Long before pesticides reach lethal doses, they can disrupt hormones, impair brain function and change fish behaviour. Many of these behaviours are essential for healthy ecosystems.
In a new study, my colleagues and I found that pesticides affect many different behaviours in fish. Overall, the chemical pesticides make fish less sociable and interactive. They spend less time gathering in groups, become less protective of their territory, and make fewer attempts to mate.
Imagine the ocean without the vibrant schools of fish we’ve come to love – only isolated swimmers drifting about. Quietly, ecosystems begin to unravel, long before mass die-offs hit the news.
Australia is a major producer and user of pesticides, with more than 11,000 approved chemical products routinely used in agricultural and domestic settings. Remarkably, some of these chemicals remain approved in Australia despite being banned in other regions such as the European Union due to safety concerns.
When a tractor or plane sprays pesticides onto crops, it creates a mist of chemicals in the air to kill crop pests. After heavy rain, these chemicals can flow into roadside drains, filter through soil, and slowly move into rivers, lakes and oceans.
Fish swim in this diluted chemical mixture. They can absorb pesticides through their gills or eat contaminated prey.
At high concentrations, mass fish deaths can result, such as those repeatedly observed in the Menindee Lakes. However, doses in the wild often aren’t lethal and more subtle effects can occur. Scientists call these “sub-lethal” effects.
One commonly investigated sub-lethal effect is a change in behaviour – in other words, a change in the way a fish interacts with its surrounding environment.
Our previous research has found most experiments have looked at the impacts on fish in isolation, measuring things such as how far or how fast they swim when pesticides are present.
But fish aren’t solitary — they form groups, defend territory and find mates. These behaviours keep aquatic ecosystems stable. So this time we studied how pesticides affect these crucial social behaviours.
Pesticide exposure makes fish less social
Our study extracted and analysed data from 37 experiments conducted around the world. Together, these tested the impacts of 31 different pesticides on the social behaviour of 11 different fish species.
The evidence suggests pesticides make fish less social, and this finding is consistent across species. Courtship was the most severely impacted behaviour – the process fish use to find and attract mates. This is particularly alarming because successful courtship is essential for healthy fish populations and ecosystem stability.
Next, we found pesticides such as the herbicide glyphosate, which can disrupt brain function and hormone levels had the strongest impacts on fish social behaviours. This raises important questions about how brain function and hormones drive fish social behaviour, which could be tested by scientists in the future.
For example, scientists could test how much a change in testosterone relates to a change in territory defence. Looking at these relationships between what’s going on inside the body mechanisms and outward behaviour will help us better understand the complex impacts of pesticides.
We also identified gaps in the current studies. Most existing studies focus on a limited number of easy-to-study “model species” such as zebrafish, medaka and guppies. They also often use pesticide dosages and durations that may not reflect real-world realities.
Addressing these gaps by including a range of species and environmentally relevant dosages is crucial to understanding how pesticides affect fish in the wild.
One of the experiments in our study involved convict surgeonfish, which gather in large groups or ‘shoals’. Damsea, Shutterstock
Behaviour is a blind spot in regulation
Regulatory authorities should begin to recognise behaviour as a reliable and important indicator of pesticide safety. This can help them catch pesticide pollution early, before mass deaths occur.
Scientists play a crucial role too. By following the same methods, scientists can produce comparable results. A standardised method then provides regulators the evidence needed to confidently assess pesticide risks.
Together, regulatory authorities and scientists can find a way to use behavioural studies to help inform policy decisions. This will help to prevent mass deaths and catch pesticide impacts early on.
Leave no stone unturned in restoring our waters
Rivers, lakes, oceans and reefs are bearing the brunt of an ever-growing human footprint.
So far, much of the spotlight has focused on reducing carbon emissions and managing overfishing — and rightly so. But there’s another, quieter threat drifting beneath the surface: the chemicals we use.
Pesticides used on farms and in gardens are being detected everywhere, even iconic ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef. As we have shown, these pesticides can have disturbing effects even at low concentrations.
Now is the time to cut pesticide use and reduce runoff. Through switching to less toxic chemicals and introducing better regulations, we can reduce the damage. If we act with urgency, we can limit the impacts pesticides have on our planet.
Kyle Morrison 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.
A series of atrocity sites of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia have been formally entered onto the World Heritage list, as part of the 47th session of the World Heritage Committee.
This is not only important for Cambodia, but also raises important questions for atrocity sites in Australia.
Before this, the World Heritage list only recognised seven “sites of memory” associated with recent conflicts, which UNESCO defines as “events having occurred from the turn of the 20th century” under its criterion vi. These sat within a broader list of more than 950 cultural sites.
In recent years, experts have intensely debated the question of whether a site associated with recent conflict could, or should, be nominated and evaluated for World Heritage status. Some argue such listings would contradict the objectives of UNESCO and its spirit of peace, which was part of the specialised agency’s mandate after the destruction of two world wars.
Sites associated with recent conflicts can be divisive. For instance, when Japan nominated the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, both China and the United States objected and eventually disassociated from the decision. The US argued the nomination lacked “historical perspective” on the events that led to the bomb’s use. Meanwhile, China argued listing the property would not be conducive for peace as other Asian countries and peoples had suffered at the hands of the Japanese during WWII.
Heritage inscriptions risk reinforcing societal divisions if they conserve a particular memory in a one-sided way.
Nonetheless, the World Heritage Committee decided in 2023 to no longer preclude such sites for inscription. This was done partly in recognition of how these sites may “serve the peace-building mission of UNESCO”.
Shortly after, three listing were added: the ESMA Museum and Site of Memory, a former clandestine centre for detention, torture and extermination in Argentina; memorial sites of the Rwandan genocide at Nyamata, Murambi, Gisozi and Bisesero; and funerary and memory sites of the first world war in Belgium and France.
A number of legacy sites associated with Nelson Mandela’s human rights struggle in South Africa were also added last year.
Atrocities of the Khmer Rouge
The recently inscribed Cambodian Memorial Sites include prisons S-21 (now known as Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum) and M-13, as well as the execution site Choeung Ek.
These sites were nominated for their value in showing the development of extreme mass violence in relation to the security system of the Khmer Rouge in 1975–79. They also have value as places of memorialisation, peace and learning.
The Khmer Rouge developed its methods of disappearance, incarceration and torture of suspected “enemies” during the civil conflict of 1970–75. It established a system of local-level security centres in so-called “liberated” areas.
One of these centres was known as M-13, a small, well-hidden prison in the country’s rural southwest. A man named Kaing Guek Eav – also called Duch – was responsible for prisoners at M-13.
Shortly after the entire country fell to the Khmer Rouge in April 1975, Duch was assigned to lead the headquarters of the regime’s security system: a large detention and torture centre known as S-21.
Under his instruction, tens of thousands of people were detained in inhumane conditions, tortured and interrogated. Many detainees were later taken to the outskirts of the city to be brutally killed and buried in pits at a place called Choeung Ek.
The sites operated until early 1979, when the Khmer Rouge was forced from power.
The S-21 facility and the mass graves at Choeung Ek have long been memorialised as the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum and the Choeung Ek Genocidal Centre.
However, the former M-13 site shows few visual clues to its prior use, and has only recently been investigated by an international team led by Cambodian archaeologist and museum director Hang Nisay. The site is on an island in a small river that forms the boundary between the Kampong Chhnang and Kampong Speu provinces.
Further research, site protection and memorialisation activities will now be supported, with help from locals.
From repression to reflection
The Cambodian memorial sites have been recognised as holding “outstanding universal value” for the way they evidence one of the 20th century’s worst atrocities, and are now places of memory.
In its nomination dossier for these sites, Cambodia drew on findings from the Khmer Rouge Tribunal to verify and link the conflict and the sites.
In 2010, the tribunal found Duch guilty of crimes against humanity and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Duch was sentenced to 30 years in prison (which eventually turned into life imprisonment). He died in 2020.
While courts such as the International Criminal Court have previously examined the destruction of heritage as an international crime, drawing on legal findings to assert heritage status is an unusual inverse. It raises important questions about the legacies of former UN-supported tribunals and the ongoing implications of their findings.
The recent listings also raise questions for Australia, which has many sites of documented mass killing associated with colonisation and the frontier wars that lasted into the 20th century.
Might Australia nominate any of these atrocity sites in the future? And could other processes such as truth-telling, reparation and redress support (or be supported by) such nominations?
Rachel Hughes has consulted to UNESCO Cambodia.
Maria Elander 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.
“Imagine her tenderly pressing her soft lips against yours”, writes one incel on Reddit, before concluding, “you will never get to experience this because your skeleton is too small or the bones in your face are not the right shape”.
In his debut book, The Male Complaint, Simon Copland escorts his readers through the manosphere and into the minds of its inhabitants. He illustrates how boys and men who are “terrifyingly normal” become attracted to the manosphere’s grim logic – and the cognitive distortions of anti-feminist influencers like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson.
While mainstream debates often cite toxic masculinity as the cause of online misogyny, Copland, a writer and researcher at the Australian National University, shifts the blame to a deeper cultural malaise. It’s caused, he argues, by the cruel optimism of the manosphere, the multiple social and economic crises of late-stage capitalism and a collective nihilistic misery in which complaint becomes futile and destruction “the only way out”.
Review: The Male Complaint – Simon Copland (Polity)
The manosphere is a network of loosely related blogs and forums devoted to “men’s interests” – sites like The Rational Male, Game Global and the subreddits ForeverAlone, TheRedPill and MensRights. These online communities, separate in their specific beliefs, are united by their misogynistic ideas – and anti-women and anti-diversity sentiments.
They’re also united by the growing tendency of the men in these communities towards nihilistic violence: not only against others, but also against themselves.
In The Male Complaint, Copland relays his dismay at discovering “a constant stream” of suicide notes on Reddit, including a subreddit, IncelGraveyard, which catalogues close to 100 suicide notes and letters posted by self-identified incels.
Since I was a kid I was fed up with ‘Don’t worry, it will get better’, ‘You will find someone’ […] it’s not even that I want a SO (significant other) anymore. Women are awful. People are awful. I have no friends.
For Copland, the violence incels inflict on themselves is a form of passive nihilism. Incels “don’t just express disgust and despair at the world, but in themselves – their looks, body, lives, personality, intelligence, and more”.
Who’s in the manosphere?
The manosphere includes men’s rights activists, pick-up artists and “Men Going Their Own Way” (male separatists who avoid contact with women altogether). And of course, incels: men who believe they are unable to find a romantic or sexual partner due to their perceived genetic inferiority and oppression.
Incels also blame their problems on women’s alleged hypergamy: the theory women seek out partners of higher social or economic status and therefore marry “up”. Put another way, hypergamy, a concept rooted in evolutionary psychology, is the belief “women are hard-wired to be gold diggers”.
Rollo Tomassi, the so-called “godfather of the manosphere”, complains on his blog that “women love opportunistically”, while “men believe that love matters for the sake of it”.
According to Tomassi, the “cruel reality” of modern dating is that men are romantics who are “forced to be realists”, while women are realists whose use “romanticisms to effect their imperatives”. Tomassi complains:
Our girlfriends, our wives, daughters and even our mothers are all incapable of idealized love […] By order of degrees, hypergamy will define who a woman loves and who she will not, depending upon her own opportunities and capacity to attract it.
Ten years ago, these communities were largely regarded as fringe groups. Today, their ideology has infiltrated the mainstream.
On Sunday, ABC TV’s Compass reported that misogyny is on the rise in Australian classrooms, with female teachers sharing their experiences of sexual assault and harassment on school grounds – ranging from boys writing stories about gang raping their teachers to masturbating “over them” in the bathrooms. One student even pretended to stab his pregnant teacher as a “joke”.
A 2025 report published by UN Women shows 53% of women have experienced some form of technology-facilitated, gender-based violence. The dark side of digitalisation disproportionately affects young women aged between 18 and 24, LGBTQI+ women, women who are divorced or who live in the city, and women who participate in online gaming.
‘Biologically bad’?
Copland argues that simplified critiques of toxic masculinity minimise the problem of male violence. They fail to consider the context and history of gendered behaviour, assuming toxic traits are somehow innate and unique to men, rather than the product of social expectations and relations.
This, in turn, promotes the idea that male violence derives from something “biologically bad” in the nature of masculinity itself. As Copland explains, “this is embedded in the term ‘toxic’, which makes it sound like men’s bodies have become diseased or infected”.
Blaming toxic masculinity for digital misogyny also embraces a form of smug politics in which disaffected men are dismissed as degenerates who are fundamentally different to “us” (meaning the activist left and leftist elites). They are “cellar dwellers”, “subhuman freaks”, or “virgin losers” who need to be either enlightened or locked up. “We”, on the other hand, are educated, progressive, superior.
This kind of rhetoric, as Copland explains, is unhelpful. It does not create the conditions for changing the opinions, narratives and futures of manosphere men because it does not allow people to understand their complaints and where those concerns come from – even if we do not agree with them.
Belittling attitudes and demeaning discourses alienate men who already feel socially isolated. This pushes those men further to the fringes – into the hands of “manfluencers” who claim to understand.
‘Not having love becomes everything’
The manosphere, Copland observes, is not “an aberration that is different and distinct from the rest of the world”, nor is it a community that exists solely on the “dark corners of the web”.
Rather, the manosphere, as an echo chamber, enables and encourages what Copland calls “the male complaint”: a sense of collective pain or “injury” so intrinsic to the group’s identity, it cannot be redressed.
As injured subjects who believe their problems are caused through no fault of their own, manosphere men cannot mend the “wound” they believe society has inflicted upon them. Their “marginalisation” and injured status are the lens through which they view themselves and the world.
In the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) community, for example, some men talk about the movement as a hospital where “physicians of the male soul” use different “methods of healing” to treat the “illness of gynocentric-induced disease weighing them down”. These methods include “self-improvement” strategies that are designed to build men’s power and wealth: purchasing gym equipment, investing in the stock market, even abstaining from pornography and sex.
Others in the MGTOW community are vocally anti-victim: “You can live an extraordinary life,” one man says to another, “but you’re wasting your time on complaints and negativity”.
Even when they disagree, though, manosphere men frame women and feminism as the enemy. In this way, the machinery of the manosphere capitalises on men’s discontent, reflects that messaging back to them and displaces their anger and hurt onto an easy scapegoat.
As Copland observes, it is easier for men to blame women for their unhappiness than it is to blame the complex systems of capitalism: “if love and sex is everything, then not having love becomes everything as well”.
Blackpilled incels, lookism and anonymity
This preoccupation with intimacy is central to the incel community. It is exemplified by the various artefacts Copland embeds in his book – memes and posts from the manosphere itself.
Blackpilled incels are a subgroup of incels who believe their access to romantic and sexual relationships is doomed because of “lookism”: the belief women choose sexual partners based solely on their physical features.
Blackpilled ideology attributes romantic failure to genetically unalterable aspects of the human body, such as one’s height or skull shape. Some blackpilled incels, who call themselves wristcels, even blame their lack of sexual success on the width of their wrists.
This logic is countered by research that demonstrates men, in fact, show stronger preferences for physical attractiveness than women, with women tending to prioritise education level and earning potential.
On Reddit, incels often imagine and bitterly dismiss the potential for love and intimacy because of their looks. Ohsineon/Pexels
The manosphere, however, amplifies this type of thinking and filters out information that challenges these ideas and opinions, increasing group polarisation. Despite its promise of solidarity, the manosphere isolates boys and men, and ultimately distances them from their wider community. This segregation results in a deep sense of alienation – these boys and men become stuck in a perpetual cycle of ideological reinforcement.
The manosphere thrives on anonymity, writes Copland, which only reinforces the idea it is not designed to foster deep relationships or connections.
No silver bullets
The sense of community the manosphere claims to offer is a sham; its alienating structures do not offer boys and men genuine belonging and connection, or real solutions to their problems.
“From one day to the next, the ability to communicate depends on the whims of hidden engineers,” writes media studies professor Mark Andrejevic of online networks more broadly. The manosphere, like other virtual constructs, is subject to manipulation by those who control the infrastructure and the rules of engagement.
More than this, the manosphere does not provide an alternative to complaint. When complaint is the only option, writes Copland, nihilism and violence are the inevitable result.
When nothing matters, there are no consequences to anything, including violence […] Manosphere men do not look to convince others, but rather seek their destruction. Destruction is the outlet they find to deal with their complaint.
That’s what makes the manosphere so dangerous.
‘Popular boys must be punished’
In 2014, 22-year-old Elliot Rodger, a British-American college student, embarked on an hours-long stabbing and shooting spree in the university town of Isla Vista, California, killing six and injuring 14. On the morning of May 23 – the “Day of Retribution” – Rodger emailed a 140-page “manifesto” to his family, friends and therapists. He also uploaded several YouTube videos in which he lamented his inability to find a girlfriend, the “hedonistic pleasures” of his peers and his painful existence of “loneliness, rejection, and unfilled desires”.
In his memoir-manifesto, Rodger – the supposed “patron saint of inceldom” – explains the motive for his violence:
I had nothing left to live for but revenge. Women must be punished for their crimes of rejecting such a magnificent gentleman as myself. All of those popular boys must be punished for enjoying heavenly lives and having sex with all the girls while I had to suffer in lonely virginity.
Four years later, in April 2018, Alek Minassian, a self-described incel, drove a rented van onto a busy sidewalk in Toronto, killing 11 (nine of them women) and injuring many more. On Facebook, Minassian explained that his actions were part of the “incel rebellion” led by the “Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger”. Later, Minassian told police, “I feel like I accomplished my mission”.
Rodger, too, ended his final YouTube video with a similar message: “If I can’t have you girls, I will destroy you”.
In his book, Copland even draws a parallel between the Westfield Bondi Junction attack and the explanation for attacker Joel Cauchi’s violence, put forward by his father just two days after the attack: “To you, he is a monster. To me, he was a very sick boy […] he wanted a girlfriend and he’s got no social skills and he was frustrated out of his brain”.
In fact, Cauchi suffered from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and had been unmedicated at the time of the attack: “after almost two decades of treatment, Cauchi had no regular psychiatrist, was not on any medications to treat his schizophrenia and had no family living nearby”. The multifaceted causes of Cauchi’s crime are more complex than misogynistic violence.
Indeed, the pieces of the manosphere puzzle, when put together, reveal a sobering image of the male complaint. However, they demonstrate misogyny is bad for everyone – not just women and girls.
As Copland concludes:
The manosphere promises men that it can make their lives better […] But it really cannot deliver. The promises it offers are not real, and in many cases make things worse […] This is how cruel optimism works, always offering, but never delivering.
‘It’s the combinations’
Recent evidence suggests there is no single route to radicalisation, and no single cause of violent extremism. Rather, complex interactions between push, pull, and personal factors are the root causes of male violence.
The Netflix sensation Adolescence – the harrowing story of a 13-year-old boy who is arrested and charged with murder – is powered by a single question: why did Jamie kill Katie?
In attempting to answer this question, critics and fans have offered a range of explanations: bullying, low self-esteem, emotional dysregulation, obsession with love and sex, deprivation of love and sex, the manosphere. The real answer is less obvious and infinitely more complex. It can be found in a simple line of dialogue, spoken at the end of the series by Jamie’s sister.
“It’s the combinations,” Lisa says. “Combinations are everything.”
In this moment, Lisa is justifying her outfit to her parents as they await Jamie’s trial. But subtextually, her statement doubles as the most likely explanation for his actions. And it’s the closest explanation for why some boys and men commit extreme acts of violence: the combinations.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.
Kate Cantrell 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.
Long before pesticides reach lethal doses, they can disrupt hormones, impair brain function and change fish behaviour. Many of these behaviours are essential for healthy ecosystems.
In a new study, my colleagues and I found that pesticides affect many different behaviours in fish. Overall, the chemical pesticides make fish less sociable and interactive. They spend less time gathering in groups, become less protective of their territory, and make fewer attempts to mate.
Imagine the ocean without the vibrant schools of fish we’ve come to love – only isolated swimmers drifting about. Quietly, ecosystems begin to unravel, long before mass die-offs hit the news.
Australia is a major producer and user of pesticides, with more than 11,000 approved chemical products routinely used in agricultural and domestic settings. Remarkably, some of these chemicals remain approved in Australia despite being banned in other regions such as the European Union due to safety concerns.
When a tractor or plane sprays pesticides onto crops, it creates a mist of chemicals in the air to kill crop pests. After heavy rain, these chemicals can flow into roadside drains, filter through soil, and slowly move into rivers, lakes and oceans.
Fish swim in this diluted chemical mixture. They can absorb pesticides through their gills or eat contaminated prey.
At high concentrations, mass fish deaths can result, such as those repeatedly observed in the Menindee Lakes. However, doses in the wild often aren’t lethal and more subtle effects can occur. Scientists call these “sub-lethal” effects.
One commonly investigated sub-lethal effect is a change in behaviour – in other words, a change in the way a fish interacts with its surrounding environment.
Our previous research has found most experiments have looked at the impacts on fish in isolation, measuring things such as how far or how fast they swim when pesticides are present.
But fish aren’t solitary — they form groups, defend territory and find mates. These behaviours keep aquatic ecosystems stable. So this time we studied how pesticides affect these crucial social behaviours.
Pesticide exposure makes fish less social
Our study extracted and analysed data from 37 experiments conducted around the world. Together, these tested the impacts of 31 different pesticides on the social behaviour of 11 different fish species.
The evidence suggests pesticides make fish less social, and this finding is consistent across species. Courtship was the most severely impacted behaviour – the process fish use to find and attract mates. This is particularly alarming because successful courtship is essential for healthy fish populations and ecosystem stability.
Next, we found pesticides such as the herbicide glyphosate, which can disrupt brain function and hormone levels had the strongest impacts on fish social behaviours. This raises important questions about how brain function and hormones drive fish social behaviour, which could be tested by scientists in the future.
For example, scientists could test how much a change in testosterone relates to a change in territory defence. Looking at these relationships between what’s going on inside the body mechanisms and outward behaviour will help us better understand the complex impacts of pesticides.
We also identified gaps in the current studies. Most existing studies focus on a limited number of easy-to-study “model species” such as zebrafish, medaka and guppies. They also often use pesticide dosages and durations that may not reflect real-world realities.
Addressing these gaps by including a range of species and environmentally relevant dosages is crucial to understanding how pesticides affect fish in the wild.
One of the experiments in our study involved convict surgeonfish, which gather in large groups or ‘shoals’. Damsea, Shutterstock
Behaviour is a blind spot in regulation
Regulatory authorities should begin to recognise behaviour as a reliable and important indicator of pesticide safety. This can help them catch pesticide pollution early, before mass deaths occur.
Scientists play a crucial role too. By following the same methods, scientists can produce comparable results. A standardised method then provides regulators the evidence needed to confidently assess pesticide risks.
Together, regulatory authorities and scientists can find a way to use behavioural studies to help inform policy decisions. This will help to prevent mass deaths and catch pesticide impacts early on.
Leave no stone unturned in restoring our waters
Rivers, lakes, oceans and reefs are bearing the brunt of an ever-growing human footprint.
So far, much of the spotlight has focused on reducing carbon emissions and managing overfishing — and rightly so. But there’s another, quieter threat drifting beneath the surface: the chemicals we use.
Pesticides used on farms and in gardens are being detected everywhere, even iconic ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef. As we have shown, these pesticides can have disturbing effects even at low concentrations.
Now is the time to cut pesticide use and reduce runoff. Through switching to less toxic chemicals and introducing better regulations, we can reduce the damage. If we act with urgency, we can limit the impacts pesticides have on our planet.
Kyle Morrison 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.
A series of atrocity sites of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia have been formally entered onto the World Heritage list, as part of the 47th session of the World Heritage Committee.
This is not only important for Cambodia, but also raises important questions for atrocity sites in Australia.
Before this, the World Heritage list only recognised seven “sites of memory” associated with recent conflicts, which UNESCO defines as “events having occurred from the turn of the 20th century” under its criterion vi. These sat within a broader list of more than 950 cultural sites.
In recent years, experts have intensely debated the question of whether a site associated with recent conflict could, or should, be nominated and evaluated for World Heritage status. Some argue such listings would contradict the objectives of UNESCO and its spirit of peace, which was part of the specialised agency’s mandate after the destruction of two world wars.
Sites associated with recent conflicts can be divisive. For instance, when Japan nominated the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, both China and the United States objected and eventually disassociated from the decision. The US argued the nomination lacked “historical perspective” on the events that led to the bomb’s use. Meanwhile, China argued listing the property would not be conducive for peace as other Asian countries and peoples had suffered at the hands of the Japanese during WWII.
Heritage inscriptions risk reinforcing societal divisions if they conserve a particular memory in a one-sided way.
Nonetheless, the World Heritage Committee decided in 2023 to no longer preclude such sites for inscription. This was done partly in recognition of how these sites may “serve the peace-building mission of UNESCO”.
Shortly after, three listing were added: the ESMA Museum and Site of Memory, a former clandestine centre for detention, torture and extermination in Argentina; memorial sites of the Rwandan genocide at Nyamata, Murambi, Gisozi and Bisesero; and funerary and memory sites of the first world war in Belgium and France.
A number of legacy sites associated with Nelson Mandela’s human rights struggle in South Africa were also added last year.
Atrocities of the Khmer Rouge
The recently inscribed Cambodian Memorial Sites include prisons S-21 (now known as Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum) and M-13, as well as the execution site Choeung Ek.
These sites were nominated for their value in showing the development of extreme mass violence in relation to the security system of the Khmer Rouge in 1975–79. They also have value as places of memorialisation, peace and learning.
The Khmer Rouge developed its methods of disappearance, incarceration and torture of suspected “enemies” during the civil conflict of 1970–75. It established a system of local-level security centres in so-called “liberated” areas.
One of these centres was known as M-13, a small, well-hidden prison in the country’s rural southwest. A man named Kaing Guek Eav – also called Duch – was responsible for prisoners at M-13.
Shortly after the entire country fell to the Khmer Rouge in April 1975, Duch was assigned to lead the headquarters of the regime’s security system: a large detention and torture centre known as S-21.
Under his instruction, tens of thousands of people were detained in inhumane conditions, tortured and interrogated. Many detainees were later taken to the outskirts of the city to be brutally killed and buried in pits at a place called Choeung Ek.
The sites operated until early 1979, when the Khmer Rouge was forced from power.
The S-21 facility and the mass graves at Choeung Ek have long been memorialised as the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum and the Choeung Ek Genocidal Centre.
However, the former M-13 site shows few visual clues to its prior use, and has only recently been investigated by an international team led by Cambodian archaeologist and museum director Hang Nisay. The site is on an island in a small river that forms the boundary between the Kampong Chhnang and Kampong Speu provinces.
Further research, site protection and memorialisation activities will now be supported, with help from locals.
From repression to reflection
The Cambodian memorial sites have been recognised as holding “outstanding universal value” for the way they evidence one of the 20th century’s worst atrocities, and are now places of memory.
In its nomination dossier for these sites, Cambodia drew on findings from the Khmer Rouge Tribunal to verify and link the conflict and the sites.
In 2010, the tribunal found Duch guilty of crimes against humanity and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Duch was sentenced to 30 years in prison (which eventually turned into life imprisonment). He died in 2020.
While courts such as the International Criminal Court have previously examined the destruction of heritage as an international crime, drawing on legal findings to assert heritage status is an unusual inverse. It raises important questions about the legacies of former UN-supported tribunals and the ongoing implications of their findings.
The recent listings also raise questions for Australia, which has many sites of documented mass killing associated with colonisation and the frontier wars that lasted into the 20th century.
Might Australia nominate any of these atrocity sites in the future? And could other processes such as truth-telling, reparation and redress support (or be supported by) such nominations?
Rachel Hughes has consulted to UNESCO Cambodia.
Maria Elander 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.
The snow petrel, a strikingly white bird with black eyes and a black bill, is one of only three bird species ever observed at the South Pole. In fact, the Antarctic is the only place on Earth where this bird lives.
It isn’t alone in this. Antarctica and the sub-Antarctic harbour a large number of endemic species, which means these species are only found in one or a few locations in the world.
In other words, these regions have a high degree of “endemism” – an important metric that tells us where to focus species conservation efforts.
But our new study shows that the degree of endemism in Antarctica and the sub-Antarctic – and in the southern hemisphere more generally – has been underestimated.
This is important because areas with a high degree of endemism harbour species with restricted ranges, unique evolutionary history or unique ecological functions. This makes them potentially more vulnerable to disturbances such as climate change, fundamental changes in habitat, or invasive introduced species.
If the degree of endemism is underestimated, conservation efforts may overlook the sites that are home to irreplaceable birds.
Biased measurements
There are two reasons why global patterns of species endemism aren’t well defined. First, the most common method used to calculate endemism tends to give higher values to places with more species overall – this is known as species richness.
In addition, global studies of diversity often exclude areas that are comparatively species-poor. These areas are mainly in the southern hemisphere – most notably the Antarctic region. When sites that only contain a few species are left out, this influences the estimates of endemism for all other sites.
An alternative way to calculate endemism takes into account a site’s “complementarity”. This metric considers whether species found at a site are also found elsewhere. With this method, we can find sites that have the highest percentage of species with a restricted range.
At such highly endemic sites, the local ecosystem relies heavily on species with restricted ranges to function, which makes them all the more irreplaceable.
The superb lyrebird, known for its skillful vocal imitations, is endemic to southeast Australia. Matthias Dehling
Global hotspots for endemic species
This is the approach we used in our new study to reassess the endemism of birds worldwide. In our study, we also considered other aspects of bird diversity. We measured endemism with regard to whether sites hold irreplaceable evolutionary history and ecological functions of birds.
We found that southern-hemisphere communities showed higher rates of local endemism than northern-hemisphere communities across all aspects of diversity. The sub-Antarctic islands and the High Andes, as well as several regions in Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand and southern Africa, stand out as global hotspots of endemism.
These regions hold many charismatic birds with unique evolutionary histories or unique ecological functions, and these birds are largely restricted to the southern hemisphere.
Among these are the palaeognaths – the bird lineage that includes kiwis, emus, cassowaries and ostriches. They also include the lyrebirds and the New Zealand wrens, as well as iconic Antarctic species such as penguins and albatrosses.
Tawaki or Fiordland crested penguin is only found in Aotearoa New Zealand. Matthias Dehling
Not much land, a lot of ocean
The higher rates of endemism in the southern hemisphere are likely related to the uneven global distribution of landmass. Put simply, there is much more available landmass in the northern hemisphere. As you go further south, landmasses become increasingly separated by vast expanses of ocean.
Because of the smaller and separated landmasses, species in the southern hemisphere have much smaller ranges than species in the northern hemisphere. Consequently, local species communities share fewer species with each other. This leads to the higher observed endemism in the southern hemisphere.
The black-breasted buttonquail is a secretive rainforest bird whose range is restricted to a tiny area in south-east Queensland, Australia. Matthias Dehling
A heightened vulnerability
Our findings suggest that birds in the northern and southern hemisphere might react differently to environmental pressures. Unfortunately, most studies on the impact of climate change to date are from the northern hemisphere.
In response to climate change in particular, species are expected to shift their ranges towards cooler climates. While northern-hemisphere birds are likely free to shift their ranges across large stretches of uninterrupted landmass, birds in the southern hemisphere are hindered by vast expanses of ocean that separate the different landmasses on which they live.
For species at the southern tips of South America, Africa or Australia, the nearest major landmass towards the south is Antarctica. But it is unsuitable for most bird species.
The potentially heightened vulnerability of southern-hemisphere birds suggests they deserve more protection. In addition to known species diversity hotspots that hold large numbers of species, conservation efforts should consider areas that might hold only a small number of species, but irreplaceable ones that aren’t found anywhere else.
Matthias Dehling receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
The snow petrel, a strikingly white bird with black eyes and a black bill, is one of only three bird species ever observed at the South Pole. In fact, the Antarctic is the only place on Earth where this bird lives.
It isn’t alone in this. Antarctica and the sub-Antarctic harbour a large number of endemic species, which means these species are only found in one or a few locations in the world.
In other words, these regions have a high degree of “endemism” – an important metric that tells us where to focus species conservation efforts.
But our new study shows that the degree of endemism in Antarctica and the sub-Antarctic – and in the southern hemisphere more generally – has been underestimated.
This is important because areas with a high degree of endemism harbour species with restricted ranges, unique evolutionary history or unique ecological functions. This makes them potentially more vulnerable to disturbances such as climate change, fundamental changes in habitat, or invasive introduced species.
If the degree of endemism is underestimated, conservation efforts may overlook the sites that are home to irreplaceable birds.
Biased measurements
There are two reasons why global patterns of species endemism aren’t well defined. First, the most common method used to calculate endemism tends to give higher values to places with more species overall – this is known as species richness.
In addition, global studies of diversity often exclude areas that are comparatively species-poor. These areas are mainly in the southern hemisphere – most notably the Antarctic region. When sites that only contain a few species are left out, this influences the estimates of endemism for all other sites.
An alternative way to calculate endemism takes into account a site’s “complementarity”. This metric considers whether species found at a site are also found elsewhere. With this method, we can find sites that have the highest percentage of species with a restricted range.
At such highly endemic sites, the local ecosystem relies heavily on species with restricted ranges to function, which makes them all the more irreplaceable.
The superb lyrebird, known for its skillful vocal imitations, is endemic to southeast Australia. Matthias Dehling
Global hotspots for endemic species
This is the approach we used in our new study to reassess the endemism of birds worldwide. In our study, we also considered other aspects of bird diversity. We measured endemism with regard to whether sites hold irreplaceable evolutionary history and ecological functions of birds.
We found that southern-hemisphere communities showed higher rates of local endemism than northern-hemisphere communities across all aspects of diversity. The sub-Antarctic islands and the High Andes, as well as several regions in Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand and southern Africa, stand out as global hotspots of endemism.
These regions hold many charismatic birds with unique evolutionary histories or unique ecological functions, and these birds are largely restricted to the southern hemisphere.
Among these are the palaeognaths – the bird lineage that includes kiwis, emus, cassowaries and ostriches. They also include the lyrebirds and the New Zealand wrens, as well as iconic Antarctic species such as penguins and albatrosses.
Tawaki or Fiordland crested penguin is only found in Aotearoa New Zealand. Matthias Dehling
Not much land, a lot of ocean
The higher rates of endemism in the southern hemisphere are likely related to the uneven global distribution of landmass. Put simply, there is much more available landmass in the northern hemisphere. As you go further south, landmasses become increasingly separated by vast expanses of ocean.
Because of the smaller and separated landmasses, species in the southern hemisphere have much smaller ranges than species in the northern hemisphere. Consequently, local species communities share fewer species with each other. This leads to the higher observed endemism in the southern hemisphere.
The black-breasted buttonquail is a secretive rainforest bird whose range is restricted to a tiny area in south-east Queensland, Australia. Matthias Dehling
A heightened vulnerability
Our findings suggest that birds in the northern and southern hemisphere might react differently to environmental pressures. Unfortunately, most studies on the impact of climate change to date are from the northern hemisphere.
In response to climate change in particular, species are expected to shift their ranges towards cooler climates. While northern-hemisphere birds are likely free to shift their ranges across large stretches of uninterrupted landmass, birds in the southern hemisphere are hindered by vast expanses of ocean that separate the different landmasses on which they live.
For species at the southern tips of South America, Africa or Australia, the nearest major landmass towards the south is Antarctica. But it is unsuitable for most bird species.
The potentially heightened vulnerability of southern-hemisphere birds suggests they deserve more protection. In addition to known species diversity hotspots that hold large numbers of species, conservation efforts should consider areas that might hold only a small number of species, but irreplaceable ones that aren’t found anywhere else.
Matthias Dehling receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
In 2001, social theorist bell hooks warned about the dangers of a loveless zeitgeist. In “All About Love: New Visions,” she lamented “the lack of an ongoing public discussion … about the practice of love in our culture and in our lives.”
The doubts were unfounded. In only a few decades, the internet has merged with our bodies as smartphones and mined our personalities via algorithms that know us more intimately than some of our closest friends. It has even constructed a secondary social world.
Is the internet’s place in human history cemented as a harbinger of despair? Or is there still hope for an internet that supports collective flourishing?
In it, I explain how social media companies’ profits depend on users investing their time, creativity and emotions. Whether it’s spending hours filming content for TikTok or a few minutes crafting a thoughtful Reddit comment, participating on these platforms takes work. And it can be exhausting.
Even passive engagement – like scrolling through feeds and “lurking” in forums – consumes time. It might feel like free entertainment – until people recognize they are the product, with their data being harvested and their emotions being manipulated.
Blogger, journalist and science fiction writer Cory Doctorow coined the term “enshittification” to describe how experiences on online platforms gradually deteriorate as companies increasingly exploit users’ data and tweak their algorithms to maximize profits.
This cycle is neither an accident nor a novel insight. Hate and mental illness fester in this culture because love and healing seem to be incompatible with profits.
Care hiding in plain sight
In his 2009 book “Envisioning Real Utopias,” the late sociologist Erik Olin Wright discusses places in the world that prioritize cooperation, care and egalitarianism.
Wright mainly focused on offline systems like worker-owned cooperatives. But one of his examples lived on the internet: Wikipedia. He argued that Wikipedia demonstrates the ethos “from each according to ability, to each according to need” – a utopian ideal popularized by Karl Marx.
Wikipedia still thrives as a nonprofit, volunteer-ran bureaucracy. The website is a form of media that is deeply social, in the literal sense: People voluntarily curate and share knowledge, collectively and democratically, for free. Unlike social media, the rewards are only collective.
There are no visible likes, comments or rage emojis for participants to hoard and chase. Nobody loses and everyone wins, including the vast majority of people who use Wikipedia without contributing work or money to keep it operational.
Building a new digital world
Wikipedia is evidence of care, cooperation and love hiding in plain sight.
In recent years, there have been more efforts to create nonprofit apps and websites that are committed to protecting user data. Popular examples include Signal, a free and open source instant messaging service, and Proton Mail, an encrypted email service.
These are all laudable developments. But how can the internet actively promote collective flourishing?
In “Viral Justice: How We Grow the World We Want,” sociologist Ruha Benjamin points to a way forward. She tells the story of Black TikTok creators who led a successful cultural labor strike in 2021. Many viral TikTok dances had originally been created by Black artists, whose accounts, they claimed, were suppressed by a biased algorithm that favored white influencers.
TikTok responded to the viral #BlackTikTokStrike movement by formally apologizing and making commitments to better represent and compensate the work of Black creators. These creators demonstrated how social media engagement is work – and that workers have the power to demand equitable conditions and fair pay.
This landmark strike showed how anyone who uses social media companies that profit off the work, emotions and personal data of their users – whether it’s TikTok, X, Facebook, Instagram or Reddit – can become organized.
“Digital spaces are increasingly powered by hate and discrimination,” the group writes, adding that it hopes to create an online world where “women and people of diverse sexualities and genders are able to access and enjoy a free and open internet to exercise agency and autonomy, build collective power, strengthen movements, and transform power relations.”
In Los Angeles, there’s Chani, Inc., a technology company that describes itself as “proudly” not funded by venture capitalists. The Chani app blends mindfulness practices and astrology with the goal of simply helping people. The app is not designed for compulsive user engagement, the company never sells user data, and there are no comments sections.
No comments
What would social media look like if Wikipedia were the norm instead of an exception?
To me, a big problem in internet culture is the way people’s humanity is obscured. People are free to speak their minds in text-based public discussion forums, but the words aren’t always attached to someone’s identity. Real people hide behind the anonymity of user names. It isn’t true human interaction.
In “Attention and Alienation,” I argue that the ability to meet and interact with others online as fully realized, three-dimensional human beings would go a long way toward creating a more empathetic, cooperative internet.
When I was 8 years old, my parents lived abroad for work. Sometimes we talked on the phone. Often I would cry late into the night, praying for the ability to “see them through the phone.” It felt like a miraculous possibility – like magic.
I told this story to my students in a moment of shared vulnerability. This was in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, so the class was taking place over videoconferencing. In these online classes, one person talked at a time. Others listened.
It wasn’t perfect, but I think a better internet would promote this form of discussion – people getting together from across the world to share the fullness of their humanity.
What if the next iteration of public social media platforms could build on Clubhouse? What if they brought people together and showcased not just their voices, but also live video feeds of their faces without harvesting their data or promoting conflict and outrage?
Raised eyebrows. Grins. Frowns. They’re what make humans distinct from increasingly sophisticated large language models and artificial intelligence chatbots like ChatGPT.
After all, is anything you can’t say while looking at another human being in the eye worth saying in the first place?
Aarushi Bhandari 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.
It was a surrender widely foreseen. For months, rumors abounded that Paramount would eventually settle the seemingly frivolous lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump concerning editorial decisions in the production of a CBS interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in 2024.
On July 2, 2025, those rumors proved true: The settlement between Paramount and Trump’s legal team resulted in CBS’s parent company agreeing to pay $16 million to the future Donald Trump Library – the $16 million included Trump’s legal fees – in exchange for ending the lawsuit. Despite the opinion of many media law scholars and practicing attorneys who considered the lawsuit meritless, Shari Redstone, the largest shareholder of Paramount, yielded to Trump.
Specifically, when the Trump administration assumed power in January 2025, the new Federal Communications Commission had no legal obligation to facilitate, without scrutiny, the transfer of the CBS network’s broadcast licenses for its owned-and-operated TV stations to new ownership.
The FCC, under newly installed Republican Chairman Brendan Carr, was fully aware of the issues in the legal conflict between Trump and CBS at the time Paramount needed FCC approval for the license transfers. Without a settlement, the Paramount-Skydance deal remained in jeopardy.
Until it wasn’t.
At that point, Paramount joined Disney in implicitly apologizing for journalism produced by their TV news divisions.
Earlier in 2025, Disney had settled a different Trump lawsuit with ABC News in exchange for a $15 million donation to the future Trump Library. That lawsuit involved a dispute over the wording of the actions for which Trump was found liable in a civil lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll.
GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump said the CBS interview with Democratic nominee Kamala Harris was ‘fraudulent interference with an election.’
It’s not certain what the ABC and CBS settlements portend, but many are predicting they will produce a “chilling effect” within the network news divisions. Such an outcome would arise from fear of new litigation, and it would install a form of internal self-censorship that would influence network journalists when deciding whether the pursuit of investigative stories involving the Trump administration would be worth the risk.
Trump has apparently succeeded where earlier presidents failed.
Presidential pressure
From Jimmy Carter trying to get CBS anchor Walter Cronkite to stop ending his evening newscasts with the number of days American hostages were being held in Iran to Richard Nixon’s administration threatening the broadcast licenses of The Washington Post’s TV stations to weaken Watergate reporting, previous presidents sought to apply editorial pressure on broadcast journalists.
But in the cases of Carter and Nixon, it didn’t work. The broadcast networks’ focus on both Watergate and the Iran hostage crisis remained unrelenting.
Nor were Nixon and Carter the first presidents seeking to influence, and possibly control, network news.
President Lyndon Johnson, who owned local TV and radio stations in Austin, Texas, regularly complained to his old friend, CBS President Frank Stanton, about what he perceived as biased TV coverage. Johnson was so furious with the CBS and NBC reporting from Vietnam, he once argued that their newscasts seemed “controlled by the Vietcong.”
Yet none of these earlier presidents won millions from the corporations that aired ethical news reporting in the public interest.
Before Trump, these conflicts mostly occurred backstage and informally, allowing the broadcasters to sidestep the damage to their credibility should any surrender to White House administrations be made public. In a “Reporter’s Notebook” on the CBS Evening News the night of the Trump settlement, anchor John Dickerson summarized the new dilemma succinctly: “Can you hold power to account when you’ve paid it millions? Can an audience trust you when it thinks you’ve traded away that trust?”
“The audience will decide that,” Dickerson continued, concluding: “Our job is to show up to honor what we witness on behalf of the people we witness it for.”
During the Iran hostage crisis, CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite ended every broadcast with the number of days the hostages had been held captive.
Soon, Skydance Media will assume control over the Paramount properties, and the new CBS will be on the airwaves.
When the licenses for KCBS in Los Angeles, WCBS in New York and the other CBS-owned-and-operated stations are transferred, we’ll learn the long-term legacy of corporate capitulation. But for now, it remains too early to judge tomorrow’s newscasts.
As a scholar of broadcast journalism and a former broadcast journalist, I recommend evaluating programs like “60 Minutes” and the “CBS Evening News” on the record they will compile over the next three years – and the record they compiled over the past 50. The same goes for “ABC World News Tonight” and other ABC News programs.
A major complicating factor for the Paramount-Skydance deal was the fact that “60 Minutes” has, over the past six months, broken major scoops embarrassing to the Trump administration, which led to additional scrutiny by its corporate ownership. Judged by its reporting in the first half of 2025, “60 Minutes” has upheld its record of critical and independent reporting in the public interest.
If audience members want to see ethical, independent and professional broadcast journalism that holds power to account, then it’s the audience’s responsibility to tune it in. The only way to learn the consequences of these settlements is by watching future programming rather than dismissing it beforehand.
The journalists working at ABC News and CBS News understand the legacy of their organizations, and they are also aware of how their owners have cast suspicion on the news divisions’ professionalism and credibility. As Dickerson asserted, they plan to “show up” regardless of the stain, and I’d bet they’re more motivated to redeem their reputations than we expect.
I don’t think reporters, editors and producers plan to let Donald Trump become their editor-in-chief over the next three years. But we’ll only know by watching.
Michael Socolow’s father, Sanford Socolow, worked for CBS News from 1956 to 1988.
New Zealand 2050: On the morning of February 27, the sea surged through the dunes south of the small town of Te Taone, riding on the back of Cyclone Harita’s swollen rivers and 200mm of overnight rainfall.
By mid-morning, floodwaters had engulfed entire streets. Power was out. Roads were underwater. Emergency services responded swiftly, coordinating evacuations and establishing shelters.
But for many residents, the realisation came days later: the help they expected after the water receded – support to rebuild, relocate or recover – wasn’t coming.
“We lost everything,” says Mere Rākete, a solo mother of three, standing outside her home, now uninhabitable. “I rang the council, the government helpline, even the insurance company. They all said I’m not covered.”
Mere lives in a suburb long identified as “high risk” under national climate risk maps. She didn’t stay there because she ignored the risk. She stayed because she had no viable alternative.
“They say we had a choice. But when houses here were $400,000 and anything safer was $700,000, what choice is that?”
No more buyouts
Although this story is fictitious, it describes a plausible future based on how New Zealand’s draft climate adaptation framework could play out. It reflects the likely consequences of policy decisions that focus narrowly on financial exposure.
Last week’s recommendations from the Ministry for the Environment’s Independent Reference Group rightly called for urgent and improved risk information. But they focused narrowly on direct risk to property and infrastructure.
In particular, the group proposed that beyond 2045 the government should not buy out property owners after climate-related disasters (or those at high risk of future events).
Responding to the recommendations last week, climate policy analyst Jonathan Boston wrote that ruling out property buyouts “is philosophically misguided, morally questionable, administratively inept, and politically naïve”.
But it appears the government shares the reference group’s view. Addressing the current flooding disaster in the Tasman district, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said, “In principle, the government won’t be able to keep bailing out people in this way.”
Beyond the specifics of financial compensation, however, lie the cascading and systemic risks that follow a major weather event. In reality, the impacts do not stop at the property boundary.
When a family is displaced, or even fears displacement, the consequences ripple outward: schooling is disrupted, jobs are lost, mental health declines, community networks fragment and local economies suffer.
Research shows how the after-effects of a disaster domino through interconnected systems, affecting health, housing, labour markets and social cohesion.
A policy decades in the making
Back to the future: our fictional town of Te Taone sits in a floodplain identified decades ago. By the 2040s, insurance had become unaffordable. New development slowed but many families, especially those on lower incomes, remained, with few relocation options.
The adaptation framework proposed in 2025, based on a “beneficiary pays” model, created a 20-year transition period that ended in 2045. After that, residents in high-risk areas became ineligible for buyouts or standard recovery funding.
Future government investment was limited to Crown-owned assets or projects with “national benefit”. Restoration of local infrastructure such as roads and power lines would depend on whether councils or ratepayers could pay.
Today, parts of Te Taone remain cut off. Power is still out in some areas. The school has relocated inland. Local shops have closed. Many homes are damaged, waterlogged, or destroyed, and some families are now living in tents.
“It’s not that we weren’t warned,” says a local community worker. “It’s just that we couldn’t afford to do anything but live with the risk and hope for the best.”
Te Taone’s experience is now raising deeper concerns that Aotearoa New Zealand’s climate adaptation framework may be entrenching a form of “climate redlining”. Those with the means can move to escape risk, while others are left behind to bear it.
Adaptation or abandonment?
Māori communities are especially affected. Parts of the floodplain include ancestral land, some communally owned, some leased by whānau who cannot easily relocate. In many cases, this land was only recently returned from the Crown, after years of land court proceedings or Treaty settlements.
The prospect of abandoning it again, without coordinated support, echoes earlier waves of institutional neglect. Mere Rākete is now considering joining a class action, one of several reportedly forming across the country.
Residents are challenging the government or local councils over a failure in their duty of care by allowing homes to be built, sold or inhabited in known risk zones without clear and enforceable warnings or adequate alternatives.
Meanwhile, adaptation experts are calling for a reset: a national compensation framework with clear eligibility rules, long-term investment in affordable housing beyond hazard-prone areas.
Above all, they argue, government policy based on a climate adaptation framework developed 25 years ago has not reduced exposure to risk. Instead, it has redistributed it from those who could leave to those who couldn’t.
In the meantime, the remaining residents of Te Taone wait for the next cyclone and wonder whether, next time, anyone will help.
Planning with people in mind
Our imagined future scenario can be avoided if governments take a broader view of adaptation. Treating climate risk as an individual responsibility may reduce short-term government liability. But it will not reduce long-term social and fiscal liability.
The risk of failing to act systemically is that the country pays in other ways – in fractured communities, rising inequity and preventable harm.
Adaptation to climate change has to be about more than limiting the upfront costs of buyouts or infrastructure repairs. Ignoring the wider impacts will only shift the burden and increase it over time.
Real economic and community resilience means planning with people in mind, investing early and making sure no one is left behind. That work must begin now.
Tom Logan owns shares in Urban Intelligence. He receives funding from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and the Royal Society of NZ.
Paula Blackett works part time for Urban Intelligence. She receives research funding from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and undertakes consulting work regarding climate risk and adaptation.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
A new Tasmanian DemosAU poll gives the Liberals a 34.9–24.7 statewide vote lead over Labor, implying the Liberals will win the most seats but be short of a majority at this Saturday’s election. I also cover the Coalition’s vote was inefficiently distributed at the federal election, as well as US and UK politics.
The Tasmanian state election will be held this Saturday. Tasmania uses the proportional Hare-Clark system for its lower house elections. The five Tasmanian seats used at federal elections each have seven members, for a total of 35 MPs. A quota for election is one-eighth of the vote, or 12.5%.
A DemosAU poll for Pulse Tasmania, conducted July 6–10 from a sample of 3,421, gave the Liberals 34.9% of the vote (up 0.9 since the June 19–26 DemosAU poll), Labor 24.7% (down 2.6), the Greens 15.6% (up 0.5), the Nationals 2.7%, the Shooters 1.8% and independents 20.3% (up 1.0).
The Nationals are only contesting Bass, Braddon and Lyons, and the poll would not have included them in the other two electorates of Clark and Franklin, so the Nationals’ vote in the electorates they are contesting would be higher than their statewide vote.
With a total sample of over 3,400, the sample size per electorate would be over 680. Using the results in individual electorates, this poll has the Liberals on a total of 13–14 seats out of 35, Labor on 9–10, the Greens on 6–7, independents on 4–6 and both the Nationals and Shooters either winning zero or one seat.
If the election results reflect this poll, the Liberals would easily be the largest party, but they would not win the 18 seats needed for a majority. There would probably be a majority for Labor, the Greens and left-wing independents, but Labor did not attempt to form government in a similar situation after the March 2024 election.
It’s been 11 years since Labor last held government in Tasmania, with the Labor/Greens government at that time widely blamed for Labor’s heavy defeat in the March 2014 election. But with the continuing decline of the major parties, Labor may have to reach an agreement with the Greens if they want to form government again in Tasmania.
Labor and the Liberals have both supported construction of a new AFL stadium. I believe this partly explains the drop in Labor’s vote, as many on the left would oppose this stadium. Labor’s refusal to attempt to form government after the March 2024 election probably also contributed to its low vote.
Voters may also be blaming Labor for this early election, just 16 months after the previous Tasmanian election. This election is just over two months after the federal election.
Federal election: Coalition’s vote inefficiently distributed
Analyst Kevin Bonham has a pendulum of House of Representatives seats after the results of the May 3 federal election. There are likely to be federal redistributions from July 2026 in some states, so this won’t be the pendulum used at the next federal election.
Labor won 94 of the 150 seats, the Coalition 43 and all Others 13, from a two-party vote of 55.2–44.8 to Labor. Assuming the Others are unchanged, Labor would need to lose 19 seats to drop below the 76 needed for a majority. On the pendulum, this occurs when the seat of Whitlam falls, but Labor won Whitlam by 56.3–43.7, more than 1% higher than their national vote.
This means that, using a uniform swing on the actual results, Labor would have won a majority even if they had lost the national two-party vote by 51.0–49.0, despite 13 Other seats.
Despite the electoral hammering, the Coalition retained many regional seats by large margins. This contributed to an inefficiently distributed vote. With voters in the cities making up a majority of all Australian voters, the Coalition can’t win by appealing just to voters in the regions.
The Coalition would be the largest party if they won 26 seats from Labor. This happens when the Coalition gains Braddon, which Labor won by 57.2–42.8, so the Coalition would need a 51.9–48.1 national two-party margin. For a Coalition majority, they would need 33 gains, and need a 53.7–46.3 national two-party win.
US and UK politics
I wrote for The Poll Bludger on Saturday that United States President Donald Trump’s net approval was nearly unchanged at -6.7 after the passage of the “big beautiful bill” through Congress. I also covered Elon Musk’s new party and New York City mayoral general election polls.
In the United Kingdom, a Labour MP has defected to a potential Jeremy Corbyn-led party. The far-right Reform has led Labour in UK national polls since the early May local elections. In a House of Commons vote on a welfare reform bill, 49 Labour MPs rebelled.
Two Queensland poll give LNP big leads
A Queensland state DemosAU poll, conducted July 4–9 from a sample of 1,027, gave the Liberal National Party a 55–45 lead (53.8–46.2 to the LNP at the October 2024 election). The Poll Bludger said this was a one-point gain for the LNP since a February DemosAU poll.
Primary votes were 40% LNP (steady), 28% Labor (down two), 13% Greens (up one), 12% One Nation (up two) and 7% for all Others (down one). On the recent Queensland state budget, 24% thought it would be good for the Queensland economy, 19% bad and 57% were unsure. By 43–26, respondents thought Labor would not have delivered a better budget.
A Queensland state Redbridge poll gave the LNP a 56–44 lead. Primary votes were 43% LNP, 29% Labor, 11% Greens and 17% for all Others (there was no One Nation breakdown).
Queensland was the only state the Coalition won at the federal election, though only by 50.6–49.4. The state LNP is still benefiting from a honeymoon after ousting Labor at last year’s election.
Adrian Beaumont 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
A new Tasmanian DemosAU poll gives the Liberals a 34.9–24.7 statewide vote lead over Labor, implying the Liberals will win the most seats but be short of a majority at this Saturday’s election. I also cover the Coalition’s vote was inefficiently distributed at the federal election, as well as US and UK politics.
The Tasmanian state election will be held this Saturday. Tasmania uses the proportional Hare-Clark system for its lower house elections. The five Tasmanian seats used at federal elections each have seven members, for a total of 35 MPs. A quota for election is one-eighth of the vote, or 12.5%.
A DemosAU poll for Pulse Tasmania, conducted July 6–10 from a sample of 3,421, gave the Liberals 34.9% of the vote (up 0.9 since the June 19–26 DemosAU poll), Labor 24.7% (down 2.6), the Greens 15.6% (up 0.5), the Nationals 2.7%, the Shooters 1.8% and independents 20.3% (up 1.0).
The Nationals are only contesting Bass, Braddon and Lyons, and the poll would not have included them in the other two electorates of Clark and Franklin, so the Nationals’ vote in the electorates they are contesting would be higher than their statewide vote.
With a total sample of over 3,400, the sample size per electorate would be over 680. Using the results in individual electorates, this poll has the Liberals on a total of 13–14 seats out of 35, Labor on 9–10, the Greens on 6–7, independents on 4–6 and both the Nationals and Shooters either winning zero or one seat.
If the election results reflect this poll, the Liberals would easily be the largest party, but they would not win the 18 seats needed for a majority. There would probably be a majority for Labor, the Greens and left-wing independents, but Labor did not attempt to form government in a similar situation after the March 2024 election.
It’s been 11 years since Labor last held government in Tasmania, with the Labor/Greens government at that time widely blamed for Labor’s heavy defeat in the March 2014 election. But with the continuing decline of the major parties, Labor may have to reach an agreement with the Greens if they want to form government again in Tasmania.
Labor and the Liberals have both supported construction of a new AFL stadium. I believe this partly explains the drop in Labor’s vote, as many on the left would oppose this stadium. Labor’s refusal to attempt to form government after the March 2024 election probably also contributed to its low vote.
Voters may also be blaming Labor for this early election, just 16 months after the previous Tasmanian election. This election is just over two months after the federal election.
Federal election: Coalition’s vote inefficiently distributed
Analyst Kevin Bonham has a pendulum of House of Representatives seats after the results of the May 3 federal election. There are likely to be federal redistributions from July 2026 in some states, so this won’t be the pendulum used at the next federal election.
Labor won 94 of the 150 seats, the Coalition 43 and all Others 13, from a two-party vote of 55.2–44.8 to Labor. Assuming the Others are unchanged, Labor would need to lose 19 seats to drop below the 76 needed for a majority. On the pendulum, this occurs when the seat of Whitlam falls, but Labor won Whitlam by 56.3–43.7, more than 1% higher than their national vote.
This means that, using a uniform swing on the actual results, Labor would have won a majority even if they had lost the national two-party vote by 51.0–49.0, despite 13 Other seats.
Despite the electoral hammering, the Coalition retained many regional seats by large margins. This contributed to an inefficiently distributed vote. With voters in the cities making up a majority of all Australian voters, the Coalition can’t win by appealing just to voters in the regions.
The Coalition would be the largest party if they won 26 seats from Labor. This happens when the Coalition gains Braddon, which Labor won by 57.2–42.8, so the Coalition would need a 51.9–48.1 national two-party margin. For a Coalition majority, they would need 33 gains, and need a 53.7–46.3 national two-party win.
US and UK politics
I wrote for The Poll Bludger on Saturday that United States President Donald Trump’s net approval was nearly unchanged at -6.7 after the passage of the “big beautiful bill” through Congress. I also covered Elon Musk’s new party and New York City mayoral general election polls.
In the United Kingdom, a Labour MP has defected to a potential Jeremy Corbyn-led party. The far-right Reform has led Labour in UK national polls since the early May local elections. In a House of Commons vote on a welfare reform bill, 49 Labour MPs rebelled.
Two Queensland poll give LNP big leads
A Queensland state DemosAU poll, conducted July 4–9 from a sample of 1,027, gave the Liberal National Party a 55–45 lead (53.8–46.2 to the LNP at the October 2024 election). The Poll Bludger said this was a one-point gain for the LNP since a February DemosAU poll.
Primary votes were 40% LNP (steady), 28% Labor (down two), 13% Greens (up one), 12% One Nation (up two) and 7% for all Others (down one). On the recent Queensland state budget, 24% thought it would be good for the Queensland economy, 19% bad and 57% were unsure. By 43–26, respondents thought Labor would not have delivered a better budget.
A Queensland state Redbridge poll gave the LNP a 56–44 lead. Primary votes were 43% LNP, 29% Labor, 11% Greens and 17% for all Others (there was no One Nation breakdown).
Queensland was the only state the Coalition won at the federal election, though only by 50.6–49.4. The state LNP is still benefiting from a honeymoon after ousting Labor at last year’s election.
Adrian Beaumont 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.
Long before pesticides reach lethal doses, they can disrupt hormones, impair brain function and change fish behaviour. Many of these behaviours are essential for healthy ecosystems.
In a new study, my colleagues and I found that pesticides affect many different behaviours in fish. Overall, the chemical pesticides make fish less sociable and interactive. They spend less time gathering in groups, become less protective of their territory, and make fewer attempts to mate.
Imagine the ocean without the vibrant schools of fish we’ve come to love – only isolated swimmers drifting about. Quietly, ecosystems begin to unravel, long before mass die-offs hit the news.
Australia is a major producer and user of pesticides, with more than 11,000 approved chemical products routinely used in agricultural and domestic settings. Remarkably, some of these chemicals remain approved in Australia despite being banned in other regions such as the European Union due to safety concerns.
When a tractor or plane sprays pesticides onto crops, it creates a mist of chemicals in the air to kill crop pests. After heavy rain, these chemicals can flow into roadside drains, filter through soil, and slowly move into rivers, lakes and oceans.
Fish swim in this diluted chemical mixture. They can absorb pesticides through their gills or eat contaminated prey.
At high concentrations, mass fish deaths can result, such as those repeatedly observed in the Menindee Lakes. However, doses in the wild often aren’t lethal and more subtle effects can occur. Scientists call these “sub-lethal” effects.
One commonly investigated sub-lethal effect is a change in behaviour – in other words, a change in the way a fish interacts with its surrounding environment.
Our previous research has found most experiments have looked at the impacts on fish in isolation, measuring things such as how far or how fast they swim when pesticides are present.
But fish aren’t solitary — they form groups, defend territory and find mates. These behaviours keep aquatic ecosystems stable. So this time we studied how pesticides affect these crucial social behaviours.
Pesticide exposure makes fish less social
Our study extracted and analysed data from 37 experiments conducted around the world. Together, these tested the impacts of 31 different pesticides on the social behaviour of 11 different fish species.
The evidence suggests pesticides make fish less social, and this finding is consistent across species. Courtship was the most severely impacted behaviour – the process fish use to find and attract mates. This is particularly alarming because successful courtship is essential for healthy fish populations and ecosystem stability.
Next, we found pesticides such as the herbicide glyphosate, which can disrupt brain function and hormone levels had the strongest impacts on fish social behaviours. This raises important questions about how brain function and hormones drive fish social behaviour, which could be tested by scientists in the future.
For example, scientists could test how much a change in testosterone relates to a change in territory defence. Looking at these relationships between what’s going on inside the body mechanisms and outward behaviour will help us better understand the complex impacts of pesticides.
We also identified gaps in the current studies. Most existing studies focus on a limited number of easy-to-study “model species” such as zebrafish, medaka and guppies. They also often use pesticide dosages and durations that may not reflect real-world realities.
Addressing these gaps by including a range of species and environmentally relevant dosages is crucial to understanding how pesticides affect fish in the wild.
One of the experiments in our study involved convict surgeonfish, which gather in large groups or ‘shoals’. Damsea, Shutterstock
Behaviour is a blind spot in regulation
Regulatory authorities should begin to recognise behaviour as a reliable and important indicator of pesticide safety. This can help them catch pesticide pollution early, before mass deaths occur.
Scientists play a crucial role too. By following the same methods, scientists can produce comparable results. A standardised method then provides regulators the evidence needed to confidently assess pesticide risks.
Together, regulatory authorities and scientists can find a way to use behavioural studies to help inform policy decisions. This will help to prevent mass deaths and catch pesticide impacts early on.
Leave no stone unturned in restoring our waters
Rivers, lakes, oceans and reefs are bearing the brunt of an ever-growing human footprint.
So far, much of the spotlight has focused on reducing carbon emissions and managing overfishing — and rightly so. But there’s another, quieter threat drifting beneath the surface: the chemicals we use.
Pesticides used on farms and in gardens are being detected everywhere, even iconic ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef. As we have shown, these pesticides can have disturbing effects even at low concentrations.
Now is the time to cut pesticide use and reduce runoff. Through switching to less toxic chemicals and introducing better regulations, we can reduce the damage. If we act with urgency, we can limit the impacts pesticides have on our planet.
Kyle Morrison 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.
Prostate cancer kills around 3,900 Australians a year. Yet most prostate cancers progress very slowly and many men die “with” and not “from” prostate cancer.
Prostate cancer is currently detected with a blood test. This measures the amounts of prostate specific antigen (PSA) in the blood, a protein produced by the prostate gland.
But while an elevated PSA can indicate prostate cancer, other non-cancerous conditions, such as prostate enlargement or inflammation, can also increase PSA levels.
New draft guidelines aim to provide clearer recommendations about the role PSA tests should play in detecting prostate cancer.
Life-saving treatment vs harmful overdiagnosis
Early detection of prostate cancer by PSA testing is important. It allows for timely treatments such as prostate removal surgery, radiation or hormonal therapy.
But despite their effectiveness, these treatments can cause problems such as erectile dysfunction. Urinary incontinence issues occur in up to 14% of patients.
Therefore, if the prostate cancer is considered low-risk and has not spread outside the prostate, the clinician may recommend “active surveillance” to closely monitor the cancer for signs of progression.
