Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Oliver A.H. Jones, Professor of Chemistry, RMIT University

Fluoride is back in the news, after incoming US “health czar” Robert F. Kennedy Jr called for its removal from drinking water.

At the same time, the Australian Medical Association (Queensland) recently urged local councils to reintroduce fluoride to water supplies, amid rising incidence of oral disease.

So what is fluoride, and why is it so controversial?

What is fluoride?

Fluoride is a natural substance found in rocks (for example, the mineral fluorite) as well as water sources, soils and plants.

The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines recommend three compounds for fluoridating water: sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid.

Usually, one of these compounds is added – under carefully monitored conditions – during drinking water treatment before it is sent to the tap.

Is it good for our teeth?

Fluoride helps prevent cavities by making tooth enamel more resistant to acids from bacteria in your mouth.

The addition of small amounts of fluoride to drinking water to prevent dental decay began in the United States in 1945. This resulted from health officials in a Colorado City noticing residents had stained but remarkably healthy teeth.

This was traced to the high levels of fluoride naturally present in the local water. Research later confirmed while excess fluoride can cause cosmetic discoloration, lower concentrations still prevented cavities without harmful side effects.

In Australia, fluoride was first added to water in Beaconsfield, Tasmania in 1953.

Today, around 90% of Australians can access fluoridated water at levels of between 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L. This is estimated to have reduced tooth decay in Australia by 26–44%.

This does depend on where you live as there are different policies in different states and territories. For example, about 28% of Queenslanders do not have fluoridated water.

What are people worried about?

There has always been opposition to fluoridation. This includes the argument it is “government overreach” since we can’t easily opt out from drinking tap water.

A 2019 study also claimed fluoride affected the IQ of children. But this work has been roundly criticised and a 2024 study detailed serious weaknesses in the study design.

Multiple reviews of high-quality studies from many different countries, including the US and Australia, have found no evidence of harm.

One study followed people over 30 years, testing their IQs at various ages, and found no link between fluoride levels and IQ scores.

Working out what’s safe

It’s reasonable to want to know what’s in our drinking water and to ensure it is safe. But discussions about toxicity are meaningless without context.

Excessive fluoride intake can have harmful effects, such as weakened bones (skeletal fluorosis). But the key word is “excessive”.

Anything can be toxic to humans if the dose is too high, even water itself. The amount of fluoride needed to cause harm is much higher than you get from drinking water.

In Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council recommends states and territories fluoridate their drinking water supplies within a range of 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L.

Recently, authorities decided to deliver bottled water for children under 12 and pregnant women in two remote Northern Territory communities with high natural levels of fluoride (1.7 to 1.9 mg/L). This measure was taken as a precaution in response to community concerns, not because any harmful effects were recorded.

Lessons from places that removed fluoride

The risks of adding fluoride to water are extremely low. But several recent cases demonstrate the very real health risks of not fluoridating water.

The Canadian city of Calgary removed fluoride from drinking water in 2011. Seven to eight years later, dental cavities in children were significantly higher in Calgary compared to nearby Edmonton, which did not remove fluoride.

In 2015, Buffalo, New York removed fluoride from its water supply. Dental problems increased so much parents sued the city for harming their children.

Israel is another interesting case. The introduction of nationwide water fluoridation in 2002 significantly reduced children’s dental issues. This trend reversed in 2014, when fluoridation was discontinued – despite the government introducing free dental care for children in 2010.

An equity issue

The evidence has continually demonstrated fluoride is not only safe – it has significant benefits for oral health.

Some of the benefits of fluoride can be achieved via fluoridated toothpaste or fluoride treatments at the dentist.

But dentistry is not included in Medicare. Fluoridating water (or table salt, as used in many European countries) remains one of the most equitable ways to ensure these benefits are not only for those who can afford it.

Oliver A.H. Jones receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), various water utilities and the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) Victoria for research into environmental pollution. He is also the deputy director of the RMIT University Water: Effective Technologies and Tools (WETT) Research Centre.

– ref. Fluoride in drinking water is in the spotlight again. Let’s not forget how it transformed our oral health – https://theconversation.com/fluoride-in-drinking-water-is-in-the-spotlight-again-lets-not-forget-how-it-transformed-our-oral-health-245162

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Hughes, Lecturer in Marketing, Research School of Management, Australian National University

Not so long ago, sports and entertainment were separate: each had their own distinct place in our minds.

In the streaming era, that has become somewhat blurred. If anything, we now have to filter through all the types of content available to entertain us, rather than having to search from a limited range of offerings.

Sport is now a form of entertainment, competing against a broad range of direct and indirect competitors who are essentially fighting over their slice of the cake in this attention economy.

Sports and sports teams have had to adapt quickly to this changing era through different methods, such as how they use social media.

The four Es of great content

Broadly speaking, for any content to be effective with its intended market, it needs to have four basic elements: entertainment, engagement, experiential and emotions.

Sport, as a whole, ticks those four boxes quite well (but only when it is being played). Just look at the Matildas’ World Cup phenomenon in 2023.

Our need to be entertained is now constant, even hourly. Previously, this presented a challenge for sports: how to keep and maintain connection with audiences when sport wasn’t being played?

Content competitors, such as YouTube, have something for us to watch 24/7.

Sports and sporting teams then realised they had to start to provide content when games weren’t being played to keep relevance and resonance with their markets. And do so with the four E’s in mind.

Say hello to your brand new social media feed.

Early on this content was hit and miss. But in the past few years it has picked up to the point where the four Es are being ticked off by most teams.

This engagement can all draw in extra money via ticket sales, memberships, merchandise and experience packages, such as Hawthorn’s social media-fuelled financial boost last season.

There has also been assistance from successful fly-on-the-wall documentary series on everything from the Australian cricket team, to Formula 1, to cycling, which have deepened resonance between brand and consumer.

So how to judge success in this area? The ultimate compliment of social media content is the share. And some teams, such as Greater Western Sydney in the AFL, are getting more and more.

Success, right? Maybe, but there are other criteria to consider.

Brand personality and connection

Success in marketing is rarely binary. Another important dimension to why sports have started to have more fun with their social media feed relates to brand personality and brand connection.

These theories are the bedrock behind how we value brands, and how brands have been slowly moving away from formal to fun.

We connect with brands that fit our personalities. Have an outdoorsy identification? Say hello to SUVs like Ford Ranger, or clothing like Kathmandu. Sophistication? Apple. Beachy? Billabong.

Value means loyalty, and loyalty means less switching behaviour.

Walking the thin white line tightrope

However, sport has a treacherous path to walk on this.

Ultimately, the core content is the sporting contest. If it veers away from the on-field battles and results too much, it runs the risk of losing connection with the loyal supporters who become confused over what the brand stands for.

There are also risks through simple human error and poor decision-making by those who run the social media accounts – the Monty Panesar tweet by Cricket Australia in 2013 being one case in point.

More recently, after the 2024 AFL draft, St Kilda was left red-faced after sending a message to a wrong number instead of a player they had just drafted. The club at least had fun with their blunder, posting their mistake on social media.

And of course there are numerous examples on social media where individual athletes, via secondary association, such as Stephanie Rice’s tweet, can result in brand damage.

At the same time, silence in the digital era means losing connection, relevance, and eventually value.

And if sports truly want to say they represent all, and not just the core fans, they need to find ways to grow that connection.

The new AFL team Tasmania Devils – set to enter the league in 2028 – are a good example of a club that is doing that, maintaining a balance between functional offering and entertainment.

A whole new ball game

Content is here to stay and sporting clubs are still learning how to use this strategy effectively. If they stop now, they will become a secondary content provider in our minds rather than a primary one.

The next markets, like Gen Alpha – a generation born into technology from 2010-25 – already have stronger resonance with online content providers like Mr Beast than they do a sports team.

A decade or so ago, most sports and teams used social media primarily to relay match day updates and results, news and merchandise opportunities.

Now, social media is as integral as any other marketing strategy, and the digital environment is fought over just like teams do on the field, court or pitch.

Andrew Hughes 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 social media games: why sports teams and leagues aren’t just competing on the field – https://theconversation.com/the-social-media-games-why-sports-teams-and-leagues-arent-just-competing-on-the-field-244273

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Woinarski, Professor of Conservation Biology, Charles Darwin University

More than 95% of Australian animals are invertebrates (animals without backbones – spiders, snails, insects, crabs, worms and others). There are at least 300,000 species of invertebrate in Australia. Of these, two-thirds are unknown to western science.

This means there are huge gaps in our knowledge of Australia’s invertebrates. Our new study, published today in the journal Cambridge Prisms: Extinction, indicates there has been a catastrophic under-recording of Australia’s species extinctions.

Our best estimate is that 9,111 invertebrate species have become extinct in Australia since 1788. This dwarfs the current official estimate of the total number of extinctions across all plant and animal species in Australia: 100.

The extinction of so many invertebrate species is not an arcane concern for those few people who care about bugs. Invertebrates are the building blocks of almost all ecological systems.

Loss of invertebrates will destabilise those systems. It will negatively impact the resources we depend upon, like pollination, cycling of nutrients into the soil, clean air and waterways.

Re-calculating the loss

To date, assessments of historic and ongoing biodiversity loss in Australia have been heavily skewed towards vertebrates, especially mammals and birds. This bias has also driven the efforts to prevent the loss of such species.

These conservation efforts are important. But in having such a focus, we have neglected the invertebrates. We haven’t adequately recognised which invertebrates are at the highest risk of extinction, or which have already been lost.

The most widely used estimate for the total number of extinctions of all Australian plants and animals since 1788 is “just” 100 species.

Of these, only ten are invertebrates. And only one invertebrate species, the Lake Pedder earthworm, is officially listed as extinct by the Australian government.

In our study, we used a range of approaches to estimate a more realistic figure for the number of invertebrate extinctions, and to predict how many will become extinct in 2024.

We took the proportional extinction rates of Australian vertebrates and plants and extrapolated this to the number of Australian invertebrates. Separately, we also extrapolated the proportion of extinctions recognised among all of the world’s invertebrates to the number of Australian ones.

To estimate the current extinction rate – the number of invertebrates that are going extinct as you read this article – we had to make assumptions. One option was that our estimated number of extinctions from 1788 to 2024 fell equally across the years.

However, it’s more likely the annual rate of extinctions of Australian invertebrates has increased over time. This is due to increasing habitat loss and other threats as Australia’s human population has grown.

Any such study will have many unknowns, unavoidable uncertainties and caveats. Because of this, we derived broad bounds to our estimate of Australian invertebrate extinctions. It ranges from about 1,500 species at the lower end to nearly 60,000 at the upper end.

This vast number of extinctions is not simply a historical blemish. Importantly, we estimate that the current rate of extinctions of Australian invertebrates is between one and three species every week.

Most of the Australian invertebrate species that have gone extinct will not yet have been formally described. Many may never be so. We have coined the term “ghost extinctions” for those species that have been lost without a trace – with no evidence they ever existed.

Why so many extinctions?

Many of the factors that have caused extinctions in Australian plants and vertebrates also threaten invertebrates. These include extensive habitat destruction, invasive species, degradation and transformation of aquatic environments, and changed fire regimes.

For invertebrates, added to that cocktail of threats is the widespread use of insecticides, pesticides and herbicides.

Many invertebrates are at high extinction risk because they live in small areas, can’t easily move, and are highly sensitive to change. They also often share habitats, so we get entire groups of highly at-risk invertebrate species hanging on in remnant islands of habitat (known as “centres of endemism”).

Many of these at-risk invertebrates are also members of ancient lineages which stretch back millions of years. They would have survived through a world with dinosaurs and the arrival of mammals. Now, they have met a world with humans.

How can we stop invertebrate extinctions?

Currently, conservation priorities in Australia are informed by formal listings of individual threatened species. It’s an important conservation mechanism, but it fails the vast majority of invertebrate species.

We just don’t have enough data, evidence or resources to list each one. As a result, most imperilled invertebrates are excluded from protection.

Our results are a wake-up call.

Preventing extinctions of invertebrate species is a formidable challenge. A first step is for everyone to be aware of the huge distortion in conservation efforts and awareness, and the likely magnitude of invertebrate extinctions.

We can help lower the rate of invertebrate extinctions, but it will take a shift in thinking.

To provide better protection across all of Australia’s biodiversity, we need to better protect centres of endemism and better control key threats (such as habitat destruction and broad-scale use of insecticides).

Governments and research organisations must give more priority to taxonomic research – the naming and describing of new species. We also need more comprehensive monitoring by government agencies, conservation groups and citizen scientists of invertebrate populations, to identify new threats as they arise and to protect species and places.

In 2022, Australia signed the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. It joined 196 countries pledging a commitment to zero new extinctions.

If Australia is losing one to three invertebrate species per week, the “zero extinctions” goal is pushed into a whole new realm of accountability. Unless we address this decline, that pledge of zero extinctions is destined to failure.

The authors would like to acknowledge the co-authors of this research: Michael Braby, Australian National University; Heloise Gibb, La Trobe University; Mark Harvey, Western Australian Museum; Sarah Legge, Charles Darwin University; Melinda Moir, Western Australia Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development; Brett Murphy, Charles Darwin University; Tim New, La Trobe University; and Michael Rix, Queensland Museum.

John Woinarski is a member of the Biodiversity Council, a Director of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, and a member of the Science Advisory Committee of Invertebrates Australia.

Jess Marsh is Conservation Lead at Invertebrates Australia, a Councilor on the Biodiversity Council and a member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Species Survival Commission.

