NewzIntel.com

Category: Academic Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Global: Drug pollution in water is making salmon take more risks – new research

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jack Brand, Researcher in Behavioural and Movement Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

    An Atlantic salmon smolt, ready for its seaward migration. Jörgen Wiklund

    “Out of sight, out of mind” is how we often treat what is flushed down our toilets. But the drugs we take, from anxiety medications to antibiotics, don’t simply vanish after leaving our bodies. Many are not fully removed by wastewater treatment systems and end up in rivers, lakes and streams, where they can linger and affect wildlife in unexpected ways.

    In our new study, we investigated how a sedative called clobazam, commonly prescribed for sleep and anxiety disorders, influences the migration of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) from the River Dal in central Sweden to the Baltic Sea.

    Our findings suggest that even tiny traces of drugs in the environment can alter animal behaviour in ways that may shape their survival and success in the wild.

    A recent global survey of the world’s rivers found drugs were contaminating waterways on every continent – even Antarctica. These substances enter aquatic ecosystems not only through our everyday use, as active compounds pass through our bodies and into sewage systems, but also due to improper disposal and industrial effluents.

    To date, almost 1,000 different active pharmaceutical substances have been detected in environments worldwide.

    Particularly worrying is the fact that the biological targets of many of these drugs, such as receptors in the human brain, are also present in a wide variety of other species. That means animals in the wild can also be affected.

    In fact, research over the last several decades has demonstrated that pharmaceutical pollutants can disrupt a wide range of traits in animals, including their physiology, development and reproduction.

    Pharmaceutical pollution in the wild

    The behavioural effects of pharmaceutical pollutants have received relatively less attention, but laboratory studies show that a variety of these contaminants can change brain function and behaviour in fish and other animals. This is a major cause for concern, given that actions critical to survival, including avoiding predators, foraging for food and social interaction, can all be disrupted.

    Lab-based research has provided useful insights, but experimental conditions rarely reflect the complexity of nature. Environments are dynamic and difficult to predict, and animals often behave differently than they do in controlled settings. That’s why we set out to test the effects of pharmaceutical exposure in the wild.

    As part of a large field study in central Sweden, we attached implants that slowly released clobazam (a common pharmaceutical pollutant) and also miniature tracking transmitters to juvenile Atlantic salmon on their seaward migration through the Dal.

    The Dal is a large river in central Sweden that flows into the Baltic Sea.
    Michael Bertram

    We found that clobazam increased the success of this river-to-sea migration, as more clobazam-treated salmon reached the Baltic Sea compared with untreated fish. These clobazam-exposed salmon also took less time to pass through two major hydropower dams that often delay or block salmon migration.

    To better understand these changes, we followed up with a laboratory experiment which revealed that clobazam also altered how fish group and move together – what scientists call shoaling behaviour – when faced with a predator.

    This suggests that the migration changes observed in the wild may stem from drug-induced shifts in social dynamics and risk-taking behaviour.

    What does this mean for wildlife?

    Our study is among the first to show that pharmaceutical pollution can affect not just behaviour in the lab, but outcomes for animals in their natural environment.

    While an increase in migration success might initially sound like a positive effect, any disruption to natural behaviour can have ripple effects across ecosystems.

    Even seemingly beneficial changes to animal behaviour, like faster passage through barriers, can come at a cost. Changes to the timing of migrations, for instance, might lead fish to arrive at the sea when conditions are not ideal, or expose them to new predators and risks. Over time, these subtle shifts could influence the dynamics of entire populations and threaten the balance of ecosystems.

    Pharmaceuticals are vital for keeping people and animals healthy. But the accumulation of these drugs in rivers and lakes demands smarter approaches to keeping waterways clean.

    One part of the solution is upgrading wastewater treatment plants. Some advanced methods such as ozonation, which involves bubbling ozone gas through wastewater to break down pollutants, can be effective at removing pharmaceuticals. But such advanced treatment systems are often prohibitively expensive to install and out of reach for many regions.

    Another promising avenue is green chemistry: designing drugs that break down more easily in the environment or become less toxic after use. Our team has recently highlighted this as a key step toward reducing pharmaceutical pollution in the environment.

    Stronger regulations and better drug disposal practices can also help to prevent medications from ending up in waterways in the first place.

    There’s no single fix, but by advancing and integrating science, technology and policy, we can help to protect wildlife from the unintended effects of pharmaceutical pollution.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Jack Brand receives funding from the Swedish Research Council Formas and the Carl Trygger Foundation.

    Michael Bertram receives funding from the Swedish Research Council Formas, the Kempe Foundations, the Marie-Claire Cronstedt Foundation, the ÅForsk Foundation, and the Baltic Salmon Foundation.

    – ref. Drug pollution in water is making salmon take more risks – new research – https://theconversation.com/drug-pollution-in-water-is-making-salmon-take-more-risks-new-research-254312

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Cancer hijacks your brain and steals your motivation − new research in mice reveals how, offering potential avenues for treatment

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Adam Kepecs, Professor of Neuroscience and Psychiatry, Washington University in St. Louis

    Many patients with late-stage cancer slip into a profound apathy as the disease ravages their bodies − and brains. demaerre/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    A cruel consequence of advanced cancer is the profound apathy many patients experience as they lose interest in once-cherished activities. This symptom is part of a syndrome called cachexia, which affects about 80% of late-stage cancer patients, leading to severe muscle wasting and weight loss that leave patients bone thin despite adequate nutrition.

    This loss of motivation doesn’t just deepen patients’ suffering, it isolates them from family and friends. Because patients struggle to engage with demanding therapies that require effort and persistence, it also strains families and complicates treatment.

    Doctors typically assume that when late-stage cancer patients withdraw from life, it is an inevitable psychological response to physical deterioration. But what if apathy isn’t just a byproduct of physical decline but an integral part of the disease itself?

    In our newly published research, my colleagues and I have discovered something remarkable: Cancer doesn’t simply waste the body – it hijacks a specific brain circuit that controls motivation. Our findings, published in the journal Science, challenge decades of assumptions and suggest it might be possible to restore what many cancer patients describe as most devastating to lose – their will to engage with life.

    Untangling fatigue from physical decline

    To unravel the puzzle of apathy in cancer cachexia, we needed to trace the exact path inflammation takes in the body and peer inside a living brain while the disease is progressing – something impossible in people. However, neuroscientists have advanced technologies that make this possible in mice.

    Modern neuroscience equips us with a powerful arsenal of tools to probe how disease changes brain activity in mice. Scientists can map entire brains at the cellular level, track neural activity during behavior, and precisely switch neurons on or off. We used these neuroscience tools in a mouse model of cancer cachexia to study the effects of the disease on the brain and motivation.

    We identified a small brain region called the area postrema that acts as the brain’s inflammation detector. As a tumor grows, it releases cytokines − molecules that trigger inflammation − into the bloodstream. The area postrema lacks the typical blood-brain barrier that keeps out toxins, pathogens and other molecules from the body, allowing it to directly sample circulating inflammatory signals.

    When the area postrema detects a rise in inflammatory molecules, it triggers a neural cascade across multiple brain regions, ultimately suppressing dopamine release in the brain’s motivation center − the nucleus accumbens. While commonly misconstrued as a “pleasure chemical,” dopamine is actually associated with drive, or the willingness to put in effort to gain rewards: It tips the internal cost-benefit scale toward action.

    Researchers measured effort through two tests.
    Reprinted with permission from XA Zu et al., Science 388:eadm8857 (2025)

    We directly observed this shift using two quantitative tests designed with behavioral economics principles to measure effort. In the first, mice repeatedly poked their noses into a food port, with progressively more pokes required to earn each food pellet. In the second task, mice repeatedly crossed a bridge between two water ports, each gradually depleting with use and forcing the mice to switch sides to replenish the supply, similar to picking berries until a bush is empty.

    As cancer progressed, mice still pursued easy rewards but quickly abandoned tasks requiring greater effort. Meanwhile, we watched dopamine levels fall in real time, precisely mirroring the mice’s decreasing willingness to work for rewards.

    Our findings suggest that cancer isn’t just generally “wearing out” the brain − it sends targeted inflammatory signals that the brain detects. The brain then responds by rapidly reducing dopamine levels to dial down motivation. This matches what patients describe: “Everything feels too hard.”

    Restoring motivation in late-stage disease

    Perhaps most exciting, we found several ways to restore motivation in mice suffering from cancer cachexia − even when the cancer itself continued progressing.

    First, by genetically switching off the inflammation-sensing neurons in the area postrema, or by directly stimulating neurons to release dopamine, we were able to restore normal motivation in mice.

    Second, we found that giving mice a drug that blocks a particular cytokine − working similarly to existing FDA-approved arthritis treatments − also proved effective. While the drug did not reverse physical wasting, it restored the mice’s willingness to work for rewards.

    While these results are based on mouse models, they suggest a treatment possibility for people: Targeting this specific inflammation-dopamine circuit could improve quality of life for cancer patients, even when the disease remains incurable.

    The boundary between physical and psychological symptoms is an artificially drawn line. Cancer ignores this division, using inflammation to commandeer the very circuits that drive a patient’s will to act. But our findings suggest these messages can be intercepted and the circuits restored.

    Cancer treatment can demand tremendous effort from patients.
    FG Trade/E+ via Getty Images

    Rethinking apathy in disease

    Our discovery has implications far beyond cancer. The inflammatory molecule driving loss of motivation in cancer is also involved in numerous other conditions − from autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis to chronic infections and depression. This same brain circuit might explain the debilitating apathy that millions of people suffering from various chronic diseases experience.

    Apathy triggered by inflammation may have originally evolved as a protective mechanism. When early humans faced acute infections, dialing down motivation made sense − it conserved energy and directed resources toward recovery. But what once helped people survive short-term illnesses turns harmful when inflammation persists chronically, as it does in cancer and other diseases. Rather than aiding survival, prolonged apathy deepens suffering, worsening health outcomes and quality of life.

    While translating these findings into therapies for people requires more research, our discovery reveals a promising target for treatment. By intercepting inflammatory signals or modulating brain circuits, researchers may be able to restore a patient’s drive. For patients and families watching motivation slip away, that possibility offers something powerful: hope that even as disease progresses, the essence of who we are might be reclaimed.

    Adam Kepecs receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

    – ref. Cancer hijacks your brain and steals your motivation − new research in mice reveals how, offering potential avenues for treatment – https://theconversation.com/cancer-hijacks-your-brain-and-steals-your-motivation-new-research-in-mice-reveals-how-offering-potential-avenues-for-treatment-254043

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Siena: The Rise of Painting, 1300-1350 at the National Gallery is a remarkable achievement

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Louise Bourdua, Professor of Art History, University of Warwick

    The Calling of the Apostles Peter and Andrew by Duccio (1308-1311). National Gallery of Art, Washington

    I had been looking forward to the National Gallery’s exhibition Siena: The Rise of Painting, 1300-1350 for several reasons.

    First, it was many years in the making. Its curator, Professor Emerita Joanna Cannon of the Courtauld Institute of Art, had been working on it for a decade or so. Duccio, one of the exhibition’s featured artists and one of the greatest Italian painters of the middle ages, had a major show in Siena in 2003. Another featured artist, Ambrogio Lorenzetti, had a smaller exhibition in the same city in 2017.

    Second, the National Gallery’s late medieval Italian paintings had not been seen for two years because of the refurbishment of the Sainsbury Wing. That is, except for a select few displayed in an excellent exhibition on Saint Francis of Assisi in 2023.

    Last, there was the publicity generated by the Metropolitan Museum’s iteration of this show – complete with a tantalising video tour by two of its curators.

    The National Gallery’s take on the most exciting 50 years of Siena’s artistic production makes the most of its ground floor gallery rooms, enabling conversations between objects and medium.

    The exhibition is a remarkable achievement: a pleasure for the eye and commendable for its ability to make medieval religious art accessible.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    Britain’s love affair with Sienese painting is well documented from the late 19th century at least. But this exhibition focuses on much more than the celebrated four painters – Duccio, Simone Martini and Ambrogio Lorenzetti and his brother Pietro.

    The wealth of Siena’s visual culture is represented with illuminated manuscripts; sculptures in marble, ivory, terracotta and walnut; reliquaries (containers for holy relics) and croziers (hooked staves) made from gold and enamel; and rugs and silks.

    Panels with protagonists painted in bright reds, blues, pinks and greens with tiny brushstrokes using pigments mixed with egg on gilded backgrounds abound. But there are also frescoes, detached from their original mural setting, yet able to tell the story of their making and meaning.

    Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s Annunciation (1344) is defined only by lines brushed on wet plaster using a red pigment (sinoper). This was a common initial step to set the composition, over which another layer of plaster would be applied again with contours painted but now filled with colour.

    In another room, a beautifully modelled painted head of Jesus split into two, carved by Lando di Pietro (1338), is all that remains of a larger crucifix after bombing by allies in the second world war. It is the only known work of the sculptor. He was identified by the personal handwritten prayers concealed within the sculpture, which are displayed next to it.

    The showstoppers

    The curators have managed to do what could not be achieved in Siena in 2003: bring Duccio’s three triptychs into a single venue. The first two are shown just a few metres apart, to enable comparison and close viewing of all sides. Their painted backs and the geometric motifs behind their folding wings enable us to understand them as three-dimensional, portable objects.

    The Crucifixion triptych, bought by Prince Albert in 1845 and lent to the exhibition by King Charles, is not too far from the pair, inviting comparison.

    Duccio’s Healing of the Man Born Blind finds itself reunited with seven of its companions for the first time since 1777. This is the closest reconstruction we’ll ever get of the back predella (a box-like shelf with images that supported the main panels) of Siena cathedral’s enormous double-sided high altarpiece (known as the Maestà), which was carried in procession through the city streets in 1311.

    Originally painted on a massive horizontal poplar plank, the individual episodes depicting Jesus’s ministry were sold on the art market in the 19th century and dispersed across two continents. A ninth panel which probably started the narrative has never been found, although you wouldn’t know it from this display.

    Nothing can distract from close viewing – you’ll want to enjoy it for as long as you can stand. This privileged view is unusual in an exhibition and possibly comes close to that enjoyed by the clergy during processions or pilgrimages in Siena cathedral. A photo montage of the reconstructed altarpiece is tiny and displayed on the wall opposite the reconstructed predella, alongside the panels originally on the front predella.

    The other showstopper is Pietro Lorenzetti’s altarpiece. It’s usually on the high altar of the church of Santa Maria della Pieve in Arezzo, but has been lent by the diocese and placed on a low plinth. This allows us to imagine just how immense Duccio’s Maestà must have been.

    This altarpiece represents the most popular formula created in early 14th-century Siena. These were large polyptychs of five (or seven) vertical panels usually displaying the virgin and child in the centre, surrounded by saints relevant to the locality and patrons.

    Virgin and Child with Saints and the Annunciation (circa 1345 to 1350).
    The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, CC BY-SA

    The Arezzo polyptych is approximately three metres in height and width, with three registers but has lost its predella, having been dismantled and relocated several times. The type was so popular that it, and the Sienese painters who created it, were in demand throughout Tuscany and beyond.

    Each of the objects displayed in this exhibition merits a long look. Since there are over 100, my last reflection will be on another extraordinary reunion: a small gilded glass icon depicting once again the virgin, child and saints above the Annunciation (1347). Its double-sided reliquary frame still contains 17 relics.

    It’s conceived as a miniature altarpiece, imitating the basic shape of the larger Sienese altarpieces on display. It also uses the same materials in addition to glass that has been gilded, incised and painted in red, blue and green.

    Such precious materials and meticulous craft testify to the richness of Sienese art during the first half of the 14th century.

    Siena: The Rise of Painting, 1300-1350 is at the National Gallery until June 22.

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

    – ref. Siena: The Rise of Painting, 1300-1350 at the National Gallery is a remarkable achievement – https://theconversation.com/siena-the-rise-of-painting-1300-1350-at-the-national-gallery-is-a-remarkable-achievement-253981

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How trustworthy is your fitness tracker score?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cailbhe Doherty, Assistant Professor in the School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin

    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    Millions of people now start their day with a number — a “readiness” score, a “body battery”“ level or a measure of “strain”“ — delivered by the wearable device on their wrist or finger. But how much trust should we place in these scores?

    Composite health scores are increasingly used by digital fitness trackers to offer a single, daily number that reflects how your body is coping with recent demands. Whether it’s marketed as a measure of energy, recovery or resilience, the idea is the same: combine several internal signals into one clear indicator of how prepared you are to take on the day.

    The concept has clear appeal. It simplifies complex physiological data — things like heart rate, sleep and activity — into an actionable recommendation: push harder, take it easy, rest. But how solid is the science behind these scores? My colleagues and I recently conducted a systematic review of the most widely used composite health scores in wearable devices to find out.

    First, what goes into these scores? Typically, quite a lot – at least on paper.

    Most composite health scores pull data from several biometric signals — measurements from your body that indicate how it’s functioning. These include resting heart rate, heart rate variability (the variation in time between heartbeats), sleep quantity and quality, recent physical activity, and sometimes breathing rate, skin temperature and blood oxygen levels.

    On paper, that’s a rich dataset. These signals reflect how your body responds to stress, recovers overnight and balances exertion with rest. But while the inputs may be rooted in physiology, the final score can be less informative than it appears.

    One issue is sensor accuracy. These devices rely on optical sensors and motion tracking to estimate what’s going on inside your body, such as your sleep stages or daily stress levels.

    Even small inaccuracies in measuring heart rate or movement can distort the score. And since these metrics feed directly into the algorithm that calculates your “readiness” or “strain”, small errors can add up.

    Another challenge is transparency. Most companies don’t disclose how exactly they turn raw data into a final score.

    We don’t know which inputs matter most, how they’re combined or whether they’re adjusted for individual differences such as age or fitness level. Without that clarity, it’s difficult to evaluate how meaningful or personalised the number really is.

    A more subtle issue lies in the way certain physiological signals overlap. For instance, poor sleep is often followed by lower heart rate variability — a common sign of stress or incomplete recovery. But many health scores penalise you for both factors separately: once for the bad sleep and again for the resulting change in heart rate variability.

    Heart rate variability explained.

    This kind of double-dipping can exaggerate the effect of a single “stressor” (things that put pressure on your body or mind), making your body seem more run down than it truly is. It creates the illusion of a sophisticated analysis, but may actually be highlighting the same signal twice.

    Similarly, some scores penalise you for the activity you did yesterday, regardless of how well you’ve recovered from it. If your heart rate variability and resting heart rate suggest you’ve bounced back, that should be reflected in your score. But some algorithms still factor in recent exertion as a negative, even when your body is clearly coping well.

    To make these scores more personalised, many devices compare your daily data to your typical values — your baseline. If your sleep or recovery looks significantly different from your recent average, the score adjusts accordingly.

    That’s a sensible idea in theory. But there’s no standard for how these baselines are calculated. Some devices use seven days of data, others 28. Some exclude outliers; others include them. Each company defines it differently, which makes comparisons between devices impossible and raises questions about consistency.

    Should you stop using your wearable?

    Not at all. Fitness trackers can still offer valuable insights. Watching how your core physiological signals shift over time — from week to week or season to season — can help you spot patterns, improve habits and better understand your body’s response to stress and training.

