English – Page 6 – MIL Submissions Engine

February 2, 2026

Addressing climate change without the ‘rules-based order’

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Matthew Hoffmann, Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of Environmental Governance Lab, University of Toronto

At the recent World Economic Forum in Switzerland, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney proclaimed “a rupture” in the global “rules-based order” and a turn to great power rivalry.

While its demise is not certain, even the current disruption to global order, largely due to the Donald Trump administration in the United States, promises profound impacts on the global response to climate change. The world is at risk of losing even the insufficient progress made in the last decade.

But it’s unclear what that effect will be. That uncertainty is both a cause for concern and a source of hope. The climate crisis is not slowing, and humanity must figure out how to navigate the disruption.

Unfortunately, much of what we know about how climate politics works has depended on a relatively stable rules-based order. That order, however problematic, provided institutions like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement.

It also established trade rules for energy technology, co-operative agreements on public and private climate finance, and parameters for how civil society and states interact. It structured the opportunities and obstacles for acting on climate change.

Everyone who cares about climate action must now grapple with how climate politics can function in a new world of uncertainty. It won’t be easy.

But, to inject a slight note of hope, I’m not convinced that meeting the climate challenge is harder now. It’s difficult in a different way. Let’s be clear: the rules-based order was not producing effective global co-operation on climate change.

Limited successes of the rules-based order

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech in Davos where he noted the ‘rupture’ in the global rules-based order.(The Journal)

The U.S. has consistently been an obstacle to global climate action. As Carney noted, under the the rules-based order “the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient.” Clearly the U.S. decided from very early on that a stable climate was not a public good it was willing to seriously support.

The U.S. failed to see benefits from climate action that outweighed the perception of costs and has consistently been influenced by status quo, fossil-capital economic interests.

That’s not to say there was no progress under the old rules-based system. At least five sources of progress are worth highlighting:

A coalition of the ambitious, mostly anchored in Europe, consistently pushed for action. This coalition stayed in the Kyoto Protocol and took action domestically, moving forward on emissions reductions and globally significant technological innovation.
The changing political economy of renewable energy has drastically decreased the costs of wind and solar power.
The growth of municipal, sub-national and transnational efforts expanded the reach of climate action while also maintaining some momentum in countries, like the U.S., that were reluctant to move aggressively.
Public support and concern over the climate has grown, in part because the increasing impacts of climate change have made it a tangible problem of the present, not future.
There’s now a different global architecture for climate governance with the Paris Agreement — one based on collected national actions rather than global collective action. This new architecture was less vulnerable to the first U.S. withdrawal in 2016.

Possibilities for progress

These sources of past progress on climate action could survive the current disruption and play a role in increasing momentum in the global response to climate change. But uncertainties and questions are more plentiful than answers.

A coalition of the ambitious is clearly what Carney’s speech is seeking to catalyze among middle powers. He was not talking about climate change, but a commitment to climate action could and should be a cornerstone that a new order is built upon. This may even attract one of those competing great powers that he alluded to — China. Will China see climate leadership as a means to enhance its global position?

The political economy of renewable energy has momentum that is at least somewhat insulated from the current disruption. How insulated it remains depends on a number of uncertainties.

What will trade rules and practices look like moving forward? What happens within the fossil-fuel energy sector as the U.S. continues to engage in resource imperialism? How will resource competition and co-operation in the renewables sector (over critical minerals, for example) play out moving forward?

Can experimental efforts be a source of resistance and change within the U.S., especially among individual states? And can they play the same role that they did previously, catalyzing further innovation and public support?

Public support for climate action in this new era will likely vary wildly by country. How will growing dissatisfaction with the status quo play out as it intersects with increasingly severe climate impacts?

This could generate further support for right-wing populism. However, affordability and inequality concerns could also become the foundation for building support for climate action and a just transition.

Does the Paris Agreement survive this? It could become a backbone institution for the coalition of the ambitious. The U.S. is gone, again. Maybe other recalcitrant governments should be sidelined from multilateral climate efforts as well, and those willing to act can proceed.

If full global co-operation around climate change is no longer even a façade of the possible now, then the imperative to bring everyone along at each step in the process may evaporate.

None of the ways forward I’ve laid out here are easy. Even if the positive possibilities materialize, they do not guarantee decarbonization and a just transition that is fast and effective enough to matter; to head off the worst of climate change.

What is clear, though, is that like Carney, climate scholars and activists may need to let the fiction of the global rules-based order go. It was not working either in addressing climate change or enhancing justice. Perhaps its disruption is an opportunity to build better foundations for a just and effective global response to climate change.

Matthew Hoffmann receives funding from Social Science and Humanities Research Council and the Lawson Climate Institute.

– ref. Addressing climate change without the ‘rules-based order’ – https://theconversation.com/addressing-climate-change-without-the-rules-based-order-273745

February 2, 2026

Canada should be wary of embracing ‘total national defence’ to ward off an American invasion

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

As the Donald Trump administration in the United States continues to threaten Canadian sovereignty — including a recent suggestion that Alberta could secede from Canada and join the U.S. — Canadians, like many others in the world, finds themselves in a period of extreme uncertainty.

Trump’s continued violations of the rules-based international order means Canada can no longer rely on its partners to the same extent as it has in the past.

The world must, as Prime Minister Mark Carney recently noted, accept the current climate as it is, rather than looking to the past.

To do so, Canada must develop a defence policy that can meet the country’s needs. The Canadian government’s recent budget envisions a significant increase in defence spending over the next several years. The problem Canada faces, however, is one that all middle powers face: an inability to compete with great powers in a conventional war.

The Canadian government must therefore pursue non-conventional means to overcome conventional weakness. Simultaneously, the country must be cognizant of the implications of alternative defence policies. The former Yugoslavia provides a harrowing example.

How to ward off an invasion

The turmoil created by the mercurial American president has caused Canada to examine how it could resist a U.S. invasion in a series of war games. Inevitably, Canada was unable to defeat the U.S. in these exercises, and was forced to rely on unconventional warfare.

One way Canada is considering addressing this issue is by creating a civilian defence force and incorporating “total national defence” principles. This development is not completely new; Canada has been considering it for some time.

Total national defence in theory

Total national defence is not a new concept. After the Second World War, it became clear to many medium-sized countries that they could not compete with the great powers in a conventional war.

In the 1950s, Yugoslavia spent 22 per cent of its GDP on defence, yet still recognized it was unlikely to defeat a great power in a conventional war. Yugoslavia, and other countries, needed an alternative. Enter total national defence.

The concept of total national defence seeks to mobilize all aspects of society for the war effort. Given the uniqueness of each country, no country’s total national defence system looks the same as the other. What’s important for Canada’s examination, however, is the command-and-control elements of the system.

The biggest vulnerability is the enemy eliminating their command-and-control functions early in the conflict. The U.S., as seen in Iraq in 1991, excels at these types of operations. Russia, while not as effective, attempted to do the same against Ukraine in the early phases of its full-fledged invasion.

For a smaller country to survive such an attack, it needs to ensure that resistance can continue regardless if centralized command is compromised.

Under the theory of total national defence, countries decentralize command and control functions to prevent them being eliminated.

The extent to which countries do so varies. Individual units may operate at the local level without centralized guidance to maintain the struggle against an opponent. In short, even if an opponent succeeds in eliminating the central command of a state, its army and people can continue the struggle.

Canada’s chosen example: Finland

Canada, as it considers implementing such a policy, has looked to Finland for inspiration. Prior to joining NATO, Finland was a relatively small country that could not rely upon allies for defence.

What Canadian officials found in Finland impressed them. Finnish officials have long relied upon extensive joint-use facilities, such as bunkers. It also uses conscription to maintain a strong deterrent.

But Canada and Finland are fundamentally different countries. The persistent threat of Russian invasion has, over time, normalized policies like conscription among the Finnish. Furthermore, and most critically, Finland is, unlike Canada, a unitary state and not a federation.

Canada’s worst-case scenario: Yugoslavia

Much like the former Yugoslavia, Canada is a federation. It has stark regional differences, both in terms of culture and economics.

The divisions in Canada aren’t as entrenched as those in Yugoslavia in the 1980s. Nevertheless, as CSIS recently warned Parliament, the divides are real and outside forces could magnify and exploit them.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s recent encouragement of Albertan separatism, and Albertan separatist meetings with Trump officials, are examples of how foreign entities can magnify these divides.

Yugoslavia’s embrace of total national defence relied on the unity of the people to overcome the weaknesses of a decentralized command structure. Without it, not only would the effectiveness of such a defence have been compromised but, more worryingly, separatist forces could have used such decentralized forces for their own purposes.

In fact, separatists did so , using these decentralized defence forces for their own purposes against Yugoslavia. That helped fuel the former country’s conflicts and ultimate dissolution in the 1990s.

Learning from the past

But just because Yugoslavia’s embrace of total national defence and a civilian defence force helped facilitate the breakup of the country doesn’t mean that will happen to Canada. Too often, people assume that history is repetitive.

Instead, the past is an inventory of ideas. Yugoslavia’s embrace of total national defence failed, but Canada can learn lessons about what worked and what will not in a federation, and in doing so improve its own capabilities.

Canada is wise to pursue non-conventional defence strategies. The country, and its defence planners, however, must ensure they’re drawing from the right examples.

James Horncastle 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. Canada should be wary of embracing ‘total national defence’ to ward off an American invasion – https://theconversation.com/canada-should-be-wary-of-embracing-total-national-defence-to-ward-off-an-american-invasion-274295

February 2, 2026

Why does this river slice straight through a mountain range? After 150 years, scientists finally know

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adam Smith, Postdoctoral Research Associate, School of Geographical & Earth Sciences, University of Glasgow

The Gates of Lodore mark the beginning of the Green River’s path through the Uinta Mountains. Scott Alan Ritchie / shutterstock

The western US is a geologists’ dream, home to the Rocky Mountains, the Grand Canyon, active volcanoes and striking sandstone arches. But one landform simply doesn’t make sense.

Rivers normally flow around barriers. The Danube river, for example, flows between the Alps and the Carpathians, twisting and turning to avoid the mountains.

But in north-western Colorado, one river does the opposite.

The intimidatingly named Gates of Lodore marks the entrance to the 700-metre deep Canyon of Lodore that slices straight through the Uinta Mountains as if the range wasn’t there at all. It was created by the Green River, the largest tributary of the Colorado River (of Grand Canyon fame).

For more than 150 years, geologists have debated why the Green River chose such an unusual path, creating a spectacular canyon in the process.

Large canyon — The Green River carves its way through the Uintas in Dinosaur National Monument, on the border of Colorado and Utah.
Eric Poulin / shutterstock

In 1876, John Wesley Powell, a legendary explorer and geologist contemplated this question. Powell hypothesised that the river didn’t cut through the mountain, but instead flowed over this route before the range existed. The river must have simply maintained its course as the mountains grew, carving the canyon in the process.

Unfortunately, geological evidence shows this cannot be the case. The Uinta Mountains formed around 50 million years ago, but we know that the Green River has only been following this route for less than 8 million years. As a result, geologists have been forced to seek alternative explanations.

And it seems the answer lies far below the surface.

Drip drip

Colleagues and I have found evidence for a process in which part of the Earth’s crust becomes so dense that it begins to sink into the mantle beneath it. This phenomenon, known as a “lithospheric drip”, occurs deep in the Earth, but can have profound effects on the surface.

Drips often form beneath mountain ranges. The sheer weight of the mountains raise temperatures and pressures at the base of the crust, causing dense minerals to form. As these minerals accumulate, the lower crust can become heavier than the mantle it “floats” on. At this point, the crust begins to detach, or “drip”, into the mantle.

Diagram of lithospheric drip — Dripping (left) then rebounding (right).
Smith et al (2026)

At the surface, this causes two things. Initially as the drip forms, it pulls the crust down, lowering the height of the mountain range above. Then as the drip detaches, the crust springs or rebounds back. The whole process is like pulling a trampoline down and then letting it go again.

For the Green River, this temporary lowering of the Uinta Mountains appears to have removed a critical barrier. The river was able to cross the range during this low period, and then, as the range rebounded, it carved the Canyon of Lodore as it continued on its new course.

A geological bullseye

Our evidence for the lithospheric drip comes from the river networks around the Uinta Mountains. Rivers record a record of past changes to landscapes, which geomorphologists can use to assess how the elevation of a mountain range may have changed in the distant past. The rivers around the Uintas show that the range had recently (in geological terms) undergone a phase of renewed uplift.

By modelling these river networks, we were able to map out the uplift. The result was striking: a bullseye-shaped pattern, with the greatest uplift at the centre of the mountain range, with things decreasing further from the centre. Around the world, this same pattern represents the telltale sign of a lithospheric drip. Similar signals have been identified in places such as the Central Anatolian Plateau in Turkey, as well as closer to the Uinta Mountains on the Colorado Plateau or the Sierra Nevada of California.

To test whether such a process was occurring beneath the Uintas, we turned to seismic tomography. This technique is similar to a medical CT (computerised tomography) scan: instead of using X-rays, geophysicists analyse seismic waves from earthquakes to infer the structure of the deep earth.

Existing seismic imaging reveals a cold, round anomaly more than a hundred miles below the surface of the Uintas. We interpreted this huge feature, some 30-60 miles across, as our broken-off section of the drip.

By estimating the velocity of the sinking drip, we calculated it had detached between 2 and 5 million years ago. This timing matches the uplift inferred from nearby rivers and, crucially, perfectly matches separate geological estimates for when the Green River crossed the Uinta Mountains and joined the Colorado River.

Taken together, these different bits of evidence point towards a lithospheric drip being the trigger that allowed the Green River to flow over the Uintas, resolving a 150-year-old debate.

A pivotal moment in the history of North America

When the Green River carved through the Uinta Mountains, it fundamentally changed the landscape of North America. Rather than flowing eastwards into the Mississippi, it became a tributary of the Colorado River, and its waters were redirected to the Pacific.

This rerouting altered the continental divide, the line that divides North American river systems that flow into the Atlantic from those that flow into the Pacific. In doing so, it created new boundaries and connections for wildlife and ecosystems.

The story of the Green River shows that processes deep within the Earth can have profound impacts for life on the surface. Over geological timescales, movements of country-sized lumps of minerals many miles below the surface can reshape mountains, redirect rivers and ultimately influence life itself.

Adam Smith 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. Why does this river slice straight through a mountain range? After 150 years, scientists finally know – https://theconversation.com/why-does-this-river-slice-straight-through-a-mountain-range-after-150-years-scientists-finally-know-274888

February 2, 2026

Men rule the Grammys as women see hard drop in wins at 2026 awards

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Luba Kassova, PhD Candidate, Researcher and Journalist, University of Westminster

In her acceptance speech for best pop vocal album at the 68th Grammy Awards ceremony last night, Lady Gaga shone a light on the challenges that women face in studios. “It can be hard,” she said. “So, I urge you to always listen to yourself and … fight for your songs, fight for yourself as a producer. Make sure that you are heard, loudly,” she continued, placing the onus on women to take control of the fight for equality in music.

Many well-established and new female superstars were indeed heard loudly last night in the broadcast, which clearly made sure to display gender balance in front of the camera. However, when it comes to awards, nominations and the wider industry the picture is much different.

Working with my business partner, strategist Richard Addy, I looked at gender representation across all 95 of this year’s Grammy categories. Our analysis reveals that women and female bands sustained a dramatic fall in winners compared to last year. They received less than a quarter of all Grammys (23%), a 14 percentage point drop from last year’s high of 37% and the lowest level since 2022.

This fall has been partly a reflection of women’s declining recognition as Grammy nominees. Women’s representation peaked at under a third (28%) of all nominations last year, and this year just one in four nominations (24%) were given to women.

Despite Lady Gaga’s encouraging words for women to own their music as producers, their fight for a seat at the producers’ table is yet to yield results. Since its introduction 51 years ago, no woman has ever won the coveted Grammy for producer of the year, non-classical. Last year, Alissia became only the tenth woman to even earn a nomination in the category but lost out to Daniel Nigro. This year, all five nominees were male.

Addy and I have previously conducted a year-long data-led investigation of over 9,700 Grammy nominations and over 2,200 wins between 2017, revealing that it takes a village of men to raise a superstar, female or male. The winners of record, album and song of the year – three of the four most coveted Grammy awards – typically come on stage to collect their trophy alone.

In reality, however, they share their award with numerous producers, engineers and mixers, who are overwhelmingly male. So music icons like Beyoncé or Taylor Swift collecting their individual awards masks the male dominated structures behind these wins. For example, Bad Bunny, this year’s album of the year winner, has received it alongside 12 male producers, songwriters and technicians who were not on stage with him.

Despite women’s consistently high visibility at the Recording Academy nominee announcements and broadcasts over the year, their recognition across the Grammys has remained peripheral compared to men’s. Since 2017, 76% of nominations and wins across all categories have been awarded to men. By contrast, women have been nominated for and won only one in five Grammys in the same period.

Research consistently shows that the reasons women remain marginalised in the Grammys and in music more generally, are deeply structural and multifaceted.

Although the Recording Academy’s mission is to advance a strong culture of diversity, inclusion, belonging and respect in the music industry, women remain marginalised as Recording Academy members. The proportion of Grammy voting members who are women has grown from 21% (2018) to 28% (2024). But this growth rate will only deliver gender parity in 2051.

This slow growth is likely linked to 69% of voting members being songwriters, composers, producers and engineers, roles in which women’s marginalisation has repeatedly been reported to be highest. For example, the latest Inclusion In the Recording Studio report from the Recording Academy revealed the overall ratio of men to women songwriters in Billboard Hot 100 year-end charts across 13 years is 6.2 to 1.

Our assessment of 67 academic papers and reports in our report, The Missing Voices of Women in Music and Music News, revealed that gender discrimination, sexual harassment and sexual violence consistently hinder women’s success in music, as do pay gaps, women’s cultural exclusion from the “boys club” and limited discovery and promotional opportunities. According to Be The Change: Gender equity in music, a 2024 report from consultancy Midia based on research conducted across 133 countries 60% of women in the music industry have experienced sexual harassment while one in five women have survived sexual assault.

The evidence points to a reality in which no matter women’s talent or determination to succeed, they will only be able to do so if the music industry changes. Until then, we are unlikely to see women achieving recognition parity at the Grammys or any other music awards.

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.

Luba Kassova is a co-founder of AKAS, an audience strategy consultancy which works with primarily purpose led not-for-profit organisations. In the past AKAS has received funding from the Gates Foundation for researching the Missing Perspectives of Women reports published between 2020 and 2025. The research of 2026 Grammy nominations and winners, which will form the backbone of a forthcoming report, has not received any external funding.

– ref. Men rule the Grammys as women see hard drop in wins at 2026 awards – https://theconversation.com/men-rule-the-grammys-as-women-see-hard-drop-in-wins-at-2026-awards-274884

February 2, 2026

Crime is no longer just a local issue – that’s why a national police force is needed

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Estelle Marks, Assistant Professor in Criminology, University of Sussex; King’s College London

Modern crime transcends place and space. From burglary to fraud, crime increasingly crosses local, national and digital borders. England and Wales’ geographically restricted police forces are not well equipped to respond.

This is why the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has announced a significant restructuring of the policing system. The proposals include establishing a National Police Service and merging existing local forces areas into larger regional ones.

Currently, England and Wales have 43 local police forces. Each has different organisational structures and levels of expertise in specific areas of crime. Police intelligence databases and digital capabilities vary, which can silo local forces and result in blind spots.

Most of the country’s specialist policing resources are situated in London’s Metropolitan police and the National Crime Agency. This uneven distribution of resources leaves local forces reliant on each other as specialist needs arise.

Even crime we think of as “local” can exploit force boundaries. Burglars and car thieves may cross local force borders to avoid multiple crimes being linked by police. This problem is more evident in serious crimes like weapons or drug trafficking and modern slavery. Organised crime groups move products and people around the country, and often across international borders.

Much modern crime is also placeless or transnational. Technology-enabled crime, phishing and other scams, and image-based abuse can involve victims and perpetrators in multiple locations, both in the UK and abroad. Fraud is currently the most prevalent crime affecting people in the UK.

The problem for British policing is therefore not simply a question of efficiency, but one of fit. The current structure of policing does not match the structure of crime.

The government’s proposals will centralise existing specialist policing capabilities into a single organisation, better equipped to respond to cross-border crime. This, the home secretary argues, will reduce intelligence blind spots, allow police to share data nationally, and save money.

A National Police Service will also provide stronger leadership and accountability. The NPS will be headed by a chief constable who will be Britain’s most senior officer. The proposals have been welcomed by current police leadership organisations including the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and the independent Police Foundation.

A national approach

To understand the benefits of this approach, we can look at another area where the UK has already nationalised its efforts – extradition policing.

A National Extradition Unit was established ahead of Brexit to bring frontline extradition policing into one team. Before this, responsibility was dispersed across all local forces, with the National Crime Agency coordinating and linking UK policing to partners overseas.

The UK receives more extradition requests – to send criminals to other countries – than it issues. The bulk of extradition work involves tracking down fugitives wanted by foreign states, bringing them before the courts and arranging for their removal from the UK. Although larger forces sometimes had dedicated teams, for many local forces this work competed with other duties and force priorities.

Digital illustration of hands typing on a keyboard in the dark, with a glowing lock emanating from the screen — Crime is crossing international and digital borders every day.
Pungu x/Shutterstock

If a fugitive could not be located in one local area, the warrant would be returned to the NCA to reallocate the case to another force, wasting time and money. Once a fugitive was arrested, local forces would need to transport them to London, where extradition courts are located.

Once extradition was agreed by the court, these forces would have to travel again to meet international police officers at airports (often in London) to hand the individual over into foreign custody. All of this cost significant officer time and resources, often at very short notice.

The National Extradition Unit now sits within the newly formed Joint International Crime Centre, which offers a one-stop-shop service to UK policing and international partners.

This centralisation has reduced inefficiency and strengthened international partnerships, which is crucial in the face of growing transnational crime. There is also potential to centralise more international capabilities, such as criminal evidence exchange.

The formation of a National Police Service aims to replicate these benefits across policing: driving down costs and inefficiency, increasing effectiveness and improving governance. If delivered, it should improve the UK response to national and international cross-border crime.

Unresolved issues

Reform of British policing is long overdue – the last structural reforms were in 1964. But the movement to a national structure naturally raises questions about the future of neighbourhood policing. The number of community support officers has fallen 40% since 2010, and the public is disappointed with police responses to crimes like shoplifting, which predominantly affect local areas.