If the low-risk prostate cancer doesn’t progress, treatment and its associated side effects can be delayed or avoided.
The following recommended changes aim to reduce over-treatment and minimise harm.
1. Offer all men a ‘baseline’ PSA test at 40
All men would be offered an initial PSA test at age 40 to provide a baseline PSA measurement to compare against follow-up tests.
A baseline PSA measurement would enable the calculation of PSA doubling time: the number of months taken for PSA level to double from baseline.
Aggressive fast-growing tumors tend to have shorter PSA doubling times, so this would enable early detection of high-risk prostate cancer for prompt treatment.
Such a change could improve prostate cancer risk classification and spare more men from unnecessary harmful treatment side effects.
2. GPs offer men aged 50–69 PSA tests every two years
The draft guidelines recommend GPs offer PSA testing every two years for all men aged 50–69.
For men over 70, PSA testing would be recommended based on clinical assessment by GPs.
Men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer at an advanced age. So as they get older and have a shorter life expectancy, the harms of treatment are more likely to outweigh the benefits of early detection.
This recommendation could reduce over-diagnosis by considering individual life expectancy, overall health and potential treatment harms.
3. Target populations at greater risk
As with other cancer types, prostate cancer is a disease caused by gene malfunctioning leading to tumour growth. Men with a family history of prostate cancer are around three times more likely to develop and die from prostate cancer due to their genetic susceptibility.
For these men with higher prostate cancer risk, the draft guidelines recommend earlier and more frequent PSA testing, starting at age 40.
This change could prioritise and serve targeted, high-risk populations of men who would benefit most from more regular PSA testing.
Men with a family history of prostate cancer are more likely to develop the disease. Shakirov Albert/Shutterstock
No more ‘finger up the bum’
Previously, men with high PSA levels were referred for needle prostate biopsies which involve invasive insertion of needles into different areas of the prostate to remove tissue samples for lab analyses.
Needle biopsies are painful and come with risks of bleeding or infection. So, it’s helpful to use additional prostate cancer testing approaches to guide who is referred for a biopsy.
The new draft guidelines no longer recommend the use of digital rectal examination, the dreaded “finger up the bum”, to screen for signs of prostate cancer together with PSA testing. Men find this unpleasant and embarrassing.
Instead, clinicians can turn to advanced imaging. Medicare rebates have been available for magnetic resonance imaging to diagnose prostate cancer since 2018.
Medical specialists often order a multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) following elevated PSA levels to determine if biopsies are required. This is a specialised MRI that uses strong magnets and radio waves to construct a detailed three-dimensional image of the prostate from different angles and identify suspicious-looking areas.
The draft guidelines recommend mpMRI to supplement PSA testing to better determine if a biopsy is needed. This saves men from unnecessary invasive procedures and reduces health-system costs.
The information gathered from the public consultations will inform the final draft prostate cancer early detection guidelines. The final recommendations will then be sent to the National Health and Medical Research Council for approval, before becoming clinical practice.
Kevin M. Koo receives funding from the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia.
Produced by Jillian Segal, the special envoy to combat antisemitism, the blueprint falls short in a range of areas essential to good public policy. This is due to its biased arguments, weak evidence and recommendation overreach.
There is also the adoption of a contentious definition of antisemitism which has been criticised for conflating disapproval of Israel with anti-Jewish prejudice.
Alternative definition
The strategy uses the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, manifestations of which could include criticising the state of Israel.
However, this definition is contentious – so much so that its original author, Kenneth Stern, has rejected it as a tool for regulating antisemitism due its potential to be weaponised to silence free speech.
Other widely used definitions are unacknowledged in the report. These include the Jerusalem Declaration, which attempts to strike a better balance between antisemitism and freedom of speech, including criticism of Israel and Zionism.
As the declaration notes:
hostility to Israel could be an expression of an antisemitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or it could be the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the state.
Biased Argument
The report presents a clear and consistent argument: antisemitism has been on the rise in Australia, especially since the Hamas attacks in October 2023. It is particularly obvious in universities and cultural institutions.
Antisemitism is an insidious form of prejudice and hatred which is destructive not only to the Jewish community, but to the very fabric of Australian society. It requires a community-wide response to stamp it out.
The report is underpinned by Segal’s principled aspiration to ensure “all Australians, including Jewish Australians, can live with dignity, fairness, safety and mutual respect”.
But there are multiple problems with how this argument is presented.
First, it is sweeping in its application. A good example is the claim antisemitism “has become ingrained and normalised within academia and the cultural space”.
No explanation is given to what these terms mean, or what these practices entail. Without such qualifiers, readers could easily be misguided in thinking the problem is more pronounced than it actually is.
Weak evidence
The report provides alarming statistics about the rise in reported cases of antisemitism in Australia, including a claimed 316% spike in the 12 months to October 2024.
It pays particular attention to antisemitism in the university sector, quoting a survey by the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, which noted more than 60% of Jewish students who experienced antisemitism felt unsupported by their institutions.
No doubt there has been a surge in antisemitic hatred, but there are significant problems with how evidence for it is presented in the report. Segal fails to
produce a single citation, which makes it impossible to access the data and assess its veracity.
Baseline figures, details about who collated the data, the investigation of incidents and their resolution, are all missing.
The report also misquotes an important source.
It states “in February 2025, ASIO Director General Mike Burgess declared antisemitism is Australia’s leading threat to life”.
In terms of threats to life, it’s my agency’s number one priority because of the weight of incidents we’re seeing play out in this country.
There are subtle yet important differences in these two statements, which need to be carefully parsed when dealing with such a serious issue.
Gaza ignored
Also problematic is the singular focus on extremist ideologies as the reason for the rise in antisemitism.
In doing so, the strategy omits a compelling fact: the recent upsurge is likely linked to Israel’s war on Gaza which has resulted in mass Palestinian civilian casualties over the past 20 months.
People did not just inexplicably and without context decide to become more antisemitic in that period. [It was fuelled by] fury at Israel’s profound violations of international law in Gaza.
Furthermore, while Segal claims to be focused on mutual respect, she fails to acknowledge other groups that face similar forms of racism and discrimination, including Australia’s Indigenous peoples and Islamic communities.
In doing so, the report appears to be seeking special treatment for the Australian Jewish community.
Recommendation overreach
Much of the negative reaction to the report has rightly been focused on its far-reaching punitive recommendations, which have been described as Trumpian.
Many are directed towards the education sector, including threatened cuts to school and university funding, and extending the capacity to terminate staff who engage in “antisemitic” behaviours.
Segal envisages creating a “university report card” to adjudicate on universities that are failing the standard, presumably set against her preferred antisemitism definition.
The media and the cultural sector more broadly are also in Segal’s headlights, with recommendations to establish herself as a media monitor to ensure “fair and balanced reporting”. Charitable institutions deemed to be supporting antisemitism would lose their tax-deduction status.
These highly controversial measures are an overreach of the envoy’s terms of reference.
Segal’s mandate specifies her role is as an advisor to government, not a regulator. By taking such a drastic approach, the antisemitism strategy risks stoking further social division.
The government, which is considering the recommendations, must proceed very cautiously.
Louise Chappell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
A young person gets a job, excited to earn their first paycheck. Over time, they realise the hours are long and the payslips small. They are told to stay back to clean up after closing, but never receive overtime. They feel exploited, but what can they do?
It’s hard to find a job that fits with study commitments, and a reference could go a long way in the future. Besides, it happens to all their co-workers; they’d hate to cause a fuss.
It’s a story as old as time, and it’s still happening today. Our new study has found wage exploitation is rife among employers who hire young people.
Young workers in low-paid jobs were asked about their experiences in the workplace, the challenges they encountered, and how they dealt with exploitation.
How some bosses are treating young workers
We found young Australians are frequently underpaid and that exploitation is multifaceted:
33% were paid $15 per hour or less
43% had been told to complete extra work without additional pay
34% were not paid for work during a trial period
24% had not received compulsory super
35% had their timesheet hours reduced by their employer
17.9% had not been paid for all the work they completed
9% received an hourly rate of $10 or less
8% had been forced to return some, or all, of their pay to their employer.
Further, 60% had had to pay for work-related items, such as uniforms, protective equipment, training or car fuel. Some 36% had been forbidden to take entitled breaks while 35% had their recorded timesheet hours reduced by their employer. Meanwhile 20% were “sometimes” paid “off the books”, and 12% were “always” paid off the books. And 9.5% had been given food or products instead of being paid in money.
The most at risk
We found exploitation is most often experienced by the most vulnerable young people. These include transgender, non-permanent workers (casual employees and private contractors), residents on temporary visas) and non-native English speakers.
The worst-performing industries included electricity, gas, water and waste services; manufacturing; mining; transport, postal and warehousing; public administration and safety; information media and telecommunications; accommodation and food services; retail trade, and education and training.
Workers in small businesses (up to 19 staff) were often not paid overtime or penalty rates, and were being paid “off the books”.
Medium-sized business workers (20–199 employees) were the most likely to be required to pay for work-related items, such as equipment, training and car hire.
And those from large businesses (200-plus) reported the highest rates of variance of weekly hours and requirements to pay for work uniform.
Young people often don’t have much industrial knowledge or experience, so it is easy for employers to take advantage of them. They are also unlikely to challenge an employer, as many of them are in insecure work.
What steps are being taken?
Laws which took effect January 1 this year mean employers may face criminal penalties – including fines, imprisonment or both – if they intentionally underpay an employee in breach of the Fair Work Act 2009.
But identifying underpayments and other forms of exploitation are the biggest barrier to compliance with workplace laws.
Surveyed workers who were underpaid said they were most likely to seek the help of a family member. Only 12.9% of those aged 15 to 19 said they would be willing to complain to the Fair Work Ombudsman.
However, workers who had dealt with the ombudsman mostly saw their experiences as positive: 41% found the regulator to be “very helpful”, while only 16.7% described it as “not helpful at all” or “not very helpful”.
The results suggest the Fair Work Ombudsman needs to be doing more to engage teenage workers.
What’s needed
The Fair Day’s Work project set out to use data science and technology to identify risk of underpayment in relation to young workers, and improve employer compliance with workplace laws.
Our aim was to develop a database on young workers employment conditions, along with a web portal to give young people and employers the information they need.
We hypothesised that a prediction tool could be used to assess which young workers are at greatest risk. However, we found publicly available data was insufficient to do this, so we conducted our own survey of young workers and made this data available through a public web portal to help workers and employers.
We came up six recommendations to help stop young workers being exploited:
regulators need to get tougher with the nine industries we identified as the poorest performers to make them more compliant
the Fair Work Ombudsman should scrutinise the industries where payment was made in food or products and workers were required to return money to employers occurred most frequently
educate mid-sized businesses on the extent to which they can lawfully require workers to pay for work-related items
lawmakers and the Fair Work Commission should consider introducing truly equitable “loaded rates” for junior employees. This would deal with non-payment of penalty rates and other entitlements by some employers
more money to make young workers aware they can get help from the Fair Work Ombudsman, trade unions, community legal centres, the Young Workers’ Centre and similar bodies
more work to develop and use data science and digital tools to help employers fulfil their legal obligations, and to protect young workers’ rights.
Our survey results highlight the extent to which young people continue to be exploited in the workplace and suggest more work needs to be done to bring about change.
John Howe receives funding from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.
Tom Dillon receives funding from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.
A young person gets a job, excited to earn their first paycheck. Over time, they realise the hours are long and the payslips small. They are told to stay back to clean up after closing, but never receive overtime. They feel exploited, but what can they do?
It’s hard to find a job that fits with study commitments, and a reference could go a long way in the future. Besides, it happens to all their co-workers; they’d hate to cause a fuss.
It’s a story as old as time, and it’s still happening today. Our new study has found wage exploitation is rife among employers who hire young people.
Young workers in low-paid jobs were asked about their experiences in the workplace, the challenges they encountered, and how they dealt with exploitation.
How some bosses are treating young workers
We found young Australians are frequently underpaid and that exploitation is multifaceted:
33% were paid $15 per hour or less
43% had been told to complete extra work without additional pay
34% were not paid for work during a trial period
24% had not received compulsory super
35% had their timesheet hours reduced by their employer
17.9% had not been paid for all the work they completed
9% received an hourly rate of $10 or less
8% had been forced to return some, or all, of their pay to their employer.
Further, 60% had had to pay for work-related items, such as uniforms, protective equipment, training or car fuel. Some 36% had been forbidden to take entitled breaks while 35% had their recorded timesheet hours reduced by their employer. Meanwhile 20% were “sometimes” paid “off the books”, and 12% were “always” paid off the books. And 9.5% had been given food or products instead of being paid in money.
The most at risk
We found exploitation is most often experienced by the most vulnerable young people. These include transgender, non-permanent workers (casual employees and private contractors), residents on temporary visas) and non-native English speakers.
The worst-performing industries included electricity, gas, water and waste services; manufacturing; mining; transport, postal and warehousing; public administration and safety; information media and telecommunications; accommodation and food services; retail trade, and education and training.
Workers in small businesses (up to 19 staff) were often not paid overtime or penalty rates, and were being paid “off the books”.
Medium-sized business workers (20–199 employees) were the most likely to be required to pay for work-related items, such as equipment, training and car hire.
And those from large businesses (200-plus) reported the highest rates of variance of weekly hours and requirements to pay for work uniform.
Young people often don’t have much industrial knowledge or experience, so it is easy for employers to take advantage of them. They are also unlikely to challenge an employer, as many of them are in insecure work.
What steps are being taken?
Laws which took effect January 1 this year mean employers may face criminal penalties – including fines, imprisonment or both – if they intentionally underpay an employee in breach of the Fair Work Act 2009.
But identifying underpayments and other forms of exploitation are the biggest barrier to compliance with workplace laws.
Surveyed workers who were underpaid said they were most likely to seek the help of a family member. Only 12.9% of those aged 15 to 19 said they would be willing to complain to the Fair Work Ombudsman.
However, workers who had dealt with the ombudsman mostly saw their experiences as positive: 41% found the regulator to be “very helpful”, while only 16.7% described it as “not helpful at all” or “not very helpful”.
The results suggest the Fair Work Ombudsman needs to be doing more to engage teenage workers.
What’s needed
The Fair Day’s Work project set out to use data science and technology to identify risk of underpayment in relation to young workers, and improve employer compliance with workplace laws.
Our aim was to develop a database on young workers employment conditions, along with a web portal to give young people and employers the information they need.
We hypothesised that a prediction tool could be used to assess which young workers are at greatest risk. However, we found publicly available data was insufficient to do this, so we conducted our own survey of young workers and made this data available through a public web portal to help workers and employers.
We came up six recommendations to help stop young workers being exploited:
regulators need to get tougher with the nine industries we identified as the poorest performers to make them more compliant
the Fair Work Ombudsman should scrutinise the industries where payment was made in food or products and workers were required to return money to employers occurred most frequently
educate mid-sized businesses on the extent to which they can lawfully require workers to pay for work-related items
lawmakers and the Fair Work Commission should consider introducing truly equitable “loaded rates” for junior employees. This would deal with non-payment of penalty rates and other entitlements by some employers
more money to make young workers aware they can get help from the Fair Work Ombudsman, trade unions, community legal centres, the Young Workers’ Centre and similar bodies
more work to develop and use data science and digital tools to help employers fulfil their legal obligations, and to protect young workers’ rights.
Our survey results highlight the extent to which young people continue to be exploited in the workplace and suggest more work needs to be done to bring about change.
John Howe receives funding from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.
Tom Dillon receives funding from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.
It was a surrender widely foreseen. For months, rumors abounded that Paramount would eventually settle the seemingly frivolous lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump concerning editorial decisions in the production of a CBS interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in 2024.
On July 2, 2025, those rumors proved true: The settlement between Paramount and Trump’s legal team resulted in CBS’s parent company agreeing to pay $16 million to the future Donald Trump Library – the $16 million included Trump’s legal fees – in exchange for ending the lawsuit. Despite the opinion of many media law scholars and practicing attorneys who considered the lawsuit meritless, Shari Redstone, the largest shareholder of Paramount, yielded to Trump.
Specifically, when the Trump administration assumed power in January 2025, the new Federal Communications Commission had no legal obligation to facilitate, without scrutiny, the transfer of the CBS network’s broadcast licenses for its owned-and-operated TV stations to new ownership.
The FCC, under newly installed Republican Chairman Brendan Carr, was fully aware of the issues in the legal conflict between Trump and CBS at the time Paramount needed FCC approval for the license transfers. Without a settlement, the Paramount-Skydance deal remained in jeopardy.
