English – Page 13 – MIL Submissions Engine

January 31, 2026

US exit from the World Health Organization marks a new era in global health policy – here’s what the US, and world, will lose

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Jordan Miller, Teaching Professor of Public Health, Arizona State University

The U.S.-WHO collaboration has been critical in the country’s response to mpox, shown here, as well as Ebola, Marburg, flu and COVID-19. Uma Shankar sharma/Moment via Getty Images

The U.S. departure from the World Health Organization became official in late January 2026, according to the Trump administration – a year after President Donald Trump signed an executive order on inauguration day of his second term declaring that he was doing so. He first stated his intention to do so during his first term in 2020, early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The U.S. severing its ties with the WHO will cause ripple effects that linger for years to come, with widespread implications for public health. The Conversation asked Jordan Miller, a public health professor at Arizona State University, to explain what the U.S. departure means in the short and long term.

Why is the US leaving the WHO?

The Trump administration says it’s unfair that the U.S. contributes more than other nations and cites this as the main reason for leaving. The White House’s official announcement gives the example of China, which – despite having a population three times the size of the U.S. – contributes 90% less than the U.S. does to the WHO.

The Trump administration has also claimed that the WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was botched and that it lacked accountability and transparency.

The WHO has pushed back on these claims, defending its pandemic response, which recommended masking and physical distancing.

The U.S. does provide a disproportionate amount of funding to the WHO. In 2023, for example, U.S. contributions almost tripled that of the European Commission’s and were roughly 50% more than the second highest donor, Germany. But health experts point out that preventing and responding quickly to public health challenges is far less expensive than dealing with those problems once they’ve taken root and spread.

However, the withdrawal process is complicated, despite the U.S. assertion that it is final. Most countries do not have the ability to withdraw, as that is the way the original agreement to join the WHO was designed. But the U.S. inserted a clause into its agreement with the WHO when it agreed to join, stipulating that the U.S. would have the ability to withdraw, as long as it provided a one-year notice and paid all remaining dues. Though the U.S. gave its notice when Trump took office a year ago, it still owes the WHO about US$260 million in fees for 2024-25. There are complicated questions of international law that remain.

The U.S. has been a dominant force in the WHO, and its absence will have direct and lasting impacts on health systems in the U.S. and other countries.

What does US withdrawal from the WHO mean in the short term?

In short, the U.S. withdrawal weakens public health abroad and at home. The WHO’s priorities include stopping the spread of infectious diseases, stemming antimicrobial resistance, mitigating natural disasters, providing medication and health services to those who need it, and even preventing chronic diseases. So public health challenges, such as infectious diseases, have to be approached at scale because experience shows that coordination across borders is important for success.

The U.S. has been the largest single funder of the WHO, with contributions in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually over the past decade, so its withdrawal will have immediate operational impacts, limiting the WHO’s ability to continue established programs.

As a result of losing such a significant share of its funding, the WHO announced in a recent memo to staff that it plans to cut roughly 2,300 jobs – a quarter of its workforce – by summer 2026. It also plans to downsize 10 of its divisions to four.

In addition to a long history of funding, U.S. experts have worked closely with the WHO to address public health challenges. Successes stemming from this partnership include effectively responding to several Ebola outbreaks, addressing mpox around the world and the Marburg virus outbreak in Rwanda and Ethiopia. Both the Marburg and Ebola viruses have a 50% fatality rate, on average, so containing these diseases before they reached pandemic-level spread was critically important.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America issued a statement in January 2026 describing the move as “a shortsighted and misguided abandonment of our global health commitments,” noting that “global cooperation and communication are critical to keep our own citizens protected because germs do not respect borders.”

Pink and purple-stained light micrograph image of liver cells infected with Ebola virus. — The US has been instrumental in the response to major Ebola outbreaks through its involvement with the WHO. Shown here, Ebola-infected liver cells.
Callista Images/Connect Images via Getty Images

What are the longer-term impacts of US withdrawal?

By withdrawing from the WHO, the U.S. will no longer participate in the organization’s Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System, which has been in operation since 1952. This will seriously compromise the U.S.’s ability to plan and manufacture vaccines to match the predicted flu strains for each coming year.

Annual flu vaccines for the U.S. and globally are developed a year in advance using data that is collected around the world and then analyzed by an international team of experts to predict which strains are likely to be most widespread in the next year. The WHO convenes expert panels twice per year and then makes recommendations on which flu strains to include in each year’s vaccine manufacturing formulation.

While manufacturers will likely still be able to obtain information regarding the WHO’s conclusions, the U.S. will not contribute data in the same way, and American experts will no longer have a role in the process of data analysis. This could lead to problematic differences between WHO recommendations and those coming from U.S. authorities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that each year in the U.S. millions of people get the flu, hundreds of thousands of Americans are hospitalized and tens of thousands die as a result of influenza. Diminishing the country’s ability to prepare in advance through flu shots will likely mean more hospitalizations and more deaths as a result of the flu.

This is just one example of many of how the U.S.’s departure will affect the country’s readiness to respond to disease threats.

Additionally, the reputational damage done by the U.S. departure cannot be overstated. The U.S. has developed its position as an international leader in public health over many decades as the largest developer and implementer of global health programs.

I believe surrendering this position will diminish the United States’ ability to influence public health strategies internationally, and that is important because global health affects health in the U.S. It will also make it harder to shape a multinational response in the event of another public health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Public health and policy experts predict that China will use this opportunity to strengthen its position and its global influence, stepping into the power vacuum the U.S. creates by withdrawing. China has pledged an additional US$500 million in support of the WHO over the next five years.

As a member of the WHO, the United States has had ready access to a vast amount of data collected by the WHO and its members. While most data the WHO obtains is ultimately made available to the public, member nations have greater access to detailed information about collection methods and gain access sooner, as new threats are emerging.

Delays in access to data could hamstring the country’s ability to respond in the event of the next infectious disease outbreak.

Could the US return under a new president?

In short, yes. The WHO has clearly signaled its desire to continue to engage with the U.S., saying it “regrets the U.S. decision to withdraw” and hopes the U.S. will reconsider its decision to leave.

In the meantime, individual states have the opportunity to participate. In late January, California announced it will join the WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert & Response Network, which is open to a broader array of participants than just WHO member nations. California was also a founding member of the West Coast Health Alliance, which now includes 14 U.S. states that have agreed to work together to address public health challenges.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has also launched an initiative designed to improve public health infrastructure and build trust. He enlisted national public health leaders for this effort, including former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention leaders Susan Monarez and Deb Houry, as well as Katelyn Jetelina, who became well known as Your Local Epidemiologist during the COVID-19 pandemic.

I think we will continue to see innovative efforts like these emerging, as political and public health leaders work to fill the vacuum being created by the Trump administration’s disinvestment in public health.

Jordan Miller 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. US exit from the World Health Organization marks a new era in global health policy – here’s what the US, and world, will lose – https://theconversation.com/us-exit-from-the-world-health-organization-marks-a-new-era-in-global-health-policy-heres-what-the-us-and-world-will-lose-274277

January 31, 2026

Funny, tender, goofy – Catherine O’Hara lit up the screen every time she showed up

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ben McCann, Associate Professor of French Studies, Adelaide University

Catherine O’Hara, the beloved actor and comedian who has died aged 71, occupied that rare position in contemporary screen culture: a comic actor, a cult figure and a mainstream star.

Her work spanned more than 50 years, from improv sketch comedy to Hollywood features and off-beat TV classics.

She was celebrated for her unmatched comic timing and chameleon-like character work. Her roles were often absurdist and quirky, but they hid a razor-sharp humour.

Born and raised in Toronto in a close-knit Irish Catholic family, O’Hara was one of seven siblings. She once remarked humour was part of her everyday life; storytelling, impressions and lively conversation helped hone her comedic instincts.

After high school, she worked at Toronto’s Second City Theatre, a famed breeding ground for comedy talent, and sharpened her deadpan improvisational skills.

Big break

O’Hara’s break came with Second City Television (SCTV), a sketch comedy series that rivalled Saturday Night Live in creativity and influence. Alongside contemporaries Eugene Levy, John Candy, Rick Moranis and Martin Short, she defined her distinctly smart, absurdist comedic voice.

O’Hara was not merely a performer on SCTV; she was also a writer, winning an Emmy Award for her contributions. This dual role shaped her career-long sensitivity to rhythm, language and character construction.

Unlike sketch performers who rely on repetition or catchphrases, O’Hara’s humour emerged with a different comedic logic. Audiences laughed not because the character was “funny”, but because the character took herself so seriously.

Though briefly cast on Saturday Night Live in the early 1980s, O’Hara chose to stay with SCTV when it was renewed, a decision she later described as key in letting her creative career flourish where it belonged.

The transition to film

By the mid-1980s, O’Hara was establishing herself as a screen presence. She appeared in Martin Scorsese’s offbeat black comedy After Hours (1985), and showcased her comic range in Heartburn (1986).

In 1988, she landed what would become one of her most beloved film roles: Delia Deetz in Tim Burton’s left-field Beetlejuice (1988).

Delia – a pretentious, New York art-scene social climber – allowed O’Hara to combine physical comedy and imbecilic dialogue (“A little gasoline … blowtorch … no problem”).

Burton once noted

Catherine’s so good, maybe too good. She works on levels that people don’t even know. I think she scares people because she operates at such high levels.

She went on to play Kate McCallister, the beleaguered mother in the holiday blockbusters Home Alone (1990) and Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992). Audiences loved the fact that this rather thinly written role became the films’ beating heart.

Working with Christopher Guest

Another distinctive phase of O’Hara’s career was her work with writer-director Christopher Guest on a series of largely improvised mockumentaries that have become cult classics.

Three standouts were Waiting for Guffman (1996), where she plays a desperate local performer in a small-town theatre troupe, and A Mighty Wind (2003), where she teamed up with old pal Levy as an ageing folk duo.

Her best turn came in Best in Show (2000), in which she and Levy played a couple competing in a national dog show. Her character Cookie Fleck remains one of the finest examples of improvised comedy on film.

Her relentless monologues about former lovers are objectively inappropriate, yet O’Hara delivers them with such earnest enthusiasm that they become strangely compelling.

Her gift for improvisation glittered in these films: these eccentric characters were often laugh-out-loud funny – but O’Hara never mocked them.

Late success

She returned to TV in Six Feet Under (2001–05) and guest appearances on The Larry Sanders Show (1992–98) and Curb Your Enthusiasm (1999–2024). More recently, she appeared in prestige shows such as The Last of Us (2023–) and The Studio (2025–).

But it was the role of Moira Rose, the eccentric, ex-soap opera star in the Canadian sitcom Schitt’s Creek (2015–20), created by Eugene Levy and his son Dan, that would become O’Hara’s most significant late career move. And what a role it was!

Written for O’Hara’s unique talents, Moira was a larger-than-life character with a bizarre, unforgettable vocabulary, dramatic mood swings and a wardrobe that became nearly as famous as the character herself.

Feminist media scholars have noted the rarity of such complex roles for older women, particularly in comedy, making O’Hara’s performance culturally significant.

The show became a global streaming blockbuster during COVID lockdowns and O’Hara’s multi-award-winning performance became a social media phenomenon, spawning memes and viral clips.

There are so many standout moments – her drunken meltdown after losing her wigs, her audition for The Crows Have Eyes 3 and the show’s moving finale where she performs Danny Boy at Alexis’s graduation.

An enduring legacy

O’Hara had a remarkable ability to play flamboyant, self-absorbed characters who were often uproariously funny.

Many comedians and actors have cited O’Hara as an influence for her fearlessness, her ability to blend absurdity with emotional truth, and her steadfast commitment to character integrity. She influenced performers like Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph, Kate McKinnon and Phoebe Waller-Bridge.

O’Hara also refused to chase conventional stardom. Rather than choosing projects designed to flatten her eccentricities, O’Hara favoured collaborative environments that valued creativity over control.

For her, comedy was always an art of intelligence, empathy and generosity.

Ben McCann 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. Funny, tender, goofy – Catherine O’Hara lit up the screen every time she showed up – https://theconversation.com/funny-tender-goofy-catherine-ohara-lit-up-the-screen-every-time-she-showed-up-274816

January 31, 2026

Silver and gold hit record highs – then crashed. Before joining the rush, you need to know this

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Angel Zhong, Professor of Finance, RMIT University

The start of 2026 has seen gold and silver surge to record highs – only to crash on Friday.

Gold prices peaked above US$5,500 (A$7,900) per ounce for the first time on Thursday, well above previous highs. But by the end of Friday, it had dropped to around US$5068 (A$7,282).

Silver had been making gains even faster than gold. It hit more than US$120 (A$172) per ounce last week, marking one of its strongest runs in decades, before crashing on Friday to US$98.50 (A$141.50).

So what’s behind those surges and falls? And what should everyday investors know about the risks of investing in precious metals right now?

Why gold has been hitting new highs

Gold is the classic safe haven: an asset people buy to protect their savings when worried about financial risks.

With international political tensions rising, trade war threats, shifting signals about where interest rates are heading and a potential changing world order, investors are seeking assets that feel stable when everything else looks shaky.

Friday’s crash in gold and silver was sparked by financial markets reacting to early news of Donald Trump’s nomination of Kevin Warsh as chair of the US Federal Reserve. The US central bank plays a key role in global financial stability.

Central banks around the world have been buying gold at a rapid pace, reinforcing its reputation as a place to park value during periods of uncertainty.

But it’s not just big institutions moving the market. In Australia and overseas, retail investors – individuals buying and selling smaller amounts for themselves – have played a part too.

Those individuals have been increasingly treating gold, silver and other precious metals as a hedge against so much uncertainty, as well as a momentum play – trying to buy in to keep up with others.

As prices have trended upward, more everyday investors have bought in, especially through gold exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which make it simple to gain exposure without storing physical gold bullion.

What’s been driving silver’s surge

While gold was grabbing headlines for much of 2025, silver has been the real showstopper. Before Friday’s fall, the metal had surged more than 60% in just the past month, far outpacing gold’s still impressive run of around 30%.

Unlike gold, silver has a split personality. Industrial uses are driving up demand for silver. It’s critical for clean energy technologies including solar panels, electric vehicles (EVs), and semiconductors.

This dual appeal – as a safe haven, but also as an in-demand industrial commodity – is drawing investors who see multiple reasons for prices to keep climbing.

Every solar panel contains about 20 grams of silver. The solar industry consumes nearly 30% of total global demand for silver.

EVs also use 25–50 grams each, and AI data centres need silver for semiconductors.

The kicker? The silver market has run a supply deficit for five consecutive years. We’re consuming more than we’re mining, and most silver comes as a byproduct of other metals. You can’t simply open more silver mines.

Individual buyers have piled into silver

One of Australia’s most popular online investment platforms for retail investors is CommSec, with around 3 million customers.

Bloomberg tracking of CommSec trades shows how much retail purchases of silver ETFs in particular have spiked higher in the past year.

Over the past year, gold ETF trades on CommSec grew 47%, with cumulative net buying reaching A$158 million. That reflects gold’s established role in portfolios.

Yet despite attracting slightly lower total investment overall at A$104 million, silver trading activity exploded by far more: it’s been 1,000% higher than the year before.

This means retail investors made far more frequent, smaller trades in silver. This is classic momentum-chasing behaviour, as everyday investors piled into an asset showing dramatic price gains.

The pattern is unmistakable: while gold remains the anchor, silver has become the speculative play.

Its lower per-ounce price, industrial demand narrative, and social media buzz make it particularly accessible to retail investors seeking exposure to the precious metals rally, at a much lower price than gold.

The risks every investor needs to know

The data shows Australian retail investors have been buying as prices rise. But this “fear of missing out” approach comes with serious risks.

Volatility cuts both ways. From February 2025 to just before Friday’s sharp drop, the price of silver had surged 269%. But even before that fall, silver’s spectacular gain had come with 36% “annualised volatility” (which measures how much a stock price varies over one year). That was nearly double gold’s 20% volatility over the same period.

What does that mean in practice? As we’ve just seen, what goes up fast can come down quickly too.

Buying high is dangerous. When retail investors pile in after major price increases, they often end up buying near the top. Professional investors and central banks have been accumulating gold and silver for years, at much lower prices.

No income, higher risk. Unlike shares or bonds, metals don’t pay dividends or interest. Your entire return depends on prices rising further from already elevated levels. And as the past few days have shown, the potential for sharp drawdowns is substantial.

Keep it modest. Financial advisers typically recommend precious metals comprise 5–15% of a diversified portfolio. After such extraordinary price volatility, that guideline matters more than ever.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and is not intended as financial advice. All investments carry risk.

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. Silver and gold hit record highs – then crashed. Before joining the rush, you need to know this – https://theconversation.com/silver-and-gold-hit-record-highs-then-crashed-before-joining-the-rush-you-need-to-know-this-274622

January 30, 2026

3 things to know about Kevin Warsh, Trump’s nod for Fed chair

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By D. Brian Blank, Associate Professor of Finance, Mississippi State University

Kevin Warsh has been tapped by Donald Trump to lead the Federal Reserve. AP Photo/Alastair Grant

After months of speculation, President Donald Trump nominated Kevin Warsh on Jan. 30, 2026, to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve.

