Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ilan Noy, Chair in the Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

The words and pictures documenting the famine in the Gaza strip are horrifying.

The coverage has led to acrimonious and often misguided debates about whether there is famine, and who is to blame for it – most recently exemplified by the controversy surrounding a picture published by the New York Times of an emaciated child who is also suffering from a preexisting health condition.

While pictures and words may mislead, numbers usually don’t.

The Nobel prize-winning Indian economist Amartya Sen observed some decades ago that famines are always political and economic events, and that the most direct way to analyse them is to look at food quantities and prices.

This has led to decades of research on past famines. One observation is that dramatic increases in food prices always mean there is a famine, even though not every famine is accompanied by rising food costs.

The price increases we have seen in Gaza are unprecedented.

The economic historian Yannai Spitzer observed in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that staple food prices during the Irish Potato Famine showed a three- to five-fold increase, while there was a ten-fold rise during the Great Bengal Famine of 1943. In the North Korean famine of the 1990s, the price of rice rose by a factor of 12. At least a million people died of hunger in each of these events.

Now, the New York Times has reported the price of flour in Gaza has increased by a factor of 30 and potatoes cost 50 times more.

Israel’s food blockade

As was the case for the UK government in Ireland in the 1840s and Bengal in the 1940s, Israel is responsible for this famine because it controls almost all the Gaza strip and its borders. But Israel has also created the conditions for the famine.

Following a deliberate policy in March of stopping food from coming in, it resumed deliveries of food in May through a very limited set of “stations” it established through a new US-backed organisation (the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation), in a system that seemed designed to fail.

Before Israel’s decision in March to stop food from coming in, the price of flour in Gaza was roughly back to its prewar levels (having previously peaked in 2024 in another round of border closures). Since March, food prices have gone up by an annualised inflation rate of more than 5,000%.

The excuse the Israeli government gives for its starvation policy is that Hamas controls the population by restricting food supplies. It blames Hamas for any shortage of food.

However, if you want to disarm an enemy of its ability to wield food supplies as a weapon by rationing them, the obvious way to do so is the opposite: you would increase the food supply dramatically and hence lower its price.

Restricting supplies and increasing their value is primarily immoral and criminal, but it is also counterproductive for Israel’s stated aims. Indeed, flooding Gaza with food would have achieved much more in weakening Hamas than the starvation policy the Israeli government has chosen.

The UN’s top humanitarian aid official has described Israel’s decision to halt humanitarian assistance to put pressure on Hamas as “cruel collective punishment” – something forbidden under international humanitarian law.

The long-term aftermath of famines

Cormac Ó Gráda, the Irish economic historian of famines, quotes a Kashmiri proverb which says “famine goes, but the stains remain”.

The current famine in Gaza will leave long-lasting pain for Gazans and an enduring moral stain on Israel – for many generations. Ó Gráda points out two main ways in which the consequences of famines endure. Most obvious is the persistent memory of it; second are the direct effects on the long-term wellbeing of exposed populations and their descendants.

The Irish and the Indians have not forgotten the famines that affected them. They still resent the British government for its actions. The memory of these famines still influences relations between Ireland, India and the UK, just as Ukraine’s famine of the early 1930s is still a background to the Ukraine-Russia war.

The generational impact is also significant. Several studies in China find children conceived during China’s Great Leap Forward famine of 1959–1960 (which also killed millions) are less healthy, face more mental health challenges and have lower cognitive abilities than those conceived either before or after the famine.

Other researchers found similar evidence from famines in Ireland and the Netherlands, supporting what is known as the “foetal origins” hypothesis, which proposes that the period of gestation has significant impacts on health in adulthood. Even more worryingly, recent research shows these harmful effects can be transmitted to later generations through epigenetic channels.

Each day without available and accessible food supplies means more serious ongoing effects for the people of Gaza and the Israeli civilian hostages still held by Hamas – as well as later generations. Failure to prevent the famine will persist in collective memory as a moral stain on the international community, but primarily on Israel. Only immediate flooding of the strip with food aid can help now.

Ilan Noy is a dual citizen of both New Zealand and Israel.

– ref. Soaring food prices prove the Gaza famine is real – and will affect generations to come – https://theconversation.com/soaring-food-prices-prove-the-gaza-famine-is-real-and-will-affect-generations-to-come-262486

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Peter Draper, Professor, and Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, and Director of the Jean Monnet Centre of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide

Last week, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order updating the “reciprocal” tariff rates that had been paused since April.

Nearly all US trading partners are now staring down tariffs of between 10% and 50%.

After a range of baseline and sector-specific tariffs came into effect earlier this year, many economists had predicted economic chaos. So far, the inflationary impact has been less than many predicted.

However, there are worrying signs that could all soon change, as economic pain flows through to the US consumer.

Decoding the deals

Trump’s latest adjustments weren’t random acts of economic warfare. They revealed a hierarchy, and a pattern has emerged.

Countries running goods trade deficits with the US (that is, buying more than they sell to the US), which also have security relationships with the US, get 10%. This includes Australia.

Japan and South Korea, which both have security relationships with the US, were hit with 15% tariffs, likely due to their large trade surpluses with the US.

But the rest of Asia? That’s where Trump is really turning the screws. Asian nations now face average tariffs of 22.1%.

Countries that negotiated with Trump, such as Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines, all got 19%, the “discount rate” for Asian countries willing to make concessions.

India faces a 25% rate, plus potential penalties for trading with Russia.

Is Trump winning the trade war?

In the current trade war, it is unsurprising that despite threats to do so, no countries have actually imposed retaliatory tariffs on US products, with the exception of China and Canada. Doing so would drive up their consumer prices, reduce economic activity, and invite Trump to escalate, possibly limiting access to the lucrative US market.

Instead, nations that negotiated “deals” with the Trump administration have essentially accepted elevated reciprocal tariff rates to maintain a measure of access to the US market.

For many of these countries, this was despite making major concessions, such
as dropping their own tariffs on US exports, promising to reform certain domestic regulations, and purchasing various US goods.

Protests over the weekend, including in India and South Korea, suggested many of these tariff negotiations were not popular.

Even the European Union has struck a deal accepting US tariff rates that once would have seemed unthinkable – 15%. Trump’s confusing Russia-Ukraine war strategy has worried European leaders. Rather than risk US strategic withdrawal, they appear to have simply folded on tariffs.

Some deals are still pending. Notably, Taiwan, which received a higher reciprocal tariff (20%) than Japan and South Korea, claims it is still negotiating.

Through the narrow prism of deal making, it is hard not to escape the conclusion that Trump has gotten his way with everyone – except China and Canada. He has imposed elevated US tariffs on many countries, but also negotiated to secure increased export market access for US firms and promised purchases of planes, agriculture and energy.

Why economic chaos hasn’t arrived – yet

Imposing tariffs on goods coming into the US effectively creates a tax on US consumers and manufacturers. It drives up the prices of both finished goods (products) and intermediate goods (components) used in manufacturing.

Yet the Yale Budget Lab estimates the tariffs will cause consumer prices to rise by 1.8% this year.

This muted inflationary impact is likely a result of exports to the US being “front-loaded” before the tariffs took effect. Many US importers rushed to stockpile goods in the country ahead of the deadline.

It may also reflect some companies choosing to “eat the tariffs” by not passing the full cost to their customers, hoping they can ride things out until Trump “chickens out” and the tariffs are removed or reduced.

Who really pays

Despite Trump’s repeated claims that tariffs are a tax paid by foreign countries, research consistently shows that US companies and consumers bear the tariff burden.

Already this year, General Motors reported that tariffs cost it US$1.1 billion (about A$1.7 billion) in the second quarter of 2025.

A new 50% tariff on semi-finished copper products took effect on August 1. That announcement in July sent copper prices soaring by 13% in a single day. This affects everything from electrical wiring to plumbing, with costs ultimately passed to US consumers.

The average US tariff rate now sits at 18.3%, the highest level since 1934. This represents a staggering increase from just 2.4% when Trump took office in January.

This trade-weighted average means that, on typical imported goods, Americans will pay nearly one-fifth more in taxes.

Alarm bells

The US Federal Reserve is concerned about these potential price impacts, and last week opted to maintain interest rates at their current levels, despite Trump’s pressure on Chairman Jerome Powell.

And on August 1, economic data released in the US showed significant slowing in job creation, some worrying signs in economic growth, and early signs of business investment paralysis due to the economic uncertainty unleashed by Trump’s ever-changing tariff rates.

Trump responded to the report by firing the US Bureau of Labour Statistics commissioner, a shock move that led to widespread concerns official US data could soon become politicised.

But the worst economic impacts could still be yet to come. The domestic consequences of Trump’s tariff policies are likely to amount to a massive economic own goal.

Nathan Howard Gray receives funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

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

– ref. It might seem like Trump is winning his trade war. But the US could soon be in a world of pain – https://theconversation.com/it-might-seem-like-trump-is-winning-his-trade-war-but-the-us-could-soon-be-in-a-world-of-pain-262434

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Daniela Ceccarelli, Reef Fish Ecologist, Australian Institute of Marine Science

Official analysis of 124 reefs on the Great Barrier Reef shows coral cover has dropped sharply after a record-breaking marine heatwave in 2024, prompting grave fears over the trajectory of the natural wonder.

Over the past few years, fast-growing corals had pushed the Great Barrier Reef’s coral cover to record highs. But those corals were known to be extremely vulnerable and one bad summer away from losing those gains.

Our new report by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) shows these fears have been realised. The percentage of living hard coral covering the Great Barrier Reef’s surface dropped in each region we surveyed.

The recent extreme highs and lows in coral cover are a troubling phenomenon. It raises the prospect that the Great Barrier Reef may reach a point from which it cannot recover.

Another global marine heatwave

In healthy corals, tiny algae produce both the coral’s main food source and its vibrant colours. When the water gets too warm, the algae are expelled and the coral’s tissue becomes transparent – revealing the white limestone skeleton beneath. This is called coral bleaching.

Coral can recover if temperatures are reduced and the relationship with the algae is restored, but it’s a stressful and difficult process. And if recovery takes too long, the coral will die.

In June 2023, a marine heatwave bleached coral reefs from the Caribbean to the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

It reached Australia’s east coast in February 2024, causing extensive coral bleaching. Aerial surveys showed three quarters of 1,080 reefs assessed had some bleaching. On 40% of these reefs, more than half the corals were white.

In the aftermath, in-water surveys measured how much coral died in the northern, central and southern Great Barrier Reef. The worst damage lined up with the highest levels of heat stress.

Sharp declines in coral cover

AIMS has surveyed reefs of the Great Barrier Reef each year since 1986, in a project known as the Long-Term Monitoring Program. It is the most extensive record of coral status on any reef ecosystem in the world.

One component of the surveys involves towing an expert observer behind a boat around the full perimeter of each reef. The observer records the amount of live, bleached and dead coral. These observations are then averaged for each location, and for each of the three regions of the Great Barrier Reef.

After each monitoring season we report on the percentage of living hard coral covering the Great Barrier Reef’s surface. It’s a coarse but robust, reliable indicator of the state of the Great Barrier Reef.

Coral losses this year were not uniform across the Great Barrier Reef. On the northern Great Barrier Reef, from Cape York to Cooktown, average coral cover dropped by about a quarter between 2024 and 2025 (from 39.8% to 30%). The largest declines on individual reefs (up to 70% loss) occurred near Lizard Island.

Reefs with stable or increasing coral cover were mostly found in the central region, from Cooktown to Proserpine. However, there was still a region-wide decline of 14% (from 33.2% to 28.6%), and reefs near Cairns lost between 17-60% of their 2024 coral cover.

In the southern reef (Proserpine to Gladstone) coral cover declined by almost a third. In the summer of 2024, southern reefs experienced the highest levels of heat stress ever recorded, resulting in substantial coral loss (from 38.9% to 26.9%).

The declines in the north and south were the largest in a single year since monitoring began 39 years ago.

Despite these losses, the Great Barrier Reef still has more coral than many other reefs worldwide, and remains a major tourist attraction. It’s possible to find areas that still look good in an ecosystem this huge, but that doesn’t mean the large-scale average hasn’t dropped.

More frequent bleaching events

Mass coral bleaching is becoming more frequent as the world warms.

Before the 1990s, mass bleaching was extremely rare. That changed in 1998 with the first major event, followed by another in 2002.

Back-to-back bleaching events occurred for the first time in 2016 and 2017. Since then, bleaching has struck the Great Barrier Reef in 2020, 2022, 2024, and again this year. The impacts of this year’s bleaching event will be revealed following the next round of surveys.

The time between these events is shrinking, giving corals less time to recover. Cyclones and crown-of-thorns starfish are also continuing to cause widespread coral loss.

You’ll see in the following charts how the percentage of coral cover has changed over time. The vertical yellow lines show the mass coral bleaching events increasing in frequency.

Confronting questions

The coral reefs of the future are unlikely to look like those of the past. The loss of biodiversity seems inevitable.

But will the reefs of the future still sustain the half a billion people that depend on them for food and income? Will they continue to protect coastlines from increasing storm activity and rising sea levels? These are confronting questions.

Effective management and research into reef adaptation and recovery interventions may bridge the gap until meaningful climate action is achieved. But above all, the key to securing a future for coral reefs is reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Daniela Ceccarelli works for the Australian Institute of Marine Science, a publicly funded research organisation that receives funding from the Australian government, state government departments, foundations and private industry.

David Wachenfeld works for the Australian Institute of Marine Science, a publicly funded research organisation that receives funding from the Australian government, state government departments, foundations and private industry.

Mike Emslie works for the Australian Institute of Marine Science, a publicly funded research organisation that receives funding from the Australian government, state government departments, foundations and private industry.

– ref. World’s biggest coral survey confirms sharp decline in Great Barrier Reef after heatwave – https://theconversation.com/worlds-biggest-coral-survey-confirms-sharp-decline-in-great-barrier-reef-after-heatwave-260563

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Meena Jha, Head Technology and Pedagogy Cluster CML-NET, CQUniversity Australia

We wash our hands, sanitise shopping trolleys and wipe down cafe tables. But what about our phones? We touch these devices dozens of times a day, and take them everywhere from the kitchen to the dining table, and even the bathroom.

Phones can be contaminated with many kinds of potential germs. When was the last time you wiped down yours – and with what?

If you use the wrong cleaning agents or tools, you could strip your phone’s protective coatings, degrade waterproof seals, or even affect its touch sensitivity.

Do phones really need cleaning?

Touchscreens get covered in fingerprints and smudges, so there are aesthetic and functional reasons to wipe down your screen.

Another reason comes down to potential health concerns. Whenever mobile phones are swabbed for microorganisms, scientists inevitably find hundreds of species of bacteria and viruses.

While not all of these cause sickness, the potential for transmission is there. We use phones while in the bathroom and then put them near our mouths, touch them while eating, and pass them between people in meetings, cafes, parties and classrooms.

Unlike hands, which can be washed many times a day, phones are rarely cleaned properly – if at all.

If you do want to sanitise your phone, it’s also important to not damage it in the process.

Some cleaning products will damage your phone

You might think a quick swipe with a household cleaner or hand sanitiser is a clever shortcut to keeping your phone clean. However, many of these products can actually degrade your device’s surface and internal components over time.

For example, both Apple and Samsung advise against using bleach, hydrogen peroxide, vinegar, aerosol sprays, window cleaners or high-concentration alcohol wipes (above 70%) on their devices.

Most smartphones are coated with an oleophobic layer – a thin film that helps resist fingerprints and smudges. Harsh chemicals such as alcohols, acetone or ammonia-based cleaners can strip this coating, making your screen more vulnerable to smudging, and diminished touch responsiveness.

Vinegar, a common DIY disinfectant, can corrode aluminium or plastic edges due to its high acidity. Bleach and hydrogen peroxide, though highly effective as disinfectants, are also too aggressive for the delicate materials used in consumer electronics.

High-alcohol content wipes may dry out plastics and make them brittle with repeated use.

In short: if the cleaner is tough enough to disinfect your kitchen bench, it is probably too harsh for your phone.

How should I clean my phone then?

The good news is that cleaning your phone properly is simple and inexpensive. You just need to follow the guidelines backed by major manufacturers. You should also unplug and remove any protective cases or accessories when cleaning your phone.

Most tech companies recommend using 70% isopropyl alcohol wipes (not higher), soft microfibre cloths, and anti-static soft-bristled brushes made of nylon, horsehair or goat hair to clean delicate areas like speaker grills and charging ports.

During the COVID pandemic, Apple revised its cleaning guidelines to permit the use of Clorox disinfecting wipes and 70% isopropyl alcohol on iPhones, provided they are used gently to avoid damaging screen coatings or allowing moisture to seep into the device.

Samsung offers similar advice, recommending users wipe down their phones with a microfibre cloth lightly dampened with a 70% alcohol solution, while steering clear of direct application to ports and openings.

Prevent accidental damage when using these tips

Never spray liquid directly onto the phone, as moisture can seep into ports and internal components, leading to short circuits or corrosion.

Submerging your phone in any cleaning solution is also risky, even for water-resistant models: the seals that prevent water from getting in, such as rubber gaskets, adhesives, nano-coatings and silicone layers, can degrade over time.

Avoid using paper towels, tissues, or rough cloths which may leave scratches on the screen or shed lint that clogs openings.

Finally, be cautious about over-cleaning. Excessive wiping or scrubbing can wear down protective coatings, making your phone more susceptible to fingerprints, smudges, and long-term surface damage.

How often should I clean my phone?

While there is no strict rule for how often you should clean your phone, giving it a proper wipe-down at least once a week under normal use would make sense.

If you regularly take your phone into high-risk environments such as public transport, hospitals, gyms, or bathrooms it is wise to clean it more frequently.

If you’re serious about hygiene, cleaning not just your hands but one of the things you touch most every single day makes sense.

Doing it wrong can slowly damage your device. But doing it right is simple, affordable, and doesn’t take much time.

Meena Jha 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. Your phone is covered in germs: a tech expert explains how to clean it without doing damage – https://theconversation.com/your-phone-is-covered-in-germs-a-tech-expert-explains-how-to-clean-it-without-doing-damage-259908

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Niven Winchester, Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology

The global rollercoaster ride of United States trade tariffs has now entered its latest phase.

President Donald Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” announcement placed
reciprocal tariffs on all countries. A week later, amid financial market turmoil, these tariffs were paused and replaced by a 10% baseline tariff on most goods.

On July 31, however, the Trump Administration reinstated and expanded the reciprocal tariff policy. Most of these updated tariffs are scheduled to take effect on August 7.

To evaluate the impact of these latest tariffs, we also need to take into account recently negotiated free trade agreements (such as the US-European Union deal), the 50% tariffs imposed on steel and aluminium imports, and tariff exemptions for imports of smartphones, computers and other electronics.

For selected countries, the reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2 and the revised values of these tariffs are shown in the table below. The revised additional tariffs are highest for Brazil (50%) and Switzerland (39%), and lowest for Australia and the United Kingdom (10%).

For most countries, the revised tariffs are lower than the original ones. But Brazil, Switzerland and New Zealand are subject to higher tariffs than those announced in April.

In addition to the tariffs displayed above, Canadian and Mexican goods not registered as compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement are subject to tariffs of 35% and 25% respectively.

Economic impacts

The economic impacts of the revised tariffs are examined using a global model of goods and services markets, covering production, trade and consumption.

A similar model was used to assess the impacts of the original reciprocal tariffs and the outcome of a US-China trade war.

GDP impacts of the tariffs are displayed in the table below. The impacts of the additional tariffs are evaluated relative to trade measures in place before Trump’s second term. Retaliatory tariffs are not considered in the analysis.

An economic own goal

The tariffs reduce US annual GDP by 0.36%. This equates to US$108.2 billion or $861 per household per year (all amounts in this article are in US dollars).

The change in US GDP is an aggregate of impacts involving several factors.

The tariffs will compel foreign producers to lower their prices. But these price decreases only partially offset the cost of the tariffs, so US consumers pay higher prices.

Businesses also pay more for parts and materials. Ultimately, these higher prices hurt the US economy.

The tariffs decrease US merchandise imports by $486.7 billion. But as they drive up the cost of US supply chains and shift more workers and resources into industries that compete with imports, away from other parts of the economy, they also decrease US merchandise exports by $451.1 billion.

Global impacts

For most other countries, the additional tariffs reduce GDP. Switzerland’s GDP decreases by 0.47%, equivalent to $1,215 per household per year. Proportional GDP decreases are also relatively large for Thailand (0.44%) and Taiwan (0.38%).

In dollar terms, GDP decreases are relatively large for China ($66.9 billion) and the European Union ($26.6 billion).

Australia and the United Kingdom gain from the tariffs ($0.1 billion and $0.07 billion respectively), primarily due to the relatively low tariffs levied on these countries.

Despite facing relatively low additional tariffs, New Zealand’s GDP decreases by 0.15% ($204 per household) as many of its agricultural exports compete with Australian commodities, which are subject to an even lower tariff.

Although the revised reciprocal tariffs are, on average, lower than those announced on April 2, they are still a substantial shock to the global trading system.

Financial markets have been buoyant since Trump paused reciprocal tariffs on April 9, partly on the hope that the tariffs would never be imposed. US tariffs of at least 10% to 15% now appear to be the new norm.

As US warehouses run down inventories and stockpiles, there could be a rocky road ahead.

Niven Winchester has previously received funding from the Productivity Commission and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to estimate the impacts of potential trade policies. He is affiliated with Motu Economic & Public Policy Research.

– ref. New Trump tariffs: early modelling shows most economies lose – the US more than many – https://theconversation.com/new-trump-tariffs-early-modelling-shows-most-economies-lose-the-us-more-than-many-262491

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Andrew J. Martin, Scientia Professor and Professor of Educational Psychology, UNSW Sydney

If you had to do a test, how would you respond? Would you relish the chance to demonstrate your knowledge? Or worry you were about to fall short of the mark and embarrass yourself?

