From Precision to Personalized: Catalyzing AI-Enabled Innovation in Drug Development.

After the so-called Golden Era of the Cameron years (2010–2015), there was a tangible adjustment in UK policy: China was designated as a ‘systemic challenge’ to Britain’s ‘security, prosperity and values’ in the Integrated Review 2021. Such developments, appeared to be prompted by system-level changes in the international environment concerning the rise of China, in particular the US shift towards diplomatic and military containment of China since the Obama administration launched its ‘pivot to Asia’. In spite of these system-level pressures on the UK and evident frictions between London and Beijing, the UK has continued to engage China at the unit-level, leading to a relationship of coopetition with China. Such complementarity of competition and cooperation is originated from domestic divisions between civil society and the security establishment, which are a manifestation of the twenty-first century globalization in the context of an international system of states. The article reaches this conclusion after having examined the state of the relationship through the lenses of different case studies involving both cooperation and restrained competition. These events are analysed by drawing information from high-level strategic documents of the UK government, the Hansard reports of the UK Parliament, official documents from industry, trade statistics, and news reports.

The affordability of health care will be the top issue in the upcoming midterm elections. However, the discussion about health care affordability began more than 15 years ago with the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was dubbed Obamacare. Under the ACA, every American was to have health insurance and access to care. Citing PolitiFact, Mark Memmott of National Public Radio in December 2013 reported that President Barack Obama told the "lie of the year," publicly claiming more than 35 times that "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it." The ACA was also supposed to allow patients to "keep their doctor" and save each family of 4 about $2500 per year, which never occurred.

ABSTRACT Racial realism is an ideological stance and a mind-set or philosophy substantiating the permanence of racism in U.S. society. It originates from critical race theory. It incriminates white supremacy. It eviscerates racial progress narratives. Yet racial realism simultaneously offers Blacks strategies to achieve fulfillment and even triumph. With nationally representative data from the 2008–2009 National Annenberg Election Study (NAES08-Online) panel survey, we investigate racial realism’s prevalence and predictors. Specifically, we create a proxy measure of racial realism using Blacks’ perceptions of race relations before versus after Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential election, which most Blacks (and whites) interpreted as indicating white supremacy’s decline. We next construct a profile of racial realists using (1) social location variables, (2) a feeling thermometer rating of Barack Obama, (3) a summary score capturing Blacks’ awareness of white stereotypes, and (4) Black solidarity variables. We estimate 30 percent of Black adults are potential racial realists. We find racial realists are aware of white stereotypes, supportive of racial and economic uplift, and likely to feel linked fate.

The concept of power has several different meanings due to varying opinions and definitions among thinkers and researchers, as well as the different theories that have interpreted it. Therefore, research into the topic of smart power and its application is of paramount importance. The smart power strategy adopted by the United States in its foreign policy after President Barack Obama took office in 2009 is considered a combination of soft power and hard power. This approach reflects the difficulty of achieving desired results using either soft or hard power alone.

The Senior LGBTQI+ Coordinator at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) led the Agency’s work on LGBTQI+ issues, integrating LGBTQI+ people across all inclusive development programs, policies, research, and training. The position was created in 2014 during the administration of Barack Obama to ensure that the promotion and protection of LGBTQI+ rights were fully incorporated into all aspects of USAID’s work. Jay Gilliam (JG) was appointed during the Joe Biden administration as the second Senior LGBTQI+ Coordinator, as the position remained vacant during the first Donald Trump administration. In 2025, Trump dismantled the entire Agency, including the LGBTQI+ portfolio. This is a slightly edited version of an interview that took place with Mona Lena Krook (MLK) via Zoom on January 28, 2026.

This article examines how, between 2010 and 2020, United States security and nuclear deterrence narratives shaped Baltic threat perceptions, alliance expectations, and assessments of extended deterrence. Drawing on strategic narrative theory and framing analysis, the study argues that U.S. nuclear policy cannot be understood solely through capabilities or doctrinal texts; rather, it is embedded in broader communicative practices through which Washington defines threats, signals resolve, and articulates its role within the Euro-Atlantic security order. Using qualitative discourse analysis supported by computational textual methods, the article analyses U.S. National Security Strategies, Nuclear Posture Reviews, presidential speeches, and senior officials’ statements from the Obama and Trump administrations, alongside Baltic policy responses. The findings demonstrate three core dynamics: 1) evolving U.S. constructions of Russia – from cooperative restraint to competitive revisionism – shaped Baltic interpretations of regional security; 2) inconsistencies and contradictions in U.S. narrative signalling undercut perceptions of alliance credibility among frontline allies; and 3) the growing salience of nuclear deterrence within U.S. rhetoric elevated its importance in Baltic defence planning. The article concludes that the credibility of extended deterrence in the Baltic region depends not only on military posture but on the coherence, stability, and clarity of U.S. strategic storytelling.

ABSTRACT Systemic racism comprises anti-Black practices, white privilege, legacies of economic and other racial disparities, and an ideological frame whites create to rationalize their privilege. This study asks whether Black people’s belief in the significance of systemic racism (i.e. racial capital) associates with the perception Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential election showed Blacks now enjoy racial equality. It also asks whether exposure to institutional inequality (i.e. criminal justice contact, unemployment, lack of health insurance, and housing instability) moderates the association between racial capital and the perception Blacks now enjoy racial equality. Analyses of nationally representative data from the Outlook on Life Surveys, 2012, indicate that racial capital associates inversely with perceiving Blacks now enjoy racial equality. Additionally, exposure to institutional inequality moderates the relationship: When racial capital and exposure to institutional inequality are high, Black people tend to perceive that Obama’s 2008 presidential election showed Blacks now enjoy racial equality.

This paper will explore the change in the U.S. foreign policy in the Iran-Israel conflict under the leadership of Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden and how that will impact regional peace and security. Having been influenced by ideological enmity and strategic dilemma, the Iran-Israel conflict has long been a determinant in geopolitics in the Middle East. Obama administration prioritized diplomacy as evidenced by the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) whereas Trump chose an adversarial approach, pulling out of the JCPOA and becoming a strong ally of Israel. The course of action taken by Biden is one of cautious involvement, that of trying to revive diplomacy without losing the friendship of Israel. This study poses the question of the effect of these policy changes on the conflict situation and the future of regional peace. Using a qualitative comparative study of official documents of U.S. policy, speeches, and expert reports, the research concludes that policy inconsistency in the United States has led to instability and has provided diplomatic opportunities. The results underscore the importance of the balanced U.S. policy, which would focus on the de-escalation, multilateralism, and sustainable peace systems in the area.

When President Biden won the 2020 election and Democrats gained control of Congress, a climate policy window opened. Many voters, activists, and lawmakers wondered: after 10 years of inaction, would the United States finally pass a federal climate law? This article explains the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in 2022, the single largest climate and clean energy investment in American history. Our research draws on participant observation, interviews, primary and secondary sources. We construct a five-year political history from 2018, identifying key points of departure from Congress’s attempt to pass the Waxman-Markey bill during the Obama administration. We argue that the IRA passed because activist outsiders used scientific target-setting and the Democratic Presidential primary to put climate on the political agenda. They built stronger coalitions with tighter coordination. Congress chose to pass the bill through budget reconciliation, allowing Democrats to sidestep the filibuster, and empowering their most conservative member. Finally, time constraints and outside pressure led key negotiators to secretly finalize the deal without opponents weighing in. We briefly describe implementation and the second Trump administration’s attempts to repeal the law. Our conclusions about activist strategy, legislative compromise, and policy durability have implications for policymakers, advocates, and social scientists working on climate politics.

ABSTRACT The Russia–Ukraine war constitutes a major conflict of the twenty-first century, while the role of U.S. governmental discourse in shaping international interpretations of the war remains insufficiently examined. The present corpus-assisted discourse study (CADS) draws on a corpus of official White House online records to examine the U.S. governmental discourse on Russia and Ukraine across the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations (2014–2024). By analysing twelve discourses identified through grouping the collocates of “Russia” and “Ukraine”, this study finds that U.S. positions toward Russia and Ukraine have undergone multiple shifts over the past decade thereby extending the traditionally static perspective within Othering theory. These discursive shifts reflect both policy adjustments and the ways in which U.S. governmental discourse adapts to evolving international realities.

