Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justin Keogh, Associate Dean of Research, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University

If you’ve ever seen people at the gym or the park jumping, hopping or hurling weighted balls to the ground, chances are they were doing plyometric exercises.

Examples include:

• box jumps, where you repeatedly leap quickly on and off a box
• lateral skater hops, where you bound from side to side like a speeding ice skater
• rapidly throwing a heavy medicine ball against a wall, or to the ground
• single leg hops, which may involve hopping on the spot or through an obstacle course
• squat jumps, where you repeatedly squat and then launch yourself into the air.

There are many more examples of plyometric exercises.

What ties all these moves together is that they use what’s known as the “stretch shortening cycle”. This is where your muscles rapidly stretch and then contract.

Potential benefits

Research shows incorporating plyometric exercise into your routine can help you:

• jump higher
• sprint faster
• reduce the chances of getting a serious sporting injuries such as anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears
• build muscle strength
• improve bone mineral density (especially when combined with resistance training such as weight lifting), which is particularly important for women and older people at risk of falls.

Studies have found plyometric exercises can help:

• older people who want to retain and build muscle strength, boost bone health, improve posture and reduce the risk of falls
• adolescent athletes who want to build the explosive strength needed to excel in sports such as athletics, tennis, soccer, basketball and football
• female athletes who want to jump higher or change direction quickly (a useful skill in many sports)
• endurance runners who want to boost physical fitness, run time and athletic performance.

And when it comes to plyometric exercises, you get out what you put in.

Research has found the benefits of plyometrics are significantly greater when every jump was performed with maximum effort.

Potential risks

All exercise comes with risk (as does not doing enough exercise!)

Plyometrics are high-intensity activities that require the body to absorb a lot of impact when landing on the ground or catching medicine balls.

That means there is some risk of musculoskeletal injury, particularly if the combination of intensity, frequency and volume is too high.

You might miss a landing and fall, land in a weird way and crunch your ankle, or get a muscle tear if you’re overdoing it.

The National Strength and Conditioning Association, a US educational nonprofit that uses research to support coaches and athletes, recommends:

• a maximum of one to three plyometric sessions per week
• five to ten repetitions per set and
• rest periods of one to three minutes between sets to ensure complete muscle recovery.

One meta-analysis, where researchers looked at many studies, found plyometric training was feasible and safe, and could improve older people’s performance, function and health.

Overall, with appropriate programming and supervision, plyometric exercise can be a safe and effective way to boost your health and athletic performance.

Mandy Hagstrom is affiliated with Sports Oracle, a company that delivers the IOC diploma in Strength and Conditioning.

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

– ref. What are plyometric exercises? How all that hopping and jumping builds strength, speed and power – https://theconversation.com/what-are-plyometric-exercises-how-all-that-hopping-and-jumping-builds-strength-speed-and-power-246322

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

Freshly elected US president Donald Trump has exercised his usual degree of modesty and named his newly launched cryptocurrency or memecoin, $Trump.

And like the man himself, the coin’s price is extraordinarily volatile. The price ran up to US$75, fell below $60, went back to $75, fell below $40, then rose back to $60 and had fallen to $31 at the time of writing. And this was just in two days.

It has now been joined by a $Melania coin, promoted by his wife.

Donald Trump was not a success at running businesses. His wealth was mostly due to what he was given by his father.

Read more:
A new book reveals much of Trump’s success is based on a myth he is a self-made billionaire

But he may now have found a way of monetising his fame. Ironically it is using a cryptocurrency, the leading example of which he has described as a “scam”.

Even by Trump standards, it is quite extraordinary that an incoming president would create such a large conflict of interest days before assuming office.

What are memecoins?

While the first cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, has failed in this goal, it was at least created with the idea that it would have a use as a payments instrument.

Read more:
Almost no one uses Bitcoin as currency, new data proves. It’s actually more like gambling

Memecoins by contrast do not even pretend to have any potential use. They are purely speculative tokens.

Probably the best known memecoin is Dogecoin. It was originally created as a joke. Its Australian co-creator described it as a “piss take”.

But supportive tweets by Elon Musk, who once called it the “people’s crypto” have led to spurts in its price. DOGE is even the acronym of the agency Musk will be running for Trump; the Department Of Government Efficiency. In 2021 its price went from less than 1 US cent to almost 60 cents. It is now 35 cents.

The 100 largest cryptocurrencies include memecoins such as Shiba Inu (named after the dog breed featured on the Doge internet meme), Pepe (named after a cartoon frog), Bonk, Fartcoin and Floki (named after Musk’s dog).

Many memecoins are part of “pump and dump” schemes. These involve the coin creators talking them up and then quickly selling, leaving the buyers with worthless coins.

What does “market capitalisation” mean?

You may have seen claims that $Trump is “worth” around US$7 billion, Fartcoin US$2 billion and $Melania around US$1 billion. What does this actually mean?

It is a reference to the so-called market capitalisation. $Trump’s peaked at US$15 billion, but is currently US$7 billion. To put the US$8 billion drop into context, it is equivalent to around half the value of large Australian companies like Coles and Santos.

These reported market capitalisations need to be interpreted with some caution.

They are calculated analogously with those for shares of listed companies. So, for example, Australia’s largest company, the Commonwealth Bank, currently has around 1.7 billion shares on issue and they are trading at around A$150 so the market capitalisation is around A$250 billion.

But that does not mean if every shareholder wanted to sell today they would collectively get A$250 billion. Once a large number of shareholders start selling, the share price would drop by a lot. Only the first sellers would achieve the current price.

At least there is a very large and liquid market for listed shares in large companies. They have a fundamental basis in solid profits they have earned and they have a balance sheet with assets. This is not the case with memecoins, which neither make profits nor have any underlying assets.

Furthermore, unlike a large traded company, creating a new coin is not that difficult. A 13-year-old child reportedly made A$46,000 by creating one.

But if you create 100 million coins, and I buy one for $10, does this really mean your coin is worth $1 billion?

Buyer beware

$Trump’s own website includes a disclaimer noting $Trump is not “an investment opportunity” nor “a security”.

If you are thinking about gambling on it, don’t say you were not warned.

John Hawkins 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. The $Trump memecoin is reaping billions – but like the man himself, it’s extremely volatile – https://theconversation.com/the-trump-memecoin-is-reaping-billions-but-like-the-man-himself-its-extremely-volatile-247788

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

Today, in the Capitol Rotunda in Washington DC, the 47th President of the United States was sworn into office. The second Trump era has begun.

In his inaugural address, Trump outlined a radical agenda to reshape American life and the United States’ role in the world. As was widely predicted, Trump’s speech focused on the same things he has been focused on relentlessly for years: immigration, fossil fuels, revenge and retribution, and an aggressive “America First” nationalism – a nationalism that is rapidly morphing into naked imperialism.

While the speech itself was unremarkable – a standard Trump effort mostly indistinguishable from countless others – it marks the beginning of a second administration that will be radically different from the first.

Trump’s narrative of victimisation, his attacks on vulnerable groups and focus on his base will continue. But this time they are underpinned by a level of preparedness for action that did not exist in 2016.

On immigration: “our sovereignty will be reclaimed”

As Trump himself noted in some unscripted remarks after he left the Rotunda, he has been talking about the “border crisis” since he first descended that golden escalator in 2015.

Trump’s (or more likely, his speechwriter’s) invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, for example, nodded to the depth of legal and historical knowledge that has been brought in, and how that knowledge will be used as a weapon against the institutions of US power.

Trump has continued to blame the United States’ woes on “illegal” immigration. In the first hours of his presidency, he promised to declare a “national emergency at our southern border” and to deploy troops.

While the new administration’s efforts to radically reshape the immigration system and engage in mass deportations will inevitably be embroiled in chaos, this second administration has learned the lessons of the first. Trump understands just how politically effective it can be to target minorities and vulnerable people, shifting blame for big structural problems onto outgroups such as immigrants or transgender people.

On climate: “drill, baby, drill”

The other emergency, as Trump outlined it today and has many times before, is one of “energy”. Trump and the powerful interests that support him have long claimed that climate action undermines US power.

By declaring a national energy “emergency”, Trump hopes to ease the way for more and faster permits for oil and gas extraction and use, despite outgoing President Joe Biden’s efforts to thwart him.

Trump has already signed an order to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Accord for a second time. As Los Angeles continues to burn, the world can no longer hide behind US “leadership” on climate action. Trump has vacated the field – the question is, now, who will fill it?

On justice: “A mandate to completely and totally reverse a horrible betrayal”

Trump has long promised revenge and retribution for those he perceives to have wronged him, so it is no surprise this theme was prominent in his inaugural address.

He promised, again, to stop the “weaponisation” of the Department of Justice. His nominee for attorney-general, Pam Bondi, is widely expected to be an effective footsoldier in Trump’s war on institutions, enacting revenge on her boss’s behalf.

Trump will also revive “Schedule F” via executive order, which will theoretically allow him to reclassify and then fire thousands of independent public servants and replace them with lackeys across federal government agencies and departments. Officials in the Department of Justice are already being removed.

And, also as foreshadowed, he has moved quickly to pardon the January 6 insurrectionists, whom he refers to as “hostages”.

On the world: “A peacemaker and a unifier”

Trump’s version of “peace” and his promise to “stop all wars” must be understood in the context of his imperial revival. As he so clearly outlined, Trump’s “peacebuilding” is in fact the aggressive assertion of US dominance, in the Western hemisphere and beyond.

On the Panama Canal, for example, Trump was unequivocal: “We’re taking it back.”

This brazen imperialism is not limited even to this planet. Trump outlined a vision for conquering Mars, too, which he described as the “manifest destiny” of the US.

Trump is apparently content to leave that destiny in the hands of Elon Musk, whose invocation of “the future of civilisation” (alongside not one but two apparent Nazi-style salutes during the ceremony) leaves no doubt as to the nature of these aspirations.

Now officially US president, Trump has outlined his radical vision for the country and the world. While there is no coherent strategy behind that vision, its aims are clear. Trump and his allies seek to build a new “golden age” for their particular version of America – an America that is radical, aggressive and unforgiving. That America might well be, as Trump claimed, “far more exceptional than ever before”.

Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

– ref. Trump promises a second term focused on immigration and nationalism – as well as revenge and retribution – https://theconversation.com/trump-promises-a-second-term-focused-on-immigration-and-nationalism-as-well-as-revenge-and-retribution-247773

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sophia Nimphius, Professor of Human Performance, Edith Cowan University

Tennis fans are once again filling Melbourne Park for the 2025 Australian Open, after setting an all-time attendance record in 2024.

The Australian Open is one of four annual Grand Slam events, alongside the French Open, Wimbledon and US Open, which bring together the world’s best men’s and women’s players.

These athletes strive to claim not just the championship trophy, but precious ranking points as well as huge pay cheques: this year’s Australian Open prize pool is $A96.5 million and winners of the men’s and women’s singles events will each take home $3.5 million.

Why though, are the lengths of the men’s (five sets) and women’s (three sets) matches different?

Debating the differences

There has been long-standing debate about the appropriate length of men’s and women’s tennis matches.

In Grand Slam events, men’s matches extend to five sets, while women’s matches remain best-of-three. In most other tournaments, men and women both play best-of-three sets.

This difference is often raised when assessing equal prize money at some events, with some arguing women should not be awarded equal prize money if they play shorter matches.

Women are paid equally at all the Grand Slam tournaments but not all lower-level events.

Luckily, tennis prize money isn’t based on an hourly wage system – that’s why women don’t get less for dominating their opponents in two sets.

But what if the women played best-of-five?

Women’s history with five-set tennis

Women competed in best-of-five matches more than 130 years ago.

The United States’ national championships from 1891 to 1901 featured five set matches for women. The New York Times described the 1891 clash between Mabel Cahill and Ellen Roosevelt as being: “fought to the end with wonderful tenacity”.

But these women’s matches were shortened to best of three sets in 1901 by the United States National Lawn Tennis Association Council – a body made up entirely of men.

The decision was made despite the demonstrated ability for women to play five set matches, and does seem to parallel similar examples of men deciding with no evidence that women are not suited for sport of a particular nature.

This mindset led to the nearly 50-year ban of women playing soccer from 1921 to 1970.

In athletics, women were banned from competing in the 800-metre race from 1928 until 1960, at least partially because the media seemed shocked that in the 1928 Olympic Games in Amsterdam, some women fell to the ground in exhaustion after sprinting for gold in the 800-metre event.

It took until 1967 before the first woman ran the Boston Marathon – and Kathrine Switzer had to do so covertly, battling men trying to push her off the course. But her efforts led to the inclusion of the women’s marathon to the Olympics in 1984.

Back to tennis.

In 1984, the Women’s Tennis Association final featured a best-of-five set format from 1984 to 1998, famously highlighted by the decider between Monica Seles and Gabriela Sabatini in 1990 at Madison Square Garden.

Then in 1994, the Australian Open briefly considered introducing best-of-five finals for women, which would have been the first Grand Slam to do so.

Supporters of the move believed it would provide a more complete test of skill and endurance, and offer a more compelling spectacle. However, the experiment did not go forward.

Women can push the limits of physiology

The preparation and recovery management of women in tennis has improved further from when the Australian Open proposed “the experiment” in 1994.

But it should have never been a question of whether the physiology of women could handle longer events.

In fact, evidence supports women might be built for it. From marathon records continuing to fall to women excelling in ultra-endurance events, the longer the event, the better they perform.

So maybe the stamina needed for a best-of-five sets is ideal for women.

Read more:
The longer the race, the closer it gets: women are closing in on men when it comes to ultra-endurance events

Reframing the question: are best-of-five sets better?

While society debates whether women should play five sets, a better question may be: do five sets achieve the best outcome for all players and fans in the age of shorter format versions of sports?

During five-set matches, evidence shows aspects of performance can plateau in the middle stages – first serve velocity has a parabolic approach, meaning servers hold back during the middle sets.

This is likely the athlete conserving energy, often leading to a less dynamic contest in the middle stages in preparation for the “last set”, raising the question of whether men should actually only play best-of-three sets.

Tennis fans will likely continue to debate the value of those third and fourth sets from the perspective of attention span versus tradition.

What is undeniable is that men have the opportunity to showcase their mental strength and stamina in best-of-five matches.

Why aren’t all players given this opportunity?

Sophia is a former consultant for the Women’s Tennis Association.

Caitlin Fox-Harding 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. Game, set, debate: why do women only play 3 sets in tennis? – https://theconversation.com/game-set-debate-why-do-women-only-play-3-sets-in-tennis-241245

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Moore, Senior Research Associate, School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, The University of Melbourne

If you’ve been on a summertime stroll in recent weeks, chances are you’ve seen a red flowering gum, Corymbia ficifolia.

This species comes from a small area of south west Western Australia but has been a perennial favourite with Australian gardeners for well over a century. It’s often planted in domestic gardens, streets and parks, demonstrating its versatility and appeal.

But while its large brilliant flowers attracted early horticultural attention, this summertime stunner’s path to being a successful urban tree has not always been easy.

Difficult to grow from cuttings

Red flowering gum is a small-to-medium-sized tree that can reach a height of about 15 metres, but most trees are ten metres or less.

Its leaves are somewhat fig-like, as the name, ficifolia, suggests. They are shorter, wider and a deeper green than many eucalypt leaves.

While it can be frost sensitive when young, it usually copes well once it reaches a height of two or three metres.

Red flowering gum can tolerate a wide range of different soil types and its often massive lignotuber means it can cope well with the occasional fire. (A lignotuber is a swelling at the base of the trunk containing dormant buds and carbohydrate).

Corymbia ficifolia can produce flowers that are white, pink, orange or red, but red is the favourite.

In fact, a great deal of effort over many decades has gone into getting commercial specimens that reliably produce the expected colour.

This might be easily achieved in other plant species. Eucalypts, however, are notoriously difficult (but not impossible) to grow from cuttings and to graft.

Most red flowering gums have been grown from seedlings, where there is always the risk of variability in characteristics, including colour. Cuttings are clones and so are the same colour as the single parent tree. Seedlings, on the other hand, share genetic material from two parents, which leads to variability in colour.

Much of what we know about eucalypts has comes from forestry, where there has been huge commercial interest and funding for research.

However, the great potential of Corymbia ficifolia as a popular nursery product has ensured continuing horticultural interest, effort and expenditure for decades.

Horticultural history

All sorts of experiments have been done in an attempt to propagate cuttings of red flowering gum, and they represent milestones in our knowledge and research about eucalypts.

In the very early days, back in the late 1800s, classic selection techniques were used to source seed from the best of the red flowering gums. The idea was that while not all would produce progeny with great colour, many would have good colour because of their excellent parentage.

Nursery production in the late 1800s was in full swing, so attempts to grow Corymbia ficifolia from cuttings were inevitable, but there was little if any success.

However, by the 1950s it was known to foresters that eucalypt juvenile material was more likely to prove successful.

Some tried to grow cuttings using juvenile material from seedlings or using shoot tips from trees known to be bright red.

Others tried propagating from epicormic shoots (which spring from just under the bark) and lignotuberous shoots, which possess many juvenile characteristics.

But while there were a few successes, the rate was far too low to be commercially viable. Growing red flowering gums from seedlings continued to be the way.

By the 1970s, the using of rooting hormones was allowing greater success.

But soon tissue culture, which involved the use of complex mixtures of hormones in sophisticated growing media, emerged as a successful propagation technique.

It worked, but tissue culture of eucalypts was not easy; there was lots of expensive trial and error before success.

A lack of consistent success means this form of propagation has yet to be taken up by industry.

While all this was happening, others in research laboratories and nurseries were also trying to graft selected red flowering gum shoots onto established seedling root stocks.

The previous work on cuttings and contemporary work on tissue culture provided some insight into what might be required to successfully graft red flowering gum onto other eucalypt, or even its own species’ root stock.

But it still took time and effort before real success was achieved around the turn of this century.

Grafting often results in smaller trees that flower precociously and abundantly, which is probably why they are of smaller stature. Flowering early and so abundantly takes a lot of a tree’s resources and so they often grow smaller in stature.

Hard work and good science

These days we can take the varieties of Corymbia ficifolia for granted. We might see a mini red or baby orange or a tall pale pink fairy floss, summer red, apricot dawn or the white snowflake in spectacular garden or streetscape plantings.

If you see a very small or very large brilliantly coloured flowering gum, odds are that it is one of the newer grafted varieties of Corymbia ficifolia.

If you have a grafted variety in your garden, make sure you remove shoots that might grow from below the graft. They can grow very fast and revert to the original red flowering gum form and colour.

I still have a real soft spot for the spectacular larger red flowering gums. Perhaps it is due to a childhood memories, or a reminder of when students and I were attempting (with mixed success) to grow red flowering gum cuttings using various plant hormone combinations in the mid 1980s.

Or perhaps it’s because we are still yet to crack all the secrets involved in producing great specimens every time.

But most likely it is because I know how much hard work and good science has gone into giving us the splendid Corymbia ficifolia specimens we see today.

Gregory Moore 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. The red flowering gum: a perennial favourite and a summer stunner – https://theconversation.com/the-red-flowering-gum-a-perennial-favourite-and-a-summer-stunner-246485

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sandra Breux, Démocratie municipale, élections municipales, Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS)

Urban studies is sometimes considered a loosely defined interdisciplinary academic domain, lacking the scientific rigour needed to understand cities.

In Canada, urban studies is a little more than 50 years old; a young field, by scientific standards. This begs the question: does urban studies provide an introduction to cities in general for university students? Or is it, instead, the basis of a distinctively Canadian way to understand our cities and urbanity?

As director of the Villes Régions Monde (VMR) (Cities Regions World) network, a Québec-based network of urban studies researchers, and as director of the Urban Studies Program at Simon Fraser University, we brought together 23 colleagues to craft an edited volume, published in English and French: Crossing Paths Crossing Perspectives: Urban Studies in British Columbia and Quebec.

We compared the past decade of research in urban studies in Québec and in British Columbia. The project was guided by three objectives that allow us to respond to the question of how to define urban studies in Canada.

This article is part of our series, ‘Our cities from the past to the future.’ Urban life is going through many transformations, each with cultural, economic, social and political implications. To shed light on these diverse issues, La Conversation Canada and The Conversation Canada are inviting researchers to discuss the current state of our cities.

Structuring research through funding

Our first objective was to to create an encounter between francophone and anglophone urban studies in Canada, connecting different scholarly traditions and cultures across the country. Above and beyond the differences between Québec and B.C. — and more specifically, those of the cities of Montréal and Vancouver — is there common ground in urban studies?

The book begins by showing the importance and influence of funding sources and networks: these structure and guide research, and explain in part the substantive research that gets published. The existence of the Villes Régions Monde network, which offers funding through the Fonds québécois de recherche société et culture to a membership of more than 70 researchers across Québec, and the absence of an equivalent in other Canadian provinces, is a case in point.

Whereas urban studies has existed as an undergraduate program option since the 1970s at certain universities in Québec, it’s grown rapidly over the past 25 years in anglophone Canada, including at York, the University of Toronto, the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University.

This evolution is part of ensuring secondary and post-secondary pathways are better aligned with the job market. A symposium on the book, published in June 2024 in the Journal of Canadian Studies, offers additional reflections on the meaning of urban studies in Canada.

Empirical research, theoretical development

Despite the differences between B.C. and Québec, the book demonstrates the empirical nature of urban studies in Canada. Unlike urban studies in France, the U.K. and Brazil, urban studies in Canada is more focused on pragmatically addressing urban trends and their consequences, rather than developing theories to explain these phenomena.

Theoretical research tends to have a higher status in academia, but empirical research is in high demand by decision-makers. This raises the question: what would it mean for urban researchers in Canada to become more theoretical? Would we lose our capacity to influence decision-making?

While the empirical side of urban studies research tends to diminish credibility in the eyes of the so-called classical disciplines due to the absence of a strong theoretical foundation, the book shows how claiming shared space between disciplines helps urban research respond to contemporary urban challenges.

After all, contemporary urban challenges do not respect disciplinary boundaries; more often than not, they have multiple sociological, economic and geographical dimensions, among others. What this interdisciplinarity concedes in terms of disrepect for disciplinary boundaries, it gains in terms of distinctive research opportunities.

In fact, another aim of this project was to counter the “extroversion” of urban studies practice in Canada, in the sense of extroversion explained in this article in The Conversation on universities in Africa.

A more introverted approach may be needed for the possibility of a distinctively Canadian theory and practice of urban studies. In the era of reconciliation, the necessity of opening doors to other forms of knowledge and understanding invites urbanists to decolonize our understanding of Canadian cities. Kamala Todd, one of the authors to our book, offers an explanation of her Indigenous approach to urban research:

“Are we as urban studies scholars and practitioners open to acknowledging the limits and harms within conventional, dominant approaches to urban planning and knowledge generation? In my work, I share my learnings and lived experiences as an Indigenous person on someone else’s territories as a reminder that the city is land, that story is knowledge, that the original laws, languages, and planning traditions of the land are important to learn and uphold. These are teachings urgently needed for our times.”

Foster dialogue

By the same token, this book — that we intentionally pursued as a bilingual project — demonstrated the difficulties of simultaneous publication in two languages, as well as the need to do so in order to encourage and value meaningful encounters and dialogue.

The limits of translation soon became apparent. They called into question the use, within different languages, of distinct terms to describe the same idea.

If our book shows that, in academic terms, urban studies is a field of scholarly transgression, it also highlights the specific potential within urban studies research to generate grounded and contextualized urban understandings.

The format of this book itself is witness to this potential: our third aim was to situate the work in opposition to dominant academic publishing practices. Effectively, the book does not present any new results: “Crossing Paths presents no original research.”

Or, at least, the novelty of what the volume offers does not conform to the normal expectations of academic research. Yet, against the current of an exponential growth in the number of articles published, we opted to step back and initiate an encounter between authors, asking instead for an expression of the comparative urban dynamics at play in Montréal and in Vancouver, in the style they saw fit.

Such a perspective is rarely accorded value in contemporary research. And yet, is it not important for researchers to ask themselves, and one another, how we do research, and how this effects our understanding of urban systems, on the one hand, and the evolution of urban studies research, on the other?

Illustrating urban studies

Drawings in our book by Dionne Co highlight how artistic representations can both communicate and provide a new understanding of urban phenomena. The illustrator explains:

“Illustrations are tools for illumination: they clarify and present new understandings of places, people and things in specific ways that are balanced and inspiring, unique to the medium of visual representation. Cities have grown with the help of drawings since time immemorial: plans, sketches, diagrams, and posters to convey ideas in forms readily understandable to the public. It is along these same lines that these illustrations have been included alongside the text: to foster common understandings in two contrasting worlds of urban studies.”

Crossing Paths Crossing Perspectives shows that, far from being limited to an academic discipline, urban studies is a specific way of analyzing urban spaces in Canada. The book underlines a number of new frontiers and intersections to be situated and transgressed, new dialogues to be initiated across languages and graphic representations. And finally, it shows the need to exchange knowledge old and new.

Sandra Breux directs the Villes Régions Monde network, a network for the dissemination and popularization of urban studies research, funded by the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et Culture. The publication of the book featured in this article was financially supported by the Villes Régions Monde network (financed by the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et Culture), the Programme d’appui aux relations canadiennes of the Secrétariat du Québec aux relations canadiennes, the SFU Publications Fund and the SFU Urban Studies Initiative in Urban Sustainable Development.

Meg Holden received funding from the Programme d’appui aux relations canadiennes of the Secrétariat du Québec aux relations canadiennes, and from two Simon Fraser University funds: SFU Publications Fund and SFU Urban Studies Initiative in Urban Sustainable Development. These funds made possible the publication of the book presented in this article. Meg is Director of the Sustainable Development Research Centre at Simon Fraser University.

– ref. Urban studies: Doing research when every city is different – https://theconversation.com/urban-studies-doing-research-when-every-city-is-different-244721

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Finley Watson, PhD Candidate, Politics, La Trobe University

Podcasting is the medium of choice for millions of listeners looking for the latest commentary on almost any topic. In Australia, it’s estimated about 48% of people tune in to a podcast each month.

However, the rise of podcasts has also led to a new trend of “fake podcasts”. In some cases, these are a trivial marketing strategy. In others, they are a deceptive form of misinformation.

So what are fake podcasts?

Fake podcasts are short video clips designed to appear like snippets from real podcasts published on short-form content platforms such as TikTok.

These clips centre on one or sometimes two speakers, positioned behind high-quality broadcasting microphones, directing their conversation off camera. However, in reality no broader discussion is taking place.

These videos began gaining attention in late 2022 when social media users realised several viral clips showing commentators on seemingly high-profile podcasts were in fact “fake”. These clips weren’t from any real podcast episodes. In some instances the microphones hadn’t even been turned on.

The most noteworthy example came from fitness influencer and YouTuber Vincent Sant. To market his online brand, Sant created a video suggesting he had appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience.

Although the video showed him using the same microphone, headphones and red velvet curtain backdrop as Rogan, viewers quickly pointed out Sant had never appeared on the show. He removed the clip shortly after.

Since then, fake podcast clips have become a recognised marketing strategy employed by a range of brands. Some professional actors produce this content regularly, earning up to US$16,000 per month.

There are even explicit guides on LinkedIn for marketers wanting to produce their own fake podcasts, with the practice described as “the future of video marketing”.

Some fakes are more harmful than others

There are three main types of fake podcast, each one deceiving viewers to a different extent.

The first is the explicit ad. In this case, the podcast format is used to present an obvious sales pitch for a specific product. Examples include this ad from Junkee and Bank Australia:

While the ad uses a podcast format, it’s unlikely to fool many viewers, not least due to the “paid partnership” disclaimer.

The second category of fake podcasts uses the podcast aesthetic to market a personal brand, rather than a specific product. Several influencers including online entrepreneur Sebastian Ghiorghiu and Pearl Davis (the so-called “female Andrew Tate”), have garnered millions of followers through such clips, which intentionally leave the broader context ambiguous. They produce clips from both real and fake podcasts, with no means of differentiating the two.

These kinds of fake podcasts have three main purposes. The first is to gain consistent viewers. The second is to legitimise the creator’s, at times, conspiratorial political perspectives. And the third is to sell products.

The final and most intentionally deceptive form of fake podcast is what I call the “deep” fake podcast. These clips combine elements of the first two categories alongside manipulated audio and video – usually produced with the help of AI tools.

The purpose here is usually to convince viewers a certain prominent podcaster or personality has made certain claims and/or endorsed certain products. One recent example purports to show Joe Rogan and neuroscientist Andrew Huberman endorsing a “libido-boosting” supplement. This is the most deceptive form of the practice.

The psychology behind fake podcasts

Out of all the mediums to fake, why fake a podcast? Are online audiences so susceptible that they immediately associate anyone talking off camera into a microphone with expertise? Not quite.

Podcasting reflects what media researcher Henry Jenkins calls “convergence culture”. In this space, the distinctions between traditional, alternative and social media are increasingly blurred, as are the lines between producers, consumers, technical experts and “popular experts”.

Social media users usually recognise podcasters as popular experts. These individuals may not have recognised qualifications, yet they are often just as knowledgeable about a particular area of popular culture as a technical expert due to their experience and/or passion. Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark, hosts of the top podcast My Favourite Murder, are a good example, as is former YouTuber MatPat, whose channel The Game Theorists has close to 20 million subscribers.

Convergence culture has increasingly foregrounded popular experts in online spaces, helping to legitimise their blend of amateur and professional communication.

How to spot them

According to the Pew Research Centre, US adults who hear “news” discussed on podcasts are likely to view this information as more reliable than news gleaned from other sources such as social media. At the same time, podcasts are much easier and cheaper to fake than other forms of traditional media.

Spotting fake podcast clips may not always be easy, especially if you haven’t come across one before. If you see a suspicious clip, a good rule of thumb is to look for a clear link to the original video and recording. If this original is easily accessible, verifiable and lasts longer than sixty seconds, the clip itself is probably real.

Another way is to cross-reference the clip with other official channels. For instance, the next time you see a 20 second video of a renowned health expert spruiking a new supplement on Amazon, check that expert’s official social media page before clicking the purchase link.

Finley Watson receives funding through an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

– ref. Fake podcast clips are misleading millions of people on social media. Here’s how to spot them – https://theconversation.com/fake-podcast-clips-are-misleading-millions-of-people-on-social-media-heres-how-to-spot-them-246425

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Kranz, Assistant Lecturer in Psychology, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Five years since the start of the COVID pandemic, it can feel as if trust in the knowledge of experts and scientific evidence is in crisis.

But according to our new findings in a global survey of more than 70,000 people across 68 countries (including more than 2,000 New Zealanders surveyed early in 2023), people hold science in high regard and want scientists to be more involved in policy decisions.

New Zealanders are particularly trusting of scientists, ranking ninth internationally, not far behind Australians who ranked fifth.

Strikingly, despite concerns about a crisis of trust both overseas and in New Zealand, no country shows low trust in science.

This comprehensive international survey is the largest international study examining trust in science and scientists since the COVID pandemic. It extends its reach beyond typically studied nations to those that have been largely underrepresented in research.

For New Zealand, it highlights key views on scientists and their role in society, and how these perceptions compare to other countries.

Why should we care about trust in science?

In our daily lives, we are constantly having to make decisions that involve scientific evidence. Should I get my infant vaccinated? Do I need to wear sunscreen? Should I be drinking this much coffee?

What we choose to do is influenced by what we believe and who we trust. If we want people to make decisions informed by evidence, we need people to trust science.

Tackling some of the biggest issues of today can be done more effectively when the public trust in science. For example, countries with higher trust in science were more supportive of public health measures such as mandatory face masks in public to prevent COVID infection. People with higher trust in science also engage in more behaviours to mitigate climate change.

Of course, we shouldn’t promote blind trust in science. There is a very real need for scepticism, criticism and scrutiny of science. But governments need people to trust science if they are to have evidence-based policy. And scientists need people to trust science if their research is to get support and funding.

Breaking down trust in science

This new survey corroborates previous research that finds New Zealanders are trusting of scientists. But what do we even mean by “trusting scientists”?

In this research, trust was broken down into four separate, but related parts: competence, benevolence, integrity and openness.

Globally, people are particularly trusting of the competence of scientists (78% believe scientists are qualified to conduct research), moderately trusting of the benevolence and integrity of scientists (57% believe most scientists are honest) but less trusting of the openness of scientists to feedback (42% believe scientists pay attention to others’ views). Average responses to some of our trust questions are shown below.

Although this research doesn’t point to a crisis of trust in science, we shouldn’t ignore the concerns of those who don’t trust science or minimise the disproportionate effect opinions of a minority can have in society.

Vocal and influential voices who distrust science may have very real impacts on the role scientific evidence plays in policy and in society.

Who is more, or less trusting of science?

Globally, people were more likely to trust science if they were female, older, more educated, had a higher income, lived in an urban setting, were religious and politically liberal. However, this varied by country.

At odds with what might feel intuitive, most counties showed either no or only a very small relationship between tertiary education and trust in science.

In New Zealand, people who reported being more religious or earning higher incomes expressed greater trust in science, whereas education appeared unrelated. Likewise, Australians on higher incomes and stronger faith expressed higher trust in science, but people with higher levels of tertiary education also reported slightly greater trust.

In many countries, including New Zealand and Australia, peoples’ self-reported political ideology – being more “liberal” or “conservative” on the political spectrum – was not significantly related to trust in science.

A clear exception to this was the US, where some science-related issues such as climate change and healthcare have become heavily politicised. Americans with more conservative political views tended to express lower trust in science.

The overall impact of demographic variables on trust in science was small. Demographic factors should not be seen as the driving force of whether people trust science and scientists, but merely a small piece of the puzzle.

One factor that showed a stronger relationship (both globally and in New Zealand) to whether people trust science is how much a person endorsed social hierarchy – the idea that some groups in society dominate others.

People who showed a greater preference for hierarchy expressed lower trust in science. This could be due to a perception that scientific research aims to reduce inequalities or challenges existing hierarchies and the status quo.

Science and society

Our study clearly showed that New Zealanders want scientists to be engaged with society and politics. More than half of New Zealanders believed that scientists should be more involved in the policy-making process, communicate their findings to politicians, work with politicians to integrate scientific results into policy making and advocate for specific policies.

An overwhelming 79% of New Zealanders (83% of people globally) believed scientists should communicate about science with the general public.

Despite some publicised pushback against science during the pandemic, this new research shows most New Zealanders trust science and New Zealand ranks highly in global terms. However, this trust should not be taken for granted by the scientific community.

Scientists and scientific organisations must strive to demonstrate their trustworthiness. This includes ensuring they act honestly and transparently. And that they listen to and work with the people who are affected by their research.
Trust is fragile – hard to earn and easy to lose.

The TISP initiative has developed a data visualisation dashboard where users can explore the data and compare across countries.

John Kerr works for the Public Health Communication Centre, which is funded by a philanthropic endowment from the Gama Foundation.

Laura Kranz 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. Despite fears of falling trust in expert knowledge, a global survey shows New Zealanders value science highly – https://theconversation.com/despite-fears-of-falling-trust-in-expert-knowledge-a-global-survey-shows-new-zealanders-value-science-highly-247181

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Summer, Early Career Researcher, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University

Superbugs that are resistant to existing antibiotics are a growing health problem around the world. Globally, nearly five million people die from antimicrobial resistant infections each year. The annual toll of antimicrobial resistant infections is expected to rise by 70%, with an estimated 40 million deaths between now and 2050.

To address this, researchers must discover new antibiotics and agents that improve the efficacy of existing antibiotics.

Hope may come from a surprising source: oysters.

In new research published today in PLOS ONE, we show that antimicrobial proteins isolated from oyster hemolymph (the equivalent of blood) can kill certain bacteria responsible for a range of infections. The proteins can also improve the efficacy of conventional antibiotics against problematic bacteria species.

Robust, resistant bacteria cause common infections

Pneumonia is an acute infection of the lungs, commonly caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae. It is the leading cause of death among children under five years of age, and a common cause of hospitalisation and death in older people.

Upper respiratory tract infections, such as tonsillitis, are also common. In fact, they are the most frequent reason children are prescribed antibiotics.

Persistent skin and throat infections caused by Streptococcus pyogenes can lead to the development of acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease.

The high prevalence of these bacterial infections and overuse of antibiotics have contributed to the evolution of drug-resistant bacteria. This makes these infections difficult to treat.

The formation of biofilms compounds the problem.

Biofilms are populations of millions of bacterial cells embedded in a self-secreted substance that sticks to surfaces. They protect bacteria from the host’s immune system – and from antibiotics. Almost all bacterial infections involve biofilms.

Because of this, new antibiotic treatments that can inhibit, disrupt or penetrate biofilms are very valuable.

Oysters as a source of new antimicrobial agents

Over 90% of antibiotics we currently use are derived from nature. The same is true for over 65% of antibiotics under recent development.

In the search for new antimicrobial drugs, researchers will usually start by looking at organisms that produce antimicrobial chemicals for self defence.

Oysters are exposed to high concentrations of diverse microorganisms in their natural marine environment. Because of this, they have evolved strong immune defences. For example, they rely heavily on antimicrobial proteins and strings of molecules known as peptides in their hemolymph (blood) to protect them from infection.

Research over the past few decades has found that oyster hemolymph contains antiviral and antibacterial proteins and peptides. These are active against a range of human and marine pathogens.

Oysters, along with other molluscs, plants and animals, have a long history of use as traditional medicines to treat infectious diseases.

In traditional Chinese medicine, various preparations from oysters are recommended for treating symptoms of respiratory infection and inflammatory conditions. Oysters have also played a significant role in the health of Indigenous people in Australia for millennia. This provides useful clues for drug discovery.

Our latest research confirms that antimicrobial proteins in the hemolymph of Sydney rock oysters (Saccostrea glomerata) are particularly effective at killing Streptococcus spp. bacteria.

The proteins were also effective at inhibiting Streptococcus spp. biofilm formation and could penetrate biofilms that had already formed.

Boosting the drugs we have

To improve how well currently available drugs work, they are increasingly combined with antimicrobial peptides and proteins.

These peptides and proteins can disrupt bacterial cell membranes, helping conventional antibiotics reach their targets more easily. Many of these proteins and peptides can also boost the host’s immune system, making treatment even more effective.

We tested Sydney rock oyster hemolymph proteins for activity against a range of bacterial pathogens in combination with different commercially available antibiotics. At very low concentrations, the proteins improved the effectiveness of antibiotics between two- and 32-fold.

The results were particularly promising for Streptococcal spp., Staphylococcus aureus (also known as “golden staph”, a primary cause of drug-resistant skin and bloodstream infections) and Pseudomonas aeriginosa (a major problem for immune-compromised patients with cystic fibrosis). There were also no toxic effects on healthy human cells.

What next?

Overall, oyster hemolymph proteins hold promise for future development as an antimicrobial therapy. They can kill pathogens embedded in biofilms, work in synergy with conventional antibiotics, and are non-toxic.

However, more work is needed, including testing in animals and clinical human trials.

Sustainable supply of the proteins for research and medical use is an important consideration, but this is helped by the fact Sydney rock oysters are commercially available.

The results of this work creates the potential for pharmaceutical and aquaculture industries to collaborate with researchers on new, more effective antibiotics development.

Kate Summer receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program and The Malacological Society of Australia.

Kirsten Benkendorff receives funding from NSW Department of Primary Industries, Fisheries.

– ref. Oyster ‘blood’ holds promise for combating drug-resistant superbugs: new research – https://theconversation.com/oyster-blood-holds-promise-for-combating-drug-resistant-superbugs-new-research-226823

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

In the wake of Donald Trump’s election victory, Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg fired the fact-checking team for his company’s social media platforms. At the same time, he reversed Facebook’s turn away from political content.

The decision is widely viewed as placating an incoming president with a known penchant for mangling the truth.

Meta will replace its fact-checkers with the “community notes” model used by X, the platform owned by avid Trump supporter Elon Musk. This model relies on users to add corrections to false or misleading posts.

Musk has described this model as “citizen journalism, where you hear from the people. It’s by the people, for the people.”

For such an approach to work, both citizen journalists and their readers need to value good-faith deliberation, accuracy and accountability. But our new research shows social media users may not be the best crowd to source in this regard.

Our research

Working with Essential Media, our team wanted to know what social media users think of common civic values.

After reviewing existing research on social cohesion and political polarisation and conducting ten focus groups, we compiled a civic values scale. It aims to measure levels of trust in media institutions and the government, as well as people’s openness to considering perspectives that challenge their own.

We then conducted a large-scale survey of 2,046 Australians. We asked people how strongly they believed in a common public interest. We also asked about how important they thought it was for Australians to inform themselves about political issues and for schools to teach civics.

Importantly, we asked them where they got their news: social media, commercial television, commercial radio, newspapers or non-commercial media.

What did we find?

We found people who rely on social media for news score significantly lower on a civic values scale than those who rely on newspapers and non-commercial broadcasters such as the ABC.

By contrast, people who rely on non-commercial radio scored highest on the civic values scale. They scored 11% higher than those who rely mainly on social media and 12% higher than those who rely on commercial television.

The lowest score was for people who rely primarily on commercial radio.

People who relied on newspapers, online news aggregators, and non-commercial TV all scored significantly higher than those who relied on social media and commercial broadcasting.

The survey also found that as the number of different media sources people use daily increased, so too did their civic values score.

This research does not indicate whether platforms foster lower civic values or simply cater to them.

But it does raise concerns about social media becoming an increasingly important source of political information in democratic societies like Australia.

Why measure values?

The point of the civic values scale we developed is to highlight the fact that the values people bring to news about the world is as important as the news content.

For example, most people in the United States have likely heard about the violence of the attack on the Capitol protesting Trump’s loss in 2020.

That Trump and his supporters can recast this violent riot as “a day of love” is not the result of a lack of information.

It is, rather, a symptom of people’s lack of trust in media and government institutions and their unwillingness to confront facts that challenge their views.

In other words, it is not enough to provide people with accurate information. What counts is the mindset they bring to that information.

No place for debate

Critics have long been concerned that social media platforms do not serve democracy well, privileging sensationalism and virality over thoughtful and accurate posts. As the critical theorist Judith Butler put it:

the quickness of social media allows for forms of vitriol that do not exactly support thoughtful debate.

Sociologist Zeynep Tufekci said social media is less about meaningful engagement than bonding with like-minded people and mocking perceived opponents. She notes, “belonging is stronger than facts”.

Her observation is likely familiar to anyone who has tried to engage in a politically charged discussion on social media.

These criticisms are commonplace in discussions of social media but have not been systematically tested until now.

Social media platforms are not designed to foster democracy. Their business model is based on encouraging people to see themselves as brands competing for attention, rather than as citizens engaged in meaningful deliberation.

This is not a recipe for responsible fact-checking. Or for encouraging users to care much about it.

Platforms want to wash their hands of the fact-checking process, because it is politically fraught. Their owners claim they want to encourage the free flow of information.

However, their fingers are on the scale. The algorithms they craft play a central role in deciding which forms of expression make it into our feeds and which do not.

It’s disingenuous for them to abdicate responsibility for the content they chose to pump into people’s news feeds, especially when they have systematically created a civically challenged media environment.

The author would like to acknowledge Associate Professor Zala Volcic, Research Fellow Isabella Mahoney and Research Assistant Fae Gehren for their work on the research on which this article is based.

Mark Andrejevic receives funding from the Australian Research Council

– ref. Don’t rely on social media users for fact-checking. Many don’t care much about the common good – https://theconversation.com/dont-rely-on-social-media-users-for-fact-checking-many-dont-care-much-about-the-common-good-246977

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland

Ozempic and Wegovy are increasingly available in Australia and worldwide to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity.

The dramatic effects of these drugs, known as GLP-1s, on weight loss have sparked huge public interest in this new treatment option.

However, the risks and benefits are still being actively studied.

In a new study in Nature Medicine, researchers from the United States reviewed health data from about 2.4 million people who have type 2 diabetes, including around 216,000 people who used a GLP-1 drug, between 2017 and 2023.

The researchers compared a range of health outcomes when GLP-1s were added to a person’s treatment plan, versus managing their diabetes in other ways, often using glucose-lowering medications.

Overall, they found people who used GLP-1s were less likely to experience 42 health conditions or adverse health events – but more likely to face 19 others.

What conditions were less common?

Cardiometabolic conditions

GLP-1 use was associated with fewer serious cardiovascular and coagulation disorders. This includes deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, cardiac arrest, heart failure and myocardial infarction.

Neurological and psychiatric conditions

GLP-1 use was associated with fewer reported substance use disorders or addictions, psychotic disorders and seizures.

Infectious conditions

GLP-1 use was associated with fewer bacterial infections and pneumonia.

What conditions were more common?

Gastrointestinal conditions

Consistent with prior studies, GLP-1 use was associated with gastrointestinal conditions such as nausea, vomiting, gastritis, diverticulitis and abdominal pain.

Other adverse effects

Increased risks were seen for conditions such as low blood pressure, syncope (fainting) and arthritis.

How robust is this study?

The study used a large and reputable dataset from the US Department of Veterans Affairs. It’s an observational study, meaning the researchers tracked health outcomes over time without changing anyone’s treatment plan.

A strength of the study is it captures data from more than 2.4 million people across more than six years. This is much longer than what is typically feasible in an intervention study.

Observational studies like this are also thought to be more reflective of the “real world”, because participants aren’t asked to follow instructions to change their behaviour in unnatural or forced ways, as they are in intervention studies.

However, this study cannot say for sure that GLP-1 use was the cause of the change in risk of different health outcomes. Such conclusions can only be confidently made from tightly controlled intervention studies, where researchers actively change or control the treatment or behaviour.

The authors note the data used in this study comes from predominantly older, white men so the findings may not apply to other groups.

Also, the large number of participants means that even very small effects can be detected, but they might not actually make a real difference in overall population health.

Other possible reasons for these links

Beyond the effect of GLP-1 in the body, other factors may explain some of the findings in this study. For example, it’s possible that:

• people who used GLP-1 could be more informed about treatment options and more motivated to manage their own health

• people who used GLP-1 may have received it because their health-care team were motivated to offer the latest treatment options, which could lead to better care in other areas that impact the risk of various health outcomes

• people who used GLP-1 may have been able to do so because they lived in metropolitan centres and could afford the medication, as well as other health-promoting services and products, such as gyms, mental health care, or healthy food delivery services.

Did the authors have any conflicts of interest?

Two of the study’s authors declared they were “uncompensated consultants” for Pfizer, a global pharmaceutical company known for developing a wide range of medicines and vaccines. While Pfizer does not currently make readily available GLP-1s such as Ozempic or Wegovy, they are attempting to develop their own GLP-1s, so may benefit from greater demand for these drugs.

This research was funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, a government agency that provides a wide range of services to military veterans.

No other competing interests were reported.

Diabetes vs weight-loss treatments

Overall, this study shows people with type 2 diabetes using GLP-1 medication generally have more positive health outcomes than negative health outcomes.

However, the study didn’t include people without type 2 diabetes. More research is needed to understand the effects of these medications in people without diabetes who are using them for other reasons, including weight loss.

While the findings highlight the therapeutic benefits of GLP-1 medications, they also raise important questions about how to manage the potential risks for those who choose to use this medication.

The findings of this study can help many people, including:

• policymakers looking at ways to make GLP-1 medications more widely available for people with various health conditions

• health professionals who have regular discussions with patients considering GLP-1 use

• individuals considering whether a GLP-1 medication is right for them.

Lauren Ball receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Queensland Health and Mater Misericordia. She is a Director of Dietitians Australia, a Director of Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, a Director of the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network and an Associate Member of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.

Emily Burch 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. People on Ozempic may have fewer heart attacks, strokes and addictions – but more nausea, vomiting and stomach pain – https://theconversation.com/people-on-ozempic-may-have-fewer-heart-attacks-strokes-and-addictions-but-more-nausea-vomiting-and-stomach-pain-247683

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mathew Marques, Senior Lecturer in Social Psychology, La Trobe University

Public trust in scientists is vital. It can help us with personal decisions on matters like health and provide evidence-based policymaking to assist governments with crises such as the COVID pandemic or climate change.

In a survey of 71,922 people across 68 countries, our global team of 241 researchers has found most people have a relatively high trust in scientists.

Notably, people want scientists to take an active role in society and policymaking. Our results are published today in Nature Human Behaviour.

So what does this mean for us as a society, and for scientists and policymakers seeking to maintain and build trust? Here are the lessons we’ve learned.

Rumours of a ‘crisis’

According to reports and polls, most people trust science, and scientists are among the most trustworthy people in society. Yet there is an oft-repeated claim of a “crisis of trust” in science and scientists.

For instance, some research suggests media reporting about polls can act as a self-fulfilling prophecy or feedback loop – it can undermine scientific credibility by portraying a trust crisis.

Other research suggests media policy narratives influence public opinion through framing. For example, exposure to conservative media reporting on scientific controversies increases distrust in scientists, leading to greater climate change denial.

Our research goes beyond the Western world and covers many understudied countries in the Global South. We tested whether there is in fact low trust in scientists, and whether levels of trust vary appreciably across countries.

A truly global survey

We conducted a crowd-sourced Many Labs project involving the same translated survey across 68 countries on all inhabited continents.

Data were collected between November 2022 and August 2023. Our samples were weighted according to national distributions of age, gender, education and country sample size. You can interact with global and country level data using this data dashboard.

Trustworthiness of scientists was measured using four established dimensions: perceived competence, benevolence, integrity and openness.

How much do people around the world trust scientists?

Worldwide, we find most people have relatively high trust in scientists (mean trust level = 3.62, on a scale from 1 = very low trust to 5 = very high trust).

Globally, people perceive scientists to have high competence, moderate integrity and benevolent intentions, while also being slightly less open to feedback. A majority of respondents also perceive scientists to be qualified (78%), honest (57%) and concerned about people’s wellbeing (56%).

No country showed low trust in scientists.

Australia ranked equal fifth-highest in trust in scientists, scoring significantly above the global average, and ranking only behind Egypt, India, Nigeria and Kenya.

Are there differences in trust based on who you are?

Globally, our findings indicate trust is slightly higher for women, older people, residents of urban (versus rural) regions, and people with high incomes, religiosity, formal education and liberal and left-leaning political views.

In most countries, political orientation and trust in scientists were unrelated. However, we found that in Western countries people with conservative (right-leaning) political views have less trust in scientists than those with liberal (left-leaning) views. This is consistent with research from North America.

In Australia, having a conservative versus liberal political orientation didn’t seem to matter when it came to trust in science, unlike in North America and many other European countries. This could mean political polarisation around science is not as much of an issue as it is for specific scientific issues, like climate change.

Globally, what did seem to make a difference was how much a person endorses something called social dominance orientation – a preference for inequality between social groups. People high in this orientation were significantly less trusting of scientists. This is also consistent with previous research.

How do people think scientists should behave?

A majority of survey participants are in favour of science playing an active role in society and policymaking.

Globally, 83% of respondents believe scientists should communicate about science with the general public. This is particularly the case in African countries.

Overall, around half (49%) believe scientists should actively advocate for specific policies, and that scientists should be more involved in the policymaking process (52%).

In Australia, around two-thirds believe scientists should actively advocate for specific policies (66%), and a majority believe scientists should be involved in the policymaking process (62%).

What do people think scientists should prioritise?

Many people worldwide feel the priorities of science don’t always align well with their own priorities.

This is important because the discrepancy between perceived and desired research priorities is associated with trust in scientists. The less people trust scientists, the more likely they think scientists’ efforts don’t meet their personal expectations on what they should prioritise in their work.

In general, respondents assign the highest priority to research dedicated to improving public health, followed by solving energy problems and reducing poverty.

Research on developing defence and military technology was assigned the lowest priority. Globally, respondents believe science prioritises this more than it should.

There are, however, large differences between global regions. People in African and Asian countries believe there should be a higher priority on developing defence and military technologies.

There’s no crisis – but these are valuable insights

Our findings echo Western polls that scientists are among the most trusted people in society. Worldwide, our results show there’s a high level of trust in scientists and a belief they should be involved in society and policymaking.

All this doesn’t support the narrative that there’s a crisis of trust in science.

Importantly, our findings do also highlight some areas for concern. Globally, less than half of respondents (42%) believe that scientists pay attention to others’ views. While scientists are viewed as highly competent, with moderate integrity and benevolent intentions, there is a perception they are less open to feedback.

There is also a gap between the perceived and desired priorities for research, which is associated with trust.

We recommend scientists take these results seriously. They should find ways to be more receptive to feedback and open to dialogue with the public. In Western countries, scientists should consider new ways to reach conservative groups.

In the long term, scientists should also consider their role in setting priorities aligned with public values.

Viktoria Cologna received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation Postdoc Mobility Fellowship.

Mathew Marques, Niels Mede, and Zoe Leviston 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. Most of us trust scientists, shows a survey of nearly 72,000 people worldwide – https://theconversation.com/most-of-us-trust-scientists-shows-a-survey-of-nearly-72-000-people-worldwide-246252

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Mason, PhD candidate in Conservation Biology, Deakin University

Around the world, humans routinely kill carnivores to protect livestock and game, increase human safety and conserve native wildlife. Unfortunately, killing carnivores often creates new problems including population booms of native and invasive prey species such as rabbits, kangaroos, goats and deer. More herbivores can mean more damage to crops and native vegetation.

In many parts of Australia, dingoes, foxes and – to a lesser degree – feral cats are routinely poisoned with 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) to protect livestock and native animals. Predator baiting is sometimes done intensively to help threatened wildlife populations recover after disasters such as the 2019–20 megafires.

Despite widespread use, predator baiting with 1080 is controversial for social, cultural, environmental and economic reasons. Recent opponents include farmers whose livestock protection dogs died in agony after eating 1080 baits.

In southeastern states, land managers may use techniques such as burying the poisoned baits to ensure carnivores are most likely to dig up and eat them. But our new research shows these techniques may not be working as intended.

Why do we use 1080 bait?

Invasive predators such as foxes and cats have driven many native species to the edge. Their silent, stealthy hunting is implicated in dozens of extinctions of small animals.

That means poison baits can be an important conservation tool to control numbers of foxes and feral cats and give native species a better chance of survival. But baiting comes with the risk that other animals will eat it.

In Australia, 1080 has long been seen as a kind of “wonder poison” – a chemical deadly to introduced species that many native animals are highly resistant to. The toxin is derived from “poison pea” plants of the Gastrolobium genus, mostly found in regions of Western Australia. Many native animals in these regions have evolved a high tolerance to the poison.

Quokkas have been recorded eating up to 95% of baited meat deployed to control foxes, while goannas are adept at finding and eating poisoned baits. These species are resistant to the poison, and aren’t normally harmed by consuming baits.

But southeastern Australia has no species of poison pea, meaning native animals in this region may be more susceptible to 1080 than elsewhere.

Which animals actually eat the bait?

Our research suggests a huge number of poison baits buried according to best practice methods are potentially being dug up and eaten by other animals.

To find out which animals might be doing this, we buried non-toxic liver baits in dirt mounds, a method currently considered to be best practice. Then we set up remote motion-sensing cameras at our sites in the semi-arid Wyperfeld National Park in northwestern Victoria and recorded what happened for 70 days.

What did we find? Foxes and dingoes accounted for just 12% of the baits dug up or eaten. Of the 146 interactions with baits, 88% were non-target species – primarily, native mice species such as Mitchell’s hopping mouse (Notomys mitchellii) and silky mice (Pseudomys apodemoides).

The single dingo which took the bait dug it up only after 60 days. Foxes took the bait 17 times, but they were typically slow to do so too, averaging 41 days. By contrast, native mice dug up baits after an average of 13 days.

We also saw western grey kangaroos dig up and eat baits. Echidnas, rabbits and house mice often unearthed baits and left them uneaten on the surface, making them available to be found and consumed by other animals.

In sites with denser vegetation, we found native mice were more likely to dig up and eat the baits. But they were less likely to do so in open areas.

What about dingoes?

Baiting for dingoes and “wild dogs” is still done routinely, even though DNA testing shows the canids roaming Australia are mostly pure dingo. Recent research has shown that dingoes are largely avoiding breeding with domestic dogs. The “wild dogs” being poisoned to protect lambs and other livestock are almost all dingoes.

This poses a major problem for baiting programs. While dingoes are susceptible to 1080 poison, they have lived in Australia for thousands of years. Aside from humans, dingoes are the top terrestrial predator everywhere outside Tasmania. To many First Nations people, these canids are culturally important and are often considered kin.

Graziers have long seen dingoes as a threat, given these predators can take sheep, goats, cattle and other livestock. But there are now non-lethal and highly effective predator-smart methods to safeguard livestock, such as predator-proof fencing and guardian animals such as Maremma dogs. These methods reduce livestock losses without the need to kill dingoes.

Keeping dingoes alive can often actually benefit graziers, as dingoes scare off or eat competing herbivores such as kangaroos and feral goats.

What does this mean for baiting?

Our research shows predator baiting has the potential to harm more native species than previously realised. That means baiting programs must be conducted carefully according to local conditions and the wildlife present.

More targeted methods for controlling predator species are being developed. Feral cats are now being targeted with machines which spray poisonous gel on their fur which cats will groom off, leaving other animals unharmed.

Using 1080 to control invasive predators has undoubtedly helped to save many native species. Even so, we must continue to evaluate the best approaches for predator control and wildlife conservation in Australia.

As the biodiversity crisis deepens and more species march towards extinction, we must find ways of better targeting our methods of control to protect livestock and safeguard native species – including the dingo.

Rachel T Mason is a member of the Ecological Society of Australia, the Australian Mammal Society and the Australasian Wildlife Management Society.

Anthony Rendall receives funding from CSIRO and DEECA. Anthony is the Treasurer of the Australian Mammal Society, and member of the Ecological Society of Australia.

Euan Ritchie receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Energy, Environment, and Climate Action. Euan is a Councillor within the Biodiversity Council, a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and the Australian Mammal Society, and President of the Australian Mammal Society.

– ref. 1080 baits are used to kill foxes, cats and dingoes – but other animals can be more likely to eat them. – https://theconversation.com/1080-baits-are-used-to-kill-foxes-cats-and-dingoes-but-other-animals-can-be-more-likely-to-eat-them-246415

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Vaughan, PhD Researcher Sport Integrity, University of Canberra

Warren Buffet once famously said: “you only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.”

In this context, the US government’s decision this month to withhold its annual funding to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), has exposed WADA’s reliance on the nations with the highest numbers of elite athletes as it aims to lead “a collaborative worldwide movement for doping-free sport”.

The US has taken issue with WADA’s decision not to appeal the China Anti-Doping Agency’s finding of “no-fault” following the contamination of 23 Chinese swimmers in 2021.

Read more:
Chinese swimming scandal: a strong defence by world anti-doping body, but narrative of ‘cover-up’ remains

The international community promotes “clean” sport for fairness between competitors and to protect the integrity of the competition, and athlete health. Yet ironically, the very body tasked with safeguarding these values is itself under scrutiny.

The problem: who pays to police doping?

This month’s announcement that the US Office of National Drug Control Policy has withheld its 2024 payment from WADA highlights the fundamental conflict for WADA.

The US contribution of $US3.6m ($A5.8m) amounts to 13.6% of the budgeted $US26.5m ($A42.7m) from global governments.

WADA’s hybrid public-private structure reflects the balancing act between the national governments on one side and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), representing the sports movement, on the other.

Catherine Ordway, one of the authors here, has long argued the 50-50 funding model between the IOC and the national governments creates “a fox guarding the henhouse” scenario.

This is because WADA relies heavily on funding from stakeholders, some of which have had the highest number of doping cases to investigate, such as Russia, China and the US. This in turn creates serious challenges for WADA in maintaining its own independence and impartiality.

The danger is that WADA could be strong-armed into making decisions to suit major funders: if you are being paid by the organisations that have a vested interest in the outcomes, it could create a fundamental conflict of interest.

The annual contribution due from each national government is proportionate to the size of their elite athlete pool. The IOC pays for the other half of the WADA budget, on behalf of all the international sport federations.

The deficiency in the WADA funding model was exposed during the long and expensive investigation into the “institutionalised manipulation of the doping control process in Russia” following the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games.

Although in financial distress, WADA could hardly beg one of its biggest funders, Russia, for more money to help it unearth the breadth of the fraud.

Instead, it led to WADA seeking private funding for the first time in its history.

A system open to manipulation

The US funding withdrawal is just one example of how WADA’s reliance on national contributions creates vulnerabilities.

This precarious system limits WADA’s ability to enforce anti-doping measures equitably. For example, smaller nations without robust anti-doping infrastructure are more reliant on WADA. Yet reduced funding hampers the organisation’s ability to investigate violations, test athletes, research new ideas, implement education programs effectively, and expand the function of new initiatives, such as athlete Ombuds.

The risks go beyond under-funding. If a government does not pay its contribution, this has a double impact as the withheld amount will not be matched by the IOC.

If other nations follow the US example, WADA’s financial model could collapse entirely. The United Kingdom and EU countries are reportedly being asked to reconsider their financial contributions.

The question is clear: how can we build a funding model that protects WADA’s independence and maintains trust in the system?

Read more:
Tennis is facing an existential crisis over doping. How will it respond?

Innovative solutions for clean sport

There is widespread agreement that WADA’s current funding model is flawed. The real challenge lies in designing an a system that guarantees independence while fostering accountability and transparency.

Beyond current WADA efforts to secure private sponsorships, and support from philanthropic foundations, here are our proposals:

1. An independent global trust fund

A neutral, independently managed trust fund could be financed by a small percentage of global sporting revenues, such as broadcasting rights, sponsorship deals, or ticket sales. This would create a more impartial funding base.

2. Expand WADA’s social science research grant program

WADA recognises that social scientists play a crucial role in designing solutions for “wicked” problems, including doping, and has established a social science research grant program to support the science research program.

Rather than limiting research to “athlete behaviours (and) the social and environment factors that influence athlete behaviors”, the grant program could be expanded to look at WADA’s governance, accountability and funding from perspectives including behavioural economics, governance and public policy.

Additionally, social scientists can analyse WADA’s internal structure to identify inefficiencies beyond funding, ensuring anti-doping efforts are as effective as possible.

Since January 2024, Ordway has been a volunteer member of WADA’s social science research expert advisory group, which reviews the grant applications on behalf of WADA. Ordway does not have any research projects that would be eligible for funding under the proposed reforms.

3. Progressive athlete contribution model

Professional athletes could contribute a small levy from their earnings to fund anti-doping efforts. This model would promote athlete “ownership” of clean sport and increase investment in fair play.

However, many player associations argue that until there is revenue sharing (from event broadcasting, ticketing and sponsorship), especially in the Olympic context, and a greater voice for athletes, that this option is a non-starter.

With the WADA code consultation process well underway, for stakeholder approval at the sixth World Conference on Doping in Sport in November 2025, this is the perfect moment to act.

The urgency for change

Without bold reforms, WADA’s credibility and the integrity of sport itself, will remain at risk.

The stakes could not be higher: fair play, athlete safety, and the future of global competition all hang in the balance.

It’s time to take decisive action to remove the fox from the henhouse.

By building a funding model for the future, WADA can be properly resourced to fulfil its mandate as the organisation established to support clean and fair competition.

The future of sport may depend on it.

Richard Vaughan is an Olympian. He receives funding from Sport Integrity Australia towards his PhD research. He is the Vice-President of the Badminton World Federation (BWF).

Catherine Ordway has advised in anti-doping policy since 1997 and previously worked for Anti-Doping Norway (2001-2005) and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (2006-2008). Catherine currently serves as a voluntary member of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Social Science Research Expert Advisory Group. She was a member of the WADA Education Outreach team for the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games, and the WADA Independent Observer team for the Rio 2007 Pan American Games. The University of Canberra has a Memorandum of Understanding with Sport Integrity Australia, which includes the anti-doping PhD research being conducted by Richard Vaughan. Catherine is Richard’s primary PhD supervisor.

– ref. The US has exposed the World Anti-Doping Agency’s precarious funding model – https://theconversation.com/the-us-has-exposed-the-world-anti-doping-agencys-precarious-funding-model-247442

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Orlando, Researcher, Digital Literacy and Digital Wellbeing, Western Sydney University

According to the latest reports, TikTok has restored services in the United States after “going dark” on Saturday evening US time. The company turned off its services ahead of a nationwide ban that was set to take effect on Sunday.

However, on Sunday, President-elect Donald Trump announced he would issue an executive order after he is inaugurated into office on Monday, to “extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect”.

TikTok has thanked Trump, saying it’s a strong stand “against arbitrary censorship”.

What does it mean for TikTok to ‘go dark’?

To make the app unavailable in the US, TikTok went with two strategies. First, TikTok was made unavailable to download from the US version of Apple’s App Store, Google Play, and any other app providers where one could download the app.

Second, to turn off services only for users in the US, TikTok employed the user’s IP address – this indicates where in the world the user is located. If necessary, the same technical process could be done in any part of the world, including Australia.

However, the service should only be affected for people in the US. There have been reports on websites like Reddit that some users outside the US, including those who originally opened a TikTok account in the US, have been affected – but this is likely to be temporary.

If TikTok stayed dark, people who would still want to access TikTok in the US would have to use a virtual private network or VPN. This can make it appear that the user’s IP address is coming from somewhere else in the world.

So, is TikTok banned in the US or not?

Officially, TikTok is currently banned from operation in the US. The law was passed by Congress in April last year and came into effect on January 19 after it survived a Supreme Court challenge launched by TikTok.

The law was designed to force the Chinese company ByteDance to either sell TikTok in the US, or face a ban enforced by steep penalties.

However, Trump’s statement on Sunday made it clear that no penalties would be enacted on the service providers keeping TikTok available while it’s ostensibly banned.

Can Trump ‘save’ TikTok?

Trump’s promise to resurrect TikTok in some way was part of his election campaign, so this statement comes as no surprise.

While Trump cannot overturn the law, his goal is to extend the deadline TikTok has been given to try and sell the app in the United States. The law does not specify details about potential buyers or ownership structures, apart from that they “must not be controlled by a foreign adversary” (specifically China, in this case).

Overriding a law passed by Congress and approved by the Supreme Court is unlikely to stick, though Trump could work around the law by reassuring app stores and cloud-service providers they won’t face prosecution in the event of a violation.

Overall, the situation is slippery and unclear. Among some users, there’s a feeling nobody knows what’s going to happen, but all will be OK in the end. The fact an app can go dark and then be restored in light of an announcement from a politician in less than a day shows there’s an immense lack of stability in the social media sphere.

It also shows that big tech and social media, in particular, has entered the political agendas of governments in an unprecedented way. The situation with ByteDance demonstrates governments can use tech companies as political tools against other governments.

What does the US TikTok ban mean for Australia?

Australians should be able to continue to use TikTok without problems. However, if TikTok does eventually go dark in the US, they won’t see new content from US-based creators.

But there are larger implications. Last year, Australia banned children under 16 from all social media, although the details of how exactly this will work are yet to be determined.

Australia’s reasons for the ban are fundamentally different from why TikTok was banned in the US. In the US, it’s about foreign ownership, while in Australia the government has expressed concerns about young people’s wellbeing. (This issue has been widely debated by experts.)

But the fact that social media bans of different kinds have been on the agenda at all shows we’re going to see a lot more political game-playing involving social media and big tech in general.

Social media companies and governments are now locked in a global power struggle, playing out in multiple countries: from the US and Australia to others like Brazil.

This is a new kind of conflict in which governments are trying to control or regulate big tech companies, and tech companies are fighting to maintain their independence and power.

The outcome of these struggles will likely shape how online spaces are governed and who ultimately controls the digital world we all use. Stay tuned.

Joanne Orlando received funding from eSafety Commissioner.

– ref. What’s going on with TikTok in the US, and what will this mean for Australia? – https://theconversation.com/whats-going-on-with-tiktok-in-the-us-and-what-will-this-mean-for-australia-247791

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Bellanta, Professor of Modern History (Australian Catholic University), Visiting Professor of Australian Studies (Seoul National University), Australian Catholic University

With almost all menswear bought off the rack or online today, the “shoddy dropper” has long passed into obscurity.

This 1920s slang term, used only in Australia and New Zealand, referred to roving sellers of cloth. Most shoddy droppers sold men’s suiting such as serges and tweeds. They walked city streets or went door-to-door in suburbs and towns.

Driven by a cost-of-living crisis that followed the first world war, shoddy dropping was eventually killed off by rising wages by the 1950s.

The practice underscores how readily fashion markets respond to economic factors such as supply, demand, inflation and wages.

‘Suit-length swindlers’

The most successful shoddy droppers were smooth talkers attractively dressed in made-to-measure three-piece suits.

They often went door-to-door, trying to convince would-be customers they could afford to dress like them. All a customer had to do was buy the shoddy dropper’s “high-quality” suit-lengths at a price they would be unable to find elsewhere.

Some shoddy droppers also claimed to have a special deal with a tailor that allowed buyers to have their suit tailor-made at a steal.

The term “shoddy dropping” played on the dual meaning of the word “shoddy”. The first was a noun referring to a cheap fabric made from a mix of new and recycled wool. The second was an adjective meaning “inferior or badly-made”.

Both meanings of shoddy were implicit in an article published in a rural New South Wales paper in 1913.

Though the writer did not use the term “shoddy dropping”, they warned readers against travelling “suit-length swindlers”, saying that

shoddy articles are frequently palmed off as good quality cloths by irresponsible men.

The number of shoddy droppers at any one time was probably tiny, but since they were off the books they are impossible to quantify.

Having said this, crime and news reports suggest the practice began around the start of the first world war.

Supply, demand, inflation and wages

Shoddy dropping surged in the the 1920s and 1940s, as prices soared due to war.

Working-class men’s desire for well-fitting suits was another factor. When Melbourne carters and factory workers gave evidence to the Australian Royal Commission on the Basic Wage in 1920, for example, they said most men they knew wore tailor-made suits to and from work.

This created financial stress; spiralling costs meant made-to-measure suits were hard to afford.

Fashion was another likely reason for the surges in shoddy dropping in the 1920s and 1940s.

The slimline jazz suit, which came into vogue in the early twenties, was just one example.

The jacket of this suit was single-breasted and slightly flared from the waist, while the trousers were narrow and short enough to expose silk-knit “jazz socks”.

The impish charisma of the jazz-suited Louis Stirling below makes it is easy to imagine how a stylish shoddy dropper persuaded fashion-conscious young men to buy their wares.

Stirling was a suit-length seller photographed by Sydney police in 1920 after he was caught stealing cloth. He later produced evidence that he was a shoddy dropper to escape a vagrancy charge in Melbourne in 1922.

The high number of restless first world war veterans looking for work was a further reason for a surge in shoddy dropping in the 1920s.

Consider returned serviceman Reginald Sharples (also known as Walter Johnson). In 1920, police charged him and an accomplice with stealing more than £1,000 of men’s suiting from a tailor in Sydney’s Hunter Street. This was somewhere in the vicinity of A$83,000 today.

Sharples was caught after transporting the stolen cloth to Melbourne. Like Stirling, he later produced convincing evidence to show that he was a shoddy dropper to escape a vagrancy charge.

In his 1920 mugshot, Sharples is dressed in an early interwar version of smart-casual street style. He had combined a light pinstripe suit with a cream turtleneck sweater, black fedora and returned-serviceman’s badge.

Sharples was also an example of links between shoddy dropping and organised crime in and after the 1920s.

Apart from the suits-stealing charge, Sharples was also convicted of stealing morphine and cocaine from a wholesale druggist in Melbourne in 1922. He was also unsuccessfully prosecuted for vagrancy along with Louis Stirling in 1924.

Rumours that both men were associates of underworld figure Squizzy Taylor swirled in court during the trial.

A cost-of-living story

Shoddy dropping had disappeared by the mid-1950s, thanks to rising wages and increasing sophistication in the manufacture of ready-made suits.

These factors meant there were fewer low-income men who felt the only way they could afford a decent suit was to first buy cloth “off the back of a truck”, then face the uncertainty of arranging for it to be tailor-made.

Though shoddy dropping flew under the radar even in the 1920s, it is worth remembering today as a reminder of the unscrupulous selling practices that bloom in cost-of-living crises.

Along with the evidence in the extraordinary informal mugshots taken by Sydney police across the interwar era, shoddy dropping offers further insights into Australia’s history of male fashion consumers’ desire.

It has often been said Australian men were a cause lost to fashion. Shoddy dropping suggests that, in fact, many longed to dress in tailor-made suits and quality textiles. For many, however, those commodities were frustratingly out of reach.

Melissa Bellanta has received funding from the ARC for a research projects titled ‘Men’s Dress in Twentieth-Century Australia: Masculinity, Fashion, Social Change’ and ‘Sentimental Blokes: A Cultural History of Working-Class Masculinities in Australia, 1850-1929’.

– ref. ‘Shoddy dropping’: how the 1920s cost-of-living crisis fuelled a black market in menswear – https://theconversation.com/shoddy-dropping-how-the-1920s-cost-of-living-crisis-fuelled-a-black-market-in-menswear-244918

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Blazevich, Professor of Biomechanics, Edith Cowan University

Watch any match at this year’s Australian Open and you’ll see balls curving in the air or bouncing higher or lower than expected. Players such as Novak Djokovic, Iga Swiatek and Coco Gauff are particularly masterful at the art.

The secret? It’s all about spin.

The ability to control a tennis ball’s spin has transformed the modern game, making it faster and more spectacular than ever. But how exactly do players make the ball move through the air or bounce off the court like that?

The complex physics of spin

The physics underlying the effect is complex. But the easiest way to explain it is to consider the Magnus effect.

When a spinning ball moves through the air, it creates a force that makes it curve away from its straight-line path. Scientists call this the Magnus force, named after German physicist Heinrich Gustav Magnus who first described it in 1852.

The force is generated by the spinning ball dragging air around it in an unusual way. When a tennis player puts topspin on the ball (for example, by brushing the racquet upwards over the back of the ball during the shot), the ball spins forwards end-over-end after contact. As it spins, the friction between the ball and the air starts the air moving in the direction of spin.

Because air spins around the ball, oncoming air hitting the top of the ball collides with oncoming air due to the spin, and slows down. But air hitting the underside meets air moving in the same direction and travels relatively faster.

According to a law first introduced by the Swiss mathematician, Daniel Bernoulli, pressure is greater on top of the ball, where air flows slowly, than under the ball where the air moves quickly. This pressure difference pushes the ball downwards.

It’s the same principle that helps aeroplanes fly – except in reverse so the ball drops rather than flies.

Topspin: a lethal weapon

Topspin is one of the modern tennis player’s most powerful weapons. When top exponents such as recently retired star Rafael Nadal deploy it, the ball can spin at more than 50 rotations per second!

But why is topspin so lethal?

If a player hits the ball at a high speed, it should normally sail over the baseline because there’s insufficient time for gravity to drag it down into the court.

When hit with topspin, the ball will dip down quickly into the court. This allows players to hit the ball with a lot of horizontal velocity without the ball sailing over the baseline.

And because the top-spinning ball spins in the same direction as the ball travels, the ball continues quickly even after bouncing. So, the ball travels quickly both before and after its collision with the court, allowing less time for the opponent to get to it.

A final benefit is that the ball also tends to bounce higher than normal, which can make it harder to hit for an opposing player.

This is partly because the ball strikes the ground at a steeper angle as it curves downward toward the ground and partly because a ball spinning in the same direction as its travel will skid less as it bounces, saving energy and allowing the ball to bounce higher.

Backspin: the gentle winner

Alternatively, a player might “slice” the ball to put backspin on it by brushing under the ball with their racquet.

This creates an upward Magnus force, making the ball float and stay in the air longer than expected. The ball can then be kept low over the net and yet still travel far into the opponent’s side of the court.

When it lands, it stays low and can even skid slightly. So the ball slows down and stays low, making it hard to hit. In response, opponents often have to hit a slower return shot because the ball doesn’t bounce high enough to hit it with a lot of topspin.

The most dramatic use of backspin comes in the form of the “drop shot”, where players disguise a gentle, heavily underspun shot that barely clears the net, then “dies” on the bounce. This leaves little time for the opponent to rush to the net to make the shot before the ball bounces for its second time and the point is lost.

The Spanish star, Carlos Alcaraz, is a master of this type of shot, as you can see in the below video.

Harnessing the physics of spin

This year when you watch the Australian Open, pay attention to how players use spin to control the court: that “heavy” forehand that pushes an opponent back, the slice serve that draws them wide, the delicate drop shot that brings them forward.

And you might watch for players who put sidespin on the ball, the effects of which I’m sure you can now guess.

They’re all examples of players harnessing the physics of spin to their advantage.

Anthony Blazevich 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. Spin has transformed modern-day tennis. Here’s the physics behind it – https://theconversation.com/spin-has-transformed-modern-day-tennis-heres-the-physics-behind-it-247462

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Ogden, Associate Professor in Global Studies, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

On the eve of Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration, the world is braced for more of what has been described as his instinct for “weaponised chaos”.

During his previous presidency, Trump upended political convention and created a sense of “permacrisis” – “the dizzying sense of lurching from one unprecedented event to another”.

In the past, crises have traditionally been seen as occasions that will make or break governments. Some leaders, such as Britain’s Harold Macmillan in the 1960s, saw them as negatives, famously saying “events, dear boy, events” were any leader’s greatest challenge.

Other perspectives say crises offer the chance to turn challenges into opportunities. These can offer positive outcomes, “bury” bad news or precipitate wars.

But there is now a sense of crisis being an everyday feature of our lives. According to European observers, this means “volatility, uncertainty, and a prolonged sense of emergency have become the new normal”.

This view sees crises as being uncontrollable, to which leaders and populations can only react. For many now in power, however, creating crisis has become a form of politics in itself.

Manufacturing crisis

Over the past 25 years, Russia’s Vladimir Putin has been adept at using crises to his advantage. He used the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings to crack down on Chechen separatists, the 2002 Dubrovka Theater siege to clamp down on the media, and the 2004 Beslan school hostage crisis to remove the direct election of all state governors.

At the same time, Putin’s Russia has been at the forefront of manufacturing crisis. Vladislav Surkov, a former avant-garde theatre director and later main Kremlin insider, was a key protagonist of such ideas who “directed Russian society like one great reality show”, according to one profile.

Rather than governments trying to control the narrative and reality, scholars Catherine Happer, Andrew Hoskins and William Merrin argue, Surkov “promoted multiple realities and an instability of the real, where anything could mean something else and where nothing was certain”.

These tactics were first used in Ukraine and Crimea in 2014 to blur the lines between truth and falsity, creating a climate of complete uncertainty.

According to the Rand Corporation think tank, this involved
deploying a “firehose of falsehood” to “overwhelm audiences with a relentless flood of disinformation, partial truths, random facts and social media speculation”.

Anything becomes possible

The firehose was imported into the US by Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist. Specifically targeting the mainstream media, he said “the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit”.

This approach was then used against all parts of the established order, to invoke widespread polarisation, discontent and havoc. Once normalised, such upheavals are used to create a kind of “power in chaos”.

With nothing being certain, and long-held traditions broken, anything becomes possible. Author Peter Pomerantsev describes it as

a strategy of power based on keeping any opposition there may be constantly confused, a ceaseless shape-shifting that is unstoppable because it’s indefinable.

Trump’s nominations for key roles in his upcoming administration are characteristic of such strategies. They seem designed to provoke bewilderment and distraction before they are even appointed.

Each nominee also has the capacity to cause serial, rolling crises once in power. Republican voters, according to the BBC, are “hailing them as much-needed disruptors to what they see as a corrupt establishment”.

A political shock doctrine

The author Naomi Klein famously described the dynamics of “disaster capitalism” in her book The Shock Doctrine. But Trump’s second term looks to be defined by a widespread political shock doctrine of what could be called “disaster politics”.

The potential is for fragmented social cohesion, attacks on minorities and the spread of misinformation to the detriment of democratic values. It would be a blueprint for current and aspiring autocrats across the world.

At its heart, Trump is the crisis, personifying instability, uncertainty and fear. For him and his followers, permanent crisis is the means and the ends to achieving particular aims and normalising such a political ecosystem.

It is also a conduit for autocratic power, as a dazed population searches for meaning in the “omnishambles” that typifies a “kakistocracy” (rule by the worst).

Disaster politics has the potential to pull other countries – democratic or authoritarian – into its orbit, with others trying to emulate Trump’s approach.

It also means being affected by the wider fallout of Trump’s plans to deport millions of immigrants or impose high trade tariffs. Both are seen to be potential triggers for an American and global recession, which will have a clear impact on other countries.

But Trump’s intended approach also offers some cause of optimism. In his previous presidency, when he sought to impose tariffs or pull out of major treaties, it provoked new groupings of countries seeking to preserve free trade and globalisation.

Paradoxically, democratic countries that promote tolerance, inclusion, compassion and acceptance could flourish as a positive antidote to a Trumpian model of prejudice, isolation, fear and anger.

Chris Ogden is a Senior Research Fellow with The Foreign Policy Centre, London.

– ref. Manufacturing crisis: the challenge of Trump 2.0’s ‘power in chaos’ for other democracies – https://theconversation.com/manufacturing-crisis-the-challenge-of-trump-2-0s-power-in-chaos-for-other-democracies-246403

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

A national Freshwater poll for The Financial Review, conducted January 17–19 from a sample of 1,063, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead, unchanged since December. Primary votes were 40% Coalition (steady), 32% Labor (up two), 13% Greens (down one) and 15% for all Others (down one).

As is the case with YouGov below, Freshwater uses 2022 preference flows for its two-party estimates, and applying 2022 preference flows to the primary votes would give about a 50–50 tie, so rounding probably contributed to the Coalition’s lead in both Freshwater and YouGov polls.

Anthony Albanese’s net approval was down one point to -18, with 50% unfavourable and 32% favourable. Peter Dutton’s net approval was also down one to -4. Albanese and Dutton were tied 43–43 as preferred PM after Albanese led by 46–43 in December, the first time Albanese has not led in this poll.

When voters were asked to rate their top three issues, the cost of living was easily highest with 73% rating it a top three issue, followed by housing at 42%, health at 28%, economic management at 27% and crime at 26%. Crime was up three since December, while the environment was down six to 18%.

YouGov poll and economic data

A YouGov national poll, conducted January 9–15 from a sample of 1,504, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead, a one-point gain for the Coalition since the November YouGov poll. Primary votes were 39% Coalition (up one), 32% Labor (up two), 12% Greens (down one), 7% One Nation (down two) and 10% for all Others (steady).

Albanese’s net approval was up five points to -15, with 55% dissatisfied and 40% satisfied. Dutton’s net approval was up two to -6. Albanese led Dutton as better PM by 44–40 (42–39 in November).

The Australian Bureau of Statistics released December jobs data last Thursday. The unemployment rate rose 0.1% from November to 4.0%, but this was due to a higher participation rate. The employment population ratio (the percentage of eligible Australians employed) rose 0.2% to 64.5%, a record high.

The ABC’s report said economists thought a February rate cut was less likely as a result of the jobs data, but market traders disagreed with this assessment.

Morgan poll: Coalition ahead

A national Morgan poll, conducted January 6–12 from a sample of 1,721, gave the Coalition a 51.5–48.5 lead using respondent preferences, a 1.5-point gain for Labor since the previous poll.

Primary votes were 40.5% Coalition (steady), 30% Labor (down one), 12.5% Greens (up 0.5), 4.5% One Nation (up one), 9% independents (down 0.5) and 3.5% others (steady). By 2022 election preferences, this poll gave the Coalition a 50.5–49.5 lead, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition.

The previous Morgan poll, conducted December 30 to January 5 from a sample of 1,446, gave the Coalition a 53–47 lead using respondent preferences, a one-point gain for the Coalition since mid-December.

Primary votes were 40.5% Coalition (down 0.5), 31% Labor (up 3.5), 12% Greens (down 0.5), 3.5% One Nation (down 1.5), 9.5% independents (down one) and 3.5% others (steady).

Despite Labor’s improved primary vote, its two-party share slid owing to a highly unlikely shift with Greens preferences (from 85% to Labor in mid-December to 55% in this poll). An estimate based on the primary votes would have a 50–50 tie by 2022 election preference flows, a 1.5-point gain for Labor.

A new graph to follow the polls ahead of the 2025 election

I will be using the graph below to follow the polls in the lead-up to the federal election that will be held by May. The graph will chart polls from seven pollsters: Newspoll, Resolve, Freshwater, YouGov, Redbridge, Morgan and Essential. The graph starts with the last 2024 poll from each pollster.

This graph uses the 2022 election preference flows from each pollster to obtain its two-party estimates. If this was not given by the pollster, it was estimated from the primary votes.

So far this year, Morgan, YouGov and Freshwater have released new polls. These are marked by a line connecting the new polls with the previous ones. Overall, the Coalition still holds a narrow lead, with the picture unchanged from December. However, Labor was probably unlucky not to get a 50–50 tie from either YouGov or Freshwater.

Respondent preference flows from Morgan and Essential have usually been worse for Labor than the last election method, and One Nation preferences were stronger for the Liberal National Party at the October Queensland election than in 2020, so it’s reasonable to expect Labor to under-perform the 2022 election flows.

Most pollsters don’t give a respondent preference figure, and these figures are more volatile from poll to poll, and do not necessarily reflect changes in primary votes. Therefore, I will use the 2022 preference method in the graph.

The fieldwork midpoint date gives a better indication of how recent a poll is than the final fieldwork date. A poll that was conducted over a long period may have a more recent final date than a poll with shorter fieldwork, but the majority of the poll with shorter fieldwork may have been conducted before the poll with longer fieldwork.

Newspoll aggregate data for October to December

On December 26, The Australian released aggregate data for the three national Newspolls taken between October 7 and December 6, which had a total sample of 3,775. Comparisons are with the July to September Newspoll aggregate.

The Poll Bludger said that in New South Wales, there was a 50–50 tie, a one-point gain for Labor. In Victoria, there was a 50–50 tie, a two-point gain for the Coalition. In Queensland, the Coalition had a 53–47 lead, a one-point gain for Labor. In Western Australia, Labor led by 54–46, a two-point gain for Labor. In South Australia, Labor led by 53–47, a one-point gain for the Coalition.

The Poll Bludger’s BludgerTrack data says that among university-educated people, Labor led by 51–49, a two-point gain for the Coalition. Labor led by 51–49 with those with a TAFE or technical education, a one-point gain for Labor. The Coalition led by 53–47 with those without any tertiary education, a two-point gain for the Coalition.

Resolve likeability ratings

Nine newspapers on December 29 released likeability ratings from Resolve’s early December national poll that had the worst position for Labor this term. Jacqui Lambie was the most liked federal politician at +14 net likeability, with Jacinta Price second at +8. Penny Wong was the only Labor politician at net positive, scoring +2.

Other prominent Labor ministers were negative, with Tanya Plibersek at -5, Jim Chalmers at -7 and Chris Bowen at -11. Pauline Hanson and Greens leader Adam Bandt were both at -13, Barnaby Joyce at -22 and Lidia Thorpe at -41.

Albanese’s net likeability of =17 is better than his -26 net approval from this poll, while Dutton’s net zero likeability is also marginally higher than his -2 net approval.

Left-wing parties face dismal result at German election

In early November the German federal coalition of centre-left SPD, Greens and pro-business FDP collapsed, and an election will be held on February 23, seven months early. Polls suggest a dismal result for the coalition parties. I covered this election for The Poll Bludger on December 28.

The impeachment of South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, the new French PM and a wrap of recent international elections were also included.

Adrian Beaumont 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. Coalition still ahead in latest polls, but some promising news for Labor – https://theconversation.com/coalition-still-ahead-in-latest-polls-but-some-promising-news-for-labor-246544

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diana Piantedosi, Sociology PhD Candidate, School of Humanities and Social Sciences (La Trobe University); Honorary Fellow, School of Health and Social Development (Deakin University), La Trobe University

Laura (Radha Mitchell) is an ambitious investment banker living in London with her husband and three children, at the peak of her career.

When she is diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) and, in quick succession, her husband suddenly dies, she upends her children to return to her hometown in rural New South Wales.

There, after 20 years abroad, Laura rekindles a past romance with Michael (Adam Demos), who is undeterred by her MS.

Directed by John Raftopoulos, the 2024 Australian film Take My Hand, now streaming on various platforms, is inspired by the lives of Raftopoulos and his wife Claire Jensz, who lives with MS.

I too have MS. Ultimately, I found Take My Hand misses the mark in representing the complexity of living with MS. But its depictions of care are worth talking about.

A variable diagnosis

Take My Hand portrays Laura’s MS as steadily progressing. This diverges from the experience of Jensz, who describes a period of “feeling better” after having children.

Like 85% of people diagnosed, my MS is “relapsing-remitting”. This form of MS is marked by fluctuating symptoms that vary from day to day, often drastically during flares.

In not looking directly at this diagnosis, the film bypasses an opportunity to depict a frequently misunderstood aspect of living with episodic disability: waking up unsure of what your body can or cannot do.

By focusing solely on steady progression, the film sidesteps the unpredictability, confusion, frustration and resilience required to navigate a body that feels different from one moment to the next.

Hit-and-miss messages of ‘hope’

Take My Hand struggles to balance its romantic narrative with its ambition to raise awareness about MS. Laura and Michael’s chemistry is earnest, but often clumsy.

The film makes a commendable attempt to profile male carers. Care work is often invisible and assumed to be a “natural” quality of women, who account for 72% of primary carers in Australia.

While a minority, male carers face specific barriers, including isolation and stigma from rigid gender roles positioning care as “feminine”.

At times, Michael depicts a form of masculine strength grounded in care. In one striking scene, Laura doesn’t make it to the bathroom in time at a café. As Michael helps her clean up, reassurance is mutually conveyed. Powerfully, this makes visible the usually hidden dynamic of care and its shared emotional toll.

In another scene, Michael is undressing Laura. Laura asks, “What if I end up in a wheelchair?” Michael replies, “Well, as long as we can still do this, it’ll be okay”.

The vulnerability of this moment is undermined by the implication that Laura’s value – and Michael’s care – depends on her attractiveness and sexual availability. Moments like these equate “hope” for people with MS to finding a partner willing to “overlook” potential physical decline.

Relational dynamics left under-explored

The film sidesteps exploration of Laura’s own role as a carer.

In one scene, Laura mentions caring for her parents, particularly her mother, who has advanced MS.

Michael’s dismissal, insisting she needs to be taken care of herself, overlooks the reality that a significant proportion of primary carers – particularly women – identify as disabled.

By failing to explore this intersection, the script reinforces stereotypes that equate disability with “dependence”.

In a fleeting moment, Laura’s sister Rachel (Natalie Bassingthwaighte) glances at Laura’s walking stick. Bassingthwaighte conveys the pain of witnessing the deteriorating health of someone you love.

Likewise, Laura’s experience of being witnessed throughout the film hints toward the emotional labour people with degenerative conditions manage: fielding our loved ones’ oscillations between pity, hope and grief for us, in among our own.

This involves reassuring others (as much as ourselves) that we are “okay” – despite unpredictable bodies and uncertain disease trajectories.

Unfortunately, these layered experiences and relationships are largely unexplored in favour of the central romance.

A flawed but earnest attempt

For viewers familiar with the nuanced realities of living with chronic illness, the film may feel like a missed opportunity to delve deeper into the complexities of love, care and interdependence.

But it could support conversations about forms of masculinity and its expression through care and respect.

I recognise the importance of profiling positive examples of male carers. My mum has advanced stage MS, and my dad is her primary carer. Following the Disability Royal Commission, and in an era where calling out abuse and toxic masculinity is more critical than ever, so is the need to depict positive male role models. People like my dad.

The film doesn’t get this entirely right, but its attempt is worth acknowledging.

Ultimately, Take My Hand is a sweet, if flawed, story of returning to a place you once outgrew and reconnecting with an old love. But it is not a meaningful window into the realities of living, loving and being loved with MS.

Its tendency to oversimplify and sentimentalise the experience of chronic illness diminishes its potential impact. While the film’s heart is in the right place, it leaves audiences wanting a richer, more authentic exploration of its themes.

Diana Piantedosi is the Senior Manager of Policy and Advocacy at Women with Disabilities Australia (WWDA). Diana also volunteers with MS Plus and is a member of the Victorian Disability Advisory Council (VDAC), Victorian NDIS Community Advisory Council (VCAC) and Department of Families, Fairness and Housing’s (DFFH) LGBTIQA+ Disability Inclusion Expert Advisory Group.

– ref. Aussie film Take My Hand is a sweet love story – but it misses the mark in depicting chronic illness – https://theconversation.com/aussie-film-take-my-hand-is-a-sweet-love-story-but-it-misses-the-mark-in-depicting-chronic-illness-246982

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Moro, Associate Professor of Science & Medicine, Bond University

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently released new estimates suggesting around 846 million people aged between 15 and 49 live with a genital herpes infection.

That’s equivalent to one in every five people from that age group.

At least one person each second (42 million people annually) contracts a new genital herpes infection.

So what is genital herpes, and are cases on the rise? Here’s what to know about this common infection.

First, what causes genital herpes?

Genital herpes is a sexually transmitted infection (STI) caused by the herpes simplex virus, which also causes cold sores.

There are two types of herpes simplex virus, HSV-1 and HSV-2 (and it’s possible to be infected by both at the same time).

HSV-1 most commonly spreads through oral contact such as kissing or sharing infected objects such as lip balm, cups or utensils, and presents as cold sores (or oral herpes) around the mouth. But it can also be sexually transmitted to cause a genital herpes infection.

An estimated 3.8 billion people under the age of 50 (64%) globally have HSV-1.

HSV-2 is less prevalent, but almost always causes a genital herpes infection. Some 520 million people aged 15–49 (13%) worldwide are believed to have HSV-2.

The initial episode of genital herpes can be quite painful, with blisters, ulcers and peeling skin around the genitals over 7–10 days.

Not all people have severe (or any) initial symptoms. This means a person might not know they have been infected with a herpes virus.

Herpes is a lifelong infection, which means once you contract the virus, you have it forever. After an initial episode, subsequent episodes can occur, but are usually less painful or even symptom free.

Both oral and genital herpes are particularly easy to spread when you have active lesions (cold sores or genital ulcers). But even with no symptoms, herpes can still be spread to a partner.

And although relatively rare, oral herpes can be transmitted to the genital area, and genital herpes can be transmitted to the mouth through oral sex.

Read more:
Crusty, blistering and peeling: where do cold sores come from and what can you do about them?

If an expectant mother exhibits a genital herpes infection close to childbirth, there are risks to the baby. A herpes infection can be very serious in a baby, and the younger the infant, the more vulnerable they are. This is also one reason why you should avoid kissing a baby on the mouth.

Changing trends

WHO’s recent figures brought together data from around the world to estimate the prevalence of genital herpes in 2020, compared with previous estimates in 2012 and 2016.

This data shows no significant difference in the prevalence of genital herpes caused by HSV-2 since 2016, but does highlight increases in genital herpes infections caused by HSV-1.

The estimated number of genital HSV-1 infections globally was nearly twice as high in 2020 compared with 2016 (376 million compared with 192 million).

A 2022 study looking at Australia, New Zealand and Canada found more than 60% of genital herpes infections are still caused by HSV-2. But this is declining by about 2% each year while new genital infections that result from HSV-1 are rising.

There’s no simple fix, but safe sex is important

Genital herpes causes a substantial disease burden and economic cost to health-care services.

With such a large proportion of the world’s population infected with HSV-1, evidence this virus is increasingly causing genital herpes is concerning.

There’s no cure for genital herpes, but some medications, such as antivirals, can help reduce the amount of virus present in the system. While this won’t kill it completely, it helps to prevent symptomatic genital herpes recurrences, improve quality of life, and minimise the risk of transmission.

To prevent the spread of genital herpes and other STIs, practise safe sex, particularly if you’re not sure of your partner’s sexual health. You need to use a barrier method such as condoms to protect against STIs (a contraceptive such as the pill won’t work). This includes during oral sex.

As herpes is now so common, testing is not usually included as part of a regular sexual health check-up, except for in specific circumstances such as during pregnancy or severe episodes.

So it’s wise not to let your guard down, even if your partner insists they have received the all-clear from a recent check-up.

If there are herpes lesions present around the genitals, avoid sex entirely. Even condoms are not fully effective at these times, as exposed areas can still transmit the infection.

Immune health

If you are infected with HSV-1 or HSV-2 it’s more likely symptoms will appear when you’re stressed, tired or overwhelmed. During these times, our immune system may not be as functional, and dormant viruses such as herpes can start to develop quickly in our bodies.

To reduce the risk of recurrent herpes infections, try to eat healthily, get at least seven hours of sleep each night if possible, and look out for when your body may be telling you to take a step back and relax. This self-care can go a long way towards keeping latent viruses at bay.

While the prevalence has increased significantly in recent years, we have not lost the war on genital herpes just yet. Safe sexual practices, education and awareness can help reduce its spread, and the stigma around it.

If you have personal concerns, you should discuss them with a medical professional.

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. Genital herpes is on the rise. Here’s what to know about this common infection – https://theconversation.com/genital-herpes-is-on-the-rise-heres-what-to-know-about-this-common-infection-246230

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rochelle Steven, Lecturer in Environmental Management, Murdoch University

Home gardens can provide vital habitat for Australian birds. But there’s more to it than just planting certain types of shrubs and flowering trees.

After decades of encouragement to include native plants in home gardens, urban environments have come to favour certain species and neglect others including some of our most loved birds, such as fairy-wrens.

Birds that thrive on nectar such as honeyeaters, and bossy birds with bold personalities such as noisy miners, some parrots and magpies, tend to dominate the scene. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

We wanted to explore how urban gardens can best support a wider range of Australian birds. Our new review of research on this topic revealed seven key considerations. These fall into two themes: reducing threats and improving habitat.

We found there’s no point doing just the good things (such as plantings) if we don’t stop doing the bad things (such as killing insects, poisoning owls and letting cats hunt). It’s like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in it.

So let’s acknowledge the complexity of nature and take a broader approach to attracting birds to our gardens, by ticking off the items on this shopping list.

1. Secure pets

Domestic cats kill millions of Australian birds every year. So no matter how innocent your cat looks, it remains a highly evolved predator.

The only guaranteed way to protect birds and other wildlife from cats is to keep them contained inside or in purpose-built enclosures, 24 hours a day. You can find out about building your own cat enclosure from government and retail experts online.

Dogs can also stop birds taking up residence in your garden. The mere presence of a dog can deter some birds. Keeping dogs contained at night can reduce the level of disturbance to nocturnal birds. But if you really want to attract birds to your garden, you may choose to keep your dog inside more.

2. Avoid using insecticides and outside lights

Many flying and ground-dwelling insects are in decline. This is bad news for many birds including fairy-wrens, willie wagtails, fantails and robins who rely almost entirely on insects for food. But we can avoid using insecticides or any other form of lethal control such as bug zappers in our own gardens.

Ideally, accept insects as a natural part of your garden. Don’t try to deter them, unless they pose a risk to public safety, such as swarming European honeybees or hordes of European wasps. You can also consider favouring native plants that naturally are resisitant to unwanted insect attack.

Excess artificial light is also taking a toll on insects. Consider whether you really need to leave that outdoor light on all night. Review your existing outdoor lighting using the five principles for responsible outdoor lighting, ensuring all artificial light is useful, targeted, low-level, controlled and warm-coloured.

3. Stop poisoning raptors

The use of rat poison, especially those labelled as “fast action”, is killing native owls and other birds of prey at an alarming rate due to secondary poisoning. In other words, raptors are dying after eating rats and mice that have taken the bait.

Many countries have regulated the sale and use of these products for this reason, but Australia is lagging behind. So if you “give a hoot” about our owls, switch to snap traps. There are also various other effective, humane and efficient options available, including removing unwanted fruit from the ground, keeping sheds tidy, and securing compost bins to keep rodents under control.

4. Prevent window strikes

Birds can fly into windows when they’re unable to differentiate between the glass and the surrounding environment. Strikes may be lethal upon impact or result in injury. A stunned bird is also more vulnerable to predators.

In Australia, bird lovers can reduce the risk by using decals which are decorative stickers intended for windows. Screens, hanging plants or mobiles can also be placed in front of windows to help the birds avoid collisions.

5. Create an inclusive garden

The diversity in Australian birds extends to their diets. Beyond honeyeaters, the nation is home to huge numbers of insectivores, carnivores, seed-eaters and fruit peckers.

Australian gardens typically have plenty of bottlebrush and grevilleas, which stacks the deck in the bold honeyeaters’ favour. So when buying new garden plants, try catering for a wider variety of bird species.

Choose dense shrubs with small white, yellow or blue flowers to attract insects. These bushy plants also make excellent habitat for small birds. Retaining trees ensures our larger birds have nesting sites too.

If you get the garden design right, with a variety of plants to suit all tastes, there is no need to feed the birds.

6. Encourage insects

Native bees and flies play a crucial role in ecosystems, both as pollinators and food for birds.

You can provide insects with nesting habitat in the form of insect “hotels”, food (namely flowers and other insects) and safety from pesticides. These small gestures can make a huge difference.

7. Water the birds too

With the urban heat island effect and growing frequency of extreme heat waves, birds are in need of reliable sources of fresh water. Offer this crucial resource in a water feature such as a bird bath or pond.

Whole neighbourhoods for birds

Your garden has never been more important for birds. Doing your bit in your own backyard can make a visible difference – you will see the birds for yourself. But true conservation gains can only be made when people work together at a larger scale.

Why not start a conversation with your neighbour about attracting birds to your garden? Creating one garden for birds is great, but when we start talking about whole neighbourhoods for birds, that’s magic!

Rochelle Steven is affiliated with BirdLife Australia.

David Newsome 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. From securing pets to building ‘insect hotels’ – here are 7 ways to attract birds to your garden – https://theconversation.com/from-securing-pets-to-building-insect-hotels-here-are-7-ways-to-attract-birds-to-your-garden-247561

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eldrede Kahiya, Associate Professor – Strategy and International Business, University of Canterbury

With the goal of doubling exports over the next ten years, the National Party’s Boosting Growth Through Trade policy is now central to the coalition government.

The government hopes to achieve this through trade agreements, trade missions and by making India a strategic priority for trade and development.

The benefits of exporting – increased foreign currency earnings, higher paying jobs and better standards of living – explain the coalition’s export goal.

But the reality is that doubling exports is easier said than done. Recent history is not on the government’s side.

A common goal

Ten years ago, then Prime Minister John Key’s government launched the Business Growth agenda.

Within the agenda sat a specific initiative – Building Export Markets. The goal of the initiative was to grow exports to 40% of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2025 – from NZ$65 billion to $130 billion. But 2025 is here and this target has not been achieved.

Subsequent governments have outlined similar goals. Former Prime Minister Bill English introduced the Trade Agenda 2030 in 2017 and Labour had the 2021 Trade for All agenda.

New Zealand is not the only country to focus on significantly increasing their exports as a pathway to improving the economy.

Under President Barack Obama, the National Export Initiative was tasked with doubling United States’ exports from US$1.5 trillion to $3 trillion over the period 2010–14. The US fell well short of this goal, with exports increasing by less than 50%.

Closer to home, Australia set the goal of doubling the number of exporters between 2001 and 2006.

That didn’t happen either. Austrade – the equivalent of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise across the ditch – has since tried to suggest the goal was only ever aspirational.

Slow growth

In 2023, New Zealand’s exports to GDP ratio was 24%, trailing the OECD average of 29%. The under-performance is not new.

Setting aside the nearly 20% reduction in exports in 2021, following the pandemic, average annual growth has hovered around 2%. This is well below the 5–6% growth required to attain the export goal.

Several historical factors – such as low participation rates of businesses in exporting, low productivity and distance to market – and emergent challenges – such as supply chain disruptions, compliance-related costs and non-tariff barriers – have made it difficult for New Zealand to achieve the goal of doubling exports.

A feasible goal?

Considering the failure of New Zealand to achieve the goal of doubling exports, it would be easy to dismiss subsequent governments’ efforts as overly ambitious. It would also be easy to criticise policy makers for ignoring the country’s unique challenges or for disregarding the role of anti-global sentiments, the residual effect of the pandemic and persistent supply chain disruptions.

But there are key considerations the government can make to build and strengthen the export sector.

First, clarity is needed. The government needs to establish growth expectations for individual sectors, industries and regions. While most of our merchandise exports simply cannot double over the next decade, knowledge-intensive, technology, or service exports can.

These expectations need to be aligned with the relevant sectors to enable each sector to develop targets and initiatives which contribute to the overall export goal.

Equally, it is important to establish priorities.

For example, should we grow exports by motivating more businesses to commence exporting? Or should we focus on encouraging current exporters to expand their international operations?

Roughly 12,000 businesses export, a third of which have ongoing export involvement. That means there are 8,000 intermittent, occasional or “uncommitted” exporters that can be nudged to adopt ongoing export status.

Nudging these businesses towards permanent export status requires a good grasp of their unique needs and international pathways.

The task of export promotion should not fall solely on the trade promotion organisation, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE).

With trade promotion organisations such as NZTE required to demonstrate impact, there is a preference for supporting a small, carefully curated list of high-growth, high-potential exporters.

But for businesses that miss out on the chance to work directly with NZTE, engaging with the wider network of trade support organisations can be useful. Business councils, chambers of commerce, industry bodies, regional development agencies and shipping ports represent a large untapped resource which can be used for the benefit of exporters.

For exporters, joining chambers of commerce, business councils and other industry bodies remains a valuable way of keeping up with important developments.

Aspirational but not without merit

Maybe doubling exports is aspirational. But there is room for improvement with clarity and buy-in at the sector level, if priorities are spelled out and if we involve the wider network of trade support organisations.

Working on these factors might not lead to a doubling in exports, but they can help build a stronger sector that weathers global economic winds and benefits all New Zealanders.

Eldrede Kahiya 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. NZ government has promised to double exports (again) – but as history shows, this is easier said than done – https://theconversation.com/nz-government-has-promised-to-double-exports-again-but-as-history-shows-this-is-easier-said-than-done-244907

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Coates, Program Director, Housing and Economic Security, Grattan Institute

Having compulsory super should help create a comfortable and stress-free retirement. But Australia’s super system is too complex for retirees to navigate.

This can leave them stressed and lacking the confidence to spend their super savings.

Our latest report, Simpler super: taking the stress out of retirement, recommends the federal government offer all Australians a lifetime annuity – a financial product that pays a guaranteed income for the rest of their lives.

This would help retirees stress less, spend more, and enjoy their retirement years.

Stress prompts many to underspend super

For the first time, many Australians are entering retirement with significant super balances: Australians are retiring with an average super balance of more than A$200,000, and couples with about $300,000.

Despite having saved enough to be comfortable, four in five people say planning for retirement is complicated, and 60% don’t think their retirements will be financially stress-free.

Few retirees draw down on their retirement savings as intended. In fact, many are actually net savers – their savings continue to grow for decades after they retire.

Our analysis of the ABS Survey of Income and Housing shows for those aged 60-64 in 2003-04, average super balances had grown by 37% in real terms by the time they were aged 76-80 in 2019-20.

And their average net wealth, which excludes the equity in their home, grew by 14% over the same period.

Australia’s $4 trillion compulsory superannuation system is turning into a massive inheritance scheme. That’s not how super was supposed to work.

Retirees are given too little guidance

The super system makes most big decisions for working Australians, such as how much to contribute or how it’s invested. But once we retire there is little guidance about how to use our funds.

More than four in five retirees are steered into account-based pensions. But partly because they’re anxious not to outlive their savings, this group manages their spending very cautiously.

While on average, an Australian woman aged 65 today can expect to live until 88, they also have a one-in-five chance of either dying before age 81 or of making it to 94.

Half of those retirees who use an account-based pension draw their super at legislated minimum rates, which if followed, leave 65% of super balances unspent by average life expectancy.

This widespread use of account-based pensions makes Australia a global outlier. Retirees in most rich countries are automatically given – or otherwise strongly encouraged to choose – an income guaranteed to last their entire lives.

Research suggests having an income that is guaranteed to last until death can reduce stress and boost retirees’ spending.

Government could steer retirees into annuities

Our report argues retirees should be encouraged to use 80% of their super balance above $250,000 to purchase an annuity.

The government could embed this pre-set guidance throughout the retirement income system. It could be included in all relevant communications with retirees from super funds, and especially at the point of retirement.

Research shows that retirees tend to choose the option put in front of them.

The remaining super balance – $250,000, plus the remaining 20% of any savings above that level – would continue to be drawn down via an account-based pension. Retirees would still have to access their super for large purchases if needed.

Using some super to buy an annuity could boost expected retirement incomes by up to 25%, compared to solely drawing on an account-based pension at legislated minimum rates.

And it would ensure that the bulk of retirees’ incomes, irrespective of their super balances, would be guaranteed to last the rest of their lives.

Annuities should be provided by government, not super funds

But steering retirees into annuities offered via super funds is unlikely to work.

Super funds have resisted previous attempts by government to require them to offer annuities to retirees.

Many people also struggle to understand and compare annuities. They often find it difficult to switch to a better deal later even if they can spot one.

Recent experience in the UK showed when required to purchase an annuity, most people simply took what their fund was offering and often got a poor deal.

Designing a regulatory regime that overcomes these issues is a huge challenge.
The best option, therefore, is for the government to directly offer annuities.
It should offer all retirees a simple lifetime annuity as the baseline option.

The government could also offer alternatives including investment-linked annuities, where payments are guaranteed for life, but payments could vary based on investment returns.

Priced fairly, and managed by an independent agency, a government annuity would encourage there take-up. Retirees would be more confident that they’re getting a good deal.

Annuity payments would be made from the pool of capital created by annuity purchases, with these investments managed by the Future Fund.

Under reasonable assumptions we project the government annuity provider could be managing assets totalling 2.5% of GDP by 2040.

Superannuation offers Australians the promise of a more comfortable and stress-free retirement. Government-offered annuities can help turn that dream into reality.

Esther Suckling made substantial contributions to the research underpinning this article.

Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the federal and Victorian governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities, as disclosed on its website.

Joey Moloney 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. Superannuation is complicated. A guaranteed government income in retirement would be simpler – https://theconversation.com/superannuation-is-complicated-a-guaranteed-government-income-in-retirement-would-be-simpler-247383

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liam Byrne, Honorary Fellow, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, The University of Melbourne

Should a US president by judged by what they achieved, or by what they failed to do?

Joe Biden’s administration is over. Though we have an extensive record, it is difficult to assess his presidency. At its outset, Biden promised hope, a return to normalcy, to be a bridge between generations, to restore democracy.

Four years on, what remains?

The Democratic Party is in disarray, its next generation of leaders unclear. Donald Trump is returning to the White House, his myrmidons clutching an extensive plan for radically recasting the United States in their image. A staunchly conservative Supreme Court has reinterpreted the powers of the presidency to expand their scope. Plutocrats are lining up to pay obeisance to the new administration, some openly speculating how to best slash the regulatory regime in their favour.

Already, Biden’s legacy seems tenuous, under threat.

Biden has been a president conscious of US presidential history, almost to the point of obsession. He did not just honour that history, but sought to stake a claim to his own place within it.

But now all that is at risk of being lost. Biden’s threatens to be a disappearing presidency, reduced to an ellipsis between the two Trump administrations, judged solely by its tragic end.

Biden himself has been reduced to an isolated and embittered old man, desperate still to serve even though the times have passed him by. His vision of America is one that no longer exists, if it ever did.

Biden’s contribution – early successes

The popular consensus is that Biden’s presidency is one of two halves.

From the period of his inauguration to the 2022 midterms, Biden accrued a substantial governing record. If his domestic accomplishments fell short of proclaimed ambitions, there was still significant progress.

Even where Biden was stymied, he could point to the normal resumption of the legislative process, the negotiation between the separate arms of government – a return to business as usual. But such confidence in the state of American democracy proved misplaced, and Biden’s reluctance to use the full power of the presidency to sway members of his own party attracted derision.

In its first half, the Biden administration successfully navigated an effective response to the COVID pandemic. It oversaw the passing of the most significant climate legislation in US history. The US$1.2 trillion (A$1.94 trillion) Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act delivered, and continues to deliver, significant material improvements to Americans’ lives.

It was not all plain sailing, of course. The chaos and confusion of the withdrawal from Afghanistan rightly drew criticism – especially the deaths of 13 US service members. While the withdrawal itself was the right decision, Biden is linked to the end of a war that dragged on for two decades, costing hundreds of thousands of lives and more than $2 trillion. It was a war that resulted, in the end, with the Taliban replacing the Taliban.

As the mid-terms approached in 2022, Biden’s presidency already seemed tenuous. Russia had invaded Ukraine in February of that year. The administration’s support for Ukraine was denied bipartisanship by MAGA radicals in Congress. The economic reverberations were significant, boosting the inflationary pressures that had already built up in the global financial system.

Predictions of a Republican “red wave” at the mid-terms were widespread. Many within the president’s party urged him to shift the messaging to core issues of inflation and economic management, in place of the less tangible emphasis on protecting democracy that Biden insisted on.

Then, in June of that year, the conservative Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. This was a national repudiation of established abortion rights, necessitating a national response. Democrats sought to place abortion on the ballot, and though Biden was an awkward proponent of the pro-choice cause (at best), his emphasis on not repudiating established norms allowed him to present his administration as a protector of the Roe v. Wade consensus.

Once mid-term voting was complete, despite Republican gains, it was clear the anticipated red wave had not eventuated. This was read as a political victory for Biden, not just against the Republicans, but also against detractors in his own party. The President’s confidence grew, as did his own conviction in his insoluble bond with the American people.

It was the pride before the fall.

Overwhelmed by circumstance

The period from 2022–24 has proved to be one of the most difficult in history for incumbent governments across the world. The reasons for this global turmoil are not hard to identify.

The cost-of-living crisis of the past two years has stripped governments of support and authority. Economic analyses of the scale and scope of this experience have often neglected to note that the inflationary surge and rising prices have bitten so deep because they come on top of established economic hardship for wide swathes of the population.

To give him credit, Biden had long identified this trend. He was deeply concerned with the erosion of the middle class, and the need to rebuild economic security for this social layer was long at the core of his economic plans. Biden conceived this as a moral imperative for his presidency.

There is debate over whether Biden’s economic program, awkwardly dubbed “Bidenomics”, was ever suited to this task.

Despite the administration’s attempts to point out that economic figures were improving, large swathes of Americans repeatedly reported to pollsters that their lives were not better than they were when Biden took office. Considering that the US, like the rest of the world, was then gripped by a pandemic, this was a remarkable statement.

Large increases in migration numbers created an opening for the MAGA right to blame economic woes on those seeking a better life in the US. Biden and the Democrats sought to show toughness with legal restraint, alienating both left-wing supporters and right-wing detractors for whom no effort by a Democratic administration would ever be enough.

The same dynamics played out in Biden’s foreign policy. His administration provided just enough support to Ukraine to resist the Russian invasion, but with constant concern about “escalation”, criticism came that it was not enough to seriously dent Russia’s military capability. Over time aid increased, but the lingering sense remained that the administration’s response was too little, too late. Biden was accused from different quarters of doing both too little and too much to aid Ukraine’s defence.

In the Middle East, after Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7 2023, the administration declared full support for Israel, its historic ally. In this, Biden articulated the long-held position of the US foreign policy establishment.

As time progressed, accusations that the Netanyahu government was inflicting collective punishment on Gaza and its civilian population intensified. Biden sought to restrain Netanyahu’s actions, but within the bounds of ongoing and longstanding US support for Israel (including military support). On the Republican right, Biden was accused of failing to provide the support Israel required. On swathes of the left, Biden was accused of abetting Netanyahu’s administration in perpetuating war crimes.

Biden’s foreign policy increasingly looked out of step with the times, and dramatically alienated some of the core base of the Democratic Party. The world was growing more polarised; the liberal international order was fraying, if not snapped entirely. Biden’s pleas for others to respect the US’s moral leadership and to return to historic ties of fraternity did not match new and more aggressive geopolitical realities, nor the changed character of the US’s role in the world.

Trump has been quick to claim credit for the tenuous ceasefire agreement thrashed out in the final days of the Biden administration. It remains to be seen whether it will hold. And like much of Biden’s presidency, it is already being cast as too little, too late.

The state of the leaving

Biden’s decision to debate Trump early in 2024 to cement his position as the Democratic nominee for that year’s election will be derided for decades to come as one of the worst campaign decisions in US presidential history.

Biden’s languid showing spooked supporters and emboldened those who already believed the president was simply too old to defeat Trump at the polls and serve a further four years.

The president, though, sought to defy time and age, further entrenching the notion he was disconnected from reality. His 2020 promise to be a “bridge” between generations was hazy at best, but has rightly come back to be used against him.

Did his refusal to earlier confirm that his presidency would be one term affect the 2024 election result? It is impossible to tell. But Biden’s intransigence and refusal to confront the realities of time and age will be cast deep into his legacy.

Depending on how the next few years pan out, it may well be seen as his most significant contribution to US history.

What’s left behind?

Biden’s greatest ambition was to return to a state of “normalcy” that no longer existed – if it ever did.

His ambition was, in many respects, admirable – a desire to rebuild the economic base of the previous democratic order. A time when the US economy led the world (not just its tech sector) and the country built things that could be used. When secure and long-term jobs were easy to find and paid enough for people to live on in some comfort and security.

While this misty nostalgia often obscured the complicated realities of the past (and its exclusions), it was a clear and progressive aim to provide economic security to rebuild US social and democratic life.

The simple fact is that achieving this goal would require overturning long-held orthodoxies on the relative role of the market and the state in US economic and political life. In a time of economic and geopolitical stability, this would be an historic and difficult task. In our current moment, perhaps impossible.

It is easy to personalise the failings of the past four years in the person of the president. For many Americans, that is what the presidency is for. And Biden’s legacy will always be inflected with these failings.

But the state of the union is not due to the president alone.

It is the result of the cynical cultivation of racist and reactionary mobilisation by the Republican party, a process that has culminated in the person of Trump but that had proceeded for many decades prior.

It is the result of the Democratic Party’s allegiance to the established order and its processes, even when it was no longer delivering for those who most need its protection.

And it is also the failings of a president of great ambition, determined to mark his own place in history, who was too late to realise his own time had passed.

Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

Liam Byrne 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. Joe Biden’s presidency will be remembered as one that did not match the times, and a leader who failed to realise it – https://theconversation.com/joe-bidens-presidency-will-be-remembered-as-one-that-did-not-match-the-times-and-a-leader-who-failed-to-realise-it-246320