Research tells us students’ attitudes towards taking tests or doing exams can have an impact on their performance. This is because what they think about themselves, the test questions, and the consequences of the test can impact their motivation and focus during the test.

To date, this research has largely grouped students into two main types of test-takers. One group sees tests as a challenge they can cope with. Another sees tests as a threat they will not be able to handle.

But some studies have suggested these groupings may be too broad to give useful support to students.

In our new study, the largest of its kind, we explored Australian high school students taking a science test. By capturing diverse psychological data, such as students’ brainwaves and stress responses, we found there are four types of test-takers.

Our study

We studied 244 male and female students from three Sydney schools in years 8 to 10 as they did a science test.

It is the largest study of its kind to collate diverse information on students’ brain wave activity, physiological responses and self-reported attitudes while they are doing a test.

This is significant because this kind of research is usually done in labs with large functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machines, a setting quite different from a real classroom. Our approach allowed us to get a well-rounded look at the different psychological indicators at play when students do a test.

The students were part of a larger research project looking at science engagement. The test was developed by our research team, with guidance from science teachers.

How we set up our research

Students wore an electroencephalogram (EEG) headset during the test to capture their brain activity, via alpha and theta waves.

The alpha waves measured how much students were focusing on the test and the theta waves looked at the strain on their working memory (which students need to use to solve problems in a test). Both these capacities can be disrupted if a person feels threatened or stressed.

Students also wore a biometric wristband that measured their sweat glands. In our study, lower “electrodermal activity” scores indicated a calmer and more positive state, and higher scores indicated stress.

Midway through the test, students reported how confident they were about meeting the demands of the test and how anxious they felt about not meeting the demands.

We then used a statistical technique called latent profile analysis to help us identify different types of test-takers. This technique enables researchers to identify subgroups based on certain variables.

4 types of test-takers

We were able to identify four groups of students who had distinct patterns on these different measures.

1. Confident striders: these students took the test “in their stride”. They reported high confidence and low anxiety, and recorded an optimal balance of attention and working memory. Their wristband readings indicated they were calm. They made up 27% of the group.

2. Confident battlers: also reported they were confident and low in anxiety, but other data suggested they were battling behind the scenes. Their wristband readings suggested their “fight or flight” system was aroused. Their brain waves also showed their working memory did not have as much capacity to problem-solve as the confident striders, which also indicates a level of stress. They made up 8% of the group.

3. Ambivalents: these students were average across all of the indicators, reflecting that they didn’t see the test as a challenge or a threat. They made up 38% of the group.

4. Fearers: reported low confidence and high anxiety. Their wristband readings indicated they were stressed, and their brain wave readings showed they were not directing much direction to the actual test. They made up 27% of the group.

How did these test-takers perform on the test?

We then looked at the test performance for each of these four test-takers. Not surprisingly, confident striders were the highest achievers. Confident battlers also did well on the test, but not as well as striders. Ambivalents scored lower on the test, but not as low as fearers.

These results were measured against students’ previous science results (in school tests and assignments), because we wanted to know whether students performed above or below their usual level. This was to ensure we were measuring the impact of students’ psychological approach to the test, rather than just how good they are at science.

Taken together, our findings suggest that believing in themselves, confronting any fearful thoughts, and having a clear mind to concentrate on the task, puts students in the strongest position to perform well.

What can teachers do?

Our findings also provide guidance for teachers to target the factors that defined the test-takers.

• To help build confidence, students can be taught how to challenge doubts about themselves. This can include reminding students of their strengths as they approach the test. For example, students could reflect on how well they conducted the experiments in their science lessons if the test includes questions about those experiments.

• To ease anxiety, students can be taught constructive ways to think about challenging schoolwork. For example, students can remind themselves of the knowledge they have learned that will be helpful. Students can also be taught to use breathing and mindfulness exercises to ease stress. This can reduce a physical stress response and help focus their attention on the task at hand.

• To optimise working memory, for in-class assessments teachers can match the test to students’ abilities and prior learning. This means the test is challenging enough, but not so overwhelming that it excessively burdens working memory while they are problem solving. This can also help build confidence ahead of other, higher-stakes exams.

Andrew J. Martin received funding from the Australian Research Council and The King’s School for this research. He also receives funding from Commonwealth and state departments of education.

Emma Burns receives funding from the Australian Research Council, is an associate editor for the Australian Educational Researcher and is on the board of the Australian Educational Research Organisation.

Joel Pearson receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

Rebecca J. Collie receives funding from Commonwealth and State Departments of Education. She has also received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Roger Kennett received funding from the Australian Research Council and The King’s School for this research.

– ref. How do you feel about doing exams? Our research unearthed 4 types of test-takers – https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-feel-about-doing-exams-our-research-unearthed-4-types-of-test-takers-261552

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nisa Salim, Director, Swinburne-CSIRO National Testlab for Composite Additive Manufacturing, Swinburne University of Technology

When your favourite dress or shirt shrinks in the wash, it can be devastating, especially if you followed the instructions closely. Unfortunately, some fabrics just seem to be more prone to shrinking than others – but why?

Understanding more about the science of textile fibres can not only help you prevent the shrinkage of clothing, but also might help you “rescue” the occasional garment after a laundry accident.

It’s all down to the fibres

To know more about clothing shrinkage, we first need to understand a little about how textiles are made.

Common textile fibres, such as cotton and linen, are made from plants. These fibres are irregular and crinkled in their natural form. If you zoom deeper inside them, you’ll see millions of tiny, long-chain cellulose molecules that naturally exist in coiled or convoluted shapes.

During textile manufacturing, these fibres are mechanically pulled, stretched and twisted to straighten and align these cellulose chains together. This creates smooth, long threads.

On a chemical level, there are also links between the chains called hydrogen bonds. These strengthen the fibre and the thread and make it more cohesive.

Threads are woven or knitted into fabrics, which locks in the tension that holds those fibres side by side.

However, these fibres have good “memory”. Whenever they’re exposed to heat, moisture or mechanical action (such as agitation in your washing machine), they tend to relax and return to their original crinkled state.

This fibre memory is why some fabrics wrinkle so easily and why some of them may even shrink after washing.

How does washing shrink the fabric?

To understand shrinkage, we again need to zoom down to the molecular level. During laundering, hot water helps to increase the energy level of fibres – this means they shake more rapidly which disrupts the hydrogen bonds holding them in place.

The way a fabric is knitted or woven also plays a role. Loosely knitted fabrics have more open spaces and loops, making them more susceptible to shrinkage. Tightly woven fabrics are more resistant because the threads are locked into place with less room to move.

Additionally, cellulose is hydrophilic – it attracts water. Water molecules penetrate inside the fibres, causing swelling and making them more flexible and mobile. Adding to all this is the tumble and twist action inside the washing machine.

The whole process makes the fibres relax and recoil back to their natural, less stretched, crinkled state. As a result, the garment shrinks.

It’s not just hot water – here’s why

This doesn’t just happen with hot water, as you may have experienced yourself with clothes made of rayon, for example.

Cold water can still penetrate into fibres, making them swell, along with the mechanical action of the tumbling in the washing machine. The effect is less dramatic with cold water, but it can happen.

To minimise shrinkage, you may use cold water, the lowest spin speed or the gentlest cycle available, especially for cotton and rayon. Machine labels don’t always fully explain the impact of spin speed and agitation. When in doubt, choose a “delicate” setting.

What about wool?

Different fibres shrink in different ways; there is no single mechanism that fits all.

While cellulose-based fabrics shrink as described above, wool is an animal-derived fibre made of keratin proteins. Its surface is covered in tiny, overlapping scales called cuticle cells.

During washing, these cuticles open up and interlock with neighbouring fibres causing fibre entanglement or “felting”. This makes the clothing feel denser and smaller – in other words, it shrinks.

Why don’t synthetics shrink as much?

Synthetic fibres such as polyester or nylon are made from petroleum-based polymers, engineered for stability and durability.

These polymers contain more crystalline regions that are highly ordered and act as an internal “skeleton”, preventing the fibres from crinkling.

Textile scientists and engineers are also working on fabrics that resist shrinkage through advanced material design. Among promising innovations are blended yarns that combine natural and synthetic fibres.

Some researchers are working on shape-memory polymers that can change shape – or return to a previous shape – in response to temperature or water, for example. This is different to stretch fabrics (such as those used in activewear) that are made up of highly elastic fibres which “bounce back” to their original state after stretching.

How can I unshrink a piece of clothing?

If a favourite garment has shrunk in the wash, you can try to rescue it with this simple method.

Gently soak the item in lukewarm water mixed with hair conditioner or baby shampoo (approximately one tablespoon per litre). Then, carefully stretch the fabric back into shape and dry it flat or under gentle tension – for example, by pegging the garment to a drying rack.

The reason this works is because conditioners have chemicals known as cationic surfactants. These will temporarily lubricate the fibres, making them more flexible and allowing you to gently pull everything back into place.

This process can’t completely reverse extreme shrinkage but it can help recover some of the lost size, making the clothes wearable again.

Nisa Salim 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 do some clothes shrink in the wash? A textile scientist explains how to ‘unshrink’ them – https://theconversation.com/why-do-some-clothes-shrink-in-the-wash-a-textile-scientist-explains-how-to-unshrink-them-259388

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Bradley Smith, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, CQUniversity Australia

She’s six years old, lives in Brisbane and might just be one of the best resilience coaches on television.

We’re talking about Bluey, the animated Aussie pup whose adventures have captured the hearts of families around the world.

But as our new study reveals, Bluey isn’t just entertaining kids, she’s modelling how to to deal with life’s ups and downs.

Why is resilience so important?

Resilience isn’t just about “toughing it out”. It’s the ability to cope with challenges, adapt to setbacks and recover from difficulties. It’s a vital part of healthy child development.

Research shows resilience helps children manage stress, regulate their emotions, build better relationships, and even perform better at school. Without it, children may be more vulnerable to anxiety, depression and poor coping skills later in life.

Children today face growing mental health challenges, including around anxiety and emotional dysregulation. For example, a 2023 national resilience survey of almost 140,000 students found more than one in four primary and one in three secondary students reported high levels of psychological distress.

Research shows the earlier we support resilience-building, the better. Early interventions help build healthy coping skills before negative patterns take hold.

How TV can help

Storytelling in films, books and TV can show children how to navigate challenges – not through lectures, but by modelling behaviours like emotional regulation, problem-solving and empathy.

Animal characters in storytelling also offer valuable learning opportunities for children, who are naturally drawn to animals.

Bluey first aired in 2018. It has since become Australia’s most successful children’s program, with billions of views worldwide.

It is known for its realistic portrayal of young family life. Yet until now, no one had systematically examined how it – or any kid’s TV show – presents resilience on screen.

So we watched all 150 Bluey episodes

In our study, we analysed every episode of Bluey from seasons one to three. The 150 episodes added up to 18 hours of Bluey, Bingo, Chilli, Bandit and their friends.

For each episode, we looked closely at the storyline, characters and themes, identifying moments where a character faced a challenge and showed a resilient response.

To guide our analysis, we used the Grotberg Resilience Framework. This is a widely recognised model in psychology that breaks resilience into three key elements.

1. I have: involving the support systems around a child, such as family, friends, and community role models they can rely on.

2. I can: involving practical coping skills, like solving problems, managing emotions and asking for help when needed.

3. I am: involving a child’s inner strengths like confidence, optimism, emotional regulation and a sense of self worth.

‘It’s out of our hands’

Our research found nearly half of all episodes (73 out of 150) included a clear resilience message as either a primary or secondary theme.

Nearly two-thirds of the resilience moments were facilitated by a parent — most often Bluey’s mum. This fits with the “I have” category of resilience, which highlights how children draw strength from caring adults when things get tough.

For example in The Show (season two episode 19), Bingo accidentally drops a breakfast tray and bursts into tears. Mum gently models emotional coaching explaining her coping process: “I have a little cry, I pick myself up, dust myself off, and keep going.” Research shows that when caregivers model how to acknowledge distress, express feelings, and then recover with calm, children gradually learn to manage negative emotions effectively.

Later in the episode, Bingo repeats those exact words when things go wrong again.

‘Well, that was fun’

Bluey and her sister also frequently demonstrate practical coping skills on their own.

In Keepy Uppy (season one, episode three), the final balloon in a game pops. The kids pause, take it in, and smile. “Well, that was fun,” they say.

In a single moment, we see disappointment, emotional regulation, and reframing – the core of the “I can” category.

Everyday moments, powerful messages

We also see characters overcoming challenges with their own inner strength. In Seesaw (season two, episode 26) Pom Pom shows determination and self-confidence to get to the top of the seesaw and save her friends, in an example of “I am”. As she declares, “Pomeranians are a small but hardy breed”.

We found Bluey touches on almost all of the core elements of resilience: trusting relationships, emotional communication, problem-solving, self-regulation, empathy and more.

In Sheepdog (season three, episode 11), mum Chilli tells her family she needs “20 minutes” of alone time. Bluey is worried she’s done something wrong. Later, during play, Bluey gently echoes her mum’s words to a toy: “It’s hard work looking after you. I just need 20 minutes.”

That simple moment models self-care and perspective-taking as well as empathy. For kids, learning that grown-ups need rest too is a powerful message.

How to watch Bluey with your kids

Of course, no screen can replace real relationships. But when parents watch shows like Bluey with their kids, they become powerful teaching tools.

So the next time your child wants to watch an episode for the tenth time, don’t feel guilty – join them. When parents watch too, those moments become conversation starters. For example, “What do you think Bluey felt then?”, “Have you ever felt like that?” or “What would you do in that situation?”

Talking about what kids see on screen can help them reflect, process, and build the skills they need to cope, adapt and grow.

---

CQUniversity student Kelly Bohl and co-host of Bluey podcast Gotta Be Done Mary Bolling contributed to the original research on which this article is based.

Bradley 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. Researchers watched 150 episodes of Bluey – they found it can teach kids about resilience for real life – https://theconversation.com/researchers-watched-150-episodes-of-bluey-they-found-it-can-teach-kids-about-resilience-for-real-life-262202

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Sandra Garrido, NHMRC-ARC Dementia Research Development Fellow, Western Sydney University

Deep in your memory, your brain has created a playlist of music from your teenage years. Even though life has moved on, hearing that music now likely still brings up some really powerful emotions.

Why?

Well, as with anything to do with the brain and with emotions, it’s hard to say for sure. But it’s likely a bit to do with evolution, and a bit to do with some key neurological changes that occur in the teenage years.

Imagine the world of a prehistoric teenager

Changing hormones supercharge the limbic system, which is the emotional centre of the brain. Teens become emotionally sensitive and susceptible to intense mood swings.

At the same time, we start to become less reliant on our parents.

This increasing independence accelerates the need to forge close relationships with peers. We need to learn very quickly how to interpret the emotions of others, and develop strong memories of things that are safe or unsafe.

Imagine the world of a prehistoric teenager. No longer a child wholly dependent on their parents, the adolescent feels an instinctive drive to explore new territory and strike out on their own.

Away from their family’s protection, survival now hinges on bonds with peers.

Going it alone is fraught with danger. Belonging to a group becomes a matter of life or death.

The teen finds a new pack, which communicates crucial information to each other using body language or non-linguistic verbalisations. Variations in the voice pitch or the speed of speech signal urgency or excitement.

Strong emotional reactions – the fear of danger, the thrill of a successful hunt, an intense connection with a potential mate – ensure memories about what to fear and what to seek are deeply carved into this teenage brain.

The stronger the emotion, the deeper the memory.

The brains of modern teens aren’t much different

In today’s world, we seldom need to hunt for food or protect ourselves from predators trying to eat us. But modern teenage brains are still wired to react quickly and instinctively.

Modern teens will still strike out away from the safety of the family circle, learning to navigate the treacherous world of adolescent relationships.

As we all know – often from searingly painful personal experience – teenage brains are keenly attuned to non-linguistic social cues that signal acceptance or rejection by the pack.

We are evolutionarily wired to lay down deep memories in our brains of events that have had a strong emotional impact on us.

So what’s this got to do with teen music tastes?

Music can convey linguistic and non-linguistic emotion.

Lyrics can tell a story that makes us feel heard and understood. They might signal we belong and are connected – with the artist, with other fans, and with broader human experiences such as love, lust or loneliness.

The melody and beat communicate emotion too.

In fact, some scholars believe the very reason music exists is related to the non-linguistic elements of speech that our prehistoric ancestors may have used to communicate before spoken language developed.

Our brains may respond to these signals in music the way our prehistoric ancestors responded to expressions of urgency, excitement or peace from other members of the tribe.

The way music communicates and evokes emotion is what makes it so important in life, particularly during the teenage years.

Teenagers may spend several hours per day listening to music, particularly when going through periods of psychological distress.

During this period – when emotional experiences and the learning that comes from them are so crucial to learning to survive – music becomes a powerful tool.

It can act as a simulator for practising emotional skills, a guide to navigating emotional ups and downs and a key to finding connection and belonging.

In other words, the music that we hear in our teenage years becomes closely intertwined with the strong emotions we experience at that time.

A time of many firsts

The music of your teens was likely the backdrop to your first kiss, the anthem you sang along to with friends, and a source of comfort when your heart was first broken.

Evolution has programmed you to feel every moment of your teenage years profoundly, so you can learn important lessons about how to survive, become independent and connect with others.

At the same time, music may be tapping into an ancient, pre-language part of our brains.

The music that accompanied high-stakes moments of your youth is forever linked to the powerful emotions you experienced then, and deeply embedded in the brain.

That is why, for the rest of our lives, those songs act as a kind of musical key to a neurological time capsule.

Sandra Garrido 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 do I feel so emotional when I listen to music from my teenage years? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-i-feel-so-emotional-when-i-listen-to-music-from-my-teenage-years-260819

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Andrew Sinclair, Deputy Director of the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute

World Athletics president Sebastian Coe recently announced a new rule for women athletes, requiring mandatory genetic tests to verify their biological sex.

This test must be done if athletes wish to compete in September’s World Athletics Championships in Tokyo.

World Athletics has said all athletes competing as women must have an SRY gene test to identify whether a male Y chromosome is present.

Any athlete whose test shows the presence of the SRY gene will be banned from competing in the women’s category in elite events.

Coe said the decision was made to ensure “the integrity of women’s sport” with World Athletics asserting:

The SRY gene is a reliable proxy for determining biological sex.

I argue the science does not support this overly simplistic assertion.

I should know, because I discovered the SRY gene on the human Y chromosome in 1990. For 35 years I have been researching it and other genes required for testis development.

A brief primer on testes and ovary development

If a human embryo has XY chromosomes, then at six weeks of development the SRY gene on the Y chromosome triggers a cascade of events involving some 30 different genes that lead to the formation of testes.

In simplest terms, the testes then produce hormones including testosterone, leading to male development.

However, if an embryo has XX chromosomes, a whole different group of genes come into play, ovaries form and the hormones produced result in a female.

We know making testes or ovaries requires a complex network of many interacting genes and proteins.

Some genes promote testis development while others promote ovary development.

Other genes either suppress ovary formation or antagonise testis formation.

Even once ovaries or testes are fully formed, we require other genes to maintain them. These genes don’t always function as expected, affecting the development of these organs.

How does this relate to sex testing of elite women athletes?

Changes or variants in the many genes that regulate the development of a testis or ovary can result in sex reversal or a non-functioning testis or ovary.

What do I mean by this?

If there is a change in the SRY gene so it does not function as usual, then a person can fail to develop testes and be biologically female. Yet they carry XY chromosomes and under the World Athletics tests they would be excluded from competition.

Other XY individuals may have a functioning SRY gene but are female – with breasts and female genitalia, for example – but have internal testes.

Importantly, the cells of these people are physically unable to respond to the testosterone produced by these testes. Yet, they would receive positive SRY tests and be excluded from competition.

At the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, eight of 3,387 women athletes had positive test results for a Y chromosome. Of these, seven were resistant to testosterone.

The SRY test isn’t cut-and-dried

World Athletics asserts the SRY gene is a reliable proxy for determining biological sex. But biological sex is much more complex, with chromosomal, gonadal (testis/ovary), hormonal and secondary sex characteristics all playing a role.

Using SRY to establish biological sex is wrong because all it tells you is whether or not the gene is present.

It does not tell you how SRY is functioning, whether a testis has formed, whether testosterone is produced and, if so, whether it can be used by the body.

Other problems with the SRY testing process

World Athletics is recommending all women athletes take a cheek swab or blood sample to test for the presence of SRY.

Normally, the sample would be sent to a lab that would extract DNA and look for the presence of the SRY gene.

This may be easy enough in wealthy countries, but what is going to happen in poorer nations without these facilities?

It is worth noting these tests are sensitive. If a male lab technician conducts the test he can inadvertently contaminate it with a single skin cell and produce a false positive SRY result.

No guidance is given on how to conduct the test to reduce the risk of false results.

Nor does World Athletics recognise the impacts a positive test result would have on a person, which can be more profound than exclusion from sport alone.

There was no mention from World Athletics that appropriate genetic counselling should be provided, which is considered necessary prior to genetic testing and challenging to access in many lower- and middle-income countries.

I, along with many other experts, persuaded the International Olympic Committee to drop the use of SRY for sex testing for the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

It is therefore very surprising that, 25 years later, there is a misguided effort to bring this test back.

Given all the problems outlined above, the SRY gene should not be used to exclude women athletes from competition.

Andrew Sinclair receives funding from NHMRC

– ref. World Athletics’ mandatory genetic test for women athletes is misguided. I should know – I discovered the relevant gene in 1990 – https://theconversation.com/world-athletics-mandatory-genetic-test-for-women-athletes-is-misguided-i-should-know-i-discovered-the-relevant-gene-in-1990-262367