Source: The Conversation – UK – By Louise Ashley, Senior Lecturer in Sociology of Work, Queen Mary University of London
Donald Trump’s inauguration was marked by a doubling down against programmes of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Among the executive orders he signed during his first days as US president, two were targeted at DEI. The focus was on federal government but the intention appears to be that this should also extend to other American workplaces. And it comes as Meta and Amazon are also retreating from diversity programmes.
In Trump’s directive, DEI is said to undermine “traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement” in favour of an “identity-based spoils system”. But the move dismayed many workers. It doesn’t just seem regressive, but it also appears to make poor business sense – advocates argue that attention to diversity and inclusion can offer higher performance and profits.
Trump appears to believe DEI offers unfair advantages on the basis, for example, of gender or ethnicity. But an alternative view could be that DEI is a necessary response to a situation where certain groups (often men, typically white, and generally from privileged backgrounds) have benefited from unearned advantages to maintain their grip on power.
Here, DEI is a response to the idea that simply belonging to these traditionally advantaged groups can be perceived as “talent”. This comes at the expense of typically marginalised groups, who are subject to discrimination and unconscious bias. From this perspective, hostility to DEI might be seen as a way for the traditionally privileged groups to remain dominant.
Both sides are apparently in favour of merit as the ultimate goal, although they have different views on what this means and how it is achieved. This suggests a paradox.
But is there any reason to worry about the widespread use of DEI? Based on my research with firms in the City of London, I think the answer is yes (though for very different reasons than the president suggests).
This raises the question of what (or whose) purpose corporate commitments to DEI actually serve. Common sense would suggest that a primary function is to ensure people can access positions that would previously have been closed off to them.
Yet it is also worth remembering that where, for example, more women become corporate lawyers or senior financiers, this has no bearing on wider inequalities in society. In fact, in a further paradox, my research has found that some of the organisations most likely to express their commitment to DEI are also implicated in generating these inequalities.
I researched diversity and inclusion practices in elite financial and professional service firms. These firms have played a key role in orchestrating a form of “rentier capitalism”, where small elites control the means of generating wealth. This system has much wider detrimental effects, as where wealth is increasingly concentrated towards the top, one consequence is stagnating incomes for the middle and working classes. This in turn drives insecurity and widens the wealth gap.
Legitimising a broken system
This, of course, is not the fault of people working in these firms. But overall this system desperately needs legitimacy. This is more difficult when senior jobs at the centre of this model of “financialised capitalism” are mostly taken by those from historically privileged groups. Put simply, it makes them look bad.
One way they can ensure legitimacy is to shout about their commitment to DEI. This can help suggest that the system is merit-based, as access to these “top jobs” seems fairly distributed while rewards appear justly deserved. Most recently, these impressions have been generated by a vocal commitment among these organisations to promoting “social mobility”.
Opening access to a wider demographic, while good for the organisation and individual staff, has no impact on underlying inequalities. Yet in practice, these measures lack some efficacy. In fact, by offering an impression of change in terms of who occupies the top jobs, DEI can help legitimise and sustain an unequal status quo.
This matters for everyone because the ramifications can spread beyond the workplace. As wealth trickles up and populations grow frustrated that systems are not becoming fairer, the messages of the populist right can hold more appeal.
Trump’s objection to DEI is very different. For him, DEI is a convenient tool in the culture wars.
Yet this leads to the current situation, where conservatives like Trump loudly reject what might be considered a conservative agenda (in that the old economic order remains unchanged). It can all start to feel like a disorientating hall of mirrors.
I am not suggesting, as Trump is, that governments and employers should abandon DEI. This would certainly represent a backward move. But while measures to improve inclusivity in organisations remain important and worthwhile, this should not be seen as a substitute for much wider structural change.
Perhaps the most urgent challenge for government is tackling wealth inequality as a source of legitimate grievance. This more radical change in direction might even make reactionary and potentially harmful policies – like Trump’s take on DEI – less alluring to voters.
Louise Ashley 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.
How can universities build better relationships with the communities around them? Academia is increasingly considering this question. And finding innovative ways to demonstrate value and connect with wider society.
This was on my mind when I learnt about a fascinating collaboration between the police and aspiring, young filmmakers at the University of Sunderland, which shows the power of research as a tool for public good.
I world for Universal Impact, The Conversation’s commercial subsidiary, and recently travelled to the northeast to give a training course to University of Sunderland researchers on how to identify, and communicate with, different audiences for their work.
Whenever we work with academics, I’m reminded of the quality and diversity of research taking place all around us – stretching, in this case, from preventing liver damage to boosting performance in modern pentathlon.
We built on the training course with a mentoring programme for a group of researchers including Adelle Hulsmeier, who leads the university’s screen performance BA programme.
I’m a bit of a movie buff. So I was interested to learn about the unique initiative Adelle runs, bringing together young people and police around an unexpected common ground – film.
Here’s how it works. Northumberland Police suggests themes, students make short films inspired by those themes, and the films are then used as education and training resources.
Like many of my favourite directors, Adelle believes it’s possible to address some of the most pressing social issues through storytelling.
A new approach
The project comes as public trust in the police is in decline, particularly among members of Gen Z (broadly, those born between 1996 and 2010).
Children and young people are also disproportionately affected by crime, often as victims of the most serious offences. But these films offer an opportunity to change the narrative.
And as the Labour government is proposing “respect orders” to address the UK’s 6.7 million annual offences — which cost taxpayers £58.9 billion in 2023-24 — this novel approach seems particularly timely.
Over the past 11 years, more than 1,000 students have worked on at least 50 films, covering topics such as sexual exploitation, domestic violence, male rape and “county lines” drugs trafficking.
The films’ influence extends far beyond the university. They have been integrated into training programmes for police officers, healthcare workers, teachers and other professionals.
Community engagement
The collaboration was born of a desire to make issues of crime and policing widely accessible, with Adelle striving to bridge the gap between academic learning and societal impact.
In 2019, the project received the Collaborative Award for Teaching Excellence from Advance Higher Education, recognising the initiative’s outstanding contribution to education and community engagement.
The programme has also been praised by former Labour MP and Victims’ Commissioner Dame Vera Baird, who described the films as an effective way for the police to “transmit messages in a way that we cannot”.
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.
Meanwhile, the project is also an opportunity for students to develop critical skills and gain invaluable industry experience.
By empowering students to tackle real world social issues, the University of Sunderland is not only preparing them for the future but also helping to shape a safer, more empathetic world.
This partnership is a testament to the mutual benefits that come from universities and public sector organisations working collectively towards common goals that support their local communities.
At Universal Impact, we offer specialist training, mentoring and research communication services – donating profits back to The Conversation, our parent charity. If you’re a researcher or research institution and you’re interested in working together, please get in touch – or subscribe to our weekly newsletter to find out more.
A West Papuan advocacy group is calling for an urgent international inquiry into allegations that Indonesian security forces have used the chemical weapon white phosphorus against West Papuans for a second time.
The allegations were made in the new documentary, Frontier War,by Paradise Broadcasting.
In the film, West Papuan civilians give testimony about a number of children dying from sickness in the months folllowing the 2021 Kiwirok attack.
They say that “poisoning . . . occurred due to the bombings”, that “they throw the bomb and . . . chemicals come through the mouth”, said United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) interim president Benny Wenda.
They add that this was “the first time they’re throwing people up are not dying, but between one month later or two months later”, he said in a statement.
Bombings produced big “clouds of dust” and infants suffering the effects could not stop coughing up blood.
“White phosphorus is an evil weapon, even when used against combatants. It burns through skin and flesh and causes heart and liver failure,” said Wenda.
‘Crimes against defenceless civilians’ “But Indonesia is committing these crimes against humanity against defenceless civilians, elders, women and children.
“Thousands of Papuans in the border region were forced from their villages by these attacks, adding to the over 85,000 who are still internally displaced by militarisation.”
Journalists uncovered that victims were suffering deep burns down to the bone, typical with that weapon, as well as photographing yellow tipped bombs which military sources confirmed “appear to be incendiary or white phosphorus”.
The same yellow-tipped explosives were discovered in Kiwirok, and the fins from the recovered munitions are consistent with white phosphorus.
“As usual, Indonesia lied about using white phosphorus in Nduga,” said Wenda.
“They have also lied about even the existence of the Kiwirok attack — an operation that led to the deaths of over 300 men, women, and children.
“They lie, lie, lie.”
Frontier War/ Inside the West Papua Liberation Army Video: Paradise Broadcasting
Proof needed after ‘opening up’ Wenda said the movement would not be able to obtain proof of these attacks — “of the atrocities being perpetrated daily against my people” — until Indonesia opened West Papua to the “eyes of the world”.
“West Papua is a prison island: no journalists, NGOs, or aid organisations are allowed to operate there. Even the UN is totally banned,” Wenda said.
Indonesia’s entire strategy in West Papua is secrecy. Their crimes have been hidden from the world for decades, through a combination of internet blackouts, repression of domestic journalists, and refusal of access to international media.”
Wenda said Indonesia must urgently facilitate the long-delayed UN Human Rights visit to West Papua, and allow journalists and NGOs to operate there without fear of imprisonment or repression.
“The MSG [Melanesian Spearhead Group], PIF [Pacific Islands Forum] and the OACPS [Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States] must again increase the pressure on Indonesia to allow a UN visit,” he said. “The fake amnesty proposed by [President] Prabowo Subianto is contradictory as it does not also include a UN visit. Even if 10, 20 activists are released, our right to political expression is totally banned.”
Wenda said that Indonesia must ultimately “open their eyes” to the only long-term solution in West Papua — self-determination through an independence referendum.
Scenes from the Paradise Broadcasting documentary Frontier War. Images: Screenshots APR
On 27 December last year, astronomers using the ATLAS survey telescope in Chile discovered a small asteroid moving away from Earth. Follow up observations have revealed that the asteroid, 2024 YR4, is on a path that might lead to a collision with our planet on 22 December 2032.
In other words, the newly-discovered space rock poses a significant impact threat to our planet.
It sounds like something from a bad Hollywood movie. But in reality, there’s no need to panic – this is just another day living on a target in a celestial shooting gallery.
So what’s the story? What do we know about 2024 YR4? And what would happen if it did collide with Earth?
A target in the celestial shooting gallery
As Earth moves around the Sun, it is continually encountering dust and debris that dates back to the birth of the Solar system. The system is littered with such debris, and the meteors and fireballs seen every night are evidence of just how polluted our local neighbourhood is.
But most of the debris is far too small to cause problems to life on Earth. There is far more tiny debris out there than larger chunks – so impacts from objects that could imperil life on Earth’s surface are much less frequent.
The most famous impact came some 66 million years ago. A giant rock from space, at least 10 kilometres in diameter, crashed into Earth – causing a mass extinction that wiped out something like 75% of all species on Earth.
Impacts that large are, fortunately, very rare events. Current estimates suggest that objects like the one which killed the dinosaurs only hit Earth every 50 million years or so. Smaller impacts, though, are more common.
On 30 June 1908, there was a vast explosion in a sparsely populated part of Siberia. When explorers later reached the location of the explosion, they found an astonishing site: a forest levelled, with all the trees fallen in the same direction. As they moved around, the direction of the fallen trees changed – all pointing inwards towards the epicentre of the explosion.
The Tunguska event flattened trees over an area of around 2,200 square kilometres. Leonid Kulik / Wikimedia
In total, the Tunguska event levelled an area of almost 2,200 square kilometres – roughly equivalent to the area of greater Sydney. Fortunately, that forest was extremely remote. While plants and animals were killed in the blast zone, it is thought that, at most, only three people perished.
Estimates vary of how frequent such large collisions should be. Some argue that Earth should experience a similar impact, on average, once per century. Others suggest such collisions might only happen every 10,000 years or so. The truth is we don’t know – but that’s part of the fun of science.
The explosion, about 30 kilometres above the Earth’s surface, generated a powerful shock-wave and extremely bright flash of light. Buildings were damaged, windows smashed, and almost 1,500 people were injured – although there were no fatalities.
It served as a reminder, however, that Earth will be hit again. It’s only a question of when.
Which brings us to our latest contender – asteroid 2024 YR4.
The 1-in-77 chance of collision to watch
2024 YR4 has been under close observation by astronomers for a little over a month. It was discovered just a few days after making a relatively close approach to our planet, and it is now receding into the dark depths of the Solar system. By April, it will be lost to even the world’s largest telescopes.
The observations carried out over the past month have allowed astronomers to extrapolate the asteroid’s motion forward over time, working out its orbit around the Sun. As a result, it has become clear that, on 22 December 2032, it will pass very close to our planet – and may even collide with us.
At present, our best models of the asteroid’s motion have an uncertainty of around 100,000 kilometres in its position at the time it would be closest to the Earth. At around 12,000 kilometres in diameter, our planet falls inside that region of uncertainty.
Calculations suggest there is currently around a 1-in-77 chance that the asteroid will crash into our planet at that time. Of course, that means there is still a 76-in-77 chance it will miss us.
When will we know for sure?
With every new observation of 2024 YR4, astronomers’ knowledge of its orbit improves slightly – which is why the collision likelihoods you might see quoted online keep changing. We’ll be able to follow the asteroid as it recedes from Earth for another couple of months, by which time we’ll have a better idea of exactly where it will be on that fateful day in December 2032.
But it is unlikely we’ll be able to say for sure whether we’re in the clear at that point.
Recent observations of 2024 YR4 – the faint unmoving dot in the centre of the image. ESO, CC BY
Fortunately, the asteroid will make another close approach to the Earth in December 2028 – passing around 8 million kilometres from our planet. Astronomers will be ready to perform a wide raft of observations that will help us to understand the size and shape of the asteroid, as well as giving an incredibly accurate overview of where it will be in 2032.
At the end of that encounter, we will know for sure whether there will be a collision in 2032. And if there is to be a collision that year, we’ll be able to predict where on Earth that collision will be – likely to a precision of a few tens of kilometres.
How big would the impact be?
At the moment, we don’t know the exact size of 2024 YR4. Even through Earth’s largest telescopes, it is just a single tiny speck in the sky. So we have to estimate its size based on its brightness. Depending on how reflective the asteroid is, current estimates place it as being somewhere between 40 and 100 metres across.
What does that mean for a potential impact? Well, it would depend on exactly what the asteroid is made of.
The most likely scenario is that the asteroid is a rocky pile of rubble. If that turns out to be the case, then the impact would be very similar to the Tunguska event in 1908.
The asteroid would detonate in the atmosphere, with a shockwave blasting Earth’s surface as a result. The Tunguska impact was a “city killer” type event, levelling forest across a city-sized patch of land.
Meteor Crater in Arizona is believed to have been created by a 50m metallic meteorite impact around 50,000 years ago. NASA Earth Observatory / Wikimedia
A less likely possibility is that the asteroid is made of metal. Based on its orbit around the Sun, this seems unlikely – but we can’t rule it out.
In that case, the asteroid would make it through the atmosphere intact, and crash into Earth’s surface. If it hit on the land, it would carve out a new impact crater, probably more than a kilometre across and a couple of hundred metres deep – something similar to Meteor Crater in Arizona.
Again, this would be quite spectacular for the region around the impact – but that would be about it.
Living in a remarkable time
This all sounds like doom and gloom. After all, we know that the Earth will be hit again – either by 2024 YR4 or something else. But there’s a real positive to take out of all this.
There has been life on Earth for more than 3 billion years. In all that time, impacts have come along and caused destruction and devastation many times.
But there has never been a species, to our knowledge, that understood the risk, could detect potential threats in advance, and even do something about the threat. Until now.
In just the past few years, we have discovered 11 asteroids before they hit our planet. In each case, we have predicted where they would hit, and watched the results.
We have also, in recent years, demonstrated a growing capacity to deflect potentially threatening asteroids. NASA’s DART mission (the Double Asteroid Redirection Test) was an astounding success.
For the first time in more than 3 billion years of life on Earth, we can do something about the risk posed by rocks from space. So don’t panic! But instead, sit back and watch the show.
Jonti Horner 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.
On 27 December last year, astronomers using the ATLAS survey telescope in Chile discovered a small asteroid moving away from Earth. Follow up observations have revealed that the asteroid, 2024 YR4, is on a path that might lead to a collision with our planet on 22 December 2032.
In other words, the newly-discovered space rock poses a significant impact threat to our planet.
It sounds like something from a bad Hollywood movie. But in reality, there’s no need to panic – this is just another day living on a target in a celestial shooting gallery.
So what’s the story? What do we know about 2024 YR4? And what would happen if it did collide with Earth?
A target in the celestial shooting gallery
As Earth moves around the Sun, it is continually encountering dust and debris that dates back to the birth of the Solar system. The system is littered with such debris, and the meteors and fireballs seen every night are evidence of just how polluted our local neighbourhood is.
But most of the debris is far too small to cause problems to life on Earth. There is far more tiny debris out there than larger chunks – so impacts from objects that could imperil life on Earth’s surface are much less frequent.
The most famous impact came some 66 million years ago. A giant rock from space, at least 10 kilometres in diameter, crashed into Earth – causing a mass extinction that wiped out something like 75% of all species on Earth.
Impacts that large are, fortunately, very rare events. Current estimates suggest that objects like the one which killed the dinosaurs only hit Earth every 50 million years or so. Smaller impacts, though, are more common.
On 30 June 1908, there was a vast explosion in a sparsely populated part of Siberia. When explorers later reached the location of the explosion, they found an astonishing site: a forest levelled, with all the trees fallen in the same direction. As they moved around, the direction of the fallen trees changed – all pointing inwards towards the epicentre of the explosion.
The Tunguska event flattened trees over an area of around 2,200 square kilometres. Leonid Kulik / Wikimedia
In total, the Tunguska event levelled an area of almost 2,200 square kilometres – roughly equivalent to the area of greater Sydney. Fortunately, that forest was extremely remote. While plants and animals were killed in the blast zone, it is thought that, at most, only three people perished.
Estimates vary of how frequent such large collisions should be. Some argue that Earth should experience a similar impact, on average, once per century. Others suggest such collisions might only happen every 10,000 years or so. The truth is we don’t know – but that’s part of the fun of science.
The explosion, about 30 kilometres above the Earth’s surface, generated a powerful shock-wave and extremely bright flash of light. Buildings were damaged, windows smashed, and almost 1,500 people were injured – although there were no fatalities.
It served as a reminder, however, that Earth will be hit again. It’s only a question of when.
Which brings us to our latest contender – asteroid 2024 YR4.
The 1-in-77 chance of collision to watch
2024 YR4 has been under close observation by astronomers for a little over a month. It was discovered just a few days after making a relatively close approach to our planet, and it is now receding into the dark depths of the Solar system. By April, it will be lost to even the world’s largest telescopes.
The observations carried out over the past month have allowed astronomers to extrapolate the asteroid’s motion forward over time, working out its orbit around the Sun. As a result, it has become clear that, on 22 December 2032, it will pass very close to our planet – and may even collide with us.
At present, our best models of the asteroid’s motion have an uncertainty of around 100,000 kilometres in its position at the time it would be closest to the Earth. At around 12,000 kilometres in diameter, our planet falls inside that region of uncertainty.
Calculations suggest there is currently around a 1-in-77 chance that the asteroid will crash into our planet at that time. Of course, that means there is still a 76-in-77 chance it will miss us.
When will we know for sure?
With every new observation of 2024 YR4, astronomers’ knowledge of its orbit improves slightly – which is why the collision likelihoods you might see quoted online keep changing. We’ll be able to follow the asteroid as it recedes from Earth for another couple of months, by which time we’ll have a better idea of exactly where it will be on that fateful day in December 2032.
But it is unlikely we’ll be able to say for sure whether we’re in the clear at that point.
Recent observations of 2024 YR4 – the faint unmoving dot in the centre of the image. ESO, CC BY
Fortunately, the asteroid will make another close approach to the Earth in December 2028 – passing around 8 million kilometres from our planet. Astronomers will be ready to perform a wide raft of observations that will help us to understand the size and shape of the asteroid, as well as giving an incredibly accurate overview of where it will be in 2032.
At the end of that encounter, we will know for sure whether there will be a collision in 2032. And if there is to be a collision that year, we’ll be able to predict where on Earth that collision will be – likely to a precision of a few tens of kilometres.
How big would the impact be?
At the moment, we don’t know the exact size of 2024 YR4. Even through Earth’s largest telescopes, it is just a single tiny speck in the sky. So we have to estimate its size based on its brightness. Depending on how reflective the asteroid is, current estimates place it as being somewhere between 40 and 100 metres across.
What does that mean for a potential impact? Well, it would depend on exactly what the asteroid is made of.
The most likely scenario is that the asteroid is a rocky pile of rubble. If that turns out to be the case, then the impact would be very similar to the Tunguska event in 1908.
The asteroid would detonate in the atmosphere, with a shockwave blasting Earth’s surface as a result. The Tunguska impact was a “city killer” type event, levelling forest across a city-sized patch of land.
Meteor Crater in Arizona is believed to have been created by a 50m metallic meteorite impact around 50,000 years ago. NASA Earth Observatory / Wikimedia
A less likely possibility is that the asteroid is made of metal. Based on its orbit around the Sun, this seems unlikely – but we can’t rule it out.
In that case, the asteroid would make it through the atmosphere intact, and crash into Earth’s surface. If it hit on the land, it would carve out a new impact crater, probably more than a kilometre across and a couple of hundred metres deep – something similar to Meteor Crater in Arizona.
Again, this would be quite spectacular for the region around the impact – but that would be about it.
Living in a remarkable time
This all sounds like doom and gloom. After all, we know that the Earth will be hit again – either by 2024 YR4 or something else. But there’s a real positive to take out of all this.
There has been life on Earth for more than 3 billion years. In all that time, impacts have come along and caused destruction and devastation many times.
But there has never been a species, to our knowledge, that understood the risk, could detect potential threats in advance, and even do something about the threat. Until now.
In just the past few years, we have discovered 11 asteroids before they hit our planet. In each case, we have predicted where they would hit, and watched the results.
We have also, in recent years, demonstrated a growing capacity to deflect potentially threatening asteroids. NASA’s DART mission (the Double Asteroid Redirection Test) was an astounding success.
For the first time in more than 3 billion years of life on Earth, we can do something about the risk posed by rocks from space. So don’t panic! But instead, sit back and watch the show.
Jonti Horner 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.
On Wednesday night US time, a passenger jet and US Army helicopter collided at a low altitude near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, and crashed into the the Potomac River.
A total of 60 passengers – including US and Russian champion figure skaters – and four crew were on board the American Airlines flight AA5342 from Wichita, Kansas. Three military personnel were in the chopper, which was conducting a routine training flight. Authorities say no one on board either aircraft survived.
This crash comes just over a month after a passenger jet crashed in South Korea – possibly as a result of a bird strike – killing all but two of the 181 people on board. The two incidents have focused attention on aviation safety around the world.
In the case of the most recent tragedy in the US, technology exists that is designed to help pilots avoid midair collisions with other aircraft. It is known as the Traffic Collision Avoidance System – or TCAS.
So how does it work? And why might it have failed to prevent disaster in this case?
What is a TCAS?
A TCAS is an aircraft safety system that monitors the airspace around a plane for other aircraft equipped with transponders. These are devices that listen for and respond to incoming electronic signals.
The system – also sometimes referred to as an ACAS (Airborne Collision Avoidance System) – operates independently of an external air traffic control system. Its purpose is to alert pilots immediately to nearby aircraft and potential midair collisions.
Since the technology was developed in 1974, it has undergone a number of advances.
The first generation technology, known as TCAS I, monitors what’s around an aircraft. It provides information on the bearing and altitude of any nearby aircraft. If there is a risk of collision, it generates what’s known as a “Traffic Advisory” – or TA. When a TA is issued, the pilot is notified of the threat, but must themselves determine the best evasive action to take.
The second generation technology, known as TCAS II, goes a step further: it provides a pilot with specific instructions on how to avoid a collision with a nearby aircraft or conflict with traffic, either by descending, climbing, turning or adjusting their speed.
These newer systems are also able to communicate with each other. This ensures the advice given to each aircraft is coordinated.
Any aircraft used for commercial purposes must be equipped with a TCAS in accordance with international regulations under what’s known as the Chicago Convention. There are specific provisions under the convention for noncommercial aircraft.
Military helicopters are not subject to the provisions of the Chicago Convention (although they are subject to domestic laws and regulations). And there are reports the military helicopter did not have a TCAS system on board.
Limitations of TCAS at low altitudes
Regardless of whether the military helicopter involved in the crash was fitted with a TCAS, the technology still has limitations. In particular, it is inhibited at altitudes below roughly 300 metres.
The last recorded altitude of American Airlines flight AA5342 was roughly 90 metres. The last recorded altitude of the US military helicopter that collided with the plane was roughly 60 metres.
It is not an accident that a TCAS is inhibited at low altitudes. In fact, this is part of the design of the technology.
This is primarily because the system relies on radio altimeter data, which measures altitude and becomes less accurate near the ground. This could potentially result in unreliable collision-avoidance instructions.
Another issue is that an aircraft at such a low altitude cannot descend any further to avoid a collision.
The site of several near misses
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is one of the busiest airports in the United States. Commercial, military and private aircraft share very limited airspace and corridors.
For example, in April 2024, a commercial plane pilot coming into land had to take evasive action to avoid a helicopter that was roughly 100 metres beneath it. In an incident report, the pilot said:
We never received a warning of the traffic from (air traffic control) so we were unaware it was there.
Many people, including Democratic US senator Tim Kaine, pointed to this near miss as evidence of why a plan to allow more flights into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport should not proceed. Despite this, the plan was approved the following month.
All of this will undoubtedly be examined as part of the investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board into this disaster.
Chrystal Zhang 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.
One of United States President Donald Trump’s more startling claims since taking office for his second term – and there have been many – is his insistence that the US will take control of Greenland.
Both prior to taking office and since, Trump has spoken about a desire for the US to acquire Greenland, an autonomous territory that is part of Denmark. This revives a proposal he floated in 2019, and is now being advanced with serious intent.
Trump’s interest in Greenland is framed around US security. The island is strategically located in the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom) Gap. The gap gained prominence during the Cold War as an area where Soviet nuclear submarines could operate in the Atlantic Ocean proximate to the US and its NATO partners. Denmark’s limited naval capacity meant these Soviet submarine incursions were uncontested.
Washington has always appreciated the strategic significance of Greenland. It was used during the second world war as a US military staging point due to its relative safety from the European theatre of war and its capacity as a stopover for aircraft to refuel.
Later, during the Cold War, the Thule US Airbase was constructed on its northwest coast, later becoming the Pituffik Space Base.
Trump is particularly concerned about Russian and Chinese ships operating offshore near Greenland in the Arctic Ocean, and with ensuring US access to rare earth minerals on the island.
All of these are legitimate US security and strategic interests. It is often forgotten that the US is an Arctic nation by virtue of Alaska, and Greenland is adjacent to North America.
However, Greenland is not terra nullius ripe for American colonisation. It is recognised as Danish territory. Any dispute over a Danish claim to the island was resolved by an international court in 1933, and since that time Denmark has overseen Greenlandic affairs without challenge. Any suggestion Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland is contested has no foundation.
While Denmark has been a colonial power, there has been an active process underway to grant the 57,000 Greenlanders increased autonomy from Copenhagen. Home rule has been granted, a legislature has been created, and a road map exists for self-determination that may eventually see the emergence of an independent Greenland.
Seeking to honour the responsibility Copenhagen feels for ushering Greenlanders through this process, Denmark has made clear that Greenland is not for sale.
The most breathtaking aspect of Trump’s Greenland territorial ambitions has been the refusal to rule out the US using economic or military means to acquire it.
This ignores the fact that Greenland is part of Denmark (a NATO member) and that indigenous Greenlanders possess a right of self-determination. Moreover, any use of US military force to take Greenland would be in violation of both the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty on which NATO is founded and the 1945 United Nations Charter.
Respect for territorial integrity was one of foundations on which the UN Charter was built. The intention of the UN’s founders during the San Francisco Conference was to ensure military force could not be used to acquire territory through an act of aggression resulting in the annexation of territory.
Other than Denmark, its Scandinavian neighbours and some NATO members, Trump’s Greenland territorial ambitions have been met with diplomatic silence. What is taking place behind closed doors and in the foreign ministries of US allies and partners can only be imagined.
For Australia, this raises fundamental issues regarding the US alliance. Would Australia be prepared to stand beside the US if it used its economic and military might to acquire Greenland?
Australia has a bipartisan position of both supporting the American alliance and the “rules-based” international order on which the UN is based. AUKUS is founded on these assumptions. Any US economic or military aggression over Greenland may force Australia into making a choice between America or the rule of law.
Donald Rothwell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
One of United States President Donald Trump’s more startling claims since taking office for his second term – and there have been many – is his insistence that the US will take control of Greenland.
Both prior to taking office and since, Trump has spoken about a desire for the US to acquire Greenland, an autonomous territory that is part of Denmark. This revives a proposal he floated in 2019, and is now being advanced with serious intent.
Trump’s interest in Greenland is framed around US security. The island is strategically located in the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom) Gap. The gap gained prominence during the Cold War as an area where Soviet nuclear submarines could operate in the Atlantic Ocean proximate to the US and its NATO partners. Denmark’s limited naval capacity meant these Soviet submarine incursions were uncontested.
Washington has always appreciated the strategic significance of Greenland. It was used during the second world war as a US military staging point due to its relative safety from the European theatre of war and its capacity as a stopover for aircraft to refuel.
Later, during the Cold War, the Thule US Airbase was constructed on its northwest coast, later becoming the Pituffik Space Base.
Trump is particularly concerned about Russian and Chinese ships operating offshore near Greenland in the Arctic Ocean, and with ensuring US access to rare earth minerals on the island.
All of these are legitimate US security and strategic interests. It is often forgotten that the US is an Arctic nation by virtue of Alaska, and Greenland is adjacent to North America.
However, Greenland is not terra nullius ripe for American colonisation. It is recognised as Danish territory. Any dispute over a Danish claim to the island was resolved by an international court in 1933, and since that time Denmark has overseen Greenlandic affairs without challenge. Any suggestion Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland is contested has no foundation.
While Denmark has been a colonial power, there has been an active process underway to grant the 57,000 Greenlanders increased autonomy from Copenhagen. Home rule has been granted, a legislature has been created, and a road map exists for self-determination that may eventually see the emergence of an independent Greenland.
Seeking to honour the responsibility Copenhagen feels for ushering Greenlanders through this process, Denmark has made clear that Greenland is not for sale.
The most breathtaking aspect of Trump’s Greenland territorial ambitions has been the refusal to rule out the US using economic or military means to acquire it.
This ignores the fact that Greenland is part of Denmark (a NATO member) and that indigenous Greenlanders possess a right of self-determination. Moreover, any use of US military force to take Greenland would be in violation of both the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty on which NATO is founded and the 1945 United Nations Charter.
Respect for territorial integrity was one of foundations on which the UN Charter was built. The intention of the UN’s founders during the San Francisco Conference was to ensure military force could not be used to acquire territory through an act of aggression resulting in the annexation of territory.
Other than Denmark, its Scandinavian neighbours and some NATO members, Trump’s Greenland territorial ambitions have been met with diplomatic silence. What is taking place behind closed doors and in the foreign ministries of US allies and partners can only be imagined.
For Australia, this raises fundamental issues regarding the US alliance. Would Australia be prepared to stand beside the US if it used its economic and military might to acquire Greenland?
Australia has a bipartisan position of both supporting the American alliance and the “rules-based” international order on which the UN is based. AUKUS is founded on these assumptions. Any US economic or military aggression over Greenland may force Australia into making a choice between America or the rule of law.
Donald Rothwell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Young people’s access to gender-affirming medical care has been making headlines this week.
Today, federal Health Minister Mark Butler announced a review into health care for trans and gender-diverse children and adolescents. The National Health and Medical Research council will conduct the review.
Yesterday, The Australian published an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese calling for a federal inquiry, and a nationwide pause on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors.
This followed Queensland Health Minister Tim Nicholls earlier this week announcing an immediate pause on access to puberty blockers and hormone therapies for new patients under 18 in the state’s public health system, pending a review.
In the United States, President Donald Trump signed an executive order this week directing federal agencies to restrict access to gender-affirming care for anyone under 19.
This recent wave of political attention might imply gender-affirming care for young people is risky, controversial, perhaps even new.
But Australian courts have already extensively tested questions about its legitimacy, the conditions under which it can be provided, and the scope and limits of parental powers to authorise it.
What are puberty blockers?
Puberty blockers suppress the release of oestrogen and testosterone, which are primarily responsible for the physical changes associated with puberty. They are generally safe and used in paediatric medicine for various conditions, including precocious (early) puberty, hormone disorders and some hormone-sensitive cancers.
International and domestic standards of care state that puberty blockers are reversible, non-harmful, and can prevent young people from experiencing the distress of undergoing a puberty that does not align with their gender identity. They also give young people time to develop the maturity needed to make informed decisions about more permanent medical interventions further down the line.
Young people in Australia need a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria to receive this care. Gender dysphoria is defined as the psychological distress that can arise when a person’s gender identity does not align with their sex assigned at birth. This diagnosis is only granted after an exhaustive and often onerous medical assessment.
After a diagnosis, treatment may involve hormones such as oestrogen or testosterone and/or puberty-blocking medications.
Hormone therapies involving oestrogen and testosterone are only prescribed in Australia once a young person has been deemed capable of giving informed consent, usually around the age of 16. For puberty blockers, parents can consent at a younger age.
Gender dysphoria comes with considerable psychological distress. slexp880/Shutterstock
Can a child legally access puberty blockers?
Gender-affirming care has been the subject of extensive debate in the Family Court of Australia (now the Federal Circuit and Family Court).
In research for my forthcoming book, I found the Family Court has heard at least 99 cases about a young person’s gender-affirming care since 2004. Across these cases, the court examined the potential risks of gender-affirming treatment and considered whether parents should have the authority to consent on their child’s behalf.
When determining whether parents can consent to a particular medical procedure for their child, the court must consider whether the treatment is “therapeutic” and whether there is a significant risk of a wrong decision being made.
However, in a landmark 2017 case, the court ruled that judicial oversight was not required because gender-affirming treatments meet the standards of normal medical care.
Sometimes parents disagree with decisions about gender-affirming care made by their child, or each other.
As with all forms of health care, under Australian law, parents and legal guardians are responsible for making medical decisions on behalf of their children. That responsibility usually shifts once those children reach a sufficient age and level of maturity to make their own decisions.
However, in another landmark case in 2020, the court ruled gender-affirming treatments cannot be given to minors without consent from both parents, even if the child is capable of providing their own consent. This means that if there is any disagreement among parents and the young person about either their capacity to consent or the legitimacy of the treatment, only a judge can authorise it.
In such instances, the court must assess whether the proposed treatment is in the child’s best interests and make a determination accordingly. Again, these principals apply today.
Across the at least 99 cases the court has heard about gender-affirming care since 2004, 17 have involved a parent opposing the treatment and one has involved neither parent supporting it.
Regardless of parental support, in every case, the court has been responsible for determining whether gender-affirming treatment was in the child’s best interests. These decisions were based on medical evidence, expert testimony, and the specific circumstances of the young person involved.
In all cases bar one, the court has found overwhelming evidence to support gender-affirming care, and approved it.
Supporting transgender young people
The history of Australia’s legal debates about gender-affirming care show it has already been the subject of intense legal and medical scrutiny.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14. For LGBTQIA+ peer support and resources, you can also contact Switchboard, QLife (call 1800 184 527), Queerspace, Transcend Australia (support for trans, gender-diverse, and non-binary young people and their families) or Minus18 (resources and community support for LGBTQIA+ young people).
Matthew Mitchell has a contract with Bristol University Press for a forthcoming book on the legal regulation of gender-affirming hormones for transgender young people in Australia.
Long live the king and long may he reign, so goes the traditional proclamation. In Tonga, King Tupou VI has shown he has every intention of doing that.
After a tumultuous and tense year of the chess board of politics, the monarch appears to have won, with ordinary citizens and democratic rule taking a backward step.
With the swearing in of Tonga’s new cabinet, including the appointment of his son Crown Prince Tupouto’a ‘Ulukalaka from outside Parliament to the defence and foreign affairs portfolios, the king has triumphed.
It’s almost 12 months since the king withdrew “confidence and consent” in then prime minister Siaosi Sovaleni, as armed forces minister, along with Fekita ‘Utoikamanu, the country’s first female foreign affairs minister. The move appeared to overstep the reduced royal powers outlined in the country’s 2010 constitution.
No details for the withdrawal of confidence and consent were disclosed. Noticeably neither Sovaleni or ‘Ulukalaka are aristocrats and the roles of foreign affairs and defense have traditionally been held by a male noble or members of the royal family.
Last February, Tupou VI acted against Sovaleni while he was overseas, seeking medical treatment. His cabinet responded by rejecting the king’s position, issuing a legal opinion from Tonga’s attorney general stating it was “contrary” to the constitution.
One thing seemed to be clear, that Tupou VI was reasserting his role in the affairs of state in a way not seen since the constitutional reform in 2010.
King has his way A year later, and the king has had his way. Solaveni stood down as prime minister on Christmas Eve as he faced a no confidence motion in Parliament. It would likely have passed with the support of a bloc of noble MPs, appointed by the king, allied with opposition members.
Now Tonga faces an uncertain nine months with newly elected Prime Minister ‘Aisake Eke at the reins until elections in November. The 65-year-old was formally appointed by Tupou VI as Tonga’s 19th prime minister at the Nuku’alofa Palace, after he was elected by Parliament in December.
The much awaited announcement of who would be in cabinet was delayed several times, with the process of getting the king to approve each minister taking much longer than usual or expected.
The prime minister has the power to recommend up to four people outside parliament to his ministry, and he did, including the crown prince. He also recommended two women — ‘Ana ‘Akau’ola as Minister of Health and Sinaitakala Tu’itahi as Minister of Internal Affairs — the most ever in cabinet.
Tonga in 2010 amended its constitution to remove many of the monarch’s powers and allowed elections after more than 150 years of absolute rule. The move to greater democracy occurred with the cooperation of the then monarch George V.
The nation of about 107,000 people is the only Pacific island nation with an Indigenous monarch.
Previously, the monarch had almost absolute power with the right to appoint the prime minister, cabinet ministers and members of parliament, except nine MPs elected as the peoples’ representatives.
King retains some powers Under the new constitution, cabinet ministers are appointed or removed by the king on the prime minister’s recommendation, or a vote of no confidence in Parliament. But the king — defined as a sacred person in Tonga’s constitution — retained some powers including veto over government legislation and the right to appoint about a third of Parliament’s members, who are nobles.
Another major constitutional change was to increase the number of elected people’s representatives from nine to 17, while the number of noble representatives remained at nine. This meant that if the people’s representatives could stand together on any issue, they could form a majority and dominate the 26-seat chamber.
But that has not often been the case in the past 15 years, with the people’s representatives at odds with each other. As a result the nobles have held the balance of power, as in the recent standoff in Parliament over the proposed vote of no confidence that led to the eventual resignation of Sovaleni.
The group of MPs that came together to eventually force his exit were not united by a political vision, and were not so much “pro-Eke” as “anti-Sovaleni.”
Seven of the nine nobles voting against then former prime minister Sovaleni in December was a clear sign of the involvement of the king in this latest political turmoil. The nobles almost always act in Parliament according to what they understand as “the wish of His Majesty.”
“I hope there will be a time when we’ll work together,” he said pointedly, acknowledging the noble representatives.
‘There’s still enslavement’ “I thought this land had been granted freedom, but there’s still enslavement,” Sovaleni continued through tears. He added that he was quitting “for the good of the country and moving Tonga forward.”
Sovaleni suggested that the people’s representatives should see this as an opportunity to collaborate. “If the nobles can pull themselves together, I don’t know why can’t we overcome our differences,” he said.
Eke after his election travelled to New Zealand for an audience with the king, but the king decided to take his time. What used to be a prompt and routine formality to swear in the government and cabinet was delayed. And a month later the king now has what he sought in February last year.
The late George V declared that the 2010 reform was to make Tonga “more democratic”. Despite these changes, Tonga’s taste of democracy under his brother has, in the past 15 years, been a bitter-sweet journey that started with good intentions, but has now turned from bad to ugly.
Tongan-born Kalafi Moala has been a journalist and author for 35 years, establishing the country’s first independent newspaper, Taimi ‘o Tonga, writing on the country’s social, cultural and political history, and campaigning for media freedom at home and in the Pacific region. This article was first published by BenarNews and is republished with permission.
On Wednesday night US time, a passenger jet and US Army helicopter collided at a low altitude near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, and crashed into the the Potomac River.
A total of 60 passengers – including US and Russian champion figure skaters – and four crew were on board the American Airlines flight AA5342 from Wichita, Kansas. Three military personnel were in the chopper, which was conducting a routine training flight. Authorities say no one on board either aircraft survived.
This crash comes just over a month after a passenger jet crashed in South Korea – possibly as a result of a bird strike – killing all but two of the 181 people on board. The two incidents have focused attention on aviation safety around the world.
In the case of the most recent tragedy in the US, technology exists that is designed to help pilots avoid midair collisions with other aircraft. It is known as the Traffic Collision Avoidance System – or TCAS.
So how does it work? And why might it have failed to prevent disaster in this case?
What is a TCAS?
A TCAS is an aircraft safety system that monitors the airspace around a plane for other aircraft equipped with transponders. These are devices that listen for and respond to incoming electronic signals.
The system – also sometimes referred to as an ACAS (Airborne Collision Avoidance System) – operates independently of an external air traffic control system. Its purpose is to alert pilots immediately to nearby aircraft and potential midair collisions.
Since the technology was developed in 1974, it has undergone a number of advances.
The first generation technology, known as TCAS I, monitors what’s around an aircraft. It provides information on the bearing and altitude of any nearby aircraft. If there is a risk of collision, it generates what’s known as a “Traffic Advisory” – or TA. When a TA is issued, the pilot is notified of the threat, but must themselves determine the best evasive action to take.
The second generation technology, known as TCAS II, goes a step further: it provides a pilot with specific instructions on how to avoid a collision with a nearby aircraft or conflict with traffic, either by descending, climbing, turning or adjusting their speed.
These newer systems are also able to communicate with each other. This ensures the advice given to each aircraft is coordinated.
Any aircraft used for commercial purposes must be equipped with a TCAS in accordance with international regulations under what’s known as the Chicago Convention. There are specific provisions under the convention for noncommercial aircraft.
Military helicopters are not subject to the provisions of the Chicago Convention (although they are subject to domestic laws and regulations). And there are reports the military helicopter did not have a TCAS system on board.
Limitations of TCAS at low altitudes
Regardless of whether the military helicopter involved in the crash was fitted with a TCAS, the technology still has limitations. In particular, it is inhibited at altitudes below roughly 300 metres.
The last recorded altitude of American Airlines flight AA5342 was roughly 90 metres. The last recorded altitude of the US military helicopter that collided with the plane was roughly 60 metres.
It is not an accident that a TCAS is inhibited at low altitudes. In fact, this is part of the design of the technology.
This is primarily because the system relies on radio altimeter data, which measures altitude and becomes less accurate near the ground. This could potentially result in unreliable collision-avoidance instructions.
Another issue is that an aircraft at such a low altitude cannot descend any further to avoid a collision.
The site of several near misses
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is one of the busiest airports in the United States. Commercial, military and private aircraft share very limited airspace and corridors.
For example, in April 2024, a commercial plane pilot coming into land had to take evasive action to avoid a helicopter that was roughly 100 metres beneath it. In an incident report, the pilot said:
We never received a warning of the traffic from (air traffic control) so we were unaware it was there.
Many people, including Democratic US senator Tim Kaine, pointed to this near miss as evidence of why a plan to allow more flights into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport should not proceed. Despite this, the plan was approved the following month.
All of this will undoubtedly be examined as part of the investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board into this disaster.
Chrystal Zhang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
We were polarised by the United States last week, but in the same way that a windscreen wiper distracts you from the rain, our Pacific news cycle and local coconut wireless became dominated by a whirlwind of speculation after New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters announced a review of New Zealand’s aid to Kiribati.
This followed what was perceived as a snub by our President Taneti Maamau.
The New Zealand media, in its typical fashion, seized the opportunity to patronise Kiribati, and the familiar whispers about Chinese influence began to circulate.
Amidst this media manufactured drama, I found myself reflecting on “that” recent experience which offered stark contrast to the geopolitical noise.
We had the privilege of attending the ordination of a Catholic Priest in Onotoa, where the true spirit of Kiribati was exemplified in the splendour of simplicity. Despite limited resources, the island community, representing various faiths, came together to celebrate this sacred event with unparalleled joy, hilariousness and hospitality from silent hands that blessed you with love.
Hands that built thatched huts for us to sleep in, wove mats, cooked food, made pillows and hung bananas in maneabas to provide for guests from all over Kiribati and Nauru. Our President, himself a Protestant, had prioritised and actively participated, embodying by example, the unity and peace that Bishop Simon Mani so eloquently spoke of.
We laughed, we cried, and we felt the spirit of our loving God.
Spirit of harmony That spirit of harmony and hope we carried from recent experiences felt shaken overnight by news of New Zealand’s potential aid withdrawal. Social media in Kiribati erupted with questions and concerns, fuelled by an article claiming that New Zealand was halting aid due to President Maamau “snubbing” of Deputy Prime Minister Peters.
Importantly: President Maamau would never in a millennium intentionally “snub” New Zealand or any foreign minister. The reality is far more nuanced.
At the end of 2024, President Maamau announced to his Cabinet Ministers that he would delegate international bilateral engagements to Vice-President Dr Teuea Toatu or other Ministers and Ambassadors appropriately. Thereby enabling him to focus intently on domestic matters, including the workplan for our national necessities outlined in the KV20 vision and 149 deliverables of his party manifesto.
NZ’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters . . . his spat with Kiribati described as a “storm in a teacup”. Image: RNZ/Reece Baker
While the Vice-President was prepared to receive the New Zealand delegation, it seems Minister Peters was insistent on meeting with the President himself, leading to the cancellation of his trip.
This insistence on bypassing established protocol is not only unusual but also, well let’s just say it with as much love as possible: It’s disrespectful to Kiribati’s sovereignty.
It is also worth noting that the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia recently visited Kiribati and engaged with the Vice-President and Cabinet Ministers without any such reluctance.
New Zealand’s subsequent announcement of an aid review, including a potential threat to the $2 million funded RSE scheme, has understandably caused serious anxiety in Kiribati.
Devastating impact The potential loss of funding for critical sectors like health, education, fisheries, economic development and climate resilience would of course have a devastating impact on our people.
After committing $102 million between 2021-2024 these are major threats to public health where $20 million was invested in initiatives like rebuilding the Betio Hospital, training doctors, building clinics, NCD strategic planning and more, $10 million in education, $4 million in developing the fisheries sector, it’s an expansive and highly impactful list of critical support for capacity strengthening to our country.
While New Zealand has every right to review its aid programme to Kiribati or any developing country, it is crucial that these kinds of decisions are based on genuine development processes and not used as a tool for political pressure.
Linking Pacific aid to access to political leaders sets a questionable precedent and undermines the principles of partnership, mutual respect and “mana” that underpins the inextricably linked relationships between Pacific nations.
The reference to potential impacts on I-Kiribati workers in New Zealand under the RSE scheme is particularly concerning. These hardworking individuals contribute significantly to the New Zealand economy in a mutually beneficial arrangement.
We deserve to be treated with fairness and respect, not weaponised to cut at the heart of what drives our political motivations — providing for our people, who are providing for our children.
Despite this unfortunate situation, I believe that dialogue and understanding along with truth and love will prevail.
Greater humility needed In the spirit of the “effectiveness, inclusiveness, resilience, and sustainability” that upholds New Zealand’s own development principles, we should all revisit this issue with greater humility and a commitment to resolving such misunderstandings.
As a New Zealand-born, Australian/Tuvaluan, I-Kiribati politician representing the largest constituency in Kiribati, I have zero pride or ego and will never be too proud to beg for the needs of the people I serve, who placed their faith in a government that would put them first.
We would love to host Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and a New Zealand government delegation in Kiribati, and we are indescribably grateful for the kinds of support provided since we gained independence in 1979. Our history stretches back even further than that, when New Zealand’s agricultural industry was nourished by phosphate from Banaba, and we continue to treasure the intertwined links between our nations.
Let us prioritise cooperation and mutual respect over ego and political posturing. Let’s drink fresh coconuts and eat raw fish together and talk about how we can change the world by changing ourselves first.
The “tea party” of Pacific partnership must continue to strengthen, and deepen, ESPECIALLY when challenged to overcome misunderstandings. It should always be one where Pacific voices are heard and respected lovingly, while we work towards a collective vision of health, peace and prosperity for all.
But if development diplomacy ever fails, we’ll remember that I-Kiribati people are some of the most determined and resilient on this planet. Our ancestors navigated to these “isolated isles of the Pacific” surrounded by 3.5 million km of ocean and found “Tungaru” which means “a place of JOY”.
We arrived in this world with nothing, and we’ll leave it with nothing, and we get to live our whole lives not feeling sorry for ourselves in this island paradise of ours, this place of joy, where we are wealthy in ways that money cannot buy.
We will survive
Ruth Maryanne Cross Kwansing was elected an independent member of Parliament in Kiribati in 2024. She later joined the Tobwaan Kiribati Party.
As night falls over Australia’s forests, grasslands and backyards, the hidden world of nocturnal insects stirs to life. In many ecosystems, overall insect activity actually peaks at night, especially in warmer regions of the world.
These nighttime creatures play essential roles in ecosystems, providing services such as pollination, waste decomposition, and pest control. Here are some of the remarkable insects that come out after dark – and why they matter.
Moths: the stars of the night shift
While their flashier daytime relatives, the butterflies, often steal the spotlight, moths are the hidden stars of the night shift.
An estimated 22,000 species of moth call Australia home, and most are nocturnal, although some are diurnal (day active) or crepuscular (active at dawn and dusk).
Many species feed on flower nectar using their long, straw-like mouthparts, transferring pollen between flowers as they go.
In the Snowy Mountains, for instance, scientists found moths carry pollen from 19 different plant species.
While some moths feed on a wide variety of plants, others have evolved highly specialised relationships with specific flowers.
For instance, more than 500 species of leaf flower trees (Phyllanthus) across tropical Asia, Africa, Australia, and the Pacific are dependent on tiny leaf flower moths (Epicephala) for their pollination.
The trees’ flowers attract moths by producing nectar at night, when the moths are most active.
The larvae of moths, caterpillars, also play a vital role in ecosystems. For example, the larvae of Mallee moths (Oecophoridae) feed on dry leaves in the leaf litter, making them essential for the decomposition of tough, dry plant material.
Without their tireless work breaking down organic matter, leaf litter can accumulate to problematic levels.
Although most caterpillars feed on plant material, some have unusual diets. Trisyntopa neossophila caterpillars, for example, feeds on the faeces of parrots nesting in termite mounds.
Some caterpillars are even predators. The larvae of the brown scale moth (Mataeomera coccophaga), for instance, eats scale insects.
Once so abundant they famously blanketed the 2000 Sydney Olympics, large bogong swarms have become increasingly rare, putting at risk species that depend on them for essential nutrients.
