NewzIntel.com

Category: Analysis

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘It is a seriously difficult role and only getting harder’: school principals speak about stress, violence and abuse in their jobs

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Kidson, Senior Lecturer in Educational Leadership, Australian Catholic University

    Isuzek/Getty Images

    School principals around Australia are responsible for about 4.5 million staff and students in almost 10,000 schools. Not only do they oversee students’ progress, but they are also responsible for the performance of staff and the wellbeing of everyone at their school. Their jobs are huge.

    As we have previously tracked in our annual survey of principals, their jobs are also extremely stressful and they are subject to regular abuse – often from parents.

    Our latest survey shows these trends are not changing. And more than 50% of those we surveyed are seriously thinking about quitting.

    Our research

    Since 2011, we have surveyed Australian school leaders. This includes principals, deputy principals, and other school leaders such as heads of junior or senior schools.

    In our new report, we surveyed almost 2,200 people, which is more than 20% of Australian school leaders. In 2024, we surveyed primary and high school leaders from government, independent and Catholic schools all around the country.

    This makes it the most comprehensive data set on principals’ health and wellbeing in Australia. It is also the longest-running survey of its type in the world.

    The survey asked almost 2,200 school leaders about their jobs and wellbeing.
    Sol Stock/ Getty Images

    High workloads and stress

    Previous surveys have shown school principals face unsustainably high workloads and high levels of stress. Unfortunately, these trends continue in our latest 2024 results.

    School leaders work an average of 54.5 hours a week during term time and 20.6 hours during holidays. They nominated the “sheer quantity of work” as the biggest source of their stress.

    This was closely followed by “lack of time to focus on teaching and learning” and “student-related issues”.

    As a high school principal from Western Australia told us:

    I do love what I do however it is a seriously difficult role and only getting harder.

    Generalised anxiety and depression reports have also increased from last year’s survey. Severe anxiety was reported by 14.8% of participants, up from 11.4% in 2023. Moderate depression is reported by 11.1% of participants, up from 10.6%.

    Critical incidents

    For the first time, our 2024 survey asked principals about the number of “critical incidents” they have to deal with. These are defined as an “often unexpected event that may involve loss or threat to wellbeing or personal goals”.

    Nearly three-quarters (73.7%) said they had experienced a critical incident while in their role. The most common type of incident was violence and security threats (43.9%). Suicide and suicidal threats represented 12.6% of reported incidents. Participants also reported medical emergencies (10.3%) and custody or child-protection incidents (7%).

    As one NSW principal told us:

    I think it is untenable for principals to continue to be under constant stress at this level and am aware that many of my colleagues are also retiring or considering retiring. I have only just turned 59 and would like to work for another 5-10 years but can’t continue due to the ridiculous workload and pressure.

    Schools are not safe for principals

    An increasing number of principals report being subject to offensive behaviours that are unacceptable in any workplace – let alone one that involves children and young people.

    Nearly 55% reported they are subjected to threats of violence, 57% are subjected to gossip and slander, and 35% are subjected to cyberbullying. These are the highest levels we have ever reported.

    When asked “from whom”, more than 65% of school leaders said parents and caregivers. Students also contribute, but unfortunately, so do staff. They were the source of 29% of “gossip and slander” reported by school leaders.

    As one ACT school leader told us:

    The major cause of distress are parents. Parents behave in an unreasonable manner, have ridiculous expectations and think that because they went to school they can therefore run a school. Principals are constantly defending staff from parents. Parents are rarely told to stop and desist by Education Support Offices.

    While many principals report loving their jobs, stress and abuse are constant features.
    Rawpixel.com/ Shutterstock

    Many prinicpals want to leave

    In 2023, we first asked the question whether school leaders seriously consider leaving their job. More than half (56%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.

    It’s pleasing to report this has reduced slightly to 53% nationally, but the trend is, unfortunately, not consistent across the country.

    For example, the figure in NSW has dropped from 63% to 51%, but in Victoria it has increased from 48% to 54%. Policymakers across jurisdictions could benefit from working together to address these findings, to see what is working and what is not.

    How can we help?

    The demands on today’s school principals are significant – the work takes an emotional toll – and this means we need different approaches to supporting them.

    It’s why we recommend education departments and school boards provide “reflective supervision” for school leaders. This gives professionals a regular chance to reflect on what they are doing with a confidential and experienced practitioner in the field, which in this case would be another experienced school leader.

    This is a widespread practice in other demanding workplaces, such as family violence, healthcare, and child mental health. Practitioners in these fields benefit through improved management of their own wellbeing, which in turn helps them support their clients and patients.

    We also need to make sure governments regularly and routinely consult principals about education policy.

    Schools and education departments should also explore alternative models to make the job more sustainable. This could include co-principals or job sharing models.

    Without change, too many leaders will leave too quickly, without anyone left to replace them.

    Herb Marsh receives funding from ARC research grant funding

    Theresa Dicke has received funding from ARC and still receives funding from several peak principal associations to complete this research.

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

    – ref. ‘It is a seriously difficult role and only getting harder’: school principals speak about stress, violence and abuse in their jobs – https://theconversation.com/it-is-a-seriously-difficult-role-and-only-getting-harder-school-principals-speak-about-stress-violence-and-abuse-in-their-jobs-253327

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Brisbane 2032 is no longer legally bound to be ‘climate positive’. Will it still leave a green legacy?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marcus Foth, Professor of Urban Informatics, Queensland University of Technology

    When Brisbane was awarded the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, it came with a widely publicised landmark promise: the world’s first “climate-positive” games.

    The International Olympic Committee had already announced all games would be climate-positive from 2030. It said this meant the games would be required to “go beyond” the previous obligation of reducing carbon emissions directly related to their operations and offsetting or otherwise “compensating” for the rest.

    In other words, achieving net-zero was no longer sufficient. Now each organising committee would be legally required to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than the games emit. This is in keeping with the most widely cited definition of climate-positive.

    Both Paris 2024 and Los Angeles 2028 made voluntary pledges. But Brisbane 2032 was the first contractually required to be climate-positive. This was enshrined in the original 2021 Olympic Host Contract, an agreement between the IOC, the State of Queensland, Brisbane City Council and the Australian Olympic Committee.

    But the host contract has quietly changed since. All references to “climate-positive” have been replaced with weaker terminology. The move was not publicly announced. This fits a broader pattern of Olympic Games promising big on sustainability before weakening or abandoning commitments over time.

    A quiet retreat from climate positive

    Research by my team has shown the climate-positive announcement sparked great hope for the future of Brisbane as a regenerative city. We saw Brisbane 2032 as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically shift away from the ongoing systemic issues underlying urban development.

    This vision to embrace genuinely sustainable city design centred on fostering circular economies and net positive development. It would have aligned urban development with ecological stewardship. Beyond just mitigating environmental harm, the games could have set a new standard for sustainability by becoming a catalyst to actively regenerate the natural environment.

    Yet, on December 7 2023, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) initiated an addendum to the host contract. It effectively downgraded the games’ sustainability obligations.

    It was signed by Brisbane City Council, the State of Queensland, the Australian Olympic Committee and the IOC between April and May 2024.

    The commitment for the 2032 Brisbane Games to be climate positive has been removed from the Olympic Host Contract.
    International Olympic Committee

    Asked about these amendments, the IOC replied it “took the decision to no longer use the term ‘climate-positive’ when referring to its climate commitments”.

    But the IOC maintains that: “The requirements underpinning this term, however, and our ambition to address the climate crisis, have not changed”.

    It said the terminology was changed to ensure that communications “are transparent and easily understood; that they focus on the actions implemented to reduce carbon emissions; and that they are aligned with best practice and current regulations, as well as the principle of continual improvement”.

    Similarly, a Brisbane 2032 spokesperson told The Conversation the language was changed:

    to ensure we are communicating in a transparent and easily understood manner, following advice from the International Olympic Committee and recommendations of the United Nations and European Union Green Claims Directive, made in 2023.

    Brisbane 2032 will continue to plan, as we always have, to deliver a Games that focus on specific measures to deliver a more sustainable Games.

    But the new wording commits Brisbane 2032 to merely “aiming at removing more carbon from the atmosphere than what the Games project emits”.

    Crucially, this is no longer binding. The new language makes carbon removal an optional goal rather than a contractual requirement.

    A stadium in Victoria Park violates the 2032 Olympic Host Contract location requirements.
    Save Victoria Park, CC BY

    Aiming high, yet falling short

    Olympic Games have adopted increasingly ambitious sustainability rhetoric. Yet, action in the real world typically falls short.

    In our ongoing research with the Politecnico di Torino, Italy, we analysed sustainability commitments since the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin. We found they often change over time. Initial promises are either watered down or abandoned altogether due to political, financial, and logistical pressures.

    Construction activities for the Winter Olympic Games 2014 in Sochi, Russia, irreversibly damaged the Western Caucasus – a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Rio 2016 failed to clean up Guanabara Bay, despite its original pledge to reduce pollutants by 80%. Rio also caused large-scale deforestation and wetland destruction. Ancient forests were cleared for PyeongChang 2018 ski slopes.

    Our research found a persistent gap between sustainability rhetoric and reality. Brisbane 2032 fits this pattern as the original promise of hosting climate-positive games is at risk of reverting to business as usual.

    Victoria Park controversy

    In 2021, a KPMG report for the Queensland government analysed the potential economic, social and environmental benefits of the Brisbane 2032 games.

    It said the government was proposing to deliver the climate-positive commitment required to host the 2032 games through a range of initiatives. This included “repurposing and upgrading existing infrastructure with enhanced green star credentials”.

    But plans for the Olympic stadium have changed a great deal since then. Plans to upgrade the Brisbane Cricket Ground, commonly known as the Gabba, have been replaced by a new stadium to be built in Victoria Park.

    Victoria Park is Brisbane’s largest remaining inner-city green space. It is known to Indigenous peoples as Barrambin (the windy place). It is listed on the Queensland Heritage Register due to its great cultural significance.

    Page 90 of the Olympic Host Contract prohibits permanent construction “in statutory nature areas, cultural protected areas and World Heritage sites”.

    Local community groups and environmental advocates have vowed to fight plans for a Victoria Park stadium. This may include a legal challenge.

    The area of Victoria Park (64 hectares) compared with Central Park (341h), Regent’s Park (160h), Bois de Vicennes (995h).
    Save Victoria Park

    What next?

    The climate-positive commitment has been downgraded to an unenforceable aspiration. A new Olympic stadium has been announced in direct violation of the host contract. Will Brisbane 2032 still leave a green legacy?

    Greater transparency and public accountability are needed. Otherwise, the original plan may fall short of the positive legacy it aspired to, before the Olympics even begin.

    Marcus Foth receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a Senior Associate with Outside Opinion, a team of experienced academic and research consultants. He is chair of the Principal Body Corporate for the Kelvin Grove Urban Village, chair of Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance, and a member of the Queensland Greens.

    – ref. Brisbane 2032 is no longer legally bound to be ‘climate positive’. Will it still leave a green legacy? – https://theconversation.com/brisbane-2032-is-no-longer-legally-bound-to-be-climate-positive-will-it-still-leave-a-green-legacy-246672

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Uncertainty and pessimism abound. Will fear be enough to push Dutton into office?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University

    Tony Abbott was once unelectable. So were Donald Trump and Boris Johnson.

    And so was Peter Dutton, not so long ago. But opinion polls over much of 2024 and early 2025 indicated otherwise, and a nightly assault of pre-election political advertising – as my wife and I watched reruns of Law & Order: Criminal Intent – suggested that the Liberals had done their research and needed to humanise their man.

    Devotees of Detectives Goren and Eames in that venerable program were able to enjoy briefly reviewing Detective Senior Constable Dutton’s time as a Queensland cop, as well as his splendid business career (which has received some closer scrutiny since) and his more recent meeting and greeting of ordinary Australians as a likeable everyman and all-round good guy.

    The ad sometimes played twice in a particular break: the saturation coverage suggested that the Liberals had done rather well with donors. Unfortunately for Dutton, we later gained a deeper insight into the very high priority he attaches to rattling the can for the Liberal Party. Dutton’s decision to attend a fundraiser in Sydney while a cyclone was descending on Queensland did him immense damage, recalling his predecessor’s “I don’t hold a hose, mate” response to the Black Summer bushfires of 2020-21.

    If historical precedent is any guide, Dutton’s task should be somewhere between formidable and impossible. When Australians elect their national governments, they can normally assume they are doing so for at least two terms. The last one-termer was the Labor government of James Scullin, elected in October 1929 and sent into oblivion via an election held a few days before Christmas in 1931.

    Scullin was a victim of the century’s greatest international economic crisis; governments everywhere faltered or disintegrated under similar pressures. The economic challenges faced by the present Labor government have been more modest. But will it suffer a similar fate to Scullin’s Depression-era administration?

    Normally, the rarity of one-termers might have provided Anthony Albanese with a measure of reassurance. But we live in an era where historical precedent seems to count for little.

    That was clear enough even at the 2022 election. It was unprecedented in several respects. There was nothing resembling the atmosphere of excitement of 1972, 1983 and 2007 – or, for that matter, 1929 – which had brought Labor governments to power from opposition and awarded them solid or large majorities.

    Labor’s majority on the floor of the House of Representatives following the 2022 election was piddling – a mere three seats, and just two after the election of a speaker. Its primary vote was about 32%. It won just five of the 30 available seats in the third most populous Australian state, Queensland.

    There had never been a Labor victory like this one. Its exceptionalism haunts Labor’s efforts to gain re-election in 2025.

    Labor won in 2022 rather like many state Labor oppositions have won in recent decades. The margin was narrow. The unpopularity of a government, and its leader, was there to be exploited. Again and again, state Labor oppositions have fallen over the line at an initial election, sometimes able only to form minority government: Bob Carr, Mike Rann, Peter Beattie, Steve Bracks and Annastacia Palaszczuk were all examples.

    Voters seemed at best grudging in their support, but enough were willing to give Labor a go and then look over the results when a new election came round a few years later. In each case, governments were able to consolidate, sometimes winning landslide victories by establishing their credentials, exploiting incumbency, and building new constituencies.

    There were signs Albanese might do the same after May 2022. His slim three-seat majority became a five-seat advantage when Labor’s Mary Doyle won the Aston byelection on April 1 2023 – a seat deep in the traditional Liberal heartland. As late as the Dunkley byelection of March 2 2024, also in Melbourne, the base of electoral support that had seen Albanese into office almost two years before looked to be more or less intact.

    Part of the problem for the Coalition seemed to lie with Dutton himself. Would Australians vote for him? Or to put it more precisely: would the kinds of voters in the mainland capital cities who had turned so sharply against Scott Morrison in 2022 shift their votes to a figure as conservative and as bleak as Dutton?

    That bleakness always struck me as being a bigger problem than the conservatism. Australians routinely elect conservative prime ministers. They elected Malcolm Fraser when they thought he was a conservative (as indeed he was). Then they elected him twice more. They elected John Howard, who had proudly called himself the Liberal Party’s most conservative leader ever. Then they elected him another three times. They elected Abbott, even if buyer’s remorse quickly followed. They elected Morrison when the Coalition had seemed dead in the water.

    But leaders such as Howard and Morrison were much more optimistic than Dutton. They both seemed to think Australia was a pretty good place full of pretty good people and that all things being equal, the future was likely to be pretty good too while there were pretty good blokes in charge (but, of course, it would be much better under a Coalition government, which had the best blokes).

    Abbott, to be sure, was more pessimistic – his description of the Syrian conflict as a struggle between “baddies” and “baddies”, and his references to “death cults”, said more about his habit of reducing complexity to melodrama than it did about that Middle East. Yet Abbott’s outlook, at least as expressed publicly while in office, was nowhere near as dismal as Dutton’s.

    For Dutton, the enemy is close to home, menacing us in the dark. His bleakness is in a league of its own.

    Lech Blaine’s portrait in his Quarterly Essay Bad Cop was convincing: Dutton was a man formed and perhaps damaged by his experience as a policeman, and a political hardman in the habit of painting whole groups of people – commonly politically vulnerable – as a threat to society. Dutton evokes a vision of good people besieged by bad, of the decent and law-abiding as in constant danger of being swamped by the immoral and the criminal – or possibly mugged on their way home from a Melbourne restaurant.

    As 2024 unfolded, no one doubted there was sufficient dissatisfaction with Labor building, especially in many outer Australian suburbs, to do the government serious damage at an election. Persistently high interest rates had increased the cost of a mortgage. Inflation had moderated, but living standards had taken a beating. The chattering classes started talking of the inevitability of minority government, but they usually meant minority Labor government. Then they started talking about minority Coalition government, as the polls turned nastier for Labor.

    Labor spirits have revived in recent weeks after Dutton’s missteps over Cyclone Alfred, a comfortable victory in the Western Australian election, and opinion polling that shows the ALP ahead on a two-party preferred count. Still, uncertainty abounds.

    Albanese often campaigned poorly last time: will he again falter? Dutton, meanwhile, is untested as leader in an election campaign, has little policy on the table, and has a habit of going missing when there are hard questions to be answered.

    For me, the key to this election is whether there is a sufficient number of voters, concentrated in the right places, who share enough of Dutton’s pessimism about their own circumstances and, to a lesser extent, about the general state of the country. If, indeed, there is enough congruence between Dutton’s bleakness and theirs, Australia may well have a new government and a new prime minister by winter.

    But Dutton’s blessed run might well have now come to an end. Inflation has moderated, the Reserve Bank has made a cut to interest rates, and a sense of scepticism seems to have settled in about Dutton among voters taking a serious look at him as a potential prime minister a few weeks ago.

    He now looks more like Old Mother Hubbard with a bare policy cupboard, desperately seeking to shore up the hard right vote against depredations from Pauline Hanson and Clive Palmer, than Australia’s answer to Donald Trump.

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

    – ref. Uncertainty and pessimism abound. Will fear be enough to push Dutton into office? – https://theconversation.com/uncertainty-and-pessimism-abound-will-fear-be-enough-to-push-dutton-into-office-247360

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What are caretaker conventions and how do they limit governments during election periods?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Twomey, Professor Emerita in Constitutional Law, University of Sydney

    Now that the election has been called for May 3, parliament has been dissolved and the caretaker government period has commenced. During this period, the caretaker conventions require the government to exercise self-restraint. It must stick to routine government business and not embark on major new commitments.

    There are commonly claims in the media that various actions by the government breach the caretaker conventions. Before the accusations start flying, here are the basics to help you make your own assessment.

    Why do we have caretaker conventions?

    There are two reasons for caretaker conventions. First, once parliament is dissolved, the government can no longer be called to account by parliament. It should therefore be more restrained in its actions while not under parliamentary scrutiny.

    Second, as a matter of fairness, the government should not be entering into binding commitments immediately before an election, if they will burden an incoming government. It is unfair for an outgoing government to stack important statutory positions with its own people or enter into contracts that commit a new government to policies it opposes.

    When do the caretaker conventions apply?

    The caretaker conventions commence from the moment parliament is dissolved. They continue until the election result shows the existing government has been returned to office or a new government is formed.

