Category: The Conversation

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Layla Khoo, PhD Candidate, Public Participatory Contemporary Art, University of Leeds

My project A Virtuous Woman is both an artwork and a piece of ongoing research into the role of participatory artwork in heritage sites. As such, the artwork was always intended to be dynamic, responding to the ways in which people wanted to take part.

The artwork was inspired by the embroideries of the ancient noble women commissioned by one of the most notable women in Elizabethan court and society, Bess of Hardwick, four of which are on display at the National Trust property, Hardwick Hall. The new work was intended to be a reimagining of the missing fifth embroidery, made from recycled fabrics donated by the National Trust staff and volunteers.

Visitors to the hall could take part in sewing, cutting and adding their own expressions through embroidery. But after two participants added the name of author J.K. Rowling to the piece and another embroidered a line of stitches through both instances, things became complicated.

A protest was staged at Hardwick Hall and the artwork became the centre of a media storm. I have been subject to accusations and abuse online for displaying the work complete with these conflicting pieces of participation and the National Trust have received a barrage of complaints. So where does this leave participatory arts, the artists who create and facilitate them and the sites which commission and host them?

---

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.

---

Participatory arts have to consider not only the freedom of expression of the artist, but of every person who participates. Both the National Trust and I had to attempt to balance the expressions of participants in a political polarised climate, while witnessing a media fallout when groups and individuals disagree with the choices made.

Participation with the artwork took place between April and November 2024. Throughout this time, the work prompted discussion and debate around the subject of virtues and the women that visitors felt upheld these values.

Thousands of people added their embroideries. In total 186 words of virtue or value, and 804 names were added to the piece. Some were embroidered by more than one person (a few stitches, or a letter each), some participants embroidered more than one contribution, and many virtues and names were repeated multiple times.

The Hardwick Hall team and I had previously agreed that no names would be censored or removed from the work, and that participants would not be allowed to unpick each other’s embroidery. However, while not encouraged, participants would be allowed to interact with and adapt the embroidery of other participants.

In August 2024, a complaint was raised after two people added Rowling’s name to the piece. The author has sparked controversy in the last few years as a result of her “gender critical” views, which many see as transphobic (a claim which Rowling denies), while others see her as a figurehead for women’s rights. A participant then embroidered a line of stitches through both instances of the name on two separate panels (in the colours of the trans pride flag), while leaving the name clearly visible.

We now needed to consider whether staff, volunteers and visitors might feel offended, unsafe or unwelcome when encountering the recognition of a person seen by some as harmful. We also needed to think about the dismissal of someone admired by others for their cultural influence and beliefs.

At the request of the National Trust, the project was “paused” for a month while advice was taken on the most appropriate way forward. Staff were prepared through workshops run by the National Trust team on how to deal with potentially difficult interactions with participants.

I was asked by the National Trust team if I was willing to remove any embroidered names from the work, including repetitions. I said I was not, as participants had taken part in good faith and were expecting to see their contribution in the completed work.

The Hardwick Hall team and I agreed that all names would remain, and all subsequent names added would not be subject to censorship. We agreed that the lines stitched through Rowling’s name would also remain. I felt that removing them would remove an act of protest – a valid act of participation – and that leaving it on display would demonstrate the difficulties and friction involved in creative expression and participation in our often-polarised society.

Many participants saw Rowling’s crossed out name while embroidery was still taking place, and some responded by adding her name again. Participants discussed cancel culture, polarised views and the complexity of the people they admire.

When the artwork was complete, Rowling’s name appeared seven times – twice with a line stitched through, five times unaltered. The completed artwork was placed on display at Hardwick Hall in January this year.

On May 24, the Women’s Rights Network (WRN) posted a thread on X detailing a visitor complaint regarding the crossing out of Rowling’s name. They called for the National Trust to add a statement to the artwork, explaining why the crossing out remains on display. Members of the WRN subsequently carried out a protest on site and created a short film explaining their position.

On May 31, two visitors to Hardwick Hall cut away the line of stitches and posted images and video of themselves doing so on X.

The subsequent mainstream media coverage, blog posts and widespread social media attention resulted in threats of further activism.

The National Trust initially covered the work to protect it, but then removed it from display on June 4, as there was now also a risk to other artworks and collection items at Hardwick Hall, and to the staff and volunteers on site.

The National Trust released a statement on X, which appeared to do little to answer questions being raised. There are now growing calls for commentary from me, as the artist responsible for the work, to explain what has happened, how decisions were made and where I stand both on the actions taken and the wider gender debate this speaks to.

Limitations in creative expression

I believe that the arts are in a unique position to tackle difficult subjects, and participatory arts can provide an opportunity for more voices to be heard. But with this approach comes the inevitable balancing act of where freedom of expression ends and causing harm begins.

Consideration must be given to intention versus impact. Making these editorial and ethical choices creates a changing power dynamic. The participants have been invited to take part and do so in a way that is meaningful to them in what they believe to be the overall context of the work.

In participatory arts, the artist is part author, part facilitator of the expressions of others. The commissioning body or hosting site then holds the ultimate control, in being able to choose whether to display the work created.

My part in the decision to allow the stitching through of Rowling’s name essentially comes from a shared belief in singer Nina Simone’s view that “an artist’s duty … is to reflect the times”.

In my opinion, the acts of protest and activism in the crossing out of the name and the removal of that crossing out epitomise the lack of tolerance for other people’s views and beliefs that is becoming prevalent in our increasingly polarised society. As such, I think it is entirely appropriate to display these actions in the artwork. This polarisation and intolerance has been compounded in the subsequent outpouring of online vitriol and demands for what this work should and should not represent.

Both acts of activism changed the artwork, and disregarded the previous participant’s contribution. The difference is that the crossing out took place while participation was invited and expected – the removal of that crossing out was not. As the artist responsible for the artwork I have faced increasing demands not just to clarify the events leading to this point, but also to openly share my views on the actions taken by all parties. However, an artist sharing their opinion is not simple, or necessarily safe.

In its recent report, Freedom of Expression in the Arts (a five-year project aiming to tackle the culture of fear and intimidation some artists face for expressing their views) found that artists are increasingly afraid to express themselves on dangerous topics for fear of backlash from the public and cancellation of work opportunities by commissioning bodies.

My own experience has shown that social media is neither the place for nuanced, balanced, nor reasonable debate. I have been accused of transphobia for allowing the inclusion of Rowling’s name in the first place, and called (among other things) a “gender traitor” for allowing her name to be crossed out. But when a commissioning body or host site cancels a work which speaks to these debates, how else are artists able to speak out?

In a comment sent to The Conversation, a National Trust spokesperson said: “A Virtuous Woman is formed of people’s views from a variety of age groups, life experiences and beliefs … We understand that everyone may not agree on all the names included, but they are the choices of individual participants. Everyone is welcome at the National Trust, and the artwork reflects the diversity of the community and individuals we serve. Our approach is to make space for a variety of creative and personal responses to the collections and to encourage conversation.”

At the time of writing, I have been told that the redisplay of a projection of the artwork and explanatory panels is under review and is unlikely to take place until September 2025. Participatory arts hold up a mirror first to those who take part, and then again in the reception and judgement of subsequent viewers. The difficulty comes when we don’t like what it reflects.

Layla Khoo receives funding from the Frank Parkinson Scholarship for her PhD research.

– ref. My artwork, A Virtuous Woman, has become the centre of a protest – it shows how our polarised society can affect art – https://theconversation.com/my-artwork-a-virtuous-woman-has-become-the-centre-of-a-protest-it-shows-how-our-polarised-society-can-affect-art-260349

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Colm Murphy, Lecturer in British Politics, Queen Mary University of London

Last week, the MP for Coventry South, Zarah Sultana, made an audacious decision. Having already lost the Labour party whip for opposing the two-child benefit cap, Sultana announced she would co-lead a new left-wing party with Jeremy Corbyn, who was expelled from Labour in 2024.

From one angle, her decision may seem simple. Discontent with Keir Starmer’s Labour government, on everything from welfare cuts to Gaza, has never been higher, and Sultana is a vocal critic. Yet, launching a (still unnamed) new party is bold. It tackles head-on an old and vexing question for socialist critics of capitalism in the UK.

In 1976, the socialist theorist Ralph Miliband (yes, Ed and David’s dad) described the faith in Labour’s capacity to become a socialist vehicle as “the most crippling of all illusions”. But socialists who agree with Miliband senior then have an almighty problem.

Writing months after the 2019 defeat of Corbyn’s Labour party, the veteran “New Left” academics Colin Leys and Leo Panitch echoed Miliband in their book Searching for Socialism. But they also saw few immediate alternatives with “any prospect of electoral success”. This, they wrote, is the “central dilemma” for British democratic socialists.

---

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

---

The reaction to Sultana’s announcement from the British left has been accordingly mixed. Leaks revealed that Corbyn’s team was caught off guard. Responses from prominent potential supporters were reserved. Momentum, the left-wing grassroots organisation, hastily distributed the pamphlet Why Socialists Should Be in the Labour Party.

It’s too early to know whether these issues are teething problems or portents. But the barriers to Sultana’s venture are formidable. What would it take for a new left-wing party to succeed? What would “success” even look like?

A careful reading of political history can help us answer these questions. This is not the first time that new parties have emerged from Labour factionalism. Many readers will be aware of the 1981 departure of the “gang of four” Labour figures, who founded the Social Democratic party (SDP) that later merged with the Liberal party to form the Liberal Democrats.

Nor is it the first time that smaller parties have appeared on Labour’s left. Between 1920 and 1991, the Communist party of Great Britain was a potent force in the trade union movement. From the 1990s to the 2010s, several vehicles contested local and national elections against Labour, from the Socialist Alliance to Left Unity.

Challenges for a new party

Each of these iterations had its historical peculiarities. But stepping back, we can identify three recurring challenges that any left-wing insurgent party must confront.

First, they must agree on an electoral strategy and purpose, given the institutional brutality of British democracy. The UK has some proportional elections, including in Scotland and Wales (expected to be next contested in 2026). Councils are also possible avenues of influence.

But there is no avoiding the fact that legislative and executive power is hoarded in the House of Commons, elected by first past the post. Labour will discourage possible defectors by warning that a split in the left vote will let in the right. Neil Kinnock, Labour’s former leader who found himself fighting off the SDP while trying to evict Thatcher in the 1980s, dubbed Sultana and Corbyn’s venture the “Farage assistance party”.

Left of Labour parties are often aware of the risk. Indeed, far left activists have in the past advocated voting Labour, with “varying degrees of (un)enthusiasm”.

Advocates of a new party will note that Labour is only polling in the low 20s, suggesting a pool of ex-Labour voters potentially interested in shopping around. However, there are others it could torpedo too.

One recent poll on support for a hypothetical Corbyn-led party – which we should take with some salt – found that its 10% support comes partly from eating into the Green vote. An electoral arrangement with the Greens, on the other hand, may require shared policy platforms, raising the question of why a separate party is needed.

A poll from More in Common conducted specifically about a Sultana-Corbyn party found 9% of Labour voters and 26% of current Green voters saying that would vote for such a party.

The Socialist Labour party (SLP) – founded in 1996 by the prominent trade unionist Arthur Scargill in reaction to Tony Blair’s New Labour – is the obvious cautionary tale. Scargill wanted a purer, better Labour party. Yet, Labour looked set to kick out an 18-year-long Conservative government.

Scargill could not convince many sympathetic activists to join. As historian Alfie Steer argues, the SLP instead became dominated by socialists hostile to the Labour party. The party could not overcome the resultant contradictions in its purpose and collapsed into acrimony.

The SLP also illustrates the second key consideration: timing. The SLP struggled partly because it launched just as Labour was sweeping triumphantly into power. Sultana’s timing is arguably more astute. She has waited for Starmer’s bubble to burst and for disillusionment to fester.

However, the broad left within Labour has also just found its voice by rebelling against government policy. The temptation for a risk-averse Labour activist may be to leap onto this critical bandwagon without taking the more dangerous step of defecting.

---

Read more:
The mistakes Keir Starmer made over disability cuts – and how he can avoid future embarrassment

---

The final challenge is securing institutional durability without debilitating splits. It is telling that Sultana felt compelled to include Corbyn’s name despite his reported reservations.

Sultana herself has an impressive political profile, especially on TikTok. Any new party will rely heavily on prominent spokespeople to force it into the national conversation. Yet, such vehicles can become trapped by their dependence on individuals. The Respect party of the 2000s, for example, was reliant on the charismatic but polarising figure of George Galloway.

The fledgling party will also need a lasting structure that determines how candidates are selected and policy is formed. This risks dragging it into dreaded constitutional debates. It is already reportedly divided over the existence of co-leaders.

Intra-party democracy is off-putting to outsiders. But as constitutional scholar Meg Russell argues, it speaks to fundamental questions about the extent, and limits, of democracy. Such disputes have frequently wracked the left (and the radical right, as Reform’s recent constitutional changes show).

To what extent should policy be “democratically” decided? Should a new party limit who can join, and if so, on what criteria? How will leaders be selected? From the CPGB to the SLP, these questions have proven divisive in the past. They could easily prove so again.

The new party faces severe challenges, but it would be unwise to write it off completely. In a volatile context, it has a chance to make its mark if it is clear in its strategic electoral purpose, cultivates an institutional and activist base and times its interventions astutely. But the obstacles to success are enormous – and with Reform currently polling top, the risks are high.

Colm Murphy is currently a member of the Labour Party, but he is writing purely in an academic capacity.

– ref. What would it take for a new British left-wing party to succeed? – https://theconversation.com/what-would-it-take-for-a-new-british-left-wing-party-to-succeed-260599

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Frances Fowle, Personal Chair of Nineteenth-Century Art, History of Art, University of Edinburgh

In 2018 an oil painting of a nude by the Italian artist Amedeo Modigliani broke a world record when it sold at Sotheby’s for US$157.2 million (£115.2m). It was created in 1917, at a time when Modigliani was unable to sell his pictures for more than a few francs.

Johnny Depp’s new film Modi: Three Days on the Wings of Madness explores the artist’s struggle to sell his work, and the tension that existed between his own idealism and the need to be commercially minded.

The film also addresses Modigliani’s mental instability, brought on by self-medication while suffering from tuberculosis. He took refuge in hashish and alcohol (including absinthe), and this movie pulls out all the stops when it comes to visualising the horrors and hallucinations that afflicted him as the illness progressed and the drugs took hold.

Set against the background of Paris during the first world war, the action takes place over three days in 1916. It takes its inspiration from Modigliani – A Play in Three Acts by Dennis McIntyre and remains remarkably faithful to the plot.

---

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.

---

This revolves round Modigliani’s friendship with the artists Chaïm Soutine (Ryan McParland) and Maurice Utrillo (Bruno Gouery); his tempestuous relationship with the English poet and writer Beatrice Hastings (Antonia Desplat); and his reliance on the art dealer Léopold Zborowski (Stephen Graham). It is Zborowski who sets up a much-anticipated meeting with an important collector, Maurice Gangnat (Al Pacino).

Modigliani, brilliantly and energetically portrayed by Riccardo Scamarcio, comes across as a passionate, idealistic and irresistible genius. However, he is also haunted by ghosts, and a slave to his drug addiction, perhaps echoing Depp’s own past.

Depp’s film – his second as director – never loses pace. In one scene Modigliani plunges through a stained-glass window. In another he shocks potential buyers by setting fire to a painting; in a third he trashes his studio, destroys his most recent sculptures and slashes several canvases.

The title of the film, Modì, was the artist’s nickname, but is also a play on the French word maudit, meaning cursed. As a young man Modigliani was an avid reader of the German philosopher Nietzsche, whose own descent into madness was punctuated by periods of lucidity.

Nietzsche saw no clear distinction between dreaming and waking, and the film reflects this in the way in which hallucination, memory and reality become confused. Modí masks his increasing pain with alcohol, drinking with his artist friends Utrillo and Soutine in the seedy Bateau Lavoir in Montmartre.

Of Belarusian extraction, Soutine, like Modigliani, was a Jewish outsider. In 1916 the two artists occupied neighbouring studios in La Ruche, a down-at-heel artists’ residence in the 15th arrondissement of Paris. Before he achieved commercial success, Soutine lived in abject poverty, forced to sleep rough in stairways and on park benches. He suffered from depression and anxiety, and his internal turmoil is reflected in his highly expressive work.

The third member of the triumvirate, Maurice Utrillo, also suffered from mental health issues, and took up art to ward off depression. The movie alludes to this as the reason he was unable to enlist during the war. Instead, he spent regular periods in hospitals and mental institutions and painted many of his views of Paris from postcard images.

Modigliani, too, tried to join up, but was refused due to poor health. In the film this memory sparks an episode of disturbing hallucinations, featuring walking wounded with horrific injuries, and a plague doctor doubling as a spectre of death, a leitmotif for Modigliani’s own fear of dying.

Following such nightmarish episodes, Modigliani turns to Beatrice Hastings, who adopts the role of carer (and, as the film implies, substitute mother) as well as lover. She was however, motivated as much by Modigliani’s genius, as by her own burgeoning career as a poet, literary critic and co-editor of the British avant-garde magazine The New Age.

In the film she is frustrated by Modigliani’s idealism. She encourages him to be more pragmatic and commercially minded and berates him, not for embracing life, but for constantly “running from death”.

She is also the artist’s muse, the model for his “masterpiece”, a reclining nude, and an unfinished sculpted head of a woman. Both are cinematic devices; there is no evidence that Beatrice ever posed nude, while the sculpted head was produced in 1911-12, before the two had even met. Despite this, both works play a central role in the film’s denouement, sparking the artist’s falling out with Zborowski.

The climax of the movie is the artist’s much-anticipated meeting with Gangnat, a rich industrialist and significant figure in art history, whose collection included 160 works by Auguste Renoir. The meeting, predictably, is a disaster, but, even though he leaves without a penny, Modigliani has the last word: “I am much richer than you, Monsieur Gangnat,” he insists, “You have merely existed…I have lived”.

Was Modigliani as idealistic as the film portrays? Possibly, but perhaps not, for by 1916 he had already met a new and influential dealer, Paul Guillaume, who would ensure a commercially successful future, not only for our hero, but also for Soutine and Utrillo.

In the end, the film is an enjoyable romp, even if it is in danger of downplaying Modigliani’s importance as an artist in favour of the more sensational aspects of his life.

And yet it is undeniable that his life really did read like a film script. He died of tuberculosis in January 1920 at the age of 35. Two days later his common-law wife, Jeanne Hébuterne, pregnant with their second child, took her own life. Soon after, however, thanks to dealers such as Zborowski and Guillaume, the importance of Modigliani’s work was finally recognised, and today he is remembered as one of the most significant artists of his generation.

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

– ref. Johnny Depp’s new film about Modigliani is in danger of downplaying his importance as an artist – an art expert’s verdict – https://theconversation.com/johnny-depps-new-film-about-modigliani-is-in-danger-of-downplaying-his-importance-as-an-artist-an-art-experts-verdict-260340

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Drage, Associate Professor of Environmental Health, University of Birmingham

Most UK rivers are contaminated by a chemical called trifluoroacetic acid (TFA). This is a type of human-made chemical known as perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), often called “forever chemicals”.

This widespread contamination highlights the extensive scale of work required to remove synthetic forever chemicals from our environment.

Many PFAS are known to be toxic (including associations with altered liver and thyroid function and various cancers). PFAS all contain at least two carbon-fluorine (C-F) chemical bonds, one of the toughest bonds to break so they tend to be persistent. Once they are released to the environment, they don’t easily degrade.

The PFAS class incorporates a vast but unknown number of different chemicals – estimates vary from around 5,000 to 6.5 million. TFA is just one of many PFAS.

---

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

---

TFA enters the environment from different sources. It’s used to make blowing agents (used to make things like expanded foams and plastics such as packaging materials), pesticides and pharmaceuticals. So it is intentionally used for some useful applications.

But it can also be produced unintentionally as a by-product from various processes that involve “pre-cursor” PFAS chemicals. The biggest environmental source of TFA is as a by-product from manufacturing “F-gases” or flourinated greenhouse gases – these are used as refrigerants instead of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) which are known to cause ozone depletion.

While F-gases may not deplete ozone, they are greenhouse gases with extremely high global warming potential with some several thousand times more potent then CO₂. An F-gas called fluoroform has a global warming potential of 14,800. This means that when fluoroform is released into the atmosphere, it will trap 14,800 times more heat for an equivalent amount of CO₂.

TFA is highly persistent so it resists most forms of physical, chemical and biological degradation. TFA is also highly mobile so it can enter waterways and move around them easily, while remaining in the environment for hundreds of years. This is why it’s now accumulating and cropping up in our environment more often, contaminating our rivers, food and even our wine.

TFA has been found in rivers across the globe including the US, China, Germany and Switzerland. These findings have triggered joint research between environmental charity Fidra and scientists at the University of York to sample water from and analyse the TFA levels in 32 UK rivers, streams and lakes. They found TFA present in 31 of the 32 sites investigated, including an exceptionally high level in the River Kelvin, Glasgow (the second highest recorded globally to date). This is approaching levels where TFA has been previously observed to start having adverse effects on aquatic organisms.

The trouble with TFA

Apart from its major source being as a breakdown product from the production of greenhouse gases (and knock on climate change effects), the presence of TFA in our environment represents a genuine threat to human and environmental health.

Currently there is no guidance for safe levels of TFA in drinking water, and it is not something that is measured. However, if it is present in our rivers and lakes, then there is a potential pathway for it to enter our drinking water. This needs to be addressed so that our levels of exposure, and the level of threat that TFA poses, can be assessed by scientists, industries and regulators.

While evidence is limited on human toxicity of TFA, studies dating back more than 25 years have highlighted its potential effects on aquatic organisms, including effects on development of zebrafish, as well as various algaes, which act as important food sources in aquatic ecosystems. Studies on mammals have that continuous TFA exposure could lead to shown increased liver sizes (suggesting the possibility of a significant underlying, unknown medical condition) and potential disruption to reproductive hormones, causing fertility and foetal development issues.

The EU’s chemical regulator, the European Chemicals Agency is responsible for ensuring chemical safety in Europe. They suggest TFA poses a low threat if exposure is short term. However, longer-term exposure effects remain unknown. With other PFAS, recommended weekly maximum intakes have been substantially reduced as knowledge has advanced.

While TFA pollution continues unabated, levels in the environment beyond those 32 rivers – and in our food and drink – remain difficult to quantify. It is also hard to confidently suggest methods to reduce personal TFA exposure. However, work by myself and colleagues has shown that exposure to many PFAS can be reduced by filtering tap water with activated carbon or charcoal filters. Other researchers have suggested that this could be an effective way to remove TFA from drinking water, as long as filters are changed regularly.

---

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

Daniel Drage has previously received funding from the Natural Environment Research Council, DEFRA, Environmental Protection Agency of Ireland. He is an Associate Professor at University of Birmingham and an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Queensland.

– ref. What’s the forever chemical TFA doing in the UK’s rivers? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-forever-chemical-tfa-doing-in-the-uks-rivers-259411

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

Washing your feet might not top your list of daily priorities – but it should.

While most of us shower regularly, our feet are often forgotten. Letting water run over them isn’t enough. To keep them healthy, you need to actively wash your feet with soap and water, paying close attention to the soles and the spaces between your toes. This helps remove sweat, dead skin and microbes that build up throughout the day and helps prevent infections, irritation – and that all-too-familiar smell.

Feet, particularly the spaces between toes, are a breeding ground for bacteria and fungi. Thanks to socks, shoes, and sweaty soles, they spend most of the day in a warm, humid environment that’s perfect for microbial growth. This can lead to common conditions like athlete’s foot, fungal nail infections, and bromodosis (smelly feet).

Stinky feet

Sweat itself doesn’t smell. But when bacteria break down sweat on your feet, they release smelly compounds called volatile fatty acids (VFAs). Staphylococcus bacteria are key players here, feeding on amino acids in sweat and producing isovaleric acid, which smells distinctly cheesy or sour (fun fact: it’s the same compound found in certain cheeses).

A study found that 98.6% of bacteria on the soles of participants’ feet were Staphylococci, and the intensity of foot odour was directly linked to how much of this bacteria was present.

Good foot hygiene isn’t just about avoiding odour, though; it also helps prevent infections. Athlete’s foot, a fungal infection, thrives in the damp space between your toes. It causes itching, redness, cracked skin and sometimes blisters. And despite the name, you don’t have to be an athlete to get it. The infection spreads easily in communal places like swimming pools, showers and changing rooms, particularly if you go barefoot.

If left untreated, the fungus can spread to the toenails, making them thick, yellow and brittle. Catching it early makes treatment much easier.

---

Read more:
Fighting fungal nail infections: simple steps for healthier toenails

---

Bacterial infections are also a concern, especially when Staphylococcus or Pseudomonas enter through small cuts or cracked skin. Washing regularly helps reduce the number of bacteria living on the surface, lowering the risk of infection for anyone with vulnerable or damaged skin.

Diabetic foot care

If you have diabetes, foot care becomes even more important. People with diabetes are more prone to ulcers and infections and wounds often heal more slowly, particularly when blood sugar levels are poorly controlled.

---

Read more:
Five ways to save your legs – by a vascular surgery specialist

---

This is due to several factors: poor circulation means less oxygen and fewer nutrients reach the site of the wound, the immune response is weaker, and inflammation may persist. Nerve damage (diabetic neuropathy) in the feet can also mean that injuries go unnoticed – and untreated.

According to Diabetes UK, daily foot washing is a key part of diabetes care; not just to reduce infection risk, but to check for any early signs of damage, such as redness, swelling, or breaks in the skin.

Too clean?

If you’ve been in closed shoes all day, or exercising, a proper wash is a good idea. For most people, once a day is enough, particularly during warm weather.

But not everyone needs to scrub their feet daily. The skin is home to a healthy community of beneficial microbes that defend against harmful bacteria and support the skin’s natural barrier. Overwashing, particularly with hot water or harsh soaps, can strip these helpful organisms and remove natural oils, leaving skin dry, irritated and more prone to cracking.

This is especially problematic for people with skin conditions like eczema where the skin barrier is already weakened.

The use of antibacterial soaps can also disrupt the skin’s microbial balance, killing off friendly bacteria and potentially encouraging the growth of more harmful, antibiotic-resistant strains. Some scientists also suggest that excessive hygiene might reduce the immune system’s exposure to everyday microbes; exposure that helps build a healthy immune response.

How to wash your feet properly

Here’s how to do it right, according to NHS guidance:

• use warm (not hot) water and a mild soap

• wash thoroughly, paying close attention to the soles and between the toes

• dry your feet completely, including the spaces between your toes

• apply moisturiser to keep the skin soft and less likely to crack — but skip the areas between the toes, as added moisture there can encourage fungal growth

• inspect your feet regularly for any signs of redness, swelling, or blisters — vital for those with diabetes.

If you notice persistent itching, unusual odours, or signs of infection, speak to a pharmacist. They can recommend over-the-counter treatments or refer you to a podiatrist if necessary.

Whether you’re active, managing a chronic condition, or just trying to stay fresh in summer, proper foot hygiene matters. It might seem like a small step – but it makes a big difference to your overall health.

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

– ref. From athlete’s foot to smelly soles: why daily washing is key to healthy feet – https://theconversation.com/from-athletes-foot-to-smelly-soles-why-daily-washing-is-key-to-healthy-feet-259301

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University

It was US president Harry S. Truman who, in the years just after the second world war, kept a little wooden sign on his desk which read: “The buck stops here!”. It emphasised his willingness to accept ultimate responsibility for his decisions and actions as president, even the ones that didn’t quite work out.

This phrase has since become emblematic of presidential accountability and leadership. Truman wasn’t interested in trying to pass the buck, not as a man and certainly not as president.

Interestingly, the sign was made in the Federal Reformatory (prison) at El Reno, Oklahoma, suggesting an implicit moral dimension to this issue of responsibility and accountability. We’re all accountable for our actions, whoever we are, but the president above all.

But how things seem to have changed with Donald Trump in the White House.

---

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

---

Trump continually takes personal credit for any perceived successes as president – fixing global tariffs, Nato members paying more, the Middle East (even taking credit for things that were completed before he took office). But he makes sure that any failures are immediately attributed elsewhere.

He frequently positions himself as surprised or “blindsided” by unpopular decisions, which are always somebody else’s doing, somebody else’s fault. Subordinates are held responsible. He is not averse to pointing the finger directly at them, and often in public, high-profile settings.

That great loyal Trump supporter, defense secretary Pete Hegseth, for example, has recently been in the firing line for being personally responsible for pausing the delivery of missile shipments to Ukraine. US defence officials had apparently become concerned that weapons stockpiles were becoming low, as they needed to divert arms to Israel to help in the war with Iran.

But the pause in supplying some weapons to Ukraine announced by the Pentagon on July 2 was a hugely unpopular decision that resonated around the world. Hegseth was blamed.

Some have suggested that having loyalists such as Hegseth in critical positions like secretary of defense is highly strategic, and not just for the more obvious reasons. You could argue that having loyal supporters with delegated but overlapping authority is highly advantageous when it comes to the blame game.

Trump can publicly distance himself when things go wrong (as he did here), claim a degree of surprise, and swiftly change course. That way he is publicly reasserting his role as leader without admitting fault.

It is also noteworthy that Trump often reverses these decisions made by his subordinates in high-visibility environments, which suggests a determined pattern of strategic image management.

It’s a simple set of moves – you allow a subordinate to initiate a controversial decision, then you rein it in publicly and reassert your authority, thus showcasing your resolve. In other words, delegation to loyal insiders like Hegseth becomes a useful buffer against political fallout.

Loyal insiders still stay loyal (for the foreseeable future at least). They won’t sling mud, like some might in their position. So Trump can appear masterful.

But of course, there’s more to this than everyday political shenanigans. Personality plays a major role. Some psychologists have argued that not internalising failure is psychologically beneficial.

If you take credit for success but externalise failure, that makes you resilient (and happy). But there are clearly limits to this, and there’s a darker side.

People with high levels of narcissism (“I like to be the centre of attention”; “I am an extraordinary person” – both items on the narcissism personality inventory, a method of measuring personalities) often avoid accountability because they perceive themselves as superior to others. But only, it should be noted, in certain “key” aspects of life.

In the words of Jean Twenge and W. Keith Campbell, authors of The Narcissism Epidemic: “Narcissists think that they are smarter, better looking and more important than others, but not necessarily more moral, more caring or more compassionate.”

Narcissistic individuals tend to externalise blame to protect their fragile self-esteem and maintain their self-image. They may refuse to admit fault because doing so threatens their grandiose concept of self.

Individuals exhibiting Machiavellian traits, characterised by manipulativeness and a lack of empathy, are also more prone to shifting blame. They may deflect responsibility to serve their self-interest, which is clearly a highly manipulative manoeuvre. You just do whatever is required.

Research also indicates that individuals with low conscientiousness, one of what are considered the “big five” personality traits, are less likely to accept responsibility for their actions. They may be somewhat careless or irresponsible in their work or actions, and when mistakes do occur – which they will – they blame external factors or other people.

In other words, certain personality traits are associated with a tendency to avoid accountability and responsibility.

It has been said that Trump’s inner circle consists of loyal sycophants who, even when it’s cringeworthy for outsiders, publicly praise him to amplify and protect his self-image. He needs this from them.

But they have another use as well. When things don’t go so well, they take it on the chin for him. That’s almost part of the job description. When things go wrong, his inner circle all understand the buck really stops with them.

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

– ref. Why Trump blames decisions on others – a psychologist explains – https://theconversation.com/why-trump-blames-decisions-on-others-a-psychologist-explains-260877

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Aaron J. Cavosie, Senior Lecturer, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University

Ever been late because you misread a clock? Sometimes, the “clocks” geologists use to date events can also be misread. Unravelling Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history with rocks is tricky business.

Case in point: the discovery of an ancient meteorite impact crater was recently reported in the remote Pilbara region of Western Australia. The original study, by a different group, made headlines with the claim the crater formed 3.5 billion years ago. If true, it would be Earth’s oldest by far.

As it turns out, we’d also been investigating the same site. Our results are published in Science Advances today. While we agree that this is the site of an ancient meteorite impact, we have reached different conclusions about its age, size and significance.

Let’s consider the claims made about this fascinating crater.

One impact crater, two versions of events

Planetary scientists search for ancient impacts to learn about Earth’s early formation. So far, nobody has found an impact crater older than the 2.23-billion-year-old Yarrabubba structure, also in Australia. (Some of the authors from both 2025 Pilbara studies were coauthors on the 2020 Yarrabubba study.)

The new contender is located in an area called North Pole Dome. Despite the name, this isn’t where Santa lives. It’s an arid, hot, ochre-stained landscape.

The first report on the new crater claimed it formed 3.5 billion years ago, and was more than 100 kilometres in diameter. It was proposed that such a large impact might have played a role in forming continental crust in the Pilbara. More speculatively, the researchers also suggested it may have influenced early life.

Our study concludes the impact actually happened much later, sometime after 2.7 billion years ago. This is at least 800 million years younger than the earlier estimate (and we think it’s probably even younger; more on that in a moment).

We also determined the crater was much smaller – about 16km in diameter. In our view, this impact was too young and too small to have influenced continent formation or early life.

So how could two studies arrive at such different findings?

Subtle clues of an impact

The originally circular crater is deeply eroded, leaving only subtle clues on the landscape. However, among the rust-coloured basalts are unique telltale signs of meteorite impact: shatter cones.

Shatter cones are distinctive fossilised imprints of shock waves that have passed through rocks. Their unique conical shapes form under brief but immense pressure where a meteorite strikes Earth.

Both studies found shatter cones, and agree the site is an ancient impact.

This new crater also needed a name. We consulted the local Aboriginal people, the Nyamal, who shared the traditional name for this place and its people: Miralga. The “Miralga impact structure” name recognises this heritage.

Determining the timing of the impact

The impact age was estimated by field observations, as neither study found material likely to yield an impact age by radiometric dating – a method that uses measurements of radioactive isotopes.

Both studies applied a geological principle called the law of superposition. This states that rock layers get deposited one on top of another over time, so rocks on top are younger than those below.

The first group found shatter cones within and below a sedimentary layer known to have been deposited 3.47 billion years ago, but no shatter cones in younger rocks above this layer. This meant the impact occurred during deposition of the sedimentary layer.

Their observation seemed to be a “smoking gun” for an impact 3.47 billion years ago.

As it turns out, there was more to the story.

Our investigation found shatter cones in the same 3.47 billion-year-old rocks, but also in younger overlying rocks, including lavas known to have erupted 2.77 billion years ago.

The impact had to occur after the formation of the youngest rocks that contained shatter cones, meaning sometime after the 2.77-billion-year-old lavas.

At the moment, we don’t know precisely how young the crater is. We can only constrain the impact to have occurred between 2.7 billion and 400 million years ago. We’re working on dating the impact by isotopic methods, but these results aren’t yet in.

Smaller than originally thought

We made the first map showing where shatter cones are found. There are many hundreds over an area 6km across. From this map and their orientations, we calculate the original crater was about 16km in diameter.

A 16km crater is a far cry from the original estimate of more than 100km. It’s too small to have influenced the formation of continents or life. By the time of the impact, the Pilbara was already quite old.

A new connection to Mars

Science is a self-policing sport. Claims of discovery are based on data available at the time, but they often require modification based on new data or observations.

While it’s not the world’s oldest, the Miralga impact is scientifically unique, as craters formed in basalt are rare. Most basalts there formed 3.47 billion years ago, making them the oldest shocked target rocks known.

Prior to impact, these ancient basalts had been chemically altered by seawater. Sedimentary rocks nearby also contain the earliest well-established fossils on Earth. Such rocks likely covered much of early Earth and Mars.

This makes the Miralga impact structure a playground for planetary scientists studying the cratered surface (and maybe early life) of Mars. It’s an easily accessible proving ground for Mars exploration instruments and imagery, right here on Earth.

Aaron J. Cavosie receives or has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the US National Science Foundation, and NASA.

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

– ref. Earth’s ‘oldest’ impact crater is much younger than previously thought – new study – https://theconversation.com/earths-oldest-impact-crater-is-much-younger-than-previously-thought-new-study-259803

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mireille Rebeiz, Chair of Middle East Studies and Associate Professor of Francophone and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Dickinson College. Adjunct Professor of Law at Penn State Dickinson Law., Dickinson College

After a 12-day war launched by Israel and joined briefly by the United States, Iran has emerged weakened and vulnerable. And that has massive implications for another country in the region: Lebanon.

Hezbollah, Tehran’s main ally in Lebanon, had already lost a lot of its fighters, arsenal and popular support during its own war with Israel in October 2024.

Now, Iran’s government has little capacity to continue to finance, support and direct Hezbollah in Lebanon like it has done in the past. Compounding this shift away from Hezbollah’s influence, the U.S. recently laid down terms for a deal that would see the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon in return for the total disarmament of the paramilitary group – a proposal seemingly backed by the Lebanese government.

As an expert on Lebanese history and culture, I believe that these changing regional dynamics give the Lebanese state an opening to chart a more neutral orientation and extricate itself from neighboring conflicts that have long exacerbated the divided and fragile country’s chronic problems.

The shaping of modern Lebanon

Ideologically, developments in Iran played a major role in shaping the circumstances in which Hezbollah, the Shiite Islamist political party and paramilitary group, was born.

The Iranian Revolution of 1978-79 toppled the widely reviled and corrupt Western-backed monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza and led to the establishment of an Islamic republic. That revolution resonated among the young Shiite population in Lebanon, where a politically sectarian system that was intended to reflect a balanced representation of Muslims and Christians in the country had led to de facto discrimination against underrepresented groups.

Since Lebanon’s independence from France in 1943, most of the power has been concentrated in the hands of the Maronite Christians and Sunnis, leaving Shiite regions in south Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley lacking in development projects, social services and infrastructure.

At the same time, Lebanon for decades had been irreparably changed by the politics of its powerful neighbor in Israel.

In the course of founding its state in 1948, Israel forcibly removed over 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland – what Palestinians refer to as the Nakba, or “catastophe.” Many fled to Lebanon, largely in the country’s impoverished south and Bekaa Valley, which became a center of Palestinian resistance to Israel.

In 1978, Israel invaded Lebanon to push Palestinian fighters away from its northern borders and put an end to rockets launched from south Lebanon. This fighting included the massacre of many civilians and the displacement of many Lebanese and Palestinians farther north.

In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon again with the stated purpose of eliminating the Palestinian Liberation Organization that had moved its headquarters to the country’s south. An estimated 17,000 to 19,000 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians and armed personnel were killed during the conflict and the accompanying siege of Beirut.

It was in this cauldron of regional and domestic sectarianism and state abandonment that Hezbollah formed as a paramilitary group in 1985, buoyed by Shiite mobilization following the Iranian revolution and Israel’s invasion and occupation.

Hezbollah’s domestic spoiler status

Over time and with the continuous support of Iran, Hezbollah become an important player in the Middle East, intervening in the Syrian civil war to support the Assad regime and supporting the Kata’ib Hezbollah, a dominant Iraqi pro-Iranian militia.

In 2016, Secretary General of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah officially recognized Iran’s role in funding their activities.

With Tehran’s support, Hezbollah was effectively able to operate as a state within a state while using its political clout to veto the vast majority of Lebanese parliamentary decisions it opposed. Amid that backdrop, Lebanon endured three long presidential vacuums: from November 2007 to May 2008; from May 2014 to October 2016; and finally from October 2022 to January 2024.

Lebanon also witnessed a series of political assassinations from 2005 to 2021 that targeted politicians, academics, journalists and other figures who criticized Hezbollah.

How the equation has changed

It would be an understatement, then, to say that Hezbollah’s and Iran’s weakened positions as a result of their respective conflicts with Israel since late 2023 create major political ramifications for Lebanon.

The most recent vacuum at the presidential level ended amid Hezbollah’s military losses against Israel, with Lebanon electing the former army commander Joseph Aoun as president.

Meanwhile, despite the threat of violence, the Lebanese opposition to Hezbollah, which consists of members of parliament and public figures, has increased its criticism of Hezbollah, openly denouncing its leadership and calling for Lebanon’s political neutrality.

These dissenting voices emerged cautiously during the Syrian civil war in 2011 and have grown after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks and the subsequent war on Gaza.

During the latest Israel-Iran war, the Lebanese opposition felt emboldened to reiterate its call for neutrality. Enabled by the U.S’s growing tutelage over Lebanon, some opposition figures have even called to normalize relations with Israel.

These efforts to keep Lebanon out of the circle of violence are not negligible. In the past, they would have been attacked by Hezbollah and its supporters for what they would have considered high treason. Today, they represent new movement for how leaders are conceiving of politics domestically and diplomacy across the region.

The critical regional context going forward

As the political system cautiously changes, Hezbollah is facing unprecedented financial challenges and is unable to meet its fighters’ needs, including the promise to rebuild their destroyed homes. And with its own serious internal challenges, Iran now has much less ability to meaningfully support Hezbollah from abroad.

But none of that means that Hezbollah is defeated as a political and military force, particularly as ongoing skirmishes with Israel give the group an external pretext.

The Hezbollah-Israel war ended with a ceasefire brokered by the United States and France on Nov. 27, 2024. However, Israel has been attacking south Lebanon on an almost daily basis, including three incidents over the course of 10 days from late June to early July that have left several people dead and more than a dozen wounded.

Amid these violations, Hezbollah continues to refuse to disarm and still casts itself as the only defender of Lebanon’s territorial integrity, again undermining the power of the Lebanese army and state.

Lebanon’s other neighbor, Syria, will also be critical. The fall of the Assad regime in December 2024 diminished Hezbollah’s powers in the region and land access to Iraq and Iran. And the new Syrian leadership is not interested in supporting the Iranian Shiite ideology in the region but rather in empowering the Sunni community, one that was oppressed under the Assad dictatorship.

While it’s too early to say, border tensions might translate into sectarian violence in Lebanon or even potential land loss. Yet the new Syrian government also has a different approach toward its neighbors than its predecessor. After decades of hostility, Syria seems to be opting for diplomacy with Israel rather than war. It is unclear what these negotiations will entail and how they will impact Lebanon and Hezbollah. However, there are real concerns about new borders in the region.

The U.S. as ever will play a major role in next steps in Lebanon and the region. The U.S. has been pressing Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, and the U.S Ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” by Lebanon’s response thus far. But so far, there has been no fundamental shift on that front.

Meanwhile, despite the calls for neutrality and the U.S pressure on Lebanon, it is hard to envision a new and neutral Lebanon without some serious changes in the region. Any future course for Lebanon will still first require progress toward peace in Gaza and ensuring Iran commits not to use Hezbollah as a proxy in the future.

Mireille Rebeiz is affiliated with American Red Cross.

– ref. A weakened Iran and Hezbollah gives Lebanon an opening to chart path away from the region’s conflicts − will it be enough? – https://theconversation.com/a-weakened-iran-and-hezbollah-gives-lebanon-an-opening-to-chart-path-away-from-the-regions-conflicts-will-it-be-enough-260031

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Brenton Griffin, Casual Lecturer and Tutor in History, Indigenous Studies, and Politics, Flinders University

Reality TV series The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives follows a number of social media influencers from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who rose to prominence through social media, and particularly TikTok.

The show is based in Utah, United States, where the church has its headquarters. But it stands in stark contrast with the stereotypical perception of Mormons – and especially Mormon women – the church has promoted for more than a century.

Through its exploration of traditionally “taboo” topics such as sex, marital issues, mental illness and sexual abuse, The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives clashes against the church’s carefully curated public image.

Historical pariahs

Historically, the church’s practice of polygamy placed it at odds with the mainstream sexual and familial norms of 19th century America.

Polygamy had been practised by Mormons since at least the 1830s, and was officially announced as permissible by the church in 1852. The church now acknowledges its founder, Joseph Smith, married almost 40 women and teenage girls before his death in 1844.

When Mormon missionaries began to proselytise throughout the world, newspapers criticised the practice, and Mormons were framed as sexual deviants and racialised “pariahs”. In other words, Mormons were presented as being racially different to the rest of white American society. This claim was even supported by doctors at the time.

To Mormons, however, polygamy was a reintroduction of the correct form of marriage, and they pointed to biblical prophets to justify it.

In 1862, the US congress passed a series of laws aimed at abolishing polygamy. This resulted in the arrest of church leaders and the confiscation of church-owned funds and properties in Utah.

Then, in the 1870s, exposés written by former Mormons (particularly women) decried polygamy as evil, increasing hostility against Mormon leaders.

In 1890, church leader Wilford Woodruff announced in a revelation known as the Manifesto that polygamy would cease. The Manifesto was accepted by most Mormons as the government’s harassment increased. However, breakaway groups called “fundamentalists” continued the practice.

Today, Mormon scriptures continue to state polygamy is the correct form of marriage, and will exist in the afterlife.

The stereotypical Mormon

Since the ending of polygamy, the church has sought to establish itself as a moral equal to mainstream Christian norms, especially sexual norms. In 1995, it released a document titled Family: A Proclamation to the World which emphasised the view that heterosexual marriage and strict gender roles are divinely ordained.

As the church has grown, it has presented its members as model citizens of the nations they reside in.

In doing so, it has promoted unique doctrines and practices, such as sexual abstinence before marriage, and a particular health code called the Word of Wisdom which bars alcohol, tea, coffee and tobacco.

These doctrines, and existing stereotypes of Mormons, are examined in The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives.

Colliding perceptions

The 2024 release of the series caused waves in the Latter-day Saints community, with a number of Mormon-focused publications condemning it.

Before the show was released, the church published a general statement saying media portrayals of Mormons “often rely on sensationalism and inaccuracies that do not fairly and fully reflect the lives of our Church members”. It has yet to directly comment on the show.

Nonetheless, the representation of Mormons in The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives is problematic for the church, because it transgresses its highly curated image of Mormonism.

As the influencers put it, there is a desire to push back against stereotypes around Mormonism, and particularly Mormon women. These stereotypes have been crystallised by the church to combat perceptions of Mormons as sexually abhorrent, due to past practices of polygamy.

The women in the show wear clothing that would not cover “temple garments”, the mandatory Latter-day Saint undergarments which seek to impose sexual modesty.

There is also a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement that while the church prohibits stimulants such as tea, coffee and alcohol, Mormons within Utah and surrounds still consume other, somewhat surprising, substances. For instance, the use of ketamine in therapy is allowed when administered by a healthcare professional.

The series also engages with topics considered taboo in the church, such as marital issues, mental health struggles and consensual sex. Even if these are being played up by the cast or producers, such discussions are lacking in broader Mormon circles.

Importantly, there are admissions by some cast members, including one of the husbands, of being sexually abused as children. According to the cast members themselves, these disclosures are intended to empower viewers who may have had similar experiences.

This is a powerful critique, because the Mormon church has come under intense scrutiny for its failure to properly respond to child sexual assault, both in the US and globally.

The next steps

The show is having a marked impact on perceptions of Mormonism, despite the church’s stance it doesn’t represent the beliefs and lifestyle of Mormons more broadly.

For many viewers, it might be their introduction to the religion. This is concerning for adherents, and particularly for the church’s leadership.

There are internal tools the church could use against the show’s cast members, such as disciplinary councils or excommunication. But these would be ineffective since only about half the members consider themselves “faithful” Mormons.

It’s interesting the church has yet to condemn the show. Perhaps maintaining an image of reluctant acceptance is more important, as in recent years the church has been criticised for overreach against its own members.

In this case, the show would be an uncomfortable reality the church will just have to live with. Either way, the damage to the stereotypical Mormon image is done.

The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives is available to stream on Disney+.

Brenton Griffin was raised as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but is no longer a practising member of the church. His research is focused on the religion’s place in Australian and New Zealand popular culture, politics, and society from the 19th century to present.

– ref. The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives shatters the church’s century-long effort to curate its own image – https://theconversation.com/the-secret-lives-of-mormon-wives-shatters-the-churchs-century-long-effort-to-curate-its-own-image-260418

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Shannon Bosch, Associate Professor (Law), Edith Cowan University

Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz has announced a controversial plan to move up to 600,000 Palestinians in Gaza into a designated “humanitarian area” on the ruins of the southern city of Rafah.

Access to the camp would be through strict security screening to ensure entrants were not Hamas operatives. Once inside, the perimeter would be sealed off by the Israeli military. Palestinians would not be allowed to leave.

Eventually the camp would house the entire 2.1 million population of Gaza.

Camp construction would begin during the proposed 60-day ceasefire being negotiated by Israel and Hamas

‘Illegal and inhumane’

The plan is illegal, inhumane and risks worsening the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

The forced displacement and containment of any civilian population in an occupied territory is a violation of international humanitarian law.

Done on this scale would constitute a war crime and a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute.

The UN Security Council, UN General Assembly and UN Commission on Human Rights have all condemned instances of forced transfer in armed conflicts.

So too, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, which have stressed the fundamental prohibition of forced displacement of a civilian population and the need for all parties to respect this prohibition.

For their own protection?

Katz is describing the camp as a “humanitarian city”. The Israeli military says Palestinians would only be contained for their own protection.

As we have seen, civilian displacement is prohibited. But there is an exception if a case can be made either for military reasons or the protection of the population.

However, this exception only exists for as long as the conditions warrant for it to exist. Anyone subject to such an evacuation must be transferred back to their homes as soon as possible.

Imperative military reasons never justify the removal of a civilian population in order to persecute it. The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement entrenches the duty of international actors to avoid creating the conditions that might lead to the displacement of people.

Aid dilemma

Katz has indicated international organisations would be responsible for managing aid and services inside the area.

But Israel has a history of defying even orders from the International Court of Justice to allow humanitarian aid to reach the Palestinians in Gaza.

If international humanitarian agencies were called upon to service the camp, they would face a dilemma.

They would need to decide whether to cooperate in managing aid under conditions that compromise their neutrality and ethical standards, deny basic human rights and are built on violations of international law.

Aid groups would risk being complicit in a process that sets up a transit camp for Palestinians before possibly expelling them from Gaza altogether.

This “humanitarian city” would essentially become an open-air prison. Palestinians would be reliant on international aid under strict Israeli military control.

Mass expulsion?

Could the Rafah camp be a precursor to mass expulsion from Gaza and what does international law say about that?

Katz has been quoted saying Israel aims to implement “the emigration plan, which will happen” – meaning Gazans will eventually be forced to leave for other countries.

Changing the demographic composition of a territory – ethnic cleansing – achieved through the displacement of the civilian population of a territory is strictly prohibited under international law.

The idea of displacing Palestinians has long been part of Israeli strategic thinking, but this announcement signals a dangerous escalation and intention to permanently alter Gaza’s demographic landscape through displacement and containment.

Voluntary exodus?

According to Katz, Gazans would have the option of “voluntary” emigration.

Indeed, speaking at the White House this week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said there would be no forced exodus from Gaza:

If people want to stay, they can stay, but if they want to leave, they should be able to leave.

But the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is incomprehensible.

The population has been displaced multiple times and 90% of homes in Gaza are damaged or destroyed. The healthcare, water, sanitation and hygiene systems have collapsed.

On average 100 Palestinians are killed daily as they try to access food.

These crisis circumstances negate the voluntary nature of any person’s consent to either the transfer to the Rafah camp or ultimately, the departure from Gaza.

According to Amos Goldberg, historian of the Holocaust at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, what the defence minister laid out was clear plans for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza:

[it is] a transit camp for Palestinians before they expel them. It is neither humanitarian nor a city.

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

– ref. Israel’s Rafah camp – ‘humanitarian city’ or crime against humanity? – https://theconversation.com/israels-rafah-camp-humanitarian-city-or-crime-against-humanity-260809

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Gary Mortimer, Professor of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Queensland University of Technology

The offer pops up in your social media feed. The website is professional and the imagery illustrates an Australian coastal region, or chic inner-CBD scene.

The brand name indicates this exclusive fashion retailer is based in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, or an exclusive enclave such as Double Bay or Byron Bay.

The businesses have history, having apparently been “established” 30–40 years ago, and a story. The owners have reluctantly decided to close or relocate, resulting in significant discounts.

However, behind the illusion of prestige and luxury, is cheap, poorly manufactured clothing from Chinese factories.

The recent growth of these online “ghost stores” has led the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission to issue public warning notices about four websites.

Everly-melbourne.com, willowandgrace-adelaide.com, sophie-claire.com and doublebayboutique.com are the four named.

A new type of scam

The ACCC’s Targeting Scams report estimated Australians lost A$2.74 billion in 2023. Most losses were from investment scams ($1.3 billion), remote access scams ($256 million), and romance scams ($201.1 million).

---

Read more:
3.5 million Australians experienced fraud last year. This could be avoided through 6 simple steps

---

However, online ghost store scams are so new, researchers and government agencies have not yet had time to measure the financial impact these businesses are having on consumers or legitimate fashion businesses.

It is possible a consumer, once stung by a ghost store scam, will be less likely to shop with a legitimate online fashion retailer.

This type of emerging scam was touched on in a 2015 report called Framework for a Taxonomy of Fraud. The report noted there were businesses selling “worthless or non-existent products”. Their sites made:

misleading claims about products that are exaggerated, undervalued, or non-existent.

Since the beginning of 2025, the ACCC reports it has received at least 360 complaints about 60 online ghost retailers. It says many more may be operating across several social media sites.

Tricky tactics

Ghost stores use a variety of tactics to attract unsuspecting customers.

Price: Customers regularly assume higher prices mean higher quality. Most customers seeing a “leather” jacket for $19.74 on Temu would expect low quality. However, a silk maxi-dress from Everly Melbourne reduced from $209.95 to $82.95 – a 60% saving – seems reasonable and reflective of normal mid-season clearance pricing. That fact it’s still priced at more than $80 also implies good quality.

Cosmopolitan localism: Researchers have reported that so-called cosmopolitan localism fosters meaningful consumer relationships with brands. Consumers are more likely to trust a business based in Melbourne or Byron Bay over one based internationally.

Adding images of a physical store front creates credibility and “realness”. Customers feel confident to buy from a little business based in Melbourne, Sydney or somewhere well known to them.

Storytelling: Storytelling can influence shoppers’ emotions and affect purchasing. It helps stimulate deeper emotional connections to a brand. Ghost stores will regularly create a narrative around “going out of business” to justify price discounts and pull on heart-strings.

Layout: A professionally developed website, with high-quality images, detailed product information, online payment methods and order tracking, creates the illusion of authenticity. Researchers have found luxury brand website designs can create a strong sense of luxury. This increases a willingness to buy.

How to spot a “ghost”

When the post indicates “closing today” or “closing down sale ends tonight”, it is very easy to impulsively jump in to take advantage of the savings. However, before you click, check for these red flags:

1. The website does not provide a contact phone number or physical address for the store. There might just be an email address or web form. Simply entering the suspected store into google maps will indicate no physical location.

2. The website domain is “.com” rather than “.com.au”. This indicates the store is not an Australian-based business.

3. Is the business registered? ABN Lookup is the free public view of the Australian Business Register – a quick search will identify that the Double Bay designer isn’t registered locally.

4. Review platforms, including Trustpilot, often have negative reviews for the business, whereas the business’ website only features very positive reviews.

5. The images of products or even the owner may be AI generated. For example, Harry – Melbourne, is apparently an artisan watchmaker. However, simply right-clicking on the image reveals Harry is an AI-generated image.

A cautionary note

Online shopping is risky. You can’t physically touch or interact with the product to determine its quality. Three types of risks are common when shopping online. These are performance risk (it doesn’t work, doesn’t fit well, or the quality is poor), financial risk (losing your money on a poor-quality product), and time-loss risk (refund processing takes weeks).

As such, customers must trust the online retailer to act honestly and describe products accurately. When trust is breached, consumers will naturally become cautious even about legitimate online retailers.

As ghost stores scams increasingly populate social media feeds, unsuspecting consumers will continue to get caught out. This will leave legitimate retailers exposed to scepticism and mistrust.

Gary Mortimer receives funding from the Building Employer Confidence and Inclusion in Disability Grant, AusIndustry Entrepreneurs’ Program, National Clothing Textiles Stewardship Scheme, National Retail Association and Australian Retailers Association.

– ref. Are ‘ghost stores’ haunting your social media feed? How to spot and avoid them – https://theconversation.com/are-ghost-stores-haunting-your-social-media-feed-how-to-spot-and-avoid-them-260583

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has formally nominated United States President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. He says the president is “forging peace as we speak, in one country, in one region after the other”.

Trump, who has craved the award for years, sees himself as a global peacemaker in a raft of conflicts from Israel and Iran, to Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

With the conflict in Gaza still raging, we ask five experts – could Trump be rewarded with the world’s most prestigious peace prize?

Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

Jasmine-Kim Westendorf has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Shahram Akbarzadeh receives funding from Australia Research Council.

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

– ref. Does Donald Trump deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/does-donald-trump-deserve-the-nobel-peace-prize-we-asked-5-experts-260801

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Bruce Wolpe, Non-resident Senior Fellow, United States Study Centre, University of Sydney

The ABC dodged a bullet in the Australian election. The Albanese government supports the ABC. In the United States, however, the 2024 presidential election severely wounded public media in America.

Fresh from his decisive victory in Congress – passage of the One Big Beautiful bill that locks in the legislation to prosecute Trump’s domestic policy agenda – Trump is demanding Congress cancel funding for public media, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). Hardliners in the US House of Representatives have already voted to end all federal funding for public media. The Senate will vote on this issue in mid-July.

We have tale of two vital and powerful media institutions in Australia and the US. What happens over there can affect what happens here.

Towards the end of Australia’s election campaign, Peter Dutton, then leader of the Liberal Party, opened up on the ABC. He looped in The Guardian for good measure. And he implied other media deserved his words:

Forget about what you have been told by the ABC, The Guardian and the other hate media.

Dutton’s words embellished previous policies under Coalition governments, with budget cuts to the ABC of over $500 million, and several inquiries into the degree of ABC’s neutrality and objectivity in its coverage of news and current affairs.

---

Read more:
Peter Dutton calling the ABC and the Guardian ‘hate media’ rings alarm bells for democracy

---

Kim Williams, chair of the ABC, said the network would “perform well” under any scrutiny from a Dutton government. Dutton himself, shortly before the election, demanded the ABC show “excellence” in order to prove to taxpayers that its almost $1.2 billion annual budget was justified.

The Coalition’s defeat aided the ABC’s victory in its longstanding quest for financial stability and future growth. The ABC can continue to build on the commitments established by the Albanese Labor government in 2023 – even though there are choppy waters for the ABC as its new leadership makes programming and staffing decisions for the years ahead.

With a new Coalition shadow cabinet in place, we will see as future budgets play out whether they have changed their tune on their approach to the ABC.

We will see how both the government and the Coalition react to Kim Williams’ powerful case he recently presented for “more investment for much-needed renewal” in the ABC.

Public media in Trump’s America

In America today, public media are facing Trump’s wrath.

Trump’s hatred of mainstream media is legendary. For the past decade, Trump has called the major media outlets the “enemy of the people” – the same label that Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin used against those who dared to oppose him.

In his second term, Trump is engaged in aggressive muscling of the enemies he sees in the media. The Associated Press is barred from the pool of journalists covering the president. Trump has silenced the Voice of America. The US ABC and CBS television networks have both settled lawsuits filed by Trump to seek damages for their broadcast coverage of him and the 2024 presidential campaign. The price to help avoid regulatory punishment by the government of those two networks: $US16 million (A$24.5 million) each.

For a country that established freedom of the press under its Constitution, Trump’s attacks on news media are an ongoing assault on America’s democracy.

Trump’s attacks on PBS and NPR show the existential threat they face.

In 1967, Congress established and funded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to bring to life public television and radio across America. Money from CPB supports the stations. The stations contract with PBS and NPR to help produce the programming they air, from the PBS NewsHour, Frontline and Sesame Street on PBS to Morning Edition and All Things Considered on NPR – and much more.

Trump holds the same sentiment that Dutton expressed against the ABC – that the public broadcasters are biased toward the “extreme woke Marxist left”. Trump wrote on Truth Social that:

Jim Jordan of Ohio, one of the most influential Republican leaders in the House of Representatives, was in-your-face direct on the case against public media:

This bill’s real simple. Don’t spend money on stupid things, and don’t subsidize biased media.

In late April, Trump ordered the firing of three of CPB’s five directors. On May 1, Trump issued an executive order that will savage public media’s existence:

At the very least, Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage […] The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS.“

Public media has filed red-hot lawsuits against Trump and his officials for crushing the First Amendment free-speech rights of public televion and radio stations, and for cancelling funds appropriated by Congress. The court rulings in these cases will be crucial to the outcome.

The last near-fatal threat to public broadcasting was in 1981, when President Ronald Reagan sought Congress’ approval to decimate its funding. Under Reagan conservatism, media belong in the private sector. The conservative’s political bias against public broadcasting framed the push to cancel government funding.

But Congress rose up successfully against the Reagan cuts – led not only by Democrats but with Senate Republicans from rural states who understood how important public broadcasting was to their communities. Their budgets were trimmed, but PBS and NPR were not decapitated.

Lessons for the ABC

The same is true here: ABC stations in country areas are similarly held in high regard.

The cuts to public media passed the US House by one vote on June 12.

The Senate will vote in the coming days. We will see if some Senate Republicans who voted against Trump’s One Big Beautiful bill last week will stand up again and vote to buck Trump on this issue and protect public media in their states.

If Trump succeeds in silencing public media in America, the Trump echo chamber in Australia will take note. Some hard conservatives in Canberra and the Murdoch media will likely leverage Congress’ approval of Trump’s order that PBS and NPR be punished for their left-wing bias and that public media should become the province of the private sector. Defunding public media in the US will sustain the sentiment that one day, under a future government here, the scythe will be wielded at the ABC.

If the US Senate supports Trump, the fight for the ABC in Australia – not just over money, but over its role, responsibilities and standing in Australia – may not be over.

Bruce Wolpe is a (non-resident) Senior Fellow at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. The views expressed herein are his own. Wolpe served on the staff of Prime Minister Julia Gillard. He worked on the Democratic staff in Congress on public broadcasting issues and was an executive with NPR. He is the author of two books on Trump and Australia.

– ref. Trump is aiming to silence public media in the US – and if he succeeds, his supporters here will take note – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-aiming-to-silence-public-media-in-the-us-and-if-he-succeeds-his-supporters-here-will-take-note-260584

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Belinda Clarence, Law Lecturer, RMIT University

During the recent conflict between Iran and Israel, Iran threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s major shipping routes.

Would that be possible, and what effects would it have?

The Strait of Hormuz is a choke point at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. It is used to transport about 20% of global daily oil consumption.

Iran effectively controls this crucial shipping route because it is a coastal state bordering this narrow stretch of water. The strait is too narrow to avoid navigating waters claimed by Iran. This raises thorny legal questions about whether it is really possible for Iran to block the strait, and what recourse other states have if it does.

This geographical reality is far from new, and the legal frameworks governing international maritime activity have developed over centuries. At its heart is the lex mercatoria — the “law of merchants” — a body of transnational commercial law that emerged organically from the practices of traders operating across borders.

Within this broader framework sits the lex maritima, or customary maritime law, which has long adapted to the hazards of shipping across vast oceans.

The lex maritima originated from the shared practices of seafarers and merchants. Its purpose? To manage the unpredictable nature of maritime trade that demands coherent and stable rules.

One of the most enduring principles of this legal tradition is the idea of mare liberum, or “the free sea”, set out by Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1609. He argued the high seas should remain open to all for peaceful navigation and trade. This conveniently legitimised the ambitions of European colonial powers, granting them unfettered access to global maritime routes at a time when control over sea-based trade promised immense economic and strategic advantage.

The shifting boundaries of maritime law

One of the most fundamental questions in maritime law is: where do a nation’s territorial waters end, and the high seas begin?

After the second world war, a series of conferences culminated in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), where the customary 3 nautical miles (5.56km) of territorial waters states could claim as their own was extended. This narrow limit was rooted more in historical naval range – the so-called “cannon shot rule” – than in modern geopolitical or environmental realities.

In 1959, Iran took the unusual step of unilaterally extending its territorial sea to 12 nautical miles, despite not being a party to UNCLOS. Two decades later, following the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the US Embassy hostage crisis, Washington grew increasingly anxious about the security of oil flows from the Persian Gulf. These concerns intensified during the Iran-Iraq War, especially as Iran began using small islands in the Strait of Hormuz to deploy military forces and threaten commercial shipping.

UNCLOS and the new rules of the sea

One of the key compromises of UNCLOS was an extension of territorial waters for states that ratified the treaty. In exchange, UNCLOS replaced the older concept of “innocent passage” – which allowed only surface navigation through territorial seas – with the broader notion of “transit passage”. Under this regime, vessels and aircraft from other states are granted the right to travel not only on the surface, but also under the sea and through the air above straits used for international navigation.

While 169 states have ratified UNCLOS, both Iran and the United States remain notable holdouts. This means Iran does not enjoy the broader 12-nautical-mile limit recognised under UNCLOS, and the US cannot claim the agreement’s protections for transit passage through strategic choke points.

While the geopolitical and legal tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz may seem far removed from the world of private commerce, the global economy continues to function thanks to a powerful legal tool: the contract. Contracts offer a predictable framework that allows trade across borders without parties needing to trust one another personally.

The Strait of Hormuz is bordered by active, assertive states such as Iran, which means the potential for interstate conflict is relatively high. This doesn’t mean commercial contracts are irrelevant to the recent dispute in the Strait of Hormuz — far from it. But their influence is more indirect.

What can be learned?

Without significant political change in Tehran, it’s unlikely either Iran or the US will shift its position on adopting UNCLOS. Yet despite Iran’s repeated threats to close the strait, it has never followed through — and the US Navy continues to maintain a steady presence in the region. For now, a fragile but persistent equilibrium holds.

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

– ref. What is the Strait of Hormuz and why is it so important for global shipping? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-strait-of-hormuz-and-why-is-it-so-important-for-global-shipping-260920

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nick Draper, Professor of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Canterbury

The widely held view among rugby players, coaches and officials is that headgear can’t prevent concussion. If so, why wear it? It’s hot, it can block vision and hearing, and it can be uncomfortable.

Headgear was originally designed to protect players from cuts and abrasions. But players still hope it will offer them a degree of protection against the collisions they experience in the game. Some players adopt it after previous concussions.

We’re now seeing increasing numbers of professional players opting in. The Irish men’s team, for example, field up to five players each match sporting headgear. In Japan, it’s mandatory for juniors. And more parents in New Zealand are making their children wear it, too.

The exact specifications for rugby match kit – boots, shorts, shoulder pads and
headgear – are regulated through World Rugby’s Law 4 and Regulation 12. In 2019, the governing body launched a trial enabling players to wear headgear with new technical specifications in training and matches.

The specifications have meant manufacturers can take advantage of novel “isotropic” materials that can potentially reduce the impact forces experienced by players.

Conventional headgear is composed of soft foams that flatten when a player’s head collides with the ground or another player. As such, they can only minimally absorb those collision forces.

Isotropic materials behave differently. They can absorb impacts from multiple directions and may offer a level of protection against the effects on a player’s head of a tackle or other collision event.

Given these changes, and in light of recent research, we may need to change the narrative around rugby headgear: while it may not prevent concussion, it might reduce the total contact “burden” experienced by players in a game and over a whole season. And this could have benefits for long-term brain health.

Impacts across seasons and careers

Contact in rugby – through tackles, at the breakdown, and in scrums and lineouts – leads to players experiencing a number of collisions or “head acceleration events”. This contact is most commonly head to ground, head to body or head to head.

By having players use “smart” mouthguards with embedded micro-accelerometers and gyroscopes to capture head movements, researchers can now measure each collision and each player’s contact load in a game – and potentially over a career.

A player’s total contact load is found by adding together the magnitude of the impacts they experience in a game. These are measured as “peak linear accelerations” or “peak rotational accelerations”.

While past research and media attention has focused on concussion, it has become clear the total contact burden in training and matches – the total “sub-concussive knocks” through head acceleration events – may be as important, if not more so.

One of our own research projects involved following 40 under-16 players wearing smart mouthguards for all training and matches across one season. Peak Linear accelerations are measured as a g-force (g). Activities such as such as running, jumping and shaking the head would measure under 8g, for example, whereas heading a soccer ball might measure 31g.

The results of our study showed the players differed greatly in their cumulative exposure over a whole season, from 300g to nearly 14,000g. These differences would be amplified further over an entire rugby career.

Some of the variation is likely due to a player’s team position, with loose forwards having a greater burden than others. But it also seems some players just enjoy the contact aspects of the game more than others.

Potential benefits of new headgear materials

Researcher Helen Murray at the University of Auckland has highlighted the need for more research into the burden of collisions, rather than just concussions, over a rugby career. In particular, we need to know more about its effect on future brain health.

We hope to contribute to this by following our existing cohort of players through their careers. In the meantime, our research has examined the potential of existing rugby headgear and new isotropic materials to mitigate peak accelerations in rugby collisions.

Using the field data collected from male and female players over the past four seasons, we have designed laboratory testing protocols to compare the conventional and newer materials.

The results suggest the new forms of headgear do have the potential to reduce the impact burden for players.

We found 55–90% of head acceleration events do involve direct contact with the head. As such, collision-mitigation headgear could be beneficial. And our laboratory testing produced an estimated 30% reduction in peak linear accelerations with the headgear compared to without.

The nature of concussion is complex and related to the size of an impact as well as its direction and angle. For instance, we observed the concussions experienced by the junior players occurred between 12g and 62g – well below the male threshold of 70g requiring professional players to be removed from the field for a head injury assessment.

Currently, it seems unlikely headgear can prevent concussion. But it does appear new headgear materials could significantly reduce the total impact burden for players during their careers. And this may help safeguard their future brain health.

Nick Draper receives funding from the Health Research Council, Cure Kids, the Neurological Foundation, Canterbury Medical Research Foundation, Pacific Radiology Group, the Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust, and the UC Foundation.

– ref. Rugby headgear can’t prevent concussion – but new materials could soften the blows over a career – https://theconversation.com/rugby-headgear-cant-prevent-concussion-but-new-materials-could-soften-the-blows-over-a-career-258912

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jon Whittle, Director, Data61, CSIRO

There’s been much talk recently – especially among politicians – about productivity. And for good reason: Australia’s labour productivity growth sits at a 60-year low.

To address this, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has convened a productivity round table next month. This will coincide with the release of an interim report from the Productivity Commission, which is looking at five pillars of reform. One of these is the role of data and digital technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI).

This will be music to the ears of the tech and business sectors, which have been enthusiastically promoting the productivity benefits of AI. In fact, the Business Council of Australia also said last month that AI is the single greatest opportunity in a generation to lift productivity.

But what do we really know about how AI impacts productivity?

What is productivity?

Put simply, productivity is how much output (goods and services) we can produce from a given amount of inputs (such as labour and raw materials). It matters because higher productivity typically translates to a higher standard of living. Productivity growth has accounted for 80% of Australia’s income growth over the past three decades.

Productivity can be thought of as individual, organisational or national.

Your individual productivity is how efficiently you manage your time and resources to complete tasks. How many emails can you respond to in an hour? How many products can you check for defects in a day?

Organisational productivity is how well an organisation achieves its goals. For example, in a research organisation, how many top-quality research papers are produced?

National productivity is the economic efficiency of a nation, often measured as gross domestic product per hour worked. It is effectively an aggregate of the other forms. But it’s notoriously difficult to track how changes in individual or organisational productivity translate into national GDP per hour worked.

AI and individual productivity

The nascent research examining the relationship between AI and individual productivity shows mixed results.

A 2025 real-world study of AI and productivity involved 776 experienced product professionals at US multinational company Procter & Gamble. The study showed that individuals randomly assigned to use AI performed as well as a team of two without. A similar study in 2023 with 750 consultants from Boston Consulting Group found tasks were 18% faster with generative AI.

A 2023 paper reported on an early generative AI system in a Fortune 500 software company used by 5,200 customer support agents. The system showed a 14% increase in the number of issues resolved per hour. For less experienced agents, productivity increased by 35%.

But AI doesn’t always increase individual productivity.

A survey of 2,500 professionals found generative AI actually increased workload for 77% of workers. Some 47% said they didn’t know how to unlock productivity benefits. The study points to barriers such as the need to verify and/or correct AI outputs, the need for AI upskilling, and unreasonable expectations about what AI can do.

A recent CSIRO study examined the daily use of Microsoft 365 Copilot by 300 employees of a government organisation. While the majority self-reported productivity benefits, a sizeable minority (30%) did not. Even those workers who reported productivity improvements expected greater productivity benefits than were delivered.

AI and organisational productivity

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to attribute changes in an organisation’s productivity to the introduction of AI. Businesses are sensitive to many social and organisational factors, any one of which could be the reason for a change in productivity.

Nevertheless, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has estimated the productivity benefits of traditional AI – that is, machine learning applied for an industry-specific task – to be zero to 11% at the organisational level.

A 2024 summary paper cites independent studies showing increases in organisational productivity from AI in Germany, Italy and Taiwan.

In contrast, a 2022 analysis of 300,000 US firms didn’t find a significant correlation between AI adoption and productivity, but did for other technologies such as robotics and cloud computing. Likely explanations are that AI hasn’t yet had an effect on many firms, or simply that it’s too hard to disentangle the impact of AI given it’s never applied in isolation.

AI productivity increases can also sometimes be masked by additional human labour needed to train or operate AI systems. Take Amazon’s Just Walk Out technology for shops.

Publicly launched in 2018, it was intended to reduce labour as customer purchases would be fully automated. But it reportedly relied on hiring around 1,000 workers in India for quality control. Amazon has labelled these reports “erroneous”.

More generally, think about the unknown number (but likely millions) of people paid to label data for AI models.

AI and national productivity

The picture at a national level is even murkier.

Clearly, AI hasn’t yet impacted national productivity. It can be argued that technology developments take time to affect national productivity, as companies need to figure out how to use the technology and put the necessary infrastructure and skills in place.

However, this is not guaranteed. For example, while there is consensus that the internet led to productivity improvements, the effects of mobile phones and social media are more contested, and their impacts are more apparent in some industries (such as entertainment) than others.

Productivity isn’t just doing things faster

The common narrative around AI and productivity is that AI automates mundane tasks, making us faster at doing things and giving us more time for creative pursuits. This, however, is a naive view of how work happens.

Just because you can deal with your inbox more quickly doesn’t mean you’ll spend your afternoon on the beach. The more emails you fire off, the more you’ll receive back, and the never-ending cycle continues.

Faster isn’t always better. Sometimes, we need to slow down to be more productive. That’s when great ideas happen.

Imagine a world in which AI isn’t simply about speeding up tasks but proactively slows us down, to give us space to be more innovative, and more productive. That’s the real untapped opportunity with AI.

Jon Whittle works at CSIRO which receives R&D funding from a wide range of government and industry clients.

– ref. Does AI actually boost productivity? The evidence is murky – https://theconversation.com/does-ai-actually-boost-productivity-the-evidence-is-murky-260690

Source: ForeignAffairs4

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

This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

---

It was revealing this week to read reports of Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting with Donald Trump (his third White House visit since Trump’s inauguration in January). There was no sense that the US president upped the pressure on the Israeli prime minister to soften Israel’s conditions in order to secure a ceasefire. Instead the pair appears to have discussed the prospect of moving large numbers of Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip to countries what would, as Netanyahu put it, “give Palestinians a better future”.

If Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, has his way, the future for those Palestinians who want to stay put does indeed look pretty bleak. And the 57,000 people who, according to figures collated by the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry, have lost their lives since the Israeli assault on Gaza began back in October 2023, have no future at all.

But the plan for the future of Gazan Palestinians that Katz unveiled this week will horrify many too. It involves the construction of a “humanitarian city” at Rafah, close to the Egyptian border at the very southern end of the Strip. Under the plan, people entering the city will be searched for weapons and checked for affiliation to Hamas. Once in, they will not be allowed to leave, except to depart from Gaza altogether.

---

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 immediately prompted critics to accuse the Israeli government of ethnic cleansing. James Sweeney, an expert in human rights and international law at the University of Lancaster, believes that, if Israel were to carry out Katz’s plan, there would be strong case against political and military leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He argues that the plan amounts at the very least to the forcible transfer of civilians prohibited under the Geneva conventions and the Rome statute, which underpins the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The snag, as Sweeney sees it, is going to be enforcing international law. While there is an ICC warrant out for the arrests of Netanyahu and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, the Israeli prime minister was able to visit Washington without fear of being apprehended. The US doesn’t recognise the ICC and, indeed, the prosecutor that issued the warrant against Netanyahu and Gallant is now subject to US sanctions.

---

Read more:
Plans to relocate Gazans to a ‘humanitarian city’ look like a crime against humanity – international law expert

---

Of course, what happens in Gaza tends to reverberate throughout the region. If hundreds of thousands of Palestinian citizens are moved out of Gaza, it’s likely to be to one of the neighbouring countries. When the idea of a Trump Riviera was first mooted earlier this year, the US president said the Palestinian population could be rehomed in Egypt or Jordan – something both those countries pushed back against with alacrity.

And the powerful Gulf States, which Trump was keen to woo as business partners when he made a tour of the region in May, are also deeply concerned about Israel’s conduct of its military campaign in Gaza. Geopolitics aside, their populations are broadly sympathetic to the Palestinian people, so a plan to force them out of their homes is unacceptable for Gulf leaders.

Scott Lucas, an expert in Middle East politics at University College Dublin, gives us a broader view of the region. He describes what he calls two “kaleidoscope moments” when one event has changed the entire region. The first was the Hamas attack of October 7. This brought to an abrupt end the process of normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The second was the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, which has further isolated Israel. Lucas believes for there to be any hope of regional stability and the furthering of Israeli relations with the rest of the region, the war in Gaza must end.

---

Read more:
As Netanyahu meets Trump in Washington, what hope for peace in Gaza? Expert Q&A

---

Ali Mamouri, a Middle East scholar at Australia’s Deakin University doesn’t believe there’s much chance of this happening any time soon. Part of this is political: Netanyahu still depends on the far-right elements of his coalition represented by national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich. They remain steadfastly opposed to even a ceasefire and want to see Israel expel Palestinians by hook or by crook.

Also, by prolonging the war, Netanyahu can keep delaying his corruption trial (incidentally, Donald Trump has called for the charges to be dropped altogether).

And the idea of full statehood for Palestine remains anathema for Israel, as Netanyahu made clear this week talking with journalists after his meeting with Trump when he made clear his insistence that far from pulling Israeli troops out of Gaza, Israel would keep full control of all security matters there: “Now, people will say: ‘It’s not a complete state, it’s not a state.’ We don’t care,” he said.

Mansour concludes: “The coming weeks will reveal whether Israel chooses the path of compromise and coexistence, or continues down a road that forecloses the possibility of lasting peace.”

---

Read more:
The US has high hopes for a new Gaza ceasefire, but Israel’s long-term aims seem far less peaceful

---

Europe must step up over Ukraine

Just as the picture remains bleak in Gaza, the prospects for peace remain very slim in Ukraine. Although given Donald Trump’s mercurial approach to foreign affairs, it’s also fair to say that anything is possible.

This week the US president decided to recommence US arms supplies to Ukraine, having previously frozen military aid (although he insists this was done by his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, and that he was “blindsided” by the move). His relationship with Putin appears to have soured – for the present at least. He said: “We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He’s very nice all of the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.”

And at the most recent Nato summit in The Hague on June 25, Trump put his signature to a declaration that Russia poses “long-term threat … to Euro-Atlantic security” and that Nato member states retain “their enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine”.

But Stefan Wolff, an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham, believes that Nato’s European members cannot bank on the US as a reliable long-term partner. There are few signs that the US is pressuring Russia to compromise on its maximalist aims, which remain unchanged since it invaded Ukraine in February 2022. So Russia remains the most urgent threat to European security. And it’s a threat that Europe will need to prepare to confront, if necessary without US assistance.

But there are signs that many European countries are preparing to do just that, Wolff writes. Increased commitments to defence spending are a strong start. As he concludes: “They will not turn Europe into a military heavyweight overnight. But they will buy time to do so.”

---

Read more:
US backs Nato’s latest pledge of support for Ukraine, but in reality seems to have abandoned its European partners

---

Understandably, much of the reporting of the war in Ukraine has focused on the human tragedy unfolding in the war-torn country: the enormous casualty list on both sides, civilians killed or forced from their homes in the fighting, and the Ukrainian citizens forced to live under Russian occupation.

But a new film, which premiered recently at the Tribeca film festival, looks at War Through the Eyes of Animals. Janine Natalya Clark, an expert in transitional justice at the University of Birmingham, has done similar. Clark interviewed a number of Ukrainian natural scientists including botanists, ornithologists, herpetologists (who study reptiles and amphibians) and a marine biologist. She asked them to make sound recordings in their area to reflect on how the war is affecting Ukraine’s flora and fauna.

What emerged was extraordinary and reflects how the conflict has affected the natural world in both positive and negative ways. Clark believes that this information will be invaluable when it comes to rebuilding Ukraine and in securing justice and reparations for the damage done – not just to humans, but to Ukraine’s animals and the habitats in which they live.

---

Read more:
Sound recordings can give us an animal-eye view of the war in Ukraine

---

In Russia, meanwhile, a controversial measure introduced by the Putin government is dividing public opinion. In some parts of the country, schoolgirls who become pregnant are being paid more than 100,000 roubles (nearly £900) for giving birth and raising their babies.

Jannifer Mathers, a Russia expert at Aberystwyth University, looks at the rise of pronatalism in the face of declining populations and finds it’s not just an issue in Russia, but for many other countries as well, including the US.

---

Read more:
Russia is paying schoolgirls to have babies. Why is pronatalism on the rise around the world?

---

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

---

– ref. Israel’s relocation plan for Palestinians and fading hopes for a ceasefire – https://theconversation.com/israels-relocation-plan-for-palestinians-and-fading-hopes-for-a-ceasefire-260933