If you follow the headlines, it can seem like K-12 schools in the United States are a political battlefield.

Some conservative parents and advocacy groups are lobbying to remove certain books from classrooms and libraries, most often those that highlight LGBTQ+ issues or race and racism.

Some civil liberties groups, librarians and progressive parents, meanwhile, are pushing back against book bans, saying they are a form of unnecessary censorship.

Parents and school boards also are clashing over a range of other issues, ranging from how transgender and nonbinary students are treated and which bathrooms they can use, to whether teachers should use artificial intelligence in the classroom.

Beyond this evidence of political polarization, though, there’s another, less divisive reality. Ask people to name their best teacher, and regardless of their political affiliation, they will likely offer a similar answer. Most people will say that they learned a lot from a teacher who knew them, cared about them and made learning relevant to their lives.

Over five years, from 2020 through 2025, we asked more than 2,000 Americans, including Democrats, Republicans and independents, what makes a very good teacher. We expected deep partisan divides. Instead, we found something rare: genuine, cross-partisan agreement.

How we ran the study

We began in 2020 with a nationally representative survey of 334 adults, asking them to recall a teacher they learned a lot from. We then asked the survey participants to look at 10 statements that might describe a good teacher and rank them from most to least important.

Five of the statements we offered focused on relationships – like caring about students, making educational lessons relevant and giving students individualized support. The other five focused on whether teachers covered a lot of material, rewarded top performers with grades or prizes, and whether they applied rules consistently to all students.

Respondents generally focused on highlighting the same seven out of 10 statements, giving us a vision of how they perceived a very good teacher. People prioritized the same factors – how much the teachers cared about their students and whether they supported them – regardless of their age, race, gender or political affiliation. Republicans and Democrats were indistinguishable in their descriptions of effective teaching.

People did not prioritize whether teachers covered a lot of material, made students compete or ran a strict and disciplined classroom.

In 2022, we conducted a similar survey of 179 teachers in Arizona and California. The results echoed our 2020 survey participants’ view: Teachers also defined very good teachers as ones who emphasized relationships, made lessons relevant and knew the subject matter.

Given the prominence of politically charged education debates, we were a bit surprised by our results. We began to wonder: Do people privately agree on what it means to be a good teacher, but change their opinion if their image of good teaching is associated with an ideological orientation they disagree with?

Adding a partisan label

To explore this question in late 2024 and early 2025, we ran a third experiment with a nationally representative sample of 1,562 adults from a range of political backgrounds.

We gave all participants the same description of a very good teacher, identified in our previous experiments. We then randomly noted if these descriptions of a good teacher were endorsed by Democrats, Republicans or people with no political affiliation.

When the participants read the teacher descriptions without any political labels attached, about 85% of Democrats, Republicans and independents agreed with the description of a very good teacher.

When we added a note saying that a political party the survey participant did not identify endorsed a particular description of a good teacher, they became less likely to support the statement.

The effect was sharpest among Republicans: Support fell from 85% to 64% when the description was tied to Democrats. Democrats’ agreement slipped less, from 86% to 76%, when the description was tied to Republicans.

Even with these caveats, nearly two-thirds of Republicans and Democrats still agreed on what it means to be a good teacher.

Political scientists call this affective polarization: How we react to an idea depends not just on the idea, but on who we think supports it.

At the national level, education is often framed as an intractable partisan conflict.

Yet at the individual level, many Americans continue to express confidence in their own local schools. Our findings suggest that part of this gap may be driven by how issues are framed rather than by fundamentally incompatible beliefs.

This matters more than you might think

Federal and state education policy over the past four decades, including laws like No Child Left Behind, which mandated routine federal testing in reading and math, emphasize testing and competition. These priorities don’t always match what Americans across the political spectrum say they value most.

Americans continue to differ on many important education questions, including what children should learn in school, the role of school boards and other issues.

But these disagreements coexist with a shared beliefs about what good teaching looks like in practice.

Recognizing this gap could open new possibilities for education reform. When debates focus exclusively on disagreements, they can obscure areas of agreement that might otherwise serve as starting points for collaboration.

We encourage readers to go ahead and run a similar, small experiment: Ask people about their best teacher, then listen to what they say. The answer, it turns out, is likely more unifying than you expect.

For this specific project, Gustavo E. Fischman received funding from the Institute of Social Science Research at ASU. He also received funds for other projects from the National Science Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, the IDRC, and the Fulbright Commission.

Eric Haas and Margarita Pivovarova do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Some clinical trials aren’t designed to answer scientific questions. They’re designed to market drugs. In our recently published research, my team and I analyzed over 34,000 industry-funded trials and found that hundreds of studies across seven medical fields were likely designed to promote a drug to physicians rather than to generate scientific data. For some fields, nearly 1% of clinical trials were for marketing purposes.

Known as seeding trials, these studies prioritize marketing over science while disguising their commercial purpose as legitimate research. Pharmaceutical companies use them to familiarize physicians with new products under the guise of data collection. Participants sign consent forms, believing they are contributing to medical knowledge.

In reality, patients are absorbing risks that serve corporate interests rather than resolving genuine uncertainty about the therapeutic potential of a drug.

The term seeding trial first entered the medical literature in 1994, when then-commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration David Kessler and his colleagues described such studies as attempts to entice doctors to prescribe new drugs through trials that appear to serve little scientific purpose.

Three decades later, the problem of seeding trials persists.

How seeding trials work

While the structure of a seeding trial looks similar to legitimate clinical trials on the surface, the objectives are different.

In a typical clinical trial, researchers recruit patients across clinics and hospitals to test whether a treatment is safe and effective.

In contrast, the pharmaceutical company behind a seeding trial enrolls large numbers of physicians at many sites, each seeing only a few patients. The goal is exposure: getting doctors to prescribe the drug, not generating robust data. Doctors may be selected based on their prescribing volume rather than their research credentials.

In a legitimate trial, the number of study sites reflects the number of patients needed to answer a scientific question. In a seeding trial, the number of sites reflects the number of doctors the company wants to reach.

Seeding trials often target drugs already on the market and operate as Phase 4, or postmarketing, studies. These types of studies are typically conducted after a drug has been approved to monitor its long-term safety or effectiveness. This trial stage receives less regulatory scrutiny than trials for initial drug approval, and the aims of the study may have limited relevance to actual patient care. For example, a seeding trial might measure whether patients prefer the taste of a new formulation or how quickly a drug dissolves in the stomach, rather than whether it actually improves health outcomes.

Legitimate trials also have independent oversight, with committees of scientists and ethicists who monitor the study’s progress and can halt it if patients are being harmed.

In a seeding trial, this oversight is often minimal. The sponsor of the study – typically the pharmaceutical company funding the research – maintains heavy control over the trial’s design and conduct.

Cases that exposed seeding trials

Seeding trials had attracted little public attention until litigation in the 1990s forced open the internal files of two major pharmaceutical companies, revealing that studies presented as science had been designed as marketing campaigns.

The most notorious example is Merck’s ADVANTAGE trial for the painkiller Vioxx (rofecoxib), which was first approved in 1999. The company presented the study, which ran from 1999 to 2001, as scientific research, but internal documents revealed that its primary purpose was to encourage physicians to prescribe Vioxx to their patients.

Meanwhile, Merck was accused of downplaying the significant cardiovascular risks associated with the drug. The consequences were severe: Approximately 30,000 lawsuits and nearly $5 billion in compensation followed Vioxx’s withdrawal from the market.

Parke-Davis’ STEPS trial for the painkiller Neurontin (gabapentin) – first approved in 1993 for epilepsy – followed a similar pattern of disguising marketing as research. Internal documents showed that the trial, which ran from 1996 to 1998, aimed to disseminate marketing messages through the medical literature and encourage clinicians to prescribe the drug off-label for conditions it was not approved for, such as neuropathic pain and bipolar disorder.

Unlike Vioxx, gabapentin was never withdrawn. The trial’s commercial legacy outlasted its scientific one.

These cases came to light only because litigation forced the release of internal company documents. Without that exposure, they would have remained indistinguishable from ordinary research.

How common are seeding trials?

My team and I study how pharmaceutical firms innovate and respond to regulations. To estimate the prevalence of seeding trials, we analyzed nearly 34,400 industry-funded Phase 3 and Phase 4 studies that posted results on ClinicalTrials.gov between 1998 and 2024. The trials covered seven therapeutic areas where researchers had previously documented seeding trials, including major depressive disorder, epilepsy, Type 2 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis.

We screened these trials for criteria that prior research has identified as hallmarks of a seeded trial, such as low patient-to-site ratios and limited independent oversight.

Ultimately, we identified 204 trials – 0.59% – that had characteristics consistent with marketing-driven study design. The prevalence of these probable seeding trials in different disciplines ranged from 0.15% in osteoarthritis to 0.98% in rheumatoid arthritis.

These figures might understate the true scope of marketing-driven research. The criteria we used capture only the most identifiable cases of studies driven by marketing purposes. Definitively identifying seeding trials requires access to internal sponsor documents revealing the intent of the study, and those documents surface only through litigation or whistleblowers.

Many trials occupy an ambiguous middle ground, generating useful data while simultaneously serving promotional objectives. Without systematic surveillance, the full extent of marketing-driven studies remains unknown.

The criteria to identify seeding trials also require careful interpretation. A low patient-to-site ratio, for instance, can reflect the practical difficulties of enrolling patients in studies of drugs already on the market, such as trials testing new drug combinations or new uses for an existing treatment. These markers are best understood as signals of possible marketing intent warranting closer scrutiny, not proof of marketing intent.

Whether the prevalence of seeding trials has shifted with the expansion of transparency requirements over the past decade cannot be determined from existing registry data.

What can be done

Seeding trials may be uncommon, but they are not accidental. They reflect structural incentives in a system where the companies that fund research also stand to gain from its results. Strengthening transparency in clinical trial registration, funding disclosure and oversight would help ensure that clinical research serves patients first.

Along with other researchers, we’ve proposed reforms that cluster around two areas. The first is standardized reporting that discloses trial funding, investigator payments, enrollment criteria and the rationale for site selection. The second is independent oversight, such as committees funded through pooled industry levies, which are fees collected from pharmaceutical companies to finance independent monitoring. Random audits with publicly available results are one form of such oversight.

Some infrastructure for tracking financial relationships between industry and physicians is already in place. In the U.S., the Open Payments database allows public tracking of industry payments to physicians. But regulatory variability across countries creates openings for companies to conduct marketing-driven trials in jurisdictions with weaker oversight, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

Clinicians can protect themselves and their patients by screening for a set of red flags before agreeing to participate in or cite a trial in their research. These include unusually low patient-to-site ratios, selecting investigators based on prescribing volume, sponsor-dominated oversight and study endpoints of limited clinical relevance. Consent forms are among the few documents patients see before enrolling, and clearer disclosure of the commercial and scientific purpose of a study is among the reforms we have called for.

For patients, clinicians and regulators alike, the question to ask of any trial is the same: Whom does it really serve?

Sukhun Kang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Rotavirus is a highly contagious virus that spreads easily and can make babies and young children very sick. This year, doctors have been seeing more cases earlier in the season than usual.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that almost 8 in 100 people tested for rotavirus have the virus. This is only a little higher than last year at this time, when about 7 in 100 tests were positive. However, doctors are concerned because rotavirus cases started rising earlier than usual – in January – which means more children are getting sick over a longer period of time.

Often referred to as a stomach flu or stomach bug, rotavirus infection can cause extreme diarrhea, leading to severe dehydration and hospitalization. Just like measles and whooping cough, infectious diseases that are also on the rise, rotavirus can be prevented with a safe and highly effective vaccine. But vaccination rates in the U.S. have fallen since 2018.

The Conversation asked epidemiologist Annette Regan to explain why this virus is on the rise and what families can do to protect themselves from the illness.

What is rotavirus and why is it dangerous?

Rotavirus, first identified in 1973, affects the gastrointestinal system – that is, the stomach and the intestines.

Rotavirus spreads from person to person, often when germs from poop get on hands or surfaces and then into the mouth. But a person can also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then touching their mouth, or by drinking or eating contaminated food or water.

Rotavirus causes sudden diarrhea, vomiting and fever that can cause rapid dehydration, which can lead to death if left untreated. There is no medicine to cure the virus. Doctors can only help by giving fluids and watching closely for dehydration. Babies who lose too much fluid may need care in the hospital.

Rotavirus most often affects infants and young children. Without vaccination, nearly all children have a rotavirus infection by age 5.

The virus causes most instances of hospitalization due to severe diarrhea and is the leading cause of death due to diarrhea in children under 5. Older children and adults typically experience more mild infections, but the virus can cause severe illness in people with weakened immune systems and those over 65.

A safe and effective vaccine

Safe and effective vaccines against rotavirus have been available in the U.S. since 2006.

U.S. regulators approved an early rotavirus vaccine, but it was taken off the market the next year after doctors learned that, in very rare cases, it could cause a serious bowel problem. The rotavirus vaccines used today are different. Studies in more than 70,000 babies show that these vaccines are safe and work well.

Before vaccines were introduced, rotavirus accounted for more than 400,000 medical visits, including 200,000 emergency room visits, 70,000 hospitalizations and 20-60 deaths in the U.S. each year.

Annually, vaccination prevents an estimated 40,000-50,000 hospitalizations of infants in America. Since 2006, hospitalizations due to rotavirus have dropped by 80% and emergency room visits by 57%.

Recent rotavirus surge

Rotavirus is a springtime illness in America. Cases usually increase over the winter and reach their highest point around April or May, then drop off as the weather gets warmer in the summer.

Since January 2026, doctors have been seeing more rotavirus in babies and young children than usual. According to CDC data, about 3% of rotavirus tests in January were positive, when normally only about 1% of tests are positive. That rate is now peaking at nearly 8% of tests.

Scientists have also found more rotavirus by monitoring community sewage to track how germs are spreading. The levels of virus in sewage have gone up by about 40% since February. Together, this tells doctors that rotavirus is spreading more widely and lasting longer than it usually does, which is why they are watching it closely.

Rotavirus vaccine rates in the U.S. have been declining – 77% of children received the full vaccine series by 8 months of age in 2018 compared to 74% of children in 2024. That leaves more infants susceptible to infection. Rotavirus surges are generally shorter in areas where more people are vaccinated against it, meaning they could last longer in areas with lower vaccination coverage.

In January 2026, the Department of Health and Human Services shifted rotavirus vaccination from a universal recommendation to a decision to be made by families and their health care providers. Although this change was recently paused by a U.S. judge, this has left public health officials increasingly concerned that rotavirus vaccination rates could continue to decline.

Preventing rotavirus infection

Proper hand-washing can help reduce rotavirus transmission, but because rotavirus is highly contagious, preventing the disease through vaccination is the most effective form of protection.

There are two oral, live‑attenuated rotavirus vaccines available for infants in the U.S. The first dose must be given before 15 weeks of age, and all doses must be completed by 8 months of age.

Rotavirus vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease in infants by 85% to 90%. This means fewer hospital visits, less risk of dehydration and more babies staying healthy at home.

But these benefits last only when most babies get vaccinated. When vaccination rates drop, rotavirus can spread more easily, and more infants, especially the youngest ones, can get seriously ill. Keeping vaccination rates high helps protect individual babies and keeps the whole community safer.

Annette Regan receives research and related funding from the National Institutes of Health, Pfizer Inc, Moderna, and Merck Sharp & Dohme paid to her institution. She consults for the Pan American Health Organization and is affiliated with Kaiser Permanente Southern California.