NewzIntel.com

Category: Reportage

  • MIL-OSI Global: As heated tobacco products reenter the US market, evidence on their safety remains sparse – new study

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, Assistant Professor of Health Promotion and Policy, UMass Amherst

    Most studies on the safety of heated tobacco products are funded by tobacco companies. YaroslavKryuchka/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Heated tobacco products are often marketed by tobacco companies as less harmful than cigarettes, but they can pose health risks to users, according to a new review I co-authored in the journal Tobacco Control. Evidence on their health risks in people who smoke is limited, sometimes contradictory, and hard to make sense of.

    Heated tobacco products are electronic devices that heat tobacco so users can inhale nicotine. Common brands include IQOS, available in the U.S., and Ploom and Glo, sold in other countries.

    Heated tobacco products are different from e-cigarettes, though they may look similar. E-cigarettes, which are also called vapes, heat a liquid containing nicotine but not tobacco, whereas heated tobacco products heat actual tobacco leaf. Heated tobacco products are also different from traditional cigarettes, which burn tobacco rather than heating it. These distinctions matter because it’s the burning of tobacco leaf – not the nicotine – that directly causes the disease and death associated with smoking.

    There is limited long-term data about the health harms of heated tobacco products. My colleagues and I analyzed the available data, drawn from 40 clinical trials, that followed participants who used these products for a year or less. We looked at molecular changes in the blood, breath and urine, called biomarkers, to explore the potential risks of heated tobacco products.

    The studies we reviewed reported changes in 143 different biomarkers, including measures linked to heart disease and cancer. But drawing clear conclusions from the data was hard because of issues with the available evidence. Of the 40 studies, 29 were funded by the tobacco industry. Furthermore, 31 of the 40 studies were conducted in confined settings, meaning that participants’ activities and their use of the assigned product were controlled. This may not reflect heated tobacco products’ real-world use.

    If heated tobacco products are less harmful than cigarettes, we would expect to see largely beneficial effects in smokers who switched to them. However, the evidence we reviewed was inconclusive. Though most studies suggested that heated tobacco products might reduce risks of disease compared with smoking, other studies found no difference, or even the potential of increased risk. Compared with quitting smoking completely, use of heated tobacco products had more consistently harmful effects.

    Tobacco companies claim that heated tobacco products pose less of a health risk than cigarettes.

    Few studies have directly compared the effects of heated tobacco products with e-cigarettes. However, many independently funded, longer-term studies have examined e-cigarettes and have shown they can help people stop smoking and reduce health risks in people who switch completely from smoking to vaping.

    Why it matters

    Heated tobacco products may be coming to a town near you – or already be there. They are already widely used in Japan. IQOS was removed from the U.S. market in 2021 after a court ruled that the product had infringed on an existing patent. However, following a flurry of promotional activities, IQOS relaunched in March 2025 in Austin, Texas. Like most heated tobacco product brands, IQOS is owned by one of the largest cigarette companies in the world, Philip Morris International.

    The company claims it wants to bring IQOS to the U.S. market to provide smoking adults a “better alternative” to cigarettes. But the science we’ve reviewed on whether heated tobacco products are truly healthier is inconclusive. Our review found inconsistencies in data on health effects, and other research suggests these products may not help smokers quit.

    What still isn’t known

    We do not know the long-term health effects of heated tobacco products, nor whether they can actually reduce the risk of disease and death in people who switch from smoking to using heated tobacco products. It is also unclear how heated tobacco products fit into the wider tobacco and nicotine market, especially in light of other available products and interventions already proved to help smokers quit.

    While our findings do not rule out the possibility that these products have fewer health risks than cigarettes, they provide little support for such claims.

    Jamie Hartmann-Boyce receives research funding for tobacco related research from the US NIH-FDA and Cancer Research UK. She has provided research consultancy for the Truth Initiative. Her involvement in this work was not funded and the views expressed here are those of the researchers and do not necessarily represent those of her funders. Other authors of this work are funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies as part of the Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco use. This funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

    – ref. As heated tobacco products reenter the US market, evidence on their safety remains sparse – new study – https://theconversation.com/as-heated-tobacco-products-reenter-the-us-market-evidence-on-their-safety-remains-sparse-new-study-254278

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What causes RFK Jr.’s strained and shaky voice? A neurologist explains this little-known disorder

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Indu Subramanian, Clinical Professor of Neurology, University of California, Los Angeles

    U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks at an April 16, 2025, news conference in Washington, D.C. Alex Wong via Getty Images

    Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has attracted a lot of attention for his raspy voice, which results from a neurological voice disorder called spasmodic dysphonia.

    Kennedy, 71, says that in his 40s he developed a neurological disease that “robbed him of his strong speaking voice.” Kennedy first publicly spoke of the quiver he had noticed in his voice in a 2004 interview with journalist Diane Rehm, who also had spasmodic dysphonia.

    In 2005, Kennedy was receiving shots of botulinum toxin, the neurotoxin that is now used in Botox as well as to treat migraines and other conditions, every four months. This first-line treatment for dysphonia helps to weaken the vocal folds that contract abnormally with this condition. He used botulinum toxin injections for 10 years and then stopped using them, saying they were “not a good fit” for him.

    Kennedy initially developed symptoms while in the public eye teaching at Pace University in New York. Some viewers wrote to him suggesting that he had the condition spasmadic dysphonia and that he should contact a well-known expert on the disease, Dr. Andrew Blitzer. He followed this advice and had the diagnosis confirmed.

    I am a movement disorders neurologist and have long been passionate about the psychological and social toll that conditions such as dysphonias have on my patients.

    Kennedy says his condition began in 1996, when he was 42.

    Types of dysphonias

    In North America, an estimated 50,000 people have spasmodic dysphonia. The condition involves the involuntary pulling of the muscles that open and close the vocal folds, causing the voice to sound strained and strangled, at times with a breathy quality. About 30% to 60% of people with the condition also experience vocal tremor, which can alter the sound of the voice.

    Typically, a neurologist may suspect the disorder by identifying characteristic voice breaks when the patients is speaking. The diagnosis is confirmed with the help of an ear, nose and throat specialist who can insert a small scope into the larynx, examine the vocal folds and rule out any other abnormalities.

    Because the disorder is not well known to the public, many patients experience a delay in diagnosis and may be misdiagnosed with gastric reflux or allergies.

    The most common type of spasmodic dysphonia is called adductor dysphonia, which accounts for 80% of cases. It is characterized by a strained or strangled voice quality with abrupt breaks on vowels due to the vocal folds being hyperadducted, or abnormally closed.

    In contrast, a form of the condition called abductor dysphonia causes a breathy voice with breaks on consonants due to uncontrolled abduction – meaning coming apart of the vocal folds.

    Potential treatments

    Spasmodic dysphonia is not usually treatable with oral medications and sometimes can get better with botulinum toxin injections into the muscles that control the vocal cords. It is a lifelong disorder currently without a cure. Voice therapy through working with a speech pathologist alongside botulinum toxin administration may also be beneficial.

    Surgical treatments can be an option for patients who fail botulinum toxin treatment, though surgeries come with risks and can be variably effective. Surgical techniques are being refined and require wider evaluation and long-term follow-up data before being considered as a standard treatment for spasmodic dysphonia.

    The sudden, uncontrollable movements caused by irregular folding of the vocal folds are referred to as spasms, which gave rise to the name spasmodic dysphonia.

    Dysphonias fall into a broader category of movement disorders

    Spasmodic dysphonia is classified as a focal dystonia, a dystonia that affects one body part – the vocal folds, in the case of spasmodic dysphonia. Dystonia is an umbrella term for movement disorders characterized by sustained or repetitive muscle contractions that cause abnormal postures or movements.

    The most common dystonia is cervical dystonia, which affects the neck and can cause pulling of the head to one side.

    Another type, called blepharospasm, involves involuntary muscle contractions and spasms of the eyelid muscles that can cause forced eye closure that can even affect vision in some cases. There can be other dystonias such as writer’s cramp, which can make the hand cramp when writing. Musicians can develop dystonias from overusing certain body parts such as violinists who develop dystonia in their hands or trumpet players who develop dystonia in their lips.

    Stigmas and psychological distress

    Dystonias can cause tremendous psychological distress.

    Many dystonias and movement disorders in general, including Parkinson’s disease and other conditions that result in tremors, face tremendous amounts of stigma. In Africa, for instance, there is a misconception that the affected person has been cursed by witchcraft or that the movement disorder is contagious. People with the condition may be hidden from society or isolated from others due to fear of catching the disease.

    In the case of spasmodic dysphonia, the affected person may feel that they appear nervous or ill-prepared while speaking publicly. They may be embarrassed or ashamed and isolate themselves from speaking to others.

    My patients have been very frustrated by the unpredictable nature of the symptoms and by having to avoid certain sounds that could trigger the dysphonia. They may then have to restructure their word choices and vocabulary so as not to trigger the dysphonia, which can be very mentally taxing.

    Some patients with dysphonia feel that their abnormal voice issues affect their relationships and their ability to perform their job or take on leadership or public-facing roles. Kennedy said in an interview that he finds the sound of his own voice to be unbearable to listen to and apologizes to others for having to listen to it.

    A 2005 study exploring the biopsychosocial consequences of spasmodic dysphonia through interviews with patients gives some insight into the experience of people living with the disorder.

    A patient in that study said that their voice sounded “like some kind of wild chicken screeching out words,” and another patient said that it “feels like you’re having to grab onto a word and push it out from your throat.” Another felt like “there’s a rubber band around my neck. Someone was constricting it.” And another said, “It feels like you have a sore throat all the time … like a raw feeling in your throat.”

    Patients in the study described feeling hopeless and disheartened, less confident and less competent. The emotional toll can be huge. One patient said, “I used to be very outgoing and now I find myself avoiding those situations.” Another said, “People become condescending like you’re not capable anymore because you don’t speak well.”

    As conditions such as spasmodic dysphonia become better recognized, I am hopeful that not only will treatments improve, but that stigmas around such conditions will diminish.

    Indu Subramanian 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 causes RFK Jr.’s strained and shaky voice? A neurologist explains this little-known disorder – https://theconversation.com/what-causes-rfk-jr-s-strained-and-shaky-voice-a-neurologist-explains-this-little-known-disorder-250769

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Fleeting fireflies illuminate Colorado summer nights − and researchers are watching

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Orit Peleg, Associate Professor of Computer Science, University of Colorado Boulder

    Fireflies in Boulder, Colo., during the summer of 2023. Radim Schreiber/Firefly Experience, CC BY

    The Colorado June air was thick with summer heat. Mosquitoes rose in clouds around us, testing our resolve while we gathered our cameras and sensors. We walked into the wetland, down the unmarked path until the cattails rose shoulder-high. The sounds of frogs and crickets filled the air as we set up our cameras and waited. Then we spotted them: tiny lights lifting from the grasses, blinking in slow rhythms.

    Bioluminescent lampyrid beetles, commonly known as fireflies or lightning bugs, are widespread throughout the Eastern United States but far more scarce west of Kansas.

    Even though many are stargazers and hikers, most Colorado residents don’t know that fireflies share their state.

    We are an associate professor of computer science and a Ph.D. candidate who are working to shed light on Colorado’s hidden fireflies.

    In the past few years, we have observed and filmed elusive bioluminescent fireflies all over Colorado, racing each summer against their brief and unpredictable flashing season.

    The authors − Orit, left, and Owen − in the field, taking notes and observing specimens.
    Nolan R. Bonnie and Mac Stone

    Last year in early June it was too early, we thought, for fireflies in Colorado. For weeks we had been checking weather forecasts, comparing them to previous years, waiting for warmer nights and rising temperatures − the signs that would tell us it’s firefly time.

    Then we got a tip. A friend mentioned seeing one or two flashes near their property. The next morning we packed our gear, rearranged our schedules and contacted our volunteer network. The field season began in a literal flash.

    As adults, fireflies live and flash for only about two weeks a year − and even then, just for a few hours each night. It’s easy to blink and miss the entire season. The next generation overwinters underground as larvae, emerging as adults the following year, though development may take up to two years in arid climates. Making the most of that narrow window is one of the many reasons we rely on volunteers who help us spot the first flashes and record observations across Colorado.

    Western fireflies face unique environmental challenges

    Our work joins a growing chorus of scientific observation focused on western fireflies, which pop up across the arid landscape near temporary wetlands, marshes, drainages, desert rivers and other water sources. Because of the dry landscape, these populations tend to be fragmented, isolated to where the water is and nowhere in between.

    This strong tie to small, unstable habitat spells vulnerability for the fireflies. If the water runs out, or their habitats are damaged by water or light pollution, the flashing populations could vanish. Pesticides in water are toxic to firefly larvae and their prey, and artificial light inhibits the flash courtship between males and females, preventing successful reproduction. Many populations and species of fireflies are threatened with extinction in the United States due to these factors.

    Organizations such as our lab at the University of Colorado and the Xerces Society for Inverteberate Conservation are studying the distribution of and direct threats to western firefly populations. Many of the species are either endangered or not yet described.

    The fireflies of the Photuris genus along the Front Range, for example, still do not have a species name and appear to be genetically distinct from other Photuris around the country. Preliminary genetic results suggest at least one new species might be found here. The genetic data also suggests at least five different bioluminescent species of fireflies are present in Colorado.

    How flash patterns help fireflies (and us) tell species apart

    During their short mating season, fireflies use their flash patterns as mating calls.

    Males produce a series of flash-on, flash-off events, each with specific durations and pauses. These Morse code-like signals communicate what type and how fit the fireflies are to potential mates in the darkness.

    When females detect a suitable male, they respond with their own unique flash pattern.

    Our work piggybacks on this evolutionary adaptation. We first recorded populations from around the U.S. using two video cameras, which allowed us to accurately track individual fireflies in three dimensions and separate their flash patterns.

    We used the data on the flash behavior from different species to train a neural network that can classify the firefly’s flash pattern with a high degree of accuracy. Our algorithm learns the unique flash patterns from our data and can identify the species of firefly that is present in a video.

    This is a powerful tool for firefly conservation efforts. The camera footage can cover more time and ground than field surveys conducted by humans, and our algorithm can more quickly identify species that might be threatened.

    Fostering community engagement with citizen science

    Based on our success with community science data collection across other states, including Tennessee, South Carolina and Massachusetts, we wanted to apply the same principles to Colorado’s firefly populations. This is a big undertaking: There are dozens of fragmented sites where fireflies are active across Colorado, and more are reported by volunteers every season. Our team of two cannot visit and survey every site during the short firefly season.

    In 2023 we put out our first call for volunteers in Colorado. Since that time, 18 community members in Boulder, Fort Collins, Divide and Loveland joined the filming effort. We provide cameras for the volunteers, who bring them to their nearby wetlands and set them up in the fading light.

    Last summer we partnered with local land management agencies in Boulder, Fort Collins and Loveland to host informative community events, where we spoke about firefly biology and conservation to audiences of all ages. On many of those nights, as the flashes began, we heard the excitement build: quiet gasps, hushed enthusiasm and a whisper such as, “Look at that beautiful streak of light!”

    Fireflies have an important story to tell, and here in Colorado that story is just beginning. Their brief flashes each summer help us learn about communication, ecology and how these delicate insects respond to an ever-changing world.

    If you’d like to help us find and study fireflies in Colorado, you can sign up to join our community science project.

    Orit Peleg receives funding from the City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks, CU Boulder’s Timmerhaus Fund Ambassadors, National Geographic Society, and Research Cooperation for Science Advancement.

    Owen Martin receives funding from Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP).

    – ref. Fleeting fireflies illuminate Colorado summer nights − and researchers are watching – https://theconversation.com/fleeting-fireflies-illuminate-colorado-summer-nights-and-researchers-are-watching-253593

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What makes people flourish? A new survey of more than 200,000 people across 22 countries looks for global patterns and local differences

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Victor Counted, Associate Professor of Psychology, Regent University

    Flourishing is about your whole life being good, including the people and places around you. Westend61 via Getty Images

    What does it mean to live a good life? For centuries, philosophers, scientists and people of different cultures have tried to answer this question. Each tradition has a different take, but all agree: The good life is more than just feeling good − it’s about becoming whole.

    More recently, researchers have focused on the idea of flourishing, not simply as happiness or success, but as a multidimensional state of well-being that involves positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning and accomplishment − an idea that traces back to Aristotle’s concept of “eudaimonia” but has been redefined within the well-being science literature.

    Flourishing is not just well-being and how you feel on the inside. It’s about your whole life being good, including the people around you and where you live. Things such as your home, your neighborhood, your school or workplace, and your friends all matter.

    We are a group of psychological scientists, social scientists and epidemiologists who are all contributors to an international collaboration called the Global Flourishing Study. The goal of the project is simple: to find patterns of human flourishing across cultures.

    Do people in some countries thrive more than others? What makes the biggest difference in a person’s well-being? Are there things people can do to improve their own lives? Understanding these trends over time can help shape policies and programs that improve global human flourishing.

    What does the flourishing study focus on?

    The Global Flourishing Study is a five-year annual survey of over 200,000 participants from 22 countries, using nationally representative sampling to understand health and well-being. Our team includes more than 40 researchers across different disciplines, cultures and institutions.

    With help from Gallup Inc., we asked people about their lives, their happiness, their health, their childhood experiences, and how they feel about their financial situation.

    The study looks at six dimensions of a flourishing life:

    1. Happiness and life satisfaction: how content and fulfilled people feel with their lives.

    2. Physical and mental health: how healthy people feel, in both body and mind.

    3. Meaning and purpose: whether people feel their lives are significant and moving in a clear direction.

    4. Character and virtue: how people act to promote good, even in tough situations.

    5. Close social relationships: how satisfied people are with their friendships and family ties.

    6. Financial and material stability: whether people feel secure about their basic needs, including food, housing and money.

    We tried to quantify how participants are doing on each of these dimensions using a scale from 0 to 10. In addition to using the Secure Flourish measure from Harvard’s Human Flourishing Program, we included additional questions to probe other factors that influence how much someone is flourishing.

    For example, we assessed well-being through questions about optimism, peace and balance in life. We measured health by asking about pain, depression and exercise. We measured relationships through questions about trust, loneliness and support.

    Who is flourishing and why?

    Our first wave of results reveals that some countries and groups of people are doing better than others.

    We were surprised that in many countries young people are not doing as well as older adults. Earlier studies had suggested well-being follows a U-shape over the course of a lifespan, with the lowest point in middle age. Our new results imply that younger adults today face growing mental health challenges, financial insecurity and a loss of meaning that are disrupting the traditional U-shaped curve of well-being.

    Married people usually reported more support, better relationships and more meaning in life.

    People who were working – either for themselves or someone else – also tended to feel more secure and happy than people who were seeking jobs.

    People who go to religious services once a week or more typically reported higher scores in all areas of flourishing – particularly happiness, meaning and relationships. This finding was true in almost every country, even very secular ones such as Sweden.

    It seems that religious communities offer what psychologists of religion call the four B’s: belonging, in the form of social support; bonding, in the form of spiritual connection; behaving, in the cultivation of character and virtue through the practices and norms taught within religious communities; and believing, in the form of embracing hope, forgiveness and shared spiritual convictions.

    But some people who attend religious services also report more pain or suffering. This correlation may be because religious communities often provide support during hard times, and frequent attendees may be more attentive to or more likely to experience pain, grief or illness.

    Your early years shape how you do later in life. But even if life started off as challenging, it doesn’t have to stay that way. Some people who had difficult childhoods, having experienced abuse or poverty, still found meaning and purpose later as adults. In some countries, including the U.S. and Argentina, hardship in childhood seemed to build resilience and purpose in adulthood.

    Globally, men and women report similar levels of flourishing. But in some countries there are big differences. For example, women in Japan report higher scores than men, while in Brazil, men report doing better than women.

    Where are people flourishing most?

    Some countries are doing better than others when it comes to flourishing.

    Indonesia is thriving. People there scored high in many areas, including meaning, purpose, relationships and character. Indonesia is one of the highest-scoring countries in most of the indicators in the whole study.

    Mexico and the Philippines also show strong results. Even though these countries have less money than some others, people report strong family ties, spiritual lives and community support.

    Japan and Turkey report lower scores. Japan has a strong economy, but people there report lower happiness and weaker social connections. Long work hours and stress may be part of the reason. In Turkey, political and financial challenges may be hurting people’s sense of trust and security.

    One surprising result is that richer countries, including the United States and Sweden, are not flourishing as well as some others. They do well on financial stability but score lower in meaning and relationships. Having more money doesn’t always mean people are doing better in life.

    In fact, countries with higher income often report lower levels of meaning and purpose. Meanwhile, countries with higher fertility rates often report more meaning in life. These findings show that there can be a trade-off. Economic progress might improve some things but weaken others.

    One of the authors reflects on what the survey data reveals about what helps people truly flourish across the world.

    The big picture

    The Global Flourishing Study is helping us see that people all over the world want many of the same basic things: to be happy, healthy, connected and safe. But different countries reach those goals in different ways. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to flourishing. What it means to flourish can look different from place to place and from one person to another.

    One challenge with the Global Flourishing Study is that it uses the same set of questions in all 22 countries. This method, known as an etic approach, helps us compare results across cultures. But it can miss the nuance and local meanings of flourishing. What brings happiness or purpose in one country or context might not mean the same thing in another.

    We consider this study to be a starting point. It opens the door for more emic studies – research that uses questions and ideas that fit the values, language and everyday life of specific cultures and societies. Researchers can build on this study’s findings to expand how we understand and measure flourishing around the world.

    Tyler J. VanderWeele reports consulting fees from Gloo Inc., along with shared revenue received by Harvard University in its license agreement with Gloo according to the University IP policy.

    Byron R. Johnson and Victor Counted do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. What makes people flourish? A new survey of more than 200,000 people across 22 countries looks for global patterns and local differences – https://theconversation.com/what-makes-people-flourish-a-new-survey-of-more-than-200-000-people-across-22-countries-looks-for-global-patterns-and-local-differences-243671

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why do people continue to support politicians who attack their democracies? Expert Q&A

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Scott Williamson, Associate Professor, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford

    Ahead of a public event in London on May 8 on what the latest research can tell us about the state of democracy, The Conversation asked Scott Williamson, Associate Professor in Comparative Political Economy at the University of Oxford, to help us understand why people don’t always immediately push back when politicians attack their democracies.

    Your findings show that people around the world have relatively similar ideas about what democracy means and are relatively committed to this idea of democratic governance. So why are so many people polarised about whether today’s crop of politicians are attacking our democracies and what to do about it?

    Most people in most countries say it is important to them that they live in a democracy. Research by my colleagues and me also suggests that people tend to agree that competitive elections and protections for civil liberties are central elements of democratic governance.

    Yet, many people who claim to care about democracy also support political leaders and movements that have attacked democratic institutions and values.

    We have to recognise that even when people agree about the fundamental definition of democracy, there is still plenty of room to disagree over the specifics of how democracy is implemented in practice.

    Democracy in decline? The risk and rise of authoritarianism

    Democracy is under pressure around the world in 2025. But is this part of a larger historical cycle or does it signal a deeper, more fundamental shift? Join us for a free event in central London on May 8 to discuss these important questions. Come for a panel discussion and stay for food, drinks and conversation.

    Get tickets here

    Anti-democratic political leaders can take advantage of these disagreements to argue that their actions defend rather than disrupt democracy. Their supporters will often be motivated to believe these claims, especially where politics and the media are highly polarised.

    In the US, Donald Trump and the Republican party have long argued they are protecting American democracy from the deep state and the Democratic party. A prominent example is the claim that Democrats stole the 2020 election, and that subsequent charges against Trump were an attempt at political persecution.

    This message is consistently amplified by rightwing media. Such claims are false, but they create a framework for justifying Trump’s actions in democratic terms.

    A second potential problem is that people who understand democracy similarly and view democracy favourably may still decide that opposing anti-democratic leaders is less important than securing other political objectives. Several recent studies suggest that people in many countries, including the United States, are reluctant to make such trade-offs. Commitment to democracy is relatively strong.

    However, this research also highlights certain conditions under which people may begin to give up this commitment. Some people will care less about democracy if they can secure significantly better economic outcomes. In ongoing research with my co-authors, we also show that perceived threats to safety are especially likely to induce democratic trade-offs.

    One important finding from these studies is that people are strongly committed to maintaining competitive elections in their countries, but they are more willing to give up civil liberties and constraints on executive power in exchange for preferred economic and security outcomes. Some people are openly sympathetic to a majoritarian vision of democracy that empowers elected leaders to ignore institutional constraints if it means giving the people what they want.

    The relatively weaker commitment to these aspects of democracy means that anti-democratic leaders who first focus on undermining political freedoms and expanding their own power, rather than undercutting elections, are less likely to face a backlash.

    This well-used playbook may explain why Trump has faced relatively inconsistent pushback from the public, despite brazenly seizing legislative powers and violating civil liberties.

    Because Trump won the 2024 election, and because many Americans likely believe that subsequent elections will still meet democratic standards, they may tolerate attacks on civil liberties and checks and balances – especially if it gives them policy outcomes they prefer.

    Yet, it is important for Americans who care about democracy to recognise that several of Trump’s actions directly threaten the ability of the United States to hold free and fair elections in the future. The president and his allies have deployed lawsuits and withheld legally obligated funding in an effort to silence critical voices in the media, universities, NGOs, businesses, the legal community, and the Democratic party. Such actions are already muting criticisms of Trump and will make it harder for opposition to compete fairly in upcoming elections.

    Vice president J.D. Vance recently accused European leaders of “running in fear” from voters over immigration. What did you make of his intervention?

    These comments are a good example of how political leaders who attack democracy often claim to be defending democracy instead. A common strategy is to claim that they are the true representatives of the people and their preferences. As a result, their actions must be democratic, and those who oppose them are blocking the will of the people.

    Such claims about immigration should be viewed as a rhetorical cudgel used by the extreme right to beat back accusations of their own anti-democratic stances. Even if their immigration policies are more preferred by the public, this stronger alignment on a single issue should constitute only a small piece of the pie in terms of evaluating their democratic credentials.

    And their claims to represent public opinion on immigration stand on shaky ground at best. Attitudes toward immigration are complicated and multifaceted. Though negative views on the issue are clearly prevalent, attitudes have become more favourable over time in several European countries.

    Negative voices are often louder but do not necessarily represent the majority. Public opinion also fluctuates. In the United States, Trump was perceived more favourably than Kamala Harris on immigration during the 2024 election. But already by late April, a majority of Americans expressed opposition to Trump’s extreme approach.

    How can defenders of democracy meet these challenges?

    In countries where anti-democratic parties are on the rise, political leaders and the public should resist normalising them. The more they are treated as just any other party, the more people may begin to perceive their anti-democratic politics as acceptable.

    When anti-democratic parties come to power, it is important for their opponents to push back as forcefully as possible before the party can consolidate an authoritarian regime. As the political system becomes more repressive, people will increasingly hide their views, and it will be harder to mobilise opposition moving forward.

    For these efforts to succeed, it is important for the opposition to remain as unified as possible. If the ruling party can use its power to make elections less fair, state institutions more biased, and protests more dangerous, then the opposition will need to make use of every advantage they can to oust the government. A divided opposition will be much more likely to fail.

    Scott Williamson receives funding from the UKRI/EPSRC Frontier Research Guarantee Scheme (EP/Y036832/1) for the project Democratic Values and Authoritarian Legitimacy (DEVAL).

    – ref. Why do people continue to support politicians who attack their democracies? Expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/why-do-people-continue-to-support-politicians-who-attack-their-democracies-expert-qanda-255565

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why older adults shouldn’t worry about having sore muscles after a workout – new research

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lawrence Hayes, Lecturer in Physiology, Lancaster University

    Kostiantyn Voitenko/ Shutterstock

    Only 2% of people over the age of 70 strength train at least twice a week. This is worrying, as age-related muscle loss can increase risk of social isolation, falls, loss of independence and even early death.

    There are many reasons why older people may avoid strength training, such as a lack of knowledge about exercise, lack of access to a gym and stigma. Another major reason is the fear that exercise might make their muscles and joints even more sore than they already are.

    But the good news is that older adults are no more likely to experience muscle soreness after a workout than young adults are. In fact, our recent study found older adults actually experienced less muscle soreness following exercise than young adults did. This research overturns the widespread belief that ageing muscles are less resilient.

    We pooled data from 36 studies which looked at a total of 389 younger adults and 390 older adults with the aim of comparing their experiences of exercise-induced muscle damage. We analysed three different types of studies in our research, including those where participants self-reported on their muscle soreness, studies which looked at markers of muscle damage in the blood, and studies which analysed muscle function the day after a workout.

    We found that older adults do not experience greater muscle function loss after exercise compared with younger people. Maybe most importantly, muscle soreness was consistently lower in older adults after a workout. Older adults experienced only two-thirds of the soreness younger people did at 48 hours, and only one-third of the muscle soreness at 72 hours compared with younger people.

    Because we looked at 36 different studies, not all of them compared the same age groups. But they generally compared younger adults (people in their 20s) to older adults (people aged between 30 and 60).

    We also found that biological sex appeared to play a role in muscle function recovery, with males showing slightly greater losses in muscle function after exercise than females. This effect was true for both upper body and lower body exercises, as well as body strength and aerobic workouts.

    These findings challenge the widespread belief that ageing muscles recover more slowly or are more prone to exercise-induced damage. This misconception often discourages older adults from engaging in regular physical activity due to fears of prolonged soreness or weakness. The findings also show us that older adults may not need longer recovery periods between workouts – potentially allowing for more frequent or intense training sessions, leading to better long-term health outcomes.

    How to get started

    Although our study shows that older adults are no more likely to experience muscle damage compared to younger adults, this doesn’t mean older people won’t experience some soreness when they start working out.

    There are two important factors that can increase muscle damage (including soreness) after exercise.

    Women were less likely to experience losses in muscle function.
    nastya_ph/ Shutterstock

    The first is novelty. If you haven’t done a particular exercise before (or even for a long time) then it’s more likely you’ll feel sore for a couple of days afterwards if you overdo it. This happens because a new movement or type of exercise challenges our muscles. This causes the body to trigger a cascade of processes that build new muscle. While this temporarily makes us sore, it ultimately makes it easier for us to cope when we do that exercise again.

    The second are “eccentric” muscle contractions. What we mean by eccentric contractions is when you’re attempting to slow down a weight (imagine the downwards phase of a bicep curl – your bicep is working to slow the bar from dropping to the floor). Another example of an eccentric muscle movement is downhill running.

    Eccentric muscle contractions cause more damage than other movements mainly because they subject the muscle fibers to exceptionally high force loads, which is often distributed unevenly. This can overstretch and disrupt the integrity of our muscles, causing stress and damage. But while this leads to soreness in the short-term, these changes ultimately make us stronger.

    To overcome the problem of being new to exercise, you should ease yourself into a new exercise programme. The couch to 5K programme is a great example of this. This programme guides people to build their aerobic fitness gradually.

    So for instance, you might start by going for a 5-minute walk on Monday. If you feel okay on Wednesday, you might try a 10-minute walk instead. This means that every walk is only five additional minutes of novel exercise, allowing your body to gradually build fitness without too much risk of soreness.

    The same principle applies to the eccentric exercises we might do while strength training. Start easy. For an older beginner, just standing up from a chair and returning to seated can be a starting point. This is a very useful movement as it uses our main leg muscles. Being able to raise from a chair is also a huge predictor of independence in later life. Another benefit of this exercise is that you can always return to the seat if you lose balance – so it is quite safe.

    If you can do five of these in a row on Tuesday, see you if you can do two lots (we call these sets) of five on Thursday. Much like aerobic fitness, you’ll soon improve your muscle strength. For the upper body, raising light weights above your head and back down to your lap can be a start. You could also use tins of unopened beans if you don’t have any equipment at home. Try to do these strength-based activities at least two days per week.

    The findings of our study and many others suggest exercise has no age limit. Move more to live longer and healthier. Aim for 150 minutes of activity each week, add strength training twice per week – and most importantly, find a workout you love. When you enjoy it, you’re more likely to stick with it.

    Lawrence Hayes has received funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the Chief Scientist Office (CSO), the RS Macdonald Charitable Trust, and the Physiological Society.

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

    – ref. Why older adults shouldn’t worry about having sore muscles after a workout – new research – https://theconversation.com/why-older-adults-shouldnt-worry-about-having-sore-muscles-after-a-workout-new-research-254262

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Robert Macfarlane’s new book is a plea to feel the pulse of our rivers

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Julian Dobson, Senior Research Fellow, Sheffield Hallam University

    beerlogoff/Shutterstock

    Suggesting that a river could be alive has the potential to change everything. Robert Macfarlane, one of Britain’s best-read writers on the natural environment, has done just this in his latest book.

    At one level, Is A River Alive? is a travelogue of adventuring in extreme environments: a lucid, lyrical addition to a genre Macfarlane has made his own. His odyssey through the cloudforests of Ecuador, the stricken rivers of Chennai in India and the tumultuous rapids of the Mutehekau Shipu in north-east Canada has it all: larger-than-life companions, astonishing revelations about the natural world and inadvisable levels of personal risk (including some particularly scary whitewater kayaking).

    Like all good odysseys, it’s a journey of psychological and spiritual self-discovery with a profound sense of nostos, an ancient Greek word meaning the journey home. But it’s much more than that.

    This is a quest with an agenda and an urgency and one that puts its cards on the table from the outset. If a river is alive, our perceptions, laws and politics must change course to recognise that, Macfarlane argues.

    That recognition must be rapid, because we’re already seeing the consequences of treating rivers – and the natural world – as “limitless source and limitless sump”, as he puts it. As an illustration, think of Lake Ontario in the 1990s, which he suggests was so chemically polluted that you could develop photographic film in its water.



    Read more:
    Some rivers have ‘legal personhood’. Now they need a lawyer

    This is new territory for Macfarlane, who shows a sharper critical edge than in his earlier work but also engages more personally and emotionally with his material. Wrecked or restored relationships between humans and the natural world prompt the writer, like a contemporary William Blake, to throw down a moral gauntlet to those who hold economic and political power.

    While lacking the anticolonial anger of Indian author Amitav Ghosh’s polemic The Nutmeg’s Curse, Macfarlane comes to comparable conclusions. Ghosh declares in his book that “if non-human voices are to be restored to their proper place, then it must be, in the first instance, through the medium of stories”. Is A River Alive? seeks to do that.



    Read more:
    Rivers are increasingly being given legal rights. Now they need people who will defend these rights in court

    Interrogating a mystery

    Macfarlane engages seriously with knotty complexities. A river may be alive, but not in any way that can be readily incorporated into human systems. “If you interrogate a mystery, don’t expect answers in a language you can understand,” he muses. He also insists on the necessity of opening our perceptions to the life of and in a river: “to imagine that a river is alive causes water to glitter differently.”

    Macfarlane adopts an animist outlook, declaring non-human entities to have voices and worth in and of themselves. His stance is part of a wave of thinking and writing that is transporting such beliefs from the margins of western spirituality and scholarship into mainstream literature.

    This is vital work, but the challenge shouldn’t be overestimated. If you address these questions from a government perspective, you quickly get quagmired in legal systems and questions of ownership. The result, critics say, is ecological injustice, silencing the voices of nonhumans and of the humans who speak up for them. Yet action to give legal rights to rivers is increasing, from the Rio los Cedros in Ecuador to the Whanganui in Aotearoa New Zealand.

    Logics of inaction

    These are important victories, and work to foreground the rights of nature is gathering pace in the UK. In my own city of Sheffield, my colleagues and I are part of a growing network of academics and community organisations working with the River Dôn project, exploring how the river that runs through our city centre could be given a voice, legal status and, we hope, stronger protection from environmental damage.

    This work joins an increasing flow of thinking in universities, cities and communities that challenges extractive mindsets. But such voices remain sidelined even as the evidence of the damage wrought by the rapacious exploitation of Earth becomes starker.

    My own research has shown how “logics of inaction” persist – even when policymakers know they need to invest in and protect the natural world (in cities, urban parks and wild places), they find reasons to avoid doing so. More often than not, it comes down to money – finances are too tight, or the benefits aren’t obviously quantifiable.

    Even when the benefits of natural spaces are compiled and described in terms that pose no philosophical challenge – they support human health and wellbeing, relationships, participation in society – these benefits are deemed insufficient to stop the cycle of neglect. Indeed, as UK chancellor Rachel Reeves recently declared, developers should “stop worrying about bats and newts” and “focus on getting things built”.

    Is a River Alive? may not stem the tide of environmental destruction. But for those frustrated by the logics of inaction of short-term decision-making, it provides timely and necessary inspiration.

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

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

    Julian Dobson 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. Robert Macfarlane’s new book is a plea to feel the pulse of our rivers – https://theconversation.com/robert-macfarlanes-new-book-is-a-plea-to-feel-the-pulse-of-our-rivers-247580

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Donald Trump’s trade tariffs are a threat to global food security

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lotanna Emediegwu, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Manchester Metropolitan University

    Billion Photos/Shutterstock

    Donald Trump’s tariffs will make many things more expensive for his fellow US citizens. The price of imported cars, building materials and some tech will go up – and so will the cost of the food on American dining tables.

    The US currently imports around 16% of its food supply, with a large proportion of its fruit and vegetables coming from countries now hit by tariffs.

    Mexico stands out. It supplies over half the fresh fruit and nearly 70% of the fresh vegetables consumed in the US.

    And even when it comes to home grown produce, the US still depends on imported fertiliser for its crops, with Canada providing up to 85% of its neighbour’s supply.

    So grocery bills for American families, especially for fresh produce (and processed foods dependent on foreign ingredients) will get higher. But there will also be a noticeable effect on food prices outside the US.

    The consequences could be particularly serious for developing economies that rely on stable international prices to secure affordable food imports. The prices of many global staples including maize, wheat and soybeans are benchmarked against US markets so when disruptions occur, they reverberate globally.

    Research I conducted with a colleague found that when international prices are disturbed, local food prices, especially in developing countries, go up.

    Take global maize prices, which this year rose by 7% between April 2 (Trump’s “liberation day”) and April 11. Our study suggests this will immediately lead to a similar increase in local maize prices in places like sub-Saharan Africa.

    This is where many of the world’s poorest people live, with hundreds of millions in households earning below the World Bank’s poverty line of US$2.15 (£1.61) per day. When much of that income is spent on food, a 7% increase in the price of maize could be devastating.

    Growth market

    According to another study, tariffs on agricultural products such as fertiliser will increase global production costs, potentially lowering crop yields and worsening food insecurity.

    While the US has reduced tariffs on Canadian potash from 25% to 10%, other fertiliser producers face steeper levels (up to 28% for another major exporter, Tunisia, before Trump’s reciprocal tariffs were paused).

    This is especially worrying for agriculture in countries like Brazil, India and Nigeria, which are still reeling from fertiliser shortages caused by the war between Russia and Ukraine. As with food costs, US tariffs are likely to drive up prices in the global fertiliser market, making it more expensive for everyone, everywhere.

    And when the cost of farming rises, crop production can suffer. This could significantly weaken food production in developing countries that are already battling climate change and volatile markets.

    Another study I conducted found that countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia – already struggling with food insecurity – are among the most vulnerable to local food price shocks. These economies depend heavily on food imports and face high exposure to currency fluctuations and transport costs.

    A banana field in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
    giulio napolitano/Shutterstock

    If the trade war escalates, farmers in these regions may be forced to abandon staple crops for cash commodities such as cocoa or coffee, deepening their reliance on volatile global markets and reducing their food self-sufficiency. Global inequality will worsen unless things change.

    One option would be to protect essential agricultural imports, especially fertilizers and staple foods, from punitive tariffs. This would stabilise prices and protect vulnerable economies. The recently announced 90-day pause for negotiations offers a glimmer of hope, but it must be used wisely to build a more equitable trading system.

    In the long term, developing countries need to bolster the resilience of their food systems. My research recommends investing heavily in mechanised agriculture which is resilient to climate change, incentivising farmers with government support, and strengthening regional trade.

    The global food system is heavily interconnected. Decisions made in Washington can quickly affect food prices in Lagos, Cairo and New Delhi. And if tariffs go unchecked, they may unleash a silent and subtle crisis – one measured not in GDP, but in millions of empty stomachs.

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

    – ref. Why Donald Trump’s trade tariffs are a threat to global food security – https://theconversation.com/why-donald-trumps-trade-tariffs-are-a-threat-to-global-food-security-255064

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Astonishing Things: The Drawings of Victor Hugo at the Royal Academy is dark and brilliant

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Lang, Senior Lecturer and Programme Leader in Fine Art , University of Lincoln

    The Royal Academy’s latest exhibition, Astonishing Things: The Drawings of Victor Hugo offers a rare glimpse into the dark and moody world of the renowned writer best known for his novels The Hunchback of Notre-Dame and Les Misérables.

    The exhibition is set in exceptionally low lighting, a necessary measure to preserve the fragile drawings, which are usually only accessible under archival conditions. This dim ambience enhances the foreboding atmosphere of Hugo’s works, which are often landscapes featuring cathedrals that appear to be in ruin or emerging from mist or dust clouds.

    These drawings are reminiscent of Dennis Creffield’s gestural, energetic and dark, cathedral sketches. Hugo’s are similar, but much smaller and with a more post-apocalyptic and surreal twist.

    Titles like The Dead City attest to this, while Breakwater on Jersey, with its obscure imagery that recalls looking up a steep incline towards some towers, evokes a sense of Gothic horror, reminiscent of Dracula.

    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.

    Other drawings in the exhibition are more surreal. One features a giant mushroom with a face looming over a desolate landscape, eerily evoking nuclear war (something that Hugo could not have possibly fathomed in 1850). Windmill on the Roof of a Farmhouse depicts a windmill improbably emerging from another building, adding to the surreal quality of Hugo’s work. And, one of the first drawings visitors encounter is of a poisonous tree with a skull emerging from its shadow, setting the tone for the exhibition.

    The Serpent resembles a Chinese dragon twisting through the sky over the sea with a mountain obscured in mist below its fire-breathing jaws. The light specs illuminating the water add to the mystery, as the light source itself remains unclear. Is the light emanating from the dragon’s mouth or from behind the mountain? This ambiguity adds to the surreal quality of the work.

    The Bowels of Leviathan is one of the largest and most abstract pieces in the exhibition. Loose brushwork, possibly created with a large brush or feather (as suggested by the wall text) fills the surface. Vertical lines appear like prison bars in a dark arch (one of many allusions to Les Misérables in the exhibition), while the title actually refers to the Parisian sewers – a recurring theme in Hugo’s novel.

    Several drawings in the exhibition can be interpreted as metaphors for political turmoil. Lighthouse at Casquets, Guernsey features a heavily tilting ship, while Boat without Sails depicts what appears to be a single piece of wood from a ship wreck, or perhaps a raft afloat.

    Ship in a Storm further emphasises the theme of stormy waters, reflecting the turbulent political landscape of Hugo’s time. His father was a general in the Napoleonic empire, which crumbled when Victor was 12. He saw the Bourbon monarchy restored, then the revolutions of 1830 and 1848. Not only a witness, Hugo was deeply involved in politics, resulting in his exile to the Chanel Islands, where he made most of the drawings on display, during the reign of Napoleon III.

    The Durande Ship After Sinking and The Wreck are positioned on either side of Octopus, a fantastical depiction of what lies beneath the stormy seas. Or perhaps life after the storm, strange and other worldly. There are two versions of Octopus on display, both of which would not look out of place as illustrations for a H.P. Lovecraft novel. These pieces suggest a strange and otherworldly life after turmoil and the sense of uncertainty feels oddly present today.

    Hugo’s use of lace imprints and collage, such as postage stamps, was avant-garde for his time. He combined charcoal, pen, brown ink and wash, gouache, graphite, and more, showcasing his experimental approach to art. Compositionally, these works are sophisticated and live up to Van Gogh’s description of them as “astonishing things”.

    Astonishing Things: The Drawings of Victor Hugo at the Royal Academy is a captivating exhibition that offers a rare opportunity to experience the dark and surreal world of one of history’s most celebrated writers and artists. The exhibition is a must-see for art lovers and fans of Victor Hugo alike.

    Astonishing Things: The Drawings of Victor Hugo is on at the Royal Academy, London until June 29 2025.

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

    – ref. Astonishing Things: The Drawings of Victor Hugo at the Royal Academy is dark and brilliant – https://theconversation.com/astonishing-things-the-drawings-of-victor-hugo-at-the-royal-academy-is-dark-and-brilliant-255262

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Current legal frameworks can’t protect the oceans from deep-sea mining and the negative impacts on humankind

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Susan Reid, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of British Columbia

    A soil boring boat used to collect geological information from the seafloor. (Shutterstock)

    The international legal order is floundering. The geopolitical and resource policy priorities of the United States are shifting.

    These changes now implicate the international framework for governing the seabed: on April 24, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order that moves toward allowing deep-sea mining by the Americans.

    Driven by a critical minerals expansionary agenda, the U.S. is considering measures to fast-track approvals for corporations to mine the international seabed.

    What is the difference — for marine environments — between excavation under an international legal framework or U.S. domestic law? Both systems permit state and private organizations to mine vulnerable marine ecosystems: does an international framework offer stronger environmental protections than U.S. law?

    A ‘constitution’ for the ocean

    Under the United Nations’ watch, ocean conditions have declined.

    The international seabed zone encompasses 54 per cent of the planet’s surface. The designation was created in 1994 under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). When described as the “constitution for the oceans,” UNCLOS deceivingly implies that its role is protective. However, the treaty functions as architecture for exploiting ocean resources.

    It does this by dividing the ocean into zones that control how and where nations and corporations can exploit the seas. As well, it supports the idea of the ocean as a vast, exploitable resource. Weak environmental protections are offered in return. UNCLOS speaks little of either the ocean itself or of diverse human-ocean relationships.

    It is a constitution for the ocean, without the ocean.

    PBS reports on the impacts of deep-sea mining.

    Regulating mining

    UNCLOS established the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to manage the international seabed as the “common heritage of humankind.” Since it was established 30 years ago, the ISA has prioritized the development of a regulatory framework for commercial mining. But the ISA’s stewardship of the deep seabed as humankind’s common heritage involves more than the advancement of commercial mining.

    Given the multiple ocean crises intensifying under the impacts of climate change, it is bewildering that the ISA could still be pursuing such a destructive regime.

    Under UNCLOS, the ISA has legal responsibilities to protect the marine environment. Yet it doesn’t have a comprehensive environmental policy, environmental management plan or dedicated scientific division. This is despite the central role marine science plays in understanding and protecting the ocean. Instead, the ISA appears to be patching together environmental regulations on the fly.

    Extractive interests

    The scientific data that the ISA relies on comes from the very companies seeking to mine the seabed. Commercial miners conduct their own environmental assessments and benchmarks, and as such, the ISA’s governance approach appears to be one of companies self-regulating.

    Despite the “ocean emergency” and scientific concerns about marine ecological risks, the ISA maintains an extractivist path.

    It is now finalizing regulations to allow commercial mining in the Clarion–Clipperton zone of the North Pacific Ocean. If all exploration licences currently issued in this zone are converted to exploitation licenses, this will be the largest mining operation the planet has ever experienced.

    The ISA’s 170 members, including the U.S., have upheld a consensus-based governance approach. In doing so, they’ve prevented any unilateral claims to the international seabed. Although the U.S. never ratified UNCLOS, it too has largely observed the consensus-based legal order. Until now.

    The Metals Company (TMC), a Canadian deep-sea mining company, recently announced its intention to bypass the ISA and work with the Trump administration to pursue seabed mining in international waters. To do so, it will rely on the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA), administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). Congress had previously noted that this domestic law was always considered a temporary measure until the development of an acceptable system under UNCLOS.



    Read more:
    Terminations at U.S. government agencies that monitor extreme weather events will have negative effects

    In principle, NOAA’s deep ocean scientific expertise enables it to competently oversee U.S. seabed mining. This includes assessing the potential environmental impacts of mining and ensuring the protection of the marine environment. It has already developed DSHMRA mining regulations within a “precautionary and adaptive management framework.”

    Before granting a mining licence, NOAA is required to prepare and publish an environmental impact statement. However, recent staff cuts and the new administration’s rollback of marine environmental protections potentially compromise its oversight capacity.

    How NOAA’s scientific teams feel about fast-tracking a “gold rush” is another story.

    The ISA has denounced its snubbing by The Metals Company. However, by shopping around for a jurisdiction of convenience, TMC has inadvertently shone a spotlight on gaps in the ISA’s environmental governance approach.

    Future marine research

    In the meantime, momentum for a ban or moratorium is growing.

    Without a foundational science policy or in-house scientific expertise, the ISA is ill-equipped to safeguard the deep ocean. Marine science offers a way to better understand the deep ocean and its vulnerabilities and can help re-imagine the ISA’s direction toward a more generative role as an environmental steward.



    Read more:
    Humanity depends on the ocean — Here is what we need to prioritize for immediate ocean science research

    Through marine social sciences, ocean humanities and Indigenous knowledge, other pathways can be explored toward a better understanding of human-ocean relationships. The ISA has the potential to step up to its planetary stewardship role by developing policy guidelines to guide such transitions. The oceanographic background of the ISA’s new secretary-General, Leticia Carvalho, bodes well. Perhaps this may happen through a renewed focus on marine science — time will tell.

    Susan Reid 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. Current legal frameworks can’t protect the oceans from deep-sea mining and the negative impacts on humankind – https://theconversation.com/current-legal-frameworks-cant-protect-the-oceans-from-deep-sea-mining-and-the-negative-impacts-on-humankind-254967

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Using fire to produce nanoparticles could revolutionize various industries

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Keroles Riad, Postdoctoral fellow, Energy and Particle Technology Laboratory, Carleton University

    Fire is how most widely used nanoparticles — and by extension nanotechnologies — are made. (Shutterstock)

    Fire is arguably humanity’s earliest discovery. It was pivotal in advancing society — underpinning many of humanity’s most transformative inventions, from cooking and forging weapons to generating energy and enabling car combustion engines.

    Today, fire continues to be the gateway to some of the most cutting-edge nanotechnologies currently being developed for use in cancer treatments and as breath sensors for early detection of diabetes and other metabolic diseases.

    Nanotechnologies can be found in almost every aspect of our daily lives. For instance, I have previously written about the nanotechnology used in the mRNA vaccines that helped us through the pandemic, and have facilitated conversations discussing how nanotechnology affects our wine, gut and climate.

    For example, gas sensors incorporating nanoparticles made via fire can be used to verify that there’s no methanol in alcoholic beverages. Methanol is a highly poisonous alcohol contaminant, and has caused numerous poisonings worldwide.

    Fire is how most widely used nanoparticles — and by extension, nanotechnologies — are made. For example, a third of a car tire’s weight is comprised of carbon black nanoparticles, which are made using fire. These nanoparticles help to reinforce the tire. The white paint we use on our walls and the coatings on some pills contain fire-made titania nanoparticles. Similarly, fumed silica — which is used in the optical fibres needed for internet and communication systems — are also forged in fire.

    How nanotechnology is made

    So how do nanoparticles, which are 80 to 100 thousand times smaller than the thickness of a human hair, form inside a fire?

    I specialize in making nanoparticles in fire — specifically using a technology called flame spray pyrolysis.

    In my research, I burn flammable chemicals that contain the target metal elements to form my nanoparticles. Everything gets oxidized during combustion: carbon becomes CO2, hydrogen becomes water vapor and metal elements become metal oxides.

    During the milliseconds that these metal oxide particulates spend inside the fire, they collide and grow into nano- or micro-particles. I collect these particles on a filter on top of the fire. Important properties such as the size and crystal structure of the nanoparticles that are produced depend on how much time these particles spend inside the fire.

    The more time the particles have to collide inside the forging fire, the larger they grow. We can also make complicated particles consisting of multiple elements by burning a mixture of different chemicals. This process is both versatile and scalable — allowing millions of tonnes of nanoparticles to be produced each year.

    Carbon black is a nanoparticle that is produced through flame spray pyrolysis.
    (Shutterstock)

    Overcoming limitations

    Being able to mass-produce nanoparticles has been one of the biggest challenges of producing nanotechnologies on a larger scale. This is because most of the nanoparticles used in nanotechnologies can only be made via “wet chemistry,” or by using liquids.

    It can take hours of working with liquid in beakers, mixing them, heating them, then separating and centrifuging them just to obtain tiny amounts of material. These processes are often too expensive and too dangerous to scale enough for viable commercialisation.

    For instance, quantum dots (nanoparticles made from semiconducting materials which have both optical and electrical properties) — the discovery of which was celebrated by the Chemistry Noble Prize in 2023. These have the potential to revolutionize many technologies — including solar cells, carbon capture and contrast agents used in medical imaging.

    However, quantum dots are hardly ever used in those technologies on a large scale because the prohibitive cost of making them via wet chemistry can be as high as US$45,000 per gram.

    But unlike wet chemistry, fire is simple, cheap, scaleable and surprisingly safe. So when processes that allow for the production of high value nanoparticles, such as quantum dots, with fire are developed, costs drastically drop and they become immediately scaleable and of potential interest to industry.

    Fire can also produce harmful particles and by-products.

    For instance, if you place a napkin in front of the exhaust of your car, black stuff will accumulate on it. This black residue is soot particles produced by the fire burning inside the engine. Similarly, smoking cigarettes causes soot to form and accumulate in a smoker’s lung, often causing cancer.

    Soot is also, by some estimations, the third highest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide and methane. However, those assessments may actually be underestimating the true contribution of soot to greenhouse gas effects.

    Flame spray pyrolysis technology has also been used to simulate combustion conditions to not only study the impact of generated soot more accurately, but also test process changes that could virtually eliminate soot emissions. For example, one study used flame spray pyrolysis to show that injecting air downstream of jet fuel combustion can reduce soot emission by more than 90 per cent. Flame spray pyrolysis could continue to be a useful tool in researching the impacts of pollution.

    The future of nanoparticles

    But not all nanoparticles can be produced by fire. As such, research exploring new recipes and processes to make high-value nanoparticles that are not yet possible to make in fire could have a large impact.

    For example, a major focus of my current work is to explore the possibility of using fire to make graphene. Graphene is the strongest material known at the nanoscale. My previous work shows that by using ultraviolet light, graphene can be transformed into strong macroscopic structures — possibly allowing it to be used in 3D printing.

    Graphene is the strongest material known at nanoscale.
    (Shutterstock)

    Further, there’s massive untapped potential in nanomedicine to integrate the nanoparticles that are already possible to make in fire. Only about 30 types of nanoparticles are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — such as those used in COVID-19 vaccines, as well as iron-based nanoparticles used for treating anemia and kidney disease.

    All those approved nanomedicines are given via injections. This leaves plenty of room to explore the benefits of inorganic nanoparticles in medicine — especially orally administrated therapeutics.

    Keroles Riad is the founder and CEO of O Nanotech Solutions, a startup that produces flame-made quantum dots. He also receives funding from NSERC as a Canada Banting Postdoctoral Fellow. He also receives funding from MITACS as a part of their Accelerate Entrepreneur Program. He holds both scholarships at Carleton University. He is also the CEO of enuf, a Bcorp-certified social enterprise focused on sustainable waste management.

    – ref. Using fire to produce nanoparticles could revolutionize various industries – https://theconversation.com/using-fire-to-produce-nanoparticles-could-revolutionize-various-industries-234058

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The woman who turned the Met Gala into the biggest party of the year

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Elizabeth Castaldo Lundén, SweAmfo/ASF Research Fellow at USC School of Cinematic Arts | Fulbright Scholar, University of Southern California

    Diana Vreeland takes a drag from her cigarette as she greets Andy Warhol. Ron Galella Collection/Getty Images

    The annual Met Gala in New York City is a dazzling collision of celebrity, fashion and media frenzy.

    The event is ostensibly a fundraiser for the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute, which houses a vast collection of historical costumes and fashion artifacts.

    But for many people, it’s that time of year when their social media feeds become awash with posts, stories and live streams of A-list actors, musicians and influencers ascending the iconic steps of the Metropolitan Museum of Art to showcase their elaborate outfits.

    Zendaya at the 2024 Met Gala, which was themed ‘Sleeping Beauties: Reawakening Fashion.’
    Neilson Barnard/MG24/Getty Images for The Met Museum/Vogue

    The gala has come a long way since its early days as an intimate fundraising event for the local fashion industry and New York’s old-guard elite.

    Through my research at the Met’s Thomas J. Watson Library, I discovered the ways in which a former fashion editor named Diana Vreeland elevated this formerly stuffy charity ball into a global media sensation.

    A low-key affair

    Philanthropist and arts patron Irene Lewisohn launched the Museum of Costume Art in 1937 to promote the preservation and study of historical clothing. In 1946, New York fashion publicist Eleanor Lambert helped bring the museum’s collection under the purview of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, with the caveat that it would operate independently of the museum’s budget. It was then renamed the Costume Institute.

    Dorothy Shaver burnished the reputation of the Costume Institute in its early years.
    Erwin Blumenfeld/Condé Nast via Getty Images

    In 1948, Lambert organized the inaugural gala to raise funds for the institute. The following year, Lord & Taylor president Dorothy Shaver established a formal management structure for both the institute and its annual gala, streamlined operations, and helped burnish the reputation of the fledgling institution among New York’s social elite. During her tenure, gala revenues climbed steadily, from US$31,723 in 1949 to $118,775 in 1958 – roughly $1.3 million in today’s dollars.

    The Met Gala that Shaver shaped looked similar, in many ways, to today’s: There was a theme, a formal dinner, live entertainment and a fashion parade that attendees could participate in. There were also a photographers row, where guests could be snapped by famed fashion photographers for a fee, and raffles with department store prizes.

    After Shaver’s death in 1958, department store executives continued to steer the gala, but attendance and revenue waned. In 1961, in an effort to cut costs and revive interest, the event was moved into the museum itself.

    The gala needed a reinvention. Soon, it would get one.

    Vreeland’s vision

    Diana Vreeland took the reins of the Met Gala in 1973.

    She’d had a storied career in fashion journalism, including stints as fashion editor of Harper’s Bazaar and editor-in-chief of Vogue.

    Vreeland, however, understood that in order for the gala to grow, it needed to become a newsworthy event that would be of interest to those who might not even attend the gala itself. So she selected spectacular, sometimes controversial themes that would generate interest from the press.

    Vreeland’s first exhibition in 1973 was bold: a tribute to a single designer, Cristóbal Balenciaga.

    “The World of Balenciaga” was funded by the Spanish government, Iberia Airlines and five Spanish banks – a controversial move, considering Spain was still under Francisco Franco’s dictatorship. The show featured Franco’s granddaughter’s wedding dress as one of the central pieces.

    Some curators also bristled at Vreeland’s unorthodox approach to exhibition planning, such as blurring time periods, displaying clothes without providing historical context and prioritizing beauty over scholarship.

    “She knows fashion and who wore it,” one former museum official said, “but she doesn’t know history.”

    Nonetheless, critics deemed the gala and its accompanying exhibition a huge success. American designer Stan Herman declared that the garments “belong in a museum, like good paintings.”

    In the coming years, Vreeland’s other themes included “Romantic and Glamorous Hollywood Design,” “The ‘10s, ’20s and ’30s,” and “American Women of Style.” The latter was accompanied by a Vogue magazine spread starring actress and model Marisa Berenson, who channeled iconic American “it girls” like Irene Castle, Consuelo Vanderbilt and Josephine Baker.

    Models and actresses wear costumes and masks for the Costume Institute’s 1974 exhibition ‘Romantic and Glamorous Hollywood Design.’ Diana Vreeland is seated in the center, sans mask.

    Buzz and pizzazz

    Before Vreeland, coverage of the gala was limited to society pages and publications like Women’s Wear Daily.

    Vreeland knew how to generate buzz because she thought like an editor. She also knew how to charm the press. Vreeland popularized words like “pizzazz,” “splendeur” and “deeveen.” She told tales of discovering model and actress Lauren Bacall and the work of fashion designer Roy Halston. She regaled reporters with stories of allegedly visiting Buffalo Bill in Wyoming.

    Under Vreeland’s leadership, media coverage of the gala and exhibitions exploded, with articles appearing in The New York Times, The New Yorker, New York Magazine, People, Interview, Le Figaro, Le Monde, Revista Hola!, ABC de las Americas, Il Tempo, Paris Herald Tribune and Tokyo’s High Fashion, among others. During her tenure, she also opened the doors to reporters and photographers so they could cover the night of the event.

    In an interview with Women’s Wear Daily she said, “I am an entertainer. And I believe in wit, and good nature, and laughter.”

    Corporate controversies

    With “The World of Balenciaga,” Vreeland also pioneered the use of corporate sponsorships to finance the exhibitions and parties. In 1982, Pierre Cardin Management funded “La Belle Époque,” a Met Gala theme associated with the relaunch of the famed Paris restaurant Maxim’s, in which Cardin had invested.

    In 1983, Vreeland courted controversy again with the first exhibition honoring a living designer — Yves Saint Laurent — underwritten by the Pierre Bergé Foundation. Bergé was Saint Laurent’s life and business partner.

    The show was launched amid rumors of the designer’s declining health and growing criticism of the museum being exploited as a publicity platform.

    “One day the god of the Temple of Dendur will cry: ‘I am not on earth to share a museum with a bunch of fashion freaks!’” critic John Heilpern groused in the East Side Express.

    The following year, Ralph Lauren became the central sponsor and guest of honor for “Man and the Horse.”

    Diana Vreeland and designer Ralph Lauren at the 1984 gala, which was themed ‘Man and the Horse’ and sponsored by Lauren.
    Sonia Moskowitz/Getty Images

    The Met set

    Under Vreeland, a new kind of guest list also emerged.

    The rise of celebrity culture in the 1960s gave birth to the “jet set” – beautiful people whose fame transcended traditional society circles.

    Vreeland embraced this shift. She made space at the gala for the likes of Andy Warhol, Bianca and Mick Jagger, Halston and his Halstonettes, David Bowie, Cher, Diana Ross, Warren Beatty and Jack Nicholson.

    Their presence helped transform the gala from society soirée to pop culture phenomenon.

    After Vreeland’s death in 1989, the event lost some its splendor under the guidance of museum curators. Women’s Wear Daily columnist Aileen Mehle later lamented the decline, writing that the event had become “a far cry from the dear old Diana Vreeland days when that fashion oracle called the Costume Institute’s shots, and elegance and anticipation abounded.”

    In the late 1990s, however, the museum curators who had run the event since Vreeland’s death ceded control back to the fashion industry. High-end brands like Chanel, Versace and Christian Dior sponsored the Met Gala, while fashion editors such as Liz Tilberis and Anna Wintour chaired the event.

    By channeling Vreeland’s vision, they were able to turn the gala into the global media spectacle it is today, which now thrives in an era of social media and global branding.

    This year’s theme, “Superfine: Tailoring Black Styles,” is co-chaired by rapper-producer Pharrell Williams, who is also the artistic director of Menswear at Louis Vuitton. The LVMH conglomerate – Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton – is the sponsor, showing how the gala continues to operate as a platform where corporate branding, celebrity culture and high culture converge.

    Taylor Swift attends the 2014 Met Gala, themed ‘Charles James: Beyond Fashion.’
    Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images

    Elizabeth Castaldo Lundén received funding from Fulbright (2023-2024)

    – ref. The woman who turned the Met Gala into the biggest party of the year – https://theconversation.com/the-woman-who-turned-the-met-gala-into-the-biggest-party-of-the-year-250363

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Pandas and politics − from World War II to the Cold War, zoos have always been ideological

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By John M. Kinder, Professor of History and American Studies, Oklahoma State University

    Giant panda Xiao Qi Ji walks around his enclosure at the Smithsonian National Zoo in September 2023 in Washington, D.C. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

    President Donald Trump’s sweeping range of more than 130 executive orders and other decisions aim to upend everything from long-standing immigration policy to the control of a performing arts center.

    But so far, zoos are not among the many issues the Trump administration has focused on.

    That might no longer be the case.

    Trump issued an executive order on March 27, 2025, to restore “truth and sanity” at federal history sites.

    “Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history,” Trump wrote in the executive order, “replacing facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.” As a corrective, he instructed Vice President JD Vance to ferret out “improper ideology” at the Smithsonian Institution, a group of museums and research centers created and funded by the federal government.

    The executive order also applied to the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., which has been part of the Smithsonian since 1890.

    For Trump’s critics, the suggestion that zoos might be indoctrinating visitors was absurd.

    NBC “Late Night” host Seth Meyers joked about the executive order on his show on April 2, characterizing it as evidence of an authoritarian personality.

    “Seriously, what the hell is ‘improper’ ideology at the zoo? Trump is starting to get into weird dictator s—,” Meyers said.

    Meyers’ astonishment should come as no surprise. Zoos go to great lengths to portray themselves as scientifically objective and politically neutral.

    Yet as a scholar of wars’ effects on American culture and society, I know that zoos have always been ideological, sending subtle – and not so subtle – messages about topics that have little to do with animals.

    Historically, zoos have been used to justify colonial exploitation. They have lent weight to eugenicist ideas about racial hierarchy. And they have served as backdrops for all kinds of political theater.

    During the 1920s and 1930s, for example, Italian strongman Benito Mussolini liked to climb inside the lion cage at the Rome Zoo to demonstrate the courage and vitality he associated with fascist politics.

    As I argue in my 2025 book “World War Zoos: Humans and Other Animals in the Deadliest Conflict of the Modern Age,” the links between zoos and national politics are especially pronounced in periods of war.

    Benito Mussolini, the longtime fascist dictator of Italy, visits a zoo in Rome in 1924.

    World war zoos

    Zoo ownership and funding models depend on the individual zoo, but many zoos receive at least some government funding to operate.

    At the start of World War II, most governments required zoos to embrace an ideology of sacrifice – a willingness to set the needs of the state above their own.

    For zoos in North America and the British Empire, this meant slashing workers’ pay, rationing food supplies and offering uniformed soldiers special access to zoo facilities.

    It also meant destroying animals considered a threat to public safety, especially in the event of a bombing or assault that could set them free. In 1939, the London Zoo killed more than 200 animals, starting with the black widow spiders and venomous snakes. Other zoos did the same, slaughtering their animal collections as a precaution against possible escape.

    Joan the hippo at the London Zoo gets a drink of water in June 1939.
    Fox Photos/Getty Images

    Authoritarian governments during World War II exercised almost total control over their nations’ zoos.

    Under Adolf Hitler, German zoos enforced “Aryan-only” visitation policies, festooned their grounds with swastikas, hosted galas for Nazi dignitaries and exhibited animals looted from zoos in occupied nations.

    In Japan, the governor of Tokyo ordered the Ueno Zoo to carry out a series of “propaganda killings” aimed at strengthening public commitment to the wartime struggle. Starting in August 1943, zoo staff shot, electrocuted, stabbed and strangled more than 20 animals, including a polar bear, an American bison, a python and a leopard cub.

    Tokyo’s zoo also starved to death three elephants named Jon, Tonki and Hanako. Weeks after the zoo held an official funeral for its animals, two of the three elephants that were not actually dead continued to suffer, their cages covered in bunting so the public would not see the ghastly evidence.

    Even as the fighting raged, the Soviet government directed its zoos to develop practical measures to help the war effort. At the Moscow Zoo, staff taught people how to breed mice and rabbits for medical applications, such as vaccine testing.

    All the while, Soviet zoo employees had to demonstrate ideological vigilance in the workplace. Any slipup could mean official sanction, loss of position or worse.

    Cold War zoos

    During the Cold War, governments around the world continued to view zoos through an ideological lens.

    This was especially true in Berlin, where the city’s two zoos – one in the capitalist West, the other in the communist East – became symbols of competing ideological worldviews.

    No zoo animals were more ideologically fraught in the Cold War than giant pandas, endemic to the forested mountains of central China.

    In the 1950s and 1960s, American zoos were denied permission by the U.S. government to import pandas from China. The State Department considered them “enemy goods.”

    First lady Pat Nixon welcomes pandas to the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., in 1972.

    That changed in 1972, when President Richard Nixon, during a thawing of the Cold War, famously returned from China with Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing, the first giant pandas who were gifted to and exhibited in the U.S. in decades.

    The National Zoo unveiled China’s latest “soft power ambassadors” in January 2025. Three-year-old pandas Bao Li and Qing Bao are set to remain in D.C. for 10 years – long enough to win the hearts and minds of millions of zoo visitors.

    John M. Kinder 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. Pandas and politics − from World War II to the Cold War, zoos have always been ideological – https://theconversation.com/pandas-and-politics-from-world-war-ii-to-the-cold-war-zoos-have-always-been-ideological-255305

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Guns in America: A liberal gun-owning sociologist offers 5 observations to understand America’s culture of firearms

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By David Yamane, Professor of Sociology, Wake Forest University

    About 86 million American adults own at least one of the estimated 400 million firearms in the U.S. today. Paul Campbell, iStock / Getty Images Plus

    An Asian American and lifelong liberal from the San Francisco Bay Area, I became a first-time gun owner as a 42-year-old in 2011. I began a now 14-year journey into an unfamiliar and complex world of firearms. In my work, I draw on both my personal experiences and sociological observations to understand the long-standing presence of a robust legal gun culture in America.

    In contrast to the dominant scholarly approaches, which focus on gun deviance and harm, I find there is more to firearms than criminal violence, injury and death; more to gun owners than straight white men; and more to gun culture than democracy-destroying right-wing politics.

    Let me share five observations essential to understanding guns in America:

    1. Guns are normal

    About 86 million American adults – 1 in 3 – own at least one of the estimated 400 million firearms in the U.S. today.

    Imagine if everyone who uses TikTok in the U.S. owned a gun – and then add the population of New York City. That is enough gun owners to fill over 1,000 NFL stadiums.

    Humans have used projectile weapons like rocks and spears from the beginning. This unbroken history continues in every society, with firearms as the weapon of choice in all but the most isolated communities. People who could legally own guns in colonial America commonly did so. Even today, civilian firearms ownership remains exceptionally high in the U.S. compared with other industrialized nations.

    The right of everyday Americans to own guns is a deep part of American culture, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions.

    2. Gun culture 2.0

    The culture of guns in the U.S. has evolved over time.

    Before the mid-1800s, people primarily used firearms for practical purposes: hunting for food, defense from and offense against indigenous populations, controlling enslaved people, expanding territory and fighting against oppressive rulers.

    Kevin Dixie, at a firearms retailer and gun range in Ballwin, Mo., believes that gun rights are about empowering minority communities and ensuring freedom for every American.
    AP Photo/Jeff Roberson

    Starting in the mid-1800s, Americans developed a more complex gun culture that included recreational hunting, organized target shooting and gun collecting. These elements continue today, but, in a shift, Americans increasingly own guns for self-defense.

    Evidence for the evolution to what I call “Gun Culture 2.0” appears in three key areas: surveys about why people own guns, the loosening of gun-carrying laws beginning in the 1980s, and changes in both the types of firearms sold and how companies market them, especially toward small, concealable pistols.

    3. Gun ownership is diverse

    Black Americans have a particularly strong tradition of gun ownership dating at least to the 19th-century abolitionist movement.

    Today, 1 in 4 Black Americans, as well as 1 in 5 Latinos and 1 in 4 women, personally own a gun. Twenty percent of gun owners consider themselves politically liberal. For every four evangelical Protestants who own handguns, three people who don’t identify with any religion own them too. Scholars are even beginning to discover the importance of LGBTQ+ gun owners.

    Gun Culture 2.0 is more diverse and inclusive than the United States’ historical gun culture because security is a universal human concern.

    The response to feelings of insecurity varies. Portfolios of protective measures in the U.S. include home security systems, dogs, the hyperlocal social networking service Nextdoor, gated communities and firearms.

    4. Guns are lethal tools

    Many tools like knives and chainsaws are lethal, meaning they have the capacity to cause death. Guns differ because their lethality is by design. Consequently, guns can make dangerous situations more deadly.

    Despite their ubiquity and deadly potential, accidental firearm deaths are relatively rare and declining in the U.S., numbering fewer than 500 annually in recent years. Most gun deaths are intentional, with suicides accounting for 58% and homicides for 38% of 46,728 gun deaths in 2023.

    While the U.S. has a moderate overall suicide rate compared with other developed countries, it has a firearm suicide rate that substantially exceeds these other nations. This is because firearms are widely available and highly lethal. When people attempt suicide using guns, they die in up to 90% of cases.

    Similarly, although the U.S. is not exceedingly violent or criminal compared with peer nations, its criminal violence is more deadly because these lethal tools are more frequently involved.

    Starting in the mid-1800s, Americans developed a more complex gun culture that included recreational hunting, as depicted in this 1852 lithograph of woodcock hunters.
    Universal History Archive/Getty Images

    5. Guns are paradoxical

    Despite high rates of firearm suicide and homicide, most guns in the U.S. will not kill anyone, and most American gun owners will not commit violence against themselves or others. My calculations, based on the 2023 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, indicate that just one gun death occurred per 8,560 firearms and 1,840 gun owners – meaning at least 99.99% of guns and 99.95% of gun owners were not directly involved in fatalities that year.

    These observations collectively point to a final insight: Guns resist simple categorization and embody multiple paradoxes.

    To different people, they are fun and frightening, dangerous and protective, diffuse and concentrated, unifying and divisive, attractive and repulsive, interesting and controversial, useful and useless, good and bad, and neither good nor bad.

    This is to say, guns are not inherently anything. They take on different meanings according to the various purposes to which people put them.

    A realistic view requires maintaining a clear-eyed understanding of the lethal capabilities of firearms. But the tendency to focus exclusively on firearms-related harms, while understandable, becomes a problem, in my view, when it fails to acknowledge the normality of guns and the diversity of gun owners.

    David Yamane has received funding from The Louisville Institute for the Study of American Religion to study church security. He is a member of the Liberal Gun Club, National African American Gun Association, and National Rifle Association, and financially supports the Liberal Gun Owners 501c4 and Walk the Walk America 501c3 organizations.

    – ref. Guns in America: A liberal gun-owning sociologist offers 5 observations to understand America’s culture of firearms – https://theconversation.com/guns-in-america-a-liberal-gun-owning-sociologist-offers-5-observations-to-understand-americas-culture-of-firearms-251084

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Deporting international students risks making the US a less attractive destination, putting its economic engine at risk

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By David L. Di Maria, Vice Provost for Global Engagement, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

    Boston University students march to demand the school declare itself a sanctuary campus to protect their peers from the federal government regardless of their immigration status, on April 3, 2025. Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

    In early April 2025, the Trump administration terminated the immigration statuses of thousands of international students listed in a government database, meaning they no longer had legal permission to be in the country. Some students self-deported instead of facing deportation.

    The U.S. Department of Homeland Security recently announced that it would reverse the terminations after courts across the country determined they did not have merit.

    These moves come as the White House seeks to enhance vetting and screening of all foreign nationals.

    The State Department in March announced plans to use artificial intelligence to review international students’ social media accounts.

    As an administrator and scholar who specializes in international higher education, I know that international students in the United States have long been subjected to a high level of vetting, screening and monitoring.

    Inserting additional bureaucracy into current processes could make the U.S. a less attractive study destination. I believe this would ultimately hamper the Trump administration’s ability to achieve its “America First” priorities related to the economy, science and technology, and national security.

    International students in the US

    The U.S. has long been the global leader in attracting international students. But competition for these students is increasing as other countries, such as Germany and South Korea, enact strategies for attracting international education.

    The U.S. hosts 16% of all students studying outside of their home country, down from 22% in 2014 and 28% in 2001, according to the Institute of International Education. Of the more than 1 million international students who were present in the U.S. during the 2023-2024 academic year, 54% came from just two countries, China and India.

    Most international students pursue graduate degrees in STEM fields – science, technology, engineering and mathematics. And, according to the National Science Foundation, international students make up a significant portion of enrollment at the master’s and doctoral levels.

    How international students are screened

    International students in the U.S. are already subjected to intense screening and continuous monitoring. These measures include:

    • Vetting the student’s school. Before they can apply for a visa, international students must be admitted to a school authorized by the Department of Homeland Security to enroll people on student visas.

    • Vetting at the embassy. As part of the visa application process, international students are subjected to national security reviews carried out by various intelligence and law enforcement agencies. In some cases, such as when a U.S. consular officer in their home country decides that more information is required from external sources to determine visa eligibility, additional screenings occur. That is done through a process known as administrative processing.

    • Vetting upon arrival. When they arrive in the U.S., international students are again screened by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer. If the officer is unable to verify any information, the student is sent to secondary inspection, a secure interview area where the student waits while officers complete additional assessment. The student is then either admitted to the U.S. or forced to depart the country.

    • Ongoing monitoring while in the U.S. If permitted to enter the country, students must enroll full time, earn good grades and notify their school within 10 days of substantive changes to their circumstances.

    Examples include a change to their address, academic major or financial sponsor. And school officials are required to report this information to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, part of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s National Security Investigations Division.

    Students participating in temporary, postgraduation training programs must continue to comply with reporting requirements. And certain STEM graduates, and their employers, are subject to additional requirements. They include certification of training plans, annual evaluations and site visits.

    Most international students prefer to study in the U.S., recent research shows. But they are willing to change their preferences as other countries introduce friendlier visa policies, such as more flexible post-study work opportunities and lower visa costs.

    Given the current level of screening and monitoring already imposed on international students in the U.S., it is unclear how additional measures would add value.

    Boston University police officers speak to each other as students protest outside a dean’s office demanding the school declare itself a sanctuary campus, on April 3, 2025.
    Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

    Critical to an America First agenda

    President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda aims to grow the U.S. economy.

    It also intends to maintain U.S. leadership in science and technology and enhance national security.

    Trump administration officials have underlined the importance of recruiting top global talent. And Trump has said that international students who graduate from U.S. colleges should be awarded a green card with their degree.

    During the 2023-2024 academic year, international students contributed US$43.8 billion to the U.S. economy through tuition and living expenses, which supported an estimated 378,175 U.S. jobs.

    Their contributions don’t end following graduation, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. Many go on to launch successful startups at a rate that is eight to nine times higher than their domestic peers. In fact, 25% of billion-dollar companies in the U.S. were founded by a former international student.

    Such companies include Eventbrite, Grammarly, Moderna, OpenAI, Robinhood and SpaceX.

    International students also help the U.S. maintain global leadership in STEM.

    Consider that 45% of STEM workers in the U.S. holding a doctoral degree were born outside the U.S.

    A 2024 report cautions that the U.S. is failing to develop domestic STEM talent at all levels of the education system. Just 3.2% of U.S. high school graduates are estimated to enter the STEM workforce.

    Moreover, the country’s ability to attract and retain international STEM talent is decreasing due to immigration restrictions and increased global competition.

    Finally, international students are critical to establishing global networks and promoting soft power diplomacy. This is evidenced by the U.S. having graduated more world leaders than any other nation.

    Further restricting the ability of international students to study in the U.S. will ultimately redirect talent to other countries, allies and adversaries alike.

    David L. Di Maria 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. Deporting international students risks making the US a less attractive destination, putting its economic engine at risk – https://theconversation.com/deporting-international-students-risks-making-the-us-a-less-attractive-destination-putting-its-economic-engine-at-risk-249245

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: US-Ukraine minerals deal looks better for Kyiv than expected – but Trump is an unpredictable partner

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Gawthorpe, Lecturer in History and International Studies, Leiden University

    The United States and Ukraine have finally signed a long-awaited agreement on Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction – and, at first reading, the details appear more favourable for Kyiv than many observers expected.

    At the core of the “economic partnership agreement” is the exploitation of Ukraine’s mineral wealth. Ukraine will get access to US investment and technology, and the US will eventually get a share of the profits. The rest will finance the war-torn nation’s recovery if and when a peace agreement is signed with Russia.

    Several aspects of this deal stand out as positive for Ukraine. Unlike in previous drafts, the country retains ownership of its natural resources. All profits are to be invested in Ukraine for ten years after the agreement comes into force.

    Washington can also make its contribution in the form of new military aid, although it will be down to the US president to decide whether or not to do that.

    Earlier in the negotiations, a major sticking point was the demand from the US president, Donald Trump, that the agreement include compensation for past US aid to Ukraine, which he insisted amounted to US$350 billion (£260 billion). Many analysts estimate the figure is closer to US$120 billion.

    Before the deal was signed, Ukraine’s prime minister, Denys Shmyhal, said the deal would “not include assistance provided before its signing”. And the Ukrainian government announcement stated that the new agreement “focuses on further, not past US military assistance”. But when the US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, spoke to journalists, he described the deal as “compensation” for “the funding and the weapons”.

    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.

    Whether Bessent’s statement represents political spin, or whether there is still distance between Washington and Kyiv on this critical point, remains to be seen. The formal text has not been released, and many details remain to be ironed out. Trump can be an erratic negotiator who is prone to sudden changes of direction.

    Indeed, the signing of this agreement is just the latest twist in a broader effort to bring the war in Ukraine to an end – one which probably still has many surprises ahead. Trump appears to be losing patience with what he views as Russia’s refusal to engage with the peace process. Signing the deal may have been intended as a warning to Moscow to get serious about ending the conflict.

    The new agreement reportedly states that the US and Ukraine share a “long-term strategic alignment”. That’s a far cry from Trump’s rhetoric only a few months ago, when he called Ukraine’s president, Vlodomyr Zelensky, a “dictator”“ and blamed Kyiv for starting the war with Russia. But given Trump’s changes of mood, this agreement is unlikely to be the final word on how he views the conflict.

    Despite talk of a long-term strategic alignment, one thing the deal doesn’t contain is any explicit security guarantees for Ukraine. But the White House argues – and other observers hope – that US investment in Ukraine will give the US an implicit stake in the country’s security. That might deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again, out of fear the US would act to protect its investment.

    However, once we move from the realm of politics and security to economics, several glaring flaws in this logic become apparent. They all come down to whether the mineral wealth at the heart of this agreement can be profitably exploited – and, indeed, whether it even exists.

    Is this a game-changing deal?

    The American humorist Mark Twain is said to have once defined a mine as “a hole in the ground owned by a liar”. Assessing the precise scale of underground mineral deposits is notoriously difficult – and not every deposit can be extracted in a profitable fashion.

    In Ukraine, the exploratory work has simply not been done. Even the supposed size of the deposits, which are based on old Soviet surveys conducted in a superficial fashion, is not certain.

    Many of the minerals that supposedly lie under Ukraine’s surface are so called “rare earths”, which are critical to hi-tech supply chains. But they are also expensive and time-consuming to exploit, requiring a massive upfront investment which may eventually be lost. Even in successful cases, it generally takes over a decade to get production onstream.

    Today, there are few rare-earth projects under development anywhere in the world outside China – even in countries that are not current (and possibly future) war zones. Most of Ukraine’s supposed deposits lie in the east of the country in areas vulnerable to Russian attack, making investment risky.

    All of this makes economic partnership agreement of doubtful long-term significance for the broader peace process. The potential gains from it are too hypothetical to make much difference within a meaningful timescale. The deal is unlikely to generate much real economic incentive for the US to defend Ukraine, and so is unlikely to become a new source of military assistance for Kyiv.

    For the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, the deal doesn’t change a lot. While it might indeed be a signal that Trump is running out of patience with Russia, it does little to change the underlying realities of the conflict.

    We can’t rule out the possibility that Trump, as unpredictable as ever, might make a more meaningful commitment to Ukraine in the future, one that changes the course of the war. But – at first glance, certainly – this minerals deal is not it.

    Andrew Gawthorpe 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. US-Ukraine minerals deal looks better for Kyiv than expected – but Trump is an unpredictable partner – https://theconversation.com/us-ukraine-minerals-deal-looks-better-for-kyiv-than-expected-but-trump-is-an-unpredictable-partner-255723

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump is freezing funds to clear thousands of unexploded mines in Vietnam 50 years after war ended

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Priest, Lecturer in Modern US History, University of Essex

    Fifty years after the end of the Vietnam war, the long-term consequences of that conflict continue to affect many Vietnamese people’s daily lives. There are still thousands of unexploded mines and bombs strewn across the region in forests, rice fields and around villages.

    The war (1955-75) pitted communist North Vietnam and its allies against South Vietnam and its ally, the US, and spilled into Laos and Cambodia. It was seen partly as a symbol of the cold war and a conflict between communist values and the west.

    In 2019, the US Congress estimated that more than 20% of land in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia remained “contaminated” by unexploded ordnance (UXO). In 2023, in Vietnam alone, this was estimated to mean around 800,000 tonnes of bombs and mines remained. Since 1975, UXO accidents have caused more than 105,000 casualties, including more than 38,000 deaths of Vietnamese civilians.

    But mine clearance and attempts to clean up the results of the toxic Agent Orange sprayed on the Vietnamese countryside during the war have been put on hold by Donald Trump’s government, as the administration dismantles US foreign aid (USAID).

    In the last few weeks, funds for the clean-up of Agent Orange at Bien Hoa air base, close to Ho Chi Minh City, were frozen and then unfrozen. It remains unclear how, or whether, the process will be able to continue when many of the personnel involved have lost their jobs.

    Meanwhile, a USAID project helping the victims of Agent Orange appears to have ended along with the agency that delivered it. And in January, the US state department announced it was suspending mine clearance in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia for at least three months because of the cuts.

    In another development that suggests the relationship between Vietnam and the US is fragile, senior US diplomats based in Vietnam have been told not to attend any commemorations marking the end of the Vietnam war in Hanoi.

    What’s the backdrop?

    During the conflict, the US military dropped millions of tonnes of ordnance on Vietnam as well as neighbouring Cambodia and Laos.

    Even though Laos and Cambodia were not officially involved in the war, recent research has revealed that in the 1960s and 1970s, the Americans dropped more bombs on Cambodia than the allies did on their enemies during the second world war, and that Laos became the most bombed country per head of population in history.

    CBS coverage of the Vietnam war.

    As a result, every year hundreds of people across south-east Asia, many of them children, continue to be killed and maimed by these bombs and mines.

    Agent Orange’s legacy

    Agent Orange and other chemical defoliants used during the war are also still spreading their toxic legacy. US forces sprayed at least 70 million litres of these chemicals on the countryside during the war, to expose the enemy and destroy its food sources.

    This process proved potentially catastrophic for anyone, including Americans, who was exposed to Agent Orange at the time – as well as their children, as it is linked to birth defects.

    Today, millions of people — many of whom were not even alive during the conflict — continue to suffer from physical and mental conditions that can be directly linked to Agent Orange, despite the challenges of documenting cases.

    And countless people who fought and died in the war remain missing. While close to 60,000 Americans were killed and the bodies of some 1,600 of them are still unaccounted for, hundreds of thousands — probably millions — of Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians died. Many of their remains have never been found.

    This has led the International Commission on Missing Persons to suggest that about 200,000 Vietnamese people killed during the war are in “anonymous or unknown gravesites” across the country.

    In recent years, the US and Vietnam governments have worked together to undo some of the damage of the war, as part of the American and Vietnamese diplomatic reconciliation process. This has included the state department in Washington providing millions of dollars for the clearance of unexploded ordnance.

    The US government had also funded a multi-million dollar clean-up of areas on which Agent Orange was used, and supported treatment for those it affected.

    In recent years, governments of both nations also worked on projects to find the remains of Americans and Vietnamese killed in the war. Members of the public and veterans have been part of this search.

    US-Vietnamese ties have taken decades to build and involve many people at different levels of government in Hanoi and Washington. But Trump’s decision to halt funding for landmine removal as well as medical support in Vietnam will seriously endanger this work, and could leave hundreds of lives still at risk.

    Andrew Priest 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. Trump is freezing funds to clear thousands of unexploded mines in Vietnam 50 years after war ended – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-freezing-funds-to-clear-thousands-of-unexploded-mines-in-vietnam-50-years-after-war-ended-255167

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Three scientists speak about what it’s like to have research funding cut by the Trump administration

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

    The Trump administration’s cuts to funding for American universities and research have left many scientists reeling and very worried. At the National Institutes of Health, which has an annual budget of US$47 billion to support medical research both in the U.S. and around the world, nearly 800 grants have been terminated. The administration is considering cutting the overall budget of the NIH by 40%.

    In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to three scientists, two in the U.S. and one in South Africa, about what it’s like to be a scientist whose funding has been cut by the Trump administration.

    Sunghee Lee was in a meeting when she received an email to say that her $5 million, five-year grant from the NIH had been terminated. It was March 21, and Lee, a research professor at the University of Michigan, was stunned.

    “ It was very short and opaque, which is very different than how NIH usually operates”, she said. Lee’s project, which started in 2024, looked at different risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease across racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. The termination email cited diversity, equity and inclusion studies, an early target of the Trump administration’s cuts to federal research funding, which it said no longer “effectuates agency priorities.”

    Lee was confused. “ Our study looks at everybody,” she said. “So if looking at everybody is a DEI study, just about any data collection in this country should be classified as DEI studies and terminated.”

    An arduous application process

    A few weeks earlier, Brady West, a colleague of Lee’s at the University of Michigan, had received similar news. West’s access to a federal research data center, a secure room to access restricted personal data, was withdrawn. He was told that one of his NIH-funded projects, which looked at measuring health disparities between people of different sexual identities, was no longer in compliance with recent executive orders. “Fortunately for me,” he said, “I was nearing the end of this project.”

    West explains that it can take up to two years for researchers to win a grant from a federal funding agency like the NIH. That money then supports a whole team of people, including researchers and administrators. All grant applications are reviewed by a panel of experts from the field who judge whether it’s novel, important research.

     ”A big misconception is that an administration chooses to fund these grants based on what they believe are important topics to research,“ West said. “That’s not the case.”

    HIV vaccine research

    The vast majority of NIH funding goes to institutions and researchers in the U.S., but a recent analysis by the journal Nature found 811 grants to international teams in more than 60 countries worth more than $340 million.

    In South Africa, where tensions are running high with the new Trump administration over land reform and other diplomatic fault lines, scientists have had NIH-funded research grants suspended.

    Glenda Gray is a professor at the infectious disease and oncology research institute at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and chief scientific officer at South Africa’s Medical Research Council. She’s at the forefront of research efforts to find a vaccine for HIV, work supported largely by grants from the NIH and aid from the United States Agency for International Development.

    In January, a $46 million project funded by USAID on experimental HIV vaccines that Gray ran was terminated after the Trump administration dismantled the aid agency. Then in mid-April, she saw that funding for a clinical trial unit in Soweto involved in trials for HIV vaccines had been marked as “pending.” On top of that,  four global research networks on HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment strategies that the Soweto unit was affiliated with were told by NIH that they could no longer spend any money in South Africa.

    Gray says the level of funding, which was won in a competitive, global process, is “irreplacable” and will have drastic impact on HIV research.

    “ Basically you lose the knowledge or the value of understanding HIV prevention, HIV vaccines or therapeutics. We have the infrastructure, we have the burden of disease, and we have the ability to answer these questions,” Gray said. “And so it’s going to take much longer to answer these questions than if you had South Africa there. Basically, we slow down HIV vaccine research … you slow down the process of knowledge generation.”

    Listen to Sunghee Lee, Brady West and Glenda Gray talk about their experiences and what it means for their research on The Conversation Weekly podcast. It also includes an introduction with Alla Katsnelson, associate health editor at The Conversation in the U.S.

    This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Gemma Ware and Katie Flood. Mixing and sound design by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

    Newsclips in this episode from CBS News, Firstpost, ABC 7 Chicago, ABC News, CNN and PBS NewsHour.

    Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here.

    Brady Thomas West has received funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and National Science Foundation. Sunghee Lee has received funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Justice. Glenda Gray has received funding from USAID co-operative agreement for HIV vaccine research and US-NIH funding for HIV vaccines.

    – ref. Three scientists speak about what it’s like to have research funding cut by the Trump administration – https://theconversation.com/three-scientists-speak-about-what-its-like-to-have-research-funding-cut-by-the-trump-administration-255459

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The global costs of the US-China tariff war are mounting. And the worst may be yet to come

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kai He, Professor of International Relations, Griffith University

    The United States and China remain in a standoff in their tariff war. Neither side appears willing to budge.

    After US President Donald Trump imposed massive 145% tariffs on Chinese imports in early April, China retaliated with its own tariffs of 125% on US goods.

    US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said this week it’s up to China to de-escalate tensions. China’s Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, said the two sides are not talking.

    The prospect of economic decoupling between the world’s two largest economies is no longer speculative. It is becoming a hard reality. While many observers debate who might “win” the trade war, the more likely outcome is that everyone loses.

    A convenient target

    Trump’s protectionist agenda has spared few. Allies and adversaries alike have been targeted by sweeping US tariffs. However, China has served as the main target, absorbing the political backlash of broader frustrations over trade deficits and economic displacement in the US.

    The economic costs to China are undeniable. The loss of reliable access to the US market, coupled with mounting uncertainty in the global trading system, has dealt a blow to China’s export-driven sectors.

    China’s comparative advantage lies in its vast manufacturing base and tightly integrated supply chains. This is especially true in high-tech and green industries such as electric vehicles, batteries and solar energy. These sectors are deeply dependent on open markets and predictable demand.

    New trade restrictions in Europe, Canada and the US on Chinese electric vehicles, in particular, have already caused demand to drop significantly.

    China’s GDP growth was higher than expected in the first quarter of the year at 5.4%, but analysts expect the effect of the tariffs to soon bite. A key measure of factory activity this week showed a contraction in manufacturing.

    China’s economic growth has also been weighed down by structural headwinds, including industrial overcapacity (when a country’s production of goods exceeds demand), an ageing population, rising youth unemployment and persistent regional disparities. The property sector — once a pillar of the country’s economic rise — has become a source of financial stress. Local government debt is mounting and a pension crisis is looming.

    Negotiations with the US might be desirable to end the tariff war. However, unilateral concessions on Beijing’s part are neither viable nor politically palatable.

    Regional coordination

    Trump’s tariff wars have done more than strain bilateral relationships; they have shaken the foundations of the global trading system.

    By sidelining the World Trade Organization and embracing a transactional approach to bilateral trade, the US has weakened multilateral norms and emboldened protectionist tendencies worldwide.

    One unintended consequence of this instability has been the resurgence of regional arrangements. In Asia, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), backed by China and centred on the ASEAN bloc in Southeast Asia, has emerged as a credible alternative for economic cooperation.

    Meanwhile, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) continues to expand, with the United Kingdom joining late last year.

    Across Latin America, too, regional blocs are exploring new avenues for integration, hoping to buffer themselves against the shocks of resurgent protectionism.

    But regionalism is no panacea. It cannot replicate the scale or efficiency of global trade, nor can it restore the predictability on which exporters depend.

    Looming dangers

    The greater danger is the world drifting into a Kindleberger Trap — a situation in which no power steps forward to provide the leadership necessary to sustain global public goods, or a stable trading system.

    Economist Charles Kindleberger’s account of the Great Depression remains instructive: it was not the presence of conflict but the absence of leadership that brought about the global economy’s systemic collapse.

    Without renewed global coordination, the economic fragmentation triggered by Trump’s tariff wars could give way to something far more dangerous than a recession – rising geopolitical and military tensions that no region can contain.

    The political landscape is already fraught. The Chinese Communist Party, for instance, has long tethered its legitimacy to the promise of eventual unification with Taiwan. Yet the costs of using force remain prohibitively high.

    Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te’s recent designation of China as a “foreign hostile force” have sharpened tensions. Beijing’s response has been calibrated – military exercises intended more as a warning than a prelude to conflict.

    However, the intensifying trade war with the US may become the final straw that exhausts Beijing’s patience, leaving Taiwan as collateral damage in a US-China final showdown.

    A role for collective leadership

    China alone is neither able nor inclined to assume the mantle of global leadership. Its current focus is more on domestic priorities – sustaining economic growth and managing social stability – than on foreign policy.

    Yet, Beijing can still play a constructive role in shaping the international environment through its cooperation with Europe, ASEAN and the Global South.

    The objective is not to replace American hegemony, but to support a more multi-polar and collaborative system — one capable of sustaining global public goods in an era of uncertainty.

    Paradoxically, a more coordinated effort by the rest of the world may ultimately help bring the US back into the fold. Washington may rediscover the strategic value of engagement — and return not as the sole leader, but as an indispensable partner.

    In the short term, other states may seek to gain an advantage from the great power standoff. But they should remember that what begins as a clash between giants can quickly engulf bystanders.

    In this volatile landscape, the path forward does not lie in exploiting disorder. Rather, nations must cautiously advance the shared interest in restoring a stable, rules-based global order.

    Kai He receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. The global costs of the US-China tariff war are mounting. And the worst may be yet to come – https://theconversation.com/the-global-costs-of-the-us-china-tariff-war-are-mounting-and-the-worst-may-be-yet-to-come-254583

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Who would win in a fight between 100 men and 1 gorilla? An evolutionary expert weighs in

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Renaud Joannes-Boyau, Professor in Geochronology and Geochemistry, Southern Cross University

    Hung Hung Chih/Shutterstock

    The internet’s latest absurd obsession is: who would win in a no-rules fight between 100 average human men and one adult male gorilla?

    This hypothetical and strange question has taken over Reddit, TikTok, YouTube and Instagram. Some argue that humans once hunted mammoths so, clearly, we would win. Others point out that a silverback gorilla can lift close to 1,000kg and could throw a grown man like a rag doll.

    To be honest, it’s not really a question we need to answer – and yet, as usual on the internet, everyone has an opinion.

    But, beyond the jokes and memes, this silly debate provides an opportunity to reflect on human evolution. What are the real strengths of our species? What have we sacrificed? And what can a gorilla, our majestic, powerful and endangered distant cousin, teach us about our own nature and evolution?

    Gorillas and humans: two branches of the same evolutionary tree

    Gorillas are one of our closest living relatives. Along with chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans, they belong to the great apes or Hominidae family. Chimpanzees share about 98.8% of their DNA with us, while gorillas come a close second, sharing around 98.4%.

    The last common ancestor between humans and gorillas lived roughly 10 million years ago, and it is also the same ancestor for chimpanzees.

    Since the evolutionary split, humans and gorillas have followed very different paths. Gorillas have adapted to dense forests and mountainous terrains, while humans have evolved to live in the open, but realistically to multiple and various environments.

    Despite the substantial difference in ecological niches, humans and gorillas share many traits, such as opposable thumbs, facial expressions, complex social behaviours and emotional intelligence.

    Mastering forest power

    In the recent Dune saga, to win, Duke Leto Atreides wanted to develop “desert power”. Well, gorillas have mastered forest power.

    And let’s be clear – in terms of raw power, the gorilla wins every time. An adult male silverback can weigh more than 160kg and lift about a tonne without going to the gym every day. Their upper-body strength is shocking. And that’s no evolutionary accident – it’s the result of intense competition between males, where dominance determines mating.

    Additionally, gorillas are extremely tough and resilient, yet gentle and calm most of the time. Gorillas, like many primates, have a strong social intelligence. They use a variety of vocalisations, gestures and even chest drumming to communicate across distances.

    They have shown the ability to use sign language, mourn their dead, and demonstrate empathy, attesting to sophisticated cognitive skills.

    Trading muscles for minds

    A fight between 100 men and one gorilla might lead to a lot of dead men, but we all know that men will come with weapons, strategies, drones, fire and other clever tricks.

    Humans are not physically strong in comparison to many other mammals. Our strength as a species is our adaptability and our ability to collaborate in very large groups.

    Our brains are, on average, three times larger proportionally than those of gorillas. This fantastic evolutionary adaptation has allowed us to develop abstract thinking and symbolic language, but most of all, to pass and build on complex knowledge across generations.

    And this is our greatest superpower, our ability to cooperate across vast groups, far beyond the average gorilla social unit, which usually ranges from a few family members up to a group of 30 individuals.

    Humans’ evolutionary history has led to trading brute force for social, cultural and technological complexity, making us Earth’s most versatile and dangerous species.

    So, who’s the winner?

    In a one-on-one brawl, the gorilla can make “human-mash” with one hand. There is no contest when discussing brute force and bare hands.

    But humans fight dirty. Judging by our evolutionary success, humans would likely lose many battles but ultimately win the fight. Mountain gorillas were not on the brink of extinction in the 1980s without our help.

    Our species has spread across all continents, all terrains, and all climates. We have reshaped ecosystems, walked on the Moon, and developed advanced technologies. But gorillas are another kind of success rooted in harmony with their environment, physical grace, and quiet strength.

    Perhaps the real takeaway message isn’t who wins in a fight, but to realise that two very different and yet very close cousins have walked two separate evolutionary roads, each in their own distinct way. And both are nature’s triumph and accomplishment.

    Renaud Joannes-Boyau receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Leakey Foundation, National Geographic, and the European Research Council.

    – ref. Who would win in a fight between 100 men and 1 gorilla? An evolutionary expert weighs in – https://theconversation.com/who-would-win-in-a-fight-between-100-men-and-1-gorilla-an-evolutionary-expert-weighs-in-255621

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What’s the difference between a tantrum and a meltdown?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Shawna Mastro Campbell, Assistant Professor Clinical Psychology, Bond University

    Volurol/Shutterstock

    If you live with young children, there’s a good chance you’ve been on the receiving end of a child yelling, screaming, crying, throwing or hitting things.

    But how do parents know what is typical and age-related boundary pushing, what is a tantrum and what is a meltdown?

    What’s the difference anyway?

    What’s a tantrum?

    In general, a tantrum is considered behavioural. The child has learned that the behaviour (like screaming or crying in defiant protest) can help them get what they want.

    The behaviour may be a natural reaction for a child who is still learning how to regulate their emotions.

    Sometimes, the outcome a child wants is a parent’s attention. So if a parent yells and negotiates with their child, this can reinforce tantrums and make them more likely in the future.

    Once a child has obtained the desired outcome, the behaviour can decrease in the short term. But as the child has learned a tantrum is an effective way to get what they want, this may contribute to further tantrums in the long term.

    What’s a meltdown?

    A meltdown relates to having difficulty in regulating (usually distressing) emotions. We may still see the same types of behaviours and emotional outbursts as those in a tantrum. But a dysregulated child in a meltdown typically cannot de-escalate quickly, and offering a desired outcome is of little comfort.

    Usually, a meltdown happens because a child’s brain is overwhelmed, overloaded or under-resourced (for instance, if they are tired, hungry and don’t have skills to stay regulated). Their nervous system kicks into an “out of control” state of emotional dysregulation. In this situation, their brain is not yet able to learn, engage in rational discussion, or meaningfully apologise.

    Sometimes behaviours start as tantrums, quickly spiral into a feeling of being emotionally out of control, before a shift to “meltdown”.

    This can be especially relevant for children who are neurodevelopmentally divergent, such as autistic children or children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), who may have less capacity to regulate their emotions.

    How to react?

    Dealing with tantrums and meltdowns involves parents being responsive, and labelling and understanding their child’s emotions.

    Empathy is the key to defusing big emotions and strengthening relationships. An empathetic response allows your child to feel connected to an understanding parent, which can de-escalate a conflict.

    For instance, if your child is crying and yelling after you tell them to power off the iPad before dinner, you might say:

    I can see you were enjoying watching that. It’s really tricky to stop doing something we like, like watching Bluey. I struggle to switch off my favourite show, too. But, it is time for dinner, so we will turn off the iPad now.

    How we hold boundaries is also important. For example, you might respond to a meltdown that includes hitting or throwing things with:

    You are allowed to be upset but you are not allowed to hurt me, hurt yourself, or our house.

    Not all behaviour is dangerous – such as swearing, using a silly voice, or using toilet-talk (saying things like “poo”). So it’s OK to pick your battles and ignore those behaviours by looking or turning away and not responding.

    However, if you are worried your child might harm themselves or someone else – perhaps by running away, or climbing on a table – an appropriate reaction is to ensure physical safety and say:

    It is my job to help you keep your body safe, so I’m going to help you make a safe choice.

    Dinner time! You know what usually happens next, a tantrum. But you can defuse the situation with some empathy.
    Steve Heap/Shutterstock

    What not to do

    Being harsh to yourself or worrying about strangers judging your parenting won’t help end the tantrum or meltdown any quicker.

    Distracting your child is rarely effective while a tantrum or meltdown is happening. This might even give children the impression they should avoid their feelings.

    Decades of research has also shown using forms of physical punishment such as smacking does not deter problematic behaviour, and contributes to worsening mental health in the short and long term.

    How about preventing tantrums and meltdowns?

    We cannot avoid tantrums or meltdowns entirely. Having intense emotions is part of normal child development. It is also not possible to always respond perfectly. Trying to meet your child’s needs for connection and boundary setting most of the time is “good enough”.

    But praising appropriate behaviour is the key preventative buffer against tantrums and meltdowns. You can also admire the unique and special qualities in your child.

    Both increase the quality of your relationship, let your child know what types of behaviour are appropriate, and makes them feel good about themselves – and you.

    Are you overwhelmed?

    Having patience for children having a tantrum or meltdown while their brain develops can be a challenge. But in the short term, you can be empathetic towards your child and yourself by saying:

    My child is learning, and so am I.

    For a longer-term perspective, say:

    This is a phase.

    If you feel overwhelmed, quick strategies can mean the difference between responding with empathy and boundaries, or reacting with accidental reinforcement, such as yelling or giving in. Try:

    • taking a few deep, slow breaths

    • counting to five before reacting

    • taking a break – make a cup of tea, get a drink of water

    • checking if you are tired, hungry, or have an unmet need

    • saying nothing if you have nothing nice to say

    • labelling your own feelings, and describing what you are going to do to calm down.

    Susan Rowe is a current member of the Gold Coast Primary Health Network Clinical Advisory Council.

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

    – ref. What’s the difference between a tantrum and a meltdown? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-a-tantrum-and-a-meltdown-245762

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Medicine’s over-generalization problem — and how AI might make things worse

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Benjamin Chin-Yee, Hematologist/Assistant Professor, Western University

    In medicine, there’s a well-known maxim: never say more than your data allows. It’s one of the first lessons learned by clinicians and researchers.

    Journal editors expect it. Reviewers demand it. And medical researchers mostly comply. They hedge, qualify and narrow their claims — often at the cost of clarity. Take this conclusion, written to mirror the style of a typical clinical trial report:

    “In a randomized trial of 498 European patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, the treatment increased median progression free survival by 4.6 months, with grade three to four adverse events in 60 per cent of patients and modest improvements in quality-of-life scores, though the findings may not generalize to older or less fit populations.”

    It’s medical writing at its most exacting — and exhausting. Precise, but not exactly easy to take in.

    Unsurprisingly, then, those careful conclusions often get streamlined into something cleaner and more confident. The above example might be simplified into something like: “The treatment improves survival and quality of life.” “The drug has acceptable toxicity.” “Patients with multiple myeloma benefit from the new treatment.” Clear, concise — but often beyond what the data justify.

    Philosophers call these kinds of statements generics — generalizations without explicit quantifiers. Statements like “the treatment is effective” or “the drug is safe” sound authoritative, but they don’t say: For whom? How many? Compared to what? Under what conditions?

    Generalizations in medical research

    In previous work in the ethics of health communication, we highlighted how generics in medical research tend to erase nuance, transforming narrow, population-specific findings into sweeping claims that readers might misapply to all patients.

    In a systematic review of over 500 studies from top medical journals, we found more than half made generalizations beyond the populations studied. More than 80 per cent of those were generics, and fewer than 10 per cent offered any justification for these broad claims.

    Researchers’ tendency to over-generalize may reflect a deeper cognitive bias. Faced with complexity and limited attention, humans naturally gravitate toward simpler, broader claims — even when they stretch beyond what the data support. In fact, the very drive to explain the data, to tell a coherent story, can lead even careful researchers to overgeneralize.

    Artificial intelligence (AI) now threatens to significantly exacerbate this problem. In our latest research, we tested 10 widely used large language models (LLMs) — including ChatGPT, DeepSeek, LLaMA and Claude — on their ability to summarize abstracts and articles from top medical journals.

    Even when prompted for accuracy, most models routinely removed qualifiers, oversimplified findings and repackaged researchers’ carefully contextualized claims as broader statements.

    AI-generated summaries

    Analyzing nearly 5,000 LLM-generated summaries, we found rates of such over-generalizations as high as 73 per cent for some models. Very often, they converted non-generic claims into generics, for example, shifting from “the treatment was effective in this study,” to simply “the treatment is effective,” which misrepresented the study’s true scope.

    Strikingly, when we compared LLM-generated summaries to ones written by human experts, chatbots were nearly five times more likely to produce broad generalizations. But perhaps most concerning was that newer models — including ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek — tended to generalize more, not less.

    What explains these findings? LLMs trained on overgeneralized scientific texts may inherit human biases from the input. Through reinforcement learning from human feedback, they may also start favouring confident, broad conclusions over careful, contextualized claims, because users often prefer concise, assertive responses.

    The resulting miscommunication risks are high, because researchers, clinicians and students increasingly use LLMs to summarize scientific articles.

    In a recent global survey of nearly 5,000 researchers, almost half reported already using AI in their research — and 58 per cent believed AI currently does a better job summarizing literature than humans. Some claim that LLMs can outperform medical experts in clinical text summarization.

    Our study casts doubt on that optimism. Over-generalizations produced by these tools have the potential to distort scientific understanding on a large scale. This is especially worrisome in high-stakes fields like medicine, where nuances in population, effect size and uncertainty really matter.

    Precision matters

    So what can be done? For human authors, clearer guidelines and editorial policies that address both how data are reported and how findings are described can reduce over-generalizations in medical writing. Also, researchers using LLMs for summarization should favour models like Claude — the most accurate LLM in our study — and remain aware that even well-intentioned accuracy prompts can backfire.

    AI developers, in turn, could build prompts into their LLMs that encourage more cautious language when summarizing research. Lastly, our study’s methodology can help benchmark LLMs’ overgeneralization tendency before deploying them in real-world contexts.

    In medical research, precision matters — not only in how we collect and analyze data, but also in how we communicate it. Our research reveals a shared tendency in both humans and machines to overgeneralize — to say more than what the data allows.

    Tackling this tendency means holding both natural and artificial intelligence to higher standards: scrutinizing not only how researchers communicate results, but how we train the tools increasingly shaping that communication. In medicine, careful language is imperative to ensure the right treatments reach the right patients, backed by evidence that actually applies.

    Benjamin Chin-Yee receives funding from the Gates Cambridge Trust and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Uwe Peters receives funding from a Volkswagen research grant on meta-science (“The Cultural
    Evolution of Scientific Practice”; WBS GW.001123.2.4).

    – ref. Medicine’s over-generalization problem — and how AI might make things worse – https://theconversation.com/medicines-over-generalization-problem-and-how-ai-might-make-things-worse-252486

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The legal limits of Trump’s crackdown on sanctuary cities like Philadelphia

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jennifer J. Lee, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University

    Immigrant rights advocates call on Philadelphia officials to strengthen the city’s sanctuary policies at a rally on Dec. 10, 2024. Manuel Vasquez/Juntos, CC BY-NC-SA

    President Donald Trump signed an executive order on April 28, 2025, that demands the U.S. attorney general, in coordination with the secretary of Homeland Security, publish a list of cities and states that obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration laws, with the purpose of protecting Americans from “criminal aliens.”

    Philadelphia will likely end up on the list.

    Philadelphia is what’s known as a sanctuary city. While the term has no fixed definition, it usually refers to a city that has declared its refusal to cooperate – or even works at odds – with federal immigration enforcement.

    As a law professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, where I supervise students who represent low-wage immigrant workers, I know that sanctuary policies can slow the federal immigration enforcement system.

    But the bottom line is that federal immigration officers – usually U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement – can still carry out deportations in a sanctuary city.

    Further, there is no question that localities such as Philadelphia can legally decide not to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Cities, like states, have constitutional protections against being forced to administer or enforce federal programs. The Trump administration cannot force any state or local official to assist in enforcing federal immigration law.

    What remains to be seen is what, if any, action the administration will take against those jurisdictions that end up on their list of sanctuary cities.

    Philly’s sanctuary policies

    My work has involved researching sanctuary policies as well as how often ICE relies on local law enforcement to help identify and turn over immigrants.

    Philadelphia’s various sanctuary policies break that connection and leave ICE to its own devices. They also signal to immigrants that the city is not in the business of federal immigration enforcement. Research shows this helps immigrants feel safer to access public benefits and services such as getting care at a community health center or calling the police without fear of immigration consequences.

    Protestors participate in an ‘Abolish ICE’ march through downtown Philadelphia in 2018.
    Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    Philadelphia’s most notable sanctuary policy, an executive order signed by then-Mayor Jim Kenney in January 2016, is its refusal to have its jails honor ICE detainers or requests for release dates. An ICE detainer is a voluntary request asking local officials to hold an immigrant, who is otherwise going to be released, for an additional 48 hours so ICE can pick them up.

    Failing to honor ICE detainers disrupts the deportation pipeline and makes ICE’s job more difficult.

    Another key Philadelphia sanctuary policy dates back to 2009 and was signed by then-Mayor Michael Nutter. It makes clear that city officials do not police immigration. Not only are all city workers – including police, firefighters and behavioral health workers – prohibited from asking about immigration status in most situations, but police are specifically directed not to stop, arrest or detain a person “solely because of perceived immigration status.”

    Yet there is no way to enforce these sanctuary policies. Under these laws, city officials who violate them do not face consequences. Compliance relies on a commitment from officials who believe that following these policies is the right thing to do.

    Philadelphia has also acted in other ways to break the link between the city and immigration enforcement.

    Since 2017, Philadelphia jails have had a protocol that discourages ICE from interviewing immigrants held in jail. Prior to providing ICE with access to such individuals, the jails must first send a consent form to an immigrant to inform them of their right to decline an ICE interview.

    In 2018, Philadelphia ended ICE’s access to the city’s preliminary arraignment reporting system used by the Philadelphia Police Department and district attorney’s office. The city said it terminated its database-sharing contract with ICE given the “unacceptable” way the agency used the system, which “could result in immigration enforcement action against Philadelphians who haven’t been arrested, accused of, or convicted of any crime.”

    While these policies cannot protect Philadelphia residents who have been arrested by ICE, the lack of help of local officials will make it more difficult for the administration to deliver on its promise to deport a record number of immigrants.

    ICE raided a car wash and arrested seven people in Philadelphia on Jan. 28, 2025.
    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement via Getty Images

    Sanctuary campuses and churches

    Apart from the city itself, other public and private institutions within Philadelphia have created sanctuary spaces.

    In June 2021, the School Board of Philadelphia adopted a sanctuary resolution as part of an effort to create welcoming schools for immigrant children. In January 2025, the Philadelphia School District reaffirmed its commitment.

    Under the first Trump presidency, religious institutions, such as the Germantown Mennonite Church in Northwest Philly and the Tabernacle United Church in West Philly, provided sanctuary inside their churches to immigrants who had received final orders of deportation from ICE.

    The University of Pennsylvania declared itself a sanctuary campus in 2016 but is currently shying away from that label while faculty, staff and students demand that the university clarify its policies on immigration enforcement.

    Since 2011, ICE has had a “sensitive locations” memo that disfavors but does not entirely prohibit immigration enforcement in places of worship, as well as hospitals and schools. The Biden administration strengthened the “sensitive locations” memo in 2021. Trump rescinded the memo during his first month in office.

    Activists want Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker to commit to defending Philadelphia’s sanctuary policies.
    AP Photo/Matt Rourke

    Retaliation against sanctuary cities

    From the viewpoint of the Trump administration, state and local officials who defy the enforcement of immigration law are engaged in “a lawless insurrection” that creates public safety and national security risks.

    Despite the administration’s strong rhetoric about the “criminal alien,” 46% of people currently held in immigration detention have no criminal record, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. Many others have minor offenses, including traffic violations.

    The executive order vows to terminate federal grants and pursue all enforcement measures to bring such jurisdictions “into compliance with the laws of the United States.”

    Such terminations may not be legal.

    On April 24, 2025, a federal judge enjoined language in an earlier executive order directing the government to take action against sanctuary cities to ensure that they do not receive access to federal funds.

    Past instances to pull federal funding from Philadelphia because of its sanctuary city status have also failed. The first Trump administration was unsuccessful at terminating a US$1 million federal grant to Philadelphia after the city sued and won in federal court in 2017.

    The executive order also makes legally questionable claims that state and local officials who follow their sanctuary policies are engaging in criminal activity, such as the obstruction of justice, unlawful harboring or activities that violate federal RICO law. Regardless, the administration may still choose to pursue high-profile prosecutions of state and local officials.

    The federal government’s efforts to punish sanctuary cities will undoubtedly be mired in legal challenges across the country. Yet Philadelphia officials must still decide in this moment whether to stand strong with the city’s current sanctuary policies. City Council member Rue Landau has been outspoken about maintaining Philadelphia’s sanctuary status to ensure that public resources will never be used to support federal deportation efforts. But Mayor Cherelle Parker has not committed to strengthening or even ensuring the city’s sanctuary protections.

    According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, the same day Trump signed the executive order, Parker reiterated that Philadelphia still operates under its 2016 sanctuary policy. However, she did not use the term “sanctuary city,” the Inquirer noted, and she “said she would not comment in more detail until Trump makes concrete moves that affect Philadelphia.”

    This is an updated version of a story originally published on December 18, 2024.

    Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

    Jennifer J. Lee 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 legal limits of Trump’s crackdown on sanctuary cities like Philadelphia – https://theconversation.com/the-legal-limits-of-trumps-crackdown-on-sanctuary-cities-like-philadelphia-255580

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: China has identified how to fight back against Trump’s tariffs, and is not ready to back down

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chee Meng Tan, Assistant Professor of Business Economics, University of Nottingham

    US ports are now starting to see scheduled shipments from China decline as the result of Donald Trump’s 145% tariffs on Chinese goods. The port of Los Angeles, the biggest port for Chinese goods in the US, is predicting scheduled shipments in early May to be about a third lower than the same time last year.

    Declining numbers of ships arriving stocked with Chinese imports are likely to affect US supermarket shelves soon, and after warnings from US supermarket bosses, Trump responded by saying trade talks between the US and China were under way in the past few days. But Chinese president Xi Jinping quickly denied talks were happening, suggesting he has no intention of backing away from a fight with the US.

    As one of the most powerful leaders in the history of the People’s Republic of China, Xi has fashioned himself as a nationalistic icon. So if China perceives Trump’s tariffs as a bully tactic designed to undermine it, backing down from a confrontation with the US would seriously undermine Xi’s strongman image and rhetoric.

    This is something that Trump probably hadn’t considered. At a rally marking his 100 days in office, the US president was still suggesting that China would just back down and “eat the tariffs”.

    While tariffs appear to be the primary weapon in the trade war, China might have more tactics to hit back at Trump and the US economy. The question is what might they be?

    A few weeks ago it seemed like Washington might punish China’s lack of willingness to negotiate with more tariffs, but now it’s clear that Trump is willing to make a deal and is trying to get China to come to the table. Trump is now implying that US tariffs on China could come down substantially. And US treasury secretary Scott Bessent has called the trade war with China “unsustainable”.

    Leveraging agriculture and energy

    China has reduced its reliance on US farm imports since the trade war began in Trump’s first presidency. This is bad news for Washington as agriculture is one few sectors in the US that actually has a large trade surplus with China. The 125% retaliatory tariffs will harm the sector’s profitability.

    But China’s retaliatory tariffs aren’t the only issue American farmers have to contend with. As the trade war escalates, China has been using bureaucratic hurdles to restrict US agricultural products from entering China and as a potential negotiation tool. For instance, China has delayed the renewals of export license renewals of US pig farmers, and refused to renew licenses of poultry farmers for “health and safety” reasons.

    What’s the impact of tariffs?

    Beijing’s actions might be designed to particularly hit the economy in core Trump supporting states. A major part of Trump and the Republican party’s base lies in “red states”, such as Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas, all have significant farming communities. Focusing on agricultural issues is a tactic that Beijing realises will hit home with Trump voters.

    Out of the 444 US counties designated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as farming-dependent, 77.7% voted for Trump during the 2024 US presidential election. So, any hardship faced by the agriculture sector due to Trump’s own actions is likely to lose him support from a major political base. And with mid-term elections in 2026, Trump has to tread carefully when antagonising Beijing.

    Another support base that Beijing might seek to undermine is those involved in the fossil fuel sector. In the past, the US has been a top supplier of natural gas to China.

    China has not imported natural gas from the US since early February 2025, and has sought its natural gas from Australia, Indonesia, and Brunei. As the trade war continues, it is unlikely that the US would be able to sell its natural gas to China anytime soon, and this will have an impact on the energy industry – one of Trump’s major political support bases.

    Restricting minerals

    Another huge problem that the US faces stems from China’s restriction of the export of critical minerals. They include seven rare earth minerals namely samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and yttrium. While these are used in the clean energy and automobile sectors, the biggest concern would come from the US defence complex.

    These critical minerals are used in manufacturing fighter jets, submarines, missiles, and radar systems. China has an effective monopoly on the extraction and processing of rare earths, while the US lacks such capabilities. This means that China’s export restrictions are likely to affect America’s defence industry, while Beijing rapidly expands its ammunition and military technology.

    The White House probably anticipated export restrictions of critical minerals from China. After all, Beijing had banned the export of critical minerals to Japan in 2010 over a fishing trawler dispute, and stopped exporting “dual-use” metals that can be used to produce civilian and military technology, such as gallium, germanium and tungsten.

    What’s next?

    For the last few years, China has been trying to overcome an ailing economy that was primarily fuelled by a real-estate crisis. Trump probably expected China to buckle under pressure and come crawling to the negotiation table. After all, the Chinese Communist Party needs to fix its economy fast. The establishment has long relied on delivering economic prosperity to legitimise its rule over China.

    Right now the tit-for-tat battle continues. By April 11, US tariffs on China peaked at 145%, while China’s retaliatory tariffs on US goods reached an unprecedented 125%.

    Although it is clearly fighting back, China could go even further by selling off US treasuries and increasing US interest rates and thus borrowing cost. But unlike Trump, Xi often plays the long game. After all, Trump’s term as president will be over in less than four years, while Chinese president Xi has no term limits. All the latter has to do is exercise patience, and a friendlier US president might come around.

    Chee Meng Tan 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. China has identified how to fight back against Trump’s tariffs, and is not ready to back down – https://theconversation.com/china-has-identified-how-to-fight-back-against-trumps-tariffs-and-is-not-ready-to-back-down-255325

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Wealth, wellness and wellbeing: why healthier ageing isn’t just about personal choices

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simon Evans, Lecturer in Neuroscience, School of Psychology, University of Surrey

    Matej Kastelic/Shutterstock

    We’ve all heard it before: eat your five-a-day, and try to get some exercise. It’s advice that’s simple in theory, yet in practice, not everyone is able to follow it. So what’s standing in the way?

    Our research examined this question in depth. Using data from UK adults over the age of 50, we explored how socioeconomic status affects the likelihood of meeting the World Health Organization’s recommendations for physical activity and diet. These guidelines include at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity (or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity) physical activity per week and a daily intake of at least five portions of fruit and vegetables.

    What we found points to a clear and concerning disparity. Wealthier older adults are nearly twice as likely to meet both exercise and dietary recommendations compared to their less affluent peers. And perhaps even more striking, those who don’t meet these health guidelines are significantly more likely to suffer from depression.

    We analysed survey responses from more than 3,000 adults aged 50 to 90, using data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. While nearly 70% of participants reported doing some form of physical activity, the data revealed a sharp wealth divide.

    Adults in the highest wealth quintile (the top 20%) were almost twice as likely to be physically active as those in the lowest quintile. A similar pattern emerged for diet. Over 70% of those in the wealthiest group reported meeting the five-a-day guideline, compared to just over 40% in the lowest income bracket.

    This matters, because not meeting government guidelines for physical activity and diet can have serious long-term health consequences. Regular exercise is known to increase HDL (or “good”) cholesterol, improve cardiovascular health, and reduce the risk of chronic conditions like type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers.

    It also benefits brain health by lowering inflammation and even promoting the growth of new brain cells. Similarly, diets rich in fibre, vitamins, and antioxidants – found in fruits and vegetables – are associated with lower the risks of disease and cognitive decline, including conditions like Alzheimer’s.

    Depression disparity

    But the impact isn’t just physical. Our research also explored links between lifestyle and mental health. Around 19% of participants met the criteria for clinical depression, with the highest risk found among women, people living alone, smokers and those with lower incomes.

    Alarmingly, rates of depression were nearly three times higher among those in the lowest wealth quintile (32.6% were depressed) compared to those in the highest (11.1%).

    Lifestyle clearly played a role in depression levels. Among inactive participants, 30% reported symptoms of depression – more than double the rate seen in those who were physically active (13.7%). Likewise, those who didn’t meet the five-a-day guideline had a depression rate of 23.4%, compared to 15.7% among those who did.

    These results suggest that staying physically active and eating well not only improves physical health but may also play a protective role in mental wellbeing. Yet not everyone has equal access to the resources, time, or environments that support healthy living. There is also the role of social isolation as a compounding factor.

    Social disconnection is strongly linked to both poor physical and mental health, including depression and even increased mortality risk. Physical activity programmes that also offer social interaction – such as walking groups or community exercise classes – may provide even greater benefits.

    Healthy ageing for everyone

    The evidence shows that health disparities in later life are deeply tied to wealth and socioeconomic status. This means that addressing them requires more than encouraging personal responsibility – it calls for policy action.

    Financial barriers to healthy food and physical activity need to be tackled through targeted programmes, subsidies and infrastructure investments. Making healthy options accessible and affordable – especially for those in lower-income groups – will benefit people and reduce strain on healthcare systems.

    As populations continue to age, promoting health in later life is a public health priority. But that effort will only succeed if it recognises – and works to reduce – the inequalities that hold people back from living healthy, fulfilling lives.

    Simon Evans 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. Wealth, wellness and wellbeing: why healthier ageing isn’t just about personal choices – https://theconversation.com/wealth-wellness-and-wellbeing-why-healthier-ageing-isnt-just-about-personal-choices-250316

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Tony Blair opposes phasing out fossil fuels. These academics disagree

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jack Marley, Environment + Energy Editor, UK edition

    Rapidly phasing out fossil fuels and limiting energy consumption to tackle climate change is “a strategy doomed to fail” according to former UK prime minister Tony Blair.

    In the foreword of a new report, Blair urges governments to rethink their approach to reaching net zero emissions.

    Instead of policies that are seen by people as involving “financial sacrifices”, he says world leaders should deploy carbon capture and storage, including technological and nature-based approaches, to meet the rising demand for fossil fuels.

    But speak to many academic experts on climate change and they will tell a very different story: that there is no strategy for addressing climate change that does not involve ending, or at least massively reducing, fossil fuel combustion.

    This roundup of The Conversation’s climate coverage comes from our award-winning weekly climate action newsletter. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed.

    A fossil fuel phase-out is ‘essential’

    “There is a wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating that a fossil fuel phase-out will be essential for reining in the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change,” says Steve Pye, an associate professor of energy at UCL.



    Read more:
    COP28 president is wrong – science clearly shows fossil fuels must go (and fast)

    “I know because I have published some of it.”

    Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at the University of Reading, agrees.

    “Rapidly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, and not issuing new licenses to extract oil and gas, is the most effective way of minimising future climate-related disruptions,” he says.



    Read more:
    Science shows the severe climate consequences of new fossil fuel extraction

    “The sooner those with the power to shape our future recognise this, the better.”

    Fossil fuels are responsible for 90% of the carbon dioxide heating the climate. The amount burned annually is still rising, and so is the rate at which the world is getting hotter. Scientists now fear we are approaching irreversible tipping points in the climate system, hence their support for an urgent replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy.



    Read more:
    Climate tipping points are nearer than you think – our new report warns of catastrophic risk

    Blair is confident that an emergency response on this scale can be avoided by absorbing CO₂ immediately after burning fossil fuels, from the smokestacks where the greenhouse gas is concentrated.

    Not all of the emissions responsible for climate change would be prevented. UCL earth system scientist Mark Maslin says that natural gas, which would linger as an energy source thanks to carbon capture, still leaks from pipelines and storage vessels upstream of power plants.



    Read more:
    The UK’s £22 billion bet on carbon capture will lock in fossil fuels for decades

    Commercial applications of the technology also have a poor track record. Just two large-scale coal-fired power plants are operating with CCS worldwide – one in the US and one in Canada.

    “Both have experienced consistent underperformance, recurring technical issues and ballooning costs,” Maslin says.

    CCS is no alternative to turning off the fossil fuel taps.
    Pan Demin/Shutterstock

    Blair might baulk at what he perceives to be the expense of ditching fossil fuels. But economic modelling led by Oxford University’s Andrea Bacilieri suggests his concern is misplaced. A rapid phase-out of fossil fuels could save US$30 trillion (US$1 trillion a year) by 2050 she concludes, compared with allowing power plants and factories to keep burning them with CCS.

    Developing CCS will be necessary to help manage an orderly transition from fossil fuels according to Myles Allen, a professor of geosystem science at Oxford University. But it is not a substitute for undergoing that transition, he says.



    Read more:
    Getting carbon capture right will be hard – but that doesn’t make it optional

    “Above all, we need to make sure the availability of CCS does not encourage yet more CO₂ production.”

    Keeping the public on board

    Is Blair right to fret about a public backlash to lower energy use? Academics suggest multiple reasons to think otherwise if the alternative is prolonging the use of fossil fuels.



    Read more:
    Should you get a heat pump? Here’s how they compare to a gas boiler

    Replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump that runs on electricity, for example, can lower a household’s energy consumption without a deliberate effort. That’s because renewable appliances convert power to heat more efficiently (how much depends on how well insulated the home is).



    Read more:
    Heat pumps without home insulation could raise bills and energy demand – here’s what the government can do

    In fact, it’s dependence on fossil fuel that is preventing many households from making this switch. The high wholesale price of gas determines the cost of electricity for UK consumers.



    Read more:
    How gas keeps the UK’s electricity bills so high – despite lots of cheap wind power

    And surveys repeatedly show that support for net zero policies is broad and deep in the UK – including those that would involve lifestyle changes say Lorraine Whitmarsh (University of Bath), Caroline Verfuerth and Steve Westlake (both Cardiff University), who research public behaviour and climate change.



    Read more:
    Net zero: direct costs of climate policies aren’t a major barrier to public support, research reveals

    “Crucially, the public wants and needs the government to show clear and consistent leadership on climate change,” they say.

    Meanwhile, what can corrode public acceptance of sacrifices is the high-consuming behaviour of a minority (think pop stars in rockets, as Westlake recently argued). And, arguably, the statements of powerful people like Blair.



    Read more:
    Why Katy Perry’s celebrity spaceflight blazed a trail for climate breakdown

    New research even suggests the politics that Blair and many others like him favour might also play a role here. Felix Schulz (Lund University) and Christian Bretter (The University of Queensland) are social scientists who study how ideology affects personal views on climate policy.

    They identified respondents in six countries (the UK, US, Germany, Brazil, South Africa and China) who shared Blair’s neoliberal worldview, which the pair define as a belief that individuals are primarily responsible for their own fortune, and need to take care of themselves – as well as an abiding faith in the free market.



    Read more:
    People with neoliberal views are less likely to support climate-friendly policies – new research

    “We observed a strong link between a neoliberal worldview and lack of support for the climate policies in our study,” they say.

    Schulz and Bretter urge us to consider how someone’s ideology ultimately shapes their understanding of the problem and its solutions as well.

    – ref. Tony Blair opposes phasing out fossil fuels. These academics disagree – https://theconversation.com/tony-blair-opposes-phasing-out-fossil-fuels-these-academics-disagree-254530

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Even mild face blindness can cause serious difficulties in daily life – new study

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Judith Lowes, Lecturer in Psychology, University of Stirling

    Peter JB Hancock, CC BY-ND

    Have you ever been ignored by someone you knew when you bumped into them in the street or at an event? If so, you probably thought they were being rude. But they might have face blindness – a condition officially known as developmental prosopagnosia.

    In a new study my colleagues and I conducted, 29 adults with face blindness revealed the daily challenges they face. Ten of the participants said they could not reliably recognise immediate family members, and 12 couldn’t recognise closest friends in out-of-context or unexpected encounters. Yet many felt it was socially difficult to admit these struggles.

    One of the participants didn’t recognise her husband of 30 years when he unexpectedly came to pick her up from the airport. Another described how “when I am off work for a week and come back it’s really hard to figure out who is who”.

    Although public awareness of face blindness is low, there is a high chance that you already know someone with face recognition difficulties. Around one in 50 people have developmental prosopagnosia, a lifelong condition that causes severe face recognition difficulties despite otherwise normal vision, IQ and memory.

    Researchers usually describe not being able to recognise close friends and family as a “severe” form of prosopagnosia, but our new study – conducted with a colleague at Dartmouth College in the US – shows that even people classified as having “mild” prosopagnosia can have serious difficulties in daily life. This suggests that prosopagnosia diagnosis should consider real-life experiences, not just lab tests.

    Most face-blind participants who took part in the research had tried various strategies to recognise people. However, these methods required huge mental effort and often didn’t work. For example, keeping detailed notes, or even spreadsheets, with descriptions and cues about people they have met. Or mentally trying to associate a name with a personally distinctive feature.

    However, participants admitted their strategies were often “exhausting” and were particularly difficult to use at work when they were busy, concentrating on a task, or because colleagues wore uniforms or similar work clothing.

    Some prosopagnosics said they used unusual ways to recognise others, for example, by smell. Another said that worrying about a face distracted them, so they found it more helpful to look at people from behind to work out who they were.

    Prosopagnosics told researchers how their condition caused them considerable difficulties at school, at work and in everyday social situations. Two-thirds of the prosopagnosics said they could recognise fewer than ten familiar faces. Previous research suggests most adults recognise around 5,000 faces, so this difference is huge.

    A widespread worry among people with face blindness was being misjudged as rude, uncaring, or even “a bit dim” by others who didn’t understand the condition. This concern often led to social anxiety and reduced self-confidence in social situations.

    A common coping strategy was to avoid social gatherings or to deliberately keep social circles small to limit the number of faces people had to try and learn. But these strategies sometimes had a downside.

    Looking back on their lives, some people felt that their face recognition difficulties had left them socially isolated, or with “poorly developed” social skills because they hadn’t mixed much with others while growing up.

    Prosopagnosics were asked what they thought future research into face blindness should focus on. Their top priority was improved awareness and understanding that this condition exists and how it affects people. They thought this was particularly important for employers, schools and medical staff – but also for the general public.

    The research found that many simple things could make life much easier for people with face recognition difficulties. Providing large name badges at events and conferences is a simple but helpful adjustment.

    Participants said they found it a huge relief when meetings started with a round of introductions, the chair always addressed people by name, or they were given seating plans. Hot desking causes problems, so keeping a regular seating plan in a workplace or classroom can help face-blind people learn who usually sits where.

    If you are meeting a face-blind friend, sending a quick message beforehand to let them know what you are wearing and exactly where you are sitting can also help.

    A form of neurodivergence

    My colleagues and I believe that developmental prosopagnosia should be considered a type of neurodivergence. This term describes someone whose brain works differently from what is considered typical. It usually includes people with autism, ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia.

    Recognising face blindness as a form of neurodivergence isn’t just about awareness, it’s about dignity, inclusion and making everyday life easier for thousands of people.

    Judith Lowes receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and the British Psychological Society Cognitive Section.

    – ref. Even mild face blindness can cause serious difficulties in daily life – new study – https://theconversation.com/even-mild-face-blindness-can-cause-serious-difficulties-in-daily-life-new-study-254644

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Medicine’s overgeneralization problem — and how AI might make things worse

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Benjamin Chin-Yee, Hematologist/Assistant Professor, Western University

    In medicine, there’s a well-known maxim: never say more than your data allows. It’s one of the first lessons learned by clinicians and researchers.

    Journal editors expect it. Reviewers demand it. And medical researchers mostly comply. They hedge, qualify and narrow their claims — often at the cost of clarity. Take this conclusion, written to mirror the style of a typical clinical trial report:

    “In a randomized trial of 498 European patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, the treatment increased median progression free survival by 4.6 months, with grade three to four adverse events in 60 per cent of patients and modest improvements in quality-of-life scores, though the findings may not generalize to older or less fit populations.”

    It’s medical writing at its most exacting — and exhausting. Precise, but not exactly easy to take in.

    Unsurprisingly, then, those careful conclusions often get streamlined into something cleaner and more confident. The above example might be simplified into something like: “The treatment improves survival and quality of life.” “The drug has acceptable toxicity.” “Patients with multiple myeloma benefit from the new treatment.” Clear, concise — but often beyond what the data justify.

    Philosophers call these kinds of statements generics — generalizations without explicit quantifiers. Statements like “the treatment is effective” or “the drug is safe” sound authoritative, but they don’t say: For whom? How many? Compared to what? Under what conditions?

    Generalizations in medical research

    In previous work in the ethics of health communication, we highlighted how generics in medical research tend to erase nuance, transforming narrow, population-specific findings into sweeping claims that readers might misapply to all patients.

    In a systematic review of over 500 studies from top medical journals, we found more than half made generalizations beyond the populations studied. More than 80 per cent of those were generics, and fewer than 10 per cent offered any justification for these broad claims.

    Researchers’ tendency to over-generalize may reflect a deeper cognitive bias. Faced with complexity and limited attention, humans naturally gravitate toward simpler, broader claims — even when they stretch beyond what the data support. In fact, the very drive to explain the data, to tell a coherent story, can lead even careful researchers to overgeneralize.

    Artificial intelligence (AI) now threatens to significantly exacerbate this problem. In our latest research, we tested 10 widely used large language models (LLMs) — including ChatGPT, DeepSeek, LLaMA and Claude — on their ability to summarize abstracts and articles from top medical journals.

    Even when prompted for accuracy, most models routinely removed qualifiers, oversimplified findings and repackaged researchers’ carefully contextualized claims as broader statements.

    AI-generated summaries

    Analyzing nearly 5,000 LLM-generated summaries, we found rates of such over-generalizations as high as 73 per cent for some models. Very often, they converted non-generic claims into generics, for example, shifting from “the treatment was effective in this study,” to simply “the treatment is effective,” which misrepresented the study’s true scope.

    Strikingly, when we compared LLM-generated summaries to ones written by human experts, chatbots were nearly five times more likely to produce broad generalizations. But perhaps most concerning was that newer models — including ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek — tended to generalize more, not less.

    What explains these findings? LLMs trained on overgeneralized scientific texts may inherit human biases from the input. Through reinforcement learning from human feedback, they may also start favouring confident, broad conclusions over careful, contextualized claims, because users often prefer concise, assertive responses.

    The resulting miscommunication risks are high, because researchers, clinicians and students increasingly use LLMs to summarize scientific articles.

    In a recent global survey of nearly 5,000 researchers, almost half reported already using AI in their research — and 58 per cent believed AI currently does a better job summarizing literature than humans. Some claim that LLMs can outperform medical experts in clinical text summarization.

    Our study casts doubt on that optimism. Over-generalizations produced by these tools have the potential to distort scientific understanding on a large scale. This is especially worrisome in high-stakes fields like medicine, where nuances in population, effect size and uncertainty really matter.

    Precision matters

    So what can be done? For human authors, clearer guidelines and editorial policies that address both how data are reported and how findings are described can reduce over-generalizations in medical writing. Also, researchers using LLMs for summarization should favour models like Claude — the most accurate LLM in our study — and remain aware that even well-intentioned accuracy prompts can backfire.

    AI developers, in turn, could build prompts into their LLMs that encourage more cautious language when summarizing research. Lastly, our study’s methodology can help benchmark LLMs’ overgeneralization tendency before deploying them in real-world contexts.

    In medical research, precision matters — not only in how we collect and analyze data, but also in how we communicate it. Our research reveals a shared tendency in both humans and machines to overgeneralize — to say more than what the data allows.

    Tackling this tendency means holding both natural and artificial intelligence to higher standards: scrutinizing not only how researchers communicate results, but how we train the tools increasingly shaping that communication. In medicine, careful language is imperative to ensure the right treatments reach the right patients, backed by evidence that actually applies.

    Benjamin Chin-Yee receives funding from the Gates Cambridge Trust and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Uwe Peters receives funding from a Volkswagen research grant on meta-science (“The Cultural
    Evolution of Scientific Practice”; WBS GW.001123.2.4).

    – ref. Medicine’s overgeneralization problem — and how AI might make things worse – https://theconversation.com/medicines-overgeneralization-problem-and-how-ai-might-make-things-worse-252486

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: People with neoliberal views are less likely to support climate-friendly policies – new research

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Felix Schulz, Research Fellow, Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, Lund University

    Sambulov Yevgeniy/Shutterstock

    Donald Trump won the US election on a campaign that included rolling back environmental laws. In the UK, Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch has called the national net zero target “impossible”. And former prime minister Tony Blair has said the current approach of phasing out fossil fuels is “doomed to fail”.

    Meanwhile in Germany, the parties in the most likely incoming coalition government hardly engaged with climate policy during the recent election campaign – and the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which openly denies human-made climate change, received 20% of the vote.

    With political leaders around the world moving away from progressive climate policy, it’s worth asking: is this what the public wants?

    When it comes to the climate, what people think is influenced by where they live and what else they believe in. In recently published research, we sought to find out just how much people’s ideologies affected their views on climate policy.

    We surveyed representative samples of the public in six countries about their attitudes towards different types of climate policy. We asked about support for regulation (for example, building and vehicle standards or product bans), taxes (like carbon taxes), subsidies (to promote low-carbon alternatives), and information-based policies (such as emission disclosure requirements). Our survey covered policies in transport, housing, energy and industry.

    We also asked respondents about their ideologies: cultural worldviews, personal values, free market beliefs and political trust. Our findings reveal how people’s ideologies shape their support for climate policies.

    We included three high-income countries of the global north (the US, UK and Germany) and three upper-middle income countries from the global south (Brazil, South Africa and China). Together, these six countries are responsible for half of global CO₂ emissions.

    Our definition of global south, which includes countries such as China, is based on work by UN Trade and Development and the UN G-77 countries. It includes Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, most of Asia (excluding Israel, Japan and South Korea) and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand). These countries generally have lower per capita income and are considered “developing” compared to global north countries.

    This comparison is important because, as we will explain, political and economic ideologies that originated in the global north can influence how people view climate policies.

    Across all policy types, we found more support for climate policies in the global south countries. In the global north countries, we found only minority support for regulatory policies and climate-related taxes. In Germany, support for regulatory policies and taxes was as little as 18%.

    Subsidies for the four sectors – for example, to support renewable energy projects or the production of green steel – received 35% support in Germany and 48% in the US. In contrast, the majority of the public in the three countries of the global south supported subsidies and regulatory climate policies.

    As with subsidies, we found strong majority support for information-based policies in the three countries of the global south (74-79%), against only minority support in Germany (36%) and the US (49%). In the UK, 53% supported information-based climate policies.

    Personal values play a role in support for the policies. Our findings show people with stronger biospheric values – the importance people place on the environment and the relationship between humans and nature – are more supportive of climate policies. This is true irrespective of the country they live in. People who are more trusting of political institutions and politicians also support these policies more.

    But demographics such as age, gender, education or income have a negligible effect on attitudes towards these policies, when accounting for other factors in our analysis.

    Neoliberalism and the climate

    We observed a strong link between a neoliberal worldview and lack of support for the climate policies in our study. As a political economic project, neoliberalism originated in the global north. But it continues to take root in the global south, particularly in Latin America.

    The belief that individuals need to take care of themselves and are responsible for their own fortune and problems was associated with less support for climate policies. And in every country we studied, we found a strong relationship between support for the free market and lack of support for climate policies.

    People who believe the free market is best at allocating outcomes efficiently and meeting human needs without government interference, and that it is more important than some local environmental concerns, show less support for the climate policies.

    These two sets of beliefs – individualistic worldviews and support for the free market – are the core principles of neoliberal thought.

    In the Global North countries, we found only only minority support for regulatory policies and climate-related taxes.
    Fotogrin/Shutterstock

    The superiority of the market over governments as an efficient and fair allocation machine has been the mantra of neoliberal politicians, thinktanks and institutions for more than half a century.

    Neoliberalism opposes government regulation and spending, and supports the free market. It also fosters an individualistic worldview. Instead of seeing themselves as workers, citizens or members of a collective, people are persuaded to internalise market logic – to see themselves as individuals who are out to maximise their personal profit.

    The cultural shift from more communitarian and egalitarian ideals towards an ideology based on the self-driven individual and the free market has been quite successful. Empirical evidence from 41 countries shows that individualist practices and values around the world have surged significantly over the past 50 years.

    We know from research that what the public thinks (or votes for) does influence what governments do. This is true even when accounting for the influence of powerful interest groups.

    So, those creating and campaigning for urgently needed climate policies need to take this into account. Support for climate policies isn’t just about whether someone believes in human-made climate change or cares about the planet – there are deeply-rooted ideological factors at play too.

    Felix Schulz receives funding from Formas, a Swedish research council for sustainable development and the Hans-Böckler-Foundation.

    Christian Bretter 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. People with neoliberal views are less likely to support climate-friendly policies – new research – https://theconversation.com/people-with-neoliberal-views-are-less-likely-to-support-climate-friendly-policies-new-research-253478

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: No criminal charges over death of ice hockey player during game – what this means for sport and the law

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Victoria Silverwood, Lecturer in Criminology, Director of Swansea Centre of Research in Sport & Society (SCORSS), Swansea University

    The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has announced that no criminal charges will be brought against Canadian ice hockey player Matt Petgrave in relation to the death of American player Adam Johnson during a British Elite League match in October 2023.

    Petgrave had been arrested in November 2023 on suspicion of manslaughter after his skate blade struck Johnson’s neck during open play in a game between Nottingham Panthers and Sheffield Steelers. Johnson was taken to hospital but later died. Thousands of fans had been watching the match at Sheffield’s Utilita Arena.

    Petgrave was released and bailed seven times over the following 17 months while South Yorkshire Police continued their investigation. He had denied the allegations and called the incident a “tragic accident”.

    The decision ends a case that has gripped the ice hockey community. It has also raised difficult legal questions about violence in sport, degrees of responsibility, and how far criminal law should intervene in such incidents.

    Deaths in professional sport are rare, and criminal investigations following them are even rarer. Johnson’s death occurred in an extremely fast and physical game where players wear blades on their feet and routinely engage in full-contact play.

    Although this was a workplace incident, since both men were employees of their respective clubs, it was not handled by the Health and Safety Executive, as many fatal incidents in other professions would be. Instead, the case was investigated by Sheffield Council and South Yorkshire Police.

    The decision to arrest Petgrave surprised many in the sport. It is understood that all parties voluntarily cooperated with the investigation. What is often overlooked is that an arrest can help protect the rights of the person under investigation, ensuring legal representation and placing time limits on police questioning.

    Still, many questioned the length of the process, particularly the 17-month delay and repeated bail extensions. For the families of both Johnson and Petgrave, the uncertainty has been long and painful.

    What does the law saw about violence in sport?

    Sport enjoys a special relationship with the law, as my research has explored. Players are generally considered to have given “implied consent” to physical contact that would otherwise be unlawful – as long as that contact stays within the normal rules of the game.

    Ice hockey, with its high-speed collisions and culture of on-ice fighting, clearly tests the limits of that consent. But where is the line between a legal part of the game and criminal behaviour?

    To bring a criminal charge, the CPS must be satisfied of two things. First, that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic chance of conviction. And second, that a prosecution would be in the public interest. In this case, neither threshold was met.

    Criminal convictions in sport are extremely rare. In one of the few UK cases, a recreational ice hockey player, Macauley Stones, received a suspended jail sentence for grievous bodily harm during an on-ice brawl in 2017. In the trial, the judge criticised the “legal vacuum” that exists in contact sports such as ice hockey.

    This grey area affects the public interest test, as all criminal cases risk complication by the confused nature of consent. So, it is not surprising that investigations into Johnson’s death took such a long time, or that the decision was ultimately made not to charge Petgrave with a crime.

    Safety reforms

    Johnson’s death has already led to some promising changes to ice hockey player safety. Shortly after the incident, the coroner called for neck protection to be compulsory for players.

    Neck guards, which help prevent skate blade injuries, were immediately enforced by governing body England Ice Hockey, and later adopted by the Elite Ice Hockey League in which Petgrave and Johnson played. They have also been adopted by the International Ice Hockey Federation and the American Hockey League.

    This rapid response was perhaps surprising in a sport that has often been slow to bring in new safety measures. Helmets only became compulsory in North America’s National Hockey League in the late 1970s, and face visors even later.



    Read more:
    Hockey’s wake-up call: Neck guards should be mandatory following Adam Johnson’s death

    The tragedy has also united the ice hockey community globally in raising awareness of, and funds to support, player safety. Campaigns like Adam’s Angels have raised money for player safety initiatives, including providing bleed kits to teams across the UK.

    Although the criminal investigation is now closed, the broader legal questions are far from settled. Without charges being brought, the courts will not have the chance to examine the role of implied consent in this case. So, no new legal precedent will be set. That task will probably fall to the sport’s governing bodies.

    Some may assume that because ice hockey is a minority sport in the UK, this case has few wider effects. But legal precedent doesn’t always stay within its original context. A ruling about consent to violence in ice hockey could have had ripple effects across other high-contact and combat sports, from rugby to boxing and beyond.

    Johnson’s death shocked not only ice hockey fans but the wider sporting public. And while no criminal case will be heard, the conversation about safety in high-risk sport is far from over.

    Dr Victoria Silverwood has previously received PhD funding from The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). She is affiliated with Progressive Rugby.

    – ref. No criminal charges over death of ice hockey player during game – what this means for sport and the law – https://theconversation.com/no-criminal-charges-over-death-of-ice-hockey-player-during-game-what-this-means-for-sport-and-the-law-255552

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –