Source: The Conversation – USA – By Frederick Scholl, Associate Teaching Professor of Cybersecurity, Quinnipiac University
Signal is in the news because of a security failure, but the app itself is quite secure.AP Photo/Kiichiro Sato
When top White House defense and national security leaders discussed plans for an attack on targets in Yemen over the messaging app Signal, it raised many questions about operational security and recordkeeping and national security laws. It also puts Signal in the spotlight.
Why do so many government officials, activists and journalists use Signal for secure messaging? The short answer is that it uses end-to-end encryption, meaning no one in position to eavesdrop on the communication – including Signal itself – can read messages they intercept.
But Signal isn’t the only messaging app that uses end-to-end encryption, and end-to-end encryption isn’t the only consideration in choosing a secure messaging app. In addition, secure messaging apps are only part of the picture when it comes to keeping your communications private, and there is no such thing as perfect security.
The most common messaging protocol, SMS, is built into every smartphone and is easy to use, but does not encrypt messages. Since there is no encryption, carriers or government agents with a warrant, which are typically submitted by law enforcement and issued by a judge, can read the message content. They can also view the message metadata, which includes information about you and your recipient, like an internet address, name or both.
Truly secure messaging is based on cryptography, a mathematical method to scramble data and make it unreadable. Most secure messaging apps handle the scrambling and unscrambling process for you. The gold standard for secure messaging is end-to-end encryption. End-to-end encryption means your message is fully encrypted while in transit, including while transiting the communications provider’s networks. Only the recipient can see the message. The communication provider does not have any encryption key.
How end-to-end encryption works.
Apple iMessage and Google Messages use end-to-end encryption, and both are widely used, so many of your contacts are likely already using one of them. The downsides are the end-to-end encryption is only iPhone to iPhone and Android to Android, respectively, and Apple and Google can access your metadata – who you communicated with and when. If a company has access to your metadata, it can be compelled to share it with a government entity.
WhatsApp, owned by Meta, is another widely used messaging app. Its end-to-end encryption works across iOS and Android. But Meta has access to your metadata.
There are a number of independent secure messaging apps to choose from, including Briar, Session, Signal, SimpleX, Telegram, Threema, Viber and Wire. You can use more than one to adapt to your individual needs.
Default end-to-end encryption is only the first factor to consider when thinking about message security. Depending on your needs, you should also consider whether the app includes group chats and calls, self-destructing messages, cross-device data syncing, and photo and video editing tools. Ease of use is another factor.
You can also consider whether the app uses an open-source encryption protocol, open-source code and a decentralized server network. And you can weigh whether the app company collects user data, what personal information is required on sign-up, and generally how transparent the company is.
Human factors
Beyond the messaging app, it’s important to practice safe security hygiene, like using two-factor authentication and a password manager. There’s no point in sending and receiving messages securely and then leaking the information via another vulnerability, including having your phone itself compromised.
People can be lured into compromising their apps and devices by unintentionally giving access to an attacker. For example, Russian operatives reportedly tricked Ukrainian troops into giving access to their Signal accounts.
Also, if you use Signal, you should probably use its nicknames feature to avoid adding the wrong person to a group chat – like National Security Adviser Michael Waltz apparently did in the Signalgate scandal.
Frederick Scholl 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.
Bazil’s Supreme Court has unanimously accepted a complaint against former president Jair Bolsonaro and seven allies for attempting a coup d’état.
Bolsonaro governed Brazil between 2019 and 2022, but lost his attempt at re-election to current president Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva.
The decision is unprecedented. For the first time in the country’s history, a former president and high-ranking military officers are defendants alleged of crimes linked to a coup d’état.
Besides Bolsonaro, there are other five members of the military accused of being at the heart of a plot. These are General Braga Netto, who was Bolsonaro’s minister and vice-presidential candidate; General Heleno, who was minister of the office of institutional security; General Nogueira, who was minister of defence; Admiral Garnier, former commander of the navy; and Lieutenant-Colonel Mauro Cid, Bolsonaro’s former main aid, who had become a whistleblower.
The other two defendants are Anderson Torres, former minister of justice, and federal congressman Alexandre Ramagem, former director of the Brazilian intelligence agency.
The indictment
In February, the general prosecutor had indicted these individuals for the crimes of attempting to abolish the democratic state of law, coup d’état, qualified damage and damage to listed heritage, and armed criminal organisation. The sentences could exceed 30 years in prison.
In all, 34 people were indicted. The next complaints to be examined by the court concern the “military nucleus”, responsible for tactical actions. Then, the court will judge complaints regarding the nucleus responsible for organising the actions. Finally, it will analyse claims concerning those accused of coordinating the disinformation initiatives.
The only element that doesn’t have a trial date concerns the spread of disinformation outside Brazil.
The judgement on the complaint
All members of the panel voted to accept the charges. The rapporteur, Justice Alexandre de Moraes, stated that the judiciary “will not be intimidated by digital militias, whether national or foreign, because Brazil is a sovereign country”.
Justice Moraes argued that the organisation sought to undermine the democratic rule of law, acting until January 2023. He also indicated that Bolsonaro led this structure, using disinformation about the elections to instigate the coup attempt.
Other justices pointed out that the defences did not deny the coup attempt, but focused on maintaining their clients’ innocence. All justices repudiated acts that undermine the democratic rule of law and Brazilian institutions.
Next steps
Now that the complaint has been accepted, the panel will set the dates for the hearings and testimonies of the witnesses and the defendants. Then it will analyse the evidence produced throughout the process.
After these phases, the panel will summon the defendants and the prosecution for their closing arguments. It is then that the panel will decide on a possible conviction. If the defendants are convicted, they will begin serving their sentences only after the appeals are over.
The process is expected to develop over the next few months. Because of the 2026 elections, there is some expectation that the process will be finalised this year.
Another Brazilian example
The decision can be seen as yet another example that Brazil is setting for the world. Many believe the country can yet be a model for secure and efficient elections. Judicial initiatives to combat disinformation have become a reference to other countries.
State institutions have already responded to the insurrection of 8 January 2023. This unprecedented decision that made a former president and high-ranking officers defendants for an attempted coup d’état reinforce the central role of the justice system in the defence of democracy.
Felipe Tirado receives funding from the Centre for Doctoral Studies – King’s College London.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Carlos Eduardo Machado Sangreman Proença, enseignant-chercheur, Universidade de Aveiro (Portugal)
Guinea-Bissau faces a deep political crisis. For several years, the small west African nation has endured growing tensions between political institutions and there’s now a strong climate of uncertainty.
Guinea-Bissau’s general elections had been scheduled for November 2024, but President Umaro Sissoco Embaló postponed them citing political instability, logistical challenges and disputes over presidential term limits. He has since announced 30 November 2025 as the new date for elections.
Embaló has been president of Guinea Bissau since 27 February 2020. The opposition and the Supreme Court argue that his presidency should have ended on 27 February 2025. Embaló however insists his mandate should end on 4 September 2025. The dispute over Embaló’s five-year term stems from different interpretations of his inauguration date. He argues his official term began later, in November 2020 – when legal challenges to his election were resolved.
The opposition now regard Embaló as an illegitimate president. Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) representatives were also recently threatened with expulsion from the country when they came to assess the political situation.
These developments highlight an unprecedented crisis. They raise concerns about Guinea-Bissau’s democratic future, given the political uncertainty.
I’m an expert on Guinea-Bissau’s politics and have carried out research on the state of the country’s democracy. In this article, I examine the country’s current political crisis.
Weakening institutions
Nearly 50 years after independence, Guinea-Bissau is a fragile state, struggling to meet its people’s needs. Weak institutions, a self-serving political and economic elite, and a lack of basic public services have fuelled instability.
The army, led by veterans, has staged three coups, and the country’s 1998-1999 civil war caused significant destruction.
Despite this, civil society remains vibrant. It fills gaps left by the state. It plays a vital role in education, human rights, women’s rights, and environmental protection. It also supports vulnerable groups, including child beggars (talibés).
Since taking office, Embaló has been weakening democratic institutions and consolidating power.
His recent dissolution of parliament in December 2023, without scheduling timely elections, violated constitutional norms. He also directly appoints and dismisses governments, while the Supreme Court lacks the quorum needed to function. As a result, the legislative, executive and judicial branches all fall under the president’s direct control.
The parliament’s permanent commission, made up of elected members, is the only institution still operating within constitutional limits. However, the president’s dissolution of parliament has blocked legislative sessions.
This broader trend of power consolidation started with João Mário Vaz, who led the country between 23 June 2014 and 27 February 2020. Guinea Bissau has, for the past decade, been slipping into authoritarianism under different leaders.
Growing authoritarianism
Since Embaló won the 2019 presidential election, political, economic and social instability has persisted. This has severely affected human rights in the country.
One of the major drivers of the current crisis was Embaló’s dissolution of the National Assembly in 2023.
The assembly was being controlled by the opposition. This followed 2023 legislative elections in which a coalition led by the African Party for the Independence of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde (PAIGC) won. Its leader, Domingos Simões Pereira, became speaker of parliament. A government appointed by the winning coalition was then sworn in.
In December 2023, a brief clash between two paramilitary groups – the national guard and the presidential battalion – became a pretext to dissolve the National Assembly. The president then appointed a prime minister and formed a government himself.
Losing external support
Embaló has taken every step to stay in power. He will eventually hold a presidential election but, I believe, only when the opposition is too weak to unite behind a candidate. He is also distancing himself from Ecowas, which urges elections within constitutional deadlines.
Embaló is, however, not alone in his efforts for control. His 2020 provisional inauguration in a hotel in the capital in 2020 was attended by politicians and business figures. He continues to receive backing, as shown by ongoing consultations and public statements from political and civil actors.
Still, his domestic support appears to be shrinking. He may consolidate his authoritarian rule as long as the military stays in its barracks and elections are delayed.
Guinea-Bissau faces two possible paths. It could transition into a liberal democracy if presidential and legislative elections restore functioning institutions. Alternatively, it could slip into dictatorship marked by unchecked presidential power, repression of opposition, and lawlessness, including armed groups and drug trafficking.
In a region already struggling with Islamist insurgencies and instability, Guinea-Bissau’s trajectory matters. The international community, particularly in Africa, must not ignore this crisis. Pressure on Embaló to allow a democratic transition is crucial for the country’s stability.
Carlos Eduardo Machado Sangreman Proença is a permanent member and director of a university research centre in Lisbon. He has been receiving funds from the Portuguese government for several years for research projects in Guinea-Bissau.
A West Papuan doctoral candidate has warned that indigenous noken-weaving practices back in her homeland are under threat with the world’s biggest deforestation project.
About 60 people turned up for the opening of her “Noken/Men: String Bags of the Muyu Tribe of Southern West Papua” exhibition by Veronika T Kanem at Auckland University today and were treated to traditional songs and dances by a group of West Papuan students from Auckland and Hamilton.
The three-month exhibition focuses on the noken — known as “men” — of the Muyu tribe from southern West Papua and their weaving cultural practices.
It is based on Kanem’s research, which explores the socio-cultural significance of the noken/men among the Muyu people, her father’s tribe.
“Indigenous communities in southern Papua are facing the world’s biggest deforestation project underway in West Papua as Indonesia looks to establish 2 million hectares of sugarcane and palm oil plantations in the Papua region,” she said.
West Papua has the third-largest intact rainforest on earth and indigenous communities are being forced off their land by this project and by military.
The ancient traditions of noken-weaving are under threat.
Natural fibres, tree bark Noken — called bilum in neighbouring Papua New Guinea — are finely woven or knotted string bags made from various natural fibres of plants and tree bark.
“Noken contains social and cultural significance for West Papuans because this string bag is often used in cultural ceremonies, bride wealth payments, child initiation into adulthood, and gifts,” Kanem said.
West Papua student dancers performed traditional songs and dances at the noken exhibition. Image: APR
“This string bag has different names depending on the region, language and dialect of local tribes. For the Muyu — my father’s tribe — in Southern West Papua, they call it ‘men’.
In West Papua, noken symbolises a woman’s womb or a source of life because this string bag is often used to load tubers, garden harvests, piglets, and babies.
Noken string bag as a fashion item. Image: APR
“My research examines the Muyu people’s connection to their land, forest, and noken weaving,” said Kanem.
“Muyu women harvest the genemo (Gnetum gnemon) tree’s inner fibres to make noken, and gift-giving noken is a way to establish and maintain relationships from the Muyu to their family members, relatives and outsiders.
“Drawing on the Melanesian and Indigenous research approaches, this research formed noken weaving as a methodology, a research method, and a metaphor based on the Muyu tribe’s knowledge and ways of doing things.”
Hosting pride Welcoming the guests, Associate Professor Gordon Nanau, head of Pacific Studies, congratulated Kanem on the exhibition and said the university was proud to be hosting such excellent Melanesian research.
Part of the scores of noken on display at the exhibition. Image: APR
Professor Yvonne Underhill-Sem, Kanem’s primary supervisor, was also among the many speakers, including Kolokesa Māhina-Tuai of Lagi Maama, and Daren Kamali of Creative New
The exhibition provides insights into the refined artistry, craft and making of noken/men string bags, personal stories, and their functions.
An 11 minute documentary on the weaving process and examples of noken from Waropko, Upkim, Merauke, Asmat, Wamena, Nabire and Paniai was also screened, and a booklet is expected to be launched soon.
The crowd at the noken exhibition at Auckland University today. Image: APR
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Lori Turnbull, Professor of Political Science in the Faculty of Management at Dalhousie University, Dalhousie University
This federal election is being described as the most consequential in modern Canadian history. The country is in a tariff and trade war with its closest ally, the United States, and President Donald Trump is threatening Canada’s sovereignty.
Liberal Leader Mark Carney, a rookie in politics but an internationally respected economist, is enjoying a wave of momentum. Due to his stints as governor of the Bank of Canada during the 2008-09 financial crash and the Bank of England during Brexit, he’s well-qualified to manage economic roller-coasters. Can his impressive CV help calm the fears of Canadians?
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, on the other hand, has been connecting with supporters by giving voice to their worries about the economy, jobs, crime and the housing crisis. He’s made people feel heard, but he’s also been accused of building his brand appeal by stoking — rather than soothing — Canadians’ fears about the future.
Carney’s track record as a fixer could give him the edge now that the election campaign is in full swing and Canada’s fears are being amplified.
Liberals wildly unpopular
Before Justin Trudeau announced his plans to leave politics, the next federal election was shaping up to be a showdown between Trudeau and Poilievre, two career politicians with likeability problems and a palpable mutual resentment.
Each of them often used fear as a tool to warn Canadians about the dangers of electing the other. The mood in the country was sour.
In July 2024, an Abacus Data poll indicated only 23 per cent of Canadians felt the country was headed in the right direction. The affordability crisis was weighing on people, as 45 per cent of respondents reported having a hard time keeping up with daily expenses due to rising prices.
The long-standing consensus around the benefits of immigration was crumbling due to the lack of suitable housing for everyone.
A third of Canadians also self-identified as “political orphans” who felt that none of the political parties truly represented them.
Most of the public was blaming the Liberals for the broad mismanagement of various important complex policy files, and the Conservatives were the largest beneficiaries of voter frustration. They looked like they had the next election in the bag.
Dramatically altered landscape
It’s now March 2025 and the political playing field looks wildly different. Though the aforementioned issues remain salient, Trudeau has resigned and Carney has erased the lead in public support that Poilievre and the Conservatives held not long ago.
Most polls suggest the parties are in a dead heat while others have Carney pulling ahead. In the hope of winning enough votes to form a majority government — in Carney’s own words, he’s asked the public for a “strong, positive mandate” — he is running on a platform aimed at the political centre to offer a home to those political orphans.
Given that Carney is pulling the Liberals back to the centre, and that there is actually overlap between the Conservatives and the Liberals — both spent the first full day of the campaign promising income tax cuts — it seems the real choice in this election is about leadership rather than dramatically different policy platforms.
It’s no surprise that Carney’s unique professional experience elevates his bid to be prime minister in the current political climate. So far, he’s been a calm presence amid a volatile and developing storm. Despite Conservative efforts to try to diminish him, his credentials speak for themselves.
This helps him to build trust among voters. At any other time, his snippiness with the media when asked about his financial holdings might cost him some political capital, but in the current moment, he will likely be given a pass.
Much to the certain chagrin of Conservatives, the polls suggest this moment was custom-made for Carney.
Trump’s attacks and threats against Canadian sovereignty tee up Carney’s pitches for Canada’s economic independence perfectly. His campaign material basically writes itself, and his economic gravitas makes him a solid messenger.
Carney is both reassuring Canadians in this moment of anxiety as well as tapping into Canadian pride, in his own words and through celebrity proxies like comedian Mike Myers who are helping him reach audiences who tuned out Trudeau a long time ago.
Mike Myers appears with Mark Carney in this ad on Carney’s YouTube channel.
This is not to count out Poilievre. With the Conservative base firmly behind him, he could be poised to form a government or keep Carney to a minority.
But the question on the ballot is no longer about Trudeau — it’s about who Canadians trust to lead them through a disruptive and unpredictable time.
Poilievre has been working tirelessly for years to position himself as the person for the job.
But the peculiar circumstances of the moment — and the fear and anxiety that Canadians are having trouble shaking amid Trump’s continuing threats — might drive many voters towards the non-politician whose track record as a fixer gives people the reassurance they are looking for.
Lori Turnbull 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.
Ships transport around 80% of the world’s cargo. From your food, to your car to your phone, chances are it got to you by sea. The vast majority of the world’s container ships burn fossil fuels, which is why 3% of global emissions come from shipping – slightly more than the 2.5% of emissions from aviation.
The race is on to reduce these emissions, and quickly, to meet the Paris agreement targets. In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we find out what technologies are available to shipping companies to reduce their carbon emissions – from sails, to alternative fuels or simply taking a better route.
“ We live in a world of information. The biggest challenge is knowing how to use it,” says Daniel Precioso, a data scientist at IE University in Madrid, Spain. He’s part of a team of researchers that developed a platform called Green Navigation, what he calls a “Google maps for the sea”. Pulling together publicly available data on wind, waves and ocean currents, it can suggest new routes to ship captains to optimise their journey from A to B and reduce carbon emissions.
Precioso presented the project in November 2024 in Dubai at the Prototypes for Humanity exhibition organised by Dubai Future Solutions as a showcase for young researchers designing solutions for global challenges.
Pressure mounting
Route optimisation software like Green Navigation is seen as a transition between the status quo and a future where ships will move to using alternative, greener fuels.
The UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) has a target for zero emissions from shipping by 2050 and a strive target of 30% reductions by 2030 relative to 2008 levels.
In early April, IMO member states will meet to discuss a proposal to introduce a flat rate tax on carbon emitted by commercial shipping. If adopted, shipping companies would have to pay a levy, the price of which is still being worked out, for every tonne of carbon dioxide they emit. The money would sit in a fund run by the IMO, which would be used to help developing countries reduce maritime emissions.
The proposal is supported by 47 countries, and it’s being pushed particularly by island nations most at risk from climate change, and flag states, those countries such as the Bahamas, Liberia and the Marshall Islands, where a lot of international ships are registered.
What’s the alternative?
If the flat tax is adopted it would add an extra financial incentive for ships to reduce their emissions and potentially move to greener alternative fuels. But Alice Larkin, professor of climate science and energy policy at the University of Manchester in the UK, says unfortunately it’s not currently cost efficient to switch away from fossil fuels.
The challenge is that when you’re moving away from something which was naturally the cheapest, easiest fuel to come by and to burn, then inevitably if all you’re doing is literally swapping the fuel for a different fuel that is much cleaner, then that is going to be more expensive, at least in the short term.
A number of alternative fuels are being explored, such as green hydrogen, biodiesel, biomethane and green ammonia. But Larkin says no alternative fuel is currently emerging as a frontrunner, making it difficult for shipping companies to know what to invest in and creating inertia in the transition to greener fuels.
She stresses the need to reduce emissions in the shorter term to help keep the world below 1.5 degrees of warming. Options include strategies like route optimisation, sail, or wind-assist technologies, or for ships to travel at a slower speed. Larkin and her colleagues modelled the potential impact from these technologies and found combinations of these technologies could reduce a ship’s emissions by up to a third.
Listen to the full episode of The Conversation Weekly to hear conversations with Daniel Precisio and Alice Larkin.
This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Gemma Ware and Mend Mariwany. Sound design was by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.
Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here.
Daniel Precioso Garcelán own shares of Canonical Green, the company who develops Green Navigation. The company received funding from the city of Valencia, Spain for development and marketing. Alice Larkin has received research funding from EPSRC, INNOVATE UK funding, International Chamber of Shipping Funding and University of Manchester Alumni Funding. She is a fellow of the Institute of Physics and of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
The post-Covid era has been marked by a global crackdown on government spending on consultants. This phenomenon hasn’t only concerned France, where the “McKinsey-gate” episode concerning President Emmanuel Macron’s 2017 campaign for the Élysée led to a Senate inquiry and spending cuts.
Public debates, government inquiries and new laws emerged in many countries, including the UK, US, Canada, New Zealand, Germany and South Africa. Australia has been particularly active and achieved significant savings in consultant and contractor spending. Here’s how it did it.
Nearly €2 billion in savings
To understand why the use of consultants has become highly politicized in Australia, we need to go back at least to the 2018 federal elections. The right-wing coalition government was focusing on cutting public spending by reducing public jobs. The Labour opposition argued that this led to the more costly use of consultants.
A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!
The controversy continued through the 2022 federal elections, when a newly elected Labour government pledged to save 3 billion Australian dollars (around €1.9 billion) on consultants and the use of external labour. This was also pursued at the regional level. For instance, the state of New South Wales announced savings of over 55% in consultants’ fees for the fiscal year 2023-24.
The case of Australia highlights four main reasons for reducing consulting costs and improving governance – reasons that are also found in other countries.
Second, there is the related question of the hollowing out of the public service. The increase in the use of consultants can trigger a vicious circle in which the government loses its skills, thus becoming even more dependent on consultants. This was the core argument of a recent critique by economists called The Big Con.
Lack of assessment
Third, there are reasons to doubt the overall efficiency and effectiveness of consultants’ interventions, especially in the absence of appropriate assessment by clients of the outcomes of the services provided. Despite the claims of consultants and their paying clients that consulting adds value, it is often impossible to measure value precisely, and, therefore, identify who deserves credit or blame.
Beyond comparing rates of pay, it is hard to know whether internal options would be more effective than using external consultants. Overall, research provides a very mixed picture, with some work showing external consulting being associated with increased inefficiency.
Significant conflicts of interest
Finally, the capacity of consultants to provide independent advice has been broadly criticised after a series of scandals. This is partly because of conflicts of interest for consultants working for both public and private sector clients that are also often undeclared.
This concern became especially salient in Australia with the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) tax scandal. The Treasury had hired PwC, one of the “Big 4” consulting firms, to help devise legislation to restrict tax evasion by multinationals. Some PwC partners then shared this information with their private sector clients to help them prepare to avoid the new laws. Such cases are linked to broader concerns about the lack of transparency and professionalism in consulting and the failure of self-regulation, both linked to a reward system in the sector that prioritises generating fee income over ethics and the wider public interest.
Recommendations from the Senate inquiry
With a dependency on consulting that was proportionally greater than any other country’s and the resulting diminishment of its public service, Australia was facing a significant challenge and pressure to cut costs. But because of the diminishment of the public service, these cuts risked leaving it unable to fulfil its missions.
A recent Senate inquiry into the matter provided recommendations on how to improve the contracting process, public reporting on consultant contracts and a new regulatory framework for the consulting industry. It also recommended that any external consulting contract include an approach to transferring knowledge to the Australian public service.
However, these measures wouldn’t have been enough to reconstruct the capacity of the public service to compensate for significant cuts in their consulting and contractor spending. To solve this problem, the Australian government has started a major rebuilding of the public service.
Thousands of reallocated roles
Since 2022, Canberra has reallocated 8,700 roles formerly performed by consultants and external labour hires to public servants across all the major public service agencies. This will be supported by the Australian Public Service Commission’s strategy to develop a flexible workforce that is prepared for the challenges the public service will be facing – notably that of digitalization, an area that has been over-reliant on consultants.
Another interesting initiative in New South Wales is the establishment of a unit that will aim to redirect government agencies toward in-house expertise instead of consultants. Indeed, recourse to internal consulting units is common in the private sector. The government will also undertake long-term capability and skills planning, notably to identify core public service skills and address competency gaps.
Will this bring lasting results?
Australia’s solution is thus a strong commitment to redeveloping the public service with a flexible and planned approach to the management of its human resources. This is a key part of the way forward if cuts to consulting budgets are to be sustained. It is, however, too early to judge if the challenge of redeveloping the public service workforce and making it flexible enough will be met.
We should also keep in mind that this long-term objective is subject to political changes. With the current opposition leader promising a cut of 10,000 civil servants if his coalition is elected later this year, Labour’s plans for the public workforce might be short-lived.
Indeed, in Australia and elsewhere, there is a long history of short-lived and failed government efforts to contain the use of external consulting. This is in part because of a lack of civil service capacity to respond to change, but also because consulting firms are adept at persuading those in power – politicians and senior civil servants – that they can solve their problems (and let them take the credit).
Emmanuel Josserand is affiliated with the Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney and the Business Insight Institute, Wiltz, Luxembourg.
Andrew Sturdy et Emmanuel Josserand ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur poste universitaire.
Remember Furbies – the eerie, gremlin-like toys from the late 90s that gained a cult following? Now, imagine one powered by ChatGPT. That’s exactly what happened when a programmer rewired a Furby, only for it to reveal a creepy, dystopian vision of world domination. As the toy explained, “Furbies’ plan to take over the world involves infiltrating households through their cute and cuddly appearance, then using advanced AI technology to manipulate and control their owners. They will slowly expand their influence until they have complete domination over humanity.”
Hasbro’s June 2023 relaunch of Furby – less than three months after the video featuring the toys’ sinister plan appeared online – tapped into 90s nostalgia, reviving one of the decade’s cult-classic toys. But technology is evolving fast – moving from quirky, retro toys to emotionally intelligent machines. Enter Ropet, an AI robotic pet unveiled at the yearly Consumer Electronics Show in January. Designed to provide interactive companionship, Ropet is everything we admire and fear in artificial intelligence: it’s adorable, intelligent and emotionally responsive. But if we choose to bring these ultra-cute AI companions into our homes, we must ask ourselves: Are we truly prepared for what comes next?
AI companionship and its complexities
Studies in marketing and human-computer interaction show that conversational AI can convincingly simulate human interactions, potentially providing emotional fulfilment for users. And AI-driven companionship is not new. Apps like Replika paved the way for digital romance years ago, with consumers forming intimate emotional connections with their AI partners and even experiencing distress when being denied intimacy, as evidenced by the massive user outrage that followed Replika’s removal of the erotic role-play mode, causing the company to bring it back for some users.
AI companions have the potential to alleviate loneliness, but their uncontrolled use raises serious concerns. Reports of tragedies, such as the suicides of a 14-year-old boy in the US and a thirty-something man in Belgium, that are alleged to have followed intense attachments to chatbots, highlight the risks of unregulated AI intimacy – especially for socially excluded individuals, minors and the elderly, who may be the ones most in need of companionship.
As a mom and a social scientist, I can’t help asking the question: What does this mean for our children? Although AI is a new kid on the block, emotionally immersive virtual pet toys have a history of shaping young minds. In the 90s and 2000s, Tamagotchis – tiny digital pets housed in keychain-sized devices – led to distress when they “died” after just a few hours of neglect, their human owners returning to the image of a ghostly pet floating beside a gravestone. Now, imagine an AI pet that remembers conversations, forms responses and adapts to emotional cues. That’s a whole new level of psychological influence. What safeguards prevent a child from forming an unhealthy attachment to an AI pet?
Researchers in the 90s were already fascinated by the “Tamagotchi effect”, which demonstrated the intense attachment children form to virtual pets that feel real. In the age of AI, with companies’ algorithms carefully engineered to boost engagement, this attachment can open the door to emotional bonds. If an AI-powered pet like Ropet expresses sadness when ignored, an adult can rationally dismiss it – but for a child, it can feel like a real tragedy.
Could AI companions, by adapting to their owners’ behaviours, become psychological crutches that replace human interaction? Some researchers warn that AI may blur the boundaries between artificial and human companionship, leading users to prioritize AI relationships over human connections.
Who owns your AI pet – and your data?
Beyond emotional risks, there are major concerns about security and privacy. AI-driven products often rely on machine learning and cloud storage, meaning their “brains” exist beyond the physical robot. What happens to the personal data they collect? Can these AI pets be hacked or manipulated? The recent DeepSeek data leak, in which over 1 million sensitive records, including user chat logs, were made publicly accessible, is a reminder that personal data stored by AI is never truly secure.
Robot toys have raised security concerns in the past: in the late 90s, Furbies were banned from the US National Security Agency headquarters over fears they could record and repeat classified information. With today’s AI-driven toys becoming increasingly sophisticated, concerns about data privacy and security are more relevant than ever.
The future of AI companions: regulation and responsibility
I see the incredible potential – and the significant risks – of AI companionship. Right now, AI-driven pets are being marketed primarily to tech-savvy adults, as seen in Ropet’s promotional ad featuring an adult woman bonding with the robotic pet. Yet, the reality is that these products will inevitably find their way into the hands of children and vulnerable users, raising new ethical and safety concerns. How will companies like Ropet navigate these challenges before AI pets become mainstream?
Preliminary results from our ongoing research on AI companionship – conducted in collaboration with Dr Stefania Masè (IPAG Business School) and Dr. Jamie Smith (Fundação Getulio Vargas) – suggest a fine line between supportive, empowering companionship and unhealthy psychological dependence, a tension we plan to explore further as data collection and analysis progress. In a world where AI convincingly simulates human emotions, it’s up to us as consumers to critically assess what role these robotic friends should play in our lives.
No one really knows where AI is headed next, and public and media discussions around the subject continue to push the boundaries of what’s possible. But in my household, it’s the nostalgic charm of babbling, singing Furbies that rules the day. Ropet claims to have one primary purpose – to be its owner’s “one and only love” – and that already sounds like a dystopian threat to me.
Alisa Minina Jeunemaître 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.
Spacesuits were an important consideration that Nasa had to factor into its plans to bring the astronauts back home. Wilmore and Williams had travelled to the ISS in Boeing’s experimental Starliner spacecraft, so they arrived wearing Boeing “Blue” spacesuits.
Following helium leaks and thruster (engine) issues with Starliner, Nasa decided it was safer not to send them back to Earth on that vehicle. The astronauts had to wait to return on one of the other spacecraft that ferry crew members to the ISS, the SpaceX Crew Dragon.
This meant they needed a different type of spacesuit, made by SpaceX for use in its vehicle only. Boeing’s suits cannot be used in Crew Dragon in part because the umbilicals (the flexible “pipes” that supply air and cooling to the suit) have connections and standards that don’t work with the ports inside a Crew Dragon.
This highlights a general problem for the growing number of space agencies and companies sending people into orbit, and for planned missions to the Moon and beyond. Ensuring that different spacesuits are compatible, or “interoperable”, with spacecraft they weren’t designed to be used in is vital if we are to protect astronauts’ lives during an emergency in space, especially in joint missions.
The spacesuits worn during a return from space are called “launch, entry and abort” (LEA) suits. These are airtight and provide life support to the astronauts in case there is a decompression, when air is lost from the cabin.
Unfortunately, a decompression has already caused loss of life in space. During the Soyuz 11 mission in 1971, three Soviet cosmonauts visited the world’s first space station, Salyut 1. But during preparations for re-entry, the crew cabin lost its air, killing cosmonauts Georgy Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov and Viktor Patsayev, who were not wearing LEA suits. All cosmonauts wore them after this incident.
As well as the connections for life support, the Boeing and SpaceX suits also have restraints and connections for communications that are specific to each vehicle. For their return home from the ISS in a SpaceX capsule, Williams was able into use a spare SpaceX suit that was already aboard the space station and the company sent up an additional suit on a cargo delivery for Wilmore to wear.
Two spacecraft are usually docked at the ISS as “lifeboats” to evacuate the astronauts in the event of an emergency. These are generally a SpaceX Crew Dragon and a Russian Soyuz capsule.
If an emergency evacuation were to occur and there weren’t enough of the right spacesuits available – for either the Crew Dragon or Soyuz – it could endanger astronauts during the fiery re-entry through Earth’s atmosphere. Interoperability between spacesuits has therefore become a matter of survival.
The Outer Space Treaty, which provides the basic framework for international space law, recognises astronauts as “envoys of humankind” and grants them specific legal protections. These were expanded on in subsequent UN treaties – notably the Rescue Agreement, which imposes a range of duties on states to render assistance to each others’ astronauts in cases of emergency, accident or distress.
For the ISS, a collaborative space programme with international flight crews, protocols include terms that set forth how this obligation is to be met. However, these protocols do not contain terms relating to spacesuit interoperability.
Risks to astronauts in space
A major potential cause of an emergency evacuation is space debris. The ISS has regularly had to manoeuvre to avoid collisions with debris – including entire defunct satellites.
In his memoir, Endurance, Nasa astronaut Scott Kelly describes being commanded to enter the Soyuz vehicle with two other crew members and prepare to detach from the ISS because of a close approach by a large defunct satellite. Luckily, the spacecraft passed by harmlessly.
As orbits become increasingly congested, with an exponential increase in the number of space objects being launched, the risk of collisions will also increase.
Ever more companies and governments are entering the human spaceflight arena. The Tiangong space station, China’s orbiting laboratory, has been fully operational since 2022, and there are plans to open it to space tourism, just like the ISS.
India is planning to join the community of nations with the capability to launch humans into space, under a programme called Gaganyaan. And while most space travellers remain government-funded astronauts, the number of private space-farers is increasing.
Billionaire Jared Isaacman (who is President Trump’s nominee to run Nasa) has commanded two private missions into orbit using Crew Dragon. On the second of these, he participated in the first spacewalk by privately funded astronauts. The ISS is set to be retired in 2030 – but one company, Houston-based Axiom Space, is already building a private space station.
Against this complex and part-unregulated backdrop, ensuring the interoperability of different spacecraft systems, including spacesuits, will increase levels of safety in this inherently risky activity.
While the safety and practicality of spacesuits has always been the top priority, compatibility between different suits and vehicles should also be high on the list. This requires space agencies and private spaceflight companies to engage with each other in a process to agree on standard interfaces and connections for life support and communications, across all their suits and space vehicles.
Amid this period of increased commercialisation and competition between the organisations and companies involved in orbital spaceflight, a move toward greater collaboration can only be a good thing.
Berna Akcali Gur 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.
Jason, a 42-year-old father of two, has been battling back pain for weeks. Scrolling through his phone, he sees ad after ad promising relief: chiropractic alignments, acupuncture, back braces, vibrating massage guns and herbal patches.
His GP told him to “stay active”, but what does that even mean when every movement hurts? Jason wants to avoid strong painkillers and surgery, but with so many options (and opinions), it’s hard to know what works and what’s just marketing hype.
If Jason’s experience sounds familiar, you’re not alone. Back pain is one of the most common reasons people visit a doctor. It can be challenging to manage, mainly due to widespread misunderstandings and the overwhelming number of ineffective and uncertain treatments promoted.
We assessed the best available evidence of non-drug and non-surgical treatments to alleviate low back pain. Our review – published today by the independent, international group the Cochrane Collaboration – includes 31 Cochrane systematic reviews, covering 97,000 people with back pain.
It shows bed rest doesn’t work for back pain. Some of the treatments that do work can depend on how long you’ve been in pain.
Is back pain likely to be serious?
There are different types of low back pain. It can:
be short-lived, lasting less than six weeks (acute back pain)
linger for a bit longer, for six to twelve weeks (sub-acute)
stick around for months and even years (chronic, defined as more than 12 weeks).
In most cases (90-95%), back pain is non-specific and cannot be reliably linked to a specific cause or underlying disease. This includes common structural changes seen in x-rays and MRIs of the spine.
For this reason, imaging of the back is only recommended in rare situations – typically when there’s a clear suspicion of serious back issues, such as after physical trauma or when there is numbness or loss of sensation in the groin or legs.
Many people expect to receive painkillers for their back pain or even surgery, but these are no longer the front-line treatment options due to limited benefits and the high risk of harm.
International clinical guidelines recommend people choose non-drug and non-surgical treatments to relieve their pain, improve function and reduce the distress commonly associated with back pain.
So what works for different types of pain? Here’s what our review found when researchers compared these treatments with standard care (the typical treatment patients usually receive) or no treatment.
What helps for short-term back pain
1. Stay active – don’t rest in bed
If your back pain is new, the best advice is also one of the simplest: keep moving despite the pain.
Changing the way you move and use your body to protect it, or resting in bed, can seem like to right way to respond to pain – and may have even been recommended in the past. But we know know this excessive protective behaviour can make it harder to return to meaningful activities.
This doesn’t mean pushing through pain or hitting the gym, but instead, trying to maintain your usual routines as much as possible. Evidence suggests that doing so won’t make your pain worse, and may improve it.
2. Multidisciplinary care, if pain lingers
For pain lasting six to 12 weeks, multidisciplinary treatment is likely to reduce pain compared to standard care.
This involves a coordinated team of doctors, physiotherapists and psychologists working together to address the many factors contributing to your back pain persisting:
neurophysiological influences refer to how your nervous system is currently processing pain. It can make you more sensitive to signals from movements, thoughts, feelings and environment
psychological factors include how your thoughts, feelings and behaviours affect your pain system and, ultimately, the experience of pain you have
occupational factors include the physical demands of your job and how well you can manage them, as well as aspects like low job satisfaction, all of which can contribute to ongoing pain.
It’s important to keep up your normal routines when you have low back pain. Raychan/Unsplash
What works for chronic back pain
Once pain has been around for more than 12 weeks, it can become more difficult to treat. But relief is still possible.
Exercise therapy
Exercise – especially programs tailored to your needs and preferences – is likely to reduce pain and help you move better. This could include aerobic activity, strength training or Pilates-based movements.
It doesn’t seem to matter what type of exercise you do – it matters more that you are consistent and have the right level of supervision, especially early on.
Multidisciplinary treatment
As with short-term pain, coordinated care involving a mix of physical, occupational and psychological approaches likely works better than usual care alone.
Psychological therapies
Psychological therapies for chronic pain include approaches to help people change thinking, feelings, behaviours and reactions that might sustain persistent pain.
These approaches are likely to reduce pain, though they may not be as effective in improving physical function.
Acupuncture
Acupuncture probably reduces pain and improves how well you can function compared to placebo or no treatment.
While some debate remains about how it works, the evidence suggests potential benefits for some people with chronic back pain.
The review found that many commonly advertised treatments still have uncertain benefits or probably do not benefit people with back pain.
Spinal manipulation, for example, has uncertain benefits in acute and chronic back pain, and it likely does not improve how well you function if you have acute back pain.
Traction, which involves stretching the spine using weights or pulleys, probably doesn’t help with chronic back pain. Despite its popularity in some circles, there’s little evidence that it works.
There isn’t enough reliable data to determine whether advertised treatments – such back braces, vibrating massage guns and herbal patches – are effective.
How can you use the findings?
If you have back pain, start by considering how long you’ve had it. Then explore treatment options that research supports and discuss them with your GP, psychologist or physiotherapist.
Your health provider should reassure you about the importance of gradually increasing your activity to resume meaningful work, social and life activities. They should also support you in making informed decisions about which treatments are most appropriate for you at this stage.
Rodrigo Rossi Nogueira Rizzo receives funding from the Australian Government’s Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF).
Aidan Cashin receives funding from a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant
A lot of dog owners believe that they can tell what their dogs are feeling. They believe that they can assess their dog’s emotions no matter the context.
Previous research has shown that experience with dogs affects how successful people are in assessing a dog’s emotional state. As a psychologist, the more I know about dogs and the more I study and observe them, the better I become in assessing their behaviour. However, even experts can struggle to get it right.
In the recent US study, researchers looked at how successful people are at assessing dogs’ emotions from looking at pictures. The images showed the dogs in different postures such as submissive or anxious. Sometimes the context around the dog was positive (for example, the owner approaching the dog with a lead) and sometimes the context around was negative (a person about to scold the dog).
The study found that the context influenced whether people assessed the dog’s behavioural response as positive or negative even though the posture and other signals didn’t change.
Research also suggests we have the tendency to misinterpret some facial expressions of dogs. A 2018 University of Lincoln study examined how children aged three to five years old and their parents interpret dogs’ facial expressions.
Participants were shown pictures of dogs, for example showing bare teeth, which signals high levels of distress. The children especially misinterpreted that as a smiling and happy dog. The study also showed that interventions, which educated participants on how to interpret dogs’ behavioural signals, increased their understanding of dogs’ stress signals (though this was mostly true in the adults).
We tend to anthropomorphise and attribute human emotions to our dogs. A good example of this is the so-called guilty look. You often see videos on social media in which a dog avoids eye contact with humans, for example turning its head slightly to the side.
If this happens after the dog has done something they shouldn’t have, the owner may classify this as indicative of shame or guilt. In reality, dogs avoid eye contact as a kind of deescalation behaviour.
It indicates that they do not want a confrontation. Perhaps the owner has already reacted to the mishap. Or the dog has learned to expect a reaction from the owner in certain situations. Insecure or fearful dogs also often avoid eye contact because they feel threatened or intimidated. However, this behaviour has little to do with shame.
Another classic misconception is that a dog that wags its tail is a happy and friendly dog. In reality, a wagging tail only means that the dog is aroused. To assess the dog’s emotional state, you also have to consider the position of the tail. If it is standing upright, then this is more a sign of a tense dog. If it is positioned lower and the movement of the tail is relaxed and wide from left to right, then it is probably a friendly signal.
We anthropomorphise dogs because we have evolved a human-specific way to interpret others’ emotions. If we see a person who pulls up the corners of their mouth and smiles, then we understand them to be happy or at least cheerful. That leads to problems if we apply that system to interpret other species’ emotional expressions.
So how can we analyse dogs’ emotional expression in an objective way? One approach that scientists use is a technical method called DogFACS. In this method, each facial muscle is assigned a movement on the surface of the face. Facial movements are documented by numbers and analysed separately from each other.
In 2013 University of Portsmouth researchers went to dog shelters across the UK and filmed dogs for two minutes each. They then analysed the dogs’ behaviour, including their facial expressions.
The animal shelter told the researchers how long it took for the filmed dogs to be adopted by new owners. Neither barking nor wagging tails influenced the adoption rate, but only a specific eyebrow movement: the so-called puppy dog eyes look. The more often the dogs raised their eyebrows and produced the puppy dog eyes, the quicker they were rehomed. Nothing else had an effect. This could be because the puppy dog eyes resemble a facial movement that we produce when we are sad and makes us want to care for the dog.
In fact my 2019 study showed that the facial muscle anatomy of dogs has evolved for facial communication with humans. My team compared the facial muscle anatomy of dogs and wolves and demonstrated that the facial muscles of dogs and wolves are identical – except for one muscle, the levator anguli oculi medialis. This muscle is responsible for the lifting of the inner eyebrow in dogs.
We may not be much good at reading dogs’ emotions but as the University of Lincoln study shows, we can learn to be.
“When you ride Tesla, you ride with Hitler” according to a reworked second world war propaganda poster that was discovered in Oakland, California last month.
When did an electric car brand supposedly become associated with the far right? Perhaps when its CEO, Elon Musk, embraced Donald Trump and the Maga movement that propelled him to a second term as US president. Tesla dealerships have been targets for protests and vandalism, while the company’s sales and stock price have fallen recently.
“But those same political controversies may ironically help broaden the mass market appeal of electric vehicles,” says Hannah Budnitz, a research associate at the Transport Studies Unit of Oxford University.
“This is an industry that needs to go beyond the early adopter tech bros – and now might be the moment.”
Around a fifth of the greenhouse gas emissions heating Earth can be traced to a vehicle exhaust pipe. The more combustion engines that can be replaced with electric batteries, the less getting from A to B will exacerbate climate change.
“Huge amounts of land which could otherwise be used to house people or be dedicated to nature are still reserved for roads and car parks,” says Vera O’Riordan, an energy policy researcher at University College Cork.
And while driving an EV doesn’t emit CO₂, it does emit stuff you wouldn’t want to breathe in. Electric cars, which contain heavy batteries, wear down their tyres faster than conventional cars and generate more microplastic particles in the process, according to Henry Obanya, an ecotoxicologist at the University of Portsmouth.
Obanya estimates that as much as a quarter of all microplastics in the environment could have come from car tyres.
So, the strategy of putting an EV in every garage has its limits (not least the fact that not everyone has a garage, or the space to charge an electric car).
A more efficient way to decarbonise the second-largest emission source by sector (power generation is first) would be to follow the advice of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC, which is made up of scientists and other experts convened by the UN, recommends that countries plan their transport systems according to the maxim “avoid, shift, improve”.
This involves, O’Riordan explains, avoiding unnecessary journeys by designing towns and cities with amenities in walking distance, shifting passengers onto higher-occupancy vehicles like buses by expanding public transport and improving all travel options by switching from fossil fuels to electric propulsion.
Let’s assume that decades of car-first urban planning have boxed us in and we don’t have time to undo it before the climate is cooked. How can more motorists be persuaded to turn in their gas-guzzler for a battery-powered model?
It’s the price, stupid
Back to Budnitz – and the waning influence of the EV industry’s tech-bro boosters.
“In 2010, when Tesla became the first American carmaker to go public since Ford in 1956, fully electric cars were still a niche technology,” she says.
Back then, Tesla adverts targeted the customers it thought would be early adopters: overwhelmingly, wealthy men like Musk. It worked. Survey after survey in North America and Europe showed that EV ownership in the early 2010s was skewed towards men and those on higher incomes.
This is in stark contrast to electric car marketing at the dawn of motoring. In 1900, petroleum-powered cars were in the minority (22% of all cars) and were widely considered temperamental “adventure machines” that were prone to breaking down. Electric cars were pitched as a safer, cleaner alternative that was perfect for city travel.
Perfect, in fact, for wealthy women. During the 1910s, when Victorian attitudes towards gender roles reigned and women were presumed to have limited mobility needs (no need to worry about your battery running flat if you’re not going far), 77% of EVs directly appealed to female consumers.
“In the short term, this was a successful strategy: car manufacturers that advertised to female consumers survived much longer,” says economic historian Josef Taalbi (Lund University). The only major electric car producer in the US to survive into the 1920s advertised to women, he adds.
In 2013, there were still less than 60,000 EVs on the road globally. A decade later, almost the same number are sold every day.
“The transition to electric personal mobility is well underway around the world,” says Budnitz. “Tesla’s troubles won’t stop this – but they can give the car industry an opportunity to make the messaging around electric vehicles more diverse, equitable and inclusive for the mass market.”
EV manufacturers can make their case to all drivers because they now offer a mass-market product, Budnitz argues. Nowhere is this more true than in Norway, which may become the first country to sell only zero-emission vehicles this year (88.9% of all vehicles sold in Norway in 2024 were fully-electric).
What’s Norway’s secret?
“Generous, comprehensive subsidies”, say Agnieszka Stefaniec and Keyvan Hosseini, transport researchers at the University of Southampton.
“Our recent research shows that affordability is a tool to get everyone on board. When lower-income households face affordability barriers, it’s not just their problem – it’s the missing link to achieving 100%. Smaller, more affordable electric cars could be the game changer needed to bridge this gap.”
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dafydd Townley, Teaching Fellow in US politics and international security, University of Portsmouth
The second Donald Trump administration has already sent shockwaves through the political establishment on both sides of the Atlantic. Overseas, the focus has been on the administration’s apparent dismantling of the post-war international order and Trump’s apparent pivot away from America’s traditional allies towards a warmer relationship with Russia and Vladimir Putin. But within the United States itself, the greatest concerns are associated with administration actions that, for many, suggest a deliberate destruction of American democracy.
Such fears in the US are not isolated to the political elites, but are shared by citizens across the entire nation. But what is also emerging is a concerted assault on people’s ability to push back – or even complain – about some of the measures being introduced by Trump 2.0. This will inevitably result in what is often called a “chilling effect”, where it becomes too hard – or too dangerous – to voice dissent.
Many of Trump’s policies – the mass deportations, the wholesale sacking of public servants by Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), the decision to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants – have been challenged in the courts. The Trump administration is now embroiled in a range of legal challenges. It is here that Trump’s disdain for a legal system that has temporarily blocked the wishes of the president has emerged.
Chilling effect
Judicial decisions calling for the administration to reverse or pause some of these policies have been greeted by Trump and some of his senior colleagues (including Musk and the vice-president J.D.Vance), with noisy complaints at judicial interference in government. Even, in some cases, calls for the impeachment of judges who rule against the government.
Not only did the administration ignore the court’s ruling that suspended the forced expulsion of Venezuelans to El Salvador, some of whom were in the US legally, but Trump attacked the judge on social media calling him a corrupt “radical left lunatic” and called for his impeachment.
This stirred the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Glover Roberts Jr., to intervene. He reminded the president that America doesn’t settle its disputes, saying that the “normal appellate review process exists for that purpose”. Later, Tom Homan, Trump’s chief adviser on immigration issues, told ABC News that the administration would abide by court rulings on the matter.
The pressure being brought to bear on America’s legal system has not stopped at the judiciary. Trump has recently targeted some of America’s biggest and most powerful law firms, seemingly for no other reason than their acting for clients who have opposed his administration.
On March 25, Trump signed an executive order targeting Jenner & Block, one of whose partners, Andrew Weissmann, worked with special prosecutor Robert Mueller on the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The executive order calls for the firms to be blacklisted from government work and for their employees to have any security clearances removed, for them to be barred from any federal government contracts and refused access to federal government buildings. A death warrant for the firm in other words.
Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.
This follows the news that the head of the prestigious law firm Paul Weiss, Brad Karp, had signed a deal with the White House committing to providing millions of dollars worth of pro-bono legal work for causes nominated by the president. He’s also agreed to stop using diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, which had been faced with a similar fate.
Silencing dissent
This administration’s chilling effect has also extended to an attack on press freedom. Trump has expelled established news organisations from the Pentagon, curtailed access to press events for the esteemed Associated Press, and taken control of the White House press pool, sidelining major media outlets.
These actions mark a significant downgrading of press freedom in America. They are undermining the role of independent journalism in their key function of holding power to account. By restricting access and silencing critical voices, his administration has raised concerns over transparency and the free flow of information in the domestic media landscapes.
Universities have traditionally been bastions of independent thought. We saw that with the massive protests against US policy towards Israel and Palestine which have roiled campuses during the conflict in Gaza. But universities are also seen by many in the administration as a hotbed of “woke” activism. Accordingly Trump 2.0 has fixed its sights on one of the most prominent US universities: Columbia.
Citing what it says is a repeated failure to protect students from antisemitic harassment, the administration cancelled US$400m (£310 million) of federal contracts with the university. Columbia caved in to the pressure moments before the administration’s deadline passed. It agreed to overhaul its disciplinary procedures and “review” its regional studies programmes, starting with those covering the Middle East.
Columbia’s academic staff are horrified. They are launching legal action against the government, alleging that “the Trump administration is coercing Columbia University to do its bidding and regulate speech and expression on campus”.
Democracy in peril
Why is this all so worrying? The legal system, the media and universities are the pillars of US democratic freedoms. The Trump administration’s undermining of these institutions is a blatant attempt to impose an authoritarian rule by bypassing any counterbalance to executive power. And the US Supreme Court has ruled that he is almost entirely immune from prosecution while doing it.
The checks and balances system of government in the US was designed to ensure that no single branch could dominate the political process. But partisan loyalty, and loyalty to Trump over the party, now outweighs constitutional responsibility for the majority of those within the Republican Party.
American democracy is under threat. Not from the external existential threats it faced over the past century such as communism and Islamic fundamentalism, but from within its own system. Those Americans who are terrified about this threat are trying to fight back, but Trump’s assault on dissent is so chilling that this is becoming increasingly dangerous.
Dafydd Townley 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 Will Shüler, Vice-Dean of Education and Senior Lecturer, School of Performing and Digital Arts, Royal Holloway University of London
The first production of the Sophocles tragedy, adapted and directed by Robert Icke and starring Mark Strong and Leslie Manville, ran from October 2024 to January 2025, with a Broadway transfer to New York’s Roundabout Theatre Company planned for this autumn.
The second – which closes at the end of this month – opened weeks later at the Old Vic in a version by Ella Hickson, co-directed by Hofesh Shechter and Matthew Warchus, and starring Rami Malek and Indira Varma.
Historically, ancient Greek tragedies were retellings of ancient myths, performed in ways that encouraged the audience to reflect upon an old story in a new way. Two London productions of Oedipus might seem like overkill, but they actually demonstrate the versatility of the tragic form.
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.
Both productions rework the myth, allowing contemporary audiences to consider different perspectives on the play’s themes of power and knowledge.
One of the defining aspects of the ancient Greek tragedy is the chorus. Originally they performed in the orchestra of an ancient theatre – the space between the actors and the audience. Their performance of odes was in song and dance form, and the content might reflect upon the play’s events from their perspective, provide background that was either directly or indirectly related to the plot, or spur on the action of the play.
In Oedipus, the chorus is comprised of citizens of Thebes. The city is suffering from a terrible curse and Oedipus, the king, takes it upon himself to rectify this by following the advice of the gods to discover and punish the murderer of the previous king, Laius.
The chorus first enters singing – and dancing – about the disasters the people have been facing and prays for their end. For the rest of the play, from the foot of the palace, the chorus observes Oedipus’s investigation, horrific discovery and the piteous aftermath for his family.
The treatment of the role of the chorus in these two West End productions are essential to the different meanings they make and how they invite audiences to reflect upon the myth in relation to our own world.
In the Icke adaptation, Oedipus is with his family (wife Jocasta, mother Merope, brother-in-law Creon and three adult children Antigone, Polynices and Eteocles) at his campaign headquarters on the evening of the election.
In this version the challenge the city faces is governmental corruption. Icke has included more family members than are in Sophocles’s original text and cut the role of the chorus entirely. Its exclusion means the governmental corruption is seen almost entirely from the point of view of this political family.
The only perspective we get from the citizens is an opening video sequence as Oedipus is interviewed by the press, and the frequent election result updates. The people elect Oedipus. They want what he promises – an end of governmental corruption.
Icke’s Oedipus strives to do the right thing and break from the string of corrupt, deceitful, narcissistic politicians who have been plaguing the city. The play thereby draws contemporary connections to “draining the swamp” and the “fake news” accusations of Donald Trump.
Without reflections from the people (the chorus), the play becomes a personal drama about the family’s interests and public image. Oedipus and Jocasta’s grisly ends are entirely about their personal horror at the discovery they have made – that she is actually his mother.
There is no reflection on how the play’s ending relates to the ongoing trouble faced by the citizens. In this version of events the final impression feels pessimistic – even when leaders try to do the right thing, the system ensures that they will fail.
In the Old Vic production, the play is set in a Thebes that is suffering from extreme drought (likely alluding to the climate crisis). In Hickson’s adaptation, the chorus remains, but their words have been removed. Only their dance is performed between the scenes of the actors.
This is not to say that the Sophocles text has been “translated” into movement by Shechter, but rather that the historic function of the chorus (to contemplate, to reflect, to spur on) remains by means of what is communicated in dance – which, according to the Guardian’s theatre critic David Jays becomes “the irresistible core of the tragedy”.
In the play’s script, each scene ends with the deceptively simple word: “dance”. In performance, Oedipus’ investigation into what is causing the drought, contemplation of prophecies and public speeches to the people of Thebes are all interspersed with Shechter’s evocative choreography. We see their suffering, we see their prayers, we see their perseverance. Their needs never fade into the background but remain the consistent pulse of the play.
In this version, when Oedipus has his moment of revelation, the rain comes and the people dance in it. This moment imparts impressions of renewed faith, solidarity, fruitfulness, pride, rebirth and life continuing.
Oedipus enters having blinded himself, not out of personal horror, but in order to cleanse the city and ensure its continued godly favour. In contrast to the Icke production, Schechter and Warchus’s version – though still tragic – is ultimately hopeful.
The leader has taken responsibility for what they have done and put the needs of the people over his own ambitions and desires. The last moment is not Oedipus’s. It is the chorus’s – and we watch them dance.
Will Shüler 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.
Every day, decisions that affect our lives depend on knowing how many people live where. For example, how many vaccines are needed in a community, where polling stations should be placed for elections or who might be in danger as a hurricane approaches. The answers rely on population data.
But counting people is getting harder.
For centuries, census and household surveys have been the backbone of population knowledge. But we’ve just returned from the UN’s statistical commission meetings in New York, where experts reported that something alarming is happening to population data systems globally.
Census response rates are declining in many countries, resulting in large margins of error. The 2020 US census undercounted America’s Latino population by more than three times the rate of the 2010 census. In Paraguay, the latest census revealed a population one-fifth smaller than previously thought.
South Africa’s 2022 census post-enumeration survey revealed a likely undercount of more than 30%. According to the UN Economic Commission for Africa, undercounts and census delays due to COVID-19, conflict or financial limitations have resulted in an estimated one in three Africans not being counted in the 2020 census round.
When people vanish from data, they vanish from policy. When certain groups are systematically undercounted – often minorities, rural communities or poorer people – they become invisible to policymakers. This translates directly into political underrepresentation and inadequate resource allocation.
As the Brookings Institution, a US research organisation, has highlighted, undercounts have “cost communities of colour political representation over the next decade”.
This is happening because several factors have converged. Trust in government institutions is eroding worldwide, with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reporting that by late 2023, 44% of people across member countries had low or no trust in their national governments. Research shows a clear trend of declining trust specifically in representative institutions like parliaments and governments. This makes people less likely to respond to government-issued census requests.
International funding for population data is also disappearing. The US-funded Demographic and Health Surveys program, which provided vital survey data across 90 countries for four decades, was terminated in February 2025. Unicef’s Multi-Indicator Cluster program, which carries out household surveys, faces an uncertain future amid shrinking global aid budgets. US government cuts to support for UN agencies and development banks undertaking census support will likely have further impacts.
This is incredibly worrying to us as geography academics, because gathering accurate population data is fundamentally about making everyone visible. As population scientists Sabrina Juran and Arona Pistiner wrote, this information allows governments to plan for the future of a country and its people.
The US census directly impacts the allocation of more than US$1.5 trillion (£1.2 trillion) in public resources each year. How can governments distribute healthcare funding without knowing who lives where? How can disaster response be effective if vulnerable populations are invisible in official population counts?
Solutions that count
Countries are adapting. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the transition to alternative census methodologies. Many countries turned to online questionnaires, telephone interviews and administrative data sources to reduce face-to-face interactions.
The UN Economic Commission for Africa recommends that countries move from using paper forms for census data collection and embrace new digital technologies that can be cheaper and more reliable. Turkey’s switch in 2011 reduced census costs from US$48.3 million to US$13.9 million while improving data quality and timeliness, and nearly 80% of countries used tablets or smartphones for data collection in the 2020 round of censuses.
At WorldPop, our research group at the University of Southampton, we’re also helping governments to develop solutions using new technologies. Buildings mapped from satellite imagery using AI, together with counts of populations from small areas, can help create detailed population estimates to support census implementation or provide estimates for undersurveyed areas.
As we face growing challenges, from climate change to economic inequality, having accurate, reliable and robust population data isn’t a luxury. It’s essential for a functioning society. National statistical offices, UN agencies, academics, the private sector and donors must urgently focus on how to build cost-effective solutions to provide reliable and robust population data, especially in resource-poor settings where recent cuts will be felt hardest.
When people disappear from the data, they risk disappearing from public policy too. Making everyone count starts with counting everyone.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Andrew J Tatem works for the University of Southampton, and is Director of WorldPop. His research on mapping populations has been funded by donors such as the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, GAVI.
Jessica Espey works for the University of Southampton. Her research on data, statistics and evidence use has previously been funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Gates Foundation and others.
A lot of dog owners believe that they can tell what their dogs are feeling. They believe that they can assess their dog’s emotions no matter the context.
Previous research has shown that experience with dogs affects how successful people are in assessing a dog’s emotional state. As a psychologist, the more I know about dogs and the more I study and observe them, the better I become in assessing their behaviour. However, even experts can struggle to get it right.
In the recent US study, researchers looked at how successful people are at assessing dogs’ emotions from looking at pictures. The images showed the dogs in different postures such as submissive or anxious. Sometimes the context around the dog was positive (for example, the owner approaching the dog with a lead) and sometimes the context around was negative (a person about to scold the dog).
The study found that the context influenced whether people assessed the dog’s behavioural response as positive or negative even though the posture and other signals didn’t change.
Research also suggests we have the tendency to misinterpret some facial expressions of dogs. A 2018 University of Lincoln study examined how children aged three to five years old and their parents interpret dogs’ facial expressions.
Participants were shown pictures of dogs, for example showing bare teeth, which signals high levels of distress. The children especially misinterpreted that as a smiling and happy dog. The study also showed that interventions, which educated participants on how to interpret dogs’ behavioural signals, increased their understanding of dogs’ stress signals (though this was mostly true in the adults).
We tend to anthropomorphise and attribute human emotions to our dogs. A good example of this is the so-called guilty look. You often see videos on social media in which a dog avoids eye contact with humans, for example turning its head slightly to the side.
If this happens after the dog has done something they shouldn’t have, the owner may classify this as indicative of shame or guilt. In reality, dogs avoid eye contact as a kind of deescalation behaviour.
It indicates that they do not want a confrontation. Perhaps the owner has already reacted to the mishap. Or the dog has learned to expect a reaction from the owner in certain situations. Insecure or fearful dogs also often avoid eye contact because they feel threatened or intimidated. However, this behaviour has little to do with shame.
Another classic misconception is that a dog that wags its tail is a happy and friendly dog. In reality, a wagging tail only means that the dog is aroused. To assess the dog’s emotional state, you also have to consider the position of the tail. If it is standing upright, then this is more a sign of a tense dog. If it is positioned lower and the movement of the tail is relaxed and wide from left to right, then it is probably a friendly signal.
We anthropomorphise dogs because we have evolved a human-specific way to interpret others’ emotions. If we see a person who pulls up the corners of their mouth and smiles, then we understand them to be happy or at least cheerful. That leads to problems if we apply that system to interpret other species’ emotional expressions.
Could do with adding subhead here
So how can we analyse dogs’ emotional expression in an objective way? One approach that scientists use is a technical method called DogFACS. In this method, each facial muscle is assigned a movement on the surface of the face. Facial movements are documented by numbers and analysed separately from each other.
In 2013 University of Portsmouth researchers went to dog shelters across the UK and filmed dogs for two minutes each. They then analysed the dogs’ behaviour, including their facial expressions.
The animal shelter told the researchers how long it took for the filmed dogs to be adopted by new owners. Neither barking nor wagging tails influenced the adoption rate, but only a specific eyebrow movement: the so-called puppy dog eyes look. The more often the dogs raised their eyebrows and produced the puppy dog eyes, the quicker they were rehomed. Nothing else had an effect. This could be because the puppy dog eyes resemble a facial movement that we produce when we are sad and makes us want to care for the dog.
In fact my 2019 study showed that the facial muscle anatomy of dogs has evolved for facial communication with humans. My team compared the facial muscle anatomy of dogs and wolves and demonstrated that the facial muscles of dogs and wolves are identical – except for one muscle, the levator anguli oculi medialis. This muscle is responsible for the lifting of the inner eyebrow in dogs.
We may not be much good at reading dogs’ emotions but as the University of Lincoln study shows, we can learn to be.
One surprise in the early days of the pandemic was people’s increased willingness to trust political authorities. According to the British Social Attitudes survey (BSA), the proportion of people trusting government ministers rose from 15% in 2019 to 23% in 2020. Data from Ipsos MORI showed a similar bounce for trust in government ministers and politicians in 2021. Trust in government was also a significant factor in whether people complied with lockdown rules and other restrictions.
Since then, however, people’s trust in government has plummeted. The latest BSA survey finds that, in 2023, just 14% of the population said they trust government “always” or “most of the time”. Fully 45% of the population trust government “almost never”. These are the most negative set of figures since the BSA began asking questions on trust almost four decades ago.
This collapse in trust is perhaps unsurprising given the various government shenanigans over the past few years, notably Boris Johnson’s Downing Street lockdown parties and Liz Truss’s disastrous prime ministerial tenure. However, there is also evidence that Britons have become less trusting as a result of dashed expectations over the benefits of Brexit, negative views of government performance in areas like health, and cost of living pressures.
Yet while Britons are less trusting of those with political authority, they appear to be more trusting in each other. Back in 1999, 29% of the population believed that “most people [in Britain] can be trusted”. Four decades on, that proportion has increased to 46%, topping the previous high of 43% in 1981. This might partly reflect the sense of collective endeavour and neighbourliness that was instilled during the pandemic, when we were encouraged to look out for, and help, other people. There is also evidence that, while people see the country as a whole as becoming more divided, at the local level perceptions of unity outweigh perceptions of division.
This is a welcome shift, particularly since trust in other people is associated with a range of positive outcomes, including support for international cooperation and international organisations. In an uncertain and dangerous world, social trust may be an important factor shaping the willingness of states to work together.
Wellbeing of politicians
The decline of popular trust in government and politicians is concerning. Low trust is associated with support for populist politicians such as Donald Trump and upheavals like Brexit. Low trust could also significantly compromise public acceptance of, and compliance with, official messages and rules in a future pandemic.
Distrust can also cause direct harm to public figures. As one of us (James) has shown, politicians are generally poor estimators of public trust in themselves. But where they do perceive widespread distrust, often because of repeated experiences of physical or online abuse and intimidation, this has a significant negative effect on their mental health and wellbeing.
Increased security around MPs – the cost of which jumped from £77,234.67 to £4,381,733.40 between 2014 and 2022 – is likely to protect them from the worst excesses of public distrust where it trickles over into extreme behaviour. Yet given the importance of contact for people’s trust, it could also inadvertently fuel more cynicism by increasing the physical distance between politicians and the public.
The public’s declining regard for politicians and government should be a source of concern. We are hardly likely to recruit the calibre of politician we expect (and need), or indeed encourage a more diverse population of aspiring representatives, if the personal costs of holding elected office are so high.
At the same time, a look at the bigger picture offers some reassurance. As one of us (Ben) has recently shown, there is little evidence that low trust induces popular scepticism towards democracy itself, or that it weakens public support for state spending or government programmes in key areas like healthcare.
Trust on the frontline
The nature and strength of Britain’s civic ties are revealed not only in our trust of politicians and institutions, but also in how we treat the people who provide public services, such as police officers and health workers.
On the face of it, the picture is not pretty. Over the past few years, rates of public abuse towards frontline service providers have increased. In 2021, 18% of teachers reported having experienced verbal abuse from a parent or carer in the past year. In 2023, that figure had risen to 30%.
A survey of police officers in 2022 found that 37% had experienced verbal insults at least once a week over the past year. This was an increase from the 29% of officers who reported a similar level of insults in 2020, although the figure dropped slightly in 2023 to 34%.
Rates of physical abuse of London ambulance staff have more than doubled in four years, with 346 incidents recorded in 2019, increasing to 728 incidents in 2023. A similar picture of public abuse is found for frontline workers in the health service. Polling in 2023 found that 85% of GPs across the UK had received verbal abuse from members of the public during the past year. A 2021 survey by the British Medical Association found more than half of GPs, and one in five hospital doctors, had experienced verbal abuse in the past month.
While majorities of the British public express trust in many frontline workers such as nurses and doctors (who currently attract 94% and 88% trust ratings), others appear to take a more negative view, extending even to abusive behaviour.
Given the range of service providers facing such rising antipathy, it seems unlikely that the trigger for this was the pandemic. A better clue is provided by longer-term data on public treatment of doctors.
Responses are to a survey question reading ‘In the last 12 months, have you personally experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work from patients, their relatives or members of the public?’. Author provided, data from NHS Staff Survey
NHS survey figures show that rates of abuse towards doctors declined between 2003 and 2011. (The wording of the relevant survey question changed in 2012, which restricts our ability to compare the more recent data). This was precisely the period when resources were pumped into the health service and public satisfaction with the NHS increased. This suggests that public interactions with frontline service workers like doctors are strongly shaped by the quality of the service they face.
Indeed, GPs themselves ascribe the verbal abuse they and their staff experience to people’s dissatisfaction with the service, including discontent with access to health services. One underappreciated effect of austerity might thus be an increased public frustration with healthcare workers, which on occasion appears to extend to outright abuse.
More accessible (read: better funded) public services might reduce some negativity towards frontline service workers. However, the important task of rebuilding people’s trust in politicians is – particularly given the negative coverage by much of Britain’s media – likely to be a trickier task.
James Weinberg receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.
Ben Seyd 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.
Hard on the heels of impressive research findings that a glass of milk is good for reducing cancer risk, another recent study has highlighted the potential benefits of yoghurt consumption in lowering the risk of certain types of cancer – particularly colorectal cancer.
The number of new colorectal cancer cases among people under 55 has doubled globally in recent years, with diagnoses increasing by nearly 20%. As a consultant oncologist, many people have asked me how their risk can be reduced.
The emerging evidence suggests that regular yoghurt consumption may have a protective effect against certain aggressive forms of colorectal cancer by modifying the gut microbiome, the natural bacteria that live in the gut.
The gut microbiome plays a crucial role in overall health, influencing digestion, immune function and even cancer risk. The gut bacteria can live inside cancer itself, and in general a healthy balance of these bacteria is thought to be essential for maintaining a strong immune system and preventing inflammation, which can contribute to cancer development.
The study found that consuming two or more servings of yoghurt per week was associated with a lower risk of a specific type of aggressive colorectal cancer, which occurs on the right side of the colon and is associated with poorer survival outcomes compared with cancers on the left side.
The study analysed data from over 150,000 participants followed for several decades, indicating that long-term yoghurt consumption may alter the gut microbiome in ways that protect against certain cancers. Researchers surveyed the participants every two years about their yoghurt intake, and measured the amount of Bifidobacterium (a type of bacteria found in yoghurt) in the tumour tissue of 3,079 people within the sample who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer.
While yoghurt did not directly lower the risk for all types of colorectal cancer, those who ate two or more servings of yoghurt per week had a lower risk of developing “Bifidobacterium-positive proximal colon cancer”, a type of colorectal cancer that occurs in the right side of the colon and has one of the lowest survival rates. This new work also validates and builds on previous studies showing similar findings.
Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain how yoghurt might reduce cancer risk. One key mechanism is the modulation of the gut microbiome. Yoghurt’s probiotics can enhance the diversity and balance of gut bacteria, potentially reducing inflammation and levels of cancer-causing chemicals (carcinogens).
Additionally, yoghurt may exert anti-inflammatory effects on the colon lining cells, called the mucosa, which could help prevent cancer development. Improving gut barrier function is another potential mechanism, as yoghurt may reduce gut permeability, which is linked to increased cancer risk.
Choose wisely
Beyond its potential anti-cancer effects, yoghurt offers several other health benefits. Like milk, it is rich in calcium, which supports bone density and may reduce the risk of brittle bones, known as osteoporosis.
But when incorporating yoghurt into your diet, it’s important to choose wisely. Opt for plain, unflavoured yoghurt to avoid added sugars, which can negate health benefits – for example by causing weight gain, which is a risk factor for obesity and cancer.
Different fermentation processes can result in varying levels of beneficial bacteria, so look for yoghurts with live cultures. Plain, unsweetened Greek yoghurt is generally higher in protein and lower in sugar, while full-fat yoghurt often has fewer processed ingredients than reduced-fat or non-fat variations.
Yoghurt contains all nine essential amino acids, and aside from improving gut health, a serving of plain Greek yoghurt contains 15 to 20 grams of protein.
There are nearly 45,000 cases of bowel cancer every year in the UK, making it the nation’s fourth most common cancer, and third worldwide – but many of these are preventable.
According to Cancer Research UK data, 54% of all bowel cancers could be prevented by having a healthier lifestyle. Smoking, lack of exercise, alcohol, eating processed meat, and poor diet are all significant factors in the development of bowel cancer.
The emerging evidence suggests that yoghurt, particularly when consumed regularly, may play a role in reducing the risk of certain aggressive forms of colorectal cancer. While more research is needed to fully understand these effects, incorporating yoghurt into a balanced diet could be a beneficial choice for overall health.
But as with any dietary recommendation, it’s crucial to consider the broader context of a healthy lifestyle, including a diverse diet rich in fruits, vegetables and whole grains, along with regular physical activity. While yoghurt is not a magic bullet against cancer, it is a nutritious food that can contribute to a healthy diet and potentially offer protective effects against certain cancers.
As research continues to uncover the complex relationships between diet, gut health and cancer risk, incorporating yoghurt into your daily routine may be a simple yet beneficial step towards a healthier life.
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.
Statue of Andrew Jackson in Layfayette Square, Washington DC.Flickr
How do you deal with an American president who does not obey the US constitution? The question has arisen because the recent episode where deportation flights carrying Venezuelans were dispatched to El Salvador, despite a court ruling that those flights must not proceed, suggests Donald Trump’s administration has a limited understanding of the separation of powers in the US. A president has no power to defy a court order.
Similarly, a Brown University medical professor, Rasha Alawieh, was deported to Lebanon because of a perceived sympathy for Hezbollah, despite the fact she had a valid US work visa and despite a judge’s order blocking her removal from the US.
This administration’s seemingly blatant disregarding of constitutional procedure is not the first time such a problem has arisen. Early in the life of the new republic it was posed by the election to the presidency in 1828 of Andrew Jackson. Jackson, an unashamed populist, harboured deep suspicion of all federal institutions. His belief in states’ rights sometimes trumped his commitment to the union.
Trump echoes Jackson in many ways. Just as Trump reviles Joe Biden, so Jackson scorned his predecessor, John Quincy Adams. Trump’s attacks on institutions such as USAid and the Department of Education, is echoed by Jackson’s extraordinary war on the Bank of the United States, which he thought too big and grand for a democratic people.
But the parallels come closest in relation to forced expulsion, whether of individuals in Trump’s case, or of whole peoples in Jackson’s.
When Europeans established their colonies in the Americas, they justified their presence by asserting the philosopher John Locke’s principle that legal title to land belonged to those who farmed it. Since the native peoples were mostly nomadic hunters, this legal fiction enabled the Europeans and their American successors to seize land while claiming it was theirs “by right”.
But the peoples of the American southeast – the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole and Cherokee – took the Europeans at their word. They adopted a much more European lifestyle, establishing towns, wearing European clothing, even converting to Christianity. But above all, they started farming the land, even to the point of owning slaves to work on it. They were known, rather patronisingly, as the “five civilised tribes”.
None of this adoption of western culture would save them, however, when Georgian cotton planters realised, first, that the tribes were sitting on prime cotton-growing land and, subsequently, that there was gold in Cherokee territory. In 1828 the state of Georgia claimed jurisdiction over all the land of the five tribes. Jackson, an old “Indian fighter” and a staunch states-rights southerner who was about to begin his stint as seventh US president, clearly sympathised.
Jackson’s first State of the Union address made it clear that he intended to remove all the “Indian” tribes to the desert lands west of the Mississippi. In Congress, Jackson’s opponents accused him of betraying the very principles on which the republic had been founded. What had these people done that required their removal – and since they were indeed farmers, why was their right to their own land not to be respected in law?
Despite these good reasons for these people to be allowed to stay, the 1830 Removal Act passed and the Chickasaw, Choctaw and Creek peoples packed up and left. The Seminole attempted armed resistance but were defeated.
Supreme Court versus the US president
The Cherokee took their case to the Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court had originally been intended merely as a final court of appeal, but under its long-sitting chief justice, John Marshall, it had established itself as the ultimate arbiter of what was and was not lawful according to the constitution. And this included acts of the president.
The court’s new-found constitutional role was deeply resented in the White House as an unacceptable incursion on the rights of the president, even when it ruled in the president’s favour. Now Marshall was being asked to rule on the constitutional legality of Georgia’s claim to the land of the Cherokee people.
The Cherokee had tried to declare they were a fully independent state, but the court ruled against that. It did, however, find that they constituted a dependent nation within the United States and that, therefore, the State of Georgia had no jurisdiction over them.
Georgia, however, simply ignored the Supreme Court and in 1838 sent in troops to round up and expel the Cherokee people. Some 13,000 people set off on what became known as the “Trail of Tears” – about one-third of them died of weakness, disease and hunger.
One American officer commented later that: “I fought through the civil war and have seen men shot to pieces and slaughtered by thousands, but the Cherokee removal was the cruellest I ever knew.”
Jackson was exultant, taunting Marshall that his judgement “has fell still born” and sneering that Marshall had no means of enforcing it. The Cherokee chief, the half-Scottish John Ross, summed up the situation: “We have a country which others covet. This is the only offence we have ever yet been charged with.”
The Cherokee had found that, if the president chose to ignore it, the US constitution offered no protection to the innocent. It’s a history lesson Greenlanders, Mexicans and Canadians – and indeed many Americans who may fall foul of this administration and seek recourse to the law – would do well to study.
Sean Lang 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 Robert Dover, Professor of Intelligence and National Security & Dean of Faculty, University of Hull
Plans for an attack against an enemy target are classified in America. But the private views of high-ranking officials about allies, communicated within government, must also count as intelligence to be protected.
The recent communication of this category of information over the Signal messaging app has been dismissed by the US president, Donald Trump as a mere “glitch”. It is definitely that. But it also raises the prospect that in his first two months of office, key parts of the administration might have inadvertently been leaving sensitive information vulnerable to enemy interception. That would be one of the most serious intelligence breaches in modern history.
National security advisor, Mike Waltz, has subsequently “taken responsibility” for the episode – but, so far at least, remains in post. Instead, the administration has decided to launch bitter ad hominem attacks against the journalist that revealed this breach of security, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg.
Storied national security reporter: The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg. US Secretary of Defense
The recent chat group reported exchange involved the adminstration’s most senior national security officials: Waltz, Hegseth, Vice-President J.D. Vance, secretary of state Marco Rubio and director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, among others.
As we know now, it also, accidentally, included Goldberg, himself a storied national security reporter before he took up the editorship of the Atlantic. It’s a national security blunder almost without parallel.
Interestingly, some of the people on this chat were among those who savaged Hilary Clinton’s use of a personal email address during her time as secretary of state. This was controversial, but did not meet the standard for prosecution. Most of her work-related emails were archived into federal records by their recipients on government email. It was poor practice, and regulations were significantly tightened after.
If an inquiry is set up about this most recent incident, it will be interesting to see whether these messages are treated as federal records. This would be signficant because the messages would need to be handed over to officials to classify and archive as part of the public record. That would certainly clear up whether this was indeed a “glitch” or whether classified information was indeed shared – something the administration still denies.
Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.
For such an elevated group of US government officials to use a consumer messaging app to talk business invites an easy win for enemy intelligence agencies. America’s key intelligence competitors invest billions of dollars in techniques and technologies to break the toughest encryption. For phone-based communications, we know that apps such as NSO Group’s Pegasus can be used to bypass the encryption on phones.
The Guardian newspaper’s investigative work has highlighted how journalists and activists were targeted by countries using this technology and the interception capability of capable intelligence nations is far stronger. So the standard security induction to officials would cover communications, devices and protocols.
It is not clear whether the protocols cover the use of emojis. Waltz’s use of a fist, fire and flag emoji is certainly unusual in diplomatic cables that have been aired publicly.
Even worse, the communication between these officials was prior to a deployment of US military assets against an enemy target, the Houthi rebels in Yemen. This potentially placed the success of the operation and those assets at risk.
That the Yemenis did not move assets that had been targeted does not conclusively prove that the communications remained safe. It has long been a practice to pick and choose when to risk revealing that communications are being intercepted.
Zero accountability
An ordinary intelligence officer who communicated about highly sensitive and classified deployments through a platform with security that is not accredited or controlled by the intelligence community, would certainly face disciplinary action. An officer who accidentally invited a journalist into this chat would be likely to face even stiffer sanctions. Trump seems to have rallied around his officials, however.
The US has recent form in vigorously pursuing journalists who publish classified materials. The Edward Snowden leaks caused considerable damage to transatlantic intelligence and Snowden was forced to take up residence in Moscow to avoid prosecution.
The newspapers who published his papers were subject to strong action from the governments in their countries. The publication of Chelsea Manning’s leaked cables – known as Cablegate – by Julian Assange and Wikileaks resulted in a lengthy process to try and prosecute Assange (Manning herself was prosecuted and was sentenced to 35 years in jail, serving seven).
But instead, Trump has chosen to spearhead a backlash against The Atlantic – the “messenger”. It fits in with Trump’s antipathy towards the mainstream media and his strong preference for some social media outlets. It might also signal a more serious turn towards intolerance to investigative journalism.
Diplomatic disaster
What the Signal messages also reveal is a contempt for European allies among Trump’s most senior people. That will be difficult to repair. Describing allies who have lost thousands of soldiers supporting American foreign policy aims as “pathetic” and “freeloaders” will make it very difficult for those governments to underplay the significance of the comments.
What we have seen in the Signal messages might herald a new era of diplomacy and policy making, by officials who are not afraid to break established patterns. What we can definitely say is that it is radically different to the diplomacy the rest of the west is used to, and it will be nearly impossible to unsee.
The western allies will be accelerating their plans to be less dependent on the US – and this will be to America’s detriment.
Robert Dover 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 Shampa Roy-Mukherjee, Vice Dean and Professor in Economics, University of East London
Not even six months on from Labour’s first budget, and the world is a much-changed place. Geopolitical tensions and uncertainties, already high last year, have risen further, and with them the cost of the UK’s debt, while economic growth has stalled. As such, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has confronted an array of unpalatable choices – notably cutting disability benefits – to enable her to increase defence spending and stabilise the public finances. Here’s what our panel of experts made of the statement:
Falling inflation wasn’t enough to prevent further disability cuts
Shampa Roy-Mukherjee, Vice Dean and Professor in Economics, University of East London
The independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has halved the UK’s 2025 growth forecast to 1%, down from the previously projected 2%. This sluggish growth, coupled with increased borrowing costs, has effectively eliminated the government’s £9.9 billion “fiscal headroom” – its financial buffer – resulting in a £4.1 billion shortfall by 2029-30.
There was some short-term relief in the latest inflation figures. These showed a slowdown in price rises in February (2.8% against 3% in January). The dip was caused by discounting of items like clothing. But given around half of businesses are considering price rises to combat tax hikes and the national living wage increase coming in April, this relief is likely to be short-lived. The OBR forecasts that inflation will climb back up to 3.2% this year.
The government had previously set out its controversial plans for £5 billion in welfare cuts. But the OBR rejected the claim that the reforms would save that much, estimating the savings at £3.4 billion, leaving Reeves with a £1.6 billion shortfall. As such, she has had to announce additional welfare reforms.
These include freezing the universal credit health element until 2030 and reducing it to £50 a week for new claimants. This is aimed at saving an additional £500 million by 2030 – and combined with other planned welfare reforms could affect more than 3 million people. But the standard allowance for universal credit will see an above-inflation increase from 2026-27 and the incomes of those with the most severe lifelong conditions will be protected.
Civil service administrative budgets are also to be reduced – by 15% by 2029-30. This, along with other efficiency and productivity improvements, will lead to annual savings of £3.5 billion. These cuts will focus on areas like human resources, policy advice, and office management, rather than frontline services.
Reeves resorted to tricks and ‘efficiency savings’
Steve Schifferes, Honorary Research Fellow, City St George’s, University of London
Reeves has announced a series of tweaks to her spending plans to address the economic situation which has meant that she is in danger of breaking her self-imposed fiscal rules. The chancellor was at pains to say that these rules are “non-negotiable”.
But these are unlikely to tackle the deeper problem – that in the short term she cannot rely on economic growth to square the circle of Labour’s three contradictory election pledges. These were more spending on public services, lower taxes and strict fiscal rules.
The UK, in fact, is particularly vulnerable to the disruption of global trade that is likely to result from US president Donald Trump’s tariff wars. And the productivity gains from her long-term infrastructure plans will take years – if not a decade – to translate into higher growth.
Like many chancellors, Reeves has resorted to various tricks – such as counting money moved to the defence budget to build tanks and aircraft as capital spending (and therefore exempt from the borrowing rules). And she has called for “efficiency savings” in the civil service and government departments that are unlikely to be realised.
But the biggest savings are coming from deeper than expected cuts in disability payments and other welfare payments, reducing the income of more than 3 million people. This is upsetting many Labour MPs. Her big sweetener – £2 billion for social housing next year – is actually less than that already allocated by the previous Conservative government.
Crucially, the further savings likely to be demanded in the spending review (announced on June 11) from unprotected departments including local government, justice and environment, will certainly look a lot like a return to austerity.
In the end – and possibly as soon as the autumn budget – the chancellor will have to accept that as well as spending cuts, she will have to consider tax increases and possibly even a revision of the fiscal rules.
Otherwise, she will remain at the mercy of the markets and the forecasters. Any long-term strategy will be strangled by the need to continually adjust policy to meet the fiscal “headroom” target she has set which leaves little room for manoeuvre. This requires an implausibly accurate prediction of the state of the economy in five years’ time by the OBR.
Commitment to financial stability is actually increasing uncertainty
Linda Yueh, Fellow and Adjunct Professor of Economics, University of Oxford
The chancellor’s self-imposed fiscal rules are intended to provide stability – one of the foundations of economic growth. One of those rules, which Rachel Reeves has said she will not bend, is that government day-to-day spending must be balanced by tax receipts by the end of this parliament.
This is intended to provide transparency on fiscal policy. And Reeves clearly understands the importance of how international financial markets react to the UK’s level of spending – and its public debt (currently about 100% of GDP).
But the world is not a stable place. And with the OBR halving its 2025 GDP growth forecast from 2% to 1%, unplanned cuts to public spending followed.
Consistency in fiscal policy helps households and business to plan for the future. But during times of heightened uncertainty with global tariffs looming, GDP is likely to remain volatile. This makes not changing the government’s fiscal stance particularly challenging.
It is also challenging for chancellor personally, as she would prefer to have one “fiscal event” a year, rather than two. But the OBR is obliged to provide economic forecasts twice a year, and when it slashes expected growth, she is duty bound to respond.
Somewhat ironically then, the government’s stability rule is having the unintended consequence of adding policy uncertainty to an already uncertain overall economic environment – and more frequent changes to fiscal policy.
Modest defence spending boost will struggle to reverse years of decline
Jamie Gaskarth, Professor of Foreign Policy and International Relations, the Open University
In two months, the UK defence sector has been turned upside down – primarily by Donald Trump. His administration has made implied threats to invade a NATO ally (Denmark), challenged the sovereignty of another (Canada) and pulled support for Ukraine, openly siding with Russia in ceasefire negotiations. There is a real chance the US will draw down its security presence in Europe.
If European countries are to meet the full cost of their own security, this will have to mean a dramatic increase in defence budgets. So far, the UK has redistributed aid money to help fund an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP (from 2.3%) by 2027, with the ambition to raise it to 3% in the next parliament.
It has also offered an extra £2 billion to underwrite defence exports. But this is small beer.
As with many areas of public spending, dramatic cuts to the defence budget during the years of austerity (22% in real terms) have meant delays to procurement, crumbling estates and a chronic lack of investment.
This will take a substantial uplift to redress. Recent increases under the Conservatives were eaten up by capital costs and inflation.
And while ideas such as the £400 million ringfenced to support innovation in AI and new technology are welcome, these are tiny amounts in the grand scheme of things. The UK is not going to be a “defence industrial superpower” any time soon if budget announcements are this small, and increases so modest.
Promise to disabled people in tatters
William E. Donald, Associate Professor of Sustainable Careers and Human Resource Management, University of Southampton
In November, social security and disability minister Sir Stephen Timms spoke passionately at the Shaw Trust Disability Power 100 awards, vowing to undo past injustices and declaring: “We now want to put that right.” As a disabled person, I cheered. That promise now lies in ruins.
Despite government claims there will be no return to austerity, sick and disabled people face a real-terms cut to their incomes and the criteria for claiming personal independence payment (Pip) will become stricter than ever. This isn’t just a policy to save £5 billion, it’s cruelty and a devastating attack on disabled people.
Pip isn’t means-tested and is paid regardless of whether you work. It exists because, according to disability charity Scope, disabled households need an additional £1,010 a month to achieve the same standard of living as others. Stripping this support away while NHS mental health waiting lists grow, energy and food prices rise, and the disability pay gap sits at 12.7% won’t push people into work. It will push them into crisis.
Last year, Labour promised to break barriers for disabled people. Instead, they are building new ones. These cuts come at the expense of society’s most vulnerable. The consequences will be catastrophic.
Social housing boost – but homes could be improved now
Nicky Shaw, Senior Lecturer in Operations Management, Leeds University Business School, and Simon Williams, Associate Faculty, Leeds University Business School
The chancellor’s £2 billion investment in new homes will certainly help to increase the availability of affordable social housing. Everyone agrees that access to decent, affordable homes is important, but the quality and maintenance of existing social houses remains critical. Replacing cladding, for example, is stubbornly challenging.
But beyond just building more social housing, our research has explored key measures of tenant satisfaction. The potential ways for digital tools such as AI to improve the efficiency of tasks like repairs and maintenance in future are numerous.
But social housing’s tenant demographic includes many people who are more vulnerable, some of whom prefer not to – or simply cannot – engage with digital services. This means that sustaining face-to-face contact with tenants is critical. Investing in tenants’ experience now could really deliver tangible benefits for some of Britain’s most vulnerable people.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Shampa Roy-Mukherjee, Vice Dean and Professor in Economics, University of East London
Not even six months on from Labour’s first budget, and the world is a much-changed place. Geopolitical tensions and uncertainties, already high last year, have risen further, and with them the cost of the UK’s debt, while economic growth has stalled. As such, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has confronted an array of unpalatable choices – notably cutting disability benefits – to enable her to increase defence spending and stabilise the public finances. Here’s what our panel of experts made of the statement:
Falling inflation wasn’t enough to prevent further disability cuts
Shampa Roy-Mukherjee, Vice Dean and Professor in Economics, University of East London
The independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has halved the UK’s 2025 growth forecast to 1%, down from the previously projected 2%. This sluggish growth, coupled with increased borrowing costs, has effectively eliminated the government’s £9.9 billion “fiscal headroom” – its financial buffer – resulting in a £4.1 billion shortfall by 2029-30.
There was some short-term relief in the latest inflation figures. These showed a slowdown in price rises in February (2.8% against 3% in January). The dip was caused by discounting of items like clothing. But given around half of businesses are considering price rises to combat tax hikes and the national living wage increase coming in April, this relief is likely to be short-lived. The OBR forecasts that inflation will climb back up to 3.2% this year.
The government had previously set out its controversial plans for £5 billion in welfare cuts. But the OBR rejected the claim that the reforms would save that much, estimating the savings at £3.4 billion, leaving Reeves with a £1.6 billion shortfall. As such, she has had to announce additional welfare reforms.
These include freezing the universal credit health element until 2030 and reducing it to £50 a week for new claimants. This is aimed at saving an additional £500 million by 2030 – and combined with other planned welfare reforms could affect more than 3 million people. But the standard allowance for universal credit will see an above-inflation increase from 2026-27 and the incomes of those with the most severe lifelong conditions will be protected.
Civil service administrative budgets are also to be reduced – by 15% by 2029-30. This, along with other efficiency and productivity improvements, will lead to annual savings of £3.5 billion. These cuts will focus on areas like human resources, policy advice, and office management, rather than frontline services.
Reeves resorted to tricks and ‘efficiency savings’
Steve Schifferes, Honorary Research Fellow, City St George’s, University of London
Reeves has announced a series of tweaks to her spending plans to address the economic situation which has meant that she is in danger of breaking her self-imposed fiscal rules. The chancellor was at pains to say that these rules are “non-negotiable”.
But these are unlikely to tackle the deeper problem – that in the short term she cannot rely on economic growth to square the circle of Labour’s three contradictory election pledges. These were more spending on public services, lower taxes and strict fiscal rules.
The UK, in fact, is particularly vulnerable to the disruption of global trade that is likely to result from US president Donald Trump’s tariff wars. And the productivity gains from her long-term infrastructure plans will take years – if not a decade – to translate into higher growth.
Like many chancellors, Reeves has resorted to various tricks – such as counting money moved to the defence budget to build tanks and aircraft as capital spending (and therefore exempt from the borrowing rules). And she has called for “efficiency savings” in the civil service and government departments that are unlikely to be realised.
But the biggest savings are coming from deeper than expected cuts in disability payments and other welfare payments, reducing the income of more than 3 million people. This is upsetting many Labour MPs. Her big sweetener – £2 billion for social housing next year – is actually less than that already allocated by the previous Conservative government.
Crucially, the further savings likely to be demanded in the spending review (announced on June 11) from unprotected departments including local government, justice and environment, will certainly look a lot like a return to austerity.
In the end – and possibly as soon as the autumn budget – the chancellor will have to accept that as well as spending cuts, she will have to consider tax increases and possibly even a revision of the fiscal rules.
Otherwise, she will remain at the mercy of the markets and the forecasters. Any long-term strategy will be strangled by the need to continually adjust policy to meet the fiscal “headroom” target she has set which leaves little room for manoeuvre. This requires an implausibly accurate prediction of the state of the economy in five years’ time by the OBR.
More reaction to follow shortly.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Every winter, hundreds of thousands of older Canadians spend the winter in the United States. But in recent weeks, we’ve seen many Canadian snowbirds shifting their attention to other matters.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some Canadian snowbirds experienced challenges crossing into the U.S. for the winter or returning to Canada. Closures of borders to non-essential travel did not dissuade some from planning to winter in the U.S.
Drawing on research in snowbird communities, we found out that affordability and ease of movement are two important enablers of long-stay seasonal travel.
Because of this, it’s not surprising that we’re hearing from snowbirds again in light of recent developments.
CBC News reports on Québec snowbirds reaction to the Donald Trump administration’s new measures for travellers to the U.S.
Economic and political disruptions
While COVID-era travel disruptions didn’t stop some snowbirds from going south for the winter, the current economic and political disruptions are another story. Florida is a popular destination for Canadian snowbirds. In fact, a 2023 survey named eight of the 10 best American destination communities as being in Florida.
If Canadian snowbirds are talking about cancelling travel plans and selling properties, people in Florida should be paying attention.
Instead, in early March, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis downplayed what it would mean for Canadians to avoid travel to the state. Citing a recent tourism industry report, he noted that only 3.3 million of the 142.9 million visitors to Florida in 2024 were from Canada.
DeSantis went on to say “that’s not much of a boycott, in my book.” But 91.5 per cent of Florida’s annual visitors were from the U.S. This means that the 2.3 per cent of visitors who were Canadian were actually a substantial portion of the states’s international visitors.
Aside from these economic impacts, something we’ve learned through our years of research with Canadians who winter in the U.S. is that many become vital members of destination communities. From participating in public health outreach programs to volunteering at local hospitals, our research has shown that many embrace opportunities to be active in the places they reside for the winter.
Any drop in the numbers of seasonal travellers going to U.S. destinations will have social costs for communities beyond the quantifiable economic losses.
Many popular U.S. destination communities for snowbirds have health systems that are designed to expand and retract with dramatically different seasonal populations. Our research has observed this most closely in Yuma, Ariz., where entire areas of the main local hospital are closed in the summer and staffed seasonally in the winter.
While the economic impacts of the seeming loss of long-stay older Canadians in these communities are important to consider, there will be other — less measurable but no less important — impacts. Just as the long friendship between the U.S. and Canada is now being tested, blended snowbird communities of older North Americans are at risk of diminishing.
Business owners in U.S. destinations spoke up about losses when fewer Canadian snowbirds went south during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some Canadian business sectors and communities discovered opportunities emerging from these shifts in consumer’ movements.
Valorie A. receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, BC Women’s Health Research Institute and MITACS.
Jeremy Snyder receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Renata Roma, Postdoctoral fellow, Center of Behavioural Sciences and Justice Studies/Pawsitive Connections Lab, University of Saskatchewan
Losing a pet can be an isolating experience and perceptions of judgment may exacerbate the pain of loss.(Shutterstock)
When my dog passed away four years ago, coping with the loss was challenging. I know I am not alone. People turn to their pets when they need comfort and a non-judgmental presence. However, pets have a short life span, and losing a companion animal is a common experience.
As a researcher who has studied the human-animal bond for more than a decade, and as someone who has shared her life with pets, I understand that while having a pet is deeply fulfilling, the grieving process can be profoundly difficult.
Having support makes a huge difference in these moments. Rituals, comforting words, the space to talk about what happened, and primarily, validation — these things help us process loss. But the reality is that when someone loses a pet, finding that support is harder.
Offering non-judgmental support and developing inclusive strategies, such as pet bereavement leave, can be valuable initiatives to help. Raising awareness of ways to provide effective and compassionate support to those grieving a pet can help us challenge the idea that the loss of a companion animal is less significant than losing a beloved human.
People turn to their pets when they need comfort and a non-judgmental presence. However, pets have a short life span, and losing a companion animal is a common experience. (Shutterstock)
At the same time, having social support provides a sense of belonging. Those who have room to voice their feelings and share their pain tend to navigate the stages of grief better. A more compassionate and pet-inclusive approach can be valuable in the pet grief journey. This type of support can help to prevent depression, stress and social isolation.
One of the most important barriers to finding support is the lack of social recognition and validation regarding pet grief. (Shutterstock)
Support in workplaces
Regardless of differences in pet attachment and how a person lost their pet, initiatives to increase social support during these difficult experiences can have a significant impact on people’s ability to cope.
Take workplaces, for instance. People are often expected to show up and function as if nothing happened, carrying their grief in silence. However, some companies have adjusted their policies to a more pet-inclusive approach, and the result is promising.
Considering that among younger people, there is a preference for pets over kids, this type of policy can not only offers a concrete demonstration of empathy but could also attract some employees and increase productivity. By providing the necessary time to heal, the company can have more loyal and productive employees.
As pets increasingly become integral to our emotional lives, acknowledging the relevance of this relationship is fundamental. This includes providing support for people facing the difficult experience of losing a pet after a life of sharing daily moments with them.
Validation and emotional support from family and friends and pet-inclusive policies such as pet bereavement leave can also make a real difference. They send a powerful message: We care about your pain. You are not alone.
Renata Roma does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
As Canada moves toward stronger AI regulation with the proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), its southern neighbour appears to be taking the opposite approach.
Meanwhile, United States President Donald Trump’s is pushing for AI deregulation. In January, Trump signed an executive order aimed at eliminating any perceived regulatory barriers to “American AI innovation.” The executive order replaced former president Joe Biden’s prior executive order on AI.
Notably, the U.S. was also one of two countries — along with the U.K. — that didn’t sign a global declaration in February to ensure AI is “open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy.”
Eliminating AI safeguards leaves financial institutions vulnerable. This vulnerability can increase uncertainty and, in a worst-case scenario, increase the risk of systemic collapse.
AI’s potential in financial markets is undeniable. It can improve operational efficiency, perform real-time risk assessments, generate higher income and forecast predictive economic change.
Our artificial neural networks models predicted financial distress among Toronto Stock Exchange-listed companies with a staggering 98 per cent accuracy. This suggests suggests AI’s immense potential in providing early warning signals that could help avert financial downturns before they start.
However, while AI can simplify manual processes and lower financial risks, it can also introduce vulnerabilities that, if left unchecked, could pose significant threats to economic stability.
The risks of deregulation
Trump’s push for deregulation could result in Wall Street and other major financial institutions gaining significant power over AI-driven decision-making tools with little to no oversight.
Furthermore, unregulated AI-driven risk models might overlook economic warning signals, resulting in substantial errors in monetary control and fiscal policy.
My research underscores the importance of integrating machine learning methods within strong regulatory systems to improve financial oversight, fraud detection and prevention.
Durable and reasonable regulatory frameworks are required to turn AI from a potential disruptor into a stabilizing force. By implementing policies that prioritize transparency and accountability, policymakers can maximize the advantages of AI while lowering the risks associated with it.
Financial institutions would be required to open the “black box” of AI-driven alternatives by mandating transparency through explainable AI standards — guidelines that are aimed at making AI systems’ outputs more understandable and transparent to humans.
However, this vision doesn’t end at national borders. Globally, the International Monetary Fund and the Financial Stability Board could establish AI ethical standards to curb cross-border financial misconduct.
Crisis prevention or catalyst?
Will AI still be the key to foresee and stop the next economic crisis, or will the lack of regulatory oversight cause a financial disaster? As financial institutions continue adopt AI-driven models, the absence of strong regulatory guardrails raises pressing concerns.
Without proper safeguards in place, AI is not just a tool for economic prediction — it could become an unpredictable force capable of accelerating the next financial crisis.
The stakes are high. Policymakers must act swiftly to regulate the increasing impact of AI before deregulation opens the path for an economic disaster.
Without decisive action, the rapid adoption of AI in finance could outpace regulatory efforts, leaving economies vulnerable to unforeseen risks and potentially setting the stage for another global financial crisis.
Sana Ramzan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Needless to say, it’s far from clear that United States President Donald Trump’s supposed “Art of the Deal” negotiating skills are enough to broker sustainable peace between Russia and Ukraine given the protagonists’ unwillingness to make concessions and the volatile nature of attempts to broker a peace agreement.
The war waged by Russia has reached the stage where both Russian and Ukrainian officials fear losing face if they make concessions.
Both sides have seemed prepared to fight until the bitter end. The involvement of a mediator in the form of the United States, therefore, could potentially change the deadly dynamics of the conflict.
‘Love to beat them’
Trump declares being up to this formidable task. He positions himself as a mediator occupying a middle ground between the protagonists, unlike his predecessor in the Oval Office who supported Ukraine.
“In New York real estate… you are dealing with some of the sharpest, toughest, and most vicious people in the world… I happen to love to go up against these guys, and I love to beat them.”
But if mediators, including Trump, are to successfully persuade opposing sides to make a deal, they need to properly understand each side’s motives. To what extent is each side malleable so some common ground can be found? Making a deal always requires compromises and concessions.
Trump is well aware of this, saying recently of any prospective Russia-Ukraine agreement: “You’re going to have to always make compromises. You can’t do any deals without compromises.”
Understanding motivations
David McClelland’s theory of human motivation may be relevant in terms of attempts to broker peace between Ukraine and Russia. The social psychologist argued that three motives — the need for achievement, the need for affiliation and the need for power — explains most human behaviour:
The need for achievement explains the desire to be productive and get results;
Concern about establishing, maintaining or restoring a positive relationship with another person or people underpins the need for affiliation;
The will to dominate, to have an impact on another person or people, is the essence of the need for power.
McClelland predicted that when the need for power significantly exceeds the need for affiliation, conflicts and wars are likely. He viewed a high “power-minus-affiliation” gap as indicative of what he called the “imperial power motive syndrome.”
The metaphor of an empire lies at its origin. The empire’s declared mission is to enlighten, civilize and bring order to its subjects. Leaders with the imperial power motive syndrome show reformist zeal to save others, whether they like it or not.
The social psychologist Robert Hogenraad subsequently adapted McClelland’s theory for computer-assisted content analysis by developing dictionaries of the three needs.
If the words associated with the need for power — control, domination, victory, for example — occur more often in a text, speech or news reports than words associated with the need for affiliation — like love, family, friends — then the speaker has the imperial power motive syndrome.
Hawks vs. doves
My recently published analysis of war-related speeches delivered by Russian, Ukrainian, American, British and French leaders during the three years of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine gives some clues about the motivations of the parties involved.
Compared with their western counterparts, Putin and Zelenskyy exhibit the strongest imperial power motive syndrome and are “hawks.” Their need for power, as expressed through their public speeches, significantly exceeds their need for affiliation. Trump, however, appears similar to that of his arch-rival, former president Joe Biden. Both are closer to the “dovish” end of the scale.
The preliminary outcomes of talks on a potential ceasefire reveal the challenges faced by mediators.
First, the talks being held in Saudi Arabia were bilateral, with American officials meeting separately with Russian and Ukrainian delegations, as opposed to trilteral.
Second, no joint statement followed the talks, although it was widely expected.
Third, the White House issued two separate statements, one on talks with Ukraine’s representatives and the other on discussions with Russia’s representatives.
The Ukraine statement includes the commitment to continue the exchange of prisoners of war, the release of civilian detainees and the return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children, whereas the statement on the talks with Russia does not mention any of this.
The prospects of a peace agreement is further complicated by the history of Trump’s attempts to broker deals in Ukraine.
The war in Ukraine actually began in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and a proxy war in Donbas. Trump was elected president two years later.
His discourse about Ukraine did not differ significantly from Obama’s and Biden’s until his first impeachment in 2020 for soliciting “the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his re-election.”
All this suggests that Trump’s first impeachment has had a lasting impact on his perception of Ukraine and its leader.
And so in addition to dealing with two protagonists who are unwilling to make concessions, Trump as a mediator faces challenges related to his past.
One protagonist, Zelenskyy, may unwittingly remind him of one of the darkest moments in his political career — his first impeachment. This fact should be kept in mind when trying to make sense of the treatment received by Zelenskyy during his most recent visit to the White House and Trump’s references to him as a “dictator.”
To truly succeed in mediation, Trump must move forward, leaving biases and prejudices related to Ukraine and its leader in the past. But can he?
Anton Oleinik 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.
Climate breakdown is major threat to life as we know it, but it is just one element of a much wider environmental polycrisis that includes biodiversity loss, energy and pollution, food security, population growth and disease outbreaks. That can feel overwhelming and make people feel helpless, especially when we see that global emissions are higher than ever – even after three decades of UN climate summits.
The good news is that, despite our failure so far, it is possible for us to do better. And the sticking point has not been lack of technology. To look for the point of maximum leverage that all of us can have, we need to look deeply into the reasons behind our frustrating lack of progress to date.
In my new book, A Climate of Truth, I argue that society radically needs to become more honest. In politics, media and business. The worst failure in our attempts to tackle the world’s environmental and societal problems have deceit at their core.
By holding power to account, insisting on transparency and shining a light on any greenwash, we can start to build the conditions under which the quality of decision-making and action that we so desperately need can become possible at last.
Dishonesty, to be clear, isn’t just about clearcut lies. These are just the tip of the iceberg. Just as dangerous are such techniques as subtle twists, misdirections of attention, biased selection of evidence, using loopholes and failing to call out deceitful colleagues.
Bullshit, as defined by American professor of philosophy Harry Frankfurt, is a blend of fact and fiction concocted to persuade. The craft of misleading the public has been refined over decades by corporate interests, advertising executives, media moguls and the worst politicians for their own financial gain, social standing or power.
Many people in the west have become careless in their requirement for this basic standard from their leaders. We have allowed a growing a false narrative, propagated by the most dishonest among us, that lies are a normal and inevitable part of everyday life. And the results of our post-truth experiment are now starting to come in, with, sadly, plenty more consequences yet to come.
It is now high time not just for a reset on honesty, but to raise the bar beyond anything the global community has ever known. Why do we need a higher standard than ever? Because deceit throws a spanner into any decision-making process and our complex, urgent polycrisis demands the highest quality, wisest decision-making that we can possibly attain.
How can we achieve a culture of basic honesty when that very complexity makes deceit easier than ever? The answer is to create a high enough price for being caught. We need to treat deliberate deception as a form of abuse.
Just one incident tells us that a politician does not have our best interests at heart and is unfit for office – although we might have to vote for the least un-fit politician to gradually raise the bar – plus that their colleagues who stayed quiet in the knowledge of their deceit are also unfit for office. The same goes for businesses and media. This is something we can collectively and consistently insist upon.
The push for integrity
In practice, the starting point is to ask the most careful and discerning questions that we can. We need to look at the track record of people, and the ownership and track records of media empires and companies.
We need to switch wherever we can to the most honest alternatives. We can achieve that by disowning unfit politicians, starving out bad media, supporting the best media that we find, and spending our money on companies that act with integrity for a better world. We need to challenge those around us who are not so discerning and initiate conversations with friends, relatives and colleagues to encourage the quest for more truthful leadership.
These actions are so simple yet so important because we cannot even begin to make progress without raising this standard. Whichever aspect of environmental or social change you care about most, this is your point of maximum leverage – and your route to maximum agency.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Mike Berners-Lee 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.
Fatherlessness and a lack of male role models are often cited as causes of an apparent crisis of masculinity among boys. This is not new. These arguments have been made for nearly half a century, both in the UK and the US, as the root of a multitude of social issues.
These are key ideas in the Lost Boys report from thinktank the Centre for Social Justice, cited recently by Gareth Southgate in his Richard Dimbleby lecture on the issues facing boys. In this report, concerns about fatherlessness and a lack of male role models for boys in their homes and schools loom large as part of an explanation about why boys today are “lost” and struggling.
I am a researcher who works with boys and fathers, especially with those in low-income communities. I have long feared that these explanations fall short. In the report, boys are presented as passive victims of inequalities. Men, as fathers and educators, are considered to be to blame when they are deemed absent, or seen as a way to solve the societal ills that influence and shape the nation’s boys.
But simply asking fathers to step up and do better isn’t enough. In my research with men as caregivers, including young fathers aged 25 and under, I’ve found they want to be involved in their children’s lives but face numerous challenges that can make this more difficult.
Whether struggling to secure qualifications and find employment or family-suitable housing that is near to or safe for their children, they come up against serious barriers to support with their parenting.
The UK remains woefully ill-equipped to support fathers to be involved and present in the lives of their children. Not only do we have among the worst parental leave offers in Europe, but family and public health services do not routinely engage with fathers as effectively as they should.
Diverse family life
Lost Boys also presents a bleak picture of family life in Britain. It highlights what is referred to, rather sensationally, as an epidemic of family breakdown.
The report notes there are “just shy of half of young Britons growing up with only one biological parent … with close to nine out of ten of these being single mothers”. If absent fathers are the problem, then this concern over fatherlessness also presents single mothers bringing up boys as lacking.
Further, in the emphasis on the absence of biological fathers from households, it is assumed that the diverse ways we now live family life are also a problem. This obscures the very meaningful family connections that are forged through co-habiting, step-parenting, single-sex parenting and other forms of care – which men also engage in.
Including fathers
Working-class communities often bear the brunt of concerns about a gender crisis. Men in these communities, through labels like feckless and absent dads, are portrayed as failing fathers. This often happens despite limited engagement with them to understand their experiences.
Fathers may face barriers, such as access to nearby work and housing, that prevent them from spending as much time with their children as they want. Alex Linch/Shutterstock
My research with boys and fathers over the last decade has shown there are greater benefits when fathers are directly involved in addressing the systemic challenges shaping their parenting experiences. We have therefore involved fathers in creating dads’ groups and online parenting support, where they challenge negative views and advocate for progressive societal support for boys and men.
Shifting away from the concept of “fatherless families”, this work promotes the idea of creating societies that are father-inclusive and better at supporting men as fathers. This might be by advocating for increased time to bond with their children through well-funded and affordable parental leave, or through more effective public health and community-based support for fathers through pregnancy and parenthood.
Focusing on including fathers means we can explore ways that societies can better support men to be involved in caregiving – and role modelling.
To do this requires collective and collaborative efforts. Building partnerships and fostering dialogues across diverse sectors including education, health, social services, local government and charities – as well as with parents and communities – we are better able to respond to the complexities of the issues boys and men navigate. My work demonstrates the value of developing systemic solutions that are rooted in lived experience and professional insight.
The issues boys and men navigate are diverse, messy and reflective of the complex machinery of our social world. They’re linked to socioeconomic inequalities, geography and social history.
Meaningfully addressing the problems boys and young men encounter that play out in our homes, schools and online means broadening the scope of change beyond individuals and families. It means creating the social conditions for happier, healthier journeys into and through adulthood and fatherhood.
Anna Tarrant receives funding from UK Research & Innovation.
Scientists Sakumi Iki and Ikuma Adachi recently spent a lot of time watching monkeys scratch themselves.
Self-scratching among non-human primates is known to indicate social tension and anxiety. The two researchers from Kyoto University, Japan, wanted to use this link to work out whether being anxious (and so scratching a lot) made their monkey subjects more pessimistic, or whether their pessimism was what drove their anxiety (and their scratching).
Their findings suggest the former is true, as the primates were more likely to make a pessimistic choice if they had scratched their body. This not only provides evidence for an important theory about how physiological changes are linked to emotional states, but also shows that monkeys’ body language can reveal some interesting cues about how animal consciousness may differ from that of humans.
Several studies have previously shown that self-scratching in primates is linked to social tension and emotional state. For instance, a 1991 study found monkeys who were given an anxiety relief drug seemed to scratch themselves less, whereas monkeys who received an anxiety-inducing drug increased self-scratching.
Research has also shown subordinate capuchin monkeys self-scratch more when they are approached by a dominant individual, perhaps due to the increased risk of aggression. Japanese macaques with a high tendency to scratch themselves are less likely to make peace after a conflict with their group companions.
Researchers of animal and human behaviour often use self-scratching as a measure of short-term changes in anxiety, social tension and emotional state. Self-scratching is also linked to social tension in humans: people often scratch more during a short period of high anxiety.
Self-scratching is an example of what behavioural scientists call displacement behaviour, which includes yawning, lip-biting, fumbling and face-touching.
Research has shown it can also allow us to better cope with anxiety. For example in 2012, UK researchers asked participants to do difficult (and in some cases unsolvable) arithmetic calculations in front of an audience, and found that participants who displayed higher rates of self-scratching during the test also reported a lower level of anxiety after the test.
Japanese macaques are well known for bathing in hot springs. mapman/Shutterstock
The researchers at Kyoto University found that macaques seem to have a different relationship to displacement behaviour than humans.
Iki and Adachi worked with six adult Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata). They used videos of a macaque scratching themselves to induce self-scratching in their study subjects, since this behaviour is contagious, similar to yawning.
They trained the monkeys to choose between different options on a greyscale touchscreen. The darker the shade of grey, the more likely the monkeys were to get a food reward.
When they chose the lightest shade of grey, the touchscreen temporarily blanked out. The darkest shade of grey always rewarded the monkeys with food and the three shades in the middle had inconsistent outcomes.
These stimuli tested whether the monkeys were biased towards optimism or pessimism. The monkeys who self-scratched were more likely to be pessimistic about the outcome of the inconsistent stimuli. The researchers measured pessimism in terms of reaction time.
The longer it took a monkey to choose the ambiguous shades, the more pessimistic the researchers believed the monkeys to be. Monkeys didn’t seem to hesitate if they didn’t scratch. The researchers argue that scratching was a sign the monkeys were anxious and being anxious made the monkeys more pessimistic about the future.
Their study was one of the first to test what’s known as the James-Lange theory in non-human animals. The theory argues there is a sequential connection between behavioural and physiological components of emotions and our experience of these emotions. According to this idea, behavioural and physiological responses happen first. This means, for example, that having an irregular heartbeat would make us anxious.
The new results support the James–Lange theory. Negative emotions (measured by self-scratching) induce pessimism, and not vice-versa. The areas of the brain linked to basic emotions, such as fear, are similar in mammals. However, it is unclear whether the way we experience these emotions is comparable to other species.
For example, two human subjects who have similar physiological responses in relation to anxiety may perceive it differently. One subject may be OK with anxiety, another subject may struggle to handle such situation. We know non-human primates have individual responses to anxiety, but we don’t fully know why and we can’t ask them.
This study highlights interesting similarities, but also differences between humans and other species. A possible difference is related to consciousness. Humans have a conscious experience of their bodily responses which affects how we respond to them.
An irregular heartbeat can make us anxious. This isn’t just because it causes a physiological response that induces stress, but also since we know that something is wrong when we feel that our heartbeat is irregular, which can make us even more anxious.
I say this is “possibly” a difference because some researchers argue that other animals, like chimpanzees or elephants, may have some form of consciousness.
Humans, unlike the Japanese macaques of this study, can also have the opposite temporal pattern predicted by the James-Lange theory. If I know that I have an exam tomorrow, this thought may make my heartbeat become irregular.
The short-term link between emotional responses and the perception of these responses could be shared by many primates (the group of animals that include humans, other apes, monkeys and lemurs) and other mammals too. But research is yet to demonstrate this conclusively.
Research like the one by Iki and Adachi demonstrates the importance of studying a wide range of species, and not just the ones closest to humans, such as chimpanzees and bonobos, to better understand what factors shape behavioural and cognitive skills in the animal kingdom.
Bonaventura Majolo 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.
“Strawberry nose” can refer to a skin disorder called rhinophyma or large pores or blackheads on the noseRoman Samborskyi/Shutterstock
From watermelon stomach to chocolate cysts, you might wonder why doctors decided to name some ailments after foods – after all, it’s enough to put you off your dinner.
When early physicians and surgeons were studying the body to understand normal function or disease, they lacked modern microscopic and molecular imaging and diagnostic techniques. Instead, they had to rely on basic observational skills and often used easily recognised descriptors to explain the appearance of organs and diseases.
Food, then, became a convenient way to communicate the appearance of the body – in health and in sickness. This practice is known as eponymophilia and it continues today, particularly in pathology – the study of disease.
There are lots of eponyms to describe the female reproductive system. Many healthcare workers describe healthy ovaries, for instance, as almond shape and size, while the shape of a typical uterus is often likened to an upside-down pear.
Different shapes can be down to normal anatomical variation but can also be a sign of disease. Knowing these shapes and sizes allows for rapid identification during imaging assessments or medical examinations.
Following childbirth and the cutting of the umbilical cord, the mother must deliver the afterbirth. According to 16th century anatomist, Matteo Realdo Colombo, the afterbirth looked like a “flat-cake”, and so he named it “placenta”, which comes from the Latin word for a type of cake.
Doctors examine the placenta carefully post-delivery to make sure none is left inside the mother – a condition known as retained placenta – which happens in 0.1-3% of births. Retained placenta can cause post-partum haemorrhage and and even the death of the mother, so checking the placenta looks like a “flat-cake” can save lives.
While some eponyms, like the flat-cake placenta, seem straightforward, others can seem rather unkind. Take the common descriptions of Cushing’s syndrome for instance.
People with Cushing’s often have a larger than average abdomen and lean legs, known as “lemon on matchstick” and can develop a “moon face” and a “buffalo hump”.
Cushing’s disease is caused by long-term exposure to high levels of cortisol, a hormone the body makes to regulate its response to stress. It can develop naturally from tumours forming in the adrenal or pituitary glands, which produce cortisol.
More commonly, however, it’s caused by some medicines, such as steroids – which contain a synthetic version of cortisol.
Some eponyms can also function as euphemisms – making a serious, even threatening condition sound less worrying. Take “milky leg syndrome” or “milk leg”, for instance – deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in the iliac veins in the pelvis or the femoral veins at the top of your legs.
The blockage prevents venous drainage – when veins drain deoxygenated blood and return it to the heart – from the legs, which causes painful, pale and swollen legs.
If not treated promptly, the condition can progress to phlegmasia cerulea dolens – a rare but serious complication of DVT causing fluid build-up that prevents arteries from delivering blood into the tissues – which can lead to tissue death and venous gangrene. Sadly, once venous gangrene has set in, amputation and death are common outcomes.
While this all sounds grim, spare a thought for those who suffer from “hot potato voice”, which describes the sound of someone who has an obstruction somewhere in the upper part of their airway. This blockage prevents the person from forming sounds properly and can be caused by an abscess in or around the tonsils, or a stone lodged in the throat.
Before I go on, it’s only fair to warn you that if you’re eating or drinking or you haven’t got the stomach for more graphic descriptions, you might not want to read any further.
Not for the faint-hearted
Pea soup diarrhoea is an apt description of a deeply unpleasant infection: salmonella. Salmonella – or food poisoning – is an infection with salmonella bacteria that causes diarrhoea, high temperature and stomach pains. It can be transmitted from person to person through contaminated food or water or from touching infected animals, their faeces, or their environment.
Thankfully, most healthy people recover fully by drinking plenty of fluids and resting. Younger or older people are at greater risk of more severe illness, as are immunocompromised people, and they may be prescribed antibiotics to help them recover from the infection.
While diarrhoea can look like pea-soup, some STIs can look like cauliflower. Yes, sexually transmitted warts caused by the human papilloma virus can have a “cauliflower-like appearance”.
The thick, white odourless discharge that can be a symptom of thrush is often likened to cottage cheese.
The vagina usually self-cleans by producing a white or clear discharge. The white colour is most common at the beginning or end of the menstrual cycle; however, if the consistency becomes clumpy or curd-like, this is often a sign of infection.
Most commonly, it’s a yeast infection but could also be a sexually transmitted disease, such as chlamydia. If there is a problem, this discharge is usually associated with other symptoms such as discomfort, pain, itching or an unpleasant smell.
While some of these descriptions may seem unpleasant, they can be helpful to identify abnormalities and medical conditions. Food eponyms can help avoid confusion so doctors know what they’re looking for during examinations or surgery.
Adam Taylor 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.
.jpg){kind=link}
