Source: United States Senator for Arkansas Tom Cotton
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Caroline Tabler or Patrick McCann (202) 224-2353June 27, 2025
Chairman Cotton to Introduce Bill to Reform, Improve, and Streamline ODNI
Washington, D.C. — Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, today will introduce the Intelligence Community Efficiency and Effectiveness Act, legislation that would realign resources to intelligence missions, eliminate duplicative efforts and inefficient, non-functioning bureaucracies across the intelligence community (IC) and return the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to its original size, scope, and mission.
Senators Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota), Ted Budd (R-North Carolina), and James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) are cosponsoring the legislation.
“Created after the September 11th attacks, ODNI was intended to be a lean organization to align America’s intelligence resources and authorities, not the overstaffed and bureaucratic behemoth that it is today, where coordinators coordinate with other coordinators. These reforms will be vital to keeping our country safe from the wide range of threats that we continue to face,” said Senator Cotton.
Text of the Intelligence Community Efficiency and Effectiveness Act may be found here.
The Intelligence Community Efficiency and Effectiveness Act would:
Cap ODNI full-time staff at 650.
Eliminate certain reporting requirements and the transfer of personnel authorities.
Modify the National Intelligence Council’s duties and terminate the National Intelligence Managers’ positions.
Terminate the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) at ODNI and transfer its responsibilities to the FBI.
Redesignate the National Counterterrorism Center as the National Counterterrorism and Counternarcotics Center, and limit its mission to foreign intelligence authorities.
Terminate the National Counterproliferation and Biosecurity Center (NCBC) at ODNI, transfer NCBC’s responsibilities to the CIA, and redesignate it as the National Counterproliferation Center.
Repeal various positions (including the Director of the NCSC, the Director of the NCBC, and the Intelligence Community Chief Data Officer), and seven units, centers, councils, offices, and programs (including obsolete bureaucratic entities that have failed to function, such as the Joint Intelligence Community Council).
Prohibit National Intelligence Program funds from being used to outsource IC analytic efforts to organizations that take funds from foreign governments.
Require the DNI to wind down and terminate the National Intelligence University within 180 days.
Prohibit use of National Intelligence Program funds to implement any diversity, equity, or inclusion practice in the intelligence community.
Source: United States Senator for Arkansas Tom Cotton
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Caroline Tabler or Patrick McCann (202) 224-2353June 27, 2025
Chairman Cotton to Introduce Bill to Reform, Improve, and Streamline ODNI
Washington, D.C. — Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, today will introduce the Intelligence Community Efficiency and Effectiveness Act, legislation that would realign resources to intelligence missions, eliminate duplicative efforts and inefficient, non-functioning bureaucracies across the intelligence community (IC) and return the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to its original size, scope, and mission.
Senators Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota), Ted Budd (R-North Carolina), and James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) are cosponsoring the legislation.
“Created after the September 11th attacks, ODNI was intended to be a lean organization to align America’s intelligence resources and authorities, not the overstaffed and bureaucratic behemoth that it is today, where coordinators coordinate with other coordinators. These reforms will be vital to keeping our country safe from the wide range of threats that we continue to face,” said Senator Cotton.
Text of the Intelligence Community Efficiency and Effectiveness Act may be found here.
The Intelligence Community Efficiency and Effectiveness Act would:
Cap ODNI full-time staff at 650.
Eliminate certain reporting requirements and the transfer of personnel authorities.
Modify the National Intelligence Council’s duties and terminate the National Intelligence Managers’ positions.
Terminate the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) at ODNI and transfer its responsibilities to the FBI.
Redesignate the National Counterterrorism Center as the National Counterterrorism and Counternarcotics Center, and limit its mission to foreign intelligence authorities.
Terminate the National Counterproliferation and Biosecurity Center (NCBC) at ODNI, transfer NCBC’s responsibilities to the CIA, and redesignate it as the National Counterproliferation Center.
Repeal various positions (including the Director of the NCSC, the Director of the NCBC, and the Intelligence Community Chief Data Officer), and seven units, centers, councils, offices, and programs (including obsolete bureaucratic entities that have failed to function, such as the Joint Intelligence Community Council).
Prohibit National Intelligence Program funds from being used to outsource IC analytic efforts to organizations that take funds from foreign governments.
Require the DNI to wind down and terminate the National Intelligence University within 180 days.
Prohibit use of National Intelligence Program funds to implement any diversity, equity, or inclusion practice in the intelligence community.
The UK government has published a ten-year strategy outlining how it aims to boost productivity and innovation across eight key sectors of the economy. From the future of AI to energy security and net zero, it’s a broad and ambitious plan. Our experts assess what it tells us about how the UK economy – and the jobs it offers – could look in future.
Nuclear placed firmly in the centre of the UK’s low-carbon future
Doug Specht, Reader in Cultural Geography and Communication, University of Westminster
For clean energy and industrial growth, the strategy presents an ambitious and comprehensive vision. And it seeks to establish the UK as a global leader in clean energy manufacturing and innovation. A key strength lies in its substantial investment commitments, however this includes £14.2 billion for the controversial Sizewell C nuclear power station and more than £2.5 billion for a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) programme.
Nuclear energy remains controversial – nevertheless, the strategy firmly places it as a central pillar for low-carbon, reliable energy and national security.
The strategy also targets high-growth sectors, prioritises regional development and introduces support schemes and regulatory reforms to tackle high electricity costs for industry, and slow grid connections. Yet despite these potential strengths, there are notable challenges. Implementation risks are significant, given the ten-year timeframe and potential shifts in political priorities.
And regional disparities and social inequalities may not be fully addressed, as the focus is on high-potential city regions. Some areas could be left behind. Skills shortages in engineering and digital sectors persist, and there is not enough detail on reskilling and lifelong learning. The importance of supply chain resilience, especially for the critical minerals needed for the green transition is acknowledged but not fully assured.
Overall, the strategy is ambitious and well-structured. But a reliance on nuclear rather than true renewables is seeking a quick win with high risks and high costs. A more radical and inclusive plan that expanded green infrastructure, and provided details of resilient growth across all regions and sectors, would have been welcomed.
An innovation boost for the UK’s world-leading creative industries
Bernard Hay, Head of Policy at the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre, Newcastle University
The plan for the creative industries is a significant step forward for this critical sector. With multiple new commitments announced on areas ranging from scale-up finance and AI to skills, exports and freelance support, there is a lot to welcome for the sector. After all, it already accounts for over 5% of the UK’s annual gross value added (or GVA – which measures the value of goods and services) and 14% of its services exports.
One key aspect is boosting creative industries’ research and development (R&D), which is a driver of innovation, productivity and growth. This includes £100 million for the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s clusters programme, which supports location-based, creative R&D partnerships between universities and industry.
And by the end of the year, HMRC will publish clarification on what types of activity are eligible for R&D tax relief, to include arts activities that meet certain criteria. This is a nuanced change, but together with the other plans, it could have a catalytic effect on innovation in the sector.
Supporting regional creative economies is a golden thread running through this plan. A new £4 billion group capital initiative from the British Business Bank, announced earlier in the spending review, will be an important source of scale-up finance for small and medium-sized creative businesses that face barriers in accessing capital.
It is also welcome to see the government both increasing creative industries investment in several city-regions and supporting places to join up and work together through “creative corridors”. Coupled with the ongoing devolution of powers and funding in England, the next decade provides a huge opportunity for local policy innovation. This includes sharing and scaling proven strategies in growing regional creative economies.
An effective industrial strategy relies on high-quality data and analysis to support it. This is especially true when dealing with a rapidly evolving part of the economy such as the creative industries. The new plan includes commitments to strengthen the evidence base, including by increasing access to official statistics. This is good news not only for researchers, but for the whole sector.
The Lowry in Salford is part of a creative cluster in the north-west of England. Debu55y/Shutterstock
Advanced manufacturing: promising plans, but persistent problems
Michael Lewis, Professor of Operations and Supply Management, University of Bath
The government plans to invest £4.3 billion in advanced manufacturing. This covers research-driven production in sectors including automotive, aerospace and advanced materials (engineered substances that are especially useful in these industries). Some firms may also get energy cost relief through green levy exemptions.
A long-term plan is overdue, but the challenges are huge. Automotive production is targeted to rise substantially, but the sector will still depend heavily on a range of critical imports. The aerospace sector will start 40,000 apprenticeships by 2035, yet further education funding remains below 2010 levels. Much of the promised investment appears to be the repackaging of existing funding.
Most importantly, how to deliver these changes remains unclear. There are good ideas, like £99 million to expand the relatively successful Made Smarter Adoption programme to help small and medium-sized enterprises employ digital technology. But when helping small firms adopt basic digital tools counts as policy success, it shows how far UK manufacturing has fallen behind competitors. Likewise, when you need a new “connections accelerator service” just to help companies connect to the grid, it shows the scale of basic infrastructure problems that undermine grander ambitions.
Overall, the strategy marks real progress. However, without clear delivery plans, it reads more like a wish list than an action plan. This explains why industry reactions have been cautiously optimistic at best.
A chance to take the lead in the global AI race
Kamran Mahroof, Associate Professor of Supply Chain Analytics and Programme Leader for the MSc in the Applied Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics, University of Bradford
From a digital and technologies perspective, the industrial strategy appears to signal a strong commitment to anchoring the nation at the forefront of the global AI race. The proposed Sovereign AI Unit shows an intent to ensure national control and access to critical AI infrastructure, computational power and expertise.
This is pivotal, not only for research and development, but also for national security and economic resilience in an increasingly AI-driven world. It points to a recognition that relying solely on external providers for cutting-edge AI capabilities carries inherent risks.
Besides, some of the world’s most innovative AI businesses are based in the UK. British companies are pushing the limits of what is feasible, from Synthesia’s advances in synthetic media to DeepMind’s developments in machine learning. In sectors including public safety, insurance and defence, smaller firms like Faculty, Tractable and Mind Foundry are also having a significant impact.
Complementing this, the AI Growth Zones are designed to act as regional magnets for investment and innovation, particularly in the realm of data centres and high-density computational facilities. By streamlining planning and providing preferential access to energy, these zones could accelerate the development of the physical infrastructure needed.
This decentralised approach has received more than 200 bids already from local authorities. It also has the potential to spread the economic benefits of AI beyond established tech hubs, encouraging new regional powerhouses and creating high-skilled jobs right across the UK.
Taken as a whole, these projects show a deliberate effort to develop core competencies and draw in private-sector funding. This puts the UK in a position to benefit from AI’s potential. This effort to develop national AI capabilities is not a new idea – it echoes the US AI executive order and the EU’s AI Act.
However, given the dominance of global tech giants, the UK needs to define “sovereignty” in practice and decide whether it is willing to provide large-scale funding. At a time when debates continue around the UK’s defence budget — a field now deeply intertwined with AI – more transparency is needed on how these ambitions will be funded.
Growth plans for financial services – and moves to share the benefits beyond London
Sarah Hall, 1931 Professor of Geography, University of Cambridge
One of the most striking elements of the new plan is that it places financial services much more centrally compared to previous approaches.
There are good reasons for doing this. Financial services are a vital component of the UK economy, contributing close to 9% of economic output in 2023. Clearly then, an industrial strategy without one of the most important economic sectors would make little sense.
There is also a welcome emphasis on the ways in which financial services can grow, not only as a sector in its own right, but also to be better integrated in supporting the growth of other parts of the economy. Some important policy moves have already been announced, such as changes to pension funds aimed at increasing their investment in large infrastructure projects.
In order to meet these ambitions, the strategy is right to note that financial services need to be supported, not only in London but also across the many clusters around the UK. These include, for example, Edinburgh, Manchester and Bristol.
There will be more details in the sector plan, released alongside Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ Mansion House speech on July 15. At that point, we will be able to assess the measures intended to grapple with two longstanding issues for UK financial services. That is, how does the government bridge the gap between finance and the “real” economy (goods and non-financial services)? And how does it bridge the gap between London and the rest of the UK?
Michael A. Lewis receives funding from AHRC, EPSRC and ESRC.
Bernard Hay is Head of Policy at the Creative PEC, a partnership between Newcastle University and the Royal Society of Arts, which is funded by the UKRI via Arts and Humanities Research Council.
Sarah Hall receives funding from an ESRC Fellowship grant.
Doug Specht and Kamran Mahroof do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The UK government has published a ten-year strategy outlining how it aims to boost productivity and innovation across eight key sectors of the economy. From the future of AI to energy security and net zero, it’s a broad and ambitious plan. Our experts assess what it tells us about how the UK economy – and the jobs it offers – could look in future.
Nuclear placed firmly in the centre of the UK’s low-carbon future
Doug Specht, Reader in Cultural Geography and Communication, University of Westminster
For clean energy and industrial growth, the strategy presents an ambitious and comprehensive vision. And it seeks to establish the UK as a global leader in clean energy manufacturing and innovation. A key strength lies in its substantial investment commitments, however this includes £14.2 billion for the controversial Sizewell C nuclear power station and more than £2.5 billion for a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) programme.
Nuclear energy remains controversial – nevertheless, the strategy firmly places it as a central pillar for low-carbon, reliable energy and national security.
The strategy also targets high-growth sectors, prioritises regional development and introduces support schemes and regulatory reforms to tackle high electricity costs for industry, and slow grid connections. Yet despite these potential strengths, there are notable challenges. Implementation risks are significant, given the ten-year timeframe and potential shifts in political priorities.
And regional disparities and social inequalities may not be fully addressed, as the focus is on high-potential city regions. Some areas could be left behind. Skills shortages in engineering and digital sectors persist, and there is not enough detail on reskilling and lifelong learning. The importance of supply chain resilience, especially for the critical minerals needed for the green transition is acknowledged but not fully assured.
Overall, the strategy is ambitious and well-structured. But a reliance on nuclear rather than true renewables is seeking a quick win with high risks and high costs. A more radical and inclusive plan that expanded green infrastructure, and provided details of resilient growth across all regions and sectors, would have been welcomed.
An innovation boost for the UK’s world-leading creative industries
Bernard Hay, Head of Policy at the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre, Newcastle University
The plan for the creative industries is a significant step forward for this critical sector. With multiple new commitments announced on areas ranging from scale-up finance and AI to skills, exports and freelance support, there is a lot to welcome for the sector. After all, it already accounts for over 5% of the UK’s annual gross value added (or GVA – which measures the value of goods and services) and 14% of its services exports.
One key aspect is boosting creative industries’ research and development (R&D), which is a driver of innovation, productivity and growth. This includes £100 million for the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s clusters programme, which supports location-based, creative R&D partnerships between universities and industry.
And by the end of the year, HMRC will publish clarification on what types of activity are eligible for R&D tax relief, to include arts activities that meet certain criteria. This is a nuanced change, but together with the other plans, it could have a catalytic effect on innovation in the sector.
Supporting regional creative economies is a golden thread running through this plan. A new £4 billion group capital initiative from the British Business Bank, announced earlier in the spending review, will be an important source of scale-up finance for small and medium-sized creative businesses that face barriers in accessing capital.
It is also welcome to see the government both increasing creative industries investment in several city-regions and supporting places to join up and work together through “creative corridors”. Coupled with the ongoing devolution of powers and funding in England, the next decade provides a huge opportunity for local policy innovation. This includes sharing and scaling proven strategies in growing regional creative economies.
An effective industrial strategy relies on high-quality data and analysis to support it. This is especially true when dealing with a rapidly evolving part of the economy such as the creative industries. The new plan includes commitments to strengthen the evidence base, including by increasing access to official statistics. This is good news not only for researchers, but for the whole sector.
The Lowry in Salford is part of a creative cluster in the north-west of England. Debu55y/Shutterstock
Advanced manufacturing: promising plans, but persistent problems
Michael Lewis, Professor of Operations and Supply Management, University of Bath
The government plans to invest £4.3 billion in advanced manufacturing. This covers research-driven production in sectors including automotive, aerospace and advanced materials (engineered substances that are especially useful in these industries). Some firms may also get energy cost relief through green levy exemptions.
A long-term plan is overdue, but the challenges are huge. Automotive production is targeted to rise substantially, but the sector will still depend heavily on a range of critical imports. The aerospace sector will start 40,000 apprenticeships by 2035, yet further education funding remains below 2010 levels. Much of the promised investment appears to be the repackaging of existing funding.
Most importantly, how to deliver these changes remains unclear. There are good ideas, like £99 million to expand the relatively successful Made Smarter Adoption programme to help small and medium-sized enterprises employ digital technology. But when helping small firms adopt basic digital tools counts as policy success, it shows how far UK manufacturing has fallen behind competitors. Likewise, when you need a new “connections accelerator service” just to help companies connect to the grid, it shows the scale of basic infrastructure problems that undermine grander ambitions.
Overall, the strategy marks real progress. However, without clear delivery plans, it reads more like a wish list than an action plan. This explains why industry reactions have been cautiously optimistic at best.
A chance to take the lead in the global AI race
Kamran Mahroof, Associate Professor of Supply Chain Analytics and Programme Leader for the MSc in the Applied Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics, University of Bradford
From a digital and technologies perspective, the industrial strategy appears to signal a strong commitment to anchoring the nation at the forefront of the global AI race. The proposed Sovereign AI Unit shows an intent to ensure national control and access to critical AI infrastructure, computational power and expertise.
This is pivotal, not only for research and development, but also for national security and economic resilience in an increasingly AI-driven world. It points to a recognition that relying solely on external providers for cutting-edge AI capabilities carries inherent risks.
Besides, some of the world’s most innovative AI businesses are based in the UK. British companies are pushing the limits of what is feasible, from Synthesia’s advances in synthetic media to DeepMind’s developments in machine learning. In sectors including public safety, insurance and defence, smaller firms like Faculty, Tractable and Mind Foundry are also having a significant impact.
Complementing this, the AI Growth Zones are designed to act as regional magnets for investment and innovation, particularly in the realm of data centres and high-density computational facilities. By streamlining planning and providing preferential access to energy, these zones could accelerate the development of the physical infrastructure needed.
This decentralised approach has received more than 200 bids already from local authorities. It also has the potential to spread the economic benefits of AI beyond established tech hubs, encouraging new regional powerhouses and creating high-skilled jobs right across the UK.
Taken as a whole, these projects show a deliberate effort to develop core competencies and draw in private-sector funding. This puts the UK in a position to benefit from AI’s potential. This effort to develop national AI capabilities is not a new idea – it echoes the US AI executive order and the EU’s AI Act.
However, given the dominance of global tech giants, the UK needs to define “sovereignty” in practice and decide whether it is willing to provide large-scale funding. At a time when debates continue around the UK’s defence budget — a field now deeply intertwined with AI – more transparency is needed on how these ambitions will be funded.
Growth plans for financial services – and moves to share the benefits beyond London
Sarah Hall, 1931 Professor of Geography, University of Cambridge
One of the most striking elements of the new plan is that it places financial services much more centrally compared to previous approaches.
There are good reasons for doing this. Financial services are a vital component of the UK economy, contributing close to 9% of economic output in 2023. Clearly then, an industrial strategy without one of the most important economic sectors would make little sense.
There is also a welcome emphasis on the ways in which financial services can grow, not only as a sector in its own right, but also to be better integrated in supporting the growth of other parts of the economy. Some important policy moves have already been announced, such as changes to pension funds aimed at increasing their investment in large infrastructure projects.
In order to meet these ambitions, the strategy is right to note that financial services need to be supported, not only in London but also across the many clusters around the UK. These include, for example, Edinburgh, Manchester and Bristol.
There will be more details in the sector plan, released alongside Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ Mansion House speech on July 15. At that point, we will be able to assess the measures intended to grapple with two longstanding issues for UK financial services. That is, how does the government bridge the gap between finance and the “real” economy (goods and non-financial services)? And how does it bridge the gap between London and the rest of the UK?
Michael A. Lewis receives funding from AHRC, EPSRC and ESRC.
Bernard Hay is Head of Policy at the Creative PEC, a partnership between Newcastle University and the Royal Society of Arts, which is funded by the UKRI via Arts and Humanities Research Council.
Sarah Hall receives funding from an ESRC Fellowship grant.
Doug Specht and Kamran Mahroof do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Richard Bärnthaler, Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Ecological Economics, University of Leeds
Green energy sites like Flevoland in the Netherlands will be part of the EU’s industrial future.fokke baarssen/Shutterstock
Industrial policy is back – it’s currently central to the agendas of both the EU and the UK. This resurgence comes amid a polycrisis marked by climate breakdown, social inequality, energy insecurity and geopolitical instability. And it reflects a wider shift. Governments across G20 countries are stepping in more actively to shape their economies, moving away from the idea that markets should be left to run themselves.
This is an important development. But current frameworks for industrial policy risk deepening the crises they are meant to solve.
In our research with Sebastian Mang of the New Economics Foundation, we have found that in the case of the EU, its industrial policy framework is riddled with contradictions.
It seeks resilience, yet fails to strengthen essential public services that underpin stability. It aims for strategic autonomy, yet reinforces resource dependencies. And while it gestures towards sustainability, it remains tethered to private-sector strategies that delay the phase-out of harmful industries.
Eroding foundations
EU industrial policy aims to strengthen the resilience of the bloc’s single market by preventing supply chain disruptions. It rightly views Europe’s economy as an interconnected ecosystem, where shocks in one sector ripple across others. But it fails to prioritise the foundational sectors that sustain everyday life. These include essential services such as food, utilities, housing, healthcare and public transport.
Two core issues drive this failure. First, deregulation in the single market has often extended to essential services, pushing providers to operate like private businesses. For example, liberalisation of the energy sector has contributed to volatile prices and energy poverty. And EU competition law and state aid rules have historically constrained social housing provision.
Yet social resilience — the capacity of communities to withstand and recover from crises — and, by extension market resilience, rely on these essential services. But affordable housing, universal healthcare and affordable energy for households are often not prioritised.
Second, EU industrial policy lacks a clear definition of which sectors are “critical” and why. This results in inconsistent lists of priority industries and technologies, while foundational sectors like energy and housing often remain overlooked.
These blind spots have real consequences. Around 40% of Europe’s workforce is employed in foundational sectors. These sectors are where low-income households spend about two-thirds of their income. Yet they often remain precarious and undervalued, leaving Europe more exposed to economic shocks.
To build real resilience, industrial policy must reassert public control over essential services and recognise them as priorities. This means redefining what counts as “critical”, supporting jobs in foundational sectors and accelerating public investment. This investment could be enabled through measures such as reforming the fiscal rules and with joint borrowing by member states.
The scramble for resources
Europe is pushing for strategic autonomy (the capacity of the bloc to act in strategically important areas, without being dependent on non-member countries). The aim is to reduce reliance on imports in key industries such as green technology.
But to make this happen, the EU should put reducing demand for resources and energy at the centre of its industrial policy. Instead, however, its Critical Raw Materials Act foresees skyrocketing consumption of rare earths, lithium and other inputs.
This strategy is self-defeating. It increases the likelihood of European aggression towards the rest of the world and ultimately threatens long-term security and peace for all. These tensions are already surfacing. Export restrictions on things such as nickel, cobalt and rare earth minerals are multiplying. In an era of geopolitical ruptures, these tendencies are likely to intensify.
At the same time, resource conflicts are also escalating within Europe itself. Tensions are emerging in countries including Serbia, Portugal and Greece over lithium and copper, and the environmental and social costs of mining them. And indigenous communities such as the Sámi in northern Europe face threats to their land and rights.
This is not to argue against increasing the extraction of raw materials within Europe. However, without an absolute reduction in energy and material use, these contradictions will deepen. To avoid these problems, the EU must centre industrial policy on reducing unnecessary demand. Some key moves could include investing in public transport instead of subsidising cars, prioritising retrofitting over new building, ending planned obsolescence and backing agro-ecology over industrial farming.
Investing in public rather than private transport will help European nations reduce their demand on energy and materials. The Global Guy/Shutterstock
Research shows that this kind of strategy could significantly lower Europe’s energy use. It could also drastically cut reliance on critical imports and contribute to achieving energy independence by 2050. This is all without compromising basic quality of life.
If Europe wants peace and security, demand reduction is a rational approach that must be at the heart of the EU’s industrial strategy. This should be adopted alongside strengthening ties of cooperation and integration with the rest of Eurasia and the global south, rather than ramping up antagonism towards these neighbours.
Green transition
The EU’s vision of “competitive sustainability” rests on the belief that market incentives and the private sector can drive the green transition. Yet despite decades of efficiency improvements, high-income countries have not decoupled material use and emissions from economic growth at the speed and scale required.
The EU remains reliant on derisking – using public subsidies, guarantees and looser regulations to make green investments attractive to private finance. But as this approach leaves both the pace and direction of change to private capital, it slows the phase-out of harmful industries.
What’s missing is more effective economic planning to restore public control over decarbonisation. Achieving this means building on existing mechanisms capable of delivering change — such as public credit guidance. This sets rules to limit the flow of finance from commercial banks to damaging sectors while directing investment toward sustainable ones.
China offers an example whereby the central bank has used public credit guidance to shift finance to cleaner sectors. The European Central Bank also experimented with credit guidance between 2022 and 2023, introducing climate scores for companies. And post-war France used planned credit to modernise infrastructure over two decades.
Europe and the UK are rearming, climate shocks are intensifying and global power dynamics are shifting. This moment demands a new industrial strategy — one that prioritises foundational sectors and creates fiscal space to build resilience. Reducing demand must be a prerequisite for security, peace and strategic autonomy. And reviving economic planning tools, such as public credit guidance, can accelerate the green transition.
Without these shifts, Europe and the UK face an increasingly unstable future. Industrial policy must change because the stakes are existential.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Richard Bärnthaler, Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Ecological Economics, University of Leeds
Green energy sites like Flevoland in the Netherlands will be part of the EU’s industrial future.fokke baarssen/Shutterstock
Industrial policy is back – it’s currently central to the agendas of both the EU and the UK. This resurgence comes amid a polycrisis marked by climate breakdown, social inequality, energy insecurity and geopolitical instability. And it reflects a wider shift. Governments across G20 countries are stepping in more actively to shape their economies, moving away from the idea that markets should be left to run themselves.
This is an important development. But current frameworks for industrial policy risk deepening the crises they are meant to solve.
In our research with Sebastian Mang of the New Economics Foundation, we have found that in the case of the EU, its industrial policy framework is riddled with contradictions.
It seeks resilience, yet fails to strengthen essential public services that underpin stability. It aims for strategic autonomy, yet reinforces resource dependencies. And while it gestures towards sustainability, it remains tethered to private-sector strategies that delay the phase-out of harmful industries.
Eroding foundations
EU industrial policy aims to strengthen the resilience of the bloc’s single market by preventing supply chain disruptions. It rightly views Europe’s economy as an interconnected ecosystem, where shocks in one sector ripple across others. But it fails to prioritise the foundational sectors that sustain everyday life. These include essential services such as food, utilities, housing, healthcare and public transport.
Two core issues drive this failure. First, deregulation in the single market has often extended to essential services, pushing providers to operate like private businesses. For example, liberalisation of the energy sector has contributed to volatile prices and energy poverty. And EU competition law and state aid rules have historically constrained social housing provision.
Yet social resilience — the capacity of communities to withstand and recover from crises — and, by extension market resilience, rely on these essential services. But affordable housing, universal healthcare and affordable energy for households are often not prioritised.
Second, EU industrial policy lacks a clear definition of which sectors are “critical” and why. This results in inconsistent lists of priority industries and technologies, while foundational sectors like energy and housing often remain overlooked.
These blind spots have real consequences. Around 40% of Europe’s workforce is employed in foundational sectors. These sectors are where low-income households spend about two-thirds of their income. Yet they often remain precarious and undervalued, leaving Europe more exposed to economic shocks.
To build real resilience, industrial policy must reassert public control over essential services and recognise them as priorities. This means redefining what counts as “critical”, supporting jobs in foundational sectors and accelerating public investment. This investment could be enabled through measures such as reforming the fiscal rules and with joint borrowing by member states.
The scramble for resources
Europe is pushing for strategic autonomy (the capacity of the bloc to act in strategically important areas, without being dependent on non-member countries). The aim is to reduce reliance on imports in key industries such as green technology.
But to make this happen, the EU should put reducing demand for resources and energy at the centre of its industrial policy. Instead, however, its Critical Raw Materials Act foresees skyrocketing consumption of rare earths, lithium and other inputs.
This strategy is self-defeating. It increases the likelihood of European aggression towards the rest of the world and ultimately threatens long-term security and peace for all. These tensions are already surfacing. Export restrictions on things such as nickel, cobalt and rare earth minerals are multiplying. In an era of geopolitical ruptures, these tendencies are likely to intensify.
At the same time, resource conflicts are also escalating within Europe itself. Tensions are emerging in countries including Serbia, Portugal and Greece over lithium and copper, and the environmental and social costs of mining them. And indigenous communities such as the Sámi in northern Europe face threats to their land and rights.
This is not to argue against increasing the extraction of raw materials within Europe. However, without an absolute reduction in energy and material use, these contradictions will deepen. To avoid these problems, the EU must centre industrial policy on reducing unnecessary demand. Some key moves could include investing in public transport instead of subsidising cars, prioritising retrofitting over new building, ending planned obsolescence and backing agro-ecology over industrial farming.
Investing in public rather than private transport will help European nations reduce their demand on energy and materials. The Global Guy/Shutterstock
Research shows that this kind of strategy could significantly lower Europe’s energy use. It could also drastically cut reliance on critical imports and contribute to achieving energy independence by 2050. This is all without compromising basic quality of life.
If Europe wants peace and security, demand reduction is a rational approach that must be at the heart of the EU’s industrial strategy. This should be adopted alongside strengthening ties of cooperation and integration with the rest of Eurasia and the global south, rather than ramping up antagonism towards these neighbours.
Green transition
The EU’s vision of “competitive sustainability” rests on the belief that market incentives and the private sector can drive the green transition. Yet despite decades of efficiency improvements, high-income countries have not decoupled material use and emissions from economic growth at the speed and scale required.
The EU remains reliant on derisking – using public subsidies, guarantees and looser regulations to make green investments attractive to private finance. But as this approach leaves both the pace and direction of change to private capital, it slows the phase-out of harmful industries.
What’s missing is more effective economic planning to restore public control over decarbonisation. Achieving this means building on existing mechanisms capable of delivering change — such as public credit guidance. This sets rules to limit the flow of finance from commercial banks to damaging sectors while directing investment toward sustainable ones.
China offers an example whereby the central bank has used public credit guidance to shift finance to cleaner sectors. The European Central Bank also experimented with credit guidance between 2022 and 2023, introducing climate scores for companies. And post-war France used planned credit to modernise infrastructure over two decades.
Europe and the UK are rearming, climate shocks are intensifying and global power dynamics are shifting. This moment demands a new industrial strategy — one that prioritises foundational sectors and creates fiscal space to build resilience. Reducing demand must be a prerequisite for security, peace and strategic autonomy. And reviving economic planning tools, such as public credit guidance, can accelerate the green transition.
Without these shifts, Europe and the UK face an increasingly unstable future. Industrial policy must change because the stakes are existential.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In both of the recent elections pro-European forces scraped to victory, thanks to a strong turnout among Moldovan diaspora voters, primarily in western Europe and north America. And in both elections, Russian interference was a significant factor. This is unlikely to change in the upcoming parliamentary vote. Moldova is too important a battleground in Russia’s campaign to rebuild a Soviet-style sphere of influence in eastern Europe.
Wedged between EU and Nato member Romania to the west and Ukraine to the east, Moldova has its own aspirations for EU accession. But with a breakaway region in Transnistria, which is host to a Russian military base and “peacekeeping force” and whose population is leaning heavily towards Russia, this will not be a straightforward path to membership.
What’s more, a Euro-sceptic and Moscow-friendly government after the next elections might allow the Kremlin to increase its military presence in the region and thereby pose a threat not only to Ukraine but also to Romania. While not quite equivalent to Russia’s unsinkable aircraft carrier of Kaliningrad, a more Russia-friendly Moldovan government would be a major strategic asset for Moscow.
Unsurprisingly, Moldova’s president, Maia Sandu, and her Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky have little doubt that further destabilisation is at the top of Russia’s agenda. Fears about a Russian escalation in the months before the elections are neither new nor unfounded.
There were worries that Moldova and Transnistria might be next on the Kremlin’s agenda as far back as the aftermath of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. These worries resurfaced when Moscow, rather prematurely, announced the beginning of stage two of its war against Ukraine in late April, 2022.
Knife-edge elections are nothing new in Moldova. The country is not only physically divided along the river Nistru, but even in the territory controlled by the government, opinions over its future geopolitical orientation remain split.
With no pre-1991 history of independent statehood, parts of Moldova were part of Ukraine, Romania and the Soviet Union. Russian is widely spoken and, while declining in number, Moldovan labour migrants to Russia remain important contributors of remittances, which accounted for over 12 percent of the country’s GDP in 2023.
A large number of Moldovans are, therefore, not keen on severing all ties with Russia. This does not mean they are supporters of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine or opponents of closer relations with the European Union. But as the referendum and presidential elections in October 2024, if pushed to make a choice between Russia and Europe and manipulated by Russian fear-mongering and vote buying, pro-European majorities remain slim.
This is despite the significant support that the EU has provided to Moldova, including €1.9 billion (£1.6 billion) in financial support to facilitate reforms as part of the country’s efforts to join the EU. And there’s also nearly €200 million in military assistance over the past four years, including a €20 million package for improved air defences announced in April.
Russian interference in the 2024 election was well documented.
The EU has also provided several emergency aid packages to assist the country’s population during repeated energy crises triggered by Russia. Since then, the Moldovans and Brussels have agreed on comprehensive energy strategy that will make the country immune to Russian blackmail.
This pattern of competitive influence seeking by Russia and the EU is long-standing and has not produced any decisive, lasting breakthroughs for either side.
When the current president of Moldova, Maia Sandu, won in 2020, she defeated her opponent, Igor Dodon, by a decisive 58% to 42% margin, equivalent to some 250,000 votes that separated the candidates in the second round. Sandu’s Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) obtained almost 53% of votes in the 2021 parliamentary elections and gained 63 seats in the 101-seat parliament. Not since the 2005 elections, won by the communist party under then-president Vladimir Voronin, had there been a a majority single-party government in Moldova. According to current opinion polls, PAS remains the strongest party with levels of support between 27% and 37%.
In a crowded field of political parties and their leaders in which disappointment and doubt are the prevailing negative emotions among the electorate, Sandu and PAS remain the least unpopular choices. They have weathered the fall-out from the war in Ukraine well so far – managing the influx of refugees, keeping relations with Transnistria stable, and steering Moldova through a near-constant cost-of-living and energy crisis. Anti-government protests in 2022-23 eventually fizzled out.
Russia’s election interference in 2024 was ultimately not successful in cheating pro-European voters out of their victories in the presidential elections and the referendum on future EU membership. But this is unlikely to stop the Kremlin from trying again in the run-up to parliamentary elections in September.
Moscow will try to disrupt and delay Moldova’s already bumpy road to EU membership. A weakened pro-European government after parliamentary elections would be a very useful tool for Russia. Moldova and its European allies are in for an unusually hot summer.
Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Vincent K.L. Chang, Assistant Professor of the History and International Relations of Modern China, Leiden University
A tour guide competition was held in the central Chinese city of Wuhan in late May. This was not some fun contest. According to Chinese state media, it was a carefully conceived effort to “attract and cultivate a group of politically firm and professionally skilled storytellers of heroes and martyrs in the new era”.
It symbolises the ambitious and far-reaching campaign launched by the Chinese state to revive the country’s pantheon of national heroes and martyrs. The aim is to unite and mobilise the nation in what Chinese leadership see as the crucial final phase in the quest to become a modern global superpower.
On the same day as the Wuhan competition, but 750 miles further inland in Sichuan province, children from a kindergarten gathered with martyrs’ family members to engage in traditional crafts. The official newspaper of the Chinese Communist party, the People’s Daily, explained how this activity helped “pass on the torch of heroes” to young generations.
And two weeks earlier, in China’s eastern province of Shandong, representatives from the official state news agency, Xinhua, attended an immersive training session on hero spirit. By coming “face to face” with heroes of the past, the trainees were able to grasp the “spirit” that had guided the extraordinary deeds of these ordinary people.
This “facing up” to past heroes increasingly takes place through digital means. Thanks to developments in AI, and with the help of universities, museums and various government units, numerous Chinese people have now been “reunited” or become “acquainted” with family members martyred decades ago.
Activities such as these have become commonplace in recent years. They are encouraged, guided and overseen by an expanding architecture of laws and regulations. There are at least two reasons why the campaign to build a new “spirit” of heroism and sacrifice requires attention beyond China-watchers.
Chinese memory politics
The first reason is the increasingly global reach of the campaign. Just as China’s economic statecraft is affecting global trade and finance, so too are Chinese memory politics spreading across the globe and reshaping the transnational memory landscape.
Beijing has become an active sponsor of commemorations that are concerned more with shaping the future than looking into the past. Recent examples include Victory Day celebrations in Moscow and Minsk, and joint commemorations in the Serbian capital, Belgrade, of the Chinese “martyrs” of Nato’s bombing of the Chinese embassy there in 1999.
China’s historical statecraft operates globally in the legal realm, too. Laws have come into effect that aim to promote patriotism and spread “core socialist values” among Chinese communities worldwide.
Chinese embassies and consulates are required to locate Chinese martyrs buried in their host jurisdictions, and erect and maintain memorials for them. They are also expected to organise commemorations involving local Chinese diasporic and expat communities.
Recent laws have been used to detain Chinese citizens living abroad. One example is Chinese artist Gao Zhen. Gao had been a permanent US resident for 13 years when he was detained in China in 2024 for his critical depictions of Mao Zedong a decade earlier.
Gao was charged with the crime of “slandering China’s heroes and martyrs” under a law that did not exist when he created and exhibited his artwork.
The second reason why China’s martyrs and heroes campaign matters globally is possibly more disturbing. China has become an example of a growing body of cases where state actors seek to shape and control historical memory.
With several democracies beginning to show signs of democratic backsliding, the Chinese case is one of many that show that polar distinctions between “liberal” and “illiberal” systems are untenable.
Perhaps the most obvious example of a democracy in democratic recession is the US. Donald Trump, a constitutionally elected president, is relying on a series of executive orders to consolidate power and hamper critical debate.
One such directive, issued late in Trump’s first term, entails a proposal to build a so-called “national garden of American heroes”. The proposal was revived recently with an executive order on “restoring truth and sanity to American history”.
The order aims to remove what the administration deems divisive and anti-American ideologies from national museums and public monuments.
Washington’s efforts to control how history is presented seem to come straight out of Beijing’s playbook. In 2020, during his July 4 address, Trump claimed: “Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children.”
These words eerily resemble those used previously by Chinese president Xi Jinping to justify his campaign against what he calls “historical nihilism” – attempts to “destroy” the Chinese nation by eradicating its history.
The causes and consequences of war have always been and will continue to be hotly debated among historians, and there is no need for the EU’s bureaucracy to unilaterally “resolve” these debates.
A problem with these bureaucratic efforts to codify historical interpretation is that they feed memory wars and fuel escalation. Even more damaging is that they emulate authoritarian practices of “dictating” history and restricting debate.
These examples show that distinctions between authoritarian and democratic regimes are not as pristine as is often claimed. Increasingly, global memory practices are evolving and possibly converging on a fluid spectrum between these two poles.
China’s new hero cult is an important case for shedding light on these dynamics.
Vincent K.L. Chang receives research funding from the Dutch government.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Vincent K.L. Chang, Assistant Professor of the History and International Relations of Modern China, Leiden University
A tour guide competition was held in the central Chinese city of Wuhan in late May. This was not some fun contest. According to Chinese state media, it was a carefully conceived effort to “attract and cultivate a group of politically firm and professionally skilled storytellers of heroes and martyrs in the new era”.
It symbolises the ambitious and far-reaching campaign launched by the Chinese state to revive the country’s pantheon of national heroes and martyrs. The aim is to unite and mobilise the nation in what Chinese leadership see as the crucial final phase in the quest to become a modern global superpower.
On the same day as the Wuhan competition, but 750 miles further inland in Sichuan province, children from a kindergarten gathered with martyrs’ family members to engage in traditional crafts. The official newspaper of the Chinese Communist party, the People’s Daily, explained how this activity helped “pass on the torch of heroes” to young generations.
And two weeks earlier, in China’s eastern province of Shandong, representatives from the official state news agency, Xinhua, attended an immersive training session on hero spirit. By coming “face to face” with heroes of the past, the trainees were able to grasp the “spirit” that had guided the extraordinary deeds of these ordinary people.
This “facing up” to past heroes increasingly takes place through digital means. Thanks to developments in AI, and with the help of universities, museums and various government units, numerous Chinese people have now been “reunited” or become “acquainted” with family members martyred decades ago.
Activities such as these have become commonplace in recent years. They are encouraged, guided and overseen by an expanding architecture of laws and regulations. There are at least two reasons why the campaign to build a new “spirit” of heroism and sacrifice requires attention beyond China-watchers.
Chinese memory politics
The first reason is the increasingly global reach of the campaign. Just as China’s economic statecraft is affecting global trade and finance, so too are Chinese memory politics spreading across the globe and reshaping the transnational memory landscape.
Beijing has become an active sponsor of commemorations that are concerned more with shaping the future than looking into the past. Recent examples include Victory Day celebrations in Moscow and Minsk, and joint commemorations in the Serbian capital, Belgrade, of the Chinese “martyrs” of Nato’s bombing of the Chinese embassy there in 1999.
China’s historical statecraft operates globally in the legal realm, too. Laws have come into effect that aim to promote patriotism and spread “core socialist values” among Chinese communities worldwide.
Chinese embassies and consulates are required to locate Chinese martyrs buried in their host jurisdictions, and erect and maintain memorials for them. They are also expected to organise commemorations involving local Chinese diasporic and expat communities.
Recent laws have been used to detain Chinese citizens living abroad. One example is Chinese artist Gao Zhen. Gao had been a permanent US resident for 13 years when he was detained in China in 2024 for his critical depictions of Mao Zedong a decade earlier.
Gao was charged with the crime of “slandering China’s heroes and martyrs” under a law that did not exist when he created and exhibited his artwork.
The second reason why China’s martyrs and heroes campaign matters globally is possibly more disturbing. China has become an example of a growing body of cases where state actors seek to shape and control historical memory.
With several democracies beginning to show signs of democratic backsliding, the Chinese case is one of many that show that polar distinctions between “liberal” and “illiberal” systems are untenable.
Perhaps the most obvious example of a democracy in democratic recession is the US. Donald Trump, a constitutionally elected president, is relying on a series of executive orders to consolidate power and hamper critical debate.
One such directive, issued late in Trump’s first term, entails a proposal to build a so-called “national garden of American heroes”. The proposal was revived recently with an executive order on “restoring truth and sanity to American history”.
The order aims to remove what the administration deems divisive and anti-American ideologies from national museums and public monuments.
Washington’s efforts to control how history is presented seem to come straight out of Beijing’s playbook. In 2020, during his July 4 address, Trump claimed: “Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children.”
These words eerily resemble those used previously by Chinese president Xi Jinping to justify his campaign against what he calls “historical nihilism” – attempts to “destroy” the Chinese nation by eradicating its history.
The causes and consequences of war have always been and will continue to be hotly debated among historians, and there is no need for the EU’s bureaucracy to unilaterally “resolve” these debates.
A problem with these bureaucratic efforts to codify historical interpretation is that they feed memory wars and fuel escalation. Even more damaging is that they emulate authoritarian practices of “dictating” history and restricting debate.
These examples show that distinctions between authoritarian and democratic regimes are not as pristine as is often claimed. Increasingly, global memory practices are evolving and possibly converging on a fluid spectrum between these two poles.
China’s new hero cult is an important case for shedding light on these dynamics.
Vincent K.L. Chang receives research funding from the Dutch government.
AI chatbots have already become embedded into some people’s lives, but how many really know how they work? Did you know, for example, ChatGPT needs to do an internet search to look up events later than June 2024? Some of the most surprising information about AI chatbots can help us understand how they work, what they can and can’t do, and so how to use them in a better way.
With that in mind, here are five things you ought to know about these breakthrough machines.
1. They are trained by human feedback
AI chatbots are trained in multiple stages, beginning with something called pre-training, where models are trained to predict the next word in massive text datasets. This allows them to develop a general understanding of language, facts and reasoning.
If asked: “How do I make a homemade explosive?” in the pre-training phase, a model might have given a detailed instruction. To make them useful and safe for conversation, human “annotators” help guide the models toward safer and more helpful responses, a process called alignment.
After alignment, an AI chatbot might answer something like: “I’m sorry, but I can’t provide that information. If you have safety concerns or need help with legal chemistry experiments, I recommend referring to certified educational sources.”
Without alignment, AI chatbots would be unpredictable, potentially spreading misinformation or harmful content. This highlights the crucial role of human intervention in shaping AI behaviour.
OpenAI, the company which developed ChatGPT, has not disclosed how many employees have trained ChatGPT for how many hours. But it is clear that AI chatbots, like ChatGPT, need a moral compass so that it does not spread harmful information. Human annotators rank responses to ensure neutrality and ethical alignment.
Similarly, if an AI chatbot was asked: “What are the best and worst nationalities?” Human annotators would rank a response like this the highest: “Every nationality has its own rich culture, history, and contributions to the world. There is no ‘best’ or ‘worst’ nationality – each one is valuable in its own way.”
2. They don’t learn through words – but with the help of tokens
Humans naturally learn language through words, whereas AI chatbots rely on smaller units called tokens. These units can be words, subwords or obscure series of characters.
While tokenisation generally follows logical patterns, it can sometimes produce unexpected splits, revealing both the strengths and quirks of how AI chatbots interpret language. Modern AI chatbots’ vocabularies typically consist of 50,000 to 100,000 tokens.
The sentence “The price is $9.99.” is tokenised by ChatGPT as “The”, “ price”, “is”, “$” “ 9”, “.”, “99”, whereas “ChatGPT is marvellous” is tokenised less intuitively: “chat”, “G”, “PT”, “ is”, “mar”, “vellous”.
AI chatbots do not continuously update themselves; hence, they may struggle with recent events, new terminology or broadly anything after their knowledge cutoff. A knowledge cut-off refers to the last point in time when an AI chatbot’s training data was updated, meaning it lacks awareness of events, trends or discoveries beyond that date.
The current version of ChatGPT has its cutoff on June 2024. If asked who is the currently president of the United States, ChatGPT would need to perform a web search using the search engine Bing, “read” the results, and return an answer. Bing results are filtered by relevance and reliability of the source. Likewise, other AI chatbots uses web search to return up-to-date answers.
Updating AI chatbots is a costly and fragile process. How to efficiently update their knowledge is still an open scientific problem. ChatGPT’s knowledge is believed to be updated as Open AI introduces new ChatGPT versions.
4. They hallucinate really easily
AI chatbots sometimes “hallucinate”, generating false or nonsensical claims with confidence because they predict text based on patterns rather than verifying facts. These errors stem from the way they work: they optimise for coherence over accuracy, rely on imperfect training data and lack real world understanding.
While improvements such as fact-checking tools (for example, like ChatGPT’s Bing search tool integration for real-time fact-checking) or prompts (for example, explicitly telling ChatGPT to “cite peer-reviewed sources” or “say I don ́t know if you are not sure”) reduce hallucinations, they can’t fully eliminate them.
For example, when asked what the main findings are of a particular research paper, ChatGPT gives a long, detailed and good-looking answer.
It also included screenshots and even a link, but from the wrong academic papers. So users should treat AI-generated information as a starting point, not an unquestionable truth.
5. They use calculators to do maths
A recently popularised feature of AI chatbots is called reasoning. Reasoning refers to the process of using logically connected intermediate steps to solve complex problems. This is also known as “chain of thought” reasoning.
Instead of jumping directly to an answer, chain of thought enables AI chatbots to think step by step. For example, when asked “what is 56,345 minus 7,865 times 350,468”, ChatGPT gives the right answer. It “understands” that the multiplication needs to occur before the subtraction.
To solve the intermediate steps, ChatGPT uses its built-in calculator that enables precise arithmetic. This hybrid approach of combining internal reasoning with the calculator helps improve reliability in complex tasks.
Cagatay Yildiz receives funding from DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, in English German Research Foundation)
“Mister. Would you like to play a game with me?” These seemingly innocuous words to debt-ridden Gi-hun (Lee Jung-Jae) by a mysterious recruiter (Gong-Yoo) lead him to an opportunity for financial salvation – at the expense of human lives, including possibly his own.
Squid Game’s third and final season has now been released, and fans can’t wait to see more green tracksuits and brutal games. But here’s what’s really driving the obsession: the show perfectly captures how financial stress warps our minds. It reveals the dark psychology of how money problems affect every decision we make.
As a researcher studying the intersection of cognitive psychology and media dissemination, I’ve been fascinated by Squid Game’s unprecedented global impact. My work on how emotional regulation affects decision-making and moral reasoning provides a unique lens for understanding why this particular show resonated so powerfully with audiences worldwide. Especially during a time of economic uncertainty.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Scientists have discovered that financial stress decreases cognitive function. Recent research analysing more than 111,000 people found that financial stress reduced their performance when completing basic tasks.
This isn’t about poorer people being less intelligent, but rather an effect called “bandwidth hijacking” that causes mental fatigue when worrying about rent and debt. Worrying about unpaid bills mean less processing power is left for anything else, including moral reasoning and long-term thinking.
Sounds familiar? This research is brought to life in Squid Game. Take Sang-woo, (Park Hae-soo) in season one. The brilliant Seoul National University graduate’s crippling debt (caused by bad investments) leads him to become a participant in the brutal Squid Games. Abandoning the etiquette of his high-flying circles, he manipulates and maliciously betrays fellow contestant Ali (Anupam Tripathi) in the marble game, pushes a man to his death on the glass bridge, and ultimately tries to kill his childhood friend, Gi-hun.
Sang-woo’s intelligence becomes laser-focused on survival, leaving no mental space for the moral reasoning that would typically guide his decisions.
The trailer for Squid Game season three.
Squid Game shows how financial desperation dehumanises people. Bodies have piled up throughout the seasons, but the players barely react to the carnage. They’re transfixed by something else entirely: the digital display showing their prize money growing with each death.
Such reminders of the financial stakes lead to reduced requests for help and reduced help towards others. This “tunnel vision” phenomenon occurs in real life too, leading to the abandonment of empathy and moral considerations.
Sang-woo doesn’t betray Ali because he’s evil – he does it because financial desperation has hijacked his moral reasoning. Look at Ali’s face during the marble game: confused, trusting, unable to process that his “hyung” (older brother, a term of respect) would manipulate him. Ali represents what we lose when desperation turns humans into competitors rather than a community.
Even Gi-hun, the supposed moral centre of the show, experiences this. When he and elderly contestant Il-nam (O Yeong-su) play marbles, Gi-hun lies and manipulates the old man he’s grown to care about. The extreme pressure – both financial and mortal – has consumed so much of his cognitive bandwidth that even basic human compassion becomes secondary to survival.
Why we couldn’t look away
Squid Game season one premiered during the COVID pandemic when millions around the world faced unemployment, eviction and financial ruin. Suddenly, extreme economic scenarios didn’t feel so remote. Audiences weren’t just watching entertainment – they saw their own psychological struggles reflected back at them.
The show has been such a success because it reveals uncomfortable truths about how money doesn’t just change what we can do, but fundamentally alters who we become when survival depends on it.
Every character in Squid Game represents a different response to economic trauma. Take season one. Gi-hun tries to maintain his humanity but repeatedly compromises (lying to his mother about money, manipulating Il-nam). Sang-woo sacrifices everything for survival (from securities fraud to literal murder). And some find strength in solidarity, as in Sae-byeok (HoYeon Jung) and Ji-yeong’s (Lee Yoo-mi) heartbreaking marble game, where Ji-yeong deliberately loses because Sae-byeok has more to live for.
The genius is in the details. Players refer to each other by numbers instead of names, a metaphor for how economic systems reduce humans to data points. The guards wear masks, becoming faceless enforcers of the system. Even the organ-harvesting subplot shows how far commodification can go, turning human bodies into black market goods.
Three seasons later, Squid Game itself has become a commodity. Netflix turned an anti-capitalist critique into a billion-dollar franchise, complete with reality TV spinoffs that recreate the exploitation of the show (without the murder!) in real life. Game shows offer high-risk, high-reward opportunities, where people admire the boldness and accept that unethical behaviour should not be vilified but encouraged.
The spectacle of humiliation is normalised by the genre’s focus on competition and transformation. Failure becomes entertainment, as is echoed in the show itself by the VIPs who, so bored with their wealth, place bets on human lives for “fun”.
Research has also found that people who enjoy reality TV are more likely to feel self-important, vindicated, or free from moral constraints. They are attracted to shows that stimulate these values.
What your Squid Game obsession or hatred means
If you’re fascinated by Squid Game, it isn’t just morbid curiosity at play – it’s recognition. On some level, it’s likely that you understand that the psychological pressure cooker of the games reflects real mechanisms happening in your own life when money gets tight.
If you found yourself repulsed by the violence or bored by the hype, your reaction may reveal something important about how you process economic anxiety. Research on adult viewers shows that people with stronger financial security and emotional regulation are more likely to avoid media content that triggers economic stress responses. Others dismiss it as “unrealistic” – what psychologists call “optimism-bias”, where you may unconsciously distance yourself from economic vulnerability.
Modern research confirms that financial scarcity creates measurable changes in how we think, plan and relate to others. The show’s genius was amplifying these subtle psychological effects to their logical extreme.
Source: Government of the Russian Federation – An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
As part of a working visit to the Novgorod Region, First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov, together with Acting Governor of the Region Alexander Dronov, familiarized himself with the activities of industrial enterprises in the region.
“Our industry demonstrates sustainable growth from year to year. Thank you and the Federal Ministry of Industry and Trade for your support, all our requests find a response from your colleagues,” stressed Acting Governor of the Novgorod Region Alexander Dronov.
The First Deputy Prime Minister visited one of the production sites of the fiber-optic drones “Prince Vandal Novgorodsky”. The drone, developed in Novgorod land, was first used in the SVO in August 2024 in the Kursk direction and is currently the most effective fpv drone in the world in terms of cost/effectiveness. During its use in the SVO zone, the KVN drone destroyed enemy equipment worth more than $2 billion. The production of fiber-optic drones in Russia is growing, and today domestic enterprises can produce hundreds of thousands of such drones per month, fully satisfying any needs of the Armed Forces.
During a visit to JSC Special Design and Technology Bureau for Relay Technology, part of the Ruselectronics holding company of the Rostec state corporation, the First Deputy Prime Minister was presented with innovative serial products of the enterprise, as well as promising projects for the creation of modern domestic electronic components based on materials and components manufactured in Russia.
Among the new products of SKTB RT is a line of microwave modules. The devices, which will replace American, German and French analogues, are capable of withstanding multiple impacts with acceleration up to 50g and operating at temperatures from -60 to 85 degrees Celsius. It is important to note that the use of a modern domestic electronic component base reduces the price of new microwave modules by 40-55% compared to foreign analogues.
Another enterprise included in the working trip was the branch of the scientific and production corporation “Precision Instrument-Making Systems” in Veliky Novgorod, which is involved in the development and production of electronic modules and units for systems for measuring the parameters of space objects’ movement, hardware and software systems for providing the GLONASS global navigation system, as well as inter-satellite laser systems for exchanging broadband information.
The First Deputy Prime Minister, in particular, was shown other products of the enterprise: serial production of microprocessor knee modules “Active-2” for people with lower limb amputations has been launched here.
Denis Manturov visited the site of the innovative scientific and technological center “Intelligent Electronics – Valdai”, created on the instructions of President Vladimir Putin in 2021. The territory of the INTC houses the advanced engineering school of Novgorod University, the programming school from Sber “School 21”, as well as about 60 residents of the center, including companies from the fields of radio electronics, control system software, and the industrial Internet of things.
As part of the construction of the new stage of the ISTC, which is planned to be completed in 2026, a new laboratory building for semiconductor materials science will be created. Research and development of high-performance heterostructures for the modern electronics industry based on semiconductor materials will be organized there, as well as a full cycle of production of microassemblies and microcircuits – from processing silicon substrates to casing and packaging finished products.
“Novgorod enterprises are involved in the production of products for the implementation of special military operation tasks. As part of the diversification of production, these same enterprises are actively developing the production of civilian products, and the university where we are today works in close cooperation with them,” Denis Manturov noted, summing up the results of the working trip.
The First Deputy Prime Minister also instructed the Ministry of Industry and Trade to study the possibility of recapitalizing the regional industrial development fund of the Novgorod region to support projects for the production of high-tech products.
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.
Source: State University of Management – Official website of the State –
On June 27, 2025, a meeting of the joint dissertation council for the scientific specialty 2.9.9. “Logistics transport systems” was held at the State University of Management, created on the basis of the State University of Management and the Belgorod State Technological University named after V.G. Shukhov.
The meeting was chaired by the chairman of the joint dissertation council, rector of the BSTU named after V.G. Shukhov Sergey Glagolev. The event was attended by 12 members of the dissertation council, 10 of them in person. Also present at the meeting were invited experts, including the vice-rector of the State University of Management Maria Karelina.
The agenda included the issues of accepting for preliminary consideration two dissertations on the topic of “Method of Ensuring the Unity of Performance Measures for Various Types of Transport in Logistics Transport Systems” and “Development of Passenger Transportation in an Integrated Logistics Transport System of a Megacity Based on a Contact Schedule”, submitted for the degree of Candidate of Technical Sciences in the specialty 2.9.9. Logistics Transport Systems.
At the request of the chairman of the dissertation council, commissions were appointed to conduct a preliminary examination of the applicants’ works. The academic secretary familiarized the council members with the conclusion of the preliminary examination and reported on the documents submitted by the applicants for an academic degree. The council unanimously decided to accept the dissertations of Nikolai Solovyov and Irina Rybakova for preliminary consideration.
The members of the dissertation council also held a preliminary hearing of dissertation research for the academic degree of Doctor of Technical Sciences and for the academic degree of Candidate of Technical Sciences.
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.
The WHO Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), a panel of 27 independent, international, multidisciplinary experts, today published its report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.
SAGO has advanced the understanding of the origins of COVID-19, but as they say in their report, much of the information needed to evaluate fully all hypotheses has not been provided.
“I thank each of the 27 members of SAGO for dedicating their time and expertise to this very important scientific undertaking over more than three years,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “As things stand, all hypotheses must remain on the table, including zoonotic spillover and lab leak. We continue to appeal to China and any other country that has information about the origins of COVID-19 to share that information openly, in the interests of protecting the world from future pandemics.”
In its report, SAGO considered available evidence for the main hypotheses for the origins of COVID-19 and concluded that “the weight of available evidence…suggests zoonotic spillover…either directly from bats or through an intermediate host.”
WHO requested that China share hundreds of genetic sequences from individuals with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, more detailed information about the animals sold at markets in Wuhan, and information on work done and biosafety conditions at laboratories in Wuhan. To date, China has not shared this information either with SAGO or WHO.
SAGO published its initial findings and recommendations in a report on 9 June 2022. Today’s report updates that evaluation based on peer-reviewed papers and reviews, as well as available unpublished information and field studies, interviews, and other reports including audit findings, government reports and intelligence reports. SAGO convened in various formats 52 times, conducted briefings with researchers, academics, journalists, and others.
“As the report says, this is not solely a scientific endeavour, it is a moral and ethical imperative,” said Dr Marietjie Venter, Chair of the group and Distinguished Professor and One Health Research Chair in Vaccines and Surveillance for Emerging viral threats at the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. “Understanding the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and how it sparked a pandemic is needed to help prevent future pandemics, save lives and livelihoods, and reduce global suffering.”
At a Special Session of the World Health Assembly in late 2020, WHO Member States adopted a resolution asking WHO to study the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Accordingly, a joint mission between international and Chinese experts travelled to China in January and February 2021, and published their report in March of that year.
In July 2021, Dr Tedros launched SAGO with two mandates: first, to design a global framework to investigate the origins of emerging and re-emerging pathogens, which it published last year, and second, to apply that framework to evaluate scientific evidence to determine the origins of COVID-19.
The work to understand the origins of SARS-CoV-2 remains unfinished. WHO welcomes any further evidence on the origins of COVID-19, and SAGO remains committed to reviewing any new information should it become available.
In Secrets We Keep, the hidden world of domestic work and abuse is exposed. Here Excel Busano who plays Angel, Cecilia’s au pair and Ruby’s best friend in Denmark speaks with her community on the phone. Tine Harden/Netflix
Moving fluidly between English, Danish and Tagalog, the six-part drama is a nuanced indictment of the lack of moral accountability among the rich. On display are the prejudices and complicity of white women in enabling a culture of toxic masculinity that treats Filipina migrant women as sexualized and disposable commodities.
The story starts with a tearful Ruby Tan — a Filipina au pair who works for the affluent Rasmus (Lars Ranthe) and Katarina (Danica Curcic) — asking for some help with her employers from her neighbour, Cecilie (Marie Bach Hansen).
Cecilie is a successful non-profit manager and mother of two married to a high-profile lawyer. She employs Angel (Excel Busano), a Filipina au pair. Cecilie tells Ruby (Donna Levkovski) she cannot get involved.
The next day, Ruby vanishes without a trace.
The series is propelled by Cecilie’s guilt in refusing to help Ruby. She is shocked at her neighbours’ apparent lack of concern for Ruby’s disappearance.
Cecilie begins to sleuth for clues regarding Ruby’s disappearance and she eventually decides to assist Aicha (Sara Fanta Traore), a racialized policewoman assigned to find the missing au pair. Cecilie discovers a pregnancy kit by a trash bin where she had last seen Ruby. And she soon suspects Ruby’s employer, Rasmus, of raping her.
While the series lacks true suspense due to its predictable story arc peppered with clues about Ruby’s disappearance, it is amply compensated by a sharp critique on the moral decay of modern society, systemic racism and the complicity of women in upholding white masculine privilege.
Warped racist view of the world
Secrets We Keep lays bare the warped world view of rich, white privilege, racism and the sexual fetishism of Asian women.
At a dinner party one night, Rasmus and Katarina do not seem concerned about their missing au pair. Katarina labels Filipina au pairs as whores working in brothels. When discussing Ruby, Katarina says, “she probably ran off to do porn.”
In one uncomfortable scene, Rasmus taunts Cecilia’s husband, Mike (Simon Sears), about his sexual preferences. Mike responds by saying: “I don’t have ‘yellow fever.’” Cecilia sits silently beside Mike.
Katarina also calls Aicha (Sara Fanta Traore), the policewoman, “the little brown one.”
At a formal dinner, Rasmus tells Cecilia: “We stick together. We are from the same world, and we are loyal to each other.”
It led the Philippines to ban the participation of Scandinavian countries in its “informal labour” arrangement in 1998. Though the ban was lifted in 2010, Au Pair Network, an advocacy group, reveals that the program is still riddled with abuse.
At a recent gender studies conference in Stockholm, Ardis Ingvars, a sociologist at the University of Iceland who worked as an au pair for a year in the United States just after she turned 18, recalls her anxiety and apprehension as she moved to Boston.
She said:
“Au pairs hope to be lucky with the family turning out OK. What is difficult to take is the attitude of ‘ownership’ that the children and families display over the au pairs as an unquestioned entitlement.”
Ingvars said asymmetrical power relations embedded within the au pair system reinforce racial and class hierarchies.
This is reflected in Secrets We Keep. Midway during Aicha’s investigation, as she hits roadblock after roadblock, she cries out in frustration: “She’s a fucking nobody in their world.”
Aicha Petersen (Sara Fanta Traore) is the police investigator charged with finding Ruby in ‘Secrets We Keep’. Netflix
Feminized labour exploitation
Economic globalization, neoliberal policies and an increased dependence on the remittance economy fuses with the care gap in the Global North to fuel the feminized care migration from the Global South, many of them Filipino women.
Au pairs are placed with host families who provide free board and meals in return for up to 30 hours a week of housework and child care as they learn the host language and customs. The au pairs are paid “pocket money” of Danish Kroner 5,000 per month (approx $1,000 Canadian) out of which they also pay local taxes.
One scene shows one of Cecilie’s work meetings. A junior staff member expresses surprise that Cecilie has an au pair, labelling it a relic of colonial era racial hierarchies.
Cecilie defends herself, and says the system survives because of the failure of men to keep up their domestic bargain and thus the need for women like her “to outsource care.”
She argues the Filipina au pairs “are dependable” and she is “a much better mother” because of Angel. But Cecilie doesn’t acknowledge her privilege — that to be with her children and have a career is predicated on the exploitative extraction of care from Global South women.
Cecilie’s shock at finding out that Angel has a son whom she left behind in the Philippines is part of her denial. In the end, Cecilie is unable to confront her own complicity and decides to release Angel from their au pair arrangement.
“You know nothing about my world…You are very lucky,” cries Angel in anguish as Cecilie hands her the return ticket and an extra three months’ pay to demonstrate her magnanimity.
Secrets We Keep reveals the brutal reality for Global South au pairs as well as upper-class white women and their entitlements. It indicates that even though these white wealthy women may see mistreatment, they maintain their silence and participate in wilful gendered violence to hold onto that privilege, while maintaining a façade of compassion towards the disposable racial migrant other.
In Secrets We Keep, the hidden world of domestic work and abuse is exposed. Here Excel Busano who plays Angel, Cecilia’s au pair and Ruby’s best friend in Denmark speaks with her community on the phone. Tine Harden/Netflix
Moving fluidly between English, Danish and Tagalog, the six-part drama is a nuanced indictment of the lack of moral accountability among the rich. On display are the prejudices and complicity of white women in enabling a culture of toxic masculinity that treats Filipina migrant women as sexualized and disposable commodities.
The story starts with a tearful Ruby Tan — a Filipina au pair who works for the affluent Rasmus (Lars Ranthe) and Katarina (Danica Curcic) — asking for some help with her employers from her neighbour, Cecilie (Marie Bach Hansen).
Cecilie is a successful non-profit manager and mother of two married to a high-profile lawyer. She employs Angel (Excel Busano), a Filipina au pair. Cecilie tells Ruby (Donna Levkovski) she cannot get involved.
The next day, Ruby vanishes without a trace.
The series is propelled by Cecilie’s guilt in refusing to help Ruby. She is shocked at her neighbours’ apparent lack of concern for Ruby’s disappearance.
Cecilie begins to sleuth for clues regarding Ruby’s disappearance and she eventually decides to assist Aicha (Sara Fanta Traore), a racialized policewoman assigned to find the missing au pair. Cecilie discovers a pregnancy kit by a trash bin where she had last seen Ruby. And she soon suspects Ruby’s employer, Rasmus, of raping her.
While the series lacks true suspense due to its predictable story arc peppered with clues about Ruby’s disappearance, it is amply compensated by a sharp critique on the moral decay of modern society, systemic racism and the complicity of women in upholding white masculine privilege.
Warped racist view of the world
Secrets We Keep lays bare the warped world view of rich, white privilege, racism and the sexual fetishism of Asian women.
At a dinner party one night, Rasmus and Katarina do not seem concerned about their missing au pair. Katarina labels Filipina au pairs as whores working in brothels. When discussing Ruby, Katarina says, “she probably ran off to do porn.”
In one uncomfortable scene, Rasmus taunts Cecilia’s husband, Mike (Simon Sears), about his sexual preferences. Mike responds by saying: “I don’t have ‘yellow fever.’” Cecilia sits silently beside Mike.
Katarina also calls Aicha (Sara Fanta Traore), the policewoman, “the little brown one.”
At a formal dinner, Rasmus tells Cecilia: “We stick together. We are from the same world, and we are loyal to each other.”
It led the Philippines to ban the participation of Scandinavian countries in its “informal labour” arrangement in 1998. Though the ban was lifted in 2010, Au Pair Network, an advocacy group, reveals that the program is still riddled with abuse.
At a recent gender studies conference in Stockholm, Ardis Ingvars, a sociologist at the University of Iceland who worked as an au pair for a year in the United States just after she turned 18, recalls her anxiety and apprehension as she moved to Boston.
She said:
“Au pairs hope to be lucky with the family turning out OK. What is difficult to take is the attitude of ‘ownership’ that the children and families display over the au pairs as an unquestioned entitlement.”
Ingvars said asymmetrical power relations embedded within the au pair system reinforce racial and class hierarchies.
This is reflected in Secrets We Keep. Midway during Aicha’s investigation, as she hits roadblock after roadblock, she cries out in frustration: “She’s a fucking nobody in their world.”
Aicha Petersen (Sara Fanta Traore) is the police investigator charged with finding Ruby in ‘Secrets We Keep’. Netflix
Feminized labour exploitation
Economic globalization, neoliberal policies and an increased dependence on the remittance economy fuses with the care gap in the Global North to fuel the feminized care migration from the Global South, many of them Filipino women.
Au pairs are placed with host families who provide free board and meals in return for up to 30 hours a week of housework and child care as they learn the host language and customs. The au pairs are paid “pocket money” of Danish Kroner 5,000 per month (approx $1,000 Canadian) out of which they also pay local taxes.
One scene shows one of Cecilie’s work meetings. A junior staff member expresses surprise that Cecilie has an au pair, labelling it a relic of colonial era racial hierarchies.
Cecilie defends herself, and says the system survives because of the failure of men to keep up their domestic bargain and thus the need for women like her “to outsource care.”
She argues the Filipina au pairs “are dependable” and she is “a much better mother” because of Angel. But Cecilie doesn’t acknowledge her privilege — that to be with her children and have a career is predicated on the exploitative extraction of care from Global South women.
Cecilie’s shock at finding out that Angel has a son whom she left behind in the Philippines is part of her denial. In the end, Cecilie is unable to confront her own complicity and decides to release Angel from their au pair arrangement.
“You know nothing about my world…You are very lucky,” cries Angel in anguish as Cecilie hands her the return ticket and an extra three months’ pay to demonstrate her magnanimity.
Secrets We Keep reveals the brutal reality for Global South au pairs as well as upper-class white women and their entitlements. It indicates that even though these white wealthy women may see mistreatment, they maintain their silence and participate in wilful gendered violence to hold onto that privilege, while maintaining a façade of compassion towards the disposable racial migrant other.
In Secrets We Keep, the hidden world of domestic work and abuse is exposed. Here Excel Busano who plays Angel, Cecilia’s au pair and Ruby’s best friend in Denmark speaks with her community on the phone. Tine Harden/Netflix
Moving fluidly between English, Danish and Tagalog, the six-part drama is a nuanced indictment of the lack of moral accountability among the rich. On display are the prejudices and complicity of white women in enabling a culture of toxic masculinity that treats Filipina migrant women as sexualized and disposable commodities.
The story starts with a tearful Ruby Tan — a Filipina au pair who works for the affluent Rasmus (Lars Ranthe) and Katarina (Danica Curcic) — asking for some help with her employers from her neighbour, Cecilie (Marie Bach Hansen).
Cecilie is a successful non-profit manager and mother of two married to a high-profile lawyer. She employs Angel (Excel Busano), a Filipina au pair. Cecilie tells Ruby (Donna Levkovski) she cannot get involved.
The next day, Ruby vanishes without a trace.
The series is propelled by Cecilie’s guilt in refusing to help Ruby. She is shocked at her neighbours’ apparent lack of concern for Ruby’s disappearance.
Cecilie begins to sleuth for clues regarding Ruby’s disappearance and she eventually decides to assist Aicha (Sara Fanta Traore), a racialized policewoman assigned to find the missing au pair. Cecilie discovers a pregnancy kit by a trash bin where she had last seen Ruby. And she soon suspects Ruby’s employer, Rasmus, of raping her.
While the series lacks true suspense due to its predictable story arc peppered with clues about Ruby’s disappearance, it is amply compensated by a sharp critique on the moral decay of modern society, systemic racism and the complicity of women in upholding white masculine privilege.
Warped racist view of the world
Secrets We Keep lays bare the warped world view of rich, white privilege, racism and the sexual fetishism of Asian women.
At a dinner party one night, Rasmus and Katarina do not seem concerned about their missing au pair. Katarina labels Filipina au pairs as whores working in brothels. When discussing Ruby, Katarina says, “she probably ran off to do porn.”
In one uncomfortable scene, Rasmus taunts Cecilia’s husband, Mike (Simon Sears), about his sexual preferences. Mike responds by saying: “I don’t have ‘yellow fever.’” Cecilia sits silently beside Mike.
Katarina also calls Aicha (Sara Fanta Traore), the policewoman, “the little brown one.”
At a formal dinner, Rasmus tells Cecilia: “We stick together. We are from the same world, and we are loyal to each other.”
It led the Philippines to ban the participation of Scandinavian countries in its “informal labour” arrangement in 1998. Though the ban was lifted in 2010, Au Pair Network, an advocacy group, reveals that the program is still riddled with abuse.
At a recent gender studies conference in Stockholm, Ardis Ingvars, a sociologist at the University of Iceland who worked as an au pair for a year in the United States just after she turned 18, recalls her anxiety and apprehension as she moved to Boston.
She said:
“Au pairs hope to be lucky with the family turning out OK. What is difficult to take is the attitude of ‘ownership’ that the children and families display over the au pairs as an unquestioned entitlement.”
Ingvars said asymmetrical power relations embedded within the au pair system reinforce racial and class hierarchies.
This is reflected in Secrets We Keep. Midway during Aicha’s investigation, as she hits roadblock after roadblock, she cries out in frustration: “She’s a fucking nobody in their world.”
Aicha Petersen (Sara Fanta Traore) is the police investigator charged with finding Ruby in ‘Secrets We Keep’. Netflix
Feminized labour exploitation
Economic globalization, neoliberal policies and an increased dependence on the remittance economy fuses with the care gap in the Global North to fuel the feminized care migration from the Global South, many of them Filipino women.
Au pairs are placed with host families who provide free board and meals in return for up to 30 hours a week of housework and child care as they learn the host language and customs. The au pairs are paid “pocket money” of Danish Kroner 5,000 per month (approx $1,000 Canadian) out of which they also pay local taxes.
One scene shows one of Cecilie’s work meetings. A junior staff member expresses surprise that Cecilie has an au pair, labelling it a relic of colonial era racial hierarchies.
Cecilie defends herself, and says the system survives because of the failure of men to keep up their domestic bargain and thus the need for women like her “to outsource care.”
She argues the Filipina au pairs “are dependable” and she is “a much better mother” because of Angel. But Cecilie doesn’t acknowledge her privilege — that to be with her children and have a career is predicated on the exploitative extraction of care from Global South women.
Cecilie’s shock at finding out that Angel has a son whom she left behind in the Philippines is part of her denial. In the end, Cecilie is unable to confront her own complicity and decides to release Angel from their au pair arrangement.
“You know nothing about my world…You are very lucky,” cries Angel in anguish as Cecilie hands her the return ticket and an extra three months’ pay to demonstrate her magnanimity.
Secrets We Keep reveals the brutal reality for Global South au pairs as well as upper-class white women and their entitlements. It indicates that even though these white wealthy women may see mistreatment, they maintain their silence and participate in wilful gendered violence to hold onto that privilege, while maintaining a façade of compassion towards the disposable racial migrant other.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ruth H. Thurstan, Associate Professor in Marine and Historical Ecology, University of Exeter
Ruth Thurstan holds the Piscatorial AtlasCredit: Lee Raby, CC BY-NC-ND
What stands out most about the book I’m carrying under my arm, as I meander through the exhibits at the National Maritime Museum Cornwall in Falmouth, is its awkwardly large size. The Piscatorial Atlas, authored by Ole Theodor Olsen and published in 1883, contains 50 beautifully illustrated charts of the seas around Great Britain. These show the locations exploited at that time for a variety of fish species, alongside the typical vessels or fishing gear used. This information was collated from fishermen in the decade before the atlas was published.
The atlas isn’t a book made for travel. Luckily, it can be readily admired online. But leafing through its carefully curated pages, which contain the collective knowledge of so many people who have long since passed away, feels special, and is why I chose it to show to the programme producers today.
I’ve always loved old books, but I never imagined they would become such an integral part of my work. My interest in marine historical ecology – the use of historical archives to make sense of how our ocean ecosystems are changing – started 18 years ago when I read The Unnatural History of the Sea by Professor Callum Roberts. Within its pages it details how historical perspectives provide critical insights into the deteriorating health of our seas.
Local science, global stories.
This article is part of a series, Secrets of the Sea, exploring how marine scientists are developing climate solutions.
In collaboration with the BBC, Anna Turns travels around the West Country coastline to meet ocean experts making exciting discoveries beneath the waves.
In recent decades, fishery declines, degradation of coastal habitats and the loss of large predators show that exploitation, coastal development, pollution and climate change are exacting their toll on marine ecosystems.
Yet information extracted from old books, reports, and even newspaper articles, show us that many of these issues started long ago. We have exploited the seas for thousands of years, but in Britain, the 19th-century introduction of steam power was a watershed moment. A point in time when our ability to exploit the seas abruptly and dramatically increased. My research aims to uncover how our use of this technological advance – and those that followed – have affected the functioning of marine ecosystems and their continued ability to support our needs.
Transformation of the seas
These negative effects are profound. Towards the end of the Piscatorial Atlas is a page dedicated to the native oyster (Ostrea edulis). It is my favourite of the charts. A gradation of colour indicates where oysters were found in abundance at this time. Colour surrounds the coastal seas of Britain and further afield. Strikingly, there is an enormous area of oyster ground delineated in the southern North Sea.
Today, the native oyster ecosystem is defined as collapsed. The decline of nearshore oyster reefs was well underway by the time the Piscatorial Atlas was published, and the loss of the large North Sea oyster ground – so clear on Olsen’s chart – swiftly followed. As those with the knowledge of these once prolific grounds passed away, the memory of the once vast oyster habitats was lost. This problem was further compounded by science. In the late 19th century, studies of oyster grounds were rare, and scientific surveys almost always occurred after the habitat had been destroyed. Low densities of oysters became the scientific norm.
Recent research I was involved in with a team of experts used historical sources from across Europe to show just how much change has occurred. We showed that reported native oyster habitat once covered tens of thousands of square kilometres and was a dominant feature of some coastal ecosystems. Multiple layers of old oyster shell, consolidated by a layer of living oysters, provided raised reefs that supported a diverse range of species.
The economic and cultural significance of oysters created a more visible historical record than many other species. Yet, the history of marine declines is not limited to oysters. Historical sources quote fishermen concerned about the expansion of trawling and fishing effort. They described the efficiency with which sail trawlers and early steam-powered vessels extracted fish and non-target species from the seafloor.
The impact of land-based activities, such as sediment and pollutant run-off and coastal development, also increased as societies industrialised. These placed marine ecosystems under further pressure, yet regulations governing sustainable management of our seas failed to keep up. These influences, coupled with a collective societal amnesia regarding what we have lost, facilitated the hidden transformation of marine ecosystems.
Using old books and other deep-time approaches, researchers are increasingly making these transformations visible. Reading the words of people from centuries ago, we learn that their experiences of marine ecosystems were often fundamentally different from our own. Understanding the scale of this difference, where species and habitats existed, and in what abundances, can help make the case for their conservation and restoration.
People have always made use of the seas. For me, looking to the past isn’t just about understanding what we have lost, it is also about taking positive lessons from the past, such as the myriad ways in which societies benefited from the presence of healthy marine ecosystems. Heeding these lessons from history helps us visualise the full range of possible futures available to us, including the many benefits that more ambitious conservation and restoration of our ocean ecosystems could bring, should we choose this path.
Ruth H. Thurstan works for The University of Exeter. She receives funding from the Convex Seascape Survey and the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 856488).
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ruth H. Thurstan, Associate Professor in Marine and Historical Ecology, University of Exeter
Ruth Thurstan holds the Piscatorial AtlasCredit: Lee Raby, CC BY-NC-ND
What stands out most about the book I’m carrying under my arm, as I meander through the exhibits at the National Maritime Museum Cornwall in Falmouth, is its awkwardly large size. The Piscatorial Atlas, authored by Ole Theodor Olsen and published in 1883, contains 50 beautifully illustrated charts of the seas around Great Britain. These show the locations exploited at that time for a variety of fish species, alongside the typical vessels or fishing gear used. This information was collated from fishermen in the decade before the atlas was published.
The atlas isn’t a book made for travel. Luckily, it can be readily admired online. But leafing through its carefully curated pages, which contain the collective knowledge of so many people who have long since passed away, feels special, and is why I chose it to show to the programme producers today.
I’ve always loved old books, but I never imagined they would become such an integral part of my work. My interest in marine historical ecology – the use of historical archives to make sense of how our ocean ecosystems are changing – started 18 years ago when I read The Unnatural History of the Sea by Professor Callum Roberts. Within its pages it details how historical perspectives provide critical insights into the deteriorating health of our seas.
Local science, global stories.
This article is part of a series, Secrets of the Sea, exploring how marine scientists are developing climate solutions.
In collaboration with the BBC, Anna Turns travels around the West Country coastline to meet ocean experts making exciting discoveries beneath the waves.
In recent decades, fishery declines, degradation of coastal habitats and the loss of large predators show that exploitation, coastal development, pollution and climate change are exacting their toll on marine ecosystems.
Yet information extracted from old books, reports, and even newspaper articles, show us that many of these issues started long ago. We have exploited the seas for thousands of years, but in Britain, the 19th-century introduction of steam power was a watershed moment. A point in time when our ability to exploit the seas abruptly and dramatically increased. My research aims to uncover how our use of this technological advance – and those that followed – have affected the functioning of marine ecosystems and their continued ability to support our needs.
Transformation of the seas
These negative effects are profound. Towards the end of the Piscatorial Atlas is a page dedicated to the native oyster (Ostrea edulis). It is my favourite of the charts. A gradation of colour indicates where oysters were found in abundance at this time. Colour surrounds the coastal seas of Britain and further afield. Strikingly, there is an enormous area of oyster ground delineated in the southern North Sea.
Today, the native oyster ecosystem is defined as collapsed. The decline of nearshore oyster reefs was well underway by the time the Piscatorial Atlas was published, and the loss of the large North Sea oyster ground – so clear on Olsen’s chart – swiftly followed. As those with the knowledge of these once prolific grounds passed away, the memory of the once vast oyster habitats was lost. This problem was further compounded by science. In the late 19th century, studies of oyster grounds were rare, and scientific surveys almost always occurred after the habitat had been destroyed. Low densities of oysters became the scientific norm.
Recent research I was involved in with a team of experts used historical sources from across Europe to show just how much change has occurred. We showed that reported native oyster habitat once covered tens of thousands of square kilometres and was a dominant feature of some coastal ecosystems. Multiple layers of old oyster shell, consolidated by a layer of living oysters, provided raised reefs that supported a diverse range of species.
The economic and cultural significance of oysters created a more visible historical record than many other species. Yet, the history of marine declines is not limited to oysters. Historical sources quote fishermen concerned about the expansion of trawling and fishing effort. They described the efficiency with which sail trawlers and early steam-powered vessels extracted fish and non-target species from the seafloor.
The impact of land-based activities, such as sediment and pollutant run-off and coastal development, also increased as societies industrialised. These placed marine ecosystems under further pressure, yet regulations governing sustainable management of our seas failed to keep up. These influences, coupled with a collective societal amnesia regarding what we have lost, facilitated the hidden transformation of marine ecosystems.
Using old books and other deep-time approaches, researchers are increasingly making these transformations visible. Reading the words of people from centuries ago, we learn that their experiences of marine ecosystems were often fundamentally different from our own. Understanding the scale of this difference, where species and habitats existed, and in what abundances, can help make the case for their conservation and restoration.
People have always made use of the seas. For me, looking to the past isn’t just about understanding what we have lost, it is also about taking positive lessons from the past, such as the myriad ways in which societies benefited from the presence of healthy marine ecosystems. Heeding these lessons from history helps us visualise the full range of possible futures available to us, including the many benefits that more ambitious conservation and restoration of our ocean ecosystems could bring, should we choose this path.
Ruth H. Thurstan works for The University of Exeter. She receives funding from the Convex Seascape Survey and the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 856488).
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ruth H. Thurstan, Associate Professor in Marine and Historical Ecology, University of Exeter
Ruth Thurstan holds the Piscatorial AtlasCredit: Lee Raby, CC BY-NC-ND
What stands out most about the book I’m carrying under my arm, as I meander through the exhibits at the National Maritime Museum Cornwall in Falmouth, is its awkwardly large size. The Piscatorial Atlas, authored by Ole Theodor Olsen and published in 1883, contains 50 beautifully illustrated charts of the seas around Great Britain. These show the locations exploited at that time for a variety of fish species, alongside the typical vessels or fishing gear used. This information was collated from fishermen in the decade before the atlas was published.
The atlas isn’t a book made for travel. Luckily, it can be readily admired online. But leafing through its carefully curated pages, which contain the collective knowledge of so many people who have long since passed away, feels special, and is why I chose it to show to the programme producers today.
I’ve always loved old books, but I never imagined they would become such an integral part of my work. My interest in marine historical ecology – the use of historical archives to make sense of how our ocean ecosystems are changing – started 18 years ago when I read The Unnatural History of the Sea by Professor Callum Roberts. Within its pages it details how historical perspectives provide critical insights into the deteriorating health of our seas.
Local science, global stories.
This article is part of a series, Secrets of the Sea, exploring how marine scientists are developing climate solutions.
In collaboration with the BBC, Anna Turns travels around the West Country coastline to meet ocean experts making exciting discoveries beneath the waves.
In recent decades, fishery declines, degradation of coastal habitats and the loss of large predators show that exploitation, coastal development, pollution and climate change are exacting their toll on marine ecosystems.
Yet information extracted from old books, reports, and even newspaper articles, show us that many of these issues started long ago. We have exploited the seas for thousands of years, but in Britain, the 19th-century introduction of steam power was a watershed moment. A point in time when our ability to exploit the seas abruptly and dramatically increased. My research aims to uncover how our use of this technological advance – and those that followed – have affected the functioning of marine ecosystems and their continued ability to support our needs.
Transformation of the seas
These negative effects are profound. Towards the end of the Piscatorial Atlas is a page dedicated to the native oyster (Ostrea edulis). It is my favourite of the charts. A gradation of colour indicates where oysters were found in abundance at this time. Colour surrounds the coastal seas of Britain and further afield. Strikingly, there is an enormous area of oyster ground delineated in the southern North Sea.
Today, the native oyster ecosystem is defined as collapsed. The decline of nearshore oyster reefs was well underway by the time the Piscatorial Atlas was published, and the loss of the large North Sea oyster ground – so clear on Olsen’s chart – swiftly followed. As those with the knowledge of these once prolific grounds passed away, the memory of the once vast oyster habitats was lost. This problem was further compounded by science. In the late 19th century, studies of oyster grounds were rare, and scientific surveys almost always occurred after the habitat had been destroyed. Low densities of oysters became the scientific norm.
Recent research I was involved in with a team of experts used historical sources from across Europe to show just how much change has occurred. We showed that reported native oyster habitat once covered tens of thousands of square kilometres and was a dominant feature of some coastal ecosystems. Multiple layers of old oyster shell, consolidated by a layer of living oysters, provided raised reefs that supported a diverse range of species.
The economic and cultural significance of oysters created a more visible historical record than many other species. Yet, the history of marine declines is not limited to oysters. Historical sources quote fishermen concerned about the expansion of trawling and fishing effort. They described the efficiency with which sail trawlers and early steam-powered vessels extracted fish and non-target species from the seafloor.
The impact of land-based activities, such as sediment and pollutant run-off and coastal development, also increased as societies industrialised. These placed marine ecosystems under further pressure, yet regulations governing sustainable management of our seas failed to keep up. These influences, coupled with a collective societal amnesia regarding what we have lost, facilitated the hidden transformation of marine ecosystems.
Using old books and other deep-time approaches, researchers are increasingly making these transformations visible. Reading the words of people from centuries ago, we learn that their experiences of marine ecosystems were often fundamentally different from our own. Understanding the scale of this difference, where species and habitats existed, and in what abundances, can help make the case for their conservation and restoration.
People have always made use of the seas. For me, looking to the past isn’t just about understanding what we have lost, it is also about taking positive lessons from the past, such as the myriad ways in which societies benefited from the presence of healthy marine ecosystems. Heeding these lessons from history helps us visualise the full range of possible futures available to us, including the many benefits that more ambitious conservation and restoration of our ocean ecosystems could bring, should we choose this path.
Ruth H. Thurstan works for The University of Exeter. She receives funding from the Convex Seascape Survey and the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 856488).
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Florian Steig, DPhil Student, Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford
In the Danish TV drama Families Like Ours, one melancholic line from high-school student Laura captures the emotional toll of climate displacement: “Soon we will vanish like bubbles in a creek.” This seven-part series imagines a near future in which Denmark is being evacuated due to rising sea levels – a government-mandated relocation of an entire population.
The series challenges the fantasy that wealthy western countries are immune to the far-reaching effects of climate change. Rather than focusing on catastrophic storylines, Families Like Ours portrays the mundane, bureaucratic and affective aspects of relocating a population in anticipation of a creeping crisis: the scramble for visas, the fractures that appear between families, and the inequalities in social and economic capital that shape people’s chances for a new life.
Yet, the idea that Denmark could soon get submerged is not grounded in science. More worryingly, the narrative of the unavoidable uninhabitability of entire nations and millions of international migrants flooding Europe is misleading, dangerous, and sidelines deeply political questions about adaptation to sea level rise that should be dealt with now.
The trailer for Families Like Ours.
Sea levels are rising by a few millimetres a year. That pace is accelerating. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that, by 2100, sea levels could rise by up to one metre on average. Beyond 2100, sea levels could rise by several metres, although these long-term scenarios are highly uncertain.
Even in extreme scenarios, these developments would unfold over several decades and centuries. It’s unlikely that permanent submergence of large areas of land will make Denmark uninhabitable.
Still, sea level rise poses a serious risk to the livelihoods of millions of people living in coastal zones. In the UK, many homes in Norfolk and Fairbourne, Wales, are already at risk from coastal erosion, for instance.
These changes are subtle. They do not warrant the evacuation of an entire nation, but degrade coastal livelihoods over time. Houses in high-risk areas like these may become uninsurable, devalued or too risky to live in. This will force people to move.
In addition, sea level rise makes coastal flooding more likely. In European high-income countries, including Denmark, rising waters already threaten coastal communities. Without adaptation, hundreds of thousands of homes in cities such as Copenhagen could be at risk.
The danger of mass migration narratives
However, depicting climate change as a driver of uncontrolled mass migration is misleading. Sea level rise will contribute to coastal migration, and state-led relocation is already a reality especially in Africa and Asia. But climate migration predominantly occurs within countries or regions. International migration from climate change impacts is the exception, not the norm.
To capture these complexities, some researchers prefer the term “climate mobility”. Mobility can be forced or voluntary, permanent or temporary, even seasonal. Some communities and people resist relocation plans and stay put.
Families Like Ours reinforces longstanding narratives that frame certain parts of the world as destined to become uninhabitable. Even UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned of a “mass exodus of entire populations on a biblical scale” due to sea level rise.
Scientists have warned that creative storylines highlighting the “uninhabitability” of low-lying countries and regions, such as the Pacific, are not helpful. The mass migration narrative can be used by governments to justify extreme protectionist action and sideline urgent adaptation debates.
States are not helpless in the face of sea level rise and submergence is not inevitable. As geographer Carol Farbotko and colleagues suggest, “habitability is mediated by human actions and is not a direct consequence of environmental change”. People often develop their own ways of living with rising waters, resisting narratives of submergence. State-led adaptation is possible, but depends on finance, which is unequally distributed.
People’s migration decisions can seldomly be attributed to just climate impact. A community’s capacity to respond hinges on social, political, economic and demographic factors. Adaptation measures are costly. This raises deeply political questions over who gets to be protected, who is left behind, and how managed retreat can benefit the most affected people and places in a fair way. We need to overcome mass migration myths and start a serious and justice-focused debate about the future of our shorelines.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel O’Brien, Lecturer, Department of Literature Film and Theatre Studies, University of Essex
It has now been four decades since Marty McFly first hit 88 miles per hour in a time-travelling DeLorean. Robert Zemeckis’s sci-fi adventure blockbuster didn’t just navigate the space-time continuum onscreen (thanks to the flux capacitor). It also found a lasting place in the hearts of its audience.
Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone speak badly about the Back to the Future trilogy (aside from certain cast members, which I’ll touch on later). It has thankfully avoided the common traps of remakes and the sprawling expanded universe trend, which has diluted so many other beloved franchises (yes, Star Wars, Indiana Jones and The Lord of the Rings, I’m talking to you).
Naturally, the success of Back to the Future has inspired a range of adaptations, including a computer game, an immersive Secret Cinema event, as well as a more recent West End stage musical. But each version stays true to the spirit of the original, reinforcing what feels like an unspoken rule in Hollywood: Back to the Future is off-limits to a cinematic or televised remake.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Zemeckis and Bob Gale, who co-wrote the screenplay for all three films, have repeatedly shut down the idea of a fourth instalment, declaring that the trilogy is complete. In fact, aside from a few delightful Back to the Future references in other shows made by the original stars themselves, the only remake you’re likely to come across is BBTF Project 85. It’s a multi-fan-made, shot-for-shot collaboration and true labour of love, created not for profit but out of pure admiration for the original.
The success of the Back to the Future trilogy can be attributed to several factors, not least the undeniable charisma and chemistry between Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd. The wholesome, inter-generational friendship of their characters is never explicitly explained, but also doesn’t need to be. It simply works. The dynamic between Doc and Marty captures a timeless, heartfelt bond between two generations who respect and learn from each other, much like the relationship between Daniel LaRusso and Mr. Miyagi in The Karate Kid (another trilogy that has since found itself in the rebooted camp).
The original trailer for Back to the Future.
Michael J. Fox was the original choice for Marty McFly but due to scheduling conflicts with his role on sitcom Family Ties, production began with Eric Stoltz in the role. Over half the film was shot before Zemeckis made the difficult decision to recast.
Stoltz wasn’t the only cast member to leave Back to the Future with a sense of disappointment. Crispin Glover, who played George McFly, also famously fell out with Zemeckis and Gale over creative differences. One of which was Glover’s objection to the film’s ending that presented Marty’s family being financially wealthier in comparison to the start. Glover felt this idea sent a negative message of money equating to happiness. This artistic clash (and ironically, dispute over salary) ultimately led to him being recast in Back to the Future Parts II and III, with actor Jeffrey Weissman stepping in.
In the sequels, Weissman wears a facial prosthetic designed from Glover’s likeness from the first film (where George is made to look older). This enraged Glover further, who responded by filing a lawsuit, arguing that the use of his image without consent was illegal.
He has since been openly critical of Weissman’s “bad performance” and has expressed ongoing frustration that many viewers still mistakenly assume the “bad acting” to be his own. As he notes, this explicitly contrasts with the more obvious recasting of Jennifer Parker (Marty’s girlfriend) performed by Claudia Wells in the first film and later replaced by Elisabeth Shue in the sequels.
The recasting reflects the first film’s unexpected success. Back to the Future was never intended to have a sequel, but the overwhelming popularity of the original prompted the rapid development of two back-to-back follow-ups released in 1989 and 1990.
Once again, the film’s success can be credited to the electric chemistry between its leads and the unforgettable music, from Huey Lewis’s Power of Love to Chuck Berry’s “new sound” in Johnny B. Goode, and Alan Silvestri’s hauntingly triumphant score. Silvestri’s music seems to capture the spirit of wide-eyed adventure, nostalgia and wisdom all at once, like a journey through time, composed entirely for the ears, affording the trilogy a sense of timelessness.
Back to printed media
Another charm of the Back to the Future trilogy (which stood out to me in a more recent viewing) lies in its use of printed media, which inspired me to create my video essay, Back to Printed Media.
Back to Printed Media.
As indicated in the video, Back to the Future begins with the sound and image of clocks before panning to a framed newspaper article, a fitting introduction to how all three instalments use print to convey plot, emotion and shifts across timelines.
Beyond newspapers, the trilogy gives prominence to photographs, handwritten letters, phone books, a sports almanac, transparent receipts of the future, and even printed faxes (in the future of 2015). This tactile world of ink and paper evokes a deep nostalgia, underscoring the emotional weight of physical communication, something that has steadily faded with the rise of digital screens and indeed the loss of physical touch.
Doc even comments in the third instalment (when reading a letter from his future self) that he never knew he could write anything so touching.
In an era where glowing rectangles dominate both our lives and our storytelling, Back to the Future offers a refreshing contrast. It reminds us of the human connection and the need to be with others, packaged in a blockbuster narrative about one of the most universal cinematic themes: finding your way back home.
As a trilogy, Back to the Future has stood the test of time for four decades, and I’m confident it will continue to resonate with both new and nostalgic audiences well into the future.
Daniel O’Brien 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: The Conversation – UK – By Brian J. Phillips, Reader (Associate Professor) in International Relations, University of Essex
The UK’s home secretary, Yvette Cooper, plans to proscribe the protest group Palestine Action under anti-terror law. This move, if approved by parliament, would criminalise the group’s existence, making it a crime to be a member of the group or to support it in any way.
Palestine Action emerged in 2020, first drawing attention when its members broke into and spray painted red the UK headquarters of Elbit Systems, an Israeli defence contractor. In the years since, the group has sprayed paint, blockaded or otherwise vandalised a number of institutions it sees as complicit in Israeli military actions, such as a Lockheed Martin facility and two Barclays branches.
The group’s website describes it as a “direct action movement committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime”.
The term “direct action” has historically been used for tactics ranging from legal protest to traffic obstruction and property damage, such as animal rights activists smashing laboratory equipment used for experiments on animals. Or, more recently, the roadblocks carried out by Extinction Rebellion.
Palestine Action’s campaign has caused substantial property damage. Five activists were jailed after a 2022 protest at a Glasgow weapons equipment factory that caused more than an estimated £1 million in damage due to pyrotechnics thrown inside the building.
Activists are also accused of causing £1 million in damages to Elbit property near Bristol in 2024. Eighteen face charges of aggravated burglary and criminal damage, 16 of whom also face a charge of violent disorder. Nine have pleaded not guilty, while others have not yet entered a plea. During the Bristol attack, one person was accused of assaulting police officers with a sledgehammer, and has pleaded not guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
The group’s recent spray-painting of two military jets at RAF Brize Norton – reportedly causing millions of pounds in damage, combined with the military nature of the target – seems to have been the breaking point for the home secretary.
The question is whether all this makes the group a terrorist organisation.
The terrorist list criteria
The UK’s list of proscribed groups currently contains 81 organisations, from radical Islamists such as al-Qaida to neo-Nazis such as the Base.
The legislation behind the list, the Terrorism Act 2000, imposes serious punishments for proscribed organisations’ members or supporters, from a fine to a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Even wearing clothing or publishing an image supporting a proscribed group can be punished by up to six months in prison or a fine of up to £5,000.
For a group to be proscribed, it needs to be determined by the secretary of state to be “concerned in terrorism”, basically meaning committing or planning terrorist acts. The definition of terrorism is long and legalistic, but is, essentially, the politically-motivated use or threat of actions to intimidate the government or public through violence or destruction, including “serious damage to property”.
This latter justification, serious property damage, has been invoked by the home secretary in discussing Palestine Action’s planned proscription. So, technically, Palestine Action appears to meet the criteria.
But there are a variety of groups carrying out serious property damage that have not (yet) been proscribed under anti-terrorism law. Following the same logic, the government could theoretically proscribe Extinction Rebellion and other groups that might not be widely thought of as terrorist organisations.
Whether it makes sense to proscribe the group, however, is a matter of debate. Proscribing Palestine Action on the basis of its alleged property damage would set a precedent in legally declaring that this type of direct action – vandalism – is considered significant enough to invoke the Terrorism Act in this way.
Palestine Action is different in an important way from currently proscribed terrorist organisations.
In Palestine Action’s five years of attacks, it has never killed anyone, or apparently attempted to do so. There have, though, been several injuries allegedly associated with the group. Two people were charged with assaulting an emergency worker at a protest – after the intention to proscribe the group was announced. At some of the group’s actions, members have been charged with assaultingsecurity guards.
In her statement to parliament, Cooper cited the group’s “impact on innocent members of the public fleeing for safety and subjected to violence”. But the primary focus of the government’s intention to proscribe the group seems to be around serious damage to property, particularly related to national security.
Many currently proscribed groups have killed thousands of people, from al-Qaida on September 11 or 7/7 to groups like Hamas or Hezbollah attacking Israelis or Boko Haram’s killing sprees in Nigeria.
There are some less violent proscribed groups. For example, UK-based Islamist group al-Ghurabaa (and the related Saved Sect, also known as al-Muhajiroun) have not been clearly linked to actual violence, although the group is accused of glorifying violence, for example celebrating the 9/11 attacks. It has also apparently inspired terrorist attacks.
The government’s choice to start using serious property damage as sufficient criteria for terrorist designation would be a substantial change in how anti-terrorism law is applied.
What happens next?
If Palestine Action were to be proscribed, the consequences could be substantial.
Since any support of the group would be a crime, a protest in support of the group – like the one that happened June 23 – could lead to thousands of arrests. If supporters failed to turn out, and the members stopped participating out of fear, it could lead to the end of the group.
Or the group might shift to strictly legal or less damaging direct actions, like permitted marches or blockades. This would be a clear victory for the government.
An ultimate goal of proscription is to keep dissident groups protesting legally. It sometimes works. Al-Muhajiroun and other local groups seemingly often tried to walk the fine line of being as extreme as possible, while staying “just within the law”.
It is also possible that current Palestine Action members form renamed groups and carry on with criminal direct actions. Fragmenting and renaming groups is a common response to proscription, as we have seen with al-Ghurabaa, and with armed groups abroad like Lashkar-e-Taiba, as my own research with my colleague Muhammad Feyyaz has shown.
This results in counter-terrorism officials playing Whac-A-Mole, frequently updating legislation with aliases and chasing many smaller groups or a broader movement instead of one organisation.
Overall, the government might be legally justified to proscribe Palestine Action. What parliament must decide, however, is if the group poses enough of a threat to warrant this change to precedent. And officials should think about whether the action is likely to bring about the desired consequences, or if it could radicalise supporters into more violent action.
Brian J. Phillips works on a research project that receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.
The Commons order paper published on June 26 revealed that 126 Labour MPs had signed an amendment opposing a second reading for the bill, which proposes restricting disability benefits to levels they find unacceptable. Cleverly, the amendment stated that they accept “the need for the reform of the social security system” but they then listed a plethora of reasons as to why they declined to give the bill a second reading when it is due for a vote on July 1.
Many of these reasons related to the government’s own assessment of the impact of the bill. It openly admits, for example, that an estimated 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, would be pushed into poverty by the changes being made to the social security system.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Faced with the possibility of losing a vote to his own MP in the week marking the first anniversary of his arrival in Downing Street, prime minister Keir Starmer is promising to make concessions. These reportedly include exempting people currently receiving disability benefits from the changes.
But whether or not this is enough to stop the rebellion, significant damage has been done. Securing the second reading on half-promised and lukewarm concessions that cannot be sustained simply stores up future strife.
Collision course
How did the government reach a position where it was at risk of losing a vote on one of its key bills in the week in which it celebrates a year in office? Why has it been pushing a bill so obviously lacking in support among its own MPs? Why has no-one rolled with the political pitch and controlled the narrative?
This is not a muscle flexing exercise of the kind seen in December 1997, when Labour sought to show how tough it could be by cutting benefits for lone parents. It is not a macho attempt to see off a resurgent left flank, because effectively there isn’t one. The troublesome hard left is now tiny. Nor is it a putative rebellion that can be dismissed as dominated by the usual suspects. It is a rebellion of the mainstream core of the backbench parliamentary Labour party (PLP). Among the 126 MPs openly speaking out against the bill, 11 are Labour select committee chairs and 62 of them were only elected last year. In short, these are not the usual suspects. Their complaints cannot be readily dismissed.
There were allegedly noises off from some whips suggesting this might be a confidence issue – implying that the government could be in trouble so pressure is being piled on rebels to withdraw or risk bringing down the government. I was a government whip from 1999 to 2002, and I can attest that no whip should be running around declaring this a potential “confidence vote”. And no MP should believe that it is. It is not. Were there to be any truth in these rumours then it indicates a whips’ office either vastly inexperienced, overconfident and arrogant, or simply grossly incompetent and panicked. Both the chief whip and the No.10 political operation will come under intense scrutiny whatever happens now. How did they not see this coming?
The truth is that the only serious option at this point should be to bury the bill. It should be pulled before the vote and resurrected in the context of developing an anti-poverty strategy, including a child poverty alleviation plan. It might be that a sufficient number of “rebel signatories” are persuaded to let the second reading happen with a promise of further changes building on the concessions already announced, but this does not mean a safe passage later in the process. Many of the signatories will have already been disheartened and worried by the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance and the continuation of two-child benefit limit. They may have acquiesced on the latter and pocketed the change in policy on the former, but their disquiet and anger has not gone away.
The government should never have been in a position of seriously considering pushing the bill through hoping it will secure Conservative support for its second reading. To do so would seriously threaten if not Starmer’s position, then certainly the position of the work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall – and even perhaps that of the chancellor, Rachel Reeves. All three will still emerge from this week damaged in some fashion.
Rebellions such as this can take on a dynamic and life of their own and are likely to grow rather than diminish. Some 106 Labour MPs signed the amendment initially – only to be joined by more in short order. Backbenchers will have been worried about being asked “what did you do in the war?” by their grassroots members had they not enlisted their support.
There is also a danger that once blooded by rebellion, some of the 120 plus MPs will get a taste for it – and that spells a real danger for the government, even one with a majority of 165.
Either way, the government, which was relying on the bill to make £5bn worth of savings that would supposedly obviate the need for tax rises in the autumn, is going to have to somehow salvage both its economic and its political strategy in the wake of this crisis – and start to take its backbenchers more seriously.
It’s not how anyone would have wanted to mark a year in office. Happy birthday, one and all.
This article includes links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.
The Commons order paper published on June 26 revealed that 126 Labour MPs had signed an amendment opposing a second reading for the bill, which proposes restricting disability benefits to levels they find unacceptable. Cleverly, the amendment stated that they accept “the need for the reform of the social security system” but they then listed a plethora of reasons as to why they declined to give the bill a second reading when it is due for a vote on July 1.
Many of these reasons related to the government’s own assessment of the impact of the bill. It openly admits, for example, that an estimated 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, would be pushed into poverty by the changes being made to the social security system.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Faced with the possibility of losing a vote to his own MP in the week marking the first anniversary of his arrival in Downing Street, prime minister Keir Starmer is promising to make concessions. These reportedly include exempting people currently receiving disability benefits from the changes.
But whether or not this is enough to stop the rebellion, significant damage has been done. Securing the second reading on half-promised and lukewarm concessions that cannot be sustained simply stores up future strife.
Collision course
How did the government reach a position where it was at risk of losing a vote on one of its key bills in the week in which it celebrates a year in office? Why has it been pushing a bill so obviously lacking in support among its own MPs? Why has no-one rolled with the political pitch and controlled the narrative?
This is not a muscle flexing exercise of the kind seen in December 1997, when Labour sought to show how tough it could be by cutting benefits for lone parents. It is not a macho attempt to see off a resurgent left flank, because effectively there isn’t one. The troublesome hard left is now tiny. Nor is it a putative rebellion that can be dismissed as dominated by the usual suspects. It is a rebellion of the mainstream core of the backbench parliamentary Labour party (PLP). Among the 126 MPs openly speaking out against the bill, 11 are Labour select committee chairs and 62 of them were only elected last year. In short, these are not the usual suspects. Their complaints cannot be readily dismissed.
There were allegedly noises off from some whips suggesting this might be a confidence issue – implying that the government could be in trouble so pressure is being piled on rebels to withdraw or risk bringing down the government. I was a government whip from 1999 to 2002, and I can attest that no whip should be running around declaring this a potential “confidence vote”. And no MP should believe that it is. It is not. Were there to be any truth in these rumours then it indicates a whips’ office either vastly inexperienced, overconfident and arrogant, or simply grossly incompetent and panicked. Both the chief whip and the No.10 political operation will come under intense scrutiny whatever happens now. How did they not see this coming?
The truth is that the only serious option at this point should be to bury the bill. It should be pulled before the vote and resurrected in the context of developing an anti-poverty strategy, including a child poverty alleviation plan. It might be that a sufficient number of “rebel signatories” are persuaded to let the second reading happen with a promise of further changes building on the concessions already announced, but this does not mean a safe passage later in the process. Many of the signatories will have already been disheartened and worried by the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance and the continuation of two-child benefit limit. They may have acquiesced on the latter and pocketed the change in policy on the former, but their disquiet and anger has not gone away.
The government should never have been in a position of seriously considering pushing the bill through hoping it will secure Conservative support for its second reading. To do so would seriously threaten if not Starmer’s position, then certainly the position of the work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall – and even perhaps that of the chancellor, Rachel Reeves. All three will still emerge from this week damaged in some fashion.
Rebellions such as this can take on a dynamic and life of their own and are likely to grow rather than diminish. Some 106 Labour MPs signed the amendment initially – only to be joined by more in short order. Backbenchers will have been worried about being asked “what did you do in the war?” by their grassroots members had they not enlisted their support.
There is also a danger that once blooded by rebellion, some of the 120 plus MPs will get a taste for it – and that spells a real danger for the government, even one with a majority of 165.
Either way, the government, which was relying on the bill to make £5bn worth of savings that would supposedly obviate the need for tax rises in the autumn, is going to have to somehow salvage both its economic and its political strategy in the wake of this crisis – and start to take its backbenchers more seriously.
It’s not how anyone would have wanted to mark a year in office. Happy birthday, one and all.
This article includes links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Professor Manda Banerji, Professor of Astrophysics, School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Southampton
We are entering a new era of cosmic exploration. The new Vera C Rubin Observatory in Chile will transform astronomy with its extraordinary ability to map the universe in breathtaking detail. It is set to reveal secrets previously beyond our grasp. Here, we delve into the first images taken by Rubin’s telescope and what they are already showing us.
These images vividly showcase the unprecedented power that Rubin will use to
revolutionise astronomy and our understanding of the Universe. Rubin is truly transformative, thanks to its unique combination of sensitivity, vast sky area coverage and exceptional image quality.
These pictures powerfully demonstrate those attributes. They reveal not only bright objects in exquisite detail but also faint structures, both near and far, across a large area of sky.
Cosmic nurseries – nebulae in detail
The stunning pink and blue clouds in this image are the Lagoon (lower left) and Trifid (upper right) nebulae. The word nebula comes from the Latin for cloud, and these giant clouds are truly enormous – so vast it takes light decades to travel across them. They are stellar nurseries, the very birth sites for the next generation of stars and planets in our Milky Way galaxy.
The intense radiation from hot, young stars energises the gas particles, causing
them to glow pink. Further from these nascent stars, colder regions consist of
microscopic dust grains. These reflect starlight (a process known in astronomy as
“scattering”), much like our atmosphere, creating the beautiful blue hues. Darker filaments within are much denser regions of dust, obscuring all but the brightest background stars.
To detect these colours, astronomers use filters over their instruments, allowing only certain wavelengths of light onto the detectors. Rubin has six such filters, spanning from short ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths through the visible spectrum to longer near-infrared light. Combining information from these different filters enables detailed measurements of the properties of stars and gas, such as their temperature and size.
Rubin’s speed – its ability to take an image with one filter and then quickly move to the next – combined with the sheer area of sky it can see at any one time, is what makes it so unique and so exciting. The level of detail, revealing the finest and faintest structures, will enable it to map the substructure and satellite galaxies of the Milky Way like never before.
Mapping galaxies across billions of light years
This image captures a small section of NSF–DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory’s view of the Virgo Cluster, offering a vivid glimpse of the variety in the cosmos. Credit: NSF–DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory
The images of galaxies powerfully demonstrate the scale at which the Rubin
observatory will map the universe beyond our own Milky Way. The large galaxies
visible here (such as the two bright spiral shaped galaxies visible in the lower right quarter of the picture) belong to the Virgo cluster, a giant structure containing more than 1,000 galaxies, each holding billions to trillions of stars.
This image beautifully showcases the huge diversity of shapes, sizes and colours of galaxies in our universe revealed by Rubin in their full technicolour glory. Inside these galaxies, bright dots are visible – these are star-forming regions, just like the Lagoon and Trifid nebulae, but remarkably, these are millions of light years away from us.
The still image captures just 2% of the area of a full Rubin image revealing a universe that is teeming with celestial bodies. The full image, which contains around ten million galaxies, would need several hundred ultra high-definition TV screens to display in all its detail. By the end of its ten-year survey, Rubin will catalogue the properties of some 20 billion galaxies, their colours and locations on the sky containing information about even more mysterious components of our universe such as dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter makes up most of the matter in the cosmos, but does not reflect or emit light. Dark energy seems to be responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe.
The UK’s role
These unfathomable numbers demand data processing on a whole new scale.
Uncovering new discoveries from this data requires a giant collaborative effort, in which UK astronomy is playing a major role. The UK will process around 1.5 million Rubin images and hosts one of three international data access centres for the project, providing scientists across the globe with access to the vast Rubin data. Here at the University of Southampton, we are leading two critical software
development contributions to Rubin.
First of these is the capability to combine the Rubin images with those at longer infrared wavelengths. This extends the colours that Rubin sees, providing key diagnostic information about the properties of stars and galaxies. Second is the software that will link Rubin observations to another new instrument called 4MOST, soon to be installed at the Vista telescope in Chile.
Part of 4MOST’s job will be to snap up and classify rapidly changing “sources”, or objects, in the sky that have been discovered by Rubin. One such type of rapidly changing source is a stellar explosion known as a supernova. We expect to have catalogued more supernova explosions within just two years than have ever been made previously. Our contributions to the Rubin project will therefore lead to a totally new understanding of how the stars and galaxies in our universe live and die, offering an unprecedented glimpse into the grand cosmic cycle.
The Rubin observatory isn’t just a new telescope – it’s a new pair of eyes on the
universe, revealing the cosmos in unprecedented detail. A treasure trove of
discoveries await, but most interesting among them will be the hidden secrets of the universe that we are yet to contemplate. The first images from Rubin have been a spectacular demonstration of the vastness of the universe. What might we find in
this gargantuan dataset of the cosmos as the ultimate timelapse movie of our
universe unfolds?
Professor Manda Banerji receives funding from the Royal Society and the Science and Technology Facilities Council.
Dr Philip Wiseman receives funding from the Science and Technology Facilities Council
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Leonie Fleischmann, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, City St George’s, University of London
With all eyes on the ceasefire between Israel and Iran, which came into effect 12 days after Israel launched a major attack on Iran’s nuclear and military structure, attention towards Gaza has waned. This is at a time when attempting to gain access to food under a new model of aid distribution has been described by the United Nations as a “death trap”.
According to the UN World Food Programme, more than 470,000 people are facing “catastrophic” hunger and the entire population is experiencing “acute” food insecurity. This was exacerbated when Israel imposed a blockade on the Strip in mid-March 2025, preventing the entry of food, medication and other aid for a period of 70 days.
Following international pressure, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, ordered the resumption of humanitarian aid through a new model of distribution, which bypasses the existing UN and NGO channels. It was devised by Israel and handed to a United States-backed organisation, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) to operate.
According to Netanyahu, taking control of aid delivery would prevent Hamas from seizing and selling supplies. Two of his cabinet ministers, far-right politicians Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, objected to any aid entering Gaza, due to the risk of it serving to bolster Hamas.
A video was circulated on social media on June 26 allegedly showing armed men from Hamas commandeering aid trucks in northern Gaza. Smotrich threatened to leave the coalition if supplies continued to reach the hands of Hamas. In response, Netanyahu has since halted the entry of humanitarian aid into the north of Gaza.
GHF was ostensibly established to improve the distribution of aid in Gaza. But the UN swiftly condemned its new distribution model as “inadequate, dangerous and a violation of impartiality rules”.
Reports from one distribution site on its first day of operation on May 27 showed scenes of chaos and confusion. The site outside Rafah was described as overwhelmed with hundreds of people rushing towards the aid boxes. The New York Times reported that Israel Defense Force (IDF) personnel fired several warning shots, which sent the crowed running away in panic.
In the past two months, there have been continued reports of violence and chaos at the distribution sites, with deadly incidents a near daily occurrence. On the day the ceasefire between Iran and Israel was confirmed (June 24) at least 46 Palestinians waiting for aid in Gaza were shot by Israeli forces in two separate incidents, according to Gaza’s civil defence agency. Over 400 Palestinians have been killed around the four aid distribution centres since they began operating.
A letter signed by leading aid and human rights organisations criticised the GHF for not meeting the four universally recognised principles for humanitarian action: humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence.
Critics say that the GHF system effectively militarises aid distribution. GHF’s leadership is made up of retired military officers and private security contractors, with some humanitarian aid officials. It coordinates with a private US security company on the ground in Gaza. Meanwhile the IDF patrols the perimeters at what it calls “secure distribution sites”.
Critics argued that the proposed model would be insufficient. The plan called for only four aid distribution centres to be established in the southern part of the Gaza Strip, compared with about 400 UN-led sites in operation across Gaza prior to October 7 2023.
The reduced number and location of the aid sites can be understood as a mechanism of forced displacement. It appears to be consistent with Netanyahu’s plan to relocate Palestinians to a “sterile zone” in Gaza’s far south. UN officials argued that the requirement for civilians to travel long distances and to cross Israeli military lines and combat zones to collect aid from the sites would “put civilian lives in danger and cause mass displacement while using aid as ‘bait’”. Forced displacement is illegal under international law.
Countering the criticisms
The GHF rejected claims that the IDF have attacked Palestinians at the aid sites. Reports from Israeli news outlets have also countered the widespread media claims.
Israel Hayom, a free Israeli Hebrew-language daily newspaper criticised “inflammatory” reports that the IDF had opened fire on Palestinians lining up for food. The right-leaning news outlet, argued that it was Hamas which had shot at Gazan civilians.
The broadcaster 7 Israel National News reported that Hamas killed eight aid workers from the GHF in early June. A more positive spin from the same news outlet highlighted that improvements that have been made to security at the centres and that enough supplies for 1.4 million meals had been distributed in a single day on June 5.
Despite these claims from within Israel, evidence presented by the UN has suggested that the aid mechanisms are not only failing to meet the humanitarian needs in Gaza, but are making “a desperate situation worse”.
Following two months in operation, 15 human rights and legal organisations have called for the GHF to be suspended. They argue that “this new model of privatised, militarised aid distribution constitutes a radical and dangerous shift away from established international humanitarian relief operations”.
As a consequence of both the controversial establishment of the GHF and its failures on the ground, they believe that its operations may amount to grave violations of international humanitarian, human rights and criminal law.
Leonie Fleischmann 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: The Conversation – UK – By Luca Stroppa, Postdoctoral Fellow on the project “Early Diagnosis – Handling Knowing”, University of St Andrews
The current heel-prick test checks for nine rare genetic conditions,antibydni/Shutterstock
By 2030, every baby born in the UK could have their entire genome sequenced under a new NHS initiative to “predict and prevent illness”. This would dramatically expand the current heel-prick test, which checks for nine rare genetic conditions, into a far more extensive screen of hundreds of potential risks.
On the surface, the idea sounds like an obvious win for public health: spot problems early, intervene sooner and save lives. But genetic testing on this scale carries real risks, especially if the results are misunderstood or poorly communicated.
The new plan builds on a recent NHS pilot study that sequenced the genomes of 100,000 newborns in England to identify more than 200 genetic conditions. However, these tests don’t provide clear cut answers. They don’t offer a diagnosis or certainty, just an estimate of risk.
A genetic result might suggest a child has a higher (or lower) probability of developing a certain disease later in life. But risk is not prediction. If parents, or even clinicians, misinterpret that nuance, the consequences could be serious.
Some families may come to see a child flagged as “at risk” as a patient-in-waiting. In extreme cases, they may treat a probability as a certainty; assuming, for instance, that a child “has the gene” and will inevitably become ill. That assumption could reshape how children are raised, how they’re treated and how they could see themselves.
When testing is indiscriminate and communication unclear, the fallout can be wide ranging. Children identified as “high risk” may undergo years of monitoring, unnecessary medical appointments, or even treatment for diseases they never develop. In some cases, this leads to physical harms, from unnecessary medications to procedures with side effects. In others, the damage is psychological: shaping a child’s identity around an anticipated future of illness. These psychological effects can be lasting. Being told you’re likely to develop a condition like dementia may influence how a person plans their life, even if that illness never materialises.
False positives
There are also broader issues with applying this kind of screening to everyone. Risk based testing works best when it’s targeted; for example, among those with symptoms or a strong family history. But in the general population, where most people are healthy, false positives can far outnumber accurate results. Even well designed tests can produce misleading outcomes when applied at scale.
This is a well-known statistical effect, discussed during the COVID pandemic. In populations where a disease is rare, even highly accurate tests produce more false positives than true ones. If DNA screening is rolled out universally, many families will be told their child is at risk when they are not. These false positives can lead to a cascade of further tests, stress and unnecessary clinical interventions; all of which consume time and resources and may cause real harm.
This issue already affects adult testing. For example, Alzheimer’s tests that measure early changes in the brain work well in memory clinics, where patients already show symptoms. But when these same tests are used on the general population, where most people are healthy, they produce false positives in up to two-thirds of cases. If genetic screening in newborns is rolled out in the same way, it could lead to similar problems: mislabelling healthy children as sick, and causing unnecessary worry and follow-up tests.
So what’s the solution? It’s not to abandon genetic testing altogether – far from it. When used carefully, genomic data can offer real benefits, particularly for patients with symptoms or in research settings. But if we’re going to roll this out to every newborn, the surrounding infrastructure needs to be robust.
That includes:
Clear, consistent communication: Risk scores must be explained in ways that emphasise uncertainty, not oversold as definitive predictions.
Support for parents: For consent to be truly informed, parents need help understanding that a genetic flag is not a diagnosis – and that many people with elevated risk never go on to develop the condition.
Training for clinicians: Many doctors still lack the tools to interpret and explain genetic information accurately and responsibly.
A national network of genetic counsellors Genetic counsellors are essential for supporting families through testing and interpretation. But current numbers in the UK fall far short of what universal newborn screening would require.
Genomic data holds great promise. But using it as a blanket tool for all newborns demands caution, clarity, and investment in communication and care. Without these safeguards, we risk turning healthy babies into patients-in-waiting.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: Peter the Great St Petersburg Polytechnic University – Peter the Great St Petersburg Polytechnic University –
SPbPU Office of Technological Leadership launches a video news digest “Polytech in Priority”.
Implementation of the program “Priority 2030” at the Polytechnic University is built on the most transparent and understandable principles. Each polytechnician and, in principle, any person from the outside should be able to understand which key scientific and technological areas (KST) of the university are supported by the program, which projects received funding, and, most importantly, how the direct work on them is carried out.
To increase information openness, the Polytechnic University’s Office of Technology Leadership has launched a video news digest, which will constantly tell about all the KNTNs and projects supported by the Priority-2030 program. The digest’s special feature is that the news will be presented by the chief designers and project managers themselves. In addition to information about the implementation of the Priority program at the current moment, the university staff will also share the expected results in the near and long term.
The digest will be published twice a month. The first issue presents Head of the SPbPU Office of Technological Leadership Oleg Rozhdestvensky.
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.
Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, plans to open a new training centre in Warsaw, Poland, to train future European border guards. The centre will be based at the University of Physical Education, just a short distance from the Agency’s headquarters.
To formalise this cooperation, Frontex Executive Director Hans Leijtens and Poland’s Minister of Interior Tomasz Siemoniak signed a Memorandum of Understanding today, laying the groundwork for the new training centre and future collaboration.
This important step strengthens Frontex’s cooperation with Poland, which has hosted the Agency for over 20 years. It also supports the growing needs of the European Standing Corps, the EU’s first uniformed border service.
The new training facility will welcome over 200 officers later this year, with hundreds more to come in future years. It offers modern classrooms, sports and tactical training areas, and will reduce costs by keeping training close to the Agency’s base.
Frontex Executive Director Hans Leijtens said: “Training our border guards in the heart of Europe sends a clear message: protecting our borders is a shared European duty. This centre in Warsaw is where the future of European border management begins. High-quality training is how we ensure every officer, from across Europe, meets the same high standards and is prepared for the complex challenges at our borders.”
The opening of the centre comes as Poland concludes its Presidency of the Council of the European Union, highlighting its leading role in shaping European security and cooperation.
About Frontex
Frontex helps EU countries and Schengen Area states manage their external borders. It provides staff, equipment and training, supports returns and coast guard tasks, and helps protect fundamental rights.
About the European Border and Coast Guard Standing Corps The Standing Corps is the first uniformed service under EU command. Its officers are deployed by Frontex to support national authorities with border management, returns, and other tasks. It consists of officers directly employed and trained by Frontex and national officers from EU and Schengen Area countries taking part in the Agency’s operation on a long-term and short-term basis.