There is also the question of the relationship between the national and regional levels, which is not clearly spelt out in the proposals. Another unresolved issue is the status of the National Crime Agency – currently the UK’s national law enforcement agency that investigates serious and organised crime – as it is absorbed into a future National Police Service.

Of more concern are proposals to expand the home secretary’s powers to dismiss chief constables and to set centralised performance targets. This centralisation of power into government potentially threatens operational independence, a foundational principle of British policing.

The imposition of performance targets under previous governments has tended to focus police on what is measured, not always on what matters most: maintaining public trust while effectively responding to serious crime. It is important that the implementation of these reforms guards against unintended consequences that undermine those capabilities.

A centralised system could better equip police to deal with modern, borderless crime. Yet this must be balanced against the need for local accountability and operational independence.

The success of a National Police Service will depend on how it is designed and governed. As the proposals move through consultation and scrutiny, the challenge for the government will be to modernise policing without undermining the principle of public trust on which it ultimately depends.

Estelle Marks 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. Crime is no longer just a local issue – that’s why a national police force is needed – https://theconversation.com/crime-is-no-longer-just-a-local-issue-thats-why-a-national-police-force-is-needed-274543

February 2, 2026

Stroke survivors can counterintuitively improve recovery by strengthening their stronger arm – new research

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Candice Maenza, Research Project Manager, Associate Director of the Center for Translational Neuromechanics in Rehabilitation, Penn State

Treating your ‘good’ arm after a stroke could help you better tackle everyday activities. MoMo Productions/DigitalVision via Getty Images

Stroke survivors often face substantial and long-lasting problems with their arms. Both arms often decline together: When one arm is more severely affected by the stroke, the other becomes more difficult to use as well. Compared with a healthy person’s dominant hand, a stroke survivor may take up to three times longer to complete everyday tasks using their less-impaired arm.

This creates a frustrating reality. People with severe impairment in one arm must rely almost entirely on their other arm for daily activities, such as eating, dressing and household tasks. When that “good” arm works slowly or awkwardly, even simple activities become tiring and discouraging, and some people may begin to avoid them altogether.

But that good arm can be strengthened. In our newly published research in the journal JAMA Neurology, we found that training the less-impaired arm in people living with chronic stroke can improve everyday hand function, in some cases even better than focusing only on the most impaired arm.

What is a stroke?

A stroke occurs when the flow of oxygen-carrying blood to part of the brain is interrupted by a blockage in a blood vessel or by bleeding. Without oxygen, brain cells begin to die.

Because each side of the brain mainly controls the opposite side of the body, a stroke often causes movement problems on the side of the body opposite the brain injury. For this reason, stroke rehabilitation has traditionally focused on restoring movement in the most impaired arm.

If someone’s face is drooping, their arm is weak or they’re having difficulty with speech, it’s time to call 911.

However, research over the past few decades has shown that both sides of the brain contribute to controlling movements for both arms, although they play different roles. As a result, damage to one side of the brain can affect movement on both sides of the body.

As expected, the arm opposite the brain injury often has major problems with weakness, stiffness and voluntary control, limiting its use for reaching, grasping and manipulating objects. But the other arm, usually thought to be unaffected from the stroke, is frequently not normal either. Many stroke survivors experience reduced strength, slower movements and poorer coordination in the less-impaired arm.

Training the less-impaired arm

As neuroscientists who study how the brain controls movement after stroke, these findings led us to a simple question: Could training the less-impaired arm help it work better?

In a clinical trial of over 50 patients, we studied people living with chronic stroke who had severe impairments in one arm, making it unusable for everyday tasks. These individuals depended almost entirely on their less-impaired arm to manage daily life.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two rehabilitation groups: one that trained their most-impaired arm, and one that trained their less-impaired arm. Both received five weeks of therapy that involved challenging, goal-directed hand movements, including virtual reality tasks designed to improve coordination and timing.

Close-up of health care provider examining a patient's arm — Improving stroke rehabilitation strategies could improve patients’ everyday lives.
The Good Brigade/DigitalVision via Getty Images

Compared to those who trained their most-impaired arm, we found that participants who conditioned their less-impaired arm became faster and more efficient at everyday hand tasks, such as picking up small objects or lifting a cup. These improvements remained six months after training ended.

We believe the lasting benefit of training the less-impaired arm may come from a simple feedback loop: When their arm works better, people naturally use it more, and that extra practice in daily life helps lock in those gains.

Strengthening what remains

Stroke rehabilitation has long focused on the arm that is most visibly impaired. But for many people, full function in that arm never returns. They adapt and rely on their less-impaired arm to get through the day.

“Less-impaired,” however, does not mean unaffected. When this arm becomes the sole tool for daily activities, even mild problems can have major consequences for independence and quality of life. Improving how well this arm works could make everyday tasks faster, easier and less exhausting, even years after a stroke.

Future work will focus on how best to combine training of the less-impaired arm with standard therapy for the more-impaired arm, and how these approaches translate into everyday life at home.

For many survivors, recovery may not mean restoring what was lost but strengthening what remains.

Candice Maenza received salary support from a National Institutes of Health grant.

Robert Sainburg receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Development, National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense.

– ref. Stroke survivors can counterintuitively improve recovery by strengthening their stronger arm – new research – https://theconversation.com/stroke-survivors-can-counterintuitively-improve-recovery-by-strengthening-their-stronger-arm-new-research-274404

February 2, 2026

Banning Rafiki was unlawful: why new court ruling is an important moment for African film

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Gibson Ncube, Senior Lecturer, Stellenbosch University

The film Rafiki is a charming love story that plays out in urban Kenya. It follows two teenage girls whose close friendship slowly turns into first love. Directed by rising filmmaker Wanuri Kahiu, it was celebrated as groundbreaking by critics and at festivals when it was released in 2018. But back home in Kenya, where homosexuality is criminal, the film was banned.

On 23 January 2026, after an eight-year legal campaign by the film producers, the Kenyan Court of Appeals ruled that the 2018 ban was not reasonable in terms of the country’s constitution. This means the producers can now submit the film for classification under Kenya’s Films and Stage Plays Act as part of the process to allow public screenings.

The court stressed that depicting a same-sex relationship doesn’t amount to promoting illegal conduct, which is how the state-funded Kenya Film Classification Board had justified the ban in 2018. The film’s happy ending was perceived to be “promoting homosexuality”. The ban quickly became a symbol of the problems filmmakers face whenever they challenge traditional views on sex, gender and morality.

The ruling marks more than the ongoing rehabilitation of a single film. It signals a subtle but significant shift in how African film might negotiate censorship in the years to come.

A young African woman with dreadlocks smiles at the camera, wearing a flowing green dress with a white pattern on it. — Wanuri Kahiu in 2025.
Bryan Berlin/ Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-SA

My research as a scholar of African queer cinemas has focused on how such moments reveal the fragile yet transformative possibilities through which African film cultures negotiate visibility and legitimacy. And the right to imagine queer futures and freedom of speech on their own terms.

At first glance, the ruling might appear modest. Kenya has not decriminalised same-sex relations, and legal restrictions on LGBTIQ+ lives remain firmly in place. Even so, Rafiki’s chance of a return is very important.

It marks the first time a Kenyan film previously prohibited for queer content has been potentially permitted public circulation. Other recently banned queer-themed films like I am Samuel remain banned.

Although largely symbolic, the gesture disrupts long-standing assumptions about what African films can show, who they can centre, and which lives can be made visible.

Censorship and representation

African film industries have historically operated under difficult systems of moral, religious, and political regulation. From colonial censorship boards to postcolonial classification authorities, film has been treated as requiring constant surveillance.

Sexuality, especially queer sexuality, has been one of the most heavily policed domains. Films tackling same-sex desire have often been banned, restricted to festival circuits, or forced into underground circulation. In South Africa, the film Inxeba/The Wound was effectively banned from mainstream cinemas. In Nigeria, the first independent queer film Ìfé was prohibited from cinemas.

Rafiki’s initial banning followed this pattern. Despite being selected for screening at the important Cannes Film Festival, it was deemed unsuitable for Kenyan audiences. An internationally celebrated Kenyan film could be screened overseas but not in Nairobi.

So the ruling disrupts this asymmetry. It shows that national cinemas cannot indefinitely insulate themselves from transnational circuits. Overseas, African queer films increasingly gain visibility, prestige and market value.

Kenyan law appears, in this sense, to be more flexible and changing in response to international attention, cultural pressure and public image.

African audiences

One of the most significant implications of the potential unbanning concerns the question of audiences. Bans don’t just suppress content; they also actively shape who is imagined as the viewers. For decades, queer African films have been implicitly addressed to foreign audiences, festivals and academic readers, rather than to local publics.

Allowing Rafiki to screen at home will challenge this idea. It will open a space, even if it’s a fragile one, for Kenyan audiences to encounter queer lives. Not as abstract political controversies but as intimate, everyday narratives. Rafiki tells a deliberately modest story, grounded in the innocence of first love and the textures of everyday life in the city.

This matters because being represented is not only about being visible. It’s also about producing audiences. More than depicting queer lives, films like Rafiki shape new viewing communities and new forms of recognition.

In this sense, the ruling contributes to a slow reconfiguration of African film publics. It suggests that African audiences are not uniformly conservative or inherently hostile to queer narratives. Instead, they are plural and capable of engaging with complex stories about identity, love and desire.

These publics have been changing, thanks in part to streaming platforms and digital technologies. Even where films are banned from cinemas, viewers can still watch, share and debate them online. This shift is important as cinema spaces themselves are declining across many African countries.

African filmmakers

For African filmmakers, the ruling carries both practical and symbolic importance. Practically, it signals the possibility that national classification regimes may become more negotiable and more responsive to legal challenges and public pressure. The 2018 High Court ruling that temporarily lifted the ban to allow limited screenings had already established an important precedent. The current unbanning consolidates that into institutional practice.

Symbolically, the decision offers a measure of protection to filmmakers who dare to take aesthetic and political risks. Rafiki was shot cautiously in order to evade state surveillance.

It teaches us that queer storytelling is no longer automatically incompatible with national cinema. This may encourage a new generation of African directors, screenwriters and producers to pursue narratives once seen as too dangerous, too marginal, or too commercially unviable.

But caution should not be thrown to the wind. The ruling does not signal the end of censorship, nor does it guarantee a hospitable environment for filmmakers. Classification boards still retain broad powers, and political backlash remains likely.

A fragile opening …

The unbanning of Rafiki should not be overstated. Legal prohibitions against same-sex relations remain in force. Violence against queer communities persists, and cultural backlash is inevitable. Yet openings in cultural policy often precede legal and social change, not the other way around.

Cinema, precisely because it works through emotions and the visual, can create the conditions for new ethical and political sensibilities to emerge.

Rafiki’s return would ultimately represent a possibility that African films can speak more openly about intimacy, vulnerability and difference. A possibility that African audiences can encounter these stories on their own terms.

This story was updated to clarify details of the legal ruling.

Gibson Ncube receives funding from the National Research Foundation (South Africa).

– ref. Banning Rafiki was unlawful: why new court ruling is an important moment for African film – https://theconversation.com/banning-rafiki-was-unlawful-why-new-court-ruling-is-an-important-moment-for-african-film-274542

February 2, 2026

Trump-style unpredictability isn’t just political theatre – it’s a regulatory problem for your brain

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robin Bailey, Assistant Professor in Clinical Psychology, University of Cambridge

Donald Trump can change the temperature of a room with a sentence. One minute he is certain, the next he is backtracking. One day he is threatening, the next he is hinting at a deal. Even before anything concrete happens, people brace for his next turn.

That reaction is not just political. It is what unpredictability does to any system that requires stability. To act at all, you need some working sense of what is happening and what is likely to happen next.

One influential framework in brain science called predictive processing suggests the mind does not wait passively for events. It constantly guesses what will happen, checks those guesses against reality, and adjusts.

A brain that predicts can prepare, even when what it prepares for is uncertainty.
The gap between what you expect and what actually happens is known as a prediction error. These gaps are not mistakes but the basis of learning. When they resolve, the brain updates its picture of the world and moves on.

This is not about what anyone intends, but about what unpredictability does to systems that need some stability to work. Trouble starts when mismatches do not resolve because the source keeps changing. People are told one thing, then the opposite, then told the evidence was never real.

The brain may struggle to settle on what to trust, so uncertainty stays high. In this view, attention is how the brain weighs up what counts as best evidence, and turns the volume up on some signals and down on others.

Uncertainty can be worse than bad news

When this keeps happening, it’s hard to get closure. Effort is spent checking and second guessing. That is one reason why uncertainty can feel worse than bad news. Bad news closes the question, uncertainty keeps it open. When expectations will not stabilise, the body stays on standby, prepared for many possible futures at once.

One idea from this theory is that there are two broad ways to deal with persistent mismatch. One is to change your expectations by getting better information and revising your view. The other is to change the situation so that outcomes become more predictable. You either update the model, or you act to make the world easier to deal with.

On the world stage, flattery can be a crude version of the second route, an attempt to make a volatile person briefly easier to predict. Everyday life shows the same pattern, such as unpredictable workplaces. When priorities change without warning, people cannot anticipate what is required. Extra effort may go into reducing uncertainty rather than doing the job.

Research links this kind of unpredictability to higher daily stress and poorer wellbeing.

The same pattern shows up in close relationships. When someone is unpredictable, people scan tone and try to guess whether today brings warmth or conflict. It can look obsessive, but it is often an attempt to avoid the wrong move.

Studies link unpredictable early environments to poorer emotional control and more strained relationships later in life.

The strain does not stay in thought alone. The brain does a lot more than thinking. A big part of its work is regulating the body, such as the heart rate, energy use and the meaning of bodily sensations.

It does this by anticipating what the body will need next. When those anticipations cannot settle, regulation becomes costly.

Words matter here in a literal sense. Language does not just convey information. It shapes expectations, which changes how the body feels.

Trump can do this at a distance. A few words about a situation can raise or lower the stakes for people, whether in Minneapolis or Iran. The point is that signals from powerful, volatile sources force others to revise their models and prepare their bodies for what might come next.

Communication is a form of regulation. Clarity and consistency help other people settle. Volatility and contradiction keep them on edge.

When a single voice can repeatedly unsettle expectations across millions of people, unpredictability stops being a personal stress and becomes a collective regulatory problem.

How to deal with unpredictability

So what helps when unpredictability keeps pulling your attention? Try checking for new information if it changes your next step or plan, otherwise it just keeps the uncertainty alive.

When a source keeps changing, reduce the effort spent trying to decode it. Switch to action. Set a rule that makes the next step predictable. For example, read the news at 8am, then stop and get on with your day.

Learn where not to look. When messages keep reversing, the problem is not a lack of information, it is an unreliable source.

Biological systems survive by limiting wasted predictions. Sometimes that means changing your expectations; sometimes it means changing the situation. And sometimes it means accepting that when Donald Trump is talking, the safest move is to stop trying to predict what comes next.

Robin Bailey 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. Trump-style unpredictability isn’t just political theatre – it’s a regulatory problem for your brain – https://theconversation.com/trump-style-unpredictability-isnt-just-political-theatre-its-a-regulatory-problem-for-your-brain-274252

February 2, 2026

Your genes matter more for lifespan now than they did a century ago – here’s why

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Karin Modig, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet

How much do your genes determine how long you’ll live? It’s a question that fascinates us, and one that’s been debated for decades. For years, the answer seemed settled – genes account for about 20–25% of the variation in human lifespan, with the rest down to lifestyle and environment.

But a new study published in Science has challenged this view, suggesting the genetic contribution might be considerably higher.

The reason, according to the researchers, is that previous estimates failed to account for how the causes of death have changed over time. A century ago, many people died from what scientists call extrinsic causes – accidents, infections and other external threats.

Today, in developed countries at least, most deaths result from intrinsic causes: the gradual wearing out of our bodies through ageing and age-related diseases like dementia and heart disease.

To get a clearer picture, the research team analysed large groups of Scandinavian twins, carefully excluding deaths from external causes. They also studied twins who were raised apart and siblings of centenarians in the US.

When they stripped away deaths from accidents and infections, the estimated genetic contribution jumped dramatically – from the familiar 20–25% to around 50–55%.

The pattern makes sense when you look at individual diseases. Genetics explain much of the variation in dementia risk, have an intermediate effect on heart disease, and play a relatively modest role in cancer. As environments become more favourable, populations age and diseases caused by the ageing process itself become more common, the genetic component naturally appears larger.

Our genes haven’t become more powerful

But here’s where interpretation becomes crucial. A higher estimate doesn’t mean genes have suddenly become more powerful, nor does it mean you can only influence half your chances of reaching old age. What’s changed is the environment, not our DNA.

Consider human height as an example. A hundred years ago, how tall you grew depended heavily on whether you had enough food and whether childhood illnesses stunted your growth.

Today, in wealthy nations, nearly everyone gets adequate nutrition. Because these environmental differences have narrowed, most of the remaining variation in height is now explained by genetic differences – not because nutrition has stopped mattering, but because most people now reach their genetic potential. However, a malnourished child will still fail to grow tall, regardless of their genes.

The same principle applies to lifespan. As we’ve improved vaccination, reduced pollution, enhanced diet and adopted healthier lifestyles, we’ve lessened the overall impact of environmental factors.

When environmental variation decreases, the proportion of remaining variation attributed to genetics – what scientists call “heritability” – increases by mathematical necessity. The earlier estimates weren’t wrong; they simply reflected different historical circumstances.

A graphic showing human DNA double helix. — Your genes haven’t changed. The environment has.
romakhan3595/Shutterstock.com

This reveals something fundamental: heritability isn’t a fixed biological property but a measure that depends entirely on the population and circumstances you’re looking at. The traditional 20–25% figure described lifespan as it was actually experienced in historical populations, where external threats loomed large.

The new 50–55% estimate describes a different scenario where those threats have been largely removed – essentially describing a different trait.

The headline figure of lifespan being around “50% heritable” risks being misunderstood as meaning genes determine half of a person’s life chances. In reality, the genetic contribution for any given individual can range from very small to very large depending on their circumstances.

There are countless routes to a long life: some people have robust genetic profiles that protect them even in difficult conditions, while others compensate for less favourable genetics through excellent nutrition, exercise and healthcare. Each person represents a unique combination, and many different combinations can result in exceptional longevity.

Which combinations prove most common depends entirely on the population and the conditions in which people live and age. As external causes of death continue to decline in the real world – though they won’t disappear entirely – it will be fascinating to see how these patterns evolve.

The authors of this latest study admit that about half of lifespan variation still depends on environment, lifestyle, healthcare and random biological processes, such as cells dividing out of control in cancer. Their work, they argue, should renew efforts to identify the genetic mechanisms involved in ageing and longevity. Understanding how different genetic factors interact with different environments is probably the key to explaining why some people live much longer than others.

The study offers valuable insights into how different types of mortality have shaped our understanding of lifespan. But its results are best understood as showing how heritability changes across different contexts, rather than establishing a single, universal genetic contribution to how long we live.

In the end, both genes and environment matter. And, perhaps more importantly, they matter together. So whether that feels like good news or bad news, you will probably never get a simple answer to how much of your lifespan is determined by genes alone.

Karin Modig receives funding from Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare and from Karolinska Institutets research funds.

– ref. Your genes matter more for lifespan now than they did a century ago – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/your-genes-matter-more-for-lifespan-now-than-they-did-a-century-ago-heres-why-274796

February 2, 2026

Critics of Keir Starmer’s trip to China are missing these two important points

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kerry Brown, Professor of Chinese Politics; Director, Lau China Institute, King’s College London

When I spoke to a European journalist about British prime minister Keir Starmer’s visit to China at the end of January, they laughed about the controversy it had caused: “I mean, when most other leaders go to China, it’s taken as something they should do, rather than having to justify.” In the last few months, France, Canada, and soon South Korea and Germany, will all see high-level visits to Beijing without generating the levels of heat and discussion the British one has.

It is true that Britain has a very specific relationship with China which never makes for easy partnership. In the so-called narrative of “national humiliation” promoted by the Chinese government – covering the period over the 19th and 20th century when the country was partially colonised and, at times, invaded – Britain played a leading role..

Even so, these are events well predating living memory. In no way can China be seen as a victim today. Over the last half a century, it has transformed, overtaking the UK in almost every way, from the size of its economy to its military power and global influence. Even in the area of technology and innovation, it is now outpacing the UK.

Despite this, both sides seem to continue finding ways to argue with each other. Last year there was the furore over the claims of espionage made by the UK against two British nationals. They denied all charges and the case against them was dropped abruptly, after the Crown Prosecution Service decided the evidence did not show China was a threat to national security. This caused angry claims that the government was simply placating Beijing.

A similar situation occurred recently when, after much delay, the planned new embassy for China in London was finally given approval, eight years after the site was bought.

All of this preceded Starmer’s trip to Beijing. He landed to a fanfare of military guard trumpets, even as the main chorus back home was critical and dismissive. Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch declared that his going was not in the national interest and that, were she in office, she would not have visited.

The brute reality is that in 2026, there are two very tangible and very urgent reasons why Britain and China need to talk to each other as never before. The first is the intensifying realisation that the US is no longer the stable, predictable partner it always was before this.

President Trump is raising daily questions about things that were once assumed to be relatively durable. His proposed foray into Greenland, while seemingly resolved in January, raised the real spectre of the US not just being in dispute with key allies but engaging in outright conflict.

For the first time ever, Britain and China are faced with the same problem – what to make of America’s behaviour, and what to do about it – even if this throws up respectively very different issues. For Starmer, the worry is about how to manage the UK’s greatest security partner as it, at times, no longer seems to want to secure so much as disrupt. For China, it is what to do about preserving its interests globally when an order once underpinned by the US is facing away.

Keir Starmer in China — Starmer visits the Forbidden City.
Flickr/Number10, CC BY

But secondly, we have to return to the staggering speed and scale of China’s technology rise. For research and development in areas that matter to the UK, from environment to life sciences to AI, the risk of not engaging with Beijing is far higher than the alternative. This dramatic change doesn’t seem to be properly understood by many of the most critical domestic voices about Starmer’s visit, not least the politicians with the most hawkish views on China.

For those truly concerned about the UK’s security and national interest, the problem is not that a British prime minister has visited Beijing. Rather, it is that it has been eight years since the last time one did so.

The more Britain continues to bicker and argue even about straightforward contact, the less it will be able to work out how to navigate the new geopolitics – and what to do about a world where access to Chinese technology is not an option, but a necessity.

Kerry Brown 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. Critics of Keir Starmer’s trip to China are missing these two important points – https://theconversation.com/critics-of-keir-starmers-trip-to-china-are-missing-these-two-important-points-274684