NewzIntel.com

Category: Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Curious Kids: Why do dolphins jump out of the water?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Katharina J. Peters, Lecturer in Biological Sciences, University of Wollongong

    Will Falcon/Shutterstock

    Why do dolphins jump out of the water?

    Charlize, age 8, Melbourne

    Have you ever seen images of dolphins jumping out of the waves and performing impressive acrobatics in the air? Or maybe you’ve seen it in real life?

    When a dolphin jumps, it can launch its whole body out of the water. While it looks like fun, it must also be hard work!

    So, why do dolphins jump out of the water? There are several possible reasons. Let’s jump in and explore them.

    A dolphin can launch its whole body out of the water.
    Paulphin Photography/Shutterstock

    To stay in touch

    Dolphins are social animals and live in groups. But it’s hard to see long distances underwater. So, they use the power of sound to stay in contact with each other.

    Sound travels much farther underwater than through the air. When dolphins jump, the slap of the landing makes a loud noise, and would be heard some distance away.

    Some species, such as spinner dolphins, use jumping to communicate their location to other group members, especially at night. This helps them keep track of each other.

    As an aside, spinner dolphins are very skilled jumpers. As the name suggests, they spin up to seven times in the air before landing back in the water!

    Spinner dolphins are the acrobats of the sea.

    The need for speed

    Have you ever tried to walk underwater? You will have felt how hard it is. That’s because water is more dense than air, which creates a “drag”, or resistance.

    Dolphins have streamlined bodies to reduce drag, but they still feel it. So, if they want to travel quickly – for example, if they are trying to escape a predator or hunt fish – they sometimes jump.

    While in the air, they travel faster than they would through water, and also save energy.

    To gather food

    Some dolphins weigh less than 50 kilograms, such as the Hector’s dolphin. Others weigh several tonnes, such as an orca.

    Either way, when a dolphin crashes back into the water, you can be sure it makes quite a noisy splash.

    Some dolphin species, such as dusky dolphins, use this noise to herd fish at the surface to make them easier to capture.

    Shaking off hitchhikers

    Fish called remoras can attach themselves to dolphins using a sucker on their head. This is good for the fish, because it can keep them safe and they have plenty to eat, such as small parasites and old bits of dolphin skin.

    While the remoras don’t hurt the dolphin, they probably slow it down. So dolphins may try to get rid of the little hitchhikers by jumping to dislodge them.

    A dolphin calf jumping to remove remoras.

    Fighting and frolicking

    Dolphins are highly intelligent animals. They have big brains and can learn tricks and solve puzzles. With intelligence also come other traits: playfulness and social behaviour.

    Sometimes, that social behaviour can end in a “fight”. Dolphin experts say two dolphins jumping around together might be actually trying to hit each other!

    Dolphins also love to frolic – not just with each other but with other marine mammals such as whales and sea lions, with turtles – or even just a piece of seaweed! So they might jump as some sort of “game”.

    As you can see, dolphins may jump for a range of reasons – sometimes just because it’s really fun!

    Katharina J. Peters 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. Curious Kids: Why do dolphins jump out of the water? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-do-dolphins-jump-out-of-the-water-256462

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What can you do if you don’t like your child’s friends?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Rachael Murrihy, Director, The Kidman Centre, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney

    Getty Images/ Wander Woman Collective

    Many parents will be familiar with this situation: your child has a good or even best friend, but you don’t like them.

    Perhaps the friend is bossy, has poor manners or jumps on your furniture. Maybe you don’t like the way your child behaves when they are with this friend.

    For older children, your dislike might relate to the friend’s language, attitude towards school, or risk-taking behaviours. Maybe the friend is hot and cold and elicits more drama than Mean Girls.

    What can parents do?



    Read more:
    How can you help your child make friends?

    You will have a protective instinct

    If you see your child being treated poorly, this can ignite a protective instinct in parents that manifests in a bodily “fight or flight” response.

    This provides a rush of adrenaline, which can spur parents to take actions such as criticising the friend or even attempting to ban the friendship.

    However, this approach can do more harm than good, particularly for adolescents who are hardwired to push back on their parents.

    What can you do for younger kids?

    With younger children, clear boundaries can be set at the outset of a playdate. For example, “my bedroom is off limits for playing” or “we don’t jump on the couch”.

    If kids are using mean or rude language around each other, you can say “we don’t use that word in this house, be kind to each other”.

    Playdates can be moved outside, which can be particularly helpful if a child shows loud, destructive or rude behaviour. And if you can help it, organise fewer plays with that child.

    But parents may also want to reflect on why this child rubs them the wrong way. Is the reaction warranted, or does it comes from your own biases and opinions? Your child’s friends do not have to be the friends you would choose.

    Change your approach for older kids

    To become successful adults, teens need to move through developmental milestones of becoming autonomous and self-reliant. Intervening in their friendships interferes with this vital process of developing independence and identity, which ultimately disempowers them.

    In the 1960s, US psychologist Diana Baumrind published famous research on parenting. She found an authoritarian style – where the parent exerts complete control and does not listen to the child’s needs – results in a child with less confidence and independence than one brought up in a household that has rules but is also responsive to their needs.

    Adopting an authoritarian approach to friends or potential partners also risks the “Romeo and Juliet” effect, whereby disapproval makes the child more attracted to that person.

    So, for teenagers and their friends, the approach should be more nuanced. The primary goal is to encourage the child to see the parent as a person to come to when they have problems. If parents are tempted to be critical, they could ask themself: is it in the best interests of your child to be controlled?

    It is important to let children make mistakes so they can learn from them. Learning about what they do and don’t want in relationships is a crucial life skill.



    Read more:
    ‘How was school today?’ How to help kids open up and say more than ‘fine’

    How can you talk about friendship?

    Fostering an open dialogue about friends and relationships can allow parents to have influence in a subtle and developmentally appropriate way.

    For younger children, you could use a quiet moment to ask questions like “what can you say to Charlotte if you don’t want to play her game anymore?” or “what’s a good way to deal with it if she is being too bossy?”

    For older children, ideally wait until your teen wants to connect, rather than launching into questions. Ask gentle, non-judgmental questions about their friendship, like “what do you like to do together?” or “tell me about what you have in common”.

    If they seem upset or uncomfortable in some way, resist the urge to dismiss or solve the problem. Simply listening is the key to helping the child work it out, so they feel supported but not judged.

    And remember, not all friendships last. As children move through school and grow, most will naturally make new friends and move on from old ones.

    Clearly, one exception to adopting a teen-led approach is when safety is at risk. If they are being bullied or abused in any form – even if the child is opposed – parents should step in and speak to the school or other relevant authorities.



    Read more:
    What can you do if your child is being bullied?

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

    – ref. What can you do if you don’t like your child’s friends? – https://theconversation.com/what-can-you-do-if-you-dont-like-your-childs-friends-257353

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Measles cases are surging globally. Should children be vaccinated earlier?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Meru Sheel, Associate Professor, Infectious Diseases, Immunisation and Emergencies (IDIE) Group, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney

    EyeEm Mobile GmbH/Getty Images

    Measles has been rising globally in recent years. There were an estimated 10.3 million cases worldwide in 2023, a 20% increase from 2022.

    Outbreaks are being reported all over the world including in the United States, Europe and the Western Pacific region (which includes Australia). For example, Vietnam has reportedly seen thousands of cases in 2024 and 2025.

    In Australia, 77 cases of measles have been recorded in the first five months of 2025, compared with 57 cases in all of 2024.

    Measles cases in Australia are almost all related to international travel. They occur in travellers returning from overseas, or are contracted locally after mixing with an infected traveller or their contacts.

    Measles most commonly affects children and is preventable with vaccination, given in Australia in two doses at 12 and 18 months old. But in light of current outbreaks globally, is there a case for reviewing the timing of measles vaccinations?

    Some measles basics

    Measles is caused by a virus belonging to the genus Morbillivirus. Symptoms include a fever, cough, runny nose and a rash. While it presents as a mild illness in most cases, measles can lead to severe disease requiring hospitalisation, and even death. Large outbreaks can overwhelm health systems.

    Measles can have serious health consequences, such as in the brain and the immune system, years after the infection.

    Measles spreads from person to person via small respiratory droplets that can remain suspended in the air for two hours. It’s highly contagious – one person with measles can spread the infection to 12–18 people who aren’t immune.

    Because measles is so infectious, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends two-dose vaccination coverage above 95% to stop the spread and achieve “herd immunity”.

    Low and declining vaccine coverage, especially since the COVID pandemic, is driving global outbreaks.



    Read more:
    What are the symptoms of measles? How long does the vaccine last? Experts answer 6 key questions

    When are children vaccinated against measles?

    Newborn babies are generally protected against measles thanks to maternal antibodies. Maternal antibodies get passed from the mother to the baby via the placenta and in breast milk, and provide protection against infections including measles.

    The WHO advises everyone should receive two doses of measles vaccination. In places where there’s a lot of measles circulating, children are generally recommended to have the first dose at around nine months old. This is because it’s expected maternal antibodies would have declined significantly in most infants by that age, leaving them vulnerable to infection.

    If maternal measles antibodies are still present, the vaccine is less likely to produce an immune response.

    Research has also shown a measles vaccine given at less than 8.5 months of age can result in an antibody response which declines more quickly. This might be due to interference with maternal antibodies, but researchers are still trying to understand the reasons for this.

    A second dose of the vaccine is usually given 6–9 months later. A second dose is important because about 10–15% of children don’t develop antibodies after the first vaccine.

    In settings where measles transmission is under better control, a first dose is recommended at 12 months of age. Vaccination at 12 months compared with nine months is considered to generate a stronger, longer-lasting immune response.

    In Australia, children are routinely given the measles-mumps- rubella (MMR) vaccine at 12 months and the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV, with “varicella” being chickenpox) vaccine at 18 months.

    Babies at higher risk of catching the disease can also be given an additional early dose. In Australia, this is recommended for infants as young as six months when there’s an outbreak or if they’re travelling overseas to a high-risk setting.

    A new study looking at measles antibodies in babies

    A recent review looked at measles antibody data from babies under nine months old living in low- and middle-income countries. The review combined the results from 20 studies, including more than 8,000 babies. The researchers found that while 81% of newborns had maternal antibodies to measles, only 30% of babies aged four months had maternal antibodies.

    This study suggests maternal antibodies to measles decline much earlier than previously thought. It raises the question of whether the first dose of measles vaccine is given too late to maximise infants’ protection, especially when there’s a lot of measles around.

    Should we bring the measles vaccine forward in Australia?

    All of the data in this study comes from low- and middle-income countries, and might not reflect the situation in Australia where we have much higher vaccine coverage for measles, and very few cases.

    Australia’s coverage for two doses of the MMR vaccine at age two is above 92%.

    Although this is lower than the optimal 95%, the overall risk of measles surging in Australia is relatively low.

    Nonetheless, there may be a case for broadening the age at which an early extra dose of the measles vaccine can be given to children at higher risk. In New Zealand, infants as young as four months can receive a measles vaccine before travelling to an endemic country.

    But the current routine immunisation schedule in Australia is unlikely to change.

    Adding an extra dose to the schedule would be costly and logistically difficult. Lowering the age for the first dose may have some advantages in certain settings, and doesn’t pose any safety concerns, but further evidence would be required to support this change. In particular, research is needed to ensure it wouldn’t negatively affect the longer-term protection that vaccination offers from measles.

    Making sure you’re protected

    In the meantime, ensuring high levels of measles vaccine coverage with two doses is a global priority.

    People born after 1966 are recommended to have two doses of measles vaccine. This is because those born before the mid-1960s likely caught measles as children (when the vaccine was not yet available) and would therefore have natural immunity.

    If you’re unsure about your vaccination status, you can check this through the Australian Immunisation Register. If you don’t have a documented record, ask your doctor for advice.

    Catch-up vaccination is available under the National Immunisation Program.

    Meru Sheel receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

    Anita Heywood 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. Measles cases are surging globally. Should children be vaccinated earlier? – https://theconversation.com/measles-cases-are-surging-globally-should-children-be-vaccinated-earlier-257942

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Can Israel still claim self-defence to justify its Gaza war? Here’s what the law says

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Donald Rothwell, Professor of International Law, Australian National University

    On October 7 2023, more than 1,000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

    That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, “Israel is at war”. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children.

    Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has “an inherent right to defend itself”, as Netanyahu stated in early 2024.

    This is based on the right to self-defence in international law, which is outlined in Article 51 of the 1945 United Nations Charter as follows:

    Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[…]

    At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law.

    However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defence justification still holds.

    Can Israel exercise self-defence ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine?

    Self-defence in the law

    Self-defence has a long history in international law.

    The modern principles of self-defence were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defence would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not “unreasonable or excessive”.

    The concept of self-defence was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the second world war in response to German and Japanese aggression.

    Self-defence was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11 2001 terror attacks.

    Israel is a legitimate, recognised state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defence will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

    However, the right of self-defence is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality.

    The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face.

    The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel’s military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed.

    The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defence in response to the October 7 attacks.

    This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be “annihilated” unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted.

    These comments and Israel’s ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met.

    A test of proportionality

    The importance of proportionality in self-defence has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice.

    Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack.

    While the law allows a war to continue until an aggressor surrenders, it does not legitimise the complete destruction of the territory where an aggressor is fighting.

    The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians.

    While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians.

    Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel’s exercise of self-defence has become disproportionate.

    The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel’s actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court.

    My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defence and international law.

    Is rescuing hostages in self-defence?

    Israel could separately argue it is exercising legitimate self-defence to rescue the remaining hostages held by Hamas.

    However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defence is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked.

    In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defence has been adopted – and no international consensus on its use.

    In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel’s war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas.

    Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel’s ongoing military operations.

    An act of aggression?

    If Israel can no longer rely on self-defence to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterised under international law?

    Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power.

    While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7.

    Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory.

    However, the scale of the IDF’s operations constitute an armed conflict and well exceed the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power.

    Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel’s current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law.

    These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred – and continues to occur – in Gaza.

    The international community has rightly condemned Russia’s invasion as an act of aggression in Ukraine. Will it now do the same with Israel’s conduct in Gaza?

    Donald Rothwell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Can Israel still claim self-defence to justify its Gaza war? Here’s what the law says – https://theconversation.com/can-israel-still-claim-self-defence-to-justify-its-gaza-war-heres-what-the-law-says-257822

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Trump’s trade war is supercharging the fast fashion industry

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mona Mashhadi Rajabi, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Technology Sydney

    Jade Gao/Getty Images

    When US President Donald Trump introduced sweeping new tariffs on Chinese imports the goal was to bring manufacturing back to American soil and protect local jobs.

    However, this process of re-shoring is complex and requires years of investment and planning – far too slow for the world of ultra-fast fashion, where brands are used to reacting in weeks, not years.

    Many clothing companies started to move production out of China during Trump’s first term. They relocated to countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia when the initial China-specific tariffs hit.

    This trend accelerated with the newer “reciprocal” tariffs. Instead of re-shoring production, many fashion brands are simply sourcing from whichever country offers the lowest total cost after tariffs. The result? The ultra-fast fashion machine adapted quickly and became even more exploitative.

    From Guangzhou to your wardrobe in days

    Platforms such as Shein and Temu built their success by offering trend-driven clothing at shockingly low prices. A $5 dress or $3 top might seem like a bargain, but those prices hide a lot.

    Much of Shein’s production takes place in the so-called “Shein village” in Guangzhou, China, where workers often sew for 12–14 hours a day under poor conditions to keep pace with the demand for new items.

    When the US cracked down on Chinese imports, the intention was to make American-made goods more competitive. This included raising the tariff on Chinese goods as high as 145% (since paused), and closing the “de minimis” loophole, which had allowed imports under US$800 to enter tariff-free.

    But these tariffs did not halt ultra-fast fashion. They just rerouted production to countries with lower tariffs and even lower labour costs. The Philippines, with a comparatively low tariff rate of 17%, emerged as a surprising alternative. However, the country can’t provide the industrial scale and infrastructure to match what China can offer.

    So why does Australia matter?

    Much of the cheap fashion previously bound for the US is now flooding other markets, including Australia.

    Australia still allows most low-value imports to enter tax-free, and platforms such as Shein and Temu have taken full advantage. Australian consumers are among the most frequent Shein and Temu buyers per capita globally.

    Just 3% of clothing is made in Australia and most labels rely on offshore manufacturing. This makes Australia an ideal target market for ultra-fast fashion imports. We have high purchasing power, lenient import rules and strong demand for low-cost style, especially due to the cost-of-living crisis.

    The hidden costs of cheap clothes

    The environmental impact of fast fashion is well known. However, amid the chaos of Trump’s tariff announcements, far less attention has been paid to how these policies – together with the retreat from climate commitments – worsen environmental harms, including those linked to fast fashion.

    The irony is that the tariffs meant to protect American workers have, in some cases, worsened conditions for workers elsewhere. Meanwhile, consumers in Australia now benefit from faster delivery of even cheaper goods as Temu, Shein and others have improved their shipping capabilities to Australia.

    Australian consumers send more than 200,000 tonnes of clothing to landfill each year. But the deeper problem is structural. The entire business model is built on exploitation and environmental damage.

    Factory workers bear the brunt of cost-cutting. In the race to stay competitive, many manufacturers reduce wages and overlook hazardous working conditions.

    Will ethical fashion ever compete?

    Fixing these problems will require a global rethink of how fashion operates.
    Governments have a role in regulating disclosures about supply chains and enforcing labour standards.

    Brands need to take responsibility for the conditions in their factories, whether directly owned or outsourced. Transparency is essential.

    Alternatives to fast fashion are gaining traction. Clothing rentals are emerging as a promising business model that help build a more circular fashion economy. Charity-run op shops have long been a sustainable source of second-hand clothing.

    Australia’s new Seamless scheme seeks to make fashion brands responsible for the full life of the clothes they sell. The aim is to help people buy, wear and recycle clothes in a more sustainable way.

    Consumers also matter. If we continue to expect clothes to cost less than a cup of coffee, change will be slow. Recognising that a $5 t-shirt has hidden costs, borne by people on the factory floor and the environment, is a first step.

    Some ethical brands are already showing a better way and offer clothes made under fairer conditions and with sustainable materials. These clothes are not as cheap or fast, but they represent a more conscious alternative especially for consumers concerned about synthetic fibres, toxic chemicals and environmental harm.

    Trump reshuffled the deck, but did not change the game

    Trump’s trade rules aim to re-balance global trade in favour of American industry, yet have cost companies more than US$34 billion in lost sales and higher costs. This cost will eventually fall on US consumers. In ultra-fast fashion, it mostly exposed how fragile and exploitative the system already was.

    Today, brands such as Shein and Temu are thriving in Australia. But unless we address the systemic inequalities in fashion production and rethink the incentives that drive this market, the true cost of cheap clothing will continue to be paid by those least able to afford it.

    Mona Mashhadi Rajabi receives funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand (AFAANZ), and a Business Research Grant from the University of Technology Sydney.

    Lisa Lake previously received funding from NSW Department of Education Innovation and Collaboration grant to establish the Centre of Excellence in Sustainable Fashion + Textiles.

    Martina Linnenluecke receives funding from The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Australian Research Council. Her work is also supported by a Strategic Research Accelerator Grant from the University of Technology Sydney (UTS).

    Yun Shen 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’s trade war is supercharging the fast fashion industry – https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-trade-war-is-supercharging-the-fast-fashion-industry-257727

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: From Kent State to Los Angeles, using armed forces to police civilians is a high-risk strategy

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Brian VanDeMark, Professor of History, United States Naval Academy

    Smoke and tear gas surround a protester in Los Angeles on June 7, 2025, amid confrontations between immigration rights advocates and law enforcement personnel. Taurat Hossain/Anadolu via Getty Images

    Responding to street protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration enforcement raids, President Donald Trump ordered 2,000 soldiers from the California National Guard into the city on June 7, 2025, to protect agents carrying out the raids. Trump also authorized the Pentagon to dispatch regular U.S. troops “as necessary” to support the California National Guard.

    The president’s orders did not specify rules of engagement about when and how force could be used. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who did not request the National Guard and asserted it was not needed, criticized the president’s decision as “inflammatory” and warned it “will only escalate tensions.”

    I am a historian who has written several books about the Vietnam War, one of the most divisive episodes in our nation’s past. My recent book, “Kent State: An American Tragedy,” examines a historic clash on May 4, 1970, between anti-war protesters and National Guard troops at Kent State University in Ohio.

    The confrontation escalated into violence: troops opened fire on the demonstrators, killing four students and wounding nine others, including one who was paralyzed for life.

    In my view, dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting. Some active-duty units, as well as National Guard troops, are better prepared today than in 1970 to respond to riots and violent protests – but the vast majority of their training and their primary mission remains to fight, to kill, and to win wars.

    Protests in Los Angeles began after federal agencies conducted immigration raids across the city on June 6, 2025. Local police responded with pepper spray, rubber bullets and tear gas.

    Federalizing the Guard

    The National Guard is a force of state militias under the command of governors. It can be federalized by the president during times of national emergency, or for deployment on combat missions overseas. Guardsmen train for one weekend per month and two weeks every summer.

    Typically, the Guard has been deployed to deal with natural disasters and support local police responses to urban unrest. Examples include riots in Detroit in 1967, Washington DC in 1968, Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992, and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the death of George Floyd.

    Presidents rarely deploy National Guard troops without state governors’ consent. The main modern exceptions occurred in the 1950s and 1960s during the Civil Rights Movement, when Southern governors defied federal court orders to desegregate schools in Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. In each case, the federal government sent troops to protect Black students from crowds of white protesters.

    The 1807 Insurrection Act grants presidents authority to use active-duty troops or National Guard forces to restore order within the United States. President Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act. Instead, he relied on Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a narrower federal statute that allows the president to mobilize the National Guard in situations including “rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

    Trump did not limit his order to Los Angeles. He authorized armed forces to protect immigration enforcement operations at any “locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur.”

    ICE officers and national guards confront protesters outside of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles on June 8, 2025.
    Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images

    The standoff at Kent State

    The war in Vietnam had grown increasingly unpopular by early 1970, but protests intensified on April 30 when President Richard Nixon authorized expanding the conflict into Cambodia. At Kent State, after a noontime anti-war rally on campus on May 1, alcohol-fueled students harassed passing motorists in town and smashed storefront windows that night. On May 2, anti-war protesters set fire to the building where military officers trained Kent State students enrolled in the armed forces’ Reserve Officer Training Corps program.

    In response, Republican Governor Jim Rhodes dispatched National Guard troops, against the advice of university and many local officials, who understood the mood in the town of Kent and on campus far better than Rhodes did. County prosecutor Ron Kane had vehemently warned Rhodes that deploying the National Guard could spark conflict and lead to fatalities.

    Nonetheless, Rhodes – who was trailing in an impending Republican primary for a U.S. Senate seat – struck the pose of a take-charge leader who wasn’t going to be pushed around by a long-haired rabble. “We’re going to put a stop to this!” he shouted, pounding the table at a press conference in Kent on May 3.

    Hundreds of National Guard troops were deployed across town and on campus. University officials announced that further rallies were banned. Nonetheless, on May 4, some 2,000 to 3,000 students gathered on the campus Commons for another anti-war rally. They were met by 96 National Guardsmen, led by eight officers.

    There was confrontation in the air as student anger over Nixon’s expansion of the war blended with resentment over the Guard’s presence. Protesters chanted antiwar slogans, shouted epithets at the Guardsmen and made obscene gestures.

    Archival footage from CBS News of the clash between campus anti-war protesters and Ohio National Guard troops at Kent State University on May 4, 1970.

    ‘Fire in the air!’

    The Guardsmen sent to Kent State had no training in de-escalating tension or minimizing the use of force. Nonetheless, their commanding officer that day, Ohio Army National Guard Assistant Adjutant General Robert Canterbury, decided to use them to break up what the Department of Justice later deemed a legal assembly.

    In my view, it was a reckless judgment that inflamed an already volatile situation. Students started showering the greatly outnumbered Guardsmen with rocks and other objects. In violation of Ohio Army National Guard regulations, Canterbury neglected to warn the students that he had ordered Guardsmens’ rifles loaded with live ammunition.

    As tension mounted, Canterbury failed to adequately supervise his increasingly fearful troops – a cardinal responsibility of the commanding officer on the scene. This fundamental failure of leadership increased confusion and resulted in a breakdown of fire control discipline – officers’ responsibility to maintain tight control over their troops’ discharge of weapons.

    When protesters neared the Guardsmen, platoon sergeant Mathew McManus shouted “Fire in the air!” in a desperate attempt to prevent bloodshed. McManus intended for troops to shoot above the students’ heads to warn them off. But some Guardsmen, wearing gas masks that made it hard to hear amid the noise and confusion, only heard or reacted to the first word of McManus’ order, and fired at the students.

    The troops had not been trained to fire warning shots, which was contrary to National Guard regulations. And McManus had no authority to issue an order to fire if officers were nearby, as they were.

    Many National Guardsmen who were at Kent State on May 4 later questioned why they had been deployed there. “Loaded rifles and fixed bayonets are pretty harsh solutions for students exercising free speech on an American campus,” one of them told an oral history interviewer. Another plaintively asked me in a 2023 interview, “Why would you put soldiers trained to kill on a university campus to serve a police function?”

    Doug Guthrie, a student at Kent State in 1970, looks back 54 years later at the events of May 4.

    A fighting force

    National Guard equipment and training have improved significantly in the decades since Kent State. But Guardsmen are still military troops who are fundamentally trained to fight, not to control crowds.

    In 2020, then-National Guard Bureau Chief General Joseph Lengyel told reporters that “the civil unrest mission is one of the most difficult and dangerous missions … in our domestic portfolio.”

    In my view, the tragedy of Kent State shows how critical it is for authorities to be thoughtful in responding to protests, and extremely cautious in deploying military troops to deal with them. The application of force is inherently unpredictable, often uncontrollable, and can lead to fatal mistakes and lasting human suffering. And while protests sometimes break rules, they may not be disruptive or harmful enough to merit responding with force.

    Aggressive displays of force, in fact, can heighten tensions and worsen situations. Conversely, research shows that if protesters perceive authorities are acting with restraint and treating them with respect, they are more likely to remain nonviolent. The shooting at Kent State demonstrated that using military force in these situations is an option fraught with grave risks.

    This is an updated version of an article originally published Aug. 27, 2024.

    Brian VanDeMark 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. From Kent State to Los Angeles, using armed forces to police civilians is a high-risk strategy – https://theconversation.com/from-kent-state-to-los-angeles-using-armed-forces-to-police-civilians-is-a-high-risk-strategy-258468

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Tracking apps monitor remote employees’ performance — and invade their privacy

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Danielle E. Thompson, PhD Candidate, Sociology and Legal Studies, University of Waterloo

    Business owners and managers claim that monitoring apps improve worker productivity. (Shutterstock)

    Digital monitoring is now a regular part of our working reality. From CCTV cameras to call recording, surveillance in the workplace is not new.

    But workers now face a more detailed and intrusive type of monitoring that is less understood, and at times even entirely unknown, by employees: employee monitoring applications (EMAs).

    It’s no longer just about being captured in the frame of a CCTV camera or having phone calls recorded. Workers now must be concerned about the collection of any and all activities that occur on their devices, and the use of this information to make decisions about their productivity, performance and risk to company security.

    Behaviour-monitoring software

    EMAs are a type of monitoring software that can be installed on worker devices to monitor their behaviours and activities. Common features include tracking time, keyboard strokes, email communications, websites visited, applications used and webcam video footage. Many of these apps also operate in an “invisible mode” that runs in the background, unknown to the employee.

    Amid the move to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, employers faced the challenge of managing their employees while they worked from home. EMAs provided employers with a quick and easy solution.



    Read more:
    Remote work requires us to reconsider how to evaluate and pay employees

    My research focuses on surveillance and privacy. Working alongside surveillance scholar Adam Molnar of the University of Waterloo, we conducted a survey between January and February 2022 of 402 managers, supervisors and employers working in companies in Ontario (60 per cent), British Columbia (30 per cent) and Québec (10 per cent) to better understand the use of these apps during the pandemic.

    Both remote working and EMA use were found to have increased after the start of the pandemic. Many, but not all, companies turned to EMAs to monitor their remote workers.

    A comparison of remote work and use of EMA rates before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    (D.E. Thompson), CC BY

    Privacy concerns

    We asked participants about the specific EMA software their company uses. A variety of EMAs exist on the market and are advertised for uses from security to workforce analytics. The most frequently used apps in our sample were Kickidler (49.8 per cent), Spyera (49.5 per cent), Flexispy (49.3 per cent), and Teramind (48.4 per cent).

    We then took a deeper dive into their advertised features and found that all four apps collected data using at least two highly invasive features, such as video surveillance or keystroke logging.

    Table comparing features and uses for the top four employee monitoring applications.
    (D.E. Thompson), CC BY

    Collecting data in these ways can raise serious concerns for employee privacy, especially when they work at home — a space that is typically viewed as private and often contains personal information that employers should not be privy to.

    If we’re concerned about employee privacy, then we need to understand exactly what companies are using the data for.

    We know that employee monitoring apps were adopted by many Canadian companies to manage remote workers, but what does that mean exactly? What is the data actually telling employers and how are they using it?

    We asked employers, managers and supervisors how their company currently uses EMAs, and found the most common uses to be productivity (28.9 per cent), efficiency (20.1 per cent), remote workforce management (19.9 per cent) and company analytics (18.2 per cent).

    Privacy versus productivity

    Owners and managers appear to be aware of the harmful consequences of these applications: 87.1 per cent were at least somewhat concerned about the negative impacts of these apps on employee trust. More than two-thirds — 70.7 per cent — also reported that they would be more likely adopt an app if it did not use invasive features like keystroke logging and video surveillance.

    Are the gains in productivity and efficiency worth the losses to employee privacy and trust? For some companies, the answer appears to be yes. While most owners and managers reported concerns about the invasiveness of EMAs, 51.7 per cent were still using the applications.

    For other companies, the gains in productivity are not worth the risks to employee privacy. For example, 29.3 per cent of owners and managers stated that significant changes to app features would be necessary before they would consider using it in their company.

    Protecting employees

    As hybrid working arrangements remain a normal part of our working lives, employee monitoring apps appear to be here to stay.

    A public opinion poll by the Center for Democracy and Technology in the United States found that American workers wanted to know why and how they were being monitored by their employers.

    Workers also felt they should be able to review any and all data collected about them, and that employers should be prohibited from sharing worker data without their permission, monitoring workers while off the clock, tracking their locations and monitoring productivity in ways that are harmful to the mental or physical health of workers.

    In Canada, the protection of employee privacy falls under a patchwork of federal and provincial laws that is insufficient for the management of EMAs.

    Worker protections vary by province and territory. Ontario’s Bill 88, passed in April 2022, established the first notification law for electronic monitoring in Canada. While a step in the right direction, notification alone is insufficient for the protection of worker privacy and well-being.

    Restrictions must be placed on the types of data collected, how it is collected and what it can be used for.

    Companies that continue to use EMAs must respect the privacy of workers by limiting the use of invasive features and providing workers with transparency and agency in their monitoring.

    Business owners considering the use of EMAs should ask themselves if the software is necessary to reach their goals. Do they need to track the location and activity of workers or access their webcams to determine productivity? Or are there other less harmful ways to measure performance, such as the quality of outputs and whether tasks are completed on time?

    Danielle E. Thompson 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. Tracking apps monitor remote employees’ performance — and invade their privacy – https://theconversation.com/tracking-apps-monitor-remote-employees-performance-and-invade-their-privacy-256261

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why bystanders defend bad behaviour at work — even when they know it’s wrong

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

    Rather than intervening, supporting targets or reporting the misconduct, bystanders may downplay it, withdraw support or even blame the target, which ultimately reinforces the mistreatment. (Shutterstock)

    “You always mess things up. Why are you even on this project? Just quit already.” Demeaning, hostile or undermining behaviour like this is more common in the workplace and damaging than many people realize. One in three employees experience such behaviours, and almost half witness them.

    Rather than intervening, supporting targets or reporting the misconduct, research shows bystanders may downplay it, withdraw support or even blame the target, which ultimately reinforces the mistreatment.

    As our recent study shows, this is largely because when mistreatment seems inevitable or commonplace, bystanders are psychologically motivated to justify it rather than challenge it.

    Why do bystanders rationalize mistreatment?

    Humans are hardwired to see mistreatment as wrong. Most of us value fairness and want to punish wrongdoing. But if this is the case, why do bystanders so often fail to act when they witness mistreatment?

    Our recent research explores this question drawing on system justification theory — the idea that people are motivated to see the systems they live and work in as fair, legitimate and stable.

    When mistreatment seems inevitable — when people think “that’s just how things work around here” — bystanders face a psychological dilemma. They can either challenge the behaviour and risk conflict, exclusion or backlash, or they can rationalize it as normal or deserved.

    Most people, often without realizing it, choose the latter. This mental shortcut allows them to preserve the comforting belief that the system is fair and people get what they deserve.

    One in three employees experience demeaning, hostile or undermining behaviour in the workplace, and almost half witness them.
    (Shutterstock)

    Witnessing workplace mistreatment

    We interviewed 554 employees who had witnessed workplace mistreatment within the past two weeks at the time the survey was conducted. They shared their thoughts on how inevitable they believed the mistreatment incident was, and how tolerant they felt their organization was toward such behaviour.

    In a follow-up survey, we asked these employees whether they felt the incident they witnessed was justifiable and the target as deserving. A week later, in a third survey, we asked these bystanders to report how they behaved toward the target, and whether they tried to address or minimize the incident.

    We found that when bystanders perceived mistreatment as inevitable, they were more likely to see the incident as justified and targets as deserving of that treatment. These bystanders were more likely to socially distance themselves from the target, engage in negative gossip about them and were less willing to offer help.

    Bystander inaction wasn’t due to cowardice or callousness, but was often a defence mechanism. Rationalizing mistreatment allowed bystanders to preserve the belief that their workplace was just. But this coping strategy can deepen harm for those who experience mistreatment, who may be further marginalized, isolated or discredited.

    How mistreatment is normalized

    Workplace climates play a key role in the normalization of mistreatment. Our findings indicate when employees believed their workplace tolerated mistreatment, they were more likely to rationalize it and less likely to support the person being mistreated.

    In these contexts, mistreatment isn’t just ignored, but is quietly accepted. Tacit acceptance sends a powerful message: this is normal, this is deserved, this is not worth challenging.

    What does a toxic, permissive workplace look like? Warning signs include staff who feel anxious about coming to work and leaders who publicly criticize employees or tell them to “toughen up” or “not take it personally.”

    If negative gossip is tolerated, or reports of mistreatment are ignored or delayed, these are also strong indicators that mistreatment has been normalized.

    Organizations may fail to acknowledge these patterns for a variety of reasons, including resistance, denial or a lack of readiness. But surfacing these issues is a strength, not a weakness. It allows organizations to address root causes, retain valuable employees, and foster a more respectful environment.

    When mistreatment is ignored in the workplace, it sends a message to employees that it is normal, deserved and not worth challenging.
    (Unsplash/Borja Verbena)

    4 ways to create positive change

    Even in workplaces where mistreatment has become normalized, positive change is possible. Research shows that effectively managing everyday incidents can create bottom-up effects that support broader positive change within the workplace, ultimately improving workplace climate.

    Managers have a particularly pivotal role to play. When they respond quickly, support targets openly and hold perpetrators accountable, they challenge the perception that mistreatment is inevitable. They also send a broader message about what behaviours are and aren’t acceptable in the workplace.

    Here are four evidence-based strategies that can help disrupt the bystander dynamic and improve workplace culture:

    1. Challenge the narrative of inevitability

    Organizations should clearly signal that mistreatment will not be tolerated in their workplace. This includes explicitly communicating behavioural expectations, investigating reports quickly and transparently, and ensuring senior leaders model respectful behaviour. These small but visible actions disrupt the sense that mistreatment is “just how things work.”

    2. Reduce ambiguity

    When organizations don’t define behavioural norms clearly, bystanders are more likely to rationalize mistreatment. Organizations should define what mistreatment includes, such as exclusion and sarcastic comments, and distinguish it from tough feedback or constructive conflict. Training can help employees recognize subtle forms of harm and reflect on how their reactions would appear to someone they respect.

    3. Enforce consequences consistently

    When policies exist but aren’t enforced, bystanders learn that mistreatment carries no cost. Organizations need to follow through on mistreatment policies, protect those who report it and make it clear that retaliation is unacceptable. Visibility matters: people need to see that action is taken.

    4. Support targets openly and meaningfully

    System justification often works by undermining the credibility of those being mistreated. Managers can counteract this by affirming the value of a person targeted, encouraging reintegration and monitoring their teams for subtle social exclusion. When targets are supported by respected leaders, bystanders are more likely to follow suit because people tend to look to leader behaviour towards employees as a sign of their value to the group.

    When targets are supported by respected leaders, bystanders are more likely to follow suit.
    (Shutterstock)

    Why this matters

    Much of the existing research on workplace mistreatment has focused on the importance of bystander and leader intervention. Our research adds a deeper layer by illustrating that bystanders may not intervene because they are subconsciously defending their belief in a fair and legitimate system.

    This defence mechanism is especially dangerous when mistreatment is common, creating a cycle in which the most vulnerable employees are harmed twice: first by the perpetrator, and then by those who fail to stand by them.

    Breaking this cycle requires more than training videos or one-off statements. It requires reshaping the climate that makes mistreatment seem normal, inevitable or trivial.

    The encouraging news is that even small, consistent actions can begin to shift these dynamics. Research has shown that incivility training that teaches people how to engage in civil ways, for example, has lasting effects on employee well-being and relationships. When these harmful dynamics are shifted, it improves the workplace for everyone.

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

    Laurie J. Barclay receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of Guelph’s Research Leader Award.

    Nick Turner receives research funding from Cenovus Energy Inc., Haskayne School of Business’s Future Fund, Mitacs, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

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

    – ref. Why bystanders defend bad behaviour at work — even when they know it’s wrong – https://theconversation.com/why-bystanders-defend-bad-behaviour-at-work-even-when-they-know-its-wrong-257941

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: We design cities and buildings for earthquakes and floods — we need to do the same for wildfires

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ramla Karim Qureshi, Assistant Professor, Structural Engineering, McMaster University

    We live in an age of increasing wildfire disasters because more of us are living in places where wildfires and human development collide. Right now, fast-moving wildfires are forcing mass evacuations and destroying homes across Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, where entire communities are under threat.

    Despite the growing impacts of extreme weather events, including prolonged droughts and increasing temperatures, we continue building and even rebuilding homes in likely paths of destructive wildfires.

    As cities grow, the demand for new home developments in previously forested areas means that we’re rapidly losing buffers between developed and natural land. Consequently, we’re also losing much of our protection from wildfire.

    I’m a structural engineer, and I was living in British Columbia during the 2023 Kelowna fires. I remember the smoke and anxiety about what was coming next. Seeing news coverage of January’s fires in Los Angeles brought back those memories. Hearing people ask how this could have happened led me to ask in response: How could it not have happened?

    My research speciality is in protecting structures from fires, earthquakes and explosions. From my work, I know that improved materials and engineering can protect homes much better than we do today.

    As we enter another wildfire season in Canada, I worry there will soon be new reminders of what we still haven’t done and urgently need to do.

    CP24 News covers wildfires burning from British Columbia to Ontario.

    Wildfire risk

    Wildfires can ignite structures in three key ways: direct fire flux from the forest, heat radiation from nearby burning buildings and wind-driven ember showers. These embers can travel several kilometres and spark new fires far from the main blaze.

    Recent research shows that about 14.3 per cent of all Canadian buildings sit directly in the wildland-urban-interface — the area where development neighbours or intersects with wildland vegetation. However, if we expand this interface buffer by a kilometre to account for windborne travelling embers, over 79 per cent of all Canadian structures fall under some level of wildfire ignition risk.

    While researchers are working on developing more sophisticated technologies for early fire detection and monitoring, we also need to make homes safer in at-risk areas. Programs like FireSmart Canada educate communities about managing fire risk, but broader public engagement and co-ordinated action are still lacking.

    Primary hazards

    Historically, structural design has not treated fire as a primary hazard in the same way it does earthquakes or wind. We’ve designed and constructed buildings and bridges that can withstand earthquakes and high winds, but fire design is still largely governed by prescriptive, often overly simplified, insulation and building standards.

    This mismatch in design priorities introduces vulnerability. Just as we wouldn’t build in seismically active regions like Vancouver, Victoria or San Francisco without accounting for earthquake risk, or in flood-prone areas like Winnipeg or New Orleans without proper mitigation, we must begin to treat fire risk as an equally fundamental design consideration.

    It’s certainly daunting to consider the expense of building or retrofitting homes and adapting properties to resist wildfires, but the consequences of not planning or preparing better — both in terms of lives lost and homes ruined and in terms of the financial costs of rebuilding — will only worsen if societies don’t do much more.

    Alternative materials

    It’s obvious that buildings at elevated risk from fire should not be made from combustible materials, like exposed timber. Now, there are impressive alternatives such as new forms of concrete and metal roofing that can prevent fire from taking hold in a home, garage or other building.

    Improved land-use planning and community-scale design can also meaningfully decrease the exposure and vulnerability of buildings to wildfire. What we need is a cohesive, risk-averse and data-driven framework that allows for architectural and structural design choices based on quantified fire risk.

    Research — only if we make it a funding priority — can give us such a framework.

    Enhancing safety

    In Jasper, Alta., which is in a national park, new federal guidelines for rebuilding after last year’s devastating fire call for enhanced safety. These include new separations between buildings and flammable landscaping, including nonflammable buffers to separate homes from wooden fences and decks.

    If we continue to build (and rebuild) within forest boundaries, we have to expand standards, mandates and engineering efforts to protect people and their homes.

    How can we make them safer?

    We can start by much-needed building code updates. And we can educate residents and home-buyers about reducing their risk.

    FireSmart Canada, for example, offers practical advice on what kinds of trees, shrubs and lawns are safest to use in landscaping, and how far they should be from one’s house, depending on the degree of local fire risk. However, a more community-driven safety mindset is required for successful implementation of these guidelines; individual efforts alone are not enough to reduce the wildfire risk in interconnected neighbourhoods.

    For developers, designers and builders, improving safety may mean tighter new zoning rules and stricter building codes to govern where and how we build to protect against fire. Suppliers will need access to safer materials, some of which have yet to be developed.

    Research priorities

    To develop a framework, recommendations and guidelines to enhance fire safety and reduce loss, we need evidence, and that requires research.

    In Canada, we have excellent researchers working on forest fires. But as a fire crosses from a natural setting to an urban one, everything changes — the fuel, wind patterns and movement of the fire — so we need to study and model it differently too.

    These forms of knowledge are all within reach, but until we prioritize them, we are deciding to put lives and neighbourhoods at risk. The price of doing nothing will be much greater than the cost of taking action.

    Ramla Karim Qureshi receives funding from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

    – ref. We design cities and buildings for earthquakes and floods — we need to do the same for wildfires – https://theconversation.com/we-design-cities-and-buildings-for-earthquakes-and-floods-we-need-to-do-the-same-for-wildfires-257297

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Canada must take action to prevent climate-related migration

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Christopher Campbell-Duruflé, Assistant Professor, Lincoln Alexander School of Law, Toronto Metropolitan University

    As wildfire season begins, the destructive impacts of climate change are being felt across Canada. Several communities in northern Saskatchewan have been issued evacuation orders due to wildfires. In Manitoba, Pimicikamak Cree Nation worked to evacuate hundreds of people as wildfires closed in, while smoke from those fires caused air-quality issues across the country.

    It isn’t just wildfires threatening people’s homes and livelihoods. In May, 1,600 residents from the Kashechewan Cree First Nation in Northern Ontario evacuated again due to flooding of the Albany River, which happens almost every year.

    The 2018 United Nations Climate Conference called on all states to adopt “laws, policies and strategies” meant “to avert, minimize and address displacement related to the adverse impacts of climate change.”

    The figures are disquieting. By 2050, more than 140 million people could become internal climate migrants in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Latin America alone, especially if action towards reaching net-zero carbon emissions continues to be insufficient.

    Canada is not spared: 192,000 people were evacuated in 2023 due to disasters made more severe by climate change, including floods and wildfires. As climate change leads to more extreme weather, temporary climate displacement could become permanent migration.

    Climate migration

    The World Bank defines internal climate migration as having to relocate for at least a decade to a location 14 kilometres or more away from your community because of climate impacts.

    Research I presented at the 2025 Canadian Association for Refugee and Forced Migration Studies Conference at Toronto Metropolitan University analyzed how Canada addresses the climate migration challenge in its submissions under the Paris Agreement, which requires parties to adapt to climate change.

    The Canadian government understated the reality of internal climate migration in its submissions under the 2015 Paris Agreement, which obscure the gravity of this phenomenon.

    One of those submissions is the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), the cornerstone report each state party must present every five years. Canada’s NDC from 2021 recognizes that climate change harms certain populations more than others, but does not address temporary displacement, let alone internal climate migration.

    The Fort McMurray wildfires displaced more than 80,000 people in 2016, with its population declining 11 per cent between 2015 and 2018. Similarly, the 2019 Québec spring floods displaced more than 10,000 people and, in Sainte-Marie, hundreds of low-income families abandoned the city because they could not afford the reconstructed homes.

    A clear definition of internal climate migrants in Canada, robust data and better co-ordination among Indigenous, municipal, provincial and federal governments is needed.

    This is something a National Adaptation Act could deliver, as a part of a comprehensive framework to bolster adaptation action across the country.

    Transparency lacking

    Canada submitted an adaptation communication in 2024. The communication discusses climate impacts but mentions internal displacement only once. It contains no data or discussion of when displacement becomes permanent, nor does it focus on the disproportionate impact on equity-deserving groups.

    The government submitted an updated NDC earlier this year. It noted “the devastating impact of wildfires, floods, drought and melting permafrost on communities across the country” but only briefly discusses adaptation, referring instead to the 2023 National Adaptation Strategy. The only mentions of displacement come in appended submissions by Indigenous Peoples, including Trʼondëk Hwëchʼin First Nation and Makivvik.

    Indigenous Peoples suffer from flawed adaptation policies and institutional barriers that prevent them from effectively responding to emergencies. As a result, First Nations evacuate 328 times more frequently than settler communities during climate disasters.

    In 2011, for example, officials in Manitoba diverted flood waters to Lake St. Martin to protect urban, cottage and agricultural properties. In the process, they flooded 17 First Nations and displaced 4,525 people. Return of the 1,400 residents of the Lake St. Martin First Nation to a new location only started in 2017, and as recently as 2020 displaced families were protesting on highways for their right to housing.

    A national adaptation act

    Canada should adopt a clear definition of internal climate migrants that captures displacement from climate disasters and slow-onset phenomena like sea-level rise, permafrost thaw and biodiversity loss.

    UN experts released a Technical Guide on Human Mobility in 2024, calling for “a sound evidence base on the patterns and trends, as well as on the drivers and outcomes” of climate-induced mobility. It also highlighted the need for adaptation efforts “that are informed by stakeholder consultations” and “existing (Indigenous) adaptation practices.”

    Defining internal climate migrants would allow Canada to gather robust data at last, and to act decisively on it.

    One first step is the federal government’s pledge of a National Recovery Strategy by 2028, which would set out “shorter time frames for displaced individuals to be able to return to their homes or resettle after climate change disaster events.” But a comprehensive approach is needed to go beyond the fragmented landscape of federal and provincial strategies.

    The Canadian government should work with all stakeholders toward the adoption of a National Adaptation Act, like Brazil, Germany and Japan.

    Such a law could remove barriers to Indigenous adaptation action, co-ordinate efforts across orders of governments to prevent displacements, define internal climate migration, ensure data collection and protect the rights of people temporarily displaced or internally migrating because of climate change.

    It should also aim for greater transparency and accountability than what Canada has so far achieved with its Paris Agreement submissions.

    Christopher Campbell-Duruflé receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for his research. He serves on the Legal Committee of the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement.

    – ref. Canada must take action to prevent climate-related migration – https://theconversation.com/canada-must-take-action-to-prevent-climate-related-migration-257607

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: African prisoners made sound recordings in German camps in WW1: this is what they had to say

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Anette Hoffmann, Senior Researcher at the Institute for African Studies and Egyptology, University of Cologne

    During the first world war (1914-1918) thousands of African men enlisted to fight for France and Britain were captured and held as prisoners in Germany. Their stories and songs were recorded and archived by German linguists, who often didn’t understand a thing they were saying.

    Now a recent book called Knowing by Ear listens to these recordings alongside written sources, photographs and artworks to reveal the lives and political views of these colonised Africans from present-day Senegal, Somalia, Togo and Congo.

    Anette Hoffmann is a historian whose research and curatorial work engages with historical sound archives. We asked her about her book.

    How did these men come to be recorded?

    About 450 recordings with African speakers were made with linguists of the so-called Royal Prussian Phonographic Commission. Their project was opportunistic. They made use of the presence of prisoners of war to further their research.

    In many cases these researchers didn’t understand what was being said. The recordings were archived as language samples, yet most were never used, translated, or even listened to for decades.

    The many wonderful translators I have worked with over the years are often the first listeners who actually understood what was being said by these men a century before.

    What did they talk about?

    The European prisoners the linguists recorded were often asked to tell the same Bible story (the parable of the prodigal son). But because of language barriers, African prisoners were often simply asked to speak, tell a story or sing a song.

    We can hear some men repeating monotonous word lists or counting, but mostly they spoke of the war, of imprisonment and of the families they hadn’t seen for years.

    Abdoulaye Niang from Senegal sings in Wolof.
    Courtesy Lautarchiv, Berlin275 KB (download)

    In the process we hear speakers offer commentary. Senegalese prisoner Abdoulaye Niang, for example, calls Europe’s battlefields an abattoir for the soldiers from Africa. Others sang of the war of the whites, or speak of other forms of colonial exploitation.

    When I began working on colonial-era sound archives about 20 years ago, I was stunned by what I heard from African speakers, especially the critique and the alternative versions of colonial history. Often aired during times of duress, such accounts seldom surface in written sources.

    Joseph Ntwanumbi from South Africa speaks in isiXhosa.
    Courtesy Lautarchiv, Berlin673 KB (download)

    Clearly, many speakers felt safe to say things because they knew that researchers couldn’t understand them. The words and songs have travelled decades through time yet still sound fresh and provocative.

    Can you highlight some of their stories?

    The book is arranged around the speakers. Many of them fought in the French army in Europe after being conscripted or recruited in former French colonies, like Abdoulaye Niang. Other African men got caught up in the war and were interned as civilian prisoners, like Mohamed Nur from Somalia, who had lived in Germany from 1911. Joseph Ntwanumbi from South Africa was a stoker on a ship that had docked in Hamburg soon after the war started.

    In chapter one Niang sings a song about the French army’s recruitment campaign in Dakar and also informs the linguists that the inmates of the camp in Wünsdorf, near Berlin, do not wish to be deported to another camp.

    An archive search reveals he was later deported and also that Austrian anthropologists measured his body for racial studies.

    His recorded voice speaking in Wolof travelled back home in 2024, as a sound installation I created for the Théodore Monod African Art Museum in Dakar.

    Chapter two listens to Mohamed Nur from Somalia. In 1910 he went to Germany to work as a teacher to the children of performers in a so-called Völkerschau (an ethnic show; sometimes called a human zoo, where “primitive” cultures were displayed).

    After refusing to perform on stage, he found himself stranded in Germany without a passport or money. He worked as a model for a German artist and later as a teacher of Somali at the University of Hamburg. Nur left a rich audio-visual trace in Germany, which speaks of the exploitation of men of colour in German academia as well as by artists. One of his songs comments on the poor treatment of travellers and gives a plea for more hospitality to strangers.

    Stephan Bischoff, who grew up in a German mission station in Togo and was working in a shoe shop in Berlin when the war began, appears in the third chapter. His recordings criticise the practices of the Christian colonial evangelising mission. He recalls the destruction of an indigenous shrine in Ghana by German military in 1913.

    Also in chapter three is Albert Kudjabo, who fought in the Belgian army before he was imprisoned in Germany. He mainly recorded drum language, a drummed code based on a tonal language from the Democratic Republic of Congo that German linguists were keen to study. He speaks of the massive socio-cultural changes that mining brought to his home region, which may have caused him to migrate.

    Together these songs, stories and accounts speak of a practice of extracting knowledge in prisoner of war camps. But they offer insights and commentary far beyond the “example sentences” that the recordings were meant to be.

    Why do these sound archives matter?

    As sources of colonial history, the majority of the collections in European sound archives are still untapped, despite the growing scholarly and artistic interest in them in the last decade. This interest is led by decolonial approaches to archives and knowledge production.

    Sound collections diversify what’s available as historical texts, they increase the variety of languages and genres that speak of the histories of colonisation. They present alternative accounts and interpretations of history to offer a more balanced view of the past.

    Anette Hoffmann 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. African prisoners made sound recordings in German camps in WW1: this is what they had to say – https://theconversation.com/african-prisoners-made-sound-recordings-in-german-camps-in-ww1-this-is-what-they-had-to-say-254127

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Eating wild meat carries serious health risks – why it still happens along the Kenya-Tanzania border

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Ekta Patel, Scientist, International Livestock Research Institute

    Pastoralist communities, their livestock and diverse wildlife species coexist within a biodiversity-rich landscape stretching along the Kenya–Tanzania border.

    However, at this wildlife-livestock interface, local communities face mounting challenges. Shifts in land use, prolonged droughts, erratic rainfall patterns and increasing land degradation are placing growing pressure on the landscape. In addition, conflict between people and wildlife is on the rise, and many households rely on wild animals for food.

    Communities in the region eat a wide range of wild animals, from rodents, elephant shrews and birds to small antelopes and larger ungulates like bushbuck. This meat (“bush meat” as it is also popularly known in Africa) provides a valuable source of animal protein and minerals, especially where alternative domestic protein sources are scarce.

    Although hunting and consuming wild animals is illegal in Kenya, this is not the case in Tanzania, where certain forms of hunting for wild animals are permitted. Yet in both countries, many people eat wild meat regularly, often without awareness of the risks. These risks include zoonotic disease transmission and potential impacts on wildlife populations.

    Wild meat is a known source of zoonotic infections and disease spillover to humans. In fact, as many as three-quarters of emerging infectious diseases originate from wildlife. Illnesses such as anthrax, mpox, Ebola, and HIV have all been linked to close interactions between humans and wild animals.

    Despite these risks, wild meat consumption remains widespread, with some households eating it daily or weekly. Preventing future disease outbreaks requires a clear understanding of these health risks, as well as the underlying social, cultural and economic reasons that drive people to rely on wild meat.

    We set out to understand why people were eating wild meat along the Kenya-Tanzania border and whether they understood the risks of zoonotic diseases. Cases of anthrax have already been reported in this area.

    Our study involved interviews in border communities during the COVID pandemic – the most famous case of zoonotic disease transmission in recent times. We wanted to know whether communities understood the pandemic’s link to wild meat and if this affected their consumption of it.

    What stood out was that people at the border settlements kept eating wild meat or even ate more of it. This shows that economic necessity, cultural preferences and limited alternatives remain key drivers even when the world is in crisis.

    Though this research was done during COVID-19, it gives us insights into how people react when things get tough, especially when it comes to food and health.

    What’s driving wild meat consumption

    We found that several factors drove wild meat consumption, despite growing awareness of the health risks.

    Poverty

    Economic factors, particularly household income and limited financial means, strongly influenced wild meat consumption, particularly in communities with limited alternative protein sources. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic had a severe impact on local economies. Tourism, a key source of income for border communities, experienced sharp declines. As household revenues fell, reliance on wild meat as an affordable protein source increased.

    Economic stability plays a crucial role in shaping consumption behaviours: 81% of those surveyed at the border settlements indicated they would stop eating wild meat if cheaper alternatives were available.

    The type of animal

    Perceptions of disease risks varied depending on the species consumed.

    Approximately 79% of respondents believed that certain animals posed a higher risks of zoonotic disease transmission. Hyenas were perceived as the most dangerous, followed by primates and snakes. These findings suggest that while economic necessity influences wild meat consumption, risk perception also shapes dietary choices.

    Gender plays a role

    Men expressed more concern over conservation and health risks than women. Men were also more likely to advocate against selling wild meat. Women exhibited lower concern regarding zoonotic disease risks, including COVID-19. These insights highlight the need for gender-sensitive interventions to address wild meat consumption.

    Education levels

    Education levels also influenced risk perception. Respondents with formal education displayed a stronger awareness of zoonotic transmission pathways. They were also more receptive to conservation and public health messaging. This highlights the importance of education in promoting safer and more sustainable practices within communities.

    National policies

    Despite sharing ecosystems and wildlife populations, Kenya and Tanzania have adopted fundamentally different governance approaches to wild meat. This in turn shapes outcomes for conservation, biodiversity and public health.

    Kenya follows a centralised and protectionist model. Hunting and consumption of wild animals are prohibited under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. This zero-tolerance policy is rooted in strong conservation principles aimed at protecting biodiversity.

    However, in practice, it has driven the activity underground, creating a thriving black market. This undermines conservation and enforcement efforts. It also increases the risk of zoonotic disease transmission due to unregulated handling and consumption of wild animals.

    Tanzania, by contrast, uses a decentralised, regulated slaughterhouse model. Licensed wild meat hunting and consumption is legal under regulation, particularly through game-controlled areas and permits introduced in 2020. This approach is meant to enable communities to benefit economically from wildlife and reduce incentives for illegal hunting.

    The existence of two divergent systems across a porous border creates challenges. These include illegal cross-border trade, conflicting conservation objectives, and uneven protection of biodiversity. There are also difficulties in implementing coordinated surveillance or public health interventions.

    The contrasting regulations in Kenya and Tanzania significantly influence wild meat consumption choices.

    In Kenya, where wild meat is strictly prohibited, consumption appears to be through informal and unregulated channels. This increases health risks and limits consumer awareness. In contrast, Tanzania’s regulated licensing system provides a legal pathway for access. This makes wild meat consumption more visible and, in some cases, perceived as safer. These differing policies shape how communities access, justify and engage with wild meat, often driving cross-border trade and complicating enforcement and risk communication efforts.

    What’s next?

    Addressing the risks associated with wild meat trade requires a multifaceted strategy that balances health, equity and sustainability.

    We suggest an intervention that prioritises economic stability and ensuring affordable alternative protein sources are accessible, especially in food-insecure settings.

    Public health education is also essential. An increasing awareness of zoonotic disease risks can help shift consumption behaviour.

    Because men and women perceived the dangers of wild meat consumption differently, gender-sensitive approaches should be integrated. It should also be noted that, although women are rarely the primary hunters, they are often prosecuted for possession or sale of wild meat. Gender disparities on how laws are applied must be addressed.

    Legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms must be strengthened to address cross-border wildlife trade, particularly in regions with differing policies like Kenya and Tanzania. They should also reduce the risks faced by individuals who may unknowingly engage in illegal practices due to a lack of clarity.

    We continue to work with national and regional stakeholders. This includes government bodies and technical partners who are actively engaging with us to co-develop One Health solutions. These solutions integrate public health, environmental sustainability and community well-being.

    Finally, community engagement and participation should be at the core of any intervention. This will ensure that policies are locally relevant, culturally sensitive and supported by those directly affected to reduce the risks of zoonotic disease spillover.

    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. Eating wild meat carries serious health risks – why it still happens along the Kenya-Tanzania border – https://theconversation.com/eating-wild-meat-carries-serious-health-risks-why-it-still-happens-along-the-kenya-tanzania-border-252947

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Coral reefs face an uncertain recovery from the 4th global mass bleaching event – can climate refuges help?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Noam Vogt-Vincent, Postdoctoral Fellow in Marine Biology, University of Hawaii

    The Great Barrier Reef stretches for 1,429 miles just off Australia’s northeastern coast. Auscape/Universal Images Group via Getty Image

    Although tropical reefs might look like inanimate rock, these colorful seascapes are built by tiny jellyfish-like animals called corals. While adult corals build solid structures that are firmly attached to the sea floor, baby corals are not confined to their reefs. They can drift with ocean currents over great distances to new locations that might give them a better chance of survival.

    The underwater cities that corals construct are home to about a quarter of all known marine species. They are incredibly important for humans, too, contributing at least a trillion dollars per year in ecosystem services, such as protecting coastlines from wave damage and supporting fisheries and tourism.

    Unfortunately, coral reefs are among the most vulnerable environments on the planet to climate change.

    Since 2023, exceptionally warm ocean water has been fueling the planet’s fourth mass coral bleaching event on record, causing widespread mortality in corals around the world. This kind of harm is projected to worsen considerably over the coming decades as ocean temperatures rise.

    A healthy coral reef in American Samoa, left, experiencing coral bleaching due to a severe marine heatwave, center, and eventually dying, right.
    The Ocean Agency and Ocean Image Bank., CC BY-NC

    I am a marine scientist in Hawaii. My colleagues and I are trying to understand how coral reefs might change in the future, and whether new coral reefs might form at higher latitudes as the tropics become too warm and temperate regions become more hospitable. The results lead us to both good and bad news.

    Corals can grow in new areas, but will they thrive?

    Baby corals can drift freely with ocean currents, potentially traveling hundreds of miles before settling in new locations. That allows the distribution of corals to shift over time.

    Major ocean currents can carry baby corals to temperate seas. If new coral reefs form there as the waters warm, these areas might act as refuges for tropical corals, reducing the corals’ risk of extinction.

    A close-up of double star corals (Diploastrea heliopora) off Indonesia.
    Bernard DuPont/Flickr, CC BY-SA

    Scientists know from the fossil record that coral reef expansions have occurred before. However, a big question remains: Can corals migrate fast enough to keep pace with climate change caused by humans? We developed a cutting-edge simulation to find the answer.

    Field and laboratory studies have measured how coral growth depends on temperature, acidity and light intensity. We combined this information with data on ocean currents to create a global simulation that represents how corals respond to a changing environment – including their ability to adapt through evolution and shift their ranges.

    Then, we used future climate projections to predict how coral reefs may respond to climate change.

    We found that it will take centuries for coral reefs to shift away from the tropics. This is far too slow for temperate seas to save tropical coral species – they are facing severe threats right now and in the coming decades.

    How coral reefs form.

    Underwater cities in motion?

    Under countries’ current greenhouse gas emissions policies, our simulations suggest that coral reefs will decline globally by a further 70% this century as ocean temperatures continue to rise. As bad as that sounds, it’s actually slightly more optimistic than previous studies that predicted losses as high as 99%.

    Our simulations suggest that coral populations could expand in a few locations this century, primarily southern Australia, but these expansions may only amount to around 6,000 acres (2,400 hectares). While that might sound a lot, we expect to lose around 10 million acres (4 million hectares) of coral over the same period.

    In other words, we are unlikely to see significant new tropical-style coral reefs forming in temperate waters within our lifetimes, so most tropical corals will not find refuge in higher latitude seas.

    Even though the suitable water temperatures for corals are forecast to expand poleward by about 25 miles (40 kilometers) per decade, corals would face other challenges in new environments.

    Our research suggests that coral range expansion is mainly limited by slower coral growth at higher latitudes, not by dispersal. Away from the equator, light intensity falls and temperature becomes more variable, reducing growth, and therefore the rate of range expansion, for many coral species.

    It is likely that new coral reefs will eventually form beyond their current range, as history shows, but our results suggest this may take centuries.

    Fish hide out in the safety of Kingman Reef, in the Pacific Ocean between the Hawaiian Islands and American Samoa. Coral reefs provide protection for many species, particularly young fish.
    USFWS, Pacific Islands

    Some coral species are adapted to the more challenging environmental conditions at higher latitudes, and these corals are increasing in abundance, but they are much less diverse and structurally complex than their tropical counterparts.

    Scientists have used human-assisted migration to try to restore damaged coral reefs by transplanting live corals. However, coral restoration is controversial, as it is expensive and cannot be scaled up globally. Since coral range expansion appears to be limited by challenging environmental conditions at higher latitudes rather than by dispersal, human-assisted migration is also unlikely to help them expand more quickly.

    Importantly, these potential higher latitude refuges already have rich, distinct ecosystems. Establishing tropical corals within those ecosystems might disrupt existing species, so rapid expansions might not be a good thing in the first place.

    A temperate reef near southern Australia, which could be threatened by expansions of tropical coral species.
    Stefan Andrews/Ocean Image Bank, CC BY-NC

    No known alternative to cutting emissions

    Despite enthusiasm for coral restoration, there is little evidence to suggest that methods like this can mitigate the global decline of coral reefs.

    As our study shows, migration would take centuries, while the most severe climate change harm for corals will occur within decades, making it unlikely that subtropical and temperate seas can act as coral refuges.

    What can help corals is reducing greenhouse gas emissions that are driving global warming. Our study suggests that reducing emissions at a faster pace, in accordance with the Paris climate agreement, could cut the coral loss by half compared with current policies. That could boost reef health for centuries to come.

    This means that there is still hope for these irreplaceable coral ecosystems, but time is running out.

    Noam Vogt-Vincent receives funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    – ref. Coral reefs face an uncertain recovery from the 4th global mass bleaching event – can climate refuges help? – https://theconversation.com/coral-reefs-face-an-uncertain-recovery-from-the-4th-global-mass-bleaching-event-can-climate-refuges-help-255804

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: It’s time to stop debating whether AI is genuinely intelligent and focus on making it work for society

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Rogoyski, Innovation Director, Surrey Institute of People-Centred AI, University of Surrey

    ‘Pleased to beat you.’ Aileenchik

    Half of entry-level white collar jobs might cease to exist in the near future, according to Dario Amodei, the CEO of leading AI company Anthropic. Amodei, whose company is behind the Claude platform, has since called for transparency standards requiring companies making AI models to demonstrate how they are handling risks such as the AI enabling cyberattacks or helping to make bioweapons.

    Time and again, such claims suggest the pace of development in artificial intelligence is vastly outstripping our ability to adapt and adopt, creating a series of short-term crises.

    Yet the debate between AI doomers, accelerationists, utopians and other factions is largely trapped in arguments about whether current AIs are truly demonstrating creativity, problem solving, planning and other intelligent characteristics. It’s as if we’re collectively in denial.

    AI is arguably the most important technology humankind will ever invent. We owe it to ourselves, and future generations, to make conscious decisions about introducing AI into everything we do, ensuring that humanity benefits.

    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.

    We know that AI is threatening the creative industries, for example. We can argue about whether AI is truly creative or we can set about preserving human creativity, originality and income security.

    For instance, the new CREAATIF report from Queen Mary University of London lays out a series of recommendations, such as treating creatives as co-designers along with AIs, not victims. It calls for clear disclosures about AI-generated creative works, and ensuring creatives can opt out of having their work in AI training datasets.

    We know that AI is being used in warfare. We can argue about what it means for a human to still take crucial battlefield decisions – the idea of “human in the loop”. Or we can set down explicit rules of war, as hinted at by the UN meeting in May on possible restrictions in the use of lethal autonomous systems.

    We know that AI is being used in medicine, from screening blood tests to virtual hospitals – as created by Tsinghua University in China. We can argue about whether AI can ever replace doctors, or we can actively explore where it is most appropriate and desirable to supplement human healthcare expertise with AI.

    Jobs and knowledge

    We also strongly suspect that AI will displace human jobs more broadly. Besides Amodei’s warnings, certain companies are already adopting “AI first” strategies. These treat AIs as the core driver of company operations, not just support tools.

    The canary in the coalmine may be graduate jobs, since companies will likely initially use AI for jobs requiring the least experience. Graduate hiring in the UK is falling. We can argue about whether there is a link with AI, or we can start putting serious thought into the future of education, skills and the meaning of a career in the 21st century.

    Finally, we know that AI is being used to mediate human access to knowledge, whether it’s the recommendation engines in platforms like TikTok and X, or search engines like Google and Bing providing AI summaries in preference to linked websites.

    Misinformation, disinformation and fakery is rife, often enabled by AI tools. And a more insidious side-effect of AI-mediated access to knowledge is the potential decline in how we know what’s true or reliable.

    We can argue about whether this is happening or we can focus on protecting reliable sources of information, and making sure everyone can access them. For example, the US-based Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) develops standards to verify where digital media comes from and whether it has been tampered with.

    What you can do

    AI is not going away, and there will be positives as well as negatives. For instance, AI will undoubtedly help to solve the hard problems of global health, energy generation and climate change.

    We need to recognise the power of existing AI technologies, and acknowledge that AI is likely to get even more advanced very quickly and that we need to act personally and collectively. And there are several things we can do now.

    First, take a personal interest. AI literacy is fast becoming a life skill. Leading AI platforms like ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini can create, summarise or rewrite text for you, compile research reports, jazz up presentations, create music, do data analysis, come up with new cooking recipes – the options are endless.

    The future is here.
    Aileenchik

    I’ve seen schoolteachers create AI mentors for students, pensioners create songs and presentations, children transform their artwork into historical contexts, all with no technical skills. Similarly, anyone can now use AI to code. So-called “vibe-coding” allows anyone to describe, in words, what they want a piece of software to do, and the AI will create a version of it – to an increasingly good level of completeness.

    The ability to adapt and adopt is key. Knowing and practising how to use AI will not only position you for future opportunities and changes, but may allow you to steer your workplace to a better outcome too.

    Second, become an advocate for how AI should be used. AI developments in the US and China will continue to drive AI innovation, but we have some choices when it comes to adoption and use.

    So become an “informed buyer”, actively selecting AI technology from companies which have strong ethical, security and privacy standpoints. For instance, I prefer Anthropic’s Claude to OpenAI’s ChatGPT, largely because of the former’s constitutional approach, which means its AIs are trained on a set of principles rather than on what it thinks the user will prefer.

    I like Meta’s track record on publishing detailed papers of how it trained and tested its LLMs (a type of AI model), and the fact that it open-sources them. This makes the best models available to a wider and more diverse range of people or organisations, not just to the wealthiest companies. I’m uncomfortable with the way that OpenAI sought to change its non-profit status recently. These are personal opinions and we should each form our own views.

    Third, voice your advocacy, to your boss, your local MP, and other decision makers you may come across. It’s only by making AI an everyday topic that we can influence the world we live in. As Tim Cook, CEO of Apple once said, “Artificial intelligence is the future, but we must ensure it is a future that we want.”

    Andrew Rogoyski’s department receives research funding from UKRI. He acts as an advisor to TechUK, one of the UK’s leading tech industry trade associations, as is a member of the NatWest Technology Advisory Board.

    – ref. It’s time to stop debating whether AI is genuinely intelligent and focus on making it work for society – https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-stop-debating-whether-ai-is-genuinely-intelligent-and-focus-on-making-it-work-for-society-258430

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Women’s prize for fiction 2025: six experts review the shortlisted novels

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Éadaoin Agnew, Senior lecturer in English literature, Kingston University

    From a longlist of 16, six novels have been shortlisted for the 2025 Women’s prize for fiction. Our experts review the finalists ahead of the announcement of the winner on June 12.

    The Safekeep by Yael van der Wouden

    The Safekeep, a novel about the expropriation and theft of Jewish property during and after the second world war, revisits a dark chapter of Dutch history.

    When Holland fell to Nazi Germany, many Dutch Jews were deported to the death camps and were stripped of their homes and belongings. Van der Wouden’s debut novel shines alight on the act of keeping or maintaining things left behind that were to be reclaimed by their rightful owners, but which were lost or stolen in the war.

    The trauma of this history hangs over the lives of three siblings grieving the loss of their mother in 1961.

    Isabel, the novel’s lonely protagonist, lives alone in the family house, keeping it in order as her late mother would have wanted. All the while she suspects that their maid is stealing from the kitchen. But following the arrival of her brother’s girlfriend, Eva, Isabel discovers the truth of the house and attempts to right historical wrongs.

    By Manjeet Ridon, Associate Dean International, Arts, Design and Humanities

    Good Girl by Aria Aber

    Aria Aber’s debut is a frequently poetic and powerful künstlerroman (a novel that maps the development of an artist). It follows Nila, a young Afghan woman in Berlin, as she tries to escape from her own cultural heritage and that of the German city in which she lives.

    For much of the novel, Nila moves through the margins of society, from her family home in a brutalist rundown apartment block in the neighbourhood of Neukölln to a seemingly endless cycle of underground clubs, parties and festivals. She pushes away her family, her childhood friends, and her college education to pursue an alternative creative life and a destructive love affair. Ultimately though, Nila realises that her artistic work and a truly independent life can only be forged through her reconciliation with the past.

    Set against the real far-right violence of the 2000s, Aber makes clear how social inequalities and racial prejudices effect artistic access and creativity. She also acutely captures the tensions between freedom and tradition as experienced by bicultural Muslim women grappling with the expectation to be “good girls”.

    By Éadaoin Agnew, Senior lecturer in English literature

    All Fours by Miranda July

    “Everyone thinks doggy style is so vulnerable,” remarks one of the characters in Miranda July’s latest work of fiction. This story takes sexuality as its subject along with its relationship with creativity and ageing – or more specifically, the midlife plunge from a cliff that is female menopause.

    Like the author, July’s nameless protagonist is 45, a successful artist, and married with a non-binary child. This auto-fiction puts the author’s erotic nonconformity at the centre of the frame. Our heroine embarks on a road-trip to New York, but only 20 minutes from her home she falls in love with a young man. The pair spend two weeks together in a motel pursuing a mutual obsession, which ultimately remains unconsummated. This experience upends her life and she rebounds into turbulent adventures in sex, discovering a new sense of self.

    Perhaps it could have been a little tighter than its 322 pages – but then again, it’s a work that explores a capacious road to excess. All Fours is a funny, honest, rambunctious tale

    Elizabeth Kuti, Professor in the Department of Literature Film and Theatre Studies

    The Persians by Sanam Mahloudji

    “Do they think we were just some refugees?” Shirin, one of the characters in The Persians, asks her niece Bita. “Weren’t we?” Bita replies. The question of what a refugee looks like and what kind of stories they are expected to tell is a central theme in Mahloudji’s raucous, poignant novel.

    The story shifts back and forward in time, from Tehran in the 1940s to Los Angeles in the Reagan years, and to both America and Iran in the 2000s, interweaving the voices of five women from the wealthy and powerful Valiat family. Mahloudji explores love, miscommunication, loyalties and betrayal across generations as well as between those who left and those who stayed behind.

    Jewellery is a central theme in the novel: glistening in shops, hidden in suitcases or flung away in protest. It represents both the adornment of female identity and the weight of the history that the migrants carry with them.

    Alexandra Peat, Lecturer in English and Director of the MA in Literature and Publishing

    Tell Me Everything by Elizabeth Strout

    Tell Me Everything is the tenth novel in Elizabeth Strout’s well-known series that sketches the lives of ordinary, yet complex characters, who enter and exit each other’s lives in the nowhere town of Crosby, Maine. The three main figures in this latest instalment are 90-year-old retired schoolteacher Olive Kitteridge (recognisable from Frances McDormand’s realisation in the award-winning TV series by the same name), early 60s fiction writer Lucy Barton, and 65-year-old lawyer Bob Burgess.

    Loosely, this novel can be described as a murder mystery, though the plot twist of an alleged matricide, and Burgess’s decision to defend the case, are secondary to the three main characters’ process of sharing previously untold accounts of forbidden, traumatic, guilty and unrequited love. It is this telling and memorialising that produces the emotional core of the novel. If sharing their past gives the ageing storytellers some respite from the burden of their hidden lives, it is not in the kind that comforts with meaning and purpose. In Strout’s novel, this relief is unavailable and is replaced with the more ephemeral solace of simply being heard.

    Yianna Liotsis, Associate Professor in the School of English Irish and Communication

    Fundamentally by Nussaibah Younis

    At the heart of Fundamentally is the affinity that forms between narrator Nadia, appointed by the United Nations to rehabilitate “Isis brides” in Iraq, and one of her subjects, Sara, an east Londoner on the cusp of adulthood.

    They connect through a shared love of rollerblading, Dairy Milk and X-Men, as well as their caustic sense of humour. But the two British Muslim women have followed vastly different routes – Nadia to academia and the UN and Sara to a detention camp in Ninewah.

    Nadia’s story of her journey through the vagaries of the humanitarian sector, punctuated by flashbacks to her failed relationship with first love Rosy and fraught relationship with her mother, is told with a compelling mix of verve and vulnerability. It raises hard ethical and political questions along the way. But it is Nadia’s mission to help Sara that gives the novel its emotional complexity and depth, drawing the reader in while denying us any easy answers.

    Rehana Ahmed, Reader in Postcolonial and Contemporary Literature

    Éadaoin Agnew receives funding from AHRC.

    Alexandra Peat has received funding from the British Academy

    Elizabeth J Kuti, Manjeet Ridon, and Rehana Ahmed 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. Women’s prize for fiction 2025: six experts review the shortlisted novels – https://theconversation.com/womens-prize-for-fiction-2025-six-experts-review-the-shortlisted-novels-253573

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What the UK’s ‘Nato-first’ defence approach tells us about Britain’s place in a volatile world

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nick Whittaker, Subject Lead in Social Sciences & Law, University of Sussex

    Since the end of the cold war, the relevance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) has regularly been questioned, even by its most prominent leaders. Its members, therefore, find it necessary to remind each other and the world of its value from time to time.

    The latest example of this is the UK government’s new strategic defence review, which announces a “Nato-first” posture.

    Nato has long been a cornerstone of UK foreign, defence and security policies. But this marks a particularly strident prioritisation of the organisation. It comes just a few years after Boris Johnson’s government began moving the country’s foreign and defence policy priorities towards the Indo-Pacific.

    It tells us much about how Keir Starmer’s administration sees the UK’s place in the world in an unsettled era: as both an influential ally of the US and a reliable partner to European powers, eager to maintain regional and global influence.

    Signed in 1949, the North Atlantic treaty committed its original 12 members to collective security: an attack on one would be an attack on all. In the shadow of the second world war, Nato went further than the nascent United Nations in its defence and security commitments. It brought together a somewhat eclectic mix of states straddling the Atlantic, from the North American behemoths of the US and Canada to tiny Iceland and Luxembourg, the dictatorship of Salazar’s Portugal and the democracies of Norway and Belgium.

    The UK’s participation was largely heralded across an enthusiastic parliament. Winston Churchill, then leader of the opposition, praised this new “fraternal association”. The foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, celebrated the community of interest [and] cooperation with like-minded people”. UK politicians saw Nato as a means to connect with the US and Canada in particular.

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

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

    The language at the time also reflected the casting of the Soviet Union as a threat to European security. Although the UK welcomed Nato as a liberal democratic organisation dominated by English-speaking peoples, its primary purpose was always to act as a strategic counterweight to the influence and encroachment of the Soviet Union in Europe. Hence the claimed irrelevance of Nato in the 1990s after the cold war, and its renewed importance today in the face of Russian aggression.

    As always with UK foreign and defence policies, the relationship with the US is paramount. The UK’s Nato-first position is no exception. Starmer clearly believes he can forge a working relationship with the US president. Although seemingly far from natural bedfellows (although neither were John F. Kennedy and Harold Macmillan or even, politics aside, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher), Donald Trump appears unthreatened by the sober, understated Starmer.

    The thought within Starmer’s foreign policy circle may well be that a loud and unequivocal statement of the UK’s commitment to Nato could help persuade Trump to stay the course with an organisation that he has often threatened to pull the US out of.

    If, on the other hand, Starmer et al are more pessimistic and fear Trump making good on his threats, Nato clearly remains an attractive proposition in terms of the UK’s defence policy. While it does commit the UK to the defence of, say, the Baltic States and Finland, by the same token, Nato puts the UK in lockstep with fellow nuclear power, France, as well as the growing military power of Germany and significant others such as Turkey. In uncertain times, such allies are to be valued.

    Global influence

    Even before Brexit, a fear of losing global and regional influence has stalked every British government since 1945.

    Questioning the wisdom of the departure from the EU remains a Westminster taboo. Yet one might forgive the incoming Labour government for feeling the chill of isolation while Trump occupies the White House and Russia threatens the continent. Nato thus also represents a valuable opportunity to retain regional and global influence. Note the language in Starmer’s introduction to the report when he refers to a desire to “lead in Nato”.

    Can Starmer’s ‘Nato-first’ pivot convince Trump to stay?
    Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street, CC BY-NC-ND

    While the other defenestrated European colonial powers found post-1945 influence through the Francophonie or becoming leading civilian forces in what became the EU, the UK had the Commonwealth and Nato. These were the prime proxies for the lost colonial influence, even during the long EU interregnum.

    Without the EU and with a more restive Commonwealth, Nato is of even greater importance. Although France’s president Emmanuel Macron is generally enthusiastic about Nato, there is a history of French ambivalence. The UK could well make the claim to be the most steadfastly committed of all the larger European members.

    This renewed commitment to Nato from the UK government is consistent with the historic prioritisation of the organisation by successive administrations. The difference here is the urgency of the context: Europe faces an unprecedented military threat, while the US president is unpredictable and dubious in his attitude towards continental defence.

    The Nato-first stance is a recognition of grim, strategic realities and also a “Hail Mary”, both pragmatic and hopeful. The UK is not alone in desperately hoping to keep the US commitment to European security alive. The strategic review’s commitment to a Nato-first policy may help – at the very least, it signals a UK administration keen to maximise its influence and retain robust ties with European allies.

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

    – ref. What the UK’s ‘Nato-first’ defence approach tells us about Britain’s place in a volatile world – https://theconversation.com/what-the-uks-nato-first-defence-approach-tells-us-about-britains-place-in-a-volatile-world-258336

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The UK is gearing up for autonomous warfare – but missing the reality of war today

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anthony King, Professor of War Studies, University of Exeter

    The UK is facing a security crisis. Great power competition has returned, and the threat of hostility from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea is increasing. The west can no longer assume military superiority, and the UK can no longer depend unconditionally on the US. The character of war itself is changing as new technology is introduced.

    This is the situation laid out in the latest strategic defence review. The implications for the UK are clear: the country must prepare for high-intensity, protracted war, not counter-insurgency operations like Iraq or Afghanistan.

    In order to address these challenges, the review says, “the UK must pivot to a new way of war.” Nuclear weapons are important here, and will be renewed and expanded. But the recommendations in the review focus on conventional weaponry and, above all, new remote and autonomous technology.

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

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

    The ongoing Ukraine war underpins much of the thinking about the military changes the UK needs to make. That conflict has demonstrated a significant change in the character of 21st-century warfare. Most obviously, it has involved a proliferation of cheap, expendable remote systems, some of which have autonomous capabilities.

    Remote first-person-view drones, and drones controlled by unjammable fibre-optic cables, have become ubiquitous on the frontline – reconnoitring, targeting and striking troops on both sides. They have made conventional strategic manoeuvres at the front almost impossible, while also striking civilian and military targets deep in Russia and Ukraine.

    At sea, uncrewed naval drones have struck Russian shipping and infrastructure in Crimea. The Ukrainian armed forces have also developed a digital battle management system and live-data, AI-enabled targeting system, drawing together information from satellite, open-source, ground-sensor and signal intelligence. This has allowed Ukrainian commanders to see deeply across the battlespace, and target Russian forces with an unprecedented depth and precision.

    As a result of remote systems enabled by digitised targeting, military forces have become exponentially more lethal in close battle – and also in the deep.

    The strategic defence review aims for the UK to incorporate these two elements into its war-fighting capabilities, recommending massive investment in remotely controlled and autonomous systems.

    It calls for the UK to create a “leading, tech-enabled defence power”. Part of this involves integrating UK forces and the construction of a unified “digital targeting web”. This would be fed by sensors from every domain (land, air and sea) so that all forces have access to the same intelligence and a common operating picture. The idea is that a target identified in one domain might be prosecuted by forces in another, to “enhance the Armed Forces’ precision and lethality at scale and reach”.

    In order to achieve this, the review also calls for improved and more innovative relationships between British defence, tech and industry. Once again, a lot has been learnt from Ukraine, whose industrial and tech sectors have been integrated into the war from the start.

    The missing link

    The review’s authors – three external experts led by former defence secretary and Nato chief, Lord Robertson – are correct to highlight the increasing importance of remote (and sometimes autonomous) systems in warfare. They are clear that military forces should increasingly draw on live data, processed by artificial intelligence, to help them understand the battlespace, plan and target. The UK must remain competitive with peer enemies who are developing these capabilities.

    However, even assuming that all of this is affordable at 2.5% of the UK’s GDP from 2027 (a 0.2% rise from where defence spending is now), there is a serious gap in the review’s proposals.

    As a scholar who has studied war in the 21st century, and has just completed a book on AI and war, I believe the document vastly overexaggerates the capability of AI and autonomy. For example, it states:

    In modern warfare, simple metrics such as the number of people and platforms deployed are outdated and inadequate. It is through dynamic networks of crewed, uncrewed, and autonomous assets and data flows that lethality and military effect are now created.

    This analysis presumes that autonomy will be vital in the future, and implies it will displace the need for large numbers of human combatants. In fact, true autonomy is still rare in combat – and will remain so, according to my research.

    Even if autonomous drone swarms appear, they will not eliminate the need for human programmers or operators behind the frontline. AI has limited military functions which require a huge amount of human input.

    Defence secretary John Healey being shown unmanned and autonomous units on a demonstration.
    UK MOD Crown Copyright 2025

    The review prioritises preparedness for protracted inter-state war. But it ignores the blindingly obvious from Ukraine: the imperative of mass.

    The Ukrainian frontline combat forces have expanded to about 300,000 – Ukraine claims its whole force, including allied fighters, is around 1 million. There are about 400,000 Russian combat troops in Ukraine. Casualties have been eye-watering: the Russians have suffered about 800,000 casualties, the Ukrainians nearly 500,000.

    In my view, the strategic defence review has been mesmerised by the prospect of new technology – and, perhaps, by some wishful thinking.

    In 21st-century war, troop mass matters. Fleets of drones and the most sophisticated digital targeting will be irrelevant without human forces willing to fight and to operate them.

    What is the review’s answer to this? While acknowledging that in the cold war, the British fielded forces of 311,000, UK regular armed forces are to remain the same size: 136,000, of which the army will consist of only 73,000 troops and staff.

    The review proposes that active reserves (volunteer, part-time forces) will be increased by 20%, and that the strategic reserve (ex-regulars) “is central to military mobilisation and must be reinvigorated”.

    It is not surprising that the review’s authors have offered such thin solutions to the question of mass. There has been profound resistance from successive governments, Whitehall and civil society to any expansion in the size of British military forces in the UK. But it is doubtful that an expanded reserve and a reinvigorated strategic reserve will be remotely enough for the UK to fight and win a war of any kind in the coming decade.

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

    – ref. The UK is gearing up for autonomous warfare – but missing the reality of war today – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-is-gearing-up-for-autonomous-warfare-but-missing-the-reality-of-war-today-258240

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Zia Yusuf turned Reform into an election winner – his angry resignation leaves Nigel Farage weakened

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Parveen Akhtar, Senior Lecturer: Politics, History and International Relations, Aston University

    Zia Yusuf, a self-made billionaire and Muslim, has resigned as chairman of Reform, breaking with Nigel Farage just weeks after delivering unprecedented success for the party in local elections.

    Yusuf announced his sudden departure on social media platform X, saying he no longer believed “working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time”.

    Having been one of the party’s largest donors, Yusuf was appointed to the role less than a year ago and has widely been credited as the power behind Reform’s professionalisation. He is said to be the driving force behind growing its national infrastructure and membership, which now stands at around 235,000.

    Yusuf’s resignation post came a few hours after another, in which he referred to a question posed in the House of Commons by new Reform MP Sarah Pochin as “dumb”.

    Pochin had used her first chance to speak in the Commons to call on prime minister Keir Starmer to ban burqas in the UK. It is reported that there had been tensions between Yusuf and other figures in Reform, but this appears to have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.

    Sarah Pochin uses a question at PMQs to call for a burqa ban.

    Yusuf has faced Islamophobic abuse from some within the party’s ranks. On social media, some Reform supporters have questioned whether a Muslim can ever truly belong in the party, while others have threatened to leave it because of him.

    Asked on GB News whether Yusuf viewed Pochin’s question as a slight against himself, party leader Nigel Farage suggested instead that Yusuf more likely didn’t see banning the burqa as a high priority issue for Reform. Both Farage and former party chairman Richard Tice have stood by Pochin, saying a debate is needed on banning the burqa.

    Yusuf, once heralded as a rising star in Reform and in British politics, didn’t go into further detail but referred to his successes in the party instead: “I’ve worked full time as a volunteer to take the party from 14 to 30%, quadrupled its membership and delivered historic electoral results.”

    Yusuf was referring to the fact that Reform is currently polling at 30%, has five MPs and has recently taken control of ten councils in England – the first time it has ever held governing roles.

    Shortly after Yusuf’s departure, Nathaniel Fried, who had been brought into Reform to spearhead the party’s Doge-style efficiency drive in local councils, also resigned, stating he had doubts about the future of the project.

    Reform will now be asking itself if it can continue its successful trajectory without theses figures. We’ll soon find out if it was Yusuf alone who was responsible for the professionalisation that has recently delivered so much electoral success.

    Treading a fine line from the start

    When he was first appointed, Yusuf promised to “bring all my expertise, energy and passion to the role to ensure we achieve our mission of returning Great Britain to greatness”. Mirroring the Maga project is the US, Yusuf’s focus was on making the UK great again by controlling the country’s borders and restoring sovereignty.

    Yusuf’s attachment to Reform, a party which has made anti-immigration its political focus, was significant given that his own parents were first-generation immigrants from Sri Lanka. Yet Yusuf was the face of established ethnic minority communities in the UK who have immigration backgrounds but take a tough line on newcomers.

    He describes himself as a British Muslim patriot, who loves his country. My forthcoming research with colleagues details how the justifications used by minorities who voted for Brexit were very similar to those in the public at large – with an uncontrolled immigration being a key issue.

    Party leader Nigel Farage said he was sorry to see Yusuf go and recognised that he was a loss for the party. Farage claimed that the two of them “barely had a disagreement” in working together but that others had not got on well with Yusuf.

    Farage claimed that Yusuf’s business background left him struggling in politics and that he brought a “bit of a Goldman Sachs mentality” to his job, which put him at odds with others. He said interpersonal skills were “at the top of his list of attributes”.

    However, in a significant new development, Farage did acknowledge that Yusuf had faced abuse on social media from the “alt-right”. This was the first time he has ever publicly acknowledged the abundance of racist and Islamophobic abuse Yusuf has received on social media by Reform supporters.

    He did somewhat contradict himself later by blaming “Indian bots” for spreading content that misled Reform voters. Tim Montgomerie, another high-profile former Conservative Reform supporter also cited personal abuse as a factor: “He faced a lot of prejudice, not necessarily from inside the party but on social media, I think that affected him.”

    Given that for years the racism and Islamaphobia faced by Yusuf was never publicly acknowledged, it’s interesting that the party elite clearly see the need to recognise the racism as part of the damage limitation exercise they’ve now had to undertake.

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

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

    No doubt Farage saw Yusuf as an asset to the party. Only days before the falling out, he had heralded him as an example of why Reform could not be accused of being racist: “I would remind everybody that the chairman of the party is Scottish-born, but comes from parents who come from the Indian subcontinent. But we don’t talk about race at all. We think everybody should be treated equally. We object very strongly to the segmentation of people into different types.” Farage acknowledged that Yusuf’s race was a benefit to him when responding to his resignation, too.

    It matters that Reform’s highest profile minority member is no more. It also shows the disunity in a political party which is growing very quickly. This is a pattern from yesteryear. Party infighting used to happen in the old days of Reform’s predecessors, UKIP and the Brexit Party.

    It was a big part of why they did not reach the heights currently being enjoyed by Reform. This is, ironically, the first big test of the professionalisation drive that Yusuf led.

    Parveen Akhtar has previously received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and the British Academy.

    – ref. Zia Yusuf turned Reform into an election winner – his angry resignation leaves Nigel Farage weakened – https://theconversation.com/zia-yusuf-turned-reform-into-an-election-winner-his-angry-resignation-leaves-nigel-farage-weakened-258382

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: 4 creative ways to engage children in STEM over the summer: Tips to foster curiosity and problem-solving at home

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Amber M. Simpson, Associate Professor of Mathematics Education, Binghamton University, State University of New York

    Families and caregivers can boost children’s confidence and interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics while school is out for summer. heshphoto/Getty Images

    The Trump administration is reshaping the pursuit of science through federal cuts to research grants and the Department of Education. This will have real consequences for students interested in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM learning.

    One of those consequences is the elimination of learning opportunities such as robotics camps and access to advanced math courses for K-12 students.

    As a result, families and caregivers are more essential than ever in supporting children’s learning.

    Based on my research, I offer four ways to support children’s summer learning in ways that feel playful and engaging but still foster their interest, confidence and skills in STEM.

    1. Find a problem

    To support STEM learning outside of school, encourage children to find and solve problems.
    kali9/Getty Images

    Look for “problems” in or around your home to engineer a solution for. Engineering a solution could include brainstorming ideas, drawing a sketch, creating a prototype or a first draft, testing and improving the prototype and communicating about the invention.

    For example, one family in our research created an upside-down soap dispenser for the following problem: “the way it’s designed” − specifically, the straw − “it doesn’t even reach the bottom of the container. So there’s a lot of soap sitting at the bottom.”

    To identify a problem and engage in the engineering design process, families are encouraged to use common materials. The materials may include cardboard boxes, cotton balls, construction paper, pine cones and rocks.

    Our research found that when children engage in engineering in the home environment with caregivers, parents and siblings, they communicate about and apply science and math concepts that are often “hidden” in their actions.

    For instance, when building a paper roller coaster for a marble, children think about how the height will affect the speed of the marble. In math, this relates to the relationship between two variables, or the idea that one thing, such as height, impacts another, the speed. In science, they are applying concepts of kinetic energy and potential energy. The higher the starting point, the more potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, which makes the marble move faster.

    In addition, children are learning what it means to be an engineer through their actions and experience. Families and caregivers play a role in supporting their creative thinking and willingness to work through challenging problems.

    2. Spark curiosity

    Spontaneous learning moments can lead to deep engagement and learning of STEM concepts.
    cglade/Getty Images

    Open up a space for exploration around STEM concepts driven by their interests.

    Currently, my research with STEM professionals who were homeschooled talk about the power of learning sparked by curiosity.

    One participant stated, “At one time, I got really into ladybugs, well Asian Beatles I guess. It was when we had like hundreds in our house. I was like, what is happening? So, I wanted to figure out like why they were there, and then the difference between ladybugs and Asian beetles because people kept saying, these aren’t actually ladybugs.”

    Researchers label this serendipitous science engagement, or even spontaneous math moments. The moments lead to deep engagement and learning of STEM concepts. This may also be a chance to learn things with your child.

    3. Facilitate thinking

    In my research, being uncertain about STEM concepts may lead to children exploring and considering different ideas. One concept in particular − playful uncertainties − is when parents and caregivers know the answer to a child’s uncertainties but act as if they do not know.

    For example, suppose your child asks, “How can we measure the distance between St. Louis, Missouri, and Nashville, Tennessee, on this map?” You might respond, “I don’t know. What do you think?” This gives children the chance to share their ideas before a parent or caregiver guides them toward a response.

    4. Bring STEM to life

    Overhearing or participating in budget talks can help children develop math skills and financial literacy.
    SeizaVisuals/Getty Images

    Turn ordinary moments into curious conversations.

    “This recipe is for four people, but we have 11 people coming to dinner. What should we do?”

    In a recent interview, one participant described how much they learned from listening in on financial conversations, seeing how decisions got made about money, and watching how bills were handled. They were developing financial literacy and math skills.

    As they noted, “By the time I got to high school, I had a very good basis on what I’m doing and how to do it and function as a person in society.”

    Globally, individuals lack financial literacy, which can lead to negative outcomes in the future when it comes to topics such as retirement planning and debt.

    Why is this important?

    Research shows that talking with friends and family about STEM concepts supports how children see themselves as learners and their later success in STEM fields, even if they do not pursue a career in STEM.

    My research also shows how family STEM participation gives children opportunities to explore STEM ideas in ways that go beyond what they typically experience in school.

    In my view, these kinds of STEM experiences don’t compete with what children learn in school − they strengthen and support it.

    Amber M. Simpson receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation.

    – ref. 4 creative ways to engage children in STEM over the summer: Tips to foster curiosity and problem-solving at home – https://theconversation.com/4-creative-ways-to-engage-children-in-stem-over-the-summer-tips-to-foster-curiosity-and-problem-solving-at-home-257407

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Debates over presidential power to suspend habeas corpus resurface in Trump administration

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Brooks D. Simpson, Foundation Professor of History, Arizona State University

    There’s a conflict brewing over the rights of the arrested and detained; it’s not a new conflict. busra İspir, iStock/Getty Images Plus

    The principle of habeas corpus, a legal phrase, is a simple one: Translated from the Latin as “produce the body,” it provides that a judge may compel prosecutors to supply evidence to determine whether someone has been legally detained or arrested.

    In the U.S., a detained or arrested individual, or their legal representative, may ask a judge to decide based on the evidence presented whether the detainee has been legally confined. That process is termed “seeking a writ.”

    Suspending the privilege of the writ, also known as “suspending the writ,” denies that individual or their representation from making that request or a judge from honoring it. The “privilege” in that phrase is a right of the accused.

    In the past few months, members of the Trump administration have raised the issue of the president’s power to suspend the privilege of habeas corpus.

    White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller in May 2025 shared with the media the news that administration officials were exploring the possibility of suspending the privilege of the writ to help the administration deport immigrants quickly.

    Eleven days later, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem declared at a congressional hearing that habeas corpus “is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country,” a misunderstanding of this foundational legal right immediately challenged by New Hampshire Senator Maggie Hassan.

    Article I of the U.S. Constitution declares that “the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Suspension is thus a grave and serious matter.

    This is not the first time that Americans have debated which branch of government – the executive branch or Congress – has the power to suspend the privilege of the writ and under what circumstances it may do so.

    Sen. Maggie Hassan asks Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to define habeas corpus; Noem can’t.

    Lincoln and the Great Writ

    Habeas corpus became a major point of controversy during the Civil War, when President Abraham Lincoln suspended the privilege of the writ, first in parts of Maryland and later throughout the nation, without seeking prior congressional approval.

    While the Constitution provides for the suspension of the writ, the document is silent as to who has the power to exercise this authority. Although most of this section of the Constitution concerns the powers of Congress, it also addresses the power and authority of other branches in specific instances. And the use of the passive voice – “shall not be suspended” – in this section leaves the question of who can suspend the writ open to interpretation.

    The questions of who may suspend the privilege of the writ and under what circumstances emerged in the spring of 1861.

    On April 12, Confederate forces fired on U.S.-controlled Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, an act that is considered the formal start of the war. A week later, Marylanders supporting secession clashed with militia from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania who were making their way through Baltimore to defend Washington.

    Lincoln refused to honor requests from Maryland Governor Thomas Hicks and Baltimore Mayor George Brown to avoid transporting reinforcements through Baltimore. The president initially tried to skirt any conflict by routing the reinforcements through Annapolis.

    This proved a stopgap measure. On April 27, Lincoln authorized General Winfield Scott, commanding general of the U.S. Army, to suspend the privilege of the writ between Philadelphia and Washington, if necessary. This would permit arbitrary arrests and detaining of people determined to be acting in support of the insurrection.

    Taney challenges Lincoln

    To protect national security, U.S. military authorities arrested John Merryman on May 25, 1861. Merryman, who was from Baltimore, was suspected of involvement in destroying railroad bridges to obstruct Union troop movements.

    Chief Justice Roger B. Taney honored a request from Merryman’s lawyers to issue a writ of habeas corpus, only to have federal military authorities refuse to produce Merryman, who remained at his cell in Fort McHenry.

    Taney then ruled that neither Lincoln nor military personnel under his command could suspend the privilege of the writ when it came to civilians such as Merryman.

    “If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the Legislature to say so,” wrote Taney, quoting an 1807 opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall.

    Days later, on June 1, Taney offered a more extended decision reflecting his reasoning that Congress, not the president, could suspend the privilege of the writ.

    Taney was challenging the president’s authority to act unilaterally.

    Lincoln ignored Taney’s ruling. He reasoned that in time of emergency, especially with Congress not in session, he – as president – was compelled to act in the interests of national security. He did so to protect the movement of troops through Maryland to defend the national capital.

    Not only did Lincoln’s order remain in place, but the president later expanded its geographic scope in several instances, most notably in September 1862. On the heels of issuing the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln authorized the detention of individuals accused of obstructing efforts to raise troops or who sought to support the rebellion.

    Unwilling to concede that Lincoln’s actions need not seek congressional approval, Congress, first in 1861, then through the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 offered retroactive sanction of the actions of the executive branch and, in 1863, empowered Lincoln to suspend the privilege of the writ in the future in the interests of national security for the duration of the rebellion.

    Democrats, however, criticized Lincoln’s actions as arbitrary, unconstitutional and smacking of tyranny.

    President Abraham Lincoln’s 1862 proclamation suspending the use of habeas corpus.
    Mississippi State University

    Executive overreach?

    Almost a decade later, in 1871, President Ulysses S. Grant declined to act on his own to suspend the privilege of the writ to prosecute white supremacist terrorists in the Reconstruction South, requiring that Congress first pass legislation authorizing him to do so.

    Since the Civil War, only once has a president unilaterally suspended the privilege of the writ without prior congressional authorization. That’s what President Franklin D. Roosevelt did in Hawaii after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, in order to combat any suspicious activity that might be construed as espionage.

    With Congress currently in session, lawmakers could authorize the president to suspend the privilege of the writ to set aside debates over executive overreach. Otherwise, presidents might define as emergencies situations that do not meet the extreme circumstances envisioned by the Constitution while sidestepping congressional approval.

    Brooks D. Simpson 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. Debates over presidential power to suspend habeas corpus resurface in Trump administration – https://theconversation.com/debates-over-presidential-power-to-suspend-habeas-corpus-resurface-in-trump-administration-257195

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Was the Boulder attack terrorism or a hate crime? 2 experts unpack the complexities

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Frederic Lemieux, Professor of the Practice and Faculty Director of the Master’s in Applied Intelligence, Georgetown University

    A woman places flowers outside the Boulder, Colo., courthouse after an attack that injured 12 people. David Zalubowski/AP Photo

    Twelve people in Boulder, Colorado, were injured by a man wielding a makeshift flamethrower and Molotov cocktails on June 1, 2025. Those burned in the attack were taking part in a peaceful, silent walk on Pearl Street, a pedestrian mall, with the aim of raising awareness about Israeli hostages held by Hamas in Gaza.

    The suspect, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, yelled, “Free Palestine,” according to local news reports. Soliman is an Egyptian immigrant who was living in the U.S. illegally after his tourist visa and work authorization both expired.

    On June 3, Soliman’s family, who lived with him in Colorado Springs, were detained by federal immigration authorities. Soliman’s wife and five children were placed in expedited removal proceedings.

    The FBI and local authorities initially said they were investigating a “targeted terror attack”. But Soliman was later charged with hate crimes in federal court. He also faces attempted murder and other charges in state court.

    We study terrorism and hate crimes.

    Whether an attack like the one in Boulder is considered an act of terrorism or a hate crime changes the way a suspect is charged and sentenced.

    Let’s look at how these two terms differ.

    What is a hate crime?

    Hate crimes are crimes motivated by bias on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity. In some states, gender, age and gender identity are also included. Hate crime laws have been passed by 47 states and the federal government since the 1980s, when activists first began to press state legislatures to recognize the role of bias in violence against minority groups. Today, only Arkansas, South Carolina and Wyoming do not have hate crime laws.

    Colorado’s 2024 statute prohibits bias-motivated attacks based on a wide variety of categories, from ancestry to gender identity.

    In order to be charged as a hate crime, attacks – whether vandalism, assault or killings – must be directed at individuals because of the prohibited biases. Hate crimes, in other words, punish motive; the prosecutor must convince the judge or jury that the victim was targeted because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or other protected characteristic.

    If the defendant is found to have acted with bias motivation, hate crimes often add an additional penalty to the underlying charge. Charging people with a hate crime, then, presents additional layers of complexity to what may otherwise be a straightforward case for prosecutors. Bias motivation can be hard to prove, and prosecutors can be reluctant to take cases that they may not win in court.

    Dylann Roof, who killed nine worshipers at a Black church in South Carolina in 2015, was convicted of 33 charges, including hate crimes.
    Grace Beahm-Pool/Getty Images

    What is terrorism?

    Terrorism is a violent tactic – a strategy used to achieve a specific end.

    This strategy is often used in asymmetric power struggles when a weaker person, or group, is fighting against a powerful nation-state. The violence is aimed at creating fear in the targeted population.

    Terrorists often justify their bloody acts on the basis of perceived social, economic and political unfairness. Or they take inspiration from religious beliefs or spiritual principles.

    Many forms of terrorism were inspired by struggle between races, the rich and poor, or political outcasts and elites.

    How different terrorist groups act is informed by what they are trying to achieve. Some adopt a reactionary perspective aimed at stopping or resisting social, economic and political changes. Others adopt a revolutionary doctrine and want to provoke change.

    In the United States, terrorism attacks were in sharp decline from 1970 to 2011, decreasing from approximately 475 incidents a year to fewer than 20.

    The U.S. government began to take more note of domestic terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. And the number of domestic terrorism incidents began to rise after 2011, with notable increases in the mid-to-late 2010s and early 2020s.

    Data compiled by the Center for Strategic and International Studies shows right-wing terrorist attacks and plots grew substantially during the past decade, with right-wing extremists being responsible for the majority of attacks and plots each year since 2011, except for 2013. There were 44 incidents in 2019 alone.

    The Department of Homeland Security’s 2025 Homeland Threat Assessment indicates that the terrorism threat environment in the United States remains high, driven largely by domestic violent extremists motivated by a mix of racial, religious and anti-government grievances.

    Terrorism is not a successful tactic. American University professor Audrey Cronin studied 457 terrorist groups worldwide going back to 1968. The groups lasted an average of eight years before they lost support or were dismantled. No terrorist organizations that she studied were able to conquer a state, and 94% were unable to achieve even one of their strategic goals.

    Portions of this article originally appeared in articles published on March 19, 2021, and May 23, 2017.

    Read more of our stories about Colorado.

    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. Was the Boulder attack terrorism or a hate crime? 2 experts unpack the complexities – https://theconversation.com/was-the-boulder-attack-terrorism-or-a-hate-crime-2-experts-unpack-the-complexities-258217

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Kissinger would have been a Fortnite champ − and other foreign policy lessons from the gaming world

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Michael A. Allen, Professor of Political Science, Boise State University

    Charlemagne, the medieval King of the Franks, has taken control of modern-day America and is looking to expand his borders by invading your neighboring country.

    Now, I’m not a historian. But the above example makes perfect sense to me as both a gamer and a professor of international relations.

    It is a possible outcome in the recently released video game Civilization VII, or Civ 7, in which different historical figures can govern people far removed – both in time and geography – from their actual historical role. In this case, Charlemagne has become displeased with the little empire you control due to friction along a shared border and is likely to invade soon.

    I have been an avid player of games like Civ 7 my entire life. I tend to play strategic games, be they video, card, board or role-playing games. And I’m not alone. An estimated 190.6 million people in the U.S. regularly play video games in some form.

    While my primary reason for playing may be enjoyment, they also inform the discipline I teach. In fact, I just published a book, “The Gamer’s Guide to International Relations,” that explains how some of the most popular games around include lessons for people seeking to understand how diplomacy works and how different nations interact.

    A visitor walks past the booth of Civilization VII at the Gamescom video games trade fair in Cologne, Germany, on Aug. 21, 2024.
    Ina Fassbender/AFP via Getty Images

    While Civ 7 may seek to emulate this world of conflict and cooperation, other games with no apparent connection to geopolitics can also provide lessons. In particular, Fortnite, League of Legends and Minecraft invite gamers to interact with the world in a way that models how leaders, governments and countries behave.

    Here are three ways in which games create worlds that model key concepts from international relations:

    1. Fortnite as realpolitik

    Fortnite, a video game focused on crafting weapons and survival that launched in 2017, can be used as an introduction to the concept of realpolitik.

    The core part of Fortnite is its battle-royale, third-person shooting game. In a battle royale, you are fighting against 99 other players to be the last person standing.

    The “everyone for themselves” ethos can be chaotic and challenging, with death and defeat lurking in every shrub.

    It brings to mind the thinking behind the international relations theory of realism. Realists see the world as anarchic, with no overarching moral or physical authority telling states what to do – in other words, one with no world government.

    It is a self-help system where states survive, thrive or die based on accruing power, finding security and using force to resolve disputes.

    The theory of realism hearkens back to the ancient Greek historian Thucydides, who famously noted that the “strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

    That phrase has become a central tenet of foreign policy realists. Henry Kissinger, secretary of state under U.S. President Richard Nixon, saw foreign policy as a strategic enterprise based on power, while largely ignoring other imperatives such as human rights and justice.

    Even in international anarchy, however, cooperation can be attractive to a realist. Kissinger, for example, sought positive relations with China and foresaw that by working with China the U.S. could exploit a growing division between the Soviet Union and China.

    From Kissinger’s perspective, it mattered less that China was communist and more that it was powerful and distrustful of the Soviet Union.

    How does this apply to Fortnite? Well, in the game, you may come across two players fighting. When this happens, a player must quickly decide to either retreat or join the fray. If you enter the fight, you could either team up with the weaker player and eliminate a stronger foe or join the strong and remove the weak.

    In Fortnite, and occasionally in international politics, whomever you choose as your temporary ally will become your rival immediately after – so you have to choose wisely. The enemy of your enemy is not going to stay your friend forever.

    LoL and enduring allies

    League of Legends, known as LoL or League to fans, is a game that offers a deceptively simple idea: A team of five players battles another to destroy their base.

    Mastering the game is far from simple. Along the way, you can pick up valuable international relation lessons on the importance of forging lasting alliances.

    Fans watch the final of an esports competition to determine the winner of South Korea’s largest online game.
    Kim Jae-Hwan/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

    Players remain anonymous and can be pretty toxic toward each other – tending to blame a team’s failings on anyone but themselves.

    If you join as a solo player, you will join four other people you do not know and spend the next 30 minutes either winning or losing a game.

    You’ll build a rapport with some teammates and want to keep playing with them. Other times, you find someone who complements your skills, and you can join a ranked competition as a pair and work together toward victory.

    In this, LoL is more akin to the international relations theory of liberalism. Liberalism, which should not be confused with the political identity in U.S. politics, holds realism’s view of the world to be limited. Instead, it teaches that cooperation can endure beyond pure power politics.

    Instead of a temporary alliance that falls apart immediately after you achieve your goal, liberalism suggests that alliances can mutually benefit two countries in the long run.

    Take for example the United States and the United Kingdom. The two countries allied during the crises of two worlds wars. By the end of World War II, they had established a long-term partnership, resulting in the establishment of international institutions that have endured for 80 years.

    Liberalism argues that countries can find solutions where both sides benefit without one side being disadvantaged. This contrasts with realism’s views of the world as zero-sum – where one side benefits at the other’s expense.

    Under both liberalism and League of Legends, interactions can create positive-sum outcomes for both parties.

    Minecraft and constructing the world

    Turning to Minecraft, one of the most popular games in the world, we find valuable lessons on a third international relations concept: constructivism.

    Constructivism argues that the world is socially constructed. That is, the rules of international politics are something that humans and countries have created, chosen to abide by and are willing to enforce.

    And this works well with Minecraft. People of all ages can enjoy it – but it is up to players to choose how to play. You can build houses or castles, or you can choose to find and defeat the Ender Dragon. Or you can turn on creative mode and decide to make art or large engineering projects.

    Constructing a love for all things foreign policy.
    Georg Wendt/picture alliance via Getty Images

    The point is that it’s up to you and your friends to determine joint goals or collectively decide to pursue your own interests – and that concept is at the heart of constructivism. States can decide to create a more liberal world by jointly signing treaties or joining international organizations that alter what nations can and cannot do. Alternatively, states may see such ventures as facades and decide that the most important things are power and security. Both realist and liberal states can exist in the same world.

    Like players in Minecraft, states may view the world as one where everyone is a threat, in line with realism. Or they may view the world as one where institutions and cooperation provide a better experience for everyone.

    In Minecraft as in international politics, the goals, rules and punishments for those who deviate are determined collectively.

    Digging deeper

    Games such as Minecraft, League of Legends and Fortnite may seem to many as a pastime rather than a learning experience. But they can help people connect with concepts that attempt to explain a vast and confusing world. Being able to grasp the arcane and complicated world of international relations can make the world slightly more manageable.

    Michael A. Allen 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. Why Kissinger would have been a Fortnite champ − and other foreign policy lessons from the gaming world – https://theconversation.com/why-kissinger-would-have-been-a-fortnite-champ-and-other-foreign-policy-lessons-from-the-gaming-world-253594

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘The Eternal Queen of Asian Pop’ sings one last encore from beyond the grave

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Xianda Huang, PhD student in Asian Languages and Cultures, University of California, Los Angeles

    Teresa Teng, who died in 1995, still has legions of fans around the world. Nora Tam/South China Morning Post via Getty Images

    Several years ago, an employee at Universal Music came across a cassette tape in a Tokyo warehouse while sorting through archival materials. On it was a recording by the late Taiwanese pop star Teresa Teng that had never been released; the pop ballad, likely recorded in the mid-1980s while Teng was living and performing in Japan, was a collaboration between composer Takashi Miki and lyricist Toyohisa Araki.

    Now, to the delight of her millions of fans, the track titled “Love Songs Are Best in the Foggy Night” will appear on an album set to be released on June 25, 2025.

    Teng died 30 years ago. Most Americans know little about her life and her body of work. Yet the ballads of Teng, who could sing in Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese and Indonesian, continue to echo through karaoke rooms, on Spotify playlists, at tribute concerts and at family gatherings across Asia and beyond.

    I study how pop music has served as a tool of soft power, and I’ve spent the past several years researching Teng’s music and its legacy. I’ve found that Teng’s influence endures not just because of her voice, but also because her music transcends Asia’s political fault lines.

    From local star to Asian icon

    Born in 1953 in Yunlin, Taiwan, Teresa Teng grew up in one of the many villages that were built to house soldiers and their families who had fled mainland China in 1949 after the communists claimed victory in the Chinese civil war. Her early exposure to traditional Chinese music and opera laid the foundation for her singing career. By age 6, she was taking voice lessons. She soon began winning local singing competitions.

    “It wasn’t adults who wanted me to sing,” Teng wrote in her memoir. “I wanted to sing. As long as I could sing, I was happy.”

    At 14, Teng dropped out of high school to focus entirely on music, signing with the local label Yeu Jow Records. Soon thereafter, she released her first album, “Fengyang Flower Drum.” In the 1970s, she toured and recorded across Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan and Southeast Asia, becoming one of Asia’s first truly transnational pop stars.

    Teng’s career flourished in the late 1970s and 1980s. She released some of her most iconic tracks, such as her covers of Chinese singer Zhou Xuan’s 1937 hit “When Will You Return?” and Taiwanese singer Chen Fen-lan’s “The Moon Represents My Heart,” and toured widely across Asia, sparking what came to be known as “Teresa Teng Fever.”

    In the early 1990s, Teng was forced to stop performing for health reasons. She died suddenly of an asthma attack on May 8, 1995, while on vacation in Chiang Mai, Thailand, at the age of 42.

    China catches Teng Fever

    Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Teng’s story is that Teng Fever peaked in China.

    Teng was ethnically Chinese, with ancestral roots in China’s Shandong province. But the political divide between China and Taiwan following the Chinese civil war had led to decades of hostility, with each side refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the other.

    Teng speaks at a press conference in Hong Kong in 1980.
    P.Y. Tang/South China Morning Post via Getty Images

    During the late 1970s and 1980s, however, China began to relax its political control under Deng Xiaoping’s Reform and Opening Up policy. This sweeping initiative shifted China toward a market-oriented economy, encouraged foreign trade and investment, and cautiously reintroduced global cultural influences after decades of isolation.

    Pop music from other parts of the world began trickling in, including Teng’s tender ballads. Her songs could be heard in coastal provinces such as Guangdong and Shanghai, inland cities such as Beijing and Tianjin, and even remote regions such as Tibet. Shanghai’s propaganda department wrote an internal memo in 1980 noting that her music had spread to the city’s public parks, restaurants, nursing homes and wedding halls.

    Teng’s immense popularity in China was no accident; it reflected a time in the country’s history when its people were particularly eager for emotionally resonant art after decades of cultural propaganda and censorship.

    For a society that had been awash in rote, revolutionary songs like “The East is Red” and “Union is Strength,” Teng’s music offered something entirely different. It was personal, tender and deeply human. Her gentle, approachable style – often described as “angelic” or like that of “a girl next door” – provided solace and a sense of intimacy that had long been absent from public life.

    Teng performs ‘Fly Me to the Moon’ in Taipei in 1984.

    Teng’s music was also admired for her ability to bridge eras. Her 1983 album “Light Exquisite Feeling” fused classical Chinese poetry with contemporary Western pop melodies, showcasing her gift for blending the traditional and the modern. It cemented her reputation not just as a pop star but as a cultural innovator.

    It’s no secret why audiences across China and Asia were so deeply drawn to her and her music. She was fluent in multiple languages; she was elegant but humble, polite and relatable; she was involved in various charities; and she spoke out in support of democratic values.

    A sound of home in distant lands

    Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, the Chinese immigrant population in the United States grew to over 1.1 million. Teng’s music has also deeply embedded itself within Chinese diasporic communities across the country. In cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York, Chinese immigrants played her music at family gatherings, during holidays and at community events. Walk through any Chinatown during Lunar New Year and you’re bound to hear her voice wafting through the streets.

    Teng visits New York City’s Chinatown during her 1980 concert tour in the U.S.
    Wikimedia Commons

    For younger Chinese Americans and even non-Chinese audiences, Teng’s music has become a window into Chinese culture.

    When I was studying in the U.S., I often met Asian American students who belted out her songs at karaoke nights or during cultural festivals. Many had grown up hearing her music through their parents’ playlists or local community celebrations.

    The release of her recently discovered song is a reminder that some voices do not fade – they evolve, migrate and live on in the hearts of people scattered across the world.

    Teresa Teng’s music is still celebrated in Chinatowns across the U.S.

    In an age when global politics drive different cultures apart, Teng’s enduring appeal reminds us of something quieter yet more lasting: the power of voice to transmit emotion across time and space, the way a melody can build a bridge between continents and generations.

    I recently rewatched the YouTube video for Teng’s iconic 1977 ballad “The Moon Represents My Heart.” As I read the comments section, one perfectly encapsulated what I had discovered about Teresa Teng in my own research: “Teng’s music opened a window to a culture I never knew I needed.”

    Xianda Huang 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 Eternal Queen of Asian Pop’ sings one last encore from beyond the grave – https://theconversation.com/the-eternal-queen-of-asian-pop-sings-one-last-encore-from-beyond-the-grave-255560

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: AmeriCorps is on the chopping block – despite research showing that the national service agency is making a difference in local communities

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Pamela Paxton, Professor of Sociology, The University of Texas at Austin

    Many AmeriCorps crews, like this one seen at work in Maine in 2011, restore and renovate public parks. John Patriquin/Portland Press Herald via Getty Images

    Hundreds of thousands of U.S. nonprofits provide vital services, such as running food banks and youth programs, supporting public health initiatives and helping unemployed people find new jobs. Although this work helps sustain local communities, obtaining the money and staff they require is a constant struggle for many of these groups.

    That’s where AmeriCorps often comes in. The independent federal agency for national service and volunteerism has facilitated the work of approximately 200,000 people a year, placing them through partnerships with thousands of nonprofits that provide tutoring, disaster relief and many other important services.

    But Americorps’ fate is now uncertain. In April 2025, the Trump administration canceled more than 1,000 grants, suddenly ending the stipends that were supporting more than 32,000 AmeriCorps volunteers. On June 5, a judge ordered that these grants be restored in Washington D.C. and 24 states in response to a lawsuit they had filed. The judge also ordered that all volunteers who had been deployed in those places be reinstated “if they are willing and able to return.”

    The Trump administration has also put most of AmeriCorps administrative staff on leave and indicated that it wants to eliminate the independent agency, along with its US$1.2 billion annual budget. AmeriCorps doesn’t appear in a detailed 2026 budget request the administration released on May 30.

    I’m a sociology and public affairs professor who has studied nonprofits and volunteering for decades. My research suggests that dismantling AmeriCorps would harm the organizations that rely on national service members and take a toll on the communities that benefit from their work.

    AmeriCorps explains what the independent national service agency does.

    What AmeriCorps does

    AmeriCorps traces its roots to the mid-1960s, when Volunteers in Service to America, known as VISTA, was founded as a domestic counterpart to the Peace Corps. Several earlier service programs were consolidated when Congress passed the National and Community Service Trust Act in 1993. AmeriCorps was officially launched in 1994 – and VISTA became one of its programs.

    Since then, AmeriCorps members have built housing and infrastructure, delivered disaster relief, tutored in low-income schools, provided health care and helped older adults age with dignity in both urban and rural communities across the nation.

    AmeriCorps includes a variety of programs, each designed to address specific public needs. Some AmeriCorps volunteers provide direct services, such as tutoring, food delivery and in disaster response efforts. Others focus on building the long-term capacity of local nonprofits through volunteer recruitment, fundraising strategy and community outreach.

    AmeriCorps volunteers, whom the agency calls “members,” are placed in thousands of nonprofits, schools and local agencies. Many of them are recent college graduates or early-career professionals. Some programs specifically ask people over 55 to serve. Those “senior” volunteers support children through the Foster Grandparents program, volunteer for organizations or assist other older people through the Senior Companions program.

    Many AmeriCorps volunteers are paid a modest allowance for this work that runs about $500 per week. AmeriCorps senior volunteers receive smaller sums in hourly stipends to offset the costs of volunteering.

    Fox40 News in Sacramento, Calif., covers the Trump administration’s reduction of AmeriCorps’ ranks in April 2025.

    Helping nonprofits gain traction

    AmeriCorps has long funded research that assesses its impact.

    One such study found that every dollar invested in national service generates $11.80 in benefits for society, such as higher earnings, better mental and physical health, and economic growth. Additionally, every federal dollar spent on national service produces $17.30 in savings across other government programs through reductions in public assistance, health and criminal justice spending.

    As part of AmeriCorps’ research grants program, I have received funding to study civic engagement and AmeriCorps programming.

    In one of those studies, which I conducted with two former colleagues at the University of Texas at Austin in 2021, we found that VISTA volunteers were able to help nonprofits gain volunteers. After two years, an organization with that support had 71% more volunteers than those that didn’t participate in the VISTA program.

    We also found that the longer a nonprofit had a staffer supported by the VISTA program, the more its overall pool of volunteers increased.

    Nonprofits with VISTA volunteers also had three times as many donations two years later, compared with nonprofits without VISTA service members. But the total value of donations the nonprofit obtained didn’t always rise. That is, we found that VISTA builds people power, but not necessarily fundraising revenue.

    Findings like these indicate that AmeriCorps hasn’t just helped the people it serves or the people who volunteer through the program. It also strengthens nonprofits and increases engagement within local communities, reinforcing the civic fabric that knits communities together.

    As members of Congress and the White House decide whether to preserve AmeriCorps, I hope they consider the evidence that demonstrates this worthwhile program’s positive impact.

    Pamela Paxton has received funding from the Office of Research and Evaluation at AmeriCorps.

    – ref. AmeriCorps is on the chopping block – despite research showing that the national service agency is making a difference in local communities – https://theconversation.com/americorps-is-on-the-chopping-block-despite-research-showing-that-the-national-service-agency-is-making-a-difference-in-local-communities-257430

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: US health care is rife with high costs and deep inequities, and that’s no accident – a public health historian explains how the system was shaped to serve profit and politicians

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Zachary W. Schulz, Senior Lecturer of History, Auburn University

    Concessions to the private sector are one reason why health care is so costly. FS Productions/Tetra images via Getty Images

    A few years ago, a student in my history of public health course asked why her mother couldn’t afford insulin without insurance, despite having a full-time job. I told her what I’ve come to believe: The U.S. health care system was deliberately built this way.

    People often hear that health care in America is dysfunctional – too expensive, too complex and too inequitable. But dysfunction implies failure. What if the real problem is that the system is functioning exactly as it was designed to? Understanding this legacy is key to explaining not only why reform has failed repeatedly, but why change remains so difficult.

    I am a historian of public health with experience researching oral health access and health care disparities in the Deep South. My work focuses on how historical policy choices continue to shape the systems we rely on today.

    By tracing the roots of today’s system and all its problems, it’s easier to understand why American health care looks the way it does and what it will take to reform it into a system that provides high-quality, affordable care for all. Only by confronting how profit, politics and prejudice have shaped the current system can Americans imagine and demand something different.

    Decades of compromise

    My research and that of many others show that today’s high costs, deep inequities and fragmented care are predictable features developed from decades of policy choices that prioritized profit over people, entrenched racial and regional hierarchies, and treated health care as a commodity rather than a public good.

    Over the past century, U.S. health care developed not from a shared vision of universal care, but from compromises that prioritized private markets, protected racial hierarchies and elevated individual responsibility over collective well-being.

    Employer-based insurance emerged in the 1940s, not from a commitment to worker health but from a tax policy workaround during wartime wage freezes. The federal government allowed employers to offer health benefits tax-free, incentivizing coverage while sidestepping nationalized care. This decision bound health access to employment status, a structure that is still dominant today. In contrast, many other countries with employer-provided insurance pair it with robust public options, ensuring that access is not tied solely to a job.

    In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid programs greatly expanded public health infrastructure. Unfortunately, they also reinforced and deepened existing inequalities. Medicare, a federally administered program for people over 64, primarily benefited wealthier Americans who had access to stable, formal employment and employer-based insurance during their working years. Medicaid, designed by Congress as a joint federal-state program, is aimed at the poor, including many people with disabilities. The combination of federal and state oversight resulted in 50 different programs with widely variable eligibility, coverage and quality.

    Southern lawmakers, in particular, fought for this decentralization. Fearing federal oversight of public health spending and civil rights enforcement, they sought to maintain control over who received benefits. Historians have shown that these efforts were primarily designed to restrict access to health care benefits along racial lines during the Jim Crow period of time.

    Bloated bureaucracies, ‘creeping socialism’

    Today, that legacy is painfully visible.

    States that chose not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act are overwhelmingly located in the South and include several with large Black populations. Nearly 1 in 4 uninsured Black adults are uninsured because they fall into the coverage gap – unable to access affordable health insurance – they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to receive subsidies through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplace.

    The system’s architecture also discourages care aimed at prevention. Because Medicaid’s scope is limited and inconsistent, preventive care screenings, dental cleanings and chronic disease management often fall through the cracks. That leads to costlier, later-stage care that further burdens hospitals and patients alike.

    Meanwhile, cultural attitudes around concepts like “rugged individualism” and “freedom of choice” have long been deployed to resist public solutions. In the postwar decades, while European nations built national health care systems, the U.S. reinforced a market-driven approach.

    Publicly funded systems were increasingly portrayed by American politicians and industry leaders as threats to individual freedom – often dismissed as “socialized medicine” or signs of creeping socialism. In 1961, for example, Ronald Reagan recorded a 10-minute LP titled “Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine,” which was distributed by the American Medical Association as part of a national effort to block Medicare.

    The health care system’s administrative complexity ballooned beginning in the 1960s, driven by the rise of state-run Medicaid programs, private insurers and increasingly fragmented billing systems. Patients were expected to navigate opaque billing codes, networks and formularies, all while trying to treat, manage and prevent illness. In my view, and that of other scholars, this isn’t accidental but rather a form of profitable confusion built into the system to benefit insurers and intermediaries.

    President Donald Trump’s proposed cuts would reduce Medicaid spending by about US$700 billion.

    Coverage gaps, chronic disinvestment

    Even well-meaning reforms have been built atop this structure. The Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, expanded access to health insurance but preserved many of the system’s underlying inequities. And by subsidizing private insurers rather than creating a public option, the law reinforced the central role of private companies in the health care system.

    The public option – a government-run insurance plan intended to compete with private insurers and expand coverage – was ultimately stripped from the Affordable Care Act during negotiations due to political opposition from both Republicans and moderate Democrats.

    When the U.S. Supreme Court made it optional in 2012 for states to offer expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level, it amplified the very inequalities that the ACA sought to reduce.

    These decisions have consequences. In states like Alabama, an estimated 220,000 adults remain uninsured due to the Medicaid coverage gap – the most recent year for which reliable data is available – highlighting the ongoing impact of the state’s refusal to expand Medicaid.

    In addition, rural hospitals have closed, patients forgo care, and entire counties lack practicing OB/GYNs or dentists. And when people do get care – especially in states where many remain uninsured – they can amass medical debt that can upend their lives.

    All of this is compounded by chronic disinvestment in public health. Federal funding for emergency preparedness has declined for years, and local health departments are underfunded and understaffed.

    The COVID-19 pandemic revealed just how brittle the infrastructure is – especially in low-income and rural communities, where overwhelmed clinics, delayed testing, limited hospital capacity, and higher mortality rates exposed the deadly consequences of neglect.

    A system by design

    Change is hard not because reformers haven’t tried before, but because the system serves the very interests it was designed to serve. Insurers profit from obscurity – networks that shift, formularies that confuse, billing codes that few can decipher. Providers profit from a fee-for-service model that rewards quantity over quality, procedure over prevention. Politicians reap campaign contributions and avoid blame through delegation, diffusion and plausible deniability.

    This is not an accidental web of dysfunction. It is a system that transforms complexity into capital, bureaucracy into barriers.

    Patients – especially the uninsured and underinsured – are left to make impossible choices: delay treatment or take on debt, ration medication or skip checkups, trust the health care system or go without. Meanwhile, I believe the rhetoric of choice and freedom disguises how constrained most people’s options really are.

    Other countries show us that alternatives are possible. Systems in Germany, France and Canada vary widely in structure, but all prioritize universal access and transparency.

    Understanding what the U.S. health care system is designed to do – rather than assuming it is failing unintentionally – is a necessary first step toward considering meaningful change.

    Zachary W. Schulz 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. US health care is rife with high costs and deep inequities, and that’s no accident – a public health historian explains how the system was shaped to serve profit and politicians – https://theconversation.com/us-health-care-is-rife-with-high-costs-and-deep-inequities-and-thats-no-accident-a-public-health-historian-explains-how-the-system-was-shaped-to-serve-profit-and-politicians-256393

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Early visions of Mars: Meet the 19th-century astronomer who used science fiction to imagine the red planet

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Matthew Shindell, Curator, Planetary Science and Exploration, Smithsonian Institution

    Camille Flammarion’s work imagined what might exist beyond Earth in the universe. Three Lions/Hulton Archive via Getty Images

    Living in today’s age of ambitious robotic exploration of Mars, with an eventual human mission to the red planet likely to happen one day, it is hard to imagine a time when Mars was a mysterious and unreachable world. And yet, before the invention of the rocket, astronomers who wanted to explore Mars beyond what they could see through their telescopes had to use their imaginations.

    As a space historian and author of the book “For the Love of Mars: A Human History of the Red Planet,” I’ve worked to understand how people in different times and places imagined Mars.

    The second half of the 19th century was a particularly interesting time to imagine Mars. This was a period during which the red planet seemed to be ready to give up some of its mystery. Astronomers were learning more about Mars, but they still didn’t have enough information to know whether it hosted life, and if so, what kind.

    With more powerful telescopes and new printing technologies, astronomers began applying the cartographic tools of geographers to create the first detailed maps of the planet’s surface, filling it in with continents and seas, and in some cases features that could have been produced by life. Because it was still difficult to see the actual surface features of Mars, these maps varied considerably.

    During this period, one prominent scientist and popularizer brought together science and imagination to explore the possibilities that life on another world could hold.

    Camille Flammarion

    The 19th-century astronomer and writer Camille Flammarion.
    Av Ukjent/The New York Public Library Digital Collections

    One imaginative thinker whose attention was drawn to Mars during this period was the Parisian astronomer Camille Flammarion. In 1892, Flammarion published “The Planet Mars,” which remains to this day a definitive history of Mars observation up through the 19th century. It summarized all the published literature about Mars since the time of Galileo in the 17th century. This work, he reported, required him to review 572 drawings of Mars.

    Like many of his contemporaries, Flammarion concluded that Mars, an older world that had gone through the same evolutionary stages as Earth, must be a living world. Unlike his contemporaries, he insisted that Mars, while it might be the most Earth-like planet in our solar system, was distinctly its own world.

    It was the differences that made Mars interesting to Flammarion, not the similarities. Any life found there would be evolutionarily adapted to its particular conditions – an idea that appealed to the author H.G. Wells when he imagined invading Martians in “The War of the Worlds.”

    An illustrated plate from ‘Astronomie Populaire – Description Generale du Ciel’ by Camille Flammarion. This map of Mars shows continents and oceans. In this, his best-selling epic work, Flammarion speculated that Mars was ‘an earth almost similar to ours [with] water, air, showers, brooks and fountains. This is certainly a place little different from that which we inhabit.’
    Science & Society Picture Library via Getty Images

    But Flammarion also admitted that it was difficult to pin down these differences, as “the distance is too great, our atmosphere is too dense, and our instruments are not perfect enough.” None of the maps he reviewed could be taken literally, he lamented, because everyone had seen and drawn Mars differently.

    Given this uncertainty about what had actually been seen on Mars’ surface, Flammarion took an agnostic stance in “The Planet Mars” as to the specific nature of life on Mars.

    He did, however, consider that if intelligent life did exist on Mars, it would be more ancient than human life on Earth. Logically, that life would be more perfect — akin to the peaceful, unified and technologically advanced civilization he predicted would come into being on Earth in the coming century.

    “We can however hope,” he wrote, “that since the world of Mars is older than our own, its inhabitants may be wiser and more advanced than we are. Undoubtedly it is the spirit of peace which has animated this neighboring world.”

    A plate from ‘Les Terres du Ciel’ (The Worlds of the Sky) written by Camille Flammarion. The plate is an artist’s impression of how canals on Mars might have looked.
    Science & Society Picture Library via Getty Images

    But as Flammarion informed his readers, “the Known is a tiny island in the midst of the ocean of the Unknown,” a point he often underscored in the more than 70 books he published in his lifetime. It was the “Unknown” that he found particularly tantalizing.

    Historians often describe Flammarion more as a popularizer than a serious scientist, but this should not diminish his accomplishments. For Flammarion, science wasn’t a method or a body of established knowledge. It was the nascent core of a new philosophy waiting to be born. He took his popular writing very seriously and hoped it could turn people’s minds toward the heavens.

    Imaginative novels

    Without resolving the planet’s surface or somehow communicating with its inhabitants, it was premature to speculate about what forms of life might exist on Mars. And yet, Flammarion did speculate — not so much in his scientific work, but in a series of novels he wrote over the course of his career.

    In these imaginative works, he was able to visit Mars and see its surface for himself. Unlike his contemporary, the science fiction author Jules Verne, who imagined a technologically facilitated journey to the Moon, Flammarion preferred a type of spiritual journey.

    Camille Flammarion looking through the telescope at the Observatory at Juvisy-sur-Orge.
    duncan1890/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Based on his belief that human souls after death can travel through space in a way that the living body cannot, Flammarion’s novels include dream journeys as well as the accounts of deceased friends or fictional characters.

    In his novel “Urania” (1889), Flammarion’s soul visits Mars in a dream. Upon arrival, he encounters a deceased friend, George Spero, who has been reincarnated as a winged, luminous, six-limbed being.

    “Organisms can no more be earthly on Mars than they could be aerial at the bottom of the sea,” Flammarion writes.

    Later in the same novel, Spero’s soul visits Flammarion on Earth. He reveals that Martian civilization and science have progressed well beyond Earth, not only because Mars is an older world, but because the atmosphere is thinner and more suitable for astronomy.

    Flammarion imagined that practicing and popularizing astronomy, along with the other sciences, had helped advance Martian society.

    Flammarion’s imagined Martians lived intellectual lives untroubled by war, hunger and other earthly concerns. This was the life Flammarion wanted for his fellow Parisians, who had lived through the devastation of the Franco-Prussian war and suffered starvation and deprivation during the Siege of Paris and its aftermath.

    Today, Flammarion’s Mars is a reminder that imagining a future on Mars is as much about understanding ourselves and our societal aspirations as it is about developing the technologies to take us there.

    Flammarion’s popularization of science was his means of helping his fellow Earth-bound humans understand their place in the universe. They could one day join his imagined Martians, which weren’t meant to be taken any more literally than the maps of Mars he analyzed for “The Planet Mars.” His world was an example of what life could become under the right conditions.

    Matthew Shindell 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. Early visions of Mars: Meet the 19th-century astronomer who used science fiction to imagine the red planet – https://theconversation.com/early-visions-of-mars-meet-the-19th-century-astronomer-who-used-science-fiction-to-imagine-the-red-planet-254005

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Golden Dome dangers: An arms control expert explains how Trump’s missile defense threatens to make the US less safe

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Matthew Bunn, Professor of the Practice of Energy, National Security, and Foreign Policy, Harvard Kennedy School

    President Donald Trump has grandiose plans for Golden Dome. AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    President Donald Trump’s idea of a “Golden Dome” missile defense system carries a range of potential strategic dangers for the United States.

    Golden Dome is meant to protect the U.S. from ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles, and missiles launched from space. Trump has called for the missile defense to be fully operational before the end of his term in three years.

    Trump’s goals for Golden Dome are likely beyond reach. A wide range of studies makes clear that even defenses far more limited than what Trump envisions would be far more expensive and less effective than Trump expects, especially against enemy missiles equipped with modern countermeasures. Countermeasures include multiple warheads per missile, decoy warheads and warheads that can maneuver or are difficult to track, among others.

    Regardless of Golden Dome’s feasibility, there is a long history of scholarship about strategic missile defenses, and the weight of evidence points to the defenses making their host country less safe from nuclear attack.

    I’m a national security and foreign policy professor at Harvard University, where I lead “Managing the Atom,” the university’s main research group on nuclear weapons and nuclear energy policies. For decades, I’ve been participating in dialogues with Russian and Chinese nuclear experts – and their fears about U.S. missile defenses have been a consistent theme throughout.

    Russian President Vladmir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have already warned that Golden Dome is destabilizing. Along with U.S. offensive capabilities, Golden Dome poses a threat of “directly undermining global strategic stability, spurring an arms race and increasing conflict potential both among nuclear-weapon states and in the international arena as a whole,” a joint statement from China and Russia said. While that is a propaganda statement, it reflects real concerns broadly held in both countries.

    Golden Dome explained.

    History lessons

    Experience going back half a century makes clear that if the administration pursues Golden Dome, it is likely to provoke even larger arms buildups, derail already-dim prospects for any negotiated nuclear arms restraint, and perhaps even increase the chances of nuclear war.

    My first book, 35 years ago, made the case that it would be in the U.S. national security interest to remain within the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which strictly limited U.S. and Soviet – and later Russian – missile defenses. The United States and the Soviet Union negotiated the ABM Treaty as part of SALT I, the first agreements limiting the nuclear arms race. It was approved in the Senate 98-2.

    The ABM Treaty experience is instructive for the implications of Golden Dome today.

    Why did the two countries agree to limit defenses? First and foremost, because they understood that unless each side’s defenses were limited, they would not be able to stop an offensive nuclear arms race. If each side wants to maintain the ability to retaliate if the other attacks – “don’t nuke me, or I’ll nuke you” – then an obvious answer to one side building up more defenses is for the other to build up more nuclear warheads.

    For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviets installed 100 interceptors to defend Moscow – so the United States targeted still more warheads on Moscow to overwhelm the defense. Had it ever come to a nuclear war, Moscow would have been even more thoroughly obliterated than if there had been no defense at all. Both sides came to realize that unlimited missile defenses would just mean more offense on both sides, leaving both less secure than before.

    In addition, nations viewed an adversary’s shield as going hand in hand with a nuclear sword. A nuclear first strike might destroy a major part of a country’s nuclear forces. Missile defenses would inevitably be more effective against the reduced, disorganized retaliation that they knew would be coming than they would be against a massive, well-planned surprise attack. That potential advantage to whoever struck first could make nuclear crises even more dangerous.

    Post-ABM Treaty world

    Unfortunately, President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the ABM Treaty in 2002, seeking to free U.S. development of defenses against potential missile attacks from small states such as North Korea. But even now, decades later, the U.S. has fewer missile interceptors deployed (44) than the treaty permitted (100).

    The U.S. pullout did not lead to an immediate arms buildup or the end of nuclear arms control. But Putin has complained bitterly about U.S. missile defenses and the U.S. refusal to accept any limitation at all on them. He views the U.S. stance as an effort to achieve military superiority by negating Russia’s nuclear deterrent.

    Russia is investing heavily in new types of strategic nuclear weapons intended to avoid U.S. missile defenses, from an intercontinental nuclear torpedo to a missile that can go around the world and attack from the south, while U.S. defenses are mainly pointed north toward Russia.

    Russia maintains a large force of nuclear weapons like this mobile intercontinental ballistic missile.
    Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via APPEAR

    Similarly, much of China’s nuclear buildup appears to be driven by wanting a reliable nuclear deterrent in the face of the United States’ capability to strike its nuclear forces and use missile defenses to mop up the remainder. Indeed, China was so angered by South Korea’s deployment of U.S.-provided regional defenses – which they saw as aiding the U.S. ability to intercept their missiles – that they imposed stiff sanctions on South Korea.

    Fuel to the fire

    Now, Trump wants to go much further, with a defense “forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,” with a success rate “very close to 100%.” I believe that this effort is highly likely to lead to still larger nuclear buildups in Russia and China. The Putin-Xi joint statement pledges to “counter” defenses “aimed at achieving military superiority.”

    Given the ease of developing countermeasures that are extraordinarily difficult for defenses to overcome, odds are the resulting offense-defense competition will leave the United States worse off than before – and a good bit poorer.

    Putin and Xi made clear that they are particularly concerned about the thousands of space-based interceptors Trump envisions. These interceptors are designed to hit missiles while their rockets are still burning during launch.

    Most countries are likely to oppose the idea of deploying huge numbers of weapons in space – and these interceptors would be both expensive and vulnerable. China and Russia could focus on further developing anti-satellite weapons to blow a hole in the defense, increasing the risk of space war.

    Already, there is a real danger that the whole effort of negotiated limits to temper nuclear arms racing may be coming to an end. The last remaining treaty limiting U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, the New START Treaty, expires in February 2026. China’s rapid nuclear buildup is making many defense officials and experts in Washington call for a U.S. buildup in response.

    Intense hostility all around means that for now, neither Russia nor China is even willing to sit down to discuss nuclear restraints, in treaty form or otherwise.

    A way forward

    In my view, adding Golden Dome to this combustible mix would likely end any prospect of avoiding a future of unrestrained and unpredictable nuclear arms competition. But paths away from these dangers are available.

    It would be quite plausible to design defenses that would provide some protection against attacks from a handful of missiles from North Korea or others that would not seriously threaten Russian or Chinese deterrent forces – and design restraints that would allow all parties to plan their offensive forces knowing what missile defenses they would be facing in the years to come.

    I believe that Trump should temper his Golden Dome ambitions to achieve his other dream – of negotiating a deal to reduce nuclear dangers.

    Matthew Bunn is a member of the National Academies Committee on International Security and Arms Control and a board member of the Arms Control Association. He is a member of the Academic Alliance of the United States Strategic Command and a consultant to Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

    – ref. Golden Dome dangers: An arms control expert explains how Trump’s missile defense threatens to make the US less safe – https://theconversation.com/golden-dome-dangers-an-arms-control-expert-explains-how-trumps-missile-defense-threatens-to-make-the-us-less-safe-258048

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Beyond de-extinction and dire wolves, gene editing can help today’s endangered species

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alex Erwin, Assistant Professor of Law, Florida International University

    Only a few hundred red wolves still exist, most in captivity. JeffGoulden/E+ via Getty Images

    Have you been hearing about the dire wolf lately? Maybe you saw a massive white wolf on the cover of Time magazine or a photo of “Game of Thrones” author George R.R. Martin holding a puppy named after a character from his books.

    The dire wolf, a large, wolflike species that went extinct about 12,000 years ago, has been in the news after biotech company Colossal claimed to have resurrected it using cloning and gene-editing technologies. Colossal calls itself a “de-extinction” company. The very concept of de-extinction is a lightning rod for criticism. There are broad accusations of playing God or messing with nature, as well as more focused objections that contemporary de-extinction tools create poor imitations rather than truly resurrected species.

    While the biological and philosophical debates are interesting, the legal ramifications for endangered species conservation are of paramount importance. As a legal scholar with a Ph.D. in wildlife genetics, my work focuses on how we legally define the term “endangered species.” The use of biotechnology for conservation, whether for de-extinction or genetic augmentation of existing species, promises solutions to otherwise intractable problems. But it needs to work in harmony with both the letter and purpose of the laws governing biodiversity conservation.

    All that’s left of dire wolves today are bones, like these skulls on display in a museum.
    Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

    Of dire wolves and de-extinction

    What did Colossal actually do? Scientists extracted and sequenced DNA from Ice Age-era bones to understand the genetic makeup of the dire wolf. They were able to piece together around 90% of a complete dire wolf genome. While the gray wolf and the dire wolf are separated by a few million years of evolution, they share over 99.5% of their genomes.

    The scientists scanned the recovered dire wolf sequences for specific genes that they believed were responsible for the physical and ecological differences between dire wolves and other species of canids, including genes related to body size and coat color. CRISPR gene-editing technology allows scientists to make specific changes in the DNA of an organism. The Colossal team used CRISPR to make 20 changes in 14 different genes in a modern gray wolf cell before implanting the embryo into a surrogate mother.

    While the technology on display is marvelous, what should we call the resulting animals? Some commentators argue that the animals are just modified gray wolves. They point out that it would take far more than 20 edits to bridge the gap left by millions of years of evolution. For instance, that 0.5% of the genome that doesn’t match in the two species represents over 12 million base pair differences.

    More philosophically, perhaps, other skeptics argue that a species is more than a collection of genes devoid of environmental, ecological or evolutionary context.

    Colossal, on the other hand, maintains that it is in the “functional de-extinction” game. The company acknowledges it isn’t making a perfect dire wolf copy. Instead it wants to recreate something that looks and acts like the dire wolf of old. It prefers the “if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck” school of speciation.

    Disagreements about taxonomy – the science of naming and categorizing living organisms – are as old as the field itself. Biologists are notorious for failing to adopt a single clear definition of “species,” and there are dozens of competing definitions in the biological literature.

    Biologists can afford to be flexible and imprecise when the stakes are merely a conversational misunderstanding. Lawyers and policymakers, on the other hand, do not have that luxury.

    President Richard Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act in December 1973.
    Associated Press

    Deciding what counts as an endangered ‘species’

    In the United States, the Endangered Species Act is the main tool for protecting biodiversity.

    To be protected by the act, an organism must be a member of an endangered or threatened species. Some of the most contentious ESA issues are definitional, such as whether the listed species is a valid “species” and whether individual organisms, especially hybrids, are members of the listed species.

    Colossal’s functional species concept is anathema to the Endangered Species Act. It shrinks the value of a species down to the way it looks or the way it functions. When passing the act, however, Congress made clear that species were to be valued for their “aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.” In my view, the myopic focus on function seems to miss the point.

    Despite its insistence otherwise, Colossal’s definitional sleight of hand has opened the door to arguments that people should reduce conservation funding or protections for currently imperiled species. Why spend the money to protect a critter and its habitat when, according to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, you can just “pick your favorite species and call up Colossal”?

    Putting biotechnology to work for conservation

    Biotechnology can provide real conservation benefits for today’s endangered species. I suggest gene editing’s real value is not in recreating facsimiles of long-extinct species like dire wolves, but instead using it to recover ones in trouble now.

    Projects, by both Colossal and other groups, are underway around the world to help endangered species develop disease resistance or evolve to tolerate a warmer world. Other projects use gene editing to reintroduce genetic variation into populations where genetic diversity has been lost.

    For example, Colossal has also announced that it has cloned a red wolf. Unlike the dire wolf, the red wolf is not extinct, though it came extremely close. After decades of conservation efforts, there are about a dozen red wolves in the wild in the reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina, as well as a few hundred red wolves in captivity.

    Most of the tiny population of red wolves live in captivity.
    Cornell Watson for The Washington Post via Getty Images

    The entire population of red wolves, both wild and captive, descends from merely 14 founders of the captive breeding program. This limited heritage means the species has lost a significant amount of the genetic diversity that would help it continue to evolve and adapt.

    In order to reintroduce some of that missing genetic diversity, you’d need to find genetic material from red wolves outside the managed population. Right now that would require stored tissue samples from animals that lived before the captive breeding program was established or rediscovering a “lost” population in the wild.

    Recently, researchers discovered that coyotes along the Texas Gulf Coast possess a sizable percentage of red wolf-derived DNA in their genomes. Hybridization between coyotes and red wolves is both a threat to red wolves and a natural part of their evolutionary history, complicating management. The red wolf genes found within these coyotes do present a possible source of genetic material that biotechnology could harness to help the captive breeding population if the legal hurdles can be managed.

    This coyote population was Colossal’s source for its cloned “ghost” red wolf. Even this announcement is marred by definitional confusion. Due to its hybrid nature, the animal Colossal cloned is likely not legally considered a red wolf at all.

    Under the Endangered Species Act, hybrid organisms are typically not protected. So by cloning one of these animals, Colossal likely sidestepped the need for ESA permits. It will almost certainly run into resistance if it attempts to breed these “ghost wolves” into the current red wolf captive breeding program that has spent decades trying to minimize hybridization. How much to value genetic “purity” versus genetic diversity in managed species still proves an extraordinarily difficult question, even without the legal uncertainty.

    Biotechnology could never solve every conservation problem – especially habitat destruction. The ability to make “functional” copies of a species certainly does not lessen the urgency to respond to biodiversity loss, nor does it reduce human beings’ moral culpability. But to adequately respond to the ever-worsening biodiversity crisis, conservationists will need all available tools.

    Alex Erwin 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. Beyond de-extinction and dire wolves, gene editing can help today’s endangered species – https://theconversation.com/beyond-de-extinction-and-dire-wolves-gene-editing-can-help-todays-endangered-species-254670

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why the Musk and Trump relationship is breaking down – a psychologist explains

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

    It is not a good break-up. These were always two big beasts used to getting their own way. Two alpha males, if you like the evolutionary metaphor, trying to get along. And now the Donald Trump and Elon Musk relationship is in meltdown.

    Who could forget that iconic image from just a few short weeks back? Elon Musk standing behind the seated the US president, Donald Trump, in the Oval Office, towering over him. Trump, his hands clasped, having to turn awkwardly to look up at him. That silent language of the body. Musk accompanied by his four-year old, a charming and informal image, or that great evolutionary signal of mating potential and dominance, depending on your point of view.

    These were also clearly two massive narcissistic egos out in their gleaming open-top speedster. Musk was appointed special advisor to Trump, heading the Department of Government Efficiency, cutting excess and waste. The backseat driver for a while.

    There were a lot of bureaucratic casualties already, road kill at the side of the highway as the sports car roared on with frightening speed. But things were always going to be difficult if they hit a bump in the road. And they did. Perhaps, more quickly than many had imagined.

    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.

    There were differing views on what caused the crash. Many pointed to the dramatic fall in the sales of Tesla, a 71% fall in profits in one quarter, and the inevitable impact on Musk’s reputation. And yesterday Tesla shares were falling even faster, as investors panicked. The attacks on Tesla showrooms couldn’t have helped either.

    Others pointed to Trump’s proposed removal of the tax credit for owners of electric vehicles, or the political backlash in Washington over Space X’s potential involvement in Trump’s proposed “golden dome” anti-missile defense system.

    However, according to former White House strategist Steve Bannon, what really caused the crash was when the president refused to show Musk the Pentagon’s attack plans for any possible war with China. There’s only so far being the president’s best buddy can get you. Bannon is reported as saying: “You could feel it. Everything changed.” That, according to Bannon, was the beginning of the end.



    Read more:
    Trump sees himself as more like a king than president. Here’s why

    Elon Musk has criticised Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’.

    So now we watch Trump and Musk stumbling away from the crash scene. One minute Trump is putting on a show for the cameras. He’s beaming away and introducing the “big, beautiful bill”, a budget reconciliation bill that rolls together hundreds of controversial proposals. Next, he is accusing Musk of “going crazy” and talking about withdrawing government contracts from the Musk empire.

    Musk is unhappy too. “I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,” he wrote on X. “Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong.”

    Rejection and repositioning

    He says he’s disgusted by the bill. Disgust is one of the most primitive of all the emotions. A survival mechanism – you must avoid what disgusts you. He’s social signalling here, alerting others, warning them that there’s something disgusting in the camp.

    Musk is highly attuned to public perception, perhaps even more so than Trump (which is saying something). With his acquisition of X (formerly Twitter), Musk was able to direct (and add to) online discourse, shaping public conversations.

    Psychologically, Musk’s rejection of Trump is an attempt to simultaneously elevate himself and diminish the man behind the bill. He can call out the president’s action like nobody else. He is positioning himself anew as that free thinker, that risk taker, innovative, courageous, unfettered by any ties. That is his personality, his brand – and he’s reasserting it.

    Trump on Musk’s criticism of the ‘big beautiful bill’

    But it’s also a vengeful act. And it’s perhaps reminiscent of another political insider (and geek), former Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings, who was sacked by the then UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, in 2020. Cummings was accused of masterminding leaks about the social gatherings in Downing Street.

    He went on to criticise Johnson as lacking the necessary discipline and focus for a prime minister as well as questioning his competence and decision-making abilities. The revenge of a self-proclaimed genius.

    And revenge is sweet. In a 2004 study, researchers scanned participants’ brains using positron emission tomography (PET) – a medical imaging technique that is used to study brain function (among other things) – while the participants played an economic game based on trust. When trust was violated, participants wanted revenge, and this was reflected in increased activity in the reward-related regions of the brain, the dorsal striatum.

    Revenge, in other words, is primarily about making yourself feel better rather than righting any wrongs. Your act may make you appear moral but it may be more selfish.

    But revenge for what here? That’s where these big narcissistic egos come into play.

    Psychologically, narcissists are highly sensitive to perceived slights – real or imagined. Musk may have felt Trump was attempting to diminish his achievements for political gain, violating this pact of mutual respect. This kind of sensitivity can quickly transmogrify admiration into contempt.

    Contempt, coincidentally, is the single best predictor of a breakdown in very close relationships.

    Disgust and contempt are powerful emotions, evolving to protect us – disgust from physical contamination (spoiled food, disease), and contempt from social or moral contamination (betrayal, incompetence). Both involve rejection – disgust rejects something physically; contempt rejects something socially or morally. Musk may be giving it to Trump with both barrels here.

    Break-ups are always hard, they get much harder when emotions like these get intertwined with the process.

    But how will the most powerful man in the world respond to this sort of rejection from the richest man in the world? And where will it end?

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

    – ref. Why the Musk and Trump relationship is breaking down – a psychologist explains – https://theconversation.com/why-the-musk-and-trump-relationship-is-breaking-down-a-psychologist-explains-258213

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: US state passes law allowing experimental drugs to be prescribed – a model for the future?

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

    fizkes/Shutterstock.com

    The US state of Montana has become the first in the country to let patients try experimental drugs – even if they are not terminally ill.

    The new law allows doctors to refer patients to licensed “experimental treatment centres”, where they can access drugs that have only passed phase 1 clinical trials – the earliest stage of testing in humans.

    This goes far beyond existing federal law, which only allows terminally ill patients to access such drugs under the Right to Try Act, passed in 2017.

    Montana already had a fairly permissive right to try law, which was originally designed to let terminally ill patients access treatments that hadn’t yet received full approval by the drug regulator.

    In 2023, that law was expanded to include patients with any medical condition. The latest law goes even further, creating a formal system for clinics to offer these experimental treatments.

    According to an article in MIT Technology Review, the new law was shaped and promoted by a group of longevity advocates – a mix of scientists and influencers who are focused on extending human life.

    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.

    Before new medicines reach the market, they usually go through several stages of testing. A phase 1 trial is the first step in human studies and is designed to find a safe dose and spot early side-effects. It typically involves a small group – between 20 and 100 people – and does not prove the drug works.

    Only around 12% of drugs that enter phase 1 trials go on to gain full approval. Many fail due to safety issues or lack of effectiveness.

    Montana’s new law allows access to these early-stage treatments with a doctor’s recommendation – even for patients who are not terminally ill. Clinics must be licensed as experimental treatment centres, and 2% of their profits must be used to help low-income patients access these therapies.

    Supporters say it gives people more control over their own health and could help boost innovation in areas like cancer, neurodegenerative disease and age-related decline. There is also hope it could turn Montana into a destination for medical tourism, attracting biotech investment.

    But critics warn that the move could put vulnerable patients at risk.

    Drugs in phase 1 trials may be safe enough to test – but their long-term effects are still unknown, and they may not work. There are also concerns over whether insurers will cover complications, since the drugs are not approved. Legal protections for both patients and doctors remain unclear.

    Longevity advocates could use the new law to try experimental anti-ageing drugs.
    Hyejin Kang/Shutterstock.com

    The situation in other countries

    Elsewhere in the world, access to experimental drugs is more tightly controlled.

    In the UK, experimental drugs are usually only available through formal clinical trials or special “compassionate use” requests – all subject to strict oversight by regulators like the Medicines and Healthcare products
    Regulatory Agency     and the Health Research Authority.

    The same applies across the EU, where compassionate use is typically limited to drugs in later stages of testing.

    Japan has a similar system, called “expanded access clinical trials”, which also limits use to drugs already in phase 2 or beyond.

    And in South America, some countries allow patients to keep receiving experimental drugs after trials end – but not to start them outside of a trial.

    Montana’s decision marks a bold new approach in the continuing debate over patient rights. It raises big questions about safety, ethics, regulation and the role of government in balancing innovation with public health. It could end up being a model for other states – or a cautionary tale.

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

    – ref. US state passes law allowing experimental drugs to be prescribed – a model for the future? – https://theconversation.com/us-state-passes-law-allowing-experimental-drugs-to-be-prescribed-a-model-for-the-future-256991

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –