‘I hadn’t gone out there to save anybody’: a deep dive into the manosphere fails to address its harms

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Simon Copland, Honorary Fellow in Sociology, Australian National University

Eric McLean/Unsplash

New, extreme, and often bizarre social movements and communities are popping up around the world. As each one arises, journalists and academics are pumping out books that do “deep dives” into these communities.

In liberal sociologist Arlie Hochschild’s Strangers in Their Own Land, published in 2016, she looks at the Tea Party voters who who would become Donald Trump’s MAGA base. And in her 2021 book, QAnon and On, Australian journalist Van Badham investigated the QAnon conspiracy theory.

Such books can give us real insight into why these communities grow and develop – in turn, helping us address both extremism, and its impact on the broader community. Yet, such deep dives can be risky. At times, they turn into journalistic sideshows that simply give these communities more (unneeded) attention.

In his third book, Lost Boys, Guardian journalist James Bloodworth adds to this catalogue. As I did in my own, research-based recent book, he conducts a “deep dive” into the manosphere: a loose network of blogs, forums and social media channels dedicated to “men’s rights”, anti-feminism and extreme misogyny.


Review: Lost Boys: A Personal Journey Through the Manosphere – James Bloodworth (Atlantic)


He attends a manosphere conference. He participates in seduction workshops: events where manosphere leaders teach men how to pick up women, often involving going onto the street or into bars, where men “practice” on women in real life. And he interviews manosphere leaders, seeking to understand this community.

He asks:

Why are so many men susceptible to the sinister beliefs these groups promote? What does the emergence of these communities say about Western society? And what can we do about it?

While the book asks these big, important questions, it struggles to actually answer any of them. Bloodworth doesn’t really formulate a clear argument about the manosphere, and it is unclear what his stance is in relation to the community.

Instead, his meandering book unfortunately tells us more about how not to do these types of investigations than about the manosphere itself.

Behind the scenes of the manosphere

James Bloodworth.
Atlantic Books

Lost Boys begins promisingly. Bloodworth takes us back to being a 23-year-old, awkward, young straight man, when he spent thousands of dollars to take a seduction course. He reassures us he didn’t believe a lot of the manosphere stuff – but, like many other men, just wanted more confidence in picking up women.

His course ended up on a night out in the West End of London, where he nervously avoided trying to use the techniques he’d been taught, until his instructor encouraged him, using slogans like “your organ is a spear”. Despite his anxiety, Bloodworth eventually began approaching women in a bar, feeling deflated after he was pushed by his instructor, but was flatly rejected.

I hoped this was going to take us somewhere exciting and different. Accounts from men who have been sucked into these communities in the past are few and far between – particularly from someone who can then turn their experience into a major book. A genuine reflection on how Bloodworth ended up in this place at that time – and how we could take those lessons to other men – could be very interesting.

Unfortunately, that moment is left behind after the opening chapters. The rest of the book lacks this personal touch. Instead, we get a meandering and broad description of the manosphere that jumps from major player to major player.

He details the rise of Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and his campaigns against political correctness and examines the violent attack of manosphere adherent Lyndon McLeod, who murdered five people in Colorado in 2021. He concludes by documenting the accusations against notorious self-proclaimed misogynist and manosphere influencer Andrew Tate.

Yet, these descriptions add little to our knowledge. Bloodworth tells us who these figures are, what they believe and how they become famous, but not much more.

He interviews some of these figures, such as former pickup artist Anthony “Dream” Johnson – the so-called “president of the manosphere”, who organised the annual 21 Convention manosphere conference. Even these interviews, which are briefly described, offer very little.

They yield no actual new information about these men, how they operate, or what is going on behind the scenes.

Major sins

This isn’t the major sin of the book, however. This comes about halfway through, when Bloodworth travels to the United States. He starts with a trip to Florida, where he attends multiple talks at the 21 Convention, the so-called “Woodstock of the manosphere” (last organised in 2023, though cancelled that year). The 21 Convention included talks from manosphere leaders about the evils of feminism and how men can become masculine again, as well as tips for seduction and how to live.

This moment, I am sure, was full of trepidation and fear: conference participants would have been unlikely to welcome an undercover journalist seeking to document their ideas. But Bloodworth reports on it almost as if he is going to a science show: he details the content of each talk he attends, then moves on. Again, it lacks a personal touch, and there’s not even much reflection of what this content actually means.

Things get worse when he travels to Las Vegas to participate in a “Men of Action” course, hosted by dating and performance coach Michael Sartain. The course promises men to “learn how to meet incredible women, make high status friends, and attend exclusive venues”.

Some academics, such as feminist media and culture studies scholar Rachel O’Neill, who embedded herself in seduction communities in London for her PhD, have taken this approach, to great effect. O’Neill uses her research to fully investigate the underlying economy of this community, exposing it for the business fraud it is.

Bloodworth, however, goes even further than O’Neill: he doesn’t just attend the course, but also takes up a role in coaching the young men. While he is a little unclear in the book about how he managed to get this role and what he was doing, in a later interview with GQ Magazine, he explained.

I was invited to do it by one of the people who was working for [Sartain]. I’d take a group of men to the club – the big nightclubs in Vegas, like Omnia, Encore, XS – supervise them and make sure they weren’t being weird.

He also explains that he never hid who he was; organisers knew he was a journalist.

As a coach, Bloodworth explains how he took men to clubs and provided them tips on how to approach women. (He does say, at times, he tries to guide students in a “certain direction”, less sexist than their official teachings).

In doing so, he provides some interesting titbits, including a section where students complain about how “shallow and disingenuous” the techniques are. In another moment, he overhears sexist commentary repeating classic ideas from within the manosphere. One man says “women nowadays only want attention from the most valuable men in the world”.

‘I hadn’t gone out there to save anybody’

Despite some of these minor insights, however, I found this extremely problematic. As Bloodworth himself explains, the techniques used in these courses are based on extremely sexist stereotypes, and often involve coercion and manipulation. “The problem with courses like this one is that men are essentially being taught to view women as prettifying props: ornamentation for their high-status content,” he writes.

These courses are also terrible for the men themselves. They teach unrealistic ideas about what it is to be a man, and terrible notions of how they should engage with women.

Despite acknowledging all this, Bloodworth still helps to lead a course. This could have been worth it if he explored some of these ethical qualms – or if he managed to gain some valuable new insight. But he doesn’t.

At the end of his trip to Vegas, for example, Bloodworth offers little actual analysis. He concludes:

It was time for me to leave Vegas. I hadn’t gone out there to save anybody; but I didn’t want to participate (inadvertently or otherwise) in making anybody worse either. I was exhausted by the merry-go-round of electric pastel clubs, narcoleptic bedtimes and pay-as-you-go sincerity. They could keep their Lambos, ripped jeans, velvet ropes, red-carpet events, bikini competitions, Playboy playmates, high-status social networks, Facetuned deltoids and Dan Bilzerian. I just wanted to get home and have a nice cup of tea, even if it wouldn’t generate a lot of heat on the “gram”.

This just leaves more questions. How did he feel giving men dodgy advice on how to improve their lives? Did he have ethical qualms about participating in an inherently sexist industry?

Bloodworth doesn’t even attempt to answer any of these questions.

How not to do it

This was the major problem with Lost Boys. For me, the book is a perfect guide on how not to engage in deep dives on extreme communities. For a book seeking to understand the manosphere, it seems to lack any purpose, let alone a point of view. It feels like the project of a journalist who gets a thrill out of “going undercover” and reporting his heroics.

This may be OK for other topics, but when it comes to the manosphere, it is not good enough. This community is creating real violence: primarily for women, the victims of the sexism emanating from it, but also for the men who get sucked into the space. To embed yourself within these spaces without any seeming attempt to do something about this harm may be a thrill for the journalist, but in the end it just adds to the pain these communities cause.

Here, I cannot help but compare Lost Boys to Jamie Tahsin and Matt Shea’s 2024 book on Andrew Tate, Clown World, described as “part Gonzo journalism, part masculinity rabbit hole”.

For a short period, Tahsin and Shea become close to Tate, even participating in one of his infamous War Room programs. But they are unflinchingly critical of him and his cronies. They used their opportunity not just to challenge him, but also to do real investigations into his dodgy dealings. In particular, they uncovered the first criminal allegations against Tate – and their journalism played a role in him facing criminal charges in the UK.

Unlike Bloodworth, Tahsin and Shea took a position. They used their journalism and writing to expose the fault lines in these communities, producing real-life outcomes.

Time for a sideshow is over

While promising in its scope, therefore, Bloodworth’s book fails. While he asks the question of why so many men are attracted to the manosphere, he seems unable to even try to answer it. And in writing it, he fell into into common journalistic traps we need to be avoiding while studying these communities.

He treats the manosphere as a sideshow to be gawked at, even when acknowledging the real harm it can do. He spends too much time simply describing rather than analysing, which just ends up giving them more attention. And he offers nothing substantive that can help us deal with the community.

And the worst sin of all: Bloodworth centres himself. The book’s subtitle, “a personal journey through the manosphere” makes clear from the outset that this is its central premise. But in practice, it makes the book seem like it’s more about trying to have an adventure in an extreme community than trying to make a real impact.

When it comes to the manosphere and the far-right, the time for a journalistic sideshow is over. These spaces have been described enough, and its leaders have been interviewed to death. At this critical global period, we must be clear about why we are researching these communities – and how our work can help reduce their harm. Lost Boys does not do this.

The Conversation

Simon Copland 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. ‘I hadn’t gone out there to save anybody’: a deep dive into the manosphere fails to address its harms – https://theconversation.com/i-hadnt-gone-out-there-to-save-anybody-a-deep-dive-into-the-manosphere-fails-to-address-its-harms-261468

Are you really an ISFJ? The truth about personality tests – and why we keep taking them

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kelvin (Shiu Fung) Wong, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, Swinburne University of Technology

Shutterstock

Personality tests have become increasingly popular in daily life. From hiring to dating, they promise to help us understand who we are and how we are similar, or different, to others.

But do these tests paint an accurate picture? And could it be harmful to take them too seriously?

What are personality tests?

A personality test is an instrument designed to elicit a response that may reveal someone’s “personality” – that is, their patterns of behaving and thinking across different situations.

These tests can take the form of self-reporting questionnaires, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (first developed in the 1940s) and the Big Five Inventory (developed in the 1990s).

Or they may be “projective” tests, where the individual talks freely about their interpretation of ambiguous stimuli. One famous example of this is the Rorschach inkblot test, developed in the early 1920s by Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach.

The first card in the Rorschach inkblot test. There are ten cards in total.
Wikimedia

Early beginnings

Personality testing isn’t new. Historical texts from across the globe suggest humans have been interested in understanding and categorising personality for thousands of years.

Around 400 BCE, Greek philosopher Hippocrates suggested an individual’s temperament was influenced by the balance of four bodily fluids, known as “humours”.

Even earlier, around 1115 BCE, government officials in ancient China examined the behaviour and character of individuals to determine their suitability for different jobs in the public system.

However, the systematic and scientific development of tools to understand and categorise personality only began in the 20th century.

One of the first was developed in 1917 by the United States army to predict how new recruits may react to war, and whether they were at risk of “shell shock” (now classified as post-traumatic stress disorder). The goal was to identify individuals who may be unsuitable for combat.

This assessment had 116 “yes” or “no” items, including questions about somatic symptoms, social adjustment, and medical and family history. Examples included “Have you ever fainted away?” and “Do you usually feel well and strong?”. Those who scored highly were referred to a psychologist for further assessment.

Since then, thousands of similar “personality” tests have been developed and used across clinical, occupational and educational settings. Many of these, such as the Myers-Briggs test, have gained mainstream appeal thanks to the internet and media.

Why are we drawn to these tests?

The answer to this lies not in the specific characteristics of the tests, but in the deep-seated psychological need they promise to satisfy.

The drive to understand oneself starts at an early age and continues throughout life. We ask ourselves questions such as “who am I?” and “how do I fit into the world?”

Personality tests are a simple way to get answers to these difficult questions. It can be quite comforting – even exhilarating – to see yourself reflected in the results.

According to American psychologist Abraham Maslow’s theory of human needs, people are driven towards self-improvement and “self-actualisation”, which broadly refers to the realisation of one’s potential.

So, people may be drawn to personality tests in the hope that knowing their personality “type” will help them make better choices for their personal growth, whether that’s in their career, relationships, or health.

Maslow also identified another human need: the need for belonging. Learning your personality type, and the types of those around you, is one way to find “your kind of people”. According to social identity theory, finding a group we feel we belong to feeds back into our sense of who we are.

The Barnum effect

It’s worth noting there is psychological research which questions the validity and reliability of the Myers-Briggs test.

One of the main critiques is that completing the test more than once within a short period of time can generate different results (what is called poor “test-retest reliability”). Since personality is generally stable in the short-term, you would ideally expect the same results.

Furthermore, Myers-Briggs and similar tests use broad, positive, and sufficiently vague language when describing personality types. In doing so, they effectively harness the “Barnum effect” or “Forer effect”: the tendency for people to accept general statements as unique descriptions of themselves.

Sound familiar? That’s because horoscopes do the same thing. The results of horoscopes and personality tests can “feel right” because they are designed to resonate with universal human experiences and aspirations.

That said, personality tests are still routinely used in research and clinical practice – although experts suggest using measures that are proven to be scientifically sound.

One common test used in clinical practice is the revised form of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2-RF). This 338-item test measures problematic personality traits that may impact an individual’s mental health.

While it has its own set of problems, the MMPI-2-RF is useful in accurately assessing for symptoms of personality disorders, and predicting how different personality traits may impact treatment outcomes.

Taking tests too seriously

If you pigeonhole yourself into a rigid personality type, you run the danger of limiting yourself to the boundaries of this label. You may even use the label to excuse your own or others’ problematic behaviours as “just ESTP things”.

Moreover, by seeing the world purely through these simplified categories, we may ignore the fact that personality can evolve over long periods. By putting others, or ourselves, into a box, we fail to see people as individuals who are capable of change and growth.

While there’s nothing wrong with taking a personality test for fun, out of curiosity, or even to explore aspects of your identity, it’s important to not get too attached to the labels – lest they become all that you are.

The Conversation

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Are you really an ISFJ? The truth about personality tests – and why we keep taking them – https://theconversation.com/are-you-really-an-isfj-the-truth-about-personality-tests-and-why-we-keep-taking-them-261183

From sea ice to ocean currents, Antarctica is now undergoing abrupt changes – and we’ll all feel them

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nerilie Abram, Chief Scientist, Australian Antarctic Division and Professor of Climate Science, Australian National University

Antarctica has long been seen as a remote, unchanging environment. Not any more.

The ice-covered continent and the surrounding Southern Ocean are undergoing abrupt and alarming changes. Sea ice is shrinking rapidly, the floating glaciers known as ice shelves are melting faster, the ice sheets carpeting the continent are approaching tipping points and vital ocean currents show signs of slowing down.

Published today in Nature, our new research shows these abrupt changes are already underway – and likely to significantly intensify in the future.

Several authors of this article have witnessed these startling changes during fieldwork on the ice. These changes spell bad news for wildlife, both iconic and lesser known. But the changes will reach much further. What’s happening in Antarctica right now will affect the world for generations to come, from rising sea levels to extreme changes in the climate system.

antarctica, iceshelf with blue ice looming at back and sea ice at the front over water.
Antarctica’s enormity can give the illusion of permanence. But abrupt changes are arriving.
David Merron Photography/Getty

What is an abrupt change?

Scientists define an abrupt change as a climatic or environmental shift taking place much faster than expected.

What makes abrupt changes so concerning is they can amplify themselves. For example, melting sea ice allows oceans to warm more rapidly, which melts more sea ice. Once triggered, they can be difficult or even impossible to reverse on timescales meaningful to humans.

While it’s common to assume incremental warming will translate to gradual change, we’re seeing something very different in Antarctica. Over past decades, the Antarctic environment had a much more muted response overall to human-caused climate warming compared to the Arctic. But about a decade ago, abrupt changes began to occur.

Shrinking sea ice brings cascading change

Antarctica’s natural systems are tightly interwoven. When one system is thrown out of balance, it can trigger cascading effects in others.

Sea ice around Antarctica has been declining dramatically since 2014. The expanse of sea ice is now shrinking at double the rate of Arctic sea ice. We found these unfolding changes are unprecedented – far outside the natural variability of past centuries.

The implications are far reaching. Sea ice has a reflective, high-albedo surface which reflects heat back to space. When there’s less sea ice, more heat is absorbed by darker oceans. Emperor penguins and other species reliant on sea ice for habitat and breeding face real threats. Less sea ice also means Antarctica’s ice shelves are more exposed to waves.

sea ice in antarctica in late summer, large chunks of ice floating on ocean.
The expanse of ocean covered by sea ice began shrinking in 2014 and the rate is accelerating.
Ted Mead/Getty

Vital ocean currents are slowing

The melting of ice is actually slowing down the deep ocean circulation around Antarctica. This system of deep currents, known as the Antarctic Overturning Circulation, plays a critical role in regulating Earth’s climate by absorbing carbon dioxide and distributing heat.

In the northern hemisphere, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is facing a slowdown.

We’re now observing a similar risk in Southern Ocean currents. Changes to the Antarctic Overturning Circulation may unfold at twice the rate of the more famous North Atlantic counterpart.

A slowdown could reduce how much oxygen and carbon dioxide the ocean absorbs and leave vital nutrients at the seafloor. Less oxygen and fewer nutrients would have major consequences for marine ecosystems and climate regulation.

Melting giants

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet as well as some regions of East Antarctica are now losing ice and contributing to sea level rise. Ice loss has increased sixfold since the 1990s.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet alone has enough ice to raise global sea levels by more than five metres – and scientists warn we could be nearing the point where this ice sheet could collapse even without substantial further warming, though this might take centuries to millennia.

These enormous ice sheets represent the risk of a global tipping point. They contribute the greatest uncertainty to projections of future sea level rise because we don’t know just how quickly they could collapse.

Worldwide, at least 750 million people live in low-lying areas near the sea. Rising sea levels threaten coastal infrastructure and communities globally.

Wildlife and ecosystems under threat

Antarctica’s biological systems are also undergoing sudden shifts. Ecosystems both under the sea and on land are being reshaped by warming temperatures, unreliable ice conditions and human activity bringing pollution and the arrival of invasive species.

It’s essential to protect these ecosystems through the Antarctic Treaty, including creating protected areas of land and sea and restricting some human activities. But these conservation measures won’t be enough to ensure emperor penguins and leopard seals survive. That will require decisive global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Which future?

Antarctica is often seen as a symbol of isolation and permanence. But the continent is now changing with disturbing speed – much faster than scientists anticipated.

These abrupt changes stem largely from the extra heat trapped by decades of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions. The only way to avoid further abrupt changes is to slash emissions rapidly enough to hold warming as close to 1.5°C as possible.

Even if we achieve this, much change has already been set in motion. Governments, businesses and coastal communities must prepare for a future of abrupt change. What happens in Antarctica won’t stay there.

The stakes could not be higher. The choices made now will determine whether we face a future of worsening impacts and irreversible change or one of managed resilience to the changes already locked in.

The Conversation

Nerilie Abram received funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Ariaan Purich receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Felicity McCormack receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Jan Strugnell receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Matthew England receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

ref. From sea ice to ocean currents, Antarctica is now undergoing abrupt changes – and we’ll all feel them – https://theconversation.com/from-sea-ice-to-ocean-currents-antarctica-is-now-undergoing-abrupt-changes-and-well-all-feel-them-262615

Pediatricians’ association recommends COVID-19 vaccines for toddlers and some older children, breaking with CDC guidance

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By David Higgins, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

The AAP’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccines differs substantially from that of the CDC. Images By Tang Ming Tung/DigitalVision via Getty Images

For 30 years, vaccine recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have aligned closely with those from the American Academy of Pediatrics, or AAP. But on Aug. 19, 2025, the AAP published new vaccine recommendations that diverge from those of the CDC.

The pediatrician association’s move comes on the heels of unprecedented changes made earlier this year by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as head of the Department of Health and Human Services, in how the government approves and issues guidance on vaccines.

The biggest difference is in the AAP’s guidance around COVID-19 vaccines for children. This new guidance comes as COVID-19 cases are once again rising across the U.S. and many parents and providers are confused by unclear guidance from federal health authorities about whether children should be vaccinated.

In a Q&A with The Conversation U.S., David Higgins, a pediatrician, preventive medicine physician and vaccine delivery researcher from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, explains the new guidance and what it means for parents. Higgins is also a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

What are the AAP’s new vaccine recommendations?

The AAP recommends that all children 6 to 23 months old receive a complete COVID-19 vaccine series, consistent with recommendations for this age group in previous years.

For children and adolescents ages 2 to 18, the AAP now advises a single dose if they are at higher risk, a change from previous years, when vaccination was recommended for all in this age group. Children at higher risk include those who have certain chronic medical conditions, who live in long-term care or group settings, who have never been vaccinated, or who live with family members at high risk.

The AAP also recommends that COVID-19 vaccines remain available for any child or adolescent whose parent wants them to be protected, regardless of risk status. In all cases, the most updated version of the vaccine should be used.

How do these recommendations differ from CDC guidance?

The difference is substantial. The CDC currently advises what it calls “shared clinical decision-making” for children ages 6 months to 17 years who are not moderately or severely immunocompromised. This means the decision is left up to individual discussions between families and their health care providers, but the vaccine is not treated as a routine recommendation. These current guidelines were made after Kennedy bypassed the agency’s normal independent review process.

That framework can be confusing for families and difficult for providers to implement. By contrast, the AAP recommendations identify the ages and conditions where the risk is highest while also supporting vaccine availability for any families who want it.

Toddlers engaged in an activity at a wooden table in a classroom.
It’s not clear whether families will be able to access routine COVID-19 vaccines for children this fall.
Pancake Pictures/Connect Images via Getty Images

Why are they diverging?

The AAP has been publishing vaccine guidance since the 1930s, long before the CDC or the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, an independent panel of experts that advises the CDC, existed.

Since 1995, the two groups have generally issued essentially identical vaccine guidance. But this year, the federal government dismissed the advisory committee’s panel of independent scientists and immunization experts, raising questions about the credibility of CDC guidance. At the same time, misinformation about vaccines continues to spread.

In response, the AAP decided to publish independent recommendations based on its own review of the latest evidence. That review showed that although the risks for healthy older children have declined compared with the early years of the pandemic, young children and those with specific conditions remain especially vulnerable. Additionally, a review of evidence by an independent expert group called the Vaccine Integrity Project, also released on Aug. 19, 2025, confirmed that there are no new safety concerns and no decline in the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

COVID-19 continues to cause hospitalizations and deaths in children and remains a leading cause of serious respiratory illness.

Will parents be able to follow these recommendations?

This is still unclear. The AAP recommendations do not automatically guarantee insurance coverage.

By law, insurance plans and the federal Vaccines for Children program, which provides vaccines for eligible children who might not otherwise be vaccinated due to cost or lack of insurance, are tied to Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations. Unless insurers and policymakers act to align with the AAP recommendations, there is a risk that parents would be forced to pay the costs out of pocket.

Vaccine supply may also be an issue. Currently, only two COVID-19 vaccines are available for children under 12. Moderna’s vaccine is approved only for children with at least one high-risk condition, while Pfizer’s authorization for younger children may not be renewed. If that happens, any remaining Pfizer doses for this age group may be unusable, leaving a shortfall in available vaccines for children.

Finally, implementation may differ depending on the type of provider. Some vaccine providers, such as pharmacists, operate under policies tied strictly to CDC recommendations, which may make it harder to follow AAP’s schedule unless rules are updated.

What happens next?

Parents and providers are likely to face continued confusion, just as COVID-19 cases rise as children return to school. Much will depend on whether the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices updates its own recommendations at its upcoming meeting, expected in September, and whether pediatric COVID-19 vaccines remain available.

Until then, parents can speak with their pediatricians to understand the best protection for their children.

The Conversation

David Higgins volunteers as Vice President of the Colorado Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and as a board member of Immunize Colorado. He was not involved in the development or publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ immunization guidelines. The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely his own and do not represent those of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

ref. Pediatricians’ association recommends COVID-19 vaccines for toddlers and some older children, breaking with CDC guidance – https://theconversation.com/pediatricians-association-recommends-covid-19-vaccines-for-toddlers-and-some-older-children-breaking-with-cdc-guidance-263522

Réunions séparées avec Poutine et Zelensky : Trump fait le jeu de la Russie

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

Depuis 2022, l’Ukraine n’a jamais été dans une situation aussi vulnérable, alors que les combats se poursuivent sans relâche et que les frappes contre les infrastructures civiles deviennent de plus en plus courantes.

Les dirigeants mondiaux en appellent désormais à la fin du conflit. On pourrait croire que les rencontres du président américain Donald Trump avec les dirigeants ukrainien et russe constituent une approche équilibrée. En réalité, c’est bien la Russie qui en profite.

Sommet en Alaska

Après sa récente rencontre avec le président russe Vladimir Poutine en Alaska, Trump a déclaré ce sommet « très utile ». Prié de l’évaluer sur une échelle de 1 à 10, le président a déclaré que la rencontre méritait la plus haute note en raison du climat de bonne entente.

Mais s’ils se sont si bien entendus, c’est parce qu’il n’a pas été question de la raison même d’un tel sommet : l’agression russe en Ukraine. Cette approche s’est avérée fort « utile » pour Poutine et la Russie — d’autant que ni l’Ukraine ni aucun de ses alliés n’avait été invité au sommet.

Ce format a suscité une vive consternation. En Ukraine, on redoutait la conclusion d’un accord sans son consentement. Côté européen, c’est la menace d’invasion et le révisionnisme russes qui suscitent la crainte.

Avant le retour de Trump au pouvoir en 2025, l’Ukraine profitait d’un front largement uni entre l’OTAN et l’Union européenne. Cette unité s’est affaiblie depuis, et encore davantage avec ce sommet, au bénéfice de la Russie.

Un cessez-le-feu parti en fumée

Poutine et ses négociateurs ont ainsi obtenu une concession majeure de Trump lors du sommet : sa renonciation à réclamer un cessez-le-feu.

Pour l’Ukraine et ses alliés, il s’agissait pourtant d’une condition fondamentale pour toute négociation de paix — a fortiori depuis que la Russie intensifie ses attaques contre les villes et les civils ukrainiens.

Enfin, la nature même de la réunion en Alaska contribue à légitimer l’invasion russe auprès de l’opinion internationale.

Bien que les Européens et les Nord-Américains l’admettent difficilement, la Russie a su entretenir l’ambivalence d’une grande partie de l’Asie, de l’Afrique et de l’Amérique latine — et même à y obtenir du soutien.

Toutefois, les condamnations prononcées contre la Russie par plusieurs organisations internationales, dont l’ONU, en refroidissaient plusieurs, notamment l’interdiction de voyager prononcée par la Cour pénale internationale.

Mais la consécration diplomatique américaine, en accueillant Poutine sur son sol, a sapé les condamnations de ces institutions.

Zelensky à Washington

Les avantages que Poutine a obtenus de Trump en Alaska ont exigé une réponse immédiate de l’Ukraine. Le président Volodymyr Zelensky a rapidement organisé une réunion à la Maison-Blanche. Et il s’y est déplacé en compagnie de plusieurs dirigeants européens, dont la présidente de la Commission européenne, Ursula von der Leyen, et le président français, Emmanuel Macron.

Le secrétaire d’État Marco Rubio a insisté sur le fait que leur présence ne visait pas à empêcher Trump d’intimider Zelensky dans le Bureau ovale, comme il l’avait fait précédemment.

Chose certaine, les dirigeants européens étaient là pour empêcher Trump de contraindre le dirigeant ukrainien à faire des concessions préjudiciables à leurs propres intérêts.

Le message publié par Trump sur les réseaux sociaux avant la réunion avait de quoi inquiéter. Il y faisait porter la responsabilité de la paix à Zelensky, affirmant que l’Ukraine devait accepter la perte de la Crimée et ne jamais adhérer à l’OTAN.

Soigneuse mise en scène

Pour cette rencontre, le président Zelensky, qui portait le costume, a remis une lettre de la première dame ukrainienne à Melania Trump.

Ces efforts de mise en scène, soigneusement orchestrés par le protocole ukrainien, visaient à flatter l’égo trumpien. La manœuvre a en partie marché à en juger par sa réaction : il aurait jugé Zelensky « fabuleux » dans son costume, selon un journaliste — le même qui avait critiqué le président ukrainien pour sa tenue en février lors de sa visite malheureuse.

