ETS
Educational Testing Service (ETS) is an American nonprofit organization dedicated to developing, administering, and scoring standardized educational assessments worldwide.[1] Founded in 1947 through the merger of the American Council on Education's Cooperative Test Service, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching's Graduate Record Office, and the College Entrance Examination Board's testing operations, ETS has grown to become a leading provider of assessments measuring academic skills, professional competencies, and language proficiency.[2][3] Its portfolio includes high-stakes exams such as the TOEFL for English-language ability, the GRE for graduate and business school admissions, and the Praxis assessments for teacher licensure, which are utilized by millions of test-takers annually to support admissions, certification, and educational policy decisions.[4][5][6] ETS emphasizes rigorous psychometric research to ensure test validity and fairness, with a stated mission to advance quality and equity in education by building assessments grounded in measurement science.[1][7] The organization has faced notable controversies, including lawsuits alleging scoring irregularities in certification tests and disputes over automated cheating detection in international language exams, where affected test-takers have challenged ETS's evidence and processes, leading to settlements and ongoing scrutiny of its security protocols.[8][9][10]Organizations
Educational Testing Service
The Educational Testing Service (ETS) is a private nonprofit organization dedicated to educational assessment and measurement. Founded in 1947 through the merger of testing operations from the American Council on Education, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, and the College Entrance Examination Board, ETS centralized standardized testing efforts to improve efficiency and quality in evaluating student abilities.[3] Headquartered in Lawrence Township, New Jersey, the organization operates globally, developing assessments grounded in psychometric research to measure skills in academic, professional, and language contexts.[1] Its stated mission emphasizes advancing measurement science to support learning outcomes and inform policy, with a focus on validity, reliability, and fairness in test design.[4] ETS administers a range of high-stakes exams, including the TOEFL for English language proficiency among non-native speakers pursuing higher education, the GRE General Test for graduate and business school admissions evaluating verbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning, and analytical writing, and the Praxis assessments for teacher certification and licensure across U.S. states. [6] [5] It also scores the SAT under contract with the College Board and offers the TOEIC for workplace English evaluation, with tests taken by millions annually in over 180 countries.[4] These instruments provide data on cognitive abilities predictive of academic performance, as validated through longitudinal studies correlating scores with outcomes like college GPA.[11] While ETS's assessments have shaped admissions and certification processes, contributing to merit-based selection, the organization has faced scrutiny over test security and equity. Instances of widespread cheating, particularly in international TOEFL centers using memorized question pools, prompted ETS to implement stricter proctoring and question rotation, though critics argue early responses were inadequate.[10] Claims of cultural or socioeconomic bias persist, often from advocacy groups questioning predictive validity for underrepresented populations, despite ETS's fairness analyses showing comparable correlations across demographics.[12] Recent declines in test demand, driven by test-optional policies at universities post-2020, have led to financial strain, including layoffs affecting hundreds of employees in 2023 and 2024.[13]Environmental Policy and Economics
European Union Emissions Trading System
The European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is a cap-and-trade mechanism established to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from specified sectors by placing an absolute limit on total allowable emissions and enabling trading of emission allowances. Launched on January 1, 2005, it represents the world's first multinational emissions trading scheme, initially covering carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from approximately 12,000 installations representing about 46% of the EU's total CO₂ emissions at the time.[14][15] The system operates across EU member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway, with covered entities required to monitor, report, and surrender allowances equivalent to their verified emissions annually.[16] The EU ETS targets emissions from power generation, energy-intensive industries such as steel, cement, and chemicals, and intra-EU aviation; as of 2024, it has expanded to include maritime shipping for vessels over 5,000 gross tonnage calling at EU ports.[16][17] Allowances, each permitting one tonne of CO₂ equivalent, are either auctioned or allocated for free based on benchmarks to mitigate carbon leakage risks for trade-exposed sectors.[18] The overall cap declines over time, with the current phase (2021–2030) targeting a 62% reduction from 2005 levels by 2030 through linear reduction factors and intake into the Market Stability Reserve (MSR).[19] The system's first phase (2005–2007) served as a pilot, with national allocation plans leading to significant over-allocation of allowances—emissions totaled 2.02 billion tonnes against 2.14 billion allocated—resulting in surplus permits and a price collapse from over €30 per tonne to near zero by 2007.[15][20] This undermined the carbon price signal, yielding no verifiable emissions reductions beyond business-as-usual trends driven by fuel switching and efficiency gains, while enabling windfall profits estimated at €20–€71 billion for power generators who passed on imaginary abatement costs to consumers despite receiving free allocations.[21][20] Phase II (2008–2012), aligned with the Kyoto Protocol, continued free allocations but saw emissions drop 7% amid the financial crisis, though surplus persisted at over 2 billion allowances by 2012, keeping prices low (averaging €13 per tonne).[15][22] Phase III (2013–2020) centralized cap-setting at the EU level, shifting to greater auctioning (over 50% by 2020) and introducing backloading to withhold 900 million allowances from auctions, alongside the 2018 MSR to automatically adjust supply based on surplus levels exceeding 833 million tonnes.[15] These reforms addressed earlier flaws, with allowance prices rising to €25–€30 per tonne by 2020. Empirical analyses attribute a 4–10% emissions reduction to the ETS in high-surplus periods, primarily through electricity sector fuel switching from coal to gas, though causality is confounded by concurrent renewable energy subsidies, economic downturns, and deindustrialization.[23][20] Windfall profits in power persisted into this phase, estimated at €15–€20 billion annually in some countries due to free allocations not reflecting actual costs.[24] In Phase IV (2021–2030), the cap reduces by 2.2% annually (rising to 4.3% from 2024 under the 2023 revision), with MSR intake accelerating to 24% of surplus allowances yearly until 2030, aiming for tighter supply.[19] Emissions covered by the ETS fell 47% from 2005 to 2023, but studies indicate only a fraction is causally linked to the price mechanism, with broader reductions driven by offshoring, efficiency, and non-ETS policies; innovation incentives remain limited as low early prices delayed low-carbon R&D.[23][25] As of October 2025, allowance prices hover around €78 per tonne, reflecting demand from expanded coverage and reduced free allocations, though volatility persists due to economic factors and MSR dynamics.[26] A parallel ETS2 for buildings, road transport, and fuels is set for 2027, with initial monitoring in 2025, to avoid burdening ETS1 sectors disproportionately.[27] Critics argue the ETS's design flaws—reliance on inaccurate historical baselines for allocations and incomplete leakage protections—have inflated costs to consumers (via higher energy prices) without commensurate abatement, with total windfall profits exceeding €100 billion across phases, disproportionately benefiting incumbents over new entrants or consumers.[28][20] Proponents cite its role in establishing a carbon price floor and co-benefits like air quality improvements from reduced fossil fuel use, but independent evaluations emphasize that without rigorous cap enforcement and minimal free allocations, such schemes risk subsidizing emitters rather than incentivizing genuine decarbonization.[29][22]Other Emissions Trading Schemes
China's national emissions trading system, launched in 2021, initially targeted the power sector and covers approximately 4.5 billion metric tons of CO₂ annually, representing over 40% of the country's total CO₂ emissions and making it the world's largest ETS by volume.[30] In 2025, the system expanded to include steel, cement, and aluminum sectors, with compliance deadlines set for the end of that year, potentially encompassing up to 60% of national CO₂ emissions.[31] A policy shift introduced absolute emissions caps starting in 2027, replacing prior intensity-based targets to enforce stricter reductions across major emitting industries.[32] California's Cap-and-Trade Program, implemented in 2013, regulates about 85% of the state's greenhouse gas emissions through a declining cap on CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF₆ from electricity generation, industrial facilities, and transportation fuels.[33][34] Linked with Quebec's cap-and-trade system since 2014, it auctions most allowances and directs proceeds to clean energy and emissions reduction initiatives; the program was extended through 2045 via legislation in 2025.[35] The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), established in 2009 across 11 northeastern U.S. states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia), focuses exclusively on CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel-fired electric power plants above 25 MW capacity.[36][37] It operates as a cooperative cap-and-invest model, with over 90% of allowances auctioned, funding energy efficiency and renewable projects; emissions from covered sources have declined by more than 50% since inception through 2023.[38] New Zealand's Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS), introduced in 2008, is a broad all-gases system covering CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, and synthetic gases from sectors including energy, industry, waste, and forestry, which accounts for a significant portion of the economy's emissions.[39] Unlike capped systems, it initially operated without a hard cap but imposes obligations on participants to surrender units equivalent to emissions, with forestry eligible for credits; recent 2025 updates maintained auction volumes through 2030 to align with net-zero targets.[40] South Korea's Emissions Trading Scheme (K-ETS), the first nationwide mandatory ETS in East Asia starting in 2015, covers approximately 70-79% of national GHG emissions from power, industry, buildings, waste, and transport sectors.[41] In its third phase (2021-2025), it emphasizes emissions reductions toward carbon neutrality by 2050, though challenges like allowance oversupply have pressured prices; expansions in 2025 opened participation to broader market actors.[42] Other notable systems include the United Kingdom ETS, launched in 2021 post-Brexit to replace EU linkages, targeting power and industry with a cap aligned to net-zero goals, and regional pilots like Mexico's, which transitioned to full operation in 2020 but remain limited in scope.[43] These schemes vary in design, with some emphasizing auctions over free allocation to minimize windfall profits, though empirical evidence on emissions reductions remains mixed, often confounded by complementary policies.[44]| Jurisdiction | Launch Year | Primary Sectors | National GHG Coverage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| China | 2021 | Power, steel, cement, aluminum | ~40-60 (CO₂) |
| California, USA | 2013 | Electricity, industry, transport | ~85 |
| RGGI, USA | 2009 | Power generation | Varies (regional) |
| New Zealand | 2008 | Energy, industry, forestry, waste | Broad (all major GHGs) |
| South Korea | 2015 | Power, industry, buildings, transport | 70-79 |
Public Health
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), also referred to as secondhand smoke or involuntary smoke, comprises sidestream smoke released from the smoldering end of burning tobacco products such as cigarettes, cigars, or pipes, combined with mainstream smoke exhaled by active smokers.[45] This mixture forms a diluted aerosol in indoor environments, where approximately 85% originates from sidestream smoke and 15% from exhaled mainstream smoke.[46] ETS exposure occurs primarily through inhalation in enclosed or poorly ventilated spaces shared with smokers.[47] The chemical composition of ETS includes over 4,000 identified compounds, many of which are present at higher concentrations in sidestream smoke compared to mainstream smoke due to lower combustion temperatures.[48] Among these, at least 50 are recognized carcinogens, including benzene, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, alongside toxicants such as hydrogen cyanide and carbon monoxide.[49] [50] These constituents arise from the pyrolysis and oxidation of tobacco and additives during smoldering, resulting in a heterogeneous particulate and gaseous phase that disperses variably based on ventilation and proximity to the source.[51] Numerous epidemiological studies and meta-analyses have linked ETS exposure to adverse health outcomes, particularly in vulnerable populations. In children, exposure is associated with increased incidence of lower respiratory tract infections, asthma exacerbations, and sudden infant death syndrome, with meta-analyses reporting odds ratios exceeding 1.5 for serious infections requiring hospitalization.[52] For never-smoking adults, associations with lung cancer risk have been reported, with relative risks typically ranging from 1.2 to 1.3 in spousal exposure studies, though absolute risks remain low given baseline rates.[53] Cardiovascular effects, including ischemic heart disease, show similar modest elevations in risk, estimated at around 8-30% in exposed cohorts.[54] [55] Regulatory assessments, such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer's 2004 monograph, classify ETS as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), citing sufficient evidence from human epidemiology and supporting mechanistic data from animal models.[56] However, the magnitude and causality of these associations remain contested, with critics highlighting methodological limitations including exposure misclassification, confounding by factors like diet and socioeconomic status, and potential publication bias favoring positive findings.[57] A prospective cohort study of over 35,000 never-smokers followed from 1960 to 1998 found no significant increase in tobacco-related mortality, including lung cancer and heart disease, attributable to spousal smoking, yielding adjusted relative risks near 1.0.[58] This analysis, drawn from the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study I, underscores challenges in detecting small effects amid low exposure doses—often orders of magnitude below active smoking levels—and has informed arguments that ETS risks for adults may be negligible or overstated relative to other environmental factors.[57] While ETS contains bioactive toxins capable of inducing inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, first-principles assessment of dose-response suggests limited population-level impact outside high-exposure scenarios like pre-1980s workplaces.[47]Biology and Medicine
Ets Transcription Factor Family
The Ets (E26 transformation-specific) transcription factor family comprises 28 members in humans, all characterized by a highly conserved ~85-amino-acid ETS DNA-binding domain that recognizes core DNA sequences containing a central GGA(A/T) motif.[59][60] These proteins were first identified in the early 1980s through the v-ets oncogene in the E26 avian leukemia retrovirus, which encodes a fusion protein driving erythroblast and myeloid leukemia in chickens.[61] Ets factors regulate diverse cellular processes, including proliferation, differentiation, hematopoiesis, angiogenesis, and immune responses, by binding enhancer and promoter regions to activate or repress target genes.[62] Their activity is modulated by interactions with signaling pathways, such as Ras-MAPK, which phosphorylates key residues in the ETS domain or adjacent regions to alter DNA binding affinity and transcriptional output.[63] Structurally, the ETS domain forms a winged helix-turn-helix fold, with three alpha helices and a four-stranded beta-sheet enabling specific DNA contacts; recognition helices insert into the major groove, while beta-sheets flank the DNA minor groove.[64] Beyond the ETS domain, family members exhibit variable N- and C-terminal regions that confer functional diversity, including transactivation or repression motifs and protein-protein interaction sites.[65] Subfamilies are classified by sequence similarity outside the ETS domain: for instance, the ternary complex factors (TCF) subfamily (e.g., ELK1, SAP1) features acidic activation domains and docks with serum response factor (SRF); the PEA3 subfamily (ETV1, ETV4, ETV5) contains acidic regions for potent transactivation; and the TEV subfamily (e.g., ERG, FLI1) often includes inhibitory domains.[66] Some members, like ERG and ETS1, possess an additional pointed (PNT) domain for homo- or heterodimerization, enhancing cooperative DNA binding.[67] Functionally, Ets factors integrate extracellular signals to control gene expression; for example, ETS1 and ETS2 drive thymocyte development and T-cell receptor signaling by activating genes like c-fos and IL-2, while PU.1 (SPI1) is essential for myeloid and B-lymphocyte differentiation via PU.1 site binding in hematopoietic promoters.[68] In non-immune contexts, they promote epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and invasion through targets like matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and integrins.[69] Regulation occurs via post-translational modifications—e.g., MAPK/ERK phosphorylation at conserved threonines enhances DNA binding for ELK1—and cofactor recruitment, such as with AP-1 (FOS/JUN) for synergistic activation of MMP1.[64][70] Genomic studies reveal context-specific binding, with chromatin accessibility and flanking sequences dictating in vivo specificity despite similar in vitro preferences.[63] In pathology, dysregulated Ets activity contributes to oncogenesis; chromosomal translocations generate fusions like TMPRSS2-ERG in ~50% of prostate cancers (detected since 2005), where the ETS domain drives aberrant androgen-independent expression of oncogenic targets.[71][72] Overexpression of ERG, ETV1, or ETS2 correlates with poor prognosis in breast, lung, and colorectal cancers via promotion of proliferation and metastasis.[73] Conversely, ETS1 can act tumor-suppressively in some contexts by inducing apoptosis or senescence.[74] In non-cancer diseases, PU.1 mutations underlie monogenic immunodeficiencies like acute myeloid leukemia predisposition, and Ets factors influence autoimmune conditions through immune cell dysregulation.[75] Therapeutic targeting remains challenging due to overlapping functions, but inhibitors of upstream kinases (e.g., MEK) or DNA-binding disruptors are under investigation.[76]Engineering and Technology
Electronic Throttle System
The electronic throttle system (ETS), also referred to as electronic throttle control (ETC) or drive-by-wire throttle, replaces mechanical linkages—such as cables or rods—between the accelerator pedal and the engine's throttle valve with electronic sensors, actuators, and control modules. This setup enables the engine control module (ECM) to interpret pedal position via sensors and command a throttle actuator motor to adjust the butterfly valve's opening, thereby regulating air intake to the engine independently of direct mechanical driver input.[77][78] Introduced in production vehicles in 1988 on the BMW 7 Series (E32) in partnership with Bosch, ETS marked the shift from cable-operated throttles prevalent since the late 1980s mechanical designs. By 1997, General Motors adopted similar systems in select Chevrolet models, accelerating widespread implementation as emissions standards tightened and electronic engine management advanced. The technology integrates with ECM algorithms to optimize throttle response based on variables like engine load, vehicle speed, and ambient conditions, eliminating components like idle air control valves and cruise control actuators.[79][80] Core components include:- Accelerator pedal module: Equipped with potentiometers or Hall-effect sensors to detect pedal displacement, typically providing redundant signals for safety.
- Throttle body assembly: Houses the throttle plate (butterfly valve), DC motor or stepper motor with gearbox for precise positioning, and integrated throttle position sensors (TPS) for feedback.
- Engine control module (ECM): Processes inputs from the pedal sensors, TPS, mass airflow sensor, and other parameters to output pulse-width modulated signals to the throttle actuator, ensuring closed-loop control.
- Wiring harness and power supply: Includes fail-safes like limp-home modes that limit throttle opening to approximately 5-15% if faults are detected.[77][79]