The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephanie King, Branco Weiss Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Cooperation can be found across the animal kingdom, in behaviours such as group hunting, raising of young, and driving away predators.

But are these cooperating animals actively coordinating their behaviour, or are they simply acting individually to accomplish the same task at the same time?

In a study, published today in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, we showed that bottlenose dolphins actively coordinate their behaviours. That is, they can learn to work together and synchronise their actions to solve a cooperation task and receive a reward.

Read more: Male dolphins use their individual ‘names’ to build a complex social network

Testing teamwork

For this study, conducted at the Dolphin Research Center in the Florida Keys, we created a task in which pairs of dolphins had to swim across a lagoon and each press their own underwater button at the same time (within a 1-second time window).

Each trial began with both dolphins and their respective trainers located at the opposite side of the lagoon from the buttons, about 11 metres away. The trainers would either both give a “press the button” hand signal at the same time, or one trainer would give the signal first, while the second trainer asked her dolphin to wait up to 20 seconds before giving the signal.

If the dolphins pressed their buttons at the same time, a computer played a “success” sound, and the dolphins returned to their trainers for fish and social praise.

If the dolphins pressed their buttons at different times, a “failure” sound was played and the trainers moved on to the next trial.

The strict timing requirement meant they had to work together. If their goal was simply “press my button”, then when they were sent at different times, they would press at different times. To succeed, they had to understand their goal as “press the buttons together”.

The question, then, was whether the dolphin sent first would wait for the other dolphin before pressing its button, and whether they could figure out a way to coordinate precisely enough to press simultaneously.

Swim fast, or coordinate?

We found that the dolphins were able to work together with extreme precision even when they had to wait for their partner. Interestingly, their behavioural strategies and the coordination between them changed as they learned the task.

Keep in mind that the dolphins had to figure out that this was a cooperative task. There was nothing about the situation that told them in advance that the buttons had to be pressed at the same time.

To help them learn, we started by sending them simultaneously and gradually increased the timing difference between them.

When one dolphin figured out the game first, if their partner was sent first on a particular trial, they knew that the partner (who had not figured out the game) was not going to wait.

So in the early phases, we found that many successes were achieved not by the first dolphin waiting, but by the second dolphin swimming extremely fast to catch up.

But once both animals understood the task, this behaviour disappeared and the timing of their button presses became extremely precise (with the time difference between button presses averaging just 370 milliseconds).

This shows that both partners now understood that they didn’t need to swim fast to succeed; instead, they needed to synchronise their actions.

Synchrony in the wild

In the wild, dolphins synchronise their behaviour in several contexts. For example, mothers and calves will surface and breathe at the same time, and males in alliances will perform the same behaviours at the same time in coordinated displays.

The synchrony in these displays can be remarkably precise, and is thought to actively promote cooperation between partners.

Read more: Tackling the kraken: unique dolphin strategy delivers dangerous octopus for dinner

The results of our study suggest that this behavioural synchronisation that dolphins show in the wild may not be a hardwired response to a specific context, but may in fact be a generalised ability that they can apply to a variety of situations.

Kelly Jaakkola, director of research at the Dolphin Research Center, contributed to this research and this article. She can be contacted at kelly@dolphins.org.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katie Pickles, Professor of History at the University of Canterbury and current Royal Society of New Zealand Te Apārangi James Cook Research Fellow, University of Canterbury

125 years ago today Aotearoa New Zealand became the first country in the world to grant all women the right to vote.

The event was part of an ongoing international movement for women to exit from an inferior position in society and to enjoy equal rights with men.

But why did this global first happen in a small and isolated corner of the South Pacific?

Read more: Women’s votes: six amazing facts from around the world

Setting the stage

In the late 19th century, Aotearoa New Zealand was a volatile and rapidly changing contact zone where British settlers confidently introduced systematic colonisation, often at the expense of the indigenous Māori population. Settlers were keen to create a new world society that adapted the best of Britain and left behind behind the negative aspects of the industrial revolution – Britain’s dark satanic mills.

Many supported universal male suffrage and a less rigid class structure, enlightened race relations and humanitarianism that also extended to improving women’s lives. These liberal aspirations towards societal equality contributed to the 1893 women’s suffrage victory.

At the end of the 19th century, feminists in New Zealand had a long list of demands. It included equal pay, prevention of violence against women, economic independence for women, old age pensions and reform of marriage, divorce, health and education – and peace and justice for all.

The women’s suffrage cause captured widespread support and emerged as the uniting right for women’s equality in society. As suffragist Christina Henderson later summed up, 1893 captured “the mental and spiritual uplift” women experienced upon release “from their age-long inferiority complex”.

Two other factors assisted New Zealand’s global first for women: a relatively small size and population and the lack of an entrenched conservative tradition. In Britain, John Stuart Mill presented a first petition for women’s suffrage to the British Parliament in 1866, but it took until wartime 1918 for limited women’s suffrage there.

Women as moral citizens

As a “colonial frontier”, New Zealand had a surplus of men, especially in resource towns. Pragmatically, this placed a premium on women for their part as wives, mothers and moral compasses.

There was a fear of a chaotic frontier full of marauding single men. This colonial context saw conservative men who supported family values supporting suffrage. During the 1880s, depression and its accompanying poverty, sexual licence and drunken disorder further enhanced women’s value as settling maternal figures. Women voters promised a stabilising effect on society.

New Zealand gained much strength from an international feminist movement. Women were riding a first feminist wave that, most often grounded in their biological difference as life givers and carers, cast them as moral citizens.

Local feminists eagerly drew upon and circulated the best knowledge from Britain, America and Europe. When Mary Leavitt, the leader of the US-based Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) visited New Zealand in 1885, her goal was to set up local branches. This had a direct impact, leading to the country’s first national women’s organisation and providing a platform for women to secure the vote in order to affect their colonial feminist concerns.

Other places early to grant women’s suffrage shared the presence of liberal and egalitarian beliefs, a surplus of men over women, and less entrenched conservatism. The four frontier US western mountain states led the way with Wyoming (1869), Utah (1870), Colorado (1893) and Idaho (1895). South Australia (1894) and Western Australia (1899) made the 19th century and, before the first world war, were joined by other western US states, Australia, Finland and Scandinavia.

Local agency

New Zealand was fortunate to have many effective women leaders. Most prominent among them was Kate Sheppard. In 1887, Sheppard became head of the WCTU’s Christchurch branch and led the campaign for the vote.

The campaign leaders were well organised and hard working. Their tactics were petitions, pamphlets, letters, public talks and lobbying politicians – this was a peaceful era before the suffragette militancy during the early 20th century elsewhere.

Read more: Adela Pankhurst: the forgotten sister who doesn’t fit neatly into suffragette history

The women were persistent and overcame setbacks. It took multiple attempts in parliament before the Electoral Act 1893 was passed. Importantly, the suffragists got public opinion behind the cause. Mass support was demonstrated through petitions between 1891 and 1893, in total garnering 31,872 signatures, amounting to a quarter of Aotearoa’s adult women.

Pragmatically, the women worked in allegiance with men in parliament who could introduce the bills. In particular, veteran conservative Sir John Hall viewed women’s suffrage as a way to a more moral and civil society.

The Suffrage 125 celebratory slogan “whakatū wāhine – women stand up!” captures the intention of continuing progressive and egalitarian traditions. Recognising diverse cultural backgrounds is now important. With hindsight, the feminist movement can be implicated as an agent of colonisation, but it did support votes for Māori women. Meri Te Tai Mangakāhia presented a motion to the newly formed Māori parliament to allow women to vote and sit in it.

New Zealand remains a small country that can experience rapid social and economic change. Evoking its colonial past, however, it retains both a reputation as a tough and masculine place of beer-swilling, rugby-playing blokes and a tradition of staunch, tea drinking, domesticated women.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Orlando, Researcher: Technology and Learning, Western Sydney University

Technology has undoubtedly become essential for productivity and communication in our professional and personal lives.

However, the most prominent reason users of all ages reach for their device is not to work, but to “zombie check”. These are the unthinking times you use your device throughout the day to avoid boredom. For example, pulling out your phone while in line for coffee, waiting for dinner to cook, or when there is a lull in a TV program.

We turn to our device when the task at hand becomes too difficult, too tedious, or simply unfulfilling. And we often use our smartphone for zombie scrolling because it’s always with us.

Our unproductive zombie screen hours can creep up – but they don’t need to rule us. With new tools now available to monitor your use of technology, here I’ve put together four steps to help you understand and maybe even change your tech habits.

Read more: We asked five experts: should mobile phones be banned in schools?

Health risk with some technology use

Research shows that while creative, focused technology use has an overall positive effect on us, excessive unproductive use can have negative mental and socio-emotional implications for young people and adults. For example, it can contribute to reduced mental well-being, and sleep disturbances. Ensuring our screen time is useful and not excessive is important for adults and for children.

Digital detoxes are often posed as the answer to managing screen time. However, their underlying assumption that “all technology use is the same” is not a sustainable management approach.

A one-size-fits-all recommended number of screen hours also does not work. Even professional screen time recommendations for children acknowledge that placing a number on recommended hours is too difficult because of our varied technology needs and lifestyles.

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

Solution: cutting ‘zombie’ screen use

Data from the UK suggests the average person checks their phone every 12 minutes. The key to effective screen time management is to weed out uses that do not have a positive impact on your life, such as zombie scrolling.

The recent release of new screen time management tools available on our devices and social media platforms can help with this.

Apple recently introduced Screen Time to its new operating system. This is a new section of the settings menu which creates detailed daily and weekly activity reports. It shows the total time a person spends in each app they use, their usage across categories of apps, how many notifications they receive and how often they pick up their iPhone or iPad.

Googles’s new Digital Well-being dashboard for Android users has a similar design.

Newly established features on YouTube tell you how long you’ve watched YouTube videos today, yesterday and over the past seven days.

Facebook and Instagram are also in the introductory phase of a similar range of settings.

Read more: How teens use fake Instagram accounts to relieve the pressure of perfection

Step by step approach

These screen management features can help us understand and modify our technology habits. With data we may be able to see and identify our own usage “red flags” (problematic areas), and move towards better self-regulation to kick zombie screen time habits.

The following stepped plan offers a way to apply new screentime features.

Step 1: Map your use
Use the screentime features to examine how you use technology during the day, and over a week.

Identify the aspect of your zombie use that you want to change. This may be for example:

• reduce the number of minutes/hours you spend using a particular social media platform, or watching YouTube
• reduce how many times a day you pick up your phone.

Step 2: Identify your triggers
Identify what triggers the aspect of technology use you want to change.

For example, if you want to reduce how many times a day that you pick up your phone then look for the time of day you have most pick-ups, or if there are particular days in the week where your pick up tends to be higher. Do your high use times coincide with another activity – perhaps sitting on the bus, or taking children to sports training?

Step 3: Make a plan
Use this information to develop a plan.

Planning ahead may include setting specific times when you will or won’t use your device in particular ways. It may involve making sure you have other options to avoid boredom, such as having a book with you when you’re travelling or waiting for family members.

A plan is important, as it facilitates goal attainment and also increases self-control. Try the plan for one day.

Step 4: Reflect on your plan
After one day or week of using the plan, ask yourself key questions:

• did you accomplish your plan?
• under what conditions did your plan work best?
• were you distracted from your plan and how did get back onto it?
• was your plan do-able? (for example, a plan to reduce the number of times you picked up your phone from 100 per day to 20 may be too difficult to achieve in a first instance)
• do you need to adjust your plan so that it is achievable?

You can use the new activity monitoring tools to review and revise your plan, and to assist you in achieving your goals such as setting limits for how much time you allow yourself to use particular apps.

Parents and children

Screentime management is best approached in small steps; nudge your way towards use of technology that you are more comfortable with.

This approach can also be applied as a proactive, strengths-based approach to teach children screen time management.

Explain zombie technology use to your child, and team with your child to develop a plan and use these screentime features. While you may have different plans, doing it together is very supportive and a great way to model effective healthy and positive technology use.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daryl Adair, Associate Professor of Sport Management, University of Technology Sydney

The inclusion of transgender athletes in Australian sports leagues is an issue that sporting bodies are only just coming to terms with.

In recent months, the Australian Human Rights Commission, in partnership with Sport Australia, has been working on national gender diversity guidelines, with sporting bodies awaiting their recommendations.

However, the Australian Football League (AFL), has recently announced its own Gender Diversity Policy, which is limited to transgender and non-binary athletes (but doesn’t include intersex athletes). Since its release, the policy has prompted many questions about why the AFL proposed it and how it envisages implementing the new rules.

Lack of consistency across sports

Guidelines for trans and gender diverse (TGD) athletes have existed in international sporting bodies for years. The International Olympic Committee, for instance, has allowed TGD athletes to compete since 2003. In 2015, it decided that sex reassignment surgery would no longer be required and halved the transition period prior to athletic competition to 12 months.

Other elite-level sporting bodies also have transgender protocols in place, most of which allow male-to-female athletes to compete in sports, either on the basis of sex-reassignment surgery or hormone-based transition. Female-to-male athletes face fewer constraints, as it is assumed they have no potential for competitive advantage.

Australia has lagged behind when it comes to accommodating TGD athletes. The impetus for change came last year when a transgender footballer, Hannah Mouncey, applied for entry into the AFL Women’s League (AFLW) draft and was denied.

Read more: By excluding Hannah Mouncey, the AFL’s inclusion policy has failed a key test

Mouncey, a former Olympic men’s handball player, was ruled ineligible according to Section 72(1) of the 2010 Victorian Equal Opportunity Act, which provides an exemption for excluding athletes from sporting activities if their “strength, stamina or physique” is relevant.

According to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission:

The purpose of this exception is to ensure players do not have an unfair competitive advantage in single-sex competitions.

Surprisingly, Mouncey was permitted to keep playing at lower levels of competition. In fact, transgender, non-binary and intersex athletes have long been included in community-level AFL with little fuss. In Sydney, for example, the Newtown Breakaways AFL club has provided a welcoming environment for gender diverse women.

But the AFL’s decision seemed contradictory, as well. Mouncey was deemed “likely” to have an athletic advantage over other female athletes, but that only mattered in an elite competition involving remuneration.

Body surveillance and performance evidence

Because the AFL’s policy claims to meet the “strength, stamina or physique” exemption under the VEOA, it is incumbent on the league to produce corroborating evidence.

According to the policy, a baseline requirement for AFLW athletes is that they demonstrate a level of testosterone below five nanomoles (nmols) over the previous 24 months.

It is unclear how the AFL arrived at these specifications. Most likely, the league drew on the IOC’s policy, which currently limits female athletes to 10 nanomoles of testosterone over the past 12 months, and is set to lower that to five nanomoles by the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

The IOC’s policy has been framed on the basis of medical and scientific opinion within the organisation, rather than substantive research. This is part of a wider problem: there is no recognised body of scholarship about the performance characteristics of TGD athletes. There is apprehension within sport that they may have advantages over cis-gender athletes, but this has not been properly measured or validated.

Another problem with the AFL’s new policy is that the burden of proof is also left to athletes. In addition to the testosterone testing, the league mandates two years of physical and performance data, including:

• height
• weight
• bench press (one rep max and/or three rep max)
• squat (one rep max and/or three rep max)
• 20m sprint time
• vertical jump
• match raw GPS data (sample of three Australian Rules Football matches if available)
• 2 kilometre run time

The AFL acknowledges these data may not have been collected by all transgender athletes over the past 24 months.

Yet, paradoxically, the league also claims these data provide a robust measure of evaluating transgender athletes, and that comparisons with cis-gender athletes over a two-year period are entirely feasible.

A more scientific approach would be a prospective study, funded by the AFL (with independent researchers), which could also provide new research on the subject.

Steps toward a possible solution

In mid-August, the AFL invited athletes and advocates from the transgender community to a discussion about its proposed Gender Diversity Policy. Michelle Sheppard, a workplace diversity consultant (and transgender woman), facilitated the session. She later wrote enthusiastically that:

…the policy presented was an early draft and needs much work still but the feedback we gave was well received by the AFL’s representatives.

So Sheppard was surprised that the final version of the policy was released two weeks later, seemingly unchanged.

Last week, Sheppard met with the AFL one-on-one to ask questions. She had received feedback from some transgender athletes that they simply did not have the athletic performance data the AFL was seeking for the past 24 months, and feared being left out.

Read more: Explainer: the difference between being transgender and doing drag

Sheppard said she was assured by the AFL that it would accept less data from athletes without 24 months of record-keeping – a sign the league wants to find solutions rather than stymie applicants with hurdles.

However, according to Dale Sheridan, a lawyer and transgender woman, ongoing surveillance of transgender athletes in the AFLW is likely to stoke anxieties. In an email to me she asserted:

The AFL can review a decision at any time, which provides no certainty for TGD trans players if … they are deemed ‘too good’. How can one take the field and give their best with the threat of a decision review constantly hanging over their head?

Sheppard told me she is keen to liaise with the AFL on the policy, but the league’s decision makers will need to be receptive to input from those with lived experience of transitioning, as well as endocrinologists who specialise in transgender health.

After all, she says, the AFLW impacts how the public see transgender people. The Gender Diversity Policy says that discrimination will not be tolerated and that the intention is to support gender diverse players in a safe and inclusive environment.

But the focus on ongoing surveillance and testing may result in some being made to feel they are infringing – unfairly – on cis-gender space.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ric Day, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, UNSW

If you’re having trouble sleeping, medicines shouldn’t be your first option. Exercise regularly, cut back on coffee (and other caffeinated drinks) after midday, eat less in the evening, ease up on “screen time” before, and in, bed, practise meditation and try to have a quiet, dark bedroom dedicated mostly to sleep.

But what if you’ve tried everything and are still struggling with sleep? Many people will want to turn to a medicine for help. Navigating the various options for effectiveness, safety and the potential to become habit-forming can be difficult.

Long-term regular use of medicines to promote sleep should be avoided, as initial effectiveness declines rapidly over a few weeks and dependence and adverse effects become problematic. But in the short short term, sleep medications do have their place. Unfortunately they are often over-used, especially in older people.

Read more: Why getting enough sleep should be on your list of New Year’s resolutions

Benzodiazepines

Benzodiazepines are drugs such as Valium, also used to treat anxiety. They are the most commonly prescribed sleeping pills.

Their effects, which include some muscle relaxing properties, are achieved by enhancing the effect of GABA, an inhibitory neurotransmitter operating throughout the brain. Rarely, some people experience the opposite and become over-excited and more anxious.

As benzodiazepines depress brain function (they depress the central nervous system), their effects add to other central nervous system depressants including alcohol, sedating antihistamines and opioid analgesics such as oxycodone (Endone). This can be very dangerous, and when combined can lead to respiratory failure, coma and even death.

Physiological and psychological dependence on the drug can develop after only a few days in some people, or weeks in most. Unfortunately, far too many people are dependent.

Read more: Weekly Dose: Valium, the ‘safer choice’ that led to dependence and addiction

Importantly, the effectiveness for inducing sleep wears off after a few weeks. It can be very hard to stop taking benzodiazepines as insomnia and often anxiety returns. The duration of “withdrawal” is related to the length of time these are taken.

Stopping suddenly after long-term use can be dangerous, with violent withdrawal reactions possible, including epileptic seizures. Ceasing these medicines needs to be managed by your doctor. Essentially, a gradual reduction in dose is needed with support and counselling to assist with the temporary increase in insomnia and perhaps anxiety.

Side effects include a “dulling” of cognitive function, memory impairment and the increased risk for accidents, especially unsteadiness and falls in older people.

Benzodiazepines should only be used for two to four weeks, or intermittently, and only in addition to good sleep hygiene (that is, practising the measures listed in the first paragraph).

Temazepam (brand names Normison, Temaze, Temtabs) and lorazepam (brand name Ativan) are reasonable choices from the many benzodiazepines available. That’s because they have a faster onset and short duration of effect so as to avoid a “hangover” the next day.

Read more: Health Check: how to soothe yourself to sleep

Z-drugs (hypnotics)

Zopiclone (brand names Imovane and Imrest) and zolpidem (brand name Stilnox) are similar in their pharmacology and effects to the benzodiazepines. These prescription-only medicines also enhance the actions of GABA to depress brain activity and have the same hazards related to excessive sedation and dependence.

Bizarre behaviours and symptoms, for example hallucinations and sleep-walking that can be dangerous, are more likely than with benzodiazepines.

Antihistamines

Older antihistamine medicines, now known as sedating antihistamines, induce drowsiness through their central nervous system-depressing properties. These are available over the counter from pharmacies. Common examples include diphenhydramine (brand name Unisom Sleep Gels), doxylamine (brand name Restavit) and promethazine (branded Phenergan).

Especially in those with allergies such as hay fever disturbing their sleep, these may be a reasonable short-term option. Dependence on these medications to sleep is a hazard.

These medicines have side effects including dry mouth, blurred vision, constipation, confusion, dizziness and urinary retention in men with prostrate problems. All side-effects are worse in older people.

By contrast, over-the-counter antihistamines commonly used to treat hay fever (such as brand names Telfast, Zyrtec and Claratyne) are non-sedating, and therefore not likely to make you drowsy.

Analgesics

Any opioid-containing medicine, all now requiring a prescription, will induce drowsiness (depending on the dose) because they also depress our central nervous system. Codeine (in Panadeine, Panadeine Forte or Nurofen Plus), tramadol, tapentadol, morphine or oxycodone will make us sleepy, but they’re not recommended to treat insomnia.

These powerful medicines are best reserved for judicious use in pain relief, given the severe hazards of dependence and overdose. Older people are more sensitive to the central nervous system-depressing effects and also to constipation.

Read more: Health Check: five ways to get a better night’s sleep

Melatonin

Our sleep-wake cycle is dependent on the hormone melatonin released cyclically from a gland in our brain. Melatonin administered orally helps induce sleep in some people, but is not as effective as other sedatives.

However, a recent Australian study tested melatonin in people with sleep problems caused by delayed melatonin release in their brains. These people have trouble falling asleep and waking at times appropriate for proper functioning.

Taken one hour prior to bed time, melatonin (0.5mg) accompanied by a behavioural intervention (such as learning how to meditate) helped the participants get to sleep and improved common accompanying impairments such as low mood, anxiety and difficulty concentrating.

You need a prescription for melatonin in Australia. It’s best to avoid alcohol as it interferes with sleep, thereby reducing any effect of melatonin. It is worth trying as it is generally well tolerated, although some people experience back pain. It may work in other types of sleep disturbances, not due to delayed release of melatonin. A dose of 2mg, controlled release one to two hours before bedtime is most commonly used.

Antipsychotics

Antipsychotic medicines (such as quetiapine) have been increasingly used to treat insomnia.

Typically used at a lower dose, quetiapine can induce sleep but carries a significant burden of possible harmful effects. These include a fast heart rate, agitation, low blood pressure and unsteadiness. These make quetiapine not appropriate for treating common sleep problems.

Antidepressants

Antidepressants are typically prescribed at a low dose for insomnia, but the supporting evidence of efficacy (despite the wide use) is low quality and there is the risk of adverse effects such as confusion, dry mouth and blurred vision.

Herbal and complementary medicines

Herbal remedies such as valerian, lavender, passiflora, chamomile, hops and catnip are widely promoted to promote “sleep health”. Research to support their efficacy is limited.

Read more: We asked five experts: is it possible to catch up on sleep?

Many newer and emerging medicines are being tested for insomnia, so in the future more options should be available.

For now it’s important to remember none of the options listed above is without side effects, and most will cause dependence if used long term, meaning falling asleep without them will be even harder than it was before.

Improve your sleep hygiene, and if that hasn’t worked for you, speak with your doctor about what’s keeping you up at night. She’ll be able to prescribe the best type of medication for you to use in the short term.

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

We see the surface of the sea: the rock pools, the waves, the horizon. But there is so much more going on underneath, hidden from view.

