Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Astell-Burt, Professor of Population Health and Environmental Data Science, NHMRC Boosting Dementia Research Leadership Fellow, University of Wollongong

People who live in regional or remote areas may be at lower risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, according to our recent research.

Using data from more 260,000 adults in New South Wales who were aged 45 and over, we found those living in regional or remote areas of the state had a 6% to 19% lower risk of being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease over 11 years, compared with their city counterparts.

We identified diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease using the first prescription of a group of medications collectively referred to as cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine. These are prescribed after someone gains a mini-mental state examination score consistent with Alzheimer’s disease, which is then confirmed by a specialist.

Some previous research suggests people living in rural areas may be at a higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. But our results tell a different story.

Read more: Nine things that can affect whether you get dementia – and what you can do about them

The role of air pollution

Research has long told us that air pollution is bad for our health. Emerging research suggests air pollution could also play a role in the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

The problem isn’t just the stuff in the air you can see. The tiny particles you can’t see are the most harmful. Once you breathe them in, they can enter the bloodstream and travel to every major organ, including the brain.

People living in Australia’s largest cities are generally exposed to higher levels of air pollution, which could help to partly explain why we found a higher risk of Alzheimer’s disease it city dwellers.

But it’s unlikely to be the only factor.

What’s happening in the brain?

Let’s consider the pathway by which many scientists think Alzheimer’s disease may develop, and then work backwards.

Many scientists, though not all, suggest Alzheimer’s disease coincides with – and may be caused by – an abnormal build-up of a particular type of protein, called amyloid beta peptide, in the brain.

Accumulating large amounts of amyloid beta peptide may create plaques that cause inflammation, destroy synapses, kill neurons and result in the death of brain cells consistent with Alzheimer’s disease.

Read more: What causes Alzheimer’s disease? What we know, don’t know and suspect

If this hypothesis is correct, we’re looking for ways to reduce the abnormal accumulation of amyloid beta. Admittedly that is a big “if”, given largely disappointing outcomes of drug trials focused on clearing amyloid beta so far.

Research on mice suggests sleep may be able to help clear amyloid beta.

Studies in humans also suggest that regular physical activity and social interactions may help to reduce the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, potentially via amyloid beta reduction.

These things might be harder in cities

It’s not always easy to get a good night’s sleep. Studies suggest environmental factors that co-occur within urban areas, such as chronic noise, air quality and heat may influence how much sleep you get and whether you feel sufficiently refreshed when you wake up.

Urban planning can influence participation in physical activity. Car-centred urban sprawl, for example, remains a major barrier in getting people walking and moving in many Australian cities.

Meanwhile, men and women over 65 living in Australia’s major cities were more likely than their regional peers to report a lack of social support.

All of these factors, including air pollution, may contribute some explanation to the results of our study.

But it’s important to note that accessibility to health care may play a role. People in regional and remote NSW generally have to travel longer distances and have less choice than those based in cities. This may lead to lag times in the detection of Alzheimer’s disease, which would affect our results.

Connect with nature, wherever you are

Living nearby more green space has been associated with better cognition among adults living in Spain, Scotland and England.

These studies are backed up by decades of experimental studies that show contact with nature can provide stress relief and lower blood pressure.

Public green spaces have the added benefit of providing spaces for outdoor social and physical recreation and may also help to improve our sleep.

Read more: Green space – how much is enough, and what’s the best way to deliver it?

Green space tends to be more abundant in regional and remote areas compared with major cities, which may help to explain why we found an elevated risk of Alzheimer’s disease in major cities.

But no matter whether you live in the country or city, try to make use of whatever green spaces you have around you. Relax in the garden or make regular visits to local parks – your older self will thank you for it.

– ref. People living in rural areas may be at lower risk of Alzheimer’s disease – http://theconversation.com/people-living-in-rural-areas-may-be-at-lower-risk-of-alzheimers-disease-112417

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Jarvis, Senior Lecturer in Education, Flinders University

Less than half (38%) of Australian teachers feel prepared to teach students with special needs when they finish their formal training. This is despite 74% having trained to teach in mixed-ability settings as part of their studies.

The latest Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) shows teachers across the OECD felt professional development opportunities were particularly inadequate for teaching students with special needs.

Students with special needs are students for whom a learning need has been formally identified due to cognitive, physical or emotional difficulties.

According to the TALIS report, nearly 30% of teachers in Australia work in classes where at least 10% of students have special needs. The report adds to a body of research suggesting teachers feel unprepared to teach students with special needs in mixed-ability classrooms.

So, how can we better prepare and support teachers for the reality of diverse Australian classrooms? Investing in high-quality pathways to qualification for special education teachers, and expecting every Australian school to employ at least one specialist teacher to support teachers and students, would be a worthwhile place to start.

Better teacher preparation to begin with

Depending on the data source, between 8% and 20% of school-age children have identified disabilities or special educational needs.

Teachers are expected to design learning experiences for students of all abilities and support students with disabilities to participate in learning. This is set out in a national set of professional standards, introduced in 2011, that guide the program content for initial teacher qualifications.

But some critics believe the standards don’t go far enough in relation to teaching students with special needs. Typically, teacher education programs include a semester unit related to teaching students with special needs.

Traditionally, the content was taught “categorically”, meaning lecturers provided introductory information about multiple categories of special need. Contemporary units have shifted away from the categorical model, recognising that teaching in diverse classrooms is more complex than just responding to one individual need at a time.

But while a semester unit can focus on key concepts and practices, these need to be reinforced throughout the program. In fact, given the nature of today’s classrooms, they should be at the heart of the program. Preservice teachers need support to understand evidence-based inclusive practices, address common concerns and misconceptions about inclusion, and apply strategies in practice.

Even with excellent preservice education, a graduating teacher, by definition, is inexperienced. Teaching students with special needs requires skills that develop with time and ongoing support.

Yet, only 37% of early career teachers (those in their first five years of practice) in the survey said they work with an assigned mentor.

Employ qualified specialist teachers

In the TALIS report, almost one in five principals reported the quality of their school’s inclusive education was hindered by a shortage of teachers who were competent in teaching students with special needs.

Not every school is required to employ qualified special education teachers. And the percentage of schools with at least one qualified special education teacher is not known.

One study found even when schools advertise for a special education teacher or coordinator, they often fail to list formal special education qualifications among the selection criteria. And less than one-third explicitly call for special education experience.

Further, there is no nationally recognised pathway to qualification as a special education teacher in Australia. Special education is not a recognised area of specialisation in the standards that guide accreditation of teacher education programs.

This makes it difficult to design specialist undergraduate degrees. At the same time, there is no financial incentive for teachers to do postgraduate qualifications. Under these conditions, it is hard to see how the shortage of qualified specialist teachers will be addressed.

Countries including the US and the UK have developed national, professional standards detailing essential knowledge and skills for special education teachers. These have been formally adopted and guide the content of accredited teacher education programs.

Both countries have clear regulations about qualifications and/or licensure for employment as a special education teacher or coordinator (in the US, these are supported by legislation).

Australia is lagging behind in these key areas, despite calls from researchers and professional associations.

Quality professional development

The TALIS report shows teachers prefer professional development opportunities in which they collaborate with colleagues, such as through peer learning or coaching. Attending one-off workshops remains the most common option for professional development (reported by 93% of teachers), despite the lack of evidence for its effectiveness.

There are promising national efforts to improve induction, mentoring and professional development for teachers.

But the content of professional development also matters. Mentors should understand and be able to support evidence-based inclusive practices. Professional development should also be facilitated by those with expert knowledge. And teachers need ongoing access to information, advice and support in their daily work.

Professional development for inclusive practice can be effective when it:

• actively engages teachers over extended periods
• has clear links to student learning in local contexts
• allows teachers to learn together as part of communities of practice
• is supported by strong school leadership.

Preparing teachers who feel confident to teach students with special needs is essential to having inclusive schools as part of an inclusive society. We shouldn’t underestimate the challenge of teaching for a very broad range of students. Equally, we shouldn’t underestimate the capacity of good teachers to do so, given the right support.

– ref. Most Australian teachers feel unprepared to teach students with special needs – http://theconversation.com/most-australian-teachers-feel-unprepared-to-teach-students-with-special-needs-119227

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julie Lawson, Honorary Associate Professor, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University

Australia will need another 730,000 social housing dwellings in 20 years if it is to tackle homelessness and housing stress among low-income renters. These are the findings of a new report from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), which shows social housing is in urgent need of direct public investment.

Read more: Budget 2017 charts new social and affordable housing agenda

Instead of directly investing in social housing, the federal government has sought to establish investment opportunities for other actors, such as pension funds and private corporations.

The vehicle for this investment is the National Housing Finance Investment Corporation (NHFIC), which was established to offer lower cost finance to social housing providers.

The federal government has also encouraged states and territories to focus public resources on supply, land policy reform and the use of planning methods such as inclusionary zoning to deliver affordable and social housing.

Read more: England expects 40% of new housing developments will be affordable, why can’t Australia?

These initiatives are worthy, but they won’t generate enough new social housing supply on their own. Without direct public investment in the form of a needs-based capital investment program, the government is unlikely to fill the social housing gap.

Needs-based capital investment is where decisions on what to invest is not only based on financial return, but also on other factors like the effects on society (so infrastructure investment is one which is needs based).

And needs-based capital investment provides the most cost effective mechanism to influence the scale, location and quality of housing produced.

Social housing supply is dangerously lagging

The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated 116,000 people were homeless in 2016, living in improvised and severely overcrowded homes.

Our further analysis of the 2016 Census shows 315,000 households rely on very low incomes, paying more than 30% of their income on rent. This is known as housing stress.

To address homelessness and housing stress right now, we need an additional 430,000 social housing dwellings. And this will grow over time.

Between 1951 and 1996, Australian jurisdictions built 8,000 to 14,000 social housing dwellings per year. In those years, social housing building programs were funded through direct public investment, with grants and long-term loans.

But without direct investment, social housing construction levels have languished since the mid 1990s.

In fact, the total number of Australian households increased by 30% from 1996 to 2016, and yet social housing grew by just 4%. This means there is a substantial backlog in supply, and the need for resources is now urgent.

Subsidies alone won’t cut it

It’s naive to think social housing systems can be adequately resourced through demand-side subsidies alone, such as cash support to tenants. In the UK, for instance, we’ve seen that while rent assistance budgets have grown, they haven’t helped to grow an affordable supply of homes, especially in tight, unregulated private rental markets.

In Australia, the Productivity Commission found that even after rent assistance is paid to eligible pensioners, 40.3% of them pay more than 30% of their incomes on rent. This leaves little for life’s other essentials, such as food, medical care and electricity.

Read more: Chilly house? Mouldy rooms? Here’s how to improve low-income renters’ access to decent housing

What’s more, the spatial distribution of need for social housing is just as important as the overall volume, as the costs for these dwellings vary from A$146,000 to A$614,000, depending on local land values, building types and construction costs in different regions.

So it’s imperative any public investment program is carefully designed and spatially nuanced.

The AHURI report calls for a new National Housing Authority

The AHURI report also assesses the costs of land and construction needed for social housing, which would underpin a capital investment program.

It calls for the creation of a National Housing Authority to inform, co-ordinate and fund the expansion of new social housing supply through a needs-based capital investment program, together with the existing National Housing Finance Investment Corporation (NHFIC).

In the past, social housing relied on external industry bodies, such as the National Housing Supply Council, to advise on Australia’s future housing needs.

Read more: Social housing protects against homelessness – but other benefits are less clear

But a national housing authority would provide more effective, consistent and authoritative leadership. It would have the responsibility and resources to plan for and fund more inclusive and sustainable housing outcomes. And it would co-ordinate this effort with other key stakeholders including state Housing Authorities, not for profit community housing providers, the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

A net benefit to society

The way cost-benefit assessments are conducted must be changed so the social benefits of social housing are properly quantified. This is necessary not only to capture both productivity and social gains, but also for making a coherent rationale for social housing investment.

But there is more work to be done to improve methods for cost-benefit analysis for social housing, the report says.

In contrast to conventional infrastructure, the housing sector has suffered from a long-term lack of investment. This means the methods for cost-benefit analysis are not yet as advanced.

Read more: Is social housing essential infrastructure? How we think about it does matter

It’s clear there is no fundamental barrier to government sourced large-scale investment in social housing. An improved cost-benefit analysis method can provide assurance to funding agencies that a long-term social housing construction program is viable and cost effective.

– ref. Australia’s social housing policy needs stronger leadership and an investment overhaul – http://theconversation.com/australias-social-housing-policy-needs-stronger-leadership-and-an-investment-overhaul-119097

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Dinale, PhD Candidate, University of Sydney

The traditional understanding of women’s economic empowerment is that, as participation in paid employment increases, fertility decreases.

This was certainly true in industrialised nations up to the early 1980s.

But then things began to change. OECD data now shows a positive correlation between higher female labour participation and higher fertility rates.

This fact may not be widely known, but it has been well-documented. Why it has occurred, though, is more of a mystery – and the focus of our research.

Scandinavian nations have been at the forefront of the reversal – but that’s not surprising. Countries like Sweden and Denmark have strong state support for working mothers and high cultural acceptance of gender equality. It’s easy to see how they have made it easier for women to reconcile family and career.

The puzzle is that English-speaking nations aren’t too far behind the Scandinavian countries, despite high childcare costs and relatively little policy to support working mothers.

Our research points to a set of factors in Anglophone economies not typically identified as tools for women’s empowerment: in particular, flexible labour markets.

Understanding all the factors that contribute to a positive relationship between paid employment and fertility is profoundly important for policy makers the world over. It may help countries such as Japan, which is grappling with the consequences of birth rates falling below population replacement level. It can also help countries such as India, where female economic participation rates remain stubbornly low.

Read more: The conspicuous absence of women in India’s labour force

Reversing the trend

The following graph shows the situation in nine industrialised nations, exemplifying different varieties of capitalism, government policy and cultural clusters, in 1970: the trend line indicates higher female labour force participation is associated with a lower fertility rate.

This relationship began to change in the mid-1980s. Now, across the developed world, greater female participation in paid work is associated with a higher national fertility rate.

This shows having babies and having careers need not be mutually exclusive – that it is possible, in economic terms, for a nation to produce and reproduce.

Leading the way have been Sweden and Denmark. Their welfare systems provide generous conditions such as parental leave and subsidies for childcare. Sweden’s public expenditure on childcare is 1.1% of total national income – the highest in the world.

These nations are also characterised by a relatively high degree of gender equality within households. Men are more likely to share the responsibilities of looking after children, for example, making it easier for their partners to pursue careers.

Flexibility is a key

So what about developed English-speaking economies? These nations have relatively limited support for working parents, especially when compared with social democratic nations like Denmark or Sweden.

Australia, Britain, New Zealand and the United States are among the most expensive in the world for childcare, according to 2018 data from the OECD. On average, in these countries couples spend about third of their combined income on childcare costs. This compares to the OECD average of 13%, and 4% in Sweden.

So why do these countries trail the Scandinavian countries only slightly, combining relatively high female employment rates with relatively high fertility?

We suggest the answer may lie in the structure of their economies.

Their manufacturing sectors – traditional bastions of male employment – have declined. But their services sectors have expanded relatively more. In the United States, for example, 80% of all employment is in the services sector, compared with 70% in Germany and 68% in Italy.

One advantage of the services sector is that, on average, it is more tolerant of employment interruption. This makes it friendlier to the need of mothers. In the US, the sector employs 91% of women, compared with 68.5% of men.

The sector also provides more opportunities for workers with “general skills”. Teachers, for example, have skills that can be transferred across schools, and are likely to remain valuable despite interruptions from the labour market.

Traditional jobs, traditional attitudes

The economies of Germany and Japan have maintained their manufacturing bases – but perhaps at the cost of lower fertility. Manufacturing jobs tend to favour continuous and uninterrupted employment, and therefore better suit men, not women trying to juggle paid work and family.

Countries like Spain and Italy, meanwhile, have low childcare costs but also tend to retain more traditional attitudes towards gender roles. Less support from men in the home to sharing responsibilities traditionally done by mothers seems, counter-intuitively, to suppress both female labour force participation and the birth rate.

Read more: How many humans tomorrow? The United Nations revises its projections

The lesson from Scandinavian nations is that generous childcare and other parental benefits can help boost female employment and women’s ability to have children.

The lesson from English-speaking nations is not everything is down to government. The structure of the labour market is also crucial for women to balance employment and family commitments, and to be free to choose what suits them best.

– ref. How English-speaking countries upended the trade-off between babies and jobs without even trying – http://theconversation.com/how-english-speaking-countries-upended-the-trade-off-between-babies-and-jobs-without-even-trying-118459

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The attitudes of Australians towards China have soured dramatically in the past year, according to the Lowy Institute’s annual poll released on Wednesday.

Only 32% trust China to act responsibly in the world – which is a drop of 20 points from the 2018 poll and the lowest level in the 15 years of the poll.

Despite this, more Australians have confidence in China’s President Xi Jinping than have confidence in United States President Donald Trump.

Only 25% have confidence in Trump to do the right thing in world affairs (down five points since 2018), compared with 30% for Xi (a fall of 13 points since last year). Among those aged 18-29, none expressed “a lot” of confidence in Trump and 66% had “no confidence at all” in him.

The poll was done March 12-25, of 2130 people.

The results come as Scott Morrison, ahead of attending the G20 in Japan later this week, will address Australia’s relations with China, the increasing US-China tensions and the changing regional power balance in a major foreign policy speech on Wednesday.

He will say that while Australia will be “clear-eyed” about the fact political differences will affect aspects of its engagement with China, “we are determined that our relationship not be dominated by areas of disagreement.”

Lowy senior fellow Richard McGregor, who has previously reported as a journalist from Beijing, said the relentless coverage of China’s political system, allegations of interference in Australia’s politics, and its poor relations with its neighbours “seems to have finally registered” with the Australian public.

The results for China might have been worse if it were not for the Trump factor muddying the picture, he said. “There’s a recognition that we’re in for a much tougher time with China, and that’s accurate,” McGregor said.

On the Lowy “feelings thermometer” Australians’ feelings towards China have cooled nine degrees to 49 degrees since 2018, while their feelings towards the US have fallen four degrees to 63 degrees. The US rates behind both New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

Lowy says: “In 2019, trust in and warmth towards China are at their lowest point” in its poll’s history.

“Most Australians say that Australia’s economy is too dependent on China and Australia should do more to resist China’s military activities in our region. Scepticism continues about Chinese investment in Australia and China’s intention in the Pacific.”

Nearly three quarters (74%) agree “Australia is too economically dependent on China”. Almost half (49%) say foreign interference in Australian politics is “a critical threat” to Australia’s vital interests – a rise of eight points from last year.

Some 77% believe “Australia should do more to resist China’s military activities in our region”. This is up 11 points since 2015. Six in ten people would support the Australian military conducting freedom of navigation operations in the South China sea.

There remains high concern about Chinese investment, with 68% saying the government is “allowing too much investment from China”, although this is a little lower than the 72% high point of last year.

Reflecting Australians’ mixed feelings as the country balances its relations with the US and China, 50% believe the government “should put a higher priority on maintaining strong relations with the United States, even if this might harm our relations with China”.

But 44% believe it should “put a higher priority on building stronger relations with China, even if this might harm our relations with the United States”.

With Australia’s policy pivot towards the Pacific being driven in substantial part by China’s expanding interest and influence in the region, 55% think that “if China opened a military base in a Pacific island country” this would be “a critical threat” to Australia’s interests. 73% agree “Australia should try to prevent China from increasing its influence in the Pacific” – although views are split about spending more money there.

When people were asked about their confidence in nine leaders, New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern rated highest – 88% have a lot or some confidence in her. Behind her are Scott Morrison (58%), then opposition leader Bill Shorten (52%), Indonesia’s President Joko Widodo (34%), Xi (30%), Trump and Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi (both on 25%. “This means President Trump is only ahead of Russia’s Vladimir Putin (21%) and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un (7%),” Lowy said.

The Trump factor has complicated attitudes to the US but the alliance retains overwhelming support with 72% saying it is very or fairly important for Australia’s security (down four points in a year). But 66% think Trump has weakened the alliance and only 52% trust the US to act responsibly in the world. This is little changed from last year but the lowest trust in the US since the question was first asked in 2006 and 31 points lower than in 2009.

In other results:

• climate change is rated highest among the threats to Australia’s vital interests. Nearly two thirds (64%) rated it as a “critical threat”, up six points since last year and 18 points since 2014.

• 75% say free trade is good for their own standard of living, and 71% believe it is good for Australia’s economy.

• 47% (a fall of seven points since 2018) say the number of migrants coming is too high.

– ref. Australians’ feelings sour towards China: Lowy poll – http://theconversation.com/australians-feelings-sour-towards-china-lowy-poll-119392

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Wood, Associate Professor, Discipline of Childhood and Adolescent Health, University of Sydney

This year, we’ve seen a resurgence of measles around the globe. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recorded more than 230,000 cases in the first five months of 2019, compared to 160,000 in a similar period in 2018.

Australia has had 128 measles cases since the beginning of the year compared to a total of 103 cases for all of 2018.

Measles causes fever, cough and a rash. But it can also cause more serious illness and even death. Babies and people with weakened immune systems are at the greatest risk of complications.

Read more: Prepare for a healthy holiday with this A-to-E guide

The best protection against measles is vaccination. Two doses of a measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine has a success rate of more than 98%.

Under Australia’s National Immunisation Program, children receive two doses of MMR. The first dose is given at 12 months of age and a second dose at 18 months.

But given the rise of measles cases around the world, doctors are now calling for infants travelling overseas to be assessed by their GP to see whether they need the measles vaccine at six months.

Measles spreads easily

Many adult Australians may not have received two doses of MMR vaccine, as only one dose was recommended before 1992 (a single dose is around 95% effective).

Unvaccinated travellers to countries with a higher prevalence of measles can unknowingly bring measles back to Australia. Current measles hot spots include Israel, Thailand, Vietnam, Japan, Ukraine, Philippines and the United States (especially New York).

Measles is highly infectious. Once imported from overseas, it’s adept at seeking out and infecting the unvaccinated in a population.

The recent resurgence of measles has led experts to advise that people ensure they have had two lifetime doses of the MMR vaccine prior to travel.

Read more: Six myths about vaccination – and why they’re wrong

Mums protect their babies in the beginning

As the first MMR vaccine is not given until 12 months of age, infant travellers who are too young to have received their first dose of MMR are particularly at risk of contracting measles.

We don’t routinely recommend MMR immunisation for infants younger than 12 months because of the presence of maternal antibodies. During pregnancy, antibodies which protect against many diseases, such as measles, whooping cough and influenza, are actively transferred through the placenta to the baby.

Most mothers have antibodies to protect against measles either from receiving the MMR vaccine themselves during childhood or adolescence, or as a result of prior infection.

But during the first year of life, the antibodies protecting the baby naturally wane. The antibody levels are usually high enough in the first six months of life to protect against measles.

Once an infant reaches 12 months of age, the measles antibodies have usually sufficiently disappeared and can no longer provide protection. For this reason, we give the first dose of MMR vaccine at 12 months old.

Read more: Why people born between 1966 and 1994 are at greater risk of measles – and what to do about it

Changing the recommendations

Maternal antibodies can interfere with and reduce the response to an MMR vaccine given to an infant before 12 months of age.

The WHO Expanded Program on Immunisation recommends the first dose of MMR vaccine be given at nine months old. This is because in many countries the rates of measles are higher than in Australia, and the increased risk of infection outweighs any reduced vaccine response because of persisting maternal antibodies.

The WHO recommends that for countries like Australia that have achieved low rates of transmission, it’s better to give the first MMR vaccine at 12 months, because higher protection occurs among older infants as there is less interference from maternal antibodies.

Read more: No, combination vaccines don’t overwhelm kids’ immune systems

Until recently, our immunisation handbook stated that children as young as nine months could receive the MMR vaccine in certain circumstances, including travel to highly measles-endemic areas and during outbreaks.

But given the rise in measles globally, the recommended age at which Australian infants can receive MMR vaccine in special circumstances has been lowered from nine months to six months.

The US and England also state vaccination from six months of age can occur for travellers and to help control outbreaks.

While MMR vaccines are normally free, because this early dose is not part of the National Immunisation Program, parents would have to pay around A$50 to get it. Check with your local pharmacy.

Importantly, if MMR is given before 12 months old, infants still need two further doses of measles-containing vaccine. This is to account for the possibility the early dose may not have been completely effective because of interference from the maternal antibodies.

They should receive the next dose of MMR vaccine at 12 months of age or four weeks after the first dose – whichever is later. They should then receive their final dose of measles-containing vaccine – an MMR and varicella (chickenpox) combination, known as MMRV – at 18 months. Both these vaccine doses are free under the National Immunisation Program.

MMR is safe and effective for babies

A recent review of MMR vaccines in infants under nine months found the overall effectiveness was 72%. So it’s not quite as effective as the near complete protection afforded by vaccination at 12 months and older, but still has a very strong chance of being effective.

MMR vaccine in infants from six months old was considered safe, with no reports of serious events recorded across seven studies in the review. Fever and rash were the most common adverse reactions, occurring in 5-10% of infants. This is similar to vaccination at 12 months old.

Read more: Health Check: are you up to date with your vaccinations?

Parents of young infants planning international travel should talk to their GP. The GP will consider factors including the length of the trip and destination countries when giving advice.

Adult travellers, too, should review their own vaccination record and speak to their GP if they are unsure they are fully protected.

– ref. To protect us all, babies travelling overseas may need the measles shot at 6 months instead of 12 – http://theconversation.com/to-protect-us-all-babies-travelling-overseas-may-need-the-measles-shot-at-6-months-instead-of-12-119230

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geoff Thompson, Coordinator of Studies: Systematic Theology, Pilgrim Theological College, University of Divinity

For many Christians, Israel Folau has become the talisman in the fight for religious freedom.

This week, some Australian Christians rallied behind Folau’s legal battle against Rugby Australia, stepping in when the rugby star’s GoFundMe campaign was shut down. On its first day, the new campaign raised more than A$750,000 in donations – and counting.

Some Christian leaders have urged the newly re-elected Coalition government to make religious freedom protections a priority in the wake of Folau’s sacking by Rugby Australia.

There’s even been talk among some conservative Coalition MPs of pushing for a “Folau Law”, or a new statute that would exempt religious beliefs from employment contracts.

Flashpoints in theology

The debate is a perfect storm of race, religion, sport, politics, sex, law and rights. But for me, neither Folau himself, nor his personal faith, are the issue.

Certainly, I find his use and interpretation of the Bible cavalier and uninformed, disturbingly indifferent to its impact, and strikingly incurious.

But beyond those issues, the question that warrants exploration is why he has so galvanised portions of the Christian community around him.

For many, it doesn’t seem to matter how he’s used or interpreted the Bible. They support him because he’s upheld traditional Christian teaching and been prepared to take a stand on it.

Read more: After his ‘miracle’ election, will Scott Morrison feel pressure from Christian leaders on religious freedom?

But there seems to be another reason behind much of the support. As some Christians see it, Folau is holding the line against the dominant beliefs in contemporary Western culture on the flashpoints of gender and sexuality. And for this, some Christians especially honour him.

The question remains, though – why have these issues, and not others, have become flashpoints? There are other equally provocative biblical teachings that don’t generate the same passions among Christians.

Imagine if a high-profile Christian sportsman, for instance, tweeted Jesus’ teachings about how difficult it will be for the rich to enter the kingdom of God (especially if it was paraphrased as “Hell awaits you”).

In this scenario, it is very easy to imagine a less fraught response from many Christians. Instead of wholeheartedly backing his stand against wealth, the athlete’s Christian supporters might demur on the issue, saying how the teachings on wealth need to be “interpreted” in their context.

Some Christians don’t feel the need to similarly interpret biblical references to sexuality and gender. Their meaning is taken as straightforward.

As always, sex, like money, does strange things to theology.

Shifting the line in the sand

As Simon Smart has argued, the changing cultural mores around questions of sex, gender and sexuality are at the centre of the debate over Folau’s social media posts and the reaction among Christians to his sacking.

These new cultural mores are posing significant legal, doctrinal, and ethical challenges to Christian churches. For many, the identity of Christianity is at stake. The traditional line on sexuality and gender must be held – so it is said.

Read more: Why Australia needs a Religious Discrimination Act

But not all Christians see it that way. The line is not so sharply defined.

There are many other Christians who find it hard to understand how traditional teachings on sexuality and gender have been elevated to such a prominent place within some strands of Christianity.

That’s not to say that these Christians automatically disregard the theological arguments for traditional stances on these issues. For instance, Christian proponents of same-sex marriage can accept there are carefully worked-out arguments against it, even if they are unpersuaded by them.

The puzzle, to many, is how these issues have become so definitive to Christian thinking. For these Christians, there’s also a deep disquiet that sexuality and gender are being held up as a test case for religious freedom in Australia.

Time for a more nuanced debate

Even apart from the churches’ involvement in the child sexual abuse scandals, the public’s perception of Christianity has been deeply affected by the church’s frequently moralistic stance on sexuality. This often obscures the other important themes of Christianity – love, hope and compassion as they are embodied in the example of Jesus.

A 2017 McCrindle survey found that the church’s objection to homosexuality was the biggest obstacle preventing people from becoming more religious in Australia, much more so than the role of women in Christianity and the debate over science and evolution.

It’s worth comparing the current angst over sexuality with the long-running debate in the church over science and evolution.

There was a similar line-in-the-sand reaction (and there still is) by some Christians to the theory of evolution. But the willingness of many Christians to navigate that debate with care and informed theological reflection has produced deeper understandings of Christianity, especially its doctrine of creation.

Read more: Is there a place for religion in the science classroom?

So why hasn’t the same thing happened in the debate over sex, gender and sexuality?

For one, the fault lines around these issues within Christianity are complex. There aren’t simple divisions between “conservative” and “progressive” versions of Christianity, or between those who read the bible “literally” and those who read it “metaphorically.”

There are deeper underlying differences between Christians over the extent to which Christianity can be open to exploring new forms of itself while staying true to its founding message. Recognising this would involve a serious discussion of the diverse theological meanings of tradition, culture and ethics.

But if we’re able to have this deeper discussion within Christianity, it could affect how we view those “lines in the sand” between the church and broader society – and whether religious freedoms are truly at stake. And the world at large might get better insights into the breadth of contemporary Christianity.

– ref. Why Christians disagree over the Israel Folau saga – http://theconversation.com/why-christians-disagree-over-the-israel-folau-saga-118773

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philip Almond, Emeritus Professor in the History of Religious Thought, The University of Queensland

Martyn Iles, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, dodged the question this week when asked by Lisa Wilkinson on The Sunday Project if he believed that homosexuals go to hell. Apparently we are all going there, he suggested, unless we find salvation through Jesus.

The Australian Christian Lobby is now hosting an online crowd-funding appeal for Israel Folau’s legal battle against Rugby Australia, after Folau was sacked over an Instagram post warning that homosexuals will go to hell. It has donated $100,000 to his cause.

The churches that belong to the Australian Christian Lobby (mostly Pentecostal and Baptist), along with conservative Catholic and Protestant churches continue to follow the traditional Christian view of hell.

It is not a doctrine for the fainthearted. So what is this hell like? Here are five things about it worth knowing.

Read more: Why the Israel Folau case could set an important precedent for employment law and religious freedom

Most of us are going there

“We’re all doomed!” St. Paul, as Folau has reminded us, believed that homosexuals, the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and robbers would not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6.9).

Jesus said nothing about homosexuals. But he clearly indicated that most of us enter hell through the wide gate that leads to destruction and few through the narrow gate that leads to life (Matthew 7.13-14). In short, the vast majority are doomed to hell. For centuries, this was the default position for both Catholics and Protestants.

Responding to Wilkinson, Iles said rather blandly that the “mainstream Christian belief on this is that all of us are born going to hell” and we will end up there if “we decline the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross”.

For modern conservative Protestants, while in principle, God has the final say on who is saved and who is damned, the clear expectation is that only those who are “born again” have any sort of a chance.

Eternal torments

In traditional Christian doctrine, hell was conceived as a place, generally beneath the earth, where the wicked would be punished for eternity. There would be both psychological torment – at our knowing we had lost the opportunity for salvation – and physical ones inflicted by the Devil and his demons. There were gnawing worms and unquenchable fires. No escape from hell or mitigation of eternal torment was possible.

God would laugh at the sufferings of the damned, said the English puritan Richard Baxter. “Is it not a terrible thing,” he asked, “to a wretched soul, when it shall lie roaring perpetually … in the flames of Hell, and the God of mercy himself shall laugh at them?”

The judgement

The decision as to whether we went to heaven or hell was made by God at the time of our deaths. (The general judgement of all the resurrected dead on the final Day of Judgement merely confirmed God’s previous one.) As the greatest Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas rather elegantly put it, “the soul will remain perpetually in whatever last end it is found to have set for itself at the time of death, desiring that state as the most suitable, whether it is good or evil”.

Read more: Friday essay: what might heaven be like?

Still, Christianity has never quite worked out whether heaven or hell is the consequence of righteous or wicked lives, or whether God is completely arbitrary in his decision making about our final destination.

The Australian Christian Lobby, however, follows the conservative Protestant tradition: so infected are we with the original sin of Adam and Eve, we are all doomed to hell from the moment of our birth and only Jesus can save us from it.

Purgatory

Amidst the gloom, there was one bright spot in the traditional Christian doctrine of hell. Our punishment there would be proportionate to our sins just as our rewards in heaven would be proportionate to our virtues.

This sense of proportionality led around the year 1000 CE to the invention of another place between heaven and hell – a place of purification of our sins. It arose from the recognition that while most of us were not sufficiently meritorious to deserve heaven instantly after death, most of us were also not sufficiently wicked to deserve eternal punishment.

Purgatory was the place where those who were judged worthy of heaven eventually were purged, purified and punished for their sins before going on to their heavenly reward.

Purgatory thus became the default destination after death. Divine justice and mercy were better served by a place where souls, who, like most of us, were not really all that good at being really bad, could be both punished and perfected. Hell then was reserved only for the most incorrigible.

Even so, Purgatory was no holiday resort. The inhabitants were purified by fire. The heat was at times so intense, Dante tells us in his Purgatory, that “I could have flung myself … for coolness, in a vat of boiling glass.”

Purgatory purged

The Protestant reformers of the 16th century hated the idea of Purgatory and threw it out. They saw it as the root cause of corruption within the Church as people paid money on earth to the Church to try to lessen their time there.

Protestant Christianity therefore returned to the harsh either/or of heaven or hell, determined by God at the time of death (or birth). Humanity was again classified into only two classes – the saved and the damned.

Some Protestants from the 17th to 19th centuries attempted to mitigate this harsh idea of hell. Some argued that, after a period of time in hell, all souls would eventually be saved. Others suggested that souls would be annihilated after having done their time of punishment in hell.

By the 20th century, liberal Christians, Protestant and Catholic, were finding it difficult to square away belief in a God of love with the doctrine of eternal torments in the fires of hell. For them, “hell” has been rethought as a state (but no longer a place) of life after death in which we freely choose to stay alienated from God and from which we can eventually be saved if we so wish.

Today’s conservative Christians, however, remain unmoved by the possibility of eventual salvation from hell for everyone. The doctrine of eternal torments in hell has stayed on their theological agenda.

– ref. 5 things to know about the traditional Christian doctrine of hell – http://theconversation.com/5-things-to-know-about-the-traditional-christian-doctrine-of-hell-119380

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jade Sheen, Associate Professor, School of Psychology, Deakin University

Curious Kids is a series for children. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au You might also like the podcast Imagine This, a co-production between ABC KIDS listen and The Conversation, based on Curious Kids.

Why can’t we do whatever we want? – Flynn, aged 6.

Thanks, Flynn. That’s a really good question. When you are younger you can feel like all the rules around you are unfair. You may also feel like you don’t get much say in things. Doing whatever you want seems like a great idea!

You might wonder, what is the point of all these boring rules? Usually, Flynn, rules help us with two things: learning and staying safe.

Read more: Curious Kids: Why do adults think video games are bad?

Kids should make some decisions – but not all

Let’s think about learning. When you are six, you are learning new things every day. I’m sure that if you think back to only a year ago you will realise how much you have changed! Many of those annoying rules that you worry about are there to help you to focus on learning and playing and having fun.

Without rules, you would have a lot of decisions to make every day. Too many decisions would get in the way of your learning and make you feel overloaded. Being in charge of a lot of decisions can sometimes be quite stressful and can sometimes make people feel worried and anxious. This is why it’s important to allow kids to make some decisions – but not all of them.

I also mentioned safety. While I am sure that you are very smart, there are a lot of things you don’t know about the world yet. These are the things that you will learn from now until you are a grown up, like how to drive a car, who to trust and how to spend your money wisely.

Until you know all these things, the rules are there to keep you safe. The rules make sure people always know where you are, that you won’t get hurt and that you get what you need to be happy and healthy in life.

Your parents can relax the rules a little as you grow

You may not know this yet, but the rules will also change as you get older. Think about the differences between now and when you were a toddler.

At six, you probably have a later bedtime, are allowed to watch more TV and do different things and have a lot more of your own friends.

This is because it is important to encourage children to take on more decisions as they get older.

Think of it like a ladder. You might not be at the top right now, but each new thing you learn takes you a step closer and means your parents can relax the rules a little.

Finally, I should say that the rules don’t go away completely even when you are a grown up. Grown ups still have to work and pay bills and follow the rules. Even we can’t do whatever we want!

Read more: Curious Kids: are robots smarter than humans?

Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

Please tell us your name, age and which city you live in. We won’t be able to answer every question but we will do our best.

– ref. Curious Kids: why can’t we do whatever we want? – http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-cant-we-do-whatever-we-want-118606

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Douglas, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Western Australia

When you go online and write something nasty about a person, or even a small business, you risk being sued for defamation.

But if someone else goes online and writes something nasty about a person on your social media page, can you be held liable even though you didn’t write it? Depending on who you are: maybe.

A recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales determined that media companies could be liable for the defamatory comments made on news stories on their Facebook pages.

That is, media organisations could be held liable for the comments of random people on the internet. Journalists, the companies that employ them, and a bunch of people on Twitter are not happy.

Read more: Before you write that scathing online review, beware of defamation

Voller’s case

Dylan Voller is the young man whose treatment in custody inspired a Royal Commission. His case attracted significant press coverage, as well as “commentary” which seems to pass itself off as news but is really something else.

Voller sued the publishers of The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, the Centralian Advocate, Sky News Australia and The Bolt Report. He sued them for defamation for content on their Facebook pages.

What makes this case unique is that Voller did not sue based on posts made by the media companies who were responsible for the pages. Rather, he sued based on comments made by members of the public on ten Facebook posts, arguing that the media companies behind the pages were responsible.

The media defendants argued that Voller’s case was based on an incorrect understanding of the law. Justice Rothmam disagreed, holding that they were “publishers” of third-party comments on their public Facebook pages.

Anyone can be a ‘publisher’ of defamation

The case turns on the concept of “publication”.

To be liable for defamation, you must publish something that is defamatory. In defamation law, publication is the process of communication of defamatory “matter” to a person other than the plaintiff.

This means that a publisher of defamatory content is not necessarily the author of the defamatory content. For example, consider a defamatory letter to the editor. Although the newspaper does not author that letter, it may still be treated as a publisher because it communicated that defamatory letter.

“Publication” does not even require a positive act: in certain cases, an omission may constitute a publication of defamation. More than 90 years ago, an English court determined that owners of a golf club could be liable for defamation posted on the club notice board which they did not author. The court reasoned that the owners knew of the defamation, and could have prevented it, but didn’t.

The common law adapts that old reasoning to the internet age. Before Voller’s case, a New Zealand court held that a host of a Facebook page could be liable for defamatory comments on their page if the host actually knew about the comments and failed to remove them in a reasonable time.

Providers of digital forums and platforms – from businesses with Facebook pages, to Google itself – could be liable for defamatory content authored by other people if they know about it and fail to act.

Read more: Protecting Google from defamation is worth seriously considering

A landmark case?

In some ways, this case just adapts the old authorities on publication to a modern situation. It is also a fact-specific decision, made with reference to evidence of the particular moderation functionality available to the hosts of these particular pages on particular dates.

But the reasoning deployed in Voller’s case does have broader significance. The fact that the Facebook pages of the defendants allowed them to vet comments in advance meant that they had some control over those comments. The defendant companies could have dedicated staff to ensure any comments were not defamatory before making them visible, but failed to do so. Their control over the comments opened the door to their responsibility for the comments as “publishers”.

The court also considered the business model of the defendants. It should go without saying, but it is important to remember that the production of news and commentary is a business. Media companies depend on broad readership to make money. Arguably, social media platforms like Facebook have helped media companies build readership by linking to news websites. The public’s “engagement” with media companies’ social media content via the comments sections of news posts could be one of the factors keeping those companies alive.

The court heard evidence that the appearance of defamatory comments was a “thoroughly predictable” result of posting a relevant article onto a public Facebook page. Social media defamation risk is a moral hazard of the modern media business.

Here is the controversial gist of Voller’s case: by encouraging engagement, the media walked into this mess. In the judge’s words:

[a] defendant cannot escape the likely consequences of its action by turning a blind eye to it.

This means that media companies, and anyone who drums up social media engagement with controversy, are well advised to dedicate more resources to content moderation.

Read more: Can you sue someone for giving you a bad reference?

The sky has not fallen in

According to my friend and professor of media law David Rolph, the case “seems to go further than any decision in the common law world holding intermediaries liable for defamation as publishers”.

It is, however, a first-instance decision, which may be appealed. Justice Rothmam’s decision is on the issue of publication, not liability.

Further, even if an “intermediary” like a media company is held to be a publisher, it may still escape liability. In certain cases, would-be publishers will have an innocent dissemination defence for the publication of defamatory content they did not know about.

A NSW-led law reform process is considering bolstering that defence even further. The parts of Voller’s case which media companies do not like may be short lived.

Until then: be wary of what people say on your social media pages.

– ref. Can you be liable for defamation for what other people write on your Facebook page? Australian court says: maybe – http://theconversation.com/can-you-be-liable-for-defamation-for-what-other-people-write-on-your-facebook-page-australian-court-says-maybe-119352

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Reilly, Director of the Public Law and Policy Research Unit, Adelaide Law School, University of Adelaide

With all the hyperbole about the medevac law, it is easy to lose sight of its purpose.

Refugees have been transferred off Nauru and Manus Island for emergency medical treatment since offshore detention restarted on these islands in 2013. The Department of Home Affairs reported to Senate estimates that 898 refugees and asylum seekers had been sent to Australia for medical treatment prior to the passage of the medevac law earlier this year. Of those, 282 were returned to Manus and Nauru after receiving treatment, and the rest remained in Australia in detention.

These transfers occurred in response to pleas from doctors and health professionals on an ad hoc basis. And it was up to the Home Affairs Department and Minister Peter Dutton whether to comply with such a request. Medical emergencies could include life-threatening brain or heart conditions, complex abortions, or emergency psychiatric care for children at risk for suicide – all of which are beyond the capacity of the health systems on Nauru and Manus to treat.

Although some refugees were granted emergency medical evacuation, many others were not. In response, legal cases were brought against the government for breaching its responsibility to care for the refugees.

Read more: Explainer: how will the ‘medevac’ bill actually affect ill asylum seekers?

This required the federal court to convene at short notice to hear cases. It also required the expenditure of huge amounts of taxpayer money to call expert medical witnesses and file thousands of pages of supporting documentation.

Because of the delays in treatment, these legal battles were enormously risky for those in need of medical care.

Through these early cases, the court established that it was a breach of the government’s duty not to provide refugees with emergency medical treatment. And yet, the Home Affairs Department continued to fight applications for transfers for emergency medical treatment, only to be overturned by the courts, time and time again.

How the process works under the medevac law

The medevac law was passed due to concerns the department was rejecting transfer applications for political rather than medical reasons. The point was to provide an expedient, objective process to determine whether transfers were required.

And despite the Coalition government’s opposition to the bill, the process for determining which refugees are moved off Nauru and Manus for treatment remains highly deferential to the minister and Department of Home Affairs.

Read more: Australia’s asylum seeker policy history: a story of blunders and shame

There are two stages to this process.

First, two doctors must assess the person and make a recommendation for transfer. The federal court recently ruled it was possible to make this medical assessment based on documentation alone, as opposed to an in-person or teleconference assessment. This was a necessary adjustment to the law, given that the Nauru government has banned teleconferences for residents.

The minister is required to approve or refuse the recommendation for transfer within 72 hours. There are three grounds for refusal:

1. the person is deemed a security risk
2. the person has a “substantial criminal record” (which equates to having been convicted of an offence with a sentence of imprisonment for 12 months or more)
3. the minister does not accept the transfer is necessary on medical grounds.

If the minister rejects the transfer on medical grounds, the second stage of the process kicks in, with an independent health advice panel (IHAP) assessing the doctors’ recommendation. It is important to note that this panel is comprised of government medical officers and other health professionals appointed by the minister.

To date, there have been 31 medical transfers under the law. In addition, nine recommendations were refused by the government. The panel of health experts upheld seven of the minister’s refusals, and overturned two.

Dutton’s claims don’t stand up under scrutiny

Dutton has made a number of claims about the impact of the medevac law that he argues justify its repeal. All defy reason and logic.

First, the minister has claimed “activist doctors” were using the law to bring people to Australia when they do not require emergency medical care.

This is frankly highly offensive to the medical profession in Australia, and contradicts the clear intention of the law to take politics out of transfer decisions. Even if doctors making the initial recommendation are too left-leaning for Dutton, the expert panel is stacked with medical practitioners of his choosing.

Read more: There are 70 million refugees in the world. Here are 5 solutions to the problem

Second, the minister has argued that the capacity to be transferred to Australia for emergency medical treatment will lead to a resumption of the people-smuggling trade.

This is patently absurd. It is true that people smugglers can make up all sorts of stories about Australia relaxing its policies and it being easier to get to Australia. But the facts are crystal clear: the Coalition government maintains a policy of boat turn-backs and indefinite offshore detention for anyone thinking of making the journey.

Medical transfers to Australia are for a temporary period. Once people have been treated, they are returned to detention on Nauru or Manus. It is true that many asylum seekers have remained in Australia for extended periods for ongoing treatment, but these refugees remain within the immigration detention system. They are escorted to medical appointments and remain under guard while receiving treatment. They are given no hope of putting down roots in Australia.

The deterrent to people smugglers remains overwhelming. And, unsurprisingly, we have not seen a restarting of boat arrivals following the passage of the medevac law. Dutton’s own department has signalled this is unlikely in a briefing:

[Potential illegal immigrants] will probably remain sceptical of smuggler marketing and await proof that such a pathway is viable, or that an actual change of policy has occurred, before committing to ventures.

The only possible messaging that people smugglers might use to persuade people to get on a boat is the Coalition government’s own dire warnings of reopening the floodgates and political stunts like the brief resurrection of the Christmas Island detention centre at the staggering cost to taxpayers of over A$180 million.

Dutton’s third claim is that some refugees are refusing resettlement offers in the US because of the medevac law.

Again, it defies logic for refugees to refuse the US option – it is the only hope of resettlement currently on offer. One wonders whether the minister is using this claim as a cover for the fact that transfers to the US have come to a grinding halt under President Donald Trump.

The medevac law and human compassion

For over six years, successive Australian governments have maintained an unwavering narrow focus on stopping refugee boats with no concern for the victims of this policy – the innocent people on Manus and Nauru.

These people are under Australia’s care. It is Australia that pays the governments of Nauru and PNG to house offshore detention centres to create the disincentive for others to travel by boat to Australia. It is Australia that pays the security companies to keep them detained. And so it is Australia that is responsible for the dramatic decline in their mental and physical health.

It is the narrowest of concessions to offer emergency medical treatment in Australia to people we have so mistreated.

– ref. Peter Dutton is whipping up fear on the medevac law, but it defies logic and compassion – http://theconversation.com/peter-dutton-is-whipping-up-fear-on-the-medevac-law-but-it-defies-logic-and-compassion-119297

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Allen Cheng, Professor in Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, Monash University

Influenza is a moving target for vaccines. Each year, up to four different strains circulate, and they are constantly evolving to escape our immune system.

So rather than childhood jabs giving long lasting immunity, we need annual flu shots to provide optimal protection against influenza.

But while you might sometimes get sick after having a flu shot, it’s a myth that having a flu shot can give you the flu.

A quick history of the flu vaccine

Influenza vaccines were first developed in the 1930s and 1940s, starting with the isolation of the influenza virus.

Back then, we learned there were many different influenza strains. To be effective, early research showed the vaccine needed to be matched to the circulating strains, and to be able to stimulate a response from the immune system.

Read more: When’s the best time to get your flu shot?

The process to produce modern influenza vaccines now occurs on a much more refined and industrial scale. Hundreds of thousands of influenza viruses are collected by hundreds of national influenza centres around the world.

From these, four strains are selected for the annual flu vaccine, based on the viruses that are circulating at that time, how well the vaccines activate the immune system, how the strains are evolving, and the effectiveness of previous vaccines.

Most modern vaccines are manufactured by growing large quantities of live virus – mostly in chicken eggs or less commonly animal cells – which are then purified, deactivated and split into smaller components. These vaccines are inactive and cannot replicate.

There are also two new “enhanced” vaccines that are used in older people, who don’t tend to respond as strongly to vaccines: Fluzone High Dose and Fluad, which is designed to better stimulate immunity and draw immune cells to the site of vaccination.

Read more: High-dose, immune-boosting or four-strain? A guide to flu vaccines for over-65s

How the immune system fights the flu

The human immune system has several strategies to protect against infection. For viral infections such as influenza, the key strategy is known as adaptive immunity. This part of the immune system can “remember” previous exposure to pathogens.

When you get an influenza infection, the virus enters and hijacks the machinery of the host cell to replicate itself, before releasing these copies to infect more cells.

T lymphocyte cells of the immune system can recognise this viral incursion. T cells protect against further spread of the virus by activating pathways that cause infected cells to trigger a “suicide” process.

Another strategy the body uses is to produce antibodies, which are molecules produced by B cells that recognise components of the viral capsule. These antibodies work by sticking to the surface of the influenza virus to prevent it spreading and facilitating disposal.

Flu shots help mount a quicker defence

On a first exposure to a pathogen, our B cells take at least two weeks to ramp up production of antibodies. However, on subsequent challenges, antibody production occurs much more quickly.

Influenza vaccines harness this arm of the immune system, known as “humoral” immunity. By “practising” on viral components, vaccines allow the immune system to react more quickly and effectively when faced with the real virus.

So why do you sometimes get sick after a flu shot?

There are several reasons why you might feel a bit off after getting your flu shot.

First, your flu shot only protects you against influenza and not other respiratory illness which might causes similar cold or flu symptoms. This includes RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), which is common in late autumn and early winter.

Read more: Sick with the flu? Here’s why you feel so bad

Second, stimulating the immune system can result in symptoms similar to that of influenza, although much milder and short-lived. These include local inflammation (redness, pain or swelling at the site of the vaccine) and more general symptoms (fever, aches and pains, tiredness).

Third, vaccine-induced protection isn’t complete. In some years, the vaccine is not well matched to circulating strains. Usually this is due to mutations that may develop in circulating strains after the vaccine strains are selected.

The flu vaccine also doesn’t “kick in” for two weeks after vaccine administration. In some people, particularly those who are older and those who have weakened immune systems, antibody production is not as strong, and the level of protection is lower.

Despite this, studies have consistently shown that vaccinated people are less likely to get influenza or complications from the flu than those who aren’t vaccinated.

Read more: Flu vaccine won’t definitely stop you from getting the flu, but it’s more important than you think

A better way to protect against the flu

A problem with current vaccines is the reliance on eggs, which results in a relatively slow and labour-intensive production process.

Current work is aiming to speed up this process by using different technologies so that vaccine manufacturers can react more quickly to changes in circulating viruses.

The “holy grail” for influenza vaccines is to stimulate an effective immune response to a component of influenza that doesn’t change each year, so annual vaccination is not required.

These efforts have proved elusive so far.

Read more: The Holy Grail of influenza research: a universal flu vaccine

A better strategy might be to harness T cell immunity. Recent work has shown that a type of T cell, known as “killer” T cells, can recognise other parts of the influenza virus, and therefore can provide broad protection against seasonal and pandemic strains.

But while we wait for a better alternative, getting an annual flu shot is the best way to avoid the flu.

– ref. You can’t get influenza from a flu shot – here’s how it works – http://theconversation.com/you-cant-get-influenza-from-a-flu-shot-heres-how-it-works-118916

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Duffy, Lecturer in Applied Geoscience, University of Melbourne

The magnitude 7.3 earthquake that struck at a depth of about 200km beneath the Banda Sea on Monday prompted office buildings to be evacuated in Darwin, some 700km away.

This is a complex and seismically active region, where the Australian tectonic plate collides with microplates on the edge of Asia in the Indonesian region.

The location of this earthquake is no surprise. Three earthquakes greater than magnitude 6 occurred within a few kilometres of each other and within the same general area in 2016 and 2018. Nor is the size of the quake particularly out of the ordinary. A magnitude 7.1 earthquake struck here in 1962, and a magnitude 7.3 earthquake in 1983.

Why is this zone so active?

Even though this seismic zone is at the boundary between two tectonic plates, these earthquakes occur within the Australian tectonic plate, and owe their character to variations in the type of crust that makes up the northern part of the plate.

Where the Australian Plate collides with Asia, some of it has slid (subducted) under the volcanoes of Eastern Indonesia, and is descending into the mantle. This process is driven by buoyancy (the tendency of material to sink or float). Continental crust is more buoyant, and thus resists sinking into the mantle. Ocean crust, meanwhile, is denser and has more of a tendency to sink. As the Australian Plate travels northward, the front edge is high-density ocean crust, and the part following behind it is lower-density continental crust.

Read more: What a crack up: hefty continents got tectonic plates moving

Where one part of a plate subducts easily and starts to sink and the other wants to float and refuses to subduct, a tear can develop, and this is what we believe is happening north of Darwin. The northern edge of the Australian Plate used to be made up of ocean crust that is now completely subducted. The buoyant Australian continent is refusing to subduct, and as a result the ocean crust is tearing off as it sinks into the mantle.

In the region of Timor this tearing seems to have happened already, so there is virtually no seismicity at similar depths for several hundred kilometres west of this earthquake in the vicinity of Timor. Earthquakes cannot occur where there is a hole in the plate, and instead they mainly happen at the spot where the tear is growing.

A useful analogy to visualise this is tearing a piece of cheese – the kind of pre-sliced, soft cheese that you put on your sandwiches. The picture below shows a piece of cheese that is bent around a cylinder (representing the descent of the plate into the mantle), and is torn along one edge.

As the tear in the cheese (plate) gets longer, earthquake activity stops where there is no longer any cheese (plate) present, and gets more intense at the point where the tear is happening.

The official earthquake record from the US Geological Survey indicates that this earthquake consisted of a combination of lateral displacement and vertical extension (lengthening), which is consistent with our cheese analogy.

The vertical extension is caused by the stretching of the crust while lateral displacement, known as strike slip, probably accommodates the eastward movement required by the continuing attachment of the slab east of the earthquake.

Why did it rock Darwin so hard?

Earthquakes such as this occur within the Australian plate, and the seismic waves travel through the cold, strong Australian plate quite efficiently. This means that it did not lose much of its energy before reaching Darwin.

This is particularly true for long-period (low frequency) waves, which disproportionately affect tall buildings, causing them to move quite violently. This is consistent with news reports that offices in Darwin’s central business district were evacuated and are now being assessed for damage.

In contrast, the city of Dili, which is closer to the earthquake, experienced only minor wobbling for less than 10 seconds, according to Federation University geology lecturer Nicole Cox, who is visiting Dili. Seismic waves emanating from the lower plate have already weakened considerably by the time they pass through the upper plate to reach Dili.

Read more: Why some earthquakes are so deadly

Local earthquakes are relatively infrequent around Darwin, because like the rest of Australia it sits on strong continental crust, relatively far from a plate boundary. However, earthquakes like today’s are quite common. Queensland seismologist Kevin McCue has compiled a long list of earthquakes that affected Darwin, including many from the region of the Banda Sea that produced today’s earthquake. Even in 1900, local people recognised the relative normality of severe Banda Sea earthquakes.

Aftershock sequences from these types of events commonly include a few earthquakes greater than magnitude 6, and ten or more above magnitude 5. The key to managing this hazard is preparedness and carefully considered action in the aftermath of the earthquake.

Now is probably as good a time as any for Territorians and other Australians to re-read the advice of state emergency services on how to be safe when an earthquake strikes, and the best places to take cover.

– ref. ‘Like tearing a piece of cheese’: here’s why Darwin was rocked so hard by a distant quake – http://theconversation.com/like-tearing-a-piece-of-cheese-heres-why-darwin-was-rocked-so-hard-by-a-distant-quake-119306

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Curnock, Social Scientist, CSIRO

Media coverage of mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef may have been a major tipping point for public concerns around climate change, according to research published today.

Severe and extensive bleaching during the summers of 2016 and 2017 has been directly attributed to human-caused climate change. Much of the ensuing media coverage used emotional language, with many reports of the Reef dying.

Read more: Back-to-back bleaching has now hit two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef

While the physical effects of the bleaching have been well documented, we wanted to understand the social and cultural impact.

Our research, including a study published today in Nature Climate Change, has compared survey responses from thousands of Australians and international visitors, before and after the bleaching event.

Reef grief

Our research team conducted face-to-face interviews with 4,681 visitors to the Great Barrier Reef region, in 14 coastal towns from Cooktown to Bundaberg, over June to August in both 2013 and 2017. We asked more than 50 questions about their perceptions and values of the Reef, as well as their attitudes towards climate change.

We found a large proportion of respondents, including Australians and overseas visitors, expressed forms of grief in response to loss and damage to the iconic ecosystem. Negative emotions associated with words given in short statements about “what the Great Barrier Reef means to you”, included sadness, disgust, anger and fear.

Read more: Hope and mourning in the Anthropocene: Understanding ecological grief

Emotional appeals are widely used in media stories and in social media campaigns, and appealing to fear in particular can heighten a story’s impact and spread online.

However, a side-effect of this approach is the erosion of people’s perceived ability to take effective action. This is called a person’s “self-efficacy”. This effect is now well documented in reactions to representations of climate change, and is actually a barrier to positive community engagement and action on the issue.

In short, the more afraid someone is for the Great Barrier Reef, the less they may feel their individual efforts will help to protect it.

While our results show a decline in respondents’ self-efficacy, there was a corresponding increase in how highly they valued the Reef’s biodiversity, its scientific heritage and its status as an international icon. They were also more willing to support action to protect the Reef. This shows widespread empathy for the imperilled icon, and suggests greater support for collective actions to mitigate threats to the Reef.

Changing attitudes

We observed a significant increase in the proportion of people who believe that climate change is “an immediate threat requiring action”. In 2013 some 50% of Australian visitors to the Great Barrier Reef region agreed climate change is an immediate threat; in 2017 that rose to 67%. Among international visitors, this proportion was even higher (64% in 2013, rising to 78% in 2017).

This represents a remarkable change in public attitudes towards climate change over a relatively short period. Previous surveys of Australian climate change attitudes over 2010 to 2014 showed that aggregate levels of opinion remained stable over that time.

Comparing our findings with other recent research describing the extent of coverage and style of reporting associated with the 2016-2017 mass coral bleaching event, we infer that this event, and the associated media representations, contributed significantly to the shift in public attitudes towards climate change.

Moving beyond fear

As a source of national pride and with World Heritage status, the Great Barrier Reef will continue to be a high profile icon representing the broader climate change threat.

Media reports and advocacy campaigns that emphasise fear, loss and destruction can get attention from large audiences who may take the message of climate change on board.

But this does not necessarily translate into positive action. A more purposeful approach to public communication and engagement is needed to encourage collective activity that will help to mitigate climate change and reduce other serious threats facing the Reef.

Examples of efforts that are underway to reduce pressures on the Reef include improvements to water quality, control of crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks, and reducing poaching in protected zones. Tourism operators on the Reef are also playing an important role in restoring affected areas, and are educating visitors about threats, to improve Reef stewardship.

Clearly there remains an immediate need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to ensure the Reef’s World Heritage qualities are maintained for future generations.

However, maintaining hope, and offering accessible actions towards attainable goals is critical to engaging people in collective efforts, to help build a more sustainable future in which coral reefs can survive.

The authors would like to acknowledge Nadine Marshall, who co-wrote this article while employed by CSIRO. We thank our other co-authors of the Nature Climate Change paper, including Lauric Thiault (National Center for Scientific Research, PSL Université Paris), Jessica Hoey and Genevieve Williams (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority), Bruce Taylor and Petina Pert (CSIRO Land and Water) and Jeremy Goldberg (CSIRO & James Cook University). The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or opinions expressed herein, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or the Minister for the Environment, or the Queensland Government, or indicate commitment to any particular course of action.

– ref. ‘Sadness, disgust, anger’: fear for the Great Barrier Reef made climate change feel urgent – http://theconversation.com/sadness-disgust-anger-fear-for-the-great-barrier-reef-made-climate-change-feel-urgent-119232

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pi-Shen Seet, Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Edith Cowan University

This essay is part of a series of articles on the future of education.

Technological developments are expected to majorly, and rapidly, disrupt or change the nature of employment. The multiplier effect of these disruptions interacting with each other has led to what has been termed the fourth industrial revolution (i4.0).

The first industrial revolution took us from agrarian to industrial economies and the second used resources like electricity and steel to create mass production. The third refers to technology advancing from analog and mechanical devices to the digital technology available today.

The fourth industrial revolution represents ways technology has become embedded in societies by the fusion of technologies, or what is known as cyber-physical systems. For example, 3D printing needs advanced materials with printers linked to the internet, which are increasingly intelligent and autonomous.

The consensus among experts is that our training providers and employers aren’t adapting fast enough to meet the skill needs of the fourth industrial revolution. This is reflected in a growing technological and digital skills gap. But there are some things the sector can do to catch up.

Read more: Fewer Australians will have uni or TAFE skills if governments don’t reform tertiary education

Doom or opportunity?

Commentators have polarising views on the possible effects of the fourth industrial revolution. Some see technologies offering limitless new opportunities while others see major economic disruptions – the so-called dark side of technological change.

The pessimistic perspective is provided in an often cited 2013 study by labour researchers Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne, who argue 47% of total employment in developed economies is at risk of automation. This figure also underlies eye-catching headline such as:

Could a robot do your job?

Artificial intelligence and automation are coming, so what will we all do for work?.

In Australia, the Productivity Commission estimates 40% of employment is at risk of being digitally disrupted by automation over the next 10-15 years. The Australian Industrial Transformation Institute estimates the level of disruption to be between 5-10%.

But an important point often overlooked in these and related studies based on Frey and Osborne’s modelling, is that they investigate the potential for existing jobs to be automated. They don’t take into account the net effect of automation on jobs and that new jobs may be created as a consequence of automation.

More recent reports address this issue and point to a less pessimistic future. The World Economic Forum recently projected that while 75 million jobs will likely be displaced by robots, 133 million new jobs will be created. This means a net gain of more than 50 million jobs globally.

This suggests by 2022, some established roles such as data analysts and software developers – as well as so-called emerging roles such as machine learning specialists and robotics engineers, together with existing roles based on distinctively human traits such as customer service workers and people and culture specialists – will rise from 16% of the labour force to 27%.

On the flip side, as algorithms replace workers, declining roles such as accountants and telemarketers, currently representing around one third of the labour force, will fall to one in five workers.

In Australia, Deloitte Access Economics estimates more than 80% of jobs will be created between now and 2030 for knowledge workers.

Should we be worried?

The suggested net employment gains are not a foregone conclusion. There is growing consensus developed economies like Australia must take urgent steps to mitigate the negative effects of technological disruption and take advantage of opportunities.

The fourth industrial revolution is predicted to be as, if not more, disruptive than the preceding three, in part as a consequence of the pace of change and magnitude of skill shifts. Australian workers are growing increasingly worried they will be displaced by technology because of irrelevant skills.

More than half expect they will need skills they currently lack within five years and that they will need to upskill, reskill and retrain.

Skills are a Darwinian, survival issue, not only for workers, but for the organisations that employ them. Two-thirds of employers say technology-related skills shortages are impacting them now (not in five years) and have noted their biggest challenge is to re-skill employees.

Read more: What’s the point of education? It’s no longer just about getting a job

Recent research shows that while disruptive technology has reduced the need for some jobs, the main issue facing Australian employers is the changing the nature of existing jobs.

This is particularly the case for the expanded range of tasks workers are expected to do. Employers seeking external training report difficulties finding VET providers delivering training in disruptive technologies.

Accordingly, larger firms will likely resort to in-house training, while smaller firms with fewer resources look to hire skilled workers.

Employers also often view university graduates with technology-related skills as more valuable than employees with VET qualifications. The result is a decline in confidence in the ability of the VET sector to deliver training that meets the challenges of technological disruption.

What kind of skills will future jobs need?

Much of the recent debate related to digital disruption has focused on the dichotomy between the importance of hard or technical skills (such as industry 4.0 programming, software engineering and data science) and soft or non-technical skills (such as creativity, design and teamwork).

For example, about half of Chief Information Officers favour hard skills while the other half prefer soft skills among future employees.

This divide is driven by modelling based on a technology-centred (automation) scenario. But it ignores two other important scenarios, as reported by German researchers, into the fourth industrial revolution: the hybrid and specialisation scenarios.

Under the hybrid scenario, the distribution of tasks between people and technologies is based on the relative strengths and weaknesses of workers versus machines, and employees will face increased demand to be highly flexible. Control tasks will still need to be performed through technologies that require people for monitoring and directing.

Under the specialisation scenario, people use cyber-physical systems to aid decision-making. Cyber-physical systems are technologies that enable bringing the virtual and material dimensions together to produce a fully networked domain in which intelligent objects interact with each other.

For example, in new smart production systems, there will be less need for employees with administrative, production and monitoring competencies. But there will be a growing need for qualified and ultra-specialised employees with IT competencies, in particular those who can integrate them with production—technical competencies.

Applying this to the Australian context, disruptive technologies are influencing the demand for both hard and soft skills in many occupations, with some skills in decline and others in demand. Industry needs both technical and non-technical skills to “future-proof” Australian workers.

What needs to be done?

The VET sector requires increased collaboration between industry, educators and governments. It also needs responsivess and flexibility in delivering skills, from formal qualifications to micro-credentials or non-formal education to reflect the needs of rapidly changing technologies.

A good example of this is the first nationally recognised qualification in automation, launched in Perth earlier this month. This came out of a collaboration led by Rio Tinto, South Metropolitan TAFE and the WA government.

Read more: The government keeps talking about revamping VET – but is it actually doing it?

Employers should alsotake a lead with experimenting and testing new methods to meet future skill needs. A South Australian electronics firm, REDARC, is preparing employees to become ready for the fourth industrial revolution by engaging experts to run dedicated sessions on the application of an overarching i4.0 lens across the core competencies of mechanical, chemical and electronic engineering.

The VET sector can play a complementary and reinforcing role. Besides catering for current students and apprentices, VET providers need to work with industry to build systems to facilitate continual learning (such as through flexible micro-courses) to ensure the skills of VET graduates or alumni are upgraded responsively.

Federal and state governments need to work to restore the confidence of employers and students in the VET sector. An important first step is to implement the early recommendations of the Joyce Review on VET.

Recent initiatives indicate the VET sector, industry and government have recognised these issues. They will need to pick up the pace to ensure vocational education provides students – and businesses that employ them – with the future-ready skills needed to succeed in the fourth industrial revolution.

Read other essays in this series here.

– ref. Jobs are changing, and fast. Here’s what the VET sector (and employers) need to do to keep up – http://theconversation.com/jobs-are-changing-and-fast-heres-what-the-vet-sector-and-employers-need-to-do-to-keep-up-118524

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Assistant professor, University of Canberra

Facebook’s proposed new digital currency, if even modestly successful, will hand over much of the control of monetary policy from central banks to Facebook and a group of partner companies including Uber and eBay.

So says Chris Hughes, a Facebook co-founder. He calls the plan frightening. “This currency would insert a powerful new corporate layer of monetary control between central banks and individuals,” he writes in the Financial Times.

But fear not, central banks are more resilient than this.

What is Libra, and who is behind it?

At this point there’s no guarantee Facebook will succeed in establishing its own currency (called the Libra) that you can use to make payments with a digital wallet integrated into Facebook’s Messenger and WhatsApp applications.

But let’s assume it does.

Key to the success of any currency is ubiquity. Facebook has that (in most parts of the world). Along with its enormous customer base, and wealth, it also has the backing of 27 other corporations. These include key global players in electronic payments – Mastercard, Visa and Paypal.

Read more: Facebook’s cryptocurrency: a financial expert breaks it down

Joined together in a Swiss-based not-for-profit entity called the Libra Association, these companies are particularly interested in the prospect of billions of people making payments using a mobile phone without ever needing a bank account. There are, tellingly, no banks in the group.

The Libra’s utility as a payment system is underlined by its design differences to a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin. The value of Bitcoin fluctuates wildly. The Libra’s value will instead be stabilised. This will be done using a private sector version of a mechanism known as a “currency board”.

The threat to monetary policy

A goal of the Libra Association is to “move toward increasing decentralisation”.

As Hughes notes, central banks were established to deal with the problems that came with a decentralised financial system. “After many mistakes, we have learnt that we want a central bank to act to increase or decrease the monetary supply in moments of contraction or expansion.”

To understand why decentralisation might pose a threat to the role of central banks, let’s recap how they exercise monetary policy.

The power of a central bank comes from setting interest rates.

The Reserve Bank of Australia, for example, does this through operating what is called the Interbank Overnight Money Market. Banks must deposit enough currency with the RBA to cover obligations to other banks. The RBA effectively sets the floor and ceiling in the market by offering to take deposits or lend in the market at rates 25 basis points below and above its target interest rate. It also transacts in the market by buying and selling bonds and derivatives.

Doing this keeps the interest rate in the market very close to the RBA’s target. Changes in the rate are generally reflected in interest rates on bank loans. These in turn affect economic activity and inflation.

The concern is that a substantial move towards using electronic money for payments could reduce banks’ importance as money lenders, and therefore the role of the interbank markets. If the central bank’s balance sheet is smaller, its ability to influence the interest rates offered by financial institutions is theoretically weakened.

But the vast bulk of loans made by banks are to consumers to buy homes and cars, and to companies to buy capital equipment. These do not seem the types of goods likely to be paid for in Libras.

The central bank could also expand its balance sheet by issuing its own central bank bills or bonds.

And so long as a government requires taxes to be paid in its national currency, the demand for the interbank market will never totally dry up.

So at this point, even if successful, I think it’s an exaggeration to suggest the Libra poses a threat to the important role of central banks in keeping economies stable through monetary policy.

Will the Libra project even succeed?

Other concerns, though, such as the use of cryptocurrencies for money laundering, should be taken seriously.

But let’s also take a reality check. There is no certainty the Libra project will succeed.

In the 1990s Mondex and Digicash were promoted by some major banks as the payments systems that would replace cash. They never achieved critical mass.

Bitcoin has been much hyped for more than a decade but still only accounts for a miniscule proportion of transactions (which is a good thing given the process of creating bitcoins is so energy-intensive).

Read more: How low will Bitcoin now go? The history of price bubbles provides some clues

Many other similar cryptocurrencies have come and gone.

A decade ago Facebook had ambitions to establish a “safe and secure way” to make online payments with its Facebook Credits system. It abandoned the project after three years.

So it is unsurprising that Reserve Bank of Australia economists “see little likelihood of a material take-up of cryptocurrencies for retail payments in Australia in the foreseeable future”.

– ref. Facebook’s Libra plan: talk of the demise of central banks is greatly exaggerated – http://theconversation.com/facebooks-libra-plan-talk-of-the-demise-of-central-banks-is-greatly-exaggerated-119165

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Ross, Professor in Food Microbiology, Centre for Food Safety and Innovation, Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania

Last Thursday, dairy company Lactalis Australia recalled eight varieties of milk over concerns the products could be contaminated with the bacteria Escherichia coli (E. coli).

This recall affects several brands of milk purchased at Coles, Woolworths, IGA and other retailers in Victoria and southern New South Wales with a use-by date of July 2.

Milk provides many of the nutrients needed for human growth and development, including protein, fat, carbohydrates (lactose) and calcium. But because milk is such a complete mix of nutrients, it’s also an ideal breeding ground for bacteria. This is why milk spoils quickly, particularly when it’s left out of the fridge.

But the presence of E. coli in food – including the recalled milk – doesn’t necessarily mean the food is unsafe. It means the product is more likely to cause illness, and indicates further testing is needed. To minimise risk to public health, it’s advised that implicated products are not consumed.

Read more: Science or Snake Oil: is A2 milk better for you than regular cow’s milk?

Cow’s milk

Milk from a cow is laden with bacteria. The bacteria come from the skin on the teats of the cow, and sometimes directly from the milk if the cow has mastitis (a bacterial infection in the udder).

The same is true of human breast milk – the milk itself contains bacteria, while bacteria can also come from the mother’s skin. But a difference in a cow is that the cow’s udder is close to its anus, so contamination of the udder with the cow’s faeces is common.

Pathogenic bacteria (those that cause illness) that can occur in cow’s milk include some strains of E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes (L. monocytogenes), salmonella, Bacillus cereus (B. cereus) and Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus).

While B. cereus and S. aureus can cause unpleasant illnesses, most people recover quickly and completely.

But some strains of E. coli and L. monocytogenes can cause more serious illness and even death. A raw (unpasteurised) milk product contaminated with pathogenic E. coli was found to have caused the death of an infant in Victoria in 2014.

Read more: Explainer: what is E.coli?

L. monocytogenes and S. aureus can be present in the milk in the cow’s udder, or on the udder itself, while B. cereus is found in the soil on dairy farms and in milking shed environments.

E. coli, however, arises from faecal contamination of the udder. While every effort is made by dairy farmers to clean cows’ udders before the milking begins, it’s not possible to do this with complete certainty. A low risk remains that faecal bacteria will enter the raw milk.

E. coli won’t necessarily make you sick

E. coli is commonly found in the faeces of warm-blooded animals, including mammals and birds. Most strains of E. coli are not harmful. Rather, the presence of E. coli is widely used in public health management as an indicator of faecal contamination (called an “indicator bacterium”).

It’s important we measure faecal contamination in food and water sources because gastrointestinal pathogens can be released from the infected host (in this case, the cow) through their faeces.

So faecal contamination of food or water represents a risk that a person exposed to those sources would become ill from gastrointestinal pathogens including pathogenic strains of E. coli, salmonella, norovirus, Clostridium perfringens, and many others.

Those infected would then be likely to repeat the cycle of infection – that is, to shed the pathogens that made them sick via their faeces into their environment, and from there, to infect other people.

Testing can relatively quickly detect E. coli in foods or water. The presence of E. coli is an indication there is a much greater risk of infections because of the concurrent risk of other pathogens, like those listed above, being present.

So from a positive E. coli result, further testing might be conducted to see whether other pathogens are present. Generally, the presence of E. coli is enough to cause alarm and recall of contaminated foods, or to advise people not to swim in water that has been contaminated, to minimise the risk of infections.

Pasteurisation and testing

The government has mandated that milk sold in Australia should be pasteurised to eliminate any harmful bacteria and protect public health. This process also extends the shelf-life of the product by reducing other bacteria that cause milk spoilage.

Pasteurisation involves heating the milk for sufficient time to eliminate the pathogenic bacteria; usually to 72–74°C for 15–20 seconds. The time and temperature of pasteurisation are monitored in real time and, if the conditions are less than required, the “suspect” milk is diverted and not filled into retail containers.

As an additional check, the pasteurised milk is subjected to further testing for the presence of E. coli after those processes. These tests, however, typically require 12–20 hours to obtain results. Because of all the other safeguards in place, the milk is assumed to be safe for sale and distributed before the test results are obtained, unless the other tests show a process failure requiring a product recall.

Read more: Explainer: what is raw milk and why is it harmful?

This recall shows the system is working

This recent recall of milk from Australian retail markets after the detection of E. coli is a very rare event. In this case, the causes of the possible pasteurisation failure remain unknown. The “back-up” testing for E. coli in the milk, however, did reveal a failure in the system that will now be investigated to prevent recurrence.

Importantly, the detection of E. coli does not mean the milk is unsafe, but indicates that it could be.

The identification of E. coli in the milk initiated a rapid product recall of specifically “at-risk” products, and removal from sale of all potentially contaminated milk, alongside alerts to consumers. These actions are part of the food safety systems in place in Australia and many other nations.

This process was also implemented earlier this month when another eight milk varieties were recalled by the food safety regulator over concerns they may be contaminated with cleaning solution.

Zoe Bartlett, an early career researcher at the University of Tasmania, contributed to this piece.

– ref. E. coli in milk won’t necessarily make you sick – but it signals risks from other bacteria – http://theconversation.com/e-coli-in-milk-wont-necessarily-make-you-sick-but-it-signals-risks-from-other-bacteria-119229

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phoebe Bailey, Associate Professor of Psychology, Western Sydney University

Populations around the world are ageing rapidly. Almost one in four people will be aged 60 or more by 2050. This growing cohort of older adults is often portrayed as too trusting – why should this be so?

Trust may be particularly important for the successful functioning of older adults as they come to rely more on others in the face of physical and cognitive decline.

Trust is also important for establishing and maintaining cooperation between individuals and groups, and promoting social behaviour, good health, life satisfaction, and longevity.

Read more: Low income, no assets, large credit-card debt: why more older Australians are declaring bankruptcy

Our new meta-analysis aggregating data from 38 independent studies suggests that the short answer is “yes”: older people are more trusting than younger people.

But are they trusting the right people?

Financial versus non-financial trust

In research terms, trust is defined from a multidisciplinary perspective as

a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another.

Our meta-analysis shows that when trust is expressed non-financially, older adults are more trusting than young adults, regardless of the trustworthiness of the recipient of that trust.

The clear downside of greater trust is increased vulnerability to deception and exploitation. A common perception is that wealth accumulated over a lifetime combined with trusting natures makes older adults targets for financial exploitation.

There are two primary types of elder financial exploitation: elder financial fraud and scams and elder financial abuse. The two types are differentiated by the absence or presence of trust.

Fraud and scams do not rely on trust. One in 18 cognitively healthy older adults is reported to experience financial fraud each year, with this figure likely to be even higher due to under-reporting. But contrary to popular opinion, consumer fraud is less common among older adults than younger adults.

Elder financial abuse on the other hand is defined by the relationship of trust within which it occurs, and is one of the fastest growing crimes. Financial trust involves investing money with some expectation of a return on investment. Our meta-analysis shows that, relative to young adults, older adults invest more financial trust in the untrustworthy, but not the trustworthy.

If greater financial reserves were the sole explanation for older adults investing more in the untrustworthy, we would expect to see them investing more in the trustworthy too.

But this was not the case for financial trust. A better explanation might be found in the age-related positivity effect. This effect refers to a well-documented finding that older adults are less likely to remember and pay attention to negative information (for example, untrustworthiness) relative to positive information (such as trustworthiness).

Age-related positivity

There are both empirical and theoretical grounds for predicting that trust in the untrustworthy relative to trustworthy increases disproportionately with age.

Socioemotional selectivity theory attributes this age-related shift in information processing to changes in motivation across the lifespan.

Young adults, who see their lives stretching ahead of them, tend to prioritise future-oriented goals such as gaining knowledge. Older adults with shorter time horizons are motivated to prioritise present-focused goals such as emotional satisfaction and positivity.

Further evidence for the age-related positivity effect comes from studies measuring changes in brain activity. With age, activity in a region of the brain called the amygdala decreases in response to negative stimuli, but is maintained in response to positive stimuli.

Another region, the anterior insula, is thought to be responsible for “gut feelings” associated with risk. This region is less active in older adults when viewing faces with an untrustworthy appearance.

Genuine versus superficial trustworthiness

It’s important to keep in mind that, sometimes, information about trustworthiness can’t be trusted. Fraudsters can have trustworthy-looking faces. Think Bernie Madoff. These superficial appearances are by no means a reliable indicator of trustworthiness.

Interestingly, our meta-analysis found that reliability of the cue to trustworthiness has no effect on age-related differences in trust. Older adults are more trusting than young adults in response to both genuine cues to trustworthiness (such as past behaviour) and superficial cues like facial appearance.

This is dangerous when trust is extended to the wolf in sheep’s clothing. But it is an advantage when trust is given to a worthy recipient who may otherwise appear untrustworthy.

Older adults are generally more trusting than their younger counterparts. But to be considered “too trusting” conveys only negative implications. Trust not only increases risk of financial abuse, it also confers many benefits, especially in older age.

– ref. The trust trap: why older Australians are more trusting, and what that means for them – http://theconversation.com/the-trust-trap-why-older-australians-are-more-trusting-and-what-that-means-for-them-119092

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julie Shiels, Lecturer – School of Art, RMIT University

The phrase “colonial settlement” sounds benign, but Julie Gough’s Tense Past presents compelling evidence to the contrary.

Since 1994, Gough has been searching the archives, piecing together the evidence and representing Tasmania’s overlooked history of dispossession and frontier war.

She has made art installations by collecting maps, correspondence and text, found objects and natural materials, and by recording her own movement – walking, running and driving – through her ancestors’ land.

Read more: Tasmania’s Black War: a tragic case of lest we remember?

In this major exhibition, surveying 25 years of her work, Trawlwoolway artist Gough generously shares her own, and her family’s experiences as Tasmanian Aboriginal people to skilfully entwine the past with the present.

A legacy of early Australian landscapes

We understand our colonial history through art. In Hunting Ground Pastoral, Gough counters the bucolic and idyllic narrative of Australian colonial paintings.

Representing new lives in a “new” land, colonial painters like John Glover and Joseph Lycett helped to create — and continue to maintain today — an official story of peaceful settlement in their paintings of Australia.

Their early landscapes give the impression of Europeans farming a fertile and ordered countryside. Aboriginal people are generally not present at all, but if they are, they are portrayed in some parallel Antipodean Arcadia, living harmoniously in an environment unaffected by European settlement.

In this video, Gough corrects the visual record. She recreates hidden scenes from the Black Wars by animating a series of historic prints of familiar Tasmanian locations such as the village of Richmond, a major tourist destination just outside Hobart.

As the video progresses, each print is slowly inscribed with quotations from historical documents detailing a massacre that occurred at the same site:

Launceston … pursuit 12 miles … four men, one woman and a child killed.

Blood red arrows, crosses or circles appear beneath the superimposed words and a blood red stain seeps into the landscape. Each image is then slowly obscured by soil until it is completely buried, just as these colonial paintings in their gilded frames have painted out a history in which the hunting grounds of Gough’s ancestors become the site where they themselves were hunted and murdered.

Brutal dispossession

Curated by Mary Knights, Gough’s sculptures, videos and installations are deftly supported by colonial artworks and artefacts from TMAG and other major collections.

And just as Gough re-inserts Aboriginal resistance fighters into the landscape of the colonial painting, these genteel portraits, items of furniture, cutlery and letters remind us that Tasmanian history was not some abstract process, but a series of deliberate acts carried out by men and women of refined tastes.

Read more: Peta Clancy brings a hidden Victorian massacre to the surface with Undercurrent

The 1830 Black Line map graphically illustrates the tactical manoeuvres of a cordon of soldiers, police and settlers moving across the island north to south, attempting to force all remaining Tasmanian Aboriginal people off their land.

A campaign desk with a sealed box provides the staging to re-imagine the moment that the plan of attack was conceived, approved, activated and managed.

And in her piece, We Ran/I am, Gough gives human form to these brutal attempts to dispossess Aboriginal people and links herself to her ancestors. Retracing the Black Line on foot, she captures her own body running and stumbling in 14 still images.

Above the prints hang seven, earth-stained pairs of calico trousers that she recreated to resemble those described in a journal entry by the “protector” of Aborigines George Augustus Robinson as “excellent things”, because they made it impossible to run.

The first stolen generation

One of the most powerful ways in which Gough connects the past with the present is through the stories of children. In a sound installation she sings a Tasmanian Aboriginal children’s song, Song for the Aborigines, that was transcribed by Mrs Maria Logan in 1856. The historic manuscript is also displayed in the gallery.

But she also tells us about the first generation of stolen children, long before the term was first adopted, in her piece, “Missing or Dead”.

Over a ten-year period, Gough gathered the names of Aboriginal children who had been living with non-Aboriginal people up until 1840.

She identified more than 180 individuals and created a haunting memorial to these forgotten children by inscribing some of these names (including three of her ancestors) onto unfinished tea-tree spears.

Bundled together and constrained by the suspended frame of a broken chair, names like “Girl x”, “Goldie” and “Charley x” are burnt onto the bare wood, offering a sharp, poignant glimpse of their lives and so resisting their erasure from history.

Beyond the gallery, Gough extends this work in a temporary memorial that forms part of the Dark Mofo’s Dark Path program.

Read more: Explainer: how Tasmania’s Aboriginal people reclaimed a language, palawa kani

More than 180 posters bearing the names of stolen and missing children are nailed to the trees in Queen’s Domain, referencing how proclamations were displayed in colonial times.

This work illustrates the tragedy and scale of child removal while also alluding to white anxieties about losing children in the Australian bush.

Gough tells us she has only been able to track ten of these missing children’s descendants through the archives. The tragic loss is not confined to the past but continues through time: the stolen children of the 19th Century are the missing generations of today.

Tense Past reconnects our hearts and minds to the consequences of the frontier wars, the missing ancestors and lost generations, and the impact of colonisation on Tasmania’s first people — then and now.

Julie Gough – Tense Past Presented by Dark Mofo and the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart 7 June – 3 November 2019.

– ref. Julie Gough’s ‘Tense Past’ reminds us how the brutalities of colonial settlement are still felt today – http://theconversation.com/julie-goughs-tense-past-reminds-us-how-the-brutalities-of-colonial-settlement-are-still-felt-today-118923

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Nixon, PhD, The University of Queensland

Curious Kids is a series for children. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au You might also like the podcast Imagine This, a co-production between ABC KIDS listen and The Conversation, based on Curious Kids.

Can you find out why spiders need six eyes but we only need two? – Amos, age 3, Newcastle.

Hi, Amos. Thanks for your excellent question.

The first thing we should say is that while it’s true that some spiders have six eyes, most actually have eight.

The short answer to your question is that animals have evolved different eyes that best suit the lives they lead.

Read more: Curious Kids: What are spider webs made from and how strong are they?

Humans have two eyes that face forward. Our eyes are very good at seeing colours and shapes. Having two big eyes in the front of our head means they can work together to guess how far away something is (we call this “judging distance”). That makes it easier for us to catch another animal so we can eat it.

Spiders are also hunters and they need eyes that help them find and catch their food. In fact, most spiders can’t see very well, and use touch and taste to explore the world. But the kind of eyes they have tells us something about the food they eat and the lives they live.

Spider eyes for spider lives

Jumping spiders are active hunters, like tiny lions chasing down their prey (bugs). They usually have eight eyes: two very large front eyes to get a clear, colour image and judge distance, and extra side eyes to detect when something is moving. Here’s a picture of an Australian jumping spider.

Some spiders make nets to catch their prey. These net-casting spiders also need to see clearly and judge distances. Some have developed huge, scary-looking black eyes that stare straight ahead, so they are nicknamed ogre spiders! These gigantic eyes help the spider to see a wide area and accurately throw down its spider web net to catch its prey. Here’s a picture of a net-casting spider.

Some spiders live in caves that are completely dark, where eyes are no use at all. They have to rely on other senses to find their food in the dark. To save energy making eyes, these spiders lost their eyes during evolution, so now some of them have no eyes at all. You can see a picture of a spider like that here.

So why did most spiders end up with so many eyes?

Both human and spider eyes are the result of slowly evolving to help us survive in our different environments. One reason our human eyes are different from spiders is because our bodies and brains are also built differently.

For example, spiders don’t have necks. So they can’t turn their heads to look at things like we can. Having extra eyes around their heads is one way that spiders see more of the world around them, helping them to quickly spot prey or a potential predator.

Human eyes and spider eyes also do different jobs. Our two eyes are very complex and are good at doing many jobs at once, while spiders have different sorts of eyes that do different jobs.

For example, the large central eyes of jumping spiders are best for seeing shapes, but the simple side eyes have the important job of watching out for predators.

So a two-eyed spider or even an eight-eyed human isn’t impossible. But the two eyes we have and the eight eyes most spiders have are perfectly suited to help each of us live our lives just the way they are.

Read more: Curious Kids: why do spiders have hairy legs?

Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

Please tell us your name, age and which city you live in. We won’t be able to answer every question but we will do our best.

– ref. Curious Kids: why do spiders need so many eyes but we only need two? – http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-do-spiders-need-so-many-eyes-but-we-only-need-two-116821

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Andrejevic, Professor, School of Media, Film, and Journalism, Monash University

The recent viral “deepfake” video of Mark Zuckerberg declaring, “whoever controls the data controls the world” was not a particularly convincing imitation of the Facebook CEO, but it was spectacularly successful at focusing attention on the threat of digital media manipulation.

While photographic fakes have been around since the dawn of photography, the more recent use of deep learning artificial intelligence techniques (the “deep” in deepfakes) is leading to the creation of increasingly credible computer simulations.

The Zuckerberg video attracted online attention both because it featured the tech wunderkind who is partially responsible for flooding the world with fake news, and because it highlighted the technology that will surely make the problem worse.

Read more: Detecting ‘deepfake’ videos in the blink of an eye

‘False positives’ aren’t the only problem

We have seen the pain and tragedy that viral falsehoods can cause, from the harassment of parents who lost children in the Sandy Hook shooting, to mob murders in India and elsewhere.

Deepfakes, we worry, will only worsen the problem. What if they are used to falsely implicate someone in a murder? To provide fake orders to troops on the battlefield? Or to incite armed conflict?

We might describe such events as the “false positives” of deep fakery: events that seemed to happen, but didn’t. On the other hand, there are the “false negatives”: events that did happen, but which run the risk of being dismissed as just another fake.

Think of US President Donald Trump’s claim that the voice on the notorious Access Hollywood tape, in which he boasts about groping women, was not his own. Trump has made a political speciality out of asking people not to believe their eyes or ears. He misled people about the size of the audience at his inauguration, and said he didn’t call Meghan Markle “nasty” in an interview when he did.

This strategy works by calling into question any and all mediated evidence. That is, anything we do not experience directly ourselves, and even much of what we do to the extent that it is not shared by others.

What is at issue is our ability to communicate truths to one another and to generate a consensus around them. These stakes are high indeed, since democracy relies on the efficacy of speaking truth to power. If, as The Guardian put it, “deepfakes are where truth goes to die”, then they threaten to take public accountability down with them.

Read more: AI can now create fake porn, making revenge porn even more complicated

Increased surveillance isn’t the answer

Because the problem seems to be a technological one, it’s tempting to cast about for technological, rather than social or political, solutions. Typically, these proposed solutions take the form of enhanced verification, which entails increasingly comprehensive surveillance.

One idea is to have every camera automatically tag images with a unique digital signature. This would enable images to be traced back to the device that took them, and, in the case of networked devices, to its user or owner. One commentator has described this as “a surveillance state’s dream”.

Or we might imagine a world in which the built environment is permeated with multiple cameras, constantly capturing and constructing a “shared” reality that can be used to debunk fake videos as they emerge. This would be not just the dream of a surveillance state, but its fantasy realised.

The fact that such solutions are not only dystopian, but also fail to effectively address the problem (since signatures can be faked, and the “official” version of reality can be dismissed as yet another fake), does not make us any less likely to be pursue them.

The additional flaw of such solutions is they assume people and platforms circulating fake information will defer to the truth when confronted with it.

Read more: Deepfake videos could destroy trust in society – here’s how to restore it

People believe what they want to believe

We know social media platforms, until they are held accountable for verifying the information they circulate, have an incentive to promote whatever gets the most attention, regardless of its authenticity. We’re more reluctant to admit the same is true of people.

In the online attention economy, it’s not just the platforms that benefit from circulating sensational disinformation, it’s also the people who use them.

Consider the case of the London-based Islamic journalist Hussein Kesvani. Kesvani recounts the time he tracked down a Twitter troll named “True Brit” who had been peppering him with Islamophobic comments and memes. After establishing a regular online conversation with his online antagonist, Kesvani was able to land a face-to-face interview with him.

He asked True Brit why he was willing to circulate demonstrably false facts, claims, and mislabelled and misleading images. True Brit shrugged off the question, saying, “You don’t know what’s true or not these days, anyway”. He didn’t care about literal truth, only about the “deeper” emotional truth of the images, which he felt confirmed his prejudices.

Strategies of verification may be useful for ramping up surveillance society, but they will have little purchase on the True Brits of the world who are willing to embrace and circulate deepfakes because they believe their lies contain deeper truths. The problem lies not just in the technology, but in the degraded version of civic upon which social media platforms thrive.

– ref. People who spread deepfakes think their lies reveal a deeper truth – http://theconversation.com/people-who-spread-deepfakes-think-their-lies-reveal-a-deeper-truth-119156

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrienne O’Neil, Principal Research Fellow & Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellow, Deakin University

The latest government statistics, released last week, show that from 2001-2016, the rate of cardiac events (heart attacks or unstable angina) fell by more than half among Australian women.

That’s largely because of greater education about risk factors for heart disease (smoking rates continue to fall), and medical advances in prevention and treatment.

One thing that might reduce rates of heart disease even further is to make sure women, in particular, are asked about their current mental health. This can be a pointer to a hidden risk of developing heart disease in the future.

Read more: We’re not just living for longer – we’re staying healthier for longer, too

Mental illness can directly affect heart health by placing extra pressure on the cardiovascular system. Depression has been linked to inflammation, which can clog a person’s arteries. Depression also increases the presence of stress hormones in the body, which dull the response of the heart and arteries to demands for increased blood flow.

Less direct effects on heart health include the impact of depression on a person’s health behaviours, such as diet and exercise, and their connections with other people.

We’ve shown Australian middle-aged women with depression have double the risk of having a heart attack or stroke in the following 18 years compared to women without depression.

Preventing heart disease

Cardiovascular diseases including stroke, coronary heart disease, and heart failure remain the number one killer of Australian women. In 2016, three in ten deaths were due to heart disease. Indigenous women are twice as likely as non-Indigenous women to die from this cause.

While we’re seeing significant reductions in the number of people getting heart disease overall, the latest report shows the opposite is true in young women. The rate of cardiovascular events like stroke is increasing in women aged 35 to 54.

Drinking alcohol, smoking, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, overweight/obesity, and a family history of heart disease are some of the important predictors of a person developing heart disease over the next five years.

So if someone is considered to have high risk of a cardiovascular event, this risk can be managed with the help of a medical professional.

Read more: Women have heart attacks too, but their symptoms are often dismissed as something else

April 1 saw the introduction of two new Medicare item numbers allowing eligible patients (those aged 45 and over, or 35 and over for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples) to be assessed for their risk of developing cardiovascular disease. This is known as a heart health check.

Using the Australian Risk Calculator, the doctor collects information to assess a patient’s risk of experiencing a cardiovascular event in the next five years.

If a person is identified as being sufficiently at risk, they will be targeted with preventative measures such as assistance with lifestyle modifications, and/or interventions like blood pressure or cholesterol medications.

Women have some unique risk factors

While many of the common risk factors for heart disease are shared between women and men, young and middle aged women have some that men don’t.

Polycystic ovary syndrome and complications during and after pregnancy (such as gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia) are all important considerations.

We’re only beginning to understand how these factors affect a woman’s risk, but they are likely to be as important as traditional risk factors in the context of heart health checks.

Another common issue in young women that influences heart disease risk is poor mental health. Common mental disorders like depression are more common in women than men until age 75.

Both heart disease and depression are largely socially determined, especially for women and girls. Early life trauma, poverty, and gendered violence and discrimination can accumulate across a woman’s lifespan to shape her risk of heart disease and stroke.

Screening for mental health

We did some statistical modelling to see whether depression should be added to the risk equation that underpins the heart health checks.

For women who reported depression in this context, we were able to more accurately predict whether they’d go on to develop heart disease over the next ten years.

While more research is needed, asking about a woman’s mental health may help GPs better identify risk of heart disease in younger women.

Read more: Biology is partly to blame for high rates of mental illness in women – the rest is social

Large population-based studies show reducing the prevalence of depression could have major implications for the prevention of heart disease and stroke. One study found having a poor psychosocial profile (depression, stress, isolation and anxiety) contributes 32% of the risk for heart attacks across the population.

In other words, if these psychosocial issues were eliminated, the incidence of heart attacks would be reduced by one-third.

Given the burden of these psychosocial issues is greater for women than men, women may have even more to gain if depression was targeted as part of preventing heart disease.

How can we address depression as a risk factor?

The heart health checks represent a significant step in the government’s investment in preventive medicine and public health.

While time poor clinicians can’t be expected to capture an infinite number of risk factors in a short consultation, these sessions may present a good opportunity for GPs to ask their patients about their mental health in the context of their heart disease risk. Equally, this may be a good time for patients to flag any concerns about their mental health with their GP.

Read more: How Australians Die: cause #1 – heart diseases and stroke

There are few studies yet that definitively show treating depression will prevent a first heart attack or a recurrent event.

This is especially true for women, who are under-represented in this type of research. One study, where participants were given psychological therapy after a cardiac event like a heart attack, found the intervention benefited future heart health outcomes for “white men, but not other subgroups”.

We need more research to tell us if and how treating depression might prevent heart disease and stroke, especially for women. In the meantime, there are many free or subsidised options for the management of depression available either via your GP (psychologists and counsellors) or online.

– ref. For women’s sake, let’s screen for depression as part of the new heart health checks – http://theconversation.com/for-womens-sake-lets-screen-for-depression-as-part-of-the-new-heart-health-checks-118910

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leigh Ackland, Professor in Molecular Biosciences, Deakin University

For many of us, eating a meal containing meat is a normal part of daily life. But if we dig deeper, some sobering issues emerge.

Every year, 66 billion terrestrial animals are slaughtered for food. Predictions are that meat consumption will rise, with increasing demand for meat from China and other Asian countries as their standards of living increase.

The impact of grazing animals on the environment is devastating. They produce 18% of the world’s greenhouse gases, and livestock farming is a major contributor to species extinctions.

Read more: No animal required, but would people eat artificial meat?

What’s more, humans have caused tremendous suffering to animals through industrial scale animal farming.

Some experts have even said meat may not be essential for most people, and a vegetarian diet is healthier than a meat-based one. So the rationale for developing meat alternatives – “fake meat” – is strong.

Fake meat can be made from plant-based materials that mimic the taste of meat. But for those who want something closer to the real thing, meat cells can be grown in a laboratory – this is called “in vitro agriculture”. Here’s how it works.

Growing meat, but not in an animal

The concept of cultured meat has been around for some time. In 1931, Winston Churchill even said:

We shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing. By growing these parts separately under a suitable medium.

The world’s first cultured beef burger was produced by Professor Mark Post at Maastricht University in The Netherlands. It was cooked and eaten publicly at a London restaurant in 2013. It took three months to grow the meat and cost €250,000.

Since then, the race has been on to produce commercially available synthetic meat. Many companies have taken out patents to grow meat on a commercially viable scale and some have even received funding from people like Bill Gates and Richard Branson.

Read more: World’s first lab-grown burger? Don’t forget the semi-living steak

Thanks to advances in tissue engineering, we can take all sorts of cells ranging from skin and blood to muscle and the brain from different animals, and grow them under controlled laboratory conditions.

The type of meat people want to eat is from muscle. This means synthetic meat production involves producing large quantities of muscle cells in a laboratory.

Growing this involves three main processes:

• selecting precursor (or “starter” cells) from the animal – in this case, muscle precursor cells – and providing them with the correct environment for growth

• growing them in bulk in an environment that mimics an animal body

• the precursor cells then have to be switched on (or “induced”) to turn into skeletal muscle by chemical or mechanical signals.

The growing and conversion of cells into skeletal muscle are the major challenges the industry currently faces. The appearance of this meat would likely resemble burger-type meat, like a patty, rather than carcass meat, which is very structured.

For example, when you cut into a steak, you might see the meat organised into long strands or fibres. But with cultured meat, the organisation of the cells may be more haphazard.

It’s entirely feasible for some types of cells to grow fast and reproduce themselves once every 24 hours in a laboratory setting – this is much faster than in an animal. The challenge is to achieve this on a large scale in bio-reactors (a vessel to contain the laboratory-grown cells), and then to get all the cells converted from precursor cells to muscle cells.

Read more: Should lab-grown meat be labelled as meat when it’s available for sale?

If eating the products of tissue cells seems unsavoury, consider that people already consume products of cell culture technologies. Over 50% of biological molecules for vaccines and for treating diseases (such as antibodies for cancer treatment) are produced in mammalian cell cultures..

So we are already on track to consume “fake”, or artificially synthesised, molecules.

What takes more resources – growing cows or growing cells?

It takes around 18 months for a cow to grow fully, after a pregnancy of 10 months.

So in total, it takes two years and four months of growth in a space roughly 10.5 by 15.2 square metres, in a barn. When a cow is killed, it produces a 300kg carcass and 180kg of butchered meat.

On the other hand, it takes 8 trillion cells in a laboratory to make 1 kilogram of muscle meat.

A container of 5,000 litres (the size of an average rainwater tank, or somewhere around 5 cubic metres) would be needed to grow this number of cells. This would account for cells grown in layers, and covered by a liquid to provide nutrients.

Read more: How to get the nutrients you need without eating as much red meat

If cells in a laboratory divide every 24 hours, then it would take just over 26 days to grow 1kg of meat.

This growth rate is feasible for some types of cells, such as skin and gut, but has not yet been reported for muscle cells in a laboratory.

Therefore, lab-grown meat could take fewer natural resources (like vegetation and water) to grow the equivalent amount of animal meat. The commercial availability of “fake meat” could profoundly decrease the enormous environmental impact of grazing animals and reduce animal cruelty.

As 90% of Australians are concerned about animal welfare, and Australians are largely worried about climate change, fake meat has the potential to make a real impact to the meat industry.

– ref. Would you eat meat grown from cells in a laboratory? Here’s how it works – http://theconversation.com/would-you-eat-meat-grown-from-cells-in-a-laboratory-heres-how-it-works-117420

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katharine Gelber, Professor of Politics and Public Policy, The University of Queensland

The federal education minister, Dan Tehan, has called on universities to implement a model code to protect freedom of speech and academic freedom on campus. He’s referring to the code drafted by a former High Court chief justice, Robert French, in his review of freedom of speech in Australian universities.

Tehan said he commissioned the review due to concerns certain views were being shut down on campus. This followed protests at Sydney University during a talk by sex-therapist and commentator Bettina Arndt. The talk challenged notions of a rape culture on campus.

French’s report concluded there was no systemic free speech crisis in Australian universities. But he noted many universities’ policies use broad terms that create the potential to limit free speech on campus.

He therefore suggested universities voluntarily strengthen their protections for free speech by adopting general principles, which he set out in a model code. So, what does that code look like? And should universities be adopting it?

Read more: Special pleading: free speech and Australian universities

What is the model code?

French’s proposed model code has, at its core, the need to ensure both the freedom of lawful speech and academic freedom. French differentiates between the two, which he says are often conflated. He writes:

The proposed Code uses the terms ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘academic freedom’ instead of ‘freedom of intellectual inquiry’. They are intended to distinguish between freedom of speech as a common societal freedom and freedom of speech and intellectual inquiry as aspects of academic freedom.

The code also makes clear a university can restrict free speech and academic freedom if this is necessary to achieve the university’s core research and teaching mission, to comply with legal duties and to “foster the well-being of students and staff”.

This last element includes that universities have a duty to protect staff and students from discrimination. This acknowledges that a person’s freedom of speech stops when it starts to infringe on another’s rights.

The model code recognises that universities’ duties include preventing staff and students using lawful speech in a way that would be regarded as “likely to humiliate or intimidate” others. This provides quite a generous scope for universities to prevent discriminatory and vilifying speech, even if it would not meet the legal threshold for vilification under federal law or state law such as in NSW.

The code recognises that academic freedom can be limited by reasonable requirements about course content and pedagogy (although offensive or shocking material that is otherwise compliant is protected by academic freedom).

Finally, the model code turns to concerns that have dominated media headlines and motivated the inquiry – hosting controversial speakers.

In this respect, the code:

• protects universities’ ability to set the conditions under which external speakers will use their facilities, including paying for security costs
• requires universities to seek to minimise the impact of donors and other third parties on staff and students’ free speech and academic freedom
• subjects universities’ ability to deny speakers a platform if their content is unlawful, or prevents the university from fulfilling its duty to foster staff and student well-being, or if it involves

the advancement of theories or propositions which do not meet scholarly standards […] and would be […] “detrimental to the university’s character as an institution of higher learning”.

It could be said, then, that these protections reflect the existing state of affairs on Australian campuses. Although universities, their staff and students all stand to benefit from clarifying obscure policy language, the pressure for universities to take action may be more about politics than anything else.

Read more: We need to talk about the actual threats to academic freedom on Australian campuses

What are universities doing?

In response to the French report, Universities Australia’s chief executive, Catriona Jackson, said universities would consider its recommendations. She also emphasised universities’ independence, saying that:

[…] sector-wide legislative or regulatory requirements would be aimed at solving a problem that has not been demonstrated to exist and any changes could conflict with fundamental principles of university autonomy.

The University of Melbourne has, in recent days, released a new policy on free speech, which is substantially similar to the model code. It begins from the presumption free speech, academic freedom and university autonomy are all “core values”. It limits free speech that “unreasonably disrupts activities or operations of the university […] or jeopardises the physical safety of individuals”.

But it arguably goes further in permitting limitations on speech that “undermines the capacity of individuals to participate fully in the University”.

This provision is particularly interesting. At first it appears similar to the model code’s duty of the university to foster student and staff well-being, but the code requires the university to prevent discriminatory harms.

By contrast, the University of Melbourne’s policy suggests an affirmative duty for members of the university community to support one another’s capacity for full engagement in university life. This is possibly a more positive understanding of the freedom than encapsulated by the model code.

Finally, and illustrating the complexity of these issues, Melbourne’s new policy links to other detailed university policies that regulate workplace behaviour, student conduct, university facilities, acceptable use of IT, and academic freedom.

Read more: There’s no need for the ‘Chicago principles’ in Australian universities to protect freedom of speech

The University of Sydney has also announced plans to “thoughtfully” implement the principles of the model code. It remains to be seen how this will play out.

The university recently concluded its investigation into the protests against Arndt, disciplining one student while also reinforcing that protests are protected speech.

Focusing on policies is only part of the story. As French stated:

A culture powerfully predisposed to the exercise of freedom of speech and academic freedom is ultimately a more effective protection than the most tightly drawn rule. A culture not so predisposed will undermine the most emphatic statement of principles.

We could not agree more.

– ref. Dan Tehan wants a ‘model code’ on free speech at universities – what is it and do unis need it? – http://theconversation.com/dan-tehan-wants-a-model-code-on-free-speech-at-universities-what-is-it-and-do-unis-need-it-119163

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Trivess Moore, Lecturer, RMIT University

New housing in Australia must meet minimum energy performance requirements. We wondered how many buildings exceeded the minimum standard. What our analysis found is that four in five new houses are being built to the minimum standard and a negligible proportion to an optimal performance standard.

Before these standards were introduced the average performance of housing was found to be around 1.5 stars. The current minimum across most of Australia is six stars under the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS).

This six-star minimum falls short of what is optimal in terms of environmental, economic and social outcomes. It’s also below the minimum set by many other countries.

Read more: Low-energy homes don’t just save money, they improve lives

There have been calls for these minimum standards to be raised. However, many policymakers and building industry stakeholders believe the market will lift performance beyond minimum standards and so there is no need to raise these.

What did the data show?

We wanted to understand what was happening in the market to see if consumers or regulation were driving the energy performance of new housing. To do this we explored the NatHERS data set of building approvals for new Class 1 housing (detached and row houses) in Australia from May 2016 (when all data sets were integrated by CSIRO and Sustainability Victoria) to December 2018.

Our analysis focuses on new housing in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT, all of which apply the minimum six-star NatHERS requirement. The other states have local variations to the standard, while New South Wales uses the BASIX index to determine the environmental impact of housing.

The chart below shows the performance for 187,320 house ratings. Almost 82% just met the minimum standard (6.0-6.4 star). Another 16% performed just above the minimum standard (6.5-6.9 star).

Only 1.5% were designed to perform at the economically optimal 7.5 stars and beyond. By this we mean a balance between the extra upfront building costs and the savings and benefits from lifetime building performance.

The average rating is 6.2 stars across the states. This has not changed since 2016.

The data analysis shows that, while most housing is built to the minimum standard, the cooler temperate regions (Tasmania, ACT) have more houses above 7.0 stars compared with the warm temperate states.

The ACT increased average performance each year from 6.5 stars in 2016 to 6.9 stars in 2018. This was not seen in any other state or territory.

The ACT is the only region with mandatory disclosure of the energy rating on sale or lease of property. The market can thus value the relative energy efficiency of buildings. Providing this otherwise invisible information may have empowered consumers to demand slightly better performance.

Read more: Energy star ratings for homes? Good idea, but it needs some real estate flair

We are paying for accepting a lower standard

The evidence suggests consumers are not acting rationally or making decisions to maximise their financial well-being. Rather, they just accept the minimum performance the building sector delivers.

Higher energy efficiency or even environmental sustainability in housing provides not only significant benefits to the individual but also to society. And these improvements can be delivered for little additional cost.

Read more: Sustainable housing’s expensive, right? Not when you look at the whole equation

The fact that these improvements aren’t being made suggests there are significant barriers to the market operating efficiently. This is despite increasing awareness among consumers and in the housing industry about the rising cost of energy.

Eight years after the introduction of the six-star NatHERS minimum requirement for new housing in Australia, the results show the market is delivering four out of five houses that just meet this requirement. With only 1.5% designed to 7.5 stars or beyond, regulation rather than the economically optimal energy rating is clearly driving the energy performance of Australian homes.

Increasing the minimum performance standard is the most effective way to improve the energy outcomes.

The next opportunity for increasing the minimum energy requirement will be 2022. Australian housing standards were already about 2.0 NatHERS stars behind comparable developed countries in 2008. If mandatory energy ratings aren’t increased, Australia will fall further behind international best practice.

If we continue to create a legacy of homes with relatively poor energy performance, making the transition to a low-energy and low-carbon economy is likely to get progressively more challenging and expensive. Recent research has calculated that a delay in increasing minimum performance requirements from 2019 to 2022 will result in an estimated A$1.1 billion (to 2050) in avoidable household energy bills. That’s an extra 3 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

Read more: Buildings produce 25% of Australia’s emissions. What will it take to make them ‘green’ – and who’ll pay?

Our research confirms the policy proposition that minimum house energy regulations based on the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme are a powerful instrument for delivering better environmental and energy outcomes. While introducing minimum standards has significantly lifted the bottom end of the market, those standards should be reviewed regularly to ensure optimal economic and environmental outcomes.

– ref. Australia’s still building 4 in every 5 new houses to no more than the minimum energy standard – http://theconversation.com/australias-still-building-4-in-every-5-new-houses-to-no-more-than-the-minimum-energy-standard-118820

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Scott Morrison will commit to getting consumers, business and investors “off the economic sidelines and on the field again” in his first major domestic speech of the new term.

Addressing a business audience in Perth on Monday, Morrison will set out the government’s economic priorities for the next few months, including delivering its tax plan when the new parliament meets, and “provoking the ‘animal spirits’” in the economy by removing regulatory and bureaucratic barriers to investment.

He will also foreshadow a new look at industrial relations reform while stressing that it must benefit both employers and employees.

Acknowledging the challenges and headwinds affecting the Australian economy, which registered low growth in the latest national accounts, Morrison will say political uncertainty in the election run up weighed on the confidence of consumers, businesses and investors. This saw them “sitting on the sidelines” until it was over.

“Our job post election is now very clear – to get Australians off the economic sidelines and on the field again.”

With shadow cabinet on Monday discussing the opposition’s position on the Coalition’s three-stage decade-long tax package, Morrison will seek to increase pressure on Labor to pass all stages, saying the plan doesn’t just have a strong political mandate but also “a compelling policy rationale”.

The first stage will boost consumption and be equivalent to at least two 25 basis point interest rate cuts, he says in his speech, released ahead of delivery.

Read more: Frydenberg declares tax package must be passed ‘in its entirety’

Labor agrees with stage one but is yet to decide whether it will wave through the second and third stages, both due to start after the next election. It has been particularly critical of stage three, which delivers to the highest income earners. The government says it won’t split the bill, which will be introduced when the new parliament begins next week.

While some in Labor believe it should pass the whole package, others argue it is irresponsible to commit to tax cuts years out in uncertain times.

Shadow treasurer Jim Chalmers, interviewed on the ABC, reiterated on Sunday that Labor wanted to know how the third stage – worth $95 billion of the $158 billion package – was distributed through the various tax brackets. He said Labor’s highest priority was to get the first stage flowing through the economy, while the government’s highest priority seemed the third stage which didn’t come in for another five years.

But Morrison says in his speech: “It still baffles me why Labor can readily sign up to spending schemes that run for decades, yet cannot do the same to let Australians keep more of their own money.

“Under our changes, from 2024-25, 94% of Australians will pay a maximum marginal tax rate of no more than 30 cents in the dollar, compared to only 16% if stages two and three are not delivered.

“Or to put it another way, almost 80% of hard working Australians will keep more of what they earn following stages two and three of our tax plan.”

Read more: The Reserve Bank will cut rates again and again, until we lift spending and push up prices

Morrison says that to provoke the “animal spirits” in the economy, regulatory and bureaucratic barriers to business investment must be removed.

This requires “reducing regulatory barriers to growth and driving improvements in industrial relations that improve outcomes for both workers and businesses”.

“Congestion is not just on our roads and in our cities. We also need to bust regulatory congestion, removing obstacles to business investment,” he says, instancing the experience of the mining industry in Western Australia.

“In 1966, the late Sir Arvi Parbo took the Kambalda nickel mine near Kalgoorlie from discovery to operation in 18 months. By contrast, the Roy Hill iron ore mine took around 10 years to complete around 4,000 approvals. Delays to the project meant delays to over 5,000 construction jobs and 2,000 ongoing jobs.

“There is a clear need to improve approvals timeframes and reduce regulatory costs, but in many cases regulators are making things worse.

“Look at the WA Environment Protection Authority and the uncertainty it has created over new emissions requirements for the resources sector. Business will also make valid criticisms of many Commonwealth agencies and departments.”

Morrison is appointing his close confidant Ben Morton, from WA, who is Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, to work with him, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and other ministers “to tackle the full suite of barriers to investment in key industries and activities”.

The government will focus on regulatory reform “from the perspective of a business looking, say, to open a mine, commercialise a new biomedical innovation, or even start a home-based, family business.

“By focusing on regulation from the viewpoint of business, we will identify the regulations and bureaucratic processes that impose the largest costs on key sectors of the economy and the biggest hurdles to letting those investments flow.

“What are the barriers, blockages and bottlenecks? How do we get things moving?

“Step one is to get a picture of the regulatory anatomies that apply to key sectoral investments. Step two is to identify the blockages. Step three is to remove them, like cholesterol in the arteries.”

Read more: View from The Hill: To whack the CFMMEU, Morrison needs first to get the right stick

Morrison will highlight the need “to protect investment from the impact of militant unions” and reaffirm that the government plans to try to get through the new parliament its Ensuring Integrity bill, that stalled in the last term. This would strengthen its hand against militant unions, notably the CFMMEU.

Beyond this, Morrison will say he has asked the new Minister for Industrial Relations, Christian Porter “to take a fresh look at how the system is operating and where there may be impediments to shared gains for employers and employees.

“Any changes in this area must be evidence-based, protect the rights and entitlements of workers and have clear gains for the economy and for working Australians.”

– ref. Morrison wants to unleash economy’s ‘animal spirits’ and foreshadows new look at industrial relations – http://theconversation.com/morrison-wants-to-unleash-economys-animal-spirits-and-foreshadows-new-look-at-industrial-relations-119289

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ted Snell, Professor, Chief Cultural Officer, Cultural Precinct, University of Western Australia

Depicting the moment of creative inspiration has been a challenge for filmmakers since the first ribbon of film rattled its way past a camera lens. In numerous films, the artist’s studio has been mythologised as a tantalising mystery, a place of transgression, of wild imaginings and not infrequently, of sexual license and debauchery.

In search of a window into that most mysterious of all human activities – the creative imagination – historians, filmmakers and journalists have tried to prise open the mind of famous artists.

A long list of films purports to show these artists in the throes of inspiration as they create the certified masterpieces we see adorning galleries in the world’s museums. Indeed, we seem to be amid an artist-biopic tidal wave as directors pull focus on yet another famous painter (occasionally sculptor, even more occasionally, a woman) and present their interpretation of what actually goes on in that holy sanctum, the studio.

The most recent is Never Look Away, loosely adapted from the life of Gerhard Richter by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. It comes hot on the heels of Julian Schnabel’s At Eternity’s Gate, another retelling of Vincent van Gogh’s life story and Thomas M. Wright’s Acute Misfortune, which delves into Adam Cullen’s psyche. Other films are in the wings, examining the lives and work of L.S Lowry, Leonardo da Vinci, and Théodore Géricault.

Disappointingly, there is still an absence of women artists in filmmakers’ mythmaking biopics. While there are wonderful examples, such as the films documenting the lives and work of Camille Claudel (1988), Frida Kahlo (2002) and Séraphine de Senlis (2008) they are rare exceptions.

Filmmakers are predictably entranced by their heroes it seems and eagerly trawl the depths of their practice to better understand the processes of artistic creation, but why is this topic of such interest to a general public?

One reason may be that creativity is being promoted as an essential skill for the fourth industrial revolution.

The World Economic Forum is calling for a lifelong approach to learning that encourages complex problem solving, critical thinking and creativity rather than the one-dimensional professional focus of the past. So, what better models could there be as the epitome of creative practice, than those great artists embedded in our collective conscience?

Read more: The creative process is more than one giant leap for humankind

Queasiness and rebellion

Famous artists have been the subject of popular films since Alexander Korda called action in 1936 and the cameras rolled on Charles Laughton shuffling through a vast studio in the guise of Rembrandt, sucking his pipe and wielding his mahlstick while creating an unseen masterpiece.

At least one scene, in which Rembrandt unveils a portrait of a powerful soldier to a hostile reception – an act of creative rebellion that ends a stellar career – is a total fiction. Still, it makes for a compelling scene.

In At Eternity’s Gate, Julian Schnabel, who is a famous artist himself, infuriatingly depicts Vincent van Gogh’s precarious mental state through a manic hand-held camera that has his audience lurching around in their seats seeking stasis.

Fortunately, Vincent’s own words, through his letters to his brother Theo, reveal something of the inner torment and the process of re-interpretation that brings some clarity and insight into how these wondrous images were formed on the canvas. (These letters also featured in Paul Cox’s 1987 film Vincent). Without these voice-overs, Schnabel’s film would invoke nothing other than incoherent queasiness.

Read more: Here’s looking at: Vincent Van Gogh’s Olive grove with two olive pickers

‘The scab that forms on the wound’

Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s epic portrayal of 30 years of German history, reflected in the life of a young artist seeking his way in the world, is not perfect. Still, it does go further than many of his predecessors in peeling back some of the unhelpful tropes that have blinkered our understanding of the creative process.

Like Korda, he is not squeamish about fictionalising the events in the life of his protagonist in the process of a creative re-imagining. Kurt Barnert – the lead protagonist in the film – is not Gerhard Richter, just a slightly blurred facsimile of the famous German artist.

In this way, von Donnersmarck gives himself license to reinterpret and refocus his understanding of how memory, pain, and anger can be fused in the act of making an image on a canvas.

In his studio in the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf in 1963, Barnert thrashes around re-making the works of contemporary American and German artists who have found success in the marketplace.

Waltzing with paint-soaked feet on a roll of paper, making papier-mâché figures and painting geometric abstractions, he finally resolves to fuse his undeniable technical virtuosity with his life experiences.

The black and white photographs he had packed in his bag on his flight from East Germany to the West were the catalyst for the works we associate with Richter; a soft brush drawn slowly over almost dry oil paint to create a blurring that seals the image as memory.

They are images that elicit complex responses from an audience who may not have experienced the same events but can relate closely enough to find solace.

Von Donnersmarck doesn’t entirely relinquish the stereotypes of depicting the “lightbulb” moment of creative insight. Like Korda’s pensive, pipe-sucking Rembrandt, Schnabel’s whirling dervish van Gogh and Carol Reed’s version of Michelangelo’s epiphany in his 1965 film The Agony and the Ecstasy – when an image of God holding out his hand to touch the finger of a recumbent Adam is revealed in the clouds to a spellbound Charlton Heston – we have Barnert and his blank canvas.

Sitting for days staring at that tabula rasa, the wind rustling the leaves outside framed by the window in his light-soaked studio, the music slowly building to a crescendo, his artistic revelation comes.

However, von Donnersmarck has built layers of experience and memory into a complex amalgam of ideas over two and a half hours before we get to that scene. From a childhood visit to the Nazi Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art) exhibition and the murder of his aunt, through his training and early success in the DDR under Soviet influence, we have seen Barnert build the armoury of skills and experience from which he will forge his artistic career.

In the process von Donnersmarck has developed his thesis that “creativity is the scab that forms on the wound” of these artists’ lives. “It gives us that wonderful feeling that our suffering can be of use.”

“Never look away, everything is beautiful,” his aunt tells the young Barnert. The transformative power of art is to embrace that freedom to engage without limits and “by freeing yourself, you are liberating the world”.

– ref. In Never Look Away we finally have a painter biopic offering insight into the creative process – http://theconversation.com/in-never-look-away-we-finally-have-a-painter-biopic-offering-insight-into-the-creative-process-118599