NewzIntel.com

Category: Universities

  • MIL-Evening Report: How high can US debt go before it triggers a financial crisis?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Hartigan, Lecturer in Economics, University of Sydney

    rarrarorro/Shutterstock

    The tax cuts bill currently being debated by the US Senate will add another US$3 trillion (A$4.6 trillion) to US debt. President Donald Trump calls it the “big, beautiful bill”; his erstwhile policy adviser Elon Musk called it a “disgusting abomination”.

    Foreign investors have already been rattled by Trump’s upending of the global trade system. The eruption of war in the Middle East would usually lead to “flight to safety” buying of the US dollar, but the dollar has barely budged. That suggests US assets are not seen as the safe haven they used to be.

    Greg Combet, chair of Australia’s own sovereign wealth fund, the Future Fund, outlined many of the new risks arising from US policies in a speech on Tuesday.

    As investors turn cautious on the US, at some point the surging US debt pile will become unsustainable. That could risk a financial crisis. But at what point does that happen?

    The public sector holds a range of debt

    When talking about the sustainability of US government debt, we have to distinguish between total debt and public debt.

    Public debt is owed to individuals, companies, foreign governments and investors. This accounts for about 80% of total US debt. The remainder is intra-governmental debt held by government agencies and the Federal Reserve.

    Public debt is a more correct measure of US government debt. And it is much less than the headline total government debt amount that is frequently quoted, which is running at US$36 trillion or 121% of GDP.

    Are there limits to government debt?

    Governments are not like households. They can feasibly roll over debt indefinitely and don’t technically need to repay it, unlike a personal credit card. And countries such as the US that issue debt in their own currency can’t technically default unless they choose to.

    Debt also serves a useful role. It is the main way a government funds infrastructure projects. It is an important channel for monetary policy, because the US Federal Reserve sets the benchmark interest rate that affects borrowing costs across the economy. And because the US government issues bonds, known as Treasuries, to finance the debt, this is an important asset for investors.

    There is probably some limit to the amount of debt the US government can issue. But we don’t really know what this amount is, and we won’t know until we get there. Additionally, the US’s reserve currency status, due to the US dollar’s dominant role in international finance, gives the US government more leeway than other governments.

    Interest costs are surging

    What is important is the government’s ability to service its debt – that is, to pay the interest cost. This depends on two components: growth in economic activity, and the interest rate on government debt.

    If economic growth on average is higher than the interest rate, then the government’s effective interest cost is negative and it could sustainably carry its existing debt burden.

    The interest cost of US government debt has surged recently following a series of Federal Reserve interest rate hikes in 2022 and 2023 to quell inflation.

    The US government is now spending more on interest payments than on defence – about US$882 billion annually. This will soon start crowding out spending in other areas, unless taxes are raised or further spending cuts made.

    Recent policy decisions not helping

    The turmoil caused by Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and heightened uncertainty about future government policy are expected to weaken US economic growth and raise inflation. This, coupled with the recent credit downgrade of US government debt by ratings agency Moody’s, is likely to put upward pressure on US interest rates, further increasing the servicing cost of US government debt.

    Moody’s cited concerns about the growth of US federal debt. This comes as the US House of Representatives passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, which seeks to extend the 2017 tax cuts indefinitely while slashing social spending. This has caused some to question the sustainability of the US government’s fiscal position.

    The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will add a further US$3 trillion to government debt over the ten years to 2034, increasing debt to 124% of GDP. And this would increase to US$4.5 trillion over ten years and take debt to 128% of GDP if some tax initiatives were made permanent.

    Also troubling is Section 899 of the bill, known as the “revenge tax”. This controversial provision raises the tax payable by foreign investors and could further deter foreign investment, potentially making US government debt even less attractive.

    A compromised Federal Reserve is the next risk

    The passing of the tax and spending bill is unlikely to cause a financial crisis in the US. But the US could be entering into a period of “fiscal dominance”, which is just as concerning.

    In this situation, the independence of the Federal Reserve might be compromised if it is pressured to support the US government’s fiscal position. It would do this by keeping interest rates lower than otherwise, or buying government debt to support the government instead of targeting inflation. Trump has already been putting pressure on Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, demanding he cut rates immediately.

    This could lead to much higher inflation in the US, as occurred in Germany in the 1920s, and more recently in Argentina and Turkey.

    Luke Hartigan receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP230100959)

    – ref. How high can US debt go before it triggers a financial crisis? – https://theconversation.com/how-high-can-us-debt-go-before-it-triggers-a-financial-crisis-258812

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia? So far, the evidence is unclear

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University

    The Conversation, CC BY-NC

    The first term of the Albanese government was defined by its fight against inflation, but the second looks like it will be defined by a need to kick start Australia’s sluggish productivity growth.

    Productivity is essentially the art of earning more while working less and is critical for driving our standard of living higher.

    The Productivity Commission, tasked with figuring out how to get Australia’s sluggish productivity back on track, is pushing hard for corporate tax cuts as a key part of their plan for building a “dynamic and resilient economy”.

    The idea? Lower taxes will attract more foreign investment, get businesses spending again and eventually boost workers’ productivity.

    Commission chair, Danielle Wood, said last week while the commission wanted to create more investment opportunities, it was aware this would hit the budget bottom line:

    So we’re looking at ways to spur investment while finding other ways we might be able to pick up revenue in the system.

    The general company tax rate is currently 30% for large firms, and there’s a reduced rate of 25% for smaller companies with an overall turnover of less than A$50 million.

    What the textbooks and other countries tell us

    The Productivity Commission’s theory makes sense: if you make capital cheaper and you should get more of it flowing in.

    A larger stock of capital means there is more to invest in Australian workers. This should make us more productive and help boost workers’ wages. And looking overseas, the evidence mostly backs this up.

    A meta-analysis of 25 studies covering the US, UK, Japan, France, Germany, Canada, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland,
    Denmark, Portugal and Finland found every percentage point you slice off the corporate tax rate brings in about 3.3% more foreign direct investment.

    Other research shows multinational companies really do move their operations to places with lower tax rates. This explains why we’re seeing this race to the bottom across Europe and North America, with countries constantly trying to undercut each other.

    Research on location decisions shows how multinationals reshuffle their operations based on effective average tax rates.

    Even within the United States, a US study found increases in corporate tax rates lead to big reductions in employment and wage income. However, corporate tax cuts can boost economic activity – though typically only if they are implemented during recessions.

    Australia’s limited track record

    Here in Australia we don’t have much local evidence to go on, and what we do have is pretty puzzling.

    This matters because Australia’s corporate tax system has some unique features that may make overseas evidence less relevant. We have dividend imputation (franking credits), different treatment of capital gains, access to immediate reimbursement for some small business expenses and complex capitalisation rules that limit debt deductions for multinationals.

    The Federal Government is focussed on improving productivity. In this five-part series, we’ve asked leading experts what that means for the economy, what’s holding us back and their best ideas for reform.

    A study by a group of Australian National University economists looked at how the tax system affects business investment. They examined the [2015 and 2016 corporate tax cuts] for small businesses using data on business investment from the Australian Bureau of Statistics combined with tax data from the Australian Tax Office.

    The findings were mixed. After the 2015 cut, firms already investing in buildings and equipment spent more — that is, the policy boosted investment only at the intensive margin.

    By contrast, there was no evidence it enticed firms that had not been investing to start doing so. The follow-up cut in 2016 had even less bite. Its estimated effect on investment was so small it is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

    It remains unclear why the previous corporate tax reductions largely failed to produce a measurable increase in investment. Perhaps the tax cut itself was simply too modest. Or the available data was too volatile to capture its effects.

    But it runs contrary to what economic theory tells us to expect. This should give us pause for thought.

    The big questions nobody can answer yet

    For politicians thinking about another round of corporate tax cuts, this creates an uncomfortable situation. We’ve got solid evidence from overseas it works, but only one weak data point from Australia, plus a lot of head-scratching about why the second cut didn’t move the dial.

    Fortunately, the Productivity Commission has the in-house expertise to further investigate this question.

    Before we make further cuts to the company tax rate, we should have an in-depth study of these two tax cuts replicating and extending the previous work to see what effect – if any – they had on investment, employment, productivity and Australian living standards.

    Until we can solve these puzzles, Australia’s debate over corporate tax rates will keep spinning its wheels. Much like our national productivity itself.

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

    – ref. Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia? So far, the evidence is unclear – https://theconversation.com/would-a-corporate-tax-cut-boost-productivity-in-australia-so-far-the-evidence-is-unclear-258575

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia could become the world’s first net-zero exporter of fossil fuels – here’s how

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National University

    Photo by Jie Zhao/Corbis via Getty Images

    Australia is the world’s third largest exporter of gas and second largest exporter of coal. When burned overseas, these exports result in 1.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year – almost three times Australia’s domestic emissions.

    Emissions embedded in Australia’s exports do not count towards our national emissions targets. But they contribute to climate change – and they’re the reason for Australia’s international reputation as a fossil-fuel economy.

    On the bright side, Australia boasts huge potential for low-cost renewable energy and a knack for resource industries.

    We can, and should, become a “renewable energy superpower”. This term refers to the potential for Australia to use its bountiful renewable energy resources to make commodities such as iron, ammonia and other products and fuels in “green” or low-emissions ways.

    So how does Australia give salience to this idea on the global stage, while our fossil fuel exports continue? The solution could be a new net-zero target for Australia, in which emissions from green exports are tallied up against those from fossil fuel exports.

    Australia can become a renewable energy superpower.
    Brook Mitchell/Getty Images

    Reinvigorating Australia’s climate policy

    If the clean energy transition eventuates, green exports from Australia will rise over time. This will help reduce the use of coal, gas and oil elsewhere in the world.

    Meanwhile, coal exports – and later, gas exports – will fall. This will happen irrespective of Australia’s policies, as the world economy decarbonises and demand for fossil fuels slows.

    At some point, we can expect emissions avoided by our green commodity exports to surpass those from remaining coal and gas exports. Australia would then reach what could be termed “net-zero export emissions”.

    Adopting this net-zero target as a national policy would give a concrete yardstick to Australia’s green-export ambitions. It could also invigorate Australia’s climate policy and boost investor confidence.

    A different approach would be to set targets only for green exports, and this could be how we get started. Ultimately, a net-zero target wrapping up both green and fossil-fuel exports would speak most directly to the goal of tackling climate change, and is likely to have more impact on the international stage.

    A net-zero export target would give a concrete yardstick to Australia’s ambition to develop green export industries.
    Brook Mitchell/Getty Images

    Getting to net-zero exports

    The below chart shows an illustrative decline in emissions embedded in Australia’s coal and LNG (liquified natural gas) exports, out to 2050.*


    Authors’ calculations based on Australian Energy Update 2024, Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors 2024, IEA World Energy Outlook 2024

    It’s hard to pin down when Australia might reach net-zero exports. It depends on several factors. How quickly will the cost of clean energy and green-commodity technologies fall? How competitively can Australia produce green goods compared to other nations? What policies will be adopted in Australia and overseas – and will they work?

    The magnitudes are sobering. Take iron, for example. Australia currently exports 900 million tonnes of iron ore a year. This is processed overseas to about 560 million tonnes of iron.

    To fully compensate for emissions currently embedded in Australia’s coal and gas exports, Australia would need to process about the same amount of green iron – around 550 million tonnes – on home soil every year.

    To reach this figure, we assume 0.1 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent is created per tonne of green iron, compared to about 2.1 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent per tonne of iron resulting from conventional blast furnace production.

    Achieving this would require keeping iron ore production at current levels and processing it all in Australia, which is unlikely to be realistic.

    Thankfully, the task of reaching net-zero export emissions will be smaller in future, as global coal and gas demand falls. But exactly how this will translate to Australian exports is highly uncertain.

    Let’s suppose Australia’s exports evolved on the same trajectory as they might under current climate policies and pledges for the global coal and gas trade.

    In this case, embedded emissions from Australia’s coal and gas exports would be about 360 million tonnes in 2050. This includes about 120 million tonnes from LNG exports – much of it locked in by the extension to Woodside’s North West Shelf project off Western Australia.

    Hypothetically, the 360 million tonnes of emissions could be negated by a mix of green exports. They include 102 million tonnes of green iron (saving 204 million tonnes of CO₂), and 11 million tonnes of green ammonia (saving about 23 million tonnes of CO₂), and the remainder covered by a combination of green aluminium, silicon, methanol and transport fuels.

    Judgement calls would be needed about which commodities to include in the target. The composition of green exports suggested above is akin to assumptions about Australia’s potential global market share outlined by The Superpower Institute.

    Importantly, it’s hard to predict with certainty the greenhouse gas emissions displaced elsewhere in the world by Australia’s green exports. So, the estimates should be understood as broad illustrations, and not as exact as the accounting used to calculate countries’ domestic emissions.

    The precise year chosen for reaching a net-zero target for export emissions may well be less important than the commitment that, at some point, Australia’s green energy exports will exceed fossil fuel exports. This would establish the notion that Australia has the capacity and willingness to help the world decarbonise.

    At some point, Australia’s green energy exports will exceed fossil fuel exports.
    David Gray/Getty Images

    A positive agenda for change

    The export target could be part of Australia’s updated emissions pledge due to be submitted to the United Nations by September this year. The pledge, known as a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), is required by signatories to the Paris Agreement.

    Each nation is expected to detail its national emissions target for 2035. But nations can make additional pledges towards the world’s climate change effort. You could call it an “NDC+”.

    So Australia could outline an indicative goal for net-zero exports – perhaps alongside other pledges such as leveraging climate change finance for developing countries, or helping our Pacific neighbours adapt to climate change impacts.

    As a large fossil fuels exporter, Australia would earn kudos for showing it has a positive agenda for change.

    And if Australia wins the bid to host the COP31 climate conference next year, a plan to reduce export emissions could be a major rallying point.

    * Underlying data for the chart showing an expected decline in future emissions embedded in Australia’s coal and LNG exports:

    Exports in 2022–23: coal, 9.6 exajoules (EJ); LNG, 4.5 EJ, from Australian Energy Update. This was multiplied by an emissions factor 90.2 for coal (MtCO₂-e/EJ) and 51.5 for LNG (MtCO₂-e/EJ), as drawn from the Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors

    Exports for 2035 and 2050: this assumes a trend aligned with the IEA’s Announced Pledges Scenario, as outlined in the World Energy Outlook 2024. Note the percentage changes from 2023 to 2035 and 2050 for coal (-45% and -73% respectively) and for LNG (+9% and -47% respectively.) These figures do not distinguish between steam coal for power and metallurgical coal.

    Frank Jotzo leads research projects on climate, energy and industry policy. He is a commissioner with the NSW Net Zero Commission and chairs the Queensland Clean Economy Expert Panel.

    Annette Zou works on research projects on climate policy and decarbonisation and has previously worked with The Superpower Institute

    – ref. Australia could become the world’s first net-zero exporter of fossil fuels – here’s how – https://theconversation.com/australia-could-become-the-worlds-first-net-zero-exporter-of-fossil-fuels-heres-how-259037

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: We tracked Aussie teens’ mental health. The news isn’t good – and problems are worse for girls

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scarlett Smout, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use and Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank, University of Sydney

    skynesher/Getty Images

    We know young people in Australia and worldwide are experiencing growing mental health challenges.

    The most recent national survey from the Australian Bureau of Statistics found nearly two in five (38.8%) 16- to 24-year-olds experienced symptoms of a mental disorder in the previous 12 months.

    This was substantially higher than the last time the survey was run in 2007, when the figure was 26%.

    We’ve published a new study today looking at the rates of mental health problems among Australian high school students specifically. We found almost one in four high school students report mental health problems by Year 10 – and things are worse for girls and gender-diverse teens.

    Tracking teens’ mental health

    In our study, published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, we looked at mental health symptoms in more than 6,500 Australian teens, and how these symptoms changed over time.

    We surveyed high school students from 71 schools annually from Year 7 (age 12/13) to Year 10 (age 15/16). Our sample, while not nationally representative, includes a large cross-section of schools in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.

    We found symptoms of mental health problems increased steadily over time:

    • in Year 7, 17% of students we surveyed reported symptoms which met the criteria for probable depression, increasing to 28% by Year 10
    • some 14% of students reported high psychological distress in Year 7, rising to 24% in Year 10
    • the proportion reporting moderate-to-severe anxiety grew from 16% in Year 7 to 24% by Year 10.

    Which teens were hardest hit?

    We looked at how mental health symptoms over time were linked to different social factors, such as gender, cultural background and family affluence. We also looked at school factors, such as how advantaged a student’s school is.

    We found clear differences in mental health by gender, affluence, and school advantage. Girls and gender diverse teens had higher symptoms in Year 7 and a steeper rise in symptoms over the four years, when compared to their male peers.

    By Year 10, compared to males, females had average symptom scores that were 88% higher for depression, 34% higher for anxiety, and 55% higher for psychological distress (in models that adjusted for other factors).

    Again compared to males and in adjusted models, gender diverse teens had symptom scores at Year 10 that were 121% higher for depression, 55% higher for anxiety, and 89% higher for psychological distress.

    Teens from the least affluent families had 7% higher depressive symptoms than those from the most affluent families in adjusted models, while teens attending the least advantaged schools had 9% higher anxiety symptoms than teens attending the most advantaged schools.

    We then examined how gender and affluence interacted to influence mental health. Girls in the lowest affluence group experienced heightened anxiety and depressive symptoms over and above the effects of affluence or gender alone.

    This shows how multiple factors can stack up, creating greater risk of poor mental health for certain young people.

    Gender-diverse teens were more likely to have poor mental health in our study.
    SeventyFour/Shutterstock

    While we were able to explore a wide range of factors, a limitation of our study was that we could not examine all social factors that may impact mental health. For example, we couldn’t ascertain the potential differences experienced by Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander teens or those living in remote and very remote areas.

    How does this data compare to other studies?

    Recent Australian data from similar-aged adolescents is scarce. However, the 2015 Young Minds Matter study found 14.4% of 12- to 17-year-olds experienced a mental disorder in the prior 12 months.

    The higher rates of mental health challenges we observed in our study are likely consistent with recent evidence suggesting “cohort effects” – where each generation has worse mental health than the one before it. Research is still investigating the reasons behind these trends, with avenues of inquiry spanning everything from social media to climate change. But it appears no single factor is to blame.

    The COVID pandemic has also played a role, with young people seeming to be hit particularly hard by mental health impacts of the pandemic.

    Notably, the gender differences between girls and boys are supported by data from global studies, showing this is not a uniquely Australian phenomenon.

    What can we do about the gender divide in mental health?

    With a mental health-care system stretched beyond capacity, it’s crucial we prevent and address mental health problems early. While this requires a multilayered approach, aiming to reduce these gender inequities in mental health is an important place to start.

    While outside the scope of this study, a growing field of research is interrogating why there are gender differences in mental health. Factors identified include:

    These areas indicate avenues for potential solutions, but addressing these factors requires wraparound investment.

    Promisingly, many of these factors are mentioned in the National Women’s Health Strategy. With women’s health a central platform for the Albanese government’s election campaign, hopefully we will see more investment in research and policy to address these issues.

    Importantly, our study found gender inequities in mental health were even more stark for gender diverse teens, so focus should not solely be on girls and women.

    We must design solutions with young people

    Adolescent mental health isn’t something we can tackle with a one-size-fits-all approach. We need strategies that are meaningfully co-designed with young people themselves. Initiatives can then be tailored to meet their unique needs and reflect their diverse experiences.

    When we work directly with priority groups, such as girls, gender diverse teens and those experiencing socio-economic disadvantage, we can offer safe, culturally appropriate and affirming solutions. This helps teens feel seen, heard and supported – all key ingredients for better mental health.

    If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800.

    Scarlett Smout receives funding from the BHP Foundation and provides academic support for Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank.

    Katrina Champion receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund and via University of Sydney Horizon Fellowship.

    – ref. We tracked Aussie teens’ mental health. The news isn’t good – and problems are worse for girls – https://theconversation.com/we-tracked-aussie-teens-mental-health-the-news-isnt-good-and-problems-are-worse-for-girls-259044

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: House Democrats Defend NIH Grants Against Trump Administration’s Unlawful Termination

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (8th District of New York)

    Washington, D.C. — Today, the Litigation and Response Task Force led 152 House Democrats in filing an amicus brief challenging the Trump Administration’s illegal and devastating cuts to life-saving medical research grants at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The brief defends Congress’s Article I authority to appropriate federal funds and speaks up for every American who relies on crucial life-saving biomedical and public health research conducted at universities, medical schools, research hospitals, and other scientific institutions across the country. 

    House Democrats’ amicus brief was filed in the consolidated cases Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. NIH, Association of American Medical Colleges v. NIH, and Association of American Universities v. Department of Health and Human Services, all currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. These cases challenge the Trump Administration’s unlawful and unconstitutional efforts to reduce indirect cost reimbursements for projects funded by the NIH.

    In early February, the Trump Administration arbitrarily slashed the NIH reimbursement rate for indirect research costs. Without fair reimbursement for indirect costs, more than 300,000 scientists and researchers at 2,500 institutions that receive NIH funding will face devastating impacts, and Americans could be left without access to lifesaving and life-extending treatments. The ramifications would also ripple through global collaboration and the development of our future scientific leadership and workforce, limiting our ability to enhance health and reduce illness and disability in the future.

    The full brief is available HERE.  

    The effort was led by Task Force Co-Chair Joe Neguse and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and Ranking Members of the Appropriations and Energy and Commerce Committees, Representatives Rosa DeLauro and Frank Pallone. 

    See what they had to say below: 

    “The unconstitutional decision by the Trump administration to gut the NIH should shock the conscience. Donald Trump and Elon Musk are illegally destroying our public health infrastructure and canceling research programs—including pediatric cancer research—in order to hand massive tax breaks to billionaires,” said Leader Hakeem Jeffries. “Congress appropriated these funds and only Congress has the power to claw them back. House Democrats will continue to push back on this blatant disregard of science and the Constitution, and I thank Reps. Neguse, Raskin, DeLauro and Pallone and the Rapid Response Task Force and Litigation Working Group for their leadership.”

    “The Trump Administration’s reckless and illegal cuts to NIH grants, funded through congressionally appropriated dollars, not only violate Congress’s Article I powers, but also represent an affront to Americans across the country who are left reeling without access to lifesaving and life-extending treatments. This directive has upended critical medical research at our nation’s leading labs, hospitals, research centers, and scientific institutions—and has immediate consequences, including canceled clinical trials and patients losing access to treatments,” said Assistant Democratic Leader Joe Neguse. “In filing this brief, House Democrats are pushing back against the harm being inflicted on everyday Americans and reinforcing the constitutional authority of Congress.”

    “Trump’s latest attack on science is dangerous, cruel, and unconstitutional,” said Ranking Member Jamie Raskin. “By slashing NIH grant funding appropriated by Congress, the Trump Administration is jeopardizing lifesaving research conducted by scientists across the country and all the patients who depend on it. He’s also trampling Congress’s clear constitutional authority over federal spending. As president, Trump’s job is to faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress, not rewrite them and not impound them. Therefore, NIH funds must be delivered exactly as directed by Congress. I’m proud to join my colleagues in defending both the Constitution and the future of essential American biomedical progress.”

    “Once again, President Trump and OMB Director Russ Vought are acting in direct violation of the law. In this case, they are causing irreparable damage to ongoing research to develop cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, ALS, Diabetes, Mental Health disorders, opioid abuse, genetic diseases, rare diseases, and other diseases and conditions affecting American families. The Trump Administration is stealing critical funds promised to scientific research institutions funded by the NIH, despite an explicit legal prohibition against this action. By taking an axe to our efforts to find cures to diseases and disorders that are tearing apart families across the country, President Trump and Russ Vought are risking lives and putting the United States on a path to decline,” said Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro. 

    “The Trump Administration’s NIH grant funding cuts are not only illegal, they’re also incredibly harmful to the American people,” said Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. “Stealing these funds that support research will further interrupt clinical trials and patient care, delay medical research for new cures and treatments, and undermine America’s scientific research institutions. Democrats are fighting to ensure this critical funding is restored and to protect Americans’ access to lifesaving treatment and innovations.”

    Background on the Litigation and Rapid Response Task Force:

    The Litigation and Rapid Response Task Force first took the unprecedented step of filing a trial court amicus brief to defend American consumers from predatory lenders and bad actors. They were successful in this case after a federal judge blocked efforts to dismantle the CFPB, citing the group’s argument multiple times throughout the 112-page ruling. The Task Force was also able to effectively prevent the Trump Administration from dismantling the Department of Education, filing another such brief that led to a federal court demanding the immediate rehiring of unlawfully terminated staff. House Democrats have so far filed nine amicus briefs in cases against Administration lawlessness. 

    For more information on House Democrats efforts to protect Americans against the unlawful actions of the Trump Administration, visit litigationandresponse.house.gov. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: A New Hybrid System Could Enable Spacecraft Attitude Control Systems to Perform Scientific Measurements

    Source: NASA

    A NASA-sponsored team is creating a new approach to measure magnetic fields by developing a new system that can both take scientific measurements and provide spacecraft attitude control functions. This new system is small, lightweight, and can be accommodated onboard the spacecraft, eliminating the need for the boom structure that is typically required to measure Earth’s magnetic field, thus allowing smaller, lower-cost spacecraft to take these measurements. In fact, this new system could not only enable small spacecraft to measure the magnetic field, it could replace the standard attitude control systems in future spacecraft that orbit Earth, allowing them to provide the important global measurements that enable us to understand how Earth’s magnetic field protects us from dangerous solar particles.

    Photo of the aurora (taken in Alaska) showing small scale features that are often present. Credit: NASA/Sebastian Saarloos
    Solar storms drive space weather that threatens our many assets in space and can also disrupt Earth’s upper atmosphere impacting our communications and power grids. Thankfully, the Earth’s magnetic field protects us and funnels much of that energy into the north and south poles creating aurorae. The aurorae are a beautiful display of the electromagnetic energy and currents that flow throughout the Earth’s space environment. They often have small-scale magnetic features that affect the total energy flowing through the system. Observing these small features requires multiple simultaneous observations over a broad range of spatial and temporal scales, which can be accomplished by constellations of small spacecraft.
    To enable such constellations, NASA is developing an innovative hybrid magnetometer that makes both direct current (DC) and alternating current (AC) magnetic measurements and is embedded in the spacecraft’s attitude determination and control system (ADCS)—the system that enables the satellite to know and control where it is pointing. High-performance, low SWAP+C (low-size, weight and power + cost) instruments are required, as is the ability to manufacture and test large numbers of these instruments within a typical flight build schedule. Future commercial or scientific satellites could use these small, lightweight embedded hybrid magnetometers to take the types of measurements that will expand our understanding of space weather and how Earth’s magnetic field responds to solar storms
    It is typically not possible to take research-quality DC and AC magnetic measurements using sensors within an ADCS since the ADCS is inside the spacecraft and near contaminating sources of magnetic noise such as magnetic torque rods—the electromagnets that generate a magnetic field and push against the Earth’s magnetic field to control the orientation of a spacecraft. Previous missions that have flown both DC and AC magnetometers placed them on long booms pointing in opposite directions from the satellite to keep the sensors as far from the spacecraft and each other as possible. In addition, the typical magnetometer used by an ADCS to measure the orientation of the spacecraft with respect to the geomagnetic field does not sample fast enough to measure the high-frequency signals needed to make magnetic field observations.
    A NASA-sponsored team at the University of Michigan is developing a new hybrid magnetometer and attitude determination and control system (HyMag-ADCS) that is a low-SWAP single package that can be integrated into a spacecraft without booms. HyMag-ADCS consists of a three-axis search coil AC magnetometer and a three-axis Quad-Mag DC magnetometer. The Quad-Mag DC magnetometer uses machine learning to enable boomless DC magnetometery, and the hybrid search-coil AC magnetometer includes attitude determination torque rods to enable the single 1U volume (103 cm) system to perform ADCS functions as well as collect science measurements.

    The HyMag-ADCS team is incorporating the following technologies into the system to ensure success.
    Quad-Mag Hardware: The Quad-Mag DC magnetometer consists of four magneto-inductive magnetometers and a space-qualified micro-controller mounted on a single CubeSat form factor (10 x 10 cm) printed circuit board. These two types of devices are commercially available. Combining multiple sensors on a single board increases the instrument’s sensitivity by a factor of two compared to using a single sensor. In addition, the distributed sensors enable noise identification on small satellites, providing the science-grade magnetometer sensing that is key for both magnetic field measurements and attitude determination. The same type of magnetometer is part of the NASA Artemis Lunar Gateway Heliophysics Environmental and Radiation Measurement Experiment Suite (HERMES) Noisy Environment Magnetometer in a Small Integrated System (NEMISIS) magnetometer scheduled for launch in early 2027.
    Dual-use Electromagnetic Rods: The HyMag-ADCS team is using search coil electronics and torque rod electronics that were developed for other efforts in a new way. Use of these two electronics systems enables the electromagnetic rods in the HyMag-ADCS system to be used in two different ways—as torque rods for attitude determination and as search coils to make scientific measurements. The search coil electronics were designed for ground-based measurements to observe ultra-low frequency signals up to a few kHz that are generated by magnetic beacons for indoor localization. The torque rod electronics were designed for use on CubeSats and have flown on several University of Michigan CubeSats (e.g., CubeSat-investigating Atmospheric Density Response to Extreme driving [CADRE]). The HyMag-ADCS concept is to use the torque rod electronics as needed for attitude control and use the search coil electronics the rest of the time to make scientific AC magnetic field measurements.
    Machine Learning Algorithms for Spacecraft Noise Identification: Applying machine learning to these distributed sensors will autonomously remove noise generated by the spacecraft. The team is developing a powerful Unsupervised Blind Source Separation (UBSS) algorithm and a new method called Wavelet Adaptive Interference Cancellation for Underdetermined Platforms (WAIC-UP) to perform this task, and this method has already been demonstrated in simulation and the lab.
    The HyMag-ADCS system is early in its development stage, and a complete engineering design unit is under development. The project is being completed primarily with undergraduate and graduate students, providing hands-on experiential training for upcoming scientists and engineers.

    For additional details, see the entry for this project on NASA TechPort .
    Project Lead: Prof. Mark Moldwin, University of Michigan
    Sponsoring Organization: NASA Heliophysics Division’s Heliophysics Technology and Instrument Development for Science (H-TIDeS) program.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Disaster Recovery Center in Laurel County Relocates

    Source: US Federal Emergency Management Agency

    Headline: Disaster Recovery Center in Laurel County Relocates

    Disaster Recovery Center in Laurel County Relocates

    FRANKFORT, Ky

    – The Disaster Recovery Center in Laurel County has relocated to offer in-person support to Kentucky survivors who experienced loss as the result of the severe storms, straight-line winds and tornadoes from May 16-17

    The new location for the Disaster Recovery Center in Laurel County is: Somerset Community College, Laurel Campus Building 2, Room 206, 100 University Drive, London, KY 40741 Working hours are 9 a

    m

    to 7 p

    m

    Eastern Time, Monday through Saturday and 1 – 7 p

    m

    Eastern Time, Sunday

    Disaster Recovery Centers are one-stop shops where you can get information and advice on available assistance from state, federal and community organizations

     You can get help to apply for FEMA assistance, learn the status of your FEMA application, understand the letters you get from FEMA and get referrals to agencies that may offer other assistance

     FEMA is encouraging Kentuckians affected by the May tornadoes to apply for federal disaster assistance as soon as possible

    The deadline to apply is July 23

    You can visit any Disaster Recovery Center to get in-person assistance

    No appointment is needed

    To find all other center locations, including those in other states, go to fema

    gov/drc or text “DRC” and a Zip Code to 43362

     You don’t have to visit a center to apply for FEMA assistance

    There are other ways to apply: online at DisasterAssistance

    gov, use the FEMA App for mobile devices or call 800-621-3362

    If you use a relay service, such as Video Relay Service (VRS), captioned telephone or other service, give FEMA the number for that service

    When you apply, you will need to provide:A current phone number where you can be contacted

    Your address at the time of the disaster and the address where you are now staying

    Your Social Security Number

    A general list of damage and losses

    Banking information if you choose direct deposit

    If insured, the policy number or the agent and/or the company name

    For more information about Kentucky tornado recovery, visit www

    fema

    gov/disaster/4875

    Follow the FEMA Region 4 X account at x

    com/femaregion4

     
    martyce

    allenjr
    Tue, 06/17/2025 – 13:07

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION Case of Ahmadreza Jalali in Iran – B10-0280/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    with request for inclusion in the agenda for a debate on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law
    pursuant to Rule 150 of the Rules of Procedure

    Jonas Sjöstedt
    on behalf of The Left Group

    NB: This motion for a resolution is available in the original language only.

    Document selected :  

    B10-0280/2025

    Texts tabled :

    B10-0280/2025

    Texts adopted :

    B10‑0280/2025

    Motion for a European Parliament resolution on  Case of Ahmadreza Jalali in Iran

    (2025/2753(RSP))

    The European Parliament,

    –  having regard to Rule 150(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

     

     

    1. whereas Ahmadreza Jalali a Swedish-Iranian academic and professor at the VUB University in Belgium, was arrested in April 2016 while visiting Iran to attend academic workshops; whereas he was charged with espionage, convicted and sentenced to death; whereas according to UN independent experts the sentence was based on a confession that was extracted under torture and following a trial that allegedly failed to meet international standards; whereas Jalali’s health situation has further deteriorated and resulted in a heart attack in May;

     

    1. whereas in recent years, Iran has arrested dozens of Western nationals, many with dual-citizenship, on charges related to espionage and security;

     

    1. whereas the Iranian authorities have intensified their use of the death penalty; whereas in 2024 executions have increased, with 901 persons executed and at least 578 so far in 2025;

     

     

     

    1. Strongly condemns the increase of executions in Iran; reiterates its strong opposition to the use of the death penalty worldwide and urges to introduce a moratorium as a first step towards the abolition of capital punishment;
    2. Calls on the Iranian authorities to promptly revoke the death sentence against Ahmadreza Jalali, and to review his case as well as those of other death row inmates; requests his release on humanitarian grounds; demands to investigate Jalali´s allegations of torture and denial of fair trial rights and to ensure immediate and adequate medical assistance to him;
    3. Calls on the Iranian authorities to respect the fundamental right of the defendants to access a lawyer of their choice and the right to a fair trial and due process, to grant suspects access to their families, consular visits, as well as full access to medical treatment and health care services in accordance with Iran’s international obligations;
    4. Strongly condemns the use of torture and other ill-treatment and urges Iranian authorities to put an end to the use of torture in places of detention; stresses that any alleged information obtained as a result of torture and ill-treatment should never be admitted as evidence in a judicial proceeding;
    5. Condemns the practice of detaining and prosecuting dual nationals and using them as hostage to achieve foreign affairs aims;
    6. Reiterates its call on Iran to provide the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran and the UN Fact-Finding Mission with full, unimpeded access to the country;
    7. Calls on Member States to facilitate visas, asylum and emergency grants for those who need to flee Iran;
    8. Stresses that further isolating Iran at global level can have detrimental consequences, such as strengthening hardliners of the regimen, further degrading women’s right as well as contributing to nuclear proliferation;
    9. Strongly condemns the violent actions taken by the State of Israel against Iran on the night of 13 June, which were in violation of the UN Charter and international law;
    10. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the EU institutions, Member States, and the Iranian authorities.

     

     

     

     

    Last updated: 17 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Ivey Appoints Grayson Murray to Franklin County Commission Following Father’s Legacy

    Source: US State of Alabama

    MONTGOMERY – Governor Kay Ivey on Tuesday announced the appointment of Grayson Murray to serve as Franklin County Commissioner for District 1, filling the vacancy left by the passing of his father, Commissioner Michael Murray.

    At just 20 years old, Grayson Murray brings a personal connection to the role, having been inspired by his father’s dedication to public service and commitment to the people of Franklin County. Commissioner Michael Murray was sworn into office November 2024 and served until his passing May 2025.

    “Commissioner Michael Murray was a humble, hardworking public servant who made a strong impression in his short time on the Franklin County Commission,” said Governor Ivey. “It is clear the same spirit of service lives on in his son, Grayson. Grayson is driven, capable and ready to continue the work his father began. I am proud to appoint him to carry on that legacy.”

    Grayson Murray, who is currently pursuing his bachelor’s degree at the University of North Alabama, said he felt a calling to step up after witnessing firsthand his father’s passion for serving others.

    “I am honored to be appointed to continue what my dad started,” said Murray. “Dad was very passionate about Franklin County, and I was lucky to have learned that same passion from him. I am looking forward to getting started in this role, and I want to thank everyone for the support that I have received to get to this point.”

    The appointment is effective immediately.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Establishing whether ERDF and ESF + resources can, in the wake of exceptional events, be used to fund emergency operations to help the university system – P-002401/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Priority question for written answer  P-002401/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Antonella Sberna (ECR), Chiara Gemma (ECR), Marco Squarta (ECR), Ruggero Razza (ECR), Francesco Ventola (ECR), Alberico Gambino (ECR), Nicola Procaccini (ECR), Mariateresa Vivaldini (ECR), Michele Picaro (ECR)

    On 4 June 2025, a fire broke out at the University of Tuscia’s Viterbo campus, destroying part of the Department of Agriculture and Forest Sciences (DAFNE)’s main building. One of Italy’s centres of excellence, DAFNE is looking at a bill in the region of EUR 25 million for the structural damage alone. It will also have to replace all the scientific equipment lost in the blaze and cover the indirect costs resulting from the suspension of all research activities and lectures and from extraordinary staff-related expenses.

    Though it has an important role to play in the realms of education and science, Tuscia is also vital to the socio-economic development of northern Lazio, as it is the only public university in the area.

    In view of the above:

    • 1.Can EU structural funds – particularly the ERDF and ESF + – be used in a flexible manner to finance the rebuilding of infrastructure, including by means of derogations from the regional programmes’ original funding priorities?
    • 2.Could the aforementioned funds be mobilised to cover the cost of rapidly kickstarting teaching and research activities, as well as to support the students and young researchers affected?
    • 3.What kind of technical support could the Commission provide to assist local authorities in identifying fund reprogramming and flexibility mechanisms?

    Supporters[1]

    Submitted: 13.6.2025

    • [1] This question is supported by Members other than the authors: Elena Donazzan (ECR), Sergio Berlato (ECR), Carlo Fidanza (ECR)
    Last updated: 17 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘Canada is not for sale’ — but new Ontario law prioritizes profits over environmental and Indigenous rights

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Martina Jakubchik-Paloheimo, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Environmental and Urban Change, York University, Canada

    Despite provincewide protests, Ontario’s Bill 5 officially became law on June 5. Critics warn of the loss of both environmental protections and Indigenous rights.

    The law empowers the province to create special economic zones where companies or projects don’t have to comply with provincial regulations or municipal bylaws.

    Bill 5, also known as the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, reduces the requirements for environmental assessment. By doing so, it weakens ecological protection laws that safeguard the rights of Indigenous Peoples and at-risk species.

    Indigenous rights and Indigenous knowledge are critical for planetary health. But the bill passed into law with no consultation with First Nations. Therefore, it undermines the duty to consult while seemingly favouring government-aligned industries.

    Indigenous Peoples have long stewarded the environment through sustainable practices that promote ecological and human health. Bill 5’s provisions to allow the bypassing of environmental regulations and shift from a consent-based model to one of consultation violate Aboriginal and Treaty rights. Métis lawyer Bruce McIvor has described the shift as a “policy of legalized lawlessness.”

    Compounding environmental threats

    Wildfires that are currently burning from British Columbia to northern Ontario are five times more likely to occur due to the effects of climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

    On the federal level, Bill C-5, called the Building Canada Act, was introduced in the House of Commons on June 6 by Prime Minister Mark Carney. This bill further compounds the threat to environmental protections, species at risk and Indigenous rights across the country in favour of resource extraction projects.

    It removes the need for the assessment of the environmental impacts of projects considered to be of “national interest.”

    Ring of Fire — special economic zone?

    Ford and Carney want to fast-track the so-called Ring of Fire mineral deposit within Treaty 9 territory in northern Ontario by labelling it a “special economic zone” and of “national interest.” The proposed development is often described as a potential $90 billion opportunity.

    But scientists say there are no reliable estimates of the costs related to construction, extraction, benefit sharing and environmental impacts in the Ring of Fire.

    The mining development could devastate traditional First Nations livelihoods and rights. It could also worsen the effects of climate change in Ontario’s muskeg, the southernmost sea ice ecosystem in the world.

    Northern Ontario has the largest area of intact boreal forest in the world. Almost 90 per cent of the region’s 24,000 residents are Indigenous. The Mushkegowuk Anniwuk, the original people of the Hudson Bay lowlands, refer to this area as “the Breathing Lands” — Canada’s lungs. Cree nations have lived and stewarded these lands for thousands of years.

    Journalist Jessica Gamble of Canadian National Geographic says the James Bay Lowlands, part of the Hudson Bay Lowlands, are “traditional hunting grounds” and “the largest contiguous temperate wetland complex in the world.”

    This ecosystem is home to 200 different migratory bird species and plays a critical role in environmental health through carbon sequestration and water retention. The Wildlands League has described the area as “home to hundreds of plant, mammal and fish species, most in decline elsewhere.”

    Northern Ontario, meantime, is warming at four times the global average.

    Jeronimo Kataquapit is a filmmaker from Attawapiskat who is spearheading the “Here We Stand” campaign in opposition to Bill 5 with Attawapiskat residents and neighbouring Mushkegowuk Nations and Neskantaga First Nation. As the spokesperson for Here We Stand, he said: “Ontario’s Bill 5 and Canada’s proposed national interest legislation are going to destroy the land, pollute the water, stomp all over our treaty rights, our inherent rights, our laws and our ways of life.”

    Endangered species — polar bears

    An estimated 900 to 1,000 polar bears live in Ontario, mostly along the Hudson Bay and James Bay coasts.

    But there has been a 73 per cent decline in wildlife populations globally since the 1970s, according to the World Wildlife Fund. In Canada, species of global concern have declined by 42 per cent over the same time. Canada’s Arctic and boreal ecosystems, once symbols of the snow-capped “Great White North,” are now at risk.

    Polar bears, listed as threatened under the Ontario Endangered Species Act and of “special concern” nationally, are particularly sensitive to human activities and climate change. Polar bears and ringed seals are culturally significant and serve as ecological indicators for ecosystems.

    Melting sea ice has already altered their behaviour, forcing them to spend more time on land.

    Cree First Nations in Northern Ontario’s biodiverse Treaty 9 territory are collaborating with federal and provincial governments and conservationists to protect polar bears. Right now, there is recognition of the importance of Cree knowledge in planning and the management of polar bears.

    The new Ontario law removes safeguards protecting the province’s endangered species, such as the Endangered Species Act. It strips key protections for at-risk wildlife, such as habitat protections, environmental impact assessments and ecosystems conservation.

    Climate change and weaker environmental protections will lead to irreversible damage to our environment and biodiversity. The ecosystem services that each animal, insect and plant provides — like cleaning the air we breathe and water we drink — are essential for a healthy province.

    The impact of Bill 5 and C-5 on these species is likely to be severe.

    Short-term gains at the expense of long-term damage

    Ontario could benefit from improved infrastructure and economic growth, but development requires careful planning and collaboration. It should rely on innovative science-based solutions, especially Indigenous sciences. And it should never infringe on Indigenous rights, bypass environmental assessments or threaten endangered species.

    While Bill 5 commits to the duty to consult with First Nations, it falls short of the free, prior and informed consent required by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Since becoming Canadian law in June 2021, the federal government has been obligated to align its laws with UNDRIP.

    With Bill 5 in place, some of Ontario’s major projects may be fast-tracked with minimal safeguards. Both Bill 5 and the proposed C-5 prioritize short-term economic gains that will cause irreversible environmental damage and violate legal obligations under UNDRIP.

    Lawrence Martin, Director of Lands and Resources at the Mushkegowuk Council, contributed to this article.

    Martina Jakubchik-Paloheimo works in the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change (EUC) at York University as a Postdoctoral Fellow, facilitating a collaborative project on human-polar bear coexistence in Hudson Bay and James Bay.

    – ref. ‘Canada is not for sale’ — but new Ontario law prioritizes profits over environmental and Indigenous rights – https://theconversation.com/canada-is-not-for-sale-but-new-ontario-law-prioritizes-profits-over-environmental-and-indigenous-rights-258553

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: As Luxon heads to China, his government’s pivot toward the US is a stumbling block

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert G. Patman, Professor of International Relations, University of Otago

    Ahead of his first visit to China, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been at pains to present meetings with Chinese premier Xi Jinping and other leaders as advancing New Zealand’s best interests.

    But there is arguably a degree of cognitive dissonance involved, given the government’s increasing strategic entanglement with the United States – specifically, the administration of President Donald Trump.

    It was this perceived pivot towards the US that earlier this month saw a group of former senior politicians, including former prime ministers Helen Clark and Geoffrey Palmer, warn against “positioning New Zealand alongside the United States as an adversary of China”.

    Luxon has brushed off any implied criticism, and says the National-led coalition remains committed to maintaining a bipartisan, independent foreign policy. But the current government has certainly emphasised a more active role on the international stage in closer alignment with the US.

    After coming to power in late 2023, it hailed shared values and interests with the Biden administration. It then confidently predicted New Zealand-US relations would go “from strength to strength” during Trump’s second presidency.

    To date, nothing seems to shaken this conviction. Even after the explosive White House meeting in February, when Trump claimed Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky was a warmonger, Luxon confirmed he trusted Trump and the US remained a “reliable” partner.

    While Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters apparently disagreed in early April over whether the Trump administration had unleashed a “trade war”, the prime minister depicted the story as a “real media beat-up”. Later the same month, Luxon agreed with Peters that New Zealand and Trump’s America had “common strategic interests”.

    Closer US ties

    We can trace the National-led government’s closer security alignment with the US back to late January 2024.

    New Zealand backed two United Nations General Assembly resolutions calling for immediate humanitarian ceasefires in Gaza. But Luxon then agreed to send a small Defence Force team to the Red Sea to counter attacks on shipping by Yemeni Houthi rebels protesting the lack of a Gaza ceasefire.

    The government has also enthusiastically explored participation in “pillar two” of the AUKUS security pact, with officials saying it has “the potential to be supportive of our national security, defence, and foreign policy settings”.

    In the first half of 2025, New Zealand joined a network of US-led strategic groupings, including:

    To be sure, New Zealand governments and US administrations have long had overlapping concerns about China’s growing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond.

    The Labour-led government of Jacinda Ardern issued a defence policy statement in 2018 explicitly identifying China as a threat to the international rules-based order, and condemned the 2022 Solomon Islands-China security pact.

    Ardern’s successor, Chris Hipkins, released a raft of national security material confirming a growing perception of China’s threat.

    And the current government has condemned China’s comprehensive strategic partnership with the Cook Islands – a self-governing entity within the New Zealand’s realm – and expressed consternation about China’s recent military exercises in the Tasman Sea.

    But US fears about the rise of China are not identical to New Zealand’s. Since the Obama presidency, all US administrations, including the current Trump team, have identified China as the biggest threat to America’s status as the dominant global power.

    But while the Obama and Biden administrations couched their concerns (however imperfectly) in terms of China’s threat to multilateral alliances and an international rules-based order, the second Trump administration represents a radical break from the past.

    Not in NZ interests

    Trump’s proposed takeovers of Gaza, Canada and Greenland, his administration’s disestablishment of USAID, sanctions against the International Criminal Court, and withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and the UN Council for Human Rights are all contrary to New Zealand’s national interests.

    Similarly, his sidelining of the UN’s humanitarian role in Gaza, his demand for a Ukraine peace deal on Russian terms, and his assault on free trade through the imposition of tariffs, all conflict with New Zealand’s stated foreign policy positions.

    And right now, Trump’s refusal to condemn Israel’s pre-emptive unilateral attack on Iran shows again his administration’s indifference to international law and the rules-based order New Zealand subscribes to.

    It is becoming much harder for the Luxon government to argue it shares common values and interests with the Trump administration, or that closer strategic alignment with Washington balances Chinese assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific.

    On the contrary, there is a real risk Trump’s apparent support for Vladimir Putin is viewed as weakness by China, Russia’s most important backer. It may embolden Beijing to be forward-leaning in the Indo-Pacific, including the Pacific Islands region where New Zealand has core interests.

    A better strategy would be for New Zealand to reaffirm its friendship with the US but publicly indicate this cannot be maintained at the expense of Wellington’s longstanding commitment to free trade and a rules-based global order.

    In the meantime, a friendly reminder to Luxon’s hosts in Beijing might be in order: that New Zealand is an independent country that will not compromise its commitments to democratic values and human rights.

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

    – ref. As Luxon heads to China, his government’s pivot toward the US is a stumbling block – https://theconversation.com/as-luxon-heads-to-china-his-governments-pivot-toward-the-us-is-a-stumbling-block-259129

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: AG Brown applauds judge’s ruling blocking Trump cuts to medical and public health research

    Source: Washington State News

    SEATTLE — A federal judge Monday overturned Trump administration directives that defunded National Institutes of Health grants supporting vital biomedical research in America. The judge said the move was “arbitrary and capricious” and called out “a darker aspect” to the cases – that they are a clear attempt at “racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LBGTQ community.”

    The case is co-led by Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown and includes a coalition of 16 attorneys general suing Trump to free up the grants from the National Institutes of Health.

    Attorney General Brown said the ruling will allow for important research to restart at the University of Washington. The funding supports research into Alzheimer’s, ovarian cancer, training of the next generation of researchers, and studying how anti-LGBTQ policies impact health care for sexual minorities.

    “Lives will be saved by the judge’s action,” Brown said. “I’m heartened that this judge saw the clear intent to discriminate. The Trump administration tried to stop legitimate research simply because it may have included words or phrases not supported by the president’s limited world view.”

    The lawsuit, filed on April 4, alleges NIH adopted directives blacklisting topics such as “DEI,” “transgender issues,” and “vaccine hesitancy.” In doing so, the agency terminated large swaths of grants for projects that are currently underway based on the projects’ perceived connection to topics disfavored by the current administration. In boilerplate letters issued to the grants’ recipients, NIH claimed that each cancelled project “no longer effectuates agency priorities.”

    “I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this,” said U.S. District Judge William Young of Massachusetts. Young, appointed to the bench in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan, said he had “never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable.”

    Even the temporary cancelation of the funding can impact scientific inquiry, Mari Ostendorf, vice-provost of research at UW said in a declaration filed in the case.

    “Some of these studies involve clinical trials for life-saving medications or procedures, and their closure would endanger the lives of patients. … NIH’s actions have fundamentally undermined UW’s mission to pursue scientific research. In many cases, there is no way to recover the lost time, research continuity, or training value once disrupted.”

    -30-

    Washington’s Attorney General serves the people and the state of Washington. As the state’s largest law firm, the Attorney General’s Office provides legal representation to every state agency, board, and commission in Washington. Additionally, the Office serves the people directly by enforcing consumer protection, civil rights, and environmental protection laws. The Office also prosecutes elder abuse, Medicaid fraud, and handles sexually violent predator cases in 38 of Washington’s 39 counties.

    Visit www.atg.wa.gov to learn more.

    Media Contact:

    Email: press@atg.wa.gov

    Phone: (360) 753-2727

    General contacts: Click here

    Media Resource Guide & Attorney General’s Office FAQ

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Violent extremists like the Minnesota shooter are not lone wolves

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alex Hinton, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology; Director, Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights, Rutgers University – Newark

    A memorial for Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, is seen at the Minnesota State Capitol building on June 16, 2025, in St. Paul, Minn. Steven Garcia/Getty Images

    After a two-day manhunt, Minnesota authorities arrested and charged 57-year-old Vance Boelter on June 15, 2025, after he allegedly shot and killed Minnesota House Democratic leader Melissa Hortman and her husband in their home and seriously injured another state senator and his wife.

    Boelter, disguised as a police officer, went to other Minnesota politicians’ homes late in the evening on June 13. In his parked car he left behind a list of names and addresses of other Minnesota state and federal elected officials, as well as community leaders and Planned Parenthood locations.

    This incident is the latest to demonstrate how political and often hate-based violence is becoming a more common part of American politics.

    “Let me be absolutely clear: this was an act of targeted political violence, and it was an attack on everything we stand for as a democracy,” U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said in a June 14 statement.

    The threat of domestic violence and terrorism is high in the United States – especially the danger posed by white power extremists, many of whom believe white people are being “replaced” by people of color.

    I am a scholar of political violence and extremism and wrote about these beliefs in a 2021 book, “It Can Happen Here: White Power and the Rising Threat of Genocide in the US.” I think it’s important to understand the lessons that can be learned from events such as the recent Minnesota shootings.

    After decades of research on numerous attacks that have left scores dead, we have learned that extremists are almost always part of a pack, not lone wolves. But the myth of the lone wolf shooter remains tenacious, reappearing in media coverage after almost every mass shooting or act of far-right extremist violence. Because this myth misdirects people from the actual causes of extremist violence, it impedes society’s ability to prevent attacks.

    Vance Boelter is seen in his booking photo on June 16, 2025, in Green Isle, Minn.
    Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office via Getty Images

    The lone wolf extremist myth is dangerous

    FBI Director Christopher Wray said in August 2022 that the nation’s top threat comes from far-right extremist “lone actors” – who, he explained, work alone, instead of “as part of a large group.”

    Wray is wrong, and the myth of the lone wolf extremist – the mistaken idea that violent extremists largely act alone – continues to directly inform research, law enforcement and the popular imagination.

    I think that Wray’s focus on extremism is much needed and long overdue. However, his line of thinking is dangerous and misleading. By focusing on individuals or small groups, it overlooks broader networks and long-term dangers and so can impede efforts to combat far-right extremist violence – which Wray has singled out as the country’s most lethal domestic threat.

    Not a new trend

    Far-right extremists may physically carry out an attack alone or as part of a small group of people, but they are almost always networked and identify with larger groups and causes.

    This was true long before the social media age. Take Timothy McVeigh. He is often depicted as the archetypal lone wolf madman who blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building in 1995.

    In fact, McVeigh was part of a pack. He had accomplices and was connected across the far-right extremist landscape.

    The same is true of Payton Gendron, who shot and killed 10 Black people at a Buffalo, New York, grocery store in 2022, and Patrick Crusius, who killed 23 people in a racist attack targeting Latino shoppers at a Walmart in Texas in 2019.

    These two shooters were also characterized in media coverage as lone wolves following their deadly attacks.

    “He talked about how he didn’t like school because he didn’t have friends. He would say he was lonely,” a classmate of Gendron said shortly after Gendron carried out the mass shooting.

    Both were active on far-right extremist social media platforms and posted manifestos before their attacks. Gendron’s manifesto discusses how he was radicalized on the dark web and inspired to attack after watching videos of Brenton Tarrant’s 2019 massacre of 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

    Almost a quarter of Gendron’s manifesto is directly taken from Tarrant’s, which was titled “The Great Replacement.” This fear of white replacement, centered around perceived white demographic decline, was also a motive for Crusius. His manifesto pays homage to Tarrant, before explaining his attack was “a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

    The lone wolf myth also suggests that extremists are abnormal deviants with anti-social personalities.

    After Gendron’s rampage, for example, New York Attorney General Letitia James called him a “sick, demented individual.” Crusius, in turn, was described by the White House and news articles as “evil,” “psychotic” and an “anti-social loner.”

    The vast majority of far-right extremists are, in fact, otherwise ordinary men and women. They live in rural areas, suburbs and cities. They are students and working professionals. And they believe their extremist cause is justified. This point was illustrated by the spectrum of participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection.

    Boelter is a father of five who has worked various jobs in the food industry and with funeral service companies and a security service. While Boelter’s exact motivation and political affiliation are not clear, friends describe him as very religious and conservative. Boelter reportedly told a roommate and friend that he strongly opposes abortion. He has also criticized gay and transgender people during sermons he delivered at a church in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    People hug at a memorial outside the Walmart in El Paso, Texas, where a shooter killed 23 people in 2019.
    Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images

    Tracing the lone wolf mythology

    How did the lone-wolf metaphor come to misinform the public’s view of extremists, and why is it so tenacious?

    Part of the answer is linked to white supremacist Louis Beam, who wrote the essay “Leaderless Resistance” in 1983. In it, he called for far-right extremists to act individually or in small groups that couldn’t be traced up a chain of command. According to his lawyer, McVeigh was one of those influenced by Beam’s call.

    After Beam formulated this idea, both far-right extremists and law enforcement increasingly used the lone wolf term. In 1998, the FBI even mounted an “Operation Lone Wolf” to investigate a West Coast white supremacist cell.

    The 9/11 terrorist attacks further turned U.S. attention to Islamic militant “lone wolves.” A decade later, the term became mainstream.

    And so it was not a surprise when, after the Buffalo shooting, New York State Senator James Sanders said, “Although this is probably a lone-wolf incident, this is not the first mass shooting we have seen, and sadly it will not be the last.”

    The tenacity of the lone wolf myth has several sources. It’s convenient – evocative and powerful enough to draw and keep people’s attention.

    By using this term, which individualizes extremism, law enforcement officials may also depoliticize their work. Instead of focusing on movements like white nationalism that have sympathizers in the various levels of government, from sheriffs to senators, they focus on individuals.

    The lone wolf extremist myth diverts from what should be the focus of deterrence efforts: understanding how far-right extremists network, organize and, as the Jan. 6 insurrection showed, build coalitions across diverse groups, especially through the use of social media.

    Such understanding provides a basis for developing long-term strategies to prevent extremists like Boelter from carrying out more violent attacks.

    This is an updated version of an article originally published on Feb. 23, 2023.

    Alex Hinton receives funding from the Rutgers-Newark Sheila Y. Oliver Center for Politics and Race in America, Rutgers Research Council, and Henry Frank Guggenheim Foundation.

    – ref. Violent extremists like the Minnesota shooter are not lone wolves – https://theconversation.com/violent-extremists-like-the-minnesota-shooter-are-not-lone-wolves-259225

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Violent extremists like the Minnesota shooter are not lone wolves

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alex Hinton, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology; Director, Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights, Rutgers University – Newark

    A memorial for Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, is seen at the Minnesota State Capitol building on June 16, 2025, in St. Paul, Minn. Steven Garcia/Getty Images

    After a two-day manhunt, Minnesota authorities arrested and charged 57-year-old Vance Boelter on June 15, 2025, after he allegedly shot and killed Minnesota House Democratic leader Melissa Hortman and her husband in their home and seriously injured another state senator and his wife.

    Boelter, disguised as a police officer, went to other Minnesota politicians’ homes late in the evening on June 13. In his parked car he left behind a list of names and addresses of other Minnesota state and federal elected officials, as well as community leaders and Planned Parenthood locations.

    This incident is the latest to demonstrate how political and often hate-based violence is becoming a more common part of American politics.

    “Let me be absolutely clear: this was an act of targeted political violence, and it was an attack on everything we stand for as a democracy,” U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said in a June 14 statement.

    The threat of domestic violence and terrorism is high in the United States – especially the danger posed by white power extremists, many of whom believe white people are being “replaced” by people of color.

    I am a scholar of political violence and extremism and wrote about these beliefs in a 2021 book, “It Can Happen Here: White Power and the Rising Threat of Genocide in the US.” I think it’s important to understand the lessons that can be learned from events such as the recent Minnesota shootings.

    After decades of research on numerous attacks that have left scores dead, we have learned that extremists are almost always part of a pack, not lone wolves. But the myth of the lone wolf shooter remains tenacious, reappearing in media coverage after almost every mass shooting or act of far-right extremist violence. Because this myth misdirects people from the actual causes of extremist violence, it impedes society’s ability to prevent attacks.

    Vance Boelter is seen in his booking photo on June 16, 2025, in Green Isle, Minn.
    Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office via Getty Images

    The lone wolf extremist myth is dangerous

    FBI Director Christopher Wray said in August 2022 that the nation’s top threat comes from far-right extremist “lone actors” – who, he explained, work alone, instead of “as part of a large group.”

    Wray is wrong, and the myth of the lone wolf extremist – the mistaken idea that violent extremists largely act alone – continues to directly inform research, law enforcement and the popular imagination.

    I think that Wray’s focus on extremism is much needed and long overdue. However, his line of thinking is dangerous and misleading. By focusing on individuals or small groups, it overlooks broader networks and long-term dangers and so can impede efforts to combat far-right extremist violence – which Wray has singled out as the country’s most lethal domestic threat.

    Not a new trend

    Far-right extremists may physically carry out an attack alone or as part of a small group of people, but they are almost always networked and identify with larger groups and causes.

    This was true long before the social media age. Take Timothy McVeigh. He is often depicted as the archetypal lone wolf madman who blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building in 1995.

    In fact, McVeigh was part of a pack. He had accomplices and was connected across the far-right extremist landscape.

    The same is true of Payton Gendron, who shot and killed 10 Black people at a Buffalo, New York, grocery store in 2022, and Patrick Crusius, who killed 23 people in a racist attack targeting Latino shoppers at a Walmart in Texas in 2019.

    These two shooters were also characterized in media coverage as lone wolves following their deadly attacks.

    “He talked about how he didn’t like school because he didn’t have friends. He would say he was lonely,” a classmate of Gendron said shortly after Gendron carried out the mass shooting.

    Both were active on far-right extremist social media platforms and posted manifestos before their attacks. Gendron’s manifesto discusses how he was radicalized on the dark web and inspired to attack after watching videos of Brenton Tarrant’s 2019 massacre of 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

    Almost a quarter of Gendron’s manifesto is directly taken from Tarrant’s, which was titled “The Great Replacement.” This fear of white replacement, centered around perceived white demographic decline, was also a motive for Crusius. His manifesto pays homage to Tarrant, before explaining his attack was “a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

    The lone wolf myth also suggests that extremists are abnormal deviants with anti-social personalities.

    After Gendron’s rampage, for example, New York Attorney General Letitia James called him a “sick, demented individual.” Crusius, in turn, was described by the White House and news articles as “evil,” “psychotic” and an “anti-social loner.”

    The vast majority of far-right extremists are, in fact, otherwise ordinary men and women. They live in rural areas, suburbs and cities. They are students and working professionals. And they believe their extremist cause is justified. This point was illustrated by the spectrum of participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection.

    Boelter is a father of five who has worked various jobs in the food industry and with funeral service companies and a security service. While Boelter’s exact motivation and political affiliation are not clear, friends describe him as very religious and conservative. Boelter reportedly told a roommate and friend that he strongly opposes abortion. He has also criticized gay and transgender people during sermons he delivered at a church in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    People hug at a memorial outside the Walmart in El Paso, Texas, where a shooter killed 23 people in 2019.
    Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images

    Tracing the lone wolf mythology

    How did the lone-wolf metaphor come to misinform the public’s view of extremists, and why is it so tenacious?

    Part of the answer is linked to white supremacist Louis Beam, who wrote the essay “Leaderless Resistance” in 1983. In it, he called for far-right extremists to act individually or in small groups that couldn’t be traced up a chain of command. According to his lawyer, McVeigh was one of those influenced by Beam’s call.

    After Beam formulated this idea, both far-right extremists and law enforcement increasingly used the lone wolf term. In 1998, the FBI even mounted an “Operation Lone Wolf” to investigate a West Coast white supremacist cell.

    The 9/11 terrorist attacks further turned U.S. attention to Islamic militant “lone wolves.” A decade later, the term became mainstream.

    And so it was not a surprise when, after the Buffalo shooting, New York State Senator James Sanders said, “Although this is probably a lone-wolf incident, this is not the first mass shooting we have seen, and sadly it will not be the last.”

    The tenacity of the lone wolf myth has several sources. It’s convenient – evocative and powerful enough to draw and keep people’s attention.

    By using this term, which individualizes extremism, law enforcement officials may also depoliticize their work. Instead of focusing on movements like white nationalism that have sympathizers in the various levels of government, from sheriffs to senators, they focus on individuals.

    The lone wolf extremist myth diverts from what should be the focus of deterrence efforts: understanding how far-right extremists network, organize and, as the Jan. 6 insurrection showed, build coalitions across diverse groups, especially through the use of social media.

    Such understanding provides a basis for developing long-term strategies to prevent extremists like Boelter from carrying out more violent attacks.

    This is an updated version of an article originally published on Feb. 23, 2023.

    Alex Hinton receives funding from the Rutgers-Newark Sheila Y. Oliver Center for Politics and Race in America, Rutgers Research Council, and Henry Frank Guggenheim Foundation.

    – ref. Violent extremists like the Minnesota shooter are not lone wolves – https://theconversation.com/violent-extremists-like-the-minnesota-shooter-are-not-lone-wolves-259225

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Governments of Canada and Saskatchewan invest $3.4 million to support USask’s IntegrOmes project

    Source: Government of Canada News (2)

    June 17, 2025 – Saskatoon, Saskatchewan – Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

    Canada’s Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Heath MacDonald and Saskatchewan Agriculture Minister Daryl Harrison announced $3.4 million over 4 years to support the development of 2 new facilities at the University of Saskatchewan (USask) which includes the Omics Resource Centre at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine (WCVM) and Beef Reprotech facilities at the Livestock and Forage Centre of Excellence (LFCE).

    The investment will be delivered through the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership (Sustainable CAP) as part of the governments’ commitment to support partnerships with strategic agricultural research organizations.

    The new initiative, called IntegrOmes (Integrated Genomics for Sustainable Animal Agriculture and Environmental Stewardship), will advance beef genetics by matching genomic markers with desirable traits and evaluate reproductive efficiencies. This integrated approach will enable producers to make more precise and data-driven breeding decisions that improve livestock productivity in Saskatchewan.

    The IntegrOmes project will address issues of beef cattle production and reproductive efficiency, animal health and the environment through the adoption of genomic tools. Saskatchewan producers will benefit from having access to these tools to stay competitive in the domestic and international market.

    USask, the WCVM and the LFCE are world-class research, teaching and knowledge-transfer facilities that connect innovation across the livestock production chain. USask’s work in feedlot and cow-calf management, veterinary science and forage systems plays a vital role in driving improvements in productivity and sustainability in the sector.

    This investment builds on the long-standing support for agricultural research by the governments of Canada and Saskatchewan. Through shared priorities under Sustainable CAP, over the past 5 years nearly $170 million has been committed in Saskatchewan toward research to improve productivity, expand markets and ensure our agri-food products remain globally competitive.

    With today’s announcement, USask’s LFCE and WCVM continue to strengthen Saskatchewan’s reputation as a global leader in high-quality, safe and sustainable food production.

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI: The Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Administration of the Government of Spain has announced an investment of €19.6M in Quantix to Establish a Cybersecurity and Microelectronics Center in the Region of Murcia

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    The Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Administration of the Government of Spain has announced an investment of €19.6M in Quantix to Establish a Cybersecurity and Microelectronics Center in the Region of Murcia

    The Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Administration announced its participation in Quantix Edge Security through the Spanish Society for Technological Transformation (SETT), alongside Murcia-based companies OdinS and TProtege, Swiss-based company WISeKey, and France-based company SEALSQ

    Geneva, Switzerland, June 17, 2025 – WISeKey International Holding Ltd (“WISeKey”) (SIX: WIHN, NASDAQ: WKEY), a leading global cybersecurity, blockchain, and IoT company, today announces that the Government of Spain has announced its investment of €19.6M in Quantix to Establish a Cybersecurity and Microelectronics Center in the Region of Murcia.   WISeKey expects to issue a press-release detailing the project shortly.

    A free translation of the Spanish language announcement by the Spanish Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Administration is set forth below.

    “The Council of Ministers announced today, the launch of Quantix, an ambitious public-private joint venture with a total investment of €40M. The venture includes OdinS, a spin-off from the University of Murcia, Murcia-based TProtege, and Switzerland-based WISeKey and France-based SEALSQ, both listed on NASDAQ. Quantix will develop a Semiconductor Design and Personalization Center in the Region of Murcia with advanced capabilities in cybersecurity, post-quantum technology, AI, and RISC-V systems.

    The investment, driven by the Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Administration, exceeds €19.6 million and will be managed through SETT (Spanish Society for Technological Transformation), a recently established public entity created by the Government of Spain to invest in and support strategic and emerging projects that advance Spain’s technological transformation.

    This project, which began gaining public traction in February 2024, has now culminated with the approval of the Spanish Government’s financial backing. Quantix represents a strategic international public-private alliance aligned with the European Union’s digital transformation and technological sovereignty plans, addressing the critical challenge of cybersecurity in an ultra-connected world.

    Quantix projects the creation of 40 jobs in the first two years, 70 in the third year, and 152 by the fifth year, with a goal of reaching 250 employees by the eighth year. The initiative aims to foster high-quality employment, research, and technology in the Region of Murcia, with a plan to attract both regional and international talent.

    The establishment of Quantix Edge Security will centralize part of the value chain in a single location in the Region of Murcia, reducing reliance on non-European suppliers for microchip design and manufacturing.

    Due to cybersecurity regulations being standardized by national agencies, Quantix’s target market focuses on post-quantum-resistant products, which, by 2030, will be essential for governmental applications such as passports and defense, as well as sensitive private-sector applications.

    This project has been supported from its inception by María González Veracruz in her various roles, both at the Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Digital Infrastructures and currently at the Secretary of State for Digitalization and Artificial Intelligence. She has repeatedly emphasized the importance of aligning this project with the financial instruments of the Strategic Project for Economic Recovery and Transformation in Microelectronics and Semiconductors (PERTE Chip), promoted by the Government of Spain.

    José Trigueros, founder and CEO of OdinS and TProtege, celebrates the launch of Quantix, an ambitious project that aims to position the Region of Murcia as a benchmark for innovation, microelectronics, and technological sovereignty, establishing the region as a new international hub for the development of secure microchips. This will lead the transition toward a resilient digital ecosystem that minimizes external dependencies in a shifting geopolitical landscape.

    Carlos Moreira, Founder and CEO of WISeKey and SEALSQ, stated: “I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the Government of Spain and the Region of Murcia for this ambitious and strategic initiative, which not only strengthens national cybersecurity capabilities but also positions the region as a European leader in the development of key technologies such as post-quantum semiconductors.”

    Both leaders agree that the challenge ahead is immense, but so is the positive impact they aim to achieve. “We will create jobs, attract talent, develop cutting-edge technology, and place Murcia and Spain on the European map for semiconductors and cybersecurity,” they affirmed.

    Collaborations with research centers, technology hubs, and regional universities, particularly the University of Murcia (UMU), which has extensive experience in cybersecurity and has participated in numerous security projects over the past two decades, strengthen the scientific capacity of the proposed ecosystem.

    SEALSQ and WISeKey bring robust international expertise in cybersecurity and post-quantum semiconductor projects, developing advanced solutions for strategic sectors such as defense, healthcare, IoT, and aerospace. SEALSQ designs quantum-resistant microcontrollers and ASICs, integrating NIST-standard post-quantum algorithms such as Kyber, Dilithium, and Falcon, and collaborates with excellence centers like Mines Saint-Étienne in France. It is one of the few companies worldwide producing semiconductors specifically designed to withstand quantum threats, with its technologies embedded in over 1.75 billion devices globally. WISeKey complements this capability with its global digital identity and PKI (Public Key Infrastructure) infrastructure, including post-quantum trust roots, secure electronic voting systems, IoT devices, and certified blockchain platforms. Together, both companies have created a comprehensive and sovereign digital security ecosystem capable of protecting critical infrastructure against emerging quantum threats, offering end-to-end solutions from chip to cloud, including authentication, encryption, identity, and data protection.

    It is worth noting that OdinS, alongside WISeKey International Holding and SEALSQ, is involved in various international initiatives, such as European (ETSI EN 303 645) and U.S. (NIST IR 8425) regulations, which mandate digital identity for connected devices, as well as IoT lifecycle security management systems and certification processes for system security.

    The latest projects by OdinS in RISC-V, SEALSQ in post-quantum chips, and WISeKey in secure elements and trust roots will enhance technological and commercial synergies, combining two decades of expertise in IoT and cybersecurity.

    About Odin Solutions

    Odin Solutions (OdinS), founded in June 2014, is accredited as an innovative ICT company (EIBT) by MINECO and ANCES. OdinS specializes in IPv6 Internet of Things, Big Data, and Security. Its team has extensive experience and strong research, innovation, and technological development capabilities in integrated IoT systems and Big Data platforms for water/energy efficiency, security, and remote infrastructure management. OdinS holds several patents in monitoring and telecontrol systems. The company offers open, flexible, and interoperable products capable of connecting infrastructures and mobile platforms for Smart Cities, infrastructure, defense, and Smart Agriculture. Since its inception, OdinS has focused on IoT system security certification solutions and, more recently, on developing RISC-V-based systems, a cutting-edge European technology for open systems aligned with the new requirements set by European initiatives such as NIS2 and the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA).

    OdinS’s multidisciplinary and entrepreneurial team works daily to address the challenges of an increasingly connected and technological society. OdinS is a member of the International IoT Forum and AIOTI (Alliance for Internet of Things Innovation) and actively participates in standardization working groups on Smart Cities, Architectures, and Standards. Specifically, OdinS collaborates with ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) in the ISG CIM (Cross-Sector Context Information Management) industry standardization group to design interoperable interfaces between IoT devices and Big Data platforms. OdinS views collaborative R&D projects as the best investment for achieving more competitive products and solutions. For more information, visit www.odins.es.

    About TProtege

    TProtege has a significant regional presence in the security and control systems market, with a strong focus on applying the latest technologies to deliver tailored solutions and superior customer service. It aspires to be a benchmark for integrated ICT solutions in the audiovisual sector, particularly in security and control. TProtege is a leader in technology-based systems, offering audiovisual engineering, surveillance, environmental monitoring, access control, and logistics security services. For more information, visit www.tprotege.es.”

    About SEALSQ:
    SEALSQ is a leading innovator in Post-Quantum Technology hardware and software solutions. Our technology seamlessly integrates Semiconductors, PKI (Public Key Infrastructure), and Provisioning Services, with a strategic emphasis on developing state-of-the-art Quantum Resistant Cryptography and Semiconductors designed to address the urgent security challenges posed by quantum computing. As quantum computers advance, traditional cryptographic methods like RSA and Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) are increasingly vulnerable.

    SEALSQ is pioneering the development of Post-Quantum Semiconductors that provide robust, future-proof protection for sensitive data across a wide range of applications, including Multi-Factor Authentication tokens, Smart Energy, Medical and Healthcare Systems, Defense, IT Network Infrastructure, Automotive, and Industrial Automation and Control Systems. By embedding Post-Quantum Cryptography into our semiconductor solutions, SEALSQ ensures that organizations stay protected against quantum threats. Our products are engineered to safeguard critical systems, enhancing resilience and security across diverse industries.

    For more information on our Post-Quantum Semiconductors and security solutions, please visit www.sealsq.com.

    About WISeKey

    WISeKey International Holding Ltd (“WISeKey”, SIX: WIHN; Nasdaq: WKEY) is a global leader in cybersecurity, digital identity, and IoT solutions platform. It operates as a Swiss-based holding company through several operational subsidiaries, each dedicated to specific aspects of its technology portfolio. The subsidiaries include (i) SEALSQ Corp (Nasdaq: LAES), which focuses on semiconductors, PKI, and post-quantum technology products, (ii) WISeKey SA which specializes in RoT and PKI solutions for secure authentication and identification in IoT, Blockchain, and AI, (iii) WISeSat AG which focuses on space technology for secure satellite communication, specifically for IoT applications, (iv) WISe.ART Corp which focuses on trusted blockchain NFTs and operates the WISe.ART marketplace for secure NFT transactions, and (v) SEALCOIN AG which focuses on decentralized physical internet with DePIN technology and house the development of the SEALCOIN platform.

    Each subsidiary contributes to WISeKey’s mission of securing the internet while focusing on their respective areas of research and expertise. Their technologies seamlessly integrate into the comprehensive WISeKey platform. WISeKey secures digital identity ecosystems for individuals and objects using Blockchain, AI, and IoT technologies. With over 1.6 billion microchips deployed across various IoT sectors, WISeKey plays a vital role in securing the Internet of Everything. The company’s semiconductors generate valuable Big Data that, when analyzed with AI, enable predictive equipment failure prevention. Trusted by the OISTE/WISeKey cryptographic Root of Trust, WISeKey provides secure authentication and identification for IoT, Blockchain, and AI applications. The WISeKey Root of Trust ensures the integrity of online transactions between objects and people. For more information on WISeKey’s strategic direction and its subsidiary companies, please visit www.wisekey.com.

    Disclaimer
    This communication expressly or implicitly contains certain forward-looking statements concerning WISeKey International Holding Ltd and its business. Such statements involve certain known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause the actual results, financial condition, performance or achievements of WISeKey International Holding Ltd to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. WISeKey International Holding Ltd is providing this communication as of this date and does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements contained herein as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

    This press release does not constitute an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, any securities, and it does not constitute an offering prospectus within the meaning of the Swiss Financial Services Act (“FinSA”), the FinSa’s predecessor legislation or advertising within the meaning of the FinSA. Investors must rely on their own evaluation of WISeKey and its securities, including the merits and risks involved. Nothing contained herein is, or shall be relied on as, a promise or representation as to the future performance of WISeKey.

    Press and Investor Contacts

    WISeKey International Holding Ltd
    Company Contact: Carlos Moreira
    Chairman & CEO
    Tel: +41 22 594 3000
    info@wisekey.com     		 WISeKey Investor Relations (US) 
    The Equity Group Inc.
    Lena Cati
    Tel: +1 212 836-9611
    lcati@theequitygroup.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The Weimar triangle: how Germany’s new government could reinvigorate an important European security alliance

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rachel Herring, PhD candidate, Department of Politics, History and International Relations, Aston University

    Decisions made by German chancellor Friedrich Merz when he came to power in May indicate that a somewhat dormant regional partnership is about to take on new significance in Europe. Merz immediately travelled to Paris and Warsaw to meet Emmanuel Macron and Donald Tusk, suggesting the so-called Weimar triangle is a top priority for his government.

    Following Merz’s visit to Poland, Polish prime minister Tusk declared “a new beginning, perhaps the most important in the history of the last dozen or so years, in Polish-German relations”.

    If Tusk is right, the Weimar triangle – an alliance between France, Germany and Poland – will have a key role to play. The Weimar triangle was established in 1991 as a forum for the three countries to work together in the interest of European security. This involved integrating Poland into the EU, as well as providing another channel for Germany to pursue friendship and reconciliation with its neighbours.

    The Franco-German “special relationship” was already established, along with their shared reputation as Europe’s “motor”. But Poland’s inclusion was crucial. As a large, influential country in Central Europe, it was well placed to become a pillar of European security and a partner in European expansion following the collapse of Communist regimes.

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

    As well as being a smaller security forum in which Germany, France and Poland can find common ground on EU security and foreign policy, the Weimar triangle has at times taken on an active international role. During the 2014 Ukraine crisis, ministers from the three Weimar triangle countries took the lead and negotiated on behalf of the EU.

    However, the importance and effectiveness of the format has declined in recent years due to deteriorating relations between the French, German and Polish governments.

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 elevated the significance of the Weimar triangle once again. But in the early days of the war, although all three governments condemned the invasion, Poland, Germany and France were far from being on the same page.

    Germany’s cautious response provoked criticism in Poland – and indeed in other Central European countries. Many in the region had long been sceptical of Germany’s Russia policy and had warned of Russian aggression, but did not feel taken seriously.

    While the Polish government was quick to commit significant military support to Ukraine, Germany, under former chancellor Olaf Scholz, soon gained a reputation for being overly cautious in the eyes of its more hawkish allies. This led the Polish government to begin turning to security alliances in Scandinavia and the Baltics.

    Meanwhile, Scholz’s hesitancy and orientation towards Washington for leadership was also met with frustration in France, where the idea of “European sovereignty” in security issues had more traction.

    When the new Merz government made it clear that it wanted to prioritise foreign policy and the Weimar triangle, there was a sense that things were about to change. It is still early days, but the rhetoric of all three Weimar triangle leaders signals a commitment to making the alliance finally deliver, as well as an awareness of earlier failures.

    New challenges in Poland

    It won’t be plain sailing from here though. The election of nationalist Karol Nawrocki as president in Poland in early June was a blow for those that support a new, strong Weimar triangle.

    Poland’s current government is a centrist coalition led by pro-European prime minister Donald Tusk, but the concern now is that Nawrocki will block pro-European legislation as his predecessor did, given that he has the support of the nationalist, Eurosceptic Law and Justice (PiS) party. The PiS party (in government from 2015-2023) has a record of anti-German and anti-EU rhetoric.

    Nawrocki has not yet questioned Poland’s military aid to Ukraine but the Tusk government must now continue to balance pursuing its own more liberal agenda and more pro-German and pro-European approach with the alternative views that Nawrocki represents, and which are clearly backed by a significant portion of Polish voters.

    What next for the Weimar triangle?

    Given the centrality of the Weimar triangle countries in Europe and the EU, their alliance has consequences that go far beyond the bilateral and regional levels. With the ongoing war in Ukraine and the uncertain status of the US as a security partner since Donald Trump’s re-election, a strong and unified pillar at the centre of Europe would be an asset to the EU and European security.

    So far, the Weimar triangle has failed to deliver on the expectations attached to it, often due to domestic differences. However, it holds untapped potential. A divided Europe and EU is in the interest of Putin’s government, and is not the unified ally Ukraine needs.

    The Weimar triangle, in bringing together three key member states – crucially including from Central Europe – can both symbolically and practically strengthen European foreign and security policy.

    This will involve finding compromises to build a united front on security at the EU level, bringing issues and policies to the table, and strengthening understanding where security perspectives diverge. The positions and signals of France, Germany and Poland matter to other EU member states and to Ukraine. Joint efforts could have even more clout.

    Rachel Herring receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

    – ref. The Weimar triangle: how Germany’s new government could reinvigorate an important European security alliance – https://theconversation.com/the-weimar-triangle-how-germanys-new-government-could-reinvigorate-an-important-european-security-alliance-257995

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Here We Are: how silence defines Stephen Sondheim’s last musical

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ben Macpherson, Reader in Vocal Theatres, University of Portsmouth

    In musical theatre lore, when emotion outgrows words, characters sing (and when emotion outgrows song, they dance). This idea – in various guises, configurations and subversions – has shaped musical theatre for the last eight decades. The expectation that in a musical, characters sing is deeply ingrained: songs move the story along, or suspend time to enlarge a moment of emotion.

    Songs give audiences a chance to connect and to thrill at the virtuosity – and vulnerability – on display. After all, the very term “musical theatre” gives us a clue to its priorities. What happens, then, when the singing stops?

    That is the question posed by Stephen Sondheim’s final musical, Here We Are, which premiered at The Shed in New York in 2023 (two years after his death at 91) and is now playing at The National Theatre in London till the end of June.

    Based on two surrealist films by Spanish auteur Luis Buñuel (1972’s The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and 1962’s The Exterminating Angel), act one sees a group of wealthy friends searching for a decent brunch.

    In act two, after finally eating in the dining room of an embassy building, they mysteriously find themselves trapped – along with the waitress and the butler – and unable to leave. Completed posthumously and written with playwright David Ives, the show does something radical: in its second act, the characters stop singing.

    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.

    That is not to say the show is not musical, and act two does include three brief moments of musical interlude rather than song. We might suggest this “songlessness” acts as a kind of silence; the characters speak, but as this is not a play, they should – as is expected of a musical – sing.

    Initially keeping up appearances, act one is full of group numbers and sung encounters, yet even here, Sondheim plays games with his audience. The main characters rarely get solo moments; instead, minor characters, including a waiter and a soldier, are given richly expressive songs.

    The usual power dynamics of musical theatre are inverted. Who gets to sing – and who does not – becomes central to the story. Director Joe Mantello has said that this approach was counterintuitive, even for Sondheim.

    By act two, the playfulness escalates. Suddenly, not even the piano in the embassy drawing room makes a sound. Silence here is not simply a gap to be filled – it becomes the point of the drama. Audiences are asked to sit with characters inured to privilege and trapped by their sudden helplessness.

    The absence of song draws attention to everything else: the dynamics and relationships, the constrained movement, the increasingly stilted small talk. Without the emotional release of song, these characters are confronted, confronting and exposed.

    Musical silence and space

    This seems a courageous move in a genre built around song – but in fact, there are many examples in musical theatre where characters who do not sing are nonetheless central. In West Side Story (1957) and Spring Awakening (2006), adults are silent while the youth give voice to generational difference.

    In The Drowsy Chaperone (1998), the central narrator talks but never sings. In more recent works like Maybe Happy Ending (2016), the silence of not singing is more comedic, with the main character Oliver’s best friend being a (silent) house plant named HwaBoon. But Here We Are takes the idea further. Why?

    One reason is dramatic. The characters are trapped in an illogical, surreal situation, leading Sondheim to reportedly ask: “Why would these people be singing when they’re trapped in this room?” To its composer, the emotional directness of singing seemed inappropriate here.

    Instead, as with the ambiguity that characterises much of Sondheim’s work, we get something more open-ended, perhaps even rebellious. Without the usual musical release, tension builds. What do these characters really feel? What does their inaction demonstrate?

    The kind of musical silence gives rise to such questions, becoming a space in which characters and audiences can reflect, transform and critique. The second act of Here We Are is not simply a story about people who cannot leave a room – it is about being confined by habits, class structures and privilege. Characters and audiences alike are forced to confront these things without the thrill of song to soften the edges.

    Here We Are further plays with musical theatre’s deepest conventions. What if the thing we expect most – the habit and structure of singing in a musical – does not happen? What if the absence of singing is the most powerful sonic gesture of all?

    To end his final work in this way feels like Sondheim has played one last trick on his audience. After a career of writing some of the most emotionally complex songs in musical theatre – such as Send in the Clowns from A Little Night Music – he leaves us with one final challenge to the structure of the form he expanded.

    In an interview with journalist Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker in 2014, Sondheim said his dream project would be “not writing”. With Here We Are, he was almost there.

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

    – ref. Here We Are: how silence defines Stephen Sondheim’s last musical – https://theconversation.com/here-we-are-how-silence-defines-stephen-sondheims-last-musical-258718

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Five common habits that might be harming your liver

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

    Paracetamol overdose is one of the leading causes of acute liver failure, according to the British Liver Trust fizkes/Shutterstock

    The liver is one of the hardest working organs in the human body. It detoxifies harmful substances, helps with digestion, stores nutrients, and regulates metabolism.

    Despite its remarkable resilience – and even its ability to regenerate – the liver is not indestructible. In fact, many everyday habits, often overlooked, can slowly cause damage that may eventually lead to serious conditions such as cirrhosis (permanent scarring of the liver) or liver failure.

    One of the challenges with liver disease is that it can be a silent threat. In its early stages, it may cause only vague symptoms like constant fatigue or nausea.

    As damage progresses, more obvious signs may emerge. One of the most recognisable is jaundice, where the skin and the whites of the eyes turn yellow. While most people associate liver disease with heavy drinking, alcohol isn’t the only culprit. Here are five common habits that could be quietly harming your liver.

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

    1. Drinking too much alcohol

    Alcohol is perhaps the most well-known cause of liver damage. When you drink, your liver works to break down the alcohol and clear it from your system. But too much alcohol overwhelms this process, causing toxic by products to build up and damage liver cells.

    Alcohol-related liver disease progresses in stages. At first, fat begins to accumulate in the liver (fatty liver), often without any noticeable symptoms and reversible if drinking stops. Continued drinking can lead to alcoholic hepatitis, where inflammation and scar tissue begin to form as the liver attempts to heal itself.

    Over time, this scarring can develop into cirrhosis, where extensive hardening of the liver seriously affects its ability to function. While cirrhosis is difficult to reverse, stopping drinking can help prevent further damage.

    Even moderate drinking, if sustained over many years, can take its toll, particularly when combined with other risk factors like obesity or medication use. Experts recommend sticking to no more than 14 units of alcohol per week, and including alcohol-free days to give your liver time to recover.

    2. Poor diet and unhealthy eating habits

    You don’t need to drink alcohol to develop liver problems. Fat can build up in the liver due to an unhealthy diet, leading to a condition now called metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), formerly known as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

    Excess fat in the liver can impair its function and, over time, cause inflammation, scarring, and eventually cirrhosis. People who are overweight – particularly those who carry excess weight around their abdomen – are more likely to develop MASLD. Other risk factors include high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol.

    Diet plays a huge role. Foods high in saturated fat, such as red meat, fried foods and processed snacks, can raise cholesterol levels and contribute to liver fat accumulation. Sugary foods and drinks are also a major risk factor. In 2018, a review found that people who consumed more sugar sweetened drinks had a 40% higher risk of developing fatty liver disease.

    Ultra-processed foods such as fast food, ready meals and snacks packed with added sugar and unhealthy fats also contribute to liver strain. A large study found that people who ate more processed foods were significantly more likely to develop liver problems.

    On the flip side, eating a balanced, wholefood diet can help prevent – and even reverse – fatty liver disease. Research suggests that diets rich in vegetables, fruit, whole grains, legumes, and fish may reduce liver fat and improve related risk factors such as high blood sugar and cholesterol.

    Staying hydrated is also important. Aim for around eight glasses of water a day to support your liver’s natural detoxification processes.



    Read more:
    Don’t like drinking plain water? 10 healthy ideas for staying hydrated this summer

    3. Overusing painkillers

    Many people turn to over-the-counter painkillers such as paracetamol for headaches, muscle pain, or fever. While generally safe when used as directed, taking too much – even slightly exceeding the recommended dose – can be extremely dangerous for your liver.

    The liver breaks down paracetamol, but in the process, produces a toxic by-product called NAPQI. Normally, the body neutralises NAPQI using a protective substance called glutathione. However, in an overdose, glutathione stores become depleted, allowing NAPQI to accumulate and attack liver cells. This can result in acute liver failure, which can be fatal.

    Even small overdoses, or combining paracetamol with alcohol, can increase the risk of serious harm. Always stick to the recommended dose and speak to a doctor if you find yourself needing pain relief regularly.

    Regular exercise is one of the simplest and most powerful ways to protect your liver.
    Africa Studio/Shutterstock

    4. Lack of exercise

    A sedentary lifestyle is another major risk factor for liver disease. Physical inactivity contributes to weight gain, insulin resistance, and metabolic dysfunction – all of which can promote fat accumulation in the liver.

    The good news is that exercise can benefit your liver even if you don’t lose much weight. One study found that just eight weeks of resistance training reduced liver fat by 13% and improved blood sugar control. Aerobic exercise is also highly effective: regular brisk walking for 30 minutes, five times a week, has been shown to reduce liver fat and improve insulin sensitivity.

    5. Smoking

    Most people associate smoking with lung cancer or heart disease, but many don’t realise the serious damage it can do to the liver.

    Cigarette smoke contains thousands of toxic chemicals that increase the liver’s workload as it tries to filter and break them down. Over time, this can lead to oxidative stress, where unstable molecules (free radicals) damage liver cells, restrict blood flow, and contribute to scarring (cirrhosis).

    Smoking also significantly raises the risk of liver cancer. Harmful chemicals in tobacco smoke, including nitrosamines, vinyl chloride, tar, and 4-aminobiphenyl, are all known carcinogens. According to Cancer Research UK, smoking accounts for around 20% of liver cancer cases in the UK.

    Love your liver

    The liver is a remarkably robust organ – but it isn’t invincible. You can protect it by drinking alcohol in moderation, quitting smoking, taking medications responsibly, eating a balanced diet, staying active and keeping hydrated.

    If you notice any symptoms that may suggest liver trouble, such as ongoing fatigue, nausea, or jaundice, don’t delay speaking to your doctor. The earlier liver problems are detected, the better the chance of successful treatment.

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

    – ref. Five common habits that might be harming your liver – https://theconversation.com/five-common-habits-that-might-be-harming-your-liver-256921

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The UK failed grooming gang victims by not seeing ‘children as children’

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michelle McManus, Professor of Safeguarding and Violence Prevention, Co-Director of the Institute for Children’s Futures, Manchester Metropolitan University

    Mariana Serdynska/Shutterstock

    The announcement of a national inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation raises urgent questions: How did we end up here again? Haven’t there been enough reports? Why weren’t children protected the first time? And will these reforms actually change anything?

    As someone who has worked for years in safeguarding policy and research into grooming, county lines drug trafficking and child criminal exploitation, I believe this moment could be different. For the first time in years, there is political momentum, public scrutiny and survivor-led demand for change all converging. But we have to honest about how we got here.

    The inquiry, which will have full statutory powers, follows crossbench peer Louise Casey’s rapid national audit into grooming gangs. Her report lays bare what the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, described as a “collective failure” over 15 years. This phrase reflects not just high-profile cases in Rotherham, Rochdale or Telford, but a nationwide pattern of authorities disbelieving victims, delaying action and denying the scale of the problem.

    Since 2014, inquiry after inquiry has revealed how children, often girls, care-experienced young people, or those from marginalised backgrounds were not listened to, with some dismissed by social services as making “life choices”. Despite the Jay report, the 2022 Telford inquiry, and the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, victims were often not seen as victims at all.

    Seeing ‘children as children’

    One of the most striking lines in Lady Casey’s audit came just before her 12 recommendations: “We need to see children as children.” This cuts to the heart of how so many victims were failed. When professionals view teenagers as complicit, consenting, or “making choices”, they stop seeing the child in need of protection.

    Casey revealed that even today, many victims are still falling through the cracks because their exploitation doesn’t fit assumptions. The report revealed that cases involving 13- to 15-year-olds were too often dropped or downgraded from rape, with professionals referencing that the child was “in love” or had “consented”.

    These interpretations ignore the law — which sets the age of consent at 16 — and more importantly, they ignore the power imbalance and coercion at the heart of grooming. Casey has called for the law to be unambiguous: any penetrative sex with a child under 16 must be classified as rape.

    This failure to see children as victims is deeply embedded. In 2023, 706 group-based child sexual exploitation offences were recorded. A number dwarfed by the estimated 500,000 annual cases of child sexual abuse in England and Wales.

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

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

    One reason for this gap, as Casey’s audit acknowledges, is that “the results tend to obscure rather than clarify the picture of group-based child sexual exploitation”. Much abuse is made invisible by confusing and inconsistently applied definitions, where grooming is recorded under unrelated offence types such as gang or drug crime, rather than identified as exploitation.

    In my own research and parliamentary evidence, I’ve repeatedly warned that when a child is caught carrying drugs or cash, they are too often seen as a criminal first — not as someone coerced, groomed or harmed.

    These assumptions directly shape the outcome of a case. In earlier grooming gang cases identified in the various inquiries, girls were seen as “promiscuous” or as having “chosen” to associate with older men. These narratives made it easier for agencies to downplay reports, delay interventions or ignore disclosures altogether.

    Casey rightly highlights how exploiters have taken advantage of the blurred legal and professional treatment of 13- to 15-year-olds in sexual exploitation cases. But it is concerning that proposed legislation (the crime and policing bill) appears to replicate the same flaws in how it treats child criminal exploitation. The bill introduces different assumptions about a young person’s “awareness” or involvement, even where grooming or coercion is present.

    This risks embedding a double standard: one where a 14-year-old can’t consent to sex, but can be seen as knowingly trafficking drugs. Without urgent scrutiny, we risk repeating the same failures but under the banner of criminal exploitation. It is still child exploitation.

    What’s different about these reforms?

    The government has accepted all 12 of Casey’s recommendations, including making ethnicity data collection mandatory and fast-tracking rape charges for adults abusing under-16s.

    It has also promised mandated data-sharing to finally resolve the communication failures that have dogged policing, social care and health services for decades.

    The Casey audit underscores how urgent these reforms are. It found that two-thirds of recorded perpetrators had no ethnicity data captured, making it impossible to draw clear national conclusions. In areas like Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire, there was evidence of over-representation among men of Asian ethnicity.

    But the data-sharing failures go far beyond demographics. In many serious case reviews, including ones I’ve worked on, key information held by one agency (such as frequent missing episodes recorded by police) were never pieced together across agencies. Mandated data-sharing could have allowed professionals to spot patterns of grooming earlier and intervene before exploitation escalated.

    We’ve seen versions of these promises before. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse made over 80 recommendations. The Jay report outlined repeated missed chances to intervene. In 2022, the Centre of expertise on child sexual abuse called for urgent reforms to how police and social workers identify and respond to child sexual exploitation. Many of those changes were either delayed, diluted or quietly dropped.

    Some changes, such as the statutory inquiry’s power to compel evidence, are welcome. But legal duty doesn’t automatically translate into professional confidence or competence. The systems and infrastructure needed to enable professionals to share data consistently and safely still do not exist.

    I’ve observed how even the most robust policy and guidance fails in practice because professionals are underresourced, overwhelmed, lack experience, or are unprepared to challenge risk-averse decision making.

    For example, mandated data-sharing has been a goal since the 1980s. It was a central recommendation in the 1987 Cleveland inquiry and the 2000 Victoria Climbié inquiry, both of which dealt with child abuse. It has remained a consistent theme in reviews from the child safeguarding practice review panel and in my own national evaluations.

    Yvette Cooper delivers a speech on the ‘collective failure’ in the handling of grooming gangs cases.
    House of Commons/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

    Case reviews across four decades have cited the same failures: organisations not talking to each other, files siloed, risks misunderstood. In the cases explored in the Casey audit, better data-sharing could have helped agencies identify patterns of concern much earlier, including young people going missing from home or school, presenting at sexual health clinics, or being repeatedly reported in distress by family members, teachers and health practitioners.

    Instead, these signs remained isolated. Without a full picture, no single agency recognised what was happening. Children were left unprotected while perpetrators continued to offend.

    Unless we address why so many professionals have historically avoided taking action, whether due to fear of being seen as racist, fear of reputational harm, or simply not believing children, reforms may look good on paper but fall short in reality.

    The Casey audit shows we haven’t just failed to act, we’ve failed to learn. “Collective failure” is a powerful phrase, but without collective responsibility, we risk repeating the cycle.

    Michelle McManus has received funding from Home Office, Department for Education and National Independent Safeguarding Board Wales. She is also currently seconded as part of a Chancellor’s Fellowship at Manchester Met, with the VKPP, which is part of the National Centre for VAWG and Public Protection.

    – ref. The UK failed grooming gang victims by not seeing ‘children as children’ – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-failed-grooming-gang-victims-by-not-seeing-children-as-children-259098

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alzheimer’s: bacteria that causes stomach ulcers may protect the brain, our new research indicates

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gefei Chen, Associate professor, Karolinska Institutet

    _H pylori_ is more commonly known as the culprit of stomach infections. Corona Borealis Studio/ Shutterstock

    Every three seconds, someone in the world develops dementia. Alzheimer’s disease is the most common form of dementia, accounting for between 60% and 70% of all cases.

    Although scientists have made significant progress in understanding the disease, there’s still no cure. That’s partly because Alzheimer’s disease has multiple causes – many of which are still not fully understood.

    Two proteins which are widely believed to play central roles in Alzheimer’s disease are amyloid-beta and tau. Amyloid-beta forms sticky plaques on the outside of brain cells. This disrupts communication between neurons. Tau accumulate inside brain cells, where it twists into tangles. This ultimately leads to cell death. These plaques and tangles are the hallmark features of Alzheimer’s disease.

    This understanding, known as the amyloid hypothesis, has shaped research for decades and led to treatments that aim to clear amyloid from the brain. Monoclonal antibody drugs have been approved in recent years for this purpose.

    But they only work in the early stages of the disease. They do not reverse existing damage and may cause serious side-effects such as brain swelling and bleeding. Most importantly, they only target amyloid-beta, leaving tau untreated.

    But in a surprise twist, recent research published by my colleagues and me has found that a protein from Helicobacter pylori – a bacteria best known for causing stomach ulcers – can block the toxic buildup of both amyloid-beta and tau. This unexpected finding may point to a new strategy for the fight against Alzheimer’s disease.

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

    Our discovery began with a very different question. We were initially studying how H pylori interacts with other microbes. Some bacteria form protective communities called biofilms, which rely on amyloid assemblies (similar in structure to the plaques which form in the brain) as a structural scaffold. This led us to wonder: could H pylori influence bacterial biofilms by also interfering with amyloid assemblies in humans?

    We turned our attention to a well-known H pylori protein called CagA. While half of the protein is known to trigger harmful effects in human cells (referred to as the C-terminal region), the other half (the protein’s N-terminal region) may have protective properties. To our surprise, this N-terminal fragment, called CagAN, dramatically reduced the formation of both bacterial amyloids and biofilms in the bacterial species Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas.

    Encouraged by these results, we tested whether the same protein fragment could block the buildup of human amyloid-beta proteins. To do this, we incubated amyloid-beta molecules in the lab: some were treated with CagAN, while others were left as normal. We then tracked amyloid formation using a fluorescence reader and an electron microscope.

    The protein derived from H pylori blocked amyloid-beta plaques from forming.
    Signal Scientific Visuals/ Shutterstock

    We found that treated samples had far less amyloid clump formation during the testing period. Even at very low concentrations, CagAN almost completely stopped amyloid-beta from forming amyloid aggregates.

    To understand how CagAN worked, we used nuclear magnetic resonance (which allows us to look at how molecules interact with each other) to examine how the protein interacts with amyloid-beta. We also used computer modelling to investigate possible mechanisms. Remarkably, CagAN also blocked tau aggregation – suggesting it acts on multiple toxic proteins involved in Alzheimer’s disease.

    Blocking the disease

    Our study has shown us that a fragment from the Helicobacter pylori protein can effectively block the buildup of the two proteins that are implicated in Alzheimer’s disease. This suggests that bacterial proteins – or drugs modelled after them – could someday block the earliest signs of Alzheimer’s.

    What’s more, the benefits may extend beyond Alzheimer’s disease.

    In additional experiments, the same bacterial fragment blocked the aggregation of IAPP (a protein involved in type 2 diabetes) and alpha-synuclein (linked to Parkinson’s disease). All of these conditions are driven by the accumulation of toxic amyloid aggregates.

    That a single bacterial fragment could interfere with so many proteins suggests exciting therapeutic potential. Though these conditions affect different parts of the body, they may be linked through cross-talk between amyloid proteins – a shared mechanism that CagAN could help disrupt.

    Of course, it’s important to be clear: this research is still at an early stage. All of our experiments were conducted in lab settings, not yet in animals or humans. Still, the findings open a new path.

    Our study also uncovered the underlying mechanisms for how CagAN blocked the amyloid-beta and tau from forming amyloid aggregates. One of the ways in which CagAN did this was by preventing the proteins from coming together to form clumps. They also prevented small, premature amyloid aggregates from forming as well. In the future, we will continue the detailed mechanism study and evaluate the effects in animal models.

    These results also prompt a question: could H pylori, long seen only as harmful, also have a protective side? Some studies have hinted at a connection between H pylori infection and Alzheimer’s disease, though the relationship remains unclear. Our discovery adds a new layer to this discussion, suggesting that part of H pylori may actually interfere with the molecular events that lead to Alzheimer’s disease.

    That means in the future, we may need to take a more precise and personalised approach. Instead of aiming to eliminate H pylori completely with antibiotics, it might be more important to understand, in different biological contexts, which parts of the bacterium are harmful, and which might actually be beneficial.

    As medicine continues to move toward greater precision, the goal may no longer be to wipe out every microbe, but to understand how some of them might work with us rather than against us.

    Gefei Chen is also affiliated with Uppsala University.

    – ref. Alzheimer’s: bacteria that causes stomach ulcers may protect the brain, our new research indicates – https://theconversation.com/alzheimers-bacteria-that-causes-stomach-ulcers-may-protect-the-brain-our-new-research-indicates-259018

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Plastics threaten ecosystems and human health, but evidence-based solutions are under political fire

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Tony Robert Walker, Professor, School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University

    Negotiations toward a global, legally binding plastics treaty are set to resume this summer, with the United Nations Environment Programme announcing that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on plastic pollution will reconvene in August.

    The committee was established to develop an international legally binding instrument — known as the plastics treaty — to end plastic pollution, one of the fastest-growing environmental threats.



    Read more:
    Here’s how the new global treaty on plastic pollution can help solve this crisis

    Globally, 40 per cent of plastics production goes into the production of single-use plastic packaging, which is the single largest source of plastic waste and is a threat to wildlife and human health. Without meaningful action, global plastic waste is projected to nearly triple by 2060, reaching an estimated 1.2 billion tonnes.

    As the world prepares for another round of talks, Canada’s own plastic problem reveals what’s at stake, and what’s possible for the future.

    Canada’s plastic problem

    Canada is no exception to the global plastic crisis. Nearly half (47 per cent) of all plastic waste in Canada comes from the food and drink sector, contributing 3,268 million tonnes annually. Canadians use 15 billion plastic bags annually and nearly 57 million straws daily, yet only nine per cent of plastics are recycled — a figure that is not expected to improve.

    Most of Canada’s plastic — except for plastic bottles made of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) — are uneconomical or difficult to recycle because of the complexity of mixed plastics used in our economy. As a result, 2.8 million tonnes of plastic waste — equivalent to the weight of 24 CN Towers — end up in landfills every year.

    This is not a trivial problem, as Ontario is projected to run out of landfill space by 2035. Plastic pollution poses growing risks to both urban and rural infrastructure.

    In addition to landfill overflow, around one per cent of Canada’s plastic waste leaks into the environment. In 2016, this was 29,000 tonnes of plastic pollution. Once in the environment, plastics disintegrate into tiny particles, called microplastics (small pieces of plastic less than five millimetres long).

    We drink those tiny microplastic particles in our tap water, and eat them in our fish dinners. Some are even making their way into farmland.

    Plastics are everywhere, including inside us

    More than 93 per cent of Canadians have expressed concerns over single-use plastics used in food packaging and have supported government bans. There is a good reason for concern over the mounting levels of plastics in the environment, in our food and in us.

    Growing evidence indicates that plastics can cause harmful health effects in humans and animals. Microplastics and smaller nanoplastics (less than one micron in length) have been found in humans, including infants and breast milk. They can cause metabolic disorders, interfere with our immune and reproductive systems and cause behavioural problems.

    These health problems may be caused by chemicals added to plastics, including single-use plastics, of which 4,200 chemicals have been identified as posing a hazard to human and ecosystem health.

    It is for these reasons that the Canadian government introduced a ban on single-use plastics in 2022 as part of a plan to reach zero plastic waste in Canada by 2030.

    The decision was based extensive public and industry consultation, as well as decades of data on plastic pollution gathered from the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup. This data shows the most common plastic litter items found in the environment across Canada, known as the “dirty dozen” list.

    Six of these items were included in the federal ban. Three eastern Canadian provinces had already implemented single-use plastic bag bans before the federal government, with little to no public or industry opposition. Prince Edward Island was the first Canadian province to implement a province-wide plastic bag ban in July 2019, closely followed by Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia in October 2020.

    The politics of plastic

    Despite overwhelming scientific consensus, debates around plastic pollution are becoming increasingly politicized.

    In February in the United States, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. government to “stop purchasing paper straws and ensure they are no longer provided within federal buildings.”

    Trump told reporters at the White House: “I don’t think plastic is going to affect a shark very much, as they’re munching their way through the ocean.” Almost 2,000 peer-reviewed studies have reported, however, that more than 4,000 species have ingested or been entangled by plastic litter.

    In Canada, plastic has also become a political flashpoint. During the recent federal election, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said he would scrap the federal government’s ban on single-use plastics and bring back plastic straws and grocery bags. He argued the government’s ban was about “symbolism” rather than “science,” saying, “the Liberals’ plastics ban is not about the environment, it’s about cost and control.”

    His promise would have harmed Canadians by dismissing the overwhelming scientific evidence showing that plastics in our bodies are linked to health impacts. Legislation to ban single-use plastics can be highly effective, ranging from 33 to 96 per cent reductions in plastic waste and pollution in the environment, depending on the policy and jurisdiction.

    Canada’s single-use plastics ban is a great example of evidence-based policymaking. The latest data from the conservation group Ocean Wise shows there was a 32 per cent drop in plastic straws found on Canadian shorelines in 2024 compared to the previous year.

    Science-based policies are needed

    It is indisputable that growing plastic production is directly related to plastic pollution in the environment and in human beings. Increasing plastic pollution is a global threat to human and ecosystem health, regardless of borders and political affiliation.

    As negotiators gear up for another round of talks to finalize a Global Plastics Treaty to end plastic pollution, the need for policies that are supported by scientific evidence is more urgent than ever.

    Future generations deserve a healthy and sustainable planet. The path towards a healthy and sustainable planet requires supporting action based on scientific evidence, not misinforming people with catchy phrases and political rhetoric.

    Tony Robert Walker receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Research Nova Scotia. He is also a non-remunerated member of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty.

    Miriam L Diamond receives funding from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, Future Earth, and Environment and Climate Change Canada. She is affiliated with the University of Toronto, serves as a paid expert for the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility, and has non-remunerated positions with the International Panel on Chemical Pollution (Vice-Chair), is a member of the Scientist Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, and sits on the board of the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

    – ref. Plastics threaten ecosystems and human health, but evidence-based solutions are under political fire – https://theconversation.com/plastics-threaten-ecosystems-and-human-health-but-evidence-based-solutions-are-under-political-fire-256764

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Decolonizing history and social studies curricula has a long way to go in Canada

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sara Karn, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of History, McMaster University

    In June 2015, 10 years ago, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) called for curriculum on Indigenous histories and contemporary contributions to Canada to foster intercultural understanding, empathy and respect. This was the focus of calls to action Nos. 62 to 65.

    As education scholars, we are part of a project supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council called Thinking Historically for Canada’s Future. This project involves researchers, educators and partner organizations from across Canada, including Indigenous and non-Indigenous team members.

    As part of this work, we examined Canadian history and social studies curricula in elementary, middle and secondary schools with the aim of understanding how they address — and may better address in future — the need for decolonization.

    We found that although steps have been made towards decolonizing history curricula in Canada, there is still a long way to go. These curricula must do far more to challenge dominant narratives, prompt students to critically reflect on their identities and value Indigenous world views.



    Read more:
    Looking for Indigenous history? ‘Shekon Neechie’ website recentres Indigenous perspectives

    Reimagining curriculum

    As white settler scholars and educators, we acknowledge our responsibility to unlearn colonial ways of being and learn how to further decolonization in Canada.

    In approaching this study, we began by listening to Indigenous scholars, such as Cree scholar Dwayne Donald. Donald and other scholars call for reimagining curriculum through unlearning colonialism and renewing relationships.



    Read more:
    Leaked Alberta school curriculum in urgent need of guidance from Indigenous wisdom teachings

    The late education scholar Michael Marker, a member of the Lummi Nation, suggested that in history education, renewing relations involves learning from Indigenous understandings of the past, situated within local meanings of time and place.

    History, social studies curricula

    Curricula across Canada have been updated in the last 10 years to include teaching about treaties, Indian Residential Schools and the cultures, perspectives and experiences of Indigenous Peoples over time.

    Thanks primarily to the work of Indigenous scholars and educators, including Donald, Marker, Mi’kmaw educator Marie Battiste, Anishinaabe scholar Nicole Bell and others, some public school educators are attentive to land-based learning and the importance of oral history.

    But these teachings are, for the most part, ad hoc and not supported by provincial curriculum mandates.

    Our study revealed that most provincial history curricula are still focused on colonial narratives that centre settler histories and emphasize “progress” over time. Curricula are largely inattentive to critical understandings of white settler power and to Indigenous ways of knowing and being.

    Notably, we do not include the three territories in this statement. Most of the territorial history curricula have been co-created with local Indigenous communities, and stand out with regard to decolonization.

    For example, in Nunavut’s Grade 5 curriculum, the importance of local knowledge tied to the land is highlighted throughout. There are learning expectations related to survival skills and ecological knowledge.

    Members of our broader research team are dedicated to analyzing curricula in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Their work may offer approaches to be adapted for other educational contexts.

    Dominant narratives

    In contrast, we found that provincial curricula often reinforce dominant historical narratives, especially surrounding colonialism. Some documents use the term “the history,” implying a singular history of Canada (for example, Manitoba’s Grade 6 curriculum).

    Historical content, examples and guiding questions are predominantly written from a Euro-western perspective, while minimizing racialized identities and community histories. In particular, curricula often ignore illustrations of Indigenous agency and experience.



    Read more:
    Moving beyond Black history month towards inclusive histories in Québec secondary schools

    Most curricula primarily situate Indigenous Peoples in the past, without substantial consideration for present-day implications of settler colonialism, as well as Indigenous agency and experiences today.

    For example, in British Columbia’s Grade 4 curriculum, there are lengthy discussions of the harms of colonization in the past. Yet, there is no mention of the ongoing impacts of settler colonialism or the need to engage in decolonization today.

    To disrupt these dominant narratives, we recommend that history curricula should critically discuss the ongoing impacts of settler colonialism, while centring stories of Indigenous resistance and survival over time.

    Identity and privilege

    There are also missed opportunities within history curricula when it comes to critical discussions around identity, including systemic marginalization or privilege.

    Who we are informs how we understand history, but curricula largely does not prompt student reflection in these ways, including around treaty relationships.

    In Saskatchewan’s Grade 5 curriculum, students are expected to explain what treaties are and “affirm that all Saskatchewan residents are Treaty people.”

    However, there is no mention of students considering how their own backgrounds, identities, values and experiences shape their understandings of and responsibilities for treaties. Yet these discussions are essential for engaging students in considering the legacies of colonialism and how they may act to redress those legacies.

    A key learning outcome could involve students becoming more aware of how their own personal and community histories inform their historical understandings and reconciliation commitments.

    Indigenous ways of knowing and being

    History curricula generally ignore Indigenous ways of knowing and being. Most curricula are inattentive to Indigenous oral traditions, conceptions of time, local contexts and relationships with other species and the environment.

    Instead, these documents reflect Euro-western, settler colonial worldviews and educational values. For example, history curricula overwhelmingly ignore local meanings of time and place, while failing to encourage opportunities for land-based and experiential learning.

    In Prince Edward Island’s Grade 12 curriculum, the documents expect that students will “demonstrate an understanding of the interactions among people, places and the environment.” While this may seem promising, environmental histories in this curriculum and others uphold capitalist world views by focusing on resource extraction and economic progress.

    To disrupt settler colonial relationships with the land and empower youth as environmental stewards, we support reframing history curricula in ways that are attentive to Indigenous ways of knowing the past and relations with other people, beings and the land.

    Ways forward

    Schools have been, and continue to be, harmful spaces for many Indigenous communities, and various aspects of our schooling beg questions about how well-served both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students are for meeting current and future challenges.

    If, as a society, we accept the premise that the transformation of current curricular expectations is possible for schools, then more substantive engagement is required in working toward decolonization.

    Decolonizing curricula is a long-term, challenging process that requires consideration of many things: who sits on curriculum writing teams; the resources allocated to supporting curricular reform; broader school or board-wide policies; and ways of teaching that support reconciliation.

    We encourage history curriculum writing teams to take up these recommendations as part of a broader commitment to reconciliation.

    While not exhaustive, recommendations for curricular reform are a critical step in the future redesign of history curricula. The goal is a history education committed to listening and learning from Indigenous communities to build more inclusive national stories of the past, and into the future.

    Sara Karn receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

    Kristina R. Llewellyn receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

    Penney Clark receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

    – ref. Decolonizing history and social studies curricula has a long way to go in Canada – https://theconversation.com/decolonizing-history-and-social-studies-curricula-has-a-long-way-to-go-in-canada-253679

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: B.C.’s mental health law is on trial — and so is our commitment to human rights

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Anne Levesque, Assistant professor, Faculty of Law, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

    The British Columbia Supreme Court has begun hearing a long-awaited constitutional challenge to the province’s Mental Health Act.

    The case, nearly a decade in the making, is now drawing greater attention in the wake of the tragedy at the Filipino Lapu Lapu Day street festival earlier this year that left 11 people dead in Vancouver.

    The event has shaken many in the community, leaving behind grief and fear. Furthermore, in light of reports that the person accused of the crime was under Mental Health Act supervision, difficult questions arise. The pain is real, and any conversation about mental health must begin with compassion for all of those affected.



    Read more:
    Vancouver SUV attack exposes crowd management falldowns and casts a pall on Canada’s election

    At the same time, it’s important to ensure this moment of reckoning leads to thoughtful dialogue, not reactive policy. Unfortunately, much of the public discourse has become mired in fear and misinformation, creating a false and dangerous choice: that Canada must sacrifice individual rights in order to protect public safety.

    As a legal scholar in equality rights and public interest litigation, I don’t believe Canadians have to choose. A mental health system that respects Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms can also promote safety.

    What’s the case is about?

    The case currently before the B.C. Supreme Court was initiated by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD), a national human rights organization led by people with disabilities. The group is fighting provisions in the province’s Mental Health Act that strip patients of any right to choose their own health care, or to appoint a loved one to make health care decisions on their behalf.

    The CCD’s motto — “Nothing about us without us” — reflects a longstanding commitment to ensuring that people most affected by policies and systems have a voice in shaping them. This litigation will amplify the voices of people who underwent psychiatric treatment without consent and to shine a light on the deep and lasting harms they have suffered.

    Let’s be clear about what this Charter challenge actually seeks and what it doesn’t. It doesn’t aim to eliminate involuntary hospitalization. It does not change who can be detained, how long they can be held or the legal criteria for involuntary admission.

    What it does seek is something far more modest and humane: to ensure that when psychiatric care is forced, it is delivered with dignity, oversight and the involvement of trusted supporters in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    One of the key reforms that CCD has long advocated for is the right for people to name a family member or friend to be involved in treatment decisions. Far from undermining care, this kind of involvement can help bridge the gap between medical necessity and personal dignity.

    It’s a safeguard that respects patients’ values and builds trust, which the current system desperately lacks. And yes, it could even enhance public safety. Reports suggest that a family member of the man accused in the Lapu Lapu mass murders in April was concerned about his deteriorating mental health and had reached out for help just before the tragedy occurred. A more responsive system with the embedded involvement of trusted decision-makers might have made a difference.



    Read more:
    Fraudulent crowdfunding after the Lapu Lapu tragedy highlights the need for vigilance and oversight

    Reforming the Mental Health Act

    British Columbia is currently an outlier in Canada. It’s the only province where people detained under mental health laws are automatically deemed to consent to any treatment authorized by the facility — regardless of their actual wishes or capacity.

    There’s no right to name a substitute decision-maker, no ability to appeal a treatment decision, no independent oversight, and treatment is often imposed through isolation, physical restraints or security force.

    Advocates have been calling for change for decades. But in the wake of the Lapu Lapu attack, some politicians are proposing not a more compassionate or rights-respecting approach, but harsher, more coercive powers over people with mental health issues. That would be a mistake.

    The current system, which experts have long said is inconsistent with human rights, did nothing to prevent this tragedy. Violating the rights of people in crisis did not and will not keep the public safer.

    B.C. Premier David Eby has acknowledged the shortcomings in the current system, but has said that engaging in law reform while litigation is undergoing would pose a risk. Instead, he says it’s better to wait to hear what the court decides before changing the law.

    That logic is arguably akin to a citizen saying it’s risky to stop driving at a speed they know is over the lawful limit until they’re pulled over.

    Pointless to wait

    Waiting for the courts to force change wastes precious time, and public resources, that could be better spent on designing a new, Charter-compliant mental health system in collaboration with experts, service providers, families and people with lived experiences.

    Meanwhile, substantial public funds are being spent on government lawyers to fight a legal battle defending a regime that is clearly unconstitutional and fails both patients and public safety.

    That money would be far better spent consulting with experts, families and people with lived experiences and developing legislation that upholds constitutional rights and keeps communities safe.

    The time for delay is over. The B.C. government must act now to rewrite the Mental Health Act in order to protect the public and respect Charter rights.

    Anne Levesque is co-chair of the Disability Justice Litigation Initiative of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

    – ref. B.C.’s mental health law is on trial — and so is our commitment to human rights – https://theconversation.com/b-c-s-mental-health-law-is-on-trial-and-so-is-our-commitment-to-human-rights-258671

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Can Britain be a nation of tea growers? Scientists say yes – and it could even be good for your health

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amanda Lloyd, Researcher in Food, Diet and Health, Aberystwyth University

    Almost 100 million cups of tea are consumed daily in the UK. Meteoritka/Shutterstock

    It’s not every day you find yourself standing in a tea garden in Devon, surrounded by rows of Camellia sinensis – the same plant species used to make tea in India, China and Japan. But there we were, in the heart of Dartmoor, picking fresh tea leaves from plants that are thriving in the UK’s cool, damp climate.

    It’s a surprising sight, and one that could become more common. Britain may be known as a “nation of tea drinkers”, but might there be opportunities for it to increasingly be a nation of tea growers? Our research has involved working with growers in Devon and Wales to explore the chemistry of UK-grown tea.

    We’re using a technique called “metabolomics” to understand what’s going on inside the leaves, and how different growing conditions, processing methods and even fermentation (like making kombucha) affect the final cup.

    Tea competes with coffee to be the UK’s favourite drink, but almost all tea leaves are imported. With concerns about climate change, food security and sustainability increasing, there’s growing interest in whether more food, including tea, can be grown in the UK.

    We chose mid-Wales and south-west England for our project because of their mild, wet climates, which are surprisingly well-suited to tea cultivation. Dartmoor, in particular, has a unique microclimate and varied soils that make it an ideal test site. There’s also a strong local appetite for sustainable farming and agricultural innovation.

    Wales already has a tea pioneer in Lucy George, a Nuffield farming scholar who began growing tea near Cardiff in 2014. Her brand, Peterston Tea, is now sold in Welsh shops and around the world. She believes that slower growth in Wales’ cooler climate may actually improve flavour, making Welsh-grown tea more than just a curiosity.

    Dr Amanda J Lloyd and Dr Ali Warren-Walker gathering samples at Dartmoor Estate Tea in Devon.
    Aberystwyth University, CC BY

    What we found

    One of our studies used metabolomics and machine learning to explore the chemical diversity of UK-grown tea.

    Metabolomics involves analysing the small molecules – known as “metabolites” – in a sample. These include sugars, amino acids and polyphenols, as well as more complex “bioactives” like catechins and flavonoids. These types of compounds influence flavour, aroma and potential health benefits.

    We used method called “direct injection mass spectrometry” to create a chemical fingerprint of each sample. Then we used machine learning to spot patterns and differences. We also looked at how the chemistry of the leaves changes depending on the time of day they’re picked and how they’re processed.

    Our findings show that tea grown in the UK has a rich and diverse chemical profile. Different varieties, picking times and processing techniques all influence the concentration of beneficial compounds like catechins and flavonoids.

    The other study was a human trial, which found that drinking green tea from Dartmoor with rhubarb root for 21 days significantly reduced LDL (bad) cholesterol and total cholesterol, and without disrupting the gut microbiome. This suggests that UK-grown tea could be developed into a functional food, supporting health. This product is now being sold by a tea company in Carmarthenshire, west Wales.

    This is exciting because it means we can tailor how we grow and process tea to enhance both its flavour and its health benefits. And it opens the door to a potential new UK-grown tea industry. It could play a part in supporting the rural economy, reduce reliance on imports and offer a more sustainable future for UK agriculture.

    On a global level, this kind of research helps us understand how plants respond to different environments, which is crucial for food security in a changing climate.

    A Cornish tea grower explains the challenges of growing tea in the UK.

    What’s next?

    We’re now investigating how different tea varieties and processing techniques – like steaming, oxidation and novel drying methods – influence the tea’s chemical make-up. These techniques could help preserve more of the beneficial compounds and make it easier to develop new tea-based products like powders or supplements.

    Another human study is looking at how kombucha affects well-being, memory, inflammation and stress.

    We’re also continuing to test how different varieties of tea respond to the UK’s conditions, and how we can refine growing and processing techniques to produce high-quality, health-promoting tea on home soil.

    As climate change reshapes what we can grow and where, tea may just become one of the UK’s most unexpected and exciting new crops.

    Amanda Lloyd receives funding from Welsh Government Covid Recovery Challenge Fund (part of the Welsh Government’s Food and Drink Division funding), alongside Innovate UK Better Food for all (10068218), and the Joy Welch Research Fund (Aberystwyth University internal)

    Nigel Holt receives funding from Innovate UK Better Food for all (10068218)

    – ref. Can Britain be a nation of tea growers? Scientists say yes – and it could even be good for your health – https://theconversation.com/can-britain-be-a-nation-of-tea-growers-scientists-say-yes-and-it-could-even-be-good-for-your-health-257495

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Investing in NHS staff wellbeing could produce economic benefits the UK desperately needs

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Catia Nicodemo, Professor of Health Economics, Brunel University of London

    Drazen Zigic/Shutterstock

    Health emerged as a major beneficiary in the UK government’s recent spending review. It highlighted a clear ambition to modernise public services — particularly the NHS — through digital transformation and expanded use of artificial intelligence (AI).

    Investments in initiatives such as a single-patient NHS record would consolidate all of a patient’s data in one place, potentially accessible through an app. It could significantly improve continuity of care and patient outcomes.

    And AI adoption could streamline operations, from reducing hospital waiting times to improving productivity. AI could, for example, use predictive algorithms to triage patients more efficiently. Or it could automate administrative tasks like scheduling appointments and managing medical records.

    However, amid these forward-looking reforms, the spending review overlooked a critical component of healthcare sustainability: the wellbeing of NHS staff.

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

    While technology can boost efficiency, the human element remains the bedrock of healthcare. NHS staff, grappling with burnout from relentless pressures, are at the forefront of delivering patient care. Ignoring their needs risks undermining the very advances the spending review aims to achieve.

    Burnout is not merely a workforce issue. It is an economic challenge. High levels of stress among NHS staff lead to increased absenteeism and worker turnover. It also reduces productivity, ultimately resulting in longer waiting times for patients to be seen. Compounding this are the costs of recruitment when staff quit the service, as well as operational inefficiencies.

    More worryingly, these factors can directly affect patient outcomes. Overstretched and fatigued staff are more likely to make errors, which can result in longer recovery times and potentially lead to costly legal consequences.

    Despite these realities, the spending review did not explicitly allocate resources for initiatives aimed at reducing staff workload and improving mental health support. These omissions stand in stark contrast to the government’s broader goals of increasing productivity and reducing waiting times in the NHS.

    Investing in staff wellbeing is not a competing priority. It is a complementary strategy that enhances the return on investments in technology and infrastructure. Healthier and supported staff are better equipped to use tools like AI effectively, translating digital advances into meaningful improvements in patient care.

    The economic case

    Financially, the case for prioritising staff wellbeing is robust. Proactive measures such as hiring more people to improve staff-to-patient ratios, implementing flexible working arrangements and providing mental health resources can yield significant returns. As an example, Public Health England’s return on investment (ROI) tool shows that workplace wellbeing programmes typically yield an ROI of £2.37 per £1 spent.

    Research has shown that better-supported healthcare workers make fewer errors, provide more compassionate care and can help patients recover faster. These improved outcomes translate into savings across the NHS. This could range from reduced secondary care needs – such as fewer re-admissions or shorter inpatient stays – right through to lower litigation costs linked to clinical mistakes.

    AI tools could help to triage patients more efficiently – but only if staff are healthy enough to implement them.
    toodtuphoto/Shutterstock

    And interventions focused on wellbeing can amplify the impact of other reforms. For example, reducing burnout helps staff to embrace and adapt to the technological changes — such as AI tools and integrated data systems — that they will increasingly be expected to work with. But without adequate support, there could be a greater risk of resistance among staff, or poor adoption of these technologies. This in turn would limit the potential benefits of these tech advances.

    The spending review sent a clear positive message about investing in skills and technology to modernise the NHS. However, it missed an opportunity to address the fundamental role of workforce wellbeing in achieving these objectives.

    Politicians must now recognise that digital transformation and human support are two sides of the same coin.

    As the NHS looks to the future, a more balanced approach is needed — one that couples innovation with investment in the people who make healthcare possible. By focusing on the wellbeing of its workforce, the NHS can unlock the full potential of its modernisation agenda, ensuring that every pound spent delivers maximum value to both patients and staff.

    Catia Nicodemo is affiliated with the University of Oxford.

    – ref. Investing in NHS staff wellbeing could produce economic benefits the UK desperately needs – https://theconversation.com/investing-in-nhs-staff-wellbeing-could-produce-economic-benefits-the-uk-desperately-needs-258863

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Coal power plants were paid to close. Is it time to do the same for slaughterhouses?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephanie Walton, Researcher on Food Systems and Sustainable Finance, University of Oxford

    Ocphoto/Shutterstock

    The food industry will go to great lengths (and spend a fortune) to lobby policymakers, confuse the public and politicise scientific findings. You can see the results in the UK’s delay of a ban on junk food advertisers targeting children, or the orchestrated backlash to a report that recommended cutting red meat consumption and embracing more plant-based diets.

    It’s a well-worn playbook. When scientific evidence indicates the need to phase down environmentally harmful or unhealthy products, the responsible industry pushes back.

    Motivating this resistance, my colleagues and I believe, is something rarely discussed in the context of food systems: stranded assets. These are investments that lose value or stop generating revenue earlier than their owners and investors anticipated, due to changes in market conditions, technology or – of particular interest here – policy and regulation.

    This concept has been central to debates in the energy transition. For example, studies have shown that keeping global warming below 2 °C will require leaving fossil fuels in the ground and shutting down power plants before they’ve generated a return on investment, wiping off about US$1 trillion (£736 billion) in value for companies, financial institutions and investors.

    The same dynamic applies to the task of feeding everyone well and without substantial environmental harm. What we produce must change, as well as how we produce it.

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

    Producing animal-sourced protein, especially beef and dairy, has environmental impacts that dwarf those of plant-based protein. Some new technologies may reduce these impacts, particularly feed additives to reduce methane emissions from cattle. But the negative impacts go far beyond cow burps to include deforestation, biodiversity loss, water scarcity and pollution.

    Beef in particular, even when produced using intensive systems like feedlots in the US, requires substantially more land to make 100 grams of protein than any other source (excluding lamb, which is produced in much lower quantities).

    As the global population increases and constraints on land use intensify, as much nourishing food as possible will need to be produced on as little land as possible. This will entail slashing the amount of land used for animal-sourced foods.

    However, companies consistently invest in the assets that produce, process, transport and store the foods we consume. These range from slaughterhouses to the grain silos and transport equipment for single-crop supply chains, to manufacturing plants and the research and development of ultra-processed foods.

    Crops are cultivated over vast acres of land to feed livestock.
    Ekrem Sahin/Shutterstock

    In order to curtail certain foods, as part of a global shift towards sustainable and healthy diets, these assets cannot generate the revenue they do now. This means writing off some of the capital that has been sunk into them, and any anticipated revenue.

    Our research identified £217 billion that has been invested in meatpacking plants, for example. A portion of this will be lost in service of a shift to more plant-based sustenance.

    Whether or not policymakers and researchers are aware of the stranded assets problem, food companies certainly are.

    Polluter pays or pay the polluter?

    We outline three things that need to happen.

    First, while it is laudable that companies set targets to cut emissions or deforestation, how they invest their money is not always consistent with these goals. Companies need to disclose to investors and the public which of their assets are incompatible with a sustainable future, and how they plan to phase them out.

    Second, lenders (typically banks) and investors (asset managers and their clients) must work with the companies they fund to manage these transitions rather than simply revoke financing or divest. Shutting down a meatpacking plant and building up a plant-based protein business is costly, and firms will need support.

    Divestment can play an important role symbolically, signalling an ethical and moral stance against certain activities. But unless it is done by all investors at once, assets like shares go to other buyers with little or no interest in sustainability.

    Third, and perhaps the thorniest problem, who pays for stranded assets? The money has already been spent. The investments have been made, the meatpacking plants and infrastructure already built, the anticipated revenue and maximised profit margins already embedded in the value of these companies.

    There is the cost of shutting down assets early as well as the opportunity cost of not making money that was expected from capital that has already been sunk. Who bears those costs?

    Many assume the answer is straightforward: the polluter should pay. This is certainly possible to achieve. Take the recent ruling in Germany, which determined that private companies can be held liable for their share in causing climate damages.

    But implementing this principle requires unusually strong political leadership and sustained public support. Both of these things are difficult to secure, particularly in food systems where industry lobbying is intense, livelihoods are at stake, public attention is fragmented and diets are highly personal and easily politicised.

    Capital sunk into infrastructure makes change costly.
    Catstyecam/Shutterstock

    Even when policies designed to improve public health or sustainability are passed, they can be easily rolled back. Which brings us to an uncomfortable alternative: paying the polluter.

    This approach already exists in other sectors. Since 2020, Germany has paid coal plants to retire early. The same has been done in the Netherlands, parts of the US and several other countries. In the Netherlands, the government paid farmers to reduce dairy herds in certain areas in order to hit pollution targets.

    Paying off food companies to phase out harmful assets sounds like a bailout and feels unfair, since a clean and thriving environment is a human right. Such an approach could only work if it allowed stronger regulation that ensured such pollution wouldn’t occur in the future. This is how abolitionists contributed to ending slavery in the UK.

    If we’re stuck between endless policy whiplash and slow-motion climate and health crises, paying the polluter may be worth considering. It’s politically fraught and emotionally frustrating, but when it comes to stopping pollution sooner rather than later, it is perhaps more tractable than waiting for political will, corporate courage and public consensus to converge.

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

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

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

    – ref. Coal power plants were paid to close. Is it time to do the same for slaughterhouses? – https://theconversation.com/coal-power-plants-were-paid-to-close-is-it-time-to-do-the-same-for-slaughterhouses-257418

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How to make sure the new grooming gangs inquiry is the last

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aisha K. Gill, Professor of Criminology, Centre for Gender and Violence Research, University of Bristol

    Motortion Films/Shutterstock

    Louise Casey’s recent report on grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation in the UK lays bare institutional failings. It highlights that, at present, victims cannot rely upon the criminal justice system – and that it has badly let them down in the past.

    One of Lady Casey’s 12 recommendations is a new national inquiry into child sexual exploitation. This inquiry would review reported cases that did not result in prosecution, and review police and children’s services to identify children at risk. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has accepted this recommendation, and a statutory inquiry will go ahead into child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs.

    As an activist and researcher with over 20 years’ experience focused on violence against women and children, if this new inquiry is to go ahead, I believe its remit must be clear and it must be delivered promptly: within the next two to three years. Importantly, it must avoid duplicating the previous independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, led by Alexis Jay and published in October 2022. It is a sign of institutional failure that those recommendations have still not been implemented.

    Professor Jay’s inquiry revealed the failure of many schools, local authorities and other institutions to protect and safeguard the children in their care. Survivors and experts criticised a widespread lack of effort on the part of the police, local safeguarding authorities and the government to better protect children from sexual abuse.

    The inquiry made 20 recommendations for action, including mandatory reporting of abuse by people who work with children, and better, more unified data on victims and perpetrators. However, there has been little evidence of such action taking place in the intervening years. None of those recommendations have been fully implemented.

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

    One of the problems facing this new inquiry is how to address the current crisis of confidence and doubt over whether the government will heed these calls for change. In January 2025, Jay questioned whether a national inquiry was the most effective way to address the inherent problems associated with investigating and prosecuting the perpetrators, as well as supporting the victims, of child sexual exploitation.

    The findings of her 2022 review revealed ample evidence that schools, police officers, council chiefs and social services acted improperly. It found that they failed to protect victims and those at risk of becoming victims, either by victim blaming or turning a blind eye.

    But since Jay’s report was released, survivors of child sexual exploitation remain inadequately supported. This has compounded distrust of, and dissatisfaction with, the police and local systems of government.

    Ultimately, the consequence of these multiple government failures is that victims of child sexual exploitation are reluctant to reach out to law enforcement. They fear they will be disbelieved or even blamed for what happened to them. Casey’s recent review states that victims have to live with “an overall system that compounds and exacerbates the damage, [and] rarely acknowledges its failures to victims”.

    Heeding calls for change

    Identifying the failures of the police and local authorities is key to this process. Victims I have spoken to over the years have described being “fobbed off” – told that something was being done when in fact their cases were not progressing at all.

    Some action is underway. Since January 2025, the police have reopened for review more than 800 historic cases of group-based child sexual abuse.

    In response to Casey’s review, the Home Office has announced that the National Crime Agency has been tasked with working with police forces to deliver “long-awaited justice” for victims whose cases have not yet progressed through the criminal justice system. It is also intended to improve how local police forces investigate such crimes.

    But in my opinion, other factors must also be considered as part of these processes. Above all, adequate training for all professionals involved in identifying, investigating and prosecuting these cases is critical to preventing children from becoming prey.

    Healthcare providers, for example, must be equipped with the skills to make sure concern about a child leads to action. They often come into contact with exploited children and so need to know how to identify victims and the signs of exploitation. Hospital staff should be aware of the controlling behaviour that may be displayed by predatory groomers.

    This will also provide an opportunity to develop multi-agency screening tools that enable health professionals to help all victims. Some may require care due to pregnancy or injuries arising from the abuse.

    Casey’s report is a diplomatically framed, national snapshot audit. All who are concerned about child sexual exploitation can find points with which they agree.

    Nevertheless, even if positive legislative changes are implemented, disjointed, dysfunctional practices will continue if education is not put in place. The police, social workers, educators, health workers and community workers should receive effective, consistent training about the issues faced by children who are at risk of exploitation.

    Until the government holistically addresses child sexual exploitation, its efforts to shift the dial will remain no more than a sticking plaster. The new inquiry should thus ensure the issues underlying these crimes are fully investigated and addressed. The legal system must bring perpetrators to justice and support all victims on the path to seeking justice and accountability.

    Aisha K. Gill is affiliated with End Violence Against Women Coalition and Ashiana Network.

    – ref. How to make sure the new grooming gangs inquiry is the last – https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-sure-the-new-grooming-gangs-inquiry-is-the-last-259096

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What could have caused the Air India crash? An expert examines the proposed failure scenarios

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ali Elham, Professor of Design Optimisation, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, University of Southampton

    The recent crash of an Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner in Ahmedabad has prompted widespread discussion about potential causes. As an expert with a background in aircraft design, I would not attempt to speculate on the cause of the incident. We should wait for the crash investigators to carry out a rigorous analysis.

    Instead, I will explain the various flight scenarios currently being discussed in the public domain, and explore what each of them implies from the perspective of aircraft design and performance.

    Understanding how such factors interact with aircraft systems and flight performance can shed light on how modern aircraft are designed to handle rare but critical situations.

    Loss of engine thrust

    Modern commercial aircraft are designed to safely continue takeoff and climb with
    one engine not operating. This is a fundamental certification requirement, particularly for twin-engine aircraft. It ensures that the loss of a single engine, even during the critical takeoff phase, should not result in a catastrophic failure.

    However, the loss of both engines is an extremely serious scenario.

    A notable case of dual engine failure occurred in 2001 on Air Transat Flight 236, which was travelling from Toronto, Canada, to Lisbon in Portugal. The Airbus A330 aircraft lost both engines over the Atlantic Ocean due to a fuel leak, but managed to glide approximately 75 miles (120km) before safely landing at Lajes Air Base in the Azores. This was possible because the aircraft had sufficient altitude and airspeed at the time of its total engine failure.

    However, takeoff and landing are considered the most critical phases of flight
    because the aircraft is close to the ground, giving pilots limited time and
    altitude to respond to failures. At low speed and altitude, the aircraft may also lack the necessary energy (in terms of both airspeed and height) to glide a meaningful distance.

    Bird strikes can also cause engine failure, as seen in the case of US Airways Flight 1549, an Airbus A320 that struck a flock of birds shortly after take off from New York’s LaGuardia Airport on January 15 2009. Both engines failed and, due to the aircraft’s low altitude and limited speed, the pilots determined that returning to the airport was not feasible.

    Instead, pilot Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger and co-pilot Jeffrey Skiles executed a successful emergency water landing on the Hudson River, resulting in the survival of all onboard. As such, the incident became known as the “miracle on the Hudson”.

    These examples highlight how altitude, speed and pilot decision-making, along with robust aircraft design, play a critical role in the outcome of rare but severe engine failure events.

    The US Airways plane involved in the ‘miracle on the Hudson’ on display in the Sullenberger Aviation Museum in Charlotte, North Carolina.
    Kevin M. McCarthy / Shutterstock

    Landing gear not retracted

    During a normal takeoff procedure, the landing gear – the sets of wheels under a plane that support it on the ground – is retracted within seconds after liftoff, once the aircraft has safely left the ground.

    Extended landing gear produces significant aerodynamic drag. So, during the initial climb when the aircraft requires maximum thrust to gain altitude, eliminating this drag by retracting the landing gear is highly beneficial for both climb performance and fuel efficiency.

    However, commercial aircraft are designed to remain controllable and flyable even if the landing gear fails to retract. In such cases, the aircraft should still be able to perform a “go-around” before safely landing again, assuming no other critical failures have occurred.

    That said, a scenario involving both loss of engine thrust and non-retracted landing gear can severely degrade glide performance. The additional drag from the extended gear reduces the aircraft’s lift-to-drag ratio, an indication of the aerodynamic efficiency of the airplane.

    The extended landing gear might limit the distance it can glide and increase its descent rate – which is especially critical when altitude is limited.

    Landing gear on a modern airliner.
    Frank Peters / Shutterstock

    Flaps retracted prematurely

    An aircraft’s ability to generate lift depends on several factors, including wing area, airspeed, altitude, and the “lift coefficient” – a number that describes how effectively a wing or other surface generates lift under specific flight conditions. The lift coefficient is largely influenced by the wing’s geometry, particularly its curvature (called camber).

    During takeoff and landing, the aircraft operates at relatively low speeds where the wings alone may not generate enough lift. To compensate, high-lift devices such as flaps are deployed. These devices are usually mounted on the wings’ trailing edges and, when extended, increase each wing’s curvature and surface area, thereby raising the lift coefficient and allowing the aircraft to remain airborne at lower speeds.

    Airplane wing with flaps and spoilers fully extended to slow down the aircraft after landing.
    Desintegrator / Shutterstock

    However, deploying flaps also increases aerodynamic drag. For this reason, once the aircraft accelerates and reaches a safe climb speed, the flaps are gradually retracted to reduce drag and improve fuel efficiency.

    If the flaps are retracted too early, before the aircraft has reached sufficient speed, there can be a sudden loss of lift. This may result in a stall or insufficient climb performance.

    This situation becomes even more critical if it occurs in combination with other issues, such as extended landing gear (which increases drag) or a loss of engine thrust, as the combined aerodynamic penalties may prevent the aircraft from maintaining controlled flight.

    Conclusion

    Over the years, numerous improvements in aircraft design, maintenance and operational procedures have resulted from crash investigations. Each incident, especially a fatal one such as the Air India Boeing 787 crash, offers valuable lessons that can drive further enhancements in aviation safety.

    The fact that both the aircraft’s flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder (sometimes referred to as the “black boxes”) have now been recovered offers hope that the precise cause of this crash will be identified.

    Whatever is ultimately determined to be the cause – technical failure, human error, or a combination of both – there will be lessons to be learned. Every event highlights areas where systems, procedures or training can be strengthened to make aviation even safer in the future.

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

    – ref. What could have caused the Air India crash? An expert examines the proposed failure scenarios – https://theconversation.com/what-could-have-caused-the-air-india-crash-an-expert-examines-the-proposed-failure-scenarios-259099

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –