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

Scott Morrison is fond of telling his troops they’re in a boat. On Thursday he said Barnaby Joyce was “a wind in the sails”. Perhaps better described as a gale hitting the craft, some nervous Liberals would think.

Political life changed dramatically for Morrison this week. Whether Joyce’s elevation will benefit or harm the government at the election is an open question, but right now it is a massive complication for the PM.

It’s unleashed a battle over power within the Coalition, and it’s intensified the perennial difficulties on climate policy.

The surreal backdrop in this final week of parliament before the winter break was Morrison quarantined at The Lodge, looming “virtually” over House of Representatives members, while Joyce, following his Tuesday swearing in, occupied the PM’s chair at the centre table, the focus of attention.

To say the least, the symbolism was unfortunate. As Morrison said in another context, nothing beats being face to face. Being on a screen, upstaged by your unpredictable new right hand man, is an especially unhappy place.

Behind the scenes, Morrison and Joyce negotiated the terms of their partnership. In the open, the restored leader let the Nationals run riot, in a way we haven’t seen for a long time.

Read more:
View from The Hill: Nationals give Scott Morrison a muscle man to deal with — especially on net zero

In the Senate on Wednesday and then in the lower House on Thursday Nationals moved amendments on water, challenging the Murray Darling Basin plan, in an open split with the Liberals. At one point Peter Dutton, as leader of the House, was trying to shut down Damian Drum, the chief Nationals whip.

The water ploy was a gesture, and the revolt is said to have been in the pipeline for months and would, its proponents say, have gone ahead under Michael McCormack.

But for Joyce it was a convenient message to Morrison: the new leader is willing, if need be, to fight dirty to get as much as he can of whatever he wants.

Morrison’s problems on climate policy, hard enough before this week, have just increased substantially. And indeed, so has the internal dilemma the Nationals face on the issue.

Previously it was thought McCormack and deputy David Littleproud might be open to some deal so Morrison could embrace the target of net zero by 2050 (firming his present stance of reaching net zero “preferably” by 2050).

But Joyce has a history of opposing a 2050 target. Despite this Littleproud (who remains deputy) continued this week to signal that he could see a deal. That’s a very odd situation.

In prime ministerial circles they remain hopeful of a deal, on the basis that Morrison and Joyce are pragmatists and money can smooth the way.

But opposition within the Nationals to the 2050 target was one important driver of the Joyce coup. If he did a backflip, that would anger many followers. He’s privately been sticking to his position this week.

In an exercise that had critics quickly recalling Joyce’s $100 roast during the carbon debate of the Labor years, Nationals senator Matt Canavan, a confidant of Joyce, conjured up a spectre of net zero in the cattle industry.

“Every cow emits about 2300kg of carbon dioxide equivalent gases a year,” Canavan wrote in The Australian. “The CSIRO estimated last year that to reach net zero emissions we would need to start with a carbon price of $30 a tonne now. Even a relatively small cattle producer runs about 1000 head. So they would be up for a $70,000-a-year cost under a net-zero policy.

“By 2050, the price would rise to more than $200 a tonne, taking the carbon bill on your steaks to a whopping $400,000 per year, per farm.”

Canavan will be a significant player in the months ahead, and in the climate debate. Formerly resources minister, he has not sought to return to the ministry. Potentially he is both an influence on Joyce (he once worked for him), and also, as a backbencher, a tosser of grenades to remind the Liberals of the Nationals’ clout.

Warren Entsch, a Liberal who holds the north Queensland marginal seat of Leichhardt, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, put the other view.

“If the Nationals were really concerned about the livelihoods of farmers, perhaps they would do more to advocate for and enable the sector’s autonomy – rather than going off half-cocked and riding roughshod over a net zero 2050 emissions target.

“They might also like to consider what an increasingly warmer climate will mean for Australian agriculture,” Entsch said.

Unless Joyce shifts his position, Morrison surely can’t endorse the target. Joe Biden and Boris Johnson may or may not understand the concept of being “Barnaby’d”.

While the Joyce coup has transformed the dynamics within the Coalition, it wasn’t the worse thing confronting Morrison this week. That remains COVID and the flawed vaccine rollout. For all the numbers Morrison and Health Minister Greg Hunt sprout, the public are frustrated and weary and many people are worried.

The latest outbreak in NSW has seen fresh border closures and restrictions, and hit the state parliament – one minister has COVID and special arrangements were required to get the state budget passed. Premier Gladys Berejiklian said: “Since the pandemic has started, this is perhaps the scariest period that New South Wales is going through.”

COVID even wormed its way into the Barnaby story, with Joyce briefly absent at the start of Thursday’s question time because he thought he might have been a contact of a close contact (he was given an okay by a health official).

The rollout is still blighted by a shortage of supplies of Pfizer, hesitancy about vaccination in general and resistance to AstraZeneca in particular, and inadequate availability of convenient vaccination points.

Even limited outbreaks are disruptive, costly and unnerving, and there is always the danger of a major one occurring.

It may be, however, that the recent appointment of Lieutenant General “JJ” Frewen as COVID tsar is starting to improve the efficiency of the rollout. He’s asking a lot of questions, and bringing in some of his own logistics people to help with the organisation.

Read more:
Barnaby Joyce’s return, and John Anderson’s loss, is symbolic of a political culture gone awry

Frewen’s task, while waiting for more Pfizer supplies, is to get the rollout architecture into better shape. This includes improving communication with the public and relations with the states, and ensuring there are more channels for delivering the vaccines when extra doses arrive.

A lot is now riding on Frewen’s performance. But, inevitably, not all the federal health bureaucrats are happy to find their patch taken over by the military man. It’s another power struggle in Canberra.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Blowin’ in the wind with Barnaby – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-blowin-in-the-wind-with-barnaby-163381

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Orchard, Postdoctoral Fellow, Centenary Institute; and Adjunct Senior Lecturer, University of Sydney

On June 12, 16,000 spectators at Copenhagen’s Parken Stadium and millions of viewers around the world watched in shock as Danish midfielder Christian Eriksen’s heart stopped.

Late in the first half of Denmark’s opening game of the Euro 2020 soccer tournament against Finland, the 29 year-old was running just after a throw-in and suddenly collapsed. It appears he suffered a sudden cardiac arrest.

Fortunately, he was quickly attended to by a medical team with full resuscitation equipment, who administered CPR and successfully used a defibrillator. Erikson survived and has been fitted with an implantable cardiac defibrillator. This is a small device which is connected to the heart and fitted under the skin. If a dangerously abnormal rhythm is detected, it will deliver an electric shock to the heart to try to restore a normal rhythm.

So how often do cardiac arrests happen in young people? What are the risk factors, and can they be prevented?

Cardiac arrests during sport are extremely rare. If you’re playing sport next weekend, you should go ahead in the knowledge it’s almost certain not to happen. The benefits of exercise far outweigh the risks.

But because events like this do happen, albeit very rarely, we need public venues to have good emergency plans to improve survival, including the widespread availability of defibrillators.

There have been some recent improvements in this regard in Australia. For example, defibrillators are now installed in all Coles and Woolworths stores nationally, and there are several programs to support rollout of defibrillators and emergency action plans to community sports clubs. But there’s still room for improvement.

Am I at risk? How often does this happen?

Sudden death from cardiac arrest in a young person is a very rare but tragic outcome. The baseline risk in Australia for people under 35 is 1.3 per 100,000 people per year, with 15% occurring either during or immediately after exercise.

Across all ages, there are 20,000 sudden cardiac arrests in Australia that occur out of hospital every year, and sadly only 10% of people survive.

It’s also worth remembering a cardiac arrest isn’t exactly the same thing as a heart attack. A heart attack occurs when one of the coronary arteries is blocked, stopping blood supply to part of the heart. A cardiac arrest is when the heart stops pumping blood around the body, and can occur due to a heart attack or another cause.

The major causes of cardiac arrest depend on age. In people over 35, the vast majority are caused by coronary artery disease, where arteries supplying blood to the heart are blocked or damaged.

In people aged under 35, there’s no single major cause of cardiac arrest. Some of the conditions that can cause cardiac arrest in young people include:

• a condition where the heart muscle becomes too thick, called “hypertrophic cardiomyopathy”

• other conditions of the heart muscle that make it harder for the heart to work properly (called “cardiomyopathies”)

• a condition called “Long QT syndrome” which can cause a dangerously erratic heartbeat

• “Brugada syndrome”, which is a heart rhythm disorder.

However, 40% of sudden cardiac deaths in young people remain unexplained even after autopsy.

Is cardiac screening the answer?

Cardiac screening in young people looks for certain heart abnormalities that haven’t yet been detected. It’s common for elite and professional athletes in Australia and internationally, and is mandatory for young athletes in some countries, for example Italy and Israel.

This screening usually includes a “12-lead electrocardiogram” or ECG, which is a painless test that involves putting some sticky dots on the body and recording the electrical activity of the heart over a ten second period.

However, ECG screening cannot detect all of the conditions which can cause sudden cardiac arrests. This is because some conditions don’t show ECG abnormalities before a cardiac arrest.

Eriksen’s condition was likely in that category, because we know he had regular heart screenings while at Tottenham and these hadn’t shown any problems.

Medicare in Australia funds heart health checks for people who are middle aged or older, but not in younger people. This is similar to most countries. Other than in professional athletes and those with a family history, most professional bodies don’t recommend widespread screening of younger people because the risk of cardiac arrests is so low overall.

How else can we prevent sudden cardiac death? Defibrillators and data

The best strategy for preventing sudden cardiac death at any age is having defibrillators widely available. A defibrillator is a device that can analyse the heart’s rhythm and deliver an electric shock if needed. This can shock the heart back into a normal rhythm.

While they obviously can’t stop the cardiac arrest happening in the first place, they are crucial to survival once they do happen. Early access to a defibrillator can improve survival to almost 90%.

However, access needs to be very quick, ideally within 2-5 minutes, as we know the chances of survival drop by 10% for every minute of delay before defibrillation.

We also need as many as people as possible to be regularly trained to provide CPR.

Fabrice Muamba, a former midfielder for the Bolton Wanderers soccer team in the UK, was lucky to survive after he collapsed and his heart stopped on the field during a 2012 FA cup quarter-final.

Muamba, who recovered after he received CPR and 26 defibrillator shocks, last week voiced his support for defibrillators to be a legal requirement in public places in the UK. Ideally, Australia could also introduce a similar requirement to have defibrillators in public venues, supported by widespread CPR training (including how to use a defibrillator) to improve survival rates from out of hospital cardiac arrests.

In addition to defibrillators and CPR training, venues such as schools and sporting stadiums need to have good cardiac emergency plans so they can respond efficiently and effectively if someone’s heart stops.

Some of the conditions that are diagnosable prior to a cardiac arrest run in families, such as “Long QT syndrome”. So, it’s important to seek medical advice for anyone with a family member who has had cardiac arrest under the age of 40.

Read more:
In cases of cardiac arrest, time is everything. Community responders can save lives

Importantly, anyone who has any worrying symptoms should seek medical advice, especially fainting or collapse during exercise.

Finally, research projects such as the Australian End Unexplained Cardiac Death (EndUCD) registry are urgently needed to identify the underlying causes of cardiac death in young people so we can prevent deaths from sudden cardiac arrest.

Dr Jessica Orchard is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centenary Institute, University of Sydney and honorary Cardiac Research Fellow at Cricket Australia. She is supported by a Heart Foundation fellowship.

– ref. Cardiac arrests in young people — what causes them and can they be prevented or treated? A heart expert explains – https://theconversation.com/cardiac-arrests-in-young-people-what-causes-them-and-can-they-be-prevented-or-treated-a-heart-expert-explains-163276

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leah Ruppanner, Associate Professor in Sociology and Co-Director of The Policy Lab, The University of Melbourne

During a heated exchange in a Coalition party room meeting about childcare subsidies, a male MP stated working women are “outsourcing parenting”.

The notion that working mothers are failing their children is nothing new. Derived from the Victorian era, notions of women as moral guardians of the family were a way to showcase new-found wealth. Having enough money for women to stay home was a serious indicator of class status.

But times have changed. These days, the majority of couple families have both parents employed even when children are infants, toddlers and preschool-aged. We have ditched the corsets and hoop skirts, so why do we continue to view mothers’ employment as a threat to parenting?

Read more:
It takes a village: why sending your kid to childcare isn’t ‘outsourcing parenting’

Mothers: all things to all people (but especially to children)

Victorian ideologies of separate spheres of work and family life, and distinct parenting roles for mothers and fathers, have given way to notions of intensive parenting. Today, parents are expected to provide time-intensive, one-on-one and expert guided care to their children. This forms one plank of “good” parenting as a way to ensure children are not only well tended but also prepared for increasingly unstable futures.

The pressure is on parents to solve problems of rising inequality, globalisation and declining earnings by ensuring children can read, play the violin, trade stocks and speak fluent Mandarin by the age of five. It is no surprise mothers feel stressed, time-pressed and overwhelmed.

The benefits to children of childcare

Added to this pressure is the notion that putting children into paid care so mothers (and fathers) can work is “outsourcing” mothers’ parental responsibilities.

Research shows there are tremendous benefits to children’s access to high-quality universal care, including increased language skills and better cognitive and socio-emotional skills. These benefits are long-term, leading to higher educational outcomes, greater likelihood of completing university degrees and reduced incarceration rates.

High-quality childcare is close to the silver bullet to improving children’s long-term well-being. It is a public good that keeps giving. Yet we stigmatise childcare in ways we don’t other forms of education.

Read more:
Having a second child worsens parents’ mental health: new research

Fathers play a critical role in parenting

When it comes to childcare, the cultural narrative places the onus on mothers as solely responsible for children’s first five years. Just like the notion that women are better multi-taskers and men are “dirt blind”, this is a pernicious myth that disadvantages mothers, fathers and children alike.

Fathers today are more engaged in children’s emotional development than previous generations. Fathers who are more emotionally nurturing have children who are better able to achieve their goals in a healthy way, are more emotionally resilient and egalitarian in their partnerships.

So, we do fathers a true disservice in perpetuating myths that mothers are the natural nurturers and fathers are incompetent, disconnected and irresponsible.

Some politicians need a reality check

These political comments are also out of step with the views of Australian constituents. We ran an experiment in which we asked over 1,000 respondents about whether using childcare would hurt a prime ministerial candidate’s electability. The experiment switched genders to test if this produced different responses to male or female candidates.

Our sample reported that women prime ministers would be more electable if they had full-time help. And they viewed women and men prime ministerial candidates who outsourced this care as equally competent, capable, likeable and caring.

Our respondents viewed having children and being a good parent as critical to success as a prime minister, but did not punish women candidates for ‘outsourcing’ this care. Importantly, they also didn’t reward our candidates for having a stay-at-home partner. So, the National party’s male politicians (such as Matt Carnavan, George Christensen, Gerard Rennick and Terry Young) who hold the idea that the Australian public views paying for childcare as problematic is not borne out in our data.

Perpetuating gender myths causes much more harm than using childcare

Women continue to be held accountable against gender myths that aren’t supported by the science or our experimental study. The longer politicians and others perpetuate these false claims, the slower we are in reaching gender parity and closing income-based gaps in children’s long-term outcomes.

Leah Ruppanner receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Andrea Carson receives funding from the Australian Research Council to study political participation of women at the local government level.

– ref. Politicians criticising women for ‘outsourcing’ parenting need a reality check. Here it is – https://theconversation.com/politicians-criticising-women-for-outsourcing-parenting-need-a-reality-check-here-it-is-163357

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kurt Iveson, Associate Professor of Urban Geography and Research Lead, Sydney Policy Lab, University of Sydney

This week, the NSW government announced almost A$500 million towards boosting the uptake of electric vehicles. In its new electric vehicle strategy, the government will waive stamp duty for cars under $78,000, develop more charging infrastructure, offer rebates to 25,000 drivers, and more.

Given the transport sector is Australia’s second-largest polluter, it’s a good thing Australian governments are starting to plan for a transition to electric vehicles (EVs).

But transitioning from cities full of petrol-guzzling vehicles to cities full of electric ones won’t address all of the environmental and social problems associated with car dependence and mass manufacturing.

So, let’s look at these problems in more detail, and why public transport really is the best way forward.

Mounting disadvantage and health issues

EVs do have environmental advantages over conventional vehicles. In particular, they generate less carbon emissions during their lifetime. Of course, much of the emissions reductions will depend on how much electricity comes from renewable sources.

But carbon emissions are only one of the many problems associated with the dominance of private cars as a form of mobility in cities.

Let’s start with a few of the social issues. This includes the huge amount of space devoted to car driving and parking in our neighbourhoods. This can crowd out other forms of land use, including other more sustainable forms of mobility such as walking and cycling.

There are the financial and mental health costs of congestion, as well, with Australian city workers spending, on average, 66 minutes getting to and from work each day. Injuries and fatalities on roads are also increasing, and inactivity and isolation associated with driving can impact our physical health.

Car-dependent cities also contribute to disadvantage for people who don’t have access to cars, and uneven financial vulnerability associated with the high costs of car ownership and use.

Indeed, some of these problems could be made worse — for instance, subsidies for EVs could end up favouring wealthier people who can afford new cars.

Read more:
Australian city workers’ average commute has blown out to 66 minutes a day. How does yours compare?

Mining for resources

A mass global uptake of EVs will generate major environmental problems, too. Most concerning of these is the use of finite mineral resources required for their construction, and the environmental and labour conditions of their extraction.

This was recently highlighted in a recent report by the International Energy Agency. As the agency’s executive director Fatih Birol said, there’s a

looming mismatch between the world’s strengthened climate ambitions and the availability of critical minerals that are essential to realising those ambitions.

Minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel and copper are key ingredients required to make EVs.

As the report noted, EVs use double the amount of copper than conventional vehicles. EVs also require considerable amounts of lithium, cobalt and graphite that are hardly required at all for conventional vehicles. And it expects demand for lithium to grow 40-fold between 2020 and 2040, driven by EV production to meet climate targets.

There is considerable discussion of Australia’s natural advantage as a supplier of some of these minerals, as we have large reserves of lithium and rare-earth metals beneath parts of the continent.

But before governments and mining bodies rush to exploit these reserves, they need to ensure much more is done to avoid the injustices perpetrated against Traditional Owners and their lands and heritage. The recent appalling destruction at Juukan Gorge by Rio Tinto’s iron ore operation is just one example of this.

Read more:
Rio Tinto just blasted away an ancient Aboriginal site. Here’s why that was allowed

Mining also has its own environmental problems, such as land clearing and associated biodiversity loss, the pollution and contaminants it produces, and intensive water use.

The conditions of extracting these critical minerals in other parts of the world are dire. There’s the oppressive working conditions in cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the conflict over Indigenous rights in Chile’s lithium mining areas, and environmental destruction associated with mining rare earth minerals in China.

Broadening ideas about transport

To focus on these problems is not to suggest the new policies on electric vehicles are unimportant, or that they don’t stand to have some positive environmental impact.

The point is private EVs are not a solution to the combined challenges of reducing our urban environmental footprints and making better cities for all, and that they have their own problems.

Instead, we should develop a good mass public transport system with extensive and frequent coverage. Alongside urban development with a more even distribution of jobs, services and opportunities, investing in better public transport could reduce car dependence in our cities.

This would have a range of environmental and social benefits: making more space available for people instead of machines, extending the benefits of mobility to people who can’t or don’t drive, and reducing demand for finite minerals.

Even fossil-fuelled public transport has fewer emissions than conventional car travel. Data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows the most fuel-efficient buses and trains generate less than half the carbon emissions per passenger kilometre of fuel-efficient cars. Of course, public transport powered by renewables will be even better.

But as things stand, we are far from having such a city. The benefits of good public transport and public services are unevenly distributed across our cities.

In Sydney, for example, there are significant investments in new public transport infrastructure in some parts of the city, such as Metro West and the recently completed North West Metro. There are welcome commitments to reduce emissions in that sector, too.

But we’re a long way from planning new developments and redevelopments to make public transport a viable alternative to cars. The lack of public transport infrastructure in newly constructed, master-planned estates on Sydney’s urban fringe is the most glaring example.

Read more:
Climate explained: the environmental footprint of electric versus fossil cars

Ultimately, it’s important that a transition to electric vehicles doesn’t dominate the discussion we need to have about urban transport.

Our challenge is to simultaneously reduce the carbon footprint of different forms of transport, while also thinking much more broadly about the sustainability and justice of the system of mobility that’s so central to daily life in our cities.

Kurt Iveson has received funding for previous research from the Australian Research Council, the Henry Halloran Trust, and the City of Sydney.

– ref. Cramming cities full of electric vehicles means we’re still depending on cars — and that’s a huge problem – https://theconversation.com/cramming-cities-full-of-electric-vehicles-means-were-still-depending-on-cars-and-thats-a-huge-problem-163247

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Miles Pattenden, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry/Gender and Women’s History Research Centre, Australian Catholic University

In this series we pay tribute to the art we wish could visit — and hope to see once travel restrictions are lifted.

A church, an ancient heap of flints, rises up, cavernous, through mist and marshes. The “Cathedral of the Marshes”, they call it. This is Blythburgh on England’s windswept Suffolk coast.

The landscape here is oppressive, bleak. And what man once made is quickly being lost to nature: sea erodes land.

Nearby, the parish at Easton Bavents almost completely perished centuries ago beneath the waves. Bare traces remain of the great medieval port of Dunwich five miles south.

Yet Blythburgh’s Holy Trinity stands tall, majestic even, a near-perfect expression of the mature perpendicular style of English Gothic architecture.

East Anglia is dotted with such archaic oratories, which exercise a remarkable hold over the English psyche. These churches are our public monuments, as Simon Jenkins has noted. But they are also memory palaces that enshrine a thousand years or more of history.

Names, dates, materials, shapes: they link us to lives, tastes, communities and faiths of the long forgotten. To visit such a place is to do more than admire. It is to commune with the past, marvelling in its reinvention as a foreign country and at how far we ourselves have come.

Read more:
If I could go anywhere: the dizzying spectacle of Gaudí’s Basílica de la Sagrada Família

Far from the madding crowd

I used to visit Blythburgh as a kid. My Dad liked it here: the lonely desolation a tonic for the hustle and bustle of Cambridge’s university life.

His love of churches inspired me. In Ely and St Edmundsbury
we went to cathedrals together. At Orford and Long Melford he showed me the brasses and stained glasses.

But Blythburgh’s impression on me was always greatest. It had atmosphere — that intangible je ne sais quoi that comes from time and place and feeling.

Blythburgh’s mein is wistful and melancholy, the result of centuries of diminishing relevance and (mostly) benign neglect.

This sort of place inspired Benjamin Britten to opera and M. R. James to ghost stories. After all, the set of Peter Grimes and A warning to the curious is just a hearty walk away along the coast.

The magic here is that you are never quite sure you are truly alone, however drab or empty the space might seem. Another James story, Oh, Whistle, and I’ll Come to You, My Lad tells of an encounter on one of the beaches round about. The protagonist, a young professor, finds a little bronze object which he blows. The rest is all chasing and shadows: pure Gothic horror.

As a kid, the tale terrified me.

Read more:
Cathedrals of light, cathedrals of ice, cathedrals of glass, cathedrals of bones

Watched over by angels

A church first stood in Blythburgh before 654 CE. That was the year King Penda of Mercia slaughtered King Anna of East Anglia and his son in battle. Anna’s followers brought their bodies here for burial.

The present building is mostly 15th-century. In this part of England those days were what Evelyn Waugh called the fat days of wool shearing and the wide corn lands.

Nearly all the current plan was laid out then: the languid nave, the capacious chancel, memorial chapels in the aisles, benches, monuments, font and the immense hammerbeam roof.

That roof: it protects the congregation from more than just the elements. A throng of angels, their faces serene but their wings aflutter, stand guard over those who sit on pews below.

The pews themselves are works of art, with carved poppy heads parading saints and seasons, works of mercy and sins personified.

Here, Slander brandishes his tongue, Gluttony his paunch, Hypocrisy his false piety and Sloth his bedgown. There, a man comforts the sick, another visits a prisoner, a third buries his dead.

This kind of delicate, intricate carving demanded the highest levels of skill possessed of medieval craftsmen.

Other churches have their own sacramentals, but Blythburgh’s are amongst the most beautiful and haunting. Spartan white walls and a clear, clean glass clerestory — the bandages of Reformation trauma? — only enhance the effect.

Read more:
The Dig’s romanticisation of an Anglo-Saxon past reveals it is a film for post-Brexit UK

An elegy to time

Blythburgh’s decline has been a long time in coming. The Reformation, an early blow, destroyed the priory which abutted the church.

The tower’s steeple fell in 1577 and its lack of resurrection somehow seems to symbolise this part of Suffolk’s gentle retreat thereafter into bucolic backwater.

In the 1640s, “Smasher Dowsing” and his men attacked the church’s art and icons, stripping the roof of half its angels. A parochial itch to shoot at jackdaws nesting in the rafters may have caused further damage in the 18th century.

Victorian antiquaries restored the place to something of its former glory. But today, few come to worship in Blythburgh’s paludal “cathedral”.

The village itself houses just 300 souls and the locality, in the hinterland of a bird sanctuary, is best known as a haven for sailboats and as a twitchers’ paradise.

Inside the tower, a sombre armoured Jack-o-the-Clock from 1682 still keeps time. His baleful inscription: “As the hours pass away, So doth the life of man decay”.

The church, which has borne silent witness to countless other plagues, disasters, and wars, endures even now in its gloomy spot.

I glimpse it still from half a world away, an eerie greyness cloaking it with a salt wind from the sea.

Miles Pattenden has previously received research funding from the British Academy, the European Commission, and the Government of Spain.

– ref. If I could go anywhere: the ‘cathedral’ at Blythburgh that rises from the marshes – https://theconversation.com/if-i-could-go-anywhere-the-cathedral-at-blythburgh-that-rises-from-the-marshes-161659

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Hill, Emeritus Professor, Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts, University of Wollongong

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef made the international headlines this week. It was not good news for the reef, described by David Attenborough as “one of the greatest and most splendid natural treasures that the world possesses”.

A report tabled by the World Heritage Centre of UNESCO recommended adding the reef to the list of 53 other World Heritage sites considered “in danger” — a move the Morrison government suggested was motivated by political pressure.

The “in danger” classification matters to Australia since the reef is estimated to support 64,000 jobs and contribute A$6.4 billion to the economy per year.

If the World Heritage Committee downgrades the reef’s status as a World Heritage site, this will almost certainly damage its attractiveness as a tourism destination and thus Australia’s economic benefit.

But why does such a report from this UN agency matter so much? The reason is the World Heritage Committee has significant clout on the global stage — and politics have indeed been an unfortunate part of its operations since its inception.

‘Clearly there was politics behind it’

UNESCO’s mandate to build peace through international cooperation in education, the sciences, culture and media freedom stems from its founding principles in 1945 after the second world war. The preamble to its constitution declares,

… since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.

Nations are elected to UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee at a biennial conference of all 193 UNESCO member states. This committee has significant power — it is authorised to make decisions on behalf of the world. And though the UN member states may complain about its decisions, none can challenge the committee’s independence or authority.

The current chair of the World Heritage Committee is China, which adds to the reason why Australia has protested so loudly at its recommendation.

Australia’s environment minister, Sussan Ley, and minister for foreign affairs, Marise Payne, were immediately on the phone to UNESCO’s director-general, Audrey Azoulay, in Paris, to express their deep concerns. Ley said,

This decision was flawed and clearly there was politics behind it, and that has subverted the proper process.

The head of UNESCO’s World Heritage Marine Program, Dr Fanny Douvere, pointed out, however, that the report was a rigorous scientific document with inputs from Australia’s own Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and official government reports on water quality — assessed and analysed by an expert team in the World Heritage Centre.

Furthermore, she said, work on the report started years ago, and the Chinese government was “not aware” of the recommendations being made.

We have yet to see how this altercation will play out, likely at the next meeting of the World Heritage Committee in China in July.

How UNESCO is structured

Behind the scenes at UNESCO, there is a complex play of international politics and UN bureaucratic processes and actions which do, at times, have an influence on the agency’s work.

I was appointed to a senior level within UNESCO from 1995–2005, working in both a field office and at its headquarters in Paris, and I played a central role in the organisation’s attempts to reform and decentralise its operations in the early 2000s. So, I have good knowledge of the beast from the inside.

The first thing to realise is there is a divide between headquarters and the field. Nearly all attention is focused on UNESCO’s headquarters. This is where member state ambassadors have their offices and all the important committees are based. As a result, decisions on international conventions and actions are the province of the officialdom in Paris.

But this is not where the most effective program action happens — this is the work of the more than 50 field offices around the world. And the UNESCO field offices do make a real difference.

In my own work in Indonesia, as examples, we reformed the country’s entire basic education system from centralised rote learning to decentralised open classroom exploration. We also helped the country move from total censorship of the media by helping pass legislation to ensure a free press and built a radio network of 32 independent stations across the country trained in investigative journalism.

Headquarters provided excellent technical assistance, but the field office ran the show and found the funding.

Much of the criticism aimed at UNESCO is focused on its over-bureaucratic structure and poor productivity. This criticism is largely fed by the attention placed on what happens at headquarters in Paris, not at the field offices in places like New Delhi, Jakarta and Maputo.

Read more:
Australian government was ‘blindsided’ by UN recommendation to list Great Barrier Reef as in-danger. But it’s no great surprise

Member states withdrawing funding

The second thing to realise about UNESCO is it is a “technical” agency, not a “funding” organisation like, for example, the UN Development Program.

Because funding is dependent on member states, this has real consequences. Sensitive political issues can cause member states to become upset, prompting them to withdraw from the organisation — with their funding.

For instance, after Palestine was added as a full member in 2011, both the US and Israel stopped paying their dues. The US, which accounted for more than 20% of UNESCO’s budget, accrued some US$600 million in unpaid dues.

The Trump administration then pulled the US out of the organisation altogether after the World Heritage Committee designated the old city of Hebron in the West Bank as a Palestinian World Heritage site in 2017. The US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, called UNESCO’s politicisation a “chronic embarrassment”.

This wasn’t the first time the US withdrew. In 1984, the Reagan administration pulled out of UNESCO amid complaints about the way it was run and what one American official, Gregory Newell, called “extraneous politicisation”. He decried what he perceived as

… an endemic hostility toward the institutions of a free society — particularly those that protect a free press, free markets and, above all, individual human rights.

Keeping in mind UNESCO’s mandate

UNESCO’s listing of the Great Barrier Reef as “in danger” is at its heart a moral decision concerned with minimising the effects of climate change and stimulating member states into action.

Because it is playing out at headquarters level, however, there is the whiff of political involvement. This is, after all, where states play power politics with their memberships, funding and influence.

Read more:
Is UNESCO World Heritage status for cultural sites killing the things it loves?

But the organisation is so much more when you move away from the glitter of the world’s capitals and into the field. Here, the agency’s business is about building trust and connecting with communities to make change happen.

This is in keeping with UNESCO’s mandate, which is important to remember when attention is diverted to self-interested squabbling among its members.

Stephen Hill was previously employed by UNESCO from 1995 until the end of 2005.

– ref. UNESCO has always been mired in politics and squabbling, but this shouldn’t detract from its work – https://theconversation.com/unesco-has-always-been-mired-in-politics-and-squabbling-but-this-shouldnt-detract-from-its-work-163353

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laurien Beane, Course Coordinator, Queensland Undergraduate Early Childhood, Australian Catholic University

A Coalition party room meeting this week debated the A$1.7 billion childcare package announced in the budget, which would increase subsidies for families with more than one child in care and remove a cap on subsidies for higher-income families.

Some MPs reportedly argued childcare shouldn’t be the only type of care being subsidised and parents should also get help for staying at home with kids. One MP reportedly suggested working women were “outsourcing parenting” by sending their kids to childcare.

Leaving aside the fact sending your kid to childcare doesn’t preclude you from parenting at home when your kid isn’t in childcare, early childhood education and care – which includes childcare and preschool – is an important part of a child’s development.

Parents are thought to be a child’s first and most influential educator. But children are also raised in the community. They learn important social, emotional, physical and cognitive skills and abilities during the critical time of their development. The course of human history over millennia shows raising a child takes a village.

It takes a village

Both nature and nurture influence successful development in children. Nature stems from biological factors children inherit from parents. Nurture is the environment children are exposed to. This is influenced by parents, siblings and caregivers in the home, as well as educators and peers in early education and care settings, and the broader community.

Young children need relationships with parents and other caregivers in society to develop important social and cognitive skills. Australia’s early childhood learning framework (equivalent to a curriculum) is called Belonging, Being and Becoming. This highlights its focus on children’s relationships, social skills and becoming members of society.

Read more:
Increasing the childcare subsidy will help struggling families — and the economy

There is no one size fits all guide for parenting as each family is different.

At times, parenting can be challenging with competing demands and responsibilities. Many of these can have an effect on children, and families could need support. Parents with mental and physical health challenges may sometimes be less able than others to engage their child in typical childhood activities without assistance from the community.

The community includes many important supports to raise children such as relatives, health and parenting services.

For instance, a study of women who required admission to residential parenting services (around 80% needed help to settle the child) found over half had a history of mental health issues. The study’s authors noted Australian women were not routinely receiving the psychological and social help they needed. They wrote:

Parents have lost the village it takes to raise a child and increasingly feel isolated and unsupported.

Read more:
1 in 3 new mums struggle to get their baby to sleep, but some women have a tougher time

Early childhood education and care centres are one important part of our village.

They form a support network established to ensure parents’ and children’s lifelong success. Around three in five Australian children (925,900 children) aged 0-4 attended some form of childcare in 2017. And nearly 296,000 (90%) of eligible children were enrolled in a preschool program in the year before full-time school.

Typically, the centres open at 6am and close at 6pm. Children can start enrolment from birth and will enter the nursery with an educator to child ratio of 1:4.

For parents who have experienced challenges parenting at home, or who may need help due to other commitments such as work, the option of early childhood education and care is precious. In 2015, the Productivity Commission estimated around 165,000 Australian parents would like to work more, but were prevented due to poor accessibility or affordability of suitable childcare.

Is there such a thing as too much childcare?

The average weekly attendance in early education and care centres per child was 26.1 hours in December 2020. For long day care, the average was 30.5 hours per child, or around three days per week. This suggests parents still have many hours per week for parenting their children at home.

Evidence shows participation in quality early childhood education for at least 15 hours per week benefits children’s overall development and provides them with important social and emotional skills.

But there are some families who do require a lot more childcare. In 2008, a census of childcare services found 757 children across Australia were attending long daycare services for at least 60 hours a week. And a further 9,426 children were in care for between 50 and 60 hours a week at the time of the census in May 2006.

More recently, ABS data show 28,200 children attended long daycare for 45 hours or more in 2017.

In 2018, a Canadian study published some worrying findings about risks of too many hours of full time childcare. Statistical analysis showed significant differences in increased levels of hyperactivity, anxiety and aggression for children who attended more than 30 hours per week of childcare, in comparison to those who attended ten hours per week.

We would need more research to show the ways these risks depend on the nature and nurture of the child, the quality of the centre and staff, and influences of the community, government and funding.

Read more:
Preschool benefits all children, but not all children get it. Here’s what the government can do about that

We also don’t know why some children attend long hours at childcare. It may be for many reasons, including being in the child support system and parental health. In all these circumstances, as already discussed, childcare is an important and necessary social support.

We all play a role in raising children. It’s not a matter of outsourcing.

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

– ref. It takes a village: why sending your kid to childcare isn’t ‘outsourcing parenting’ – https://theconversation.com/it-takes-a-village-why-sending-your-kid-to-childcare-isnt-outsourcing-parenting-163264

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elena Zavala, PhD Student, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

In the foothills of the Altai Mountains in southern Siberia lies Denisova Cave. It is the only site in the world known to have been inhabited by the eponymous Denisovans and their close relatives the Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) — which overlapped at times — as well as by some of the earliest modern humans (Homo sapiens) to have dispersed into northern Asia.

Our new study pieces together the history of this site over the past 300,000 years from fragments of ancient DNA that survived in the cave sediments. Our findings reveal multiple turnovers of archaic and modern humans during this period, as well as major changes in the diversity of other animals.

We discovered Denisovans were the earliest toolmakers at the site, while Neanderthals were the sole human occupants between about 130,000 and 80,000 years ago. The first modern humans arrived much later, just as the last Denisovans and Neanderthals were leaving the scene.

We also detected marked changes in the types of human and animal DNA around 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, coincident with major shifts in climate and environmental conditions.

Genetic ghosts

Excavations in the cave by our Russian colleagues have unearthed about a dozen fossils of Denisovans and Neanderthals over the past 40 years, but none of modern humans.

Rather, the presence of modern humans at the cave has been surmised based on the recovery of artefacts made from stone, animal bones and teeth, mammoth ivory, ostrich eggshells, marble and gemstones.

The rarity of fossils at the site has also meant that questions persist about when different groups of humans occupied the cave, and which of them was responsible for making specific artefacts.

We managed to put flesh on the missing bones by using genetic traces of ancient humans and various other mammals preserved in the cave sediments. And we did so without having to find more fossils.

Our latest work is the most comprehensive study yet of ancient DNA extracted from sediment at any single site in the world. It builds on our trailblazing research published in 2017.

We extracted mitochondrial DNA from more than 700 samples and anchored them to a timeline for Denisova Cave, generating a detailed picture of which humans and animals were present at this famous site at various times in the past.

Read more:
Fresh clues to the life and times of the Denisovans, a little-known ancient group of humans

Turbulent times

We retrieved ancient human DNA from 175 sediment samples — more than ten times the number of human fossils found at the site. Several interesting findings emerged from our genetic analyses.

We found Denisovans were present at the cave, on and off, from 250,000 years ago until 60,000 years ago. And they were the only humans at the site between 250,000 and 200,000 years ago, so we can now say with more confidence they likely produced the stone tools recovered from these layers.

Denisovan fossils and ancient DNA have been found at only one other site, on the edge of the Tibetan Plateau.

Meanwhile, Neanderthals first appeared at Denisova Cave about 200,000 years ago, with a variety of DNA that was previously unknown. They vanished from the site about 40,000 years ago, around the same time Neanderthals disappeared in other parts of Eurasia.

Importantly, we could only find traces of Neanderthal DNA in sediments dated to between 130,000 and 80,000 years ago at Denisova Cave — and none of Denisovans.

This time interval coincides with a major change in Earth’s climate: the start of the last interglacial. This was a relatively warm period similar to the present. It marked a switch from one type of Denisovan DNA before 130,000 years ago to another after 80,000 years ago.

This matches previous findings from genetic analysis of Denisovan fossils, which indicated a possible turnover in Denisovan populations. It also coincides with a population replacement of Neanderthals in Spain about 100,000 years ago — again identified from ancient DNA in cave sediments.

We also recovered the ancient DNA of modern humans from sediments deposited at Denisova Cave within the last 60,000 years. No modern human fossils have been found at the site, so these traces of DNA — from the same layers as the jewellery and pendants made from stone, bone, tooth and ivory — are the first direct evidence of Homo sapiens’ presence at the cave.

Denisova zoo

We recovered other ancient animal DNA from 94% of the sediment samples. This is providing new vistas into cave use by more than 12 taxonomic families of mammals, including species such as bear, hyena, wolf and woolly mammoth.

Previous studies have shown the cave was occupied at times by hyenas and bears. Our findings take this further, revealing cave bears dominated between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago, after which brown bears became more abundant.

Read more:
Dishing the dirt: sediments reveal a famous early human cave site was also home to hyenas and wolves

We also identified two major shifts in the types of hyena present at different times, with turnovers occurring when climatic conditions changed from relatively warm to cold 200,000 years ago, and from relatively cold to warm 100,000 years ago.

The timing of these turnovers, coupled with the patterns we discovered for Denisovans and Neanderthals, suggests these events were likely connected to environmental changes.

Sediment diaries

The power of sediment DNA lies in the fact that sediments are ubiquitous at archaeological and palaeontological sites. Even tiny samples can contain genetic traces of a variety of animals — including humans — in the absence of fossils.

Sediments also often contain plant remains and other materials that can be used to reconstruct ancient environments, with timelines obtained by directly dating sediment grains.

By sampling sites with high densities of sediment DNA, the ebb and flow of humans and other animals can be compared to records of past environmental change. Making these crucial connections can help illuminate the dark corners of our planet’s history.

Elena Zavala receives funding from the Max Planck Society.

Matthias Meyer receives funding from the Max Planck Society.

Richard ‘Bert’ Roberts receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Zenobia Jacobs receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Dirty secrets: sediment DNA reveals a 300,000-year timeline of ancient and modern humans living in Siberia – https://theconversation.com/dirty-secrets-sediment-dna-reveals-a-300-000-year-timeline-of-ancient-and-modern-humans-living-in-siberia-161585

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Simpson, Senior Lecturer, University of South Australia

As Aung San Suu Kyi finally faced court last week to defend herself against a litany of politically motivated charges, Myanmar is continuing its downward spiral into state failure.

Suu Kyi was arrested following the February 1 coup by the military and charged with alleged corruption, inciting public unrest and other offences. If she is found guilty, which is a near certainty, she may well be imprisoned for the rest of her life.

The popularity of Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) party have been consistently underestimated by a range of domestic and international analysts, and even by the Myanmar military itself. But her role will now change as her case takes a stop-start journey through the tightly held and persistently manipulated judicial process.

With Suu Kyi facing another lengthy detention, Myanmar’s diverse democracy movement is now operating independently of the NLD and its ageing leadership. Nearly five months after the coup, opposition to the junta is growing, but it is effectively leaderless and has been de-linked from Suu Kyi’s fate.

Most troubling, the evolving crises facing the long-suffering people of Myanmar are not just framed by political repression and violence. They include the heavy burdens of poverty, food shortages and unemployment, along with the collapse of the healthcare and education systems.

The coup-makers have put their own narrow interests — eliminating the NLD and retaining absolute power — in front of everything else. Even the COVID-19 pandemic receives almost no attention under the current conditions.

It is no wonder millions of Myanmar people are so angry and fed up — and why some are looking for more violent solutions. There is now potential for the country’s smouldering civil wars in its mountainous borderlands to spread into its major cities.

Increasing violence on both sides

The ongoing reign of terror by the military junta includes the recent burning of more than 200 homes in a village in central Myanmar and the tortures and deaths of at least 21 detainees.

Altogether since the start of the coup, some 900 people have been killed during protests or other activities and almost 5,000 others are currently detained.

In response, there is a growing militancy among some civilians, with the establishment of people’s defence forces across Myanmar.

In addition, ethnic armed groups in Myanmar’s periphery, some of which have been at war with the military since the 1940s, have joined forces with the protest movement. For the first time since the 1988 uprising against the military, civilians from the Bamar (Burman) ethnic majority are now being trained by these groups or have enlisted with them.

Attacks on government forces include bombings, targeted assassinations of village administrators and those seen to support the junta, and the killing of 25 alleged “undercover soldiers” by an ethnic armed group in Kayin (Karen) State.

The United Nations has expressed alarm at the “recent acts of violence that illustrate a sharp deterioration of the human rights environment across Myanmar”.

Some seasoned analysts have argued the increasing militancy of the military’s opponents may cause problems for the protest movement, with the junta better able to paint them as terrorists and the international community becoming uncomfortable supporting a violent “terrorist” movement.

A pragmatic response is for the political wings of the opposition, including the exiled national unity government, formed by the NLD and ethnic minority representatives, to ensure there is adequate distance between themselves and any violent operations.

This is a standard model in Myanmar’s long decades of conflict, as seen with the separation of the civilian and military wings of various ethnic minority organisations such as the Karen National Union and Karen National Liberation Army.

The model obviously presents risks, however, as civilian leaders can expect to be held to account for the activities of their militant peers.

Some faint hopes of reconciliation

In the hope of rehabilitating the patchy reputation of Myanmar’s democrats as a force for human rights, the national unity government announced a seismic shift in official policy toward the Muslim Rohingya community in early June.

The government pledged to implement a new citizenship act that bases “citizenship on birth in Myanmar or birth anywhere as a child of Myanmar citizens”. This should effectively offer Rohingya and some other ethnic minorities full citizenship for the first time.

This statement is part of a broader shift in public sentiment regarding the Rohingya across most of Myanmar. Until recently, they have been largely friendless in the country, enduring decades of discrimination and repression. This included the brutal clearance operations in 2017 that led to 740,000 refugees fleeing into Bangladesh in a matter of months.

The coup has resulted in a reassessment of the treatment of the Rohingya. A recent social media campaign, for instance, featured people wearing black and adopting the three-fingered salute of the opposition under the “Black4Rohingya” hashtag.

International response must be stronger

These positive developments come at a time when the international community appears increasingly powerless to effect positive change in Myanmar.

Calls to ban arms exports and economic engagement with the military are growing much louder. But direct material support for the Myanmar’s democrats will be just as important, as will the creation of a viable model of regional diplomacy.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has again proved too slow and inept when faced with a serious test of its mandate.

An important UN General Assembly resolution on June 18 calling on “all member states to prevent the flow of arms into Myanmar”, meanwhile, passed with an overwhelming majority. However, several ASEAN members, along with Russia and China (Myanmar’s major arms suppliers), abstained.

The courage and creativity of the protesters and the civil disobedience movement have already won them much credit with Myanmar’s desperate population. But in the months ahead, this alone will not be enough to succeed.

A genuinely pan-ethnic, society-wide coalition is needed, along with well-timed and properly targeted support internationally, to have any chance of ending military dominance in Myanmar once and for all.

Nicholas Farrelly has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council for Myanmar-focussed work. He is on the board of the Australia-ASEAN Council, which is an Australian government body. These are his personal views.

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

– ref. With Aung San Suu Kyi facing prison, Myanmar’s opposition is leaderless, desperate and ready to fight – https://theconversation.com/with-aung-san-suu-kyi-facing-prison-myanmars-opposition-is-leaderless-desperate-and-ready-to-fight-162428

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vasso Apostolopoulos, Professor of Immunology and Associate Provost, Research Partnerships, Victoria University

While widespread vaccination is key in our fight against COVID-19, people who are infected still need better treatment to improve their chance of survival and making a full recovery.

Early on, the world had high hopes for a range of repurposed medications which had previously been approved to treat other conditions – including hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir and ivermectin – to treat COVID-19. But the results have been disappointing.

Diseases caused by viruses are among the most difficult to treat, due to their ability to invade and repurpose infected cells. This limits the ability for drugs to directly act on the virus.

Read more:
Developing antiviral drugs is not easy – here’s why

Yet researchers around the world are finding ways to overcome these barriers and directly target the coronavirus, including in Australia. So what’s being developed here and how do they work?

Interfering with the virus

Researchers at Queensland’s Menzies Health Institute, in collaboration with scientists from the United States, have developed a novel treatment which targets key genes of the coronavirus, stopping the virus’s ability to replicate.

The treatment uses an engineered particle called a small interfering RNA (si-RNA), which detects and binds to areas of the host’s genome, where the virus resides.

The si-RNA is encased in a nanoparticle to protect it as it travels through the bloodstream. It enters all cells in the host’s body, but will only act on the cells infected by the virus.

Read more:
Have Australian researchers developed an effective COVID-19 treatment? Potentially, but we need to wait for human trials

Studies in mice showed the treatment reduced the amount of the virus in the lungs by more than 90%.

It’s unclear if the results will translate to humans, but if they do, it could potentially protect infected people from severe disease and make them less likely to transmit the illness to others.

If it is successful, the researchers estimate the treatment could be available in 2023.

Enhancing our antibodies

Another strategy is to block the virus from invading all together.

A number of research teams across Australia are working on engineered antibody treatments, which hunt out and bind to the virus before it enters a cell, effectively blocking it out.

Researchers at the Garvan and Kirby institutes in New South Wales are building on research developed after the 2003 SARS outbreak to create treatments using monoclonal antibodies. These antibodies are generated in the lab and mimic the immune system response to infection.

Once these monoclonal antibodies are injected into an infected person, they bind to the virus and stop it from invading host cells. They also mark it for destruction by the other immune cells.

While this research is in the pre-clinical (lab testing) phase, the researchers at Garvan are already working with clinicians at the Kirby institute to identify the best antibodies and move them through to human clinical trials.

As monoclonal antibody treatments are widely used in a range of diseases, these could potentially be deployed quickly for patients with COVID-19, or to protect people who have been exposed to the virus, to stop them getting sick and becoming infectious.

Another team at the Walter and Elizabeth Hall Institute in Melbourne is harnessing unique “nanobodies”, which are significantly smaller than human antibodies, derived from the immune system of alpacas.

These nanobodies have powerful and specific binding capacity. By vaccinating the alpacas with a synthetic component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nanobodies targeting the virus can be identified and synthesised for human use.

While these treatments are in the very early stages of development, they could prove revolutionary for all kinds of infectious and non-infectious diseases.

Preventing serious lung injury

While some treatments aim to neutralise the virus, others are being developed to protect patients from the consequences of COVID-19.

One of the most severe reactions to an infection with the coronavirus is a widespread inflammatory reaction known as a “cytokine storm”, causing severe damage to the lungs.

While potent anti-inflammatory drugs such as hydrocortisone can help to prevent this response, they also can have severe side-effects such as bone weakening, immune system weakening, psychiatric symptoms and insomnia.

Researchers at the Victor Chang Cardiac Institute and St Vincent’s hospital in Sydney are proposing to trial a novel stem cell therapy, in an attempt to counteract this inflammatory storm.

While they haven’t disclosed specifically which cells they are planning to use, human studies show stem cell treatments can suppress inflammatory responses from the immune system.

The researchers are seeking approval for clinical studies and are using a stem cell that has been used in humans previously – potentially speeding the pathway to clinical use.

Read more:
Could a simple pill beat COVID-19? Pfizer is giving it a go

Another anti-inflammatory drug to control the damaging levels of immune response to the viral infection is being developed by Implicit Bioscience.

Its drug has already shown promising preliminary results in small trials for acute lung injury and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (AML, a rare neurological disease also known as motor neurone disease), with phase 2 trials for AML due to be completed in 2021.

Two trials at major medical centres, one led by the US National Institutes of Health and the other by Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, are now underway to test whether the drug is effective in patients with severe COVID-19.

Nasal sprays to stop coronavirus infecting us

Australian biotech company Ena Respiratory is developing a nasal spray to fight COVID-19.

These nasal sprays contain a compound designed to trigger a rapid immune response in the upper airways. This allows the immune system to destroy the virus and infected cells before serious disease can occur.

Ena Respiratory’s product, called INNA-051, has produced promising results in animal models, with up to a 96% decrease in SARS-CoV-2 virus replication.

The next step is to see if these results translate to humans.

Australia has a long history of strong performance on the world stage in research. Fortunately, this has continued through the COVID-19 pandemic, with a number of key developments and innovations as described, which show promise for translation to human clinical trials.

Developments are continuing, including research by Vasso and her team into novel re-purposed and experimental drugs aimed at stopping coronavirus replication. This is a collaboration between Victoria University and researchers from the United States and Greece, and the team hopes to be able to report on its progress soon.

Read more:
I’m a lung doctor testing the blood plasma from COVID-19 survivors as a treatment for the sick – a century-old idea that could be a fast track to treatment

Vasso Apostolopoulos’ COVID-19 research has received internal funding from a Victoria University research grant and from philanthropic donations

Maximilian de Courten is director of the Mitchell Institute a Think Tank for Education and Health Policy.

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

– ref. Stopping, blocking and dampening – how Aussie drugs in the pipeline could treat COVID-19 – https://theconversation.com/stopping-blocking-and-dampening-how-aussie-drugs-in-the-pipeline-could-treat-covid-19-162349

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martine Maron, ARC Future Fellow and Professor of Environmental Management, The University of Queensland

A growing global push to halt biodiversity decline, most recently agreed at the G7 on Sunday, leaves Australia out in the cold as the federal government walks away from critical reforms needed to protect threatened species.

The centrepiece recommendation in a landmark independent review of Australia’s national environment law was to establish effective National Environment Standards. These standards would have drawn clear lines beyond which no further environmental damage is acceptable, and established an independent Environment Assurance Commissioner to ensure compliance.

But the federal government has instead pushed ahead to propose its own, far weaker set of standards and establish a commissioner with very limited powers. The bill that paves the way for these standards is currently before parliament.

If passed, the changes would entrench, or even weaken, already inadequate protections for threatened species. They would also create more uncertainty for businesses affected by the laws.

Australia’s ineffective environment law

Australia is one of only a handful of megadiverse countries. Most of our species occur nowhere else — 87% of our mammals, 93% of our reptiles, and 94% of our frogs are found only here in Australia.

Yet, Australia risks global pariah status on biodiversity. Last week, threatened species experts recommended the koala be listed as endangered, despite a decade of protection under national environmental law. And this week, a UNESCO World Heritage committee recommended the Great Barrier Reef be listed as “in danger”.

Indeed, Australia has one of the worst track records in the world for biodiversity loss and species extinctions.

Australia’s national environment law — the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act — was introduced 20 years ago, and has not slowed extinction rates. In fact, threatened species populations are declining even faster.

This isn’t surprising, given the lack of mandated funding for threatened species and ecosystems recovery, poor enforcement of the law, and the lack of outcome-based environmental standards. It has allowed for hit after hit on important habitats to be approved.

The independent review of the EPBC Act, led by former competition watchdog chair Professor Graeme Samuel, set out how Australia can turn this around.

Samuel concluded the EPBC Act is no longer fit for purpose, and set out a comprehensive list of recommended reforms, founded upon establishing new, strong national environmental standards.

And he included an explicit warning: do not cherrypick from these recommendations.

Double standards

So how do the government’s proposed standards, released in March, compare to the Samuel review’s recommended version?

The Samuel review’s standards specified what environmental outcomes must be achieved by decisions made under the EPBC Act, such as whether a particular development can go ahead. For example, the standards would have required that any actions must cause no net reduction in the population of endangered and critically endangered species.

Read more:
To fix Australia’s environment laws, wildlife experts call for these 4 changes — all are crucial

Samuel developed these standards by consulting multiple sectors, and attracted general support. The government’s proposed standards bear no resemblance to these.

Instead, the government’s proposed standards repeat sections of the existing EPBC Act, adding zero clarity or specificity about the outcomes that should be achieved.

Standards like these risk significant and irreversible environmental harm being codified. They are the antithesis of the global push for outcomes-based, nature-positive standards.

The bill underpinning the standards would let actions be approved even if they caused substantial environmental harm, as long as the decision maker — currently the federal environment minister — believed other activities would render the overall outcome acceptable.

To help illustrate this, let’s say a mining operation would lead to significant destruction of koala habitat. The decision maker could consider this acceptable if they thought an unrelated tree-planting program would offset the risk to the koala — even if they had no say over whether the tree planting ever actually went ahead.

What about the responsibilities of the Environment Assurance Commissioner? Samuel recommended this commissioner would oversee the implementation of the standards, and ensure transparency.

But the government’s proposed Environment Assurance Commissioner would be prevented from scrutinising individual decisions made under the EPBC Act.

So, hypothetically, if a risky decision was being made — such as approving new dam that could send a turtle species extinct — checking if the decision complied with required standards would be beyond the commissioner’s remit. Instead, the commissioner would focus on checking processes and systems, not ensuring environmental outcomes are achieved.

Read more:
A major report excoriated Australia’s environment laws. Sussan Ley’s response is confused and risky

The deficiencies in the proposed standards have caught the attention of Queensland environment minister Meaghan Scanlon. Last year, the federal government introduced a different bill that would allow it to hand its responsibility for approving actions under the EPBC Act to the states. But Scanlon says the state won’t partake in this re-alignment of responsibility, unless the federal government introduces stronger national environment standards.

They’ve also caught the attention of the key cross-bench senators, whose support will ultimately determine whether the government’s standards prevail.

Getting left behind

With such a rich diversity of wildlife, Australia has a disproportionate responsibility to protect the Earth’s natural heritage. And we owe future generations the opportunity to experience the amazing nature we’ve grown up with.

If we are to turn around Australia’s appalling track record on biodiversity, the government’s proposed standards are not a good place to start.

In October, nations worldwide will agree to a new global strategy for protecting biodiversity, under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. The strategy looks set to include a roadmap to halt and reverse biodiversity decline by as early as 2030. Australia risks being left behind in this global push.

And last week, the G7 nations endorsed a plan to reverse the loss of biodiversity, and to conserve or protect at least 30% of land and oceans, by 2030.

These commitments are crucial – not only for wildlife, but for humans that depend on ecosystems that are now collapsing. When nature loses, we all suffer.

Read more:
‘Existential threat to our survival’: see the 19 Australian ecosystems already collapsing

Martine Maron receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Environmental Science Program’s Threatened Species Recovery Hub. She was a member of the consultative group that provided advice on the development of the National Environmental Standards during last year’s EPBC Act review. She is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, President of BirdLife Australia, and a Governor of WWF-Australia.

Brendan Wintle receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Environmental Science Program’s Threatened Species Recovery Hub, the Victorian Government, the NSW Government, the Ian Potter Foundation, and the Hermon Slade Foundation. He was a member of the consultative group that provided advice on the development of the National Environmental Standards during last year’s EPBC Act review.

Craig Moritz receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with the Australian Academy of Science. He was a member of the consultative group that provided advice on the development of the National Environmental Standards during last year’s EPBC Act review

– ref. The government’s idea of ‘national environment standards’ would entrench Australia’s global pariah status – https://theconversation.com/the-governments-idea-of-national-environment-standards-would-entrench-australias-global-pariah-status-163082

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philip D. Parker, Professor and Deputy Director, Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University

We have all met the parent who thinks their kid is the next Picasso or Einstein regardless of the evidence. But it’s hard to know if these beliefs are helpful or harmful.

Overly optimistic parents could reduce their kids’ drive to work harder and give them a false idea of the opportunities available to them. Or this same optimism could fill the child with confidence, kindle their self-belief and give them the courage to try harder.

We set out to discover which of these possibilities is most likely. We found a mother’s optimism about how good their child is in maths and reading consistently benefited children.

In our study, when a mum’s optimism was higher, their child gained better school results and their interest in school subjects increased. But gender stereotypes could get in the way. Mums were consistently more optimistic about their sons in maths and their daughters in reading.

We know kids from wealthy backgrounds often have better academic results and numerous academic advantages over their peers. We may also think wealthier parents are generally more optimistic about their children’s success.

But we found only modest and generally inconsistent evidence mothers’ optimism was more likely among the wealthy. More importantly, our findings that optimism leads to better school outcomes and more academic interest was the same regardless of a mother’s socioeconomic status.

What we did

Grumbling about how every child needs a participation trophy these days is a common refrain. Back in the “good old days”, some might say, kids got hard truths and parents spurred their children to greater heights by grudgingly giving praise and pessimistically assessing their child’s academic performance.

We wanted to find out whether parents could benefit their children most by being a bit more optimistic or by laying down hard truths.

We used data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC). This data comes from 2,602 Australian children and their primary caregiver.

The primary caregiver in the data was almost always a mother, so we focused on them. But we think our results would be true for all parents and guardians.

Included in the longitudinal study was an assessment by mothers about whether their child was below average, average or above average in reading and maths performance.

We then matched the mother’s assessment of their child to the child’s NAPLAN results in the same year.

Read more:
One quarter of Australian 11-12 year olds don’t have the literacy and numeracy skills they need

This gave us insight into whether children’s grades in maths and reading actually were below average, average or above average.

Where mums judged their child’s maths and reading performance more positively than school results suggested, we called this optimism. We called more negative judgements pessimism.

We used the resulting optimism or pessimism data from one year and showed how this impacted NAPLAN and academic interest two years later. So we’d look at the data for year 3 and how this changed in year 5, for example.

Thus, we were able to show that mothers optimism and pessimism was associated with change in academic outcomes two years later.

We also found, on average, mums were more optimistic about their child’s ability than their child’s school results suggested. We found this not only improved their kid’s later school results but also increased their interest in school.

For example, lets imagine a child who scores in the 50th percentile in their year 5 NAPLAN numeracy test. Let’s also imagine their mother is more optimistic about her child’s ability than usual (specifically one standard deviation more optimistic than she usually is). Our results suggest this child will move up to the 55th percentile in the year 7 NAPLAN numeracy test.

In comparison, if this mother was more pessimistic than usual, the same child could expect to fall to the 45th percentile by year 7.

Could other factors be responsible for these results?

A child’s results could appear to be influenced by their mother’s confidence in them, when the influence is actually due to other factors such as the child having changed schools between the first NAPLAN test and the next. We used some relatively new statistical methods to ensure any pre-existing differences between participants (such as socioeconomic status, urban or rural residence, or private or public schools) could not easily provide an alternative explanation for our findings.

Read more:
Green space around primary schools may improve students’ academic performance

These methods are not perfect and other alternative explanations for our findings are still possible. This includes differences between participants that develop during the course of the study. But our study provides more confidence than usual studies that find a correlation between two factors. So, we are relatively confident a mother’s optimism was really having the impact we saw.

Mothers showed some gender stereotyping

We found optimism sometimes varied depending on the child’s gender. In particular, mothers’ optimism often aligned with gender stereotypes that boys are better at math and girls are better at reading.

Mothers were more optimistic about their sons’ ability in maths than their daughters’ and more optimistic about their daughters’ ability in reading than their sons — even if both performed just as well.

Other research shows parents with strong beliefs that girls are bad at maths tend to give homework help that is both intrusive and controlling. This could lead to poorer school results and reduced motivation.

Read more:
Girls score the same in maths and science as boys, but higher in arts – this may be why they are less likely to pick STEM careers

How does optimism help?

But how does optimism help kids succeed? We think there are a few ways. Other research suggests parents invest more time and resources (such as tutors) in their child’s education if they believe their child can be successful. Likewise, having someone in your corner can be a powerful motivator to try harder in school.

But could unrealistic optimism be damaging? There was some evidence in our study that too much optimism could be neutral or even harmful. But this was only true at very extreme levels, and the evidence was pretty weak.

We think the reason even extreme levels of optimism may not be detrimental because the world will do a pretty good job of keeping kids’ egos in check.

Our results reinforce the powerful role parents can play in the academic success of their children. The findings also contradict some people’s beliefs you must be cruel to be kind or that a parent’s role is to provide their children with a reality check.

Philip D. Parker receives funding from the ARC and the NHMRC.

Jake Anders receives research funding from UKRI Economic and Social Research Council, the Nuffield Foundation, and the Education Endowment Foundation.

Taren Sanders receives funding from the ARC and the NSW Department of Education.

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

– ref. ‘You’re the best!’ Your belief in your kids’ academic ability can actually improve their grades – https://theconversation.com/youre-the-best-your-belief-in-your-kids-academic-ability-can-actually-improve-their-grades-161881

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ari Mattes, Lecturer in Communications and Media, University of Notre Dame Australia

Review: Buckley’s Chance, directed by Tim Brown.

It’s a classic trope of Australian cinema: a foreigner comes here and discovers a wild, rugged place, replete with dangerous and surreal animals and dangerous and weird people.

It’s Walkabout, it’s Razorback, it’s Frog Dreaming. It’s been a common motif throughout the history of Australian cinema and literature and has been discussed in a variety of ways.

In the early 19th century, poet Barron Field fetishised the grotesqueness of Australian flora and fauna. Last century, historian Geoffrey Blainey famously wrote about the “tyranny of distance”, and architect Robin Boyd discussed the “Australian ugliness”.

In the 21st century, apart from a few cinematic outliers — Wolf Creek, Red Dog — it seemed as though Australian culture (if there is such a thing as a national culture) had finally relaxed into itself, freed of the necessity for endless definition and redefinition the enduring “wild and rugged” cliches.

As part of a thriving global culture, Australia could make original, cool films like Upgrade or Snowtown without the continued compulsion to try to sell itself in all its banal glory. Alas, director-producer Tim Brown’s new family schlocker Buckley’s Chance puts this suspicion to rest.

Tried and true and careless

An Australian-Canadian co-production, every cliché of the “foreigner in Australia” narrative is recycled here. The film follows Ridley (Milan Burch) who, following his father’s death, is forced to move with his mum, Gloria (Victoria Hill), from New York City to outback Australia to live with a grandfather, Spencer (a sleepy Bill Nighy), he has never met.

Once in the Great Southern Land, Ridley befriends a dingo he rescues from a barbwire fence with whom he immediately identifies. Ridley is also a lone “fish out of water,” separated from his “pack”, forced on an outback survival adventure when he crosses paths with a couple of menacing goons trying to make Spencer sell his property.

Of course, Ridley triumphs and starts loving Australia.

Along the way, he meets a down to earth and wise Indigenous man, Jules (Kelton Pell), who offers appropriately sage advice. He comes across funny sunburned men with very long beards; meat pies eaten by the truckful; and the word “bloody” used ad nauseam.

There are wild animals that are oh so different — goats that run at you, giant snakes — nicknames handed out willy-nilly (“I think it’s an Australian thing,” Ridley’s mum tells him), a town called Budgie’s Knob, an Australian outback that is “very dangerous”.

At one point, Spencer tells Ridley he’ll toss his camera in a “billabong” if he keeps using it, becoming the first Australian, fictional or not, I think I’ve heard use the word outside of a discussion of surfing.

The problem isn’t the film’s adherence to a tried and true formula, or its absolutely rudimentary narrative, but the flat, careless execution of it all. It all seems so terribly contrived in its attempts to affect us both comedically and dramatically. At one point Ridley’s mum says to him: “No more Mad Maxing around the outback” (!).

The music is melodramatic without being emotionally effective, heavy-handed in its attempts to make the viewer feel something (while at the same time oddly anachronistic, like something from a 1950s B-Western). The performances are either tired (Nighy) or over-anxious (Burch, as a kid, can be forgiven for his poor American accent; the same can’t be said for Hill as his mum).

It’s hard to pinpoint a single problem. With better music, some of the lameness of the humour or the stilted, soap opera-esque acting may have been diffused. And the ending might have had the emotional impact it warranted.

Watchable … but that’s about it

It’s not all bad; in fact, much of it is watchable (arguably, this makes it less interesting). The footage of the outback is fine — beautiful, panoramic — but so standard in the age of the cheap drone it ceases to be particularly striking.

It’s nice watching a boy and a dingo walking across a giant movie screen, though even the footage of the dingoes is a little disappointing — there’s not enough of it.

One can only imagine the filmmakers are targeting a foreign market (a la Baz Luhrmann’s Australia, which, for all its glossy tedium, is a more skillfully rendered advertisement for Australia than this film). The Australian cliches are too rife, and too on the nose, to imagine any Australian viewer liking this – other than, perhaps, the very young.

There’s even dialogue explaining the origins of the phrase “Buckley’s chance” (it’s obviously very Australian to frequently use this idiomatic gem).

It’s genuinely difficult to understand how this film was made in the 21st century. In their pandering to mainstream clichés regarding Australianness, the same could be said of Wolf Creek and Red Dog.

But Wolf Creek is a lean, mean film, shocking for its violence, an immersive extravaganza that rightfully has an international reputation as a superb horror film. Red Dog features compellingly dynamic performances from humans and animals alike, an offbeat narrative, and is shot astonishingly well.

As a 1980s-style family exploitation film, Buckley’s Chance is a curious artefact. It is possibly worth watching for its fundamental weirdness. But as a narrative film on its own terms,there’s no reason to see it. And there’s Buckley’s many people will do so.

Buckley’s Chance is in cinemas from today.

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

– ref. Meat pies, desert, bloody dingoes: new Australian film Buckley’s Chance brims with dated cultural cliches – https://theconversation.com/meat-pies-desert-bloody-dingoes-new-australian-film-buckleys-chance-brims-with-dated-cultural-cliches-162858

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

Three members of the Biloela Tamil family have been given bridging visas for three months, which will allow the parents work and study rights.

Immigration Minister Alex Hawke has granted the visas to Nades and Priya Murugappan and their elder daughter Kopika.

The status of the younger daughter Tharunicaa – whose illness and transfer from Christmas Island for medical care led to the government relocating the family to live in Perth – is unchanged, and she remains in “community detention”.

While she is now out of hospital Tharunicaa is to have medical treatment for some time.

The family will still be prevented from moving from Perth.

Tharunicaa’s status is the subject of a complicated legal battle as the Murugappan fight against deportation.

The government’s determination that the family should go back to Sri Lanka is on the grounds the parents have been found not to be refugees.

The family will continue to have access to government-provided housing, health care, schooling and support services.

If all four were on bridging visas they would not be entitled to the house they are now living in.

The family applied for the bridging visas last week, and the deadline for Hawke to make a decision came this week.

The timing coincided with Barnaby Joyce’s elevation to Nationals leader and Deputy Prime Minister. Joyce has spoken strongly for the family being sent back to Biloela. But government sources said Joyce had had no influence on the decision.

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

– ref. Bridging visas for three months granted to Tamil family – https://theconversation.com/bridging-visas-for-three-months-granted-to-tamil-family-163285

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

The government’s response to the UNESCO recommendation that the Great Barrier Reef be listed as “in danger” was one of surprise and shock.

The recommendation will be considered at UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee meeting next month.

While the proposal calls attention to the need to address the effect of climate change and other factors which are degrading the reef, the government alleges it’s part of wider global politics.

Read more:
Australian government was ‘blindsided’ by UN recommendation to list Great Barrier Reef as in-danger. But it’s no great surprise

Environment Minister Sussan Ley is adamant UNESCO’s recommendation represents “international politics at play” which have “subverted the normal and proper process.”

In the background, the government points to China – which chairs the World heritage Committee – but Ley treads carefully.

“Others can make judgements about what those international politics are…”

“If the politicisation of a process that we have constructively contributed to for over 40 years is now going to be the norm, the points that I will make with the 21 member countries [on the committee] and others who might influence them is that this is the moment to reflect on what the World Heritage Committee is all about and consider the risk to your own properties.

“Because if the entire system is politicised, then we aren’t going to be acting in the interests of the natural heritage values of these places.”

Her opposition “shadow” Terri Butler wouldn’t speculate on what might be underlying the decision but “Australians would be very disappointed if they thought there was anything behind the decision other than concern for the reef.”

“What’s important here is for people to be able to have confidence in UNESCO in this decision making process.”

Butler says heading off the listing is important not just to avoid discouraging tourists from overseas but also for Australia’s image on the global stage.

“It’s really important [the government] demonstrate to the world they’re serious about protecting the reef, preserving it for future generations. And if they do that, they should also be in a position to fight really hard to avoid this particular listing.

Additional audio

A List of Ways to Die, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Sussan Ley and Terri Butler on the Great Barrier Reef being ‘in danger’ – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-sussan-ley-and-terri-butler-on-the-great-barrier-reef-being-in-danger-163286

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Harcourt, Industry Professor and Chief Economist, University of Technology Sydney

No one did a cost-benefit analysis before accepting Tasmania into the Commonwealth. Should the Australian Football League do the same?

Tasmanians have pushed for their own AFL team since the 1980s, when the Victorian Football League first accepted interstate teams (beginning with the West Coast Eagles and the Brisbane Bears) into the fold, then rebranded as the AFL in 1990.

Non-Victorian teams now comprise almost half the competition – Western Australia, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland each having two teams. But bids from Tasmania – which established its first local Australian Rules football league in 1879 – have been rebuffed.

The state was regarded as too small, too poor and a “captured” market not worth giving a licence to. The AFL instead focused on the non-traditional AFL states of NSW and Queensland, and their larger TV audiences. The last two teams, the Gold Coast Suns and Greater Western Sydney Giants, were added to the league in 2011 and 2012 respectively.

Tasmanians have had to make do with a few “home” games being played in Hobart and Launceston by the North Melbourne Kangaroos and Hawthorn Hawks – for which the Tasmanian government has paid about A$8.5 million a season.

It’s time for the AFL to consider adding a Tasmanian team.

Local passion

The “spiritual” or emotional case for Tasmania has always been strong.

It has produced a long list of champions, including Laurie Nash, Darrel Baldock, Brent Tasman “Tiger” Crosswell, Royce Hart, Peter Hudson, Ian Stewart, Brendan and Michael Gale, Robert Shaw, Alistair Lynch, Nick and Jack Riewoldt, Rodney Eade and Matthew Richardson.

The game between Hawthorn and Essendon in Launceston last Sunday – watched by a capacity crowd of about 15,000 – demonstrated local enthusiasm for the game. Tellingly, though, there appeared to be more Bombers fans despite it technically being a Hawks home game. It showed Tasmanians have not warmed to the Hawks or Kangaroos as their own.

Why should Tasmanian taxpayers pay for Hawthorn and North Melbourne to play in Launceston and Hobart respectively when they could have their own team?

Tasmania has changed. Its economy has improved and its population is growing. Attractions such as the Museum of Old and New Art (MONA) and the Dark Mofo Festival symbolise its confidence. In the decade since MONA’s establishment, visitor numbers to Tasmania have grown about 45%, and the amount they spend by about 60%.

Making a business case

The Tasmania government established a task force in 2019 to develop a business case for a local AFL club. Chaired by former Virgin Australia chief executive Brett Godfrey, the endeavour was intended to support the AFL granting such a licence. The plan was presented to the AFL in February 2020.

The task force suggested a Tassie team could feasibly rely on a support base similar to the successful Geelong Cats, or to the National Rugby League’s North Queensland Cowboys in Townsville.

Geelong’s population is about 265,000. Townsville’s is about 196,000, with the population of northern Queensland being about 510,000. Both the Cats and Cowboys attract crowds and TV audiences higher than their league averages.

A Tasmanian AFL team would draw on support from a state population of about 525,000, playing home games in both Hobart (population about 240,000) and Launceston (about 69,0000).

Small town success

A good international example of the potential of a “small town team” comes from Wisconsin and its National Football League team, the Green Bay Packers.

Green Bay, with a population of about 325,000, is just the third-biggest city in Wisconsin (after Milwaukee and Madison). Yet the Packers have won more NFL championships (13) than any other team.

Granted, the Packers are the only NFL team in Wisconsin (population about 5.8 million). But compare that to the combined populations of New York and New Jersey (about 28 million) supporting three teams, or California (40 million) also with three teams. The Packers are among of the NFL’s top 10 most watched teams, attracting an average TV audience of about 15.5 million.

A social case, also

In the unusual economics of sports there are good reasons to look beyond the business case to the social case.

Sports competition is not pure competition. The AFL intervenes in multiple ways to create a level playing field. For example, it caps the amount teams can spend on salaries, and gives the teams that perform badly one season better draft picks in the next. “Football socialism” is what former Carlton president John Elliott called it.

Would the AFL Women’s League (AFLW) have been established on purely economic grounds? Probably not. But there have been good reasons to subsidise its creation. Among other things, it has helped boost female participation in sport and strengthened grassroots footy clubs through having both girls’ and boys’ teams. In the long run the AFLW could also well bring in economic benefits.

Moreover, if the AFL designed a national competition from scratch, would anyone think it economically viable to have nine of the 18 teams based on suburbs within 10km of the Melbourne CBD?

Preserving the Victorian Football League’s clubs as much as possible wasn’t about cost-benefit analyses either. It was an emotional case too.

So the business case is important, but let’s not dismiss the other reasons for a club that would bring the AFL one step closer to truly being the national game.

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

– ref. The case for a Tasmanian AFL team, from an economist’s point of view – https://theconversation.com/the-case-for-a-tasmanian-afl-team-from-an-economists-point-of-view-163166

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Berle, Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology, University of Technology Sydney

Many of us experience at least one potentially traumatic event in our lifetime. These can include accidents, natural disasters, exposure to war and combat, or physical and sexual assault.

Humans are resilient and most adjust well afterwards. However, some people may develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when emotional difficulties persist.

The most common symptoms include re-experiencing the trauma through nightmares and upsetting reminders of the event; avoiding reminders of the event; chronic feelings of being alert and “on guard” for danger; and profound changes to beliefs about themself, the world and the future.

The good news is we have a number of evidenced-based treatments for PTSD. And one showing promise is the “unified protocol”.

Trauma-focused treatments

All common first-line PTSD treatments involve some sort of “processing” of the trauma memory. We call these treatments “trauma-focused”.

By repeatedly recalling the memory of the trauma in a safe and controlled way, the person can start to see that event as having occurred in the past; it’s no longer happening in the “here and now”. The person also learns the memory itself is not inherently dangerous or something to avoid.

Read more:
Explainer: what is post-traumatic stress disorder?

When PTSD isn’t the only problem

However, not everyone gets better with “trauma-focused” treatment. Treatment seems to be successful for a third of people, partially successful for another third and the rest may not significantly improve.

Most people with PTSD also experience depression, high levels of anger, severe anxiety, or a combination of these. Substance use is also common. And these other difficulties reduce the chances of standard treatment working.

So, in recent years, we’ve seen the emergence of “transdiagnostic” therapies. These aim to address common underlying processes thought to contribute to a wide range of emotion-related disorders. These approaches may be particularly useful for people who have more than one emotional disorder.

This is where the “unified protocol” for treating emotional disorders comes in.

A review, led by our team at University of Technology Sydney, indicated people with anxiety disorders and depression can expect significant improvement from completing the structured and skills-based modules that form the treatment.

These modules include a range of emotion regulation skills to help the person accept or reappraise negative emotions. People do not eliminate these emotions entirely, but learn to respond to them in the most effective way possible.

Read more:
There’s a strong link between anxiety and depression, and sleep problems, and it goes both ways

How about the ‘unified protocol’ for PTSD?

Earlier this year, a randomised controlled pilot trial led by our team at Phoenix Australia, University of Melbourne, provided hope the “unified protocol” might also help people with PTSD.

The trial included 43 adults who had been through a traumatic event and who had developed post-traumatic stress symptoms, many with a PTSD diagnosis. Some also had depression or anxiety.

People with post-traumatic stress symptoms who had 10-14 hour-long sessions of the “unified protocol” once a week had fewer PTSD symptoms at the end of treatment, and at six months after the treatment, than people who were free to choose any psychological or pharmacological treatment.

We think people in the “unified protocol” group did better because this treatment may address PTSD in a different way than directly targeting the trauma memory.

In other words, the “unified protocol” may help the person better regulate emotions and reduce them avoiding distressing emotions. So PTSD symptoms may improve without a specific focus on the trauma memory.

Read more:
What makes a good psychologist or psychiatrist and how do you find one you like?

However, we have still have much to learn. That’s why our research team at the University of Melbourne is conducting a larger randomised controlled study.

This will hopefully tell us which people might better respond to the “unified protocol” and which to trauma-focused treatment.

Having a range of treatments for PTSD, which work in different ways, can potentially help the many Australians with PTSD. Ideally, this will allow clinicians and their clients to make an informed decision about which treatment is best.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14. More information about PTSD and support is available from Phoenix Australia. The Australian Clinical Psychology Association provides a free Find a Clinical Psychologist service. Or you can see your GP for other referral options.

David Berle consults to Fortem Australia, which supports first responders and their families. He has previously received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australian Research Council and Defence Health Foundation.

Professor Meaghan O’Donnell has received funding support from a NHMRC Program Grant and a grant from the Canadian Centre for PTSD to conduct this research.

– ref. What is the ‘unified protocol’ for PTSD? And how can it help? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-unified-protocol-for-ptsd-and-how-can-it-help-162435

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carla Archibald, Research Fellow, Conservation Science, Deakin University

Vast, treeless paddocks and fields can be dangerous for wildlife, who encounter them as “roadblocks” between natural areas nearby. But our new research found even one lone tree in an otherwise empty paddock can make a huge difference to an animal’s movement.

We focused on the Atlantic Forest in Brazil, a biodiversity hotspot with 1,361 different known species of wildlife, such as jaguars, sloths, tamarins and toucans. Habitat loss from expanding and intensifying farmland, however, increasingly threatens the forest’s rich diversity of species and ecosystems.

We researched the value of paddock trees and hedges for birds and bees, and found small habitat features like these can double how easily they find their way through farmland.

This is important because enabling wildlife to journey across farmlands not only benefits the conservation of species, but also people. It means bees can improve crop pollination, and seed-dispersing birds can help restore ecosystems.

Connecting habitats

Lone trees in paddocks, hedges and tree-lined fences are common features of farmlands across the world, from Brazil to Australia.

They may be few and far between, but this scattered vegetation makes important areas of refuge for birds and bees, acting like roads or stepping stones to larger natural habitats nearby.

Scattered paddock trees, for instance, offer shelter, food, and places to land. They’ve also been found to create cooler areas within their canopy and right beneath it, providing some relief on scorching summer days.

Hedges and tree-lined fences are also important, as they provide a safe pathway by providing hiding places from predators.

For our research, we used satellite images of the Atlantic Forest and randomly selected 20 landscapes containing different amounts of forest cover.

We then used mathematical models to calculate the habitat connectivity of these landscapes for three groups of species — bees, small birds such as the rufous-bellied thrush, and large birds such as toucans — based on how far they can travel.

Read more:
Urban golf courses are biodiversity oases. Opening them up puts that at risk

And we found in areas with low forest cover, wildlife is twice as likely to move from one natural habitat to another if paddock trees and hedges can be used as stepping stones.

We also found vegetation around creeks and waterways are the most prevalent and important type of on-farm habitat for wildlife movement. In Brazil, there are legal protections for these areas preventing them from being cleared, which means vegetation along waterways has become relatively common compared to lone trees and hedges, in places with lower forest cover.

Insights for Australia

While the contribution of lone trees, hedges and tree-lined fences towards conservation targets is relatively low, our research shows they’re still important. And we can apply this knowledge more widely.

For example, in Australia, many koala populations depend on scattered trees for movement and habitat. In 2018, CSIRO researchers in Queensland tracked koalas using GPS, and found koalas used roadside vegetation and scattered trees for feeding and resting significantly more than they expected.

Likewise, lone trees, hedges and tree-lined fences can also facilitate the movement of Australian fruit-eating birds such as the olive-backed oriole and the rose-crowned fruit dove. Improving habitat connectivity can help these birds travel across landscapes, feeding and dispersing seeds as they go.

In fragmented landscapes, where larger patches of vegetation are hard to find, dispersing the seeds of native plants encourages natural regeneration of ecosystems. This is a key strategy to help achieve environmental restoration and conservation targets.

Policies overlook lone trees

In Brazil, there’s a strong initiative to restore natural areas, known as the Brazilian Pact for Restoration. This pact is a commitment from non-government organisations, government, companies and research centres to restore 15 million hectares of native vegetation by 2050.

However, the pact doesn’t recognise the value of lone trees, hedges and tree-lined fences.

Read more:
Stopping koala extinction is agonisingly simple. But here’s why I’m not optimistic

Likewise, the Brazilian Forest Code has historically provided strong legal protection for forests since it was introduced. While this policy does value vegetation along waterways, it overlooks the value of lone trees, hedges or tree-lined fences.

These oversights could result in poor connectivity between natural areas, seriously hampering conservation efforts.

Australia doesn’t fare much better. For example, in Queensland, the native vegetation management laws protect only intact native vegetation or vegetation of a certain age. This means scattered, but vital, vegetation isn’t protected from land clearing.

Helping your local wildlife

But farmers and other landowners in Australia can make a big difference through land stewardship grant schemes (such as from Landcare) and private land conservation programs (such as Land for Wildlife or conservation covenants).

These schemes and programs can help landowners finance revegetation and protect native vegetation. Grants and programs vary by state and territory, and local council.

Read more:
Backyard gardeners around the world are helping to save Australia’s deeply ancient Wollemi pine

Restoring natural areas is a key goal on the global conservation agenda for the next decade, and it’s clear that lone trees, hedges and tree-lined fences on farms may play a larger role than once thought.

So think twice before you remove a tree or a hedge. It might be a crucial stepping stone for your local birds and bees.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Dr Flávia Freire Siqueira who led this research collaboration, and co-authours Dr Dulcineia de Carvalho and Dr Vanessa Leite Rezende from the Federal University of Lavras.

Carla Archibald receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

evandenb@ufla.br receives funding from FAPEMIG (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais).

Jonathan Rhodes receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian, Queensland, and New South Wales Governments.

– ref. A lone tree makes it easier for birds and bees to navigate farmland, like a stepping stone between habitats – https://theconversation.com/a-lone-tree-makes-it-easier-for-birds-and-bees-to-navigate-farmland-like-a-stepping-stone-between-habitats-162083

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Griffin, Associate Professor, Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, The University of Queensland

Australia’s current crop of COVID-19 vaccines consists of a shot by American biotechnology company Pfizer, which we import, and the vaccine by British-Swedish multinational AstraZeneca, the bulk of which we manufacture onshore in Melbourne under license.

We don’t currently have a locally-made COVID vaccine at our disposal, though this week the Victorian government announced funding for a Pfizer-style mRNA vaccine developed by Monash University. It will move to phase 1 trials in October or November.

However, the most advanced of our local COVID vaccines in development is a shot called “COVAX-19” by South Australian based biotech, Vaxine.

It’s great to see another Australian group at the forefront of COVID-19 research and particularly vaccine development.

The candidate has just started a phase 2 clinical trial in Iran, collaborating with local biotech CinnaGen.

We’re yet to see the published results of the pre-clinical animal studies or the phase 1 human trials, though Vaxine says it has submitted research papers and is awaiting acceptance.

At this point in time, there’s unfortunately not enough information to comment on the safety and efficacy of this locally developed vaccine, though it’s potentially promising.

Further information, particularly the results of the clinical trials, is eagerly awaited.

What is Vaxine?

Vaxine was founded in 2002 with the aim of developing new vaccine technologies.

Researchers at Vaxine have focused for some time on adjuvants, which are substances added to vaccines to enhance the response of the immune system. They’ve developed their own adjuvant named “Advax” which is based on Inulin, a starchy product derived from many plants.

This adjuvant has been used safely and successfully in human trials for many viruses including influenza and hepatitis B. However, it hasn’t been included in any licensed vaccine to date.

What kind of vaccine is it?

Vaxine scientists began work on a COVID-19 vaccine in January 2020. They describe developing a number of different types of vaccines, but eventually settled on a “recombinant protein-based vaccine”.

The goal of any vaccine is to train our immune system to recognise something found on the surface of a pathogen, in this case the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Having a vaccine means if we encounter that virus, we’ll have antibodies and other immune cells ready to protect us.

In the case of COVID-19, most of the vaccines in use and under development target the spike protein, as this is the part of the virus that binds to human cells to get in and cause infection.

Vaxine’s COVAX-19 is no exception and does this by making the spike protein in the laboratory using “recombinant technology”, which is where proteins are artificially manufactured.

Other similar vaccines include those made by Novavax and the University of Queensland.

Read more:
What is Novavax, Australia’s third COVID vaccine option? And when will we get it?

Novavax’s candidate uses their own adjuvant and this month announced impressive results from phase 3 studies.

The University of Queensland candidate used a “molecular clamp” which, unfortunately, caused some participants who received the vaccine in trials to have false-positive HIV tests. Because of this, the vaccine isn’t going to progress beyond phase 1 clinical trials.

Read more:
How did the University of Queensland/CSL vaccine fail due to ‘false positive’ HIV tests? A vaccine expert explains

Is it safe and effective?

Vaxine’s website states its COVAX-19 vaccine has been shown to produce an immune response in a number of animals including mice, macaques and ferrets. The data is not published, so I can’t confirm this.

For results to be published, it means they have been carefully analysed and presented as well as undergoing a robust peer review process. While results from press releases and pre-print articles can tell us exciting results might have been obtained, we really need to see them published in reputable peer-reviewed journals to be certain they’re of sufficient quality to draw reliable conclusions from.

However, the company’s founder and research director, Nikolai Petrovsky, said it has submitted a paper on its mice and ferret studies and is awaiting acceptance.

Based on this unpublished pre-clinical work, this vaccine was assessed in a phase 1 human trial that started June 30 last year.

Clinical trials normally go through three phases:

• phase 1 trials are the first trials in humans, typically small and predominantly focused on safety

• phase 2 trials are a little larger, still mostly focused on safety but we start to look a little more at how well it actually works

• phase 3 are larger studies, looking still at safety but focused mainly on how effectively the vaccine reduces infection or disease.

In Vaxine’s phase 1 trial, 40 participants aged 18 to 65 were included, with 30 people receiving the active vaccine and ten getting a saline placebo.

The company’s website says preliminary data of this phase 1 study demonstrated the COVAX-19 vaccine is safe, well tolerated and produces an immune response, though its data on this trial isn’t published.

Petrovsky said this data has also been submitted and is awaiting acceptance. He said the company’s main focus is on advancing the clinical trials and preparing to produce hundreds of millions of doses, if successful.

He added “we just don’t have the luxury of lots of surplus bandwidth to be writing and publishing papers at the same time”.

The phase 2 clinical trials started on May 30 in Iran, with 400 volunteers injected with either a placebo or the first dose of the vaccine candidate.

This is a step in the right direction. But even if the published phase 1 results confirm the safety and efficacy, given the phase 2 trial has only just commenced and large phase 3 trials are still required, it will unfortunately be some time before we know whether it’s a safe and effective vaccine.

How quickly the vaccine could be available is also likely to depend largely on Vaxine’s ability to scale up manufacturing, which takes considerable investment and quite a long period of time.

Paul Griffin is part of the AstraZeneca advisory board and principal Investigator on numerous COVID-19 vaccine studies.

– ref. What is COVAX-19, the most advanced of Australia’s remaining local COVID vaccine candidates? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-covax-19-the-most-advanced-of-australias-remaining-local-covid-vaccine-candidates-162347

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Donald Rothwell, Professor of International Law, Australian National University

The 1959 Antarctic Treaty celebrates its 60th anniversary today. Negotiated during the middle of the Cold War by 12 countries with Antarctic interests, it remains the only example of a single treaty that governs a whole continent.

It is also the foundation of a rules-based international order for a continent without a permanent population.

The treaty is remarkably short and contains only 14 articles. Principal provisions include promoting the freedom of scientific research, the use of the continent only for peaceful purposes, and the prohibition of military activities, nuclear tests and the disposal of radioactive waste.

However, since the treaty was negotiated in a very different era and there have been a number of environmental, resource and geopolitical disputes related to Antarctica in recent decades, it begs the question: is it still fit for purpose?

What the treaty says about territorial claims

The most important provision of the treaty is Article IV, which effectively seeks to neutralise territorial sovereignty in Antarctica.

For the Antarctic territorial claimants, this meant a limit was placed on making any new claim or enlargement of an existing claim.

Likewise, no formal recognition was given to any of the seven territorial claims on the continent, by Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom.

Russia, the United States and China — signatories with significant Antarctic interests who have not formally made territorial claims — are also bound by the limitations of Article IV.

And one sector of Antarctica is not subject to the claim of any country, which effectively makes it the last unclaimed land on earth.

The treaty also put a freeze on any disputes between claimants over their territories on the continent. Claimants agreed to abide by the rules and obligations of the treaty, which meant countries that don’t recognise claims (such as China and Russia) are free to go about scientific research and peaceful activities.

Read more:
Murky waters: why is Japan still whaling in the Southern Ocean?

How the treaty has expanded

Though the compact has held for 60 years, there have been been tensions from time to time. Argentina and the UK, for instance, have overlapping claims to territory on the continent. When combined with their ongoing dispute over the nearby Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, their Antarctic relationship remains frosty.

A key reason why the treaty has been able to survive has been its ability to evolve through a number of additional conventions and other legal protocols. These have dealt with the conservation of marine living resources, prohibitions on mining, and the adoption of comprehensive environmental protection mechanisms.

As disputes have arisen over the years, many have been addressed through the expansion of the treaty framework with these agreements. This framework is now referred to as the “Antarctic Treaty System”.

These measures have been a great success, but tensions have arisen in recent years over the promotion of Southern Ocean marine reserves. Agreement was reached in 2016 on a Ross Sea Marine Protected Area, and momentum is building for a broader network of Southern Ocean marine protected areas. China and Russia have resisted these initiatives.

Membership of the treaty has grown in the intervening years, with 54 signatories today.

Scientific engagement in Antarctica is considered critical to exercising influence under the treaty. New treaty parties have to meet certain criteria relating to active scientific programs before they are able to participate in meetings as “consultative parties”. A total of 29 treaty parties, including Australia, meet these scientific engagement thresholds.

Building, operating and conducting scientific research programs are key to the success not only of the treaty, but also to the claimants’ credibility in Antarctica. Australia, for instance, has permitted Belarus, China, France, India, Italy, Russia, and the US to conduct scientific programs at their own research bases within its Antarctic territory, which covers 42% of the continent.

Read more:
Is there about to be a dash for Antarctica’s resources?

Where to from here?

While the Antarctic Treaty has been able to successfully respond to a range of challenges, circumstances are radically different in the 2020s compared to the 1950s. Antarctica is much more accessible, partly due to technology but also climate change. More countries now have substantive interests in the continent than the original 12. Some global resources are becoming scarce, especially oil.

This will inevitably result in increased attention being given to the potential for Antarctic mining to take place sometime in the future. Calls to revisit the prohibition on Antarctic mining would seem inevitable.

There is also uncertainty as to China’s intentions in Antarctica. China joined the treaty in 1983, became a consultative party in 1985, and in 2017 hosted a consultative party meeting in Beijing.

China has a developing scientific program on the continent, with four research stations (three of which are in Australia’s Antarctic Territory), and a fifth planned. While Australia and China cooperate on a number of Antarctic scientific and logistics programs, the direction of China’s Antarctic engagement and long-term support for treaty is not clear.

There is considerable speculation as to China’s interests in Antarctic resources, especially fisheries and minerals, and whether China may seek to exploit weaknesses in the treaty system to secure access to those resources.

All of the treaty signatories, but especially those with significant stakes in the continent, need to give the future of the treaty more attention.

The Australian parliament, for instance, last conducted an inquiry into the Australian Antarctic Territory in 2018. None of the 22 recommendations, however, had a precise focus on the Antarctic Treaty.

The mining ban under the Madrid Protocol to the treaty could be subject to review in 2048. If the treaty’s signatories wish to ensure it remains fit for purpose in 2048 and beyond, more strategic thinking needs to be given to Antarctica’s future.

Donald Rothwell has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council, and was previously a member of the Antarctic Science Advisory Council

– ref. The Antarctic Treaty is turning 60 years old. In a changed world, is it still fit for purpose? – https://theconversation.com/the-antarctic-treaty-is-turning-60-years-old-in-a-changed-world-is-it-still-fit-for-purpose-162849

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeannie Eun Su Lee, Lecturer, University of Newcastle

Australia is in the grip of a labour shortage, as pandemic border closures stem the flow of workers from other countries. At the same time, Australia has an untapped talent pool of workers: refugees who have settled here and are urgently looking for work.

Survey data from the Australian Institute of Family Studies suggests only 6% of refugees find work within six months of arrival. Within two years of arrival, only 25% of refugees are in employment.

Many refugees are victims of a qualifications paradox — the higher their credentials, the more they struggle to find meaningful employment. This is because of the restrictive professional accreditation processes many highly-qualified migrants struggle to overcome, higher language proficiency requirements and limited local professional networks.

Acting immigration minister Alan Tudge last year called for a raft of changes to address this issue but the problem prevails. Even when businesses are keen to hire refugees, there’s very little guidance on how to successfully recruit, train and retain refugee workers.

Our report and study outline some concrete steps businesses can take to boost employment of refugees.

Businesses can start by:

• knowing they can begin with small steps and commitments. Recruiting refugees even for a short term helps build their professional networks and gain local references.

• taking advantage of government subsidies and grants aimed at encouraging employers to consider hiring disadvantaged groups.

• reaching out to industry leaders and learning from peers who have successfully hired refugees. The Employer Network for Refugee Inclusion (ENRI) is a community where businesses share knowledge and expertise in refugee recruitment. All newcomers are welcome.

• knowing that businesses are not alone. Many not-for-profit organisations and social enterprises with outstanding recruitment programs can support Australian employers in hiring refugees. Other stakeholders, such as education providers and community organisations, also have extensive knowledge about refugees.

Job challenges for refugees

Some of the challenges faced by refugees seeking employment in Australia include:

• their qualifications and skills not being recognised

• having limited or no knowledge of the local job market

• having limited or no networks to connect them with jobs

• facing discrimination.

Read more:
‘Very loyal’ productive workers: the same people we fear as refugees

Take, for example, the case of 21-year-old Zeynab. As an Afghan living in Iran, she faced discrimination and didn’t have a right to the same education, health care and employment opportunities as Iranian citizens.

She told us that after resettling in Australia in 2018, she faced many challenges to find work:

For two years I applied for job after job with no success. I felt hopeless. I wanted to work so badly but no one would give me the opportunity to show what I could do.

In March 2021, Zeynab participated in a program run by the furnishing giant IKEA, called the IKEA Australia Skills for Employment program. Today, she works as a Logistics Co-worker at IKEA Adelaide and is undertaking a course to prepare for future university study — an opportunity she could never have had in Iran.

Collaboration is crucial

Some employers might feel daunted by the prospect of hiring refugees. Collaboration with not-for-profit organisations can make the process easier — and cheaper.

Close collaboration with not-for-profit organisations reduces recruitment and training costs. It can also make successful induction and onboarding cheaper, as these organisations are able to shoulder some of the work.

Some not-for-profit organisations also provide ongoing support for refugees and employers. Many offer cross-cultural training for local staff. This training is invaluable for those working with culturally diverse job seekers.

As a successful example, IKEA runs eight-week paid placements for refugees in partnership with Community Corporate, an award-winning social enterprise.

Here, refugee job seekers learn about Australian workplace culture, build confidence in using English and gain professional references.

Many participants have secured ongoing work with IKEA, where vacancies were available.

Harriet Pope, IKEA Skills for Employment Program Project Leader, described the experience so far:

We believe businesses in Australia have an important role to play in supporting refugee inclusion. The program has been mutually enriching for participants and our business, creating a more diverse work environment and access to new co-workers who are highly motivated, adaptable and loyal. It’s also opened learning and development opportunities for our co-workers as they mentor program participants and enabled us to better support the needs of our diverse customers.

Many businesses see refugee employment through the lens of corporate social responsibility — a well-meaning act of “good”.

However, it is in fact a strategic move. Hiring refugees can be good for business because it broadens the pool of workforce talent, brings fresh perspectives and insight into teams, allows expansion of client pools to ethnic minority communities, and increases employee morale.

A call to action for governments, volunteers and businesses

Victoria’s social procurement framework is an example of a government initiative that’s helped businesses hire from within vulnerable communities.

In our research, businesses in Victoria told us this initiative helped open their eyes to a previously invisible talent pool.

Along the way, they sought the help of not-for-profit organisations, which helped to find refugees and asylum seekers for recruitment. These organisations also assisted with onboarding and training. We suggest similar government initiatives could be implemented elsewhere in Australia.

If you are a business owner or HR professional interested in working with not-for-profit organisations to recruit refugees, you can start by looking into available resources, such as this employers’ guides to recruiting refugees. You can also contact not-for-profit organisations that excel in providing employment-related support to businesses and refugees.

Or, feel free to contact the authors of this article. We would be more than happy to support your journey to refugee recruitment.

Read more:
Three charts on: job prospects for refugees in Australia

This article is part of a series on asylum seeker policy supported by a grant from the Broadley Trust.

Betina Szkudlarek received funding from the federal government to investigate employers’ perspectives on hiring refugees.

– ref. Amid a labour shortage, here’s how businesses could hire more refugees — and gain a strategic advantage – https://theconversation.com/amid-a-labour-shortage-heres-how-businesses-could-hire-more-refugees-and-gain-a-strategic-advantage-162997

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caroline Fisher, Co-author of the Digital News Report: Australia 2020, Deputy Director of the News and Media Research Centre, and Associate Professor of Journalism, University of Canberra

During the COVID-19 pandemic, more than 150 Australian news outlets have contracted, merged, closed or suspended production due to the financial stress. Just last month, WIN TV News announced it will be cutting more jobs.

Despite the upheaval in the news media caused by loss of advertising, the majority of Australians are unaware of the financial difficulties of commercial news organisations.

The findings are contained in the latest Digital News Report: Australia 2021 released by the University of Canberra.

The online survey of 2,034 Australian news consumers finds two-thirds of respondents were unaware commercial news organisations were less profitable than 10 years ago. A small but significant proportion (14%) of respondents thought news companies were doing better than 10 years ago. A further 12% thought their profitability was roughly the same. Moreover, 41% of Australian consumers said they “don’t know” if news media are facing financial hardship.

It is Australians from low socio-economic backgrounds who are the least likely to know about the state of the news industry: 78% of those with low levels of education compared to 58% of people with those with high levels, and 68% of low-income earners compared to 55% of high-income earners. This points to low levels of media literacy in these groups.

Australians are not concerned about the news industry

Only one-third of survey participants said they were “quite” or “very” concerned about the financial difficulties facing the news industry, while 49% were not concerned. Almost one-fifth said they “don’t know”.

Further, many consumers don’t think the government should step in to assist commercial news organisations facing hard times (44%). Given that most Australians are neither aware of the financial state of the commercial news industry nor concerned about it, this is not surprising.

This lack of awareness and concern is important because the report reveals people who are aware of the financial state of news are more likely to pay for it, and those who are concerned about the state of the news industry are more likely to say they will pay for it in the future.

We need more people to pay for news

If you happen to subscribe or donate to online news, you are part of the small 13% of Australians who do. This figure is below the average of 20 countries in the survey (17%). While more Australian consumers pay for online news than in the UK (8%), our contribution is much lower than in Norway (45%).

More troubling is that the vast majority (83%) of Australians who don’t pay for news say it is unlikely they will pay in the future.

Even though regional newspapers have been particularly hit hard before and during the pandemic, regional Australians in the survey were less likely to say they would pay for news in the future (10%) compared to city dwellers (14%).

Read more:
Another savage blow to regional media spells disaster for the communities they serve

Given that people who are aware and concerned about the state of the industry are more likely to pay for the news they consume, it behoves us all to educate the public about the financial crisis facing Australian journalism.

The report also finds trust in news increased globally, including Australia, since 2020. However, the “trust bump” experienced in the early months of the pandemic has not been maintained. General trust in news rose (+5) to 43%, which is close to the global average in the survey of 44%. But the peak in trust associated with news reporting about COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic (53%) has not been sustained.

News consumption levels have also fallen from the highs recorded in the first few months of the pandemic last year. In April 2020, 70% of Australians were accessing news more than once a day. In 2021, this has dropped to 51% and is lower than pre-COVID news consumption. Interest in news continues to decline.

The fall in consumption and interest and lack of knowledge about the state of the struggling news industry in Australia point to lower engagement with the news overall and the ongoing need to improve media literacy in this country.

Read more:
Alarmist reporting on COVID-19 will only heighten people’s anxieties and drive vaccine hesitancy

Other findings include:

• Australians strongly support impartial, neutral and balanced news. Most news consumers (73%) think news should reflect a range of views so audiences can make up their own minds. Seventy-one percent think all sides of an issue should be given equal time, and 57% say news should always try to be neutral.

• Women, young people, regional residents and low socio-economic consumers are the most dissatisfied with how they are represented in the news.

• People who primarily get their news from print (newspaper or magazine) are more likely to say they feel attached to their local community (73%) than those who rely on other news sources.

• The proportion of Australians aged 75 and over who mainly use social media for news has more than tripled since 2019 (10%, +7).

Digital News Report: Australia is produced by the News & Media Research Centre (N&MRC) at the University of Canberra and is part of a global annual survey of digital news consumption in 46 countries, commissioned by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford. The survey was conducted by YouGov at the end of January/beginning of February 2021. In Australia, this is the seventh annual survey of its kind produced by the N&MRC.

Caroline Fisher receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Australian Communication and Research Authority, and the Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism and ideas.

Sora Park receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Australian Communication, Research Authority and Social Science Research Council and NAMLE.

– ref. Australians are not aware news outlets are in financial trouble: new report – https://theconversation.com/australians-are-not-aware-news-outlets-are-in-financial-trouble-new-report-162596

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diego S. Silva, Lecturer, Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney

Over recent weeks, we’ve seen reports some Australians under 40 who are not yet eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine have been getting their first dose.

These are people who don’t fall into a priority group outlined by the federal government, and are not eligible under the current rules in their state or territory.

These young people have been described as “queue jumping”. Although some might be jumping the queue, most, in my view, are not doing anything wrong.

Besides, given how slowly the vaccine rollout is progressing in Australia, these eager young folks may actually be doing us all a favour.

What exactly is going on?

It appears some younger ineligible Australians are getting the Pfizer vaccine, while others are choosing to take the AstraZenca vaccine.

The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) has advised people under 60 (previously people under 50) should not be given the AstraZenca vaccine because of the risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), a rare but serious blood clotting disorder.

Some younger Australians are accepting this risk in order to get the AstraZeneca vaccine before they’re eligible for Pfizer.

But how are young Australians who are not technically eligible getting either vaccine in the first place? Reports suggest there are three ways:

• they’re showing up at the vaccination sites and seeing if they can get a vaccine at the discretion of health-care staff, presumably if there’s no one else scheduled at that time

• they’re registering online through the regular channels. They’re providing their information truthfully and the system is allowing them to book in

• they’re using online links that were intended for people who are actually eligible (for example, household contacts of health-care workers).

Read more:
Even if Olympians are jumping the COVID vaccine queue, that’s not necessarily wrong. A bioethicist explains

It’s important to note the context here. Some evidence suggests there’s a higher level of vaccine hesitancy than predicted or desired among Australians (around one-third of all adults).

The rollout of the vaccine in Australia has been slow and troubled for a variety of reasons, including changing safety advice and logistical issues.

Mixed messaging from politicians doesn’t help. For example, claims the vaccination rollout is “not a race” are off the mark. Speed is in fact of the essence.

Most younger Australians are not queue jumping

From an ethical standpoint, what matters is making sure you don’t potentially disadvantage or harm other people who are in greater need of the vaccine than you are.

Generally speaking, if there are good reasons provided for the order in which a scarce resource will be allocated, no individual person should cheat their fellow resident from that resource by disregarding the allocation process.

While Australia’s priority list is morally defensible, I would argue there’s little “queue jumping” occurring.

Read more:
4 ways Australia’s COVID vaccine rollout has been bungled

First, those younger Australians choosing to take the AstraZenca vaccine are not taking away a scarce resource. There is plenty of the AstraZenca vaccine, although the Pfizer vaccine is in much shorter supply.

There may be an ethical question about whether younger people should be offered the AstraZenca vaccine at all given the risk of TTS and ATAGI’s recommendations. But assuming people are giving their free and informed consent, we can set aside this concern for now.

Those younger ineligible Australians who are taking the Pfizer vaccine may be said to be jumping the queue. But if they’re telling the truth when enrolling online, or perhaps waiting until the end of the day to use a dose that would otherwise go to waste — and a health-care worker at a vaccination centre is giving them permission to be vaccinated — they can’t be accused of queue jumping.

The rules around allocation, and the enforcement of those rules, cannot rest with each individual, but rather lies with those in charge of delivering vaccines. If there are spare vaccine doses to be had, this suggests there’s a system failure at some point between vaccine procurement and delivery.

The only people who could be rightfully accused of queue jumping are those who register for vaccines with links that aren’t meant for them. Doing so is a clear intent to bypass the rules and enforcement mechanisms in place.

We want vaccines in arms

Unless people who are eligible and want to receive the Pfizer vaccine are being denied access — and I haven’t heard this is happening, at least not because of queue jumping — then the default should be to vaccinate as many Australians as possible, as quickly as possible.

We know individuals won’t be as safe as they could be until a large proportion of the population is vaccinated. We also know our vaccine rollout is well behind schedule.

So if anything, we should be thanking younger Australians for doing their part to accelerate the COVID-19 vaccination rates in this country.

Read more:
We may never achieve long-term global herd immunity for COVID. But if we’re all vaccinated, we’ll be safe from the worst

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

– ref. We shouldn’t blame young people for ‘jumping the queue’ to get a COVID vaccine. They could be doing us a favour – https://theconversation.com/we-shouldnt-blame-young-people-for-jumping-the-queue-to-get-a-covid-vaccine-they-could-be-doing-us-a-favour-162927

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Christoff, Senior Research Fellow and Associate Professor, Melbourne Climate Futures initiative, The University of Melbourne

Resurrected Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce is back in the saddle, facing backwards. His determination to prevent the Morrison government from adopting a target of net-zero greenhouse emissions by 2050 will again delay the renovation of Australia’s climate policy.

The Nationals’ leadership spill reportedly followed growing disquiet about Morrison’s slow pivot towards a net-zero by 2050 goal. Many Nationals MPs have indicated they don’t back the target, and Joyce says he will be “guided by the party room” on the issue.

If Morrison eventually gets the 2050 target past Joyce and passed by the joint party room, there will be little cause for celebration. In fact, the achievement will be as exciting as watching a vaudeville magician wrench an old rabbit out of a moth-eaten hat.

Australia’s premiers will yawn in unison. Every state and territory in the country has already adopted this target, or better. Yet at the end of the day, net-zero by 2050 is a risky and inadequate goal, especially for wealthy nations such as Australia.

A target is nothing without a plan to get there

All G7 states and 11 G20 members are aiming for net-zero emissions by mid-century. These include the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, Germany, France, the Republic of Korea, Italy, the European Union, Argentina and the United States. China, the world’s largest emitter, has committed to net-zero by 2060.

However, as international environment law expert Professor Lavanya Rajamani has argued, net-zero targets should not automatically be applauded. First, they should be checked for their credibility, accountability and fairness. On these measures, a net-zero by 2050 target for Australia is nothing to cheer.

Why? First, because a target is nothing without an effective strategy to get there – something Australia is sorely lacking.

To successfully achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, tough short- and medium-term targets are essential to staying on track. Victoria, for example, has pledged to halve carbon emissions by 2030. The UK is aiming for a 78% reduction by 2035, reflecting its confidence in existing and emerging technologies.

Read more:
‘Failure is not an option’: after a lost decade on climate action, the 2020s offer one last chance

The Morrison government’s 2030 target – a 26-28% reduction below 2005 emissions levels – is not credible. Experts say a 2030 target of between 50% and 74% is needed to put Australia in line with keeping warming below 2℃ and 1.5℃ respectively – the goals of the Paris Agreement.

So what about Australia’s actual emissions-reduction measures? The Morrison government’s technology-first approach falls short of what’s needed to drive quick and deep emissions cuts.

Reaching net-zero requires substantial government funding and tax relief for investors in renewable technologies. Morrison’s announcement of an additional A$540 million for new technologies is insufficient and partly misdirected.

For instance, the government is investing in carbon capture and storage. As others have argued, the technology is increasingly commercially unviable and encourages further fossil fuel use.

In the meantime, the government is failing to assist the uptake of proven technologies such as electric vehicles, despite transport being Australia’s third-worst sector for emissions.

2050 goal is risky business

Even if Australia adopted a goal of net-zero by 2050, and measures to get there comfortably, the target is risky.

In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report on the potentially catastrophic impacts of exceeding 1.5℃ global warming. In the same report it established the idea of “net zero” as a global aim, saying achieving the target by 2050 was needed to stay below that warming threshold.

The IPCC described the emissions-reduction pathways required, but failed to emphasise crucial assumptions underlying them. Most depended on “negative emissions” – drawing down carbon from the atmosphere.

Many of those presumed drawdown measures involve land use measures that potentially threaten biodiversity or food security, for instance by requiring farmland and virgin forests to be used for growing “carbon crops”. Others involve geo-engineeering technologies which are yet to be tested or proven safe at scale.

It’s a risky strategy to avoiding rapid, substantial and real emissions reductions in favour of gradual mitigation pathways that rely on such future carbon drawdown. It locks us into technologies which are problematic or don’t yet exist. To limit these risks, Australia must aim for net-zero well before 2050, predominantly via actual emissions cuts.

Read more:
Even without new fossil fuel projects, global warming will still exceed 1.5℃. But renewables might make it possible

A matter of fairness

The matter of equity is another where policy-makers have been inattentive to nuance. Calling for every country to achieve net-zero by 2050 shifts the burden and costs onto poorer countries.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement each require developed countries to cut emissions faster than poorer countries – and to assist poorer countries in their efforts. This recognises the fact developed nations are largely responsible for global warming, and have the wealth and technological capacities to act.

The undifferentiated call for net-zero by 2050 shifts the burden and costs of effort onto poorer countries. No wonder so many developed countries have been happy to adopt it!

Developing nations such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, as well as those in Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Pacific and Africa, are mostly below global average wealth. Forcing them to meet the same net-zero timeframe as rich nations is patently unfair.

And for the international community to achieve even the 2050 goal, China – a global emissions giant – must increase its ambition to at least net-zero by 2050 (rather than its current 2060 timeframe).

Morrison’s bind

It’s clear that rich developed countries must both aim for net-zero emissions well before 2050, and provide climate finance to assist poorer countries to do the same. Anything less will almost certainly guarantee Earth overshoots an already risky target.

Australia, given its wealth and technological means, must certainly aim for net-zero well before 2050. A report in April this year suggested reaching net-zero in 2035, to make a “fair and achievable contribution to the global task” and given our vulnerability to extreme weather.

The issue of climate finance was on the agenda at this month’s G7 summit, but critics say the final commitment – meeting an overdue spending pledge of US$100 billion a year – is inadequate considering the urgency of the task.

Just months out from a crucial UN climate summit in Glasgow in November, Scott Morrison is caught in a bind. On the global stage, he’s under increasing pressure to commit to a net-zero emissions target or face carbon tariffs. At home, he’s forced to assuage a minor coalition partner now led by a man who will reportedly push for a new coal-fired power station, and for agriculture – and potentially mining – to be exempt from emissions targets.

The looming general election will test whether rural voters are prepared to endure Joyce’s climate antics or will swing to savvy independents. And it remains to be seen whether urban voters will tolerate a prime minister whose transactional politics leaves Australia increasingly exposed at home and abroad.

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

– ref. Net zero by 2050? Even if Scott Morrison gets the Nationals on board, hold the applause – https://theconversation.com/net-zero-by-2050-even-if-scott-morrison-gets-the-nationals-on-board-hold-the-applause-163074

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jon C. Day, PSM, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University

The Australian government on Tuesday expressed shock at a draft decision to list the Great Barrier Reef as “in danger”. But the recommendation has been looming for some time.

The recommendation, by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), acknowledges Australia’s commitment to implementing the Reef 2050 Plan, an overarching framework to protect the natural wonder for future generations.

But the “outstanding universal value” of the Great Barrier Reef has continued to decline.

The draft decision will now be considered at the World Heritage Committee meeting, to be held online next month. The development is significant for several reasons – not least that Australia’s progress under the Paris Agreement is being linked to its stewardship of the reef.

What did UNESCO say?

In recommending the in-danger listing, UNESCO and IUCN cited a 2019 report by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority which found the ecosystem’s long-term outlook had deteriorated from poor to very poor. It said global warming had also triggered coral bleaching events in 2016 and 2017 – which were followed by another mass bleaching event in 2020.

The report said Australia’s progress on the Reef 2050 Plan “has been insufficient in meeting key targets”. It said the plan requires stronger and clearer commitments, in particular on urgently addressing threats from climate change, and improving water quality and land management.

Among other recommendations, the draft decision called on the international community to “implement the most ambitious actions to address climate change […] and fulfil their responsibility to protect the Great Barrier Reef”.

Read more:
‘Severely threatened and deteriorating’: global authority on nature lists the Great Barrier Reef as critical

No real surprise

Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley’s said the government was “blindsided” by the draft recommendation. However the move has been a long time coming.

As noted above, the government’s 2019 Outlook Report documented the impacts and threats to the Great Barrier Reef in no uncertain terms, and identified climate change as the most serious threat.

There were other indicators the recommendation was looming. In 2020, the IUCN World Heritage Outlook listed the Great Barrier Reef as “critical” due to threats including climate change and poor water quality. The rating – the worst on a four-point scale — was a decline from the 2017 rating of “significant concern”.

And in 2018, a report predicted that without major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, all 29 World Heritage coral reefs, including the Great Barrier Reef, will cease to be “functioning ecosystems by the end of the century”.

Finally in 2012, the World Heritage Committee warned the Great Barrier Reef could be placed on the in-danger list “in the absence of substantial progress”.

Read more:
We just spent two weeks surveying the Great Barrier Reef. What we saw was an utter tragedy

Climate change isn’t the only concern

While climate change is a major concern in the draft decision, it is but one of numerous pressures on the Great Barrier Reef. Poor water quality due to nutrient and sediment runoff – the latter linked to land clearing – are also big problems.

The IUCN outlook report said climate change is the biggest threat to all the world’s natural heritage places. In this regard, this week’s draft decision sets an important precedent for the World Heritage Committee. It would seem the committee is now prepared to directly address the issue of climate change, after being less so inclined in previous years.

The Reef 2050 Plan does not adequately address the climate change threat. The UNESCO report calls on Australia to correct this, and ensure the plan sufficiently addresses other threats including water quality.

Decisions by the World Heritage Committee are not binding on any country. Still, we expect the committee’s concerns to result in Australia amending the Reef 2050 Plan to better acknowledge climate change as a significant issue.

The draft decision will be considered at the annual meeting of the World Heritage Committee in July, chaired by China and comprising 21 countries.

An end to tourism?

The experience of other major tourist destinations suggests an in-danger listing may not damage tourism at the Great Barrier Reef, as some have feared.

Take the Everglades in the United States, Belize in the Caribbean and the Galapagos Islands. An analysis of these World Heritage properties showed no discernible tourism downturn after an in-danger listing. However, if the Great Barrier Reef’s condition continues to deteriorate, industries that rely on a healthy Reef are likely to endure long-term damage.

An in-danger listing is not permanent, nor does it mean the Great Barrier Reef will be permanently removed from the World Heritage list. Currently, 53 World Heritage properties are on the in-danger list; others were taken off the list once concerns were addressed.

The Great Barrier Reef will continue to be harmed until nations collectively adopt more ambitious climate goals, global emissions of greenhouse gases fall to net-zero and sea temperatures stabilise.

Without real and urgent actions at all levels — global, national, and local — the values that make all heritage places special will decline. That makes it less likely that future generations will be able to enjoy these wonders as we have done.

Read more:
Does tourism really suffer at sites listed as World Heritage In Danger?

Jon Day previously worked for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority between 1986 and 2014, and was one of the Directors at GBRMPA between 1998 and 2014. He represented Australia as one of the formal delegates to the World Heritage Committee between 2007-2011.

Scott Heron receives funding from Australian Research Council and NASA ROSES Ecological Forecasting.

Terry Hughes receives competitive research funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Australian government was ‘blindsided’ by UN recommendation to list Great Barrier Reef as in-danger. But it’s no great surprise – https://theconversation.com/australian-government-was-blindsided-by-un-recommendation-to-list-great-barrier-reef-as-in-danger-but-its-no-great-surprise-163159

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Allen, Coordinator Swinburne Astronomy Online | Program Lead of Microgravity Experimentation, Space Technology and Industry Institute, Swinburne University of Technology

Scientists see flora, fauna and phenomena the rest of us rarely do. In this series, we’ve invited them to share their unique photos.

Across Australia, astronomers are using cutting-edge technologies to capture the night sky, hoping to eventually tackle some of our biggest questions about the universe.

As we and our colleagues delve deeper into the cosmos, looking for cosmic explosions, our observations are helping shed light on longstanding mysteries — and making way for entirely new paths of inquiry.

Cosmic eruptions fill the sky

Swinburne’s Deeper, Wider, Faster (DWF) program — which one of us (Sara Webb) worked on throughout her PhD — was developed to hunt for the fastest and most mysterious explosions in the universe.

But to understand what causes cosmic explosions, we must “look” at these events with multiple eyes, through different telescopes around the world. Today we’ll take you on a journey using data from one of these telescopes, the Blanco 4m, at Chile’s Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory.

First, all 60+ individual images taken of the field of view from this telescope are combined into a mosaic. Within them we see the thousands of bright sources.

These images are transferred across the Pacific to be processed on Swinburne’s OzStar supercomputer — which is more powerful than 10,000 personal laptops and can handle thousands of different jobs at once.

Once uploaded, the images are broken down into smaller chunks. This is when we start to see details.

But the galaxies above, spectacular as they are, still aren’t what we’re looking for. We want to capture new “sources” resulting from dying stars and cosmic explosions, which we can identify by having our computers search for light in places it wasn’t previously detected.

A source could be many different things including a flaring star, a dying star or an asteroid. To find out we have to collect continuous information about its brightness and the different wavelengths of light it emits, such as radio, x-ray, gamma-ray and so forth.

Once we spot a source, we monitor changes in its brightness over the coming hours and days. If we think it may represent a rare cosmic explosions, we trigger other telescopes to collect additional data.

Peering into the distant past

Galaxies are vast collections of stars, gas, dust and dark matter. They vary in shape, size and colour, but the two main types we see in the universe today are blue spirals and red ellipticals. But how do they form? And why are there different types?

Astronomers know the shapes and colours of a galaxy are linked to its evolution, but they’re still trying figure out exactly which shapes and colours are linked to specific growth pathways.

Read more:
We’ve mapped a million previously undiscovered galaxies beyond the Milky Way. Take the virtual tour here.

We think galaxies grow in size and mass through two main channels. They produce stars when their vast hydrogen clouds collapse under gravity. As more gas is transformed into stars, they grow in size.

Thanks to space-based technology such as the Hubble Space Telescope and powerful on-ground telescopes, astronomers can now peer back in time to study galaxy growth over the history of the universe.

This is possible since the further away a galaxy is, the longer its light travelled to reach us. Because the speed of light is constant, we can determine when the light was emitted — as long as we know the galaxy’s distance from Earth (called its “redshift”).

I measured this growth as part of my PhD, by taking images of galaxies that exist at different redshifts from as far back as when the universe was only one billion years old, and comparing their sizes.

When galaxies merge

Looking around the universe today, we mostly see galaxies clustered together. Astronomers believe the nature of a galaxy’s surroundings or its environment can affect its growth pathways, similar to how people in large cities can access more resources than those in rural areas.

When many galaxies are grouped together they may interact. And this interaction can stimulate bursts of star formation within a particular galaxy.

That said, this growth spurt may be short-lived, as gas and stars can be stripped away through the gravitational interaction between multiple galaxies, thereby limiting future star formation and growth in a single galaxy.

But even if a galaxy can’t form stars, it can still grow by merging with or consuming smaller galaxies. For example, the Milky Way will one day consume the smaller Magellanic clouds, which are dwarf galaxies. It will also merge with the slightly larger Andromeda galaxy one day, to form one giant galaxy.
Yet, while many studies have been conducted unpack galaxy evolution, we still can’t say all our questions have been answered.

It took billions of years for the galaxy clusters we observe today to form. But if astronomers can leverage the latest technologies and peer further into the distance than ever before, we will hopefully gain clues about how a galaxy’s environment can impact its growth.

The bending of spacetime reveals secrets

With decades of observations and millions of galaxies captured in surveys, experts have many theories regarding how galaxies form, and how the universe evolves. This field is called cosmology.

Thanks to Albert Einstein, we know the gravitational force of massive objects in space causes space to bend. This has been observed through a phenomena known as “lensing”, where vast amounts of matter are concentrated in one area within objects such as black holes, galaxies or galaxy clusters.

Their gravity distorts spacetime, acting as a giant lens to reveal warped images of more distant objects behind them. Using lensing, astronomers have developed ways to find and study distant galaxies that would otherwise be hidden from view.

These observations continue to drive our understanding of galaxy evolution. They’re challenging our theories of when and how galaxies form and grow.

One 2018 discovery made by a group of researchers, including myself, revealed a set of massive and already evolved galaxies from when the universe was only about one-sixth of its current age. They would have had to form and grow at an extremely rapidly to fit our current models of galaxy growth.

In a upcoming investigation, Swinburne Professor Karl Glazebrook will lead my team and I to become some of the first astronomers granted access to Nasa’s James Webb Space Telescope to study these early galaxies.

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

– ref. To find out how galaxies grow, we’re zooming in on the night sky and capturing cosmic explosions – https://theconversation.com/to-find-out-how-galaxies-grow-were-zooming-in-on-the-night-sky-and-capturing-cosmic-explosions-162759

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Penny Farrell, Research Fellow and Lecturer, University of Sydney

Since COVID hit, many Australians have seen first-hand what shocks to the food system can do.

Uncertainty around panic-buing, food supply and pricing have thrown our national food system into the spotlight. And it was already under extreme pressure from climate change and prolonged drought.

The pandemic has revealed vulnerabilities in the Australian food system, but it also presents an opportunity to make it more resilient.

Read more:
Victoria’s COVID lockdown reminds us how many rely on food charity. Here’s how we plan for the next inevitable crisis

Global ructions, local effects

Australia produces enough fresh food to feed the nation. In fact, more than 90% of the fresh food sold in supermarkets is produced here.

However, the pandemic and its effects on global economies has made it hard, at times, to maintain the supply of food we are used to due to workforce and logistics issues.

In particular, agricultural workforce shortages resulting from international border closures continue to threaten supply of fruit and vegetables, and may also affect price stability.

Food insecurity

Before the pandemic, more than 20% of Australians were estimated to be experiencing food insecurity. Since COVID, food insecurity has increased in Australia.

In Victoria, household budget pressures during the first lockdown forced one in four families to live without healthy food.

Food insecurity can worsen diet quality and increase the risk of various health conditions, including excess weight, obesity and diabetes. These conditions also put people at increased risk of getting very sick or dying from COVID-19.

Unhealthy diets are a leading cause of poor health and death worldwide, so the rising number of people without sufficient access to healthy diets should ring alarm bells for anyone interested in the health of Australians.

Read more:
No, it’s not just a lack of control that makes Australians overweight. Here’s what’s driving our unhealthy food habits

But along with these newly exposed vulnerabilities, there are many examples of agility and resilience across the Australian food system.

The agriculture sector has successfully shifted many businesses online. Charities in Victoria moved quickly to provide culturally appropriate food to communities in lockdown.

And the federal government has provided significant support to older people isolating at home, including roughly A$50 million for the “Meals on Wheels” program. There’s also been extra targeted support to farmers.

An opportunity for a coordinated approach

The COVID pandemic has forced many of us to appreciate the complexity and scale of the food production and distribution system in Australia.

Yet Australia currently lacks a national food policy, leaving us vulnerable to future shocks and limiting our capacity to protect vulnerable groups.

Integrated policy with buy-in of government sectors and portfolios beyond health (such as business, trade, agriculture, economics, and education), can maximise the economic, social, nutritional and environmental outcomes of our food system.

We need to encourage innovation and coordination between national, state, and local government levels to support food supply systems that deliver healthy food across the population.

We have already seen it’s possible to make significant policy changes to strengthen food systems in time of crisis. For example, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission temporarily relaxed anti-collusion rules for big supermarkets during the pandemic, so they could coordinate to “ensure essential supplies get through to vulnerable and isolated people”, as one media report put it.

A more resilient food system

In Australia, an integrated policy could help make our food system more resilient in the face of future shocks.

Perhaps the pandemic provides an opportunity for us to stop and take stock of what worked well, what didn’t, and where the biggest impact could be made.

For example, we could consider introducing food distribution warehouses in remote Australia so these communities can get healthy, minimally processed foods at affordable prices, even in times of crisis.

Lawmakers should place food security and access to nutritious food at the heart of agriculture, fisheries and trade policies.

We need to ensure nutrition is prioritised in any pandemic response efforts. One approach, advocated by researchers in a recent Nature comment piece, argued:

Cash provision could be coupled with incentives for recipients to participate in well-targeted, culturally sensitive food literacy programmes based on an understanding of barriers to consumption of nutritious foods.

In addition, public distribution programmes, state-managed stores, public restaurants, and other forms of subsidy programmes could focus on providing diverse nutritious foods and meals and minimizing less-healthy foods.

We note that the NSW government’s “Dine and Discover” program has been critiqued for including the fast food giants.

We must incentivise healthy food policies for businesses. For example, “naming and shaming” companies’ commitments to nutrition has resulted in policy and practice changes in Australia. There is recent evidence from that healthy merchandising in food stores can meet both commercial and public health goals in Australia.

The pandemic has highlighted how easily our food supply can be disrupted by crisis. Now, it’s up to us to lean into that disruption and find ways to build resilience into the food system.

Read more:
The coronavirus pandemic requires us to understand food’s murky supply chains

This story is part of a series The Conversation is running on the nexus between disaster, disadvantage and resilience. It is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay foundation. You can read the rest of the stories here.

Penny Farrell receives funding from the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research and the University of Sydney Charles Perkins Centre; however, these grants do not pertain directly to this article.

Anne Marie Thow receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research and the International Food Policy Research Institute; however, these grants do not pertain directly to this article.

Helen Trevena has received grant funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Heart Foundation, these grants did not pertain directly to this article.

Tara Boelsen-Robinson has received funding from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation and the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre.

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

– ref. COVID-19 revealed flaws in Australia’s food supply. It also gives us a chance to fix them – https://theconversation.com/covid-19-revealed-flaws-in-australias-food-supply-it-also-gives-us-a-chance-to-fix-them-159642

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Teresa Wozniak, Senior Research Fellow and co-founder Catalyse Mentorship Program, Menzies School of Health Research

Mentoring is known to be a critical component of job satisfaction and career development. It is also widely recognised that career advancement in medicine, research and health more broadly remains in favour of men.

Traditional academic mentoring programs rely on a unidirectional mentor-mentee relationship: a senior academic mentors a junior (female) academic. This model has been shown to increase mentees’ personal achievement, career progress and satisfaction with work environment.

While these are important achievements, Simone Dennis and Alison Behie argue that “by replicating action of the mentors, junior women are merely trained how to navigate a system that favours men”. Traditional mentoring programs teach women how to work within, rather than change, a system biased against them. This perpetuates patriarchal structures.

Read more:
Why mentoring for women risks propping up patriarchal structures instead of changing them

We have established a mentoring program for women scientists that focuses on diversifying and changing the education sector. This program helps equip them to challenge systemic values and culture.

What’s different about this model?

The Catalyse Mentorship Program in regional and rural Australia follows a dual-mentorship model. This means each female mentee is matched with an academic mentor and a corporate-sector mentor.

Our research found the Catalyse academic mentors provided technical university/ research pathways advice. They advised on explicit and implicit academic growth, such as formal university progression, the types of journals to publish in and how to distinguish one’s specific work.

The corporate mentors, on the other hand, provided advice on strategy, leadership and interpersonal skills. Advice included “how to generate consensus within a team and with external stakeholders”, “how to have difficult conversations”, and “how to build and express your personal brand”.

Read more:
How mentoring improves the leadership skills of those doing the mentoring

The Catalyse mentees reported positive “discomfort” at being pushed out of their “comfort zones”. This allowed them to reflect on leadership and impact outside their academic institution. The mentees set the agenda and explored first-time activities such as developing business cases, establishing peer-to-peer networking groups and applying for awards and accolades.

Group approach has additional benefits

Group mentoring is a way to go beyond supporting women and enhancing their capacity to manage a patriarchal culture. Bringing women together with a senior (retired) researcher has delivered several additional benefits compared to traditional unidirectional mentoring.

As the group members share their stories and worries, the sense of injustice and the care for each other increase. The women also bring a range of solutions and support to each other. This process strengthens ties within the cohort.

Such solutions are far more likely to be effective than those a single older mentor might suggest. That’s because they come from a contemporary context and a broader set of experiences.

Read more:
How to support junior staff in a time of turmoil for universities

In addition, all the groups we have mentored have debated carefully developed strategies aimed at changing the status quo. This would not have happened in one-on-one mentoring. Examples of these strategies are:

• request data on fund-raising within the organisation – and relate that data to gender as well as research area

• demand administrative support for women who are asked to take on additional leadership or other roles – which made organisations look as if they were supporting more women but didn’t give them the capacity to manage those roles without significant impacts on their research time

• present collective suggestions for the organisation to consider

• push for the women to be the leading chief investigator on grant applications and first or senior author on papers, to be considered for national committees and to give keynote presentations at major conferences.

Read more:
Forget the ideal worker myth. Unis need to become more inclusive for all women (men will benefit too)

One of us (Fiona Stanley) has experience in group mentoring of First Nations health research scholars. The benefits of sharing experiences within these cohorts is that the scholars are able to provide much more solid collective solutions than if in a one-on-one session with a non-Indigenous older researcher.

It was clear from these sessions that racism pervades the health academic sector. However, empowering the group of mentees has resulted in major activities to address racism in their organisations. These include: mentees offering to give major presentations to the executive teams, often bringing in external speakers who have more power; suggesting and running NAIDOC activities; and reviewing reconciliation action plans to make them real rather than a token or box-ticking exercise.

3 key elements to bring about change

A strong mentoring model should consider three key elements to close the leadership gap:

• mentees set the agenda and are empowered to initiate change within the organisation

• diversify mentors, include mentors from corporate/business sectors, and do group mentoring to enhance networks

• hold mentor networking events throughout the program, leading to cross-fertilisation between networks and (funding) opportunities.

Mentoring programs like these provide a more rounded approach to closing the leadership gap. These programs offer participants both discipline-based technical advice and external guidance on personal attributes and the strategic thinking needed to lead.

As Mary Wollstonecraft wrote in laying out the first steps toward bringing down the patriarchy for the betterment of all humanity, “I do not wish them [women] to have power over men; but over themselves.”

Read more:
It’s not lack of confidence that’s holding back women in STEM

Fiona Stanley received funding from NHMRC and ARC over many years of her research career; she no longer receives funds but is associated with several grants for which she is an unpaid advisor and mentor.

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

– ref. Here’s an approach to mentoring that can help close the leadership gender gap – https://theconversation.com/heres-an-approach-to-mentoring-that-can-help-close-the-leadership-gender-gap-162515

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justine Humphry, Senior Lecturer in Digital Cultures, University of Sydney

Smart street furniture – powered and digitally networked furniture that collects and generates data – is arriving in Australia. It comes in a variety of forms, including benches, kiosks, light poles and bus stops. Early examples in Australia include ChillOUT Hubs installed by Georges River Council in the Sydney suburbs of Kogarah, Hurstville and Mortdale, and information kiosks and smart light poles in the City of Newcastle as part of its Smart City Strategy.

The “smartness” of this street furniture comes from its new data and connectivity capabilities. The idea is that these can generate new products and services, and support real-time planning decisions in cities. Most offer free wi-fi in combination with other functions like advertising, wayfinding, emergency buttons, phone calling and device charging via USB.

Read more:
Sensors in public spaces can help create cities that are both smart and sociable

Smart, but controversial

The promise of smart street furniture is that it will enhance public spaces and revitalise ageing infrastructure. By providing vulnerable and disadvantaged citizens with access to free connectivity services it can also bridge digital barriers.

Despite these benefits, some aspects of smart street furniture are controversial. In particular, its data collection and impact on public space have created concerns.

In New York City, the replacement of phone booths by LinkNYC digital kiosks has given rise to protest about data ownership and sharing and surveillance through built-in security cameras. Other sources of tension are the kiosks’ physical footprint, visual impact and use for outdoor advertising with its double-sided 140cm digital displays.

In Australia, Telstra has been fighting a long court case against the cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane over plans to convert its phone booths into smart hubs equipped with digital advertising. Councils objected to these on the basis that they required local planning approval. Telstra argued the hubs were exempt as “low-impact facilities”, but has had to delay installation.

What can we learn from early adopters overseas?

We don’t yet understand the public impact and value of smart street furniture, what service model is to be adopted at scale, or what kind of future it offers. To what extent are these facilities offering public services, or are they just enablers of more advertising and surveillance?

Australia can learn from the early examples of smart street furniture in other countries. Our Smart Publics research project investigated the design, use and governance of InLinkUK kiosks in Glasgow and Strawberry Energy smart benches in London with a research team at the University of Glasgow. (The final report is here.)

We found the main users were those who were living rough, young people, students and gig workers. Smart furniture enabled these groups to stay digitally connected. They used these facilities to charge their phones and make free calls, which were especially valuable for those who didn’t own phones or lacked the credit to use them. (The InLinkUK kiosks offered free calls to any mobile or landline in the UK.)

Read more:
How do we stop people falling through the gaps in a digitally connected city?

Who is funding these facilities?

Even though kiosks and smart benches could be used for community service information, we found it was commercial advertising that drove private investment in this infrastructure. Advertising revenue paid for the services offered by the InLinkUK kiosks and sponsorship for the Strawberry Energy benches. Advertising agency Primesight was one of the three main partners in InLinkUK (with British Telecom and Intersection, the company responsible for LinkNYC).

Because advertising was so prominent in their design, many people were unaware of their other functions. Asked if they’d noticed the InLinks, one person replied:

“Er no, I haven’t […] what’s it for? Is it to make free calls to anywhere in the UK? […] I just thought it was like an advertising board, I guess!”

People recognised the wide public value of free wi-fi, device charging and phone calls. But we found the public as a whole didn’t understand the data-collection aspects. The marginalised groups who relied on these services were more exposed to corporate advertising, data collection and surveillance in public spaces.

Read more:
People-friendly furniture in public places matters more than ever in today’s city

Councils were also limited in their ability to leverage the benefits that came from the data. The Strawberry Energy benches, for example, collected environmental data such as temperature, noise level and air quality from inbuilt sensors. However, these data weren’t being used to inform planning or policy.

Reliability of the data was another issue. We found inaccuracies when we tested the environmental data.

Where to now in Australia?

These issues highlight some of the challenges councils encounter when embarking on smart street furniture initiatives with private companies. These include data-sharing contract arrangements as well as the need to upskill council staff to manage new kinds of data capabilities and systems.

The examples we studied in the UK had been rolled out in public-private partnerships. However, some of the models emerging suggest a different kind of civic implementation.

Local governments that have been early adopters of smart furniture in Australia have envisioned it as an extension of council services without added advertising or compromising heritage values. These have typically begun as experimental initiatives funded by federal and state government grants. The City of Newcastle, for example, is planning to integrate smart city technologies into regular council operations.

Smart street furniture is not going away. If anything, it will become pervasive as technology advances and becomes more integrated into our physical surroundings.

The issues raised by smart street furniture warrant close inspection and further research. It is crucial that governments and private actors are transparent about its use for advertising and data collection. To ensure the benefits of smart street furniture are realised, they need to:

• emphasise the public value of smart street furniture, including its use for community-based information
• collaborate with the public on its design and placement
• in the case of councils, take a pro-active approach to access, ownership and stewardship of data
• ensure marginalised citizens are not exposed to increased risk of surveillance and data harms.

Justine Humphry received funding for the Smart Publics research project from the University of Sydney-University of Glasgow Partnership Collaboration Award.

Chris Chesher received funding for the Smart Publics research project from the University of Sydney-University of Glasgow Partnership Collaboration Award.

Sophia Maalsen receives funding from the Australian Research Council and for the Smart Publics research project from the University of Sydney-University of Glasgow Partnership Collaboration Award.

– ref. Smart street furniture in Australia: a public service or surveillance and advertising tool? – https://theconversation.com/smart-street-furniture-in-australia-a-public-service-or-surveillance-and-advertising-tool-157424

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Wade, Lecturer in Social Inquiry, La Trobe University

In 2019, the average cost of weddings in Australia increased to $32,333. Around 42% of couples hired a professional videographer, at an average cost of $2,702.

Once lavish, many weddings have become more modest affairs during pandemic times. But the importance of recording them for posterity has only increased, in part because many loved ones cannot attend.

Professional wedding videography presents an enhanced and carefully curated account, evoking how the spectacle should ideally be remembered. Some videographers even offer a “same day edit”, where footage is rapidly edited and played during the reception, shaping how the event will be remembered before it is even over.

The couple’s reactions – joyous, awed, and overwhelmed – are then often included in later videos. Achieving such technical feats, however, proves a stressful task.

A crucial aspect of wedding videos are their soundtracks. Our research explores how popular music genres are used, particularly in the “highlight reels” of around up to ten minutes commonly shared on social media.

Alongside surveys of Melbourne and Sydney-based videographers, across 132 videos we explored how videographers borrow tropes from contemporary music videos, with fast cutting and effect-heavy montages.

These videos capture the movement and rhythm of rituals that still photography cannot replicate, with thematically poignant lyrics providing narrative thrust in weaving together the actors, settings and symbols.

Raucous fun and tender comfort

Here, one videographer sums up their typical strategy when selecting music:

We use slow dreamy music for a soft romantic vibe […] indie/alternative if we have a fun quirky couple […] pop, upbeat songs for a happy mood […] rock and up-tempo music for a really exciting, punchy, party atmosphere.’

Upbeat folk-pop might feature in pre-wedding preparation scenes. Love ballads accompany ceremony scenes. Propulsive dance tracks evoke the raucous fun of reception celebrations.

Alternatively, a single track can serve all these functions. Beginning with quiet introspection, the music in the video below swells into an overflow of feeling, and ends with a calming denouement that evinces comfort and belonging.

Videographers described music selection as “crucial”:

We use the music to shape the story and tone of the film. We edit to the music and follow the ebb and flow, crescendos and verses […] It creates the map of the film.

But such selections can prove a cumbersome task. One videographer explained they once spent a whole day just choosing the music:

There’s only a limited number of really good music libraries, and because a lot of videographers use these same libraries it’s not uncommon to hear the same music in other people’s work, which isn’t ideal.

Even so, videographers often resist clients wanting to make their own selections:

While the clients thought they were going to be pleased with their choice, the music never accompanied their films well […] [Now] I don’t consult with them.

Nostalgia, fantasy, luxury

Wedding videos are sold as essential keepsakes, leaning heavily on “anticipatory nostalgia”.

In the following video, sepia tones and film flickering are used to effectively age the present into a treasured past. Meanwhile, bespoke animation adds whimsy to videos that could otherwise veer into slight melodrama.

Widely recognisable visual markers prove useful, and hence videographers take advantage of luxury commodities featured during weddings. For instance, the infamous video of Salim Mehajer and Aysha Learmonth’s wedding closely combines the sacred and profane: with the Quran featuring alongside Rolex watches.

In researching these videos, we observed how traditional norms are being reimagined. Rather than arguably tired, conventional sentiments about being “Beautiful in White”, the accompanying music instead takes on more ethereal themes of self-discovery and renewal, as evident below.

Curiously, as the following example shows, many videos evoke both melancholic and uplifting tones. Rather than being unfailingly cheery, the lyrics dwell on love as simultaneously timeless and finite, both fated and fragile.

Downsizing ‘I do’

COVID “micro-weddings” have proven more modest celebrations, adopting a different tone and style.

The rowdy bacchanalia is gone. But in its place are more relaxed and cosy intimacies, such as backyard, round-the-campfire gatherings.

Wedding videos now carry distinct markers of these strange days, such as drive-in weddings, live streaming, fake cakes and unique wedding favours.

The reduced fanfare may even loosen once stubborn traditional customs, enabling more room for self-expression.

This presents creative dilemmas for videographers, who must still weave compelling memorials from less ostentatious spectacles.

In uncertain times, creative memory-making may prove more important than ever.

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

– ref. Anticipatory nostalgia: how wedding videographers craft memories before they’re even over – https://theconversation.com/anticipatory-nostalgia-how-wedding-videographers-craft-memories-before-theyre-even-over-143000

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alys Clark, Associate Professor in Bioengineering, University of Auckland

None of us would be here without our placenta, the remarkable fetal organ that nourished and sustained us before birth. But despite its importance, the placenta is among the least studied organs and we don’t fully understand how it grows and functions.

This is problematic, because in one in ten pregnancies, the placenta functions poorly, leading to pregnancy disorders such as fetal growth restriction (FGR), when a baby’s growth slows dramatically or stops. Across Australia and New Zealand, this affects more than 30,000 pregnancies each year, and growth-restricted babies are four times more likely to be stillborn.

Modern ultrasound imaging tools and new technologies such as fetal DNA testing in maternal blood cannot yet predict which pregnancies are at risk of fetal growth restriction until after the baby’s growth slows down.

To help improve early detection and prediction of at-risk pregnancies, we have developed a virtual placenta – a computer-based representation of the organ – by piecing together a wide range of clinical and laboratory data from pregnancies that go well and those that don’t.

The placenta has several functions. It delivers nutrients and oxygen from the mother’s blood to the baby, removes wastes from the baby back to mum, and produces important hormones that adapt mum’s body to pregnancy. Māori have always understood its value, referring to the placenta as the whenua, which nourishes the baby as the whenua (land) nourishes the people.

Read more:
How does a baby ‘breathe’ while inside its mom?

We know there are some important factors, including smoking, that can affect a baby’s growth. But pregnancy disorders can occur in healthy women with no risk factors, and in a culture where mothers are often quick to blame themselves, it’s important for women to know that growth restriction hardly ever occurs because of something they did or did not do.

The most common way to estimate fetal growth is by a tape measure on mum’s stomach, but the technique is only 10% sensitive, and even less so in patients who carry more body fat. More than half of the babies struggling to grow well are not detected before delivery.

Virtual organs to detect health issues

We need to do better at detecting fetal growth issues. The earlier doctors know these babies are at risk, the better. While treatment options are currently limited, doctors can monitor the pregnancy more closely and make informed decisions about when to deliver.

This is not straightforward, as both the mother’s and baby’s physiology can change quickly in pregnancy, and we can’t ask pregnant mothers to have more tests, or ultrasounds, or to undergo procedures that might put the pregnancy at risk (like using radiation in a CT scan).

The virtual placenta allows us to look more closely at pregnancy without adding to the burden of tests an expectant mother needs to undergo, and without costing the healthcare system an excessive amount.

Read more:
Research now backs routinely offering pregnant women the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine

Virtual organs, or indeed virtual humans, are not a new concept. For several decades scientists have been combining anatomical knowledge with the principles of physics to predict how changes in anatomy affect organ function. An example includes how changes in blood vessels affect how hard a heart has to pump to circulate blood around the body.

Simple virtual pregnancy models have guided interpretation of ultrasound since the start of routine use in pregnancy in the 1980s.

Virtual clinical trials are also emerging where it is possible to experiment on a computer-based organ to predict outcomes before new treatments are trialled on real people. This reduces animal testing and the cost of clinical trials.

Earlier detection of problems

The placenta is like a dense forest of trees. The baby’s own blood vessels are inside the branches of these trees, while blood from mum’s uterus flows around the outside. How blood flows in both these circulations is critical for good exchange.

Only recently has technology allowed virtual placentas to include the detail of this blood flow and exchange, which can’t be measured directly. This is allowing scientists to make strides towards understanding how features of placentas that restrict a baby’s growth show up in imaging like ultrasound or MRI.

Finding cost-effective ways to predict and detect fetal growth restriction will go a long way to helping our smallest babies. Predicting which pregnancies are at risk in early pregnancy is especially important, as this is when the placenta is growing rapidly, and therapies delivered in early pregnancy are more likely to bolster placental function. For example, simple and safe therapies such as aspirin are effective at reducing fetal growth restriction, but only if started before 16 weeks of pregnancy.

As we cannot predict FGR in early pregnancy, much of what we know about restricted growth in utero comes from studies in late pregnancy, and assessment of placentas after delivery. Applying our anatomical understanding of earlier stages of placental development allows us to virtually “turn back the clock” and consider early contributors to poor placental function, and how we can measure these by ultrasound.

We hope to use this knowledge to develop new ways to predict at-risk pregnancies, so we can help prevent growth issues, and give all babies a better start to life.

Alys Clark receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the Royal Society Te Aparangi and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (New Zealand).

Jo James receives funding from the Royal Society Te Apārangi, the Nurture Foundation for Reproductive Research and the RANZCOG Mercia Barnes Trust.

– ref. How a virtual placenta could help with early detection of at-risk babies – https://theconversation.com/how-a-virtual-placenta-could-help-with-early-detection-of-at-risk-babies-162662

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Linda Rowan, University Teaching Consultant, Massey University

As university students wait on their mid-year exam results, some will no doubt be thinking about more than just passing. Since COVID-19 pushed teaching and testing online last year, the issue of cheating has come into sharper focus.

Recent reports of University of Auckland students allegedly cheating in online exams highlighted the potential for dishonesty in a trust-based system.

But the problem also highlights a tension between cultures: the increasingly online world of higher education, and the everyday world of students.

This has made “cheating” in exams a more complex and evolving question than it once was. It also has implications for the credibility and value of university education and how we perceive student learning.

Traditionally, entry to university exams was controlled using student identity card photo checks. Set in large rooms, exams were invigilated to ensure students couldn’t communicate with each other in order to cheat.

Everyone had their place, and what students could take into the room was described and restricted. Teachers set the exams, the students sat them, exams were marked and final grades given — simple enough.

COVID-19 changed all that. For institutions where “blended” (face-to-face and online) learning had already been integrated, the digital switch was not so dramatic. But teachers and students who relied on paper-based or face-to-face teaching and learning faced something of a crisis: how to integrate existing practices with new technology.

A rushed revolution

Of course, the adjustment wasn’t equal. While some teachers and many students could quickly grab the latest device, connect to wi-fi and carry on, others struggled to access workable devices and internet connections.

Universities, teachers and students had to engage with software that couldn’t cope. Meanwhile, new software was evolving as fast as COVID. We shouldn’t be surprised if the university behemoth struggled to adapt or change fast enough.

Often, paper-based exams were simply transferred into online learning systems with little restructuring to suit the changed circumstances.

Read more:
Don’t worry about cancelled exams – research shows we should switch to teacher assessment permanently

Incidences of cheating didn’t appear as prevalent at the end of 2020’s first trimester/semester — possibly because everyone was caught on the hop by what was happening.

However, students have shown they can cope with rapid change. Resourceful and adaptable, they have created their own ways of working and systems for information exchange. They form remote and close study groups, work collaboratively and draw on each other’s strengths.

Essentially, they are demonstrating the innovative, adaptable learning skills our education system and future employers expect of them. So why should we be surprised if students apply the same approach to online examinations?

Encouraging collaboration

Universities often struggle to explain to students why academic integrity is important (the University of Otago being an exception). Unfortunately, most university policies conflate academic integrity and academic misconduct.

We would argue that definitions of collusion as “working with others when it is not a group assignment” and “providing information to other students” are out of step with the new teaching and learning environment and its expectations.

Read more:
Online exam monitoring can invade privacy and erode trust at universities

Furthermore, we know learning collaboratively encourages higher-order understanding — yet the current environment continues to require individual assessment of students.

If education systems and teachers can’t provide specific guidance about preparing for and sitting online exams, what are the grounds for accusations of cheating? These grey areas reflect the generally opaque nature of the post-COVID world.

Specifically, what exactly is wrong with students discussing problems, proposing solutions and presenting their own interpretation as their answer?

Exams must evolve

In the networked world, the line between what is original and what is adapted is more blurred every day. It isn’t always possible to decide what is original and unique in order to give it individual credit.

If exams are designed to assess higher-order cognitive development – demonstrating individual ability to synthesise and apply knowledge – surely collaboration can be the vehicle for what educationalist John Biggs calls deeper learning. Can’t examination practices change to capture this?

Read more:
As unis eye more ‘Instagram-worthy’ campus experiences, they shouldn’t treat online teaching as a cheap and easy option

Rather than universities continuing to define student activities via traditional regulation, perhaps instead educators need to think strategically to tap into this new student energy.

University exams need to check for individual (or collective) application, evaluation and synthesis of knowledge, not just rote learning and recall of study notes.

It is evident the tertiary environment is evolving and students have demonstrated their creativity in banding together to solve problems in a modern way. Now is the time for examiners and exams to get smarter, too.

Traditional ways of operating are behind us. We need to keep moving forward — away from the comfortable and into the confusing jungle of synthesised, regenerated and expanding knowledge.

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

– ref. Online learning has changed the way students work — we need to change definitions of ‘cheating’ too – https://theconversation.com/online-learning-has-changed-the-way-students-work-we-need-to-change-definitions-of-cheating-too-163001

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

The Senate on Tuesday night disallowed a government regulation that would have allowed the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) to invest in technologies such as carbon capture and storage and blue hydrogen using fossil fuel.

Labor, Greens and crossbench votes defeated the regulation, so preventing the expansion of ARENA’s remit beyond its present area of solar and wind renewable energy.

The regulation would have enabled ARENA to support a wide range of technologies.

They would have included energy efficiency projects, carbon capture technologies, blue hydrogen from gas using CCS, energy storage technologies to back up renewable energy, technologies that reduce emissions from aluminium and steel, and soil carbon.

The $192.5 million new funding involved included money for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, microgrids in rural and regional areas, and technologies to make heavy trucks more fuel efficient and to reduce the energy consumption of heavy industry.

Energy minister Angus Taylor tweeted after the vote: “Labor have shown their true colours – opposing investment in new clean technologies which will create jobs and economic opportunities”.

Greens leader Adam Bandt said the disallowance was “a massive blow to this coal and gas-fired government”.

“First the Liberals tried to abolish ARENA and then redirect its funds to coal and gas, but by backing the Greens motion, the Senate has just saved ARENA,” Bandt said.

Labor’s energy spokesman Chris Bowen tweeted: “The LNP keeps attacking ARENA and the CEFC [Clean Energy Finance Corporation] and Labor will continue to defend them”.

Mark Vaile declines chancellor position after campaign over coal connection

Education Minister Alan Tudge and outspoken Labor MP Joel Fitzgibbon have condemned the campaign that led former deputy prime minister Mark Vaile to withdrew from becoming University of Newcastle chancellor because of his association with the coal industry.

University staff, alumni and a group of donors to the university reacted strongly at the prospect of Vaile, who is chairman of Whitehaven Coal, taking the position.

The university is committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2025, a policy Vaile had said he supported.

But after the backlash he said, “I’ve just taken the view that it’s in the best interests of the university and the community that it serves if I decline the invitation and withdraw from the process.”

Tudge said it was very concerning Vaile had “been forced to turn down this role because of ideological pressure”.

“At a time when we are trying to promote and enforce free speech and academic freedom on campus, we should not have a very competent person forced out of an important job because of this cancel culture,” Tudge said.

Fitzgibbon, who represents the seat of Hunter, went further. “A new form of McCarthyism has crept into Australian culture and it’s alive and well in the Hunter region, deep in coal economy heartland”, he told parliament on Tuesday night..

He said “this 21st Century version of the Cold War doctrine has been on display at our local university where a quite extraordinary, misleading, ideological, and shrill campaign” resulted in Vaile declining the offer to be chancellor.

Fitzgibbon said “the crime” Vaile had been “publicly shamed for” was his association with the coal industry.

“It’s a slippery slope. Today the excessive progressives target those associated with the coal industry. No doubt tomorrow it will be anyone associated with the oil, gas, and fuel refining industries. What’s next? The meat processing industry? The steel manufacturing sector?”

Fitzgibbon pointed out that while chairing Whitehaven Coal, Vaile also chaired an investment fund which had $1 billion worth of wind and solar technologies under management.

Vaile was deputy prime minister from 2005 to 2007.

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

– ref. Senate knocks out regulation allowing ARENA to fund carbon capture and blue hydrogen – https://theconversation.com/senate-knocks-out-regulation-allowing-arena-to-fund-carbon-capture-and-blue-hydrogen-163200