Durant cette rencontre, Trump n’a pas exclu que des soldats américains puissent contribuer au rétablissement de la paix en Ukraine. Selon les observateurs, une telle présence serait une condition fondamentale à une paix durable.

Bien qu’il ne s’y soit pas opposé, Trump n’a pas non plus pris d’engagement ferme à cet égard. Quelques heures plus tard, il a soutenu au contraire qu’il offrirait du soutien aérien sans mettre de troupes au sol.

Il a toutefois déclaré qu’il s’efforçait d’organiser une réunion trilatérale avec Poutine et Zelensky.

Ce qui reste à voir, étant donné sa propension à revenir sur les déclarations.

Espoir contre réalité

Rappelons toutefois que l’une des principales promesses de campagne de Trump était de ne pas impliquer les États-Unis dans des « guerres étrangères sans fin ». Le déploiement de soldats américains en Ukraine compromettrait le soutien de sa base politique, laquelle est déjà divisée quant à sa gestion du dossier Jeffrey Epstein.

La cordialité de la rencontre de Trump avec Zelensky et les dirigeants européens permet de nourrir certains espoirs parmi les partisans de l’Ukraine dans les jours à venir.

Mais tout optimisme doit être tempéré par les dégâts causés par le sommet Trump-Poutine en Alaska. Le président américain aurait même interrompu les réunions à Washington pour appeler Poutine.

Le refus de Trump de prendre des engagements fermes en présence de Zelensky et des dirigeants européens réunis signifie que la Russie est parvenue à faire valoir ses intérêts au détriment de l’Ukraine et des perspectives d’une paix durable à long terme.

La Conversation Canada

James Horncastle ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

ref. Réunions séparées avec Poutine et Zelensky : Trump fait le jeu de la Russie – https://theconversation.com/reunions-separees-avec-poutine-et-zelensky-trump-fait-le-jeu-de-la-russie-263491

Faire de l’IA une force de progrès plutôt qu’une menace

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Simon Blanchette, Lecturer, Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University

L’intelligence artificielle (IA) bouleverse le monde du travail, mais elle offre aussi d’immenses possibilités. Plutôt que de la subir, préparons-nous à en faire un véritable moteur de transformation et de progrès.

L’IA, bien que loin d’être nouvelle, progresse à une vitesse vertigineuse. Plus récemment, l’émergence de l’intelligence générale artificielle (IGA), une forme d’IA capable de comprendre et d’apprendre n’importe quelle tâche humaine, alimente de nombreuses inquiétudes.

Cette anxiété est légitime : la rapidité des avancées technologiques et la perspective de systèmes capables d’apprendre de manière autonome comme pourrait le faire l’IGA nourrissent la crainte d’une perte de contrôle et de bouleversements massifs sur le marché du travail.

Si ces craintes sont compréhensibles, elles ne doivent pas nous faire oublier l’essentiel : l’IA est là pour durer. Il est donc impératif de continuer à planifier la transition. Faire l’autruche n’est pas une option.

De la peur à l’action : un changement de posture nécessaire

La peur de l’IA est compréhensible. Comme toute innovation majeure, elle provoque un réflexe d’inquiétude, surtout lorsqu’il s’agit de technologies capables d’automatiser des tâches cognitives. Des figures influentes comme Sam Altman, PDG d’OpenAI, estiment que « des millions d’emplois sont à risque », tandis que Bill Gates va jusqu’à prédire que les humains ne seront bientôt plus nécessaires « pour la plupart des choses ».

Ces propos chocs nourrissent un sentiment d’urgence et, parfois, un fatalisme qui détourne l’attention des véritables questions : comment s’y préparer concrètement ?

Les données récentes incitent à relativiser. Selon le Future of Jobs Report 2025 du Forum économique mondial, près de 78 millions d’emplois nets devraient être créés d’ici 2030. Oui, les compétences exigées évolueront profondément, mais il demeure que l’IA entraîne surtout un déplacement des rôles, pas une disparition massive du travail.

Dans un contexte où la pénurie de main-d’œuvre et de compétences demeure un enjeu critique pour les entreprises, l’IA peut en fait faire partie de la solution si elle est bien utilisée. Mais sur ce plan ,le Canada tire de l’arrière en termes d’adoption de l’IA dans les entreprises. Adopter l’IA de manière plus large pourrait faire progresser le PIB de 5 à 8 % au cours de la prochaine décennie.




À lire aussi :
L’IA ne révolutionnera pas la gestion des entreprises… au contraire


Oui, il est essentiel de surveiller les dérives potentielles de l’IA, mais il est tout aussi urgent de faire passer le discours de la peur à celui des opportunités.

Reconfigurer les emplois, pas les éliminer

Les scénarios de remplacement massif de travailleurs ne reflètent pas encore la réalité de mes recherches et de mon expérience, il en ressort que l’IA provoque davantage une reconfiguration des emplois que leur disparition pure et simple. Il existe également beaucoup de variations à travers les secteurs. Les tâches évoluent, mais des nouveaux rôles émergent, souvent plus qualifiés et porteurs de valeur. L’important est d’accompagner les employés dont les fonctions sont en mutation.

Dans mon rôle de consultant et de formateur, j’ai accompagné plusieurs entreprises ayant automatisé certaines fonctions ou départements, en soutenant la gestion du changement par l’élaboration de stratégies de transition et de requalification. Peu d’entre elles ont eu recours à des licenciements ; la plupart ont plutôt investi dans la formation de leurs employés et les ont redéployés vers des postes difficiles à pourvoir ou des rôles de supervision liés à l’automatisation. Cette approche leur a permis d’optimiser l’utilisation de leurs équipes tout en répondant à leurs besoins opérationnels.


Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.


Faire de l’IA une transformation maîtrisée

L’erreur principale est de voir l’IA comme une révolution soudaine. En réalité, elle fait partie d’une évolution plus large des entreprises et nécessite les mêmes clés pour réussir :

  • Une vision claire et partagée : les dirigeants doivent expliquer pourquoi et comment l’IA s’intègre à la stratégie de l’entreprise ;

  • Une communication continue et transparente : informer régulièrement réduit l’incertitude et limite les rumeurs ;

  • Une implication active des équipes : impliquer les employés dès le départ, écouter leurs préoccupations et valoriser leurs idées favorise l’adhésion et crée des ambassadeurs internes tout en diminuant la résistance ;

  • Une expérimentation progressive : commencer par des projets pilotes, apprendre des erreurs et ajuster en cours de route.

Certes le rythme des changements est plus rapide. Toutefois, les organisations qui appliquent ces pratiques solides de gestion du changement sont 1,6 fois plus susceptibles de dépasser leurs objectifs liés à l’IA que celles qui n’en tiennent pas compte.

Investir dans les compétences : le véritable avantage concurrentiel

Voir l’IA comme un changement important, c’est aussi comprendre que les compétences deviennent un atout clé. D’ici 2030, près de 40 % des compétences essentielles aujourd’hui auront changé. Cela montre l’importance de former et d’améliorer les compétences, un enjeu essentiel. Pour y parvenir, il faut :

Comme je le soulignais récemment, cette transition ne peut réussir que si elle est inclusive. Les initiatives liées à l’IA doivent tenir compte des inégalités existantes en milieu de travail et dans la société.

L’IGA : anticiper sans céder à la spéculation ?

Encore un peu science-fiction, l’IGA, si elle atteint son potentiel, aura sans doute des impacts plus profonds encore, car elle pourrait accomplir des tâches cognitives complexes de manière quasi autonome. Mais le principe reste le même : une organisation qui a appris à intégrer l’IA actuelle comme une transformation structurée sera beaucoup mieux préparée pour les vagues suivantes.

Cette perspective soulève des questions fondamentales sur l’évolution du travail humain. Quelles compétences resteront exclusivement humaines ? Comment préparer nos organisations à cette transition potentielle ? L’histoire des transformations technologiques suggère que l’adaptation humaine surpasse souvent les prédictions les plus pessimistes.

En d’autres termes, l’IGA n’exige pas de nouvelles règles de base, elle exige seulement de les appliquer avec plus de rigueur et de rapidité.

Plutôt que de rester paralysés par une menace hypothétique, qui, certes, finira par se concrétiser, mobilisons notre énergie pour la gérer de manière proactive. Restons alertes et agiles.

Choisir l’action plutôt que la résignation

L’IA et l’IGA ne sont pas des forces incontrôlables : ce sont des transformations à gérer, avec proactivité, intelligence et humanité. Eh oui, les enjeux de sécurité et les risques de dérives sont réels, mais il est possible de les encadrer, de les mitiger et de les réglementer. L’Union européenne l’a démontré en 2024 avec l’AI Act, le premier cadre juridique mondial à imposer des règles strictes fondées sur les risques et à garantir une supervision humaine. Au Canada, même si le projet de loi C‑27 n’a pas été adopté, il a lancé un débat essentiel sur la gouvernance de l’IA au pays. C’est une question de leadership, de gouvernance et de concertation. Des conversations à avoir maintenant et à poursuivre activement.

Le choix est devant nous : subir cette transformation ou la diriger.

Les organisations qui l’ont compris dès maintenant transforment déjà ces changements en avantage concurrentiel. Celles qui attendront risquent, elles, d’être réellement dépassées.

La Conversation Canada

Simon Blanchette ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

ref. Faire de l’IA une force de progrès plutôt qu’une menace – https://theconversation.com/faire-de-lia-une-force-de-progres-plutot-quune-menace-259860

Is it wrong to date a coworker? Not necessarily — but it can get complicated

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Leda Stawnychko, Associate Professor of Strategy and Organizational Theory, Mount Royal University

The workplace has long been a setting for connection — and sometimes romance. In Canada, these relationships are far from rare.

A 2019 ADP Canada survey of 885 employees found that one in three have been romantically involved with a colleague. Younger workers aged 18 to 34 were especially likely to report such relationships (41 per cent).

Similar patterns emerge in the United States and the United Kingdom, where surveys have found that 18 per cent of partnered respondents (those married, living with a partner or in a committed relationship) met their significant other at work.

It’s no surprise. We spend much of our waking lives with colleagues, building shared experiences and discovering common values and interests. At a time when finding and keeping love seems harder than ever, the office can feel like a rare place where authenticity and comfort come naturally.




Read more:
How rising living costs are changing the way we date, live and love


Workplace relationships can contribute to a range of positive workplace outcomes. Most notably, they are linked to increased job satisfaction, stronger organizational commitment, improved morale and enhanced collaboration and teamwork.

However, workplace relationships can also create significant organizational challenges, which is why knowing how to handle them is key.


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

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


When work and love mix

Workplace romance refers to sexual or romantic relationships between members of the same organization that both parties recognize as more than strictly professional.

These relationships can include dating, extramarital affairs, casual hook-ups, flings or friends-with-benefits arrangements.

While many romances have minimal impact, some erode organizational trust by creating perceptions of favouritism, exclusion or manipulation, especially when they involve a power imbalance.

When trust is undermined, research shows that collaboration suffers, morale declines and workplace culture deteriorates. This is why organizations often have policies surrounding workplace romances.

The risks of workplace romance

In Canada, there are no laws that prohibit consensual relationships at work, and most countries similarly don’t have laws governing workplace relationships.

However, Canada does have legal frameworks that require employers to maintain a safe, respectful workplace. These include the Canadian Human Rights Act, provincial human rights codes, and occupational health and safety legislation.

To meet these obligations, many organizations implement policies that prohibit supervisor-subordinate relationships or require disclosure.

These policies exist for good reason: workplace romances can blur professional boundaries, increase the risk of sharing confidential information inappropriately, allow personal feelings to influence decisions, or create situations where one partner feels pressured to act in ways that conflict with organizational policies or ethical standards.

For individuals, the risks can also be just as real. While some workplace romances lead to enduring partnerships — Michelle and Barack Obama famously met at a Chicago law firm when she was a junior associate and he was an intern — others can end less happily.

Failed relationships can leave both people vulnerable to reputational damage, career derailment and, in the worst cases, allegations of harassment that can result in termination.

These concerns are underscored by the prevalence of misconduct. According to a 2024 Statistics Canada report, almost half of women and nearly one-third of men say they have experienced inappropriate sexualized behaviour at work.

Why some couples keep it quiet

Many employees choose not to disclose their workplace relationships. According to the ADP Canada survey, nearly half (45 per cent) of those in workplace relationships kept it secret from someone at work, most often management or human resources.

Similarly, a 2023 survey of more than 600 working Americans from the Society for Human Resource Management across a variety of ages, industries and job levels found that 82 per cent of workers who had been in a workplace romance kept it secret from their employer.

Reasons for secrecy range from a desire for privacy to concerns about gossip, judgment or professional repercussions.

This lack of disclosure means employers may be unaware of relationships and therefore less able to protect all parties if conflicts, ethical concerns or allegations arise.

Making love work in the workplace

If you find yourself navigating romance at work, here are five steps to protect both your relationship and your career:

1. Reflect on your motivations. Ask yourself why you want to pursue the relationship and whether it aligns with your personal and professional goals. Consider how it might affect your career, the people you work with and the overall workplace culture. This kind of honest self-check can help you make clear, confident decisions.

2. Know the rules. Review your organization’s policy on workplace romance. While the law may not always address it directly, many employers require disclosure or limit relationships within reporting lines. Understanding these rules early can help you avoid misunderstandings or career surprises.




Read more:
Workplace romance: four questions to ask yourself before dating someone from the office


3. Be transparent. If disclosure is required, share the news directly with your manager or human resources, rather than letting it spread through gossip. Research shows that others in the workplace respond more positively when they hear it from you directly.

4. Manage perceptions and set boundaries. Even if your relationship doesn’t affect your work, others may see it differently. Agree with your partner on boundaries, communicate thoughtfully and commit to upholding professional conduct.

5. Think long-term. Relationships can change. Decide in advance how you’ll handle working together if it ends, and consider how it might shape your reputation, network and opportunities beyond your current role.

Handled well, these steps won’t just protect your career but also help your relationship stand on solid ground.

Falling for someone at work can be both exciting and rewarding. With mindfulness, open communication and respect for professional boundaries, it can become a story you cherish and proof that romance and professionalism can flourish together.

The Conversation

Leda Stawnychko receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Shawna Boyko 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. Is it wrong to date a coworker? Not necessarily — but it can get complicated – https://theconversation.com/is-it-wrong-to-date-a-coworker-not-necessarily-but-it-can-get-complicated-262675

Want to understand the history of European culture? Start with the Minoans, not the Ancient Greeks

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ellen Adams, Professor in Classical Archaeology and Museum Access, King’s College London

Ruins of the ancient Minoan settlement in Gournia, Crete. Georgios Tsichlis/Shutterstock

The Minoan culture was the first highly complex society on modern European soil, with palaces, writing, stunning art – and even flushing toilets. The Minoans lived in the bronze age (circa 3000-1200BC) on the Mediterranean island of Crete, which served as a stepping stone between Europe, Africa and Asia.

My new book, The Minoans, presents key features of their archaeology, including architecture, art, religion, writing, bureaucracy and the economy. It explores how this pioneering European civilisation has influenced western culture – and how Minoan culture has been reconstructed, re-imagined and represented in museum displays.

Traditionally, the ancient Greeks have been viewed as the fountainhead of European civilisation, but Minoan culture was flourishing many hundreds of years earlier. Despite this expanse of time, there was a loose dialogue between them: the Minoans influenced the Mycenaeans, who themselves were early Greeks, and the later classical Greeks indicate some “memory” of the Minoans, as filtered down through their myths.

For example, in the later Greek stories (from the first millennium BC), Crete is closely associated with bulls. Zeus took the form of a bull when he seized the Phoenician princess Europa and forced her to the island to initiate the Minoan bloodline. She bore Minos whose wife, Pasiphae, submitted to her passion for Poseidon’s bull, producing the minotaur.

In Minoan art, bulls are everywhere. Archaeologists have found bronze age ritual libation vessels – used for pouring liquid sacrifices to the gods – crafted into the shape of a bull’s head, and large gold rings depicting people leaping over bulls. The echoes of history, myth and ritual seem to have rippled through the generations, to later be reproduced and re-imagined by the ancient Greeks.

Fresco showing two people and a bull
A bull fresco from Knossos Palace in Crete.
Pecold/Shutterstock

It is therefore essential for people who want to understand the history of Europe to study the influence the Minoans have had on the ancient Greeks and modern Europeans – in particular, the evidence coming from the great digs conducted on the island in the early 20th century. These include the excavations by the British archaeologist Arthur Evans at Knossos, Crete, a vast site with complexity that may lend itself to the Greek labyrinth myth.

While the image of the bull is particularly widespread here, there is little association between this creature and women, as later appears in the myths. Women are linked with other animals, though, such as serpents, as shown by the snake goddess figurines that Evans found in the Palace of Knossos in 1903.

Snakes in Minoan art

These snake goddesses were found hidden in large stone-lined pits, in a very fragmentary state. Numerous riches were in this deposit: hundreds of shells, clay and stone vessels, clay seal impressions (used for documentation), Linear A inscriptions (a writing script) and animal bones.

The remains of five or six female figurines were found, but only two have been reconstructed. They have become icons of Minoan culture and poster girls for Crete, standing out due to their eye-catching costumes. These are tight, corseted jackets that leave the breasts bare, with floor-length full skirts – their heaviness serving to emphasise the exposed breasts even more.

Sepia photo of figurines.
The remains of the figurines found in the Palace of Knossos in 1903.
Wiki Commons

The slightly larger one is a matronly figure with a tall, conical hat. Her snake-entwined arms are held at around 45 degrees, palms up and set approximately in line with her navel. Snakes drape over her as she stares straight ahead.

The second figure raises her bright white arms, bent at the elbow, up and out to her sides, flexed slightly forward. She clutches snakes, and a feline creature balances on her hat.

These figurines offer food for thought about the reconstruction processes that archaeologists undertake. First, Evans gave the title “goddess” to the larger figurine, and “votary” (meaning a worshipper who has taken vows) to the smaller one. This is arbitrary: we cannot know who these figurines represented, whether they were human, as a dignitary or priestess, or divine – we just sense they were VIPs.

Furthermore, when viewing these extraordinary objects in the Heraklion Museum in Crete today, the visitor may be unaware of the extent to which they have been reconstructed, and how much is an early 20th-century creation.

For example, the votary’s head, with its distinctive, wide-eyed stare, is entirely modern, as is her left arm, added soon after she was excavated. The object held in her right hand was broken off – only a very small piece of the original remained in her clenched fist. The reconstruction of snakes as the objects she holds is not so absurd – her sister has them running all over her as a comparison – but recent research has cast some doubt on what she originally held.

In addition to reconstructing the originals, people have also re-imagined these striking figurines in numerous ways – in replicas as souvenirs, as Barbie dolls, in graffiti (particularly in Heraklion) and in advertisements. They have appeared as book covers and inspired modern literature as well as visual and performative art.

Adaptations of them have come to life in poetry, opera, dance and music. A performer led the historical procession as the snake goddess in the opening ceremony for the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens. My project, the Many Lives of a Snake Goddess, seeks to understand the cultural biographies of these objects. It shows their legacy has been great partly because we have recreated them in such varied ways.

Minoan Crete is important not only because of any claims made for its place as the fountainhead of European civilisation, but also because its art and archaeology have done so much to shape modern culture.


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.


The Conversation

Ellen Adams 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. Want to understand the history of European culture? Start with the Minoans, not the Ancient Greeks – https://theconversation.com/want-to-understand-the-history-of-european-culture-start-with-the-minoans-not-the-ancient-greeks-257193

DON’T PUB YET: How deliberative democracy can help solve the UK’s infrastructure problems

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Durrant, Lecturer in Infrastructure Planning, Bartlett School of Planning, UCL

Hinkley Point power station under construction in Somerset, UK. Chris Homer/Shutterstock

Infrastructure planning needs more democracy, not less.

The UK has wasted billions of pounds of public and private money through failed infrastructure projects recently. Our research suggests there is a better way.

The planning and infrastructure bill now in parliament is an example of how the government’s approach fails. The bill has been criticised for pitting the environment against economic growth. Less well reported is that it removes a cornerstone of our democracy; the opportunity for citizens to participate in decision-making about the infrastructure that affects them. The bill removes the duty for the developers of big infrastructure projects to consult with local communities and local authorities before the formal planning process.

There has been a democratic deficit in infrastructure planning since the 2008 Planning Act established a separate planning process for infrastructure projects deemed nationally significant. These are larger with the need for them established in national policy statements produced by the relevant government department. For example, the Department for Transport produces policy statements that establish the need for new road and rail projects, as does the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero for wind or nuclear projects.

This process was meant to be both faster and fairer but the emphasis was always on speed. Despite the belief among policymakers that planning slows down the delivery of infrastructure the evidence suggests that factors outside of planning are the biggest source of delay.

The problems of delays and rising costs that beset projects like the nuclear power station Hinkley Point C, London’s super sewer the Thames tideway tunnel and the high-speed rail line HS2 have little to do with planning. These simply exemplify the problem of so-called “megaprojects” that take longer, cost more and deliver less than is promised.

freight trains loading
Rail freight infrastructure is a crucial part of the UK transport network.
PrasitRodphan/Shutterstock

The planning and infrastructure bill will not make the process fairer. Communities and groups affected will only get to make their case in writing and in public hearings where time to speak is limited, often to 15 minutes. The process makes it harder for communities to have their voices heard. It may not even be faster as speed in the planning stages comes at the expense of passing on problems to the more costly construction phase.

Deliberation means better decisions

Yet, when citizens are involved in public deliberative forums with experts and planners, they can make well-reasoned, long-term decisions. When communities and experts work together infrastructure can be co-designed. This is why we were part of a group of planning academics that recently called for amendments to the Bill to establish an expert body to support innovative democratic participation in infrastructure planning.

There are precedents. Canada’s 1977 Berger inquiry into proposals to construct a gas pipeline on land along the Mackenzie Valley subject to claims by Aboriginal organisations. The inquiry became a benchmark for the use of public deliberation in the environmental and social assessment of complex infrastructure. Justice Thomas Berger’s approach saw experts and citizens testify on equal terms. The inquiry went to the communities that were affected. It travelled over 17,000 miles across Canada’s northwest hearing testimony from Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians in eight different languages.

The use of public deliberation to inform decision-making has increased considerably since then. In 2020, a report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an international policy advice forum, showed that infrastructure, urban and strategic planning are consistently the top policy areas where deliberative forums are used.

Following conflicts over high-speed rail lines in the 1990s, France pioneered deliberative discussion for all large infrastructure projects. These are subjected to early, non-binding scrutiny, conducted by an independent agency with years of experience in organising democratic discussion. They found it was more efficient and quicker to bring people into discussions early on.

France also organised national debates on climate change. This public deliberation on energy or transport policy builds political consensus for years so policy does not change with each change of government. In the UK, this could provide a basis for the new generation of National Policy Statements on infrastructure.

The previous UK government’s own Innovation in Democracy programme – an initiative that tests the use of deliberative assemblies in local government – showed how they can be designed to fit the geographies of infrastructure. This is important because the consequences often go beyond local authority boundaries through which representative democracy is organised.

Despite huge challenges like the transition to renewable energy or mitigating climate change that new infrastructure has to deal with, trust in planning is often low, mirroring a general decline in faith in politics. Deliberative democracy can restore trust between citizens and politicians and address the problems of climate change.

Infrastructure decisions are technically complex. New, large-scale infrastructure is disruptive, expensive and rarely aligns with electoral time frames. Yet the costs and consequences of poor decisions are with us for a long time. Rather than a delay, planning in this way is time well spent.


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

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


The Conversation

I have received funding from the German Government’s Humboldt Foundation and the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council to study the controversies surrounding big infrastructure projects.

Tim Marshall received funding from ESRC, a Research Fellowship 2010-2102.

ref. DON’T PUB YET: How deliberative democracy can help solve the UK’s infrastructure problems – https://theconversation.com/dont-pub-yet-how-deliberative-democracy-can-help-solve-the-uks-infrastructure-problems-261531

Plastics: all around us and inside us

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rosa Busquets, Associate Professor, School of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Kingston University

MOHAMED ABDULRAHEEM/Shutterstock

Plastic is one of the most remarkable materials ever created. It’s cheap, lightweight and endlessly versatile. It can be shaped into anything from shopping bags to lifesaving tools in hospitals, and it’s clean, safe and can be sterilised. Depending on its purpose, it can be used just once – for example, in medical settings where hygiene is critical – or kept in service for years.

Perhaps surprisingly, plastic can even have environmental benefits thanks to its light weight, which reduces fuel use in transport. But we have become so dependent on plastic that global production reached around 414 million tonnes in 2023 – a figure that continues to rise every year.

Plastic is part of countless everyday objects. Take a toothbrush: the bristles are usually nylon, while the handle is often made from lightweight polyethylene or polypropylene. A manual toothbrush might have a volume of 8.5-19 cm³. Now imagine that over time, it breaks down into microplastics – fragments smaller than five millimetres – or even nanoplastics, which are a thousand times smaller.

If microplastics can be as small as 1 micrometre (about the size of a bacterium) – or even 0.1 micrometres (roughly the size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus) – a single toothbrush could theoretically break into 8.5-19 trillion microplastics. And these particles are small enough to be inhaled or ingested.

Plastics don’t simply “vanish” in the environment: they fragment. Sunlight, especially ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation, makes plastic brittle; physical stress – waves, wind, abrasion – breaks it into ever-smaller pieces. Even the state of the stratospheric ozone layer, which controls how much UV-B reaches Earth, can influence how quickly plastics degrade. Some bacteria and fungi can also contribute to breaking down certain plastics, but this is slow and often incomplete.

The result? Most plastic waste ends up as a soup of micro- and nanoplastics drifting through our environment.

While larger plastic debris can cause obvious harm, such as entangling wildlife or being swallowed by seabirds, microplastics are a quieter but potentially more insidious problem.

Plastic everywhere

Microplastics have now been found inside 1,300 species of invertebrates and are present at every level of the food chain. These particles are oil-like (hydrophobic), which helps them cross biological membranes and enter the cells of living organisms – unlike water-loving (hydrophilic) particles such as grains of sand, which follow a different biological path.

Their size matters, too. Smaller particles can travel more easily within the body, reaching organs far from where they first entered. Exposure can occur through swimming in polluted water or via food and drink – either because the food itself contains plastic particles (such as seafood from contaminated waters) or because it’s been contaminated during packaging or industrial processing.

Micro- and nanoplastics can also be inhaled in airborne dust, particularly in certain workplaces, such as textile manufacturing or sandblasting with plastic-based materials. In everyday life, we can breathe in synthetic fibres shed from our clothes or tiny particles released from tyre wear.

Once inside, microplastics have been found to move – a process called translocation – within animals, a phenomenon that has not been found in humans yet.

Evidence now shows that micro- and nanoplastics are present in human liver, kidney, lung, spleen, blood, heart and brain. In one study, nanoplastic shards of polyethylene were detected in human brains, at higher concentrations than in the liver and kidney. They have been found in the fat plaque in arteria which is related to cardiovascular problems. They have also been found in the placenta and breast milk, suggesting that these particles can be transferred across generations.

Given how common plastics are in food and drink, their presence in the human body isn’t surprising – but detecting them is technically challenging. Samples are often collected in hospital environments where plastics are everywhere, creating a high risk of contamination.

Are they harmful?

Researchers are beginning to investigate associations between plastic particles and human health conditions including cardiovascular disease, pulmonary fibrosis – a lung disease in which tissue becomes scarred and stiff, making it harder to breathe – as well as liver and bowel disease.




Read more:
Plastics threaten ecosystems and human health, but evidence-based solutions are under political fire


But the science is still young. Large-scale epidemiological studies, which could take years to complete, will be needed to determine whether plastics directly cause these illnesses.

The emerging picture is not reassuring. While scientists are still uncovering the full scope of risks, the precautionary principle suggests we should act now to reduce exposure. That means continuing to track how plastics break down, how they enter our bodies and what they might be doing once inside.

Microplastics are no longer “just” an environmental issue: they’re a public health concern. And because plastic production is still rising, the scale of the problem is likely to grow before it shrinks.

The Conversation

Rosa Busquets receives funding from UKRI/Horizons (CleanWater project 101131182) and DASA (UK). She is honorary academic at UCL and Al-Farabi Kazakh National University.

Marcel Jansen receives funding from EPA (Ireland) and DAFM (Ireland)

ref. Plastics: all around us and inside us – https://theconversation.com/plastics-all-around-us-and-inside-us-262882