NewzIntel.com

Category: Report

  • MIL-OSI Global: How does toothpaste affect the good bacteria in your mouth?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Niamh Coffey, Senior Lecturer, Dentistry, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences

    Ground Picture/Shutterstock

    The goal of brushing one’s teeth is to have fresh breath and prevent cavities. But the effect of toothpaste on the complex ecosystem of bacteria in our mouths — the oral microbiome — is often overlooked.

    Recent research has highlighted just how crucial the oral microbiome is for our overall health. A well-balanced microbiome helps regulate harmful bacteria, aids digestion and protects the gums. But does toothpaste support this balance, or could it be disrupting it? And could the toothpaste of the future be designed to work with the oral microbiome rather than against it?

    The mouth is one of the most densely populated microbial habitats in the body, home to more than 700 species of bacteria. These bacteria inhabit not only the surfaces of the teeth and gums in biofilm – a sticky, structured community that can be both beneficial and harmful – but also thrive in our saliva, contributing to the dynamic oral microbiome.

    A healthy microbiome includes bacteria that help regulate pH levels (a measure of how acidic or alkaline a substance is), break down food and even produce natural antimicrobial compounds. But when the balance is disrupted — often due to diet, poor oral hygiene or certain medical conditions — harmful bacteria can take over. This imbalance, known as dysbiosis, is linked to tooth decay and gum disease.

    What does toothpaste actually do?

    The main function of toothpaste isn’t to kill bacteria outright but to disrupt the biofilm that allows harmful bacteria to thrive. Brushing mechanically removes this biofilm from teeth and gums, while abrasives in toothpaste help break it up further.

    Many toothpastes also contain fluoride, which strengthens tooth enamel and helps prevent cavities. Interestingly, fluoride itself doesn’t kill bacteria, but it makes it harder for acid-producing bacteria like Streptococcus mutans, a key player in tooth decay, to cause damage.

    Some toothpastes include antibacterial agents, such as triclosan (now banned in some countries due to safety concerns) or newer alternatives like stannous fluoride and zinc compounds. These ingredients target harmful bacteria, but there’s still debate about whether they also disrupt beneficial microbes in the process.

    Despite toothpaste being a daily staple, research into its effects on the oral microbiome is still evolving. Some studies suggest that certain antibacterial agents reduce both harmful and beneficial bacteria, potentially changing the microbiome in ways we don’t yet fully understand. Others indicate that the microbiome recovers quite quickly after brushing, making any disruption temporary.

    Scientists are now exploring whether future toothpaste formulations could take a more targeted approach, reducing harmful bacteria while preserving beneficial species. Some emerging research looks at probiotics and prebiotics — ingredients that could actively support a healthier oral microbiome rather than simply disrupting it.

    Keeping the oral microbiome in balance isn’t just about avoiding cavities. There’s growing evidence linking gum disease to heart disease, diabetes and harms during pregnancy. Inflammation triggered by harmful oral bacteria can spread beyond the mouth, potentially contributing to long-term health problems.

    Brushing with fluoride toothpaste twice a day and cleaning between the teeth helps reduce the bacterial load in the mouth, lowering the risk of both oral and systemic diseases.

    Tooth decay is linked to a number of systemic diseases.
    Jo Panuwat D/Shutterstock

    Microbiome-friendly toothpaste?

    As our understanding of the oral microbiome grows, toothpaste may evolve to become more selective in its action. Instead of broad-spectrum antibacterial agents, future formulations might include ingredients that support beneficial bacteria while keeping harmful species in check.

    Some promising candidates include arginine, a naturally occurring amino acid that promotes the growth of beneficial bacteria, and plant-derived antimicrobials that disrupt harmful biofilms without killing good bacteria. However, research in this area is still in its early stages, and more evidence is needed to determine the long-term effects of these ingredients.

    Toothpaste plays a key role in oral health by breaking up bacterial biofilm, reducing the risk of tooth decay and gum disease. While some ingredients may affect the oral microbiome, research suggests that brushing and flossing remain the most effective ways to maintain a healthy mouth.

    Future toothpaste innovations may shift towards microbiome-friendly formulations but, for now, the best advice remains the same: brush twice a day with fluoride toothpaste, spit out the excess and clean between your teeth daily.

    Nothing to disclose.

    Albert Leung and Niamh Coffey 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. How does toothpaste affect the good bacteria in your mouth? – https://theconversation.com/how-does-toothpaste-affect-the-good-bacteria-in-your-mouth-250826

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Delhi: how weather patterns and faraway mountains made this the world’s most polluted megacity

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ankit Bhandekar, Research Student — Atmosphere, Oceans and Climate, University of Reading

    Delhi is perhaps the most polluted of the world’s megacities. Every winter, the city’s 30 million residents breathe air so toxic that visibility drops to mere metres. If you stand on top of one of Delhi’s monuments you can barely make out buildings across the street as the thick, acrid smog burns your eyes and scratches your throat.

    But conditions can and do change rapidly. January 2025 offered a dramatic demonstration of how weather patterns can rapidly transform the city’s air quality.

    On January 5, favourable winds improved air quality enough to lift some restrictions. Yet by January 15, as winds calmed and temperatures dropped, pollution levels soared dramatically, forcing the city to implement its maximum “severe +” interventions. These include banning trucks from entering the city, restricting private vehicles and moving schools to online classes.

    Delhi didn’t suddenly have more cars, factories, power plants or construction sites from one week to the next. Those things are consistent sources of pollution. There are some events that add to air pollution in the shorter term, such as fireworks during Diwali, or the mass burning of unwanted crop debris (known as stubble), both of which take place in October or November.

    But that wasn’t what happened in January. Instead, the sudden reversal revealed how weather, not just emissions, dictates Delhi’s ability to breathe. Understanding this will be crucial if the city is to clean up its air.

    A meteorological prison

    Delhi is one of many large cities found in a flat and hugely fertile region spanning the Indian subcontinent to the south of the Himalayas. It’s known as the Indo-Gangetic plains, as it contains the floodplains of the Indus and Ganges-Brahmaputra rivers and their tributaries. More than a billion people live in this part of the world.

    Delhi specifically is also bordered by another mountain range to its south, the Aravallis. While modest compared to the Himalayas, these mountains contribute to the city sitting in a natural bowl-like area, which makes it harder for pollution to disperse.

    This geographical positioning means its location naturally collects airborne pollutants from surrounding agricultural areas. Even if Delhi somehow produced zero emissions, the region would still be likely to experience air quality problems during winter.

    In winter, Delhi experiences “temperature inversions” where warmer air sits above colder air like a lid on a pot. This phenomenon occurs naturally in the region but is intensified by the city’s heat-trapping urban landscape. Normally, temperature decreases with height, allowing air to mix vertically, since warm air rises. Under inversion conditions, this pattern reverses and pollutants are trapped near the ground.

    The height up to which pollutants can disperse, known as the “mixing height”, also dramatically reduces in winter. While summer allows mixing up to an altitude of about one kilometre, winter can compress this to just a few hundred meters, concentrating pollutants in a much smaller volume of air.

    Meanwhile the Himalayas block air from flowing northward, forcing pollution to travel the entire stretch of northern India before finding an exit over the Bay of Bengal. In cities, urban structures further complicate this by creating “surface roughness”, a frictional effect that slows pollution dispersion.

    Seasonal factors

    There are also seasonal factors that make pollution accumulate or disperse more at certain times of year.

    Satellite map showing smoky skies over northern India in November 2022 (Delhi is the small unlabelled region between Haryana and Uttar Pradesh). The red images show fires started by farmers to clear away unwanted crop residue. This ‘stubble burning’ is a big source of pollution downwind in Delhi.
    Nasa

    Delhi’s summer monsoon season runs from July to September, providing natural cleansing through rainfall. During post-monsoon months (October-November), rainfall is minimal. At the same time, wind speeds decrease, limiting ventilation. These conditions compress the atmospheric boundary layer — the lowest part of atmosphere influenced by Earth’s surface — trapping pollutants near ground level.

    Throughout winter (December-February), cooler surface temperatures intensify temperature inversions. This creates lots of fog, which combines with pollutants in the atmosphere to form Delhi’s characteristic smog. The reduced mixing height during this period severely restricts vertical dispersal of pollutants.

    In pre-monsoon months (March-May), strong westerly winds can blow additional dust from the Thar Desert and agricultural regions toward Delhi. However, higher temperatures increase vertical mixing, improving overall dispersion despite this additional dust.

    Season-specific approach

    India’s technological interventions, including smog towers and anti-smog guns,have shown limited effectiveness in addressing the causes of pollution. Even more ambitious proposals such as using cloud seeding to induce precipitation aren’t very practical. Cloud seeding is expensive, can only cover a limited area, and needs very specific meteorological conditions.

    An anti-smog gun in Delhi sprays water to suppress dust and reduce air pollution.
    PradeepGaurs / shutterstock

    To manage its air quality, Delhi needs a season-specific approach that anticipates weather patterns and pulses in emissions. Getting ahead of the smog could involve a few different things.

    Preventive planning would mean implementing stricter emission controls before the cold, still winter days when fog is likely, rather than reacting after pollution has already accumulated.

    It would involve solutions that span the whole of the Indo-Gangetic plains, rather than focusing just on Delhi (or indeed any other individual urban centre). After all, many of India’s most polluted cities share the same weather conditions, and the long-range transport of pollution can play a huge role.

    A season-specific approach would mean some fixed seasonal policies would instead adapt to forecast meteorological conditions. For instance, construction restrictions (building dust is a big source of air pollution) might be tightened when inversions are predicted, even on seemingly clear days.

    Finally, by combining meteorological and air quality monitoring, authorities could provide targeted warnings and interventions days before visible pollution accumulates.

    Understanding these natural constraints isn’t just an academic exercise – it’s essential for developing effective policies that can protect millions of residents year-round. As climate change potentially alters these meteorological patterns, the need for scientifically informed policy becomes even more critical.

    Ankit Bhandekar receives funding from Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

    Laura Wilcox receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the Norwegian Research Council, and Horizon Europe.

    – ref. Delhi: how weather patterns and faraway mountains made this the world’s most polluted megacity – https://theconversation.com/delhi-how-weather-patterns-and-faraway-mountains-made-this-the-worlds-most-polluted-megacity-249894

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Raised voices and angry scenes at the White House as Trump clashes with Zelensky over the ‘minerals deal’

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

    The visit of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to the White House has not gone to plan – at least not to his plan. There were [extraordinary scenes] as a press conference between Zelensky and Trump descended into acrimony, with the US president loudly berating his opposite number, who he accused of “gambling with world war three”.

    “You either make a deal or we’re out,” Trump told Zelensky. His vice-president, J.D.Vance, also got in on the act, accusing the Ukrainian president of “litigating in front of the American media”, and saying his approach was “disrespectful”. At one point he asked Zelensky: “Have you said thank you even once?”

    Reporters present described the atmosphere as heated with voices raised by both Trump and Vance. The New York Times said the scene was “one of the most dramatic moments ever to play out in public in the Oval Office and underscored the radical break between the United States and Ukraine since Mr Trump took office”.

    Underlying the angry exchanges were differences between the Trump administration and the Ukrainian government over the so-called “minerals deal” that Zelensky was scheduled to sign. But any lack of Ukrainian enthusiasm for the deal is understandable.

    In its present form, it looks more like a memorandum of understanding that leaves several vital issues to be resolved later. The deal on offer is the creation of will be called a “reconstruction investment fund”, to be jointly owned and managed by the US and Ukraine.

    Into the proposed fund will go 50% of the revenue from the exploitation of “all relevant Ukrainian government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian government)” and “other infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets (such as liquified natural gas terminals and port infrastructure)”.

    This means that private infrastructure – much of it owned by Ukraine’s wealthy oligarchs – is likely to become part of the deal. This has the potential of further increasing friction between Zelensky and some very powerful Ukrainians.

    Meanwhile, US contributions are less clearly defined. The preamble to the agreement makes it clear that Ukraine already owes the US. The very first paragraph notes that “the United States of America has provided significant financial and material support to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022”.

    This figure, according to Trump, amounts to US$350 billion (£278 billion). The actual amount, according to the Ukraine Support Tracker of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, is about half that.

    Western and Ukrainian analysts have also pointed out that there may be fewer and less accessible mineral and rare earth deposits in Ukraine than are currently assumed. The working estimates have been based mostly on Soviet-era data.

    Since the current draft leaves details on ownership, governance and operations to be determined in a future fund agreement, Trump’s very big deal is at best the first step. Future rounds of negotiations are to be expected.

    Statement of intent

    From a Ukrainian perspective, this is more of a strength than a weakness. It leaves Kyiv with an opportunity to achieve more satisfactory terms in future rounds of negotiation. Even if any improvements will only be marginal, it keeps the US locked into a process that is, overall, beneficial for Ukraine.

    Take the example of security guarantees. The draft agreement offers Ukraine nothing anywhere near Nato membership. But it notes that the US “supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace”, adding that: “Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments.”

    The significance of this should not be overstated. At its bare minimum, it is an expression of intent by the US that falls short of security guarantees but still gives the US a stake in the survival of Ukraine as an independent state.

    But it is an important signal both in terms of what it does and does not do – a signal to Russia, Europe and Ukraine.

    Trump does not envisage that the US will give Ukraine security guarantees “beyond very much”. He seems to think that these guarantees can be provided by European troops (the Kremlin has already cast doubts on this idea).

    But this does not mean the idea is completely off the table. On the contrary, because the US commitment is so vague, it gives Trump leverage in every direction.

    He can use it as a carrot and a stick against Ukraine to get more favourable terms for US returns from the reconstruction investment fund. He can use it to push Europe towards more decisive action to ramp up defence spending by making any US protection for European peacekeepers contingent on more equitable burden-sharing in Nato.

    And he can signal to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, that the US is serious about making a deal stick – and that higher American economic stakes in Ukraine and corporate presence on the ground would mean US-backed consequences if the Kremlin reneges on a future peace agreement and restarts hostilities.

    That these calculations will ultimately lead to the “free, sovereign and secure Ukraine” that the agreement envisages is not a given.

    For now, however, despite all the shortcomings and vagueness of the deal on key issues –– and the very public argument between the parties – it still looks like it serves all sides’ interests in moving forward in this direction.

    This article has been updated with details of the meeting between Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump.

    Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

    Tetyana Malyarenko 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. Raised voices and angry scenes at the White House as Trump clashes with Zelensky over the ‘minerals deal’ – https://theconversation.com/raised-voices-and-angry-scenes-at-the-white-house-as-trump-clashes-with-zelensky-over-the-minerals-deal-250855

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Keir Starmer at the White House: what ‘progressive realism’ now means in relation to Ukraine and Donald Trump

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jason Ralph, Professor of International Relations, University of Leeds

    Flickr/Number 10, CC BY-NC-ND

    Since the Labour government came to power in the UK past year, its international relations have been pursued under the banner of what foreign secretary David Lammy calls “progressive realism”. This involves “using realist means to pursue progressive ends”, including taking “pragmatic steps” to improve relations with other states.

    Lammy rejects the notion that “idealism has no place in foreign policy” but also argues that the UK should be “realistic about the state of the world and the country’s role in it”.

    The visit of the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, to the White House to meet US president Donald Trump has been the biggest test of this approach. Outlining a set of foreign policy principles is one thing, acting on them is another.

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

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

    In practice, progressive and realist foreign policies can pull in different directions. Combining them might be a form of “cakeism” – you usually can’t be a realist and have your progressivism too. Sometimes, however, clever diplomacy can find a way.

    Did Starmer find that way in his response to Trump’s ideas on negotiating with Russia without a defined role for Ukraine?

    Progressive realism in action

    Progressivism is associated with a commitment to the rule of international law. In the case of Ukraine, that would mean opposing any peace deal that rewarded Russia’s aggression or the concession of land to Russia.

    Progressivism is also associated with a support for international criminal law. The progressive in this case might be opposed to any peace deal that did not see Russian president Vladimir Putin hauled before the International Criminal Court (the same court that Trump has sanctioned).

    An invitation from the king.
    Flickr/Number 10, CC BY-NC-ND

    Realism, on the other hand, is sometimes associated with a foreign policy committed to the promotion of self-interest, defined narrowly as the material wellbeing of the nation. Faced with the threat of further US tariffs, and the impact they would have on the government’s economic priorities, the realist would probably recommend that the UK do absolutely nothing to upset Trump.

    Starmer has so far managed to walk this particular tightrope with a “pragmatic” form of progressivism. He remains committed to the vision of a world order based on international law and so is not realist in that sense. He was not willing to betray Ukraine just to be friends with Trump and avoid US tariffs, for instance.

    But he was pragmatic because he realised the only way to advance progressive principles was to persuade Trump that they set out the path to a sustainable peace. For this reason, my colleague Jamie Gaskarth and I have argued UK policy might better be described as “progressive pragmatism”.

    Starmer has a broader definition of the national interest than that sometimes associated with realism. It is in the UK’s interest to maintain an international order based on laws that codify the progressive principles of national self-determination and international justice.

    From this perspective, the UK is right not to turn its back on Ukrainian self-determination by jumping on Trump’s bandwagon. That is a slippery slope. It can lead to a world order that is unstable because it is dictated by the great powers. Ukraine today, Greenland, Palestine, Taiwan tomorrow.

    His pragmatism was very much on display in Washington, however. It meant staying close to the US not just to avoid tariffs, which Starmer appears to have done with the help of an invitation from King Charles for a state visit to the UK. It meant working with Trump’s ideas on Russia to persuade him that supporting Ukraine is the way to a “durable” peace.

    Starmer and Trump give a joint press conference.
    Flickr/Number 10, CC BY-NC-ND

    Durable peace here is not simply a question of satisfying Russia and having sufficient military force on the ground (the so-called US “backstop”) to deter future Russian aggression. It must also respect the political power of a progressive principle: national self-determination.

    To conclude a peace that does not include the Ukrainian people is not just a moral betrayal, it is politically imprudent because it creates grievances, which become causes of conflict. That does not mean the only way forward is to return to the pre-2014 status quo, but it does mean Kyiv’s involvement in peace negotiations has to be meaningful, not symbolic.

    In 1990 the transatlantic positions were reversed. UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher was troubled by the fall of Berlin wall. She proposed that the occupying powers that had divided Germany in 1945 decide the terms of reunification.

    The administration of the then US president, George Bush senior, had a broader understanding of history and the future. They realised that a dictated peace after the first world war contributed to the grievances that led to the second.

    On that occasion the US approach prevailed. Germany was allowed to reunify on its own terms and choose its own alliances. It was a progressive and pragmatic solution that was committed to national self-determination and it set the foundations for the durable peace that self-described realists thought would never happen.

    Starmer made a point in Washington of congratulating Trump for breaking the impasse. He was rewarded when the president suggested that a trade deal is now on the table. As he flies back across the Atlantic, Starmer might continue the flattery by comparing Trump’s actions to the way Ronald Reagan sowed the seeds of the new world order in the 1980s.

    He should recall, however, that the details of that new order were subsequently worked out by the administration of George Bush Snr., which had a pragmatic respect for national self-determination. That now means supporting Ukraine in any upcoming negotiation.

    Jason Ralph has in the past received funding from Research Councils UK and the EU. He does not currently hold a research grant. He is a member of the UK Labour Party.

    – ref. Keir Starmer at the White House: what ‘progressive realism’ now means in relation to Ukraine and Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/keir-starmer-at-the-white-house-what-progressive-realism-now-means-in-relation-to-ukraine-and-donald-trump-250722

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Keir Starmer meets Donald Trump: assiduous planning results in deft diplomacy

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

    Flickr/Number 10, CC BY-NC-ND

    Keir Starmer was only the second European leader to visit Donald Trump’s second White House. The first, France’s Emmanuel Macron, had barely taken off when Starmer touched down, but had already raised the bar by behaving regally in front of the world’s media alongside his fellow president in the Oval Office.

    In manner, Macron manifested his eight years in office (four of which were already spent with Trump in the White House). Starmer has had a mere eight months. But it was a challenge, judged in its own immediate terms, that the prime minister met.

    Raising the curtain, in a highly untypical coup de théâtre, Starmer flourished – as few can – a letter from the King to give to the president, and then effectively forced Trump to read it on camera and agree to the invitation enclosed within.

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

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

    Starmer of course knew he was nudging an open door: much came down to assiduous preparation. The British Embassy, under a finally confirmed ambassador Peter Mandelson, worked overtime to choreograph and lubricate.

    Starmer had been wise in contradicting Trump only indirectly. Nothing could be gained – as president Zelenskyy already demonstrated – from doing so publicly. So early an offer of a state visit to the UK ran the risk of appearing desperate, but was mitigated by its also being “unprecedented” as the second to be offered to Trump. A word recently worn smooth by over-use, there was nevertheless another precedent set in the suggestion of a pre-state visit visit between Trump and the king. With this president, more than any other, royal diplomacy is a critical national asset.

    Starmer’s announcement of an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 worked similarly well. That funds are to be diverted from foreign aid for that purpose the Labour leadership deemed as being politically cost-free – or at least good value – politically. It was, indeed, almost Trumpian. The relevant minister disagreed.

    It is hard to recall greater shifts in a country’s foreign policy in so short a space of time. Insofar as one can discern Trump’s purposefulness, it is to create pandemonium, which has the secondary effect of galvanising actors to act – not least for fear of further pandemonium.

    Thus last week the US voting with Russia, Iran and North Korea, and not with Britain, at the UN. The Trump administration’s designation of choice is now “the Russia-Ukraine conflict”, as if it were merely a border dispute.

    Therefore, ahead of Starmer’s arrival in Washington, he was faced with the US apparently aligning itself with a country his describes as “the most acute threat” to the UK. “Jaw-dropping” was the adjective of choice for more than a few informed observers who had thought themselves prepared for whatever may transpire.

    The actors Trump primarily wishes to galvanise are European leaders, recalcitrants he thinks should do more to keep their own peace. For Macron to have been told that Putin would accept Nato forces policing the peace was scene-changing, but the only witness to the veracity of that news was Trump, who exhales untruths as easily as he breathes. The Russians soon denied it.

    A very special man.
    Flickr/Number 10, CC BY-NC-ND

    Macron’s offer of France’s (non-Nato) airborne nuclear force complemented Starmer’s commitment to British boots on the ground and helped him elicit Trump’s commitment to mutual defence.

    But Trump guaranteeing the peace that Starmer and Macron are willing to police was the cherry conspicuously missing from the cake. The suggestion was subject to a classic Trump equivocation (we’ll always support the Brits, but they won’t need our support).

    For the British government, July’s election already resembles a hospital pass. The effect of 20% tariffs on GDP growth could be catastrophic. Trump’s talk of tariff-free trade deals was more than expected, but one such was offered last time without much being doing about, before it was cancelled by President Biden. This time, Trump has said his vice president is drawing up a plan, even that being absent before.

    And in a categorical demonstration of the benefits of lobbying there was effective presidential approval of the Chagos islands deal, simultaneously shooting one of Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch’s few foxes stone dead.

    Warm words

    Thus has passed the most potentially difficult meeting of a prime minister and a president since Suez. Nothing else comes close. Cliche – eggshells, tightropes – proliferated in previews.

    When Starmer was last at the White House, in September, he had asked Biden for a meeting about Ukraine and received it. However unsatisfactory the outcome, public face was maintained. Trump has the ability – and the form – to have humiliated in a way which would permanently have scarred Starmer. That he did the opposite ought not to distract from the vulnerability of the supplicant.

    ‘Go on, open it’.
    Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

    Instead there were encomia from Trump as to the two countries – “special relationship”, “unique friendship”, “fantastic country”, “I’ve always cared” – and of Starmer – “a special man”, “a very special person”. And in describing Starmer’s accent as “beautiful”, the president revealed the hitherto unknown allure of the adenoidal.

    Power plays sit ill with Starmer, but he nonetheless ventured two corrections from his armchiar, one to a statement made by the president and another to one made by the vice-president. The subsequent praise for Starmer’s negotiating tenacity from Trump, that much-vaunted artist of the deal, was as priceless – and unfamiliar – as the following morning’s front pages.

    However successful this visit, however, nothing can be assumed, still less guaranteed. That the British government would so extensively war-game a meeting with its closest ally tells its own tale, or, rather a tale perhaps yet to be told. At this moment, for the next four years the relationship at least feels more secure than it did a few days before the trip. By such diurnal turns are the affairs of allies now measured.

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

    – ref. Keir Starmer meets Donald Trump: assiduous planning results in deft diplomacy – https://theconversation.com/keir-starmer-meets-donald-trump-assiduous-planning-results-in-deft-diplomacy-251178

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: I studied the evidence behind theories of Oscar success – here’s what I found

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andre Spicer, Professor of Organisational Behaviour, Bayes Business School, City St George’s, University of London

    When Oscar-winning screenwriter William Goldman was asked whether it was possible to predict a hit film, he responded with three words that have become a Hollywood maxim: “Nobody knows anything.” He went on to explain that “not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what’s going to work”.

    Although Goldman’s famous phrase might resonate through the film business, it doesn’t stop people cooking up theories around which films might succeed at the annual Academy of Motion Picture Awards. Over the years, a range of theories have appeared, including: Oscar winners are not always the best films; there is an Oscar-worthy format that winners follow; and that winning an Oscar is actually a long-term curse.

    Although there is a great deal of speculation about such theories, it’s less clear what the evidence actually says about them. To find out, I took a look at the rapidly growing field of “Oscarology” – the scientific study of the Academy Awards.

    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.

    One common theory is that it is entirely predictable who the Oscars will go to. Interestingly, this seems to have some truth to it. One statistical analysis found that by tracking a range of factors, it was possible to predict the winner of the Academy Awards in the four major categories with an overall accuracy of 69%.

    Nickel Boys, one of the best picture nominees.

    Factors which go into making these predictions include whether the nominee won a Golden Globe or Directors Guild award, and their previous nominations for an Oscar. Past success is a strong indicator of future success, with one important exception: having previously won an Academy Award means a nominee for best actor or best actress is much less likely to win again.

    A second theory is that winning an Oscar is a golden ticket to big financial rewards. This is indeed correct. A study found there is a substantial boost in US box office earnings following a win in the the best supporting actor/actress, best actor/actress and best picture categories.

    Best picture nominee Conclave stars Ralph Fiennes, also nominated for best actor.

    Further research has found that Oscar nominations really make a positive impact on box office receipts – while actually winning the award gives a more modest boost. Interestingly, winning an award does not always translate to success in other parts the world. One study found that Oscar winners that were comedies performed better in Asian markets, but dramas performed worse.

    The next theory is the idea that Oscar winners follow a particular format. Researchers have indeed found there is an Oscar-worthy format which some filmmakers follow. The “Oscar bait” format uses genres like war movies, historical epics and biographies, as well as plot elements such as war crimes, disabilities, political intrigue and show business.

    Mikey Madison, star of best picture nominee Anora, is also up for best actress.

    However, making a film using this Oscar-worthy format is not a guarantee of success. Films employing this concept which were nominated for an award received significantly greater financial returns. However, those using the Oscar-bait format which missed out on a nomination typically made large losses.

    Then comes the theory that winning an Oscar is more about the quality of networks rather than the quality of the film. Again, there is some truth to this. Researchers have found that one way to improve the chances of winning an Oscar is to be part of film industry networks and work alongside people who have already won awards.

    As well as a best picture nomination, Wicked’s Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo are also nominated.

    There are some indicators that Oscars do not necessarily go to the best-quality movies. One analysis which compared Oscar winners to lists of 100 best movies of all time found that only 26% of films which appeared on all three main lists of best movies were also Oscar winners.

    This research also notes that some movies which are staples of lists of classic movies (such as Singing in the Rain) were not even nominated for the best picture Oscar. What this suggests is that winning an Oscar does not always mean a film will be seen as a classic – and vice versa.

    Best picture nominee I’m Still Here sees Brazilian Fernanda Torres nominated for best actress.

    The final theory is that there is an “Oscar curse” – that winning an Oscar leads to personal and professional tragedy. This theory is largely incorrect. Researchers have found that Oscar winners live about one year longer than their less successful peers. Others have found that winning an Academy Award leads to greater professional success, with Oscar winners and nominees appearing in more films than their non-winning peers.

    However, one area of truth in the idea of an Oscar curse is for men in their personal lives. Nominees and winners of the best actor award had a higher divorce rate than their peers.

    Theories around the Oscars may prove to be not entirely correct – but they do provide a useful approximation of which films will triumph. Past performance, social networks and formula-following all seem to be good indicators of who will succeed. Perhaps Goldman’s advice that “no one knows anything” is not entirely true.

    Andre Spicer 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. I studied the evidence behind theories of Oscar success – here’s what I found – https://theconversation.com/i-studied-the-evidence-behind-theories-of-oscar-success-heres-what-i-found-251085

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The Vegan Tigress: intimate play resurrects fierce forgotten Victorian writer

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lucy Ella Rose, Lecturer in Victorian Literature, University of Surrey

    The Vegan Tigress, a new play by Claire Parker, shines a spotlight on the largely-forgotten feminist fairytale writer Mary De Morgan (1850-1907). And the timing is particularly apt. The show opened, at London’s Bread & Roses Theatre, in the lead up to International Women’s Day and during the year of the 175th anniversary of De Morgan’s birth.

    The production, by LynchPin Theatre Company, is part of a wider cultural project to celebrate underappreciated Victorian women writers, actors and activists. Parker has also written plays on feminist actor Ellen Terry and her daughter Edie Craig.

    It also speaks to a general resurgence of interest in the creative De Morgan family. Mary’s father was Augustus De Morgan, the mathematician and logician and her brother was the potter, tile designer and novelist William De Morgan.

    The Bread and Roses Theatre – an intimate space above a lively Clapham pub – creates an immersive experience. The audience shares De Morgan’s modest London quarters along with the accidentally summoned ghost of her ex-lover’s formidable mother: Lady Tuttle (played by Edie Campbell).

    Providing comedic value, Tuttle deploys her spectral status to prank De Morgan (played by Parker), but her presence also highlights the stark differences between them, staging a debate between feminist and patriarchal versions of Victorian-Edwardian womanhood.

    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.

    Shrill-voiced, upper-class and tightly corseted, Tuttle opposes women’s education and refers to suffragettes as “hyenas in petticoats and bitter spinsters”.

    Striding across the stage swathed in silk skirts and a velvet, lace-trimmed bodice, she is both a mesmerising and somewhat villainous matriarch. By contrast, De Morgan is an irreverent free spirit who wears bohemian clothing, admires revolutionaries and has been a suffragist since she was 16.

    The show portrays De Morgan as a pioneering professional woman, writing feverishly at a desk flanked by piles of beautiful antiquarian books. Parker and Campbell are hypnotic in their imaginative retellings and performances of De Morgan’s stories such as the The Hair Tree (1877), which are woven into the play.

    The Vegan Tigress transports the audience into fantastical realms, fusing eerie lighting with dazzling props and sound effects – thunder, birdsong, clamouring voices.

    With impressive ease, the actors shape-shift into bizarre animal forms – a puppet parrot, a tortured tiger and a grotesque tortoise. Together they illuminate the sociopolitical subtexts of De Morgan’s stories.

    The trailer for The Vegan Tigress.

    Her subversive tale from 1877, A Toy Princess (which Parker describes in the play), critiques doll-like ideals of femininity, prefigures the feminist fairy tales of Angela Carter and resonates with the Barbiemania that surrounded the release of the Barbie film in 2023.

    In literature and in life, De Morgan resists conventional narratives of marriage and motherhood, enacting alternative destinies for women.

    Especially successful as a visual manifestation of the stories’ transformative power is the simultaneously symbolic and literal change we witness in Lady Tuttle.

    The more she reads The Windfairies (1900, one of three fairy tale collections by De Morgan) and political publications (Votes for Women), the less straitlaced she becomes – literally. Her corset unbuttons and her tied hair loosens. Despite being a ghost, Lady Tuttle comes alive as her mind expands, testifying to the powerful potential of reading and writing.

    In joyful and poignant moments of female bonding in the second half of the play, Tuttle and De Morgan dance the tango, and embark arm-in-arm on the trip of a lifetime to Egypt, where De Morgan worked in real life in a girls’ reformatory. The show becomes a celebration of female creativity, companionship and community.

    At the play’s close, the fourth wall is broken and the audience is addressed by De Morgan as “people from the future”. It prompts a reflection on how far we have come since first-wave feminism, but also how far we still have to go (given #MeToo and the reversal of Roe v Wade, the US Supreme Court ruling that legalised abortion across the States in 1973), making Parker’s revival of De Morgan timely and important.

    If De Morgan’s legacy is, as she soliloquises, “arming lost, disenfranchised girls and women with the tools to stand their ground”, what will ours be?

    The Vegan Tigress is at The Bread & Roses Theatre until March 1.

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

    – ref. The Vegan Tigress: intimate play resurrects fierce forgotten Victorian writer – https://theconversation.com/the-vegan-tigress-intimate-play-resurrects-fierce-forgotten-victorian-writer-251179

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Zelensky flies to Washington but his dream of a ‘just peace’ deal is unlikely to come true as things stand

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

    Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has arrived in Washington for talks with his US counterpart, Donald Trump. One of the key issues on their agenda is the “very big deal” announced by the US president on February 25. This deal would give the United States access to Ukraine’s critical mineral and rare earth deposits in return for continuing US support.

    Trump has made sure his domestic audience understands that – as he told his first cabinet meeting on February 26 – in contrast to his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, he’s getting something out of Kyiv in return for the support the US has given Ukraine in the past.

    The message coming from the Ukrainian side was a bit more circumspect. Zelensky took pains to emphasise that the deal was still a draft and that its successful conclusion would depend on the outcome of talks with Trump.

    The lack of Ukrainian enthusiasm for the deal is justified. In its present form, it looks more like a memorandum of understanding that leaves several vital issues to be resolved later. The deal on offer is the creation of will be called a “reconstruction investment fund”, to be jointly owned and managed by the US and Ukraine.

    Into the proposed fund will go 50% of the revenue from the exploitation of “all relevant Ukrainian government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian government)” and “other infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets (such as liquified natural gas terminals and port infrastructure)”.

    This means that private infrastructure – much of it owned by Ukraine’s wealthy oligarchs – is likely to become part of the deal. This has the potential of further increasing friction between Zelensky and some very powerful Ukrainians.

    Meanwhile, US contributions are less clearly defined. The preamble to the agreement makes it clear that Ukraine already owes the US. The very first paragraph notes that “the United States of America has provided significant financial and material support to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022”.

    This figure, according to Trump, amounts to US$350 billion (£278 billion). The actual amount, according to the Ukraine Support Tracker of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, is about half that.

    Western and Ukrainian analysts have also pointed out that there may be fewer and less accessible mineral and rare earth deposits in Ukraine than are currently assumed. The working estimates have been based mostly on Soviet-era data.

    Since the current draft leaves details on ownership, governance and operations to be determined in a future fund agreement, Trump’s very big deal is at best the first step. Future rounds of negotiations are to be expected.

    Statement of intent

    From a Ukrainian perspective, this is more of a strength than a weakness. It leaves Kyiv with an opportunity to achieve more satisfactory terms in future rounds of negotiation. Even if any improvements will only be marginal, it keeps the US locked into a process that is, overall, beneficial for Ukraine.

    Take the example of security guarantees. The draft agreement offers Ukraine nothing anywhere near Nato membership. But it notes that the US “supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace”, adding that: “Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments.”

    The significance of this should not be overstated. At its bare minimum, it is an expression of intent by the US that falls short of security guarantees but still gives the US a stake in the survival of Ukraine as an independent state.

    But it is an important signal both in terms of what it does and does not do – a signal to Russia, Europe and Ukraine.

    Trump does not envisage that the US will give Ukraine security guarantees “beyond very much”. He seems to think that these guarantees can be provided by European troops (the Kremlin has already cast doubts on this idea).

    But this does not mean the idea is completely off the table. On the contrary, because the US commitment is so vague, it gives Trump leverage in every direction.

    He can use it as a carrot and a stick against Ukraine to get more favourable terms for US returns from the reconstruction investment fund. He can use it to push Europe towards more decisive action to ramp up defence spending by making any US protection for European peacekeepers contingent on more equitable burden-sharing in Nato.

    And he can signal to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, that the US is serious about making a deal stick – and that higher American economic stakes in Ukraine and corporate presence on the ground would mean US-backed consequences if the Kremlin reneges on a future peace agreement and restarts hostilities.

    That these calculations will ultimately lead to the “free, sovereign and secure Ukraine” that the agreement envisages is not a given.

    For now, however, despite all its shortcomings and vagueness on key issues, it looks like it serves all sides’ interests in moving forward in this direction, albeit at a snail’s pace.

    Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

    Tetyana Malyarenko 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. Zelensky flies to Washington but his dream of a ‘just peace’ deal is unlikely to come true as things stand – https://theconversation.com/zelensky-flies-to-washington-but-his-dream-of-a-just-peace-deal-is-unlikely-to-come-true-as-things-stand-250855

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: It was risky for Ontario Premier Doug Ford to call an early election — but it did pay off

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sam Routley, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

    Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s election gamble has paid off. As a consequence of last night’s election results, the Progressive Conservatives are now set to form their third consecutive majority government.

    By and large, last night’s election results were dull and uninspiring, looking very similar to the outcome of the province’s election in 2022. The Progressive Conservatives return (going from 79 to 80) with only one additional member of caucus, receiving a noticeable but modest two per cent bump in support.

    And, while the Liberals saw even more of a recovery from 2018, the generally widespread distribution of that vote means that they were only able to gain five seats. Although tarnished, the New Democrats return as the official opposition party.

    Unprepared rivals

    These lacklustre results flow directly from lacklustre campaigns. The fact is that, regardless of Premier Ford’s legitimate calls for a renewed mandate amidst an aggressive American administration, the party had been looking for an excuse to call a premature election for quite some time. In doing so, they were able to — quite intentionally — catch their rivals unprepared, complete with incomplete candidate slates, unknown leaders and undercooked policy platforms.

    It meant that, while Ford was able to run a safe and constrained front-runner’s campaign, his main opponents struggled to find the momentum necessary to move the dial and exploit enough backlash. This is alongside real policy vulnerabilities in health care and education, with enough voters expressing discontent with what they felt to be an unnecessary and self-serving election call.

    Chaotic news cycle

    There are good reasons to believe that voters were mostly apathetic towards the parties and their candidates. Alongside the reasons already stated, the dense, chaotic and ever-shifting news cycle of the last few months may have entailed that this election was able to slip by quietly.

    But this does not seem to be the full story, as this year’s turnout — while still low — is slightly higher than that of 2022. Instead, voters also seemed to have wanted to maintain the status quo.

    On the local level, siting members of the provincial legislature from all three parties generally performed quite well. Of the 111 ridings with party-nominated incumbents, for example, only four lost. So while many voters may have been unhappy with the election call, the unpredictable environment may have also had the reverse effect of leading them to support, if not fully endorse, the leaders they already have.

    Regardless of the more limited dynamics of this election, however, we cannot overlook the fact that this has been a very real accomplishment for Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives. In a period of high executive turnover and anti-incumbent backlash, Doug Ford has, as the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, brought about a track record of secure, consecutive majorities — a feat that was last attained by Leslie Frost and John Robarts.

    In many ways, it brings to mind the years of the traditional “big blue machine,” when the party controlled the government of Ontario for 40 consecutive years.

    Durable persona

    Here, Ford’s success is much deeper than a matter of suave electoral maneuvering, and it is more long-standing than the recent confrontation with the Trump administration. Instead, these results attest to the fact that, while the Premier is not without his detractors, he has nevertheless managed to secure a stable, solid and sufficient base of support through the combination of both a carefully balanced policy agenda and a durable leadership persona.

    As with his successful conservative predecessors, Ford practices a form of the pragmatic and moderate governance that characterizes Ontario. A large part of what makes this successful is the fact that while it makes policy decisions flexible, it does not make them arbitrary.

    Ford continues to emphasize a government oriented around continual economic growth and innovation as a means to accomplish raising living standards, fund the province’s social programs and — more recently — rival the United States. Combined with Ford’s aptitude in retail politics this has created a clear and accessible political project supported by big developers, small business owners and private-sector workers’ unions.

    In a political environment shaped by personality, Ford continues to suck up the majority of the political oxygen in Ontario. Even while a good portion of Ontarians may dislike Ford — he is far from the most popular of Canada’s premiers — they have not experienced an overriding need to get rid of the incumbent, nor pursue another course of change.

    While politics is impossible to predict, it suggests that this state of continuity will persist in Ontario, even amid a chaotic global environment.

    Sam Routley 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. It was risky for Ontario Premier Doug Ford to call an early election — but it did pay off – https://theconversation.com/it-was-risky-for-ontario-premier-doug-ford-to-call-an-early-election-but-it-did-pay-off-251142

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Coastal economies rely on NOAA, from Maine to Florida, Texas and Alaska – even if they don’t realize it

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Christine Keiner, Chair, Department of Science, Technology, and Society, Rochester Institute of Technology

    U.S. fishing industries, both commercial and recreational, rely on healthy coastal areas. Wolfgang Kaehler/LightRocket via Getty Images

    Healthy coastal ecosystems play crucial roles in the U.S. economy, from supporting multibillion-dollar fisheries and tourism industries to protecting coastlines from storms.

    They’re also difficult to manage, requiring specialized knowledge and technology.

    That’s why the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – the federal agency best known for collecting and analyzing the data that make weather forecasts and warnings possible – leads most of the government’s work on ocean and coastal health, as well as research into the growing risks posed by climate change.

    The government estimates that NOAA’s projects and services support more than one-third of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet, this is one of the agencies that the Trump administration has targeted, with discussions of trying to privatize NOAA’s forecasting operations and disband its crucial climate change research.

    As a marine environmental historian who studies relationships among scientists, fishermen and environmentalists, I have seen how NOAA’s work affects American livelihoods, coastal health and the U.S. economy.

    Here are a few examples from just NOAA’s coastal work, and what it means to fishing industries and coastal states.

    Preventing fisheries from collapsing

    One of the oldest divisions within NOAA is the National Marine Fisheries Service, known as NOAA Fisheries. It dates to 1871, when Congress created the U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries. At that time, the first generation of conservationists started to worry that America’s natural resources were finite.

    By conducting surveys and interviewing fishermen and seafood dealers, the fish commissioners discovered that freshwater and saltwater fisheries across the country were declining.

    Looking back on 150 years of NOAA’s fisheries history.

    Oil spills and raw sewage were polluting waterways. Fishermen were using high-tech gear, such as pound nets, to catch more and more of the most valuable fish. In some areas, overfishing was putting the future of the fisheries in jeopardy.

    One solution was to promote aquaculture, also known as fish or shellfish farming. Scientists and entrepreneurs reared baby fish in hatcheries and transferred them to rivers, lakes or bays. The Fish Commission even used refrigerated railroad cars to ship fish eggs across the country.

    Today, U.S. aquaculture is a US$1.5 billion industry and the world’s fastest-growing food sector. Much of the salmon you see in grocery stores started as farm-raised hatchlings. NOAA provides training, grants and regional data to support the industry.

    Men carry pails of fish specimens to a U.S. Fish Commission ‘fish car’ – a train car designed specifically for transporting fish or fish eggs to stock U.S. rivers, lakes and coastal waters – in this historical photo.
    Smithsonian Institution Archives

    NOAA Fisheries also helps to regulate commercial and recreational fishing to keep fish populations healthy and prevent them from crashing.

    The 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other laws implemented catch limits to prevent overfishing. To develop fair regulations and combat illegal practices, NOAA and its predecessors have worked with fishing organizations through regional fishery management councils for decades.

    These industries generate $321 billion in sales and support 2.3 million jobs.

    Restoring coral reefs to help marine life thrive

    NOAA also benefits U.S. coastal communities by restoring coral reefs.

    Corals build up reefs over centuries, creating “cities of the sea.” When they’re healthy, they provide nurseries that protect valuable fish species, like snapper, from predators. Reefs also attract tourism and protect coastlines by breaking up waves that cause storm-driven flooding and erosion.

    The corals of Hawaii, Florida, Puerto Rico and other tropical areas provide over $3 billion a year in benefits – from sustaining marine ecosystems to recreation, including sport fishing.

    However, reefs are vulnerable to pollution, acidification, heat stress and other damage. Warming water can cause coral bleaching events, as the world saw in 2023 and 2024.

    NOAA monitors reef health. It also works with innovative restoration strategies, such as breeding strains of coral that resist bleaching, so reefs have a better chance of surviving as the planet warms.

    Battling invasive species in the Great Lakes

    A third important aspect of NOAA’s coastal work involves controlling invasive species in America’s waters, including those that have menaced the Great Lakes.

    Zebra and quagga mussels, spiny water flea and dozens of other Eurasian organisms colonized the Great Lakes starting in the late 1900s after arriving in ballast water from transoceanic ships. These invaders have disrupted the Great Lakes food web and clogged cities’ water intake systems, causing at least $138 million in damage per year.

    Zebra mussels found attached to this boat at an inspection station in Oregon show how easily invasive species can be moved. The boat had come from Texas and was on its way to Canada.
    Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, CC BY-SA

    In the Northwest Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, invasive lionfish, native to Asia and Australia, have spread, preying on native fish essential to coral reefs. Lionfish have become one of the world’s most damaging marine fish invasions.

    NOAA works with the Coast Guard, U.S. Geological Survey and other organizations to prevent the spread of invasive aquatic species. Stronger ballast water regulations developed through the agency’s research have helped prevent new invasions in the Great Lakes.

    Understanding climate change

    One of NOAA’s most crucial roles is its leadership in global research into understanding the causes and effects of climate change.

    The oil industry has known for decades that greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels would raise global temperatures.

    Evidence and research from around the world have connected greenhouse gas emissions from human activities to climate change. The data have shown how rising temperatures have increased risks for coastal areas, including worsening heat waves and ocean acidification that harm marine life; raising sea levels, which threaten coastal communities with tidal flooding and higher storm surges; and contributing to more extreme storms.

    NOAA conducts U.S. climate research and coordinates international climate research efforts, as well as producing the data and analysis for weather forecasting that coastal states rely on.

    Why tear apart an irreplaceable resource?

    When Republican President Richard Nixon proposed consolidating several different agencies into NOAA in 1970, he told Congress that doing so would promote “better protection of life and property from natural hazards,” “better understanding of the total environment” and “exploration and development leading to the intelligent use of our marine resources.”

    The Trump administration is instead discussing tearing down NOAA. The administration has been erasing mentions of climate change from government research, websites and policies – despite the rising risks to communities across the nation. The next federal budget is likely to slash NOAA’s funding.

    Commercial meteorologists argue that much of NOAA’s weather data and forecasting, also crucial to coastal areas, couldn’t be duplicated by the private sector.

    As NOAA marks its 55th year, I believe it’s in the nation’s and the U.S. economy’s best interest to strengthen rather than dismantle this vital agency.

    Christine Keiner conducted research at the NOAA Library for her books “The Oyster Question” and “Deep Cut.”

    – ref. Coastal economies rely on NOAA, from Maine to Florida, Texas and Alaska – even if they don’t realize it – https://theconversation.com/coastal-economies-rely-on-noaa-from-maine-to-florida-texas-and-alaska-even-if-they-dont-realize-it-250016

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What are conflicts of interest and what can be done about them?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Archon Fung, Professor of Citizenship and Self-Government, Harvard Kennedy School

    The phrase is often lobbed around, but what does it really mean? Frank Brennan/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Americans’ trust in government and politicians is at record lows. In a 2022 Pew Research survey, about two-thirds of respondents said that all or most people who run for office want to serve their own personal interests rather than the community’s.

    I have taught political ethics to hundreds of public policy students at the Harvard Kennedy School over the past 25 years. One of the most important concepts we discuss is directly tied to that falling faith in government. It’s a term people love to throw around but can’t always define: conflicts of interest.

    Conflicts of interest pervade public service and jeopardize the quality of government action by degrading officials’ judgments. Controlling such conflicts is essential to the success of democracy because all citizens rely on millions of officials – from the president down to the person analyzing water quality in your city – to do their jobs conscientiously, using their best judgment. Citizens’ safety depends on government action in countless ways: to keep drinking water, food and medicines safe; to protect everyone from dangerous products and from individual and corporate predators; to keep airplanes, cars and trains from colliding; to ensure access to education, health care and pensions.

    But what counts as a conflict of interest? In the public sector, they arise when an official has “secondary,” private interests that may affect their judgment about how best to promote the public good. The more intense these private interests are – such as the promise of great financial gain or the welfare of loved ones – the greater the conflict and risk to public good.

    Not just money

    Secondary interests often stem from financial concerns: future employment prospects, corporate positions, stock holdings, real estate and gifts. But secondary interests can also arise from concern for the well-being of family members and friends.

    A conflict between primary and secondary interests – public vs. private – threatens the public by clouding the good judgment of officials. They may be tempted, even unconsciously, to make decisions that achieve secondary interests at the cost of not doing their best to advance the public interest.

    During his last weeks in office, for example, former President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter and, preventively, many members of his family. The Constitution establishes the president’s pardon power as a mechanism to correct miscarriages of justice in the court system. Did Biden’s concern for the welfare of his family – a secondary, private interest – cloud his judgment about how best to use this extraordinary power to pardon for the sake of justice, a primary, public interest? It is impossible to peer inside his mind, but anyone can see that there was a strong conflict of interest.

    Many public officials mistakenly deny that there is a conflict at all. Charlie Wilson, a secretary of defense in the 1950s, was previously president and CEO of General Motors, a defense contractor. “For years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa,” he said during confirmation hearings. “The difference did not exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country.”

    Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson holds a news conference in 1954.
    Bettmann via Getty Images

    After Trump was elected in 2016, he famously said that “the president can’t have a conflict of interest.” It wasn’t true then, and it’s not true now. Conflict of interest is an ethical principle that applies to everyone acting in a public role. The principal law regulating conflict of interest in the federal government does exempt the president and vice president. However, the emoluments clause of the Constitution prohibits some conflicts of interest.

    The president enters his second term with large private assets in social media platform Truth Social and cryptocurrency $Trump – industries that the United States is figuring out how to regulate.

    When leaders have a conflict of interest, it doesn’t necessarily mean they make bad judgments or act corruptly. Nevertheless, such conflicts can reduce citizens’ confidence about their leaders’ judgment.

    Cost for the country

    Conflicts of interest create three problems for democracy.

    Most important, the public suffers when officials’ judgments are compromised: when they are no longer doing their level best for Americans because they are concerned about various private interests rather than with citizens’ rights and well-being.

    Second, conflicts of interest reduce trust and confidence in government and democracy. Even if officials who have large conflicts of interest resist the pull of secondary interests, members of the public may – especially in this time of cynicism about government – still suspect that their leaders are acting corruptly.

    Third, when officials use their powers to benefit their private interests rather than the public interests, they profit from their offices: This is corrupt and unfair.

    Reducing risk

    Though conflicts of interest are ubiquitous, there are good strategies to mitigate and manage them.

    Federal agencies, as well as many state and local governments, require officials to mitigate their conflicts of interest by divesting from secondary interests, such as shifting from specific stock holdings to general funds and resigning from positions on boards of directors. Most U.S. presidents since Jimmy Carter have put their substantial assets into blind trusts in order to manage their conflicts of interests. In a blind trust, the owner knows the value of the trust but not the particular stocks and other holdings in it.

    Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm into a blind trust before taking office.
    PhotoQuest/Archive Photos via Getty Images

    Transparency and disclosure is another common management tool. When information about officials’ secondary interests is publicly available, citizens can better understand the forces that affect the judgment of those in government. For example, people who have undergone Senate confirmation for high-level positions in the federal government must file extensive disclosures that detail their assets and many of their prior sources of income.

    Biden disclosed 22 years of income tax returns. Other presidents have sometimes released several years of tax returns or parts of their tax records – in particular, how much tax they paid.

    Finally, it is important to create offices and procedures with staff dedicated to monitoring and mitigating conflicts of interest. In the executive branch, the seventy-some staff at the Office of Government Ethics, and many more ethics officers across the federal government, regulate conflicts of interest and other ethical issues. In February 2025, Trump dismissed the office’s director, who had been confirmed by the Senate two months before.

    Many states and cities have ethics commissions that adjudicate conflicts of interest, deciding when officials should recuse themselves from particular decisions in which they are conflicted. In 2002, for example, New York City’s Conflicts of Interest Board issued an advisory opinion about how multibillionaire Michael Bloomberg, the mayor at the time, should manage his conflicts of interest. They advised that he should recuse himself from all matters relating to the Bloomberg company, divest from large stock holdings and transfer those assets into professionally managed mutual funds, among other recommendations.

    Wealth – and hyperwealth

    Many conflict of interest measures are formulated with moderately wealthy individuals in mind. For example, the median wealth of a U.S. senator in 2018 was US$1.75 million. At that level, measures such as blind trusts, divestment and recusal are usually very workable.

    Hyperwealthy multibillionaires, however, raise unprecedented conflict of interest concerns that are far more difficult to mitigate and manage. Because their financial interests are enormous and range across many parts of the economy, standard conflict of interest measures have proven difficult to implement.

    Archon Fung serves on the National Governing Board of Common Cause, whose mission is to “to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest.” The organization has advocated to control conflicts of interest of many public figures, including Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

    He also consults for Apple and serves on the Board of Advisors for the Boston Review.

    – ref. What are conflicts of interest and what can be done about them? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-conflicts-of-interest-and-what-can-be-done-about-them-249983

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Just having a pet doesn’t help mental health – but pet-owners with secure relationships with their pets are less depressed

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Brian N. Chin, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Trinity College

    How emotionally close you are to your pet is not necessarily a good measure of how your relationship affects your well-being. Nattalia Nuñez/Unsplash, CC BY-ND

    For many people, pets provide unconditional love, companionship and a sense of security. But not all human-pet relationships are beneficial, and some may contribute to stress and anxiety rather than relief.

    Psychologists have been studying attachment theory for decades. This framework explains how people form emotional bonds, seek closeness and manage separation. People with secure attachment tend to feel safe in relationships, while those with attachment anxiety may crave closeness but frequently worry about rejection or loss.

    Just like with human relationships, people form attachment bonds with pets. Some form secure attachments, finding comfort in their pet and viewing them as a reliable source of companionship. Others experience anxious attachment, feeling excessive worry, distress and a heightened need for reassurance when separated from their pet.

    In our recently published research, my research team and I found that attachment anxiety is strongly linked to depression symptoms among owners. This suggests that well-being isn’t just about having a pet, but about the quality of your bond.

    Strong bonds aren’t always healthy bonds

    My team and I set out to explore whether the way people bond with their pets has a measurable effect on their mental well-being.

    We surveyed over 1,000 pet owners in the U.S. about their closeness to their pets; how often they engaged in activities like playing, cuddling or spending time together; and whether they felt secure or anxious in the relationship. We also measured symptoms of depression to examine how different characteristics of pet bonds might influence mental well-being.

    Our results revealed a clear pattern: Higher pet attachment anxiety was the strongest predictor of depression symptoms. In other words, people who felt overly dependent on their pets, constantly worrying about being apart from them or whether their pet “loved” them back, were more likely to experience depression symptoms.

    For mental health, emotional security in your relationship with your pet may matter more than how frequently you interact.
    Darwin Boaventura/Unsplash, CC BY-ND

    Surprisingly, simply feeling emotionally close to a pet was not enough to predict better mental health. While some may assume that a stronger bond with a pet automatically leads to greater well-being, our findings suggest that the quality of the attachment matters more than its intensity. People with secure pet relationships reported better well-being, while those with higher attachment anxiety experienced greater distress.

    We also found that while frequent pet interactions were linked to stronger and more secure human-pet bonds, interaction frequency did not significantly predict mental health outcomes. This reinforces the idea that emotional security in the relationship, rather than just the frequency of interaction, is what truly matters for mental health.

    Interestingly, people who owned both a cat and a dog reported more depression symptoms than those with only one type of pet. While our study did not determine the cause, one possibility is that managing multiple pets can add stress or increase the burden of caregiving.

    How pet relationships shape your mental health

    Our findings highlight that pet ownership is not a one-size-fits-all solution for mental health. The way people bond with their pets – whether they feel emotionally secure or experience anxiety in the relationship – may be just as important as pet ownership itself in shaping well-being.

    Your bond with your pet influences your well-being in many ways.
    Jonas Vincent/Unsplash, CC BY-ND

    This research also raises important questions about the role of emotional support animals and animal-assisted interventions. If pet ownership is going to be integrated into mental health care, it may not be enough to simply encourage pet companionship. Instead, the quality of the human-animal bond could be a key factor in whether pets provide comfort or contribute to emotional distress.

    This study does not suggest that people should stop seeking emotional support from pets. Instead, it highlights how the way people bond with their pets can influence well-being in ways they may not always realize.

    For those who rely on their pets for emotional support, recognizing these patterns may help foster a bond that feels reassuring rather than stressful. Pets can provide deep comfort, but caregiving comes with challenges, too. Reflecting on both the joys and responsibilities of pet ownership can help strengthen the human-animal bond, supporting the well-being of both pets and owners.

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

    – ref. Just having a pet doesn’t help mental health – but pet-owners with secure relationships with their pets are less depressed – https://theconversation.com/just-having-a-pet-doesnt-help-mental-health-but-pet-owners-with-secure-relationships-with-their-pets-are-less-depressed-250482

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: As flu cases break records this year, vaccine rates are declining, particularly for children and 65+ adults

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Annette Regan, Adjunct Associate Professor of Epidemiology, University of California, Los Angeles

    It’s not too late to get a flu shot. Fat Camera/E+ via Getty Images

    In February 2025, flu rates spiked to the highest levels seen in at least 15 years, with flu outpacing COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations for the first time since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has classified this flu season as having “high” severity across the U.S.

    The Conversation asked epidemiologist Annette Regan to explain why this flu season is different from last year’s and what people can do to help reduce the spread.

    How do flu cases and hospitalizations this year compare with previous years?

    Beginning in late January and extending through February 2025, flu hospitalizations have been higher than any other week since before 2009.

    Most flu cases appear to be from influenza A strains, with a split between influenza A/H3N2 and influenza A/H1N1. These are two different subtypes of the influenza A virus.

    Researchers believe that historically seasons that are predominated by influenza A/H3N2 infections tend to be more severe, but infections from influenza A/H1N1 can still be very severe.

    This year’s season is also peaking “late” compared with the past three flu seasons, which peaked in early or late December.

    Unfortunately, there have been a number of deaths from flu too this season. Since Jan. 1, 2025, alone, over 4,000 people, including 68 children, have died from flu. While the number of deaths do not mark a record number, it shows that flu can be a serious illness, even in children.

    Unless directed otherwise, everyone ages 6 months and older should get a flu shot.

    Why are flu cases so high this year?

    There are a number of factors behind any severe season, including poor community protection from low immunization rates and low natural immunity, virus characteristics, vaccine effectiveness and increased human contact via travel, office work or schools.

    Unfortunately, flu vaccination rates have declined since the COVID-19 pandemic. At the end of the 2023-24 flu season, 9.2 million fewer doses were administered in pharmacies and doctors’ offices compared with an average year before the pandemic.

    In addition, since 2022, fewer and fewer doses of flu vaccine have been distributed by private manufacturers. Flu vaccination rates for adults have historically been in the 30% to 60% range, much lower than the recommended 70%. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, flu vaccination rates were increasing by around 1% to 2% every year.

    Flu vaccination rates began dropping after the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in higher-risk groups. Flu vaccination in children has dropped from 59% in 2019-20 to 46% in 2024-25. In adults 65 years and older, the group with the greatest risk of hospitalization and death, flu vaccination rates dropped from 52% in 2019-20 to 43% in 2024-25.

    Lower vaccination rates mean a greater portion of the population is not protected by vaccines. Data shows that vaccination reduces the risk of flu hospitalization. Even if a vaccinated person gets infected, they may be less likely to experience severe illness. As a result, low vaccination rates could contribute to higher flu severity this season.

    However, low vaccination rates are probably not the only reason for the high rates of flu this season. In previous severe seasons, genetic changes to the viruses have made them better at infecting people and more likely to cause severe illness.

    The effectiveness of annual flu vaccines varies depending on how well the vaccine matches the circulating virus. The effectiveness of vaccines ranges from 19% to 60% in any given season. In the 2023-24 flu season, the vaccine was 42% effective.

    Similarly, early 2024-25 data from the U.S. shows that the vaccine was 41% to 55% effective against flu hospitalizations in adults and 63% to 78% effective against flu hospitalizations in children.

    Something as simple as regular handwashing could keep you from getting the flu.

    How do seasonal flu symptoms differ from COVID-19 and other illnesses?

    It’s important to remember that people often incorrectly refer to “the flu” when they have a common cold. Flu is caused only by the influenza virus, which tends to be more severe than common colds and more commonly causes a fever.

    Many of the signs and symptoms for flu, COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses are the same and can range from mild coldlike symptoms to pneumonia and respiratory distress. Common flu symptoms are fever, cough and fatigue, and may also include shortness of breath, a sore throat, nasal congestion, muscle aches and headache.

    Some symptoms, such as changes in or loss of taste and smell, are more common for COVID-19. For both COVID-19 and flu, the symptoms do not start until about one to four days after infection, and symptoms seem to last longer for COVID-19.

    The only way to know what virus is causing an infection is to test. This can be done using a rapid test, some of which now test for flu and COVID-19 together, or by seeing a doctor and getting tested using a nasal swab. There are prescription antiviral medications available to treat flu and COVID-19, but they need to be taken near the time that symptoms start.

    Some people are at high risk of severe flu and COVID-19, such as those who are immunosuppressed, have diabetes or have chronic heart or lung conditions. In these cases, it is important to seek early care and treatment from a health care professional. Some doctors will also prescribe via telehealth calls, which can help reduce the strain on doctors’ offices, urgent care centers and emergency rooms when infection rates are high.

    What can people do now to help steer clear of the flu?

    There are a number of ways people can reduce their risk of getting or spreading flu. Since the flu season is still underway, it’s not too late to get a flu vaccine. Even in seasons when the vaccine’s effectiveness is low, it is likely to offer better protection compared with remaining unvaccinated.

    Handwashing and disinfecting high-traffic surfaces can help reduce contact with the flu virus. Taking efforts to avoid contact with sick people can also help, including wearing a mask when in health care facilities.

    Finally, remember to take care of yourself. Exercising, eating healthy and getting sufficient sleep all help support a healthy immune system, which can help reduce chances of infection.

    Those who have been diagnosed with flu or are experiencing flu-like symptoms should avoid contact with other people, especially in crowded spaces. Covering coughs and sneezes can help reduce the amount of virus that is spread.

    Annette Regan receives research funding from the National Institutes of Health, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Global Vaccine Data Network, and she is employed by the Department of Research & Evaluation at Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

    – ref. As flu cases break records this year, vaccine rates are declining, particularly for children and 65+ adults – https://theconversation.com/as-flu-cases-break-records-this-year-vaccine-rates-are-declining-particularly-for-children-and-65-adults-250252

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Texas records first US measles death in 10 years – a medical epidemiologist explains how to protect yourself and your community from this deadly, preventable disease

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel Pastula, Professor of Neurology, Medicine (Infectious Diseases), and Epidemiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

    Young children are especially vulnerable to measles. Bilanol via Getty Images

    On Feb. 26, 2025, Texas health officials announced the death of a child in a measles outbreak – the first measles death in the United States since 2015. The outbreak was first identified in early February in Gaines County, Texas, where just 82% of kindergartners are vaccinated against measles, compared with 93% on average across the country. As of Feb. 27, there were at least 124 confirmed cases in Texas and nearby towns in New Mexico.

    In an interview with The Conversation U.S. associate health editor Alla Katsnelson, neurologist and medical epidemiologist Daniel Pastula explains why measles is so dangerous and how people and communities can protect themselves from the virus.

    What is measles, and where does it come from?

    Measles is an ancient disease caused by a virus that probably evolved in cattle and jumped into humans around 500 B.C. One of the first written accounts of it comes from a Persian physician named Rhazes in the ninth century C.E., and measles epidemics were described in medieval Europe and western Asia regularly beginning around 1100-1200. The virus got brought over to the Americas in the 1500s, and it wiped out large populations of native people as Europeans colonized the continent.

    By the 1950s in the United States, there were 500,000 reported cases of measles each year – though the true number was probably closer to 4 million . It was so contagious, every kid was thought to have gotten measles by age 15. At that time, measles caused close to 50,000 hospitalizations annually and about 500 deaths, usually in children. It also caused over 1,000 cases of severe brain inflammation every year.

    The first measles vaccine became available in 1963, and scientists improved it over the following decades, causing the number of cases to plummet. In 2000, measles was declared eliminated from the U.S.

    Since then, there have been occasional minor flare-ups, usually brought in by international travelers, but by and large, measles outbreaks have been rare. No one had died of it in the United States in nearly a decade.

    Today, measles infections in the U.S. are almost completely preventable with vaccination.

    For most people, two doses of the MMR vaccine protects against measles for life.
    Sergii Iaremenko/Science Photo Library via Getty Images

    What are the typical symptoms of measles?

    About 10 to 14 days after infection, people suffering from measles experience a very high fever, cold-like symptoms including a runny nose and sneezing, and eye inflammation called conjunctivitis.

    Next, they may develop white spots called Koplik spots inside their mouth and a diffuse, spotty, red rash that starts at the head and neck, then descends across the entire body. This rash is where the disease gets its name – the word “measles” is thought to come from a medieval Dutch word for “little blemishes.”

    Symptoms of measles infection take about three weeks to resolve. People are contagious from about four days before symptoms emerge to four days after the rash starts.

    What are the possible severe outcomes of measles?

    Epidemiologists estimate that 1 in 5 people who are infected with measles get sick enough to be hospitalized. About 1 in 10 develop ear infections, some of which may result in permanent deafness.

    About 1 in 20 people develop severe measles pneumonia, which causes trouble breathing. Reports from west Texas this month suggest that many infected children there have measles pneumonia.

    About 1 in 1,000 people develop severe brain swelling. Both measles pneumonia and brain swelling can be fatal. About 3 in 1,000 people die after contracting measles.

    In about 1 in 10,000 who get sick with measles and recover from it, the virus lies dormant in the brain for about a decade. It then can reactivate, causing a severe, progressive dementia called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, which is fatal within one to three years. There is no treatment or cure for the disease. I have seen a couple of suspected cases of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, and none of these patients survived, despite our best efforts.

    Given how contagious measles is and how severe the outcomes can be, physicians and public health experts are gravely concerned right now.

    How does measles spread?

    Measles is one of the most contagious infectious diseases on the planet. The virus is so infectious that if you are in a room with an infected person and you are not vaccinated and have never had measles before, you have a 90% chance of becoming infected.

    The measles virus is transmitted by droplets released into the air by infected people when they cough, sneeze or simply breathe. Virus particles can survive suspended in the air or on indoor surfaces for up to two hours, so people can get infected by touching a surface carrying virus particles and then touching their face.

    Who should get the measles vaccine, and how effective is it?

    The vaccine for measles has historically been called the MMR vaccine because it has been bundled with vaccines for two other diseases – mumps and rubella. Most children in the U.S. receive it as a two-dose regimen, which is 97% effective against measles.

    Children generally get the first dose of the vaccine at 12-15 months old and the second dose when they are 4-6 years old. Infants who haven’t reached their first birthday generally do not receive it since their immune system is not yet fully developed and they do not develop quite as robust of an immune response. In an emergency, though, babies as young as 6 to 9 months old can be vaccinated. If an infant’s mother previously received the MMR vaccine or had been infected herself as a child, her transferred antibodies probably offer some protection, but this wanes in the months after birth.

    People born before 1957 are considered immune without getting the vaccine because measles was so widespread at that time that everyone was presumed to have been infected. However, certain people in this age group, such as some health care workers, may wish to discuss vaccination with their providers. And some people who had the original version of the vaccine in the 1960s may need to get revaccinated, as the original vaccine was not as effective as the later versions.

    In recent years, vaccination rates for measles and other diseases have fallen.

    Based on available evidence, the vaccine is effective for life, so people who received two doses are most likely protected.

    A single dose of the vaccine is 93% effective. Most people vaccinated before 1989 got just one dose. That year, an outbreak in vaccinated children with one dose spurred public health officials to begin recommending two doses.

    People with certain risk factors who received only one dose, and everyone who has never received a dose, should talk to their health care providers about getting vaccinated. Because the vaccine is a live but weakened version of the virus, those who are severely immunocompromised or are currently pregnant cannot get it.

    People who are immunocompromised, which includes those who have chronic conditions such as autoimmune disorders, are undergoing certain cancer treatments or have received an organ transplant, are more susceptible to measles even if they have been vaccinated.

    In the current measles epidemic in Texas, the vast majority of people falling ill are unvaccinated. Public health officials there are urging unvaccinated people in affected areas to get vaccinated.

    What measures can protect communities from measles outbreaks?

    Vaccination is the best way to protect individuals and communities from measles. It’s also the most effective way to curb an ongoing outbreak.

    High rates of vaccination are important because of a phenomenon called herd immunity. When people who are vaccinated do not get infected, it essentially stops the spread of the virus, thereby protecting those who are most susceptible to getting sick. When herd immunity wanes, the risk of infection rises for everyone – and especially for the most vulnerable, such as young children and people who are immunocompromised.

    Because measles is so contagious, estimates suggest that 95% of the population must be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. Once vaccine coverage falls below that percentage, outbreaks are possible.

    Having robust public health systems also provides protection from outbreaks and limits their spread. Public health workers can detect cases before an outbreak occurs and take preventive steps. During a measles outbreak, they provide updates and information, administer vaccines, track cases and oversee quarantine for people who have been exposed and isolation for people who are contagious.

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

    – ref. Texas records first US measles death in 10 years – a medical epidemiologist explains how to protect yourself and your community from this deadly, preventable disease – https://theconversation.com/texas-records-first-us-measles-death-in-10-years-a-medical-epidemiologist-explains-how-to-protect-yourself-and-your-community-from-this-deadly-preventable-disease-251004

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What’s a constitutional crisis? Here’s how Trump’s recent moves are challenging the Constitution’s separation of powers

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeffrey Schmitt, Professor of Law, University of Dayton

    President Donald Trump’s various actions that appear to overstep the power of the executive office are creating what many legal scholars call a constitutional crisis. VladSt/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

    In a short few weeks, President Donald Trump has upended many core parts and functions of the U.S. government. He dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development and fired thousands of government employees. He has also fired several inspectors general and board members of independent agencies.

    Additionally, Trump’s administration has violated court orders to unfreeze federal funding. And Trump has issued an unprecedented number of executive orders, including one that aims to end the practice of birthright citizenship, something that is guaranteed by the plain text of the U.S. Constitution.

    Legal experts have said that all of these actions and more are leading up to, or have already sparked, a constitutional crisis.

    There is not one clear definition of what a constitutional crisis actually is. And, as constitutional law scholar Jeffrey Schmitt explains in an interview with Amy Lieberman, politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., there is also no comparable historical example for Trump’s exercise of executive power.

    Former USAID employees terminated after the Trump administration dismantled the agency collect their personal belongings at the USAID headquarters on Feb. 27, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
    Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    Why are some people calling what is currently underway a constitutional crisis?

    I think legal experts are concerned that Trump is expanding executive power beyond anything we have known in American history. And as executive power continues to expand, we may eventually hit a tipping point that threatens the structure of the government, as laid out in the Constitution.

    If the Constitution has one central feature, it is the separation of powers. The Constitution divides power between the states and the federal government, and federal power is divided between the three branches of government – the executive, judicial and legislative.

    Now, Trump appears to be taking over Congress’ core powers, including taxing and spending. Typically, Congress passes a budget, and the president can sign or veto the bill. Once the budget is passed into law, the president cannot refuse to spend the allocated money.

    There is some history to this. President Richard Nixon refused in the 1970s to spend money Congress had appropriated, and the U.S. Supreme Court then ordered the federal government to spend the money. Federal law now prohibits what’s called “impoundment.”

    How is Trump challenging these laws now?

    Trump is freezing spending on things he does not support politically, like foreign aid. He also is trying to place new conditions on the disbursement of federal funds as a way to control state and private institutions. For example, a recent letter from his administration threatens to withhold federal funding from schools that do not abandon DEI programs.

    Trump has also fired top officials at independent agencies such as a member of the independent National Labor Relations Board, when federal law and Supreme Court precedent indicate that he has no constitutional authority to do so. He has also fired agency watchdogs without following legal requirements to give Congress 30 days notice. When he fired most USAID employees and froze the agency’s foreign aid payments, he shuttered an entire agency established by Congress.

    And his firing of thousands of federal workers isn’t just about who works in government – cuts like this make an agency unable to perform its mission.

    The federal courts are intervening in some cases, but they are blocking only a small fraction of the president’s actions.

    Are there other times in history the country has come close to a constitutional crisis?

    President Abraham Lincoln and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt both led the country during periods of constitutional change, and they both clashed with the Supreme Court.

    Slavery in the federal territories was the constitutional crisis that precipitated the Civil War. This issue dominated politics throughout the 1850s because people thought it would determine the future of slavery as new states were admitted to the Union. When Congress was unable to reach an agreement, the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional for Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories in the infamous case of Dred Scott v. Sandford.

    But opposition to the expansion of slavery was the unifying principle of the young Republican Party. So, during the election of 1860, Lincoln argued that Dred Scott was not binding on the country because it was not settled precedent. He acknowledged, though, that the court’s decisions are binding in the case before it.

    When Lincoln campaigned for president in 1860, he promised to appoint judges who would overrule Dred Scott and to work with Congress to ban slavery in the territories. When Lincoln realized that constitutional change was necessary, he worked tirelessly to get the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, ratified in 1865.

    Franklin Roosevelt also worked within the constitutional system to expand the role of the federal government in the New Deal, a series of domestic public works programs in the 1930s. When the Supreme Court ruled against early New Deal programs, FDR complained that the justices were old and out of touch.

    So Roosevelt in 1937 proposed packing the Supreme Court with new justices in a transparent attempt to push the court into accepting his broad reading of federal power. This proposed change never became law, but the Supreme Court changed its views on federal power at roughly the same time, ending the crisis. The country overwhelmingly supported the New Deal’s expansion of federal power in several national elections.

    President Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson appear at an event in Miami on Jan. 27, 2025.
    Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

    How does today’s situation involving Trump differ?

    Unlike Lincoln or Roosevelt, Trump is trying to seize the powers of Congress and unilaterally transform the federal government. Roosevelt worked with Congress to pass legislation and eventually convince the Supreme Court to accept his views. And while Lincoln rejected the court’s proslavery reading of the Constitution, Trump may be rejecting its central feature – the structural balance of power.

    Can the country resolve this crisis?

    Aside from Trump deciding to change course, there is not much that can be done. Courts can issue orders, but they do not have a military and cannot easily enforce them.

    Congress has the power to remove the president, via impeachment. As we learned during Trump’s first term, however, impeachment is not easy.

    If the president decides to ignore the courts – and Congress continues to do nothing – the final constitutional check on Trump’s power will be the next federal election.

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

    – ref. What’s a constitutional crisis? Here’s how Trump’s recent moves are challenging the Constitution’s separation of powers – https://theconversation.com/whats-a-constitutional-crisis-heres-how-trumps-recent-moves-are-challenging-the-constitutions-separation-of-powers-250706

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: As the Kremlin eyes a thaw with the White House, Russia’s pro-war hawks aren’t too happy

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Adam Lenton, Assistant Professor of Politics & International Affairs, Wake Forest University

    Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Moscow on Feb. 23, 2025. Sergei Bobylyov/AFP via Getty Images

    At face value, the Kremlin has plenty to celebrate after U.S. and Russian officials held high-level bilateral talks on the war in Ukraine for the first time since the full-scale conflict began in 2022.

    Russian delegates at the meeting, which took place on Feb. 18 in Saudi Arabia, struck an ebullient tone. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov concluded that “the American side has begun to better understand our position,” while Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund and an envoy for Moscow, noted that the delegates managed to loosen up enough to laugh and joke. President Vladimir Putin did not attend the meeting, but he characterized it the following day as “very friendly,” going as far as to describe the American delegation as “completely different people” who were “ready to negotiate with an open mind and without any judgment over what was done in the past.”

    And the talks are far from the only reason for optimism in Moscow. In statements that echoed Kremlin propaganda, U.S. President Donald Trump blamed Ukraine for being invaded and described Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a “dictator.” The U.S. then sided with Russia in two United Nations votes on the conflict and opposed language describing Russia as the aggressor in a draft G7 statement marking the anniversary of the war.

    This perceived rapprochement between Washington and Moscow has many critics on both sides of the Atlantic.

    Within Russia the reaction has been mixed. And not everybody in Moscow is celebrating the apparent shift in U.S. policy.

    Favoring pragmatism

    Of course, many Russians would welcome a thaw in relations. In January, Russia’s leading independent polling group found that 61% of Russians favored peace talks over continuing the war in Ukraine – the highest level yet. Meanwhile, the number of web searches for “When will the ‘Special Military Operation’ end?” on Yandex, a Russian tech firm, reached its highest-ever weekly total in the wake of the U.S.-Russia talks.

    While public opinion is unlikely to shape the Kremlin’s approach given Putin’s sole control over major foreign policy decisions, evidence suggests that a rapprochement with the United States could also be a boon for Putin at home.

    In a recently published article in the peer-reviewed journal International Security, my co-author Henry Hale and I found that while most Russians view the U.S. and NATO as threats, they largely prefer a pragmatic, measured response from the Kremlin – an approach they believed Putin delivered prior to the war in 2022.

    High-level summits between Russia and the U.S. have tended to be well received, we found. This is because they tap into a widely held preference for cooperation as well as depicting Russia as a geopolitical “equal” to the U.S.

    Pro-war hardliners speak out

    Yet not everyone is pleased with the prospect of closer U.S. ties. Russia’s vocal minority of tub-thumping war supporters is already angry.

    This loose community of so-called “Z-patriots” – a reference to the large “Z” letters marking Russian military equipment at the beginning of the war – has been a double-edged sword for the Kremlin.

    While they have been helpful in mobilizing grassroots support for the war, they have also lambasted Moscow’s execution and made pointed criticisms of top military brass. Such attacks are, in effect, a way of making veiled attacks on Putin himself.

    And we are talking about a sizable minority. Estimates indicate that Z-patriots – the more hawkish and ideologically committed segment of war supporters – represent 13% to 27% of the Russian population.

    One of this group’s most prominent ideologues, Zakhar Prilepin, didn’t pull any punches in a recent interview. He described as “humiliating” the fact that “the Russian media community, political scientists and politicians are dancing with joy and telling us how wonderful everything is (now that) Trump has arrived.”

    There are reasons to take this group seriously. According to Marlène Laruelle, an expert on nationalism and ideology in Russia, the Z-patriots are emerging as key opinion leaders.

    Unlike other ideological camps in Russia, the Z-patriots are very much a product of the war, having emerged from the popular military blogging community and with deep connections to paramilitary and veterans organizations. Indeed, many sympathized with former mercenary Wagner Group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin’s anti-elite rants, while Igor Girkin, a former Donbas warlord who claimed to have sparked the initial war in eastern Ukraine in 2014, openly mocked Putin to his almost million-strong Telegram followers.

    The Kremlin partially cracked down on some of the Z-patriots in 2023. Prigozhin’s ill-fated mutiny in June was followed by his suspicious death in a plane crash later that summer, while Girkin was jailed and handed a four-year prison sentence for “inciting extremism.”

    Yet the Z-patriots remain a force. Girkin, commenting on the U.S.-Russia talks from prison, lamented the “egregious managerial and command failure” over the past three years and sarcastically concluded that Moscow’s political elites, aware of their own weakness, are likely to “‘drag their heels’ in their inimitable style – and with their well-known genius.”

    Other pro-war voices expressed skepticism about the information communicated by the Russian delegation and ironically said they expected the Kremlin would pass a law against “discrediting Russia-American relations,” a play on the March 2022 law against “discrediting” Russia’s military.

    Sanctions relief a concern

    Some of the sharpest criticisms of the Kremlin have been about the economy.

    Recent weeks have seen renewed optimism among many in Russia that sanctions relief is on the horizon and that sought-after Western brands may return. Russia – since 2022 the most sanctioned country in the world – had previously appeared to accept that sanctions would remain for decades to come.

    The Russian delegation at the recent talks emphasized the prospect of economic cooperation with the United States, no doubt believing Trump to be receptive to such mercantile framings.

    A few days later, Putin announced a willingness to develop Russia’s rare earth minerals with foreign partners, including the United States, in what appeared to be an attempt to outbid Zelenskyy.

    This, too, provoked a populist backlash among Z-patriots.

    “Grampa’s lost it,” one wrote in a thinly veiled swipe at Putin.

    Another displayed dismay that “stealing Russia’s natural resources once again became a prospect for mutually beneficial cooperation with American partners.”

    “We’ve barely begun to develop small and medium businesses,” Prilepin noted, deriding the “unbearable” excitement around the possibility of Western brands returning.

    These sentiments have struck a chord with other parts of society. After all, some Russian businesses have benefited from Western brands’ exit from the Russian market. The government is attempting to fend off these criticisms with a new bill proposed to Russia’s parliament on Feb. 27 calling to ban Western companies that had financially supported Ukraine.

    What to do about veterans?

    Perhaps most consequential will be what happens to the hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers currently on the front lines.

    While runaway military spending and lavish payouts to soldiers continue to strain the Russian economy, demobilization also poses risks.

    A report from the Institute for the Study of War recently concluded that demobilization would be politically risky for the Kremlin, fearful that masses of disgruntled veterans might constitute a potential challenge.

    That said, many of the estimated 700,000 Russian troops in Ukraine will eventually return to civilian life and likely become an important constituency in Russian politics moving forward.

    The Z-patriots may be a product of war, but they will have an afterlife beyond it. Meanwhile, regardless of any Russian rapprochement with the White House – or perhaps because of it – Russia’s hawks won’t be turning into doves anytime soon.

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

    – ref. As the Kremlin eyes a thaw with the White House, Russia’s pro-war hawks aren’t too happy – https://theconversation.com/as-the-kremlin-eyes-a-thaw-with-the-white-house-russias-pro-war-hawks-arent-too-happy-250716

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The science behind airplane deicing – a mechanical engineer explains how chemistry and physics make flying a more uplifting experience

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Andrew Sommers, Professor of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Miami University

    A worker deices an airplane at the airport in Brussels. AP Photo/Virginia Mayo

    If you are a frequent flyer, you’ve probably been at the airport waiting to jet somewhere on a winter trip when the voice of an airline employee announces over the intercom that there will be a slight delay while the plane gets deiced. But how does this process actually work, and why is it needed?

    As a mechanical engineer who studies frost growth and water droplets on surfaces, I have come to appreciate the importance of deicing planes. Indeed, deicing is an important safety step performed by the airlines on wintry days because of how snow and ice can affect the physics of flying.

    Why deice?

    In short, deicing is necessary because snow and ice on airplane wings can decrease lift by as much as 30%. Lift is the vertical upward force that keeps a plane in the sky. It is generated when air flows over the wings of a plane.

    Ice and snow can alter how air flows over the wings, which can affect a pilot’s ability to maneuver and control the aircraft. It can also increase the stall speed, which is not good either. Stall speed is the minimum speed needed by an aircraft to generate enough lift to keep it aloft.

    Additionally, ice on the wings can break off in flight, potentially damaging one or more of the flaps on the wings or an engine. Needless to say, deicing has become an indispensable part of flying, especially in the winter months.

    Operators apply green anti-icing fluid to the wing of a plane. The green hue, which indicates a Type IV fluid, helps the operators see which parts they might have missed.
    Orchidpoet/E+ via Getty Images

    Deicing chemicals

    Most people are familiar with the chemical deicers that are used on roads during the winter months. However, the salts in these products can be corrosive, so they’re not used on aircraft.

    Aircraft deicers consist of a water-based solution of glycol – a colorless, odorless organic liquid – mixed with various additives. These additives might include a thickening agent; a substance that prevents corrosion; a surfactant, which decreases the surface tension; a flame retardant, and a dye.

    Glycols are very good at lowering the freezing point of water, which makes it harder for water to freeze or stay frozen on surfaces. Propylene glycol and ethylene glycol are the two most common types used, typically making up 30% to 70% of the deicing solution.

    Glycols are made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Pictured here is the chemical structure of ethlyene glycol.
    Cacycle/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    For years, only ethylene glycol was used in deicers because of its low cost. However, because propylene glycol is less toxic to wildlife and humans, its adoption by commercial airlines has grown steadily since the 1980s.

    How does the deicing process work?

    Airlines use four standard fluid types when deicing aircraft. These fluids have different viscosities – viscosity is a measure of a fluid’s resistance to flow – and holdover times, which is the length of time the fluids are expected to protect the plane during snow or icing conditions.

    The deicing process includes both complex crew logistics and interesting science.

    In the United States, airlines typically use a two-step process before flying. First, they perform deicing using either a heated Type I fluid or a heated solution of Type I fluid and water.

    Deicing removes existing ice and snow from the wings of the plane, which is why airlines often heat the deicing fluid to around 140 to 150 degrees Fahrenheit (60 to 66 degrees Celsius) before application.

    Type I fluids are the thinnest of the deicing fluids, and they’re often red or orange. They spread the easiest on a plane’s surface because they have the lowest viscosity. Since they’re thin enough to flow off a plane when it’s not moving – or moving slowly – they can be applied to any aircraft.

    But as a result, they also have the shortest holdover times, often less than 20 minutes depending on the weather conditions. These holdover times vary, though, and can be less than five minutes for snow if the outside air temperature is below 14 F (minus 10 C).

    Next, the ground crews will typically apply an anti-icing fluid to the aircraft – often Type II or Type IV. Anti-icing solutions are used to help prevent the future accumulation of snow and ice on the wings of planes.

    Type II and Type IV fluids contain thickening agents that increase their viscosity. These thickeners allow the fluid to remain on the aircraft longer to help melt newly forming frost or ice. This translates to longer holdover times – often more than 30 minutes for snow – but it also means the plane needs to reach a higher speed to shear, or blow off, the fluid.

    Once applied, Type II and IV fluids will generally stay on the aircraft until the plane is taxiing down the runaway during takeoff. By then, it has gained enough speed to produce the shear force necessary to remove the fluid from the plane. Type II fluids are a clear or pale straw color, while Type IV fluids are generally green. Including a colored dye helps the ground crew clearly see what parts of the plane have been coated and which areas still need application.

    Type III fluids are not as common anymore. They are formulated to shear off at lower speeds and thus are sometimes used on small commuter aircraft since these planes typically don’t go as fast as commercial jetliners.

    Environmental impact of deicing

    Environmental considerations are also an important part of deicing. Glycols require a lot of oxygen to biodegrade, which can deplete dissolved oxygen in streams or lakes. This, in turn, can threaten aquatic life, like fish and other organisms, that need dissolved oxygen to breathe.

    In addition, ethylene glycol is toxic to wildlife, so the Environmental Protection Agency requires airports to monitor their stormwater runoff. For this reason, most airports collect and treat stormwater runoff on-site or send it to a municipal wastewater treatment facility.

    Airports are also increasingly starting to use fluid recovery systems to recycle the glycols and capture the additives in these fluids, which are often toxic, too. They’ll often use designated areas outside for deicing planes so they can collect and store the fluids after they run off the plane in holding tanks underground until they can be recycled.

    Atmospheric icing

    During flight, planes use other technologies to mitigate the icing risks. For example, most modern aircraft use bleed air systems, which channel hot air from the engine’s compressor through interior ducts to the leading edges of the wings and other critical areas to help prevent ice buildup while the plane is in the sky.

    Some planes also use electrically heated panels embedded in the aircraft’s wings to generate heat. These control systems typically cannot be used while the plane is on the ground, since they rely on cold air flowing across the wing’s surface. This airflow is usually achieved at cruising altitude and is necessary to prevent the plane’s surface from getting too hot.

    Airlines may sometimes also use icephobic coatings to help keep new ice from forming and sticking on the outside surfaces of planes. These coatings delay how soon new ice can form. They can also reduce how strongly the ice adheres to the surface.

    Icephobic polymer coatings can mitigate ice buildup and help reduce ice adhesion on surfaces.
    Hernández Rodríguez et al., 2024., CC BY-SA

    Smaller planes may also use inflatable rubber strips called pneumatic boots on the wings that can be inflated as needed to break off accumulated ice on the leading edge of the wings.

    Flying is truly a modern scientific marvel. A lot of engineering goes into not only getting planes off the ground but also keeping them ice-free during flight. So the next time you experience a weather-related delay at the airport, just remember that deicing is needed to ensure both a safe flight and a truly uplifting one.

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

    – ref. The science behind airplane deicing – a mechanical engineer explains how chemistry and physics make flying a more uplifting experience – https://theconversation.com/the-science-behind-airplane-deicing-a-mechanical-engineer-explains-how-chemistry-and-physics-make-flying-a-more-uplifting-experience-248732

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Maple seeds’ unique spinning motion allows them to travel far even in the rain, a new study shows

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Andrew Dickerson, Associate Professor of Mechanical, Aerospace and Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee

    Winged seeds called samaras grow on maple trees. These are seeds from the Japanese maple, _Acer palmatum_. AlessandroZocc/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    When wind or other disturbances detach winged maple seeds called samaras from their parent tree, they spin through the air – and can even spin when it’s raining. Impacts by high-speed raindrops only briefly interrupt the seed’s spinning because the seed can shed the drop rapidly and restart its spinning in less time than it takes to blink.

    If you live somewhere with maple trees, you’ve probably seen their striking helicopter seeds – made up of a seed pod attached to a delicate wing. Maple samaras’ unique design and spinning movement can teach physicists like me about seed dispersal patterns and even engineering new types of flying vehicles.

    The samaras’ spinning movement, called autorotation, keeps them in the air for longer so they travel farther.

    The spinning flight of a maple samara.

    In a February 2025 study, my colleagues and I filmed raindrops as they crashed into autorotating samaras. The samaras shed drops by shattering them, flinging the drops off, or rolling out of the way – like they’re turning away from a punch. If a drop falls in just the right place, the spinning seed can cut it in half.

    The movement of a samara as it spins through the air. Our new study captured this pattern using a high-speed camera.
    Breanna Shaeffer and Andrew Dickerson, University of Tennessee-Knoxville

    In order to keep flying, the samaras must shed the entire drop. Samaras shed drops fastest when the drops hit the heavier, round nutlet part of the seed, rather than the wing. Shedding is made easier by the samaras’ mildly water-repellent surface. We estimated that raindrop collisions reduce a samara’s time in flight and the distance it travels while spinning, but by less than 10%.

    Why it matters

    Maples are an important species to the Eastern United States. They provide syrup and timber, making them economically and commercially significant.

    To proliferate in a rapidly changing climate, maples and other samara-bearing species need to disperse their seeds as far as possible.

    My team’s results provide context for other studies focused on how wind transports rotating and nonrotating seeds alike. Some seeds can even travel hundreds of miles.

    From an engineering perspective, the insights gained from our study could inform the design of new types of aerial vehicles that use autorotation to ride the wind without a motor. Mimicking the shapes of these seeds could help such vehicles quickly recover from disruptions to flight.

    Samaras are also visually intriguing. Discovering more about how small, beautiful parts of nature thrive could help scientists get people interested in the environment.

    What still isn’t known

    Maple samaras represent just one way that seeds use the wind to disperse farther. A dandelion’s parachute-like float relies on the seed’s light weight and high drag. A hop tree seed uses a single, wafer-shaped seed to flutter, while triplaris seeds have three wings that achieve a helicopter-like spin. Researchers still aren’t sure how raindrops can affect the flight of these seeds.

    What’s next

    Next, my colleagues and I hope to unravel the flight mechanics of the “rolling samaras” found on tulip poplar and ash trees. These seeds rotate like maple samaras, but the wing also rolls around the axis that runs across its wingspan as it does so.

    Not only do we plan to compare their flight performance against the more recognizable maple samara, but we will also study how these seeds respond to perturbations such as wing damage and crosswinds.

    How I do my work

    I like to uncover the complexity in seemingly simple systems. So many of the brief, small and common interactions in our world are wonderfully beautiful. I seek to tell those stories through a camera lens and with mathematical flair.

    Andrew Dickerson receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

    – ref. Maple seeds’ unique spinning motion allows them to travel far even in the rain, a new study shows – https://theconversation.com/maple-seeds-unique-spinning-motion-allows-them-to-travel-far-even-in-the-rain-a-new-study-shows-250341

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How to make a political Oscars speech that doesn’t flop – according to rhetorical theory

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom F. Wright, Reader in Rhetoric, University of Sussex

    So, it’s happened. You’re on stage, Oscar statue in hand, facing Hollywood’s finest and millions of viewers. You could keep it simple – thank your agent, your co-stars, your dog. Or you could use this moment to say something that matters.

    That’s exactly what Jane Fonda just did at the 2025 Screen Actors Guild Awards, urging the audience “to resist successfully what is coming at us” as Elon Musk’s Doge holds a chainsaw to the US federal government. From the cold war to civil rights to Trump 2.0, award ceremonies have always been stages for activism.

    Some of these political speeches have been electrifying. Some have flopped. Some have been drowned out by the orchestra before they even got started. If you’re going to make a political speech at the Oscars, you’d better do it right.

    Thankfully, Kenneth Burke — one of the 20th century’s most influential rhetorical scholars — offers a road map. His theories on identification, dramatism and symbolic action explain why some speeches resonate while others fall flat.

    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.

    1. Know your two (very different) audiences

    Burke argued in the 1950s that rhetoric isn’t just about persuasion – it’s about identification. A speaker is most persuasive when they convince their audience that they share the same values and concerns. If people feel you’re “one of them”, they’re more likely to listen.

    The Oscars create a unique rhetorical challenge. Inside LA’s Dolby Theatre, you might be surrounded by like-minded pampered progressives. But beyond that room, millions of viewers at home may be far less receptive.

    Michael Moore’s infamous acceptance speech in 2003.

    Director Michael Moore learned this the hard way in 2003 when, after winning best documentary for his film Bowling for Columbine, he stormed the stage and declared: “Shame on you, Mr Bush! Shame on you!” The result? A mix of cheers and boos. And days of being pilloried on cable news. Instead of drawing people in, Moore’s approach alienated half his audience.

    Compare this with Meryl Streep’s speech at the 2017 Golden Globes when collecting her lifetime achievement award. She also criticised her president but framed it differently: “Disrespect invites disrespect. Violence incites violence. When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.”

    She didn’t need to utter Donald Trump’s name. And because she framed her speech as a universal concern, rather than a partisan attack, it resonated beyond the room.

    2. Put yourself in the story

    Burke’s second idea is that all communication is “dramatic” – a performance shaped by setting, characters and conflict. In a political speech, the most compelling “character” is often you, the speaker.

    Audiences don’t just respond to abstract arguments. They connect with people who embody the very struggle they’re speaking about.

    Lily Gladstone accepting the Golden Globe for best actress in 2024.

    Lily Gladstone’s 2024 Golden Globes speech worked this way. When she won best actress for Killers of the Flower Moon, she didn’t start with industry statistics or broad calls for change. Instead, she spoke in Blackfeet, honouring her Indigenous roots: “I just spoke a bit of Blackfeet language, a beautiful community – the nation that raised me.”

    That one sentence transformed her win into a moment of cultural recognition, making her speech as much an act of representation as a speech about representation.

    3. Frame your argument wisely

    If you want your audience to engage, you must frame your message in a way that pulls them in. Whereas a speech that just states a problem can feel like noise, one that connects the issue to a larger story can be powerful.

    This is where Burke’s idea of symbolic action comes in. He defined it as “the making or construction of social reality through symbols that foster identification”. Put another way: words don’t just describe reality, they shape it.

    Oprah Winfrey’s speech from the 2018 Golden Globes.

    Take Oprah Winfrey’s 2018 Golden Globes speech picking up the Cecil B. DeMille award. Instead of simply condemning sexism in Hollywood, she tied it to a broader historical movement, from civil rights to #MeToo: “For too long, women have not been heard or believed if they dared to speak their truth to the power [of] those men. But their time is up. Their time is up!”

    Winfrey wasn’t just talking about change – she was creating it in real time, rallying the room behind a clear, urgent message. That’s the difference between listing a problem and delivering a message that sticks.

    4. Turn your speech into an act of protest

    While framing helps persuade an audience, some moments go further, becoming acts of defiance themselves. This is when a speech moves beyond words into symbolic action.

    Let’s take perhaps the most famous protest in Oscars history. In 1973, Marlon Brando refused to pick up his best actor statue – sending in his place Sacheen Littlefeather, who explained she was there as a protest for Hollywood’s treatment of Native American people.

    Sacheen Littlefeather refuses to accept the best actor Oscar on behalf of Marlon Brando.

    “He very regretfully cannot accept this very generous award,” she told the audience. “And the reasons for this being are the treatment of American Indians today by the film industry … and on television in movie reruns, and also with recent happenings at Wounded Knee.”

    In under a minute, she transformed what could have been a quiet refusal into a national reckoning. The audience’s reaction – some cheering, some booing – only made it clearer. This wasn’t just a speech, it was a moment.

    A speech that merely describes a problem may be forgotten, but one that transforms the moment itself? That’s the stuff of history.

    5. Expect a backlash, and decide if you care

    No matter how well you craft your speech, someone is going to be angry. Burke’s final idea for helping us understand this is the “scapegoat mechanism”, by which one figure is cast as the discordant element that must be removed to restore unity.

    If you make a political speech at the Oscars, it could be you. Vanessa Redgrave learned this in 1978: after winning best supporting actress for her role in Julia, she defended her pro-Palestine activism against attacks from the Jewish Defence League, who she called a “bunch of Zionist hoodlums”. The reaction was instant – cheers mixed with boos.

    Vanessa Redgrave accepts the Oscar for supporting actress in 1978.

    Later that night, screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky publicly rebuked her, saying: “A simple ‘thank you’ would have sufficed.” The backlash hurt Redgrave’s career, but she stood by her words.

    If you’re going to say something political, be prepared to own it. And make sure you beat the orchestra.

    Tom F. Wright 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. How to make a political Oscars speech that doesn’t flop – according to rhetorical theory – https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-a-political-oscars-speech-that-doesnt-flop-according-to-rhetorical-theory-250949

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: White House spat with AP over ‘Gulf of America’ ignites fears for press freedom in second Trump era

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Colleen Murrell, Full Professor in Journalism, Dublin City University

    A federal judge in the District Court of Columbia will shortly decide if the US president, Donald Trump, is allowed to dictate the terms of service of the Associated Press (AP), the US wire agency that proudly proclaims it is read by 4 billion people every day.

    In a (typically for this administration) knee-jerk decision on February 11, White House officials informed AP that its journalists would be barred from entering restricted areas such as the Oval Office and Air Force One until it stops using the geographic term “Gulf of Mexico” – in contravention of an executive order renaming it the “Gulf of America”.

    AP’s style guide explains that the Gulf of Mexico has carried this name for more than 400 years, and that Trump’s order only holds authority within the US. It notes that as a global news agency, it “must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audiences”.

    But the style guide adds that, while AP will continue to refer to the body of water by its original name, it will do so “while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen”.

    According to AP’s executive editor, Julie Pace: “Limiting our access to the Oval Office based on the content of AP’s speech not only severely impedes the public’s access to independent news, it plainly violates the first amendment” – which covers freedom of speech and the press.

    In seeking to overturn the ban, AP brought a lawsuit (AP-v-Budowich-Complaint) against the White House chief of staff, Susan Wiles, the deputy chief of staff, Taylor Budowich, and its press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, in their official capacities.

    After a short hearing, Judge Trevor N. McFadden – who was appointed by Trump – declined to restore AP’s access immediately, and instead set another hearing date for March 20. According to the Washington Post, the judge was “not sufficiently convinced the situation was ‘dire’ enough to warrant such an intervention” – and therefore was “not inclined to act precipitously on the executive office of the president”.

    Following this decision, the White House denied access to Trump’s first cabinet meeting on February 26 to an AP photographer, as well as reporters from Reuters, HuffPost and German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel. Instead, officials allowed in cameras from ABC and Newsmax, plus reporters from Axios, the Blaze, Bloomberg and NPR.

    Pick and mix

    But can the president be allowed this pick-and-mix approach to access to the seat of power?

    The White House press pool has been in place for more than a century, with the seating allocation in the press briefing room decided by the board of the White House Correspondents’ Association. As the major American news agency, AP has traditionally held the coveted middle front-row seat, which it still retains – even though senior officials have tweeted veiled threats to rescind AP’s entire White House credentials.

    The press briefing room holds 49 seats, with some seats shared between two companies on rotation, and a few journalists or photographers permitted to stand in the aisles when there is room. Meanwhile, Air Force One (in reality, two Boeing 747s used on rotation) only has room for 13 people to represent the entire White House press corps. The pool on the plane is ordinarily made up of three agency reporters (AP, Reuters and Bloomberg), four photographers (including from AP), three network TV journalists, a radio reporter and two print reporters.

    Trump has an ongoing fight against “legacy” news outlets that dominated coverage before the advent of the internet. These media often have strict editorial guidelines, but the president has regularly dismissed them as “fake news”. During the election campaign, he ignored well-known programmes such as CBS’s Sixty Minutes in favour of Joe Rogan’s podcast.

    At the Pentagon, Trump’s new military brooms have also been sweeping legacy media companies out of their briefing rooms. This list includes NBC, the New York Times, Politico, CNN and The Washington Post. In their place will go Trump-friendly outlets such as Newsmax and the Washington Examiner.

    ‘Privilege, not a right’

    Meanwhile, a petition by media companies is calling on the US government to “honor its commitment to freedom of expression” by upholding “a nonpartisan defense of a free press”. Included on this petition are the Committee to Protect Journalists, the International Press Institute, and the Society of Professional Journalists.

    Members of the press pool are usually the only reporters that get to throw questions at senior members of the administration. Its members follow the president on important trips both nationally and internationally. AP is a widely trusted non-profit news organisation, and its reports get syndicated to media organisations throughout the world, with any profits used to pay for its staff and its newsgathering.

    CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins questions the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt over the banning of AP from White House briefings.

    The White House released a statement on February 24: “As we have said from the beginning, asking the president of the United States questions in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One is a privilege granted to journalists, not a legal right.”

    However, having an independent arbiter making decisions about press pool representation is surely preferable in maintaining a free press and accountability than allowing each administration to pick its own reporters – or even its own facts.

    Colleen Murrell received funding from Irish regulator Coimisiún na Meán (2021-4) for research for the annual Reuters Digital News Report Ireland.

    – ref. White House spat with AP over ‘Gulf of America’ ignites fears for press freedom in second Trump era – https://theconversation.com/white-house-spat-with-ap-over-gulf-of-america-ignites-fears-for-press-freedom-in-second-trump-era-251163

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Emmanuel Macron used every diplomatic trick in the book at the White House – but Trump writes his own rules

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Helen Drake, Professor of French and European Studies and Director of Loughborough University London’s Institute for Diplomacy and International Affairs, Loughborough University

    If there was a book of diplomacy, then French president Emmanuel Macron threw it at US president Donald Trump in their joint press conference in Washington DC. Macron delivered quite the masterclass in the diplomatic arts. Unthreatening body language and public displays of affection? Check.

    Meeting your interlocutor on any and every inch of common ground? Check. Macron’s willing use of fluent English was a key tactic here. Other than when answering French-language questions (when to have responded in English would have brought Macron yet more domestic grief), he adapted to the language of his hosts.

    Macron and Trump’s press conference.

    Recalling shared memories of happier, shared times? Check. It was smart to remind Trump of his time as a guest at the reopening of Notre Dame cathedral in Paris just a few months previously.

    Gently correcting a friend in danger of veering too far from reality (here, regarding the extent and type of European aid to Ukraine) as you would expect from a true ally? Again, check.

    These are the soft skills of diplomacy as communication between human beings to which Macron typically brings his heart, body and soul. On this occasion and on this criterion he outperformed even himself, and outclassed his host by some degree.

    At times, Trump looked enraptured by this performance from such an interesting specimen of utter Europeanness. At others, the host fidgeted and listened stony-faced to the halting interpretation of Macron’s rapid-fire French. He tried a few gauche niceties of his own (“say hello to your beautiful wife”) and dialled up to the max his personal brand of touchy-feely diplomacy.

    Behind the scenes

    Beyond the memorable set pieces of diplomatic theatre lies, of course, the message itself. This must represent the voice, the interests and the concerns of the state or other diplomatic actor. But it may well go against the flow, disrupting the smooth surface of diplomatic pleasantries.

    Former French president Charles de Gaulle notoriously ruffled cold-war feathers in the 1960s with rousing speeches to stir non-aligned countries and French-speaking people to contest the existing world order. Former foreign minister Dominique de Villepin will be remembered for his eloquent, impassioned plea to the United Nations security council in 2003 against the allied invasion of Iraq.

    Macron has dabbled in free-wheeling diplomacy himself. He claimed in 2019 that Nato was close to “brain death” and maintained a dialogue with Russia’s president Vladimir Putin after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. In Macron’s account at the press conference with Trump, he closed this line of communication when he learned of the atrocities being perpetrated by Russian forces.

    Articulating France’s global, strategic interests is where Macron feels most comfortable and probably where he is best suited (judged by the standards of his domestic political failings). His trip to Washington at such a pivotal moment in Trump’s second presidency, with the fate of Ukraine in the balance, was a natural move for a leader who, since the beginning of his first mandate in 2017, has sought to lead the European conversation about the continent’s security.

    His sense of urgency to secure greater European autonomy and capacity in its defence lies behind his willingness to talk to all parties. France does, after all, go by the fiendishly untranslatable label of a “puissance d’équilibres” (which means an actor with the power to strike a balance but also perhaps to bring others into balance or even, simply, to keep the peace).

    Macron’s readiness to confront the cold, hard facts of contemporary international relations – he has already told the French they need to put themselves on a wartime footing in economic terms – gives him a track record of sorts in the diplomatic negotiations now to come: between Europeans themselves, and between Europe and the US.

    But facing down Macron’s fancy optics is one particularly awkward fact – namely that Trump does not do diplomacy by the book, or at least not the one he was metaphorically gifted by president Macron. Where the point of diplomacy is to establish a common language with shared codes and expectations in order to ease tensions and bridge differences between parties, Trump’s diplomatic how-to guide boasts new chapters on the arts of bullying, harassment, gaslighting and, of course, the deal.



    Read more:
    Trump and Europe: US ‘transactionalism on steroids’ is the challenge facing leaders now

    For now, the US president is tolerating the quaint diplomatic overtures of these curious Europeans and given the ultra-high stakes of what couldn’t be further from a game, that is diplomacy itself.

    Helen Drake 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. Emmanuel Macron used every diplomatic trick in the book at the White House – but Trump writes his own rules – https://theconversation.com/emmanuel-macron-used-every-diplomatic-trick-in-the-book-at-the-white-house-but-trump-writes-his-own-rules-250832

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The UK’s food system is broken. A green new deal for agriculture could be revolutionary

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Benjamin Selwyn, Professor of International Relations and International Development, Department of International Relations, University of Sussex

    William Edge/Shutterstock

    The UK’s food system was described as broken in a recent parliamentary report – and it’s not hard to see why. High living costs, a health crisis of diet-related chronic disease, farmers’ incomes squeezed and low pay across the agricultural sector all play their parts.

    And these elements are underpinned by an environmentally destructive mode of agricultural production – the longer the livestock-intensive system prevails, the greater the environmental, economic and social costs.

    The opportunity cost of not dealing with the food crisis is severe. The Food, Farming and Countryside Commission found that the price of the UK’s unhealthy food system is around £268 billion a year – almost equivalent to the government’s entire expenditure on health. And farmers are also worried about the sector as they face an unpredictable climate, smaller profits and changes to tax relief policies.

    I have researched how a green new deal for agriculture – namely a food system that complements rather than undermines the environment, while tackling social inequities – could begin to address these problems.

    In 2024 the UK’s farming sector experienced its second-worst harvest on record. Huge levels of rain last winter disrupted farmers’ ability to grow crops and reduced yields.

    The UK’s population faces a significant health crisis, exacerbated by the high cost of living. In 2022, around two-thirds of the population across all four nations were either overweight or obese.

    Retailers, processors and distributors grab an exorbitant share of the final value of many agricultural products. Sometimes farmers make as little as 1p profit for each item they produce. And farm workers’ earnings can sometimes leave them facing absolute poverty.

    What’s more, the UK farming sector is systemically inefficient. Dairy and meat products provide about 32% of calories consumed in the UK, and less than half (48%) of the protein. At the same time, livestock and their feed make up 85% of the UK’s total land use for agriculture.

    To make matters worse, land ownership is highly concentrated – about 25,000 landowners, typically corporations and members of the aristocracy, own about 50% of England, for example.

    What would change look like?

    A green new deal for agriculture would require a significant reorientation of policy, akin to the 1945 Labour government’s establishment of the welfare state. Critics might decry the costs and difficulties – but the longer the government waits, the greater the economic and environmental costs are likely to be.



    Read more:
    Britain’s unearned wealth has ballooned – a modest capital tax could help avoid austerity and boost the economy

    The government could introduce compulsory sale orders to spread land ownership more evenly. These would enable public bodies to obtain land that has been left derelict, vacant or that has been used in environmentally damaging ways. These measures could be supported by the establishment of community land trusts – non-profit, democratic organisations that own and work land for the benefit of local people.

    And a green new deal for agriculture could start with the government using its ecosystems service payments, where farmers and landowners are paid to manage their land in an environmentally beneficial way, to stimulate a transition to more plant-based proteins. This could combat hardship among farmers and agricultural workers, and tackle food poverty and ill health in the population. It would also establish the basis for a more sustainable agricultural system.



    Read more:
    Subsidised community restaurants could help tackle the UK’s broken food system – here’s how

    The UK think tank Green Alliance has mapped a green protein transition. It would entail an increase in “agro-ecologically” farmed land – that is, methods that bring a more ecological approach to farming. At present, this is about 3% of UK land, and it would have to rise to 60% by 2050. Under the plan, by 2030 10% of farmland would become semi-natural habitat, rising to one-third by 2050. This would protect land and facilitate natural restoration, and would also support agro-ecological farming methods.

    In this scenario, Britons would be projected to eat 45% less meat and dairy, replacing them with alternative proteins – plants and synthetic foods such as those made from precision fermentation. This is a revolutionary technology producing proteins that can be used in new alternatives to meat and dairy.

    Many conceptions of the protein transition from animal sources to more plant products ignore the necessity of improving farmers’ and agricultural workers’ incomes. But this will be crucial.

    Ecosystems service payments should be broadened to include a focus on sustainable incomes. Farms can be paid directly by government for sustainable production to combat farmer poverty. And the real living wage of £12.60 an hour should be compulsory for agricultural workers.

    As land use shifts from livestock grazing and feed crop production, more ground could be used for food crops for human consumption. There would then be more scope to change which food crops are produced – from wheat to legumes, for example.

    Flour made from broad beans – which can be grown in the UK – packs a bigger protein punch than traditional wheat flour.
    Narsil/Shutterstock

    Research has shown that flour made from broad beans is higher in key nutrients – protein, iron and fibre – than wheat flour. Bread, pasta, pizza, cakes and biscuits could increasingly be produced using broad bean flour, underpinning a shift towards more nutritious diets.

    A protein transition would also free up land for fruit and vegetable production for domestic consumption, reducing the UK’s heavy import dependence by using polytunnels and environmentally sustainable greenhouses.

    Climate breakdown means that the frequency of poor harvests will increase. And the volatile economic and political global picture means that affordable food imports cannot be taken for granted.

    A green new deal for agriculture could begin to remedy many of the problems the UK faces due to its broken food system. What’s needed is a coalition including courageous political parties, farmers, and workers within and beyond food production. Working together, these groups would be well placed to withstand the economic, political and environmental shocks that are on the horizon.

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

    – ref. The UK’s food system is broken. A green new deal for agriculture could be revolutionary – https://theconversation.com/the-uks-food-system-is-broken-a-green-new-deal-for-agriculture-could-be-revolutionary-250565

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How evolution might explain impatience

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Read, Professor of Behavioural Science, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick

    DC Studio/Shutterstock

    Nobody likes to wait, and we are willing to pay to avoid it. Expedited shipping, fast food and video streaming are all profitable because they reduce or eliminate that wait. You can test this by asking a group of people to choose between receiving £100 now or £110 in a year. Research shows a significant majority will choose the £100.

    But why do many people choose not to wait, when it seems obvious that they would be better off doing so? Sometimes this impatience is just put down to irrationality, impulsivity or short-sightedness, but there is also a long tradition in psychology and economics that views impatience as, at least in part, a rational response to the world.

    Perhaps the world of today, or perhaps the world in which we evolved.

    Recent research proposes that our evolutionary history shaped our impatience, and uses mathematical models to show how it works.

    The key idea is this. Imagine a large population of identical people who can choose between enjoying an early reward, or a larger reward later in time. An example might be choosing between two hunting grounds, one close and one further away.

    The closer one is guaranteed to yield a small animal quite quickly, while the farther one is likely to yield a big animal but only after a considerable wait or a gruelling hunt. Another example might be eating the juvenile, smaller fruit on a tree or waiting a few months until the fruit are abundant and ripe.

    Of course there is a catch. If the people wait too long for the large reward, there is a chance they won’t live long enough to earn it. And even if they do, the ripe fruit might have vanished before they reached it, perhaps stolen by a rival.

    As the authors of the recent study show, the animals (including humans) they model are better off taking the bird in the hand with even relatively small amounts of risk (you might not reach the birds) and uncertainty (there might not be two birds when you get there).

    Although models like this are simplifications of the real world, they are valuable for conceptualising how evolution might have produced particular tendencies in humans and other animals. But this model doesn’t do a lot to explain the human impatience we see now.

    In most studies of choice over time, people display high levels of impatience even in settings where risk is all but eliminated, and when it is financially beneficial to be patient.

    Struggle with impatience? It’s human nature.
    Khosro/Shutterstock

    One explanation is that the evolved way of valuing the future is still in place even in modern humans. We act as if the world is uncertain and risky, as it would have been for hunter gatherers, even when it is not.

    Good things come to those who wait

    Another explanation might be that we struggle to think about how the £110 is better than the £100. There is a lot of evidence for this.

    Consider, for example, an experiment I carried out in 2012 with psychologists Marc Scholten and Shane Frederick. Participants chose between £700 now or £700 plus £42 in one year.

    When given the choice in terms of monetary amounts, people were impatient. But if the £42 was described instead as “plus 6%” they were much more patient.

    People know that earning 6% a year is a great interest rate. But many people do not do the calculations and the extra £42 seems paltry compared to the £700.

    Another result that does not fit this evolutionary story concerns people’s responses to losses. Take a choice between paying a bill for £100 now or £100 later. A lot of people, often a majority, will prefer to pay the bill now. Indeed, some will prefer to pay £110 now rather than £100 later.

    Yet the possibility that you will not have to pay a future bill, or that the bill might have vanished by the time you get to it (the indebted has forgotten or died) should make you want to delay paying bills as long as possible. The more common response is probably partly due to a fundamental aversion to debt, which does not have an obvious evolutionary basis, but it is associated with religiosity.

    It remains to be seen if these complex preferences (such as patience for negative outcomes) can be explained by the process of natural selection, or if it is something that came later in human development.

    Evolutionary theory is an essential tool for thinking about the foundations of human decision making. The modern world is, however, very different from the environment in which we evolved.

    Daniel Read receives funding from the ESRC.

    – ref. How evolution might explain impatience – https://theconversation.com/how-evolution-might-explain-impatience-249325

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Africa’s newest book prize is named after Andreé Blouin: who was she?

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Tinashe Mushakavanhu, Research Associate, University of Oxford

    Andrée Blouin was a political activist and writer from the Central African Republic. Until recently, her name hardly ever appeared in the grand narratives of Africa’s liberation.

    When she died in 1986, her passing was hardly in the news – a stark contrast to her pivotal role as an adviser and campaign strategist to newly independent African leaders in Algeria, both Congos, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Guinea and Ghana.

    She was more than a participant. She was an organising force, an architect of resistance, a strategist who shaped the fight against colonial rule. Yet, like many women in African history, her contributions faded into the margins, overshadowed by the men she helped empower.

    Interest in Blouin has been rekindled. She is featured in the Oscar-nominated documentary Soundtrack to a Coup d’État about DRC independence leader Patrice Lumumba. She worked as his speechwriter and chief of protocol.

    And her memoir My Country, Africa: Autobiography of the Black Pasionaria, long out of print, was re-released and is now widely available.

    Now a new annual book award called the Andrée Blouin Prize has been launched in her honour by a South Africa-based publishing house, Inkani Books. Its mission is to amplify the voices of African women, cisgender and transgender, writing about history, politics and current affairs from a left perspective.

    For me as a literary historian who has been preoccupied with archives of marginal historical figures, this activation of Blouin powerfully highlights her legacy. It also invites new engagement with her work.

    Who was Andrée Blouin?

    Blouin was born in 1921 in Central African Republic but from the age of three she was placed in an orphanage in neighbouring Congo Brazzaville. She ran away when she was 14 and so began a life of rebellion.

    She would grow up to be a formidable political operator. Her reach touches many parts of Africa. For her, the struggle was not just local, it was everywhere. As a multilingual person, she spoke a dozen languages, a gift that allowed her to easily move between places and political contexts.

    Her political awakening was deeply personal – she was radicalised by her son’s death from malaria in a colonial hospital in 1942. He had been denied life-saving medication. Colonialism, she realised, was not just her own misfortune but a system of evil suffocating African lives.

    Today history is vindicating this fascinating historical figure. This is happening through the wealth of archival material – photographs, videos, interviews and texts – that places her at the centre of political action. The image of African liberation tends to be men in suits. And yet a smiling Blouin can be seen with them, side by side, even addressing large crowds.

    It is thanks to the refusal of this archive to be repressed that we can review moments that shaped African liberation history. And appreciate the roles that women like Blouin played.

    Behind the prize

    African literary prizes have seen significant growth in recent years, both in number and influence. They play an important role in promoting African literature, offering recognition and financial support to writers, and shaping the literary canon.

    They can also address the need for dedicated platforms that amplify underrepresented voices.

    Inkani Books describes itself as a “people’s movement-driven publishing house”. It is introducing The Andrée Blouin Prize in her honour. The impetus for the prize, according to Inkani’s publishing director Efemia Chela, was to directly challenge erasure of women in history and in political writing.

    She explains:

    This prize is not just an accolade; it is a reclamation of space, a declaration that African revolutionary women’s narratives will no longer be sidelined.

    The publishing house, established less than five years ago, has been reissuing popular books about revolutionary figures. These include the likes of Thomas Sankara, Kwame Nkrumah, Amílcar Cabral and Frantz Fanon. These men are often celebrated for their heroism and intellectual contributions to pan-African ideas about freedom, politics and revolution.

    The Andrée Blouin Prize is a bold act of reclamation, ensuring that the narratives of African revolutionary women are no longer overlooked but recognised, celebrated and centred.

    In fact, this is an invitation for contemporary women to write themselves into literary history.

    The inaugural winner will receive a $2,000 advance and a publishing contract with Inkani. The prize is open to all women across Africa and is dedicated to showcasing and celebrating the continent’s diverse and vibrant experiences.

    It is part of a broader movement challenging historical exclusions in African publishing. Literary production is dominated by big multinational publishing companies that determine reading tastes and trends.

    Last year, Nigeria-based Cassava Republic Press launched the Global Black Women’s Non-Fiction Manuscript Prize to spotlight exceptional works by Black women.



    Read more:
    African literary prizes are contested – but writers’ groups are reshaping them

    While African publishing has not always been welcoming to women writers, a shift is underway. Writers like Nigeria’s Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Zimbabwe’s NoViolet Bulawayo, Uganda’s Jennifer Nansubuga Makumbi, and Zambia’s Namwali Serpell are now among the most influential voices shaping African literature today.

    Tinashe Mushakavanhu 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. Africa’s newest book prize is named after Andreé Blouin: who was she? – https://theconversation.com/africas-newest-book-prize-is-named-after-andree-blouin-who-was-she-250828

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump mineral deal with Ukraine offers hope but little in the way of security

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

    If you want to get an idea of how Donald Trump’s mind works (and this can change from day to day, as we know), it’s worth taking a look at his TruthSocial website. As I write, beneath a video pinned to the top of his feed featuring an AI-generated vision of “Trump Gaza” (complete with casinos, shopping malls and a giant golden statue of the man himself), can be found a clue to the frenetic presidential activity of the past month.

    In a post threatening legal action against any writer or publisher whose “Fake books” offends, Trump refers to himself as “a President who is being given credit for having the Best Opening Month of any President in history”. Apparently George Washington is second on that list – and, given that Potus #1 took 33 days to sign the first bill passed under the new US constitution, you could say Potus #47 has left him trailing in his wake.

    Of course #47 appears to face fewer constitutional constraints than his illustrious predecessor.

    Sadly, though, Trump will be unable to include in this list the deal he has reportedly just struck with Volodymyr Zelensky which swaps a share in Ukraine’s mineral wealth for an as yet unspecified security guarantee.

    Precise details of this deal aren’t confirmed. But we’re told that the original US$500 billion (£394 billion) demand has been dropped in return for a share in an investment fund into which Ukraine will contribute 50% of the revenue from its mineral resources. “What better could you have for Ukraine than to be in an economic partnership with the United States?” commented US national security adviser, Mike Waltz.

    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.

    But for the sake of social media, a deal’s a deal and can be trumpeted as such. Zelensky is heading to Washington to sign the agreement and we shall find out in due course whether or not this will assure Ukraine’s future security. There is still the actual peace deal with Russia to work out, after all.

    Another landmark foreign policy deal brokered by the Trump White House was with the Taliban in 2020 and concerned the future of Afghanistan. And, as Philip A. Berry writes, Zelensky can take little comfort in that.

    Berry, a research fellow at King’s College London, who has extensive experience of working with anti-narcotics agencies in Afghanistan, points to similarities in the way Trump managed negotiations with the Taliban and his deal-making with Ukraine and discussions so far with Russia. The Afghan government was largely cut out of the negotiations, as Trump has threatened to do to Ukraine with regards a peace deal. And like the current situation, Trump’s regular public utterances seriously undermined the talks. Berry concludes:

    Trump’s Taliban deal excluded the US’s ally, conceded too much to an adversary, and was partly motivated by the perception of wasting American dollars in a far-off land. Unfortunately, these hallmarks are all too evident in the president’s stance on Ukraine. Zelensky can only hope that things work out better this time around.



    Read more:
    How Trump the ‘master deal-maker’ failed when it came to negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan

    Trust will be absolutely vital if the US and Ukraine are to conclude this agreement and, more critically, if they are to reach terms with Russia that will guarantee the “just peace deal” that Zelensky craves, writes David J. Wilcox of the University of Birmingham. Wilcox points to the relationship of trust built by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s which paved a way for a series of nuclear weapons reduction treaties between the Soviet Union and the US.

    It has just been announced that preparations are being made for “expert-level” talks between the US and Russia, but, as Wilcox points out, “any negotiations to end the war will rest ultimately on those two states and their leaders”. And at present, nothing has been publicly said about whether Putin and Zelensky have even agreed to meet.



    Read more:
    Ukraine war: why negotiations depend on trust

    Meanwhile, what do we know about Ukraine’s mineral wealth and what sort of return Trump can expect for the US? Dafydd Townley, an expert in international security at the University of Portsmouth, stresses that Trump’s recent decision to impose punitive tariffs against Beijing has closed off China as a source of key minerals on which the US has been reliant up until now.

    It’s a clue, writes Townley, as to why the US president seemed very keen on bringing his deal-making facilities to bear on Greenland, which also has large deposits of desirable minerals.

    Interestingly, as Townley points out, Russia has taken control of about 20% of Ukraine’s mineral deposits under the territory it now controls (which America would be open to exploiting according to an offer made by Vladimir Putin’s aides at the recent talks in Saudi Arabia).

    It’s also worth noting that Ukraine’s extraction sector has suffered over the past decade from chronic under-investment, thanks to the ongoing hostilities between Russia and Ukraine. As a result it could be some years before the US gets what it needs from the deal it has reportedly struck with Kyiv.



    Read more:
    Why Trump really wants Ukraine’s minerals — China has put theirs off limits

    Three long years

    Amid all the shuttle diplomacy and wheeler-dealing taking place around them, at the start of the week the embattled Ukrainian population marked the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion. They were joined by more than a dozen foreign leaders who gathered in Kyiv to express their continuing support.

    As the conflict moves into its fourth year, Stefan Wolff, an international security expert at the University of Birmingham, takes a look at the broader geopolitical implications of the conflict in the era of Trump.

    He sees worrying parallels with the Munich conference of 1938 which sealed Czechoslovakia’s fate. Not, as you might expect, in terms of Trump’s apparent appeasement of Putin – but because, like Munich, talks on the fate of a sovereign nation are being held without that nation being present. Wolff writes:

    There is every indication that Putin is unlikely to stop in or with Ukraine. And it is worth remembering that the second world war started 11 months after Neville Chamberlain thought he had secured “peace in our time”.

    This, of course, is the prospect that has both terrified and stiffened the resolve of Ukraine’s western allies. But Wolff also points to limitations in this analogy, in that he doesn’t believe that Trump is acting out of fear that he is in a weaker position than Putin, as did Neville Chamberlain and the French prime minister Édouard Daladier.

    It’s rather that Trump sees himself as part of a triumvirate of world leaders, along with Putin and China’s president, Xi Jinping, who have the opportunity to carve out spheres of influence and establish a new world order based on the exercise of raw power.



    Read more:
    Ukraine war: Trump is not trying to appease Putin – he has a vision of a new US-China-Russia order

    Richard Youngs, meanwhile, sees the dawning of what he calls a “no world order”. Youngs, an international relations expert at the University of Warwick, sees an era of flux, where the stability of the past 80 years is disintegrating without anything stable or concrete to replace it.

    Several European leaders, including Keir Starmer who is today visiting Trump in Washington, are due to meet this Sunday ahead of a bigger defence summit in Brussels next week, to continue discussions about how to respond to the changing Ukraine situation. Reports suggest a European defence bank or fund that would include the UK may be on the cards.

    Youngs certainly believes that European powers will need to consider practical measures in order to bind themselves into more cohesive relationship and ensure their continuing autonomy. One of those will be in boosting their defence capabilities – something that is now gathering pace in the face of US pressure.

    But more radical thinking will be needed, writes Youngs, who has coined the term “geoliberalism” as a way of visualising the sort of thinking about the values and certainties that can bind Europe together in the face of global turbulence.



    Read more:
    No world order: Europe needs more radical thinking for the Trump era

    Alex Titov, meanwhile, believes that for all the talk of “deals” to end the violence, both sides have their reasons for wanting to continue, given that their stated positions remain diametrically opposed and irreconcilable.

    Russia’s battlefield progress, while steady, is slow and there’s no real prospect of it forcing a capitulation from Kyiv in the next 12 months. But – particularly with the radically different US position under Donald Trump, neither is there any chance of Russia being forced off the territory it has captured. Ominously, Titov concludes, this could mean that “the bloodiest battles of the war are yet to come”.



    Read more:
    Ukraine war three years on: the bloodiest battles may be still to come

    A new way of governing

    After a whirlwind first month, Trump held his first cabinet meeting this week, with a special appearance from his right-hand man Elon Musk, who reportedly got to speak more than anyone else. Musk, of course, has been responsible for much of the maelstrom of activity that has caused so much disquiet and is providing a lot of work for lawyers who are pushing back against many of the new adminstration’s measures on the grounds they are unconstitutional.

    Musk, Trump and his vice-president J.D. Vance have, in turn, pushed back against judges who have issued injunctions to either halt or delay some of their measures. Musk, in a fit of pique this week when three judges halted three of the administration’s policies, complained bitterly “What is the point of having democratic elections if unelected activist ‘judges’ can override the clear will of the people? Well, that’s no democracy at all!”

    Stephen Lovell, professor of modern history at King’s College London, has been looking at the way that Trump and his team are attempting to bend the US constitution to their will, comparing their approach to that of Vladimir Putin. Putin, as we know, never saw a constitutional loophole he didn’t want to wriggle through or otherwise obliterate.



    Read more:
    Trump, Putin and the authoritarian take on constitutionalism

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

    – ref. Trump mineral deal with Ukraine offers hope but little in the way of security – https://theconversation.com/trump-mineral-deal-with-ukraine-offers-hope-but-little-in-the-way-of-security-250962

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What are the chances an asteroid will impact Earth in 2032?

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gordon Osinski, Professor in Earth and Planetary Science, Western University

    An artist’s rendition of one of the many thousands of near-Earth objects that could potentially impact Earth in the future. (European Space Agency/P.Carril)

    For a few days in mid-February, headlines around the world buzzed about the potential for an asteroid to hit the Earth in 2032 — specifically, asteroid 2024 YR4. The chance of this impact rose to a high of 3.1 per cent on Feb. 18.

    The number has since dropped to near zero, but this news was a real-life Don’t Look Up moment, and a stark reminder of the threat that asteroid impacts pose to life on Earth.

    As a planetary geologist, my research focuses on meteorite impact craters, the scars of large asteroid and cometary impacts in Earth’s past.

    Impact Earth

    There are countless numbers of asteroids and an unknown number of comets throughout our solar system. Most of these objects date back to the very beginnings of our solar system, around 4.5 billion years ago.

    Research has identified approximately 200 locations where these asteroids or comets have struck the Earth in the past to form meteorite impact craters. It’s very rare that planetary geologists can tell whether it was an asteroid or comet that hit.

    One of the most famous of these 200 or so impact craters is the 200 km diameter Chicxulub impact crater in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. This impact wiped out 65 per cent of all species on Earth, including the dinosaurs, 66 million years ago.

    One of the most recent and best-preserved craters on Earth is the 1.2 km in diameter Meteor Crater in Arizona, which formed 50,000 years ago.

    The Meteor Crater in Arizone is one of the most recent and best-preserved craters on Earth.
    (G.Osinski), CC BY

    Millions of craters

    Two hundred craters over 4.5 billion years hardly seems like a big number or cause for concern however, this number is a tiny fraction of the actual record. Most impact craters formed on Earth have been erased due to plate tectonics, volcanic eruptions, and erosion by water, wind and ice.

    To truly appreciate how common impact craters are, we need to look to Earth’s closest neighbour, the moon. Because of its proximity, objects that can hit the moon can also hit the Earth. In fact, because the Earth is bigger, which means our gravitational attraction is higher, more asteroids and comets would have hit the Earth over the past 4.5 billion years than the moon.

    The best estimate is 1.3 million craters over one kilometre in diameter on the moon, with another 700,000 or so smaller ones.

    The dots represent a snapshot of the population of near-earth asteroids that scientists think are likely to exist. The simulated near-Earth asteroids are blue, and Earth’s orbit is green.
    (NASA/JPL-Caltech)

    Updated calculations

    Asteroid 2024 YR4 was discovered on Dec. 27, 2024 by the Chilean station of the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System (ATLAS). It was immediately recognized to be a near-Earth object (NEO). Additional telescope observations enabled astronomers to better calculate its orbit.

    In January, the probability of this asteroid hitting Earth surpassed one per cent, which triggered a series of international responses. The International Asteroid Warning Network coordinates telescopes around the world to make further observations and narrow down uncertainties in its orbit.

    An image of asteroid 2024 YR4 captured by one of the ATLAS telesopes.
    (SOURCE)

    On Feb. 18, NASA and the European Space Agency announced that the probability of asteroid 2024 YR4 hitting Earth in 2023 was 3.1 per cent, the highest ever recorded for an object of this size. This represents one in 32 odds. For comparison, the chance of dying in a motor vehicle crash in the United States is one per cent, or one in 95; the chances of the asteroid hitting Earth were pretty significant.

    Thankfully, the most recent estimates of the probability of impact have gone down to near zero, based on improved calculations of its orbit.

    We’re off the hook… for now.

    Potential impact

    Bruce Betts, chief planetary scientist at the Planetary Society, was quoted as saying: “If you put it over Paris or London or New York, you basically wipe out the whole city and some of the environs,” leading to asteroid 2024 YR4 being dubbed “a city-killer.”

    The average impact velocity for an asteroid on Earth is a whopping 17 km per second — this is 25 times faster than an F-35 Lightning strike fighter.

    To calculate the mass of an asteroid, we need to know its size. Estimates for 2024 YR4 range from 40 to 90 metres. If we take the upper estimate of 90 m, we can calculate the energy released at approximately nine megatons, the equivalent of the explosive energy of nine million tons of TNT. For comparison, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in Japan in 1945 was only 0.015 megatons.

    The crater formed by this 90 m asteroid would be approximately 2.7 km in diameter. This is just over twice the diameter of the Meteor Crater.

    The destruction doesn’t stop there, however. Research on nuclear weapons suggests that each megaton can destroy roughly 50 square kilometres, so this impact could destroy up to 450 square km around the crater through a fireball, supersonic ejecta and seismic shaking.

    Would this be a city killer as some reports suggested? Absolutely. With an urban area of 232 square kilometres, my hometown of London, Ont., with a population of around 420,000 would be totally destroyed.



    Read more:
    Asteroid has a very small chance of hitting Earth in 2032, but a collision could devastate a city

    Actual risks

    The good news is that we estimate that the impact of a 90 m diameter asteroid will occur once in every 10,000 years. For a 40 m size asteroid, this drops to once every 1,000 years — but the destructive effects are drastically reduced. It’s worth pointing out that these numbers are very approximate, and they don’t really help us figure out when the next one might happen.

    As the story around asteroid 2024 YR4 shows, there is more good news in that we are getting better at detecting asteroids. Thanks to the coordination of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, many space agencies around the world are collaborating, with the knowledge that this is a problem for our entire planet.

    If the calculations had continued to show that the chance of asteroid 2024 YR4 hitting Earth in 2032 was high, with enough time, an attempt to deflect the asteroid could have been attempted. In September 2022, NASA’s DART spacecraft provided the first demonstration that deflecting an asteroid from its path is possible, something that had been imagined in Hollywood movies, but not proven to be possible until then.

    Gordon Osinski receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Space Agency.

    – ref. What are the chances an asteroid will impact Earth in 2032? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-the-chances-an-asteroid-will-impact-earth-in-2032-250463

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Workplace aggression causes real harm — leaders must take action against it

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Zhanna Lyubykh, Assistant Professor, Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University

    When leaders ignore workplace aggression, employees can experience post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorder and depression. (Shutterstock)

    Workplace aggression is a pervasive and highly damaging issue that costs organizations billions of dollars annually in lost productivity. Beyond financial losses, it fosters toxic workplace cultures, exposes companies to legal and reputational risks, and causes substantial distress for those who experience or witness it.

    For years, scholars and practitioners have sought ways to prevent workplace aggression and mitigate its negative consequences. One proposed solution is bystander intervention, where employees who witness or hear about aggression step in to stop or address it.

    However, results from our recent meta-analysis cast doubt on the effectiveness of bystander intervention as a reliable solution. We integrated research findings from 149 articles, which included data from 111,466 participants. Alarmingly, we found that bystanders intervened only in the artificial safety of experiments, but not in real work settings.

    Not all employees feel equipped to address workplace aggression, and organizations should not over-rely on employees to take action. Instead, we highlighted the crucial role leaders can play. Leaders can effectively interrupt incidents of workplace aggression, act as influential role models for others and ultimately foster inclusive climates.

    Leaders must step up

    Leaders can become aware of workplace aggression in various ways, including overhearing rude comments in a meeting, receiving written complaints or being approached for advice on handling inappropriate jokes. When this happens, leaders must decide whether to act and how.

    Several barriers may prevent leaders from responding constructively. Like anyone else, leaders are prone to cognitive distortions. They may downplay an incident as a joke, hesitate to confront a high-performing employee who is the instigator, or even blame the target for provoking the behaviour.

    Some leaders may also feel it’s not their responsibility to intervene. If they have demanding jobs, they might not have time or energy to get involved in interpersonal issues that are not central to their jobs.

    Too often, employees remain silent when it comes to dealing with aggressive behaviours due to their perceived lack of power or ability to make a difference.
    (Shutterstock)

    However, the cost of leader inaction is high. In 2022, Nike faced a harassment and discrimination lawsuit with female employees raising concerns that “Nike’s management were unlikely to address their concerns” about unwanted sexual advances, sexist attitudes, and discrimination.

    In another case, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police faced a $1.1 billion lawsuit alleging systematic negligence and failure of “the chain of command” to address workplace aggression.

    When leaders ignore workplace aggression, organizations can suffer reputational and financial damage. But most importantly, employees can experience serious distress, including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorder, and depression.

    Responding to aggressive incidents

    One survey found that only 44 per cent of employees at U.S. companies strongly agree that their companies have a culture where employees are encouraged to speak up. Too often, employees remain silent when it comes to dealing with aggressive behaviours due to their perceived lack of power or ability to make a difference.

    Leaders, however, have the power to resist pushback, hold instigators accountable and create a supportive workplace environment. Leaders must take an active role in both preventing and responding to aggressive workplace incidents.

    First, leaders should acknowledge that addressing aggression is a part of their job. Aside from legal obligations to address aggression, leaders’ actions set the tone for what is considered acceptable. Demonstrating a commitment to civility can signal their ethical leadership, a highly valued leadership style.



    Read more:
    Workplace tensions: How and when bystanders can make a difference

    Second, leaders need to also address what might seem like minor incidents. A common misconception among bystanders is that minor incidents of aggression aren’t serious or harmful enough to act on.

    Minor incidents of aggression include low-intensity behaviors, such as sarcastic remarks, offensive jokes, eye-rolling, or dismissive gestures. More severe aggression includes such behaviors as yelling, intimidation, throwing objects in anger, or even inflicting physical harm.

    Aggression often starts with relatively minor acts that may escalate to more severe ones when left unchecked, so these smaller acts need to be addressed. Once aggression escalates in intensity or frequency, it becomes part of the organizational culture, making it much harder to change.

    It might seem surprising, but minor and severe aggression can be equally harmful to victims. Minor incidents are often subtle, which can lead to excessive rumination (e.g., was it intentional?), self-doubt (e.g., am I misinterpreting it?) and lowered self-esteem. This is particularly problematic because minor incidents are significantly more prevalent at work.

    How leaders can intervene effectively

    Leaders also need to learn how to appropriately intervene in incidents of aggression. For minor incidents, leaders can take immediate actions by redirecting attention from the target and stopping the incident by shifting the conversation or suggesting a quick break.

    Leaders should also privately address the aggressive behaviour with the instigator. Aggressive behaviours, especially in minor forms, are sometimes unintentional, so it’s best to approach the conversation in a non-confrontational manner that prompts the instigator to reflect on their behaviour and recognize the harmful nature of their actions.

    Leaders should privately address any aggressive behaviour with instigators.
    (Shutterstock)

    Since employees commonly become defensive or deny wrongdoing during such conversations, leaders should focus on discussing behaviours rather than personality, and provide actionable suggestions for positive behavioural change.

    It is also important to provide support to the target. Sometimes, employees react negatively toward victims of workplace aggression, such as blaming them for provoking the aggression rather than supporting them, which can damage their social standing within the team. When leaders support victims, it signals to others how they should respond, which can help victims retain their social status.

    Leaders can also create opportunities for the target to showcase their skills, reaffirming the importance of their role within the team and the organization, or engaging in acts of leader allyship toward victims.

    Innovating bystander training

    While our findings cast doubt on the effectiveness of bystander intervention among regular employees, they underscore the critical role of those in positions of authority and power to take action to address workplace aggression.

    Leaders should adopt innovative training programs, including bystander intervention training. While many organizations already provide such training, it often only involves educational videos or lectures. Research shows the best way to learn is by practicing, not passively listening. Training should take this into account.

    But how can employees practice interventions in a safe environment? One way organizations can do this is by taking advantage of recent technological developments, such as generative artificial intelligence, to create realistic training simulations.

    Trainees can engage in simulated conversations with a virtual instigator or victim and practice their intervention skills. Such conversations can be done in real-time with an avatar through video or voice, allowing employees build confidence and refine their approach in a controlled setting.

    Leaders have both the power and responsibility to create safer workplaces. By taking action to interrupt aggression and support victims, leaders can be role models for employees and ultimately foster a more productive work environment. Needless to say, leaders should address the problem, not contribute to it.

    Zhanna Lyubykh receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Sandra L. Robinson receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Sandy Hershcovis receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Rui Zhong and The Ton Vuong 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. Workplace aggression causes real harm — leaders must take action against it – https://theconversation.com/workplace-aggression-causes-real-harm-leaders-must-take-action-against-it-249938

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Inuit children in Nunavut face a preventable food security crisis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Vandna Sinha, Adjunct Professor of Social Work, McGIll University & Associate Research Professor of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder, McGill University

    Nunavut has the highest rate of child poverty and the highest rate of food insecurity of any Canadian province or territory. In 2022, around 80 per cent of Indigenous children aged between one and 14 in Nunavut lived in households experiencing food insecurity. In 2018, the rate of childhood food insecurity in Nunavut was almost six times higher than in Canada as a whole.

    The Hamlet Food Voucher Program, funded through the Inuit Child First Initiative (ICFI), has recently offered some relief. This program gives families funds for groceries to meet the nutritional needs of Inuit children.

    However, ICFI funding only runs until March 31, 2025. With Parliament prorogued, plans for further funding remain uncertain. That means starting April 1, many Inuit children in Nunavut may again go hungry. The Canadian government can make sure that does not happen by extending funding for ICFI and the food voucher program.

    Long-term effects of food insecurity

    Food insecurity can have harmful, and sometimes lasting, impacts on a young person’s physical health, mental health, academic performance and cognitive development. Infants and toddlers are particularly vulnerable because they are completely dependent on adult caregivers whose physical and mental health can also be impacted by food insecurity.

    Recently, food security initiatives in Nunavut have been funded through the ICFI, which was launched in 2018. ICFI was meant to be a temporary measure to help families access essential services while an Inuit-specific framework is being developed.

    Nutrition support for children has been one of the most requested services under ICFI. Initially, each family had to submit extensive documentation, and often faced months-long delays before receiving services and supports.

    In 2023, municipal governments in Nunavut began to request, and receive, ICFI funding for nutrition supports for all Inuit children in their community. By December 2024, all but one community received funding for Hamlet Food Voucher Programs. These programs provide $500 per child for groceries and an additional $250 for children under four.

    High grocery costs

    The support provided through the Hamlet Food Voucher Program is significant, but $500 covers far less in Nunavut than in southern Canada. Groceries must be brought to Nunavut by plane or ship, and most communities have only one or two grocery stores. Accordingly, despite efforts to reduce prices through programs like Nutrition North Canada (NNC), the cost of groceries in Nunavut is much higher than in the rest of Canada.

    Grocery prices in Nunavut are also rising much faster than in the rest of Canada. Our research shows that, between 2022 and 2024, the cost of a basket of goods in Qikiqtaaluk, Nunavut’s largest region, rose by 26 per cent (compared to 13 per cent across Canada) and is now more than double the average cost in Canada.

    Even food subsidized through NNC is far more expensive: four litres of milk cost $9.95 in Qikiqtaaluk compared to a Canada average of $5.10. Prices for other items can be even higher: a February 2025 video from the hamlet of Grise Fiord shows a jar of jam selling for $35, pickles for $66 and a six-pack of apple sauce for $58.

    The high rate of food insecurity in Nunavut reflects a vast gap between household incomes and the money required to support a basic standard of living. Nunavut saw sustained income growth between 2005 and 2019, and a declining percentage of people receiving social assistance. Still, employment rates remain lower than in other territories.

    In 2023, the median income for households with two adults and two children was just under $36,000.

    This was around 40 per cent of the $89,420 needed for a two-adult, three-child family living in social housing in Iqaluit to afford the “modest, basic standard of living” represented by the official poverty threshold.

    The social assistance available to low-income Nunavut families is comparable to that in provinces with a lower cost of living. Even with $1,000 a month in food vouchers, a family of four making the median income remains far below the “deep poverty” threshold of 75 per cent of the official poverty line.

    An Inuit-led solution

    We have been interviewing service providers, grocery store employees and people co-ordinating Hamlet Food Voucher Programs. The interviews are part of an ongoing research project we are working on in collaboration with Sindu Govindapillai and Dheeksha Reddy from Qupanuaq, a service co-ordination program operated by the Arctic Children and Youth Foundation, and research team members Kelly Mitchell, Mohammad N. Khan, Josee G. Lavoie and Tracey Galloway.

    Interviewees tell us that, because of the program, fewer people go without food and more families can cover rent, utilities and other necessities. People also told us that families are eating healthier, children are going to school more often and are more engaged when there, and families are less stressed. Other programs and services that were previously busy addressing food-related crises can now focus on providing medical care, fostering learning and keeping children safe.

    The people we interviewed also make it clear the Hamlet Food Voucher Program is not enough to solve the problem of food insecurity in Nunavut. They stressed that food security initiatives must be paired with supports for healing, well-being and life-long learning.

    Inuit plans for addressing poverty include such supports. They also include measures to increase community decision-making, reform income assistance, increase access to housing and strengthen local economies.

    Until such a framework is fully implemented, the Hamlet Food Voucher Program must remain in place. Nunavut families currently face record levels of child poverty, rising food prices and a potential North American trade war that would further drive-up costs.

    Losing food voucher support would be catastrophic for many households, particularly those with young children. The Canadian government must support Inuit leaders working toward a long-term solution to food insecurity in Nunavut. By funding the Hamlet Food Voucher program in the interim, it can help ensure that the children of Nunavut do not go hungry.

    The ongoing research described in this article is funded by the Arctic Children and Youth Foundation and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.

    Financial support for this research was provided by CN and Mr. Dan Einwechter through the Einwechter Centre for Supply Chain
    Management, Wilfrid Laurier University

    Nicholas Li receives funding from a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Insight Development Grant that helped support this research.

    Jessica Penney 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. Inuit children in Nunavut face a preventable food security crisis – https://theconversation.com/inuit-children-in-nunavut-face-a-preventable-food-security-crisis-250004

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How the UK’s rollback of banking regulations could risk another financial crisis

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alper Kara, Head of Department of Economics and Finance, Brunel University of London

    1000 Words/Shutterstock

    After the global financial crisis of 2007-08, the UK’s banking sector was placed under a much stricter regime. Bonuses were limited, regulations were beefed up and the whole industry scrutinised like never before.

    The idea was to make banks safer places for everyone’s money. But regulators are now thinking about easing some of these financial safeguards in a bid to boost economic growth.

    One proposal is to change the rules on mortgage affordability. One industry regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, is considering relaxing the lending restrictions which were designed to prevent households from building up unsustainable debt.

    This includes reviewing affordability tests and allowing banks to lend more freely to borrowers with smaller deposits or lower incomes. Some commentators argue that these changes will help first-time buyers and increase overall mortgage availability.

    But the risks of easier mortgage lending cannot be ignored. Before the last crisis, lenders approved loans to borrowers without verifying income or creditworthiness, assuming that rising property values would provide a safety net.

    And when interest rates increased and property values collapsed, many borrowers could not afford their repayments – and lost their homes.

    In fact, mortgage repayments are already becoming more difficult. The Bank of England has warned that over 1.5 million UK households will face significantly higher mortgage costs in 2025 after their current deals expire.

    And loosening lending rules could easily push house prices even higher. When more buyers qualify for mortgages, demand for housing increases and prices go up. This makes home ownership even less affordable, especially for those first-time buyers.

    Expanding access to debt without fixing underlying issues around housing supply only creates more financial risk. And it seems to be part of a broader trend towards deregulation.

    Internationally agreed banking rules, which require banks to hold more capital as protection against financial shocks, are being delayed in the UK until 2027. The Bank of England has justified the wait by
    saying that banks need more flexibility to increase lending and investment without the constraints those rules would bring.

    Banks are also challenging regulations that require them to hold on to a specific type of debt designed to ensure that failing banks can absorb financial losses without taxpayer bailouts. But if these rules are weakened, the banking system could become more fragile, forcing governments to intervene.

    The banking system is showing other signs of fragility too.

    Banking on regulations

    One worrying trend is the increasing use of something called “synthetic risk transfers”. This is a technique that banks use to reduce the amount of risk on their balance sheets, by transferring it to outside investors – such as hedge funds or insurers – through special financial contracts.

    These are sometimes compared to “collateralised debt obligations” (or CDOs), where a bank bundles multiple loans (such as mortgages, corporate debt or car loans) and sells portions of that bundle to investors. These complex transactions were a key factor in the global financial crisis because they concealed risky loans, spreading financial instability across global markets.

    Then there’s the UK’s motor finance sector, where lenders have been accused of charging excessive interest rates on car loans. This could lead to compensation claims of up to £44 billion, making it potentially one of the biggest consumer finance scandals since payment protection insurance (PPI).

    On that occasion, banks and lenders wrongly sold PPI to millions of customers, leading to a record £50 billion in compensation payouts.

    With the ongoing case of motor finance, the British government wanted regulators to limit compensation payouts to avoid disrupting financial markets, but this was rejected by the supreme court.

    Yet despite these problems, some still claim that deregulation will do wonders for the sector’s financial flexibility. The British chancellor Rachel Reeves has argued that relaxing some regulations and reducing red tape will encourage growth and increase the UK’s competitiveness in global financial markets.

    Sometimes there’s a reason for red tape.
    Oksana Valiukevic/Shutterstock

    Perhaps she agrees with Donald Trump, whose aggressive financial agenda includes relaxed capital requirements and weakened regulatory oversight.

    But past experience suggests that weakening financial safeguards and encouraging more debt in pursuit of short term growth can have severe long-term consequences.

    Research shows that financial deregulation often leads to financial instability and economic crises. It also suggests that expanding credit does not fix housing affordability, and that reducing capital requirements does not make banks safer.

    The global financial crisis was a direct result of excessive risk-taking in an underregulated system. Governments had to bail out banks with taxpayer money, leading to more than a decade of austerity.

    The same mistakes could happen again. For now though, it looks like some of those hard lessons have been forgotten.

    Alper Kara 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. How the UK’s rollback of banking regulations could risk another financial crisis – https://theconversation.com/how-the-uks-rollback-of-banking-regulations-could-risk-another-financial-crisis-249386

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Colombia wants to ban Pablo Escobar and other narco-themed merchandise – here’s why

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ross Bennett-Cook, PhD Researcher, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University

    When you think of Colombia, what images come to mind? For some, it may be coffee or perhaps the country’s diverse landscapes and cultures. For many others, it will be cartels, crime and cocaine.

    Colombia’s history as a drug trafficking hub plays a major role in attracting visitors to the country – a form of travel known as “dark tourism”. But the Colombian government and much of the population are desperate to shake off this sordid association.

    A new bill going through Colombia’s congress is proposing to ban the sale of souvenirs that depict notorious drug lord Pablo Escobar and other convicted criminals. The proposed law would mean fines for those who violate the rules, and a temporary suspension of businesses.

    Colombia became a major producer of cocaine in the 1970s, fuelled by demand in North America. Led by Escobar, the Medellín cartel dominated this trade, controlling roughly 80% of the cocaine supply to the US.

    In 1988, Time magazine famously dubbed Medellín the “most dangerous city” in the world. Car bombings, assassinations, kidnap and torture became part of everyday life. In a failed attempt to assassinate presidential hopeful César Gaviria in 1989, Escobar was even behind the bombing of a commercial flight that killed all 107 passengers and crew onboard.

    By 1991, the homicide rate in Medellín was a shocking 381 for every 100,000 inhabitants, with 7,500 people murdered in the city that year alone. In comparison, there were a total of 107 homicides in London in 2024.

    Nowadays, Medellín is much more peaceful. Since Escobar’s death in 1993, its homicide rate has dropped by 97% due to increased security crackdowns and peace deals between the narco gangs.

    Colombia now has a booming tourism industry, breaking records for its highest number of visitors in 2024. Medellín has even become a trendy location for digital nomads due to its exciting nightlife, stunning landscape and excellent weather.

    A tourist poses for a picture in the Comuna 13 neighbourhood of Medellín.
    Anamaria Mejia / Shutterstock

    Yet, when I visited Colombia in 2024, it was hard not to become infatuated by Escobar. His face is everywhere: on key rings, magnets, mugs and t-shirts, while you often see lookalikes posing for photographs. Even airports – the last place I would expect to be associated with drugs – stock Escobar souvenirs.

    A quick look on TripAdvisor’s “best things to do in Medellín” shows Museum Pablo Escobar at number one. Almost every tour in the city is related to the notorious cartel leader, including visits to the neighbourhoods he controlled (and often terrorised), his hideout spots, and the location of his final shootout with the police.

    Narco tourism’s boom can be largely attributed to the huge popularity of Narcos, a critically acclaimed series on Netflix that dramatised the life of Escobar. But shows such as Narcos have been criticised by some experts for glorifying the cartel lifestyle – focusing on money, glamour and sex rather than the harsh realities of life within Colombia’s drug trade.

    According to dark tourism researcher Diego Felipe Caicedo, popular media related to narco culture often portrays cartel members as heroes managing to defeat the class structure established by the elite capitalist system.

    This has resulted in a dissonant heritage of people like Escobar. To some, he is a Robin Hood-type figure who built houses and gave to the poor. To others, he is an evil figure and vicious murderer. And while Escobar did use some of his fortune to improve deprived neighbourhoods, many saw this as a tactic to buy loyalty and mask his criminal activity.

    The romanticism of Escobar angers many in Colombia who hate the idea of a murderous drug tycoon being the most recognised image of the country. In a city where almost every family knows of someone affected by the violent consequences of the drug trade, victims in Medellín now live with reminders plastered across storefronts, vendor stalls and tourist’s t-shirts.

    Yet those who rely on this souvenir trade are furious at the possibility of restrictions. In many developing tourist destinations, selling souvenirs is an accessible way of benefiting from tourism and can act as a gateway out of poverty.

    The souvenir trade is one of supply and demand – vendors are only selling Escobar souvenirs because they are the most popular. So, perhaps the focus should be on changing the attitudes and interests of tourists, rather than penalising the vendors.

    Controlling the narrative

    Camille Beauvais, a researcher of Colombian history, suggests it is up to local authorities to take control of the narrative through commemoration and education. This could follow the example of the anti-mafia museum in Palermo, Italy, which is designed to recognise the courage of the city and its people in standing up to criminal activity.

    Attempts like this could steer tourists away from sensationalist tours to a more nuanced and historically accurate representation of this turbulent time. But the Colombian authorities have, up to now, tried to ignore this important period in the country’s history.

    It was only in 2022 that the Colombia Truth Commission released an official report on the root causes of violence in Colombia, including governmental and international failures in tackling narcotraffickers.



    Read more:
    Dark tourism: why atrocity tourism is neither new nor weird

    However, some groups in Colombia have already tried to develop an alternate narrative. In 2019, the NGO Colombia ConMemoria (Colombia Remembers) created an online “Narcostore”, a fake souvenir website full of Escobar-themed products.

    When visitors clicked to purchase the item, they were redirected to video testimonies of those affected by the drugs trade, many of whom had lost friends or relatives to Escobar’s terror. The site reached 180 million visitors worldwide.

    Narco tourism does not seem to be disappearing. Fascination with true crime, drugs and cartels is as popular as ever. But perhaps these tourists should take a moment to consider how they might feel, if someone who had murdered their loved ones became a souvenir fridge magnet for people to remember their country by.

    Ross Bennett-Cook 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. Colombia wants to ban Pablo Escobar and other narco-themed merchandise – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/colombia-wants-to-ban-pablo-escobar-and-other-narco-themed-merchandise-heres-why-249916

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –