NewzIntel.com

Category: Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Have you noticed that Nigel Farage doesn’t talk about Donald Trump anymore?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary British History, Newcastle University

    Each is the main political subject in their country, and one is the main political subject in the world. Each rode the populist wave in 2016, campaigning for the other. In 2024 the tandem surfers remounted on to an even greater breaker. Yet, though nothing has happened to suggest that bromance is dead, neither Donald Trump nor Nigel Farage publicly now speak of the other.

    Trump’s presidential campaign shared personnel with Leave.eu, the unofficial Brexit campaign. Farage was on the stump with Trump, and his “bad boys of Brexit” made their pilgrimage to Trump Tower after its owner’s own triumph in the US election. Each exulted in the other’s success, and what it portended.

    Trump duly proposed giving the UK ambassadorship to the United States to Farage. Instead, Farage became not merely MP for Clacton, but leader of the first insurgent party to potentially reset Britain’s electoral calculus since Labour broke through in 1922.

    Then, Labour’s challenge was to replace the Liberals as the alternative party of government. It took two years. Reform UK could replace the Conservatives in four.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Trump, meanwhile, has achieved what in Britain has either been thwarted (Militant and the Labour party in the 1980s) or has at most had temporary, aberrant, success (Momentum and the Labour party in the 2010s): the takeover of a party from within. Farage has been doing so – hitherto – from without.

    At one of those historic forks in a road where change is a matter of chance, after Brexit finally took place, Farage considered his own personal leave – to go and break America.

    The path had been trodden by Trump-friendly high-profile provocateurs before him: Steve Hilton, from David Cameron’s Downing Street, via cable news, now standing to be governor of California; Piers Morgan, off to CNN to replace the doyen of cable news Larry King, only to crash, but then to burn on, online. Liz Truss, never knowingly understated, has found her safe space – the rightwing speaking circuit.

    But Farage remained stateside. He knew his domestic platform was primed more fully to exploit the voter distrust that his nationalist crusade had done so much to provoke.

    The Trump effect

    Genuine peacetime transatlantic affiliations are rare, usually confined to the leaders of established parties: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. One consequence of the 2016 political shift is that the US Republicans and the British Conservatives, the latter still at least partially tethered to traditional politics, have become distanced.

    During the first Trump administration, and even in the build up to the second, it was Farage who was seen as the UK’s bridge to the president. But today, at the peak of their influence, for Farage association can only be by inference, friendship with the US president is not – put mildly – of political advantage. For UK voters, Trump is the 19th most popular foreign politician, in between the King of Denmark and Benjamin Netanyahu.

    There is, moreover, the “Trump effect”. Measuring this is crude – circumstances differ – but the trend is that elections may be won by openly criticising, rather than associating with, Trump. This was the case for Mark Carney in Canada, Anthony Albanese in Australia, and Nicușor Dan in Romania.

    Trump’s second state visit to the UK will certainly be less awkward for Farage than it will be Starmer, the man who willed it. Farage will likely not – and has no reason to – be seen welcoming so divisive a figure.

    Starmer has no choice but to, and to do so ostentatiously. It is typical of Starmer’s perfect storm of an administration that he will, in the process, do nothing to appeal to the sliver of British voters partial to Trump while further shredding his reputation with Labour voters. Farage would be well served in taking one of his tactical European sojourns for the duration. Starmer may be tempted too.

    Outmanoeuvring the establishment

    Reflecting the historic cultural differences of their countries, Trump’s prescription is less state, Farage’s is more. The Farage of 2025 that is. He had been robustly Thatcherite, but has lately embraced socialist interventionism, albeit through a most Thatcherite analysis: “the gap in the market was enormous”.

    Reform UK now appears to stand for what Labour – in the mind of many of its voters – ought to. Eyeing the opportunity of smokestack grievances, Farage called for state control of steel production even as Trump was considering quite how high a tariff to put on it. Nationalisation and economic nationalism: associated restoratives for national malaise.

    Aggressively heteronormative, Trump and Farage dabble in the natalism burgeoning in both countries – as much a cultural as an economic imperative. Each has mastered – and much more than their adversaries – social media. Each has come to recognise the demerits in publicly appeasing Putin.

    And Reform’s rise in a hitherto Farage-resistant Scotland can only endear him further to a president whose Hebridean mother was thought of (in desperation) as potentially his Rosebud by British officials preparing for his first administration.

    Given their rhetorical selectivity, Trump and Farage’s rolling pitches are almost unanswerable for convention-confined political opponents and reporters. These two anti-elite elitists continue to confound.

    Unprecedentedly, for a former president, Trump ran against the incumbent; Farage will continue to exploit anti-incumbency, despite his party now being in office. Most elementally, the pair are bound for life by their very public near-death experiences. Theirs is, by any conceivable measure, an uncommon association.

    Farage’s fleetness of foot would be apparent even without comparison with the leaden steps of the leaders of the legacy parties. His is a genius of opportunism. That’s why he knows not to remind us of his confrere across the water.

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

    – ref. Have you noticed that Nigel Farage doesn’t talk about Donald Trump anymore? – https://theconversation.com/have-you-noticed-that-nigel-farage-doesnt-talk-about-donald-trump-anymore-258333

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: The pandemic is still disrupting young people’s careers

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sviatlana Kroitar, Honored Research Visiting Fellow, Labour Studies, University of Leicester

    Goksi/Shutterstock

    Unlike previous economic downturns, the COVID pandemic created a crisis that disrupted both education and employment, abruptly halting young people’s emerging careers and clouding their hopes for the future. It doubly affected those transitioning into adulthood, out of school or university and into work, and it threatened the job security of those embarking on their careers when the pandemic began.

    There has been a disproportionate and often hidden cost borne by young people which has had a lasting impact on their career paths, financial independence and mental wellbeing.

    The pandemic sparked widespread educational disruption. Schools were closed, there was a rapid switch to online learning and exams were cancelled. This hindered young people’s ability to acquire essential knowledge, skills and qualifications.

    This aggravated existing educational gaps, particularly between students from different backgrounds, and those with and without reliable digital access and learning support.

    The cancellation of internships and work placements – vital for practical experience – left many with a gap in their skills. This may have increased the pressure to undertake unpaid work for employability.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Young people are heavily concentrated in precarious, in-person employment sectors such as hospitality and retail. These jobs are characterised by temporary contracts, low wages and limited benefits.

    This instability made them acutely vulnerable during the pandemic. Precarious roles offered few safety nets, leading to immediate job losses or reduced hours. Labour markets contracted sharply, especially in in-person sectors. This affected young people in particular, who faced higher job losses and unemployment.

    Graduate recruitment also plummeted as companies froze or reduced entry-level hiring, creating a bottleneck for university leavers. This convergence of job losses and a shrinking graduate market made securing stable employment exceptionally difficult.

    The pandemic also magnified existing vulnerabilities. It exacerbated hardship and job insecurity for young people who were already marginalised and disadvantaged. Young people already in non-standard employment – such as gig work, zero-hours contracts or temporary roles – experienced disproportionately severe outcomes.

    The situation was the same for young people from lower-income backgrounds, women and disabled young people.

    Less affluent young people often lack financial support from their families. This means deeper financial instability, increased debt and housing insecurity. These issues were exacerbated by the impact of the pandemic on employment.

    Precarity carries elevated long-term risks, including prolonged low wages and stunted career progression. This often delays the achievement of typical adult milestones such as financial autonomy and independent living.

    Young people may have been more inclined to take any available work.
    Raushan_films/Shutterstock

    Economic uncertainty destabilised emerging careers, forcing young people to rethink their options – a situation dubbed “precarious hope”. Many graduates, feeling less prepared, lowered their expectations.

    They may well have prioritised finding any available work, taking jobs that didn’t match their qualifications, leading to lower wages and poorer working conditions.

    Transitions to adulthood

    Research has found that the pandemic created significant disruptions to the typical transition to adulthood. A prominent trend was the rise of “boomerang” trajectories: young adults returning to live with parents due to economic hardship or job loss.

    More broadly, the pandemic contributed to delayed milestones such as leaving home, achieving financial independence and building stable relationships, creating prolonged dependence for many.

    The pandemic also blurred young professional identities. Disrupted final years of study and remote transitions stripped away traditional markers of closure. Cancelled exams, internships and graduations plunged many into prolonged limbo.

    This absence of clear rites of passage and the unexpected conclusion to studies added ambiguity to young people’s ideas of their own identity and life paths. This lack of clear professional selves left young people feeling helpless, their future out of their hands.

    The psychological toll

    The pandemic inflicted a profound psychological burden on young people. The loss of expected life passages, social and professional connections and routines fostered feelings of isolation, stagnation and diminished control. This distress was amplified by relentless uncertainty surrounding disrupted education, altered qualifications and a volatile job market.

    A “COVID echo” continues to resonate for young people. Graduates from the pandemic period may still feel that they lag behind in their careers.

    The early disruptions it caused through lost entry-level job opportunities, fewer chances to build networks and hindered skill development continue to cast a shadow over the further career prospects of these young people.

    Enduring negative consequences like this are termed “scarring”, threatening to affect employment and earning potential for years.

    Addressing these potential long-term scars requires an overhaul of the youth labour market. This means tackling precarious work, enhancing training and re-skilling, and strengthening social safety nets. Robust support, as well as listening to what young people have to say about their futures, will be vital in empowering this generation to overcome the crisis and reach their full potential.

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

    – ref. The pandemic is still disrupting young people’s careers – https://theconversation.com/the-pandemic-is-still-disrupting-young-peoples-careers-258768

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: What Elio can help teach us about eye patching, stigma and the developing brain

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rebecca Willis, Doctoral Researcher in Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford

    Disney Pixar’s latest film, Elio, follows a familiar-sounding character, a lovable and imaginative young hero who dreams of finding a place where he truly belongs. But amid the colour and chaos of the film’s outer space setting, one subtle detail stands out: Elio wears an eye patch.

    In the real world, eye patches are commonly used to treat amblyopia, or “lazy eye”, a neurodevelopmental visual condition projected to affect 175.2 million people globally by 2030. In amblyopia, the brain favours one eye over the other, leading to reduced vision in the weaker eye.

    Treatment often involves covering the stronger eye with a patch, encouraging the brain to rely on the weaker eye and improve its function. This therapy is most effective during early childhood and can take months of daily commitment.

    Yet, despite how common visual conditions are, positive representation of patch-wearing is rare in popular media.

    Animated films have long shaped childhood imaginations, but historically, characters with eye patches or other visual markers often fall into negative stereotypes.

    Think Mr Potato Head’s alter ego One-Eyed Bart in Toy Story, or Madagascar’s Dr. Blowhole: characters where an eye patch signals villainy. Glasses, meanwhile, are more often seen on older characters like Carl Fredrickson from Up or Roz from Monsters Inc.

    Characters with strabismus (misaligned eyes), like Ed from The Lion King, are often portrayed as unintelligent or clumsy. One recent study found that strabismus in children’s animated films is consistently associated with negative character traits – something that can reinforce harmful stigma.

    These portrayals matter. Film plays a powerful role in shaping beliefs, especially for young children who are developing a sense of identity, belonging and how to relate to others. When visual conditions are stereotyped, it can reinforce feelings of embarrassment and difference.

    For children wearing a patch, these feelings can lead to skipping treatment days and poorer outcomes. In contrast, authentic, positive representation can build self-esteem, promote acceptance, and provide relatable role models.

    A subtle but powerful shift

    Happily, things are starting to change. In recent Disney/Pixar films, we’ve seen characters with glasses portrayed as dynamic, central figures: Encanto’s Mirabel, Turning Red’s Priya and Mei, and Big Hero 6’s scientist-superhero Honey Lemon, for example. These characters challenge old stereotypes and broaden the narrative around vision.

    Elio continues that progress. The young protagonist’s eye patch is not a plot point, nor is it used to symbolise frailty, villainy or wisdom. It simply exists – a quiet part of his identity, not something to overcome.

    That subtlety is powerful. For children who wear patches, seeing someone like Elio leading a space mission, not sidelined by his visual condition, can be deeply affirming.

    Beyond the screen, Elio has sparked conversation and awareness. Prevent Blindness launched a campaign around the film to raise public understanding of amblyopia and the importance of early detection. Eye care organisations have also used the film as an educational tool, while individuals have shared their stories of patching and treatment across social media.

    When amblyopia is recognised and treated early, patching can be remarkably effective. But awareness is key, and so is reducing stigma that might discourage children from wearing their patch.

    Childhood amblyopia research

    Although patching often restores vision, it doesn’t work for every child – and we still don’t fully understand why. There is limited research into how patching affects the developing brain, and this lack of insight hinders improvements in treatment.

    Our research with Holly Bridge, Vision Group leader at Oxford University, aims to change that. We’re studying how patching changes brain chemistry in young children.

    Adult studies suggest that chemical shifts in visual parts of the brain may be linked to patching outcomes. To explore this in children, we’re running a study of five to eight-year-olds with amblyopia or healthy vision.

    In our study, children with amblyopia receive a safe, non-invasive brain scan before and after patching treatment. We also measure their vision using child-friendly tests. We then compare these results to children with healthy vision who don’t wear a patch, helping us to understand both visual changes and brain development.

    We hope Elio marks the beginning of more inclusive storytelling, where difference isn’t erased or exaggerated, but simply woven into the fabric of character and adventure. Like Elio’s journey through space, the path to better understanding and representation of childhood visual conditions has faced challenges.

    But perhaps this is the launch we needed: towards better awareness, better research, and a future where every child feels seen – on screen and beyond.

    Rebecca Willis receives funding from a Royal Society Studentship.

    Betina Ip is funded by The Royal Society (Dorothy Hodgkin Research Fellowship, DHFR1201141) and the UKRI-MRC (MR/V034723/1).

    Megan Groombridge receives funding from the MRC (MR/V034723/1).

    – ref. What Elio can help teach us about eye patching, stigma and the developing brain – https://theconversation.com/what-elio-can-help-teach-us-about-eye-patching-stigma-and-the-developing-brain-259946

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: A brief history of the slogan T-shirt

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Liv Auckland, Lecturer in Fashion Communication and Creative Direction and Curation for Fashion, Nottingham Trent University

    You probably have a drawer full of T-shirts. They’re comfy, easy to style, cheap and ubiquitous. But the T-shirt is anything but basic. For 70 years, they’ve been worn as a tool for self-expression, rebellion and protest. And in 2025, the slogan T-shirt is as powerful as it has ever been.

    Previously worn as an undergarment, the T-shirt became outerwear after the second world war. Snugly dressed on the bodies of physically fit young men, it came to signify heroism, youth and virility.

    The T-shirt was adopted by sub-cultural groups such as bikers and custom car fanatics. And it was popularised by Hollywood stars, including Marlon Brando and James Dean. By the mid-1950s, it had become a symbol of rebellion and cool.

    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.

    From the 1960s onwards, slogan T-shirts gained momentum in America and Britain, and women began wearing them as the fashions became more casual. In the postmodern era, language became less about function and more about individualistic expression and exploration. This playful approach to words, combined with an emphasis on design and social commentary, made the T-shirt an ideal canvas for the championing of individual thought.

    Anti-war messaging dominated slogans in the US during the Vietnam war and amid the increasing threat of nuclear war. Perhaps the most recognised slogan featured the artwork from John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s famous 1969 “War is Over” campaign, a T-shirt which is still being replicated today. Messages of peace on clothing, whether featuring words or symbols, have stayed in our collective wardrobe ever since, from high fashion to high street.

    In the 1970s, the New York Times called T-shirts the “the medium of the message”, and the message itself was becoming ever more subversive. Slogan tees sought to provoke, whether through humour or controversy.

    Punks were especially good at it. They constructed what subculture theorist Dick Hebdige called a “guttersnipe rhetoric” in his 1979 study Subculture: The Meaning of Style. Designers Vivienne Westwood and Malcolm McLaren paved the way for a DIY approach where slogans were often scrawled, expressive and upended social codes.

    The slogan shirt in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights

    Manufacturing and printing advancements in the postmodern era also meant that more designs could be printed en masse – a development used by the LGBTQ+ community and its allies.

    Some of the most memorable slogan T-shirts in history were created in response to the Aids epidemic in the 1980s. The most poignant simply read “Silence = Death”. Originally a poster, the design was printed on T-shirts by the Aids Coalition to Unleash Power (known as “Act Up”) for protesters to wear.

    Those affected by Aids were demonised and largely ignored, so the queer community was reliant on activism to incite action from government and their fellow citizens.

    In After Silence: A History of Aids through Its Images (2018), author Avram Finkelstein describes the grassroots activism of the time as an “act of call and response, a request for participation” for the lives at stake. In a pre-internet world, T-shirts provided a platform to make the fight visible.

    The 80s also saw slogan T-shirts enter pop cultural spaces as well as political ones, most notably with designs from Katharine Hamnett. Known for their oversized fit, their politically charged messages adorned the torsos of celebrities including George Michael and Debbie Harry. In 1984, Hamnett made fashion history when she met then-prime minister Margaret Thatcher while wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with “58% Don’t Want Pershing”, referencing her anti-nuclear sentiment.

    That same year, Hamnett’s “Choose Life” design gained icon status when it was worn in a music video by Wham!. Originally a reference to the central teachings of Buddhism, “Choose Life” took on complex meaning when read in the context of the Aids epidemic, Thatcherism and economic instability.

    The Choose Life shirt featured in Wham!‘s video for Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go.

    The slogan was later used in the opening monologue of the cult film Trainspotting (1996), which is set in an impoverished and drug-fuelled Edinburgh. The design has been reworked countless times, including by Hamnett herself for the refugee charity Choose Love.

    In author Stephanie Talbot’s 2013 book Slogan T-shirts: Cult and Culture, she explains that slogan tees can move through time to achieve iconic status. While the Choose Life tee has transcended time and generations, it also shows how the intended message of a slogan can change depending on the wearer and the observer, and the environment within which it’s worn.

    Today, to Hamnett’s consternation, Choose Life has been co-opted by pro-life campaigners, not only taking on a different meaning but flipping across the political spectrum.

    Who gets to wear a slogan shirt?

    When we wear a slogan T-shirt, we are transferring our internal self to an external, public self, creating an extension of ourselves that invites others to perceive us. This creates opportunities for conflict as well as connection and community, putting our bodies (particularly those that are marginalised) at risk.

    In 2023 for example, numerous peaceful protesters were arrested for wearing Just Stop Oil T-shirts, highlighting how unsafe – and potentially unlawful – it can be to wear a slogan T-shirt.

    Actor Pedro Pascal wears the ‘Protect the Dolls’ shirt by Connor Ives.
    Fred Duval/Shutterstock

    However, the LGBTQ+ community is continuing to seize the power of the slogan T-shirt – not in spite of law changes, but because of them.

    Designer Connor Ives closed his 2025 London Fashion Week show wearing a T-shirt that read “Protect the Dolls”, during a time of increasing politicisation of trans lives and gender healthcare. The term “dolls” is one of endearment in queer spaces that refers to those who identify as feminine, including trans women.

    After receiving a “groundswell” of support, the T-shirt went into production to raise money for American charity Trans Lifeline. Numerous celebrities have since worn the design, including actor Pedro Pascal and musician Troye Sivan, to show their support in the face of multiple law changes.

    In a world that increasingly feels like it’s in turmoil, for many, the humble T-shirt still feels like a space where we can express how we truly feel.

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

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

    – ref. A brief history of the slogan T-shirt – https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-the-slogan-t-shirt-258766

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: What makes a good football coach? The reality behind the myths

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alan McKay, Senior Research Assistant for the Centre for Football Research in Wales, University of South Wales

    With Women’s Euro 2025 underway, attention is turning not just to the players hoping for glory, but to the head coaches tasked with leading them.

    These include England’s Sarina Wiegman, who guided the Netherlands to Euro victory in 2017 and repeated the feat with England in 2022; Spain’s Montse Tomé, the reigning world champions’ first female head coach; and Rhian Wilkinson, who is preparing Wales for their first ever appearance at a major tournament.

    The pressure is immense, but what actually makes a good football coach? My colleagues and I recently conducted a study on behalf of the Uefa Academy to better understand this topic.

    There are plenty of myths. That the best coaches eat, sleep and breathe football 24/7. That they’re “natural leaders” who inspire through sheer charisma. That success demands constant self-sacrifice. But when coaches try to live up to these ideas, it can leave them feeling burnt out – physically and emotionally exhausted, disconnected from their personal lives and questioning their ability.

    In reality, effective coaching is about much more than tactics or motivation. It’s about performance, not just on the pitch, but in the way coaches manage themselves, their staff and their players. A good coach must balance their responsibilities with time for rest and recovery. They must communicate clearly, stay calm under pressure and create an environment where everyone knows their role.

    Sarina Wiegman discusses the importance of creating positive environments.

    Sarina Wiegman has described her approach in just these terms: “We try to turn every stone to get as best prepared as we can be before we go into the tournament… to perform under the highest pressure.”

    But coaches don’t arrive at this mindset by accident. It’s developed through experience and, importantly, through structured education.

    One important finding was that the most effective coaches have a strong sense of who they are – including their values, their communication style, and their strengths and limitations. These are things which affect the players and staff with whom they work.

    Even top coaches need support

    This type of self-awareness is often shaped through formal coach education programmes, where participants work closely with a mentor. These mentors can offer honest feedback, challenge assumptions and help coaches develop a philosophy they can share with their team.

    That process is essential at every level, whether it’s grassroots football or the international stage. Coaches who understand themselves and who can use their education are better able to adapt their approach to the context they’re working in. They can build trust, foster unity and know when to step back.

    Gareth Southgate, former England men’s head coach, is a fantastic example of this. He has spoken about the importance of supporting the person first and the player second. He has discussed the value of empathy and empowering players to make decisions on and off the pitch.

    Through this process, Southgate helped players focus on the “joy of playing for their country” rather than simply achieving results. This may have helped to relieve some of the inevitable pressure and expectations placed on the England squad by the media, fans and English Football Association to win tournaments.

    After qualifying, a good coach will continue to seek out their mentor for advice on both professional and personal issues they may be experiencing in their role. Emma Hayes, head coach of the US women’s team, has credited her own mentor with helping her fine tune her leadership style and build team cohesion. Her ability to create a safe, supportive environment was central to Team USA’s gold medal win at the 2024 Paris Olympics.

    Hayes’ methods demonstrate that coaching is not a destination but a lifelong process. It requires constant learning, reflection and adaptation. The best coaches don’t just chase trophies. They aim to build something lasting – a culture of trust, a resilient team and a space where people can thrive.

    As Euro 2025 continues, it’s worth keeping an eye, not just on the scorelines, but on the sidelines. The real mark of a good coach isn’t always found on the scoreboard. It’s found in how a team plays, how they talk about each other and whether they’re still smiling at the end.

    Alan McKay received funding from the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) to conduct the research mentioned in this article. Alan wishes to acknowledge Professor Brendan Cropley, who was instrumental in conducting this research.

    – ref. What makes a good football coach? The reality behind the myths – https://theconversation.com/what-makes-a-good-football-coach-the-reality-behind-the-myths-259947

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Most plant-friendly fungi are a mystery to scientists

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Katie Field, Professor in Plant-Soil Processes, University of Sheffield

    Fly agaric mushrooms partner with trees. Magnus Binnerstam/Shutterstock

    If you walk through a forest and look down, you might think you’re stepping on dead leaves, twigs and soil. In reality, you’re walking over a vast underground patchwork of fungal filaments, supporting life above ground.

    These are mycorrhizal fungi, which form partnerships with the roots of nearly all plants. Found everywhere from tropical rainforests to boreal forests and farmland, these underground fungi sustain life above ground, often without us realising they’re even there.

    A recent academic review argues that up to 83% of ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi species, which form partnerships with trees, may be unknown to science.

    Mycorrhizal fungi grow around root tips and form webs between root cells or penetrate root cells, then make structures inside them. They scavenge nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen from the soil and, in return, receive carbon from their host plants.

    Traces of these unidentified fungi are often found in soil DNA. The researchers surveyed global DNA databases to see how many DNA traces that seemed to belong to ECM fungi matched to a species. Only 17% could. Scientists call these “dark taxa” – organisms that have been detected, but not formally described, named or studied.

    Many of these fungi produce large fruiting bodies such as mushrooms and are foundational to forest ecosystems.

    One example is the fly agaric (Amanita muscaria) which produces the iconic red and white spotted toadstools often linked to folklore and can have a range of host trees. It typically associates with birch, pine and spruce, especially in colder climates, helping trees survive in nutrient-poor soils.

    Porcini fungi, (for example Boletus edulis), produce delicious mushrooms prized for their rich, nutty flavor, are ECMs too. These fungi grow with pines, firs and oaks. And the chanterelle is highly sought-after by mushroom collectors and often found near oaks, beech and conifers.

    Chanterelles thrive in undisturbed, healthy forests. Their presence often signals a well-functioning forest ecosystem. They have a fruity, apricot-like scent that may attract insects to help spread spores.

    Chanterelle mushrooms are highly sought after.
    Nitr/Shutterstock

    The new report shows how little we know about the world beneath our feet. This ignorance has important implications. Entire landscapes are being reshaped by deforestation and agriculture.

    But reforestation efforts are happening without fully understanding how these changes affect the fungal life that underpins these ecosystems. For example, in the Amazon, deforestation for farming continues at an alarming pace with 3,800 square miles (equivalent to 1.8 million football fields) of tropical rainforest destroyed for beef production in 2018-19 alone.

    Meanwhile, well-meaning carbon offset schemes often involve planting trees of a single species, potentially severing ancient relationships between native trees and their fungal partners. This is because the mycorrhizal fungi in these area will have developed in partnership with the native plants for many years – and may not be compatible with the tree species being planted for these schemes.

    Although not all trees have specific fungal partners, many ECM fungi will only form symbioses with certain trees. For example, species within the Suillus genus (which includes the sticky bun mushroom) are specific to certain species of pine.

    Introducing non-native plantation species may inadvertently drive endemic fungi, including species not yet known to science, toward extinction. We may be growing forests that look green and vibrant, but are damaging the invisible systems that keep them alive.

    The problem isn’t limited to ECM fungi. Entire guilds (species groups that exploit resources in a similar way) of mycorrhizal fungi, remain virtually unexplored.

    These dark guilds are ecologically crucial, yet most of their members have never been named, cultured or studied.

    Ericoid Mycorrhizal Fungi (ERM)

    These fungi form symbioses with many ericaceous shrubs, including heather, cranberry and rhododendrons. They dominate in some of the world’s harshest landscapes, including the Arctic tundra, the boreal forest (also known as snow forest), bogs and mountains.

    Research suggests ERM fungi not only help plants thrive in harsh environments but also drive some of the carbon accumulation in these environments, making them potentially part of an important carbon sink.

    Despite their abundant coverage across some of the most carbon-rich soils on Earth, the ecology of ERM fungi remains somewhat mysterious. Only a small number have been formally identified. However, even the few known species suggest remarkable potential.

    Their genomes contain vast repertoires of genes for breaking down organic matter. This is important because it suggests ERM fungi are not just symbionts living in close interaction with other species but also active decomposers, influencing both plant nutrition and soil carbon cycling. Their dual lifestyle may play a critical role in nutrient-poor ecosystems.

    Mucoromycotina fine root endophytes (MFRE)

    MFRE are another group of enigmatic fungi that form beneficial relationships with plants. Long mistaken for the arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi until distinguished in 2017, MFRE are also found across a range of ecosystems including farmland and nutrient-poor soils and often live alongside AM fungi.

    MFRE appear to be important in helping plants access nitrogen from within the soil, while AM fungi are more associated with phosphorus uptake. Like ERM fungi, MFRE appear to also alternate between free-living and symbiotic lifestyles.

    As researchers begin to uncover their roles, MFRE are emerging as important players in plant resilience and sustainable agriculture.

    These fungi frequently appear in plant roots. They are characterised by darkly pigmented, segmented fungal filaments, or hyphae, but their role is highly context-dependent.

    Some DSEs appear to enhance host stress tolerance or nutrient uptake. Others may act as latent pathogens, potentially harming the host plant. Most DSEs remain unnamed and poorly understood.

    Time is running out

    Many of the ecosystems connected to these dark guilds of fungi are among the most vulnerable on the planet. The Arctic and alpine regions which are strongholds for ERMs, DSEs and potentially MFREs, are warming at two to four times the global average.

    Peatlands have been drained and converted for agriculture or development while heathlands are increasingly targeted for tree-planting initiatives meant to sequester carbon.

    Planting fast-growing, non-native species in monocultures may improve short-term carbon metrics above ground, but it could come at the cost of soil health and belowground biodiversity. Many fungi are host-specific, co-evolving with native plants over millions of years.

    Replacing those plants with non-native trees or allowing invasive plants to spread could lead to local extinctions of fungi we’ve never had the chance to study. Soil fungi also mediate processes from nutrient cycling to pathogen suppression to carbon sequestration.

    We are changing landscapes faster than we can understand them and in doing so we may be unravelling critical ecological systems that took millennia to form.

    Katie Field receives funding from the European Research Council, the Biotechnology and Biological Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council.

    Tom Parker receives funding from The Scottish Government’s Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division and Natural Environment Research Council

    – ref. Most plant-friendly fungi are a mystery to scientists – https://theconversation.com/most-plant-friendly-fungi-are-a-mystery-to-scientists-259705

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Why the l-carnitine sport supplement is controversial

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Julia Haarhuis, PhD student – Food, Microbiomes and Health, Quadram Institute

    Miljan Zivkovic/Shutterstock

    Sport supplements are hard to get away from if you like to exercise regularly. Even if you’re not interested in them, there’s a good chance your gym will have posters extolling their virtues or your sporty friends will want to talk to you about them.

    It can be hard to know what supplements to take as there is a lot of mixed information out there. L-carnitine is among the more controversial supplements. While there is evidence it supports muscle recovery and enhances exercise performance, research has also shown it can contribute to cardiovascular disease.

    In a new study, my colleagues and I found it may be possible to counter the negative effects of l-cartinine by eating pomegranate with it.

    First, it’s important to understand what l-carnitine is. Your body produces a small amount of l-carnitine naturally. This happens in the kidneys, liver and brain.

    When l-carnitine was first identified in humans in 1952, it was thought to be a vitamin and it was referred to as vitamin BT. After years of research on this compound, l-carnitine is now considered a quasi-vitamin because for most people the human body can produce enough l-carnitine itself.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    L-carnitine can be bought as a dietary supplement, but the nutrient is also added to energy drinks and some protein powders by manufacturers to try and enhance the value of their products. Manufacturers normally clearly state it on the product if it contains l-carnitine – it’s not something a company will try to hide.

    Some foods naturally contain l-carnitine, such as meat and in tiny amounts in dairy products. L-carnitine is not fed to livestock but it is present in muscle tissue. L-carnitine was first found in meat in 1905. It is for this reason that the name carnitine is derived from the Latin word carnis, meaning “of the flesh”.

    L-carnitine is sold in sport supplements.
    9dream studio/Shutterstock

    The harmful effects of l-carnitine supplements

    It is not thought to be intrinsically harmful. Your gut microbes are to blame for the risks associated with l-carnitine.

    Less than 20% of l-carnitine supplements can be taken in by the human body. The unabsorbed l-carnitine travels down the gastrointestinal tract and reaches the colon. The colon is home to trillions of microbes, including bacteria, viruses and fungi.

    When the remaining 80% of the l-carnitine supplement arrives in the colon, the microbes start absorbing the nutrient and they use it to produce something else: trimethylamine (TMA). TMA is a compound the human body can efficiently absorb, and that is where the potentially harmful effects of l-carnitine supplements arise.

    Once the body absorbs TMA, it goes to the liver via the blood stream. The liver converts TMA to trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO). Research has shown that high levels of TMAO in the blood can contribute to cardiovascular disease.

    For example, a research group at the Cleveland Clinic in the US gave human participants a nutrient similar to l-carnitine that is also converted into TMA by gut microbes. The researchers found that the nutrient caused an increased risk of thrombosis (blood clots) in their participants.

    L-carnitine itself is a beneficial nutrient. When it is produced by our bodies, which happens in the kidneys, brain and liver, it’s not metabolised by the gut microbiota and isn’t converted to TMAO. Your body can absorb more l-carnitine from meat than from supplements, which makes it less harmful as that means less of it ends up in the colon.

    Dietary intervention can reduce harmful effects

    In my team’s lab at the Quadram Institute in Norwich, England, we simulated what happens when the l-carnitine supplement reaches the microbes in the colon. We fed a culture of gut microbes with l-carnitine and measured the TMA that the microbes produced.

    Then, we fed a culture of gut microbes with l-carnitine together with a pomegranate extract, which is rich in polyphenols. Polyphenols are plant compounds with antioxidant, antimicrobial, and anti-inflammatory properties that may help keep you healthy and protect you against diseases.

    The main polyphenols in pomegranate belong to a group called ellagitannins, a type of polyphenol that can reach the colon almost entirely intact, where they can interact with the gut microbiota. When we measured the TMA that the gut microbes produced in the second experiment, we saw much less TMA.

    Our experiments in the lab show that a polyphenol-rich pomegranate extract can reduce microbial TMA production and eliminate the potentially harmful effects of l-carnitine supplements.

    Our laboratory experiments showed that the pomegranate extract can reduce the production of TMA. Ellagitannins are also abundant in other fruits and nuts, such as raspberries and walnuts. So, if you take l-carnitine supplements, our research suggests that it may be a good idea to include ellagitannin-rich foods in your diet. Eating more fruits and nuts can be good for your health, so including these in your diet will probably be beneficial anyway.

    Our group is now moving the science outside of the lab. We are testing in human participants how effective the pomegranate extract is at reducing TMAO production from l-carnitine supplements. This study will tell us whether taking an l-carnitine supplement along with a pomegranate extract may be better than taking the supplement on its own.

    Julia Haarhuis works at the Quadram Institute and receives funding from the Wellcome Trust.

    – ref. Why the l-carnitine sport supplement is controversial – https://theconversation.com/why-the-l-carnitine-sport-supplement-is-controversial-219520

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: From Scrooge to science: how dairy might disrupt your sleep and dreams

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Timothy Hearn, Senior Lecturer in Bioinformatics, Anglia Ruskin University

    New Africa/Shutterstock

    Ebenezer Scrooge tried to wave away the ghost of Jacob Marley by blaming the apparition on “an undigested bit of beef … a crumb of cheese”. Charles Dickens might have been writing fiction, but the idea that late-night dairy can warp dreams has now gained scientific support.

    Researchers in Canada surveyed 1,082 university students about their eating habits, sleep patterns and dreams.  Remarkably, 40% reported that certain foods affected their sleep. Of that group, 20% blamed dairy – suggesting that Scrooge’s midnight cheese might have had more of an impact than he realised.

    Just 5.5% believed food changed their dreams, but among those respondents dairy again loomed large, second only to sugary desserts as a perceived trigger for bizarre or disturbing dreams.

    The researchers asked about everything from nightmare frequency to food allergies and intolerances. A clear pattern emerged: participants who reported lactose intolerance were significantly more likely to have frequent nightmares. And the link was strongest in people who also experienced bloating or cramps.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Statistical modelling suggested the stomach distress partly explains the bad dreams. In other words, food that keeps the gut churning can also set the imagination spinning.

    That gut–brain route makes physiological sense. Abdominal discomfort can jolt sleepers into lighter stages of sleep where vivid or negative dreams are most common. Inflammation and spikes in cortisol (a stress hormone) triggered by digestive upset may further shape the emotional tone of dreams, especially by amplifying anxiety or negativity.

    Earlier work backs the idea. A 2015 survey of Canadian undergraduates found that nearly 18% linked what they ate to their dreams, with dairy the top suspect, while a 2022 online study of 436 dream enthusiasts reported that people who ate more sugary snacks remembered more nightmares.

    The new study from Canada echoes a wider literature on diet and sleep. Diets rich in fibre, fruit and vegetables are associated with deeper, more refreshing sleep, whereas meals high in saturated fat and sugar predict lighter, more fragmented rest.

    Stomach distress partly explains bad dreams.
    Lysenko Andrii/Shutterstock

    Eating late in the evening has been tied to poorer sleep quality and to an “evening chronotype” (that is, night owls), itself linked to nightmare frequency.

    If future work confirms the cheese–nightmare connection, the implications could be practical. Nightmares affect about 4% of adults worldwide and are particularly common in post-traumatic stress disorder.

    Drug treatments exist but carry side-effects. Adjusting the timing or composition of evening meals, or choosing low-lactose dairy options, would be a far cheaper, lower-risk intervention.

    Gut-friendly diets such as the Mediterranean diet are already being explored for mood disorders; nightmares may be another frontier for nutritional psychiatry.

    What the research can’t prove

    That said, the new findings come with caveats. The sample was young, mostly healthy psychology students filling out online questionnaires. Food intake, lactose intolerance and nightmare frequency were all self-reported, so “recall biases” (inaccurate memory) or the power of suggestion could inflate the associations.

    Only 59 participants believed food influenced their dreams, so small-number effects (unreliable results from too few data) are possible. And a survey can only reveal associations – it can’t prove that cheese causes bad dream.

    Cheese keeps cropping up in nightmare stories, and people who struggle to digest dairy report the worst of it. Scientists still have to match meal diaries, gut clues and lab-monitored dreams to prove the link. In the meantime, try eating earlier or choosing low-lactose options. Your stomach – and your dreams – may calm down.

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

    – ref. From Scrooge to science: how dairy might disrupt your sleep and dreams – https://theconversation.com/from-scrooge-to-science-how-dairy-might-disrupt-your-sleep-and-dreams-260328

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: NHS ten-year plan for England: what’s in it and what’s needed to make it work

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Judith Smith, Professor of Health Policy and Management, University of Birmingham

    The UK government has published its eagerly awaited ten-year health plan for England, setting out how billions of pounds in NHS funding will be used to transform healthcare delivery across the country.

    As anticipated, the plan is framed around the government’s three missions for the NHS: shifting care from hospital into the community, moving from analogue to digital communication, and focusing on preventing ill health rather than treating illness.

    The 168-page document responds to a stark warning that the NHS is “in serious trouble”. It is remarkable for the sheer number of ideas and proposals. As well as describing major new developments to improve people’s access to local in-person and virtual NHS care and disease prevention, it sets out a blizzard of other proposals.

    These include abolishing Healthwatch (a national watchdog that listens to people’s views on health and social care services to improve them), and bringing back some of the reforms of the Tony Blair era such as “new foundation trusts” and using private funding for new buildings.

    From hospital to community

    The big idea in the ten-year plan is a neighbourhood health service: large local health centres where people can access GP, nursing, dental, pharmacy, diagnostic and other services six days a week, 12 hours a day. These are intended to relieve pressure on hospitals and emergency departments, eventually replacing many outpatient clinics.

    The idea of shifting care into the community is not new. It has been advocated for over 30 years, including in the NHS white paper of 1997, the 2006 policy paper Our health, our care, our say, the NHS five-year forward view of 2014, and the NHS long-term plan of 2019.

    Some progress has been made in this direction. For example, much of the care for people living with asthma and diabetes is now provided in local general practices. Many general practices already have large teams of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists and other staff who offer aspects of the wider “neighbourhood care” described in the new plan.

    But what has not been achieved is having larger-scale primary care teams consistently available across the NHS. The new plan proposes new contracts and shifts of funding to enable wider change, and while welcome, these will be challenging to put into practice against a backdrop of major service pressures.

    From analogue to digital

    The plan emphasises strongly the need to extend the role of the NHS app, with it becoming the “doctor in your pocket” and the main route into NHS services. It proposes that the app holds your full patient record, enables you to book GP and hospital appointments and becomes a key source of healthcare advice.

    This sounds very attractive. However, the devil will be in the detail. There are so many NHS IT systems to harmonise, and major data security and privacy issues to overcome.

    Most critically, much attention must be given to sorting out basic NHS admin systems that are too often confusing and paper-based. This will entail lots of work with NHS clinical and administrative staff, changing long-standing ways of working, introducing new technology and adapting “the way we do things round here”.

    Using AI to record doctor visits, understand test results and give health advice could really change how healthcare works. But this will take lots of time and money to train staff, try out new systems and put them in place. Also, people will need clear information about what to expect from their local health services in the future.

    From sickness to prevention

    England is getting sicker, and there are stark inequalities between the richest and the poorest.

    To achieve the plan’s goal of empowering people to make healthier choices, robust cross-government action is essential across sectors, including housing, education and welfare. While some important measures such as the tobacco and vapes bill, plans to measure supermarkets’ sales of healthy foods, and the expansion of free school meals are included in the plan, others such as minimum alcohol pricing have been notably excluded.

    Integrated care boards (ICBs), the regional bodies who plan and fund NHS services in England, and local councils will be vital in enabling these public health measures to be implemented. However, this will be difficult in the short to medium term as ICBs are being forced to merge, cut headcount and reorganise their work.

    Making it work

    For the ten-year plan to succeed, three key elements are essential.

    First, there is an urgent need to set priorities. The public expects much swifter access to on-the-day GP appointments, an end to excessive waits in accident and emergency departments, and reductions in waiting lists for operations.

    The Department of Health and Social Care must guide the NHS in which aspects of the plan are to be addressed first. If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.

    Second, implementation really matters. There is only so much management capacity, staff time, funding and goodwill to introduce new technologies and services. This government has already embarked on another “redisorganisation” of the oversight agency NHS England, and now plans to axe or merge a number of other national and local NHS bodies. NHS managers are vital to implementing the plan, but need to feel valued and supported, not denigrated as superfluous.

    Finally, the plan is almost silent on the two most pressing needs for government health reform. Without a properly funded system of adult social care to support older people and those living with enduring mental health needs, it is hard to see how hospital care can be transformed.

    And without an urgent and significant shift of resources to general practice and community services, neighbourhood health services will remain more of a dream than reality.



    Read more:
    NHS unveils ten-year plan to shift from treatment to prevention – here’s what needs to change to make that happen

    Judith Smith receives funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research for research and evaluation. Judith is Senior Visiting Fellow at the Health Foundation.

    – ref. NHS ten-year plan for England: what’s in it and what’s needed to make it work – https://theconversation.com/nhs-ten-year-plan-for-england-whats-in-it-and-whats-needed-to-make-it-work-260077

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: NHS ten-year plan for England: what’s in it and what’s needed to make it work

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Judith Smith, Professor of Health Policy and Management, University of Birmingham

    The UK government has published its eagerly awaited ten-year health plan for England, setting out how billions of pounds in NHS funding will be used to transform healthcare delivery across the country.

    As anticipated, the plan is framed around the government’s three missions for the NHS: shifting care from hospital into the community, moving from analogue to digital communication, and focusing on preventing ill health rather than treating illness.

    The 168-page document responds to a stark warning that the NHS is “in serious trouble”. It is remarkable for the sheer number of ideas and proposals. As well as describing major new developments to improve people’s access to local in-person and virtual NHS care and disease prevention, it sets out a blizzard of other proposals.

    These include abolishing Healthwatch (a national watchdog that listens to people’s views on health and social care services to improve them), and bringing back some of the reforms of the Tony Blair era such as “new foundation trusts” and using private funding for new buildings.

    From hospital to community

    The big idea in the ten-year plan is a neighbourhood health service: large local health centres where people can access GP, nursing, dental, pharmacy, diagnostic and other services six days a week, 12 hours a day. These are intended to relieve pressure on hospitals and emergency departments, eventually replacing many outpatient clinics.

    The idea of shifting care into the community is not new. It has been advocated for over 30 years, including in the NHS white paper of 1997, the 2006 policy paper Our health, our care, our say, the NHS five-year forward view of 2014, and the NHS long-term plan of 2019.

    Some progress has been made in this direction. For example, much of the care for people living with asthma and diabetes is now provided in local general practices. Many general practices already have large teams of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists and other staff who offer aspects of the wider “neighbourhood care” described in the new plan.

    But what has not been achieved is having larger-scale primary care teams consistently available across the NHS. The new plan proposes new contracts and shifts of funding to enable wider change, and while welcome, these will be challenging to put into practice against a backdrop of major service pressures.

    From analogue to digital

    The plan emphasises strongly the need to extend the role of the NHS app, with it becoming the “doctor in your pocket” and the main route into NHS services. It proposes that the app holds your full patient record, enables you to book GP and hospital appointments and becomes a key source of healthcare advice.

    This sounds very attractive. However, the devil will be in the detail. There are so many NHS IT systems to harmonise, and major data security and privacy issues to overcome.

    Most critically, much attention must be given to sorting out basic NHS admin systems that are too often confusing and paper-based. This will entail lots of work with NHS clinical and administrative staff, changing long-standing ways of working, introducing new technology and adapting “the way we do things round here”.

    Using AI to record doctor visits, understand test results and give health advice could really change how healthcare works. But this will take lots of time and money to train staff, try out new systems and put them in place. Also, people will need clear information about what to expect from their local health services in the future.

    From sickness to prevention

    England is getting sicker, and there are stark inequalities between the richest and the poorest.

    To achieve the plan’s goal of empowering people to make healthier choices, robust cross-government action is essential across sectors, including housing, education and welfare. While some important measures such as the tobacco and vapes bill, plans to measure supermarkets’ sales of healthy foods, and the expansion of free school meals are included in the plan, others such as minimum alcohol pricing have been notably excluded.

    Integrated care boards (ICBs), the regional bodies who plan and fund NHS services in England, and local councils will be vital in enabling these public health measures to be implemented. However, this will be difficult in the short to medium term as ICBs are being forced to merge, cut headcount and reorganise their work.

    Making it work

    For the ten-year plan to succeed, three key elements are essential.

    First, there is an urgent need to set priorities. The public expects much swifter access to on-the-day GP appointments, an end to excessive waits in accident and emergency departments, and reductions in waiting lists for operations.

    The Department of Health and Social Care must guide the NHS in which aspects of the plan are to be addressed first. If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.

    Second, implementation really matters. There is only so much management capacity, staff time, funding and goodwill to introduce new technologies and services. This government has already embarked on another “redisorganisation” of the oversight agency NHS England, and now plans to axe or merge a number of other national and local NHS bodies. NHS managers are vital to implementing the plan, but need to feel valued and supported, not denigrated as superfluous.

    Finally, the plan is almost silent on the two most pressing needs for government health reform. Without a properly funded system of adult social care to support older people and those living with enduring mental health needs, it is hard to see how hospital care can be transformed.

    And without an urgent and significant shift of resources to general practice and community services, neighbourhood health services will remain more of a dream than reality.



    Read more:
    NHS unveils ten-year plan to shift from treatment to prevention – here’s what needs to change to make that happen

    Judith Smith receives funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research for research and evaluation. Judith is Senior Visiting Fellow at the Health Foundation.

    – ref. NHS ten-year plan for England: what’s in it and what’s needed to make it work – https://theconversation.com/nhs-ten-year-plan-for-england-whats-in-it-and-whats-needed-to-make-it-work-260077

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: NHS ten-year plan for England: what’s in it and what’s needed to make it work

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Judith Smith, Professor of Health Policy and Management, University of Birmingham

    The UK government has published its eagerly awaited ten-year health plan for England, setting out how billions of pounds in NHS funding will be used to transform healthcare delivery across the country.

    As anticipated, the plan is framed around the government’s three missions for the NHS: shifting care from hospital into the community, moving from analogue to digital communication, and focusing on preventing ill health rather than treating illness.

    The 168-page document responds to a stark warning that the NHS is “in serious trouble”. It is remarkable for the sheer number of ideas and proposals. As well as describing major new developments to improve people’s access to local in-person and virtual NHS care and disease prevention, it sets out a blizzard of other proposals.

    These include abolishing Healthwatch (a national watchdog that listens to people’s views on health and social care services to improve them), and bringing back some of the reforms of the Tony Blair era such as “new foundation trusts” and using private funding for new buildings.

    From hospital to community

    The big idea in the ten-year plan is a neighbourhood health service: large local health centres where people can access GP, nursing, dental, pharmacy, diagnostic and other services six days a week, 12 hours a day. These are intended to relieve pressure on hospitals and emergency departments, eventually replacing many outpatient clinics.

    The idea of shifting care into the community is not new. It has been advocated for over 30 years, including in the NHS white paper of 1997, the 2006 policy paper Our health, our care, our say, the NHS five-year forward view of 2014, and the NHS long-term plan of 2019.

    Some progress has been made in this direction. For example, much of the care for people living with asthma and diabetes is now provided in local general practices. Many general practices already have large teams of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists and other staff who offer aspects of the wider “neighbourhood care” described in the new plan.

    But what has not been achieved is having larger-scale primary care teams consistently available across the NHS. The new plan proposes new contracts and shifts of funding to enable wider change, and while welcome, these will be challenging to put into practice against a backdrop of major service pressures.

    From analogue to digital

    The plan emphasises strongly the need to extend the role of the NHS app, with it becoming the “doctor in your pocket” and the main route into NHS services. It proposes that the app holds your full patient record, enables you to book GP and hospital appointments and becomes a key source of healthcare advice.

    This sounds very attractive. However, the devil will be in the detail. There are so many NHS IT systems to harmonise, and major data security and privacy issues to overcome.

    Most critically, much attention must be given to sorting out basic NHS admin systems that are too often confusing and paper-based. This will entail lots of work with NHS clinical and administrative staff, changing long-standing ways of working, introducing new technology and adapting “the way we do things round here”.

    Using AI to record doctor visits, understand test results and give health advice could really change how healthcare works. But this will take lots of time and money to train staff, try out new systems and put them in place. Also, people will need clear information about what to expect from their local health services in the future.

    From sickness to prevention

    England is getting sicker, and there are stark inequalities between the richest and the poorest.

    To achieve the plan’s goal of empowering people to make healthier choices, robust cross-government action is essential across sectors, including housing, education and welfare. While some important measures such as the tobacco and vapes bill, plans to measure supermarkets’ sales of healthy foods, and the expansion of free school meals are included in the plan, others such as minimum alcohol pricing have been notably excluded.

    Integrated care boards (ICBs), the regional bodies who plan and fund NHS services in England, and local councils will be vital in enabling these public health measures to be implemented. However, this will be difficult in the short to medium term as ICBs are being forced to merge, cut headcount and reorganise their work.

    Making it work

    For the ten-year plan to succeed, three key elements are essential.

    First, there is an urgent need to set priorities. The public expects much swifter access to on-the-day GP appointments, an end to excessive waits in accident and emergency departments, and reductions in waiting lists for operations.

    The Department of Health and Social Care must guide the NHS in which aspects of the plan are to be addressed first. If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.

    Second, implementation really matters. There is only so much management capacity, staff time, funding and goodwill to introduce new technologies and services. This government has already embarked on another “redisorganisation” of the oversight agency NHS England, and now plans to axe or merge a number of other national and local NHS bodies. NHS managers are vital to implementing the plan, but need to feel valued and supported, not denigrated as superfluous.

    Finally, the plan is almost silent on the two most pressing needs for government health reform. Without a properly funded system of adult social care to support older people and those living with enduring mental health needs, it is hard to see how hospital care can be transformed.

    And without an urgent and significant shift of resources to general practice and community services, neighbourhood health services will remain more of a dream than reality.



    Read more:
    NHS unveils ten-year plan to shift from treatment to prevention – here’s what needs to change to make that happen

    Judith Smith receives funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research for research and evaluation. Judith is Senior Visiting Fellow at the Health Foundation.

    – ref. NHS ten-year plan for England: what’s in it and what’s needed to make it work – https://theconversation.com/nhs-ten-year-plan-for-england-whats-in-it-and-whats-needed-to-make-it-work-260077

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: In search of Labour’s ‘working people’ – the paradox at the heart of Keir Starmer’s first year in power

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By George Newth, Lecturer in Politics and member of Reactionary Politics Research Network, University of Bath

    Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

    It’s one year since Keir Starmer led the Labour party to a landslide victory. Starmer’s manifesto, “Change” had proposed “securonomics” as a solution to the UK’s many crises. This was sold as a way of ensuring “sustained economic growth as the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people”.

    The document mentioned “working people” a total of 21 times. It was clear this demographic had been identified as the key target beneficiary of “securonomics”, otherwise referred to as “the plan for change”.

    But there is a paradox at the heart of the proposal to deliver “change” to “working people” – one that helps explain the chaos of Labour’s first year in government. By obsessively pitting this demographic against “non-working people”, Labour is in fact not promising any real change at all.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    One of the key premises of Labour’s securonomics is that growth must precede any significant investment. “Working people’s” priorities are therefore presented as being in line with that of a fiscally responsible state.

    In the autumn budget, there was a pledge to “fix the foundations of the economy and deliver change by protecting working people”. To do this, the chancellor needed to fix a “black hole” of £22 billion in government finances.

    The refusal to lift the two-child benefit cap, alongside “reforming the state to ensure […] welfare spending is targeted towards those that need it the most”, was framed as “putting more money in working people’s pockets”. There has, meanwhile, been a continued emphasis on encouraging those on benefits back to work.

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

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

    Besides the clear deepening of inequality wrought by similar reforms in the past, welfare cuts make no sense on an economic or societal level. They undermine the economy, and the consequences put additional pressure on already underfunded social services.

    As highlighted by the Office of Budgetary Responsibility (OBR), such cuts fail to deliver the promised behavioural change to force people into work. People instead become more focused on day-to-day survival.

    Despite the government’s last ditch climbdown to save its flagship welfare reform policy its cuts are still forecast to push more than 150,000 people into poverty

    Such reforms carried out in the name of “working people” perpetuate a pernicious myth of us v them. Not only are people in work also affected by these cuts but people’s lives – including their jobs, income, family situations, and health – shift regularly, making the “strivers v skivers” divide both simplistic and inaccurate.

    Even “secure borders” and “smashing the criminal gangs” were positioned as “grown up politics back in the service of working people”. This association of working people with anti-immigrant attitudes links to a broader homogenisation of “working people” as both “patriotic” and in search of “security”. “Fixing the foundations” has been depicted in several social media posts as a patriotic act via use of the Union Jack.

    Starmer meets ‘working people: steel category’.
    Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

    Meanwhile, stage-managed photoshoots of Starmer in factories with people wearing hard hats and hi-visibility jackets give a clear impression of the types of manufacturing jobs the government believes “working people” carry out. This gives an impressions that belies the reality of modern Britain – and an economy that is dominated by the service sector,, not manufacturing or building.

    Old wine in new bottles

    While Starmer framed his “plan for change” as a break with previous administrations, his “working people” narrative betrays this claim as anything but.

    The idea that the deserving “working people” are different and separate from people who don’t (or can’t) work has been deployed by government after government to justify austerity and cuts to services. It has always been useful to separate the “scroungers from the strivers” and there is no sign of Labour changing course.

    Hello! Are you working people?
    Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

    The term “working people” also builds on a previous trope of the “hard-working family”.

    While initially coined by New Labour, this term has roots in Margaret Thatcher’s idea of the family, rather than the state, as the locus of welfare. It was not for the state to take care of you but your own kin.

    Like “working people” now, “hard-working families” were those who played by the rules and knuckled down to earn a living. Previous Conservative administrations have depicted “hard-working families” as burdened by the unemployed, the poor, the sick and disabled and immigrants.

    Add to this, the signalling continues to imply that the “authentic” working class of Britain are solely white – sometimes also male – and typically older, manual labourers, who are assumed to hold socially conservative views. This is another divide-and-rule trope which neglects the reality of the multiracial and multiethnic composition of the working classes.

    In light of all this, any real “change” promised in Labour’s manifesto has been betrayed by a continuity with tired and damaging tropes of deserving and undeserving people. This is contributing to the sense, a year in, that this Labour government is merely repeating past government failures rather than striking out in a new direction.

    George Newth works for University of Bath and is a member of the Green Party

    – ref. In search of Labour’s ‘working people’ – the paradox at the heart of Keir Starmer’s first year in power – https://theconversation.com/in-search-of-labours-working-people-the-paradox-at-the-heart-of-keir-starmers-first-year-in-power-260230

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: In search of Labour’s ‘working people’ – the paradox at the heart of Keir Starmer’s first year in power

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By George Newth, Lecturer in Politics and member of Reactionary Politics Research Network, University of Bath

    Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

    It’s one year since Keir Starmer led the Labour party to a landslide victory. Starmer’s manifesto, “Change” had proposed “securonomics” as a solution to the UK’s many crises. This was sold as a way of ensuring “sustained economic growth as the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people”.

    The document mentioned “working people” a total of 21 times. It was clear this demographic had been identified as the key target beneficiary of “securonomics”, otherwise referred to as “the plan for change”.

    But there is a paradox at the heart of the proposal to deliver “change” to “working people” – one that helps explain the chaos of Labour’s first year in government. By obsessively pitting this demographic against “non-working people”, Labour is in fact not promising any real change at all.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    One of the key premises of Labour’s securonomics is that growth must precede any significant investment. “Working people’s” priorities are therefore presented as being in line with that of a fiscally responsible state.

    In the autumn budget, there was a pledge to “fix the foundations of the economy and deliver change by protecting working people”. To do this, the chancellor needed to fix a “black hole” of £22 billion in government finances.

    The refusal to lift the two-child benefit cap, alongside “reforming the state to ensure […] welfare spending is targeted towards those that need it the most”, was framed as “putting more money in working people’s pockets”. There has, meanwhile, been a continued emphasis on encouraging those on benefits back to work.

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

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

    Besides the clear deepening of inequality wrought by similar reforms in the past, welfare cuts make no sense on an economic or societal level. They undermine the economy, and the consequences put additional pressure on already underfunded social services.

    As highlighted by the Office of Budgetary Responsibility (OBR), such cuts fail to deliver the promised behavioural change to force people into work. People instead become more focused on day-to-day survival.

    Despite the government’s last ditch climbdown to save its flagship welfare reform policy its cuts are still forecast to push more than 150,000 people into poverty

    Such reforms carried out in the name of “working people” perpetuate a pernicious myth of us v them. Not only are people in work also affected by these cuts but people’s lives – including their jobs, income, family situations, and health – shift regularly, making the “strivers v skivers” divide both simplistic and inaccurate.

    Even “secure borders” and “smashing the criminal gangs” were positioned as “grown up politics back in the service of working people”. This association of working people with anti-immigrant attitudes links to a broader homogenisation of “working people” as both “patriotic” and in search of “security”. “Fixing the foundations” has been depicted in several social media posts as a patriotic act via use of the Union Jack.

    Starmer meets ‘working people: steel category’.
    Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

    Meanwhile, stage-managed photoshoots of Starmer in factories with people wearing hard hats and hi-visibility jackets give a clear impression of the types of manufacturing jobs the government believes “working people” carry out. This gives an impressions that belies the reality of modern Britain – and an economy that is dominated by the service sector,, not manufacturing or building.

    Old wine in new bottles

    While Starmer framed his “plan for change” as a break with previous administrations, his “working people” narrative betrays this claim as anything but.

    The idea that the deserving “working people” are different and separate from people who don’t (or can’t) work has been deployed by government after government to justify austerity and cuts to services. It has always been useful to separate the “scroungers from the strivers” and there is no sign of Labour changing course.

    Hello! Are you working people?
    Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

    The term “working people” also builds on a previous trope of the “hard-working family”.

    While initially coined by New Labour, this term has roots in Margaret Thatcher’s idea of the family, rather than the state, as the locus of welfare. It was not for the state to take care of you but your own kin.

    Like “working people” now, “hard-working families” were those who played by the rules and knuckled down to earn a living. Previous Conservative administrations have depicted “hard-working families” as burdened by the unemployed, the poor, the sick and disabled and immigrants.

    Add to this, the signalling continues to imply that the “authentic” working class of Britain are solely white – sometimes also male – and typically older, manual labourers, who are assumed to hold socially conservative views. This is another divide-and-rule trope which neglects the reality of the multiracial and multiethnic composition of the working classes.

    In light of all this, any real “change” promised in Labour’s manifesto has been betrayed by a continuity with tired and damaging tropes of deserving and undeserving people. This is contributing to the sense, a year in, that this Labour government is merely repeating past government failures rather than striking out in a new direction.

    George Newth works for University of Bath and is a member of the Green Party

    – ref. In search of Labour’s ‘working people’ – the paradox at the heart of Keir Starmer’s first year in power – https://theconversation.com/in-search-of-labours-working-people-the-paradox-at-the-heart-of-keir-starmers-first-year-in-power-260230

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Will the Oasis reunion usher in a Britpop summer – or is it just a marketing ploy?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Glenn Fosbraey, Associate Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester

    Ink Drop/Shutterstock

    The trend for naming summers has become something of a cultural phenomenon. Think for example of 2019, which was branded a “hot girl summer”, inspired by rapper Megan Thee Stallion’s song.

    In 2021 there was the much-ridiculed “white boy summer” (named after a song of the same name by Tom Hanks’s son, Chet). Then 2022 was “feral girl summer” and 2024, of course, was a “brat summer”, after Charli XCX’s cultural phenomenon album Brat.

    And this summer? Well, with the likes of Oasis, Pulp, Supergrass, Suede, Shed Seven and Cast all playing UK dates between June and August, it’s “Britpop summer”, of course. The question is, though, whether these names are actually (and accurately) representing the zeitgeist, or if they are just the result of savvy marketing strategies.



    Read more:
    Brat by Charli XCX is a work of contemporary imagist poetry – and a reclamation of ‘bratty’ women’s art

    Such things may now be occurring more frequently, but they’re nothing new. The year 1967 was famously coined “the summer of love”, a moniker supposedly invented by the Californian local government to put a positive spin on the druggy, hairy, hippy gatherings taking place across the state.

    Then, just over two decades later, there came the imaginatively titled “second summer of love” in 1988 which, like its predecessor was drug-inspired, but this time involved British ravers taking ecstasy in London warehouses instead of hippies “dropping acid” in San Franciscan parks.

    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.

    The “summer of love” has largely been presented to us as a psychedelic utopia, wherein London was the “swinging, cool and hip” epicentre of a new cultural movement. Everyone was blissfully stoned, with messages of peace and love on their lips, kaftans and floral blouses on their bodies and flowers in their hair.

    In reality, though, in the UK at least only 8% of adults had actually tried cannabis and fewer than 1% had taken LSD or acid, and the fashion of the day (for men, anyway) involved sensible slacks and short-back-and-sides.

    Such un-psychedelic appetites also spilled over into mainstream music. Although it’s now the UK’s bestselling album ever, in 1967, The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band was only the sixth-biggest album of the year in terms of sales. It was bested by the very suitably non-flower-power Herb Alpert, The Monkees and The Sound of Music soundtrack.

    Pink Floyd’s debut album, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn – “the founding masterpiece in psychedelic music” – sold 275,000 copies in 1967 in the UK (compared to The Sound of Music’s 2.4 million) and was number 34 on the list of big-selling albums in the UK that year.

    The same year, 1967, also saw the “best double-A side ever released”, The Beatles’ Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields Forever. It was kept off the number one spot by Engelbert Humperdinck’s Please Release Me.

    Inside the so-called ‘second summer of love’.

    It seems, then, that for most of the British public, it was less a “summer of love” and more a “summer of Humperdinck”. Fast-forward five decades, and we see the same kinds of things happening. The year 2019 was a “hot girl summer”, Megan Thee Stallion’s song only peaked at 40 in the UK singles charts and her gigs sold poorly.

    Like our “summer of Humperdinck”, were such things based on popularity, we may have expected a “Sheeran summer”, with Ed Sheeran’s duet with Justin Bieber, I Don’t Care, dominating the charts and airwaves.

    Similarly, although 2024 was a “brat summer”, Charli XCX’s album was actually only the UK’s eighth-biggest selling album of the year, with Taylor Swift’s very un-Brat-like The Tortured Poets Department achieving 783,820 sales – almost double Brat’s.



    Read more:
    Taylor Swift’s The Tortured Poets Department and the art of melodrama

    Britpop summer

    Britpop itself may have peaked in 1995, but in the summer of 1996, with Oasis and Blur still omnipresent, Tony Blair talking about the prospect of freedom, aspiration and ambition, England progressing through the Euros on home soil, and sunny day after sunny day, it was (according to The Guardian, at least) the most optimistic period in recent British history where anything seemed possible.

    Pulp performed a secret set at Glastonbury 2025 to huge crowds.

    We may all have become more cynical in the intervening years, but in the midst of another heatwave, with Pulp at Glastonbury, and the Gallaghers reunited, it does feel like there’s something in the air again.

    Indeed, standing among tens of thousands of fellow music fans in the sweltering heat watching Jarvis Cocker strutting his gangly stuff, if I ignored the grey in his beard, the iPhones in the crowd, and the aching in my legs, it could have been the nineties all over again.

    Britpop summer? I’m all for it. And maybe this will be one time that the name really does represent the nation’s mood.

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

    – ref. Will the Oasis reunion usher in a Britpop summer – or is it just a marketing ploy? – https://theconversation.com/will-the-oasis-reunion-usher-in-a-britpop-summer-or-is-it-just-a-marketing-ploy-260256

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The existentialist philosophy of Lana Del Rey

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By King-Ho Leung, Lecturer in Theology, Philosophy and the Arts, King’s College London

    Speaking to Myspace as an upcoming artist in 2013, Lana Dey Rey said that the “vision of making [her] life a work of art” was what inspired her to create her music video for her breakthrough single, Video Games (2011).

    The self-made video, featuring old movies clips and webcam footage of Del Rey singing, went viral. It eventually led her to sign with a major record label. For many, the video conveyed a sense of authenticity. However, upon discovering that “Lana Del Rey” was a pseudonym (her real name is Elizabeth Grant), some fans began to have doubts. Perhaps this self-made video was just another calculated marketing scheme?

    The question of Del Rey’s authenticity has puzzled many throughout her career. Consider, for instance, the controversial Judah Smith Interlude from her latest album, Did You Know That There’s a Tunnel Under Ocean Blvd? (2023). Both fans and critics – including her sizeable LGBTQ+ fanbase – were surprised and troubled by her decision to feature the megachurch pastor Judith Smith, who’s been accused of homophobia.

    However, the meaning of Del Rey’s inclusion of Smith’s sermon soundclips, layered under a recording of Del Rey giggling, is unclear. Is this meant to mock Smith, or even Christianity itself? Or is it an authentic expression of Del Rey’s own spirituality? After all, she repeatedly makes references to her “pastor” in the same album’s opening track The Grants, about her family in real life.

    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.

    Before she became a singer-songwriter, Del Rey gained her philosophy degree at Fordham University. It was the mid-2000s, when the eminent existentialism scholar Merold Westphal would have been on staff, so she probably studied theories of authenticity by existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–80) and Martin Heidegger (1889–1976). Heidegger spoke of human existence as a “being-towards-death”. Or as Del Rey sings in the title track of her first major-label album, “you and I, we were born to die”.

    In Heidegger’s view, to pretend that we are not all bound to die is to deny the kind of finite beings which we are: it is to disown ourselves and exist inauthentically. Conversely, to exist authentically is to accept our own mortality and embrace the way we exist as finite beings.

    The music video for Video Games.

    In this understanding, to exist authentically does not mean the expression of some underlying “true self” or “human nature”. Rather, it is to accept the conditions of life in which we find ourselves.

    ‘An obsession for freedom’

    For existentialist philosophers, such conditions include not only mortality but also freedom – a theme particularly emphasised by Sartre.

    As Sartre says in his 1946 lecture Existentialism Is a Humanism, existentialism holds that “there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it … Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself”.

    Jean-Paul Sartre in Venice in 1967.
    Wiki Commons, CC BY-SA

    With no creator God or pre-established human nature to determine human destiny or purpose, Sartre teaches that human beings are “condemned to freedom”. We are free beings who are always acting freely – whether we acknowledge that we are free or not. To pretend that we are not free is to be inauthentic.

    Sartre suggests embracing our freedom means living life in a manner “comparable to the construction of a work of art”. In his view, in both art and life, we cannot decide in advance what actions ought to be taken: “No one can tell what the painting of tomorrow will be like; one cannot judge a painting until it is done.”

    Lana Del Rey at Primavera in 2024.
    Wiki Commons, CC BY-SA

    Likewise, we cannot judge whether or not a life is well-lived until it is finished. We must not predetermine how someone should live according to some pre-established criterion of “human nature”.

    Instead, we can only assess someone’s life by considering whether they accept that they are free, with the freedom and responsibility to create meaning for their existence by living life as a work of art.

    Both freedom and making life a work of art are recurring themes in Del Rey’s discography. They are brought together perhaps most memorably in her much-loved monologue in the music video for Ride (2012):

    On the open road, we had nothing to lose, nothing to gain, nothing we desired anymore, to make our lives into a work of art: Live fast, die young, be wild, and have fun. I believe in the country America used to be. I believe in the person I want to become. I believe in the freedom of the open road.

    Del Rey is someone Elizabeth Grant became. As though echoing Sartre’s comparison between making art and living life, in her 2012 song Gods & Monsters, she sings of herself “posing like a real singer – cause life imitates art”.

    For Del Rey, being a public-facing “real singer” involves some kind of image-cultivation or even self-cultivation. Not unlike how her music video for Video Games is “self-made”, the very identity of Lana Del Rey is also “self-made”. The image of Lana is a work of art made by the artist, Del Rey herself.

    Ride by Lana Del Rey.

    To be an “authentic” or “real” singer is to accept that the persona of a public figure is always inevitably curated. To combine Sartre’s slogan and Del Rey’s lyrics, the real singer is always “condemned to posing”. To pretend otherwise is to disown what it is to be a “real singer” and to act inauthentically.

    If it is true that, as Del Rey sings, “life imitates art”, to render life as a work of art is the most authentic thing that a person can do. Because to live life as a work of art is nothing other than authentically accepting life as it is, something that itself “imitates art”. As she sings in Get Free (2017), this is Del Rey’s commitment, her modern manifesto.

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

    – ref. The existentialist philosophy of Lana Del Rey – https://theconversation.com/the-existentialist-philosophy-of-lana-del-rey-260131

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Salmonella cases are at ten-year high in England – here’s what you can do to keep yourself safe

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rob Kingsley, Professor, Microbiology, Quadram Institute

    _Salmonella_ causes salmonellosis — an infection that typically results in vomiting and diarrhoea. Lightspring/ Shutterstock

    Salmonella cases in England are the highest they’ve been in a decade, according to recent UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) data. There was a 17% increase in cases observed from 2023 to 2024 – culminating in 10,388 detected infections last year. Children and older adults accounted for around a fifth of cases.

    Although the number of infections caused by foodborne diseases such as Salmonella had broadly decreased over the last 25 years, this recent spike suggests a broader issue is at play. A concurrent increase in Campylobacter cases points to a possible common cause that would affect risk of both foodborne pathogens – such as changes in consumer behaviour or food supply chains.

    While the UK maintains a high standard of food safety, any increase in the incidence of pathogens such as Salmonella warrants serious attention.

    Salmonella is a species of bacteria that is one of the most common causes of foodborne illnesses globally. The bacteria causes salmonellosis – an infection that typically causes vomiting and diarrhoea.

    Most cases of salmonellosis don’t require medical intervention. But approximately one in 50 cases results in more serious blood infections. Fortunately, fatalities from Salmonella infections in the UK are extremely rare – occurring in approximately 0.2% of all reported infections.

    Salmonella infections are typically contracted from contaminated foods. But a key challenge in controlling Salmonella in the food supply chain lies in the diverse range of foods it can contaminate.

    Salmonella is zoonotic, meaning it’s present in animals, including livestock. This allows it to enter the food chain and subsequently cause human disease. This occurs despite substantial efforts within the livestock industry to prevent it from happening – including through regular testing and high welfare practices.

    Salmonella can be present on many retail food products – including raw meat, eggs, unpasteurised milk, vegetables and dried foods (such as nuts and spices). When present, it’s typically at very low contamination levels. This means it doesn’t pose a threat to you if the product is stored and cooked properly.

    Vegetables and leafy greens can also become contaminated with Salmonella through cross-contamination, which may occur from contaminated irrigation water on farms, during processing or during storage at home. As vegetables are often consumed raw, preventing cross-contamination is particularly critical.

    Spike in cases

    It’s premature to draw definitive conclusions regarding the causes of this recent increase in Salmonella cases. But the recent UKHSA report suggests the increase is probably due to many factors.

    Never prepare raw meat next to vegetables you intend to eat without cooking, as cross-contamination can lead to Salmonella.
    kathrinerajalingam/ Shutterstock

    One contributing factor is that diagnostic testing has increased. This means we’re better at detecting cases. This can be viewed as a positive, as robust surveillance is integral to maintaining a safe food supply.

    The UKHSA also suggests that changes in the food supply chain and the way people are cooking and storing their food due to the cost of living crisis could also be influential factors.

    To better understand why Salmonella cases have spiked, it will be important for researchers to conduct more detailed examinations of the specific Salmonella strains responsible for the infections. While Salmonella is commonly perceived as a singular bacterial pathogen, there are actually numerous strains (serotypes).

    DNA sequencing can tell us which of the hundreds of Salmonella serotypes are responsible for human infections. Two serotypes, Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella Typhimurium, account for most infections in England.

    Although the UKHSA reported an increase in both serotypes in 2024, the data suggests that Salmonella enteritidis has played a more significant role in the observed increase. This particular serotype is predominantly associated with egg contamination.

    Salmonella enteritidis is now relatively rare in UK poultry flocks thanks to vaccination and surveillance programmes that were introduced in the 1980s and 1990s. So the important question here is where these additional S enteritidis infections are originating.

    Although the numbers may seem alarming, what the UKHSA has reported is actually a relatively moderate increase in Salmonella cases. There’s no reason for UK consumers to be alarmed. Still, this data underscores the importance of thoroughly investigating the underlying causes to prevent this short-term increase from evolving into a longer-term trend.

    Staying safe

    The most effective way of lowering your risk of Salmonella involves adherence to the “4 Cs” of food hygiene:

    1. Cleaning

    Thoroughly wash hands before and after handling any foods – especially raw meat. It’s also essential to keep workspaces, knives and utensils clean before, during and after preparing your meal.

    2. Cooking

    The bacteria that causes Salmonella infections can be inactivated when cooked at the right temperature. In general, foods should be cooked to an internal temperature above 65°C – which should be maintained for at least ten minutes. When re-heating food, it should reach 70°C or above for two minutes to kill any bacteria that have grown since it was first cooked.

    3. Chilling

    Raw foods – especially meat and dairy – should always be stored below 5°C as this inhibits Salmonella growth. Leftovers should be cooled quickly and also stored at 5°C or lower.

    4. Cross-contamination

    To prevent Salmonella passing from raw foods to those that are already prepared or can be eaten raw (such as vegetables and fruit), it’s important to wash hands and clean surfaces after handling raw meat, and to use different chopping boards for ready-to-eat foods and raw meat.

    Most Salmonella infections are mild and will go away in a few days on their own. But taking the right steps when storing and preparing your meals can significantly lower your risk of contracting it.

    Rob Kingsley receives funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

    – ref. Salmonella cases are at ten-year high in England – here’s what you can do to keep yourself safe – https://theconversation.com/salmonella-cases-are-at-ten-year-high-in-england-heres-what-you-can-do-to-keep-yourself-safe-260032

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Salmonella cases are at ten-year high in England – here’s what you can do to keep yourself safe

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rob Kingsley, Professor, Microbiology, Quadram Institute

    _Salmonella_ causes salmonellosis — an infection that typically results in vomiting and diarrhoea. Lightspring/ Shutterstock

    Salmonella cases in England are the highest they’ve been in a decade, according to recent UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) data. There was a 17% increase in cases observed from 2023 to 2024 – culminating in 10,388 detected infections last year. Children and older adults accounted for around a fifth of cases.

    Although the number of infections caused by foodborne diseases such as Salmonella had broadly decreased over the last 25 years, this recent spike suggests a broader issue is at play. A concurrent increase in Campylobacter cases points to a possible common cause that would affect risk of both foodborne pathogens – such as changes in consumer behaviour or food supply chains.

    While the UK maintains a high standard of food safety, any increase in the incidence of pathogens such as Salmonella warrants serious attention.

    Salmonella is a species of bacteria that is one of the most common causes of foodborne illnesses globally. The bacteria causes salmonellosis – an infection that typically causes vomiting and diarrhoea.

    Most cases of salmonellosis don’t require medical intervention. But approximately one in 50 cases results in more serious blood infections. Fortunately, fatalities from Salmonella infections in the UK are extremely rare – occurring in approximately 0.2% of all reported infections.

    Salmonella infections are typically contracted from contaminated foods. But a key challenge in controlling Salmonella in the food supply chain lies in the diverse range of foods it can contaminate.

    Salmonella is zoonotic, meaning it’s present in animals, including livestock. This allows it to enter the food chain and subsequently cause human disease. This occurs despite substantial efforts within the livestock industry to prevent it from happening – including through regular testing and high welfare practices.

    Salmonella can be present on many retail food products – including raw meat, eggs, unpasteurised milk, vegetables and dried foods (such as nuts and spices). When present, it’s typically at very low contamination levels. This means it doesn’t pose a threat to you if the product is stored and cooked properly.

    Vegetables and leafy greens can also become contaminated with Salmonella through cross-contamination, which may occur from contaminated irrigation water on farms, during processing or during storage at home. As vegetables are often consumed raw, preventing cross-contamination is particularly critical.

    Spike in cases

    It’s premature to draw definitive conclusions regarding the causes of this recent increase in Salmonella cases. But the recent UKHSA report suggests the increase is probably due to many factors.

    Never prepare raw meat next to vegetables you intend to eat without cooking, as cross-contamination can lead to Salmonella.
    kathrinerajalingam/ Shutterstock

    One contributing factor is that diagnostic testing has increased. This means we’re better at detecting cases. This can be viewed as a positive, as robust surveillance is integral to maintaining a safe food supply.

    The UKHSA also suggests that changes in the food supply chain and the way people are cooking and storing their food due to the cost of living crisis could also be influential factors.

    To better understand why Salmonella cases have spiked, it will be important for researchers to conduct more detailed examinations of the specific Salmonella strains responsible for the infections. While Salmonella is commonly perceived as a singular bacterial pathogen, there are actually numerous strains (serotypes).

    DNA sequencing can tell us which of the hundreds of Salmonella serotypes are responsible for human infections. Two serotypes, Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella Typhimurium, account for most infections in England.

    Although the UKHSA reported an increase in both serotypes in 2024, the data suggests that Salmonella enteritidis has played a more significant role in the observed increase. This particular serotype is predominantly associated with egg contamination.

    Salmonella enteritidis is now relatively rare in UK poultry flocks thanks to vaccination and surveillance programmes that were introduced in the 1980s and 1990s. So the important question here is where these additional S enteritidis infections are originating.

    Although the numbers may seem alarming, what the UKHSA has reported is actually a relatively moderate increase in Salmonella cases. There’s no reason for UK consumers to be alarmed. Still, this data underscores the importance of thoroughly investigating the underlying causes to prevent this short-term increase from evolving into a longer-term trend.

    Staying safe

    The most effective way of lowering your risk of Salmonella involves adherence to the “4 Cs” of food hygiene:

    1. Cleaning

    Thoroughly wash hands before and after handling any foods – especially raw meat. It’s also essential to keep workspaces, knives and utensils clean before, during and after preparing your meal.

    2. Cooking

    The bacteria that causes Salmonella infections can be inactivated when cooked at the right temperature. In general, foods should be cooked to an internal temperature above 65°C – which should be maintained for at least ten minutes. When re-heating food, it should reach 70°C or above for two minutes to kill any bacteria that have grown since it was first cooked.

    3. Chilling

    Raw foods – especially meat and dairy – should always be stored below 5°C as this inhibits Salmonella growth. Leftovers should be cooled quickly and also stored at 5°C or lower.

    4. Cross-contamination

    To prevent Salmonella passing from raw foods to those that are already prepared or can be eaten raw (such as vegetables and fruit), it’s important to wash hands and clean surfaces after handling raw meat, and to use different chopping boards for ready-to-eat foods and raw meat.

    Most Salmonella infections are mild and will go away in a few days on their own. But taking the right steps when storing and preparing your meals can significantly lower your risk of contracting it.

    Rob Kingsley receives funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

    – ref. Salmonella cases are at ten-year high in England – here’s what you can do to keep yourself safe – https://theconversation.com/salmonella-cases-are-at-ten-year-high-in-england-heres-what-you-can-do-to-keep-yourself-safe-260032

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Capitalism and democracy are weakening – reviving the idea of ‘calling’ can help to repair them

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Valerie L. Myers, Organizational Psychologist and Lecturer in Management and Organizations, University of Michigan

    Ask someone what a calling is, and they’ll probably say something like “doing work you love.” But as a management professor who has spent two decades researching the history and impact of calling, I’ve found it’s much more than personal fulfillment.

    The concept of calling has deep roots. In the 1500s, theologian Martin Luther asserted that any legitimate work – not just work in ministry – could have sacred significance and social value, and could therefore be considered a calling. In this early form, calling wasn’t merely a vocation or passion; it was a way of living and working that built character, competence and social trust.

    That’s because calling is an ethical system – a set of thoughts and actions aimed at producing “good work” that is both morally grounded and quality-focused. As such, it’s not just a feel-good idea.

    Today, we know that calling can strengthen social trust by reinforcing its key elements: confidence in product quality, stable institutions, adherence to rules and laws, and relationships.

    Social trust is crucial for capitalism and vibrant democracies. And when those systems weaken, as they are now, it’s calling – not cunning or charisma – that can help repair them.

    Although calling’s original meaning has faded, I contend that it’s worth reviving. That robust spirit of work still has practical value today, especially since social trust has been declining for decades.

    History’s warning lights are flashing

    We’ve been here before – in the late 19th century, when the U.S. entered its first Gilded Age. Innovation surged, but so did corruption and inequality as lax regulations enabled tycoons to accumulate extraordinary wealth. Rapid social change sparked conflict. Meanwhile, rising authoritarianism, shifting national alliances and economic jolts unsettled the world. Sound familiar?

    Today, in the U.S., trust in institutions has reached an all-time low, while measures of corruption and inequality are up. Meanwhile, American workers are increasingly disengaged at work, a problem that costs US$438 billion annually. America’s fractured and flawed democracy ranks 28th globally, having fallen 11 slots in less than 15 years.

    These aren’t just economic or political failures – they’re signs of a moral breakdown.

    Over a century ago, sociologist Max Weber warned that if capitalism lost its moral footing, it would cannibalize itself. He predicted the rise of “specialists without spirit,” people who are technically brilliant but ethically empty. The result: resurgence of a cruel, callous form of capitalism called moral menace.

    Moral menaces and moral muses

    Some leaders act as moral menaces, which law professor James Q. Whitman describes as an efficient but exploitative form of capitalism. Moral menaces extract value and treat people callously, which erodes trust that sustains markets and society. In contrast, others are what I call “moral muses” – leaders who are examples of a calling in action. They’re not saints or celebrities, but people who combine skill, care and moral courage to build trust and transform systems from within. President Franklin Roosevelt and Yvonne Chouinard are two examples.

    When President Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933, amid the Great Depression, an aide told Roosevelt if he was successful, he’d become America’s greatest president. Roosevelt replied, “If I fail, I shall be the last one.” He succeeded by restoring trust. Through New Deal policies, Roosevelt enhanced institutional trust, which stabilized democracy and helped rescue capitalism from its excesses. Today, the U.S. remains highly innovative, competitive and wealthy, in part because of moral muses like Roosevelt.

    Or take Yvon Chouinard, the founder of clothing label Patagonia, who built a billion-dollar company while building trust around a moral mission. He urged customers not to buy more gear, but instead to repair their old products to curb consumer waste. Chouinard filed over 70 lawsuits to protect public land, and he gave away his company to climate-change nonprofits in 2022, declaring, “Earth is now our only shareholder.” Relatedly, Patagonia’s employee turnover is far lower than the industry standard, reporting shows. Why? Because people trust leaders who live their values.

    History shows that such leaders aren’t born; they are trained.

    MBAs and the calling to leadership

    For 15 years, I’ve taught an MBA module named “The Calling to Leadership.” Students study moral muses like Roosevelt and Chouinard – not for their fame, but for how they live their callings to cultivate talent and trust, and transform systems.

    Students learn to identify moral injuries that lead to disengagement, identify trust gaps, reflect on their own moral core, and practice ethical decision-making. They also engage in reflective practices that sharpen their ethical judgment, which is essential to creating moral markets.

    As Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the founder of the Council for Inclusive Capitalism, put it: “At its best, the basis of capitalism is a dual moral and market imperative.”

    Democracy and capitalism won’t be strengthened by charisma, cunning or exploitative ambition, but by people who answer a deeper calling to do “good work”: work that builds trust and strengthens the social fabric. History shows that real progress has often been guided by the slumbering ideals of calling. In this age of disengagement and distrust, those ideals aren’t just worth reviving – they’re essential.

    In my view, calling isn’t a luxury; it’s a leadership imperative. To fulfill yours, don’t ask, “Is this my dream job?” Ask, “Will my actions build trust?” If not, change course. If yes, keep going. That’s how to heal institutions and improve systems, and how ordinary people can become the quiet force behind meaningful, lasting transformation.

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

    – ref. Capitalism and democracy are weakening – reviving the idea of ‘calling’ can help to repair them – https://theconversation.com/capitalism-and-democracy-are-weakening-reviving-the-idea-of-calling-can-help-to-repair-them-257091

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Parents who oppose sex education in schools often don’t discuss it at home

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Robin Pickering, Professor and Chair, Public Health, Gonzaga University

    Lawmakers and school boards across the country have established policies that limit what schools can teach about gender, sexuality and reproductive health. Alexmia/iStock via Getty Images

    Public battles over what schools can teach about sex, identity and relationships, often framed around “parental rights,” have become more intense in recent years.

    Behind the loud debate lies a quiet contradiction. Many parents who say sex education should be taught only at home don’t actually provide it there, either.

    As a scholar of sex education, I found that parents strongly opposed to comprehensive sex education in schools were the least likely to discuss health-promoting concepts such as consent, contraception, gender identity and healthy relationships. I discuss similar themes in my book, “A Modern Approach to the Birds and the Bees.”

    Comprehensive sex education delays sexual activity, increases contraceptive use and reduces teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection rates. It has a complex history, but has long received bipartisan support.

    In recent years, however, old debates over sex education and funding have taken a sharper turn.

    In June 2025, the Trump administration ordered California to remove gender-identity materials from sex education lessons or risk losing over US$12 million in federal funding.

    This directive is part of a broader shift. Since the early 1980s, abstinence-focused policy has existed at the federal level under Reagan with the Adolescent Family Life Act. In recent years, however, a wave of state-level legislation, often driven by conservative advocacy groups, has tried to limit what schools can teach about sexuality.

    The parents’ rights movement

    In 2023, Florida expanded its Parental Rights in Education, also known as the “Don’t Say Gay” law, to extend limits on discussing sexual orientation and gender identity to all K–12 grades. The law states that sex can be defined only as strictly binary, limits discussions of gender and sexuality, imposes rules on pronoun use and increases school board authority over curricula.

    Other states, including Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Kentucky, have imposed similar restrictions.

    Federal, state and local efforts have sought to control or limit sex education in schools.
    tupungato/iStock via Getty Images

    Local school boards in states such as Florida, Idaho, Tennessee and Utah have removed textbooks, cut health courses and banned books with LGBTQ+ themes. Conservative, local school boards are reshaping sex education nationwide even though the vast majority of Americans oppose efforts to restrict books in public schools and are confident in public schools’ selection of books.

    Who’s having the talk?

    A national survey on parental attitudes and beliefs about school-based sex education revealed that some families do not practice what they preach.
    diane39/iStock via Getty Images

    As laws limit teaching about sex, gender and identity, I wanted to explore whether parents are stepping in to fill the gaps.

    About 10% of the surveyed parents said sex education should happen only at home. Those parents were also most likely to say they “almost never” or “never” discussed sex, sexuality and romance with their children.

    By contrast, parents who supported comprehensive, school-based sex ed were significantly more likely to discuss subjects including consent, contraception, identity and healthy relationships at home.

    The survey also found that parents who opposed comprehensive sex education were more likely to believe commonly circulated misinformation, such as the idea that talking about sex encourages early sexual activity and that condoms are not effective.

    These preliminary findings align with a robust body of peer-reviewed literature suggesting that parents who are more resistant to school-based sex ed are also less likely and less equipped to have open, informed conversations at home.

    These findings point to a gap between expert recommendations and what parents do.

    At the federal level, the Trump administration slashed funding for comprehensive sex education. The administration also expanded funding for abstinence-only programs, despite evidence of their ineffectiveness.

    Risks rise without education

    Teenagers learn about sex online, and pornography is among the top sources of information.
    redhumv?E+ via Getty Images

    A 2022 report from Common Sense Media found that nearly half of teens report learning about sex online, with pornography among the top sources.

    Research indicates that even when schools and families avoid topics related to sexuality, young people still encounter sexual content. Yet, advocacy groups such as Moms for Liberty support the removal of what it considers “age-inappropriate” or “sexually explicit” materials from classrooms and school libraries.

    The absence of structured, accurate education likely has implications for public health. According to the CDC, individuals ages 15 to 24 account for nearly half of all new sexually transmitted infections in the U.S.

    Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas have some of the highest teen birth and sexually transmitted infection rates. Yet, these states are also among those with the most restrictive sex education policies and poorest sex ed ratings.

    These communities also face higher poverty, limited health care access and lower educational attainment. The combination deepens health disparities.

    LGBTQ+ youth are especially vulnerable to sexually transmitted infections and related health challenges. This vulnerability is compounded in regions with limited access to inclusive education.

    A 2023 CDC report found that students who receive inclusive sex education feel more connected to school and experience lower rates of depression and bullying. These benefits are especially critical for LGBTQ+ youth.

    As debates over sex education continue, I believe it’s important for policymakers, school boards and communities to weigh parental input and public health data.

    I am the author of the book, “A Modern Approach to the Birds and the Bees” which I mentioned in the article and do benefit from its sale.

    – ref. Parents who oppose sex education in schools often don’t discuss it at home – https://theconversation.com/parents-who-oppose-sex-education-in-schools-often-dont-discuss-it-at-home-258892

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Philadelphians with mental illness want to work, pray, date and socialize just like everyone else – here’s how creating more inclusive communities is good for public health

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Mark Salzer, Professor of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Temple University

    About 6% of American adults have a serious mental health condition. Dmitrii Marchenko/Moment Collection via Getty Images

    Do you remember the COVID-19 shutdowns?

    Many Americans could no longer do the activities they enjoyed once businesses, schools, churches, gyms and community organizations shut their doors. Even spending time with friends and family became nearly impossible.

    Now imagine living that kind of isolation all the time.

    For millions of Americans with serious mental health conditions, being unable to engage in meaningful activities is not just a temporary crisis – it’s daily life.

    Community inclusion refers to everyone’s right to participate in meaningful social roles. This includes working, going to school, practicing one’s faith or simply connecting with others in shared activities.

    Yet, for the estimated 15.4 million U.S. adults living with significant mental health conditions – about 6% of the adult population – community inclusion is far from guaranteed. Compared with the general population, they are far less likely to be involved in social activities that bring purpose and connection, as well as health benefits.

    I am a psychologist who has worked in inpatient and outpatient psychiatric settings, and I directed a federally funded research and training center at Temple University in Philadelphia for more than 20 years that focuses on independent living and participation of people with serious mental illnesses.

    My colleagues and I have conducted research which demonstrates that people with such conditions want to participate in their community just like everyone else. We also found that they can do so – with proper supports like medications, therapy, rehabilitation services and communities making reasonable accommodations for them. And furthermore, they should: Community inclusion is good for their health.

    Benefits of community life

    Community involvement gets people with mental illness out of bed and out of the house. It encourages movement and activity, which enhances physical health.

    This is especially critical because people with serious mental illnesses die 15 to 20 years earlier than the general population – often due to preventable illnesses like diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease.

    Regular participation in life’s routines provides social and emotional stimulation that also boosts cognitive functioning, like memory and problem-solving, and reduces depression and loneliness.

    Community involvement is good for physical and mental health.
    Namthip Muanthongthae/Moment Collection via Getty Images

    What really causes exclusion

    Some people may assume that people with severe mental illnesses are restricted from active participation in their communities solely due to the mental health symptoms themselves.

    For example, they might think that cognitive issues related to schizophrenia make it too difficult for people to work or go to school; or that mania, anxiety and depression prevent them from having good relationships with others.

    But environment also plays a major role.

    The social model of disability suggests that people are not disabled by their diagnosis. Instead, they experience a disability through limitations in their communities because of physical, structural and social barriers.

    For example, someone with anxiety or depression may be penalized in a college class that deducts points for students who do not speak up.

    A person with a disability that causes fluctuating moods or low energy might not succeed in a rigid nine-to-five job without accommodations.

    And a churchgoer who talks to themselves or has to walk around during services because their medications make them jittery – a condition called akathisia – or who is known to have been diagnosed with schizophrenia might be asked to leave because their presence makes others uncomfortable.

    The result is that people are unable to participate not simply because of an impairment, but because of an environment that does not accommodate or appreciate their unique attributes.

    Helping people with mental illness rejoin community life

    Some programs here in Pennsylvania are working to change that.

    Education Plus helps Philadelphia residents with mental health conditions complete college and financial aid application forms, obtain school accommodations for their disability, and develop good study habits or learn to ask for help from their instructors.

    Pathways to Housing PA offers transitional job opportunities to people who have been homeless, and organizes picnics, trips to Phillies baseball games and other fun activities that create a sense of community belonging.

    A voter access initiative at an inpatient psychiatric facility in Pennsylvania helps patients check their voter registration status, register to vote and apply for mail-in ballots.

    The nonprofit Compeer in suburban Philadelphia connects community volunteers to people with mental illnesses to engage in mutual leisure or educational interests. This oftentimes leads to long-term friendships.

    And a current study I am conducting is examining ways to support faith communities in Montgomery County to be more welcoming and embracing of individuals with mental illnesses.

    Churches and other faith communities can welcome members with mental illnesses by accepting their different behaviors.
    zamrznutitonovi/iStock/Getty Images Plus via Getty Images

    What you can do

    Family members, friends and mental health professionals can simply ask people with mental illnesses about their interests – whether it’s employment, going to school, dating or making new friends – and then encourage and support them in pursuing those interests.

    Creating inclusive communities means not just offering services to people with serious mental illness, but also changing negative beliefs and behaviors toward them. This includes embracing people who might express emotions differently, require flexibility or simply behave in ways we’re not used to.

    For example, say you’re in a coffee shop and encounter a person who is muttering to themselves and may not have bathed in a few days. Maybe you make eye contact, smile and say hello. Certainly reconsider complaining.

    It takes empathy, open-mindedness and patience to create a community that welcomes people with mental illness and increases the likelihood that they can participate in society like everyone else.

    Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

    Mark Salzer receives funding from the National Institute on Disabilities, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. He previously served on the Board of Directors for Pathways to Housing PA and works closely with Horizon House, including in the development of the Education Plus program mentioned in the article.

    – ref. Philadelphians with mental illness want to work, pray, date and socialize just like everyone else – here’s how creating more inclusive communities is good for public health – https://theconversation.com/philadelphians-with-mental-illness-want-to-work-pray-date-and-socialize-just-like-everyone-else-heres-how-creating-more-inclusive-communities-is-good-for-public-health-254441

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Speedballing – the deadly mix of stimulants and opioids – requires a new approach to prevention and treatment

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Andrew Yockey, Assistant Professor of Public Health, University of Mississippi

    Speedballing kills nearly 35,000 people in the U.S. every year. Cappi Thompson/Moment via Getty Images

    Speedballing – the practice of combining a stimulant like cocaine or methamphetamine with an opioid such as heroin or fentanyl – has evolved from a niche subculture to a widespread public health crisis. The practice stems from the early 1900s when World War I soldiers were often treated with a combination of cocaine and morphine.

    Once associated with high-profile figures like John Belushi, River Phoenix and Chris Farley , this dangerous polysubstance use has become a leading cause of overdose deaths across the United States since the early- to mid-2010s.

    I am an assistant professor of public health who has written extensively on methamphetamine and opioid use and the dangerous combination of the two in the United States.

    As these dangerous combinations of drugs increasingly flood the market, I see an urgent need and opportunity for a new approach to prevention and treatment.

    Why speedballing?

    Dating back to the 1970s, the term speedballing originally referred to the combination of heroin and cocaine. Combining stimulants and opioids – the former’s “rush” with the latter’s calming effect – creates a dangerous physiological conflict.

    According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, stimulant-involved overdose fatalities increased markedly from more than 12,000 annually in 2015 to greater than 57,000 in 2022, a 375% increase. Notably, approximately 70% of stimulant-related overdose deaths in 2022 also involved fentanyl or other synthetic opioids, reflecting the rising prevalence of polysubstance involvement in overdose mortality.

    Users sought to experience the euphoric “rush” from the stimulant and the calming effects of the opioid. However, with the proliferation of fentanyl – which is far more potent than heroin – this combination has become increasingly lethal. Fentanyl is often mixed with cocaine or methamphetamine, sometimes without the user’s knowledge, leading to unintentional overdoses.

    The rise in speedballing is part of a broader trend of polysubstance use in the U.S. Since 2010, overdoses involving both stimulants and fentanyl have increased 50-fold, now accounting for approximately 35,000 deaths annually.

    This has been called the fourth wave of the opioid epidemic. The toxic and contaminated drug supply has exacerbated this crisis.

    The comedian John Belushi died in 1982 from an overdose of cocaine and heroin.
    Larry Hulst/Michael Ochs Archives via Getty Images

    A dangerous combination of physiological effects

    Stimulants like cocaine increase heart rate and blood pressure, while opioids suppress respiratory function. This combination can lead to respiratory failure, cardiovascular collapse and death. People who use both substances are more than twice as likely to experience a fatal overdose compared with those using opioids alone.

    The conflicting effects of stimulants and opioids can also exacerbate mental health issues. Users may experience heightened anxiety, depression and paranoia. The combination can also impair cognitive functions, leading to confusion and poor decision-making.

    Speedballing can also lead to severe cardiovascular problems, including hypertension, heart attack and stroke. The strain on the heart and blood vessels from the stimulant, combined with the depressant effects of the opioid, increases the risk of these life-threatening conditions.

    Addressing the crisis

    Increasing awareness about the dangers of speedballing is crucial. I believe that educational campaigns can inform the public about the risks of combining stimulants and opioids and the potential for unintentional fentanyl exposure.

    There is a great need for better access to treatment for people with stimulant use disorder – a condition defined as the continued use of amphetamine-type substances, cocaine or other stimulants leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, from mild to severe. Treatments for this and other substance use disorders are underfunded and less accessible than those for opioid use disorder. Addressing this gap can help reduce the prevalence of speedballing.

    Implementing harm reduction strategies by public health officials, community organizations and health care providers, such as providing fentanyl test strips and naloxone – a medication that reverses opioid overdoses – can save lives.

    These measures allow individuals to test their drugs for the presence of fentanyl and have immediate access to overdose-reversing medication. Implementing these strategies widely is crucial to reducing overdose deaths and improving community health outcomes.

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

    – ref. Speedballing – the deadly mix of stimulants and opioids – requires a new approach to prevention and treatment – https://theconversation.com/speedballing-the-deadly-mix-of-stimulants-and-opioids-requires-a-new-approach-to-prevention-and-treatment-257425

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Employers are failing to insure the working class – Medicaid cuts would leave them even more vulnerable

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Sumit Agarwal, Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan

    The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 7.8 million Americans across the U.S. would lose their coverage through Medicaid – the public program that provides health insurance to low-income families and individuals – under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act making its way through Congress.

    That includes 248,000 to 414,000 of my fellow residents of Michigan based on the House Reconciliation Bill in early June 2025. There are similarly deep projected cuts within the Senate version of the legislation.

    Many of these people are working Americans who would lose Medicaid because of the onerous paperwork involved with the proposed work requirements.

    They wouldn’t be able to get coverage in the Affordable Care Act Marketplaces after losing Medicaid. Premiums and out-of-pocket costs are likely to be too high for those making less than 100% to 138% of the federal poverty level who do not qualify for health insurance marketplace subsidies. Funding for this program is also under threat.

    And despite being employed, they also wouldn’t be able to get health insurance through their employers because it is either too expensive or not offered to them. Researchers estimate that coverage losses would lead to thousands of medically preventable deaths across the country because people would be unable to access health care without insurance.

    I am a physician, health economist and policy researcher who has cared for patients on Medicaid and written about health care in the U.S. for over eight years. I think it’s important to understand the role of Medicaid within the broader insurance landscape. Medicaid has become a crucial source of health coverage for low-wage workers.

    A brief history of Medicaid expansion.

    Michigan removed work requirements from Medicaid

    A few years ago, Michigan was slated to institute Medicaid work requirements, but the courts blocked the implementation of that policy in 2020. It would have cost upward of US$70 million due to software upgrades, staff training, and outreach to Michigan residents enrolled in the Medicaid program, according to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.

    Had it gone into effect, 100,000 state residents were expected to lose coverage within the first year.

    The state took the formal step of eliminating work requirements from its statutes earlier this year in recognition of implementation costs being too high and mounting evidence against the policy’s effectiveness.

    When Arkansas instituted Medicaid work requirements in 2018, there was no increase in employment, but within months, thousands of people enrolled in the program lost their coverage. The reason? Many people were subjected to paperwork and red tape, but there weren’t actually that many people who would fail to meet the criteria of the work requirements. It is a recipe for widespread coverage losses without meeting any of the policy’s purported goals.

    Work requirements, far from incentivizing work, paradoxically remove working people from Medicaid with nowhere else to go for insurance.

    Shortcomings of employer-sponsored insurance

    Nearly half of Americans get their health insurance through their employers.

    In contrast to a universal system that covers everyone from cradle to grave, an employer-first system leaves huge swaths of the population uninsured. This includes tens of millions of working Americans who are unable to get health insurance through their employers, especially low-income workers who are less likely to even get the choice of coverage from their employers.

    Over 80% of managers and professionals have employer-sponsored health coverage, but only 50% to 70% of blue-collar workers in service jobs, farming, construction, manufacturing and transportation can say the same.

    There are some legal requirements mandating employers to provide health insurance to their employees, but the reality of low-wage work means many do not fall under these legal protections.

    For example, employers are allowed to incorporate a waiting period of up to 90 days before health coverage begins. The legal requirement also applies only to full-time workers. Health coverage can thus remain out of reach for seasonal and temporary workers, part-time employees and gig workers.

    Even if an employer offers health insurance to their low-wage employees, those workers may forego it because the premiums and deductibles are too high to make it worth earning less take-home pay.

    To make matters worse, layoffs are more common for low-wage workers, leaving them with limited options for health insurance during job transitions. And many employers have increasingly shed low-wage staff, such as drivers and cleaning staff, from their employment rolls and contracted that work out. Known as the fissuring of the workplace, it allows employers of predominately high-income employees to continue offering generous benefits while leaving no such commitment to low-wage workers employed as contractors.

    Medicaid fills in gaps

    Low-income workers without access to employer-sponsored insurance had virtually no options for health insurance in the years before key parts of the Affordable Care Act went into effect in 2014.

    Research my co-authors and I conducted showed that blue-collar workers have since gained health insurance coverage, cutting the uninsured rate by a third thanks to the expansion of Medicaid eligibility and subsidies in the health insurance marketplaces. This means low-income workers can more consistently see doctors, get preventive care and fill prescriptions.

    Further evidence from Michigan’s experience has shown that Medicaid can help the people it covers do a better job at work by addressing health impairments. It can also improve their financial well-being, including fewer problems with debt, fewer bankruptcies, higher credit scores and fewer evictions.

    Premiums and cost sharing in Medicaid are minimal compared with employer-sponsored insurance, making it a more realistic and accessible option for low-income workers. And because Medicaid is not tied directly to employment, it can promote job mobility, allowing workers to maintain coverage within or between jobs without having to go through the bureaucratic complexity of certifying work.

    Of course, Medicaid has its own shortcomings. Payment rates to providers are low relative to other insurers, access to doctors can be limited, and the program varies significantly by state. But these weaknesses stem largely from underfunding and political hostility – not from any intrinsic flaw in the model. If anything, Medicaid’s success in covering low-income workers and containing per-enrollee costs points to its potential as a broader foundation for health coverage.

    The current employer-based system, which is propped up by an enormous and regressive tax break for employer-sponsored insurance premiums, favors high-income earners and contributes to wage stagnation. In my view, which is shared by other health economists, a more public, universal model could better cover Americans regardless of how someone earns a living.

    Over the past six decades, Medicaid has quietly stepped into the breach left by employer-sponsored insurance. Medicaid started as a welfare program for the needy in the 1960s, but it has evolved and adapted to fill the needs of a country whose health care system leaves far too many uninsured.

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

    – ref. Employers are failing to insure the working class – Medicaid cuts would leave them even more vulnerable – https://theconversation.com/employers-are-failing-to-insure-the-working-class-medicaid-cuts-would-leave-them-even-more-vulnerable-259256

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Conservatives notch 2 victories in their fight to deny Planned Parenthood federal funding through Medicaid

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Rachel Rebouché, Professor of Law, Temple University

    Conservatives have won two important battles in their decades-long campaign against Planned Parenthood, a network of affiliated clinics that are the largest provider of reproductive health services in the U.S.

    One of these victories was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down on June 26, 2025. The other is a provision in the multitrilion-dollar tax-and-spending package President Donald Trump has made his top legislative priority. Both follow the same strategy: depriving Planned Parenthood – and all other providers of abortion care – from getting reimbursed by Medicaid, the government health insurance program that mainly covers low-income adults and children, as well as people with disabilities.

    Because Medicaid covers nearly 80 million Americans, this bill, and the Supreme Court’s decision, will sever federal support for health care that has nothing to do with abortion, such as annual exams, birth control and prenatal care. Abortions account for 3% of all of Planned Parenthood’s services.

    As a scholar of reproductive rights, I have studied how abortion politics shape the broader provision of reproductive health care.

    I see in both the legislation and the court’s ruling a culmination of a strategy to defund Planned Parenthood that was in full swing by 2007, toward the end of the George W. Bush administration. This campaign hinges on a strategy of insisting that federal and state dollars are supporting abortion care when they do not.

    A clinic escort assists a patient at a Planned Parenthood health center in Philadelphia in 2022.
    Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images

    Congress and the Supreme Court

    Trump’s package of tax breaks, spending increases and safety net changes passed in the House and the Senate by razor-thin margins.

    One of the bill’s provisions will make it impossible for patients with Medicaid coverage to get any health care services at clinics like Planned Parenthood.

    The provision will last only for a year.

    The House approved the same version of the package that the Senate had passed a week after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot be sued by patients if they make it impossible for Planned Parenthood clinics to be reimbursed by Medicaid.

    The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, arose when a South Carolina woman wanted to get gynecological care at her local Planned Parenthood clinic. The rationale South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster gave for the state’s policy was that Planned Parenthood is an abortion provider.

    South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster stands outside the Supreme Court building in Washington in April 2025 and speaks about his state’s legal dispute regarding Medicaid funding for health care at Planned Parenthood clinics.
    Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

    Medicaid and abortion

    To be clear, neither the legal dispute nor the provision in the legislative package had anything to do with the use of federal or state dollars to fund abortion.

    Although Planned Parenthood offers abortion where and when it is legal, this provision and the court’s decision concern Medicaid reimbursement for all other services. Abortion care is not covered by Medicaid under federal law except in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the pregnant patient’s life.

    Medicaid patients instead have relied on their plan at Planned Parenthood clinics when they get annual exams, prenatal care, mental health support, birth control, treatment for sexually transmitted infections, cervical cancer screenings and fertility referrals.

    None of those services will be covered by Medicaid for a year. Patients will have to find another health care provider – as long as one is available.

    While that provision is in effect, Medicaid won’t be allowed to reimburse Planned Parenthood for any services, mirroring what states just won the right to do in the Supreme Court ruling – but at the national level.

    Although the bill blocks Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood for only 12 months, the ruling lets states exclude any provider from its Medicaid program because they also provide abortions.

    In other words, people who rely on Medicaid funding will lose access to all of those essential services not just at Planned Parenthood but potentially at any other providers that also offer abortion care.

    Given the number of states that ban almost all abortion, I have no doubt that more states will do that, especially if this Medicaid funding provision expires after a year without being renewed.

    Abortion-rights demonstrators holds a sign in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington as the Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic case is heard on April 2, 2025.
    Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images

    Roots of this defunding strategy

    Politicians began to call for defunding Planned Parenthood about 20 years ago, following efforts by anti-abortion activists to discredit the organization altogether.

    U.S. Rep. Mike Pence introduced the first federal legislation aimed at “defunding” Planned Parenthood in 2007. It failed to muster enough support in Congress to become law. States such as Texas then started down that path.

    The first national legislative success came in 2015. Both houses of Congress passed a budget reconciliation measure with a provision to defund Planned Parenthood that year, but President Barack Obama vetoed it. Republicans had threatened to shut down the government over those demands. A year later, the GOP included a call to defund Planned Parenthood in its presidential campaign platform.

    Before Obama left office, his administration passed a rule in December 2016 protecting federal funds for family planning for health care facilities that also provided abortion. The Trump administration rolled back that rule in 2017.

    The Trump administration relied on an argument that any support for a health care provider that offers patients abortion services, no matter how segregated the sources of funding, is tantamount to subsidizing abortion.

    What to expect next

    Nationally, 16 million women of reproductive age rely on Medicaid, and 1 in 5 women will visit a Planned Parenthood clinic for health care at least once in their lives. Those clinics depend on Medicaid reimbursement to offer an array of reproductive health care services, such as prenatal care, that are not tied to abortion.

    If Planned Parenthood clinics can’t bill Medicaid for those services, many will close. Planned Parenthood estimates that it could see almost 200 closures – 90% of them in states where abortion is legal. That means over 1 million low-income people risk losing access to their health care provider.

    And once clinics close, they may never reopen, U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, recently predicted.

    Should the number of Planned Parenthood clinics plummet, it will threaten access to contraceptives, which are all the more important in preventing unwanted pregnancies for people living in states that have banned abortion. Researchers have repeatedly found that unwanted pregnancies, when people are denied access to abortion services, are correlated with increased debt, missed educational and employment opportunities, mental health problems, and diminished care for a family’s older children.

    In addition, pregnant patients and new parents may have more limited options for prenatal and postnatal care. That could cause the country’s already-high rates of maternal and infant mortality to increase.

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

    – ref. Conservatives notch 2 victories in their fight to deny Planned Parenthood federal funding through Medicaid – https://theconversation.com/conservatives-notch-2-victories-in-their-fight-to-deny-planned-parenthood-federal-funding-through-medicaid-260233

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: What MAGA means to Americans

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jesse Rhodes, Associate Professor of Political Science, UMass Amherst

    A Trump supporter holds up a MAGA sign during a rally in Green Bay, Wis., on April 2, 2024. AP Photo/Mike Roemer

    A decade ago, Donald Trump descended the golden escalator at Trump Tower in New York City and ignited a political movement that has reshaped American politics. In a memorable turn of phrase, Trump promised supporters of his 2016 presidential campaign that “we are going to make our country great again.”

    Since then, the Make America Great Again movement has dominated the U.S. political conversation, reshaped the Republican Party and become a lucrative brand adorning hats, T-shirts and bumper stickers.

    When asked what MAGA means to him, Trump, in a 2017 interview with The Washington Post said, “To me, it meant jobs. It meant industry, and meant military strength. It meant taking care of our veterans. It meant so much.”

    But Democratic leaders have a different interpretation of the slogan.

    Former President Bill Clinton in 2016 said of MAGA: “That message where ‘I’ll give you America great again’ is if you’re a white Southerner, you know exactly what it means, don’t you? What it means is ‘I’ll give you an economy you had 50 years ago, and I’ll move you back up on the social totem pole and other people down.”

    While MAGA is ubiquitous, little is known about what it means to the American public. Ten years on, what do Americans think when they hear or read this phrase?

    Based on the analysis of Americans’ explanations of what “Make America Great Again” means to them, we found evidence suggesting that the public’s views of MAGA mirror the perspectives offered by both Trump and Clinton.

    Republicans interpret this phrase as a call for the renewal of the U.S. economy and military might, as well as a return to “traditional” values, especially those relating to gender roles and gender identities. Democrats, we found, view MAGA as a call for a return to white supremacy and growing authoritarianism.

    Donald Trump rides an escalator to a press event to announce his candidacy for the U.S. presidency at Trump Tower on June 16, 2015, in New York City.
    Christopher Gregory/Getty Images

    What MAGA means

    We are political scientists who use public opinion polls to study the role of partisanship in American politics. To better understand American views about MAGA, in April 2025 we asked 1,000 respondents in a nationally representative online survey to briefly write what “Make America Great Again” meant to them.

    The survey question was open-ended, allowing respondents to define this phrase in any way they saw fit. We used AI-based thematic analysis and qualitative reading of the responses to better understand how Democrats and Republicans define the slogan.

    For our AI-based thematic analysis, we instructed ChatGPT to provide three overarching themes most touched upon by Democratic and Republican respondents. This approach follows recent research demonstrating that, when properly instructed, ChatGPT reliably identifies broad themes in collections of texts.

    Republican interpretation of MAGA

    Our analysis shows that Republicans view the slogan as representing the “American dream.” In part, MAGA is about restoring the nation’s pride and economic strength. Reflecting these themes, one Republican respondent wrote that MAGA means “encouraging manufacturers to hire Americans and strengthen the economy. Making the USA self-sufficient as it once was.”

    MAGA is also closely related among Republicans with an “America First” policy. This is partly about having a strong military – a common theme among Republican respondents – and “making America the superpower” again, one respondent wrote.

    Republicans also wrote that putting America first means emphasizing strict enforcement of immigration laws against “illegals” and cutting off foreign aid. For example, one Republican respondent said that MAGA meant “stopping illegals at the border, ending freebies for illegals, adding more police and building a strong military.”

    Finally, Republicans see the slogan as calling for a return to “traditional” values. They expressed a strong desire to reverse cultural shifts that Republican respondents perceive as a threat.

    As one Republican put it, MAGA “means going back to where men would join the military, women were home raising healthy minded children and it was easy to be successful, the crime rate was extremely low and it used to be safe for kids to hang out on the streets with other kids and even walk themselves places.”

    Another Republican made the connection between MAGA and traditional gender roles even more explicit, highlighting the link between MAGA and opposition to transgender rights: “MAGA people know there are only 2 sexes and a man can never be a woman. If you believe otherwise you are destroying AMERICA.”

    A banner showing a picture of President Donald Trump is displayed outside of the U.S. Department of Agriculture building on June 3, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
    Kevin Carter/Getty Images

    Democratic MAGA views

    Democrats have a very different understanding of the MAGA slogan. Many Democrats view MAGA as a white supremacist movement designed to protect the status of white people and undermine the civil rights of marginalized groups.

    One Democrat argued that “‘Make America Great Again’ is a standard borne by people who’ve seen a decrease in the potency of their privilege (see: cisgendered white men) and wish to see their privilege restored or strengthened. In essence, it’s a chant for all racist, fascist and otherwise bigoted actors to unite under.”

    Another Democrat wrote that MAGA was a call to “take us backwards as a society in regards to women’s, minority’s, and LGBTQ people’s rights … It would take us to a time when only White men ruled.”

    Democrats also view MAGA as a form of nostalgia for a heavily mythologized past. Many Democratic respondents described the past longed for by Republicans as a “myth” or “fairytale.” Others argued that this mythologized past, though appealing on the surface, was repressive for many Americans.

    One Democrat said that MAGA meant “returning America to a fantasy version of the past with the goal of advancing the success of white, straight, wealthy men by any means necessary and almost always to the detriment of other segments of the population.”

    A person holds a ‘Trump won’t erase us’ sign while walking in the WorldPride Parade on June 7, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
    Kevin Carter/Getty Images

    Finally, many Democrats interpret the slogan as reflecting an authoritarian cult of personality. In this vein, a Democratic respondent said of MAGA, “It’s a call to arms for MAGA cult members, who believe that Trump and the Republicans party will somehow improve their lives by targeting people and policies they don’t like, even when it is against their best interests and any rational thought process.”

    While some Republicans expressed racist, xenophobic or anti-trans sentiments in their understanding of MAGA, some Democrats revealed outright condescension toward MAGA believers.

    “The MAGA’s are brainwashed, idiotic members of society who know nothing more than to follow the lead of an idiotic president who has the vocabulary of a 3rd grader,” one Democrat wrote. “It is nonsense idiots parrot,” another respondent said.

    In all, in the 10 years since Donald Trump burst onto the political scene, much has been written about the conflicting visions of past, present and future at the heart of America’s partisan divisions.

    With the Trump administration’s proclaimed commitment to return the U.S. to its “golden age” and a strong resistance to his efforts, only time will tell which vision of America will prevail.

    Jesse Rhodes has received funding from the National Science Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, and Demos. He is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union.

    Douglas Rice has received funding from the National Science Foundation.

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

    – ref. What MAGA means to Americans – https://theconversation.com/what-maga-means-to-americans-259241

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: One ‘big, beautiful’ reason why Republicans in Congress just can’t quit Donald Trump

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Charlie Hunt, Associate Professor of Political Science, Boise State University

    The U.S. Capitol is seen shortly after the Senate passed its version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 1, 2025. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    As the U.S. House of Representatives voted to approve President Donald Trump’s sweeping domestic tax and spending package, many critics are wondering how the president retained the loyalty of so many congressional Republicans, with so few defections.

    Just three Republican senators – the maximum allowed for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to still pass – voted against the Senate version of the bill on July 1, 2025. In the House, only two Republicans voted against the bill, which passed the chamber on July 3.

    Among other things, the bill will slash taxes by about US$4.5 trillion over a decade and exempt people’s tips and overtime pay from federal income taxes.

    But the bill has been widely panned, including by some Republicans.

    Democrats have uniformly opposed it, in part thanks to the bill’s sweeping cuts to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act marketplace funding. This could lead to an estimated 12 million more people without insurance by 2034.

    The legislation is also likely to add between $3 trilion and $5 trillion to the national debt by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

    The power of the presidency

    Trump is not the first president to bend Congress to his will to get legislation approved.

    Presidential supremacy over the legislative process has been on the rise for decades. But contrary to popular belief, lawmakers are not always simply voting based on blind partisanship.

    Increasingly, politicians in the same political party as a president are voting in line with the president because their political futures are as tied up with the president’s reputation as they have ever been.

    Even when national polling indicates a policy is unpopular – as is the case with Trump’s budget reconciliation bill, which an estimated 55% of American voters said in June they oppose, according to Quinnipiac University polling – lawmakers in the president’s party have serious motivation to follow the president’s lead.

    Or else they risk losing reelection.

    Speaker of the House Mike Johnson speaks to reporters at the Capitol building on July 3, 2025.
    Alex Wong/Getty Images

    Lawmakers increasingly partisan on presidential policy

    Over the past 50 years, lawmakers in the president’s party have increasingly supported the president’s position on legislation that passes Congress. Opposition lawmakers, meanwhile, are increasingly united against the president’s position.

    In 1970, for example, when Republican President Richard Nixon was in the White House, Republicans in Congress voted along with his positions 72% of the time. But the Democratic majority in Congress voted with him nearly as much, at 60% of the time, particularly on Nixon’s more progressive environmental agenda.

    These patterns are unheard of in the modern Congress. In 2022, for example – a year of significant legislative achievement for the Biden administration – the Democratic majority in Congress voted the same way as the Democratic president 99% of the time. Republicans, meanwhile, voted with Biden just 19% of the time.

    Elections can tell us why

    Over the past half-century, the two major parties have changed dramatically, both in the absolutist nature of their beliefs and in relation to one another.

    Both parties used to be more mixed in their ideological outlooks, for example, with conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans playing key roles in policymaking. This made it easier to form cross-party coalitions, either with or against the president.

    A few decades ago, Democrats and Republicans were also less geographically polarized from each other. Democrats were regularly elected to congressional seats in the South, for example, even if those districts supported Republican presidents such as Nixon or Ronald Reagan.

    Much of this has changed in recent decades.

    Congress members are not just ideologically at odds with colleagues in the other party – they are more similar than ever to other members within their party.

    Districts supporting the two parties are also increasingly geographically distant from each other, often along an urban-rural divide.

    And presidents in particular have become polarizing partisan figures on the national stage.

    These changes have ushered in a larger phenomenon called political nationalization, in which local political considerations, issues and candidate qualifications have taken a back seat to national politics.

    Ticket splitting

    From the 1960s through most of the 1980s, between one-quarter and one-half of all congressional districts routinely split tickets – meaning they sent a politician of one party to Congress while supporting a different party for president.

    These are the same few districts in Nebraska and New York, for example, that supported former Vice President Kamala Harris for president in 2024 but which also elected a Republican candidate to the House that same year.

    Since the Reagan years, however, these types of districts that could simultaneously support a Democratic presidential nominee and Republicans for Congress have gone nearly extinct. Today, only a handful of districts split their tickets, and all other districts select the same party for both offices.

    The past two presidential elections, in 2020 and 2024, set the same record low for ticket splitting. Just 16 out of 435 House districts voted for different parties for the House of Representatives and president.

    Members of Congress follow their voters

    The political success of members of Congress has become increasingly tied up with the success or failure of the president. Because nearly all Republicans hail from districts and states that are very supportive of Trump and his agenda, following the will of their voters increasingly means being supportive of the president’s agenda.

    Not doing so risks blowback from their Trump-supporting constituents. A June 2025 Quinnipiac University poll found that 67% of Republicans support the bill, while 87% of Democrats oppose it.

    These electoral considerations also help explain the unanimous opposition to Trump’s legislation by the Democrats, nearly all of whom represent districts and states that did not support Trump in 2024.

    Thanks to party polarization in ideologies, geography and in the electorate, few Democrats could survive politically while strongly supporting Trump. And few Republicans could do so while opposing him.

    But as the importance to voters of mere presidential support increases, the importance of members’ skill in fighting for issues unique to their districts has decreased. This can leave important local concerns about, for example, unique local environmental issues or declining economic sectors unspoken for. At the very least, members have less incentive to speak for them.

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

    – ref. One ‘big, beautiful’ reason why Republicans in Congress just can’t quit Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/one-big-beautiful-reason-why-republicans-in-congress-just-cant-quit-donald-trump-260345

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: From glass and steel to rare earth metals, new materials have changed society throughout history

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Peter Mullner, Distinguished Professor in Materials Science and Engineering, Boise State University

    Steel played a large role in the Industrial Revolution. Monty Rakusen/DigitalVision via Getty Images

    Many modern devices – from cellphones and computers to electric vehicles and wind turbines – rely on strong magnets made from a type of minerals called rare earths. As the systems and infrastructure used in daily life have turned digital and the United States has moved toward renewable energy, accessing these minerals has become critical – and the markets for these elements have grown rapidly.

    Modern society now uses rare earth magnets in everything from national defense, where magnet-based systems are integral to missile guidance and aircraft, to the clean energy transition, which depends on wind turbines and electric vehicles.

    The rapid growth of the rare earth metal trade and its effects on society isn’t the only case study of its kind. Throughout history, materials have quietly shaped the trajectory of human civilization. They form the tools people use, the buildings they inhabit, the devices that mediate their relationships and the systems that structure economies. Newly discovered materials can set off ripple effects that shape industries, shift geopolitical balances and transform people’s daily habits.

    Materials science is the study of the atomic structure, properties, processing and performance of materials. In many ways, materials science is a discipline of immense social consequence.

    As a materials scientist, I’m interested in what can happen when new materials become available. Glass, steel and rare earth magnets are all examples of how innovation in materials science has driven technological change and, as a result, shaped global economies, politics and the environment.

    How innovation shapes society: Pressures from societal and political interests (orange arrows) drive the creation of new materials and the technologies that such materials enable (center). The ripple effects resulting from people using these technologies change the entire fabric of society (blue arrows).
    Peter Mullner

    Glass lenses and the scientific revolution

    In the early 13th century, after the sacking of Constantinople, some excellent Byzantine glassmakers left their homes to settle in Venice – at the time a powerful economic and political center. The local nobility welcomed the glassmakers’ beautiful wares. However, to prevent the glass furnaces from causing fires, the nobles exiled the glassmakers – under penalty of death – to the island of Murano.

    Murano became a center for glass craftsmanship. In the 15th century, the glassmaker Angelo Barovier experimented with adding the ash from burned plants, which contained a chemical substance called potash, to the glass.

    The potash reduced the melting temperature and made liquid glass more fluid. It also eliminated bubbles in the glass and improved optical clarity. This transparent glass was later used in magnifying lenses and spectacles.

    Johannes Gutenberg’s printing press, completed in 1455, made reading more accessible to people across Europe. With it came a need for reading glasses, which grew popular among scholars, merchants and clergy – enough that spectacle-making became an established profession.

    By the early 17th century, glass lenses evolved into compound optical devices. Galileo Galilei pointed a telescope toward celestial bodies, while Antonie van Leeuwenhoek discovered microbial life with a microscope.

    The glass lens of the Vera Rubin Observatory, which surveys the night sky.
    Large Synoptic Survey Telescope/Vera Rubin Observatory, CC BY

    Lens-based instruments have been transformative. Telescopes have redefined long-standing cosmological views. Microscopes have opened entirely new fields in biology and medicine.

    These changes marked the dawn of empirical science, where observation and measurement drove the creation of knowledge. Today, the James Webb Space Telescope and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory continue those early telescopes’ legacies of knowledge creation.

    Steel and empires

    In the late 18th and 19th centuries, the Industrial Revolution created demand for stronger, more reliable materials for machines, railroads, ships and infrastructure. The material that emerged was steel, which is strong, durable and cheap. Steel is a mixture of mostly iron, with small amounts of carbon and other elements added.

    Countries with large-scale steel manufacturing once had outsized economic and political power and influence over geopolitical decisions. For example, the British Parliament intended to prevent the colonies from exporting finished steel with the iron act of 1750. They wanted the colonies’ raw iron as supply for their steel industry in England.

    Benjamin Huntsman invented a smelting process using 3-foot tall ceramic vessels, called crucibles, in 18th-century Sheffield. Huntsman’s crucible process produced higher-quality steel for tools and weapons.

    One hundred years later, Henry Bessemer developed the oxygen-blowing steelmaking process, which drastically increased production speed and lowered costs. In the United States, figures such as Andrew Carnegie created a vast industry based on Bessemer’s process.

    The widespread availability of steel transformed how societies built, traveled and defended themselves. Skyscrapers and transit systems made of steel allowed cities to grow, steel-built battleships and tanks empowered militaries, and cars containing steel became staples in consumer life.

    White-hot steel pouring out of an electric arc furnace in Brackenridge, Penn.
    Alfred T. Palmer/U.S. Library of Congress

    Control over steel resources and infrastructure made steel a foundation of national power. China’s 21st-century rise to steel dominance is a continuation of this pattern. From 1995 to 2015, China’s contribution to the world steel production increased from about 10% to more than 50%. The White House responded in 2018 with massive tariffs on Chinese steel.

    Rare earth metals and global trade

    Early in the 21st century, the advance of digital technologies and the transition to an economy based on renewable energies created a demand for rare earth elements.

    Offshore turbines use several tons of rare earth magnets to transform wind into electricity.
    Hans Hillewaert/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    Rare earth elements are 17 chemically very similar elements, including neodymium, dysprosium, samarium and others. They occur in nature in bundles and are the ingredients that make magnets super strong and useful. They are necessary for highly efficient electric motors, wind turbines and electronic devices.

    Because of their chemical similarity, separating and purifying rare earth elements involves complex and expensive processes.

    China controls the majority of global rare earth processing capacity. Political tensions between countries, especially around trade tariffs and strategic competition, can risk shortages or disruptions in the supply chain.

    The rare earth metals case illustrates how a single category of materials can shape trade policy, industrial planning and even diplomatic alliances.

    Mining rare earth elements has allowed for the widespread adoption of many modern technologies.
    Peggy Greb, USDA

    Technological transformation begins with societal pressure. New materials create opportunities for scientific and engineering breakthroughs. Once a material proves useful, it quickly becomes woven into the fabric of daily life and broader systems. With each innovation, the material world subtly reorganizes the social world — redefining what is possible, desirable and normal.

    Understanding how societies respond to new innovations in materials science can help today’s engineers and scientists solve crises in sustainability and security. Every technical decision is, in some ways, a cultural one, and every material has a story that extends far beyond its molecular structure.

    The National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, NASA, and other national and regional agencies have funded former research of Peter Mullner.

    – ref. From glass and steel to rare earth metals, new materials have changed society throughout history – https://theconversation.com/from-glass-and-steel-to-rare-earth-metals-new-materials-have-changed-society-throughout-history-258244

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: War, politics and religion shape wildlife evolution in cities

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Elizabeth Carlen, Living Earth Collaborative Postdoctoral Fellow, Washington University in St. Louis

    A Buddhist monk in Hong Kong releases fish and chants prayers during a ceremony to free the spirits of tsunami victims. Samantha Sin/AFP via Getty Images

    People often consider evolution to be a process that occurs in nature in the background of human society. But evolution is not separate from human beings. In fact, human cultural practices can influence evolution in wildlife. This influence is highly pronounced in cities, where people drastically alter landscapes to meet their own needs.

    Human actions can affect wildlife evolution in a number of ways. If people fragment habitat, separated wildlife populations can evolve to be more and more different from each other. If people change certain local conditions, it can pressure organisms in new ways that mean different genes are favored by natural selection and passed on to offspring – another form of evolution that can be driven by what people do.

    In a recent review, evolutionary biologists Marta Szulkin, Colin Garroway and I, in collaboration with scientists spread across five continents, explored how cultural processes – including religion, politics and war – shape urban evolution. We reviewed dozens of empirical studies about urban wildlife around the globe. Our work highlights which human cultural practices have and continue to shape the evolutionary trajectory of wild animals and plants.

    Religious practices

    If you’ve traveled internationally, you may have noticed the menu at any one McDonald’s restaurant is shaped by the local culture of its location. In the United Arab Emirates, McDonald’s serves an entirely halal menu. Vegetarian items are common and no beef is served in Indian McDonald’s. And in the United States, McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish is especially popular during Lent when observant Catholics don’t consume meat on Fridays.

    Similarly, ecosystems of cities are shaped by local cultural practices. Because all wildlife are connected to the environment, cultural practices that alter the landscape shape the evolution of urban organisms.

    Populations of fire salamanders have different genes depending on which side of city walls in Oviedo, Spain, they live on.
    Patrice Skrzynski via Getty Images

    For example, in Oviedo, Spain, people constructed walls around religious buildings between the 12th and 16th centuries. This division of the city led to different populations of fire salamanders inside and outside the walls. Because salamanders can’t scale these walls, those on opposite sides became isolated from each other and unable to pass genes back and forth. In a process that scientists call genetic drift, over time salamanders on the two sides became genetically distinct − evidence of the two populations evolving independently.

    Imagine dumping out a handful of M&Ms. Just by chance, some colors might be overrepresented and others might be missing. In the same way, genes that are overrepresented on one side of the wall can be in low numbers or missing on the other side. That’s genetic drift.

    Introducing non-native wildlife is another way people can alter urban ecosystems and evolutionary processes. For example, prayer animal release is a practice that started in the fifth or sixth century in some sects of Buddhism. Practitioners who strive to cause no harm to any living creature release captive animals, which benefits the animal and is meant to improve the karma of the person who released it.

    However, these animals are often captured from the wild or come from the pet trade, thereby introducing non-native wildlife into the urban ecosystem. Non-natives may compete with local species and contribute to the local extinction of native wildlife. Capturing animals nearby has downsides, too. It can diminish local populations, since many die traveling to the release ceremony. The genetic diversity of these local populations in turn decreases, reducing the population’s ability to survive.

    More than a thousand sparrows killed by peasants in 1958 are displayed on a cart near Beijing, China.
    Sovphoto/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

    Influence of politics

    Politically motivated campaigns have shaped wildlife in various ways.

    Starting in 1958, for instance, the Chinese Communist Party led a movement to eliminate four species that were considered pests: rats, flies, mosquitoes and sparrows. While the first three are commonly considered pests around the world, sparrows made the list because they were “public animals of capitalism” due to their fondness for grain. The extermination campaign ended up decimating the sparrow population and damaging the entire ecosystem. With sparrows no longer hunting and eating insects, crop pests such as locusts thrived, leading to crop destruction and famine.

    In the United States, racial politics may be shaping evolutionary processes in wildlife.
    For instance, American highways traverse cities according to political agendas and have often dismantled poor neighborhoods of color to make way for multilane thoroughfares. These highways can change how animals are able to disperse and commingle. For example, they prevent bobcats and coyotes from traveling throughout Los Angeles, leading to similar patterns of population differentiation as seen in fire salamanders in Spain.

    Wildlife during and after war

    Human religious and political agendas often lead to armed conflict. Wars are known to dramatically alter the environment, as seen in current conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine.

    The Russia-Ukraine war affected migration of greater spotted eagles.
    Nimit Virdi via Getty Images

    While documenting evolutionary changes to urban wildlife is secondary to keeping people safe during wartime, a handful of studies on wildlife have come out of active war zones. For example, the current Russia-Ukraine war affected the migration of greater spotted eagles. They made large diversions around the active war zone, arriving later than usual at their breeding grounds. The longer route increased the energy the eagles used during migration and likely influenced their fitness during breeding.

    Wars limit access to resources for people living in active war zones. The lack of energy to heat homes in Ukraine during the winter has led urban residents to harvest wood from nearby forests. This harvesting will have long-term consequences on forest dynamics, likely altering future evolutionary potential.

    A similar example is famine that occurred during the Democratic Republic of Congo’s civil wars (1996-1997, 1998-2003) and led to an increase in bushmeat consumption. This wildlife hunting is known to reduce primate population sizes, making them more susceptible to local extinction.

    Even after war, landscapes experience consequences.

    For example, the demilitarized zone between North Korea and South Korea is a 160-mile (250-kilometer) barrier, established in 1953, separating the two countries. Heavily fortified with razor wire and landmines, the demilitarized zone has become a de facto nature sanctuary supporting thousands of species, including dozens of endangered species.

    The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War led to the establishment of the European Green Belt, which runs along the same path as the Iron Curtain. This protected ecological network is over 7,800 miles (12,500 kilometers) long, allowing wildlife to move freely across 24 countries in Europe. Like the Korean DMZ, the European Green Belt allows for wildlife to move, breed and exchange genes, despite political boundaries. Politics has removed human influence from these spaces, allowing them to be a safe haven for wildlife.

    While researchers have documented a number of examples of wildlife evolving in response to human history and cultural practices, there’s plenty more to uncover. Cultures differ around the world, meaning each city has its own set of variables that shape the evolutionary processes of wildlife. Understanding how these human cultural practices shape evolutionary patterns will allow people to better design cities that support both humans and the wildlife that call these places home.

    Ideas for this article were developed as part of a NSF funded Research Coordination Network (DEB 1840663). Elizabeth Carlen was funded by the Living Earth Collaborative.

    – ref. War, politics and religion shape wildlife evolution in cities – https://theconversation.com/war-politics-and-religion-shape-wildlife-evolution-in-cities-260184

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Astronomers have discovered another puzzling interstellar object − this third one is big, bright and fast

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Darryl Z. Seligman, Assistant Professor, Michigan State University

    The Haleakala Observatory, left, houses one telescope for the ATLAS system. That system first spotted the object 3I/ATLAS, which isn’t visible in this image. AP Photo/Lindsey Wasson

    Astronomers manning an asteroid warning system caught a glimpse of a large, bright object zipping through the solar system late on July 1, 2025. The object’s potentially interstellar origins excited scientists across the globe, and the next morning, the European Space Agency confirmed that this object, first named A11pl3Z and then designated 3I/ATLAS, is the third ever found from outside our solar system.

    Current measurements estimate that 3I/ATLAS is about 12 miles (20 kilometers) wide, and while its path won’t take it close to Earth, it could hold clues about the nature of a previous interstellar object and about planet formation in solar systems beyond ours.

    On July 2 at 3 p.m. EDT, Mary Magnuson, an associate science editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke to Darryl Z. Seligman, an astrophysicist at Michigan State University who has been studying 3I/ATLAS since its discovery.

    What makes 3I/ATLAS different from its predecessors?

    We have discovered two interstellar objects so far, ’Oumuamua and Comet 2I/Borisov. ’Oumuamua had no dust tail and a significant nongravitational acceleration, which led to a wide variety of hypotheses regarding its origin. 2I/Borisov was very clearly a comet, though it has a somewhat unique composition compared to comets in our solar system.

    All of our preparation for the next interstellar object was preparing for something that looked like a ’Oumuamua, or something that looked like Borisov. And this thing doesn’t look like either of them, which is crazy and exciting.

    This object is shockingly bright, and it’s very far away from the Earth. It is significantly bigger than both of the interstellar objects we’ve seen – it is orders of magnitude larger than ’Oumuamua.

    For some context, ’Oumuamua was discovered when it was very close to the Earth, but this new object is so large and bright that our telescopes can see it, even though it is still much farther away. This means observatories and telescopes will be able to observe it for much longer than we could for the two previous objects.

    It’s huge and it’s much farther away, but it is also much faster.

    When I went to bed last night, I saw an alert about this object, but nobody knew what was going on yet. I have a few collaborators who figure out the orbits of things in the solar system, and I expected to wake up to them saying something like “yeah, this isn’t actually interstellar.” Because a lot of times you think you may have found something interesting, but as more data comes in, it becomes less interesting.

    Then, when I woke up at 1 a.m., my colleagues who are experts on orbits were saying things like “no, this is definitely interstellar. This is for real.”

    How can astronomers tell if something is an interstellar object?

    The eccentricity of the object’s orbit is how you know that it’s interstellar. The eccentricity refers to how noncircular an orbit is. So an eccentricity of zero is a pure circle, and as the eccentricity increases, it becomes what’s known as an ellipse – a stretched out circle.

    A hyperbolic orbit isn’t a closed loop, as this rendering of ‘Oumuamua’s trajectory shows. All the planets have oval-shaped elliptical orbits, which close in a loop. The interstellar object instead passes through but doesn’t come back around.
    Tomruen/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    And then once you get past an eccentricity of one, you go from an ellipse to a hyperbolic orbit, and that is unbound. So while an elliptical orbit is stretched out, it still orbits and comes back around. An object with a hyperbolic orbit comes through and it leaves, but it never comes back. That type of orbit tells you that it didn’t come from this solar system.

    When researchers are collecting data, they’re getting points of light on the sky, and they don’t know how far away they are. It’s not like they see them and can just tell, “oh, that’s eccentric.” What they’re seeing is how far away the object is compared with other stars in the background, what its position is and how fast it’s moving. And then from that data, they try to fit the orbit.

    This object is moving fast for how far away it is, and that’s what’s telling us that it could be hyperbolic. If something is moving fast enough, it’ll escape from the solar system. So a hyperbolic, unbound object inherently has to be moving faster.

    This is a real-time process. My collaborators have preexisting software, which will, every night, get new observations of all the small bodies and objects in the solar system. It will figure out and update what the orbits are in real time. We’re getting data points, and with more data we can refine which orbit fits the points best.

    What can scientists learn from an interstellar object?

    Objects like this are pristine, primordial remnants from the planet formation process in other planetary systems. The small bodies in our solar system have taught us quite a lot about how the planets in the solar system formed and evolved. This could be a new window into understanding planet formation throughout the galaxy.

    As we’re looking through the incoming data, we’re trying to figure out whether it’s a comet. In the next couple of weeks, there will likely be way more information available to say if it has a cometary tail like Borisov, or if it has an acceleration that’s not due to a gravitational pull, like ’Oumuamua.

    If it is a comet, researchers really want to figure out whether it’s icy. If it contains ices, that tells you a ton about it. The chemistry of these small bodies is the most important aspect when it comes to understanding planet formation, because the chemical composition tells you about the conditions the object’s solar system was in when the object formed.

    For example, if the object has a lot of ices in it, you would know that wherever it came from, it didn’t spend much time near a star, because those ices would have melted. If it has a lot of ice in it, that could tell you that it formed really far away from a star and then got ejected by something massive, such as a planet the size of Jupiter or Neptune.

    Fundamentally, this object could tell astronomers more about a population of objects that we don’t fully understand, or about the conditions in another solar system.

    We’ve had a couple of hours to get some preliminary observations. I suspect that practically every telescope is going to be looking at this object for the next couple of nights, so we’ll get much more information about it very soon.

    Darryl Z. Seligman is supported by an NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowship under award AST-2303553. This research award is partially funded by a generous gift of Charles Simonyi to the NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences. The award is made in recognition of significant contributions to Rubin Observatory’s Legacy Survey of Space and Time.

    – ref. Astronomers have discovered another puzzling interstellar object − this third one is big, bright and fast – https://theconversation.com/astronomers-have-discovered-another-puzzling-interstellar-object-this-third-one-is-big-bright-and-fast-260391

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Military force may have delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions – but history shows that diplomacy is the more effective nonproliferation strategy

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Stephen Collins, Professor of Government and International Affairs, Kennesaw State University

    View of the United Nations logo at a 2022 conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images)

    While the U.S. military’s strikes on Iran on June 21, 2025, are believed to have damaged the country’s critical nuclear infrastructure, no evidence has yet emerged showing the program to have been completely destroyed. In fact, an early U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency assessment surmised that the attack merely delayed Iran’s possible path to a nuclear weapon by less than six months. Further, Rafael Mariano Grossi, director of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency, stated that Iran may have moved its supply of enriched uranium ahead of the strikes, and assessed that Tehran could resume uranium enrichment “in a matter of months.”

    Others have warned that the strikes may intensify the Islamic Republic’s nuclear drive, convincing the government of the need to acquire a bomb in order to safeguard its survival.

    As a scholar of nuclear nonproliferation, my research indicates that military strikes, such as the U.S. one against Iran, tend not to work. Diplomacy — involving broad and resolute international efforts — offers a more strategically effective way to preempt a country from obtaining a nuclear arsenal.

    The diplomatic alternative to nonproliferation

    The strategy of a country using airstrikes to attempt to eliminate a rival nation’s nuclear program has precedent, including Israel’s 1981 airstrike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor and its 2007 air assault on Syria’s Kibar nuclear complex.

    Yet neither military operation reliably or completely terminated the targeted program. Many experts of nuclear strategy believe that while the Israeli strike destroyed the Osirak complex, it likely accelerated Iraq’s fledgling nuclear program, increasing Saddam Hussein’s commitment to pursue a nuclear weapon.

    The Osirak nuclear power research station in 1981.
    Jacques Pavlovsky/Sygma via Getty Images

    In a similar vein, while Israeli airstrikes destroyed Syria’s nascent nuclear facility, evidence soon emerged that the country, under its former leader, Bashar Assad, may have continued its nuclear activities elsewhere.

    Based on my appraisal of similar cases, the record shows that diplomacy has been a more consistently reliable strategy than military force for getting a targeted country to denuclearize.

    The tactics involved in nuclear diplomacy include bilateral and multilateral engagement efforts and economic tools ranging from comprehensive sanctions to transformative aid and trade incentives. Travel and cultural sanctions – including bans on participating in international sporting and other events – can also contribute to the effectiveness of denuclearization diplomacy.

    The high point of denuclearization diplomacy came in 1970, when the majority of the world signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The treaty obliged nonnuclear weapons states to refrain from pursuing them, and existing nuclear powers to share civilian nuclear power technology and work toward eventual nuclear weapons disarmament.

    I’ve found that in a majority of cases since then – notably in Argentina, Brazil, Libya, South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan – diplomacy played a pivotal role in convincing nuclear-seeking nations to entirely and permanently relinquish their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

    Case studies of nuclear diplomacy

    In the cases of U.S. allies Argentina, Brazil, South Korea and Taiwan, the military option was off the table for Washington, which instead successfully used diplomatic pressure to compel these countries to discontinue their nuclear programs. This involved the imposition of significant economic and technological sanctions on Argentina and Brazil in the late-1970s, which substantially contributed to the denuclearization of South America. In the South Korea and Taiwan cases, the threat of economic sanctions was effectively coupled with the risk of losing U.S. military aid and security guarantees.

    South Africa represents one of the most compelling cases in support of diplomatic measures to reverse a country’s nuclear path. In the latter years of the Cold War, the country had advanced beyond threshold nuclear potential to assemble a sizable arsenal of nuclear weapons. But in 1991, the country decided to relinquish that arsenal, due in large part to the high economic, technological and cultural costs of sanctions and the belief that its nuclear program would prevent its reintegration into the international community following years of apartheid.

    Completing the denuclearization of Africa, diplomatic pressure applied by the U.S. was the primary factor in Libya’s decision to shutter its nuclear program in 2003, as ending U.S. sanctions and normalizing relations with Washington became a high priority for the government of Moammar Gadhafi.

    In the case of Iraq, the Hussein regime eventually did denuclearize in the 1990s, but not through a deal negotiated directly with the U.S. or the international community. Rather, Hussein’s decision was motivated by the damaging economic and technological costs of the U.N. sanctions and his desire to see them lifted after the first Gulf War.

    In the 11 countries in which diplomacy was used to reverse nuclear proliferation, only in the cases of India and Pakistan did it fail to induce any nuclear reversal.

    In the case of North Korea, while Pyongyang did for a time join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, it later left the accord and subsequently built an arsenal now estimated at several dozen nuclear weapons. The decades-long efforts at diplomacy with the country cannot, therefore, be coded a success. Still, these efforts did result in notable moves in 1994 and 2007 by North Korea to curtail its nuclear facilities.

    Meanwhile, analysts debate whether diplomacy would have been more successful at containing North Korea’s nuclear program if the George W. Bush administration had not shifted toward a more confrontational policy, including naming North Korea as a member of the “axis of evil” and delaying aid promised in the 1994 U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework.

    The Iran deal and beyond

    Consistent with the historical track record for diplomacy concerning other nuclear powers, Iran offers compelling evidence of what diplomacy can achieve in lieu of military force.

    Diplomatic negotiations between the U.S, Iran and five leading powers yielded the landmark Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015. The so-called Iran deal involved multilateral diplomacy and a set of economic sanctions and incentives, and persuaded Iran to place stringent limits on its nuclear program for at least 10 years and ship tons of enriched uranium out of the country. A report from the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2016 confirmed that Iran had abided by the terms of the agreement. Consequently, the U.S., European Union and U.N. responded by lifting sanctions.

    Representatives of the nations involved in signing the 2015 Iran nuclear deal pose for a group photo following talks in July 2015.
    AP Photo/Ronald Zak

    It was only after President Donald Trump ordered the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement in 2018, and reimposed sanctions on Iran, that Tehran resumed its alarming enrichment activities.

    Trump signaled quickly after the recent attack on Iran a willingness to engage in direct talks with Tehran. However, Iran may rebuff any agreement that effectively contains its nuclear program, opting instead for the intensified underground approach Iraq took after the 1981 Osirak attack.

    Indeed, my research shows that combining military threats with diplomacy reduces the prospects of successfully reaching a disarmament agreement. Nations will be more reluctant to disarm when their negotiating counterpart adopts a threatening and combative posture, as it heightens their fear that disarmament will make it more vulnerable to future aggression from the opposing country.

    A return to an Iran nuclear deal?

    Successful denuclearization diplomacy with Iran will not be a panacea for Middle East stability; the U.S. will continue to harbor concerns about Iran’s military-related actions and relationships in the region.

    It is, after all, unlikely that any U.S. administration could strike a deal with Tehran on nuclear policy that would simultaneously settle all outstanding issues and resolve decades of mutual acrimony.

    But by signing and abiding to the terms of the JCPOA, Iran has demonstrated a willingness to cooperate on the nuclear issue in the past. Under the agreement, Iran accepted a highly limited and low-proliferation-risk nuclear program subject to intrusive inspections by the international community.

    That arrangement was beneficial for regional stability and for buttressing the global norm against nuclear proliferation. A return to a JCPOA-type agreement would reinforce a diplomatic approach to relations with Iran and create an opening for progress with the country on other areas of concern.

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

    – ref. Military force may have delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions – but history shows that diplomacy is the more effective nonproliferation strategy – https://theconversation.com/military-force-may-have-delayed-irans-nuclear-ambitions-but-history-shows-that-diplomacy-is-the-more-effective-nonproliferation-strategy-259769

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: A new Gaza ceasefire deal is on the table – will this time be different?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Julie M. Norman, Senior Associate Fellow on the Middle East at RUSI; Associate Professor in Politics & International Relations, UCL

    The US president, Donald Trump, says that Israel has agreed to terms for a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza. If that sounds familiar, it is.

    The idea of a two-month truce has been discussed since the collapse of the last shortlived ceasefire in March. A similar proposal was floated in May, but Hamas viewed it as an enabling mechanism for Israel to continue the war after a brief pause, rather than reaching a permanent peace deal.

    As the devastation in Gaza worsens by the day, will this time be any different?

    The proposal, put forward by Qatari mediators, reportedly involves Hamas releasing ten living hostages and the bodies of 18 deceased hostages over the 60-day period, in exchange for the release of a number of Palestinian prisoners.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    The remaining 22 hostages would be released if a long-term deal is reached. The 60-day ceasefire period would also involve negotiations for a permanent end to hostilities and a roadmap for post-war governance in Gaza.

    But the plan is similar to the eight-week, three-phase ceasefire from January to March of this year, which collapsed after the first phase of hostage exchanges. Since then peace talks have hit a recurrent impasse.

    For Hamas, a long-term ceasefire means the permanent end to the war and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. Israel, meanwhile, wants to see the complete removal of Hamas from power, the dismantling and disarming of its military wing and the exile of remaining senior Hamas leaders.

    But despite the persistent challenges, there are several reasons that this attempt for a ceasefire might be different. First and foremost is the recent so-called “12-day war” between Israel and Iran, which Israel has trumpeted as a major success for degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities (although the reality is more nuanced).

    The perceived win gives Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, political maneuverability to pursue a ceasefire over the objections of far-right hardliners in his coalition who have threatened to bring down the government in previous rounds.

    The Iran-Israel war, in which the US controversially carried out strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, also revived Trump’s interest in the Middle East. Trump entered office just as the phased Gaza ceasefire deal was being agreed. But Trump put little diplomatic pressure on Israel to engage in serious talks to get from the first phase of the agreement to phase two, allowing the war to resume in March.

    Now however, after assisting Israel militarily in Iran, Trump has significant leverage he can use with Netanyahu. He will have the chance to use it (if he chooses) when Netanyahu visits Washington next week.

    Both men also view Iran’s weakened position as an opportunity for expanding the Abraham accords. This was the set of agreements normalising relations between Israel and several Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco, which Trump brokered at the end of his first term.

    Netanyahu has long eyed a US-backed deal with Saudi Arabia, and a smaller-scale declaration with Syria is reportedly now under discussion as well. But those deals can’t move forward while the war in Gaza is going.

    Additional obstacles

    However, the recurrent obstacles to a deal remain – and it’s unclear if the proposed terms will include guarantees to prevent Israel resuming the war after the 60-day period.

    New issues have also arisen since the last round of talks that could create further challenges. Hamas is demanding a return to traditional humanitarian aid distribution in Gaza – or at least the replacement of the controversial US and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

    The GHF’s four distribution sites, located in militarised zones, replaced over 400 previously operating aid points, and more than 400 people have been killed while seeking aid near the sites, since May 26. More than 170 international non-governmental organisations and charities have called for the GHF to be shut down.

    Israel’s military control over Gaza has also become further entrenched since the last ceasefire. More than 80% is thought to be covered by evacuation orders – and new orders for north Gaza and Gaza City were issued on June 29 and July 2 respectively.

    Israeli officials have described the renewed operations as military pressure on Hamas to accept a ceasefire. But Netanyahu has also spoken openly about long-term military occupation of Gaza.

    He recently stated that Israel would remain in “full security control of Gaza” even after the war. Even if a temporary ceasefire is agreed, the road ahead is strewn with difficulties in moving towards a long-lasting ceasefire or reaching an acceptable “day-after” agreement.

    Still, the current moment offers an opportunity for a breakthrough. Trump has a renewed interest in getting to a ceasefire and Netanyahu has a rare political window to enter an agreement and get hostages home. Hamas, meanwhile, has been weakened, not only by Israel’s relentless military pounding, but by increasing disillusionment from the people of Gaza, who are desperate for an end to the war.

    There is no shortage of reasons to end the war in Gaza. The only question is if Israel and Hamas have the will to do so.

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

    – ref. A new Gaza ceasefire deal is on the table – will this time be different? – https://theconversation.com/a-new-gaza-ceasefire-deal-is-on-the-table-will-this-time-be-different-260219

    MIL OSI Analysis –