    The problem is when we treat the daily score as a definitive measure of health. It’s not a diagnosis, and it doesn’t always reflect what’s really happening inside your body. So while it’s fine to glance at your readiness or recovery score, don’t let it dictate your decisions.

    Use your fitness tracker as a guide, but not as your coach, your doctor, or your judge.

    Cailbhe Doherty receives funding from the Health Research Board in Ireland (Grant ID: HRB ILP-PHR-2024-005) and Research Ireland (Grant IDs: 12/RC/2289_P2 and 22/NCF/FD/10949). There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

    – ref. How trustworthy is your fitness tracker score? – https://theconversation.com/how-trustworthy-is-your-fitness-tracker-score-253883

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Lab-grown meat: you may find it icky, but it could drive forward medical research

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By James Hague, Senior Lecturer (in Theoretical Condensed Matter Physics and Biophysics), The Open University

    Lab-grown meat causes heated debates. Proponents see benefits for the climate and animal welfare. Opponents worry about a Frankenstein food they regard as risky and unnatural. Whatever your opinion, the technology underpinning cultivated meat is moving fast to create large pieces of muscle tissue.

    The fact that artificial meat starts as a living tissue means that, as it gets bigger and better, the technologies involved could have a huge impact on medical research.

    Lab-grown meat is a sort of engineered tissue. It aims to replicate the meat grown in an animal by dividing a small number of animal cells to create muscle. Meat is mostly made up of muscle cells (myocytes), plus a mix of fat cells (adipocytes) and cells that add structure through materials such as collagen (known as fibroblasts).

    The arrangements and proportions of these cells give meat its overall taste and texture. We call the meat grown in a bioreactor “cultivated meat”. Other common terms are “cultured meat”, “lab-grown meat” and “artificial meat”, and the production process is also called “cellular agriculture”.

    Cultivated meat is real meat grown in bioreactors rather than animals (it’s very different to plant-based products such as soya burgers). Some companies are also trying to grow other animal tissues, such as liver to replace foie gras. Key benefits of cultivated meat include avoiding animal slaughter and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

    The technologies for making cultivated meat were originally designed for growing engineered tissue for applications like organ transplant, regenerative medicine and pharmaceutical testing.

    One day, engineered tissue could be used to give us new livers, help to rebuild tissues damaged in accidents and select personalised treatments for cancers.

    Shared challenges

    Just like muscle, other tissues in the body such as organs also contain cells and things like collagen that give them structure.

    The cells in tissues are carefully organised according to their function. For example, in muscle, the cells are all lined up so they contract in the same direction during movement.

    A big difference between tissues cultivated for meat and those grown for medical applications is this tissue functionality. Cultivated meat does not need to be able to contract like muscle and, once grown, does not need to be kept alive. Meanwhile, engineered tissue for medical applications needs to work just like its counterpart in the body.

    Lab-grown meat is not just for eating…
    Oleksandra Naumenko/Shuttesrstock

    Despite this, some of the lessons learned from cultivated meat growth could be applied to regenerative medicine. Fibroblasts, the “structure” cells, are important during wound healing. Techniques to cultivate muscles and liver could be modified to grow working tissue.

    A shared design challenge when growing cultivated meat and engineered tissue is to control tissue organisation, which is essential to grow large cuts of meat such as steaks, but also for replacement tissue and organs for the body. Possibilities include holding the tissue under tension using tethers, adding scaffolds, and using 3D printing.

    The process of designing ways to control a tissue can take months or years of careful trial and error. Recent computer simulations of tissue growth, including those carried out by myself and colleagues, can help with the difficult task of controlling cell organisation to improve things like texture and production efficiency.

    Developing this control can help to engineer body tissues used in early pharmaceutical testing, which could improve success rates in clinical trials while reducing animal testing. This would be better for trial participants and could help to reduce drug development costs.

    Another major unsolved problem for both cultivated meat and regenerative medicine is how to supply larger tissues as they grow. Smaller tissues can get the oxygen they need from the atmosphere, or grow in a nutrient bath. Steaks are too large for this and would need to be kept alive with vessels similar to arteries to deliver oxygen and nutrients.

    Natural blood vessels form branching networks to supply tissue. Computational techniques can predict this style of network and 3D bioprinting could be used to create similar vessels. Lessons learned by growing networks of vessels in steaks could be directly applied to tissues for regenerative medicine (and vice versa).

    I expect pressure for cheap, cultivated meat will decrease the price of currently expensive technologies, such as 3D bioprinting and bioreactors. This will ultimately benefit medical applications.

    Coming to a shop near you

    As these issues are solved, cultivated meat will become widely available and more like farmed meat. Since cultivated meat will ultimately be indistinguishable from farmed meat, there’s no reason to believe that one should be more or less healthy than the other. Currently, many products are undergoing regulatory processes.

    So far, a few countries have approved cultivated meat products for human consumption, and approval applications are being submitted worldwide. UK regulators recently announced a two-year timeline to approve (or not) cultivated meat for human consumption. Lab-grown meat is already approved for consumption by dogs.

    Overall, there are important links between cultivated meat and cultured tissue applications in medicine. Both applications have similar challenges, and the technologies developed for one field can push forward the other.

    Both fields can benefit animal welfare, removing the need for animal slaughter and reducing the need for animal testing.

    I expect cultivated meat will come to a supermarket near you within the next few years. Whether you want to buy it or not, think about how the technology used to create it could be a step towards better medicines and lab-grown organs for transplant.

    James Hague receives funding from STFC and EPSRC.

    – ref. Lab-grown meat: you may find it icky, but it could drive forward medical research – https://theconversation.com/lab-grown-meat-you-may-find-it-icky-but-it-could-drive-forward-medical-research-253565

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why the autism jigsaw puzzle piece is such a problematic symbol

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aimee Grant, Senior Lecturer in Public Health and Wellcome Trust Career Development Fellow, Swansea University

    For decades, a jigsaw puzzle piece has been used to symbolise autism across the world. It has been used for charity logos and awareness ribbons, and even tattooed on to the bodies of well-meaning parents.

    But for many autistic adults, the puzzle piece isn’t just outdated – it’s offensive. Some consider it a hate symbol: a reminder of how autistic people have long been misunderstood, pathologised and excluded from conversations about their own lives.

    The puzzle piece first appeared in 1963, when the UK’s National Autistic Society adopted a logo designed by a non-autistic parent of an autistic child. It featured not just a puzzle piece but the image of a crying child, meant to depict autism as a puzzling condition that caused suffering.

    In 1999, the Autism Society of America introduced a ribbon covered in colourful puzzle pieces. This reinforced the idea that autism was something to be solved. The imagery gained even more prominence when the US-based organisation Autism Speaks, founded in 2005, adopted a blue puzzle piece as its logo.

    One autistic advocate described the symbol as a “red flag” – a warning sign that the person or organisation using it may not fully respect or understand autistic people.

    So why does the puzzle piece provoke such a strong reaction?

    To many, the symbol suggests that autistic people are incomplete, a mystery or a problem in need of fixing. This fits with the medical model of autism, which focuses on deficits and aims to make autistic people behave more like non-autistic people, rather than letting them live authentically.

    From deficit to difference

    Because of these criticisms of the medical model, some autistic people subscribe to a social model of autism. This sees autism not as a problem to be fixed, but as a difference to be understood. According to this view, many of the challenges autistic people face stem not from autism itself, but from a lack of understanding and acceptance in society.

    The social model is followed by a growing group of autism researchers, including through the Participatory Autism Research Collective. In 2022, the Welsh government affirmed its commitment to a social model of disability.

    However, it can be difficult to put this social model of disability in practice in under-resourced healthcare systems.

    It is closely tied to the “double empathy problem”. This is the idea that communication breakdowns between autistic and non-autistic people go both ways. In other words, if autistic people are “puzzling”, it’s often because the wider world hasn’t taken the time to understand them.



    Read more:
    How autistic and non-autistic people can understand each other better

    The neurodiversity movement goes one step further, arguing that neurological differences such as autism, ADHD and dyslexia are natural variations in the human population. Just as biodiversity is good for the environment, neurodiversity is arguably good for society.

    In recent years, several major autism organisations have taken steps to distance themselves from the puzzle piece. The National Autistic Society dropped the symbol in the early 2000s, and the Autism Society of America followed suit in 2023. The academic journal Autism removed the puzzle piece from its cover in 2018, in recognition of its harmful connotations.

    That said, the symbol is still frequently used, appearing in search engines and image databases.

    Why many autistic adults hate the jigsaw puzzle piece symbol.

    Research has found that puzzle piece imagery tends to evoke negative associations such as incompleteness and imperfection, whether it’s connected to autism or not. It’s no surprise, then, that many autistic people ask for something more positive, respectful and inclusive.

    One popular alternative is the rainbow infinity symbol, first developed by autistic advocates in 2005. It represents the diversity of the neurodivergent community, including autistic people.

    The gold infinity symbol, meanwhile, is used specifically to represent autism. The chemical symbol for gold is “Au”, the first two letters of autism.

    The puzzle piece was created in the 1960s by non-autistic people to represent a condition they saw as tragic and mysterious. But today, autistic people are speaking for themselves. The overwhelming message is clear – the puzzle piece doesn’t represent us.

    Aimee Grant receives funding from UKRI, the Wellcome Trust and the Morgan Advanced Studies Institute. She is a non-executive director of Disability Wales.

    – ref. Why the autism jigsaw puzzle piece is such a problematic symbol – https://theconversation.com/why-the-autism-jigsaw-puzzle-piece-is-such-a-problematic-symbol-253807

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Gender equality at the Oxford-Cambridge Boat Race has further to go

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andie Riches, PhD Candidate, School of Psychology, Sport and Sensory Science, Anglia Ruskin University

    In rowing, “catching a crab” is when an oar gets stuck in the water, stopping the boat’s momentum. Progress toward gender equality in the Oxford v Cambridge Boat Race has followed a similar rhythm, with periods of forward motion interrupted by moments of tension or pushback.

    This year marks a decade since one period of forward motion, when the women began racing on the same course, on the same day as the men – moving from Henley-on-Thames to the Tideway in London. At the time, the change was heralded as a watershed moment, with some rather boldly and wrongly stating that the move ended what they dubbed one of “the last bastions of gender inequality in sport”.

    The women’s race has become a firmly established part of the event. However, our ongoing research into the experiences of female boat race athletes over the last decade reveals that significant disparities persist.

    As one athlete told us: “Racing on the Tideway was still relatively new when we started, and we were aware of the struggles the women’s team had faced to be recognised and taken seriously.”

    But equality isn’t just about having a place in the race; it’s about having the same support, investment and opportunities as the men. As one rower put it: “We’ve moved forward, but we’re still playing catch-up.”

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    From Henley to the Tideway

    For decades, female rowers were held back by institutional barriers such as unequal funding, media coverage and a lack of sponsorship. Before 2015, the women raced on a two-kilometre stretch at Henley-on-Thames, a separate course from the men’s four-mile route on the Championship Course on the Tideway in London. One rower reflected that racing at Henley felt “secondary”, lacking the same recognition as the men’s race.

    The issue wasn’t the venue. It was the resource disparity, inadequate facilities and lack of media exposure. As one rower described, “We had no showers, no heating, and no space to stretch – just a cold shed. While the men had a better setup next door with basics like kettles and heating.” The lack of visibility at Henley reinforced the perception that the women’s race was secondary, diminishing their accomplishments.

    Even after moving to the Tideway, however, female rowers have faced rough waters, not just from the river itself when the Cambridge women’s boat famously sank, but also from having to challenge public perception.

    Consistent with broader research, our analysis of the media coverage during and after the 2015 women’s event revealed a consistent pattern of focusing on personal stories, emotional moments and the historic nature of the race. This storytelling often came at the expense of recognising the athletes’ performance and competitiveness.

    A 2019 study found that women’s sports received just 3.2% of televised sports news coverage. While coverage has increased in recent years, disparities persist.

    A 2024 Football Supporters’ Association survey found that only 31.8% of the fans felt there was sufficient mainstream media coverage of women’s football. That such calls remain necessary, even amid growing interest, highlights the continued marginalisation of women’s sport.

    This external perception also appears to be evident within the internal environment of the boat clubs. One rower recalled: “It just felt almost like you inconvenienced them to use their space”, referring to the men’s crews.

    This reflects a broader societal issue where women often feel they must justify their presence in spaces where they belong. Hence, the women’s crew not only face the physical challenge of the tideway’s choppy waters, but also an ongoing battle to prove their legitimacy.

    In recent years, rowers challenged the deeply rooted tradition of “weigh-in” with the women’s crews opting not be weighed on the basis that it subjects athletes to a public display of their body weight. Some viewed this as a challenge to a longstanding tradition, while others felt its removal was a positive step for athlete welfare, mental health and body image.

    Other issues also surfaced in 2021 when a former Oxford rower publicly criticised the university’s handling of her sexual assault allegation, arguing that the institution had failed to protect her. The university said at the time it was confident that in all cases it took considerable action to advise and support students who raise such concerns. Though not directly related to the Boat Race, such public cases have caused controversy and raised important questions about the environments in which these athletes train and compete.

    Despite these setbacks, the women’s race has gained momentum. Sponsorship has grown, more people are watching, and for younger rowers, racing on the Tideway is now the norm. In 2015, the women’s Boat Race drew 4.8 million viewers – close to the 6.2 million who watched the men’s race. This highlighted the growing appeal of women’s rowing.

    The race for gender equality in sport, like rowing, is a test of endurance. Short bursts of progress, like moving to the Tideway, are not enough. Lasting change takes continued effort.

    The women’s Boat Race has come a long way, but the journey isn’t over. True equality will only be reached when women’s sport is valued on its own terms, rather than being compared to the men.

    With each race, these women are not just competing for victory on the water but also helping to shape a more equal future for sport. The tide may be turning, but the finishing line in the race for equality is still ahead.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Gender equality at the Oxford-Cambridge Boat Race has further to go – https://theconversation.com/gender-equality-at-the-oxford-cambridge-boat-race-has-further-to-go-254111

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What the spiralling trade war means for relations between the US and China

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Harper, Lecturer in International Relations, University of East London

    Donald Trump has partially walked back on his so-called “liberation day” tariffs on nearly all US imports after fears mounted that the move would result in a global recession and much higher borrowing costs for the US government.

    On Wednesday, April 9, a mere 13 hours after his higher rate of “reciprocal tariffs” had come into effect, Trump announced they would be paused for 90 days.

    “I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line, they were getting yippy, you know … a little bit afraid,” Trump said to reporters outside the White House. Markets soared immediately upon hearing the news.

    But at the same time, a volatile new stage in America’s trade war with China has emerged. The White House has excluded China from the pause and has hiked tariffs on all Chinese imports to 125%. This, Trump says, is because Beijing has shown “disrespect” to Washington and global markets.

    Beijing, which has declared it will “fight to the end if the US side is bent on going down the wrong path”, was quick to respond. It has announced duties of 84% on American products and services, and has even floated the possibility of banning the import of Hollywood films.

    What China’s response has shown is that it is no longer the same country as it was in 2017, when Trump managed to obtain some trade concessions from it by imposing tariffs. Beijing seems more willing to strike back at Washington, as well as showing signs of being more proactive in its response to American measures.

    The impact of China’s response has not yet been fully realised, but tariffs have already raised the spectre of increased prices in the US. Many of the clothing and consumer electronics that Americans buy are shipped from China. It’s possible that far from boosting Trump’s popularity, these tariffs may eventually end up reversing it.

    At a fundraising dinner in Washington, less than a day before he shelved plans to hike tariffs on US trading partners, Trump insisted: “I know what the hell I’m doing.” But his subsequent loss of face in pausing tariffs for other countries may mean he has no option but to double down on a tit-for-tat trade war with China.

    China is his administration’s go-to villain, and any delay or reversal in responding to Chinese retaliation will be a humiliation to Trump’s strongman image. This suggests a tumultuous period ahead for relations between China and the US.

    Expect more hostility

    The tariffs will probably have a mobilising effect on the Chinese population. A 2022 survey on public opinion in China found that people born after 1990 are more likely to hold an unfavourable view of the US compared with previous generations. The survey concluded that Trump’s actions during his first term were much more to blame than propaganda.

    Beijing has also traditionally invoked the history of the “unequal treaties” forced upon its ailing Qing dynasty in the late 19th century as a means to mobilise its population against western policies. This has been aided by how the economic demands made by Trump to China are, in the mind of the Chinese leadership, reminiscent of the demands made by the western powers of that period.

    Fears of again falling prey to foreign powers play a significant role in Beijing’s policies, encapsulated by what is known as China’s “never again mentality”. This mentality could be used as a means to unify the Chinese population against an outside enemy, in a way similar to how many US politicians have attempted to cast China as a foe.

    Beijing appears to be banking on the Chinese population’s supposed ability to withstand greater hardships than western consumers as being able to give it a key advantage over Washington. However, with China’s prosperity being a comparatively recent development, this ability will be put to the test.

    Trump’s tariffs against traditional American allies will also play into Beijing’s hands on the international stage. Tokyo has discussed reducing its holdings of American treasuries, while simultaneously bolstering trade ties with China. These moves would have been unthinkable even a year ago – Japan has long been a key US ally and a regional rival of China.

    Equally unthinkable is the possibility that the EU will follow a similar path. Spain’s prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, has called on Brussels to review its relationship with China. Moves aimed at sidelining China may end up isolating the US instead.

    And, perhaps most concerningly, the tariffs may also undermine America’s ability to prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. One of the key factors deterring an invasion was the threat of a 100% tariff on Chinese goods. With Trump’s tariffs on China already exceeding this, Beijing has less incentive to not go after Taipei.

    What liberation day has shown us is that the Chinese-American relationship has entered a stage of protracted competition, a phase that Beijing has been preparing for over the past decade. Faced with a choice between humiliation on the international stage or economic disaster at home, it would appear neither side is willing to back down.

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

    – ref. What the spiralling trade war means for relations between the US and China – https://theconversation.com/what-the-spiralling-trade-war-means-for-relations-between-the-us-and-china-254311

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Hopes of a ‘Brexit benefit’ from tariffs were short-lived. Here’s what Trump’s pause means for the UK

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maha Rafi Atal, Adam Smith Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow

    The US has decided – again – to upend the global trading system. With the latest raft of tariffs just beginning to kick in, and after a week in which markets worldwide fell precipitously, the Trump administration announced that it would be suspending high tariffs on nearly 60 countries for 90 days.

    The announcement is only a partial reprieve. High tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, as well as on global imports of steel, aluminium and automotives, remain, as does a 10% baseline tariff on all imports. US tariffs remain the highest they have been since the Great Depression, at levels unprecedented since the modern trade system was created after the second world war.

    Before the pause, the UK was already in line for the 10% rate – which some commentators described as a Brexit benefit when compared to the EU’s prospective 20%.

    While markets soared on the news of the pause, the damage is was already done. The subsequent rally is recouping some, but not all, losses incurred due to the tariffs already.

    Businesses that had prepared for tariffs by bulk-buying imported components ahead of time will have made cuts elsewhere to pay for it. They will not easily be able to reverse course.

    The implications for the UK of the latest developments are mixed. All the tariffs imposed on direct UK exports to the US (chiefly steel, automotives and aircrafts, pharmaceuticals and medical equipment) remain in place.

    While the US represents the second-largest market for UK goods, the majority of UK exports are in services (like banking and insurance), which the tariffs do not target. If tariffs were to hit direct UK-US goods trade only, the UK would likely be able to weather the shock.

    Unfortunately, that’s not how trade works in the 21st century. Instead, two-thirds of trade takes place in what are known as “global value chains”. These are complex networks through which companies move the component parts of products between their own facilities around the world and those of their subcontractors.

    Many UK businesses supply components that are incorporated by companies overseas into finished goods ultimately destined for the US. When the US imposes tariffs on those goods, UK manufacturers suffer too – even if direct UK exports to the US remain unchanged.

    Global value chains will also reorient in response to trade barriers, as already took place in Asia during Trump’s first term. If businesses reroute their supply chains to avoid the tariff markets, the UK (which is not imposing retaliatory tariffs) could become a “sacrifice zone” (a place where cheaply made, poor-quality or environmentally harmful items are dumped or disposed of, “sacrificing” the wellbeing of local people) for excess supply, undercutting domestic producers.

    Yet choosing not to retaliate is key to the UK’s diplomatic strategy. It hopes to stay close to the US in the hope of preferential treatment.

    The UK’s pursuit of a US trade deal has been politically sensitive since the previous Trump administration.
    JessicaGirvan/Shutterstock

    So far, that strategy is yet to bear fruit. The UK hopes to avoid the tariffs through a US trade deal, an objective that the countries have pursued since the UK left the European Union.

    The US has repeatedly sought access to the UK agrifood market, a demand that has always been refused due to political opposition to importing American beef and chicken.

    The sticky Brexit issue

    Brexit adds to this complexity, as the Windsor framework requires food products sold in Northern Ireland to conform to European Union standards. The more standards in the rest of the UK diverge from those of the EU (as they would have to do to secure a US trade deal), the more onerous the checks in the Irish Sea would become.

    Keir Starmer’s government has also sought to renegotiate parts of the agreement with the EU, seeking tighter economic ties that will require closer regulatory alignment. Pursuing deregulation to meet US trade demands, however, makes that unlikely.

    The tariffs compound this dilemma. If the higher rates return after 90 days, Northern Irish exports to the US will face a lower rate than those from the Republic of Ireland. But US imports to Northern Ireland will be hit with EU tariffs while imports to the rest of the UK will remain tariff-free.

    That will create some opportunities. Businesses might choose to operate in Northern Ireland to access a lower tariff rate on their US exports while also producing goods for the EU market.

    But it also creates risks. With three different tariff regimes in Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, goods flowing across both the Irish Sea and the Irish land border could require additional checks. This would risk the very thing the Windsor Framework was meant to avoid.

    Given these risks, a 90-day reprieve is a window of opportunity. But with US government policy that can change on a dime (or a post), the UK risks being caught between the rival powers of the US and EU – and trampled in the crossfire.

    Maha Rafi Atal is a volunteer organizer with the US Democratic Party.

    – ref. Hopes of a ‘Brexit benefit’ from tariffs were short-lived. Here’s what Trump’s pause means for the UK – https://theconversation.com/hopes-of-a-brexit-benefit-from-tariffs-were-short-lived-heres-what-trumps-pause-means-for-the-uk-254307

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Measles outbreaks in US and Canada show that MMR vaccines are needed more than ever – an expert in children’s health explains

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Helen Bedford, Professor of Children’s Health, UCL

    Heather Hazzan, SELF Magazine

    Measles is one of the most challenging diseases to control. It requires a sustained uptake of well over 90% of two doses of a measles-containing vaccine such as MMR. But since the COVID pandemic, there has been a decline in uptake of routine vaccines in many countries including the US, Canada and Europe, resulting in outbreaks of the disease.

    For instance, despite eliminating measles in 2000, the US experienced an outbreak in April 2025. In Texas, the centre of this outbreak, 57 people were hospitalised and two unvaccinated school-aged children died.

    Canada has also exerienced its largest measles outbreak in 14 years, while last year, England experienced an outbreak of almost 3,000 confirmed cases and one death.

    Before the measles vaccine was introduced in the UK in 1968, virtually every child caught the highly infectious disease and hundreds of thousands of cases were reported each year. In a peak year, there were over 100 measles-related deaths.

    Twenty years after the introduction of a measles-only-vaccine, it was replaced with the combination vaccine MMR which also gives protection against mumps and rubella. The aim of this vaccine is to eliminate all three infections. There has been varying success in achieving this aim.

    Rubella – also known as German measles – is a very mild infection, but can be devastating if caught in the early stages of pregnancy. Fortunately, it is now a rare condition in the UK thanks to MMR.

    In rare cases, mumps can cause complications such as meningitis and hearing loss – but it too is now much less common than pre-MMR vaccine.

    Measles can be fatal and is highly contagious, so it’s much more difficult to control than most other infections. It has a high rate of complications, including pneumonia and inflammation of the brain.

    One vaccine dose gives about 95% protection against infection. But, because measles is so contagious, 95% uptake of two doses is needed to prevent outbreaks. Achieving such high uptake in all communities – and importantly, sustaining this high uptake once reached – is challenging.

    Vaccine hesitancy

    In 1998, research published in the medical journal The Lancet implied a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. This received intense media coverage and, not surprisingly, many parents decided not to have their children vaccinated.

    The research was subsequently discredited and the study formally retracted by The Lancet in 2010. Since then, many studies have found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, but for some parents, these fears persist.

    Currently in England, vaccine uptake rates are too low. Only 89% of two-year-old children have had their first dose of MMR vaccine, and 83.9% have had two doses by the age of five. This means large numbers of unvaccinated children: more than 10% of children in each year group remain unprotected.

    Vaccine uptake varies widely around the country. In some parts of London, as many as half the children starting school at five years of age have not had the two doses of vaccine needed for best protection.

    Not only are current vaccine uptakes too low to prevent outbreaks of measles, but many years of less-than-optimal vaccine uptake – including among young adults who weren’t vaccinated as infants because of the autism scare – has resulted in a large number of unprotected people. The impact of COVID also resulted in many young children missing their vaccines.

    Many factors affect whether people are vaccinated or not, including how, where and when vaccination services are provided, as well as behavioural and social factors. For example, vaccine hesitancy, defined by the World Health Organization as a “delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services”, is frequently blamed for people not getting vaccinated. Research suggests that vaccine hesitancy has increased since the COVID pandemic – even for vaccines such as MMR that have led to the near-eradication of some infectious diseases.

    In England, surveys are conducted regularly to investigate the views of parents of young children regarding vaccination. The most recent survey, conducted in 2023, showed that 84% of parents reported they considered vaccines to be safe – a [reduction from the previous year].

    These findings are reflected in other studies. Since COVID, some parents have reported that the pandemic has affected their views, either making them keener to have their children vaccinated or increasing their concerns about vaccination.

    Given the intense scrutiny and widespread discussion about vaccination that took place during the pandemic, this is not surprising. Unfortunately, due to pressures on general practice and other health services – resulting in a 40% reduction in the number of health visitors in England since 2015 – these trusted sources of advice about vaccination have become less easily available. In this context, people may turn to other sources of less reliable information, such as social media.



    Read more:
    Health misinformation is rampant on social media – here’s what it does, why it spreads and what people can do about it

    Although there is no robust evidence to show that health misinformation would stop a parent who was going to have their child vaccinated from doing so, it can be influential for people with existing concerns.

    Accessing services

    A large study using vaccination records of over ¾ million children born between 2000 and 2020 found that children born in the UK’s most deprived areas were less likely to receive the MMR vaccine. Parents also report having difficulty making or attending appointments as a barrier to vaccination.

    Addressing these obstacles requires a multi-pronged approach, ensuring parents are sent vaccination reminders and are able to attend appointments at suitable times and locations. This may mean holding vaccination clinics at places other than the general practice and at weekends and evenings.

    Work should be done with local communities to establish what works best for them to improve access to immunisation. Opportunistic immunisation is also important: when attending health services for another reason, unvaccinated children could be offered vaccines on the spot.

    Urgent action is needed to improve vaccine uptake – and it requires sustained commitment and increased funding.

    Helen Bedford receives funding from National Institute for Health and Care Research.

    – ref. Measles outbreaks in US and Canada show that MMR vaccines are needed more than ever – an expert in children’s health explains – https://theconversation.com/measles-outbreaks-in-us-and-canada-show-that-mmr-vaccines-are-needed-more-than-ever-an-expert-in-childrens-health-explains-221651

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why financial hardship is more likely if you’re disabled or sick

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By William E. Donald, Associate Professor of Sustainable Careers and Human Resource Management, University of Southampton

    Scharfsinn/Shutterstock

    If you have a long-term health condition or you’re a disabled person in the UK, you might be able to claim a benefit called personal independence payment (Pip). As the name suggests, Pip is designed to help with the additional costs of disability – regardless of employment status.

    But the government recently announced changes to the payment, which will make it harder for people to access support.

    As a disabled person, I know that it costs more to live with disability or illness. It has been calculated that disabled households need an extra £1,010 per month to maintain the same standard of living as non-disabled households. This gap arises from things like transport costs (because of inaccessible public transport), the need for expensive mobility aids, and water, electric and gas costs at home.

    The World Health Organization recommends a minimum indoor temperature of 18°C for healthy people and 20°C for those with chronic conditions. Yet, with soaring energy prices, many disabled people are forced to choose between heating their homes and other disability-related necessities.

    Despite these realities, the maximum annual Pip payment is £9,747.40, well below the additional £12,120 that disabled households typically need annually. Only those qualifying for the highest level of support receive this amount. Most get considerably less.

    So, what is the government’s justification for tightening eligibility? Together with changes to universal credit, it claims it will save £5 billion a year by the end of 2030 and get more people, including sick and disabled people, into work. But will it?

    Government figures from March 2024 show that 24% of people in the UK aged 16 to 64 are disabled. Within this group, the employment rate is 54.2%. For comparison, non-disabled adults of working age have an employment rate of 82%. Even when disabled people are employed, the disability pay gap is 12.7%. This gap reaches 27.9% for autistic workers and 26.9% for those with epilepsy.

    The same figures also show that 42.6% of disabled people are economically inactive. This is sometimes portrayed as people who are capable of working but choose not to. But this does not align with the facts.

    The latest figures on Pip claims show that last year the rate of fraud was so low that the Department for Work and Pensions recorded it as 0%.

    Anyone like me, who has experienced the lengthy and complicated Pip application process, will find these figures unsurprising. Cutting access to Pip will not push this group into employment but will plunge them deeper into financial hardship.

    The Resolution Foundation think tank estimates that up to 1.2 million disabled people could lose between £4,200 and £6,300 per year by 2029-30 due to these changes.

    The government is particularly focused on claimants with mental health conditions, especially younger people. As such, it is crucial to acknowledge the dire state of mental health services in the UK.

    Patients are waiting far longer for mental health treatment than for physical healthcare.
    chayanuphol/Shutterstock

    Eight times as many people wait more than 18 months for mental health treatment compared to physical healthcare.

    This crisis is compounded by broader challenges facing young people, who were disproportionately affected by COVID lockdowns. Three in four university students and recent graduates reported lower levels of wellbeing in September 2021 compared to pre-pandemic levels. These same young people face a competitive labour market, alongside soaring rent, energy and food costs.

    Noble goal but a harmful method

    Nevertheless, supporting disabled people and the long-term sick to access employment is a worthy goal. Government figures suggest 5.6% of disabled people are unemployed. Many of these people want to work. This is also true of many in the economically inactive group who simply cannot.

    The record £1 billion employment support measures announced in chancellor Rachel Reeves’ spring statement to help the disabled and long-term sick into work is obviously welcome.

    But we have to be realistic. Previous government schemes resulted in fewer than one in five people getting work. This highlights the systemic barriers that disabled people face in work beyond their agency. The new approach raises concerns that people might be pressured into unsuitable jobs simply to reduce unemployment figures.

    Even when disabled people find employment, they continue to face discrimination and workplace biases. The legal system places the burden on individuals to challenge unfair treatment and the disability wage gap just exacerbates inequalities.

    While remote work has been a game-changer for many disabled workers, the previous government pressured its own workforce of civil servants back into offices. Many business leaders continue to advocate for the same.

    Cutting Pip will not necessarily reduce the welfare bill. But it will drive more disabled people into poverty. Those with savings will exhaust them, ultimately qualifying for even more means-tested government assistance.

    Others will be priced out of work entirely. Many may end up needing more support from public services like the NHS, as their mental and physical health deteriorates. This means the claim of saving £5 billion a year is also likely flawed.

    So, what needs to change? Here are five ideas.

    1. Reverse Pip cuts and restrictive eligibility criteria. The government must listen to disability charities and ensure that financial support reflects the true cost of living with a disability.

    2. Hold employers accountable. Systemic barriers such as bias in the recruitment process must be removed, the disability pay gap addressed and remote work established as a long-term option.

    3. Increase disabled representation in decision-making. Disabled people must have a seat at the table in government and industry to ensure policies reflect real experiences.

    4. Integrate healthcare and social care. Linked to this, ensure essential utilities such as water, gas and electricity are always affordable for disabled and elderly people – perhaps via a government-backed special tariff.

    5. Pay carers fairly. Carer’s allowance is £83.30 per week for a minimum of 35 hours of care, just £2.38 per hour. This just exacerbates financial insecurity for disabled households.

    If these failures are not addressed, the consequences will be catastrophic. The government’s approach is making life harder, not easier, for disabled people. It is time for real action, not rhetoric and infantilising talk of “pocket money”. Disabled people deserve better. We all do.

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

    – ref. Why financial hardship is more likely if you’re disabled or sick – https://theconversation.com/why-financial-hardship-is-more-likely-if-youre-disabled-or-sick-253877

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump tariff backflip brings a US trade war with China into the crosshairs

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

    You have to marvel at Donald Trump’s prescience. After his announcement of America’s new tariffs regime on April 2, “liberation day”, the stock markets plummeted, causing faint hearts around the world to quail. Nerves fluttered particularly hard when bond yields started to rise rapidly this week, suggesting a growing lack of confidence in US 30-year debt – traditionally the gold standard for security.

    “I don’t want anything to go down,” Trump told a reporter at the weekend. “But sometimes, you have to take medicine to fix something.”

    The US president remained bullish on Wednesday morning, taking to his TruthSocial social media platform at 9.37am EDT to proclaim his confidence in US stocks.

    Sound advice, as it turned out (time shown is BST).
    TruthSocial

    And so it proved. Hours later, Trump announced to his followers that he had decided to pause the tariff hikes on all but China while keeping the 10% baseline tariff on all imports. The markets bounced back with alacrity, closing up 9.5% by the end of trading. (Incidentally, Trump Media and Technology Group, the parent company of TruthSocial, closed up 22.67%.)

    It just goes to show, faith may or may not be able to move mountains, but Donald Trump can certainly move markets.

    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

    Now it’s all eyes on China to see how the world’s second-largest economy will react to a yet-higher tariff on its exports to the US of 145%.

    Announcing to the world he was targeting China, the US president wrote that he was basing his decision on the “lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets”, and that “hopefully in the near future, China will realize that the days of ripping off the U.S.A., and other Countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable”.

    But based on Beijing’s initial reaction, it’s unlikely that Xi Jinping will be joining all the other world leaders who Trump says queued up over the past couple of days to “kiss his ass”. The messages from China’s leadership are that two can play at that game, and that Trump’s gambit “will end in failure”.

    China had imposed an immediate 84% tariff on all US exports, while reassuring the White House that the “the door to dialogue is open”.

    China expert Tom Harper of the University of East London believes Xi is now a different, more confident Chinese president than the one who granted some small concessions to Trump when he first imposed tariffs on China in 2017. Harper sees the likelihood of a “tumultuous period ahead for relations between China and the US” – and warns that the Chinese people may be more resilient to the economic shock a trade war brings than the US public.

    Looking back at what China considers a period of humiliation at the hands of western powers (notably Great Britain) in the 19th century, Harper says there’s a strong sense of “never again” in the Chinese psyche, which may well be triggered by this latest US aggression.



    Read more:
    What the spiralling trade war means for relations between the US and China

    But why roll back on the tariffs on the rest of the world? Australian economists James Giesecke and Robert Waschik believe the answer is simple: the harm that would have been done to the US economy. Their modelling suggests that “the US would have faced steep and immediate losses in employment, investment, growth and, most importantly, real consumption, the best measure of household living standards”.

    Giesecke and Waschik conclude the damage would have been serious and long term, increasing US unemployment by two-thirds and reducing US long-term GDP, resulting in a “permanent reduction in US global economic power”.



    Read more:
    This chart explains why Trump backflipped on tariffs. The economic damage would have been huge

    The aim of the Trump administration in introducing tariffs is to stimulate a return of manufacturing to the US – which is why they applied them to goods only while ignoring services. James Scott of King’s College London believes a lot of countries fetishise manufacturing as a sort of deeply ingrained throwback to when “pre-historic experiences of finding food, fuel and shelter dominated all other activities”.

    But most western economies have developed beyond heavy goods manufacturing, for the simple reason that countries with larger and lower-paid workforces are able to produce and ship goods at a fraction of the cost. Tik-Tok user Ben Lau posted this disturbingly funny vision of the return of large-scale manufacturing to the US.

    Scott believes it’s highly unlikely to come to this – and in any case, that it’s pointless to blame globalisation for the loss of US manufacturing jobs when rising productivity in other countries and automation have had much more impact.

    The lesson from history, writes Scott, is that with the retreat of colonialism came the industrialisation of the countries that had been major markets for manufactured goods produced by the western powers. In short, he concludes: “President Trump is mistaken if he really believes that tariffs will bring a new golden age of manufacturing. The world has changed.”



    Read more:
    Trump thinks tariffs can bring back the glory days of US manufacturing. Here’s why he’s wrong

    The diplomatic front

    Iran has had a rough 18 months or so. Its economy is on the floor thanks to western sanctions, the “real” currency rate (the rate you get on the street) is now close to 1 million rials to the US dollar, and large sections of the population are very unhappy with their leadership.

    So, when Iran’s foreign minister arrives in Oman for talks with the US at the weekend, there’s plenty of incentive to strike some kind of deal – even without the US president’s warning that Iran will be in “great danger” if the negotiations fail to deliver an agreement for Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme.

    Ali Bilgic, a Middle East specialist at Loughborough University, writes that while both sides have their reasons for wanting progress at the talks, things are likely to be hampered by a lack of trust on both sides. And it’s no coincidence that while Trump announced the talks after a meeting with Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Iranian deputy foreign minister travelled to Moscow this week, where he met his counterparts from China and Russia. With hardliners currently in the ascendancy in Tehran and the Trump-Netanyahu axis very much in evidence in Washington, a lot could go wrong.



    Read more:
    Iran and US to enter high-stakes nuclear negotiations – hampered by a lack of trust

    America’s other allies, Nato, gathered in Brussels at the end of last week for a foreign ministers meeting ahead of June’s summit at The Hague. As Amelia Hadfield – a defence and security policy expert at the University of Surrey – reports, there’s a growing air of urgency among the allies that they need to find a way to avoid a unilateral withdrawal of the US from the alliance, and that they’ll need at least some answers before meeting at The Hague.

    Hadfield walks us through the gradual but growing distance between Washington and the rest of the alliance, which has come to a head under Trump but has been some years in the making.



    Read more:
    Why Nato is struggling to rebuild itself in an increasingly threatening world

    Cry, the beloved country

    Since the incoming Trump administration announced it was freezing most USAID programmes as of January 20 for at least 90 days, vital lifelines keeping many thousands, if not millions, of desperate people in the poorest countries around the world have been cut off.

    One such country is Sudan, where a bitter and bloody civil war has raged for two years, leading to the situation being described by the United Nations as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

    Naomi Ruth Pendle, an expert in humanitarian development at the University of Bath, works closely with aid workers in South Kordofan, a region on the border with South Sudan which is collapsing under the weight of refugees from the civil war – and which faces a bitter famine unless the aid freeze is lifted immediately.

    Her moving account of the plight of the Sudanese people is made more vivid by accounts provided by people working on the ground in South Kordofan, where the aid freeze couldn’t have come at a worse time. January, when the freeze was announced, is usually the best time to increase the flow of humanitarian aid in the region – as the supplies from last year’s harvest begin to dwindle, and just before the rains make roads impassable.

    Pendle writes: “I’m now getting reports from South Kordofan of households not lighting a fire for up to four days at a time, which means the family is not eating. And, as ever, it is the children and the elderly who are particularly vulnerable.”



    Read more:
    USAID: the human cost of Donald Trump’s aid freeze for a war-torn part of Sudan

    I spent a happy year living in Khartoum in the mid-1980s teaching English at the university there. During that time, I was able to travel widely around Sudan and developed an enduring affection for the people and respect for their resilience and ingenuity in the face of often terrible hardships.

    So I found Justin Willis’s account of the decades of conflict that have riven Sudan particularly compelling. Willis, a professor of history at Durham University, looks back through the country’s history – from its foundation through conquest in the 19th century by the Egyptian branch of the Ottoman empire, via British control, to independence. And after independence, pretty much non-stop wars.

    Willis believes that Sudan’s main problem is that its army commanders have always believed they are the natural rulers of the country. The current conflict is between two rival army commanders and their followers.

    The official army, the Sudanese Armed Forces, recaptured Khartoum at the end of March. There have been reports of savage violence against civilians in the fortnight since. Meanwhile, the rival Rapid Support Forces continue to murder with seeming impunity in Darfur in western Sudan – where I once spent an unforgettable week trekking in the extinct volcano, Jebel Marra.



    Read more:
    Sudan civil war: despite appearances this is not a failed state – yet

    World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.

    – ref. Trump tariff backflip brings a US trade war with China into the crosshairs – https://theconversation.com/trump-tariff-backflip-brings-a-us-trade-war-with-china-into-the-crosshairs-254326

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Pierre Poilievre’s proposals on intimate partner violence will do little to stop it

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Walter S. DeKeseredy, Anna Deane Carlson Endowed Chair of Social Sciences, Director of the Research Center on Violence, and Professor of Sociology, West Virginia University

    Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre recently announced that if elected in Canada’s upcoming federal election, his party would enact tougher sentences for anyone accused of intimate partner violence.

    He has also vowed to institute a three-strikes policy for anyone who commits three serious offences, with a minimum 10-year prison sentence with no eligibility for parole.

    The proposed actions include creating a new offence of “assault of an intimate partner,” requiring stricter bail conditions for anyone accused of intimate partner violence and ensuring first-degree murder convictions for anyone who kills their partner.

    There are many steps policymakers who are concerned about victims could take. For example, they could fund a variety of effective prevention programs. However, the approach articulated by Poilievre does not appear to centre the victim, but rather the offender.

    Punishment is often ineffective

    Although government policies in Canada and other countries have emphasized punitive actions towards men who abuse their partners, relatively few of these men are arrested, incarcerated or treated.

    This is due in large part to the fact that most perpetrators are not reported to the police. In fact, one important factor hindering women from reporting their abuse to law enforcement is that officers often express distrust of victims.

    Starting with this survey in 1992, studies repeatedly show that at least one out of every four Canadian female undergraduate students will experience at least one type of sexual assault during their time at university.

    Furthermore, at least 11 per cent of Canadian women in marital or cohabiting relationships are physically abused by their male partners in a year, and in the mid-1990s, there was evidence showing that Canadian men appeared to have higher rates of physical violence towards female intimates than their U.S. counterparts.

    The prevalence of such violence is unlikely to decrease much if all the men who have beaten, raped or killed their partners are arrested and locked up. Decades of research shows that punishment is ineffective in reducing crimes like violence against women.

    Prison and other harsh legal sanctions do not deter abusive men from injuring their female partners any more than they deter the myriad of violent crimes that occur outside domestic or intimate contexts. This has been the conclusion of the majority of deterrence studies conducted in the past 50 years.

    Legal scholar Michelle Alexander and sociologists like Loic Wacquant and Bruce Western have outlined how incarceration can actually increase crime and exacerbate other social problems like unemployment and poverty.

    This information has been available to virtually every Canadian politician for many years, yet they have lacked the political will to act on this information. However, calls to institute more severe sentences often play into public desires to see those accused of crimes punished.

    Improve lives, not punish more

    Violence against women is often a key symptom of structured social inequality. Those who want to reduce it must find ways of reducing social inequality. Governments often compartmentalize social problems like violence against women along bureaucratic lines.

    In other words, some government departments are expected to handle economic issues and find ways to cut spending. However, those working for these departments rarely consider how reductions in unemployment or cuts to social programs and so on affect rates of abuse.

    Rather, the police and courts are often left to respond to male-to-female violence after it has happened. Yet, in real life, jobs, welfare, housing, employment equity, child care, gender inequality and a host of other factors affect the ways men treat women.

    It is time that we move beyond the well-worn path of using after-the-fact approaches to dealing with violence against women.
    (Shutterstock)

    It should be noted that police, courts, prisons and treatment programs play an important role in responding to violence against women. Nevertheless, neither the criminal justice system nor battered women’s shelters should be solely, or even primarily, responsible for dealing with violence against women. Relying only on them to make women’s lives safer is tantamount to “closing the barn doors after the horses have left.”

    Calling the police after a beating, rape or femicide does not prevent the crime from taking place. And although shelters are undoubtedly necessary in our society, shelter workers cannot be expected to solve the problem of woman abuse single-handedly.

    Therefore, it is time that we move beyond the well-worn path of using after-the-fact approaches. Hopefully, if implemented sensitively, what legal professor Leigh Goodmark refers to as a balanced policy approach will result in major reductions in violence against women.

    This approach entails using initiatives such as: putting cash resources directly in the hands of abused women, providing affordable housing and childcare, creating an anti-poverty movement, increased funding for the development and evaluation of community-based prevention programs and encouraging progressive men to be part of the solution.

    Will these strategies make a difference? As criminologist Elliott Currie puts it:

    “We have tried moral exhortation. We have tried neglect. We have tried punishment. We have even grudgingly, tried treatment. We have tried everything but improving lives.”

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Pierre Poilievre’s proposals on intimate partner violence will do little to stop it – https://theconversation.com/pierre-poilievres-proposals-on-intimate-partner-violence-will-do-little-to-stop-it-254014

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘Adolescence’ on Netflix: Evidence-based ways parents can support boys around masculinity norms

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Deinera Exner-Cortens, Associate Professor of Psychology and Tier 2 Canada Research Chair (Childhood Health Promotion), University of Calgary

    Teenage boys may retreat into a wall of silence as they detect gendered norms. Parents’ persistence to talk with them about their experiences, beliefs and emotions matters. (Netflix)

    This story contains spoilers about Netflix’s ‘Adolescence.’

    Since its release in mid-March 2025, Adolescence has been streamed almost 100 million times worldwide. The show tells the story of a 13-year-old boy who murders a female classmate after being radicalized by the manosphere.

    There has been mass public discussion about the series, including among parents. As stated by one commenter on the subreddit r/Parenting: “I have a fairly standard 15-year-old boy … After watching this on Netflix, I’ve got terrible anxiety about it all … ”

    As a developmental psychologist with a focus on adolescent boys, I believe this discourse is important, but the intense discussion can make it seem like these are new issues. Yet, psychologists and feminist scholars have been studying masculinities since at least the 1960s, including among adolescent boys.

    We have also learned how to create supportive spaces for boys through research on gender-transformative interventions. These interventions address issues like poor mental health, substance use and use of violence by focusing on how strict adherence to patriarchal masculine norms (such as emotional restriction, homophobia and aggression) can harm boys’ health and the health of those around them.

    Here, I offer three key takeaways parents and caregivers can learn from this research, and additional resources to explore.

    1. Curiosity is key.

    Many gender-transformative programs use ideas of transformational learning, where the experiences, beliefs and perspectives of boys are used to support critical reflection and change. Put simply, this means when boys say they like “that Andrew Tate shite” (Episode 2), adults respond with curiosity and not condemnation (for example, saying something like: “Why does that idea feel true to you?”).



    Read more:
    ‘Adolescence’ on Netflix: A painful wake-up call about unregulated internet use for teens

    Curiosity, however, does not equal agreement. By demonstrating that we are authentically engaged with what our teen is sharing, we can also (gently) push them to consider how these ideas might harm themselves or others (for instance: “How do you think that idea might make the girls around you feel?”). It is also OK to express disagreement when ideas cross a line, but explain why (for instance: “I am not OK with you calling girls bitches. Do you know where that word comes from?”).

    Another thing we have learned is that this style of engagement — while effective — is not a one-and-done. Effective gender-transformative intervention strategies take time to work, and these conversations need to be consistent and ongoing, ideally starting well before adolescence (though it is never too late to start).

    Adolescents may also not be the first to engage, so it’s important to regularly and intentionally create space for them to share their ideas and experiences. If you get a wall of silence, try again another time. One idea is to look for natural opportunities for moments of conversation, like on the way to an extracurricular activity, or when eating a meal together (like the lead detective does with his son in the second episode). Also look for activities you can do alongside your child, and where they can teach you something (for example, playing a video game together).

    This is hard work, and so finding support among like-minded parents (whether in-person or online) can be helpful.

    2. Masculinity is not ‘toxic’.

    Many pieces on Adolescence refer to “toxic masculinity.” However, this is a phrase to avoid, because for boys, this suggets there is something inherently flawed with a core aspect of their identity, making manosphere messages that celebrate misogynistic forms of masculinity all the more enticing. Instead, we can talk with boys about how they feel they are expected to act as a boy in their world, and the ways they might find some of these expectations restricting.

    For example, many boys want to share their emotions, and indeed do so until adolescence. But, as families, schools, peers and society start to place stricter expectations on the norm of boys suppressing their emotions, boys may retreat from this sharing.

    Yet, boys who are able to resist this norm — with the support of their families, peers and schools — do much better psychologically and socially.

    Parents and caregivers can support this resistance by actively asking boys about their emotions (and sharing our own), and giving boys words to label what they are feeling.

    For example, in Adolescence, Jamie’s dad does show emotional vulnerability several times, but never in front of Jamie. Instead, Jamie recounts a memory of his dad having a “proper rager” and the type of language we hear Eddie use when yelling at boys who tagged his van (“I’ll slap that f-king smile off your face … Listen to me, you little twat”) is mirrored by Jamie when he yells at the psychologist (“I don’t f-king wanna sit down! … Look at me now!”). In sum, what we say, do and share is key for boys’ positive development.

    3. Boys are individuals.

    As one boy in our research shared: “To be a guy is to be human, it’s OK to be sad or upset or nervous and stuff. It’s also good to be happy so it’s OK to show how you feel and that.” Yet, that essential opportunity to be human is often curtailed for boys by the gendered expectations and pressures they feel.

    In Adolescence, we learn Jamie once loved to draw, but at some point he stopped. Comparatively, another detective, who is a woman, discusses how she was helped to survive a tough school environment when a teacher supported her drawing. Jamie’s dad talks about how he encouraged Jamie to be “sporty,” while, by contrast, Jamie relays he is not good at sports, and knew his dad was ashamed of this. The messages Jamie received told him that he needed to be a certain way, and when he failed to live up to those expectations, he turned to online manosphere spaces for acceptance.

    Similarly, in our research with former incels, we learned that participants found the community when they were looking for online help for their struggles meeting masculinity norms. So, if boys are struggling, parents can help them find supportive spaces that promote messages about the many ways to be a guy in the world, and that match their needs and interests.

    Resources for parents and caregivers

    • Gender-transformative interventions in the U.S. and Canada with evidence of effectiveness include Coaching Boys Into Men, Manhood 2.0 and WiseGuyz

    • Books: Masculinity Workbook for Teens; Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional Life of Boys

    • Podcast: On Boys

    • Canadian non-profit Next Gen Men, dedicated to changing how the world sees, acts and thinks about masculinity.

    • Common Sense Media has great guides and information, though for some content, a paid subscription is required.

    Deinera Exner-Cortens receives funding from the Public Health Agency of Canada. She has also been the lead evaluator for the WiseGuyz program since 2016.

    – ref. ‘Adolescence’ on Netflix: Evidence-based ways parents can support boys around masculinity norms – https://theconversation.com/adolescence-on-netflix-evidence-based-ways-parents-can-support-boys-around-masculinity-norms-253724

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Foreign interference threats in Canada’s federal election are both old and new

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Chris Tenove, Assistant director, Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, University of British Columbia

    Fears of foreign interference loom over the Canadian election. The federal inquiry on foreign interference revealed that entities aligned with India and China interfered in recent elections, albeit without major impact on the results, and concluded that disinformation campaigns pose the greatest threat to Canada’s long-term democratic health.

    Now, with a Canada-bashing American president adding to those foreign interference risks, Canada’s election integrity seems to be in an unprecedented state of fragility.

    However, foreign interference has a longstanding history in Canadian elections. Understanding what is and is not new about current efforts may help to turn down the heat and focus more on how Canadians can make their own decisions this election.



    Read more:
    Thanks to social media platforms, election interference is more insidious and pervasive than ever

    Covert techniques

    For starters, what is foreign interference?

    The commission, following established practice, defined it as an action whereby “states pursue their global interests using covert, corrupt, illegal or coercive techniques.” That means public comments on our election by foreign politicians is not interference, as Canadian government officials have made clear.

    While we largely agree with the commission’s definition, we argue that the interfering entity isn’t necessarily a state. Foreign corporations, crime syndicates and terrorist networks can also interfere in our elections.

    Elon Musk is a tricky case. He is a Canadian citizen, but his current role with the United States government may mean that he can be considered a “foreign entity” according to Canada’s election law, as legal scholar Eve Gaumond has pointed out.

    U.S. interference isn’t new

    History reveals a long menu of options for foreign interference, ranging from bribery to espionage and polling assistance.

    In the 1872 election campaign, Sir Hugh Allan, a Montréal shipping and railroad magnate, successfully used more than $350,000 of mostly U.S. funds to pressure John A. Macdonald and other Conservative party members to award Allan and his allies the contract to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. This was bribery to advance corporate aims.

    After these machinations became public in 1873, Macdonald eventually resigned over what became known as the Pacific Scandal, and Allan lost the Canadian Pacific Railway contract. Today his actions would be a violation of campaign finance laws, which prohibit foreign funding of electioneering. But until the late 19th century, such donations weren’t uncommon.

    Foreign policy has shaped Canadian elections before, even if the last Canadian election that focused almost primarily on tariffs with the U.S. was in 1911. But concerns about relations with other countries are different from foreign interference.

    To date, the most significant foreign interference came in Canada’s 1962 and 1963 elections. Again, Americans were behind it. The John F. Kennedy administration was frustrated by positions taken by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker.

    The Conservative government continued to trade with Cuba despite American sanctions, had made a deal to sell grain to the People’s Republic of China, and — most importantly — had not agreed to a U.S. proposal to station air defence missiles with nuclear warheads on Canadian soil.

    Rather than bribery, the U.S. provided Lester B. Pearson’s Liberal Party with assistance from pollster Lou Harris. Harris was a key figure both in Kennedy’s 1960 election win and in the nascent use of computer-assisted analysis of opinion polls to target specific demographic groups.

    The Kennedy administration went further in 1963 and issued a press release in the midst of the election, calling Diefenbaker a liar and disputing his positions on air defence. Neither of these actions was illegal at the time, though the secret provision of in-kind assistance to the 1962 Liberal campaign would now run afoul of the prohibition on foreign support for electioneering.

    Soviet, American interference

    The Soviets too were interested in Canadian politics, with some Canadians allegedly recruited as spies, according to Igor Gouzenko, a cipher clerk based at the Soviet embassy in Ottawa who defected to Canada in 1945.

    The revelations even led to the arrest of one member of Parliament, Fred Rose.

    In fact, American and Russian interference in general elections around the world was common in the 20th century. Political scientist Dov Levin has estimated that from 1946 to 2000, the U.S. and Soviet Union (Russia after 1991) intervened in 11.3 per cent of all global national elections.

    New digital techniques

    All these techniques can be pursued today, but there are at least three new forms of interference.

    First, foreign interference can include threats made against party leaders or other candidates. As in the past, these can come through clandestine networks or hired thugs. But today, an insult or false accusation from Trump, Musk or others with huge, hostile followings can expose politicians and others to a blizzard of online threats and abuse.

    Second, foreign interference can occur by providing money for electioneering. Rather than a single bundled sum offered to John A. Macdonald, funds are more likely to come through online donations, possibly including crypto-currency transfers that are difficult to monitor.

    For instance, in Romania’s 2024 election, the far-right, Russia-supporting candidate Calin Georgescu was accused of receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign support. In late March, a crypto-currency businessman was arrested and accused of using TikTok’s “gifts” feature to provide US$879,000 to induce 265 people to vote for Georgescu.

    Such acts would be illegal in Canada. More ambiguous is whether social media platforms use their algorithms to amplify some views and diminish others.

    There is no doubt that X, Facebook and TikTok platforms have the capability to do this. While government officials said such actions would be investigated, it is less clear whether they could be detected or what the government would do in response.

    Finally, foreign interference can occur by trying to influence Canadians’ voting choices by threatening illegal or coercive actions or promoting misinformation.

    Trump has already violated trade agreements with Canada and threatened future illegal activities, even going as far as to threaten annexation. Any comments that link these threats to voting outcomes — for example, if Trump said something like “if Canadians choose Carney, they will see tariffs like they have never seen before” — would constitute interference.



    Read more:
    Forget booing the anthem, Canada must employ strategic communications to fight Trump’s lies

    What can be done?

    There are systems in place to detect foreign interference.

    Canadian intelligence agencies and law enforcement are monitoring for foreign interference, and a panel of five senior bureaucrats makes non-partisan decisions about whether to alert the public.

    Global Affairs Canada’s Rapid Response Mechanism is monitoring the online information environment for foreign interference. Elections Canada is also monitoring for violations of election law.

    Members of the public can help. Anyone can share cases of manipulated images and other misleading information related to the election with the Digital Threats Tipline, created by the Canadian Digital Media Research Network. (Our Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions at the University of British Columbia is a member of this McGill University-based network.)

    These monitoring efforts will help us keep an eye on social media platforms. The companies have agreed to act on interference in the election, but experts are skeptical of their commitment.

    If platforms are pipelines of election interference, they should be more tightly regulated. For instance, the European Union’s Digital Services Act has enabled investigations and potential accountability measures in response to interference in Romania’s election.

    The most important thing Canadians can do is vote in this election based on their own well-informed priorities, worries and aspirations.

    While remaining alert to foreign interference, Canadians can perhaps take some comfort in the resilience of our democratic institutions in the face of a long history of attempts to undermine elections.

    Chris Tenove receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to research global policies to address online interference in elections.

    Heidi J. S. Tworek receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Canada Research Chair programe. She is a senior fellow with the Centre for International Governance Innovation and testified before the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in October 2024.

    – ref. Foreign interference threats in Canada’s federal election are both old and new – https://theconversation.com/foreign-interference-threats-in-canadas-federal-election-are-both-old-and-new-253600

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Infertility Support 101: What women want to hear (and what they don’t)

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ashley A Balsom, Assistant Professor in Clinical Psychology, Memorial University of Newfoundland

    By making small but intentional shifts in how we communicate, we can help ensure that individuals experiencing infertility feel supported. (Shutterstock)

    Infertility is more than a medical condition — it is an emotional journey that can leave people feeling isolated and misunderstood. For the one in six couples affected, experiencing infertility can be the most upsetting period of their lives.

    Even when loved ones try to offer support, their words sometimes miss the mark, inadvertently deepening feelings of loneliness.

    To better understand these experiences, we set out to explore what people with infertility find helpful versus unhelpful in social interactions. This question became especially relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic when fertility treatments were put on hold, heightening feelings of uncertainty and loss.

    We surveyed 80 women from Canada and the United States whose fertility treatments had been cancelled during the pandemic. By examining the kinds of comments people facing infertility received, we identified six meaningful ways to offer support.

    What helps: Meaningful ways to show support

    One of the most striking findings from our study was that the most appreciated form of support was simply being listened to without interruption. This aligns with research on other health conditions, such as cancer and chronic pain, where empathetic listening has been shown to improve well-being.

    Participants valued hopeful statements that didn’t dismiss their emotions. They also appreciated shared lived experiences and encouragement to engage in activities beyond fertility treatments. Practical support — whether emotional support (for example, “I’m here for you”) or tangible help (assisting with appointments or finances) — was particularly meaningful.

    One of the most striking findings from our study was that the most appreciated form of support was simply being listened to without interruption.
    (Freepik), FAL

    What hurts? Commonly harmful comments

    Despite good intentions, certain types of comments often left participants feeling worse. Some interactions, while meant to encourage, came across as dismissive or intrusive.

    A key example was toxic positivity, where statements like “Just stay positive” or “Everything happens for a reason” were perceived as minimizing real pain. Similarly, unsolicited advice — such as “Just relax and it will happen” — was frustrating because it overlooked the complexity of infertility and placed blame on the individual.

    Repeated prying about fertility treatments or pregnancy updates was also widely reported as distressing. Being asked “Any news yet?” or “Are you pregnant?” created a sense of pressure and invasion of privacy during an already vulnerable time.

    A model for providing support

    These findings formed the basis of LIFTED and DOWN — models designed to help loved ones offer support in ways that are both compassionate and helpful. Each of these strategies aligns with the interactions participants in our study found most helpful, offering a clear, research-backed guide for those who want to support someone experiencing infertility.

    LIFTED stands for Listening without judgment, Inspiring hope, Finding common ground, Tangible support, Emotional validation and Distraction encouragement. Together, these points embody helpful methods for supporting those facing infertility, as outlined by the participants in our study.

    DOWN stands for Dismissive positivity, Overbearing advice, Withholding validation and Nosy prying. These make up the main routes to avoiding taking when comforting those with infertility struggles. For example, offering solutions to issues without being asked and minimizing real emotions were regarded as unhelpful by participants.

    Fine line between encouraging, dismissing

    An important distinction our study identified was between inspiring hope and engaging in dismissive positivity.

    Hopeful statements were often perceived as helpful, but only when paired with emotional validation. For example, “I know this is incredibly difficult, and it’s OK to feel upset. But no matter what, you are not alone” conveys both acknowledgement of distress and encouragement.

    In contrast, statements like “Just be positive!” or “It will happen when you stop stressing” felt dismissive and invalidating. The key difference is whether the person’s emotions are recognized or disregarded.

    Similarly, distraction can be a valuable coping tool — but only when it aligns with the individual’s values and needs. Encouraging someone to engage in meaningful activities, such as exercise, creative hobbies or community engagement, can be helpful. However, saying “Just keep busy” or “Think happy thoughts” risks coming across as minimizing their experience.

    Shared understanding and self-education

    Another key takeaway from our study is that individuals struggling with infertility often found the most comfort in speaking with others who had gone through similar experiences. Lived experience provided a rare sense of understanding, reducing feelings of isolation.

    However, even those without direct experience can still play a meaningful role in providing support. Self-education — reading firsthand accounts, watching documentaries or following advocacy organizations — can help loved ones gain insight into the emotional impact of infertility.

    Educating oneself can also prevent unintentional harm by reducing the likelihood of saying something dismissive, offering unhelpful advice or making assumptions about the person’s experience.

    Shifting support to be more meaningful

    If someone in your life is facing infertility, the most meaningful support may be simple.

    It’s not about coming up with the perfect thing to say or having all the right answers, it’s about being present, listening without judgment and validating their emotions.

    By making small but intentional shifts in how we communicate, we can help ensure that individuals experiencing infertility feel supported rather than dismissed, heard rather than pressured and uplifted rather than brought down.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Infertility Support 101: What women want to hear (and what they don’t) – https://theconversation.com/infertility-support-101-what-women-want-to-hear-and-what-they-dont-250747

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Tax Day highlights the costs of single living – but demographics are forcing financial change

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Peter McGraw, Professor of Marketing and Psychology, University of Colorado Boulder

    Tax Day is right around the corner – an annual reminder that without the option to file jointly, singles pay more per dollar earned than married people. Tax advantages are just one of over 1,000 legal and economic benefits married couples enjoy, a disparity worsened by marketplace and employer practices.

    Despite its disadvantages, single living is on the rise. While the average age of first marriage was just 21 in 1960, today it has risen to 29. Half the adults in the U.S. are unmarried, and half of them aren’t seeking a relationship. As many as a third of Zoomers may never tie the knot.

    But this shift is more than cultural – it’s redefining the rules of personal finance. Freed from the constraints of shared decision-making, single people are earning, spending and investing on their own terms.

    And as a behavioral economist who studies single living, I think this could mean big things for the future of money. As more people opt out of marriage, I expect that governments, businesses and financial systems will adapt – just as they did in response to women’s economic independence.

    The price of singlehood

    As a lifelong bachelor, I have a cheeky response when filing my taxes: “That’s the price of freedom.”

    For many singles, the price is too steep. More than half of singles over 30 feel financially insecure, one survey found, and their economic reality backs it up. For example, singles spend about US$5,500 more annually than their married peers – which adds up to more than $200,000 over a 40-year career.

    Some of the challenge is mathematical. Married couples split major expenses like housing, transportation and travel, and rely on dual incomes as a buffer against job loss or disability.

    Policy amplifies the financial burdens. One-person households are the most common type in the U.S., yet developers still prioritize building large single-family houses – driving up apartment and condo costs. Retirement presents another stark contrast. Singles can’t claim spousal or survivor Social Security benefits and solely fund their retirement.

    Employers design benefits around families – offering spousal coverage, dependent tax breaks and family leave. Single employees tend to shoulder more responsibilities yet receive 3.6 fewer paid days off per year than their married peers.

    In the marketplace – from travel to tech and insurance – businesses often price goods and services with couples and families in mind. Solo travelers often pay single supplements on cruises and tours. Streaming, phone and retail memberships offer “family plans” with no option for solo users subscribing as part of a group. Even auto insurance penalizes solo drivers – two-door cars cost 16% more to insure.

    The costs add up – but the news for singles isn’t all bad.

    Peter McGraw discusses living single in a financial system built for two.

    The financial upside of going solo

    I study how singles build financial security through the hallmarks of single living: autonomy and adaptability.

    An obvious financial factor is the cost of children. While some singles are parents, they’re far less likely than married couples to shoulder the expense of raising a child – an outlay of more than $300,000 per child before college.

    A key advantage: Singles have complete financial control. They choose how to earn, save and spend. There’s less risk of absorbing a partner’s credit card or student loan debt, covering for reckless spending, or facing the financial fallout of divorce.

    Career flexibility is another key advantage. Singles can more easily relocate for higher-paying jobs or lower-cost locales – freedom that enables powerful financial arbitrage. Many digital nomads, most of them single, choose countries with lower costs and better quality of life.

    Singles also have greater control over when and how they retire. Unlike couples, who must coordinate timing and strategies, singles have more freedom to retire early, ride out a down market, or ease into semiretirement.

    Building a financial system for everyone

    As a business school professor, I’ve seen how slow business and government can be to respond to demographic shifts. The tax system won’t change overnight – governments have long used the tax code to promote marriage – but other policies and practices will evolve. I believe the rise of singles – and the power of their votes and dollars – will make the status quo unsustainable.

    Scandinavia and parts of Asia are setting precedents. In Sweden, solo adults are recognized as a “family of one,” with access to housing support, parental leave and pension benefits – no marriage required. Smart companies will also adapt to recruit and retain singles, who make up a large portion of the labor force. I expect to see an expansion of single-inclusive offerings like caregiving leave, flexible work arrangements and individual-friendly health plans.

    Singles also build lifelong support systems outside marriage. Sweden again offers a glimpse of what might be: A landmark court case recently granted life insurance benefits to a platonic partner, proving that legal protections don’t have to hinge on romance.

    Housing remains another legacy system built for couples. While most new developments still prioritize single-family homes, markets like Japan and
    Hong Kong have embraced lower-cost micro-apartments with shared community spaces – an appealing model for solo dwellers. Some U.S. cities are beginning to experiment with similar designs, signaling a shift toward more inclusive urban housing.

    China’s celebration of solo living, Singles’ Day – held every year on 11/11 – is now the world’s largest e-commerce holiday, generating more sales than Black Friday and Cyber Monday combined. The company that created it, Alibaba, promotes deals on single-serve appliances, one-way flights and self-care bundles.

    Western companies are catching on: Travel brands are waiving singles supplements, restaurants are welcoming solo diners with dedicated seating, and telecom companies are rolling out “friends and family” plans that don’t require a romantic partner.

    Finally, I believe wealth management will respond to the rise of singles. While I’ve found that most financial advice still assumes that people will eventually marry, solo earners need different strategies, such as bigger emergency funds, flexible housing options and proactive estate planning. Expect a wave of financial products designed for solo living, from retirement tools to mortgages built for one.

    As singles become the majority in many countries, governments, businesses and financial institutions will adapt by necessity.

    The bottom line

    As an advocate for singles, I am an optimist. Yes, singles pay more on Tax Day – among other challenges. But they also have one undeniable advantage: financial freedom. Singles can do more than survive in a system built for two – they can thrive.

    Americans are not going back to the 1960s. As solo living becomes the norm, financial systems will evolve. Governments will face pressure to modernize policy, businesses will launch products and services for one-person households, and financial professionals will adapt to better serve solo earners.

    The institutions that recognize this shift first will shape the future – for everyone.

    I have a book (“Solo: Building a Remarkable Life of Your Own”) and a podcast (“Solo – The Single Person’s Guide to a Remarkable Life”) that are relevant to this article.

    – ref. Tax Day highlights the costs of single living – but demographics are forcing financial change – https://theconversation.com/tax-day-highlights-the-costs-of-single-living-but-demographics-are-forcing-financial-change-254035

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Black Americans are more likely than other racial groups to express their faith in the workplace

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Elaine Howard Ecklund, Professor of Sociology, Rice University

    Many Black Americans want to bring their faith to work but face discrimination. Keeproll/E+ via Getty Images

    Nearly 40% of Black workers feel comfortable talking about their faith with people at work, the highest of any U.S. racial group, our two recent studies found. But they also risk facing religious discrimination.

    For the past 15 years, we have been studying religion in workplaces. Recently we conducted two studies, including two online surveys involving 15,000 workers and in-depth interviews with nearly 300. Our respondents included Christian, Jewish, Muslim and nonreligious individuals.

    The majority of Black Americans – nearly 8 in 10 – identify as Christians. And we found that Black workers from all faiths are more likely than other racial groups to use their traditions to find meaning and purpose in their work and to feel “called” to their work.

    Although not all Black Americans are religious or want their faith to intersect with their work, we found that many Black Americans very much want to bring their religious beliefs to work. This goes beyond just talking about them at work, such as their holiday celebrations or the importance of their church in their lives. In addition, Black Americans are more likely than other racial groups to display or wear religious symbols, such as jewelry or head coverings.

    Why it matters?

    Scholars have often focused on racial discrimination in workplaces. However, the potential overlap between racial and religious marginalization has not been studied as much.

    Some Black Christians told us that when they mention faith at work, they fear they will be discriminated against because of their race and because of their faith – what we call “double marginalization.”

    For example, we interviewed a Black Christian woman who worked as an assistant professor of English. She told us she was reluctant to describe the challenges she faced in academia as religious discrimination but said the humanities “tend to not always be welcoming toward religious people and Christians specifically.” She recalled several instances when she was treated differently due to her faith.

    Black people can feel negatively judged on account of their faith.
    Andrey Popov/iStock Getty Images Plus

    Black Christians we interviewed said that co-workers stereotyped them as narrow-minded or sanctimonious in ways that felt marginalizing. For example, some said the term “holy” – which might seem positive in certain kinds of contexts – can be applied in pejorative ways to Black Christians. A man we interviewed who attends a majority Black congregation said he talks about his faith openly in the workplace and often feels negatively judged.

    Members of minority religions may feel even more at risk. The largest group of Muslims in the U.S. are Black Americans. Black Muslim female workers, for example, feel three times marginalized – feeling at risk for gender, racial and religious discrimination – our study found.

    Their faith sometimes makes Black Americans less likely to address inequality in their workplaces. We found they sometimes draw on religious values like forgiveness and their belief that “God is in control” to justify remaining quiet about religious and racial discrimination.

    What’s next

    This contrasts with our previous work, where we argued that religion can be used to address inequalities at work. We need more research that examines the inextricable link between religion and race in workplaces. Workplace leaders who care about lessening inequality need to understand that racial and religious identities are often deeply intertwined.

    The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

    Elaine Howard Ecklund receives funding from the Lilly Endowment Inc., the Templeton Religion Trust, and the Arthur Vining Davis Foundation.

    Christopher P. Scheitle receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the John Templeton Foundation.

    Denise Daniels receives funding from the Lilly Endowment Inc.

    – ref. Black Americans are more likely than other racial groups to express their faith in the workplace – https://theconversation.com/black-americans-are-more-likely-than-other-racial-groups-to-express-their-faith-in-the-workplace-253203

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Schools are harnessing artificial intelligence to revolutionize courses in hospitality management

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Betsy Pudliner, PhD, Associate Professor of Hospitality and Technology Innovation, University of Wisconsin-Stout

    Generative AI helps create dynamic simulations that provide students with hands-on, project-based learning experiences. Matt Bird/Getty Images

    Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.

    Title of course:

    Hospitality Employee Relations

    What prompted the idea for the course?

    The idea came from my frustration with traditional methods used to teach hospitality management. As a professor and industry professional, I saw the need to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and real-world skills.

    Internships and fieldwork are valuable. But they may not be available to students, especially those in online or hybrid programs. I wanted to offer students an opportunity to gain hands-on learning experiences.

    Using Articulate’s Rise 360 – an e-learning development platform – I created dynamic simulations based on stories from my own experiences, as well as from other industry professionals.

    For example, an interactive lost wallet scenario I created with my instructional design team involves a person who realizes they’ve left their wallet behind after visiting a nursing home. It includes decision points that enhance critical thinking and decision-making through the use of concept art.

    AI-driven prompts aid in transforming industry experiences into online course content. The Pinnacle Golf Resort, a made-up resort I created using Rise 360, engages students with dynamic cause-and-effect decision trees with realistic managerial challenges.

    What does the course explore?

    Students engage with real-world challenges, such as:

    • Managing guest complaints

    • Handling staffing issues

    • Dealing with financial challenges

    • Implementing operational solutions

    • Moral and ethical issues and conflict resolution

    Students are tasked with making decisions that affect the outcome of each scenario, with immediate feedback on their choices. That provides personalized learning experiences tailored to their progress.

    The course focuses on connecting theory to practice, such as application of leadership styles − autocratic, democratic or different types of power − to solve problems and improve guest satisfaction.

    One scene in the Pinnacle Golf Resort simulation involves a restaurant manager handling a disruptive guest during a high-profile event. I realized I needed a decision-rating scale to assess the student’s choices. Generative AI refined decision options and aided in the construction of that decision-rating scale.

    This ensures that choices − such as offering a goodwill gesture or removal of the guest − have realistic consequences. Therefore, the total number of points affixed would determine whether the restaurant manager would be promoted or need more training.

    Why is this course relevant now?

    As the hospitality industry becomes more competitive and complex − with higher turnover rates and shifting workforce expectations − effective decision-making and problem-solving skills become crucial in managing guest experiences.

    Traditional internships and fieldwork are valuable.

    But online and hybrid programs may struggle to provide these opportunities. As hospitality programs shift to online and hybrid formats, the demand for scalable, hands-on learning tools has increased.

    What’s a critical lesson from the course?

    A key lesson is the importance of adaptive decision-making and understanding the consequences of one’s actions. Through simulations created with the help of generative AI, students see firsthand how their decisions impact multiple areas of a hospitality business.

    These scenarios allow students to experience real-world challenges. And this helps them practice making decisions in a dynamic environment.

    By participating in the simulations, students learn that there is no one-size-fits-all approach in hospitality management. They must adapt their leadership style based on the situation and the individuals involved.

    What materials does the course feature?

    The course creates interactive simulations using Articulate 360 and Rise 360.

    These simulations replicate real-world hospitality situations such as managing guest complaints or financial decision-making.

    The class uses stories drawn from the instructor’s own industry experience. This exposes students to the complexities of hospitality management.

    Feedback is generated based on the student’s decisions in the simulations, developed with the help of ChatGPT. This fosters self-reflection and promoting continual improvement in their leadership abilities.

    What will the course prepare students to do?

    Upon completion, students will be able to:

    • Navigate complex guest relations and manage complaints in real time.

    • Make informed operational decisions while balancing guest satisfaction, employee performance and financial considerations.

    • Apply various leadership styles to motivate teams, resolve conflicts and ensure high service standards.

    • Assess their leadership style and adapt it to different situations in hospitality management.

    Betsy A. Pudliner is affiliated with ICHRIE-International Council of Hospitality, Restaurant and Institutional Educators.

    – ref. Schools are harnessing artificial intelligence to revolutionize courses in hospitality management – https://theconversation.com/schools-are-harnessing-artificial-intelligence-to-revolutionize-courses-in-hospitality-management-249423

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Fill-in-the-blank training primes AI to interpret health data from smartwatches and fitness trackers

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Eloy Geenjaar, Ph.D. Student in Electrical Engineering & Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology

    AI promises to help wearable devices like smart watches better monitor your health. adamkaz/E+ via Getty Images

    The human body constantly generates a variety of signals that can be measured from outside the body with wearable devices. These bio-signals – ranging from heart rate to sleep state and blood oxygen levels – can indicate whether someone is having mood swings or can be used to diagnose a variety of body or brain disorders.

