NewzIntel.com

Category: Analysis Assessment

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Big Roman shoes discovered near Hadrian’s Wall – but they don’t necessarily mean big Roman feet

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Penn, Lecturer in Roman and Late Antique Material Culture, University of Reading

    Excavations at the Roman fort of Magna near Hadrian’s Wall in Northumberland in north east England have uncovered some very large leather footwear. Their discovery, according to some news coverage, has “baffled” archaeologists.

    The survival of the shoes is not by itself miraculous or unusual. Excellent preservation conditions caused by waterlogged environments with low-oxygen means that leather, and other organic materials, survive in the wet soil of this part of northern England.

    Many years of excavations by the Vindolanda Trust at Vindolanda just south of Hadrian’s Wall, and now at Magna, have recovered an enormous collection of Roman shoes. These finds have provided us with an excellent record of the footwear of soldiers and the civilians who lived around them.

    The shoes from Magna stand out because many of them are big. Big shoes have also been found at Vindolanda. However, of those whose size can be determined, only 0.4% are big. The average shoe size at Vindolanda is 9.5 to 10.2 inches in length, which is between a modern UK shoe size 7 to 8.

    Big shoes make up a much larger share of the shoes at Magna. The biggest shoe is a whopping 12.8 inches long, roughly equivalent to a modern UK size 12 to 14.

    This shoe collection raises an immediate and obvious question: why did people at Magna have such large shoes?

    The possible answers to this question raise more questions and bring to the fore a central component of archaeological research: a good debate.

    Emma Frame, senior archaeologist for the Magna excavations, suggests: “We have to assume it’s something to do with the people living here, having bigger feet, being potentially taller but we don’t know.”

    This idea of bigger feet, bigger people makes a good deal of sense, though it would suggest that some of the military community at Magna were very tall indeed. And, as the Roman cemeteries of Hadrian’s Wall have been little excavated or studied, we have little information about how tall people were in this part of the Roman world.

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

    Other ideas might be worth entertaining too, however. For example, could these be some kind of snowshoes or winter boots meant to allow extra layers of padding or multiple pairs of socks to be worn?

    A letter, preserved by similar conditions to the shoes at Vindolanda, refers to a gift of socks and underpants that was sent to someone stationed there, presumably to keep them warm during the cold winter nights. We also know from other evidence that Syrian archers made up one of the units stationed at Magna. These men would not have been used to the frosty climate of northern England.

    Could these large shoes be an attempt to cope with the bitter shock of a British winter? Or instead, could these shoes have a medical purpose, perhaps to allow people with swollen feet or people utilising medical dressings to wear shoes?

    It’s important to note, I am not claiming to have the answers. I’m simply putting out some hypotheses which could explain the extra-large shoes based on other evidence we have and potential logical explanations for such large footwear.

    These kinds of hypotheses lie right at the heart of the archaeological method. Fresh archaeological discoveries are made everyday, and they often make headlines with phrases about “baffled archaeologists.” While this language can spark public interest, it also risks giving a misleading impression of the discipline. In reality, the work archaeologists like me and thousands of my colleagues around the world do is grounded in careful, evidence-based analysis.

    The challenge lies not in our lack of expertise, but in the nature of the evidence itself. Much of the distant past has been lost to time, and what we do recover represents only a small fragment of the original picture.

    We’re not so much “baffled” as we are rigorously testing multiple hypotheses to arrive at the most plausible interpretations. Interpreting these fragments is a complex process, like piecing together a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle with many of the most crucial pieces (like the edges) missing.

    Sometimes we have exactly the right pieces to understand the big picture, but other times we have gaps, and we have to put forward a series of different suggestions until more evidence comes to light.

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

    – ref. Big Roman shoes discovered near Hadrian’s Wall – but they don’t necessarily mean big Roman feet – https://theconversation.com/big-roman-shoes-discovered-near-hadrians-wall-but-they-dont-necessarily-mean-big-roman-feet-256369

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Reform spent just £5.5m on the 2024 election, while Labour’s majority cost £30m – new data

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sam Power, Lecturer in Politics, University of Bristol

    The 2024 election was the most expensive in British political history, new figures confirm. Across parties, candidates and third parties, a whopping £94.5 million was spent. This compares with £72.6 million in 2019, which was a record high.

    Some parties got a fantastic return on their investment. Others, to put it mildly, didn’t. I wouldn’t let those in charge of Conservative party coffers run your household, for example. They spent £23.9 million in 2024 to record their worst electoral showing in recent history.

    Given that they won, Labour will consider the £30.1 million they spent on a huge – but shallow – majority money well spent. It is also easily the most they’ve ever spent on an election (although spending limits have recently been increased).

    The real winners in 2024 though, certainly in terms of bang for their respective bucks, are Reform and the Lib Dems, both of which only spent around £5.5 million. To put that in direct context, the Lib Dems spent £14.4 million in 2019 for a far poorer result.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    This also means that Reform entered parliament for the first time, won five seats and came second in 98 others on a relatively shoestring budget. They laid the groundwork for completely upending the British political system while only spending a fraction of what the established parties did.

    A striking thing about the Reform spending is quite how much they used traditional media. Although they have a reputation for social media success, they spent £900,000 advertising with the Mail Online, Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and the Telegraph – and £300,000 advertising with The Sun. In fact, at a time when we talk of the power of data-driven microtargeting on social networks, it seems they spent £2.2 million (40% of their total expenditure) on what we would understand as “traditional” media advertising.

    Money does not reflect reality

    These elections were fought under different rules and significantly higher spending limits than in previous contests. In 2023, the Conservatives raised how much parties could spend by 80%, to bring it in line with inflation (the prior spending limit was set in the year 2000). This meant parties could spend just over £34m in 2024 – but only Labour came close to this limit.

    It’s clear, looking at these figures, that the money spent does not reflect political reality. The two traditional parties continue to spend far more than others, but the results from 2024 make a mockery of the spending limits currently in place.

    Spending limits are implemented by those regulating money in politics to prevent money playing an outsize role. It is supposed to level the playing field in the same way that wage caps in certain sports intend to.

    But if only two parties can even get close to the spending limit, with others fighting for scraps – albeit much more effectively – what is the need for the limit to be so high? And, as Reform and the Liberal Democrats have shown, a party can get its message out very well without coming anywhere near the spending limit.

    Perhaps, given concerns about the rising power of mega-donors in UK politics – especially after Elon Musk’s threat of a £70 million donation to Reform – we should be thinking more carefully about limiting donations in UK politics. The financial story of the 2024 election, at least from a first glance, is one of complete profligacy from Labour and the Conservatives.

    The wrong reforms ahead

    On the same day as these figures were released, the government announced major reforms for the next election. These include votes at 16 and new rules on donations. My view, however, is that these reforms represent about the least ambitious approach one could take if the stated aim (which it apparently is) is the restoration of public trust. They wouldn’t, for example, prevent Musk from donating £70 million through X if he so pleased.

    Spending limits are no longer fit for purpose. Instead, limits on donations are the only game in town. At the very least, corporate donations should be tied to profits in the UK – but above and beyond this, a cap of £1 million to £2 million should be on the table.

    Recent experience from the US has shown how quickly an unregulated system can turn into an oligarchy. In 2024, the top 0.01% of donors accounted for over 50% of all money candidates raised. Many donors bankrolled parties to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, crowding out everything else. At least one of those donors went on to run a (quasi) government department.

    Finally, it should also be noted that it is over a year after the election, and only now is the lid being lifted on what was spent during it. This is a significant (and unnecessary) failure in a system that holds transparency as its foundational ideal.

    The Electoral Commission should be empowered to implement semi-automated AI tools of analysis, to move us closer to the ideal of real-time analysis of election spending (and any potential violations therein).

    The 2024 figures show how much the landscape has changed. In the forthcoming elections bill, Labour need to meet the challenges where they actually are, not where they want them to be, if they are serious about restoring trust in politics.

    Sam Power receives funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council.

    – ref. Reform spent just £5.5m on the 2024 election, while Labour’s majority cost £30m – new data – https://theconversation.com/reform-spent-just-5-5m-on-the-2024-election-while-labours-majority-cost-30m-new-data-261341

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Israel: Netanyahu considering early election but can he convince people he’s winning the war?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Brian Brivati, Visiting Professor of Contemporary History and Human Rights, Kingston University

    Benjamin Netanyahu’s fragile coalition is fracturing. Gil Cohen Magen / Shutterstock

    One of Israel’s ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties, Shas, has announced it will resign from prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. The party said its decision was made due to the government’s failure to pass a bill exempting ultra-Orthodox students from military service.

    Its exit increases the political pressure on Netanyahu. Days earlier, six members of another ultra-Orthodox coalition partner, the United Torah Judaism party, also quit the government citing the same concerns. The moves leave Netanyahu with a minority in parliament, which will make it difficult for his government to function.

    Opposition leader Yair Lapid says the government now “has no authority”, and has called for a new round of elections. But even before these developments, Netanyahu was reportedly considering calling an early election in a bid to remain in power despite his unpopularity.

    To win another term he would, in my view, have to spin a narrative of victory on three fronts: securing the release of the hostages, defeating Hamas and delivering regional security. It is a tall order.

    In his visit to Washington in early July, Netanyahu emphasised his pursuit of a ceasefire in Gaza that facilitates the return of the remaining hostages held by Hamas.

    Israelis have grown increasingly weary of the war, with recent surveys showing popular support for ending it if this brings back those still held captive. A ceasefire that sees hostages released would probably help Netanyahu generate support during an election campaign.

    But Netanyahu has insisted that, while he wants to reach a hostage-ceasefire deal, he will not agree to one “at any price”. This indicates not only Israel’s refusal to compromise on security but also that any deal Netanyahu does make – whether or not it sees the release of all the hostages – will be presented as a victory to Israeli voters.

    To provide the electorate with further hope of an end to the fighting, Netanyahu will also have to claim that the military campaign in Gaza is nearing its goals. Senior military officials stated recently that they have “almost fully achieved” their objectives – namely, defeating Hamas.

    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.

    Netanyahu has, so far, prolonged the war to remain in power. But he will now need to spin the military campaign as a victory if he wants to win votes. This will be especially hard as critics like Yitzhak Brik, a retired Israeli general, claim that the number of Hamas fighters is now back to its pre-war level.

    The hard-right members of Netanyahu’s government add another dimension to this equation. His two ultranationalist coalition partners, Jewish Power and Religious Zionism, oppose ending the war entirely. They insist on fighting Hamas to the finish.

    Netanyahu will most likely want to keep his options open during an election campaign to then form a coalition with whatever he can pull together at the time. He may calculate that a short-term pause in fighting to free hostages can be spun as a victory to win votes, after which military operations could resume to appease hardliners if he needs them.

    A final part of Netanyahu’s electoral strategy will be to push the message that he has delivered regional security. He has declared the war with Iran in June a success, saying “we sent Iran’s nuclear program down the drain”.

    And Israel has also continued its campaign of strikes to assert its military dominance in the region, the latest in Syria and Lebanon.

    Slim peace prospects

    Observers warn that Netanyahu’s approach is about political survival, and will come at the expense of long-term peace prospects for Israelis and Palestinians. According to New York Times, he seems to be “kicking the Palestinian issue once again down the road”.

    Indeed, part of Netanyahu’s mooted strategy for claiming victory in Gaza involves supporting a constrained political outcome for the Palestinians that ends the fighting without Israel conceding on core issues.

    In this scenario, the Gaza Strip would be carved up and demilitarised under prolonged Israeli security oversight. Some areas would be annexed by Israel. Remaining parts of Gaza, along with fragments of the West Bank, would be handed over to an interim authority to create the appearance of a nascent Palestinian state.

    The goal would be to declare that Israel has facilitated Palestinian statehood – but strictly on Israel’s terms – while eliminating Hamas’s rule in Gaza. The reality would probably be a designed chaos to force as many Palestinians as possible to leave.

    Such a state, lacking full sovereignty and territorial continuity, would fall far short of the independent state that Palestinians seek. Crucially, this imposed outcome would also bypass substantive negotiation of issues like borders, refugees and Jerusalem, which both Israel and Palestine claim as their capital.

    Palestinian leaders would almost certainly reject a curtailed state. And if they did not then ordinary Palestinians – reeling from the war’s devastation – are unlikely to view it as a just peace. A new cycle of violence would probably begin and the Palestinian population will have been heavily concentrated into restricted spaces that would be wide open to Israeli bombardment.



    Read more:
    Netanyahu’s occupation plan for Gaza means more suffering for Palestinians and less security for Israel

    As Netanyahu weighs pulling the election trigger, he is effectively writing the next chapter of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The outcome of this manoeuvring is highly uncertain.

    If his three-pronged victory narrative convinces Israeli voters, he could return to power with a fresh mandate and perhaps a retooled coalition. He might seek a broader unity government after an election, sidelining his most hardline partners in favour of centrist voices to navigate post-war diplomacy.

    But if the public deems his victories hollow or indeed false, an election could sweep him out of office. This would open the door for opposition leaders who may take a different approach to Gaza and the Palestinians.

    Brian Brivati is executive director of the Britain Palestine Project. He is writing this article in a personal capacity.

    – ref. Israel: Netanyahu considering early election but can he convince people he’s winning the war? – https://theconversation.com/israel-netanyahu-considering-early-election-but-can-he-convince-people-hes-winning-the-war-261141

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Japan and South Korea can show governments how to compete with China and US

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robyn Klingler-Vidra, Vice Dean, Global Engagement | Associate Professor in Political Economy and Entrepreneurship, King’s College London

    Governments around the world are hustling. European policymakers, for example, are eager to boost the region’s industrial relevance in a world where the US and China dominate cutting-edge technologies. They want to move beyond the adage that “the US innovates, China replicates and the EU regulates”.

    As part of this, policymakers worldwide are striving to foster their own versions of Silicon Valley. They have invested to create ecosystems abundant with ambitious startups backed by venture capital investors. Their ultimate aim is to see these firms develop into what are known as scale-ups and compete in global markets.

    But if governments – from Berlin and Brussels to Ho Chi Minh City – are to find their edge, I argue they should follow a model closer to Seoul or Tokyo’s playbook than that of Silicon Valley.

    South Korean and Japanese policymakers have long understood that the proliferation of startup activity should not be an isolated aim. In our 2025 book, Startup Capitalism, my colleague Ramon Pacheco Pardo and I revealed that the approach of these countries sees national champion firms like Samsung and Toyota use startups as resources to help them compete internationally.

    As the head of a government-backed startup centre in Seoul told me, a key aim of South Korean government policy for startups is to “inject innovative DNA” into the country’s large firms. Policies attempt to embed startups into the fabric of lead firms, and do not try to disrupt their competitive positions.

    The ‘traitorous eight’ group of employees.
    Wayne Miller / Magnum Photos

    For this objective, the Silicon Valley playbook is sub-optimal. US government policy has enabled venture capital investment through regulatory changes and has ensured that talented people are free to challenge their former employers. Classic examples include the so-called “traitorous eight” who left Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory in 1957 to found Fairchild Semiconductor.

    A more recent example is Anthony Levandowski, who left Google’s self-driving car project to start his own company, Otto, in 2016. The competition was so close that Google sued Uber – as it had acquired Otto – in 2019 over the trade secrets Levandowski allegedly used to develop his self-driving truck company. Uber eventually paid Google a “substantial portion” of the US$179 million (£134 million) it was awarded initially in arbitration.

    Injecting innovative DNA

    The Japanese and Korean formula is distinct. South Korea’s 17 Centres for the Creative Economy and Innovation, established about ten years ago to drive innovation and entrepreneurship, each have one of the country’s large firms (chaebol) as an anchor partner. The chaebol’s industrial focus – whether it’s shipbuilding, electronics or heavy machinery – is reflected in the focus of the startups engaging with that centre.

    The startups work on issues “that keep the large firm up at night” and, in return, the startups have unparalleled access to distribution channels, marketing and proof-of-concept testing. While the centres have not produced volumes of globally competitive scale-ups, they have delivered on the aim of injecting innovative ideas and talent into large companies like Hyundai, LG Electronics and SK Group.

    In Japan, tax incentives encourage big businesses to acquire startups. The “open innovation tax incentive” allows a 25% deduction from the price of the acquisition. The aim here is to encourage Japan’s national champion firms to integrate startups into their core businesses. In 2024, for example, Toyota integrated high-tech wheelchair startup, Whill, into its mobility services offering.

    Various government initiatives also aim to provide coaching and mentoring for startups around raising venture capital funding and sharpening a pitch for demo day. In Japan and Korea, these initiatives embed big business throughout.

    In J-Startup, an initiative aimed at creating a cohort of so-called unicorns (startups valued at over US$1 billion), the Japanese government involves industrial leaders as judges that help select applicants for the programme. These people then act as coaches and mentors to the startups. Japan’s lead firms are, in return, exposed to innovative technologies and startup culture.

    In a similar way, Korea’s K-Startup Grand Challenge connects participating foreign startups with the country’s chaebol for proof-of-concept development. The Korean government cites partnership and licensing agreements between the parties as an important outcome of the programme. Through these connections, Korea’s big businesses have another mechanism for accessing innovative ideas and talent from abroad.

    Samsung Electronics is the largest chaebol in South Korea.
    Sybillla / Shutterstock

    Governments that want to compete with China or the US cannot continue on their existing path. They need to do something different, and Japan and South Korea’s approach offers an alternative.

    These approaches are not without downsides. There is, of course, the risk of well-resourced corporations operating “kill zones” around their business lines. This might involve early low-value mergers and acquisitions, or even copying their products in a bid to eliminate them.

    The central position of large firms to the economy also means that the innovation agenda of startups is set by incumbent firms. This fosters complementary products, and not those that disrupt – and ultimately improve – domestic firms or technologies. There’s also the worry of perceived corruption.

    But I argue that pursuing a half-committed strategy is riskier. If governments maintain a wall between big business and startups, believing this is essential to minimise corruption and that large firms will innovate just as startups will scale-up into larger firms, they risk underwhelming outcomes on all levels.

    We may see flailing productivity in the sectors in which countries have excelled. And scale-ups will fail to materialise while populations of “zombie startups”, that simply stagnate while propped up on state largesse, increase.

    Startups should be considered as resources to boost nationwide industrial capabilities, not efforts aimed at seeding a country’s answer to Silicon Valley’s Google or OpenAI.

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

    – ref. Japan and South Korea can show governments how to compete with China and US – https://theconversation.com/japan-and-south-korea-can-show-governments-how-to-compete-with-china-and-us-260623

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The beauty of coral reefs is key to their survival – so we came up with a way to measure it

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Lamont, Research Fellow, Marine Biology, Lancaster University

    Why do people care about coral reefs? Why does their damage cause such concern and outrage? What drives people to go to great lengths to protect and restore them?

    Of course, it’s partly because of their ecological importance and economic value – but it’s also because they are beautiful. Healthy coral reefs are among the most visually spectacular ecosystems on the planet – and this beauty is far from superficial. It underpins cultural heritage value, supports tourism industries, encourages ocean stewardship and deepens people’s emotional connections to the sea.

    But how can such beauty be measured? And when it is destroyed, can it be rebuilt?

    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.

    Traditionally, many coral reef monitoring and restoration programmes overlook their beauty, considering it too subjective to measure. And as a team of scientists, that frustrated us. We knew that to most effectively draw on this key motivator for coral conservation, we had to be able to measure beauty.

    In some ways, it’s an impossible task. But our new study grapples with this challenge, delivering a way of quantifying the aesthetic value of a coral reef, as well as measuring its recovery when previously damaged reefs are restored.

    Our international team of marine scientists has been working at the Mars coral restoration programme (the largest project of its kind) in central Indonesia. Here, local communities and international businesses have collaborated for over a decade, rebuilding reefs that were once decimated by dynamite fishing. This illegal fishing method uses explosives to stun and kill fish for easy collection, while shattering coral reefs into rubble – wiping out entire reef communities in seconds.

    This Indonesian project has already successfully regrown coral reefs. But we wanted to explore whether this programme had been able to recreate the visual appeal of a natural reef ecosystem.

    We took standardised seabed photos using settings that automatically adjust white balance and colour to compensate for underwater light conditions. This enabled us to capture accurate colours under consistent shallow-water conditions across healthy, degraded and restored reef sites.

    Then we conducted online surveys with more than 3,000 participants, asking them to compare pairs of photographs and choose which they found more beautiful – enabling us to derive a rating for each photograph. Our results showed that people from very different backgrounds consistently shared similar opinions on which reefs were beautiful.

    Whether respondents were young or old, from countries with coral reefs or without, or had different levels of education and familiarity with the ocean, they tended to favour images with high coral cover, vibrant colours and complex coral structures. This suggests there is a shared human appreciation for the beauty of thriving reefs.

    We also used these ratings to train a machine-learning algorithm based on AI to reliably predict people’s visual preferences for photographs of different coral habitats.

    The results of people’s survey responses and the machine learning algorithm were the same. Images of restored reefs were consistently rated just as beautiful as those of healthy reefs, and far more aesthetically pleasing than degraded reefs. This is encouraging, and important. It shows that efforts to rebuild these charismatic ecosystems can recreate the beauty that makes them so highly valued.

    Tracking recovery

    We found that beauty was strongly linked to the number of colours present in the picture, the proportion of the image taken up by living coral, and the complexity of shapes exhibited by the corals. Meanwhile, images showing grey rubble fields of dead corals with little life were consistently rated lowest.

    Our results suggest that promoting a range of different coral colours and shapes will not only help marine life, but also restore the visual, cultural and tourism value of thriving coral reefs. Reef restoration experts can achieve this by choosing donor corals – healthy corals transplanted to degraded sites to aid recovery – to add colour and variety to the reefs they plant.

    This also means that coral reef recovery can be tracked using simple photo-based monitoring, like that used in our study.

    Coral reefs need long-term care to help them survive, thrive and maintain their beauty and ecological function. To ensure that initial restoration gains are not quickly lost, such efforts need to be paired with ongoing monitoring and maintenance. Any tourism development around restored reefs also needs to be managed carefully and sustainably.

    Restoration and sustainable tourism practices can help protect and sustain the ecological and social benefits of beautiful, healthy reefs. Ultimately, restoring beautiful reefs will be crucial for communities that rely on marine tourism, and for inspiring people to care for the ocean.

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

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Tim Lamont receives funding from the Royal Commission of 1851 and the Fisheries Society of the British Isles.

    Gita Alisa receives funding from Friends of Lancaster University in America and Sheba Hope Advocate Program.

    Tries Blandine Razak receives funding from the Pew Charitable Trust and the Fisheries Society of the British Isles.

    – ref. The beauty of coral reefs is key to their survival – so we came up with a way to measure it – https://theconversation.com/the-beauty-of-coral-reefs-is-key-to-their-survival-so-we-came-up-with-a-way-to-measure-it-261013

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: When public money is tight, how do governments put a price on culture?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Nolan, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Liverpool John Moores University

    It’s no secret that public finances are tight in the UK. This spells trouble for many sectors, not least culture. After all, this is an area that often relies on public funding – with many projects facing an uncertain future. But in an era of economic bad news, can it be justifiable to pump money into what some see as “frivolous” projects?

    For some politicians, investment in cultural infrastructure is an investment in place and in people. This is the hope behind a £270 million fund that aims to boost the resilience of cultural institutions following an era of restricted public spending. There are limitations, and the culture-led approach – as with regeneration projects in general – remains only partially successful and deeply uneven.

    From the role of large-scale cultural events like the European Capital of Culture to the so-called “Bilbao effect” (where a new cultural site is thought to spark revitalisation and economic growth), the same questions arise. Who is it for? What type of value is created – and is it shared in equitably?

    But the question is also about how we might better understand and measure the value of a cultural site, collection or (re)development.

    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.

    Pinning down the meaning of “value” is a tricky philosophical question – one that has long plagued economists. The standard evaluation tool of cost-benefit analysis tries to collapse these debates into a number. That is, a price that can measure the multi-faceted benefits a project can provide.

    But in the cultural sphere, value often comes without a price tag. Access to many of our museums and galleries is free and the values derived from them transcend the monetary.

    Even though economists can estimate this non-monetary value (albeit not without criticism), a more wide-ranging benefit of cultural investment is harder to understand. This is the counter-intuitive notion of “non-use value”.

    In other words, this is the benefit that flows to an individual from the existence of a cultural good such as a museum. It can be without that person ever setting foot inside the building or engaging with any of the collections.

    Consider a current culture-led redevelopment in the UK: the Waterfront Transformation Project in Liverpool. This ambitious scheme takes in the redevelopment of the International Slavery Museum, Maritime Museum and associated outdoor spaces.

    Within this collection of cultural goods, “use” could be a visitor stepping inside the museums. They may derive multiple benefits, from the aesthetics of the building, the creativity of the displays and the histories and stories represented in the collection.

    If these stones could speak … through their very existence, cultural sites can bring value to people who will never visit them.
    NorthSky Films/Shutterstock

    But what about a history lover who either lacks the desire or the ability to visit the collection? Or someone whose memories or heritage intertwines with the history? Despite having no direct contact, they might still benefit from the sites’ continuing existence: the fact, for example, that a place exists where other citizens can visit, challenge and debate.

    For some, there is value simply in knowing that there are spaces for this kind of engagement. In this way, public use by others can generate indirect benefits. These benefits cannot be captured by traditional metrics like footfall. But they constitute value to that individual and, in turn, the communities in which they live.

    Assessing value

    The inclusion of non-use value within the Treasury’s evaluation recommendations recognises this complex public relationship with cultural goods. Correctly capturing these benefits is crucial. If not, funders may misconstrue a project’s total economic value when they make their decisions. Some that could generate significant public value might be overlooked.

    However, non-use value can be slippery both to define and measure. Understanding how engagement with publicly funded cultural goods varies across communities and regions is crucial. This current gap in our knowledge means that non-use value is not always fully considered in the design or evaluation of cultural programmes.

    Our ongoing project, undertaken along with post-doctoral research fellow Laura Taggart, attempts to improve this understanding in the context of Liverpool’s Waterfront Development Project.

    This process raises vital questions. What are the benefits and potential harms of the site? How do relationships with it change over time and across economic and ethnic groups? And how does the public’s historic relationship with the dockside change the nature of the non-use value generated?

    Clearly, the answers to these questions cannot easily be calculated from the results of a cost-benefit analysis. Like most economic tools it is a model – a simplification of reality that aims to help policymakers make informed decisions. By engaging locally and regionally, it is easier to understand what drives non-use value – and capture it in a way that is relevant across other projects.

    At heart, our project aims to capture the voices that are often excluded or overlooked in decisions about cultural funding. By developing a better understanding of the range of non-use value from these spaces, we hope to support more rounded approaches to cultural policy.

    This means improving evaluation tools and funding frameworks. They must better reflect how people relate to cultural goods and how this differs across communities and regions. This will help in the quest for a richer concept of “value for money” — one that supports political choices that recognise the long-term civic, emotional and historical returns of cultural infrastructure.

    Ultimately, in an era of tight budgets this allows for better and more targeted decision-making that recognises the often complex value and benefit flows that culture generates. But there is work to be done to help the public articulate the nature of benefits and costs. These are as vital and complex as the cultural goods that generate them.

    This article is part of the wider project – Cultural Heritage, People and Place (CHerPP) : Understanding Value via a regional case study. It is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the UK Government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Grant reference AH/Y000242/1

    – ref. When public money is tight, how do governments put a price on culture? – https://theconversation.com/when-public-money-is-tight-how-do-governments-put-a-price-on-culture-259483

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Why the UK’s butterflies are booming in 2025

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Willow Neal, Postgraduate Researcher in Conservation Ecology, The Open University

    Biodiversity is in rapid decline, across the UK and globally. Butterflies are excellent for helping us understand these changes. Where butterfly communities are rich and diverse, so too is the ecosystem. But the opposite is also true: if butterfly numbers are low and there are few species, it is a bad sign for the overall variety and abundance of life in the area.

    Butterfly sightings were among the lowest on record in the UK in 2024 – a low point in a downward trend that has been documented in North America and elsewhere.

    The UK’s low numbers last year were probably due to the weather – in particular the notably cloudy and wet summer. These are not ideal conditions for butterflies, which use the Sun’s warmth to regulate their temperature and (mostly) do not fly in the rain.

    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.

    While weather patterns vary, climate change is making unpredictable weather more common. Wildlife is under the immense combined pressure of habitat loss and climate change, and it is driving many species to extinction. Consecutive summers with poor weather can push butterflies, and other species, over the edge.

    Luckily for butterflies, 2025 has been a stark contrast – so far. After the driest spring since 1893 and multiple early summer heatwaves in the UK, butterflies are really bouncing back under lots of sunshine, which keeps them active.

    Legendary lepidopterist Chris van Swaay of Butterfly Conservation Europe posts results of Dutch butterfly counts from early spring to late autumn. Many of these “transect surveys”, which involve recording butterflies while following a straight line through a habitat, have been repeated in the same locations over several decades. As such, they give reliable trends of butterfly diversity and abundance.

    Van Swaay notes that many common species are having an excellent year. Many of the white species, including the large white, small white and green-veined white, are faring particularly well. Peacock butterflies are also being recorded on these Dutch transects in some of their best numbers for the past 20 years. These trends are likely to be the same in the UK.

    On the Knepp estate in West Sussex, a farm that underwent rewilding in 2001, biologists are reporting record numbers of not just butterflies in general, but the elusive and stunning purple emperor (Apatura iris). This species can only survive in old and large woodlands with willow trees that they lay their eggs on. Because they live almost exclusively in the canopy, they are often difficult to see.

    It is a treat to see even one purple emperor, and Knepp has been recording their numbers since 2014. The previous record was 66 over the entire summer in 2018 (another hot and sunny one). But 2025’s numbers have smashed that, with a running total of 80 as of July 11.

    Knepp ecologists are confident purple emperor numbers are improving nationally.
    Stephan Morris/Shutterstock

    I have the pleasure of often working in a meadow next to a river, and butterfly numbers are staggering here compared with 2024. Even the buddleia bush outside my office has had at least 30 butterflies at a time, of a wide variety of common species, during the past few weeks – an absolute joy to see.

    Hot weather helps butterflies – until it doesn’t

    This sounds like good news, right? Butterflies have been saved, and we didn’t have to do anything. I’d be happy even if that put me out of a job, and despite it ignoring the incredible work of charities like Butterfly Conservation. But it is, of course, not the whole story.

    Our standard for what constitutes a great year for butterflies has been considerably lowered due to the extent of loss over decades and centuries. The great butterfly summer we are having might be comparable to an awful year 30 years ago. Similarly, this hot and dry weather is good for a while – but if it doesn’t start raining soon, plants are going to wilt.

    We saw this during the intense heatwave of summer 2022. Both the plants that butterfly larvae use for food and the nectar sources of adult butterflies were under so much stress from a lack of rainfall that they failed to help adults and caterpillars alike.

    The exceptionally warm spring of 2025 led to butterflies emerging from hibernation (referred to as “overwintering” when it concerns insects) unusually early.

    Butterflies overwinter as eggs, caterpillars or adults. Their emergence is typically triggered by rising temperatures, and this year’s warmth appears to have accelerated that process: 21 out of 33 butterfly species in Dorset were spotted earlier than usual. The dingy skipper (Erynnis tages), a small, unassuming and increasingly rare species, emerged a whole month earlier than usual.

    While early sightings may seem encouraging, they raise concerns. If plants do not also respond to the warmer temperatures by blooming earlier, there may not be enough food to sustain these early butterflies and other pollinating insects. This is a growing concern as the global climate changes.

    Overall, there are reasons to be delighted about the summer of 2025. The sunny weather has allowed for a vital boom in butterfly numbers, despite the constant strain that nature is under. It is refreshing to see a bush full of vivid, beautiful insects.

    However, the rain is still necessary, and the see-saw between a very wet year in 2024 and the potential for a very dry one in 2025 indicates climate change’s violent disruption of weather patterns which nature has depended on for a long time.

    You can support butterfly conservation by mowing your lawn less, planting more native flowers, and joining the UK’s annual Big Butterfly Count – which starts on Friday, July 18 – to report your sightings and help experts like me keep track.

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

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Willow Neal received funding from NERC (National Environmental Research Council).

    – ref. Why the UK’s butterflies are booming in 2025 – https://theconversation.com/why-the-uks-butterflies-are-booming-in-2025-256039

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: We detected deep pulses beneath Africa – what we learned could help us understand volcanic activity

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emma Watts, Postdoctoral Researcher in Geography, Swansea University

    Earth’s continents may look fixed on a globe, but they’ve been drifting, splitting and reforming over billions of years – and they still are. Our new study reveals fresh evidence of rhythmic pulses of molten rock rising beneath east Africa, reshaping our understanding of how continents break apart.

    Our findings could help scientists understand more about volcanic activity and earthquakes.

    There are around 1,300 active volcanoes on the Earth’s surface. Active volcanoes are those thought to have had an eruption over the last 12,000 years or so. Of these volcanoes, over 90 lie on the East African Rift Valley – the seam along which Africa is splitting apart. This weak seam of crust may even allow a new ocean to form over the next few million years.

    Although ocean formation is happening around the world, and has been for several billion years, there are few places on Earth where you can study different stages of continental breakup at the same time. This is because they normally become submerged under water as the Earth’s crust thins, and seawater eventually inundates the rift valley.

    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.

    The Rift Valley is different. There is, at its northern end (in Ethiopia) a place called Afar, which sits at the meeting point of three rifts. These are called the Red Sea Rift, the Gulf of Aden Rift, and the Main Ethiopian Rift (see the map below).

    The Red Sea Rift has been spreading for the last 23 million years, and the Main Ethiopian Rift for the last 11 million years. There are active volcanoes across all three of these rifts. In Afar, all three rifts are at least partly exposed, with the Red Sea Rift and Main Ethiopian Rift having the most exposure.

    Volcanic rocks that erupt when Earth’s tectonic plates spread apart provide a window into the inner Earth that wouldn’t otherwise be accessible. Each lava flow and volcano has its own story that is recorded in the rock and we can learn about that through geochemistry – the concentrations of the elements that make up the rock – and mineralogy – the minerals within the rock.

    Analysing these things can tell us about the depth at which the melting rock formed and roughly where in the Earth’s mantle it formed. In our new study, we analysed over 130 new lava samples, obtained from the Afar rock repository at the University of Pisa and our own fieldwork.

    We used these samples to investigate the characteristics of the mantle beneath this rifting, when tectonic plates are moving apart from each other. These samples are from Holocene eruptions (rocks younger than 11.7 thousand years old) from across Afar and the East African Rift.

    Geodynamic model, showing what happens in the mantle (brown) as the plates (green) rift apart. At approximately five seconds (equivalent to 35 million years) into the video the seafloor ridge has formed.

    Since the 1970s, scientists have believed that there is a mantle plume beneath the Afar region. Mantle plumes are a portion of abnormally hot mantle (around 1,450°C) or unusual composition of the mantle (or both) below the Earth’s surface. Scientists think it pushed some of the mantle to the Earth’s surface. Our study not only confirms the presence of a mantle plume in this region, but also gives scientists details about its characteristics.

    We discovered that the mantle plume beneath the region rises beneath the tectonic plates in pulses, and the pulses have slightly different chemical compositions.

    There are mantle plumes around the world. They can be identified in the geological record as far back as several billion years. Each of the plumes has different characteristics – with their own unique chemical composition and shape.

    One mantle plume still active today is the one lying below the Hawaiian islands. These islands are part of the Hawaiian Emperor chain, formed over the last 80 million years or so, and are still forming today. The islands originate from the Pacific tectonic plate slowly moving across the top of a mantle plume, making lava bubble up, erupt and eventually solidify as rock.

    This plume melts the Earth’s mantle and forms magma, which over long periods results in the formation of an island chain or breaks up continents. It can also form volcanoes along a rift in the Earth’s crust, as we see in east Africa. The Hawaiian plume signature comes from two chemical compositions rising up through the mantle together like two vertical strands.

    While scientists have long thought there probably is a plume underneath Afar, what it looks like is debated.

    In our study, we created several scenarios of what the plume looks like and then used mathematical modelling to see which plume scenario best fit the sample data. Using this data-driven approach, we show that the most likely scenario is a singular plume that pulses with different chemical compositions.

    The three rifts in Afar are spreading at different rates. The Red Sea Rift and Gulf of Aden Rift are moving faster at about 15mm per year (that’s half the rate your fingernails grow at) compared to the Main Ethiopian Rift moving at about 5mm per year. We deduced that the pulses are flowing at different speeds along the stretched and thinner undersides of the tectonic plates.

    All this shows us that the motion of tectonic plates can help focus volcanic activity to where the plate is thinner.

    This finding has important implications for how we interpret volcanic and earthquake activity. It may indicate that volcanism could be more likely to occur in the faster spreading and thinner portions of the rift, as the flow beneath replenishes the magma more frequently.

    However, the eruptions here may be less explosive than the slower spreading rifts. This fits observations that explosive eruptions occur more frequently in the Main Ethiopian Rift (which sits on a thicker part of the plate and where the volcanoes are more mature), compared to the Red Sea Rift.

