Four close calls on Sydney Airport runways in as many weeks have put air traffic management in the spotlight.

It’s too early to determine the exact cause of each one. But four ground-safety occurrences at Australia’s busiest airport in a little over three weeks raise an obvious question: how common are occurrences like these, and are they becoming more frequent?

To examine the broader pattern, I analysed Australian Transport Safety Bureau data from 2003 to 2025 for Australian commercial air transport, focusing on runway incursions (the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person in a protected runway area) and taxiing collisions or near collisions (an aircraft colliding or nearly colliding with another aircraft, person or object while taxiing).

What happened at Sydney Airport?

The most recent incident occurred just after 8am last Tuesday, when two planes were given permission to use the same runway at the same time. Luckily, one plane stopped when its crew saw the other plane.

A little over a week earlier, on August 9, there were two more incidents in less than three hours.

At 7:20am, a Jetstar Airbus A320 preparing to depart for the Gold Coast encountered an empty Qatar Airways Boeing 777 being towed across a taxiway. Both planes stopped abruptly. One Jetstar cabin crew member sustained a serious injury.

Then, at about 10am, a Virgin Australia Boeing 737 bound for Perth began its take-off sequence on a runway as a Qantas 737 crossed another runway ahead. Both crews reported having received the relevant clearance from air traffic control. The Virgin crew stopped as air traffic control cancelled its take-off clearance.

On July 27, air traffic control cleared a Qantas Boeing 737 to cross a runway while a smaller plane was still landing. Air traffic control detected the issue and alerted both crews, with the 737 stopping after passing the holding point.

Near-collisions have increased significantly

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigates and reports on safety incidents involving planes, helicopters, trains and boats. These incidents include those that happen during taxiing, takeoff and landing.

Raw counts of reported occurrences can be misleading because aviation activity has varied substantially, particularly during the COVID pandemic. More flying creates more risk. So I also calculated occurrence rates per million flight hours, for both domestic aviation and all commercial air transport, which includes domestic aviation as well as other forms of aviation such as freight and charter.

For domestic aviation, analysis of the annual data from 2003 to 2025 shows a significant increasing underlying trend in both the number and rate of taxiing collisions or near-collisions. Across the period, the number increased on average by about one additional occurrence every three years. The significant increase in the rate indicates this trend cannot simply be explained by growth in aviation activity.

Across all commercial air transport, taxiing collisions or near-collisions have also increased significantly in number, but not in rate. This suggests increased aviation activity explains at least part of the rise.

Runway incursions show the clearest commercial air transport trend, with significant increases in both their number and rate per million flight hours. Across the period, the number increased on average by about three additional runway incursions every two years.

Neither the count nor rate of domestic runway incursions has increased significantly.

The distinction between number and rate matters. Increasing occurrence counts can reflect greater aviation activity, while an increasing rate indicates the number of occurrences are rising faster than the amount of flying.

Frequency is only half the picture

Aviation safety occurrences are classified as:

• accidents (where serious injury/death or substantial aircraft damage/destruction actually occurred).
• serious incidents (where an accident was narrowly avoided)
• incidents (all other occurrence, which affects or could affect the safety of operation)

This reflects both their consequences and how close they came to a substantially worse outcome.

The four recent Sydney occurrences illustrate this. The July runway incursion and Jetstar/Qatar taxiing near-collision are classified as serious incidents, while the Virgin/Qantas runway incursion is classified as an incident.

The fourth occurrence has not yet appeared in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s database. But the bureau has indicated it will also be classified as an incident because there was no immediate risk of collision.

The most striking result from the data is for domestic taxiing collisions and near-collisions. While accidents account for only 0.05% of all domestic aviation events, they account for 2.16% of taxiing events. Three of the 29 domestic aviation accidents recorded since 2003 were taxiing collisions. That’s more than one in ten.

Runway incursions have in general been much less serious. Almost 98% were classified as incidents, with accidents absent from the domestic data and accounting for only 0.10% of commercial air transport runway incursions.

But although most runway incursions are classified as incidents, they can create the conditions for a collision if other safety barriers fail.

Should passengers be concerned?

Four occurrences at one airport in less than a month understandably attract attention. But a cluster does not by itself demonstrate that Sydney Airport has suddenly become unsafe.

The occurrences were operationally different, and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigations will determine how each developed and why the available safety barriers did not prevent the conflicts from arising.

Some have suggested air traffic control staffing pressures may be relevant. For example, Civil Air president Scott Nugent said there are not enough air traffic controllers in Australia, that Sydney Airport has relied heavily on overtime, and that some controllers may be working more than 20 additional hours a week.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau will also examine whether understaffing at Sydney Airport played any role in the recent occurrences.

Whatever the investigations ultimately find about the causes of these recent occurrences, the historical data answer a broader question. What matters is not whether more occurrences are being reported, but whether they are becoming more frequent relative to aviation activity and whether their severity is changing.

For runway incursions involving commercial air transport, the Australian data show a statistically significant increase in both occurrence numbers and the rate per million flight hours. The same is true for domestic taxiing collisions and near-collisions.

That does not establish the cause of the recent Sydney events. It does, however, suggest that the longer-term increase in runway incursions and taxiing collisions and near-collisions warrants attention.

Graham Wild is a member of the Royal Aeronautical Society Australian Division, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/25/airport-runway-collisions-and-near-misses-are-happening-more-frequently-22-years-of-data-show/

It’s a familiar experience for many Australians. Shopping at discount supermarket chain Aldi, you see an off-brand product that looks similar to a major brand’s product you know and love. You decide to buy it, because not only does it look familiar, it also costs much less than you would pay elsewhere.

Aldi has successfully used this dupe or “lookalike” strategy for decades. However, the approach is not without risk, particularly in the eyes of Australian copyright law.

Last week, Aldi lost a bid to overturn a 2024 Federal Court ruling that the packaging on three products in its Mamia baby snack range infringed the copyright of the rival Bellies brand, owned by a company called Hampden Holdings IP.

Here’s what this case can tell us about the line between being inspired by a competitor’s design, versus infringing on copyright.

The allure of lookalikes

By deliberately taking inspiration from competing brands, Aldi can tap into shoppers’ familiarity with products they know, while offering an attractive, lower price.

The supermarket has hardly tried to be coy about this marketing strategy. A now-famous advertising campaign for Aldi from the 2010s had the slogan “Like Brands, Only Cheaper”.

Protecting an expression, not an idea itself

When thinking about how copyright applies to any kind of packaging, it must be noted that copyright protects the expression of an idea, rather than an idea, concept or style.

For example, the idea to make baby snack packaging appeal to parents by using an orange cartoon animal on the front is a concept. Using a white background for a package is a design choice.

It is only when an orange creature or a blue owl is produced on packaging with a white background that the actual expression of these packages may be protected under copyright. The snack packaging artwork is classified as an artistic work.

How much copying is too much?

Aldi’s Mamia range of baby puffs snack products first went on sale in 2021.

Hampden Holdings, the company that owns the branding for the Baby Bellies, Little Bellies and Mighty Bellies snack ranges, launched legal action against Aldi in 2022 regarding 11 products, having already made formal complaints.

One of the tests for determining copyright infringement is called the “substantial similarity” test.

In this context, this test examines whether one product’s branding has reproduced a substantial part of another’s. It requires a causal connection between both products and a degree of objective similarity.

In other words, did the designers of one product access the other when creating theirs – and if so, how similar are the two?

In this case, evidence suggested a causal connection did exist. This was because the court heard Aldi’s design agency used their competitor’s products as a benchmark when designing their own packaging.

In the 2024 trial judgement, it was found Aldi had followed the “architecture” of the Hampden products.

However, using a competitor’s product for inspiration does not necessarily amount to copyright infringement. Rather, it is a question of degree and fact.

In the trial judgement, the degree of objective similarity between each product was compared systematically, with a checklist-like approach.

The court then assessed whether these identified elements amounted to a breach of copyright law by Aldi, ruling that for three products, it did.

Aldi goes ‘slightly backwards overall’

Aldi appealed (and Hampden cross-appealed) this ruling, with arguments there were flaws in the approach taken and findings given by the trial judge in 2024.

In the appeal proceedings, the Full Court – a panel of three Federal Court judges – found the approach the judge had taken in the initial ruling was flawed, because it did not engage in a side-by-side comparison of the alleged Aldi duplicates of the Hampden products.

This included that it needed to focus more on the overall significance of original elements found in Hampden’s packaging, and – when taken together – the extent to which a particular Aldi product’s packaging was similar.

