We’re at the tail end of five weeks of intense campaigning for the federal election. The major and minor parties, as well as independents, have thrown a slew of policies at the Australian people, most of which we’ve catalogued in our Policy Tracker.
There have also been memorable moments, a few fairly forgettable debates, and a whole lot of memes – both astute and cringeworthy. (Where does that Coalition “diss track” fit in? We’ll leave it to you to decide.)
So, how closely have you been paying attention? It’s time to test your election campaign knowledge.
Digital Storytelling Team 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.
As Australians cast pre-poll votes in record numbers, it is not only political parties and candidates who are trying to influence votes.
Australian Christian Right (ACR) groups have produced “scorecards” that rate party policies according to so-called Christian values. And they have organised candidate forums designed for Christian audiences.
The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church has deployed hundreds of its members to pre-polling booths in marginal seats to campaign for the Coalition.
Who is the Australian Christian Right?
The ACR is a diverse movement of individuals, groups and churches that share traditional, fundamentalist approaches to the Bible and church teachings. It includes the Australian Christian Lobby, which has a long history of political activism in Australia and of engagement with the global Christian right.
In our research we examined how the ACL has adopted right-wing populist rhetoric and what the effects might be on Australian politics.
The ACR’s historical focus has been on abortion, euthanasia, sexuality and marriage. Now it also campaigns on human rights issues relating to gender, religious freedom and freedom of speech.
For our research, we identified high-profile ACR actors and studied their publicly available texts. We found three intertwined themes of populist discourse. Each one has been given a Christian framing and adapted for the Australian context.
“Saving Western civilisation”
European populists have used this rhetoric to define the Muslim “other” and the threat Islam supposedly poses to Western democratic culture and values.
Australia’s construction as a white British “outpost” gives this ideology its power. It has been used to inspire fear of immigrants.
In Christian right rhetoric, “Western civilisation” is defined by Judeo-Christian values, which are purportedly under threat from an aggressive secularism that would rid society of its moral foundations and undermine the “family”.
This polemic found fertile ground in 2017’s marriage equality debate. LGBTQ+ people and their allies were cast as anti-Christian activists who undermined Western tradition. A point made by former prime minister Tony Abbott when he addressed the anti-gay Alliance Defending Freedom in New York in 2018:
the campaign for marriage in my country has mobilised thousands of new activists; and created a network that could be deployed to defend Western civilisation more broadly and the Judeo-Christian ethic against all that’s been undermining it.
“Saving the moral community”
The Australian Christian Right divides people into the traditional moral community that upholds family values, and the politically correct woke elites who allegedly threaten the Christian values that have shaped Australia.
In opposing marriage equality, religious freedom became the ACR’s primary weapon of choice.
Former Liberal Party senator and committed conservative Christian Amanda Stoker applies a right-wing populist approach to the movement’s opposition to transgender rights:
The new elite — exclusive and “woke” — in fact has disdain for the traditional family, actively seeking to break it down with new genders, new family forms, and greater dependence on the state for the roles that family used to play in education, in sharing values, and in care for those in times of need.
This rhetoric aims to position the ACR as arguing on behalf of all moral people who uphold traditional values, and all reasonable Australians who value freedom of religion.
In contemporary Australian populism, it has found form in the identification of Indigenous people as the subject of alleged preferential treatment. In contrast, non-Indigenous Australians are portrayed as victims suffering reverse racism. It has now been given a Christian right twist.
During the referendum campaign for the Voice to Parliament, the ACR joined the far-right activist group Advance to argue the case for a “no” vote.
In its opposition to constitutional recognition, the ACR adopted two themes of the “no” campaign: Indigenous people don’t need the Voice, and it would divide Australians on the basis of race. It then added a third by doubling down on the progress made in the marriage equality debate with “religious freedom” rhetoric.
And in a collection of essays on the “religious” perspective of the Voice proposal, a number of authors, including ACR leader Dave Pellowe, argued the Voice would breach religious freedom by imposing Aboriginal religious beliefs and practices on the entire country.
Dangerous consequences
Since last Sunday’s leaders’ debate, the populist trope of “saving Australia from racial division” has been in plain sight. Consistent with his anti-Voice position, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton declared that acknowledgement of Country has been “overdone”.
Christian political party Family First echoed his concerns, saying the ritual means:
citizens don’t have equal standing in this nation.
When the three thematic strands are woven together, the ACR’s populist vision for a “back-to-a-better” Australia becomes clear.
The mutually reinforcing rhetoric of the populist right and the Christian right creates a distinctly Australian agenda that has dangerous implications for many people, especially those who are already marginalised.
This article is based on research funded by the Australian Research Council Grant DP230100538 ‘Australian Spirituality: Wellness, Wellbeing and Risks’.
Elenie Poulos is an ordained Minister in the Uniting Church in Australia and a non-executive director on the Board of Uniting NSW.ACT.
This article is based on research funded by the Australian Research Council Grant DP230100538 ‘Australian Spirituality: Wellness, Wellbeing and Risks’.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
A YouGov MRP poll has Labor clearly winning a majority of seats in the federal election – 84 of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives.
Labor also leads the Coalition by 53–47% in new polls from Redbridge and Spectre Strategy.
Respondent-allocated preference flows from various pollsters do not imply a big Coalition gain from the 2022 election preference flow method.
YouGov conducted a national MRP poll (multi-level modelling with post-stratification) from April 1–29 from an overall sample of 35,185 people. MRP polls are used to estimate the outcome in each House electorate using huge samples and modelling.
YouGov’s central forecast is Labor winning 84 of the 150 lower house seats, an 18-seat majority. The Coalition would win 47 seats, the Greens three, independents 14 and others two.
Since YouGov’s previous MRP poll that was taken from late February to late March, Labor is up nine seats, the Coalition down 13, the Greens up one and independents up three.
And compared to the first YouGov MRP poll conducted before mid-February, Labor is up 18 seats and the Coalition down 26.
The high forecast in the new MRP poll is 85 seats for Labor and 53 for the Coalition, while the low forecast is 76 for Labor (just enough for a majority) and 45 for the Coalition.
On national voting intentions, Labor led the Coalition by 52.9–47.1% in this MRP poll, a 2.7-point gain for Labor since the previous MRP poll. Primary votes were 31.4% Labor (up 1.6 points), 31.1% Coalition (down 4.4), 12.6% Greens (down 0.6), 9.3% One Nation (steady), 8.1% independents (down 0.2) and 7.6% others (up 3.7).
By 2022 election flows, Labor would lead the Coalition by 54.1–45.9%.
Labor won the 2022 election by 52.1–47.9% from primary votes of 35.7% Coalition, 32.6% Labor, 12.3% Greens, 5.0% One Nation, 4.1% United Australia Party, 5.3% independents and 5.1% others.
In this poll, the major parties combined are winning just 62.5% of the vote, down from 68.3% in 2022, which was already a record low for the combined major party vote.
Unless the Coalition surges in the final days before Saturday’s election or the polls are overstating support for Labor, Labor will win the election. The graph below includes the Redbridge poll, but not the Spectre Strategy one.
Labor takes 53–47% lead in Redbridge poll
The final national poll by Redbridge and Accent Research for the News Corp tabloids, conducted April 24–29 from a sample of 1,011 people, gave Labor a 53–47% lead over the Coalition by both respondent and 2022 election flows.
This is a one-point gain for Labor since the previous national Redbridge poll in early April.
Primary votes were 34% Labor (up one), 34% Coalition (down two), 12% Greens (steady), 8% One Nation (up one) and 12% for all others (steady). One Nation’s preference flows to the Coalition had increased in this poll compared with 2022, but Labor’s flow increased from other sources.
On type of government desired, 24% wanted a majority Labor government, 12% a Labor minority government with the Greens and 10% a Labor minority government with the teals (comprising a total of 46% who wanted Labor to govern).
For the Coalition, 30% wanted a majority Coalition government, 2% a Coalition minority government with the Greens and 7% a Coalition minority government with the teals (a total of 39% who wanted a Coalition government).
New pollster Spectre Strategy gives Labor 53–47% lead
A national poll by new pollster Spectre Strategy, conducted April 24–28 from a sample of 2,000 people, also gave Labor a 53–47% lead over the Coalition by respondent preferences from primary votes of 34% Coalition, 31% Labor, 15% Greens, 10% One Nation and 11% for all others.
By 2022 election flows, this poll would give Labor about a 52.5–47.5% lead over the Coalition.
Women voters (71%) and men aged 18–34 (64%) both massively favoured Labor. Among voters aged 35–54, 61% of women supported Labor, compared to just 49% of men. Both men and women aged 55 and over favoured the Coalition by 58–42%.
Anthony Albanese led Peter Dutton as preferred prime minister by 47–35%.
DemosAU polls of Melbourne and Sydney seats
DemosAU collectively polled the Labor-held seats of Dunkley, Bruce and Hawke in Melbourne from April 13–22 from a sample of 924 people. Labor led the Coalition by 53–47%. The party won the three seats by 56.5–43.5% in 2022.
Primary votes in the poll were 32% Labor, 31% Liberal, 13% Greens, 10% One Nation and 14% for all others.
DemosAU collectively polled the Labor-held seats of Parramatta, Reid and Werriwa in Sydney from April 13–27 from a sample of 905 people. Labor led the Coalition by 56–44%. The party won the three seats 54.7–45.3% in 2022.
Primary votes in the poll were 36% Labor, 28% Liberal, 10% Greens, 5% Libertarian, 4% One Nation, 11% independents and 6% others.
Preference flows
Phillip Coorey wrote in the Australian Financial Review Tuesday that JWS polling of some seats had right-wing party preferences flowing at 80 or 90% rates to the Coalition. If this is true, the Coalition would do better than expected from current polls.
But respondent preferences were used in the Redbridge poll above, giving the same result as the 2022 flow result. The Spectre respondent result was actually 0.5 of a point better for Labor than the previous election method.
The polls I covered on Tuesday from Resolve, Essential and Morgan used respondent preferences. The Coalition was up one point in the Morgan poll compared to the previous election method and up 0.5 of a point in the Essential poll. There was no difference between the two methods in Resolve.
JWS has given the Coalition very strong results in many of its seat polls. All other evidence suggests only a small gain for the Coalition from using respondent preferences as opposed to the 2022 election flows.
Inflation increased in March quarter
The Australian Bureau of Statistics released the March quarter inflation report on Wednesday. Headline inflation increased 0.9% in the March quarter, up from 0.2% in both December and September. This was the highest quarterly inflation since June 2024. Annual inflation was steady at 2.4% from December.
Core inflation increased 0.7% in the March quarter, up from 0.5% in December. Annual core inflation dropped to 2.9% in March from 3.3% in December.
The same principles with poll analysis can be applied to economic data. We’re most interested in the current polls, not in averaging these polls with those from months ago. The quarterly inflation numbers should be emphasised, not the annual numbers that include data from the June 2024 quarter.
Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hiran Thabrew, Senior Lecturer in Child Psychiatry and Paediatrics, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau
Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition. Someone may have social and communication differences, sensory issues and/or restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour or interests.
There has been increased awareness and an expanded definition of autism over the past couple of decades. Now around one in 40people are thought to be autistic.
Autistic people often have strengths such as focus, honesty and dedication. But due to a combination of genetic and autism-related factors, they also have higher rates of other health conditions.
Common mental health conditions include anxiety, depression, attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder or ADHD, obsessive-compulsive disorder, eating disorders and intellectual developmental disorder.
Common physical health conditions include epilepsy, rheumatoid arthritis and heart disease.
The core features of autism can’t and don’t need to be altered. But a range of talking therapies and medications can help manage these other health conditions.
Commonly prescribed medications
The increased awareness of autism and availability of new medications has seen increasedrates of prescribing for autistic people and those with other chronic conditions over the past few decades. This is a trend we have seen internationally.
The most common medications for mental health conditions among autistic people are:
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as fluoxetine (Prozac), for anxiety and depression
low-dose antipsychotic medications, such as risperidone and aripiprazole, for reducing stress-related irritability and aggression
stimulants such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) for ADHD
melatonin and other sleep medications.
The most common medications for physical health conditions among autistic people are:
painkillers, such as paracetamol and ibuprofen, for pain and fever, especially in younger children. These are also the most commonly prescribed medication for non-autistic children
antibiotics, such as amoxycillin, for suspected or confirmed infections (autistic children tend to have more infections)
asthma and allergy medications, including salbutamol inhalers, loratadine and oral steroids (autistic people have similar rates of allergies to non-autistic people)
laxatives, such as lactulose, for constipation. Autistic people are at increased risk of constipation due to limited food preferences, rigid toilet habits, and difficulty recognising when they need to use the toilet.
Autistic people are prescribed a range of medications for physical and mental health conditions. CandyRetriever/Shutterstock
Multiple medications, or not enough
Prescribing multiple medications at the same time is known as polypharmacy. This has become more of an issue for autistic people in Aotearoa New Zealandand Australia.
One study found autistic children and young people from Aotearoa New Zealand received a mean (average) four medications in one year (versus 2.9 medications for non-autistic people). Some 57% were prescribed three or more medications at a time.
Medications may work as well for people with and without autism. However, autistic people are more likely to have side effects. This might be due to heightened sensory sensitivities and the way medications affect the nervous system.
Polypharmacy increases the risk of medication interactions. It is also likely to contribute to autistic people’s higher chance of dying early. A 2024 study confirms this occurs at double the rate of non-autistic people.
Possible reasons for polypharmacy include:
lack of agreement between doctors and clear guidelines for prescribing medication
greater likelihood of being treated during crises. For instance, behaviour that escalates to the point of personal or property damage and family burnout may require medication to allow a child to stay at home.
However, at times, autistic people may not receive appropriate medications. This may be because doctors do not have clear prescribing guidelines or vary in how they prescribe. It can also be because someone or their family are concerned about side effects.
We should aim to use the appropriate medication for the appropriate period of time for the growing number of people diagnosed with autism.
It’s essential prescribers have clearer prescribing guidance, aim for the lowest possible dose of medication, actively address polypharmacy and regularly monitor autistic people with a view to weaning medications as soon as possible.
Earlier identification and support for autistic children and their families would reduce the chance of crises and stress-related health conditions.
We need health services that can better meet the needs of autistic people. Flexible, tailored care should be provided in an environment that matches someone’s sensory needs. For instance, an environment should not be too bright or loud, or overstimulating. Ideally, this will have been designed with autistic people.
We also need an adequately resourced health system to provide autistic people with timely, appropriate, safe and equitable care.
Hiran Thabrew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist, paediatrician, autism researcher and New Zealand Chair for the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. He has never received any pharmaceutical company sponsorship for his clinical or research activities.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fan Yang, Research fellow at Melbourne Law School, the University of Melbourne and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society., The University of Melbourne
This election, social media has been a major battleground as candidates try to reach younger voters. As Gen Z and Millennials now make up the dominant voter bloc in Australia, securing their support is more electorally important than ever.
This effort has also played out on Chinese social media platforms, namely WeChat and RedNote. Thousands of Australians use these apps, often as a main source of news.
The RECapture research team has been tracking political activity on these platforms for years. Between October 2024 and April 2025, we observed 319 Liberal Party advertisements, 68 Labor Party advertisements, and 258 ads from independent candidates on WeChat. More than 20 Australian politicians used RedNote for self-promotion. Both platforms are becoming increasingly popular among politicians.
But there’s a catch: political communication on these apps is either banned or hidden. So how do candidates work around the rules?
We’ve found they use influencers and third parties, blurring the lines between authorised political advertising and undisclosed campaigning.
Skirting the rules
Platforms such as Facebook and Google maintain public ad repositories to document political advertising.
On WeChat and RedNote, however, such content is not formally registered or subject to public scrutiny.
Since 2019, WeChat has been a key platform for Australian politicians trying to reach Chinese-Australian voters.
From 2022 onwards, our research has observed the rising political popularity of RedNote, driven by its low entry barriers and emphasis on visual content.
Chinese app RedNote is increasing in popularity. Shutterstock
In January, a shift of US-based users from TikTok to RedNote further elevated the platform’s prominence. Now, candidates of all stripes are using it.
But WeChat bans political advertisements and campaigning. RedNote uses shadowbanning (the covert hiding of specific content) to limit the visibility of political accounts.
As a result, political figures in democracies globally often bypass these restrictions by working with Chinese-language media or influencers to reach Chinese-speaking voters.
This tactic enables political messaging outside platform and regulatory oversight. It undermines transparency and accountability in political communication.
How do political ads work on WeChat?
Political advertising on WeChat isn’t transparent. WeChat requires official account registration through Chinese businesses recognised by Chinese tech conglomerate Tencent.
In Australia, Chinese-language media outlets serve as intermediaries. They distribute political campaign materials on behalf of candidates.
Political advertising on WeChat is presented in three main formats:
embedded within articles
as sponsored content
and as short videos distributed via WeChat’s Channel function.
Advertising costs are typically negotiated between media outlets and campaign teams, ranging from a few hundred to several thousand dollars, depending on the outlet’s influence and the ad’s target demographic.
Spending on political ads on WeChat isn’t disclosed anywhere, so it’s very hard to track how much money is being spent this way.
What do these ads look like?
For example, we identified Scott Yung, a Liberal candidate for Bennelong, and Andy Yin, a former Liberal Party member now running as an independent for Bradfield. They both published between two and eight political advertisements on WeChat daily in April.
These ads were in addition to their self-promotional content and other campaigning activities via short videos.
This content sometimes includes celebrity endorsements. In 2019 and 2025, respectively, Yung and Yin used third-party media and marketing companies based in China to recruit celebrities to endorse their campaigns.
However, such strategies are criticised domestically due to concerns about potential “Chinese influence” and perceived links to the Communist Party of China.
But behind the public political ads lies a semi-private form of campaigning.
By attaching a QR code to their political ads, candidates direct their campaigns to private group chats, enabling a more targeted form of engagement (observed in the case of Liberal candidate for Reid Grange Chung’s sponsored content).
What about RedNote?
Non-Chinese Australian politicians often get around shadowbans on RedNote by signalling their connection to Chinese communities through symbolic gestures. This includes posts showcasing their visits to Chinese restaurants or photos taken at Lunar New Year community events.
Candidates of Chinese background often highlight their connections with prominent white Australian politicians, such as former prime ministers Tony Abbott and John Howard, to show their standing and political credibility within the party.
Discussions of party policies, especially controversial ones such as Australia-US-China relations, are rare. When they do occur, they are often selectively focused on matters of concern to Chinese migrants or those deemed safe for discussion on RedNote.
Chinese-Australian candidates often organise their offline campaign events to target Chinese-Australian influencers. The influencers then disseminate relevant content on RedNote.
As a result, candidates rely on content creators, influencers, supporters, migrant businesses and Chinese-language media outlets to promote their campaigns.
Regulations falling by the wayside
Candidates usually follow authorisation disclosure rules on their English social media pages.
These rules, however, are often disregarded on RedNote or WeChat.
Candidates often outsource their campaigning work to Chinese media and marketing agencies. This means the candidates have minimal oversight of the activities taking place on these platforms, raising concerns about whether electoral regulations may be inadvertently violated in the process.
We’ve found instances of unauthorised pages of politicians and candidates that have gone unnoticed by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).
These are hard to find because the content is largely shadowbanned. If users or the AEC searched a particular candidate’s name, they wouldn’t be able to find much.
In April, the AEC advised rules around authorising this sort of content. It said electoral communications distributed by people or organisations that are not political entities still require authorisation if monetary or gifts-in-kind transactions are involved.
The AEC’s guidance further says political parties should include an authorisation if they repost collaborative content. The general principle is: “when in doubt, authorise it”.
The key challenges here are identifying who collaborates with whom, on which platform, how content is remixed, and whether the collaboration is voluntary or involves monetary or in-kind transactions.
The AEC doesn’t actively monitor Chinese social media platforms. This makes enforcing any regulations almost impossible.
Given how much political candidates are using these apps, there needs to be better regulatory oversight of what happens on them.
We thank researchers Robbie Fordyce and Mengjie Cai for their contributions to this project.
The project is funded by the Susan McKinnon Foundation between 2024 and 2025.
Dan Dai, Luke Heemsbergen, and Stevie Zhang do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The internet’s latest absurd obsession is: who would win in a no-rules fight between 100 average human men and one adult male gorilla?
This hypothetical and strange question has taken over Reddit, TikTok, YouTube and Instagram. Some argue that humans once hunted mammoths so, clearly, we would win. Others point out that a silverback gorilla can lift close to 1,000kg and could throw a grown man like a rag doll.
To be honest, it’s not really a question we need to answer – and yet, as usual on the internet, everyone has an opinion.
But, beyond the jokes and memes, this silly debate provides an opportunity to reflect on human evolution. What are the real strengths of our species? What have we sacrificed? And what can a gorilla, our majestic, powerful and endangered distant cousin, teach us about our own nature and evolution?
Gorillas and humans: two branches of the same evolutionary tree
Gorillas are one of our closest living relatives. Along with chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans, they belong to the great apes or Hominidae family. Chimpanzees share about 98.8% of their DNA with us, while gorillas come a close second, sharing around 98.4%.
The last common ancestor between humans and gorillas lived roughly 10 million years ago, and it is also the same ancestor for chimpanzees.
Since the evolutionary split, humans and gorillas have followed very different paths. Gorillas have adapted to dense forests and mountainous terrains, while humans have evolved to live in the open, but realistically to multiple and various environments.
Despite the substantial difference in ecological niches, humans and gorillas share many traits, such as opposable thumbs, facial expressions, complex social behaviours and emotional intelligence.
Mastering forest power
In the recent Dune saga, to win, Duke Leto Atreides wanted to develop “desert power”. Well, gorillas have mastered forest power.
And let’s be clear – in terms of raw power, the gorilla wins every time. An adult male silverback can weigh more than 160kg and lift about a tonne without going to the gym every day. Their upper-body strength is shocking. And that’s no evolutionary accident – it’s the result of intense competition between males, where dominance determines mating.
Additionally, gorillas are extremely tough and resilient, yet gentle and calm most of the time. Gorillas, like many primates, have a strong social intelligence. They use a variety of vocalisations, gestures and even chest drumming to communicate across distances.
They have shown the ability to use sign language, mourn their dead, and demonstrate empathy, attesting to sophisticated cognitive skills.
Trading muscles for minds
A fight between 100 men and one gorilla might lead to a lot of dead men, but we all know that men will come with weapons, strategies, drones, fire and other clever tricks.
Humans are not physically strong in comparison to many other mammals. Our strength as a species is our adaptability and our ability to collaborate in very large groups.
Our brains are, on average, three times larger proportionally than those of gorillas. This fantastic evolutionary adaptation has allowed us to develop abstract thinking and symbolic language, but most of all, to pass and build on complex knowledge across generations.
Humans’ evolutionary history has led to trading brute force for social, cultural and technological complexity, making us Earth’s most versatile and dangerous species.
So, who’s the winner?
In a one-on-one brawl, the gorilla can make “human-mash” with one hand. There is no contest when discussing brute force and bare hands.
But humans fight dirty. Judging by our evolutionary success, humans would likely lose many battles but ultimately win the fight. Mountain gorillas were not on the brink of extinction in the 1980s without our help.
Our species has spread across all continents, all terrains, and all climates. We have reshaped ecosystems, walked on the Moon, and developed advanced technologies. But gorillas are another kind of success rooted in harmony with their environment, physical grace, and quiet strength.
Perhaps the real takeaway message isn’t who wins in a fight, but to realise that two very different and yet very close cousins have walked two separate evolutionary roads, each in their own distinct way. And both are nature’s triumph and accomplishment.
Renaud Joannes-Boyau receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Leakey Foundation, National Geographic, and the European Research Council.
The United States and China remain in a standoff in their tariff war. Neither side appears willing to budge.
After US President Donald Trump imposed massive 145% tariffs on Chinese imports in early April, China retaliated with its own tariffs of 125% on US goods.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said this week it’s up to China to de-escalate tensions. China’s Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, said the two sides are not talking.
The prospect of economic decoupling between the world’s two largest economies is no longer speculative. It is becoming a hard reality. While many observersdebate who might “win” the trade war, the more likely outcome is that everyone loses.
A convenient target
Trump’s protectionist agenda has spared few. Allies and adversaries alike have been targeted by sweeping US tariffs. However, China has served as the main target, absorbing the political backlash of broader frustrations over trade deficits and economic displacement in the US.
The economic costs to China are undeniable. The loss of reliable access to the US market, coupled with mounting uncertainty in the global trading system, has dealt a blow to China’s export-driven sectors.
China’s comparative advantage lies in its vast manufacturing base and tightly integrated supply chains. This is especially true in high-tech and green industries such as electric vehicles, batteries and solar energy. These sectors are deeply dependent on open markets and predictable demand.
New trade restrictions in Europe, Canada and the US on Chinese electric vehicles, in particular, have already caused demand to drop significantly.
China’s GDP growth was higher than expected in the first quarter of the year at 5.4%, but analysts expect the effect of the tariffs to soon bite. A key measure of factory activity this week showed a contraction in manufacturing.
China’s economic growth has also been weighed down by structural headwinds, including industrial overcapacity (when a country’s production of goods exceeds demand), an ageing population, rising youth unemployment and persistent regional disparities. The property sector — once a pillar of the country’s economic rise — has become a source of financial stress. Local government debt is mounting and a pension crisis is looming.
Negotiations with the US might be desirable to end the tariff war. However, unilateral concessions on Beijing’s part are neither viable nor politically palatable.
Regional coordination
Trump’s tariff wars have done more than strain bilateral relationships; they have shaken the foundations of the global trading system.
By sidelining the World Trade Organization and embracing a transactional approach to bilateral trade, the US has weakened multilateral norms and emboldened protectionist tendencies worldwide.
One unintended consequence of this instability has been the resurgence of regional arrangements. In Asia, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), backed by China and centred on the ASEAN bloc in Southeast Asia, has emerged as a credible alternative for economic cooperation.
Meanwhile, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) continues to expand, with the United Kingdom joining late last year.
Across Latin America, too, regional blocs are exploring new avenues for integration, hoping to buffer themselves against the shocks of resurgent protectionism.
But regionalism is no panacea. It cannot replicate the scale or efficiency of global trade, nor can it restore the predictability on which exporters depend.
Looming dangers
The greater danger is the world drifting into a Kindleberger Trap — a situation in which no power steps forward to provide the leadership necessary to sustain global public goods, or a stable trading system.
Economist Charles Kindleberger’s account of the Great Depression remains instructive: it was not the presence of conflict but the absence of leadership that brought about the global economy’s systemic collapse.
Without renewed global coordination, the economic fragmentation triggered by Trump’s tariff wars could give way to something far more dangerous than a recession – rising geopolitical and military tensions that no region can contain.
The political landscape is already fraught. The Chinese Communist Party, for instance, has long tethered its legitimacy to the promise of eventual unification with Taiwan. Yet the costs of using force remain prohibitively high.
Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te’s recent designation of China as a “foreign hostile force” have sharpened tensions. Beijing’s response has been calibrated – military exercises intended more as a warning than a prelude to conflict.
However, the intensifying trade war with the US may become the final straw that exhausts Beijing’s patience, leaving Taiwan as collateral damage in a US-China final showdown.
A role for collective leadership
China alone is neither able nor inclined to assume the mantle of global leadership. Its current focus is more on domestic priorities – sustaining economic growth and managing social stability – than on foreign policy.
Yet, Beijing can still play a constructive role in shaping the international environment through its cooperation with Europe, ASEAN and the Global South.
The objective is not to replace American hegemony, but to support a more multi-polar and collaborative system — one capable of sustaining global public goods in an era of uncertainty.
Paradoxically, a more coordinated effort by the rest of the world may ultimately help bring the US back into the fold. Washington may rediscover the strategic value of engagement — and return not as the sole leader, but as an indispensable partner.
In the short term, other states may seek to gain an advantage from the great power standoff. But they should remember that what begins as a clash between giants can quickly engulf bystanders.
In this volatile landscape, the path forward does not lie in exploiting disorder. Rather, nations must cautiously advance the shared interest in restoring a stable, rules-based global order.
Kai He receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
The internet’s latest absurd obsession is: who would win in a no-rules fight between 100 average human men and one adult male gorilla?
This hypothetical and strange question has taken over Reddit, TikTok, YouTube and Instagram. Some argue that humans once hunted mammoths so, clearly, we would win. Others point out that a silverback gorilla can lift close to 1,000kg and could throw a grown man like a rag doll.
To be honest, it’s not really a question we need to answer – and yet, as usual on the internet, everyone has an opinion.
But, beyond the jokes and memes, this silly debate provides an opportunity to reflect on human evolution. What are the real strengths of our species? What have we sacrificed? And what can a gorilla, our majestic, powerful and endangered distant cousin, teach us about our own nature and evolution?
Gorillas and humans: two branches of the same evolutionary tree
Gorillas are one of our closest living relatives. Along with chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans, they belong to the great apes or Hominidae family. Chimpanzees share about 98.8% of their DNA with us, while gorillas come a close second, sharing around 98.4%.
The last common ancestor between humans and gorillas lived roughly 10 million years ago, and it is also the same ancestor for chimpanzees.
Since the evolutionary split, humans and gorillas have followed very different paths. Gorillas have adapted to dense forests and mountainous terrains, while humans have evolved to live in the open, but realistically to multiple and various environments.
Despite the substantial difference in ecological niches, humans and gorillas share many traits, such as opposable thumbs, facial expressions, complex social behaviours and emotional intelligence.
Mastering forest power
In the recent Dune saga, to win, Duke Leto Atreides wanted to develop “desert power”. Well, gorillas have mastered forest power.
And let’s be clear – in terms of raw power, the gorilla wins every time. An adult male silverback can weigh more than 160kg and lift about a tonne without going to the gym every day. Their upper-body strength is shocking. And that’s no evolutionary accident – it’s the result of intense competition between males, where dominance determines mating.
Additionally, gorillas are extremely tough and resilient, yet gentle and calm most of the time. Gorillas, like many primates, have a strong social intelligence. They use a variety of vocalisations, gestures and even chest drumming to communicate across distances.
They have shown the ability to use sign language, mourn their dead, and demonstrate empathy, attesting to sophisticated cognitive skills.
Trading muscles for minds
A fight between 100 men and one gorilla might lead to a lot of dead men, but we all know that men will come with weapons, strategies, drones, fire and other clever tricks.
Humans are not physically strong in comparison to many other mammals. Our strength as a species is our adaptability and our ability to collaborate in very large groups.
Our brains are, on average, three times larger proportionally than those of gorillas. This fantastic evolutionary adaptation has allowed us to develop abstract thinking and symbolic language, but most of all, to pass and build on complex knowledge across generations.
Humans’ evolutionary history has led to trading brute force for social, cultural and technological complexity, making us Earth’s most versatile and dangerous species.
So, who’s the winner?
In a one-on-one brawl, the gorilla can make “human-mash” with one hand. There is no contest when discussing brute force and bare hands.
But humans fight dirty. Judging by our evolutionary success, humans would likely lose many battles but ultimately win the fight. Mountain gorillas were not on the brink of extinction in the 1980s without our help.
Our species has spread across all continents, all terrains, and all climates. We have reshaped ecosystems, walked on the Moon, and developed advanced technologies. But gorillas are another kind of success rooted in harmony with their environment, physical grace, and quiet strength.
Perhaps the real takeaway message isn’t who wins in a fight, but to realise that two very different and yet very close cousins have walked two separate evolutionary roads, each in their own distinct way. And both are nature’s triumph and accomplishment.
Renaud Joannes-Boyau receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Leakey Foundation, National Geographic, and the European Research Council.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on May 1, 2025.
What’s the difference between a tantrum and a meltdown? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shawna Mastro Campbell, Assistant Professor Clinical Psychology, Bond University Volurol/Shutterstock If you live with young children, there’s a good chance you’ve been on the receiving end of a child yelling, screaming, crying, throwing or hitting things. But how do parents know what is typical and age-related boundary
Is WA Health having final say over edits of Paramedics ‘censorship’? Yes. But it’s necessary Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jan Cattoni, Lecturer, Screen Production, CQUniversity Australia Australian reality TV debuted in 2006 with Bondi Rescue. The show featured a winning formula of sun, surf, heroes and danger. It sparked many similar programs featuring police, helicopter crews and paramedics. Paramedics (2018–), as the title suggests, follows Australian
Savvy athletes and new technology are flipping traditional sports marketing on its head Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Cairney, Professor and Head of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences; Director, The Queensland Centre for Olympic and Paralympic Studies, The University of Queensland Not so long ago, life was pretty simple for sports leagues and teams when it came to connecting with fans: the contests and
3 years on from the ‘integrity’ election, how is Australia tracking on corruption reforms? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Griffiths, Democracy Deputy Program Director, Grattan Institute Taras Vyshnya/Shutterstock At the last federal election, the then opposition leader Anthony Albanese pledged to “change the way politics operates in this country”. Integrity was a key issue in 2022, and Australians voted for a change of government and
Are side hustles really a way to escape the rat race, or just passion projects for a privileged few? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Farrugia, ARC Future Fellow, School of Education, Deakin University PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock Is a “side hustle” really the only thing separating you from the life you desire? Listening to some influencers on social media could certainly have you thinking so. Side hustles encompass a range
Feuding mob families, mind control and a murder at the White House: what to watch in May Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexa Scarlata, Lecturer, Digital Communication, RMIT University Disney+/Prime/Netflix/Paramount+/The Conversation It’s May! Where did the year go? It must be all the amazing TV we’re watching that’s making the time whiz by. This month’s lineup of expert picks is packed with standout shows across all genres. Whether you’re
How does consciousness work? Duelling scientists tested two big theories but found no winner Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Bayne, Professor of Philosophy, Monash University cdd20 / Unsplash “Theories are like toothbrushes,” it’s sometimes said. “Everybody has their own and nobody wants to use anybody else’s.” It’s a joke, but when it comes to the study of consciousness – the question of how we have
Australians are warming to minority governments – but they still prefer majority rule Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Biddle, Professor of Economics and Public Policy, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University Minority governments have been part of Australia’s political history since Federation. In the country’s early decades, Prime Ministers Edmund Barton, Alfred Deakin, Chris Watson, George Reid and Andrew Fisher
Donald Trump has cast a long shadow over the Australian election. Will it prove decisive? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University Donald Trump is everywhere, inescapable. His return to power in the United States was always going to have some impact on the Australian federal election. The question was how disruptive he would be.
Playing politics with AI: why NZ needs rules on the use of ‘fake’ images in election campaigns Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwyn Isaacs, Lecturer, Anthropology, University of Waikato Laurence Dutton/Getty Images Seeing is no longer believing in the age of images and videos generated by artificial intelligence (AI), and this is having an impact on elections in New Zealand and elsewhere. Ahead of the 2025 local body elections,
When it comes to health information, who should you trust? 4 ways to spot a dodgy ‘expert’ Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University Surface/Unsplash When it comes to our health, we’re constantly being warned about being taken in by misinformation. Yet for most of us what we believe ultimately comes down to who we trust, including which “experts” we trust. The problem is
What is a downburst? These winds can be as destructive as tornadoes − we recreate them to test building designs Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amal Elawady, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Florida International University A downburst blasts Bangkok, Thailand, in 2017. Natapat Ariyamongkol/iStock/Getty Images Plus From a distance, a downburst can look like a torrent of heavy rain. But at ground level, its behavior can be far more destructive.
Confirmed: Australian weapons sold to Israel, reveals Declassified Australia Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. – SPECIAL REPORT: By Michelle Fahy The Australian counter-drone weapons system seen at a weapons demonstration in Israel recently is actually just one of a few that were sold by the Canberra-based company Electro Optic Systems (EOS) and sent through its wholly-owned US subsidiary to Israel, Declassified
Amid Dutton’s ‘hate media’ and Trump’s despotism, press freedom is more vital than ever COMMENTARY: By Alexandra Wake Despite all the political machinations and hate towards the media coming from the president of the United States, I always thought the majority of Australian politicians supported the role of the press in safeguarding democracy. And I certainly did not expect Peter Dutton — amid an election campaign, one with citizens
Election Diary: post-election rate cut and phone call from Trump in the pipeline Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra It used to be de rigueur for the prime minister and opposition leader to turn up to the National Press Club in the final week of the election campaign. But now Liberal leaders are not so keen. Scott Morrison gave
Inaccurate 1News reporting on football violence breached broadcasting standards, rules BSA Broadcasting Standards Authority New Zealand’s Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) has upheld complaints about two 1News reports relating to violence around a football match in Amsterdam between local team Ajax and Israel’s Maccabi Tel Aviv. The authority found an item on “antisemitic violence” surrounding the match, and another on heightened security in Paris the following week,
People’s mental health goes downhill after repeated climate disasters – it’s an issue of social equity Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ang Li, ARC DECRA and Senior Research Fellow, NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Healthy Housing, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne Across Australia, communities are grappling with climate disasters that are striking more frequently and with greater intensity. Bushfires, floods and
Older Australians are also hurting from the housing crisis. Where are the election policies to help them? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Victoria Cornell, Research Fellow, Flinders University shutterstock beeboys/Shutterstock It would be impossible at this stage in the election campaign to be unaware that housing is a critical, potentially vote-changing, issue. But the suite of policies being proposed by the major parties largely focus on young, first home
Inflation is easing, boosting the case for another interest rate cut in May Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra Daria Nipot/Shutterstock Australia’s headline inflation rate held steady at a four-year low of 2.4% in the March quarter, according to official data, adding to the case for a cut in interest rates at
Is your child anxious about going on school camp? Here are 4 ways to prepare Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Micah Boerma, Researcher, School of Psychology and Wellbeing, University of Southern Queensland Nitinai Thabthong/Shutterstock One of the highlights of the school year is an overnight excursion or school camp. These can happen as early as Year 3. While many students are very excited about the chance to
The United States and China remain in a standoff in their tariff war. Neither side appears willing to budge.
After US President Donald Trump imposed massive 145% tariffs on Chinese imports in early April, China retaliated with its own tariffs of 125% on US goods.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said this week it’s up to China to de-escalate tensions. China’s Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, said the two sides are not talking.
The prospect of economic decoupling between the world’s two largest economies is no longer speculative. It is becoming a hard reality. While many observersdebate who might “win” the trade war, the more likely outcome is that everyone loses.
A convenient target
Trump’s protectionist agenda has spared few. Allies and adversaries alike have been targeted by sweeping US tariffs. However, China has served as the main target, absorbing the political backlash of broader frustrations over trade deficits and economic displacement in the US.
The economic costs to China are undeniable. The loss of reliable access to the US market, coupled with mounting uncertainty in the global trading system, has dealt a blow to China’s export-driven sectors.
China’s comparative advantage lies in its vast manufacturing base and tightly integrated supply chains. This is especially true in high-tech and green industries such as electric vehicles, batteries and solar energy. These sectors are deeply dependent on open markets and predictable demand.
New trade restrictions in Europe, Canada and the US on Chinese electric vehicles, in particular, have already caused demand to drop significantly.
China’s GDP growth was higher than expected in the first quarter of the year at 5.4%, but analysts expect the effect of the tariffs to soon bite. A key measure of factory activity this week showed a contraction in manufacturing.
China’s economic growth has also been weighed down by structural headwinds, including industrial overcapacity (when a country’s production of goods exceeds demand), an ageing population, rising youth unemployment and persistent regional disparities. The property sector — once a pillar of the country’s economic rise — has become a source of financial stress. Local government debt is mounting and a pension crisis is looming.
Negotiations with the US might be desirable to end the tariff war. However, unilateral concessions on Beijing’s part are neither viable nor politically palatable.
Regional coordination
Trump’s tariff wars have done more than strain bilateral relationships; they have shaken the foundations of the global trading system.
By sidelining the World Trade Organization and embracing a transactional approach to bilateral trade, the US has weakened multilateral norms and emboldened protectionist tendencies worldwide.
One unintended consequence of this instability has been the resurgence of regional arrangements. In Asia, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), backed by China and centred on the ASEAN bloc in Southeast Asia, has emerged as a credible alternative for economic cooperation.
Meanwhile, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) continues to expand, with the United Kingdom joining late last year.
Across Latin America, too, regional blocs are exploring new avenues for integration, hoping to buffer themselves against the shocks of resurgent protectionism.
But regionalism is no panacea. It cannot replicate the scale or efficiency of global trade, nor can it restore the predictability on which exporters depend.
Looming dangers
The greater danger is the world drifting into a Kindleberger Trap — a situation in which no power steps forward to provide the leadership necessary to sustain global public goods, or a stable trading system.
Economist Charles Kindleberger’s account of the Great Depression remains instructive: it was not the presence of conflict but the absence of leadership that brought about the global economy’s systemic collapse.
Without renewed global coordination, the economic fragmentation triggered by Trump’s tariff wars could give way to something far more dangerous than a recession – rising geopolitical and military tensions that no region can contain.
The political landscape is already fraught. The Chinese Communist Party, for instance, has long tethered its legitimacy to the promise of eventual unification with Taiwan. Yet the costs of using force remain prohibitively high.
Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te’s recent designation of China as a “foreign hostile force” have sharpened tensions. Beijing’s response has been calibrated – military exercises intended more as a warning than a prelude to conflict.
However, the intensifying trade war with the US may become the final straw that exhausts Beijing’s patience, leaving Taiwan as collateral damage in a US-China final showdown.
A role for collective leadership
China alone is neither able nor inclined to assume the mantle of global leadership. Its current focus is more on domestic priorities – sustaining economic growth and managing social stability – than on foreign policy.
Yet, Beijing can still play a constructive role in shaping the international environment through its cooperation with Europe, ASEAN and the Global South.
The objective is not to replace American hegemony, but to support a more multi-polar and collaborative system — one capable of sustaining global public goods in an era of uncertainty.
Paradoxically, a more coordinated effort by the rest of the world may ultimately help bring the US back into the fold. Washington may rediscover the strategic value of engagement — and return not as the sole leader, but as an indispensable partner.
In the short term, other states may seek to gain an advantage from the great power standoff. But they should remember that what begins as a clash between giants can quickly engulf bystanders.
In this volatile landscape, the path forward does not lie in exploiting disorder. Rather, nations must cautiously advance the shared interest in restoring a stable, rules-based global order.
Kai He receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Australian reality TV debuted in 2006 with Bondi Rescue. The show featured a winning formula of sun, surf, heroes and danger. It sparked many similar programs featuring police, helicopter crews and paramedics.
Paramedics (2018–), as the title suggests, follows Australian paramedics at work, and airs on Nine. Previous seasons focused on staff of Ambulance Victoria and SA Ambulance. The latest season, being filmed now in Perth, follows paramedics of St John Ambulance Western Australia.
Last week, the ABC reported WA Health has issued a directive that filming must end “at the time of entering a hospital ramp” and no filming is to happen at hospitals.
They also stipulate “vision that is used to negatively portray the WA Health system, including but not limited to perceived capacity constraints, is not permitted to be used”.
This move drew criticism from WA Shadow Health Minister, Libby Mettam, and WA president of the Australian Medical Association, Michael Page, who claimed it amounts to censorship of healthcare delivery issues, in particular issues of “ramping” – ambulances waiting outside emergency departments until space becomes available.
I created and directed the reality series Chopper Rescue (2009–11) for ABC, following real rescue helicopter crews saving lives in regional and remote north Queensland. Here’s what to consider when it comes to obtaining permissions to record factual television shows like these.
Sharing stories
These shows occupy a complex position between service provision and entertainment, creating inherent conflicts of interest.
I developed the concept for Chopper Rescue from dual perspectives: as a filmmaker and as an experienced PICU (paediatric intensive care unit) nurse who had participated in many retrievals.
I wanted to share stories of the incredible rescue crews: unassuming individuals undertaking extensive training, available 24/7. They might just happen to be the person sitting on the train opposite you travelling home after an all night saga.
I wanted audiences to appreciate how lucky we are to have such services.
From my first experience retrieving a child from a small regional clinic in the middle of the night, I was struck by the human drama and visual spectacle. Flying low at dawn over a sleeping city and safely delivering a sick child to expert care adhered to a perfect narrative structure.
The success of shows like Chopper Rescue and Paramedics depends on the willingness of professionals to share their knowledge, and of those being rescued agreeing to have their stories aired. The most successful shows are a partnership, where those in front of the camera are able to exercise some agency in how they are represented on screen.
By the time viewers see such content, multiple layers of permission have been negotiated.
Seeking consent
The most complex negotiation is the access agreements with organisations who have jurisdiction over the entities involved. For Paramedics, agreements would have been negotiated with St John’s Ambulance and WA Health.
Such agreements always include conditions to protect individuals and professional reputations.
Production companies must obtain signed consent from everyone identifiable onscreen. This is a complicated process when filming in emergency departments where multiple personnel might be attending to critically unwell patients.
Production release forms typically assign worldwide rights to use recordings, while indemnifying the company against claims. Individuals can request variations, such as viewing content before release, but this requires understanding this option exists. Ethical documentary practice would explore individuals’ options at the time of signing the release.
If someone doesn’t consent, their face is typically blurred. This highlights the tension between legal and ethical practice: blurring of identity meets legal requirements, but overlooks an individual’s choice not to participate.
Then there is the case of organisational access agreements. Post production facilities are intense spaces where editors, directors and producers make decisions about episodes, creating perfect cuts and dramatic effects. What’s often missing in the edit suite is professional knowledge to determine whether a scene, while being dramatically successful, might contain actions by a professional that could be viewed critically by peers.
There is little scope for the acknowledgement of human error once a show is aired, but human error occurs – particularly in high stakes situations.
Access agreements and filming protocols ensure edited content is reviewed by those familiar with the setting. In the case of the new season of Paramedics, this responsibility will fall to WA Health.
Is this censorship? Yes. Is it necessary? I would say yes, given these shows offer entertainment, not expository documentaries.
Our human vulnerability
There is another hidden risk for those being rescued: the presence of cameras capturing professionals at work.
Awareness that millions might be watching on can potentially distract paramedics, doctors and pilots – with potentially disastrous consequences.
And what about patients’ rights to receive assistance without the presence of microphones and cameras? Can we assume that patients are informed in advance that they may be filmed and have the option to decline? Clear protocols for filming are essential to ensure such patient rights are protected.
As a filmmaker, I recognise the appeal of these shows. Viewers access normally restricted spaces, witnessing emergency calls and human drama. Such moments can be potent, allowing reflection on our human vulnerability. The educational potential is also significant, sharing important information about health conditions and interventions.
It is unclear whether similar restrictions were requested in other states, but there is nothing unusual in WA Health seeking conditions to film in their facilities.
However, to specifically exclude ambulance ramping has potentially left them vulnerable to criticism, rather than requesting general content approval.
Jan Cattoni 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.
If you live with young children, there’s a good chance you’ve been on the receiving end of a child yelling, screaming, crying, throwing or hitting things.
In general, a tantrum is considered behavioural. The child has learned that the behaviour (like screaming or crying in defiant protest) can help them get what they want.
The behaviour may be a natural reaction for a child who is still learning how to regulate their emotions.
Sometimes, the outcome a child wants is a parent’s attention. So if a parent yells and negotiates with their child, this can reinforce tantrums and make them more likely in the future.
Once a child has obtained the desired outcome, the behaviour can decrease in the short term. But as the child has learned a tantrum is an effective way to get what they want, this may contribute to further tantrums in the long term.
What’s a meltdown?
A meltdown relates to having difficulty in regulating (usually distressing) emotions. We may still see the same types of behaviours and emotional outbursts as those in a tantrum. But a dysregulated child in a meltdown typically cannot de-escalate quickly, and offering a desired outcome is of little comfort.
Usually, a meltdown happens because a child’s brain is overwhelmed, overloaded or under-resourced (for instance, if they are tired, hungry and don’t have skills to stay regulated). Their nervous system kicks into an “out of control” state of emotional dysregulation. In this situation, their brain is not yet able to learn, engage in rational discussion, or meaningfully apologise.
Sometimes behaviours start as tantrums, quickly spiral into a feeling of being emotionally out of control, before a shift to “meltdown”.
This can be especially relevant for children who are neurodevelopmentally divergent, such as autistic children or children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), who may have less capacity to regulate their emotions.
How to react?
Dealing with tantrums and meltdowns involves parents being responsive, and labelling and understanding their child’s emotions.
Empathy is the key to defusing big emotions and strengthening relationships. An empathetic response allows your child to feel connected to an understanding parent, which can de-escalate a conflict.
For instance, if your child is crying and yelling after you tell them to power off the iPad before dinner, you might say:
I can see you were enjoying watching that. It’s really tricky to stop doing something we like, like watching Bluey. I struggle to switch off my favourite show, too. But, it is time for dinner, so we will turn off the iPad now.
How we hold boundaries is also important. For example, you might respond to a meltdown that includes hitting or throwing things with:
You are allowed to be upset but you are not allowed to hurt me, hurt yourself, or our house.
Not all behaviour is dangerous – such as swearing, using a silly voice, or using toilet-talk (saying things like “poo”). So it’s OK to pick your battles and ignore those behaviours by looking or turning away and not responding.
However, if you are worried your child might harm themselves or someone else – perhaps by running away, or climbing on a table – an appropriate reaction is to ensure physical safety and say:
It is my job to help you keep your body safe, so I’m going to help you make a safe choice.
Dinner time! You know what usually happens next, a tantrum. But you can defuse the situation with some empathy. Steve Heap/Shutterstock
What not to do
Being harsh to yourself or worrying about strangers judging your parenting won’t help end the tantrum or meltdown any quicker.
Distracting your child is rarely effective while a tantrum or meltdown is happening. This might even give children the impression they should avoid their feelings.
Decades of research has also shown using forms of physical punishment such as smacking does not deter problematic behaviour, and contributes to worsening mental health in the short and long term.
How about preventing tantrums and meltdowns?
We cannot avoid tantrums or meltdowns entirely. Having intense emotions is part of normal child development. It is also not possible to always respond perfectly. Trying to meet your child’s needs for connection and boundary setting most of the time is “good enough”.
But praising appropriate behaviour is the key preventative buffer against tantrums and meltdowns. You can also admire the unique and special qualities in your child.
Both increase the quality of your relationship, let your child know what types of behaviour are appropriate, and makes them feel good about themselves – and you.
Are you overwhelmed?
Having patience for children having a tantrum or meltdown while their brain develops can be a challenge. But in the short term, you can be empathetic towards your child and yourself by saying:
My child is learning, and so am I.
For a longer-term perspective, say:
This is a phase.
If you feel overwhelmed, quick strategies can mean the difference between responding with empathy and boundaries, or reacting with accidental reinforcement, such as yelling or giving in. Try:
taking a few deep, slow breaths
counting to five before reacting
taking a break – make a cup of tea, get a drink of water
checking if you are tired, hungry, or have an unmet need
saying nothing if you have nothing nice to say
labelling your own feelings, and describing what you are going to do to calm down.
Susan Rowe is a current member of the Gold Coast Primary Health Network Clinical Advisory Council.
Shawna Mastro Campbell 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.
If you live with young children, there’s a good chance you’ve been on the receiving end of a child yelling, screaming, crying, throwing or hitting things.
In general, a tantrum is considered behavioural. The child has learned that the behaviour (like screaming or crying in defiant protest) can help them get what they want.
The behaviour may be a natural reaction for a child who is still learning how to regulate their emotions.
Sometimes, the outcome a child wants is a parent’s attention. So if a parent yells and negotiates with their child, this can reinforce tantrums and make them more likely in the future.
Once a child has obtained the desired outcome, the behaviour can decrease in the short term. But as the child has learned a tantrum is an effective way to get what they want, this may contribute to further tantrums in the long term.
What’s a meltdown?
A meltdown relates to having difficulty in regulating (usually distressing) emotions. We may still see the same types of behaviours and emotional outbursts as those in a tantrum. But a dysregulated child in a meltdown typically cannot de-escalate quickly, and offering a desired outcome is of little comfort.
Usually, a meltdown happens because a child’s brain is overwhelmed, overloaded or under-resourced (for instance, if they are tired, hungry and don’t have skills to stay regulated). Their nervous system kicks into an “out of control” state of emotional dysregulation. In this situation, their brain is not yet able to learn, engage in rational discussion, or meaningfully apologise.
Sometimes behaviours start as tantrums, quickly spiral into a feeling of being emotionally out of control, before a shift to “meltdown”.
This can be especially relevant for children who are neurodevelopmentally divergent, such as autistic children or children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), who may have less capacity to regulate their emotions.
How to react?
Dealing with tantrums and meltdowns involves parents being responsive, and labelling and understanding their child’s emotions.
Empathy is the key to defusing big emotions and strengthening relationships. An empathetic response allows your child to feel connected to an understanding parent, which can de-escalate a conflict.
For instance, if your child is crying and yelling after you tell them to power off the iPad before dinner, you might say:
I can see you were enjoying watching that. It’s really tricky to stop doing something we like, like watching Bluey. I struggle to switch off my favourite show, too. But, it is time for dinner, so we will turn off the iPad now.
How we hold boundaries is also important. For example, you might respond to a meltdown that includes hitting or throwing things with:
You are allowed to be upset but you are not allowed to hurt me, hurt yourself, or our house.
Not all behaviour is dangerous – such as swearing, using a silly voice, or using toilet-talk (saying things like “poo”). So it’s OK to pick your battles and ignore those behaviours by looking or turning away and not responding.
However, if you are worried your child might harm themselves or someone else – perhaps by running away, or climbing on a table – an appropriate reaction is to ensure physical safety and say:
It is my job to help you keep your body safe, so I’m going to help you make a safe choice.
Dinner time! You know what usually happens next, a tantrum. But you can defuse the situation with some empathy. Steve Heap/Shutterstock
What not to do
Being harsh to yourself or worrying about strangers judging your parenting won’t help end the tantrum or meltdown any quicker.
Distracting your child is rarely effective while a tantrum or meltdown is happening. This might even give children the impression they should avoid their feelings.
Decades of research has also shown using forms of physical punishment such as smacking does not deter problematic behaviour, and contributes to worsening mental health in the short and long term.
How about preventing tantrums and meltdowns?
We cannot avoid tantrums or meltdowns entirely. Having intense emotions is part of normal child development. It is also not possible to always respond perfectly. Trying to meet your child’s needs for connection and boundary setting most of the time is “good enough”.
But praising appropriate behaviour is the key preventative buffer against tantrums and meltdowns. You can also admire the unique and special qualities in your child.
Both increase the quality of your relationship, let your child know what types of behaviour are appropriate, and makes them feel good about themselves – and you.
Are you overwhelmed?
Having patience for children having a tantrum or meltdown while their brain develops can be a challenge. But in the short term, you can be empathetic towards your child and yourself by saying:
My child is learning, and so am I.
For a longer-term perspective, say:
This is a phase.
If you feel overwhelmed, quick strategies can mean the difference between responding with empathy and boundaries, or reacting with accidental reinforcement, such as yelling or giving in. Try:
taking a few deep, slow breaths
counting to five before reacting
taking a break – make a cup of tea, get a drink of water
checking if you are tired, hungry, or have an unmet need
saying nothing if you have nothing nice to say
labelling your own feelings, and describing what you are going to do to calm down.
Susan Rowe is a current member of the Gold Coast Primary Health Network Clinical Advisory Council.
Shawna Mastro Campbell 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.
At the last federal election, the then opposition leader Anthony Albanese pledged to “change the way politics operates in this country”. Integrity was a key issue in 2022, and Australians voted for a change of government and a wave of independents who championed anti-corruption reforms.
Labor’s election commitments included a federal corruption commission “with teeth” and the powers to hold public hearings. The new government was subsequently held to account by crossbenchers who were elected on platforms of integrity and honesty in politics.
Three years on, how much progress has been made on those promised changes?
Australia has made significant headway on some of these fronts, while others are still in progress or have stalled. Whoever forms government after Saturday will need to stay the course on many of these reforms and lift its game on others.
However, compromises were made on the promised model, most notably that the Commission only has the power to hold public hearings in “exceptional circumstances”.
The NACC has been fairly quiet in its first two years in operation – not surprising given the time it takes to establish itself and wade through a mountain of potential investigations.
But it did raise its head above the parapet with a decision not to investigate the Robodebt royal commission referrals, which drew so many complaints the decision was independently reviewed, and subsequently reversed.
It is too soon to assess the success of the NACC, but we have seen some improvement in Australia’s Corruption Perceptions Index in recent years, which is at least partly attributed to its establishment.
Other progress
The Albanese government has also made progress on reducing vested-interest influence in our politics. Under the Electoral Reform Bill passed in February this year, Australians will now get better and more timely information on political donations. The new caps on electoral expenditure put a ceiling on the fundraising “arms race”.
These are important steps forward. But the bill also takes a step back. It favours incumbents, which will make it harder for new entrants to contest elections. The changes don’t come into effect until July 1 next year, so there is still time for the next parliament to amend the rules.
Finally, progress was made on appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which Labor claim had become highly politicised by the Morrison government.
On the eve of the 2025 election, Australia’s institutions are generally strong, outperforming many of our international peers.
But we cannot afford to be complacent. The global context is increasingly alarming, with the international rules-based order under siege. Democracy is more fragile than ever.
Australians generally trust that government will protect lives in an emergency, and that it takes decisions based on evidence. But they are more sceptical when it comes to corporate influence in politics, and misuse of public office for personal or political gain.
5 priorities for action
There are several things the next government can do to maintain trust and confidence in our institutions.
The first is to stay the course on the NACC as it builds trust with the Australian people. This will take time, and increased public engagement, particularly through its corruption prevention outreach.
Second, amending the recent electoral reforms would level the playing field for new candidates. The total cap of $90 million for electoral expenditure by a political party is too high. And the per-seat cap of $800,000 is too low, advantaging incumbents over new entrants, who typically need to spend more to
introduce themselves to their electorates.
There are also loopholes in the legislation that benefit the major parties by allowing the donations cap and disclosure threshold to apply separately to each branch of a party.
Third, it would be timely to take a closer look at government advertising. Parliament should tighten the rules to ensure that taxpayer-funded advertising can’t be used to spruik the government of the day.
Fourth, the government has the opportunity to build on the abolition of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, by extending best-practice processes to all public appointments. And it should make public grants processes more open and competitive.
These reforms would support confidence in our institutions, ensure taxpayers get better value for money, and reduce opportunities for “jobs for mates” and “pork-barrelling”, which are particularly corrosive to public trust.
Finally, the government can do more to reduce vested-interest influence in politics. Ministerial diaries should be published to improve transparency of lobbying activity.
Gambling is one example of a powerful industry swaying policy in its favour. Consumer protections to prevent gambling harm are weak, despite the compelling case for reform. Government should be taking action in the public interest.
Collectively, these reforms would have very little budgetary impact. But they could substantially improve confidence in our policy-making institutions, which should be a clear priority for whoever forms government after Saturday.
The Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Cairney, Professor and Head of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences; Director, The Queensland Centre for Olympic and Paralympic Studies, The University of Queensland
Not so long ago, life was pretty simple for sports leagues and teams when it came to connecting with fans: the contests and athletes were the stars of the show, with the on-field action covered and celebrated by sports media accordingly.
Things are rapidly changing.
Sport used to primarily be about performance, competition and entertainment. Now, sport and the athletes who play it are often dynamic media platforms.
This paradigm shift is being driven by the convergence of artificial intelligence (AI), data mining, immersive technology and the creator economy. Each exposes anomalies in the old model and demands a new framework for how sport is consumed, valued and organised.
In today’s modern sporting landscape, many leagues, teams and even mega-events are fully functioning media companies.
Athletes are both product and producer.
They not only generate performance-based content (highlights, stats) but also personal narratives, political positions, or cultural influence.
They are creators and media entities in the full sense — with their own brands, platforms and followers.
Professional leagues and events must reckon with the power shift these actions imply.
There is extraordinary opportunity in leveraging athletes’ identities for deeper fan engagement. But there is also caution: narratives may not always align with league and team/owner agendas.
Consider some recent examples.
Former No. 1-ranked women’s tennis player Naomi Osaka used her platforms to create a brand that spans fashion, media and activism.
Her 2021 withdrawal from the French Open, which she announced on her own terms on social media, stemmed from her decision to skip post-match press conferences to protect her mental health.
Osaka’s move highlighted both the opportunity created by authentic, athlete-driven engagement and the challenge it posed to traditional tournament control.
Since joining the Dodgers, he has tightly curated his public image, favouring controlled, self-managed media content over traditional press access.
His control over access and messaging means the Dodgers and Major League Baseball can’t fully shape his story.
Ash Barty’s post-retirement career offers a compelling Australian parallel.
Since stepping away from tennis in 2022 while ranked No. 1, Barty has carefully balanced commercial endorsements, a memoir and media appearances.
Like Osaka and Ohtani, Barty’s example speaks to a new form of athlete agency: one where narrative control, emotional transparency and strategic silence all play a role in reshaping sport’s public conversation.
All these cases illustrate a shifting paradigm — where athletes are no longer just performers but powerful media outlets, often with more influence than the familiar institutions they represent.
The influence of AI
This opens important questions around ownership, intellectual property, image rights and the ethical stewardship of public platforms.
It also means if athletes, players and leagues are media companies, monetisation is a function — but not the sole purpose. Successful media ecosystems don’t just sell content, they also build belonging.
This means investing in and influencing community, culture and shared values — not just launching branded apps, paid streaming services, or spin-off content that extend the brand.
AI, in this context, becomes a community-builder, not just a recommendation engine. Its ability to support personalised experiences and micro-segmented fan journeys allows for mass intimacy: experiences that feel deeply individual yet can be scaled broadly.
With the help of data and machine learning, leagues and teams can now deliver mass customisation not just of products but of experiences and narratives — tailoring highlight reels, merchandise, content and even storylines for each fan. This shift enables a deeper, more emotional form of engagement.
The National Basketball Association (NBA)’s upgraded app and NBA ID platform bring this to life, using Microsoft Azure AI to serve fans personalised highlight reels, real-time stat overlays and exclusive content based on their favourite teams and players.
These “fan journeys of one” show how leagues can turn data into connection — building not just audiences but communities, powered by AI.
As to what the future may hold, some key questions in this space are:
How does AI reshape the power dynamics between leagues, athletes and fans?
What new business models will emerge when the fan is also a co-creator?
Can AI be used to foster social good through sport, not just drive engagement metrics?
This ongoing tension between “brand-dom” (controlled or innovative messaging) and “fandom” (grassroots, emotionally driven engagement) will continue to evolve as technology also evolves.
Sport’s future won’t just be something we watch — it will be shaped by fans, athletes and technology working together, and it will keep changing faster than ever.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
It’s May! Where did the year go? It must be all the amazing TV we’re watching that’s making the time whiz by. This month’s lineup of expert picks is packed with standout shows across all genres.
Whether you’re in the mood for laugh-out-loud comedies, powerful historical fiction, or sci-fi that will leave your brain rattling for days, there’s something binge-worthy waiting for you.
MobLand
Paramount+
Lately, I’ve found myself counting down the days each week for a new episode of MobLand to drop on Paramount+ on Sunday afternoon. The crime series is executive produced (and the first two episodes directed) by Guy Ritchie, and stars Tom Hardy, Pierce Brosnan and Helen Mirren – along with a heavyweight supporting cast – in a story about two rival mob families in London.
When tensions escalate after a night out, Hardy’s “fixer” character, Harry, works to keep the peace between the Harrigans and the Stevensons – be it with a quiet word or brutal force.
MobLand is as twisty, gruesome and fun as we’ve come to expect from Ritchie’s popular gangster titles. But while others have been regularly criticised for their lack or limited portrayal of female characters, MobLand benefits from the scheming and swearing of the inimitable Helen Mirren as matriarch Maeve Harrigan, and the quiet fury of Joanne Froggatt as Harry’s wife, Jan, as she tries to force the enforcer into marriage counselling.
The series has been a huge success for Paramount+ in Australia – becoming the largest launch in the platform’s history. And while some may find the weekly episode drop frustrating, for me it adds to the suspense.
– Alexa Scarlata
The Residence
Netflix
Faced with Donald Trump, show makers turn to alternative visions of leadership. The latest: a gay president, who is only a bit of a player, in a ridiculously entertaining picture of a crime within the White House.
At a US state dinner for visiting Australian Prime Minister Stephen Roos (Julian McMahon), the dead body of the chief usher is discovered, and the world’s greatest detective, Cordelia Cupp (Uzo Aduba), is called in. Not only is Cupp an avid bird-watcher, she is also an Agatha Christie devotee who likes to assemble all her suspects for a prolonged denouement.
The Residence is full of oblique references to current US politics. One former senator, Al Franken, plays a fictional senator named Aaron Filkins. And Tripp Morgan (Jason Lee), US President Perry Morgan’s odious brother, has several real-life precursors.
The series is also a guide to the White House itself, complete with the sort of lavish detail we’d expect from Shondaland productions. And it’s nice to see Netflix acknowledging Australians. Even if they couldn’t persuade Hugh Jackman to actually show up, there’s plenty of other home-grown talent – including cameos by Kylie Minogue.
– Dennis Altman
Last One Laughing UK
Prime Video
Last One Laughing is a battle royale for stand-ups. Ten comedians, one room, surrounded by cameras. Laugh once and they’re warned. Laugh again, and they’re out. Last comic left wins.
An international TV phenomenon in 29 countries, the latest season is from the United Kingdom, hosted by Jimmy Carr and featuring comedians like Bob Mortimer, Sara Pascoe and Joe Lycett.
Comedy takes time, but laughter can take less than a moment. Richard Ayoade nearly catches out two players when, asked what his childhood hobbies were, he replies: “I don’t know. I cried a lot?”
Last One Laughing doubles our laughs. We watch the actual joke, we get it, we laugh. And then we see comedians desperately trying not to laugh – but we know that they get the joke too! And so we get an unexpected second look at the joke.
Last One Laughing helps us understand why we laugh at our own jokes, why we can’t always explain what’s funny, and why gags don’t need words. We’re watching professional comedians get the joke (as we do!) without laughing (as we expect?) but we know that it’s all OK. And, however briefly, we glimpse the world anew.
Based on a popular podcast by Molly Kochan and Nicki Boyer, Dying for Sex is a funny, raunchy, heartfelt exploration of pleasure and death.
When Molly (Michelle Williams) finds out her cancer is back and this time it is terminal, she seeks out sexual desire and satisfaction in unusual places, making profound discoveries along the way.
The show is rated R for good reason: the depiction of sexual acts is graphic, but not exploitative or voyeuristic. Rather it embraces the messiness of having a body that is dying but seeking joy.
While Molly’s sexual adventures feature heavily (and explicitly), the heart of the show is Molly’s friendship with Nicki (Jenny Slate), which feels achingly real. Molly and Nicki are long-term friends, as such they adore and encourage each other’s idiosyncrasies and perceived flaws.
Williams is luminous and well-matched with Slate, who brings a levity and longing to caring for her best friend and supporting her new goals. Despite its relatively short runtime of just eight 30 minute episodes, we are treated to nuanced renderings of Molly’s complex relationships with her mother (Sissy Spacek), husband (Jay Duplass) and neighbour (Rob Delaney).
Dying for Sex is infuriating and heartbreaking, as well as absurdly funny – kinda like death.
– Jessica Ford
Black Mirror, season seven
Netflix
The seventh season of Black Mirror is an ominous return to the dark world of modern technology. This season comprises six new episodes, two of which are sequels to episodes from previous seasons.
Common People is a powerful opening to the season, starring two of the most famous actors to appear throughout. Amanda (Rashida Jones) and Mike (Chris O’Dowd) are an ordinary suburban couple struck by tragedy in the form of a serious medical emergency – a narrative turn that is compounded by an unexpected departure from Jones and O’Dowd’s comedic reputations. The collapse of their life reaches greater and greater depths, before culminating in a horrifying final scene.
The other five episodes of the season are not as dismal. USS Callister: Into Infinity, in particular, provides some resolution that the earlier episode USS Callister had not. Plaything, the sequel to the interactive film Bandersnatch, echoes USS Callister’s interest in video gaming, but takes its invasion of human life to an even more powerful conclusion. Bête Noire similarly toys with the idea of mind control.
Hotel Reverie and Eulogy are quieter episodes, and not as overtly critical of technological advance as the others. Both are very moving, and like Common People, are interested in the lengths one might go to for the people they love.
Black Mirror’s seventh season is both a warning and a guide for how to be human – and how not to.
– Jessica Gildersleeve
The Wheel of Time, season three
Prime Video
The Wheel of Time is Prime’s most recent entry into the increasingly popular epic fantasy genre. Despite a lacklustre first two seasons, season three finally rewards fans for their patience.
Adapted from Robert Jordan’s sprawling 14-book series, the new season begins full throttle with a violent battle between the all-female One Power-wielding Aes Sedai. While some episodes lag due to overly complicated exposition and agonising character development (just embrace the wolf already, Perrin), for the most part showrunner Rafe Judkins maintains the propulsive momentum established in the spectacular opening.
Episode four, The Road to the Spear, is a standout sure to please die-hard Jordan fans and new audiences alike. Cinematic in scope, the episode faithfully recounts Rand (Josha Stradowski) and Moiraine’s (Rosamund Pike) journey to Rhuidean in the Aiel Waste where Rand is confirmed as the Dragon Reborn.
Pike continues to provide much-needed gravitas as the steely Moiraine and Stradowski is a revelation. It doesn’t hurt that the episode makes good use of its deliciously vampy leather-clad villain Lanfear (Natasha O’Keeffe).
No doubt references to Jordan’s expansive lore might continue to baffle some viewers. However, the sumptuous costumes, increasingly assured performances and modernised relationships suggest the series has finally found its footing.
Long may The Wheel of Time continue to turn.
– Rachel Williamson
The Narrow Road to the Deep North
Prime Video
The Narrow Road to the Deep North stands as some of the most visceral and moving television produced in Australia in recent memory, marking a new accessibility and confidence to director Justin Kurzel.
Dorrigo Evans (Jacob Elordi/Ciarán Hinds) is a doctor sent to World War II. Captured during the Battle of Java he is taken as a prisoner of war (POW), where he is forced to lead his Australian soldiers on the building of the Burma-Thailand Railway.
Rather than an executor of violence, he is a pacifist and victim. Ultimately he has to make peace with his own trauma and guilt of survival when many around him perished – some of whom he knowingly sent to their inevitable death to ensure his own survival.
Faithfully adapted from Richard Flanagan’s novel in a screenplay by Shaun Grant, this production effectively creates interchanging timelines (seamlessly edited by Alexandre de Francesch) including prewar, war and postwar, and then flashes forward to Dorrigo in his mid-70s.
Structurally immaculate, The Narrow Road to the Deep North is not defined by its brutal torture of the POWs or comradeship of the starving soldiers (though they are powerful to watch). Instead, it points us towards the quieter visions of characters having to sit alone with their distorted memories.
Andor returns for a second season, as we follow the early days of the Rebel Alliance leading up to events in Rogue One.
One year after the events of season one, we open with Cassian (Diego Luna) impersonating an Imperial test pilot so he can steal a prototype Imperial ship. After stealing the ship, he must navigate a ragtag brigade whose infighting becomes violent.
Elsewhere on planet Mina-Rau, Bix (Adria Arjona) and other undocumented farm workers await Cassian’s arrival with the ship. Over on Chandrila, Imperial Senator Mon (Genevieve O’Reilly) navigates the diplomacy of her daughter’s wedding while continuing to discreetly support the rebellion.
The most chilling scenes in the opening episodes are perhaps those that show Imperial supervisor Dedra Meero (Denise Gough) attend a top-secret meeting where they strategise how best to cleanse the population of Gorman so they can mine a rare mineral.
As film academic Daniel Golding notes in an article about how Andor takes on the era of Trump 2.0, showrunner Tony Gilroy takes inspiration from several real world revolutionary events. Given Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Israel’s assault on Gaza and Trump’s increasing authoritarianism, it will be interesting to see how the revolution in this season continues to reflect real-world precarity.
I recommend refreshing your memory of season one before diving in, as the new season’s complexity relies on considerable assumed knowledge.
– Stuart Richards
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Is a “side hustle” really the only thing separating you from the life you desire? Listening to some influencers on social media could certainly have you thinking so.
Side hustles encompass a range of self-directed entrepreneurial activities undertaken while also working a job. For young people with limited access to capital, they’re the most accessible opportunity to engage in entrepreneurship.
Yet, we still know very little about who takes them on and why, and what kind of impact they have on working life in economies like Australia.
In our first year of data collection, we surveyed 1,497 side hustlers aged 18-34 and interviewed a further 68. Our findings raise questions about the merits of entrepreneurship as a solution to youth unemployment or a pathway to financial freedom.
What makes a side hustle?
To be included in our project, a young person had to be employed, but also carrying out some form of entrepreneurship.
We defined entrepreneurship as self-directed economic activity, where the side hustler has some measure of control over when they work, who they work for and what they charge.
The most popular side hustle among participants was selling goods (42.9%). Others included:
services such as gardening, dog-walking or moving furniture (29.2%)
creating media content (16.5%)
creative work such as graphic design or photography (11.3%).
Side hustling could include some “gig work” through online platforms, but only when these platforms allow workers to negotiate prices with clients and make choices about their work. As such, we excluded rideshare and food delivery drivers from the project.
While some people may assume that young people start a side hustle out of financial stress, we found side hustlers are actually a relatively privileged cohort.
They are a well-educated group. Almost two-thirds of our sample had university degrees and many of the remainder were studying. They also generally report their financial wellbeing as comfortable.
Why is this? Side hustles often don’t make much money, cost money to set up, and carry risk – all of the hallmarks of entrepreneurship.
Median hourly earnings from their side hustles are less than what they would make working in retail or hospitality, and on average they are about 50% what they make in their main job.
As one e-commerce side-hustler put it:
If I really put my time and energy into the consideration, I would say we’re not making much money at all […] It’s just something I enjoy doing in my free time.
Their side-hustle earnings are also uncertain: 65% say they are unsure what their earnings will look like in three months.
In other words, you need to be financially secure already to even contemplate a side hustle.
Passion over pay
Side hustles don’t make enough to help someone who is really financially struggling, and they are unlikely to be a pathway out of the employment “rat race”.
Despite this, our participants are overwhelmingly satisfied with their side hustles and say they have good work-life balance. So what motivates them?
Side hustlers often earned less than they would taking on a second job. BAZA Production/
The top motivation reported in our study is passion and enjoyment. Side hustlers say they want work that relates to their interests and enjoy the autonomy and flexibility that a side hustle allows.
Even though side hustles are often less profitable than a second job, the second-highest motivation was still money.
That’s likely because they offer a way of making some supplementary income in a way that is flexible and autonomous.
They’re often a source of “play money”. One 33-year-old man with an e-commerce side hustle told us:
If I was to pick up a second job, like […] Uber driving at night time, I won’t be happy, I’ll be tired, I’ll be stressed out trying to do that
Whereas, I think because I’ve got the passion for it here, I’m happy to do it because, like I said, I’m doing it at my own pace.
Pressure to be productive
Our research suggests that rather than being a pathway out of unemployment, side hustles actually represent a broader social and economic trend: more and more of young people’s lives are being encompassed by work.
Interviewees frequently talked about feeling like they needed to make their time outside of work productive in some way. For some, it was as though they could not justify leisure time unless it was financially profitable.
One participant told us:
You obviously want to enjoy life and have a bit of a chill time, but some days you just go like, “What am I doing? Just sitting at home and just relaxing watching Netflix or whatever. I should probably be out there making more money”.
Blurring work life boundaries?
Most participants were also not very concerned about growing their side hustles into businesses.
Instead, they aspired for balanced working lives with a side hustle offering passion, flexibility and autonomous work, and paid employment supporting them financially and offering the option of a traditional career.
They also did not necessarily see the time spent on their side hustles as work, being much more personally invested and self-directed in their side hustles than in their paid jobs.
But this means that much of their “leisure” time looks very much like work, and more and more of their lives are dedicated to being productive.
David Farrugia receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Brendan Churchill receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Kim Allen receives funding from the ESRC
Stephanie Patouras 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.
When it comes to our health, we’re constantly being warned about being taken in by misinformation. Yet for most of us what we believe ultimately comes down to who we trust, including which “experts” we trust.
The problem is that not everyone who presents themselves as an expert is actually an expert. And an expert in one area isn’t necessarily an expert in everything.
The reality is that we often rely on superficial cues to decide who to trust. We’re often swayed by how confidently someone speaks, their perceived authority, or how compelling their story sounds. For some, it’s simply the loudest voice that carries the most weight.
Even if we feel we have some understanding of science, few of us have the time or the capacity to verify every claim made by every so-called “expert”.
So how can we distinguish credible experts from those that are not? Here are four things I look out for.
1. Dodgy experts don’t acknowledge uncertainty
One thing that separates trustworthy experts from dodgy ones, is their humility. They have a healthy respect of the limitations of science, the gaps in the evidence, and even the limitations of their own expertise.
In contrast, one of the most common characteristics of the dodgy expert is they are misleadingly certain. They often present issues in overly simplistic, black-and-white terms, and they draw conclusions with misplaced confidence.
This, of course, is part of their appeal. A neat clear-cut message that downplays uncertainty, complexity and nuance can be persuasive – and often even more persuasive than a messy but accurate message.
One of the clearest examples of unfounded certainty was the confident claim by some “experts” early in the pandemic that COVID was no worse than the flu, a conclusion which ignored uncertainties in the emerging data.
2. The dodgy experts doesn’t strive to be objective
Credible experts follow a well-established and disciplined approach when communicating science. They present their understanding clearly, support it with evidence, and endeavour to remove emotion and bias from their thinking.
A core principle of scientific thinking is striving for objectivity – and language reflects this. Experts generally aim to provide high-quality information to assist the public to make informed decisions for themselves, rather than manipulating them to reach specific conclusions.
Dodgy experts often rely on overly emotional language, inject political agendas, or resort to personal attacks against critics in order to elicit strong emotions. This is a powerful tool for manipulating opinions when the evidence is lacking.
One of the most harmful examples of this is the use of emotional testimonials by dodgy experts who claim people have “beaten cancer naturally”, offering false hope and often leading patients to abandon proven treatments.
3. Dodgy experts cherry-pick evidence
Despite what those seeking to mislead you would have you believe, scientists only reach consensus when a large body of high-quality evidence points in the same direction.
So one of the most crucial skills experts possess is the ability to critically evaluate evidence. That means understanding its strengths and weaknesses, assessing its reliability, and synthesising what the full evidence base indicates. This task requires a deep understanding of their area of expertise.
Dodgy experts don’t do this. They tend to dismiss inconvenient evidence that contradicts their narrative and readily embrace flawed, or even discredited, studies. In short: they often cherry-pick evidence to suit their position.
Unfortunately, this tactic can be hard to spot if you don’t have an understanding of the full evidence base, which is something dodgy experts exploit.
Scientists only reach consensus when a large body of evidence points in the same direction. Matej Kastelic/Shutterstock
A red flag that you are being misled by a dodgy expert is when there is a clear over-reliance on a single study, despite its low quality.
Perhaps the most well-known example of cherry-picking is the way dodgy experts rely on a single, discredited study to push the false claim that the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine causes autism, while ignoring the vast body of high-quality evidence that clearly shows no such link.
4. Dodgy experts don’t change their mind when the evidence changes
Dodgy experts are often rigidly attached to their beliefs, even when new evidence emerges.
In contrast, genuine experts welcome new evidence and are willing to change their views accordingly. This openness is often unfairly portrayed as weakness, but it reflects an expert’s desire to understand the world accurately.
A striking example of this is the shift in our understanding of stomach ulcers. For years, ulcers were blamed on stress and spicy food, but that changed when Australian gastroenterologist and researcher Barry Marshall, in a bold move, swallowed Helicobacter pylori to demonstrate its potential role.
His self-experiment (which is generally not recommended!) was the first step in a broader body of research that ultimately proved bacteria, not lifestyle, was the primary cause of ulcers. This ultimately led to Marshall and his colleague pathologist and researcher Robin Warren being awarded a Nobel Prize.
As this example highlights, when presented with the evidence, clinicians and scientists acknowledged they’d got the underlying cause of stomach ulcers wrong. Clinical practice subsequently improved, with doctors prescribing antibiotics to kill the ulcer-causing bacteria.
This is how science informs practice so we can continually improve health outcomes.
In a nutshell
True expertise is marked by intellectual humility, a commitment to high-quality evidence, a willingness to engage with nuance and uncertainty, flexibility, and a capacity to respectfully navigate differing opinions.
In contrast, dodgy experts claim to have all the answers, dismiss uncertainty, cherry-pick studies, personally attack those who disagree with them, and rely more on emotion and ideology than evidence.
Hassan Vally 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.
Seeing is no longer believing in the age of images and videos generated by artificial intelligence (AI), and this is having an impact on elections in New Zealand and elsewhere.
Ahead of the 2025 local body elections, voters are being warned by overseas politicians and local experts not to automatically trust that what they are looking at is real.
Deepfakes – images or video created with the use of AI to mislead or spread false information – were used in last year’s United States presidential election. Early in the campaign, a deepfake voice clip impersonating then president Joe Biden told voters not to cast a ballot vote in New Hampshire’s primaries.
But the worry is not just that deepfakes will spread lies about politicians or other real people. AI is also used to create “synthetic deepfakes” – images of fake people who do not exist.
Using artificially generated images and videos of both real and fake people raises questions around transparency and the ethical treatment of cultural and ethnic groups.
While New Zealand has several voluntary frameworks to address the growing use of AI in media, there are no explicit rules to prevent its use in political campaigns. To avoid cultural offence and to offer transparency, it is crucial for political parties to establish and follow clear ethical standards on AI use in their messaging.
Existing frameworks
The film industry is a good starting point for policymakers looking to establish a clear framework for AI in political messaging.
In my ongoing research about culture and technology in film production, industry workers have spoken about New Zealand’s world-leading standards on culturally aware film production processes and the positive impact this had on shaping AI standards.
Released in March 2025, the New Zealand Film Commission’s Artificial Intelligence Guiding Principles takes a “people first” approach to AI which prioritises the needs, wellbeing and empowerment of individuals when developing and implementing AI systems.
The principles also stress respect for matauranga Māori and transparency in the use of AI so that audiences are “informed about the use of AI in screen content they consume”.
The government’s Public Service AI framework, meanwhile, requires government agencies to publicly disclose how AI systems are used and to practice human-centred values such as dignity and self-determination.
AI in NZ politics
Meanwhile, the use of AI by some of New Zealand’s political parties has already raised concerns.
During the 2023 election campaign, the National Party admitted using AI in their attack advertisements. And recent social media posts using AI by New Zealand’s ACT party were criticised for their lack of transparency and cultural sensitivity.
An ACT Instagram post about interest rate cuts featured an AI generated image of a Māori couple from the software company Adobe’s stock photo collection.
Act whip Todd Stephenson responded that using stock imagery or AI-generated imagery was not inherently misleading. But he said that the party “would never use an actor or AI to impersonate a real person”.
My own search of the Adobe collection came up with other images used by ACT in its Instagram posts, including an AI generated image labelled as “studio photography portrait of a 40 years old Polynesian woman”.
There are two key concerns with using AI like this. The first is that ACT didn’t declare the use of AI in its Instagram posts. A lack of transparency around the use of deepfakes of any kind can undermine trust in the political system. Voters end up uncertain about what is real and what is fake.
Secondly, the images were synthetic fakes of ethnic minorities in New Zealand. There have long been concerns from academics and technology experts that AI generated images reproduce harmful stereotypes of diverse communities.
Legislation needed
While the potential for cultural offence and misinformation with faked content is not new, AI alters the scale at which such fakes can be created. It makes it easier and quicker to produce manipulative, fake and culturally offensive images.
At a minimum, New Zealand needs to introduce legalisation that requires political parties to acknowledge the use of AI in their advertising. And as the country moves into a new election season, political parties should commit to combating misinformation and cultural misrepresentation.
Bronwyn Isaacs is a member of the Association of Social Anthropologists of Aotearoa/New Zealand.
Donald Trump is everywhere, inescapable. His return to power in the United States was always going to have some impact on the Australian federal election. The question was how disruptive he would be.
The answer is very – but not in the ways we might have thought.
As soon as Trump was elected president, the political debate in Australia focused on whether Prime Minister Anthony Albanese or Opposition Leader Peter Dutton would be best suited to managing him – and keeping the US-Australia security alliance intact.
Initially, at least, this conversation was predictable.
The Coalition looked set to continue an ideological alignment with Trumpism that had flourished under the prime ministership of Scott Morrison. Dutton prosecuted the argument that given his party’s experience with the first Trump administration, it would be better placed than Labor to handle the second.
Albanese, meanwhile, appeared caught off guard by Trump’s victory and timid in his response.
But as has become all too clear, the second Trump administration is radically different from the first. That has rattled the right of Australian politics and worked to Labor’s advantage.
A turning point at the White House
In January, the Coalition announced that NT Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price had been appointed shadow minister for government efficiency – a direct importation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) being led by Elon Musk in the US.
In a barely disguised imitation of the Trump administration’s attacks on “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) measures, members of the Coalition, including Price, singled out Welcome to Country ceremonies as evidence of the kind of “wasteful” spending it would cut.
When the Coalition seemed to be riding high in the polls, Dutton, too, nodded at “wokeism” and singled out young white men feeling “disenfranchised”.
Soon after, however, this began to change. The first few weeks of Trump’s second term were marked by a cascade of executive actions targeting trans people, climate action and immigration. Trump and his new appointees began the process of radically reshaping the United States and its role in the world.
In February, polling by the independent think tank The Australia Institute found Australians saw Trump as a bigger threat to world peace than Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
And then Volodymyr Zelensky went to the White House.
The Ukrainian president was humiliated in an Oval Office meeting with Trump and Vice President JD Vance, laying bare how the administration was willing to treat the leader of an ally devastated by a war it hadn’t started.
Trump’s territorial threats towards Canada and Greenland, in addition to his dismissive statements about European allies, shattered the long-held assumptions about the US as a force for stability in the world.
MAGA ideology isn’t ‘pick and choose’
After this incident, Dutton was careful to distance himself from Trump’s abandonment of Ukraine. He even went so far as to say that leadership might require “standing up to your friends and to those traditional allies because our views have diverged”.
it’s hard to see America made great again if the Trump administration’s message to the world is that the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.
Therein lies the bind for the Coalition – an ideological alignment with “Make America Great Again” cannot be fully reconciled with a nationalism that puts Australian interests first.
MAGA ideology is all-or-nothing, not pick-and-choose.
During the election campaign, the Coalition attempted to walk the path of “pick-and-choose”. And Labor quite successfully used this against them. Assertions the opposition leader was nothing but a “Temu Trump”, or “DOGE-y Dutton”, stuck because they had at least a ring of truth to them.
The opposition’s pledge to dramatically reduce the size of the public service, for example, was clearly linked to Musk’s efforts at DOGE to take a chainsaw to the public service in the US. This idea has been deeply unpopular with Australian voters, and the Coalition has faced innumerable questions about it.
For all the talk of “shared values” and how essential the US alliance is to Australian security, this campaign shows that Australia is not like America.
Most Australians concerned about Trump’s impact
When Trump’s tariffs arrived on “Liberation Day” in early April, both leaders claimed they were best placed to negotiate.
Albanese insisted Australia had got one of the best results in the world, while Dutton asserted, without evidence, that he would be able to negotiate a better one.
More broadly, the Trump tariffs have contributed to a growing sense of unease in the electorate.
A recent YouGov poll found that 66% of Australians no longer believe the US can be relied on for defence and security. According to Paul Smith, the director of YouGov, this is a “fundamental change of worldview”.
In the same poll, 71% of Australians also said they were either concerned or very concerned Trump’s policies would make Australia worse off.
While neither party has signalled it would make a fundamental shift in Australia’s alliance with the US if elected, that doesn’t mean changes aren’t possible.
Independents and minor parties may well play a significant role in the formation of the next government. Some, like Zoe Daniel and Jacqui Lambie, are increasingly vocal about the risks the Trump administration poses to Australia.
A limit to Trumpism’s appeal
As election day approaches, many of the assumptions driving conventional Australian political thinking are under pressure.
Labor’s recovery in the polls, and the Liberals’ election win in Canada, suggest assumptions about the dangers of incumbency might have been misplaced. The dissatisfaction with incumbent governments last year may have had more to do with unresponsive political parties and systems.
There’s evidence emerging, instead, that in more responsive democracies with robust institutions like Australia and Canada, Trumpism does not have great appeal.
The idea that “kindness is not a weakness” may yet prove to be a winning political strategy.
Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Biddle, Professor of Economics and Public Policy, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University
Minority governments have been part of Australia’s political history since Federation.
In the country’s early decades, Prime Ministers Edmund Barton, Alfred Deakin, Chris Watson, George Reid and Andrew Fisher all led without commanding a majority in the House of Representatives. Since the second world war, majority governments have become the norm at the national level, underpinned by the two-party system of Labor and the Liberal-National Coalition.
Minority government has been rare, with the notable exception of Julia Gillard’s Labor government from 2010 to 2013. However, at the state/territory level, minority governments are far more common.
The 2025 federal election could mark another shift. While Labor has pulled ahead in the polls over the course of the campaign, a minority government remains a real possibility.
Even if a slim majority is achieved, the trend of falling primary votes for both major parties suggests minority governments could become more common in the years ahead.
We have examined new data from more than 3,600 respondents in the March/April wave of the 2025 Election Monitoring Survey Series (EMSS) from the School of Politics and International Relations (SPIR) at the ANU. The results shed light on how Australians feel about the prospect of minority government, and how these attitudes could shape political expectations.
Australians are more accepting of minority governments
When respondents were asked whether they found the idea of a minority government acceptable, more said they did (39.3%) than said they did not (32.6%).
This pattern is especially strong among Labor voters, minor party supporters, and those undecided about their vote. Only among Liberal voters was a minority government viewed more negatively, with a majority (51.8%) saying it would be unacceptable.
These findings suggest that minority government does not present the widespread illegitimacy and inefficiency to the electorate that is sometimes claimed by political leaders.
Fears of instability, but hopes for accountability
Despite growing acceptance, Australians are divided about the likely consequences of a minority government.
When asked whether a minority government would make politics more unstable or more representative and accountable, the country was split. About 42.7% expected more instability, while 37.6% expected greater representativeness. Another 19.6% believed it would make no real difference.
Again, partisan divides are stark. Coalition voters overwhelmingly expect instability (62.3%), whereas minor party supporters are more optimistic about minority government delivering better accountability.
These mixed expectations suggest while many suspect minority government will be a rocky ride, most expect little to no change. This is in contrast to recent claims a return to minority government would either further damage democracy or revitalise it by forcing change.
Public supports reforms to make minority government work
If a minority government emerges post-election, institutions will need to adapt. Some changes will be legislative, others cultural, some political.
Recognising the challenges that minority governments can bring, Australians are supportive of modest reforms to help them function more effectively.
Nearly half (47.6%) support establishing an independent body to oversee power-sharing agreements between major parties and crossbench MPs. A significant share (42.7%) also back requiring minority governments to sign formal agreements with the independents or minor parties they rely on.
These preferences suggest Australians are pragmatic: if minority governments are to become more common, they want safeguards and structures to ensure stability and transparency.
Trust varies across parties – and independents score well
Australians remain relatively confident in key institutions, particularly when compared to the polarisation in other democracies. Trust is also a key factor in how Australians view different political actors in a minority government setting.
When asked how much trust they have in different groups to act responsibly in a minority parliament, Labor emerges with the highest broad trust levels (50.4%), compared to the Liberal Party (43.0%). The Greens are the least trusted (35.7%). Trust in Independents is relatively high (45.7%).
It is also interesting to note recent research tracking trends in non-major party voting. These find the Greens are increasingly likely to win seats from the ALP, while the Independents are more likely to win seats from the LNP.
This matters. Who holds the balance of power has implications for maintaining trust in government. These results would indicate that if independents hold the balance of power, it may not undermine, but may actually contribute to, broader trust.
A preference for majority rule remains
Despite growing openness to minority governments, Australians still show a strong attachment to the traditional model of majority government in the House of Representatives.
When asked whether “stable and effective government requires a majority of seats for one of the two major parties within the House of Representatives”, 53.8% agreed or strongly agreed. Only 16% disagreed.
Support for this statement was strongest among Coalition voters (70.9%), but even a majority of Labor voters (54.7%) agreed. Only among minor party voters was disagreement more common.
These findings suggest Australians prefer majority government (qualified by a desire for accountability) over minority government (particularly if that majority is led by their own party!).
It will be interesting to track these attitudes in future EMSS should a minority government occur after May 3.
What it means for the 2025 election – and beyond
The 2025 federal election could be a turning point. If Labor wins a majority, it may delay a broader shift toward minority government politics. But if another minority parliament emerges, it will test the resilience of Australia’s political institutions and the evolving attitudes of voters.
Australians appear ready to give minority government a chance – but they want it to work.
Our only concrete reference point is the Gillard government. It was recognised for its negotiation, legislative success and running full term, but widely viewed as a political failure. What this revealed is the importance of minority government that adopts a pragmatic, inclusive and flexible approach to governance.
Whatever the result, Australian electoral trends tell us minority governments are no longer the outlier they once were in Australian politics. Voters, political leaders, and importantly public institutions may need to adapt to a new norm in Australian politics.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
“Theories are like toothbrushes,” it’s sometimes said. “Everybody has their own and nobody wants to use anybody else’s.”
It’s a joke, but when it comes to the study of consciousness – the question of how we have a subjective experience of anything at all – it’s not too far from the truth.
In 2022, British neuroscientist Anil Seth and I published a review listing 22 theories based in the biology of the brain. In 2024, operating with a less restrictive scope, US public intellectual Robert Kuhn counted more than 200.
It’s against this background that Nature has just published the results of an “adversarial collaboration” from a group called the Cogitate Consortium focused on two prominent theories: global neuronal workspace theory and integrated information theory.
Two big theories go head to head
With so many ideas floating around and inherently elusive subject matter, testing theories has been no easy task. Indeed, debate between proponents of different theories has been vigorous and, at times, acrimonious.
At a particularly low point in 2023, after the initial announcement of the results Cogitate has formally published today, many experts signed an open letter arguing that integrated information theory was not only false but doesn’t even qualify as scientific.
Nevertheless, global neuronal workspace theory and integrated information theory are two of the “big four” theories that dominate current discussions of consciousness. (The others are higher-order representation theories, and the local re-entry – or recurrency – theory.)
The theories are hard to summarise, but both tie consciousness to the activity of neurons in different parts of the brain.
Advocates of these two theories, together with a number of unaligned theorists, generated predictions from the two theories about the kinds of brain activity one would expect to be associated with consciousness.
Predictions and results
The group agreed that integrated information theory predicts conscious perception should be associated with sustained synchronisation and activity of signals in a part of the brain called the posterior cortex.
On the other hand, they said global neuronal workspace theory predicts that a process of “neural ignition” should accompany both the start and end of a stimulus. What’s more, it should be possible to decode what a person is conscious of from activity in their prefrontal cortex.
The posterior cortex consists of the parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes. The prefrontal cortex is the front part of the frontal lobe. Refluo/Shutterstock
These hypotheses (among others) were tested by “theory-neutral” teams from across the globe.
The results were not decisive. Some were in line with predictions of one or other of the theories, but other results generated challenges.
For example, the team failed to find sustained synchronisation within the posterior cortex of the kind predicted by integrated information theory. At the same time, global neuronal workspace theory is challenged by the fact that not all contents of consciousness could be decoded from the prefrontal cortex, and by the failure to find neural ignition when the stimulus was first presented.
A win for science
But although this study wasn’t a win for either theory, it was a decisive win for science. It represents a clear advance in how the consciousness community approaches theory-testing.
It’s not uncommon for researchers to tend to look for evidence in favour of their own theory. But the seriousness of this problem in consciousness science only became clear in 2022, with the publication of an important paper by a number of researchers involved in the Cogitate Consortium. The paper showed it was possible to predict which theory of consciousness a particular study supported based purely on its design.
The vast majority of attempts to “test” theories of consciousness have been conducted by advocates of those very theories. As a result, many studies have focused on confirming theories (rather than finding flaws, or falsifying them).
No changing minds
The first achievement of this collaboration was getting rival theorists to agree on testable predictions of the two theories. This was especially challenging as both the global workspace and integrated information theories are framed in very abstract terms.
Another achievement was to run the the same experiments in different labs – a particularly difficult challenge given those labs were not committed to the theories in question.
Kahneman said not to expect the results to change anyone’s mind, even if they decisively favoured one theory over another. Scientists are committed to their theories, he pointed out, and will cling to them even in the face of counter-evidence.
The usefulness of irrationality
This kind of irrational stubbornness may seem like a problem, but it doesn’t have to be. With the right systems in place, it can even help to advance science.
Given we don’t know which theoretical approach to consciousness is most likely to be right, the scientific community ought to tackle consciousness from a variety of perspectives.
The research community needs ways to correct itself. However, it’s useful for individual scientists to stick to their theoretical guns, and continue to work within a particular theory even in the face of problematic findings.
A hard nut to crack
Consciousness is a hard nut to crack. We don’t yet know whether it will yield to the current methods of consciousness science, or whether it requires a revolution in our concepts or methods (or perhaps both).
What is clear, however, is that if we’re going to untangle the problem of subjective experience, the scientific community will need to embrace this model of collaborative research.
I’m a co-director with Liad Mudrik of CIFAR’s “Brain, Mind, and Consciousness” program.
In medicine, there’s a well-known maxim: never say more than your data allows. It’s one of the first lessons learned by clinicians and researchers.
Journal editors expect it. Reviewers demand it. And medical researchers mostly comply. They hedge, qualify and narrow their claims — often at the cost of clarity. Take this conclusion, written to mirror the style of a typical clinical trial report:
“In a randomized trial of 498 European patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, the treatment increased median progression free survival by 4.6 months, with grade three to four adverse events in 60 per cent of patients and modest improvements in quality-of-life scores, though the findings may not generalize to older or less fit populations.”
It’s medical writing at its most exacting — and exhausting. Precise, but not exactly easy to take in.
Unsurprisingly, then, those careful conclusions often get streamlined into something cleaner and more confident. The above example might be simplified into something like: “The treatment improves survival and quality of life.” “The drug has acceptable toxicity.” “Patients with multiple myeloma benefit from the new treatment.” Clear, concise — but often beyond what the data justify.
Philosophers call these kinds of statements generics — generalizations without explicit quantifiers. Statements like “the treatment is effective” or “the drug is safe” sound authoritative, but they don’t say: For whom? How many? Compared to what? Under what conditions?
Generalizations in medical research
In previous work in the ethics of health communication, we highlighted how generics in medical research tend to erase nuance, transforming narrow, population-specific findings into sweeping claims that readers might misapply to all patients.
In a systematic review of over 500 studies from top medical journals, we found more than half made generalizations beyond the populations studied. More than 80 per cent of those were generics, and fewer than 10 per cent offered any justification for these broad claims.
Researchers’ tendency to over-generalize may reflect a deeper cognitive bias. Faced with complexity and limited attention, humans naturally gravitate toward simpler, broader claims — even when they stretch beyond what the data support. In fact, the very drive to explain the data, to tell a coherent story, can lead even careful researchers to overgeneralize.
Artificial intelligence (AI) now threatens to significantly exacerbate this problem. In our latest research, we tested 10 widely used large language models (LLMs) — including ChatGPT, DeepSeek, LLaMA and Claude — on their ability to summarize abstracts and articles from top medical journals.
Even when prompted for accuracy, most models routinely removed qualifiers, oversimplified findings and repackaged researchers’ carefully contextualized claims as broader statements.
AI-generated summaries
Analyzing nearly 5,000 LLM-generated summaries, we found rates of such over-generalizations as high as 73 per cent for some models. Very often, they converted non-generic claims into generics, for example, shifting from “the treatment was effective in this study,” to simply “the treatment is effective,” which misrepresented the study’s true scope.
Strikingly, when we compared LLM-generated summaries to ones written by human experts, chatbots were nearly five times more likely to produce broad generalizations. But perhaps most concerning was that newer models — including ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek — tended to generalize more, not less.
What explains these findings? LLMs trained on overgeneralized scientific texts may inherit human biases from the input. Through reinforcement learning from human feedback, they may also start favouring confident, broad conclusions over careful, contextualized claims, because users often prefer concise, assertive responses.
The resulting miscommunication risks are high, because researchers, clinicians and students increasingly use LLMs to summarize scientific articles.
In a recent global survey of nearly 5,000 researchers, almost half reported already using AI in their research — and 58 per cent believed AI currently does a better job summarizing literature than humans. Some claim that LLMs can outperform medical experts in clinical text summarization.
Our study casts doubt on that optimism. Over-generalizations produced by these tools have the potential to distort scientific understanding on a large scale. This is especially worrisome in high-stakes fields like medicine, where nuances in population, effect size and uncertainty really matter.
Precision matters
So what can be done? For human authors, clearer guidelines and editorial policies that address both how data are reported and how findings are described can reduce over-generalizations in medical writing. Also, researchers using LLMs for summarization should favour models like Claude — the most accurate LLM in our study — and remain aware that even well-intentioned accuracy prompts can backfire.
AI developers, in turn, could build prompts into their LLMs that encourage more cautious language when summarizing research. Lastly, our study’s methodology can help benchmark LLMs’ overgeneralization tendency before deploying them in real-world contexts.
In medical research, precision matters — not only in how we collect and analyze data, but also in how we communicate it. Our research reveals a shared tendency in both humans and machines to overgeneralize — to say more than what the data allows.
Tackling this tendency means holding both natural and artificial intelligence to higher standards: scrutinizing not only how researchers communicate results, but how we train the tools increasingly shaping that communication. In medicine, careful language is imperative to ensure the right treatments reach the right patients, backed by evidence that actually applies.
Benjamin Chin-Yee receives funding from the Gates Cambridge Trust and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Uwe Peters receives funding from a Volkswagen research grant on meta-science (“The Cultural
Evolution of Scientific Practice”; WBS GW.001123.2.4).
Immigrant rights advocates call on Philadelphia officials to strengthen the city’s sanctuary policies at a rally on Dec. 10, 2024. Manuel Vasquez/Juntos, CC BY-NC-SA
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on April 28, 2025, that demands the U.S. attorney general, in coordination with the secretary of Homeland Security, publish a list of cities and states that obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration laws, with the purpose of protecting Americans from “criminal aliens.”
Philadelphia will likely end up on the list.
Philadelphia is what’s known as a sanctuary city. While the term has no fixed definition, it usually refers to a city that has declared its refusal to cooperate – or even works at odds – with federal immigration enforcement.
But the bottom line is that federal immigration officers – usually U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement – can still carry out deportations in a sanctuary city.
Further, there is no question that localities such as Philadelphia can legally decide not to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Cities, like states, have constitutional protections against being forced to administer or enforce federal programs. The Trump administration cannot force any state or local official to assist in enforcing federal immigration law.
What remains to be seen is what, if any, action the administration will take against those jurisdictions that end up on their list of sanctuary cities.
Philadelphia’s various sanctuary policies break that connection and leave ICE to its own devices. They also signal to immigrants that the city is not in the business of federal immigration enforcement. Research shows this helps immigrants feel safer to access public benefits and services such as getting care at a community health center or calling the police without fear of immigration consequences.
Philadelphia’s most notable sanctuary policy, an executive order signed by then-Mayor Jim Kenney in January 2016, is its refusal to have its jails honor ICE detainers or requests for release dates. An ICE detainer is a voluntary request asking local officials to hold an immigrant, who is otherwise going to be released, for an additional 48 hours so ICE can pick them up.
Failing to honor ICE detainers disrupts the deportation pipeline and makes ICE’s job more difficult.
Another key Philadelphia sanctuary policy dates back to 2009 and was signed by then-Mayor Michael Nutter. It makes clear that city officials do not police immigration. Not only are all city workers – including police, firefighters and behavioral health workers – prohibited from asking about immigration status in most situations, but police are specifically directed not to stop, arrest or detain a person “solely because of perceived immigration status.”
Yet there is no way to enforce these sanctuary policies. Under these laws, city officials who violate them do not face consequences. Compliance relies on a commitment from officials who believe that following these policies is the right thing to do.
Philadelphia has also acted in other ways to break the link between the city and immigration enforcement.
Since 2017, Philadelphia jails have had a protocol that discourages ICE from interviewing immigrants held in jail. Prior to providing ICE with access to such individuals, the jails must first send a consent form to an immigrant to inform them of their right to decline an ICE interview.
In 2018, Philadelphia ended ICE’s access to the city’s preliminary arraignment reporting system used by the Philadelphia Police Department and district attorney’s office. The city said it terminated its database-sharing contract with ICE given the “unacceptable” way the agency used the system, which “could result in immigration enforcement action against Philadelphians who haven’t been arrested, accused of, or convicted of any crime.”
Under the first Trump presidency, religious institutions, such as the Germantown Mennonite Church in Northwest Philly and the Tabernacle United Church in West Philly, provided sanctuary inside their churches to immigrants who had received final orders of deportation from ICE.
The University of Pennsylvania declared itself a sanctuary campus in 2016 but is currently shying away from that label while faculty, staff and students demand that the university clarify its policies on immigration enforcement.
Since 2011, ICE has had a “sensitive locations” memo that disfavors but does not entirely prohibit immigration enforcement in places of worship, as well as hospitals and schools. The Biden administration strengthened the “sensitive locations” memo in 2021. Trump rescinded the memo during his first month in office.
Activists want Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker to commit to defending Philadelphia’s sanctuary policies. AP Photo/Matt Rourke
Retaliation against sanctuary cities
From the viewpoint of the Trump administration, state and local officials who defy the enforcement of immigration law are engaged in “a lawless insurrection” that creates public safety and national security risks.
Despite the administration’s strong rhetoric about the “criminal alien,” 46% of people currently held in immigration detention have no criminal record, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. Many others have minor offenses, including traffic violations.
The executive order vows to terminate federal grants and pursue all enforcement measures to bring such jurisdictions “into compliance with the laws of the United States.”
Such terminations may not be legal.
On April 24, 2025, a federal judge enjoined language in an earlier executive order directing the government to take action against sanctuary cities to ensure that they do not receive access to federal funds.
Past instances to pull federal funding from Philadelphia because of its sanctuary city status have also failed. The first Trump administration was unsuccessful at terminating a US$1 million federal grant to Philadelphia after the city sued and won in federal court in 2017.
The executive order also makes legally questionable claims that state and local officials who follow their sanctuary policies are engaging in criminal activity, such as the obstruction of justice, unlawful harboring or activities that violate federal RICO law. Regardless, the administration may still choose to pursue high-profile prosecutions of state and local officials.
The federal government’s efforts to punish sanctuary cities will undoubtedly be mired in legal challenges across the country. Yet Philadelphia officials must still decide in this moment whether to stand strong with the city’s current sanctuary policies. City Council member Rue Landau has been outspoken about maintaining Philadelphia’s sanctuary status to ensure that public resources will never be used to support federal deportation efforts. But Mayor Cherelle Parker has not committed to strengthening or even ensuring the city’s sanctuary protections.
According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, the same day Trump signed the executive order, Parker reiterated that Philadelphia still operates under its 2016 sanctuary policy. However, she did not use the term “sanctuary city,” the Inquirer noted, and she “said she would not comment in more detail until Trump makes concrete moves that affect Philadelphia.”
This is an updated version of a story originally published on December 18, 2024.
Jennifer J. Lee 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chee Meng Tan, Assistant Professor of Business Economics, University of Nottingham
US ports are now starting to see scheduled shipments from China decline as the result of Donald Trump’s 145% tariffs on Chinese goods. The port of Los Angeles, the biggest port for Chinese goods in the US, is predicting scheduled shipments in early May to be about a third lower than the same time last year.
Declining numbers of ships arriving stocked with Chinese imports are likely to affect US supermarket shelves soon, and after warnings from US supermarket bosses, Trump responded by saying trade talks between the US and China were under way in the past few days. But Chinese president Xi Jinping quickly denied talks were happening, suggesting he has no intention of backing away from a fight with the US.
As one of the most powerful leaders in the history of the People’s Republic of China, Xi has fashioned himself as a nationalistic icon. So if China perceives Trump’s tariffs as a bully tactic designed to undermine it, backing down from a confrontation with the US would seriously undermine Xi’s strongman image and rhetoric.
This is something that Trump probably hadn’t considered. At a rally marking his 100 days in office, the US president was still suggesting that China would just back down and “eat the tariffs”.
While tariffs appear to be the primary weapon in the trade war, China might have more tactics to hit back at Trump and the US economy. The question is what might they be?
A few weeks ago it seemed like Washington might punish China’s lack of willingness to negotiate with more tariffs, but now it’s clear that Trump is willing to make a deal and is trying to get China to come to the table. Trump is now implying that US tariffs on China could come down substantially. And US treasury secretary Scott Bessent has called the trade war with China “unsustainable”.
Leveraging agriculture and energy
China has reduced its reliance on US farm imports since the trade war began in Trump’s first presidency. This is bad news for Washington as agriculture is one few sectors in the US that actually has a large trade surplus with China. The 125% retaliatory tariffs will harm the sector’s profitability.
But China’s retaliatory tariffs aren’t the only issue American farmers have to contend with. As the trade war escalates, China has been using bureaucratic hurdles to restrict US agricultural products from entering China and as a potential negotiation tool. For instance, China has delayed the renewals of export license renewals of US pig farmers, and refused to renew licenses of poultry farmers for “health and safety” reasons.
What’s the impact of tariffs?
Beijing’s actions might be designed to particularly hit the economy in core Trump supporting states. A major part of Trump and the Republican party’s base lies in “red states”, such as Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas, all have significant farming communities. Focusing on agricultural issues is a tactic that Beijing realises will hit home with Trump voters.
Out of the 444 US counties designated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as farming-dependent, 77.7% voted for Trump during the 2024 US presidential election. So, any hardship faced by the agriculture sector due to Trump’s own actions is likely to lose him support from a major political base. And with mid-term elections in 2026, Trump has to tread carefully when antagonising Beijing.
Another support base that Beijing might seek to undermine is those involved in the fossil fuel sector. In the past, the US has been a top supplier of natural gas to China.
China has not imported natural gas from the US since early February 2025, and has sought its natural gas from Australia, Indonesia, and Brunei. As the trade war continues, it is unlikely that the US would be able to sell its natural gas to China anytime soon, and this will have an impact on the energy industry – one of Trump’s major political support bases.
Restricting minerals
Another huge problem that the US faces stems from China’s restriction of the export of critical minerals. They include seven rare earth minerals namely samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and yttrium. While these are used in the clean energy and automobile sectors, the biggest concern would come from the US defence complex.
The White House probably anticipated export restrictions of critical minerals from China. After all, Beijing had banned the export of critical minerals to Japan in 2010 over a fishing trawler dispute, and stopped exporting “dual-use” metals that can be used to produce civilian and military technology, such as gallium, germanium and tungsten.
What’s next?
For the last few years, China has been trying to overcome an ailing economy that was primarily fuelled by a real-estate crisis. Trump probably expected China to buckle under pressure and come crawling to the negotiation table. After all, the Chinese Communist Party needs to fix its economy fast. The establishment has long relied on delivering economic prosperity to legitimise its rule over China.
Right now the tit-for-tat battle continues. By April 11, US tariffs on China peaked at 145%, while China’s retaliatory tariffs on US goods reached an unprecedented 125%.
Although it is clearly fighting back, China could go even further by selling off US treasuries and increasing US interest rates and thus borrowing cost. But unlike Trump, Xi often plays the long game. After all, Trump’s term as president will be over in less than four years, while Chinese president Xi has no term limits. All the latter has to do is exercise patience, and a friendlier US president might come around.
Chee Meng Tan 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.
We’ve all heard it before: eat your five-a-day, and try to get some exercise. It’s advice that’s simple in theory, yet in practice, not everyone is able to follow it. So what’s standing in the way?
Our research examined this question in depth. Using data from UK adults over the age of 50, we explored how socioeconomic status affects the likelihood of meeting the World Health Organization’s recommendations for physical activity and diet. These guidelines include at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity (or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity) physical activity per week and a daily intake of at least five portions of fruit and vegetables.
What we found points to a clear and concerning disparity. Wealthier older adults are nearly twice as likely to meet both exercise and dietary recommendations compared to their less affluent peers. And perhaps even more striking, those who don’t meet these health guidelines are significantly more likely to suffer from depression.
We analysed survey responses from more than 3,000 adults aged 50 to 90, using data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. While nearly 70% of participants reported doing some form of physical activity, the data revealed a sharp wealth divide.
Adults in the highest wealth quintile (the top 20%) were almost twice as likely to be physically active as those in the lowest quintile. A similar pattern emerged for diet. Over 70% of those in the wealthiest group reported meeting the five-a-day guideline, compared to just over 40% in the lowest income bracket.
This matters, because not meeting government guidelines for physical activity and diet can have serious long-term health consequences. Regular exercise is known to increase HDL (or “good”) cholesterol, improve cardiovascular health, and reduce the risk of chronic conditions like type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers.
It also benefits brain health by lowering inflammation and even promoting the growth of new brain cells. Similarly, diets rich in fibre, vitamins, and antioxidants – found in fruits and vegetables – are associated with lower the risks of disease and cognitive decline, including conditions like Alzheimer’s.
Depression disparity
But the impact isn’t just physical. Our research also explored links between lifestyle and mental health. Around 19% of participants met the criteria for clinical depression, with the highest risk found among women, people living alone, smokers and those with lower incomes.
Alarmingly, rates of depression were nearly three times higher among those in the lowest wealth quintile (32.6% were depressed) compared to those in the highest (11.1%).
Lifestyle clearly played a role in depression levels. Among inactive participants, 30% reported symptoms of depression – more than double the rate seen in those who were physically active (13.7%). Likewise, those who didn’t meet the five-a-day guideline had a depression rate of 23.4%, compared to 15.7% among those who did.
These results suggest that staying physically active and eating well not only improves physical health but may also play a protective role in mental wellbeing. Yet not everyone has equal access to the resources, time, or environments that support healthy living. There is also the role of social isolation as a compounding factor.
Social disconnection is strongly linked to both poor physical and mental health, including depression and even increased mortality risk. Physical activity programmes that also offer social interaction – such as walking groups or community exercise classes – may provide even greater benefits.
Healthy ageing for everyone
The evidence shows that health disparities in later life are deeply tied to wealth and socioeconomic status. This means that addressing them requires more than encouraging personal responsibility – it calls for policy action.
Financial barriers to healthy food and physical activity need to be tackled through targeted programmes, subsidies and infrastructure investments. Making healthy options accessible and affordable – especially for those in lower-income groups – will benefit people and reduce strain on healthcare systems.
As populations continue to age, promoting health in later life is a public health priority. But that effort will only succeed if it recognises – and works to reduce – the inequalities that hold people back from living healthy, fulfilling lives.
Simon Evans 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.
Rapidly phasing out fossil fuels and limiting energy consumption to tackle climate change is “a strategy doomed to fail” according to former UK prime minister Tony Blair.
In the foreword of a new report, Blair urges governments to rethink their approach to reaching net zero emissions.
Instead of policies that are seen by people as involving “financial sacrifices”, he says world leaders should deploy carbon capture and storage, including technological and nature-based approaches, to meet the rising demand for fossil fuels.
But speak to many academic experts on climate change and they will tell a very different story: that there is no strategy for addressing climate change that does not involve ending, or at least massively reducing, fossil fuel combustion.
“There is a wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating that a fossil fuel phase-out will be essential for reining in the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change,” says Steve Pye, an associate professor of energy at UCL.
Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at the University of Reading, agrees.
“Rapidly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, and not issuing new licenses to extract oil and gas, is the most effective way of minimising future climate-related disruptions,” he says.
“The sooner those with the power to shape our future recognise this, the better.”
Fossil fuels are responsible for 90% of the carbon dioxide heating the climate. The amount burned annually is still rising, and so is the rate at which the world is getting hotter. Scientists now fear we are approaching irreversible tipping points in the climate system, hence their support for an urgent replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy.
Blair is confident that an emergency response on this scale can be avoided by absorbing CO₂ immediately after burning fossil fuels, from the smokestacks where the greenhouse gas is concentrated.
Not all of the emissions responsible for climate change would be prevented. UCL earth system scientist Mark Maslin says that natural gas, which would linger as an energy source thanks to carbon capture, still leaks from pipelines and storage vessels upstream of power plants.
Commercial applications of the technology also have a poor track record. Just two large-scale coal-fired power plants are operating with CCS worldwide – one in the US and one in Canada.
“Both have experienced consistent underperformance, recurring technical issues and ballooning costs,” Maslin says.
Blair might baulk at what he perceives to be the expense of ditching fossil fuels. But economic modelling led by Oxford University’s Andrea Bacilieri suggests his concern is misplaced. A rapid phase-out of fossil fuels could save US$30 trillion (US$1 trillion a year) by 2050 she concludes, compared with allowing power plants and factories to keep burning them with CCS.
Developing CCS will be necessary to help manage an orderly transition from fossil fuels according to Myles Allen, a professor of geosystem science at Oxford University. But it is not a substitute for undergoing that transition, he says.
“Above all, we need to make sure the availability of CCS does not encourage yet more CO₂ production.”
Keeping the public on board
Is Blair right to fret about a public backlash to lower energy use? Academics suggest multiple reasons to think otherwise if the alternative is prolonging the use of fossil fuels.
Replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump that runs on electricity, for example, can lower a household’s energy consumption without a deliberate effort. That’s because renewable appliances convert power to heat more efficiently (how much depends on how well insulated the home is).
In fact, it’s dependence on fossil fuel that is preventing many households from making this switch. The high wholesale price of gas determines the cost of electricity for UK consumers.
“Crucially, the public wants and needs the government to show clear and consistent leadership on climate change,” they say.
Meanwhile, what can corrode public acceptance of sacrifices is the high-consuming behaviour of a minority (think pop stars in rockets, as Westlake recently argued). And, arguably, the statements of powerful people like Blair.
New research even suggests the politics that Blair and many others like him favour might also play a role here. Felix Schulz (Lund University) and Christian Bretter (The University of Queensland) are social scientists who study how ideology affects personal views on climate policy.
They identified respondents in six countries (the UK, US, Germany, Brazil, South Africa and China) who shared Blair’s neoliberal worldview, which the pair define as a belief that individuals are primarily responsible for their own fortune, and need to take care of themselves – as well as an abiding faith in the free market.
Have you ever been ignored by someone you knew when you bumped into them in the street or at an event? If so, you probably thought they were being rude. But they might have face blindness – a condition officially known as developmental prosopagnosia.
In a new study my colleagues and I conducted, 29 adults with face blindness revealed the daily challenges they face. Ten of the participants said they could not reliably recognise immediate family members, and 12 couldn’t recognise closest friends in out-of-context or unexpected encounters. Yet many felt it was socially difficult to admit these struggles.
One of the participants didn’t recognise her husband of 30 years when he unexpectedly came to pick her up from the airport. Another described how “when I am off work for a week and come back it’s really hard to figure out who is who”.
Although public awareness of face blindness is low, there is a high chance that you already know someone with face recognition difficulties. Around one in 50 people have developmental prosopagnosia, a lifelong condition that causes severe face recognition difficulties despite otherwise normal vision, IQ and memory.
Researchers usually describe not being able to recognise close friends and family as a “severe” form of prosopagnosia, but our new study – conducted with a colleague at Dartmouth College in the US – shows that even people classified as having “mild” prosopagnosia can have serious difficulties in daily life. This suggests that prosopagnosia diagnosis should consider real-life experiences, not just lab tests.
Most face-blind participants who took part in the research had tried various strategies to recognise people. However, these methods required huge mental effort and often didn’t work. For example, keeping detailed notes, or even spreadsheets, with descriptions and cues about people they have met. Or mentally trying to associate a name with a personally distinctive feature.
However, participants admitted their strategies were often “exhausting” and were particularly difficult to use at work when they were busy, concentrating on a task, or because colleagues wore uniforms or similar work clothing.
Some prosopagnosics said they used unusual ways to recognise others, for example, by smell. Another said that worrying about a face distracted them, so they found it more helpful to look at people from behind to work out who they were.
Prosopagnosics told researchers how their condition caused them considerable difficulties at school, at work and in everyday social situations. Two-thirds of the prosopagnosics said they could recognise fewer than ten familiar faces. Previous research suggests most adults recognise around 5,000 faces, so this difference is huge.
A widespread worry among people with face blindness was being misjudged as rude, uncaring, or even “a bit dim” by others who didn’t understand the condition. This concern often led to social anxiety and reduced self-confidence in social situations.
A common coping strategy was to avoid social gatherings or to deliberately keep social circles small to limit the number of faces people had to try and learn. But these strategies sometimes had a downside.
Looking back on their lives, some people felt that their face recognition difficulties had left them socially isolated, or with “poorly developed” social skills because they hadn’t mixed much with others while growing up.
Prosopagnosics were asked what they thought future research into face blindness should focus on. Their top priority was improved awareness and understanding that this condition exists and how it affects people. They thought this was particularly important for employers, schools and medical staff – but also for the general public.
The research found that many simple things could make life much easier for people with face recognition difficulties. Providing large name badges at events and conferences is a simple but helpful adjustment.
Participants said they found it a huge relief when meetings started with a round of introductions, the chair always addressed people by name, or they were given seating plans. Hot desking causes problems, so keeping a regular seating plan in a workplace or classroom can help face-blind people learn who usually sits where.
If you are meeting a face-blind friend, sending a quick message beforehand to let them know what you are wearing and exactly where you are sitting can also help.
A form of neurodivergence
My colleagues and I believe that developmental prosopagnosia should be considered a type of neurodivergence. This term describes someone whose brain works differently from what is considered typical. It usually includes people with autism, ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia.
Recognising face blindness as a form of neurodivergence isn’t just about awareness, it’s about dignity, inclusion and making everyday life easier for thousands of people.
Judith Lowes receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and the British Psychological Society Cognitive Section.
In medicine, there’s a well-known maxim: never say more than your data allows. It’s one of the first lessons learned by clinicians and researchers.
Journal editors expect it. Reviewers demand it. And medical researchers mostly comply. They hedge, qualify and narrow their claims — often at the cost of clarity. Take this conclusion, written to mirror the style of a typical clinical trial report:
“In a randomized trial of 498 European patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, the treatment increased median progression free survival by 4.6 months, with grade three to four adverse events in 60 per cent of patients and modest improvements in quality-of-life scores, though the findings may not generalize to older or less fit populations.”
It’s medical writing at its most exacting — and exhausting. Precise, but not exactly easy to take in.
Unsurprisingly, then, those careful conclusions often get streamlined into something cleaner and more confident. The above example might be simplified into something like: “The treatment improves survival and quality of life.” “The drug has acceptable toxicity.” “Patients with multiple myeloma benefit from the new treatment.” Clear, concise — but often beyond what the data justify.
Philosophers call these kinds of statements generics — generalizations without explicit quantifiers. Statements like “the treatment is effective” or “the drug is safe” sound authoritative, but they don’t say: For whom? How many? Compared to what? Under what conditions?
Generalizations in medical research
In previous work in the ethics of health communication, we highlighted how generics in medical research tend to erase nuance, transforming narrow, population-specific findings into sweeping claims that readers might misapply to all patients.
In a systematic review of over 500 studies from top medical journals, we found more than half made generalizations beyond the populations studied. More than 80 per cent of those were generics, and fewer than 10 per cent offered any justification for these broad claims.
Researchers’ tendency to over-generalize may reflect a deeper cognitive bias. Faced with complexity and limited attention, humans naturally gravitate toward simpler, broader claims — even when they stretch beyond what the data support. In fact, the very drive to explain the data, to tell a coherent story, can lead even careful researchers to overgeneralize.
Artificial intelligence (AI) now threatens to significantly exacerbate this problem. In our latest research, we tested 10 widely used large language models (LLMs) — including ChatGPT, DeepSeek, LLaMA and Claude — on their ability to summarize abstracts and articles from top medical journals.
Even when prompted for accuracy, most models routinely removed qualifiers, oversimplified findings and repackaged researchers’ carefully contextualized claims as broader statements.
AI-generated summaries
Analyzing nearly 5,000 LLM-generated summaries, we found rates of such over-generalizations as high as 73 per cent for some models. Very often, they converted non-generic claims into generics, for example, shifting from “the treatment was effective in this study,” to simply “the treatment is effective,” which misrepresented the study’s true scope.
Strikingly, when we compared LLM-generated summaries to ones written by human experts, chatbots were nearly five times more likely to produce broad generalizations. But perhaps most concerning was that newer models — including ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek — tended to generalize more, not less.
What explains these findings? LLMs trained on overgeneralized scientific texts may inherit human biases from the input. Through reinforcement learning from human feedback, they may also start favouring confident, broad conclusions over careful, contextualized claims, because users often prefer concise, assertive responses.
The resulting miscommunication risks are high, because researchers, clinicians and students increasingly use LLMs to summarize scientific articles.
In a recent global survey of nearly 5,000 researchers, almost half reported already using AI in their research — and 58 per cent believed AI currently does a better job summarizing literature than humans. Some claim that LLMs can outperform medical experts in clinical text summarization.
Our study casts doubt on that optimism. Over-generalizations produced by these tools have the potential to distort scientific understanding on a large scale. This is especially worrisome in high-stakes fields like medicine, where nuances in population, effect size and uncertainty really matter.
Precision matters
So what can be done? For human authors, clearer guidelines and editorial policies that address both how data are reported and how findings are described can reduce over-generalizations in medical writing. Also, researchers using LLMs for summarization should favour models like Claude — the most accurate LLM in our study — and remain aware that even well-intentioned accuracy prompts can backfire.
AI developers, in turn, could build prompts into their LLMs that encourage more cautious language when summarizing research. Lastly, our study’s methodology can help benchmark LLMs’ overgeneralization tendency before deploying them in real-world contexts.
In medical research, precision matters — not only in how we collect and analyze data, but also in how we communicate it. Our research reveals a shared tendency in both humans and machines to overgeneralize — to say more than what the data allows.
Tackling this tendency means holding both natural and artificial intelligence to higher standards: scrutinizing not only how researchers communicate results, but how we train the tools increasingly shaping that communication. In medicine, careful language is imperative to ensure the right treatments reach the right patients, backed by evidence that actually applies.
Benjamin Chin-Yee receives funding from the Gates Cambridge Trust and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Uwe Peters receives funding from a Volkswagen research grant on meta-science (“The Cultural
Evolution of Scientific Practice”; WBS GW.001123.2.4).
Donald Trump won the US election on a campaign that included rolling back environmental laws. In the UK, Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch has called the national net zero target “impossible”. And former prime minister Tony Blair has said the current approach of phasing out fossil fuels is “doomed to fail”.
Meanwhile in Germany, the parties in the most likely incoming coalition government hardly engaged with climate policy during the recent election campaign – and the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which openly denies human-made climate change, received 20% of the vote.
With political leaders around the world moving away from progressive climate policy, it’s worth asking: is this what the public wants?
When it comes to the climate, what people think is influenced by where they live and what else they believe in. In recently published research, we sought to find out just how much people’s ideologies affected their views on climate policy.
We surveyed representative samples of the public in six countries about their attitudes towards different types of climate policy. We asked about support for regulation (for example, building and vehicle standards or product bans), taxes (like carbon taxes), subsidies (to promote low-carbon alternatives), and information-based policies (such as emission disclosure requirements). Our survey covered policies in transport, housing, energy and industry.
We also asked respondents about their ideologies: cultural worldviews, personal values, free market beliefs and political trust. Our findings reveal how people’s ideologies shape their support for climate policies.
We included three high-income countries of the global north (the US, UK and Germany) and three upper-middle income countries from the global south (Brazil, South Africa and China). Together, these six countries are responsible for half of global CO₂ emissions.
Our definition of global south, which includes countries such as China, is based on work by UN Trade and Development and the UN G-77 countries. It includes Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, most of Asia (excluding Israel, Japan and South Korea) and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand). These countries generally have lower per capita income and are considered “developing” compared to global north countries.
This comparison is important because, as we will explain, political and economic ideologies that originated in the global north can influence how people view climate policies.
Across all policy types, we found more support for climate policies in the global south countries. In the global north countries, we found only minority support for regulatory policies and climate-related taxes. In Germany, support for regulatory policies and taxes was as little as 18%.
Subsidies for the four sectors – for example, to support renewable energy projects or the production of green steel – received 35% support in Germany and 48% in the US. In contrast, the majority of the public in the three countries of the global south supported subsidies and regulatory climate policies.
As with subsidies, we found strong majority support for information-based policies in the three countries of the global south (74-79%), against only minority support in Germany (36%) and the US (49%). In the UK, 53% supported information-based climate policies.
Personal values play a role in support for the policies. Our findings show people with stronger biospheric values – the importance people place on the environment and the relationship between humans and nature – are more supportive of climate policies. This is true irrespective of the country they live in. People who are more trusting of political institutions and politicians also support these policies more.
But demographics such as age, gender, education or income have a negligible effect on attitudes towards these policies, when accounting for other factors in our analysis.
Neoliberalism and the climate
We observed a strong link between a neoliberal worldview and lack of support for the climate policies in our study. As a political economic project, neoliberalism originated in the global north. But it continues to take root in the global south, particularly in Latin America.
The belief that individuals need to take care of themselves and are responsible for their own fortune and problems was associated with less support for climate policies. And in every country we studied, we found a strong relationship between support for the free market and lack of support for climate policies.
People who believe the free market is best at allocating outcomes efficiently and meeting human needs without government interference, and that it is more important than some local environmental concerns, show less support for the climate policies.
These two sets of beliefs – individualistic worldviews and support for the free market – are the core principles of neoliberal thought.
In the Global North countries, we found only only minority support for regulatory policies and climate-related taxes. Fotogrin/Shutterstock
The superiority of the market over governments as an efficient and fair allocation machine has been the mantra of neoliberal politicians, thinktanks and institutions for more than half a century.
Neoliberalism opposes government regulation and spending, and supports the free market. It also fosters an individualistic worldview. Instead of seeing themselves as workers, citizens or members of a collective, people are persuaded to internalise market logic – to see themselves as individuals who are out to maximise their personal profit.
The cultural shift from more communitarian and egalitarian ideals towards an ideology based on the self-driven individual and the free market has been quite successful. Empirical evidence from 41 countries shows that individualist practices and values around the world have surged significantly over the past 50 years.
We know from research that what the public thinks (or votes for) does influence what governments do. This is true even when accounting for the influence of powerful interest groups.
So, those creating and campaigning for urgently needed climate policies need to take this into account. Support for climate policies isn’t just about whether someone believes in human-made climate change or cares about the planet – there are deeply-rooted ideological factors at play too.
Felix Schulz receives funding from Formas, a Swedish research council for sustainable development and the Hans-Böckler-Foundation.
Christian Bretter 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.