    Our understanding of the link between continental rifting and mantle plumes is still in its infancy but research is already providing insights into how tectonic plates affect mantle plumes and how this might be recorded in the future seafloors of Earth.

    Emma Watts works for Swansea University. She receives funding from Natural Environment Research Council and the UK Research Council.

    Derek Keir works for the University of Southampton. He receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council.

    Thomas Gernon works for the University of Southampton. He receives funding from the WoodNext Foundation, a donor-advised fund program, and from the Natural Environment Research Council.

    – ref. We detected deep pulses beneath Africa – what we learned could help us understand volcanic activity – https://theconversation.com/we-detected-deep-pulses-beneath-africa-what-we-learned-could-help-us-understand-volcanic-activity-260129

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: UK to lower voting age to 16 – a once-in-a-generation opportunity to secure the future health of British democracy

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Mycock, Chief Policy Fellow, University of Leeds

    The UK government has announced that the voting age will be lowered to 16 at the next election as part of a wider effort to restore trust in and “future-proof” democracy.

    Votes at 16 has grown from a niche concern to become a salient – if contentious – issue supported by most UK political parties and electoral reform groups. The Conservative party remains a holdout – but has never acknowledged the contradiction of its continued opposition to the universal lowering of the voting age while empowering the Scottish and Welsh parliaments to enact the measure during its time in government.

    This is a policy response to concerns about declining youth democratic engagement since the late 1990s. Since 1997, the UK general election turnout rate for those aged 65 years and over has consistently been at least 20 percentage points higher than for those aged 18-24.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    Some opponents argue that the Labour government is lowering the voting age to 16 for its own electoral interest, but we should remember this was a clearly stated election manifesto commitment. Votes at 16 was part of the package that delivered Labour to government in 2024 on a huge majority.

    That said, public opinion remains steadfastly opposed. The government will need to handle this tension carefully, ensuring that 16- and 17-years-olds are not treated as second-class members of the electorate as this debate pushes forward.

    For and against

    As when the voting age was universally lowered to 18 in 1969, the case for change has pivoted on perceptions of maturity and markers of adulthood. There was considerable political and public consensus in the 1960s that 18 was the appropriate age of majority and enfranchisement. This link has endured, and many people continue to think under 18s are too socially and politically immature to vote responsibly or regularly.

    Supporters of reform emphasise the need to align enfranchisement with other rights realised before or at age 16 – such as paying tax, medical consent, working, autonomy to make decisions about future education and work lives, and undertaking military (if not frontline) service.

    Opponents respond by noting the age of majority remains 18, and that the minimum age for many protective and social rights, such as marriage and leaving full-time education, has been pushed upwards to 18 in the past decade or so.

    But while 18 remains the legal marker of adulthood, transitions from youthhood to adulthood have become extended and complex. There is no single age point at which young people realise all the social and economic rights and responsibilities associated with adulthood.

    Biological maturation extends from late-stage childhood until early adulthood (mid-20s). Traditional markers of adulthood such as financial independence, owning a property, or getting married and having children are occurring later in life than in previous generations.

    It is more than 50 years since parliament last reflected and reviewed how society understands, and frames, issues of adulthood and citizenship linked to the ages of majority and enfranchisement. Lowering the voting age to 16 offers a timely opportunity to do so again.

    Extensive parliamentary debate lies ahead as this bill makes its way through to becoming law. MPs should take that time to discuss and build consensus around what British democracy should offer young people, and how enfranchisement should be conceptualised for future generations.

    Lowering the age is just the start

    Now that 16- and 17-year-olds are part of the electorate, we can hope that political parties will improve their responsiveness to the interests of young people.

    Unfortunately, where the voting age has already been lowered, we’ve not yet seen parties address their skewed decision-making, representation or electoral behaviour, which continues to favour older voters. The average age of elected representatives has remained around 50 years of age in all UK national and devolved parliaments, and higher in local government. Few young people join political parties or are active in their campaigning.

    There is also significant evidence that, regardless of whether the voting age has been lowered or not, young people are not appropriately supported to be politically and media literate to understand how and when to vote, and to make informed and independent voter choices.

    So, lowering the voting age should only be the first step in a more concerted effort to improve political literacy and democratic engagement as young people grow up. This should begin in primary, not secondary, school and continue through further and higher education.

    Elected representatives should hold regular school surgeries where they meet children and young people, and listen and respond to their issues and concerns. Young people need to learn to discuss political issues in school settings, and political parties should host election hustings in schools and colleges. Young people should also be involved in decision-making in their schools and communities.

    Lowering the voting age offers an opportunity to reinvigorate how we host elections to ensure young people enjoy voting for the first time – and encourage their future participation.

    Making electoral registration automatic, as the government has promised, will help. But joining the electoral roll is a significant civic moment in young people’s lives. Schools should host electoral registration ceremonies where pupils are welcomed into the electorate by local elected representatives, and automatically given a voter authority certificate so they have an appropriate piece of voter ID.

    Political parties need to embrace this once-in-a-generation opportunity that voting age reform presents to secure the future health of British democracy.

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

    – ref. UK to lower voting age to 16 – a once-in-a-generation opportunity to secure the future health of British democracy – https://theconversation.com/uk-to-lower-voting-age-to-16-a-once-in-a-generation-opportunity-to-secure-the-future-health-of-british-democracy-261411

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Will Donald Trump get Vladimir Putin (before Maga gets Trump)?

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

    This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

    You know when the Kremlin is worried about something – it starts talking about nuclear weapons. And so it was, just two days after Donald Trump revealed he had decided to lift his administration’s pause on the supply of US-made weapons to Ukraine, that Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, raised Russia’s nuclear doctrine. In response to a handy question from a friendly reporter as to whether Russia’s nuclear doctrine was still active, Peskov said: “Russia’s nuclear doctrine remains in effect, and thus, all its provisions continue to apply.”

    By saying “all its provisions”, he was emphasising the changes made in December last year which significantly lowered the bar for Russia to use its nuclear deterrent. It states that Russia “reserves the right to employ nuclear weapons” in response to nuclear weapons or “other types of weapons of mass destruction” against itself or its allies.

    Whether Putin and his team consider the sorts of weapons the US is prepared to allow Ukraine to use against Russia as weapons of mass destruction is not clear as yet. The US president specifically said that a fresh supply of Patriot systems was already en route to Ukraine from Germany. But he also hinted that other more offensive weapons could also be in the mix. And in a July 4 phone call he is reported to have asked the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, whether he could hit Moscow or St Petersburg, to which Zelensky replied: “Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons.”

    Trump is reported to have gone on to say that it was important to “make [Russians] feel the pain”.

    At the beginning of the week, the US president was also keen for Russia to feel the economic pain of indirect sanctions, with 100% tariffs promised against any country buying Russia’s oil. Could this be a turning point?

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

    Interesting question, says David Dunn. Dunn, professor of international relations at the University of Birmingham, says Trump’s decision – if he follows through with it – pretty much brings the US back in line with its policy under the Biden administration. Particularly now that Trump appears to have ruled out, for the time being, allowing Ukraine to use long-range offensive missiles against targets in Moscow.

    As Dunn points out, there’s no sense that Trump has changed his overall tack on what he is looking for from Putin: a ceasefire, rather than, as Biden repeatedly insisted, a settlement that respects Ukrainian sovereignty and restores the land occupied illegally by Russian troops.

    Meanwhile the economic pain he promised to inflict on Russia has been scheduled to begin in 50 days. This – as many commentators have been quick to point out – has irresistible echoes of his off-again, on-again tariff regime. So will these sanctions actually happen?



    Read more:
    What Trump’s decision to send more weapons to Ukraine will mean for the war

    The Russian stock market certainly wasn’t that worried. Shortly after trump made his announcement, the Moscow stock exchange increased by 2.7% and the rouble strengthened. Oil markets also appear to have relaxed, suggesting traders see no imminent risks. Maybe this is another case of “Taco” (Trump always chickens out)?

    Patrick O’Shea, an international relations and global governance specialist at the University of Glasgow, believes that the markets’ reaction is more than just indifference to what Trump was threatening. It was relief.

    “Trump’s threat isn’t just non-credible, the positive market reaction in Russia suggests it is a gift for Moscow,” O’Shea writes. “The 50-day ultimatum is seen not as a deadline but as a reprieve, meaning nearly two months of guaranteed inaction from the US.”

    What has not been widely reported in the UK is that a bipartisan bill making its way through the US congress would have been far more punitive that anything Trump is threatening. Now this has been paused pending Trump’s initiative in 50 days’ time.



    Read more:
    Why Russia is not taking Trump’s threats seriously

    Back in Europe, meanwhile, Ukraine’s allies got together in Rome last weekend to discuss what will be needed to rebuild the war-torn country and how to raise the necessary funds. Stefan Wolff was watching proceedings and believes that while countries in the “coalition of the willing” are ready to open their coffers to help Ukraine get back on its feet, the funds so far pledged will not touch the sides.

    Ukraine’s allies at the conference have pledged more than €10 billion (£8.7 billion). But, Wolff – an expert in international relations at the University of Birmingham who has contributed regular analysis of the war in Ukraine – points out that this sum looks minuscule alongside the World Bank’s latest assessment that Ukraine will need at least US$524 billion (£388 billion) over the next decade to fund its recovery.

    There have been some fairly upbeat forecasts about Ukraine’s potential for growth. The IMF forecasts growth for Ukraine of between 2% and 3% for 2025, which is likely to grow to over 4% in 2026 and 2027. But it cautions that this will not happen without considerable overseas support. And an end to the war. Neither is certain anytime soon.



    Read more:
    Over €10 billion has now been pledged for Ukraine’s recovery. It’s nowhere near enough

    Maga moves – but will Trump take responsiblity?

    To Washington, where the US president is having what would probably count as the worst week of his second administration so far. Large sections of his faithful Maga base are in almost open revolt at his seeming reluctance to release what have become known as the “Epstein files”. You may remember he littered his election campaign last year with dark hints about the revelations the files must surely contain about the possible involvement of the rich and powerful in child-sex exploitation. But this week he essentially said it was old news, which was “pretty boring”, adding that “I think, really, only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going.”

    This is not only at odds with what he spent much of 2024 saying. It also flies in the face of what his own attorney general, Pam Bondi, said in February when she said Epstein’s client list was “sitting on [her] desk right now to review”. Now of course, the justice department says there is no list. This is not what much of his base wants to hear.

    Rob Dover, an intelligence specialist at the University of Hull who has researched conspiracy theories and the people who obsess about them, says this is a dangerous moment for the Trump presidency. He points to Maga unrest over Trump’s decision to bomb Iran and to resume military aid to Ukraine, both of which appear to contradict his pledge to keep the US out of foreign conflicts. Trump’s “big beautiful bill”, which has cut medicaid and other benefits to the poorest people in the US, will also inflict hurt on many is his base. Even his recent musing that he agrees with his health secretary’s questionable assertion that Coca-Cola should be made with sugar cane not corn syrup to “make America healthy again” is sure to anger corn farmers in the Midwest, another core Trump constituency.

    “Maga is not a uniform group in belief or action. But if Trump loses either the loyalty of some or they refuse to flex their beliefs as they have done before, it will be politically dangerous for him,” Dover concludes.



    Read more:
    Trump’s changing stance on Epstein files is testing the loyalty of his Maga base

    Trouble brewing in Bosnia

    I had the great good fortune to visit Sarajevo in December last year where I spent a few days exploring, taking a walking tour of the old town and a wider tour of the whole city which took us across the notional border with the Republika Srpska, one of the two main constituent parts of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    Sarajevo: a beautiful but troubled city.
    Julian Nyča via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-SA

    The country was created by the Dayton accord, bringing an end to the ethnic conflict in the mid-1990s that saw whole populations displaced as ethnic Serbs and Croats sought to create new pure mini-states by expelling mainly Muslim Bosniaks.

    When visiting, I felt a pervading sense that the two parts of the new country sit uncomfortably next to each other – and in recent months the friction has intensified considerably. Birte Julia Gippert of the University of Liverpool, who has researched extensively the conflict in the Balkans and the attempts to bring peace to the region, explains how the situation has become so tense.



    Read more:
    Bosnia and Herzegovina in crisis as Bosnian-Serb president rallies for secession

    Why is Israel bombing Syria?

    Conflict in Syria escalated again this week, with Israeli warplanes launching airstrikes against government buildings in Damascus this week. A Netanyahu government minister, Amichai Chikli, referred to Syria’s leader, Ahmed al-Shara, as “a terrorist, a barbaric murderer who should be eliminated without delay”.

    Mixed up in all this is sectarian fighting in southern Syria was has been going on sporadically since al-Shara took power at the end of last year. But, as Ali Mamouri of Deakin University explains, Israel wants to see the emergence of a federal Syria, which the new regime has ruled out. It also want to retain influence in the region and secure its northern border with Syria.

    While a ceasefire is in place for now, Mamouri sees the situation as extremely fragile with further clashes “not only possible but highly probable”.

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

    – ref. Will Donald Trump get Vladimir Putin (before Maga gets Trump)? – https://theconversation.com/will-donald-trump-get-vladimir-putin-before-maga-gets-trump-261416

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Why some ‘biodegradable’ wet wipes can be terrible for the environment

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel James Jolly, PhD candidate, University of East Anglia

    Daniel James Jolly, CC BY-NC-ND

    Have you felt disgust when taking a walk along the riverside or plunging into the sea to escape the summer heat, only to spy a used wet wipe floating along the surface? Or shock at finding out that animals have died choking on plastic products or that the seafood we eat may be contaminated with microfibres?

    These pollutants are common in our waterways because of the mismanagement of sewage and inappropriate disposal that flush hygiene products and microfibres into rivers and oceans. In the UK alone, more than 11 billion wet wipes are thrown away annually. Wet wipe litter was found on 72% of UK beaches in 2023.

    They persist because they’re made of plastic, a durable material that won’t easily degrade. Plastic can last for decades to hundreds of years. Therefore, governments and manufacturers are eagerly encouraging the use of non-plastics as more “sustainable” alternatives, with the UK banning plastic in wet wipes in 2024.

    These textiles can be made from plant or animal fibres such as cotton and wool, or they may be chemically and physically modified, such as rayon or viscose. They are often labelled “biodegradable” on product packaging, suggesting they are environmentally friendly, break down quickly, and are a safe alternative to plastics. But is this really the case?

    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.

    My research focuses on investigating the environmental impact of these non-plastic textiles and their persistence in waterways. My colleagues and I have found that some non-plastic microfibres can be just as problematic or even more harmful than plastic.

    While non-plastic textiles are not as long-lived as plastics, with many composting within weeks to months, they can last long enough to accumulate and cause damage to plants, animals and humans. Studies by scientists at the University of Stirling show that biodegradable wet wipes can last up to 15 weeks on beaches, where they can act as a reservoir for faecal bacteria and E.coli. Other studies have highlighted non-plastic textiles lasting for two months or more in rivers and oceans, where they break up into hundreds of thousands of microfibres.

    Non-plastic wet wipes can cause as much an environmental hazard as plastic ones.
    Adam Radosavljevic/Shutterstock

    These microfibres are so prevalent in waterways that they have contaminated animals across the food chain, from filter-feeding mussels and oysters to top predators such as sharks and the seafood we eat.

    They are also found in remote locations as far away as the Arctic seafloor and deep sea, thousands of miles from civilisation. These discoveries highlight that non-plastics last longer than we think.

    The dangers of non-plastics

    Once exposed to aquatic life, non-plastic microfibres can be easily ingested or inhaled, where they can become trapped in the body and cause damage. During their manufacture, textile fibres can be modified with various chemical additives to improve their function, such as flame retardants, antibacterials, softeners, UV protection and dyes.

    It is known that several toxic synthetic chemicals, including the plastic additive bisphenol A (BPA), are used for this purpose. These additives can be carcinogenic, cause neurotoxic effects or damage hormonal and reproductive health.

    Researchers like me, have only just begun to explore the dangers of non-plastics. Some have shown that non-plastic microfibres and their additives can damage the digestive system, cause stress, hinder development and alter immune responses in animals such as shrimp, mussels, and oysters. However, other studies have shown little to no effect of non-plastic microfibres on animals exposed to them.

    We do not yet know how much of a threat these materials are to the environment. Only the manufacturers know exactly what’s in the textiles we use. This makes it hard to understand what threats we are really facing. Nevertheless, assumptions that non-plastics are environmentally friendly and an easy alternative to plastic materials must be challenged and reconsidered.

    To do this, we need to push for greater transparency in the contents of our everyday items and test them to make sure that they are truly sustainable and won’t harm the world around us. So next time you are browsing the supermarket aisles and come across a pack of “biodegradable” or “environmentally friendly” wet wipes, just question, are they really?

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

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Daniel James Jolly receives funding from the University of East Anglia, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, and the NERC ARIES doctoral training pathway as part of his PhD studentship.
    He is a student member of the UK Green Party.

    – ref. Why some ‘biodegradable’ wet wipes can be terrible for the environment – https://theconversation.com/why-some-biodegradable-wet-wipes-can-be-terrible-for-the-environment-258836

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: In Reframing Blackness, Alayo Akinkugbe challenges museums to see blackness first

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Wanja Kimani, Associate Curator, The Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge

    In Reframing Blackness, writer and curator Alayo Akinkugbe explores the way that art history is taught, and the impact this has had on what we see in national museums in western cities. This teaching has often led to the exclusion of blackness from mainstream art spaces. Akinkugbe challenges this by shifting our gaze – to see blackness first.

    Her book interrogates the place of blackness in relation to art history in several ways. First, she observes that the lack of black curators within national museums in western cities means that blackness is subject to “reactive responses”.

    For example, when there was a global outcry after the murder of George Floyd in 2020, institutions reacted by foregrounding their efforts to support black artists and pledging commitments for future initiatives.

    But many of these initiatives remain on the surface level and temporary, rather than permanently embedded into the institutional fabric. In my experience, long-term change is unlikely to occur when progress is measured by individual projects, while the decision-making remains in the same hands.

    Next, the book draws on Akinkugbe’s experience as a history of art student at the University of Cambridge, during which time there was a call to “decolonise” the curriculum.

    She then explores the intersection of race, gender and class, highlighting the double-bind of racial and gender bias that black women may encounter. She suggests ways to shift the gaze by focusing on people of colour depicted in historic artworks, including Portrait d’une Femme Noire (Portrait of a Black Woman) (1800) by Marie-Guillemine Benoist.

    Along the way, we are acquainted with figures that have always been present on museum and gallery walls – albeit often ignored or faded into obscurity. Akinkugbe speculates about who some of these unnamed figures were, and what worlds they inhabited.

    In Jacques Amans’ painting, Bélizaire and the Frey Children (1837), for example, Bélizaire, a black enslaved child, was over time painted over and faded into the background.

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

    Akinkugbe provides an overview of exhibitions held between 2022 and 2024 at the Royal Academy in London and the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge. And she has conversations with curators at other museums, whose work contributes to the understanding of the complexity of black life experiences reflected in contemporary art.

    These include Antwaun Sargent (curator of The New Black Vanguard: Photography Between Art and Fashion) and Ekow Eshun (curator, In the Black Fantastic and The Time is Always Now: Artists Reframe the Black Figure). Akinkugbe also discusses the late Koyo Kouoh’s When We See Us: A Century of Black Figuration exhibition. Kouoh, who died in May, was the first African woman to curate the Venice Biennale.

    By engaging in dialogue with the curators of these pivotal exhibitions, Akinkugbe demonstrates a shared commitment to uncovering what has been overlooked – and a commitment to deepening the discourse around blackness.

    Cautious optimism

    Reframing Blackness draws attention to important considerations for museums, curators and higher education institutions. There’s also food for thought for students who are keen to understand some of the factors that have contributed to the historic exclusion of blackness within museum walls and art education.

    The book raises key questions that black cultural producers have grappled with in the UK since the 1960s, at the height of the Caribbean artists movement, and during the British black arts movement of the early 1980s. These movements created vital opportunities for discussion around issues of racial justice, visibility and representation.

    Following the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in mainstream media in 2020, institutions reacted with pledges for self-reflective work that would lead to more black artists’ work being exhibited and collected. Numerous large exhibitions across national museums followed – some of which are discussed in the book, as are the departmental overhauls of art curricula within higher education.

    Portrait d’une Femme Noire by Marie-Guillemine Benoist (1880).
    Louvre Museum

    I share in some of Akinkugbe’s optimism – but I do so cautiously.

    Following the call to decolonise the curriculum, some art departments in UK higher education have expanded their geographic focus beyond the west. Others have stated their intention to address the legacies of enslavement and colonialism through a commitment to diversity and equality in their job advertisements. Some have done both.

    But there are a few hurdles that may limit these efforts. First, newer courses that may not attract sufficient interest are often the first to be cut when budgets are constrained.

    Second, if courses offer additional modules that attempt to cover vast areas in the global south, there is a risk of overgeneralising entire continents, marginalising them further. Such symbolic gestures fall short in an attempt to challenge art historical frameworks.

    Finally, by adding works by black scholars to reading lists as supplementary instead of core reading, their contributions are treated as being on the margins rather than key producers of knowledge.

    Museums have a responsibility to reflect the communities they serve, in a way that respects the individual and collective autonomy of that community. This may be counterintuitive to the museum’s original purpose, which may have been to serve the upper class, showcasing its founders’ interests.

    Museums are better equipped to engage communities as partners in shaping their future when permanent staff reflect the diversity of these communities across the intersections of race, gender, class, sexuality and disability. Museum directors have a duty to serve these communities with a long-term commitment to care and accountability.

    This book asks us to see blackness first. Akinkugbe guides us closer to a vision that does not require black people to reinsert ourselves, but insists on our resolute presence – both then and now.

    This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org, The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

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

    – ref. In Reframing Blackness, Alayo Akinkugbe challenges museums to see blackness first – https://theconversation.com/in-reframing-blackness-alayo-akinkugbe-challenges-museums-to-see-blackness-first-260734

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a big threat to women’s health, but it’s still under-recognized, under-diagnosed and under-treated

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jamie Benham, Endocrinologist & Assistant Professor, Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary

    Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) is a hormonal imbalance that affects ovaries, periods and fertility in about one in 10 Canadian women. Different from ovarian cysts, PCOS is associated with infertility, pregnancy complications, heart disease and a general decreased quality of life, and yet fewer than half of those affected even know they have it.

    This under-recognition and under-diagnosis is a significant problem, because a recent Canadian study suggests these women are 20 to 40 per cent more likely to experience negative health outcomes during their lifetime than the general population, including hypertension (high blood pressure), kidney disease, gastrointestinal disease, eating disorders, depression and anxiety.

    Heart disease risk

    The Canadian researchers also found obesity, dyslipidemia (abnormal levels of fat in your blood) and Type 2 diabetes to be two to three times more common for women with PCOS. And most importantly, cardiovascular disease, which causes heart failure and stroke, was not only 30 to 50 per cent more likely, but occurred three to four years earlier than average in women with PCOS.

    Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide, so when PCOS symptoms are missed and untreated, women’s health is at risk.

    Women with PCOS are more likely to experience negative health outcomes.
    (Photo: Colourbox.com)

    High cost

    There is undoubtedly a personal cost to individual women, both physically and mentally, and living with PCOS can be a significant financial, health-care and work-life burden for many women, too, which may disproportionately affect those in lower socioeconomic groups.

    These experiences are further compounded by a system failure to properly diagnose and manage their symptoms. Women report doctors ignoring or dismissing their concerns, not believing them and struggling to make a diagnosis. In fact, a large international survey reported it can take several months, and even several years, before women are diagnosed.

    Common PCOS symptoms

    PCOS symptoms can vary between different women, but it is important to discuss the possibility of PCOS with your doctor, because careful management and/or treatment can help protect against developing more serious related health issues. Common symptoms include:

    • Irregular periods
    • Excess body hair, called hirsutism (usually darker hair on the face, arms, chest or abdomen)
    • Thinning or loss of hair (like excess body hair, this is caused by high levels of male hormones, or androgens)
    • Acne and/or oily skin
    • Weight gain

    Managing and treating PCOS

    Despite PCOS first being diagnosed almost a century ago, there is no single test to confirm whether a woman has it, and there is no cure. If your doctor suspects you may have PCOS, they may order blood work to check your hormone levels and an ultrasound to check your ovaries.

    Unlike ovarian cysts, which are fluid-filled sacs that develop on or inside an ovary and can be painful, polycystic ovaries are enlarged, with multiple follicles that can be seen on ultrasound.

    PCOS is a chronic condition that needs lifelong management.
    (Photo: Colourbox.com)

    If PCOS is diagnosed, further testing for cholesterol and glucose levels is likely in order to manage heart disease and diabetes risk.

    Researchers also suggest ways women with PCOS can help manage their condition, which include:

    PCOS research underway

    Despite the current problems, improvement is possible, and there have been sustained efforts in recent years — all over the world — to advocate for women with this condition and invest in PCOS research.

    In 2023, an International PCOS Guideline, led from Australia, was published. It recommends an individualized approach to PCOS treatment, including lifestyle modifications (for example, healthy eating and exercising), medical management to treat symptoms and regular checkups to provide support and screen for related complications.

    In Canada, the province of Alberta recently launched a much-needed clinical pathway to recognize, treat and advocate for PCOS that could be adopted more widely.

    At the University of Calgary, Dr. Jamie Benham, one of the authors of this story, leads EMBRACE (Endocrine, Metabolic and Reproductive Advancements), a new women’s health research lab where a team of clinical researchers is focusing on reproductive disorders across the whole of a woman’s life system, including PCOS and gestational diabetes.

    This work, supporting patients’ PCOS care, includes a current online needs-assessment survey, and focus groups beginning later this year, to inform the development of a co-designed patient tool to support PCOS management.

    Patient engagement

    With such a huge demand for answers, the EMBRACE team works closely with a PCOS Patient Advisory Council, chaired by Robyn Vettese, another author of this story, to uncover complex connections between hormones and health, promote screening, find solutions and provide answers. Importantly, the lab’s research questions come directly from clinic patients, and the answers the lab finds go back to those patients and are then shared more widely.

    Other recent PCOS advocacy events include Dr. Benham’s presentation at the inaugural Sex, Gender and Women’s Health Research Hub’s Women’s Health Symposium event in Calgary, and her interview with the Libin Cardiovascular Institute.

    PCOS awareness

    Another exciting research program in Alberta is PCOS Together. Researchers with this group are working to establish methods that will detect early disease risk in all women with PCOS, as well as clinical interventions that will help prevent disease in high-risk women.

    Similar organizations exist in the United Kingdom and Australia, including Verity PCOS, a volunteer-based charity, and Ask PCOS, a researcher- and clinician-led organization. Both organizations provide a wealth of information online.

    This is a critical (albeit often overlooked) area of women’s health that needs greater awareness and attention so that we can improve and save women’s lives.

    Jamie Benham receives funding from the M.S.I. Foundation, Diabetes Canada, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

    Robyn Vettese receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

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

    – ref. Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a big threat to women’s health, but it’s still under-recognized, under-diagnosed and under-treated – https://theconversation.com/polycystic-ovary-syndrome-pcos-is-a-big-threat-to-womens-health-but-its-still-under-recognized-under-diagnosed-and-under-treated-259602

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Elbows down? Why Mark Carney seems to keep caving to Donald Trump

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sam Routley, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

    Prime Minister Mark Carney has suggested a new trade deal with the United States is now most likely to include tariffs. There is, in his own words, “not a lot of evidence right now” that the Donald Trump administration is willing to stand down from imposing levies on Canadian imports.

    In making this acknowledgement, Carney has backed down from his previous insistence that Canada would “fight to bring these tariffs to an end.”

    But rather than continuing to retaliate with tariffs of its own, the government has begun to confess that such a tactic may be a losing battle.

    Carney has instead announced Canada will restrict the tariff-free import of cheap, foreign steel to help domestic manufacturers reeling from American tariffs.

    In the wake of the federal government’s recent concession on the Digital Services Tax levied against big American tech companies, it’s another indicator that — unlike the hawkish “elbows up” rhetoric used throughout the federal election campaign — the Canadian government has taken on a more conciliatory tone in advance of the Aug. 1 deadline for a new economic and security deal between Canada and the U.S..

    Dual purposes

    The timing of Carney’s comments can be interpreted two ways.

    Their first and primary purpose is about message control and the need to manage expectations. In announcing this now, the government is not only better able to keep its justification for conceding to Trump at the forefront of media narratives, but it can also prepare Canadians for any further potential concessions in the course of trade negotiations.

    The fact that these comments were made prior to a cabinet meeting could be seen as Carney’s attempt to isolate any cabinet ministers who may still favour a more aggressive stance.

    More substantively, however, the pivot is also a reflection of the realities of both Canada’s actual position vis-à-vis the U.S. and the pragmatism needed to accomplish real trade agreements.



    Read more:
    U.S. tariff threat: How it will impact different products and industries

    Although Trump is unpredictable, it increasingly seems that levies on imports are among his genuinely held and signature policy commitments. As Carney noted, the administration’s recent trade deals with both the United Kingdom and Vietnam included tariffs. And, despite the president’s talk of annexing Canada, Carney’s new stance suggests a more reasonable, albeit very costly, deal is possible — even amid Trump’s bluster.

    Still, for all the attention they’ve received, tariffs are only part of the ongoing negotiations on the economic and security deal.

    What does Trump want?

    The U.S. administration, for example, continues to justify higher tariff threats not just for economic purposes, but ostensibly to counter the illegal drug trade.

    The fact that the Canadian government has already allotted $1 billion to border defence makes it difficult to assess what would satisfy American negotiators.

    More broadly, Trump has expressed a desire to push Canada for changes in security, supply management of the dairy industry, fresh water use and access to rare earth minerals, among others.



    Read more:
    Zombie water apocalypse: Is Trump’s rhetoric over Canada’s water science-fiction or reality?

    Regardless of how the trade talks proceed in the coming weeks, though, the domestic consequences for Carney will be determined by how willing Canadians are to continue trusting and supporting him.

    On the one hand, his comments that tariff-free trade deals with the U.S. aren’t realistic could be costly given the fact that more than two-thirds of Canadians continue to favour a hard-line stance with little to no concessions on key files.

    This could result in voters viewing Carney as weak and shifting their support to other leaders. No incumbent stands to benefit from the detrimental effects on economic growth, investments and employment rate Trump’s tariffs will cause.

    But support also depends on Carney’s legitimacy. He could maintain public support despite the fact that, on paper, they oppose his actions. Taking a “hard” versus “soft” line in negotiations is itself an ambiguous and fluid set of designations.

    A major reason why Canadians elected Carney is because they viewed him as having sound personal judgment and the skill set to deal with Trump. This is why, rather than challenging the value of the decision to compromise on tariffs, the Conservatives and other opponents have focused on conveying him as an unreliable and dishonest leader.

    What’s ahead for federal politics?

    At this point, polls suggest that Canadians are generally split down the middle on Carney. While around 50 per cent of Canadians are supportive, the other half remain divided between those strongly opposed and those with a more ambiguous position.

    Could Carney win over the support of those with an unambiguous view? It seems unlikely. Leaders are the usually the most impactful when they enter office. And while rally-around-the-flag effects are real, they are short-lived. That means the long-term challenge for Carney remains maintaining the support of the voters that brought him to power.



    Read more:
    How Canadian nationalism is evolving with the times — and will continue to do so

    The Canada-U.S. relationship will continue to develop in a dynamic and unpredictable fashion, even if the economic and security deal is reached soon.

    After voters dramatically consolidated around the Liberals and Conservatives in the 2025 election, the most important question for federal Canadian politics moving forward in this shifting global environment is which electoral coalition will endure.

    Carney seeks to preserve trust, while the Conservatives search for a compelling alternative. Who will come out on top in the Trump 2.0 era?

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

    – ref. Elbows down? Why Mark Carney seems to keep caving to Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/elbows-down-why-mark-carney-seems-to-keep-caving-to-donald-trump-261304

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Canada’s proposed Strong Borders Act further threatens the legal rights of migrants

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Shiva S. Mohan, Research Fellow, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration & Integration program, Toronto Metropolitan University

    Canada’s federal government recently introduced the Strong Borders Act, also known as Bill C-2, that proposes Canada tighten migration controls and modernize border enforcement between Canada and the United States.

    Critics have warned the bill “could pave the way for mass deportations” as well as increase precarity for legal migrants.



    Read more:
    Why Canada’s Strong Borders Act is as troublesome as Donald Trump’s travel bans

    Even now, under existing laws, a migrant could be “legal” and still be denied health care, lose their job or effectively be unable to leave Canada for fear of being denied re-entry.

    Bill C-2’s expanded enforcement powers and increased risk of status revocation could make these precarities much worse.

    This is already the quiet reality for thousands of migrants in Canada under their “maintained status”, formerly “implied status.” This status is a legal provision designed to protect continuity for temporary residents who apply to extend their permits.

    Maintained status itself is not the problem. On paper, it offers legal protection.

    But in practice, it often collapses because of the ecosystem in which it operates: fragmented institutions, absent co-ordination and lack of transparency.

    Maintained status has been narrowed

    In May 2025, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) quietly narrowed the scope of maintained status.

    Under the new rules, if a person’s first application is refused while they are on maintained status, any second application submitted during that period is now automatically refused.

    This effectively strips applicants of legal status, including protections under maintained status, to remain in Canada. The change shows how even compliant migrants can lose status abruptly, further heightening the insecurity built into the system.

    This is a clear expression of complex precarity: a condition in which migrants face legal, economic and social insecurity, even when they follow all the rules.

    Maintained status is just one example of this larger phenomenon of Canadian policy generating hidden forms of exclusion.

    Legal, but not recognized?

    Migrants on maintained status are legally allowed to stay in Canada and continue working or studying under the same conditions as their expired permit. Yet no new permit is issued to confirm this status.

    Proof of this legal standing varies depending on how a person applies. Those who apply online may receive a WP-EXT letter confirming their right to continue working. However, this isn’t issued to post-graduation work-permit holders, and expires after 365 days.

    Paper-based applicants are advised that no such letter will be provided. Instead, they must rely on a copy of their application, a fee payment receipt or courier tracking information to demonstrate continued legal status.

    If no letter is available, or once it expires, IRCC advises applicants to direct employers to the Help Centre web page as proof of their right to remain and work.

    These workarounds are legally valid but fall short of what many employers, landlords and service providers consider adequate proof of status.



    Read more:
    Canada’s new immigration policy favours construction workers but leaves the rest behind

    The limits of informal proof

    My current ongoing research points to how employers following rigid HR protocols often reject informal documentation. Some migrants even obtain letters from immigration lawyers to explain their legal right to remain and work.

    IRCC does not publish public data on the number of people on maintained status or how long they remain in that condition. Some front-line organizations have adjusted their services in response to this gap.

    MOSAIC, for example, a major settlement agency in British Columbia, explicitly lists “migrant workers on maintained status” as eligible for support. This signals institutional recognition of the category.

    The broader situation, however, reflects a disconnect between legal recognition by the state and practical verifiability in everyday life.

    The risk of travel

    Travel while on maintained status is legally permitted only under narrow conditions, such as holding a valid Temporary Resident Visa, being visa-exempt or returning from the U.S. under specific circumstances.

    But even in these cases, leaving Canada terminates maintained status.

    Migrants may be allowed to re-enter as visitors, but they cannot resume work or study until a new permit is issued. This introduces major uncertainties for people who may need to travel for family, emergencies or professional obligations.

    Disparities in provincial health access

    Access to public health insurance during maintained status varies widely across provinces.

    In Ontario, OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) cards are directly tied to the expiration of work permits. Unless migrants know to proactively request extended coverage and can meet specific document requirements, they risk losing health insurance entirely. Even when eligible, coverage is not automatic and may require out-of-pocket payment pending reimbursement.

    In Québec, RAMQ (Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec) treats migrants on maintained status like new arrivals. They must reregister for coverage and face a three-month waiting period from the time of renewal, regardless of continuous legal presence.

    In British Columbia, by contrast, the MSP (Medical Services Plan) offers temporary coverage for up to six months (extendable) to individuals on maintained status, provided they previously held MSP and submit IRCC receipt proof.

    This more inclusive approach highlights how uneven provincial co-ordination amplifies the precarity of federal policy.

    Infrastructure is needed immediately

    Migrants face great risks on maintained status.

    Despite investments in automation and digital infrastructure, IRCC continues to experience chronic processing delays, leaving migrants in prolonged uncertainty: legally present, but practically unrecognized.

    To address this, Canada needs systems and resources designed to uphold legal recognition in daily life. It needs to:

    • Create a secure centralized portal that allows migrants to control who can verify their legal status in real time. The U.K.’s share code platform and the American myE‑Verify system provide clear examples of how this can work, reducing confusion for employers, landlords, and service providers.

    • Issue co-ordinated provincial guidance, particularly regarding access to essential services such as health care, so that front-line staff have clarity on migrants’ rights under maintained status.

    • Protect continuity of status after international travel, ensuring that those who leave Canada while on maintained status do not lose the ability to return and resume work or study.

    As Canada advances legislation like Bill C‑2, we must not ignore the country’s quiet erosion of its existing legal architecture for migrants.

    Migrants on maintained status have followed the rules.

    If we are serious about building trust in immigration systems, we must commit to infrastructure that is workable, visible and fair.

    Shiva S. Mohan receives funding from the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration and Integration Program at Toronto Metropolitan University. He has no other affiliations or financial interests that would benefit from this article.

    – ref. Canada’s proposed Strong Borders Act further threatens the legal rights of migrants – https://theconversation.com/canadas-proposed-strong-borders-act-further-threatens-the-legal-rights-of-migrants-259349

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Colonization devastated biodiversity, habitats and human life in the Pacific Northwest

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Meaghan Efford, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia

    Burrard Inlet, known traditionally as səl̓ilwəɬ (Tsleil-Wat) in the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ language, has been the heart of the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the səl̓ilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh Nation) since time immemorial.

    An image of part of Burrard Inlet and the City of Vancouver taken from the International Space Station in April 2022.
    (NASA)

    The inlet is a water system that wraps through and around what we now know today as the city of Vancouver on the coast of British Columbia. The ecosystem is home to essential habitat for species like Pacific herring, Pacific salmon and harbour seals.

    Burrard Inlet is also host to many commercial, industrial and urban developments and interests. This includes the Port of Vancouver, one of the largest marine ports in Canada and the terminal end of the Trans Mountain Pipeline. Today, more than 2.5 million people call the area home and it’s a popular tourism spot.

    This is relatively new, however. Colonization and urbanization have caused intense change and damage since Europeans first settled in the area in around 1792, with most changes occurring since the 1880s.

    Through a collaborative research project between the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, the University of British Columbia, engineering consultant firm Kerr Wood Leidal and Mitacs Canada, we assessed the impact of colonization on the Burrard Inlet ecosystem since Europeans first settled in the area.

    When we look at the cumulative effects of specific events, we are adding the individual impacts of each event together to get a fuller picture of how colonialism impacted the ecosystem.

    How we tracked change over time

    We chose four sources of stress to the ecosystem to assess for this research:

    1) The impact of smallpox on the ancestral Tsleil-Waututh population and the resulting health of the inlet.

    2) The impact of settler fisheries, including Pacific salmon and Pacific herring.

    3) The impact of settler hunting on land animals, including deer.

    4) The impact of urbanization on the health of the ecosystem.

    We used an ecosystem modelling software program called Ecopath with Ecosim, and modelled how these events impacted the inlet ecosystem between 1750-1980. We found there was a significant decrease in biomass (how much of a given organism is in an ecosystem) and available habitat.

    We focused on 12 animal groups based on another collaborative project that focused on traditional Tsleil-Waututh diets.

    To do this, we drew on multiple sources of data, including Tsleil-Waututh traditional ecological knowledge, archeological data, historical and archival work and ecological resources.

    By combining these different sources of information, we can address gaps in each data source and weave together information to paint a fuller picture of ecological change over time.

    An aerial photo of the Burrard Inlet’s North Shore and the Maplewood Mudflats taken by a Tsleil-Waututh field survey team by drone during a kelp survey in August 2020.
    (Tsleil-Waututh Nation)

    What we found

    Our research highlights how shoreline change from events like the construction of the Port of Vancouver resulted in the loss of more than half of the intertidal habitat that clams, crabs, birds and fish rely on.

    Along with over-harvesting, this has resulted in a dramatic population decline for these species. Clams and other bivalves have also become unsafe to eat due to pollution.

    Over-fishing has been a huge problem. Forage fish, including Pacific herring, eulachon, surf smelt and Northern anchovy, collectively experienced a 99 per cent decline in biomass.

    Pacific herring was completely wiped out by dynamite fishing, and only recently returned.

    Pink salmon and chum salmon both experienced more than 40 per cent losses in biomass due to over-fishing. White sturgeon were almost wiped out.

    Mammals didn’t fare any better: three-quarters of the deer and elk populations and over one-quarter of the harbour seal population in the area around the inlet were lost to hunting.

    Smallpox had a devastating effect on Salish communities throughout the region. The loss of lives caused dramatic change in the ecosystem because it reduced how much food was taken out of the ecosystem significantly.

    The smallpox epidemics only touch the surface of how colonization impacted Indigenous lives. Other events that we didn’t include in the model — like the Residential School system and the Reserve System, for example — severely limited or criminalized stewardship activities that Tsleil-Waututh and other Nations have been using to take care of their territory for millennia.

    Tsleil-Waututh stewardship and sovereignty

    Tsleil-Waututh people are specialists in managing and stewarding the marine, tidal and terrestrial resources of the inlet’s ecosystem. Tsleil-Waututh salmon stewardship sustainably maintained a chum salmon fishery for almost 3,000 years.

    The research questions, priorities and direction of our project were established through frequent collaborative meetings. This approach ensured Tsleil-Waututh co-authors and colleagues were involved in every step of the research.

    This kind of community-driven work is complex. It is also incredibly valuable for understanding ecosystem change over time. Without the leadership and knowledge of Tsleil-Waututh knowledge-holders, this research would have had massive data and knowledge gaps and the work would have much less significance.

    This is an example of transdisciplinary research: research that is interdisciplinary, that draws on multiple disciplines for data and methods and is grounded in community from the beginning.

    Our research shows that colonialism has had a devastating impact on habitats and biodiversity in and around Burrard Inlet. This is not just an ecological story, but a human story that speaks to the wide-reaching impacts of colonization. It is an intertwined story that shows how harmful colonization and rapid urbanization can be, both to humans and to the ecosystems we call home.

    Meaghan Efford received funding from Mitacs Canada through a collaborative project with Tsleil-Waututh Nation.

    – ref. Colonization devastated biodiversity, habitats and human life in the Pacific Northwest – https://theconversation.com/colonization-devastated-biodiversity-habitats-and-human-life-in-the-pacific-northwest-260791

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: When grief involves trauma − a social worker explains how to support survivors of the recent floods and other devastating losses

    Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Liza Barros-Lane, Assistant Professor of Social Work, University of Houston-Downtown

    Rain falls over a makeshift memorial for flood victims along the Guadalupe River on July 13, 2025, in Kerrville, Texas. AP Photo/Eric Gay

    The July 4, 2025, floods in Kerr County, Texas, swept away children and entire families, leaving horror in their wake. Days later, flash floods struck Ruidoso, New Mexico, killing three people, including two young children.

    These are not just devastating losses. When death is sudden, violent, or when a body is never recovered, grief gets tangled up with trauma.

    In these situations, people don’t only grieve the death. They struggle with the terror of how it happened, the unanswered questions and the shock etched into their bodies.

    I’m a social work professor, grief researcher and the founder of The Young Widowhood Project, a research initiative aimed at expanding scholarship and public understanding of premature spousal loss.

    I was widowed when I was 36. In July 2020, my husband, Brent, went missing after testing a small, flat-bottomed fishing boat called a Jon boat. His body was recovered two days later, but I never saw his remains.

    Both my personal loss and professional work have shown me how trauma changes the grieving process and what kind of support actually helps.

    To understand how trauma can complicate grief, it’s important to first understand how people typically respond to loss.

    Grief isn’t a set of stages

    Many people still think of grief through the lens of psychiatrist Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’ five stages of grief, popularized in the early 1970s: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

    But in fact, this model was originally designed for people facing their own deaths, not for mourners. In the absence of accessible grief research in the 1960s, it became a leading framework for understanding the grieving process – even though it wasn’t meant for that.

    Despite this misapplication, the stages model has shaped cultural expectations: namely, that grief ends once people reach the “acceptance” stage. But research doesn’t support this idea. Trying to force grief into this model can cause real harm, leaving mourners feeling they’re grieving “wrong.”

    In reality, mourning is often lifelong. Most people go through an acute period of overwhelming pain right after the loss. This is usually followed by integrated grief, where the pain softens but the loss is still part of everyday life, returning in waves.

    Although grief is unique to each person and relationship, researchers have found that mourners often strive to a) make sense of the death; b) adjust to a world without their loved one; c) form an ongoing connection with their deceased loved one in new ways; and d) figure out who they are without their loved one.

    It’s difficult and at times disorienting work, but most people find ways to carry their grief and keep living.

    Julia Mora embraces her granddaughter, Isla Meyer, during a vigil for Texas flood victims on July 11, 2025.
    AP Photo/Gerald Herbert

    When grief and trauma collide

    However, some losses carry an extra layer of pain, confusion and trauma.

    Sudden, unexpected, accidental, violent or deeply tragic deaths – like those experienced during the recent floods – can lead to what researchers call traumatic bereavement: grief that is disrupted by the traumatic nature of the death.

    People experiencing traumatic bereavement often endure a longer and more intense acute grief period. They may be haunted by disturbing images, nightmares or relentless thoughts about how their loved one died or suffered. Many wrestle with dread, spiritual disorientation and a shattered sense of safety in the world.

    Some of these deaths are also considered “ambiguous” – unclear or unconfirmed loss – such as when a body is never recovered or is too damaged to view. Without physical confirmation, mourners often feel stuck in disbelief and helplessness.

    This was true in my case. Not seeing my husband’s body left a part of me suspended between knowing and not knowing. I knew he had died but couldn’t fully believe it, no matter how much I lived with the reality of his absence. For a long time, I caught myself repeating these words every morning: “Brent is dead. Brent is dead.”

    In many cases, these reactions aren’t short term. Many people affected by traumatic loss remain overwhelmed and sometimes physically and emotionally impaired for years. Symptoms may taper over time, but they rarely disappear entirely.

    Supporting mourners

    Traumatic bereavement can feel unbearable. Many mourners struggle with intense, long-lasting reactions that can leave them feeling helpless, altered or even unrecognizable to themselves. They may appear withdrawn, forgetful or emotionally drained because their systems are overwhelmed. Coping can look messy or self-destructive, but these are often survival strategies, not conscious choices. I’ve also seen how those same struggles become more survivable when mourners don’t have to carry them alone. If you’re supporting someone through traumatic loss, here are three ways to help.

    • Make space for the horror. Listen without flinching. Acknowledge the full weight of what happened and how terrifying and unjust the loss was. This means saying things like, “This should never have happened,” or “What you went through is beyond words.” It means staying present when the mourner speaks about what haunts them. Let them know they don’t have to carry this alone. You may feel the urge to say something hopeful such as, “At least the body was recovered,” but there is no silver lining in these cases. Instead, say: “There’s nothing I can say to fix this, but I’m not going anywhere.”

    • Help them find others who can understand. Trauma can be isolating. Mourners often feel uniquely overwhelmed or confused. Support groups, peer companions and therapists trained in treating grief and trauma can offer the kind of recognition and validation that even the most devoted friend may not be able to provide.

    • Take care of yourself, too. Being present for someone in deep grief takes energy, especially if you were personally affected by the loss. Stay connected to replenishing people, practices and routines. If you don’t, you may begin to experience trauma, too. Taking care of yourself will help you remain grounded so that you can show up.

    I believe supporting someone through traumatic bereavement is one of the most meaningful things you can do. You don’t need perfect words or a plan. What sustains them won’t be advice or solutions, but your simple, powerful act of staying.

    Liza Barros-Lane does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. When grief involves trauma − a social worker explains how to support survivors of the recent floods and other devastating losses – https://theconversation.com/when-grief-involves-trauma-a-social-worker-explains-how-to-support-survivors-of-the-recent-floods-and-other-devastating-losses-260908

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Children living near oil and gas wells face higher risk of rare leukemia, studies show

    Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Lisa McKenzie, Associate Professor of Health, Department of Environmental & Occupational Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

    The U.S. has nearly 1 million oil and natural gas wells. Some, like the one here in Commerce City, Colo., are within a few thousand feet of schools and neighborhoods. RJ Sangosti/Getty Images

    Acute lymphocytic leukemia is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in children, although it is rare. It begins in the bone marrow and rapidly progresses.

    Long-term survival rates exceed 90%, but many survivors face lifelong health challenges. Those include heart conditions, mental health struggles and a greater chance of developing a second cancer.

    Overall cancer rates in the U.S. have declined since 2002, but childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia rates continue to rise. This trend underscores the need for prevention rather than focusing only on treatment for this disease.

    A growing body of literature suggests exposure to the types of chemicals emitted from oil and natural gas wells increases the risk of developing childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia.

    Heavy machinery injects water under the surface of the earth to push oil and natural gas out.
    NurPhoto/GettyImages

    We are environmental epidemiologists focused on understanding the health implications of living near oil and natural gas development operations in Colorado and Pennsylvania. Both states experienced a rapid increase in oil and natural gas development in residential areas beginning in the early 21st century. We’ve studied this issue in these states, using different datasets and some different approaches.

    2 studies, similar findings

    Both of our studies used a case-control design. This design compares children with cancer, known as cases, with children without cancer, known as controls. We used data from statewide birth and cancer registries.

    We also used specialized mapping techniques to estimate exposure to oil and natural gas development during sensitive time windows, such as pregnancy or early childhood.

    The Colorado study looked at children born between 1992 and 2019. The study included 451 children diagnosed with leukemia and 2,706 children with no cancer diagnosis. It considered how many oil and natural gas wells were near a child’s home and how intense the activity was at each well. Intensity of activity included the volume of oil and gas production and phase of well production.

    The Colorado study found that children ages 2-9 living in areas with the highest density and intensity wells within eight miles (13 kilometers) of their home were at least two times more likely to be diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia. Children with wells within three miles (five kilometers), of their home bore the greatest risk.

    The Pennsylvania study looked at 405 children diagnosed with leukemia between 2009 and 2017 and 2,080 children without any cancer diagnosis. This study found that children living within 1.2 miles (two kilometers) of oil and natural gas wells at birth were two to three times more likely to be diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia between ages 2 to 7 than those who lived farther than 1.2 miles away.

    The risk of developing leukemia was more pronounced in children who were exposed during their mother’s pregnancy.

    The results of our two studies are also supported by a previous study in Colorado published in 2017. That study found children diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia were four times more likely to live in areas with a high density of oil and natural gas wells than children diagnosed with other cancers.

    Policy implications

    To extract oil and natural gas from underground reserves, heavy drilling equipment injects water and chemicals into the earth under high pressure. Petroleum and contaminated wastewater are returned to the surface. It is well established that these activities can emit cancer-causing chemicals. Those include benzene, as well as other pollutants, to the air and water.

    The U.S. is the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas. There are almost 1 million producing wells across the country, and many of these are located in or near residential areas. This puts millions of children at increased risk of exposure to cancer-causing chemicals.

    In the U.S., oil and natural gas development is generally regulated at the state level. Policies aimed at protecting public health include establishing minimum distances between a new well and existing homes, known as a setback distance. These policies also include requirements for emission control technologies on new and existing wells and restrictions on the construction of new wells.

    Setbacks offer a powerful solution to reduce noise, odors and other hazards experienced by communities near oil and gas wells. However, it is challenging to establish a universal setback that optimally addresses all hazards. That’s because noise, air pollutants and water contaminants dissipate at different rates depending on location and other factors.

    In addition, setbacks focus exclusively on where to place oil and natural gas wells but do not impose any restrictions on releases of air pollutants or greenhouse gases. Therefore, they do not address regional air quality issues or mitigate climate change.

    In many U.S. cities there are set distances that oil and gas wells are allowed to be from places such as schools and neighborhoods. In this Frederick, Colo., neighborhood the oil rig is very near houses.
    UGC/GettyImages

    Furthermore, current U.S. setback distances range from just 200 feet to 3,200 feet. Our results indicate that even the largest setback of 3,200 feet (one kilometer) is not sufficient to protect children from an increased leukemia risk.

    Our results support a more comprehensive policy approach that considers both larger setback distances and mandatory monitoring and control of hazardous emissions on both new and existing wells.

    Future research

    More research is needed in other states, such as Texas and California, that have oil and natural gas development in residential areas, as well as on other pediatric cancers.

    One such cancer is acute myeloid leukemia. This is another type of leukemia that starts in bone marrow and rapidly progresses. This cancer has exhibited a strong link to benzene exposure in adult workers in several industries, including the petroleum industry. Researchers have also documented a moderate cancer link for children exposed to vehicular benzene.

    It remains unclear whether benzene is the culprit or if another agent or combination of hazards is an underlying cause of acute myeloid leukemia.

    Even though questions remain, we believe the existing evidence coupled with the seriousness of childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia supports enacting further protective measures. We also believe policymakers should consider the cumulative effects from wells, other pollution sources and socioeconomic stressors on children and communities.

    Read more of our stories about Colorado and Pennsylvania.

    Lisa McKenzie receives funding from the American Cancer Society and the University of Colorado Cancer Center.

    Nicole Deziel receives funding from the American Cancer Society, the National Institutes of Health, and the Yale School of Public Health.

    – ref. Children living near oil and gas wells face higher risk of rare leukemia, studies show – https://theconversation.com/children-living-near-oil-and-gas-wells-face-higher-risk-of-rare-leukemia-studies-show-252994

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Data can show if government programs work or not, but the Trump administration is suppressing the necessary information

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Sarah James, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Gonzaga University

    Do government programs work? It’s impossible to find out with no data. Andranik Hakobyan/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    The U.S. has the highest rate of maternal mortality among developed nations. Since 1987, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has administered the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System to better understand when, where and why maternal deaths occur.

    In April 2025, the Trump administration put the department in charge of collecting and tracking this data on leave.

    It’s just one example of how the administration is deleting and disrupting American data of all kinds.

    The White House is also collecting less information about everything from how many Americans have health insurance to the number of students enrolled in public schools, and making government-curated data of all kinds off-limits to the public. President Donald Trump is also trying to get rid of entire agencies, like the Department of Education, that are responsible for collecting important data tied to poverty and inequality.

    His administration has also begun deleting websites and respositories that share government data with the public.

    Why data is essential for the safety net

    I study the role that data plays in political decision-making, including when and how government officials decide to collect it. Through years of research, I’ve found that good data is essential – not just for politicians, but for journalists, advocates and voters. Without it, it’s much harder to figure out when a policy is failing, and even more difficult to help people who aren’t politically well connected.

    Since Trump was sworn in for a second time, I have been keeping an eye on the disruption, removal and defunding of data on safety net programs such as food assistance and services for people with disabilities.

    I believe that disrupting data collection will make it harder to figure out who qualifies for these programs, or what happens when people lose their benefits. I also think that all this missing data will make it harder for supporters of safety net programs to rebuild them in the future.

    Why the government collects this data

    There’s no way to find out whether policies and programs are working without credible data collected over a long period of time.

    For example, without a system to accurately measure how many people need help putting food on their tables, it’s hard to figure out how much the country should spend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program, formerly known as food stamps, the federal supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children, known as WIC, and related programs. Data on Medicaid eligibility and enrollment before and after the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 offers another example. National data showed that millions of Americans gained health insurance coverage after the ACA was rolled out.

    Many institutions and organizations, such as universities, news organizations, think tanks, and nonprofits focused on particular issues like poverty and inequality or housing, collect data on the impact of safety net policies on low-income Americans.

    No doubt these nongovernmental data collection efforts will continue, and maybe even increase. However, it’s highly unlikely that these independent efforts can replace any of the government’s data collection programs – let alone all of them.

    The government, because it takes the lead in implementing official policies, is in a unique position to collect and store sensitive data collected over long periods of time. That’s why the disappearance of thousands of official websites can have very long-term consequences.

    What makes Trump’s approach stand out

    The Trump administration’s pausing, defunding and suppressing of government data marks a big departure from his predecessors.

    As early as the 1930s, U.S. social scientists and local policymakers realized the potential for data to show which policies were working and which were a waste of money. Since then, policymakers across the political spectrum have grown increasingly interested in using data to make government work better.

    This focus on data grew starting in 2001, when President George W. Bush made holding government accountable to measurable outcomes a top priority.

    He saw data as a powerful tool for reducing waste and assessing policy outcomes. His signature education reform, the No Child Left Behind Act, radically expanded the collection and reporting of student achievement data at K-12 public schools.

    President George W. Bush speaks about education in 2005 at a high school in Falls Church, Va., outlining his plans for the No Child Left Behind Act.
    Alex Wong/Getty Images)

    How this contrasts with the Obama and Biden administrations

    Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden emphasized the importance of data for evaluating the impact of their policies on low-income people, who have historically had little political clout.

    Obama initiated a working group to identify ways to collect, analyze and incorporate more useful data into safety net policies. Biden implemented several of the group’s suggestions.

    For example, he insisted on the collection of demographic data and its analysis when assessing the impacts of new safety net policies. This approach shaped how his administration handled changes in home loan practices, the expansion of broadband access and the establishment of outreach programs for enrolling people in Medicaid and Medicare.

    Why rebuilding will be hard

    It’s harder to make a case for safety net programs when you don’t have relevant data. For example, programs that help low-income people see a doctor, get fresh food and find housing can be more cost-effective than simply having them continue to live in poverty.

    Blocking data collection may also make restoring government funding after a program gets cut or shut down even more challenging. That’s because it will be more challenging for people who in the past benefited from these programs to persuade their fellow taxpayers that there is a need for investing in a expanding program or creating a new one.

    Without enough data, even well-intended policies in the future may worsen the very problems they’re meant to fix, long after the Trump administration has concluded.

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

    – ref. Data can show if government programs work or not, but the Trump administration is suppressing the necessary information – https://theconversation.com/data-can-show-if-government-programs-work-or-not-but-the-trump-administration-is-suppressing-the-necessary-information-259760

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: College ‘general education’ requirements help prepare students for citizenship − but critics say it’s learning time taken away from useful studies

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Kelly Ritter, Professor of Writing and Communication, Georgia Institute of Technology

    Students learn about the arts and humanities, social sciences, and science and mathematics in general education. Olga Pankova/Moment via Getty Images

    What do Americans think of when they hear the words “general education”?

    By definition, general education covers introductory college courses in arts and humanities, social sciences, and science and mathematics. It has different names, including core curriculum or distribution requirements, depending on the college or university.

    It is also sometimes called liberal education, including by the American Association of Colleges and Universities, which describes it as providing “a sense of social responsibility, as well as strong and transferable intellectual and practical skills.”

    The liberal label can be fodder for conservative groups who argue that today’s general education is part of an indoctrination into higher education’s purported left-leaning belief systems. Some other conservatives support general education as a concept but want more emphasis on so-called traditional values and less on cross-cultural understanding. These initiatives position general education and college as a space for ideological battles.

    As a scholar of historical connections between literacy and social class, I know that general education was designed to provide opportunity for all students without regard for their political preferences.

    The value of a college education can be shaped by political affiliation.
    bernarddobo/iStock via Getty Images

    An education for all

    Eighty years ago, a group of Harvard University faculty created what many colleges and universities still follow as a template for general education. This plan was outlined in the book “General Education in a Free Society.”

    Harvard’s plan was meant for all students, including veterans studying under the GI Bill, and others we today refer to as first generation, where neither parent had a college degree.

    General education made college more accessible to students who were not becoming doctors or lawyers but who also wanted careers outside the vocational trades. It helped make college a place for educating all citizens, not just students of socioeconomic privilege.

    Expanding access to higher education was central to the 1947 special report Higher Education for American Democracy, commissioned by President Harry Truman. The goal was to provide a foundational education for all, especially in math and science. But the report, commonly known as the Truman Commission Report, also included disciplines that help students understand the world – such as writing and communication, literature, psychology and history.

    The purposes of general education are central to two competing views of college today, views that I also hear expressed by students and parents I’ve met in my 28 years as a professor.

    One view of college is of an on-campus experience steeped in the liberal arts that holistically prepares students to live in a functioning democracy. These benefits are seen as worth the time and costs.

    The other view is of college as a sum of career-focused credentials that can begin and end anywhere, not specific to one college campus. These benefits are completely financial, to be gained via the cheapest, quickest means.

    Both of these views are informed by national perspectives that further divide citizens on higher education as a whole, such as Vice President JD Vance’s 2021 statement that “there was a wisdom in what Richard Nixon said approximately 40, 50 years ago. He said, and I quote, ‘The professors are the enemy.’”

    Both these groups of Americans, however, hope that obtaining a college degree will pay off for graduates who find employment and reach a standard of living better than their parents’ generation.

    For the first group, general education is critical to developing the whole student for jobs and life. For the latter, it is an expensive obstacle to it.

    Not surprisingly, these views on education and college often correspond to political party identification and whether a person attended college themselves.

    A July 2023 Lumina Foundation and Gallup Poll showed that only 36% of Americans have a “great deal” of confidence in higher education, with significant partisan differences between the 20% of Republicans who have this confidence, the 56% of Democrats and the 35% of independents who have it. There are also measurable differences between those who have earned a postgraduate degree and those who have not.

    To cut costs, more students are searching for ways to complete general education requirements before they begin college.
    PeopleImages/E+ via Getty Images

    Questioning value

    As college costs continue to rise in 2025, families are struggling – even taking on payment plans for everyday purchases, also known as phantom debt – to make ends meet.

    General education represents about a third of the requirements of a bachelor’s degree and most of an associate degree.

    For those who see college as a waste of money, general education courses are a calculable loss on future income. In the past two decades, this – and the increasingly competitive admissions process for college – has contributed to a tenfold increase in low-income students who take Advanced Placement courses and a 50% increase since 2021 in the number of students in dual-credit coursework. Both programs allow students to complete general education-equivalent courses for free while still in high school.

    Complete College America, a nonprofit advocacy group that works with states to increase college completion rates, supports these moves by students and parents, classifying general education under “gateway courses” to be completed “as soon as possible.”

    Other groups promote stackable units of credit toward college degrees. This push to complete general education requirements before entering college is gaining momentum, despite studies that show Advanced Placement classes, and exams, favor and benefit mostly white, middle- to upper-class students because these students tend to have more time and resources to devote to AP coursework and also take multiple exams in order to earn college credit.

    For college students, general education can offer benefits beyond career attainment.
    ferrantraite/E+ via Getty Images

    Understanding the world

    While arguments for streamlining college and its costs are evergreen, foundational lessons taught across fields of study are as relevant in 2025 as they were in 1945. The U.S. faces threats to its democracy, is navigating rapid advances in technology, and is adapting to population shifts that will change how its residents live and work.

    General education gives students broad foundational knowledge that can be used in a variety of careers. By design, it teaches an understanding of the world outside one’s own and how to live in it – a core requirement for a functioning democracy.

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

    – ref. College ‘general education’ requirements help prepare students for citizenship − but critics say it’s learning time taken away from useful studies – https://theconversation.com/college-general-education-requirements-help-prepare-students-for-citizenship-but-critics-say-its-learning-time-taken-away-from-useful-studies-257083

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Poll finds bipartisan agreement on a key issue: Regulating AI

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Adam Eichen, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science, UMass Amherst

    Are concerns about AI a bridge across the polarization divide? ZargonDesign/iStock via Getty Images

    In the run-up to the vote in the U.S. Senate on President Donald Trump’s spending and tax bill, Republicans scrambled to revise the bill to win support of wavering GOP senators. A provision included in the original bill was a 10-year moratorium on any state law that sought to regulate artificial intelligence. The provision denied access to US$500 million in federal funding for broadband internet and AI infrastructure projects for any state that passed any such law.

    The inclusion of the AI regulation moratorium was widely viewed as a win for AI firms that had expressed fears that states passing regulations on AI would hamper the development of the technology. However, many federal and state officials from both parties, including state attorneys general, state legislators and 17 Republican governors, publicly opposed the measure.

    In the last hours before the passage of the bill, the Senate struck down the provision by a resounding 99-1 vote. In an era defined by partisan divides on issues such as immigration, health care, social welfare, gender equality, race relations and gun control, why are so many Republican and Democratic political leaders on the same page on the issue of AI regulation?

    Whatever motivated lawmakers to permit AI regulation, our recent poll shows that they are aligned with the majority of Americans who view AI with trepidation, skepticism and fear, and who want the emerging technology regulated.

    Bipartisan sentiments

    We are political scientists who use polls to study partisan polarization in the United States, as well as the areas of agreement that bridge the divide that has come to define U.S. politics. In April 2025, we fielded a nationally representative poll that sought to capture what Americans think about AI, including what they think AI will mean for the economy and society going forward.

    The public is generally pessimistic. We found that 65% of Americans said they believe AI will increase the spread of false information. Fifty-six percent of Americans worry AI will threaten the future of humanity. Fewer than 3 in 10 Americans told us AI will make them more productive (29%), make people less lonely (21%) or improve the economy (22%).

    While Americans tend to be deeply divided along partisan lines on most issues, the apprehension regarding AI’s impact on the future appears to be relatively consistent across Republicans and Democrats. For example, only 19% of Republicans and 22% of Democrats said they believe that artificial intelligence will make people less lonely. Respondents across the parties are in lockstep when it comes to their views on whether AI will make them personally more productive, with only 29% − both Republicans and Democrats − agreeing. And 60% of Democrats and 53% Republicans said they believe AI will threaten the future of humanity.

    On the question of whether artificial intelligence should be strictly regulated by the government, we found that close to 6 in 10 Americans (58%) agree with this sentiment. Given the partisan differences in support for governmental regulation of business, we expected to find evidence of a partisan divide on this question. However, our data finds that Democrats and Republicans are of one mind on AI regulation, with majorities of both Democrats (66%) and Republicans (54%) supporting strict AI regulation.

    When we take into account demographic and political characteristics such as race, educational attainment, gender identity, income, ideology and age, we again find that partisan identity has no significant impact on opinion regarding the regulation of AI.

    State of anxiety

    In the years ahead, the debate over AI and the government’s role in regulating it is likely to intensify, on both the state and federal levels. As each day seems to bring new advances in AI’s capability and reach, the future is shaping up to be one in which human beings coexist – and hopefully flourish – alongside AI. This new reality has made the American public, both Democrats and Republicans, justifiably nervous, and our polling captures this widespread trepidation.

    Lawmakers and technology leaders alike could address this anxiety by better communicating the pitfalls and potential of AI, and take seriously the concerns of the public. After all, the public is not alone in its trepidation. Many experts in the field also have substantial worries about the future of AI.

    One of the fundamental political questions moving forward, then, will be to what degree regulators put guardrails on this emerging and transformative technology in order to protect Americans from AI’s negative consequences.

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

    – ref. Poll finds bipartisan agreement on a key issue: Regulating AI – https://theconversation.com/poll-finds-bipartisan-agreement-on-a-key-issue-regulating-ai-259780

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Supreme Court justices’ political leanings got a lot more newspaper coverage after the 2016 death of Scalia – and reporters have been mentioning them ever since

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Joshua Boston, Associate Professor of Political Science, Bowling Green State University

    Reporters used to treat the Supreme Court as a nonpolitical institution, but not anymore. Tetra Images/Getty

    The U.S. Supreme Court has always ruled on politically controversial issues. From elections to civil rights, from abortion to free speech, the justices frequently weigh in on the country’s most debated problems.

    And because of the court’s influence over national policy, political parties and interest groups battle fiercely over who gets appointed to the high court.

    The public typically finds out about the court – including its significant decisions and the politics surrounding appointments – from the news media. While elected officeholders and candidates make direct appeals to their voters, the justices and Supreme Court nominees are different – they largely rely on the news to disseminate information about the court, giving the public at least a cursory understanding.

    Recently, something has changed in newspaper coverage of the Supreme Court. As scholars of judicial politics, political institutions and political behavior, we set out to understand precisely how media coverage of the court has changed over the past 40 years. Specifically, we analyzed the content of every article referencing the Supreme Court in five major newspapers from 1980 to 2023.

    Of course, people get their news from a variety of sources, but we have no reason to believe the trends we uncovered in our research of traditional newspapers do not apply broadly. Research indicates that alternative media sources largely follow the lead of traditional beat reporters.

    What we found: Politics has a much stronger presence in articles today than in years past, with a notable increase beginning in 2016.

    When public goodwill prevailed

    Not many cases have been more important in the past quarter-century or, from a partisan perspective, more contentious than Bush v. Gore – the December 2000 ruling that stopped a ballot recount, resulting in then-Texas Governor George W. Bush defeating Democratic candidate Al Gore and winning the presidential election.

    Bush v. Gore is particularly interesting to us because nine unelected, life-tenured justices functionally decided an election.

    The New York Times story about the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore indicated the justices’ names and votes but neither the party of the president who appointed them nor their ideological leanings.
    Screenshot, The New York Times

    Surprisingly, the court’s public support didn’t suffer, ostensibly because the court had built up a sufficient store of public goodwill.

    One reason public support remained steady following Bush v. Gore might be newspaper coverage. Although the court’s decision reflected the justices’ ideologies, with the more conservative members effectively voting to end the recount and its more liberal members voting in favor of the recount, newspapers largely ignored the role of politics in the decision.

    For example, the New York Times case coverage indicated the justices’ names and their votes but mentioned neither the party of the president who appointed them nor their ideological leanings. The words “Democrat,” “Republican,” “liberal” and “conservative” – what we call political frames – do not appear in the Dec. 13, 2000, story about the decision.

    This epitomizes court-related newspaper articles from the 1980s to the early 2000s, when reporters treated the court as a nonpolitical institution. According to our research, court-related news articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal hardly used political frames during that time.

    Instead, newspapers perpetuated a dominant belief among the public that Supreme Court decisions were based almost completely on legal principles rather than political preferences. This belief, in turn, bolstered support for the court.

    Recent newspaper coverage reveals a starkly different pattern.

    A contemporary political court

    It would be nearly impossible to read contemporary articles about the Supreme Court without getting the impression that it is just as political as Congress and the presidency.

    Analyzing our data from 1980 to 2023, the average number of political frames per article tripled. To be sure, politics has always played a role in the court’s decisions. Now, newspapers are making that clear. The question is when this change occurred.

    Across the five major newspapers, reporting about the court has gradually become more political over time. That isn’t surprising: America has been gradually polarizing since the 1980s as well, and the changes in news media coverage reflect that polarization.

    Take February of 2016, when Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly died. Of course, justices have died while serving on the court before. But Scalia was a conservative icon, and his death could have swung the court to the center or the left.

    How the politics of naming his successor played out after Scalia’s death was unprecedented.

    President Barack Obama’s nomination effort to put Merrick Garland on the court were stonewalled. The Senate majority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the Senate would not consider any nomination until after the presidential election, nine months from Scalia’s death.

    Republican candidate Donald Trump, seeing an opening, promised to fill the vacancy with a conservative justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade. The court and the 2016 election became inseparable.

    President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama pay respects to Justice Antonin Scalia, whose 2016 death brought lasting change in newspaper coverage of the court.
    Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images

    Scalia vacancy changed everything

    February 2016 brought about an abrupt and lasting change in newspaper coverage. The day before Scalia’s death, a typical article referencing the court used 3.22 political frames.

    The day after, 10.48.

    We see an uptick in political frames if we consider annual changes as well. In 2015, newspapers averaged 3.50 political frames per article about the Supreme Court. Then, in 2016, 5.30.

    Using a variety of statistical methods to identify enduring framing shifts, we consistently find February 2016 as the moment newspapers shifted to higher levels of political framing of the court. We find the number of political frames in newspapers remained elevated through 2023.

    How stories frame something shapes how people think about it.

    If an article frames a court decision as “originalist” – an analytical approach that says constitutional texts should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they became law – then readers might think of the court as legalistic.

    But if the newspaper were to frame the decision as “conservative,” then readers might think of the court as ideological.

    We found in our study that when people read an article about a court decision using political frames, court approval declines. That’s because most people desire a legal court rather than a political one. No wonder polls today find the court with precariously low public support.

    We do not necessarily hold journalists responsible for the court’s dramatic decline in public support. The bigger issue may be the court rather than reporters. If the court acts politically, and the justices behave ideologically, then reporters are doing their job: writing accurate stories.

    That poses yet another problem. Before Trump’s three court appointments, the bench was known for its relative balance. Sometimes decisions were liberal; other times, conservative.

    In June 2013, the court provided protections to same-sex marriages. Two days earlier, the court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. A liberal win, a conservative win – that’s what we might expect from a legal institution.

    Today the court is different. For most salient issues, the court supports conservative policies.

    Given, first, the media’s willingness to emphasize the court’s politics, and second, the justices’ ideologically consistent decisions across critical issues, it is unlikely that the news media retreats from political framing anytime soon.

    If that’s the case, the court may need to adjust to its low public approval.

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

    – ref. Supreme Court justices’ political leanings got a lot more newspaper coverage after the 2016 death of Scalia – and reporters have been mentioning them ever since – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-justices-political-leanings-got-a-lot-more-newspaper-coverage-after-the-2016-death-of-scalia-and-reporters-have-been-mentioning-them-ever-since-259120

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Philly’s City Council turned down a new rental inspection program − studies show that might harm tenants’ health

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Gabriel L. Schwartz, Assistant Professor of Health Management and Policy, Drexel University

    Tenants who complain to landlords about housing conditions can risk eviction. Photo Jeff Fusco/The Conversation U.S., CC BY-NC-ND

    As Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker’s US$2 billion housing plan moves forward, heated debates continue about another set of municipal housing proposals that could transform Philadelphia tenants’ rights.

    In June 2025, Philadelphia’s City Council considered three housing bills, collectively known as the Safe Healthy Homes Act. The package was introduced by Nicolas O’Rourke, an at-large council member who belongs to the Working Families Party.

    One of the bills authorized the city to create a fund for tenants to relocate if their buildings are condemned by city inspectors. It was signed into law, though it remains unclear how the fund will be financed.

    The other two bills stalled. One was an ordinance that would broadly strengthen tenants’ rights, and the other – known as the Right to Repairs – would shift how Philadelphia ensures housing is safe for tenants, empowering the city to proactively inspect rentals for housing code violations.

    These bills deal with housing policy, but they’re also matters of public health.

    I know this because I am a researcher in Philadelphia who studies how housing affects our health outcomes. And in particular, recent research by myself and others suggests the fate of the Rights to Repairs legislation could have major implications for Philadelphians’ well-being.

    Housing protections today

    To understand this new evidence, it’s important to first understand the system of housing regulations Philadelphia has now, in the absence of the proposed Right to Repairs legislation.

    When a landlord rents an apartment, Pennsylvania law mandates that apartment must be habitable and free of hazards such as mold, cockroaches and dangerous dilapidation.

    This legal principle is known as the “implied warranty of habitability.”

    All 50 states except Arkansas have some kind of policy like this, though they vary in how much they hold landlords responsible for tenants’ safety.

    Under Pennsylvania’s warranty and related municipal law, if conditions deteriorate in a rental property, Philadelphia tenants are first supposed to alert their landlord, who has 30 days to fix the given violation – such as rodents or lead exposure.

    If landlords refuse, however, tenants are in a bind. They could file a complaint with the Department of Licenses and Inspections, which might come and issue a citation. Tenants could also file a lawsuit against their landlord, and they are entitled to withhold rent. But all of these options risk provoking your landlord – at potentially high cost.

    Invoking your warranty rights as a tenant can therefore be tricky. You have to know your rights, document repair requests in writing, and be willing to take your landlord to task legally.

    That’s challenging in a city like Philadelphia, where most renters – outside of a pilot program in some ZIP codes – aren’t guaranteed lawyers in housing court.

    Indeed, nationally, 9 in 10 landlords have lawyers in housing cases, while 9 in 10 tenants do not.

    The stakes are high for tenants. If they complain, they risk eviction – and that’s amid a shortage of affordable housing in Philadelphia and across the country.

    In 2018 alone, according to a local news investigation, Philadelphia landlords filed over 2,000 eviction cases soon after tenants raised habitability issues, despite such retaliatory evictions being illegal. More up-to-date estimates are hard to come by, as these illegal evictions are not systematically tracked.

    Tenants have little choice. Philadelphia does not require that an apartment pass an inspection before the city issues rental licenses or certificates of rental suitability. If housing violations arise, it’s on tenants to assert and defend their rights.

    Philadelphia City Council member Nicolas O’Rourke introduced a housing legislation package guided by three rights – the right to safety, the right to repairs and the right to relocation. Only the right to relocation bill was passed.
    Lisa Lake for MoveOn via Getty Images

    Do habitability laws work?

    Housing quality protections for tenants, in other words, largely boil down to implied warranties of habitability, plus associated fines the city can issue. But this works only if tenants are able to properly document violations, submit complaints and defend themselves from the blowback.

    Despite warranties forming the backbone of Philadelphia’s housing quality governance system – and concerns that these laws saddle tenants with unreasonable enforcement responsibilities – little is known about whether warranties are even effective. Do they keep tenants from getting sick due to poor housing conditions?

    To find out, fellow researchers and I examined what happened when nine states enacted implied warranty of habitability laws like the one in place in Pennsylvania today. We wanted to know whether renters’ health improved after warranty policies were enacted, compared with other states where such laws didn’t go into effect over the same period.

    We also used homeowners as a control group, comparing whether renters’ health uniquely improved when these laws were enacted. Homeowners are useful here because we wouldn’t expect homeowners’ health to be affected by these laws.

    Our findings were stark: We found no improvements for renters at all, across a slew of housing-related health outcomes, even 10 years after enactment.

    There were no effects on renters’ asthma, respiratory allergies, bronchitis, mental health, hospitalizations, or even less clinical outcomes such as self-rated health.

    To be clear, implied warranties of habitability are important laws and are surely helpful for individual tenants. Broadly speaking, however, our findings suggest that these policies simply don’t work.

    That is likely especially true in Pennsylvania, a state whose implied warranty of habitability was given an F- by researchers who evaluated the comprehensiveness of states’ policies for protecting tenants’ well-being.

    A 2014 study in neighboring New Jersey helps shed light on why these policies fall short.

    Researchers there examined 40,000 eviction cases, looking for whether tenants successfully raised implied warranty of habitability violations as a defense. Given how often landlords retaliate after violation complaints are made, one might expect thousands of tenants party to these lawsuits to have invoked their warranty rights.

    The result? Only 80 tenants did so – 80 out of 40,000.

    In practice, then, existing data paints a bleak picture: The vast majority of tenants lack the financial resources, legal knowledge, alternative housing options or freedom from fear necessary to protect themselves from unsafe conditions at home.

    Proactive rental inspections show more success

    What policies might work instead? Cities such as Rochester, New York, may provide an answer.

    In 2005, Rochester implemented a more proactive rental inspection program to combat their child lead-poisoning crisis – a problem Philadelphia shares.

    This meant that Rochester’s municipal inspectors began proactively inspecting rental units on a regular basis and issuing fines for any violations they found. Tenants did not have to file a complaint and therefore weren’t forced into adversarial disputes with their landlords.

    The results were dramatic. By 2012, childhood lead poisoning in Rochester had dropped by 85%. This decline was nearly 2.5 times faster than the rest of New York state.

    Further, scientists found that units that were inspected every three years had one-third of the rate of housing code violations as units inspected every six years.

    Whether the Right to Repair is good policy for Philadelphia is a question for city legislators. But research is increasingly clear: The city’s current housing policies do not protect tenants from unsafe housing, while proactive rental inspections show real promise for fighting persistent housing-related health problems.

    Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

    Gabriel L. Schwartz’s research described in this article was funded through a pilot grant from the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative. UCSF had no role in the design, completion, or reporting of that study. The views expressed in this article solely represent the scientific opinion of the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of either UCSF or his employer.

    – ref. Philly’s City Council turned down a new rental inspection program − studies show that might harm tenants’ health – https://theconversation.com/phillys-city-council-turned-down-a-new-rental-inspection-program-studies-show-that-might-harm-tenants-health-260266

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Research replication can determine how well science is working – but how do scientists replicate studies?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Amanda Kay Montoya, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles

    Some research teams work on replicating prior studies to assess the value of a body of work. AzmanL/E+ via Getty Images

    Back in high school chemistry, I remember waiting with my bench partner for crystals to form on our stick in the cup of blue solution. Other groups around us jumped with joy when their crystals formed, but my group just waited. When the bell rang, everyone left but me. My teacher came over, picked up an unopened bag on the counter and told me, “Crystals can’t grow if the salt is not in the solution.”

    To me, this was how science worked: What you expect to happen is clear and concrete. And if it doesn’t happen, you’ve done something wrong.

    If only it were that simple.

    It took me many years to realize that science is not just some series of activities where you know what will happen at the end. Instead, science is about discovering and generating new knowledge.

    Now, I’m a psychologist studying how scientists do science. How do new methods and tools get adopted? How do changes happen in scientific fields, and what hinders changes in the way we do science?

    One practice that has fascinated me for many years is replication research, where a research group tries to redo a previous study. Like with the crystals, getting the same result from different teams doesn’t always happen, and when you’re on the team whose crystals don’t grow, you don’t know if the study didn’t work because the theory is wrong, or whether you forgot to put the salt in the solution.

    The replication crisis

    A May 2025 executive order by President Donald Trump emphasized the “reproducibility crisis” in science. While replicability and reproducibility may sound similar, they’re distinct.

    Reproducibility is the ability to use the same data and methods from a study and reproduce the result. In my editorial role at the journal Psychological Science, I conduct computational reproducibility checks where we take the reported data and check that all the results in the paper can be reproduced independently.

    But we’re not running the study over again, or collecting new data. While reproducibility is important, research that is incorrect, fallible and sometimes harmful can still be reproducible.

    By contrast, replication is when an independent team repeats the same process, including collecting new data, to see if they get the same results. When research replicates, the team can be more confident that the results are not a fluke or an error.

    Reproducibility and replicability are both important, but have key differences.
    Open Economics Guide, CC BY

    The “replication crisis,” a term coined in psychology in the early 2010s, has spread to many fields, including biology, economics, medicine and computer science. Failures to replicate high-profile studies concern many scientists in these fields.

    Why replicate?

    Replicability is a core scientific value: Researchers want to be able to find the same result again and again. Many important findings are not published until they are independently replicated.

    In research, chance findings can occur. Imagine if one person flipped a coin 10 times and got two heads, then told the world that “coins have a 20% chance of coming up heads.” Even though this is an unlikely outcome – about 4% – it’s possible.

    Replications can correct these chance outcomes, as well as scientific errors, to ensure science is self-correcting.

    For example, in the search for the Higgs boson, two research centers at CERN, the European Council for Nuclear Research, ATLAS and CMS, independently replicated the detection of a particle with a large unique mass, leading to the 2013 Nobel Prize in physics.

    The ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is one of two that led to the discovery of the Higgs boson.
    CERN, CC BY

    The initial measurements from the two centers actually estimated the mass of the particle as slightly different. So while the two centers didn’t find identical results, the teams evaluated them and determined they were close enough. This variability is a natural part of the scientific process. Just because results are not identical does not mean they are not reliable.

    Research centers like CERN have replication built into their process, but this is not feasible for all research. For projects that are relatively low cost, the original team will often replicate their work prior to publication – but doing so does not guarantee that an independent team could get the same results.

    Because the results on vaccine efficacy were so clear, replication wasn’t necessary and would have slowed the process of getting the vaccine to people.
    XKCD, CC BY-NC

    When projects are costly, urgent or time-specific, independently replicating them prior to disseminating results is often not feasible. Remember when people across the country were waiting for a COVID-19 vaccine?

    The initial Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine took 13 months from the start of the trial to authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. The results of the initial study were so clear and convincing that a replication would have unnecessarily delayed getting the vaccine out to the public and slowing the spread of disease.

    Since not every study can be replicated prior to publication, it’s important to conduct replications after studies are published. Replications help scientists understand how well research processes are working, identify errors and self-correct. So what’s the process of conducting a replication?

    The replication process

    Researchers could independently replicate the work of other teams, like at CERN. And that does happen. But when there are only two studies – the original and the replication – it’s hard to know what to do when they disagree. For that reason, large multigroup teams often conduct replications where they are all replicating the same study.

    Alternatively, if the purpose is to estimate the replicability of a body of research – for example, cancer biology – each team might replicate a different study, and the focus is on the percentage of studies that replicate across many studies.

    These large-scale replication projects have arisen around the world and include ManyLabs, ManyBabies, Psychological Accelerator and others.

    Replicators start by learning as much as possible about how the original study was conducted. They can collect details about the study from reading the published paper, discussing the work with its original authors and consulting online materials.

    The replicators want to know how the participants were recruited, how the data was collected and using what tools, and how the data was analyzed.

    But sometimes, studies may leave out important details, like the questions participants were asked or the brand of equipment used. Replicators have to make these difficult decisions themselves, which can affect the outcome.

    Replicators also often explicitly change details of the study. For example, many replication studies are conducted with larger samples – more participants – than the original study, to ensure the results are reliable.

    Registration and publication

    Sadly, replication research is hard to publish: Only 3% of papers in psychology, less than 1% in education and 1.2% in marketing are replications.

    If the original study replicates, journals may reject the paper because there is no “new insight.” If it doesn’t replicate, journals may reject the paper because they assume the replicators made a mistake – remember the salt crystals.

    Because of these issues, replicators often use registration to strengthen their claims. A preregistration is a public document describing the plan for the study. It is time-stamped to before the study is conducted.

    This type of document improves transparency by making changes in the plan detectable to reviewers. Registered reports take this a step further, where the research plan is subject to peer review before conducting the study.

    If the journal approves the registration, they commit to publishing the results of the study regardless of the results. Registered reports are ideal for replication research because the reviewers don’t know the results when the journal commits to publishing the paper, and whether the study replicates or not won’t affect whether it gets published.

    About 58% of registered reports in psychology are replication studies.

    Replication research often uses the highest standards of research practice: large samples and registration. While not all replication research is required to use these practices, those that do contribute greatly to our confidence in scientific results.

    Replication research is a useful thermometer to understand if scientific processes are working as intended. Active discussion of the replicability crisis, in both scientific and political spaces, suggests to many researchers that there is room for growth. While no field would expect a replication rate of 100%, new processes among scientists aim to improve the rates from those in the past.

    Amanda Kay Montoya is an Associate Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. She serves on the Board of Directors for the Center for Open Science. She receives funding from the US-National Science Foundation.

    – ref. Research replication can determine how well science is working – but how do scientists replicate studies? – https://theconversation.com/research-replication-can-determine-how-well-science-is-working-but-how-do-scientists-replicate-studies-260771

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Susi Newborn among activists featured in Pacific ‘nuclear free heroes’ video

    Pacific Media Watch

    Greenpeace pioneer and activist Susi Newborn is among the “nuclear free heroes” featured in a video tribute premiered this week in an exhibition dedicated to a nuclear-free Pacific.

    The week-long exhibition at Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s Ellen Melville Centre, titled “Legends of the Pacific: Stories of a Nuclear-Free Moana 1975-1995,” closes tomorrow afternoon.

    A segment dedicated to the Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement features Newborn making a passionate speech about the legend of the “Warriors of the Rainbow” on the steps of the Auckland Museum in July 2023 just weeks before she died.

    Newborn was an Aotearoa New Zealand author, documentary film-maker, environmental activist and a founding director of Greenpeace UK and co-founder of Greenpeace International.

    She was an executive director of the New Zealand non-for-profit group Women in Film and Television.

    Newborn was also one of the original crew members on the first Rainbow Warrior which was bombed in Auckland Harbour on 10 July 2025.

    The ship’s successor, Rainbow Warrior III, a state-of-the-art environmental campaign ship, has been docked at Halsey Wharf this month for a memorial ceremony to honour the 40th anniversary of the loss of photographer Fernando Pereira and the ship, sabotaged by French secret agents.

    Effective activists
    In a tribute after her death, Greenpeace stalwart Rex Weyler wrote: “Susi Newborn [was] one of the most skilled and effective activists in Greenpeace’s 52-year history.”

    “In 1977, when Susi arrived in Canada for her first Greenpeace action to protect infant harp seal pups in Newfoundland, she was already something of a legend,” Weyler wrote.

    “Journalistic tradition would have me refer to her as ‘Newborn’, a name that rang with significance, but I can only think of her as Susi, the tough, smart activist from London.”

    The half hour video collage, produced and directed by the Whānau Community Centre’s Nik Naidu, is titled Legends of a Nuclear-Free & Independent Pacific (NFIP).


    Legends of a Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific.     Video: Talanoa TV

    Among other activists featured in the video are NFIP academic Dr Marco de Jong; Presbyterian minister Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua; Professor Vijay Naidu, founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG); Polynesian Panthers founder Will ‘Ilolahia; NFIP advocate Hilda Halkyard-Harawira (Ngāti Hauā, Te Rarawe); community educator and activist Del Abcede; retired media professor, journalist and advocate Dr David Robie; Anglican priest who founded the Peace Squadron, Reverend George Armstrong; and United Liberation Movement for West Papua vice-president Octo Mote, interviewed at the home of peace author and advocate Maire Leadbeater.

    The video sound track is from Herbs’ famous French Letter about nuclear testing in the Pacific.

    “It is so important to record our stories and history — especially for our children and future generations,” said video creator Nik Naidu.

    Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific . . . an early poster.

    “They need to hear the truth from our “legends” and “leaders”. Those who stood for justice and peace.

    “The freedoms and benefits we all enjoy today are a direct result of the sacrifice and activism of these legends.”

    The video has been one of the highlights of the “Legends” exhibition, created by Heather Devere, Del Abcede and David Robie of the Asia Pacific Media Network; Nik Naidu of the APMN as well as co-founder of the Whānau Community Hub; Antony Phillips and Tharron Bloomfield of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga; and Rachel Mario of the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group and Whānau Hub.

    Support has also come from the Ellen Melville Centre (venue and promotion), Padet (for the video series), Pax Christi, Women’s International League for Peace Freedom (WILPF) Aotearoa, and the Quaker Peace Fund.

    The exhibition was opened by Labour MP for Te Atatu and disarmament spokesperson Phil Twyford last Saturday.

    The video collage and the individual video items can be seen on the Talanoa TV channel: https://www.youtube.com/@talanoatv

    Professor Vijay Naidu of the University of the South Pacific . . . founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG), one of the core groups in the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement. Image: APR

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Susi Newborn among activists featured in Pacific ‘nuclear free heroes’ video

    Pacific Media Watch

    Greenpeace pioneer and activist Susi Newborn is among the “nuclear free heroes” featured in a video tribute premiered this week in an exhibition dedicated to a nuclear-free Pacific.

    The week-long exhibition at Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s Ellen Melville Centre, titled “Legends of the Pacific: Stories of a Nuclear-Free Moana 1975-1995,” closes tomorrow afternoon.

    A segment dedicated to the Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement features Newborn making a passionate speech about the legend of the “Warriors of the Rainbow” on the steps of the Auckland Museum in July 2023 just weeks before she died.

    Newborn was an Aotearoa New Zealand author, documentary film-maker, environmental activist and a founding director of Greenpeace UK and co-founder of Greenpeace International.

    She was an executive director of the New Zealand non-for-profit group Women in Film and Television.

    Newborn was also one of the original crew members on the first Rainbow Warrior which was bombed in Auckland Harbour on 10 July 2025.

    The ship’s successor, Rainbow Warrior III, a state-of-the-art environmental campaign ship, has been docked at Halsey Wharf this month for a memorial ceremony to honour the 40th anniversary of the loss of photographer Fernando Pereira and the ship, sabotaged by French secret agents.

    Effective activists
    In a tribute after her death, Greenpeace stalwart Rex Weyler wrote: “Susi Newborn [was] one of the most skilled and effective activists in Greenpeace’s 52-year history.”

    “In 1977, when Susi arrived in Canada for her first Greenpeace action to protect infant harp seal pups in Newfoundland, she was already something of a legend,” Weyler wrote.

    “Journalistic tradition would have me refer to her as ‘Newborn’, a name that rang with significance, but I can only think of her as Susi, the tough, smart activist from London.”

    The half hour video collage, produced and directed by the Whānau Community Centre’s Nik Naidu, is titled Legends of a Nuclear-Free & Independent Pacific (NFIP).


    Legends of a Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific.     Video: Talanoa TV

    Among other activists featured in the video are NFIP academic Dr Marco de Jong; Presbyterian minister Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua; Professor Vijay Naidu, founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG); Polynesian Panthers founder Will ‘Ilolahia; NFIP advocate Hilda Halkyard-Harawira (Ngāti Hauā, Te Rarawe); community educator and activist Del Abcede; retired media professor, journalist and advocate Dr David Robie; Anglican priest who founded the Peace Squadron, Reverend George Armstrong; and United Liberation Movement for West Papua vice-president Octo Mote, interviewed at the home of peace author and advocate Maire Leadbeater.

    The video sound track is from Herbs’ famous French Letter about nuclear testing in the Pacific.

    “It is so important to record our stories and history — especially for our children and future generations,” said video creator Nik Naidu.

    Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific . . . an early poster.

    “They need to hear the truth from our “legends” and “leaders”. Those who stood for justice and peace.

    “The freedoms and benefits we all enjoy today are a direct result of the sacrifice and activism of these legends.”

    The video has been one of the highlights of the “Legends” exhibition, created by Heather Devere, Del Abcede and David Robie of the Asia Pacific Media Network; Nik Naidu of the APMN as well as co-founder of the Whānau Community Hub; Antony Phillips and Tharron Bloomfield of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga; and Rachel Mario of the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group and Whānau Hub.

    Support has also come from the Ellen Melville Centre (venue and promotion), Padet (for the video series), Pax Christi, Women’s International League for Peace Freedom (WILPF) Aotearoa, and the Quaker Peace Fund.

    The exhibition was opened by Labour MP for Te Atatu and disarmament spokesperson Phil Twyford last Saturday.

    The video collage and the individual video items can be seen on the Talanoa TV channel: https://www.youtube.com/@talanoatv

    Professor Vijay Naidu of the University of the South Pacific . . . founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG), one of the core groups in the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement. Image: APR

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Susi Newborn among activists featured in Pacific ‘nuclear free heroes’ video

    Pacific Media Watch

    Greenpeace pioneer and activist Susi Newborn is among the “nuclear free heroes” featured in a video tribute premiered this week in an exhibition dedicated to a nuclear-free Pacific.

    The week-long exhibition at Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s Ellen Melville Centre, titled “Legends of the Pacific: Stories of a Nuclear-Free Moana 1975-1995,” closes tomorrow afternoon.

    A segment dedicated to the Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement features Newborn making a passionate speech about the legend of the “Warriors of the Rainbow” on the steps of the Auckland Museum in July 2023 just weeks before she died.

    Newborn was an Aotearoa New Zealand author, documentary film-maker, environmental activist and a founding director of Greenpeace UK and co-founder of Greenpeace International.

    She was an executive director of the New Zealand non-for-profit group Women in Film and Television.

    Newborn was also one of the original crew members on the first Rainbow Warrior which was bombed in Auckland Harbour on 10 July 2025.

    The ship’s successor, Rainbow Warrior III, a state-of-the-art environmental campaign ship, has been docked at Halsey Wharf this month for a memorial ceremony to honour the 40th anniversary of the loss of photographer Fernando Pereira and the ship, sabotaged by French secret agents.

    Effective activists
    In a tribute after her death, Greenpeace stalwart Rex Weyler wrote: “Susi Newborn [was] one of the most skilled and effective activists in Greenpeace’s 52-year history.”

    “In 1977, when Susi arrived in Canada for her first Greenpeace action to protect infant harp seal pups in Newfoundland, she was already something of a legend,” Weyler wrote.

    “Journalistic tradition would have me refer to her as ‘Newborn’, a name that rang with significance, but I can only think of her as Susi, the tough, smart activist from London.”

    The half hour video collage, produced and directed by the Whānau Community Centre’s Nik Naidu, is titled Legends of a Nuclear-Free & Independent Pacific (NFIP).


    Legends of a Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific.     Video: Talanoa TV

    Among other activists featured in the video are NFIP academic Dr Marco de Jong; Presbyterian minister Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua; Professor Vijay Naidu, founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG); Polynesian Panthers founder Will ‘Ilolahia; NFIP advocate Hilda Halkyard-Harawira (Ngāti Hauā, Te Rarawe); community educator and activist Del Abcede; retired media professor, journalist and advocate Dr David Robie; Anglican priest who founded the Peace Squadron, Reverend George Armstrong; and United Liberation Movement for West Papua vice-president Octo Mote, interviewed at the home of peace author and advocate Maire Leadbeater.

    The video sound track is from Herbs’ famous French Letter about nuclear testing in the Pacific.

    “It is so important to record our stories and history — especially for our children and future generations,” said video creator Nik Naidu.

    Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific . . . an early poster.

    “They need to hear the truth from our “legends” and “leaders”. Those who stood for justice and peace.

    “The freedoms and benefits we all enjoy today are a direct result of the sacrifice and activism of these legends.”

    The video has been one of the highlights of the “Legends” exhibition, created by Heather Devere, Del Abcede and David Robie of the Asia Pacific Media Network; Nik Naidu of the APMN as well as co-founder of the Whānau Community Hub; Antony Phillips and Tharron Bloomfield of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga; and Rachel Mario of the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group and Whānau Hub.

    Support has also come from the Ellen Melville Centre (venue and promotion), Padet (for the video series), Pax Christi, Women’s International League for Peace Freedom (WILPF) Aotearoa, and the Quaker Peace Fund.

    The exhibition was opened by Labour MP for Te Atatu and disarmament spokesperson Phil Twyford last Saturday.

    The video collage and the individual video items can be seen on the Talanoa TV channel: https://www.youtube.com/@talanoatv

    Professor Vijay Naidu of the University of the South Pacific . . . founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG), one of the core groups in the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement. Image: APR

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Susi Newborn among activists featured in Pacific ‘nuclear free heroes’ video

    Pacific Media Watch

    Greenpeace pioneer and activist Susi Newborn is among the “nuclear free heroes” featured in a video tribute premiered this week in an exhibition dedicated to a nuclear-free Pacific.

    The week-long exhibition at Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s Ellen Melville Centre, titled “Legends of the Pacific: Stories of a Nuclear-Free Moana 1975-1995,” closes tomorrow afternoon.

    A segment dedicated to the Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement features Newborn making a passionate speech about the legend of the “Warriors of the Rainbow” on the steps of the Auckland Museum in July 2023 just weeks before she died.

    Newborn was an Aotearoa New Zealand author, documentary film-maker, environmental activist and a founding director of Greenpeace UK and co-founder of Greenpeace International.

    She was an executive director of the New Zealand non-for-profit group Women in Film and Television.

    Newborn was also one of the original crew members on the first Rainbow Warrior which was bombed in Auckland Harbour on 10 July 2025.

    The ship’s successor, Rainbow Warrior III, a state-of-the-art environmental campaign ship, has been docked at Halsey Wharf this month for a memorial ceremony to honour the 40th anniversary of the loss of photographer Fernando Pereira and the ship, sabotaged by French secret agents.

    Effective activists
    In a tribute after her death, Greenpeace stalwart Rex Weyler wrote: “Susi Newborn [was] one of the most skilled and effective activists in Greenpeace’s 52-year history.”

    “In 1977, when Susi arrived in Canada for her first Greenpeace action to protect infant harp seal pups in Newfoundland, she was already something of a legend,” Weyler wrote.

    “Journalistic tradition would have me refer to her as ‘Newborn’, a name that rang with significance, but I can only think of her as Susi, the tough, smart activist from London.”

    The half hour video collage, produced and directed by the Whānau Community Centre’s Nik Naidu, is titled Legends of a Nuclear-Free & Independent Pacific (NFIP).


    Legends of a Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific.     Video: Talanoa TV

    Among other activists featured in the video are NFIP academic Dr Marco de Jong; Presbyterian minister Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua; Professor Vijay Naidu, founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG); Polynesian Panthers founder Will ‘Ilolahia; NFIP advocate Hilda Halkyard-Harawira (Ngāti Hauā, Te Rarawe); community educator and activist Del Abcede; retired media professor, journalist and advocate Dr David Robie; Anglican priest who founded the Peace Squadron, Reverend George Armstrong; and United Liberation Movement for West Papua vice-president Octo Mote, interviewed at the home of peace author and advocate Maire Leadbeater.

    The video sound track is from Herbs’ famous French Letter about nuclear testing in the Pacific.

    “It is so important to record our stories and history — especially for our children and future generations,” said video creator Nik Naidu.

    Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific . . . an early poster.

    “They need to hear the truth from our “legends” and “leaders”. Those who stood for justice and peace.

    “The freedoms and benefits we all enjoy today are a direct result of the sacrifice and activism of these legends.”

    The video has been one of the highlights of the “Legends” exhibition, created by Heather Devere, Del Abcede and David Robie of the Asia Pacific Media Network; Nik Naidu of the APMN as well as co-founder of the Whānau Community Hub; Antony Phillips and Tharron Bloomfield of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga; and Rachel Mario of the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group and Whānau Hub.

    Support has also come from the Ellen Melville Centre (venue and promotion), Padet (for the video series), Pax Christi, Women’s International League for Peace Freedom (WILPF) Aotearoa, and the Quaker Peace Fund.

    The exhibition was opened by Labour MP for Te Atatu and disarmament spokesperson Phil Twyford last Saturday.

    The video collage and the individual video items can be seen on the Talanoa TV channel: https://www.youtube.com/@talanoatv

    Professor Vijay Naidu of the University of the South Pacific . . . founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG), one of the core groups in the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement. Image: APR

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Babies born with DNA from three people hailed as breakthrough – but questions remain

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cathy Herbrand, Professor of Medical and Family Sociology, De Montfort University

    Ten years after the UK became the first country to legalise mitochondrial donation, the first results from the use of these high-profile reproductive technologies – designed to prevent passing on genetic disorders – have finally been published.

    So far, eight children have been born, all reportedly healthy, thanks to the long-term efforts of scientists and doctors in Newcastle, England. Should this be a cause for excitement, disappointment or concern? Perhaps, I would suggest, it could be a bit of all three.

    The New England Journal of Medicine has published two papers on a groundbreaking fertility treatment that could prevent devastating inherited diseases. The technique, called mitochondrial donation, was used to help 22 women who carry faulty genes that would otherwise pass serious genetic disorders – such as Leigh syndrome – to their children. These disorders affect the body’s ability to produce energy at the cellular level and can cause severe disability or death in babies.

    The technique, developed by the Newcastle team, involves creating an embryo using DNA from three people: nuclear DNA from the intended mother and father, and healthy mitochondrial DNA from a donor egg. During the parliamentary debates leading up to The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations in 2015, there were concerns about the effectiveness of the procedure and its potential side effects.

    The announcement that this technology has led to the birth of eight apparently healthy children therefore marks a major scientific achievement for the UK, which has been widely praised by numerous scientists and patient support groups. However, these results should not detract from some important questions they also raise.

    First, why has it taken so long for any updates on the application of this technology, including its outcomes and its limitations, to be made public? Especially given the significant public financial investment made into its development.

    In a country positioning itself as a leader in the governance and practice of reproductive and genomic medicine, transparency should be a central principle. Transparency not only supports the progress of other research teams but also keeps the public and patients well informed.

    Second, what is the significance of these results? While eight babies were born using this technology, this figure contrasts starkly with the predicted number of 150 babies per year likely to be born using the technique.

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the UK regulator in this area, has approved 32 applications since 2017 when the Newcastle team obtained its licence, but the technique was used with only 22 of them, resulting in eight babies. Does this constitute sufficiently robust data to prove the effectiveness of the technology and was it worth the considerable efforts and investments over almost two decades of campaigning, debate and research?

    As I wrote when this law was passed, officials should have been more realistic about how many people this treatment could actually help. By overestimating the number of patients who might benefit, they risked giving false hope to families who wouldn’t be eligible for the procedure.

    The safety question

    Third, is it safe enough? In two of the eight cases, the babies showed higher levels of maternal mitochondrial DNA, meaning the risk of developing a mitochondrial disorder cannot be ruled out. This potential for a “reversal” – where the faulty mitochondria reassert themselves – was also highlighted in a recent study conducted in Greece involving patients who used the technique to treat infertility problems.

    As a result, the technology is no longer framed by the Newcastle team as a way to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disorders, but rather to reduce the risk. But is the risk reduction enough to justify offering the technique to more patients? And what will the risk of reassertion mean for the children born through it and their parents, who may live with the continuing uncertainty that the condition could emerge later in life?

    As some experts have suggested, it may be worth testing this technology on women who have fertility problems but don’t carry mitochondrial diseases. This would help doctors better understand the risks of the faulty mitochondria coming back, before using the technique only on women who could pass these serious genetic conditions to their children.

    This leads to a fourth question. What has been the patient experience with this technology? It would be valuable to know how many people applied for mitochondrial donation, why some were not approved, and, among those 32 approved cases, why only 22 proceeded with treatment.

    It also raises important questions about how patients who were either unable to access the technology, or for whom it was ultimately unsuccessful feel, particularly after investing significant time, effort and hope in the process. How do they come to terms with not having the healthy biological child they had been offered?

    This is not to say we shouldn’t celebrate these births and what they represent for the UK in terms of scientific achievement. The birth of eight healthy children represents a genuine scientific breakthrough that families affected by mitochondrial diseases have waited decades to see. However, some important questions remain unanswered, and more evidence is needed and it should be communicated in a timely manner to make conclusions about the long-term use of the technology.

    Breakthroughs come with responsibilities. If the UK wants to maintain its position as a leader in reproductive medicine, it must be more transparent about both the successes and limitations of this technology. The families still waiting to have the procedure – and those who may never receive it – deserve nothing less than complete honesty about what this treatment can and cannot deliver.

    Cathy Herbrand receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

    – ref. Babies born with DNA from three people hailed as breakthrough – but questions remain – https://theconversation.com/babies-born-with-dna-from-three-people-hailed-as-breakthrough-but-questions-remain-261385

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Grattan on Friday: New parliament presents traps for Albanese and Ley

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Anthony Albanese hasn’t been in any rush to convene the new parliament, which Governor-General Sam Mostyn will open on Tuesday.

    It’s only mildly cynical to observe that governments of both persuasions often seem to regard having pesky members and senators around too much as a hindrance to business. Accountability is all very good in theory – facing it in practice is another matter.

    In this first fortnight of the new parliament, however, much of the attention will be less on the government than on the opposition. Liberal leader Sussan Ley has handled her early weeks without tripping. But her critics hover like crows on the fence in lambing season. Angus Taylor, who narrowly lost the leadership ballot, retains his ambition. The right-wing media wait for Ley’s mistakes.

    Ley will need to maintain a strong grip on her team’s messaging, especially on foreign and defence policy, or the Coalition will open itself to criticism.

    Taylor, now the defence spokesman, attracted attention this week when he went out on a limb on Taiwan, telling the ABC, “we should have a joint commitment with them [the US] to the security of Taiwan”.

    Ley, who says she wants to avoid unrelenting negativity, must choose the Coalition’s targets carefully. It has been presented with some useful fodder with the (inadvertently) leaked Treasury brief to the re-elected government that urged the need for tax rises and spending cuts. This is manna from political heaven because it is on the Coalition’s favoured economic ground, and raises issues for which the government doesn’t have immediate or clear-cut answers.

    As important as Ley’s own performance will be, so will that of shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien. Taylor’s handling of the job last term was a serious weakness for the Coalition.

    Facing a well-prepared and confident counterpart in Jim Chalmers, O’Brien must find his feet quickly. Sensibly, he has hired on his staff an experienced, credible economist, Steven Hamilton, who has been an assistant professor of economics at George Washington University in Washington DC. Hamilton has also been a regular contributor to The Australian Financial Review, so he has a feel for, and contacts in, the financial media.

    The government has a mix of legislation to introduce in this initial fortnight. Albanese promised during the campaign that Labor’s first cab off the rank would be its commitment to cut student debt by 20%. It also foreshadowed early action to cement in penalty rates.

    It didn’t anticipate having to rush in a bill to strip funding from childcare centres that do not meet safety standards. This follows the recent revelations
    of abuse.

    The first parliamentary fortnight comes in the run-up to the government’s August 19–21 productivity roundtable (named by Chalmers the “economic reform roundtable”). With expectations inevitably exploding, observers will be watching closely the dynamics between the treasurer and the prime minister in parliament.

    The two agree that delivering election promises should be the floor, rather than the ceiling, of ambition for the second term. But their degrees of ambition differ. Chalmers fears Albanese’s is limited; the prime minister fears his treasurer’s will overreach. Will Albanese show a restraining hand on the roundtable in the weeks before it?

    As the government wants to emphasise delivery to voters in the early days of the parliament, Chalmers hasn’t rushed to seek the deal he needs with the Greens on his controversial changes to superannuation tax arrangements. The plan is to increase the tax on balances of more than $3 million, and tax the unrealised capital gains.

    The Greens want the $3 million reduced to $2 million and that amount indexed. It’s a fair assumption a compromise will be reached when negotiations occur.

    That will be a relatively easy test for the Greens under their new leader Larissa Waters, who has also said she wants to be constructive while holding the government to account.

    Later on, though, will come harder issues, including whether the Greens will sign up to a new environmental protection authority, stymied by political obstacles last term.

    In general, the Senate will be less complicated for the government in coming months than last term, given the Greens hold the sole balance of power on legislation contested by the opposition.

    That means things are more frustrating for other Senate crossbenchers.

    In his stand on staffing, Albanese is not improving their mood. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation doubled its representation to four senators but has no extra staff. Staff allocation is up to the prime minister, who has once again been arbitrary about how many staff individual Senate crossbenchers receive. This is an unfair and indefensible system – there should be independent, consistent rules.

    ACT senator David Pocock hasn’t lost any staff but he has lost clout, compared with last term when his vote could be crucial and he was able to trade it for concessions from the government. The new numbers deal him and other non-Green crossbenchers out of the game.

    In the House of Representatives, the Teals retain strong representation but, as in the last parliament, they can only exert (limited) influence, not power. For a while early this year, when it looked as if there would be a hung parliament, they were preparing wish lists.

    One new Teal will be sworn in next week, Nicolette Boele, who won the seat of Bradfield from the Liberals. She can’t know, however, whether she will see out her term. The Liberals have challenged the result after she won by just 26 votes. The matter will be decided by the Court of Disputed Returns.

    There are three possible outcomes: the court confirms the result; the result is overturned and the seat awarded to Liberal candidate Gisele Kapterian (who was allowed to vote in the Liberal leadership and supported Ley); or a fresh election is ordered.

    The Liberals are taking some risk with the challenge. If there were a new election, and they lost it, that would be another setback for them and could destabilise Ley’s leadership.

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

    – ref. Grattan on Friday: New parliament presents traps for Albanese and Ley – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-new-parliament-presents-traps-for-albanese-and-ley-261096

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –