Remember those lessons where you learned to use the formal “usted” with strangers and “tú” with friends? Well, the signs on Philadelphia’s streets show that Spanish speakers actually use pronouns differently.
In Spanish, unlike modern English, speakers must choose between different ways of saying “you” when addressing someone. Some Spanish dialects use up to four different forms – “tú,” “usted,” “vos” and the Colombian “sumercé” – but the Spanish speakers writing signs in Philadelphia have settled on just two: “tú” and “usted.”
But here’s where it gets interesting: In Philadelphia, the choice between these forms doesn’t follow the traditional rules we all thought we knew.
What the signs tell us
After analyzing 250 signs across three neighborhoods with a significant number of Spanish speakers – the Golden Block, in North Philadelphia; Olney, in North Philadelphia; and South Philadelpha’s Italian Market corridor – and online spaces such as social media from different Hispanic organizations in the city, I found some surprising patterns in how these forms are used.
Bilingual signs written in both Spanish and English tend to use the verb form associated with formal “usted” – imagine a store window announcing, “Please wear a mask / Por favor, utilice una mascarilla.” But signs written only in Spanish often use the informal “tú,” even when addressing strangers. This challenges the common assumption that we should always use formal language with people we don’t know.
My study suggests the purpose of the message matters more than formality. When signs make requests, they typically use “usted.” But when they’re trying to persuade or invite people to do something, “tú” is more common. A sign saying, “Please wait to be seated” typically uses “usted,” while one saying “Join us for our grand opening!” uses “tú.”
A city’s changing voice
Philadelphia’s Spanish-speaking history stretches back to the late 1800s, with waves of migration bringing distinct varieties of the Spanish language to the city.
What’s particularly noteworthy is the absence of “vos” in these signs, despite Philadelphia’s significant Salvadoran population who traditionally use this form. This suggests newer communities are adapting their language in signs to match the more established Spanish-speaking groups in the city.
Why this matters
These findings tell us something important about language in immigrant communities.
Rather than creating an entirely new dialect, Philadelphia’s Spanish speakers are finding common ground in how they communicate. It’s a reminder that language rules are often more flexible than we think, shaped by real-world use rather than textbook guidelines.
The next time you’re walking through Philadelphia’s Spanish-speaking neighborhoods, pay attention to the signs around you. They’re not just giving directions or advertising services – they’re showing us how language evolves when different communities come together in a new home.
Daniel Guarin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Craig Jackson, Professor of Occupational Health Psychology, Birmingham City University
US astronauts Sunni Williams and Barry Wilmore have been stranded in low earth orbit onboard the International Space Station for nine months. They are now finally due to return to Earth. Their planned return from their one week mission was abandoned due to concerns with the return vehicle, the Boeing Starliner-1, and this resulted in them being in space for 290 days.
Wilmore and Williams do not hold the record for the longest stay in orbit, which belongs to cosmonaut Valeri Polyakov, who spent 437 continuous days on the Soviet Mir space station. Nine other US astronauts have spent more than 200 days each in orbit during a single spaceflight – but Wilmore and Williams do hold the record for the longest unplanned spaceflight among US astronauts. Could the unplanned nature of their extended trip produce effects not seen in other planned long-term spaceflights?
The risks and hazards of space flight are well understood by Nasa and referred to as “RIDGE” – short for Radiation, Isolation and confinement, Distance from Earth, Gravity effects and hostile Environments. Aerospace medicine takes such issues seriously.
Some physical effects include blood clots and pooling, reductions in bone density, poor digestion, lower nutrient absorption, musculoskeletal atrophy (muscle and bone loss), and poorer cardiovascular function due to reduced blood pumping in zero gravity. Other impacts include changes to the eyeballs due to the pooling of fluids, pooled cerebrospinal fluid around the skull area, and a semi-permanent feeling of congestion.
The reduced sense of smell may be a blessing, as many space capsules develop an unpleasant smell. Physical effects from fluids can be improved, but not entirely negated, by cuff compression (a fabric sleeve that compresses an area of the body) to relieve pain and swelling. Musculoskeletal atrophy can be reduced with the help of an aerobic treadmill and resistive exercises to help maintain the muscles and cardiovascular function.
Exposure to radiation is a serious concern, and longer exposures can increase the likelihood of astronauts developing some cancers later in life. The health of Wilmore and Williams will be monitored for many years to come.
While stranded, Wilmore and Williams will have been providing vital data to help measure the impacts of prolonged stays – every bladder and bowel movement they had will have been weighed and checked for any signs of illness and to monitor changes brought about by their unplanned extension.
On their return to Earth, they will require gentle physiotherapy to regain muscle function and strength, and for cardiovascular rehabilitation, paced carefully due to the physical fatigue and limitations they will suffer for a few weeks. Dizzy spells, reduced muscle function, and visual disturbances will be common and even walking will take some practice. Their skin will be “baby soft” after nine months of not having their clothes rub against their bodies.
Of more interest may be the psychological challenges they face, from their concerns over the “near miss” by not returning to Earth in the vehicle they arrived in because Nasa decided it was too risky, through to having to live in confined quarters with others for so long, with a lack of privacy, and enforced companionship.
Behaviour in others that was initially a minor annoyance can quickly become serious sources of stress and irritation during enforced confinement. Astronauts are selected and screened based on temperament, personality, aptitude and their ability to cope when things go wrong. A problem solving mentality and a will to live, coupled with an ability to follow commands and maintain order in the most difficult of circumstances are what makes astronauts better than most of us.
They are trained to cope under any situation, such as crash-landings in deserts, or technical failures on board the spacecraft. But despite excellent training, human fallibility and failings will emerge given time.
Astronaut training also instils the importance of resilience, despite the most trying circumstances, and they will have been trained to keep their fears and anxieties hidden for the benefit of the mission. It might only be after their return that Wilmore and Williams may express their relief. Depression and anxiety can be common after returning to Earth according to others who have been there, with Buzz Aldrin admitting it happened to him and others in his 1973 autobiography Return to Earth.
Keeping busy will have helped keep worries away. Nasa
They may have experienced feelings of abandonment and questioned why they could not be rescued sooner, or may have developed an understandable lack of trust in technology, and a lack of faith in their fellow mission crew members. They will no doubt have missed important dates with their families, experienced homesickness and possibly even questioned if they could last until rescued.
Video-link contact with family will have kept them going but will have also been painful and difficult at the same time. Knowing that their families are worried about them, yet equally unable to do anything about it must have been particularly difficult. Although keeping themselves busy as a distraction will have helped, there would have been downtime when their worries must have been almost overwhelming.
Sleep disturbances and the inability to get regular sleep to allow their brains to rest will have led to cumulative fatigue – both physical and mental. Some astronauts struggle to ever get used to sleeping in space – resulting in lack of performance in the sufferer.
Being stranded on the ISS and unable to get back home while being able to see home fly by with every rotation of the Earth presents a unique form of frustration. One positive effect reported by many astronauts is the “overview effect” where a sense of peace and oneness with the planet is experienced when viewing the Earth from a whole new perspective. The overview effect seems to have a permanent impact, staying with astronauts for the rest of their lives.
A complication in understanding any psychological effects of spaceflight is that many astronauts hope to continue their careers and have more missions, and therefore may not be honest about any negatives they experienced. With Nasa planning missions to Mars at some point in the future, the unique experiences of Wilmore and Williams will be useful to behavioural scientists planning such future missions and trying to understand the best psychological characteristics for selecting astronauts for long term spaceflights.
Craig Jackson 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.
Historians and neuro-scientists show there are well-established psychological patterns that explain how personal fear fosters anger that leads to a need for action to eliminate the fear.
This dynamic has been evident in much of my 40 years of experience and research on public protests, including my doctorate on public order policing and subsequent ongoing analysis.
Google Trends offers a scientifically valid rating of global search engine topics rated on a weighted scale of 100. In the U.S. on March 10, 2025, for example, the search topic “I am so angry all the time” hit the top of the 100 index, the highest in more than 20 years.
In the powerful 1976 movie Network, actor Peter Finch — playing a volcanic TV newscaster — goes berserk, rises from his desk and yells, “I’m a human being, goddamn it! My life has value … I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!” In response, thousands go to their windows and scream his rallying cry.
A clip of the famous scene in Network when Peter Finch proclaims ‘I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!’
In perhaps a similar vein, leaders at the Pentagon, Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Energy recently instructed federal workers not to reply to a weekend email from the Office of Personnel Management with the subject line: “What did you do last week?”
The fear-anger-action dynamic is now unfolding in America.
“If I could say one thing to Elon Musk, it’s ‘Please put a dose of compassion in this. These are real people. These are real lives …. It’s a false narrative to say we have to cut, and you have to be cruel to do it, as well. We can do both.”
The response from Musk and Trump to the outrage follows a proven pattern of action and anti-action my colleagues and I have termed the “4-D defense” of deny, divert, delay and destroy. We discovered this pattern through many years of research on public activism for both industry and government agencies, and it was the focus of my PhD dissertation.
We analyzed the content of thousands of traditional news stories, public opinion surveys and the socio-demographics of fearful groups that were angry they were being impacted by actions that were unfair, unlawful, dangerous and arbitrary.
We found that the defensive 4-D reaction works like this:
First deny there’s a problem.
When proven true, then divert the cause to someone else.
When proven you’re the cause, agree to remedies but delay the process as long as possible through promises and endless consultations.
When this is unacceptable, then destroy those protesting by besmirching their credibility and reputations with erroneous and confusing counter-facts and entangled lawsuits.
Trump prefers the ‘destroy’ part
Trump is quick to jump to the “destroy” part of 4-D defense through threats that have included bullying and crushing tariffs.
Another example of this Trump tendency was a recent heated Truth Social post in which he vowed to “imprison or deport students who participate in certain protests” against his attacks on education.
Musk responded on his social media site, X, that reactions by frightened and angry employees to arbitrary firings was “EXTREMELY troubling that some parts of government think this is TOO MUCH!! What is wrong with them?”
Musk appears to be embracing the 1911 “scientific management” style of Frederick Taylor, an American inventor and engineer who is known as the father of scientific management. He argued that the “greatest evil” in the workplace was lazy employees who were simply “replaceable cogs on a wheel.”
When Musk asks “what is wrong with them?” in reference to the fear, anger and demands for protective action from hundreds of thousands of federal employees, he should perhaps watch Network.
It seems they’re “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.”
Eli Sopow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
When a ceasefire in the war between Hamas and Israel finally came into effect on January 19, the world breathed a collective sigh of relief.
However, that ceasefire agreement, and its associated negotiations, have now been cast aside by new Israeli attacks on Gaza.
A statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said the strikes came after Hamas’ “repeated refusals” to “release our hostages”, and the group’s rejection of all proposals presented by US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff.
Even before Israel cut off all humanitarian aid and electricity to Gaza in the past two weeks, Hamas claimed it had not met the levels of humanitarian aid, shelter and fuel it agreed to provide in the terms of the ceasefire. However, this is a distraction from a larger issue.
This ceasefire was always more like a strangle contract than a negotiated agreement between equal parties. Israel, as the party with far greater military and political power, has always had the upper hand.
And while the first phase of the ceasefire, which lasted 42 days, saw the successful release of 33 hostages held by Hamas in exchange for nearly 1,800 Palestinian prisoners, the ceasefire also enabled Israel to use it for its own political and military ends.
Buying time
The most common conventional concern about ceasefires is that the parties to a conflict will use them for their own ends.
Typically, the worry is that non-state armed groups, such as Hamas, will use the halt in violence to buy time to regroup, rearm and rebuild their strength to continue fighting.
But states such as Israel have this ability, too. Even though they have standing armies that might not need to regroup and rearm in the same way, states can use this time to manoeuvre in the international arena – a space largely denied to non-state actors.
Trump’s rise to power in the US has seemingly given the Israeli government carte blanche to proceed in ways that were arguably off limits to previous US presidents who were also largely supportive of Israel’s actions.
This includes the plan of forcing Gaza’s population out of the strip. This plan was raised earlier in the war by Trump advisor Jared Kushner and Israeli officials as a supposed humanitarian initiative.
Trump has now repeated the call to relocate Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt and Jordan – or possibly other parts of Africa – and for the US to take “ownership” of the coastal strip and turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East”.
On the face of it, this plan would be a war crime. But even if it is never fully implemented, the fact it is being promoted by Trump after many years of domestic Israeli and international opprobrium shows how political ideas once thought unacceptable can take on a life of their own.
Political and military maneouvering
Israel has also used the ceasefire to pursue larger political and military goals in Gaza, the West Bank, southern Lebanon and Syria.
Even though the ceasefire did reduce overall levels of violence in Gaza, Israel has continued to carry out attacks on targets in the strip.
It has also escalated the construction of settlements and carried out increasingly violent operations in the West Bank. In addition, there have been egregious attacks on Palestinian residents in Israel.
And though nearly 1,800 Palestinian prisoners were released during the ceasefire, Israel was holding more than 9,600 Palestinians in detention on “security grounds” at the end of 2024. Thousands more Palestinians are being held by Israel in administrative detention, which means without trial or charge.
During the ceasefire, Israel also accelerated efforts to evict the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, from its headquarters in East Jerusalem. And the Israeli government has also proposed increasinglydraconian laws aimed at restraining the work of Israeli human rights organisations.
On the military front, the ceasefire arguably alleviated some pressure on Israel, giving it time to consolidate its territorial and security gains against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and in Syria.
In the past two months, two deadlines for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon passed. Israel has instead proposed establishing a buffer zone on Lebanese territory and has begun destroying villages, uprooting olive trees and building semi-permanent outposts along the border.
In a speech in February, Netanyahu also demanded the “complete demilitarisation of southern Syria” following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. And Defence Minister Israel Katz said this month Israel would keep its troops in southern Syria to “protect” residents from any threats from the new Syrian regime.
Be careful what you wish for
While Palestinians are known for their sumud – usually translated as steadfastness or tenacity – there is a limit to what humans can endure. The war, and subsequent ceasefires, have created a situation in which Gazans may have to put the survival and wellbeing of themselves and their families above their desire to stay in Palestine.
There is a general assumption that ceasefires are positive and humanitarian in nature. But ceasefires are not panaceas. In reality, they are a least-worst option for stopping the violence of war for often just a brief period.
A ceasefire was never going to be the solution to the decades-old conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Instead, it has turned out to be part of the problem.
Marika Sosnowski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Elena Semino, Distinguished Professor in Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University
It has long been recognised that attitudes towards vaccines may be vaccine-specific, so that people may take up some, but not others.
On July 26 2021, the following statement was posted on Twitter (later renamed X) about the COVID-19 vaccine:
It’s not even a real vaccine. You can catch Covid and also spread it if you are vaccinated. You don’t catch polio or MMR after you are vaccinated.
My colleagues and I came across this comment and many like it while analysing a nine-million-word dataset consisting of tweets about the COVID and MMR vaccines posted between 2008 and 2022, to learn more about vaccine scepticism. We discovered that the author of this tweet is not alone in questioning the status of the COVID-19 vaccines as vaccines, and comparing it to others.
Vaccines (but not as you know them)
Our study also investigated how, in the years of the pandemic, people compared the COVID-19 vaccines unfavourably with the MMR vaccine. Many described a perception that the COVID vaccines were not very effective at preventing infection:
Yes because the covid vaccine is just like the MMR vaccine. NOT. MMR vaccine provides 99.8% protection from catching measles, mumps or rubella. Covid vaccine does NOT stop you from catching covid. Vaccinate away but it’s not going to stop covid.
Some people go one step further and state that, therefore, the COVID-19 vaccines are not vaccines:
How about we start with the fact that it’s not a vaccine, it’s a therapeutic. True vaccines immunize you from the virus. The COVID “vaccine” still allows you to catch COVID just with lesser symptoms. Not the same with polio, MMR, etc.
