Suffering in Gaza reaches ‘new depths’ – Australia condemns ‘inhumane killing’ of Palestinians

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amra Lee, PhD candidate in Protection of Civilians, Australian National University

Australia has joined 28 international partners in calling for an immediate end to the war in Gaza and a lifting of all restrictions on food and medical supplies.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong, along with counterparts from countries including the United Kingdom, France and Canada, has signed a joint statement demanding Israel complies with its obligations under international humanitarian law.

The statement condemns Israel for what it calls “the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians” seeking “their most basic need” of water and food, saying:

The suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths. The Israeli government’s aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity […] It is horrifying that over 800 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid.

Weapon of war

Gazans, including malnourished mothers denied baby formula, face impossible choices as Israel intensifies its use of starvation as a weapon of war.

In Gaza, survival requires negotiating what the United Nations calls aid “death traps”.

According to the UN, 875 Gazans have been killed – many of them shot – while seeking food since the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation began operating in late May. Another 4,000 have been injured.

More than 170 humanitarian groups have called for the food hubs to be shut down.

Gaza has been described as the “hungriest place on Earth”, with aid trucks being held at the border and the United States destroying around 500 tonnes of emergency food because it was just out of date.

More than two million people are at critical risk of famine. The World Food Programme estimates 90,000 women and children require urgent treatment for malnutrition.

Nineteen Palestinians have starved to death in recent days, according to local health authorities.

We can’t say we didn’t know

After the breakdown of the January ceasefire, Israel implemented a humanitarian blockade on the Gaza Strip. Following mounting international pressure, limited aid was permitted and the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation began operations.

As anticipated, only a fraction of the aid has been distributed.

About 1,600 trucks entered Gaza between May 19 and July 14, well below the 630 trucks needed every day to feed the population.

Israeli ministers have publicly called for food and fuel reserves to be bombed to starve the Palestinian people – a clear war crime – to pressure Hamas to release Israeli hostages.

Famine expert Alex De Waal says Israel’s starvation strategy constitutes a dangerous weakening of international law. It also disrupts norms aimed at preventing hunger being used as a weapon of war:

operations like the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation are a big crack in these principles [that is] not going to save Gaza from mass starvation.

Palestinian organisations were the first to raise the alarm over Israel’s plans to impose controls over aid distribution.

UN Relief Chief Tom Fletcher briefed the UN Security Council in May, warning of the world’s collective failure to call out the scale of violations of international law as they were being committed:

Israel is deliberately and unashamedly imposing inhumane conditions on civilians in the occupied Palestinian territory.

Tom Fletcher briefing the United Nations on the ‘atrocity’ being committed in Gaza.

Since then, clear and unequivocal warnings of the compounding risks of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing have intensified from the UN, member states and international law experts.

Weaponising aid

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation claims it has handed out millions of meals since it began operating in the strip in May. But the UN has called the distribution model “inherently unsafe”.

Near-daily shootings have occurred since the militarised aid hubs began operating. Malnourished Palestinians risking death to feed their families are trekking long distances to reach the small number of distribution sites.

While the foundation denies people are being shot, the UN has called the aid delivery mechanism a “deliberate attempt to weaponise aid” that fails to comply with humanitarian principles and risks further war crimes.

Jewish Physicians for Human Rights has rejected the aid’s “humanitarian” characterisation, stating it “is what systematic harm to human beings looks like”.

Human rights and legal organisations are calling for all involved to be held accountable for complicity in war crimes that “exposes all those who enable or profit from it to real risk of prosecution”.

Mounting world action

Today’s joint statement follows growing anger and frustration in Western countries over the lack of political pressure on Israel to end the suffering in Gaza.

Polling in May showed more than 80% of Australians opposed Israel’s denial of aid as unjustifiable and wanted to see Australia doing more to support civilians in Gaza.

Last week’s meeting of the Hague Group of nations shows more collective concrete action is being taken to exert pressure and uphold international law.

Th 12 member states agreed to a range of diplomatic, legal and economic measures, including a ban on ships transporting arms to Israel.

The time for humanity is now

States will continue to face increased international and domestic pressure to take stronger action to influence Israel’s conduct as more Gazans are killed, injured and stripped of their dignity in an engineered famine.

This moment in Gaza is unprecedented in terms of our knowledge of the scale and gravity of violations being perpetrated and what failing to act means for Palestinians and our shared humanity.

Now is the time to exert diplomatic, legal and economic pressure on Israel to change course.

History tells us we need to act now – international law and our collective moral conscience requires it.

The Conversation

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

ref. Suffering in Gaza reaches ‘new depths’ – Australia condemns ‘inhumane killing’ of Palestinians – https://theconversation.com/suffering-in-gaza-reaches-new-depths-australia-condemns-inhumane-killing-of-palestinians-261547

New study peers beneath the skin of iconic lizards to find ‘chainmail’ bone plates – and lots of them

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Roy Ebel, PhD Candidate in Evolutionary Biology, Museums Victoria Research Institute

Radiodensity heatmap of emerald tree monitors. Roy Ebel

Monitor lizards, also known in Australia as goannas, are some of the most iconic reptiles on the continent. Their lineage not only survived the mass extinction that ended the reign of non-avian dinosaurs, but also gave rise to the largest living lizards on Earth.

Today, these formidable creatures pace through forests and scrublands, flicking their tongues as they go.

A new study published in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society looks beneath their skin. For the first time, it reveals hidden bone structures that may hold the key to the evolutionary success of goannas in Australia.

An essential organ

The skin is an organ essential for survival. In some animals, it includes a layer of bone plates embedded among the skin tissue. Think of the armour-like plates in crocodiles or armadillos: these are osteoderms.

Their size ranges from microscopic to massive, with the back plates of the stegosaurus as the most impressive example.

A mounted stegosaurus skeleton at the Natural History Museum, London.
Jeremy Knight/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

We have only just started to understand these enigmatic structures. Osteoderms can be found in animal lineages that diverged up to 380 million years ago. This means these bone plates would have evolved independently, just like active flight did in birds, pterosaurs and bats.

But what is their purpose? While the advantage of flight is undisputed, the case is not as clear for osteoderms.

The most obvious potential would be for defence – protecting the animal from injuries. However, osteoderms may serve a far broader purpose.

In crocodiles, for example, they help with heat regulation, play a part in movement, and even supply calcium during egg-laying. It is the interplay of these poorly understood functions that has long made it difficult to pinpoint how and why osteoderms evolved.

A yellow and spotted lizard on a sandy plain looking proud with vibrant blue skies above it.
Sand monitors, also known as sand goannas, are widespread through most of Australia.
Ken Griffiths/Shutterstock

A cutting-edge technique

To help resolve this enigma, we had to go back to the beginning.

Surprisingly, to date science has not even agreed on which species have osteoderms. Therefore, we assembled an international team of specialists to carry out the first large-scale study of osteoderms in lizards and snakes.

We studied specimens from scientific collections at institutions such as the Florida Museum of Natural History, the Natural History Museum in Berlin, and Museums Victoria.

However, we soon learnt that this came with challenges. Firstly, the presence of osteoderms can vary dramatically between individuals of the same species. Secondly, there is no guarantee that osteoderms are sufficiently preserved in all specimens.

Most importantly, they are buried deep within skin tissue and invisible to the naked eye. Traditionally, finding them meant destroying the specimen.

Instead, we turned to micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), an imaging technique similar to a medical CT scan, but with much higher resolution. This allowed us to study even the tiniest anatomical structures while keeping our specimens intact.

A highly detailed rendering of the bony parts of the head of a lizard-like creature.
Micro-CT-based, computer-generated 3D model of Rosenberg’s goanna (Varanus rosenbergi), with the left half showing osteoderms and endoskeleton.
Roy Ebel

Using computer-generated 3D models, we then digitally explored the bodies of lizards and snakes from all parts of the world. Incorporating data from prior literature, we processed almost 2,000 such samples in our search for osteoderms.

To illustrate our results, we devised a technique called radiodensity heatmapping, which visually highlights the locations of bone structures in the body.

For the first time, we now have a comprehensive catalogue showing where to find osteoderms in a large and diverse group; this will inform future studies.

X-ray type image of a lizard with its bones clearly visible in rainbow colours.
Radiodensity heatmapping shows newly discovered osteoderms (yellow to red) in the limbs and tail of the Mexican knob scaled lizard (Xenosaurus platyceps).
Roy Ebel

Not just anatomical curiosity

What we found was unexpected. It was thought only a small number of lizard families had osteoderms. However, we encountered them nearly twice as often as anticipated.

In fact, our results show nearly half of all lizards have osteoderms in one form or another.

Our most astonishing finding concerned goannas. Scientists have been studying monitor lizards for more than 200 years. They were long thought to lack osteoderms, except in rare cases such as the Komodo dragon.

So we were all the more surprised when we discovered previously undocumented osteoderms in 29 Australo-Papuan species, increasing their overall known prevalence five times.

Collage of several 3D models with bones in yellow and scatterings of fine bone flakes under their skin in magenta.
Examples of newly discovered osteoderms (magenta) in Australo-Papuan monitor lizards.
Roy Ebel

This isn’t just an anatomical curiosity. Now that we know Australian goannas have osteoderms, it opens up an exciting new avenue for further studies. This is because goannas have an interesting biogeographic history: when they first arrived in Australia about 20 million years ago, they had to adapt to a new, harsh environment.

If osteoderms in goannas showed up around this time – possibly owing to new challenges from their environment – we’d gain crucial insights into the function and evolution of these enigmatic bone structures.

Not only may we just have found the key to an untold chapter in the goanna story, our findings may also improve our understanding of the forces of evolution that shaped Australia’s unique reptiles as we know them today.

The Conversation

Roy Ebel receives funding from the Australian Government’s Research Training Program.

ref. New study peers beneath the skin of iconic lizards to find ‘chainmail’ bone plates – and lots of them – https://theconversation.com/new-study-peers-beneath-the-skin-of-iconic-lizards-to-find-chainmail-bone-plates-and-lots-of-them-260700

Could Rupert Murdoch bring down Donald Trump? A court case threatens more than just their relationship

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Andrew Dodd, Professor of Journalism, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

If Rupert Murdoch becomes a white knight standing up to a rampantly bullying US president, the world has moved into the upside-down.

This is, after all, the media mogul whose US television network, Fox News, actively supported Donald Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 presidential election result and paid out a US$787 million (about A$1.2 billion) lawsuit for doing so.

It is also the network that supplied several members of Trump’s inner circle, including former Fox host, now controversial Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth.

But that is where we are after Trump filed a writ on July 18 after Murdoch’s financial newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, published an article about a hand-drawn card Trump is alleged to have sent to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. The newspaper reported:

A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.

The Journal said it has seen the letter but did not republish it. The letter allegedly concluded:

Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.

The card was apparently Trump’s contribution to a birthday album compiled for Epstein by the latter’s partner Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence after being found guilty of sex trafficking in 2021.

Trump was furious. He told his Truth Social audience he had warned Murdoch the letter was fake. He wrote, “Mr Murdoch stated that he would take care of it but obviously did not have the power to do so,” referring to Murdoch handing leadership of News Corporation to his eldest son Lachlan in 2023.




Read more:
How Rupert Murdoch helped create a monster – the era of Trumpism – and then lost control of it


Trump is being pincered. On one side, The Wall Street Journal is a respected newspaper that speaks to literate, wealthy Americans who remain deeply sceptical about Trump’s radical initiative on tariffs, which it described in an editorial as “the dumbest trade war in history”.

On the other side is the conspiracy theory-thirsty MAGA base who have been told for years that there was a massive conspiracy around Epstein’s apparent suicide in 2019 that included the so-called deep state, Democrat elites and, no doubt, the Clintons.

Trump, who loves pro wrestling as well as adopting its garish theatrics, might characterise his lawsuit against Murdoch as a smackdown to rival Hulk Hogan vs Andre the Giant in the 1980s.

To adopt wrestling argot, though, it is a rare battle between two heels.

A friendship of powerful convenience

Murdoch and Trump’s relationship is longstanding but convoluted. The key to understanding it is that both men are ruthlessly transactional.

Exposure in Murdoch’s New York Post in the 1980s and ‘90s was crucial to building Trump’s reputation.

Not that Murdoch particularly likes Trump. Yes, Murdoch attended his second inauguration, albeit in a back row behind the newly favoured big tech media moguls. He was also seen sitting in the Oval Office a few days later looking quite at home.

But this was pure power-display politics, not the behaviour of a friend.

A wide shot of the Oval Office with Donald Trump at his desk and Rupert Murdoch in the corner
Murdoch joined Trump in the Oval Office in February 2025.
Anna Moneymaker/Getty

Remember Murdoch’s derision on hearing Trump was considering standing for office before the 2016 election, and his promotion of Ron De Santis in the primaries before Trump’s second term. Murdoch’s political hero has always been Ronald Reagan. Trump has laid waste to the Republican Party of Reagan.

Murdoch knows what the rest of sane America knows: Trump is downright weird, if not dangerous. This, of course, only makes Murdoch’s complicity in Trump’s rise to power, and Fox News’ continued boosterism of Trump, all the more appalling.

But, in keeping with Murdoch’s relationship to power throughout his career, what he helps make, he also helps destroy. Perhaps now it’s Trump’s turn to be unmade. As a former Murdoch lieutenant told The Financial Times over the weekend:

he’s testing out: Is Trump losing his base? And where do I need to be to stay in the heart of the base?

And here is Murdoch’s great advantage, and his looming threat.

A double-edged sword

The advantage comes with the scope of Murdoch’s media empire, which operates like a federation of different mastheads, each with their own market and aspirations. While Fox News panders to the MAGA base, and The New York Post juices its New York audience, The Wall Street Journal speaks, and listens, to business. Each audience has different needs, meaning they’re often presented with the same news in very different ways, or sometimes different news entirely.

Like a federation, though, News Corp uses its various operations to drive the type of change that affects all its markets.

It might work like this. The Wall Street Journal breaks a story that’s so shocking it begins to chip away at MAGA’s unquestioning loyalty of Trump. This process is, of course, willingly aided by the rest of the media. The resulting groundswell eventually allows Fox News and the Post to tentatively follow their audiences into questioning, and then perhaps criticising, Trump.

A crowd gathers in front of the Fox News building to watch a broadcast of Donald Trump.
Fox News audiences could slowly begin to question Trump, or abandon the network entirely.
NurPhoto/Getty

The threat is that before that groundswell builds, Murdoch is seriously vulnerable to criticism from a still dominant Trump, who can turn conspiracy-prone audiences away from Fox News with just a social media post. Trump has already been busy doing just that, saying he is looking forward to getting Murdoch onto the witness stand for his lawsuit.

If the Fox audience decides it’s the proprietor who’s behind this denigration of Trump, they may decide to boycott their own favoured media channel, even though Fox’s programming hasn’t yet started questioning Trump.

The Murdochs’ fear of audience backlash was a major factor in Fox’s promulgation of the Big Lie after Trump’s defeat in 2020. The fear their audience might defect to Newsmax or some other right-wing media outfit is just as real today.

History littered with fakery

We also need to consider that Trump might be right. What if the letter is a fake?

Murdoch has form when it comes to high-profile exposés that turn out to be fiction. Who can forget the Hitler Diaries in 1983, which we now know Murdoch knew were fake before he published.

Think also of the Pauline Hanson photos, allegedly of her posing in lingerie, all of which were quickly proved to be fake after they were published by Murdoch’s Australian tabloids in 2009.

There was also The Sun’s despicable and wilfully wrong campaign against Elton John in 1987 and the same paper’s continued denigration of the people of Liverpool following the Hillsborough stadium disaster in 1989.

But while Murdoch’s News Corp has a history of confection and fakery, the Wall Street Journal has a reputation for straight reportage, albeit through a conservative lens. Since Murdoch bought it in 2007, it has been engaged in its own internal battle for editorial standards.

Media rolling over

What Trump won’t get from Murdoch is the same acquiescence he’s enjoyed from America’s ABC and CBS networks, which have both handed over tens of millions of dollars in defamation settlements following dubious claims by Trump about the nature of their coverage.




Read more:
ABC’s and CBS’s settlements with Trump are a dangerous step toward the commander in chief becoming the editor-in-chief


In December 2024, ABC’s owner Disney settled and agreed to pay US$15 million (A$23 million) to Trump’s presidential library. The president sued after a presenter said Trump was found guilty of raping E. Jean Carroll.

Trump had actually been found guilty by a jury in a civil trial of sexually abusing and defaming Carroll and was ordered to pay her US$5 million (A$7.6 million).

CBS’ parent company, Paramount, did similarly after being sued by the president, agreeing in early July to settle and pay US$16 million (A$24.5 million) to Trump’s library. This was despite earlier saying the case was “completely without merit”.

Beware the legal microscope

From Trump’s viewpoint, two prominent media companies have been cowed. But his campaign against critical media doesn’t stop there.

Last week, congress passed a bill cancelling federal funding for the country’s two public-service media outlets, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).

Also last week, CBS announced the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s stridently critical comedy show, although CBS claims this is just a cost-cutting exercise and not about appeasing a bully in the White House.

Presuming the reported birthday letter is real, Murdoch will not bend so easily. And that’s when it will be important to pay attention, because at some point Trump’s lawyers will advise him about the dangers of depositions and discovery: the legal processes that force parties to a dispute to reveal what they have and what they know.

If the Epstein files do implicate Trump, the legal fight won’t last long and the media campaign against him will only intensify.

Right now we have the spectre of Murdoch joining that other disaffected mogul, Elon Musk, in a moral crusade against Trump, the man they both helped make. The implications are head-spinning.

As global bullies, the three of them probably deserve each other. But we, the public, surely deserve better than any of them.

The Conversation

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. Could Rupert Murdoch bring down Donald Trump? A court case threatens more than just their relationship – https://theconversation.com/could-rupert-murdoch-bring-down-donald-trump-a-court-case-threatens-more-than-just-their-relationship-261532

Emil Bove’s appeals court nomination echoes earlier controversies, but with a key difference

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul M. Collins Jr., Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass Amherst

Emil Bove, Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as a federal appeals judge for the 3rd Circuit, is sworn in during a confirmation hearing in Washington, D.C., on June 25, 2025. Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc, via Getty Images

President Donald Trump’s nomination of his former criminal defense attorney, Emil Bove, to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, has been mired in controversy.

On June 24, 2025, Erez Reuveni, a former Department of Justice attorney who worked with Bove, released an extensive, 27-page whistleblower report. Reuveni claimed that Bove, as the Trump administration’s acting deputy attorney general, said “that it might become necessary to tell a court ‘fuck you’” and ignore court orders related to the administration’s immigration policies. Bove’s acting role ended on March 6 when he resumed his current position of principal associate deputy attorney general.

When asked about this statement at his June 25 Senate confirmation hearing, Bove said, “I don’t recall.”

And on July 15, 80 former federal and state judges signed a letter opposing Bove’s nomination. The letter argued that “Mr. Bove’s egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position.”

A day later, more than 900 former Department of Justice attorneys submitted their own letter opposing Bove’s confirmation. The attorneys argued that “Few actions could undermine the rule of law more than a senior executive branch official flouting another branch’s authority. But that is exactly what Mr. Bove allegedly did through his involvement in DOJ’s defiance of court orders.”

On July 17, Democrats walked out of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote, in protest of the refusal by Chairman Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, to allow further investigation and debate on the nomination. Republicans on the committee then unanimously voted to move the nomination forward for a full Senate vote.

As a scholar of the courts, I know that most federal court appointments are not as controversial as Bove’s nomination. But highly contentious nominations do arise from time to time.

Here’s how three controversial nominations turned out – and how Bove’s nomination is different in a crucial way.

A man smiles and looks toward a microphone with people sitting behind him. All of them are dressed formally.
Robert Bork testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation as associate justice of the Supreme Court in September 1987.
Mark Reinstein/Corbis via Getty Images

Robert Bork

Bork is the only federal court nominee whose name became a verb.

“Borking” is “to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification,” according to Merriam-Webster.

This refers to Republican President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 appointment of Bork to the Supreme Court.

Reagan called Bork “one of the finest judges in America’s history.” Democrats viewed Bork, a federal appeals court judge, as an ideologically extreme conservative, with their opposition based largely on his extensive scholarly work and opinions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In opposing the Bork nomination, Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts took the Senate floor and gave a fiery speech: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

Ultimately, Bork’s nomination failed by a 58-42 vote in the Senate, with 52 Democrats and six Republicans rejecting the nomination.

Ronnie White

In 1997, Democratic President Bill Clinton nominated White to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. White was the first Black judge on the Missouri Supreme Court.

Republican Sen. John Ashcroft, from White’s home state of Missouri, led the fight against the nomination. Ashcroft alleged that White’s confirmation would “push the law in a pro-criminal direction.” Ashcroft based this claim on White’s comparatively liberal record in death penalty cases as a judge on the Missouri Supreme Court.

However, there was limited evidence to support this assertion. This led some to believe that Ashcroft’s attack on the nomination was motivated by stereotypes that African Americans, like White, are soft on crime.

Even Clinton implied that race may be a factor in the attacks on White: “By voting down the first African-American judge to serve on the Missouri Supreme Court, the Republicans have deprived both the judiciary and the people of Missouri of an excellent, fair, and impartial Federal judge.”

White’s nomination was defeated in the Senate by a 54-45 party-line vote. In 2014, White was renominated to the same judgeship by President Barack Obama and confirmed by largely party-line 53-44 vote, garnering the support of a single Republican, Susan Collins of Maine.

A man with brown skin and a black suit places a hand on a leather chair and stands alongside people dressed formally.
Ronnie White, a former justice for the Missouri Supreme Court, testifies during an attorney general confirmation hearing in Washington in January 2001.
Alex Wong/Newsmakers

Miguel Estrada

Republican President George W. Bush nominated Estrada to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2001.

Estrada, who had earned a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, faced deep opposition from Senate Democrats, who believed he was a conservative ideologue. They also worried that, if confirmed, he would later be appointed to the Supreme Court.

A dark-haired man in a suit, standing while swearing an oath.
Miguel Estrada, President George Bush’s nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, is sworn in during his hearing before Senate Judiciary on Sept. 26, 2002.
Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images

However, unlike Bork – who had an extensive paper trail as an academic and judge – Estrada’s written record was very thin.

Democrats sought to use his confirmation hearing to probe his beliefs. But they didn’t get very far, as Estrada dodged many of the senators’ questions, including ones about Supreme Court cases he disagreed with and judges he admired.

Democrats were particularly troubled by allegations that Estrada, when he was screening candidates for Justice Anthony Kennedy, disqualified applicants for Supreme Court clerkships based on their ideology.

According to one attorney: “Miguel told me his job was to prevent liberal clerks from being hired. He told me he was screening out liberals because a liberal clerk had influenced Justice Kennedy to side with the majority and write a pro-gay-rights decision in a case known as Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado statute that discriminated against gays and lesbians.”

When asked about this at his confirmation hearing, Estrada initially denied it but later backpedaled. Estrada said, “There is a set of circumstances in which I would consider ideology if I think that the person has some extreme view that he would not be willing to set aside in service to Justice Kennedy.”

Unlike the Bork nomination, Democrats didn’t have the numbers to vote Estrada’s nomination down. Instead, they successfully filibustered the nomination, knowing that Republicans couldn’t muster the required 60 votes to end the filibuster. This marked the first time in Senate history that a court of appeals nomination was filibustered. Estrada would never serve as a judge.

Bove stands out

As the examples of Bork, Estrada and White make clear, contentious nominations to the federal courts often involve ideological concerns.

This is also true for Bove, who is opposed in part because of the perception that he is a conservative ideologue.

But the main concerns about Bove are related to a belief that he is a Trump loyalist who shows little respect for the rule of law or the judicial branch.

This makes Bove stand out among contentious federal court nominations.

The Conversation

Paul M. Collins Jr. 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. Emil Bove’s appeals court nomination echoes earlier controversies, but with a key difference – https://theconversation.com/emil-boves-appeals-court-nomination-echoes-earlier-controversies-but-with-a-key-difference-261347

PBS and NPR are generally unbiased, independent of government propaganda and provide key benefits to US democracy

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs, Boise State University

Congress’ cuts to public broadcasting will diminish the range and volume of the free press and the independent reporting it provides. MicroStockHub-iStock/Getty Images Plus

Champions of the almost entirely party-line vote in the U.S. Senate to erase US$1.1 billion in already approved funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting called their action a refusal to subsidize liberal media.

“Public broadcasting has long been overtaken by partisan activists,” said U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, insisting there is no need for government to fund what he regards as biased media. “If you want to watch the left-wing propaganda, turn on MSNBC,” Cruz said.

Accusing the media of liberal bias has been a consistent conservative complaint since the civil rights era, when white Southerners insisted news outlets were slanting their stories against segregation. During his presidential campaign in 1964, U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona complained that the media was against him, an accusation that has been repeated by every Republican presidential candidate since.

But those charges of bias rarely survive empirical scrutiny.

As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on journalism that is independent of both market pressure and partisan talking points.

That independence in the United States – enshrined in the press freedom clause of the First Amendment – gives journalists the ability to hold government accountable, expose abuses of power and thereby support democracy.

A gray-haired man with a beard and wearing a blue jacket and tie, talks in a large room.
GOP Sen. Ted Cruz speaks to reporters as Senate Republicans vote on President Donald Trump’s request to cancel about $9 billion in foreign aid and public broadcasting spending on July 16, 2025.
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Trusting independence

Ad Fontes Media, a self-described “public benefit company” whose mission is to rate media for credibility and bias, have placed the reporting of “PBS NewsHour” under 10 points left of the ideological center. They label it as both “reliable” and based in “analysis/fact.” “Fox and Friends,” by contrast, the popular morning show on Fox News, is nearly 20 points to the right. The scale starts at zero and runs 42 points to the left to measure progressive bias and 42 points to the right to measure conservative bias. Ratings are provided by three-person panels comprising left-, right- and center-leaning reviewers.

A 2020 peer-reviewed study in Science Advances that tracked more than 6,000 political reporters likewise found “no evidence of liberal media bias” in the stories they chose to cover, even though most journalists are more left-leaning than the rest of the population.

A similar 2016 study published in Public Opinion Quarterly said that media are more similar than dissimilar and, excepting political scandals, “major
news organizations present topics in a largely nonpartisan manner,
casting neither Democrats nor Republicans in a particularly favorable
or unfavorable light
.”

Surveys show public media’s audiences do not see it as biased. A national poll of likely voters released July 14, 2025, found that 53% of respondents trust public media to report news “fully, accurately and fairly,” while only 35% extend that trust to “the media in general.” A majority also opposed eliminating federal support.

Contrast these numbers with attitudes about public broadcasters such as MTVA in Hungary or the TVP in Poland, where the state controls most content. Protests in Budapest October 2024 drew thousands demanding an end to “propaganda.” Oxford’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism reports that TVP is the least trusted news outlet in the country.

While critics sometimes conflate American public broadcasting with state-run outlets, the structures are very different.

Safeguards for editorial freedom

In state-run media systems, a government agency hires editors, dictates coverage and provides full funding from the treasury. Public officials determine – or make up – what is newsworthy. Individual media operations survive only so long as the party in power is happy.

Public broadcasting in the U.S. works in almost exactly the opposite way: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a private nonprofit with a statutory “firewall” that forbids political interference.

More than 70% of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s federal appropriation for 2025 of US$1.1 billion flows through to roughly 1,500 independently governed local stations, most of which are NPR or PBS affiliates but some of which are unaffiliated community broadcasters. CPB headquarters retains only about 5% of that federal funding.

Stations survive by combining this modest federal grant money with listener donations, underwriting and foundation support. That creates a diversified revenue mix that further safeguards their editorial freedom.

And while stations share content, each also has latitude when it comes to programming and news coverage, especially at the local level.

As a public-private partnership, individual communities mostly own the public broadcasting system and its affiliate stations. Congress allocates funds, while community nonprofits, university boards, state authorities or other local license holders actually own and run the stations. Individual monthly donors are often called “members” and sometimes have voting rights in station-governance matters. Membership contributions make up the largest share of revenue for most stations, providing another safeguard for editorial independence.

Two people inside a radio studio, sitting at a long table-desk combination.
A host and guest in July 2024 sit inside a recording studio at KMXT, the public radio station on Kodiak Island in Alaska.
Nathaniel Herz/Northern Journal

Broadly shared civic commons

And then there are public media’s critical benefits to democracy itself.

A 2021 report from the European Broadcasting Union links public broadcasting with higher voter turnout, better factual knowledge and lower susceptibility to extremist rhetoric.

Experts warn that even small cuts will exacerbate an already pernicious problem with political disinformation in the U.S., as citizens lose access to free information that fosters media literacy and encourages trust across demographics.

In many ways, public media remains the last broadly shared civic commons. It is both commercial-free and independently edited.

Another study, by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School in 2022, affirmed that “countries with independent and well-funded public broadcasting systems also consistently have stronger democracies.”

The study highlighted how public media works to bridge divides and foster understanding across polarized groups. Unlike commercial media, where the profit motive often creates incentives to emphasize conflict and sensationalism, public media generally seeks to provide balanced perspectives that encourage dialogue and mutual respect. Reports are often longer and more in-depth than those by other news outlets.

Such attention to nuance provides a critical counterweight to the fragmented, often hyperpartisan news bubbles that pervade cable news and social media. And this skillful, more balanced treatment helps to ameliorate political polarization and misinformation.

In all, public media’s unique structure and mission make democracy healthier in the U.S. and across the world. Public media prioritizes education and civic enlightenment. It gives citizens important tools for navigating complex issues to make informed decisions – whether those decisions are about whom to vote for or about public policy itself. Maintaining and strengthening public broadcasting preserves media diversity and advances important principles of self-government.

Congress’ cuts to public broadcasting will diminish the range and volume of the free press and the independent reporting it provides. Ronald Reagan once described a free press as vital for the United States to succeed in its “noble experiment in self-government.” From that perspective, more independent reporting – not less – will prove the best remedy for any worry about partisan spin.

The Conversation

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

ref. PBS and NPR are generally unbiased, independent of government propaganda and provide key benefits to US democracy – https://theconversation.com/pbs-and-npr-are-generally-unbiased-independent-of-government-propaganda-and-provide-key-benefits-to-us-democracy-261512

As Canada’s economy faces serious challenges, the Indigenous economy offers solutions

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Mylon Ollila, PhD Candidate in Indigenous Economic Policy, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue (UQAT)

Canada faces economic headwinds due to geopolitical change, including a trade war with its closest economic partner, the United States.

Canada’s policymakers are searching for new, sustainable sources of economic strength. One such source is already here and is being overlooked: the emerging Indigenous economy. It has the potential to boost Canada’s economy by more than $60 billion a year.

But Indigenous Peoples are still largely seen as an economic liability to manage instead of an opportunity for growth. It is time for a mindset shift. For it to happen, the federal government should remove unfair economic barriers and invest in closing the employment and income gap.

Canada’s future depends on Indigenous Peoples

Economic growth is projected to decline over the coming years for developed nations, with Canada expected to have the lowest GDP of the 38 OECD countries by 2060. As growth stalls, living standards will decline and governments will face increased fiscal pressure.

Compounding this challenge is Canada’s aging labour force. The number of people aged 65 and over is growing six times faster than the number of children aged 14 and under — those who will be entering the job market in the coming years. This demographic shift places additional pressure on pensions, the health-care system and the economy.




Read more:
Enabling better aging: The 4 things seniors need, and the 4 things that need to change


But these gloomy projections often overlook one of Canada’s comparative advantages: a young Indigenous population, growing at a rate outpacing the non-Indigenous population. While Indigenous Peoples comprise five per cent of Canada’s population, they only contribute 2.4 per cent of the total GDP.

A BNN Bloomberg feature about the Indigenous economy in Canada.

If Indigenous Peoples could participate in the economy at the same rate as non-Indigenous Canadians, their GDP contribution could increase from about $55 billion to well over $100 billion annually.

Despite this potential, Canada has largely failed to invest in Indigenous Peoples and reform the colonial structures that create inequality.

While some progress has been made, such as the First Nations Fiscal Management Act that offers communities tools to strengthen their economies, progress is still too slow.

Economic barriers hold back First Nations

There are two parts to every economy: economic advantages and the institutions that make those advantages actionable. Some institutions lower the costs of doing business and encourage investment, while others do the opposite. Investment naturally flows to places that have both economic advantages and low costs of doing business.

In Canada, strong property rights lower the costs of doing business and support the finance of business ventures. An efficient tax system creates predictability and allows governments to provide services. Business-grade infrastructure reduces logistical costs. All these institutions work together to support Canada’s economic development.

In contrast, First Nations communities are constrained by Canadian institutions. The Indian Act limits First Nations’ authority over their own affairs, segregating them from mainstream finance mechanisms. Unclear legal jurisdiction between federal, provincial and Indigenous governments and weak property rights discourage business investments.

Limited authority and fiscal powers mean First Nations governments cannot provide services at national standards and must depend on other governments.

Compounding these issues is the fragmented, insufficient and culturally inappropriate nature of federal support systems. First Nations people have economic advantages and an entrepreneurial spirit, but they are burdened with unfair economic barriers, such as inadequate infrastructure, limited access to capital and administrative hurdles.

Investing in Indigenous economies is vital

In 1997, the Royal Bank of Canada predicted that not investing in Indigenous Peoples would widen the socioeconomic gap. As predicted, this is what happened.

Canada has consistently chosen to manage poverty instead of investing in growth. While financial support for Indigenous Peoples more than doubled over the last decade, it only resulted in modest improvement in living standards.

The RoadMap Project, a national initiative led by the First Nations Financial Management Board and other Indigenous organizations, proposes a pathway to economic reconciliation. Investing in the Indigenous economy means supporting Indigenous training, providing access to capital for Indigenous organizations and reforming the institutions that continue to impose systemic barriers.

Education is one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty, improve health outcomes and drive economic development. The federal government should therefore support training programs designed to meet Indigenous needs.

Online learning could help remote communities achieve educational goals, but its success depends on major investments in high-speed internet access, which remains lacking in many areas.

Indigenous organizations are best positioned to understand and respond to local training needs. That is why Indigenous control over revenue transfers and program design must be central to any future investments in education. To support this, the federal government should partner with Indigenous education institutions to develop common goals and values.

Financing and supporting Indigenous growth

Indigenous Peoples develop new businesses at nine times the Canadian average, but only receive 0.2 per cent of available credit. Most Indigenous enterprises are small and cannot grow without viable financing options.

Yet, individual Indigenous entrepreneurs and First Nations governments face challenges securing loans and financial support.

Internationally, development banks have been used to fill credit gaps when the private sector is unable to meet the needs of emerging economies.

In Canada, the First Nations Financial Management Board and other Indigenous organizations are calling for a similar solution: the creation of an Indigenous Development Finance Organization. By lending to Indigenous governments and businesses, this finance organization could bridge the gap between the financial markets and the Indigenous economy.

While investments in capacity and development finance are urgent needs, only the dismantling of economic barriers and increased access to effective institutions can assure Indigenous development.

Legislation such as the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management can support Indigenous economies through taxation, budgeting, land codes and financial laws. They offer a pathway between the Indian Act framework and self-government, without waiting on lengthy negotiations.

Growing stronger together

Canada’s economic future will remain uncertain if short-term solutions keep being prioritized while ignoring the growth potential of the Indigenous economy. Improvements to the status quo are no longer sufficient.

The federal government must support Indigenous-led initiatives like the RoadMap Project to foster shared growth and prosperity for Indigenous Peoples and all Canadians alike. Investments are needed to narrow the employment and income gap through new supports for capacity, access to capital and institutional reform.

The Conversation

Mylon Ollila is a Senior Strategist for the First Nations Financial Management Board.

Hugo Asselin 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. As Canada’s economy faces serious challenges, the Indigenous economy offers solutions – https://theconversation.com/as-canadas-economy-faces-serious-challenges-the-indigenous-economy-offers-solutions-261252

More than just a bad date: Navigating harms on LGBTQ+ dating apps

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Christopher Dietzel, Postdoctoral fellow, the DIGS Lab, Concordia University

It is crucial to think about what you can do promote your safety while using dating apps, and before you click the download button. (Shutterstock)

Dating apps like Tinder, Bumble and Grindr have become a ubiquitous part of modern dating for young people looking to meet potential partners. However, many Gen Z users are increasingly forgoing dating apps, feeling burnt out by the whole process.




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


Dating apps have been plagued with concerns about harassment, sexual and gender-based violence, romance scams and other safety issues. These risks are elevated for LGBTQ+ people who can experience hate crimes, physical violence and other harms when using dating apps.

With anti-LGBTQ+ movements rising in Canada, the United States and around the world, it is important to understand the potential dangers of online dating and how LGBTQ+ people can promote their safety.

We recently conducted an online survey that looks into LGBTQ+ people’s experiences with dating apps in Canada as part of a research project at Concordia University’s Digital Intimacy, Gender & Sexuality (DIGS) Lab. We analyzed 624 participant responses that reveal the different harms LGBTQ+ users face and the strategies they use to mitigate those harms.


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

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


Harms against LGBTQ+ dating app users

LGBTQ+ dating users can experience a variety of harms, including unwanted sexual advances, harassment, coercion, discrimination and catfishing.

The most common types of harms that participants experienced were sexual harms (like receiving unsolicited sexual content, sexual harassment and sexual assault), emotional harms (like bullying and threatening behavior) and social harms (like discrimination and exclusion). Sexual harm was more common online and emotional harm was more common in person.

Many trans and non-binary participants were insulted with slurs and told their identity was not real by other dating app users. Some people they matched with would also verbally attack them or make death threats. Other trans and non-binary participants reported that people were often nice and friendly online, but then would harass them in person.

Like other studies have found, objectification and fetishization were also common for trans and non-binary users.

Racialized LGBTQ+ users said people often made racist comments or used slurs against them. Racial stereotyping and fetishizing was also common. For example, one participant said that she received “comments about my body based on my race and implications of what a Black woman could do with her lips.”

As an example of the discrimination Asian men experience, one participant said “white people tend to fetishize Asian bodies and assume they’re submissive.” Other research has similarly found that racial exclusion and racial fetishization are common on dating apps.

There were participants who reported being drugged or sexually assaulted when they met someone in person. Unfortunately, many people who use dating apps say that they have experienced sexual violence online or in person.

Younger LGBTQ+ users reported feeling pressured or coerced into doing sexual acts by older users. For example, one participant said they felt pushed into doing sexual acts they were not comfortable with.

Sextortion is on the rise among youth, and dating apps can facilitate sextortion and romance scams.

Strategies for staying safe

If you or someone you know uses dating apps, there are steps you can take to make your experience safer.

The LGBTQ+ people in our study employed strategies like verifying someone’s identity through video calls or by checking out their social media profiles. When meeting someone in person for the first time, participants would choose to meet in a public space and share their location with family or close friends.

These are some examples of common strategies, often encouraged by dating app companies, that you can employ to promote your safety.

Safety is not just the individual’s responsibility, however. Dating app companies need to keep their users safe, and participants from the survey gave suggestions to make dating apps safer. For instance, many recommended better content moderation systems to filter out inappropriate messages and problematic users.

Participants wanted features to make it easier for marginalized communities to connect and avoid people who harass or discriminate. They also wanted better enforcement and stricter consequences for people who violated an app’s community guidelines, like making it impossible, not just harder, for banned users to get back on the apps.

Some dating apps have recently implemented new safety features, but many users find their moderation systems inadequate.

Protecting your privacy

Dating apps have also been criticized for prioritizing profits over users’ security and well-being. That said, users do not want dating apps to police their every move. Too much moderation can impede authenticity and spontaneity.

Another thing to think about is how new technology is being incorporated into the apps you use and what that means for your safety and privacy. Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming more popular and accessible, and dating app companies are integrating this technology into their platforms to help manage user safety.

However, AI in online dating raises new concerns about data privacy, content moderation and technological bias — all of which can negatively impact the user experience.

App terms and conditions are notoriously long and difficult to understand, and most people are unlikely to read them at all.

However, there is information publicly available to help you understand how your data will be used and stored. There are also features in some apps to help you manage your privacy.

With evolving technologies and changes in the sociopolitical climate, these safety issues are not going away. In fact, they may become more complicated in the future. It is crucial to think about what you can do promote your safety while using dating apps, both online and in person.

The Conversation

Christopher Dietzel receives funding from Le Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture (FRQSC).

André Matar 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. More than just a bad date: Navigating harms on LGBTQ+ dating apps – https://theconversation.com/more-than-just-a-bad-date-navigating-harms-on-lgbtq-dating-apps-252297

A popular sweetener could be damaging your brain’s defences, says recent study

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Havovi Chichger, Professor, Biomedical Science, Anglia Ruskin University

Found in everything from protein bars to energy drinks, erythritol has long been considered a safe alternative to sugar. But new research suggests this widely used sweetener may be quietly undermining one of the body’s most crucial protective barriers – with potentially serious consequences for heart health and stroke risk.

A recent study from the University of Colorado suggests erythritol may damage cells in the blood-brain barrier, the brain’s security system that keeps out harmful substances while letting in nutrients. The findings add troubling new detail to previous observational studies that have linked erythritol consumption to increased rates of heart attack and stroke.

In the new study, researchers exposed blood-brain barrier cells to levels of erythritol typically found after drinking a soft drink sweetened with the compound. They saw a chain reaction of cell damage that could make the brain more vulnerable to blood clots – a leading cause of stroke.


Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


Erythritol triggered what scientists call oxidative stress, flooding cells with harmful, highly reactive molecules known as free radicals, while simultaneously reducing the body’s natural antioxidant defences. This double assault damaged the cells’ ability to function properly, and in some cases killed them outright.

But perhaps more concerning was erythritol’s effect on the blood vessels’ ability to regulate blood flow. Healthy blood vessels act like traffic controllers, widening when organs need more blood – during exercise, for instance – and tightening when less is required. They achieve this delicate balance through two key molecules: nitric oxide, which relaxes blood vessels, and endothelin-1, which constricts them.

The study found that erythritol disrupted this critical system, reducing nitric oxide production while ramping up endothelin-1. The result would be blood vessels that remain dangerously constricted, potentially starving the brain of oxygen and nutrients. This imbalance is a known warning sign of ischaemic stroke – the type caused by blood clots blocking vessels in the brain.

Even more alarming, erythritol appeared to sabotage the body’s natural defence against blood clots. Normally, when clots form in blood vessels, cells release a “clot buster” called tissue plasminogen activator that dissolves the blockage before it can cause a stroke. But the sweetener blocked this protective mechanism, potentially leaving clots free to wreak havoc.

The laboratory findings align with troubling evidence from human studies. Several large-scale observational studies have found that people who regularly consume erythritol face significantly higher risks of cardiovascular disease, including heart attacks and strokes. One major study tracking thousands of participants found that those with the highest blood levels of erythritol were roughly twice as likely to experience a major cardiac event.

However, the research does have limitations. The experiments were conducted on isolated cells in laboratory dishes rather than complete blood vessels, which means the cells may not behave exactly as they would in the human body. Scientists acknowledge that more sophisticated testing – using advanced “blood vessel on a chip” systems that better mimic real physiology – will be needed to confirm these effects.

The findings are particularly significant because erythritol occupies a unique position in the sweetener landscape. Unlike artificial sweeteners such as aspartame or sucralose, erythritol is technically a sugar alcohol – a naturally occurring compound that the body produces in small amounts. This classification helped it avoid inclusion in recent World Health Organization guidelines that discouraged the use of artificial sweeteners for weight control.

Erythritol has also gained popularity among food manufacturers because it behaves more like sugar than other alternatives. While sucralose is 320 times sweeter than sugar, erythritol provides only about 80% of sugar’s sweetness, making it easier to use in recipes without creating an overpowering taste. It’s now found in thousands of products, especially in many “sugar-free” and “keto-friendly” foods.

A man reaching for a protein bar in a shop.
Erythritol can be found in many keto-friendly products, such a protein bars.
Stockah/Shutterstock.com

Trade-off

Regulatory agencies, including the European Food Standards Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration, have approved erythritol as safe for consumption. But the new research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that even “natural” sugar alternatives may carry unexpected health risks.

For consumers, the findings raise difficult questions about the trade-offs involved in sugar substitution. Sweeteners like erythritol can be valuable tools for weight management and diabetes prevention, helping people reduce calories and control blood sugar spikes. But if regular consumption potentially weakens the brain’s protective barriers and increases cardiovascular risk, the benefits may come at a significant cost.

The research underscores a broader challenge in nutritional science: understanding the long-term effects of relatively new food additives that have become ubiquitous in the modern diet. While erythritol may help people avoid the immediate harms of excess sugar consumption, its effect on the blood-brain barrier suggests that frequent use could be quietly compromising brain protection over time.

As scientists continue to investigate these concerning links, consumers may want to reconsider their relationship with this seemingly innocent sweetener – and perhaps question whether any sugar substitute additive is truly without risk.

The Conversation

Havovi Chichger 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. A popular sweetener could be damaging your brain’s defences, says recent study – https://theconversation.com/a-popular-sweetener-could-be-damaging-your-brains-defences-says-recent-study-261500

AI and other future technologies will be necessary — but not sufficient — for enacting the UN’s Pact for the Future

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Joyeeta Gupta, Professor, Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam

In September 2024, members of the United Nations adopted the Pact for the Future at the Summit of the Future, held in New York City. The pact, including its two annexes on the Declaration on Future Generations and the Global Digital Compact, builds on multilateral agreements following the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.




Read more:
How the United Nations’ Pact for the Future could help heal a fractured world


The pact commits to “protect the needs and interests of present and future generations through the actions stated in the pact.” These actions address the digital divide, inclusion, digital space that respects human rights and promotes responsible governance of artificial intelligence (AI).

Additionally, the Declaration on Future Generations includes 10 principles and some actions. The pact also encourages accelerated development of AI, while considering both its positive and negative aspects within a broader aim to protect human rights.

the Earth from a distance
A 1972 image of the Earth taken during the Apollo 17 mission. Planetary justice means considering human and non-human life, Earth systems and responsible management of resources.
(NASA)

Meeting needs

As the former co-chair of the Earth Commission and current co-chair of the UN 10-member group, I have worked on incorporating justice issues within environmental studies. Along with my colleagues, we recently published an article where we explain how we have developed Earth system boundaries based on the principle of not causing significant harm to others as part of a broader human rights and Earth systems justice approach.

While the pact acknowledges and builds on the Sustainable Development Goals, it does not adequately take into account the latest science that shows we have crossed many safe and just Earth system boundaries. There’s also a challenge here: if we were to meet everyone’s minimum needs as required by the social Sustainable Development Goals, we will cross boundaries further.

A human rights approach

The pact and its annexes make reference to justice, future generations and Africa. Justice is anchored in a human rights approach. The pact only mentions reducing harm in relation to digital platforms and explosive weapons, but this could be strengthened with the addition of the no-harm principle — not causing significant harm to human and non-human others — in other areas such as climate change. Other forms of justice are scarcely accounted for.

These include epistemic justice (or how different knowledge systems are included), and data justice (the right to create, control, access, apply and profit from data). Procedural justice — the right to information, decision-making, civic space and courts relating to the allocation of resources and responsibilities — is also vital.

Other important forms of justice include recognition justice, interspecies, and intragenerational justice. Earth system justice is needed to identify and live within Earth system boundaries and equitably share resources and risks.

The pact notes that “if we do not change course, we risk tipping into a future of persistent crisis and breakdown,” but it does not make reference to the latest science on planetary boundaries.

Climate justice

We argue that implementing the pact requires recognizing how boundaries, foundations and inequality are inextricably are linked together. The Earth Commission argues that safe planetary boundaries are not necessarily just. To minimize significant harm to others, it may be necessary to have more stringent targets.

For example, 1.5 C is the proposed safe climate boundary for climate change, while 1 C is the proposed just boundary since, at this level, already tens of millions of people are exposed to extreme heat and humidity. Eight safe and just boundaries for climate, water, nutrients, biosphere and aerosols have been identified, seven of which have been crossed.




Read more:
What are ‘planetary boundaries’ and why should we care?


In terms of foundations, theoretically, meeting people’s minimum needs would lead to further crossing these boundaries. We need to recognize that living within safe and just boundaries requires meeting everyone’s minimum needs.

This requires deploying efficient technologies and redistributing resources to make up the deficit. But governments are reluctant to take this approach, probably because it limits the use of resources and sinks.

Technological support

Living within climate boundaries will require a just transition. Globally, if we wish to remain below the safe climate boundary, we will have to completely stop using fossil fuels. Since most remaining fossil fuel reserves are in the developing world, this will put a heavy burden on them. At the same time, climate impacts are considerable, so finance for a just energy transformation is needed.

While the pact restates the importance of the 2030 agenda in bolstering sustainable development, it lacks a credible mechanism for monitoring whether the national pledges are implemented. This will require strong collaboration among policy, science and the private sector.

There is a wealth of information in Earth observations from space that can assist in monitoring progress. This information, if made available to researchers and policymakers, can be integrated into national, regional and global environmental risk assessments.

Digital twins are another technological development that can support these assessments. The European Commission’s Digital Twin of the Ocean, for example, is a virtual model. It integrates diverse ocean data sources and leverages the power of big data, advanced computing and AI to provide real-time insights and scenario simulations under a variety of conditions. Such systems can enhance our ability to cope with environmental challenges.

As AI is likely to dramatically develop in the few two years, it is critical to be ready to shape and use its potential in a positive way to implement the Pact while reducing its dependence on fossil fuels.

A ‘cash flow crisis’

Finally, the pact calls for urgent, predictable and stable funding for the UN and developing countries. This will enable UN bodies to deliver services and administer programs in accordance with international law. The UN Secretariat is facing a severe “cash flow crisis,” as major contributors are paying too late or too little.

The UN Honour Roll lists member states that have paid membership fees in full: 151 of 193 countries paid in full, but only 51 of them on time in 2024. Among 13 countries with assessed fees of more than US$50 million, only Canada, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Korea, Germany and Italy paid on time.

With most members paying late, and large ones not paying till later or only partially, this severely constrains the ability of the UN to provide planned, impartial and inclusive services to the global community.

There is also a need for funding to enable developing countries to adapt and transform. But if such funding comes through loans, this may further exacerbate existing developing country debt: in 2023, developing countries made debt repayments of US$1.4 trillion.

We need redistribution of resources. Until then, it is critical that new technologies such as AI are deployed to help us return within the boundaries and meet minimum needs without exacerbating climate change through its fossil fuels dependence. The UN plays a critical role in facilitating human, environmental and earthy system justice, but shrinking resources hamper its ability to deliver.

The Conversation

Joyeeta Gupta receives funding from European Research Council and the Dutch Research Council (NWO).

ref. AI and other future technologies will be necessary — but not sufficient — for enacting the UN’s Pact for the Future – https://theconversation.com/ai-and-other-future-technologies-will-be-necessary-but-not-sufficient-for-enacting-the-uns-pact-for-the-future-247511

How a popular sweetener could be damaging your brain’s defences

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Havovi Chichger, Professor, Biomedical Science, Anglia Ruskin University

Found in everything from protein bars to energy drinks, erythritol has long been considered a safe alternative to sugar. But new research suggests this widely used sweetener may be quietly undermining one of the body’s most crucial protective barriers – with potentially serious consequences for heart health and stroke risk.

A recent study from the University of Colorado suggests erythritol may damage cells in the blood-brain barrier, the brain’s security system that keeps out harmful substances while letting in nutrients. The findings add troubling new detail to previous observational studies that have linked erythritol consumption to increased rates of heart attack and stroke.

In the new study, researchers exposed blood-brain barrier cells to levels of erythritol typically found after drinking a soft drink sweetened with the compound. They saw a chain reaction of cell damage that could make the brain more vulnerable to blood clots – a leading cause of stroke.


Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


Erythritol triggered what scientists call oxidative stress, flooding cells with harmful, highly reactive molecules known as free radicals, while simultaneously reducing the body’s natural antioxidant defences. This double assault damaged the cells’ ability to function properly, and in some cases killed them outright.

But perhaps more concerning was erythritol’s effect on the blood vessels’ ability to regulate blood flow. Healthy blood vessels act like traffic controllers, widening when organs need more blood – during exercise, for instance – and tightening when less is required. They achieve this delicate balance through two key molecules: nitric oxide, which relaxes blood vessels, and endothelin-1, which constricts them.

The study found that erythritol disrupted this critical system, reducing nitric oxide production while ramping up endothelin-1. The result would be blood vessels that remain dangerously constricted, potentially starving the brain of oxygen and nutrients. This imbalance is a known warning sign of ischaemic stroke – the type caused by blood clots blocking vessels in the brain.

Even more alarming, erythritol appeared to sabotage the body’s natural defence against blood clots. Normally, when clots form in blood vessels, cells release a “clot buster” called tissue plasminogen activator that dissolves the blockage before it can cause a stroke. But the sweetener blocked this protective mechanism, potentially leaving clots free to wreak havoc.

The laboratory findings align with troubling evidence from human studies. Several large-scale observational studies have found that people who regularly consume erythritol face significantly higher risks of cardiovascular disease, including heart attacks and strokes. One major study tracking thousands of participants found that those with the highest blood levels of erythritol were roughly twice as likely to experience a major cardiac event.

However, the research does have limitations. The experiments were conducted on isolated cells in laboratory dishes rather than complete blood vessels, which means the cells may not behave exactly as they would in the human body. Scientists acknowledge that more sophisticated testing – using advanced “blood vessel on a chip” systems that better mimic real physiology – will be needed to confirm these effects.

The findings are particularly significant because erythritol occupies a unique position in the sweetener landscape. Unlike artificial sweeteners such as aspartame or sucralose, erythritol is technically a sugar alcohol – a naturally occurring compound that the body produces in small amounts. This classification helped it avoid inclusion in recent World Health Organization guidelines that discouraged the use of artificial sweeteners for weight control.

Erythritol has also gained popularity among food manufacturers because it behaves more like sugar than other alternatives. While sucralose is 320 times sweeter than sugar, erythritol provides only about 80% of sugar’s sweetness, making it easier to use in recipes without creating an overpowering taste. It’s now found in thousands of products, especially in many “sugar-free” and “keto-friendly” foods.

A man reaching for a protein bar in a shop.
Erythritol can be found in many keto-friendly products, such a protein bars.
Stockah/Shutterstock.com

Trade-off

Regulatory agencies, including the European Food Standards Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration, have approved erythritol as safe for consumption. But the new research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that even “natural” sugar alternatives may carry unexpected health risks.

For consumers, the findings raise difficult questions about the trade-offs involved in sugar substitution. Sweeteners like erythritol can be valuable tools for weight management and diabetes prevention, helping people reduce calories and control blood sugar spikes. But if regular consumption potentially weakens the brain’s protective barriers and increases cardiovascular risk, the benefits may come at a significant cost.

The research underscores a broader challenge in nutritional science: understanding the long-term effects of relatively new food additives that have become ubiquitous in the modern diet. While erythritol may help people avoid the immediate harms of excess sugar consumption, its effect on the blood-brain barrier suggests that frequent use could be quietly compromising brain protection over time.

As scientists continue to investigate these concerning links, consumers may want to reconsider their relationship with this seemingly innocent sweetener – and perhaps question whether any sugar substitute additive is truly without risk.

The Conversation

Havovi Chichger 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. How a popular sweetener could be damaging your brain’s defences – https://theconversation.com/how-a-popular-sweetener-could-be-damaging-your-brains-defences-261500