– ref. Around 9,000 species have already gone extinct in Australia and we’ll likely lose another this week – new study – https://theconversation.com/around-9-000-species-have-already-gone-extinct-in-australia-and-well-likely-lose-another-this-week-new-study-241362

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rajeev Pillay, Postdoctoral Fellow in Ecology, University of Northern British Columbia

We are now in the middle of the sixth mass extinction, caused by our emergence as a planet-shaping force. Species are going extinct far faster than the average natural rate of loss.

In response, conservationists are working to safeguard biodiversity strongholds such as tropical rainforests, famed for their remarkable richness of species. Many of these rainforests are household names, from the Amazon to the Congo to Australia’s Daintree and Wet Tropics.

But these rainforests are being steadily cut down or degraded. It’s entirely possible for rainforests to look good in satellite images even though logging, mining or road-building mean they have become poor homes to species able to thrive only in the absence of major human disturbance, such as West Africa’s iconic Diana monkey (Cercopithecus diana).

How much rainforest is still in good condition and able to sustain the Daintree’s cassowaries and tree kangaroos, the Amazon’s sloths and anacondas and the Congo Basin’s forest elephants, bonobos and okapi? We looked at over 16,000 species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians in our new research to answer this question.

At first glance, it seemed like good news – up to 90% of the geographic ranges of these species were still covered in forest. But when we drilled down further, we found the real problem. Barely 25% of the world’s remaining tropical rainforests are still of high quality. For threatened species and those in decline, there’s just 8% of their habitat left in good condition.

What makes a rainforest high quality?

To protect rainforests, conservationists have long focused on a key goal: reduce deforestation. The theory is that by slowing or stopping the rate at which trees are felled, rainforest habitat can be preserved.

We measure deforestation by looking at rates of native forest cover loss and assessing the size of the remaining canopy. But while forest cover is vital for many species, it’s not enough. Maintaining forest cover without considering its quality means ignoring major human sources of damage, such as logging, roadbuilding and mining which make rainforests increasingly degraded.

Degraded rainforests aren’t lifeless. They’re often full of life. But the species you find are usually those that thrive in disturbed, open areas such as the edges of forest, roadsides and agricultural lands. Such species take advantage of human-made disturbance to expand. This comes at the expense of many other forest dependent species, who often decline or disappear.

To be able to distinguish high quality from degraded rainforests, our team used high-resolution imagery of global rainforests from three NASA satellites to calculate the height of trees, canopy cover and how long the rainforest had stood without pressure from human industries.

We combined these three variables into a single measure of forest structural condition and overlaid our results with a map of major industrial human pressures such as expansion of cities, creation of farmland and building roads.

Bringing these data sources together lets us rank the condition of rainforests, which we dub the Forest Structural Integrity Index, first developed in 2020.

High quality rainforests have a multi-layered structure – a lower understorey of shrubs and small trees, a midstorey of medium trees, a canopy of the taller trees and an emergent layer where unusually tall trees poke through the sea of green.

In forests degraded by logging, very tall, tall and medium trees are logged or severely damaged, while the understorey is overtaken by dense brush. We know high quality rainforests are linked to a lower risk of extinction for vertebrates.

High quality rainforest is getting harder to find

In our research, we define high quality rainforest as those left undisturbed since 2000, with little pressure from human industry. These forests have over 75% canopy cover and trees over 15 metres, indicating they are older.

High quality forests are better homes for wildlife than degraded forests, when we look at how many species live there, how plentiful these species are and how broad and functional the ecosystem is. High quality rainforests also provide irreplaceable ecosystem services to the planet and humans, such as stabilising the climate by sequestering large amounts of carbon in their wood.

Unfortunately, our new research shows the extent of the damage we have done. Only a fraction of rainforest cover can now be considered high quality habitat for over 16,000 mammal, bird, reptile and amphibian species – even though 90% of their geographic ranges are still “forested”.

What does this look like? Take the golden bowerbird (Prionodura newtonia), endemic to Queensland’s Wet Tropics. Its habitat appears well preserved, with 84% of its range still forested. But when we drill down, we find only 36% of the rainforest can still be considered high quality.

In West Africa’s rainforests, the Diana monkey still has forests covering 80% of its range – but just 0.7% of high quality.

What should we do?

These findings are a wake-up call. They suggest many seemingly safe species could be at real risk of extinction. Just because a forest is still standing doesn’t mean it’s able to be a home.

This points to the urgency of stopping deforestation as rapidly as possible. Our last tracts of undisturbed tropical rainforest have to be protected.

But it also shows us that ending deforestation isn’t enough by itself. Many of the world’s surviving rainforests are not in great shape. We should let these rainforests recover by banning industrial-scale timber extraction, road building and other major pressures.

In 2022, nations promised to end the routine destruction of tropical rainforests and other highly biodiverse areas within a decade.

We’re halfway to 2030, and tropical rainforests are still being felled or burned, even if there are some signs of progress.

Changing course away from a human-made mass extinction means redoubling our efforts to safeguard tropical rainforests, for nature and for us.

James Watson has received funding from the Australian Research Council, National Environmental Science Program, South Australia’s Department of Environment and Water, Queensland’s Depart of Environment, Science and Innovation as well as from Bush Heritage Australia, Queensland Conservation Council, Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society and Birdlife Australia. He serves on the scientific committee of BirdLife Australia and has a long-term scientific relationship with Bush Heritage Australia and Wildlife Conservation Society. He serves on the Queensland Government’s Land Restoration Fund’s Investment Panel as the Deputy Chair.

Rajeev Pillay 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. Ravaged jungle: just 25% of the world’s surviving tropical rainforests are in good condition – https://theconversation.com/ravaged-jungle-just-25-of-the-worlds-surviving-tropical-rainforests-are-in-good-condition-245475

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sujatha Raman, Professor and UNESCO Chair-holder, Australian National University

Signed exactly 76 years ago today, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the world’s most translated document. It is widely acknowledged as the foundation of international human rights work, not just in legal settings but in wider civil society.

But few know that among the many social and political freedoms defined by the declaration is a human right to science. Article 27 of the declaration positions this right in the cultural sphere, stating:

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

This right might seem meaningless at a time when governments around the world have slashed funding for science and appear to be ignoring scientific evidence for how to address global problems such as climate change.

But there’s much more to the right to science than what you might immediately think of. It can also serve as a spark for human imagination and curiosity. And this is where its true power resides.

The evolution of the right to science

Interpretations of the right to science have evolved a lot over the past decade.

It was initially interpreted mainly as the right of scientists to do their research and the public’s right to access and benefit from this research. But this led to no small share of conundrums. For example, what if the right to do research is at odds with the human rights of affected communities?

This conflict arises in virtually all fields, from anthropology and archaeology to computer science and the life sciences. For example, building a laboratory or collecting data for research can potentially put a community at risk of losing their heritage, identity or livelihood. Some scholars therefore argue that the right should also include a duty to anticipate and take steps to ameliorate such tensions.

The United States National Academies have also begun to recognise that access and benefit doesn’t automatically follow from biomedical research. In fact, research may increase inequities if it’s not conducted in line with the principles of fairness, justice, equity and the common good.

Equally, what are we forgetting if we treat the public only as a beneficiary of science done by credentialed researchers?

The right to science is also about the right to participate in science and in decisions about research.

For example, it means Indigenous peoples have the right to be recognised as knowledge producers – a sentiment captured in Australia by researchers acknowledging that First Nations peoples are also the First Astronomers.

The International Science Council’s recently released framework nicely captures these nuances. It states that the right allows people to participate in and enjoy the benefits of science.

The right to science as a force for curiosity

Most of these discussions see the right to science as a way to protect fundamental freedoms – conjoined with responsibilities – of both scientists and the public. But a different meaning emerges when we remember the right to science is also a cultural right.

In a keynote address to an international conference in Switzerland in 2015, Farida Shaheed, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur for Cultural Rights, explained how the right to science and the right to culture are inextricably linked. Both entail, she said, the conditions for:

people to reconsider, create and contribute to cultural meanings, expressions, or manifestations and ways of life.

This highlights how the right to science can serve as a force to galvanise the more positive role of curiosity and the imagination. As such, it can be a spark for a new ethos of curiosity-driven research for the planet.

Curiosity in a time of crisis

The role of science in policy making and practice is at a crossroads.

Governments routinely invoke geopolitical competitiveness and commercial success as reasons for supporting research – particularly on so-called “critical technologies” such as quantum computing.

Yet the planet faces interconnected crises of climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss and deepening inequalities. The response to this must therefore include all of humanity while creating space for researchers to be curious about different possible futures and pathways for designing them.

The International Science Council’s initiative on Science Missions for Sustainability is predicated on the understanding that we won’t achieve the ambitions of the United Nations 2030 agenda with siloed thinking or new technologies alone. The council calls for all disciplines to work together to produce actionable knowledge oriented towards practical solutions for our planetary challenges.

Humans thrive on curiosity even in times of crisis. We have many examples from the 20th century of curiosity-driven research yielding a “giant pool of ideas” from which came many of the technologies we take for granted today. The challenge now is to harness and support this curiosity in ways appropriate to the scale and scope of the challenges we currently face.

We know from history that worlds are created and changed not just through new technologies and market-based solutions, but also through culture and social innovation.

The right to science provides a welcome stimulus for thinking more deeply, creatively and curiously about these interrelationships in developing policies for research.

Sujatha Raman receives funding from the Rio Tinto Centre for Future Materials led by Imperial College London. She has previously received funding from CSIRO, the Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust and UK Research Councils.

Brian Schmidt has received funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a non-executive Board Member of Astronomy Australia Limited, and the Giant Magellan Telescope Observatory, is Chair of Singapore’s Academic Research Council, and is on the Research Board of CIFAR.

– ref. The human right to science is 76 years old. It’s a reminder for us all to be more curious – https://theconversation.com/the-human-right-to-science-is-76-years-old-its-a-reminder-for-us-all-to-be-more-curious-245158

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caroline Gurvich, Associate Professor and Clinical Neuropsychologist, Monash University

By 2050, around 135 million people worldwide will be living with dementia. The most common cause of dementia is Alzheimer’s disease. Women are more likely than men to develop Alzheimer’s disease, even after accounting for women living longer.

The symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease most commonly occur after the age of 65. However, changes in the brain begin decades before symptoms start. For women, this typically coincides with their transition to menopause.

Menopause results from the body decreasing production of two hormones made by the ovaries: oestrogen and progesterone. These hormonal changes are associated with a wide range of symptoms, including hot flushes, night sweats, difficulties sleeping, reduced libido, mood changes and brain fog.

Menopause hormonal therapy (also called hormone replacement therapy or HRT), including oestrogen alone or oestrogen combined with a progesterone, has been prescribed to help with menopausal symptoms for decades.

But how does menopause hormone therapy affect the risk of dementia? And why do some studies say the therapy increases the risk, while others say it reduces it?

Hormones and the brain

A large body of pre-clinical (animal based) research shows oestrogen helps protect the brain. It reduces any damage to nerve cells and supports overall brain health.

Receptors that respond to oestrogen are in areas of the brain related to reproductive functions. But they’re also in areas of the brain important for learning, memory and higher-order cognitive abilities such as planning, organisation and decision making.

The loss of the “neuroprotective” effects of oestrogen after menopause is thought to contribute to more cases of Alzheimer’s disease in women than men.

Clinical studies have also shown women who have a medical or surgical menopause before the age of natural menopause have a higher lifelong risk of dementia and cognitive impairment.

This risk appears to be reduced in women who take oestrogen therapy after their surgery.

This has led researchers to hypothesise that adding oestrogen back – via menopause hormone therapy – might protect and maintain women’s cognitive health.

However, the research findings have not been consistent.

Could menopause hormone therapy impact dementia risk?

Concern about dementia risk and menopause hormone therapy have been partially driven by the unexpected findings from a landmark study conducted more than two decades ago.

The findings showed hormone therapy use in post-menopausal women, 65 years and older, was associated with an increased risk for dementia.

However, these studies have some key limitations:

1) most of the women were aged over 65 and more than ten years post-menopause

2) the type of oestrogen and progestogen (a synthetic form of progesterone) used may have less benefit on brain health.

The most recently published systematic review and meta-analysis of scientific data linking hormone therapy to the risk of Alzheimer’s disease included findings from 51 different reports that were published up to 2023.

The results showed if hormone therapy was initiated in midlife, or more generally within ten  years of the final menstrual period, there was a decreased risk of later-life Alzheimer’s disease compared to women not using any hormone therapy.

The greatest reduction in risk was associated with oestrogen-only hormone therapy.

In contrast, when considering using hormone therapy in late-life, or more than ten  years after menopause, oestrogen-only therapy had a neutral effects on Alzheimer’s disease risk.

However, oestrogen-progestogen therapy was associated with a risk increase.

Only one clinical trial has been published since this meta-analysis. This study examined the long-term effects of menopause hormone therapy use initiated in early menopause.

Women were on average aged 52.8 years and 1.5 years post-menopause when they entered this trial. They were randomly assigned to an oestrogen (with or without progestogen) or placebo for four years.

Researchers followed 275 women up ten years later. They found no cognitive effects (no harm nor any benefit) based on whether women were exposed to 48 months of hormone therapy or a placebo.

What affects your risk?

It appears the effects of menopause hormone therapy on dementia risk are influenced by several factors. These include when someone starts taking it, how long they take it for, the type of hormones used, and the person’s genetic and health background.

1. When therapy starts: the critical window hypothesis

One key factor in determining the effect of menopause hormone therapy on cognitive function and the risk of dementia appears to be when therapy starts relative to menopause. This is called the “critical window hypothesis”.

According to this hypothesis, oestrogen may help protect neurons in the brain only if started early in the menopause transition, particularly within a few years of menopause, when the brain may still be more responsive to hormones.

2. Type of menopause hormone therapy and the role of progesterone

The type of hormones included in hormone therapy can vary widely in their molecular structure as well as their physiological actions.

Different types of oestrogens (such as estradiol or conjugated oestrogen) and the inclusion of a progestogen (needed for women who have not undergone a hysterectomy) may have different impacts on brain health and dementia risk.

Some studies suggest adding a progestogen to oestrogen therapy could counteract some of the cognitive benefits of oestrogen alone, possibly by blocking oestrogen receptors in the brain.

3. The role of vasomotor symptoms

Vasomotor symptoms, such as hot flushes and night sweats, are the hallmark of menopause. Experiencing more vasomotor symptoms has been linked to poorer memory as well as an increase in biological markers associated with dementia risk.

Therefore, one possible pathway by which menopause hormone therapy may moderate Alzheimer’s disease risk is via their effects on reducing vasomotor symptoms.

4. An person’s genetic and health background

The greatest genetic risk factor for older-onset Alzheimer’s disease is carrying one or more copies of a specific version of the APOE gene, called APOE e4.

There is an emerging hypothesis that women who have this genetic risk for Alzheimer’s disease may show the greatest benefit from using hormone therapy.

What does this mean for you?

The clinical and scientific community are still debating whether menopause hormone therapy may play a role in Alzheimer’s disease risk.

Overall, the decision to use hormone therapy should be individualised, taking into account your age and timing of menopause, health status and specific menopause symptoms.

We need more research before we can make clear decisions about the role of hormone therapy and dementia risk, but based on the current evidence, hormone therapy may be beneficial if started early in the menopause transition, particularly for women at genetic risk of Alzheimer’s disease.

Caroline Gurvich has previously received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Rebecca Cooper Foundation and Perpetual Trustees.

Samantha Loi has previously received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Yulgibar Alzheimer’s Research Program and Young Peoples in Nursing Home National Alliance.

Rachel Furey 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. Does menopause hormone therapy increase or decrease your risk of dementia? Here’s the science – https://theconversation.com/does-menopause-hormone-therapy-increase-or-decrease-your-risk-of-dementia-heres-the-science-242111

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diane Colombelli-Négrel, Senior Lecturer, Animal Behaviour, Flinders University

On Granite Island off South Australia, a colony of little penguins is fighting to survive. About two decades ago, the penguins numbered 1,600 adults – now there are just 30.

It is important for scientists to monitor and study this little penguin colony, to observe their behaviours and stop their numbers from declining.

In our latest research project, my colleagues and I captured footage of the penguins over several breeding seasons, as part of a study into their parenting behaviours. It provides a fascinating behind-the-scenes glimpse into the unseen world of these vulnerable birds.

So let’s take a look at what Granite Island’s little penguins get up to when humans aren’t watching.

The world’s tiniest penguin

Little penguins (Eudyptula novaehollandiae) are the world’s smallest penguin species. They typically grow to about 35 centimetres and weigh an average 1.2 kilograms. They live in coastal waters in Tasmania and southern Australia – including on Granite Island, about 100 kilometres south of Adelaide.

The island is connected to the mainland by a causeway, and draws up to 800,000 visitors a year.

The stark decline in little penguin numbers on Granite Island is due to several factors. They include predators such as fur seals and foxes, changing environmental conditions, declines in fish numbers, and human disturbance.

My colleagues and I have spent years studying the Granite Island penguin colony. Our latest research gathered thousands of hours of footage to determine if a particular personality trait – boldness – affected the penguins’ breeding and parenting.

Home after a day at sea

The footage starts with a stream of little penguins waddling under a boardwalk, returning from sea. They have spent most of the day in the water, hunting for food such as fish and squid. Little penguins forage about their body weight in food every day.

The penguins return to their nests after dark, to rest and feed their chicks. They do this in groups – possibly to avoid predators – before heading to their separate burrows.

They tend to travel quietly, to avoid attracting attention. But out at sea or back in their burrows, little penguins can be quite vocal, making sounds such as short quacks, growls and brays.

The footage shows one penguin bumping into another in the dark – but this doesn’t mean they don’t see well. Little penguins have excellent vision, even at night. Because the birds don’t move well on land, they often feel exposed and in a hurry to get home.

The birds are quite territorial and can get into disputes with others in the colony. The footage shows two males fighting by standing tall and pecking each other. One is probably defending its nest.

Hello, lover

Little penguins are monogamous. The breeding season runs over spring and summer, when there is lots of food around.

Males establish the burrows, which are usually in rock crevices or under thick vegetation. They then try to attract a female by demonstrating their quality – either through vocal displays or defending territory.

The footage shows a male and female penguin greeting each other, before getting down to business. Then we cut away, to give the lovebirds some privacy!

Across a breeding season, little penguin pairs typically rear one or two clutches during autumn and winter. Each clutch consists of one or two eggs. The penguins take turns sitting on the eggs while the other feeds at sea.

Keeping their plumage looking tip-top

In the footage we see two little penguins preening themselves during a quiet moment. This is important to remove parasites and keep their plumage healthy.

Despite their small bodies, little penguins have an estimated 10,000 feathers. The feathers are downy at the base, providing a layer of insulation which helps keep them warm during long days at sea.

The feathers are also waterproof thanks to an oily liquid the penguins secrete from a gland near their tails, which they spread over their body when preening.

Now for some family time

After the eggs hatch, the parents take turns to guard their chicks for three weeks while the partner fishes at sea. When this period ends, the parents leave the chicks alone in the burrow while they fish, returning every one to five days to feed them.

The footage shows the chicks excitedly jumping on a parent in the nest. We also see the chicks practising their vocal calls and stretching their tiny wings by flapping them madly. This is all important practice for being a grown-up penguin.

The parent-offspring relationship was the focus of our new research. When humans are around a lot – as they are at Granite Island – penguins can be bolder and more aggressive. We predicted bold individuals would invest less time in parental care, as has previously been observed in other bird species.

But this was not the case. We found a penguin’s boldness has no bearing on its performance as a parent, such as how often it returned to the nest, fed its chicks, or stayed overnight.

The next phase of our research will examine factors such as the quality of food the parents feed to chicks, or whether personality traits other than boldness might affect their child-rearing.

Protecting our little penguins

Humans are disturbing animal habitats at an alarming rate. We intend to keep studying – and filming – Granite Island’s little penguins to understand how this pressure is affecting them.

If you are ever lucky enough to observe little penguins anywhere in Australia, please take care of them by sticking to a few simple guidelines outlined in full here.

They include:

• stay at least five metres away
• don’t use camera flashes – it can temporarily blind the penguin
• don’t shine a torch directly at the penguin
• keep dogs away at all times
• don’t get between a penguin and its burrow or chicks.

Diane Colombelli-Négrel receives funding from the Waterhouse Club, Friends of Encounter Birds, the Save
Granite Island Penguins Committee, the Sir Mark Mitchell Foundation and DEW Environment Citizen Science Small Grants.

– ref. ‘Unseen world’: researchers capture fascinating footage of the world’s smallest penguins in a bid to save them – https://theconversation.com/unseen-world-researchers-capture-fascinating-footage-of-the-worlds-smallest-penguins-in-a-bid-to-save-them-245472

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robin Smit, Adjunct Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Technology Sydney

Road transport is responsible for a substantial share of global carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. So reducing these emissions is a high priority.

In the European Union (EU), CO₂ emissions from new passenger cars have been regulated for more than 15 years. The range of policy measures includes mandatory CO₂ emission targets.

But Australia’s mandatory New Vehicle Efficiency Standard will only come in next year, without other supporting policy measures.

In our new research, my colleagues and I compared the two car fleets and examined their emissions in detail. We found Australian cars are typically larger, heavier and less efficient, producing 43% more emissions than their EU counterparts. The results demonstrate the vital role of well-designed, ambitious policies and regulations in driving down emissions.

What we did

Car emissions by country depends on many factors. These include the level of dependence on cars, travel behaviour, consumer preferences, marketing, car types and sizes, fuel efficiency requirements, purchase price, running costs and, importantly, government policies.

Policy levers range from financial incentives, taxes and regulations through to other measures such as information campaigns.

In collaboration with the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, we collected information about the respective car fleets in Europe and Australia.

We obtained region-specific vehicle specifications including vehicle sales, car make and model, weight, size, rated power, battery capacity and certified emissions performance. We extracted this from previous studies, publicly available data sets and information in Europe and Australia.

We then fed this information into detailed simulation models to estimate emissions in a wide range of real-world conditions, for each fleet. This included the effects of different driving conditions and climates.

What we found

Our research revealed Australian cars are larger and heavier than EU cars, which has direct consequences for emissions.

New vehicles in both the EU and Australia must be certified, with their fuel consumption and emissions tested against emission limits, before they can be sold.

But the test procedure differs between the EU and Australia. The EU uses a modern procedure, whereas Australia still uses an outdated and unrealistic test developed in the 1970s – ironically called the New European Drive Cycle test.

In the four years from 2018 to 2021, the difference between certified CO₂ emissions of new cars registered in Australia and the EU increased by 20%. This was mainly due to the more rapid rise of EVs in Europe.

Then there’s the difference between certified emissions and what actually happens on the road, often referred to as the “gap”. We found the gap between certified CO₂ emissions and real-world emissions is larger in Australia. In Europe the average gap for petrol and diesel cars is 15–20%, whereas in Australia it is 30–35%.

Differences in vehicle weight and size, driving style, climate, and the use of air conditioning contribute, but the outdated test protocol is a major factor.

The gap is particularly large for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle emissions are three to four times higher on the road in both Europe and Australia.

Why? Largely because certified emissions performance assumes these vehicles will drive in electric mode 75–90% of the time, while the reality is more like 25%. So in practice, these vehicles mostly drive around as high-emitting petrol or diesel cars.

Overall, we estimated the real-world CO₂ emissions of the registered on road fleets in 2021 were 143 grams per kilometre for the EU and and 204 grams per kilometre for Australia. This means the average Australian car on the road is producing 43% more greenhouse gas emissions than the average EU car.

Mandatory CO₂ emission targets work

Our research shows mandatory CO₂ emission targets are effective in reducing emissions from both (new) passenger cars and, over time, the fleet as a whole. But this only happens if they are well designed.

With its long-standing regulations, the EU has significantly reduced CO₂ emissions, mainly through increased sales of low- or zero-emission vehicles. Conversely, Australia has relied on ineffective voluntary emission standards so far, with relatively slow uptake of electric vehicles and slow or even no progress in reducing emissions as a result.

We found the shift towards electric vehicles is crucial for achieving carbon neutrality goals. Having a higher proportion of zero- and low-emission cars in new EU car sales was the main reason the region’s 2020 emission reduction targets were met.

Without this, 70% of manufacturers would have failed to meet the EU standards. That’s because the emissions performance of conventional diesel and petrol cars have hardly improved.

This is in line with recent research that found only a shift to lightweight battery-electric vehicles, alongside deep decarbonisation of the electricity grid, will get Australia close to net zero by 2050.

Both regions have designed similar paths for future emissions reduction efforts. However, EU targets have been set for a longer term (2015-35). Australia has only set annual targets for the period 2025 to 2029.

Our research suggests sales of battery electric cars will need to increase in each region to meet future CO₂ emissions targets. In the EU, electric vehicle sales will need to hit 50% by 2030 to meet its target. In Australia, electric vehicle sales will need to reach 60% by 2029 to meet its more lenient target.

Shaping future policy

As the EU shows, setting ambitious, effective and legally binding emissions targets can drive innovation and transform markets.

But mandatory targets are not enough on their own. Complementary policies are needed, such as providing incentives to purchase electric cars, and developing charging infrastructure. This holistic approach looks beyond vehicle technology to also consider solutions such as promoting active travel, improving public transport and reducing the need for travel altogether.

Our research also clearly shows Australia needs to update official test procedures. It’s crucial to include on-board fuel consumption monitoring in the new standard, as is done in Europe, to monitor real-world fuel/electricity use and emissions.

Future regulations should consider incorporating the emissions over the life of a vehicle from manufacturing and fuel/energy production to recycling and disposal.

Accurate information for consumers, as well as properly designed government policies, will help Australia finally start reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport.

Robin Smit is the founding Research Director at the Transport Energy/Emission Research (TER) consultancy.

– ref. Australians’ cars are typically larger, heavier and less efficient than in Europe – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/australians-cars-are-typically-larger-heavier-and-less-efficient-than-in-europe-heres-why-243834

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

Anyone who has followed New Zealand’s protracted trade negotiations with India will know any new announcement of progress needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters’ hint last week that talks may be resuming is therefore best taken as a sign of optimism rather than anything more tangible. After all, negotiations go back as far as 2010, but had largely stalled by 2015.

A lot has changed since then, not least the advent of a second Trump presidency in the US, and shifting power balances in the Asia-Pacific region exemplified by the AUKUS security pact.

Wellington’s desire for a free trade agreement with New Delhi is clearly already a delicate balancing act. These new dynamics will make it more delicate still. But engaging with India remains vital, given its increasingly prominent global influence.

In many ways, India’s rise is not unlike China’s was – and New Zealand can learn from its trade and diplomatic relationships with Beijing. If India is roughly where China was 15 years ago, we can see clear portents of what the future holds.

India’s rise

In 2023, India’s GDP was US$14.54 trillion, the world’s fourth largest economy, behind the United States, China and the European Union. China hit that level during 2009.

But India’s current annual GDP growth of 7.6% now outstrips all those other countries. If maintained, it will result in India matching China’s 2023 GDP of $34.64 trillion in 14 years. Given India’s population overtook China’s in 2023, that timeframe may be smaller.

India’s expanding financial capacity has been matched by growing military expenditure. In 2023, India spent $83.57 billion on defence, third behind the US and China. Beijing was spending an equivalent amount in 2009.

India was also the world’s largest arms importer from 1950 to 2023. Like the US, China and Russia, it possesses a “nuclear triad” of land-based, submarine and airborne capability.

Like China, India has a large landmass (the world’s seventh largest) and is pivotal to trade routes crossing the Indian Ocean, as well as being close to China, the preeminent trading nation at the heart of the Indo-Pacific region.

Negative realities

India, like China, is also led by a forceful, self-assured and outspoken autocrat. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is one of the world’s two largest political groups – the other is Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Both leaders harness often strident domestic nationalism and common colonial histories to inspire popular notions of being or becoming great powers.

But exceptionally high levels and prolonged periods of economic growth – averaging 9.33% per year from 1980 to 2022 in China, and 6.46% per year from 1990 to 2023 in India – also put national development goals at risk.

High energy consumption and levels of pollution have seen natural environments deteriorate in both countries. And both India and China have suffered from endemic corruption since liberalising their economies.

Prevalent political dynasties in India – the equivalent of China’s “princelings” (the offspring or relatives-by-marriage of Communist Party veterans) – concentrate wealth and privilege within elites.

And, like China, India also stands accused of repressing ethnic and religious minorities, particularly against the Muslim portion of Kashmir and against various communities in the northeast, particularly in Assam.

Future fractures

Despite those human rights concerns, both India and China have – at different times – been courted and engaged by the West for strategic reasons.

In the 1970s, the US sought closer relations with China as a countermeasure against the Soviet Union, at the time Washington’s primary rival. Nowadays, the US seeks enhanced ties with India to counter the rise of China.

Both approaches were and are open to accusations of shortsightedness and political cynicism. The US rapprochement with China in the 1970s occurred during the depths of the Cultural Revolution, and Washington was muted in its criticism of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989.

Similarly, the perceived need to curb China’s rising power and influence means the West is prepared to work around India’s internal political realities. But this has arguably emboldened Indian foreign policy, with its intelligence services accused of targeting Sikh separatists in Canada, the UK and the US.

As contemporary US-China relations tip towards what has been called a “new Cold War”, one can imagine a future where the US and India face off in the same way. Given India’s trajectory, that might happen as soon as 2040.

Were that to happen – and given China’s slowing economy, ageing population and decoupling from the West – then India may well become China’s successor.

Of course, we can’t predict the future, but all of these considerations will need to be part of New Zealand’s calculations if and when trade negotiations with India truly begin in earnest. And they must remain part of Wellington’s wider strategic calculations in the decades to come.

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

– ref. India is the new China – NZ needs to see the bigger picture in trade negotiations – https://theconversation.com/india-is-the-new-china-nz-needs-to-see-the-bigger-picture-in-trade-negotiations-245557

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Wallis, Professor of International Security, University of Adelaide

At first blush, today’s announcement that Australia and Nauru have signed a security treaty offers something for both countries. Australia increases its influence in a region in which it feels threatened by China. Nauru receives economic assistance and reliable banking services.

But important questions remain unanswered.

For the past decade, Australia has been concerned about China’s ambitions in the Pacific Islands region. It is also conscious that the diplomatic landscape of the region has become more “crowded and complex”, as Australia now cooperates – and competes – with a wider range of partner countries in the region.

Australia has therefore ramped up its development assistance, infrastructure lending, security initiatives, labour mobility and migration opportunities, as well as other policies in the region.

It has also developed an appetite for greater integration with Pacific Island countries. The 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper identified Australia’s aim as being to “integrate Pacific countries into the Australian and New Zealand economies and our security institutions”.

Most famously, during a 2019 speech, Kevin Rudd proposed Australia should offer citizenship to people from Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu in exchange for control of their seas and fisheries. Versions of this proposal had been circulating in Canberra for years, but with limited support. Chinese influence has changed the calculation.

Todays’ announcement of the Nauru–Australia Treaty, a year after the signing of the Falepili Union Treaty between Australia and Tuvalu, seems to vindicate this call for integration by Rudd and others.

Under the Nauru–Australia Treaty, the two countries agree to “deepen and expand security cooperation”, and “consult and consider” in the event of threats. Then there is the big-ticket item: Nauru will “mutually agree with Australia any partnership, arrangement or engagement with any other State or entity on matters relating to Nauru’s security”. This echoes the language used in the Falepili Union with Tuvalu.

Australia has effectively acquired a veto over Nauru and Tuvalu entering any security arrangement with China. This has been Australia’s major concern in the region since Solomon Islands and China entered into a security agreement in 2022. With respect to Nauru, this was further heightened after it switched diplomatic recognition to China in January 2024.

So, the Nauru–Australia Treaty seems like a diplomatic “win” for Australia.

In exchange, Australia has agreed to provide A$100 million of budget support over five years to help Nauru’s “economic resilience, fiscal stability and prosperity”.

Australia will also provide A$40 million over five years to support Nauru’s security and policing needs, particularly the work of its recently appointed National Security Advisor.

Crucially, it will support the Commonwealth Bank to step in to provide banking services in Nauru, after Bendigo Bank announced it would withdraw. This helps secure Nauru’s economic future and removes Nauru’s risk of becoming “unbanked”.

So it seems like a similar “win” for Nauru.

But the treaty has several aspects that are still unclear.

First, how does it sit with Australia’s history with Nauru? As Nauru’s coloniser, Australia oversaw – and benefited from – the extraction of much of Nauru’s surface during phosphate mining. Mismanagement of the Nauru Phosphate Royalties Trust, established at independence to help return some profits to the people of Nauru, has been a major cause of Nauru’s longstanding economic woes since the 1990s.

But Australia also contributed to Nauru’s challenges through its policy of processing and resettling refugees in Nauru.

Second, Nauru’s democracy has not always benefited from Australia’s presence. Conscious of the need to maintain good relations with the Nauru government to keep its refugee processing centre open, and more recently to counter Chinese influence attempts, Australia has at times been reluctant to comment on the erosion of political rights in Nauru.

This was exemplified during the trial of the “Nauru 19”, who were prosecuted for protesting against government corruption. At the time, retired Australian judge Geoffrey Muecke, who sat on the Nauru Supreme Court, described the prosecution as a “shameful affront to the rule of law”. Will the treaty similarly constrain Australia in the future?

Third, the treaty requires Australia to provide extensive support to the Nauru government’s economic policies. Nauru has agreed it will “ensure integrity, transparency and accountability in its fiscal and financial management systems to prevent fraud, corruption, and misconduct”. But given Australia’s strategic interests in maintaining the treaty, what will Australia do if the Nauru government does not meet this undertaking?

Fourth, critics will justifiably ask questions about the impact of the treaty on Nauru’s sovereignty, echoing concerns raised about the Falepili Union, and before that, Rudd’s 2019 proposal.

In this regard, to dilute its apparent power, Australia may have been better off pursuing a trilateral security agreement that also included New Zealand, of the type proposed by Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown.

On one reading, Australia has taken advantage of the vulnerabilities of Nauru (economic and banking) and Tuvalu (climate change) to secure the treaties and advance its strategic interests.

During the 1960s negotiations on Nauru’s decolonisation, Nauruan negotiators rejected Australia’s proposal to create a relationship of “free association” because they had access to the wealth of the Phosphate Royalties Trust.

Today’s treaty, by contrast, goes a long way to solving several of Nauru’s pressing economic challenges. In exchange, the “cost” – constraints on Nauru’s future security partnerships – may not be seen as steep as they were more than half a century ago. Time will tell.

The Australian government must now sell the Nauru–Australia treaty to an Australian people struggling to meet cost-of-living pressures. This may be easier than the Falepili Union, because a migration pathway is not a key feature of the Nauru deal.

But at the same time, the absence of migration reveals the elephant in the room: for decades the Australian taxpayer has been propping up the economy of an island whose main resource – sovereignty – it mined via its “Pacific Solution” to house refugees. Now it will do so in perpetuity for its strategic interests.

Joanne Wallis receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Defence. She is a Nonresident Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution in Washington DC.

Jack Corbett currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the UK’s SIDAR programme.

– ref. At first glance, Australia’s new treaty with Nauru seems to be a win-win. But questions remain – https://theconversation.com/at-first-glance-australias-new-treaty-with-nauru-seems-to-be-a-win-win-but-questions-remain-245562

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marika Sosnowski, Postdoctoral research fellow, The University of Melbourne

Sometimes nothing happens for years. And then years – decades even – happen in a few days.

Over the past ten days, a range of Syrian rebel forces led by the group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) have mounted an offensive against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. They first captured Aleppo, Syria’s second-largest city and economic hub, and then swept rapidly south through Hama, Homs and finally Damascus.

The rebels were met with little to no resistance from the Syrian regime, nor its Russian, Iranian or Hezbollah allies. And so, the 54-year-old regime led by Hafez al-Assad and then his son Bashar has now fallen.

While it may seem like these events came out of nowhere, the rapid fall of the Assad regime has a long history.

A ‘long-breath’ strategy of appeasement

For decades, Hafez al-Assad, Syria’s autocratic ruler from 1970–2000, had adopted a pragmatic strategy that involved building relationships with a sometimes unlikely array of state and non-state allies, proxies and clients. This “long-breath” strategy was helpful in keeping relations with everyone open, even if those relations were in many cases extremely precarious.

For example, the regime gave preferential treatment to minorities (predominantly Alawis and other quasi-Shiite groups) and other benefits to the Sunni and Christian establishment. These policies meant these groups had a vested interest in the continuation of the regime.

Bashar al-Assad continued this tradition when he came to power following his father’s death.

However, he also initiated liberalisation policies in the early years of his rule that emboldened a new genre of loyalist paramilitary forces. These were often headed by many of Syria’s newly minted business elite who, in large part, created armed groups to protect their economic fiefdoms. These pro-state militia groups tended to be less disciplined than the national army, and more corrupt.

In March 2011, the uprisings across the Middle East spilled over into Syria, leading to the first public protests in the country in decades. Determined to avoid Libya’s fate of external intervention, the Syrian regime quickly opened fire on unarmed protesters, killing many.

This was the start of Syria’s devastating 14-year civil war.

The emergence of Russian-led armed factions

The Russians joined the conflict in mid-2015. One of their conditions of entry into Syria: a single, traditionally structured military command for them to work with.

This necessitated various local militia groups, such as the National Defence Force and Kataeb al-Baath, being absorbed into the Syrian army through the establishment of a new Fourth Corps aligned with the Russians.

Due to the unruly behaviour of many of these militias, Russia later set up a Fifth Corps in an attempt to restructure the Syrian army around personnel who were both reliable and loyal to Moscow.

Then, reconciliation agreements between the regime, Russia and various rebel groups from 2016 to 2018 facilitated the integration of armed rebel groups into the Russian-led Fourth and Fifth Corps, as well as an Iranian-led division of the Syrian army. Under the terms of these reconciliation deals, men in rebel-held communities who had deserted or dodged their mandatory Syrian army conscription were expected to join within six months.

As Syrian researcher Abdullah al-Jabassini has explained, these agreements led to a precarious security situation in southern Syria.

The agreements aimed to end fighting and restore state control over rebel-held areas. However, many of the once-rebel factions who were now, on paper at least, linked to the Syrian army, Russia and Iran, continued to operate with relative freedom and impunity. This ran counter to the regime’s presumed strategy of re-consolidating its control over the country.

Many of these local armed groups continued to provide security to their communities, even erecting barriers at the entrances of each city to prevent the entry of the Syrian Army.

A former Syrian governor told me in an interview in 2022:

In Houran [southern Syria], generally, there is no regime control. It remains impossible for the regime to enter Busra al-Sham, Daraa City, Tafas and their surroundings, due to certain considerations or guarantees. But of course, there are no guarantees but their arms.

For the last few years, the Syrian regime, Russia and Iran seemed to have some ability to control these ex-rebel groups and militias that supposedly now operated under their purview.

However, this control was an illusion. In the past ten days, the regime’s forces have completely disintegrated in the face of the opposition’s offensive.

The army’s fractured levels of control and lack of resources, the dire economic sitution in the country (which resulted in soldiers not being paid), and the low morale and corruption at almost every level could not sustain a military – or a security state.

A state-in-waiting

For more than 50 years, Syria was a suffocating kingdom of silence. People had little ability to collaborate or negotiate in meaningful ways. This made forming any common vision for Syria’s political future a daunting undertaking.

Under Assad, Syria experts Robin Yassin-Kassab and Leila Al-Shami have written that “the most cunning and sycophantic” prospered.

[…]there was no culture in the deep sense of the word, only a framework empty of meaning populated by hired intellectuals, with the exception of a very few real thinkers, who were marginalised.

But since the relative freezing of active combat in 2020, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the Syrian National Army (linked to the Syrian Interim Government and Turkey) and the Kurdish-led forces in northeastern Syria have had time to learn and consolidate.

They have spent the past few years training and preparing their armed forces. They have also developed complex systems of governance, capable of meeting the needs of millions of people.

Across northern Syria, these opposition groups and their political wings have set up a state-in-waiting, with ministries of economy, trade, education and humanitarian affairs. The groups also established their own civil and land registration systems, something normally considered the sole purview of recognised states.

It’s right to be wary and sceptical, particularly of HTS’s supposed transformation from al-Qaeda affiliate to national liberation movement that will represent all Syrians. However, the early signs are promising. The immediate release of prisoners from the Assad regime’s infamous prison system, for example, was a deeply symbolic move aimed at endearing rebel forces to the Syrian population.

When it liberated Aleppo, HTS fighters also secured banks to avoid looting. To build trust and boost morale among the local population, it diverted the electricity being funnelled to large factories to civilian residences.

The group’s leader, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, now going by his legal name Ahmed al-Sharaa, has said he is willing to dissolve HTS in favour of creating a new structure that is more representative and capable of serving the current needs of all Syrians.

A new chapter is beginning for Syria, its people and the world. The Syrian regime, a cult of personality built on the Assads, has fallen, offering hope to other people in the Middle East and beyond who continue to live under authoritarian dictatorships that change is indeed possible.

May Syrians’ 2011 cry of “Dignity! Freedom! Bread!” continue to prevail.

Marika Sosnowski received funding from the Fritz Thyssen Foundation and the Swedish Research Council to research Syria’s supposedly post-war landscape from 2020-2023.

– ref. Why Bashar al-Assad’s security state collapsed so dramatically in Syria – https://theconversation.com/why-bashar-al-assads-security-state-collapsed-so-dramatically-in-syria-245555

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

Anthony Albanese has announced an Australian Federal Police Special Operation Taskforce to combat antisemitism, after criticism from within and outside the Jewish community that the government has not done enough to deal with the escalating issue.

Following a meeting of cabinet’s national security committee, the prime minister faced the media on Monday afternoon flanked by Australian Federal Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw, the head of ASIO, Mike Burgess, the Attorney- General, Mark Dreyfus, and the Immigration Minister, Tony Burke.

Earlier in the day, Friday’s attack on Melbourne’s Adass Israel synagogue was formally declared a “likely terrorist incident”. This upgrades the investigation to come under the Joint Counter-terrorism Team, which includes the Australian Federal Police, Victoria Police and ASIO.

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton told a Melbourne news conference that while there had not been sufficient evidence on Friday to label the firebombing a terrorist incident, the investigation since had made “significant progress” and had reached the threshold.

The declaration of a terrorist attack was advised by a joint management committee meeting of federal and state police, and ASIO, on Monday morning. The upgrade means the tougher anti-terrorism laws apply, rather than the law covering arson. The anti-terrorism law includes the power of preventative detention.

Albanese, who will visit the Melbourne synagogue this week, said Special Operation Avalite was in response to the Friday attack, that followed the attack on Jewish Labor MP Josh Burns’ office in Melbourne and an incident in Sydney in which a car was set set on fire and other cars were vandalised with anti-Israeli graffiti.

Kershaw said: “Special Operation Avalite will be an agile and experienced squad of counter-terrorism investigators who will focus on threats, violence, and hatred towards the Australian Jewish community and parliamentarians.

“In essence, they will be a flying squad to deploy nationally to incidents.

“The Commonwealth offences Special Operation Avalite will investigate will include emerging violence, urging violence against members or groups, advocating terrorism, advocating genocide, using a carriage service to make a threat, and using a carriage service to menace or harass.”

While Patton refused to give details of the synagogue investigation, so as not to compromise it, he indicated the police were looking at three suspects.

Albanese and other politicians had already labelled the incident a terrorist attack, but to be officially declared one, it had to meet certain criteria.

AFP Deputy Commissioner for National Security Krissy Barrett told the Melbourne joint news conference the transition of the attack to come under the Victorian Joint Counter-terrorism team was a “crucial turning point in the investigation”.

“Joint counter-terrorism teams include the best terrorism investigators in the country, and a JCTT investigation unlocks more power, more capability, and more intelligence,” she said.

She said since the attack, the AFP, ASIO, and Victoria Police had been in regular contact, and this meant “that now it has been allocated to the Joint Counter-terrorism Team, we are already well-prepared, well-briefed, and well-progressed”.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan told the news conference her government would immediately seek advice on strengthening the state’s laws to protect people going to their place of worship.

Albanese seemed to brush off a question about whether there should be a national cabinet meeting on antisemitism. “What we want to do is to act. If people want to have a phone hook up, I’m very welcome for that to occur.”

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

– ref. Albanese announces antisemitism taskforce, as synagogue firebombing investigation upgraded – https://theconversation.com/albanese-announces-antisemitism-taskforce-as-synagogue-firebombing-investigation-upgraded-245564

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Siân Halcrow, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Otago

Content warning: this story deals with infant loss and human remains acquired historically for use within museum contexts.

A collection of fetal and baby skeletal remains at the University of Otago’s W.D. Trotter Anatomy Museum shows how those on the margins of 19th and early 20th century New Zealand society contributed to medical knowledge – with or without the consent of their loved ones.

The museum is a repository for more than 2,000 anatomical models and “specimens”. It is largely unknown how many of these remains came to be part of the museum’s collection.

But our new analysis of the skeletal remains and associated historical records of babies in the collection from pre-birth to up to one year old show they were largely born to unmarried mothers or lower-class families.

The museum’s collection mirrors a global historical phenomenon where the bodies of society’s most vulnerable — such as infants, the poor, and the marginalised — were used for medical education.

The origins of anatomical collections

New Zealand’s 1875 Anatomy Act mirrored British laws that allowed the use of unclaimed bodies from public institutions, like hospitals and asylums, for anatomical study.

These laws disproportionately affected impoverished families. Hospitals were able to retain custody of the deceased when families lacked financial means for burial or an individual’s body lay “unclaimed”.

Our archival analysis focused on the University of Otago Register of Anatomical Material of body acquisitions from 1876-1941 and associated birth and death certificates.

We were looking for the remains of babies less than one year of age (the medical meaning of infant). We found skeletal remains ranging from five months in-utero up to three months of age.

The skeletal analyses found there were at least 32 infants, and a range of bones from individuals of different ages.

Seven of the 18 infants with records available were born to unmarried mothers, and many were from working class families.

Many of these babies were stigmatised as “illegitimate” and their mothers were often forced to birth in homes for the unmarried.

There is evidence for two dying from birth trauma, one including the possible use of forceps during birth. There is evidence for dissection on some individuals.

There are also four individuals with developmental anomalies whose remains may have been kept for dissection and education as examples of anatomical “oddities.”

Although the archival analysis of age and cause of death are similar to our skeletal analysis, we cannot determine which remains belong to specific individuals.

The structures keeping babies from families

It can be argued that structural violence – the harm inflicted by societal structures and institutions — played a central role in the lives of these mothers and infants. It is part of the reason they were included in the collection.

For example, this was a period when single mothers found themselves in charity-run homes where their children were more likely to be relinquished to medical institutions.

This coincided with a push for the development of anatomical collections by physicians who held significant power within the medical systems at the time.

The uneven power-balance between the mothers and those around them may have made it harder for the families to retain their babies’ remains.

Prioritising respect and consent

Today, the existence of such collections raises challenging ethical questions, and we acknowledge the sensitive nature of studying these remains.

How do we reconcile the scientific value of these remains with the history behind their acquisition? Can the study of these collections offer insights without perpetuating historical injustices?

At present the remains are carefully curated within the museum. These skeletal remains are invaluable for teaching in anatomy.

By doing this new research, we can better inform ourselves of the ethical challenges of teaching with these remains and inform students of when and how they were acquired.

The stark contrast between historical and modern ethical standards is evident in New Zealand’s Human Tissue Act 2008, which mandates explicit consent for the use of human remains.

As we navigate the legacy of these collections, it is important to contextualise them within their historical framework.

This requires acknowledging the social inequities that led to their creation and ensuring contemporary practices prioritise respect and consent.

This work is dedicated to the babies who died and were subsequently kept in the W.D. Trotter Museum.

Sian Halcrow receives funding from the Royal Society Te Apārangi.

Megan Southorn received funding from a University of Otago Doctoral Scholarship and the Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust.

Stephie Rose Lončar 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. Forgotten histories: what fetal and baby remains in medical collections tell us about inequality – https://theconversation.com/forgotten-histories-what-fetal-and-baby-remains-in-medical-collections-tell-us-about-inequality-244931

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Musgrave, Senior lecturer in Pharmacology, University of Adelaide

Concern has been rising over the use of a feed supplement, Bovaer 10, to reduce methane production in cows.

Bovaer 10 consists of silicon dioxide (basically sand), propylene glycol (a food stabiliser approved by Food Safety Australia New Zealand) and the active compound 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP).

There has been an enormous amount of misinformation about the safety of 3-NOP, with some labelling milk from herds fed the additive as “Frankenmilk”. Others have been concerned it could make its way to humans via beef.

The bottom line is that 3-NOP is safe. Let’s unpack some of the major misunderstandings.

Why do we need to reduce methane production?

In our attempts to reduce global warming, most of the focus has been on CO₂ as a a major human-produced greenhouse gas. But methane is also a greenhouse gas, and although we produce less of it, it is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂.

Agriculture is the largest human-produced source of methane. As cattle herds expand to fuel our increasing desire for meat and milk, reducing methane production by cows is an important way to reduce greenhouse emissions.

There are several ways to do this. Stopping the bacteria in cows’ stomachs that generate methane from making methane is one approach.

The methane cows and sheep produce is not from the animals themselves, but from microbes that live in their digestive systems. 3-NOP stop the enzymes that do the final step of methane synthesis in these microbes.

3-NOP is not the only compound trialled as a feed additive. A seaweed-based Australian product, Rumin8, for example, is also under development. Saponins, soap-like chemical compounds found in plants, and essential oils have also been investigated.

However, 3-NOP is currently one of the most effective treatments.

But isn’t it a poison?

There is concern on social media about Bovaer “poisoning our food”.

But, as we say in toxicology, it’s the dose that makes the poison. Arsenic, for example, is lethal at 2–20 milligram per kilogram of body weight.

In contrast, 3-NOP was not lethal at the doses used in safety studies, up to 600 mg 3-NOP per kg of body weight. At 100 mg per kg of body weight in rats, it had no adverse effects.

What about reproductive issues?

The effect of 3-NOP on reproductive organs has caused a lot of comment.

Research in rats and cows found that doses of 300–500 mg per kg of body weight resulted in ovarian and testicular shrinkage.

To put that in perspective, to achieve the same exposure in humans, a 70 kg human would need to consume 21–35 grams (around 2 tablespoons) of pure 3-NOP a day every day for weeks on end to see this effect.

No human will be exposed to this amount as 3-NOP does not enter milk – it’s fully metabolised in the cow’s gut.

No cow will be exposed to these levels either.

What about cancer?

3-NOP is not genotoxic or mutagenic, meaning it can’t damage DNA. So 3-NOP’s effects are dose-limited, meaning small doses aren’t harmful while very high doses are (unlike radiation, where there is no safe dose).

At a dose of 300 mg per kg of body weight, researchers found benign tumours in the small intestines of female rats, but not male rats, after 2 years of daily consumption. At a 100 mg of 3-NOP per kg of body weight, no tumours were seen.

Cows are consuming less than 2 grams Bovaer 10 a day (of which only 10% or 0.2 grams, is 3-NOP). This is around 1,000 times less than the acceptable daily intake of 1 mg 3-NOP per kg of body weight a day for a 450 kg cow.

This level of intake will not result in tumours, or any of the other adverse effects.

So how much will humans be exposed to?

Consumers of milk and meat will be exposed to zero 3-NOP. 3-NOP does not get into milk or meat: it is completely metabolised in the cow’s gut.

Farmers might be exposed to a small amount handling the feed additive and industrial workers producing 3-NOP will be potentially exposed to more. Farmers and industrial workers already wear personal protective equipment to reduce exposure to other agricultural chemicals – and are recommended to do so with Bovear 10 as well.

How extensively has it been tested?

3-NOP has been developed over 15 years, subject to multiple reviews by the European Food Safety Authority, the United Kingdom’s Food Safety Authority and others.

It has been extensively tested over months of exposure to cattle with no adverse effects. Some studies actually say it improves milk and meat quality.

Bovaer has been approved for use in dairy cattle by the European Union since 2022 and in Japan in 2024. It is also used in many other countries, including in beef products in Australia.

Very little 3-NOP enters the environment (less than 0.2% of the ingested dose), it does not accumulate and is readily broken down so is not an environmental risk.

Since humans are not exposed to 3-NOP though milk and meat, long-term human exposure is not an issue.

What does Bill Gates have to do with it?

Bill Gates has invested in a different feed treatment for methane, the Australian seaweed based Rumin8. But he has nothing to do with Bovaer 10.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given research grants to the company that makes 3-NOP for malaria control research, not for 3-NOP.

The bottom line is that adding 3-NOP to animal feed poses no risk to consumers, animals or the environment.

Ian Musgrave has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council to study adverse reactions to herbal medicines and has previously been funded by the Australian Research Council to study potential natural product treatments for Alzheimer’s disease.

– ref. Bovaer is added to cow feed to reduce methane emissions. Does it get into milk and meat? And is it harmful for humans? – https://theconversation.com/bovaer-is-added-to-cow-feed-to-reduce-methane-emissions-does-it-get-into-milk-and-meat-and-is-it-harmful-for-humans-245364

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

Friday’s attack on Melbourne’s Adass Israel synagogue has been formally declared a “likely terrorist incident”. This upgrades the investigation to come under the Joint Counter-terrorism Team, which includes the Australian Federal Police, Victoria Police and ASIO.

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton told a news conference that while there had not been sufficient evidence on Friday to label the firebombing a terrorist incident, the investigation since had made “significant progress” and had reached the threshold.

The declaration of a terrorist attack was advised by a joint management committee meeting of federal and state police, and ASIO, on Monday morning. The upgrade means the tougher, anti-terrorism laws apply, rather than the law covering arson. This anti-terrorism laws include the power of preventative detention.

While Patton refused to give details of the investigation so far, so as not to compromise it, he indicated the police were looking at three suspects.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and other politicians had already labelled the incident a terrorist attack, but to be officially declared one, it had to meet certain criteria.

AFP Deputy Commissioner for National Security Krissy Barrett told the joint news conference the transition of the attack to come under the Victorian Joint Counter-terrorism team was a “crucial turning point in the investigation”.

“Joint counter-terrorism teams include the best terrorism investigators in the country, and a JCTT investigation unlocks more power, more capability, and more intelligence,” she said.

She said since the attack, the AFP, ASIO, and Victoria Police had been in regular contact, and this meant “that now it has been allocated to the Joint Counter-terrorism Team, we are already well-prepared, well-briefed, and well-progressed”.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan told the news conference her government would immediately seek advice on strengthening the state’s laws to protect people going to their place of worship.

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

– ref. Synagogue firebombing formally declared ‘terrorist’ incident and investigation upgraded – https://theconversation.com/synagogue-firebombing-formally-declared-terrorist-incident-and-investigation-upgraded-245564

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Siân Halcrow, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Otago

Content warning: this story deals with infant loss and human remains acquired historically for use within museum contexts.

A collection of fetal and baby skeletal remains at the University of Otago’s W.D. Trotter Anatomy Museum shows how those on the margins of 19th and early 20th century New Zealand society contributed to medical knowledge – with or without the consent of their loved ones.

The museum is a repository for more than 2,000 anatomical models and “specimens”. It is largely unknown how many of these remains came to be part of the museum’s collection.

But our new analysis of the skeletal remains and associated historical records of babies in the collection from pre-birth to up to one year old show they were largely born to unmarried mothers or lower-class families.

The museum’s collection mirrors a global historical phenomenon where the bodies of society’s most vulnerable — such as infants, the poor, and the marginalised — were used for medical education.

The origins of anatomical collections

New Zealand’s 1875 Anatomy Act mirrored British laws that allowed the use of unclaimed bodies from public institutions, like hospitals and asylums, for anatomical study.

These laws disproportionately affected impoverished families. Hospitals were able to retain custody of the deceased when families lacked financial means for burial or an individual’s body lay “unclaimed”.

Our archival analysis focused on the University of Otago Register of Anatomical Material of body acquisitions from 1876-1941 and associated birth and death certificates.

We were looking for the remains of babies less than one year of age (the medical meaning of infant). We found skeletal remains ranging from five months in-utero up to three months of age.

The skeletal analyses found there were at least 32 infants, and a range of bones from individuals of different ages.

Seven of the 18 infants with records available were born to unmarried mothers, and many were from working class families.

Many of these babies were stigmatised as “illegitimate” and their mothers were often forced to birth in homes for the unmarried.

There is evidence for two dying from birth trauma, one including the possible use of forceps during birth. There is evidence for dissection on some individuals.

There are also four individuals with developmental anomalies whose remains may have been kept for dissection and education as examples of anatomical “oddities.”

Although the archival analysis of age and cause of death are similar to our skeletal analysis, we cannot determine which remains belong to specific individuals.

The structures keeping babies from families

It can be argued that structural violence – the harm inflicted by societal structures and institutions — played a central role in the lives of these mothers and infants. It is part of the reason they were included in the collection.

For example, this was a period when single mothers found themselves in charity-run homes where their children were more likely to be relinquished to medical institutions.

This coincided with a push for the development of anatomical collections by physicians who held significant power within the medical systems at the time.

The uneven power-balance between the mothers and those around them may have made it harder for the families to retain their babies’ remains.

Prioritising respect and consent

Today, the existence of such collections raises challenging ethical questions, and we acknowledge the sensitive nature of studying these remains.

How do we reconcile the scientific value of these remains with the history behind their acquisition? Can the study of these collections offer insights without perpetuating historical injustices?

At present the remains are carefully curated within the museum. These skeletal remains are invaluable for teaching in anatomy.

By doing this new research, we can better inform ourselves of the ethical challenges of teaching with these remains and inform students of when and how they were acquired.

The stark contrast between historical and modern ethical standards is evident in New Zealand’s Human Tissue Act 2008, which mandates explicit consent for the use of human remains.

As we navigate the legacy of these collections, it is important to contextualise them within their historical framework.

This requires acknowledging the social inequities that led to their creation and ensuring contemporary practices prioritise respect and consent.

This work is dedicated to the babies who died and were subsequently kept in the W.D. Trotter Museum.

Sian Halcrow receives funding from the Royal Society Te Apārangi.

Megan Southorn received funding from a University of Otago Doctoral Scholarship and the Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust.

Stephie Rose Lončar 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. Forgotten histories: what fetal and baby remains tell us about inequality in medical collections – https://theconversation.com/forgotten-histories-what-fetal-and-baby-remains-tell-us-about-inequality-in-medical-collections-244931

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mehmet Ozalp, Associate Professor in Islamic Studies, Director of The Centre for Islamic Studies and Civilisation and Executive Member of Public and Contextual Theology, Charles Sturt University

Who could have predicted that after nearly 14 years of civil war and five years of stalemate, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria would collapse in just a week? With Assad’s departure, the pressing question now is what lies ahead for Syria’s immediate future.

When opposition fighters led by the group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) seized the major city of Aleppo in late November with minimal resistance, commentators widely believed it marked the beginning of the Assad regime’s downfall. Many anticipated a bitter fight to the end.

Assad was caught off guard, and his forces were clearly unprepared. He withdrew his remaining troops from Aleppo to regroup and gain time for reinforcements to arrive from Russia and Iran, and hope the opposition fighters would stop there.

It wasn’t to be. Emboldened by their swift success in Aleppo, HTS fighters wasted no time and advanced on Hama, capturing it with ease. They quickly followed up by seizing Homs, the next major city to the south.

Russia provided limited air support to Assad. But Iran, having depleted its forces in Hezbollah’s defence against Israel in Lebanon, was unable to offer significant assistance and withdrew its remaining personnel from Syria. Meanwhile, Assad’s frantic calls for support from Iraq did not go anywhere.

Seeing the writing on the wall, the morale of Assad’s forces and leadership plummeted. Fearing retribution in the event of the regime’s collapse, defections began en masse, further accelerating Assad’s downfall.

And on the last day, Assad fled the country, and his prime minister officially handed over power to HTS and its leadership. It marked the end of 54 years of Assad family rule in Syria.

The Assad legacy

The Assad family, including Bashar al-Assad and his father, Hafez al-Assad, will likely be remembered by the majority of Syrians as brutal dictators.

The modern state of Syria was established in 1920 following the Sykes-Picot Agreement in the aftermath of the first world war. Syria became a League of Nations mandate under French control, only gaining independence in 1944. Following a tumultuous period, including a failed unification with Egypt, the Ba’ath Party seized control in 1963 through a coup that involved Hafez al-Assad.

In 1966, Hafez al-Assad led another coup alongside other officers from the Alawite minority. This ultimately resulted in a civilian regime, with Hafez al-Assad becoming president in 1970.

Hafez al-Assad established himself as an authoritarian dictator, concentrating power, the military and the economy in the hands of his relatives and the Alawite community. Meanwhile, the Sunni majority was largely marginalised and excluded from positions of power and influence.

Hafez al-Assad is most infamously remembered for his brutal suppression of the opposition in 1982. The uprising, led by the Islamic Front, saw the opposition capture the city of Hama. In response, the Syrian army razed the city, leaving an estimated 10,000 to 40,000 civilians dead or disappeared and decisively crushing the rebellion.

Hafez al-Assad died in 2000, and, the least likely candidate, his younger son, Bashar al-Assad, assumed the presidency. Having been educated in the West to become a doctor, Bashar al-Assad projected a moderate and modern image, raising hopes he might usher in a new era of progress and democracy in Syria.

However, Bashar al-Assad soon found himself navigating a turbulent regional landscape following the September 11 2001 terror attacks and the US invasion of Iraq. In 2004, after the United States imposed sanctions on Syria, Assad sought closer ties with Turkey. He and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became friends, removing visa requirements between their countries and making plans to establish economic zones to boost trade.

Erdoğan and Assad then had a falling out during a series of events in 2011, a year that marked a turning point for Syria. The Arab Spring revolts swept into the country, presenting Assad with a critical choice: to pursue a democratic path or crush the opposition as his father had done in 1982.

He chose the latter, missing a historic opportunity to peacefully transform Syria.

The consequences were catastrophic. A devastating civil war broke out, resulting in more than 300,000 deaths (some estimates are higher), 5.4 million refugees, and 6.9 million people internally displaced. This will be Assad’s legacy.

Syria’s immediate challenges

Syria now has a new force in power: HTS and its leadership, spearheaded by the militant leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani. They will face immediate challenges and four key priorities:

1) Consolidating power. The new leadership will now try to ensure there are no armed groups capable of contesting their rule, particularly remnants of the old Assad regime and smaller factions that were not part of the opposition forces.

Critically, they will also need to discuss how power will be shared among the coalition of opposition groups. Al-Jolani is likely to become the founding president of the new Syria, but how the rest of the power will be distributed remains uncertain.

It seems the opposition was not prepared to take over the country so quickly, and they may not have a power-sharing agreement. This will need to be negotiated and worked out quickly.

The new government will likely recognise the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the territories it controls as an autonomous region within Syria. An independent Kurdish state, however, will be strongly opposed by Turkey, the main external backer of the opposition.

Yet, history seems to be moving in favour of the Kurds. There is now the eventual possibility of an independent Kurdish state, potentially combining northern Iraq and northeastern Syria into a single entity.

2) International recognition. Syria is a very complex and diverse place. As such, the new government can only be sustained if it gains international recognition.

The key players in this process are Turkey, the European Union, the United States and Israel (through the US). It is likely all of these entities will recognise the new government on the condition it forms a moderate administration, refrains from fighting the Kurdish YPG, and does not support Hezbollah or Hamas.

Given their unexpected success in toppling Assad so quickly, the opposition is likely to accept these conditions in exchange for aid and recognition.

3) Forming a new government. The question on everyone’s mind is what kind of political order the opposition forces will now establish. HTS and many of the groups in its coalition are Sunni Muslims, with HTS having origins linked to al-Qaeda. However, HTS broke away from the terror organisation in 2016 and shifted its focus exclusively to Syria as an opposition movement.

Nevertheless, we should not expect a democratic secular rule. The new government is also unlikely to resemble the ultra-conservative theocratic rule of the Taliban.

In his recent interview with CNN, al-Jolani made two key points. He indicated he and other leaders in the group have evolved in their outlook and Islamic understanding with age, suggesting the extreme views from their youth have moderated over time. He also emphasised the opposition would be tolerant of the freedoms and rights of religious and ethnic minority groups.

The specifics of how this will manifest remain unclear. The expectation is HTS will form a conservative government in which Islam plays a dominant role in shaping social policies and lawmaking.

On the economic and foreign policy fronts, the country’s new leaders are likely to be pragmatic, open to alliances with the regional and global powers that have supported them.

4) Rebuilding the country and maintaining unity. This is needed to prevent another civil war from erupting — this time among the winners.

A recent statement from HTS’s Political Affairs Department said the new Syria will focus on construction, progress and reconciliation. The new government aims to create positive conditions for displaced Syrians to return to their country, establish constructive relations with neighbouring countries and prioritise rebuilding the economy.

Syria and the broader Middle East have entered a new phase in their modern history. Time will tell how things will unfold, but one thing is certain: it will never be the same.

Mehmet Ozalp is affiliated with Islamic Sciences and Research Academy.

– ref. After 5 decades of brutal rule under the Assads, Syria is at a crossroads. Here are 4 priorities to avoid yet another war – https://theconversation.com/after-5-decades-of-brutal-rule-under-the-assads-syria-is-at-a-crossroads-here-are-4-priorities-to-avoid-yet-another-war-245538

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mehmet Ozalp, Associate Professor in Islamic Studies, Director of The Centre for Islamic Studies and Civilisation and Executive Member of Public and Contextual Theology, Charles Sturt University

Who could have predicted that after nearly 14 years of civil war and five years of stalemate, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria would collapse in just a week? With Assad’s departure, the pressing question now is what lies ahead for Syria’s immediate future.

When opposition fighters led by the group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) seized the major city of Aleppo in late November with minimal resistance, commentators widely believed it marked the beginning of the Assad regime’s downfall. Many anticipated a bitter fight to the end.

Assad was caught off guard, and his forces were clearly unprepared. He withdrew his remaining troops from Aleppo to regroup and gain time for reinforcements to arrive from Russia and Iran, and hope the opposition fighters would stop there.

It wasn’t to be. Emboldened by their swift success in Aleppo, HTS fighters wasted no time and advanced on Hama, capturing it with ease. They quickly followed up by seizing Homs, the next major city to the south.

Russia provided limited air support to Assad. But Iran, having depleted its forces in Hezbollah’s defence against Israel in Lebanon, was unable to offer significant assistance and withdrew its remaining personnel from Syria. Meanwhile, Assad’s frantic calls for support from Iraq did not go anywhere.

Seeing the writing on the wall, the morale of Assad’s forces and leadership plummeted. Fearing retribution in the event of the regime’s collapse, defections began en masse, further accelerating Assad’s downfall.

And on the last day, Assad fled the country, and his prime minister officially handed over power to HTS and its leadership. It marked the end of 55 years of Assad family rule in Syria.

The Assad legacy

The Assad family, including Bashar al-Assad and his father, Hafez al-Assad, will likely be remembered by the majority of Syrians as brutal dictators.

The modern state of Syria was established in 1920 following the Sykes-Picot Agreement in the aftermath of the first world war. Syria became a League of Nations mandate under French control, only gaining independence in 1944. Following a tumultuous period, including a failed unification with Egypt, the Ba’ath Party seized control in 1963 through a coup that involved Hafez al-Assad.

In 1966, Hafez al-Assad led another coup alongside other officers from the Alawite minority. This ultimately resulted in a civilian regime, with Hafez al-Assad becoming president in 1970.

Hafez al-Assad established himself as an authoritarian dictator, concentrating power, the military and the economy in the hands of his relatives and the Alawite community. Meanwhile, the Sunni majority was largely marginalised and excluded from positions of power and influence.

Hafez al-Assad is most infamously remembered for his brutal suppression of the opposition in 1982. The uprising, led by the Islamic Front, saw the opposition capture the city of Hama. In response, the Syrian army razed the city, leaving an estimated 10,000 to 40,000 civilians dead or disappeared and decisively crushing the rebellion.

Hafez al-Assad died in 2000, and, the least likely candidate, his younger son, Bashar al-Assad, assumed the presidency. Having been educated in the West to become a doctor, Bashar al-Assad projected a moderate and modern image, raising hopes he might usher in a new era of progress and democracy in Syria.

However, Bashar al-Assad soon found himself navigating a turbulent regional landscape following the September 11 2001 terror attacks and the US invasion of Iraq. In 2004, after the United States imposed sanctions on Syria, Assad sought closer ties with Turkey. He and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became friends, removing visa requirements between their countries and making plans to establish economic zones to boost trade.

Erdoğan and Assad then had a falling out during a series of events in 2011, a year that marked a turning point for Syria. The Arab Spring revolts swept into the country, presenting Assad with a critical choice: to pursue a democratic path or crush the opposition as his father had done in 1982.

He chose the latter, missing a historic opportunity to peacefully transform Syria.

The consequences were catastrophic. A devastating civil war broke out, resulting in more than 300,000 deaths (some estimates are higher), 5.4 million refugees, and 6.9 million people internally displaced. This will be Assad’s legacy.

Syria’s immediate challenges

Syria now has a new force in power: HTS and its leadership, spearheaded by the militant leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani. They will face immediate challenges and four key priorities:

1) Consolidating power. The new leadership will now try to ensure there are no armed groups capable of contesting their rule, particularly remnants of the old Assad regime and smaller factions that were not part of the opposition forces.

Critically, they will also need to discuss how power will be shared among the coalition of opposition groups. Al-Jolani is likely to become the founding president of the new Syria, but how the rest of the power will be distributed remains uncertain.

It seems the opposition was not prepared to take over the country so quickly, and they may not have a power-sharing agreement. This will need to be negotiated and worked out quickly.

The new government will likely recognise the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the territories it controls as an autonomous region within Syria. An independent Kurdish state, however, will be strongly opposed by Turkey, the main external backer of the opposition.

Yet, history seems to be moving in favour of the Kurds. There is now the eventual possibility of an independent Kurdish state, potentially combining northern Iraq and northeastern Syria into a single entity.

2) International recognition. Syria is a very complex and diverse place. As such, the new government can only be sustained if it gains international recognition.

The key players in this process are Turkey, the European Union, the United States and Israel (through the US). It is likely all of these entities will recognise the new government on the condition it forms a moderate administration, refrains from fighting the Kurdish YPG, and does not support Hezbollah or Hamas.

Given their unexpected success in toppling Assad so quickly, the opposition is likely to accept these conditions in exchange for aid and recognition.

3) Forming a new government. The question on everyone’s mind is what kind of political order the opposition forces will now establish. HTS and many of the groups in its coalition are Sunni Muslims, with HTS having origins linked to al-Qaeda. However, HTS broke away from the terror organisation in 2016 and shifted its focus exclusively to Syria as an opposition movement.

Nevertheless, we should not expect a democratic secular rule. The new government is also unlikely to resemble the ultra-conservative theocratic rule of the Taliban.

In his recent interview with CNN, al-Jolani made two key points. He indicated he and other leaders in the group have evolved in their outlook and Islamic understanding with age, suggesting the extreme views from their youth have moderated over time. He also emphasised the opposition would be tolerant of the freedoms and rights of religious and ethnic minority groups.

The specifics of how this will manifest remain unclear. The expectation is HTS will form a conservative government in which Islam plays a dominant role in shaping social policies and lawmaking.

On the economic and foreign policy fronts, the country’s new leaders are likely to be pragmatic, open to alliances with the regional and global powers that have supported them.

4) Rebuilding the country and maintaining unity. This is needed to prevent another civil war from erupting — this time among the winners.

A recent statement from HTS’s Political Affairs Department said the new Syria will focus on construction, progress and reconciliation. The new government aims to create positive conditions for displaced Syrians to return to their country, establish constructive relations with neighbouring countries and prioritise rebuilding the economy.

Syria and the broader Middle East have entered a new phase in their modern history. Time will tell how things will unfold, but one thing is certain: it will never be the same.

Mehmet Ozalp is affiliated with Islamic Sciences and Research Academy.

– ref. After 55 years of brutal rule under the Assads, Syria is at a crossroads. Here are 4 priorities to avoid yet another war – https://theconversation.com/after-55-years-of-brutal-rule-under-the-assads-syria-is-at-a-crossroads-here-are-4-priorities-to-avoid-yet-another-war-245538

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hal Pawson, Professor of Housing Research and Policy, and Associate Director, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

Rising homelessness across Australia is overwhelming the capacity of services to offer emergency help. New evidence in the Australian Homelessness Monitor 2024, released today, confirms homelessness has soared well above pre-pandemic levels in most parts of the country.

Complementing the report’s findings from a survey of local governments, a majority of homelessness services agencies also report “significantly increased” numbers of people seeking assistance over the past 12 months alone.

Much of this escalation likely reflects the sheer lack of rental homes available and the extraordinary rent inflation experienced across Australia since 2020. National median advertised rents have jumped 51% since March 2020. Even when adjusted for inflation, the increase is 29%.

A welcome increase in government investment in social housing offers the prospect of some limited relief in the next few years. However, as none of the recent spending commitments extends far into the future, and because they generally lack any evidence-based logic, there is a high risk this recovery will prove short-lived.

Agencies are feeling the strain

Recent market conditions have created a perfect storm for homelessness services agencies. In parallel with the rising need for crisis assistance, there is less scope to help clients into secure housing. Some 76% of services were finding it “much harder” to find suitable housing for clients in mid-2024 than a year earlier.

Agency monthly caseloads are up 12% since 2019–20. There’s also a big increase in the average time clients receive support: up by 44% in the five years to 2022–23. This has forced agencies to reduce intakes of new clients seeking help.

The sector has a backlog, causing agencies to struggle to meet demand. They have been triaging applications for help. This means giving priority to people who are already homeless rather than at risk of homelessness.

While justifiable in the circumstances, this damages agencies’ ability to prevent – as opposed to relieve – homelessness.

The rental market pressures fuelling this crisis have continued to intensify, well over two years after Australia’s post-COVID reopening.

These problems would have been even worse without “extraordinary” boosts to Commonwealth Rent Assistance sanctioned by Treasurer Jim Chalmers in 2023 and 2024. In combination with routine indexation, these have raised maximum payments by 45% since early 2022.

Rising homelessness has longer-term causes too

The housing market impacts of COVID-19 disruption have aggravated homelessness in the early 2020s. But it’s only the latest phase in a much longer-term trend. This is because the housing market drivers of the problem are not (only) cyclical but structural; that is, built into how the system operates.

Housing demand and market supply have been out of sync for decades. As a result, house prices have continued to increase faster than incomes. This puts home ownership increasingly out of reach for moderate income earners.

With the path from private renting to first home ownership increasingly obstructed, even for moderate to high income earners, overall demand for tenancies has grown. This inflates sector-wide rent prices, further reducing availability of rentals affordable for people on lower incomes.

These housing market dynamics have been an underlying driver of rising rental housing stress and homelessness since the 1990s.

All the while, these tendencies have been underpinned by key tax and other policy settings that inflate housing demand and restrict supply. The federal government’s promised National Housing and Homelessness Plan must acknowledge, analyse and reconsider these policy settings.

Governments have begun to respond

As the 2022 and 2020 editions of the Homelessness Monitor identified, signs of stepped-up engagement with homelessness as a policy priority began to emerge among governments as early as 2016 in states such as New South Wales and Victoria.

Then, in 2020, several states launched large-scale, widely welcomed pandemic emergency accommodation programs for people sleeping rough and others who were homeless.

More recently, in a notable policy reversal highlighted by our new research, both federal and state governments have pledged appreciable investment in long-term social housing.

Initially led by Victoria and Queensland, followed by the Commonwealth and NSW, this new investment should deliver around 60,000 new social homes by 2030, by far the sector’s largest influx of new stock this century.

At least for a few years in the late 2020s, the promised programs might halt – at least temporarily – the trend of social housing dwindling from over 6% of all homes in the 1990s to barely 4% today. Yet any gains will remain modest relative to the scale of unmet need. Referencing this, housing and homelessness advocates have called for social rental homes to form 10% of all housing.

Even so, we should see, at least for a few years, a marked uptick in scope to help people who are homeless into secure and affordable homes. This will be the result of a surge of newly-built social units supplementing existing homes being re-let. And for more of those helped in this way, these will be homes designed and built to modern standards.

Australia can still do much better

Problematically, though, these developments have come about through incremental and disconnected policymaking. Other than in Queensland, there has been a lack of any stated rationale, strategic framing or evidence-based scaling of social housing programs.

In most cases, there has been no explicit recognition or acknowledgement of the need to keep investing much more in social housing than in the recent past. This investment must be enough, at the very least, to prevent a resumption of sector decline. Ideally, it should cover an expansion of social housing in line with known long-term needs.

It would surely be logical to include a statement of aspiration along these lines in the government’s promised National Housing and Homelessness Plan.

We cannot measurably reduce and then prevent homelessness without reducing poverty and expanding access to secure and affordable homes. Just as the current situation has come about thanks to mistaken policy choices of the past, these are challenges that could be squarely addressed by course corrections today.

Hal Pawson receives research funding from the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation (City of Melbourne), the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, the Australian Research Council and Crisis UK. He is a part-time unpaid advisor to Senator David Pocock and a non-exec director of Community Housing Canberra.

– ref. Homelessness much worse than before COVID leaves agencies battling a perfect storm – https://theconversation.com/homelessness-much-worse-than-before-covid-leaves-agencies-battling-a-perfect-storm-243148

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nichola Tyler, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology, Swinburne University of Technology

A recent bushfire in Kadnook, western Victoria, which destroyed at least one property and burned more than 1,000 hectares of land, is being investigated due to suspicion it was deliberately lit.

This is not an isolated example. About 28% of bushfires in south-east Australia are deliberately lit. The figure rises to 40% if we’re only talking about fires with a known cause.

These figures are consistent with international trends and tell us preventing arson and unsafe fire behaviour alone could significantly reduce the number of bushfires.

Despite this, prevention of deliberately lit bushfires is mostly absent from emergency, public health and climate action plans.

These fires are devastating

Deliberately lit bushfires can spread rapidly and have devastating consequences. They often occur on the edge of urban areas close to populated places, where there are both dense vegetation and flammable structures.

We see a peak in bushfires during summer when hot temperatures, low rainfall, and dry conditions make fire a more potent threat.

Climate change, land management practices, and increased interaction between people and rural areas increase our vulnerability to fire and the risks associated with deliberate fires.

The royal commission into Victoria’s devastating Black Saturday fires in 2009 reported 173 people died and an additional 414 were injured. The commission concluded at least three of the 15 fires that caused (or had the potential to cause) the greatest harm were deliberately lit.

The commission concluded we need to better understand arson. It recommended research to improve how best to prevent arson and how to detect who’s at risk of offending.

Nearly 15 years on from Black Saturday, these recommendations have not been implemented. There is also very limited evidence globally about how to prevent both bushfire arson and deliberately lit fires more broadly (for instance, fires set to structures or vehicles).

Who lights these fires?

We know little about the characteristics and psychology of people who light bushfires or how to intervene to prevent these fires.

The little research we have suggests there is no one “profile” or “mindset” associated with deliberately lighting bushfires.

But there are some risk factors or vulnerabilities we see more commonly in people who light them. These include:

• an interest or fascination with fire or fire paraphernalia. This could include an interest in watching fire, or a fascination with matches or the fire service

• experiences of social isolation, including a lack of friends or intimate relationships

• increased impulsivity

• general antisocial behaviour, such as contact with the police, truanting or property damage

• difficulties managing and expressing emotions

• problems with being assertive.

However, most people with these vulnerabilities will never light a fire.

Research shows rates of mental illness are higher in people who set fires (including schizophrenia, mood and anxiety disorders, personality dysfunction, and substance use disorders). However, mental health symptoms are rarely a direct cause of firesetting. Instead, they appear to worsen existing vulnerabilities.

Why do people light these fires?

There are many, complex reasons why people light fires. Commonly reported drivers include: relieving boredom or creating excitement, gaining positive recognition for putting out a fire (they want to be seen as a hero), as a cry for help, or because they’re angry.

However, not everyone who lights a fire intends to cause serious damage or harm. In some cases, people may not be aware of the possible consequences of lighting a fire or that the fire may spread into a bushfire.

Knowing these kinds of facts about people who light bushfires is important. However, they don’t help us prevent people from lighting fires in the first place. This is because authorities don’t always know who sets the fires.

So how can we prevent this?

First, we can learn more about why people set fires more generally, particularly those who do not attract attention from authorities.

Research in the United States, United Kingdom and New Zealand has started to investigate those who set fires but don’t attract police attention. The aim is to identify ways to prevent people lighting fires in the first place, and support them so they don’t light more.

There is almost no research in Australia or internationally into the effects of community awareness, and prevention campaigns or targeted strategies to prevent firesetting, including bushfire arson, in higher risk groups.

We know slightly more about interventions to reduce repeat firesetting. Fire safety education programs delivered by fire and rescue services show some promise as an early intervention for children and adolescents who have already set a fire, particularly those motivated by curiosity, experimentation, or who are not aware of the consequences.

There is also some evidence suggesting specialist psychological interventions can be effective in reducing vulnerabilities associated with adult firesetting. Forensic or clinical psychologists typically deliver a combination of cognitive behavioural therapy (a type of talking therapy), skills building (such as building coping skills, emotion and impulse control, and reducing their interest in fire), and fire safety education.

However, availability of firesetting interventions is patchy both in Australia and internationally. Interventions that are available are also not always tailored to people with complex needs, such as those with significant emotional or behavioural problems or mental health needs. We also don’t know if these interventions lead to a long-term change in behaviour.

Climate change is making this urgent

The continued and escalating effects of climate change makes it more urgent than ever to address the problem of deliberate firesetting, including bushfire arson.

Failing to address deliberate firesetting will have significant long-term consequences for public health, human life and the environment.

But until funding is available for Australian arson research, identifying and helping people who are more likely to set fires will continue to be based on guesswork rather than evidence.

As we enter another summer of high fire danger, our failure to fund arson research should be at the forefront of everyone’s minds.

Nichola Tyler has received funding from the University of Kent, The Royal Society of New Zealand, and Fire and Emergency New Zealand for research on understanding and preventing deliberate firesetting.

Troy McEwan has previously received funding from the RACV to conduct research into understanding and preventing deliberate firesetting.

– ref. Up to 40% of bushfires in parts of Australia are deliberately lit. But we’re not doing enough to prevent them – https://theconversation.com/up-to-40-of-bushfires-in-parts-of-australia-are-deliberately-lit-but-were-not-doing-enough-to-prevent-them-243584

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elise Waghorn, Lecturer, School of Education, RMIT University

It’s almost the end of the school year. And that means it’s “awards season” for school students.

Before the holidays, students, teachers and families will gather for speech days where awards will be handed out for academic performance, citizenship, leadership and extracurricular achievements in sport, art and music.

Schools bill these awards as a way to recognise and celebrate students’ achievements. But are they a good idea?

Why give awards?

The philosophy behind giving students awards is to reward them for success.

This stems from the behaviourism approach to education.

This highlights how external rewards can influence behaviour. But while these rewards might motivate kids in the short term, once the desire for that reward fades, the behaviour often doesn’t stick.

Read more:
Should you reward kids for success? Or is there a better way to talk about achievement?

Different kinds of motivation

Research has also shown giving awards or rewards to children can be more harmful than helpful.

When kids are offered awards, they can shift their focus from enjoying the activity to trying to earn the award. This means they might participate only for the sake of the award, rather than for the joy of learning or personal growth. This means they are motivated by extrinsic (outside) factors rather than intrinsic (internal) ones.

A 2014 US study of children in years 3 to 5 showed students who were intrinsically motivated performed better academically than their peers who were extrinsically motivated. The study used a scale to assess children’s motivation. An example of intrinsic motivation was, “I ask questions in class because I want to learn new”, while extrinsic motivation included, “I like school subjects where it’s pretty easy to just learn the answers”.

Awards can also lead children to depend on external validation. When kids get used to seeking approval through awards, they may struggle to find self-worth and motivation in their own efforts.

What about the kids who miss out?

For the kids who don’t receive awards, this can lead to feelings of inadequacy or discouragement, especially if the same few children are always being celebrated.

This situation can also create a “fixed mindset”, where kids think their abilities can’t change or improve (“I never get an award, I’m not good at school”).

This is opposed to a “growth mindset”, in which students believe their abilities can improve through hard work, good strategies and help from others.

Read more:
Parents say ‘good girl’ and ‘good boy’ all the time. Here’s why you should try to say something else

What can we do instead?

This is not to say schools should never give students awards. But it’s important to think carefully about why we are doing this and what the impact might be.

For parents – whether your child receives an award or not – there are other ways to talk about their achievement at the end of the school year.

It can help to focus no the process, rather than the product.

You can encourage your child by praising their effort and progress. This means focusing on the hard work and improvements they made, rather than just the final results.

For example, you could say something like, “I noticed how hard you worked on your reading this year”. Or, “I could see how much you cared about your final history project”. This helps kids feel valued for their efforts. This is something within their control and does not invite comparison with others.

Another effective strategy is to encourage self-reflection. Asking questions such as, “I know you found long division tricky this year. How did you overcome that challenge?”

This helps kids think about and recognise how they can grow and improve, even when things don’t go to plan.

This in turn, helps develop resilience, which is so important for their learning at school and life beyond it.

Elise Waghorn 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. Should we give students awards at school? – https://theconversation.com/should-we-give-students-awards-at-school-245358

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Danks, Associate professor in Cinema and Media Studies, RMIT University

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, released on December 9 1974, is a fascinating composite of both 1970s New Hollywood and the legacy of the women-centred melodrama of the 1930s and ‘40s.

It is now mostly remembered as an early film directed by Martin Scorsese. But it was actually a project initiated by its lead actor, Ellen Burstyn, fresh off a series of acclaimed films including The Last Picture Show (1971), The King of Marvin Gardens (1972) and The Exorcist (1973).

The film would go on to be a significant commercial success, earn Burstyn the Academy Award for Best Actress, and inspire a much less gritty and profane sitcom that would last for nine seasons and featured only one (male) member of the original cast.

A step toward Hollywood

The subsequent critical reputation of Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore is somewhat skewed by its status as an atypical Scorsese film.

The director had only made three features: Who’s That Knocking at My Door (1967), Boxcar Bertha (1972) and Mean Streets (1973). Largely working outside the mainstream, he already had a significant critical reputation as a chronicler of flawed urban ethnic masculinity.

It is also fascinating to hear, this early in his career, Scorsese reminisce about how conscious he was of his growing reputation and of not wanting to be pigeonholed into a particular mode of cinema. He actively embraced the opportunity to make his first true Hollywood film.

He also felt the need to reorientate his focus away from men – though they still appear prominently – and embrace a female-centred narrative. There was also an insistence on working with women in key creative roles, and Scorsese followed Burstyn’s lead in terms of adjusting the script, encouraging improvisation and the nuance of performance.

Although women do feature prominently in subsequent Scorsese films such as New York, New York (1977), The Age of Innocence (1993) and Killers of the Flower Moon (2023), it can be argued Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore is Scorsese’s only narrative feature that centres on female experience.

It has been criticised for its overly mild feminism. But Burstyn was keen to make a movie that focused on the everyday pressures and desires of its carefully grounded female characters.

In the relatively inhospitable masculine terrain of New Hollywood, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore is an outlier.

Scorsese is most commonly talked about as an iconoclast. But a key element of his career has also seen him operate within the system and maintain a capacity to work on large budgets and projects.

His desire to work with technologies such as 3D, large streaming companies, and actors like Leonardo DiCaprio (one of the few truly bankable actors in 21st-century cinema) have their roots in Scorsese’s employment by Warner Bros on this project.

He even expressed excitement about using the old Columbia Pictures sound stages. Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore would allow him to fuse contemporary – arguably feminist – sensibilities with the kind of star “package” designed in earlier times for actors such as Bette Davis and Joan Crawford.

Scorsese constantly toggles between cinema’s present and past, seeing them as inextricably entwined.

The path not taken

The film follows Alice (Burstyn) and her son Tommy as they travel from New Mexico to Arizona in pursuit of her dream of becoming a singer. It is one of many road movies made during this era and provides a fascinating time-capsule portrait of the desert and often ugly urban landscapes it travels through.

Although her pursuit of a career bubbles beneath the surface, the story is more concerned with the men Alice encounters and the camaraderie she forges with her fellow waitresses in a restaurant (the inevitable focus of the subsequent sitcom).

There is nothing particularly new or groundbreaking about this, but the film is most memorable for the small, often idiosyncratic scenes between Alice and her son. For the surprising moments of kindness, hard-won connection and violence Alice encounters. For the genuinely offbeat performance by Jodie Foster as Tommy’s worldly young friend. The needle drop of particular songs on the soundtrack.

Kris Kristofferson also provides an uncommonly soulful, weathered and comparatively gentle representation of masculinity.

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore represents an important watershed in Scorsese’s career, and also a path not taken.

Although he has continued to work within and to the side of the mainstream, he has rarely produced a subsequent film with such warmth and sympathy for its central characters.

As a portrait of flawed humanity, it is miles away from his next feature, Taxi Driver (1976). After that, there was perhaps no turning back. Both for better and for worse.

Adrian Danks 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. Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore at 50: the film that marks a path not taken in Scorsese’s career – https://theconversation.com/alice-doesnt-live-here-anymore-at-50-the-film-that-marks-a-path-not-taken-in-scorseses-career-243460

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

The swift and unexpected fall of the Syrian capital, Damascus, to Sunni opposition forces marks a pivotal moment in the modern history of the Middle East.

Bashar al-Assad’s regime had withstood more than a decade of uprisings, civil war and international sanctions since the onset of widespread protests in 2011. Yet, it collapsed in a remarkably short period of time.

This sudden turn of events, with the opposition advancing without significant battles or resistance, has left regional powers scrambling to assess the fallout and its broader implications.

This dramatic development signals a reshuffling of power dynamics in the region. It also raises questions about Syria’s future and the role of its neighbours and global stakeholders in managing the post-Assad landscape.

What does the future hold for Syria?

With the collapse of the Assad regime, Syria now finds itself fragmented and divided among three dominant factions, each with external backers and distinct goals:

1. Syrian opposition forces, led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham: These groups, supported by Turkey, now control central Syria, extending from the northern border with Turkey to the southern border with Jordan.

Although they share a common religious identity, the Sunni factions have a history of internal conflicts, which could hinder their ability to form a cohesive government or maintain long-term stability.

The opposition forces range from former jihadists coming from Islamic State and al-Qaeda to secular groups such as the Syrian National Army, which split from Assad’s army after the 2011 uprising.

2. Kurdish forces: The Kurdish groups control territory in northeastern Syria, bordering Turkey in the north and Iraq in the east. They continue to receive support from the United States, which has established military bases in the area. This support risks escalating tensions with Turkey, which views Kurdish empowerment as a threat to its territorial integrity.

3. Alawite forces: Pro-Assad Alawite factions, primarily situated in the coastal regions of western Syria, maintain strong ties with Iran, Iraq and Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group. These areas could serve as a stronghold for remnants of Assad-aligned groups after the opposition’s takeover, perpetuating sectarian divides.

The stark divisions among these groups, combined with the absence of a mutually acceptable mediator, suggest that Syria may now face prolonged instability and conflict.

How will this impact the region?

The swift fall of the Assad regime has profound implications for the major players in the Middle East.

The Sunni rebel forces, with strong Turkish backing, capitalised on a moment of vulnerability in Syria. The Assad regime’s allies were preoccupied — Russia with its ongoing war in Ukraine, and Iran and its proxies with their ongoing conflict with Israel. This provided a strategic opportunity for the rebels to advance swiftly across Syria to the capital, Damascus.

Turkey already effectively controls a strip of territory in northern Syria, where its military has been fighting Syrian Kurdish forces. Now, with the victory of its Syrian opposition allies, Turkey is expected to expand its political and military influence in Syria, causing more challenges for the Kurdish minority fighting for its autonomy.

Israel is also in a strategically better position. The fall of Assad disrupts the so-called “axis of resistance”, comprised of Iran, Syria and Tehran’s proxy groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Iran’s critical military supply lines to Hezbollah will likely be severed, isolating the militant group and likely weakening it even further.

Additionally, the fragmentation of Syria into ethnic and religious factions could diminish the regional focus on Israel, providing space for it to pursue its broader strategic goals. After Israel agreed to a ceasefire with Hezbollah last month, for example, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasised a shift in focus to countering the “Iranian threat”.

Iran, meanwhile, has the most to lose. Assad was a crucial ally in Iran’s regional proxy network. And the collapse of his government follows the significant damage that Israel has already inflicted on its other partners, Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran’s regional influence has now been severely diminished, leaving it more vulnerable to direct conflict with Israel.

The fragmentation of Syria also poses significant security risks to its neighbouring countries – Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon. Refugee flows, cross-border violence and sectarian tensions are likely to escalate. Turkey is already hosting more than 3 million Syrian refugees – many of whom it hopes will return home now that Assad’s government is gone.

For Iraq and Lebanon, this instability could exacerbate their fragile political and economic situations. The Balkanisation of Syria along ethnic and religious lines could encourage other groups in the region to rebel against governments in the pursuit of their own autonomy. This risks entrenching divisions and prolonging conflict across the region.

While many Syrians have celebrated Assad’s fall, it remains to be seen whether their lives will improve much. With the absence of a unified and internationally recognised government in Syria, sanctions are unlikely to be lifted. This will further strain an already devastated Syrian economy, deepening the humanitarian crisis and potentially fuelling extremism.

Ali Mamouri 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. Bashar al-Assad’s regime has fallen in Syria. How will this impact an already fractured region? – https://theconversation.com/bashar-al-assads-regime-has-fallen-in-syria-how-will-this-impact-an-already-fractured-region-245539