In some tweets, posters use the term “shot” in contrast with “vaccine”, to suggest an inferior intervention, despite the fact they mean the same thing:
Stop calling it a vaccine. It’s a shot.
Over 20 years ago a discredited but still influential claim that the MMR vaccine may cause autism caused a wave of vaccine scepticism. But this is a new type of vaccine-specific scepticism.
In our data, there is almost no evidence before 2020 of people claiming that some vaccines are not in fact vaccines. In the period 2020-2022, this form of scepticism increased rapidly in relation to the COVID-19 vaccines, and also applied to the flu vaccine:
Can you tell me more about this “vaccine” for the flu that allows tens of thousands of deaths? That’s not a vaccine, it’s a flu shot. Much different than say a polio vaccine or MMR vaccine. I would argue that we do NOT have a flu vaccine.
How can we explain this?
Experts were already aware that some diseases, such as measles, are vaccine-preventable: if you are vaccinated, you are extremely unlikely to be infected. In contrast, other diseases, including influenza and COVID-19, are vaccine-modifiable: if you are vaccinated, you may still be infected, but you are much less likely to become seriously ill or die.
This is not to do with the quality of the vaccines, never mind their status as vaccines, but with differences between, for example, more stable viruses and viruses that mutate over time, and between different rates at which immunity wanes.
Up until the pandemic, these definitions were mostly consistent with people’s experiences of vaccination. Even with flu, there was no easy access to tests that could show that you had been infected with the strain you had been vaccinated against.
The COVID-19 pandemic changed all that. It became a common experience to test positive for COVID-19 even after receiving one or more vaccine doses. Our research found that for some people, this did not undermine confidence in the status of the COVID-19 vaccines as vaccines. For others it did.
This probably explains the new type of scepticism my colleagues and I discovered. It is a scepticism that may be shared by people who normally take up vaccines, for themselves and for their children. The use of informal alternatives to the term “vaccine”, such as “shot”, in public health messaging may unintentionally contribute to this confusion about what counts as a vaccine.
If left unaddressed, this new scepticism may affect the take up of seasonal flu and COVID-19 vaccines, as well as confidence in vaccines in future pandemics.
Elena Semino receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, part of UK Research and Innovation (grant number: ES/V000926/1).
Source: The Conversation – France – By Brad Harris, Professor of management, associate dean of MBA programs, HEC Paris Business School
We usually think of workplace deviance as linked to “bad apples”–the troublemakers who egregiously slack off, steal from the company or openly clash with coworkers. But what if deviant behaviour was also more subtle–daydreaming, taking long coffee breaks or cracking an edgy joke in a meeting? It turns out most employees engage in quieter patterns of minor misbehaviours, and it’s changing how we think about deviance on the job.
Traditionally, research has kept deviance in neat boxes: bad behaviours are either interpersonal (aimed at coworkers) or organisational (targeted against the company). But most employees don’t fall into rigid categories of “good” or “bad”, nor do they engage only in one type of misbehaviour. Instead, many show a mix of minor, less disruptive behaviours that don’t seem to fit the bad-apple narrative.
Breaking down misconduct
Our research explored different patterns or “classes” of workplace misbehaviours. We meta-analysed responses from more than 6,000 employees across 20 primary studies in the US and elsewhere, and conducted multiple follow-up studies across different countries and industries.
Using statistical modelling techniques, our analysis of previous studies found evidence for five unique classes of “deviants” at work, with several of these falling clearly outside the traditional good/bad or person/organisation dichotomies. We then conducted a second study with 553 participants that found similar evidence, and showed how behaviours linked to these classes related to job satisfaction, turnover intentions and other work outcomes.
Here’s a breakdown of the five types of workplace “troublemakers” we identified in our follow-up studies:
Withdrawn workers (39% of the participants in the study)
You won’t see these workers causing a big scene, but then again, you might not see them much at all. Far from classic troublemakers, these workers act out by withholding effort, coming in late and withdrawing from the action in sometimes remarkable ways. The prevalence of this class, which is not well captured in prior deviance research, supports the phenomenon of “quiet quitting” that was popularized in recent years.
Slacking jerks (9%)
This group exhibits the low productivity and withdrawal of the previous class, but with an edge. They avoid tasks, work slowly, take long breaks and are often rude to coworkers.
Stagnant workers (21%)
Disengaged but not overtly harmful, these employees daydream and occasionally show up late without causing obvious disruptions. They don’t stand out on a typical day, but when things get rough you might notice they aren’t pulling their weight. These workers can stifle efforts at organisational change and slowly erode a positive culture.
Elevated deviants (4%)
The classic “bad apples”, people in this group engage in all the various disruptive behaviours described above, likely due to high job dissatisfaction.
Minimal deviants (27%)
Members of this group avoid most deviant behaviour and are generally good citizens at work. Even if this percentage is inflated–social desirability bias, or the inclination people have to present themselves well, may have affected study participants’ willingness to admit every act of deviance–its relatively modest size is still telling: a vast majority of workers in our sample say they are misbehaving in some way.
Our data show that workplace deviance isn’t always about major rule-breaking; in fact, it rarely is! While serious actions like theft (e.g., stealing property or falsifying a receipt) and overt aggression are rare, smaller things like daydreaming, taking extra breaks and making snarky remarks happen rather frequently. These mundane forms of deviance can be written off because they fail to evoke visceral reactions from managers or peers. But they can also add up, eroding positive cultures in ways that aren’t seen until a major event occurs.
What drives these behaviours?
People often act out at work because they feel wronged by a person or situation, or because they have deeper motivations, linked to their personality traits, that are more conducive to deviance. Our study backs up this idea and offers some additional clarity. As expected, when employees feel wronged–by a demanding boss, unhelpful coworkers or a lack of support from the organisation–they’re more likely to push back with some type of misconduct. Having an abusive supervisor makes it more likely that employees will be members of the “elevated deviant” class, whereas experiencing ostracism makes membership in the “stagnant worker” class more likely.
One could argue about which comes first–being abused or being the abuser–but the pattern we found aligns with prior work that shows causality between injustice and deviance.
Looking beyond the work environment, we also found that certain personality traits can predict what type of “deviant” a worker is most likely to be. Agreeableness, for example, is associated with less overt deviance classes such as “stagnant workers” and “withdrawn workers”. Interestingly, while conscientiousness was predictive of belonging to the “minimal deviant” class, our data suggest that highly conscientious people do occasionally act out, usually with a mix of withdrawal and rudeness (like the “slacking jerks”).
In short, highly conscientious people have high expectations for their own and others’ work, and they may sometimes react to stress or slights in ways that make their unmet expectations known.
Impacts on performance
Deviant behaviour impacts team performance and turnover. Our study shows that employees in the “minimal deviants” group generally perform well, are supportive of their teammates and are satisfied with their work, whereas those in high-deviance groups are often poorer performers who do not often behave supportively toward their coworkers. Yet, while our findings support the idea of a “bad apple” dragging down an entire team, deviance and its effects can be more complicated in some cases.
Consider the relatively mild deviance classes of “stagnant workers” and “withdrawn workers”, whose members express relatively high intentions to quit and, accordingly, perform lower than those of other classes. These employees may fly under the radar while silently eroding an organisation’s potential.
Workers in the “slacking jerks” class exhibit contradictory behavioural patterns: they are willing to withdraw from some parts of their job and act out rudely toward some coworkers, while also maintaining relatively higher levels of performance and even going out of their way to help other colleagues. As a result, managers are frequently navigating grey zones: what trade-offs are palatable, and where is the line between reasonable expression and outright violation?
Our findings show that most employees engage in minor misdemeanors, like taking extra-long breaks or daydreaming, rather than major actions like theft. Many don’t just dabble in one or two types of deviance, but exhibit complex patterns in their behaviour at work that can be reliably predicted by personality-based factors and situational attributes. Without careful attention, their minor acts, which often emerge as a response to burn-out or low morale, may go unnoticed or untreated, and can accumulate into big problems for organisations.
Beyond bad intentions
Our findings also challenge the belief that rule-breaking is driven by a few “bad apples” intent on causing trouble, and contribute to a growing line of inquiry that shifts from asking merely “who acts out at work?” to “why do people engage in these behaviours?” For many employees, minor slip-ups are likely less about causing harm and more about coping with everyday stress.
Motives for breaking rules can differ substantially. For instance, some workers who are withdrawn might be stepping back quietly to deal with health issues, while others stepping back may be evincing a low level of commitment. Understanding their different reasons could open the door to better ways of addressing their behaviours.
While deviance has traditionally been viewed as something rare, our study shows a more complicated picture. On the one hand, only 4% of respondents reported high levels of all forms of deviance, which, on the surface, would support the rarity of workplace deviance. However, on the other hand, only about a quarter (27%) of employees reported that they steer clear of deviance entirely. That leaves more than two thirds (69%) of employees exhibiting milder and more nuanced patterns of misbehavior.
This helps us understand deviance as a more common part of work life. It also complicates how managers think about, penalise and discourage it. Without levers that help employees reduce stress or make up for uncontrollable work factors (such as company-wide salary freezes), managers may feel pressure to accept some forms of deviance as “the cost of doing business” while remaining vigilant toward the most egregious and overt infractions.
Brad Harris ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
Papua New Guinea being declared a Christian nation may offer the impression that the country will improve, but it is only “an illusion”, according to a Catholic priest in the country.
Last week, the PNG Parliament amended the nation’s constitution, introducing a declaration in its preamble: “(We) acknowledge and declare God, the Father; Jesus Christ, the Son; and Holy Spirit, as our Creator and Sustainer of the entire universe and the source of our powers and authorities, delegated to the people and all persons within the geographical jurisdiction of Papua New Guinea.”
In addition, Christianity will now be reflected in the Fifth Goal of the Constitution, and the Bible will be recognised as a national symbol.
Father Giorgio Licini of Caritas PNG said that the Catholic Church would have preferred no constitutional change.
“To create, nowadays, in the 21st century a Christian confessional state seems a little bit anachronistic,” Father Licini said.
He believes it is a “cosmetic” change that “will not have a real impact” on the lives of the people.
“PNG society will remain basically what it is,” he said.
An ‘illusion that things will improve’ “This manoeuvre may offer the impression or the illusion that things will improve for the country, that the way of behaving, the economic situation, the culture may become more solid. But that is an illusion.”
He said the preamble of the 1975 Constitution already acknowledged the Christian heritage.
Father Licini said secular cultures and values were scaring many in PNG, including the recognition and increasing acceptance of the rainbow community.
“They see themselves as next to Indonesia, which is Muslim, they see themselves next to Australia and New Zealand, which are increasingly secular countries, the Pacific heritage is fading, so the question is, who are we?” he said.
“It looks like a Christian heritage and tradition and values and the churches, they offer an opportunity to ground on them a cultural identity.”
Village market near a Christian church building in Papua New Guinea . . . secular cultures and values scaring many in PNG. Image: 123rf
Prime Minister James Marape, a vocal advocate for the amendment, is happy about the outcome.
He said it “reflects, in the highest form” the role Christian churches had played in the development of the country.
Not an operational law RNZ Pacific’s PNG correspondent Scott Waide said that Marape had maintained it was not an operational law.
“It is something that is rather symbolic and something that will hopefully unite Papua New Guinea under a common goal of sorts. That’s been the narrative that’s come out from the Prime Minister’s Office,” Waide said.
He said the vast majority of people in the country had identified as Christian, but it was not written into the constitution.
Waide said the founding fathers were aware of the negative implications of declaring the nation a Christian state during the decolonisation period.
“I think in their wisdom they chose to very carefully state that Papua New Guineans are spiritual people but stopped short of actually declaring Papua New Guinea a Christian country.”
He said that, unlike Fiji, which has had a 200-year experience with different religions, the first mosque in PNG opened in the 1980s.
“It is not as diverse as you would see in other countries. Personally, I have seen instances of religious violence largely based on ignorance.
“Not because they are politically driven, but because people are not educated enough to understand the differences in religions and the need to coexist.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who oversees the health of more than 340 million Americans, says vitamin A can prevent the worst effects of measles rather than urging more people to get vaccinated.
In an opinion piece for Fox News, the US health secretary said he was “deeply concerned” about the current measles outbreak in Texas. However, he said the decision to vaccinate was a “personal one” and something for parents to discuss with their health-care provider.
Here’s what the vitamin A study actually says and why public health officials are so concerned about Kennedy’s latest statement.
Why is a measles outbreak so worrying?
Measles is a highly contagious disease caused by a virus. It spreads easily including when an infected person breathes, coughs or sneezes.
Measles initially infects the respiratory tract and then the virus spreads throughout the body. Symptoms include a high fever, cough, red eyes, runny nose and a rash all over the body.
Measles can also be severe, can cause complications including blindness and swelling of the brain, and can be fatal. Measles can affect anyone but is most common in children.
Vitamin A is essential for our overall health. It has many roles in the body, from supporting our growth and reproduction, to making sure we have healthy vision, skin and immune function.
Foods rich in vitamin A or related molecules include orange, yellow and red coloured fruits and vegetables, green leafy vegetables, as well as dairy, egg, fish and meat. You can take it as a supplement.
Vitamin A can also be used therapeutically. In other words, doctors may prescribe vitamin A to treat a deficiency. Vitamin A deficiency has long been associated with more severe cases of infectious disease, including measles. Vitamin A boosts immune cells and strengthens the respiratory tract lining, which is the body’s first defence against infections.
Because of this, the CDC has recently said vitamin A can also be prescribed as part of treatment for children with severe measles – such as those in hospital – under doctor supervision.
One key message from the CDC’s advice is that people are already sick enough with measles to be in hospital. They’re not taking vitamin A to prevent catching measles in the first place.
The other key message is vitamin A is taken under medical supervision, under specific circumstances, where patients can be closely monitored to prevent toxicity from high doses.
Kennedy cites and links to a 2010 study, a type known as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Researchers reviewed and analysed existing studies, which included ones that looked at the effectiveness of vitamin A in preventing measles deaths.
They found three studies that looked at vitamin A treatment by specific dose. There were different doses depending on the age of the children, measured in IU (international units). Having two doses of vitamin A (200,000IU for children over one year of age or 100,000IU for infants below one year) reduced mortality by 62% compared to children who did not have vitamin A.
The 2010 study did not show vitamin A reduced your risk of getting measles from another infected person. To my knowledge no study has shown this.
To be fair, Kennedy did not say that vitamin A stops you from catching measles from another infected person. Instead, he used the following vague statement:
Studies have found that vitamin A can dramatically reduce measles mortality.
It’s easy to see how a reader could misinterpret this as “take vitamin A if you want to avoid dying from measles”.
We know what works – vaccines
The World Health Organization recommends all children receive two doses of measles vaccine.
The CDC states two doses of the measles vaccine (measles-mumps-rubella or MMR vaccine) is 97% effective against getting measles. This means out of every 100 people who are vaccinated only three will get it, and this will be a milder form.
relying on vitamin A instead of the vaccine is not only dangerous and ineffective […] it puts children at serious risk.
Evangeline Mantzioris is affiliated with Alliance for Research in Nutrition, Exercise and Activity (ARENA) at the University of South Australia. Evangeline Mantzioris has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and has been appointed to the National Health and Medical Research Council Dietary Guideline Expert Committee.
New Zealand’s National-led coalition government’s policy on Gaza seems caught between a desire for a two-state diplomatic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and closer alignment with the US, which supports a Netanyahu government strongly opposed to a Palestinian state
In the last 17 months, Gaza has been the scene of what Thomas Merton once called the unspeakable — human wrongdoing on a scale and a depth that seems to go beyond the capacity of words to adequately describe.
The latest Gaza conflict began with a horrific Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 that prompted a relentless Israel ground and air offensive in Gaza with full financial, logistical and diplomatic backing from the Biden administration.
During this period, around 50,000 people – 48,903 Palestinians and 1706 Israelis – have been reported killed in the Gaza conflict, according to the official figures of the Gaza Health Ministry, as well as 166 journalists and media workers, 120 academics,and more than 224 humanitarian aid workers.
Moreover, a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, signed in mid-January, seems to be hanging by a thread.
Israel has resumed its blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza and cut off electricity after Hamas rejected an Israeli proposal to extend phase 1 of the ceasefire deal (to release more Israeli hostages) without any commitment to implement phase 2 (that envisaged ending the conflict in Gaza and Israel withdrawing its troops from the territory).
Hamas insists on negotiating phase 2 as signed by both parties in the January ceasefire agreement
Over the weekend, Israel reportedly launched air-strikes in Gaza and the Trump administration unleashed a wave of attacks on Houthi rebel positions in Yemen after the Houthis warned Israel not to restart the war in Gaza.
New Zealand and the Gaza conflict Although distant in geographic terms, the Gaza crisis represents a major moral and legal challenge to New Zealand’s self-image and its worldview based on the strengthening of an international rules-based order.
New Zealand’s founding document, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, emphasised partnership and cooperation between indigenous Māori and European settlers in nation-building.
While the aspirations of the Treaty have yet to be fully realised, the credibility of its vision of reconciliation at home depends on New Zealand’s willingness to uphold respect for human rights and the rule of law in the international arena, particularly in states like Israel where tensions persist between the settler population and Palestinians in occupied territories like the West Bank.
New Zealand’s declaratory stance towards Gaza In 2023 and 2024, New Zealand consistently backed calls in the UN General Assembly for humanitarian truces or ceasefires in Gaza. It also joined Australia and Canada in February and July last year to demand an end to hostilities.
The New Zealand Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, told the General Assembly in April 2024 that the Security Council had failed in its responsibility “to maintain international peace and security”.
He was right. The Biden administration used its UN Security Council veto four times to perpetuate this brutal onslaught in Gaza for nearly 15 months.
In addition, Peters has repeatedly said there can be no military resolution of a political problem in Gaza that can only be resolved through affirming the Palestinian right to self-determination within the framework of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
The limitations of New Zealand’s Gaza approach Despite considerable disagreement with Netanyahu’s policy of “mighty vengeance” in Gaza, the National-led coalition government had few qualms about sending a small Defence Force deployment to the Red Sea in January 2024 as part of a US-led coalition effort to counter Houthi rebel attacks on commercial shipping there.
While such attacks are clearly illegal, they are basically part of the fallout from a prolonged international failure to stop the US-enabled carnage in Gaza.
In particular, the NZDF’s Red Sea deployment did not sit comfortably with New Zealand’s acceptance in September 2024 of the ICJ’s ruling that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory (East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza) was “unlawful”.
At the same time, the National-led coalition government’s silence on US President Donald Trump’s controversial proposal to “own” Gaza, displace two million Palestinian residents and make the territory the “Riviera” of the Middle East was deafening.
Furthermore, while Wellington announced travel bans on violent Israeli settlers in the West Bank in February 2024, it has had little to say publicly about the Netanyahu government’s plans to annex the West Bank in 2025. Such a development would gravely undermine the two-state solution, violate international law, and further fuel regional tensions.
New Zealand’s low-key policy On balance, the National-led coalition government’s policy towards Gaza appears to be ambivalent and lacking moral and legal clarity in a context in which war crimes have been regularly committed since October 7.
Peters was absolutely correct to condemn the UNSC for failing to deliver the ceasefire that New Zealand and the overwhelming majority of states in the UN General Assembly had wanted from the first month of this crisis.
But the New Zealand government has had no words of criticism for the US, which used its power of veto in the UNSC for more than a year to thwart the prospect of a ceasefire and provided blanket support for an Israeli military campaign that killed huge numbers of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
By cooperating with the Biden administration against Houthi rebels and adopting a quietly-quietly approach to Trump’s provocative comments on Gaza and his apparent willingness to do whatever it takes to help Israel “to get the job done’, New Zealand has revealed a selective approach to upholding international law and human rights in the desperate conditions facing Gaza
Professor Robert G. Patman is an Inaugural Sesquicentennial Distinguished Chair and his research interests concern international relations, global security, US foreign policy, great powers, and the Horn of Africa. This article was first published by The Spinoff and is republished here with the author’s permission.
What was left unsaid is that the individuals would be knowingly placed into a prison system in which a range of sources have reported widespread human rights abuses at the hands of state forces.
A first transfer of U.S. deportees from Venezuela has now arrived into that system. On March 16, the U.S. government flew around 250 deportees to El Salvador despite a judge’s order temporarily blocking the move. Bukele later posted a video online showing the deportees arriving in El Salvador with their hands and feet shackled and forcibly bent over by armed guards.
We have also heard firsthand of the human rights abuses that deportees and Salvadorans alike say they have suffered while incarcerated in El Salvador, and we have worked on hundreds of asylum cases as expert witnesses, testifying in U.S. immigration court about the nature and scope of human rights abuses in the country. We are deeply concerned both over the conditions into which deportees are arriving and as to what the U.S. administration’s decision signals about its commitments to international human rights standards.
For the past three years, Bukele has governed with few checks and balances under a self-imposed “state of exception.” This emergency status has allowed Bukele to suspend many rights as he wages what he calls a “war on gangs.”
The crackdown manifests in mass arbitrary arrests of anyone who fits stereotypical demographic characteristics of gang members, like having tattoos, a prior criminal record or even just “looking nervous.”
As a result of the ongoing mass arrests, El Salvador now has the highest incarceration rate in the world. The proportion of its population that El Salvador incarcerates is more than triple that of the U.S. and double that of the next nearest country, Cuba.
Safest country in Latin America?
Bukele’s tough-on-gangs persona has earned him widespread popularity at home and abroad – he has fostered an immediate friendship with the new U.S. administration in particular.
But maintaining this popularity has involved, it is widely alleged, manipulating crime statistics, attacking journalists who criticize him and denying involvement in a widely documented secret gang pact that unraveled just before the start of the state of exception.
Bukele and pro-government Salvadoran media insist that the crackdown on gangs has transformed El Salvador into the safest country in Latin America.
But on the ground, Salvadorans have described how police, military personnel and Mexican cartels have taken over the exploitative practices previously carried out by gangs like MS-13 and Barrio 18. One Salvadoran woman whose son died in prison just a few days after he was arbitrarily detained told a reporter from Al Jazeera: “One is always afraid. Before it was fear of the gangs, now it’s also the security forces who take innocent people.”
Bukele has ordered a communication blackout between incarcerated people and their loved ones. This means no visits, no letters and no phone calls.
Such lack of contact makes it nearly impossible for people to determine the well-being of their incarcerated family members, many of whom are parents with young children now cared for by extended family.
Despite the blackout, scholars, international and national rights’ groups and investigative journalists have been able to build up a picture of conditions inside El Salvador’s prisons through interviews with victims and their family members, medical records and forensic analysis of cases of prison deaths. What they describe is a hellscape.
Incarcerated Salvadorans are packed into grossly overcrowded cells, beaten regularly by prison personnel and denied medicines even when they are available. Inmates are frequently subjected to punishments including food deprivation and electric shocks. Indeed, a U.S. State Department’s 2023 country report on El Salvador noted the “harsh and life-threatening prison conditions.”
The human rights organization Cristosal estimates that hundreds have died from malnutrition, blunt force trauma, strangulation and lack of lifesaving medical treatment.
Often, their bodies are buried by government workers in mass graves without notifying families.
Although El Salvador is a signatory to the United Nations’ Convention Against Torture, Amnesty International concluded after multiple missions to the country and interviews with victims and their families that there is “systemic use of torture” in Salvadoran prisons.
Likewise, a case-by-case study by Cristosal, which included forensic analysis of exhumed bodies of people who died in prison, determined in 2024 that “torture has become a state policy.”
‘At risk of irreparable harm’
What makes this all the more worrying is the scale of potential abuse.
El Salvador now houses a prison population of around 110,000 – more than three times the number of inmates before the state of exception began.
To increase the country’s capacity for ongoing mass incarceration, Bukele built and opened the Terrorism Confinement Center mega-prison in 2023. An analysis of the center using satellite footage showed that if the prison were to reach its full supposed capacity of 40,000, each prisoner would have less than 2 feet of space in their cells.
It is to this prison that deportees from the U.S. have been taken.
There are serious concerns over both the process and the legality of transferring U.S. prisoners to a nation that has not protected the human rights of its detained population.
Moreover, the agreement through which the Trump administration is seeking to moving migrants detained in the U.S. to El Salvador faces scrutiny under international law, given what is known about the country’s prison conditions.
International human rights is governed by laws that prohibit nations from transferring people into harm’s way, be it returning foreign nationals to countries where “there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be at risk of irreparable harm,” or transferring detainees to jurisdictions in which they are at risk of being tortured or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The efforts of human rights organizations, journalists and scholars to document prison conditions point to an unequivocal conclusion: El Salvador does not meet the terms necessary to protect the human rights of deported and incarcerated migrants.
Mneesha Gellman received funding from Emerson College’s Faculty Development Fund. She is the Director of the Emerson Prison Initiative.
Sarah C. Bishop has received research funding from the Fulbright Organization, The Waterhouse Family Institute for the Study of Communication and Society at Villanova University, the Robert Bosch Stiftung Foundation, and the Professional Staff Congress at the City University of New York. She serves on the board of directors of the nonprofit organization Mixteca.
Freedom of the press — a bedrock principle of American democracy — is under threat in the United States.
Here at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism we are witnessing and experiencing an alarming chill. We write to affirm our commitment to supporting and exercising First Amendment rights for students, faculty, and staff on our campus — and, indeed, for all.
After Homeland Security seized and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a recent graduate of Columbia’s School of Public and International Affairs, without charging him with any crime, many of our international students have felt afraid to come to classes and to events on campus.
They are right to be worried. Some of our faculty members and students who have covered the protests over the Gaza war have been the object of smear campaigns and targeted on the same sites that were used to bring Khalil to the attention of Homeland Security.
President Trump has warned that the effort to deport Khalil is just the first of many.
These actions represent threats against political speech and the ability of the American press to do its essential job and are part of a larger design to silence voices that are out of favour with the current administration.
We have also seen reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is trying to deport the Palestinian poet and journalist Mosab Abu Toha, who has written extensively in the New Yorker about the condition of the residents of Gaza and warned of the mortal danger to Palestinian journalists.
There are 13 million legal foreign residents (green card holders) in the United States. If the administration can deport Khalil, it means those 13 million people must live in fear if they dare speak up or publish something that runs afoul of government views.
There are more than one million international students in the United States. They, too, may worry that they are no longer free to speak their mind. Punishing even one person for their speech is meant to intimidate others into self-censorship.
One does not have to agree with the political opinions of any particular individual to understand that these threats cut to the core of what it means to live in a pluralistic democracy. The use of deportation to suppress foreign critics runs parallel to an aggressive campaign to use libel laws in novel — even outlandish ways — to silence or intimidate the independent press.
The President has sued CBS for an interview with Kamala Harris which Trump found too favourable. He has sued the Pulitzer Prize committee for awarding prizes to stories critical of him.
He has even sued the Des Moines Register for publishing the results of a pre-election poll that showed Kamala Harris ahead at that point in the state.
Large corporations like Disney and Meta settled lawsuits most lawyers thought they could win because they did not want to risk the wrath of the Trump administration and jeopardize business they have with the federal government.
Amazon and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos decided that the paper’s editorial pages would limit themselves to pieces celebrating “free markets and individual liberties.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration insists on hand-picking the journalists who will be permitted to cover the White House and Pentagon, and it has banned the Associated Press from press briefings because the AP is following its own style book and refusing to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.
The Columbia Journalism School stands in defence of First Amendment principles of free speech and free press across the political spectrum. The actions we’ve outlined above jeopardise these principles and therefore the viability of our democracy. All who believe in these freedoms should steadfastly oppose the intimidation, harassment, and detention of individuals on the basis of their speech or their journalism.
The price of eggs has risen dramatically in recent years across the US. A dozen eggs cost US$1.20 (92p) in June 2019, but the price is now around US$4.90 (with a peak of US$8.17 in early March).
Some restaurants have imposed surcharges on egg-based dishes, bringing even more attention to escalating costs. And there are also shortages on supermarket shelves.
In the coming months, the US plans to import up to 100 million of this consumer staple. Government officials are approaching countries from Turkey to Brazil with enquiries about eggs for export.
Agriculture secretary Brooke Rollins, who previously said that one option to the crisis was for people to get a chicken for their backyard, suggested in the Wall Street Journal that prices are unlikely to stabilise for some months. And Donald Trump recently shared an article on Truth Social calling on the public to “shut up about egg prices”.
The main cause of the problem is an outbreak of avian flu that has resulted in over 166 million birds in the US being slaughtered. Around 98% of the nation’s chickens are produced on factory farms, which are ripe for contagion.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, the flu has already spread to several hundred dairy cattle and to one human. The USDA recently announced a US$1 billion plan to counter the problem, with funding for improved bio-security, vaccine research and compensation to farmers.
In January 2025, Donald Trump’s White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, blamed the previous administration for high egg prices. It is true that birds were slaughtered on President Joe Biden’s watch, but this was and remains standard practice at times of bird flu outbreaks and had also been the case during the Obama and first Trump administrations.
However, this points to the way the rising price of eggs has become a political touchstone. It was referred to regularly in campaign speeches and press briefings as a sign of things going wrong and a symbol of the US economy faced. Donald Trump promised to fix the price of eggs swiftly if elected, but so far the issue shows no sign of going away.
Prices are still trending up. Even when prices suddenly drop, as they have this week, the public know how much cheaper they used to be until recently, and do not tend to feel better.
There are a number of reasons why egg prices have become an important to US politicians. First, almost everyone buys eggs. So the shortage and subsequent price rise is newsworthy and affects consumers in all income brackets.
Secondly, they are a measure of broader economic vulnerabilities, so egg-related problems tend to be part of a larger story about how weak the economy is. And thirdly, egg prices are political because of Trump’s promise to bring them down.
Polls showed that the economy and inflation were key factors in voter choice on election day 2024. In February 2025, Donald Trump did an interview with NBC News in which he said he won the election on the border and groceries.
On immigration, voters often base their opinions on what they perceive to be true. For example, tough rhetoric on building a wall may equate with a sense of feeling that the president is taking strong action, whether anything tangible actually materialises or not.
With groceries, reality trumps perception. The price of eggs is printed on the box and the cost is paid directly by voters.
Donald Trump on what he’s doing on egg prices and the economy.
Then there are the egg producers. US farmers tended to overwhelmingly support Trump on election day, so it is prudent for him to feel their pain, or at least appear to. Farming areas voted for him increasingly in his three election efforts, even increasing their support for him in 2020 after trade wars and price increases which would have negatively impacted them.
Another factor that may push up egg prices is that an estimated 70% of the factory farm workforce is immigrant labour, and as many as 40% are undocumented. Should the administration’s plans for high tariffs and mass deportations come to fruition, the industry would struggle to function.
Further food price increases will be inevitable, with potential exacerbation via the funding freezes for some USDA programmes that Trump has enacted. As of March 2025, US$1 billion in cuts has been announced, the consequences of which are already being felt by farmers. The “pain now for gain later” message is a tricky political sell.
Even in the current era of international turbulence, elections are largely won on more pedestrian matters. Specifically, “kitchen-table” economics is relatable to every voter, regardless of how grand, or not, their table is.
Americans will be aware that in neighbouring Canada, egg prices have not risen dramatically and there have not been shortages. But prices in Canada have been traditionally higher than the US, this is in part at least because farming standards differ.
The US does not have high welfare standards for agricultural workers or animals, and this shortcoming needs to be addressed in order to help reduce future risk of flu, but this is likely to also raise prices.
Blaming the previous incumbent is not a durable stance for Donald Trump. As former president Harry Truman might remind him: “The buck stops here.” Right at his desk.
Clodagh Harrington does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jonathan Cazabonne, Doctorant en mycologie et écologie des vieilles forêts, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue (UQAT)
Fungi are among the most important organisms on Earth. Even though most of the world’s described 157,000 fungal species are only visible with a microscope, these organisms are essential to our ecosystems, our societies and economies.
Fungi are also important to human cultures — including as a source of food, medicine and art. Economically, fungi also support a growing economy centred around mycotourism — with a growing number of travellers visiting Canada and Spain each year to forage for wild mushrooms.
All the benefits fungi provide to humans are estimated to be worth the equivalent of US$54.57 trillion. This is why it’s an understatement to say that the world’s ecosystems and human societies are shaped by fungi.
And yet fungi continue to be an important but overlooked element of conservation strategies.
Why fungi are forgotten
Conservation efforts have long focused on protecting well-studied animals and plants. This is reflected in the number of species that have been assigned a conservation status by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Around 84 per cent of known species of vertebrates have received an IUCN conservation status. But just 0.5 per cent of all described fungi — 818 fungal species — are currently present on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Considering scientists estimate that there could be around 2.5 million fungal species in the world — of which we currently only know about six per cent of them — this means just 0.03 per cent of all fungi have been assigned a conservation status.
Several factors explain this alarming reality.
Fungi are difficult to study in both nature and under experimental conditions. This is because of many species’ microscopic size, their short lifespan and the hidden habitats they call home — such as soils, the tissues of other organisms and dung deposits.
Many species of fungi are difficult to study because of their microscopic size. (Shutterstock)
Fungi are also considered “uncharismatic” — meaning they don’t have the level of human appeal that some other species have. Much of their diversity is cryptic, as well. This means that while many fungi were once considered to be a single species, in reality they’re made up of multiple species that may look similar but are genetically distinct from one another. Because of this, conservation projects for fungi are poorly funded and do not easily capture public interest.
Protecting the unknown
In recent years, there’s been momentum within the scientific community to recognise fungi as a distinct kingdom within conservation strategies — one that’s on equal footing with animals and plants.
A significant milestone in this movement has been the adoption of the term “funga,” which mirrors “fauna” and “flora”. This designates the fungal diversity within a given environment or habitat.
Another important advancement was the recent pledge for fungal conservation that was presented at the 2024 Conference of Parties (COP16) in Colombia. This pledge urged parties to make fungal conservation a priority given fungi are central to achieving the biodiversity targets set out by the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework.
More local initiatives are also emerging. In Québec, over 70 mycologists and biologists signed an opinion letter encouraging the government to integrate fungi into its legislative framework.
Such progress is not trivial and may help correct misconceptions about fungi that continue to be present among the public, economic sectors and policymakers. For example, the misconception that fungi are plants is something that still persists to this day. Allowing this misconception to continue being perpetuated is harmful to the field of mycology, and may be preventing it from becoming a standalone discipline that deserves dedicated funding and specialists.
Still, there’s much we don’t know about these unique, important organisms. And in order for us to be able to protect and preserve the planet’s fungi, we need to begin by formally identifying areas where knowledge is lacking and close these gaps.
Last year, researchers used Laboulbeniomycetes — a class of poorly understood microfungi — as a case study to understand what biodiversity and conservation shortfalls continue to affect funga. This group of fungi includes species that rely on arthropods to disperse their spores or act as hosts for them. Many of these fungi live as minute parasites on the surface of insects such as cockroaches and ladybirds.
The case study uncovered four major biodiversity shortfalls that are undermining the conservation of funga. These include knowledge gaps in species diversity, distribution, conservation assessments and species persistence.
Part of conservation
Failing to protect fungi means, by extension, failing to protect the roles they play in our ecosystems and daily lives.
This is especially timely, as fungi, like animals and plants, are also facing numerous threats. Habitat degradation, pollution, invasive species and climate change may all increase their risks of extinction.
And, as recently exemplified in vertebrates, many undescribed species of fungi may be even more at peril than we might know. This is because they’re most likely to be found in remote geographical regions — such as tropical rainforests — and thus heavily susceptible to human-induced changes.
A key priority to better integrate fungi into conservation biology is to accumulate data on species diversity. But in order to accumulate data and understand how we can better protect fungal species worldwide, we need to fund research on fungi and make mycology a more attractive field for young scientists.
One thing remains certain: the more we explore, the more we realise just how little we know.
Jonathan Cazabonne is financially supported by a B2X doctoral research fellowship from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies (FRQNT).
Danny Haelewaters receives funding from the Czech Academy of Sciences (Lumina Quaeruntur Fellowship LQ200962501).
A federal judge swiftly blocked the deportations and ordered the planes carrying Venezuelans heading to El Salvador to return. But the White House, which has appealed the ruling, said that the court order came too late on a Saturday night, after it had already sent the Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador.
Legal analysts were trying to determine where the planes carrying the Venezuelans were shortly before 7 p.m. on March 15, when the judge issued the order stopping their removal, in an attempt to determine if the Trump administration had violated the judge’s order.
The Alien Enemies Act empowers presidents to apprehend and remove foreign nationals from countries that are at war with the United States. U.S. presidents have issued executive proclamations and invoked thislaw three times: during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II. All three instances followed Congress declaring war.
Why bother dusting off a 227-year-old law?
Invoking the Alien Enemies Act could make it far easier for the Trump administration to quickly apprehend, detain and deport immigrants living without legal authorization in the U.S. That’s because the law lets presidents bypass court review of the deportation.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio meets with El Salvador President Nayib Bukele at his residence at Lake Coatepeque in El Salvador, on Feb. 3, 2025. AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, Pool
Repressive origins and populist backlash
The Alien Enemies Act traces back to the late 1700s, when the Federalists, an early political party, controlled Congress. The Federalists wanted strong national government as well as harmonious diplomatic and trade relations with Great Britain.
The opposing Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson, supported France in its fight against Great Britain.
The Federalists in Congress considered Jefferson’s pro-France position to be against U.S. interests. They also were troubled that the Democratic-Republicans were backed by thousands of French and Irish immigrants who had some political clout in big cities such as Philadelphia and New York.
So in 1798, the Federalists tried to quell domestic opposition by passing the Alien and Sedition Acts, a series of controversial laws that banned political dissent by limiting free speech. The laws also made it harder for immigrants to become citizens.
One of these laws was the Alien Enemies Act, which gave presidents broad authority to control or remove noncitizens ages 14 or older if they had ties to foreign enemies during times of a declared war.
The Alien and Sedition Acts elicited a firestorm of criticism soon after they were passed, including from Jefferson and James Madison, who asserted that states have the right and duty to declare some federal laws unconstitutional. The populist backlash against the Alien and Sedition Acts helped propel Jefferson and Democratic-Republicans to victory in the 1800 presidential election. Nearly all of the Alien and Sedition Acts were then either repealed or allowed to expire.
Only the Alien Enemies Act, a law enacted without an expiration date, survived.
History of the Alien Enemies Act
Madison, the fourth U.S. president, first invoked the Alien Enemies Act during the War of 1812 with Great Britain, which was sparked for several reasons, including trade and territorial control of North America.
Madison invoked the act in 1812 by proclaiming that “all subjects of His Britannic Majesty, residing within the United States, have become alien enemies.”
But rather than imposing mass deportations, Madison’s administration simply required British nationals living in the U.S. to report their age, home address, length of residency and whether they applied for naturalization.
Wilson used the Alien Enemies Act to impose sweeping restrictions on the residency, work, possessions, speech and activities of foreign nationals from places that the U.S. was at war with – Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria. U.S.-born women married to any people born in these places were also deemed “enemy aliens.”
Two decades later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt notoriously used the Alien Enemies Act in World War II.
In 1941, Roosevelt authorized special restrictions on German, Italian and Japanese nationals living in the U.S. More than 30,000 of these foreign nationals, including Jewish refugees from Germany, spent the war imprisoned at internment camps because the government considered them potentially dangerous. The U.S. government released these detainees after World War II ended.
The Trump administration wrote in its order that the Venezuelan criminal organization Tren de Aragua is “conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States.”
The American Civil Liberties Union and another legal nonprofit, Democracy Forward, filed a lawsuit on March 15, the same day the Trump administration announced it was invoking the act.
The Alien Enemies Act’s text and history present formidable legal hurdles for the Trump administration proving that Tren de Aragua is at war with the U.S. While the organization is primarily based in Venezuela, Tren de Aragua members in the U.S. have been arrested in Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Texas and California for crimes including shooting New York police officers.
The 1798 law is clear that an “invasion or predatory incursion” must be undertaken by a “foreign nation or government” in order for it to be invoked.
Yet Congress has not declared war on any country, including Venezuela, in over 80 years, nor has another government launched an invasion against U.S. territory.
And drug cartels are not actual national governments running Latin American countries, so they don’t meet the criteria in the Alien Enemies Act.
In the past, Trump’s senior advisers have said with no clear evidence that the administration can justly claim that some Latin American governments, such as Mexico and Venezuela, are run by drug cartels that are attacking U.S. security.
Whatever the argument, the tenacious problem that the Trump administration will face is that neither the letter of the law nor historical precedents support peacetime use of the Alien Enemies Act.
None of these textual and historical realities will matter, however, if the courts ultimately decide that a president – simply saying that the country is being invaded by a foreign nation – is sufficient to legally invoke the act and is not subject to judicial review.
This makes it impossible to automatically dismiss blueprints for using an 18th-century law, however dubious, and it appears the Venezuelan deportations case appears headed for the Supreme Court. If Trump succeeds at invoking the Alien Enemies Act, I believe it would add another chapter to the Alien Enemies Act’s sordid history.
Daniel Tichenor 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.
Your cells constantly generate and conduct electricity that runs through your body to perform various functions. One such example of this bioelectricity is the nerve signals that power thoughts in your brain. Others include the cardiac signals that control the beating of your heart, along with other signals that tell your muscles to contract.
As bioengineers, we became interested in the epithelial cells that make up human skin and the outer layer of people’s intestinal tissues. These cells aren’t known to be able to generate bioelectricity. Textbooks state that they primarily act as a barrier against pathogens and poisons; epithelial cells are thought to do their jobs passively, like how plastic wrapping protects food against spoilage.
To our surprise, however, we found that wounded epithelial cells can propagate electrical signals across dozens of cells that persist for several hours. In this newly published research, we were able to show that even epithelial cells use bioelectricity to coordinate with their neighbors when the emergency of an injury demands it. Understanding this unexpected twist in how the body operates may lead to improved treatments for wounds.
Discovering a new source of bioelectricity
Don’t laugh: Our interest in this topic began with a gut feeling. Think of how your skin heals itself after a scratch. Epithelial cells may look silent and calm, but they’re busy coordinating with each other to extrude damaged cells and replace them with new ones. We thought bioelectric signals might orchestrate this, so our intuition told us to search for them.
Almost all the vendors we contacted to obtain the instrument we needed to test our idea warned us not to try these experiments. Only one company agreed with reluctance. “Your experiment won’t work,” they insisted. If we made the attempt and found nothing worthwhile to study, they feared it would make their product look bad.
But we did our experiments anyway – with tantalizing results.
We grew a layer of epithelial cells on a chip patterned with what’s called a microelectrode array – dozens of tiny electric wires that measure where bioelectric signals appear, how strong the signals are and how fast they travel from spot to spot. Then, we used a laser to zap a wound in one location and searched for electric signals on a different part of the cell layer.
Several hours of recording confirmed our intuition: When faced with the emergency need to repair themselves, bioelectrical signals appear when epithelial cells need a quick way to communicate over long distances.
We found that wounded epithelial cells can send bioelectric signals to neighboring cells over distances more than 40 times their body length with voltages similar to those of neurons. The shapes of these voltage spikes are also like those of neurons except about 1,000 times slower, indicating they might be a more primitive form of intercellular communication over long distances.
Powering the bioelectric generator
But how do epithelial cells generate bioelectricity?
We hypothesized that calcium ions might play a key role. Calcium ions show up prominently in any good biology textbook’s list of major molecules that help cells function. Since calcium ions regulate the forces that contract cells, a function necessary to remove damaged cells after wounding, we hypothesized that calcium ions ought to be critical to bioelectricity.
To test our theory, we used a molecule called EDTA that tightly binds to calcium ions. When we added EDTA to the epithelial cells and so removed the calcium ions, we found that the voltage spikes were no longer present. This meant that calcium ions were likely necessary for epithelial cells to generate the bioelectric signals that guide wound healing.
We then blocked the ion channels that allow calcium and other positively charged ions to enter epithelial cells. As a result, the frequency and strength of the electrical signals that epithelial cells produce were reduced. These findings suggest that while calcium ions may play a particularly crucial role in allowing epithelial cells to produce bioelectricity, other molecules may also matter.
Further research can help identify those other ion channels and pathways that allow epithelial cells to generate bioelectricity.
Our discovery that epithelial cells can electrically speak up during a crisis without compromising their primary role as a barrier opens doors for new ways to treat wounds.
Previous work from other researchers had demonstrated that it’s possible to enhance wound healing in skin and intestinal tissues by electrically stimulating them. But these studies used electrical frequencies many times higher than what we’ve found epithelial cells naturally produce. We wonder whether reevaluating and refining optimal electric stimulation conditions may help improve biomedical devices for wound healing.
Further down the road of possibility, we wonder whether electrically stimulating individual cells might offer even more healing potential. Currently, researchers have been electrically stimulating the whole tissue to treat injury. If we could direct these electrical signals to go specifically to where a remedy is needed, would stimulating individual cells be even more effective at treating wounds?
Our hope is that these findings could become a classic case of curiosity-driven science that leads to useful discovery. While our dream may carry a high risk of failure, it also offers potentially high rewards.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
What if you could listen to music or a podcast without headphones or earbuds and without disturbing anyone around you? Or have a private conversation in public without other people hearing you?
Our newly published research introduces a way to create audible enclaves – localized pockets of sound that are isolated from their surroundings. In other words, we’ve developed a technology that could create sound exactly where it needs to be.
The ability to send sound that becomes audible only at a specific location could transform entertainment, communication and spatial audio experiences.
What is sound?
Sound is a vibration that travels through air as a wave. These waves are created when an object moves back and forth, compressing and decompressing air molecules.
The frequency of these vibrations is what determines pitch. Low frequencies correspond to deep sounds, like a bass drum; high frequencies correspond to sharp sounds, like a whistle.
Controlling where sound goes is difficult because of a phenomenon called diffraction – the tendency of sound waves to spread out as they travel. This effect is particularly strong for low-frequency sounds because of their longer wavelengths, making it nearly impossible to keep sound confined to a specific area.
Certain audio technologies, such as parametric array loudspeakers, can create focused sound beams aimed in a specific direction. However, these technologies will still emit sound that is audible along its entire path as it travels through space.
The science of audible enclaves
We found a new way to send sound to one specific listener: through self-bending ultrasound beams and a concept called nonlinear acoustics.
Ultrasound refers to sound waves with frequencies above the human hearing range, or above 20 kHz. These waves travel through the air like normal sound waves but are inaudible to people. Because ultrasound can penetrate through many materials and interact with objects in unique ways, it’s widely used for medical imaging and many industrial applications.
In our work, we used ultrasound as a carrier for audible sound. It can transport sound through space silently – becoming audible only when desired. How did we do this?
Normally, sound waves combine linearly, meaning they just proportionally add up into a bigger wave. However, when sound waves are intense enough, they can interact nonlinearly, generating new frequencies that were not present before.
This is the key to our technique: We use two ultrasound beams at different frequencies that are completely silent on their own. But when they intersect in space, nonlinear effects cause them to generate a new sound wave at an audible frequency that would be heard only in that specific region.
Crucially, we designed ultrasonic beams that can bend on their own. Normally, sound waves travel in straight lines unless something blocks or reflects them. However, by using acoustic metasurfaces – specialized materials that manipulate sound waves – we can shape ultrasound beams to bend as they travel. Similar to how an optical lens bends light, acoustic metasurfaces change the shape of the path of sound waves. By precisely controlling the phase of the ultrasound waves, we create curved sound paths that can navigate around obstacles and meet at a specific target location.
The key phenomenon at play is what’s called difference frequency generation. When two ultrasonic beams of slightly different frequencies, such as 40 kHz and 39.5 kHz, overlap, they create a new sound wave at the difference between their frequencies – in this case 0.5 kHz, or 500 Hz, which is well within the human hearing range. Sound can be heard only where the beams cross. Outside of that intersection, the ultrasound waves remain silent.
This means you can deliver audio to a specific location or person without disturbing other people as the sound travels.
Advancing sound control
The ability to create audio enclaves has many potential applications.
Audio enclaves could enable personalized audio in public spaces. For example, museums could provide different audio guides to visitors without headphones, and libraries could allow students to study with audio lessons without disturbing others.
In a car, passengers could listen to music without distracting the driver from hearing navigation instructions. Offices and military settings could also benefit from localized speech zones for confidential conversations. Audio enclaves could also be adapted to cancel out noise in designated areas, creating quiet zones to improve focus in workplaces or reduce noise pollution in cities.
This isn’t something that’s going to be on the shelf in the immediate future. For instance, challenges remain for our technology. Nonlinear distortion can affect sound quality. And power efficiency is another issue – converting ultrasound to audible sound requires high-intensity fields that can be energy intensive to generate.
Despite these hurdles, audio enclaves present a fundamental shift in sound control. By redefining how sound interacts with space, we open up new possibilities for immersive, efficient and personalized audio experiences.
Yun Jing receives funding from NSF.
Jiaxin Zhong 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.
During Donald Trump’s first term as US president, he regularly referred to rising stock markets as evidence of the success of his economic policies. “Highest Stock Market EVER”, Trump wrote on social media in 2017 after record gains. “That doesn’t just happen!”
And after securing a second term in November 2024, some of Trump’s close advisers told the New York Times that the president “sees the market as a barometer of his success and abhors the idea that his actions might drive down stock prices”.
This, in addition to a broader economic policy agenda committed to lower regulation and significant tax cuts, had Wall Street investors bullish about their prospects under the new Trump administration.
But fears of an escalating trade war have seen the S&P 500, an index of the leading 500 publicly traded companies in the US, drop more than 10% from its February 2025 high. A decline of this magnitude in a major index is what professional traders refer to as a “correction”. In less than a month, roughly US$5 trillion (£3.9 trillion) has been wiped off the value of US stocks.
So, what exactly is driving down stock prices? Economists cite the president’s brinkmanship, as well as his start-stop approach to tariffs with Canada and Mexico, as having rattled global investors. Some commentators believe this “chaotic” trade agenda has created huge uncertainty for consumers, investors and businesses.
In view of such policies, a recent JP Morgan report said that US economic policy was “tilting away from growth”, and put the chances of a US recession at 40%, up from 30% at the start of the year. Moody’s Analytics has upped the odds of a US recession from 15% to 35%, citing tariffs as a key factor driving the downturn in its outlook.
Any economic downturn would have an adverse impact on the profitability of US corporations, and the declining share prices reflect the negative outlook from investors.
So far, the Trump administration appears unfazed by the US stock market decline. In an address to Congress on March 4, Trump declared his use of tariffs was all about making America rich again. “There will be a little disturbance, but we’re okay with that,” he said.
The White House has, since then, announced that some short-term pain may be necessary for Trump to implement his trade agenda successfully, which is designed to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.
So, should we read this economic turbulence as a temporary blip? Or is it symptomatic of a more fundamental shift in the US economy?
Change of strategy
Stephen Miran, who was recently confirmed as chairman of Trump’s council of economic advisers, wrote a paper in November 2024 titled: A User’s Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System. The paper gives us an insight into the Trump administration’s wider economic strategy.
It sets out Trump’s desire “to reform the global trading system and put American industry on fairer ground vis-a-vis the rest of the world”. Miran cites persistent US dollar overvaluation as the root cause of economic imbalances.
Miran does not believe that tariffs are inflationary, and argues that their use during Trump’s first presidential term had little discernible macroeconomic consequences. He does concede that tariffs may eventually lead to an appreciation – or further overvaluation – of the US dollar. However, Miran sees the extent of that appreciation as “debatable”.
He sees tariffs as a tool for leverage in trade negotiations. The administration could, for example, agree to a reduction in tariffs in exchange for significant investment is the US by key trading partners. China investing in car manufacturing in the US is specifically mentioned in his analysis.
Miran also states his belief that tariffs can be used to raise tax revenues from foreigners in order to retain low tax rates on American citizens.
Some economists agree that the US dollar is overvalued. A combination of its role as the world’s reserve currency, as well as the attractiveness of the US economy as an investment destination, fuels demand for the US dollar and makes it stronger.
A strong US dollar has made American manufacturing exports less competitive. This has cost American jobs. The “rust belt” states of the north-eastern and mid-western US have experienced a decline in manufacturing employment over the past 40 years, which is evidence of this.
However, it is worth noting that the many US manufacturers who import manufactured parts or components to make their products do benefit from a stronger dollar. This is because it makes the parts and materials they are importing cheaper. US mortgage holders and investors also benefit from a stronger dollar through lower interest rates on loans.
Steven Englander, the head of research and strategy at Standard Chartered bank, believes there are some contradictions in the Trump administration’s approach.
In a recent interview with the Financial Times, Englander said: “The problem for the new administration is that it simultaneously wants a weaker dollar, a reduced trade deficit, capital inflows, and the dollar to remain the key currency in international reserves and payments.”
Reduced trade deficits and capital inflows would typically strengthen the US dollar, as does its position as the world’s reserve currency.
As Miran says in his paper: “There is a path by which the Trump administration can reconfigure the global trading and financial systems to America’s benefit. But it is narrow, and will require careful planning, precise execution, and attention to steps to minimise adverse consequences.”
Only time will tell whether the Trump administration can successfully navigate this “narrow” path. In the meantime, the recent turbulence in US stock prices appears to be acceptable to the Trump administration in their pursuit of reforming the global financial system.
Conor O’Kane does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
If spy films have taught us anything, it’s that the people chosen for a career in espionage are special. They are the cream of the crop selected because they exhibit unique skills: high levels of intelligence and certain emotional traits that made them perfect for spying.
During the second world war, the Special Operations Executive (SOE) was a British agency tasked with training spies to conduct espionage, sabotage and reconnaissance in German-occupied Europe and in east Asia. Active from 1940 to 1946, SOE was a pioneering British secret service. This is because it employed civilians, from all backgrounds, including women, which was unusual at a time where most spies were recruited from the army.
The women hired by the agency were the only ones allowed to take on a combatant role by the British Army during the second world war. However, many have been unjustly forgotten.
These women were active throughout Nazi-occupied Europe, but most women worked in France. They were not French, but French speakers who tried to pass for local. On paper, this might seem impossible, since being fluent in a language does not make you a spy.
SOE recruited prospective agents on the basis of their language skills, and trained most of them in England before sending them into the field. Despite their lack of experience, many SOE women successfully duped German soldiers. Here are some of the simple but effective ways they managed such deception.
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.
Emotional control
First, women spies sometimes fooled people simply by appearing calm. Irish agent Maureen Patricia “Paddy” O’Sullivan had grown-up in Belgium and was renowned for her daring personality. In a post-war interview, she described how she avoided a thorough search while carrying compromising documents. O’Sullivan acted confident and friendly to divert the soldier’s attention from her bag:
As she laughed and joked with the German, he was distracted from making a closer examination.
The spies’ cool was frequently praised in post-war commendations. Remaining calm was no mean feat, especially since most SOE recruits had never worked undercover. In France, they could be questioned by Nazis at any time and nervousness made them look suspicious.
Agent Yvonne Cormeau joined SOE after losing her husband during a bombing at the beginning of the war. In a 1989 interview, she summarised the situation perfectly: “We learned to live with fear.”
Physical appearance
SOE spies did alter their appearance in order not to be recognised, but for most, this merely involved picking clothes which matched their cover. Yvonne Cormeau was sent to a farm in southern France, where the pro-Allied owners gave her new clothes and an apron. She was supposed to pass as their assistant and needed to look like one.
A few agents went a step further and dyed their hair. This was the case of Noor Inayat Khan (code name Madeleine), a Sufi Muslim of royal lineage born to Indian and American parents. Betrayed to the Germans, she was executed at Dachau concentration camp in 1944.
Inayat Khan’s contribution to SOE proved invaluable. For several months in 1943, she was the sole radio operator still active in Paris amid the growing Gestapo presence.
However, her constant hair dyeing was less effective. To try and escape the notice of the Gestapo, she regularly bleached her hair blonde, but this actually brought her to the attention of the Germans.
They questioned Alfred and Emilie Balachowsky, her contacts who lived near Paris and led a local resistance network, about the presence of a woman “sometimes blonde and sometimes brunette”. The agent was not arrested on that occasion, but her efforts had backfired.
Everyday habits
Locals like the Balachowskys provided crucial support for SOE women, who could be given away by any small gesture. Despite having grown up near Paris, Inayat Khan threatened her cover just by pouring tea.
Shortly after her arrival, Mrs Balachowsky invited neighbours to a tea party, during which the SOE agent poured the milk first into her cup, leading a neighbour to comment that she behaved like a Brit. Emilie Balachowsky quickly corrected Inayat Khan, who was not the only spy to make errors based on cultural differences.
While at the farm, Yvonne Cormeau was asked to watch the owner’s cows. She was about to bring her knitting kit, until her contact explained that this would give her away: “I was forbidden from knitting, as we Englishwomen knit differently.”
These anecdotes are a testament to the importance of everyday habits and of the agents’ local contacts. For SOE women, espionage in France was very much about teamwork.
While Inayat Khan was compromised and executed, for the most part the SOE’s civilian programme for women was a success. The SOE paved the way for other agencies which gradually started to recruit civilians of all genders after the second world war.
Some of its methods are also used by modern secret services, such as the illegals programme, a Russian initiative which involves sending Russian operatives fluent in English undercover in the US.
Despite this success, the contribution of women like Patricia O’Sullivan, Yvonne Cormeau and Noor Inayat Khan has remained widely overlooked. They deserve to be remembered along with the period’s male spies.
Josephine Durant des Aulnois receives funding from the Clarendon Fund, managed by Oxford University.
The price of eggs has risen dramatically in recent years across the US. A dozen eggs cost US$1.20 (92p) in June 2019, but the price is now around US$4.90 (with a peak of US$8.17 in early March).
Some restaurants have imposed surcharges on egg-based dishes, bringing even more attention to escalating costs. And there are also shortages on supermarket shelves.
In the coming months, the US plans to import up to 100 million of this consumer staple. Government officials are approaching countries from Turkey to Brazil with enquiries about eggs for export.
Agriculture secretary Brooke Rollins, who previously said that one option to the crisis was for people to get a chicken for their backyard, suggested in the Wall Street Journal that prices are unlikely to stabilise for some months. And Donald Trump recently shared an article on Truth Social calling on the public to “shut up about egg prices”.
The main cause of the problem is an outbreak of avian flu that has resulted in over 166 million birds in the US being slaughtered. Around 98% of the nation’s chickens are produced on factory farms, which are ripe for contagion.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, the flu has already spread to several hundred dairy cattle and to one human. The USDA recently announced a US$1 billion plan to counter the problem, with funding for improved bio-security, vaccine research and compensation to farmers.
In January 2025, Donald Trump’s White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, blamed the previous administration for high egg prices. It is true that birds were slaughtered on President Joe Biden’s watch, but this was and remains standard practice at times of bird flu outbreaks and had also been the case during the Obama and first Trump administrations.
However, this points to the way the rising price of eggs has become a political touchstone. It was referred to regularly in campaign speeches and press briefings as a sign of things going wrong and a symbol of the US economy faced. Donald Trump promised to fix the price of eggs swiftly if elected, but so far the issue shows no sign of going away.
Prices are still trending up. Even when prices suddenly drop, as they have this week, the public know how much cheaper they used to be until recently, and do not tend to feel better.
There are a number of reasons why egg prices have become an important to US politicians. First, almost everyone buys eggs. So the shortage and subsequent price rise is newsworthy and affects consumers in all income brackets.
Secondly, they are a measure of broader economic vulnerabilities, so egg-related problems tend to be part of a larger story about how weak the economy is. And thirdly, egg prices are political because of Trump’s promise to bring them down.
Polls showed that the economy and inflation were key factors in voter choice on election day 2024. In February 2025, Donald Trump did an interview with NBC News in which he said he won the election on the border and groceries.
On immigration, voters often base their opinions on what they perceive to be true. For example, tough rhetoric on building a wall may equate with a sense of feeling that the president is taking strong action, whether anything tangible actually materialises or not.
With groceries, reality trumps perception. The price of eggs is printed on the box and the cost is paid directly by voters.
Donald Trump on what he’s doing on egg prices and the economy.
Then there are the egg producers. US farmers tended to overwhelmingly support Trump on election day, so it is prudent for him to feel their pain, or at least appear to. Farming areas voted for him increasingly in his three election efforts, even increasing their support for him in 2020 after trade wars and price increases which would have negatively impacted them.
Another factor that may push up egg prices is that an estimated 70% of the factory farm workforce is immigrant labour, and as many as 40% are undocumented. Should the administration’s plans for high tariffs and mass deportations come to fruition, the industry would struggle to function.
Further food price increases will be inevitable, with potential exacerbation via the funding freezes for some USDA programmes that Trump has enacted. As of March 2025, US$1 billion in cuts has been announced, the consequences of which are already being felt by farmers. The “pain now for gain later” message is a tricky political sell.
Even in the current era of international turbulence, elections are largely won on more pedestrian matters. Specifically, “kitchen-table” economics is relatable to every voter, regardless of how grand, or not, their table is.
Americans will be aware that in neighbouring Canada, egg prices have not risen dramatically and there have not been shortages. But prices in Canada have been traditionally higher than the US, this is in part at least because farming standards differ.
The US does not have high welfare standards for agricultural workers or animals, and this shortcoming needs to be addressed in order to help reduce future risk of flu, but this is likely to also raise prices.
Blaming the previous incumbent is not a durable stance for Donald Trump. As former president Harry Truman might remind him: “The buck stops here.” Right at his desk.
Clodagh Harrington 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.
A proposed reform to the way electricity is priced in Britain could see households pay a different bill based on their postcode.
Presently, Britain’s electricity system operates as a single market across England, Wales and Scotland. Around 30% of electricity is traded through half-hourly auctions, known as the spot market, while the remaining 70% is traded in forward markets via contracts covering weeks, months, or even years of demand in advance.
The price of electricity is, broadly speaking, determined by the spot market, as forward market contracts are hedged on the basis of current and expected future spot market prices.
“Zonal pricing” would divide the British market into multiple separate zones instead, each with its own spot and forward markets to serve demand within it. In effect, zonal pricing would split one large market into a series of smaller, interconnected markets.
Whether it is the right approach depends on what you expect it to achieve, and where your interests lie. The UK’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, tasked with the decision, has three main objectives: decarbonising the country’s power sector, securing the supply of power and lowering the prices consumers pay.
I’m an academic investigating the factors that influence the UK’s ability to decarbonise the housing sector, in particular, the way people heat their homes. I’m most concerned with the affordability of electricity, since I take the view that the lower the price of electricity, the easier our journey to net zero emissions will be – and vice versa.
A lower electricity price would make clean heating systems (such as heat pumps, which run on electricity) more attractive to consumers and reduce the scale of insulation and draughtproofing required to make the running cost of these systems competitive with gas boilers. My research suggests that the UK’s high electricity price is behind the country’s comparably low rate of heat pump adoption.
Zonal pricing, as an electricity market reform, seems unlikely to lower electricity prices and drive decarbonisation on its own. Closer scrutiny of the electricity system and its mechanisms suggests it may only make things more complicated.
The root cause of high bills
At €0.321 (£0.27) per kilowatt-hour (kWh), the UK has the second-highest electricity price when compared to European Union countries. The EU average is €0.218 per kWh, meaning UK electricity costs around 47% more than it does for most of our EU neighbours.
Despite Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (which triggered a spike in energy prices) starting more than three years ago now, electricity prices across the UK remain about 53% higher than pre-crisis levels. If the UK is generating more electricity from renewables each year — and renewable electricity is the cheapest on the market — why do prices keep rising instead of falling, as one might expect?
The UK’s high electricity prices are the result of system marginal pricing, which lies at the heart of the spot market. At the end of each half-hourly auction, all electricity that is bid into the market is purchased at the price of the last unit required to meet demand.
Since total demand is rarely met by renewables, the much more expensive gas generators typically set the price. It’s like going to a fruit market to buy ten apples, finding the first nine for £1 each, the last one for £3, and then having to pay £30 for the lot, rather than the expected £13.
Because forward markets follow the spot market, and the spot market operates under system marginal pricing, UK consumers end up paying gas-generated electricity prices 98% of the time.
Will zonal pricing lower these prices? On its own, no. This is because all zones under the scheme will still have spot markets operating under the marginal pricing model. Zonal pricing doesn’t address the fundamental problem that’s keeping electricity prices in Britain so high.
Advocates of zonal pricing argue that it will encourage investment in the infrastructure required to lower electricity prices – namely, storage and transmission.
Grid-scale and home batteries, pumped hydro and thermal energy storage help reduce final electricity prices by storing excess renewable energy for use when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining, so grid operators don’t have to rely on expensive gas-generated electricity to fill supply gaps. Meanwhile, transmission lines and cables ensure that renewable electricity is delivered where it is needed.
By creating price differences between zones, so the argument goes, the market receives clear signals about where such investments would be most profitable.
This argument, however, assumes that electricity prices will fall in some zones, and that the market has a strong incentive to invest in high-price areas.
I’m compelled to ask two questions. What prevents zones that generate a lot of renewable electricity from selling their supply at higher prices in other zones, which could prevent renewables from meeting total demand and lead to the same price distortions currently seen due to marginal pricing?
And if investments in storage and transmission are underwhelming when electricity prices are high everywhere, why would they suddenly become more likely when prices are only high in specific areas?
Overall, I think the argument in favour of zonal pricing is unconvincing as it doesn’t address the structural issue underlying the UK’s high electricity prices: spot markets that operate according to system marginal pricing.
If zonal pricing neither lowers consumer electricity prices nor significantly stimulates investment in storage and transmission on its own — and does not alter the geographic and planning factors that determine wind and solar farm locations — then it is unclear what it would achieve beyond adding complexity to an already complex electricity system.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
The war in Gaza has been a notoriously controversial and difficult story to cover as a journalist. The Israeli government banned international journalists from the territory. At least 171 journalists and media workers in Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank have been killed since the war began.
The BBC has faced relentless accusations of bias from all sides. You would think, then, that when it commissioned the film Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, billed as a “vivid and unflinching view of life” in Gaza seen through the eyes of children, it would have been meticulous in its commissioning and oversight.
Yet almost as soon as the programme was broadcast on February 17, a journalist outside the BBC revealed that one of the children featured in the film, 13-year-old Abdullah, who also acted as its narrator, was the son of a Hamas official. His father, Ayman Al-Yazouri, is a deputy minister of agriculture and therefore, as Hamas runs the government of Gaza, a Hamas official.
No major investigation was required to find out who this man was – an expert on wastewater treatment, in particular on the removal of heavy metals from industrial wastewater, who received degrees from UK universities. No evidence has emerged that he is linked to Hamas’s militant operations. But getting someone with any link to what is classified as a terrorist organisation by western governments to narrate the film was inevitably going to be criticised – especially because the link wasn’t explained to viewers.
The BBC pulled the film four days after its premiere and said it would investigate the matter. Where it really went wrong was that, for 12 days, the BBC tried to pin the blame elsewhere. It dumped on the production company, Hoyo Films, stating: “The production team had full editorial control of filming with Abdullah.” T
I argue this is a weak defence. A broadcaster can’t blame someone else when a mistake appears in a film.
Under Ofcom regulations, the broadcaster has full editorial responsibility, regardless of whether a freelance or independent crew carried out filming. Any mistake is the BBC’s mistake.
I was head of news and current affairs at Channel 4 for 17 years. We sometimes made mistakes. It happens. But the key is not to make things worse by trying to wriggle out of blame.
As it happens, Channel 4 also featured this child in some of its news coverage without initially disclosing his father’s role. “As international media access is restricted, Abdullah was sourced through an established journalist who has also worked for other major global media outlets,” Channel 4 News said in a statement.
Ofcom regulations
The BBC’s second excuse was even weaker. It said that filmmakers were asked in writing a number of times whether this child had any connection with Hamas.
Here is a journalistic tip for the BBC’s news bosses: if you ask someone a question and they don’t answer, you don’t just keep asking. You demand answers or you go and get the answer yourself. As a former news boss myself, I would have demanded to see the boy’s entire family tree.
Finally, after 12 days, the BBC took responsibility and issued an apology.
BBC chair Samir Shah told MPs that people “weren’t doing their job” when it came to oversight of the production. Shah described it as “a dagger to the heart of the BBC claim to be impartial and to be trustworthy”.
A child of 13 should arguably not have narrated the film at all. He was not narrating his own words but a script written by the programme makers, which included facts about the history and geopolitics of Gaza. I would point the BBC to Ofcom guidance that children under 16 should not be asked for views on matters likely to be beyond their capacity to answer properly without the consent of a responsible adult.
On a subject like this, I would not have had a child narrate a film – especially not when one of the responsible adults in his life was a Hamas official.
This was a powerful and beautifully shot film. It’s hard to see how any of its content could be described as pro-Hamas propaganda. The strongest moment was when a child said he hated Hamas because they had caused the war and all the misery being suffered now. But it’s almost certainly politically impossible for an amended version of the documentary to now be shown, which is a great loss.
This debacle even resulted in a bizarre decision by the Royal Television Society to drop an award recognising the brave and brilliant work of journalists in Gaza (it has since reversed this after backlash from journalists). We have relied on journalists in Gaza to show us what is happening.
They have continued filming when their own families have been killed. Their reports have been powerful and moving and true. Why should they be punished for a BBC cock-up?
Falling trust
I have never worked for the BBC, but I have always admired it for two things. First, for the brilliance of its journalists. Second, for its ability to turn a mistake into a PR catastrophe.
The film contained editorial errors, but in my view the outrage built over days, resulting in calls not just for a public inquiry, but even a police inquiry, because the BBC wouldn’t take the rap. My journalistic heart went out to the great people who work at the BBC.
This ghastly incident sits alongside other (quite different) recent scandals about the BBC: the bad behaviour (whether alleged or proven) of powerful presenters and figures Huw Edwards, Russell Brand, Tim Westwood and Gregg Wallace. In each case, it turned out that BBC bigwigs had received complaints over long periods of time before the stories went public.
For many reasons beyond the BBC’s control, trust in the broadcaster is falling. It is constantly being attacked by the right-wing press, and undermined by conspiracy theorists who say you can’t trust the so-called mainstream media and that there is no such thing as truth.
In a 2023 YouGov survey on trust in media, only 44% of Britons said they trust BBC journalists to tell the truth. That was nearly half the level of trust in the BBC 20 years earlier, yet it still made the BBC the most trusted media outlet in the UK. Other surveys by Ofcom of people who actually watch TV news put trust in its accuracy much higher – something like 70%.
There is a general fall in trust in all institutions in the UK. The politicians and tabloids who attack the BBC are trusted far less than BBC journalists. But their unfair assaults make it all the more essential that the BBC avoids errors like this, and is transparent when those errors are revealed.
Dorothy Byrne was formerly Head of News and Current Affairs at Channel Four, and Editor at Large at Channel Four.
There are many home-grown problems on Earth, but there’s still time to worry about bad things arriving from above. The most recent is the asteroid 2024 YR4, which could be a “city killer” if it hits a heavily populated area of our planet in the early years of the next decade.
The chances of that happening are now estimated to be around 0.001%. But there was a brief moment after the asteroid’s discovery last year when the estimated danger of a direct hit crossed the 1% threshold of comfortable risk.
There’s a need to worry about planetary defence if we are to avoid going the way of the dinosaurs. But there are many other things that could kill us, including climate change and wars. So what is it about space that grabs our attention? And how do these fears affect us – individually and as a society?
In the long run, something big will hit us, unless we can redirect it. The responsibility for preparation begins with us.
Yet preparation also carries risks. Daniel Deudney, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University in the US, has warned that the technologies used for planetary defence can not only guide asteroids away from Earth – they can also guide them towards it as a tool in a military conflict.
As explained in his book Dark Skies, Deudney’s solution is to reverse, regulate and relinquish most of our human activities in space for several centuries to come. The more we do in space, he believes, the greater the likelihood that states will end up in catastrophic conflict. “The avoidance of civilisation’s disaster and species extinction now depends on discerning what not to do, and then making sure it is not done,” he writes.
He ultimately argues space expansion has come too soon, and we must reverse the process until we are ready. That said, he thinks we may still need some form of planetary defence, but that it can be limited.
Holding off for centuries is an unlikely option though. The chances of an asteroid strike may well be too high. And the political interest in space expansion is, at this point, irreversible.
Fear of space has grown alongside space programs. Worries about asteroid strikes and over-militarisation lean into deeper fears about space as the unknown. Yet they also lean into worries about the self-destructive side of humanity.
Both fears are very old. One of our earliest traceable human tales, the story of the Cosmic Hunt dating back at least 15,000 years, combines the two.
An indigenous Sami version, surviving in Scandinavia, describes how a great hunt in the skies would go wrong if the hunter is impatient and fires an arrow which misses its target and accidentally strikes the pole star. This would bring the canopy of the night sky crashing down to Earth. Again, fears about misguided human actions and the threat from above fuse.
We can see this in modern technologically driven fears such as UFOlogy. Some hard-core believers in UFOs are not only concerned about hostile visitors, but about secret collaborations among scientists on Earth, or, an entire conspiracy to keep the truth from the public.
Without belief in a conspiracy to suppress the evidence, the whole idea falls apart. But without belief that there is actually something to fear from space, there is nothing for the conspiracy to be about. Fear of space is a necessary part of this picture.
This is an idea neatly captured in recent times by the Chinese science fiction author Cixin Liu, who compares space to a “dark forest” in which alien civilisations are trying to hide from each other.
All of this presupposes something of a bunker mentality, an over-separation of Earth and space, or sky and ground. This is something I have referred to as ground bias. The bias allows space to appear as a threatening outside, rather than something that we, too, are part of.
Alien viruses
The rationalisation for such fear shifts about and is not restricted to asteroids, aliens, meteors and runaway military conflict. There is even a theory that viruses come from space.
When COVID sceptics went looking for an idea to explain why mask wearing was pointless, what many of them struck upon was an obscure theory put together by the astrophysicists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramsinghe in 1979.
The duo ultimately had a good idea which they followed up with a bad idea. The good idea was that the components for the emergence of life may have come from space. The bad idea was that they came ready formed, as viruses and bacteria, and that they are still coming.
According this theory, well known pandemics of the past (such as the lethal 1918 flu pandemic and even epidemics in antiquity) were apparently the result of viruses from space and could not be the result of person-to-person transmission – least of all from asymptomatic carriers.
The COVID version involved a meteor exploding over China. In an interview, Wickramsinghe claimed “a piece of this bolide containing trillions of the COVID-19 virus broke off from the bolide as it was entering the stratosphere” releasing viral particles which were then carried by prevailing winds.
The idea illustrates the way in which fears about space are used to drive anxiety about human failings or wrongdoing. COVID scepticism has since gone all the way into the White House.
But fears about space can also be used to critique those in power. In our own times, they are used to fuel narratives about billionaires with private space agendas and presidential access, wealthy space tourists and even wealthier prospective colonisers of Mars and beyond. It is a tempting narrative, but one that sees Earth as closed system, which should not be opened to the outside.
We may, at some level, be afraid of space itself. We certainly have an exaggerated sense our our Earthly separateness from it. And there are some particular things that we do have cause to worry about. But there is also the risk that a fear of space can combine with suspicions about governments, leading us to embrace conspiracy theories as a way to consolidate different kinds of worries into a single, manageable, set of beliefs.
Tony Milligan receives funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement No. 856543).
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jennifer Mathers, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, Aberystwyth University
Around 73% of Ukrainians now want their country to “restore” its nuclear weapons, according to a recent opinion poll. Most Ukrainians (58%) were in favour of their country owning nuclear weapons, even if it meant losing western allies.
This suggests an underlying regret that Ukraine agreed to relinquish the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal as part of the Budapest Memorandum around 30 years ago. This agreement, signed in December 1994, provided security guarantees for Ukraine from the US, the UK and Russia in return for giving up the weapons. Ukraine also agreed it would not acquire nuclear weapons in the future.
The focus on nuclear weapons is intensifying all over Europe. This week the Polish president, Andrzej Duda, called on the US to station its nuclear weapons in his country to deter Russian attacks. He cited Moscow’s decision to deploy nuclear weapons just across the border in Belarus during 2023 as part of his reasoning.
Trump’s apparent weakening commitment to Nato has also prompted the French president, Emmanuel Macron, to suggest that France could extend protection of its own nuclear weapons to its allies.
It’s clear that some Ukrainians now believe that their country would have been less likely to have experienced a Russian invasion if it had held on to its nuclear capacity. Ukrainians now question how much they can rely on other states after the failure of security guarantees that were central to the 1994 agreement.
The pledges by the US, UK and Russia to protect the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine were put to the test in 2014 when Russia invaded and then annexed Crimea and began providing financial and military backing for militia leaders in eastern Ukraine who claimed to lead pro-Russian separatist movements.
The US and UK imposed economic sanctions against Russia and provided training, equipment and non-lethal weapons to the Ukrainian armed forces. But these measures fell well short of ensuring Ukraine’s sovereignty and were insufficient to help Ukraine retake its territory.
Similarly, US and UK support for Ukraine since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, although valuable and much appreciated by the Ukrainians, has not been enough to allow Kyiv to completely expel Russian troops from Ukrainian territory.
What was the Budapest Memorandum?
What if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons?
But what if Ukraine had never given up its nuclear weapons? The logic of deterrence suggests that Putin would have not have invaded and attacked a nuclear-armed Ukraine. But the argument that Ukraine should not have surrendered the Soviet nuclear weapons on its territory overlooks the specific circumstances. For while physical components of a nuclear weapons capability – delivery vehicles and nuclear warheads – were within Ukraine’s grasp, the launch codes remained in Moscow, and Russian leaders showed no willingness to relinquish them.
So, Kyiv would have had no control over whether, when or against whom those weapons might have been used. The risk to Ukraine of becoming the target of another state’s nuclear strike would have been considerable, and the Kyiv government would have been unable to do anything to reduce that risk. Retaining nuclear weapons left over from the Soviet period would have probably made Ukrainians less rather than more secure.
Ukraine also lacked the economic resources to maintain the nuclear weapons on its territory, or develop them into a credible deterrent force. In exchange for giving up nuclear weapons, Ukraine received much-needed economic assistance from the west.
In the 1990s Ukrainian views were shaped by the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. This had a devastating and lasting impact on the land and the people in that part of Ukraine, highlighting the risks of the nuclear sector. In 1994, when the Budapest Memorandum was being negotiated, only 30% of Ukrainians were in favour of Ukraine possessing nuclear weapons.
What now?
Ukraine would face considerable technical challenges in developing nuclear weapons today, both in creating the necessary quantities of fissile material for warheads and manufacturing delivery vehicles.
Kyiv would also need to pay for an expensive nuclear weapons development programme at a time when the Ukrainian economy is struggling to supply its soldiers with conventional weapons and meet the needs of civilians.
And unless Ukraine’s international supporters were on board, Kyiv might face the withdrawal of economic and military aid at a crucial juncture. If Moscow detected any move on Ukraine’s part to develop nuclear weapons, there would be a strong motive for a preemptive Russian strike to put an end to that plan.
But even though it may not be feasible for Ukraine to develop an independent nuclear deterrent in the short term, Kyiv may feel compelled to pursue a nuclear weapons programme unless Ukraine is provided with serious and reliable security guarantees. With the Trump administration apparently ruling out Nato membership for Ukraine, the onus is on the country’s international supporters to come up with an alternative unless they want to see further nuclear proliferation in Europe.
Jennifer Mathers 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.
Europe has had the highest number of measles cases since 1997, according to a new report from the World Health Organization (WHO). There were 127,350 cases in 2024 – about double the number from 2023.
“Measles is back, and it’s a wake-up call,” says Dr Hans Henri P. Kluge, WHO regional director for Europe. “Without high vaccination rates, there is no health security.” Last year, there were 38 deaths from measles.
Transmission is similar to COVID, with respiratory droplets and aerosols (airborne transmission) spreading the virus between people. The infection produces a rash and fever in mild cases, and encephalitis (brain swelling), pneumonia and blindness in severe cases.
Hospitalisation and deaths are overwhelmingly in unvaccinated people, with mortality rates in developed countries around one in 1,000 to one in 5,000 measles cases.
Each person infected with measles will, on average, spread the virus to between 12 and 18 other people. This is more infectious than COVID. For example, someone with the omicron variant would spread the virus to around eight others.
In 2022 the WHO had described measles as an “imminent threat in every region of the world”. The widespread impact of COVID made it harder for people to access healthcare, reducing the ability of regular health services, like vaccinations, to function properly.
These new stark figures from WHO Europe are an inevitable consequence of lower vaccination rates. Measles is almost entirely vaccine-preventable, with two doses providing greater than 99% protection against infection. The vaccine has an excellent safety record, with severe harm being extremely rare.
The proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to keep local transmission low and prevent outbreaks (so-called “herd immunity”) is around 95%.
WHO Europe highlighted some examples of where there are clear gaps in vaccine coverage. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Romania, fewer than 80% of eligible children were vaccinated in 2023, with rates below 50% for the past five or more years. Romania had the highest number of measles cases in Europe in 2024 – an estimated 30,692 cases.
Misinformation is the driver
Misinformation is an important factor that reduces vaccine uptake. For example, in the UK, former physician Andrew Wakefield presented falsified data in 2002 claiming the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine caused autism. He somehow got these claims published in The Lancet – although the paper was later retracted.
This fake scare received sustained media coverage, which resulted in lower uptake in young children at the time and was then a key factor a large measles outbreak among teenagers in England in 2012.
The claims have spread internationally. In 2020, a US population survey found that “18% of our respondents mistakenly state that it is very or somewhat accurate to say that vaccines cause autism”.
Sadly, misinformation about health can even be found at the highest levels of government. US President Donald Trump repeatedly made false claims during the COVID pandemic, including the suggestion that injecting disinfectant might cure COVID. In 2025, he appointed Robert F. Kennedy as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Kennedy has long espoused anti-vaccine viewpoints, including being required to apologise in 2015 for comparing vaccination programmes to the Holocaust.
RFK Jr. was made to apologise for comparing vaccination programmes with the Holocaust. Maxim Elramsisy/Shutterstock
In a recent interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity, Kennedy said of the MMR vaccine: “It does cause deaths every year. It causes — it causes all the illnesses that measles itself causes, encephalitis and blindness, et cetera.”
This is untrue. The Infectious Disease Society of America points out that there have been “no deaths related to the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine in healthy individuals”. This is amid two measles deaths in unvaccinated people in the US, the first such deaths since 2003. There are estimates that the measles vaccine prevented 94 million deaths globally between 1974 to 2024.
The US National Institute for Health, one of the world’s biggest funders of health research, announced on March 10 2025 that it was axing research that aimed to understand and address vaccine hesitancy.
This goes alongside the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) apparently planning a large study into potential associations between vaccines and autism, despite dozens of studies indicating there being no such link.
This volatility coming from the US and elsewhere matters for Europe. Trump and the US have political supporters in Europe, so their messaging carries weight and could do harm. Anti-vaccine sentiment promoted on Facebook from within the US resulted in comments on the posts from multiple countries. The use of social media has been observed to spread misinformation internationally, for example, within Europe. Russian trolls are also involved in creating arguments about vaccines.
There is an urgent need for outbreaks to be brought back under control and for accurate information about vaccines to be the key message in public discussions. As Dr Kluge highlights: “The measles virus never rests – and neither can we.”
Michael Head has previously received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Research England and the UK Department for International Development, and currently receives funding from the UK Medical Research Foundation.
Imagine a world where bacteria, typically feared for causing disease, are turned into powerful weapons against cancer. That’s exactly what some scientists are working on. And they are beginning to unravel the mechanisms for doing so, using genetically engineered bacteria to target and destroy cancer cells.
Using bacteria to fight cancer dates back to the 1860s when William B. Coley, often called the father of immunotherapy, injected bacteria called streptococci into a young patient with inoperable bone cancer. Surprisingly, this unconventional approach led to the tumour shrinking, marking one of the first examples of immunotherapy.
Over the next few decades, as head of the Bone Tumour Service at Memorial Hospital in New York, Coley injected over 1,000 cancer patients with bacteria or bacterial products. These products became known as Coley’s toxins.
Despite this early promise, progress in bacteria-based cancer therapies has been slow. The development of radiation therapy and chemotherapy overshadowed Coley’s work, and his approach faced scepticism from the medical community.
However, modern immunology has vindicated many of Coley’s principles, showing that some cancers are indeed very sensitive to an enhanced immune system, an approach we can often capture to treatpatients.
How bacteria-based cancer therapies work
These therapies take advantage of the unique ability of certain bacteria to proliferate inside tumours. The low oxygen, acidic and dead tissue in the area around the cancer – the tumour “microenvironment” (an area I am especially interested in) – create an ideal niche for some bacteria to thrive. Once there, bacteria can, in theory, directly kill tumour cells or activate the body’s immune responses against the cancer. However, several difficulties have hindered the widespread adoption of this approach.
Safety concerns are paramount because introducing live bacteria into a patient’s body can cause harm. Researchers have had to carefully attenuate (weaken) bacterial strains to ensure they don’t damage healthy tissue. Additionally, controlling the bacteria’s behaviour within the tumour and preventing them from spreading to other parts of the body has been difficult.
Bacteria live inside us, known as the microbiome, and treatments, disease and, of course, new bacteria that are introduced can interfere with this natural environment. Another significant hurdle has been our incomplete understanding of how bacteria interact with the complex tumour microenvironment and the immune system.
Questions remain about how to optimise bacterial strains for maximum anti-tumour effects while minimising side-effects. We’re also not sure of the dose – and some approaches give one bacteria and others entire colonies and multiple bug species together.
Recent advances
Despite these challenges, recent advances in scientific fields, such as synthetic biology and genetic engineering, have breathed new life into the field. Scientists can now program bacteria with sophisticated functions, such as producing and delivering specific anti-cancer agents directly within tumours.
This targeted approach could overcome some limitations of traditional cancer treatments, including side-effects and the inability to reach deeper tumour tissues.
Emerging research suggests that bacteria-based therapies could be particularly promising for certain types of cancer. Solid tumours, especially those that have a poor blood supply and are resistant to conventional therapies, might benefit most from this approach.
Colon cancer, ovarian cancer and metastatic breast cancer are among the high-mortality cancers that researchers are targeting with these innovative therapies.
One area we have the best evidence for is that “bug drugs” may help the body fight cancer by interacting with routinely usedimmunotherapydrugs.
Recent studies have shown encouraging results. For instance, researchers have engineered strains of E coli bacteria to deliver small tumour protein fragments to immune cells, effectively training them to recognise and attack cancer cells. In lab animals, this approach has led to tumour shrinkage and, sometimes, complete elimination.
By exploiting these mechanisms, bacterial therapies can selectively colonise tumours while largely sparing healthy tissues, potentially overcoming limitations of conventional cancer treatments.
Ultimately, we need human trials to give us the answer about whether this works, by controlling or eradicating cancer and, of course, if there are side-effects, its toxicity.
In one study I worked on, we showed that part of a bacterial cell wall, when injected into patients, could safely help control melanoma – the most deadly form of skin cancer.
While we’re still in the early stages, the potential of bacteria-based cancer therapies is becoming increasingly clear. As our understanding of tumour biology and bacterial engineering improves, we may be on the cusp of a new era in cancer treatment.
Bacterial-based cancer therapies take advantage of several unique mechanisms to specifically target tumour cells. As a result, these therapies could offer a powerful new tool in our arsenal against cancer, working in synergy with existing treatments like immunotherapy and chemotherapy. And, as we look to the future, bacteria-based cancer therapies represent a fascinating convergence of historical insight and groundbreaking science.
While challenges remain, the progress in this field offers hope for more effective, targeted treatments that could significantly improve outcomes for cancer patients.
Justin Stebbing does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sarah Curtis, Doctoral Candidate, Language use in Down Syndrome and Alzheimer’s Disease, School of Arts and Humanities, Nottingham Trent University
Ten million people are diagnosed with dementia worldwide each year – that’s more than ever. According to the Alzheimer’s Society approximately one million people in the UK are currently living with the disease. Studies predict this figure will rise to 1.6 million people by 2050.
Alzheimer’s disease is the most common cause of dementia and leads to a decline in memory and thinking skills. This is a physical illness that causes the brain to stop working properly and gets worse over time. Identifying the onset of Alzheimer’s early can help patients and caregivers find the right support and medical care.
Here are five early, speech-related signs of Alzheimer’s disease to look out for:
1. Pauses, hesitations and vagueness
One of the most recognisable symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease is trouble remembering specific words, which can often lead to frequent or long pauses and hesitations. When a person with Alzheimer’s is struggling to remember a word, they may talk vaguely such as saying “thing”, or describing and talking around a word. For example, if someone is having trouble remembering the word dog, they may say something like “people have them as pets … they bark … I used to have one when I was a child”.
2. Using words with the wrong meaning
Trouble remembering the right word can be an early feature of Alzheimer’s. People with Alzheimer’s might replace a word they are trying to say with something related to it. For example, instead of saying “dog”, they might use an animal from the same category, saying “cat” for instance. In the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease, however, these changes are more likely to be related to a broader or more general category such as saying “animal” instead of “cat”.
3. Talking about a task rather than doing it
Someone with Alzheimer’s may struggle with completing tasks. Instead of performing a task, they may talk about their feelings toward the task, express doubts, or mention past abilities. They might say, “I’m not sure I can do this” or “I used to be good at this”, rather than discussing the task directly.
People with Alzheimer’s can have trouble thinking of words, objects or things that belong in a group. This is sometimes used as a cognitive test for the disease. For example, those with Alzheimer’s may struggle to name things in a specific category, such as different foods, different parts of the body or words that start with the same letter. This gets harder as the disease progresses, making these tasks increasingly challenging.
Age is the biggest risk factor for developing Alzheimer’s – the chance of developing the disease doubles every five years after the age of 65. However, one in 20 people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease are under the age of 65. This is referred to as younger – or early-onset Alzheimer’s disease.
While forgetting words now and then is normal, persistent and worsening problems remembering words, speaking fluently, or using a variety of words could be an early sign of Alzheimer’s disease. Identifying these signs early can be particularly important for people at higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease as they age, such as people with Down Syndrome.
Sarah Curtis 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.
Europe has had the highest number of measles cases since 1997, according to a new report from the World Health Organization (WHO). There were 127,350 cases in 2024 – about double the number from 2023.
“Measles is back, and it’s a wake-up call,” says Dr Hans Henri P. Kluge, WHO regional director for Europe. “Without high vaccination rates, there is no health security.” Last year, there were 38 deaths from measles.
Transmission is similar to COVID, with respiratory droplets and aerosols (airborne transmission) spreading the virus between people. The infection produces a rash and fever in mild cases, and encephalitis (brain swelling), pneumonia and blindness in severe cases.
Hospitalisation and deaths are overwhelmingly in unvaccinated people, with mortality rates in developed countries around one in 1,000 to one in 5,000 measles cases.
Each person infected with measles will, on average, spread the virus to between 12 and 18 other people. This is more infectious than COVID. For example, someone with the omicron variant would spread the virus to around eight others.
In 2022 the WHO had described measles as an “imminent threat in every region of the world”. The widespread impact of COVID made it harder for people to access healthcare, reducing the ability of regular health services, like vaccinations, to function properly.
These new stark figures from WHO Europe are an inevitable consequence of lower vaccination rates. Measles is almost entirely vaccine-preventable, with two doses providing greater than 99% protection against infection. The vaccine has an excellent safety record, with severe harm being extremely rare.
The proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to keep local transmission low and prevent outbreaks (so-called “herd immunity”) is around 95%.
WHO Europe highlighted some examples of where there are clear gaps in vaccine coverage. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Romania, fewer than 80% of eligible children were vaccinated in 2023, with rates below 50% for the past five or more years. Romania had the highest number of measles cases in Europe in 2024 – an estimated 30,692 cases.
Misinformation is the driver
Misinformation is an important factor that reduces vaccine uptake. For example, in the UK, former physician Andrew Wakefield presented falsified data in 2002 claiming the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine caused autism. He somehow got these claims published in The Lancet – although the paper was later retracted.
This fake scare received sustained media coverage, which resulted in lower uptake in young children at the time and was then a key factor a large measles outbreak among teenagers in England in 2012.
The claims have spread internationally. In 2020, a US population survey found that “18% of our respondents mistakenly state that it is very or somewhat accurate to say that vaccines cause autism”.
Sadly, misinformation about health can even be found at the highest levels of government. US President Donald Trump repeatedly made false claims during the COVID pandemic, including the suggestion that injecting disinfectant might cure COVID. In 2025, he appointed Robert F. Kennedy as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Kennedy has long espoused anti-vaccine viewpoints, including being required to apologise in 2015 for comparing vaccination programmes to the Holocaust.
RFK Jr. was made to apologise for comparing vaccination programmes with the Holocaust. Maxim Elramsisy/Shutterstock
In a recent interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity, Kennedy said of the MMR vaccine: “It does cause deaths every year. It causes — it causes all the illnesses that measles itself causes, encephalitis and blindness, et cetera.”
This is untrue. The Infectious Disease Society of America points out that there have been “no deaths related to the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine in healthy individuals”. This is amid two measles deaths in unvaccinated people in the US, the first such deaths since 2003. There are estimates that the measles vaccine prevented 94 million deaths globally between 1974 to 2024.
The US National Institute for Health, one of the world’s biggest funders of health research, announced on March 10 2025 that it was axing research that aimed to understand and address vaccine hesitancy.
This goes alongside the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) apparently planning a large study into potential associations between vaccines and autism, despite dozens of studies indicating there being no such link.
This volatility coming from the US and elsewhere matters for Europe. Trump and the US have political supporters in Europe, so their messaging carries weight and could do harm. Anti-vaccine sentiment promoted on Facebook from within the US resulted in comments on the posts from multiple countries. The use of social media has been observed to spread misinformation internationally, for example, within Europe. Russian trolls are also involved in creating arguments about vaccines.
There is an urgent need for outbreaks to be brought back under control and for accurate information about vaccines to be the key message in public discussions. As Dr Kluge highlights: “The measles virus never rests – and neither can we.”
Michael Head has previously received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Research England and the UK Department for International Development, and currently receives funding from the UK Medical Research Foundation.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gary K. Waite, Professor Emeritus, Early Modern European History, University of New Brunswick
In this etching from Dutch theologian Lambertus Hortensius’ 1614 book ‘Van den oproer der weder-dooperen,’ Anabaptists warn the residents of Amsterdam of the coming vengeance of Christ in 1535.(Lambertus Hortensius)
Far-right politics and Christian nationalism are on the rise in North America and Europe, leading to growing concerns about what it means for human rights and democracy.
Why? Because we’ve seen before what happens when religious groups use government to force their beliefs and morality upon society.
Religion scholar Bradley Onishi writes that the Christian nationalist movement known as the “New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) is one of the most influential and dangerous Christian nationalist movements in the United States” and has become “a global phenomenon.”
This movement has reshaped its theology in ways eerily reminiscent of the prophets of the Anabaptist kingdom of Münster of the 1530s in present-day Germany. As my scholarship has examined, those religious dissenters faced polemical demonizing by religious authorities and faced violent oppression, via torture and execution.
Today’s Christian nationalists, however, have faced no such maltreatment. Yet, like persecuted dissenters of the 1530s, they claim divine authority to remake society.
The Anabaptists of Münster
A portrait of Jan van Leiden, a leader of the Münster Anabaptists, by Dutch artist Jan Muller circa 1615. (The Metropolitan Museum of Art)
The 16th-century Reformation had originally broken down the religious state of medieval Europe. However, Protestant leaders like Martin Luther and John Calvin quickly saw the advantage of having civic governments force conformity to their reforms, and punish dissent.
Derisively called Anabaptists, the small group of dissenters also refused to participate in government. For these practices they were persecuted, with hundreds horrifically tortured and executed.
Here the city’s major preacher, Bernhard Rothmann, was moving the city into the Reformed Protestant camp, rather than that of their Lutheran neighbours. When large numbers of Anabaptist refugees arrived in 1533, they won the civic election and Münster became an Anabaptist city.
The Catholic bishop of Münster had other ideas. Hiring Catholic and Lutheran troops, he laid siege to the city and things became desperate. Enraged by persecution, the Münsterite Anabaptists changed their image of Jesus from the peacemaker of the Gospels to the apocalyptic Jesus of Revelation.
The Jesus of Anabaptist Münster
Rothmann’s original theology was like what Calvin would develop for Geneva. What made the two cities distinct was the charismatic leadership of the Dutch Anabaptist prophet Jan Matthijs, who predicted that Christ would return on Easter Day, 1534, adding both urgency and confidence in applying God’s directives.
When Christ did not return on Easter 1534 and Matthijs was killed by the besiegers, his successor, Jan van Leiden, simply postponed Christ’s return to the following Easter and declared himself a semi-divine king.
He also abandoned the message of the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount in favour of the vengeful Jesus of the Book of Revelation. Rothmann justified this in a tract which I translated as:
“It was … the intention of our hearts in our baptism, that we would suffer for Christ, whatever men did to us. But it has pleased the Lord … that now we and all Christians at this time may not only ward off the violence of the godless with the sword, but also, that he has put the sword into our hands to avenge all injustice and evil over the entire world.”
King van Leiden sent people out to spread this revolutionary message and take over other cities. This led to several militant episodes, including in Amsterdam, where in February 1535, 11 Anabaptists paraded naked through the streets proclaiming the “naked truth” of God’s anger.
Others delivered the message while waving swords. Finally, in May, 1535 about 40 Anabaptists captured Amsterdam’s city hall. All were arrested and executed. These were the actions of desperate people inspired by their prophets’ assurances of divine authority. When, however, Münster fell at the end of June 1535, the result was massive disillusionment, a return to non-violence and increased persecution.
This etching (circa 1629-1652) by Dutch artist Pieter de Hooch depicts Anabaptists walking naked through the streets of Amsterdam after being inspired to remove and burn their clothes in February 1535. (Rijksmuseum)
Divine authority to remake society?
This transformation of the Münster Anabaptists into vengeful militants reminds me of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). As Matthew D. Taylor has revealed, this movement sees itself as fighting a “spiritual battle” against the demonic forces opposing Trump; some participated (non-violently) in the Jan. 6, 2020 riot.
Taylor concludes with a warning that the NAR act as “spiritual warmongers, constantly expanding the arena of spiritual warfare, mapping it onto geographical territory and divisive politics in a deeply destabilizing and antidemocratic manner.” It is as if we are listening to Rothmann’s fiery sermons again.
One difference, of course, is that the NAR folk are not under persecution, despite what they might claim. Taylor describes this as “the Evangelical Persecution Neurosis.”
A charismatic approach to Christian life that affirms God speaks directly to them. They see themselves as biblical prophets who speak God’s commands which must be implemented regardless of social impact.
The Evangelical Christian belief of living in the end-times on the eve of Jesus Christ’s return for judgment. NAR preachers proclaim that while Jesus in the Gospels taught to “turn the other cheek,” they now follow the judgmental Jesus of the apocalyptical Book of Revelation and mobilize a struggle with Satan to rely on scapegoat ideology.
Derived from a group of Reformed or Calvinist theologians called “Christian Reconstructionists,” and building on Calvin’s theology of the “godly city,” they pursue a broader “dominionist” rationale to take over all of society for Christ. Believing one is living in the end-times means that society must be taken over and cleansed immediately, adding to urgency.
Believers, drawing on these three beliefs, derive an assurance they speak with God’s voice. This was the case for the Münster Anabaptists, and now similarly, for the NAR. As the example of the Münster Anabaptists suggests, we’ve seen this many times before throughout history, and it doesn’t end well.
A 1685 engraving by Dutch poet and engraver Jan Luyken depicting the 1571 burning of Anabaptist woman Anneken Hendriks from Thieleman van Braght’s 1660 book ‘The Bloody Theatre or Martyrs Mirror.’ (Allard Pierson Museum)
There have been many more recent episodes of Christian groups claiming divine authority to remake society. Like Jan van Leiden, those in the NAR or who concur with its theology have recast the Jesus of the Gospels, and U.S. President Donald Trump, in apocalyptic terms.
This gives a gloss of divine approval for Trump’s autocratic goals. As authoritarianism and Christian nationalism rises, the fusion of charismatic authority with Reformed Protestant certitude and end-times fervour continues to attract followers.
Gary K. Waite has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jonathan Cazabonne, Doctorant en mycologie et écologie des vieilles forêts, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue (UQAT)
Fungi are among the most important organisms on Earth. Even though most of the world’s described 157,000 fungal species are only visible with a microscope, these organisms are essential to our ecosystems, our societies and economies.
Fungi are also important to human cultures — including as a source of food, medicine and art. Economically, fungi also support a growing economy centred around mycotourism — with a growing number of travellers visiting Canada and Spain each year to forage for wild mushrooms.
All the benefits fungi provide to humans are estimated to be worth the equivalent of US$54.57 trillion. This is why it’s an understatement to say that the world’s ecosystems and human societies are shaped by fungi.
And yet fungi continue to be an important but overlooked element of conservation strategies.
Why fungi are forgotten
Conservation efforts have long focused on protecting well-studied animals and plants. This is reflected in the number of species that have been assigned a conservation status by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Around 84 per cent of known species of vertebrates have received an IUCN conservation status. But just 0.5 per cent of all described fungi — 818 fungal species — are currently present on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Considering scientists estimate that there could be around 2.5 million fungal species in the world — of which we currently only know about six per cent of them — this means just 0.03 per cent of all fungi have been assigned a conservation status.
Several factors explain this alarming reality.
Fungi are difficult to study in both nature and under experimental conditions. This is because of many species’ microscopic size, their short lifespan and the hidden habitats they call home — such as soils, the tissues of other organisms and dung deposits.
Many species of fungi are difficult to study because of their microscopic size. (Shutterstock)
Fungi are also considered “uncharismatic” — meaning they don’t have the level of human appeal that some other species have. Much of their diversity is cryptic, as well. This means that while many fungi were once considered to be a single species, in reality they’re made up of multiple species that may look similar but are genetically distinct from one another. Because of this, conservation projects for fungi are poorly funded and do not easily capture public interest.
Protecting the unknown
In recent years, there’s been momentum within the scientific community to recognise fungi as a distinct kingdom within conservation strategies — one that’s on equal footing with animals and plants.
A significant milestone in this movement has been the adoption of the term “funga,” which mirrors “fauna” and “flora”. This designates the fungal diversity within a given environment or habitat.
Another important advancement was the recent pledge for fungal conservation that was presented at the 2024 Conference of Parties (COP16) in Colombia. This pledge urged parties to make fungal conservation a priority given fungi are central to achieving the biodiversity targets set out by the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework.
More local initiatives are also emerging. In Québec, over 70 mycologists and biologists signed an opinion letter encouraging the government to integrate fungi into its legislative framework.
Such progress is not trivial and may help correct misconceptions about fungi that continue to be present among the public, economic sectors and policymakers. For example, the misconception that fungi are plants is something that still persists to this day. Allowing this misconception to continue being perpetuated is harmful to the field of mycology, and may be preventing it from becoming a standalone discipline that deserves dedicated funding and specialists.
Still, there’s much we don’t know about these unique, important organisms. And in order for us to be able to protect and preserve the planet’s fungi, we need to begin by formally identifying areas where knowledge is lacking and close these gaps.
Last year, researchers used Laboulbeniomycetes — a class of poorly understood microfungi — as a case study to understand what biodiversity and conservation shortfalls continue to affect funga. This group of fungi includes species that rely on arthropods to disperse their spores or act as hosts for them. Many of these fungi live as minute parasites on the surface of insects such as cockroaches and ladybirds.
The case study uncovered four major biodiversity shortfalls that are undermining the conservation of funga. These include knowledge gaps in species diversity, distribution, conservation assessments and species persistence.
Part of conservation
Failing to protect fungi means, by extension, failing to protect the roles they play in our ecosystems and daily lives.
This is especially timely, as fungi, like animals and plants, are also facing numerous threats. Habitat degradation, pollution, invasive species and climate change may all increase their risks of extinction.
And, as recently exemplified in vertebrates, many undescribed species of fungi may be even more at peril than we might know. This is because they’re most likely to be found in remote geographical regions — such as tropical rainforests — and thus heavily susceptible to human-induced changes.
A key priority to better integrate fungi into conservation biology is to accumulate data on species diversity. But in order to accumulate data and understand how we can better protect fungal species worldwide, we need to fund research on fungi and make mycology a more attractive field for young scientists.
One thing remains certain: the more we explore, the more we realise just how little we know.
Jonathan Cazabonne is financially supported by a B2X doctoral research fellowship from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies (FRQNT).
Danny Haelewaters receives funding from the Czech Academy of Sciences (Lumina Quaeruntur Fellowship LQ200962501).
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Andrea Reid, Assistant Professor, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia
The future of freshwater is increasingly in jeopardy across Canada and around the world.
Lakes, rivers and wetlands face numerous threats, from climate change to a range of harmful pollutants. Today, one-quarter of freshwater fauna are at risk of extinction.
As climate change and other stressors worsen, ecological grief is increasingly recognized as a legitimate response to the losses of valued species and ecosystems.
This grief poses a serious threat to mental health and well-being for many, with young people often feeling an outsized burden. While young people have contributed little to these challenges over their lifetimes, they face bearing the brunt of intensifying climate change impacts.
Similarly, this existential angst is reportedly heightened among marginalized groups. This is often true for Indigenous Peoples, who are frequently the least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions that warm the planet yet face higher climate risk or vulnerability to the direct consequences of climate change.
What we need are adaptive approaches that address this grief and reconnect people with the natural world at this time of profound disconnection. Research about ecological grief points to approaches that centre social support, deep listening and sensitivity, as well as valuing an ethic of care as key elements. This is ultimately about fostering community and interconnectedness in relationships.
As freshwater scientists, we are committed to contributing toward a better future for fresh waters. This is what led us to create a registered charity, Riparia, where we work to unite these concerns and approaches by facilitating free land-based learning programs for young people, especially Indigenous young women.
These programs are geared towards facing this climate-uncertain future together and the profound need for improved stewardship of freshwater ecosystems.
Why land-based learning
Land-based learning is, by definition, experiential and rooted in local culture and history. It is a mode of education that arises from connecting learners with the land, by spending time on the land, in ways that engage minds, bodies, hearts and spirits.
This approach has always been at the core of Indigenous learning. While conventional classrooms are often a far cry from these lived experiences, there is growing interest in breaking out of these confines and engaging in active land-based learning across the continent.
In our time contributing towards land-based learning initiatives over the last decade, we have observed numerous benefits. There’s a saying that numbers numb and stories stick; we find that the voices of youth who participated in land-based learning best convey its meaning and impact.
Among other benefits, land-based learning has fostered a heightened sense of connection to the land and water, spurred a deep drive to steward and care for these systems and built a community of practice to achieve that. In the words of youth aged 13-18 who participated in Riparia programs between 2019-2024:
“I could feel my point of view of the world changing. In every way. I felt as though I had become closer to the land.”
“This experience changed my view on how we should be more active in the environment and protect our water.”
“Being with these girls reassured me that our environment’s future isn’t something we have to take on alone and it will be much easier if we do it together.”
Together, our experiences with Riparia and the growing body of literature highlighting beneficial outcomes of land-based learning, tell us that these approaches can play an important role in fostering the community of care required to chart new freshwater futures.
Learning that centres Indigenous perspectives
Throughout the history of outdoor education — as an organized approach to learning in western systems — harmful stereotypes have been reproduced and Indigenous knowledge systems have been appropriated.
How many recall attending youth camps bearing the names of Indigenous Peoples or places? Were they involved in any way? Was there regard for whose land this is?
How many have participated in journey “wilderness”-based experiences? Many such experiences have often perpetuated western ideas of a “pristine” or “wild” “nature,” free from human influence. This point of view is in line with the doctrines of terra nullius (Latin for “nobody’s land”) and aqua nullius (“nobody’s water”) used to justify European colonization of Indigenous lands and waters.
What we need is learning that recognizes that Indigenous Peoples, languages and cultures are alive and evolve in close relationship with the land.
We also need learning to be accessible so it can play a foundational role building the community of care that humans and fresh waters now require.
Little programming — from youth outdoor education through university — is built with Indigenous learners in mind. Few initiatives are offered at no cost to participating youth and their families. Women remain underrepresented in existing outdoor education initiatives because of cultural and social inequalities.
What we can do
As scientists supporting youth engagement through Riparia, we join the growing movement to break down these specific barriers to access.
You can also contribute to this movement by helping connect young people in your life to existing youth engagement programs and offering support through relevant local ways or donations.
But youth are not the only ones who need connection to land and water. We all deal with eco-grief. We all need water. And we all need to work together to chart new futures. Spending time in and on the water together is an important step in this direction. This video offers an opportunity to dive into what land-based learning with, in, and for fresh waters can look like and feel like.
As a 15-year-old Kanien’kehá:ka participant in a Riparia 2019 program shared with us: “Water is the most important thing, it’s the thing we all have in common.”
Dr. Andrea Reid co-directs Riparia from her role as an Assistant Professor at The University of British Columbia. She is a Canada Research Chair (Tier 2) in Indigenous Fisheries Science.
Dr. Dalal Hanna co-directs Riparia from her position as an assistant professor at Carleton University, where she leads the Watershed Stewardship Research Collaborative.