    If there is a hung parliament, it may take a few weeks before we know who will form the new government. If important matters have to be resolved during that prolonged caretaker period, the opposition may be consulted to try to get a cooperative outcome. The existing government, however, retains full legal power to act at all times.

    How do the caretaker conventions restrict government actions?

    Before each federal election, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet issues a document called Guidance on Caretaker Conventions. It sets out the rules for ministers and public servants.

    During the caretaker period, a government must avoid:

    • making major policy decisions that are likely to commit an incoming government
    • making significant appointments
    • entering into major contracts or undertakings, such as entry into treaties or other international agreements.

    Whether a decision, appointment or policy is major, is a matter of judgement. In making this assessment, consideration is given to whether it is likely to be controversial or a matter of contention between the government and the opposition. The cost of the decision and its impact on future resources and policies will also be considered.

    Both the government and the opposition can still, of course, make election commitments about future action. The caretaker conventions only apply to actions taken within the caretaker period. They also do not apply to decisions made and actions taken before the caretaker period commenced, even if they are only announced after it has commenced.

    The public service and the caretaker period

    Rules have also developed on the fair use of the public service and public resources before and after elections. Technically, these are not part of the caretaker conventions, which concern self-restraint by ministers. But because they concern fairness in relation to elections, they are often lumped in with the caretaker conventions and they are included within the official guidance document.

    These rules are based upon obligations imposed on public servants by statutes and other instruments, such as the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth), and APS Code of Conduct. They require public servants to behave in an impartial and apolitical manner. They also require that public resources not be used to advantage political parties during an election campaign.

    It is also customary to restrict the use of government advertising during the caretaker period to necessary matters, and those that do not highlight the role of ministers or promote the achievements or policies of the government.

    Two recent examples show how these rules can become controversial during an election campaign. In 2013, the Rudd Labor government was criticised by the opposition for breaching the caretaker conventions by running ads, within Australia, about asylum-seekers not being settled in Australia. The ads were reluctantly approved by public servants under a ministerial direction that they were obliged to obey.

    The opposition was happy for the ads to be run in overseas countries, as a source of information and deterrence, but regarded their publication in Australia as partisan and breaching the rules. Opposition spokesperson Scott Morrison called it a “shameless and desperate” grab for votes, with the government spending taxpayers’ money to advertise to the vote-people, rather than the boat people.

    On the day of the 2022 election, the Morrison Coalition government instructed the Department of Home Affairs to publish a statement that a boat containing asylum seekers had been intercepted.

    It requested that this information be emailed immediately to journalists and tweeted by the Australian Border Force. The issue was highly political. Prime Minister Scott Morrison told a press conference before any announcement had been made that:

    I’ve been here to stop this boat. But in order for me to be here to stop those that may come from here, you need to vote Liberals and Nationals today.

    Officials published a factual statement about the boat, because they were required to act as directed by the minister. But, as a subsequent investigation revealed, they refused requests to amplify the controversy by sending material to journalists and to publish it on social media, as this would breach their obligations to be apolitical.

    Who enforces the caretaker conventions?

    The caretaker conventions are not legally binding and cannot be enforced by a court. But some governors-general have given effect to the conventions by deferring action on anything that would breach them. Then, when the election is over, a new government can decide whether to proceed with the matter.

    Breaches by public servants of their obligations under codes of conduct and the Public Service Act can have real consequences, such as disciplinary action being taken against them.

    While conventions are not legally enforceable, they ordinarily work because there is agreement among political actors that these rules are fair and politically binding on them. Controversy in the media about breaches of conventions can raise public anger. Punishment is left in the hands of the voters.

    Anne Twomey has received funding from the Australian Research Council and occasionally does consultancy work for governments, parliaments and inter-governmental bodies.

    – ref. What are caretaker conventions and how do they limit governments during election periods? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-caretaker-conventions-and-how-do-they-limit-governments-during-election-periods-251366

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Show your working: how the ‘open science’ movement tackles scientific misconduct

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danny Kingsley, Visiting Fellow, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University

    VTT Studio/Shutterstock

    In December 2001, a small but lively meeting in Budapest, Hungary, launched a whole new international movement. The resulting Budapest Open Access Initiative opened with the words: “An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good”.

    This was the first definition of open access and referred to harnessing the internet to make scientific research openly available, without a subscription. It was a “statement of principle, a statement of strategy, and a statement of commitment”.

    More than two decades later, the open access movement has broadened beyond simply research articles. It now incorporates research data, protocols, software and all aspects of the research process. The universal term for this is “open science”.

    With its focus on transparency, open science offers part of the solution to the growing problem of scientific misconduct.

    A system that enables misconduct

    Academic institutions and researchers are focused on a very narrow set of metrics for success. These come down to authorship on a publication being the most valued currency in academia because this is the primary measure towards career progression and academic prestige.

    Another industry resulting from these metrics is the international university ranking systems. These are run by commercial organisations that publish lists of universities, which in turn promote their institution as being in the “top X%” of whichever list they have done well in.

    Despite widespread criticism, these systems continue to give institutions incentive to reward their academics for publishing in certain journals for the purpose of raising their rank.

    With its focus on transparency, open science offers part of the solution to the growing problem of scientific misconduct.
    ssi77/Shutterstock

    This “publish or perish” push is undermining science.

    For example, it has opened up several exploitative industries, such as predatory publishers. These are entities that exploit authors by charging fees for publication without providing adequate editorial services.

    Also on the rise are covert entities known as “paper mills”, which manufacture academic articles (either using a human or a machine) and submit them to journals on behalf of paying researchers. This causes serious issues for editors who need to work through an increasing number of rubbish articles to choose which ones are genuine before sending them out for review by other researchers.

    These paper mills create major problems for the scientific record. Some experts believe they are also illegal.

    Many of the current problems with research integrity were highlighted by a 2024 study, which estimated that as many as one in seven papers is based on suspect data. A whole new area of research called forensic scientometrics has developed to try to identify some of these questionable publishing practices.

    Science does have a way of correcting itself through retractions, where a problematic paper is withdrawn from the journal and a retraction notice put up instead. But identifying problem papers is only part of the solution. For example, one 2024 study found less than 5% of all papers identified as retracted were actually removed from journal websites.

    University ranking systems give institutions incentive to reward their academics for publishing in certain journals.
    Olga Kashubin/Shutterstock

    Working openly improves science

    So how can making science more open and transparent help?

    When we talk about research integrity, we often look to the integrity of the researcher – expecting them to show “moral character”. However, ultimately it is the integrity of the research itself that really matters.

    Working in an open environment helps research integrity in several ways.

    Making the data used for the work freely available means the work can be better scrutinised. This is something that would have helped prevent the publication of the now-retracted study in The Lancet examining whether the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine was effective at treating COVID. The study was retracted after investigations revealed the data the research was based on was deeply flawed and unable to be verified.

    Requiring clinical trials to be registered means drug studies that are unfavourable or show no effect cannot be buried.

    Reviewing the “instruction manuals” of how research studies are going to be conducted, called the protocols, before the studies are undertaken also ensures more rigorous research. That’s because the quality of the protocols determines the robustness of the work.

    These are just a few of the ways open science creates an environment where poor research practice is much harder to undertake.

    Working openly won’t necessarily stop bad actors. But it will make it much harder for them to operate without being noticed.

    A true paradigm shift

    A 2022 study on open access policies in Australian universities showed only 50% had an open access policy at the time, even though this is a requirement under the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research.

    Despite this, there is some hope for open science in Australia.

    For example, in 2024, the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia convened a roundtable event to discuss how to transition to a fair and equitable open research system. This led to the formation of the National Open Science Taskforce, which is currently co-ordinating open activity in Australia.

    Internationally, the European Union was an early advocate for open science, beginning work on the European Open Science Cloud in 2015.

    Individual European countries are forging ahead, with The Netherlands having a National Open Science program and Ireland launching its National Framework on the Transition to an Open Research Environment in 2019.

    The EU-funded Open and Universal Science is being implemented by a consortium of 18 organisations across the world. It’s due to be completed this year.

    Countries worldwide also submitted their first reports last month on their implementation of the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science.

    Open science is a radical departure from traditional research practices. As the summary report of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia’s roundtable event says, transitioning to it requires “a true paradigm and cultural shift”.

    But for the sake of improving research integrity, this shift is urgently needed.

    Danny Kingsley is a member of the National Open Science Taskforce, a Board member of FORCE11 (Future of Research Communications and eScholarship) and a member of the Royal Society Advisory Group on the Future of Scientific Publishing.

    – ref. Show your working: how the ‘open science’ movement tackles scientific misconduct – https://theconversation.com/show-your-working-how-the-open-science-movement-tackles-scientific-misconduct-249020

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Art for art’s sake? How NZ’s cultural organisations can maintain integrity and still make money

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ksenia Kosheleva, Doctoral candidate, Marketing, Hanken School of Economics

    Stokkete/Shutterstock

    When Auckland mayor Wayne Brown said in 2022 that the Auckland Art Gallery had the foot traffic of a corner dairy and cast the institution as an “uneconomic” entity, he conceded he was at risk of “being seen as something of a philistine”.

    But the mayor’s comments also highlighted a very real challenge. How can New Zealand cultural organisations secure their future when the value of art and culture is seen through the economic lens of profit?

    And does an overemphasis on profit make cultural groups wary of market and strategy, hampering innovation in the art and culture sector?

    Our research proposes a concept we call “generative coexistence”. We suggest that when market approaches are integrated thoughtfully, market forces and cultural missions can work together and enable each other.

    Why the market vs. culture debate is changing

    For years, cultural organisations were shielded from the market by state funding. But while government support remained relatively consistent, there was no consistent funding strategy. With each budget round being akin to a lottery, calls for change are becoming louder.

    The 2024 budget included significant reductions in arts funding. Cultural organisations were expected to find new ways to stay viable. However, as art institutions turn to practices like sponsorship, ticketed events and merchandising to boost revenue, there’s understandable concern about a potential loss of artistic integrity.

    Yet, market principles and cultural values can be aligned.

    In 2023, the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra launched a digital platform, NZSO+, to stream performances, open rehearsals and artistic talks. Later that year, the NZSO performed to a flock of farm chickens, to support ethical farming and, simultaneously, modernise its brand image.

    The moves raised questions about whether the orchestra’s essence could be nurtured outside of concert halls. At the same time, they showed a possibility for cultural organisations to blend their authentic mission with commercial acumen, without compromising their intrinsic values.

    The NZSO’s streaming strategy didn’t just address a budget shortfall. It allowed the orchestra to reach wider, younger and more diverse audiences who might not otherwise engage with classical music. Through this market-driven approach, the symphony orchestra sustained its core mission of bringing music to all New Zealanders.

    Our research includes examples of cultural groups from around the world. It captures how, rather than seeing commercialisation as a “necessary evil” undermining the arts, cultural groups can use the tensions that come from the competing demands to produce creative solutions.

    Here, generative coexistence allows cultural organisations to adapt in ways that not only keep the lights on but also broaden their impact.

    Wellington’s Te Papa Museum uses blockbuster ticketed exhibitions to attract a wider audience while maintaining its cultural status.
    travellight/Shutterstock

    Generative coexistence in the arts

    We identified three main strategies for organisations in the arts and culture sector designed to help them thrive in a world where financial and cultural goals can seem at odds with each other.

    First, organisations need to embrace the commercial potential of cultural products.

    When approached thoughtfully, the strong commercial appeal of cultural products can support an organisation’s core mission and create a democratic counterbalance against sponsorship dependency.

    Wellington’s Te Papa Museum, for example, creates value through blockbuster ticketed exhibitions that attract a wider audience – such as last year’s Dinosaurs of Patagonia. By using selective commodification processes, Te Papa maintains its educational and cultural status and generates the revenue needed to innovate and expand its reach.

    Cultural organisations also need to adopt an entrepreneurial mindset.

    Organisations worldwide experiment with innovating existing business models to allow for creative and operational freedom. For example, performing art organisations are increasingly moving away from legacy models – such as venue-based events with tickets as the key revenue stream – into hybrid and digitally-led ones.

    Similarly, galleries and art spaces are opting for nomadic models, eschewing permanent locations but maintaining a strong online presence. This enables cultural actors to adapt and lower reliance on funding while creating cultural value.

    Finally, cultural organisations need to look into cross-disciplinary collaborations that align on shared goals. Finding a balance between financial stability and cultural integrity requires recognising opportunities to work together.

    How market and cultural values can coexist

    The New Zealand arts sector is still cautious about non-intuitive collaborations with adjacent fields, such as gaming, fashion or advertising. But partnering with the tech industry holds the promise of new levels of visitor engagement, while staying rooted in the commitment to community enrichment.

    Cultural organisations have to navigate a complex landscape where financial pressures and cultural missions intersect and create tensions.

    Our concept of generative coexistence encourages a more flexible view. Examples from around the globe show it isn’t about choosing between culture and commerce. It’s about turning tensions into a foundation for innovation, accessibility and resilience.

    Arts and culture are neither luxuries nor commodities, but integral parts of a thriving society. We are certain that New Zealand’s creative sector, which is unique, resilient and economically viable, can secure its place in a future that honours both the power of art and the realities of financial sustainability.

    Ksenia Kosheleva receives funding from The Foundation for Economic Education, Finland.

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

    – ref. Art for art’s sake? How NZ’s cultural organisations can maintain integrity and still make money – https://theconversation.com/art-for-arts-sake-how-nzs-cultural-organisations-can-maintain-integrity-and-still-make-money-252362

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: View from The Hill: Dutton has questions to answer on gas; Albanese has supermarket answer still hunting for the problem

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Peter Dutton is a tease when it comes to the fine print of policies. At least that’s the benign explanation. Critics have a harsher take on why we’re always being told to wait for the detail. They would claim his policies are often thin, or unfolded on the run.

    Right now, we’re into the first week of the campaign and we’re still waiting for more on the Coalition’s gas reservation policy, announced in Dutton’s budget reply, as well as precision on its immigration policy and for how much extra it would spend on defence.

    Dutton said on Sunday we’d get information on the gas policy in the next “couple of days”.

    Danny Price, of Frontier Economics, has been hard at work, putting some modelling together. Price did the modelling for the opposition’s controversial nuclear policy, finding it much cheaper than the government’s energy transition plan. But those numbers depend on the assumptions. That modelling was contested, and no doubt so will be the gas policy analysis.

    Whatever the numbers that come out, they won’t include one key figure: what you would (arguably) save on your power bill. The opposition has learned something from Labor’s debacle of promising, before the last election, that its energy policy would save households $275 by 2025.

    At the weekend Albanese dismissed Labor’s modelling before the 2022 election as “RepuTex modelling based on the circumstances at the time”. Indeed.

    Dutton has, however, suggested his gas policy would reduce the wholesale domestic price from $14 per gigajoule to under $10 a gigajoule. More gas would mean cheaper prices, is its logic.

    The opposition’s thinking is that it lands the generality of a policy first, lets the public absorb that, and then produces detail. But the trouble with releasing the detail so late is the Coalition is likely to get bogged down in a confusing and damaging debate over what opponents will say are dodgy numbers and assumptions.

    This can lose a day or more and there aren’t that many days in a five-week campaign, especially when pre-polling starts a fortnight before the end.

    While Dutton was batting off questions about gas at the weekend, Anthony Albanese swung into his campaign stride in a comfort zone – at attack on supermarkets.

    He announced that if re-elected, Labor will legislate against supermarkets being able to price gouge. Not immediately though. There’d be a taskforce to work out the detail.

    There’s more than a touch of chutzpah here. We’ve just seen the report of a long inquiry by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission into supermarkets. It found they were very profitable but it didn’t find price gouging. Its raft of recommendations did not include legislation on price gouging.

    This hasn’t deterred the PM, who provided his own definition of the problem. “I got asked today by someone … ‘how do you know what price gouging is?’ Price gouging is when supermarkets are taking the piss off Australian consumers. That’s what it is. That’s what price gouging is. Everyone out there knows. Consumers know. We’ll take action here.”

    He did give the rather less colloquial EU definition.“In the EU, a price is unfair and excessive if, and to quote their law, ‘it has no reasonable relation to the economic value of the product supplied’.”

    After a fairly ordinary start to the campaign, this week Donald Trump will step right into the centre of it, with his much-anticipated tariff announcement. Australian officials continue to lobby the US; no one is confidently predicting whether or not we’ll be escape the firing line.

    Before the Trump announcement will come Tuesday’s first meeting of the new monetary policy board that has been set up under Labor’s changes to the Reserve Bank.

    Unlike February, when all the heat was on the bank’s governor to deliver that rate cut (which did come), nobody is expecting another cut yet. Michele Bullock can relax this week.

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

    – ref. View from The Hill: Dutton has questions to answer on gas; Albanese has supermarket answer still hunting for the problem – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-dutton-has-questions-to-answer-on-gas-albanese-has-supermarket-answer-still-hunting-for-the-problem-253118

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The move toward AI deregulation could put financial markets at risk

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sana Ramzan, Assistant Professor in Business, University Canada West

    As Canada moves toward stronger AI regulation with the proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), its southern neighbour appears to be taking the opposite approach.

    AIDA, part of Bill C-27, aims to establish a regulatory framework to improve AI transparency, accountability and oversight in Canada, although some experts have argued it doesn’t go far enough.

    Meanwhile, United States President Donald Trump’s is pushing for AI deregulation. In January, Trump signed an executive order aimed at eliminating any perceived regulatory barriers to “American AI innovation.” The executive order replaced former president Joe Biden’s prior executive order on AI.



    Read more:
    How the US threw out any concerns about AI safety within days of Donald Trump coming to office

    Notably, the U.S. was also one of two countries — along with the U.K. — that didn’t sign a global declaration in February to ensure AI is “open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy.”

    Eliminating AI safeguards leaves financial institutions vulnerable. This vulnerability can increase uncertainty and, in a worst-case scenario, increase the risk of systemic collapse.



    Read more:
    The Paris summit marks a tipping point on AI’s safety and sustainability

    The power of AI in financial markets

    AI’s potential in financial markets is undeniable. It can improve operational efficiency, perform real-time risk assessments, generate higher income and forecast predictive economic change.

    My research has found that AI-driven machine learning models not only outperform conventional approaches in identifying financial statement fraud, but also in detecting abnormalities quickly and effectively. In other words, AI can catch signs of financial mismanagement before they spiral into a disaster.

    In another study, my co-researcher and I found that AI models like artificial neural networks and classification and regression trees can predict financial distress with remarkable accuracy.

    Artificial neural networks are brain-inspired algorithms. Similar to how our brain sends messages through neurons to perform actions, these neural networks process information through layers of interconnected “artificial neurons,” learning patterns from data to make predictions.

    Similarly, classification and regression trees are decision-making models that divide data into branches based on important features to identify outcomes.

    Our artificial neural networks models predicted financial distress among Toronto Stock Exchange-listed companies with a staggering 98 per cent accuracy. This suggests suggests AI’s immense potential in providing early warning signals that could help avert financial downturns before they start.

