooms are required to develop training plans that they implement when they return to their home newsrooms. ​

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: Fellows receive travel, health insurance and basic living expenses.

Duration of Program: 6 months.The ​all-inclusive ​fellowship starts in mid-March and ends in early September.

How to Apply: 

General Fellowship: Click here to apply

Daniel Pearl Fellowship: Click here to apply

Visit Programme Webpage for details

PASET RSIF Scholarships 2019/2020 for PhD Students in sub-Saharan Africa

Application Deadline: 22nd July 2019 at 5:00pm (GMT)

Eligible Countries: sub-Saharan Africa

To be taken at (country): Sub-Saharan Africa

About the Award: Being a scholar of the Regional Scholarship and Innovation Fund (RSIF) is a bridge to becoming a part of an exciting new community of highly skilled African scientists and innovators in Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology (ASET) fields. RSIF aims to provide the ecosystem necessary to nurture its scholars during their PhD program and continue to create the support system for them after graduation.

Type: PhD

Eligibility: 

• Master’s degree holders in a relevant field of study
• Citizens of a sub-Saharan African country willing to enroll full-time in a PhD program at an RSIF African Host University
• Priority will be given to women and existing young academic faculty at African Universities
• Demonstrate leadership potential, such as community service in areas related to PASET RSIF fields of study
• Further information on the PhD program specific requirements and RSIF AHU admissions criteria can be found here: RSIF African Host Universities and available PhD programs.

Number of Awards: 45 RSIF PhD scholarships are available for nationals of sub-Saharan countries who do not have a PhD degree, and who are not currently enrolled in any PhD Program


Value of Program: The scholarships cover costs of the PhD Program, including travel, living expenses, medical insurance, university fees, and supervisor and research support.

Duration of Program: Scholars will spend 6-24 months ‘sandwich’ training at a selected international or regional partner university, research institute or private company.

How to Apply: Completed application forms and accompanying supporting documents must be received ONLINE through the following website LINK.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Zero Waste: The Global Plastics Crisis

Graham Peebles

Plastic pollution is everywhere, it litters beaches, clogs up oceans, chokes marine life, is ingested by seabirds that then starve to death, and has even been discovered embedded in Arctic ice. It’s in the air we breathe, the water we drink (bottled and tap), and last year plastic was found in human stools for the first time. Friends of the Earth report that, “recent studies have revealed marine plastic pollution in 100% of marine turtles, 59% of whales, 36% of seals and 40% of seabird species examined.

According to the United Nations Environmental Agency the world produces around 300 million tons of plastic each year, half of which is single-use items, food packaging mainly. Of this colossal total a mere 14 percent is collected for recycling, and only 9 percent actually gets recycled; 12 percent is incinerated releasing highly poisonous fumes. The rest – nearly 80 percent – ends up in landfill, or worse still, is illegally dumped or thrown into the oceans; around eight million tons of plastic finds its way into the oceans annually, and while some of the environmental damage plastics cause is clear the full impact on marine and terrestrial ecosystems is not yet apparent.

Plastic recycling rates are appalling and considerably lower than other industrial materials; recycling of steel aluminum, copper and paper e.g., is estimated to be 50 percent, and plastic doesn’t disappear it just gets smaller and smaller, reducing over hundreds or even thousands of years into tiny micro-plastics and nano plastics.

A Wakeup Call

Levels of plastic waste vary from country to country; based on the 2018 report ‘Plastic Pollution’, daily per capita plastic waste in the United States, Germany, Netherlands, Ireland, Kuwait and Guyana is over “ten times higher than across countries such as India, Tanzania, Mozambique and Bangladesh.”

Unsurprisingly, given its huge population (1.3 billion) and large manufacturing sector, China produces the greatest amount of plastic waste in the world, 59.8 million tons per year. However, at just .12 kilograms (4 ounces) per capita per day, this equates to one of the lowest levels of per person plastic waste in the world. The USA (population 327 million – 25% of China) is responsible for 37.83 million tons per year, or .34 kilograms (12 ounces) per person per day, three times that of China. America also produces “more than 275,000 tons of plastic litter at risk of entering rivers and oceans annually.” Germany produces 14.48 million tons per year, which at .46 kilograms (just over a pound) per person per day is one of the highest levels in the world, but unlike the US, Germany has on of the highest recycling rates in the world – recycling an estimated 48% (US 9%) of its plastic waste.

Since the 1980s recycling has been regarded as the environmentally responsible way to deal with the colossal levels of rubbish humanity produces. Throughout developed countries collecting recyclable household waste has become widespread, but for decades the laborious job of actually recycling it has been exported, mainly to China. But on 31st December 2018, China announced it would no longer be the world’s garbage tip, stating, the Financial Times reports, “that large amounts of the waste were ‘dirty’ or ‘hazardous’ and thus a threat to the environment.” The “National Sword” policy introduced by the Chinese government has resulted in China and Hong Kong reducing plastic waste imports from G7 countries, from 60% in the first half of 2017, to less than 10% for the same period in 2018. Overall recovered plastic imports to China have fallen by 99%.

China now only wants waste that does not cause pollution and meets certain cleanliness criteria. It’s a massive change to the recycling model that was long overdue and has caused chaos on many countries in the west, with large amounts of waste that should have been recycled being burnt or stockpiled. Desperate to find an alternative distant dumping ground to China, huge amounts of plastic waste have been shipped to south-east Asia. Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia, where the largest quantity has gone; according to Greenpeace, imports of plastic waste to Malaysia increased from 168,500 tons in 2016 to 456,000 tons in the first six months of 2018, most of the rubbish coming from UK, Germany, Spain, France Australia and US.

The influx of such large quantities of toxic waste into these countries has led to contaminated water, crop death and respiratory illnesses. In May the Philippines forced Canada to take back “69 containers containing 1,500 tons of waste that had been exported in 2013 and 2014,” The Guardian reported. Other countries have responded in a similar way, with outrage: Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam have all introduced legislation to stop contaminated waste arriving in their ports. The Malaysian environment minister, Yeo Bee Yin, said, “Malaysia will not be the dumping ground of the world. We will send back [the waste] to the original countries.” Containers of illegal rubbish from Spain have been returned and a further 3,000 tons of illegally imported plastic waste from US, UK, Australia, France and Canada has also been shipped back.

The steps China has taken and the understandable anger of south-east Asian countries should serve as a wakeup call to western states, whose complacency and arrogance is fueling the environmental crisis. It is time that developed countries stopped exploiting poorer countries and accepted responsibility for their own plastic (and other) waste. Recycling needs to be recognized by western governments as an environmental necessity, a social imperative. As a business it is conditioned by business methods and motives; corruption and illegal practices abound, profit and costs become primary considerations and obstacles to environmental sanity; it is a great deal cheaper e.g., to incinerate plastic waste, or dump it in a forest or the oceans, than it is to recycle it, which is labor intensive.

In addition to recycling their own rubbish, developed nations, who are largely responsible for the environmental crisis, need to be cooperating with poorer countries, where most mismanagement of waste occurs. Helping them to design efficient waste management systems and financially supporting such schemes. If plastic pollution is to be reduced and effective recycling systems established, cooperation is essential.

How to shop: Zero waste

The power to bring about fundamental changes through responsible policymaking, investment in green technologies and education rests with governments; they have a duty to act urgently and radically.

Certain fundamental steps need to be taken: drastically reduce plastic use; eliminate single-use plastics altogether; recycle more – 9% is shameful. Invest in high-tech recycling facilities/waste management systems; ensure plastic products can be recycled; introduce national recycling standards (in the UK e.g., what local authorities will/will not accept varies) as well as worldwide agreements, with countries that lead the way on recycling, like Germany and Sweden being widely consulted.

In a positive move last year at the G7 summit, five countries –UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and the EU – signed the Ocean Plastics Charter. They pledged “to increase plastic recycling by 50% and work towards 100% reusable, recyclable or recoverable plastics by 2030.” The USA and Japan did not sign. Plastic is the third largest manufacturing industry in America, producing 19.5% of the world’s plastic; President Trump didn’t even attend the G7 climate change and environment talks.

Individuals also have a crucial part to play in dealing with plastic waste and making politicians enact the radical changes required.

We can all reduce the amount of waste we produce; aim at Zero waste, embrace simpler, environmentally responsible lifestyles, shop in Zero waste shops, where customers take their own containers and refill them from large dispensers. Western supermarket chains are responsible for colossal amounts of plastic waste and need to radically change the way their products are designed, packaged and sold; in the UK, Waitrose, which has 5% market share, has introduced a pilot scheme in an Oxford branch where food dispensers are being trialed, encouraging customers to use refillable tubs and jars, their own or those freely provided by the shop.

It is a common-sense move that all supermarket chains in western countries need to adopt, it is the environmentally right way to shop and, logically, products not sold in plastic should be less expensive. Zero waste shopping should be the aim, plenty of customers want it, and the environment is demanding it. Plastic pollution is one aspect of the global environmental crisis, a crisis rooted in consumerism and a socio-economic system championed by developed nations, which promotes greed, selfishness and division. Radical systemic changes are required together with changes in lifestyle and values if the environmental vandalism is to come to an end and the planet is to be healed.

How Much Do Humans Pollute? A Breakdown of Industrial, Vehicular and Household C02 Emissions

T. J. Coles

Each year, human beings release an increasing amount of carbon dioxide (C02) into the atmosphere; at present, around 40 billion tons per annum. According to NASA’s Earth Observatory, 8.4 billion tons are attributed to the burning of fossil fuels; primarily coal, gas and oil. The European Commission and Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency lists the most polluting countries (including the EU as a whole and each of its member states). They are China, the US, the EU, India, Russia, Japan, Germany, Canada and Brazil. When measured in terms of per capita emissions, the US and Canada are the biggest culprits, with each Canadian and American emitting an average of >15 tonnes of CO2 per annum (“carbon footprint”). This is a result of commuting, consumption, domestic energy use, leisure and travel.

CO2 accounts for approximate 76 percent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The US Environmental Protection Agency says that combustion (of coal, gas and oil) is the main human activity that releases CO2. Electrical production, which uses coal combustion for its generation, accounts for 32.9% of US CO2 emissions. Transport accounts for 34.2%, which is where oil comes in, as most transport (cars, trucks, planes and ships) relies on petroleum. Industry is responsible for 15.4% of emissions and residential/commercial for 10%.

One barrel consists of 42 gallons (159 liters) of oil. Each day, 96 million barrels of oil and liquid fuels are consumed worldwide. This equates to 35 billion barrels a year. Vehicles are significant C02 emitters. The majority of vehicles run on oil. There are 800 million cars in the world. According to Automotive Industry Solutions, there are 253 million cars and trucks in use in the US. There are 234 million cars on the roads of Western Europe in a sector that employs 13 million people. The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that half of all carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides and a quarter of aromatic hydrocarbons, released each year can be attributed to transport. The Union further notes that much of the pollution could be easily reduced by clean vehicle fuel technologies. It’s not just the use of vehicles which causes pollution. The Union also points out that from design, to manufacture, to disposal, vehicle-related pollution is significant.

China’s global CO2 emissions are twice those of US emissions. China equaled and surpassed US emissions more than ten years ago. China’s emissions are largely due to the use of coal and are disproportionately larger than US emissions because of the size of China’s population (there are 1.3 billion Chinese compared to 327 million Americans). Despite having a quarter of China’s population, American per capita CO2 emissions more than double China’s. Personal energy consumption is a major factor. The average Chinese person uses 3,500 kilowatts of energy per hour (kWh) compared with the average American, who uses over 12,000. Personal transportation is another factor. By 2011, in China, there were 68.9 motor vehicles per 1,000 people. In the US, were 786 per 1,000. Consider also the impact of food consumption on emissions. By 2008, the average daily calorie intake in China was 2,900. In the US, it was 3,750.8

Among the poorer countries, the biggest polluters (Brazil, China and India) have the lowest per capita emissions compared to the “developed” nations. By far the least polluting continent is Africa, with some of the most Westernized countries (Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa) emitting the most C02. It is also worth remembering that the poor countries serve as providers of resources, including oil and other raw materials for the West. Factories and assembly plants that use a lot of energy pollute because they produce goods for export to Europe and North America, making shipping and air travel big CO2 emitters. Liberia’s shipping exports, for instance, make it a significant polluter.

The more Westernized countries become, the more likely they are to pollute. In the 1980s, China adopted US-style privatization programs, agreeing to huge inflows of US capital. Within twenty years, China had equaled America’s record on annual CO2 emissions. By the year 2000, US corporations were investing $11.14 billion in China. By 2007, they were investing $29.71bn. This leapt to $53.93bn in 2008 and climbed to $65.77bn by 2014.

Much of the so-called investment is internal to US corporations, as companies looking for cheap labour outsource to China and other poor countries. For example, in 2010 the trade journal Manufacturing and Technology News reported that “[h]undreds of major American corporations are shipping thousands of jobs overseas,” where workers’ rights, pay and health and safety standards are lower. Some foreign countries offer huge tax breaks and foreign direct investment. Big companies and their subsidiaries and divisions offshoring to China, Mexico and other poor countries with low environmental standards, include: AT&T, Boeing, General Dynamics, Hewlett Packard, IBM, International Paper, Kingston Technology, Motorola, Nordex, Rockwell Automation, Sony Pictures Imageworks, Staples, Tenneco Automotive and Tyco Electronics.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) estimates that air pollution kills 200,000 Americans every year. MIT’s Laboratory of Aviation and the Environment tracked emissions at ground-level, from industrial smokestacks, vehicles, railways and residential heating. Road vehicle emissions alone kill 53,000 and power generators kill 52,000. California has the worst air quality, with 21,000 persons dying prematurely each year. On average, sulphur, carbon monoxide and other pollutants shorten the lifespans of those affected by a decade. Researchers found that congestion is one of the reasons for large numbers of vehicle-related deaths. Where traffic flows in less populated areas, fewer people are affected. Commercial and private pollution was highest in the Midwest, from the industrialized cities and stretching down to or across Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and LA.

According to the World Health Organization, 7 million people die each year as a result of exposure to air pollution. This equates to one in eight global deaths. Air pollution is the single biggest environmental health risk and more than doubles previous estimates. Indoor and outdoor pollution are linked to cancer, ischaemic (artery) heart disease and strokes. Poor and less developed countries have the worst air quality, with particularly toxic air in South and East Asia and the Western Pacific. 3.3 million deaths in those regions are attributed to indoor pollution (including work-related air quality) and 2.6 million to outdoor pollution.

Dr. Flavia Bustreo, WHO’s Assistant Director-General of Family, Women and Children’s Health, says: “Poor women and children pay a heavy price from indoor air pollution since they spend more time at home breathing in smoke and soot from leaky coal and wood cooking stoves.” Coal is a particularly bad pollutant, hence its contribution as the second largest cause of air pollution-related deaths in the US. Dr. Carlos Dora, WHO’s Coordinator for Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health, says: “Excessive air pollution is often a by-product of unsustainable policies in sectors such as transport, energy, waste management and industry.”

The pollutants that drive anthropogenic climate change are not only bad for global temperatures and weather, they are bad for human and animal health, too. But hope is not lost. There are major and important changes occurring among grassroots activists, like the Extinction Rebellion, and the possibility of a Green New Deal at the political level. These movements need to endure and expand.