Even as America worries about Iraq's Shiite-Sunni divide, a similar fault line threatens Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the International Crisis Group. The kingdom's two million Shiites account for only 10 to 15 percent of the population, but they are concentrated in the Eastern Province, which is close to Iraq and home to the country's largest oil fields and processing facilities. Saudi Arabia's Sunni monarchs have long pursued policies intended "simultaneously to pacify and marginalize" the Shiite population: encouraging Sunnis to resettle in the Eastern Province, seizing the property and merchandise of Shiite merchants, and imposing restrictions on Shiite religious observances. Shiite clerics have generally responded by urging distance from political matters and quiet, gradual attempts to bring about reform. The report notes, however, that a Saudi branch of Hizbollah was founded in 1987 and continues to operate, and that thirteen Saudi Shiites were indicted for their alleged role in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers. It adds that many Saudi Sunnis think their Shiite countrymen are "biding their time, banking on external support—U.S. or other—to establish their own independent state." The risk of violent confrontation is currently low, the report concludes, but this relative calm brings its own danger—that the Saudi government will feel little pressure to take actions that might pre-empt a more militant, destabilizing Shiism.
—"The Shiite Question in Saudi Arabia," International Crisis Group
Has the Bush administration made much headway in its second-term efforts to ease tensions between the United States and Europe? A new survey suggests that the answer is no. Of respondents in nine EU countries, 52 percent think U.S.-European relations have stayed the same since the president's re-election; 25 percent think they have worsened; and just 20 percent think they have improved. (Europeans appear to dislike the Bush administration in particular more than they do the idea of U.S. leadership in general.) There seems to be slightly more eagerness for rapprochement on this side of the Atlantic: 54 percent of Americans would like to see the country move closer to Europe in security and diplomacy, whereas roughly the same percentage of Europeans would like to see the EU become more independent of the United States.
When asked to rate their feelings toward America on a scale of one to 100, Europeans and citizens of Turkey (a country currently under consideration for EU membership) averaged a lukewarm 50; in contrast, Americans asked to rate their feelings toward European nations gave Germany, Spain, the UK, and Italy scores of 60 or higher, and granted even France a 53.
—"Transatlantic Trends, Key Findings 2005," German Marshall Fund et al.
It's pretty clearly not a good idea to recruit the former head of the International Arabian Horse Association to run the Federal Emergency Management Agency—but a new study suggests that the unfortunate case of Michael Brown represents just one extreme example of the problem with tapping outsiders to head government bureaus. Using the Bush administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool, which grades federal programs on a scale of one to 100, a political scientist has found that agencies headed by career civil servants score five or six points higher, on average, than those run by political appointees (factors such as the size and complexity of the agencies were controlled for). He notes that although political appointees tend to have more education and more-varied management experience than bureau chiefs who come up through the ranks, longtime civil servants have experience within the agency they head and tend to remain in their posts longer than political appointees. In addition, political appointees are likely to have other appointees, rather than experienced civil servants, as their top advisers: 10 to 33 percent of executives in appointee-run agencies are appointees themselves, compared with just three percent in agencies run by career officials. Brown's FEMA, the study comments, had a particularly "appointee-laden" management structure.
—"Political Appointees, Bureau Chiefs, and Federal Management Performance," David E. Lewis, Princeton University
They may be learning to heal, but doctors in training are often a danger to their patients (among others), two new studies suggest. The first considers the "July phenomenon" in teaching hospitals—that is, the reduced performance associated with midsummer, when a cohort of new residents arrives. Using eight years' worth of data from a large sample of U.S. hospitals, the authors find that patients who check in during this turnover period, and are therefore treated by less-experienced residents, tend to have longer hospital stays—and, at the major teaching hospitals, higher mortality rates. (The only bright spot for patients who fall ill during this period is that these increased risks are not seen at hospitals that report high "teaching intensity.") Residents, new or otherwise, can pose a risk even after hours. The second study, of thirty-four residents working in an academic medical center, found that at the close of a typically long (ninety-hour) week they were as impaired as if they had drunk three vodka tonics in half an hour.
—"Cohort Turnover and Productivity: The July Phenomenon in Teaching Hospitals," Robert S. Huckman and Jason R. Barro, National Bureau of Economic Research; "Neurobehavioral Performance of Residents After Heavy Night Call vs. After Alcohol Ingestion," J. Todd Arnedt et al., The Journal of the American Medical Association
Survival rates among breast-cancer patients are the same whether the treatment is a lumpectomy followed by radiation or a full mastectomy, and current medical guidelines encourage doctors to promote the former, breast-conserving option—yet mastectomies are still widespread. A new study suggests that this is not, as is commonly thought, the result of doctors' "overtreatment and failure to involve women in treatment decisions" but just the opposite: patients are more likely to choose a mastectomy than their doctors are to recommend one. The study surveyed 1,844 breast-cancer patients in Los Angeles and Detroit, asking whether they had decided on their own what kind of surgery to have, made the decision jointly with their doctors, or let their doctors decide. Among the white women surveyed, 27 percent of those who had made their own decision chose a mastectomy, as did 17 percent of those whose doctors had helped them decide—but only 5.3 percent of the white women who'd entrusted the decision entirely to their doctors ended up with the more invasive procedure. (No variation was found among black patients.) The authors posit that patients choose mastectomy because the risk of recurrence (though not death) is greater with lumpectomy and because they want to avoid the effects of radiation.
—"Patient Involvement in Surgery Treatment Decisions for Breast Cancer," Steven J. Katz et al., Journal of Clinical Oncology
This year's Supreme Court confirmation hearings included much talk about the importance of legal precedent—but recent Supreme Court opinions have cited fewer precedents than those written during the 1950s, according to a new study. Analyzing opinions written from the late eighteenth century to the present, two political scientists find that the average number of citations rose throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as the principle of stare decisis, or letting previous decisions stand, became widely accepted and the number of cases available for citation increased. Under Chief Justice Earl Warren the trend reversed, with the average number of citations in an opinion plummeting from about fifteen in 1953 to about five in 1969—a phenomenon, the authors note, in keeping with the popular perception of the Warren Court as activist or even revolutionary. Over subsequent years, as the Court gradually became more conservative, the average number of citations per opinion rose; by the early 1990s it stood at just over twenty. By the end of that decade, however, it had begun to fall again (the study does not speculate as to why), and in 2000 it was down to about seven—not much more than during the Warren era.
—"The Authority of Supreme Court Precedent: A Network Analysis," James H. Fowler and Sangick Jeon, University of California at Davis
They're not just for making soup anymore—pressure cookers are now weapons in the terrorist arsenal, a recent Department of Homeland Security bulletin warns. Ways to convert them into improvised bombs are "commonly taught in Afghan terrorist training camps"; in the past four years pressure-cooker bombs were used in four terrorist attacks or attempted attacks in India, Algeria, and Nepal. The bulletin points out that "as a common cooking utensil, the pressure cooker is often overlooked" by police and customs officials, making it an ideal vehicle for explosives. Officials are advised to be suspicious in particular of "any pressure cooker weighing more than expected."
—"Potential Terrorist Use of Pressure Cookers," Department of Homeland Security
Women appear to pay more attention than men to cleanliness, according to a study of hand-washing in public restrooms—although both sexes like to think (or like others to think) that they are more hygienic than they actually are. Ninety percent of the women observed by researchers washed their hands after using the toilet, whereas only 75 percent of the men did. Overall, 83 percent of the people observed washed their hands—but when polled, 91 percent claimed they always wash up after using public facilities. The study was conducted at six locations in four U.S. cities—so if you were in the restroom at New York's Grand Central Station or Chicago's Shedd Aquarium and noticed someone making notations on a clipboard, this may be why. The best hand-washing habits were seen at Chicago's aquarium; the worst were at Atlanta's Turner Field during a Braves game.
—"Don't Get Caught Dirty Handed," Harris Interactive, American Society for Microbiology, Soap and Detergent Association
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.