Busy night beetles
Seeing the tiny, flashing lights of fireflies dancing through the darkness on a summer night is a magical experience.
Fireflies are actually beetles in the family Lampyridae, and 25 species call Australia home.
Each firefly species uses its own distinctive flash pattern to communicate with potential mates.
When large numbers of the same species gather, they can synchronise their light pulses, creating a breathtaking light show.
The fireflies’ distinctive light is produced through a biochemical reaction involving a molecule called luciferin and an enzyme called luciferase. When these interact in the presence of oxygen, they emit light.
Adult fireflies do not eat but firefly larvae mostly eat snails, which helps keep snail populations under control.
Beetles in the scarab family are often active at night. Large numbers of Christmas beetles (Anoplognathus spp) flying around porch lights used to be a common sight, but numbers appear to be in decline.
Some native dung beetles, such as the five-horned dung beetle (Onthophagus pentacanthus), are also nocturnal. Hardworking dung beetles play a vital role by breaking down animal dung, helping to recycle nutrients and improve soil health.
Lacewings and mantisflies
Lacewings belong to an ancient group of insects (Neuroptera) named for the delicate, lace-like net pattern of veins on their wings.
Most adult lacewings are nocturnal predators, feeding on smaller insects using their hollow, scissor-shaped mouthparts to catch and suck the nutrients from their prey.
Several lacewing species are effective pest controllers and are used in agriculture to manage pests such as aphids and mealybugs.
Mantid lacewings, also known as mantisflies, resemble a strange hybrid between a mantis and a fly but are actually in the same group as lacewings.
The larvae of mantisflies are poorly studied, but most species are believed to be predators of insects, although some are predators of spider eggs. By eating other insects, mantisflies may play a role in controlling pest populations.
Protecting these night shift workers
Artificial lights at night are causing serious disruption to insects on the night shift.
Insects often become disoriented, flying in endless circles around bright lights, burning energy they cannot afford to lose. This confusion can lead to exhaustion or death.
Artificial lighting at night can also disrupt nocturnal insect reproduction. And, predators such as owls and bats may learn to hunt around artificial lights where prey becomes more concentrated and vulnerable.
The exact reasons why nocturnal insects are drawn to light remain unclear, but recent research suggests that some nocturnal insects use light to maintain stable, level flight by orienting their bodies so light hits their upper surface.
This system works well when the only lights present at night are the Moon and stars, but fails when artificial lights disrupt the night.
We can help protect nocturnal insects by:
turning off unnecessary outdoor lights at night, especially during summer when many insects are breeding
using motion-activated lights to reduce light pollution
reducing or eliminating the use of insecticides in our gardens.
Small changes can make a big difference to help protect the insects working hard overnight to keep our ecosystems healthy.
Tanya Latty co-founded and volunteers for conservation organisation Invertebrates Australia, is former president of the Australasian Society for the Study of Animal Behaviour and is on the Education committee for the Australian Entomological Society. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW Saving our Species, and Agrifutures Australia.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sharon McLennan, Senior Research and Teaching Fellow, School of Health, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington
Fiji’s minister of health declared an official HIV outbreak in January, citing 1,093 new cases from January to September 2024 – triple the number from the same period in 2023.
The World Health Organization defines a disease outbreak based on the number of cases being in excess of normal expectations. Similar to an epidemic, an outbreak typically refers to a more limited geographic area.
Declaring an outbreak enables prompt public health response measures and mobilises domestic and international resources to respond to the crisis.
Preliminary Ministry of Health data show half of the newly diagnosed individuals receiving anti-retroviral therapy contracted HIV through injecting drugs.
However, the crisis extends beyond drug use. Increasing urbanisation, homelessness and unemployment, coupled with disconnection from traditional land and culture, contribute to risky health behaviours.
Low HIV awareness and social stigma compound these factors. Many Fijians are reluctant to get tested and, if positive, to receive care. Knowledge of HIV prevention is low: a 2021 survey found less than a third of those aged between 15 and 24 had comprehensive HIV knowledge.
Fiji is a regional hub for education and business, attracting students and economic migrants from across the region. There’s a real risk the virus will spread to other island nations via returning workers and students, potentially undetected for long periods.
Fiji is also a major tourist destination. Unsuspecting visitors, whose fun in the sun extends to drug use or unsafe sexual activities, may be at risk.
There is also a risk of reputational damage for the tourism industry, whose success relies on marketing Fiji as a safe and happy destination. With Fiji still recovering from COVID’s impact on tourism, the new crisis is a major threat.
Fiji is also experiencing significant outward migration (5% net in 2023), mostly to Australia and New Zealand. This raises the risk of virus spread through established migration pathways, including labour mobility policies such as the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme and New Zealand’s Recognised Seasonal Employer schemes.
The HIV surge will be costly for the country and the region. HIV/AIDS strains household finances through lost income and increased healthcare costs, diverts public spending from other areas, with flow-on impacts for national and regional economies.
What is being done to combat the outbreak?
The Ministry of Health’s 90-day HIV Outbreak Response Plan fast-tracks high-impact interventions. These include harm-reduction programs, condom distribution, and prophylactic pre-exposure treatment.
This complements the HIV Surge Strategy 2024–2027, a long-term road map for strengthening Fiji’s health system based on the United Nations’ global “95-95-95” targets: 95% rates of testing, treatment and viral suppression in the population.
However, as the health minister noted, the outbreak declaration “reflects the alarming reality that HIV is evolving faster than our current services can cater for”.
Funding is starting to trickle down to the front lines. For example, with support from Australia and New Zealand, the Fiji Reproductive and Family Health Association is working with experts on awareness, prevention and care strategies to reverse the surge.
Duty of care: Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, 2022. Getty Images
What can Australia and New Zealand do at home?
Both countries bear particular responsibility and face specific risks. Their domestic drug markets drive regional trafficking, fuelling Fiji’s meth crisis and the HIV outbreak.
Continued support for regional anti-narcotics initiatives is crucial, as is addressing domestic drug demand.
As beneficiaries of Fijian labour migration, Australia and New Zealand also have a duty of care for migrants. This includes education, screening and treatment for Pacific communities, and access to preventive treatments which are currently not funded for migrants in either country.
Finally, tourists and travellers need to be educated about the risks, and take precautions.
The outbreak declaration demonstrates Fiji’s commitment to addressing the crisis but success will require regional cooperation.
Australia and New Zealand are key stakeholders whose domestic policies and support can significantly affect the outbreak’s trajectory, contribute to a unified Pacific response and protect regional public health.
Sharon McLennan gratefully acknowledges the valuable input and guidance of Avendra Prakash (Chair, Reproductive & Family Health Association of Fiji), Dr Akisi Ravono (University of Fiji) and Dr Johanna Thomas-Maude (Victoria University of Wellington).
Sharon McLennan receives funding from the Royal Society Te Apārangi.
If you scroll through YouTube and watch sporting contests from yesteryear, one of the first things you’ll likely notice is how slow the games are compared to modern sports.
Not just the athletes’ speed (or lack of), but the pace of ball movement.
There is no universal definition of game speed, but it is often measured using metrics such as passing rate, ball velocity or average player movement speed during games.
Faster ball and average player speeds have been shown in many field sports including AFL, soccer and basketball.
Faster action followed by longer recovery breaks is the way many sports have evolved over the past few decades.
In National Hockey League ice hockey games, for example, there are around 300 player rotations (shifts) per team. Shift lengths decreased by 7% to about 45 seconds each during a 10-year period to 2010 as the game sped up.
Shorter shifts mean higher game speed before players can recover on the bench.
Spectators report a preference for fast action and seem happy to have this interrupted by longer breaks as players catch their breath.
What about speed in soccer?
I recently studied this phenomenon in World Cup soccer matches. I found passing rates and ball speed were consistently increasing for both men and women over multiple World Cup tournaments.
The study showed passing rates increased by 19% for men and 26% for women across the past nine tournaments. Average ball speed increased by 7% for men and 18% for women over the same time.
It is clear men’s and women’s soccer matches are speeding up.
The benefits of fast attacking play
The need for speed is driven by scoring benefits: if a team can move the ball often and with accuracy, this reduces the time for opposition teams to organise defensively.
Disorganised defensive structures are easier to penetrate, as gaps open among opposition players.
For example, faster passing rates in basketball have been linked to more scoring attempts and baskets scored. This is especially crucial after a turnover, when defences are poorly organised.
Faster play requires quick and precise decision-making, such as perfect timing to move to the best position to receive the ball, or to draw dangerous opposition players away from the action.
This quicker play requires delivering better skills at high speeds, such as catching or trapping the ball on the run. It involves anticipating where to move and when to react with stealth-like movements.
It also involves greater physical fitness and the ability to repeat high-intensity efforts – a fitter player can recover quicker and accumulate less fatigue. This can help the athlete use optimal power and with fewer skill errors.
On top of that, evidence shows player “density” is increasing in many field sports, which both reduces the time to react and mandates superior skills in the congested player traffic.
Accurate passing and precision timing through this crowded space is essential.
Even moving your own body through clogged space requires agility and power. Because of this, much of the training time for professionals is dedicated to games on reduced field space to improve these requirements and to refine decision-making skills.
In elite sport, those who are efficient in these areas generally remain in the sport while others fall by the wayside.
Managers in the English Premier League look for a minimal passing efficiency (finding a teammate with each pass) of 70%. Less than this can have disastrous consequences for the athlete.
Moving offensively with speed means the attacking team is also vulnerable to counterattack if they lose possession: when an attacking team turns the ball over, they, in turn, are out of (defensive) position and vulnerable to quick movement by the opposition.
So knowing when to move fast and when to progress more steadily are also key skills and regularly rehearsed.
Colliding with opposition players involves increased kinetic energy that must be absorbed by athletes’ bodies. This can result in bone fractures and concussion rates that are elevated with fast impact forces.
The increasing speed of sports could have several impacts in the future, namely in the talent identification and player recruitment space, and in women’s sports.
Due to genetic constraints, athletes generally can’t improve their speed as easily as other physical attributes like endurance or strength. This means recruiters are likely to prioritise fast athletes in a spiralling pace race.
In some sports, including our soccer study, the speed of women’s sport was found to be increasing at a faster rate than men’s.
Over a comparatively short history of professional sport, women have demonstrated dramatic and impressive gains. This may mean the speed and style of women’s sports will increasingly resemble the speed and style of the men’s games.
Kevin Norton has received funding from sporting organisations including AFL, NRL, ARU, IRB, ESL.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shelley J. Walker, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Justice Health, National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University
Many of us have tried to move on quickly from the pandemic, putting lockdowns and restrictions far behind us.
But for some Australians, this hasn’t been possible. Among the pandemic’s lingering impacts is the burden of outstanding fines, issued for breaking COVID restrictions.
Our new research involved surveys and in-depth interviews with people who used drugs during the pandemic. They reported feeling targeted by police and even harassed while trying to access drug treatments – and years later, many still have fines they’re unable to pay.
This is not the case in Victoria. In June 2023, around 30,000 fines were outstanding in Victoria, and to our knowledge the situation hasn’t changed since then.
Feeling targeted
We know that people who use drugs already face increased police scrutiny in general, due to the criminalisation of drug use.
We conduct two long-term studies with people who use drugs in Victoria, which involves participating in an annual survey.
During the pandemic we asked additional questions about people’s interactions with police. Between March 2020 and May 2022, 1,130 participants responded to our survey.
Our new research found one in ten reported being stopped by police.
A third of these received at least one COVID-related fine – mostly for breaking curfews, failing to wear a face mask or breaching travel restrictions – a rate we calculated as nearly three times higher than the general population.
However, this is a crude estimate, as accurate data on the numbers of fines in the general population is not publicly available.
Of those who received fines, most were unemployed, more than a quarter were in unstable housing or homeless, and more than half had been to prison.
We also did in-depth interviews with 76 participants. Many told us they felt the pandemic gave police an “excuse” to target them, leading to serious and lasting effects on their lives.
Fined while accessing services
Interactions with police were described as fraught with discrimination and harassment. Participants reported being stopped, searched and fined while trying to go about their daily lives. This may be partly because their circumstances meant they were more likely to be using public spaces – and therefore were more visible to police.
Daniel, aged 41, was fined $1,652 for breaching COVID rules he told us he didn’t understand. He said:
it was so obvious they were looking for drugs – it felt like they were doing everything they could to find a reason to fine us.
For people who use drugs, accessing harm-reduction services and drug treatment programs (such as methadone to replace opioids) is vital to their health. Some participants told us they were fined while doing so, despite carrying medical exemptions.
Natasha, aged 39, was homeless. She said she was fined while travelling to a needle and syringe program, despite being within the permitted travel zone.
Police issued her a fine for leaving the home for non-essential purposes. Natasha found the situation absurd, asking “how can you be (fined for being) outside if you sleep outside?”
Ryan, aged 45, was fined $1,800 while collecting methadone. He described the encounter as “humiliating” and unnecessary, saying police appeared more interested in finding drugs than enforcing public health measures.
The financial and emotional toll
In our study, the financial burden of COVID fines was devastating.
Most could not afford to pay fines or lacked the confidence to navigate appeals processes to contest them, leading to further entanglement with the criminal legal system.
For example, Sally, who received multiple fines while collecting her methadone during the pandemic, said:
at the end of the day, they’re government authority and I’m a nobody – the chances of me winning would be slim to none.
As a result, unpaid fines for some reportedly led to court orders, some were arrested, and a few even reported serving prison time.
The emotional toll was equally severe, with feelings of being targeted and harassed by police further eroding their trust in public institutions.
The Conversation contacted Victoria Police about our study, noting participants thought police were using the pandemic as an excuse to target them.
In response, a police spokesperson said: “At the time officers were performing duties on behalf of the Chief Health Officer’s direction.”
The burden can be lifted
Public health responses should be designed to protect people, not punish them. As we move forward, it is crucial to address the lasting impacts of COVID fines.
Shelley Walker is the recipient of an ARC Discovery Early Career Award (project number DE240101056) funded by the Australian Government. The study presented in this article was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council NHMRC (#2003255). The SuperMIX and VMAX studies are funded by the NHMRC; #545891, #1126090, #1148170)
Paul Dietze receives funding from the NHMRC and government and non-government organisations for the conduct of research into the impacts of alcohol and other drug use.
Lisa Maher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In February 1995, a small research organisation known as the SETI Institute launched what was then the most comprehensive search for an answer to a centuries-old question: are we alone in the universe?
This Sunday marks the 30th anniversary of the first astronomical observations conducted for the search, named Project Phoenix. These observations were done at the Parkes Observatory on Wiradjuri country in the central west of New South Wales, Australia – home to one of the world’s largest radio telescopes.
But Project Phoenix was lucky to get off the ground.
Three years earlier, NASA had commenced an ambitious decade-long, US$100 million Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). However, in 1993, the United States Congress cut all funding for the program because of the growing US budget deficit. Plus, SETI sceptics in Congress derided the program as a far-fetched search for “little green men”.
Fortunately, the SETI Institute secured enough private donations to revive the project – and Project Phoenix rose from the ashes.
Listening for radio signals
If there is life elsewhere, it is natural to assume it evolved over many million years on a planet orbiting a long-lived star similar to our Sun. So SETI searches usually target the nearest Sun-like stars, listening for radio signals that are either being deliberately beamed our way, or are techno-signatures radiating from another planet.
Techno-signatures are confined to a narrow range of frequencies and produced by the technologies an advanced civilisation like ours might use.
Astronomers use radio waves as they can penetrate the clouds of gas and dust in our galaxy. They can also travel over large distances without excessive power requirements.
As the largest single-dish radio telescope in the southern hemisphere, it is also the natural facility to use for SETI targets in the southern skies.
While Project Phoenix planned to use several large telescopes around the world, these facilities were undergoing major upgrades. So it was at Parkes that the observing program started.
On February 2 1995, Murriyang pointed towards a carefully chosen star 49 light-years from Earth in the constellation of, naturally, Phoenix. This was the first observation conducted as part of the project.
The focus cabin of Murriyang, the Parkes telescope, with the Flag of Earth, much favoured by SETI researchers. CSIRO Radio Astronomy Image Archive, CC BY-NC
A logistical and technological success
Project Phoenix was led by Jill Tarter, a renowned SETI researcher who spent many long nights at Parkes overseeing observations during the 16 weeks dedicated to the search. (Jodie Foster’s character in the 1998 movie Contact was largely based on Jill.)
The Project Phoenix team brought a trailer full of computers with state-of-the-art touch screen technology to process the data.
Bogong moths caused some early interruptions to the processing. These large, nocturnal moths were attracted to light from computer screens, flying into them with enough force to change settings.
Over 16 weeks, the Project Phoenix team observed 209 stars using Murriyang at frequencies between 1,200 and 3,000 mega-hertz. They searched for both continuous and pulsing signals to maximise the chance of finding genuine signals of alien life.
Jill Tarter in the Parkes telescope control room. CSIRO Radio Astronomy Image Archive, CC BY-NC
Radio telescopes are able to detect the faint radio emissions from distant celestial objects. But they are also sensitive to radio waves produced in modern society (our own techno-signatures) by mobile phones, Bluetooth connections, aircraft radar and GPS satellites.
These kinds of local interference can mimic the kinds of signal SETI searches are looking for. So distinguishing between the two is crucial.
To do this, Project Phoenix decided to use a second radio telescope some distance away for an independent check of any signals detected. CSIRO provided access to its 22 metre Mopra radio telescope, about 200 kilometres north of Parkes, to follow up signal candidates in real time.
Over the 16 weeks, the team detected a total of 148,949 signals at Parkes – roughly 80% of which could be easily dismissed as local signals. The team checked a little over 18,000 signals at both Parkes and Mopra. Only 39 passed all tests and looked like strong SETI candidates. But on closer inspection the team identified them as coming from satellites.
Although no evidence for an [extraterrestrial intelligence] signal was found, no mysterious or unexplained signals were left behind and the Australian deployment was a logistical and technological success.
From left to right: journalist Robyn Williams, Jill Tarter, Australia Telescope National Facility Director, Ron Ekers, and Parkes Observatory Officer-in-Charge, Marcus Price, prior to the start of Project Phoenix. CSIRO Radio Astronomy Image Archive, CC BY-NC
The next generation of radio telescopes
When Project Phoenix ended in 2004, project manager Peter Backus concluded “we live in a quiet neighbourhood”.
But efforts are continuing to search for alien life with greater sensitivity, over a wider frequency range, and for more targets.
Breakthrough Listen aims to examine one million of the closest stars and 100 closest galaxies.
One unexpected signal detected at Parkes in 2019 as part of this project was examined in painstaking detail before it was concluded that it too was a locally generated signal.
The next generation of radio telescopes will provide a leap in sensitivity compared to facilities today – benefitting from greater collecting area, improved resolution and superior processing capabilities.
Examples of these next generation radio telescopes include the SKA-Low telescope, under construction in Western Australia, and the SKA-Mid telescope, being built in South Africa. They will be used to answer a wide variety of astronomical questions – including whether there is life beyond Earth.
the most fascinating, interesting thing you could find in the universe is not another kind of star or galaxy … but another kind of life.
Project Phoenix used Murriyang, the CSIRO Parkes radio-telescope, under contract for the work described in this article. I work for CSIRO, but joined in 2006 after this project had been completed.
I’m at the park with my daughter, who is jumping in and out of puddles, splashing, shrieking at me (Mum! Look what I can do!), as I read frantically, taking one-handed notes on my phone (Mum! Look at this!). Part of me wishes I could enjoy with her this moment of pleasure in movement. The other, more insistent part is thinking about this essay: where to start, what to say, how to sum up the extraordinary legacy of the book I’m re-reading, Virginia Woolf’s Mrs Dalloway, which this year marks 100 years since its first publication in 1925. How am I supposed to write about this book?
If you were to read a synopsis, it might seem like a book purely for an academic specialist (which, admittedly, I am). One day in London in June 1923, an ageing rich woman, Clarissa Dalloway, prepares to give a party. Across town, a shell-shocked Great War veteran, Septimus Warren Smith, loses his grip on sanity. Between them oscillate other characters: Clarissa’s former lover Peter Walsh, Clarissa’s husband Richard and daughter Elizabeth, Elizabeth’s tutor Doris Kilman, Septimus’s wife Rezia, and his doctors Holmes and Bradshaw.
Like that other modernist monument, James Joyce’s Ulysses (1922), Mrs Dalloway is explicitly quotidian. It follows ordinary people through ordinary activities on an ordinary day – shopping, walking in the park, riding the bus, going to appointments, mending a dress. As Woolf’s characters go about their day, scenes and impressions are filtered through their individual consciousnesses, threaded together with language, images and memories.
The novel opens with the famous line “Mrs Dalloway said she would buy the flowers herself”, a sentence remarkable for its banality, as well as for its commitment to the in medias res plunge into life that Woolf was so keen on. The iconic status of the line is demonstrated by the number of online parodies it inspires, perhaps only surpassed by William Carlos Williams’s poem This Is Just To Say, which has become a verified meme.
A new seam
On Good Friday 1924, Woolf wrote on a page of the manuscript she was drafting – then called “The Hours” – that “I will write whatever I want to write.” She could write whatever she wanted to write because she owned her own publishing house, The Hogarth Press. The actual press was in the basement of her suburban Richmond home.
Mrs Dalloway was the second of Woolf’s novels to be self-published in this way. Being a small-press publisher allowed her to experiment formally in ways that would have been impossible if she was working with a mainstream publisher. In A Writer’s Diary, she describes her process as both exploratory and technical. On August 30, 1923, she wrote: “I dig out beautiful caves behind my characters”. Later, in October 1924: “I practise writing; do my scales”.
I recently co-hosted a conference here in Hobart, which included a panel on contemporary Tasmanian experimental writing. The writers who spoke that day talked of the struggle to place work that pushed the boundaries of form and genre. A hundred years after Woolf’s efforts to unearth what she called a new “seam”, commercial imperatives continue to constrain writers and their work.
Despite Woolf’s refusal to compromise with mainstream tastes, Mrs Dalloway was well received. Her contemporaries recognised the novel’s importance immediately. “An intellectual triumph”, proclaimed P.C. Kennedy in the New Statesman; “a cathedral”, pronounced E.M. Forster in the New Criterion.
It sold moderately well: 1,500 copies within about a month of its publication on May 14 – more than her prior novel, Jacob’s Room, had sold in a year. Her biographer Hermione Lee records that in 1926 income from writing allowed Woolf and her husband Leonard to install a hot water range and toilet at their country home.
Woolf’s novel was revolutionary for its depiction of same-sex attraction and mental illness, as well as for its challenge to the novel form and representation of time. Clarissa remembers the jolt of desire she felt as an 18-year-old for her friend Sally Seton, who kisses her on the terrace of her house at Bourton:
the most exquisite moment of her whole life passing a stone urn with flowers in it. Sally stopped; picked a flower; kissed her on the lips. The whole world might have turned upside down! The others disappeared; there she was alone with Sally. And she felt that she had been given a present, wrapped up, and told just to keep it, not to look at it – a diamond, something infinitely precious, wrapped up, which, as they walked (up and down, up and down), she uncovered, or the radiance burnt through, the revelation, the religious feeling!
Clarissa, made “virginal” in middle age by illness and marital boredom, is surprised by this irrupting memory. She connects it to her sense of joy in life itself: “the moment of this June morning on which was the pressure of all the other mornings […] collecting the whole of her at one point”.
Clarissa and Septimus Smith – though they never meet – are shadow versions of each other. Both have beaky noses, thin pale birdlike bodies, and histories of illness.
Septimus, so capable as a soldier in the Great War, buries the trauma of seeing his commanding officer Evans killed, only to have it resurface in visual and aural hallucinations, of Evans behind the trees, and birds singing in Greek. He perceives, as Clarissa does, the burden of the past upon the present, and he suffers as a result of the coercion of the social system – what Woolf’s narrator ironises as the sister goddesses Conversion and Proportion.
“Worshipping proportion […] made England prosper”, because proportion forbids despair, illness, and emotional extremes. Conversion, the strong arm of Empire, “offers help, but desires power; smites out of her way roughly the dissentient, the dissatisfied”. Conversion “loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will”. Together, they suck the life from those who cannot or will not comply with them.
For Septimus, who has witnessed the dreadful disproportion of the war, ordinary social life becomes a torturous pressure cooker, a “gradual drawing together of everything to one centre before his eyes, as if some horror had come almost to the surface and was about to burst into flames”. A reviewer for the Times Literary Supplement emphasised this aspect of its experimentalism:
Watching Mrs Woolf’s experiment, certainly one of the hardest and very subtly planned, one reckons up its cost. To get the whole value of the present you must enhance it, perhaps, with the past.
Watching my daughter lark about is shadowed by the two surgeries she had in early childhood to correct her developmental hip dysplasia. I hear her screech with joy in the park, rocketing about freely; I hear her scream in pain in the hospital, encased in plaster from the midsection down. As Woolf knew, the past and the present are experienced within us simultaneously.
Doubled experience
“In this book I have almost too many ideas,” Woolf wrote in her diary on June 19, 1923. “I want to give life and death, sanity and insanity; I want to criticise the social system, and to show it at work, at its most intense.”
Woolf’s ideas have inspired scores of interpretations, focusing on time, space, reality, psychology, domesticity, history, sexual relations, politics, fashion, the environment, health and illness. She is now probably the most written-about 20th century English author. I can remember vividly first reading this novel as an undergraduate, after which I devoured Woolf’s revolutionary 1929 essay A Room of One’s Own, which criticised the educational, economic and social constraints that prevented women, in many instances, from writing anything at all.
Cover of the first edition of A Room of One’s Own (1929). Public domain.
Woolf, of course, could and did write. This was a function, as she knew, of her financial and class privilege. Feminist politics has progressed beyond Woolf, but she laid one of the foundation stones. In her fiction, she modelled a method of writing that critiques patriarchal thinking. She focuses our attention on overlooked individuals and their inner lives, and she splendidly undoes the Victorian conception of plot.
The same year Woolf published Mrs Dalloway, she also published her important collection of essays, The Common Reader. The first piece in that book, on the medieval letters of the Paston family, describes the illumination cast by these ordinary, non-literary pieces of writing:
Like all collections of letters, they seem to hint that we need not care overmuch for the fortunes of individuals. The family will go on, whether Sir John lives or dies. It is their method to heap up in mounds of insignificant and often dismal dust the innumerable trivialities of daily life, as it grinds itself out, year after year. And then suddenly they blaze up; the day shines out, complete, alive, before our eyes.
Mrs Dalloway encompasses this doubled experience of insignificance and blazing life. Woolf writes of the past emerging into the present day and the present’s capacity to reshape the past. In her diary, she called this her “tunnelling process, by which I tell the past in instalments, as I have need of it”.
In tunnelling through narrative, digging out caves behind her characters, Woolf flung out a lot of what seems to be dust – buying flowers, ogling girls, table manners and weight gain, advertising, letter writing, doctor’s appointments, eating eclairs in a department store cafe. The novel reminds us of these moments’ triviality, and their significance, through repeated reference to the bells and clocks of London striking the hour.
This is why the opening line – and the novel as a whole – is so remarkable. It catches drops of shimmering reality from moments that can so easily go unremarked. This, Woolf knew, was what writing needed to do: to stop time. As she wrote of the Pastons’ letters: “There is the ancient day, spread out before us, hour by hour.”
Her metaphor shows that Woolf’s thinking about time also had a spatial dimension. These two dimensions of space and time structure Mrs Dalloway’s theme and method, As David Daiches explained in his 1939 book The Novel and the Modern World, Woolf first links a series of different perspectives through a single shared moment in time – marked by the sound of the bells – then switches to an individual perspective, anchored in space, and moves through that individual’s memories.
Woolf wrote in her diary that “the caves shall connect and each comes to daylight at the present moment.” Daiches diagrammed these relations in time and space as a series of connected trees, arguing that they illustrated the novel’s concern with “the importance of contact and at the same time the necessity of keeping the self inviolable, of the extremes of isolation and domination”.
A legacy of inspiration
Since its publication, Mrs Dalloway has continued to inspire. For second-wave feminism, Woolf was a touchstone. Since the 1970s, she has enjoyed an unparalleled position in the history of 20th century letters, inspiring the recovery of other contemporaneous women writers connected with the Bloomsbury group.
Michael Cunningham’s The Hours, Robin Lippincott’s Mr Dalloway and John Lanchester’s Mr Phillips all appeared in the three years between 1998 and 2000, all of them reflecting Woolf’s legacy, tacitly or explicitly.
Because of the Oscar-winning film adaptation by Stephen Daldry, Cunningham’s novel is the most recognisable of these three. The Hours revises Mrs Dalloway through the stories of three women: Virginia Woolf herself; Laura Brown, a 1950s housewife who reads Mrs Dalloway; and Clarissa Vaughan, nicknamed Mrs Dalloway by her former lover Richard, for whom she throws a literary party.
Cunningham’s novel counterpoints, as Woolf did, the work of living with the work of art. The homemaker Laura Brown tries to bake a cake to equal a work of art, hoping “to be as satisfied and as filled with anticipation as a writer putting down the first sentence, a builder beginning to draw the plans.” Later, her delirious dying son Richard regrets what he views as the failure of his art to compete with simply living:
I wanted to create something alive and shocking enough that it could stand beside a morning in somebody’s life. The most ordinary morning. Imagine trying to do that. What foolishness.
More recently, Michelle Cahill’s Daisy & Woolf (2023) and Miranda Darling’s Thunderhead (2024) have wrestled with Mrs Dalloway the character, and with Woolf’s legacy. Darling’s novel revives a new “Mrs” Dalloway, Winona, a wealthy Sydney suburban writer, wife and mother, who struggles to break through “to something more real” than the constraint of middle class domestication.
Cahill’s Daisy & Woolf explores a minor character from Mrs Dalloway, whom Woolf failed to make properly live: Daisy Simmons, Peter Walsh’s Anglo-Indian fiancee. In Woolf’s novel, Daisy exists entirely offstage. She is a romantic memory of Peter’s, “dark, adorably pretty”. Daisy, writes Cahill, is
trapped in the past, in a moment, a vignette, but not the kind that would enter a room, open a window, to a life inside, a life in the mind, as it does for Clarissa with a squeak of hinges on the very first page of Mrs Dalloway! Not a real girl, Daisy, too arch perhaps, the air not stirring for her, seeing as she has no present tense.
Cahill’s present-day narrator Mina, writing back to Woolf, sees Daisy as a fully fleshed character: a mixed-race woman living in Calcutta in the twilight of Empire, as the Indian independence movement grows in strength. In recovering Daisy’s rich personal and political history, narrated through letters to Peter, Cahill reclaims interiority for this marginalised character.
In her 1937 essay Craftsmanship, the BBC broadcast of which is the only surviving recording of her voice, Woolf wrote: “Words, English words, are full of echoes, of memories, of associations.”
Mrs Dalloway shows us the ways that words can both connect and sever. Characters pass each other on the street, muse on a shared past, or witness the same event from different vantage points and through different filters of personality and psyche. As Hermione Lee explained, for Woolf “the really important life was ‘within’”.
Peter remembers Clarissa’s theory of life, which is expounded on top of a bus going down Shaftesbury Avenue:
She felt herself everywhere; not here here here; […] but everywhere. […] so that to know her, or any one, one must seek out the people who completed them; even the places […] since our apparitions, the part of us which appears, are so momentary compared with the other, the unseen part of us, which spreads wide, the unseen might survive, be recovered somehow attached to this person or that, or even haunting certain places, after death.
Late in the book, Septimus’s suicide is reported to Clarissa at the party. “Oh,” she thinks, “in the middle of my party, here’s death”. And in the middle of her party, Clarissa feels not only the disaster of death – “her disaster, her disgrace […] and she forced to stand here in her evening dress” – but the deep pulsing joy of life. “Nothing could be slow enough; nothing last too long.”
In certain lights – to paraphrase Michael Cunningham – Mrs Dalloway might look like the book of one’s own life, a book that will locate you, parent you, arm you for life’s changes. As an undergraduate, I was mesmerised by Woolf’s language and her grasp on the inner life.
Though Clarissa Dalloway is 52, Woolf turned 43 the year her novel was published. I’m turning 43 this year, too. Woolf, ravaged by long periods of illness and partially toothless, thought of herself as elderly. I do not, though I am no longer young. But to re-read this novel at this age reminds me to relish these long hours and short years: to sniff flowers, feel the lift of the gusting wind, jump and splash with my children, read the patterns made by the clouds. To seize the day.
Naomi Milthorpe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Joycelyn Wilson, Assistant Professor of Ethnographic and Cultural Studies , Georgia Institute of Technology
Producers Fast Eddie and Joe Smooth mix at DJ International Studios in Chicago in 1990. Innovation was at the forefront of house and hip-hop.Raymond Boyd/Getty Images
There was a time when artists representing two of America’s biggest homegrown musical genres wouldn’t get a look in at the Grammys.
Hip-hop and house both have their origins in the 1970s and early 1980s – in fact, they recently celebrated a 50th and 40th birthday, respectively. But it was only in 1989 that an award category for “best rap performance” started recognizing hip-hop’s contribution to U.S. music, and house had to wait another decade, with the introduction of “best dance/electronic recording” in 1998.
At this year’s awards, taking place on Feb. 2, hip-hop and house artists will be among the most talked about. House duo Justice and Kendrick Lamar, a hip-hop superstar who incorporates elements of house himself, are among those looking to pick up an award. Meanwhile, a nomination for a collaboration between DJ Kaytranada and rapper Childish Gambino shows how artists from both genres continue to feed off each other.
And while both genres are now celebrated for their separate contributions to the music landscape, as a scholar of African American culture and music, I am interested in their commonality: Both are distinctly Black American artforms that originated on the streets and dance floors of U.S. cities, developing a devoted underground following before being accepted by – and transforming – the mainstream.
The pulse of the 1970s
The roots of hip-hop and house music both lie in the seismic shifts of the late 1970s, a period of sociopolitical unrest and electronic experimentation that redefined the possibilities of sound.
For hip-hop, this was expressed through the turntable manipulation pioneered by DJ Kool Herc in 1973, when he extended and looped breakbeats to energize crowds. House music’s innovators turned to the drum machine to create the genre’s foundational four-on-the-floor dance rhythm.
That rhythm, foreshadowed by Eddy Grant’s 1977 production of “Time Warp” by The Coachouse Rhythm Section, would go on to shape house music’s distinct pulse. The track showed how electronic instruments such as the synthesizer and drum machine could recast traditional rhythmic patterns into something entirely new.
This dance vibe – in which a base drum provides a steady four-four beat – became the heartbeat of house music, creating an enduring structure for DJs to layer basslines, percussion and melodies. In a similar way, Kool Herc’s breakbeat manipulation provided the scaffolding for MCs and dancers in hip-hop’s formative years.
Marginalized communities in urban centers like Chicago and New York were at the forefront of these innovations. Despite experiencing grinding poverty and discrimination, it was Black and Latino youth – armed with turntables, drum machines and samplers – who made these groundbreaking advances in music.
For hip-hop, this meant manipulating breakbeats from songs like Kraftwerk’s “Trans-Europe Express” and “Numbers” to energize b-boys and b-girls; for house, it meant extending disco’s rhythmic pulse into an ecstatic, inclusive dance floor. Both genres exemplified – and continue to exemplify – the ingenuity of predominantly Black and Hispanic communities who turned limited resources into cultural revolutions.
From this shared origin of technological experimentation, cultural resilience and creative ingenuity, hip-hop and house music grew into distinct yet globally influential movements.
The message and the MIDI
By the early 1980s, both genres had found their feet.
Hip-hop emerged as a powerful voice for storytelling, resistance and identity. Building on the foundations laid down by DJ Kool Herc, artists like Afrika Bambaataa emphasized hip-hop’s cultural and communal aspects. Meanwhile, Grandmaster Flash elevated the genre’s technical artistry with innovations like cutting and scratching.
By 1984, hip-hop had evolved from its grassroots beginnings in the Bronx into a cultural movement on the cusp of mainstream recognition. Run-DMC’s self-titled debut album released that year introduced a harder, stripped-down sound that departed from disco-influenced beats. Their music, paired with the trio’s Adidas tracksuits and gold chains, established an aesthetic that resonated far beyond New York City. Music videos on MTV gave hip-hop a new medium for storytelling, while films like “Beat Street” and “Breakin’” showcased the features and tenets of hip-hop culture: DJing, rapping, graffiti, breaking and knowledge of self – cementing its cultural presence, and presenting it to a world outside the U.S.
But at its core, hip-hop remained a voice for the voiceless that sought to address systemic inequities through storytelling. Tracks like Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five’s “The Message” vividly depicted the reality of living in poor, urban communities, while Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power” and Tupac Shakur’s “Keep Ya Head Up” became anthems for social justice.
Together these artists positioned hip-hop as a platform for resistance and empowerment.
Becoming a cultural force
Unlike hip-hop’s lyrical storytelling, house music focused on the physicality of rhythm and the collective experience of the dance floor. And as hip-hop moved away from disco, house leaned into it.
Italy’s “father of disco,” Giorgio Moroder, showed the way with his pioneering use of synthesizers in Donna Summer’s “I Feel Love.” Over in New York, Larry Levan’s DJ sets at Paradise Garage demonstrated how electronic instruments could create immersive, emotionally charged experiences as a club that centered crowd participation through dance and not lyrics.
By 1984, Chicago DJs Frankie Knuckles and Ron Hardy were repurposing disco tracks with drum machines like the Roland TR-808 and 909 to create hypnotic beats. Knuckles, known as the “Godfather of House,” transformed his sets at the Warehouse club into euphoric experiences, giving the genre its name in the process.
As with hip-hop, by the the mid-1980s house music had become a cultural force, spreading from Chicago to Detroit, to New York and, eventually, to the U.K.’s rave scene. Its emphasis on repetition, rhythm and electronic instrumentation solidified its global appeal, uniting people across identities and geographies.
Mainstays in modern music
Despite their differences, moments of crossover highlight their shared DNA.
From the late 1980s, tracks like Fast Eddie’s “Yo Yo Get Funky” and the Jungle Brothers’ “I’ll House You” merged house beats with hip-hop’s lyrical flow. Artists like Kaytranada and Doechii continue to blend the two genres today, staying true to the genres’ legacies while pushing their boundaries.
And technology continues to drive both genres. Platforms like SoundCloud have democratized music production, allowing emerging artists to build on the decades of innovations that preceded them. Collaborations, such as Disclosure and Charli XCX’s “She’s Gone, Dance On,” highlight their adaptability and enduring appeal.
Whether through hip-hop’s lyrical narratives or house’s rhythmic euphoria, these genres continue to inspire, challenge and transcend.
As the 2025 Grammy Awards celebrate today’s leading house and hip-hop artists and their contemporary achievements, it is clear that the legacies of these two genres are mainstays in the kaleidoscope of American popular music and culture, having come a long way from back-to-school park jams and underground dance parties.
Joycelyn Wilson is affiliated with the Recording Academy.
Canada is a top destination for international students, with over one million studying at various levels in 2023. International students contribute billions of dollars to the Canadian economy and much more to our social fabric.
But recent policy changes and increased public scrutiny have created a challenging environment for these students and the higher education institutions that host them.
After a decade of rapid growth, the federal government has implemented a two-year cap on international student permits, reducing undergraduate admissions by 35 per cent in 2024 and an additional 10 per cent in 2025.
This controversial decision aims to address growing concerns about the impact of international students and unchecked immigration on Canada’s economy, housing and public services.
An ongoing longitudinal research study at Thompson Rivers University (TRU) , which engages international students’ views and experiences through both surveys and interviews, sheds light on the lived experiences of international students amid these dramatic policy shifts. I have led this research with international graduate student research assistants.
Shifts from 2016 to 2024: housing
The first round of our study drew on a 2016 survey of more than 100 international students at TRU, and interviews with 14 from the same pool. We recently surveyed a further 215 international TRU students and conducted in-depth interviews with 14 more participants from various nations including India and China, across a range of undergraduate and graduate programs.
Our newest research findings revealed major challenges faced by international students, particularly in housing and finances. This echoes other findings that indicate the housing situation for international students has worsened over the past decade.
Over 55 per cent of students reported difficulties finding suitable accommodations, with many experiencing systemic racial discrimination in the rental market. Financial struggles were also prevalent, with about one-third of participants indicating insufficient financial support or uncertainty about their financial situation.
On a positive note, fewer students reported experiencing racism on campus in 2024 than in 2016.
In 2016, when students were asked to say to what extent they agreed with the statement “I encountered racism at university,” there were a wide range of statements: 14 per cent strongly agreed and 21 per cent agreed; 25 per cent strongly disagreed; 16 per cent disagreed and 23 per cent were undecided.
This was the only question that had such a pattern of responses spread evenly across the five-point scale. In 2024, only 13.5 per cent agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.
But in interviews, many students commented upon encountering racism and exploitation when job hunting or searching for housing accommodations. For example, one student reported that when seeking to renegotiate a lease due to problems with a roommate, the landlord threatened to take action to revoke their student visa.
In surveys and interviews, students lamented the dearth of co-op programs, work-integrated learning and experiential opportunities for their future success in Canada. This aligns with recent data from the Canadian Bureau for International Education, which found that 70 per cent of international students plan to apply for post-graduate work permits, and 57 per cent intend to seek permanent residency.
Students’ responses fell into three main themes: cross-cultural exchange, mutual learning and community building, and personal growth through international experiences. These findings were consistent across different nationalities and genders, suggesting a shared understanding of internationalization among diverse student groups.
A student carrying a backpack walks on campus at Trinity Western University in Langley, B.C., in 2017.
To address these challenges and support international students, our research recommends that universities continue to diversify their pools of international students by increasing scholarships for students from marginalized regions.
This matters in the wake of the recent announcement to reduce immigration targets from 485,000 in 2024 to 365,000 by 2027. This policy direction creates uncertainty for many international students hoping to build their futures in Canada.
This shift comes as public support for immigration has dramatically decreased, reaching an all-time low. Fifty-eight per cent of Canadians now believe the country accepts too many immigrants — a 31-point increase since 2022.
We also suggest fostering deeper cross-cultural understanding among university staff and domestic students, establishing program-specific student support centres with peer mentoring. The fragile school-to-work transition needs to be better facilitated through co-op education and other work-integrated learning opportunities. Action from policymakers to address systemic barriers in housing and employment is also needed.
Welcoming destination for global talent
International students contribute significantly to Canada’s economy, cultural diversity and multicultural society.
Government, educators, universities and employers have roles to play in reframing the “internationalization” of higher education. There is a need to balance economic rationales with social and academic outcomes, including a focus on global citizenship education for all students.
In the shadow of Donald Trump’s second presidency in the United States, which is amplifying xenophobic rhetoric and action against migrants, and amid major shifts in Canada’s federal landscape, it is important to take inventory of how changing government immigration policies can have a profound impact on Canada.
It is crucial to consider the perspectives of international students. Their insights matter for helping to shape policies and practices that affect their educational experiences, future opportunities in Canada and the very social fabric of Canada.
By addressing students’ challenges and the barriers they encounter, and by supporting their successes, we can ensure that Canada remains a welcoming destination for global talent.
Surbhi Sagar and Athira Pushpamgathan contributed to this research and co-authored this story.
Edward R. Howe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Camellia Bryan, Assistant Professor, Organizational Behaviour and Human Resources Division, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia
In the corporate world, DEI programs aimed at addressing systemic barriers that have historically disadvantaged marginalized groups are facing growing resistance, with backlash becoming increasingly visible in workplaces and in public discourse.
High-profile companies like Amazon, Meta, McDonalds and Target have been cancelling their DEI programs since last year. Although others, like Costco and Apple, have said they’re retaining theirs.
The backlash against DEI isn’t just about individuals rejecting change; it reveals deeper tensions in how people see themselves and their place in society.
Backlash often emerges from employees who belong to dominant social identity groups that hold disproportionate access to power and resources. Examples include white people in North America, men in patriarchal societies or heterosexual individuals in hetero-normative cultures.
For these employees, DEI initiatives can sometimes feel threatening. Why? Because such efforts highlight inequalities and challenge assumptions about fairness, merit and the status quo. When someone identifies strongly with their group — whether as a white person, a man or a member of another dominant identity — they may see DEI initiatives as attacks on their assumptions. This discomfort is known as social identity threat.
For instance, when a company introduces a gender equity policy aimed at addressing women’s under-representation in leadership, some men might perceive this as unfair. Their response — whether it’s skepticism, defensiveness or outright resistance — reflects a defensive reaction to that threat.
Beyond defensiveness: A path to learning
Traditional approaches to managing DEI backlash often focus on mitigating threat: providing reassurance, avoiding confrontation or encouraging self-affirmation (“DEI isn’t about you; it’s about everyone”). Yet these approaches miss an important point: social identity threat doesn’t have to result in defensiveness or backlash. It can also inspire reflection, learning and growth.
Our research draws on transformational learning theory, which explains how adults change their understanding of the world in response to disorienting experiences.
According to this theory, when people encounter information that challenges their assumptions, they can engage in a process of deep reflection. By questioning their beliefs and seeking out new perspectives, individuals can develop more accurate, inclusive interpretations of themselves and others.
Consider the story of Caolan Robertson, a former alt-right filmmaker in the United Kingdom.
For years, Robertson worked with extremist figures to produce anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim content that garnered millions of views online. Then, in 2019, Robertson saw media coverage of mosque shootings, where 51 people were killed by a white supremacist. The tragedy rattled him.
In Robertson’s own words, the event forced him to confront his assumptions about white identity and how it can be involved in violence and extremism. What began as an overwhelming sense of disorientation turned into a period of deep reflection. Robertson eventually rejected his old beliefs, began speaking out against extremism, and co-founded an organization to help others de-radicalize.
Similar learning occurs on smaller scales in workplaces every day. For example, a male manager who initially feels threatened by gender equity policies might, over time, come to recognize the barriers women face at work and become an advocate for change. Or a white employee who feels uncomfortable during discussions about racism might come to see how privilege has shaped their experiences.
Creating conditions for growth
So how can organizations turn social identity threat into an opportunity for learning rather than backlash? We propose three strategies:
1. Foster a “learning-oriented” DEI climate
Organizations must shift how they frame DEI initiatives. Instead of treating these efforts as compliance-driven checkboxes, companies should position DEI as a chance for employees to learn, grow and contribute to a more inclusive workplace. A strong diversity climate — where differences are valued, and conversations about identity are encouraged — creates a safe space for reflection. Our research shows that when employees feel that diversity is part of their organization’s mission, they’re more likely to approach identity threats as a learning opportunity.
2. Encourage dialogue across perspectives
One of the most effective ways to challenge harmful assumptions is through dialogue across perspectives — open conversations where employees with different lived experiences share their perspectives and provide feedback. This kind of dialogue requires psychological safety: employees need to feel secure enough to express their views, even when those views are incomplete or flawed. Importantly, these conversations don’t always have to occur between dominant and marginalized group members. Dialogue with other dominant-group colleagues who have already reflected on their identities can also provide valuable insights.
3. Support incremental progress
Transformational learning doesn’t happen overnight. Employees may initially engage in surface-level reflection, revising specific assumptions without challenging deeper systems of inequality. Over time, they may progress to deep-level reflection, critically analyzing the foundational beliefs that shape their identity. Organizations can support this incremental progress by recognizing small steps and encouraging continued learning.
Discomfort: A powerful motivator for change
The backlash to DEI efforts is often framed as evidence that the initiative is failing, but it can also be understood as a natural part of the learning process.
Social identity threat is uncomfortable, but it can serve as a powerful motivator for change when organizations provide the right tools and support.
Companies that ignore backlash risk deepening resistance and undermining their DEI goals. However, organizations that embrace discomfort as an opportunity for growth can transform their workplaces into spaces where employees are not only more inclusive but also more reflective, empathetic and engaged.
Backlash isn’t the end of the story — it’s the beginning of a conversation.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Ecosystems and species across the natural world are in serious trouble. The vast majority of Australians want more government action, but it’s not being delivered.
Take, for example, the federal government commitment to end extinctions via its Nature Positive plan. Or consider its promise to overhaul Australia’s environmental legislation and create a new independent regulator. Progress on both hasfaltered.
The biodiversity crisis calls for systemic change in humanity’s relationship with nature. This requires bold policy action from governments. Our new research examined how everyday people can help achieve this.
We mined the insider knowledge of politicians, senior public servants and environmental advocates. The participants were Victoria-based, but their advice applies more broadly.
Here, we present a recipe for achieving real, lasting change for the natural world.
1. Be prepared for a long haul
Change can take a long time. Be willing and able to see out the process. As one government interviewee told us:
[Change] is not going to happen by one research paper, one meeting, one event, it’s gonna be a whole range of things over a sustained period of time.
Also, find support. Our interviewees told us the most successful campaigns often happen when like-minded individuals band together. This provides the social support needed to stay the course.
Remember, change is possible. As one government interviewee told us, this is especially true in marginal seats, where “constant ongoing campaigning at every level” can shift the dial.
There is very likely a community group advocating for nature near you. These groups sometimes link up with larger, better-funded environment groups, to access their resources and networks.
Identify who you need to influence. The person holding the lever might not be a politician, but a public servant. Or public servants might rally for a cause internally, sometimes partnering with community groups.
So how do you find this key person? Build your networks. Start talking to people in your community and get to know your local elected representatives. Find out what they care about and pitch your message to appeal to their values and concerns.
One interviewee told us community groups would benefit from knowing more about how the system works:
What are the bits that can actually change? […] Community members can be a bit aggressive in trying to drive through their challenge without understanding why they’ve been ignored in the past, or feel that they’ve been ignored.
As another government interviewee told us:
People don’t see how much power they have if they just use their voice and use it in a constructive way.
3. Be strategic
Choose whether to work with the government, or challenge it publicly.
Environmental advocates can work alongside government to design solutions together. For example, a community group might work with their local council to design and implement management of a bush reserve. Big non-government environment groups often work in this way, relying on strong relationships with government insiders to achieve change.
The opposite strategy is an “outsider” approach, which, at the extreme end, might include physically disrupting industry. Think chaining yourself to a tree in a forest pegged for logging or ramming a ship into a commercial whaling vessel.
A less extreme outsider approach might be seeking to get your issue into the media to build public interest to get something on the political agenda.
Both approaches have their merits in the right context. As one staff member of an environment group told us:
We’re going to put on the suits […] and we’re not going to scale their buildings and release confidential information that they’ve given us to the media […] I don’t judge those that have that theory of change, because we need both, we need the really extreme advocacy to make us look mainstream and medium and reasonable.
4. Seize the moment
Identify when your advocacy might be most effective. It might be an upcoming election or budget, or when a policy is being reviewed.
Or it might be something less predictable, such as a bushfire, flood or other environmental disaster. In those cases, nature conservation issues are suddenly all over the media. It might be a chance for real change.
Effective advocates know how to identify, create, and be prepared for these windows. As one staff member at an environmental group told us:
Some organizations talk about making change. But that’s a harder exercise. Often it’s a sort of a
catching a wave of something else, or waiting for the opportunity.
The upcoming federal election is one such opportunity. The lead up is a good time to advocate for nature. Speak with your local politician and their competitors about the change you want to see.
If not us, who?
These are well-tested, effective actions you can use to achieve positive policy change for the environment. But remember, the system is dynamic. New methods and approaches will emerge as technologies, modes of communication and other factors evolve.
Governments, however, are a permanent fixture in the system. They stand to benefit politically by engaging with community and advocacy groups. So there is enormous potential for everyday people to genuinely make a difference.
Environmental crises can seem overwhelming, but we can – and must – try to make a difference. Because, as the old adage goes: if not us, who? And if not now, when?
The authors acknowledge Fern Hames and Kim Lowe for their contributions to this article.
Lily van Eeden receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Lily was previously employed by the Victorian government.
Liam Smith is a Councillor on the Biodiversity Council.
Sarah Bekessy receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ian Potter Foundation and the European Commission. She is a Lead Councillor with The Biodiversity Council, a board member of Bush Heritage Australia, a member of the WWF Eminent Scientists Group and an advisor to ELM Responsible Investment, the Living Building Challenge and Wood for Good.
Gaming is no longer a niche activity reserved for a select few – it’s a global pastime enjoyed by people of all ages, backgrounds and interests. In fact, studies show 81% of Australians engage in some form of gaming.
But for those who don’t consider themselves “gamers”, it can be hard to know where to start. The idea of picking up a complex, console-focused title might feel intimidating.
But fear not. Whether you’re looking for a game that’s mentally stimulating, addictive enough to help kill time, or simply something everyone can enjoy, there are plenty of options. Here are our top picks for beginners.
1. Real Bird Fake Bird
Since Wordle’s meteoric rise in 2022, we’ve seen a wave of daily browser games, including Tradle, Vulture’s Cinematrix and the New York Times’ Connections.
The Melbourne-based developers behind the critically acclaimed Scrabble-esque Gubbins have created the newest addition to this list: Real Bird Fake Bird.
The premise is simple. Each day you’re given a topic, and are supposed to guess whether seven different things are “real” or “fake” examples of that topic. For instance, Adele is a real example of a Grammy winner, but “sun condemnation” is a fake example of a yoga pose.
Sounds simple, right? It’s harder than it seems. The lists often have devilish examples of fakes that seem real, and real things that seem fake, leaving you second-guessing.
And just like with Wordle, you can share your score with friends once you’ve made all seven guesses. It’s a great way to spend a minute of your day.
You can share your Real Bird Fake Bird score with your friends. Studio Folly
Then there’s a hypnotic re-imagining of the card game poker, Balatro, (playable everywhere).
Each round involves playing poker hands to hit a points target, but these hands can be upgraded and augmented by a deck of “jokers” that favour particular poker hands or combinations of cards. Hands swiftly ascend to scoring tens of thousands (if not millions) of points per hand, in a near-perfect gameplay loop that combines card-game logic with the immersive flow of games like Tetris.
Balatro, largely developed by a single, anonymous developer, was one of 2024’s biggest hits. It sold more than 3,500,000 copies, won best indie game and best mobile game at the Game Awards 2024, and even secured a surprise nomination for game of the year.
This is the gaming equivalent of an anonymous independent filmmaker getting a nod for Best Picture at the Oscars.
3. The Case/Rise of the Golden Idol
This recommendation is targeted at mystery lovers. If you, or someone you know, can’t get enough of films like Knives Out (2019) or mystery books like The Thursday Murder Club, then the Golden Idol series (2022 and 2024) may be the perfect fit.
Each level shows the moment of a crime and it’s up to the player to interact with the characters and environment to fill in the blanks on a file explaining what happened.
With simple controls and a retro art style recalling the classic LucasArts adventure games, much of the joy in the Golden Idol games comes from the devious logic puzzles the cases provide.
One case revolves around placing the locations of all the house guests at an estate party, while another involves interpreting an entire language made out of dance moves. Combine these puzzles with a delightful sense of humour and a slightly mystical meta-narrative and these games will keep your inner detective occupied for hours.
The original and sequel are both Netflix games, and are available through Netflix on mobile and tablet.
4. Mouthwashing
Heavily inspired by the films Alien (1979) and The Shining (1980) – and not for the faint-of-heart – Mouthwashing (2024) is perfect for horror fans who want to dip their toes into the gaming world.
The cargo spaceship Tulpar is deliberately crashed by its captain mid-voyage. Unable to call for help, its five crew members can do nothing but wait for rescue. They open the hold in search of food or medicine, but instead find millions of bottles of mouthwash. Lost in space with minimal supplies, the crew begin to turn on each other – and wonder why their beloved captain crashed the ship in the first place.
A haunting story of human fallibility, Mouthwashing tells its tale through “walking sim” gameplay: the player simply wanders around the wreck of the Tulpar, interacting with objects and characters, without any complicated controls.
With a compelling cast, gorgeously surreal art direction and a focus on dread and despair (rather than jump scares), Mouthwashing is a wonderful introduction to the renaissance happening in horror games right now.
For those who have endless bird facts on hand, can identify a bird at a glance and look forward to the Aussie Bird Count each year, Wingspan is the perfect game.
The goal of this competitive, card-driven board game (which also has a videogame version) is to attract the best birds to various habitats by gathering food and laying eggs. Each player also has a randomly determined individual goal, which they can use to score extra points, making Wingspan very re-playable.
The best aspects of the game include the beautiful art and the delightful facts on each bird card. There is even an Oceania expansion, so you can gather and admire Australian birds, too!
Wingspan is a relaxing and captivating strategy card game about birds. Steam
Although Wingspan was released in 2018, last year its publisher, Stonemaier Games, also released Wyrmspan – a spiritual successor which focuses on hatching dragons instead of birds. Wyrmspan is more complex than Wingspan, though, and offers a steeper learning curve for less-experienced board game players.
Acknowledgement: we would like to acknowledge the contributions of Mads Mackenzie to this article, director of the upcoming game Drăculești and co-director of the Freeplay Independent Games Festival.
Marcus Carter is a recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (#220100076) on ‘The Monetisation of Children in the Digital Games Industry’. He has previously received funding from Meta, TikTok and Snapchat, and has consulted for Telstra. He is a current board member, and former president, of the Digital Games Research Association of Australia.
Taylor Hardwick is employed under funding by the Australian Research Council (Future Fellowship #220100076; DECRA #240101275). She is a board member of Freeplay, a Melbourne-based independent games festival.
Finn Dawson and Ryan Stanton 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.
As January lingers on, families may find themselves struggling with what a friend of mine has labelled the “electronic nanny”.
Children have been out of their normal routines for weeks during the holidays. Some are still yet to go back to school. Meanwhile, parents are back at work and needing to juggle those commitments with bored kids.
How can families encourage healthy screen use as we ease back into the routine of a new school year?
Parental monitoring recommended
While screen use guidelines provide time limits, there is now a broader move among experts towards “curation over duration”.
This means it matters what children are watching – not simply how long they are watching it for.
Is the content age-appropriate? Is it educational or inspiring? Has it been well-reviewed)?
This means parents should play an active role in what content kids are viewing or engaging with. An easy way to do so is to view with children, or at a minimum be present in the same room and alert to what they are watching.
When you are “interactive co-viewing”, you not only watch together, you also discuss the content. This helps children engage with what they are watching and then make connections off-screen.
For example, if you are interested in a sea creature you see on Octonauts, you could go and find a book about it in the local library. Or you could discuss a moral dilemma you see on SpongeBob SquarePants: should SpongeBob have quit his job after another chef was mean about his cooking?
For older children, you could discuss plot points in films or strategies in games.
If possible, try to watch programs with your child and talk about what you are watching. Kevin Woblick/ Unsplash, CC BY
There are also lots of ways to use screens that can build skills and encourage critical thinking and creativity. Some things to try include:
producing a short film, or stop-motion animation, all the way from idea, to script, shooting and editing
taking and editing photos to make a calendar
exploring an area of interest, such as dinosaurs, the Titanic or ballet dancing, using sites such as ABC Education or PBS LearningMedia.
investigating generative artificial intelligence (AI). For example, test the capabilities of ChatGPT by asking it a question your child knows the answer to, and evaluating the response together. Does it contain all the relevant information? Is it fair and balanced?
exploring how easy it is to edit an image, and consider what this tells us about the potential for online misinformation.
Research shows interactive screen use – such as playing games or using educational apps – is more beneficial for kids than just passively viewing content. It can can even support literacy, numeracy and academic persistence.
You can also use screens to encourage physical activity. For example, these holidays, my little ones have enjoyed “shaking their sillies out” with dance-along videos by Danny Go!. They have also done “yoga in space” with Cosmic Kids.
Older kids may enjoy the dance fitness program Zumba, boxing or sports competitions on the Nintendo Switch.
It’s also important for kids to see parents doing things other than using phones and other screens when they have downtime. Parents play a powerful role modelling time away from screens.
Make sure your kids see you enjoy offline activities too, such as reading, playing sport and socialising. If you are struggling to do this as a family – and we all know it is is hard – think about revisiting some of the old standards. You could:
And remember, you are certainly not the only family telling your kids “this is the very last episode”. If today has been a struggle, take tomorrow to recharge and reconnect as a family. Screens are part of our lives today, and we are all striving to find balance.
Jennifer Stokes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natasa Gisev, Clinical pharmacist and Scientia Associate Professor at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney
However, there are no new safety concerns when paracetamol is used as directed. And children’s products are not affected.
What is paracetamol?
Paracetamol is commonly sold under brand names such as Panadol, Dymadon and Panamax. It’s used to treat mild pain and fever for short periods or can be prescribed for chronic (long-term) pain.
Millions of packs of this cheap and accessible medicine are sold in Australia every year.
Small packs (up to 20 tablets) have been available from supermarkets and other retailers such as petrol stations. Larger packs (up to 100 tablets) are only available from pharmacies.
Paracetamol is relatively safe when used as directed. However, at higher-than-recommended doses, it can cause liver toxicity. In severe cases and when left untreated, this can be lethal.
Why are the rules changing?
In 2022, we wrote about how the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) was considering changes to paracetamol access because of an increase in people going to hospital with paracetamol poisoning.
An expert review it commissioned found there were about 40-50 deaths every year from paracetamol poisoning between 2007 and 2020. Between 2009-10 and 2016-17, hospital admissions for this increased (from 8,617 to 11,697), before reducing in 2019-20 (8,723). Most admissions were due to intentional self-poisonings, and about half of these were among people aged ten to 24.
After the report, the TGA consulted with the public to work out how to prevent paracetamol poisonings.
Options included reducing pack sizes, limiting how many packs could be bought at once, moving larger packs behind the pharmacy counter and restricting access by age.
Responses were mixed. Although responses supported the need to prevent poisonings, there were concerns about how changes might affect:
people with chronic pain, especially those in regional areas, where it may be harder to access pharmacies and, therefore, larger packs
people on limited incomes, if certain products were made prescription-only.
Although deaths from paracetamol poisoning are tragic and preventable, they are rare considering how much paracetamol Australians use. There is less than one death due to poisoning for every million packs sold.
Because of this, it was important the TGA addressed concerns about poisonings while making sure Australians still had easy access to this essential medicine.
If you buy large packs of paracetamol for chronic pain, you’ll need to go to the pharmacy counter. StratfordProductions/Shutterstock
So what’s changing?
The key changesbeing introduced relate to new rules about the pack sizes that can be sold outside pharmacies, and the location of products sold in pharmacies.
From February 1, packs sold in supermarkets and places other than pharmacies will reduce from a maximum 20 tablets to 16 tablets per pack. These changes bring Australia in line with other countries. These include the United Kingdom, which restricted supermarket packs to 16 tablets in 1998, and saw reductions in poisonings.
In all jurisdictions except Queensland and Western Australia, packs sold in pharmacies larger than 50 tablets will move behind the pharmacy counter and can only be sold under pharmacist supervision. In Queensland and WA, products containing more than 16 tablets will only be available from behind the pharmacy counter and sold under pharmacist supervision.
In all jurisdictions, any packs containing more than 50 tablets will need to be sold in blister packs, rather than bottles.
Several paracetamol products are not affected by these changes. These include children’s products, slow-release formulations (for example, “osteo” products), and products already behind the pharmacy counter or only available via prescription.
What else do I need to know?
These changes have been introduced to reduce the risk of poisonings from people exceeding recommended doses. The overall safety profile of paracetamol has not changed.
Paracetamol is still available from all current locations and there are no plans to make it prescription-only or remove it from supermarkets altogether. Many companies have already been updating their packaging to ensure there are no gaps in supply.
The reduction in pack sizes of paracetamol available in supermarkets means
a pack of 16 tablets will now last two days instead of two-and-a-half days if taken at the maximum dose (two tablets, four times a day). Anyone in pain that does not improve after short-term use should speak to their pharmacist or GP.
For people who use paracetamol regularly for chronic pain, it is more cost-effective to continue buying larger packs from pharmacies. As larger packs (50+ tablets) need to be kept out of sight, you will need to ask at the pharmacy counter. Pharmacists know that for many people it’s appropriate to use paracetamol daily for chronic pain.
Natasa Gisev receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Ria Hopkins receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.
This rhetorical and ideological vagueness obscures a pivotal point: there is no such thing as a singular form of democracy.
The ACT Party is behind both bills, and its leader David Seymour has also justified the Treaty Principles Bill – now before select committee – as upholding and protecting democracy. He asks, “are we a modern democracy where all citizens have equal rights?”.
But democracy takes various forms, and has done for millennia. Derived from the Ancient Greek “demos” (people) and “kratos” (power or rule), the word broadly means “rule by, or power of, the people”. And this can be realised in a number of ways.
The classical Greek form was direct democracy, also known as deliberative or participatory democracy. This involved male citizens participating equally and directly in political decisions.
In contrast, the ancient Roman form was indirect, representative democracy. Representatives elected by eligible citizens made decisions on their behalf. This was the basic model enacted in the 1852 New Zealand Constitution Act, as in most modern democracies.
Other models exist, too. But the point is that democracy is an evolving concept. It’s wrong to assert that any type of governance or decision-making other than our existing system of representative democracy (one person, one vote, underpinned by the rule of law) is undemocratic or anti-democratic.
Tyranny of the majority
Many of the political mechanisms the current government wishes to dismantle – such as Māori wards and consultation processes – were established because of the problems associated with representative democracy.
It is widely accepted that political representation should reflect the different characteristics of a community. But what has been called the “tyranny of the majority” can lead to minorities being constantly outvoted.
Unable to gain representation in proportion to their population, their interests are excluded. In short, it is entirely possible for democracy to be applied in ways that promote inequality rather than equality.
The common interpretation of equality as meaning “sameness” – everybody receiving the same resources and opportunities – underlies the insistence that laws and policies must be applied regardless of individual and group difference. Anything else is unfair or “special” treatment.
However, these assertions overlook the bias of our institutions towards members of the dominant or majority culture, and the unequal outcomes (in health and elsewhere) for Māori people that have resulted in marginalisation and disadvantage.
Correcting that imbalance is a political challenge. As others have argued, “protecting minority rights is an equal characteristic of genuine democracy”.
Contentious legislation: the hīkoi (protest march) against the Treaty Principles Bill arrives at parliament, November 2024. Getty Images
Tino rangatiratanga and democracy
The term “equity” refers to this recognition of the inequalities that exist between people. Where these inequalities are avoidable and unfair, resources and opportunities need to be allocated to reach an equal outcome.
For Māori, the unfairness extends beyond unequal health and other socioeconomic outcomes. It involves the disregarded guarantees pledged by the Crown in te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.
These included Māori rights of self-determination, or tino rangatiratanga, which is the source of so much contemporary debate.
Tino rangatiratanga challenges the singular base of power assumed by the Crown, and a “one size fits all” system of representation. But despite claims to the contrary, others argue upholding tino rangatiratanga is entirely possible within the realms of democracy.
The idea of “rule of and by the people” may take many forms, as the work of Matike Mai, the Independent Working Group on Constitutional Transformation, tries to demonstrate.
In proposing constitutional change, Matike Mai describes a sphere of influence based on the Māori-Crown relationship where “conciliatory and consensual democracy” operates.
Difference and equity
It has been argued that te Tiriti is “of its time” and should therefore be subject to reinterpretation. And yet the same argument is rarely made about notions of democracy and equality that have been with us since 1852.
This is relevant to many communities which experience avoidable and unfair health and social inequalities, not only Māori.
In September last year, a Cabinet Office circular required public sector agencies to ensure “services are not arbitrarily allocated on the basis of ethnicity or any other aspect of identity”.
On the face of it, this is a call for fair and equal treatment based on need. But the language suggests difference is about how an individual chooses to identify, rather than how their identity and circumstances cause them to be treated differently in the first place.
As long as this is the case, those differences and their associated needs will always be underserved.
Annabel Ahuriri-Driscoll does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ed Hutchinson, Professor, MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, University of Glasgow
Avian influenza control zones have been put in place in England, Scotland and Wales to control the virus’s spread among birds.AlanMorris/ Shutterstock
A human case of bird flu has recently been detected in England. This news comes just days after restrictions were put in place to curb the virus’s spread among wild birds and poultry in England and Scotland.
Although cases of bird flu are surging among birds in the UK, the risk of the virus spreading to humans still remains extremely low. A bit of context about influenza explains why health protection agencies think this is the case.
There are many different influenza viruses out there. They’re all related, but each specialises in infecting different types of animals.