    It can be relatively cheap to gather a lot of bio-signal data. Researchers can organize a study and ask participants to use a wearable device akin to a smartwatch for a few days. However, to teach a machine learning algorithm to find a relationship between a specific bio-signal and a health disorder, you first need to teach the algorithm to recognize that disorder. That’s where computer engineers like myself come in.

    Many commercial smartwatches, such as ones by Apple, AliveCor, Google and Samsung, currently support atrial fibrillation detection. Atrial fibrillation is a common type of irregular heart rhythm, and leaving it untreated can lead to a stroke. One way to automatically detect atrial fibrillation is to train a machine learning algorithm to recognize what atrial fibrillation looks like in the data.

    This machine learning approach requires large bio-signal datasets in which instances of atrial fibrillation are labeled. The algorithm can use the labeled instances to learn to recognize a relationship between the bio-signal and atrial fibrillation.

    The labeling process can be quite expensive because it requires experts, such as cardiologists, to go through millions of data points and label each instance of atrial fibrillation. The same problem extends to many other bio-signals and disorders.

    To resolve this issue, researchers have been developing new ways to train machine learning algorithms with fewer labels. By first training a machine learning model to fill in the blanks of large-scale unlabeled bio-signal data, the machine learning model is primed to learn the relationship between a bio-signal and a disorder with fewer labels. This is called pretraining. Pretraining even helps a machine learning model learn a relationship between a bio-signal and a disorder when it is pretrained on a completely unrelated bio-signal.

    Bio-signals are found all over the body and provide information about different bodily functions. Each of these is a bio-signal that measures a specific physiological signal in a noninvasive way.
    Eloy Geenjaar

    Challenges of working with bio-signals

    Finding relationships between bio-signals and disorders can be difficult because of noise , or irrelevant data, differences between people’s bio-signals, and because the relationship between a bio-signal and disorder may not be clear.

    First, bio-signals contain a lot of noise. For example, when you’re wearing a smartwatch while running, the watch will move around. This causes the sensor for the bio-signal to record at different locations during the run. Since the locations vary across the run, swings in the bio-signal value may now be due to variations in the recording location instead of due to physiological processes.

    Second, everyone’s bio-signals are unique. The location of veins, for example, often differ between people. This means that even if smartwatches are worn at exactly the same place on everyone’s wrists, the bio-signal related to those veins is recorded differently from one person to the next. The same underlying signal, such as someone’s heart rate, will lead to different bio-signal values.

    The underlying signal itself can also be unique for people or groups of people. The resting heart rate of an average person is around 60-80 beats per minute, but athletes can have resting heart rates as low as 30-40 beats per minute.

    Lastly, the relationship between a bio-signal and a disorder is often complex. This means that the disorder is not immediately obvious from looking at the bio-signal.

    Machine learning algorithms allow researchers to learn from data and account for the complexity, noise and variability of people. By using large bio-signal datasets, machine learning algorithms are able to find clear relationships that apply to everyone.

    Learning to fill in the blanks

    Researchers can use unlabeled bio-signal data as a warmup for the machine learning algorithm. This warmup, or pre-training, primes the machine learning algorithm to find a relationship between the bio-signal and a disorder. This is a bit like walking around a park to get the lay of the land before working out a route to go running.

    There are many ways to pretrain a machine learning algorithm. In my research with Dolby Laboratories researcher Lie Lu and previous research, the machine learning algorithm is taught to fill in the blanks.

    To do this, we take a bio-signal and artificially create gaps of a certain length – for example, one second. We then teach the machine learning algorithm to fill in the missing piece of bio-signal. This is possible because the machine learning algorithm sees what the bio-signal looks like before and after the gap.

    If the heart rate of a person is around 60 beats per minute before the gap, there will likely be a heartbeat in the one-second gap. In this case, we’re training the machine learning algorithm to predict when that heartbeat will occur.

    Once we have trained the machine learning algorithm to do this, it will have found a relationship between someone’s heart rate and when the next beat should occur. We can now train the machine learning algorithm with this relationship between a normal heart rate and bio-signal already learned. This makes it easier for the algorithm to learn the relationship between heart rate and atrial fibrillation. Since atrial fibrillation is characterized by fast and irregular heartbeats, and the algorithm is now good at predicting when a heartbeat will happen, it can quickly learn to detect these irregularities.

    Machine learning pre-training on filling in the blanks of a heart bio-signal.
    Eloy Geenjaar

    The idea of filling in the blanks can be generalized to other bio-signals as well. Previous research has shown, and our work reconfirmed, that pretraining a model on one bio-signal without any labels allows it to learn clinically useful relationships from other bio-signals with few labels. This shortcut means that researchers can pretrain on bio-signals that are easy to gather and use the machine learning model on ones that are hard to gather and label.

    Faster disorder detection development

    By improving pretraining, researchers can make machine learning algorithms better and more efficient at detecting diseases and disorders. Pretraining improvements reduce cost and time spent by experts labeling.

    A recent example of machine learning algorithms used for early detection is Google’s Loss of Pulse smartwatch feature. The emerging field of bio-signal pretraining can help enable faster development of similar features using a wider range of bio-signals and for a wider range of disorders.

    With increasing types of bio-signals and more data, researchers may be able to discover relationships that dramatically improve early detection of disease and disorders. The earlier many diseases and disorders are found, the better a treatment plan works for patients.

    Eloy Geenjaar receives funding from the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation, and performed bio-signal research during an internship at Dolby Laboratories.

    – ref. Fill-in-the-blank training primes AI to interpret health data from smartwatches and fitness trackers – https://theconversation.com/fill-in-the-blank-training-primes-ai-to-interpret-health-data-from-smartwatches-and-fitness-trackers-251890

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Race isn’t a ‘biological reality,’ contrary to recent political claims − here’s how scientific consensus on race developed in the 20th century

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By John P. Jackson, Jr., Professor of History and Philosophy of Science, Michigan State University

    ‘The Dying Tecumseh,’ a marble sculpture at the Smithsonian, depicts the Shawnee leader in a heroic light. Frederick Pettrich, Smithsonian American Art Museum, CC BY

    In the recent flurry of executive orders from President Donald Trump, one warned of “a distorted narrative” about race “driven by ideology rather than truth.” It singled out a current exhibition at the Smithsonian American Art Museum titled “The Shape of Power: Stories of Race and American Sculpture” as an example. The exhibit displays over two centuries of sculptures that show how art has produced and reproduced racial attitudes and ideologies.

    The executive order condemns the exhibition because it “promotes the view that race is not a biological reality but a social construct, stating ‘Race is a human invention.’”

    The executive order apparently objects to sentiments such as this: “Although a person’s genetics influences their phenotypic characteristics, and self-identified race might be influenced by physical appearance, race itself is a social construct.” But those words are not from the Smithsonian; they are from the American Society of Human Genetics.

    Scientists reject the idea that race is biologically real. The claim that race is a “biological reality” cuts against modern scientific knowledge.

    I’m a historian who specializes in the scientific study of race. The executive order places “social construct” in opposition to “biological reality.” The history of both concepts reveals how modern science landed at the idea that race was invented by people, not nature.

    Race exists, but what is it?

    At the turn of the 20th century, scientists believed humans could be divided into distinct races based on physical features. According to this idea, a scientist could identify physical differences in groups of people, and if those differences were passed on to succeeding generations, the scientist had correctly identified a racial “type.”

    The results of this “typological” method were chaotic. A frustrated Charles Darwin in 1871 listed 13 scientists who identified anywhere between two and 63 races, a confusion that persisted for the next six decades. There were almost as many racial classifications as racial classifiers because no two scientists could seem to agree on what physical characteristics were best to measure, or how to measure them.

    One intractable problem with racial classifications was that the differences in human physical traits were tiny, so scientists struggled to use them to differentiate between groups. The pioneering African American scholar W.E.B. Du Bois noted in 1906, “It is impossible to draw a color line between black and other races … in all physical characteristics the Negro race cannot be set off by itself.”

    But scientists tried. In an 1899 anthropological study, William Ripley classified people using head shape, hair type, pigmentation and stature. In 1926, Harvard anthropologist Earnest Hooton, the leading racial typologist in the world, listed 24 anatomical traits, such as “the presence or absence of a postglenoid tubercle and a pharyngeal fossa or tubercle” and “the degree of bowing of the radius and ulna” while admitting “this list is not, of course, exhaustive.”

    All this confusion was the opposite of how science should operate: As the tools improved and as measurements became more precise, the object of study − race − became more and more muddled.

    Malvina Hoffman’s sculptures illustrate a map titled Races of the World and Where They Live.
    Malvina Hoffman/Field Museum of Natural History

    When sculptor Malvina Hoffman’s “Races of Mankind” exhibit opened at Chicago’s Field Museum in 1933, it characterized race as a biological reality, despite its elusive definition. World-renowned anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith wrote the introduction to the exhibition’s catalog.

    Keith dismissed science as the surest method to distinguish race; one knows a person’s race because “a single glance, picks out the racial features more certainly than could a band of trained anthropologists.” Keith’s view perfectly captured the view that race must be real, for he saw it all around him, even though science could never establish that reality.

    In the scientific study of race, however, things were about to change.

    Turning to culture to explain difference

    By 1933, the rise of Nazism had added urgency to the scientific study of race. As anthropologist Sherwood Washburn wrote in 1944, “If we are to discuss racial matters with the Nazis, we had better be right.”

    In the late 1930s and early 1940s, two new scientific ideas came to fruition. First, scientists began looking to culture rather than biology as the driver of differences among groups of people. Second, the rise of population genetics challenged the biological reality of race.

    In 1943, anthropologists Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish wrote a short work also titled The Races of Mankind. Writing for a popular audience, they argued that people are far more alike than different, and our differences owe to culture and learning, not biology. An animated cartoon short later gave these ideas wider circulation.

    ‘The Brotherhood of Man’ was based on Benedict and Weltfish’s pamphlet and pointed out that differences between people come from their environments.

    Benedict and Weltfish argued that while people did, indeed, differ physically, those differences were meaningless in that all races could learn and all were capable. “Progress in civilization is not the monopoly of one race or subrace,” they wrote. “Negroes made iron tools and wove fine cloth for their clothing when fair-skinned Europeans wore skins and knew nothing of iron.” The cultural explanation for different human lifestyles was more robust than confused appeals to an elusive biological race.

    The turn to culture was consistent with a deep change in biological knowledge.

    Genetic research was taking off in the 1940s, as in this lab at Iowa State College in Ames, Iowa.
    Jack Delano, U.S. Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information, CC BY

    A tool to understand evolution

    Theodosius Dobzhansky was a preeminent biologist of the 20th century. He and other biologists were interested in evolutionary changes. Races, which supposedly didn’t change over time, were therefore useless for understanding how organisms evolved.

    A new tool, what scientists called a “genetic population,” was much more valuable. The geneticist, Dobzhansky held, identified a population based on the genes it shared in order to study change in organisms. Over time natural selection would shape how the population evolved. But if that population didn’t shed light on natural selection, the geneticist must abandon it and work with a new population based on a different set of shared genes. The important point is that, whatever population the geneticist chose, it was changing over time. No population was a fixed and stable entity, as human races were supposed to be.

    Sherwood Washburn, who happened to be Dobzhansky’s close friend, brought those ideas into anthropology. He recognized that the point of genetics was not classifying people into fixed groups. The point was to understand the process of human evolution. This change reversed everything taught by Hooton, his old teacher.

    Writing in 1951, Washburn argued, “There is no way to justify the division of a … population into a series of racial types” because doing so would be pointless. Presuming any group to be unchanging stood in the way of understanding evolutionary changes. A genetic population was not “real”; it was an invention of the scientist using it as a lens to understand organic change.

    Classifying for a purpose, not as a ‘true’ assessment of tall or short.
    Buena Vista Images/Stone via Getty Images

    A good way to understand this profound difference relates to roller coasters.

    Anyone who’s been to an amusement park has seen signs that precisely define who is tall enough to ride a given roller coaster. But no one would say they define a “real” category of “tall” or “short” people, as another roller coaster might have a different height requirement. The signs define who is tall enough only for riding this particular roller coaster, and that’s all. It’s a tool for keeping people safe, not a category defining who is “really” tall.

    Similarly, geneticists use genetic populations as “an important tool for inferring the evolutionary history of modern humans” or because they have “fundamental implications for understanding the genetic basis of diseases.”

    Anyone trying to pound a nail with a screwdriver soon realizes that tools are good for tasks they were designed for and useless for anything else. Genetic populations are tools for specific biological uses, not for classifying people into “real” groups by race.

    Whoever wanted to classify people, Washburn argued, must give the “important reasons for subdividing our whole species.”

    The Smithsonian’s exhibit shows how racialized sculpture was “both a tool of oppression and domination and one of liberation and empowerment.” Science agrees with its claim that race is a human invention and not a biological reality.

    The Conversation U.S. receives funding from the Smithsonian Institution.

    John P. Jackson, Jr. 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.

    – ref. Race isn’t a ‘biological reality,’ contrary to recent political claims − here’s how scientific consensus on race developed in the 20th century – https://theconversation.com/race-isnt-a-biological-reality-contrary-to-recent-political-claims-heres-how-scientific-consensus-on-race-developed-in-the-20th-century-253504

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s nomination for NASA leader boasts business and commercial spaceflight experience during a period of uncertainty for the agency

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Wendy Whitman Cobb, Professor of Strategy and Security Studies, Air University

    Jared Isaacman, the nominee for next NASA administrator, has traveled to orbit on two commercial space missions. AP Photo/John Raoux

    Jared Isaacman, billionaire, CEO and nominee to become the next NASA administrator, faced questions on April 9, 2025, from members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation during his confirmation hearing for the position.

    Should the Senate confirm him, Isaacman will be the first billionaire – but not the first astronaut – to head NASA. Perhaps even more significant, he will be the first NASA administrator with significant ties to the commercial space industry.

    As a space policy expert, I know that NASA leadership matters. The head of the agency can significantly shape the missions it pursues, the science it undertakes and, ultimately, the outcome of America’s space exploration.

    Jared Isaacman speaks at a news conference in 2024, before his Polaris Dawn mission.
    AP Photo/John Raoux, File

    An unconventional background

    At 16 years old, Isaacman dropped out of high school to start a payment processing company in his basement. The endeavor succeeded and eventually became known as Shift4.

    Though he found early success in business, Isaacman also had a love for aviation. In 2009, he set a record for flying around the Earth in a light jet, beating the previous record by more than 20 hours.

    While remaining CEO of Shift4, Isaacman founded another company, Draken International. The company eventually assembled the world’s largest fleet of privately owned fighter jets. It now helps to train U.S. Air Force pilots.

    In 2019, Isaacman sold his stake in Draken International. In 2020, he took Shift4 public, making him a billionaire.

    Isaacman continued to branch out into aerospace, working with SpaceX beginning in 2021. He purchased a crewed flight on the Falcon 9 rocket, a mission that eventually was called Inspiration4. The mission, which he led, represented the first private astronaut flight for SpaceX. It sent four civilians with no previous formal space experience into orbit.

    Following the success of Inspiration4, Isaacman worked with SpaceX to develop the Polaris Program, a series of three missions to help build SpaceX’s human spaceflight capabilities. In fall 2024, the first of these missions, Polaris Dawn, launched.

    Polaris Dawn added more accomplishments to Isaacman’s resume. Isaacman, along with his crewmate Sarah Gillis, completed the first private spacewalk. Polaris Dawn’s SpaceX Dragon capsule traveled more than 850 miles (1,367 kilometers) from Earth, the farthest distance humans had been since the Apollo missions.

    The Polaris Dawn mission launched on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket in September 2024.
    AP Photo/John Raoux

    The next adventure: NASA

    In December 2024, the incoming Trump administration announced its intention to nominate Isaacman for the post of NASA administrator.

    As NASA administrator, Isaacman would oversee all NASA activities at a critical moment in its history. The Artemis program, which has been in progress since 2017, has several missions planned for the next few years.

    This includes 2026’s Artemis II mission, which will send four astronauts to orbit the Moon. Then, in 2027, Artemis III will aim to land on it.

    If the mission proceeds as planned, the Artemis II crew will fly in an Orion crew capsule, pictured behind them, around the Moon in 2026.
    Kim Shiflett/NASA via AP, File

    But, if Isaacman is confirmed, his tenure would come at a time when there are significant questions about the Artemis program, as well as the extent to which NASA should use commercial space companies like SpaceX. The agency is also potentially facing funding cuts.

    Some in the space industry have proposed scrapping the Artemis program altogether in favor of preparing to go to Mars. Among this group is the founder of SpaceX, Elon Musk.

    Others have suggested canceling NASA’s Space Launch System, the massive rocket that is being used for Artemis. Instead, they argue that NASA could use commercial systems, like SpaceX’s Starship or Blue Origin’s New Glenn.

    Isaacman has also dealt with accusations that he is too close to the commercial space industry, and SpaceX in particular, to lead NASA. This has become a larger concern given Musk’s involvement in the Trump administration and its cost-cutting efforts. Some critics are worried that Musk would have an even greater say in NASA if Isaacman is confirmed.

    Since his nomination, Isaacman has stopped working with SpaceX on the Polaris Program. He has also made several supportive comments toward other commercial companies.

    But the success of any of NASA’s plans depends on having the money and resources necessary to carry them out.

    While NASA has been spared major cuts up to this point, it, like many other government agencies, is planning for budget cuts and mass firings. These potential cuts are similar to what other agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services have recently made.

    During his confirmation hearing, Isaacman committed to keeping the Artemis program, as well as the Space Launch System, in the short term. He also insisted that NASA could both return to the Moon and prepare for Mars at the same time.

    Although Isaacman stated that he believed NASA had the resources to do both at the same time, the agency is still in a time of budget uncertainty, so that may not be possible.

    About his relationship with Musk, Isaacman stated that he had not talked to Musk since his nomination in November, and his relationship with SpaceX would not influence his decisions.

    Additionally, he committed to carrying out space science missions, specifically to “launch more telescopes, more probes, more rovers.”

    But since NASA is preparing for significant cuts to its science budget, there is some speculation that the agency may need to end some science programs, like the Hubble space telescope, altogether.

    Isaacman’s future

    Isaacman has received support from the larger space community. Nearly 30 astronauts signed a letter in support of his nomination. Former NASA administrators, as well as major industry groups, have signaled their desire for Isaacman’s confirmation.

    He also received the support of Senator Ted Cruz, the committee chair.

    Barring any major development, Isaacman will likely be confirmed as NASA administrator by the Senate in the coming weeks. The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation could approve his nomination once it returns from a two-week break at the end of April. A full vote from the Senate would follow.

    If the Senate does confirm him, Isaacman will have several major issues to confront at NASA, all in a very uncertain political environment.

    Wendy N. Whitman Cobb is affiliated with the US School of Advanced Air and Space Studies. Her views are her own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.

    – ref. Trump’s nomination for NASA leader boasts business and commercial spaceflight experience during a period of uncertainty for the agency – https://theconversation.com/trumps-nomination-for-nasa-leader-boasts-business-and-commercial-spaceflight-experience-during-a-period-of-uncertainty-for-the-agency-254274

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: This chart explains why Trump backflipped on tariffs. The economic damage would have been huge

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By James Giesecke, Professor, Centre of Policy Studies and the Impact Project, Victoria University

    The Trump administration has announced a 90-day pause on its plan to impose so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly all US imports. But the pause does not extend to China, where import duties will rise to around 125%.

    The move signals a partial retreat from what had been shaping up as a broad and aggressive trade war. For most countries, the US will now apply a 10% baseline tariff for the next three months. But the White House made clear that its tariffs on Chinese imports will remain in place.

    So why did President Trump back away from the broader tariff push? The answer is simple: the economic cost to the US was too high.

    Our economic model shows the fallout, even after the ‘pause’

    Using a global economic model, we have been estimating the macroeconomic consequences of the Trump administration’s tariff plans as they have developed.

    The following table shows two versions of the economic effects of the tariff plan:

    • “pre-pause” – as the plan stood immediately before Wednesday’s 90-day pause, under a scenario in which all countries retaliate except Australia, Japan and South Korea (which said they would not retaliate)
    • “post-pause” after reciprocal tariffs were withdrawn.

    As is clear, the US would have faced steep and immediate losses in employment, investment, growth, and most importantly, real consumption, the best measure of household living standards.

    Heavy costs of the tariff war

    Under the pre-pause scenario, the US would have seen real consumption fall by 2.4% in 2025 alone. Real gross domestic product (GDP) would have declined by 2.6%, while employment falls by 2.7% and real investment (after inflation) plunges 6.6%.

    These are not trivial adjustments. They represent significant contractions that would be felt in everyday life, from job losses to price increases to reduced household purchasing power. Since the current US unemployment rate is 4.2%, these results suggest that for every three currently unemployed Americans, two more would join their ranks.

    Our modelling shows the damage would not just be short-term. Across the 2025–2040 projection period, US real consumption losses would have averaged 1.2%, with persistent investment weakness and a long-term decline in real GDP.

    It is likely that internal economic advice reflected this kind of outlook. The decision to pause most of the tariff increases may well be an acknowledgement that the policy was economically unsustainable and would result in a permanent reduction in US global economic power. Financial markets were also rattled.

    The scaled-back plan: still aggressive on China

    The new arrangement announced on April 9 scales the higher tariff regime back to a flat 10% for about 70 countries, but keeps the full weight of tariffs on Chinese goods at around 125%. Rates on Canadian and Mexican imports remain at 25%.

    In response, China has announced an 84% tariff on US goods.

    The table’s “post-pause” column summarises the results of the scaled-back plan if the pause becomes permanent. For consistency, we assume all countries except Australia, Japan and Korea retaliate with tariffs equal to those imposed by the US.

    As is clear from the “post-pause” results, lower US tariffs, together with lower retaliatory tariffs, equal less damage for the US economy.

    Tariffs applied uniformly are less distortionary, and significant retaliation from just one major partner (China) is easier to absorb than a broad global response.

    However, the costs will still be high. The US is projected to experience a 1.9% drop in real consumption in 2025, driven by lower employment and reduced efficiency in production. Real investment is projected to fall by 4.8%, and employment by 2.1%.

    Perhaps we should not be surprised that the costs are still so high. In 2022, China, Canada and Mexico accounted for almost 45% of all US goods imports, and many countries were already facing 10% reciprocal tariffs in the “pre-pause” scenario. Trump’s tariff pause has not changed duty rates for these countries.

    US President Donald Trump discusses the 90-day pause.

    What does this mean for Australia?

    Much of the domestic commentary in Australia has focused on the risk of collateral damage from a US-China trade war. Given Australia’s economic ties to both countries, it is a reasonable concern.

    But our modelling suggests that Australia may actually benefit modestly. Under both scenarios, Australia’s real consumption rises slightly, driven by stronger investment, improved terms of trade (a measure of our export prices relative to import prices), and redirection of trade flows.

    One mechanism is what economists call trade diversion: if Chinese or European exporters find the US market less attractive, they may redirect goods to Australia and other open markets.

    At the same time, reduced global demand for capital, especially in the US and China, means lower interest rates globally. That stimulates investment elsewhere, including in Australia. In our model, Australian real investment rises under both scenarios, leading to small but sustained gains in GDP and household consumption.

    These results suggest that, at least under current policy settings, Australia is unlikely to suffer significant direct effects from the tariff increases.

    However, rising investor uncertainty is a risk for both the global and Australian economies, and this is not factored into our modelling. In the space of a single week, the Trump administration has whipsawed global investor confidence through three major tariff announcements.

    A temporary reprieve

    Tariffs appear to be central to the administration’s economic program. So Trump’s decision to pause his broader tariff agenda may not signal a shift in philosophy: just a tactical retreat.

    The updated strategy, high tariffs on China and lower ones elsewhere, might reflect an attempt to refocus on where the administration sees its main strategic concern, while avoiding unnecessary blowback from allies and neutral partners.

    Whether this narrower approach proves durable remains to be seen. The sharpest economic pain has been deferred. Whether it returns depends on how the next 90 days play out.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. This chart explains why Trump backflipped on tariffs. The economic damage would have been huge – https://theconversation.com/this-chart-explains-why-trump-backflipped-on-tariffs-the-economic-damage-would-have-been-huge-253632

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The Coalition prepares to soften Australia’s 2030 climate target, while reaffirming its commitment to the Paris Agreement

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tony Wood, Program Director, Energy, Grattan Institute

    The Coalition has been forced to reassert its commitment to the Paris climate agreement after its energy spokesman Ted O’Brien appeared to waver on the pledge on Thursday.

    O’Brien faced off against Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen at a debate in Canberra, weeks out from a federal election in which energy policy is emerging as a hot-button issue.

    Under the landmark Paris deal, Australia has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by the end of the decade, compared to 2005 levels. O’Brien on Thursday said the Coalition would review the target if it wins office. He deflected a question on whether a Dutton government would remain a signatory to the Paris Agreement, saying the Coalition would “always act in the national interest”.

    Within hours of the debate, the Coalition was forced to clarify O’Brien’s comments and reaffirm its commitment to Paris. But the Coalition appears intent on winding back the 2030 target if it is elected next month – a move that would weaken our bipartisan commitment to net zero by 2050 and be against the interests of the global climate.

    The 2025 Climate and Energy debate | ABC NEWS.

    Resetting the 2030 target

    The Coalition has long disputed Labor’s claims that the 43% target would be met.

    In June last year, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton claimed the Albanese government has “no hope of achieving the targets and there’s no sense signing up to targets you don’t have any prospect of achieving”.

    In January this year, Dutton said a Coalition government would remain party to Paris, despite United States President Donald Trump’s move to withdraw his nation from the deal.

    On Thursday, O’Brien confirmed a Coalition government would review the 43% target. In doing so, it would consider three factors: Australia’s emissions trajectory, the state of the economy and the Coalition’s suite of policies – including nuclear power and more gas.

    O’Brien went on to say:

    Labor, the Coalition, nobody in this country will be able to achieve the emission target set by Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese. The difference between Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese is that Peter Dutton has been honest and upfront about that.

    O’Brien would not rule out withdrawing Australia from the Paris deal, but later released a statement saying the Coalition remained committed to the agreement.

    Will Australia meet the 43% target?

    During the debate, Bowen claimed Australia is “on track” to meet its emissions-reduction goal. He pointed to analysis by his department released late last year showing emissions are projected to be 42.6% below 2005 levels in 2030.

    Australia will have to work hard to meet the target, with our emissions reductions having stalled since 2021. The government’s projection assumes it achieves its target of 82% renewable electricity generation by 2030 – possible but very challenging from about 45% today.

    It also depends on two policies to reduce emissions outside electricity, neither of which have yet demonstrated their progress.

    The first is the safeguard mechanism, which aims to reduce emissions from heavy industry. It began in mid-2023 but its results are not yet clear. Second is the new vehicle efficiency standard, introduced from January this year.

    What if Dutton does walk back Australia’s Paris commitment?

    Even if a Dutton government remained in the Paris Agreement, walking back on the 43% emissions target is problematic, for a number of reasons.

    Most obviously is that the threat of dangerous climate change is real, and growing. The Paris deal aims to keep average global temperatures “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and ideally, limit warming to no more than 1.5°C.

    But according to official data, Earth’s monthly global average temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for 11 months last year. So meeting the Paris commitment is already looking shaky.

    While the Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty, there has been much debate as to the real meaning of “legally binding”. Some argue that national commitments to reduce emissions are not legally binding, and can be revised in either direction. While a downward revision is liable to draw criticism, it could be a legally available option under the Paris Agreement. Transgressors don’t get kicked out of the club.

    But any downward revision on the targets is a bad look on the global stage. University of Melbourne climate law expert Jacqueline Peel has argued that any moves by a future Coalition government to water down Australia’s 2030 target, or to submit a 2035 target weaker than our current pledges, would:

    go against the spirit, if not the letter, of the Paris Agreement, and – in some circumstances – could constitute a breach of those obligations.

    Where to now?

    The Albanese government chose not to announce a 2035 target before the election. The Opposition says it won’t set a 2035 target until it’s in government.

    That means voters will be left in the dark on this important issue as they head to the ballot box.

    At the moment, the Coalition appears to be relying on its controversial nuclear power plan to meet the bipartisan goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. But analysts have warned the plan will lead to much more emissions between now and then.

    Meanwhile, there is far more work to be done outside the energy sector – in agriculture, transport, industry and more – to meet Australia’s climate commitments.

    Australia’s cost of living crisis has garnered much attention during the election campaign so far. There has been very little talk about how Australia’s entire economy will get to net-zero.

    That’s a terrible reflection on the state of our politics. Ultimately, unmitigated climate change will be bad for the planet and very bad for Australia.

    Tony Wood may own shares in companies in relevant industries through his superannuation fund.

    – ref. The Coalition prepares to soften Australia’s 2030 climate target, while reaffirming its commitment to the Paris Agreement – https://theconversation.com/the-coalition-prepares-to-soften-australias-2030-climate-target-while-reaffirming-its-commitment-to-the-paris-agreement-249945

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Scientists should try to repeat more studies, but not those looking for a link between vaccines and autism

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simon Kolstoe, Associate Professor of Bioethics, University of Portsmouth

    SamaraHeisz5/Shutterstock

    Scientists, professors, engineers, teachers and doctors are routinely ranked among the most trustworthy people in society. This is because these professions rely heavily on research, and good research is viewed as the most reliable source of knowledge.

    But how trustworthy is research? Recent news from the US suggests that the Trump administration wants to fund more “reproducibility studies”.

    These are studies that check to see if previous results can be repeated and are reliable. The administration’s focus seems to be specifically on studies that revisit the debunked claim of a link between vaccines and autism.

    This is a worrying waste of effort, given the extensive evidence showing that there is no link between vaccines and autism, and the harm that suggesting this link can cause. However, the broader idea of funding studies that attempt to repeat earlier research is a good one.

    Take research on Alzheimer’s disease as an example. In June 2024, Nature retracted a highly cited paper reporting an important theory relating to the mechanism of the disease. Unfortunately, it took 18 years to spot the errors and retract the paper.

    If influential studies like this were regularly repeated by others, it wouldn’t have taken so long to spot the errors in the original research.

    Alzheimer’s is proving a particularly tricky problem to solve despite the large amounts of money spent researching the disease. Being unable to reproduce key results contributes to this problem because new research relies on the trustworthiness of earlier research.

    More broadly, it has been known for almost ten years that 70% of researchers have problems reproducing experiments conducted by other scientists. The problem is particularly acute in cancer research and psychology.

    The Trump administration wants to fund more ‘reproducibility studies’.
    Joshua Sukoff/Shutterstock

    Research is difficult to get right

    Research is complicated and there may be legitimate reasons research findings cannot be reproduced. Mistakes or dishonesty are not necessarily the cause.

    In psychology or the social sciences, failure to reproduce results – despite using identical methods – could be due to using different populations, for instance, across different countries or cultures. In physical or medical sciences problems reproducing results could be down to using different equipment, chemicals or measurement techniques.

    A lot of research may also not be reproducible simply because the researchers do not fully understand all the complexities of what they are studying. If all the relevant variables (such as genetics and environmental factors) are not understood or even identified, it is unsurprising that very similar experiments can yield different results.

    In these cases, sometimes as much can be learned from a negative result as from a positive one, as this helps inform the design of future work.

    Here, it is helpful to distinguish between reproducing another researcher’s exact results and being given enough information by the original researchers to replicate their experiments.

    Science advances by comparing notes and discussing differences, so researchers must always give enough information in their reports to allow someone else to repeat (replicate) the experiment. This ensures the results can be trusted even if they may not be reproduced exactly.

    Transparency is therefore central to research integrity, both in terms of trusting the research and trusting the people doing the research.

    Unfortunately, the incentive structure within research doesn’t always encourage such transparency. The “publish or perish” culture and aggressive practices by journals often lead to excessive competition rather than collaboration and open research practices.

    One solution, as new priorities from the US have suggested, is to directly fund researchers to replicate each other’s studies.

    This is a promising development because most other funding, alongside opportunities to publish in the top journals, is instead linked to novelty. Unfortunately, this encourages researchers to act quickly to produce something unique rather than take their time to conduct thorough and transparent experiments.

    We need to move to a system that rewards reliable research rather than just novel research. And part of this comes through rewarding people who focus on replication studies.

    Industry also plays a part. Companies conducting research and development can sometimes be guilty of throwing a lot of money at a project and then pulling the plug quickly if a product (such as a new medicine) seems not to work. The reason for such failures is often unclear, but the reliability of earlier research is a contributing factor.

    To avoid this problem, companies should be encouraged to replicate some of the original findings (perhaps significant experiments conducted by academics) before proceeding with development. In the long run, this strategy may turn out to be quicker and more efficient than the rapid chopping and changing that occurs now.

    The scale of the reproducibility, or replicability, problem in research comes as a surprise to the public who have been told to “trust the science”. But over recent years there has been increasing recognition that the culture of research is as important as the experiments themselves.

    If we want to be able to “trust the science”, science must be transparent and robustly conducted.

    This is exactly what has happened with research looking at the link between vaccines and autism. The topic was so important that in this case the replication studies were done and found that there is, in fact, no link between vaccines and autism.

    Simon Kolstoe works for the University of Portsmouth, and is a trustee of the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO). He receives research and consultancy funding from charities, universities and government. He chairs research ethics committees for the UK Health Research Authority, Ministry of Defence and Health Security Agency.

    – ref. Scientists should try to repeat more studies, but not those looking for a link between vaccines and autism – https://theconversation.com/scientists-should-try-to-repeat-more-studies-but-not-those-looking-for-a-link-between-vaccines-and-autism-253696

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How AI could influence the evolution of humanity – podcast

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

    Chan2545/Shutterstock

    Some of the leading brains behind generative AI have warned about the risk of artificial superintelligence wiping out humanity, if left unchecked.

    But what if the influence of AI on humans is much more mundane, influencing our evolution over thousands of years through natural selection?

    In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast we talk to evolutionary biologist Rob Brooks about what AI could do to the evolution of humanity, from smaller brains to fewer friends.

    Rob Brooks is Scientia professor of evolution at the University of New South Wales in Australia. Through his research on artificial intimacy between humans and AI chatbots, Brooks became interested in how human evolution might be shaped by the proliferation of AI. He recently published a paper exploring various scenarios, from AI’s potential influence on human intelligence, to brain size, to more direct intervention in fertility treatment.

    For Brooks, the relationship between humans and machines, including AI, mirrors the symbiotic relationships that happen in nature, where one species is linked to or depends on another. Some of these relationships are mutualistic, with each benefiting the other, he says:

    I think that most of our relationships with technology should be mutualisms because that why we have the technologies …  A lot of the things that AI does for us at the moment are incredible computational heavy lifting [tasks]. It could be difficult calculations or it could be remembering people’s birthdays – there’s a kind of mutualism.

    But sometimes that mutualism can morph into parasitism, where one harms the other. Brooks thinks smartphones have already reached this stage because of the amount of human attention they take up and the influence this is having on human relationships, particularly among young people. He believes it’s also reasonable to assume “that attention and time parasites in the AI ecosystem will influence human evolution”.

    Listen to the full episode of The Conversation Weekly to hear a conversation with Brooks about the potential ways AI could influence human evolution, from human intelligence to our relationships and even our brain size. This episode also includes an introduction with Signe Dean, science and technology editor at The Conversation in Australia.

    This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Gemma Ware. Mixing and sound design by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

    Newsclips in this episode from BBC Newsnight, MSNBC and Channel 4 News.

    Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here.

    Rob Brooks receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. How AI could influence the evolution of humanity – podcast – https://theconversation.com/how-ai-could-influence-the-evolution-of-humanity-podcast-254163

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Can we really resurrect extinct animals, or are we just creating hi-tech lookalikes?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Timothy Hearn, Senior Lecturer in Bioinformatics, Anglia Ruskin University

    Artist’s rendering: Woolly mammoths once roamed large swathes of Siberia. Denis-S / Shutterstock

    From dire wolves to woolly mammoths, the idea of resurrecting extinct species has
    captured the public imagination. Colossal Biosciences, the Dallas-based biotech company leading the charge, has made headlines for ambitious efforts to bring back long-lost animals using cutting edge genetic engineering.

    It recently announced the birth of pups with key traits of dire wolves, an iconic predator last seen roaming North America more than 10,000 years ago. This followed on the heels of earlier project announcements focused on the woolly mammoth and the thylacine. This all fuels a sense that de-extinction is not only possible but imminent.

    But as the science advances, a deeper question lingers: how close must the result be to count as a true return? If we can only recover fragments of an extinct creature’s genome – and must build the rest with modern substitutes – is that really de-extinction, or are we simply creating lookalikes?

    To the public, de-extinction often evokes images of Jurassic Park-style resurrection: a recreation of a lost animal, reborn into the modern world. In scientific circles, however, the term encompasses a variety of techniques: selective breeding, cloning, and increasingly, synthetic biology through genome editing. Synthetic biology is a field that involves redesigning systems found in nature.

    One of Colossal’s dire wolves, created using genome editing.
    Colossal

    Scientists have used selective breeding of modern cattle in attempts to recreate an animal that resembles the auroch, the wild ancestor of today’s breeds. Cloning has been used to briefly bring back the pyrenean ibex, which went extinct in 2000. In 2003, a Spanish team brought a cloned calf to term, but the animal died a few minutes after birth.

    This is often cited as the first example of de-extinction. However, the only preserved tissue was from one female animal, meaning it could not have been used to bring back a viable population. Colossal’s work falls into the synthetic biology category.

    These approaches differ in method but share a common goal: to restore a species
    that has been lost. In most cases, what emerges is not an exact genetic copy of the extinct species, but a proxy: a modern organism engineered to resemble its ancestor in function or appearance.

    Take the case of the woolly mammoth. Colossal’s project aims to create a cold-adapted Asian elephant that can fulfil the mammoth’s former ecological role. But mammoths and Asian elephants diverged hundreds of thousands of years ago and differ by an estimated 1.5 million genetic variants. Editing all of these is, for now, impossible. Instead, scientists are targeting a few dozen genes linked to key traits like cold resistance, fat storage and hair growth.

    Compare that to humans and chimpanzees. Despite a genetic similarity of around 98.8%, the behavioural and physical differences between the two are huge. If comparatively small genetic gaps can produce such major differences, what can we expect when editing only a tiny fraction of the differences between two species? It’s a useful rule of thumb when assessing recent claims.

    As discussed in a previous article, Colossal’s dire wolf project involved just 20 genetic edits. These were introduced into the genome of a gray wolf to mimic key traits of the extinct dire wolf. The resulting animals may look the part, but with so few changes, they are genetically much closer to modern wolves than their prehistoric namesake.

    Colossal’s ambitions extend beyond mammoths and dire wolves. The company is
    also working to revive the thylacine (Tasmanian tiger), a carnivorous marsupial that was once native to mainland Australia, Tasmania and New Guinea. The last example died at Hobart Zoo in 1936. Colossal is using a genetic relative called the fat-tailed dunnart – a tiny marsupial – as the foundation. The goal is to engineer the dunnart’s genome to express traits found in thylacines. The team says it is developing an artificial uterus device to carry the engineered foetus.

    Colossal also has a project to revive the dodo, a flightless bird that roamed Mauritius until the 1600s. That project will use the Nicobar pigeon, one of the dodo’s closest living relatives, as a basis for genetic reconstruction.

    In each case, the company relies on a partial blueprint: incomplete ancient DNA, and then uses the powerful genome editing tool Crispr to edit specific differences into the genome of a closely related living species. The finished animals, if born, may resemble their extinct counterparts in outward appearance and some behaviour – but they will not be genetically identical. Rather, they will be hybrids, mosaics or functional stand-ins.

    That doesn’t negate the value of these projects. In fact, it might be time to update our expectations. If the goal is to restore ecological roles, not to perfectly recreate extinct genomes, then these animals may still serve important functions. But it also means we must be precise in our language. These are synthetic creations, not true returns.

    Technology to prevent extinction

    There are more grounded examples of near-de-extinction work – most notably the
    northern white rhinoceros. Only two females remain alive today, and both are
    infertile. Scientists are working to create viable embryos using preserved genetic
    material and surrogate mothers from closely related rhino species. This effort
    involves cloning and assisted reproduction, with the aim of restoring a population
    genetically identical to the original.

    Unlike the mammoth or the thylacine, the northern white rhino still has living
    representatives and preserved cells. That makes it a fundamentally different
    case – more conservation biology than synthetic biology. But it shows the potential of this technology when deployed toward preservation, not reconstruction.

    The northern white rhinoceros is nearly extinct. But there is a viable plan to bring it back.
    Agami Photo Agency / Shutterstock

    Gene editing also holds promise for helping endangered species by using it to introduce genetic diversity into a population, eliminate harmful mutations from species or enhance resilience to disease or climate change. In this sense, the tools of de-extinction may ultimately serve to prevent extinctions, rather than reverse them.

    So where does that leave us? Perhaps we need new terms: synthetic proxies, ecological analogues or engineered restorations. These phrases might lack the drama of “de-extinction” but they are closer to the scientific reality.

    After all, these animals are not coming back from the dead – they are being invented, piece by piece, from what the past left behind. In the end, it may not matter whether we call them mammoths or woolly elephants, dire wolves or designer dogs. What matters is how we use this power – whether to heal broken ecosystems, to preserve the genetic legacy of vanishing species or simply to prove that we can.

    But we should at least be honest: what we’re witnessing isn’t resurrection. It’s reimagination.

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

    – ref. Can we really resurrect extinct animals, or are we just creating hi-tech lookalikes? – https://theconversation.com/can-we-really-resurrect-extinct-animals-or-are-we-just-creating-hi-tech-lookalikes-254245

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Sudan civil war: despite appearances this is not a failed state – yet

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Justin Willis, Professor of History, Durham University

    Over the past fortnight, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have regained control of almost all of the country’s capital, Khartoum. Much of the city had been in the hands of the rival Rapid Support Forces (RSF) since April 2023. Now the SAF are reportedly driving out the last outposts of the RSF from the fringes of the sprawling city.

    When it began the war against its former SAF allies in April 2023, the RSF seized almost all of the city. But its presence was an occupation rather than a government. Looting, murder and rape were widely reported. No wonder, then, that many have welcomed the return of the SAF as a liberation.

    But not everyone will celebrate. The SAF claims to be the rightful government of Sudan. But its leader, Abdel Fattah Burhan, himself seized power in 2021 by throwing out a transitional civilian government that was supposed to be leading Sudan back to democracy.

    That was in the wake of the popular uprising in 2018-19 that ended the long authoritarian regime of Omar al-Bashir. So, the legitimacy of the SAF’s claim to power is questionable.

    To complicate matters further, the SAF’s military success has come through alliance with local militias, whose fighters have been active in the struggle for Khartoum. Troubling accounts have emerged of arrests and summary executions by the SAF and allied military – sometimes allegedly targeted at people from southern or western Sudan, who are accused of supporting the RSF.

    The RSF, meanwhile, keeps up its occupation of much of the west of Sudan, and its murderous siege of the western city of El Fasher. It has also continued to launch drone assaults on cities along the Nile.

    Despite recent positive statements from the SAF, the war seems far from over. The SAF and RSF denounce one another. Each – with good reason – accuses the other of relying on foreign support, and each insists it should – and will – rule all of Sudan.

    Military dominance

    The Egyptian branch of the Ottoman empire created Sudan through conquest in the 19th century. It was then ruled as an Anglo-Egyptian “condominium” for the first half of the 20th century.

    That vast territory in north-east Africa was formally divided when its southern third became the independent state of South Sudan in 2011, after years of struggle against the central government. Now it seems the north is also fragmenting, torn to pieces by the ambitions of rival military leaders and the unruly militias they have spawned. So, can there be a future for Sudan?

    It would be easy to answer that with a simple “no”. Some might even welcome the end of a state that began in colonial violence and has seen multiple regional revolts and movements of secession. Others might argue that Sudan is simply too diverse to be viable. But its current plight was not inevitable, nor is its fate settled.

    Sudan has long been burdened with a hyperactive military. That is partly a colonial legacy – the army has always been at the heart of the state.

    After independence, soldiers saw themselves as not simply the guardians of the state, but as its embodiment. They were at first suspicious – and then increasingly contemptuous – of civilian politicians they regarded as self-interested, prone to factionalism, and chronically unable to agree on major issues, from the place of religion in the state to the nature of local government.



    Read more:
    Sudan’s entire history has been dominated by soldiers and the violence and corruption they bring

    Three times, the soldiers seized power: in 1958, 1969 and 1989. Each time, they stayed in power for longer, and sought to impose their visions of what Sudan should be. Though these varied from conservative to socialist to Islamist, they always imagined a Sudan united by authoritarian rule, with uniformed men at its heart.

    When popular uprisings threatened this military rule, the soldiers were adept at temporary concessions – removing the leader of the regime and cooperating with civilians for a few years, before seizing power again. Sudan’s soldiers saw the state as their possession.

    Yet they struggled to rule it. There were struggles within the military itself over who should be in charge – the long rule of Jaafar Nimeiri was punctuated by repeated coup attempts. Omar al-Bashir in turn sought to manage rivals in the military by creating additional security forces and setting the soldiers against one another.

    When unrest grew at the margins of Sudan, in the south and then the west, the soldiers were unable to contain this. So they armed and encouraged militias, exploiting and militarising local tensions and conflicts. As they did so, they unwittingly undermined their own claim to be the only legitimate wielders of violence.

    Sudan’s soldiers insisted the state was theirs. But they squabbled over control of it and pulled both local militias and external powers into their struggles. This made their wars more lethal – but not more conclusive. Time and again, powerful men made decisions that drove conflict when they could have acted otherwise.

    Sense of a nation

    To recount this history is not simply to explain where Sudan is now. It is to remember this is not where it has to be. Sudan could yet mean more than this militarised vision of imposed unity. In the popular uprisings, protesters wrapped themselves in the Sudanese flag – evoking a vision of Sudan that celebrated its diversity, rather than treating this as a problem.

    Some of that was romanticised or idealistic. The earnest expressions of national solidarity tended to gloss over profound differences in wealth and opportunities. Yet since its independence, the idea of Sudan has repeatedly inspired civilian protest and hopes of a better future.

    The local resistance committees whose members made the uprising of 2018-19 imagined a more inclusive and just Sudan. That hope now drives the “emergency response rooms” that ordinary people have organised over the past two years – often in the face of extreme danger – to shelter and feed civilians.

    Those brave enough to pursue that future deserve more than a condescending shrug from international analysts, and an assumption that Sudan is doomed to failure.

    Justin Willis has in the past received funding from the UK government to undertake research on elections in Sudan; and from UK research councils for research on the history of state authority in Sudan.

    – ref. Sudan civil war: despite appearances this is not a failed state – yet – https://theconversation.com/sudan-civil-war-despite-appearances-this-is-not-a-failed-state-yet-254216

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: USAID: the human cost of Donald Trump’s aid freeze for a war-torn part of Sudan

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Naomi Ruth Pendle, Lecturer in International Development, University of Bath

    The day of Donald Trump’s second inauguration, his incoming administration abruptly paused the work of USAID, while also claiming that it would preserve USAID’s “lifesaving and strategic aid programming”. These dramatic, overnight cuts were an unprecedented – and deadly – experiment in relation to aid spending which will have a catastrophic effect on the lives of those who depended on it.

    The sudden suspension of USAID is set to make the famine in Sudan the deadliest for half a century. Since the announcement I’ve been working to see the impact of these cuts with a team of Sudanese researchers in South Kordofan State (Sudan), including from the South Kordofan-Blue Nile Coordination Unit, as part of my famine-focused project.

    When war erupted in Khartoum in April 2023, the southern region of South Kordofan was relatively peaceful, so large numbers of people fled there for safety. But most fled with no food, so local people had to work out how to support the new arrivals. Many decided to host families, sharing what little food they had for themselves, believing that international aid would be made available.

    Without this aid, these local humanitarians are now themselves also facing serious shortages. The timing and abrupt nature of the shuttering of USAID has made this particularly dangerous.

    South Kordofan sits on the border with South Sudan. Like much of the country, it’s an agricultural region and in times of peace, people are able to grow crops and raise livestock. The region also has a long history of exporting livestock and commercially grown crops.

    However, this food trade has been largely extractive as it followed colonial agricultural schemes run by British imperial agents and their elite indigenous associates that often left locals in poverty.

    Sudan: one of Africa’s largest and most diverse countries.
    gt29/Shutterstock

    After independence, the region suffered through decades of war between the Sudan government to the north and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) which fought a campaign that culminated in the foundation of South Sudan in 2011 (with the support of the US). South Kordofan and its SPLA supporters were trapped in the middle.

    People in South Kordofan long for peace and a state that provides them with basic services, so they wouldn’t depend so heavily on humanitarian support. Since the 1980s, famine mortality has been dramatically reduced by international aid.

    In fact, the US response to the famine of the mid-1980s under the then president, Ronald Reagan, whose administration provided more than US$1 billion (£766 million), saved hundreds of thousands of lives. This period became known in Sudan as “Reagan’s famine”.

    ‘Hemedti famine’

    Now in South Kordofan they are calling the hardship created by the influx of starving people fleeing fighting further north the “Hemedti famine”, after Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, the leader of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The RSF is fighting the national army, the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) run by rival warlord General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.

    Many of those who have fled from urban centres lack the skills to survive and are far from their family networks, making them particularly vulnerable. Sudanese people have a strong moral sense – and sometimes a legal obligation to help family members.

    This clearly doesn’t necessarily apply to most of those fleeing the fighting. But there is also a strong tradition of helping all people and even strangers in need, which people in South Kordofan have had to navigate.

    Many locals chose to provide lifesaving local humanitarian support. But that is of necessity and finite. There is now a desperate need for a massive increase in aid. In such emergencies, international aid plays a key role in topping up the food that people grow and gather for themselves, and has made the difference between life and death.

    Why is the USAID freeze so deadly?

    This is why the curtailing of USAID support is so catastrophic. Even if US support were to be fully restored, the pause has already had deadly consequences. The sudden stopping of many local NGO worker salaries, a key source of income in the region, is another disaster. Each salary supported dozens of family members.

    The 2025 aid cuts are set to be devastating for more people. Things are already critical. It has been estimated that half a half a million people died from hunger and disease across Sudan in 2024 alone.

    I’m now getting reports from South Kordofan of households not lighting a fire for up to four days at a time, which means the family is not eating. And, as ever, it is the children and the elderly who are particularly vulnerable.

    The consequences of famine are lasting. People in South Kordofan are reporting an increase in criminality as people steal in order to survive, which leaves lasting mistrust and social division. Famine also leaves a legacy of shame because people are witnessing their loved ones suffer and die. When people die in times of famine the living often do not even have the energy or resources to provide a dignified burial.

    The Trump administration could not have turned off USAID support at a worse time. Aid logistics in Sudan follow a seasonal cycle. In the wetter months from May to November, the roads to South Kordofan that aid organisations depend on for food distribution become impassable.

    So aid for the hungriest months from April to August, when stores are running low but the harvest in September has not yet come, must be delivered in the driest months before the rains start. USAID was halted in January, at the heart of the dry season, so this opportunity has been missed.

    Meanwhile north-south flights in Sudan have been prohibited by the Sudan government since the civil war flared in 2023. There has been a report that the government will also ban incoming aid flights from Kenya due to Nairobi’s alleged support for the RSF.

    Last month, the founder of Sudanese thinktank Confluence Advisory, Kholood Khair, told journalists: “It’s difficult to overstate how devastating the USAID cut will be for Sudan, not just because Sudan is the world’s largest humanitarian crisis but also because the US was Sudan’s largest humanitarian donor.” We’re now seeing that devastation getting worse by the day.

    Naomi Ruth Pendle receives funding from the British Academy and the European Research Council.

    – ref. USAID: the human cost of Donald Trump’s aid freeze for a war-torn part of Sudan – https://theconversation.com/usaid-the-human-cost-of-donald-trumps-aid-freeze-for-a-war-torn-part-of-sudan-254215

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Grattan on Friday: Will there be leadership changes on both sides of politics next parliamentary term?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    When Jim Chalmers and Angus Taylor met for this week’s treasurers’ debate, the moderator observed that in three or six years they might be facing each other as prime minister and opposition leader.

    Election results trigger, or subsequently lead to, leadership resets. Even in the turmoil of a campaign, players will also have their eyes on the future.

    After two weeks, the election campaign appears to have shifted more clearly in Labor’s direction. The uncertainty caused by Donald Trump is making some voters inclined to stick with the status quo, and the Liberal campaign has appeared faltering. Things could change, but as of now, Labor is better placed.

    Assuming Anthony Albanese wins, the dynamics within Labor will be different according to whether his government is in minority or majority.

    Albanese’s negotiating skills were evident during the last minority Labor government, and would likely come to the fore again if Labor had to wrangle crossbenchers in the House of Representatives.

    But regardless of majority or minority, there would probably be pressure for a leadership change at some point during the next term. It is hard to see Albanese, 62, taking Labor into the 2028 election.

    Chalmers, 47, is the obvious frontrunner to succeed him, but not the only horse in the field. And, apart from Chalmers, other aspirants might be concerned time would pass them by if there was not a transition next term.

    Home Affairs minister Tony Burke, 55, from the right in NSW, is ambitious and canny; he has delivered to the unions and could look to support from that quarter. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, 57, who hails from the Victorian right, also sees himself as a potential successor.

    The left’s Tanya Plibersek, 55, is a favourite with the party rank and file but could struggle to get enough backing in a leadership transition during a second term. Energy Minister Chris Bowen, 52, has had a tough time selling the government’s energy transition policy; in the past he was seen as a serious leadership contender, but doesn’t make it into dispatches these days.

    If the Labor leadership is contested, the rules provide for a ballot of the rank and file. That contributes 50% of the result, with caucus providing the other 50%. A transition in government during the term either would not involve a formal ballot or, if it did, the rules would be changed to override the provision for a long grass roots contest.

    The dynamic between Chalmers and Albanese in a second-term government would be closely watched. There have been some differences between the two over the past three years, notably over the recalibration of the Morrison government’s tax cuts. Chalmers eventually won his push to change them. The treasurer’s loyalty to Albanese has not been in question. But the contrast in their communication skills has been widely remarked on.

    The usual pattern of these things is that a treasurer who sees himself as a future prime minister becomes increasingly impatient as time goes on. Paul Keating, who eventually toppled Bob Hawke, and Peter Costello, who never got to the point of challenging John Howard, are examples.

    While Albanese has obviously not had to watch his back this term, the dynamic would be different next time around. The example of Scott Morrison is instructive. After he unexpectedly won the 2019 election, Morrison was seen as untouchable. Fast forward to before the following election and some in the Liberal party approached treasurer Josh Frydenberg to try to replace Morrison. He rebuffed them.

    Looking across the board, it’s notable that the most impressive Labor leaders currently are two state premiers, Chris Minns in NSW and Peter Malinauskas in South Australia. Both are centrist, pragmatic, unifying figures who come across well. Many in Labor might regret they are not in the federal parliament (although the leadership aspirants would be relieved).

    On the other side of politics, if 54-year-old Peter Dutton loses, what happens with the Liberal leadership? The size of the loss would be crucial. If Labor remained in majority, that would be such a major failure Dutton would surely be replaced immediately. If he picked up a respectable number of seats, on the other hand, he would likely be kept on. He has worked his relationships within the Liberal party well; he is seen as more consultative than, for example, Morrison or Malcolm Turnbull.

    But how long would he last as leader? If the Coalition was only a whisker away from power, he might get a second crack in 2028. However if Labor, although in minority, was looking solid, the Liberals would start thinking about a new leader.

    Their problem is that there is a dearth of frontbench talent.

    Taylor, 58, certainly has ambition. But he has not performed well as shadow treasurer, and is not a good retail politician. Liberal deputy leader Sussan Ley, 63, is scatty and widely criticised by colleagues. Defence spokesman Andrew Hastie, 42, hasn’t broadened out as much as might have been expected this term, and has the disadvantage of coming from Western Australia, which has limited his visibility.

    The loss of Frydenberg at the last election has left the Liberals with a long-term succession problem.

    Partly, though not entirely, this goes back some way, to the sort of candidates selected in former years. This is an increasing challenge for both “parties of government”. The talent pool is narrowing.

    Fewer potential high flyers are wanting to enter politics. A toxic political culture and greater media intrusion contribute to this. Politicians might never have commanded great respect but they are accorded even less these days, and there are larger rewards elsewhere. Also, political staffs are bigger, and these young hustlers are well placed to secure preselection.

    There is another factor. Nowadays there’s more pressure to put forward “local champions” – people who are deeply embedded in their communities. We’ve seen this in the success of the “community candidates” movement – many voters respond to them.

    With fewer “safe” seats and this desire for localism, the major parties cannot so easily parachute high flyers into seats in which they don’t live. Labor notoriously tried this with Kristina Keneally, a former senator and former NSW premier, at the last election, and managed to lose what had been the solid Labor seat of Fowler.

    The political move to local champions and community candidates, whatever pluses it might have, will over time erode the potential leadership pools of the major parties.

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

    – ref. Grattan on Friday: Will there be leadership changes on both sides of politics next parliamentary term? – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-will-there-be-leadership-changes-on-both-sides-of-politics-next-parliamentary-term-254203

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –