Some 15 people have died after the Gloria funicular railway car in Lisbon, Portugal, derailed and crashed on Wednesday local time.
Emergency services have also confirmed that more than 18 people were also injured, five of them seriously, in the tragedy, which occurred at the start of the evening rush hour.
It follows another accident on the same line in May 2018, when one of the cars derailed due to flaws in the maintenance of its wheels. No one was killed in that incident.
The exact cause of the most recent accident is not yet known. Witnesses have reported that the yellow-and-white tram appeared out of control as it sped downhill, before derailing as it rounded a bend and crashing into a building. Photos of the aftermath show a crumpled heap of cables and steel.
These cable car–like transport systems are rare relics of the 19th century, found in only a few very hilly places around the world. So how do they work? And why are they still in use?
How do funicular railways work?
Trains and trams typically only work on flat terrain. That’s because their steel wheels can’t get enough traction on steel rails on steep hills. As a workaround, railway engineers often build tunnels through steep mountainsides.
Funicular railways, however, can go up very steep hills.
They usually feature two counterbalanced cars that are attached via a haulage cable.
As one car descends, it helps pull the ascending car up the hillside. The weight of the ascending car also prevents the descending one from careening out of control. Some now have electric motors to help power them and some are able to engage a one-way mechanical drive just for steep hills.
Even though funicular systems are typically quite slow and clunky, they are still popular with both tourists and residents in the places where they’re found.
Where are they found?
The Gloria funicular railway line in Lisbon opened in 1885. One of three funicular lines in Lisbon, it connects the city’s downtown area with the Bairro Alto (Upper Quarter).
But there are other examples of these transport relics around the world.
Switzerland has several funicular railways. The most notable is the Stoosbahn – the steepest funicular in the world. It covers a total ascent of around 744 metres, reaching a gradient of 47 degrees. It is a very popular tourist trip.
In Hong Kong, the Peak Tram is a funicular railway that has operated since 1888 and takes people to near the top of Hong Kong Island.
Last year, there was also some discussion about installing a new funicular railway system in the Blue Mountains in New South Wales, Australia, that would travel 14 metres every second.
Funicular railways still serve a purpose for people living in – or visiting – steep areas where they’re found. However, newer technology means more conventional forms of rail transport are now far less limited in travelling up and down hills.
For example, trackless trams are kind of a combination between a tram and a bus. They use GPS and digital sensors to move precisely along an invisible track and have rubber wheels, enabling them to ascend gradients of up to 15%. However, these have not yet been built for steeper hills.
I have enjoyed riding such funicular trams in a range of hilly cities, but this crash is likely to take the shine off the tourist experience. It’s about time we had a 21st-century option that is clearly safer.
Many of us are guilty of scrolling our smartphones on the toilet. But a new study from the United States, published today, has found this habit may increase your risk of developing haemorrhoids by up to 46%.
So, what’s the link? How can time on your phone lead to these painful lumps in and around your anus? Here’s what we know.
What are haemorrhoids?
Every healthy person has haemorrhoids, sometimes called piles. They are columns of cushioned tissue and blood vessels found close to the opening of the anus.
Haemorrhoids have a really important role in maintaining bowel continence or, to put it simply, keeping your poo in.
When all is well, we don’t notice them. But haemorrhoids can get swollen and this can lead to symptoms such as pain, bleeding or feeling a lump just inside your anus (internal haemorrhoids) or protruding outside (external haemorrhoids).
So when someone “has haemorrhoids”, it means they have become inflamed or symptomatic.
This is extremely common: more than one in two of us will experience symptomatic haemorrhoids at some point in our lives.
Prolonged sitting in general has not been linked to developing haemorrhoids.
However, a standard toilet seat – unlike a chair or couch – has a large internal opening that provides no support for the pelvic floor (the group of muscles and ligaments that support the bladder, bowel and uterus).
Prolonged sitting on a toilet seat is believed to increase pressure inside the pelvic floor and lead to blood pooling in the vascular cushions of the anus. This makes haemorrhoids more likely to develop.
What the new study looked at
The new US study recruited 125 adults, aged 45 and older, who were undergoing a colonoscopy at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical centre.
Researchers surveyed them about their smartphone habits while using the toilet, including how often they checked their phone and for how long. Participants also reported on other behaviours such as straining, their fibre intake, and how much physical activity they did.
The researchers recorded whether they had haemorrhoids. Since the participants were all having a colonoscopy, the presence of internal haemorrhoids could be directly confirmed visually.
What did the study show?
Two-thirds (66%) of all participants used smartphones while on the toilet. The most common activity was reading news (54.3%), followed by social media (44.4%).
Those who used their smartphones spent longer on the toilet than those who didn’t. More than one in three (37.3%) toilet smartphone users spent over five minutes on the toilet, compared to just over one in 20 (7%) of those who didn’t use their smartphones.
The smartphone users had a 46% higher risk of haemorrhoids, compared to those who didn’t use their smartphone. To calculate this, researchers took into account other known risk factors for haemorrhoids such as gender, age, body mass index, exercise activity, straining and fibre intake.
However, unlike some other research, this study did not find a link between straining and haemorrhoids.
As a result, the researchers concluded that time spent on the toilet poses a more significant risk for haemorrhoids than straining. However, we can’t rule out straining as a risk factor, based on one study.
Some other limitations to consider
The study relied on participants remembering whether or not they strained, and how long they spent on the toilet.
This kind of recall is subjective, and may also be influenced by taking part in the study. For example, if the participants thought they had haemorrhoids, they may be more likely to report straining.
The study’s small sample size and the participants’ age (all over 45) also mean it is unlikely to be representative of the broader population.
Toilet sitting time
The new study is not the first to study the link between time spent on the toilet and developing haemorrhoids. In 2020, a Turkish study found spending more than five minutes on the toilet was associated with haemorrhoids.
Another 2020 study from Italy of 52 people with diagnosed internal or external haemorrhoids noted the longer they spent on the toilet, the more severe their haemorrhoids.
Defaecation itself usually doesn’t take long. One study found it took healthy adults an average two minutes when sitting, but only 51 seconds when squatting.
The majority of “toilet sitting time” usually means just that – sitting on the toilet, doing other activities aside from pooing (or weeing).
One 2008 study from Israel surveyed 500 adults and found more than half (52.7%) read books or newspapers while on the toilet. It also found toilet readers spent significantly more time on the toilet.
How to avoid haemorrhoids
The usual advice is to increase the amount of fibre in your diet (eating more fruit, vegetables and wholegrains) and ensure you drink enough water. This makes it easier to pass a stool and reduces straining – which you should also try to avoid.
However, the new research confirms previous evidence that cutting down toilet sitting time may also help. So, avoiding distractions by leaving your smartphone outside the bathroom is a good idea (and as a bonus, will expose your device to fewer germs).
If you have any concerning symptoms, such as blood in your stool, a new lump in the anal region, or pain when passing a bowel motion then you should see your local doctor for further investigations and treatment.
Vincent Ho 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.
Google will not have to sell its Chrome web browser in order to fix its illegal monopoly in the online search business, a United States federal judge has ruled. It will, however, need to do a few other things, such as sharing data with rival companies, in order to improve competition.
The remedies ruling was handed down by DC District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who last year found Google had violated antitrust laws in relation to its online search business.
This was not the worst-case scenario for Google, and the share price of its parent Alphabet rose 8% after the news. But the ruling could still have a significant impact on the tech giant – and the entire internet.
What was the case actually about?
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed its antitrust suit against Google in 2020, arguing the tech giant had used exclusive agreements with device makers such as Apple and Samsung to unfairly box out competitors from the search engine market.
For years, Google accounted for reportedly 90% of all search queries in the US, using what the DOJ called “anticompetitive tactics” to maintain and extend its monopolies in search and search advertising.
In August 2024, Judge Mehta ruled in the DOJ’s favour, finding Google had maintained an illegal monopoly.
The case centred on Google’s practice of entering into exclusionary agreements that collectively locked up the primary avenues through which users access online search, making Google the pre-set default general search engine on billions of mobile devices and computers – and particularly on Apple devices.
The remedies – proposed and actual
The DOJ urged the sell-off of the Chrome browser and possibly its Android operating system, and the sharing of search data. It said these remedies would limit Google’s ability to monopolise the search market and prevent it from gaining an unfair advantage in other markets, notably artificial intelligence (AI).
The DOJ also demanded an end to its multibillion-dollar agreements with Apple and other partners.
Judge Mehta’s remedies ruling fell significantly short of the DOJ’s harshest demands.
Under the remedies ordered, Google will be barred from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the AI-powered Gemini app.
Google cannot enter agreements that condition the licensing of any Google application on the distribution or placement of these products, or condition revenue share payments on maintaining these products on any device for more than one year.
Google must also provide competitors with access to its search results and advertising services at standard rates. This will help them to deliver quality search results to their own users while building their own technology.
However, Google will not be barred from paying device makers to preload its products, including Google Search and generative AI products.
A technical committee will be established to help enforce the final judgment, which will last six years and go into effect 60 days after entry. Judge Mehta ordered the parties to meet by September 10 for the final judgment.
Shortly after the judge’s ruling, Google released a statement reiterating its opposition to the initial ruling in August 2024, which it still plans to appeal.
Today’s decision recognises how much the industry has changed through the advent of AI, which is giving people so many more ways to find information. This underlines what we’ve been saying since this case was filed in 2020: competition is intense and people can easily choose the services they want.
More cases to come
This decision opens up competition in the search market while allowing Google to maintain its core business structure. The data-sharing requirements could particularly benefit AI competitors who need large datasets to train their models.
Google faces additional antitrust pressure beyond this search case. In April 2025, US District Judge Leonie Brinkema found Google illegally monopolised advertising technology markets. The remedies trial for that case is scheduled for later this month.
As William Kovacic, a global competition law professor at George Washington University and former Federal Trade Commission commissioner, told TechCrunch:
We’ve never had a circumstance in which the Department of Justice has had two largely parallel cases involving major elements of alleged misconduct against the same dominant firm with two parallel remedy processes going ahead.
Google’s competitors, however, believe the remedies should have been more severe in this case.
In a statement, Gabriel Weinberg, the chief executive of search engine competitor DuckDuckGo, claimed Google “will still be allowed to continue to use its monopoly to hold back competitors, including in AI search”. He also called on the US congress to step in “to swiftly make Google do the thing it fears the most: compete on a level playing field”.
It seems likely the DOJ will need to demonstrate abuse of dominance in the AI search field in order to get a remedy that will satisfy DuckDuckGo.
The full resolution of these cases likely won’t occur until late 2027 or early 2028, as Google has indicated it will appeal both the liability and remedy decisions.
Rob Nicholls receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
But freediver Vitomir Maričić recently held his breath for a new world record of 29 minutes and three seconds, lying on the bottom of a 3-metre-deep pool in Croatia.
Vitomir Maričić set a new Guinness World Record for “the longest breath held voluntarily under water using oxygen”.
This is about five minutes longer than the previous world record set in 2021 by another Croatian freediver, Budimir Šobat.
Interestingly, all world records for breath holds are by freedivers, who are essentially professional breath-holders.
They do extensive physical and mental training to hold their breath under water for long periods of time.
So how do freedivers delay a basic human survival response and how was Maričić able to hold his breath about 60 times longer than most people?
Increased lung volumes and oxygen storage
Freedivers do cardiovascular training – physical activity that increases your heart rate, breathing and overall blood flow for a sustained period – and breathwork to increase how much air (and therefore oxygen) they can store in their lungs.
This includes exercise such as swimming, jogging or cycling, and training their diaphragm, the main muscle of breathing.
Diaphragmatic breathing and cardiovascular exercise train the lungs to expand to a larger volume and hold more air.
This means the lungs can store more oxygen and sustain a longer breath hold.
Oxygen is essential for all our cells to function and survive. But it is high carbon dioxide, not low oxygen that causes the involuntary reflex to breathe.
When someone holds their breath beyond this, they reach a “physiological break-point”. This is when their diaphragm involuntarily contracts to force a breath.
This is physically challenging and only elite freedivers who have learnt to control their diaphragm can continue to hold their breath past this point.
Indeed, Maričić said that holding his breath longer:
got worse and worse physically, especially for my diaphragm, because of the contractions. But mentally I knew I wasn’t going to give up.
Mental focus and control is essential
Those who freedive believe it is not only physical but also a mental discipline.
Freedivers train to manage fear and anxiety and maintain a calm mental state. They practice relaxation techniques such as meditation, breath awareness and mindfulness.
For example, ama divers who collect pearls in Japan, and Haenyeo divers from South Korea who harvest seafood.
But there are risks of breath holding.
Maričić described his world record as:
a very advanced stunt done after years of professional training and should not be attempted without proper guidance and safety.
Indeed, both high carbon dioxide and a lack of oxygen can quickly lead to loss of consciousness.
Breathing in pure oxygen can cause acute oxygen toxicity due to free radicals, which are highly reactive chemicals that can damage cells.
Unless you’re trained in breath holding, it’s best to leave this to the professionals.
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.
RFK Jr. canceled $500 million of funding for research on mRNA vaccine technology. Anadolu/Getty Images
On Sept. 4, 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is scheduled to testify before the Senate Finance Committee, where he is expected to face questions about his vaccine policies.
A few days prior, on Sept. 1, 2025, President Donald Trump demanded pharmaceutical companies to prove that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines work, saying that the CDC was “being ripped apart over this question.” It was his first public acknowledgment of the chaos roiling the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention amid the firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez and subsequent resignations of four high-level agency officials.
As a vaccinologist who has studied and developed vaccines for over 35 years, I see that the science behind mRNA vaccine technology is being widely misstated. This incorrect information is shaping long-term health policy in the U.S. – which makes it urgent to correct the record.
Are mRNA vaccines less safe than whole-virus vaccines?
HHS defended its cancellation of mRNA vaccine research based, in part, on a nonpeer-reviewed compilation of selected publications called the COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” harms research collection. This document lists about 750 articles claimed to describe harms caused by mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. However, the vast majority of these articles aren’t about vaccines but about the harms of getting infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. And notably absent from it is the huge body of data showing mRNA vaccines actually prevent these harms.
Spike proteins on SARS-COV-2 can cause tissue damage – and although mRNA vaccines produce them in small amounts, they prevent the virus from replicating to produce them in large amounts. https://www.scientificanimations.com/wiki-images/, CC BY-SA
For example, the document being used to justify RFK Jr.’s claims about mRNA vaccines highlights 375 studies reporting that the virus’s spike protein alone, which is produced when the virus replicates, can cause excessive inflammation and tissue damage. This is true. But the document marshals this evidence to support the claim that mRNA vaccines, which are designed to produce spike proteins, cause the same harm – which is not accurate.
While viral replication results in uncontrolled production of a large amounts of the protein, the way it’s produced by the mRNA vaccine is very different. The vaccine produces a small, controlled amount of spike protein inside a few cells – just enough to induce an immune response without causing damage. And by blocking the virus’s replication, it reduces the amount of spike protein in circulation, actually having the opposite effect.
What about side effects like myocarditis?
Early reports flagged a type of heart swelling called myocarditis as a rare side effect of the mRNA vaccine, particularly for young men ages 18 to 25 after a booster dose. A 2024 review identified about 20 cases out of 1 million people who received the vaccine. However, that same study found that unvaccinated people had an elevenfold higher risk of getting myocarditis after a COVID-19 infection than vaccinated people.
When a virus replicates in its host, it produces millions of copies of its genetic material. Mutations are copying errors that occur naturally during the replication process. These acquired mutations produce new variants, which is why both the COVID-19 mRNA and the whole-virus flu vaccine get updated annually – to keep up with natural changes in the virus.
Viruses can mutate to escape from antibodies, but the mRNA vaccines are not causing the emergence of more virulent strains, likely for at least two reasons. First, mRNA vaccines induce immune responses that can attack the virus at multiple spots, so it would have to come up with many mutations at once to escape the vaccine’s defenses. Second, even if the virus could acquire all these mutations, they would likely weaken it, making it unable to cause or even transmit disease.
This is because mRNA vaccines induce the immune system to make both antibodies and specialized immune cells called T cells. These elements can recognize multiple parts of the virus, including ones that don’t change, enabling significant protection against new variants.
The National Institutes of Health is funneling money away from new mRNA technologies toward a single project developing universal vaccines based on traditional whole-virus vaccine technology. Universal vaccines are urgently needed to provide broader protection against ever-changing respiratory viruses, such as influenza, that are major pandemic threats.
It’s hard to square those benefits with the fact that HHS and NIH have named the planned new universal vaccine platform “Generation Gold Standard,” insisting that it represents a new standard in science and transparency. The effort seems more akin to eliminating all e-bike technology and telling everyone who seeks one to get by with a single brand of a 10-speed bike: Getting to the intended destination may still be possible, but it will be slower and harder.
And in the case of abandoning mRNA vaccine research, it may lead to lives needlessly lost, whether due to potential medicines untapped or to pandemic unpreparedness.
Deborah Fuller receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. She is co-founder and a scientific advisor for two biotech companies developing nucleic acid vaccine technologies that are not based on mRNA.
Tras la oleada de incendios que ha sacudido y conmocionado España, se ha generado una conciencia común: es necesario gestionar el paisaje para hacerlo menos vulnerable a los fuegos de alta intensidad.
Sin embargo, junto a esta lección aprendida surgen muchas preguntas que no tienen una respuesta sencilla. ¿Podrán recuperarse los bosques originales en las áreas de mayor valor ecológico si aplicamos una gestión adecuada? ¿Podemos evitar que el fuego vuelva a aparecer en el mismo lugar? ¿Cómo debemos afrontar la gestión de las interfaces urbano-forestales de una manera económica y duradera?
Son cuestiones complejas. Trataré de abordar algunas de ellas a la luz de lo aprendido durante más de tres décadas de trabajo en ecología de comunidades vegetales y en proyectos de restauración ambiental en los que el fuego y los herbívoros han sido herramientas clave.
Alteración de las dinámicas de perturbación natural
Sabemos que las comunidades vegetales que se establecen en un determinado lugar responden a las condiciones de clima y de suelo imperantes, seleccionándose el conjunto de especies vegetales mejor adaptadas a ese ambiente en particular.
Pero eso no lo es todo. Existe un tercer factor decisivo que determina el establecimiento de una comunidad vegetal: el régimen histórico de perturbaciones. Bajo este concepto se engloban procesos naturales que en apariencia podrían parecer destructivos, pero que en realidad han moldeado la vegetación durante millones de años, como las sequías, las plagas, los aludes, la presencia de herbívoros y, por supuesto, el fuego. Cada comunidad vegetal está adaptada a un régimen concreto de perturbación y lo demuestra con las estrategias adaptativas de las especies dominantes: espinas y toxinas frente al herbívoro, cortezas aislantes y piñas serótinas frente al fuego, etc.
Lo cierto es que los seres humanos hemos alterado profundamente estas dinámicas de perturbación natural y de manera más intensa a lo largo del último siglo. Por ejemplo, los ecosistemas abiertos –aquellos en los que domina el componente herbáceo, como pastizales, matorrales poco densos, dehesas y sabanas– han visto muy mermado el consumo de biomasa vegetal por herbívoros y están desapareciendo en favor de comunidades vegetales más lignificadas y con mayor carga combustible.
Además, las domesticaciones en el Neolítico se centraron en un grupo concreto de herbívoros, los pastantes, por ser animales de comportamientos más gregarios, tener movimientos migratorios predecibles y alimentarse en áreas abiertas, de buena visibilidad. Durante los últimos miles de años, los herbívoros domésticos han emulado el régimen de perturbación de los salvajes pastantes, contribuyendo a mantener ecosistemas abiertos. Pero en las últimas décadas, la caída en picado de la ganadería extensiva y el auge de explotaciones intensivas han cambiado radicalmente esta dinámica.
Algo similar ha sucedido con los regímenes naturales del fuego. Muchas comunidades vegetales, en ambientes mediterráneos y también en ambientes templados y tropicales, tienen un régimen natural de incendios asociado, con un profundo rol ecológico ligado al reciclado y la regeneración vegetal. El cambio climático, generando condiciones extremas propicias para el fuego y llevando a las cubiertas vegetales a situaciones de gran estrés térmico e hídrico, la acumulación de combustible por falta de aprovechamientos y la llamada paradoja de la extinción (décadas de supresión de incendios naturales que favorecen la acumulación de combustibles), han trastocado completamente ese equilibrio y alimentan fuegos cada vez más intensos y difíciles de controlar. En este escenario, los incendios serán inevitables y recurrentes, mientras exista vegetación para arder.
Terreno calcinado tras el incendio forestal que tuvo lugar en Llerena (Extremadura) en agosto de 2025 y arrasó 5.900 hectáreas. Right Perspective Images/Shutterstock
El herbívoro y el fuego han estado siempre estrechamente interconectados y en latitudes templadas y mediterráneas han sido los dos grandes gestores y recicladores de la materia vegetal. La descomposición, aunque también cumple esa función, tiene un papel más relevante en otros ambientes. El herbívoro consume la vegetación de manera selectiva, lenta y recurrente, transformándola en energía, crecimiento animal y en nutrientes que devuelve parcialmente al suelo a través de sus excrementos. El fuego, en cambio, es un evento poco frecuente que actúa de forma rápida e intensa, reciclando compuestos orgánicos tan resistentes como la lignina. Así, genera una gran mineralización de la materia vegetal –al reducirla a cenizas–, que puede retenerse en el ecosistema o perderse (volatilización, escorrentía, lixiviación) en función de la intensidad del fuego y de las condiciones locales tras el paso de las llamas.
Mientras el herbívoro escoge lo más nutritivo y digestible, el fuego no discrimina. Son procesos distintos, pero complementarios, y cuando se gestionan de forma conjunta y planificada, emulando regímenes naturales de perturbación, permiten mantener, a costes económicos reducidos, paisajes abiertos y en mosaico, donde se combinan distintos tipos de vegetación, con baja carga de combustible y elevada biodiversidad.
Lecciones finales desde la ecología de la perturbación
Las comunidades vegetales que conocemos han evolucionado durante millones de años adaptándose a regímenes de perturbación concretos, definidos por su tipología, su intensidad y su frecuencia. De modo que el tipo de perturbación dominante marca las características de los ecosistemas, tanto como el clima y el suelo. Allí donde prevalecen los herbívoros, las comunidades vegetales tienden a ser nutritivas y atractivas al animal, buscando ser pastadas para asegurar su regeneración. Allí donde domina el fuego, prosperan especies inflamables, de combustión veloz y regeneración rápida, que favorecen la ocurrencia de nuevos incendios. Sin herbívoros y con un cambio climático en progreso, es fácil adivinar qué tipos de comunidades vegetales van a verse favorecidas en el futuro, comunidades adaptadas al fuego y que dependen de él principalmente para regenerarse.
Todo apunta a que, azuzados por el cambio climático, los incendios se repetirán con mayor frecuencia y, en muchos casos, resultará imposible recuperar muchos ecosistemas tal como los conocíamos. Ante esta realidad, la gestión debe orientarse a reducir el estrés que están sufriendo nuestros bosques, rebajando su densidad y cobertura para sanear las masas forestales y mitigar la virulencia de los incendios. Pero también es fundamental promover paisajes en mosaico y espacios abiertos, donde la ganadería extensiva y el pastoreo de los herbívoros desempeñen el papel reciclador perdido, tan esencial en estos momentos.
Las quemas técnicas pueden ayudar a controlar la vegetación leñosa en fases iniciales. No obstante, sólo la combinación con planes de pastoreo plurianuales evitará la consolidación de comunidades pirófitas y reducirá la peligrosa dependencia del fuego como único mecanismo regulador de la materia vegetal. La combinación de fuego técnico y pastoreo ambiental, llamado herbivorismo pírico, ofrece una vía de gestión sostenible, capaz de mantener ecosistemas más resilientes, menos inflamables y, al mismo tiempo, más biodiversos. En ello estamos trabajando.
Rosa María Canals y su equipo de investigación han recibido y reciben fondos de entidades públicas (Fundación Biodiversidad, Agencia Estatal de Investigación,..) en convocatorias competitivas para financiar sus líneas de investigación.
The Quw’utsun Nation sought Declarations of Aboriginal title to Tl’uqtinus, their traditional village on the south arm of the Fraser River and surrounding lands, and of their right to fish for food in the south arm of the Fraser.
The judgment certainly deserves careful consideration, but not because it puts individual homes and businesses at risk. That isn’t what the court found, nor was it asked to.
It deserves attention because it calls on governments — and all of us — to honestly confront the unlawful foundations of B.C.’s land system and turn our minds to meaningful remedies.
In her ruling, Justice Barbara Young held that the Crown lacked lawful authority to grant fee simple titles over Cowichan lands in what is today part of the city of Richmond. In her words:
“The Crown grants of fee simple interest in the Cowichan Title Lands, and the Crown vesting of the soil and freehold interest in certain highway lands in the Cowichan Title Lands, unjustifiably infringe the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title.”
The plaintiffs did not ask the court to invalidate the title deeds of homeowners and businesses, and the ruling does not do that. Instead, the Quw’utsun Nation sought accountability from the Crown: the return of provincially and municipally held lands and long-term solutions about all the wrongfully granted titles.
This distinction matters if we are interested in finding solutions about how to live well together, and not just in stirring up controversy.
We tend to view private property as a sacrosanct, never-changing principle. But property rights are legal constructs — never absolute and always evolving. Just as property law has been reshaped to reflect human rights and environmental protections, it must also evolve to address colonial injustices and dispossession.
An unresolved history of land theft
For the Quw’utsun Nation, the court’s decision fits into a broader context of land dispossession. While this case concerns part of its territory along the Fraser River, most Quw’utsun territory is on southern Vancouver Island, where the infamous E&N Railway grants transferred vast areas into private hands without consent, treaty or compensation.
That land grab remains the central obstacle in more than 30 years of ongoing negotiations between the Hul’quimi’num Treaty Group, which represents three of the plaintiff First Nations, as well as the Lyackson and Ts’uubaa-asatx Nations, and the Crown.
In fact, initial colonial incursions into Quw’utsun territory on Vancouver Island were timed such that many members were at Tl’uqtinus when the first governor of British Columbia, James Douglas, arrived with settlers. His promises of compensation were never honoured.
B.C. led Canada in incorporating the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into law in 2019. Yet now the province has chosen to adopt an adversarial approach, viewing the case as a threat to private property, and will appeal the B.C. Supreme Court decision.
Appeals will only prolong an already painful process. Instead, the government could choose to focus on legal creativity and innovative solutions over endless court battles. On Haida Gwaii, shared governance agreements preserve the respective authorities of the Haida Nation and the Crown and reflect both legal traditions.
In 2021, the B.C. Supreme Court concluded the Blueberry River First Nation’s treaty rights had been infringed upon by the impacts of industrial developments in its traditional territory. The province chose not to appeal, instead pledging to work with Blueberry River First Nation to collaboratively address the impacts of resource development.
In New Zealand, the landmark Treaty of Waitangi settlements likewise embed Māori authority into land-use governance while respecting shared interests in lands and resources.
While not perfect, these examples all demonstrate how a serious engagement with Indigenous law and authority can lead to better and more equitable solutions for everyone.
Quw’utsun law offers tools for shared governance, managing overlapping rights in ways that respect both Indigenous and Crown institutions. For Quw’utsun Mustimuhw (Cowichan Peoples), territoriality is not marked by rigid boundaries but by relationships of reciprocity, kinship and shared use.
This flexible, place-based orientation provides a foundation for governance that can accommodate overlapping interests while maintaining respect and accountability inter-societally and across legal systems.
“The court’s declaration is important to reconciliation and to correct the historical injustice that was done to us. We will not pursue this with malice and we will conduct ourselves with one mind, one head and one spirit for our culture and community, and for the generations to come.”
Drawing on this principle could replace adversarial conflict with constructive nation-to-nation dialogue. But truth must come first.
Society cannot look away, even when past wrongs are difficult to repair — such as with homes and businesses on unlawfully granted land.
Acknowledging harm does not mean ignoring the interests of current owners, but it does require honesty about the history of how that land was acquired and creativity in finding remedies. Shying away from truth because it is uncomfortable only fuels greater uncertainty and conflict for all parties in the long run.
The Cowichan decision reminds us that reconciliation demands confronting the colonial foundations of Canada’s property system. Governments must accept responsibility rather than hide behind litigation.
Commentators and the public should resist alarmist rhetoric and instead engage with the deeper questions this ruling raises: how to repair relationships, return what can be returned and reshape institutions to reflect renewed relations.
The court’s decision is a chance for a new beginning grounded in an honest reckoning about how property rights were created, and how they can be reshaped to justly and honestly improve how we live together on these lands.
In our view, it is an invitation to imagine and enact transformative change for generations to come.
Sarah Morales is Coast Salish and a member of Cowichan Tribes. Over the past 20 years she has worked with Cowichan Tribes, and other Quw’utsun Nations, on projects related to child and family services, governance and law revitalization. She receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council or Canada.
Estair Van Wagner receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
As another school year returns, large language models (LLMs) present difficult questions around learning, thinking, plagiarism and authorship for educators.
New approaches to assignments and assessment are required. Student papers that use LLM technology require additional labour on many fronts. Professors have expressed frustration, worry and anxiety.
As an assistant professor of English whose research has focused on the histories of writing and how it’s taught, I have been involved in many discussions at institutions of higher learning about this topic.
The immediate issue of LLMs in the classroom points to a larger reality. For too long, instructors and universities have been treating students’ writing difficulties as a deficiency in the mind — instead of confronting the truth that writing, as a technology for thinking, is cognitively demanding.
Writing is a technology that helps us understand our own ideas better. Where people are involved in thinking and invention — including at universities — it needs to be taught in that spirit.
Why consider AI output ‘writing?’
Given what LLM technology actually does and does not do, why do we even consider it writing — as in, “they used an LLM to write their assignment?”
LLM technology creates — at best — a facsimile of a textual object, meaning that based on its training on existing texts, it can create output that resembles a “text.”
When generated for the purpose of a university assignment, it resembles the standard academic English that has ruled the academy (historical and present-day institutions of higher learning including colleges, technical schools and universities) and has been endowed with a special relationship to truth.
I’ve seen anger and frustration expressed towards the student who uses LLM output in their writing process or submitted work. The reason seems to be that it undermines that special relationship to truth that academic writing has long held.
The artificial output reveals that academic writing is not an “absolute.” Rather, the LLM shows us how academic writing is a social construction. But academia at large has long resisted acknowledging this.
Historical and social concerns
Using standard academic writing is a choice. It is a style of writing that has been invisible within academia, thought to be the default and “correct.”
Many of the problems and questions that arise with LLM technology in relation to writing are really historical and social concerns that get to the very heart of what we understand writing to be.
As I continue to discover in my research, writing in the context of the English-speaking academy since the 19th century has been taught within two distinct streams: literary and technical communication. Both of these streams flourished within the larger context of the British Empire because both are adept strategies for maintaining the status quo.
The combination of the veneration of canonical British literature and the instruction of a utilitarian language that acts as a “neutral” communication tool (one that is not at all neutral), and a standard one, serves to create an understanding of writing that over-prioritizes the finished text.
“Correctness” in writing is, as writing scholars have long discussed, subjective and contextual. For example, “ill c u l8r” would work as a perfectly fine text message in 2008. In another setting — including texting today with QWERTY-keyboard equipped phones — it would seem “off” or even incomprehensible.
When a student’s ability to write academically is taken to represent their intelligence, we should not be surprised when some use LLMs.
Because LLM technology can mimic standard academic writing, it becomes the perfect context through which to address how we think about the final product of writing. The truth is, if university instructors are only interested in a “correct” piece of writing, it sort of makes sense for a computer to do it.
It is important that educators begin to see our students’ writing as part of a social situation which requires clarity on their end, yes, but also our listening.
Without reconsidering how western institutions have positioned writing, instructors risk educating a generation of students who are alienated from their own ability to think and create new knowledge, perspectives and understandings because of an over-reliance on LLMs. Western institutions will create students alienated from themselves and the potentialities of their ideas.
Part of re-thinking what writing is means allowing students to submit work in process, providing for feedback from instructors on ungraded drafts of assignments and developing scaffolding assignments that reveal the process behind writing.
Writing experts need to be brought into AI-policy creation and the implications of this field’s research must be considered by a wider audience. If LLMs are implemented in universities without careful consultation with writing experts, I fear we will soon find that all that can be written is the status quo of received ideas.
It’s time for us to reconsider writing in universities or risk our students losing access to their own writing. The study of writing is uniquely situated to help our institutions navigate these urgent questions.
Taylor Morphett 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.
Home-based working in the UK has been declining since the peak of the COVID pandemic – from 49% of the working population at its height to around 14% now.
While hybrid working is still increasing in popularity, attitudes persist among some employers that remote working reduces productivity, visibility and creativity. As a result, many workplaces are requiring a return to fully on-site working.
This approach, however, is not supported by research into hybrid working (a mix of working at home and on-site) which suggests productivity is not damaged and that it can also improve job satisfaction.
For many people who are disabled, neurodivergent or both, home-based working provides a real opportunity to gain – and retain – a job in a productive and supportive environment. Around 24% of the working-age population are disabled, with the employment rate among disabled people around 54%.
While disabled staff can request remote working as a reasonable adjustment, it can attract stigma. This is one reason why people may not always feel able to make this request, or say how much they would prefer to work from home. Some workers may fear repercussions like being overlooked for promotion or even losing their job.
I have studied the experiences of disabled and neurodivergent people who work from home, so I know how life-changing having a flexible job can be. One interviewee in my research told me: “I can sustain my productivity and, from my point of view, that means I can work better.”
Another said: “I don’t have to mask [attempt to hide autistic traits] at home. So there’s just a huge drop in … general anxiety and tension.”
Several large employers who took part in my study indicated that, while remote working was positive for many of their employees, there were downsides that needed to be managed. These include ensuring staff maintain their professional networks and social contacts, and discouraging working while unwell (presenteeism). Home working can intensify pressure to work while sick, and it may be harder to spot in a remote setting.
A toolkit for managers
Perhaps unsurprisingly, one of the key findings was that a supportive line manager was crucial for disabled and neurodivergent workers to make a success of remote working. Many managers, however, didn’t have enough knowledge or understanding of how to best to support each employee’s specific needs, so they couldn’t always offer appropriate guidance and advice.
With this in mind, I developed a toolkit for line managers to enable them to better support this community of workers. When good conversations happen between line managers and employees, solutions can be tailored to the person’s needs. The toolkit offers guidance to line managers on how to enable those conversations.
I make the case for remote working by setting out the benefits (including a more flexible workforce and more inclusive recruitment) for the organisation. The toolkit is designed to help managers recognise the ways in which home-based working can be positive for these workers, offering advice on how to reap the benefits while managing the downsides.
It also shares technical knowledge about disability and neurodivergence, such as how the UK Equality Act relates to this workforce, and how to approach the “reasonable adjustments” process (changes that an employer is legally obliged to make to ensure disabled staff are not at a disadvantage).
Managers these days often lead mixed teams of remote and on-site workers. To encourage effective remote working and productivity, my research has found that regular meetings and check-ins between line managers and home-working staff are important.
But sometimes it’s not enough for managers simply to level the playing field. People who are disabled, neurodivergent or both will benefit from tailored support in order to flourish in the workplace. They need to feel safe to disclose their conditions and needs, and to be themselves at work.
Remote working offers an opportunity to employ people who might not be able to work in a traditional office-based, “nine-to-five” environment. My research found that when key resources were in place, such as a conducive working environment, appropriate technology and a supportive line manager, this helped to build their self-confidence and autonomy.
It also helped them to manage their energy levels and self-care, which in turn supported better productivity, fewer absences and the ability to stay in work over the long term.
Employers should understand that the needs of this group of workers can unlock key strengths for their organisation – including diversity, staff retention and increased productivity. Remote working can present challenges for managers – but when managed well, it can also help them create a more flexible, inclusive and agile workplace.
Christine Grant receives funding from the UK Economic and Social Research Council as part of the Digital Futures at Work Research Centre (grant number ES/S012532/1) and from Coventry University’s ESRC Impact Acceleration Account.
China’s president, Xi Jinping, has been busy on the diplomatic front. China has just hosted the largest annual summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), followed by an impressive military parade to mark the defeat of Japan in the second world war – all accompanied by key bilateral meetings with heads of state from like-minded countries. You could be forgiven for thinking Beijing is now the diplomatic capital of the world.
But look behind the facade of bonhomie on display in the Chinese capital, and the unity underpinning a new China-led global order looks a lot more fragile than Xi would have you believe.
The most important result of the SCO summit on August 31 and September 1 was not the fact that leaders adopted a lengthy communique and more than 20 joint statements on issues as diverse as artificial intelligence, green industries and international trade. What mattered most was the attendance of India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, and the rapprochement between New Delhi and Beijing.
This was Modi’s first visit to China in seven years. That his country’s relations with China continue to improve was made clear by Modi’s positive assessment of his bilateral meeting with Xi (“fruitful”) and also their relationship, which he said is based on “mutual respect, mutual interest and mutual sensitivity”.
Another obvious indicator of China trying to pull India closer into the SCO fold was its unequivocal condemnation of the terror attacks in Pahalgam in Kashmir in April 2025. China’s earlier failure to do so had prevented India’s defence minister from signing a similar communique at a meeting of SCO defence ministers in June.
Modi’s attendance also provided the opportunity for him and Xi to demonstrate their continuing support for Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin. As far as alliances go, one between China, Russia and India would be a formidable factor in the remaking of the international order. But while there was an impressive display of solidarity between the three leaders, they are united by little more than their opposition to the current US-dominated order.
There was plenty of talk from Xi at the SCO summit about reforming the current system of international affairs – the latest blueprint of which is his Global Governance Initiative, which aims to transform the UN into a Beijing-led instrument. But the prospects of rapid change are limited.
China and India are both deeply integrated into the current international financial and economic system – as are most other SCO member states and partner countries. They may resent Donald Trump and his tariff policies but – with the partial exception of China’s dominance of the global rare-earth trade – they have little leverage.
Another problem for Xi is the fact his various forays into reshaping the international system are at best complementary. There is some overlap between the SCO and his other signature project, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). But while the BRI is global and focused primarily on extending China’s reach by economic means, the SCO is much more regional in outlook and focused on security.
Add to that the Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) group, and China’s approach to remaking the international system begins to look less like a coherent strategy than a series of trial balloons – with even Xi unsure which will eventually pave the way to China’s global leadership role.
A final issue for Xi is that he is limited in his choice of partners. At the SCO summit in Tianjin, it was all about relations between China, Russia and India. Two days later at the victory parade in Beijing, the fledgling alliance between China, Russia and North Korea seemed to take centre stage. However, the absence of Modi from this event demonstrated that India does not want to be too closely associated with North Korea.
Xi has different options in how he pursues his challenge to the current world order – but some are mutually exclusive. Not everyone in his orbit is comfortable with all the political alignments the Chinese president chooses.
Antipathy to US-led order
This is not to say that China’s quest to replace the US as the global superpower is bound to fail. There is a logic to what Xi is doing. He is building a Chinese-dominated sphere of influence in Asia as a power base from which to reach for global hegemony.
But outside a small circle of similarly autocratic leaders, what has propelled this project so far is less the appeal of a China-led international system than dissatisfaction with the existing liberal international order. And while this dissatisfaction predates the current incumbent of the White House, it has been aggravated over the first six months of Trump’s second term.
More than two decades of careful recalibration of US relations with India, including drawing New Delhi into an alliance pushing back against China in Asia, appear recently to have been sacrificed at the altar of Trump’s insatiable vanity.
When India failed to acknowledge his claim to have mediated in its row with Pakistan after the Pahalgam terror attack and declined to join Pakistan in nominating Trump for a Nobel peace prize, his response was to rekindle relations with Pakistan and impose punitive tariffs on India.
Simultaneously, Trump’s wholly misguided America-first foreign policy has undermined the very relationships in Europe and Asia that underpinned the liberal international order and secured US dominance. At least his latest insight – that China, Russia and North Korea “conspire against the United States” – gives a glimmer of hope for America’s concerned allies in the west that the US president will change course in how he deals with Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang.
If Trump doesn’t recognise the value of his country’s allies in managing the challenge that China clearly poses to the US, Xi’s sphere of influence may quickly extend far beyond Asia. This could relegate the US to a second-order power confined to – but not necessarily secure in – a diminishing sphere of influence.
Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.
