The Conversation – Page 7 – MIL Submissions Engine

February 2, 2026

Tariffs are reshaping Canadian manufacturing, but not all workers are being impacted the same way

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Marshia Akbar, Research Lead on Labour Migration at the CERC Migration and Integration Program, TMU, Toronto Metropolitan University

American tariffs have reshaped Canada’s manufacturing sector, but labour-market impacts have not been evenly shared across workers.

The United States imposed tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, automobiles and auto parts as part of a broader protectionist push under Donald Trump’s administration. Canada’s government responded with its own counter-tariffs and trade measures, but disruptions to the industry were already underway by that point.

Manufacturing is a major source of employment for both immigrant and Canadian-born workers. It includes everything from automotive and aerospace parts to food processing and steel products, and it contributes roughly 10 per cent of Canada’s GDP.

Manufacturing is particularly vulnerable to U.S. tariffs because of its deep integration with cross-border supply chains. More than 60 per cent of Canada’s manufacturing sector has substantial trade exposure to the U.S., making it the primary channel through which tariffs affect the Canadian economy.

As firms adjusted to rising costs and trade uncertainty, immigrant and Canadian-born workers experienced different forms of employment risk at different points in 2025.

A sector under strain

A recent report shows that between January and September 2025, Canada’s manufacturing sector experienced lower production, fewer jobs and higher prices.

After momentum earlier in the year, manufacturing jobs fell sharply in the spring, with the largest consecutive job losses occurring in April, when 30,600 jobs were lost, and May, when a further 12,200 jobs disappeared. Overall, employment fell by nearly 43,000 workers between March and May.

This was followed by persistent instability rather than sustained recovery later in the year. Employment rebounded in September, with 27,800 jobs gained, and rose again in October, but these gains were partially reversed in November, when 9,300 jobs were lost.

Firms responded to the tariff shocks through delayed and incremental employment cuts, but these sector-wide adjustments were experienced differently by immigrant and Canadian-born workers.

Immigrant workers are more vulnerable

Not all workers felt the shocks from the labour market equally. Immigrant workers were disproportionately affected by tariff-related employment adjustments and are particularly vulnerable when manufacturing employment becomes unstable.

Manufacturing is a critical source of employment for immigrants, particularly in large metropolitan regions and along industrial corridors.

In March 2025, immigrants accounted for 30 per cent of employment in Canada’s manufacturing sector, compared with 70 per cent of Canadian-born workers. By December 2025, however, the immigrant share had declined to 28 per cent, while the share of Canadian-born workers increased to 72 per cent.

This disparity was compounded by a structural educational mismatch. While 80 per cent of workers in the sector don’t have a university degree, immigrant workers were more than twice as likely as Canadian-born workers to be university educated.

Nevertheless, these higher education levels often do not translate into higher-paid roles within manufacturing.

Lower wages amplify employment risk

Wage data shows that many immigrant manufacturing workers are concentrated in lower-paid or more labour-intensive jobs that are particularly vulnerable during an economic downturn.

Throughout 2025, immigrant workers earned roughly $2.50 to $3 less per hour than Canadian-born workers. This gap did not narrow even when wages recovered later in the year.

Average hourly wages for all workers increased from $34.43 in March to $35.29 in December. Yet the wage gap for immigrant workers widened slightly — from $2.52 to $2.56.

Lower pay combined with higher educational attainment points to persistent credential under-utilization, meaning workers possess skills or qualifications that are not fully used or rewarded in their jobs. This under-utilization increases immigrant workers’ exposure to employment instability when trade disruptions occur.

How job loss patterns shifted

Job loss also unfolded differently over time. In the first half of 2025, unemployed former workers who were immigrants were more likely to report layoffs — temporary or permanent — as the cause of their joblessness.

That share remained consistently high — at 66 per cent in June — before gradually declining later in the year. By December, 51 per cent of immigrant former workers reported job loss as the reason for unemployment.

In contrast, job loss became increasingly concentrated among Canadian-born workers in the second half of the year. In March, only 53 per cent reported job loss as the reason for unemployment. This share rose steadily throughout the rest of the year, reaching 71 per cent by December.

These trends indicate that firms initially relied more heavily on reductions in immigrant labour, and later expanded layoffs to include Canadian-born workers as tariff pressures persisted.

Differential adjustment strategies

U.S. tariffs reshaped Canadian manufacturing not through a single employment shock, but through different labour-adjustment strategies over time.

Highly educated immigrant workers, many of whom were concentrated in lower-paid roles, were more exposed to early layoffs, wage penalties and unstable employment. As tariff pressures deepened, job loss became more concentrated among Canadian-born workers as longer-term restructuring took place.

These patterns matter for policy. If manufacturing is to remain a viable pillar of the Canadian economy in an era of trade disruption, policy responses must recognize these unequal adjustment patterns and address the underlying vulnerabilities that leave some workers more exposed than others.

This could include targeted income supports and rapid-response training for displaced workers, and tailored settlement and employment services for immigrant workers who, as a group, are concentrated in lower-wage and more unstable jobs.

In addition, better co-ordination between trade, industrial, and immigration policies could help ensure that adjustment costs are not disproportionately borne by already vulnerable workers.

Marshia Akbar receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Devaanshi Khanzode 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. Tariffs are reshaping Canadian manufacturing, but not all workers are being impacted the same way – https://theconversation.com/tariffs-are-reshaping-canadian-manufacturing-but-not-all-workers-are-being-impacted-the-same-way-274269

February 2, 2026

Whether it’s Valentine’s Day notes or emails to loved ones, using AI to write leaves people feeling crummy about themselves

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Julian Givi, Assistant Professor of Marketing, West Virginia University

People seem to intuitively understand something meaningful should require doing more than pushing a button or writing a prompt. design master/iStock via Getty Images

As Valentine’s Day approaches, finding the perfect words to express your feelings for that special someone can seem like a daunting task – so much so that you may feel tempted to ask ChatGPT for an assist.

After all, within seconds it can dash off a well-written, romantic message. Even a short, personalized limerick or poem is no sweat.

But before you copy and paste that AI-generated love note, you might want to consider how it could make you feel about yourself.

We research the intersection of consumer behavior and technology, and we’ve been studying how people feel after using generative AI to write heartfelt messages. It turns out that there’s a psychological cost to using the technology as your personal ghostwriter.

The rise of the AI ghostwriter

Generative AI has transformed how many people communicate. From drafting work emails to composing social media posts, these tools have become everyday writing assistants. So it’s no wonder some people are turning to them for more personal matters, too.

Wedding vows, birthday wishes, thank you notes and even Valentine’s Day messages are increasingly being outsourced to algorithms.

The technology is certainly capable. Chatbots can craft emotionally resonant responses that sound genuinely heartfelt.

But there’s a catch: When you present these words as your own, something doesn’t sit right.

When convenience breeds guilt

We conducted five experiments with hundreds of participants, asking them to imagine using generative AI to write various emotional messages to loved ones. Across every scenario we tested – from appreciation emails to birthday cards to love letters – we found the same pattern: People felt guilty when they used generative AI to write these messages compared to when they wrote the messages themselves.

When you copy an AI-generated message and sign your name to it, you’re essentially taking credit for words you didn’t write.

This creates what we call a “source-credit discrepancy,” which is a gap between who actually created the message and who appears to have created it. You can see these discrepancies in other contexts, whether it’s celebrity social media posts written by public relations teams or political speeches composed by professional speechwriters.

When you use AI, even though you might tell yourself you’re just being efficient, you can probably recognize, deep down, that you’re misleading the recipient about the personal effort and thought that went into the message.

The transparency test

To better understand this guilt, we compared AI-generated messages to other scenarios. When people bought greeting cards with preprinted messages, they felt no guilt at all. This is because greeting cards are transparently not written by you. Greeting cards carry no deception: Everyone understands you selected the card and that you didn’t write it yourself.

We also tested another scenario: having a friend secretly write the message for you. This produced just as much guilt as using generative AI. Whether the ghostwriter is human or an artificial intelligence tool doesn’t matter. What matters most is the dishonesty.

There were some boundaries, however. We found that guilt decreased when messages were never delivered and when recipients were mere acquaintances rather than close friends.

These findings confirm that the guilt stems from violating expectations of honesty in relationships where emotional authenticity matters most.

Somewhat relatedly, research has found that people react more negatively when they learn a company used AI instead of a human to write a message to them.

But the backlash was strongest when audiences expected personal effort – a boss expressing sympathy after a tragedy, or a note sent to all staff members celebrating a colleague’s recovery from a health scare. It was far weaker for purely factual or instructional notes, such as announcing routine personnel changes or providing basic business updates.

What this means for your Valentine’s Day

So, what should you do about that looming Valentine’s Day message? Our research suggests that the human hand behind a meaningful message can help both the writer and the recipient feel better.

This doesn’t mean you can’t use generative AI as a brainstorming partner rather than a ghostwriter. Let it help you overcome writer’s block or suggest ideas, but make the final message truly yours. Edit, personalize and add details that only you would know. The key is co-creation, not complete delegation.

Generative AI is a powerful tool, but it’s also created a raft of ethical dilemmas, whether it’s in the classroom or in romantic relationships. As these technologies become more integrated into everyday life, people will need to decide where to draw the line between helpful assistance and emotional outsourcing.

This Valentine’s Day, your heart and your conscience might thank you for keeping your message genuinely your own.

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

– ref. Whether it’s Valentine’s Day notes or emails to loved ones, using AI to write leaves people feeling crummy about themselves – https://theconversation.com/whether-its-valentines-day-notes-or-emails-to-loved-ones-using-ai-to-write-leaves-people-feeling-crummy-about-themselves-271805

February 2, 2026

Greenland’s ‘green mining’ row highlights the key tensions in the energy transition

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Narmin Nahidi, Assistant Professor in Finance, University of Exeter

Green finance is built on a promise: that capital can be redirected to support the transition to a low-carbon economy while avoiding the environmental mistakes of the past. That promise is getting harder to keep.

The technologies needed for decarbonisation of electric vehicles, wind turbines, batteries and grid infrastructure rely on large quantities of critical minerals. Extracting those materials, even from remote places such as Greenland, remains environmentally disruptive, socially contested and politically fraught.

Sustainable finance shapes investment decisions across energy, infrastructure and manufacturing. The ethical frameworks this finance is based on often assume that environmental harm can be minimised through better disclosure, cleaner technologies and improved governance.

The extraction of critical minerals challenges that assumption. Mining is land intensive, energy hungry and often polluting. Recycling of existing batteries, electronics and turbines, and substitution away from scarce materials can reduce demand.

But most projections from the world’s energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency, show that demand for critical minerals will rise sharply under clean energy transitions . Similar bodies show that extraction of raw materials such as lithium, cobalt, nickel and rare earth elements will rise sharply over the next two decades.

This is because the transition away from fossil fuels depends on large volumes of new infrastructure including electric vehicle batteries, wind turbines and grid storage, which cannot be supplied from recycled materials alone.

Recent research and policy assessments suggest this contradiction is becoming more acute, not less. Recent analyses of critical mineral supply chains show that extraction and processing remain highly concentrated in a few countries particularly China, Australia, Chile and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

These supply chains are environmentally intensive, involving significant land use, water consumption and pollution. These supply chains are slow to scale because it takes years to obtain permits for new mines, requires large upfront investment, and depends on the construction of extensive infrastructure. Yet global climate targets assume rapid expansion of clean-energy technologies.

In Greenland, environmental regulation and local political decisions have delayed or halted mining projects that are often considered key to the green transition.

Greenland is geologically rich. The island is home to significant deposits of rare earth elements, graphite, zinc and other minerals considered critical by both the EU and the US. These materials are central to clean-energy supply chains and have become strategically important as governments seek to reduce dependence on China, a superpower which dominates global processing capacity.

At the same time, Greenland’s environment is exceptionally fragile. Arctic ecosystems recover slowly from industrial disruption, infrastructure is limited and mining projects face high logistical and financial costs. These constraints have already shaped political choices.

In 2021, Greenland’s government introduced restrictions on uranium mining, effectively blocking the development of the large Kvanefjeld rare earth project. That decision reflected environmental and social priorities. It also highlighted the economic and legal pressures that arise when sustainability policies collide with global demand for transition minerals.

When green finance meets geopolitics

In a world of geopolitical competition, governments are increasingly treating access to critical minerals as a matter of national security as well as climate policy. Policy statements and strategy documents from the US, the EU and other major economies now frame mineral supply not just as an environmental issue, but as essential to economic resilience, defence capability and technological leadership.

This shift has encouraged public financial support, diplomatic engagement and strategic partnerships aimed at securing future supply, including increased foreign interest in Greenland’s mineral sector. While Greenland retains control over its resources, international attention reflects the growing geopolitical importance of potential new supply sources.

Projects justified as supporting the energy transition may be driven as much by geopolitical urgency as by environmental benefit. Academic research on critical mineral supply chains shows that when geopolitical and industrial priorities shape governance frameworks, local environmental risks and community consent are often marginalised in favour of strategic and economic goals

Tension in Greenland

Despite international interest, large-scale mining in Greenland has not taken off. Environmental safeguards, political opposition, infrastructure gaps and high costs have slowed development. This reality complicates the assumption that new mineral frontiers can quickly solve clean-energy supply bottlenecks through investment alone.

For investors, Greenland raises difficult questions about how environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards apply to transition minerals. Financing a rare earth mine may reduce long-term emissions by enabling renewable technologies, yet still impose immediate environmental damage. Standard ESG metrics struggle to capture this trade-off. They are better suited to assessing corporate behaviour than to resolving conflicts between global climate goals and local environmental harm.

lone husky howling on greenland icy landscape — Current geopolitical dynamics have huge consequences for Greenland’s environment.
Kedardome/Shutterstock

In Greenland, the debate over “green mining” (the idea that mineral extraction can be made environmentally acceptable through cleaner technologies, higher standards and better governance) is not a case of poor regulation or weak oversight. Instead, it reflects a jurisdiction that has deliberately placed environmental limits on extraction, even as it faces economic and strategic pressure as a result.

As governments continue to pursue ambitious climate targets under national and international commitments, similar dilemmas will emerge elsewhere. Green finance cannot avoid the material foundations of the energy transition.

Sustainable finance frameworks must evolve to handle situations where environmental protection constrains access to strategically important resources. Greenland shows how protecting the environment can clash with efforts to secure the minerals needed for the energy transition, and that this tension is far from resolved.

Without clearer rules on how to balance climate benefits against local ecological costs and without genuine respect for sovereignty and community choice, green finance risks becoming reactive, stretched between environmental principles and geopolitical realities.

The transition to a low-carbon economy requires minerals. But Greenland highlights that how those minerals are sourced and who bears the environmental cost remains unresolved.

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

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

Narmin Nahidi 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. Greenland’s ‘green mining’ row highlights the key tensions in the energy transition – https://theconversation.com/greenlands-green-mining-row-highlights-the-key-tensions-in-the-energy-transition-274336

February 2, 2026

ChatGPT is in classrooms. How should educators now assess student learning?

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sarah Elaine Eaton, Professor and Research Chair, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is now a reality in higher education, with students and professors integrating chatbots into teaching, learning and assessment. But this isn’t just a technical shift; it’s reshaping how students and educators learn and evaluate knowledge.

Our recent qualitative study with 28 educators across Canadian universities and colleges — from librarians to engineering professors — suggests that we have entered a watershed moment in education.

We must grapple with the question: What exactly should be assessed when human cognition can be augmented or simulated by an algorithm?

Research about AI and academic integrity

In our review of 15 years of research that engages how AI affects cheating in education, we found that AI is a double-edged sword for schools.

On one hand, AI tools like online translators and text generators have become so advanced that they can write just like humans. This makes it difficult for teachers to detect cheating. Additionally, these tools can sometimes present fake news as facts or repeat unfair social biases, such as racism and sexism, found in the data used to train them.

On the other hand, the studies we reviewed showed AI can be a legitimate assistant that can make learning more inclusive. For instance, AI can provide support for students with disabilities or help those who are learning an additional language.

Because it’s nearly impossible to block every AI tool, schools should not just focus on catching cheaters. Instead, schools and post-secondary institutions can update their policies and provide better training for both students and teachers. This helps everyone learn how to use technology responsibly while maintaining a high standard of academic integrity.

Participants in our study positioned themselves not as enforcers, but as stewards of learning with integrity.

Their focus was on distinguishing between assistance that supports learning and assistance that substitutes for it. They identified three skill areas where assessment boundaries currently fall: prompting, critical thinking and writing.

Prompting: A legitimate and assessable skill

Participants widely viewed prompting — the ability to formulate clear and purposeful instructions for a chatbot — as a skill they could assess. Effective prompting requires students to break down tasks, understand concepts and communicate precisely.

Several noted that unclear prompts often produce poor outputs, forcing students to reflect on what they are really asking.

Prompting was considered ethical only when used transparently, drawing on one’s own foundational knowledge. Without these conditions, educators feared prompting may drift into over-reliance or uncritical use of AI.

Critical thinking

Educators saw strong potential for AI to support assessing critical thinking. Because chatbots can generate text that sounds plausible but may contain errors, omissions or fabrications, students must evaluate accuracy, coherence and credibility. Participants reported using AI-generated summaries or arguments as prompts for critique, asking students to identify weaknesses or misleading claims.

These activities align with a broader need to prepare students for work in a future where assessing algorithmic information will be a routine task. Several educators argued it would be unethical not to teach students how to interrogate AI-generated content.

Writing: Where boundaries tighten

Writing was the most contested domain. Educators distinguished sharply between brainstorming, editing and composition:

• Brainstorming with AI was acceptable when used as a starting point, as long as students expressed their own ideas and did not substitute AI suggestions for their own thinking.

• Editing with AI (for example, grammar correction) was considered acceptable only after students had produced original text and could evaluate whether AI-generated revisions were appropriate. Although some see AI as a legitimate support for linguistic diversity, as well as helping to level the field for those with disabilities or those who speak English as an additional language, others fear a future of language standardization where the unique, authentic voice of the student is smoothed over by an algorithm.

• Having chatbots draft arguments or prose was implicitly rejected. Participants treated the generative phase of writing as a uniquely human cognitive process that needs to be done by students, not machines.

Educators also cautioned that heavy reliance on AI could tempt students to bypass the “productive struggle” inherent in writing, a struggle that is central to developing original thought.

Our research participants recognized that in a hybrid cognitive future, skills related to AI, together with critical thinking are essential skills for students to be ready for the workforce after graduation.

Living in the post-plagiarism era

The idea of co-writing with GenAI brings us into an post-plagiarism era where AI is integrated into into teaching, learning and communication in a way that challenges us to reconsider our assumptions about authorship and originality.

This does not mean that educators no longer care about plagiarism or academic integrity. Honesty will always be important. Rather, in a post-plagiarism context, we consider that humans and AI co-writing and co-creating does not automatically equate to plagiarism.

Today, AI is disrupting education and although we don’t yet have all the answers, it’s certain that AI is here to stay. Teaching students to co-create with AI is part of learning in a post-plagiarism world.

Design for a socially just future

Valid assessment in the age of AI requires clearly delineating which cognitive processes must remain human and which can be legitimately cognitively offloaded. To ensure higher education remains a space for ethical decision-making especially in terms of teaching, learning and assessment, we propose five design principles, based on our research:

1. Explicit expectations: The educator is responsible for making clear if and how GenAI can be used in a particular assignment. Students must know exactly when and how AI is a partner in their work. Ambiguity can lead to unintentional misconduct, as well as a breakdown in the student-educator relationship.

2. Process over product: By evaluating drafts, annotations and reflections, educators can assess the learning process, rather than just the output, or the product.

3. Design assessment tasks that require human judgment: Tasks requiring high-level evaluation, synthesis and critique of localized contexts are areas where human agency is still important.

4. Developing evaluative judgment: Educators must teach students to be critical consumers of GenAI, capable of identifying its limitations and biases.

5. Preserving student voice: Assessments should foreground how students know what they know, rather than what they know.

Preparing students for a hybrid cognitive future

Educators in this study sought ethical, practical ways to integrate GenAI into assessment. They argued that students must understand both the capabilities and the limitations of GenAI, particularly its tendency to generate errors, oversimplifications or misleading summaries.

In this sense, post-plagiarism is not about crisis, but about rethinking what it means to learn and demonstrate knowledge in a world where human cognition routinely interacts with digital systems.

Universities and colleges now face a choice. They can treat AI as a threat to be managed, or they can treat it as a catalyst for strengthening assessment, integrity and learning. The educators in our study favour the latter.

Sarah Elaine Eaton receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of Calgary.

Rahul Kumar has received funding from SSHRC in the past.

Robert Brennan receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

Beatriz Antonieta Moya Figueroa 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. ChatGPT is in classrooms. How should educators now assess student learning? – https://theconversation.com/chatgpt-is-in-classrooms-how-should-educators-now-assess-student-learning-270933

February 2, 2026

Addressing climate change without the ‘rules-based order’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limited successes of the rules-based order

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

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

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

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

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

Possibilities for progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 2, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to ward off an invasion

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

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

Total national defence in theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada’s chosen example: Finland

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

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

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

Canada’s worst-case scenario: Yugoslavia

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

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

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

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

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

Learning from the past

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

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

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

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

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

February 2, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it seems the answer lies far below the surface.

Drip drip

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

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

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

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

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

A geological bullseye

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

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

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

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

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

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

A pivotal moment in the history of North America

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

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

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

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

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

February 2, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 2, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A national approach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unresolved issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 2, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is a stroke?

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

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

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

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

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

Training the less-impaired arm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengthening what remains

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

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

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

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

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

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

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