Health experts release policy roadmap to alleviate the burden of high energy bills
Reports and Proceedings
Updates every hour. Last Updated: 24-Dec-2025 06:11 ET (24-Dec-2025 11:11 GMT/UTC)
One Health discourse rightly stresses human–animal–environment interdependence, yet its normative footing can be thin and often defaults to strong anthropocentrism, valuing non-human beings and ecosystems only instrumentally. This perspective focuses on clinical decision-making and proposes a shift from strong anthropocentrism to weak anthropocentrism. weak anthropocentrism maintains the human-centered mandate that underpins medicine and public health while at the same time requiring proportionality, least harm, and intergenerational responsibility that acknowledge intrinsic—not merely instrumental—value in ecological systems and non-human life. Building on One Health's systems thinking, the framework offers a pragmatic approach rather than a radical turn to biocentrism or ecocentrism, and it recognizes ongoing debates about prudential versus radical interpretations within One Health. We illustrate feasibility with green oncology, where clinically equivalent options are selected to reduce life-cycle emissions, waste, and antimicrobial pressures—showing how ecological considerations can be integrated without compromising patient or population outcomes. The proposal aligns with contemporary regulatory strategies that recommend a One Health lens and invites a practical recalibration of public health policy: expand evaluative criteria, embed ecological reasoning in decision processes, and align clinical benefit with long-term planetary stewardship. Weak anthropocentrism thus offers a workable, ethically coherent route to extend “do no harm” beyond humans while remaining faithful to the core commitments of both clinical care and public health.
A new study published in the Journal of Sports Economics finds that the legalization of sports betting in the United States is associated with significant increases in violent and impulsive crime during and immediately after major professional sporting events. Analyzing incident-level crime data from 2017 to 2021, researchers examined crime patterns from the start of a game through four hours after its conclusion across the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL.
The study finds that states that legalized sports betting following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Murphy v. NCAA experienced increases in assaults, larceny and vehicle theft on game days, with crime rising by roughly 30–70% depending on game context. The largest spikes occurred after home games and when outcomes defied betting expectations, such as when underdogs won.
Importantly, the researchers also identify spillover effects: increases in crime were observed in neighboring states even when those states had not legalized sports betting, suggesting bettors may cross state lines to place wagers and bring associated stress back home.
The findings further suggest a shift in the mechanisms driving betting-related aggression following the COVID-19 pandemic. While earlier increases in crime were primarily linked to financial losses, more recent evidence points to non-financial factors, including heightened emotional stress during close, unpredictable or overtime games.
The study highlights potential social costs associated with the rapid expansion of legal sports betting and underscores the importance of considering public safety and consumer protections alongside revenue generation as more states weigh legalization.