Until it wasn’t.
At that point, Paramount joined Disney in implicitly apologizing for journalism produced by their TV news divisions.
Earlier in 2025, Disney had settled a different Trump lawsuit with ABC News in exchange for a $15 million donation to the future Trump Library. That lawsuit involved a dispute over the wording of the actions for which Trump was found liable in a civil lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll.
GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump said the CBS interview with Democratic nominee Kamala Harris was ‘fraudulent interference with an election.’
It’s not certain what the ABC and CBS settlements portend, but many are predicting they will produce a “chilling effect” within the network news divisions. Such an outcome would arise from fear of new litigation, and it would install a form of internal self-censorship that would influence network journalists when deciding whether the pursuit of investigative stories involving the Trump administration would be worth the risk.
Trump has apparently succeeded where earlier presidents failed.
Presidential pressure
From Jimmy Carter trying to get CBS anchor Walter Cronkite to stop ending his evening newscasts with the number of days American hostages were being held in Iran to Richard Nixon’s administration threatening the broadcast licenses of The Washington Post’s TV stations to weaken Watergate reporting, previous presidents sought to apply editorial pressure on broadcast journalists.
But in the cases of Carter and Nixon, it didn’t work. The broadcast networks’ focus on both Watergate and the Iran hostage crisis remained unrelenting.
Nor were Nixon and Carter the first presidents seeking to influence, and possibly control, network news.
President Lyndon Johnson, who owned local TV and radio stations in Austin, Texas, regularly complained to his old friend, CBS President Frank Stanton, about what he perceived as biased TV coverage. Johnson was so furious with the CBS and NBC reporting from Vietnam, he once argued that their newscasts seemed “controlled by the Vietcong.”
Yet none of these earlier presidents won millions from the corporations that aired ethical news reporting in the public interest.
Before Trump, these conflicts mostly occurred backstage and informally, allowing the broadcasters to sidestep the damage to their credibility should any surrender to White House administrations be made public. In a “Reporter’s Notebook” on the CBS Evening News the night of the Trump settlement, anchor John Dickerson summarized the new dilemma succinctly: “Can you hold power to account when you’ve paid it millions? Can an audience trust you when it thinks you’ve traded away that trust?”
“The audience will decide that,” Dickerson continued, concluding: “Our job is to show up to honor what we witness on behalf of the people we witness it for.”
During the Iran hostage crisis, CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite ended every broadcast with the number of days the hostages had been held captive.
Soon, SkyDance Media will assume control over the Paramount properties, and the new CBS will be on the airwaves.
When the licenses for KCBS in Los Angeles, WCBS in New York and the other CBS-owned-and-operated stations are transferred, we’ll learn the long-term legacy of corporate capitulation. But for now, it remains too early to judge tomorrow’s newscasts.
As a scholar of broadcast journalism and a former broadcast journalist, I recommend evaluating programs like “60 Minutes” and the “CBS Evening News” on the record they will compile over the next three years – and the record they compiled over the past 50. The same goes for “ABC World News Tonight” and other ABC News programs.
A major complicating factor for the Paramount-Skydance deal was the fact that “60 Minutes” has, over the past six months, broken major scoops embarrassing to the Trump administration, which led to additional scrutiny by its corporate ownership. Judged by its reporting in the first half of 2025, “60 Minutes” has upheld its record of critical and independent reporting in the public interest.
If audience members want to see ethical, independent and professional broadcast journalism that holds power to account, then it’s the audience’s responsibility to tune it in. The only way to learn the consequences of these settlements is by watching future programming rather than dismissing it beforehand.
The journalists working at ABC News and CBS News understand the legacy of their organizations, and they are also aware of how their owners have cast suspicion on the news divisions’ professionalism and credibility. As Dickerson asserted, they plan to “show up” regardless of the stain, and I’d bet they’re more motivated to redeem their reputations than we expect.
I don’t think reporters, editors and producers plan to let Donald Trump become their editor-in-chief over the next three years. But we’ll only know by watching.
Michael Socolow’s father, Sanford Socolow, worked for CBS News from 1956 to 1988.
It was a surrender widely foreseen. For months, rumors abounded that Paramount would eventually settle the seemingly frivolous lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump concerning editorial decisions in the production of a CBS interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in 2024.
On July 2, 2025, those rumors proved true: The settlement between Paramount and Trump’s legal team resulted in CBS’s parent company agreeing to pay $16 million to the future Donald Trump Library – the $16 million included Trump’s legal fees – in exchange for ending the lawsuit. Despite the opinion of many media law scholars and practicing attorneys who considered the lawsuit meritless, Shari Redstone, the largest shareholder of Paramount, yielded to Trump.
Specifically, when the Trump administration assumed power in January 2025, the new Federal Communications Commission had no legal obligation to facilitate, without scrutiny, the transfer of the CBS network’s broadcast licenses for its owned-and-operated TV stations to new ownership.
The FCC, under newly installed Republican Chairman Brendan Carr, was fully aware of the issues in the legal conflict between Trump and CBS at the time Paramount needed FCC approval for the license transfers. Without a settlement, the Paramount-Skydance deal remained in jeopardy.
Until it wasn’t.
At that point, Paramount joined Disney in implicitly apologizing for journalism produced by their TV news divisions.
Earlier in 2025, Disney had settled a different Trump lawsuit with ABC News in exchange for a $15 million donation to the future Trump Library. That lawsuit involved a dispute over the wording of the actions for which Trump was found liable in a civil lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll.
GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump said the CBS interview with Democratic nominee Kamala Harris was ‘fraudulent interference with an election.’
It’s not certain what the ABC and CBS settlements portend, but many are predicting they will produce a “chilling effect” within the network news divisions. Such an outcome would arise from fear of new litigation, and it would install a form of internal self-censorship that would influence network journalists when deciding whether the pursuit of investigative stories involving the Trump administration would be worth the risk.
Trump has apparently succeeded where earlier presidents failed.
Presidential pressure
From Jimmy Carter trying to get CBS anchor Walter Cronkite to stop ending his evening newscasts with the number of days American hostages were being held in Iran to Richard Nixon’s administration threatening the broadcast licenses of The Washington Post’s TV stations to weaken Watergate reporting, previous presidents sought to apply editorial pressure on broadcast journalists.
But in the cases of Carter and Nixon, it didn’t work. The broadcast networks’ focus on both Watergate and the Iran hostage crisis remained unrelenting.
Nor were Nixon and Carter the first presidents seeking to influence, and possibly control, network news.
President Lyndon Johnson, who owned local TV and radio stations in Austin, Texas, regularly complained to his old friend, CBS President Frank Stanton, about what he perceived as biased TV coverage. Johnson was so furious with the CBS and NBC reporting from Vietnam, he once argued that their newscasts seemed “controlled by the Vietcong.”
Yet none of these earlier presidents won millions from the corporations that aired ethical news reporting in the public interest.
Before Trump, these conflicts mostly occurred backstage and informally, allowing the broadcasters to sidestep the damage to their credibility should any surrender to White House administrations be made public. In a “Reporter’s Notebook” on the CBS Evening News the night of the Trump settlement, anchor John Dickerson summarized the new dilemma succinctly: “Can you hold power to account when you’ve paid it millions? Can an audience trust you when it thinks you’ve traded away that trust?”
“The audience will decide that,” Dickerson continued, concluding: “Our job is to show up to honor what we witness on behalf of the people we witness it for.”
During the Iran hostage crisis, CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite ended every broadcast with the number of days the hostages had been held captive.
Soon, SkyDance Media will assume control over the Paramount properties, and the new CBS will be on the airwaves.
When the licenses for KCBS in Los Angeles, WCBS in New York and the other CBS-owned-and-operated stations are transferred, we’ll learn the long-term legacy of corporate capitulation. But for now, it remains too early to judge tomorrow’s newscasts.
As a scholar of broadcast journalism and a former broadcast journalist, I recommend evaluating programs like “60 Minutes” and the “CBS Evening News” on the record they will compile over the next three years – and the record they compiled over the past 50. The same goes for “ABC World News Tonight” and other ABC News programs.
A major complicating factor for the Paramount-Skydance deal was the fact that “60 Minutes” has, over the past six months, broken major scoops embarrassing to the Trump administration, which led to additional scrutiny by its corporate ownership. Judged by its reporting in the first half of 2025, “60 Minutes” has upheld its record of critical and independent reporting in the public interest.
If audience members want to see ethical, independent and professional broadcast journalism that holds power to account, then it’s the audience’s responsibility to tune it in. The only way to learn the consequences of these settlements is by watching future programming rather than dismissing it beforehand.
The journalists working at ABC News and CBS News understand the legacy of their organizations, and they are also aware of how their owners have cast suspicion on the news divisions’ professionalism and credibility. As Dickerson asserted, they plan to “show up” regardless of the stain, and I’d bet they’re more motivated to redeem their reputations than we expect.
I don’t think reporters, editors and producers plan to let Donald Trump become their editor-in-chief over the next three years. But we’ll only know by watching.
Michael Socolow’s father, Sanford Socolow, worked for CBS News from 1956 to 1988.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Rachel Engler-Stringer, Professor, Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan
This spring, as part of a sabbatical project, I had the privilege of visiting school food programs and meeting with school food researchers in six cities in France, England and Scotland.
I got to eat school lunches, visit central kitchens in two cities where meals are prepared for thousands of children, visit school kitchens and discuss school food with the countries’ leading experts.
2) One important benefit of school food programs globally is to encourage picky eaters to try new foods due to the social pressure of all kids eating the same foods together. In three cities in France I visited, and one in England, school lunches look like home-cooked meals. One main dish with meat is served (and in England, a vegetarian alternative), and kids can choose if and how much of the side vegetables and fruit to take.
In the other two locations in England and Scotland, kids choose from multiple main dishes — something that adds cost to the program and does less to encourage kids to try new foods, given one choice is always something basic like a cheese sandwich.
Kids need to have some autonomy when it comes to eating, but school food programs should not be facilitating eating the same food every day. Nor should school food programs aspire to a model where broad choice is afforded from a large menu.
3) With care, planning and sufficient resources, centralized kitchens can prepare thousands of servings of a main dish daily. The French central kitchens I visited prepare 6,000 to 10,000 servings a day of high-quality food following strict food safety protocols.
I ate two simple yet delicious meals cooked in municipally owned central kitchens. In the three cities in France where I visited, they used central kitchens where main dishes were prepared and chilled to be delivered for heating at the school level. Central kitchens also delivered the salads and sides (like chopped veggies, bread, cheese and fruit) and dressings.
In the small school kitchens, the salads were dressed, and the cheese and fruit were cut for service.
The central kitchens were also used in at least one city to prepare food for daycares and for seniors who were home-bound — something to consider for Canadian cities.
Centralizing kitchens can reduce costs and provide a way for high-quality food to be produced from basic ingredients without commercial kitchens in every school capable of preparing meals for hundreds of children at a time.
4) When designed with requirements for purchasing foods from local farmers and other Canadian producers, school food programs can benefit the agricultural sector and multiply their benefits to communities beyond direct school food jobs. In France, for example, there are specific percentages to be purchased from local and sustainable sources. Percentage requirements for local and sustainable purchasing should be enacted now in Canada as its program establishes itself, perhaps beginning with 20 per cent and growing over time.
I have many more reflections from my visits, both positive and negative, but the four I have discussed are important for Canada to learn from as it begins to design the National School Food Program to meet the needs of diverse communities from coast to coast to coast.
Rachel Engler-Stringer receives funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada and received a University of Saskatchewan International Travel Award for program visits. She sits on the Steering Committee of the Coalition for Healthy School Food.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Rachel Engler-Stringer, Professor, Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan
This spring, as part of a sabbatical project, I had the privilege of visiting school food programs and meeting with school food researchers in six cities in France, England and Scotland.
I got to eat school lunches, visit central kitchens in two cities where meals are prepared for thousands of children, visit school kitchens and discuss school food with the countries’ leading experts.
2) One important benefit of school food programs globally is to encourage picky eaters to try new foods due to the social pressure of all kids eating the same foods together. In three cities in France I visited, and one in England, school lunches look like home-cooked meals. One main dish with meat is served (and in England, a vegetarian alternative), and kids can choose if and how much of the side vegetables and fruit to take.
In the other two locations in England and Scotland, kids choose from multiple main dishes — something that adds cost to the program and does less to encourage kids to try new foods, given one choice is always something basic like a cheese sandwich.
Kids need to have some autonomy when it comes to eating, but school food programs should not be facilitating eating the same food every day. Nor should school food programs aspire to a model where broad choice is afforded from a large menu.
3) With care, planning and sufficient resources, centralized kitchens can prepare thousands of servings of a main dish daily. The French central kitchens I visited prepare 6,000 to 10,000 servings a day of high-quality food following strict food safety protocols.
I ate two simple yet delicious meals cooked in municipally owned central kitchens. In the three cities in France where I visited, they used central kitchens where main dishes were prepared and chilled to be delivered for heating at the school level. Central kitchens also delivered the salads and sides (like chopped veggies, bread, cheese and fruit) and dressings.
In the small school kitchens, the salads were dressed, and the cheese and fruit were cut for service.
The central kitchens were also used in at least one city to prepare food for daycares and for seniors who were home-bound — something to consider for Canadian cities.
Centralizing kitchens can reduce costs and provide a way for high-quality food to be produced from basic ingredients without commercial kitchens in every school capable of preparing meals for hundreds of children at a time.
4) When designed with requirements for purchasing foods from local farmers and other Canadian producers, school food programs can benefit the agricultural sector and multiply their benefits to communities beyond direct school food jobs. In France, for example, there are specific percentages to be purchased from local and sustainable sources. Percentage requirements for local and sustainable purchasing should be enacted now in Canada as its program establishes itself, perhaps beginning with 20 per cent and growing over time.
I have many more reflections from my visits, both positive and negative, but the four I have discussed are important for Canada to learn from as it begins to design the National School Food Program to meet the needs of diverse communities from coast to coast to coast.
Rachel Engler-Stringer receives funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada and received a University of Saskatchewan International Travel Award for program visits. She sits on the Steering Committee of the Coalition for Healthy School Food.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Melise Panetta, Lecturer of Marketing in the Lazaridis School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University
For years, the expression “the robot took my job” has brought to mind visions of machines replacing workers on factory floors. But Gen Z is facing a new challenge: the loss of internships and other entry-level positions to AI.
Internships and junior roles have historically provided a predictable ladder into the workforce by providing new workers with the experience and skills needed for long-term career development.
Entry-level roles traditionally involve low-complexity, high-frequency tasks such as data entry, scheduling or drafting reports — tasks that generative AI can do significantly cheaper and faster than a human. This almost certainly means fewer traditional bottom rungs on the career ladder.
We are already seeing the impact of this: entry-level jobs are becoming scarcer, with candidates competing against a 14 per cent hike in applications per role, according to LinkedIn.
No one’s 20s and 30s look the same. You might be saving for a mortgage or just struggling to pay rent. You could be swiping dating apps, or trying to understand childcare. No matter your current challenges, our Quarter Life series has articles to share in the group chat, or just to remind you that you’re not alone.
Meanwhile, nearly two-thirds of executives say they are willing to use AI tools to drive up productivity at the expense of losing staff. Conversely, only one in three executives are willing to keep their staff at the expense of higher expected productivity.
It is also projected that declines in traditional entry-level or junior roles in sectors such as food services, customer service, sales and office support work could account for nearly 84 per cent of the occupational shifts expected by 2030.
Talent and entry-level role shortages in the future
Data on AI and the future of work also points to another potential problem: a talent shortage for certain skill sets. A 2024 report from Microsoft and LinkedIn found that leaders are concerned with shortages in areas such as cybersecurity, engineering and creative design.
Though this data might appear contradictory, it signals that in addition to fewer entry level positions being available, changes to job roles and skill sets are also on the horizon.
As a result, competition for entry-level roles is expected to increase, with greater value put on candidates who can use AI tools to improve their productivity and effectiveness.
Rather than simply eliminating jobs, many roles are evolving to require new capabilities. There is also growing demand for specialized talent where AI cannot yet fully augment human abilities.
AI literacy is the new entry requirement
As AI becomes more prevalent in the workforce, “entry-level” roles are no longer just about completing basic tasks, but about knowing how to work effectively with new technologies, including AI.
Employers are beginning to place immense value on AI literacy. Two-thirds of managers say they wouldn’t hire someone without AI skills and 71 per cent say they would prefer a less experienced candidate with AI skills over a more experienced one without them.
With fewer entry-level positions available, young workers will need to figure out how to stand out in a competitive job market. But despite these challenges, Gen Z may also be the best-positioned to adapt to these changes.
As digital natives, many Gen Z are already integrating AI tools into their work. A report from LinkedIn and Microsoft found 85 per cent are bringing AI tools like ChatGPT or Copilot into the workplace, indicating they are both comfortable and eager to make use of this technology.
This trend mirrors broader trends across the workforce. One report found 76 per cent of professionals believe they need AI-related skills to remain competitive. That same Microsoft and LinkedIn report found there has been a 160 per cent surge in learning courses for AI literacy.
This growing emphasis on AI skills is part of a wider shift toward “upskilling” — the process of enhancing skill sets to adapt to the changing conditions of the job market. Today, upskilling means leaning how to use AI to enhance, accelerate and strengthen your performance in the workplace.
A new kind of entry-level job
Since AI literacy is becoming a core career skill, being able to present yourself as a candidate with AI skills is important for standing out in a crowded entry-level job market. This includes knowing how to use AI tools, evaluate their outputs critically and apply them in a workplace context. It also means learning how to present AI skills on a resume and in interviews.
Employers also have a role to play in all this. If they want to attract and retain employees, they need to redesign entry-level roles. Instead of eliminating entry-level roles, they should refocus on higher-value activities that require critical thinking or creativity. These are the areas where humans outperform machines, and where AI can act as a support rather than a replacement.
The future of work isn’t about humans being replaced by robots, but about learning how to use the technology to enhance skills and creating new entry points into the professional world.
Melise Panetta 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.
In the wake of recent strikes by Israel and the United States on Iranian cities, military sites and nuclear facilities, a troubling paradox has emerged: actions intended to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons may actually be accelerating its pursuit of them and encouraging other countries to follow suit.
On June 13, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a military campaign aimed at dismantling Iran’s nuclear program. The operation began with a series of co-ordinated strikes targeting Iran’s top nuclear scientists, senior military officials and key members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Despite establishing air dominance, Israel did not possess the capability to destroy Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear facilities — especially the Fordow enrichment site, which is buried deep within a mountain.
On June 21, the U.S. carried out major airstrikes targeting Iran’s critical nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Using B-2 stealth bombers equipped with bunker-busting bombs, the operation aimed to cripple Iran’s deeply fortified nuclear infrastructure.
Three days later, Iran and Israel agreed to a ceasefire, bringing the 12-day conflict to an end. While both sides declared aspects of the campaign successful, the war marked a dangerous escalation in regional tensions and raised renewed concerns over the future of nuclear nonproliferation and security in the Middle East.
History of nuclear negotiations
The U.S. has consistently asserted that Iran must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. In 2006, Iran was subjected to international sanctions after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported the government was not in compliance with its nuclear energy obligations.
Under former president Barack Obama, the U.S. government pursued a diplomatic path, culminating in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Under the deal, Iran agreed to limit uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent and allow intrusive IAEA inspections. In exchange, it received relief from some international sanctions.
The Biden administration sought to revive the JCPOA, but Iran demanded binding guarantees that future U.S. governments would not again withdraw — an assurance Biden could not provide.
In the aftermath, Iran significantly escalated its nuclear activities. According to IAEA reports, Iran has more than 400 kilograms of enriched uranium to 60 per cent — an amount that, if further refined to 90 per cent, could be sufficient to produce 10 to 12 nuclear weapons.
The second Trump administration resumed negotiations for a new nuclear deal aimed at imposing stronger constraints on Iran’s nuclear program.
Although five rounds of negotiations were held, a sixth round scheduled for June 15 was disrupted when Israel conducted a military strike on Iran two days earlier. The attack escalated tensions and derailed the diplomatic process, further complicating the possibility of reaching a renewed agreement.
Although it maintains ambiguity about its nuclear program, Israel is seen to be the only country in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons. It has taken military action to prevent other countries in the region from developing nuclear programs.
The Israeli government may have calculated that airstrikes could also effectively work against Iran. However, the difference is that Iran’s nuclear program is far more advanced than Syria or Iraq’s were. While the recent strikes may have set the program back by two years, Iran retains the knowledge and capacity to rebuild.
Ironically, the Israeli and U.S. strikes, which aimed to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, may instead encourage Iranian officials to accelerate their efforts. Following the war, Iran ended all co-operation with the IAEA, expelling inspectors and cutting off access to its nuclear sites. Without IAEA personnel on the ground, it has become extremely difficult to monitor or verify the scope of Iran’s nuclear activities.
Bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities each time it advances its nuclear program is not a sustainable strategy. Israel had hoped that a decisive military strike would trigger widespread unrest and potentially lead to the Iranian government’s collapse.
Instead, the opposite occurred: the Iranian public rallied around the flag, perceiving the attack as a blatant violation of national sovereignty. As a result, the government strengthened its domestic legitimacy and further suppressed political opposition.
For now, Iranian officials have maintained that they do not intend to develop a nuclear weapon. However, the Iranian parliament is preparing legislation to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which Iran is currently a signatory.
Exiting the treaty would remove a major legal and diplomatic constraint on Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Should Iran decide to go down that path, it would likely trigger a nuclear arms race in the region.
Saudi Arabia has indicated that if Iran builds a nuclear weapon, it will seek to do the same.
The most effective way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is through sustained diplomacy and a renewed nuclear agreement. A credible deal that includes robust verification mechanisms and IAEA inspections and sanctions relief remains the most viable solution.
Military strikes, by contrast, tend to backfire, and will likely reinforce the belief in Iran — and elsewhere — that only a nuclear deterrent can shield them from external threats.
Saira Bano 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.
More than 180 plants were stolen from a well-loved public park in Nottingham called Arboretum in May 2025. This incident took place just days after volunteers had re-planted flowers and shrubs to repair damage from a previous theft in March. In April 2025, the nearby Forest Recreation Ground community garden was also targeted – roses and crops grown by volunteers were stolen, even a pond went missing.
Plant theft may seem trivial, but environmental and wildlife crime tend to be overlooked. This is precisely one of the reasons why it is on the rise. Research suggests an annual growth rate in environmental crime of 5%-7%, making it the third largest criminal sector in the world.
Globally, environmental crime has been valued at US$70-213 billion (£52-158 billion) annually. As with most crime, its true scale is difficult to estimate as it remains hidden. This is even more true for environmental crime that goes undetected.
Plant thefts in Nottingham where I am based are small in comparison, but they tell the same story of lucrative illicit opportunities for criminals where law enforcement and potential sanctions are low. It’s most likely that people steal local plants to sell on for profit.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Another reason for overlooking this growing trend in wildlife crime is that perpetrators, as well as much of society, may feel that this is a “victimless crime”. Where plants, animals, watercourses or soil are “the victim”, people don’t feel as strongly because our ethics and value systems generally prioritise fellow humans and do not recognise non-humans as victims.
People may be more likely to care about mammals such as elephants targeted in illegal ivory trade, but environmental crime permeates every community in the UK, as the recent Nottingham cases indicate.
Stolen benefits
As a researcher in environmental sociology, I believe wildlife crime and environmental damage should gain higher priority in terms of public attention, law enforcement and potential sanctions. Not only because of the intrinsic value that non-human nature has in its own right, but because of the value nature brings to us humans.
Parks and green spaces known as “green infrastructure” are central to our wellbeing in cities. They bring environmental and social benefits in terms of air quality, urban heat island effect, surface flooding, carbon storage, biodiversity and health.
After the COVID pandemic, the importance of accessing quality green spaces for our mental and physical wellbeing became even more apparent. Visits to parks can reduce loneliness and anxiety, as well as foster a sense of belonging and community.
This has the potential to benefit the public purse too. Nottingham is currently involved in a national green social prescribing test and learn programme to demonstrate the benefits of nature-based activity.
Public parks are often also significant in terms of cultural heritage. This is not a new discovery. Historically, public parks were introduced in cities to improve living conditions, quality of life and as educational resources. The Arboretum – the city centre park recently targeted by thieves – was the first such public park to open in Nottingham in 1845.
When valued green spaces are the victim of crime, this is not a mere aesthetic problem. Wider social and environmental harms are inflicted upon communities and nature that depend on open green spaces to thrive.
This matters in cities like Nottingham that suffer from high levels of deprivation and poor health outcomes. My own research has shown that while Nottingham is often celebrated for leadership in green initiatives, it suffers from deep-seated social inequality and deprivation that are long-term challenges.
Social inequality is associated with crime and disorder in urban areas that creates a vicious cycle when the crimes target community assets such as public parks. It is beyond doubt that public parks being ransacked will negatively impact the quality of life in Nottingham.
It is likely that these crimes get dismissed as a minor nuisance because “only plants” were stolen, but this attitude serves to mask the broader trend of growing environmental crime and the damage this brings to communities. Unfortunately, this will further contribute to the likelihood of such crimes spreading in future.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Jenni Cauvain 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.
The wellbeing of children is under the spotlight in the UK, after a 2025 report from Unicef ranked the UK at 21 out of 36 wealthy countries on child wellbeing. With growing concerns about mental health, rising screen time, and fewer chances to play – as well as the well-known links between physical activity and better mood – one solution seems obvious. Get kids moving more.
But our new research suggests that it’s not just about more activity. It’s about better experiences. Feeling safe, capable and free to choose matters is more important for children than just the number of minutes they spend running around.
Our findings from a national study of over 16,000 children aged seven to 11 across Wales found that while physical activity is clearly important, its benefits for mental health were more connected to how children felt while moving than to how much they moved.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
We found that children who thought that they had control over how they were active, felt confident taking part in physical activity and believed they were good at it scored higher on wellbeing scales. These factors – autonomy, confidence and competence – were stronger predictors of wellbeing than more traditional measures like deprivation (normally we’d expect deprivation to positively or negatively affect wellbeing) or even total time spent being active.
We also found that children who felt safe where they lived, no matter how wealthy or deprived the area, were more likely to feel happy and well.
Yet too often, their chances to play and move are limited. Sometimes it’s because adults worry about safety, and so don’t permit children to roam or play in the potentially risky ways they might prefer. Other times, it’s because the places around them just aren’t built with children in mind.
Rethinking what we tell children
Interestingly, we found that knowledge of why activity is good for you – often taught in schools or health campaigns – was associated with lower wellbeing. This suggests that top-down, adult-led messaging that focuses on why physical activity leads to physical fitness or maintaining a healthy weight might be missing the mark.
For some children, it could even feel like pressure. Messaging from schools and organisations may be harmful if they focus on outcomes rather than experience.
The feeling of control or choice was strongly associated with better mental health and fewer behavioural issues. These findings echo what young people have previously told us: they want more opportunities to play, to choose how they move, and to enjoy being active without pressure.
Being able to choose how they are active matters for children’s wellbeing. chomplearn/Shutterstock
That’s not to say movement doesn’t matter. Children who moved more and sat less generally felt better about themselves. Less sedentary time was consistently associated with better wellbeing and lower emotional and behavioural difficulties.
But again, it wasn’t just the behaviour — it was the feeling behind it that mattered. Our analysis showed that the most significant predictor of low emotional difficulties was feeling safe. For behavioural difficulties it is feelings of autonomy and competence that played a key role.
We also found that girls were more likely to report emotional difficulties (trouble controlling emotions or acting on feelings), while boys were more likely to experience behavioural ones (trouble controlling behaviour). This suggests a gendered difference in how wellbeing challenges show up.
This tells us that supporting wellbeing isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. The more we can listen to and work with children to shape activity around their needs, the more likely we are to reach those who might otherwise miss out.
How we move matters
For schools and youth organisations, this means rethinking how physical activity is promoted. Rather than more sports, more drills and more rules, children need inclusive, safe spaces where they feel confident to participate and free to choose.
A simple solution to this could include longer breaks between lessons and more free time to play, or varied activities that cater to different interests and skill levels.
It also means listening to what children say they need. In our previous research during the pandemic, children consistently asked for more time, safer spaces and permission to be active in ways that feel good to them.
If we want to support children’s wellbeing, we must shift from performance to participation. It’s not just about how fast they can run or how long they can play. It’s about whether they feel safe, capable, and in control.
Michaela James receives funding from ADR Wales.
Mayara Silveira Bianchim receives funding from Cystic Fibrosis Trust.
At the beginning of 2025, panic about fraud and human trafficking erupted on Chinese social media. It started when a Chinese actor called Wang Xing was tricked into travelling to Thailand for an audition, where he was abducted by criminals and taken to a scam centre in Myanmar.
Wang was reported missing and, within three days, the Thai police had located and returned him to Thailand. Details of the operation were not revealed, leading to speculation that withholding more information was part of a deal that led to Wang’s release.
Inside the compound, Wang’s head was shaved and he told the police he was forced to undergo the first phase of training on how to carry out scams.
One such scam is known as “pig butchering”. This type of scam began attracting attention in China around 2019, and is typically carried out by Chinese organised crime groups. Scammers establish fake romantic and trusting relationships with victims before luring them into fraudulent investments or other financial traps.
Pig-butchering scammers have stolen billions of dollars from victims worldwide. In one notable example from 2023, a banker from Kansas in the US called Shan Hanes embezzled US$47 million (£34.6 million) from his bank to cover his losses after falling victim to a pig butchering scam. Hanes was subsequently sentenced to more than 24 years in prison. So, what do we know about how pig butchering scams work?
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
A pig butchering scam consists of three stages: hunting, raising and killing. These stages correspond to scammers finding victims online, talking with them to build trust and then getting them to invest large amounts of money in fraudulent schemes.
There are some similarities between a pig butchering scam and a traditional romance scam. Scammers may, as in a traditional scam, approach their victims by posing as a possible romantic partner on a dating app or a friend on social media.
But the key difference lies in how the scam is executed. In a traditional romance scam, trust is based on the victim’s desire to maintain a romantic relationship with the scammer. Because of this, traditional romance scams can sometimes last for years.
Pig butchering scams, in comparison, generally take place over a shorter time frame. Rather than focusing on extracting money solely through emotional manipulation, they lean heavily on the victim’s desire to make money together with the scammer. They often involve just a few months of talking with the victim.
The scammers present themselves as financially successful and confident people with broad networks and attractive investment opportunities. Once a victim makes a small initial investment, scammers rapidly escalate the process and push them into making much larger financial commitments.
In one example from 2024, a woman in the US state of Connecticut called Jacqueline Crenshaw met a man on an online dating site. He was posing as a widower with two children and frequently spoke with Crenshaw over the phone. Within two months, they began discussing investing in cryptocurrency.
Crenshaw sent him US$40,000 (£29,500) initially and received screenshots from him showing supposedly huge profits from the cryptocurrency investment. The scammer soon encouraged Crenshaw to invest much more, which ultimately led to her losing nearly US$1 million (£738,000).
Organised crime groups
Pig butchering scams are typically run by highly organised criminal groups. These groups have management teams, provide training to new recruits and often hire people as models who occasionally interact with victims.
The Chinese government has taken several steps to combat fraud in recent years. It enacted the Anti-Telecom Fraud Law in 2022, which was designed specifically to prevent and punish the use of telecommunications and internet technologies to defraud individuals and organisations. It was introduced in response to the growing prevalence of pig butchering scams in China.
The Chinese Ministry of Public Security has also developed a mobile application called the National Anti-Fraud Center App. The app allows the public to report scams and access real-time risk alerts related to fraud. Alongside the work of other government departments, it has helped intercept 4.7 billion scam calls and 3.4 billion fraudulent text messages since the beginning of 2024.
The crackdown on fraud within China has made it more difficult for criminal groups to operate domestically, prompting many to relocate their bases abroad. South-east Asian countries – particularly Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar – have become a preferred destination for such groups.
Regions of northern Myanmar, such as Kokang and Wa State, have become breeding grounds for organised fraud over the past few years. Chinese is widely spoken in both of these areas and local customs closely resemble those in China.
Organised fraud has evolved into a key pillar of the local economy in certain parts of south-east Asia. The profits generated from online scams are estimated to amount to 40% of the combined GDP of Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar.
Criminal leaders have established tightly controlled compounds that serve as hubs for online scams, with their primary activities centred on pig butchering. These compounds are frequently presented as “technology parks”, which helps recruit workers. However, many people are forced to work in the scam centres.
Pig butchering scams can inflict severe financial harm on victims. But are also closely tied to violent crime, human trafficking and other forms of organised criminal activity. They pose a growing threat to regional and global security.
Bing Han 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.
Preliminary economic losses are estimated at US$18–22 billion, reflecting both residential and infrastructure damages.
Understanding the anatomy of this flash flood, and unravelling the complex interplay of meteorological, geomorphological and hydrological forces, forms the foundation for a comprehensive assessment of what happened. This information is vital to help prevent future similar tragedies from occurring.
The July 2025 flood event in central Texas was triggered by a rare and potent meteorological configuration.
Atmospheric anomalies are weather conditions that differ from what’s expected. Analysis of the July 2025 atmospheric anomalies reveals exceptional thermodynamic conditions that directly contributed to the flood’s severity.
The total precipitation over the core impact zone in the Hill Country during July 3 to 6 is estimated to have delivered more than 15 billion cubic metres of water — an extraordinary volume.
This deluge was supported by persistent temperature anomalies ranging from 5.4 to 6.9 degrees Celsius above the mean. Such elevated temperatures increased the atmosphere’s capacity to retain moisture.
At these anomaly levels, the air mass could store 35 to 50 per cent more water vapour than normal.
Simultaneously, specific humidity anomalies reflected a 60 to 70 per cent increase over July baselines for central Texas. Specific humidity, which quantifies the actual mass of water vapour per kilogram of air, provides a more direct metric of latent moisture available for precipitation.
The convergence of these extreme thermodynamic variables created an ideal environment for deep, moisture-laden convection, supporting prolonged intense rainfall.
This map of Texas highlights the core impact zone in Hill Country, where rainfall totals exceeded 430 millimetres, more than four times the regional July average. (H. Bonakdari/GSMaP), CC BY
Terrain impacts
While meteorological extremes initiated the July 2025 flood event, the morphology of the Guadalupe River — its shape, behaviour and flows — was pivotal in transforming heavy rainfall into a catastrophic flash flood.
The upper basin’s physical geography, drainage configuration and valley structure contributed to the rapid concentration and propagation of floodwaters.
Known as “Flash Flood Alley,” the terrain of the upper Guadalupe River basin amplified the July 2025 flood through a combination of steep slopes, shallow soils and karstic geology.
These steep slopes limited infiltration and led to rapid soil saturation under intense rainfall. The predominance of karstic limestone — limestone that has been shaped by water creating plains and sinkholes — further reduced storage below the surface, resulting in minimal delay between rainfall and discharge.
Additionally, narrow valley sections created hydraulic bottlenecks, accelerating flow and increasing flood depth, particularly affecting residential areas and campsites.
A map showing the relationships between steep headwaters, tributary confluences and vulnerable downstream communities. (H. Bonakdari/NASA), CC BY
In contrast, broader valleys allowed for the water to spread laterally; there was still destructive momentum due to upstream forcing. These geomorphic traits, compounded by the extreme atmospheric moisture, created an environment where floodwaters accumulated rapidly and struck with devastating force, especially along confluence zones and densely occupied riverfronts.
Excessive runoff
Prior to the July 2025 event, central Texas had already experienced elevated soil moisture conditions due to above-average rainfall during June and early July. Antecedent moisture indices that measure how wet the ground is before rainfall approached 90 to 100 per cent saturation, meaning that the ground was effectively primed for rapid runoff generation.
The region’s karst terrain — characterized by shallow, rocky soils — offered less than five per cent effective porosity, severely limiting absorption into the ground. Simultaneously, regional groundwater tables had risen underground, further reducing the ground’s capacity to absorb water.
This set the stage for an outsized response to the incoming deluge. When intense rainfall arrived, the ground was quickly and completely saturated, resulting in immediate and rapid surface runoff.
Water flows fast down the slopes and through underground limestone channels, leaving little time for it to soak into the ground. As a result, rivers such as the Guadalupe can swell rapidly, rising several feet in a short time, which causes fast-moving flood impacts in narrow valleys and low-lying communities.
Multiple forces
The July floods in Texas were devastatingly deadly. A confluence of various meteorological and topographical factors were to blame.
An overheated atmosphere, saturated with water vapour, unleashed record-breaking rainfall. The unique terrain of Texas Hill Country funnelled that rain swiftly into the river system, while the region’s hydrology, already primed by previous storms, converted nearly all of it into runoff.
By understanding how these atmospheric, geographic and hydrological elements combined, we can better anticipate future risks in “Flash Flood Alley” and improve early warning systems to save lives.
Hossein Bonakdari 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.
Despite the glorious arrival of summer, there’s definitely a sting in the season’s tail – quite literally. Even in the UK, it’s not just sunburn we need to watch out for. From nettles to jellyfish, summer brings a full cast of prickly, buzzing, biting villains.
My own back patio is armed with an arsenal of citronella candles and incense sticks to fend them off – not just a lifestyle choice, but a survival strategy for someone as jumpy as me around insects.
Let’s break down the main culprits.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Plant-based stings: nettles
First up, the humble but mighty common nettle, which thrives in hedgerows and gardens, often reaching impressive heights of up to two metres by midsummer. Their sting comes from tiny hairs called trichomes, which inject histamine and other irritants into the skin as a form of defence.
Histamine causes the classic signs of inflammation: redness, swelling, heat and pain – all of which are evident in the raised, red rash known as urticaria (or hives). Unsurprisingly, the Latin name for the nettle family is urtica, meaning “to sting.”
And what about that old remedy of rubbing a dock leaf on the sting? Honestly, good luck identifying one among the 200-plus species. While the sap might offer a mild soothing effect, there’s no strong evidence of an active compound that reduces symptoms.
If it works for you, great, but calamine lotion or over-the-counter antihistamines are far more reliable. And use some form of protection in the first place – if you’re clearing them from your garden, or foraging to make nettle pesto, wear gloves and proceed carefully.
Insects: bees, wasps and horseflies
As temperatures rise, so do the number of stinging insects like bees and wasps, not to mention the dreaded horseflies. While most don’t sting unless provoked (a mantra I repeat to myself regularly), when they do, it can be unpleasant.
Most stings cause local irritation – simple pain relief and antihistamines usually do the trick here. But sometimes, either the original sting or subsequent scratching can cause infections.
Cellulitis is a deeper skin infection that can spread quickly if untreated. While milder cases may clear up with oral antibiotics, some infections can be serious – even life threatening – and require hospital care.
Insect stings can also trigger anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction. In the UK, stings account for around ten deaths per year: a small, but very sobering figure. Always take anaphylactic symptoms like facial swelling, difficulty breathing or dizziness seriously – and call 999 immediately.
Ticks: small bites, big risks
Tick bites are also more common in summer, thanks to more exposed skin and time spent in tall grass or woodlands. Ticks are tiny – often smaller than a poppy seed – and can be easily missed until they become engorged with blood.
They’re usually harmless, but some ticks carry diseases like Lyme disease, a bacterial infection that can cause fatigue, joint pain and, if untreated, serious complications affecting the nervous system or heart.
Ticks can also spread tick-borne encephalitis, a viral infection that can lead to inflammation of the brain, though it’s very rare in the UK. Watch out for the telltale bullseye rash and flu-like symptoms after a bite – and seek urgent medical advice if they appear.
To remove a tick, use fine-tipped tweezers, gripping as close to the skin as possible and pulling steadily. Don’t twist. You want the whole tick out, legs and all. And don’t squeeze its body, as this can force potentially infected fluids into your bloodstream, raising the risk of conditions like Lyme disease, among others.
Marine stings: jellyfish and friends
And finally, the unexpected seaside sting. Coastal waters can play host to a range of jellyfish, from the mildly irritating to the impressively painful.
Most UK species cause minor rashes, but be wary of the lion’s mane and the occasional (though rare) portuguese men o’war – not technically a jellyfish, but still best avoided.
Even jellyfish washed up on shore can sting, sometimes for days. If stung, rinse the area with seawater (not fresh water), or soak in warm water. Avoid rubbing or using urine – yes, that scene in Friends is not medically sound. Peeing on a jellyfish sting can make things worse by triggering more venom release from stuck tentacles.
If tentacles are still stuck to the skin, use tweezers or the edge of a credit card to remove them gently. Don’t use your bare hand – you could end up stinging that too.
And like insect stings, jellyfish can rarely trigger anaphylactic shock. If someone shows symptoms, don’t hesitate to seek emergency help.
From the garden to the seaside, summer has plenty of sting — but being prepared can make all the difference. Whether it’s nettles, bees or ticks, the best approach is prevention (think gloves, repellent and awareness), followed by prompt treatment if needed.
Use calamine or antihistamines for rashes, and tweezers for tick or jellyfish tentacle removal. Keep a close eye out for signs of infection or allergic reaction and always seek medical advice if something doesn’t feel right.
Dan Baumgardt 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.
For generations, chicken soup has been a go-to remedy for people feeling under the weather. It holds a cherished place in many cultures as a comforting treatment for colds and flu. But is there any real science behind the idea that soup can help us recover from respiratory infections?
Alongside colleagues, I conducted a systematic review to explore this question, which examined the scientific evidence on the role of soup in managing acute respiratory tract infections, such as the common cold, influenza and COVID-19.
Out of more than 10,000 records, we identified four high-quality studies involving 342 participants. These studies tested a variety of soups, including traditional chicken broth, barley soup and herbal vegetable blends. While still early-stage, the evidence was promising.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
One study found that people who ate soup recovered up to 2.5 days faster than those who didn’t. Symptoms such as nasal congestion, sore throat and fatigue were milder. Some participants also showed reduced levels of inflammation-related markers: substances in the blood that rise when the immune system is fighting an infection.
Specifically, levels of IL-6 and TNF-α – two proteins that help trigger inflammation – were lower in those who consumed soup. This suggests that soup may help calm an overactive immune response, potentially making symptoms less severe and recovery more comfortable.
However, none of the studies examined how consuming soup influenced everyday outcomes of acute respiratory tract infections, such as whether people took fewer days off work or were less likely to end up in hospital. That’s a major gap in the evidence, and one that future research needs to address.
There’s also a strong cultural and behavioural aspect to food-based self-care: when people use food not just for nourishment, but as an intentional part of managing illness and promoting recovery.
In many households, food becomes medicine not only because of its ingredients, but because it symbolises care, routine and reassurance.
My previous research found that parents, in particular often turn to traditional remedies, like soup, as a first line of defence when illness strikes, often well before seeking professional medical advice.
This reflects a growing interest in home remedies and the importance of culturally familiar treatments: remedies that feel safe, trusted and emotionally resonant because they’re part of a person’s upbringing or community norms. These kinds of treatments can increase confidence and comfort when self-managing illness at home.
They help people manage mild illness, reduce unnecessary antibiotic use and avoid placing additional strain on GPs or emergency departments for minor ailments that can be safely treated at home. Even a simple phone message about the common cold – “Most common colds get better in a few days and don’t need treatment from your GP” – has been shown to reduce appointment demand by 21%, highlighting how low-cost, home-based care could ease pressure across the system.
The Local Government Association (LGA) reports that GPs handle approximately 57 million cases of minor conditions such as coughs and colds annually, costing the NHS over £2 billion a year. It argues that educating people about effective self-care could help save GPs an hour a day on average.
Soup fits the bill
So chicken soup is easy to prepare, affordable, safe for most people and widely recognised as a comforting, familiar home remedy for minor illness.
Still, our review highlighted a clear need for more research. Future studies could examine standardised soup recipes and investigate whether particular combinations of nutrients or herbs work best: does chicken soup have the same effect as barley broth or vegetable potage? Is there a difference if it’s homemade versus canned?
Just as importantly, future research needs to measure meaningful outcomes: how quickly people return to work or school, how well they sleep during illness, how they rate their comfort and energy levels, for example.
Soup isn’t a replacement for medicine. But alongside rest, fluids and paracetamol, it might offer a simple way to ease symptoms and help people feel better.
Sandra Lucas 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.
Clearly angered by the intensification of Russia’s air campaign against Ukraine, Donald Trump has pivoted from the suspension of US military assistance to Ukraine to promising its resumption. Russia’s strikes on major cities killed more civilians in June than have died in any single previous month, according to UN figures.
Over the past two weeks, the US president has made several disparaging comments about his relationship with Vladimir Putin, including on July 13 that the Russian president “talks nice and then he bombs everybody in the evening”.
Not only will the US resume delivery of long-promised Patriot air defence missiles, Trump is now also reported to be considering a whole new plan to arm Ukraine, including with offensive capabilities. And he has talked about imposing new sanctions on Putin’s regime.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
This is the background against which the eighth Ukraine Recovery Conference took place in Rome on July 10 and 11. The event, attended by many western leaders and senior business executives, was an important reminder that while the war against Ukraine will be decided on the battlefield, peace will only be won as the result of rebuilding Ukraine’s economy and society.
Ending the war anytime soon and on terms favourable to Kyiv will require an enormous effort by Ukrainians and their European allies. But the country’s recovery afterwards will be no less challenging.
According to the World Bank’s latest assessment, at the end of 2024 Ukraine’s recovery needs over the next decade stood at US$524 billion (£388 billion). And with every month the war continues, these needs are increasing. Ukraine’s three hardest-hit sectors are housing, transport and energy infrastructure, which between them account for around 60% of all damage.
At the same time, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) provided a relatively positive assessment of Ukraine’s overall economic situation at the end of June, forecasting growth of between 2% and 3% for 2025 – likely to grow to over 4% in 2026 and 2027. But the IMF also cautioned that this trajectory – and the country’s macroeconomic stability more generally – will remain heavily dependent on external support.
Taking into account a new €2.3 billion package from the EU, consisting of €1.8 billion of loan guarantees and €580 million of grants, the cumulative pledge of over €10 billion (£8.7 billion) made by countries attending the Ukraine recovery conference is both encouraging and sobering.
It is encouraging in the sense that Ukraine’s international partners remain committed to the country’s social and economic needs, not merely its ability to resist Russia on the battlefield.
But it is also sobering that even these eye-watering sums of public money are still only a fraction of Ukraine’s needs. Even if the EU manages to mobilise its overall target of €40 billion for Ukraine’s recovery, by attracting additional contributions from other donors and the private sector, this would be less than 8% of Ukraine’s projected recovery needs as of the end of 2024.
As the war continues and more of the (diminishing) public funding is directed towards defence expenditure by Kyiv’s western partners, this gap is likely to grow.
Overcoming the trauma of war
Money is not the only challenge for Ukraine recovery efforts. Rebuilding the country is not simply about undoing the physical damage.
The social impact of Russia’s aggression is hard to overstate. Ukraine has been deeply traumatised as a society since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.
Generally reliable Ukrainian casualty counts – some 12,000 civilians and 43,000 troops killed since February 2022 – are still likely to underestimate the true number of people who have died as a direct consequence of the Russian aggression. And each of these will have left behind family members struggling to cope with their loss. In addition, there are hundreds of thousands of war veterans.
Even before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, there were nearly half a million veterans from the “frozen” conflict that followed Russia’s annexation of Crimea and incursion into eastern Ukraine. By the end of 2024, this number had more than doubled to around 1 million. Most of them have complex social, economic, medical and psychological needs that will have to be considered as part of a society-wide recovery effort.
Returning refugees
According to data from the UN refugee agency (UNHCR), there are also some 7 million refugees from Ukraine and 3.7 million internally displaced people (IDPs). This is equivalent to one quarter of the country’s population. The financial needs of UNHCR’s operations in Ukraine are estimated at $800 million in 2025, of which only 27% was funded as of the end of April.
Once the fighting in Ukraine ends, refugees are likely to return in greater numbers. Their return will provide a boost to the country’s economic growth by strengthening its labour force and bringing with them skills and, potentially, investment. But like many IDPs and veterans, they may not be able to return to their places of origin, either because these are not inhabitable or remain under Russian occupation.
Some returnees are likely to be viewed with suspicion or resentment by those Ukrainians who stayed behind and fought. Tensions with Ukrainians who survived the Russian occupation in areas that Kyiv may recover in a peace deal are also likely, given Ukraine’s harsh anti-collaboration laws.
As a consequence, reintegration – in the sense of rebuilding and sustaining the country’s social cohesion – will be a massive challenge, requiring as much, if not more, of Ukraine’s partners’ attention and financial support as physical reconstruction and the transition from a war to a peace-time economy.
Given the mismatch between what is needed and what has been provided for Ukraine’s recovery, one may well be sceptical about the value of the annual Ukraine recovery conferences. But, to the credit of their organisers and attendees, they recognise that the foundations for post-war recovery need to be built before the war ends. The non-military challenges of war and peace must not fall by the wayside amid an exclusive focus on battlefield dynamics.
Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.