While Aldi did win some of its appeal, it went “slightly backwards overall”, according to the judgement. That’s because the Full Court upheld the infringement findings – and found that two additional Mamia products were also in breach.

The rise of the dupe

There is a bigger story here. Businesses are increasingly producing dupes of their competitors’ products that sit somewhere between inspiration and infringement.

Consumers are drawn to these products, because they promise the look or functionality of a more expensive product at a lower price. But where a dupe sits in the eyes of Australian copyright law requires individual, nuanced assessment.

A product might look similar to a competitor’s and be considered lawful, while another may infringe copyright – the short answer is “it depends”.

The key takeaway is this: designing a dupe of a successful product is not an inherently unlawful commercial strategy. However, deliberately copying the distinctive elements that make the original product recognisable runs the risk of becoming a copyright liability.

Wellett Potter is a member of the Copyright Society of Australia and the Asia-Pacific Copyright Association.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/25/aldi-is-famous-for-its-dupes-wheres-the-line-between-clever-lookalike-and-copyright-breach/

Some private schools have begun asking parents to sign a code of conduct to try and stop abusive behaviour towards teachers.

In media reports, some principals have called out parents for a sense of entitlement, bullying of staff and refusing to admit when their child has misbehaved.

Public schools are also taking new steps to try and curtail abusive parents.

Victoria and South Australia have introduced laws to give principals powers to ban abusive parents from school grounds. This includes banning parents who are abusive in person, over email and phone or on social media. New South Wales is also considering similar laws.

Why have such strong measures become necessary?

How serious is the problem?

Parents need to be able to question school decisions, raise concerns and advocate for their children.

These are all important parts of meaningful parent engagement with education. But research clearly shows abusive behaviour towards teachers has been growing.

For 15 years, Australian survey research has tracked school leaders’ experiences – this includes principals, deputy principals and other senior leaders. This has found parents and caregivers are a significant and growing source of threatening and abusive behaviour.

In 2025, they were identified as a source in almost two thirds of reported threats of violence – in 2011, this figure was less than 25%. In 2025, nearly nine in ten cases of cyberbullying of school principals came from parents and caregivers.

The impact is not confined to overt threats. Research tells us school leaders also manage persistent complaints, aggressive communication, and expectations of constant availability from parents.

Teachers also report similar experiences, including excessive communication demands, verbal abuse and threatening behaviour.

Why is this happening?

Over recent decades, expectations of what schools can and should provide for students and families have expanded. Greater school choice and accountability have also changed the relationship between families and schools, with increased expectations around access, responsiveness and influence over educational decisions.

Research has identified a more consumer-oriented relationship with schools. For school leaders, this can mean expectations of immediate responses, challenges to professional decisions, demands for individualised outcomes, and complaints being escalated when families are dissatisfied with a school’s response.

Digital communication has made it easier for families and schools to communicate. It has also changed the speed, reach and consequences of these interactions.

For example, concerns can quickly move into parent WhatsApp groups, social media, or other community networks. So disagreements can be amplified well beyond the original interaction.

Laws can protect staff, but …

School staff have the same right to a safe workplace as anyone else.

But laws or codes of conduct only establish boundaries, restrict access and provide recourse when behaviour becomes unsafe. They cannot create respectful behaviour or rebuild trust once a relationship has deteriorated.

This is why legislation should be understood as protection, rather than prevention. If a principal needs to stop a parent entering school grounds or contacting staff, the relationship is already in serious difficulty.

So what can schools and governments do?

No single intervention can prevent conflict between parents and schools.

Clear expectations around communication and staff availability can establish boundaries early. This is where parent codes of conduct or behaviour agreements may be useful, by making expectations about respectful communication and the consequences of unacceptable behaviour explicit.

But there is limited evidence that contracts themselves can prevent or resolve conflict once relationships have seriously deteriorated.

School leaders and teachers also need better preparation to manage difficult conversations with parents, recognise when conflict is escalating, and know when to seek further support. They also need organisational backing, so they are not left managing a situation alone until it becomes untenable. This includes clear escalation process and senior or system-level support when interactions become persistent, unreasonable or abusive.

There will, however, be circumstances when these approaches are no longer enough. When behaviour becomes threatening, intimidating or abusive, the priority must shift from repairing the relationship to protecting the people involved.

What now?

Schools need to remain places where families can engage, question and disagree, while also being a workplace where staff are safe. Neither should come at the expense of the other.

A law can prohibit abusive behaviour, but it cannot produce respectful behaviour. It can protect staff when a relationship has broken down, but it cannot rebuild the trust that has been lost.

That work has to begin much earlier, with clear expectations about communication, complaints and acceptable behaviour established before conflict occurs. Education systems also need to be prepared to intervene when relationships begin to deteriorate.

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

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/25/parents-are-increasingly-abusive-towards-teachers-and-principals-how-can-schools-respond/

Adelaide has spent decades building its identity as a “festival city”, yet 2026 will be the final OzAsia Festival after 20 years. Since 2007, OzAsia has showcased Asian and Asian-Australian art, literature, music and public debate.

The festival’s presenter, Adelaide Festival Centre, says Asian voices will be programmed year-round from next year onward, while The Lucky Dumpling Market will continue to be held each spring.

Adelaide Festival Centre chief executive Kate Gould framed this as a strategic move:

having a dedicated OzAsia Festival that’s about Asian arts doesn’t really represent the fact that Asian voices also want to see a year-round presence at the centre.

But it raises broader questions about the importance of cultural festivals to the fabric of a society, and what can be lost when they disappear.

Visibility matters

More year-round arts programming is always welcome – but festivals serve a different purpose. Their power comes from concentration. For a limited period, people gather in the same place, cultural activity becomes highly visible, and everyday routines are interrupted.

Festival researchers call this liminality. It can create communitas, a temporary sense of connection and belonging among people sharing an experience. Research on festivals and liminality shows these experiences can continue to shape how people relate to others after returning to everyday life.

A festival focused on Asian and Asian-Australian art and culture matters even more right now, given the renewed social division around migration. Anti-Asian racism was widely documented during the COVID pandemic. And we have since seen a number of anti-immigration demonstrations held across major cities, including Adelaide.

Cultural authority and authorship

Diversity Arts Australia’s 2019 Shifting the Balance report found culturally and linguistically diverse Australians made up only 9% of 1,980 leaders (such as board members, chief executive officers and creative directors) across 200 major cultural organisations. About half (51%) of these organisations had no culturally and linguistically diverse representation at the leadership level.

Similarly, Creative Australia’s Artists as Workers report found only 3% of artists surveyed in 2023 were born in Asian countries, compared with 15% of the overall workforce.

Research has also shown Australia’s ethnic-minority artists often have less access to financial resources and professional career networks, despite having strong artistic skill, knowledge and qualifications.

My research, published last year with Ting Zhang and Ying Zhu, explored how Asian-Australian artists are subject to structural exclusion. Based on 21 interviews, we found they face stereotyping, network gatekeeping, and the burden of unpaid cultural labour. They also have fewer role models, and limited influence over programming, funding and strategic decisions.

Under the leadership of former Artistic Director Annette Shun Wah, and current Festival Director Joon-Yee Kwok, OzAsia became a platform for artist development and community-building.

The Artist Lab, developed with Contemporary Asian Australian Performance and held alongside the festival, helps artists build networks, gain mentoring and skills, and connect with South Australian arts organisations. It would be sad if OzAsia removed this dedicated development pathway.

With the shift towards year-round programming, and the loss of Asian-Australian leadership at the festival, who will have the authority to decide which stories are told, how they are told, and by whom?

A strategic bridge with Asia

Australia is geographically embedded in the Indo-Pacific, a region with about 4.8 billion people, or 58% of the world’s population. Our political, economic and diplomatic future is closely tied to Asia. And this is increasingly reflected in our demographics.

In 2025, 32% of Australians were born overseas (up from 24.2% in 2005), with India and China among the largest overseas-born populations.

Moreover, Creative Australia’s 2025 National Arts Participation Survey found 40% of Australians aged 15 and above participated in the arts to connect with their cultural background, language group or community (up from 32% in 2022).

But OzAsia isn’t just for Asian communities. For non-Asian Australians, it’s an opportunity to engage with Asian stories, perspectives and artistic practices.

More broadly, it provides a space where different communities can recognise cultural differences and celebrate them together. It also holds strategic value as a platform for long-term cultural exchange.

Reducing the festival to the Lucky Dumpling food market risks losing narratives that explore the complexity of the Asian-Australian experience.

The gap between policy and practice

South Australia has built much of its cultural identity and infrastructure around festivals. Yet, in less than a year, Adelaide Festival Centre has removed two longstanding events from its portfolio. The Adelaide Guitar Festival ended late last year, after 18 years.

This is significant for a city that promotes itself as “Australia’s festival capital” and a UNESCO City of Music.

The City of Adelaide, the state government, and federal policy all emphasise the importance of cultural infrastructure, diversity, participation and international engagement.

The City of Adelaide’s cultural policy explicitly defines festivals as “cultural infrastructure”, while the state policy commits to strengthening South Australian festivals and events.

How will these policy ambitions be delivered as festival platforms disappear?

Boram Lee 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/25/ozasia-festival-to-end-after-20-years-in-a-huge-blow-for-asian-australian-art-and-culture/

With the world’s attention focused on the ongoing US-Iran conflict and the delicate negotiations over the fate of Gaza, it’s easy to overlook what’s happening in the other occupied Palestinian territories.

In recent days, the Israeli government has given final approval to a plan to build a new settlement in an area of the West Bank known as E1, east of Jerusalem. The government has opened up tenders for the construction of some 1,200 housing units.

Settlements in E1 would effectively split the West Bank into two parts, cutting off the Palestinian city of Ramallah in the north from Bethlehem in the south. It would also separate East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. Palestinians consider East Jerusalem an indispensable part of any future Palestinian state.

Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, indicated this was precisely the point. He said every new settlement in the West Bank puts “another nail in the coffin” of a Palestinian state.

Israel has held off on approving settlements in E1 for decades due to international pressure, particularly from previous US administrations that have tried to maintain the possibility of a future Palestinian state, however remote.

A joint statement by nearly two dozen Western nations condemned the move to develop E1 last week and called “for its immediate reversal in the strongest terms”.

However, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political fortunes waning in the lead-up to elections in October, it appears he is willing to risk international opposition to shore up votes at home, with the belief the Trump administration will shield Israel diplomatically.

The move comes amid rising violence from Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank, which has led to at least 80 deaths this year.

Earlier this month, settlers laid siege to the homes of Palestinian families in the village of Qusra. They cut off water and electricity supplies, damaged orchards and prevented the families from leaving their homes.

The international reaction was swift. Even the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, a longtime supporter of Israeli settlements, denounced what he called the “inexcusable and repugnant” actions of the settlers in Qusra.

The Israeli police, however, didn’t make any arrests. And the Israeli soldiers sent to the area threw clothing belonging to a families out of the window of their homes.

Expanded settlements in West Bank

The situation in Qusra is emblematic of a rapidly deteriorating security situation for Palestinians across the West Bank since the October 2023 attacks by Hamas and Israel’s invasion of Gaza.

The United Nations estimates thousands of Palestinian homes have been demolished, seized or sealed by Israeli soldiers or settlers. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced.

In June, Amnesty International published a report arguing settler attacks are not being conducted by rogue extremists, but are instead an integral part of an organised state policy. The report concludes the Israeli government is actively engaged in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank.

Since October 2023, Israel has also expropriated more Palestinian land and expanded the construction of settlements that are considered illegal by many states under international law.

In 2024, Peace Now, an Israeli activist group that tracks settlement expansion, revealed that Israel had declared 23 square kilometres of the West Bank as state land. This was the largest transfer of land to Israeli control in decades. Such declarations mean Palestinians cannot own the land; instead, the government can lease it to Israelis.

And earlier this year, the Israeli Security Cabinet approved 34 new settlements in the West Bank. This brings the total number of settlements established since Netanyahu’s right-wing government came to power in 2022 to more than 100.

Steady incursions at East Jerusalem holy site

In addition to the proposed building of settlements in the E1 area, Israel is also seeking to assert its sovereignty over Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, the site of the al-Aqsa Mosque compound and Western Wall. The site in the Old City of Jerusalem is sacred for Jews, Muslims and Christians.

Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967. In their 1994 peace agreement, Israel agreed that Jordan would retain custodianship of the site.

Under the agreement, only Muslims have the right to pray in the compound that contains the al-Aqsa Mosque. Jews are permitted to pray at the Western Wall.

The issue of access to the compound is so sensitive that Palestinians consider any entry by Israelis to be extremely provocative. It’s seen as an assertion of Israeli sovereignty over the third-holiest site in Islam and an essential part of any future Palestinian state.

For example, when then-Opposition Leader Ariel Sharon visited the compound in 2000 accompanied by hundreds of police, it was considered one of the sparks of the Second Intifada (2000–05).

In 2021, when Israeli security forces prevented thousands of Palestinians from praying at the compound during Ramadan, it triggered a brief, deadly conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

And last month, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, accompanied by armed police and more than 4,000 supporters, entered the Temple Mount site to pray and wave Israeli flags. Ben-Gvir said “everywhere, people understand that the State of Israel is the sovereign authority” at the site.

Jordan has been very concerned by these persistent Israeli incursions. On August 5, it convened an emergency meeting of Arab and Muslim foreign ministers to discuss what it called the “imminent” threat of an Israeli takeover of the site.

Jordan’s foreign minister also warned that any attempt by Israel to alter the status quo at the site “could trigger a religious conflict that could reverberate beyond Palestine and Jordan into the whole Muslim world”.

What all of this means

This pattern of events shows the Israeli government is trying to change the “facts on the ground” in the the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It is doing this by expelling Palestinians from what little territory they still inhabit and asserting sovereignty over Palestinian lands and religious sites. This would make any future Palestinian state impossible.

If these actions continue, they will be the death knell for any chance at peace between Israel and the broader Muslim world.

Martin Kear 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/25/israel-is-cementing-its-control-over-the-west-bank-and-east-jerusalem-while-the-world-is-distracted/

It can take years for someone to be diagnosed with endometriosis. This can mean ongoing pain, repeated appointments and uncertainty, and delayed treatment.

However, two new tests are being trialled in the United Kingdom. One is a saliva test; the other measures electrical activity in the gut. Over the next three years, these non-invasive tests will be used in general practice patients to see if they can help diagnose endometriosis much sooner.

The promise of these and other non-invasive tests to speed up diagnosis is compelling. But the evidence is not there yet for their widespread use.

Why is endometriosis so difficult to diagnose?

Endometriosis is a condition where tissue like the lining of the uterus is found outside the uterus. It commonly causes severe period and pelvic pain, pain during intercourse, bowel and bladder problems, and difficulty becoming pregnant.

Diagnosis involves assessing symptoms, a physical examination, imaging and sometimes surgery. Ultrasound and MRI can diagnose endometriosis when performed by a health professional with specific extra training.

But a normal scan does not rule out endometriosis. So laparoscopy, surgery using a small camera inserted into the abdomen, may still be considered.

Then there are the two non-invasive tests being trialled in the UK but are not available in Australia. What can these offer?

Endotest is a saliva test

Endotest analyses a saliva sample for specific markers called microRNAs – tiny molecules involved in controlling how genes behave. Specific patterns of these microRNAs can indicate whether endometriosis is likely present.

A French study of 971 patients across multiple centres reported the test was highly accurate.

But most participants had endometriosis. That’s unlike typical GP patients presenting with symptoms of pelvic pain, only some of whom will have endometriosis.

Pelvic pain can have bowel, bladder, muscular and other causes. So we don’t know if the test performs as well in the typical mix of patients you’d expect to see in general practice.

EndoSure looks at your gut

EndoSure detects endometriosis by measuring electrical signals in the gut via sensor pads on the abdomen. The test takes 45 minutes and can take place in a GP or specialist clinic.

A study of 154 women reported 95% sensitivity (the ability to correctly detect endometriosis) and 96% specificity (the ability to correctly rule out people who do not have endometriosis).

However, most of the evidence supporting the specificity figure came from controls who did not have surgery to confirm they really did not have endometriosis.

Preliminary findings from a later study compared just 25 women with confirmed endometriosis with 25 controls. Most of the women in the control group had abdominal symptoms but were, again, not surgically confirmed as endometriosis-free.

The study was also not able to establish whether other conditions could interfere with the test. The researchers noted adenomyosis might produce similar signals.

More recent, unpublished findings presented at a scientific meeting found EndoSure detected everyone who had endometriosis. However, its reported specificity was just 5%, compared with around 96% in the earlier study. This means 95% of people without endometriosis still tested positive.

If confirmed in larger studies, that would raise serious questions about its usefulness in general practice, where doctors need to distinguish endometriosis from the many other conditions that can cause similar symptoms.

How about other tests?

Other non-invasive tests for endometriosis are in development, including blood tests. Not all are widely available or have been independently validated.

EndomTest is a blood test available in the United States that combines its results with clinical information. But the US Food and Drug Administration has not approved it for widespread use.

Published results found high specificity for diagnosing endometriosis. But it had much lower sensitivity, meaning it could miss many people who have endometriosis.

Australia’s PromarkerEndo measures proteins in blood. Importantly, testing has involved patients with symptoms but where surgery has found no endometriosis. This is a strong comparison because, when used clinically, the test has to distinguish between patients with similar symptoms who do and don’t actually have the disease. Results have been promising across early-stage disease, although further independent validation is needed.

US-developed DotEndo examines microRNAs in blood. Earlier research found a panel of six-microRNAs could distinguish endometriosis from other gynaecological conditions. A large, multi-centre study is evaluating its use in around 750 patients.

Impressive numbers need context

When we evaluate a diagnostic test, the question is not simply “How accurate is this test?” but “How well does it work in the people who will actually use it?”.

Even so, for a test to be useful, it should change what happens next by raising suspicion, prompting investigation, guiding treatment, or providing an explanation sooner.

So such tests may help answer “Could this be endometriosis?”. But imaging will still be needed to show where and how extensive the disease is. Doctors will still need to assess adhesions – scar-like tissue that can cause pelvic organs to become stuck together.

This mapping guides treatment and, if surgery is considered, its complexity and which specialists may be involved. If such tests help patients access specialist ultrasound earlier, this could be useful.

The same care is needed with a negative result. Unless a test reliably rules out endometriosis in the population being tested, a negative result should not be used to dismiss persistent symptoms. Even without endometriosis, pelvic pain still deserves investigation and care.

Mathew Leonardi reports grants from Australian MRFF, AbbVie, Afynia/SOPHIE, CanSAGE, CIHR, Endometriosis Australia, Hamilton Health Sciences, Health Canada, Hyivy/MITACS/SOPHIE, Medical Research Future Fund/Imagendo, Myant Inc/MITACS, GE HealthCare/MITACS, and Pfizer; honoraria for lectures/writing from AIUM, AbbVie, Bayer, Canon, GE Healthcare, Gideon Richter, Knight Therapeutics, Pfizer, Samsung, TerSera; consultancy work with AbbVie, Gesynta, Hologic, Imagendo; travel support from Cape Healthcare, Hologic and AbbVie; and affiliations with Endometriosis360. He holds leadership roles on the World Endometriosis Society Board, ISUOG Next Generation, and the Gynecologic Ultrasound Society, all outside the submitted work. Afynia is currently validating a blood biomarker test in a study in which Mathew Leonardi is the principal investigator.

Narges Kalani 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/25/a-new-saliva-test-for-endometriosis-is-in-trials-what-this-and-other-new-endo-tests-mean-for-you/

The grind of packing school lunches is returning for many families this fall. Ensuring children’s access to nutritious food at school is a daily act of care that fuels their learning, nutritional well-being and sense of connection.

But this essential work takes a toll on caregivers and family budgets.

Read more:
‘So much mental load’: Mothers speak about school lunches

Additional hurdles exist for food-insecure families whose children are twice as likely to report missing school lunch altogether.

School food has historically been the responsibility of individual families in Canada, deviating from most affluent countries with long histories of school-provided meals. But substantial changes are now underway following the 2024 launch of Canada’s first National School Food Policy and the National School Food Program.

As federal school food funding rolls out, developing rigorous, transparent and well-governed systems for collecting data and sharing lessons learned will be important. As school food scholars, we hope researchers, policymakers, schools and advocates can collaboratively nourish a culture of evidence-based policymaking to sustain programs into the future.

Food is a source of care, support

Our work documenting the rollout of new lunch programs in Canada finds that students talk about food as a source of care and support, with impacts on their school experience beyond the meals’ nutritional content.

Kids taught us that social relationships and care work are important but overlooked benefits of school lunch programs. Working closely with students also highlighted how important school food workers and trusted adults are.

The undervalued labour of lunch has been thoughtfully documented in the United States.

But in Canada, little scholarly or public attention underscores these important roles or addresses how to train, engage and document the impacts of lunch workers who provide the nutritious and locally adapted menus and caring dynamics needed for programs to thrive.

Read more:
School lunches, the French way: It’s not just about nutrition, but togetherness and bon appetit

Ambitious vision

Canada now has an ambitious vision for improving access to school food. If done right, this would reduce food-related spending for families, improve children’s nutrition and learning outcomes, support local economies, promote sustainability and buffer children from hunger during school.

All territories, provinces and First Nations governments have signed bilateral funding agreements with the federal government to build or expand school food programs, with $1 billion committed for 2024-29.

The Coalition for Healthy School Food estimates that provinces, territories and municipal governments will kick in an extra $401 million annually as of 2025-26.

The federal government estimates that 80 per cent of schools now offer school food programs of some sort, a notable increase.

Canadian school food research

In April, multiple federal bodies committed a combined $12.6 million to launch grants to fund prospective proposals for research projects that assess the governance, policy delivery, and health and well-being impacts of school food programs.

These projects will build on a $1 million investment committed last year.

However, the proposals have been capped at only three years. That’s a very short time to study complex cross-national systems changes that will take years to ramp up, and even longer to measure long-term sustainability.

Ongoing research will be important, since school food researchers, the Coalition of Healthy School Food and federal government consultations have identified lack of data and governance structures as a key roadblock to progress.

Long-term data and surveillance systems are now needed to monitor program growth and changes related to things like:

• How many schools are offering food? Do they include full lunches or breakfasts or mainly snacks, every day or sporadically?
• Are nutritious, sustainable and culturally appropriate options offered?
• What does it cost? And who pays?
• What are the impacts on local employment and economies?
• How many students have access?
• What impacts and challenges ensue?

It will be important that governments and researchers involved in monitoring school food programs think carefully before making new asks of schools to develop research projects, especially if multiple research projects are trying to collect data from the same districts.

Need for co-ordination

School food in Canada is complex with multiple promising potential pathways to expansion.
While schools are largely funded by provincial and territorial governments,
the success of school food programs must also contend with local district governance and complex and changing local dynamics. These include:

• differences in food environments, including infrastructure like commercial-grade kitchens, storage and eating spaces;
• differing tastes, expectations and cultural and culinary norms;
• costs, staffing, leadership models, engagement with community partners and other supports;
• integration with school curriculum;
• competing local demands.

Many other challenges remain.

Researchers are eager to build on promising case studies and research about children’s dietary quality, food insecurity experiences, health and educational outcomes.

Schools who are interested in learning more about engaging in consistent and comparable evaluations of their school food programs to potentially feed into wider policy discussion can consult the recent Evaluation & Monitoring Guide on School Food Programs in Canada.

School Food Programs in Canada gives an overview of how different approaches to school food might impact communities, ranging from remote Indigenous communities to Canada’s biggest cities and rural areas.

Expanded collaboration needed

Interdisciplinary and new approaches to collaboration are needed so that researchers and practitioners (like teachers, school food activists, volunteers and anyone working to design, implement, improve or advocate for school food programs) who have knowledge of complex school food systems and local community can collaborate effectively.

Nutritional assessment specialists, economists, sustainability experts, educational and sociological researchers and Indigenous knowledge holders and story tellers and many others are also needed.

The Black School Food Working Group and the Indigenous School Food Circle are working to centre voices that are often marginalized in health research.

A multi-institutional school food research centre like others already existing in Canada, with a strong focus on community-academic partnerships, would ensure we don’t end up with research gaps and wasted efforts.

Researchers and policymakers must consider carefully which voices and community-based expertise are missing from research planning and dissemination, especially since barriers to participation remain.

For community-based expertise to enhance research development and sharing, it will be important that research takes this seriously and funds support this too.

Ongoing conversations about school food

In June, the first School Food for All Nourishing Futures conference convened over 500 school food champions, including educators and school food advocates, community leaders, researchers, public and health professionals for conversations about the future of school food and research.

Farm to Cafeteria Canada and the Coalition for Healthy School Food have proposed seeking paths towards a follow-up forum in future years.

Such gatherings and systems to co-ordinate and convene will be valuable additions to ensure that lessons learned from scholarship have avenues to directly be informed by and shared with schools and programs on the ground.

Jennifer Black receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and Michael Smith Health Research BC among other financial supports from the University of British Columbia. She is also the lead of school food and lunchbox packing work for her household which includes school-aged children.

Rachel Engler-Stringer receives funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, the Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation and the University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/25/lunchbox-labour-is-back-heres-how-canadas-new-school-food-program-can-grow/

When the sky becomes orange and hazy from wildfire smoke, modern humans are at greater risk than our earlier ancestors would have been.

This is because mutations that occurred tens of thousands of years ago made humans exquisitely sensitive to some types of air pollution.

Wildfire smoke includes two dangerous components: volatile chemicals, which include the things you can smell, and small particles, which you can’t. Both these components cause a lot of inflammation when we breathe them in and can trigger asthma attacks, and exacerbate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart attacks.

We don’t have any immune defences to stop the volatile chemicals, but we do have a few layers of protection from the small particles.

Some of these particles get trapped in the mucus that lines our nose, mouth and lungs and are cleared out as the mucus moves up and out of our lungs and is swallowed. (Count how many times you swallow while you read this article — you probably do it so automatically you aren’t aware of just how often you are helping clear the gunk out of your lungs).

Macrophages and the scourge of tuberculosis

Particles that aren’t cleared out by the mucus are generally eaten up by immune cells called macrophages. Macrophages are voracious eaters (their name means “big eater”) of things that are about the size, shape and electrostatic charge of bacteria. Unfortunately, an evolutionary quirk means that macrophages found in humans are less good at eating the particles found in air pollution and wildfire smoke than the macrophages found in other animals.

The size of particle that causes us the most grief is about the same size as a bacterium (about 2.5 microns). One particular type of bacteria called Mycobacterium tuberculosis is a particular problem for our macrophages. M. tuberculosis causes tuberculosis, or TB, and has been a scourge of humanity since even before we were humans.

Most bacteria do everything they can to stay away from macrophages because once they are eaten they are destroyed, but M. tuberculosis can’t survive unless it’s inside a macrophage. Once it gets into a macrophage, there’s a macrophage-pathogen quick draw and if the macrophage doesn’t win and kill it immediately, M. tuberculosis will go on to cause an infection.

TB is treatable, but it still kills over a million people each year. Sometimes it will make its host get sick and die right away, sometimes it will be a long and protracted fight between the immune system and TB until the host wastes away, and sometimes it will lie latent and bide its time until the host gets old or its immune system gets distracted fighting other things and lets its guard down.

Whatever path it takes, it is bad news for humans.

Mutations and antimicrobial defences

To protect ourselves, we’ve developed mutations that made our macrophages slow down the process of eating M. tuberculosis, giving the macrophage more time to alert their antibacterial defences and hopefully win the quick draw. This mutation was so useful and important that it became widespread in modern humans. Primates don’t have it and even our close cousins the Neanderthals or Denisovans don’t have it.

Unfortunately, this mutation means that our macrophages are also less good at ingesting small bacteria-sized pieces of dust. When macrophages can’t do their job, these particles cause dangerous lung inflammation.

This evolutionary quirk explains why humans are uniquely sensitive to particulate air pollution. Wildfires aren’t the only source of these small particles, though. They are found in industrial air pollution, busy urban centres and in dusty construction sites.

Our evolutionary susceptibility to dust means that it’s important to wear a mask when you’re in an unventilated area making a lot of dust, like during a home construction project or if you are going outdoors when the air quality is poor. It also explains why there are far more hospitalizations for heart attacks and lung conditions during wildfire season and in highly polluted areas.

Air pollution and health

Our susceptibility to air pollution doesn’t just have short-term health consequences that go away when the air clears up; there are also many very serious long-term health effects.

People who are exposed to particulate air pollution have an increased risk of many health conditions that have inflammation at the root, like dementia. Particulate air pollution is also associated with poor pregnancy outcomes, and children who were exposed to a lot of pollution in the womb have lower measures on tests of intelligence and school performance.

There are many reasons to care about climate change. The increase in wildfires and this quirk in our evolution, which impacts our short-term and long-term health, is definitely one of them.

Dawn ME Bowdish receives funding from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Lung Health Foundation.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/25/vulnerability-to-wildfire-smoke-is-in-our-genes-thanks-to-an-evolutionary-quirk/

The reaction to a procedural ruling by the Supreme Court on Aug. 24, 2026, was immediate and sharp.

The conservative justices’ decision in the 6-3 ruling to lift a block on implementation of President Donald Trump’s March 2026 executive order imposing restrictions on mail voting had voting rights advocates and many state officials angry and alarmed. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the ruling, saying it would spark a “Kafkaesque nightmare” that “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections.”

The Conversation’s politics and legal affairs editor Naomi Schalit talked with Quinnipiac University election law scholar John J. Martin about the ruling and what it signals may be ahead.

What’s the background to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Aug. 24?

Back in March, President Trump issued an executive order that was meant to, in his words, maintain “public confidence in election outcomes” and “enhance election integrity” in mail and absentee voting in federal elections. There are a few provisions that were included in that executive order.

The first would require the Department of Homeland Security to maintain a state citizenship list of residents in those states who are U.S. citizens, above the age of 18, and therefore eligible to vote in federal elections. The Department of Homeland Security would share these lists with each state at least 60 days prior to each federal election.

The next provision orders the U.S. attorney general to prioritize the investigation and the prosecution of state and local election officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible voters, such as noncitizens.

Next, Trump ordered the U.S. Postal Service to devise rules that could substantially alter the ability for states to use mail and absentee ballots in federal elections. What this could look like is, for example, a requirement that a mail ballot being used in a federal election has to look a particular way.

The executive order also gives states the option to provide the Postal Service at least 60 days before a federal election a list of voters entitled to vote by mail or by absentee ballot. But that deadline conflicts with a federal rule that states must give voters the opportunity to register to vote at least 30 days prior to an election. So states might not even know 60 days prior to an election who was entitled to use an absentee or mail ballot.

Finally, the big one is that the executive order directs the U.S. Postal Service to not transmit any mail or absentee ballots from voters in federal elections who do not appear on a mail-in or absentee voter list compiled by the service, presumably based on the list being provided to it by the states, although the executive order isn’t fully clear on this.

So, if a voter isn’t on that list, the Postal Service can just ditch that person’s ballot?

The executive order tells the Postal Service that it should not transmit that ballot over mail.

But the Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of the executive order, did it?

No. A number of states sued the Trump administration pretty quickly after this executive order was issued, arguing that the president simply doesn’t have the authority to implement these policies. The states specifically asked for a preliminary injunction in federal court, which allows the court to pause the government’s actions before the case is fully resolved. The lower court ultimately issued the preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking the implementation of the executive order.

The Trump administration argued the states lacked something called standing, which requires a plaintiff to suffer an actual or imminent injury in order to bring a case in federal court. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction should not have been issued.

The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the Trump administration and contended that because a lot of the executive order either required the states to do nothing, or had yet to be fully realized, the states’ case here was premature. They had yet to suffer an injury.

But it’s not permanent that the states do not have standing. It’s that they did not have standing at this moment until the rules to come out of this executive order had been put into effect. Is that correct?

That’s correct. So, theoretically, if the Postal Service were to propose a rule that would forbid the transmission of ballots that don’t meet their standards, and then that rule is ultimately adopted, then the states would have standing to bring this case.

The Constitution gives the states the power to administer elections. What power is the president asserting here that would legitimately allow him, or the executive, to demand these changes?

The U.S. Constitution certainly makes states the default administrators of elections, and that includes federal, state and local elections. The federal government plays some roles in regulating elections, with the Constitution allowing Congress the ability to override states’ regulations of the procedural aspects of congressional elections.

The Supreme Court has also found that Congress has some authority to regulate certain aspects of presidential elections, such as in the area of campaign finance. And under the 14th and 15th amendments, Congress has the ability to implement laws that fulfill the equal protection clause or the 15th Amendment’s prohibition against racial discrimination in elections. That’s how we get something like the Voting Rights Act. And that can apply to federal, state and local elections.

But states still remain the predominant administrator of elections.

And the president’s role in elections?

It’s hard to find any constitutional source that backs up the idea that the president has unilateral authority to decide how elections are run, even federal elections.

Maybe the strongest argument you can make in this case is that the president has authority over officers in the executive branch of the federal government. So the president could certainly direct executive officers, such as the postmaster general, to do things or not do things. But it doesn’t mean that the president can tell these officers to just do whatever the president wants in violation of the Constitution.

This is a very long way to say that the president really doesn’t seem to have authority to be doing what he’s doing right now.

So this was a procedural decision by the Supreme Court; there’s also a similar case brought by voting rights groups that they may consider. In the end, is everybody just playing a waiting game for the substance of this executive order to get to the Supreme Court to have the Supreme Court say sorry, President Trump, you can’t do it, case closed?

The Supreme Court cannot avoid deciding this on the merits of the case.

Regardless of how and when this all proceeds, will it have an effect on upcoming midterms?

Election officials need to know how they’re supposed to manage their elections, and they need to know this months in advance. They want to know: Are we actually able to implement mail voting, or absentee voting, the way that we’ve always done it? Or is this executive order going to completely throw a monkey wrench into the process, and now we have to rethink everything, and we have to wait until we receive a list from the U.S. Postal Service confirming that the voters that we believe are entitled to these ballots are, in fact, entitled to these ballots?

And voters might be fearful that if they try to vote by mail it won’t be counted. That could discourage people from voting through a process that has made it easier and more straightforward to vote for certain segments of the population – and really everyone.

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

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/25/narrow-mail-in-voting-ruling-by-supreme-court-adds-uncertainty-to-midterm-elections-without-addressing-constitutionality-of-trumps-executive-order/

A recent RNZ analysis of political advertising on Facebook and Instagram revealed an intriguing pattern in who was seeing the ads.

Of more than 500 ads National ran this year, 92 were seen only by men, attracting up to 3.9 million views and costing as much as $21,000. Only one was seen solely by women – for a single day, at a cost of less than $100 – and the party says it didn’t place it.

ACT showed a similar tilt, with 14 ads seen only by men and none solely by women. For the Greens, the pattern was reversed: 13 ads were seen only by women and none only by men.

Paid campaigning on Meta’s platforms is nothing new in New Zealand elections. What has changed is how decisions about who sees those ads are made.

At first glance, RNZ’s findings might suggest parties are deliberately choosing to speak to men and women separately. But that assumes parties themselves determine who ultimately sees each ad.

Increasingly, that isn’t necessarily the case.

Who decides who sees an ad?

For much of the past decade, digital advertising was relatively straightforward: advertisers selected audiences based on factors such as age, gender or interests, and platforms delivered ads accordingly.

That model has shifted. Meta now leans heavily on AI to judge which ads are most relevant to users. Its Andromeda system narrows tens of millions of potential ads and variations to a few thousand likely matches before ranking them. Meta’s Advantage+ tools can also automate decisions about audiences, budgets and ad placement.

This makes the distinction between targeting and optimisation important: advertisers choose who they initially want to reach, while the platform learns who responds and increasingly delivers ads to them.

The result is that a political party can begin with a deliberately broad audience and still end up reaching disproportionately more men, younger voters – or people already inclined to agree with its message.

Researchers have been documenting this problem for several years. In 2019, a study found Facebook’s ad delivery could skew audiences by gender and race even when advertisers used inclusive targeting.

Other research found voters statistically less likely to support a party could cost two or three times as much to reach, while campaigns had little visibility over how those decisions were made.

Similar pricing effects have appeared in elections. An analysis of ten Indian elections found Facebook charged the governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lower advertising rates than rival parties in nine of them, allowing it to reach more voters for the same spend.

More recently, a study of the 2024 European Parliament elections analysed more than 110,000 ads across 25 countries. Men were significantly more likely to receive ads from populist and far-right parties, even after researchers accounted for advertisers’ targeting choices.

These studies cannot tell us exactly what Meta’s current systems are doing. Its technology continues to evolve, while outside researchers have limited visibility into how ads are selected and delivered. We can see who received an ad, but establishing why is much harder.

Europe has attempted to improve transparency. Since October 2025, EU rules have required political ads to disclose their sponsor, cost and use of targeting techniques. Meta and Google responded by stopping political advertising in the EU rather than complying.

That illustrates a challenge for regulators: stronger disclosure can improve transparency, but global platforms can simply withdraw from smaller advertising markets. Smaller parties and campaigners may feel that loss most, given they have fewer cheap alternatives for reaching voters.

Does New Zealand need new rules?

Concerns about political microtargeting are not always backed by strong evidence.

In a randomised experiment involving 8,587 participants, tailoring political messages to individual characteristics did not make them significantly more persuasive than showing everyone the same message.

The bigger issue is transparency around how political advertising is distributed.

New Zealand law requires election advertisements to carry a promoter statement, while spending limits and reporting requirements apply during the regulated period. But these rules say little about how an ad’s audience was selected.

For digital advertising, that leaves two important questions: who did the party ask the platform to reach and who did the platform actually show the ad to? A party may select a broad audience, but the platform can still concentrate delivery among people it predicts are most likely to respond.

Greater disclosure could help close that gap. Parties and promoters could publish the targeting settings used for political ads, while platforms could provide aggregate data showing who actually received them.

This would make it easier to distinguish deliberate targeting by a political party from optimisation by the platform.

Voters can also get a broader view of the campaign than their feeds provide. Meta’s Ad Library allows anyone to search the political ads a party is running, including those they might otherwise never see.

Election advertisements should also carry a promoter statement, while political advertisers on Meta must be authorised and labelled “paid for by”.

Ultimately, a social media feed is a sample rather than a summary of an election campaign. It is influenced partly by whoever paid for the advertising and partly by a system predicting what will hold someone’s attention.

People of different ages, genders and browsing histories may therefore see very different campaigns. Party websites, news coverage and ad libraries can help fill in what is missing.

Katherine Jensen 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/25/algorithms-are-choosing-who-sees-what-political-ads-nz-urgently-needs-transparency/

For the past three years, as a researcher of legal consciousness in Asian and Canadian societies, I have interviewed Chinese immigrants and the lawyers who represent them, trying to understand why predatory practices — deceptive rental agreements and exploitative work arrangements — remain so common within this community.

The advice from lawyers was always the same: sign a written contract, and carefully review all contractual terms and clauses before you do.

That advice is important because, without it, cases tend to fall apart. Studies reveal that judges and lawyers alike report struggling with a lack of documentary evidence in cases involving Chinese immigrants. When disputes arise, there is little in terms of paperwork to settle things, only agreements made on a handshake and terms remembered differently by each side.

Why do so many Chinese immigrants overwhelmingly choose not to sign contracts or discuss terms openly? The answers offered by previous research have been culture — specifically, Confucian values that favour informal trust over legal formality.

To some extent, culture does play a role, but it is not a determining factor. My research points instead to structural inequalities, such as unrecognized foreign credentials and the disadvantaged footing immigrants occupy in the rental market.

Challenging ‘the culture’ reasoning

It is common for Chinese immigrants to encounter landlords who encourage them to sign unfavourable rental agreements, and small business owners who fail to provide written employment contracts at all. The more stories I heard, the more I realized they had no choice but to forgo formality under those situations.

Story after story drew the same line between limited opportunities and a reluctance to insist on contracts. Take Ling Chen, who arrived in Canada in 2018. Like many newcomers, she found that her overseas credentials and years of professional experience didn’t necessarily translate. And the industry she’d built a career in back home was effectively closed to her.

Chen ended up working in a small Chinese restaurant instead. When that job ended abruptly without any explanation or notice, she suffered emotional distress from what she felt was unfair treatment. Knowing that she was disadvantaged without a written employment contract, Chen decided to move on without confronting the owner in any way. Chen told me that she had never thought about asking for a contract because she worried insisting on one might cost her the job before it started.

Additionally, since the Canadian rental market generally favours tenants with local connections and credit scores, new Chinese immigrants often struggle to find housing upon arrival.

When Mei Tan was trying to find an apartment for her family, she had no luck on mainstream rental platforms. Eventually, she finally got a reply from a landlord on a social media platform. She rushed to sign the lease without reviewing it carefully. The lease turned out to be exploitative and contradicted the verbal agreement.

Tan’s experience captures something larger: marginalization in the rental market breeds anxiety, and anxiety is precisely what keeps new immigrants from pausing long enough to negotiate the terms in front of them.

Contracts fuel predatory practices?

While the law generally assumes that a reasonable person is always capable of entering contracts freely, I found that this neoliberal view of contracts does not always hold true.

For the Chinese immigrants I spoke with, desperation for work and housing led them to forgo legal formality. As legal scholar Hila Keren argues, it is “not because they ‘freely’ choose to do so but because they did not have, or could not have found, a better alternative.”

The neoliberal framing does real damage: it keeps victims of predatory practices outside the legal system that is meant to protect them. Legal professionals, and, painfully, Chinese immigrants themselves, tend to blame the victims who failed to take contracts seriously. And even when the victims go to court, the lack of documentary evidence often turns the process into a maze most can’t navigate alone.

As a result, ill-intentioned landlords and employers manage to get away after repeatedly taking advantage of this vulnerable population because nothing stops them. They are emboldened to continue their predatory practices, as they know that it is unlikely for courts and authorities to intervene and hold them accountable.

The strong need to trust

When Chinese immigrants are “grasping at straws” in desperate situations, they have a strong desire to trust those who offer help. This makes them vulnerable to predatory practices.

Although I focused on Chinese immigrants, the reluctance to rely on contracts is a phenomenon that is evident across cultures. Many people outside of the Chinese community also prefer to rely on a person’s word, a handshake or common honesty and decency than a signed document. Humans, in general, tend to want to trust.

The solution is far more complicated than educating Chinese immigrants about the importance of contracts. Rather, one possible starting point would be asking Canadian courts, lawyers and the public to rethink the myth at the centre of all this — that entering a contract is always, for everyone, a free and equal choice.

Because in the end, “choice” isn’t always available. Not when you’re under enough pressure, and not when every alternative has already run out.

Qian Liu receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Canadian Foundation for Legal Research.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/25/why-some-chinese-immigrants-avoid-signing-contracts-and-why-blaming-culture-misses-the-bigger-picture/

When the Conservatives did unusually well among young voters in Canada’s 2025 federal election, even winning the national student mock vote for the first time in over a decade, one explanation making the rounds was that Canada was following what happened south of the border.

In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, young voters, especially young men, moved toward Donald Trump and the Republicans, a shift many credited to Trump’s strategy of going on podcasts and YouTube to reach younger audiences.

In Canada, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre would later do the same, appearing on the Joe Rogan podcast. Some read that as Canada’s Conservatives picking up the same playbook, even though that particular appearance actually came after the 2025 election.

We reviewed results from nine elections in the Canadian Election Study between 2000 and 2025. We wanted to know whether the same youth shift was indeed happening in Canada. What we found was different.

Seniors moved the most

The bigger shift over the past 25 years is at the other end of the age spectrum: a reliable base of older Conservative Party voters is largely gone. For the most of the 2000s, age was one of the strongest predictors of how people voted in Canada. In 2000 and 2004, the gap was modest. The percentage of seniors voting Conservative sat in the high 30s, while every other age group clustered in the high 20s to mid-30s.

Then, in the Stephen Harper-era elections of 2008 and 2011, the gap blew open. Conservative support among Canadians 65 and older surged to nearly half — 48 per cent in 2008, close to 50 per cent in 2011 — while every other age group barely moved.

Seniors were the party’s base, often ten points or more ahead of every other age group, and as much as 25 points ahead of the youngest voters.

That gap persisted throughout the Justin Trudeau years. Support fell across every age group in 2015. Support for the Conservatives among 18-to-24-year olds dropped to 18 per cent and to 20 per cent among 25-to-29-year olds.

But seniors held up comparatively well, staying around 37 per cent, so the gap between them and younger voters actually widened. Through 2019 and 2021, seniors remained the Conservatives’ strongest age group, consistently five to ten points ahead of everyone under 45.

Then came 2025, and the gap essentially disappeared. Conservative support among voters 65 and older dropped to 27 per cent, the lowest point for that demographic anywhere in the 25 years we studied — a fall of nine points in a single election. For the first time, seniors were no longer the party’s strongest age group.

Support among those 25 to 29 did rise, particularly between 2021 and 2025. But even after that increase, this group landed roughly where Canadians in their 30s, 40s and 50s already were, and nowhere near where seniors used to be.

Support among the youngest voters, 18 to 24, was essentially unchanged from 2000, and if anything slightly lower. Even after accounting for province, gender, race and other factors, the decline in Conservative support among seniors between 2000 and 2025 is bigger than the increase we saw among any younger group over the same period.

What the issues tell us

The Canadian Election Study also asked voters to describe, in their own words, what mattered most to them in an election, and the 2025 answers point to something specific.

Among seniors, mentions of U.S. President Donald Trump and tariffs jumped to 21 per cent, more than double the nine per cent among everyone under 65. No other issue in 2025 split the generations like that.

Seniors were far more worried about the Canada-U.S. relationship than everyone else, just as the election was taking place, when Conservative support among them collapsed. That suggests older voters moved toward whichever party looked like the safer choice on that issue, rather than a broader change in their politics.

Housing tells the opposite story. Seniors were far less likely than everyone else to name housing as their top concern, three per cent versus seven per cent in 2025, a gap that shows up in 2019 and 2021 too.

That lines up with the earlier finding that younger Conservative voters are motivated mainly by affordability.

The story getting attention is about young voters supposedly abandoning progressive politics. However, if you’re only looking at young voters to explain what’s changing in Canadian politics, you’re missing where most of the movement actually happened.

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

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/25/young-canadians-arent-drifting-toward-conservative-and-far-right-parties/

Society has long emphasized that romantic relationships are the key to leading a fulfilling life. Being partnered is often presented as a milestone to pursue, while being single can be framed as something to move beyond.

But that script is changing. Many young adults are delaying romantic relationships or choosing to remain single instead. Others are having challenges dating and struggling with their singlehood. For some, singlehood is a deliberate choice; for others, it is a circumstance they are still learning to navigate.

This raises an important question: How can people make the most of singlehood, regardless of whether they chose it?

Our recently published research in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, based on three studies of singledom, suggests that the way people think about being single may play a role.

We found that single people who believe singlehood offers them personal growth opportunities are more likely to try new things, feel more positively about being single and enjoy life generally.

Dating today can feel like a mix of endless swipes, red flags and shifting expectations. From decoding mixed signals to balancing independence with intimacy, relationships in your 20s and 30s come with unique challenges. Love IRL is the latest series from Quarter Life that explores it all.

These research-backed articles break down the complexities of modern love to help you build meaningful connections, no matter your relationship status.

Singlehood is increasingly common

Choosing singlehood has become increasingly popular in recent years. In the United States, one analysis has estimated that about one in four young adults will remain single long-term.

Among the growing number of single people, more than half are not looking for a romantic relationship. These individuals tend to prioritize personal goals, like career or educational advancement, over pursuing a romantic relationship.

Of course, plenty of single people still want a relationship. Some people are struggling with low dating confidence, finances and bad dating experiences.

Online dating has also become the most common way of meeting potential partners. But dating apps can come with their own challenges, including feelings of burnout. Stepping away from dating may be less of a choice and more of a necessity.

Read more:
Why in-person dating is making a comeback — and why Gen Z is struggling with it

We wanted to understand how people could make use of their singlehood for personal growth, regardless of whether they were single by choice or hoping to find a partner.

Your mindset matters

The way people interpret their circumstances can shape what they gain from their experiences. The way people view singlehood can meaningfully influence what they take away from their time being single.

We refer to this as “singlehood self-expansion potential”: the belief that singlehood offers oneself the opportunity to engage in personal growth.

To examine this, we conducted three studies. In the first two, we followed 276 single adults between the ages of 17 and 49. Participants reported how strongly they believed that singlehood offered opportunities for personal growth. We then tracked their experiences either daily for two weeks or weekly for six weeks.

We found that single people who saw greater potential for personal growth in their singlehood were more likely to seek new and exciting experiences. They also tended to feel more satisfied with being single, feel less anxious about their relationship status, and report greater life satisfaction and psychological well-being.

In our third study, we tested a small intervention involving 324 people ranging in age from 18 to 76. We asked single participants to imagine novel and exciting activities they could pursue in the future because they were single.

Compared with people who imagined novel and routine activities, those who imagined novel possibilities were more likely to experience momentary boosts in self-expansion and positive mood. Even imagining the possibilities of singlehood may be a stepping stone to embracing singlehood.

Growth doesn’t have to happen alone

Self-expanding experiences don’t have to be expensive, elaborate or time-consuming. In our studies, physical activities such as going on a hike, as well as social events such as going clubbing for a friend’s birthday, were among the most common activities participants identified as opportunities for self-expansion.

The key ingredient is that these activities should be something novel that expands your perspectives and experiences.

It may be daunting to step out of your comfort zone to try something new. About 80 per cent of the self-expanding activities reported by participants were completed with friends or family. These close relationships may be the encouragement young adults need to put themselves out there and embrace singlehood.

The remaining 20 per cent of activities were completed alone. Self-expansion in solitude can offer many of the same benefits as self-expansion with others, and may be uniquely beneficial for certain activities, like reading or when people deliberately choose to spend time alone.

Being single, in other words, does not have to mean being isolated. Friends and family can be important companions in exploring new opportunities, while time alone can offer its own chances for discovery.

Make singlehood an active period

People can be single for many reasons. Maybe you recently experienced a break-up, are having a hard time finding the right partner or maybe you are choosing to stay single. Your relationship status can also change over time.

Whatever the reason, you can harness the time you spend single to learn more about yourself and the world around you.

Try something you’ve always wanted to do. Take a class, visit somewhere unfamiliar, join a new group, pick up a sport or reconnect with friends. You might discover a new interest, develop confidence or simply encounter people and perspectives you would not otherwise have experienced.

And if you’re hoping to find a partner, these experiences do not have to be a distraction from that goal. They can be worthwhile in their own right.

Singlehood does not have to be an idle period between romantic relationships. Instead, viewing it as an opportunity for self-expansion can help you make the most of where you are now, rather than treating your current relationship status as a placeholder for the life you really want.

Elina Moreno received funding from Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP).

Yuthika Girme receives funding from The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/25/singlehood-can-be-an-opportunity-for-personal-growth-if-you-see-it-that-way/

Five women slowly process across Portsmouth’s municipal park, covered in hessian-coloured layered fabrics. On their heads they wear what look like strange overgrown dreadlocks, making them a group of connected beings. They move towards a deflated hessian starfish shape on the floor. Circling it, they enact a ritual performance, animating the space and quietly paying homage to the five-armed symmetry of echinoderms.

This living sculpture is a performance called Between Land and Tide. It was conceived by Olana Light, a Portsmouth-based artist, in collaboration with local dancers. They will perform for the rest of this summer and into the autumn in Portsmouth.

The performers move and join hands like an obtuse pagan dance of gestures, forming unusual angles and movements. Their bodies connect and disconnect. Slowly they descend into the starfish structure and pump life into the inert form. Starfish have no muscles but use water pressure to create movements – the dancers imitate this liquid opacity in the performance.

At one point the performers look like they are moving into a textured set of sleeping bags. Then they breathe, pulse, writhe and transform the five-legged form into a giant lost sea creature, inhabiting the scorched earth of the park’s drought-yellowed surface.

There is something apocalyptic in this performance and sculptural image, reminiscent of the strange visions of science fiction master John Wyndham (author of The Day of the Triffids, 1951). He wrote about mutations and the uncanny architecture of a climate-ravaged future.

The movements of the women in the starfish are darkly mesmerising. You are occasionally aware of their lips and mouths while they writhe within the textured form of the starfish arms. The arms search the air and the ground looking for what could be the safety and solace of the ocean. This starfish is far away from the beach.

After some time, the form mutates in the performance. The human protrusions of limbs and human arms split the starfish apart. Then, the augmented performers leave the space like post-apocalyptic slugs dragging the starfish arms behind them.

The climate crisis has a communications problem. How do we tell stories that move people – not just to fear the future, but to imagine and build a better one? This article is part of Climate Storytelling, a series exploring how arts and science can join forces to spark understanding, hope and action.

Living sculptures

Lights’ living sculptures connect with the work of other women artists who create challenging land art – made directly in the natural landscape – often using their own bodies. The pioneering artist Ana Mendieta is one such example. A major retrospective of her work is currently on show at Tate Modern.

Light, however, uses a unique approach in her performance art. By immersing bodies within sculptural forms made from natural materials, she creates uncanny hybrids.
This challenges the idea that nature exists primarily to serve humans. The audience I was part of looked intrigued and amused by the performance.

Mendieta’s work also explored the relationship between women’s bodies and the landscape. In her pioneering land art practice, she used her own body in works such as Tree of Life (1976-79). In these practices of meshing human and object, living sculptural forms are produced through performance, temporarily leaving human traces in the landscape.

These traces are what anthropologist Tim Ingold calls a “taskscape” – a space formed through the marks of human labour over time. The Earth can eventually erase these taskscapes and sculptural images because of our relative impermanence. As living sculptures, Light’s performances explore this precarious entanglement between landscape and life.

Between Land and Tide will be performed until September 27 2026

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something, The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

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

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/25/between-land-and-tide-giant-starfish-washes-up-in-portsmouth-in-this-apocalyptic-performance-art/

The life of the average British MP is not luxurious or lavish. It is stressful and strange. And sometimes, it can be dangerous.

Former Labour MP Paula Sheriff is the latest to detail the threats she endured in her time at Westminster and call for greater protection for politicians.

MPs are expected to be “on call” 24/7 and be able to cope with incompatible pressures and demands. All their friends and family – even girlfriends or boyfriends from the distant past – suddenly become fair game in the eyes of the media. At the same time, Sheriff said she continued to receive threats several years after stepping down as an MP.

To explain this shift, three reference points come to mind.

Political psychologist Ashley Weinberg once asked a deceptively simple question: should the job of national politician carry a government health warning? Weinberg’s contribution focuses on the stress and strain of coping with modern political life.

Precarious employment, limited resources, unsettled personal life and a low-trust, high-blame environment all add to the picture. These pressures have increased in recent years as voters become more volatile, the media more aggressive and sensationalist and the rise of populism ever more divisive.

The death of former Conservative MP and Reform UK spokeswoman Ann Widdecombe has highlighted the issue again. A 28-year-old man has appeared in court charged with her murder and is expected to face trial next year. Meanwhile, police are investigating any possible political motivation.

Back in 2012, a public engagement campaign launched by then-Labour MP Gloria de Piero when she was relatively new to parliament also asked one simple question: why do you hate me? In hindsight, de Piero’s campaign looks incredibly prescient. It identified and sought to understand a distinctive shift in the relationship between the governors and the governed.

Gone was the respectful deference of British society from previous decades. Now, 50 years later it has been replaced by an aggressive, dismissive and sometimes dangerous form of anti-political politics.

The third reference point is a book by psychologist Caroline Elton about medicine and the inner lives of doctors. It also asks a simple question. We turn to doctors when we are stressed and ill, but where can doctors turn at moments of stress or professional collapse?

This is a book about doctors and the harsh realities of medical life. It examines why so much of what they do is traumatic, painful and ultimately unlikely to heal the deep-rooted sources of most of the ailments they face – poverty, deprivation, social inequality and hopelessness, for example.

The clear link between the professions of medicine and politics is rarely acknowledged. MPs and doctors hold “surgeries”, and treat individuals as patients or constituents with limited resources. On top of this, they try to navigate complex and fragmented systems, must sometimes respond to emergencies and crises, are very often dogged by concerns about accountability and inadequate regulation. Ultimately, their relationship with the public is based on trust.

And yet MPs are generally viewed as increasingly untrustworthy, while doctors sit at or near the top of professional trust charts, based on public attitudes.

There are, of course, major differences in the roles of doctors and professional politicians. But the simple fact is that MPs are also human. To return to Elton’s book, they are coping with the usual challenges of life – parenting, caring for ageing parents, managing the mortgage and making sure that there is food in the fridge and that someone is doing the washing.

Little sympathy?

We need only look at Conservative minister-turned-podcaster Rory Stewart’s book, Politics on the Edge, for the realities of political life in Whitehall and Westminster. The pressures of overlapping and often competing pressures left Stewart feeling like a fraud, and one specific event made him briefly contemplate suicide.

The Life of an MP by Labour’s Jess Phillips provides an even starker account of the threats, misogyny and abuse that female MPs experience. This explains the large number of recent reviews and reports that outline increasing levels of harassment and security concerns about MPs.

An interesting picture on changing social attitudes to politics is provided by the award-winning book, The Good Politician. Using the UK’s mass observation archive, the authors reveal how public attitudes – and more specifically the language used by the public to discuss and describe politicians – evolved throughout the 20th century. Put simply, the language used by the end of the century would have been unimaginable 60 years earlier. It became more forceful, personalised, critical and aggressive.

This evolved rapidly during the first years of the 21st century. Critical attitudes and aggressive assertions have progressed into an increasing tendency towards action.

The murders of MPs Jo Cox and David Amess fit within this narrative, but beneath these terrible events lies a now almost normalised pattern of abuse. The fire bombing of Keir Starmer’s family home makes him possibly the first prime minister to leave Number 10 without an obvious place to go to.

The simple fact is that politics is an increasingly dangerous profession. The great risk is that these perils will further reduce the already diminished pool of people who think that “getting into politics” is a sensible pursuit.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Matthew Flinders 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/25/how-political-life-in-britain-became-so-dangerous/