NewzIntel.com

Category: Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: How do we define Canadian content? Debates will shape how creatives make a living

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Daphne Rena Idiz, Postdoctoral fellow, Department of Arts, Culture and Media, University of Toronto

    What should count as Canadian content (CanCon) in the era of streaming and generative AI (GenAI)?

    That’s the biggest unknown at the heart of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s recent (CRTC) public hearing, held in Gatineau, Que., from May 14 to 27.

    The debate is about how Canada’s current points-based CanCon system remains effective in the context of global streaming giants and generative AI. Shows qualify as CanCon by assigning value to roles like director, screenwriter and lead actors being Canadian.

    The outcome will shape who gets to tell Canadian stories and what those stories are, and also which ones count as Canadian under the law. This, in turn, will determine who in the film and television industries can access funding, tax credits and visibility on streaming services.

    It will also determine which Canadian productions big streamers like Netflix will invest in under their Online Streaming Act obligations.

    The federal government’s recent announcement that it’s rescinding the Digital Services Tax reveals the limits of Canada’s leverage over Big Tech, underscoring the significance of CanCon rules as parameters around how streaming giants contribute meaningfully to the country’s creative industries.

    CanCon: Who gets to decide?

    The CRTC’s existing approach to defining CanCon relies on the citizenship of key creative personnel.

    The National Film Board argued that this misses the “cultural elements” of Canadian storytelling. These include cultural expression, narrative themes and connection to Canadian audiences. That is, a production might technically count as CanCon by hiring Canadians, without feeling particularly “Canadian.”

    It’s worth noting there are varied global regulatory frameworks for defining film nationality. The Writers Guild of Canada supports the CRTC’s view that cultural elements shouldn’t be part of CanCon certification, and argues that attempting to further codify cultural criteria risks reducing Canadian identity to superficial symbols like maple leaves or hockey sticks, and could exclude entire genres like sci-fi or fantasy.

    ‘Canadianness’ too broad to regulate?

    The Writers Guild of Canada argues that while Canadians should expect to see cultural elements in programming, the concept of “Canadianness” is too broad and subjective to be effectively regulated.

    Cultural elements are regulated by the 1991 Broadcasting Act as amended by the 2023 Online Streaming Act. Broadcasters and streamers must reflect Canadian stories, identities and cultural expressions.



    Read more:
    How the Online Streaming Act will support Canadian content

    The acts empower broadcasters and streamers to decide which Canadian stories and content will be developed, produced and distributed through commissioning and licensing powers. This implicitly limits the CRTC’s role to setting rules about which creatives are at the table.

    The Writer’s Guild advocates broadening the pool of Canadian key creatives to modernize the CanCon system. It trusts the combined perspectives of a broader pool to make creative decisions about Canadian identity in meaningful ways. Accordingly, it supports the CRTC’s intent to add the showrunner role to the point system since showrunners are the “the chief custodian of the creative vision of a series.”

    Battle over Canadian IP

    Streaming introduces more players with financial stakes, complicating who controls content and who profits from it. A seismic shift is happening in how intellectual property (IP) is handled.

    CRTC has proposed that the updated CanCon definition include Canadian IP ownership as a mandatory element to enable Canadian companies and workers to retain some control over their own IP, and thereby earn sustainable income. For example, in a streaming drama, Canadian screenwriters who retain ownership of the IP could earn ongoing revenue through licensing deals, international sales and royalties each time the series is distributed.

    However, the Motion Picture Association-Canada (MPA-Canada), representing industry titans like Netflix, Amazon and Disney, is pushing back against requirements that mandate the sharing of territory or IP.

    Without IP rights, Canadian talent and the industry as a whole may be reduced to becoming service providers for global companies.

    Fair remuneration, IP rights needed

    Our own research highlights how this type of contractual arrangement increases the power asymmetries between producers, distributors and streaming services. We emphasize the critical importance of fair remuneration and IP rights for creators.

    Intervenors shared a range of preferences from 100 per cent Canadian IP ownership to none at all. One hundred per cent Canadian IP ownership means Canadian creators like a producer of a streaming series would control the rights to the content. They would receive the majority of profits from licensing, distribution and future adaptations.

    Even 51 per cent ownership could give them a controlling stake, but would likely require sharing revenue and decision-making with the streaming service.

    AI and CanCon

    And then, of course, there’s the question of how generative AI should be considered within the updated CanCon definition. The Writers Guild of Canada has drawn a firm line in the sand: AI-generated material should not qualify as Canadian content.

    The guild argues that since current AI tools don’t possess identity, nationality or cultural context, their output cannot advance the goals of the Broadcasting Act, centred on promoting Canadian voices and stories.

    The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA) raised a different concern around AI. AI, ACTRA argued, “should not take over the jobs of the creators in the ecosystem that we’re in and we should not treat AI-generated performers as if they are a Canadian actor.”

    Depending on how the CRTC addresses AI, this could mean that streaming content featuring AI-generated scripts, characters, or performances — even if developed by a Canadian creator or set in Canada — would not qualify as CanCon.

    The WGC notes that it has already negotiated restrictions on AI use in screenwriting through its agreement with the Canadian Media Producers Association. These guardrails are being held up as the “emerging industry standard.”

    Follow the money

    Another contested point is how streamers should pay into CanCon: through direct investment or through more traditional modes of financing. Under the Online Streaming Act, streamers are required to pay five per cent of their annual revenues to certain Canadian funds.

    This model echoes previous requirements used to manage decision-making at media broadcasters, some at the much more substantial level of 30 per cent.

    But no payments have been made yet, and streamers are appealing this requirement. Streamers prefer investing directly into Canadian content, taking a risk on its commercial potential to benefit from resulting successes.

    Research in the European Union and Canada highlight how different stakeholders benefit from different forms of financial obligations, suggesting the industry may be best served by a policy mix.

    As Canada rewrites its broadcasting rules, defining Canadian content is a courtroom drama unfolding in real time — and the verdict will have serious ramifications.

    MaryElizabeth Luka receives research project funding from peer-adjudicated grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and internal grants at University of Toronto, such as the Creative Labour Critical Futures Cluster of Scholarly Prominence.

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

    – ref. How do we define Canadian content? Debates will shape how creatives make a living – https://theconversation.com/how-do-we-define-canadian-content-debates-will-shape-how-creatives-make-a-living-258013

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: AI-powered assistive technologies are changing how we experience and imagine public space

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ron Buliung, Professor, Geography and Planning, University of Toronto

    AI-powered assistive devices, like hearing aids, are changing how the people who use them experience public space. (Shutterstock)

    New applications and the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) with wearable devices are changing the way users interact with their environments and each other. The impacts and reach of these new technologies have yet to be fully understood.

    Connections between technologies and bodies is not a new thing for many disabled persons. Assistive technologies — tools and products designed to support people with disabilities — have played a part in mitigating built and institutional barriers experienced by disabled persons for decades.

    While not strictly considered assistive, immersive and wearable technologies have the potential to change the relationship between disabled users and their experience of place.

    For example, Ray-Ban’s Meta glasses use AI to describe what the cameras are capturing using the Be My Eyes app. Using OpenAI’s large language model, ChatGPT, this effectively turns a user’s smart phone into a vision assistant.

    Beyond wearables, some technologies are more closely tied to or integrated with the body. Examples include brain-computer interfaces, AI-enabled prosthetics and bone-anchored hearing aids.

    The availability and production of environmental data from these technologies may impact how we relate to each other, how we move through and understand space, and how we engage with the physical environment around us at any given moment.

    Sam Seavey, founder of TheBlindLife.com, reviews the possibilities and limitations of Apple’s VisionPro. (The Blind Life)

    We’re at a critical juncture where AI-enabled technologies used by individuals may profoundly impact our urban futures.

    What happens, for example, when wearables make any “place” a digital work or play place? What does a largely private-sector, consumer-driven, AI-enabled digital intervention into a city’s spaces mean for planning, zoning and taxation? What are the environmental costs of the global AI project?

    And crucially, who gets to participate in this digital reimagining?

    AI and the city

    While access can be challenging — wearables are often costly — ableist thinking regarding the use of technology to render invisible Blind and/or Deaf people and culture is also a problem. Some people might naively assume that all Blind and Deaf people are universally seeking a bio-technological “miracle.”

    There are also other challenges: how a technology captures or describes its data may not match up to a user’s pre-existing sense of place. Moreover, access to tech can produce some unintended consequences, including the erosion of in-person community building among disabled people.

    Hearing loss of some kind affects around 1.5 billion people: I am one of those people. I am a disability studies scholar who wears behind-the-ear hearing aids to augment my hearing experience.

    My hearing aids use AI and machine learning to sense and adjust my sound environment. They help me cope with the ways in which the places of my everyday life — such as my home or the lecture hall — are generally configured for people without hearing loss.

    When I use my hearing aids, I find that the city has never sounded so wonderful, and yet sometimes irritatingly loud. The sound of birds is one thing; the grinding sound of a breaking subway is another entirely.

    Cumulative exposure to noisy indoor and outdoor places of the city poses auditory health risks, such as noise-induced hearing loss or tinnitus, and can contribute to poor health more broadly. I have to be careful about ongoing noise exposure, and by adjusting the volume of my hearing aids, I can turn down the city when I want to.

    Future bodies and urban futures

    AI-powered technologies can exacerbate issues of access, privilege and freedom of movement. This happens both through who is able to purchase and use devices, as well as through data and their applications. Data may be biased in terms of race, gender, sexuality and disability.

    Scientific research and media representations tend to highlight the benevolent possibilities of technologies for “repairing” bodies conceived as being functionally medically deficient.

    Much less is said about disabled persons controlling the narrative, taking up key roles in the messy terrain of AI, machine learning and data governance, and in the planning and design of future cities.

    Digital modelling

    We are also witnessing growing interest in the digital twinning — creating highly accurate digital models — of everything from human hearts to entire cities.

    Whether rendered at the scale of the body or city, the motivation for twinning appears centred on planning and performance optimization — a quest for perfection. Like any model, we are dealing with an abstraction from reality. City twins seem to fail to capture many of the fine grain environmental barriers experienced by disabled persons.



    Read more:
    What are digital twins? A pair of computer modeling experts explain

    Ownership limits

    Not everyone can, should or wishes to be technologically “assisted” or augmented. There are medical, identity and culture, affordability, legal, moral and ethical concerns.



    Read more:
    Super-intelligence and eternal life: transhumanism’s faithful follow it blindly into a future for the elite

    Other issues raised by brain-computer interface research, for example, include concerns about legal capacity and ownership of the self, including ownership of device-generated data.

    In a study on the impact of neural technologies, researchers shared the legal repercussions relating to two disabled people deprived of voting rights in Spain. The person who recovered the ability to communicate autonomously using their finger and a computer had their rights restored, while the other, who used a human intermediary, did not.

    Legal questions also arise regarding how liability is assigned when augmented bodies are injured or cause injuries to others.

    Where does the person end and the technology begin, and vice versa? Who gets to decide?

    Future technologies

    As the use of AI and assistive technologies increases in everyday urban life, we will need to address these questions sooner rather than later.

    And if disabled persons are not adequately involved in these discussions and decisions, then cities will be less — rather than more — accessible.

    Ron Buliung 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. AI-powered assistive technologies are changing how we experience and imagine public space – https://theconversation.com/ai-powered-assistive-technologies-are-changing-how-we-experience-and-imagine-public-space-229836

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Moon mining is getting closer to reality: Why we need global rules for extracting space resources

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Martina Elia Vitoloni, DCL Candidate Air and Space Law, McGill University

    Mountains on the moon as seen by NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. (NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University)

    In science-fiction stories, companies often mine the moon or asteroids. While this may seem far-fetched, this idea is edging closer to becoming reality.

    Celestial bodies like the moon contain valuable resources, such as lunar regolith — also known as moon dust — and helium-3. These resources could serve a range of applications, including making rocket propellant and generating energy to sustaining long missions, bringing benefits in space and on Earth.

    The first objective on this journey is being able to collect lunar regolith. One company taking up this challenge is ispace, a Japanese space exploration company ispace that signed a contract with NASA in 2020 for the collection and transfer of ownership of lunar regolith.

    The company recently attempted to land its RESILIENCE lunar lander, but the mission was ultimately unsuccessful. Still, this endeavour marked a significant move toward the commercialization of space resources.

    These circumstances give rise to a fundamental question: what are the legal rules governing the exploitation of space resources? The answer is both simple and complex, as there is a mix of international agreements and evolving regulations to consider.

    What does the international legal system say?

    The cornerstone legal instrument for space activity is the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, more commonly referred to as the Outer Space Treaty.

    While space law is often considered a novel legal field, the Outer Space Treaty dates back to 1967, making it more than half a century old.



    Read more:
    Space exploration should aim for peace, collaboration and co-operation, not war and competition

    Space activities have exponentially evolved since the treaty’s adoption. In the 60 years following the launch of Sputnik 1 — the first satellite placed in orbit — less than 500 space objects were launched annually. But since 2018, this number has risen into the thousands, with nearly 3,000 launched in 2024.

    Because of this, the treaty is often judged as inadequate to address the current complexities of space activities, particularly resource exploitation.

    A longstanding debate centres on whether Article II of the treaty, which prohibits the appropriation of outer space — including the moon and other celestial bodies — also prohibits space mining.

    The prevailing position is that Article II solely bans the appropriation of territory, not the extraction of resources themselves.

    We are now at a crucial moment in the development of space law. Arguing over whether extraction is legal serves no purpose. Instead, the focus must shift to ensuring resource extraction is carried out in accordance with principles that ensure the safe and responsible use of outer space.

    International and national space laws

    A significant development in the governance of space resources has been the adoption Artemis Accords, which — as of June 2025 — has 55 signatory nations. The accords reflect a growing international consensus concerning the exploitation of space resources.

    Notably, Section 10 of the accords indicates that the exploitation of space resources does not constitute appropriation, and therefore doesn’t violate the Outer Space Treaty.

    Considering the typically slow pace of multilateral negotiations, a handful of nations introduced national legislation. These laws govern the legality of space resource exploitation, allowing private companies to request licenses to conduct this type of activity.

    To date, six nations have enacted this type of legislation: the United States in 2015, Luxembourg in 2017, the United Arab Emirates in 2019, Japan in 2021, Brazil in 2024 and most recently, Italy, which passed its law on June 11, 2025.

    Among these, Luxembourg’s legal framework is the most complete. It provides a series of requirements to provide authorization for the exploitation of space resources. In fact, ispace’s licence to collect lunar regolith was obtained under this regime.

    This first high-resolution image taken on the first day of the Artemis I mission by a camera on the tip of one of Orion’s solar arrays. The spacecraft was 57,000 miles from Earth when the image was captured.
    (NASA)

    The rest of the regulations usually tend to limit themselves to proclaiming the legality of this activity without entering into too much detail and deferring the specifics of implementation to future regulations.

    While these initiatives served to put space resources at the forefront of international forums, they also risk regulatory fragmentation, as different countries adopt varying standards and approaches.

    What does the future hold?

    Recognizing the need for a co-ordinated global approach, the United Nations Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space created a Working Group on Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities. Its mandate is to develop a set of general principles to guide the development of the activity.

    In May 2025, the chair of the working group, Steven Freeland, presented a draft of recommended principles based on input from member states.

    These principles reaffirm the freedom of use and exploration of outer space for peaceful purposes, while introducing rules pertaining to the safety of the activities and their sustainability, as well as the protection of the environment, both of Earth and outer space.

    The development of a legal framework for space resources is still in its early stages. The working group is expected to submit its final report by 2027, but the non-binding nature of the principles raises concerns about their enforcement and application.

    As humanity moves closer to extracting and using space resources, the need for a cohesive and responsible governance system has never been greater.

    Martina Elia Vitoloni 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. Moon mining is getting closer to reality: Why we need global rules for extracting space resources – https://theconversation.com/moon-mining-is-getting-closer-to-reality-why-we-need-global-rules-for-extracting-space-resources-259343

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: AI is advancing even faster than sci-fi visionaries like Neal Stephenson imagined

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Rizwan Virk, Faculty Associate, PhD Candidate in Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology, Arizona State University

    In Stephenson’s novel ‘The Diamond Age,’ a device called the Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer offers emotional, social and intellectual support. Christopher Michel/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    Every time I read about another advance in AI technology, I feel like another figment of science fiction moves closer to reality.

    Lately, I’ve been noticing eerie parallels to Neal Stephenson’s 1995 novel “The Diamond Age: Or, A Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer.”

    “The Diamond Age” depicted a post-cyberpunk sectarian future, in which society is fragmented into tribes, called phyles. In this future world, sophisticated nanotechnology is ubiquitous, and a new type of AI is introduced.

    Though inspired by MIT nanotech pioneer Eric Drexler and Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman, the advanced nanotechnology depicted in the novel still remains out of reach. However, the AI that’s portrayed, particularly a teaching device called the Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer, isn’t only right in front of us; it also raises serious issues about the role of AI in labor, learning and human behavior.

    In Stephenson’s novel, the Primer looks like a hardcover book, but each of its “pages” is really a screen display that can show animations and text, and it responds to its user in real time via AI. The book also has an audio component, which voices the characters and narrates stories being told by the device.

    It was originally created for the young daughter of an aristocrat, but it accidentally falls into the hands of a girl named Nell who’s living on the streets of a futuristic Shanghai. The Primer provides Nell personalized emotional, social and intellectual support during her journey to adulthood, serving alternatively as an AI companion, a storyteller, a teacher and a surrogate parent.

    The AI is able to weave fairy tales that help a younger Nell cope with past traumas, such as her abusive home and life on the streets. It educates her on everything from math to cryptography to martial arts. In a techno-futuristic homage to George Bernard Shaw’s 1913 play “Pygmalion,” the Primer goes so far as to teach Nell the proper social etiquette to be able to blend into neo-Victorian society, one of the prominent tribes in Stephenson’s balkanized world.

    No need for ‘ractors’

    Three recent developments in AI – in video games, wearable technology and education – reveal that building something like the Primer should no longer be considered the purview of science fiction.

    In May 2025, the hit video game “Fortnite” introduced an AI version of Darth Vader, who speaks with the voice of the late James Earl Jones.

    The estate of James Earl Jones gave Epic Games permission to use the late actor’s voice for an AI Darth Vader.
    Jim Spellman/WireImage via Getty Images

    While it was popular among fans of the game, the Screen Actors Guild lodged a labor complaint with Epic Games, the creator of “Fortnite.” Even though Epic had received permission from the late actor’s estate, the Screen Actors Guild pointed out that actors could have been hired to voice the character, and the company – in refusing to alert the union and negotiate terms – violated existing labor agreements.

    In “The Diamond Age,” while the Primer uses AI to generate the fairy tales that train Nell, for the voices of these archetypal characters, Stephenson concocted a low-tech solution: The characters are played by a network of what he termed “ractors” – real actors working in a studio who are contracted to perform and interact in real time with users.

    The Darth Vader “Fortnite” character shows that a Primer built today wouldn’t need to use actors at all. It could rely almost entirely on AI voice generation and have real-time conversations, showing that today’s technology already exceeds Stephenson’s normally far-sighted vision.

    Recording and guiding in real time

    Synthesizing James Earl Jones’ voice in “Fortnite” wasn’t the only recent AI development heralding the arrival of Primer-like technology.

    I recently witnessed a demonstration of wearable AI that records all of the wearer’s conversations. Their words are then sent to a server so they can be analyzed by AI, providing both summaries and suggestions to the user about future behavior.

    Several startups are making these “always on” AI wearables. In an April 29, 2025, essay titled “I Recorded Everything I Said for Three Months. AI Has Replaced My Memory,” Wall Street Journal technology columnist Joanna Stern describes the experience of using this technology. She concedes that the assistants created useful summaries of her conversations and meetings, along with helpful to-do lists. However, they also recalled “every dumb, private and cringeworthy thing that came out of my mouth.”

    AI wearable devices that continuously record the conversations of their users have recently hit the market.

    These devices also create privacy issues. The people whom the user interacts with don’t always know they are being recorded, even as their words are also sent to a server for the AI to process them. To Stern, the technology’s potential for mass surveillance becomes readily apparent, presenting a “slightly terrifying glimpse of the future.”

    Relying on AI engines such as ChatGPT, Claude and Google’s Gemini, the wearables work only with words, not images. Behavioral suggestions occur only after the fact. However, a key function of the Primer – coaching users in real time in the middle of any situation or social interaction – is the next logical step as the technology advances.

    Education or social engineering?

    In “The Diamond Age,” the Primer doesn’t simply weave interactive fairy tales for Nell. It also assumes the responsibility of educating her on everything from her ABCs when younger to the intricacies of cryptography and politics as she gets older.

    It’s no secret that AI tools, such as ChatGPT, are now being widely used by both teachers and students.

    Several recent studies have shown that AI may be more effective than humans at teaching computer science. One survey found that 85% of students said ChatGPT was more effective than a human tutor. And at least one college, Morehouse College in Atlanta, is introducing an AI teaching assistant for professors.

    There are certainly advantages to AI tutors: Tutoring and college tuition can be exorbitantly expensive, and the technology can offer better access to education to people of all income levels.

    Pulling together these latest AI advances – interactive avatars, behavioral guides, tutors – it’s easy to envision how an AI device like the Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer could be created in the near future. A young person might have a personalized AI character that accompanies them at all times. It can teach them about the world and offer up suggestions for how to act in certain situations. The AI could be tailored to a child’s personality, concocting stories that include AI versions of their favorite TV and movie characters.

    But “The Diamond Age” offers a warning, too.

    Toward the end of the novel, a version of the Primer is handed out to hundreds of thousands of young Chinese girls who, like Nell, didn’t have access to education or mentors. This leads to the education of the masses. But it also opens the door to large-scale social engineering, creating an army of Primer-raised martial arts experts, whom the AI then directs to act on behalf of “Princess Nell,” Nell’s fairy tale name.

    It’s easy to see how this sort of large-scale social engineering could be used to target certain ideologies, crush dissent or build loyalty to a particular regime. The AI’s behavior could also be subject to the whims of the companies or individuals that created it. A ubiquitous, always-on, friendly AI could become the ultimate monitoring and reporting device. Think of a kinder, gentler face for Big Brother that people have trusted since childhood.

    While large-scale deployment of a Primer-like AI could certainly make young people smarter and more efficient, it could also hamper one of the most important parts of education: teaching people to think for themselves.

    Rizwan Virk owns shares of investments funds which own stock in various private AI companies such as Open AI and X.ai. He owns public stock in Google and Microsoft. Virk has family members who work for a wearable AI company.

    – ref. AI is advancing even faster than sci-fi visionaries like Neal Stephenson imagined – https://theconversation.com/ai-is-advancing-even-faster-than-sci-fi-visionaries-like-neal-stephenson-imagined-257509

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Philadelphia’s $2B affordable housing plan relies heavily on municipal bonds, which can come with hidden costs for taxpayers

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jade Craig, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Mississippi

    The Parker administration says it will issue $800 million in bonds over the next four years to fund affordable housing. Jeff Fusco/The Conversation, CC BY-NC-SA

    Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker’s Housing Opportunities Made Easy initiative, which was included in the city budget passed June 12, 2025, is an ambitious effort to address the city’s affordable housing challenges.

    Parker has promised to create or preserve 30,000 affordable housing units throughout the city, at a cost of roughly US$2 billion.

    To help fund the plan, the Parker administration says it will issue $800 million in housing bonds over the next three years.

    In an April 2025 report on the housing plan, the Parker administration admits that, in light of declining federal investment in affordable housing, proceeds from municipal bonds issued by the local government “have taken on an outsized role” in Philadelphia’s housing programs.

    Often, only city treasurers and the finance committees of city councils pay attention to the details behind these municipal bonds.

    As a law professor who studies the social impact of municipal bonds, I believe it’s important that city residents understand how these bonds work as well.

    While municipal bonds are integral to the city’s effort to increase access to affordable and market-rate housing, they can include hidden costs and requirements that raise prices in ways that make city services unaffordable for lower-income residents.

    The Parker administration has vowed to create or preserve 30,000 affordable housing units in Philly through new construction, rehabilitation and expanded rental assistance.
    Jeff Fusco/The Conversation, CC BY-SA

    How municipal bonds work

    Most people are aware that companies sell shares on the stock market to raise capital. State and local governments do the same thing in the form of municipal bonds, which help them raise money to cover their expenses and to finance infrastructure projects.

    These bonds are a form of debt. Investors can purchase an interest in the bond and, in exchange, the local government promises to pay the money back with interest in a specified time period. The money from investors functions like a loan to the government.

    Municipal bonds are often used so that one generation of taxpayers is not having to bear the full cost of a project that will benefit multiple generations of residents. The cost of building a bridge, for example, which will be in use for decades, can be spread out over 30 years so that residents pay back the loan slowly over time rather than saddle residents with huge tax increases one year to cover the cost.

    However, the cost of borrowing pushes up the cost of projects by adding interest payments the same way a mortgage adds to the overall cost of buying a house. Overall, the market and state and local governments have historically viewed this cost as a worthy trade-off.

    Some municipal bonds have limits

    The Parker administration has several options when it comes to raising capital on the municipal market.

    The most common method is through general obligation bonds, which are backed by the city’s authority to impose and collect taxes. Bondholders rely on the city’s “full faith and credit” to assure them that if the city has difficulty paying back the debt, the city will raise taxes on residents to secure the payment.

    The city plans to use general obligation bonds to help fund its affordable housing plan, but there are limits on how much it can borrow this way. The state constitution limits Philadelphia’s ability to incur debt to a total of 13.5% of the value of its assessed taxable real estate, based on an average of this amount for the preceding 10 years.

    Philadelphia is more affordable than several other big U.S. cities, according to a 2020 report from the Pew Charitable Trusts, but it has a high poverty rate.
    Jeff Fusco/The Conversation, CC BY-SA

    Philly has another option

    The city, however, also has the authority to take on another form of debt: revenue bonds. Revenue bonds rely on specific sources of revenue instead of the government’s taxing power. Jurisdictions issue revenue bonds to fund particular projects or services – usually ones that generate income from fees paid by users.

    For example, a publicly owned water utility or electric company relies on water and sewage fees or electricity rates and charges to pay back their revenue bonds. Likewise, a transportation authority will rely on tolls to pay back revenue bonds issued to build a toll road, such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

    Under state law, revenue bonds are “non-debt debts.” They are not debts owed by the city, because the city has not promised to repay the debt through the use of its own taxing powers. Instead, the people who pay the fees to use the service are paying back the debt.

    Since states began to place stricter limits on debt in the wake of the Great Depression in the 1930s, cities across the U.S. have increasingly used revenue bonds to get around state debt limits and still fund valuable public services, including affordable housing projects.

    When another government entity – rather than the city – issues the bond, and the city pays them a service fee for doing so, it’s a form of what’s called conduit debt. That obligation to pay the service fee to the other government entity is the conduit debt that the city pays out of its general fund.

    In Philadelphia, conduit debt includes revenue bonds issued by the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development and Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority.

    From fiscal years 2012 to 2021, the city’s outstanding debt from general obligation bonds paid for out of its general fund was between $1.3 billion to $1.7 billion per year. However, the city’s conduit debt outstripped that number every year, ranging from $1.8 billion to nearly $2.3 billion. In more recent years, conduit debt has been less than the city’s debt from general obligation bonds.

    The city keeps conduit debt on its books – and is obligated to pay it back – even though it comes from bonds issued by the development authorities, because these debts loop back to the city. In the bonds issued by these agencies, the city actually becomes like a client of the agency. The city is typically obligated to pay the agency service fees as part of a contractual obligation that cannot be canceled.

    The revenue on which the development agencies’ bonds rely, the money from which bondholders expect to be paid back, does not come from fees that residents pay out of their own pocket – for example through ticket sales from a sports stadium built with revenue bonds. The money instead comes out of the city’s treasury.

    A loophole to affordable housing

    Essentially this is a loophole for the city to bypass debt limits set for Philadelphia in the state constitution. Sometimes creativity in government requires using loopholes to get the job done – to get to yes instead of a stalemate.

    Consider this analogy. Say your sister takes out a bank loan to buy a car for you because your credit limit is maxed out. She is relying on you to pay her back, and she uses your payment to pay the bank. But if you don’t pay her back, she’s not responsible by law for paying the bank herself. So, it’s your debt, but she is the conduit.

    If the city holds itself accountable, it can use conduit debt responsibly to make affordable housing construction a reality.

    The mayor’s office did not respond to my questions about whether they plan to use conduit debt issued by a development authority, whether that conduit debt would include service fees, and what funds would be used to pay those fees.

    In its quest to increase access to affordable housing, the Parker administration should, in my view, be mindful of limiting the service fees it agrees to pay – which have no legally prescribed limits – and also account for where it will find income to cover these costs. For example, will it come from the sale of city-owned land? Fees charged to developers? Or some other source?

    Otherwise, taxpayers may be left to foot a bill that is essentially unlimited.

    Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

    Jade Craig 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. Philadelphia’s $2B affordable housing plan relies heavily on municipal bonds, which can come with hidden costs for taxpayers – https://theconversation.com/philadelphias-2b-affordable-housing-plan-relies-heavily-on-municipal-bonds-which-can-come-with-hidden-costs-for-taxpayers-253522

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Legal wrangling over estate of Jimmy Buffett turns his widow’s huge inheritance into a cautionary tale

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Reid Kress Weisbord, Distinguished Professor of Law and Judge Norma Shapiro Scholar, Rutgers University – Newark

    Musician Jimmy Buffett and his wife, Jane Slagsvol, attend a Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts event in 2018 in New York. Evan Agostini/Invision via AP

    Lawyers often tell their clients that everyone should have a will that clearly states who should inherit their assets after they die. But even having a will is not necessarily enough to avoid a costly and contentious legal dispute.

    Consider what happened after Jimmy Buffett died of skin cancer at the age of 76 in 2023. The singer and entrepreneurial founder of the Margaritaville brand ordered in his will that his fortune be placed in a trust after his death. To manage the trust, Buffett named two co-trustees: his widow, Jane Slagsvol, and Richard Mozenter, an accountant who had served as the singer’s financial adviser for more than three decades.

    In dueling petitions filed in Los Angeles and Palm Beach, Florida, in June 2025, however, Slagsvol – identified as Jane Buffett in her legal filing – and Mozenter are both seeking to remove each other as a trustee.

    The outcome of this litigation will determine who gets to administer Buffett’s US$275 million estate.

    As law professors who specialize in trusts and estates, we teach graduate courses about the transfer of property during life and at death. We believe that the Buffett dispute offers a valuable lesson for anyone with an estate, large or small. And choosing the right person to manage the assets you leave behind can be just as important as selecting who will inherit your property.

    Buffett’s business empire

    Buffett’s estate includes valuable intellectual property from his hit songs, including “It’s 5 O’Clock Somewhere,” “Oldest Surfer on the Beach” and “Cheeseburger in Paradise.” Buffett’s albums have sold more than 20 million copies worldwide and continue to generate some $20 million annually in royalties. Buffett also owned a yacht, real estate, airplanes, fancy watches and valuable securities.

    In addition, he owned a 20% stake in Margaritaville Holdings LLC, a brand management company he and Slagsvol founded in the 1990s. Margaritaville owns 30 restaurants and 20 hotels, along with vacation clubs, casinos and cruise ships. It also sells branded merchandise.

    According to Slagsvol’s petition, Buffett’s trust was set up to benefit his widow. Slagsvol, who married Buffett in 1977, is one of two trustees of that trust, which is required to have at least one “independent trustee” in addition to her “at all times.” That requirement is stated expressly in Buffett’s trust declaration.

    Slagsvol receives all income earned by the trust – an estate-planning technique for giving away property managed by a trustee on behalf of the trust beneficiaries – for the rest of her life. She can also receive additional trust funds for her health care, living expenses and “any other purpose” that the independent trustee – Mozenter, as of July 2025 – deems to be in Slagsvol’s best interests.

    The estate plan also created separate trusts for their three children: Savannah, Sarah “Delaney” and Cameron Buffett, who are in their 30s and 40s. Each child reportedly received $2 million upon Jimmy’s death. When Slagsvol dies, she can decide who will receive any remaining assets from among Buffett’s descendants and charities.

    The structure of Buffett’s plan is popular among wealthy married couples. It provides lifelong support for the surviving spouse while ensuring that their kids and grandchildren can inherit the remainder of their estate – even if that spouse remarries. This type of trust typically cannot be changed by the surviving spouse without court approval.

    If you’re fortunate enough to reach your golden years with a sizable nest egg, it helps your loved ones if you can draft a detailed will. You might also want to consider establishing a trust.
    Maskot/Getty Images

    Dueling trustee removal petitions

    Slagsvol is trying to remove Mozenter as the trust’s independent trustee.

    She claims he refused to comply with her requests for financial information, failed to cooperate with her as her co-trustee, and hired a trust attorney who pressured her to resign as trustee. Slagsvol also raised numerous questions about the trust’s income projections and compensation paid to Mozenter for his services.

    Mozenter’s petition, filed in Florida, is not available to the public. According to media coverage of this dispute, he seeks to remove Slagsvol as trustee. He claims that, during his decades-long role as Buffett’s financial adviser, the musician “expressed concerns about his wife’s ability to manage and control his assets after his death.”

    That led Buffett to establish a trust, Mozenter asserted, “in a manner that precluded Jane from having actual control” over it.

    Estate planning lessons

    We believe that the public can learn two important estate planning lessons from this dispute.

    First, anyone planning to leave an estate, whether modest or vast, needs to choose the right people to manage the transfer of their property after their death.

    That might mean picking a professional executor or trustee who is not related to you. A professional may be more likely to remain neutral should any disputes arise within the family, but hiring one can saddle the estate with costly fees.

    An alternative is to choose a relative or trusted friend who is willing to do this for free. About 56% of wills name an adult child or grandchild as executor, according to a recent study. Some estates, like Buffett’s trust, name both a professional and a family member. An important consideration is whether the people asked to manage the estate will get along with each other – and with anyone else who is slated to inherit from the estate.

    The second lesson is, whether you choose a professional, a loved one or a friend to manage your estate, make clear what circumstances would warrant their removal. Courts are reluctant to remove a handpicked trustee without proof of negligence, fraud or disloyalty. But trustees can be removed when a breakdown in cooperation interferes with their ability to administer the estate or trust.

    Some trusts anticipate such conflicts by allowing beneficiaries to replace a professional trustee with another professional trustee. That can resolve some disputes while avoiding the cost of seeking court approval.

    Preventing disputes from erupting in the first place can help people avert the costly and embarrassing kind of litigation now ensnaring Jimmy Buffett’s estate.

    The authors 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. Legal wrangling over estate of Jimmy Buffett turns his widow’s huge inheritance into a cautionary tale – https://theconversation.com/legal-wrangling-over-estate-of-jimmy-buffett-turns-his-widows-huge-inheritance-into-a-cautionary-tale-259116

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The rule of law is key to capitalism − eroding it is bad news for American business

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Robert Bird, Professor of Business Law & Eversource Energy Chair in Business Ethics, University of Connecticut

    Something dangerous is happening to the U.S. economy, and it’s not inflation or trade wars. Chaotic deregulation and the selective enforcement of laws have upended markets and investor confidence. At one point, the threat of tariffs and resulting chaos evaporated US$4 trillion in value in the U.S. stock market. This approach isn’t helping the economy, and there are troubling signs it will hurt both the U.S. and the global economy in the short and long term.

    The rule of law – the idea that legal rules apply to everyone equally, regardless of wealth or political connections − is essential for a thriving economy. Yet globally the respect for the rule of law is slipping, and the U.S. is slipping with it. According to annual rankings from the World Justice Project, the rule of law has declined in more than half of all countries for seven years in a row. The rule of law in the U.S., the most economically powerful nation in the world, is now weaker than the rule of law in Uruguay, Singapore, Latvia and over 20 other countries.

    When regulation is unnecessarily burdensome for business, government should lighten the load. However, arbitrary and frenzied deregulation does not free corporations to earn higher profits. As a business school professor with an MBA who has taught business law for over 25 years, and the author of a recently published book about the importance of legal knowledge to business, I can affirm that the opposite is true. Chaotic deregulation doesn’t drive growth. It only fuels risk.

    Chaos undermines investment, talent and trust

    Legal uncertainty has become a serious drag on American competitiveness.

    A study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that public policy risks — such as unexpected changes in taxes, regulation and enforcement — ranked among the top challenges businesses face, alongside more familiar business threats such as competition or economic volatility. Companies that can’t predict how the law might change are forced to plan for the worst. That means holding back on long-term investment, slowing innovation and raising prices to cover new risks.

    When the government enforces rules arbitrarily, it also undermines property rights.

    For example, if a country enters into a major trade agreement and then goes ahead and violates it, that threatens the property rights of the companies that relied on the agreement to conduct business. If the government can seize assets without due process, those assets lose their stability and value. And if that treatment depends on whether a company is in the government’s political favor, it’s not just bad economics − it’s a red flag for investors.

    When government doesn’t enforce rules fairly, it also threatens people’s freedom to enter into contracts.

    Consider presidential orders that threaten the clients of law firms that have challenged the administration with cancellation of their government contracts. The threat alone jeopardizes the value of those agreements.

    If businesses can’t trust public contracts to be respected, they’ll be less likely to work with the government in the first place. This deprives the government, and ultimately the American people, of receiving the best value for their tax dollars in critical areas such as transportation, technology and national defense.

    Regulatory chaos also allows corruption to spread.

    For example, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits businesses from bribing foreign government officials, has leveled the playing field for firms and enabled the best American companies to succeed on their merits. Before the law was enacted in 1977, some American companies felt pressured to pay bribes to compete. “Pausing” enforcement of the law, as the current presidential administration has done, increases the cost of doing business and encourages a wild west economy where chaos thrives.

    When corruption grows, stable and democratic governments weaken, opportunities for terrorism increase and corruption-fueled authoritarian regimes, which oppose the interests of the U.S., thrive. Halting the enforcement of an anti-bribery law, even for a limited time, is an issue of national security.

    Legal uncertainty fuels brain drain

    Chaotic enforcement of the law also corrodes labor markets.

    American companies require a strong pool of talented professionals to fuel their financial success. When legal rights are enforced arbitrarily or unjustly, the very best talent that American companies need may leave the country.

    The science brain drain is already happening. American scientists have submitted 32% more applications for jobs abroad compared with last year. Nonscientists are leaving too. Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs has witnessed a 50% increase in Americans taking steps to obtain an Irish passport. Employers in the U.K. saw a spike in job applications from the United States.

    Business from other countries will gladly accept American talent as they compete against American companies. During the Third Reich, Nazi Germany lost its best and brightest to other countries, including America. Now the reverse is happening, as highly talented Americans leave to work for firms in other nations.

    Threats of arbitrary legal actions also drive away democratic allies and their prosperous populations that purchase American-made goods and services. For example, arbitrarily threatening to punish or even annex a closely allied nation does not endear its citizens to that government or the businesses it represents. So it’s no surprise that Canadians are now boycotting American goods and services. This is devastating businesses in American border towns and hurts the economy nationwide.

    Similarly, the Canadian government has responded to whipsawing U.S. tariff announcements with counter-tariffs, which will slice the profits of American exporters. Close American allies and trading partners such as Japan, the U.K. and the European Union are also signaling their own willingness to impose retaliatory tariffs, increasing the costs of operations to American business even more.

    Modern capitalism depends on smart regulation to thrive. Smart regulation is not an obstacle to capitalism. Smart regulation is what makes American capitalism possible. Smart regulation is what makes American freedom possible.

    Clear and consistently applied legal rules allow businesses to aggressively compete, carefully plan, and generate profits. An arbitrary rule of law deprives business of the true power of capitalism – the ability to promote economic growth, spur innovation and improve the overall living standards of a free society. Americans deserve no less, and it is up to government to make that happen for everyone.

    Robert Bird 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 rule of law is key to capitalism − eroding it is bad news for American business – https://theconversation.com/the-rule-of-law-is-key-to-capitalism-eroding-it-is-bad-news-for-american-business-254922

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Hurricane forecasters are losing 3 key satellites ahead of peak storm season − a meteorologist explains why it matters

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Chris Vagasky, Meteorologist and Research Program Manager, University of Wisconsin-Madison

    Many coastal communities rely on satellite data to understand the risks as hurricanes head their way.
     Ricardo Arduengo/AFP via Getty Images

    About 600 miles off the west coast of Africa, large clusters of thunderstorms begin organizing into tropical storms every hurricane season. They aren’t yet in range of Hurricane Hunter flights, so forecasters at the National Hurricane Center rely on weather satellites to peer down on these storms and beam back information about their location, structure and intensity.

    The satellite data helps meteorologists create weather forecasts that keep planes and ships safe and prepare countries for a potential hurricane landfall.

    Now, meteorologists are about to lose access to three of those satellites.

    On June 25, 2025, the Trump administration issued a service change notice announcing that the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, DMSP, and the Navy’s Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center would terminate data collection, processing and distribution of all DMSP data no later than June 30. The data termination was postponed until July 31 following a request from the head of NASA’s Earth Science Division.

    How hurricanes form. NOAA

    I am a meteorologist who studies lightning in hurricanes and helps train other meteorologists to monitor and forecast tropical cyclones. Here is how meteorologists use the DMSP data and why they are concerned about it going dark.

    Looking inside the clouds

    At its most basic, a weather satellite is a high-resolution digital camera in space that takes pictures of clouds in the atmosphere.

    These are the satellite images you see on most TV weather broadcasts. They let meteorologists see the location and some details of a hurricane’s structure, but only during daylight hours.

    Hurricane Flossie spins off the Mexican coast on July 1, 2025. Images show the top of the hurricane from space as day turns to night. NOAA GOES

    Meteorologists can use infrared satellite data, similar to a thermal imaging camera, at all hours of the day to find the coldest cloud-top temperatures, highlighting areas where the highest wind speeds and rainfall rates are found.

    But while visible and infrared satellite imagery are valuable tools for hurricane forecasters, they provide only a basic picture of the storm. It’s like a doctor diagnosing a patient after a visual exam and checking their temperature.

    Infrared bands show more detail of Hurricane Flossie’s structure on July 1, 2025. NOAA GOES

    For more accurate diagnoses, meteorologists rely on the DMSP satellites.

    The three satellites orbit Earth 14 times per day with special sensor microwave imager/sounder instruments, or SSMIS. These let meteorologists look inside the clouds, similar to how an MRI in a hospital looks inside a human body. With these instruments, meteorologists can pinpoint the storm’s low-pressure center and identify signs of intensification.

    Precisely locating the center of a hurricane improves forecasts of the storm’s future track. This lets meteorologists produce more accurate hurricane watches, warnings and evacuations.

    Hurricane track forecasts have improved by up to 75% since 1990. However, forecasting rapid intensification is still difficult, so the ability of DMPS data to identify signs of intensification is important.

    About 80% of major hurricanes – those with wind speeds of at least 111 mph (179 kilometers per hour) – rapidly intensify at some point, ramping up the risks they pose to people and property on land. Finding out when storms are about to undergo intensification allows meteorologists to warn the public about these dangerous hurricanes.

    Where are the defense satellites going?

    NOAA’s Office of Satellite and Product Operations described the reason for turning off the flow of data as a need to mitigate “a significant cybersecurity risk.”

    The three satellites have already operated for longer than planned.

    The DMSP satellites were launched between 1999 and 2009 and were designed to last for five years. They have now been operating for more than 15 years. The United States Space Force recently concluded that the DMSP satellites would reach the end of their lives between 2023 and 2026, so the data would likely have gone dark soon.

    Are there replacements for the DMSP satellites?

    Three other satellites in orbit – NOAA-20, NOAA-21 and Suomi NPP – have a microwave instrument known as the advanced technology microwave sounder.

    The advanced technology microwave sounder, or ATMS, can provide data similar to the special sensor microwave imager/sounder, or SSMIS, but at a lower resolution. It provides a more washed-out view that is less useful than the SSMIS for pinpointing a storm’s location or estimating its intensity.

    Images of Hurricane Erick off the coast of Mexico, viewed from NOAA-20’s ATMS (left) and DMPS SSMIS (right) on June 18 show the difference in resolution and the higher detail provided by the SSMIS data.
    U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, via Michael Lowry

    The U.S. Space Force began using data from a new defense meteorology satellite, ML-1A, in late April 2025.

    ML-1A is a microwave satellite that will help replace some of the DMSP satellites’ capabilities. However, the government hasn’t announced whether the ML-1A data will be available to forecasters, including those at the National Hurricane Center.

    Why are satellite replacements last minute?

    Satellite programs are planned over many years, even decades, and are very expensive. The current geostationary satellite program launched its first satellite in 2016 with plans to operate until 2038. Development of the planned successor for GOES-R began in 2019.

    Similarly, plans for replacing the DMSP satellites have been underway since the early 2000s.

    Scientists prepare a GOES-R satellite for packing aboard a rocket in 2016.
    NASA/Charles Babir

    Delays in developing the satellite instruments and funding cuts caused the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System and Defense Weather Satellite System to be canceled in 2010 and 2012 before any of their satellites could be launched.

    The 2026 NOAA budget request includes an increase in funding for the next-generation geostationary satellite program, so it can be restructured to reuse spare parts from existing geostationary satellites. The budget also terminates contracts for ocean color, atmospheric composition and advanced lightning mapper instruments.

    A busy season remains

    The 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June 1 to Nov. 30, is forecast to be above average, with six to 10 hurricanes. The most active part of the season runs from the middle of August to the middle of October, after the DMSP satellite data is set to be turned off.

    Hurricane forecasters will continue to use all available tools, including satellite, radar, weather balloon and dropsonde data, to monitor the tropics and issue hurricane forecasts. But the loss of satellite data, along with other cuts to data, funding and staffing, could ultimately put more lives at risk.

    Chris Vagasky is a member of the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association.

    – ref. Hurricane forecasters are losing 3 key satellites ahead of peak storm season − a meteorologist explains why it matters – https://theconversation.com/hurricane-forecasters-are-losing-3-key-satellites-ahead-of-peak-storm-season-a-meteorologist-explains-why-it-matters-260190

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The Supreme Court upholds free preventive care, but its future now rests in RFK Jr.’s hands

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul Shafer, Associate Professor of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston University

    The Affordable Care Act has survived its fourth Supreme Court challenge. Ted Eytan via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

    On June 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 ruling that preserves free preventive care under the Affordable Care Act, a popular benefit that helps approximately 150 million Americans stay healthy.

    The case, Kennedy v. Braidwood, was the fourth major legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The decision, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh with the support of Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, ruled that insurers must continue to cover at no cost any preventive care approved by a federal panel called the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

    Members of the task force are independent scientific experts, appointed for four-year terms. The panel’s role had been purely advisory until the ACA, and the plaintiffs contended that the members lacked the appropriate authority as they had not been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, saying that members simply needed to be appointed by the Health and Human Services Secretary – currently, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – which they had been, under his predecessor during the Biden administration.

    This ruling seemingly safeguards access to preventive care. But as public health researchers who study health insurance and sexual health, we see another concern: It leaves preventive care vulnerable to how Kennedy and future HHS secretaries will choose to exercise their power over the task force and its recommendations.

    What is the US Preventive Services Task Force?

    The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was initially created in 1984 to develop recommendations about prevention for primary care doctors. It is modeled after the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which was established in 1976.

    Under the ACA, insurers must fully cover all screenings and interventions endorsed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
    SDI Productions/E+ via Getty Images

    The task force makes new recommendations and updates existing ones by reviewing clinical and policy evidence on a regular basis and weighing the potential benefits and risks of a wide range of health screenings and interventions. These include mammograms; blood pressure, colon cancer, diabetes and osteoporosis screenings; and HIV prevention. Over 150 million Americans have benefited from free coverage of these recommended services under the ACA, and around 60% of privately insured people use at least one of the covered services each year.

    The task force plays such a crucial role in health care because it is one of three federal groups whose recommendations insurers must abide by. Section 2713 of the Affordable Care Act requires insurers to offer full coverage of preventive services endorsed by three federal groups: the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. For example, the coronavirus relief bill, which passed in March 2020 and allocated emergency funding in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, used this provision to ensure COVID-19 vaccines would be free for many Americans.

    The Braidwood case and HIV prevention

    This case, originally filed in Texas in 2020, was brought by Braidwood Management, a Christian for-profit corporation owned by Steven Hotze, a Texas physician and Republican activist who has previously filed multiple lawsuits against the ACA. Braidwood and its co-plaintiffs argued on religious grounds against being forced to offer preexposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, a medicine that prevents HIV infection, in their insurance plans.

    At issue in Braidwood was whether task force members – providers and researchers who provide independent and nonpartisan expertise – were appropriately appointed and supervised under the appointments clause of the Constitution, which specifies how various government positions are appointed. The case called into question free coverage of all recommendations made by the task force since the Affordable Care Act was passed in March 2010.

    In the ruling, Kavanaugh wrote that “the Task Force members’ appointments are fully consistent with the Appointments Clause in Article II of the Constitution.” In laying out his reasoning, he wrote, “The Task Force members were appointed by and are supervised and directed by the Secretary of HHS. And the Secretary of HHS, in turn, answers to the President of the United States.”

    Concerns over political influence

    The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is meant to operate independently of political influence, and its decisions are technically not directly reviewable. However, the task force is appointed by the HHS secretary, who may remove any of its members at any time for any reason, even if such actions are highly unusual.

    Kennedy recently took the unprecedented step of removing all members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which debates vaccine safety but also, crucially, helps decide what immunizations are free to Americans guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. The newly constituted committee, appointed in weeks rather than years, includes several vaccine skeptics and has already moved to rescind some vaccine recommendations, such as routine COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women and children.

    Kennedy has also proposed restructuring out of existence the agency that supports the task force, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. That agency has been subject to massive layoffs within the Department of Health and Human Services. For full disclosure, one of the authors is currently funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and previously worked there.

    The decision to safeguard the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force as a body and, by extension, free preventive care under the ACA, doesn’t come without risks and highlights the fragility of long-standing, independent advisory systems in the face of the politicization of health. Kennedy could simply remove the existing task force members and replace them with members who may reshape the types of care recommended to Americans by their doctors and insurance plans based on debunked science and misinformation.

    Partisanship and the politicization of health threaten trust in evidence. Already, signs are emerging that Americans on both side of the political divide are losing confidence in government health agencies. This ruling preserves a crucial part of the Affordable Care Act, yet federal health guidelines and access to lifesaving care could still swing dramatically in Kennedy’s hands – or with each subsequent transition of power.

    Portions of this article originally appeared in previous articles published on Sept. 7, 2021; Dec. 1, 2021; Sept. 13, 2022; April 7, 2023; and April 15, 2025.

    Paul Shafer receives research funding from the National Institutes of Health, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Department of Veterans Affairs. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of these agencies or the United States government.

    Kristefer Stojanovski receives funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of these agencies or the United States government.

    – ref. The Supreme Court upholds free preventive care, but its future now rests in RFK Jr.’s hands – https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-upholds-free-preventive-care-but-its-future-now-rests-in-rfk-jr-s-hands-260072

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The Supreme Court upholds free preventive care, but its future now rests in RFK Jr.’s hands

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul Shafer, Associate Professor of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston University

    The Affordable Care Act has survived its fourth Supreme Court challenge. Ted Eytan via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

    On June 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 ruling that preserves free preventive care under the Affordable Care Act, a popular benefit that helps approximately 150 million Americans stay healthy.

    The case, Kennedy v. Braidwood, was the fourth major legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The decision, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh with the support of Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, ruled that insurers must continue to cover at no cost any preventive care approved by a federal panel called the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

    Members of the task force are independent scientific experts, appointed for four-year terms. The panel’s role had been purely advisory until the ACA, and the plaintiffs contended that the members lacked the appropriate authority as they had not been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, saying that members simply needed to be appointed by the Health and Human Services Secretary – currently, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – which they had been, under his predecessor during the Biden administration.

    This ruling seemingly safeguards access to preventive care. But as public health researchers who study health insurance and sexual health, we see another concern: It leaves preventive care vulnerable to how Kennedy and future HHS secretaries will choose to exercise their power over the task force and its recommendations.

    What is the US Preventive Services Task Force?

    The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was initially created in 1984 to develop recommendations about prevention for primary care doctors. It is modeled after the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which was established in 1976.

    Under the ACA, insurers must fully cover all screenings and interventions endorsed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
    SDI Productions/E+ via Getty Images

    The task force makes new recommendations and updates existing ones by reviewing clinical and policy evidence on a regular basis and weighing the potential benefits and risks of a wide range of health screenings and interventions. These include mammograms; blood pressure, colon cancer, diabetes and osteoporosis screenings; and HIV prevention. Over 150 million Americans have benefited from free coverage of these recommended services under the ACA, and around 60% of privately insured people use at least one of the covered services each year.

    The task force plays such a crucial role in health care because it is one of three federal groups whose recommendations insurers must abide by. Section 2713 of the Affordable Care Act requires insurers to offer full coverage of preventive services endorsed by three federal groups: the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. For example, the coronavirus relief bill, which passed in March 2020 and allocated emergency funding in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, used this provision to ensure COVID-19 vaccines would be free for many Americans.

    The Braidwood case and HIV prevention

    This case, originally filed in Texas in 2020, was brought by Braidwood Management, a Christian for-profit corporation owned by Steven Hotze, a Texas physician and Republican activist who has previously filed multiple lawsuits against the ACA. Braidwood and its co-plaintiffs argued on religious grounds against being forced to offer preexposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, a medicine that prevents HIV infection, in their insurance plans.

    At issue in Braidwood was whether task force members – providers and researchers who provide independent and nonpartisan expertise – were appropriately appointed and supervised under the appointments clause of the Constitution, which specifies how various government positions are appointed. The case called into question free coverage of all recommendations made by the task force since the Affordable Care Act was passed in March 2010.

    In the ruling, Kavanaugh wrote that “the Task Force members’ appointments are fully consistent with the Appointments Clause in Article II of the Constitution.” In laying out his reasoning, he wrote, “The Task Force members were appointed by and are supervised and directed by the Secretary of HHS. And the Secretary of HHS, in turn, answers to the President of the United States.”

    Concerns over political influence

    The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is meant to operate independently of political influence, and its decisions are technically not directly reviewable. However, the task force is appointed by the HHS secretary, who may remove any of its members at any time for any reason, even if such actions are highly unusual.

    Kennedy recently took the unprecedented step of removing all members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which debates vaccine safety but also, crucially, helps decide what immunizations are free to Americans guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. The newly constituted committee, appointed in weeks rather than years, includes several vaccine skeptics and has already moved to rescind some vaccine recommendations, such as routine COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women and children.

    Kennedy has also proposed restructuring out of existence the agency that supports the task force, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. That agency has been subject to massive layoffs within the Department of Health and Human Services. For full disclosure, one of the authors is currently funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and previously worked there.

    The decision to safeguard the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force as a body and, by extension, free preventive care under the ACA, doesn’t come without risks and highlights the fragility of long-standing, independent advisory systems in the face of the politicization of health. Kennedy could simply remove the existing task force members and replace them with members who may reshape the types of care recommended to Americans by their doctors and insurance plans based on debunked science and misinformation.

    Partisanship and the politicization of health threaten trust in evidence. Already, signs are emerging that Americans on both side of the political divide are losing confidence in government health agencies. This ruling preserves a crucial part of the Affordable Care Act, yet federal health guidelines and access to lifesaving care could still swing dramatically in Kennedy’s hands – or with each subsequent transition of power.

    Portions of this article originally appeared in previous articles published on Sept. 7, 2021; Dec. 1, 2021; Sept. 13, 2022; April 7, 2023; and April 15, 2025.

    Paul Shafer receives research funding from the National Institutes of Health, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Department of Veterans Affairs. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of these agencies or the United States government.

    Kristefer Stojanovski receives funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of these agencies or the United States government.

    – ref. The Supreme Court upholds free preventive care, but its future now rests in RFK Jr.’s hands – https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-upholds-free-preventive-care-but-its-future-now-rests-in-rfk-jr-s-hands-260072

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Despite claims they’d move overseas after the election, most Americans are staying put

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels, Honorary Reader in MIgration and Politics, University of Kent

    Not that many people are preparing to leave the U.S. gerenme/E+ via Getty Images

    Based on pronouncements in 2024, you might think now is the time to see U.S. citizens streaming out of the country. Months before the 2024 presidential election, Americans were saying they would leave should candidate Donald Trump win the election. Gallup polling in 2024 found that 21% of Americans wanted to leave the United States permanently, more than double the 10% who had said so in 2011.

    And indeed in June 2025, a Vermont legislator announced that she was resigning her seat and moving to Canada because of political concerns and economic opportunities. To be sure, people are moving. Even so, as a scholar of American migration overseas, my research finds that the vast majority of Americans are not about to depart for greener shores.

    A western Massachusetts group

    In October 2024, I surveyed 68 Americans in western Massachusetts, an area with a slight Democratic majority, asking if they wanted to leave the United States for a lengthy period of time, but not necessarily permanently. Over 90% said no, noting that there were factors limiting their mobility, such as financial obligations or having a partner who would not move, and that there were reasons that made them want to stay, such as owning property and having friends nearby.

    Just three respondents indicated they were making plans to move, while an additional 11 said they wanted to move “someday.”

    Reality strikes

    After the November 2024 election, I interviewed seven of those respondents, two of whom had said prior to the election that they might leave the United States. After the election, they all said they planned to stay.

    One who had said she wanted to leave acknowledged her reversal, saying: “I may have flippantly said, ‘Oh, if (Trump) gets voted in … I would leave,’ but I can’t see leaving. Part of it is because of my daughter,” who had recently become a mother. She continued, “It’s never crossed my mind seriously enough to even research it.”

    Another told me, “I’m not going to let somebody push me out of what I consider my country and my home because he’s a jerk.”

    Others spoke of needing to work several more years in order to receive a pension, or having family responsibilities keeping them in the country. None supported the current administration.

    On a national level

    In two nationally representative surveys, my colleague Helen B. Marrow, a sociologist of immigration, and I found no significant increase in migration aspiration between 2014 and 2019. We also found that respondents mentioned exploration and adventure much more often than political or economic reasons for wanting to move abroad.

    Even though the U.S. passport grants visa-free visitor access to more than 180 countries, U.S. citizens still need residence and work visas. At home, they, like others, have family commitments and financial constraints, or may just not want to leave home. More than 95% of the world’s population do not move abroad – and U.S. citizens are no different.

    Relocation coaching

    In addition to my academic research on overseas Americans, I am also an international relocation coach. I help Americans considering a move abroad navigate the emotional, practical and professional complexities of relocation, whether they’re just starting to explore the idea or actively planning their next steps.

    Many of my clients do not want to live in a United States that no longer aligns with their values, while others are concerned about their safety, particularly, but not only, due to racism or homophobia. They are finding jobs overseas, retiring abroad or acquiring a European citizenship through a parent or grandparent. Most recently, American academics seeking to leave are being courted by European universities.

    But most are staying

    In February 2025, a national poll found that 4% of Americans said they were “definitely planning to move” to another country.

    That same month, I followed up with my seven interviewees from western Massachusetts, including one trans man. They all reiterated their choice to remain in the United States. One person, who might move abroad at some point, told me she hadn’t changed her mind about leaving soon: “Leaving doesn’t necessarily mean anything will be better for me, even if it was a financial possibility.”

    Two people said that recent political developments actually meant that they were more committed to remaining in the United States. One told me, “Now, more than ever, individuals need to figure out what small actions can be taken to help our fellow Americans get through this dark period.”

    But even those “definitely planning on moving” can have other factors intervene. Two clients of mine who were making serious plans had to stop when family members’ health situations changed for the worse.

    So how many people are actually leaving? It is clear that a growing number of Americans are considering a move abroad. But far fewer are conducting serious research, seeking professional consultation or actually moving. Drawing on available data, my own academic research and my coaching experience, my educated estimate is that no more than 1% to 2% of U.S. citizens are actively making viable plans to leave the country. Nor are all of those leaving out of protest; many are still motivated by exploration, adventure, employment or to be with a partner.

    Even so, that figure is roughly 3 million to 6 million people – which would be a significant increase over the estimated 5.5 million Americans currently living abroad. As with many migration flows, even the movement of a small percentage of a population can still have the potential to reshape both the United States and its overseas population.

    Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels 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. Despite claims they’d move overseas after the election, most Americans are staying put – https://theconversation.com/despite-claims-theyd-move-overseas-after-the-election-most-americans-are-staying-put-250728

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What damage did the US do to Iran’s nuclear program? Why it’s so hard to know

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Joshua Rovner, Associate Professor of International Relations, American University

    Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, describes the U.S. military attack on Iranian nuclear sites, which occurred on June 21, 2025, . AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    The U.S. Air Force dropped a dozen ground-penetrating bombs, each weighing 30,000 pounds (13,607 kilograms), in a raid on Iran’s nuclear site at Fordo on June 21, 2025. The attack was an attempt to reach the uranium enrichment facility buried deep inside a mountain. The target, President Donald Trump declared, was “completely and totally obliterated.”

    Others were less sure. On June 24, the administration canceled a classified intelligence briefing to members of Congress, leading to frustration among those with questions about White House claims. While Defense Intelligence Agency analysts apparently agree that the strikes did real damage, they dispute the idea that the attack permanently destroyed Iran’s enrichment capability. Reports emerged that their initial analysis found that the strikes had only set Iran back a few months.

    Such disagreements are unsurprising. Battle damage assessment – originally called bomb damage assessment – is notoriously difficult, and past wars have featured intense controversies among military and intelligence professionals. In World War II, poor weather and the limits of available technology conspired against accuracy.

    Battle damage assessment remained a thorny problem decades later, even after radical improvements in surveillance technology. In the first Gulf War in 1990, for example, military leaders argued with CIA officials over the effects of airstrikes against Iraq’s armored forces.

    I am a scholar of international relations who studies intelligence and strategy in international conflicts, and the author of “Fixing the Facts: National Security and the Politics of Intelligence.” I know from history that overcoming the challenges of battle damage assessment is especially hard when the target is a facility hidden under hundreds of feet of earth and rock, as is the case at Fordo.

    How the U.S. military’s ‘bunker buster’ bomb works.

    Tools of the trade

    The intelligence community has a number of tools and techniques that can help with challenges like assessing the damage at Fordo. Imagery intelligence such as satellite photography is the obvious starting point. Before-and-after comparisons might reveal collapsed tunnels or topographical changes, suggesting unseen subterranean damage.

    More exotic data collection techniques may be able to help infer the underground effects based on particle and electromagnetic emissions from the site. These platforms provide what is called measurement and signatures intelligence. Specialized sensors can measure nuclear radiation, seismographic information and other potentially revealing information from camouflaged facilities. When combined with traditional imagery, measurement and signatures intelligence can provide a more detailed model of the likely effects of the bombing.

    Other sources may prove useful as well. Reporting from human intelligence assets – spies or unwitting informers with firsthand or secondhand knowledge – may provide information on internal Iranian assessments. These may be particularly valuable because Iranian officials presumably know how much equipment was removed in advance, as well as the location of previously enriched uranium.

    The same is true for signals intelligence, which intercepts and interprets communications. Ideally, battle damage assessment will become more comprehensive and accurate as these sources of intelligence are integrated into a single assessment.

    Pervasive uncertainty

    But even in that case, it will still be difficult to estimate the broader effects on Iran’s nuclear program. Measuring the immediate physical effects on Fordo and other nuclear sites is a kind of puzzle, or a problem that can be solved with sufficient evidence. Estimating the long-term effects on Iranian policy is a mystery, or a problem that cannot be solved even with abundant information on hand. It’s impossible to know how Iran’s leaders will adapt over time to their changing circumstances. They themselves cannot know either; perceptions of the future are inherently uncertain.

    Regarding the puzzle over Fordo, Trump seems to believe that the sheer volume of explosives dropped on the site must have done the job. As White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt put it: “Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.”

    But the fact that Fordo is buried in the side of a mountain is a reason to doubt this commonsense conclusion. In addition, Iran may have moved enriched uranium and specialized equipment from the site in advance, limiting the effects on its nuclear program.

    Trump’s instincts might be right. Or the skeptics might be right. Both make plausible claims. Analysts will need more intelligence from more sources to make a confident judgment about the effects on Fordo and on Iran’s broader nuclear efforts. Even then, it is likely that they will disagree on the effects, because this requires making predictions.

    News coverage of the attack on Fordo and White House claims of success.

    Politicized intelligence

    In a perfect world, policymakers and intelligence officials would wrestle with dueling assessments in good faith. Such a process would take place outside the political fray, giving both sides the opportunity to offer criticism without being accused of political mischief. In this idealized scenario, policymakers could use reasonable intelligence conclusions to inform their decision-making process. After all, there are a lot of decisions about Middle Eastern security left to be made.

    But we are not in a perfect world, and hopes for a good faith debate seem hopelessly naïve. Already the battle lines are being drawn. Congressional Democrats are suspicious that the administration is being disingenuous about Iran. The White House, for its part, is going on the offensive. “The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump,” Leavitt declared in a written statement, “and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission.”

    Relations between policymakers and their intelligence advisers are often contentious, and U.S. presidents have a long history of clashing with spy chiefs. But intelligence-policy relations today are in a particularly dismal state. Trump bears the most responsibility, given his repeated disparagement of intelligence officials. For example, he dismissed the congressional testimony on Iran from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: “I don’t care what she said.”

    The problem goes deeper than the president, however. Intelligence-policy relations in a democracy are difficult because of the persuasive power of secret information. Policymakers fear that intelligence officials who control secrets might use them to undermine the policymakers’ plans. Intelligence officials worry that the policymakers will bully them into giving politically convenient answers. Such fears led to intelligence-policy breakdowns over estimates of enemy strength in the Vietnam War and estimates of Soviet missile capabilities in the early years of detente.

    This mutual suspicion has become progressively worse since the end of the Cold War, as secret intelligence has become increasingly public. Intelligence leaders have become recognizable public figures, and intelligence judgments on current issues are often quickly declassified. The public now expects to have access to intelligence findings, and this has helped turn intelligence into a political football.

    What lies ahead

    What does all this mean for intelligence on Iran? Trump might ignore assessments he dislikes, given his history with intelligence. But the acrimonious public dispute over the Fordo strike may lead the White House to pressure intelligence leaders to toe the line, especially if critics demand a public accounting of secret intelligence.

    Such an outcome would benefit nobody. The public would not have a better sense of the questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear effort, the intelligence community would suffer a serious blow to its reputation, and the administration’s efforts to use intelligence in public might backfire, as was the case for the George W. Bush administration after the war in Iraq.

    As with military campaigns, episodes of politicizing intelligence have lasting and sometimes unforeseen consequences.

    Joshua Rovner is associate professor of international relations at American University, and nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

    – ref. What damage did the US do to Iran’s nuclear program? Why it’s so hard to know – https://theconversation.com/what-damage-did-the-us-do-to-irans-nuclear-program-why-its-so-hard-to-know-260058

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Could electric brain stimulation lead to better maths skills?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Roi Cohen Kadosh, Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Surrey

    Triff/Shutterstock

    A painless, non-invasive brain stimulation technique can significantly improve how young adults learn maths, my colleagues and I found in a recent study. In a paper in PLOS Biology, we describe how this might be most helpful for those who are likely to struggle with mathematical learning because of how their brain areas involved in this skill communicate with each other.

    Maths is essential for many jobs, especially in science, technology, engineering and finance. However, a 2016 OECD report suggested that a large proportion of adults in developed countries (24% to 29%) have maths skills no better than a typical seven-year-old. This lack of numeracy can contribute to lower income, poor health, reduced political participation and even diminished trust in others.

    Education often widens rather than closes the gap between high and low
    achievers, a phenomenon known as the Matthew effect. Those who start with an advantage, such as being able to read more words when starting school, tend to pull further ahead. Stronger educational achievement has been also associated with socioeconomic status, higher motivation and greater engagement with material learned during a class.

    Biological factors, such as genes, brain connectivity, and chemical signalling, have been shown in some studies to play a stronger role in learning outcomes than environmental ones. This has been well-documented in different areas, including maths, where differences in biology may explain educational achievements.

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

    To explore this question, we recruited 72 young adults (18–30 years old) and taught them new maths calculation techniques over five days. Some received a placebo treatment. Others received transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS), which delivers gentle electrical currents to the brain. It is painless and often imperceptible, unless you focus hard to try and sense it.

    It is possible tRNS may cause long term side effects, but in previous studies my team assessed participants for cognitive side effects and found no evidence for it.

    Could tRNS help people improve their maths skills?
    Prostock-studio/Shutterstock

    Participants who received tRNS were randomly assigned to receive it in one of two different brain areas. Some received it over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a region critical for memory, attention, or when we acquire a new cognitive skill. Others had tRNS over the posterior parietal cortex, which processes maths information, mainly when the learning has been accomplished.

    Before and after the training, we also scanned their brains and measured levels of key neurochemicals such as gamma-aminobutyric acid (gaba), which we showed previously, in a 2021 study, to play a role in brain plasticity and learning, including maths.

    Some participants started with weaker connections between the prefrontal and parietal brain regions, a biological profile that is associated with poorer learning. The study results showed these participants made significant gains in learning when they received tRNS over the prefrontal cortex.

    Stimulation helped them catch up with peers who had stronger natural connectivity. This finding shows the critical role of the prefrontal cortex in learning and could help reduce educational inequalities that are grounded in neurobiology.

    How does this work? One explanation lies in a principle called stochastic resonance. This is when a weak signal becomes clearer when a small amount of random noise is added.

    In the brain, tRNS may enhance learning by gently boosting the activity of underperforming neurons, helping them get closer to the point at which they become active and send signals. This is a point known as the “firing threshold”, especially in people whose brain activity is suboptimal for a task like maths learning.

    It is important to note what this technique does not do. It does not make the best
    learners even better. That is what makes this approach promising for bridging gaps,
    not widening them. This form of brain stimulation helps level the playing field.

    Our study focused on healthy, high-performing university students. But in similar studies on children with maths learning disabilities (2017) and with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (2023) my colleagues and I found tRNS seemed to improve their learning and performance in cognitive training.

    I argue our findings could open a new direction in education. The biology of the learner matters, and with advances in knowledge and technology, we can develop tools that act on the brain directly, not just work around it. This could give more people the chance to get the best benefit from education.

    In time, perhaps personalised, brain-based interventions like tRNS could support learners who are being left behind not because of poor teaching or personal circumstances, but because of natural differences in how their brains work.

    Of course, very often education systems aren’t operating to their full potential because of inadequate resources, social disadvantage or systemic barriers. And so any brain-based tools must go hand-in-hand with efforts to tackle these obstacles.

    Roi Cohen Kadosh serves on the scientific advisory boards of Neuroelectrics Inc., and Innosphere Ltd. He is the founder and shareholder of Cognite Neurotechnology Ltd. He received funding from the Wellcome Trust, UKRI, the British Academy, IARPA, DASA, Joy Ventures, the James S McDonnell Foundation, and the European Union. He is affiliated with the University of Surrey.

    – ref. Could electric brain stimulation lead to better maths skills? – https://theconversation.com/could-electric-brain-stimulation-lead-to-better-maths-skills-260134

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why frequent nightmares may shorten your life by years

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Timothy Hearn, Senior Lecturer in Bioinformatics, Anglia Ruskin University

    Lightfield Studios/Shutterstock.com

    Waking up from a nightmare can leave your heart pounding, but the effects may reach far beyond a restless night. Adults who suffer bad dreams every week were almost three times more likely to die before age 75 than people who rarely have them.

    This alarming conclusion – which is yet to be peer reviewed – comes from researchers who combined data from four large long-term studies in the US, following more than 4,000 people between the ages of 26 and 74. At the beginning, participants reported how often nightmares disrupted their sleep. Over the next 18 years, the researchers kept track of how many participants died prematurely – 227 in total.

    Even after considering common risk factors like age, sex, mental health, smoking and weight, people who had nightmares every week were still found to be nearly three times more likely to die prematurely – about the same risk as heavy smoking.

    The team also examined “epigenetic clocks” – chemical marks on DNA that act as biological mileage counters. People haunted by frequent nightmares were biologically older than their birth certificates suggested, across all three clocks used (DunedinPACE, GrimAge and PhenoAge).

    The science behind the silent scream

    Faster ageing accounted for about 39% of the link between nightmares and early death, implying that whatever is driving the bad dreams is simultaneously driving the body’s cells towards the finish line.

    How might a scream you never utter leave a mark on your genome? Nightmares happen during so-called rapid-eye-movement sleep when the brain is highly active but muscles are paralysed. The sudden surge of adrenaline, cortisol and other fight-or-flight chemicals can be as strong as anything experienced while awake. If that alarm bell rings night after night, the stress response may stay partially switched on throughout the day.

    Continuous stress takes its toll on the body. It triggers inflammation, raises blood pressure and speeds up the ageing process by wearing down the protective tips of our chromosomes.

    On top of that, being jolted awake by nightmares disrupts deep sleep, the crucial time when the body repairs itself and clears out waste at the cellular level. Together, these two effects – constant stress and poor sleep – may be the main reasons the body seems to age faster.

    Your brain clears out waste when you sleep.
    Teeradej/Shutterstock.com

    The idea that disturbing dreams foreshadow poor health is not entirely new. Earlier studies have shown that adults tormented by weekly nightmares are more likely to develop dementia and Parkinson’s disease, years before any daytime symptoms appear.

    Growing evidence suggests that the brain areas involved in dreaming are also those affected by brain diseases, so frequent nightmares might be an early warning sign of neurological problems.

    Nightmares are also surprisingly common. Roughly 5% of adults report at least one each week and another 12.5% experience them monthly.

    Because they are both frequent and treatable, the new findings elevate bad dreams from a spooky nuisance to a potential public health target. Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia, imagery-rehearsal therapy – where sufferers rewrite the ending of a recurrent nightmare while awake – and simple steps such as keeping bedrooms cool, dark and screen free have all been shown to curb nightmare frequency.

    Before jumping to conclusions, there are a few important things to keep in mind. The study used people’s own reports of their dreams, which can make it hard to tell the difference between a typical bad dream and a true nightmare. Also, most of the people in the study were white Americans, so the findings might not apply to everyone.

    And biological age was measured only once, so we cannot yet say whether treating nightmares slows the clock. Crucially, the work was presented as a conference abstract and has not yet navigated the gauntlet of peer review.

    Despite these limitations, the study has important strengths that make it worth taking seriously. The researchers used multiple groups of participants, followed them for many years and relied on official death records rather than self-reported data. This means we can’t simply dismiss the findings as a statistical fluke.

    If other research teams can replicate these results, doctors might start asking patients about their nightmares during routine check-ups – alongside taking blood pressure and checking cholesterol levels.

    Therapies that tame frightening dreams are inexpensive, non-invasive and already available. Scaling them could offer a rare chance to add years to life while improving the quality of the hours we spend asleep.

    Timothy Hearn 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 frequent nightmares may shorten your life by years – https://theconversation.com/why-frequent-nightmares-may-shorten-your-life-by-years-260008

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Where does the UK most need more public EV chargers?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Labib Azzouz, Research Associate in Transport and Energy Innovation, University of Oxford

    Electric vehicle chargers at a motorway service station in Grantham, England. Angus Reid/Shutterstock

    The automotive and EV industry has repeatedly insisted that the UK needs more electric vehicle (EV) chargers to help motorists make the switch from conventional fossil-fuel burning cars.

    The Labour government has announced £400 million to install EV chargers, mainly on streets in poorer residential neighbourhoods, in place of the Conservative’s £950 million rapid charging fund that was directed at installing chargers in motorway service stations.

    Does it matter where these chargers are – and who pays to build them?

    The short answer is yes, it does matter. Our research conducted at motorway and local EV charging stations across England – including those located in residential areas, high streets and community centres – indicates that these two types of infrastructure serve distinct groups of users and fulfil different purposes.

    Suggesting that one can substitute for the other risks sending mixed signals to both the industry and the driving public.

    We found that motorway charging stations tend to cater to wealthier men, who are more likely to own premium EVs with long-range batteries and better performance. Many of these drivers have access to home chargers, so their use of public chargers is only for occasional, long-distance travel for business, leisure, or holidays – trips that require chargers along motorways.

    Convenience and charging speed are often more important than the price of public charging, particularly when the travel costs of these drivers are covered by their employers.

    Local public charging stations, on the other hand, serve more diverse groups. These include drivers from lower-income households who are more likely to own older and smaller EVs with shorter ranges. Access to home charging is often limited, especially for people living in flats or urban areas without driveways, garages or off-street parking.

    Not everyone can plug in at home.
    Andersen EV/Shutterstock

    Local chargers are also vital for taxi and delivery drivers who depend on their vehicles for work and make frequent short trips throughout the day. There are many professional drivers without access to workplace charging stations who need alternative local provision – something the Conservative government recognised in its 2022 EV charging strategy.

    Ultimately, the transition to EVs should take a balanced approach that carefully considers social equity, economic viability and environmental impact.

    Different locations serve different drivers

    Motorway charging stations are commercially attractive to private investors, such as energy companies, specialist charging providers and car manufacturers, despite their higher upfront costs and complex requirements.

    This is because service stations offer greater short-term revenue due to their ability to set premium prices. This is a result of there being limited alternatives and high demand for rapid charging, especially among long-distance travellers, and the willingness of EV drivers to pay for speed and convenience – unlike in more price-sensitive neighbourhood settings.

    Unsurprisingly, the government found that the rapid deployment of motorway chargers in recent years has been largely driven by the private sector. Our research highlighted that these revenues could be enhanced by a broader range of retail, dining and relaxation amenities, turning the time waiting for a car to charge into a more productive and pleasurable experience.

    Residential charging stations may not offer high profits per charge, but they typically require lower capital investment and benefit from consistent and predictable use. They are also suited to measures for reducing strain on the grid and balancing energy supply and demand.

    These measures include tariffs that make it cheaper to charge EVs during off-peak hours, or technology that allows cars to feed electricity stored in batteries back into the grid. These features make them appropriate for public funding, where return on investment is measured not just in profit but in value for the public.

    Considering that local EV charging serves those who do not have access to home charging and who drive for a living, the case for public funding is even stronger. These sorts of chargers make switching to an EV easier for different groups.

    For example, safe and carefully placed public chargers could help more women switch to EVs – although our research suggests that, while “careful placement” might refer to residential areas, it doesn’t necessarily mean on streets. Well-lit car parks and community destinations are sometimes considered safer options.

    Charging points outside a community centre in the Outer Hebrides, Scotland.
    AlanMorris/Shutterstock

    By helping EV drivers make frequent short trips, local chargers can also significantly reduce urban air pollution, emissions and noise, contributing to more liveable, healthier cities.

    That said, motorway charging stations and those near key transport corridors still play a crucial role in a comprehensive national network, and public funding may be required in more peripheral and rural areas of the UK where installations lag and commercial interest is limited.

    While long-distance trips are less frequent than short ones, they account for a disproportionately large share of energy use and emissions. Switching such trips to electric will be essential to reaching net zero goals.

    It seems reasonable to prioritise public investment in local EV charging infrastructure to support a fairer EV transition, but this should not be limited to on-street chargers. Investment is needed in residential and non-residential areas, public car parks, community centres and workplaces.

    Different types of EV charging are not interchangeable – all are needed to support the switch.

    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.

    Labib Azzouz has received funding from the UK Research and Innovation via the UK Energy Research Centre and Innovate UK as part of the Energy Superhub Oxford (ESO) project.

    Hannah Budnitz receives government funding from UK Research and Innovation grants via the Economic and Social Research Council and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. She has also previously received funding from Innovate UK and the Department for Transport.

    – ref. Where does the UK most need more public EV chargers? – https://theconversation.com/where-does-the-uk-most-need-more-public-ev-chargers-259623

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The Bear season 4: this meaty restaurant drama is still an enticing bingeable prospect

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jane Steventon, Course Leader, BA (Hons) Screenwriting; Deputy Course Leader & Senior Lecturer, BA (Hons) Film Production, University of Portsmouth

    Take a soupçon of identity crisis, a pinch of perfectionism, a scoop of burnout and mix thoroughly with a large measure of fraternal grief and sear over a hot grill and voilà! You have The Bear, a perfectly blended drama about a chef on the edge, driven by relentless ambition and exacting standards as he turns his family’s humble sandwich shop into a fine-dining restaurant.

    This intoxicating family drama was eaten up by critics and audiences alike in 2022, its first season garnering a rare perfect 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes, the subsequent two reaching scores of 99% and 89% respectively. It’s certainly a hard act to follow for season four.

    The first ten minutes of The Bear’s pilot episode thrillingly defined what was to come in high-octane style and scene-setting detail. The first season delivered a clever mix of authentic dialogue and setting, relatable family dysfunction and dynamic production style.

    Showstopping scenes of stressful kitchen heat were served up alongside a delectable range of new and established talent in the form of Jeremy Allen White (Carmy), Ebon Moss-Bachrach (Richie), Ayo Edebiri (Sydney) and Oliver Platt (Cicero/Uncle Jimmy).

    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.

    In charge is showrunner Christopher Storer, who came up with the concept after being inspired by his friend’s father Chris Zucchero, the owner of Chicago sandwich joint Mr Beef.

    With his professional chef sister also serving as a consultant, Storer succeeded in creating a deliciously authentic and intensely real drama. Buoyed along the way by 21 Emmys and five Golden Globes, Storer also watched his cast ascend, the tortured-soul performance of White garnering particular praise.

    Testing the parameters of a long-running show, Storer focused in on the entire cast of characters and their backstories, a successful tactic used by shows such as Orange is the New Black to keep the drama – largely confined to a kitchen set – fresh.

    Pulling in Hollywood die-hards Oliver Platt and Jamie Lee Curtis for familial tough-love roles further enriched the mix, often using a non-chronological timeframe to go back to moments of family turbulence and tension. This made for three-dimensional characters and enabled evolution around difficult themes such as the aftermath of suicide and generational trauma.

    The Bear has come a long way in three seasons, starting with a spit and sawdust establishment serving up the lunchtime beef sandwiches for its working customers.

    Carmy’s experience and longing for the high-end restaurant of his dreams hurtled forward in season two, as he sent his core crew off in different directions to hone their skills and help form his vision. A restaurant trying to win success but plagued with challenges, there were exhausting familial tensions embedded in every episode of season three.

    Several themes play out in The Bear: love, family, loyalty, community and purpose. The relationship between Carmy and cousin Richie (not a real cousin, but a term of endearment) is key to linking past and future. Richie provides some of the highlights of comedy and pathos as he spits truth bombs, most frequently at talented sous-chef Syd.

    It is Syd who follows Carmy’s aspirations for gastronomic perfection but can’t abide the lack of order or the intense highs and lows that inevitably go hand in hand with his talent. And this is one central question to consider for the latest series: just how long will the audience remain loyal to Carmy and his endless quest for artistry in a high-failure rate industry?

    It’s all in the sauce

    Storer begins season four with a ghost. Carmy and his dead brother Mikey (Jon Berthal) banter in a seven-minute scene, with Carmy ultimately confiding the dream of a restaurant as Mikey watches him make tomato sauce (“too much garlic”). The tomatoes resonate: Mikey left behind money hidden in tomato cans that ended up saving Carmy’s sanity and his dream of a proper restaurant.

    Just as oranges represent death to Frances Ford Coppola, Storer uses tomatoes to underscore themes; here they symbolise familial loyalty and history, a solid base to a meal, a core ingredient. Mikey was one of the core ingredients in Carmy’s life, and now he’s gone.

    Carmy awakens to a rerun of Groundhog Day on late-night TV and fittingly, we too are back – same dish, now more seasoned and enriched with its core ingredients and ready to serve up a big bowlful of family, love, ambition, strife and grief.

    The episode furthers the theme of loyalty as the restaurant receives The Tribune’s review – the cliffhanger of the season three finale. Naturally, Storer doesn’t let up – the food critic highlights “dissonance” and Carmy is back in emotional chaos, with Syd urging him to lighten up and lose the misery.

    In truth, this series could do with adding some more humour in the mix; the teasing and frivolous banter of season one has got somewhat lost in the seasons that followed.

    Storer ramps up the tension, setting several ticking clocks in place: chiefly Uncle Jimmy’s notice period for the business to turn a profit is literally installed on a digital clock in the kitchen. Then Syd’s headhunter calls, offering her desired autonomy and an exit strategy from the chaos.

    And Carmy raises the stakes with an intention to gain a Michelin star. Thus a heroic journey is set in place for the whole cast, with future battles both internal and external laid out.

    There’s too much going on at this feast and the feeling of being stuffed full of story is tangible by the end of the first episode. Still, with a season lining up more emotional turbulence steered by White, more celebrity cameos (Brie Larson and Rob Reiner are lined up) and the excellent cinematography and performances that we have come to expect, Storer stirs his secret sauce.

    The Bear still offers an entertaining and enticing proposition, bingeable and mostly satisfying.

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

    – ref. The Bear season 4: this meaty restaurant drama is still an enticing bingeable prospect – https://theconversation.com/the-bear-season-4-this-meaty-restaurant-drama-is-still-an-enticing-bingeable-prospect-260143

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Five ways to avoid illness like the Lionesses

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Samantha Abbott, Doctoral Researcher, Department of Sport Science, Nottingham Trent University

    England’s Beth Mead cheering on podium after win v Germany in the Women European Championship Final 2022 photographyjp/Shutterstock

    Think back to the last time you had a cold or the flu. Now imagine stepping onto the pitch for a European Cup final, while battling through those symptoms. For elite athletes, illness can strike at the worst possible time – and it could hit women harder.

    Research suggests that female athletes are more susceptible to cold and flu-like illnesses than their male counterparts. For England women’s national football team, the Lionesses, this risk only increases before a major tournament like the Euros.

    Close contact, shared kit, disrupted sleep and travel all add up to a perfect storm for infection. But targeted nutritional strategies, alongside good sleep and hand hygiene, can offer a crucial line of defence.

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

    1. Fuel first: energy matters for immunity

    Before anything else, players need to eat enough. Energy supports both performance and immune function. In fact, female athletes who didn’t meet their energy needs in the run-up to the 2016 Olympics were four times more likely to report cold or flu symptoms.

    This is especially relevant in women’s football, where low energy and carbohydrate intake has been documented among professional players and recreational players too. Regular meals and snacks that include carbohydrate-rich foods like oats, bread and pasta, especially around training, are essential to meet energy demands and support immune health.

    2. Eat the rainbow

    Athletes are often encouraged to go beyond the public’s five-a-day fruit and veg target, aiming instead for eight to ten portions daily. Why? Because colourful plant foods are packed with vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and anti-inflammatory compounds: all vital for immunity.



    Read more:
    We’re told to ‘eat a rainbow’ of fruit and vegetables. Here’s what each colour does in our body

    Each colour offers unique benefits. For instance, red fruits and vegetables, such as tomatoes, contain lycopene, a powerful antioxidant. Orange produce like carrots get their colour from beta-carotene, which is converted by the body into vitamin A – a key vitamin for immune health.

    Eating a rainbow of colours means getting a wide range of nutrients.

    3. Vitamin C: powerful but timing matters

    Vitamin C has long been linked with reducing the risk and severity of cold and flu symptoms. One Cochrane review found that regular vitamin C intake halved the risk of illness in physically active people.

    However, more isn’t always better. Long-term use of high-dose vitamin C supplements could blunt training adaptations – the structural and functional changes the body undergoes in response to repeated exercise – because of its anti-inflammatory effects. That’s why vitamin C is most effective when used strategically, such as during high-risk periods like travel or intense competition. Good food sources include oranges, kiwis, blackcurrants, red and yellow peppers, broccoli and even potatoes.

    4. Gut health supports immune health

    Around 70% of the immune system is located in the gut, making gut health a key player in illness prevention. This is where probiotics (live bacteria) and prebiotics (which feed those bacteria) come in.

    Probiotics, found in fermented foods like kefir and kimchi or in supplement form, have been shown to reduce the duration and severity of respiratory illnesses in athletes. Prebiotics have similarly shown promise. In one study, a 24-week prebiotic intervention in elite rugby players reduced the duration of cold and flu symptoms by over two days.



    Read more:
    Gut microbiome: meet Lactobacillus acidophilus – the gut health superhero

    In the build-up to the Euros, including probiotic-rich foods in their diet or taking a daily prebiotic and probiotic supplement may help players stay healthy and return to training faster if they do get ill.

    5. Zinc lozenges: first aid for a sore throat

    If cold-like symptoms do appear, zinc lozenges can offer fast-acting relief. Zinc has antiviral, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. When zinc is delivered as a lozenge, it acts directly in the throat, where many infections begin. Taken within 24 hours of symptoms starting, zinc lozenges could shorten illness duration by a third.

    But caution is key. Long-term use of high-dose zinc supplements can actually suppress immune function. Zinc lozenges should only be used short-term at symptom onset, not as a daily supplement.

    Staying match-ready during major tournaments means more than just tactical drills and fitness. Nutrition is a powerful ally in illness prevention, especially for women’s teams like the Lionesses. From fuelling adequately to supporting gut health and knowing when to supplement, these nutritional strategies can make the difference between sitting on the bench and bringing a trophy home.

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

    – ref. Five ways to avoid illness like the Lionesses – https://theconversation.com/five-ways-to-avoid-illness-like-the-lionesses-259302

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why is Islamophobia so hard to define?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Julian Hargreaves, Lecturer, Department of Sociology and Criminology, City St George’s, University of London

    The UK government wants a new definition of Islamophobia and has created a working group of politicians, academics and independent experts to provide one. It aims to settle long-running political debates over the term.

    The concept of Islamophobia describes anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic prejudices and their impact on Muslim communities. The term became familiar in the UK following publication of the Runnymede Trust report, Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, in 1997.

    The concept is now used to discuss negative public opinion towards Muslims and Islam, biased media reporting, verbal and physical assaults and online attacks. It is also used when discussing social and economic inequalities, discrimination within various institutional settings and unfair treatment from the police and security services.

    Previous definitions have been controversial, failing to unite politicians, academics and British Muslims, and leading to charged debates over free speech.

    Some academics have argued that the word “Islamophobia” – which suggests a phobia or fear of Islam – is an inaccurate label for a prejudice which often targets skin colour, ethnicity and culture.

    Many Muslim-led organisations accept that the term is imperfect and interchangeable with others such as “anti-Muslim hatred”. However, they maintain the term “Islamophobia” is needed to focus attention on a growing problem.

    Definitions and controversy

    The 1997 Runnymede Trust report defined Islamophobia as an “unfounded hostility towards Islam”, “the practical consequences of such hostility in unfair discrimination against Muslim individuals and communities” and “the exclusion of Muslims from mainstream political and social affairs”.

    The Runnymede Trust revised its definition in a follow-up report published in 2017. The report defines Islamophobia in two ways.

    The first is “anti-Muslim racism”. A longer, second version amends the United Nation’s 1965 definition of “racial discrimination”. These revised definitions are important because they re-framed Islamophobia as a product of racist thinking rather than religious prejudices.

    Other attempts to define Islamophobia include British academic Chris Allen’s 200-word definition. Allen defined it as an ideology like racism that spreads negative views of Muslims and Islam, influencing social attitudes and leading to discrimination and violence. US political scientist Erik Bleich defined it more succinctly as “indiscriminate negative attitudes or emotions directed at Islam or Muslims”.

    In 2018, the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims published another definition linking Islamophobia to racism. According to the APPG, “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” The APPG called for its definition to be legally binding.

    The APPG definition was adopted by various organisations including local authorities, UK universities and the Labour party while in opposition. But it was rejected by the then Conservative government and later by the current Labour government, which argued it was seeking “a more integrated and cohesive approach”.

    This lack of consensus over previous definitions led Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, to announce the working group in March 2025. The group’s aim is to provide a new definition of “anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia” which is “reflective of a wide range of perspectives and priorities for British Muslims”.

    Former Conservative MP and attorney general Dominic Grieve was appointed to chair the group, evidence of Labour’s ambition to build consensus.

    A march in London against Islamophobia, racism and anti-migrant views.
    Shutterstock

    Some are concerned that use of the term “Islamophobia”, and particularly the APPG definition, stifles legitimate criticism of Islam. Free speech campaigners have argued that it is “blasphemy via the back door”.

    The centre-right thinktank Policy Exchange published a report claiming that the term is used in bad faith to divert attention away from serious social problems within some Muslim communities – specifically, discussion of the grooming gangs scandal.

    These debates bear resemblance to those surrounding the term “antisemitism” and the adoption of a definition proposed by the International Holocaust Memorial Alliance. The term is widely accepted, although critics have argued this specific definition stifles legitimate criticism of the Israeli state.

    A new approach

    A new definition of “Islamophobia” must balance the protection of Muslim communities and freedoms of religion, expression and assembly for all Muslims and non-Muslims in the UK. It must be clear enough for everyday use, specific enough for academic and policy research, and capable of generating support across the UK’s diverse Muslim population.

    A proposed definition by an emerging thought leader on British Islam addresses these challenges. Mamnun Khan is a writer whose work explores the social integration of Muslims in contemporary British society. Khan is associated with Equi, a thinktank which describes its work as “drawing on Muslim insight”. Other members of Equi are members of the government’s working group.

    Khan sets out three tests that a definition must pass, based on Islamic law, moral teachings within Islam and other more universal values. First, a definition must serve the public interest. Second, it must be just and balanced and preserve freedom of expression. Third, it must uphold the dignity of Muslim communities.

    For Khan, “Islamophobia, also known as anti-Muslim hatred, is an irrational fear, hostility, or prejudice toward Muslims that leads to discrimination, unequal treatment, exclusion, social and political marginalisation, or violence.”

    Khan’s definition has many good qualities. It brings together stronger elements of previous definitions – for, example, the separation of negative attitudes and outcomes – without being weakened by jargon or strong political ideology. On the other hand, some social scientists may question whether defining something as “irrational” is a matter of preference rather than academic research.

    The working group also needs to decide whether Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred are closely related or exactly the same. Failure to do so will cause confusion and inconsistency among those wishing to apply the term precisely. Regardless, Khan’s example is a strong step in the right direction. A better definition of Islamophobia is needed, and now within reach.

    Julian Hargreaves is an Affiliated Researcher at the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Centre of Islamic Studies, University of Cambridge.

    – ref. Why is Islamophobia so hard to define? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-islamophobia-so-hard-to-define-258522

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Toxic fungus from King Tutankhamun’s tomb yields cancer-fighting compounds – new study

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

    Miro Varcek / Shutterstock.com

    In November 1922, archaeologist Howard Carter peered through a small hole into the sealed tomb of King Tutankhamun. When asked if he could see anything, he replied: “Yes, wonderful things.” Within months, however, Carter’s financial backer Lord Carnarvon was dead from a mysterious illness. Over the following years, several other members of the excavation team would meet similar fates, fuelling legends of the “pharaoh’s curse” that have captivated the public imagination for just over a century.

    For decades, these mysterious deaths were attributed to supernatural forces. But modern science has revealed a more likely culprit: a toxic fungus known as Aspergillus flavus. Now, in an unexpected twist, this same deadly organism is being transformed into a powerful new weapon in the fight against cancer.

    Aspergillus flavus is a common mould found in soil, decaying vegetation and stored grains. It is infamous for its ability to survive in harsh environments, including the sealed chambers of ancient tombs, where it can lie dormant for thousands of years.

    When disturbed, the fungus releases spores that can cause severe respiratory infections, particularly in people with weakened immune systems. This may explain the so-called “curse” of King Tutankhamun and similar incidents, such as the deaths of several scientists who entered the tomb of Casimir IV in Poland in the 1970s. In both cases, investigations later found that A flavus was present, and its toxins were probably responsible for the illnesses and deaths.

    Despite its deadly reputation, Aspergillus flavus is now at the centre of a remarkable scientific finding. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have discovered that this fungus produces a unique class of molecules with the potential to fight cancer.

    These molecules belong to a group called ribosomally synthesised and post-translationally modified peptides, or RiPPs. RiPPs are made by the ribosome – the cell’s protein factory – and are later chemically altered to enhance their function.

    While thousands of RiPPs have been identified in bacteria, only a handful have been found in fungi – until now.

    The process of finding these fungal RiPPs was far from simple. The research team screened a dozen different strains or types of aspergillus, searching for chemical clues that might indicate the presence of these promising molecules. Aspergillus flavus quickly stood out as a prime candidate.

    The researchers compared the chemicals from different fungal strains to known RiPP compounds and found promising matches. To confirm their discovery, they switched off the relevant genes and, sure enough, the target chemicals vanished, proving they had found the source.

    Purifying these chemicals proved to be a significant challenge. However, this complexity is also what gives fungal RiPPs their remarkable biological activity.

    The team eventually succeeded in isolating four different RiPPs from Aspergillus flavus. These molecules shared a unique structure of interlocking rings, a feature that had never been described before. The researchers named these new compounds “asperigimycins”, after the fungus in which they were found.

    The next step was to test these asperigimycins against human cancer cells. In some cases, they stopped the growth of cancer cells, suggesting that asperigimycins could one day become a new treatment for certain types of cancer.

    The team also worked out how these chemicals get inside cancer cells. This discovery is significant because many chemicals, like asperigimycins, have medicinal properties but struggle to enter cells in large enough quantities to be useful. Knowing that particular fats (lipids) can enhance this process gives scientists a new tool for drug development.

    Further experiments revealed that asperigimycins probably disrupt the process of cell division in cancer cells. Cancer cells divide uncontrollably, and these compounds appear to block the formation of microtubules, the scaffolding inside cells that are essential for cell division.

    Tremendous untapped potential

    This disruption is specific to certain types of cells, so this may in turn reduce the risk of side-effects. But the discovery of asperigimycins is just the beginning. The researchers also identified similar clusters of genes in other fungi, suggesting that many more fungal RiPPs remain to be discovered.

    Almost all the fungal RiPPs found so far have strong biological activity, making this an area with tremendous untapped potential. The next step is to test asperigimycins in other systems and models, with the hope of eventually moving to human clinical trials. If successful, these molecules could join the ranks of other fungal-derived medicines, such as penicillin, which revolutionised modern medicine.

    The story of Aspergillus flavus is a powerful example of how nature can be both a source of danger and a wellspring of healing. For centuries, this fungus was feared as a silent killer lurking in ancient tombs, responsible for mysterious deaths and the legend of the pharaoh’s curse. Today, scientists are turning that fear into hope, harnessing the same deadly spores to create life-saving medicines.

    This transformation, from curse to cure, highlights the importance of continued exploration and innovation in the natural world. Nature has in fact provided us with an incredible pharmacy, filled with compounds that can heal as well as harm. It is up to scientists and engineers to uncover these secrets, using the latest technologies to identify, modify and test new molecules for their potential to treat disease.

    The discovery of asperigimycins is a reminder that even the most unlikely sources – such as a toxic tomb fungus – can hold the key to revolutionary new treatments. As researchers continue to explore the hidden world of fungi, who knows what other medical breakthroughs may lie just beneath the surface?

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

    – ref. Toxic fungus from King Tutankhamun’s tomb yields cancer-fighting compounds – new study – https://theconversation.com/toxic-fungus-from-king-tutankhamuns-tomb-yields-cancer-fighting-compounds-new-study-259706

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: When do we first feel pain?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Laurenz Casser, Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellow, University of Sheffield

    Alina Troeva/Shutterstock.com

    At some point between conception and early childhood, pain makes its debut. But when exactly that happens remains one of medicine’s most challenging questions.

    Some have claimed that foetuses as young as twelve weeks can already be seen wincing in agony, while others have flat-out denied that even infants show any true signs of pain until long after birth.

    New research from University College London offers fresh insights into this puzzle. By mapping the development of pain-processing networks in the brain – what researchers call the “pain connectome” – scientists have begun to trace exactly when and how our capacity for pain emerges. What they discovered challenges simple answers about when pain “begins”.

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

    The researchers used advanced brain imaging to compare the neural networks of foetuses and infants with those of adults, tracking how different components of pain processing mature over time. Until about 32 weeks after conception, all pain-related brain networks remain significantly underdeveloped compared with adult brains. But then development accelerates dramatically.

    The sensory aspects of pain – the basic detection of harmful stimuli – mature first, becoming functional around 34 to 36 weeks of pregnancy. The emotional components that make pain distressing follow shortly after, developing between 36 and 38 weeks. However, the cognitive centres responsible for consciously interpreting and evaluating pain lag far behind, and remain largely immature by the time of birth, about 40 weeks after conception.

    This staged development suggests that while late-term foetuses and newborns can detect and respond to harmful stimuli, they probably experience pain very differently from older children and adults. Most significantly, newborns probably can’t consciously evaluate their pain – they can’t form the thought: “This hurts and it’s bad!”

    Does it hurt?
    Martin Valigursky/Shutterstock.com

    A history of changing views

    These findings represent the latest chapter in a long-running scientific debate that has swung dramatically over the centuries, often with profound consequences for medical practice.

    For most physiologists in the 18th and 19th centuries, the perceived delicacy of the infant’s body meant that it must be exquisitely sensitive to pain, so much so that some have had their doubts if infants ever felt anything else. Birth, in particular, was imagined to be an extremely painful event for a newborn.

    However, advances in embryology during the 1870s reversed this thinking. As scientists discovered that infant brains and nervous systems were far less developed than adult versions, many began questioning whether babies could truly feel pain at all. If the neural machinery wasn’t fully formed, how could genuine pain experiences exist?

    This scepticism had troubling practical consequences. For nearly a century, many doctors performed surgery on infants without anaesthesia, convinced that their patients were essentially immune to suffering. The practice continued well into the 1980s in some medical centres.

    Towards the end of the 20th century, public outrage about the medical treatment of infants and new scientific results turned the tables yet again. It was found that newborns exhibited many of the signs (neurological, physiological and behavioural) of pain after all, and that, if anything, pain in infants had probably been underestimated.

    The ambiguous brain

    The reason why there has been endless disagreement about infant pain is that we cannot access their experiences directly.

    Sure, we can observe their behaviour and study their brains, but these are not the same thing. Pain is an experience, something that’s felt in the privacy of a person’s own mind, and that’s inaccessible to anyone but the person whose pain it is.

    Of course, pain experiences are typically accompanied by telltale signs: be it the retraction of a body part from a sharp object or the increased activity of certain brain regions. Those we can measure. But the trouble is that no one behaviour or brain event is ever unambiguous.

    The fact that an infant pulls back their hand from a pin prick may mean that it experiences the pricking as painful, but it may also just be an unconscious reflex. Similarly, the fact that the brain is simultaneously showing pain-related activity may be a sign of pain, but it may also be that the processing unfolds entirely unconsciously. We simply don’t know.

    Perhaps the infant knows. But even if they do, they can’t tell us about their experiences yet, and until they can, scientists are left guessing. Fortunately, their guesses are becoming increasingly well informed, but for now, that is all they can be – guesses.

    What would it take to get certainty? Well, it would require an explanation that connects our brains and behaviour to our conscious experiences. But so far, no scientifically respectable explanation of this kind has been forthcoming.

    Laurenz Casser receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust.

    – ref. When do we first feel pain? – https://theconversation.com/when-do-we-first-feel-pain-259588

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: From Roman drains to ancient filters, these artefacts show how solutions to water contamination have evolved

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rosa Busquets, Associate Professor, School of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Kingston University

    Thirst: In Search of Freshwater, an exhibition at Wellcome Collection. Benjamin Gilbert., CC BY-NC-ND

    A new exhibition in London (open until February 2026) called Thirst: In search of freshwater highlights how civilisations have treasured – and been intrinsically linked to – safe, clean water.

    As a chemist, I research how freshwater is polluted by modern civilisation. Common contaminants in rivers include pharmaceuticals,
    microplastics
    (which degrade further when exposed to sunlight and wave power), and forever chemicals or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (some of which are carcinogenic).

    Synthetic toxic chemicals are introduced into the environment from the products we make, use and dispose of. This wasn’t a problem centuries ago, where we had a totally different manufacturing industry and technologies.

    Some, such as PFAS from stain-resistant textiles or nonstick materials such as cookware, can be particularly difficult to remove from wastewater. PFAS don’t degrade easily, they resist conventional heat treatments and can easily pass through wastewater treatments, so they contaminate rivers or lakes that are sources of our drinking water.

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

    Testing for pollutants is even more critical in developing nations that lack sanitation and face drought or flooding.
    Having to protect and conserve drinking water and its sources is as relevant today as it always has been.

    For this exhibition, curator at the Wellcome Collection in London, Janice Li, has selected 125 historical objects, photographs and feats of engineering that link to drought, rain, glaciers, rivers and lakes. These three artefacts from Thirst illustrate how our relationship with water contamination has evolved:

    1. Ancient water filters

    Made from natural materials such as clay, water jug filters have been used for hundreds of years in every continent by ancient civilisations. They show that purifying water for drinking was commonplace. The sand and soil particles that naturally get suspended in water and removed by these filters would have carried microbes.

    Water jug filters with Arabic inscription, found in Egypt, dating back to 900-1,200.
    Victoria and Albert Museum London/Wellcome Collection, CC BY-NC-ND

    But in ancient times, pharmaceuticals and other drugs, pesticides, forever chemicals and microplastics would not have been a problem. Those filters could work relatively well despite being made of simple materials with wide pores.

    Today, those ancient filters would no longer be effective. Modern water filters are made using more advanced materials which typically have small pores (called micropores and mesopores). For example, filters often include activated carbon (a highly porous type of carbon that can be manufactured to capture contaminants) or membranes that filter water. Only then is it safe for people to drink.



    Read more:
    Forever chemicals are in our drinking water – here’s how to reduce them

    2. Roman water pipes

    Lead water pipes (known as fistulae) were useful parts of a relatively advanced plumbing system that distributed drinking water throughout Roman cities. They are still common in water systems in our cities today. In the US, there are about 9.2 million lead service lines in use. Exposure to lead causes severe human health problems. Lead exposure, not necessarily from drinking water only, was attributed to more than 1.5 million deaths in 2021.

    A Roman lead water pipe that dates back to 1-300CE.
    Courtesy of Wellcome Collection/Science Museum Group., CC BY-NC-ND

    It’s now understood that lead is neurotoxic and it can diffuse or spread from the pipes to drinking water. Lead from paints and batteries, including car batteries, can also contaminate drinking water.

    To protect us from lead leaching or flaking off from pipes, some government agencies are calling for the replacement of lead pipes with copper or plastic pipes. Water companies routinely add phosphates (mined powder that contains phosphorus) to drinking water to help capture potential lead contamination and make it safe to drink.

    3. The horror of unhealthy water

    One caricature titled The Monster Soup by artist William Heath (1828) is part of the Wellcome Trust’s permanent collection. The graphics read “microcosms dedicated to the London Water companies” and “Monster soup, commonly called Thames Water being a correct representation of the precious stuff doled out to us”. The cartoon shows a lady so terrified at the sight of microbes in river water from the Thames that she drops her cup of tea.

    Monster Soup by William Heath.
    Courtesy of the Wellcome Collection., CC BY-NC-ND

    Even today, many people remain shocked at the toxic contamination in rivers and sewage pollution prevents people from swimming.

    By 2030, 2 billion people will still not have safely managed drinking water and 1.2 billion will lack basic hygiene services. Drinking water will still be contaminated by bacteria such as E. coli and other dangerous pathogens that cause waterborne diseases. So advancing technologies to filter out contamination will be just as crucial in the future as it has been in the past.

    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.

    Rosa Busquets receives funding from UKRI/ EU Horizons MSCA Staff exchanges Clean Water project 101131182, DASA, project ACC6093561. She is affiliated with Kingston University, UCL, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, UNEP EEAP.

    – ref. From Roman drains to ancient filters, these artefacts show how solutions to water contamination have evolved – https://theconversation.com/from-roman-drains-to-ancient-filters-these-artefacts-show-how-solutions-to-water-contamination-have-evolved-253876

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Trump plays with new media says a lot about him – as it did with FDR, Kennedy and Obama

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sara Polak, University Lecturer in American Studies, Leiden University

    There is a strange and worrying parallel between the breakneck speed at which Donald Trump has operated in the first few months of his presidency and the ever-accelerating pace at which information moves on social media platforms. Where in his first term he used Twitter, now, the 47th US president is using his own platform, TruthSocial, to announce changes of direction that are sometimes so fundamental that they change decades of US policy.

    Social media has become a key tool of governing for Trump’s administration. He uses it both to make announcements and to drum up support for those announcements. His social media posts can move the markets and make or break careers. They can even, it seems, stop wars.

    So when he used TruthSocial to announce a ceasefire between Israel and Iran on June 23, giving the two countries a deadline to stop firing missiles, it appears that neither of the antagonists were fully aware of the situation, given they carried on attacking each other. So an all-caps message followed: “ISRAEL. DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS,” he posted. “BRING YOUR PILOTS HOME, NOW!” – adding, just in case anyone had any doubt he was serious: “DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.”

    Trump’s use of his TruthSocial platform began as he sought to re-establish himself from the political wilderness after the insurrection of January 6 2021. It has now become a tool of his extreme power and his willingness to use (and abuse) it – globally as well as domestically.

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

    He’s the latest in a string of US presidents known for their adroit use of whichever is the medium most guaranteed to connect with the greatest number of people. From Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt’s adept cultivation of print journalists in the early 20th century through Franklin D. Roosevelt’s comforting use of radio as it gained popularity and John F. Kennedy’s mastery of the rising medium of television, presidents have expanded their reach and influence through adept use of media.

    FDR’s “fireside chats”, broadcast on the radio throughout the US in the 1930s, reached an estimated 80% of the population, showing he understood the key media principle of reach. Roosevelt would address his listeners as “my friends” and Americans came to understand them as seemingly intimate conversations with their president.

    FDR dominated the airwaves at a time when many Americans hardly understood the important role that the federal government played in their own lives – and millions of households were only just getting mains electricity (thanks to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936). But radios were becoming a common mass medium and FDR perfectly understood how to use it. If you listen to the fireside chats, FDR may sound patrician – and at times formal – but his tone is also friendly, thoughtful and reassuring.

    In Germany at around the same time, Adolf Hitler’s massive stadium speeches were very effective for people who were in the stadium and being lifted by the intensity of the crowd and all the carefully thought out visual cues. But when broadcast on radio, Hitler had nothing like Roosevelt’s ability to connect with people on a personal level.

    Roosevelt was hardly the first leader – or even the first US president – to speak on the radio. But he was the first to master the medium. He figured out how to use its potential to deliver a key implicit message: that his government should and did take on a central role in people’s lives.

    Equally, John F. Kennedy can be said to have “discovered” political television. Not just as a medium for political campaigns, debates and speeches – but also for putting across to a mass audience his role as the embodiment of American decency, beauty and masculinity: JFK’s White House as Camelot.

    JFK was considered a master of the fast-growing medium of television.

    Both Roosevelt and Kennedy were in several ways physically disabled and lived with chronic illness, yet through the “new medium” of their time were able to project an image of quintessentially American strength and trustworthiness. In part this was their own doing – but it’s also a testament to the power of the media they used for their time.

    Mastering the medium

    These possibilities of a medium used to its best advantage – for example, to be heard around the US, but still to project a sense of intimacy – have become known as the “affordances” of a medium. The medium afforded Roosevelt space to be authentic without showing his disability. Kennedy appeared young, fit and handsome – even when dependent on painkillers.

    When a new medium is introduced, people start to play around with its affordances – and this applies to politicians too. Political leaders who develop a special aptitude for using the new medium to emphasise their unique style can become particularly successful, as has Donald Trump with his use of social media.

    The US president rose to power helped by his adept use of many of Twitter’s attributes – the imposed brevity of his messages, the ease of retweeting, the tendency for other users to “pile on” (and the user anonymity, which tends to encourage pile-ons) to polarise American public debate.

    Trump was forced off Twitter after the Capitol Hill insurrection of January 6 2021. So he came back with his own platform, TruthSocial, where he can also make the rules. And now he uses the platform to make foreign policy, trumpeting his positions (which can change with bewildering speed) on TruthSocial well before they can be announced by the White House press team, which often has to scramble to catch up.

    When Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan penned his famous phrase: “The medium is the message” in his groundbreaking 1964 study, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, he meant to say that media form and content are not as distinct from one another as one might think and that the form of a medium of communication can shape society as much as its content. In Donald Trump’s use of social media, we are seeing this idea at work.

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

    – ref. How Trump plays with new media says a lot about him – as it did with FDR, Kennedy and Obama – https://theconversation.com/how-trump-plays-with-new-media-says-a-lot-about-him-as-it-did-with-fdr-kennedy-and-obama-248923

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Asos should be wary of banning customers returning unwanted goods

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nic Sanders, Senior Lecturer in Management and Marketing, University of Westminster

    ‘Now where’s that returns label?’ Cast of Thousands.Shutterstock

    Shopping for clothes online is a risky business. How do you know if that top will be a good fit, or those shoes will definitely be the right colour? One popular solution to this predicament is to order lots of tops and lots of shoes, try them on at home, and send back all the ones you don’t want – often at no cost.

    But that tactic can be expensive for the fashion retailer, which needs to pay for all those deliveries and returns. And now Asos, which sends millions of shipments every month, has started banning some customers for over-returning items – prompting something of a backlash.

    The response by the retail giant, which says it wants to maintain a “commitment to offering free returns to all customers across all core markets”, also raises questions about the sustainability of the online fashion business model which Asos helped to create.

    Many online retailers rely on the emotional highs of shopping. The excitement of placing an order, the anticipation of delivery, and the dopamine hit of unpacking a purchase is central to its popular customer experience.

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

    Online shopping generally has thrived on impulsive buying, with the option of returning items treated as a normal part of the process. Of course, even in the days before online shopping there would be customers who routinely returned items.

    But by digitising and simplifying the process, the likes of Asos have helped this to happen on a massive scale. Shoppers have become completely used to ordering multiple sizes or styles with the express intention of returning most of the items they receive. Their homes effectively become fitting rooms.

    And those customers could reasonably argue that online retailers often use digital strategies which encourage multi-item purchases.

    Some sites remind shoppers of recently viewed products and provide suggestions of similar items, for example. There may be are prompts and nudges towards clothes which are frequently bought together.

    Items are then sometimes temporarily reserved in a shopper’s basket for 60 minutes, creating a sense of urgency. Targeted emails and limited time offers drive bulging shopping baskets, encouraging more risk purchases and returns.

    Yet returned items carry a significant cost. They may be unfit for resale and ultimately disposed of, which beyond the financial burden, has an environmental price.

    In addition to creating landfill, each delivery and return has a carbon footprint. And although many younger consumers express support for sustainable practices, their buying behaviour continues to prioritise price and convenience.

    But free returns have become part of the online fashion industry landscape. Research suggests that customers are simply more likely to buy something if returns are free.

    And today’s tricky financial climate, marked by inflation and rising living costs will surely have made consumers even more cautious. Many will be reluctant to buy items that incur delivery and return costs.

    Shopping around

    Frustrations can then arise from unclear return policies, often buried in lengthy terms and conditions documents. Some of those banned by Asos say they were confused about the rules.

    Automated customer service systems offering generic responses may then leave shoppers with no clear way to challenge these decisions.

    Perhaps the wider issue here is that online shopping cannot fully replicate the benefits of shopping in store. In physical shops, customers can try on items before deciding.

    But online, this can’t happen, so returns become fundamental to the decision-making process. For cost-conscious shoppers, avoiding unnecessary spending is essential. But if returns policies become harder to access, they may turn to other retailers which offer more certainty.

    Return to sender?
    A08/Shutterstock

    For example, retailers such as Zara and H&M, with a business model which mixes online convenience with a high street (or shopping mall) presence, offer the option to order online and then return in person.

    This hybrid (or “omni-channel”) model appears to be driving consumers to physical shops for a blended experience which provides convenience and helps reduce return costs.

    For Asos, doing something similar would require major investment (in bricks and mortar) and increased operational costs – so is perhaps an unlikely solution for the company.

    But to balance sustainability, cost and customer satisfaction, Asos could explore other options. These might include clearer, more visible communication regarding “fair use” policies and their consequences. It could aim for more human interactions and better dialogue with customers it plans to ban.

    Offering physical retail locations or return collection points to simplify the process and reduce the environmental impact and costs will provide customer flexibility. Overall, these areas will help create a better customer service experience.

    Ultimately, Asos and other similar online clothing retailers must evolve. With changing consumer expectations, a challenging economic climate and rising operational costs, the model that defined these retailers’ early success cannot remain unchanged.

    If they make adjustments, they may emerge stronger. If they do not, they risk sparking a customer exodus that would be hard to reverse.

    Nic Sanders 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 Asos should be wary of banning customers returning unwanted goods – https://theconversation.com/why-asos-should-be-wary-of-banning-customers-returning-unwanted-goods-259952

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Humans and animals can both think logically − but testing what kind of logic they’re using is tricky

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Olga Lazareva, Professor of Psychology, Drake University

    For some mental processes, humans and animals likely follow similar lines of thinking. Catherine Falls Commercial/Moment via Getty Images

    Can a monkey, a pigeon or a fish reason like a person? It’s a question scientists have been testing in increasingly creative ways – and what we’ve found so far paints a more complicated picture than you’d think.

    Imagine you’re filling out a March Madness bracket. You hear that Team A beat Team B, and Team B beat Team C – so you assume Team A is probably better than Team C. That’s a kind of logical reasoning known as transitive inference. It’s so automatic that you barely notice you’re doing it.

    It turns out humans are not the only ones who can make these kinds of mental leaps. In labs around the world, researchers have tested many animals, from primates to birds to insects, on tasks designed to probe transitive inference, and most pass with flying colors.

    As a scientist focused on animal learning and behavior, I work with pigeons to understand how they make sense of relationships, patterns and rules. In other words, I study the minds of animals that will never fill out a March Madness bracket – but might still be able to guess the winner.

    Logic test without words

    The basic idea is simple: If an animal learns that A is better than B, and B is better than C, can it figure out that A is better than C – even though it’s never seen A and C together?

    In the lab, researchers test this by giving animals randomly paired images, one pair at a time, and rewarding them with food for picking the correct one. For example, animals learn that a photo of hands (A) is correct when paired with a classroom (B), a classroom (B) is correct when paired with bushes (C), bushes (C) are correct when paired with a highway (D), and a highway (D) is correct when paired with a sunset (E). We don’t know whether they “understand” what’s in the picture, and it is not particularly important for the experiment that they do.

    In a transitive inference task, subjects learn a series of rewarded pairs – such as A+ vs. B–, B+ vs. C– – and are later tested on novel pairings, like B vs. D, to see whether they infer an overall ranking.
    Olga Lazareva, CC BY-ND

    One possible explanation is that the animals that learn all the tasks create a mental ranking of these images: A > B > C > D > E. We test this idea by giving them new pairs they’ve never seen before, such as classroom (B) vs. highway (D). If they consistently pick the higher-ranked item, they’ve inferred the underlying order.

    What’s fascinating is how many species succeed at this task. Monkeys, rats, pigeons – even fish and wasps – have all demonstrated transitive inference in one form or another.

    The twist: Not all tasks are easy

    But not all types of reasoning come so easily. There’s another kind of rule called transitivity that is different from transitive inference, despite the similar name. Instead of asking which picture is better, transitivity is about equivalence.

    In this task, animals are shown a set of three pictures and asked which one goes with the center image. For example, if white triangle (A1) is shown, choosing red square (B1) earns a reward, while choosing blue square (B2) does not. Later, when red square (B1) is shown, choosing white cross (C1) earns a reward while choosing white circle (C2) does not. Now comes the test: white triangle (A1) is shown with white cross (C1) and white circle (C2) as choices. If they pick white cross (C1), then they’ve demonstrated transitivity.

    In a transitivity task, subjects learn matching rules across overlapping sets – such as A1 matches B1, B1 matches C1 – and are tested on new combinations, such as A1 with C1 or C2, to assess whether they infer the relationship between A1 and C1.
    Olga Lazareva, CC BY-ND

    The change may seem small, but species that succeed in those first transitive inference tasks often stumble in this task. In fact, they tend to treat the white triangle and the white cross as completely separate things, despite their common relationship with the red square. In my recently published review of research using the two tasks, I concluded that more evidence is needed to determine whether these tests tap into the same cognitive ability.

    Small differences, big consequences

    Why does the difference between transitive inference and transitivity matter? At first glance, they may seem like two versions of the same ability – logical reasoning. But when animals succeed at one and struggle with the other, it raises an important question: Are these tasks measuring the same kind of thinking?

    The apparent difference between the two tasks isn’t just a quirk of animal behavior. Psychology researchers apply these tasks to humans in order to draw conclusions about how people reason.

    For example, say you’re trying to pick a new almond milk. You know that Brand A is creamier than Brand B, and your friend told you that Brand C is even waterier than Brand B. Based on that, because you like a thicker milk, you might assume Brand A is better than Brand C, an example of transitive inference.

    But now imagine the store labels both Brand A and Brand C as “barista blends.” Even without tasting them, you might treat them as functionally equivalent, because they belong to the same category. That’s more like transitivity, where items are grouped based on shared relationships. In this case, “barista blend” signals the brands share similar quality.

    How researchers define logical reasoning determines how they interpret results.
    Svetlana Mishchenko/iStock via Getty Images

    Researchers often treat these types of reasoning as measuring the same ability. But if they rely on different mental processes, they might not be interchangeable. In other words, the way scientists ask their questions may shape the answer – and that has big implications for how they interpret success in animals and in people.

    This difference could affect how researchers interpret decision-making not only in the lab, but also in everyday choices and in clinical settings. Tasks like these are sometimes used in research on autism, brain injury or age-related cognitive decline.

    If two tasks look similar on the surface, then choosing the wrong one might lead to inaccurate conclusions about someone’s cognitive abilities. That’s why ongoing work in my lab is exploring whether the same distinction between these logical processes holds true for people.

    Just like a March Madness bracket doesn’t always predict the winner, a reasoning task doesn’t always show how someone got to the right answer. That’s the puzzle researchers are still working on – figuring out whether different tasks really tap into the same kind of thinking or just look like they do. It’s what keeps scientists like me in the lab, asking questions, running experiments and trying to understand what it really means to reason – no matter who’s doing the thinking.

    Olga Lazareva 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. Humans and animals can both think logically − but testing what kind of logic they’re using is tricky – https://theconversation.com/humans-and-animals-can-both-think-logically-but-testing-what-kind-of-logic-theyre-using-is-tricky-253001

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Pop, soda or coke? The fizzy history behind America’s favorite linguistic debate

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Valerie M. Fridland, Professor of Linguistics, University of Nevada, Reno

    ‘I’ll have a coke – no, not Coca-Cola, Sprite.’ Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

    With burgers sizzling and classic rock thumping, many Americans revel in summer cookouts – at least until that wayward cousin asks for a “pop” in soda country, or even worse, a “coke” when they actually want a Sprite.

    Few American linguistic debates have bubbled quite as long and effervescently as the one over whether a generic soft drink should be called a soda, pop or coke.

    The word you use generally boils down to where you’re from: Midwesterners enjoy a good pop, while soda is tops in the North and far West. Southerners, long the cultural mavericks, don’t bat an eyelash asking for coke – lowercase – before homing in on exactly the type they want: Perhaps a root beer or a Coke, uppercase.

    As a linguist who studies American dialects, I’m less interested in this regional divide and far more fascinated by the unexpected history behind how a fizzy “health” drink from the early 1800s spawned the modern soft drink’s many names and iterations.

    Bubbles, anyone?

    Foods and drinks with wellness benefits might seem like a modern phenomenon, but the urge to create drinks with medicinal properties inspired what might be called a soda revolution in the 1800s.

    An 1878 engraving of a soda fountain.
    Smith Collection/Gado via Getty Images

    The process of carbonating water was first discovered in the late 1700s. By the early 1800s, this carbonated water had become popular as a health drink and was often referred to as “soda water.” The word “soda” likely came from “sodium,” since these drinks often contained salts, which were then believed to have healing properties.

    Given its alleged curative effects for health issues such as indigestion, pharmacists sold soda water at soda fountains, innovative devices that created carbonated water to be sold by the glass. A chemistry professor, Benjamin Stillman, set up the first such device in a drugstore in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1806. Its eventual success inspired a boom of soda fountains in drugstores and health spas.

    By the mid-1800s, pharmacists were creating unique root-, fruit- and herb-infused concoctions, such as sassafras-based root beer, at their soda fountains, often marketing them as cures for everything from fatigue to foul moods.

    These flavored, sweetened versions gave rise to the linking of the word “soda” with a sweetened carbonated beverage, as opposed to simple, carbonated water.

    Seltzer – today’s popular term for such sparkling water – was around, too. But it was used only for the naturally carbonated mineral water from the German town Nieder-Selters. Unlike Perrier, sourced similarly from a specific spring in France, seltzer made the leap to becoming a generic term for fizzy water.

    Many late-19th-century and early 20th-century drugstores contained soda fountains – a nod to the original belief that the sugary, bubbly drink possessed medicinal qualities.
    Hall of Electrical History Foundation/Corbis via Getty Images

    Regional naming patterns

    So how did “soda” come to be called so many different things in different places?

    It all stems from a mix of economic enterprise and linguistic ingenuity.

    The popularity of “soda” in the Northeast likely reflects the soda fountain’s longer history in the region. Since a lot of Americans living in the Northeast migrated to California in the mid-to-late 1800s, the name likely traveled west with them.

    As for the Midwestern preference for “pop” – well, the earliest American use of the term to refer to a sparkling beverage appeared in the 1840s in the name of a flavored version called “ginger pop.” Such ginger-flavored pop, though, was around in Britain by 1816, since a Newcastle songbook is where you can first see it used in text. The “pop” seems to be onomatopoeic for the noise made when the cork was released from the bottle before drinking.

    A jingle for Faygo touts the company’s ‘red pop.’

    Linguists don’t fully know why “pop” became so popular in the Midwest. But one theory links it to a Michigan bottling company, Feigenson Brothers Bottling Works – today known as Faygo Beverages – that used “pop” in the name of the sodas they marketed and sold. Another theory suggests that because bottles were more common in the region, soda drinkers were more likely to hear the “pop” sound than in the Northeast, where soda fountains reigned.

    As for using coke generically, the first Coca-Cola was served in 1886 by Dr. John Pemberton, a pharmacist at Jacobs’ Pharmacy in Atlanta and the founder of the company. In the 1900s, the Coca-Cola company tried to stamp out the use of “Coke” for “Coca-Cola.” But that ship had already sailed. Since Coca-Cola originated and was overwhelmingly popular in the South, its generic use grew out of the fact that people almost always asked for “Coke.”

    No alcohol means not ‘hard’ but ‘soft.’
    Nostalgic Collections/eBay

    As with Jell-O, Kleenex, Band-Aids and seltzer, it became a generic term.

    What’s soft about it?

    Speaking of soft drinks, what’s up with that term?

    It was originally used to distinguish all nonalcoholic drinks from “hard drinks,” or beverages containing spirits.

    Interestingly, the original Coca-Cola formula included wine – resembling a type of alcoholic “health” drink popular overseas, Vin Mariani. But Pemberton went on to develop a “soft” version a few years later to be sold as a medicinal drink.

    Due to the growing popularity of soda water concoctions, eventually “soft drink” came to mean only such sweetened carbonated beverages, a linguistic testament to America’s enduring love affair with sugar and bubbles.

    With the average American guzzling almost 40 gallons per year, you can call it whatever you what. Just don’t call it healthy.

    Valerie M. Fridland 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. Pop, soda or coke? The fizzy history behind America’s favorite linguistic debate – https://theconversation.com/pop-soda-or-coke-the-fizzy-history-behind-americas-favorite-linguistic-debate-259114

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: In LGBTQ+ storybook case, Supreme Court handed a win to parental rights, raising tough questions for educators

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Charles J. Russo, Joseph Panzer Chair in Education and Research Professor of Law, University of Dayton

    The parents who brought the case had requested that their children be excused when books with LGBTQ+ characters were used in class. SDI Productions/E+ via Getty Images

    The Supreme Court tends to save its blockbuster orders for the last day of the term – and 2025 was no exception.

    Among the important decisions handed down June 27, 2025, was Mahmoud v. Taylor – a case of particular interest to me, because I teach education law. Mahmoud, I believe, may become one of the court’s most consequential rulings on parental rights.

    An interfaith coalition of Muslim, Orthodox Christian and Catholic parents in Montgomery County, Maryland – including Tamer Mahmoud, for whom the case is named – questioned the school board’s refusal to allow them to opt their young children out of lessons using picture books with LGBTQ+ characters. Ruling in favor of the parents, the court found that the board violated their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion by requiring their children to sit through lessons with materials inconsistent with their faiths.

    Case history

    The parents in Mahmoud challenged the use of certain storybooks that the board had approved for use in preschool and elementary school. “Pride Puppy!” for example – a book the schools later removed – portrays a family whose pet gets lost at a LGBTQ+ Pride parade, with each page devoted to a letter of the alphabet. The book’s “search and find” list of words directs readers to look for terms in the pictures, including “(drag) queen” and “king,” “leather” and “lip ring.” Other materials included stories about same-sex marriage, a transgender child, and nonbinary bathroom signs.

    Initially, school administrators agreed to allow opt-outs for students whose parents objected to the materials. A day later, however, educators changed their minds. School officials cited concerns about absenteeism, the feasibility of accommodating opt-out requests, and a desire to avoid stigmatizing LGBTQ+ students or families.

    In August 2023, a federal trial court rejected the parents’ claim that officials had violated their fundamental due process right to direct the care, custody and education of their children. The following year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed in favor of the board, finding that officials did not violate the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religious beliefs, as protected by the First Amendment.

    A group of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, protest the lack of opt-outs on July 20, 2023.
    Celal Gunes/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

    On appeal, a 6-3 Supreme Court reversed in favor of the parents. Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the court’s opinion, was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, plus Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

    Supreme Court

    In brief, the court held that by denying the parental requests to opt their children out of instruction inconsistent with their beliefs, school officials violated their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

    Alito largely grounded the court’s rationale in a dispute from 1925, Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Name of Jesus and Mary, and even more heavily on 1972’s Wisconsin v. Yoder. Both cases recognize the primacy of parental rights to direct the education of their children. According to Pierce’s famous dictum, “the child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”

    In Yoder, Amish parents – an Anabaptist Christian community that avoids using many modern technologies – objected to sending their children to school after eighth grade because this would have violated their religious beliefs. The justices unanimously agreed with the parents that their children received all of the education they needed in their communities. The justices added that requiring the children to attend high school would have violated the parents’ rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing.

    Accordingly, the court acknowledged that the parental right “to guide the religious future and education of their children” was “established beyond debate.”

    Similarly, in Mahmoud the court declared that “the Board’s introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion.”

    Thomas agreed fully with the court, yet wrote a separate concurrence, which emphasized “an important implication of this decision for schools across the country.” Citing Yoder, Thomas contended that rather than support inclusion, the board’s policy “imposes conformity with a view that undermines parents’ religious beliefs, and thus interferes with the parents’ right to ‘direct the religious upbringing of their children.’”

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, feared “the result will be chaos for this Nation’s public schools. Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools.”

    Supporters of LGBTQ+ rights demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor on April 22, 2025.
    Oliver Contreras/AFP via Getty Images

    She maintained that “simply being exposed to beliefs contrary to your own” does not violate a person’s free exercise rights. Insulating children from different ideas, she wrote, denies them of an experience that is crucial for democracy: “practice living in our multicultural society.”

    Implications

    After the decision was handed down, Montgomery County’s Board of Education issued a statement promising to “analyze the Supreme Court decision and develop next steps in alignment with today’s decision, and as importantly, our values.”

    Mahmoud raises challenging questions about the scope or reach of how far parents can question curricular content.

    On the one hand, parents should not be able to micromanage curricular content via the “heckler’s veto,” because this can lead to larger issues. Moreover, while Mahmoud concerns religious rights, what happens if parents question teachings based on another type of sincerely held belief – discussing war if they are pacifist, for example, or capitalism if they are socialists? While Mahmoud dealt with free-exercise rights, it may open the door to other types of First Amendment challenges from parents wishing to exempt their children from lessons.

    On the other hand, Mahmoud highlights the need to take legitimate parental concerns into consideration. While educators typically control instruction, how can they be respectful of parents’ rights as primary caregivers of their children when conflicts arise?

    Mahmoud may go a long way in defining parents’ free-exercise rights in public schools. Still, such disputes are likely far from over in America’s increasingly diverse religious culture.

    Charles J. Russo 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. In LGBTQ+ storybook case, Supreme Court handed a win to parental rights, raising tough questions for educators – https://theconversation.com/in-lgbtq-storybook-case-supreme-court-handed-a-win-to-parental-rights-raising-tough-questions-for-educators-260064

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Invasive carp threaten the Great Lakes − and reveal a surprising twist in national politics

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Mike Shriberg, Professor of Practice & Engagement, School for Environment & Sustainability, University of Michigan

    Invasive Asian carp are spreading up the Mississippi River system and already clog the Illinois River. AP Photo/John Flesher

    In his second term, President Donald Trump has not taken many actions that draw near-universal praise from across the political spectrum. But there is at least one of these political anomalies, and it illustrates the broad appeal of environmental protection and conservation projects – particularly when it concerns an ecosystem of vital importance to millions of Americans.

    In May 2025, Trump issued a presidential memorandum supporting the construction of a physical barrier that is key to keeping invasive carp out of the Great Lakes. These fish have made their way up the Mississippi River system and could have dire ecological consequences if they enter the Great Lakes.

    It was not a given that Trump would back this project, which had long been supported by environmental and conservation organizations. But two very different strategies from two Democratic governors – both potential presidential candidates in 2028 – reflected the importance of the Great Lakes to America.

    As a water policy and politics scholar focused on the Great Lakes, I see this development not only as an environmental and conservation milestone, but also a potential pathway for more political unity in the U.S.

    A feared invasion

    Perhaps nothing alarms Great Lakes ecologists more than the potential for invasive carp from Asia to establish a breeding population in the Great Lakes. These fish were intentionally introduced in the U.S. Southeast by private fish farm and wastewater treatment operators as a means to control algae in aquaculture and sewage treatment ponds. Sometime in the 1990s, the fish escaped from those ponds and moved rapidly up the Mississippi River system, including into the Illinois River, which connects to the Great Lakes.

    Sometimes said to “breed like mosquitoes and eat like hogs,” these fish can consume up to 40% of their body weight each day, outcompeting many native species and literally sucking up other species and food sources.

    Studies of Lake Erie, for example, predict that if the carp enter and thrive, they could make up approximately one-third of the fish biomass of the entire lake within 20 years, replacing popular sportfishing species such as walleye and other ecologically and economically important species.

    Invasive carp are generally not eaten in the U.S. and are not desirable for sportfishing. In fact, silver carp have a propensity to jump up to 10 feet out of the water when startled by a boat motor. That can make parts of the Illinois River, which is packed with the invasive fish, almost impossible to fish or even maneuver a boat.

    Look out! Silver carp fly out of the water, obstructing boats and hitting people trying to enjoy a river in Indiana.

    The Brandon Road Lock and Dam solution

    Originally, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River were not connected to each other. But in 1900, the city of Chicago connected them to avoid sending its sewage into Lake Michigan, from which the city draws its drinking water.

    The most complete way to block the carp from invading the Great Lakes would be to undo that connection – but that would recreate sewage and flooding issues for Chicago, or require other expensive infrastructure upgrades. The more practical, short-term alternative is to modify the historic Brandon Road Lock and Dam in Joliet, Illinois, by adding several obstacles that together would block the carp from swimming farther upriver toward the Great Lakes.

    The barrier, estimated to cost US$1.15 billion, was authorized by Congress in 2020 and 2022 after many years of intense planning and negotiations. For the first phase of construction, the project received $226 million in federal money from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to complement $114 million in state funding – $64 million from Michigan and $50 million from Illinois.

    On the first day of Trump’s second term, however, he paused a wide swath of federal funding, including funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. And that’s when two different political strategies emerged.

    A brief documentary explains the construction of a connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basin.

    Pritzker vs. Whitmer vs. Trump

    Illinois, a state that has voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1992, has the most financially at stake in the Brandon Road project because the project requires the state to acquire land and operate the barrier. When Trump issued his order, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, postponed the purchase of a key piece of land, blaming the “Trump Administration’s lack of clarity and commitment” to the project. Pritzker essentially dared Trump to be the reason for the collapse of the Great Lakes ecosystem and fisheries.

    Another Democrat, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, a swing state with the most at stake economically and ecologically if these carp species enter the Great Lakes, took a very different approach. She went to the White House to talk with Trump about invasive carp and other issues. She defended her nonconfrontational approach to critics, though she also hid her face from cameras when Trump surprised her with an Oval Office press conference. When Trump visited Michigan, she stood beside him as they praised each other.

    When Trump released the federal funding in early May, Pritzker kept up his adversarial language, saying he was “glad that the Trump administration heard our calls … and decided to finally meet their obligation.” Whitmer stayed more conciliatory, calling the funding decision a “huge win that will protect our Great Lakes and secure our economy.” She said she was “grateful to the president for his commitment.”

    Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer greets President Donald Trump as he arrives in her state in late April 2025.
    AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    Why unity on carp?

    Whether coordinated or not, the net result of Pritzker’s and Whitmer’s actions drew praise from both sides of the aisle but was little noticed nationally.

    Trump’s support for the project was a rare moment of political unity and an extremely unusual example of leading Democrats being on the same page as Trump. I attribute this surprising outcome to two key factors.

    First, the Great Lakes region holds disproportionate power in presidential elections. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have backed the eventual winner in every presidential race for the past 20 years. This swing state power has been used by advocates and state political leaders to drive funding for Great Lakes protection for many years.

    Second, Great Lakes are the uniting force in the region. According to polling from the International Joint Commission, the binational body charged with overseeing waterways that cross the U.S.-Canada border, there is “nearly unanimous support (96%) for the importance of government investment in Great Lakes protections” from residents of the region.

    There aren’t any other issues with such high voter resonance, so politicians want to be sure Great Lakes voters are happy. For example, Vice President JD Vance has been particularly vocal about the Great Lakes. And Great Lakes restoration funding was one of the few things in the presidential budget that Democrats and Republicans agreed on.

    Both Pritzker and Whitmer likely had state-based and national motivations in mind and big aspirations at stake.

    Their combined effort has put the project back on track: As of May 12, 2025, Pritzker authorized Illinois to sign the land-purchase agreement he had paused back in February.

    And perhaps the governors have identified a new area for unity in a divided United States: Conservation and environmental issues have broad public support, particularly when they involve iconic natural resources, shared values and popular outdoor pursuits such as fishing and boating. Even when political strategies diverge, the results can bring bipartisan satisfaction.

    Mike Shriberg was previously the Great Lakes Regional Executive Director of the National Wildlife Federation, which entailed being a co-chair (and, for part of the time, Director) of the Healing Our Waters – Great Lakes Coalition.

    – ref. Invasive carp threaten the Great Lakes − and reveal a surprising twist in national politics – https://theconversation.com/invasive-carp-threaten-the-great-lakes-and-reveal-a-surprising-twist-in-national-politics-257707

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: 1 in 4 Americans reject evolution, a century after the Scopes monkey trial spotlighted the clash between science and religion

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By William Trollinger, Professor of History, University of Dayton

    The 1925 Scopes trial, in which a Dayton, Tennessee, teacher was charged with violating state law by teaching biological evolution, was one of the earliest and most iconic conflicts in America’s ongoing culture war.

    Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” published in 1859, and subsequent scientific research made the case that humans and other animals evolved from earlier species over millions of years. Many late-19th-century American Protestants had little problem accommodating Darwin’s ideas – which became mainstream biology – with their religious commitments.

    But that was not the case with all Christians, especially conservative evangelicals, who held that the Bible is inerrant – without error – and factually accurate in all that it has to say, including when it speaks on history and science.

    The Scopes trial occurred July 10-21, 1925. Between 150 and 200 reporters swooped into the small town. Broadcast on Chicago’s WGN, it was the first trial to be aired live over radio in the United States.

    One hundred years after the trial, and as we have documented in our scholarly work, the culture war over evolution and creationism remains strong – and yet, when it comes to creationism, much has also changed.

    The trial

    In May 1919, over 6,000 conservative Protestants gathered in Philadelphia to create, under the leadership of Baptist firebrand William Bell Riley, the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association, or WCFA.

    Holding to biblical inerrancy, these “fundamentalists” believed in the creation account detailed in chapter 1 of Genesis, in which God brought all life into being in six days. But most of these fundamentalists also accepted mainstream geology, which held that the Earth was millions of years old. Squaring a literal understanding of Genesis with an old Earth, they embraced either the “day-age theory” – that each Genesis day was actually a long period of time – or the “gap theory,” in which there was a huge gap of time before the six 24-hour days of creation.

    This nascent fundamentalist movement initiated a campaign to pressure state legislatures to prohibit public schools from teaching evolution. One of these states was Tennessee, which in 1925 passed the Butler Act. This law made it illegal for public schoolteachers “to teach any theory that denies the story of divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.”

    The American Civil Liberties Union persuaded John Thomas Scopes, a young science teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, to challenge the law in court. The WCFA sprang into action, successfully persuading William Jennings Bryan – populist politician and outspoken fundamentalist – to assist the prosecution. In response, the ACLU hired famous attorney Clarence Darrow to serve on the defense team.

    A huge crowd attending the Scopes trial.
    Bettmann/Contributor via Getty Images

    When the trial started, Dayton civic leaders were thrilled with the opportunity to boost their town. Outside the courtroom there was a carnivalesque atmosphere, with musicians, preachers, concession stands and even monkeys.

    Inside the courtroom, the trial became a verbal duel between Bryan and Darrow regarding science and religion. But as the judge narrowed the proceedings to whether or not Scopes violated the law – a point that the defense readily admitted – it seemed clear that Scopes would be found guilty. Many of the reporters thus went home.

    But the trial’s most memorable episode was yet to come. On July 20, Darrow successfully provoked Bryan to take the witness stand as a Bible expert. Due to the huge crowd and suffocating heat, the judge moved the trial outdoors.

    The 3,000 or so spectators witnessed Darrow’s interrogation of Bryan, which was primarily intended to make Bryan and fundamentalism appear foolish and ignorant. Most significant, Darrow’s questions revealed that, despite Bryan’s’ assertion that he read the Bible literally, Bryan actually understood the six days of Genesis not as 24-hour days, but as six long and indeterminate periods of time.

    American lawyer and politician William Jennings Bryan during the Scopes trial in Dayton, Tenn.
    Hulton Archive/Getty Image

    The very next day, the jury found Scopes guilty and fined him US$100. Riley and the fundamentalists cheered the verdict as a triumph for the Bible and morality.

    The fundamentalists and ‘The Genesis Flood’

    But very soon that sense of triumph faded, partly because of news stories that portrayed fundamentalists as ignorant rural bigots. In one such example, a prominent journalist, H. L. Mencken, wrote in a Baltimore Sun column that the Scopes trial “serves notice on the country that Neanderthal man is organizing in these forlorn backwaters of the land.”

    The media ridicule encouraged many scholars and journalists to conclude that creationism and fundamentalism would soon disappear from American culture. But that prediction did not come to pass.

    Instead, fundamentalists, including WCFA leader Riley, seemed all the more determined to redouble their efforts at the grassroots level.

    But as Darrow’s interrogation of Bryan made obvious, it was not easy to square a literal reading of the Bible – including the six-day creation outlined in Genesis – with a scientific belief in an old Earth. What fundamentalists needed was a science that supported the idea of a young Earth.

    In their 1961 book, “The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications, fundamentalists John Whitcomb, a theologian, and Henry Morris, a hydraulic engineer, provided just such a scientific explanation. Making use, without attribution, of the writings of Seventh-day Adventist geologist George McCready Price, Whitcomb and Morris made the case that Noah’s global flood lasted one year and created the geological strata and mountain ranges that made the Earth seem ancient.

    “The Genesis Flood” and its version of flood geology remains ubiquitous among fundamentalists and other conservative Protestants.

    Young Earth creationism

    Today, opinion polls reveal that roughly one-quarter of all Americans are adherents of this newer strand of creationism, which rejects both mainstream geology as well as mainstream biology.

    Replica of Noah’s Ark at the Ark Encounter, near Williamstown, Ky.
    Ron Buskirk/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

    This popular embrace of young Earth creationism also explains the success of Answers in Genesis – AiG – which is the world’s largest creationist organization, with a website that attracts millions of visitors every year.

    AiG’s tourist sites – the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, and the Ark Encounter in Williamstown, Kentucky – have attracted millions of visitors since their opening in 2007 and 2016. Additional AiG sites are planned for Branson, Missouri, and Pigeon Forge, Tennessee.

    Presented as a replica of Noah’s Ark, the Ark Encounter is a gigantic structure – 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, 51 feet high. It includes representations of animal cages as well as plush living quarters for the eight human beings who, according to Genesis chapters 6-8, survived the global flood. Hundreds of placards in the Ark make the case for a young Earth and a global flood that created the geological strata and formations we see today.

    Ark Encounter has been the beneficiary of millions of dollars from state and local governments.

    Besides AiG tourist sites, there is also an ever-expanding network of fundamentalist schools and homeschools that present young Earth creationism as true science. These schools use textbooks from publishers such as Abeka Books, Accelerated Christian Education and Bob Jones University Press.

    The Scopes trial involved what could and could not be taught in public schools regarding creation and evolution. Today, this discussion also involves private schools, given that there are now at least 15 states that have universal private school choice programs, in which families can use taxpayer-funded education money to pay for private schooling and homeschooling.

    In 1921, William Bell Riley admonished his opponents that they should “cease from shoveling in dirt on living men,” for the fundamentalists “refuse to be buried.” A century later, the funeral for fundamentalism and creationism seems a long way off.

    The authors 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. 1 in 4 Americans reject evolution, a century after the Scopes monkey trial spotlighted the clash between science and religion – https://theconversation.com/1-in-4-americans-reject-evolution-a-century-after-the-scopes-monkey-trial-spotlighted-the-clash-between-science-and-religion-258163

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Bill Moyers’ journalism strengthened democracy by connecting Americans to ideas and each other, in a long and extraordinary career

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Julie Leininger Pycior, Professor of History Emeritus, Manhattan University

    “Bill Moyers? He’s spectacular!” George Clooney said – and no wonder.

    I mentioned this legendary television journalist to the actor and filmmaker after Clooney emerged from the Broadway theater where he just had been portraying another news icon: Edward R. Murrow. Or as the Museum of Broadcast Communications put it in a tribute to Moyers, he was “one of the few broadcast journalists who might be said to approach the stature of Edward R. Murrow. If Murrow founded broadcast journalism, Moyers significantly extended its traditions.”

    Moyers, who died at 91 on June 26, 2025, was among the most acclaimed broadcast journalists of the 20th century. He’s known for TV news shows that exposed the role of big money in politics and episodes that drew attention to unsung defenders of democracy, such as community organizer Ernesto Cortés Jr..

    Earlier in his life, Moyers served in significant roles in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, but his fame comes from his journalism.

    Making a connection

    Despite his prominence, Moyers was the same down-to-earth guy in person as he seemed to be on the screen. In 1986, he was commanding a television audience of millions, and I was a historian at home with a preschooler, teaching the occasional college course in a dismal job market. Seeing that Moyers would be speaking at the conference on President Lyndon B. Johnson where I would be giving a paper, I wrote to him.

    To my utter amazement, he replied and then showed up to hear my paper, on Johnson’s experiences as a young principal of the “Mexican” school in Cotulla, Texas, where he championed his students but also forged links to segregationists. Cotulla was “seminal” to LBJ’s development, Moyers said. In 1993, he recommended me for a grant that helped me finish a book: “LBJ and Mexican Americans: The Paradox of Power.

    A few years later, he asked me to head up a project researching the documents related to his time in Johnson’s administration. His memoir of the Johnson years never materialized. Instead, I edited the bestselling ”Moyers on America: A Journalist and His Times.“

    Part of what always impressed me about Moyers was his belief that what matters is not how close you are to power, but how close you are to reality.

    ‘Amazing Grace’

    Moyers didn’t just dwell on politics and policy as a journalist. He also delved into the meaning of creativity and the life of the mind. Many of his most moving interviews spotlighted scientists, novelists and other exceptional people.

    He was also arguably among the best reporters on the religion beat. Even if it wasn’t always the main focus of his work or what comes to mind for those familiar with his legacy, still, he was a lifelong spiritual seeker.

    This is hardly surprising: Moyers had degrees in both divinity and journalism. As a young man, he briefly served as a Baptist minister.

    He once told me that his favorite of the many programs that he produced was the PBS documentary ”Amazing Grace.“ It featured inspiring renditions of this popular Christian hymn as performed by country legend Johnny Cash, folk icon Judy Collins, opera diva Jessye Norman and other musical geniuses. As they share with Moyers their personal connections to this song of redemption, he draws viewers into the stirring saga of its creator, John Newton: a slave trader who became an abolitionist through “amazing grace.”

    Bill Moyers interviews Judy Collins about singing ‘Amazing Grace,’ following the production of his PBS special about the hymn.

    Life’s ultimate questions

    This appreciation of the ineffable clearly informed Moyers’ blockbuster TV series exploring life’s ultimate questions, “Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth.”

    His interviews with Campbell, a comparative mythologist, evoked moments that made time stand still, and this reminded me of Thomas Merton, the American monk and poet, writing, “Everything is emptiness and everything is compassion” on beholding the immense Polonnaruwa Buddhas of Sri Lanka.

    To my surprise, Moyers knew about this Trappist monk, telling me, “I always wished that I could have interviewed Merton,” who died in 1968.

    It turned out that Moyers had been introduced to Merton by Sargent Shriver, founding director of the Peace Corps, where Moyers was a founding organizer and the deputy director.

    Mentored by LBJ

    Moyers characterized his Peace Corps years as the most rewarding of his life. When Johnson, his mentor, became president, he asked Moyers to join the White House staff. Moyers turned down the offer, so Johnson made it a presidential command.

    The wunderkind – Moyers was 29 years old in 1963, when Johnson was sworn in after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination – coordinated the White House task forces that created the largest number of legislative proposals in American history. Among the programs and landmark reforms established and passed during the Johnson administration were Medicare and Medicaid, a landmark immigration law, the Freedom of Information Act, the Public Broadcasting Act and two historic civil rights laws.

    Johnson’s war on poverty, in addition, introduced several path-breaking programs, such as Head Start.

    Moyers served as one of Johnson’s speechwriters and was a top official in Johnson’s 1964 presidential campaign. The following year, the Johnson administration began escalating U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and Johnson named a new press secretary: Bill Moyers. Again, the young man tried to decline, but the president prevailed.

    As Moyers had feared, he could not serve two masters – journalists and his boss – especially as the administration’s Vietnam War policies became increasingly unpopular.

    President Lyndon B. Johnson confers with Bill Moyers, his press secretary, in 1965.
    Corbis Historical via Getty Images

    Appreciating the world around you

    Moyers left the Johnson administration in 1967, turning to journalism. He became the publisher of Newsday, a Long Island, New York, newspaper, before becoming a producer and commentator at CBS News. His commentaries reached tens of millions of viewers, but the network refused to provide a regular time slot for his documentaries. He had previously worked at PBS. In 1987, he decamped there for good.

    Moyers’ programs won many journalism awards, including over 30 Emmys, along with the Lifetime Emmy for news and documentary productions.

    He helped millions of Americans appreciate the world around them. As he reflected in 2023, in one of the last interviews he gave, to PBS journalist Judy Woodruff at the Library of Congress: “Everything is linked, and if you can find that nerve that connects us to other things and other places and other ideas – and television should be doing it all the time – we’d be a better democracy.”

    Judy Woodruff interviews Bill Moyers about his life’s work in government and the media, including his contributions to the launch of PBS, at the Library of Congress.

    Today, with disinformation metastasizing, professional journalists losing their jobs by the thousands and some newspaper owners muzzling their editorial staff, thoughtful explanations can lose out. That means Americans can lose out.

    “It takes time, commitment” to dig below the surface and discover the deeper meaning of people’s lives, Moyers noted. He sought to understand, for example, why so many folks in his own hometown of Marshall, Texas, have become much more suspicious – resentful, even – of outsiders than when he gave these folks voice in his poignant, prize-winning 1984 program Marshall, Texas; Marshall, Texas.

    In this era of growing threats to democracy, what can a young person do who aspires to follow in Bill Moyers’ footsteps – whether in journalism or public life?

    Woodruff asked Moyers that question, to which he responded: “You can’t quit. You can’t get out of the boat! Find a place that gives you a sense of being, gives you a sense of mission, gives you a sense of participation.”

    Today, with the future of journalism – and of democracy itself – at stake, I think it would help everyone to take to heart the insights of this late, great American journalist.

    Julie Leininger Pycior edited the book “Moyers on America: A Journalist and His Times.” She also was hired by Moyers to direct the 18-month “LBJ Years” research project.

    In addtion, she served as an unpaid, informal historical adviser for some of his public television programs.

    – ref. Bill Moyers’ journalism strengthened democracy by connecting Americans to ideas and each other, in a long and extraordinary career – https://theconversation.com/bill-moyers-journalism-strengthened-democracy-by-connecting-americans-to-ideas-and-each-other-in-a-long-and-extraordinary-career-260047

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Keeping brain-dead pregnant women on life support raises ethical issues that go beyond abortion politics

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Lindsey Breitwieser, Assistant Professor of Gender & Women’s Studies, Hollins University

    Laws such as Georgia’s LIFE Act can complicate ethical and legal decision-making in postmortem pregnancy.
     Darya Komarova/Moment via Getty Images

    Adriana Smith, a 30-year-old woman from Georgia who had been declared brain-dead in February 2025, spent 16 weeks on life support while doctors worked to keep her body functioning well enough to support her developing fetus. On June 13, 2025, her premature baby, named Chance, was born via cesarean section at 25 weeks.

    Smith was nine weeks pregnant when she suffered multiple blood clots in her brain. Her story gained public attention when her mother criticized doctors’ decision to keep her on a ventilator without the family’s consent. Smith’s mother has said that doctors told the family the decision was made to align with Georgia’s LIFE Act, which bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy and bolsters the legal standing of fetal personhood. A statement released by the hospital also cites Georgia’s abortion law.

    “I’m not saying we would have chosen to terminate her pregnancy,” Smith’s mother told a local television station. “But I’m saying we should have had a choice.”

    The LIFE Act is one of several state laws that have passed across the U.S. since the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision invalidated constitutional protections for abortion. Although Georgia’s attorney general denied that the LIFE Act applied to Smith, there’s little doubt that it invites ethical and legal uncertainty when a woman dies while pregnant.

    Smith’s case has swiftly become the focus of a reproductive rights political firestorm characterized by two opposing viewpoints. For some, it reflects demeaning governmental overreach that quashes women’s bodily autonomy. For others it illustrates the righteous sacrifice of motherhood.

    In my work as a gender and technology studies scholar, I have cataloged and studied postmortem pregnancies like Smith’s since 2016. In my view, Smith’s story doesn’t fit straightforwardly into abortion politics. Instead, it points to the need for a more nuanced ethical approach that does not frame a mother and child as adversaries in a medical, legal or political context.

    Birth after death

    For centuries, Catholic dogma and Western legal precedent have mandated immediate cesarean section when a pregnant woman died after quickening, the point when fetal movement becomes discernible. But technological advances now make it possible sometimes for a fetus to continue gestating in place when the mother is brain-dead, or “dead by neurological criteria”– a widely accepted definition of death that first emerged in the 1950s.

    The first brain death during pregnancy in which the fetus was delivered after time on life support, more accurately called organ support, occurred in 1981. The process is extraordinarily intensive and invasive, because the loss of brain function impedes many physiological processes. Health teams, sometimes numbering in the hundreds, must stabilize the bodies of “functionally decapitated” pregnant women to buy more time for fetal development. This requires vital organ support, ventilation, nutritional supplements, antibiotics and constant monitoring. Outcomes are highly uncertain.

    Adriana Smith’s baby was delivered by cesarian section on June 13, 2025.

    Smith’s 112-day stint on organ support ranks third in length for a postmortem pregnancy, with the longest being 123 days. Hers is also the earliest ever gestational age from which the procedure has been attempted. Because time on organ support can vary widely, and because there is no established minimum fetal age considered too early to intervene, a fetus could theoretically be deemed viable at any point in pregnancy.

    Postmortem pregnancy as gender-based violence

    Over the past 50 years, critics of postmortem pregnancy have argued that it constitutes gender-based violence and violates bodily integrity in ways that organ donation does not. Some have compared it with Nazi pronatalist policies. Others have attributed the practice to systemic sexism and racism in medicine. Postmortem pregnancy can also compound intimate partner violence by giving brain-dead women’s murderers decision-making authority when they are the fetus’s next of kin.

    Fetal personhood laws complicate end-of-life decision-making in ways that many consider violent too. As I have seen in my own research, when the fetus is considered a legal person, women’s wishes may be assumed, debated in court or committee, or set aside entirely, nearly always in favor of the fetus.

    From the perspective of reproductive rights advocates, postmortem pregnancy is the bottom of a slippery slope down which anti-abortion sentiment has led America. It obliterates women’s autonomy, pitting living and dead women against doctors, legislators and sometimes their own families, and weaponizing their own fetuses against them.

    A medical perspective on rights

    Viewed through a medical lens, however, postmortem pregnancy is not violent or violating, but an act of repair. Although care teams have responsibilities to both mother and fetus, a pregnant woman’s brain death means she cannot be physically harmed and her rights cannot be violated to the same degree as a fetus with the potential for life.

    Medical practitioners are conditioned to prioritize life over death, motivating a commitment to salvage something from a tragedy and try to partially restore a family. The high-stakes world of emergency medicine makes protecting life reflexive and medical interventions automatic. Once fetal life is detected, as one hospital spokesperson put it in a 1976 news article in The Boston Globe, “What else could you do?”

    This response does not necessarily stem from conscious sexism or anti-abortion sentiment, but from reverence for vulnerable patients. If physicians declare a pregnant woman brain-dead, patienthood often automatically transfers to the fetus needing rescue. No matter its age and despite its survival being dependent on machines, just like its mother, the fetus is entirely animate. Who or what counts as a legal person with privileges and protections might be a political or philosophical determination, but life is a matter of biological fact and within the doctors’ purview.

    The first baby born from a postmortem pregnancy was delivered in 1981.
    Emmanuel Faure/The Image Bank via Getty Images

    An ethics of anti-opposition

    Both of the above perspectives have validity, but neither accounts for postmortem pregnancy’s ethical and biological complexity.

    First, setting mother against fetus, with the rights of one endangering the rights of the other, does not match pregnancy’s lived reality of “two bodies, sutured,” as the cultural scholar Lauren Berlant put it.

    Even the Supreme Court recognized this entangled duality in their 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade, which established both constitutional protections for abortion and a governmental obligation to protect fetal life. Whether a fetus is considered a legal person or not, they wrote, pregnant women and fetuses “cannot be isolated in their privacy” – meaning that reproductive rights issues must strike a balance, however tenuous, between maternal and fetal interests. To declare postmortem pregnancy unequivocally violent or a loss of the “right to choose” fails to recognize the complexity of choice in a highly politicized medical landscape.

    Second, maternal-fetal competition muddles the right course of action. In the U.S., competent patients are not compelled to engage in medical care they would rather avoid, even if it kills them, or to stay on life support to preserve organs for donation. But when a fetus is treated as an independent patient, exceptions could be made to those medical standards if the fetus’s interests override the mother’s.

    For example, pregnancy disrupts standard determination of death. To protect the fetus, care teams increasingly skip a necessary diagnostic for brain death called apnea testing, which involves momentarily removing the ventilator to test the respiratory centers of the brain stem. In these cases, maternal brain death cannot be confirmed until after delivery. Multiple instances of vaginal deliveries after brain death also remain unexplained, given that the brain coordinates mechanisms of vaginal labor. All in all, it’s not always clear women in these cases are entirely dead.

    Ultimately, women like Adriana Smith and their fetuses are inseparable and persist in a technologically defined state of in-betweenness. I’d argue that postmortem pregnancies, therefore, need new bioethical standards that center women’s beliefs about their bodies and a dignified death. This might involve recognizing pregnancy’s unique ambiguities in advance directives, questioning default treatment pathways that may require harm be done to one in order to save another, or considering multiple definitions of clinical and legal death.

    In my view, it is possible to adapt our ethical standards in a way that honors all beings in these exceptional circumstances, without privileging either “choice” or “life,” mother or fetus.

    This research was supported by a grant from The Institute for Citizens and Scholars.

    – ref. Keeping brain-dead pregnant women on life support raises ethical issues that go beyond abortion politics – https://theconversation.com/keeping-brain-dead-pregnant-women-on-life-support-raises-ethical-issues-that-go-beyond-abortion-politics-258457

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –