The Axiom Mission 4 (Ax-4) is set to conduct major research during its mission to the International Space Station (ISS). The Ax-4, a landmark private spaceflight to the ISS, will launch on Wednesday from Florida’s Kennedy Space Center.
The research complement includes around 60 scientific studies and activities representing 31 countries, including the US, India, Poland, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Nigeria, UAE, and nations across Europe.
This will be the most research and science-related activities conducted on an Axiom Space mission aboard the International Space Station to date.
NASA and ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation) are collaborating to launch several scientific investigations.
These studies include examining muscle regeneration, growth of sprouts and edible microalgae, survival of tiny aquatic organisms, and human interaction with electronic displays in microgravity.
ISRO’s experiments include the following:
Crop Seeds on ISS
This ISRO experiment will investigate the impacts of spaceflight on six varieties of crop seeds. After the mission, seeds will be grown for multiple generations and plants showing preferred traits selected for genetic analyses. This project aims to help understand how crops may be grown in space for future exploration missions.
Cyanobacteria on ISS
Cyanobacteria are aquatic bacteria that can photosynthesize, and are of interest for integration into spacecraft environmental control systems. This ISRO experiment will compare two strains of cyanobacteria to investigate growth rates, cellular responses, and biochemical activity in microgravity. The results could help with the development of future spacecraft life support systems.
Sprouts
This ISRO experiment will investigate the impacts of spaceflight on germination and growth of crop seeds. After the mission, seeds will be grown for multiple generations and the effects on genetics, microbial load, and nutritional profile investigated. This project aims to help understand how crops may be grown in space for future exploration missions.
Space Microalgae
Microalgae are potentially useful organisms for future spaceflight that could be used as foods, fuel, or even used in life support systems. In this experiment, three strains of microalgae will be grown and the impact of microgravity on the growth, metabolism, and genetic activity will be investigated versus algae grown on the ground.
Myogenesis
This project aims to identify the pathways responsible for skeletal muscle dysfunction in microgravity and explore therapeutic targeting strategies. By studying how muscle loss occurs in space, the project seeks to pinpoint specific molecular mechanisms and potential interventions. Understanding these pathways is crucial for developing treatments to prevent muscle atrophy in astronauts during long space missions. On Earth, the findings could also impact the understanding of and treatments for muscle-related diseases and conditions related to aging or prolonged immobility.
Voyager Displays
This experiment will investigate how the physical and cognitive impact of utilizing computer screens in microgravity. The research will study how pointing tasks, gaze fixation, and rapid eye movements are affected my being performed in space, and how this may interact with subjective experiences of stress wellbeing. The results could inform future spacecraft computer design and interaction.
STEMonstrations
These will consist of four different STEAM outreach activities for Indian students. STEAM stands for Science and Technology, which is interpreted through Engineering and Arts and is based on mathematics.
Voyager Tardigrades
This ISRO project will investigate the revival, survival, and reproduction of tardigrades sent to the ISS. The project will examine the revival of dormant tardigrades, count the number of eggs laid and hatched during a mission, and compare the gene expression patterns of space flown vs. ground control populations. The research seeks to identify molecular mechanisms of resilience which has implications for understanding the limits of life in extreme environments. This knowledge could inform future space exploration and help develop biotechnology applications on Earth.
The Axiom-4 mission also sets the tone for ISRO’s own Gaganyaan Mission, a project to send a 3-day manned mission to the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) of 400 km with a crew of three members and bring them safely back to Earth.
Source: Moscow Government – Government of Moscow –
Teaching a neural network to answer a thousand questions, researching superbugs, determining a person’s chronotype using a DNA test, and recognizing lies using speech markers—this and much more was done by Moscow schoolchildren who participated in the project “In the center of science”. Based at the capital’s universities and leading research clusters, high school students, under the guidance of experts, implemented ideas in the fields of biology, ecology, chemistry, physics and linguistics, conducted experiments, and then presented their results at conferences.
We tell you how the project helps students take their first steps in science, feel like real researchers, and decide on their future profession.
Diving into Science
The project “In the Center of Science” opened last year. More than 15 thousand people took part in it: over 10 thousand high school students, as well as teachers and young scientists. The project, which united the efforts of schools, universities and scientific centers, provided Moscow students with the opportunity to engage in research activities based on modern laboratories and testing grounds, consult with the best mentors, develop their own projects and defend them before the expert community.
For several months, schoolchildren attended specialized clubs, festivals, lectures, master classes, and scientific and experimental courses. They mastered advanced research methods such as microscopy, electrophoresis, 3D printing, data collection and analysis, and modeling of physical and biological processes. Young chemists studied the rate of metal corrosion and prepared a protective solution, physicists created bionic prostheses on a 3D printer, biologists performed DNA sequencing, and ecologists developed ideas for preserving the environment. Professional hackathons were organized for teachers, and meetings of the Young Scientists Club were organized for aspiring researchers.
The schoolchildren presented their projects at internal conferences and city events. And the capital’s scientists told about cutting-edge discoveries in Moscow Palace of Pioneers, where three large lectures, a large-scale festival of natural sciences and the Moscow Science Festival were held in February.
How words reveal deception
Eleventh-grader Alexandra Gatilova from School No. 1238participated in scientific and experimental courses in linguistics. She conducted a study dedicated to identifying lie markers in oral speech. Together with her team, the schoolgirl modeled a situation, interviewed dozens of respondents, analyzed the data and presented the results in the form of diagrams.
“The linguistics courses were held at the Higher School of Economics. For two months, we studied theory and conducted research. Each group had its own topic; ours was working on a project to identify markers of lying in oral monologue speech. The goal was to find out whether it is possible to understand when a person is lying based on certain words. To do this, one part of the respondents was asked to imagine that they were late for a meeting with a friend because the bus did not arrive on time. And the other part was asked to lie that the reason for being late was a delayed bus. Then we deciphered the monologues using a special application and loaded the results into a table, highlighting the matches,” says Alexandra Gatilova.
While working on the project, the schoolchildren discovered the following patterns: truthful respondents more often used polite expressions and words with a softened negative meaning than those who lied. For example, they said about the bus that it was delayed, not late.
“We managed to detect lie markers in 70 percent of respondents. We presented the research results, presented in graphs and tables, at a scientific conference. This development can be used in forensics, training psychologists, for analyzing texts using artificial intelligence in various Telegram channels. We plan to continue working on the project in the next academic year,” says the schoolgirl.
Alexandra Gatilova is also making progress in learning English and Chinese. In the future, the girl wants to become a linguist and teacher.
Participant of the conference “Engineers of the Future” and winner of the Moscow Pre-professional Physics Olympiad Lev Lezhenev from School No. 1434— the author of a project based on artificial intelligence for a large retail chain. Together with his team, the tenth-grader created a website that optimizes the work of the retail employee support service.
“Together with other participants in the project dedicated to artificial intelligence, I spent a week developing a program that would answer questions. After a theoretical course conducted by students from leading Moscow universities, we created an Internet service and built into it a neural network with a database of ready-made answers. In the format of text messages, the company’s employees could find out how many times a month their salary is accrued, how to receive maternity benefits and other important information. In total, the database included answers to about a thousand questions,” says Lev Lezhenev.
Before presenting the finished project at the conference, the schoolchildren made the necessary economic calculations. For the development, the children received an award from the customer company.
“Theoretically, such a model can be implemented at any enterprise. In the future, we want to continue working on the project and create a server that will allow us to enter a wide variety of data. I consider the “In the Center of Science” program to be very useful: it gives the opportunity to expand and deepen school knowledge, applying it in practice. In the future, I want to become a programmer, and this experience is very important to me,” the high school student shares.
The students worked in modern laboratories, collected and analyzed data, and modeled physical and biological processes. Ninth-grader Anastasia Levchenko from School No. 947participated in scientific and experimental courses on chemistry and biotechnology. She studied how the structure of DNA is related to a person’s biological predisposition to a particular chronotype (sleep and wakefulness regime).
“The two-month courses were held at the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology. The participants in the experiment were schoolchildren from our and neighboring streams and teachers. After they answered questions about their daily routine, we took a scraping of their buccal epithelium – cells from the inside of the cheek. Then, using an amplifier (a device for conducting a polymerase chain reaction), we isolated DNA from these cells. The nucleotide chains were examined under ultraviolet light and the results were compared with the information from the questionnaires. A thin strip of a pair of nucleotides corresponds to the lark chronotype, a thick one – an owl, and two stripes indicate that their owner belongs to the mixed chronotype of a pigeon. The results coincided with the answers of the study participants by 95 percent. Such tests will help people plan their routine taking into account biological characteristics,” explains Anastasia Levchenko.
The schoolgirl also extracted essential oils and hydrolates (water solutions) from tangerine peel, mint and dried rose petals, and determined the content of chlorophyll and other pigments in different parts of plants. Earlier, she became a prize winner of the municipal stage of the All-Russian School Olympiad in Ecology.
“In the new academic year, I plan to participate in the “At the Center of Science” project again, to do other research. This is a very good base for schoolchildren, there is an opportunity to work with advanced laboratory equipment under the guidance of specialists, to implement their ideas,” says Anastasia Levchenko, who has dreamed of connecting her life with medicine and becoming a surgeon since childhood.
How bacteria develop in kefir and how resistant they are to modern antibiotics was studied by ninth-grader Artem Reutsky from School No. 1558, winner of the Moscow School Olympiad in Biology and English.
“During the scientific and experimental courses on biotechnology, we studied superbugs. This is the name given to microorganisms that have developed resistance to antibiotics during their development. First, we collected theoretical information, then we planted cultures to grow bacteria. The study was conducted on samples of kefir from different manufacturers – we added bacteria and a paper disk soaked in antibiotics to each, and then immersed the samples in a thermostat. After a week, colonies of superbugs resistant to drugs grew in some kefir samples,” says Artem Reutsky.
The schoolchildren’s project confirmed the scientific hypothesis that antibiotic-resistant bacteria can develop in fermented milk products, so food technologists need to pay special attention to production. The students presented the results of their research in the form of diagrams at an internal scientific conference.
“This was my first serious research. It’s great that there is an opportunity to work in a well-equipped laboratory, to gain practical experience. Now I want to get into the summer camp of the project “In the Center of Science”, and in the future – to become a virologist and create a vaccine against the human immunodeficiency virus,” the schoolboy shares.
In the new academic year, the project will continue to expand: the number of courses and clubs will increase, new areas will appear, and the mentoring format will develop. Registration for the summer visiting scientific school is now open, and professional competitions, hackathons, and festivals await schoolchildren in the future. You can find out more and register at website.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Please Note; This Information is Raw Content Directly from the Information Source. It is access to What the Source Is Stating and Does Not Reflect
The more we learn about orcas, the more remarkable they are. These giant dolphins are the ocean’s true apex predator, preying on great white sharks and other lesser predators.
They’re very intelligent and highly social. Their clans are matrilineal, centred around a older matriarch who teaches her clan her own vocalisations. Not only this, but the species is one of only six known to experience menopause, pointing to the social importance of older females after their reproductive years. Different orca groups have fashion trends, such as one pod who returned to wearing salmon as a hat, decades after it went out of vogue.
But for all their intelligence, one thing has been less clear. Can orcas actually make tools, as humans, chimps and other primates do? In research out today by United States and British researchers, we have an answer: yes.
Using drones, researchers watched as resident pods in the Salish Sea broke off the ends of bull kelp stalks and rolled them between their bodies. This, the researchers say, is likely to be a grooming practice – the first tool-assisted grooming seen in marine animals.
This video shows whales using kelp tools in what appears to be social grooming behaviour. Credit: Center for Whale Research.
Self kelp: why would orcas make tools?
Tool use and tool making have been well documented in land-based species. But it’s less common among marine species. This could be partly due to the challenge of observing them.
This field of research expands what we know these animals are capable of. Not only are orcas spending time making kelp into a grooming tool, but they’re doing it socially – two orcas have to work together to rub the kelp against their bodies.
To make the tool, the orcas use their teeth to grab a stalk of kelp by its “stipe” – the long, narrow part near the seaweed’s holdfast, where it tethers to the rock. They use their teeth, motion of their body and the drag of the kelp to break off a piece of this narrow stipe.
Next, they approach a social partner, flip the length of the kelp onto their rostrum (their snout-like projection) and press their head and the kelp against their partner’s flank. The two orcas use their fins and flukes to trap the kelp while rolling it between their bodies. During this contact, the orcas would roll and twist their bodies – often in an exaggerated S-shaped posture. A similar posture has been seen among orcas in other groups, who adopt it when rubbing themselves on sand or pebbles.
Why do it? The researchers suggest this practise may be social skin-maintenance. Bottlenose dolphin mothers are known to remove dead skin from their calves using flippers, while tool-assisted grooming of a partner has been seen in primates, but infrequently and usually in captivity.
Orcas across different social groups, ages and genders were seen doing this. But they were more likely to groom close relatives or those of similar age. There was some evidence suggesting whales with skin conditions were more likely to do the kelp-based grooming.
Humpback whales are known to wear kelp in a practice known as “kelping”. But this study covers a different behaviour, which the authors dub “allokelping” (kelping others).
A surprise from well-studied pods
Interestingly, this new discovery comes from some of the most well-studied and famous orcas in the world – a group known as the southern resident killer whales. If you were a child of the 90s, you would have seen them in the opening scene of Free Willy, the movie which set me on my path to study cetaceans.
These orcas consist of three pods known as J, K and L pods. Each live in the Salish Sea in the Pacific Northwest on the border of Canada and the US.
Researchers fly drones over these resident pods most days and have access to almost 50 years of observations. But this is the first time the tool-making behaviour has been seen.
Unfortunately, these pods are critically endangered. They’re threatened by sound pollution from shipping, polluted water, vessel strike and loss of their main food source – Chinook salmon.
A pod of killer whales off Vancouver, Canada. Vanessa Pirotta, CC BY-NC-ND
Orcas are smart
In one sense, the findings are not a surprise, given the intelligence of these animals.
In the Antarctic, orcas catch seals by making waves to wash them off ice floes. Before European colonisation, orcas and First Nations groups near Eden hunted whales together.
While orcas are often called “killer whales”, they’re not whales. They’re the biggest species of dolphin, growing up to nine metres long. They’re found across all the world’s oceans.
Within the species, there’s a surprising amount of diversity. Scientists group orcas into different ecotypes – populations adapted to local conditions. Different orca groups can differ substantially, from size to prey to habits. For instance, transient orcas cover huge distances seeking larger prey, while resident orcas stick close to areas with lots of fish.
Not just a fluke
Because orcas differ so much, we don’t know whether other pods have discovered or taught these behaviours.
But what this research does point to is that tool making may be more common among marine mammals than we expected. No hands – no problem.
Vanessa Pirotta 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.
We all like to imagine we’re ageing well. Now a simple blood or saliva test promises to tell us by measuring our “biological age”. And then, as many have done, we can share how “young” we really are on social media, along with our secrets to success.
While chronological age is how long you have been alive, measures of biological age aim to indicate how old your body actually is, purporting to measure “wear and tear” at a molecular level.
The appeal of these tests is undeniable. Health-conscious consumers may see their results as reinforcing their anti-ageing efforts, or a way to show their journey to better health is paying off.
But how good are these tests? Do they actually offer useful insights? Or are they just clever marketing dressed up to look like science?
How do these tests work?
Over time, the chemical processes that allow our body to function, known as our “metabolic activity”, lead to damage and a decline in the activity of our cells, tissues and organs.
Biological age tests aim to capture some of these changes, offering a snapshot of how well, or how poorly, we are ageing on a cellular level.
Our DNA is also affected by the ageing process. In particular, chemical tags (methyl groups) attach to our DNA and affect gene expression. These changes occur in predictable ways with age and environmental exposures, in a process called methylation.
Research studies have used “epigenetic clocks”, which measure the methylation of our genes, to estimate biological age. By analysing methylation levels at specific sites in the genome from participant samples, researchers apply predictive models to estimate the cumulative wear and tear on the body.
What does the research say about their use?
Although the science is rapidly evolving, the evidence underpinning the use of epigenetic clocks to measure biological ageing in research studies is strong.
Studies have shown epigenetic biological age estimation is a better predictor of the risk of death and ageing-related diseases than chronological age.
Epigenetic clocks also have been found to correlate strongly with lifestyle and environmental exposures, such as smoking status and diet quality.
In addition, they have been found to be able to predict the risk of conditions such as cardiovascular disease, which can lead to heart attacks and strokes.
Taken together, a growing body of research indicates that at a population level, epigenetic clocks are robust measures of biological ageing and are strongly linked to the risk of disease and death
But how good are these tests for individuals?
While these tests are valuable when studying populations in research settings, using epigenetic clocks to measure the biological age of individuals is a different matter and requires scrutiny.
For testing at an individual level, perhaps the most important consideration is the “signal to noise ratio” (or precision) of these tests. This is the question of whether a single sample from an individual may yield widely differing results.
A study from 2022 found samples deviated by up to nine years. So an identical sample from a 40-year-old may indicate a biological age of as low as 35 years (a cause for celebration) or as high as 44 years (a cause of anxiety).
While there have been significant improvements in these tests over the years, there is considerable variability in the precision of these tests between commercial providers. So depending on who you send your sample to, your estimated biological age may vary considerably.
Another limitation is there is currently no standardisation of methods for this testing. Commercial providers perform these tests in different ways and have different algorithms for estimating biological age from the data.
As you would expect for commercial operators, providers don’t disclose their methods. So it’s difficult to compare companies and determine who provides the most accurate results – and what you’re getting for your money.
A third limitation is that while epigenetic clocks correlate well with ageing, they are simply a “proxy” and are not a diagnostic tool.
In other words, they may provide a general indication of ageing at a cellular level. But they don’t offer any specific insights about what the issue may be if someone is found to be “ageing faster” than they would like, or what they’re doing right if they are “ageing well”.
So regardless of the result of your test, all you’re likely to get from the commercial provider of an epigenetic test is generic advice about what the science says is healthy behaviour.
Are they worth it? Or what should I do instead?
While companies offering these tests may have good intentions, remember their ultimate goal is to sell you these tests and make a profit. And at a cost of around A$500, they’re not cheap.
While the idea of using these tests as a personalised health tool has potential, it is clear that we are not there yet.
For this to become a reality, tests will need to become more reproducible, standardised across providers, and validated through long-term studies that link changes in biological age to specific behaviours.
So while one-off tests of biological age make for impressive social media posts, for most people they represent a significant cost and offer limited real value.
The good news is we already know what we need to do to increase our chances of living longer and healthier lives. These include:
We don’t need to know our biological age in order to implement changes in our lives right now to improve our health.
Hassan Vally 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.
But the situation is perhaps not as rosy for the animal itself. Domesticated animals often live longer than their free-living counterparts, but the quality of those lives can be compromised. Pets can be fed processed foods that can lead to obesity. Many are denied a sexual life and experience of parenthood. Exercise can be limited, isolation is common and boredom must be endured.
Is this the best life for the species we feel closest to? This question was raised for me when I heard the story of Valerie, the dachshund recaptured in April this year after almost 18 months living on her own on South Australia’s Karta Pintingga/Kangaroo Island.
Is being a pet the best life for the species we feel closest to? Oleksandr Rupeta/NurPhoto via Getty Images
Valerie: the story that captivated a nation
Valerie, a miniature dachshund, escaped into the bush during a camping trip on Kangaroo Island in November 2023. After several days of searching, her bereft humans returned to their home in New South Wales. They assumed the tiny dog, who had lived her life as a “little princess”, was gone forever.
Fast-forward a year, and sightings were reported on the island of a small dog wearing a pink collar. Word spread and volunteers renewed the search. A wildlife rescue group designed a purpose-built trap, fitting it out with items from Valerie’s former home.
After several weeks, a remotely controlled gate clattered shut behind Valerie and she was caught.
Cue great celebrations. The searchers were triumphant and the family was delighted. Social media lit up. It was a canine reenactment of one of settler Australia’s enduring narratives: the lost child rescued from the hostile bush.
A dog’s-eye view
But imagine if Valerie’s story was told from a more dog-centred perspective. Valerie found herself alone in a strange place and took the opportunity to run away. She embarked on a new life in which she was responsible for herself and could exercise the intelligence inherited from her boar-hunting ancestors.
No longer required to be a good girl, Valerie applied her own judgement – that notorious dachshund “stubbornness” – to evade predators, fill her stomach and pass her days.
Some commentators assumed Valerie must have been fed by anonymous benefactors – reflecting a widely held view that pets have limited abilities.
Veterinary experts, however, said her diet likely consisted of small birds, mammals and reptiles she killed herself – as well as roadkill, other carrion and faeces.
Valerie was clearly good at life on the lam. Unlike the human competitors in the series Alone Australia, she did not waste away when left in an island wilderness. Instead, she gained 1.8 kg of muscle – and was so stocky she no longer fit the old harness her humans brought to collect her. She had literally outgrown her former bonds.
Valerie could have sought shelter with the island’s humans at any time, but chose not to. She had to be actively trapped. Once returned to her humans, she needed time to reacclimatise to life as a pet.
Not all missing pets thrive in the wild. But all this raises the question of whether Valerie’s rescue would be better understood as a forced return from a full life of freedom, to a diminished existence in captivity?
A long history of pets thriving in the wild
Other examples exist which suggest an animal’s best life can take place outside the constraints of being a pet.
Exotic parrots have fled lives in cages to form urban flocks. In the United States, 25 species initially imported as pets have set up self-sustaining, free-living populations across 23 states.
Or take the red-eared slider turtle, which is native to parts of the US and Mexico. It’s illegal to keep the turtles as pets in Australia, but some of those smuggled in have later been released into urban wetlands where they have established large and widespread populations.
Cats are perhaps the most notorious example of escaped pets thriving on their own in Australia. They numbers in the millions, in habitats from cities to the Simpson Desert to the Snowy Mountains, showing how little they need human assistance.
One mark of their success is their prodigious size. At up to 7kg, free-living cats can be more than twice the weight of the average domestic cat.
Of course, I am not advocating that pets be released to the wild, creating new problems. But I do believe current pet-keeping practices are due for reconsideration.
A dramatic solution would be to take the animal out of the pet relationship. Social robots that look like seals and teddy bears are already available to welcome you home, mirror your emotions and offer up cuddles without the cost to other animals.
A less radical option is to rethink the idea of animals as “pets” and instead see them as equals.
Some people already enjoy these unforced bonds. Magpies, for example, are known to have strong allegiances with each other and are sometimes willing to extend those connections to humans in multi-species friendships.
As for Valerie, she did make “her little happy sounds” when reunited with her humans. But she might look back with nostalgia to her 529 days of freedom on Kangaroo Island.
Nancy Cushing receives funding from the State Library of New South Wales as the Coral Thomas Fellow. She is a member of the executive committee of the Australian Historical Association.
Have you had a tonsillectomy (your tonsils taken out), appendectomy (your appendix removed) or lumpectomy (removal of a lump from your breast)? The suffix “ectomy” denotes surgical removal of the named body part, so these terms give us a clear idea of what the procedure entails.
So why is the removal of the uterus called a hysterectomy and not a uterectomy?
The name hysterectomy is rooted in a mental health condition – “hysteria” – that was once believed to affect women. But we now know this condition doesn’t exist.
Continuing to call this significant operation a hysterectomy both perpetuates misogyny and hampers people’s understanding of what it is.
From the defunct condition ‘hysteria’
Hysteria was a psychiatric condition first formally defined in the 5th century BCE. It had many symptoms, including excessive emotion, irritability, anxiety, breathlessness and fainting.
But hysteria was only diagnosed in women. Male physicians at the time claimed these symptoms were caused by a “wandering womb”. They believed the womb (uterus) moved around the body looking for sperm and disrupted other organs.
Because the uterus was blamed for hysteria, the treatment was to remove it. This procedure was called a hysterectomy. Sadly, many women had their healthy uterus unnecessarily removed and most died.
The word “hysteria” did originally came from the ancient Greek word for uterus, “hystera”. But the modern Greek word for uterus is “mitra”, which is where words such as “endometrium” come from.
uterine prolapse (when the uterus protrudes down into the vagina)
adenomyosis (when the inner layer of the uterus grows into the muscle layer)
cancer.
However, in a survey colleagues and I did of almost 500 Australian adults, which is yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, one in five people thought hysterectomy meant removal of the ovaries, not the uterus.
It’s true some hysterectomiesfor cancer do also remove the ovaries. A hysterectomy or partial hysterectomy is the removal of only the uterus, a total hysterectomy removes the uterus and cervix, while a radical hysterectomy usually removes the uterus, cervix, uterine tubes and ovaries.
There are important differences between these hysterectomies, so they should be named to clearly indicate the nature of the surgery.
Research has shown ambiguous terminology such as “hysterectomy” is associated with low patient understanding of the procedure and the female anatomy involved.
Uterectomy should be used for removal of the uterus, in combination with the medical terms for removal of the cervix, uterine tubes and ovaries as needed. For example, a uterectomy plus cervicectomy would refer to the removal of the uterus and the cervix.
This could help patients understand what is (and isn’t) being removed from their bodies and increase clarity for the wider public.
Other female body parts and procedures have male names
There are many eponyms (something named after a person) in anatomy and medicine, such as the Achilles tendon and Parkinson’s disease. They are almost exclusively the names of white men.
Eponyms for female anatomy and procedures include the Fallopian tubes, Pouch of Douglas, and Pap smear.
The anatomical term for Fallopian tubes is uterine tubes. “Uterine” indicates these are attached to the uterus, which reinforces their important role in fertility.
The Pouch of Douglas is the space between the rectum and uterus. Using the anatomical name (rectouterine pouch) is important, because this a common site for endometriosis and can explain any associated bowel symptoms.
Pap smear gives no indication of its location or function. The new cervical screening test is named exactly that, which clarifies it samples cells of the cervix. This helps people understand this tests for risk of cervical cancer.
In line with increasing awareness and discussions around female reproductive health and medical misogyny, now is the time to improve terminology. We must ensure the names of body parts and medical procedures reflect the relevant anatomy.
Theresa Larkin 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.
Many smartwatches, fitness and wellness trackers now offer sleep tracking among their many functions.
Wear your watch or ring to bed, and you’ll wake up to a detailed sleep report telling you not just how long you slept, but when each phase happened and whether you had a good night’s rest overall.
Surfing is done in the ocean, planes fly in the sky, and sleep occurs in the brain. So how can we measure sleep from the wrist or finger?
The gold standard of sleep measurement
If you’ve ever had a sleep study or seen someone with dozens of wires attached to their head, body and face, you’ve encountered polysomnography or PSG.
Eye movements, muscle tone, heart rate and brain activity are measured and assessed by experts to detect which stage of sleep or wakefulness a person is in.
When we sleep, we cycle through different stages, generally classified as light sleep, slow-wave sleep (also known as deep sleep), and rapid eye movement or REM sleep.
Each stage has an effect on brain activity, muscle tone and heart rate – which is why sleep scientists need so many wires.
Accurate? Absolutely. Convenient? Like two left shoes.
This is where the convenience of wearable at-home sleep trackers comes in.
What sensors are in sleep trackers?
Since the 1990s, sleep researchers have been using actigraphy to measure people’s sleep outside the laboratory.
An actigraphy device is similar to a wristwatch and uses accelerometers to measure the person’s movement. Coupled with sleep diaries, actigraphy assumes a person is awake when they’re moving and asleep when still. Simple.
While this is a scientifically accepted method of estimating sleep, it’s prone to mislabelling being awake but at rest (such as when reading a book) as sleep.
There’s one key addition that makes wrist-worn sleep trackers more accurate – PPG or photoplethysmography.
It’s hard to pronounce, but photoplethysmography is a key driver in the explosion of wearable health tracking.
It uses those little green lights on the skin-side of the wearable to track the amount of blood passing through your wrist at any given time. Clip-on pulse oximeters used by doctors are the same type of tech.
The addition of PPG to a wrist tracker allows for the measurement of raw data like heart rate and breathing rate. From this data, the wearable can estimate a number of physiological metrics, including sleep stages.
Since fitness wearables already have accelerometers and PPG to track your physical activity and heart rate, it makes sense to use these sensors to track sleep too. But how accurate are they?
Many fitness trackers leverage the sensors used to measure your fitness activities and heart rate for sleep tracking. The Conversation
How do scientists test sleep trackers?
Two main factors determine the accuracy of sleep trackers. How well does the device detect whether you’re asleep or awake? And how well can it distinguish the sleep stages?
To answer these questions, sleep scientists conduct validation studies. Participants sleep overnight in a laboratory while wearing both a sleep tracker and undergoing PSG.
Then, scientists compare the data from both methods in 30-second blocks called “epochs”. That means for a nine-hour sleep there will be 1,080 epochs to compare.
If both the device and PSG indicate “sleep” for the same epoch, they’re in agreement. If the device indicates “wake” and PSG indicates “sleep” for the same epoch, that’s considered an error. The same is done for sleep stages.
How accurate are sleep trackers?
In a 2022 study of several popular trackers, most correctly identified more than 90% of sleep epochs. But because light sleep and restful wake are so similar, wearables struggle more to estimate wakefulness, correctly identifying between 26% and 73% of wake epochs.
When it comes to sleep stages, wearables are less precise, correctly identifying between 53% and 60% of sleep stage epochs. However, for some devices and some sleep stages the precision can be greater. A recent validation study showed that a latest generation ring-shaped wearable didn’t differ from PSG for estimating light sleep and slow wave sleep.
In short, most modern sleep trackers do a decent job of estimating your total sleep each night. Some are more accurate for sleep staging, but this level of detail isn’t essential for improving the basics of your sleep.
Do I need a sleep tracker?
If you’re struggling with sleep, you should speak to your doctor. A sleep tracker can be a useful tool to help track your sleep goals, but ultimately your behaviour is what will improve sleep.
Keeping regular bedtimes and wake-up times, having a distraction-free sleep space, and keeping home lighting low in the evenings can all help to improve your sleep.
If you love tracking your sleep, make sure your device has been independently validated. While sleep stage data may not be essential, devices that perform well in estimating sleep stage also tend to be more accurate at detecting when you’re asleep or awake. When reviewing your data, look at long term trends in sleep rather than day-to-day variability.
If you don’t love your sleep tracker, you can take it off or ignore it. For some people, access to sleep data can negatively impact sleep by creating stress and anxiety for getting a perfect night’s sleep. Instead, focus on improving your healthy sleep strategies and pay attention to how you feel during the day.
Dr Dean J. Miller is a member of a research group at Central Queensland University that receives support for research (i.e., funding, equipment) from WHOOP Inc, a smart device maker.
Is AI going to take over the world? Have scientists created an artificial lifeform that can think on its own? Is it going to replace all our jobs, even creative ones, like doctors, teachers and care workers? Are we about to enter an age where computers are better than humans at everything?
The answers, as the authors of The AI Con stress, are “no”, “they wish”, “LOL” and “definitely not”.
The AI Con: How To Fight Big Tech’s Hype and Create the Future We Want – Emily M. Bender and Alex Hanna (Bodley Head)
Artificial intelligence is a marketing term as much as a distinct set of computational architectures and techniques. AI has become a magic word for entrepreneurs to attract startup capital for dubious schemes, an incantation deployed by managers to instantly achieve the status of future-forward leaders.
In a mere two letters, it conjures a vision of automated factories and robotic overlords, a utopia of leisure or a dystopia of servitude, depending on your point of view. It is not just technology, but a powerful vision of how society should function and what our future should look like.
In this sense, AI doesn’t need to work for it to work. The accuracy of a large language model may be doubtful, the productivity of an AI office assistant may be claimed rather than demonstrated, but this bundle of technologies, companies and claims can still alter the terrain of journalism, education, healthcare, service work and our broader sociocultural landscape.
Bender is a linguistics professor at the University of Washington, who has become a prominent technology critic. Hanna is a sociologist and former employee of Google, who is now the director of research at the Distributed AI Research Institute. After teaming up to mock AI boosters in their popular podcast, Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000, they have distilled their insights into a book written for a general audience. They meet the unstoppable force of AI hype with immovable scepticism.
Step one in this program is grasping how AI models work. Bender and Hanna do an excellent job of decoding technical terms and unpacking the “black box” of machine learning for lay people.
Driving this wedge between hype and reality, between assertions and operations, is a recurring theme across the pages of The AI Con, and one that should gradually erode readers’ trust in the tech industry. The book outlines the strategic deceptions employed by powerful corporations to reduce friction and accumulate capital. If the barrage of examples tends to blur together, the sense of technical bullshit lingers.
What is intelligence? A famous and highly cited paper co-written by Bender asserts that large language models are simply “stochastic parrots”, drawing on training data to predict which set of tokens (i.e. words) is most likely to follow the prompt given by a user. Harvesting millions of crawled websites, the model can regurgitate “the moon” after “the cow jumped over”, albeit in much more sophisticated variants.
Rather than actually understanding a concept in all its social, cultural and political contexts, large language models carry out pattern matching: an illusion of thinking.
But I would suggest that, in many domains, a simulation of thinking is sufficient, as it is met halfway by those engaging with it. Users project agency onto models via the well-known Eliza effect, imparting intelligence to the simulation.
Management are pinning their hopes on this simulation. They view automation as a way to streamline their organisations and not be “left behind”. This powerful vision of early adopters vs extinct dinosaurs is one we see repeatedly with the advent of new technologies – and one that benefits the tech industry.
In this sense, poking holes in the “intelligence” of artificial intelligence is a losing move, missing the social and financial investment that wants this technology to work. “Start with AI for every task. No matter how small, try using an AI tool first,” commanded DuoLingo’s chief engineering officer in a recent message to all employees. Duolingo has joined Fiverr, Shopify, IBM and a slew of other companies proclaiming their “AI first” approach.
The AI Con is strongest when it looks beyond or around the technologies to the ecosystem surrounding them, a perspective I have also argued is immensely helpful. By understanding the corporations, actors, business models and stakeholders involved in a model’s production, we can evaluate where it comes from, its purpose, its strengths and weaknesses, and what all this might mean downstream for its possible uses and implications. “Who benefits from this technology, who is harmed, and what recourse do they have?” is a solid starting point, Bender and Hanna suggest.
These basic but important questions extract us from the weeds of technical debate – how does AI function, how accurate or “good” is it really, how can we possibly understand this complexity as non-engineers? – and give us a critical perspective. They place the onus on industry to explain, rather than users to adapt or be rendered superfluous.
We don’t need to be able to explain technical concepts like backpropagation or diffusion to grasp that AI technologies can undermine fair work, perpetuate racial and gender stereotypes, and exacerbate environmental crises. The hype around AI means to distract us from these concrete effects, to trivialise them and thus encourage us to ignore them.
As Bender and Hanna explain, AI boosters and AI doomers are really two sides of the same coin. Conjuring up nightmare scenarios of self-replicating AI terminating humanity or claiming sentient machines will usher us into a posthuman paradise are, in the end, the same thing. They place a religious-like faith in the capabilities of technology, which dominates debate, allowing tech companies to retain control of AI’s future development.
The risk of AI is not potential doom in the future, à la the nuclear threat during the Cold War, but the quieter and more significant harm to real people in the present. The authors explain that AI is more like a panopticon “that allows a single prison warden to keep track of hundreds of prisoners at once”, or the “surveillance dragnets that track marginalised groups in the West”, or a “toxic waste, salting the earth of a Superfund site”, or a “scabbing worker, crossing the picket line at the behest of an employer who wants to signal to the picketers that they are disposable. The totality of systems sold as AI are these things, rolled into one.”
A decade ago, with another “game-changing” technology, author Ian Bogost observed that
rather than utopia or dystopia, we usually end up with something less dramatic yet more disappointing. Robots neither serve human masters nor destroy us in a dramatic genocide, but slowly dismantle our livelihoods while sparing our lives.
The pattern repeats. As AI matures (to some degree) and is adopted by organisations, it moves from innovation to infrastructure, from magic to mechanism. Grand promises never materialise. Instead, society endures a tougher, bleaker future. Workers feel more pressure; surveillance is normalised; truth is muddied with post-truth; the marginal become more vulnerable; the planet gets hotter.
Technology, in this sense, is a shapeshifter: the outward form constantly changes, yet the inner logic remains the same. It exploits labour and nature, extracts value, centralises wealth, and protects the power and status of the already-powerful.
Co-opting critique
In The New Spirit of Capitalism, sociologists Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello demonstrate how capitalism has mutated over time, folding critiques back into its DNA.
After enduring a series of blows around alienation and automation in the 1960s, capitalism moved from a hierarchical Fordist mode of production to a more flexible form of self-management over the next two decades. It began to favour “just in time” production, done in smaller teams, that (ostensibly) embraced the creativity and ingenuity of each individual. Neoliberalism offered “freedom”, but at a price. Organisations adapted; concessions were made; critique was defused.
AI continues this form of co-option. Indeed, the current moment can be described as the end of the first wave of critical AI. In the last five years, tech titans have released a series of bigger and “better” models, with both the public and scholars focusing largely on generative and “foundation” models: ChatGPT, StableDiffusion, Midjourney, Gemini, DeepSeek, and so on.
Scholars have heavily criticised aspects of these models – my own work has explored truth claims, generative hate, ethics washing and other issues. Much work focused on bias: the way in which training data reproduces gender stereotypes, racial inequality, religious bigotry, western epistemologies, and so on.
Much of this work is excellent and seems to have filtered into the public consciousness, based on conversations I’ve had at workshops and events. However, its flagging of such issues allows tech companies to practise issue resolving. If the accuracy of a facial-recognition system is lower with Black faces, add more Black faces to the training set. If the model is accused of English dominance, fork out some money to produce data on “low-resource” languages.
Companies like Anthropic now regularly carry out “red teaming” exercises designed to highlight hidden biases in models. Companies then “fix” or mitigate these issues. But due to the massive size of the data sets, these tend to be band-aid solutions, superficial rather than structural tweaks.
For instance, soon after launching, AI image generators were under pressure for not being “diverse” enough. In response, OpenAI invented a technique to “more accurately reflect the diversity of the world’s population”. Researchers discovered this technique was simply tacking on additional hidden prompts (e.g. “Asian”, “Black”) to user prompts. Google’s Gemini model also seems to have adopted this, which resulted in a backlash when images of Vikings or Nazis had South Asian or Native American features.
The point here is not whether AI models are racist or historically inaccurate or “woke”, but that models are political and never disinterested. Harder questions about how culture is made computational, or what kind of truths we want as society, are never broached and therefore never worked through systematically.
Such questions are certainly broader and less “pointy” than bias, but also less amenable to being translated into a problem for a coder to resolve.
What next?
How, then, should those outside the academy respond to AI? The past few years have seen a flurry of workshops, seminars and professional development initiatives. These range from “gee whiz” tours of AI features for the workplace, to sober discussions of risks and ethics, to hastily organised all-hands meetings debating how to respond now, and next month, and the month after that.
Bender and Hanna wrap up their book with their own responses. Many of these, like their questions about how models work and who benefits, are simple but fundamental, offering a strong starting point for organisational engagement.
For the technosceptical duo, refusal is also clearly an option, though individuals will obviously have vastly different degrees of agency when it comes to opting out of models and pushing back on adoption strategies. Refusal of AI, as with many technologies that have come before it, often relies to some extent on privilege. The six-figure consultant or coder will have discretion that the gig worker or service worker cannot exercise without penalties or punishments.
If refusal is fraught at the individual level, it seems more viable and sustainable at a cultural level. Bender and Hanna suggest generative AI be responded to with mockery: companies who employ it should be derided as cheap or tacky.
The cultural backlash against AI is already in full swing. Soundtracks on YouTube are increasingly labelled “No AI”. Artists have launched campaigns and hashtags, stressing their creations are “100% human-made”.
These moves are attempts to establish a cultural consensus that AI-generated material is derivative and exploitative. And yet, if these moves offer some hope, they are swimming against the swift current of enshittification. AI slop means faster and cheaper content creation, and the technical and financial logic of online platforms – virality, engagement, monetisation – will always create a race to the bottom.
The extent to which the vision offered by big tech will be accepted, how far AI technologies will be integrated or mandated, how much individuals and communities will push back against them – these are still open questions. In many ways, Bender and Hanna successfully demonstrate that AI is a con. It fails at productivity and intelligence, while the hype launders a series of transformations that harm workers, exacerbate inequality and damage the environment.
Yet such consequences have accompanied previous technologies – fossil fuels, private cars, factory automation – and hardly dented their uptake and transformation of society. So while praise goes to Bender and Hanna for a book that shows “how to fight big tech’s hype and create the future we want”, the issue of AI resonates, for me, with Karl Marx’s observation that people “make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please”.
Luke Munn 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.
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
***WATCH: Video of full forum***
***WATCH and READ: Senator Murray’s opening remarks***
Washington, D.C. — Today—on the three-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning the constitutional right to abortion—U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member and former chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Tina Smith (D-MN) hosted a spotlight forum titled Under Attack: Republicans’ Escalating War on Reproductive Freedom. At the forum, Senate Democrats heard from four panelists who have suffered the consequences of the Dobbs decision and subsequent Republican abortion bans firsthand and warned about how President Trump and Republicans are only escalating their attacks on women’s health care and working to make abortion impossible to access anywhere—a backdoor nationwide abortion ban.
The senators’ spotlight forum comes as President Trump has taken direct aim at reproductive health care in his first few months in office, including by: pardoning anti-abortion extremists found guilty of assaulting and injuring abortion clinic staff and announcing that his Department of Justice will largely no longer enforce the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act; attacking mifepristone based on anti-abortion junk science; laying the groundwork to make “fetal personhood” the law of the land—which would ban abortion in every state and curtail pregnant women’s rights; rescinding CMS guidance reaffirming that the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals to provide life-saving care to pregnant women suffering medical emergencies, which might include abortion care in certain situations; repealing two Executive Orders that sought to protect and expand access to reproductive health care in the aftermath of Dobbs; reinstating the Global Gag Rule that targets reproductive health care around the world; scrubbing government websites of vital information about reproductive health care; and appointing notorious anti-abortion extremists for influential roles in his administration, including Pam Bondi as Attorney General, Russell Vought as OMB Director, and John Sauer as Solicitor General—among much else.
Additionally, right now Republicans in Congress are pushing through a budget reconciliation bill that would make abortion care impossible to access nearly everywhere by defunding Planned Parenthood—putting 200 health centers across the country at risk of closure, 90 percent of which are in states where abortion is legal—and by effectively banning ACA marketplace health plans from covering abortion care. Overall, Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act would kick 16 million people off their health insurance through massive cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and overwhelmingly impact women, who comprise most adults covered by Medicaid. Medicaid is the primary source of coverage and the largest single payer for pregnant women’s health care nationwide, covering between one-third and one-half of births in every state across the country.
“Already, we have seen with painful clarity, how—on a daily basis—Republican abortion bans are putting women’s lives in danger, forcing providers to close their doors, decimating access to maternal health care, and forcing women to remain pregnant—no matter their circumstances. But Dobbs was never the end of this fight for Republicans, whose goal has always been a national abortion ban. And since Republicans know they don’t have the votes right now to pass a national abortion ban outright, they are slowly, but surely, advancing a backdoor nationwide abortion ban, and chipping away at access to reproductive health care piece-by-piece—even in states where abortion is protected. Republicans are hoping no one will notice these attacks—as if people don’t care when their rights are stripped away. As if it’s easy to miss the moment your health care decisions are out of your control,” said Senator Patty Murray. “As hard as Republicans might try, the damage they are causing is undeniable. But that doesn’t mean we give up. Women’s lives are at stake—Democrats are not going to stop pushing back—not ever. We will keep pushing for legislation to protect women and health care providers from Republican prosecution, to help people access and afford the reproductive health care they need, to protect women’s private health data, to protect the Right to Contraception and the Right to IVF, and to restore the right to abortion nationwide—nothing less.”
“When I was ten weeks pregnant, doctors informed me that my baby had acrania, a rare condition that was fatal for my baby, and dangerous for me. Naturally, I was heartbroken and scared, but I trusted that I would receive the necessary medical treatment so that my family and I could begin healing. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Just a few weeks before I received my diagnosis, the Supreme Court issued their decision in Dobbs v. JacksonWomen’s Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade and eliminating the legal right to abortion. The fallout from the decision was fast, with states across the country starting to enforce cruel and dangerous abortion bans,” said Nancy Davis of Louisiana, Founder and Executive Director of the Nancy Davis Foundation. “My home state of Louisiana has some of the strictest abortion laws in the country, and even though I needed to terminate my pregnancy to protect my own health and safety, I was told I could not receive care at the hospital in Baton Rouge. Instead of being able to process the diagnosis and grieve the loss of my pregnancy at home with my family, I had to scramble to find a way out of Louisiana to access abortion care. I found myself in a situation I never thought I would be in, forced to travel nearly 1,500 miles to get the care I needed and deserved. I experienced not only a denial of necessary medical care, but a denial of compassion, and my right to make my own decision about my own health. I felt dehumanized and stripped of my most fundamental rights. I knew what I needed to do to protect my health, and my doctors agreed, but local lawmakers who will never know me or understand my situation had the final say. The system failed me, and I am just as outraged today as I was then.”
“I was raised in St. Louis and I love living in Missouri. But, it is challenging to fulfill your job as a physician when you cannot practice medicine as you were trained to do or teach medical students about abortion in the community and state where you live…It is infuriating and irresponsible that because of abortion bans, OBs can teach our students all aspects of medical care—except abortion. When you go to the doctor, you want your doctor to be trained. Anti-abortion politicians and groups have claimed that abortion rights have been left up to the state. That is simply not true. Last fall, Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment ensuring the right to an abortion, but — despite the will of the voters — politicians and state officials are still interfering with patients’ rights. At every turn, when we finally make progress towards abortion access in Missouri, they move the goalposts on us. The only way to describe our experience over the last several months is whiplash,” said Dr. Margaret Baum, M.D., FACOG, Chief Medical Officer of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers in Missouri. “I have seen first-hand that these draconian laws force patients to make impossible choices when Medicaid cannot cover their care. People delay care because they’re afraid that they are not going to have the coverage for the services we know that they need. Patients are forced to decide if they can pay out of pocket to get lab tests. They are forced to decide between the procedures they need. They are forced to sometimes forego services altogether. It is critical for lawmakers to understand that the decisions they make are affecting patients every. Single. Day. And now, once again, they want to bring this chaos and confusion to the national level. I’m here to tell you today that the Senate bill proposing to ‘defund’ Planned Parenthood would be devastating. It could force nearly 200 Planned Parenthood health centers to close and is a trojan horse for a nationwide abortion ban.”
“Back before the FACE Act protections, our clinic doors were routinely blockaded one day a month by a mob of 300 to 400 anti-abortion extremists. Those days were unpredictable and scary. If we tried to get through them and into the clinic, extremists pinched or pricked us with sharp objects. By the end of the day, our patients were all traumatized and uncared for – and our bodies were black and blue. We can’t go back to those days…I proudly advocated for this Act when it was being debated in the 1990s – I am outraged and heartbroken we have to do this again. The law works at protecting rights, including speech rights, something I witness daily. As soon as the Act took effect, the extreme blockades stopped. Yes, we still had protesters exercising their First Amendment Rights, but now they knew they couldn’t be violent, and they could not invade the clinics or block staff and patients from entering. FACE has helped preserve the dignity and safety of the patients we serve, and the professionals who care for them,” said Renee Chelian, Founder and CEO of Michigan-based Northland Family Planning Centers. “But then in 2017, when President Trump first took office extremists were emboldened to resume their violent attacks, despite FACE, knowing they had a friend in the White House. Twice they invaded our clinics, harassed patients and staff and refused to leave after trespass warnings were given. Even after law enforcement arrived, they refused to leave, went limp and had to be carried out one at a time. But the most appalling and dangerous episode occurred toward the end of Trump’s first term, in August of 2020. A group blockaded our doors preventing staff and patients from entering the clinic including those arriving for birth control appointments and three women scheduled for abortions after receiving a fatal fetal diagnosis…Within days of returning to the White House, sure enough, President Trump pardoned the violent offenders who attacked our clinic and others serving time for violence against clinics in other states, as well as those convicted for their actions here on January 6th. We were all abandoned by our government with that swipe of a pen. The FACE Act has been our only lever preventing clinic violence and holding anti-abortion criminals accountable. The FACE Act simply can’t be undone and it is up to lawmakers like you to make sure that doesn’t happen.”
“Right now, the Trump administration is taking unprecedented action to roll back abortion rights,” said Mini Timmaraju, President and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All. “The majority of Americans do not support right-wing, hate-fueled ideology.Eight in ten Americans want legal abortion. That’s not just a majority—that’s a consensus. But because of the daily churn of chaos from the White House, most Americans don’t know that Republicans are attacking abortion. Our new focus group research shows that when Americans know these attacks are happening, they feel disgusted and betrayed. That means if we’re louder about this issue, we can win. Senator Murray and many of the champions in this room have long been the conscience of the Senate, and it’s time for all Senate Democrats to join them. We need to do everything we can to loudly push back against this administration’s attacks on our bodies, lives, and futures. We are living through remarkably dangerous times, and this is the moment to act. Our rights are not safe under this administration, and that includes abortion rights. In order to protect the safety, health, and dignity of all Americans, we need you to keep fighting. The majority of Americans are on our side, and together, we will protect reproductive freedom and restore abortion rights for all.”
“Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans paved the path to overturn Roe v. Wade and stripped away a woman’s right to choose, but that wasn’t enough for them,” said Senator Tammy Baldwin. “Now, they are putting the puzzle pieces together to finally get what they have long wanted: a national abortion ban. Wisconsinites have said time and again that they want the freedom to control their bodies and futures, without politicians or the government butting in – and that is exactly what I’m fighting for. We are going to keep shining a light on Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans’ cruel efforts to further chip away at women’s right to get the health care they want and deserve – including abortion care.”
“Since Trump’s Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, we’ve seen a new form of hell at every turn,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren. “Now, Republicans in Congress are on track to pass a bill that amounts to a backdoor ban on abortion – even in states where it’s protected. Republicans’ bill to cut Medicaid and defund Planned Parenthood is a one-two punch to women across the country, and we are not going to let them get away with it.”
“Three years after the Supreme Court ruled in the Dobbs decision, it’s become difficult and dangerous for women to access basic reproductive care, and Trump and Republicans in Congress are continuing to chip away at access and stoke the danger. I worked at Planned Parenthood, and I know all too well that receiving credible death threats is a fact of life for so many people who work in reproductive health care,” said Senator Tina Smith. “We’re seeing an uptick in threats against abortion providers and patients, meanwhile President Trump is actively pardoning anti-abortion extremists found guilty of harassment and violence. That’s why we are spotlighting the voices of leaders working on the frontlines of providing reproductive health care in the face of these threats at this important moment.”
“The deadly Dobbs decision will go down in history as one of the worst, most harmful, most regressive decisions in modern history, said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. “As bad as the Dobbs decision was and as catastrophic as the impacts have already been, Republicans are doubling down on their crusade against access to reproductive healthcare in their big, ugly reconciliation bill. Democrats are going to fight like hell to strip these cruel provisions from the Republican bill, and to protect and restore reproductive freedom for all.”
“This issue is about more than health care; it is about women’s rights, individual rights, and human rights. It is about the right to make your own health care decisions,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal. “Three years after Dobbs, American women don’t have that right. Today, thanks to Republican lawmakers and conservative courts, a woman in America might walk into an ER and faint, bleeding, and be refused treatment. That woman might die. But we aren’t giving up, and we will never stop fighting for reproductive justice, abortion access, and the simple, foundational right to choose your own health care.”
“The Guttmacher Institute said 155,000 people traveled for an abortion in 2024,” said Senator Maria Cantwell. “We are forcing them to go get care in some other state, miles and miles away. Why? Because of this archaic decision. Now, we have two problems. We have people coming to our state who want this care, but now we could have fewer Medicaid dollars to even provide the care.”
“With all the chaos and damage this administration has caused, the anniversary of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade reminds us that we can’t lose sight of the fact that anti-choice politicians at all levels of our government are working nonstop to roll back women’s access to reproductive care,” said Senator Catherine Cortez Masto. “Between devastating cuts to Medicaid in Republicans’ reconciliation bill to top officials in this administration calling the safety of the abortion pill into question, Republicans across our country are taking steps to claw back women’s rights. My Democratic colleagues and I will never stop sounding the alarm about this and working to restore women’s access to basic health care.”
“Three years ago, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority abandoned the long-standing constitutional protections recognized in Roe v. Wade—rejecting nearly 50 years of progress and dragging gender equality and women’s rights half a century backward,” said Senator Dick Durbin. “What has happened in the wake of Dobbs was as predictable as it is devastating—and today we heard how devastating the last three years have been for women seeking critical health care in Republican-led states. While I cannot sugarcoat the state of women’s rights following Dobbs, I want to make one thing crystal clear: this fight is far from over. I thank my colleagues, Senators Murray, Baldwin, Smith, and Warren, for hosting such an important forum and keeping up the fight.”
“I was proud to join my colleagues today to hear directly from those who have suffered due to the deadly Dobbs decision and under Republicans’ anti-choice agenda,” said Senator Mazie Hirono. “Three years after the fall of Roe, Republicans continue to escalate their assault on reproductive freedom, while women across the country experience the devastating impacts of this infringement on their fundamental rights. Dobbs caused chaos and confusion, putting millions of Americans’ lives at risk, but I will not stop doing everything in my power to restore access to abortion and family planning services nationwide and protect reproductive health care providers and their patients.”
“Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade three years ago, women have been at the mercy of a patchwork of laws. Over 40 percent of women of reproductive age now live under extreme and dangerous bans, women are being turned away from emergency rooms, and doctors are threatened with prosecution for just doing their jobs. This cannot be a country where our daughters have fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers. That is why we must pass the Women’s Health Protection Act and put the protections of Roe v. Wade into law,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar.
“In the three years since the Trump-packed Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Republican-led states have passed waves of harmful laws stripping Americans of the freedom to make their own health care decisions. Despite the life-threatening consequences of these actions, the Trump Administration is escalating its attacks on access to reproductive health care across the country—including in states where it’s protected. The stories we heard today underscored the urgent need to protect reproductive care as a matter of federal law,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen.
Today, Senator Murray also joined Senators Tammy Baldwin and Richard Blumenthal to introduce the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2025, legislation to guarantee access to abortion everywhere across the country and restore the right to comprehensive reproductive health care for millions of Americans.
Senator Murray is a longtime leader in the fight to protect and expand access to reproductive health care and abortion rights, and she has led Congressional efforts to fight back after the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Murray has introduced more than a dozen pieces of legislation to protect reproductive rights from further attacks, protect providers, and help ensure women get the care they need; Murray has led efforts to push for passage of these bills on the Senate floor multiple times. Last January, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Murray led her colleagues in hosting a “State of Abortion Rights” briefing with women who have suffered firsthand from Republican abortion bans, and last June, she chaired a HELP Committee hearing titled “The Assault on Women’s Freedoms: How Abortion Bans Have Created a Health Care Nightmare Across America.” Last year, Senator Murray helped lead efforts to force Republicans on the record on votes to protect access to contraception and access to IVF (twice), and she led her colleagues in raising the alarm about the threat a second Trump administration poses to reproductive rights and abortion access in every state, as outlined in Project 2025.
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
***WATCH: Video of full forum***
***WATCH and READ: Senator Murray’s opening remarks***
Washington, D.C. — Today—on the three-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning the constitutional right to abortion—U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member and former chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Tina Smith (D-MN) hosted a spotlight forum titled Under Attack: Republicans’ Escalating War on Reproductive Freedom. At the forum, Senate Democrats heard from four panelists who have suffered the consequences of the Dobbs decision and subsequent Republican abortion bans firsthand and warned about how President Trump and Republicans are only escalating their attacks on women’s health care and working to make abortion impossible to access anywhere—a backdoor nationwide abortion ban.
The senators’ spotlight forum comes as President Trump has taken direct aim at reproductive health care in his first few months in office, including by: pardoning anti-abortion extremists found guilty of assaulting and injuring abortion clinic staff and announcing that his Department of Justice will largely no longer enforce the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act; attacking mifepristone based on anti-abortion junk science; laying the groundwork to make “fetal personhood” the law of the land—which would ban abortion in every state and curtail pregnant women’s rights; rescinding CMS guidance reaffirming that the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals to provide life-saving care to pregnant women suffering medical emergencies, which might include abortion care in certain situations; repealing two Executive Orders that sought to protect and expand access to reproductive health care in the aftermath of Dobbs; reinstating the Global Gag Rule that targets reproductive health care around the world; scrubbing government websites of vital information about reproductive health care; and appointing notorious anti-abortion extremists for influential roles in his administration, including Pam Bondi as Attorney General, Russell Vought as OMB Director, and John Sauer as Solicitor General—among much else.
Additionally, right now Republicans in Congress are pushing through a budget reconciliation bill that would make abortion care impossible to access nearly everywhere by defunding Planned Parenthood—putting 200 health centers across the country at risk of closure, 90 percent of which are in states where abortion is legal—and by effectively banning ACA marketplace health plans from covering abortion care. Overall, Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act would kick 16 million people off their health insurance through massive cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and overwhelmingly impact women, who comprise most adults covered by Medicaid. Medicaid is the primary source of coverage and the largest single payer for pregnant women’s health care nationwide, covering between one-third and one-half of births in every state across the country.
“Already, we have seen with painful clarity, how—on a daily basis—Republican abortion bans are putting women’s lives in danger, forcing providers to close their doors, decimating access to maternal health care, and forcing women to remain pregnant—no matter their circumstances. But Dobbs was never the end of this fight for Republicans, whose goal has always been a national abortion ban. And since Republicans know they don’t have the votes right now to pass a national abortion ban outright, they are slowly, but surely, advancing a backdoor nationwide abortion ban, and chipping away at access to reproductive health care piece-by-piece—even in states where abortion is protected. Republicans are hoping no one will notice these attacks—as if people don’t care when their rights are stripped away. As if it’s easy to miss the moment your health care decisions are out of your control,” said Senator Patty Murray. “As hard as Republicans might try, the damage they are causing is undeniable. But that doesn’t mean we give up. Women’s lives are at stake—Democrats are not going to stop pushing back—not ever. We will keep pushing for legislation to protect women and health care providers from Republican prosecution, to help people access and afford the reproductive health care they need, to protect women’s private health data, to protect the Right to Contraception and the Right to IVF, and to restore the right to abortion nationwide—nothing less.”
“When I was ten weeks pregnant, doctors informed me that my baby had acrania, a rare condition that was fatal for my baby, and dangerous for me. Naturally, I was heartbroken and scared, but I trusted that I would receive the necessary medical treatment so that my family and I could begin healing. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Just a few weeks before I received my diagnosis, the Supreme Court issued their decision in Dobbs v. JacksonWomen’s Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade and eliminating the legal right to abortion. The fallout from the decision was fast, with states across the country starting to enforce cruel and dangerous abortion bans,” said Nancy Davis of Louisiana, Founder and Executive Director of the Nancy Davis Foundation. “My home state of Louisiana has some of the strictest abortion laws in the country, and even though I needed to terminate my pregnancy to protect my own health and safety, I was told I could not receive care at the hospital in Baton Rouge. Instead of being able to process the diagnosis and grieve the loss of my pregnancy at home with my family, I had to scramble to find a way out of Louisiana to access abortion care. I found myself in a situation I never thought I would be in, forced to travel nearly 1,500 miles to get the care I needed and deserved. I experienced not only a denial of necessary medical care, but a denial of compassion, and my right to make my own decision about my own health. I felt dehumanized and stripped of my most fundamental rights. I knew what I needed to do to protect my health, and my doctors agreed, but local lawmakers who will never know me or understand my situation had the final say. The system failed me, and I am just as outraged today as I was then.”
“I was raised in St. Louis and I love living in Missouri. But, it is challenging to fulfill your job as a physician when you cannot practice medicine as you were trained to do or teach medical students about abortion in the community and state where you live…It is infuriating and irresponsible that because of abortion bans, OBs can teach our students all aspects of medical care—except abortion. When you go to the doctor, you want your doctor to be trained. Anti-abortion politicians and groups have claimed that abortion rights have been left up to the state. That is simply not true. Last fall, Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment ensuring the right to an abortion, but — despite the will of the voters — politicians and state officials are still interfering with patients’ rights. At every turn, when we finally make progress towards abortion access in Missouri, they move the goalposts on us. The only way to describe our experience over the last several months is whiplash,” said Dr. Margaret Baum, M.D., FACOG, Chief Medical Officer of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers in Missouri. “I have seen first-hand that these draconian laws force patients to make impossible choices when Medicaid cannot cover their care. People delay care because they’re afraid that they are not going to have the coverage for the services we know that they need. Patients are forced to decide if they can pay out of pocket to get lab tests. They are forced to decide between the procedures they need. They are forced to sometimes forego services altogether. It is critical for lawmakers to understand that the decisions they make are affecting patients every. Single. Day. And now, once again, they want to bring this chaos and confusion to the national level. I’m here to tell you today that the Senate bill proposing to ‘defund’ Planned Parenthood would be devastating. It could force nearly 200 Planned Parenthood health centers to close and is a trojan horse for a nationwide abortion ban.”
“Back before the FACE Act protections, our clinic doors were routinely blockaded one day a month by a mob of 300 to 400 anti-abortion extremists. Those days were unpredictable and scary. If we tried to get through them and into the clinic, extremists pinched or pricked us with sharp objects. By the end of the day, our patients were all traumatized and uncared for – and our bodies were black and blue. We can’t go back to those days…I proudly advocated for this Act when it was being debated in the 1990s – I am outraged and heartbroken we have to do this again. The law works at protecting rights, including speech rights, something I witness daily. As soon as the Act took effect, the extreme blockades stopped. Yes, we still had protesters exercising their First Amendment Rights, but now they knew they couldn’t be violent, and they could not invade the clinics or block staff and patients from entering. FACE has helped preserve the dignity and safety of the patients we serve, and the professionals who care for them,” said Renee Chelian, Founder and CEO of Michigan-based Northland Family Planning Centers. “But then in 2017, when President Trump first took office extremists were emboldened to resume their violent attacks, despite FACE, knowing they had a friend in the White House. Twice they invaded our clinics, harassed patients and staff and refused to leave after trespass warnings were given. Even after law enforcement arrived, they refused to leave, went limp and had to be carried out one at a time. But the most appalling and dangerous episode occurred toward the end of Trump’s first term, in August of 2020. A group blockaded our doors preventing staff and patients from entering the clinic including those arriving for birth control appointments and three women scheduled for abortions after receiving a fatal fetal diagnosis…Within days of returning to the White House, sure enough, President Trump pardoned the violent offenders who attacked our clinic and others serving time for violence against clinics in other states, as well as those convicted for their actions here on January 6th. We were all abandoned by our government with that swipe of a pen. The FACE Act has been our only lever preventing clinic violence and holding anti-abortion criminals accountable. The FACE Act simply can’t be undone and it is up to lawmakers like you to make sure that doesn’t happen.”
“Right now, the Trump administration is taking unprecedented action to roll back abortion rights,” said Mini Timmaraju, President and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All. “The majority of Americans do not support right-wing, hate-fueled ideology.Eight in ten Americans want legal abortion. That’s not just a majority—that’s a consensus. But because of the daily churn of chaos from the White House, most Americans don’t know that Republicans are attacking abortion. Our new focus group research shows that when Americans know these attacks are happening, they feel disgusted and betrayed. That means if we’re louder about this issue, we can win. Senator Murray and many of the champions in this room have long been the conscience of the Senate, and it’s time for all Senate Democrats to join them. We need to do everything we can to loudly push back against this administration’s attacks on our bodies, lives, and futures. We are living through remarkably dangerous times, and this is the moment to act. Our rights are not safe under this administration, and that includes abortion rights. In order to protect the safety, health, and dignity of all Americans, we need you to keep fighting. The majority of Americans are on our side, and together, we will protect reproductive freedom and restore abortion rights for all.”
“Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans paved the path to overturn Roe v. Wade and stripped away a woman’s right to choose, but that wasn’t enough for them,” said Senator Tammy Baldwin. “Now, they are putting the puzzle pieces together to finally get what they have long wanted: a national abortion ban. Wisconsinites have said time and again that they want the freedom to control their bodies and futures, without politicians or the government butting in – and that is exactly what I’m fighting for. We are going to keep shining a light on Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans’ cruel efforts to further chip away at women’s right to get the health care they want and deserve – including abortion care.”
“Since Trump’s Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, we’ve seen a new form of hell at every turn,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren. “Now, Republicans in Congress are on track to pass a bill that amounts to a backdoor ban on abortion – even in states where it’s protected. Republicans’ bill to cut Medicaid and defund Planned Parenthood is a one-two punch to women across the country, and we are not going to let them get away with it.”
“Three years after the Supreme Court ruled in the Dobbs decision, it’s become difficult and dangerous for women to access basic reproductive care, and Trump and Republicans in Congress are continuing to chip away at access and stoke the danger. I worked at Planned Parenthood, and I know all too well that receiving credible death threats is a fact of life for so many people who work in reproductive health care,” said Senator Tina Smith. “We’re seeing an uptick in threats against abortion providers and patients, meanwhile President Trump is actively pardoning anti-abortion extremists found guilty of harassment and violence. That’s why we are spotlighting the voices of leaders working on the frontlines of providing reproductive health care in the face of these threats at this important moment.”
“The deadly Dobbs decision will go down in history as one of the worst, most harmful, most regressive decisions in modern history, said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. “As bad as the Dobbs decision was and as catastrophic as the impacts have already been, Republicans are doubling down on their crusade against access to reproductive healthcare in their big, ugly reconciliation bill. Democrats are going to fight like hell to strip these cruel provisions from the Republican bill, and to protect and restore reproductive freedom for all.”
“This issue is about more than health care; it is about women’s rights, individual rights, and human rights. It is about the right to make your own health care decisions,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal. “Three years after Dobbs, American women don’t have that right. Today, thanks to Republican lawmakers and conservative courts, a woman in America might walk into an ER and faint, bleeding, and be refused treatment. That woman might die. But we aren’t giving up, and we will never stop fighting for reproductive justice, abortion access, and the simple, foundational right to choose your own health care.”
“The Guttmacher Institute said 155,000 people traveled for an abortion in 2024,” said Senator Maria Cantwell. “We are forcing them to go get care in some other state, miles and miles away. Why? Because of this archaic decision. Now, we have two problems. We have people coming to our state who want this care, but now we could have fewer Medicaid dollars to even provide the care.”
“With all the chaos and damage this administration has caused, the anniversary of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade reminds us that we can’t lose sight of the fact that anti-choice politicians at all levels of our government are working nonstop to roll back women’s access to reproductive care,” said Senator Catherine Cortez Masto. “Between devastating cuts to Medicaid in Republicans’ reconciliation bill to top officials in this administration calling the safety of the abortion pill into question, Republicans across our country are taking steps to claw back women’s rights. My Democratic colleagues and I will never stop sounding the alarm about this and working to restore women’s access to basic health care.”
“Three years ago, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority abandoned the long-standing constitutional protections recognized in Roe v. Wade—rejecting nearly 50 years of progress and dragging gender equality and women’s rights half a century backward,” said Senator Dick Durbin. “What has happened in the wake of Dobbs was as predictable as it is devastating—and today we heard how devastating the last three years have been for women seeking critical health care in Republican-led states. While I cannot sugarcoat the state of women’s rights following Dobbs, I want to make one thing crystal clear: this fight is far from over. I thank my colleagues, Senators Murray, Baldwin, Smith, and Warren, for hosting such an important forum and keeping up the fight.”
“I was proud to join my colleagues today to hear directly from those who have suffered due to the deadly Dobbs decision and under Republicans’ anti-choice agenda,” said Senator Mazie Hirono. “Three years after the fall of Roe, Republicans continue to escalate their assault on reproductive freedom, while women across the country experience the devastating impacts of this infringement on their fundamental rights. Dobbs caused chaos and confusion, putting millions of Americans’ lives at risk, but I will not stop doing everything in my power to restore access to abortion and family planning services nationwide and protect reproductive health care providers and their patients.”
“Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade three years ago, women have been at the mercy of a patchwork of laws. Over 40 percent of women of reproductive age now live under extreme and dangerous bans, women are being turned away from emergency rooms, and doctors are threatened with prosecution for just doing their jobs. This cannot be a country where our daughters have fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers. That is why we must pass the Women’s Health Protection Act and put the protections of Roe v. Wade into law,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar.
“In the three years since the Trump-packed Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Republican-led states have passed waves of harmful laws stripping Americans of the freedom to make their own health care decisions. Despite the life-threatening consequences of these actions, the Trump Administration is escalating its attacks on access to reproductive health care across the country—including in states where it’s protected. The stories we heard today underscored the urgent need to protect reproductive care as a matter of federal law,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen.
Today, Senator Murray also joined Senators Tammy Baldwin and Richard Blumenthal to introduce the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2025, legislation to guarantee access to abortion everywhere across the country and restore the right to comprehensive reproductive health care for millions of Americans.
Senator Murray is a longtime leader in the fight to protect and expand access to reproductive health care and abortion rights, and she has led Congressional efforts to fight back after the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Murray has introduced more than a dozen pieces of legislation to protect reproductive rights from further attacks, protect providers, and help ensure women get the care they need; Murray has led efforts to push for passage of these bills on the Senate floor multiple times. Last January, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Murray led her colleagues in hosting a “State of Abortion Rights” briefing with women who have suffered firsthand from Republican abortion bans, and last June, she chaired a HELP Committee hearing titled “The Assault on Women’s Freedoms: How Abortion Bans Have Created a Health Care Nightmare Across America.” Last year, Senator Murray helped lead efforts to force Republicans on the record on votes to protect access to contraception and access to IVF (twice), and she led her colleagues in raising the alarm about the threat a second Trump administration poses to reproductive rights and abortion access in every state, as outlined in Project 2025.
The Government has reinforced its commitment to science-led economic growth by funding 46 high-potential research projects, says Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Dr Shane Reti. The projects will be funded by the contestable Endeavour Fund, which invests in research that unlocks new knowledge, technologies, and capabilities. The Smart Ideas stream of the fund targets bold, high-risk projects by catalysing and rapidly testing promising, innovative research. “Our research institutions and firms deepen our talent pipeline and grow the value of our technology exports. Supporting early-stage, high-impact research is part of our plan to foster innovation and drive growth,” Dr Reti says. “The selected projects span a wide range of sectors, from MedTech and quantum computing to climate resilience and sustainable agriculture. “This year’s recipients include innovations in cardiac diagnostics, climate forecasting and AI-powered pest control. “These projects will deliver real-world impact. Each initiative is designed to tackle national challenges while unlocking new economic opportunities for New Zealand, building the foundations for a stronger, more resilient economy. “These investments are about more than just research. They grow capability, attract global partnerships, and create industries of the future,” Dr Reti says. Contracts typically last two to three years and the total value per contract is in the range of $400,000 to $1 million. The Endeavour Fund is managed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and is New Zealand’s largest contestable fund. Further information about the projects can be found on the MBIE website: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/currently-funded-smart-ideas
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
New agreements focusing on innovation were signed Tuesday between Chinese and Greek universities and institutes at a conference held in Athens, aiming to boost scientific and industrial cooperation.
The Greece-Jiangsu Innovation and Industrial Cooperation Conference held at the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA) brought together more than 160 officials, academics, and industry experts from both countries. The forum focused on advancing joint research and commercialization in high-tech fields.
NTUA Rector Ioannis K. Chatjigeorgiou noted his university’s strong ties with Chinese universities, saying, “We expect meaningful outcomes for science, education, and bilateral relations.”
NTUA signed two partnership agreements: one with the China University of Mining and Technology (CUMT), and another jointly with the Jiangsu Industrial Technology Research Institute (JITRI) and the Shanghai Yangtze Delta Innovation Institute.
The agreement between NTUA and CUMT builds on longstanding collaboration between their electrical engineering departments, said CUMT President Liu Bo.
During the conference, experts from China and Greece exchanged views on cutting-edge topics, including RISC-V processor architecture, sustainable maritime technologies, and energy innovation. Researchers from both countries discussed ongoing projects and held talks to explore future collaboration opportunities during panel discussions and roundtables.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Hamadi Boga, vice president of Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), delivers a speech during the inaugural Africa-China Forum on Agri-Tech and Industrial Cooperation in Nairobi, Kenya, on June 24, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
The inaugural Africa-China Forum on Agri-Tech and Industrial Cooperation took place on Tuesday in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi.
The day-long conference was hosted by Nairobi-based Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), Beijing Jingwa Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Center, the International Livestock Research Institute and the Finance Center for South-South Cooperation.
Ibrahim Mayaki, African Union special envoy for food systems, said the continent stands to gain from emulating China’s model of agricultural transformation, driven by forward-looking policies, technology and innovations.
“We can leverage China’s successes in agricultural modernization, rural transformation and poverty alleviation as reference points for Africa’s own agricultural renaissance, while recognizing the specificity of African ecosystems and cultures,” Mayaki said.
Mayaki stressed that joint research between China and Africa in climate-smart farming practices, development of high-yielding crops, modern irrigation technologies and digital extension services could offer lasting solution to hunger, rural poverty and malnutrition affecting the world’s second-largest continent.
Hamadi Boga, vice president of AGRA, noted that China has set the pace in technology- and innovation-led agricultural modernization, inspiring African nations to follow suit, feed their growing population and leapfrog into an industrial era.
The Sino-African agricultural cooperation, according to Boga, has rapidly evolved as witnessed by technology transfer, establishment of demonstration zones, exchange visits and institutional collaboration, boosting crop yield, agro-processing and exports.
Boga also called on African research institutions to forge long-term partnership with their Chinese counterparts to accelerate an inclusive food systems transformation, rooted in improved soil health, climate resilience, access to finance, technologies and markets.
Chinese Ambassador to Kenya Guo Haiyan said China is keen to share with Africa’s bilateral partners its home-grown technologies, innovations, experience and best practices, which could hasten the continent’s agricultural modernization to realize food security and boost export competitiveness.
Guo noted that China-Africa agricultural cooperation has prioritized technology transfer, facilitating trade in agricultural commodities and upgrading value chains for farm produce.
In addition, China has partnered with African countries to enhance response to crop pests and diseases, capacity building for extension workers and farmers, deployment of technologies for scaling up agro-processing and value addition, Guo added.
An illustration of the bioplastic metafilm developed by UniSA and Zhengzhou University researchers, proposed as a next-generation material for sustainable cooling
An international team of scientists has developed a biodegradable material that could slash global energy consumption without using any electricity, according to a new study published today.
The bioplastic metafilm – that can be applied to buildings, equipment and other surfaces – passively cools temperatures by as much as 9.2°C during peak sunlight and reflects almost 99% of the sun’s rays.
Developed by researchers from Zhengzhou University in China and the University of South Australia (UniSA), the new film is a sustainable and long-lasting material that could reduce building energy consumption by up to 20% a year in some of the world’s hottest cities.
The material is described in the latest issue of Cell Reports Physical Science.
UniSA PhD candidate Yangzhe Hou says the cooling metafilm represents a breakthrough in sustainable materials engineering that could help combat rising global temperatures and hotter cities.
“Our metafilm offers an environmentally friendly alternative to air-conditioning, which contributes significantly to carbon emissions,” says Hou, who is also from Zhengzhou University.
“The material reflects nearly all solar radiation and theoretically allows internal building heat to emit directly into outer space. This enables the building to stay cool, even under direct sunlight.”
Notably, the film continues to perform even after prolonged exposure to acidic conditions and ultraviolet light – two major barriers that have historically hindered similar biodegradable materials.
Constructed from polylactic acid (PLA) – a common plant-derived bioplastic – the metafilm is fabricated using a low-temperature separation technique that reflects 98.7% of sunlight and minimises heat gain.
“Unlike conventional cooling technologies, this metafilm requires no electricity or mechanical systems,” says co-author Dr Xianhu Liu from Zhengzhou University.
“Most existing passive radiative cooling systems rely on petrochemical-based polymers or ceramics that raise environmental concerns. By using biodegradable PLA, we are presenting a green alternative that offers high solar reflectance, strong thermal emission, sustainability, and durability.”
In real-world applications, the metafilm showed an average temperature drop of 4.9°C during the day and 5.1°C at night. Field tests conducted in both China and Australia confirmed its stability and efficiency under harsh environmental conditions. Even after 120 hours in strong acid and the equivalent of eight months’ outdoor UV exposure, the metafilm retained cooling power of up to 6.5°C.
Perhaps most significantly, the simulations revealed that the metafilm could cut annual energy consumption by up to 13.1% in cities such as Sydney by reducing dependence on air conditioning.
“This isn’t just a lab-scale success” says co-author Professor Jun Ma from the University of South Australia.
“Our film is scalable and completely degradable,” he says.
“This research aims to contribute to sustainable development by reducing reliance on fossil fuels and exploring feasible pathways to improve human comfort while minimising environmental impact.”
The discovery addresses a major challenge in the field: how to reconcile high-performance cooling with eco-friendly degradation.
The researchers are now exploring potential applications in buildings, transport, agriculture, electronics, and the biomedical field including cooling wound dressings.
‘A structural bioplastic metafilm for durable passive radiative cooling’ is published in Cell Reports Physical Science and is authored by Yangzhe Hou, Yamin Pan, Xianhu Liu, Jun Ma, Chuntai Liu and Changyu Shen. DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrp.2025.102664
An artist’s rendition of the newly discovered fish, _Sphyragnathus tyche_.(C. Wilson), CC BY
In 2015, two members of the Blue Beach Fossil Museum in Nova Scotia found a long, curved fossil jaw, bristling with teeth. Sonja Wood, the museum’s owner, and Chris Mansky, the museum’s curator, found the fossil in a creek after Wood had a hunch.
The fossil they found belonged to a fish that had died 350 million years ago, its bony husk spanning nearly a metre on the lake bed. The large fish had lived in waters thick with rival fish, including giants several times its size. It had hooked teeth at the tip of its long jaw that it would use to trap elusive prey and fangs at the back to pierce it and break it down to eat.
Blue Beach Fossil Museum curator Chris Mansky below the fossil cliffs. (C. Wilson), CC BY
Birth of the modern vertebrate world
The modern vertebrate world is defined by the dominance of three groups: the cartilaginous fishes or chondrichthyans (including sharks, rays and chimaeras), the lobe-finned fishes or sarcopterygians (including tetrapods and rare lungfishes and coelacanths), and the ray-finned fishes or actinopterygians (including everything from sturgeon to tuna). Only a few jawless fishes round out the picture.
Armoured jawless fishes had dwindled by the Late Devonian Period (419.2-358.9 MA), but the rest were still diverse. Actinopterygians were still restricted to a few species with similar body shapes.
By the immediately succeeding early Carboniferous times, everything had changed. The placoderms were gone, the number of species of fishy sarcopterygians and acanthodians had cratered, and actinopterygians and chondrichthyans were flourishing in their place.
A shortnose chimaera, belonging to the chondrichthyan group of vertebrates. (Shutterstock)
A sea change
Blue Beach has helped build our understanding of how this happened. Studies describing its tetrapods and actinopterygians have showed the persistence of Devonian-style forms in the Carboniferous Period.
Whereas the abrupt end-Devonian decline of the placoderms, acanthodians and fishy sarcopterygians can be explained by a mass extinction, it now appears that multiple types of actinopterygians and tetrapods survived to be preserved at Blue Beach. This makes a big difference to the overall story: Devonian-style tetrapods and actinopterygians survive and contribute to the evolution of these groups into the Carboniferous Period.
Comparing the jawbones of Sphyragnathus, Austelliscus and Tegeolepis. (C. Wilson), CC BY
The Blue Beach fossil was actinopterygian, and we wondered what it could tell us about this issue. Comparison was difficult. Two actinopterygians with long jaws and large fangs were known from the preceding Devonian Period (Austelliscus ferox and Tegeolepis clarki), but the newly found jaw had more extreme curvature and the arrangement of its teeth. Its largest fangs are at the back of its jaw, but the largest fangs of Austelliscus and Tegeolepis are at the front.
These differences were significant enough that we created a new genus and species: Sphyragnathus tyche. And, in view of the debate on actinopterygian diversification, we made a prediction: that the differences in anatomy between Sphyragnathus and Devonian actinopterygians represented different adaptations for feeding.
Front fangs
To test this prediction, we compared Sphyragnathus, Austelliscus and Tegeolepis to living actinopterygians. In modern actinopterygians, the difference in anatomy reflects a difference in function: front-fangs capture prey with their front teeth and grip it with their back teeth, but back-fangs use their back teeth.
Since we couldn’t observe the fossil fish in action, we analyzed the stress their teeth would experience if we applied force. The back teeth of Sphyragnathus handled force with low stress, making them suited for a role in piercing prey, but the back teeth of Austelliscus and Tegeolepis turned low forces into significantly higher stress, making them best suited for gripping.
Substantial work remains — only the jaw of Sphyragnathus is preserved, so the “locomotion-first” hypothesis was untested. But this represents the challenge and promise of paleontology: get enough tantalizing glimpses into the past and you can begin to unfold a history.
Conrad Daniel Mackenzie Wilson receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Ontario Student Assistance Program, and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.
Pre-loved tech will help to bridge digital divide under new government charter
Organisations can sign up to the IT Reuse for Good charter on GOV.UK and then work with their chosen charity partner to distribute devices.
Pre-loved tech bridging digital divide under new government charter.
Big names like Deloitte, Vodafone and Three alongside leading charity Good Things Foundation are uniting with government to encourage organisations to donate pre-loved tech to digital excluded Brits.
Organisations can sign up to the IT Reuse for Good charter on gov.uk from today and then work with their chosen charity partner to distribute devices.
The Charter encourages organisations to change how they manage and dispose of IT assets, with the aim of increasing device donations to the 1.5 million people in the United Kingdom who lack access to a basic laptop, tablet and smartphone.
With technology transforming essential services like healthcare access, job applications and housing, government is doubling down on commitment to improve skills and technology access for all – breaking down barriers to opportunity as part of our Plan for Change.
Telecoms Minister Sir Chris Bryant said:
Britain is leading the way when it comes to technological advancements with everyday essentials such as doctor’s appointments and job applications becoming increasingly digital. But to maximise the full potential of technology, we need to bring everyone along with us on this journey.
This Charter represents a significant step forward in our mission to bridge the digital divide and create a more sustainable approach to technology. By working together with industry and charity partners, we’re helping more people access the digital tools they need to improve their lives while reducing harmful electronic waste.
Research also shows that digitally excluded people face higher costs for things like home insurance, train travel and food paying up to 25% more on average than consumers who are online.
The charter sets out principles for organisations to adhere to including ensuring devices are securely wiped, professionally refurbished and fit for purpose so they can be provided free of charge to those who need them.
Ryan, a single father from Essex, struggled without access to a laptop. “Job searching felt impossible,” he said. “I couldn’t keep up and felt like I was falling behind.”
Through a donation from Vodafone’s Great British Tech Appeal to the National Device Bank, an initiative led by Good Things Foundation, Ryan received a laptop that transformed his prospects. “This laptop isn’t just a piece of equipment – it’s a lifeline,” Ryan shares. Now, he can actively search for jobs, attend online training, and build a better future.
“I want my kids to see what’s possible with determination and the right support,” Ryan says.
Helen Milner OBE, CEO of Good Things Foundation, said:
Alongside the government, Vodafone, Three and Deloitte, Good Things Foundation has developed the IT Reuse for Good Charter, tackling the UK’s digital divide and e-waste crisis head-on. With 1.5 million adults lacking essential devices and 1.45 million tons of e-waste discarded yearly, we’re proud to lead the charge for a more inclusive and sustainable future. The Charter builds on the success of our National Device Bank and will be a game-changer, unlocking thousands of devices. We have also launched a Playbook to help businesses to navigate IT reuse for good, and bake it into their organisations.
Richard Houston, Senior Partner and CEO Deloitte UK said:
Since 2021, we’ve donated 20,000 devices to schools and charities through our network of social impact partners. I’m incredibly proud that we have been able to help thousands of people continue education, find employment, and connect with loved ones through technology. Yet I know there is so much more that can be done. I encourage all organisations, whatever size, to consider the role you can play, and together, we can bridge the digital divide.
Rich Marsh, Responsible Business Director at BT Group, said:
As well as being a leader in sustainability for more than 30 years, at BT we’ve seen first-hand the positive impact that digital inclusion projects are having across the UK – supported by our networks, social tariffs and digital skills programs.
We warmly welcome the ‘IT Re-Use for Good’ Charter, which brings these 2 things together and gives a second life to our devices. Now we’re committing to donate even more devices, helping play our part in providing people with the tech they need in today’s digital society.
Notes to editors
Signatories must donate their first device within 6 months of signing the charter. Progress will be monitored by self-reporting every 6 months.
Paula Coughlan, Chief People, Communications and Sustainability Officer said:
At Currys, everything we do is to help everyone enjoy amazing technology. Within that, we’re very aware that not everyone can afford or have access to the amazing tech we sell. Through our work to date, it’s clear to see the positive, transformative power of just one digital device for a child or for a family, and how isolating not having access to the digital world really is. That’s why we were founding members of the Digital Poverty Alliance, and why we’re committed to doing everything we can to help make digital poverty a thing of the past. It’s been wonderful to work with Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) on this important new Charter and we’re proud to be signatories. The more we can do as a society, as businesses, working together with government with solutions to bridge the digital divide, the more likely we are to really make a difference.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
A study published in the Lancet looks at global trends in routine childhood vaccination coverage.
Dr Simon Clarke, Associate Professor in Cellular Microbiology, and Head of Division of Biomedical Sciences & Biomedical Engineering, University of Reading, said:
“These figures indicate a worrying level of children in the UK who are completely unvaccinated against childhood diseases. While the comparative data do not show the specific causes of this rising trend over recent decades, the WHO and others are right to highlight it as a worrying trend.
“This is a very large assessment of multiple and large data sources, combined with models which are used to provide consistency between the data and provide forecasts into the future. Such methodology provides both a clear overview of the past trajectories of immunisation rates along with an effective range of possible scenarios for the future, which appears to be robust and based on sound data. The authors are clear about the limitations of their study but these do not detract from the overall message.
“The current move away from funding global health schemes through international aid in order to spend more on defence puts the whole world at greater risk of future epidemics and pandemics. Our security against this in the UK is improved by supporting efforts to not let dangerous diseases take hold in populations elsewhere in the world. Our experience of Covid reminds us that lethal human diseases can be very hard to contain on the other side of international borders.”
Dr David Elliman, Honorary Senior Associate Professor, UCL, said:
“Vaccination is one of the most cost-effective ways that the health service can improve the lives of children around the world. It is a great success story with more vaccines being introduced all the time. Not only does vaccination save lives, but it often saves money. However, in the last ten to twenty years, many countries, worldwide, have seen a reduction in the proportion of children receiving all the available vaccines. This article by a large group of researchers has documented the decline. It may be difficult to measure uptake of vaccination accurately, but the researchers have allowed for this. It is clear that the decline in uptake is happening around the world. This has resulted in outbreaks of disease, for examples measles and whooping cough in USA and Europe (including UK) as well as in resource poor countries. These diseases can and do kill children. While part of the fall in vaccination is related to COVID, the trend was clear before then.
“Declining vaccination rates are often blamed on misinformation, but there are many reasons, of which this is only one. Access to vaccines is often overlooked or underestimated as a factor, even in the UK. Around the world, the increasing number of countries torn apart by civil unrest and wars, combined with the drastic cuts in foreign aid from rich nations, such as USA and UK, makes it difficult to get vaccines to many populations. With the political changes in USA where it appears that policy is being made on the basis of ill-informed opinion, rather than science, we have a perfect storm. The researchers’ recommendations to strengthen primary health-care systems, address vaccine misinformation and hesitancy, and adapt to local contexts can, and should, be applied to all countries, including the UK. In addition we should ensure that vaccines are available to all.
“It is in everyone’s interest that this situation is rectified. Not only is it a moral imperative to improve the health of ALL children, wherever possible, but as was said during the COVID pandemic, no-one is safe, until everyone is safe. While vaccine-preventable infectious diseases, occur anywhere in the world, we are all at risk. Universal vaccination is a perfect example of ‘enlightened self interest’.”
Prof Sir Andrew Pollard FRCPCH FMedSci FRS, Director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, and Ashall Professor of Infection and Immunity, Pandemic Sciences Institute, University of Oxford, said:
“The study uses an established approach to track the global burden of disease and immunisation coverage and the authors have tried hard to get the most accurate data by using multiple sources and account for regional variation and inequalities. These types of study will always be limited by the lack of high quality national data from most countries in the world which means there has to be extrapolation and assumption. Nevertheless these are important data providing a concerning picture of recent declines in vaccine coverage and an increase in the number of zero dose children which risks the future health and lives of millions of children.
“Incredible progress has been made in the past 50 years since the global expanded programme of immunisation was launched 50 years ago and over 150 million lives, mostly children, have been saved by the programme. The story is the same here in the UK with the launch of our own national programme by JCVI 62 years ago: deaths from infectious diseases of childhood have plummeted here too. The rarity of childhood severe disease and death from infection risks that we become complacent. But the danger remains out there: all of the diseases for which vaccines can protect children remain at large, only kept at bay by the shield which is provided by immunuisation. Unvaccinated children are vulnerable to a wide range of awful life-threatening bacteria and viruses, just as was the case for our population in the first half of the 20th century. There is a worrying trend of falling vaccine coverage worldwide which has been manifest in the last year as the outbreaks in Europe and North America of measles and whooping cough, with measles deaths in Texas in 2025. Falling global vaccine coverage, an increase in the numbers of children receiving no vaccines, and delays in vaccination mean that more children will be hospitalised, permanently damaged and die from fully preventable diseases if the trend is not reversed. Alas, the cuts in global health funding mean that this situation is set to deteriorate. This is a big concern for the future of our health and global health security.”
Dr Ed Parker, Assistant Professor and Co-Director of the Vaccine Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), said:
“This is a timely study that attempts to quantify global trends in childhood vaccine coverage since 1980. The findings highlight the remarkable progress that has been made to deliver life-saving vaccines across the globe, while painting a clear picture of the challenges faced following disrupted vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic and the stagnation in vaccination rates that preceded it.
“Underpinning the work is an immense data curation effort, drawing together data from household surveys, national coverage reports, and various other sources from across the globe. The study team estimated coverage trends with careful consideration of the biases, gaps, and inconsistencies that are inherent in these data, providing strong foundations for the study’s conclusions.
“A key uncertainty – acknowledged by the authors – is that it is too early to know what effect proposed funding cuts might have on vaccination programmes globally. The recent resurgence of measles, polio, and diphtheria – all preventable by vaccination – serves as a reminder of what is at stake if high and equitable vaccine coverage is not sustained.”
Prof Helen Bedford, Professor of Children’s Health, UCL, said:
“It is often said that, after clean water, vaccination is the most effective intervention for protecting the health of our children. While it can be challenging in many settings to measure vaccine uptake accurately, the researchers publishing the latest data from the World Health Organization have made allowance for this and it provides powerful evidence. It is estimated that vaccination has prevented an estimated 154 million deaths, mostly in the under-fives, across the globe in the last 50 years. However, we cannot rest on our laurels; this progress is stalling in many countries including the UK. In UK, although vaccination is the norm, with the overwhelming majority of parents vaccinating their babies, infants and children without hesitation, there has been a small but gradual decline in the number of parents doing so each year over the past 12 years with increasing inequity in uptake between social groups. This has resulted in recent outbreaks of disease with the largest number of confirmed cases of measles since the 1990s and the tragic deaths of eleven babies from whooping cough in 2024.
“The reasons for declining vaccine uptake are numerous and complex but require commitment and resource to meet the challenges of increasing social inequity, readily available mis-information about vaccine safety and necessity and improving public confidence in vaccination programmes. Vaccination remains one of our most powerful tools for protecting child health, but its continued success depends on sustained investment, equity, and public trust.”
‘Global, regional, and national trends in routine childhood vaccination coverage from 1980 to 2023 with forecasts to 2030: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2023’ by GBD 2023 Vaccine Coverage Collaborators was published in the Lancet at 23:30 UK time on Tuesday 24 June 2025.
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01037-2
Declared interests
Dr Simon Clarke: “No conflicts of interest.”
Dr David Elliman: “No conflicts of interest.”
Prof Sir Andrew Pollard: “Professor Pollard is chair of JCVI which provides independent scientific advice on vaccines to DHSC. The comment above is given in a personal capacity.”
Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin
June 24, 2025
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement on the third anniversary of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court:
“Today marks a sad anniversary. Three years ago, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority abandoned the long-standing constitutional protections recognized in Roev. Wade—rejecting nearly 50 years of progress and dragging gender equality and women’s rights half a century backward.
“What has happened in the wake of Dobbs was as predictable as it is devastating.Republican-led states opened the floodgates, enacting draconian abortion restrictions with deadly consequences for women unable to obtain critical health care. We’ve also seen a full-fledged attack on reproductive freedoms at the federal level, including the Trump Administration’s Health and Human Services Department re-reviewing mifepristone—which has been deemed safe and effective for more than two decades by the FDA—and Republicans’ continued efforts to defund Planned Parenthood clinics across the nation.
“While I cannot sugarcoat the state of women’s rights following Dobbs, I want to make one thing crystal clear: this fight is far from over. I, along with my Democratic colleagues, will continue to fight against harmful partisan policies, unfounded in science or the Constitution, that put women’s health and autonomy at risk.”
Today, Durbin joined Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Patty Murray (D-WA), along with the entire Senate Democratic Caucus, in introducing the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2025, legislation to guarantee access to abortion everywhere across the country and restore the right to comprehensive reproductive health care for millions of Americans.
As Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Biden Administration, Durbin held a hearing in March 2024 entitled “The Continued Assault on Reproductive Freedoms in a Post-Dobbs America.” The hearing examined the continued and devastating fallout since Dobbs. The hearing followed two previous hearings the Committee held, under Durbin’s leadership, on reproductive freedoms since Roe was overruled—one in July 2022 and one in April 2023.
New data published yesterday by StatsNZshows about half of groundwater monitoring sites had contamination that exceeded maximum health limits for New Zealand at least once between April 2019 and March 2024.
Over that period, 45.1% of sites exceeded the maximum acceptable level for E. coli, and 12.4% for nitrate – a contaminant linked to cancer and preterm births.
The alarming figures have been revealed less than a month after the Luxon Government released proposals to further weaken freshwater protections.
Greenpeace freshwater campaigner Will Appelbe says the proposals show the Government is knowingly sacrificing the health of rural communities to appease corporate dairy and Federated Farmers.
“While he should be ensuring that everyone has access to clean drinking water and swimmable rivers, Luxon has instead proposed scrapping the cap on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser. This rule exists to prevent further nitrate contamination and protect people’s health.”
“His Government also wants to prioritise corporate uses of water over safe drinking water and healthy rivers.”
“The Government’s job is to safeguard public health – not bankroll big dairy.”
A cap on the use of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser was introduced in 2021, which was set at 190 kg/hectare. As part of the National Direction proposals for freshwater, the Luxon Government has proposed repealing this cap, along with other changes that weaken environmental protections and benefit irrigation companies and intensive dairy. Consultation on the proposals are open until 27 July 2025.
The current maximum allowable value (MAV) for nitrate is 11.3 mg/L, which was set in the 1950s to avoid blue baby syndrome. But this standard has been criticised by health scientists for being woefully out of date, because it doesn’t take into account newer health science that finds health risks like preterm birth and cancer at much lower levels.
An illustration of the bioplastic metafilm developed by UniSA and Zhengzhou University researchers, proposed as a next-generation material for sustainable cooling
An international team of scientists has developed a biodegradable material that could slash global energy consumption without using any electricity, according to a new study published today.
The bioplastic metafilm – that can be applied to buildings, equipment and other surfaces – passively cools temperatures by as much as 9.2°C during peak sunlight and reflects almost 99% of the sun’s rays.
Developed by researchers from Zhengzhou University in China and the University of South Australia (UniSA), the new film is a sustainable and long-lasting material that could reduce building energy consumption by up to 20% a year in some of the world’s hottest cities.
The material is described in the latest issue of Cell Reports Physical Science.
UniSA PhD candidate Yangzhe Hou says the cooling metafilm represents a breakthrough in sustainable materials engineering that could help combat rising global temperatures and hotter cities.
“Our metafilm offers an environmentally friendly alternative to air-conditioning, which contributes significantly to carbon emissions,” says Hou, who is also from Zhengzhou University.
“The material reflects nearly all solar radiation but also allows internal building heat to escape directly into outer space. This enables the building to stay cooler than the surrounding air, even under direct sunlight.”
Notably, the film continues to perform even after prolonged exposure to acidic conditions and ultraviolet light – two major barriers that have historically hindered similar biodegradable materials.
Constructed from polylactic acid (PLA) – a common plant-derived bioplastic – the metafilm is fabricated using a low-temperature separation technique that reflects 98.7% of sunlight and minimises heat gain.
“Unlike conventional cooling technologies, this metafilm requires no electricity or mechanical systems,” says co-author Dr Xianhu Liu from Zhengzhou University.
“Most existing passive radiative cooling systems rely on petrochemical-based polymers or ceramics that raise environmental concerns. By using biodegradable PLA, we are presenting a green alternative that offers high solar reflectance, strong thermal emission, sustainability, and durability.”
In real-world applications, the metafilm showed an average temperature drop of 4.9°C during the day and 5.1°C at night. Field tests conducted in both China and Australia confirmed its stability and efficiency under harsh environmental conditions. Even after 120 hours in strong acid and the equivalent of eight months’ outdoor UV exposure, the metafilm retained cooling power of up to 6.5°C.
Perhaps most significantly, the simulations revealed that the metafilm could cut annual energy consumption by up to 20.3% in cities such as Lhasa, China, by reducing dependence on air conditioning.
“This isn’t just a lab-scale success” says co-author Professor Jun Ma from the University of South Australia.
“Our film is scalable, durable and completely degradable,” he says.
“This research aims to contribute to sustainable development by reducing reliance on fossil fuels and exploring feasible pathways to improve human comfort while minimising environmental impact.”
The discovery addresses a major challenge in the field: how to reconcile high-performance cooling with eco-friendly degradation.
The researchers are now exploring large-scale manufacturing opportunities and potential applications in buildings, transport, agriculture, electronics, and the biomedical field including cooling wound dressings.
‘A structural bioplastic metafilm for durable passive radiative cooling’ is published in Cell Reports Physical Science and is authored by Yangzhe Hou, Yamin Pan, Xianhu Liu, Jun Ma, Chuntai Liu and Changyu Shen. DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrp.2025.102664
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
World news story
Making the UK the best place to do business: Modern Industrial Strategy set to deepen global collaboration
Modern Industrial Strategy will make the UK the best country to invest in and grow a business, delivering on the Plan for Change.
UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy
Strategy developed in partnership with business, marking a new era of collaboration between government and high growth industries.
New Industrial Strategy to unlock billions in investment and support 1.1 million new well-paid jobs over the next decade. *New Global Talent Taskforce and £54m fund will attract world-class researchers, top talent and their teams to the UK.
Electricity costs for thousands of businesses to be slashed by up to 25%.
The plan focuses on 8 high growth sectors, including Advanced Manufacturing, Clean Energy Industries, Digital and Technologies, Financial Services and Life Sciences, where there is potential for faster growth.
The modern Industrial Strategy unveiled today, Monday 23 June, sets out a ten-year plan to boost investment, create good skilled jobs and make Britain the best place to do business.
It includes targeted support for the areas of the country and economy that have the greatest potential to grow, while introducing reforms that will make it easier for all businesses to get ahead.
The Strategy’s bold plan of action includes:
Slash electricity costs by up to 25% from 2027 for electricity-intensive manufacturers in growth sectors and foundational industries in their supply chain, bringing costs more closely in line with other major economies in Europe.
Unlocking billions in finance for innovative business, especially for SMEs by increasing British Business Bank financial capacity to £25.6 billion, crowding in tens of billions of pounds more in private capital. The includes an additional £4bn for Industrial Strategy Sectors, crowding in billions more in private capital. By investing largely through venture funds, the BBB will back the UK’s most high-growth potential companies.
Reducing regulatory burdens by cutting the administrative costs of regulation for business by 25% and reduce the number of regulators.
Boosting R&D spending to £22.6bn per year by 2029-30 to drive innovation across the IS-8, with more than £2bn for AI over the Spending Review, and £2.8bn for advanced manufacturing over the next ten years. This will leverage in billions more from private investors. Regulatory changes will further clear the path for fast-growing industries and innovative products such as biotechnology, AI, and autonomous vehicles.
Attracting elite global talent to our key sectors, via visa and migration reforms and the new Global Talent Taskforce. The Taskforce and a £54m Global Talent Fund will support top talent to relocate to the UK.
Deepening economic and industrial collaboration with our partners, building on our Industrial Strategy Partnership with Japan and recent deals with the US, India, and the EU.
Reducing planning timelines and cutting costs for developers, by hiring more planners, streamlining pre-application requirements and combining environmental obligations, removing burdens on businesses as well as accelerating house building.
Revolutionising public procurement and reducing barriers for new entrants and SMEs to bolster domestic competitiveness.
Supporting the UK’s city regions and clusters by increasing the supply of investible sites through a new £600m Strategic Sites Accelerator, enhanced regional support from the Office for Investment, National Wealth Fund, and British Business Bank, and more.
Upskilling the nation with an extra £1.2 billion each year for skills by 2028-29, and delivering more opportunities to learn and earn in our high-growth sectors including new short courses in relevant skills funded by the Growth and Skills Levy and skills packages targeted at defence digital and engineering.
Supporting 5,500 more SMEs to adopt new technology through the Made Smarter programme while centralising government support in one place through the Business Growth Service.
The plan focuses on 8 sectors where the UK is already strong and there’s potential for faster growth: Advanced Manufacturing, Clean Energy Industries, Creative Industries, Defence, Digital and Technologies, Financial Services, Life Sciences, and Professional and Business Services. Each growth sector has a bespoke 10-year plan that will attract investment, enable growth and create high-quality, well-paid jobs.
Five sector plans have been published in tandem:
Advanced Manufacturing
Backing the Advanced Manufacturing sector with up to £4.3 billion in funding, including up to £2.8 billion in R&D over the next five years, with the aim of anchoring supply chains in the UK – from increasing vehicle production to 1.35, to leading the next generation of technologies for zero emission flight.
Clean Energy Industries
Doubling investment in Clean Energy Industries by 2035, with Great British Energy helping to build the clean power revolution in Britain with a further £700 million in clean energy supply chains, taking the total funding for the Great British Energy Supply Chain fund to £1 billion.
Creative Industries
Maximizing the value of the UK’s Creative Industries through a £380 million boost for film and TV, video games, advertising and marketing, music and visual and performing arts will improve access to finance for scale-ups and increase R&D, skills and exports.
Digital and Technologies
Making the UK the European leader for creating and scaling Digital and Technology businesses, with more than £2 billion to drive the AI Action Plan, including a new Sovereign AI Programme, £187 million for training one million young people in tech skills and targeting R&D investment at frontier technologies such as cyber security in Northern Ireland, semiconductors in Wales and quantum technologies in Scotland.
Professional and Business Services
Ensuring the UK’s Professional and Business Services becomes the world’s most trusted adviser to global industry, revolutionising the sector across the world through adoption of UK-grown AI and working to secure mutual recognition of professional qualifications agreements overseas.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said:
This Industrial Strategy marks a turning point for Britain’s economy and a clear break from the short-termism and sticking plasters of the past.
In an era of global economic instability, it delivers the long-term certainty and direction British businesses need to invest, innovate and create good jobs that put more money in people’s pockets as part of the plan for change.
This is how we power Britain’s future – by backing the sectors where we lead, removing the barriers that hold us back, and setting out a clear path to build a stronger economy that works for working people. Our message is clear – Britain is back and open for business.
Regarding the launch of the New Industrial Strategy, British Ambassador to Chile, Louise de Sousa, said:
The UK’s modern Industrial Strategy is our ten-year plan to strengthen infrastructure, reduce costs for businesses and simplify regulation.
With a highly skilled workforce and unrivalled global business connectivity, the UK provides an ideal location to scale, invest and grow business, by accessing the G7’s lowest corporation tax and a generous R&D tax.
This being and internation strategy from the start, the plan will provide local businesses, entrepreneurs and innovators the stability and ease needed to make long-term investment decisions, which, in turn will help strengthening the already strong economic ties between UK and Chile.
The Industrial Strategy is a 10-year plan to promote business investment and growth and make it quicker, easier and cheaper to do business in the UK, giving businesses the confidence to invest and create 1.1 million good, well-paid jobs in thriving industries – delivering on the UK Government’s Plan for Change.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Raul Ruiz (36th District of California)
Washington, DC – During today’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, Congressman Raul Ruiz, M.D. (CA-25) directly challenged Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over his role in leading the Make American Health Again (MAHA) Commission and the commission’s release of a report riddled with inaccuracies and misinformation.
Congressman Ruiz pressed Kennedy on whether he had reviewed and fact-checked the report’s sources prior to publication:
Congressman Ruiz: “Mr. Secretary Kennedy, you’re listed as the chair of the [MAHA] Commission. Did you read the report and fact check its sources prior to publication?”
Secretary Kennedy: “All of the factual studies…”
Congressman Ruiz: “Did you read the reports and did you yourself fact check them, sir?”
Secretary Kennedy: “I did not fact check.”
Video and Photos can be foundhere.
Congressman Ruiz, an emergency medicine physician and longtime advocate for public health and science-based policy, condemned the MAHA report for misleading the public and undermining trust in medical science.
“While public health leaders work around the clock to protect families and children, this kind of dishonesty from the Secretary of Health and Human Services is unacceptable,” said Congressman Dr. Raul Ruiz. “Secretary Kennedy’s entire agenda is built on misrepresentations and falsehoods, citing studies that don’t exist to push dangerous personal beliefs and vendettas. This violates basic scientific rigor, honesty, and trust in his agenda. Kennedy must be held to a higher standard when lives are at stake.”
The hearing comes as Kennedy continues to spread dangerous misinformation about vaccines and public health, claims that have been widely discredited by the medical community.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kylie Message, Professor of Public Humanities and Director of the ANU Humanities Research Centre, Australian National University
At this time of year, many year 12 students are seriously turning their minds to the future. Should they go to university next year? If so, which one?
June is also the start of the global ranking season. Last week saw the release of the QS Quacquarelli Symonds 2026 world university rankings, amid reports of a “wake-up call” for Australian universities. About 70% of Australian universities fell in the rankings albeit only by small margins.
Should students be worried about this? What should they – and the rest of us – understand about global rankings?
What are rankings?
Global university rankings aim to evaluate all universities in the world through a a single comparative framework.
QS looks at student-to-staff ratios, student employability, the reputation of the university as an employer, sustainability, global engagement and academic citations. It also ranks specific subjects across universities, which can be helpful if you want to know about the quality of teaching in a particular discipline or field.
It is comprehensive. QS included 36 of Australia’s 43 universities in their latest assessment. These universities were also compared to more than 1,400 other institutions across 105 other countries.
One analysis suggests academic rankings are more influential than are research results for attracting philanthropic investment in Australian universities.
We know rankings can influence where international students (and the resources that accompany them) go. Australian universities have long relied on fees from international students to support funding shortfalls.
The rankings also do not reflect how much time and how many resources some universities put into the information that goes back to the ranking process.
In November 2023, an independent expert group, convened by the United Nations issued a statement criticising the rankings system.
It said “the very idea of global university rankings is fundamentally flawed”.
It is simply not possible to produce a fair and credible global league table of universities given their multiple missions and their diverse social, economic and political contexts around the world.
It also noted the rankings advantaged “historically privileged institutions”.
The statement also said there was a bias towards the English language, certain types of research, and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects. “This undermines the importance of teaching and of the humanities and social sciences,” it said.
A bias against regional unis?
The rankings also do not favour regional universities, which is particularly relevant for Australian students.
The QS 2026 survey shows four regional Australian universities slipped in rank and all are positioned outside the global top 400.
This shows how global rankings are a blunt instrument and don’t account for the broader place of universities in regional areas. Here they play a vital role in their communities, driving economic growth and providing essential services.
What should prospective students consider?
Although universities within countries are ranked as better or worse than each other in a global league table, it is important to recognise specific national factors are not considered in the rankings. And individual student experience is rarely taken into account.
Student experience includes the quality of teaching and the types of support individuals have access to, as well as the facilities and the culture on and around campus. We also know student experience continues to be affected by loneliness in the post-Covid era.
So prospective students should be careful when it comes to making a decision about where to go to university. Rankings are a useful tool but so is talking to friends and family and going to open days.
More than anything else, Year 12 students should know this is not the most important decision of their lives. They can take a gap year or change degrees. In fact many students do one or both of these things.
Kylie Message 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.
We all like to imagine we’re ageing well. Now a simple blood or saliva test promises to tell us by measuring our “biological age”. And then, as many have done, we can share how “young” we really are on social media, along with our secrets to success.
While chronological age is how long you have been alive, measures of biological age aim to indicate how old your body actually is, purporting to measure “wear and tear” at a molecular level.
The appeal of these tests is undeniable. Health-conscious consumers may see their results as reinforcing their anti-ageing efforts, or a way to show their journey to better health is paying off.
But how good are these tests? Do they actually offer useful insights? Or are they just clever marketing dressed up to look like science?
How do these tests work?
Over time, the chemical processes that allow our body to function, known as our “metabolic activity”, lead to damage and a decline in the activity of our cells, tissues and organs.
Biological age tests aim to capture some of these changes, offering a snapshot of how well, or how poorly, we are ageing on a cellular level.
Our DNA is also affected by the ageing process. In particular, chemical tags (methyl groups) attach to our DNA and affect gene expression. These changes occur in predictable ways with age and environmental exposures, in a process called methylation.
Research studies have used “epigenetic clocks”, which measure the methylation of our genes, to estimate biological age. By analysing methylation levels at specific sites in the genome from participant samples, researchers apply predictive models to estimate the cumulative wear and tear on the body.
What does the research say about their use?
Although the science is rapidly evolving, the evidence underpinning the use of epigenetic clocks to measure biological ageing in research studies is strong.
Studies have shown epigenetic biological age estimation is a better predictor of the risk of death and ageing-related diseases than chronological age.
Epigenetic clocks also have been found to correlate strongly with lifestyle and environmental exposures, such as smoking status and diet quality.
In addition, they have been found to be able to predict the risk of conditions such as cardiovascular disease, which can lead to heart attacks and strokes.
Taken together, a growing body of research indicates that at a population level, epigenetic clocks are robust measures of biological ageing and are strongly linked to the risk of disease and death
But how good are these tests for individuals?
While these tests are valuable when studying populations in research settings, using epigenetic clocks to measure the biological age of individuals is a different matter and requires scrutiny.
For testing at an individual level, perhaps the most important consideration is the “signal to noise ratio” (or precision) of these tests. This is the question of whether a single sample from an individual may yield widely differing results.
A study from 2022 found samples deviated by up to nine years. So an identical sample from a 40-year-old may indicate a biological age of as low as 35 years (a cause for celebration) or as high as 44 years (a cause of anxiety).
While there have been significant improvements in these tests over the years, there is considerable variability in the precision of these tests between commercial providers. So depending on who you send your sample to, your estimated biological age may vary considerably.
Another limitation is there is currently no standardisation of methods for this testing. Commercial providers perform these tests in different ways and have different algorithms for estimating biological age from the data.
As you would expect for commercial operators, providers don’t disclose their methods. So it’s difficult to compare companies and determine who provides the most accurate results – and what you’re getting for your money.
A third limitation is that while epigenetic clocks correlate well with ageing, they are simply a “proxy” and are not a diagnostic tool.
In other words, they may provide a general indication of ageing at a cellular level. But they don’t offer any specific insights about what the issue may be if someone is found to be “ageing faster” than they would like, or what they’re doing right if they are “ageing well”.
So regardless of the result of your test, all you’re likely to get from the commercial provider of an epigenetic test is generic advice about what the science says is healthy behaviour.
Are they worth it? Or what should I do instead?
While companies offering these tests may have good intentions, remember their ultimate goal is to sell you these tests and make a profit. And at a cost of around A$500, they’re not cheap.
While the idea of using these tests as a personalised health tool has potential, it is clear that we are not there yet.
For this to become a reality, tests will need to become more reproducible, standardised across providers, and validated through long-term studies that link changes in biological age to specific behaviours.
So while one-off tests of biological age make for impressive social media posts, for most people they represent a significant cost and offer limited real value.
The good news is we already know what we need to do to increase our chances of living longer and healthier lives. These include:
We don’t need to know our biological age in order to implement changes in our lives right now to improve our health.
Hassan Vally 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.
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
***WATCH: SENATOR MURRAY’S REMARKS***
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member and former chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) and Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, delivered the following remarks at a press conference marking the three-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning the constitutional right to abortion. Joining Senator Murray at the press conference were Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), abortion access advocates Shanette Williams and Ashley Ortiz, Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson, and Kimberly Inez McGuire, Executive Director of URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity.
At the press conference, Senator Murray highlighted the devastating consequences of Republican abortion bans for women and health care providers across the country, and how Republicans’ attacks on abortion access are only escalating. In particular, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act Republicans are pushing through Congress right now would defund Planned Parenthood—threatening the closure of 200 health centers across the country, 90 percent of which are in states where abortion is legal—and effectively ban ACA marketplace health plans from covering abortion services.
Senator Murray’s full remarks at today’s press conference are below and HERE:
“Three years in, it’s clear that the heartbreak and damage being caused by Republicans’ war on abortion is only growing, but so is the public opposition. The outcry is getting louder and louder as more and more people see the full horror of abortion bans in ways they cannot ignore, and will never forget.
“Meanwhile, Republicans aren’t just sticking their heads in the sand, they are sticking to the same, dangerous agenda that is already denying women health care that they need, pushing maternal and reproductive health care providers out of red states in droves, driving a dangerous spike in pregnancy complications and maternal deaths, and forcing women to stay pregnant—regardless of their health or their own wishes.
“Republicans are doubling down with even more anti-abortion extremism. Trump is undermining emergency abortion care, and the basic safety protections for abortion clinic staff and patients. Far-right groups are pushing junk science and trying to rip medication abortion off the shelves nationwide—and they are finding support among top health officials in this Trump administration.
“And Republicans are trying to block marketplace insurance from covering abortion care in their big ugly bill. Not to mention, as Senator Schumer said, they are trying to defund Planned Parenthood—one of the biggest health care providers in the entire country.
“And, let’s not forget Republicans are sneaking fetal personhood language into everything from state laws to Trump’s executive orders. We are talking about an ideology so extreme that it would strip pregnant women of their rights and impose a complete and total ban on abortion, IVF, and even some forms of birth control.
“And they think they can just slip it onto the books without anyone noticing? Not a chance. We are not going to stop calling out these attacks. We are not going to stop pushing to restore and expand abortion access for patients nationwide. We are not going to stop lifting up the voices of women across the country.
“And we are going to keep a bright and burning spotlight on the harm Republicans are causing with their anti-abortion extremism. Which is exactly what I will be doing this afternoon at the spotlight forum joined by many of my colleagues—and I hope to see many of you there.
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
ICYMI:Senator Murray, Former ACIP Member from WA State Raise Alarm Over Purge of Entire CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee
Washington, D.C. – Today, Senator Patty Murray, a senior member and former chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee released the following statement regarding the upcoming meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which is scheduled to begin tomorrow. The meeting would be the first since Secretary Kennedy fired every single member of the 17-member board, and announced his own slate of eight members just two weeks ago, many of whom have aligned themselves with dangerous anti-vaccine ideologies or outright conspiracy theorists and the majority of whom are not vaccine experts.
“We need qualified vaccine experts evaluating the RSV and influenza shots families are counting on to protect them this fall—not the unvetted slate of eight members handpicked by RFK Jr. that includes people with long records of promoting anti-science conspiracies.The only way the upcoming ACIP meeting should proceed tomorrow is with the original board of vetted, qualified individuals that Secretary Kennedy chose to abruptly fire without any semblance of a legitimate reason or appropriate process. Short of that, ACIP must postpone this meeting until the board once again has a full slate of qualified members who have been fully and appropriately vetted.
“It is perilous to move ahead with this meeting with a bench of largely unqualified members with anti-vaccine backgrounds who seem all but certain to set back public health and confidence in ACIP’s important work to protect Americans from deadly illnesses.”
Earlier this month, Senator Murray held a press call with Washington state-based Dr. Helen Chu, one of the 17 ACIP members abruptly fired by Secretary Kennedy, to raise the alarm about how this move threatened public health and vaccine confidence.
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
***WATCH: Senator Murray’s opening remarks***
Washington, D.C. – Today, on the three-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned the constitutional right to abortion, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member and former chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) and Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, delivered the following opening remarks at a spotlight forum she hosted for Senate Democrats titled Under Attack: Republicans’ Escalating War on Reproductive Freedom. The forum was co-led by Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Tina Smith (D-MN).
In her remarks, Senator Murray highlighted the many ways President Trump and Republicans are attacking abortion access and reproductive health care right now and laid bare the Republican strategy to implement a backdoor nationwide abortion ban by ultimately making abortion impossible to access for everyone, everywhere—including in states where abortion remains legal.
Senator Murray’s remarks, as delivered, are below:
“I want to thank all of our panelists who are here to share your stories and your expertise.
“As I said, it has been three years since Trump and Republicans succeeded in overturning Roe, ripping away a Constitutional right for the first time in American history, and causing a full-blown health care crisis in our nation.
“Already, we have seen with painful clarity, how—on a daily basis—Republican abortion bans are putting women’s lives in danger, forcing providers to close their doors, decimating access to maternal health care, and forcing women to remain pregnant, no matter their personal circumstance.
“Dobbs was never the end of this fight for Republicans, we all need to know that, their goal has always been a national abortion ban.
“And since Republicans know they do not have the votes right now to pass a national abortion ban outright, they are slowly, but surely, advancing a backdoor nationwide abortion ban, and chipping away at access to reproductive health piece-by-piece—even in states where abortion is protected.
“Republicans are hoping no one will notice these attacks—as if people don’t care when their rights are stripped away. As if it’s easy to miss the moment your health care decisions are out of your control. As if someone forced to stay pregnant because of Republican bans might just forget about it.
“Well, we know what Republicans are doing, and we are putting their tactics on full blast.
“To start, just days into his presidency, Trump pardoned people en masse who blockaded abortion clinics and assaulted and injured clinic staff. And Trump’s Justice Department has made clear if anyone else wants to break the law and intimidate abortion clinics, they won’t do anything to stop it—except in the most extreme circumstances.
“Republicans are also attacking lifesaving abortion care for pregnant women who face a medical emergency. Earlier this month, the Trump Administration quietly revoked CMS guidance that made clear hospitals are required to provide emergency abortion care when it is necessary to save a patient’s life, as it can be in the case of hemorrhage or sepsis.
“Republicans are also attacking abortion medication. Trump’s FDA recently announced it will undertake a ‘comprehensive review’ of mifepristone. Why? Because of discredited junk science from the same anti-abortion activists who helped write Project 2025.
“And unfortunately, we know exactly where this is going: Trump ripping mifepristone off the shelves, reinstating unnecessary restrictions, banning telehealth prescriptions, and curtailing access in every single state. And that’s at a minimum. Many Republicans want to revoke the approval of mifepristone altogether.
“Meanwhile, Republicans have been sneaking so-called personhood language into Trump’s Executive Orders. Fetal personhood is an extreme ideology that would strip pregnant women of their rights and impose a complete and total ban on: abortion, on IVF, and even some forms of birth control. It does not get any more extreme than that.
“And you know Trump’s Big Betrayal Bill that Republicans are working around the clock to pass right now? That one that would strip 16 million people of their health care? The one that would shutter rural hospitals across the country? That includes even moreattacks on abortion—they just can’t help themselves.
“They are effectively barring ACA marketplace plans from covering abortion care—something that is actually required in many states, including my home state of Washington. Even worse, Republicans want to shut the doors of one of the largest health care providers in our country.
“Their bill would defund Planned Parenthood, putting 200 clinics across the country at risk of closure—90 percent of which are in states where abortion is legal.
“These are clinics that don’t just provide lifesaving abortion care, but they provide cancer screenings, birth control, and other essential health care services for over one million patients. Republicans will do just about anything they think they can do to get away to undermine abortion across this country.
“The one thing Republicans still refuse to do? Reckon with the consequence of their action.
“They really seem to think that if they don’t talk about the damage they are causing, the people they are hurting, the lives they are destroying—it doesn’t exist. It will somehow just go away. Big mistake.
“Republicans may be silent, but women across the country are speaking up about the suffering and heartbreak Republicans’ draconian anti-abortion policies are causing.
“Women are sharing their stories of being forced to carry a doomed pregnancy for months or being pushed to death’s door before their doctors could provide care without the threat of spending the rest of their lives in jail.
“And families are speaking up about the deaths—because, yes, these Republicans’ extreme policies have led to women dying. And it’s not just patients telling stories, it is cold hard data. In Texas, sepsis rates have rocketed over 50 percent since their abortion ban.
“And in state after state that banned abortion, health care providers are leaving town en masse. Because why stay, when doing your job—and saving a patient’s life—could land you in prison? As hard as Republicans might try, the damage they are causing is undeniable.
“But that does not mean that we give up. Women’s lives are at stake, Democrats are not going to stop pushing back—not ever.
“We will keep pushing for legislation to protect women and health care providers from Republican prosecution; to help people access and afford the reproductive health care that they need; to protect women’s private health data; to protect the Right to Contraception and the Right to IVF; and to restore the right to abortion nationwide—nothing less.
“We will keep fighting tooth and nail against every new strategy Republicans cook up to ban abortion and shutter the doors of health care providers in our country.
“And we will keep lifting up the heartbreaking stories of people who have experienced firsthand the cruelty of Republican policies; and shining a bright light and burning spotlight on how dangerous—and how deadly—these attacks on abortion truly are.”
Striving for Gold Standard Science – that all science should be reproducible, open and transparent, free from conflicts of interest, and collaborative – is among them. As OSTP Director Michael Kratsios wrote in an op-ed today, “Science and politics need not be in conflict. Ensuring that the science used in decisions conforms to the highest standards of research integrity makes these judgments themselves transparent and scientific.”
Yet some within the science community put partisanship before professionalism when it comes to the commonsense principles of Gold Standard Science – for no reason other than politics.
As Science journals Editor-in-Chief Holden Thorp put it in a piece today: “it is possible to support science and hold it accountable at the same time.”
“..The defensiveness of investigators and institutions in responding to problems severely heightens the suspicion. Rather than filing lawsuits and hiding behind carefully crafted statements, the scientific community should be engaging in a conversation about problems and potential solutions.”
This is exactly why President Trump signed his Restoring Gold Standard Science executive order. President Trump wants America to return to the standard of excellence our scientific community is historically known for.
The simple truth is that there is a disconnect between the American people and the scientific enterprise. It’s a relationship that needs to be rebuilt.
Now is the time to work with the Administration towards a solution.
S. 320 would amend the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to make changes to the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, an interagency program focused on reducing earthquake-related risks to life and property. S. 320 also would authorize appropriations of $161 million annually for fiscal years 2025 through 2028 for the U.S. Geological Survey, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology to implement the program.
Additionally, the bill would require the agencies to develop best practices to assist state, local, and tribal governments with creating inventories of critical buildings and structures, and with developing evacuation plans and expanding early warning systems. The agencies also would be required to report to the Congress every two years about activities related to the program.
CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted near the end of fiscal year 2025 and that the authorized amounts will be provided for each year beginning in 2025. In 2024, the agencies allocated $164 million for the program from funds provided in the appropriation acts for that year. Based on historical spending patterns, CBO estimates that reauthorizing the program would cost $596 million over the 2025-2030 period and $29 million after 2030, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts.
The costs of the legislation, detailed in Table 1, fall within budget functions 250 (general science, space, and technology), 300 (natural resources and environment), 370 (commerce and housing credit), and 450 (community and regional development).
Table 1.
Estimated Increases in Spending Subject to Appropriation Under S. 320
By Fiscal Year, Millions of Dollars
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2025-2030
U.S. Geological Survey
Authorization
92
92
92
92
0
0
368
Estimated Outlays
17
137
90
89
23
3
359
National Science Foundation
Authorization
54
54
54
54
0
0
216
Estimated Outlays
2
30
39
46
43
26
186
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Authorization
9
9
9
9
0
0
36
Estimated Outlays
*
4
5
7
7
5
28
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Authorization
6
6
6
6
0
0
24
Estimated Outlays
1
9
6
6
1
0
23
Total Changes
Authorization
161
161
161
161
0
0
644
Estimated Outlays
20
180
140
148
74
34
596
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Kelly Durand. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
An artist’s rendition of the newly discovered fish, _Sphyragnathus tyche_.(C. Wilson), CC BY
In 2015, two members of the Blue Beach Fossil Museum in Nova Scotia found a long, curved fossil jaw, bristling with teeth. Sonja Wood, the museum’s owner, and Chris Mansky, the museum’s curator, found the fossil in a creek after Wood had a hunch.
The fossil they found belonged to a fish that had died 350 million years ago, its bony husk spanning nearly a metre on the lake bed. The large fish had lived in waters thick with rival fish, including giants several times its size. It had hooked teeth at the tip of its long jaw that it would use to trap elusive prey and fangs at the back to pierce it and break it down to eat.
Blue Beach Fossil Museum curator Chris Mansky below the fossil cliffs. (C. Wilson), CC BY
Birth of the modern vertebrate world
The modern vertebrate world is defined by the dominance of three groups: the cartilaginous fishes or chondrichthyans (including sharks, rays and chimaeras), the lobe-finned fishes or sarcopterygians (including tetrapods and rare lungfishes and coelacanths), and the ray-finned fishes or actinopterygians (including everything from sturgeon to tuna). Only a few jawless fishes round out the picture.
Armoured jawless fishes had dwindled by the Late Devonian Period (419.2-358.9 MA), but the rest were still diverse. Actinopterygians were still restricted to a few species with similar body shapes.
By the immediately succeeding early Carboniferous times, everything had changed. The placoderms were gone, the number of species of fishy sarcopterygians and acanthodians had cratered, and actinopterygians and chondrichthyans were flourishing in their place.
A shortnose chimaera, belonging to the chondrichthyan group of vertebrates. (Shutterstock)
A sea change
Blue Beach has helped build our understanding of how this happened. Studies describing its tetrapods and actinopterygians have showed the persistence of Devonian-style forms in the Carboniferous Period.
Whereas the abrupt end-Devonian decline of the placoderms, acanthodians and fishy sarcopterygians can be explained by a mass extinction, it now appears that multiple types of actinopterygians and tetrapods survived to be preserved at Blue Beach. This makes a big difference to the overall story: Devonian-style tetrapods and actinopterygians survive and contribute to the evolution of these groups into the Carboniferous Period.
Comparing the jawbones of Sphyragnathus, Austelliscus and Tegeolepis. (C. Wilson), CC BY
The Blue Beach fossil was actinopterygian, and we wondered what it could tell us about this issue. Comparison was difficult. Two actinopterygians with long jaws and large fangs were known from the preceding Devonian Period (Austelliscus ferox and Tegeolepis clarki), but the newly found jaw had more extreme curvature and the arrangement of its teeth. Its largest fangs are at the back of its jaw, but the largest fangs of Austelliscus and Tegeolepis are at the front.
These differences were significant enough that we created a new genus and species: Sphyragnathus tyche. And, in view of the debate on actinopterygian diversification, we made a prediction: that the differences in anatomy between Sphyragnathus and Devonian actinopterygians represented different adaptations for feeding.
Front fangs
To test this prediction, we compared Sphyragnathus, Austelliscus and Tegeolepis to living actinopterygians. In modern actinopterygians, the difference in anatomy reflects a difference in function: front-fangs capture prey with their front teeth and grip it with their back teeth, but back-fangs use their back teeth.
Since we couldn’t observe the fossil fish in action, we analyzed the stress their teeth would experience if we applied force. The back teeth of Sphyragnathus handled force with low stress, making them suited for a role in piercing prey, but the back teeth of Austelliscus and Tegeolepis turned low forces into significantly higher stress, making them best suited for gripping.
Substantial work remains — only the jaw of Sphyragnathus is preserved, so the “locomotion-first” hypothesis was untested. But this represents the challenge and promise of paleontology: get enough tantalizing glimpses into the past and you can begin to unfold a history.
Conrad Daniel Mackenzie Wilson receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Ontario Student Assistance Program, and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.
