Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Kaurov, PhD Candidate in Science and Society, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Self-correction is fundamental to science. One of its most important forms is peer review, when anonymous experts scrutinise research before it is published. This helps safeguard the accuracy of the written record.

Yet problems slip through. A range of grassroots and institutional initiatives work to identify problematic papers, strengthen the peer-review process, and clean up the scientific record through retractions or journal closures. But these efforts are imperfect and resource intensive.

Soon, artificial intelligence (AI) will be able to supercharge these efforts. What might that mean for public trust in science?

Peer review isn’t catching everything

In recent decades, the digital age and disciplinary diversification have sparked an explosion in the number of scientific papers being published, the number of journals in existence, and the influence of for-profit publishing.

This has opened the doors for exploitation. Opportunistic “paper mills” sell quick publication with minimal review to academics desperate for credentials, while publishers generate substantial profits through huge article-processing fees.

Corporations have also seized the opportunity to fund low-quality research and ghostwrite papers intended to distort the weight of evidence, influence public policy and alter public opinion in favour of their products.

These ongoing challenges highlight the insufficiency of peer review as the primary guardian of scientific reliability. In response, efforts have sprung up to bolster the integrity of the scientific enterprise.

Retraction Watch actively tracks withdrawn papers and other academic misconduct. Academic sleuths and initiatives such as Data Collada identify manipulated data and figures.

Investigative journalists expose corporate influence. A new field of meta-science (science of science) attempts to measure the processes of science and to uncover biases and flaws.

Not all bad science has a major impact, but some certainly does. It doesn’t just stay within academia; it often seeps into public understanding and policy.

In a recent investigation, we examined a widely-cited safety review of the herbicide glyphosate, which appeared to be independent and comprehensive. In reality, documents produced during legal proceedings against Monsanto revealed that the paper had been ghostwritten by Monsanto employees and published in a journal with ties to the tobacco industry.

Even after this was exposed, the paper continued to shape citations, policy documents and Wikipedia pages worldwide.

When problems like this are uncovered, they can make their way into public conversations, where they are not necessarily perceived as triumphant acts of self-correction. Rather, they may be taken as proof that something is rotten in the state of science. This “science is broken” narrative undermines public trust.

AI is already helping police the literature

Until recently, technological assistance in self-correction was mostly limited to plagiarism detectors. But things are changing. Machine-learning services such as ImageTwin and Proofig now scan millions of figures for signs of duplication, manipulation and AI generation.

Natural language processing tools flag “tortured phrases” – the telltale word salads of paper mills. Bibliometric dashboards such as one by Semantic Scholar trace whether papers are cited in support or contradiction.

AI – especially agentic, reasoning-capable models increasingly proficient in mathematics and logic – will soon uncover more subtle flaws.

For example, the Black Spatula Project explores the ability of the latest AI models to check published mathematical proofs at scale, automatically identifying algebraic inconsistencies that eluded human reviewers. Our own work mentioned above also substantially relies on large language models to process large volumes of text.

Given full-text access and sufficient computing power, these systems could soon enable a global audit of the scholarly record. A comprehensive audit will likely find some outright fraud and a much larger mass of routine, journeyman work with garden-variety errors.

We do not know yet how prevalent fraud is, but what we do know is that an awful lot of scientific work is inconsequential. Scientists know this; it’s much discussed that a good deal of published work is never or very rarely cited.

To outsiders, this revelation may be as jarring as uncovering fraud, because it collides with the image of dramatic, heroic scientific discovery that populates university press releases and trade press treatments.

What might give this audit added weight is its AI author, which may be seen as (and may in fact be) impartial and competent, and therefore reliable.

As a result, these findings will be vulnerable to exploitation in disinformation campaigns, particularly since AI is already being used to that end.

Reframing the scientific ideal

Safeguarding public trust requires redefining the scientist’s role in more transparent, realistic terms. Much of today’s research is incremental, career‑sustaining work rooted in education, mentorship and public engagement.

If we are to be honest with ourselves and with the public, we must abandon the incentives that pressure universities and scientific publishers, as well as scientists themselves, to exaggerate the significance of their work. Truly ground-breaking work is rare. But that does not render the rest of scientific work useless.

A more humble and honest portrayal of the scientist as a contributor to a collective, evolving understanding will be more robust to AI-driven scrutiny than the myth of science as a parade of individual breakthroughs.

A sweeping, cross-disciplinary audit is on the horizon. It could come from a government watchdog, a think tank, an anti-science group or a corporation seeking to undermine public trust in science.

Scientists can already anticipate what it will reveal. If the scientific community prepares for the findings – or better still, takes the lead – the audit could inspire a disciplined renewal. But if we delay, the cracks it uncovers may be misinterpreted as fractures in the scientific enterprise itself.

Science has never derived its strength from infallibility. Its credibility lies in the willingness to correct and repair. We must now demonstrate that willingness publicly, before trust is broken.

Naomi Oreskes has received funding from various academic and philanthropic organisations. Currently, her research is partly funded by the Rockefeller Family Fund and the Maine Community Fund. She also receives royalties from her publications and honoraria for speaking events.

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

– ref. AI will soon be able to audit all published research – what will that mean for public trust in science? – https://theconversation.com/ai-will-soon-be-able-to-audit-all-published-research-what-will-that-mean-for-public-trust-in-science-261363

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Cantwell, Associate Professor of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education, Michigan State University

Columbia University agreed on July 23, 2025, to pay a US$200 million fine to the federal government and to settle allegations that it did not create a safe environment for Jewish students during Palestinian rights protests in 2024.

The deal will restore the vast majority of the $400 million in federal grants and contracts that Columbia was previously awarded, before the administration withdrew the funding in March 2025.

It marks the first financial and political agreement a university has reached with the Trump administration in its push for more control over higher education – and stands to have significant ripple effects for how other universities and colleges carry out their basic operations.

Amy Lieberman, the education editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Brendan Cantwell, a scholar of higher education at Michigan State University, to understand what’s exactly in this agreement – and the lasting precedent it may set on government intervention in higher education.

What’s in the deal Columbia made with the Trump administration?

The agreement requires Columbia to make a $200 million payment to the federal government. Columbia will also pay $21 million to settle investigations brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Columbia will need to keep detailed statistics about student applicants – including their race and ethnicity, grades and SAT scores – as well as information about faculty and staff hiring decisions. Columbia will then have to share this data with the federal government.

In exchange, the federal government will release most of the $400 million in frozen grant money previously awarded to Columbia and allow faculty at the university to compete for future federal grants.

How does this deal address antisemitism?

The Trump administration has cited antisemitism against students and faculty on campuses to justify its broad incursion into the business of universities around the country.

Antisemitism is a real and legitimate concern in U.S. society and higher education, including at Columbia.

But the federal complaint the administration made against Columbia was not actually about antisemitism. The administration made a formal accusation of antisemitism at Columbia in May of this year but suspended grants to the university in March. The federal government had initially acknowledged that cutting federal research grants did nothing to address the climate for Jewish students on campus, for example.

When the federal government investigates civil rights violations, it usually conducts site visits and does very thorough investigations. We never saw such a government report about antisemitism at Columbia or other universities.

The settlement that Columbia has entered into with the administration also doesn’t do much about antisemitism.

The agreement includes Columbia redefining antisemitism with a broader definition that is also used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The definition now includes “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” – a description that is also used by the U.S. State Department and several European governments but some critics say conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism.

Instead, the agreement primarily has to do with faculty hiring and admissions decisions. The federal government alleges that Columbia is discriminating against white and Asian applicants, and that this will allow the government to ensure that everybody who is admitted is considered only on the basis of merit.

The administration could argue that changing hiring practices to get faculty who are less hostile to Jewish students could change the campus climate, but the agreement doesn’t really identify ways in which the university contributed to or ignored antisemitic conduct.

Is this a new issue?

There has been a long-running issue that conservatives and members of the Trump administration – dating back to his first term – have with higher education. The Trump administration and other conservatives have said for years that higher education is too liberal.

The protests were the flash point that put Columbia in the administration’s crosshairs, as well as claims that Columbia was creating a hostile environment for Jewish students.

The administration’s complaints aren’t limited to Columbia. Harvard is in a protracted conflict with the administration, and the administration has launched investigations into dozens of other schools around the country. These universities are butting heads with the administration over the same grievance that higher education is too liberal. There are also specific claims about antisemitism on university campuses and the privileges given to nonwhite students in admissions or campus life.

While the administration has a common set of complaints about a range of universities, there is a mix of schools that the administration is taking issue with. Some of them, such as Harvard, are very high profile. The Department of Justice forced out the president at the University of Virginia in January 2025 on the grounds that he had not done enough to root out diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the public university. The University of Virginia may have been a target for the administration because a Republican governor appointed most members of its governance board and agreed with Trump’s complaints.

How could this change the makeup of Columbia’s student population?

The Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that Harvard’s affirmative action program, which considered race in admissions, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This effectively ended race-based affirmative action for all U.S. colleges and universities.

Now, with the Columbia deal, the government could say that it would expect to see a proportion of students who are white increase and students who are Black and Latino to decrease at Columbia. That’s a legal approach that America First Legal, a conservative legal advocacy group founded by Stephen Miller, a Trump administration official, has already tried.

Back in February 2025, America First Legal alleged in a federal lawsuit that the University of California, Los Angeles, was using illegal admissions criteria, because of the number of Black and Latino students that were admitted by the school. That lawsuit is ongoing.

What does this agreement mean for US higher education as a whole?

It is an enormous, unprecedented shift in how the federal government works with higher education. Since the McCarthy era in the 1940s and ’50s, when professors were blacklisted and fired because of their alleged communism, Americans have not seen the federal government interrogate education.

The federal government does have a role in securing people’s civil rights, including in the context of higher education, but this is very, very different from how the federal government has done civil rights investigations and entered into agreements with universities in the past.

This agreement is very broad and gives the federal government oversight of things that have long been under universities’ control, such as whom they hire to teach and which students they admit.

The federal government is now saying it has the right to look over universities’ shoulders and guide them in this work that has long been considered independent. And the government is willing to be extremely coercive to get universities to comply.

What signal does this agreement send to other universities?

This agreement sets a precedent for the government to direct colleges and universities to comply with its political agenda. This violates the long tradition of academic independence that had helped to make the U.S. higher education system the envy of the world.

Columbia can afford paying $200 million to the federal government. Most universities can’t afford to pay $200 million.

And most campuses cannot survive without federal resources, whether that comes in the form of student financial aid or research grants. This agreement sets a standard for other universities that, if they don’t immediately do what the federal government wants them to do, the government could impose penalties that are so high it could end their ability to operate.

Brendan Cantwell is a Professor in the Department of Educational Administration at Michigan State University.

– ref. Columbia’s $200M deal with Trump administration sets a precedent for other universities to bend to the government’s will – https://theconversation.com/columbias-200m-deal-with-trump-administration-sets-a-precedent-for-other-universities-to-bend-to-the-governments-will-261902

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joseph Steinberg, Forrest Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow, English & Literary Studies, The University of Western Australia

The Miles Franklin judges described Siang Lu’s Ghost Cities, winner of the 2025 award, as “a grand farce and a haunting meditation on diaspora”. To my mind, it is perhaps the funniest novel ever to have won the Miles Franklin. In the last decade, its closest competitor would be Melissa Lucashenko’s boisterous, brilliant Too Much Lip.

Turn the clock back a few more years, and it’d square off against the puerile humour of Tim Winton’s Cloudstreet, the zany folly of Peter Carey’s Oscar and Lucinda, and Thea Astley’s biting satire The Acolyte. It’d remain a strong contender even in such company.

Lu earned a reputation for satire with his first novel, The Whitewash, in which he lampooned the racial politics of the film industry. Ghost Cities extends this skit, while dialling it up to 11.

“Sitting within a tradition in Australian writing that explores failed expatriation and cultural fraud, Lu’s novel is also something strikingly new,” the judges said, praising its “absurdist bravura”.

A comedy of tyranny

Lu’s sense of humour relies on hyperbole. Over some 300 pages, the characters in Ghost Cities tie themselves in knots over a ludicrous series of edicts, demands and directives issued by a pair of dictators who grow crueller and more capricious with every chapter.

Ghost Cities is a comedy of tyranny in two plots, told via alternating chapters. One begins in a semi-recognisable Sydney, then relocates to the fictitious ghost city of Port Man Tou; the other is a fable set in China’s Imperial City and its labyrinths millennia ago.

Ghost Cities begins in the latter timeline, with the mock-heroic tale of Emperor Lu Huang Du’s ascension to the imperial throne and the beginning of his dictatorial rule. What defines his character, from the very first page, is his yawning ego; he yearns for an exceptional origin myth, a tale of patricide and regicide. The failure to fabricate myths of this kind later leads him to banish a trio of scholars to the Sixth Level of Hell and burn every book in the Imperial Library. What he wants is a hymn to his own “cunning, ruthless strategy and force of will”. But the truth is ignoble.

Emperors should not come to power through inaction. They should not do so by “gawping as their purple-faced fathers clawed and sputtered on what would later be determined to be an awkwardly lodged chicken bone”. They should not “wait, in lacklustre fealty, for that final breathless minute to expire”. They should certainly not then proceed to order the death of every chicken in the land, because of the deranged belief “their traitorous bones were conspiring against His Imperial bloodline”. And they would be well advised not then to issue an edict forbidding the “breeding, eating and harbouring of poultry”, which leads the sons of “a hundred fallen agrarians” to swear vengeance.

Perverse as he is, there is real pleasure to be found in tracking the consequences of Lu Huang Du’s whims. From his banishment of his brother, Lu Dong Pu, for the crime of intercepting an assassin’s blade, to his attempt to elude his prophesied death by conscripting a thousand lookalikes from among his citizens, the emperor is a character governed at every turn by an unspeakable fear of his own mortality.

Through him, and the chapters that recount the consequences of his wildly temperamental rule in the form of an absurd fable, Lu offers a sharp yet entertaining study in the abuse of state power by the narcissistic and incompetent.

Ghost Cities’ second dictator is a director named Baby Bao, who embarks on an egotistical undertaking of his own. His ambition is to create a “historical biopic of the infamous Indomitable Emperor Lu Huang Hu”, a self-styled piece of “cinematic history, a twenty-seven hour extravaganza – no intermission – in simultaneous worldwide release!”. Such a biopic would work primarily to reinforce his delusion that he is biologically “destined for greatness”, by illustrating his belief that his lineage can be traced to the emperor. The conceit makes gleefully explicit the egotism buried in so many artistic projects.

The emperor is later opposed by his brother, Lu Dong Pu, and his nephew, Lu Shan Liang; his counterpart, Xiang Lu (note the resemblance of both their names to their author’s), is a phoney translator hired by the director after he goes viral for his ignorance of Chinese.

Indecencies on indignities

Siang Lu shares an interest in anagrams (and chess) with Russian-American writer Vladimir Nabokov, who appears in his own fiction under names such as Vivian Darkbloom and Adam von Librikov.

Ghost Cities also includes a long, loosely iambic poem titled “Six Levels of Hell”, which narrates Lu Dong Pu’s escape from labyrinthine imprisonment beneath the Imperial City. Lu’s allusions to other texts are too various to properly discuss here. They include John Milton’s Paradise Lost, Dante’s Divine Comedy, Jorge Luis Borges’ Labyrinths, Nabokov’s Pale Fire and Italo Calvino’s Invisible Cities. These references extend Ghost Cities’ concern with the relationship between dictators, architects and artisans, rampaging gods and those humbler deities behind smaller creations.

Women play an important role in Lu’s twin fables, albeit a comparatively subtle one. Wuer, first Lu Dong Pu’s wife and later (against her will) the Imperial Consort, records her husband’s torment in the poem Six Levels of Hell and mourns the death of Lu Shan Liang’s twin brother in a moving parenthetical aside. Yuan (who shares a name with Siang Lu’s wife), a translator and eventually Xiang Lu’s lover, is an intelligent interlocutor.

But Ghost Cities is at its best when it piles indecencies on indignities – when it all goes totally wrong. When piglets are appointed to office. When the swine sits in the chair, and rules as it sees fit.

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

– ref. Miles Franklin 2025: Siang Lu’s Ghost Cities is a haunting comedy about tyranny. Is it the funniest winner ever? – https://theconversation.com/miles-franklin-2025-siang-lus-ghost-cities-is-a-haunting-comedy-about-tyranny-is-it-the-funniest-winner-ever-261584

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

There’s no other way of looking at it: Sussan Ley faces a diabolical situation with the debate over whether the Coalition should abandon the 2050 net zero emissions target.

The issue is a microcosm of her wider problems. The Nationals, the minor party in the Coalition, are determined to run their own race on most things. The Liberals have become akin to two parties, split between those eyeing urban seats and younger voters, and right-wingers reflecting the party’s conservative grassroots.

Nobody misses the contrast. The Albanese government is beset by a host of actual issues around the transition to a clean energy economy. The renewables rollout is not going as fast as desirable and is meeting with resistance in some communities. Energy costs are high. But such problems are not putting any pressure on Labor’s unity.

At the same time, the opposition is fractured over an argument about a target that’s a quarter of a century away, when who knows what the technological or political landscape will look like. For the opposition, the internal debate about net zero is about symbols and signals, rather than substance.

The net zero debate exploded within the opposition this week with Barnaby Joyce’s private member’s bill to scrap Australia’s commitment to it. The timing, in parliament’s first week, was extraordinarily inconvenient for Ley. But if not now, it would have erupted later.

On present indications, the Nationals appear likely to ditch the net zero commitment. David Littleproud, anxious to avoid the issue becoming a threat to his leadership, is reading the party room and positioning himself to be in the anticipated majority.

Asked on Thursday whether he supported net zero, Littleproud told the ABC, “well, I have real concerns about it, to be candid. What net zero has become is about trying to achieve the impossible, rather than doing what’s sensible.” But, he insisted, “we’re not climate deniers”.

It is less clear how the debate will pan out in the Liberal Party, once the group under Shadow Energy Minister Dan Tehan produces its report on energy and emissions-reduction policy.

Liberal sources say the issue is now being driven by the party’s grassroots, rather than the parliamentary party. Branches are throwing up motions to get rid of the 2050 target.

The Western Australian Liberal state council will debate a motion this weekend to drop the net zero commitment. The Queensland LNP organisation will consider its position next month. A few weeks ago, the South Australian Liberal state council rejected net zero.

With a policy review underway, Ley and the parliamentary Liberals have left a vacuum on the issue. Some Liberals warn the parliamentarians risk being run over by the party outside parliament. Others point out that on policy, the parliamentarians are independent of the organisation, which often comes up with right-wing motions.

How should Ley best handle the situation? By filling the vacuum with a position sooner rather than later. That means accelerating the Tehan report. Beyond that, ideally she should be taking leadership on the issue herself. But is she in a strong enough position to do that?

One idea being floated would be for the Liberals to retain the net zero target but extend the time frame. This wouldn’t stop the criticism about the shift.

Whether the Coalition could stay as one if its two parties had different positions on net zero may be an open question but it certainly would be messy.

On the other side of politics, the government is rapidly approaching a decision on another key target – the one Australia will put up internationally for cutting emissions by 2035. Inevitably, this will be contentious.

This target must be submitted by September (it was conveniently delayed beyond the election). Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen has yet to receive advice on the target from the Climate Change Authority (advice that will be published). The target is expected to be between 65% and 75%.

The challenge will be to strike a target with sufficient ambition that doesn’t alienate business and the regions.

Next week the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Simon Stiell, will be in Canberra for talks. His comments will be carefully watched.

Last year he told the Sydney Morning Herald, “the world needs countries like Australia to take climate action and ambition to the next level, and it’s firmly in the interests of every Australian that they do so”.

Climate and energy issues will have a place at next month’s economic reform roundtable. Bowen is organising two preliminary roundtables – on electricity, with energy user stakeholders, and on climate adaptation. He told The Conversation’s podcast that adaptation will “be an increasing focus of this government and future governments because, tragically, the world has left it too late to avoid the impacts of climate change”.

The government is waiting, somewhat impatiently, for the decision on whether Australia will be given the nod to host next year’s UN climate conference. The COP meeting, which would be in Adelaide in November 2026, is an enormous event to put on, so the decision is becoming urgent.

Bowen says Australia already has the numbers over Turkey, the other contender. But “one of the things about the process to decide COPs, I’ve learnt, is it’s quite opaque and there’s no particular timeline and no particular rules to the ballot.

“It’s meant to work on a consensus, sort of an old world, sort of gentlemanly sort of approach to say whoever loses will withdraw. That’s not the way it’s panning out. I’ve had multiple meetings with my Turkish counterpart to try to find a ‘win-win’ solution. We haven’t been able to find that yet.”

Stiell’s trip includes Turkey as well as Australia. Bowen will be hoping he may provide some clarity, when they meet, about how the “opaque” process of assigning the COP meeting is going. Bowen will be emphasising how important the proposed co-hosting COP with the Pacific is to the region, with climate change already an existential issue for many Pacific countries.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: net zero battle has net zero positives for Sussan Ley – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-net-zero-battle-has-net-zero-positives-for-sussan-ley-261092

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor & Principal Fellow in Urban Risk & Resilience, The University of Melbourne

Two teenage boys were thrown from a jet ski during a ride on the Georges River in Sydney’s south this week. One died at the scene. The other lost an arm, and was rushed to hospital in a serious condition.

The exact cause of the crash is being investigated and a report will be prepared for the coroner.

Sadly, this tragic incident is not isolated. While fatal jet ski crashes are relatively rare, serious injuries are not.

Here’s what we know about jet ski accidents, who’s at risk, and how to prevent them.

Jet skis are now more common

Jet skis have become a familiar sight on Australian waterways, with sales peaking during the early years of the COVID pandemic. There are now almost 100,000 registered jet skis nationwide.

So what was once a niche summer thrill has become a more mainstream recreational activity, particularly for young Australians.

As the number of jet skis on our waterways grows, so too will the risks.

How often do accidents happen?

Most jet ski crashes occur in daylight hours, are twice as likely on weekends, and tend to spike during warmer months. Injuries typically happen close to shore (often within 50 metres) where crowded conditions increase the risk of colliding with other vessels, swimmers or fixed obstacles.

Fatal jet ski accidents in Australia have claimed the lives of riders, passengers, swimmers and kayakers.

Across New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, there are up to three deaths per 100,000 licence holders. There are an estimated 19–26 serious injuries per 100,000 licence holders, depending on the state.

But these figures likely understate the true picture as many non-fatal injuries go unreported unless hospitalised.

For example, data from research sponsored by the United States Coast Guard suggest that for every moderate injury captured in accident reports, more than 30 actually occur. For every severe injury, it’s likely 1.65 actually occur.

Who is at risk?

Global jet ski statistics indicate about 85% of jet ski injuries involve male riders.

Risk-taking behaviour and being an inexperienced rider are also risk factors, with young adults dominating injury statistics.

One review found about 60% of jet ski crashes involved the rider drinking alcohol.

What types of injuries?

Recreational riders often typically travel at 60–80 kilometres per hour. But these machines can reach speeds above 100km/h. This can generate immense force in the event of a collision.

In a crash, riders are ejected from the jet ski or collide directly with water, the craft, another vessel or fixed objects. So the leading causes of death and serious injury on jet skis are from these traumatic impacts.

A study from a US trauma centre looked at 127 people injured in jet ski incidents and found most injuries involved broken bones. The legs were most commonly affected, followed by arms, spine and hips.

Hitting the handlebars was a major cause of open fractures (when a broken bone pierces the skin), some of which later became infected.

Women and children face particular risks

However, there is a distinct and concerning injury pattern for female passengers.

Women riding on the back of a jet ski (as a passenger) are especially at risk of serious injuries to the genital and anal area. This can happen if they fall off backwards and land directly on the powerful stream of water coming from the jet nozzle.

Case reports describe incidents of vaginal lacerations, rectal injuries and pelvic floor damage. Such injuries are rare but can be devastating and life-threatening. Sometimes there are permanent complications, such as the risk of infertility or incontinence.

Children also face unique and often severe risks. A US study looked at 66 children hospitalised in jet ski accidents. It found most were boys with the average age of around 12 years old, and nearly three-quarters operated the jet ski themselves. About 70% of injuries involved collisions with another vessel or object. Four children died, all from head trauma after crashing into stationary objects. More than 40% were left with some degree of disability.

What now?

The risks from jet skis are real and too often underestimated. But many injuries can be prevented:

• we need public education campaigns to remind riders of the risks and to promote better behaviour. This would remind riders to slow down in congested areas, avoid reckless turns, and be especially careful with passengers. As alcohol is a common factor in crashes, drinking in moderation before riding should also be stressed

• women are recommended to wear neoprene protective shorts, or wetsuits, instead of ordinary swimwear. A growing number of medical professionals are now backing this as essential safety gear, not optional, to reduce the risk of perineal injuries from water jets

• manufacturers can redesign handlebars to reduce the severity of impact injuries. They can also build in safeguards that reduce jet pressure when no one is seated at the rear (to safeguard the health of a passenger who falls off backwards)

• states also need consistent rules on minimum rider age, training and licensing. The laws vary widely. These inconsistent regulations create confusion and loopholes, especially when riders cross borders.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Jet ski accidents are tragic but preventable. Here’s how to reduce the risk – https://theconversation.com/jet-ski-accidents-are-tragic-but-preventable-heres-how-to-reduce-the-risk-261746

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Felicity Deane, Professor of Trade Law and Taxation, Queensland University of Technology

The Albanese government has today confirmed it will lift biosecurity restrictions on beef imports from the United States. The timing of this decision has raised some eyebrows.

Back in April, US President Donald Trump had singled out what he characterised as an Australian “ban” on US beef as he announced 10% baseline tariffs on imports from Australia.

Responding to today’s announcement, Nationals leader David Littleproud said it appeared the restrictions have been “traded away to appease Donald Trump”.

But Trade Minister Don Farrell said there was “nothing suspicious about this”. And some Australian industry groups have since expressed their confidence in the decision.

So, has Australia’s beef industry been sold out for the benefit of a trade deal? Or is it just a poorly timed announcement at the end of a review into Australia’s restrictions?

Biosecurity concerns

Australia’s biosecurity rules, particularly around beef products, have long been a source of friction with the United States. These rules date back to the late 1990s and were strengthened following a US mad cow disease scare in 2003.

In 2019, a ban was lifted on beef products from cattle that had been born, raised and slaughtered in the US. However, a ban remained on any products from cattle originating in Mexico or Canada that had been slaughtered in the US.

This was a cause for some tension, because the traceability requirements in the US were not as stringent as in Australia. That meant it wasn’t always possible to determine the origins of US products. So the 2019 change effectively only applied to shelf-stable products – not fresh meat.

Last month, the Albanese government made assurances Australia’s biosecurity rules wouldn’t be compromised in trade negotiations. But it also confirmed a review of the rules was underway.

The National Farmers’ Federation acknowledged the government’s decision in a statement today:

The report released today is the result of a long-standing, science-based review by the Australian Government into the biosecurity risks posed by cattle raised in Canada and Mexico, but processed in and exported from the US.

Speaking on ABC Radio, Cattle Australia chief executive Will Evans acknowledged “a lot of people” may feel “blindsided” by the government’s decision, but expressed his confidence in the government’s process.

Boom times for Australian beef

Australians are some of the highest per-capita consumers of beef products in the world. But Australia is also the world’s second-largest beef exporter, trailing only Brazil.

In contrast, the US is the world’s second-largest importer of beef, behind only China.

That poses the question: how much do we actually need beef from the US? Is it even worth lifting this ban, if it will impact so few people?

The beef industry might be fair to question whether this is for the benefit of their industry, when it seems the existing 10% baseline tariffs have had no impact on the volumes of beef being exported from Australia. Quite the opposite.

In June, Australia’s beef exports broke an all-time monthly record, and the US continued to be our largest export market.

In addition, it is important to recognise the US tariffs on beef would theoretically be absorbed by the consumer, rather than the exporter.

The trade war rages on

Theory suggests that international trade is a good thing (though not everyone is a “winner”). Where there is trade between nations, competitive pricing is encouraged and consumers may enjoy more product variety.

Most restrictions on trade are viewed unfavourably by economists, but there are some notable exceptions. The health and safety of food products and assurance of biosecurity standards are such concerns.

Overnight, comments from the Trump administration suggest the 10% tariffs on imports from Australia could be raised, with a new baseline tariff rate of 15%.

To apply these to Australian beef is in direct conflict with the Australia and United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). This agreement progressively removed tariffs on Australian beef, with all tariffs eliminated by 2023.

Consequently, any new US tariff would violate these terms, threatening a trade relationship that has seen beef exports to the US flourish.

Is our reputation on the line?

It is important to note that the biosecurity rules in Australia and the traceability requirements for our producers are a point of national pride.

Central to Australia’s biosecurity framework is the Biosecurity Act 2015 and the National Livestock Identification System, which ensures traceability, food safety, disease control and animal welfare.

This imposes strict requirements on Australian beef producers – and as a result, imposes costs. It also means Australian beef is considered a premium product in much of the world.

Australians should hope the evidence from the government’s review fully supports this action.

Given the unpredictability of the Trump administration, it remains to be seen whether lifting these restrictions will win Australia any concessions on trade anyway.

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

– ref. Australia says US beef will soon be welcome here again. It’s unlikely we’ll buy much of it – https://theconversation.com/australia-says-us-beef-will-soon-be-welcome-here-again-its-unlikely-well-buy-much-of-it-261836

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kim Dovey, Professor of Architecture and Urban Design, The University of Melbourne

Balinese officials have begun the demolition of more than 40 businesses at Bingin Beach, a popular tourist spot in the Uluwatu region.

In June, the Balinese House of Representatives determined the settlement is on public land, and is therefore illegal and needs to be demolished. But I’d argue it doesn’t.

The ‘illegal’ settlement

The Bingin Beach coastal settlement began development in the 1970s as an informal surfer hub at the base of a steep escarpment. The beach is a few hundred metres long and largely disappears at high tide.

Originally lined with a string of makeshift warungs (small food stores) and cheap accommodations, the settlement has grown incrementally over the decades, up and along the escarpment, with an intensive mix of surf shops, restaurants and small hotels.

The steepness of the slope precludes vehicle access. The only public access is via two somewhat narrow pedestrian stairways.

While it initially served the surfer community, the settlement now caters to a broader tourist market, with some rooms going for upwards of US$150 per night.

But after more than 50 years of incremental development, the House of Representatives has declared the settlement was illegally constructed on state land, and has ordered the demolition of 45 buildings – effectively the entire settlement.

While most of the buildings seem highly durable, the demolition order is based on illegality, and not durability. A spokesperson for the traders argues most of the businesses are locally owned, and livelihoods are at stake.

The ‘legal’ settlement

The former farmland at the top of the escarpment is also covered with tourist developments that mostly emerged since 2010, and now extend up to a kilometre inland. This is a much more familiar landscape for Bali: a mix of walled hotel compounds and private villas, with manicured gardens and swimming pools.

However, one could scarcely call this larger settlement “planned”. Shops and restaurants emerge wherever they can find a market along the narrow roads. There are no sidewalks and pedestrians are constantly engaged in an anxious game of negotiated passing.

The infrastructure of roads and lanes has also been designed incrementally, across the former farm fields, as the settlement developed. The resulting street network is convoluted and largely unwalkable. The most common street sign is “no beach access this way”.

What is informality?

I’m an academic, architect and urban planner who studies informal settlements and informal urbanism more generally. In this context “informal” can mean illegal, makeshift and unplanned, but it can also mean incremental, adaptive and inventive.

Informal settlement is the means by which a large proportion of Indonesians produce affordable housing. It is also the most traditional form of indigenous housing globally.

After many decades of governments trying to demolish such settlements, the overwhelming consensus across the United Nations Human Settlements Programme is that wholesale demolition is rarely an answer. On-site formalisation and upgrading is the more sustainable pathway.

When engaging with informal settlements, we need to preserve the infrastructures that work and only demolish where necessary. The Bingin Beach escarpment settlement has proven sustainable and has become an integral part of the local heritage.

Its demolition will destroy livelihoods and displace the surfing market, while feathering other nests.

So why is it being demolished? Perhaps to clear the ground for the next round of up-market resorts – what urban studies research calls “accumulation by disposession”. Bingin is widely seen as a major real estate hotspot for investment.

What is overdevelopment?

One of the key dangers of informal settlement is “overdevelopment”. Without
formal planning codes, density can escalate to destroy the very attraction that produced the settlement.

Most buildings along the Bingin Beach escarpment are two to four storeys, and step back with the slope of the escarpment. The exception is the 2019 addition of the Morabito Art Cliff hotel that rises more than six storeys, obscuring the natural landscape, blocking views, and setting a precedent for more of the same.

If everyone in the area built like this, the Bingin settlement would be replaced with a cliff of buildings. To demolish this one building would set a useful precedent of containing the settlement to a sustainable scale.

The Impossibles dream

A few hundred metres south-west of Bingin Beach, a different story unfolds near the beach known as Impossibles. Here, a precarious limestone cliff largely precludes access to the beach, and the clifftop has long been lined with low-rise tourist compounds.

This earlier layer of development is now being demolished and replaced with larger, denser resorts as part of the Amali project which claims a “rare cliff-front location”. The location is “rare” because about half of the 50-metre-high cliff has been excavated to construct villa units quite literally in the cliff.

This excavation was well underway when, in May 2024, it caused much of the remaining natural cliff face to collapse onto the beach and into the ocean. It remains unclear whether the excavation was formally approved. Either way, it prompts the question: what if everyone did that?

The Bingin escarpment and the Impossibles cliff face represent very different kinds of development. One is incremental, irregular and geared to its social and environmental context, while the other is large-grain and environmentally destructive. It makes no sense to demolish the former in order to make way for the latter.

It is imperative to not only save the Bingin Beach settlement, which is part of Bali’s surfing heritage, but also to awaken from the impossible dream of building more and more villas on this fragile and limited coastland.

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

– ref. Bali is built on informal and ‘illegal’ settlements. Bulldozing Bingin Beach misses the real threat of overdevelopment – https://theconversation.com/bali-is-built-on-informal-and-illegal-settlements-bulldozing-bingin-beach-misses-the-real-threat-of-overdevelopment-261755

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

The world’s highest court says countries are legally obliged to prevent harms caused by climate change, in a ruling that repudiates Australia’s claims it is not legally responsible for emissions from our fossil fuel exports.

The landmark ruling overnight by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will reverberate in courts, parliaments and boardrooms the world over.

In a closely watched case at The Hague, the judges were asked to clarify the legal obligations countries have to protect the Earth’s climate system for current and future generations. They were also asked to clarify the legal consequences for nations that fail to do this.

At issue was the scope of legal obligations. During the court’s deliberations, Australia sided with other fossil fuel exporters and major emitters – including Saudi Arabia, the United States and China – to argue state obligations on climate change are restricted to those set out in climate-specific treaties such as the Paris Agreement.

But the court disagreed. It found countries have additional obligations to protect the climate and take action to prevent climate harm inside and outside their boundaries. These obligations arise in human rights law, the law of the sea, and general principles of international law.

This clear statement will have groundbreaking consequences. It means Australia must set a 2035 emissions reduction target in line with the best available science, as required under the Paris Agreement. But it must also go further, by regulating the fossil fuel industry to prevent further harm.

Australia’s arguments rejected

The ICJ is the primary legal organ of the United Nations. Its key role is to settle disputes between countries and clarify international law as it applies to nation states.

While weighing up the obligations of countries to address the climate crisis, the court heard legal arguments from almost 100 countries, making it the largest case ever heard by the ICJ.

The case threatened major implications for fossil-fuel producers such as Australia, which is heavily reliant on coal and gas exports.

In his oral presentation to the ICJ, Australian Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue told the court only the Paris Agreement should apply when it comes to mitigating climate change. Under the Paris rules, countries must set targets to cut domestic emissions, but they are not required to report emissions created when their fossil fuel exports are burned overseas.

Donaghue and the Australian delegation also suggested responsibility for harms caused by climate change could not be pinned on individual states. Australia also argued protecting human rights does not extend to obligations to tackle climate change.

The ICJ largely rejected these arguments.

Fossil fuel era is over

The court found Australia, and other fossil fuel producers, are obliged under international law to prevent fossil fuel companies in their territory from causing significant climate harm.

This will essentially require a managed phase out of fossil fuel production. As the ICJ ruling says:

Failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from [greenhouse gas] emissions – including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies – may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State.

Australia is one of the world’s largest exporters of coal and gas. When burned overseas, emissions from Australia’s fossil fuel exports are more than double those of its entire domestic economy.

Australia has approved hundreds of oil, gas and coal projects in recent decades. Dozens more are in the approvals pipeline. Final federal approval is still pending for Woodside’s massive Northwest Shelf gas project – which is set to add millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year, for decades.

The Australian government must heed the message from the Hague. The days of impunity for the fossil fuel industry are coming to an end.

A spark of hope from the Pacific

Today’s ruling is remarkable for where it originated.

In 2019, 27 law students at the University of the South Pacific in Vanuatu were given a challenge: find the most ambitious legal pathways towards climate justice.

Each year, Vanuatu faces the prospect of cyclones, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, flooding rain and drought. Climate change compounds the risk to island communities – people who have done the least to contribute to the problem.

The students decided to file a case with the world court. And so began a legal campaign that travelled from Vanuatu’s capital, Port Vila, through the halls of the United Nations in New York and to the world court in the Hague.

In 2023 Vanuatu and other island nations succeeded in passing a UN General Assembly resolution. It asked the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on countries’ obligations to protect the climate system and legal consequences for states causing “significant harm” to Earth’s climate.

This week’s ruling delivers poetic justice to Vanuatu and other vulnerable island states.

A new era for climate justice

The court’s findings are likely to influence a wave of climate litigation worldwide. It could shape legal reasoning in Australia, too.

Last week, a Federal Court judge found the Australian government has no legal duty of care to protect Torres Strait Islanders from climate change. If that case is appealed, a superior court may revisit the government’s obligations – and have regard to the ICJ ruling in doing so.

The ICJ decision will also be relevant for the Queensland Land Court, which this week began hearing a challenge to stop a greenfield mine proposed by Whitehaven Coal – citing environmental and human rights impacts of the project’s emissions.

Clarified international law obligations should also guide policymakers in the Australian parliament. With a huge majority in the House of Representatives and a climate-friendly Senate crossbench, the Albanese government has a mandate to implement policy in line with Australia’s international law obligations.

Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council of Australia

Gillian Moon is a regular donor to the Australian Conservation Foundation, which is a party in the Whitehaven Coal case.

– ref. World’s highest court issues groundbreaking ruling for climate action. Here’s what it means for Australia – https://theconversation.com/worlds-highest-court-issues-groundbreaking-ruling-for-climate-action-heres-what-it-means-for-australia-261842

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Popi Sotiriadou, Associate Professor of Sport Management – Director Business Innovation, Griffith University

Most sports look to support their athletes to become “faster, higher, stronger” – in reference to the Olympic Games’ original motto – so it is perhaps surprising that cycling’s world governing body is trying to slow down elite riders.

However, there’s good reason the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) recently announced new rules to slow riders down.

These rules – which apply to elite road and cyclo-cross mass-start events for men and women such as the Tour de France – come into place shortly and are aimed at improving rider safety.

Read more:
I rode the Tour de France to study its impact on the human body – here’s what I learned

What are the new rules?

From August 1, a new bicycle gearing regulation will kick in.

Professional cyclists will only be allowed to use a 54-tooth front chainring with an 11-tooth rear cog.

This replaces the current common setup of 54-10.

To put this into context, a 54-tooth chainring is the big front gear on a bike and the 11-tooth cog is a small rear gear. Moving to a slightly bigger cog (54-11) makes it harder to hit top speeds: the change from a 54-10 to a 54-11 gear setup could reduce the top speed by about 2.4 kilometres per hour.

Pro riders can reach incredible speeds during descents, sometimes surpassing 130 kilometres per hour.

Then, from January 1, 2026, handlebars must become wider, increasing from a minimum 350–360 millimetres width (depending on the event) to at least 400mm wide.

The handlebar width affects how a rider controls their bike: narrower bars reduce frontal surface area, making a rider more aerodynamic which again means a faster ride.

This is especially useful in time trials or sprints.

Wider bars offer better stability and control, helping navigate tight turns, peloton traffic, or crosswinds.

The UCI has also announced plans to introduce a formal helmet approval protocol in 2027, which will include separate standards for helmets used in mass-start events and time trials.

This shift suggests helmets may soon be subject to the same pre-race approval process as frames and wheels, potentially leading to safer, more regulated head protection.

New rules, different opinions

Professional cycling is getting faster due to stronger athletes, better training and advanced, lighter equipment.

As a result, high-speed crashes, especially downhill or in crowded sprint finishes, have become more common and more dangerous.

The UCI maintain the new regulations are part of a broader strategy to mitigate speed-related risks, enhance safety and uphold the integrity of the sport.

However, these measures have sparked debate within the cycling community.

Some elite cyclists, particularly those who have suffered severe crashes and injuries, suggest it is time safety caught up with technology.

Wout van Aert, who suffered a severe knee injury in September 2024 during a wet descent, said:

Limiting the number of gears would make the sport much safer.

Chris Froome, four-time Tour de France winner, also said he supported strategies “to keep the speeds down on the descents”.

The Professional Cycling Council supports testing gear ratio limits.

It is also likely these changes could limit cutting-edge innovations that only wealthy teams can afford. This would in turn narrow technological disparities across teams.

Former pro Michael Barry though believes gear restrictions are not the answer, and the UCI should instead focus on improved course design and inspection, better barriers and crash protective clothing.

Technology experts agree, arguing speed is determined more by a rider’s power output and aerodynamic drag than by gear ratios. To enhance safety, they propose alternative solutions such as real-time rider tracking, crash-protective clothing, improved course design and inspection and faster medical response.

The wider handlebar rule has also stirred controversy, especially among smaller-framed riders, many of whom are women, who typically ride with 360–380mm handlebars for better comfort and control.

Under the new regulation, those forced to use bars that exceed their optimal fit range could end up suffering from poor wrist alignment, increased fatigue and a higher risk of repetitive strain injuries.

Despite the growth of women’s cycling, the UCI has not made exemptions for smaller riders, raising concerns a one-size-fits-all solution may compromise inclusively and safety.

Even though regular riders can continue to use the equipment they prefer, what happens in the pro world often shapes non-elite rider preferences and trends, and the bikes sold in stores. If narrower bars are banned at the top level, manufacturers may stop offering them.

Historically, advancements in aerodynamics, gear ratios and component weights seen in the pro peloton have become standard features on consumer bikes.

A delicate balance

The UCI’s new regulations mark a likely shift towards standardised equipment and heightened safety. This deliberate emphasis on safety naturally elevates awareness among all cyclists about the crucial link between equipment choices and rider wellbeing.

While these restrictions may foster a more level playing field, they also risk curbing the sport’s long-standing tradition of engineering innovation.

The very appeal of professional cycling has often been intrinsically tied to the relentless pursuit of technological advancements that yield even fractional competitive advantages.

Striking a balance between ensuring safety and preserving this spirit of ingenuity remains a crucial challenge for the sport’s future.

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

– ref. Cycling’s governing body is introducing new rules to slow down elite riders. Not everyone’s happy – https://theconversation.com/cyclings-governing-body-is-introducing-new-rules-to-slow-down-elite-riders-not-everyones-happy-260917

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Pope, Associate Professor, School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Macquarie University

The day before my thesis examination, my friend and radio astronomer Joe Callingham showed me an image we’d been awaiting for five long years – an infrared photo of two dying stars we’d requested from the Very Large Telescope in Chile.

I gasped – the stars were wreathed in a huge spiral of dust, like a snake eating its own tail.

We named it Apep, for the Egyptian serpent god of destruction. Now, our team has finally been lucky to use NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to look at Apep.

If anything could top the first shock of seeing its beautiful spiral nebula, it’s this breathtaking new image, with the JWST data now analysed in two papers on arXiv.

Violent star deaths

Right before they die as supernovae, the universe’s most massive stars violently shed their outer hydrogen layers, leaving their heavy cores exposed.

These are called Wolf-Rayet stars after their discoverers, who noticed powerful streams of gas blasting out from these objects, much stronger than the stellar wind from our Sun. The Wolf-Rayet stage lasts only millennia – a blink of the eye in cosmic time scales – before they violently explode.

Unlike our Sun, many stars in the universe exist in pairs known as binaries. This is especially true of the most massive stars, such as Wolf-Rayets.

When the fierce gales from a Wolf-Rayet star clash with their weaker companion’s wind, they compress each other. In the eye of this storm forms a dense, cool environment in which the carbon-rich winds can condense into dust. The earliest carbon dust in the cosmos – the first of the material making up our own bodies – was made this way.

The dust from the Wolf-Rayet is blown out in almost a straight line, and the orbital motion of the stars wraps it into a spiral-shaped nebula, appearing exactly like water from a sprinkler when viewed from above.

We expected Apep to look like one of these elegant pinwheel nebulas, discovered by our colleague and co-author Peter Tuthill. To our surprise, it did not.

Equal rivals

The new image was taken using JWST’s infrared camera, like the thermal cameras used by hunters or the military. It represents hot material as blue, and colder material in green through to red.

It turns out Apep isn’t just one powerful star blasting a weaker companion, but two Wolf-Rayet stars. The rivals have near-equal strength winds, and the dust is spread out in a very wide cone and wrapped into a wind-sock shape.

When we originally described Apep in 2018, we noted a third, more distant star, speculating whether it was also part of the system or a chance interloper along the line of sight.

The dust appeared to be moving much slower than the winds, which was hard to explain. We suggested the dust might be carried on a slow, thick wind from the equator of a fast-spinning star, rare today but common in the early universe.

The new, much more detailed data from JWST reveals three more dust shells zooming farther out, each cooler and fainter than the last and spaced perfectly evenly, against a background of swirling dust.

New data, new knowledge

The JWST data are now published and interpreted in a pair of papers, one led by Caltech astronomer Yinuo Han, and the other by Macquarie University Masters student Ryan White.

Han’s paper reveals how the nebula’s dust cools, links the background dust to the foreground stars, and suggests the stars are farther away from Earth than we thought. This implies they are extraordinarily bright, but weakens our original claim about the slow winds and rapid rotation.

In White’s paper, he develops a fast computer model for the shape of the nebula, and uses this to decode the orbit of the inner stars very precisely.

He also noticed there’s a “bite” taken out out of the dust shells, exactly where the wind of the third star would be chewing into them. This proves the Apep family isn’t just a pair of twins – they have a third sibling.

Understanding systems like Apep tells us more about star deaths and the origins of carbon dust, but these systems also have a fascinating beauty that emerges from their seemingly simple geometry.

The violence of stellar death carves puzzles that would make sense to Newton and Archimedes, and it is a scientific joy to solve them and share them.

Benjamin Pope receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Big Questions Institute.

– ref. Swirling nebula of two dying stars revealed in spectacular detail in new Webb telescope image – https://theconversation.com/swirling-nebula-of-two-dying-stars-revealed-in-spectacular-detail-in-new-webb-telescope-image-258314

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim O’Hara, Senior Curator of Marine Invertebrates, Museums Victoria Research Institute

You may have read that the deep sea is a very different environment from the land and shallow water. There is no light, it is very cold, and the pressure of all the water above is immense.

Plants can’t grow there, and the energy powering life mostly comes from organic matter sinking from the sunlit surface. These facts have been known for more than 150 years.

But I want to tell you something you probably don’t know about the deep sea: for animals on the seafloor, it is a very connected environment. There are few environmental barriers to stop animals slowly expanding their distribution to cover thousands of kilometres. Over a million years, deep-sea animals can spread from Iceland to Tasmania.

In a new study published today in Nature, we map the distribution and relatedness of a single group of marine animals across all ocean seafloors, from the coast down to the abyssal plains of the deep sea, from the equator to the pole.

Five arms, no brain, no eyes or heart

We sequenced the DNA of thousands of animal specimens stored in natural history collections of museums across the globe, deposited from hundreds of research voyages. For the first time, we have enough data to explore how marine life has evolved and dispersed across the oceans over the past 100 million years.

We studied a group of animals called brittle stars, strange spiny creatures with a disc-like body and five sinuous or branched arms. They have a central mouth and gut, but no brain, no eyes and no heart.

While these shy animals would not be always familiar to beach combers or snorkelers, they are perfect for our project as they are found in abundance across deep seafloors and frequently surveyed by research expeditions. They have inhabited our planet for more than 480 million years, efficiently consuming and recycling organic matter.

Deep-sea lifestyles

Life in the deep is distributed in a different way to that in shallow seas.

In shallow waters, the temperature differs a lot between the tropics, the temperate regions (mid latitudes) and the poles. This imposes a barrier to the movement of marine life. Animals (and plants) generally adapt to a narrow range of temperatures and only rarely spread to other climates.

So, if you are a tropical shallow-water species, you cannot migrate through frigid waters around South America, or through the Canadian Arctic, to get from the Pacific to Atlantic Ocean. For tens of millions of years, shallow marine species have evolved independently in different oceans and seas.

But we found the deep sea is not like that. Species in different regions are much more closely related.

In fact, the age and geographic distribution of species on a family tree of deep-sea brittle stars resembles that of a group of seabirds or marine mammals. Yet these brittle stars don’t have wings or fins to get around.

How eggs and larvae roam the globe

The secret of how slow-moving brittle stars migrate across oceans appears to be their eggs and larvae.

In warm, shallow waters, a yolk-filled food reserve is rapidly used up by the developing larva. But in the cold deep sea, a yolky larva can survive with very slow metabolic activity, drifting on slow-moving currents for more than a year before settling. This greatly expands the range of a brittle star’s offspring.

Moreover, there are numerous seamounts, ridges and plains on the oceanic seafloor that offer transit points for long-distance migration at different depths. This dispersal across oceans has been going on for a long time.

The most prominent of these dispersal highways is across the southern Indian Ocean, transporting deep-sea animals from the Atlantic and Southern Oceans to Australia and New Zealand. In contrast, very few shallow-water animals have traversed such vast distances.

A patchwork of deep-sea life

While brittle star populations show lots of evidence of long-distance connections, deep-sea communities are not uniform around the planet.

Life in the deep is perilous. There is always the threat that a given species may be wiped out in particular regions.

Seawater conditions can change, as can currents and food supplies. New predators or diseases may arrive at any time.

Over time, the combination of high connectivity and high rates of regional extinction has led to a patchwork of deep-sea species distributions across oceans.

To conserve these ecosystems into the future, we will need a much better understanding of the global patterns of deep-sea life.

Tim O’Hara has received funding from CSIRO’s Marine National Facility, Parks Australia, Ocean Census, and from philanthropic support of Museums Victoria Research Institute.

– ref. Five arms, no heart and a global family: what DNA revealed about the weird deep-sea world of brittle stars – https://theconversation.com/five-arms-no-heart-and-a-global-family-what-dna-revealed-about-the-weird-deep-sea-world-of-brittle-stars-261566

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Griffith, Professor of Avian Behavioural Ecology, Macquarie University

Birds are perhaps the most colourful group of animals, bringing a splash of colour to the natural world around us every day. Indeed, exclusively black and white birds – such as magpies – are in the minority.

However, new research by a team from Princeton University in the United States has revealed a surprising trick in which birds use those boring black and white feathers to make their colours even more vivid.

In the study, published today in Science Advances, Rosalyn Price-Waldman and her colleagues discovered that if coloured feathers are placed over a layer of either white or black underlying feathers, their colours are enhanced.

A particularly striking discovery was that in some species the different colour of males and females wasn’t due to the colour the two sexes put into the feathers, but rather in the amount of white or black in the layer underneath.

Why birds are so bright – and how they do it

Typically, male birds have more vivid colours than females. As Charles Darwin first explained, the most colourful males are more likely to attract mates and produce more offspring than those that aren’t as vivid. This process of “sexual selection” is the evolutionary force that has resulted in most of the colours we see in birds today.

Evolution is a process that rewards clever solutions in the competition among males to stand out in the crowd. Depositing a layer of black underneath patches of bright blue feathers has enabled males to produce that extra vibrancy that helps them in the competition for mates.

The reason the black layer works so well is that it absorbs all the light that passes through the top layer of coloured feathers. The colour we see is blue because those top feathers have a fine structure that scatters light in a particular way, and reflects light in the blue part of the spectrum.

The feathers appear particularly vivid blue because the light in other wavelengths is absorbed by the under-layer. If the under-layer was paler, some of the light in the other parts of the light spectrum would bounce back and the blue would not “pop out” as much.

Different tricks for different colours

Interestingly, in the new study, the researchers found that for yellow feathers the opposite trick works. Yellow feathers contain yellow pigments – carotenoids – and in this case they are enhanced if they have a white under-layer.

The white layer reflects light that passes through the yellow feathers, and this increases the brightness of these yellow patches, making them more striking in contrast to surrounding patches of colour.

A surprisingly common technique

The authors focused most of their work on species of tanager, typically very colourful fruit-eating birds that are native to Central and South America.

However, once they had discovered what was happening in tanagers, they checked to see if it was occurring in other birds.

This additional work revealed that the use of black and white underlying feathers to enhance colour is found in many other bird families, including the Australian fairy wrens which have such vivid blue colouration.

This widespread use of black and white across so many different species suggests birds have been enhancing the production of colour in this clever way for tens of millions of years, and that it is widely used across birds.

The study is important because it helps us to understand how complex traits such as colour can evolve in nature. It may also help us to improve the production of vibrant colours in our own architecture, art and fashion.

Simon Griffith receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Birds use hidden black and white feathers to make themselves more colourful – https://theconversation.com/birds-use-hidden-black-and-white-feathers-to-make-themselves-more-colourful-261567

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charlotte Gupta, Senior Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Appleton Institute, HealthWise Research Group, CQUniversity Australia

We’re constantly being reminded by news articles and social media posts that we should be getting more sleep. You probably don’t need to hear it again – not sleeping enough is bad for your brain, heart and overall health, not to mention your skin and sex drive.

But what about sleeping “too much”? Recent reports that sleeping more than nine hours could be worse for your health than sleeping too little may have you throwing up your hands in despair.

It can be hard not to feel confused and worried. But how much sleep do we need? And what can sleeping a lot really tell us about our health? Let’s unpack the evidence.

Sleep is essential for our health

Along with nutrition and physical activity, sleep is an essential pillar of health.

During sleep, physiological processes occur that allow our bodies to function effectively when we are awake. These include processes involved in muscle recovery, memory consolidation and emotional regulation.

The Sleep Health Foundation – Australia’s leading not-for-profit organisation that provides evidence-based information on sleep health – recommends adults get seven to nine hours of sleep per night.

Some people are naturally short sleepers and can function well with less than seven hours.

However, for most of us, sleeping less than seven hours will have negative effects. These may be short term; for example, the day after a poor night’s sleep you might have less energy, worse mood, feel more stressed and find it harder to concentrate at work.

In the long term, not getting enough good quality sleep is a major risk factor for health problems. It’s linked to a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease – such as heart attacks and stroke – metabolic disorders, including type 2 diabetes, poor mental health, such as depression and anxiety, cancer and death.

So, it’s clear that not getting enough sleep is bad for us. But what about too much sleep?

Could too much sleep be bad?

In a recent study, researchers reviewed the results of 79 other studies that followed people for at least one year and measured how sleep duration impacts the risk of poor health or dying to see if there was an overall trend.

They found people who slept for short durations – less than seven hours a night – had a 14% higher risk of dying in the study period, compared to those who slept between seven and eight hours. This is not surprising given the established health risks of poor sleep.

However, the researchers also found those who slept a lot – which they defined as more than nine hours a night – had a greater risk of dying: 34% higher than people who slept seven to eight hours.

This supports similar research from 2018, which combined results from 74 previous studies that followed the sleep and health of participants across time, ranging from one to 30 years. It found sleeping more than nine hours was associated with a 14% increased risk of dying in the study period.

Research has also shown sleeping too long (meaning more than required for your age) is linked to health problems such as depression, chronic pain, weight gain and metabolic disorders.

This may sound alarming. But it’s crucial to remember these studies have only found a link between sleeping too long and poor health – this doesn’t mean sleeping too long is the cause of health problems or death.

Read more:
If ‘correlation doesn’t imply causation’, how do scientists figure out why things happen?

So, what’s the link?

Multiple factors may influence the relationship between sleeping a lot and having poor health.

It’s common for people with chronic health problems to consistently sleep for long periods. Their bodies may need additional rest to support recovery, or they may spend more time in bed due to symptoms or medication side effects.

People with chronic health problems may also not be getting high quality sleep, and may stay in bed for longer to try and get some extra sleep.

Additionally, we know risk factors for poor health, such as smoking and being overweight, are also associated with poor sleep.

This means people may be sleeping more because of existing health problems or lifestyle behaviours, not that sleeping more is causing the poor health.

Put simply, sleeping may be a symptom of poor health, not the cause.

What’s the ideal amount?

The reasons some people sleep a little and others sleep a lot depend on individual differences – and we don’t yet fully understand these.

Our sleep needs can be related to age. Teenagers often want to sleep more and may physically need to, with sleep recommendations for teens being slightly higher than adults at eight to ten hours. Teens may also go to bed and wake up later.

Older adults may want to spend more time in bed. However, unless they have a sleep disorder, the amount they need to sleep will be the same as when they were younger.

But most adults will require seven to nine hours, so this is the healthy window to aim for.

It’s not just about how much sleep you get. Good quality sleep and a consistent bed time and wake time are just as important – if not more so – for your overall health.

The bottom line

Given many Australian adults are not receiving the recommended amount of sleep, we should focus on how to make sure we get enough sleep, rather than worrying we are getting too much.

To give yourself the best chance of a good night’s sleep, get sunlight and stay active during the day, and try to keep a regular sleep and wake time. In the hour before bed, avoid screens, do something relaxing, and make sure your sleep space is quiet, dark, and comfortable.

If you notice you are regularly sleeping much longer than usual, it could be your body’s way of telling you something else is going on. If you’re struggling with sleep or are concerned, speak with your GP. You can also explore the resources on the Sleep Health Foundation website.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Is sleeping a lot actually bad for your health? A sleep scientist explains – https://theconversation.com/is-sleeping-a-lot-actually-bad-for-your-health-a-sleep-scientist-explains-259991

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabriel Crowley, Adjunct Associate Professor in Geography, University of Adelaide

Picture this. A small, rainbow-coloured chick emerges from its nest for the first time. It stretches its wings and prepares to take flight. But before the fledgling’s life in the wild has begun, a sharp-beaked predator swoops in, leaving nothing but a tiny skeleton.

This is the sad scenario playing out on Cape York Peninsula, new analysis shows. There, trees are invading the open, grassy habitat of the endangered golden-shouldered parrot (Psephotellus chrysopterygius). The trees give cover to predators – meaning they can lie in wait, before striking the adult birds and their young.

The golden-shouldered parrot is endangered, now found in just 5% of its original range. The new findings suggest more work is needed to restore grassland habitat to its former open state, to ensure the parrots’ survival.

A vanishing species

The initial decline of the golden-shouldered parrot was likely caused by a loss of food plants and degradation of the termite mounds in which it nests. Birds that remained in two small areas in central Cape York Peninsula faced other issues.

In the 1990s, researchers began studying the parrot on Artemis Station, to better understand why numbers were declining. A new suspect was identified: native woody plants, such as the broad-leaved tea-tree (Melaleuca viridiflora), which had crept into the birds’ grassy habitat.

The change was largely due to overgrazing, which reduced fuel loads and led to fewer fires. This allowed the woodland trees to overtake the grasslands. But exactly how were these trees affecting the survival of the golden-shouldered parrot? New research by my colleagues and I set out to answer this question.

Counting eggs, nest by nest

We monitored 108 termite-mound nests over three years, tracking the success of 555 eggs. We visited each nest every few days to record whether chicks successfully fledged (grew strong enough to leave the nest) or died.

We also counted the number of trees around the nests, and recorded signs of interference from predators.

So what did we find? The proportion of nests that produced a fledgling from every egg decreased in proportion to the number of trees around the nest. The percentage of eggs, chicks and adults that were killed or disappeared from a nest also increased in line with tree numbers.

That’s because the trees bring different predators – and places for them to hide.

We suspected reptiles were the main predators. This was due to scratches on the nests and disappearance of eggs without any other signs of damage. While the exact species of reptile predator was hard to pinpoint, we know tree snake numbers increase as woodlands encroach.

However, of all predators, we found butcherbird numbers increased most strongly as trees crept in. Butcherbirds tear prey apart with their strong, hooked beaks. Trees close to the nests give butcherbirds cover, enabling them to wait for adults or their young to emerge.

Tragically, we found skulls of chicks pierced by the butcherbirds’ sharp bills. In one case, the shredded flesh of a bird was wedged atop a termite mound.

Parrots successfully fledged from just over half of the 555 eggs we monitored.

In the most dense woodlands, the number of birds that successfully fledged was just one-third of the rate needed to maintain the golden-shouldered parrot’s population.

Adult birds were lost from one-third of the nests we studied. This is especially troubling. Modelling from similar tropical birds shows this rate of adult deaths can push a species towards extinction.

Restoring the parrots’ grassland home

The world’s grassland habitats are under threat. This has devastating consequences for species that depend on them – including the golden-shouldered parrot.

Our findings show Cape York’s grasslands should be maintained and restored to ensure the survival of the golden-shouldered parrot. Much work is needed to ensure the species avoids the fate of its closest relative, the paradise parrot, which is presumed extinct.

Work is already underway. Golden-shouldered parrot habitat in national parks and on Indigenous-owned land has been destocked, and more traditional Indigenous fire regimes reinstated. This will help maintain open grasslands and reverse early woodland encroachment. Such work is also being undertaken at the study site on Artemis Station.

Where woody plant invasion is more advanced, more intensive methods have been deployed. At the study site, this includes using chainsaws and brush-cutters to clear trees, before the stump is poisoned.

Other measures include installing electric fences to keep out reptiles, reseeding grasslands with food plants and providing feeding stations in seasons when food is scarce.

Land managers across Cape York have also been provided guidelines for managing woodland encroachment.

These efforts must be sustained in the long-term, to ensure the golden-shouldered parrot can return to its former range.

Gabriel Crowley undertook the work cited in this article with Susan Shephard (Artemis Station), Stephen Garnett (Charles Darwin University and Conservation Partners) and Stephen Murphy (Conservation Partners). Funding was provided by the Queensland and federal governments, Gulf Savannah NRM and WWF Australia. Gabriel has provided advice on golden-shouldered parrots and their habitat to the Olkola Aboriginal Corporation, Conservation Partners and Bush Heritage Australia as a volunteer and/or consultant. She is a volunteer for Helen Haines MP (Member for Indi).

– ref. From grasslands to killing fields: why trees are bad news for one of Australia’s most stunning birds – https://theconversation.com/from-grasslands-to-killing-fields-why-trees-are-bad-news-for-one-of-australias-most-stunning-birds-259898

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Celia McMichael, Professor in Geography, The University of Melbourne

In the village of Nagigi, Fiji, the ocean isn’t just a resource – it’s part of the community’s identity. But in recent years, villagers have seen the sea behave differently. Tides are pushing inland. Once abundant, fish are now harder to find. Sandy beaches and coconut trees have been washed away.

Like many coastal communities, including those across the Pacific Islands region, this village is now under real pressure from climate change and declining fish stocks. Methods of fishing are no longer guaranteed, while extreme weather and coastal erosion threaten homes and land. As one villager told us:

we can’t find fish easily, not compared to previous times […] some fish species we used to see before are no longer around.

When stories like this get publicity, they’re often framed as a story of loss. Pacific Islanders can be portrayed as passive victims of climate change.

But Nagigi’s experience isn’t just about vulnerability. As our new research shows, it’s about the actions people are taking to cope with the changes already here. In response to falling fish numbers and to diversify livelihoods, women leaders launched a new aquaculture project, and they have replanted mangroves to slow the advance of the sea.

Adaptation is uneven. Many people don’t want to or can’t leave their homes. But as climate change intensifies, change will be unavoidable. Nagigi’s experience points to the importance of communities working collectively to respond to threats.

Unwelcome change is here

The communities we focus on, Nagigi village (population 630) and Bia-I-Cake settlement (population 60), are located on Savusavu Bay in Vanua Levu, Fiji’s second largest island. Fishing and marine resources are central to their livelihoods and food security.

In 2021 and 2023, we ran group discussions (known as talanoa) and interviews to find out about changes seen and adaptations made.

Nagigi residents have noticed unwelcome changes in recent years. As one woman told us:

sometimes the sea is coming further onto the land, so there’s a lot of sea intrusion into the plantations, flooding even on land where it never used to be

In 2016, the devastating Tropical Cyclone Winston destroyed homes and forced some Nagigi residents to move inland to customary mataqali land owned by their clan.

As one resident said:

our relocation was smooth because […] we just moved to our own land, our mataqali land.

But some residents didn’t have access to this land, while others weren’t willing to move away from the coast. One man told us:

leave us here. I think if I don’t smell or hear the ocean for one day I would be devastated.

Adaptation is happening

One striking aspect of adaptation in Nagigi has been the leadership of women, particularly in the small Bia-I-Cake settlement.

In recent years, the Bia-I-Cake Women’s Cooperative has launched a small-scale aquaculture project to farm tilapia and carp to tackle falling fish stocks in the ocean, tackle rising food insecurity and create new livelihoods.

Women in the cooperative have built fish ponds, learned how to rear fish to a good size and began selling the fish, including by live streaming the sale. The project was supported by a small grant from the United Nations Development Programme and the Women’s Fund Fiji.

Recently, the cooperative’s women have moved into mangrove replanting to slow coastal erosion and built a greenhouse to farm new crops.

As one woman told us, these efforts show women “have the capacity to build a sustainable, secure and thriving community”.

The community’s responses draw on traditional social structures and values, such as respect for Vanua – the Fijian and Pacific concept of how land, sea, people, customs and spiritual beliefs are interconnected – as well as stewardship of natural resources and collective decision-making through clans and elders, both women and men.

Nagigi residents have moved to temporarily close some customary fishing grounds to give fish populations a chance to recover. The village is also considering declaring a locally-managed marine area (known as a tabu). This is a response to climate impacts as well as damage to reefs, pollution and overfishing.

For generations, village residents have protected local ecosystems which in turn support the village. But what is new is how these practices are being strengthened and formalised to respond to new challenges.

Adaptation is uneven

While adaptation is producing some successes, it is unevenly spread. Not everyone has access to customary land for relocation and not every household can afford to rebuild damaged homes.

What Nagigi teaches us, though, is the importance of local adaptation. Villagers have demonstrated how a community can anticipate risks, respond to change and threats, recover from damage and take advantage of new opportunities.

Small communities are not just passive sites of loss. They are collectives of strength, agency and ingenuity. As adaptation efforts scale up across the Pacific, it is important to recognise and support local initiatives such as those in Nagigi.

Sharing effective adaptation methods can give ideas and hope to other communities under real pressure from climate change and other threats.

Many communities are doing their best to adapt often undertaking community-led adaptation, even despite the limited access Pacific nations have to global climate finance.

Nagigi’s example shows unwelcome climatic and environmental changes are already arriving. But it’s also about finding ways to live well amid uncertainty and escalating risk by using place, tradition and community.

The authors acknowledge the support of the people of Nagigi and Bia-I-Cake, and especially the Bia-I-Cake Women’s Cooperative, for sharing their time and insights.

Celia McMichael receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

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

– ref. As seas rise and fish decline, this Fijian village is finding new ways to adapt – https://theconversation.com/as-seas-rise-and-fish-decline-this-fijian-village-is-finding-new-ways-to-adapt-261573

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben McCann, Associate Professor of French Studies, University of Adelaide

In 1955, director Charles Laughton crafted one of the darkest, strangest fairytales ever to come out of Hollywood. The Night of the Hunter remains visually exquisite and profoundly unsettling.

Shortly before Ben Harper is hanged for robbing a bank and killing two men, he hides the $10,000 loot in the toy doll of his young daughter Pearl. Only Pearl and her brother John know the secret – until the deranged serial killer-priest Harry Powell hears about the money and sets out to recover it.

Harry marries Willa, Harper’s widow, and then, after killing her, pursues John and Pearl relentlessly across West Virginia.

Set in the Depression-hit 1930s, The Night of the Hunter is, to quote film critic Pauline Kael, “one of the most frightening movies ever made”. Mitchum’s depiction of pure evil is one of cinema’s most vivid creations, with LOVE and HATE tattooed on the fingers of each hand.

But this is no simple chase film. It’s about the fight for the souls of two children between the forces of evil and good.

Gothic nightmares

Laughton was an odd choice to adapt Davis Grubb’s original 1952 novel – the Oscar-winning British actor had never directed before. Yet Laughton’s “outsider” status meant he wasn’t bound by Hollywood convention and could follow his surreal instincts.

The film draws heavily from German Expressionist cinema, especially in the use of stark black-and-white contrast and exaggerated shadows. Cinematographer Stanley Cortez described it as his best work, and rightly so: the film often feels more like a dream (or a nightmare).

Laughton and Cortez craft a series of remarkable images: Pearl and John fleeing down the river, watched over by owls, frogs and rabbits; Powell’s looming shadow cast across a bedroom wall; the slain Willa’s blonde hair floating under the river after her death.

The film is deeply allegorical. It plays with Christian imagery, ideas of sin and salvation and the vulnerability of the innocent.

Laughton’s masterstroke was to pit the predatory adult world against the instinctual wisdom and resilience of children.

Powell (played by Robert Mitchum in his greatest role) is no monster or madman, but a religious fanatic who murders under the guise of righteousness. He embodies the Gothic trope of the corrupt or false preacher. His looming menace turns small-town America into a place of paranoia, dread and moral confusion.

Rachel Cooper (the silent film star Lillian Gish, never better), who protects the children in the second half of the film, stands as the maternal, angelic counterpoint to Powell’s demonic figure. Her role emphasises another key point of the film: the redemptive, almost sacred, power of kindness.

A perfect performance

As Powell, Mitchum drew on his uncanny knack at exuding charm and menace. Many actors would have clashed with Laughton’s expressionistic style, but Mitchum hit the perfect tone: heightened and theatrical, but never camp.

His delivery is hypnotic, musical and terrifying.

At a time when many stars were protective of their public image, Mitchum had no problem playing a child-killing religious maniac.

Known for his rebellious streak and brushes with scandal (including a marijuana arrest in 1948), Mitchum wasn’t bound by Hollywood’s moral expectations. That gave him the freedom to push into darker territory with no vanity.

That moral delusion, delivered with conviction, is what makes Powell so frightening. Mitchum’s Powell anticipates later predators like Norman Bates (Psycho) or Max Cady (the role he would play in the 1962 version of Cape Fear), but he also echoes much older archetypes: the Big Bad Wolf, the false prophet and the devil in a black coat.

A flop turned masterpiece

The film was a critical and commercial failure. Laughton’s bold and unconventional choices were risky. His blend of German Expressionism, Southern Gothic Americana and psychological horror was unlike anything American cinema had seen before.

It did not align with the mainstream tastes of the era – the top grossing Hollywood films of 1955 were family-friendly, comforting offerings like Oklahoma! and Lady and the Tramp.

Audiences and reviewers didn’t know what to make of this abnormal mix of fairy tale logic, nightmarish imagery and biblical allegory.

So heartbroken was Laughton by the savage reception the film received (“a horrible yarn […] a repulsive picture”, one reviewer called it), he never directed again. Yet the reputation of his one-hit wonder has only grown over time.

Successive generations of critics and filmmakers have caught on to its brilliance. Critic Roger Ebert said it was “one of the greatest of all American films”. In 2008, French film magazine Cahiers du cinéma voted it as the second-best film of all time, behind only Citizen Kane (1941).

A long-lasting legacy

Margaret Atwood, David Lynch and the Coen Brothers have all cited the film as a major influence. Spike Lee paid homage to LOVE and HATE in Do The Right Thing (1989). And surely James Cameron admired it, for what is Terminator 2 (1991) if not a rehash of Powell’s insistent chase-down of children?

Its depiction of a charming, violent manipulator speaks to contemporary fears about religious hypocrisy and the abuse of moral authority. And it reminds us the bucolic innocence of rural America can hide evil in plain sight.

It’s often the case that films which are misunderstood on first release are ahead of their time, and never fully appreciated until many years later.

That’s the case with The Night of the Hunter. It remains unsettlingly modern, 70 years on.

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

– ref. After 70 years, twisted gothic thriller The Night of the Hunter remains as disturbing and beguiling as ever – https://theconversation.com/after-70-years-twisted-gothic-thriller-the-night-of-the-hunter-remains-as-disturbing-and-beguiling-as-ever-251049

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Smith, Research Scientist in Earth & Environment, Boston University

When summer turns up the heat, cities can start to feel like an oven, as buildings and pavement trap the sun’s warmth and vehicles and air conditioners release more heat into the air.

The temperature in an urban neighborhood with few trees can be more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit (5.5 Celsius) higher than in nearby suburbs. That means air conditioning works harder, straining the electrical grid and leaving communities vulnerable to power outages.

There are some proven steps that cities can take to help cool the air – planting trees that provide shade and moisture, for example, or creating cool roofs that reflect solar energy away from the neighborhood rather than absorbing it.

But do these steps pay off everywhere?

We study heat risk in cities as urban ecologists and have been exploring the impact of tree-planting and reflective roofs in different cities and different neighborhoods across cities. What we’re learning can help cities and homeowners be more targeted in their efforts to beat the heat.

The wonder of trees

Urban trees offer a natural defense against rising temperatures. They cast shade and release water vapor through their leaves, a process akin to human sweating. That cools the surrounding air and reduces afternoon heat.

Adding trees to city streets, parks and residential yards can make a meaningful difference in how hot a neighborhood feels, with blocks that have tree canopies nearly 3 F (1.7 C) cooler than blocks without trees.

But planting trees isn’t always simple.

In hot, dry cities, trees often require irrigation to survive, which can strain already limited water resources. Trees must survive for decades to grow large enough to provide shade and release enough water vapor to reduce air temperatures.

Annual maintenance costs – about US$900 per tree per year in Boston – can surpass the initial planting investment.

Most challenging of all, dense urban neighborhoods where heat is most intense are often too packed with buildings and roads to grow more trees.

How cool roofs can help on hot days

Another option is “cool roofs.” Coating rooftops with reflective paint or using light-colored materials allows buildings to reflect more sunlight back into the atmosphere rather than absorbing it as heat.

These roofs can lower the temperature inside an apartment building without air conditioning by about 2 to 6 F (1 to 3.3 C), and can cut peak cooling demand by as much as 27% in air-conditioned buildings, one study found. They can also provide immediate relief by reducing outdoor temperatures in densely populated areas. The maintenance costs are also lower than expanding urban forests.

However, like trees, cool roofs come with limits. Cool roofs work better on flat roofs than sloped roofs with shingles, as flat roofs are often covered by heat-trapping rubber and are exposed to more direct sunlight over the course of an afternoon.

Cities also have a finite number of rooftops that can be retrofitted. And in cities that already have many light-colored roofs, a few more might help lower cooling costs in those buildings, but they won’t do much more for the neighborhood.

By weighing the trade-offs of both strategies, cities can design location-specific plans to beat the heat.

Choosing the right mix of cooling solutions

Many cities around the world have taken steps to adapt to extreme heat, with tree planting and cool roof programs that implement reflectivity requirements or incentivize cool roof adoption.

In Detroit, nonprofit organizations have planted more than 166,000 trees since 1989. In Los Angeles, building codes now require new residential roofs to meet specific reflectivity standards.

In a recent study, we analyzed Boston’s potential to lower heat in vulnerable neighborhoods across the city. The results demonstrate how a balanced, budget-conscious strategy could deliver significant cooling benefits.

For example, we found that planting trees can cool the air 35% more than installing cool roofs in places where trees can actually be planted.

However, many of the best places for new trees in Boston aren’t in the neighborhoods that need help. In these neighborhoods, we found that reflective roofs were the better choice.

By investing less than 1% of the city’s annual operating budget, about US$34 million, in 2,500 new trees and 3,000 cool roofs targeting the most at-risk areas, we found that Boston could reduce heat exposure for nearly 80,000 residents. The results would reduce summertime afternoon air temperatures by over 1 F (0.6 C) in those neighborhoods.

While that reduction might seem modest, reductions of this magnitude have been found to dramatically reduce heat-related illness and death, increase labor productivity and reduce energy costs associated with building cooling.

Not every city will benefit from the same mix. Boston’s urban landscape includes many flat, black rooftops that reflect only about 12% of sunlight, making cool roofs that reflect over 65% of sunlight an especially effective intervention. Boston also has a relatively moist growing season that supports a thriving urban tree canopy, making both solutions viable.

In places with fewer flat, dark rooftops suitable for cool roof conversion, tree planting may offer more value. Conversely, in cities with little room left for new trees or where extreme heat and drought limit tree survival, cool roofs may be the better bet.

Phoenix, for example, already has many light-colored roofs. Trees might be an option there, but they will require irrigation.

Getting the solutions where people need them

Adding shade along sidewalks can do double-duty by giving pedestrians a place to get out of the sun and cooling buildings. In New York City, for example, street trees account for an estimated 25% of the entire urban forest.

Cool roofs can be more difficult for a government to implement because they require working with building owners. That often means cities need to provide incentives. Louisville, Kentucky, for example, offers rebates of up to $2,000 for homeowners who install reflective roofing materials, and up to $5,000 for commercial businesses with flat roofs that use reflective coatings.

Efforts like these can help spread cool roof benefits across densely populated neighborhoods that need cooling help most.

As climate change drives more frequent and intense urban heat, cities have powerful tools for lowering the temperature. With some attention to what already exists and what’s feasible, they can find the right budget-conscious strategy that will deliver cooling benefits for everyone.

Lucy Hutyra has received funding from the U.S. federal government and foundations including the World Resources Institute and Burroughs Wellcome Fund for her scholarship on urban climate and mitigation strategies. She was a recipient of a 2023 MacArthur Fellowship for her work in this area.

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

– ref. 2 ways cities can beat the heat: Which is best, urban trees or cool roofs? – https://theconversation.com/2-ways-cities-can-beat-the-heat-which-is-best-urban-trees-or-cool-roofs-260188

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aimee E. Smith, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Net Zero Observatory, The University of Queensland

When an outing calls for upfront payment, such as admission to the cinema, a play or a theme park, the question of who covers it can shape the tone before the fun even begins.

Navigating payment with others – whether colleagues, close friends or new acquaintances – can be tricky and interrupt the social dynamic that makes shared experiences so valuable.

Our new research, published in Psychology and Marketing, suggests the way you approach splitting upfront costs could have some surprising impacts.

In some cases, despite the dent in your bank account, covering the full cost of an experience for yourself and someone else could actually make you happier.

But this won’t always be the case. And it likely comes down to the different norms and expectations we have for different kinds of relationships.

The experience economy

When times are tough financially, psychology suggests people would prefer to spend their money on material goods rather than experiences.

Yet despite ongoing cost-of-living pressures, there’s evidence to suggest many Australians are prioritising experiences.

Experiences are not just services, but rather about creating memorable events. Compared with material goods, experiences are consistently linked to improved happiness.

A big part of the benefit we derive from such experiences hinges on the fact that we share them with other people. Putting money towards experiences lets us spend time with other people and relate to them in ways just buying “stuff” often can’t match.

So much so, that factors like who we go with, the quality of conversations an experience leads to, or the clarity we have about the other person’s interests can have as much of an effect on happiness as the experience content itself.

In shared experiences, where money is unavoidable, how does “who pays” affect their well-being benefits? This is the question we posed in our latest research, coauthored with Belinda Barton and Natalina Zlatevska.

Going to the movies

We conducted three experiments with 2,640 people and presented them with a common scenario: they would be going to the cinema with either their best friend or a casual acquaintance.

We told half of the participants they would split the cost (that is, pay only for their own admission). The other half were told they would cover the whole cost for both themselves and the other person. We then asked them how happy they would be with this purchase.

Across the three studies, when participants were with their best friend, they reported they would be happier paying the full amount than they would be splitting the cost. In contrast, when participants were with an acquaintance, we found that how the cost was split had no effect on happiness.

The ‘close friends’ effect

With closer friends, unlike acquaintances and strangers, we often have a different set of norms and expectations – especially surrounding reciprocity.

Interactions with close friends usually follow “communal norms”. This is where people help each other based on care and need, without expecting something in return.

On the other hand, interactions with strangers and acquaintances are more likely to follow “exchange norms”, which prioritise balance and direct repayment.

In line with this, we found when participants were with their best friends, their expectations of repayment were lower than with acquaintances when they paid for them. Where participants had higher expectations of repayment, they noted they would be less happy.

Other possibilities

We also tested other ideas, such as whether who pays would affect how smooth the conversation felt or whether it created awkwardness in the dynamic.

We also examined whether the payment felt like an investment in the relationship, or whether it made the other person think more positively of the participant.

We found that none of these really changed depending on who paid and how close the two people were, so they didn’t seem to explain why paying for a close friend felt better.

Instead, norms around reciprocity in different types of relationships can make paying feel more transactional than a kind gesture. This, in turn, affects how happy it makes us feel.

So, should I spend all my money on my friends?

While our research suggests paying for others can make you happier, we don’t recommend budgeting your life savings for this cause.

We limited our experiments to inexpensive experiences (that is, the cinema). So, it’s unlikely paying for your friend’s 2026 Europe trip will bring you ultimate happiness.

Also, if your friend already owes you money, you might expect them to pay you back sooner, and footing the bill again could start to wear thin on your happiness.

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

– ref. Time to ditch splitting the bill? Shouting a close friend could actually make you happier – https://theconversation.com/time-to-ditch-splitting-the-bill-shouting-a-close-friend-could-actually-make-you-happier-261557