    However, while AI can simplify manual processes and lower financial risks, it can also introduce vulnerabilities that, if left unchecked, could pose significant threats to economic stability.

    The risks of deregulation

    Trump’s push for deregulation could result in Wall Street and other major financial institutions gaining significant power over AI-driven decision-making tools with little to no oversight.

    When profit-driven AI models operate without the appropriate ethical boundaries, the consequences could be severe. Unchecked algorithms, especially in credit evaluation and trading, could worsen economic inequality and generate systematic financial risks that traditional regulatory frameworks cannot detect.

    Algorithms trained on biased or incomplete data may reinforce discriminatory lending practices. In lending, for instance, biased AI algorithms can deny loans to marginalized groups, widening wealth and inequality gaps.

    In addition, AI-powered trading bots, which are capable of executing rapid transactions, could trigger flash crashes in seconds, disrupting financial markets before regulators have time to respond. The flash crash of 2010 is a prime example where high-frequency trading algorithms aggressively reacted to market signals causing the Dow Jones Industrial Average to drop by 998.5 points in a matter of minutes.

    Furthermore, unregulated AI-driven risk models might overlook economic warning signals, resulting in substantial errors in monetary control and fiscal policy.

    Striking a balance between innovation and safety depends on the ability for regulators and policymakers to reduce AI hazards. While considering financial crisis of 2008, many risk models — earlier forms of AI — were wrong to anticipate a national housing market crash, which led regulators and financial institutions astray and exacerbated the crisis.

    A blueprint for financial stability

    My research underscores the importance of integrating machine learning methods within strong regulatory systems to improve financial oversight, fraud detection and prevention.

    Durable and reasonable regulatory frameworks are required to turn AI from a potential disruptor into a stabilizing force. By implementing policies that prioritize transparency and accountability, policymakers can maximize the advantages of AI while lowering the risks associated with it.

    A federally regulated AI oversight body in the U.S. could serve as an arbitrator, just like Canada’s Digital Charter Implementation Act of 2022 proposes the establishment of an AI and Data Commissioner. Operating with checks and balances inherent to democratic structures would ensure fairness in financial algorithms and stop biased lending policies and concealed market manipulation.

    Financial institutions would be required to open the “black box” of AI-driven alternatives by mandating transparency through explainable AI standards — guidelines that are aimed at making AI systems’ outputs more understandable and transparent to humans.

    Machine learning’s predictive capabilities could help regulators identify financial crises in real-time using early warning signs — similar to the model developed by my co-researcher and me in our study.

    However, this vision doesn’t end at national borders. Globally, the International Monetary Fund and the Financial Stability Board could establish AI ethical standards to curb cross-border financial misconduct.

    Crisis prevention or catalyst?

    Will AI still be the key to foresee and stop the next economic crisis, or will the lack of regulatory oversight cause a financial disaster? As financial institutions continue adopt AI-driven models, the absence of strong regulatory guardrails raises pressing concerns.

    Without proper safeguards in place, AI is not just a tool for economic prediction — it could become an unpredictable force capable of accelerating the next financial crisis.

    The stakes are high. Policymakers must act swiftly to regulate the increasing impact of AI before deregulation opens the path for an economic disaster.

    Without decisive action, the rapid adoption of AI in finance could outpace regulatory efforts, leaving economies vulnerable to unforeseen risks and potentially setting the stage for another global financial crisis.

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

    – ref. The move toward AI deregulation could put financial markets at risk – https://theconversation.com/the-move-toward-ai-deregulation-could-put-financial-markets-at-risk-251208

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How is classified information typically shared and can officials declassify secrets whenever they want? A national security expert explains

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Dakota Rudesill, Associate Professor of Law, The Ohio State University

    Director of Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testifies during a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on March 26, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

    U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on March 27, 2025, ordered top Trump administration officials to preserve records of their messages sent on the messaging app Signal from March 11 to March 15 following a transparency watchdog group’s lawsuit alleging that the officials have violated the Federal Records Act.

    This marked the latest development since The Atlantic on March 24 published a Signal chat among Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other national security officials discussing specific plans to attack Houthi militants in Yemen. Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief at The Atlantic, was mistakenly included in the chat and wrote about what he saw.

    Trump administration officials have shared contrasting accounts about whether they were discussing sensitive war information on Signal – but maintain that they did not share classified information.

    Senator Roger Wicker, the Republican chair of the Senate Arms Services committee, and Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat chairing the committee, on March 27 requested an investigation into how the Trump officials used Signal to discuss military strikes.

    Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor, spoke with national security scholar Dakota Rudesill to better understand what constitutes classified information and how the government typically handles its most closely kept secrets.

    Democratic representatives share text messages on March 26, 2025, sent by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to other top Trump administration officials.
    Kayla Bartowski/Getty Images

    How are government officials supposed to communicate about classified information?

    The first way someone with the proper clearance can communicate about classified information is in person. They can talk about secret things in what is called a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF. This means a secure place, often with a big, heavy door and a lock on it, where security officials have swept the area for bugs and no one can easily eavesdrop. People who are in SCIFs usually have to leave their cell phones outside of the room, and then they can talk freely about secret information. A SCIF can be a particular room, or a floor of a building, or even an entire building.

    Second, there is print communication: written documents with classification markings, which have to be handled in really particular ways, like in a safe location, and can be transported between SCIFs in secure containers.

    Third, intelligence agencies, the White House and the Department of Defense also all have secure electronic systems. These include visual teleconferences, which are similar to a Zoom call and are secure for discussing highly classified information, as well as secure email systems and secure phones.

    Many people with clearances have what is called “high side” email, which is shorthand lingo for classified email and messaging. Many people with security clearance would have two work hard drives and two computers. One of them is “low side,” where there is access to unclassified official email, documents and the internet.

    All of these methods of secure communication can be clunky and take more time than people in our smartphone age are used to. That is the cost of protecting the nation’s secrets. My sense is the Trump administration officials wanted to move fast and turned to Signal, a commercial app that promises encryption. Signal is generally considered secure but is not perfect. There is abundant public evidence that Signal is not totally secure and indeed has been penetrated by Russian intelligence.

    Can something be declassified after the information has been shared?

    Yes. The president can classify and declassify at will via oral or written instruction.

    The president’s constitutional powers include removing classification controls after information has been released or leaked. Trump could at any point declassify the information shared on Signal. Several of the Cabinet-level officials on that Signal chat also have expansive delegated powers over classification.

    Even so, Trump’s national security Cabinet would have presumably still violated the law. For example, by putting national defense information inappropriately on an insecure app and not checking to verify the clearances of everyone on the chat and thereby allowing a reporter to be present, one could reasonably conclude that the team was showing “gross negligence,” running afoul of the Espionage Act.

    The Espionage Act, enacted in 1917, criminalizes unauthorized retention and dissemination of sensitive information that could undermine the national security of the U.S. or help a foreign country.

    Was the information shared on Signal likely classified?

    Looking at the Signal message transcript that The Atlantic shared, it seems like at least four things were all but surely classified.

    The most obvious was the details that Secretary of Defense Hegseth provided on the strike plans. These include the precise times that planes were taking off, what kind and when the bombs would fall. Recent reports have quoted defense officials confirming that this information at the time was classified.

    Second, the chat revealed that the president gave a green light for secret strikes at a Situation Room meeting.

    Third, there is the mere fact of these top officials deciding whether and when to execute attacks authorized by the president.

    And fourth, according to media reports, the chat included the name of an intelligence officer whose position may have been secret.

    The Trump administration says that there was no classified information in the chat. But several analysts have noted that defies belief. The exception would be a prior decision to declassify, but we have no evidence of that.

    FBI Director Kash Patel, left, Tulsi Gabbard, director of National Intelligence, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe testify during a House Select Intelligence Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., on March 26, 2025.
    Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

    What other issues does this bring to mind?

    First, we don’t know whether the Trump officials carefully thought about it before they set up this chat on Signal, which the Pentagon has warned government officials against using because of hacking concerns.

    Second, even if the officials did make a focused decision to use Signal, what is the wisdom of that? I find it really, really hard to imagine that was a prudent decision when we think about how insecure this app is. There is also the fact that Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy to Ukraine and the Middle East, was party to the chat while he was in Russia. We do not know for sure if he had a device running Signal on him personally while he was in Russia, but in any event he would have been under intense Russian surveillance.

    A broader issue is how the Trump administration is enforcing the law is a giant question mark. Usually, the law both authorizes the U.S. government to do things, and also says it cannot do things. Law enables and limits everyone, including the president. However, Trump wrongly claims that he is the final authority on the law, and so far the Justice Department only seems to be enforcing the law against people outside of the administration.

    So does the law limit the Trump administration in any practical sense? Right now it is not clear – and there is abundant reason to be concerned about that from a rule of law standpoint.

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

    – ref. How is classified information typically shared and can officials declassify secrets whenever they want? A national security expert explains – https://theconversation.com/how-is-classified-information-typically-shared-and-can-officials-declassify-secrets-whenever-they-want-a-national-security-expert-explains-253207

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: NZ protesters honour killed Gaza journalists – ‘targeted’ say press freedom groups

    Pacific Media Watch

    Global press freedom organisations have condemned the killing of two journalists in Gaza this week, who died in separate targeted airstrikes by the Israeli armed forces.

    And protesters in Aotearoa New Zealand dedicated their week 77 rally and march in the heart of Auckland to their memory, declaring “Journalism is not a crime”.

    Hossam Shabat, a 23-year-old correspondent for the Al Jazeera Mubasher channel, was killed by an Israeli airstrike on his car in the eastern part of Beit Lahiya, media reports said.

    Video, reportedly from minutes after the airstrike, shows people gathering around the shattered and smoking car and pulling a body out of the wreckage.

    Mohammed Mansour, a correspondent for Palestine Today television was killed earlier on Monday, reportedly along with his wife and son, in an Israeli airstrike on his home in south Khan Younis.

    One Palestinian woman read out a message from Shabat’s family: “He dreamed of becoming a journalist and to tell the world the truth.

    “But war doesn’t wait for dreams. He was only 23, and when the war began he left classes to give a voice to those who had none.”

    Global media condemnation
    In the hours after the deaths, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Palestinian press freedom organisations released statements condemning the attacks.

    “CPJ is appalled that we are once again seeing Palestinians weeping over the bodies of dead journalists in Gaza,” said Carlos Martínez de la Serna, CPJ’s programme director.

    “This nightmare in Gaza has to end. The international community must act fast to ensure that journalists are kept safe and hold Israel to account for the deaths of Hossam Shabat and Mohammed Mansour.

    “Journalists are civilians and it is illegal to attack them in a war zone.”

    Honouring the life of Al Jazeera journalist Hossam Shabat – killed by Israeli forces at 23 and shattering his dreams. Image: Del Abcede/APR

    In a statement, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) confirmed it had targeted and killed Shabat and Mansour and labelled them as “terrorists” — without any evidence to back their claim.

    The IDF also said that it had struck Hamas and Islamic Jihad resistance fighters in Khan Younis, where Mohammed Mansour was killed.

    In October 2024, the IDF had accused Shabat and five other Palestinian journalists working for Al Jazeera in Gaza of being members of the militant arm of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

    Al Jazeera and Shabat denied Israel’s claims, with Shabat stating in an interview with the CPJ that “we are civilians … Our only crime is that we convey the image and the truth.”

    In its statement condemning the deaths of Shabat and Mansour, the CPJ again called on Israel to “stop making unsubstantiated allegations to justify its killing and mistreatment of members of the press”.

    The CPJ estimates that more than 170 journalists have been killed in Gaza since the war began in October 2023, making it the deadliest period for journalists since the organisation began gathering data in 1992.

    However, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate says it believes the number is higher and, with the deaths of Shabat and Mansour, 208 journalists and other members of the press have been killed over the course of the conflict.

    Under international law, journalists are protected civilians who must not be targeted by warring parties.

    Israel has killed more than 50,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, in its genocide in the blockaded enclave since October 7, 2023.

    The Israeli carnage has reduced most of the Gaza to ruins and displaced almost the entire 2.3 million population, while causing a massive shortage of basic necessities.

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants last November for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

    Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for its war on the enclave.

    New Zealand protesters wearing mock “Press” vests in solidarity with Gazan journalists documenting the Israeli genocide. Image: Del Abcede/APR

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Signal-gate: a national security blunder ‘almost without parallel’

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

    Depending on what you think of Donald Trump, his administration could fit either of the following two descriptions. Chaotic, vindictive and accident-prone, marked by mendacity, driven by impulse and bent on securing the will of the leader, rather than – as in the US constitution – the will of the people. Or it could be a government masterminded by a man playing 4D chess while all around him are playing chequers. A president whose deal-making skills and focus on outcomes ensure the security and prosperity of America and its allies.

    If you base your assessment on the people Trump has chosen as his key national security advisers then, after the recent Signal chat group intelligence debacle, you’d almost certainly opt for chaotic and accident-prone, at the very least.

    Looking around the Signal chatroom, who do we have? National security advisor Mike Waltz, Vice-President J.D. Vance, secretary of state Marco Rubio, defense secretary Pete Hegseth, director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA director John Ratcliffe and a supporting cast of other senior Trump staffers. And, unwittingly, the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg.

    Heads must roll, say Trump’s critics. But who from this hydra-headed beast should take the fall? Should it be Waltz, who invited Goldberg to the chat group? Or Hegseth, who posted operational details of a US attack, including the when, where and how, hours before it was due to take place? Should it be Vance, whose swipe at America’s freeloading European allies has caused considerable angst across the Atlantic?

    Or perhaps one or another of Gabbard and Ratcliffe, who sat in front of the Senate select committee on intelligence on Tuesday and maintained that no classified material or “war plans” had been revealed to the group – sworn evidence now revealed to be unreliable at best?

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

    At present it seems as if none of them are going to pay for their dangerous incompetence. Instead their ire is turned on Goldberg, who has variously been called a “sleazebag” by Trump himself, “loser” and the “bottom scum of journalists” by Waltz and a “deceitful and highly discredited, so-called journalist who’s made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again” by Hegseth.

    Robert Dover of the University of Hull, whose research centres on intelligence and national security, believes this is a “national security blunder almost without parallel”. He points to the hypocrisy of people like Hegseth who savaged Hillary Clinton for using a private email server to conduct official business when she was secretary of state under Barack Obama.

    Dover also notes the damage the episode will have done to America’s already shaky relations with its allies in Europe. Being disparaged by the vice-president as freeloaders and dismissed by the defense secretary as “pathetic”, he believes, will be “difficult to unsee”.



    Read more:
    Signal chat group affair: unprecedented security breach will seriously damage US international relations

    But credit where it’s due, it appears that US diplomacy may at least be bearing some – limited – fruit. At least, that is, if the two partial ceasefires recently negotiated between Russia and Ukraine actually materialise. That’s a fairly big if, of course. Despite a pledge by both sides that they could support a deal to avoid targeting each other’s energy infrastructure, there’s no sign yet of a cessation of attacks.

    And there has been a degree of scepticism over the recently announced plan for a maritime ceasefire to allow the free passage of shipping on the Black Sea. Critics say this favours Russia far more than Ukraine. Over the course of the war, Ukraine has successfully driven Russia’s Black Sea fleet away from its base in Crimea, giving it the upper hand in the maritime war. But maritime strategy expert, Basil Germond, says the situation is more nuanced, and the deal represents considerable upside for Ukraine as well.



    Read more:
    Russia has most to gain from Black Sea ceasefire – but it’s marginal, and Ukraine benefits too

    Setting aside America’s eventful recent forays into foreign relations, there’s a major domestic fix brewing which many US legal scholars believe could plunge the country into a constitutional crisis.

    Anne Richardson Oakes, an expert in US constitutional law at Birmingham City University, anticipates a potential clash between between the executive and the judiciary which could threaten the separation of powers that lies at the heart of American democracy.

    Oakes observes there are more than 130 legal challenges to Trump administration policies presently before the courts, some of which will end up in front of America’s highest legal authority, the Supreme Court, which is tasked with assessing the constitutionality of those policies. She warns that we’ve already seen evidence that Trump and his senior officials resent what they consider to be interference from the judiciary into the legitimate executive power of the elected president.

    Will there be a stand-off where the Trump administration simply ignores the Supreme Court’s ruling? It’s happened before, says Oakes. In the mid-20th century, in Little Rock, Arkansas, when the governor used the state’s national guard to prevent the court-ordered desegregation of public schools. On that occasion the then president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, sent in federal troops to enforce the court’s ruling and a constitutional crisis was averted.



    Read more:
    US stands on the brink of a constitutional crisis as Donald Trump takes on America’s legal system

    But what if it’s the serving president who chooses to ignore a Supreme Court ruling? This was the case in the 1830s when greedy cotton farmers in Georgia were bent on forcing the Native American peoples off their lands. The Cherokee actually took the state of Georgia to the Supreme Court, which ruled that as a “dependent nation” within the United States they were entitled to the protection of the federal government and that the state of Georgia had no right to order their removal.

    As historian Sean Lang of Anglia Ruskin University recounts, Georgia ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling and sent in troops to expel the Cherokee who were then forced to move to new lands in a journey known as the “Train of Tears”. Lang writes that then US president, Andrew Jackson, a populist advocate of states’ rights and former “Indian fighter”, ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling, “sneering that [Chief Justice John] Marshall had no means of enforcing it”.

    Lang concludes: “It’s a history lesson Greenlanders, Mexicans and Canadians – and indeed many Americans who may fall foul of this administration and seek recourse to the law – would do well to study.”



    Read more:
    Trump’s America is facing an Andrew Jackson moment – and it’s bad news for the constitution

    Trump’s chilling effect

    The Trump administration’s antipathy towards judges who have opposed its policies have extended towards those law firms who have in some way crossed the US president. But the legal system is not the only sector to feel the chilling effect of Trump’s displeasure, writes Dafydd Townley.

    The world of higher education in the US is also apprehensive after the administration went after Columbia University, home to some of the most outspoken protest over US policies towards Israel and Gaza. Columbia has recently had to agree to allow the administration to “review” some of its academic programmes, starting with its Middle Eastern studies, after the administration threatened to cancel US$400 million (£310 million) of government contracts with the university.

    The news media is also under heavy pressure. The administration has taken control of the White House press pool from the non-partisan White House Correspondents’ Association and has blackballed Associated Press for refusing to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. We’ve also seen Trump himself bring lawsuits against media organisations he judges to have crossed him. And now the president has called for the defunding of America’s two biggest public broadcasters, NPR and PBL, for what he perceives as their liberal bias.

    Townley, an expert in US politics at the University of Portsmouth is concerned that this all adds up to a deliberate attempt to cripple institutions which underwrite American democracy.



    Read more:
    Donald Trump’s ‘chilling effect’ on free speech and dissent is threatening US democracy

    Popularity falls as prices rise

    Trump’s leadership continues to be very polarising, writes Paul Whiteley, a political scientist and polling specialist at the University of Essex, who has spent years studying political trends in the US. Looking at the most recent numbers, Whiteley finds that while Trump’s approval ratings are fairly steady at 48% approval and 49% disapproval, when you dig down you find that only 6% of registered Democrats approve of his performance, while 93% disapprove. For registered Republicans it’s almost exactly the opposite.

