Part the First: Pope Leo XIV and the Larger World. In the realm of academic historians, few can match the caliber of Greg Grandin. In his insightful work, The Education of Pope Leo XIV, he places the former Father Bob Prevost, now known as Pope Leo XIV, within the broader context of our so-called modern world:
When Father Bob Prevost first arrived in Peru as an Augustinian missionary in 1985, he was 30 years old and had been a priest for three years. He candidly admits to having been naïve. “It was all very natural to me,” he recounted to his biographer Elise Ann Allen, observing the clergy’s efforts to “build up small communities” and viewing the parish as a space for individuals to connect, support, and uplift one another. However, he noted a stark contrast when visiting “other parts of the country.”
He was, in fact, underestimating the situation. Prevost had arrived in a nation where the Catholic Church was embroiled in a civil war—some theologians advocated for a gospel rooted in class struggle and political liberation, while others remained steadfast in upholding a more traditional doctrine. Over the previous two decades, liberation theology had gained traction among Latin America’s marginalized communities. Notably, Peru emerged as a stronghold for this movement… Its most prominent theologian was the Peruvian Father Gustavo Gutiérrez, who contended that genuine Christian faith necessitates solidarity with the poor and the dismantling of systemic sources of their oppression. His seminal 1968 lecture “Hacia una teología de la liberación,” delivered in Chimbote, a struggling port city, effectively christened the movement.
Liberation theology radiated from Latin America to the newly decolonized regions of the Global South and into cities across the industrialized world, notably Prevost’s hometown of Chicago. In this city, Gutiérrez frequently visited DePaul University and the Catholic Theological Union, both of which incorporated his writings into their curricula and facilitated exchanges between their institutions and his Lima-based Instituto Bartolomé de las Casas. Even the Church of England drew from Gutiérrez’s writings to protest Margaret Thatcher’s dismantling of the UK’s welfare state. Both Rome and Washington viewed the movement as a significant threat. Richard Nixon voiced his concerns to Henry Kissinger in a March 1971 phone conversation, lamenting that the Catholic Church could no longer be relied upon for support in the fight against communism.
In 1978, the Polish cardinal Karol Józef Wojtyła was elected pope and took the name John Paul II, attempting to reorient the Church’s focus back to that struggle. One of his early targets in a substantial effort to curb liberation theology was Peru. In 1983, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (an institution with roots tracing back to the Inquisition), initiated a prolonged inquiry into Gutiérrez’s writings, searching for doctrinal discrepancies. Prevost found himself in Peru amid this ongoing scrutiny…
That sets the stage for our present scenario. The journey from John XXIII’s openness to the reactions of John Paul II and Benedict XVI—with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher playing their secular roles—suggests a Church that is now regaining its foundational Christian essence with figures like Francis and Leo XIV. This evolution is worthy of careful contemplation. Given Karol Wojtyla’s experiences in a Poland suppressed by Soviet domination, his response is, to some extent, understandable. Ratzinger’s demeanor appeared emblematic of a modern Inquisition. For those of us who lived through it, the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia, evokes memories of Father Oscar Romero and the Maryknoll nuns who were murdered by American proxies in Latin America. Perhaps Leo XIV will emerge as a positive influence in our world. As liberation theology waned, Pentecostal movements gained substantial ground in Latin America, an outcome that raises questions: was it consequence or mere coincidence?
Additionally:
Pope Leo XIV has acted swiftly since his election… His inaugural papal document, Dilexi Te, released in October 2025, rejected the “pseudo-scientific” assertion that free markets would alleviate poverty and warned against a Church that aligns itself with elites for privilege and security. He condemned the inhumane treatment of migrants, likening it to treating them “as if they were garbage, not human beings,” denounced the U.S. war on Iran as “unjust,” and criticized the “neocolonial tendencies” in Africa, alongside condemning Israel’s bombings in Gaza, particularly the loss of children. In his Holy Thursday sermon, he preached that “the imperialist occupation of the world is disrupted from within; the violence that until now has dominated is unmasked. The poor, imprisoned, and rejected Messiah descends into the darkness of death, yet through this act, He brings forth a new creation.” This reflects classic liberation theology: the belief that Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection shine a light on the falsehoods sustaining worldly oppression and terror.
Do we have reason to hope for Pope Leo XIV? Absolutely. However, optimism requires action—merely hoping that everything will turn out fine without personal involvement doesn’t suffice. Unlike passive acceptance, Leo XIV and his predecessor Francis have both shown a willingness to advocate for those in need. Despite their flaws and the Church’s evident shortcomings, they stand as admirable human beings worthy of our attention.
Part the Second: Eugenicists Just Keep Rewriting the Script. In a recent issue of The New York Review, M.W. Feldman and Jessica Riskin explore this topic in Not in Your Genome:
The research reveals that beginning a proposition with “it turns out” and reinforcing it with statistics and acronyms—especially when framed in the passive voice and citing footnotes—can significantly influence people’s acceptance of the claim, as demonstrated by adherence levels influenced by their SCI (science credulity index) and BDS (baloney detection score).
This process is outlined in Dalton Conley’s new book, The Social Genome (The New Science of Nature and Nurture), where he asserts, “almost every trait studied shows some level of genetic influence,” claiming “about 40 percent” of educational advancement correlates with genetic differences, “70 percent for income,” and “75 percent for cognitive ability.” However, his footnote lacks empirical evidence and instead reasserts that PGIs (“polygenic indices”)—methodologies categorizing genetic variants—are “incredibly useful for studying the social world.”
Conley champions the potential of PGIs, stating that “we can take a saliva sample from a baby,” analyze its DNA, calculate the PGI, and “predict that baby’s odds of completing college.” He concedes that the PGI’s predictive capacity is environment-dependent, implying that changes in society could affect these predictions. Yet, this is a trivial caveat and consequently, somewhat dismissible. He further claims that PGIs have become akin to FICO scores in human genetics, asserting that “the PGI has unveiled the hidden logic governing social behavior.”
Not long ago, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) were heralded as a solution to myriad diseases believed to have genetic links, yet the anticipated breakthroughs haven’t materialized. As for PGIs, they resemble FICO scores—yet they offer far less predictive power. Once upon a time, credit scores weren’t a glaring “Scarlet F” emblazoned on one’s forehead. This entire endeavor underscores the vacuity of striving for an “engineering ideal in biology.” In reality, it often translates to:
Input – Dark Gray Box – Output
Feldman and Raskin venture into contentious territory, alluding to the President’s repeated characterizations of “high-IQ” supporters and “low-IQ” detractors:
In an unexpected passage, Conley acknowledges Donald Trump’s frequent references to “good genes,” conceding that “only white supremacists liken humans to thoroughbreds through what is labeled ‘racehorse theory.’” However, instead of denouncing this comparison, he claims humans present an even “more interesting game to calculate the odds on.” This raises concerns about a field Conley dubs BG, an acronym that perhaps deserves more scrutiny than civility allows.
An intriguing question arises about Conley: “What changed?” Did he conclude that children in poverty are there due to their genetic make-up? Likely, as evident from the various GWAS projects on which he has participated. Ultimately, GWAS could falter since “statistically significant” does not equate to “clinically relevant.” Earlier in his career, however, he published research indicating:
Poverty has significantly impacted children’s health and development across various measures. For instance, poverty correlates with higher rates of neonatal and postneonatal mortality, increased risk of injuries from accidents or abuse, heightened chances of asthma, and lower developmental scores at various ages.
For those interested, I reiterate a previous critique of another recent proponent of eugenics, Kathryn Paige Harden’s The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality, available for reading here, along with a subsequent exchange here. Harden’s latest offering, Original Sin: On the Genetics of Vice, the Problem of Blame, and the Future of Forgiveness, piques my curiosity; I wonder if she draws on Augustine of Hippo. I think I’ll await the TED Talk, despite my struggle to endure more than five minutes of one so far.
Part the Third: Do We Really Want Trofim Lysenko Russell Vought Choosing Winners in our Research Grant Lottery? Over the past week, I have received emails from various scientific organizations I am affiliated with. For instance:
Dear KLG,
Yesterday, the AAAS voiced its concerns regarding a concerning proposal from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that threatens future scientific discoveries by intertwining politics with the evaluation and prioritization of scientific endeavors, undermining both Congressional intent and the will of the American public.
This proposed regulation disregards the principles that have historically made America a leader in research and development. Among various detrimental policy choices, the most troubling is that it would prioritize political considerations over merit, allowing OMB budget analysts to override scientific peer reviews regarding which projects deserve funding. If implemented, the futures of American cures, national security, and economic integrity may hinge on the scientific insights of the Director of OMB, the nation’s chief bureaucrat. We must vocally oppose this development.
You can view my complete statement here, as well as an editorial from Science‘s Editor-in-Chief Holden Thorp here. For more details on the proposed rule, check the ScienceInsider article…
Sincerely,
Sudip S. Parikh, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer
Executive Publisher, Science journals
American Association for the Advancement of Science
For a more nuanced analysis of this topic, David Gorski at Science-Based Medicine has provided insight that is worth reading. Additionally, drawing on my extensive experience—over forty years—where my research has been financed by NSF, NIH, the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society, I wish to share some perspectives on how funding systems operate. Throughout this time, I’ve encountered individuals alleging that scientists leverage research funding solely for personal gain. When I challenge them to explain how funding mechanisms work, their responses often range from uninformed to entirely oblivious.
For starters, there are far more lucrative avenues for acquiring wealth than for the vast majority of scientists, who cannot simply “cash out” thanks to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 (medical professions serve as an example—an interesting topic for another discussion). While succeeding in grant acquisition might lead to promotions and salary increases, none of that funding goes directly to the principal investigator (PI). Typically, institutions allocate a small percentage (between 10-25%) of the PI’s “overhead” into an unrestricted account exclusively for laboratory support. This funds essential resources, including student travel for scientific meetings, dues for scientific society memberships, journal subscriptions, and necessary equipment that grant agencies typically restrict. Importantly, these accounts undergo real-time audits, and every cent spent must comply with strict regulations known to every scientist and departmental administrator. As a result, instances of “waste, fraud, and abuse” remain remarkably low, except for the rare individuals who are caught diverting funds.
Control plays a crucial role, as the United States navigates the aftermath of policies such as NAFTA and the repercussions of deindustrialization, losing grip on areas of significance. Russell Vought aims to dictate research directions to align with the “priorities of the Current Administration.” I await new investigations claiming that smoking doesn’t cause human illness. Groundbreaking researchers might even base their findings on the discredited conclusions of Hans J. Eysenck, a historically influential psychologist and a student of Sir Cyril Burt, who theorized that personality types influence cancer susceptibility. That ought to be intriguing.
Part the Fourth: A Stopped Analog Clock Is Right Twice a Day. The current U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services acknowledges the detrimental effects of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), and he is correct. The American Journal of Public Health features a special edition detailing this issue. Per STAT News:
In a recent statement, an expert collective on ultra-processed foods, contributing to a special edition of the American Journal of Public Health, called on policymakers to take decisive action: “Do policy!”
Marion Nestle, a noted food politics scholar, emphasized this directive during a press call leading up to the issue’s release, supported by polling data reflecting widespread bipartisan concern over the health risks associated with ultra-processed foods.
A survey of 2,000 U.S. adults included in the new issue indicates that a significant majority across the political spectrum recognizes ultra-processed foods as addictive and a leading cause of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases. Furthermore, there is majority backing for various government interventions such as ensuring the safety of additives before including them in food products, banning artificial dyes, mandating warning labels, and compelling companies to reduce sugar and salt content in their offerings.
“In this polarized era where Americans disagree on so much, we find consensus and public support surrounding this issue, which should galvanize policymakers,” stated Lindsey Smith Taillie, a nutrition epidemiologist at UNC Gillings School of Public Health, who co-authored a paper discussing the environmental impact of the single-use plastics that many ultra-processed foods are packaged in.
Despite public consensus and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s focus on ultra-processed foods as a primary health concern during his tenure as U.S. Secretary of Health, experts contend that the federal government is not taking adequate measures against the food industry. Foremost on their minds is Kennedy’s assurance that the Food and Drug Administration will soon define ultra-processed foods, with Taillie underscoring the significance of this undertaking: “If we mishandle this definition, we risk excluding a mere fraction of the ultra-processed foods in circulation, resulting in minimal health impact,” she cautioned. The experts have shown support for the widely accepted Nova classification system.
While widespread agreement does not inherently validate an opinion, in this scenario, the evidence is overwhelming, necessitating transformation. Particularly striking and frustrating is an article featured in the AJPH special issue, Ultra-Processed Foods in the Global Food System: The Role of US Tobacco Companies (which appears to be publicly accessible; a click on the PDF or EPUB links will lead to this paper and others). The abstract states:
This study aims to assess U.S. tobacco companies’ involvement in the global food industry, specifically their dissemination of ultra-processed and hyper-palatable foods, and the strategies they employed for global expansion. We examined and extracted data from 113 primary source industry documents.
The findings reveal that U.S. tobacco companies established billion-dollar food enterprises internationally between the 1980s and mid-2000s. They applied the same strategies that facilitated their international tobacco businesses to thrive in the food sector.
Ultimately, the results suggest that U.S. tobacco companies leveraged their extensive experience in tobacco to maximize the success of their food operations, distributing ultra-processed foods worldwide. Regulatory measures addressing the multiplicity of addictive products that tobacco companies have introduced globally may be essential to safeguard public health. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print June 3, 2026:e1–e11. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2026.308501)
Such revelations are hardly surprising. Business operationalizes just like that. We can only hope this issue gains traction. It’s worth noting there’s no need to sharpen the definition of UPFs; Carlos Montiero and his colleagues have already done the legwork, and if the Nobel Committee is attentive, he may well earn a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine soon.
Thank you for taking the time to read this! As always, your comments and feedback are welcome. Until next week.