Each winter, humans have to deal with three different types of seasonal influenza virus – H1N1, H3N2 and influenza B viruses. Meanwhile, birds, particularly shore birds and waterfowl, contend with a huge number of their own influenza viruses.
Most of these avian influenza viruses only afflict birds with minor infections of the airway or gut. But a small set cause more serious illness. These are called highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses (HPAIVs).
Among the HPAIVs, the H5N1 strains stand out. H5N1 bird flu, which is largely a disease of wild birds, has been notorious since the late 1990s for causing major die-offs of poultry worldwide – and for occasionally causing serious illness in humans. Viruses evolve rapidly, and in 2020 H5N1 evolved so it could spread more aggressively in wild birds.
The resulting outbreak tore through bird populations globally, including devastating die-offs in seabird colonies when the virus arrived in the UK in 2021. As it spread, the virus also caused outbreaks in farmed birds.
All outbreaks ebb and flow. After mid-2023, cases of H5N1 subsided in the UK. However, the virus never fully disappeared – and in autumn 2024, cases in wild birds started increasing again. It’s very hard to keep wild birds and farmed birds apart, and infections in poultry farms soon followed.
In the UK, the threat of H5N1 to birds is tracked through ongoing surveillance. In response to these rising cases, avian influenza prevention zones have recently been declared for England, Scotland and now Wales. These restrictions aim to reduce the risk of farmed birds getting infected. Anyone keeping birds in England, Scotland and Wales will be required to take additional measures to prevent their birds being infected – including keeping birds under cover in regions facing the greatest risk.
These prevention zones are an important intervention. But given the current outbreak’s scale in wild birds, these measures will at best only reduce the ongoing risk to farmed birds, rather than eliminating it.
What does this outbreak mean for humans?
Despite the serious problems H5N1 is causing for birds, the risk to humans is still very low. Because each virus is closely adapted to a particular host species, it’s really hard for bird flu to infect a human.
When infections do occur, this is normally only in people who have close contact with birds – and even then it’s an unusual event. The recent case of bird flu in a poultry worker in England is almost certainly an example of this sort of “spillover” infection.
It’s good to hear the affected person is currently well and that antiviral drugs – which work against these viruses – have been offered to others who may have been exposed. The control measures announced over the weekend will help reduce the risk of other people who work with poultry getting infected.
If you don’t have close contact with either wild or farmed birds, your chances of being infected are very low indeed. Still, if you come across any dead birds (particularly waterfowl), it’s important to avoid handling them. Try to prevent pets from scavenging bird carcasses and avoid feeding pets raw bird meat from non-commercial sources. Sightings of dead or sick birds can be reported to health protection agencies.
Because influenza viruses are killed quickly by heat, there should be no risk to the public from eating properly-cooked eggs or poultry. The UK outbreak may also cause temporary difficulties in accessing free-range eggs and an increase in egg prices – things that have already been seen in the US, which is also experiencing a major H5N1 outbreak.
Is bird flu a problem anywhere else?
What’s happening in the UK is just one part of an ongoing global H5N1 outbreak.
In some regions, strains of the virus have managed to spread beyond wild birds and infect mammals as well. In South America, H5N1 is causing devastating outbreaks in seals and sea lions. In the US, it has managed to adapt to dairy cattle and is being shed in their milk.
There have also been reported human infections. In the US, numerous farm workers have caught H5N1 from cattle, so far with relatively mild symptoms. There have also been two cases of severe illness in the US and Canada in people who caught a slightly different strain of H5N1 from birds, one of which sadly led to the patient’s death.
These cases underscore the potential risks of H5N1 infections. But because human infections are so rare, how likely each strain of H5N1 is to cause severe disease in humans is still unclear. We also need to be on the lookout for any signs that any H5N1 strain anywhere might gain the ability to spread between humans. This would be an exceptionally unusual event – but to minimise the risk of future influenza pandemics, it’s crucial situations like this are carefully monitored.
Nothing has been reported which suggests human-to-human transmission has occurred anywhere during the current outbreak. In the UK we have good surveillance for detecting any signs of this if it did. If wider spread did occur, the reserves of vaccines and antiviral drugs that we have in the UK would give us opportunities to intervene.
For now, bird flu remains a very real problem, but is primarily a problem for birds. By intervening now to protect farmed birds, we hope that we can keep it that way.
Ed Hutchinson receives funding from the Wellcome Trust and UKRI, including through the Flu:TrailMap-One Health consortium which is working to respond to the H5N1 outbreak. He has unpaid positions on the board of the European Scientific Working group on Influenza and other respiratory viruses (ESWI) and as a scientific adviser to PinPoint Medical.
The world’s major shipping companies say they won’t be sending vessels back to the Red Sea any time soon despite a pledge by Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen not to attack them as long as the ceasefire in Gaza holds.
French shipping and logistics company CMA CGM said in a statement on January 25 that the improved stability was “a positive but fragile sign” for the industry, and that it would continue to prioritise alternative routes.
Since November 2023, one month after the war in Gaza began, the Houthis have launched missile and drone attacks against roughly 190 commercial and naval ships in the Red Sea’s Bab al-Mandab Strait. The group claims to have carried out attacks on vessels connected with Israel, or heading to its ports, in solidarity with Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Though this has not always been the case.
These attacks have prompted many shipping companies to stop using the Red Sea – a route that around 12% of global trade usually passes through – and divert around the southern tip of Africa. This route adds more than 7,000 nautical miles on to a typical round-trip voyage. The number of commercial ships using the Suez Canal to pass between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea plummeted from over 26,000 in 2023 to 13,200 in 2024.
Supply chains have had to deal with higher shipping costs, product delivery delays, and increased carbon emissions as a result of this diversion. The Gaza ceasefire gave some hope that the disruption would finally end. But shipping lines will not hurry back to the region until long-term security is guaranteed.
Since November 2023, shipping companies have been diverting their vessels around the southern tip of Africa to avoid the Red Sea. Dimitrios Karamitros / Shutterstock
During the early stages of the crisis, moving a container from Shanghai in China to Europe cost approximately 250% more than before the war in Gaza began. This was largely due to increased fuel costs and higher insurance premiums. Freight rates (the price companies pay to transport goods) remained high throughout 2024, despite some fluctuations.
The cost of moving a 40-foot container from Shanghai to Rotterdam in the Netherlands, for example, surged from around US$4,400 on average in January to above US$8,000 by August. This had dropped to US$4,900 at the end of the year.
It is too early to say whether these costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices – full transmission through the supply chain to consumer prices can take upwards of 12 months. But some estimates suggest global consumer prices could rise by 0.6% on average in 2025 as these increased shipping costs filter through the supply chain.
Diverting around southern Africa also resulted in delays in the delivery of many goods and components. The proportion of container ships that arrived on schedule dropped from 60% on average worldwide in 2023 to about 50% throughout 2024. This created congestion at ports because ships often arrived at their destination later than planned, resulting in further delivery delays.
Unreliable transit times are a significant issue for supply chains because they make it difficult for businesses to plan inventory and coordinate production schedules. Indeed, several vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla and Volvo, temporarily suspended manufacturing in early 2024 due to a lack of components. And food supply chains, including those for avocados, tea and coffee, were also affected by delays.
Since then, many companies have adapted by increasing their safety stock levels and transporting cargo using alternative modes of transport like air and rail. Some European firms have also adopted a strategy called “nearshoring”, where they source products from regions closer to home such as Turkey and Morocco instead of relying on suppliers in Asia.
Increased emissions
The longer route around southern Africa requires that ships travelling between Europe and Asia use around 33% more fuel on average than they would use by travelling through the Red Sea at the same speed.
Over the past decade, most shipping companies have employed a “slow steaming” policy to economise on fuel use and minimise their carbon emissions. But diverted ships have been travelling around 5% faster than usual in an attempt to minimise delays. The increased vessel speeds will have caused the associated emissions toll to rise – large container vessels require 2.2% more fuel for every 1% increase in speed.
More data is required to determine the precise amount of additional emissions caused by diverting shipping away from the Red Sea. But estimates suggest that approximately 13.6 million tonnes of CO₂ were emitted by ships rerouted from the Red Sea between December 2023 and April 2024 – equivalent to the carbon emissions of nine million cars over the same period. If ships continue to avoid the region, the increased emissions could amount to 41 million extra tonnes of CO₂ per year.
Some cargo has also shifted from sea transport to air freight, which has a far greater environmental footprint. Shipping a kilogram of product by long-haul air freight generates at least 50 times more CO₂ emissions on average than container shipping.
Carbon emissions have increased due to the diversion of vessels around southern Africa. David G40 / Shutterstock
Before returning to the Suez Canal, container lines will want to see a prolonged period of stability around the Red Sea. This is due, in part, to safety and security concerns related to the crew, cargo and the ship.
But shipping companies also have operational challenges to keep in mind associated with the scheduling of port calls and voyages. Shipping lines will find it difficult to switch back to the longer route around Africa immediately if attacks in the Red Sea resume.
And, at least for now, the situation in the Bab al-Mandab Strait remains unpredictable. In a televised speech on January 20, Houthi leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi warned: “We have our finger on the trigger.”
With other disruptions continuing to affect global shipping, such as port strikes, low water levels in the Panama Canal and extreme weather events, supply chain issues are likely to continue throughout 2025.
Gokcay Balci does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Melissa Butcher, Professor Emeritus, Social and Cultural Geography, Royal Holloway University of London
New research from broadcaster Channel 4 reveals a troubling trend towards support for authoritarianism among young people in the UK. The report “Gen Z: Trends, Truth and Trust” found that 52% of the 2,000 13-27 year olds surveyed would agree that “the UK would be better with a strong leader in charge who does not have to bother with Parliament and elections”.
This correlates with a 2023 study from pro-democracy organisation Open Society Foundations, which found 42% of young people in its global sample felt military rule was a good way of running a country. Other research has found a disillusionment with democracy among young people.
These are trends to be worried about. But Gen Z are not somehow inherently anti-democratic. Understanding why these trends are happening is vital if young people are to participate in democracy.
At Cumberland Lodge, an education charity that uses dialogue to address social division and conflict, I’m working with colleagues and young people on a nationwide youth and democracy network to re-think what politics in the UK could look like.
Hearing Gen Z
Our team has conducted 12 discussion groups with 101 young people around the country, looking at what stops them getting involved with democratic practices and institutions. Using this research as a starting point, we are now working with a core group of young people to develop their capacities to engage with, and re-imagine democracy.
What we are learning is that young people’s disengagement is not necessarily a sign of apathy or anti-democratic tendencies. The young people we are working with want to engage with politics, but they feel a vast sense of distrust. They see politicians as prioritising their own and corporate interests over public good, and willing to break promises on issues that affect young people’s lives.
Feeling unsupported by their political system makes young people feel vulnerable – especially in the face of a multitude of global crises. In their lifetime, the world has lurched from a global financial crisis to a worldwide pandemic and to war in Europe. They have to navigate housing shortages, a lack of mental health support, the climate emergency, artificial intelligence and changing identity and social roles.
A perception of an “elite” system that is supposed to work for everyone, but excludes or even actively works against the sectors of society most affected by these crises, harms young people’s trust in democracy.
Gen Z deal with an onslaught of information about a rapidly changing world. DimaBerlin/Shutterstock
But a shift towards support for authoritarianism is by no means inevitable. The Open Society Foundations study found that 86% of young people surveyed still wanted to live in a democracy.
In Channel 4’s research, too, 73% of Gen Z think democracy is a “very” or “fairly good” way of governing the UK. And young people want to learn about democracy and the democratic process.
Our youth and democracy network shows young people are not apathetic. Many want to get involved. They want a better, fairer world. They see the shortcomings of the current system and imagine something better.
Getting young people involved
To enable this to happen, political and media literacy is crucial for providing young people with necessary knowledge and confidence. Investment in education on democracy is necessary, as many young people in our network wanted to engage but felt overwhelmed and uncertain about where to start. Liam in Sunderland said:
Most people our age aren’t educated on [democracy and politics]. It’s restricted knowledge. We’re given the impression that we can’t do anything about it anyway, so just don’t worry.
Young people want representatives who understand and engage with the day-to-day realities of their lives, rather than seeing Gen Z as a photo opportunity, as Chloe from Liverpool argued.
They’ll come here and they’ll speak to us, but they’re not coming there to listen; they’re coming here so they can go back to wherever they came from and be like ‘oh I spoke to a young person’.
Many of the young people in our youth network are calling for reform of the political system in order to facilitate these changes: a new voting system, or an exploration of forms of direct democracy.
But importantly, what we have seen in this research over the last year, is that young people can shift how they view power. We think of democracy as more than just systems of governance, but it’s also how we organize, how we communicate with each other, how we mobilise around social issues, and how we build consensus.
In this sense democracy is not solely something external and out of reach but something that can emerge when young people come together.
By working to improve democratic education and to put a system in place that listens to and engages with young people, politicians can help Gen Z re-imagine a democracy that gives them a future. At that point, they might stop telling researchers that they prefer authoritarianism.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steven Buckley, Lecturer in Digital Media Sociology., City St George’s, University of London
Just over a week after Donald Trump was sworn in as 47th president of the United States, his new press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, appeared in the James S. Brady press briefing room to preside over her first media conference. Pulling up a chart that showed Americans’ declining trust in traditional, or what she called “legacy”, media outlets, Leavitt announced that henceforth, “independent journalists, podcasters, social media influencers and content creators” would be welcome at press briefings.
Leavitt said that seats formerly reserved for White House officials would be available to these independent journalists, and invited people to apply online for White House press accreditation. It has since been reported that the White House has received more than 7,400 applications.
In principle, broadening the range of media outlets allowed into White House press briefings is a good idea. There’s no doubt that the media consumption habits of the American public are changing fast. But the way Trump and his communications team handled press briefings in his first term raises some concerns.
During that first term between 2017 and 2021, Trump and his White House communications team tended to favour reporters from friendly media outfits such as Fox News. Early in his administration, a number of reporters from what were perceived as “hostile” organisations were banned from “the huddle” – the informal gatherings around Trump’s press secretary that followed more formal briefings.
Fringe organisations such as Breitbart News and the One America News network carried Trump’s message faithfully and got disproportionately favourable access. This week, Breitbart was one of two online media outlets (alongside the widely respected news website Axios) that Leavitt selected to ask the first questions at her debut press briefing.
It’s not just their friendly disposition towards Trump but their reach that makes social media influencers appealing to the incoming president. Their primary purpose at the press briefings would be to help generate positive messages and content to feed to Trump’s Maga base – which are then promoted on platforms such as Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter).
Recent research suggests that X has adjusted its algorithm to boost right-wing content as well as posts by Musk himself. A clear example has been Musk promoting the former Fox News host turned online influencer and Trump campaign surrogate Tucker Carlson’s online show.
Undermining public regard for journalism
But there may be another, insidious function of inviting these influencers to the White House press briefing room. Their presence beside professional journalists from traditional media outlets is likely to undermine public regard for journalism in general. This could sow even greater mistrust in the US media, which is already at record lows.
In recent years, there has been a gradual blurring of lines between traditional and digital media. But while research consistently shows, across a wide cross-section of countries and within those countries, traditional media is still more trusted than new media, this is not to say that all new media outlets should be excluded. Many of these organisations and individuals have a track record of holding power to account.
Bellingcat – a coalition of researchers, investigators and citizen journalists – typically uses open-source information to uncover important stories of public interest. Individual journalists such as Taylor Lorenz, who covers the tech and creator industry, and Ken Klippenstein, who is well known for getting hold of internal government documents, are also good examples of journalists who produce quality reports from outside the traditional mainstream.
It should ideally be journalists such as these, with track records for solid and impartial reporting, who are invited into the White House fold – although there’s every chance they would get the same sort of treatment as reporters such as CNN’s Jim Acosta, whom Trump famously branded an “enemy of the people” when refusing to answer a question from him in 2018.
Acosta, incidentally, has just left CNN after the network moved him to the midnight “graveyard” slot. Shortly after signing off from his final CNN broadcast on January 28, Acosta appeared on his own Substack feed to announce he would go it alone.
It seems unlikely, though, that he will be awarded one of the coveted new independent media accreditations, given Trump’s recent attack on him. Celebrating Acosta’s apparent relegation by CNN, Trump took to his TruthSocial media site to call him “one of the worst and most dishonest reporters in journalistic history, a major sleazebag”.
Polarised media, divided audiences
It’s likely that America’s news media will only become more polarised during this second Trump administration, including an increasingly toxic mix of content creators dominating social media platforms. And now that Mark Zuckerberg has decided to remove Meta’s factchecking mechanism in favour of “community moderation”, research suggests this is likely to incentivise political messages which polarise and provoke rather than inform people.
We’ve already seen that the incoming president was more than willing to use lawsuits to intimidate journalists. Trump recently won a legal case over ABC when its journalist George Stephanopoulos defamed him by falsely saying he had been found liable for rape.
This, combined with Trump’s threat to sue the Des Moines Register and its pollster Ann Selzer over their allegations of election interference, are likely to increase the chilling effect on free speech. Legal threats such as these may serve to discourage close scrutiny of his second administration.
Meanwhile, the steady rise in prominence of partisan influencers using increasingly dangerous language is only likely to lead to the American public having less faith in the institutions that are critical to a functioning democracy – the press included.
Steven Buckley 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.
