Category: The Conversation

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Seyed Toliyat, Lecturer in Business Analytics and Technology, University of Stirling

The UK government has launched a consultation on driverless cars, ahead of on-the-road trials of the vehicles next year. It has now been more than a decade since the prospect of driverless cars on public roads emerged, and prototypes and robotaxi fleets such as Waymo and Cruise replaced human drivers with artificial intelligence (AI).

But ten years on, and with self-driving cars increasingly common in the US and China, significant obstacles still stand in their way in the UK.

Despite rapid advances in the tech, other aspects of the driverless journey are still to catch up. Here are five key reasons why autonomous cars are unlikely to take over your local roads any time soon.

1. Uncertainties around safety

One of the main benefits of rolling out driverless cars is to increase traffic safety by eliminating driver errors. In the US, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported in 2018 that more than 90% of serious crashes were due to human error. But there is not yet converging evidence to support the idea that AI taking over from human drivers can make roads safer.

On the other hand, there is evidence that adverse weather conditions, road design, traffic control systems and mixed traffic (that is, human-driven and driverless cars) can degrade the performance of those vehicles. Anomalies in driving patterns and frequent rear-end crashes involving self-driving technologies could indicate the AI algorithms are still far from perfect.

2. Regulations and legislation falling behind

Substantial investment in research and development of self-driving technologies has led to a fast-growing and innovative industry. On the other hand, legislation and regulation processes often tend to be slower. These involve multiple stages including drafting, consultation, debate, committee reviews, voting and sometimes judicial review.

The UK’s Automated Vehicles Act provides a framework for the deployment of driverless vehicles. But the legal codes and mechanisms are still evolving. This is also true of data privacy and cybersecurity.

For now, there is insufficient legislation governing who can own telematics and vehicle data or how they can be used. Such a widening lag has implications for the mass rollout of driverless cars, and has a direct impact on insuring them.

3. The insurance industry isn’t ready

Scarce data, combined with ambiguities in legislation and regulations, means insurance companies face a new set of challenges. These include making sense of where liability lies, developing new insurance models and adapting their premiums as the types of claim evolve.

In some countries, including the UK, the liability for levels four and five of autonomous driving (very highly automated and fully automated) is shifting from human drivers in conventional vehicles to the manufacturer. Although the insurer pays first, they can recover costs from the tech provider later.

New risk factors such as cybersecurity further complicate the insurance landscape. Driverless cars are designed to communicate with infrastructure and even other vehicles to decide their routes and avoid collisions. This can open the door to unlawful modifications, hacking or privacy breaches.

4. Ethical dilemmas

Heavy traffic and the presence of other road users could lead to scenarios where a crash is inevitable. This would require programmers to design crash severity algorithms that include moral decision-making into autonomous systems. In simple terms, programmers are effectively being asked to write codes that assign value to human lives – an ethical minefield that has yet to be resolved in either academia or industry.

This echoes the “trolley problem” (a thought experiment about killing one person to save others) but with real-world legal and moral significance. It poses further legal and regulatory questions that could further slow the progress of legislation. Complicating things further is the opaque, black-box nature of AI algorithms.

5. Changing business models

Technology developers such as Waymo and Zoox offer only driverless rides and don’t sell vehicles. The recent move by Tesla to launch a robotaxi service in Austin, Texas, also indicates a shift from selling cars to “mobility as a service”, even by car manufacturers.

In some societies like the US, there is resistance among consumers to relinquishing car ownership due to higher car dependency. This mismatch between the business models of the makers of driverless cars and consumer preferences presents another significant barrier to widespread adoption.

Even if the technical obstacles are removed, these deeply held sentiments about the nature of mobility may prevent consumers abandoning private vehicles.

Until the technical, legal, ethical and commercial challenges are addressed, the widespread rollout of driverless vehicles will remain more of a long-term vision than an immediate reality.

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.

Seyed Toliyat 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. Five reasons why driverless cars probably won’t take over your street any time soon – https://theconversation.com/five-reasons-why-driverless-cars-probably-wont-take-over-your-street-any-time-soon-261040

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Leah Sidi, Associate Professor of Health Humanities, UCL

Under bright lights, the audience looks at a bare stage on two planes. Below, a small stage is white and empty, occupied only by a table and two chairs. Above, a huge, slanted mirror reflects a bird’s-eye view of the stage to the audience. Three middle-aged figures enter the stage without looking at each other. One lies down, staring into the mirror. One stands and one sits. For the next 70 minutes, they will never hold one another’s gaze.

This is the revival of Sarah Kane’s play 4.48 Psychosis. The production takes place 25 years after the original work, bringing the original cast and creative team back to the Royal Court where the play was first staged – now transferred to The Other Place, a small theatre run by the Royal Shakespeare Company.

It replicates the staging of the original with precision. The same faces are on the same set, making the same gestures. Even the projections of the street outside show cars from the 1990s. And yet, because this is theatre, there are inevitable differences.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

The play is a revival and a commemoration. Kane wrote 4.48 Psychosis in the year leading up to her death by suicide in 1999 and completed it during her final stay in a psychiatric hospital. It stages the experience of a suicidal and psychotic mind breaking down.

About a week after sending the play to her agent, Kane ended her own life. A year later, the original production was staged at the Royal Court, directed by her long-term collaborator James Macdonald and starring three young actors: Daniel Evans, Madeleine Potter and Jo McInnes. All three have returned for this revival.

4.48 Psychosis is a highly experimental play. It contains dialogue between doctor and patient, poetry, seemingly psychotic speech, lists and quotations from literature and medical documents. In her aims for the play, Kane was both very open and very specific. She described the play in an interview at Royal Holloway University as an attempt to stage the experience of a mind breaking down:

I’m writing a play called 4:48 Psychosis … It’s about a psychotic breakdown and what happens in a person’s mind when the barriers which distinguish between reality and different forms of imagination completely disappear … you no longer know where you stop and the world starts.

What’s more, through an experimental style, Kane hoped to make her audience experience some of the distress experienced by the mental collapse being staged. She described this as “making form and content one”.

How this strange work was to be staged was to be left up to future creatives. She didn’t specify how many actors should perform the work, or provide references to their age or gender. Kane believed that as a playwright, her job was to write the work, and then let directors figure it out.

The result was that the first performance split the experience of breakdown across three actors. At times, they take on more specific roles such as a patient, a doctor, and a lover or bystander. At others, they all seem to occupy a shared mental reverie.

Since the original production, 4.48 Psychosis has been staged in multiple ways around the world. French actor Isabelle Huppert performed the first French production largely as a monologue in 2005, with occasional lines delivered by Gérard Watkins as a psychiatrist. Recently in the UK it has been transformed into a successful opera in which a six-person ensemble and full orchestra performed the play’s “hive mind”, and has been performed in a plastic box in British Sign Language.

When it was first performed in 2000, a year after Kane’s death, the play left a profound impression on its audiences. It was arguably one of the most brutal, head-on representations of mental illness that had ever been seen in British theatre. Reviews from that first production discuss anxieties about whether the play should be viewed as a “suicide note” – a disturbingly “real” reference to Kane’s death.

Today, such anxieties may seem less relevant. After all, over two decades have passed since Kane’s death, and we are in a very different world when it comes to how we view disclosure of personal struggle. In a culture of mental health awareness campaigns and social media oversharing, the closeness of Kane’s suffering to her work seems less scandalous, and perhaps less unsettling.

At times, this revival feels a bit more like a repetition, or archival reconstruction than a fresh performance. There are moments that feel dated – for example, the use of pixelated projections.

The most compelling moments were where something original was introduced due to the more advanced ages of the actors. In my experience, the play is typically performed by a younger cast, as a rageful, energetic cry of despair. It hits differently with a cast in their fifties.

Madeleine Potter’s resigned, ironic complaints about being mistreated by “Dr This and Dr That” gave the impression of a woman with a lifetime’s experience of inadequate mental health services. And Jo McInnes’s desperate monologue about lost love could be referencing an estranged or dead child, as much as a lover.

These moments inserted something new into Kane’s iconic last work and underlined that mental suffering is far from being the privilege of the young. More of a slow burn than an explosive cry of anger, this return to 4.48 Psychosis explores mental torment that can persist over a lifetime, revealing it to be as relevant as ever.

4.48 Psychosis is at The Other Place until July 27.

Leah Sidi 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. 4.48 Psychosis revival: the play’s window into a mind on the edge is as brutal as ever – https://theconversation.com/4-48-psychosis-revival-the-plays-window-into-a-mind-on-the-edge-is-as-brutal-as-ever-261430

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Neill Raath, Assistant Professor of Sustainable Materials and Manufacturing, University of Warwick

Despite the steady growth of online shopping, a majority of the UK public still prefers to buy groceries at the supermarket.

Shopping trolleys can help us lug our purchases back to the car, but some shoppers are evidently taking them further afield. In 2017, 520,000 trolleys were reported as abandoned in the UK. Sunderland in north-east England alone reported 30,000 abandoned trolleys between 2020 and 2022. Likewise, 550 trolleys were collected in a single day in western Sydney, Australia.

Supermarkets employ a range of methods to stop trolleys leaving their premises, including coin slots, vertical bars (to stop trolleys leaving the shop floor), wheel-locking mechanisms and car park wardens. Despite these efforts, abandoned trolleys still blight the landscape and need to be collected.

Many supermarkets use commercial collection services, such as Wanzl TrolleyWise or TMS Collex. These companies typically use diesel vans to survey suburban areas, collect trolleys and return them to supermarkets. They also offer to refurbish weathered or damaged trolleys, sometimes by applying a zinc-based coating to protect against corrosion – a process known as regalvanisation.

We are researchers at the University of Warwick who wanted to understand the environmental impact of trolley abandonment. So, we set out to investigate it.

Collecting versus manufacturing

How does the environmental impact of using vans to rescue abandoned trolleys compare with losing these trolleys to excessive damage or corrosion and having to make new ones?

Our study used a standardised methodology known as life-cycle assessment to analyse the potential environmental impact of collecting and handling abandoned shopping trolleys within an area of Coventry, a city in the English West Midlands, which includes our university campus.

We spoke to trolley suppliers, who told us trolleys used at the supermarket in Coventry were most likely made in Spain. This was incorporated into our model.

Through conversations with our university’s estates department and commercial collection services, we established that approximately 30 trolleys were collected a week on average in the area surrounding the Tesco supermarket in the Cannon Park shopping centre.

Our model assumed that a bulk transport of 50 trolleys is sent twice each year to be refurbished, in a round trip of 220km between Coventry and a refurbishment facility based in the UK that was noted on stickers placed on refurbished trolleys.

Vans collecting 520,000 abandoned trolleys in a year could emit the equivalent of 343 tonnes of CO₂ (the annual equivalent of driving 80 petrol cars). If we imagine that 10% of these 520,000 trolleys have been left outside too long and need to be regalvanised then the total global warming impact increases by 90% to the equivalent of 652 tonnes CO₂ (roughly the same as 152 petrol cars being driven for one year).

This is quite a surprising increase for such a small number of trolleys. It suggests that the real problem lies with the environmental impact of manufacturing.

Most of the emissions can be avoided

We found that one trolley would have to be collected 93 times by a diesel van to have the same environmental impact as manufacturing a new one.

Our results showed that the emissions incurred during the diesel van collection phase were only 1% of the manufacturing impact, and the regalvanisation stage was only 8%. We might wonder whether switching to electrically powered collection vans might help. While the emissions would be reduced, the impact of using diesel vans is still minuscule compared to that of making new trolleys.

We found that the highest environmental impact stemmed from manufacturing, which was mainly attributed to making and replacing the steel frame of the trolley.

These results reinforce the benefits of following the circular-economy principle of keeping trolleys in use for as long as possible, and avoiding manufacturing to replace abandoned ones.

Would anything change if we switched to plastic trolleys? Other researchers have investigated the effect of changing trolley materials and have found that trolleys made of polymers have many benefits compared with steel: they use less material, are less dense (a benefit for collection vans that emit less by driving around lighter products) and do not require protective coatings, which themselves have an environmental impact.

However, if these polymer trolleys were to be sent to landfill (or left to deteriorate in the environment), they could release carcinogenic chemicals, as well as microplastics, as they break down. This leads us back to the importance of keeping products in use.

Abandoning trolleys is bad for the environment, with a potential global warming impact equivalent to 0.69 kg CO₂ for collecting one trolley and returning it to a supermarket. If we multiply this by the potential 520,000 abandoned trolleys a year, this figure becomes quite big.

Preventing trolley abandonment should be a priority not just for supermarkets, but for the general public as well. However, once a trolley is abandoned, it is far better to collect and refurbish it than to let it fall out of use and manufacture a new one, as 92–99% of the environmental impact can be avoided.

While it is unlikely that we can ever stop trolleys being abandoned, we hope that next time people see a trolley in an alley or park bush, the potential environmental impact of losing this trolley to service would be apparent.

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.

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

– ref. Counting the climate costs of abandoned shopping trolleys – https://theconversation.com/counting-the-climate-costs-of-abandoned-shopping-trolleys-258500

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Lawrence, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology, Cardiff Metropolitan University

Restrictive practices in mental health settings – such as physical restraint and seclusion – are meant to be a last resort, used only when patients pose a risk to themselves or others.

In 2021 and 2022 alone, NHS England reported that 6,600 mental health patients were subjected to physical restraint, and 4,500 to seclusion. Figures such as these have led numerous experts and policymakers to conclude that restrictive practices are overused in mental health inpatient settings.

The consequences can be devastating. Restrictive practices are associated with trauma, worsening mental health, and even death. For decades, clinicians, researchers and policymakers have called for their reduction. Progress, however, remains painfully slow.

For the past five years, I have been researching the use of restrictive practices in mental health services and exploring how to reduce them. My new research demonstrates the importance of using compassion to support staff to promote the dignity and wellbeing of patients as a priority.

Restrictive practices have a long history that predates the development of asylums and psychiatry as a medical discipline. The use of legislation to detain people on the basis of their mental health in England, for example, dates back to at least the 14th century. Early examples of restrictive practices included patients being bound and beaten with rods in order to “restore sanity”.

During the first three decades of the 19th century, mechanical restraints such as straitjackets, chains and restraint chairs and confining patients in locked rooms were widely accepted methods of controlling violent people in British asylums. But in the 1830s, some clinicians recognised the moral and ethical problems with using such practices, and a campaign began to abolish them.

The UN has long recognised restrictive practices in mental healthcare as a human rights issue. In 2008, the UN’s special rapporteur on torture stated that methods such as solitary confinement violate articles 14 and 15 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which protect against arbitrary detention and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

This stance was reaffirmed in 2021 when the UN declared that restrictive practices breach the fundamental rights of patients. This underscores the urgent need for reform in mental healthcare systems worldwide.

Harmful effect

Research shows that restrictive practices may not only harm patients but contradict the goals of mental healthcare. Many mental health problems stem from traumatic experiences that leave people feeling powerless, unsafe and distressed. Using methods that reinforce these feelings can worsen the very issues services aim to address.

In extreme incidents, people have died as a result of restrictive practices use.

In my research, I have developed a theoretical model identifying core factors that perpetuate the use of restrictive practices in mental health services. These include the emotional challenges faced by staff working in high-stress environments, and how these challenges influence their decision-making.

Mental health wards can be highly stressful environments, with frequent incidents of aggression. In such settings, staff can often feel anxious and hyper-vigilant, which can make it harder for them to respond to patients with compassion.

Research shows that threat-based emotions like fear and anger are linked to a greater likelihood of using restrictive measures. So, this cycle perpetuates the use of these harmful practices.

Compassion may hold the key

Using restrictive practices to control or remove people who are perceived as a threat can provide staff with a sense of immediate safety, which may inadvertently reinforce their use. To address this, I wanted to explore whether supporting staff to manage their emotions more effectively could reduce their reliance on restrictive practices, and foster a more compassionate approach to care.

As part of my research, I introduced compassion-focused support groups for staff in several forensic mental health wards, advocating for a more empathetic and patient-centred approach. These groups tried to equip participants with skills to better manage challenging emotional experiences while fostering greater compassion for both themselves and the people in their care.

The aim was to help staff cultivate an inner sense of safety, reducing their reliance on restrictive practices as a means of managing their own feelings of threat. This intervention was encouraging, leading to reductions in the use of restrictive practices in some conditions – demonstrating the potential of using compassionate care for these purposes.

My study was the first of its kind – bur these initial results highlight the need for further research into how the emotional management of staff influences care decisions. The journey toward change is slow, but it is possible. Compassion may hold the key to addressing a deeply entrenched issue that has shaped the treatment of mental health patients for centuries.

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.

Daniel Lawrence is affiliated with the Labour Party.

– ref. Physically restricting mental health patients can often harm them – my new study suggests compassion could change that – https://theconversation.com/physically-restricting-mental-health-patients-can-often-harm-them-my-new-study-suggests-compassion-could-change-that-244782

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Giorgio Di Gessa, Lecturer in Data Science, UCL

Grandparents play a pivotal role in family life. They are often a vital part of the childcare puzzle, stepping in to look after their grandchildren while parents are at work or busy. And there’s a lot of grandparent care taking place.

In England, around half of all grandparents provide care for their grandchildren when the parents are not around. And the percentage of grandparents providing care is even higher when they have grandchildren aged 16 and under, who are more likely to require supervision, care, and support from an adult when the parents are busy at work or unavailable. In this case, 66% of grandparents help out.

I used data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, to analyse the caring roles of over 5,000 grandparents. I used data collected in 2016-17 to assess how often grandparents looked after their grandchildren, the activities they did with them, and why they helped out. I also discovered that there are clear gender and socioeconomic patterns. Further analysis of data from 2018-19 showed that providing care as a grandparent can affect wellbeing.

I found that in England, among grandparents who looked after grandchildren, 45% of grandparents spent at least one day a week looking after their young grandchildren. They did so consistently throughout the year, with 8% doing so almost daily. Approximately one in three grandparents provided care to their grandchildren during school holidays.

Around 25% of grandparents who looked after their grandchildren were still working. Most grandparents reported having overall good physical health.

And most grandparents who cared for their grandchildren also lived relatively close to them – less than half an hour away from their closest grandchild – and had at least one grandchild aged under six years old.

Most of the grandparents in the study who cared for grandchildren – 80% – mentioned that they played or took part in leisure activities with their grandchildren. Around half said that they frequently cooked for them and helped with picking them up and dropping them off from schools and nurseries. And although it was less common, grandparents also helped with homework and taking care of their grandchildren when they were not feeling well.

About three grandparents in four (76%) said that their motivation for helping out was to give their grandchildren’s parents some time out from childcare responsibilities. A similar percentage – 70% – said they wanted to provide some economic support, either by offering financial assistance or by allowing parents to go to work.

Just over half of grandparents (52%) said that being able to provide emotional support was what drove their motivation to provide grandchild care: they wanted to feel engaged with young people and help their grandchildren develop. But 17% say that they felt obliged to help out, and found it difficult to refuse.

The grandmother’s role

But while we tend to talk about “grandparents” as a group, grandmothers and grandfathers often experience and approach caregiving in distinctly different ways.

In particular, when examining the specific activities undertaken with their grandchildren, there are clear gender distinctions. I found that grandmothers were more likely than grandfathers to engage in hands-on tasks: preparing meals, helping with homework, caring for grandchildren when they are sick, and doing school pick-ups.

Grandfathers, while also involved, tended to participate less in these activities. This is the case even among grandparent couples who lived together and jointly cared for their grandchildren.

The role of wealth

The extent and nature of grandparental care is also closely linked to grandparents’ socioeconomic status. For example, grandparents with fewer financial resources tended to offer childcare more regularly than their wealthier counterparts.

Socioeconomic disparities also shape the nature of caregiving tasks. Less affluent grandparents were more likely to engage in hands-on activities, such as cooking meals and taking their grandchildren to and from school. In contrast, grandparents with more education were more likely than those with less education to help with homework frequently.

The reasons for providing care also varied according to grandparents’ socioeconomic status. Grandparents with greater financial resources and higher levels of education were more likely to report providing childcare to help parents manage work and other responsibilities, as well as to offer emotional support to their grandchildren. Conversely, those with fewer financial resources were more likely to feel obliged to help or to struggle to refuse caregiving duties.

Grandparent wellbeing

What grandparents do with their grandchildren and why they have an active role in caring for them can also affect their wellbeing in complex ways. Grandparents who often took part in fun or enriching activities with their grandchildren, such as leisure activities or helping with homework, tended to report higher wellbeing compared to their peers who did not look after grandchildren.

However, grandparents who cared for their grandchildren when they were sick or who had them stay overnight without parents tended to report, over time, lower wellbeing.

Motivations also matter for grandparents’ wellbeing. Grandparents had a higher quality of life if they cared for their grandchildren because they wanted to help them develop as people, or to feel engaged with young people. However, grandparents who felt obliged to help, perhaps due to family pressure or lack of alternatives, experienced lower wellbeing.

In short, these findings remind us that behind the broad label of “grandparenting” lies a diverse world of individuals whose involvement in caring for grandchildren – how often they care, what they do, and why – is closely linked to and varies with gender norms and socioeconomic status.

Also, the meaning behind grandparenting and the type of interactions shared with grandchildren seems to matter for grandparents’ wellbeing. Overall, these insights suggest that these caring responsibilities may contribute to the reinforcement or even deepening of existing gender, socioeconomic and health inequalities among older adults.

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.

Giorgio Di Gessa 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. Grandparent care: women from poorer backgrounds help out most with childcare – https://theconversation.com/grandparent-care-women-from-poorer-backgrounds-help-out-most-with-childcare-253168

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Douglas Schulz, Lecturer in Sociology and Criminology, University of Bradford

Ozzy Osbourne’s death is not just the passing of another rock star. It marks the end of an era – the fading of a figure who helped shape an entire music genre and subculture.

Both as a member of Black Sabbath and as a solo artist, Osbourne’s legacy lies not only in music history but how we understand performance, rebellion, and the expressive power of sound itself.

Despite a long battle with Parkinson’s disease and several health setbacks over the years, the news of his death was a shock to the whole metal community. Just weeks before his death on July 22, Osbourne delivered his final performance with Black Sabbath in the place it all began – Villa Park in Birmingham.

In the hours following the announcement of his death, countless bands and musicians flooded their social media channels to pay their respects.

Osbourne’s life was a testament to reinvention, grit, and the power of artistic authenticity – going from a working-class kid in Aston to the biggest name in heavy metal, writing the soundtrack to so many people’s lives. His distinctive voice, theatrical presence, and sheer will and determination shaped heavy metal music – inspiring generations of musicians and fans.

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.

When Black Sabbath emerged in the early 1970s, they played a role in making rock music more menacing, grittier and heavier. The Birmingham band didn’t just turn up the amplifiers and played louder guitars – they introduced a new aesthetic. They were known for their doomy riffs and lyrics about war, madness and the occult. Osbourne, with his uncanny voice and stage presence, was at the front and centre.

This sound was destined to become the blueprint for heavy metal. But Osbourne’s contribution went beyond his voice. He gave the genre its face, theatricality – and above all, its spirit of defiance.

Whether he was biting off the head of a bat on stage, stumbling through reality television with absurd but relatable quotes, or delivering genre-defining performances, Osbourne embodied contradictions. He was a mix of menace and mischief, tragedy and comedy, myth and man.

Heavy metal music has existed in tension with mainstream culture ever since its emergence in the UK in the late 1960s. It has been regarded as too aggressive, too loud, too weird. But Osbourne’s presence forced metal into the public discourse – whether through moral panics in the 1970s and ’80s, or through his television appearances in the 2000s. The Osbournes, a reality show following the family which aired on MTV, was a huge hit in the US and around the world, making Ozzy famous to a whole new audience.

Throughout his long career, Osbourne helped shift heavy metal from the margins into the mainstream, without ever diluting its transgressive edge.

A symbol of inspiration

Osbourne’s stage persona carved out space for other artists to follow. His willingness to be ridiculous, to speak openly about his addictions, health struggles and family dysfunction made him oddly relatable. It is that relatability that allowed Osbourne to be metal’s court jester and elder statesman in one.

Over time, bands like Slipknot, Ghost, Sleep Token, as well as more introspective bands like Deftones or Gojira, owe much to the groundwork Osbourne and Black Sabbath laid: a template for authenticity, theatricality, and emotional openness wrapped in spectacle and distortion. They helped define the core rhythms, riffs, themes and aesthetics that generations of metal bands followed.

But Osbourne’s cultural influence cannot be measured only in record sales (although those were plenty), Grammy wins, or his induction into the US Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. His influence lies in how his image, sound and attitude reshaped music scenes across continents.

In countries where metal is censored or underground, Osbourne was a symbol of resistance. In places where metal was accepted, he was the genre’s most unpredictable ambassador.

The Prince of Darkness, as he was known, may have left the stage but his legacy will live on. His music is still looped on Tiktok videos, and memes still make rounds on social media.

Young metal-heads will continue to emulate his style and irreverence. As long as people pick up guitars and look for a way to scream back at the world, Ozzy will be there – in spirit, in sound, and in spectacle.

Douglas Schulz 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. Ozzy Osbourne’s spirit of defiance changed music forever – https://theconversation.com/ozzy-osbournes-spirit-of-defiance-changed-music-forever-261775

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matt Warren, Managing Director, Universal Impact, The Conversation

We believe in the power of research to change the world for the better. But we also understand that research needs to be shared – effectively and accessibly – if it is to have its greatest impact.

As the Conversation UK’s specialist communications subsidiary, Universal Impact’s mission is to enable researchers to communicate their work, in a targeted way, to a wide range of different audiences. Which is why we’re currently working with Prototypes for Humanity. This Dubai-based academic forum and event promotes innovative scientific solutions and enables international research collaboration.

In April, we blogged about how the forum was seeking applicants for its Professors’ Programme. But applications to join this year’s Prototypes for Humanity annual gathering are now open to current university students on any undergraduate or postgraduate course – as well as graduates who completed their qualifications within the past two years.

The key is that your work potentially offers a tangible solution to a real world problem.

That’s you? Apply now…

Participation is free and successful applicants will showcase their innovative solutions at the Jumeirah Emirates Towers, Dubai, from November 17 to 20, 2025. Flight and accommodation costs are covered by the organiser.

There is also a US$100,000 prize fund to help the best projects roll out in the real world – and the opportunity to connect with a wide range of potential partners, funders and collaborators.

The evaluation criteria are threefold, stating that the successful applicants will be able to show:

Positive impact on people, communities or the planet: Whether addressing social issues, environmental concerns, or community development, demonstrating the project’s potential positive impact will be a crucial factor.

Rigour of academic research: We are seeking projects that demonstrate a deep understanding of the challenges addressed, and the students’ ability to propose meaningful and innovative solutions through structured research.

Application of technology: Innovative and effective use of technology (High-tech or Low-tech) is key, whether incorporating cutting-edge advancements or utilising simple yet efficient solutions.

More than 2,700 entries landed in The Prototypes for Humanity programme’s inbox last year. And researchers from 800 universities, many members of The Conversation’s international network, applied.

Read more:
Prototypes for Humanity showcases solutions-based projects from universities around the world – in Dubai

More than 100 projects were chosen to present at that event – and a similar number will be selected for this November’s showcase. The Conversation UK’s editor, Stephen Khan was at the 2024 event and blogged afterwards:

For The Conversation, it was an introduction to some projects that I expect you’ll hear and read more about in our content in the months to come.

While we rightly assess and explain events as they happen, delivering information about new research, and particularly innovative solutions that are born in the labs, studios and seminars of our partner universities is also a central element of our mission as we strive to be the comprehensive conveyor of academic knowledge.

Indeed, two researchers who presented their work – on sustainable batteries – at the 2024 event recently featured on The Conversation Weekly’s award-winning podcast. We expect many more to write about their work for The Conversation down the line.

Read more:
What will batteries of the future be made of? Four scientists discuss the options – podcast

You can submit research projects as an individual or group, or ask your professor to submit on your behalf. You can find the application link here and more information on the programme here. The deadline is July 31, 2025.

Good luck.

Universal Impact is a commercial subsidiary of The Conversation UK, offering specialist training, mentoring and research communication services and donating profits back to our parent charity. If you’re a researcher or research institution and you’re interested in working together, please get in touch – or subscribe to our weekly newsletter to find out more.

– ref. Calling university postgrad and undergrad students – apply to showcase your big ideas in Dubai – https://theconversation.com/calling-university-postgrad-and-undergrad-students-apply-to-showcase-your-big-ideas-in-dubai-261706

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Julian Savulescu, Visiting Professor in Biomedical Ethics, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute; Distinguished Visiting Professor in Law, University of Melbourne; Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics, The University of Melbourne

A young woman needs an abortion and the reasons, while urgent, are not medical. A United States Navy nurse at Guantánamo Bay is ordered to force-feed a defiant detainee on hunger strike.

These very different real-life cases have one connecting thread: the question of whether a health professional can conscientiously object to carrying out a patient’s request.

Freedom of conscience is often held up as a purely noble principle. But when it’s used to deny health care, it means a single person’s beliefs are dictating what is best for another person’s physical and mental health – which can have devastating, even fatal, results.

In our recent book, Rethinking Conscientious Objection in Healthcare, colleagues and I conclude doctors should not be free to make medical decisions based on their personal beliefs.

It’s not noble to refuse care

Freedom of conscience is strongly – but not absolutely – protected under international human rights law. It is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This principle has often been used for moral purposes: for example, to resist orders to torture or kill.

But after researching use of conscientious objection by health professionals, I have concluded it is seriously flawed when used to deny patients health services. This is especially so when particular doctors have a monopoly on service provision, as is the case with abortion and assisted dying in many rural and regional areas of Australia.

In Australia, doctors are allowed to conscientiously object to abortion, although nearly all states require referral to other service providers or information about how to access the relevant service.

In practice, these laws are not enforced and sometimes disregarded.

A doctor’s refusal can mean patients can be denied the standard of care they need, or indeed, any care at all.

Health-care professionals are not like pacifists refusing conscription into the military, opposing something forced upon them. They freely choose health-care careers that come with obligations and with ethical stances already established by professional codes of conduct.

People are free to hold whatever beliefs they choose, but those beliefs will inevitably close off some options for them. For example, a vegetarian will not be able to work in an abattoir. That is true for every one of us. But what shouldn’t happen is a doctor’s personal beliefs closing off legitimate options for their patient.

4 guiding questions

Instead of personal values, there are four key secular principles we propose that doctors should rely on when deciding how to advise patients about sensitive procedures:

• is it legal?

• is it a just and fair use of any resources that might be limited?

• is it in the interests of the patient’s wellbeing?

• is it what the patient has themselves decided they want?

Of course, there will be times when some of these principles are in conflict – that is when it is important to apply the most crucial ones, the wellbeing of the patient and the patient’s own wishes.

In Ireland in 2012, a young woman named Savita Halappanavar went to an Irish hospital for treatment for her miscarriage. Doctors knew there was no hope of the pregnancy surviving but refused to evacuate her uterus while there was still a fetal heartbeat, for fear of breaching Ireland’s anti-abortion laws. The result: Savita died of septicaemia at 31.

If doctors had put the patient’s wellbeing first, they would have given her that termination, despite the law, and it would have saved her life.

These are the principles that should have been applied to the examples above: the woman seeking an abortion for career reasons or the nurse refusing to force-feed prisoners.

The doctor (or nurse) should ask: Is it what the patient has autonomously decided they want? Will it lead to the best outcome for both their physical and their mental health?

If abortion will promote a woman’s wellbeing, it is in her interests. Hunger strikers should not be force-fed because it violates their autonomy.

An unfair burden

While doctors’ personal values are important, they should not dictate care at the bedside. Not only can this disadvantage the patient, but it places an unfair burden on colleagues who do accept such work, and must carry a disproportionate load of procedures they might find unpleasant and financially unrewarding.

It also creates injustice. Patients who are educated, wealthy and well-connected already find it easier to access health care. Conscientious objection intensifies that unfairness in large swathes of the country because it further limits options.

Two countries with excellent health-care systems, Sweden and Finland, do not permit conscientious objection by medical professionals.

In Australia, it is time we do the same and strongly limit conscientious objection as a legal right for health professionals. We should also ensure those entering the discipline are prepared to take on all procedures relevant to their specialty.

And lastly, but most importantly, we should educate them that the patient’s interests and values must always come first. An individual doctor’s sense of moral authority should not be permitted to morph into medical and moral authoritarianism.

Julian Savulescu 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. Doctors shouldn’t be allowed to object to medical care if it harms their patients – https://theconversation.com/doctors-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-object-to-medical-care-if-it-harms-their-patients-260003

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Sara Webb, Lecturer, Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology

On July 1, astronomers spotted an unusual high-speed object zooming towards the Sun. Dubbed 3I/ATLAS, the surprising space traveller had one very special quality: its orbit showed it had come from outside our Solar System.

For only the third time ever, we had discovered a true interstellar visitor. And it was weird.

3I/ATLAS breaking records

3I/ATLAS appeared to be travelling at 245,000 kilometres per hour, making it the fastest object ever detected in our Solar System.

It was also huge. Early estimates suggest the object could be up to 20km in size. Finally, scientists believe it may even be older than our Sun.

Could it be alien?

Our first assumption when we see something in space is that it’s a lump of rock or ice. But the strange properties of 3I/ATLAS have suggested to some that it may be something else entirely.

Harvard astrophysics professor Avi Loeb and colleagues last week uploaded a paper titled Is the Interstellar Object 3I/ATLAS Alien Technology? to the arXiv preprint server. (The paper has not yet been peer reviewed.)

Loeb is a controversial figure among astronomers and astrophysicists. He has previously suggested that the first known interstellar object, 1I/ʻOumuamua, discovered in 2017, may also have been an alien craft.

Among other oddities Loeb suggests may be signs of deliberate alien origin, he notes the orbit of 3I/ATLAS takes it improbably close to Venus, Mars and Jupiter.

We’ve sent out our own alien probes

The idea of alien probes wandering the cosmos may sound strange, but humans sent out a few ourselves in the 1970s. Both Voyager 1 and 2 have officially left our Solar System, and Pioneer 10 and 11 are not far behind.

So it’s not a stretch to think that alien civilisations – if they exist – would have launched their own galactic explorers.

However, this brings us to a crucial question: short of little green men popping out to say hello, how would we actually know if 3I/ATLAS, or any other interstellar object, was an alien probe?

Detecting alien probes 101

The first step to determining whether something is a natural object or an alien probe is of course to spot it.

Most things we see in our Solar System don’t emit light of their own. Instead, we only see them by the light they reflect from the Sun.

Larger objects generally reflect more sunlight, so they are easier for us to see. So what we see tends to be larger comets and asteroid, especially farther from Earth.

It can be very difficult to spot smaller objects. At present, we can track objects down to a size of ten or 20 metres out as far from the Sun as Jupiter.

Our own Voyager probes are about ten metres in size (if we include their radio antennas). If an alien probe was similar, we probably wouldn’t spot it until it was somewhere in the asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars.

If we did spot something suspicious, to figure out if it really were a probe or not we would look for a few telltales.

First off, because a natural origin is most likely, we would look for evidence that no aliens were involved. One clue in this direction might be if the object were emitting a “tail” of gas in the way that comets do.

However, we might also want to look for hints of alien origin. One very strong piece of evidence would be any kind of radio waves coming from the probe as a form of communication. This is assuming the probe was still in working order, and not completely defunct.

We might also look for signs of electrostatic discharge caused by sunlight hitting the probe.

Another dead giveaway would be signs of manoeuvring or propulsion. An active probe might try to correct its course or reposition its antennas to send and receive signals to and from its origin.

And a genuine smoking gun would be an approach to Earth in a stable orbit. Not to brag, but Earth is genuinely the most interesting place in the Solar System – we have water, a healthy atmosphere, a strong magnetic field and life. A probe with any decision-making capacity would likely want to investigate and collect data about our interesting little planet.

We may never know

Without clear signs one way or the other, however, it may be impossible to know if some interstellar objects are natural or alien-made.

Objects like 3I/ATLAS remind us that space is vast, strange, and full of surprises. Most of them have natural explanations. But the strangest objects are worth a second look.

For now, 3I/ATLAS is likely just an unusually fast, old and icy visitor from a distant system. But it also serves as a test case: a chance to refine the way we search, observe and ask questions about the universe.

Sara Webb 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. Could the latest ‘interstellar comet’ be an alien probe? Why spotting cosmic visitors is harder than you think – https://theconversation.com/could-the-latest-interstellar-comet-be-an-alien-probe-why-spotting-cosmic-visitors-is-harder-than-you-think-261656

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nathan Cooper, Associate Professor of Law, University of Waikato

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will issue a highly anticipated advisory opinion overnight to clarify state obligations related to climate change.

It will answer two urgent questions: what are the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate and environment from greenhouse gas emissions, and what are the legal consequences for states that have caused significant harm to Earth’s atmosphere and environment?

ICJ advisory opinions are not legally binding. But coming from the world’s highest court, they provide an authoritative opinion on serious issues that can be highly persuasive.

This advisory opinion marks the culmination of a campaign that began in 2019 when students and youth organisations in Vanuatu – one of the most vulnerable nations to climate-related impacts – persuaded their government to seek clarification on what states should be doing to protect them.

Led by Vanuatu and co-sponsored by 132 member states, including New Zealand and Australia, the United Nations General Assembly formally requested the advisory opinion in March 2023.

More than two years of public consultation and deliberation ensued, leading to this week’s announcement.

What to expect

Looking at the specific questions to be addressed, at least three aspects stand out.

First, the sources and areas of international law under scrutiny are not confined to the UN’s climate change framework. This invites the ICJ to consider a broad range of law – including trans-boundary environmental law, human rights law, international investment law, humanitarian law, trade law and beyond – and to draw on both treaty-related obligations and customary international law.

Such an encyclopaedic examination could produce a complex and integrated opinion on states’ obligations to protect the environment and climate system.

Second, the opinion will address what obligations exist, not just to those present today, but to future generations. This follows acknowledgement of the so-called “intertemporal characteristics” of climate change in recent climate-related court decisions and the need to respond effectively to both the current climate crisis and its likely ongoing consequences.

Third, the opinion won’t just address what obligations states have, but also what the consequences should be for nations:

where they, by their acts and omissions have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment.

Addressing consequences as well as obligations should cause states to pay closer attention and make the ICJ’s advisory more relevant to domestic climate litigation and policy discussions.

Global judicial direction

Two recent court findings may offer clues as to the potential scope of the ICJ’s findings.

Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights published its own advisory opinion on state obligations in response to climate change.

Explicitly connecting fundamental human rights with a healthy ecosystem, this opinion affirmed states have an imperative duty to prevent irreversible harm to the climate system. Moreover, the duty to safeguard the common ecosystem must be understood as a fundamental principle of international law to which states must adhere.

Meanwhile last week, an Australian federal court dismissed a landmark climate case, determining that the Australian government does not owe a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders to protect them from the consequences of climate change.

The court accepted the claimants face significant loss and damage from climate impacts and that previous Australian government policies on greenhouse gas emissions were not aligned with the best science to limit climate change. But it nevertheless determined that “matters of high or core government policy” are not subject to common law duties of care.

Whether the ICJ will complement the Inter-American court’s bold approach or opt for a more constrained and conservative response is not certain. But now is the time for clear and ambitious judicial direction with global scope.

Implications for New Zealand

Aotearoa New Zealand aspires to climate leadership through its Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019. This set 2050 targets of reducing emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) to net zero, and biogenic methane by 25-47%.

However, actions to date are likely insufficient to meet this target. Transport emissions continue to rise and agriculture – responsible for nearly half of the country’s emissions – is lightly regulated.

Although the government plans to double renewable energy by 2050, it is also in the process of lifting a 2018 ban on offshore gas exploration and has pledged $200 million to co-invest in the development of new fields.

Critics also point out the government has made little progress towards its promise to install 10,000 EV charging stations by 2030 while axing a clean-investment fund.

Although a final decision is yet to be made, the government is also considering to lower the target for cuts to methane emissions from livestock, against advice from the Climate Change Commission.

With the next global climate summit coming up in November, the ICJ opinion may offer timely encouragement for states to reconsider their emissions targets and the ambition of climate policies.

Most countries have yet to submit their latest emissions reduction pledges (known as nationally determined contributions) under the Paris Agreement. New Zealand has made its pledge, but it has been described as “underwhelming”. This may present a chance to adjust ambition upwards.

If the ICJ affirms that states have binding obligations to prevent climate harm, including trans-boundary impacts, New Zealand’s climate change policies and progress to date could face increased legal scrutiny.

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

– ref. Do countries have a duty to prevent climate harm? The world’s highest court is about to answer this crucial question – https://theconversation.com/do-countries-have-a-duty-to-prevent-climate-harm-the-worlds-highest-court-is-about-to-answer-this-crucial-question-261396

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jennifer Power, Principal Research Fellow, Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University

Last week, scientists announced the birth of eight healthy babies in the United Kingdom conceived with DNA from three people. Some headlines have called it “three-person IVF”.

The embryo uses the DNA from the egg and sperm of the intended father and mother, as well as cells from the egg of a second woman (the donor).

This process – known as mitochondrial replacement therapy – allows women with certain genetic disorders to conceive a child without passing on their condition.

While it’s raised broader questions about “three-parent” babies, it’s not so simple. Here’s why it’s unlikely this development will transform the diverse ways LGBTQ+ people are already making families.

What this technology is – and isn’t

The UK became the first country in the world to allow mitochondrial donation for three-person embryos ten years ago, in 2015.

In other countries, such donations are banned or strictly controlled. In Australia, a staged approach to allow mitochondrial donation was introduced in 2022. Stage one will involve clinical trials to determine safety and effectiveness, and establish clear ethical guidelines for donations.

These restrictions are based on political and ethical concerns about the use of human embryos for research, the unknown health impact on children, and the broader implications of allowing genetic modification of human embryos.

There are also concerns about the ethical or legal implications of creating babies with “three parents”.

Carefully and slowly considering these ethical issues is clearly important. But it’s inaccurate to suggest this process creates three parents.

First, the amount of DNA the donor provides is tiny, only 0.1% of the baby’s DNA. The baby will not share any physical characteristics with the donor.

While it is significant that two women’s DNA has been used in creating an embryo, it doesn’t mean lesbian couples will be rushing to access this particular in vitro fertilisation (IVF) technology.

This technique is only used for people affected by mitochondrial disease and is closely regulated. It is not available more widely and in Australia, is not yet available even for this use.

Second, while biological lineage is an important part of many people’s identity and sense of self, DNA alone does not make a parent.

As many adoptive, foster and LGBTQ+ parents will attest, parenting is about love, connection and everyday acts of care for a child.

How do rainbow families use IVF?

Existing IVF is already expensive and medically invasive. Many fertility services offer a range of additional treatments purported to aid fertility, but extra interventions add more costs and are not universally recommended by doctors.

While many lesbian couples and single women use fertility services to access donor sperm, not everyone will need to use IVF.

Less invasive fertilisation techniques, such as intrauterine insemination, may be available for women without fertility problems. This means inserting sperm directly into the uterus, rather than fertilising an egg in a clinic and then implanting that embryo.

Same-sex couples who have the option to create a baby with a sperm donor they know – rather than from a register – may also choose home-based insemination, the proverbial turkey baster. This is a cheaper and more intimate way to conceive and many women prefer a donor who will have some involvement in their child’s life.

In recent years, “reciprocal” IVF has also grown in popularity among lesbian couples. This means an embryo is created using one partner’s egg, and the other partner carries it.

Reciprocal IVF’s popularity suggests biology does play a role for LGBTQ+ women in conceiving a baby. When both mothers share a biological connection to the child, it may help overcome stigmatisation of “non-birth” mothers as less legitimate.

But biology is by no means the defining feature of rainbow families.

LGBTQ+ people are already parents

The 2021 census showed 17% of same-sex couples had children living with them; among female same-sex couples it was 28%. This is likely an underestimate, as the census only collects data on couples that live together.

Same-sex couples often conceive children using donor sperm or eggs, and this may involve surrogacy. But across the LGBTQ+ community, there are diverse ways people become parents.

Same-sex couples are one part of the LGBTQ+ community. Growing numbers of trans and non-binary people are choosing to carry a baby (as gestational parents), as well as single parents who use donors or fertility services. Many others conceive children through sex, including bi+ people or others who conceive within a relationship.

While LGBTQ+ people can legally adopt children in Australia, adoption is not common. However, many foster parents are LGBTQ+.

When they donate eggs or sperm to others, some LGBTQ+ people may stay involved in the child’s life as a close family friend or co-parent.

Connection and care, not DNA

While mitochondrial replacement therapy is a remarkable advance in gene technology, it is unlikely to open new pathways to parenthood for LGBTQ+ people in Australia.

Asserting the importance of families based on choice – not biology or what technology is available – has been crucial to the LGBTQ+ community’s story and to rainbow families’ fight to be recognised.

Decades of research now shows children raised by same-sex couples do just as well as any other child. What matters is parents’ consistency, love and quality of care.

Jennifer Power receives funding from the Australian Department of Health, Disability and Aged Care and the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Here’s why 3-person embryos are a breakthrough for science – but not LGBTQ+ families – https://theconversation.com/heres-why-3-person-embryos-are-a-breakthrough-for-science-but-not-lgbtq-families-261462