The sea’s surface conceals human impact as well. Today, I am writing a eulogy to the Derwent River Seastar (or starfish), that formerly inhabited the shores near the Tasman Bridge in Hobart, Tasmania. It is Australia’s first documented marine animal extinction and one of the few recorded anywhere in the world.

Read more: Extinction is a natural process, but it’s happening at 1,000 times the normal speed

The Derwent River Seastar, preserved in the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart. Credit: Christy Hipsley, Museums Victoria/University of Melbourne

Scientists only knew the Derwent River Seastar for about 25 years. It was first described in 1969 by Alan Dartnall, a former curator of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. It was found on and off until the early 1990s but scientists noted a decline in numbers. Targeted surveys in 1993 and 2010 failed to find a single individual.

It was listed as critically endangered by the Tasmanian and Australian governments. But now, like a long-lost missing person, it is time to call it: the Derwent River Seastar appears extinct.

It is actually quite hard to document the extinction of marine animals. There is always hope that it will turn up in some unusual spot, somewhere in that hidden world. Australia has an ambitious plan to create high-resolution maps of 50% of our marine environment by 2025. This is a formidable task. But it is a reflection of our lack of knowledge about the oceans that, 20 years after the launch of Google Maps and despite an enormous effort in the interim, much of Australia’s seafloor in 2025 will be still largely known from the occasional 19th-century depth sounding, or imprecise gravity measurements from satellites.

We do notice when big animals go. There used to be a gigantic dugong-like creature called Stella’s Sea Cow, which lived in the North Pacific Ocean until it was hunted to oblivion by 1768. There is no mistaking that loss.

But the vast majority of the estimated 1 million to 2 million marine animals are invertebrates, animals without backbones such as shells, crabs, corals and seastars. We just don’t monitor those enough to observe their decline.

We noticed the Derwent River Seastar because it was only found at a few sites near a major city. Its story is intertwined with the usual developments that happen near many large ports. The Derwent River became silty and was at times heavily polluted by industrial and residential waste. The construction of the Tasman Bridge in the early 1960s cannot have helped.

From the 1920s a series of marine pests were accidentally introduced by live oysters imported from New Zealand, or by hitching a ride on ships. Some of these pests are now abundant in southeast Tasmanian waters and eat or compete with local species.

Read more: Australia relies on volunteers to monitor its endangered species

The Derwent River Seastar has been a bit of an enigma. From the start, it was mistakenly classified as belonging to group of seastars (poranids) otherwise known from deep or polar habitats. Some people wondered whether it was an introduced species as well, one that couldn’t cope with the Derwent environment.

However, we used a CT scanner at the School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, to look at the internal skeleton of one of the few museum specimens. Sure enough, it has internal struts to strengthen the body, which are characteristic of a different group of seastars (asterinids) that have adapted to coastal environments and are sometimes restricted to very small areas.

CT scan showing the internal structure of the seastar. Source: Christy Hipsley, Museums Victoria/University of Melbourne

Is this seastar like a canary in a coal mine, a warning of a wave of marine extinctions? Sea levels are rising with global warming, and that is going to be a big problem for life adapted to living along the shoreline. Mangroves, salt marsh, seagrass beds, mud flats, beaches and rock platforms only form at specific water depths. They are going to need to follow rising sea levels and reform higher up the shoreline.

Coastal life can take hundreds to thousands of years to adjust to these sorts of changes. But in many places we don’t have a natural environment anymore. Humans will increasingly protect coastal property by building seawalls and other infrastructure, especially around towns and bays. This will mean far less space for marine animals and plants.

Read more: Rising seas will displace millions of people – and Australia must be ready

We need to start planning new places for our shore life to go – areas they can migrate to with rising sea levels. Otherwise, the Derwent River Seastar won’t be the last human-induced extinction from these environments.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wendy Steele, Associate Professor of Sustainability and Urban Planning, RMIT University

We are still settling Australian cities on unceded Aboriginal lands. With the global agreement on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, development has finally come home to the developed world. Yet in Australia we still often proceed as if development goals are about foreign aid, somehow separate from our own development activities and civic responsibilities.

The Senate inquiry into the SDGs, for example, has been referred to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Three of the seven terms of reference relate to Australia’s Official Development Assistance program.

Reports that trade with Europe might be in jeopardy because of Australia’s failure to act responsibly on climate change – a commitment enshrined not just in the Paris Agreement but also in SDG 13: Climate Action – illustrate the naivety of thinking this country can carry on as usual while others tackle sustainable development.

Read more: Australia’s UN report card: making progress, could do better on inequality and climate

Australia’s SDG indicator framework

The National Sustainable Development Council’s focus on transforming Australia is an important starting point. The NCDC draws on the SDG Progress Report to “highlight key trends and emerging issues for policy and decision-makers and communities across Australia”. But it doesn’t go far enough.

The focus is on targets and indicators that are deemed relevant and important for Australia. This is complemented by a wheel-of-fortune-style dashboard set of aggregated results across four key benchmarks.

The result is a colourful, largely unintelligible – albeit very well-intentioned – national SDG assessment.

Looks like we get a C grade. But what does this actually say about Australian settlements?

Sanitised and complacent

The real issues facing Australia are sanitised and out of sight with a 6.5 score. With 90% of Australians living in urban areas, how does this assessment inform and transform the state of sustainable development in our cities?

A core sustainable development challenge for Australia is the spatial unevenness of its development – between cities and non-city regions, between the dominant cities (Sydney and Melbourne) and the rest, or between different suburbs within cities.

Our patchwork economy generates serious social inequities. The answer is not just to stimulate greater economic activity or spread the boom to “lagging” areas.

We need to recognise that the apparent success of the “bright patches” is often based on their exploitation of “dull patches”. Some areas are set up to be sacrifice zones that suffer, for example, the ill effects of resource extraction, heavy industry and waste disposal.

Read more: An environmentally just city works best for all in the end

And some regions struggle not simply because they are physically distant, but because uneven provision of infrastructure has made them functionally distant. Prioritisation of certain regions over others and an over-reliance on infrastructure provision as a proxy for development are two issues that the nation needs to tackle to deliver the SDG agenda.

Beyond national silos

Australian cities rely on and impact upon these spaces and others far beyond their boundaries. Thus tackling SDG 11 on cities cannot be separated from tackling the other SDGs, including sustainably managing life on land (SDG 15), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), affordable and clean energy (SDG 7) and life below water (SDG 14).

This means thinking not just about where and how cities access resources, but where their outputs go. For example, when China halted a major waste flow to its recycling plants this exposed the reliance of Australian cities on often distant facilities.

Read more: China’s recycling ‘ban’ throws Australia into a very messy waste crisis

This demonstrates how cities are inextricably linked to spaces beyond their city limits, and the need for Australian cities to reduce and reuse as well as just recycle waste. It also illustrates the entwining of Australian settlement development with multiple spaces beyond our borders. Australia’s responsibility for sustainable development includes attention to the nation’s own urban heartlands as well as their impact on both neighbouring and distant countries.

Putting the SDGs to work in Australian cities

The SDGs can be mobilised to help achieve sustainable development, but we are not putting them to work in Australia. We stumble our way into the challenges of our climate of change, no more nationally self-aware it seems than before.

A new sustainable development approach is needed in Australia. An SDG ethic and compass must guide our direction so no one is left behind.

The SDGs are an invitation to take seriously the sustainable development challenges we face as a nation, and the implications of our actions for other nations. Rather than look for ways to reinforce our developed country privilege with a C grade report card, we could use the SDGs as a two-fold opportunity to:

1) ask the hard questions about the sustainability of our development

2) collectively explore transformative pathways, particularly within our cities.

Both suggest the importance of connecting more genuinely with Indigenous understandings of sustainability and living ethically on Country. And what do the SDG indicator frameworks and benchmarks tell us about our progress in our sovereign relationship with Indigenous people on whose unceded land we live and work?

We are not arguing for a more parochial agenda, or that international development is not important. Indeed, Australia could usefully follow the UK in positioning national science and research priorities within broader “global challenges”.

Rather, we are pointing to the risks of framing sustainable development issues as problems “over there”. This obscures both Australia’s own acute settlement problems and its role in creating problems “over there”.

What is needed is joined-up policy, planning and research that includes Australia within the frame as a sustainable development site, as well as a funding provider.

It could also include identifying Australia as a country in need: a nation that needs to better contribute to all the SDGs. In the case of SDG 13 on climate action, that need is glaring.

In Australia we need to make sure our identity does not include an implicit assumption that our home base is not in need of SDG attention – or only in certain areas. Many if not all aspects of development in Australia are maldevelopment, which calls for strong critical evaluation and action as much as in any other space. As a nation we can do much better.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Giovanni Di Lieto, Lecturer of international trade law, Monash Business School, Monash University

As Donald Trump escalates his trade war with China, slapping a 10% tariff on roughly $US200 billion of imports that will climb to 25% if China retaliates, he appears to found something of a soul mate in Scott Morrison.

“We both get it,” Australia’s new prime minister said this week. What they get, he told the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd, is that some people feel left off the globalism gravy train: “The president gets that. I get it.”

His words signal a profound change of tack in Australian economic diplomacy as the new US approach threatens to break down the World Trade Organisation and universal trade agreements in general.

Under Trump, trade will depend on stronger bilateral (one on one) agreements that support US geopolitics.

It’ll mean Australia picking sides.

Double dangers in middle of the road

The status quo of relying on China for trade surpluses and on the US for security patronage might not be sustainable in the long run.

Siding with neither China or the US, attempting a “third way” of non-alignment, runs the risks losing out on both trade and security.

Broadly speaking, we can summarise the trade war between the US and China as a contest between sea and land.

The US aims to secure trade routes through the Indian and Pacific oceans. China wants to shift the bedrock of international trade to Central Asia.

Its Belt and Road Initiative is a grand strategic plan to join Eurasian economies from Lisbon to Vladivostok. The plan would end the historic era of Anglo-American hegemony founded on controlling trade routes across the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans.

Read more: Is the Trump administration getting East Asia right, or just confusing it?

Australia faces an existential strategic choice.

Leaving political ideologies aside, its economic prosperity depends on trade by sea. The return of Marco Polo’s world would eventually make Australia little more than a price-taking commodity supplier to trade and investment hubs from Beijing to Venice.

This means our national interests lie with the US defence of its seaborne trading routes.

Picking a side will be costly

In the short term, especially if the trade war escalates, siding with the US will be costly. We could lose a good deal of China-related export and business opportunities. Over the longer run we could offset the losses by diversifying to trade and invest in countries with shared strategic interests, such as Indonesia and India.

We would be well advised to reconsider the diplomatic benefit of RCEP, the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. This mega regional trade deal between the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and their bilateral trade partners has been dubbed the Chinese Trans Pacific Partnership. It can be seen as an extension of Xi Jinping’s major-power agenda.

After a promising start, RCEP negotiations now appear to be stuck. The main obstacle is India’s fear of worsening its already significant trade deficit with China.

Our interests lie with the US, and India

Another sticking point is that India, the Philippines and other potential members want countries like Australia, New Zealand and Japan to open up their markets for information technology and professional services.

In pure trade terms we would lose little if the RCEP did not proceed. We already have strong bilateral ties with all the negotiating countries apart from India, with whom we are presently negotiating a free trade agreement.

We would be well advised to use our limited diplomatic resources for that and supporting the US when it comes time to pick sides.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna McIntyre, Lecturer in Screen and Media Studies, University of the Sunshine Coast

As a term and concept, “transgender” is now firmly embedded in common parlance and popular consciousness. In Australia in the last few weeks alone there have been major news stories about transgender footballer Hannah Mouncey; Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s comments regarding “gender whisperers”; and the University of Western Australia cancelling a talk by an anti-transgender US academic.

“Transgender” has an important linguistic counterpart that is not as common but is gaining prevalence. The term “cisgender” (pronounced “sis-gender”) refers to people whose gender identity and expression matches the biological sex they were assigned when they were born. For instance, the musician Moby has said he is a “run-of-the-mill, cisgender, heterosexual male”.

“Cisgender” was introduced so our language could be more fair and inclusive, and to make us more aware of everybody’s experiences of gender. However, the term has critics as well as fans.

Read more: Explainer: the difference between being transgender and doing drag

What are the word’s origins?

The prefix “trans-” comes from Latin, meaning “across from” or “on the other side of”. In contrast, the prefix “cis-” means “on this side of”. It is commonly used in chemistry and in relation to geographic features, such as in “cisalpine”.

“Cisgender” was coined in academic journal articles in the 1990s. It started to gain broader popularity from around 2007 when transgender theorist Julia Serano discussed it in her book Whipping Girl. Over the next decade, activists, scholars and online forums helped to, literally, spread the word.

It is largely used by those who are sensitive to issues of gender and identity. Nevertheless, its general acceptance and endurance as a term and concept was acknowledged when it was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015.

Cisgender relates specifically to gender rather than sexuality. A person can be cisgender (often abbreviated to just cis) and have any sort of sexuality. For example, two men may both be cisgender but one straight and one gay.

Because it is a personal identity category, it is difficult to know just from looking at someone whether they are cisgender.

Why is it useful?

This term is seen has having some important uses. One is that it helps us distinguish between sexual identity and gender identity. However, its most significant function is perhaps that naming something allows us to think about it more clearly.

Having a word for a “just usual” gender identity enables us to understand it is actually a specific gender identity in itself. The idea that people are cisgender therefore shows that, no matter who you are, the relationship between your body and your sense of self is particular.

Drawing attention to gender in this way can also highlight that some people are disadvantaged because of their gender identity. That is, this term can create awareness that people who are not cisgender often have a harder time in our society than those who are. For example, trans men and women report higher levels of physical and verbal abuse than cisgender people.

Detractors

Despite the inclusive potential of the word, it also has many detractors who warn about possible negative impacts. Some believe it sets up a harmful distinction between transgender people and everybody else. In this sense, the term can be counter-intuitive and work against transgender becoming more accepted and normalised.

It can also falsely imply that only transgender people experience any form of mismatch between their body/sex and their gender identity. For example, lesbian, gay and bisexual people in particular may be deemed cisgender but experience conflict between their gender identity and how society expects them to express their gender.

Others have identified the term does not properly account for intersex people. Because intersex people have atypical sex characteristics (for example genitals, hormones, reproductive glands and/or chromosomes), it is problematic to define their gender identity in relation to the sex they were born.

Read more: Surgery to make intersex children ‘normal’ should be banned

From these perspectives, cisgender is limiting and divisive because it indicates there are only two possible gender identities linked to only two sexes.

Finally, some people think “cisgender” will not be fully integrated into common language because of how unusual it is to spell and say. For this reason, clearer terms such as “non-trans” have been suggested instead.

As our understanding of gender continues to change, the words we have to describe our experiences of it will also evolve. Ideally these words will help us rectify inequalities between gender identities.

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

Mutual interest is a great bonding agent, so the bromance between 2GB shock jock Ray Hadley and Scott Morrison is on again.

Morrison will once more make regular appearances with Hadley, who dumped him unceremoniously last year, with a spurious excuse, because he considered him too boring.

As treasurer Morrison was “captive to cabinet solidarity”, Hadley said on Tuesday, explaining their “parting of the ways”. But as prime minister, he was the boss and “unharnessed”.

“Unharnessed” is also one way to describe the state of the government, as MPs kick over the traces, and the still-new prime minister struggles to get a hold on the reins.

The Senate on Monday and Tuesday (and last Thursday) found itself with little to do; Morrison cancelled an October meeting with the states because more work was needed on the matters to be discussed.

In the spooked team, you’d be hard pressed to find many who think the Coalition can turn things around in time for next year’s election.

The row over bullying and the separate but now intertwined question of the under-representation of women among Liberal MPs is continuing to rip through the Liberal party, unable to be contained.

Morrison is conflicted. It’s risky for him to play down the allegations of standover tactics, let alone fail to take seriously enough the party’s need for more female MPs.

But he is attempting to sideline the bullying issue by saying the problem isn’t with the parliamentarians – rather, it lies in the party organisation.

This week he ordered that organisation to set up a complaints mechanism.

Read more: Morrison tells Liberal organisation to act on bullying after second woman flags she’ll quit

On female representation, Morrison has no answers. Yes, he says, he would like more Liberal women in parliament. But how to get them? Certainly not with quotas. And he just wants the best candidates.

Post election, Liberal women in the House of Representatives are likely to be an endangered species – perhaps around half a dozen. Currently there are 12 Liberal women in the House, and one National.

Two of the present women MPs, Ann Sudmalis, from NSW, and Julia Banks, from Victoria, have announced they’re quitting at the election, calling out bad behaviour (with Sudmalis naming a NSW state Liberal MP as her bete noire). Queensland’s Jane Prentice has lost preselection. Julie Bishop is unlikely to stand. Several women are on tight margins.

After Sudmalis’ lashing out on Monday, comments from Liberals on Tuesday sent unhelpful messages.

Minister Steve Ciobo tried to claim the Liberals really had done quite well on the women front; Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells invoked Harry S. Truman’s line about departing hot kitchens. Morrison said skirmishes “can happen in the local branches of a P&C”, adding “though I don’t think it probably gets as willing as what we see in politics”.

The government’s “women problem” goes beyond lack of women MPs and candidates.

In presenting its face to voters, especially female voters, Labor has two formidable female performers at the top of its team – deputy leader Tanya Plibersek and its Senate leader Penny Wong.

With Bishop’s departure from the deputyship, the Liberals have no female face in their leadership positions. Bridget McKenzie is the Nationals deputy leader, but obviously regionally focussed.

Kelly O’Dwyer is Minister for Women but doesn’t do much of the government’s broad heavy lifting. New Foreign Minister Marise Payne does virtually none of it (although in her new portfolio she’ll have to step up from her virtual invisibility while in defence). Michaelia Cash has a heap of her own political problems.

There is also the question of how Morrison will appeal to female voters.

So far, the public are still getting their heads around the fact of unexpectedly finding themselves with a new prime minister. Voters seem open-minded about Morrison: they have already put him ahead of Bill Shorten as preferred PM – probably as much a comment on their low opinion of Shorten as a definite statement about Morrison.

Women’s judgment of Morrison will take a while to shake out. He’s started out looking very blokey, with his frequent invoking use of the term “mate”, his preoccupation with rugby league, and his penchant for getting around in a Cronulla Sharks cap.

But Morrison’s chameleon quality means that he may be able to modify the blokey approach if the focus groups suggest that’s required.

The Morrison persona will be tested in the Wentworth byelection. (One Labor-aligned voter from that wealthy electorate says cruelly, “The average Wentworthian would see Morrison as a bit of a hick from The Shire”.)

Read more: View from The Hill: Morrison faces the challenge of community-based candidate in Wentworth

As is well known, Morrison wanted a woman candidate for the seat, an effort that failed. Now he is faced with the political nightmare of fighting a high profile independent female in Kerryn Phelps.

Phelps is well placed to exploit the Liberals’ women problem. One would expect many of the women of Wentworth will be interested in whether Morrison during the coming weeks can produce any plans to improve the gender balance among Liberal MPs.

As the campaign progresses, the Liberal party’s focus groups will be carefully watched for whether there is a gender difference in how voters perceive the Prime Minister. Those results would help shape campaigning later.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Juanita Westbury, Senior Lecturer in Dementia Care, University of Tasmania

From time to time, we hear or read about medical procedures or treatments that can be ineffective and needlessly drive up the nation’s health-care costs. This occasional series explores such procedures individually and explains why they could cause more harm than good in particular circumstances.

Antipsychotic medications were initially developed to treat schizophrenia, a mental health condition characterised by psychotic symptoms such as delusions and hallucinations. Because of their sedative effects, antipsychotic medications (such as risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine and haloperidol) are often used to “manage” people with dementia.

People with dementia often experience a range of psychological symptoms and behaviour changes. These can include anxiety, sleep disturbance, pacing, wandering, crying out, agitation, delusions and hallucinations.

These are referred to as “behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia” (BPSD) though the term “responsive behaviours” has also been adopted to help explain their cause, signalling that there are often reasons behind the behaviours. Understanding and treating these reasons is the best way to approach these behaviours.

Read more: Chemical restraint in aged-care homes linked to early death

Antipsychotic medications are known as psychotropic medications. These are drugs that alter a person’s mental state and include antipsychotics, antidepressants, benzodiazepines and anticonvulsants, which are also used to sedate patients in nursing homes. These come with significant and serious risks. Clinical guidelines recommend such medications be used only as a last resort.

Psychotropic medicines should only be considered when non-pharmacological interventions have failed and the patient has symptoms that are distressing for them, their family or fellow residents.

Responsive behaviours

Dementia is not just a single disease. It’s a term describing symptoms associated with more than 70 separate diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease and Lewy body dementia. The condition affects many brain functions including language, personality and reasoning skills, not just memory, which is usually associated with the condition.

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

Responsive behaviours in people with dementia vary according to the type and severity of their disease. They also fluctuate over time. A Canadian study of 146 aged care residents assessed these behaviours monthly for six months, revealing a wide variation in their duration and frequency. Results showed most responsive behaviours lasted for less than three months with usual care.

Many responsive behaviours in people with dementia are thought to result from, or be worsened by, unmet needs (pain, hunger), the environment (over- or under-stimulation), social needs (loneliness or need for intimacy) and approaches of carers or others. Sometimes these behaviours are caused by an acute medical illness on top of the dementia, such as an infection. Other times the behaviours arise from the disease process of dementia itself.

Each cause requires different treatment. For example, an infection shouldn’t be missed, nor should pain, each requiring different strategies. So, the first step for those around the person, both health care professionals and family carers, is to work out why they are behaving a certain way rather than reaching for a script pad.

Psychotropic use in aged care

Psychotropic medications are often over-used. The main evidence for excessive use of psychotropics such as antipsychotics in dementia in Australia has been collected in aged care homes. A recent study, that one of the authors was involved in, examined antipsychotic use in 139 homes across all six states and the ACT during 2014-2015. It assessed the use of antipsychotics in more than 11,500 residents.

We found that 22% of residents were taking an antipsychotic medication every day. And concerningly, more than 10% of residents were charted for a “when required” antipsychotic. This means they could be given an antipsychotic dose when a behaviour occurred that their carer decided was necessary to medicate, or a top-up dose in addition to their regular dose.

Read more: Dementia patients’ thinking ability may get worse in winter and early spring

Excessive use of antipsychotics in older people does not appear to be confined to the residential aged care sector. A 2013 district nursing study of 221 people with dementia living in their own homes found that 18% were prescribed these medications.

Many trials have examined the effectiveness of antipsychotics to treat agitation in people with dementia. These studies show they only offer benefit to about 20% of people with these symptoms and appear to offer no benefit for other responsive behaviours such as wandering, crying out or anxiety.

But what’s worse is that use is associated with severe adverse effects including stroke, early death, infections, Parkinson’s-like movement disturbances, falls and over-sedation.

There are times when behaviours can be severe and disabling and impact the quality of life for the person with dementia. Sometimes the behaviours may put the person or others at risk. In these cases, careful prescribing is recommended. When needed for responsive behaviours, antipsychotics should be taken at the lowest effective dose for a maximum of three-months.

If people are in pain, it is absolutely essential that this is treated. One study showed using increasingly strong analgesia was as effective in treating agitation in dementia as antipsychotics.

Advice for family members

Family members need to understand and be aware of these symptoms and behaviours, their treatment and alternatives and be part of finding out why they are happening as well as the solution.

This includes being aware that legally, psychotropics must be prescribed with consent, either from the person themselves or from their substitute decision-maker. Families should not just be finding out about use of medications when they receive the pharmacy bill.

Skilled advice for nursing homes is available across Australia, 24-hours a day from the Dementia Behaviour Management Advisory Service and the Severe Behaviour Response Teams. They support aged-care providers in improving care for people with dementia and related behaviours.

Families need to make sure that the facility their loved one resides is in is aware of and uses this service, so they don’t have to resort to using drugs first. The 24-hour helpline number is 1800 699 799.

For more information about your rights, visit empoweredproject.org.au