If confirmed by Congress, Warsh will inherit leadership of the U.S. central bank at a delicate time. For months, current Fed Chair Jerome Powell has come under attack from the Trump administration for failing to heed the president’s call for lower interest rates. The fight has put into question the central bank’s independence and its role in stewarding the economy.

Powell’s term as chair will end in mid-May, leaving his successor to navigate an economy that has improved on some fronts but remains uneven and uncertain.

But what should America expect from the next Fed chair? Here are three things to note about Trump’s nominee.

1. He is a familiar face …

Warsh brings deep experience with monetary policymaking to the role.

A graduate of Stanford University and Harvard Law School, he served as special assistant to the president for economic policy and executive secretary of the White House National Economic Council under President George W. Bush before becoming one of the youngest members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Warsh is no newcomer to discussions about Federal Reserve leadership. He was a finalist for the job in 2017, when Trump instead appointed Powell. Trump has since stated that he made a mistake by not selecting Warsh then – though clashes between Trump and Powell may have influenced that view.

Two men in suits walk outside. — Fed Chair Jerome Powell increasingly found himself out of step with Donald Trump’s wishes.
AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Warsh’s credentials are unquestionable. As a governor of the Federal Reserve Board from 2006 to 2011, he worked closely with other policymakers and with Wall Street during the global financial crisis of 2008. Since departing the Fed, he has returned to Stanford as a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and a lecturer at the Graduate School of Business, as well as a member of the Panel of Economic Advisers of the Congressional Budget Office.

He also has ties to the finance industry. He began his career in mergers and acquisitions at Morgan Stanley and, since leaving the Fed, has worked as a partner at Duquesne Family Office, an investment firm that manages the personal wealth of hedge fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller and other investors.

In 2016, Trump included Warsh in an economic advisory group assembled during his transition. Critics of Warsh’s nomination point toward his father-in-law, Ronald Lauder, a college friend and donor of the president, as evidence of politicization.

2. … with evolving monetary views

The big question people have is what a Warsh Fed would mean for monetary policy – that is, is it likely to play tight or loose with rates.

When the economy is growing quickly, like in 2021, the Federal Reserve tightens policy by raising interest rates to avoid the kind of economic growth that may not be sustainable long term and can lead to bubbles. However, during downturns, like in 2008 or 2020, the economic policy that can provide a backstop for the economy is looser. The Fed tends to lower rates in these situations, which supports growth.

Warsh’s views on monetary policy have long been considered hawkish, meaning he is inclined toward tighter policy and generally higher interest rates to keep inflation in check, even at the expense of slower economic growth. During his previous tenure at the Fed, he signaled concern about expansive monetary tools such as quantitative easing, in which the central bank buys Treasurys and other securities to stimulate the economy. This resulted in what Warsh called a “bloated” Fed balance sheet that held almost US$9 trillion of debt at its peak in 2022.

In recent public remarks leading up to his nomination, however, he has increasingly aligned in part with Trump’s push for lower interest rates and discussed establishing a new Treasury-Fed Accord, like in 1951, when Fed independence from fiscal authorities such as the Treasury Department was established.

3. His nod highlights fight over Fed independence

A central question surrounding this nomination is whether it promotes the politicization of the Federal Reserve.

The Fed’s independence from day-to-day political pressure has long been viewed as a cornerstone of U.S. economic policymaking. Decisions about interest rates, inflation control and financial stability are insulated from electoral politics for that reason. A truly independent Fed can resist making decisions that provide a short-term economic bump – something incumbent governments tend to like – but may lead to longer-term economic pain down the road.

The Fed tends to use its monetary policy tools carefully. Yet politicians tend to want looser monetary policy so the economy grows fast and they get credit for it.

And Warsh’s nomination can be seen in the context of a broader push from the executive branch to exert greater influence over monetary policy. Given Trump’s public criticism of Powell and vocal calls for his early departure, the president almost certainly intended to nominate someone who would lower interest rates according to preferences stated by the administration.

Critics of the nomination have argued that Warsh has a tendency to be more opportunistic with his policy views than Powell and other economists, who try to ignore political preferences.

As such, Warsh’s nomination encapsulates more than just a leadership transition. It highlights the ongoing tensions between political priorities and the traditional economic playbook, between short-term growth pressures and long-term stability, and between institutional independence and democratic accountability.

Time will tell whether he turns out to be hawkish or politically motivated as chair, if he is confirmed.

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. 3 things to know about Kevin Warsh, Trump’s nod for Fed chair – https://theconversation.com/3-things-to-know-about-kevin-warsh-trumps-nod-for-fed-chair-274781

January 30, 2026

Introducing our new Science & Technology editor

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kim Honey, CEO|Editor-in-Chief, The Conversation

The Conversation Canada is thrilled to announce Heather Walmsley, one of the
founding editors who helped us launch in 2017, is returning to the fold. She was instrumental in establishing The Conversation Canada as an independent source of news and views from the academic and research community. Over the next three years, she edited science, education and health articles and helped grow our news coverage, audience and university membership.

Heather will be our Science & Technology editor, and these two beats are a key part of our mission to share trusted academic knowledge with the public. She comes to The Conversation Canada from the University of Victoria, where she worked for the Office of the Vice President Research and Innovation, raising the profile of health research across campus. She has worked in journalism, research and knowledge mobilization for a variety of media outlets, non-profits and research institutions in the United Kingdom and Canada.

Heather has MA degrees in anthropology and postcolonial literature from the universities of Edinburgh and Sussex, a PhD in science and technology studies from Lancaster University and held a SSHRC Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship in medical sociology at the University of British Columbia.

Her editing expertise, ideas and deep understanding of our mandate will be a boon to the newsroom. As The Conversation Canada matures from a scrappy startup to a trusted non-profit news organization, Heather will be a great asset on the eve of our 10th birthday. We can’t wait until she starts on Feb. 23.

Welcome Heather!

– ref. Introducing our new Science & Technology editor – https://theconversation.com/introducing-our-new-science-and-technology-editor-274769

January 30, 2026

Animals might be sentient in the law’s eyes, but how they’re treated still varies hugely

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Angus Nurse, Professor of Law and Environmental Justice, Anglia Ruskin University

Caged hens will be a thing of the past. Puppy farming will be stopped. New laws will enforce humane slaughter standards. All this is part of a new animal welfare strategy for England announced by the government in December 2025.

The prospect of new animal welfare laws and better enforcement shows an intention to improve animal welfare standards and reduce animal suffering.

This follows the adoption into UK law in 2022 of the idea that animals are sentient beings. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act means that government has to check whether its policies consider and minimise any negative consequences for animal welfare. Other jurisdictions that have recognised animal sentience include the EU, New Zealand and parts of Canada and Australia.

But the wording of the law rarely means animal welfare should actually be prioritised. Instead, it means that animal welfare must be considered and properly taken into account. Where policy fails to do this it could be argued that there has been a failure in the decision-making process.

Ultimately, despite the legal recognition of sentience, the variety of welfare laws and policies highlights that how we treat animals still differs depending on their type and on how humans value or act around them.

The UK’s animal sentience committee, the official body that scrutinises the government’s animal welfare policy, recently identified some areas where policy falls short of properly considering animal welfare – for example, through inconsistent monitoring and enforcement of animal welfare standards. The committee also suggested there were “substantial” gaps in animal welfare enforcement.

Although animal sentience is recognised in law, animals are still treated as “things” in law and policy. While they have some protections, many people still consider them as our property. This is despite laws that create animal welfare standards and try to reduce animal harm by requiring the consideration of animal needs.

busy pig enclosure at farm, one pig looking up to camera — Pigs are often farmed in crowded conditions.
Mark Agnor/Shutterstock

When animals are viewed as food or needed to make products like milk or clothing, their sentience might not carry much weight. Clearly animals kept for meat will be killed but in this case, laws will usually require that slaughter is carried out “humanely” and that animals should suffer as little as possible before death.

Battery cages for poultry were banned in the UK in 2012, but “colony cages” (those that allow a larger number of hens to be kept in close proximity) are still allowed despite being considered by animal campaign groups and activists as cruel.

Some animals, such as crows or grey squirrels, are regarded as “pests” so that they can be killed or taken to protect human interests. Some controls are permitted as part of wildlife management to protect livestock or crops, for example and can be covered by what’s known as a general licence.

Specific animals can be killed or taken without a clear identification and justification of the necessity of management or control. The law also allows control of pests on your property – this can include using poisons as long as the law is followed.

Five freedoms

Wild animals tend to be treated differently to companion animals like dogs and cats, which get more protection than wildlife mainly because they depend on humans for food and shelter. The law gives these companions a type of rights by creating legal obligations, sometimes creating a duty of care towards them.

The UK’s Animal Welfare Act (2006) does more than just prevent animal cruelty. It creates a duty for people who own or care for companion animals to actively provide animal welfare.

These so-called “thin” rights are a limited form of rights that mean if you have a companion you must cater for the specific needs of your animals and ensure that the individual animal’s needs are met according to the “five freedoms”. These were developed in the 1960s following a major government report into the welfare of intensively farmed animals.

The five freedoms were then formally established by the Farm Animal Welfare Council – the independent body that has advised the UK government – as the basis of good animal welfare. These include freedom from hunger and thirst, discomfort, pain, disease and distress.

Thin rights are different to “thick” rights whereby the law protects all of an animal’s fundamental interests such as an absolute right to life – such as the right not to be killed for human clothing or to be killed to benefit human commercial interests. The thick approach would prevent most actions that would interfere with an animal’s rights.

A logical conclusion of applying thick rights would be an abolition of most if not all animal use, including the use of animals for food. The late animal rights lawyer Steven Wise argued that “without legal personhood, one is invisible to civil law. One has no civil rights. One might as well be dead”. A thick approach gives animals rights not to be treated as “things”.

Author George Orwell wrote in his 1945 book, Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” He might have meant it as satirical comment on the Soviet Union, but the limitations of legal sentience for animals means it can be applied in a more literal way today. If we truly believe that all sentient creatures deserve protecting, the world has a long way to go to put this into practice.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Angus Nurse has received research funding from animal welfare organisations including the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) the RSPCA and Humane World for Animals (formerly called Humane Society International). He is an independent member of the Wild Animal Welfare Committee (WAWC)

– ref. Animals might be sentient in the law’s eyes, but how they’re treated still varies hugely – https://theconversation.com/animals-might-be-sentient-in-the-laws-eyes-but-how-theyre-treated-still-varies-hugely-272579

January 30, 2026

Facial recognition technology used by police is now very accurate – but public understanding lags behind

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kay Ritchie, Associate Professor in Cognitive Psychology, University of Lincoln

New policing proposals include raising the number of live facial recognition vans in England and Wales from ten to 50. Mounir Taha/Shutterstock

The UK government’s proposed reforms to policing in England and Wales signal an increase in the use of facial recognition technology. The number of live facial recognition vans is set to rise from ten to 50, making them available to every police force in both countries.

The plan pledges £26 million for a national facial recognition system, and £11.6 million on live facial recognition technology. The announcement has come before the end of the government’s 12-week public consultation on police use of such technology.

The home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, claims facial recognition technology has “already led to 1,700 arrests in the Met [police force] alone – I think it’s got huge potential.”

We have been researching public attitudes to the use of this technology around the world since 2020. While accuracy levels are constantly evolving, we have found people’s awareness of this is not always up to date.

In the UK, the technology has so far been used by police in three main ways. All UK forces have the capability to use “retrospective” facial recognition for analysis of images captured from CCTV – for example, to identify suspects. Thirteen of the 43 forces also use live facial recognition in public spaces to locate wanted or missing individuals.

In addition, two forces (South Wales and Gwent) use “operator-initiated facial recognition” through a mobile app, enabling officers to take a photo when they stop someone and then compare their identity against a watchlist containing information about people of interest – either because they have committed a crime or are missing.

In countries such as China, facial recognition technology has been used more widely by the police – for example, by integrating it into realtime mass surveillance systems. In the UK, some private companies including high-street shops use facial recognition technology to identify repeat shoplifters, for example.

Despite this widespread use of the technology, our latest survey of public attitudes in England and Wales (yet to be peer reviewed) finds that only around 10% of people feel confident that they know a lot about how and when this technology is used. This is still a jump from our 2020 study, though, when many of our UK focus group participants said they thought the technology was just sci-fi – “something that only exists in the movies”.

A longstanding concern has been the issue of facial recognition being less accurate when used to identify non-white faces. However, our research and other tests suggest this is not the case with the systems now being used in the UK, US and some other countries.

How accurate is today’s technology?

It’s a common misconception that facial recognition technology captures and stores an image of your face. In fact, it creates a digital representation of the face in numbers. This representation is then compared with digital representations of known faces to determine the degree of similarity between them.

In recent years, we have seen a rapid improvement in the performance of facial recognition algorithms through the use of “deep convolutional neural networks” – artificial networks consisting of multiple layers, designed to mimic a human brain.

Surrey and Sussex police forces unveil new live facial recognition vans, November 2025. Video: Sussex Police.

There are two types of mistake a facial recognition algorithm can make: “false negatives”, where it doesn’t recognise a wanted person, and “false positives” where it incorrectly identifies the wrong person.

The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (Nist) runs the world’s gold standard evaluation of facial recognition algorithms. The 16 algorithms currently topping its leaderboard all show overall false negative rates of less than 1%, while false positives are held at 0.3%.

The UK’s National Physical Laboratory’s data shows the system being tested and used by UK police to search their databases returns the correct identity in 99% of cases. This accuracy level is achieved by balancing high true identification rates with low false positive rates.

While some people are uncomfortable with even small error rates, human observers have been found to make far more mistakes when doing the same kinds of tasks. Two of the standard tests of face matching ask people to compare two images side-by-side and decide whether they show the same person. One test recorded an error rate of up to 32.5%, and the other an error rate of 34%.

Historically, when testing the accuracy of facial recognition technology, bigger error rates have been found with non-white faces. In a 2018 study, for example, error rates for darker-skinned women were 40 times higher than for white men.

These earlier systems were trained on small numbers of images, mostly white male faces. Recent systems have been trained on much larger, deliberately balanced image sets. They are actively tested for demographic biases and are tuned to minimise errors.

Nist has published tests showing that although the leading algorithms still have slightly higher false positive rates for non-white faces compared with white faces, these error rates are below 0.5%.

How the public feel about this technology

According to our January 2026 survey of 1,001 people across England and Wales, almost 80% of people now feel “comfortable” with police using facial recognition technology to search for people on police watchlists.

However, only around 55% said they trust the police to use facial recognition responsibly. This compares with 79% and 63% when we asked the same questions to 1,107 people throughout the UK in 2020.

Both times, we asked to what extent people agree with police using facial recognition technology for different uses. Our results show the public remains particularly supportive of police use of facial recognition in criminal investigations (90% in 2020 and 89% in 2026), to search for missing persons (86% up to 89%), and for people who have committed a crime (90% down slightly to 89%).

There are lots of examples of facial recognition’s role in helping police to locate wanted and vulnerable people. But as facial recognition technology is more widely adopted, our research suggests the police and Home Office need to do more to make sure the public are informed about how it is – and isn’t – being used.

We also suggest the proposed new legal framework should apply to all users of facial recognition, not just the police. If not, public trust in the police’s use of this technology could be undermined by other users’ less responsible actions.

It is critical that the police are using up-to-date systems to guard against demographic biases. A more streamlined national police service, as laid out in the government’s latest white paper, could help ensure the same systems are being used everywhere – and that officers are being trained consistently in how to use these systems correctly and fairly.

– ref. Facial recognition technology used by police is now very accurate – but public understanding lags behind – https://theconversation.com/facial-recognition-technology-used-by-police-is-now-very-accurate-but-public-understanding-lags-behind-274652

January 30, 2026

ICE at the Winter Olympics and the reshaping of intelligence and security in Europe

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robert Dover, Professor of Intelligence and National Security & Dean of Faculty, University of Hull

A diplomatic row is brewing over US plans to involve agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in its security arrangements for the 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan.

The city’s mayor, Giuseppe Sala, described ICE as “a militia that kills,” adding that: “They’re not welcome in Milan.” While this specific deployment has created a strong political debate in Italy, it can be seen as an element in a wider recalibration of European security.

This is due to the perception that there is a widening gap in values and security practice between the US and Europe, with only the Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban remaining uncritical of the US administration.

The changes in cooperation can also be put down to the dwindling trust European powers have in the US as an ally. This is not without precedent. But it is notable that disruptions to intelligence are happening more often and more deeply under the two Trump presidencies, suggesting this is becoming the norm.

Many people in Italy are aware of the Trump administration’s use of ICE in an enforcement capacity in Minneapolis and other US cities. The recent shootings of two US citizens whose were protesting against ICE’s mission to identify, round up and deport people considered to be illegal immigrants in Minneapolis have exacerbated Italian unease.

Alessandro Zan, a politician representing Italy’s Democratic party, took to social media to register a strong objection. He posted on X: “In Italy, we do not want those who trample on human rights and act outside of any democratic control. It is unacceptable to think that an agency of this kind could have any role whatsoever in our country.”

Italy’s foreign minister, Antonio Tajani, has attempted to play matters down, saying, “It’s not like the SS are coming.” But the perception of ICE agents as poorly trained and tending towards violence has been compounded by an incident between agents and a news crew from the Italian state broadcaster RAI in Minneapolis on January 25. RAI footage showed agents armed and wearing bulletproof vests threatening to smash the journalists’ car window and pull them out of the vehicle.

Until the recent controversies in its domestic immigration enforcement role, the use of ICE abroad has been uncontroversial. Jason Houser, a former ICE chief of staff, told journalists that ICE is regularly deployed at events the US is involved with in other countries as part of coordinated security provision.

ICE, he said, will be “supporting the US Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service and host nation to vet and mitigate risks from transnational criminal organizations”. ICE will also be under the control of the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). But Elly Schlein, the leader of Italy’s Democratic party, expressed concern about hosting “an armed militia that is not respecting the law on American soil”, raising the prospect that ICE agents would not respect Italian law either.

Principled approach

Perceptions that US intelligence or law enforcement agencies sometimes push the boundaries of international law – or breach it altogether – have led to friction in the past. There was a definite chill between the US and its allies over the US rendition programme in the global “war on terror” in the early 2000s.

Suspects could be rendered (which is another way of describing, in effect, sanctioned kidnapping) and taken to prisons in third countries. In the case of British resident Binyam Mohamed (2004), his rendition and torture by US authorities, and the disclosure of evidence revealing this in a British court, resulted in the then US president, Barack Obama, restricting the flow of intelligence to the UK.

Rendition and torture were widely considered to be American failures to comply with international law. It resulted in the UK changing its intelligence sharing through what are known as the Fulford principles.

Named after Sir Adrian Fulford, the former investigatory powers commissioner who in 2010 published the UK’s official guidance for intelligence agencies detaining and interviewing detainees abroad, this stopped British officials providing intelligence that might lead to torture.

In 2020, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the UK government had acted unlawfully in sharing information with US authorities regarding El Shafee Elsheikh and Alexanda Kotey (two of the so-called “Isis Beatles” terror cell). The two men faced prosecution in a US court which could have resulted in them facing the death penalty. The decision meant that British intelligence and security agencies cannot share information that might lead to the death penalty. This strengthened the Fulford principles.

But even back-office intelligence roles have been disrupted in the recent past. After the bombing of Ariana Grande’s concert in Manchester in 2017, there were US administration leaks to the New York Times of forensic evidence and the identities of the perpetrators. The prime minister at the time, Theresa May, then cut the flow of UK intelligence to the US for 24 hours in response.

The UK has also restricted the flow of intelligence around Latin American drug movements to avoid potential breaches of international law as the US has sought to eliminate seaborne drug traffickers in the Caribbean.

Where now for intelligence sharing?

The deployment of a branch of ICE at the Winter Olympics has become controversial because of how Europeans perceive ICE’s domestic operations. It is also because Europeans are seeking ways to say no to Donald Trump and the manner in which his administration is projecting US power abroad.

Consequently ICE, as an agency seen as having close ties to the US president, has become an attractive option for this opposition and they will remain under close scrutiny.

This small but politically divisive issue is important because it tells us a lot about the current state of transatlantic security. The shared values that have shaped the world since the second world war are under considerable strain. The practice and conduct of the respective sides has increasingly been called into question.

Europe seems close to trying to work out how to do security without America. If so, that would be an era-defining change.

Robert Dover 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. ICE at the Winter Olympics and the reshaping of intelligence and security in Europe – https://theconversation.com/ice-at-the-winter-olympics-and-the-reshaping-of-intelligence-and-security-in-europe-274551

January 30, 2026

The type of job you do could be affecting your ability to save money – and not just because of the salary

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Karina Pavlisa, Lecturer in International Business Management, University of Bristol

Finances don’t figure much in the workday of an artist. DimaBerlin/Shutterstock

It’s often said that millions of people in the UK don’t save enough – with one in ten adults saving no money at all. That figure from a 2025 report from the Financial Conduct Authority regulator came with a warning that it’s leaving people walking a financial tightrope.

The UK household saving ratio (the proportion of income available but not spent) stood at 11.1% in 2024, below the EU average of around 14.5%. This gap shows the importance of encouraging a savings habit among the UK population.

Research shows that even modest savings buffers significantly improve financial resilience. A reserve of £2,000, for example, halves the risk of someone falling behind with bills in later years.

Gaps in income are often named as a key reason for not saving enough, alongside limited numeracy skills. But there are other dimensions that explain why some groups tend to save more than others.

Women, for example, are less likely to save than men. But this is just one part of the picture. My latest research suggests that people’s ability to navigate their finances stems partly from their professional background.

Workers in some professions are much more likely to save than others – and not necessarily because they earn more. Different professions encourage different competencies, habits and ways of thinking, as well as social influences. Financial confidence is a lifelong pursuit, yet my study found it comes more easily to people in some professions.

Who is more likely to save?

To understand these dynamics and test the differences between professions, I explored data from the Understanding Society survey, which explores social and economic change using data collected from around 40,000 UK households every year.

My study focused on more than 37,000 adults in the UK between 2009 and 2019. It adjusted the data to account for the effects of income and characteristics such as age and number of children, to examine how much (and how likely) people in various professions are to save.

Even with similar income increases, people working in business, finance and sales were 31 percentage points more likely to save every month than creative professionals and ten percentage points more likely than those in education.

Professions in business, finance and sales tend to encourage commercial acumen and confidence in handling financial decisions. And their workplaces are often guided by commercial logic, the need to save money, risk assessment, and more pronounced on-the-job learning about financial decision-making. This normalises discussions about money.

woman delivering a presentation to colleagues with charts and graphs on a screen behind her. — Financial acumen is built into some professions.
fizkes/Shutterstock

By contrast, creative professionals such as artists and writers, whose fields emphasise intrinsic motivation and creative fulfilment, are significantly less likely to save, even when their income increases.

Similar patterns appeared across managerial occupations. Corporate directors working in more finance-aligned environments were 40 percentage points more likely to save every month than managers in sectors such as retail, logistics and hospitality.

Of course, professional environments orientated towards finance draw on employees with relevant backgrounds. But finance-related conversations are also more common in these workplaces, and this can strengthen personal money-management capabilities.

We tend to think that saving is mainly down to an individual – their planning, numerical skills, confidence, and family background. Yet some careers build financial resilience more actively, while others do not. Professional environments in some ways represent the hidden structures that shape how people think about managing money. This creates a structural advantage (or disadvantage).

Differences in saving behaviour and ways of thinking about money translate into larger gaps in financial resilience. This is a subtle driver of financial inequality. Jobs quietly and subtly “teach” financial habits and norms, and workers should be aware that their professional circle may bias their financial habits.

One practical approach is to look beyond your own occupational circle, observing how friends in professions with stronger financial cultures talk about money – and adopting some of their planning strategies. If your role gives you little exposure to financial decision-making, you could seek out this knowledge by surrounding yourself with people who discuss finances. Using financial-literacy tools such as apps, podcasts or articles can also help to fill that gap.

Importantly, people tend to blame themselves for a lack of discipline and planning. My study shifts some of this blame on to other, broader conditions. It does not suggest that personal discipline is unimportant. But replacing self-blame with an awareness that your social and professional environments can be more or less supportive of financial resilience can build confidence and encourage positive steps forward.

This also has implications for employers, especially in workplaces or departments that are less orientated towards finance. For example, efforts to support employees’ financial resilience could include practical sessions with advisers who can teach money-management skills, talk through steps to strengthen financial resilience and discuss ways of short-term and long-term saving.

While this study illustrates the significance and size of disparities in saving habits, its findings could help to identify solutions. Universities, for example, are well placed to offer financial education. Similar to my findings about professions, students in some subjects (such as the arts, humanities, social sciences or health fields) may particularly benefit from workshops or modules to feel more confident about money matters.

Good savings habits are not only a matter of individual choice – social and structural factors also play a part in financial resilience and have implications for inequality. Initiatives aimed at improving financial wellbeing should recognise that when it comes to saving, it’s a very uneven playing field.

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

– ref. The type of job you do could be affecting your ability to save money – and not just because of the salary – https://theconversation.com/the-type-of-job-you-do-could-be-affecting-your-ability-to-save-money-and-not-just-because-of-the-salary-274694

January 30, 2026

Industry’s Faustian pact, a Welsh detective drama, and the return of Bridgerton – what to watch, read and listen to this week

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anna Walker, Senior Arts + Culture Editor, The Conversation

I don’t think my new year’s resolution – to take a lunch break every day – would much impress the cast of Industry. In the BBC show’s fourth series, the idea that work might pause politely at midday feels almost quaint, like a relic of a slower moral universe.

As our reviewer Peter Watt, who researches the philosophy of work culture, explains, when Industry first aired in 2020 it seemed ostensibly to be a drama about a recent cohort of ambitious young graduates entering the cut-throat world of investment banking. But as the opening season unfolded and its central characters were established, it became clear that although the trading floor of the fictional-but-all-so-familiar Pierpoint and Co. was its setting, this was not just a show about finance.

Now returning for season four, the show is exposing the Faustian pact of modern work culture. For the Industry cast (and so many of us in the real world) life no longer interrupts work – work is life.

Industry season four is streaming on BBC iplayer

Off-beat mysteries

A grizzled former detective reunites with their former partner to solve a case uncomfortably close to the one that got them kicked off the force. On paper, it’s familiar detective territory. But the new Sky Arts drama Under Salt Marsh quickly subverts expectations.

Jackie Ellis (Kelly Reilly) isn’t a chain-smoking, jaded old hand, but a middle-aged woman driven by the search for her missing niece. Her former partner Eric Bull (Rafe Spall) is no rigid rule-follower either: he’s a queer man with an encyclopaedic grasp of local flora and fauna. And he’s happy to investigate using all his senses, tasting ditchwater and chewing samphire.

Set against the rugged north-Welsh coast, our reviewer calls it “an excellent, environmentally engaged detective drama”.

Under Salt Marsh is streaming on Sky Arts

The trailer for Under Salts Marsh.

Mysteries of a more esoteric nature abound in Glyph, the new novel from Ali Smith with the same – yet different – title as her last novel, Gliff. While not obviously connected through either characters or subject matter, the characters of Glyph have read the novel Gliff, and discuss it.

While I don’t profess to always understand her novels, I love reading Smith. She’s one of the most experimental mainstream writers working in the UK, and I always find myself thinking about her work months – and in some cases even years – after turning the last page.

Bonnet season

Mark your calendars and don your best bonnet – Bridgerton is back. This season the focus is on bohemian second son Benedict who loves his freedom and is loath to settle down. For every person lapping up the drama, however, there’s another (usually very vocal) cynic.

Period drama expert Shelley Galpin explains why it’s a mistake to dismiss Bridgerton as fluffy period drama. To her mind, the show represents a complex interplay of the real – whether historical moments or relatable issues – with the fantastical, in its deliberately heightened aesthetics and swoonworthy romantic resolutions.

Bridgerton is streaming on Netflix

Bridgerton season four trailer.

For episode seven of Jane Austen’s Paper Trail, we’re doing something a little different. Rather than putting Austen under the microscope ourselves, we’re handing the questions over to you. We’ve received a virtual sack full of letters from you, ranging from questions about Austen’s religious beliefs to her grasp of contemporary science, and even what she might have made of social media.

Unlike Jane’s sister Cassandra Austen, however, we have no intention of throwing your letters into the flames. Instead, three experts join me to debate them – and, where possible, to settle them.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

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

– ref. Industry’s Faustian pact, a Welsh detective drama, and the return of Bridgerton – what to watch, read and listen to this week – https://theconversation.com/industrys-faustian-pact-a-welsh-detective-drama-and-the-return-of-bridgerton-what-to-watch-read-and-listen-to-this-week-274668