ABSTRACT This article examines how Latino millennial student activists navigated debates over the meaning and relevance of the “Chicano” label in the late 2000s, a period shaped by both intensified anti-immigrant politics and narratives of post-racial progress following Barack Obama’s election. Drawing on a comparative ethnography of six Latino student organizations across three different types of campuses between 2008 and 2010, the study combines participant observation, 60 in-depth interviews, and a survey of 80 members. We argue that labeling debates are moments of boundary contestation that emerge when personal and collective identities are misaligned. Building on theories of Latinidad as permanent political contestation and using a sacred—profane—mundane framework, we show how students interpreted the Chicano label as deeply meaningful, exclusionary or outdated, or politically irrelevant. Although organizations often adopted a shared panethnic Latino identity, variation in personal identification generated tensions over historical continuity, inclusivity, and political efficacy. By foregrounding meaning-making processes, the article demonstrates how younger activists rework rather than simply abandon inherited political identities, contributing to scholarship on collective identity formation, racialization, and social movement mobilization.

This article examines the evolution of U.S. Arctic policy over the past decade, focusing on the period from the Obama administration to the beginning of Trump’s second presidency in 2025. Drawing on the analysis of strategic documents, public discourse, and institutional behavior, it identifies how shifting priorities have shaped the Arctic as a foreign policy domain—ranging from multilateral climate cooperation to sovereignty-driven strategic competition. The study discusses how patterns of continuity and rupture manifest across administrations, and how competing visions of national interest have redefined the Arctic as a foreign policy domain. While the Biden administration reintroduced elements of multilateralism, environmental stewardship and climate diplomacy, it operated under the structural constraints of renewed great power competition following the outbreak of Ukraine War in 2022. Early indications from Trump’s second presidency suggest a reinforced emphasis on sovereignty, economic exploitation, and strategic rivalry, undermining environmental priorities and cooperative governance. The study contributes to the literature by tracing patterns of continuity and rupture across administrations and by situating U.S. Arctic policy within the broader dynamics of global strategic competition and institutional change.

This study explores the linguistic, cultural, and ideological challenges faced the interpreters in translating politically sensitive speeches, focusing on the case of former U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2008 victory speech in Chicago. Employing a qualitative comparative analysis, the research examines simultaneous Arabic translations provided by Al Jazeera and Sky News Arabia, identifying the strategies used and their impact on meaning and reception. The findings highlight that interpretation is influenced by cultural contexts, ideological nuances, and linguistic constraints, with literal translation often compromising meaning fidelity. Through discourse and thematic content analysis, the study shw the necessity for interpreters to balance accuracy and cultural sensitivity. Insights from this research contribute to improving interpreter training for politically charged and inspirational speeches, advancing practices in diplomacy and media translation.

ABSTRACT The intersection of environmental politics, regionalism, and Congressional policymaking is not well-examined by extant scholarship, so it is unclear to what extent regionalism within parties explains Congressional actions, particularly as it pertains to shifting partisan dynamics and focus on nationalized issues, such as climate change. The authors use data from the League of Conservation Voters to track voting behaviors among members of Congress from 1971 to 2022. Findings indicate that regional differences within parties did not emerge until the Reagan administration, but subsequently increased in significance, hitting their peak during the Obama administration. By the Trump administration, regionalism within parties began to dissipate as partisan voting practices converged on environmental issues.

ABSTRACT Organized groups frequently appeal to the president of the United States for support of their policy agenda. However, even if presidents are broadly supportive of the groups in question, they may not always be able or willing to meet their demands. Social movements, in particular, which seek change that presidents might view as a threat to their existing party coalition and public support, face imposing challenges in forming partnerships with the White House. How can social movements pressure the president to support their objectives? We explore the relationship between presidents and social movements through a historical case study of the interactions between President Barack Obama and the LGBT movement during Obama's first term in office. While Obama was broadly supportive of gay rights, the relationship between the White House and social activists during his first term in office was often rocky. On the basis of in‐depth interviews with LGBT activists, White House officials, and Democratic politicians, we show how gay rights activists, with critical support from Democratic party leaders, won the White House's support on issues such as the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and same‐sex marriage by pressuring Obama publicly while simultaneously providing the administration with data and guidance in private. We conclude that the relationship between presidents, parties, and social movements, while highly contentious, is a critical dimension of contemporary partisanship.

An invisible wall separates the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). This wall blocks inter-agency communication, depriving the PTO of information relevant to patent applications and depriving the FDA of information relevant to drug-approval applications. Consequently, it is too easy for a drug company to tell the PTO 'our drug is new' (in hopes of speeding a patent grant) while telling the FDA 'our drug is not new' (in hopes of speeding drug approval). Better communication between the FDA and PTO would increase agency accuracy by preventing inconsistent representations, and would increase agency efficiency by avoiding informational asymmetry and duplication of effort. Presidents Obama and Trump created enhanced mechanisms that allow the PTO to receive information from counterparts in foreign countries and from industry about what is truly innovative. It would also be helpful for the PTO to enjoy the expertise of its own sister agency, located down the road. Despite scholarly and governmental proposals to mandate cooperation between the FDA and the PTO, such coordination remains limited in practice. This article proposes to break through the invisible wall between the FDA and the PTO, and to open pathways for communication between the two agencies.

This article builds on scholarship in the social sciences, ethnic and feminist studies, and education to examine methodological innovations and ethical considerations for conducting research with immigrant populations. Specifically, it focuses on those who received protections through Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the 2012 program implemented by President Barack Obama providing young immigrants relief from deportation, work permits, and access to higher education. The article is organized around three central methods: (1) interviews, which provide rich insights into young immigrants' lived experiences; (2) testimonios , which document immigrants' experiences in their own voices and call for collective forms of resistance; and (3) participant observation, which reveals the everyday negotiation of illegality and belonging. Across each section, I address the ethical considerations involved when studying marginalized immigrant populations and draw connections to my own research on DACA recipients living in Colorado. The paper concludes with a discussion of how qualitative research can be understood not only as knowledge production but also as a potential site of empowerment and resistance for undocumented immigrants to document injustice, contest their erasure, and challenge anti-immigrant discourses.

Every word spoken, every sentence constructed, and every discourse contains ideological weight that reflects the power structures within society. In the political landscape of the United States, presidential speeches hold a special position as a genre of discourse that not only reflects the individual vision of a leader, but also represents the aspirations, values, and identity of the nation. This phenomenon becomes even more significant when analyzed through the lens of critical discourse analysis, which allows researchers to uncover layers of meaning hidden behind linguistic constructions. This study uses critical discourse analysis to examine Barack Obama's farewell speech as a complex discourse practice that reflects and shapes contemporary American socio-political reality. Using Fairclough's three-dimensional analytical framework, this study analyzes the speech in terms of its textual, discursive, and sociocultural dimensions during the contentious transition to the Trump administration. Textual analysis reveals the strategic use of language with carefully chosen vocabulary and grammatical constructions, reinforcing the themes of unity and democracy. At the discourse practice level, the speech employs effective rhetorical strategies, including personal addresses and compelling narratives to build emotional connections with the audience. Sociocultural analysis shows deep integration with the American institutional context, evidenced by the strategic choice of location in Chicago, acknowledgment of racial challenges, and calls to overcome intensifying political polarization. Findings indicate that Obama's farewell speech illustrates how political discourse functions as an instrument for maintaining and transforming democratic values during critical political transitions. The speech's power stems from its sophisticated linguistic construction and its capacity to respond to the broader sociopolitical context with profound nuance.

The life history framework was applied to US presidential elections. Six stages were recognized, beginning with declaration of candidacy and ending with inauguration. Evidence suggested that each stage has a distinctive constellation of artifacts. Of special interest were unofficial inauguration artifacts. In this photo essay the author documented a sample of such artifacts offered for sale by Black street vendors in connection with Barack Hussein Obama’s 2009 inauguration. The artifacts were mostly small enough to be tucked into suitcases, inexpensive and clearly marked the event through visual performance. Tourists who came for the inauguration were agents who distributed these artifacts throughout the country, perhaps the world.