    Whiteley takes his analysis further, looking at measures such as consumer sentiment, which has fallen sharply since January, with talk of tariffs and the return of inflation affecting people’s confidence in the economy. He points out there tends to be a fairly strong historical correlation between confidence in the economy and popular approval of a president’s performance.



    Read more:
    Three graphs that show what’s happening with Donald Trump’s popularity

    Another factor which will surely affect people’s confidence in the government are the job losses flowing from Elon Musk’s work as “efficiency tsar”. Thomas Gift, the director of the Centre on US Politics at University College London, believes that federal job losses as a result of Musk’s cuts are spread indiscriminately among Democrat and Republican states. As a result there may be some Republican voters who are experiencing what he calls “buyer’s remorse”.

    At the same time, rising inflation is flowing into the cost of living, something many people voted for Trump to punish the Democrats for. As Gift points out, both parties are experiencing a dip in support at present as people reject politics for having a generally negative effect on their lives. But from now, it’ll be the Republicans who will feel the sting of popular disapproval more keenly.



    Read more:
    Trump’s job cuts are causing Republican angst as all parties face backlash

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

    – ref. Signal-gate: a national security blunder ‘almost without parallel’ – https://theconversation.com/signal-gate-a-national-security-blunder-almost-without-parallel-253245

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Thousands are feared dead in Myanmar’s quake. Trump’s USAID cuts will cause even more unnecessary deaths

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Adam Simpson, Senior Lecturer, International Studies, University of South Australia

    In early 2021, after a decade of political and economic reforms, Myanmar looked like it was finally beginning to shake off the hangover of decades of military rule. Foreign investment was growing, and standards of living were gradually improving.

    In February that year, however, the military again grabbed power after ousting Aung San Suu Kyi’s democratically elected government in a coup. This sent the country spiralling towards civil war and social and economic collapse.

    In the latest addition to the daily misery of Myanmar’s long-suffering people, a huge 7.7-magnitude earthquake hit the centre of the country on Friday. Its epicentre was just outside Mandalay, the county’s second-largest city.

    The Thai capital of Bangkok, more than 1,000 kilometres from the epicentre, experienced extensive damage too. Video images showed a collapsing building under construction and sloshing rooftop infinity pools causing waterfalls down high-rise condominiums.

    Information on the extent of the damage in Myanmar was slower to emerge, given the junta has largely banned social media and communications apps, such as Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Signal and X.

    The death toll has now passed 1,000 at the time of writing. US Geological Survey modelling, however, suggests there could be more than 10,000 deaths and economic losses potentially exceeding the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

    Unusually for the isolationist military juntas of Myanmar, its leader, Min Aung Hlaing, immediately issued a call for international assistance.

    The junta, however, has full control of as little as 21% of the country in the ongoing civil war, with the rest contested or controlled by ethnic armed groups and resistance fighters. This indicates some hard-hit areas of the country may be inaccessible to international aid.

    Compounding these difficulties, the Trump administration has decimated the US Agency for International Development (USAID) activities in the country. This will make it far more challenging to determine the areas most in need and distribute any aid on the ground.

    Natural disasters in Myanmar

    Along with its history of brutal and authoritarian military rule since gaining independence in 1948, Myanmar is also regularly afflicted by natural disasters.

    At least 430 people are believed to have died in floods last September due to the remnants of Typhoon Yagi. In 2023, Cyclone Mocha reportedly killed about 460 of the Rohingya ethnic minority, who are largely confined to government camps in Rakhine state in inhuman conditions.

    The worst natural disaster in living memory, however, was Cyclone Nargis in 2008, which left at least 140,000 dead. On that occasion, the military junta resisted international assistance, likely resulting in many unnecessary deaths.

    At that time, there was no independent media in Myanmar and it was almost impossible to find out what was actually happening on the ground.

    Fortunately, the proliferation of mobile phones in the last decade has allowed information to spread much more widely, even with the junta’s internet blocks and other methods of censorship currently in place.

    When Cyclone Nargis occurred – the year after the iPhone was launched – only around 1% of the Myanmar’s population had mobile phones. By the time of the coup in 2021, Myanmar had a smartphone penetration rate of 114%. (This means the country has more smartphones than people.)

    Foreign assistance has been compromised

    While Min Aung Hlaing has gone farther than his predecessor in 2008 in asking for international help, US President Donald Trump’s actions have ensured that any aid will be far less effective than it would have been two months ago.

    On Friday, the same day the earthquake hit, the Trump administration told Congress it would cut nearly all remaining jobs at USAID and shut the agency, closing all USAID missions worldwide.

    Jeremy Konyndyk, the president of Refugees International and a former USAID official, called the move “a total abdication of decades of US leadership in the world”. He argued the firings would cut “the last remnants of the team that would have mobilised a USAID disaster response” to the earthquake.

    In 2024, USAID spent US$240 million (A$380 million) in Myanmar, around one-third of all multilateral humanitarian assistance to the country.

    However, since Trump’s inauguration in January, the number of USAID programs in Myanmar has shrunk from 18 to just three. Several NGOs and at least seven US-funded hospitals operating along Myanmar’s border with Thailand have been shut down.

    Myanmar’s exiled independent media outlets, which shine a light on the military’s atrocities, have also seen their funding slashed by the Trump administration’s USAID cuts.

    What happens now?

    The day before the earthquake, Min Aung Hlaing addressed troops at the 80th anniversary of Armed Forces Day Parade. He announced national elections would go ahead in December – a vote that human rights groups are already calling a “sham”.

    There is no conceivable way elections of any integrity can be held in the country under military rule or while the civil war continues to rage.

    Military-backed parties have been overwhelmingly rejected by Myanmar’s electorate in every remotely free or fair election over the last four decades. This includes the most recent elections held in 2020, won by the National League of Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi.

    While the world should welcome – and urgently respond to – Min Aung Hlaing’s invitation for international assistance, this doesn’t mean the past is forgotten. Thousands of innocent lives have been lost as a result of the military’s unnecessary and destructive 2021 coup.

    If the NLD had remained in government, the country would be infinitely more prepared to deal with consequences of this earthquake. Once again, the military’s brutal rule – and Trump’s draconian aid cuts – will no doubt cause more unnecessary suffering and deaths.

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

    – ref. Thousands are feared dead in Myanmar’s quake. Trump’s USAID cuts will cause even more unnecessary deaths – https://theconversation.com/thousands-are-feared-dead-in-myanmars-quake-trumps-usaid-cuts-will-cause-even-more-unnecessary-deaths-253403

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Thousands are feared dead in Myanmar’s quake. Trump’s USAID cuts will cause even more unnecessary deaths

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Simpson, Senior Lecturer, International Studies, University of South Australia

    In early 2021, after a decade of political and economic reforms, Myanmar looked like it was finally beginning to shake off the hangover of decades of military rule. Foreign investment was growing, and standards of living were gradually improving.

    In February that year, however, the military again grabbed power after ousting Aung San Suu Kyi’s democratically elected government in a coup. This sent the country spiralling towards civil war and social and economic collapse.

    In the latest addition to the daily misery of Myanmar’s long-suffering people, a huge 7.7-magnitude earthquake hit the centre of the country on Friday. Its epicentre was just outside Mandalay, the county’s second-largest city.

    The Thai capital of Bangkok, more than 1,000 kilometres from the epicentre, experienced extensive damage too. Video images showed a collapsing building under construction and sloshing rooftop infinity pools causing waterfalls down high-rise condominiums.

    Information on the extent of the damage in Myanmar was slower to emerge, given the junta has largely banned social media and communications apps, such as Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Signal and X.

    The death toll has now passed 1,000 at the time of writing. US Geological Survey modelling, however, suggests there could be more than 10,000 deaths and economic losses potentially exceeding the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

    Unusually for the isolationist military juntas of Myanmar, its leader, Min Aung Hlaing, immediately issued a call for international assistance.

    The junta, however, has full control of as little as 21% of the country in the ongoing civil war, with the rest contested or controlled by ethnic armed groups and resistance fighters. This indicates some hard-hit areas of the country may be inaccessible to international aid.

    Compounding these difficulties, the Trump administration has decimated the US Agency for International Development (USAID) activities in the country. This will make it far more challenging to determine the areas most in need and distribute any aid on the ground.

    Natural disasters in Myanmar

    Along with its history of brutal and authoritarian military rule since gaining independence in 1948, Myanmar is also regularly afflicted by natural disasters.

    At least 430 people are believed to have died in floods last September due to the remnants of Typhoon Yagi. In 2023, Cyclone Mocha reportedly killed about 460 of the Rohingya ethnic minority, who are largely confined to government camps in Rakhine state in inhuman conditions.

    The worst natural disaster in living memory, however, was Cyclone Nargis in 2008, which left at least 140,000 dead. On that occasion, the military junta resisted international assistance, likely resulting in many unnecessary deaths.

    At that time, there was no independent media in Myanmar and it was almost impossible to find out what was actually happening on the ground.

    Fortunately, the proliferation of mobile phones in the last decade has allowed information to spread much more widely, even with the junta’s internet blocks and other methods of censorship currently in place.

    When Cyclone Nargis occurred – the year after the iPhone was launched – only around 1% of the Myanmar’s population had mobile phones. By the time of the coup in 2021, Myanmar had a smartphone penetration rate of 114%. (This means the country has more smartphones than people.)

    Foreign assistance has been compromised

    While Min Aung Hlaing has gone farther than his predecessor in 2008 in asking for international help, US President Donald Trump’s actions have ensured that any aid will be far less effective than it would have been two months ago.

    On Friday, the same day the earthquake hit, the Trump administration told Congress it would cut nearly all remaining jobs at USAID and shut the agency, closing all USAID missions worldwide.

    Jeremy Konyndyk, the president of Refugees International and a former USAID official, called the move “a total abdication of decades of US leadership in the world”. He argued the firings would cut “the last remnants of the team that would have mobilised a USAID disaster response” to the earthquake.

    In 2024, USAID spent US$240 million (A$380 million) in Myanmar, around one-third of all multilateral humanitarian assistance to the country.

    However, since Trump’s inauguration in January, the number of USAID programs in Myanmar has shrunk from 18 to just three. Several NGOs and at least seven US-funded hospitals operating along Myanmar’s border with Thailand have been shut down.

    Myanmar’s exiled independent media outlets, which shine a light on the military’s atrocities, have also seen their funding slashed by the Trump administration’s USAID cuts.

    What happens now?

    The day before the earthquake, Min Aung Hlaing addressed troops at the 80th anniversary of Armed Forces Day Parade. He announced national elections would go ahead in December – a vote that human rights groups are already calling a “sham”.

    There is no conceivable way elections of any integrity can be held in the country under military rule or while the civil war continues to rage.

    Military-backed parties have been overwhelmingly rejected by Myanmar’s electorate in every remotely free or fair election over the last four decades. This includes the most recent elections held in 2020, won by the National League of Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi.

    While the world should welcome – and urgently respond to – Min Aung Hlaing’s invitation for international assistance, this doesn’t mean the past is forgotten. Thousands of innocent lives have been lost as a result of the military’s unnecessary and destructive 2021 coup.

    If the NLD had remained in government, the country would be infinitely more prepared to deal with consequences of this earthquake. Once again, the military’s brutal rule – and Trump’s draconian aid cuts – will no doubt cause more unnecessary suffering and deaths.

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

    – ref. Thousands are feared dead in Myanmar’s quake. Trump’s USAID cuts will cause even more unnecessary deaths – https://theconversation.com/thousands-are-feared-dead-in-myanmars-quake-trumps-usaid-cuts-will-cause-even-more-unnecessary-deaths-253403

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Turkey is an incredibly powerful broker in the current world crisis, and a masterful negotiator

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex

    A Turkish military ship in the Bosphorus. Atakan Divitlioglu/Shutterstock

    While Turkey’s government is struggling to deal with mass protests at home (after Istanbul’s mayor Ekrem Imamoglu was imprisoned), in foreign affairs it is in an increasingly strong position as a key power broker in deals with Europe, the US and Russia. At the crossroads between Asia and Europe, Turkey is strategically important to just about everyone, and is emerging as a clever negotiator.

    Since the early 2000s, Turkey has relied on a foreign policy approach that emphasised cooperation instead of competition. Economic ties were a priority, which helped Turkey steadily improve its relationships with Russia, Iran and Syria.

    While remaining a part of Nato and a major trading partner with the European Union, Turkey views its ties with Russia, Ukraine, China and countries in the Middle East as equally important. Turkey has shown that it will work with whatever government benefits its interests, and has taken advantage of regional conflicts to be a convenient ally when needed.

    At the same time, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has no qualms about confronting both friends and rivals equally, giving it strategic flexibility.

    Rocky relationship with Russia

    Turkey is Russia’s second biggest trading partner. Ankara continues to rely on Russian gas and banking networks, doing over US$60 billion (£46.3 billion) in trade annually with Moscow. The Turkish relationship with Russia improved dramatically in 1995 when Russia stopped supporting the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) and Turkey stopped supporting Chechen rebels.

    Since then, Turkey has maintained a functional relationship with Russia, while never being pliant to Moscow.

    Turkey was critical of Russia setting up military bases in Syria, in Tartus and Khmeimim and as it controls the airspace in northern Syria it also has the ability to restrict Russian access. Ankara has also used its military presence in Idlib, in northern Syria, to check Russian influence in the past. Turkey’s drone offensive in Idlib in 2020 helped the Syrian opposition and pushed back Syrian government and Russian-backed activity in the north-west.

    The importance of the Black Sea

    The Black Sea is another area of competition where Turkey has emerged with the upper hand during the war in Ukraine. Russia aimed to exercise control over the Black Sea, even seizing several Ukrainian ports which affected global grain supply in 2022.

    But Turkey negotiated the release of millions of tonnes of grain and has ensured the safety of shipping routes through the Black Sea by enforcing the Montreux Convention. This 1936 agreement granted Turkish control over the shipping route between the Black Sea (through the Bosporus Strait, the Sea of Marmara and the Dardanelles, through which hundreds of millions of tons tonnes of cargo pass each year) and the Mediterranean.

    Citing the agreement, Turkey also restricted Russian reinforcements into the Black Sea, which has restricted Russian naval power considerably.


    Shutterstock

    Though Turkey has not levied sanctions on Russia and has kept its revenue streams open, Turkey also does not accept the Russian annexation of Crimea. With more than 5 million Turks claiming to have Crimean Tatar roots, Crimea has both strategic and historical importance to Turkey.

    Yet, Turkey maintains communication with Moscow (and Erdoğan and Vladimir Putin are “dear friends”). Complicating this “friendship” is the fact that Turkey also supports Ukraine, supplying it with Bayraktar TB2 drones, heavy machine guns, laser-guided missiles, electronic warfare systems, armoured vehicles and protective gear.

    Ultimately, Turkey wants Ukraine to remain independent in order to check Russian naval power in the Black Sea. As such, Turkey is likely to work with Nato to ensure that Ukraine is not defeated.

    To that end, Turkey is willing to contribute peacekeepers to a post-ceasefire settlement, under the right conditions.

    Meanwhile, Turkey has used the Ukraine conflict to diversify its supply routes for energy (relying more on suppliers from the Caucasus region and central Asia), to reduce its dependence on Russia. Turkey is in a strong position, especially with the discovery of gas reserves in the Black Sea and eastern Mediterranean. Ankara aims to become an energy hub facilitating the transit of gas from the Caucasus, central Asia and Russia to Europe through the Trans-Anatolian natural gas pipeline.

    Turkey and Syria

    Turkey’s relationship with its neighbour Syria has also been pragmatic and shrewd. Turkey was able to pursue rapprochement with Syria in 2005, when Bashar al-Assad became the first Syrian president to visit Turkey since Syria gained its independence in 1946.

    But while Erdoğan maintained a relationship (to prevent Syria from moving even closer to Iran), he ultimately chose to abandon this relationship when it no longer suited him. He hosted anti-Assad figures in Turkey from time to time, and created a safe zone on its border which housed displaced Syrians and armed fighters. He gave rebels the go-ahead to oust Assad in 2024.

    Just as the war in Syria provided Turkey with opportunities, so too has the conflict in Ukraine. Ankara has strengthened its bargaining position and pushed for greater diplomatic and economic concessions from western allies. Turkey is taking advantage of the US’s retreat from Nato to push for closer cooperation with Europe.

    Turkey also is taking advantage of Donald Trump’s more lenient policies towards Russia to improve its relationship with the US. This is primarily based on wanting to improve defence cooperation. During the cold war, Turkey relied on the US for arms, funding and equipment, but was not able to use these weapons without US authorisation.

    After 1989, Turkey carved out different markets for its weapons imports and faced US sanctions for buying S-400 surface-to-air missiles from Russia in 2020. Turkey would like to purchase F-35 supersonic fighter jets from the US, and is hoping that the US will move away from sanctioning third countries that have engaged with Russia.

    Whose critical ally?

    Turkey has made sure that it is not seen by the US as a junior partner in the Middle East region. For example, when Turkey launched operations in north-east Syria in 2019, where it repeatedly fired close to US forces, the US offered no military response.

    The US sees Turkey as a key ally in spite of some different strategic goals. In addition to its geopolitical importance, Turkey also hosts US and Nato military forces at several of its bases and US nuclear weapons (20 B61 nuclear bombs) at its Incirlik Air Force Base.

    Turkey now wants to expand its diplomatic and military footprint. As a member of the G20, with one of the 20 biggest economies in the world and the second largest and second most powerful military force in Nato after the US, it has a lot of power. And in geopolitical juggling, currently Turkey is in the luxurious position of everyone wanting Ankara to be on their side.

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

    – ref. Turkey is an incredibly powerful broker in the current world crisis, and a masterful negotiator – https://theconversation.com/turkey-is-an-incredibly-powerful-broker-in-the-current-world-crisis-and-a-masterful-negotiator-253084

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What users need to know about privacy and data after 23andMe’s bankruptcy filing

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Aileen Editha, PhD Candidate in Law, Queen’s University, Ontario

    News of 23andMe’s bankruptcy has reignited concerns about data privacy, particularly what happens to customers’ personal and genetic information. (Shutterstock)

    23andMe, one of the first companies to provide direct-to-consumer genetic testing kits, has filed for bankruptcy. Since its founding in 2006, it has sold over 12 million DNA kits, with high-profile users including Oprah Winfrey and Warren Buffett.

    The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on March 23 under the United States Bankruptcy Code. This means 23andMe — now considered a debtor-in-possession — will start restructuring its finances and operations under court supervision.

    Despite the bankruptcy filing, 23andMe said it’s not shutting down. Having secured US$35 million in financing for the restructure, 23andMe has stated in an open letter that it will continue operating. Customers still have full access to their accounts, reports and data.

    News of the bankruptcy has reignited concerns about data privacy, particularly what happens to customers’ personal and genetic information. Considering 23andMe’s past challenges and controversies, these concerns are understandable.



    Read more:
    The 23andMe data breach reveals the vulnerabilities of our interconnected data

    In 2023, hackers exploited old passwords to gain access to the personal information of 6.9 million people. While 23andMe said no genetic data was compromised, information like family trees, birth years and geographic locations were. Some of the stolen data was later put up for sale on a hacking forum.

    In addition to the breach and resulting legal suits, the company has been in financial trouble since 2021. In 2024, 23andMe laid off 40 per cent of its workforce and saw all its independent directors resign unanimously in response to CEO Anne Wojcicki’s decision to take the company private. Wojcicki has since stepped down.

    Data as assets

    A key concern now is what will happen to customer data during the bankruptcy process. The possibility of new ownership has some customers concerned about how their sensitive genetic information will be handled in the future.

    23andMe’s privacy policies say the following:

    “If we are involved in a bankruptcy, merger, acquisition, reorganization, or sale of assets, your Personal Information may be accessed, sold or transferred as part of that transaction and this Privacy Statement will apply to your Personal Information as transferred to the new entity.”

    This means 23andMe could technically sell customer information as part and parcel of the company to ensure competitive bids. This information includes both individual-level data, such as genotypes, diseases and traits, as well as de-identified data that doesn’t include names or addresses.

    23andMe is one of the first companies to provide direct-to-consumer genetic testing kits.
    (Shutterstock)

    The company could also expand licensing agreements with pharmaceutical companies, which would allow them to use customer information for research. For instance, 23andMe’s “discovery collaboration” with GlaxoSmithKline allows consumer data to be used for research on novel drugs.

    23andMe has stated customer data will remain protected during the bankruptcy process, since any buyer “will be required to comply with applicable law with respect to treatment of customer data.”

    It is also important to note, however, that 23andMe may emerge successful from its restructuring. Filing for bankruptcy doesn’t mean a company will necessarily cease to operate. Many companies, including rental car company Hertz, General Motors and Red Lobster, all filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy but eventually recovered and continued business operations. 23andMe could follow a similar path.

    How privacy laws affect consumer data

    In commercial spheres, an individual’s genetic information is treated the same as their personal information under privacy laws. The extent to which customers should be concerned also depends on where they are located.

    For instance, the European Union and United Kingdom’s General Data Protection Regulation will provide additional protections to customers.

    Customers in Canada have some protection under the Personal Information and Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), as they are legally permitted to withdraw consent to the use of their personal information so long as they provide reasonable notice. However, this may still be limited by legal or contractual agreements.

    A 23andMe user’s ancestry results are displayed beside a saliva collection kit in Wilmington, Del. in 2018.
    (Shutterstock)

    In the U.S., however, the situation is much more complicated as there continues to be a lack of a harmonized legal approach to consumer privacy. Some U.S. states have enacted laws to better protect consumer privacy, like California’s Consumer Privacy Act and the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act.

    However, U.S. federal legislation like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, better known as HIPAA, doesn’t apply because 23andMe isn’t classified as a health-care agency or an associate of a health-care organization.

    What should consumers do?

    There are numerous uncertainties surrounding the situation, like whether or not 23andMe will eventually cease to operate and who it might sell to. Additionally, regardless of whether or not 23andMe is sold, its privacy policies can change anytime.

    In light of these uncertainties, concerned customers should err on the side of caution and delete their accounts. It is, however, important to note that 23andMe and its laboratory partners may still retain some consumers’ personal and genetic information, even after accounts are deleted.

    Concerned customers should make sure to withdraw their consent and request the deletion of both their individual-level and de-identifed data from the database. California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta and Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner Patricia Kosseim have also given this advice.



    Read more:
    With 23andMe filing for bankruptcy, what happens to consumers’ genetic data?

    The anxiety and concern surrounding 23andMe’s future is an indicator that a harmonized and effective framework is needed to regulate consumer privacy.

    As legal scholars Sara Gerke, Melissa B. Jacoby and I. Glenn Cohen aptly stated in their recent research article, “a legal system that relies heavily on privacy statements to protect customer data leaves customers vulnerable to unexpected uses of their data, with limited remedies.”

    Without clear regulations, consumers are forced to rely on the word of companies. With genetic data at stake, it’s imperative that policymakers take action to protect consumer privacy in the face of uncertainty.

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

    – ref. What users need to know about privacy and data after 23andMe’s bankruptcy filing – https://theconversation.com/what-users-need-to-know-about-privacy-and-data-after-23andmes-bankruptcy-filing-253012

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The spring clock change may affect your mind and body longer than you realise

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefano Arlaud, PhD candidate in Time Processing and Metacognition of Time Processing, SBBS, Queen Mary University of London, Queen Mary University of London

    ViDI Studio/Shutterstock

    Twice a year, around a quarter of the world’s population dutifully reset their clocks. It may seem like a minor adjustment, but some people struggle with fatigue, irritability, and brain fog in the days following the transition. For others — especially night owls — the adjustment period can last for weeks.

    Circadian rhythms govern many physiological processes in plants, animals and even bacteria, highlighting life’s remarkable sensitivity to changes in environmental conditions.

    Your biological internal clock is controlled in a small region of the brain called the hypothalamus. It regulates hormone release, body temperature and metabolism. So if your circadian rhythm is out of kilter, those things will be disrupted too.

    Most people take three to seven days to adjust to daylight saving time (DST). However, night owls can take two to three weeks to realign their sleep-wake cycles.

    Research suggests diet also plays a role. People who eat high-fat diets seem to experience prolonged circadian misalignment after the spring clock change. A 2008 study on rodents found that those on high-fat diets adapted 20% more slowly to a six-hour light shift compared to those on low-fat diets. Scientists don’t fully understand why diet and circadian rhythms are linked.

    We do know light exposure is also important for adapting to time change. One hypothesis suggests that a high-fat diet reduces circadian sensitivity to light. Researchers have wondered whether the connection between high-fat diet and circadian sensitivity may be since late evening eating is associated with weight gain. But a 2024 study found no significant differences in meal timing between diet groups, suggesting that it’s the food itself, rather than the time it is eaten, that’s the key factor.

    It’s not just you – the spring transition can make you sleepy for a while.
    Prostock-studio/Shutterstock

    Exposure to natural light is one of the most important factors in helping the body adjust to a new time. The more morning sunlight a person gets, the faster their circadian rhythm realigns. Research suggests that adaptation is harder in spring than in autumn, with increased wakefulness during sleep (10–30 minutes more), greater sleep fragmentation (between 5–20%), and poorer sleep quality after the spring transition.

    The link between natural light and cognitive function was highlighted by a 2020 study which demonstrated the benefits of increased daylight exposure. Thirty participants spent one week working in each of two office environments with identical layouts, furnishings and orientations. But one was fitted with smart glass (that can change its tint) and was set to optimise daylight. And the other had traditional blinds, that were closed. Participants in the optimised daylight condition slept 37 minutes longer and scored 42% higher on decision-making tasks.

    The human circadian rhythm runs slightly longer than 24 hours (typically 24.2–24.5 hours). This makes clock delays (autumn transition) easier to adjust to than clock advances (spring transition) because our body naturally drifts forward each day. Delaying sleep aligns with this tendency, whereas advancing sleep disrupts melatonin release, which regulates your energy levels and the natural urge to go to bed.

    In 2007, German researchers monitored 50 healthy adults for four weeks before and after each transition and found that spring adaptation took five to seven days longer than fall adaptation.

    Our core body temperature increases throughout the day, peaking in the late afternoon. A 2008 Finnish study studied nine adults before and after both transitions and found that during the spring transition, people’s gradual increase in body temperature was delayed by 30–60 minutes. It also found sleep quality dropped by 5–15%, and nighttime movement increased by 10–25% — all indicators of circadian misalignment. Total time in bed increased after the spring transition but participants’ sleep was fragmented and of lower quality.

    The spring clock change seems to create a slightly increased risk for those with life-threatening health conditions. Research has linked daylight saving time (DST) transitions to changes in mortality rates, during the first eight weeks after the transition, particularly in relation to cardiovascular complications. A 2024 study analysing 14 million deaths in the US from 2015 to 2019 found a slight increase in all deaths after the spring transition but a decrease in mortality after the autumn transition.

    The study also found a rising trend in dementia-related mortality, with a 5% increase in deaths peaking in the fifth week after the spring transition. Additionally, a slight increase in cancer-related mortality was noted in the first week after DST begins.

    Research also shows it’s a good idea to pay extra attention when you’re on the roads after the clocks go forward. A 2023 study investigating the effects of DST on driving fatigue found drivers showed signs of greater fatigue after the clock change. Their cars swayed in their lanes about 13% more often and their eyelids closed slightly more often. Participants still showed impairment one month later.

    However, in a follow-on trial after the autumn return to standard time, drivers reported feeling less sleepy.

    These findings suggest the spring transition can have a ripple effect that lasts for weeks. It also suggests we are more finely tuned to the natural world than we might think.

    Spring DST may seem like a simple one-hour shift, but for many, it’s much more than that.

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

    – ref. The spring clock change may affect your mind and body longer than you realise – https://theconversation.com/the-spring-clock-change-may-affect-your-mind-and-body-longer-than-you-realise-252987

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Tourists are cancelling trips to the US – here’s how this could affect its economy

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ross Bennett-Cook, PhD Researcher, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University

    The United States is one of the top three most visited countries in the world. The big draw cards – cities such as San Francisco, New York and Chicago and national parks such as Yosemite – have attracted international tourists for decades. This combined with its role as a global business powerhouse meant it had 66.5 million visitors in 2023 – and the 2024 figure is expected to be higher still.

    But a lot has changed in recent months, and 2025’s figures may not be as strong. The 2024 reelection of Donald Trump as the president of the United States and the consequential changes in foreign diplomacy and relations, alongside internal cultural shifts, are starting to change global attitudes towards the US – attitudes that appear to be affecting tourists’ desire to visit the US.

    In a recent report by research firm Tourism Economics, inbound travel to the US is now projected to decline by 5.5% this year, instead of growing by nearly 9% as had previously been forecast. A further escalation in tariff and trade wars could result in further reductions in international tourism, which could amount to a US$18 billion (£13.8 billion) annual reduction in tourist spending in 2025.

    There is already some evidence of travel cancellations. Since Trump announced 25% tariffs on many Canadian goods, the number of Canadians driving across the border at some crossings has fallen by up to 45%, on some days, when compared to last year. Canada is the biggest source of international tourists to the US. Air Canada has announced it is reducing flights to some US holiday destinations, including Las Vegas, from March, as demand reduces.

    According to a March poll by Canadian market researcher Leger, 36% of Canadians who had planned trips to the United States had already cancelled them. According to data from the aviation analytics company OAG, passenger bookings on Canada to US routes are down by over 70% compared to the same period last year. This comes after the U.S. Travel Association warned that even a 10% reduction in Canadian inbound travel could result in a US$2.1 billion (£1.6 billion) loss in spending, putting 140,000 hospitality jobs at risk.

    An unwelcoming environment?

    Some would-be visitors have cited an unwelcoming political climate as part of a concern about visiting the US – including angry rhetoric about foreigners, migrants and the LGBTQ+ community. The Tourism Economics report also cited “polarizing Trump Administration policies and rhetoric” as a factor in travel cancellations.

    There are other factors that may influence travellers from, for instance, western Europe, which represented 37% of overseas travel to the US last year. These include US tariffs pushing prices up at home and the US administration’s perceived alignment with Russia in the war in Ukraine.

    Canadian trips to the US are going down.

    Research by YouGov in March found that western European attitudes towards the US have become more negative since Trump’s reelection last November. More than half of people in Britain (53%), Germany (56%), Sweden (63%) and Denmark (74%) now have an unfavourable opinion of the US. In five of the seven countries polled, figures for US favourability are at the lowest since polling began in November 2016.

    Border issues

    Some high-profile cases at the US border could also be putting off tourists. In March, a British woman was handcuffed and detained for more than ten days by US Customs Enforcement after a visa problem. In the same month, a Canadian tourist was detained after attempting to renew her visa at the US-Mexico border. During the 12-day detention, she was held in crowded jail cells and even put in chains.

    Mexico is the US’s second largest inbound travel market. Tourism Economics suggests that issues around new border enforcement rules will raise concerns with potential Mexican tourists. During Trump’s first term in office, Mexican visits to the US fell by 3%. In February this year, air travel from Mexico had already fallen 6% when compared to 2024.

    Many countries including Canada have been updating their travel advice for the US. For instance, on March 15 the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office updated its advice for the US, warning visitors that “you may be liable to arrest or detention if you break the rules”. The previous version of advice, from February, had no mention of arrest or detention. Germany has made similar updates to its travel advisory, after several Germans were recently detained for weeks by US border officials.

    Multiple European countries, including France, Germany, Denmark and Norway have also issued specific travel warnings to transgender and non-binary citizens, as US authorities demand tourists declare their biological sex at birth on visa applications. This comes as the US has stopped issuing of passports with a X marker – commonly used by those identifying as non-binary – for its own citizens.

    Alternative destinations

    As thousands of travellers cancel their trips to the US, other destinations are seeing a spike in interest. Hotels in Bermuda have reported a surge in enquiries as Canadians relocate business and leisure trips away from the US, with some predicting a 20% increase in revenue from Canadian visits.

    Europe too has reported increased bookings from Canada, with rental properties experiencing a 32% jump in summer reservations when compared to last year, according to some reports.

    There are already growing concerns that visa and entry restrictions will disrupt fans and athletes from enjoying 2026 men’s Fifa World Cup, held on sites in the US, Canada and Mexico. Visitors from some countries, such as Brazil, Turkey and Colombia, could wait up to 700 days to obtain visas. The International Olympic Committee has also raised concerns over the 2028 Olympics Games in Los Angeles, although US officials have insisted that “America will be open”.

    With mounting visa delays, stricter border enforcement and growing concerns over human rights and anti-minority rhetoric, the United States risks losing its appeal as a top holiday destination. The long-term impact on its tourism industry may prove difficult to reverse.

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

    – ref. Tourists are cancelling trips to the US – here’s how this could affect its economy – https://theconversation.com/tourists-are-cancelling-trips-to-the-us-heres-how-this-could-affect-its-economy-252858

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: America’s clean air rules boost health and economy − charts show what EPA’s deregulation plans ignore

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Richard E. Peltier, Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, UMass Amherst

    Regulations have cleaned up cars, power plants and factories, leaving cleaner air while economies have grown. Cavan Images/Josh Campbell via Getty Images

    The Trump administration is “reconsidering” more than 30 air pollution regulations, and it offered industries a brief window to apply for exemptions that would allow them to stop following many air quality regulations immediately if approved. All of the exemptions involve rules finalized in 2024 and include regulations for hazardous air pollutants that cause asthma, heart disease and cancer.

    The results – if regulations are ultimately rolled back and if those rollbacks and any exemptions stand up to court challenges – could impact air quality across the United States.

    “Reconsideration” is a term used to review or modify a government regulation. While Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin provided few details, the breadth of the regulations being reconsidered affects all Americans. They include rules that set limits for pollutants that can harm human health, such as ozone, particulate matter and volatile organic carbon.

    Zeldin wrote on March 12, 2025, that his deregulation moves would “roll back trillions in regulatory costs and hidden “taxes” on U.S. families.“

    What Zeldin didn’t say is that the economic and health benefits from decades of federal clean air regulations have far outweighed their costs. Some estimates suggest every $1 spent meeting clean air rules has returned $10 in health and economic benefits.

    How far America has come, because of regulations

    In the early 1970s, thick smog blanketed American cities and acid rain stripped forests bare from the Northeast to the Midwest.

    Air pollution wasn’t just a nuisance – it was a public health emergency. But in the decades since, the United States has engineered one of the most successful environmental turnarounds in history.

    Thanks to stronger air quality regulations, pollution levels have plummeted, preventing hundreds of thousands of deaths annually. And despite early predictions that these regulations would cripple the economy, the opposite has proven true: The U.S. economy more than doubled in size while pollution fell, showing that clean air and economic growth can – and do – go hand in hand.

    The numbers are eye-popping.

    An Environmental Protection Agency analysis of the first 20 years of the Clean Air Act, from 1970 to 1990, found the economic benefits of the regulations were about 42 times greater than the costs.

    The EPA later estimated that the cost of air quality regulations in the U.S. would be about US$65 billion in 2020, and the benefits, primarily in improved health and increased worker productivity, would be around $2 trillion. Other studies have found similar benefits.

    That’s a return of more than 30 to 1, making clean air one of the best investments the country has ever made.

    Science-based regulations even the playing field

    The turning point came with the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970, which put in place strict rules on pollutants from industry, vehicles and power plants.

    These rules targeted key culprits: lead, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter – substances that contribute to asthma, heart disease and premature deaths. An example was the removal of lead, which can harm the brain and other organs, from gasoline. That single change resulted in far lower levels of lead in people’s blood, including a 70% drop in U.S. children’s blood-lead levels.

    Air Quality regulations lowered the amount of lead being used in gasoline, which also resulted in rapidly declining lead concentrations in the average American between 1976-1980. This shows us how effective regulations can be at reducing public health risks to people.
    USEPA/Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (1986)

    The results have been extraordinary. Since 1980, emissions of six major air pollutants have dropped by 78%, even as the U.S. economy has more than doubled in size. Cities that were once notorious for their thick, choking smog – such as Los Angeles, Houston and Pittsburgh – now see far cleaner air, while lakes and forests devastated by acid rain in the Northeast have rebounded.

    Comparison of growth areas and declining emissions, 1970-2023.
    EPA

    And most importantly, lives have been saved. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to periodically estimate the costs and benefits of air quality regulations. In the most recent estimate, released in 2011, the EPA projected that air quality improvements would prevent over 230,000 premature deaths in 2020. That means fewer heart attacks, fewer emergency room visits for asthma, and more years of healthy life for millions of Americans.

    The economic payoff

    Critics of air quality regulations have long argued that the regulations are too expensive for businesses and consumers. But the data tells a very different story.

    EPA studies have confirmed that clean air regulations improve air quality over time. Other studies have shown that the health benefits greatly outweigh the costs. That pays off for the economy. Fewer illnesses mean lower health care costs, and healthier workers mean higher productivity and fewer missed workdays.

    The EPA estimated that for every $1 spent on meeting air quality regulations, the United States received $9 in benefits. A separate study by the non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research in 2024 estimated that each $1 spent on air pollution regulation brought the U.S. economy at least $10 in benefits. And when considering the long-term impact on human health and climate stability, the return is even greater.

    Hollywood and downtown Los Angeles in 1984: Smog was a common problem in the 1970s and 1980s.
    Ian Dryden/Los Angeles Times/UCLA Archive/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

    The next chapter in clean air

    The air Americans breathe today is cleaner, much healthier and safer than it was just a few decades ago.

    Yet, despite this remarkable progress, air pollution remains a challenge in some parts of the country. Some urban neighborhoods remain stubbornly polluted because of vehicle emissions and industrial pollution. While urban pollution has declined, wildfire smoke has become a larger influence on poor air quality across the nation.

    That means the EPA still has work to do.

    If the agency works with environmental scientists, public health experts and industry, and fosters honest scientific consensus, it can continue to protect public health while supporting economic growth. At the same time, it can ensure that future generations enjoy the same clean air and prosperity that regulations have made possible.

    By instead considering retracting clean air rules, the EPA is calling into question the expertise of countless scientists who have provided their objective advice over decades to set standards designed to protect human lives. In many cases, industries won’t want to go back to past polluting ways, but lifting clean air rules means future investment might not be as protective. And it increases future regulatory uncertainty for industries.

    The past offers a clear lesson: Investing in clean air is not just good for public health – it’s good for the economy. With a track record of saving lives and delivering trillion-dollar benefits, air quality regulations remain one of the greatest policy success stories in American history.

    This article, originally published March 12, 2025, has been updated with the administration’s offer of exemptions for industries.

    Richard E. Peltier receives funding from the US Department of Agriculture and the Rio Grande International Science Center.

    – ref. America’s clean air rules boost health and economy − charts show what EPA’s deregulation plans ignore – https://theconversation.com/americas-clean-air-rules-boost-health-and-economy-charts-show-what-epas-deregulation-plans-ignore-251203

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Being hated worked for Just Stop Oil

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By George Ferns, Senior Lecturer in Business and Society, University of Bath

    Protesters outside the Bafta awards in London, March 2022. William Joshua Templeton / shutterstock

    The climate activist group Just Stop Oil (JSO) has announced the end of its campaign of direct action. Many will read the group’s legacy through the lens of public hostility: the frustration caused, the angry headlines, the outrage at its tactics. Not only have JSO activists been spat at, physically assaulted and run over by angry car drivers, but 15 members are also currently serving jail sentences following arrests and charges.

    But the intense backlash directed at JSO is not evidence that its campaign faltered. It is a sign that these activists succeeded in emotionally charging the public debate about climate change. They gave the public something to argue about, react to, even mock — and in doing so, made the climate crisis impossible to ignore.

    The alternative, an apathetic consensus, would entail passively accepting the dominant approach to address the climate crisis. That means market-based solutions, a faith in technological innovation, and incremental policy reforms within existing political and economic systems. These have arguably to date failed, as global temperatures continue to skyrocket.

    Through my own research on climate activism, I have studied how environmental protest influences policy, corporate behaviour and financial markets. Activists can stimulate change, but not through rational arguments alone.

    Change happens by making an emotional splash. It creates antagonism, dissent and tension, which are all needed to enliven public debate. Emotions including anger, fear and guilt play a key role in the ability of activists to create moral urgency and force issues into the spotlight.

    JSO harnessed this emotional logic not only from supporters, but from critics. Those who dragged protesters off roads, raged in comment sections and professed their hate towards the group were reacting because the group had emotionally triggered them. Like a person who gets under your skin, JSO became very hard to ignore.

    As business scholars Thomas Davenport and John Beck argue in their book The Attention Economy, in a saturated information landscape, being memorable — even disruptively — is a strategic advantage. In this sense, JSO “hacked” this logic by demanding emotional and cognitive attention, whether through support or outrage.

    Disruptive protests may be unpopular, but they are effective at attracting media attention and public awareness. As many studies suggest, the more illogical or disruptive a protest, the more media coverage it receives — despite coverage not necessarily translating into more donations and support.

    Of course, disruption risks alienating some people — but that can actually strengthen a movement’s overall influence. The “radical flank effect” shows that when radical activists push boundaries, they often make moderate voices in the same movement appear more reasonable. Recent research on JSO found that even when the group provoked public anger, support for moderate organisations such as Friends of the Earth increased.

    This dynamic reflects what sociologist Thomas Roulet calls The Power of Being Divisive. Being controversial can actually benefit a cause by amplifying its message and deepening support from those already aligned. Polarisation, in this view, is not always harmful — it can be strategically useful. In the case of JSO activists, controversy did not dilute their message. Rather, it intensified its resonance with those already primed to act.

    Turning emotion into action

    JSO has also uniquely been able to provide direction for many struggling to navigate climate change’s volatile emotional context. As philosopher Glenn A. Albrecht describes in his book Earth Emotions, events such as climate change, mass species extinction and environmental degradation are creating a global emotional crisis, marked by a mix of grief, anxiety and powerlessness.

    JSO has effectively tapped into this emotional turbulence, turning despair into urgency and action. Its actions can be seen as emotional interventions for a society struggling to process ecological loss.

    Left undirected, emotions related to conditions such as climate change-related “eco-anxiety” can lead to paralysis – a state of emotional overwhelm that prevents people from taking meaningful action or engaging with the climate problem. But research shows that when movements channel emotions — especially by transforming fear into shared action — they build momentum. One study of climate organisers found that protest participation gave people a way to manage despair by reclaiming a sense of purpose and solidarity.

    A frequent refrain is that the objectives are valid, but the strategies are too extreme. But history shows that disruptive tactics have long played a role in forcing attention to urgent issues. From the suffragettes chaining themselves to railings, to civil rights sit-ins, to ACT UP’s dramatic interventions during the Aids crisis — disruption has often preceded progress. Movements that are easy to ignore tend to be forgotten. JSO made itself, and its cause, impossible to ignore.

    JSO’s campaign may be over, but the emotional legacy it leaves behind — frustration, urgency and debate — will outlast its tactics. The group exposed a society uneasy with the scale of change climate action demands, and showed that public anger is not a threat to activism, but a measure of its impact. If you were angry at them, that’s understandable — disruption is inconvenient. But the real question now is where we direct that energy: towards those resisting climate action, or those demanding we seriously do something about it.

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

    – ref. Being hated worked for Just Stop Oil – https://theconversation.com/being-hated-worked-for-just-stop-oil-253379

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: US’s new ‘America First’ intelligence approach downplays Russia and ignores climate change

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Hastings Dunn, Professor of International Politics in the Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham

    The recently appointed US director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and other top intelligence officials appeared before the Senate intelligence committee to discuss the US intelligence services’ annual threat assessment (ATA).

    Most of the committee’s time and attention was focused on the revelation by the editor of the Atlantic magazine that he had been inadvertently added to an insecure chat group, in which top security officials discussed detailed plans for an attack on Yemen. Gabbard and her colleagues steadfastly refused to admit that this had been a security breach. It was an unhelpful distraction from the main event, a discussion of the latest ATA report.

    Produced annually, the ATA is a combined assessment by 18 US intelligence agencies, headed up by the Office for National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency, of the major threats to national security in America. The 2025 version is the first of Donald Trump’s second term and reflects Trumpism’s major shift from America’s previous security priorities in three ways.

    First, the assessment gave priority to what it identified as domestic security threats over those posed by foreign adversaries. Second, the report ignored climate change as a critical threat to US security. And third, there was an unprecedented softening of the language in relation to Russia.

    In her opening statement Gabbard identified “cartels, gangs and other transnational criminal organisations” as “what most immediately and directly threatens the United States and the wellbeing of the American people”.

    These threats are closer to home, but they hardly warrant their lead billing – particularly given the way that Trump himself has regularly invoked the threat of “world war three” ever since he started his campaign to return to the White House more than two years ago.

    But what they do indicate is an America increasingly focused on the narrow predilections of its president and his Maga supporters.

    An even more notable omission is the absence of any mention of climate change, either as an existential threat to human life as we know it or as a force multiplier to other threats such as migration, environmental disasters or famine.

    This led to a testy exchange between Gabbard and Senator Angus King, an independent senator from Maine. King asked the director of national intelligence: “Has global climate change been solved? Why is that not in this report? And who made the decision that it should not be in the report when it’s been in every one of the 11 prior reports?” Gabbard replied: “What I focused this annual threat assessment on … are the most extreme and critical direct threats to our national security.”

    This was an unconvincing response, given that the 2025 ATA specifically notes the security impact of melting sea ice in the Arctic. The report also notes increasing cooperation between Russia and China in the Arctic and a growing Chinese footprint in the region.

    Russian threat relegated

    But the most notable difference in this year’s ATA concerns Russia. The Trump administration’s new approach to Moscow and the Russian leadership infuses the language and substance of this year’s intelligence report. The 2024 threat assessment led the section on Russia with the assertion that Moscow “seeks to project and defend its interests globally and to undermine the United States and the west”.

    In 2025, the headline finding about the threat from Russia is that the Kremlin’s objective is “to restore Russian strength and security in its near abroad against perceived US and western encroachment”. This, the report said, “has increased the risks of unintended escalation between Russia and Nato”.

    Gone are the references to Russia as “a resilient and capable adversary across a wide range of domains”. Instead, this year’s ATA downplays the actual threat that the Kremlin poses to America’s interests by describing Russia merely as an “enduring potential threat to US power, presence and global interests”.

    The 2025 report also assesses that Russia “has seized the upper hand in its full-scale invasion of Ukraine and is on a path to accrue greater leverage to press Kyiv and its western backers to negotiate an end to the war that grants Moscow concessions it seeks”. It doesn’t question why that might be the case or how it could be reversed.

    Moreover, it presents the Kremlin’s malign influence activities as aimed at countering threats. This affords them an unprecedented degree of legitimacy and implies that the west poses a threat to Russia. This, of course, has long been a favourite talking point of Vladimir Putin’s.

    Change of policy

    More than just a change in threat assessment, the 2025 ATA doubles down on a change in policy. The report takes as a given that “Russia retains momentum (in) a grinding war of attrition … (which) will lead to a gradual but steady erosion of Kyiv’s position on the battlefield, regardless of any US or allied attempts to impose new and greater costs on Moscow.”

    The inevitable conclusion is that the US should not pressure Russia to halt its illegal and brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. Rather Washington’s approach to security should accommodate the Kremlin’s ever multiplying conditions for a ceasefire.

    The report’s language on China is less ambiguous. It describes Beijing as “the most comprehensive and robust military threat to US national security” and as likely to “continue to expand its coercive and subversive malign influence activities to weaken the United States internally and globally”.

    The report also notes that Beijing is critical to the alignment of all four major state actors that pose threats to the US: China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

    But China, and the other state adversaries, still take second place in America’s national security thinking to accommodate the administration’s inwardly focused “America First” mindset. This is not merely an indication of the isolationist tendencies in the foreign policy approach of Trumpism. It’s a deliberate abdication of US global leadership.

    Trump and his team may believe that this will make America more secure – and the 2025 threat assessment is framed in a way that justifies such an approach. But it fails to provide any credible evidence that it might succeed.

    David Hastings Dunn has previously received funding from the ESRC, the Gerda Henkel Foundation, the Open Democracy Foundation and has previously been both a NATO and a Fulbright Fellow.

    Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

    – ref. US’s new ‘America First’ intelligence approach downplays Russia and ignores climate change – https://theconversation.com/uss-new-america-first-intelligence-approach-downplays-russia-and-ignores-climate-change-253154

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Chewing gum: another way for microplastics to enter your body?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Richardson, Professor of Animal Development, Leiden University

    Anastassiya Bezhekeneva/Shutterstock

    We are riddled with microplastics. It is in our bloodstream, in our lungs, in our liver – pretty much anywhere you look in the human body, you will find minuscule bits of plastic.

    And there are many ways for us to ingest, inhale or otherwise absorb these tiny fragments. For example, a single plastic teabag sheds over 10 billion microplastic particles into a cup of tea.

    And if you redecorate your home and sand down the old paintwork, the plastic binders in the paint can release microplastics into the air, which you might then inhale. You could swallow them when you drink from single-use plastic water bottles. Now another source of microplastics in the body has been discovered: chewing gum.

    Chewing gum contains long molecules called polymers. Some brands of gum contain natural polymers from tree sap. Others contain synthetic polymers derived from the petroleum industry. These various polymers are similar to plastics – and some actually are plastics. Chewing gum polymers, both natural and synthetic, can release microparticles when they are worn down by chewing.

    In the chewing gum study – which was presented at the American Chemical Society meeting 25 March – a single volunteer chewed ten brands of chewing gum – five natural and five synthetic. Saliva samples were taken from the volunteer’s mouth and put under the microscope. Surprisingly, microplastics were found in both the natural and synthetic chewing gums.

    The researchers, from the University of California, Los Angeles, calculated that one piece of gum could shed hundreds or a few thousand microplastic particles into the mouth, where they probably ended up being swallowed.

    The types of plastics found in the gums were polystyrenes (used for things like takeaway food containers), polyethylenes (such as those used to make plastic grocery bags) and polypropylenes (which are used to make, among other things, car bumpers and medicine bottles).

    But, before we start worrying about the microplastics liberated by chewing gum, we need to know how large they were.

    Size matters

    The microplastics found in the saliva of the gum-chewing volunteer were 20 micrometres or more in size. That is about the diameter of the thinnest human hair. But from the perspective of a cell in the human body, 20 microns is huge (a red blood cell, for instance, is about seven microns in diameter).

    This is important because the microplastics that are known to be capable of harming cells and embryos are 500 to 1,000 times smaller than that (20 to 500 nanometers). These super-small microplastics are called nanoplastics.

    Nanoplastics are bad news because they are small enough to be engulfed by living cells via a process called endocytosis. When nanoplastics are absorbed into cells, they can cause all sorts of trouble, such as triggering the cell to produce toxic molecules called reactive oxygen species. These toxins may not kill the cell outright, but they can weaken it.

    Likewise, the plastic particles that have been shown to cause birth defects in animal embryos are also the very small ones (the nanoplastics), not the much larger microplastics that were found in the saliva of the gum chewer.

    The chewing gum study is fascinating. It shows how easily we can unwittingly expose ourselves to hundreds of microplastics. However, we cannot confidently assign any kind of health risk to chewing gum.

    The microplastics that are liberated by the chewing of gum are relatively huge, and we know nothing about the effects – if any – of such large particles in the human body. And we don’t know if chewing gum releases nanoplastics at all. The trouble is that nanoplastics are so tiny that they require specialised apparatus to detect them. For that reason, the researchers in the US who studied chewing gum decided not to look for them.

    Some commentators think that the potential health risks of microplastics have been exaggerated, while others criticise the quality of some of the scientific studies on microplastics. We are inclined to agree with these criticisms. Hopefully, it will not be too long before we truly understand whether the microplastic scare will turn out to be justified – or just hype.

    Michael Richardson receives funding from The Dutch Government.

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

    – ref. Chewing gum: another way for microplastics to enter your body? – https://theconversation.com/chewing-gum-another-way-for-microplastics-to-enter-your-body-252842

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Senegal sees French troops depart as west Africa reassesses colonial ties

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ezenwa E. Olumba, Doctoral Research Fellow, Conflict, Violence, & Terrorism Research Centre, Royal Holloway University of London

    France has handed over control to the Senegalese government of two military bases in Senegal’s capital, Dakar that it has used for decades. The move follows an announcement in late 2024 by Senegal’s president, Bassirou Diomaye Faye, that all foreign troops would be required to leave the country.

    “Senegal is an independent country, a sovereign nation, and sovereignty does not allow for the presence of foreign military bases,” Faye told Agence France-Presse in November.

    Unlike in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, where military juntas have expelled French and American troops in recent years, this move comes from a democratically elected leader. Faye secured a decisive victory in Senegal’s 2024 presidential election and came to power despite efforts by the former president, Macky Sall, to extend his rule beyond constitutional limits.

    Other democratic nations in west Africa seem to be reassessing their ties with western powers, too. The Ivory Coast, for example, has called for the end of its colonial-era military pact with France. And there are indications that US forces may soon be asked to leave Ghana.

    The fact that democratically elected governments are taking a similar stance to military leaders in the region should prompt deeper reflection on the factors driving these decisions.

    Younger generations of African leaders, shaped by decades of witnessing foreign-backed governments fail to boost development and security, are increasingly focused on decolonising their countries. This shift has also been driven by growing public awareness of the exploitation of Africa’s natural resources by some former colonial powers.

    Some observers attribute these developments to disinformation campaigns targeting France and other western governments. But the reality is that foreign interventions and paternalistic policies in Africa have done little to benefit African populations.

    Senegal’s push for sovereignty

    To further distance itself from France, the Senegalese government plans to replace the CFA franc with a national currency. The CFA franc, which is controlled by the French treasury, is a currency used in 14 countries in west and central Africa. It gives French companies easier access to natural resources in African countries where it is used.

    The move to replace it could test Senegal’s relationship with France. In 2019, when Italy’s former deputy prime minister, Luigi Di Maio, raised concerns about the impact of the CFA franc on Africa’s development, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, dismissed the issue, stating: “I will not respond”.

    Alongside economic reforms, Senegal is also reshaping its public spaces. It will soon begin renaming streets and landmarks that were previously associated with colonial figures. And the government wants to update school textbooks and create a department that will manage how Senegal’s national heritage is documented.

    There is a broader regional movement to replace colonial-era street names. In Niger’s capital, Niamey, Avenue de Gaulle, named after the former French general and statesman, has been renamed Avenue Djibo Bakary after the city’s first post-independence mayor.

    Similar efforts are underway in central Africa. In March 2025, a court ruling in Uganda mandated the removal of British colonial monuments and renaming streets that honour “crooks and historical figureheads”.

    Among the figures affected include Maj. Gen. Henry Edward Colville, an early commissioner of the Uganda Protectorate, and Frederick Lugard, a key colonial administrator in Africa. Lugard also played a central role in creating Nigeria for British colonial rule.

    Political shifts in the Sahel

    A political shift seems to be taking place in Africa, particularly in the Sahel. In the 1960s, during the early years of African independence movements, many leaders from the continent took up arms against the colonial establishment.

    This included Amílcar Cabral, leader of the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde in Guinea-Bissau, as well as Nelson Mandela, who co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the African National Congress party in South Africa.

    They were treated as threats to the colonial order, at least outside their own supporter base. Cabral was assassinated in 1973 by political rivals, with the alleged support of the Portuguese security establishment.

    Nelson Mandela, who was imprisoned for 27 years by the South African apartheid regime he opposed, was on the US government’s terrorist list until 2008 despite being released from custody in 1993 and becoming the country’s first black president in 1994.

    The rhetoric and actions of many military-led governments in the Sahel, along with some democratically elected leaders, echo those of Africa’s early independence movements. Like their predecessors, these leaders are often condemned by foreign governments, yet they appear to have growing support among people in the region.

    Public rallies held by Captain Ibrahim Traoré in Burkina Faso regularly draw large crowds. The same is true for the military leaders in Niger. Traoré was even welcomed by cheering crowds during the recent inaugurations of democratically elected presidents in Senegal and Ghana.

    This is an unusual reception for a leader who came to power through a military coup. Such moments reflect the sentiment of millions who see these leaders less as military rulers and more as symbols of resistance against foreign influence.

    Some analysts have warned of instability following the expulsion of foreign troops from the Sahel. But decades of foreign military interventions have done little to improve security in the region. Counterinsurgency operations have not only failed to contain violence – the influence of insurgent groups has grown.

    According to a February 2025 report by the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, the Sahel has been the epicentre of violence in Africa for four consecutive years. More than 10,000 deaths were attributed to militant Islamist violence in the region throughout 2024, with civilians being the primary targets.

    Africa must take the lead in addressing its security and economic challenges, engaging with international partners on equal terms rather than as a passive participant. African leaders should prioritise security, education and development while opening dialogue with disaffected groups that feel excluded from political and economic opportunities.

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

    – ref. Senegal sees French troops depart as west Africa reassesses colonial ties – https://theconversation.com/senegal-sees-french-troops-depart-as-west-africa-reassesses-colonial-ties-251978

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: White snus: why ‘tobacco free’ doesn’t mean risk free

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alma Larsdotter Zweygberg, Doctoral Researcher, Department of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet

    White snus is becoming more popular with teenagers Jeppe Gustafsson/Shutterstock

    A habit that is worrying health authorities in Sweden where increasing numbers of teenagers are taking what’s known as “snus” is also concerning football authorities in England where one-fifth of professional players are regularly indulging because they say it improves their game.

    White snus consists of small, tobacco-free pouches containing nicotine, plant-based fibres and flavourings. These pouches look a like a cross between a tea bag and a tablet of chewing gum, and they’re put between the lip and the gum to give users a burst of nicotine without some of the drawbacks of tobacco. Nicotine strength varies widely between different white snus products.

    Traditional snus, a moist brown tobacco product, is almost exclusive to Sweden. However, the introduction of white snus – also known as nicotine pouches – has led to rapid global expansion.

    The rise in popularity of white snus around the world can be attributed to aggressive social media marketing campaigns where “Zynfluencers” are sponsored to promote white snus in their lifestyle content and the product is advertised across social media. While marketing for cigarettes and vapes is strictly regulated in the EU, the rules for white snus are up to the individual countries to decide. Many countries don’t regulate white snus so consumers – even very young ones – can order the nicotine pouches easily.

    It’s not just English male professional footballers who’re fans of white snus. In Sweden, 15% of young women aged 16-29 use white snus daily, while only 2.5 % smoke cigarettes daily in the same age group.

    Some commercials target women by suggesting that white snus offers a discreet “clean” way to feel the benefits of a nicotine hit. They highlight that users report a rush of endorphins that can relieve stress and pain and improve mood and memory – without the smell of cigarette smoke and the inconvenience of smoking or vaping breaks.

    Some nicotine pouch commercials target female consumers.

    The marketing of white snus often stresses that they are “tobacco-free” because the pouches do not contain tobacco leaf. But that label can be misleading – the nicotine in these products is usually derived from tobacco leaves.
    Some also confuse tobacco-free with nicotine-free. Both these misconceptions can make consumers think that the pouches are safe.

    Advertisements often emphasise how white snus can be used anywhere and enhance social situations, while offering a variety of flavours from coffee to spearmint and black cherry, and serving as an alternative to cigarettes, vapes and traditional forms of tobacco.

    Despite their growing popularity – and marketing attempts to associate white snus with healthier nicotine use – little is known about the specific health risks of white snus. But a lack of research into the effects of nicotine pouches does not mean they are safe.

    A healthy alternative?

    The nicotine pouch was originally developed by a nicotine replacement therapy company in the early 2000s – but they didn’t gain traction until 2016 when the tobacco snus company Swedish Match introduced their product Zyn, which became a leading nicotine pouch brand in the US. Zyn is now owned by Philip Morris International, one of the world’s largest tobacco companies White snus is not an approved nicotine replacement therapy, which means that it is not recommended as an aid to quit smoking.



    Read more:
    Why nicotine pouches may not be the best choice to help you to stop smoking

    While nicotine-free white snus exists, most products on the market contain nicotine. Nicotine is highly addictive, so many of those who try a nicotine product – no matter which one – will find it hard to stop using it. Nicotine has several effects on the body, including increased heart rate and activation of the brain’s reward system, which contributes to its appeal.

    Young people are especially sensitive to the addictive properties of nicotine. The wide range of white snus flavours available, often fruit, menthol or candy, may further lower the threshold for use.

    But research suggests that nicotine may also have a negative impact on brain development. Other potential risks include a negative effects on cardiovascular and oral health. But long-term effects specific to white snus remain unclear. Few studies have been conducted, and many of the existing ones have been sponsored by the tobacco industry. There is a need for large, independent, high-quality studies to assess long-term health risks.

    With many young people using white snus, the unanswered questions about its health effects become more pressing. Until more research is available, it’s important to stay cautious: “tobacco-free” does not mean risk free.

    Rosaria Galanti receives funding from Karolinska Institutet; University of Novara (IT); for teaching and research collaborations

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

    – ref. White snus: why ‘tobacco free’ doesn’t mean risk free – https://theconversation.com/white-snus-why-tobacco-free-doesnt-mean-risk-free-252085

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: A new natural history GCSE is welcome – but climate change needs to be part of the whole curriculum

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alison Anderson, Professor of Sociology, University of Plymouth

    MStoylik/Shutterstock

    The recent announcement that young people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will have the opportunity to take a new GCSE in natural history from September 2025, driven by a campaign led by naturalist Mary Colwell, is welcome news.

    The new qualification will include practical skills to pursue a career in the natural world, including observation, monitoring, recording and analysis. It will also include immersion in outdoor activities, and has support from the Natural History Museum, the Field Studies Council and the Wildlife Trusts.

    However, while this will go some way to further bring sustainability and climate concerns into schools, the qualification is optional. It compartmentalises a subject that needs to be woven across the curriculum, so that every child is equipped to deal with the challenges we face and can appreciate that it impinges on every aspect of life.

    In England, the whole national curriculum is under review. This provides a crucial opportunity to embed climate change and sustainability education throughout the curriculum. The independent review’s recent interim report identifies a need for a “greater focus on sustainability and climate science”.

    It makes welcome reference to the need for the curriculum to keep pace with rapid social, environmental and technological change, and to equip young people to deal with future challenges.

    This is in line with the findings of my research, with colleagues. We explored young people’s views of climate change education in secondary schools, carrying out a national survey of 1,000 14- to 18-year-olds and two follow-up in-depth workshops.

    We found that young people consistently identified climate change as the top concern for their future lives, putting it above the cost of living crisis and young people’s mental health and wellbeing. Seven in ten teenagers told us they would welcome the opportunity to learn more about climate change in school. The same number thought climate change education should be included across all subjects.

    Teach the Future, a youth-led organisation campaigning to improve education on the climate emergency and ecological crisis, published a shadow curriculum and assessment review interim report. These findings, gathered from the responses of over 500 young people, highlight the marginalisation of climate change and nature on the current English curriculum.

    Woven through learning

    Our research shows there needs to be a step change in how the education system prepares young people for a rapidly changing world. Engaging them meaningfully with the issues and practical solutions may motivate them to consider a green career.

    In maths, for example, mathematical concepts could be introduced through calculating the effect of introducing solar panels on the school roof. Pupils could measure air quality, or calculate the carbon footprint of different food choices. The evidence suggests that a project-led approach, rooted in experiential learning locally relevant to the student, would be particularly effective.

    Climate can be part of the whole curriculum.
    Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

    Our report also found that current teaching on climate tends to focus narrowly on impacts and rarely on solutions. This may contribute to many young people’s sense of climate change anxiety, leaving them feeling demotivated and disenfranchised.

    There is much that could be learnt from the approach taken by Scotland. Its learning for sustainability vision takes a cross-curricular, solutions-focused approach. Young people are often involved in creatively solving problems or finding solutions to questions that are meaningful to them.

    Tools for understanding

    My research suggests it is not enough for students to be taught facts and figures about climate change and biodiversity loss. They need to be provided with the critical thinking and media literacy skills to meaningfully engage with the issues.

    There is much mis- and disinformation on climate circulating online. With the rise of artificial intelligence, the distinction between fact and fiction is becoming increasingly difficult to discern. An emphasis on media literacy and critical thinking skills would help young people generate and evaluate ideas for tackling the crisis.

    Overhauling and refreshing England’s current curriculum and assessment system will not be easy. Even if climate change is increasingly included, this still may take place too slowly.

    The interim report makes clear that the intention is to continue “with our ‘evolution not revolution’ approach”, which will inform the final report to be published this autumn. However, there is an urgent need to act quickly if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change.

    Professor Alison Anderson received funding from the AHRC Impact Acceleration Account for this research project which was conducted in association with the British Science Association.

    – ref. A new natural history GCSE is welcome – but climate change needs to be part of the whole curriculum – https://theconversation.com/a-new-natural-history-gcse-is-welcome-but-climate-change-needs-to-be-part-of-the-whole-curriculum-253080

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why we love the escapism of apocalyptic dramas

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Scott Jones, Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of Birmingham

    Disney’s streaming hit Paradise – a political thriller that sees the murder of a former president in a peaceful community – leans into dystopian themes around apocalypse survival and living in a sealed world. The drama joins an growing array of TV shows and films exploring similar ideas.

    In Apple TV’s compelling drama Silo, civilisation has resorted to living and working deep in an underground storage facility as a means to protect humanity from the wasteland above.

    Michelle and Barack Obama’s Netflix thriller Leave The World Behind depicts the US facing chaos and unrest as a cybersecurity attack takes down the country’s entire technological infrastructure, leading to catastrophic scenes of fallen cities on fire.

    Similar tropes appear in Zero Day, starring Rober De Niro as a former president tasked with finding out who is behind a cyber attack that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people.

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

    And then there is The End, a climate-crisis musical starring Tilda Swinton that dips into the strange world of a wealthy family living deep underground in a luxurious bunker, decades after an environmental catastrophe has hit the earth.

    Dystopian dramas are clearly in vogue right now, but films and TV dramas have often reflected the fears and anxieties of their times. A Clockwork Orange (1971) portrayed the class conflict and wanton violence of the 1970s. TV series Threads (1984) tapped into fears of a nuclear attack. Ghost in the Shell (1995) focused on identity in an increasingly technology-obsessed world. And Children of Men (2006) centred on the bleak terror of a world without children.

    More recently, The Walking Dead (2010 onwards) focused on what it means to cling onto humanity in an unrelenting world, while Squid Game (2021-) is a dystopian reflection of capitalism exploring the circumstances that drive desperate people to participate in a deadly competition for money.

    My research explores cultural aspects of consumption and one of my research interests is forms of escapism, mainly provided by films, television and video games. A question that sometimes arises is whether we actually desire dystopia.

    Well, streaming giants might argue it’s good for business. Zero Day has remained in Netflix’s top-ten chart for the past month, Apple has renewed Silo for two more seasons, and Disney just ordered a second season of Paradise. The third and final season of Squid Game will air in June – previous seasons have broken Netflix records for downloads and views.

    This trend for dystopian movies and TV shows underscores the public appetite for this content, despite its alarmingly prescient feel and tone. Paradoxically, this seems to starkly contrast with the notion that people turn to video games, movies and boxset binges to escape the mundanity of everyday life and the wearisome realities that we must contend with.

    In my research with colleagues at Lancaster University, we explored these issues: when reality is disrupted in some unexpected way, our beliefs and assumptions about how we think the world should operate are challenged.

    Drawing on interviews, we explored participants’ experiences of bingeing TV shows against a backdrop of changing real-world events and the impact these changes had on their ability to suspend their disbelief. The people we spoke to turned to culture for a sense-making escape.

    Escapism here is less about feeling abandoned and more about a search for hope and rediscovering the coordinates for our existence. Dystopian narratives might provide some food for thought: how would we cope if the apocalyptic events portrayed on screen were to really occur?

    TV dramas like Zero Day and films like Leave the World Behind identify and zoom in on the terrors and anxieties of the present: AI and the “rise of the machine”, war and global instability, profound inequality, disinformation, online hostility and cyber threats. However, in doing so, these dramas can also exemplify what might be required to transform or alter a dystopian reality, meaning as viewers we engage in a form of “critical dystopia”.

    Our appetite for dystopian narratives could derive from the idea that we never imagine ourselves to be the subject of some major catastrophic event. In a discussion about dystopia, critical marketing academics Alan Bradshaw, James Fitchett and Joel Hietanen explored how we often equate dystopian events and imaginings as happening to others, not necessarily us.

    This is aided by the fact that we often occupy the role of a distant onlooker, not the perspective of someone living under the catastrophic events being portrayed.

    Bradshaw, Fitchett and Hietanen argue that much of our everyday existence consists of fairly mundane encounters and repetitive experiences. As an antidote to this safe ordinariness, we are drawn to extreme versions of life, and harbour repressed fantasies and desires of destruction and catastrophe. So we indulge in dystopian desires and impulses, albeit at a distance or vicariously through video games, movies, books and TV shows from the comfort of our sofas.

    Finally, some people seem to find a sense of enjoyment in imagining their own ruin – what is described as a “death drive”, that simultaneously contradicts yet co-exists with self-preservation instincts. Philosopher and cultural theorist Slavoj Žižek suggests that there are people who derive pleasure from dystopian narratives, fascinated at the prospect of their own annihilation.

    However, through optimistic endings, dystopian dramas imply that we may be able to intervene, prevent or even reverse the alarming consequences. We then indulge in fantasies of a new utopia in an attempt to return to our known reality, or receive a prophetic nudge in the direction of a more improved world to replace the dystopia.

    In this case, viewers of edge-of-your-seat dramas like Zero Day and Paradise search for hope and relief, and as detached observers fantasise about how catastrophe and self-annihilation can be paused or even better, averted.

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

    – ref. Why we love the escapism of apocalyptic dramas – https://theconversation.com/why-we-love-the-escapism-of-apocalyptic-dramas-253063

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘Everyday discrimination’ linked to increased anxiety and depression across all groups of Americans

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Monica Wang, Associate Professor of Public Health, Boston University

    Everyday discrimination happens to all races and genders. FG Trade Latin/E+ via Getty Images

    People who most frequently encounter everyday discrimination – those subtle snubs and slights of everyday life – are more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression.

    What’s more, that finding remains true no matter the person’s race, gender, age, education, income, weight, language, immigration status or where they live.

    These are the key takeaways from our recent study, published in JAMA Network Open.

    Everyday discrimination refers to the routine ways people are treated unfairly because of characteristics such as skin color, perceived background or general appearance.

    Generally, it means disrespectful treatment: waiting longer than others for help at a store, having your ideas dismissed without consideration at work, or hearing rude comments about your identity.

    Although marginalized groups endure everyday discrimination most often, our study indicates that this is a widespread issue affecting people of all races and backgrounds.

    Everyday discrimination can affect both physical and mental health.
    FG Trade Latin/E+ via Getty Images

    I’m a professor who specializes in community health. My team and I analyzed data from the 2023 National Health Interview Survey, which included a weighted sample of nearly 30,000 U.S. adults, adjusted to accurately reflect more than 258 million people – approximately 75% of the country.

    Along with reporting frequency of everyday discrimination, participants completed clinical screenings for depression and anxiety.

    The results were striking: Nearly 56% of participants experienced at least occasional everyday discrimination, with 3.6% having “high levels,” meaning they faced discrimination most frequently – at least monthly and often weekly.

    High levels were most prevalent among Black adults, at 8.6%. Multiracial respondents were next with 6.4%. Hispanics and white participants were at about 3%, Asians just over 2%.

    Women and immigrants, people with disabilities and those who are overweight, obese or struggling with food insecurity also reported higher levels.

    When compared with those reporting no discrimination, participants with high levels had five times the odds of screening positive for either depression or anxiety, and nearly nine times the odds of screening positive for both.

    As discrimination increased, the increase in screening positive for depression, anxiety or both varied by race, with a more noticeable rise among groups that are often overlooked in these discussions – white, Asian and multiracial adults.

    This doesn’t mean discrimination is less harmful for Black, Hispanic/Latino or other racial and ethnic groups. One possible reason for our study’s findings may be that groups that have long endured structural discrimination may have developed more ways over time to cope with it.

    Why it matters

    At some point, all of us experience unfair treatment due to our personal traits. But this type of discrimination isn’t just unpleasant. Our study shows it has real consequences for health.

    Along with depression and anxiety, discrimination creates chronic stress, leading to increased risk for hypertension, heart disease, impaired brain functioning, accelerated aging and premature death.

    For some, everyday discrimination may emerge at different times in life. This can happen to people as they get older or when they become ill.

    But for others, it is a constant. This includes people living in marginalized communities, people of color, those socioeconomically disadvantaged or with disabilities, or those who identify as LGBTQ+.

    Ageism is one of many forms of everyday discrimination.

    What other research is being done

    Multiracial people are uniquely challenged because they navigate multiple racial identities. This often leads to feelings of isolation, which increases mental health risks.

    White adults, though less frequently exposed to racial discrimination, still face mistreatment, particularly if they have lower incomes, limited education or working-class backgrounds. In recent years, white people have perceived rising levels of discrimination against their own group.

    People of Asian descent are vulnerable to societal pressures and harmful stereotypes, which spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    When factors are combined – for example, adding financial insecurity or immigration status to racism – compounded health challenges arise.

    What’s next

    Understanding how discrimination affects health for all can lead to policies and programs targeting root causes of mental health disparities and the rising rates of depression and anxiety.

    Discrimination isn’t just a Black versus white issue. It’s a public health crisis affecting all Americans. Acknowledging its harmful health effects is a first step.

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

    Monica Wang receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

    – ref. ‘Everyday discrimination’ linked to increased anxiety and depression across all groups of Americans – https://theconversation.com/everyday-discrimination-linked-to-increased-anxiety-and-depression-across-all-groups-of-americans-250884

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Filipino activists praise arrest of ex-president Duterte as first step to end impunity

    Asia Pacific Report

    Dozens of Filipinos and supporters in Aotearoa New Zealand came together in a Black Friday vigil and Rally for Justice in the heart of two cities tonight — Auckland and Christchurch.

    They celebrated the arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte by the International Criminal Court (ICC) earlier this month to face trial for alleged crimes against humanity over a wave of extrajudicial killings during his six-year presidency in a so-called “war on drugs”.

    Estimates of the killings have ranged between 6250 (official police figure) and up to 30,000 (human rights groups) — including 32 in a single day — during his 2016-2022 term and critics have described the bloodbath as a war against the poor.

    But speakers warned tonight this was only the first step to end the culture of impunity in the Philippines.

    Current President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, son of the late dictator, and his adminstration were also condemned by the protesters.

    Introducing the rally with the theme “Convict Duterte! End Impunity!” in Freyberg Square in the heart of downtown Auckland, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan’s Eugene Velasco said: “We demand justice for the thousands killed in the bloody and fraudulent war on drugs under the US-Duterte regime.”

    She said they sought to:

    • expose the human rights violations against the Filipino people;
    • call for Duterte’s accountability; and
    • to hold Marcos responsible for continuing this reign of terror against the masses.

    Flown to The Hague
    The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Duterte on March 11. He was immediately arrested on an aircraft at Manila International Airport and flown by charter aircraft to The Hague where he is now detained awaiting trial.

    “We welcome this development because his arrest is the result of tireless resistance — not only from human rights defenders but, most importantly, from the families of those who fell victim to Duterte’s extrajudicial killings,” Velasco said.

    Filipina activist Eugene Velasco . . . families of victims fought for justice “even in the face of relentless threats and violence from the police and military”. Image: APR

    “These families fought for justice despite the complete lack of support from the Marcos administration.”

    Velasco said their their courage and resilience had pushed this case forward — “even in the face of relentless threats and violence from the police and military”.

    “‘Shoot them dead!’—this was Duterte’s direct order to the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). His death squads carried out these brutal killings with impunity,” Velasco said.

    Mock corpses in the Philippines rally in Freyberg Square tonight. Image: APR

    But Duterte was not the only one who must be held accountable, she added.

    “We demand the immediate arrest and prosecution of all those who orchestrated and enabled the state-sponsored executions, led by figures like Senator Bato Dela Rosa and Lieutenant-Colonel Jovie Espenido, that led to over 30,000 deaths, the militarisation of 47,587 schools, churches, and public institutions — especially in rural areas — the abductions and killings of human rights defenders, and the continued existence of National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict or NTF-ELCAC.”

    A masked young speaker tells of many victims of extrajudicial killings at tonight’s Duterte rally in Freyberg Square. Image: APR

    Fake news, red-tagging
    Velasco accused this agency of having “used the Filipino people’s taxes to fuel human rights abuses” through the spread of fake news and red-tagging against activists, peasants, trade unionists, and people’s lawyers.

    “The fight does not end here,” she said.

    “The Filipino people, together with all justice and peace-loving people of Aotearoa New Zealand, will not stop until justice is fully served — not just for the victims, but for all who continue to suffer under the Duterte-Marcos regime, which remains under the grip of US imperialist interests.

    “As Filipinos overseas, we must unite in demanding justice, stand in solidarity with the victims of extrajudicial killings, and continue the struggle for accountability.”

    Several speakers gave harrowing testimony about the fate of named victims as their photographs and histories were remembered.

    Speakers from local political groups, including Green Party MP Francisco Hernandez, and retired prominent trade unionist and activist Robert Reid, also participated.

    Reid referenced the ICC arrest issued last November against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the Gaza genocide, saying he hoped that he too would end up in The Hague.

    Mock corpses surrounded by candles displayed signs — which had been a hallmark of the drug war killings — declaring “Jail Duterte”, “Justice for all victims of human rights” and “Convict Sara Duterte now!” Duterte’s daughter, Sara Duterte is currently Vice-President and is facing impeachment proceedings.

    The “convict Duterte” rally and vigil in Freyberg Square tonight. Image: APR

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: My documentary Motherboard follows my first 21 years of motherhood – these films about single mums inspired me

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Victoria Mapplebeck, Professor in Digital Arts, Royal Holloway University of London

    On a warm and sunny May bank holiday in 2003, I had one of those rare days that truly changes your life forever. I sat in my bathroom, hands shaking as two pink lines emerged on the pregnancy test I was holding.

    I was 38, single and broke. This pregnancy was the result of a brief relationship which had only amounted to four dates. Shell-shocked as I was, I laughed out loud in a moment of joy I knew there was no coming back from. Nine months later I gave birth to my son Jim.

    My old Nokia still holds the text thread of the three years I was in touch with Jim’s dad. My messages began “I had a great time last night”, and ended “Have you got the results yet?” He had requested a paternity test when Jim was two. A week later we both received the results. The probability that he was Jim’s biological dad was 99.99%. This news prompted a final reply from Jim’s dad: “Yes, I got the results … I’m moving to Spain.”

    A clip from the author’s film, Motherboard.

    We didn’t hear from him again for over a decade. Unable to combine motherhood with my previous career as a TV director, I quit my job overnight. I got a job teaching filmmaking and was out of the film industry for over a decade.

    I began filming my son Jim as he grew up. I recorded hundreds of hours of footage, capturing each twist and turn in Jim’s life, from the thumbs-up he gave me during my first scan, to his first day at college.

    Jim is 21 now. Filmed over 20 years, my feature documentary Motherboard charts the highs and lows of solo motherhood. It explores how Jim and I navigated him meeting his dad for the first time at 13, closely followed by my breast cancer diagnosis and Jim’s party-hard late teens, when tempers frayed and doors slammed.

    When I was making Motherboard I burnt through any books, films and TV that I could find, exploring solo motherhood. Many repeated the same old tabloid cliches and movie tropes of single mums. They were victims or martyrs, their only moment of joy watching the sun set over their estate before the bailiffs turned up.

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

    In I’ll Show Myself Out: Essays on Midlife and Motherhood (2022), author and comic Jessi Klein writes that: “Motherhood as a story, is so infrequently told, because the world tells us that what mothers do is unremarkable and unimportant.” She goes on to explore the structure of the hero’s epic journey in Hollywood blockbusters, in which the (usually male) hero embarks on a quest and returns home transformed.

    Klein turns this formula on its head. “Motherhood is a hero’s journey, it’s not a journey outwards to the most fantastic, farest-flung places, but a journey inwards, downwards to the deepest parts of your strength.”

    My own film, Motherboard, and several of the films that inspired me, follow the trope of the hero’s journey. But the key difference is that the director is often the hero and the author of her own story. The following films and TV series capture the pain, happiness, chaos and comedy of the hero’s journey that is motherhood.

    1. Lollipop (2024)

    Director Daisy-May Hudson recently developed her own experiences of being homeless with her mum and younger sister into her feature drama debut. Lollipop tells the story of Molly, a young single mum who loses custody of her kids after a short stay in prison. The joy of the film is that it’s the polar opposite to the broken single mums we see in Ken Loach’s Ladybird, Ladybird (1994) and Cathy Come Home (1966).

    Daisy-May Hudson was named as a ‘breakthrough’ director by Bafta in 2015.

    In Hudson’s entirely female cast, Molly and her best mate Amina are fierce single mums who transform the obstacles they face into laugh-out-loud moments of comedy. These are single mums that are flawed, impulsive, powerful, funny and, most importantly, believable.

    2. Better Things (2016)

    Better Things is a TV series, written by and starring Pamela Adlon, based on her own experiences of being a single mum to her three teenage daughters in LA. There’s a great scene in the final series where Adlon’s character, Sam, is being examined by her doctor who asks her if she’s stressed out because she has “too many errands to run”.

    Pamela Adlon and the cast of Better Things discussing the show.

    She replies:

    “No, no. Errands are, like, groceries and going to the post office, it’s the real mum stuff … Soccer club sign-ups and dance classes and tutors and tuition payments and parent-teacher conferences and schools and camps that I have to get them into, mean girl issues with my youngest at school and birth control with my oldest and cruelty from my middle daughter. And then there’s my own mom, who is driving me nuts … And I am definitely going through menopause. So, yeah, Dr. Babu, it’s, like – it’s a lot.”

    3. Boyhood (2014)

    Richard Linklater’s Boyhood often comes up when critics are reviewing Motherboard. It’s a film I love. Filmed over a decade, it depicts the childhood and adolescence of Mason Evans (played by Ellar Coltrane).

    The trailer for Boyhood.

    “I always described it as a film about growing up”, Linklater told the Guardian, “But it’s also a film about parenting”. Linklater was probably the first director I encountered whose character of a single mum (played by Patricia Arquette) felt real to me.

    Patronising empowerment

    I listened to a podcast recently in which Adlon challenged the words that are often used to describe Better Things. “Brave”, “raw” and “vulnerable” come up constantly.

    Critics and audiences often tell me that I’m brave. It can feel condescending. I’ve never heard the word attributed to Linklater’s Boyhood. What sets myself and Adlon apart from Linklater, is that we are both single mothers ourselves.

    As politicians continue to obsess over the recent statistic that “more boys have smartphones than dads”, families with absent fathers will continue to be seen as tragic and flawed. But single mothers are not a problem to be solved. Lollipop, Better Things and Motherboard are all proof of Klein’s belief that “a mother’s heroic journey is not about how she leaves … but about how she stays”.

    Victoria Mapplebeck received funding for Motherboard from OKRE

    – ref. My documentary Motherboard follows my first 21 years of motherhood – these films about single mums inspired me – https://theconversation.com/my-documentary-motherboard-follows-my-first-21-years-of-motherhood-these-films-about-single-mums-inspired-me-253059

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Early-onset Alzheimer’s: new drug shows promise in slowing the disease

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rahul Sidhu, PhD Candidate, Neuroscience, University of Sheffield

    The drug also caused a notable decrease in amyloid plaque buildup, which is a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease. ART-ur/ Shutterstock

    Alzheimer’s disease is usually associated with old age. But around 5%-10% of all Alzheimer’s cases occur in people under the age of 65. Early-onset Alzheimer’s disease progresses more rapidly and often strikes people in the prime of their lives. Treatment options remain limited.

    But new data from a recent clinical trial suggests that a previously discontinued experimental drug, called gantenerumab, could help. The study found that gantenerumab reduced the buildup of amyloid plaques – one of the hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease – in the brain. This may help slow cognitive decline in people with early-onset Alzheimer’s.

    Early-onset Alzheimer’s is often linked to genetic mutations in three specific genes. These mutations cause the brain to produce excessive amounts of amyloid beta, a protein that clumps together to form plaques. These plaques disrupt brain function, leading to memory loss.

    Early-onset Alzheimer’s advances quickly – and the rapid decline is devastating. That’s why researchers are racing to find treatments that can slow the disease.



    Read more:
    Young-onset Alzheimer’s can be diagnosed from as early as 30 – and the symptoms are often different

    The recent clinical trial was a randomised, placebo-controlled study to evaluate gantenerumab’s effects on people with early-onset Alzheimer’s. Researchers monitored changes in the participants’ cognitive abilities, and also used brain imaging and blood biomarkers (the presence of specific proteins in the blood which are linked to Alzheimer’s), to track the disease’s progress throughout the study.

    The trial included 73 participants with rare inherited genetic mutations known to cause early-onset Alzheimer’s. These participants were either asymptomatic or had mild Alzheimer’s symptoms at the start of the study.

    The results were intriguing. In a subgroup of 22 participants, who hadn’t had any cognitive issues at the start of the study, taking the treatment for an average of eight years reduced the risk of developing symptoms from a nearly 100% likelihood, to 50%. Brain scans also showed a notable decrease in amyloid buildup.

    Immune defenders

    Gantenerumab is a monoclonal antibody – a lab-engineered protein designed to attach to amyloid beta in the brain. By binding to these plaques, it signals the immune system to clear them away. This may potentially slow Alzheimer’s progression.

    The drug works by engaging microglial cells. These are the brain’s primary immune defenders. Microglia constantly monitor the brain for damage and remove harmful substances, including amyloid beta. However, in people with Alzheimer’s disease, microglia often fail to clear plaques efficiently. Gantenerumab enhances this natural defence mechanism by tagging amyloid plaques, making them easier for the microglia to recognise and break down.

    Microglia cells fail to clear plaques effectively in people with Alzheimer’s.
    ART-ur/ Shutterstock

    Amyloid beta is thought to play a central role in Alzheimer’s by triggering inflammation, interfering with cell communication and ultimately killing neurons. By removing these plaques, gantenerumab may help to protect brain function. However, it doesn’t reverse existing damage – which is why early intervention is critical.

    An advantage of gantenerumab is that it can cross the blood-brain barrier – the protective shield that blocks many drugs and harmful substances from reaching the brain. This allows it to act directly on amyloid plaques, making it more effective than some earlier treatments that struggled with drug delivery.

    But as promising as these results are, gantenerumab isn’t without risks.

    A major concern is amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. These are swelling or small spots of bleeding in the brain that show up on MRI scans. This is a common side-effect of amyloid-targeting therapies.

    In this latest trial, 53% of participants experienced these amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, including small brain bleeds in 27% of participants, brain swelling in 30% of participants and iron deposits from bleeding in 6%. While no participants had major brain haemorrhages or died from the treatment, these side-effects remain a serious concern – requiring regular monitoring through brain scans.

    Another limitation is the modest cognitive benefit observed in the trial. While gantenerumab reduced amyloid plaques, the extent to which this translates into meaningful improvements in memory and thinking skills remains unclear.

    Gantenerumab is also expensive to manufacture, which could make widespread access difficult if it gains regulatory approval. As this is an experimental drug, we do not currently know how much it would cost. But other similar anti-amyloid therapies, such as donanemab, currently cost around £25,000 per patient per year.

    The study also had a small sample size and only focused on a rare genetic form of early-onset Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to see how these results may apply to the wider dementia community.

    The future of treatment

    Although the trial was terminated early after the study’s sponsor pulled out, these findings contribute to the ongoing debate over the causes of Alzheimer’s disease.

    According to the amyloid hypothesis, the buildup of amyloid plaques in the brain is the main cause of Alzheimer’s disease. Clearing these plaques will slow the disease’s progression. The success of the Alzheimer’s drugs lecanemab, donanemab and now gantenerumab, lend themselves to this theory.

    This study also underscores the importance of early diagnosis. Amyloid-targeting therapies appear to work best in the early stages of Alzheimer’s, before significant brain damage occurs. Advances in biomarker testing – including blood tests and brain scans – could help identify at-risk people sooner. This would improve the effectiveness of drugs such as gantenerumab.

    Although gantenerumab is not a cure and was discontinued by its manufacturer in 2022 because it failed to demonstrate efficacy in slowing the progression of Alzheimer’s disease, this new data could perhaps lead to gantenerumab being manufactured again. It also represents another step forward in the fight against Alzheimer’s.

    Alzheimer’s research is advancing faster than ever before. Whether a success or a setback, each new study adds to our understanding of the disease and brings us closer to more effective treatments. For now, the gantenerumab trial offers a hopeful sign that scientists are making progress in slowing the course of this devastating condition.

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

    – ref. Early-onset Alzheimer’s: new drug shows promise in slowing the disease – https://theconversation.com/early-onset-alzheimers-new-drug-shows-promise-in-slowing-the-disease-253049

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Rivers are increasingly being given legal rights. Now they need people who will defend these rights in court

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Oluwabusayo Wuraola, Lecturer in Law, Anglia Ruskin University

    The River Ouse near Lewes in Sussex, England. Melanie Hobson / shutterstock

    A district council in England has passed a motion to grant its local river the rights to flow freely, to be free from pollution and to enjoy its native biodiversity. The move by Lewes District Council in East Sussex to recognise the fundamental rights of the River Ouse is the first of its kind in the UK.

    The Ouse (not to be confused with larger rivers of the same name in Yorkshire and East Anglia) flows southwards for 35 miles into the English Channel and suffers from the usual problems afflicting many rivers in the UK: chemical pollution, sewage dumping and so on.

    As a legal academic who researches exactly these sorts of rights, I was excited to see the news from Lewes (even if the council’s motions ultimately can’t overrule national laws). But simply granting a river some rights isn’t enough. We now need to think about who will actually defend these rights.

    This may mean appointing someone to represent the rights of the river. Who these representatives are, and how they think about nature and conservation, can be as important as the granting of these rights in the first place.

    Appointing representatives who care about their own personal and property interests would be a grave mistake, as would appointing anyone who prioritises the rights of humans to a healthy environment over a more intrinsic right of nature (remember: the idea is that the River Ouse has rights in itself and shouldn’t need to demonstrate its worth to humans).

    As further rivers, lakes, forests and more are granted rights like the Ouse, we’ll need to train up an army of people willing to represent the rights of nature.

    Natural entities should have legal rights

    The law professor Christopher Stone pioneered the rights of nature concept back in the 1970s. He argued that natural entities, like rivers or forests, should have legal rights and that a “guardian” or representative should be appointed to defend those rights in court when they are threatened.

    Some legal systems have adopted this model. For example, in New Zealand, the Whanganui River was granted legal personhood, and two “human faces” were appointed to act and speak on its behalf. Their duties are outlined in a 2017 act, which specifies that these representatives must have the skills, knowledge and experience needed to effectively advocate for the river’s rights.

    The Whanganui River was awarded legal personhood in 2017 due to its spiritual importance for local Māori people.
    Ron Kolet / shutterstock

    But even as rights of nature are being considered in many countries, there is still little consideration of who will represent these rights effectively. For instance, back in 2008 Ecuador became the first country to grant the rights of nature in its constitution. However the constitution states that “all persons” are representatives of the rights of nature. This is simply impractical: we can’t expect every citizen to truly care about the rights of nature.

    Efforts to apply the rights of nature in Ecuador have often failed. Legal challenges can become highly politicised and there is little legal infrastructure beyond general constitutional principles.

    For example, in a case brought after road builders had dumped material into the Vilcabamba River, plaintiffs claimed to represent nature in court. However, they were not genuinely advocating for the river’s rights – their main concern was protecting their downstream property.

    An ecocentric perspective

    Ultimately, defending the rights of nature in court will be a struggle if the nature in question – the river, forest or lake – is not represented by someone with an ecocentric perspective. That means prioritising the intrinsic value of nature itself, rather than focusing on how it can serve human interests.

    To protect it from mining and deforestation, Los Cedros cloud forest was awarded the same rights as people.
    Andreas Kay / flickr, CC BY-NC-SA

    Ecocentric advocates have proved to be the most effective defenders of the rights of nature in many court cases. For example, in lawsuits involving Ecuador’s Los Cedros cloud forest and its marine ecosystems, ecocentric arguments helped secure stronger legal protections and even inspired the courts to grant further rights of nature.

    One of the most common legal frameworks involves appointing “all persons”, “a person”, or “a resident” as representatives or protectors. For instance, Uganda’s National Environment Act 2019 states that anyone has the right to bring an action before a court “for any infringement of rights of nature”.

    Similarly, the city of Toledo, Ohio, tried to introduce the Lake Erie bill of rights which stated that the city or any resident could act on behalf of the lake’s ecosystem. (The bill was declared unconstitutional by a federal court in 2020 and did not become the law).

    Lake Erie lies between Canada and the US. It is surrounded by heavy industry and has had periods of intense pollution.
    Ted Auch, FracTracker Alliance / flickr, CC BY-NC-SA

    Having such broad representation can make these legal protections less effective. This is what Stone, the law professor, envisioned back in the 70s: representatives should be trained to view nature as having intrinsic value – the very reason it is granted rights – and to protect it on that basis.

    There are some promising examples. Guardians were appointed to protect the Magpie River in Canada, for instance, after it was granted legal personhood in 2022. Their responsibilities include participating – on behalf of the river itself – in any consultations on projects that might affect the river.

    When the River Atrato in Colombia was also granted legal rights, the court required the formation of a commission (with representatives from the state and local communities) to train and oversee the work of the guardians.

    Moves to give rights to nature are promising. But from Colombia to Canada to Sussex, we’ll need a whole army of nature protectors to actually enforce those rights.

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

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

    Oluwabusayo Wuraola is a knowledge expert member of the United Nations Harmony with Nature Programme.

    – ref. Rivers are increasingly being given legal rights. Now they need people who will defend these rights in court – https://theconversation.com/rivers-are-increasingly-being-given-legal-rights-now-they-need-people-who-will-defend-these-rights-in-court-251736

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –