With burgers sizzling and classic rock thumping, many Americans revel in summer cookouts – at least until that wayward cousin asks for a “pop” in soda country, or even worse, a “coke” when they actually want a Sprite.
Few American linguistic debates have bubbled quite as long and effervescently as the one over whether a generic soft drink should be called a soda, pop or coke.
The word you use generally boils down to where you’re from: Midwesterners enjoy a good pop, while soda is tops in the North and far West. Southerners, long the cultural mavericks, don’t bat an eyelash asking for coke – lowercase – before homing in on exactly the type they want: Perhaps a root beer or a Coke, uppercase.
As a linguist who studies American dialects, I’m less interested in this regional divide and far more fascinated by the unexpected history behind how a fizzy “health” drink from the early 1800s spawned the modern soft drink’s many names and iterations.
The process of carbonating water was first discovered in the late 1700s. By the early 1800s, this carbonated water had become popular as a health drink and was often referred to as “soda water.” The word “soda” likely came from “sodium,” since these drinks often contained salts, which were then believed to have healing properties.
Given its alleged curative effects for health issues such as indigestion, pharmacists sold soda water at soda fountains, innovative devices that created carbonated water to be sold by the glass. A chemistry professor, Benjamin Stillman, set up the first such device in a drugstore in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1806. Its eventual success inspired a boom of soda fountains in drugstores and health spas.
These flavored, sweetened versions gave rise to the linking of the word “soda” with a sweetened carbonated beverage, as opposed to simple, carbonated water.
Seltzer – today’s popular term for such sparkling water – was around, too. But it was used only for the naturally carbonated mineral water from the German town Nieder-Selters. Unlike Perrier, sourced similarly from a specific spring in France, seltzer made the leap to becoming a generic term for fizzy water.
So how did “soda” come to be called so many different things in different places?
It all stems from a mix of economic enterprise and linguistic ingenuity.
The popularity of “soda” in the Northeast likely reflects the soda fountain’s longer history in the region. Since a lot of Americans living in the Northeast migrated to California in the mid-to-late 1800s, the name likely traveled west with them.
As for the Midwestern preference for “pop” – well, the earliest American use of the term to refer to a sparkling beverage appeared in the 1840s in the name of a flavored version called “ginger pop.” Such ginger-flavored pop, though, was around in Britain by 1816, since a Newcastle songbook is where you can first see it used in text. The “pop” seems to be onomatopoeic for the noise made when the cork was released from the bottle before drinking.
A jingle for Faygo touts the company’s ‘red pop.’
Linguists don’t fully know why “pop” became so popular in the Midwest. But one theory links it to a Michigan bottling company, Feigenson Brothers Bottling Works – today known as Faygo Beverages – that used “pop” in the name of the sodas they marketed and sold. Another theory suggests that because bottles were more common in the region, soda drinkers were more likely to hear the “pop” sound than in the Northeast, where soda fountains reigned.
As for using coke generically, the first Coca-Cola was served in 1886 by Dr. John Pemberton, a pharmacist at Jacobs’ Pharmacy in Atlanta and the founder of the company. In the 1900s, the Coca-Cola company tried to stamp out the use of “Coke” for “Coca-Cola.” But that ship had already sailed. Since Coca-Cola originated and was overwhelmingly popular in the South, its generic use grew out of the fact that people almost always asked for “Coke.”
Due to the growing popularity of soda water concoctions, eventually “soft drink” came to mean only such sweetened carbonated beverages, a linguistic testament to America’s enduring love affair with sugar and bubbles.
With the average American guzzling almost 40 gallons per year, you can call it whatever you what. Just don’t call it healthy.
Valerie M. Fridland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Charles J. Russo, Joseph Panzer Chair in Education and Research Professor of Law, University of Dayton
The parents who brought the case had requested that their children be excused when books with LGBTQ+ characters were used in class.SDI Productions/E+ via Getty Images
The Supreme Court tends to save its blockbuster orders for the last day of the term – and 2025 was no exception.
Among the important decisions handed down June 27, 2025, was Mahmoud v. Taylor – a case of particular interest to me, because I teach education law. Mahmoud, I believe, may become one of the court’s most consequential rulings on parental rights.
An interfaith coalition of Muslim, Orthodox Christian and Catholic parents in Montgomery County, Maryland – including Tamer Mahmoud, for whom the case is named – questioned the school board’s refusal to allow them to opt their young children out of lessons using picture books with LGBTQ+ characters. Ruling in favor of the parents, the court found that the board violated their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion by requiring their children to sit through lessons with materials inconsistent with their faiths.
Case history
The parents in Mahmoud challenged the use of certain storybooks that the board had approved for use in preschool and elementary school. “Pride Puppy!” for example – a book the schools later removed – portrays a family whose pet gets lost at a LGBTQ+ Pride parade, with each page devoted to a letter of the alphabet. The book’s “search and find” list of words directs readers to look for terms in the pictures, including “(drag) queen” and “king,” “leather” and “lip ring.” Other materials included stories about same-sex marriage, a transgender child, and nonbinary bathroom signs.
Initially, school administrators agreed to allow opt-outs for students whose parents objected to the materials. A day later, however, educators changed their minds. School officials cited concerns about absenteeism, the feasibility of accommodating opt-out requests, and a desire to avoid stigmatizing LGBTQ+ students or families.
In August 2023, a federal trial court rejected the parents’ claim that officials had violated their fundamental due process right to direct the care, custody and education of their children. The following year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed in favor of the board, finding that officials did not violate the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religious beliefs, as protected by the First Amendment.
On appeal, a 6-3 Supreme Court reversed in favor of the parents. Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the court’s opinion, was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, plus Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
Supreme Court
In brief, the court held that by denying the parental requests to opt their children out of instruction inconsistent with their beliefs, school officials violated their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.
Alito largely grounded the court’s rationale in a dispute from 1925, Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Name of Jesus and Mary, and even more heavily on 1972’s Wisconsin v. Yoder. Both cases recognize the primacy of parental rights to direct the education of their children. According to Pierce’s famous dictum, “the child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
In Yoder, Amish parents – an Anabaptist Christian community that avoids using many modern technologies – objected to sending their children to school after eighth grade because this would have violated their religious beliefs. The justices unanimously agreed with the parents that their children received all of the education they needed in their communities. The justices added that requiring the children to attend high school would have violated the parents’ rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing.
Accordingly, the court acknowledged that the parental right “to guide the religious future and education of their children” was “established beyond debate.”
Similarly, in Mahmoud the court declared that “the Board’s introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion.”
Thomas agreed fully with the court, yet wrote a separate concurrence, which emphasized “an important implication of this decision for schools across the country.” Citing Yoder, Thomas contended that rather than support inclusion, the board’s policy “imposes conformity with a view that undermines parents’ religious beliefs, and thus interferes with the parents’ right to ‘direct the religious upbringing of their children.’”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, feared “the result will be chaos for this Nation’s public schools. Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools.”
Supporters of LGBTQ+ rights demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor on April 22, 2025. Oliver Contreras/AFP via Getty Images
She maintained that “simply being exposed to beliefs contrary to your own” does not violate a person’s free exercise rights. Insulating children from different ideas, she wrote, denies them of an experience that is crucial for democracy: “practice living in our multicultural society.”
Implications
After the decision was handed down, Montgomery County’s Board of Education issued a statement promising to “analyze the Supreme Court decision and develop next steps in alignment with today’s decision, and as importantly, our values.”
Mahmoud raises challenging questions about the scope or reach of how far parents can question curricular content.
On the one hand, parents should not be able to micromanage curricular content via the “heckler’s veto,” because this can lead to larger issues. Moreover, while Mahmoud concerns religious rights, what happens if parents question teachings based on another type of sincerely held belief – discussing war if they are pacifist, for example, or capitalism if they are socialists? While Mahmoud dealt with free-exercise rights, it may open the door to other types of First Amendment challenges from parents wishing to exempt their children from lessons.
On the other hand, Mahmoud highlights the need to take legitimate parental concerns into consideration. While educators typically control instruction, how can they be respectful of parents’ rights as primary caregivers of their children when conflicts arise?
Mahmoud may go a long way in defining parents’ free-exercise rights in public schools. Still, such disputes are likely far from over in America’s increasingly diverse religious culture.
Charles J. Russo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Mike Shriberg, Professor of Practice & Engagement, School for Environment & Sustainability, University of Michigan
Invasive Asian carp are spreading up the Mississippi River system and already clog the Illinois River.AP Photo/John Flesher
In his second term, President Donald Trump has not taken many actions that draw near-universal praise from across the political spectrum. But there is at least one of these political anomalies, and it illustrates the broad appeal of environmental protection and conservation projects – particularly when it concerns an ecosystem of vital importance to millions of Americans.
In May 2025, Trump issued a presidential memorandum supporting the construction of a physical barrier that is key to keeping invasive carp out of the Great Lakes. These fish have made their way up the Mississippi River system and could have dire ecological consequences if they enter the Great Lakes.
It was not a given that Trump would back this project, which had long been supported by environmental and conservation organizations. But two very different strategies from two Democratic governors – both potential presidential candidates in 2028 – reflected the importance of the Great Lakes to America.
Perhaps nothing alarms Great Lakes ecologists more than the potential for invasive carp from Asia to establish a breeding population in the Great Lakes. These fish were intentionally introduced in the U.S. Southeast by private fish farm and wastewater treatment operators as a means to control algae in aquaculture and sewage treatment ponds. Sometime in the 1990s, the fish escaped from those ponds and moved rapidly up the Mississippi River system, including into the Illinois River, which connects to the Great Lakes.
Invasive carp are generally not eaten in the U.S. and are not desirable for sportfishing. In fact, silver carp have a propensity to jump up to 10 feet out of the water when startled by a boat motor. That can make parts of the Illinois River, which is packed with the invasive fish, almost impossible to fish or even maneuver a boat.
Look out! Silver carp fly out of the water, obstructing boats and hitting people trying to enjoy a river in Indiana.
The Brandon Road Lock and Dam solution
Originally, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River were not connected to each other. But in 1900, the city of Chicago connected them to avoid sending its sewage into Lake Michigan, from which the city draws its drinking water.
The most complete way to block the carp from invading the Great Lakes would be to undo that connection – but that would recreate sewage and flooding issues for Chicago, or require other expensive infrastructure upgrades. The more practical, short-term alternative is to modify the historic Brandon Road Lock and Dam in Joliet, Illinois, by adding several obstacles that together would block the carp from swimming farther upriver toward the Great Lakes.
The barrier, estimated to cost US$1.15 billion, was authorized by Congress in 2020 and 2022 after many years of intense planning and negotiations. For the first phase of construction, the project received $226 million in federal money from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to complement $114 million in state funding – $64 million from Michigan and $50 million from Illinois.
On the first day of Trump’s second term, however, he paused a wide swath of federal funding, including funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. And that’s when two different political strategies emerged.
A brief documentary explains the construction of a connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basin.
Trump’s support for the project was a rare moment of political unity and an extremely unusual example of leading Democrats being on the same page as Trump. I attribute this surprising outcome to two key factors.
First, the Great Lakes region holds disproportionate power in presidential elections. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have backed the eventual winner in every presidential race for the past 20 years. This swing state power has been used by advocates and state political leaders to drive funding for Great Lakes protection for many years.
Second, Great Lakes are the uniting force in the region. According to polling from the International Joint Commission, the binational body charged with overseeing waterways that cross the U.S.-Canada border, there is “nearly unanimous support (96%) for the importance of government investment in Great Lakes protections” from residents of the region.
And perhaps the governors have identified a new area for unity in a divided United States: Conservation and environmental issues have broad public support, particularly when they involve iconic natural resources, shared values and popular outdoor pursuits such as fishing and boating. Even when political strategies diverge, the results can bring bipartisan satisfaction.
Mike Shriberg was previously the Great Lakes Regional Executive Director of the National Wildlife Federation, which entailed being a co-chair (and, for part of the time, Director) of the Healing Our Waters – Great Lakes Coalition.
The 1925 Scopes trial, in which a Dayton, Tennessee, teacher was charged with violating state law by teaching biological evolution, was one of the earliest and most iconic conflicts in America’s ongoing culture war.
Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” published in 1859, and subsequent scientific research made the case that humans and other animals evolved from earlier species over millions of years. Many late-19th-century American Protestants had little problem accommodating Darwin’s ideas – which became mainstream biology – with their religious commitments.
But that was not the case with all Christians, especially conservative evangelicals, who held that the Bible is inerrant – without error – and factually accurate in all that it has to say, including when it speaks on history and science.
One hundred years after the trial, and as we have documented in our scholarly work, the culture war over evolution and creationism remains strong – and yet, when it comes to creationism, much has also changed.
Holding to biblical inerrancy, these “fundamentalists” believed in the creation account detailed in chapter 1 of Genesis, in which God brought all life into being in six days. But most of these fundamentalists also accepted mainstream geology, which held that the Earth was millions of years old. Squaring a literal understanding of Genesis with an old Earth, they embraced either the “day-age theory” – that each Genesis day was actually a long period of time – or the “gap theory,” in which there was a huge gap of time before the six 24-hour days of creation.
This nascent fundamentalist movement initiated a campaign to pressure state legislatures to prohibit public schools from teaching evolution. One of these states was Tennessee, which in 1925 passed the Butler Act. This law made it illegal for public schoolteachers “to teach any theory that denies the story of divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.”
The American Civil Liberties Union persuaded John Thomas Scopes, a young science teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, to challenge the law in court. The WCFA sprang into action, successfully persuading William Jennings Bryan – populist politician and outspoken fundamentalist – to assist the prosecution. In response, the ACLU hired famous attorney Clarence Darrow to serve on the defense team.
Inside the courtroom, the trial became a verbal duel between Bryan and Darrow regarding science and religion. But as the judge narrowed the proceedings to whether or not Scopes violated the law – a point that the defense readily admitted – it seemed clear that Scopes would be found guilty. Many of the reporters thus went home.
But the trial’s most memorable episode was yet to come. On July 20, Darrow successfully provoked Bryan to take the witness stand as a Bible expert. Due to the huge crowd and suffocating heat, the judge moved the trial outdoors.
The 3,000 or so spectators witnessed Darrow’s interrogation of Bryan, which was primarily intended to make Bryan and fundamentalism appear foolish and ignorant. Most significant, Darrow’s questions revealed that, despite Bryan’s’ assertion that he read the Bible literally, Bryan actually understood the six days of Genesis not as 24-hour days, but as six long and indeterminate periods of time.
American lawyer and politician William Jennings Bryan during the Scopes trial in Dayton, Tenn. Hulton Archive/Getty Image
The very next day, the jury found Scopes guilty and fined him US$100. Riley and the fundamentalists cheered the verdict as a triumph for the Bible and morality.
The fundamentalists and ‘The Genesis Flood’
But very soon that sense of triumph faded, partly because of news stories that portrayed fundamentalists as ignorant rural bigots. In one such example, a prominent journalist, H. L. Mencken, wrote in a Baltimore Sun column that the Scopes trial “serves notice on the country that Neanderthal man is organizing in these forlorn backwaters of the land.”
The media ridicule encouraged many scholars and journalists to conclude that creationism and fundamentalism would soon disappear from American culture. But that prediction did not come to pass.
Instead, fundamentalists, including WCFA leader Riley, seemed all the more determined to redouble their efforts at the grassroots level.
But as Darrow’s interrogation of Bryan made obvious, it was not easy to square a literal reading of the Bible – including the six-day creation outlined in Genesis – with a scientific belief in an old Earth. What fundamentalists needed was a science that supported the idea of a young Earth.
“The Genesis Flood” and its version of flood geology remains ubiquitous among fundamentalists and other conservative Protestants.
Young Earth creationism
Today, opinion polls reveal that roughly one-quarter of all Americans are adherents of this newer strand of creationism, which rejects both mainstream geology as well as mainstream biology.
AiG’s tourist sites – the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, and the Ark Encounter in Williamstown, Kentucky – have attracted millions of visitors since their opening in 2007 and 2016. Additional AiG sites are planned for Branson, Missouri, and Pigeon Forge, Tennessee.
Presented as a replica of Noah’s Ark, the Ark Encounter is a gigantic structure – 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, 51 feet high. It includes representations of animal cages as well as plush living quarters for the eight human beings who, according to Genesis chapters 6-8, survived the global flood. Hundreds of placards in the Ark make the case for a young Earth and a global flood that created the geological strata and formations we see today.
Besides AiG tourist sites, there is also an ever-expanding network of fundamentalist schools and homeschools that present young Earth creationism as true science. These schools use textbooks from publishers such as Abeka Books, Accelerated Christian Education and Bob Jones University Press.
The Scopes trial involved what could and could not be taught in public schools regarding creation and evolution. Today, this discussion also involves private schools, given that there are now at least 15 states that have universal private school choice programs, in which families can use taxpayer-funded education money to pay for private schooling and homeschooling.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
“Bill Moyers? He’s spectacular!” George Clooney said – and no wonder.
I mentioned this legendary television journalist to the actor and filmmaker after Clooney emerged from the Broadway theater where he just had been portraying another news icon: Edward R. Murrow. Or as the Museum of Broadcast Communications put it in a tribute to Moyers, he was “one of the few broadcast journalists who might be said to approach the stature of Edward R. Murrow. If Murrow founded broadcast journalism, Moyers significantly extended its traditions.”
Moyers, who died at 91 on June 26, 2025, was among the most acclaimed broadcast journalists of the 20th century. He’s known for TV news shows that exposed the role of big money in politics and episodes that drew attention to unsung defenders of democracy, such as community organizer Ernesto Cortés Jr..
Despite his prominence, Moyers was the same down-to-earth guy in person as he seemed to be on the screen. In 1986, he was commanding a television audience of millions, and I was a historian at home with a preschooler, teaching the occasional college course in a dismal job market. Seeing that Moyers would be speaking at the conference on President Lyndon B. Johnson where I would be giving a paper, I wrote to him.
To my utter amazement, he replied and then showed up to hear my paper, on Johnson’s experiences as a young principal of the “Mexican” school in Cotulla, Texas, where he championed his students but also forged links to segregationists. Cotulla was “seminal” to LBJ’s development, Moyers said. In 1993, he recommended me for a grant that helped me finish a book: “LBJ and Mexican Americans: The Paradox of Power.
A few years later, he asked me to head up a project researching the documents related to his time in Johnson’s administration. His memoir of the Johnson years never materialized. Instead, I edited the bestselling ”Moyers on America: A Journalist and His Times.“
Part of what always impressed me about Moyers was his belief that what matters is not how close you are to power, but how close you are to reality.
‘Amazing Grace’
Moyers didn’t just dwell on politics and policy as a journalist. He also delved into the meaning of creativity and the life of the mind. Many of his most moving interviews spotlighted scientists, novelists and other exceptional people.
He was also arguably among the best reporters on the religion beat. Even if it wasn’t always the main focus of his work or what comes to mind for those familiar with his legacy, still, he was a lifelong spiritual seeker.
He once told me that his favorite of the many programs that he produced was the PBS documentary ”Amazing Grace.“ It featured inspiring renditions of this popular Christian hymn as performed by country legend Johnny Cash, folk icon Judy Collins, opera diva Jessye Norman and other musical geniuses. As they share with Moyers their personal connections to this song of redemption, he draws viewers into the stirring saga of its creator, John Newton: a slave trader who became an abolitionist through “amazing grace.”
Bill Moyers interviews Judy Collins about singing ‘Amazing Grace,’ following the production of his PBS special about the hymn.
Life’s ultimate questions
This appreciation of the ineffable clearly informed Moyers’ blockbuster TV series exploring life’s ultimate questions, “Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth.”
To my surprise, Moyers knew about this Trappist monk, telling me, “I always wished that I could have interviewed Merton,” who died in 1968.
It turned out that Moyers had been introduced to Merton by Sargent Shriver, founding director of the Peace Corps, where Moyers was a founding organizer and the deputy director.
Mentored by LBJ
Moyers characterized his Peace Corps years as the most rewarding of his life. When Johnson, his mentor, became president, he asked Moyers to join the White House staff. Moyers turned down the offer, so Johnson made it a presidential command.
The wunderkind – Moyers was 29 years old in 1963, when Johnson was sworn in after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination – coordinated the White House task forces that created the largest number of legislative proposals in American history. Among the programs and landmark reforms established and passed during the Johnson administration were Medicare andMedicaid, a landmark immigration law, the Freedom of Information Act, the Public Broadcasting Act and two historic civil rights laws.
Johnson’s war on poverty, in addition, introduced several path-breaking programs, such as Head Start.
Moyers served as one of Johnson’s speechwriters and was a top official in Johnson’s 1964 presidential campaign. The following year, the Johnson administration began escalating U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and Johnson named a new press secretary: Bill Moyers. Again, the young man tried to decline, but the president prevailed.
As Moyers had feared, he could not serve two masters – journalists and his boss – especially as the administration’s Vietnam War policies became increasingly unpopular.
Moyers left the Johnson administration in 1967, turning to journalism. He became the publisher of Newsday, a Long Island, New York, newspaper, before becoming a producer and commentator at CBS News. His commentaries reached tens of millions of viewers, but the network refused to provide a regular time slot for his documentaries. He had previously worked at PBS. In 1987, he decamped there for good.
Moyers’ programs won many journalism awards, including over 30 Emmys, along with the Lifetime Emmy for news and documentary productions.
He helped millions of Americans appreciate the world around them. As he reflected in 2023, in one of the last interviews he gave, to PBS journalist Judy Woodruff at the Library of Congress: “Everything is linked, and if you can find that nerve that connects us to other things and other places and other ideas – and television should be doing it all the time – we’d be a better democracy.”
Judy Woodruff interviews Bill Moyers about his life’s work in government and the media, including his contributions to the launch of PBS, at the Library of Congress.
“It takes time, commitment” to dig below the surface and discover the deeper meaning of people’s lives, Moyers noted. He sought to understand, for example, why so many folks in his own hometown of Marshall, Texas, have become much more suspicious – resentful, even – of outsiders than when he gave these folks voice in his poignant, prize-winning 1984 program Marshall, Texas; Marshall, Texas.
In this era of growing threats to democracy, what can a young person do who aspires to follow in Bill Moyers’ footsteps – whether in journalism or public life?
Woodruff asked Moyers that question, to which he responded: “You can’t quit. You can’t get out of the boat! Find a place that gives you a sense of being, gives you a sense of mission, gives you a sense of participation.”
Today, with the future of journalism – and of democracy itself – at stake, I think it would help everyone to take to heart the insights of this late, great American journalist.
Julie Leininger Pycior edited the book “Moyers on America: A Journalist and His Times.” She also was hired by Moyers to direct the 18-month “LBJ Years” research project.
In addtion, she served as an unpaid, informal historical adviser for some of his public television programs.
Adriana Smith, a 30-year-old woman from Georgia who had been declared brain-dead in February 2025, spent 16 weeks on life support while doctors worked to keep her body functioning well enough to support her developing fetus. On June 13, 2025, her premature baby, named Chance, was born via cesarean section at 25 weeks.
Smith was nine weeks pregnant when she suffered multiple blood clots in her brain. Her story gained public attention when her mother criticized doctors’ decision to keep her on a ventilator without the family’s consent. Smith’s mother has said that doctors told the family the decision was made to align with Georgia’s LIFE Act, which bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy and bolsters the legal standing of fetal personhood. A statement released by the hospital also cites Georgia’s abortion law.
“I’m not saying we would have chosen to terminate her pregnancy,” Smith’s mother told a local television station. “But I’m saying we should have had a choice.”
The LIFE Act is one of several state laws that have passed across the U.S. since the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision invalidated constitutional protections for abortion. Although Georgia’s attorney general denied that the LIFE Act applied to Smith, there’s little doubt that it invites ethical and legal uncertainty when a woman dies while pregnant.
Smith’s case has swiftly become the focus of a reproductive rights political firestorm characterized by two opposing viewpoints. For some, it reflects demeaning governmental overreach that quashes women’s bodily autonomy. For others it illustrates the righteous sacrifice of motherhood.
In my work as a gender and technology studies scholar, I have cataloged and studied postmortem pregnancies like Smith’s since 2016. In my view, Smith’s story doesn’t fit straightforwardly into abortion politics. Instead, it points to the need for a more nuanced ethical approach that does not frame a mother and child as adversaries in a medical, legal or political context.
Birth after death
For centuries, Catholic dogma and Western legal precedent have mandated immediate cesarean section when a pregnant woman died after quickening, the point when fetal movement becomes discernible. But technological advances now make it possible sometimes for a fetus to continue gestating in place when the mother is brain-dead, or “dead by neurological criteria”– a widely accepted definition of death that first emerged in the 1950s.
The first brain death during pregnancy in which the fetus was delivered after time on life support, more accurately called organ support, occurred in 1981. The process is extraordinarily intensive and invasive, because the loss of brain function impedes many physiological processes. Health teams, sometimes numbering in the hundreds, must stabilize the bodies of “functionally decapitated” pregnant women to buy more time for fetal development. This requires vital organ support, ventilation, nutritional supplements, antibiotics and constant monitoring. Outcomes are highly uncertain.
Adriana Smith’s baby was delivered by cesarian section on June 13, 2025.
Smith’s 112-day stint on organ support ranks third in length for a postmortem pregnancy, with the longest being 123 days. Hers is also the earliest ever gestational age from which the procedure has been attempted. Because time on organ support can vary widely, and because there is no established minimum fetal age considered too early to intervene, a fetus could theoretically be deemed viable at any point in pregnancy.
Postmortem pregnancy as gender-based violence
Over the past 50 years, critics of postmortem pregnancy have argued that it constitutes gender-based violence and violates bodily integrity in ways that organ donation does not. Some have compared it with Nazi pronatalist policies. Others have attributed the practice to systemic sexism and racism in medicine. Postmortem pregnancy can also compound intimate partner violence by giving brain-dead women’s murderers decision-making authority when they are the fetus’s next of kin.
From the perspective of reproductive rights advocates, postmortem pregnancy is the bottom of a slippery slope down which anti-abortion sentiment has led America. It obliterates women’s autonomy, pitting living and dead women against doctors, legislators and sometimes their own families, and weaponizing their own fetuses against them.
A medical perspective on rights
Viewed through a medical lens, however, postmortem pregnancy is not violent or violating, but an act of repair. Although care teams have responsibilities to both mother and fetus, a pregnant woman’s brain death means she cannot be physically harmed and her rights cannot be violated to the same degree as a fetus with the potential for life.
This response does not necessarily stem from conscious sexism or anti-abortion sentiment, but from reverence for vulnerable patients. If physicians declare a pregnant woman brain-dead, patienthood often automatically transfers to the fetus needing rescue. No matter its age and despite its survival being dependent on machines, just like its mother, the fetus is entirely animate. Who or what counts as a legal person with privileges and protections might be a political or philosophical determination, but life is a matter of biological fact and within the doctors’ purview.
Even the Supreme Court recognized this entangled duality in their 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade, which established both constitutional protections for abortion and a governmental obligation to protect fetal life. Whether a fetus is considered a legal person or not, they wrote, pregnant women and fetuses “cannot be isolated in their privacy” – meaning that reproductive rights issues must strike a balance, however tenuous, between maternal and fetal interests. To declare postmortem pregnancy unequivocally violent or a loss of the “right to choose” fails to recognize the complexity of choice in a highly politicized medical landscape.
Second, maternal-fetal competition muddles the right course of action. In the U.S., competent patients are not compelled to engage in medical care they would rather avoid, even if it kills them, or to stay on life support to preserve organs for donation. But when a fetus is treated as an independent patient, exceptions could be made to those medical standards if the fetus’s interests override the mother’s.
For example, pregnancy disrupts standard determination of death. To protect the fetus, care teams increasingly skip a necessary diagnostic for brain death called apnea testing, which involves momentarily removing the ventilator to test the respiratory centers of the brain stem. In these cases, maternal brain death cannot be confirmed until after delivery. Multiple instances of vaginal deliveries after brain death also remain unexplained, given that the brain coordinates mechanisms of vaginal labor. All in all, it’s not always clear women in these cases are entirely dead.
Ultimately, women like Adriana Smith and their fetuses are inseparable and persist in a technologically defined state of in-betweenness. I’d argue that postmortem pregnancies, therefore, need new bioethical standards that center women’s beliefs about their bodies and a dignified death. This might involve recognizing pregnancy’s unique ambiguities in advance directives, questioning default treatment pathways that may require harm be done to one in order to save another, or considering multiple definitions of clinical and legal death.
In my view, it is possible to adapt our ethical standards in a way that honors all beings in these exceptional circumstances, without privileging either “choice” or “life,” mother or fetus.
This research was supported by a grant from The Institute for Citizens and Scholars.
Agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted a series of raids throughout Los Angeles and Southern California in early June 2025, sparking protests in downtown Los Angeles and other cities, including New York, Chicago and Austin, Texas.
Some demonstrators expressed growing frustration with ICE by showcasing the Mexican flag, which has become the defining symbol of the protests in Los Angeles.
The use of the flag has also become the subject of intense debate in the media.
Research published in 2010 found that even though the public was more likely to be bothered by protesters waving the Mexican flag than the U.S. flag, that difference was largely absent once you divided the public into subgroups, including white people, Latinos and immigrants.
To reexamine public attitudes toward protesters waving the Mexican flag, we conducted an online survey experiment among 10,145 U.S. adults in 2016.
We found that even though much of the public continued to be less bothered by the American flag than the Mexican flag, there were also important and perhaps surprising differences in protest attitudes between white Americans and other racial and ethnic groups.
A demonstrator holds a Mexican flag in front of law enforcement during a protest on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles. AP Photo/Wally Skalij
More or less bothered
In the study, we randomly divided respondents into two groups: a treatment group and a control group. Respondents in the treatment group were shown an image of protesters waving a Mexican flag. Respondents in the control group were shown an image of protesters waving the U.S. flag. After viewing the image, respondents were then asked about the extent to which they supported or were bothered by the protests.
Overall, 41% of the respondents said they were bothered by protesters waving the Mexican flag, and 28% said protesters waving the U.S. flag bothered them.
Our results show important differences in opinion between racial and ethnic groups.
White respondents were more likely than any other racial and ethnic group to say they were bothered by protesters waving Mexican flags. Sixty-nine percent of white respondents said they were bothered, 31 percentage points more than the average of nonwhite respondents.
However, 51% of white respondents were also bothered by the image of protesters waving U.S. flags. By contrast, just 20% of Latinos, 33% of Black Americans and 34% of Asian Americans said they were bothered by protesters waving U.S. flags.
Put differently, large majorities of nonwhite respondents were supportive of showing U.S. flags at protests despite their more positive views toward Mexican flags.
What explains racial differences?
When taking a deeper look at what causes Americans to feel bothered about protesters waving Mexican flags, some clear patterns emerge.
On average, older Americans were more likely to be bothered relative to younger Americans. This was particularly true for Americans over 40 years of age compared with millennials, born between 1981 and 1996, and Gen Z respondents, born between 1997 and 2012.
However, there are some nuances when examining age groups and whether they had attended a protest, march or rally in the previous year.
Our findings suggest that older Americans who had not engaged in protests were most likely to be bothered when they saw images of protesters waving Mexican flags. Millennials and Gen Z respondents who participated in a protest were least likely to be bothered.
Given that this issue intersects nationality, race, ethnicity, gender and citizenship status, it’s logical that these factors explained why Americans supported or opposed the use of Mexican flags at immigration protests.
A woman carrying a flag with details of the United States and Mexican flags walks past members of the United States Marine Corps on June 14, 2025, in Los Angeles. Cristopher Rogel Blanquet/Getty Images
For example, racial minorities who have a stronger sense of ethnic or racial identity were more likely to be supportive of protesters waving Mexican and U.S. flags. In other words, group identity is a strong predictor of support for protests in general, regardless of what flag is being flown.
However, minorities who lack a sense of ethnic pride and identity were most likely to be upset when they saw others expressing their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.
The reality is that recent immigration protests across the country are the first time many of the Latino youth who are citizens have participated in these types of protests. Anyone under age 22 would not have memory of, or been alive during, the last large pro-immigrant protests in 2006.
The Mexican flag represents more than nationalistic pride. It represents their parents’ heritage, hard work and their binational experience as Americans engaged in politics.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kassem Fawaz, Associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Many apps and social media platforms collect detailed information about you as you use them, and sometimes even when you’re not using them.Malte Mueller/fStop via Getty images
You wake up in the morning and, first thing, you open your weather app. You close that pesky ad that opens first and check the forecast. You like your weather app, which shows hourly weather forecasts for your location. And the app is free!
But do you know why it’s free? Look at the app’s privacy settings. You help keep it free by allowing it to collect your information, including:
What devices you use and their IP and Media Access Control addresses.
Information you provide when signing up, such as your name, email address and home address.
App settings, such as whether you choose Celsius or Fahrenheit.
Your interactions with the app, including what content you view and what ads you click.
Inferences based on your interactions with the app.
Your location at a given time, including, depending on your settings, continuous tracking.
What websites or apps that you interact with after you use the weather app.
Information you give to ad vendors.
Information gleaned by analytics vendors that analyze and optimize the app.
This type of data collection is standard fare. The app company can use this to customize ads and content. The more customized and personalized an ad is, the more money it generates for the app owner. The owner might also sell your data to other companies.
Many apps, including the weather channel app, send you targeted advertising and sell your personal data by default. Jack West, CC BY-ND
You might also check a social media account like Instagram. The subtle price that you pay is, again, your data. Many “free” mobile apps gather information about you as you interact with them.
As an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering and a doctoral student in computer science, we follow the ways software collects information about people. Your data allows companies to learn about your habits and exploit them.
It’s no secret that social media and mobile applications collect information about you. Meta’s business model depends on it. The company, which operates Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, is worth US$1.48 trillion. Just under 98% of its profits come from advertising, which leverages user data from more than 7 billion monthly users.
Before mobile phones gained apps and social media became ubiquitous, companies conducted large-scale demographic surveys to assess how well a product performed and to get information about the best places to sell it. They used the information to create coarsely targeted ads that they placed on billboards, print ads and TV spots.
Mobile apps and social media platforms now let companies gather much more fine-grained information about people at a lower cost. Through apps and social media, people willingly trade personal information for convenience. In 2007 – a year after the introduction of targeted ads – Facebook made over $153 million, triple the previous year’s revenue. In the past 17 years, that number has increased by more than 1,000 times.
Five ways to leave your data
App and social media companies collect your data in many ways. Meta is a representative case. The company’s privacy policy highlights five ways it gathers your data:
First, it collects the profile information you fill in. Second, it collects the actions you take on its social media platforms. Third, it collects the people you follow and friend. Fourth, it keeps track of each phone, tablet and computer you use to access its platforms. And fifth, it collects information about how you interact with apps that corporate partners connect to its platforms. Many apps and social media platforms follow similar privacy practices.
Your data and activity
When you create an account on an app or social media platform, you provide the company that owns it with information like your age, birth date, identified sex, location and workplace. In the early years of Facebook, selling profile information to advertisers was that company’s main source of revenue. This information is valuable because it allows advertisers to target specific demographics like age, identified gender and location.
And once you start using an app or social media platform, the company behind it can collect data about how you use the app or social media. Social media keeps you engaged as you interact with other people’s posts by liking, commenting or sharing them. Meanwhile, the social media company gains information about what content you view and how you communicate with other people.
Advertisers can find out how much time you spent reading a Facebook post or that you spent a few more seconds on a particular TikTok video. This activity information tells advertisers about your interests. Modern algorithms can quickly pick up subtleties and automatically change the content to engage you in a sponsored post, a targeted advertisement or general content.
Your devices and applications
Companies can also note what devices, including mobile phones, tablets and computers, you use to access their apps and social media platforms. This shows advertisers your brand loyalty, how old your devices are and how much they’re worth.
Because mobile devices travel with you, they have access to information about where you’re going, what you’re doing and who you’re near. In a lawsuit against Kochava Inc., the Federal Trade Commission called out the company for selling customer geolocation data in August 2022, shortly after Roe v Wade was overruled. The company’s customers, including people who had abortions after the ruling was overturned, often didn’t know that data tracking their movements was being collected, according to the commission. The FTC alleged that the data could be used to identify households.
Information that apps can gain from your mobile devices includes anything you have given an app permission to have, such as your location, who you have in your contact list or photos in your gallery.
If you give an app permission to see where you are while the app is running, for instance, the platform can access your location anytime the app is running. Providing access to contacts may provide an app with the phone numbers, names and emails of all the people that you know.
Cross-application data collection
Companies can also gain information about what you do across different apps by acquiring information collected by other apps and platforms.
The settings on an Android phone show that Meta uses information it collects about you to target ads it shows you in its apps – and also in other apps and on other platforms – by default. Jack West, CC BY-ND
This is common with social media companies. This allows companies to, for example, show you ads based on what you like or recently looked at on other apps. If you’ve searched for something on Amazon and then noticed an ad for it on Instagram, it’s probably because Amazon shared that information with Instagram.
Companies, including Google, Meta, X, TikTok and Snapchat, can build detailed user profiles based on collected information from all the apps and social media platforms you use. They use the profiles to show you ads and posts that match your interests to keep you engaged. They also sell the profile information to advertisers.
Meanwhile, researchers have found that Meta and Yandex, a Russian search engine, have overcome controls in mobile operating system software that ordinarily keep people’s web-browsing data anonymous. Each company puts code on its webpages that used local IPs to pass a person’s browsing history, which is supposed to remain private, to mobile apps installed on that person’s phone, de-anonymizing the data. Yandex has been conducting this tracking since 2017, while Meta began in September 2024, according to the researchers.
What you can do about it
If you use apps that collect your data in some way, including those that give you directions, track your workouts or help you contact someone, or if you use social media platforms, your privacy is at risk.
Aside from entirely abandoning modern technology, there are several steps you can take to limit access – at least in part – to your private information.
Read the privacy policy of each app or social media platform you use. Although privacy policy documents can be long, tedious and sometimes hard to read, they explain how social media platforms collect, process, store and share your data.
Check a policy by making sure it can answer three questions: what data does the app collect, how does it collect the data, and what is the data used for. If you can’t answer all three questions by reading the policy, or if any of the answers don’t sit well with you, consider skipping the app until there’s a change in its data practices.
Remove unnecessary permissions from mobile apps to limit the amount of information that applications can gather from you.
Be aware of the privacy settings that might be offered by the apps or social media platforms you use, including any setting that allows your personal data to affect your experience or shares information about you with other users or applications.
These privacy settings can give you some control. We recommend that you disable “off-app activity” and “personalization” settings. “Off-app activity” allows an app to record which other apps are installed on your phone and what you do on them. Personalization settings allow an app to use your data to tailor what it shows you, including advertisements.
Review and update these settings regularly because permissions sometimes change when apps or your phone update. App updates may also add new features that can collect your data. Phone updates may also give apps new ways to collect your data or add new ways to preserve your privacy.
Use private browser windows or reputable virtual private networks software, commonly referred to as VPNs, when using apps that connect to the internet and social media platforms. Private browsers don’t store any account information, which limits the information that can be collected. VPNs change the IP address of your machine so that apps and platforms can’t discover your location.
Finally, ask yourself whether you really need every app that’s on your phone. And when using social media, consider how much information you want to reveal about yourself in liking and commenting on posts, sharing updates about your life, revealing locations you visited and following celebrities you like.
This article is part of a series on data privacy that explores who collects your data, what and how they collect, who sells and buys your data, what they all do with it, and what you can do about it.
Kassem Fawaz receives funding from the National Science Foundation. In the past, his research group has received unrestricted gifts from Meta and Google.
Jack West does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
President Droupadi Murmu inaugurated the Mahayogi Guru Gorakhnath AYUSH University in Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, on Tuesday, marking a significant milestone in the advancement of traditional medicine and medical education in India.
Addressing the gathering, President Murmu described the university as a modern embodiment of India’s rich ancient healing traditions. She emphasized that the institution would greatly enhance access to quality healthcare through AYUSH systems, benefiting over 100 affiliated colleges and the broader public. The President also lauded the state-of-the-art facilities developed at the university, calling them a step forward in holistic healthcare.
Reflecting on her own journey in public life, the President spoke of the importance of selfless service and praised Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath for his efforts in improving health, education, and agricultural infrastructure in the region. She urged healthcare professionals to uphold their responsibilities and remain true to their commitments of public welfare.
Underscoring the significance of preventive care and healthy living, President Murmu advocated the regular practice of yoga, especially for those leading sedentary lifestyles. She stressed that embracing wellness through ancient Indian systems like Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, and Siddha was essential for building a healthier nation and contributing to India’s goal of becoming a developed country by 2047.
Highlighting India’s natural wealth of medicinal plants and herbs, she called AYUSH a “precious gift” to the world. She expressed confidence that institutions like the Mahayogi Guru Gorakhnath AYUSH University would play a vital role in increasing the scientific validation and global popularity of traditional medicine systems.
President Droupadi Murmu inaugurated the Mahayogi Guru Gorakhnath AYUSH University in Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, on Tuesday, marking a significant milestone in the advancement of traditional medicine and medical education in India.
Addressing the gathering, President Murmu described the university as a modern embodiment of India’s rich ancient healing traditions. She emphasized that the institution would greatly enhance access to quality healthcare through AYUSH systems, benefiting over 100 affiliated colleges and the broader public. The President also lauded the state-of-the-art facilities developed at the university, calling them a step forward in holistic healthcare.
Reflecting on her own journey in public life, the President spoke of the importance of selfless service and praised Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath for his efforts in improving health, education, and agricultural infrastructure in the region. She urged healthcare professionals to uphold their responsibilities and remain true to their commitments of public welfare.
Underscoring the significance of preventive care and healthy living, President Murmu advocated the regular practice of yoga, especially for those leading sedentary lifestyles. She stressed that embracing wellness through ancient Indian systems like Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, and Siddha was essential for building a healthier nation and contributing to India’s goal of becoming a developed country by 2047.
Highlighting India’s natural wealth of medicinal plants and herbs, she called AYUSH a “precious gift” to the world. She expressed confidence that institutions like the Mahayogi Guru Gorakhnath AYUSH University would play a vital role in increasing the scientific validation and global popularity of traditional medicine systems.
NEW YORK, July 01, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Amalgamated Financial Corp. (“Amalgamated” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: AMAL), today announced the addition of two new board members to their Board of Directors, Steven SaLoutos and Tony Wells. They will also serve on the Board of Directors of Amalgamated Bank.
“We are thrilled to welcome Steven and Tony to our Board of Directors,” said Lynne Fox, Chair of the Board. “Our board has always included industry experts who know that profitability and social impact are not mutually exclusive. Steven and Tony have demonstrated this throughout their respective careers, and we know that they both will make valuable contributions to our board and future growth.”
Mr. SaLoutos brings extensive expertise in the banking industry and a strong background in directorship. He is presently the Chief Financial Officer of ProSight Financial Association, following a distinguished 38-year career at U.S. Bank, N.A. His most recent position there was Executive Vice President and Midwest Regional Executive in Consumer and Business Banking.
An active community supporter, Mr. SaLoutos is a member and former Chairperson of Wisconsin Women Business Initiative Corporation (WWBIC), a Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) focused on startup and early-stage business lending for and education of women and minority-owned businesses throughout Wisconsin. Mr. SaLoutos holds a BBA degree from the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, and an MBA, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Mr. Wells brings nearly four decades of executive leadership across highly regulated industries including banking, payment services, telecommunications, and energy. He currently serves as a Venture Partner at AZ-VC, Arizona’s largest venture capital fund, and sits on the boards of publicly traded Nexstar Media Group (NASDAQ: NXST), Yelp (NYSE: YELP) and private ad-tech company TripleLift.
Previously, Mr. Wells served as Chief Media Officer at Verizon from 2021 to 2023, and as a senior marketing executive at USAA from 2017 to 2021, culminating in his role as Chief Brand Officer. While at USAA, he also chaired both the USAA Foundation and the USAA Education Foundation, advancing initiatives in financial literacy, diversity, and customer trust. A former Marine Corps infantry officer, Mr. Wells holds a B.S. from the United States Naval Academy and a Management Certificate from Johns Hopkins University Carey School of Business.
“Both men bring a wealth of expertise across multiple industries and disciplines, along with powerful strategic perspectives. Their insights will be invaluable as we continue to accelerate our growth and expand our impact.” said Priscilla Sims Brown, CEO of Amalgamated Bank
“The passion and purpose they’ve demonstrated align with those of Amalgamated, and we are excited to welcome them as valued members of our board.”
About Amalgamated Financial Corp: Amalgamated Financial Corp. is a Delaware public benefit corporation and a bank holding company engaged in commercial banking and financial services through its wholly owned subsidiary, Amalgamated Bank. Amalgamated Bank is a New York-based full-service commercial bank and a chartered trust company with a combined network of five branches across New York City, Washington D.C., and San Francisco, and a commercial office in Boston. Amalgamated Bank was formed in 1923 as Amalgamated Bank of New York by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, one of the country’s oldest labor unions. Amalgamated Bank provides commercial banking and trust services nationally and offers a full range of products and services to both commercial and retail customers. Amalgamated Bank is a proud member of the Global Alliance for Banking on Values and is a certified B Corporation®. As of March 31, 2025, our total assets were $8.3 billion, total net loans were $4.6 billion, and total deposits were $7.4 billion. Additionally, as of March 31, 2025, our trust business held $35.7 billion in assets under custody and $14.2 billion in assets under management.
Last Friday, a diverse group of community members, renewable energy practitioners, academics, and policy-makers gathered at the University of Aberdeen for “Community Renewables in the North East of Scotland: Looking Back, Moving Forward”, a timely event focused on advancing community-led energy initiatives in the region. The event explored how communities can play a central role in Scotland’s energy transition.
Organised by the University’s Just Transition Lab and Centre for Energy Law, the event was the outcome of the collaboration under the Just Transition Communities Project (JTCP). The JTCP, commissioned by the Scottish Government, is designed to support a fair and inclusive transition in the North East of Scotland. Led by the North East Scotland Climate Action Network Hub (NESCAN Hub), the project brings together with partners including the Just Transition Lab.
The event opened with a session on community energy and the just transition, featuring insights from Fraser Stewart of Regen, alongside Daria Shapovalova and Tayo Gbemi from the Just Transition Lab. Their contributions addressed the role of community energy in achieving a Just Transition in the UK, and in the North East of Scotland specifically.
This was followed by a panel offering institutional perspectives, with Rachel Yule from Local Energy Scotland sharing the latest developments. Emma Murphy from Aberdeen City Council and Christine Webster from Aberdeenshire Council participated in the panel sharing the local authorities’ experiences and strategies for supporting community energy.
After a networking lunch, the final session brought together practitioners from the region’s most notable community energy projects. Speakers from Donside Hydro and Udny Wind shared practical lessons, challenges, and successes from their work, offering valuable insights into what it takes to build and sustain community-led renewable initiatives.
Throughout the day, participants discussed the growing momentum behind community energy, fueled by recent funding announcements from the Scottish Government and Great British Energy. However, the event also highlighted the persistent barriers, particularly in urban areas, such as lack of appropriate funding, limited capacity, and institutional challenges.
The event concluded with a shared commitment to strengthening collaboration, building local capacity, and ensuring that the benefits of the energy transition are equitably distributed across all communities in the North East.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Luca Stroppa, Postdoctoral fellow (“borsista di ricerca) at the University of Turin, former Postdoctoral Fellow on the project “Early Diagnosis – Handling Knowing”, University of St Andrews
The current heel-prick test checks for nine rare genetic conditions,antibydni/Shutterstock
By 2030, every baby born in England could have their entire genome sequenced under a new NHS initiative to “predict and prevent illness”. This would dramatically expand the current heel-prick test, which checks for nine rare genetic conditions, into a far more extensive screen of hundreds of potential risks.
On the surface, the idea sounds like an obvious win for public health: spot problems early, intervene sooner and save lives. But genetic testing on this scale carries real risks, especially if the results are misunderstood or poorly communicated.
The new plan builds on a recent NHS pilot study that sequenced the genomes of 100,000 newborns in England to identify more than 200 genetic conditions. However, these tests don’t provide clear cut answers. They don’t offer a diagnosis or certainty, just an estimate of risk.
A genetic result might suggest a child has a higher (or lower) probability of developing a certain disease later in life. But risk is not prediction. If parents, or even clinicians, misinterpret that nuance, the consequences could be serious.
Some families may come to see a child flagged as “at risk” as a patient-in-waiting. In extreme cases, they may treat a probability as a certainty; assuming, for instance, that a child “has the gene” and will inevitably become ill. That assumption could reshape how children are raised, how they’re treated and how they could see themselves.
When testing is indiscriminate and communication unclear, the fallout can be wide ranging. Children identified as “high risk” may undergo years of monitoring, unnecessary medical appointments, or even treatment for diseases they never develop. In some cases, this leads to physical harms, from unnecessary medications to procedures with side effects. In others, the damage is psychological: shaping a child’s identity around an anticipated future of illness. These psychological effects can be lasting. Being told you’re likely to develop a condition like dementia may influence how a person plans their life, even if that illness never materialises.
False positives
There are also broader issues with applying this kind of screening to everyone. Risk based testing works best when it’s targeted; for example, among those with symptoms or a strong family history. But in the general population, where most people are healthy, false positives can far outnumber accurate results. Even well designed tests can produce misleading outcomes when applied at scale.
This is a well-known statistical effect, discussed during the COVID pandemic. In populations where a disease is rare, even highly accurate tests produce more false positives than true ones. If DNA screening is rolled out universally, many families will be told their child is at risk when they are not. These false positives can lead to a cascade of further tests, stress and unnecessary clinical interventions; all of which consume time and resources and may cause real harm.
This issue already affects adult testing. For example, Alzheimer’s tests that measure early changes in the brain work well in memory clinics, where patients already show symptoms. But when these same tests are used on the general population, where most people are healthy, they produce false positives in up to two-thirds of cases. If genetic screening in newborns is rolled out in the same way, it could lead to similar problems: mislabelling healthy children as sick, and causing unnecessary worry and follow-up tests.
So what’s the solution? It’s not to abandon genetic testing altogether – far from it. When used carefully, genomic data can offer real benefits, particularly for patients with symptoms or in research settings. But if we’re going to roll this out to every newborn, the surrounding infrastructure needs to be robust.
That includes:
Clear, consistent communication: Risk scores must be explained in ways that emphasise uncertainty, not oversold as definitive predictions.
Support for parents: For consent to be truly informed, parents need help understanding that a genetic flag is not a diagnosis – and that many people with elevated risk never go on to develop the condition.
Training for clinicians: Many doctors still lack the tools to interpret and explain genetic information accurately and responsibly.
A national network of genetic counsellors Genetic counsellors are essential for supporting families through testing and interpretation. But current numbers in the England fall far short of what universal newborn screening would require.
Genomic data holds great promise. But using it as a blanket tool for all newborns demands caution, clarity, and investment in communication and care. Without these safeguards, we risk turning healthy babies into patients-in-waiting.
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that every baby born in the UK could have their genome sequenced under a new NHS initiative. In fact, the initiative applies to England only.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rebecca Brownlow, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Science, Sheffield Hallam University
Peatland burns over the reservoir in Langsett, a village in South Yorkshire. Wendy Birks, CC BY-NC-ND
Early one October afternoon in 2023, thick grey smoke drifted across Sheffield’s western skyline. As much of the city became blanketed, residents turned to social media to complain about “bonfire smoke”, while others were forced to leave the city due to breathing difficulties.
However, this smoke did not originate within the city. It was drifting in from the Peak District, more than nine miles away, where controlled heather burning was taking place on the moorlands. For around six hours, levels of fine particulate matter (known as PM2.5), tiny airborne pollutants known to harm human health, exceeded 40 micrograms per cubic metre of air (µg/m³) and peaked at 70µg/m³, well above the guidelines recommended by the World Health Organization.
This single incident points to the wider and largely invisible problem of the routine burning of the UK’s uplands. This can be a serious source of air pollution, but because most official air pollution monitoring concentrates on urban areas, the effects are overlooked. This is why we have started monitoring upland fires and the pollution they cause.
Prescribed burning is a longstanding land management practice often used to control vegetation for grouse shooting or livestock grazing. It happens across a range of upland landscapes. Many of the areas being burned sit on deep peat, an organic-rich soil made from layers of slowly decomposed plant material formed over thousands of years in waterlogged conditions.
Peatlands are incredibly important. They are one of the most carbon-rich ecosystems on the planet. In the UK, they cover around 12% of the land area and store an estimated 3.2 billion tonnes of carbon. This is equivalent to all the forests of Germany, France and the UK combined. Most of the UK’s peat is found in Scotland, but notable areas in England include the Peak District and North York Moors. However, their value goes well beyond carbon.
Around 70% of Britain’s drinking water comes from upland areas that are largely peatland, and healthy peatlands help reduce flooding by slowing the flow of water from hills to towns and cities. They also provide vital habitats for birds, insects and rare plants, forming the UK’s largest area of semi-natural habitat.
Despite their ecological importance, more than 80% of English peatlands are classified as degraded, often through historic air pollution, draining, overgrazing and, importantly, repeated burning.
One hidden consequence of that burning is air pollution. These burns are often viewed as isolated rural events, but their effect on regional air quality can be substantial. On that day in Sheffield, pollution levels briefly rivalled those seen across the city during bonfire night, a well-known peak in urban air pollution.
In response to that October event, our research team launched a new pilot monitoring network across part of the Peak District national park. This FireUp project combines air quality sensors, satellite data and community observations to detect and measure pollution from upland fires.
Planned burning event in the Peak District captured via Copernicus Sentinel-2 data (2024), retrieved from Copernicus SciHub and processed by European Space Agency. CC BY
By using a mix of technologies and local reporting, we have documented spikes in PM2.5 pollution that would have otherwise been missed. Our system offers a clearer picture of when and where fires occur, and how far their smoke spreads, opening the door for better planning and stronger protections for public health. But the problem is not just a lack of data, it is also a failure of regulation. England’s current upland burning regulations are limited on four fronts.
Heather and grass burning regulations introduced in 2021 prohibit burning only on peat deeper than 40cm inside designated sites. That means 60% of upland peat is excluded from these protections.
With more than 95% of PM2.5 monitors located in urban areas, smoke from moorland fires in remote rural locations is rarely registered on official networks.
The resources for organisations responsible for enforcing regulations have shrunk over the last decade. Natural England, one of the government’s statutory bodies responsible for environmental protection, has experienced a 4% decrease in funding for 2024-25 compared to the previous year.
Prosecutions for illegal burning are exceptionally rare, with satellite analyses pointing to a higher level of unlicensed activity than official records suggest.
In short, narrow legal scope, limited monitoring coverage and under-resourced enforcement leave many prescribed burns undetected and unaccounted for, along with the health and environmental risks they carry.
Our FireUp system improves fire detections and helps quantify the effects of air pollution from these burns. As the UK government reviews regulations as part of the 2025 heather and grass burning consultation for England, and as upland fire risk increases, this kind of evidence is essential, not just to track what is happening, but to help shape a healthier and better future for the UK’s uplands.
Our next step is to develop a citizen science app that makes it easier for people to report peatland fire incidents and upland burning to help improve regulation and log the effects of changes in air quality.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
James is a member of the Welsh Government Clean Air Advisory Panel, and Promoting Awareness of Air Quality Delivery Group. James also sits on the Scottish Government’s Air Quality Advisory Group.
Maria Val Martin receives funding from UKRI and is a member of the DEFRA Air Quality Expert Group.
Rebecca Brownlow 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.
“Whose daring deeds are great theatre? Hercules!” So sing the Muses, as they close act one of Disney’s Hercules, which opened at London’s Theatre Royal, Drury Lane last week.
The 1997 Disney animation this new show is based on is, of course, already a successful musical film. The hit song Go the Distance was nominated for a Golden Globe and an Academy Award. The new West End version includes all the film’s familiar musical numbers, notably The Gospel Truth (which is reprised as many as six times) but also I Won’t Say (I’m In Love), Zero to Hero and A Star is Born.
There are plenty of new original songs, too, by the composer Alan Menken and lyricist David Zippel.
Some of the changes to the film’s story, however, are puzzling. In place of adoptive mortal parents Amphitryon and Alcmene, Hercules is born to a single mother, who is given a new (modern Greek) name and her own song: Despina’s Lullaby.
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.
More understandable is the skipping over of Hercules’ childhood, allowing Luke Brady’s engaging Hercules to emerge fully grown not too long into the show.
Likewise, Meg (Mae Ann Jorolan) is made even feistier than her 1990s incarnation. Instead of being in the clutches of the centaur Nessus when Hercules first meets her, she has two Hydra-venom traders in a headlock, and she sings “let me tell you a little something about saving women who don’t need to be saved” in the great new duet Forget About It.
Fans of the film may be disappointed that Pegasus – Hercules’s trusty flying steed – has been written out. Though he is nicely referenced through a topiary cameo. But there was effective use of puppetry for a suitably dramatic Hydra – the monster who grows two more heads for every one Hercules cuts off.
Other highlights of stage-trickery include the contributions of air sculptor Daniel Wurtzel. The spirits of the dead are represented by light material floating in a stream of air, and statues of Zeus and Hera appeared to come to life – I really don’t know how they did it.
In another controversial change, the shape-shifting comedy sidekicks Pain and Panic have been downgraded to the humans Bob (Craig Gallivan) and Charles (Lee Zarrett). They are an endearing pair nonetheless, who get their own new song Getting Even.
Indeed, there’s more of an emphasis on both humanity and community throughout the show. In place of Danny de Vito’s satyr Philoctetes, with his hero-training facility based on a remote island, Phil (Trevor Dion Nicholas) operates out of his local pub – Medusa’s bar – with the help of a whole bunch of neighbours from Hercules’ hometown of Thebes.
Also toned down is Hades, at least compared to James Wood’s flamboyant character in the animated film. Stephen Carlisle (previously seen as Scar in Lion King) plays Hades more in the tradition of the upper-class British villain we all love to boo. At the end of the show, however, he becomes literally larger-than-life as a giant puppet. The animation’s battle of the gods against the Titans is turned into a highly stylised confrontation between this turbo-charged Hades and everyone else.
The trailer for Hercules.
The show’s visuals, masterminded by Dane Laffrey, are undeniably impressive. Even before the curtain goes up, the theatre’s usual proscenium arch has been transformed into a monumental Greek temple facade. Thereafter the sets are dominated by four massive pairs of Doric columns, which glide smoothly into different formations. The backdrop to the gods’ home on Olympus is a giant gold sunburst motif, and everything to do with the gods is golden.
Video-projected backgrounds (by George Reeve) feature further temples and a mosaic texture – really a Roman touch. But a more properly Greek element is the use of vases in the Attic black-figure style. These are seen especially in the early “young Hercules” scene in the market-place and again to go with the Zero to Hero line “they slapped his face on every vase”.
And finally, the real stars of the show are the five Muses (played by Sharlene Hector, Brianna Ogunbawo, Robyn Rose-Li, Kamilla Fernandes and Kimmy Edwards the evening I attended).
Their role – as a cross between the chorus of a Greek tragedy and a gospel choir – is even bigger here than in the animation, of which they were such an innovative feature. They must spend the whole evening on costume changes, appearing in a series of fabulous frocks (designed by Gregg Barnes and Sky Switser), each more spectacular than the last.
Some early reviews have been critical of the show as lacking in emotional depth, and it’s true that the more serious theme of “finding where I belong” is subservient to the high-octane razzmatazz – but I suspect this won’t matter to the majority of West End audiences. Disney’s Hercules is indeed great (musical) theatre.
In a world flooded with fitness fads and “quick-fix” workout plans, solid evidence can often get drowned out. Yet the science is clear: jogging for just five to ten minutes a day can lower your risk of dying from heart disease and even reduce your overall risk of dying from any cause. This kind of research rarely gets the attention it deserves.
As a sport and exercise scientist, I’ve been asked hundreds of fitness questions over the years by athletes, clients and on social media. Many of these questions are rooted in persistent myths or internet misinformation. Here are six of the most common ones, starting with one of the most popular:
1. What exercise is best for fat loss?
No specific exercise can reduce fat in one area, despite what ads or fitness influencers might promise.
Instead, losing body fat comes down to maintaining a caloric deficit over time: burning more calories than you consume. If you eat more than you burn, even the most intense workouts won’t shift body fat.
That said, exercise plays a key role in fat loss. Combining a healthy diet with physical activity is the most effective strategy for fat loss and long-term weight maintenance. Exercise helps by burning calories, improving sleep regulation, increasing confidence, and promoting metabolic adaptations like improved insulin sensitivity.
Resistance training is especially important. It helps preserve muscle during calorie restriction, meaning the weight you lose is more likely to come from fat rather than lean tissue.
2. Does fasting before exercise help you burn more fat?
Fasted exercise (working out on an empty stomach, typically in the morning) increases fat oxidation, the metabolic process where fatty acids are broken down to produce energy due to low blood glucose and insulin levels, paired with elevated cortisol.
But does it lead to greater fat loss overall? Not really. Studies comparing fasted versus fed exercise show no significant differences in long-term fat loss when total calories are matched. In short: fasted workouts might burn more fat during the session, but it doesn’t translate into greater weight loss over time.
3. Why do my muscles feel sore two days after training?
That ache you feel 24 to 48 hours after an intense or unfamiliar workout is called delayed onset muscle soreness (Doms). The delay in soreness is caused by inflammation, which takes time to fully develop. The inflammation is beneficial because it signals your body to rebuild stronger tissue by breaking down damaged proteins and building new ones. In response to the inflammation, the muscle and connective tissues release “protein messengers” that sensitise pain receptors in the connective tissues, which can make even basic movements feel uncomfortable.
Doms often peaks two days after exercise. But the good news? Your body adapts quickly. Doms is a normal part of muscle adaptation that enables you to experience less soreness when you next perform the same activity.
4. Should I train if my muscles are sore?
If your muscles feel sore after exercise, they are temporarily weakened and it’s best to avoid high-intensity exercise.
Mild Doms? Low-intensity, low impact activities like swimming or cycling can help improve blood flow and reduce stiffness, easing the sensation of soreness. However, light activity won’t necessarily speed up the recovery process. Another option is to train different muscle groups, such as the upper body if your legs are sore.
5. Is running bad for your knees?
This myth is surprisingly persistent but the evidence says otherwise. A 2023 study found no higher rates of knee osteoarthritis among runners compared to non-runners. In fact, running may even strengthen cartilage by stimulating collagen production.
That said, certain risk factors, such as previous knee injury, excess body weight, or ramping up mileage too quickly, can raise your risk of knee pain or injury. But with smart training, including resistance work and gradual progression, running can be safe and beneficial for your knees.
6. Do smartwatches accurately track calories burned?
Not quite. While wearables can give a rough estimate of your energy expenditure, they’re not precise enough to rely on for dietary or fitness planning.
A 2022 study found that smartwatches significantly miscalculated calories burned across different activities like walking, cycling and resistance training. These findings align with a wider systematic review that concluded most fitness trackers are inaccurate for energy expenditure.
These devices can still be helpful for tracking heart rate trends, daily step counts and staying motivated but if you’re planning your diet or workouts around the calorie numbers they give you, it’s time to think again.
When it comes to exercise and fat loss, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution – and no shortcut. The basics still matter: eat well, move often and listen to your body. And when in doubt, stick with exercise and nutrition advice supported by science – not what’s trending online.
Paul Hough does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christian van Nieuwerburgh, Professor of Coaching and Positive Psychology, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences
Even though we live in a constantly connected world, more people feel lonely than ever before. According to public polling company Gallup, nearly a quarter of the world’s population reports feeling lonely.
In such uncertain times, the practice of radical listening – listening with greater intention – offers a way to reconnect and to foster a deeper sense of empathy, engagement and hope.
In our book, Radical listening: the art of true connection, which I co-authored with positive psychology expert Dr Robert Biswas-Diener, we explore how radical listening can improve motivation, wellbeing and meaningful connection. To become a radical listener, you’ll need to embrace two core ideas and develop six essential skills.
The first idea is about clarifying your intention when listening. At the heart of radical listening is the belief that we always listen with a purpose — even if we’re not fully aware of it. For example, we might listen to a podcast with the intention of learning something, or attend a comedy show with the goal of being entertained.
When we set a clear intention, we become more attuned to what matters. If your aim is to show appreciation during a conversation, you’ll naturally tune in to the qualities you value in the other person — a thoughtful comment, a kind gesture. If you want to elevate your listening, enter conversations with a positive, deliberate intention.
The second idea is about matching your listening intention to what will be most helpful for your conversation partner. This is grounded in the principle of optimal matching of social support. Biswas-Diener explains it well here: meaningful conversations happen when there’s alignment between what the speaker needs and what the listener offers.
This may sound obvious, but we often miss the mark. Say your partner has had a tough day. Should you offer advice? Reassure them with a personal story? Just listen and empathise? Change the subject to distract them? The most effective response might be asking: “What do you need from me right now?” When you get the match right, you’ll feel the connection.
Six core skills
We all have our own listening styles: empathetic, animated, quiet, curious. The good news is that everyone can improve their listening by practising these six core skills:
1. Noticing: This means scanning for subtle but relevant cues: body language, facial expressions, changes in tone, or unusual word choices. Noticing shows you’re fully present. For example: “I noticed you lit up when you talked about your previous job.”
2. Quieting: Managing distractions, both external and internal. Great listeners reduce interruptions by putting away their phones or turning off notifications – but also by calming their internal chatter. Being rested and mentally present makes quieting possible.
3. Accepting: Respecting others’ right to their views – even when you disagree. Acceptance doesn’t mean agreement. It means acknowledging that others have a valid perspective. Try practising this by listening to someone whose views challenge your own.
4. Acknowledging: Validating your conversation partner’s experiences and contributions. Look for opportunities to highlight their strengths, reflect their feelings and show empathy through both your words and expressions.
5. Questioning: Curiosity is a cornerstone of radical listening. Ask questions that express genuine interest and invite deeper sharing. Try: “What was it about that moment that made it so special for you?”
6. Interjecting: Jump in (briefly) with minimal encouragers to show you’re engaged – then jump back out. Minimal encouragers are short verbal or nonverbal cues used during a conversation to show you’re engaged without interrupting or taking over. They’re a key skill in radical listening because they let the speaker know you’re present and responsive while keeping the focus on them. Think of it as offering small bursts of energy, like “That’s amazing!” or “Wow, I didn’t know that.” It shows you’re actively listening, not passively absorbing.
Radical listening is a hyper-intentional, purposeful and proactive approach to connection. It’s about helping others feel seen, valued and heard. The benefits for your conversation partner are clear — but there are also real advantages for you. You’ll build deeper relationships, experience more satisfying interactions, and be able to create trust quickly.
In a world of loneliness, distraction, and division, radical listening isn’t just a nice idea – it’s a powerful tool for human connection.
This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.
Christian van Nieuwerburgh 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.
Call for municipalities to harness innovation for service delivery
Municipalities across South Africa have been urged to adopt innovative technologies and foster a culture of innovation as an essential step towards enhancing service delivery and building a more responsive local government in the country.
During the keynote address at the 2nd Municipal Innovation Recognition Awards (MIRA) held in Durban on Monday, Deputy Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation Nomalungelo Gina emphasised that adopting innovative technologies is not optional, but essential.
The Deputy Minister believes this is particularly true for rural municipalities that continue to face longstanding development challenges.
She pointed to recent reports by the Auditor-General, highlighting persistent underperformance in municipalities, and said that repeating outdated methods will not yield different results.
“Innovation allows us to leapfrog to better outcomes,” she said.
“New technologies disrupt the status quo, reduce costs, and streamline processes, ultimately empowering citizens and restoring public trust in local government.”
The MIRA awards are an initiative of the Department of Science, Technology and Innovation (DSTI), the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN), and the South African Local Government Association (SALGA).
The awards recognise municipalities that demonstrate leadership in applying innovative solutions to improve essential services such as water provision, waste management, and citizen engagement.
Gina encouraged municipalities to embed innovation as a standard way of working.
“We must transform the culture of our municipalities to embrace new ideas, smarter tools, and evidence-based approaches to delivering services. Innovation is not a luxury reserved for metros; it is a necessity for every municipality, including those in rural areas,” she said.
The awards are informed by the Municipal Innovation Maturity Index (MIMI), which was introduced in 2021 as a decision-support tool to assess the innovation capacity of municipalities.
In 2025, a total of 57 towns participated in the rollout of MIMI, and all received awards at the ceremony.
Trailblazers
Among the trailblazers were the City of Cape Town, which received the Trailblazing Innovation Award for its Digital Wayleave Management System, which consolidates and streamlines development-related permissions into a single, web-based platform.
The City of Tshwane, Emalahleni, eThekwini, and Waterberg District Municipality received Special Recognition Awards for achieving Innovation Maturity Level 4, indicating that their innovation processes are consistent, well-managed, and embedded within their respective municipalities.
Municipalities such as Vhembe, Waterberg, Modimolle-Mookgopong, and uMgungundlovu were also honoured for successfully applying innovation within specific departments.
Although not yet institutionalised across the entire municipality, their innovation efforts are considered promising and repeatable. The Deputy Minister congratulated all the winners of MIRA 2025 and encouraged more municipalities to follow suit.
“This recognition should inspire others to embark on their innovation journeys. In the future, we want to see all municipalities reaching the required innovation threshold, and I believe we are getting closer to that reality.”
Municipal Innovation Fund
A key milestone at the event was the official launch of the Municipal Innovation Fund (MIF), a dedicated funding instrument designed to support municipalities in developing and implementing innovative projects that enhance basic service delivery.
The Fund, which is managed by the Technology Innovation Agency (TIA) of the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI), will provide up to R3 million per project to qualifying municipalities for the development and scaling up of technologies that deliver measurable community impact.
According to the department, funding will be prioritised for municipalities that have reached Level 4 or higher on the MIMI scale and that have demonstrated sound governance and clean audits.
Approved projects must be implemented through dedicated accounts with regular reporting on progress, financial management, and community benefits.
The ceremony also featured addresses by representatives of the University of KwaZulu-Natal, SALGA President Councillor Bheke Stofile, eThekwini Mayor Councillor Cyril Xaba, and Deputy Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Dr Namane Dickson Masemola. – SAnews.gov.za
Many of us have got into the habit of listening to podcasts, audiobooks and other online content at increased playback speeds. For younger people, it might even be the norm. One survey of students in California, for instance, showed that 89% changed the playback speed of online lectures, while there have been numerous articles in the media about how common speedy viewing has become.
It is easy to think of some advantages to watching things more quickly. It can let you consume more content in the same amount of time, or go through the same piece of content a couple of times to get the most out of it.
This could be particularly useful in an educational context, where it might free up time for consolidating knowledge, doing practice tests and so forth. Watching quickly is also potentially a good way of making sure you sustain your attention and engagement for the entire duration to avoid the mind wandering.
But what about the disadvantages? It turns out that there are one or two of those as well.
When a person is exposed to spoken information, researchers distinguish three phases of memory: encoding the information, storing it and subsequently retrieving it. At the encoding phase, it takes the brain some time to process and comprehend the incoming speech-stream. Words must be extracted and their contextual meaning retrieved from the memory in real-time.
People generally speak at a rate of about 150 words per minute, though doubling the rate to 300 or even tripling it to 450 words per minute is still within the range of what we can find intelligible. The question is more about the quality and longevity of the memories that we form.
Incoming information is stored temporarily in a memory system called working memory. This allows chunks of information to be transformed, combined and manipulated into a form that is ready for transfer to the long-term memory. Because our working memory has a limited capacity, if too much information arrives too quickly it can be exceeded. This leads to cognitive overload and loss of information.
Speedy viewing and information recall
A recent meta analysis in this area examined 24 studies of learning from lecture videos. The studies varied in their design but generally involved playing a video lecture to one group at original speed (1x) and playing the same video lecture to another group at a faster speed (1.25x, 1.5x, 2x and 2.5x).
Just like in a randomised controlled trial used to test medical treatments, participants were randomly assigned to each of the two groups. Both groups then completed an identical test after watching the video to assess their knowledge of the material. The tests either required them to recall information, used multiple choice questions to assess their recall, or both.
The meta-analysis showed that increasing playback speed had increasingly negative effects on test performance. At speeds of up to 1.5x, the cost was very small. But at 2x and above, the negative effect was moderate to large.
To put this in context, if the average score for a cohort of students was 75% with a typical variation of 20 percentage points in either direction, then increasing the playback speed to 1.5x would bring down the average person’s result by 2 percentage points. And increasing the playback speed to 2.5x would lead to an average loss of 17 percentage points.
Older people
Interestingly, one of the studies included in the meta-analysis also investigated older adults (aged 61-94) and found that they were more affected by watching content at faster speeds than younger adults (aged 18-36). This may reflect a weakening of memory capacity in otherwise healthy people, suggesting that older adults should watch at normal speed or even slower playback speeds to compensate.
However, we don’t yet know whether you can reduce the negative effects of fast playback by doing it regularly. So it could be that younger adults simply have more experience of fast playback and are therefore better able to cope with the increased cognitive load. Similarly, it means we don’t know whether younger people can mitigate the negative effects on their ability to retain information by using faster playback more often.
Another unknown is whether there are any long-term effects on mental function and brain activity from watching videos at increased playback speeds. In theory, such effects could be positive, such as a better ability to handle increased cognitive load. Or they could be negative, such as greater mental fatigue resulting from increased cognitive load, but we currently lack the scientific evidence to answer this question.
A final observation is that even if playing back content at, say, 1.5 times the normal speed doesn’t affect memory performance, there is evidence to suggest the experience is less enjoyable. That may affect people’s motivation and experience at learning things, which might make them find more excuses not to do it. On the other hand, faster playback has become popular, so maybe once people get used to it, it’s fine – hopefully we’ll understand these processes better in the years to come.
Marcus Pearce does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Many of us have got into the habit of listening to podcasts, audiobooks and other online content at increased playback speeds. For younger people, it might even be the norm. One survey of students in California, for instance, showed that 89% changed the playback speed of online lectures, while there have been numerous articles in the media about how common speedy viewing has become.
It is easy to think of some advantages to watching things more quickly. It can let you consume more content in the same amount of time, or go through the same piece of content a couple of times to get the most out of it.
This could be particularly useful in an educational context, where it might free up time for consolidating knowledge, doing practice tests and so forth. Watching quickly is also potentially a good way of making sure you sustain your attention and engagement for the entire duration to avoid the mind wandering.
But what about the disadvantages? It turns out that there are one or two of those as well.
When a person is exposed to spoken information, researchers distinguish three phases of memory: encoding the information, storing it and subsequently retrieving it. At the encoding phase, it takes the brain some time to process and comprehend the incoming speech-stream. Words must be extracted and their contextual meaning retrieved from the memory in real-time.
People generally speak at a rate of about 150 words per minute, though doubling the rate to 300 or even tripling it to 450 words per minute is still within the range of what we can find intelligible. The question is more about the quality and longevity of the memories that we form.
Incoming information is stored temporarily in a memory system called working memory. This allows chunks of information to be transformed, combined and manipulated into a form that is ready for transfer to the long-term memory. Because our working memory has a limited capacity, if too much information arrives too quickly it can be exceeded. This leads to cognitive overload and loss of information.
Speedy viewing and information recall
A recent meta analysis in this area examined 24 studies of learning from lecture videos. The studies varied in their design but generally involved playing a video lecture to one group at original speed (1x) and playing the same video lecture to another group at a faster speed (1.25x, 1.5x, 2x and 2.5x).
Just like in a randomised controlled trial used to test medical treatments, participants were randomly assigned to each of the two groups. Both groups then completed an identical test after watching the video to assess their knowledge of the material. The tests either required them to recall information, used multiple choice questions to assess their recall, or both.
The meta-analysis showed that increasing playback speed had increasingly negative effects on test performance. At speeds of up to 1.5x, the cost was very small. But at 2x and above, the negative effect was moderate to large.
To put this in context, if the average score for a cohort of students was 75% with a typical variation of 20 percentage points in either direction, then increasing the playback speed to 1.5x would bring down the average person’s result by 2 percentage points. And increasing the playback speed to 2.5x would lead to an average loss of 17 percentage points.
Older people
Interestingly, one of the studies included in the meta-analysis also investigated older adults (aged 61-94) and found that they were more affected by watching content at faster speeds than younger adults (aged 18-36). This may reflect a weakening of memory capacity in otherwise healthy people, suggesting that older adults should watch at normal speed or even slower playback speeds to compensate.
However, we don’t yet know whether you can reduce the negative effects of fast playback by doing it regularly. So it could be that younger adults simply have more experience of fast playback and are therefore better able to cope with the increased cognitive load. Similarly, it means we don’t know whether younger people can mitigate the negative effects on their ability to retain information by using faster playback more often.
Another unknown is whether there are any long-term effects on mental function and brain activity from watching videos at increased playback speeds. In theory, such effects could be positive, such as a better ability to handle increased cognitive load. Or they could be negative, such as greater mental fatigue resulting from increased cognitive load, but we currently lack the scientific evidence to answer this question.
A final observation is that even if playing back content at, say, 1.5 times the normal speed doesn’t affect memory performance, there is evidence to suggest the experience is less enjoyable. That may affect people’s motivation and experience at learning things, which might make them find more excuses not to do it. On the other hand, faster playback has become popular, so maybe once people get used to it, it’s fine – hopefully we’ll understand these processes better in the years to come.
Marcus Pearce does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robert Dover, Professor of Intelligence and National Security & Dean of Faculty, University of Hull
The ongoing debate over whether Iranian nuclear sites were “obliterated”, as the US president and his team insist, or merely “damaged”, as much of the intelligence suggest, should make us pause and think about the nature and purpose of intelligence.
As Donald Rumsfeld famously said “if it was a fact it wouldn’t be called intelligence”.
The recorded fate of the Iranian nuclear sites will be decided by the collection and assessment of difficult to reach raw intelligence feeds. These will include imagery, technical, communications and human intelligence, among many secret techniques.
The classified conclusions of these efforts are unlikely to make their way into the public realm, unless there is Congressional or Senate inquiry, like the one held after 9/11.
So, why does it matter?
There has been strong public interest in intelligence assessments since 9/11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Intelligence is often only seen in public when something has gone wrong – either that something was missed or the public has been misled. Inquiries into 9/11 criticised intelligence agencies for not putting together single strands of intelligence into a whole picture, revealing the plot and the attack.
Inquiries into the approach to the 2003 Iraq war suggested intelligence agencies had allowed their assessments to become shaped by political need, or had failed to adequately caution about what they did not know.
Successful intelligence operations nearly always mean that something damaging to the country or the public has been prevented. If agencies celebrated these successes loudly they might reveal something about their techniques and reach that is useful to our adversaries. So, our understanding of intelligence tends to be framed by popular culture – or by the inquiries around intelligence failures.
From these two sources, intelligence is simultaneously all-seeing and deeply flawed. Add in narratives around the “deep state” – a shorthand that accuses unnamed and publicly unaccountable government officials of frustrating the will of the people – and it should be no surprise that the public and politicians are sometimes confused about security intelligence and published assessmements.
In the case of the Iranian nuclear facilities, the importance of the intelligence picture is focused around politics, diplomacy and security. Donald Trump would obviously prefer an official narrative that his decision and orders have put back the Iranian nuclear programme by years. This is why he talks about the sites being obliterated. And it’s why his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has affirmed that her intelligence-led assessment agrees. That said, she has opted not to give testimony to the Senate.
When it comes diplomacy, the judgement of intelligence officials could do one of two things. It could either place Iran in a poorer negotiating position with no nuclear programme to provide it with the ultimate security. Or it could allow Tehran to present the country as an emerging nuclear power, with the added muscle that implies. This judgement will have an impact on Israel’s need to preemptively contain Iran. And in security terms, the classified judgement will also help to shape the next steps of the US president, his diplomats and his armed forces.
Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of niitonal intellgence, delivers the annual threat assessment. She testifies that Iran is not actively building a nuclear weapon.
The assessment given to the public may well be different from the one held within the administration. While uncomfortable for us outside of government circles, this is often a perfectly reasonable choice for a government to make. Security diplomacy is best done behind closed doors. Or at least, this used to be the case. Now Trump appears to be remaking the art of statecraft in public with his TruthSocial posts and his earthy and authentic language in press conferences.
Misinformation and public mistrust
Having a large gap between the secret intelligence assessment and the publicly acknowledged position can have stark consequences for a government. The 1971 Pentagon Papers are a good example of this.
These were prepared for the government about the progress of the Vietnam war and leaked to the press. The leaks highlighted the inaccuracy in government reporting to the American public about the progress of the war. The fallout included a number of official inquiries that shone a negative light on intelligence agencies. They also resulted in a strengthening of media freedoms.
Similarly, the 2003 Iraq war damaged the credibility of the US intelligence community. It became clear to that the unequivocal statements about Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be overstated and under-evidenced. The loss of trust, limitations on the executive use of intelligence and the losses to the US in blood and treasure in the Iraq campaign are still being felt in American politics.
Last, the Snowden leaks of 2013 highlighted the mismatch between what was understood about intelligence intrusion into private communications data, including internet browsing activities, and what was happening in the National Security Agency through programmes such as Prism.
The Snowden leaks had an impact on America’s standing with its allies and resulted in the USA Freedom Act in 2015. This imposed some limits on the data that US intelligence agencies can collect on American citizens and also clarified the use of wiretaps and tracking “lone wolf” terrorists.
The Snowden affair also fuelled a growing narrative about unaccountable deep state activity that has foregrounded online phenomena such as the conspiracy site QAnon. It has also boosted some populist politics that point to, and feed off the public suspicion on, mass surveillance and hidden government activities.
The lessons for the current debate are clear. The first is that using intelligence assessments to justify military actions contain enduring hazards for governments, given the propensity among public servants for leaking.
From that, it naturally follows that when published intelligence is shown to be incorrect, the unintended consequence for governments is a loss of trust and having fewer freedoms to make use of intelligence to protect the nation state.
Robert Dover has previously received research funding from the AHRC to examine lessons that can be drawn from intelligence and he and Michael Goodman published an edited collection from this project.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robert Dover, Professor of Intelligence and National Security & Dean of Faculty, University of Hull
The ongoing debate over whether Iranian nuclear sites were “obliterated”, as the US president and his team insist, or merely “damaged”, as much of the intelligence suggest, should make us pause and think about the nature and purpose of intelligence.
As Donald Rumsfeld famously said “if it was a fact it wouldn’t be called intelligence”.
The recorded fate of the Iranian nuclear sites will be decided by the collection and assessment of difficult to reach raw intelligence feeds. These will include imagery, technical, communications and human intelligence, among many secret techniques.
The classified conclusions of these efforts are unlikely to make their way into the public realm, unless there is Congressional or Senate inquiry, like the one held after 9/11.
So, why does it matter?
There has been strong public interest in intelligence assessments since 9/11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Intelligence is often only seen in public when something has gone wrong – either that something was missed or the public has been misled. Inquiries into 9/11 criticised intelligence agencies for not putting together single strands of intelligence into a whole picture, revealing the plot and the attack.
Inquiries into the approach to the 2003 Iraq war suggested intelligence agencies had allowed their assessments to become shaped by political need, or had failed to adequately caution about what they did not know.
Successful intelligence operations nearly always mean that something damaging to the country or the public has been prevented. If agencies celebrated these successes loudly they might reveal something about their techniques and reach that is useful to our adversaries. So, our understanding of intelligence tends to be framed by popular culture – or by the inquiries around intelligence failures.
From these two sources, intelligence is simultaneously all-seeing and deeply flawed. Add in narratives around the “deep state” – a shorthand that accuses unnamed and publicly unaccountable government officials of frustrating the will of the people – and it should be no surprise that the public and politicians are sometimes confused about security intelligence and published assessmements.
In the case of the Iranian nuclear facilities, the importance of the intelligence picture is focused around politics, diplomacy and security. Donald Trump would obviously prefer an official narrative that his decision and orders have put back the Iranian nuclear programme by years. This is why he talks about the sites being obliterated. And it’s why his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has affirmed that her intelligence-led assessment agrees. That said, she has opted not to give testimony to the Senate.
When it comes diplomacy, the judgement of intelligence officials could do one of two things. It could either place Iran in a poorer negotiating position with no nuclear programme to provide it with the ultimate security. Or it could allow Tehran to present the country as an emerging nuclear power, with the added muscle that implies. This judgement will have an impact on Israel’s need to preemptively contain Iran. And in security terms, the classified judgement will also help to shape the next steps of the US president, his diplomats and his armed forces.
Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of niitonal intellgence, delivers the annual threat assessment. She testifies that Iran is not actively building a nuclear weapon.
The assessment given to the public may well be different from the one held within the administration. While uncomfortable for us outside of government circles, this is often a perfectly reasonable choice for a government to make. Security diplomacy is best done behind closed doors. Or at least, this used to be the case. Now Trump appears to be remaking the art of statecraft in public with his TruthSocial posts and his earthy and authentic language in press conferences.
Misinformation and public mistrust
Having a large gap between the secret intelligence assessment and the publicly acknowledged position can have stark consequences for a government. The 1971 Pentagon Papers are a good example of this.
These were prepared for the government about the progress of the Vietnam war and leaked to the press. The leaks highlighted the inaccuracy in government reporting to the American public about the progress of the war. The fallout included a number of official inquiries that shone a negative light on intelligence agencies. They also resulted in a strengthening of media freedoms.
Similarly, the 2003 Iraq war damaged the credibility of the US intelligence community. It became clear to that the unequivocal statements about Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be overstated and under-evidenced. The loss of trust, limitations on the executive use of intelligence and the losses to the US in blood and treasure in the Iraq campaign are still being felt in American politics.
Last, the Snowden leaks of 2013 highlighted the mismatch between what was understood about intelligence intrusion into private communications data, including internet browsing activities, and what was happening in the National Security Agency through programmes such as Prism.
The Snowden leaks had an impact on America’s standing with its allies and resulted in the USA Freedom Act in 2015. This imposed some limits on the data that US intelligence agencies can collect on American citizens and also clarified the use of wiretaps and tracking “lone wolf” terrorists.
The Snowden affair also fuelled a growing narrative about unaccountable deep state activity that has foregrounded online phenomena such as the conspiracy site QAnon. It has also boosted some populist politics that point to, and feed off the public suspicion on, mass surveillance and hidden government activities.
The lessons for the current debate are clear. The first is that using intelligence assessments to justify military actions contain enduring hazards for governments, given the propensity among public servants for leaking.
From that, it naturally follows that when published intelligence is shown to be incorrect, the unintended consequence for governments is a loss of trust and having fewer freedoms to make use of intelligence to protect the nation state.
Robert Dover has previously received research funding from the AHRC to examine lessons that can be drawn from intelligence and he and Michael Goodman published an edited collection from this project.
When Novak Djokovic limped out of the 2024 French Open with a torn meniscus in his knee, all eyes turned to whether he’d be fit for Wimbledon. And when Nick Kyrgios pulled out of Wimbledon for the third year running earlier this month due to a knee injury, fans were disappointed, but medical experts may not have been surprised.
These weren’t freak accidents. They were reminders of just how much stress elite tennis puts on the legs and feet. But the same risks apply to anyone picking up a racket this summer. From Centre Court to local parks, tennis takes a toll on the body that many players don’t appreciate.
Tennis demands explosive movement like lunges, pivots, sprints and sudden stops. Every serve starts with a push from the toes. Every rally shifts weight between the heel and forefoot. Unlike sports with linear movement, like sprinting, tennis places constant multi-directional stress on the feet and ankles – two of the most frequently injured body parts in the game.
Grass courts like Wimbledon’s are notoriously slick, even when dry. They offer less traction than hard courts and can increase the risk of slipping and twisting injuries. Ankle sprains and midfoot stress injuries are more common on these surfaces, particularly for players not wearing surface-appropriate shoes.
But problems aren’t limited to grass. Hard courts often trigger repetitive strain in the heel or forefoot. And while clay is more forgiving, it still demands relentless lateral movement. No matter the surface, tennis puts pressure on the small joints and bones of the foot.
Consequently, even the world’s best aren’t immune. Nick Kyrgios’s long-running foot issues have disrupted multiple seasons for him. Rafael Nadal has battled Mueller-Weiss syndrome, which is a rare condition that damages the navicular bone in the foot and requires specialist treatment and custom shoe-inserts.
In April 2024, French player Arthur Cazaux rolled his ankle at the Barcelona Open, posting a viral image of the swelling that underscored how brutal the sport can be.
What science says about foot injuries in tennis
Many foot and ankle injuries in tennis often don’t result from one big moment — they build slowly over time. Stress fractures in the navicular and metatarsals (small bones in the midfoot) are especially common in players who train and play often. These bones are repeatedly loaded during sprints, pivots and push-offs, and can become damaged without any obvious trauma.
Sprained ankles are another common problem. The ligaments on the outside of the ankle (known as the lateral ligaments) are particularly at risk during sudden changes in direction, especially on slippery surfaces. This is a major feature of tennis movement and makes ankle injuries hard to avoid without good support or strength.
Foot mechanics, which is the way the foot absorbs, transfers and responds to forces during movement, also play a key role in injury risk. Research shows that players shift their body weight across different areas of the foot depending on the shot. Over time, repeated pressure on the forefoot or heel can lead to tendon strain or bone stress injuries.
Ankle flexibility and lower limb strength also matter. Studies show that players with poor ankle mobility or control are not only more likely to lose power in their shots, they’re also more prone to overloading the foot and ankle during play.
Despite this, foot and ankle injuries still get overlooked in many tennis injury prevention plans. Most focus on the knees, hips or shoulders, leaving one of the most injury-prone parts of the body without enough attention or support.
The Wimbledon effect
Wimbledon inspires thousands to pick up a racket every summer. But this seasonal spike in participation is often matched by a rise in injuries, particularly among casual players.
Studies show that leg and foot injuries are prevalent among amateur tennis players. Ankle sprains, Achilles tendon issues and plantar fasciitis (pain in the bottom of the foot) are among the most common complaints.
Footwear is one of the main reasons for this. Professionals wear tennis-specific shoes tailored to surface type. Grass-court shoes, for example, have shallow pimples for traction without damaging the turf. But many recreational players hit the court in running shoes, which are designed for straight-line motion, not side-to-side movement. This increases the risk of slips, ankle rolls and stress to the plantar fascia.
Others ignore foot pain, assuming it’s normal or age-related. But aching arches, bruised heels or soreness across the midfoot may signal deeper issues like tendon overload, early stress fractures or plantar tissue damage.
How to protect your feet
So if you’re heading out to play tennis this summer, whether at a club or on the local court, a few small changes can help protect your feet:
Wear tennis shoes designed for the surface. Don’t rely on general trainers or running shoes.
Warm up properly. Include ankle rolls, calf raises and lateral drills (side-to-side movements).
Strengthen your feet between matches with balance work or resistance-band exercises. You can also do towel curls, which involves placing a towel on the floor and gripping it towards your arch with your toes.
Listen to pain. Discomfort in the heel, arch or midfoot isn’t “just tiredness”. It may be a warning sign.
Replace worn shoes regularly, especially if you play on grass where grip is crucial.
Protection = Avoid activities that aggravate pain and further injury.
Optimal loading = Gentle, controlled movement and weight-bearing as tolerated, aiming to promote tissue healing and prevent stiffness.
Ice = Apply ice to reduce swelling and pain, typically for 15-20 minutes every few hours.
Compression = Use an elastic bandage to help reduce swelling, but be mindful of circulation.
Elevation = Keep the injured ankle elevated to minimise swelling.
If pain doesn’t ease after 48 hours, or worsens during activity, speak to a podiatrist or physiotherapist. Stress fractures in particular can worsen without rest.
Wimbledon is a celebration of tennis at its most graceful and exciting. But it’s also a high-impact sport that places a lot of strain on the body.
Whether you’re serving aces at your club or just hitting a couple of balls with friends, your feet are your secret weapon and your first line of defence. Take care of them, and you’ll stay in the match for longer.
Craig Gwynne does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Forde, Assistant Professor – European Human Rights Law, Dublin City University
A special tribunal has been established by the international human rights organisation the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Ukrainian government to try crimes of aggression against Ukraine which could be used to hold Vladimir Putin and others to account for the February 2022 invasion and war crimes committed since.
The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, signed an agreement with CoE secretary general, Alain Berset, on June 25, setting up the special tribunal. Subject to it securing the necessary political backing and budget the tribunal will be established within the framework of the CoE (which is not part of the European Union.
Work on the first phase of the court could progress in 2026. In his speech to the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly in Strasbourg, Zelensky was cautious in his optimism but stressed that the agreement was “just the beginning”.
“It will take strong political and legal cooperation to make sure every Russian war criminal faces justice – including Putin,” he said. He knows, through years of hard experience as he travelled the world seeking help from Ukraine’s allies, that political support can be fleeting.
A new Nuremberg?
Inspired by ad hoc courts established after major conflicts such as the Nuremberg tribunal after the second world war or, more recently the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the 1990s, the Ukraine has been established with the aim of holding to account the perpetrators of the first full-scale armed conflict in Europe in the 21st century.
The prohibition against the crime of aggression is a basic principle of international law, and a key part of the UN charter.
In principle, the crime of aggression should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). But as Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute which underpins the court, that option was ruled out. Similarly, Russia’s veto on the UN security council meant that it would be impossible in practice to practically set up a court under the mandate of the UN – as the ICTY was in 1993.
The Ukraine special tribunal, which was developed by a Core Group, made up of states plus the EU and the Council of Europe, seeks to fill an obvious accountability gap. If the illegal invasion is left unpunished, it would set a dangerous precedent.
Such impunity would embolden Russia and inspire others with revanchist ambitions, undermining an already shaky international order. The US, which was instrumental in setting up the Core Group under the presidency of Joe Biden, withdrew in March 2025 when Donald Trump took office.
The statute of the special tribunal sets out that the court will be based on Ukrainian law and will have a strong link to the country’s legal system. Ukraine’s prosecutor-general will play a key role in the proceedings, referring evidence for further investigation by the tribunal. But it will be internationally funded with international judges and prosecutors, and strong cooperation with the International Criminal Court. It is likely to be based in the Hague – although this has yet to be confirmed.
The need for accountability for the illegal invasion of Ukraine was stressed in a resolution of the UN general assembly in February 2023 as the war headed into its second year. The resolution, which calls for “appropriate, fair and independent investigations and prosecutions at the national or international level” to “ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes” was approved by an overwhelming majority of 141 states. Any country in the world can join this core group to support its establishment.
Holding leaders accountable
Unlike previous international courts, the caseload is likely to be extremely narrow. There are likely to be dozens of charges rather than hundreds or thousands, which is perhaps reassuring in terms of managing costs.
The tribunal will focus on those “most responsible” including the so-called “troika”: the president Vladimir Putin, prime minister Mikhail Mishustin and the minister for foreign affairs Sergey Lavrov. Charges may also be levelled against the leadership of Belarus and North Korea for their role in aiding, abetting and actively participating in the war of aggression. But don’t expect Kim Jong-un or Alexander Lukashenko in the dock anytime soon.
The Court has opted for a novel approach to a longstanding customary rule by noting that heads of state are not functionally immune from prosecution. But it adds that indictments won’t be confirmed until such time as the suspect is no longer in office.
Trials can take place in absentia if the accused fails to attend and all reasonable steps taken to apprehend them have failed. But, like the ICC, the court will still rely on states to apprehend and physically transfer indicted individuals in due course. This will inevitably limit the chances of seeing any of the key individuals actually in a court, something that has also dogged the ICC.
The fact that a tribunal has now been set up is a major development in international criminal justice. But it is now in a sort of purgatory, existing and not existing at the same time. To become operational, another treaty known as an enlarged partial agreement must be signed by interested states. This will have to be ratified by many national parliaments, depending on their constitutions. This process could take years.
But simply by creating the framework for the tribunal, the Council of Europe has demonstrated its commitment to ensuring accountability. In a further development, the European Court of Human Rights delivers its long-awaited judgment in the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia on July 9.
This concerns “complaints about the conflict in eastern Ukraine involving pro-Russian separatists which began in 2014, including the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, and the Russian military operations in Ukraine since 2022”. The judgement will add further momentum to these accountability efforts.
Symbolic as it may seem, this week’s agreement creates a real opportunity for the international community to send a message that impunity for international aggression is intolerable – not just for the victims, but for all who believe in the rule of law.
Andrew Forde is affiliated with Dublin City University (Assistant Professor, European Human Rights Law). He is also, separately, affiliated with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (Commissioner).
On July 3, I’ll be discussing Youth, Masculinity and the Political Divide at an event with The Conversation and Cumberland Lodge at Newcastle University (get your tickets here).
Young people involved in the panel have brought up class and the decline of industry as topics for discussion. This is particularly fitting, given my ongoing PhD research exploring masculinity and the contemporary lives of working-class men in Tyneside.
Tyneside is an area in north-east England which was once a major centre of Britain’s Industrial Revolution. Its coal mining, shipbuilding and heavy engineering industries were seen as the backbone of the region, upheld by a large industrial skilled working class.
As with many northern towns, widespread deindustrialisation, predominantly around the 1970s and 1980s, dramatically changed the area. At its peak, Swan Hunter – a globally recognised shipyard and significant employer in Wallsend (North Tyneside) and the surrounding area – employed up to 12,000 people. By 2005, the year before its closure, only 357 direct workers were employed.
The process of deindustrialisation affected not just the type of work that was done, but how men in the region saw themselves. As I am currently researching, the effects of this ring true today.
Boys and girls are together facing an uncertain world. But research shows they are diverging when it comes to attitudes about masculinity, feminism and gender equality.
Social media, politics, and identity all play a role. But what’s really going on with boys and girls? Join The Conversation UK and Cumberland Lodge’s Youth and Democracy project at Newcastle University for a discussion of these issues with young people and academic experts. Tickets available here.
Like other regions in Britain, Tyneside shifted from mostly masculine manual labour to a largely “feminised” service sector. Informal work, subcontracting and part-time work proliferated while rates of trade unionism declined.
Changes in industry and understandings of social class have a surprising amount to do with how we think about masculinity. Paul Willis’ 1977 seminal study Learning to Labour explores how the links between social class and masculinity are forged early in life.
Our ideas about masculinity are produced, reinforced and upheld through institutions such as schools, the workplace and media. There is no singular “form” of masculinity – men perform it in many different ways. There is, however, hegemonic masculinity. This is the most dominant form of masculinity in a society at any given time, valued above other forms of gender identities that do not match up to the dominant ideal.
“Traditional” views of masculinity were particularly prevalent during the height of industry in the area. These views centred around ideas of men as providers and ideas of toughness. Value was placed on a willingness (or need) to do physical and often hazardous labour.
The demise of “masculine” labour in areas such as Tyneside disrupted not only economic stability but also male identity and pride. As broader socioeconomic shifts unfolded across England, many working class men found themselves outside of those traditional masculine ideals around labour.
This has been well documented, particularly in ethnographic work such as Anoop Nayak’s 2006 study Displaced Masculinities. This key text explored how working-class boys navigate “what it is to be a ‘man’ beyond the world of industrial paid employment”.
Class and identity in a changing world
Early findings from my research suggest that today, class (and working-class identity) is not as salient in mens’ everyday lives. Participants in my study have spoken about class, but it does not overtly feature in how they make sense of their identities. As one man put it: “Class means you have to use yourself to earn money. Your labour, that’s what I understand by it, but I’ve never thought about class much.”
What happens to men when an area’s strong working-class identity declines, but there is no narrative to replace it? There is a risk that harmful ideas about masculinity step in to fill a gap left by declining industry and continued economic inequality. We have seen this in extensive research in the US about masculinity, class and the appeal of the far right.
This is why class must be part of the discussion around the rise of the “manosphere” – online communities and influencers sharing content about masculinity that can veer into misogyny. Class politics also presents a positive and unifying alternative.
It is imperative that working-class areas and the people within them aren’t portrayed as somehow inherently susceptible to, or represented by, the narratives of the manosphere. Indeed, the men I have spoken to have not been particularly pulled in by the manosphere. However they do recognise the feeling of being overlooked and not measuring up to idealised “standards” about masculinity.
The “manosphere” preys on this, tapping into boys’ and young men’s fears around masculinity and their (perceived) social status. Narrow portrayals of what success looks like puts immense pressure on young people to live up to unattainable standards.
As I have written before, mansophere content often relies on messages around hyper-individualism that ignore the broader effects of class, the economy and political views.
Manosphere messaging that “most men are invisible” and that the system is now “rigged against men” fits neatly with young boys’ and men’s anxieties about not having the same place or opportunities in society that previous generations of men might have had.
Without honest discussion about working-class communities and the effects of deindustrialisation on identity, this messaging may become alluring in postindustrial towns.
Sophie Lively receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council as part of the Northern Ireland and North East Doctoral Training Partnership.
But rather than charting a path to stability, the CPT remains mired in dysfunction as Haiti’s crisis deepens with no end in sight. Armed gangs now control most of the capital, more than a million Haitians have been displaced and half the country faces acute food insecurity.
The United Nations says the country may be reaching a point of no return and risks falling into “total chaos.”
Haitian friends tell me their whole country feels as blocked as the barricaded streets and choke points used by the gangs to control the capital.
A security crisis paralyzing everything
The impasse is undoubtedly shaped by entrenched gang violence. Armed groups have been used by political players for political ends in Haiti for decades.
But now, new, well-organized armed gangs have emerged as political entities in their own right.
For example, the G9 Alliance, the most notorious of gangs — actually a federation of gangs — is led by former police officer Jimmy “Barbecue” Chérizier.
Chérizier presents himself on social media as a revolutionary figure fighting the elites, but in the streets of Port-au-Prince most, see him as a violent criminal.
Last year, the G9 merged with rivals to form a coalition called Viv Ansamn (Live Together). Led by Chérizier and others, the group forced Prime Minister Ariel Henry from power. Henry had become prime pinister after the assassination of Haiti’s last elected head of state, President Jovenel Moïse, in July 2021, despite himself being implicated in the assassination.
Viv Ansamn’s takeover of the capital confirms gangs have become an autonomous political force. They have since expanded their power through their control over fuel supplies, critical infrastructure and key choke points.
It’s telling that the gangs have become so powerful despite the presence of a UN-approved, Kenya-led Multinational Security Support (MSS) mission. The mission has been in Haiti since shortly after Henry was forced out of power.
But with limited scope and funding from donor countries, including the United States, Canada and Ecuador, the mission has failed to achieve any major successes. Indeed, by the UN’s own estimates, gang violence continues to have a “devastating impact” on the population, despite the presence of the mission.
Last month, the U.S. government designated Viv Ansamn and Gran Grif, Haiti’s two most powerful armed gangs, as terrorist organizations. Canada and others have also imposed sanctions on politicians and gang leaders, and perhaps this could lead to more sanctions against those who most directly benefit from the crisis. But for residents of Port-au-Prince, little has changed on the ground, where many feel the gangs are holding the country hostage.
Democratic vacuum with no clear path forward
A common saying in Haiti goes like this: peyi’m pa gen leta, my country has no state. Once a criticism of a particular government, it now feels literal. Haiti has no elected national officials.
The CPT was established by the Organization of American States after Henry’s ousting, but has has done little to restore democracy. Elections are impossible under the current security conditions.
Instead, the CPT has become another obstacle to resolution. Mired in internal conflict, some members have been accused of bribery. With no framework for political compromise, the council reflects a system where some key players actually benefit from the political impasse.
Governing structures that can’t govern
Haiti is now in uncharted territory. The CPT operates in a legal vacuum, making decisions without a clear mandate or authority.
Still, the council is moving forward with a controversial plan to rewrite the Haitian constitution. The proposed changes will fundamentally alter Haiti’s government structure, including abolishing the senate and the prime minister, allowing presidents to hold consecutive terms, changing election procedures and allowing dual citizens and Haitians living abroad to run for office.
This constitutional reform highlights the paradox at the heart of Haiti’s crisis: an institution with questionable legitimacy is attempting to redesign the very framework that would determine its own authority.
These aren’t just procedural problems: they represent fundamental questions about who has the authority to govern and how decisions get made in a country where democratic institutions have always been fragile.
International responses miss the mark
International groups, including the UN, the Organization of American States and the Core Group that includes the United States, Canada and France, have overseen Haiti’s politics for decades. But their influence has often backfired. Many in Haiti see the international community as directly responsible for the current crisis.
The MSS mission is a stop gap at best and a liability at worst. It is insufficient for the scale of the crisis.
Some observers have called for a full UN peacekeeping mission, but there is little support for it and such a mission would likely face resistance within Haiti given the country’s fraught history with international interventions.
Can the international community undo the damage it has already done? And can Haiti make it through the impasse without the international community?
Beyond the impasse: What needs to change
There are no easy solutions. Addressing gang violence without legitimate governing institutions won’t create lasting stability. Yet the path to a legitimate government remains unclear as organizing elections without basic security is unrealistic.
The international community must stop treating Haiti as a series of separate crises requiring separate responses. The current piecemeal approach treats symptoms while ignoring the underlying causes that block political resolutions.
For Haitians, the stakes could not be higher. The question isn’t whether change is needed, but whether the international community and Haitian leaders can move beyond the impasse before the situation deteriorates even further.
Greg Beckett receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Ever since the first fragments of pterosaur bone surfaced nearly 250 years ago, palaeontologists have puzzled over one question: how did these close cousins of land-bound dinosaurs take to the air and evolve powered flight? The first flying vertebrates seemed to appear on the geological stage fully formed, leaving almost no trace of their first tentative steps into the air.
Taken at face value, the fossil record implies that pterosaurs suddenly originated in the later part of the Triassic period (around 215 million years ago), close to the equator on the northern super-continent Pangaea. They then spread quickly between the Triassic and the Jurassic periods, about 10 million years later, in the wake of a mass extinction that was most likely caused by massive volcanic activity.
Most of the handful of Triassic specimens come from narrow seams of dark shale in Italy and Austria, with other fragments discovered in Greenland, Argentina and the southwestern US. These skeletons appear fully adapted for flight, with a hyper-elongated fourth finger supporting membrane-wings. Yet older rocks show no trace of intermediate gliders or other transitional forms that you might expect as evidence of pterosaurs’ evolution over time.
There are two classic competing explanations for this. The literal reading says pterosaurs evolved elsewhere and did not reach those regions where most have been discovered until very late in the Triassic period, by which time they were already adept flyers. The sceptical reading notes that pterosaurs’ wafer-thin, hollow bones could easily vanish from the fossil record, dissolve, get crushed or simply be overlooked, creating this false gap.
Eudimorphodon ranzii fossil from Bergamo in 1973 is one of many pterosaur discoveries from southern Europe. Wikimedia, CC BY-SA
For decades, the debate stalled as a result of too few fossils or too many missing rocks. This impasse began to change in 2020, when scientists identified the closest relatives of pterosaurs in a group of smallish upright reptiles called lagerpetids.
From comparing many anatomical traits across different species, the researchers established that pterosaurs and lagerpetids shared many similarities including their skulls, skeletons and inner ears. While this discovery did not bring any “missing link” to the table, it showed what the ancestor of pterosaurs would have looked like: a rat-to-dog-sized creature that lived on land and in trees.
This brought new evidence about when pterosaurs may have originated. Pterosaurs and lagerpetids like Scleromochlus, a small land-dwelling reptile, diverged at some point after the end-Permian mass extinction. It occurred some 250 million years ago, 35 million years before the first pterosaur appearance in the fossil record.
Scleromochlus is one of the lagerpetids, the closest known relatives to the pterosaurs. Gabriel Ugueto
Pterosaurs and their closest kin did not share the same habitats, however. Our new study, featuring new fossil maps, shows that soon after lagerpetids appeared (in southern Pangaea), they spread across wide areas, including harsh deserts, that many other groups were unable to get past. Lagerpetids lived both in these deserts and in humid floodplains.
They tolerated hotter, drier settings better than any early pterosaur, implying that they had evolved to cope with extreme temperatures. Pterosaurs, by contrast, were more restricted. Their earliest fossils cluster in the river and lake beds of the Chinle and Dockum basins (southwest US) and in moist coastal belts fringing the northern arm of the Tethys Sea, a huge area that occupied today’s Alps.
Scientists have inferred from analysing a combination of fossil distributions, rock features and climate simulations that pterosaurs lived in areas that were warm but not scorching. The rainfall would have been comparable to today’s tropical forests rather than inland deserts.
This suggests that the earliest flying dinosaurs may have lived in tree canopies, using foliage both for take-off and to protect themselves from predators and heat. As a result of this confined habitat, the distances that they flew may have been quite limited.
Changing climates
We were then able to add a fresh dimension to the story using a method called ecological niche modelling. This is routinely used in modern conservation to project where endangered animals and plants might live as the climate gets hotter. By applying this approach to later Triassic temperatures, rainfall and coastlines, we asked where early pterosaurs lived, regardless of whether they’ve shown up there in the fossil record.
Many celebrated fossil sites in Europe emerge as poor pterosaur habitat until very late in the Triassic period: they were simply too hot, too dry or otherwise inhospitable before the Carnian age, around 235 million years ago. The fact that no specimens have been discovered there that are more than about 215 million years old may be because the climate conditions were still unsuitable or simply because we don’t have the right type of rocks preserved of that age.
In contrast, parts of the south-western US, Morocco, India, Brazil, Tanzania and southern China seem to have offered welcoming environments several million years earlier than the age of our oldest discoveries. This rewrites the search map. If pterosaurs could have thrived in those regions much more than 215 million years ago, but we have not found them there, the problem may again lie not with biology but with geology: the right rocks have not been explored, or they preserve fragile fossils only under exceptional conditions.
Our study flags a dozen geological formations, from rivers with fine sediment deposits to lake beds, as potential prime targets for the next breakthrough discovery. They include the Timezgadiouine beds of Morocco, the Guanling Formation of south-west China and, in South America, several layers of rock from the Carnian age, such as the Santa Maria Formation, Chañares Formation and Ischigualasto Formation.
Pterosaurs were initially confined to tropical treetops near the equator. When global climates shifted and forested corridors opened, pterosaurs’ wings catapulted them into every corner of the planet and ultimately carried them through one of Earth’s greatest extinctions. What began as a tale of missing fossils has become a textbook example of how climate, ecology and evolutionary science have come together to illuminate a fragmentary history that has intrigued paleontologists for over two centuries.
Davide Foffa is funded by Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions: Individual (Global) Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020; No.101022550), and by the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851–Science Fellowship
Alfio Alessandro Chiarenza receives funding from The Royal Society (Newton International Fellowship NIFR1231802)
Emma Dunne does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Matthew Robertson, Research Scientist, Fisheries and Marine Institute, Memorial University of Newfoundland
The harbour in Bonavista, Newfoundland. Major reforms could fundamentally reshape fisheries science and management in Canada(Sally LeDrew/Wikimedia commons), CC BY-SA
Carney’s statement was made in response to protesting fish harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador who decried recent DFO decision-making for multiple fisheries, including Northern cod and snow crab.
Although addressing industry concerns is important, any change to DFO decision-making must serve the broader public interest, which includes commitments to reconciliation and conserving biodiversity.
Major reforms could fundamentally reshape fisheries science and management in Canada, yet most Canadians are unaware of how DFO’s science-management process works, or why change might be needed.
The DFO’s dual mandate
DFO has long been criticized for its dual mandate, which involves both supporting economic growth and conserving the environment.
For organizations like DFO to be trusted by the public, they need to produce information and policies that are credible, relevant and legitimate.
However, DFO’s dual mandates have been viewed as antithetical and have at the least created a perceived conflict of interest. The issue at stake is how science advice from DFO can be considered independent, if it is also supposed to serve commercial interests.
One solution to this problem would be to shift control over the economic viability of fisheries to provinces. This is not a radical idea by any means, as most of the economic value of the fishery arises after fish are brought to harbour.
This was driven driven by a concern that the department has not focused enough on provincial and territorial fisheries issues. This shouldn’t be seen as a criticism of DFO, but rather an opportunity to embrace differentiated responsibility.
DFO could maintain regulatory control for fisheries, like enforcing the Fisheries Act, defining licence conditions and performing long-term monitoring and assessments. As included in the modernized Fisheries Act, it could still consider the social and economic objectives in decision-making.
Regional decision-making
DFO is structured into regions with their own science and management branches, but many decisions end up being made by staff at DFO headquarters in Ottawa. In addition, the federal fisheries minister retains ministerial discretion for almost every decision, something that has been criticized as being inequitable.
“Because of…risk aversion, much more of the decision-making has now been bumped up to higher levels. So I like to facetiously state that I am no longer a manager, I am a recommender.”
Centralized decision-making can limit communication between regional scientists and managers and federal government policymakers.
This communication gap can make it difficult for managers to use the latest science and adjust policies quickly and it can also lead to recommended policies that are challenging to implement at the local level.
Handing management decision-making power to regional fisheries managers could therefore benefit science and policy, and contribute to decisions that are deemed more equitable by those impacted.
However, because the meetings are focused on DFO ecological science, they are not designed to formally consider stakeholder and rights holder knowledge. This can lead to two key issues. First, it may blur the line between peer-reviewed science and rights holder and stakeholder input, reducing the credibility of the scientific advice.
Second, the valuable information provided by rights holders and stakeholders may be overlooked since it is not shared in a setting designed to incorporate it.
These problems could be addressed by developing procedures through which stakeholders and rights holders contribute their local and traditional knowledge to better inform ecological and socio-economic considerations.
Regardless of how rights holders and stakeholders perspectives are included, the process should be clearly structured and documented.
By reconsidering DFO’s mandate, decentralizing management decision-making and improving the scientific consideration of varied forms of knowledge, DFO could make decisions that are closer to the wharf.
Matthew Robertson receives funding from the Canadian Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant and the Fisheries & Oceans Canada (DFO) Atlantic Fisheries Fund (AFF).
Megan Bailey receives research funding from multiple sources, including NSERC, SSHRC, CIRNAC, Genome Atlantic, Nippon Foundation Ocean Nexus Centre, Ocean Frontier Institute (through a Canada First Research Excellence Fund), and the Canada Research Chairs program.
Tyler Eddy receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant, Fisheries & Oceans Canada (DFO) Atlantic Fisheries Fund (AFF) and Sustainable Fisheries Science Fund (SFSF), the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF), and the Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) Indigenous Community-Based Climate Monitoring (ICBCM) Program.
George Orwell had a traumatic relationship with the sea. In August 1947, while he was writing Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) on the island of Jura in the Scottish Hebrides, he went on a fishing trip with his young son, nephew and niece.
Having misread the tidal schedules, on the way back Orwell mistakenly piloted the boat into rough swells. He was pulled into the fringe of the Corryvreckan whirlpool off the coasts of Jura and Scarba. The boat capsized and Orwell and his relatives were thrown overboard.
It was a close call – a fact recorded with characteristic detachment by Orwell in his diary that same evening: “On return journey today ran into the whirlpool & were all nearly drowned.” Though he seems to have taken the experience in his stride, this may have been a trauma response: detachment ensures the ability to persist after a near-death experience.
We don’t know for sure if Nineteen Eighty-Four was influenced by the Corryvreckan incident. But it’s clear that the novel was written by a man fixated on water’s terrifying power.
This article is part of Rethinking the Classics. The stories in this series offer insightful new ways to think about and interpret classic books and artworks. This is the canon – with a twist.
Nineteen Eighty-Four isn’t typically associated with fear of death by water. Yet it’s filled with references to sinking ships, drowning people and the dread of oceanic engulfment. Fear of drowning is a torment that social dissidents might face in Room 101, the torture chamber to which all revolutionaries are sent in the appropriately named totalitarian state of Oceania.
An early sequence in the novel describes a helicopter attack on a ship full of refugees, who are bombed as they fall into the sea. The novel’s protagonist, Winston Smith, has a recurring nightmare in which he dreams of his long-lost mother and sister trapped “in the saloon of a sinking ship, looking up at him through the darkening water”.
The sight of them “drowning deeper every minute” takes Winston back to a culminating moment in his childhood when he stole chocolate from his mother’s hand, possibly condemning his sister to starvation. These watery graves imply that Winston is drowning in guilt.
The “wateriness” of Nineteen Eighty-Four may have another interesting historical source. In his essay My Country Right or Left (1940), Orwell recalls that when he had just become a teenager he read about the “atrocity stories” of the first world war.
Orwell states in this same essay that “nothing in the whole war moved [him] so deeply as the loss of the Titanic had done a few years earlier”, in 1912. What upset Orwell most about the Titanic disaster was that in its final moments it “suddenly up-ended and sank bow foremost, so that the people clinging to the stern were lifted no less than 300 feet into the air before they plunged into the abyss”.
Sinking ships and dying civilisations
Orwell never forgot this image. Something similar to it appears in his novel Keep the Aspidistra Flying (1936) where the idea of a sinking passenger liner evokes the collapse of modern civilisation, just as the Titanic disaster evoked the end of Edwardian industrial confidence two decades beforehand.
The Titanic disaster had a profound impact on Orwell. Wiki Commons
References to sinking ships and drowning people appear at key moments in many other works by Orwell, too. But did the full impact of the Titanic surface in Nineteen Eighty-Four?
Sinking ships were part of Orwell’s descriptive toolkit. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, a novel driven by memories of unsympathetic water, they convey nightmares. Filled with references to water and liquidity, it’s one of the most aqueous novels Orwell produced, relying for many of its most shocking episodes on imagery of desperate people drowning or facing imminent death on sinking sea craft.
The thought of trapped passengers descending into the depths survives in Winston’s traumatic memories of his mother and sister, who, in the logic of his dreams, are alive inside a sinking ship’s saloon.
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.
There’s no way to prove that the Nineteen Eighty-Four is “about” the Titanic disaster, but in the novel, and indeed in Orwell’s wider body of work, there are too many tantalising hints to let the matter rest.
Thinking about fear of death by water takes us into Orwell’s terrors just as it takes us into Winston’s, allowing readers to see the frightened boy inside the adult man and, indeed, inside the author who dreamed up one of the 20th century’s most famous nightmares.
Beyond the canon
As part of the Rethinking the Classics series, we’re asking our experts to recommend a book or artwork that tackles similar themes to the canonical work in question, but isn’t (yet) considered a classic itself. Here is Nathan Waddell’s suggestion:
As soon as the news broke of the Titanic’s sinking, literary works of all shapes and sizes started to appear in tribute to the disaster and its victims. As the century went on, and as research into the tragedy developed (particularly after the ships wreckage was discovered in 1985), more nuanced literary responses to the sinking became possible.
One such response is Beryl Bainbridge’s Whitbread-prize-winning novel Every Man for Himself (1996). It reimagines the disaster from the first-person perspective of an imaginary character, Morgan, the fictional nephew of the historically real financier J. P. Morgan (who was due to sail on the Titanic but changed plans before it sailed).
This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.
Nathan Waddell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Chandrima Chakraborty, Professor, English and Cultural Studies; Director, Centre for Global Peace, Justice and Health, McMaster University
The June 12 Air India crash in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India, with 230 passengers and 12 crew members aboard is sending deep reverberations through a group of Canadians who know all too well the shock, grief and horror of losing loved ones in hauntingly similar circumstances.
They are the families of those killed in the bombing of Air India Flight 182 en route from Canada to India 40 years ago this month.
As reports of the Ahmedabad crash came in, the WhatsApp account of the Air India Flight 182 families immediately flooded with expressions of shock, concern, sympathy and memories triggered by the latest incident.
On June 23, 1985, Flight 182 was brought down by terrorist bombs created and planted on Canadian soil. The devastating mid-air explosion occurred over the Atlantic Ocean near Ireland. It killed all 329 passengers and crew, including 268 Canadians. The crew and most of the passengers were of Indian origin.
Investigations into the causes of the crash of Air India Flight 171, en route to London’s Gatwick airport, shortly after take-off are still underway. At least 279 people died in the crash, which also impacted people on the ground.
Acknowledging losses as significant
A recent public conference at McMaster University commemorated the 40th anniversary of Flight 182, bringing together Indian and Canadian families, researchers, creative artists and community members.
Book cover for ‘Remembering Air India The Art of Public Mourning,’ edited by Chandrima Chakraborty, Amber Dean and Angela Failler. University of Alberta Press
The conference dealt with critical themes, including the challenge of Flight 182 families recovering from their losses within a climate of broad indifference among their fellow Canadians.
Regardless of what may have caused the more recent crash in western India, these Canadian families know the shock and loss that a new set of victims’ families are facing, and how important it is to support them.
Yet according to a 2023 Angus Reid poll, “nine out of 10 Canadians say they have little or no knowledge of the worst single instance of the mass killing of their fellow citizens.” That essentially means the bombing has yet to penetrate the consciousness of everyday Canadians or evoke shared grief or public mourning.
The families continue to carry the torch of remembrance as they organize annual memorial vigils every June 23. Few others attend. Many victims’ relatives have died since 1985. Some spouses, siblings or parents are now in their 80s, wondering why the bombing is still not widely discussed in schools or in public discourse.
At last month’s conference, my research team launched the Air India Flight 182 archive to counter this collective amnesia and lack of acknowledgement.
Canadian archival consultant and writer Laura Millar has said that archives act as “touchstones to memory” and can aid the process of transforming individual memories into collective remembering. Adopting NYU professor Carol Gilligan’s ethics of care for the archive, we have been consulting with families to find ways to share their grief with the public.
The Flight 182 memory archive — both physical and digital — serves as a repository for artefacts, first-person narratives, memorabilia and creative works related to the tragedy produced by family members. Family donations of artefacts such as dance videos and pilot wings redirect notions of archives away from a documental deposit. Hopefully, they can move the public to learn and care for the impacts of the Flight 182 bombing.
The archive is a publicly accessible record of the tragedy, where scholars and everyday citizens can learn about the victims and their families.
While the archive articulates the demand from families that the bombing of Flight 182 and its aftermath be incorporated into Canadian national consciousness, establishing this archive alone will not be enough to elevate the memory of Flight 182 to the place it deserves.
But at least it establishes a rich, permanent academic and personal legacy for the community of mourners, and for the Canadian and global public to find it, use it and learn from its many lessons.
Families of those on board the 1985 flight are preparing to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the terror bombing of Flight 182 that has devastated their lives.
As we learn more about the tragic Air India Flight 171 crash on June 12, the lessons of Flight 182 will hopefully prevent a new set of families from feeling the pain of indifference on top of the unimaginable agony of loss they’re already experiencing.
Chandrima Chakraborty receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
.jpg){kind=link}
