Kategori: News in English

As Australian families prepare for term 1, many will receive letters from their public schools asking them to pay fees.

While public schools are supposed to be “free”, parents are regularly asked to pay “voluntary” annual contributions. The price tag can be significant. For example, in 2023, Victorian public schools received on average A$570 per student in fees, charges and parent contributions. These voluntary fees go towards a range of items, depending on the school – and could include stationary, excursions or other resources.

This week, the Greens announced a A$10 billion election policy to address public school costs.

Are fees really voluntary at public schools, and why are schools asking parents for funds?

What’s the Greens’ policy?

The Greens’ plan has two components. First, it would give public schools extra funding to cover school expenses, so parents would no longer be asked for voluntary contributions.

Second, the party is pledging to pay families $800 per year for every child attending a public school to cover back-to-school costs, including “uniforms, technology and school supplies”.

The Greens say this will make public schools “truly free”, adding, “public schools shouldn’t need to rely on the generosity of parents”.

The policy, which has been costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, includes $2.4 billion to end school fees and $7.6 billion for the back-to-school payment.

Greens leader Adam Bandt is hoping to negotiate with the major parties if there is a hung parliament.
Con Chronis/AAP

Are fees really voluntary?

Fees at public schools are supposed to be voluntary. For example, the New South Wales Education Department notes:

These contributions are voluntary. The payment of voluntary school contributions is a matter for decision by parents and carers. Schools must not deny any student the opportunity to meet syllabus requirements because of non-payment of voluntary school contributions.

But parents often receive an official letter from the school at the start of the year (on school stationary, looking like an itemised bill).

Public pressure can also be a factor. In 2019, children at Bondi Public School in Sydney received free popcorn if their parents had paid their fees.

How much are public school fees?

In a 2019 study, a colleague and I examined voluntary school fees at 150 metropolitan public schools in Melbourne between 2013 and 2016. We also studied voluntary school fees at 386 public schools in NSW over five years (2013–17). In a 2022 study, we compared these to public selective-entry schools in NSW.

While we found fees were relatively stable over our study period, there were significant differences depending on the socioeconomic status of the school (measured by asking parents their profession and level of education).

In NSW, the average annual parent contribution in a high socioeconomic status school was $1,055 per student, compared with $419 in a low socioeconomic status school.

In metropolitan Melbourne, the average annual parent contribution in a high socioeconomic status school was $1,430 per student, compared with $408 in a low socioeconomic status school. The average annual parent contribution in a selective-entry public school was $2,057.

While the precise figures will have changed since we did our study – and are likely to be higher – the comparisons are concerning. They suggest significant gaps between public schools’ resources, depending on whether they are in an advantaged or disadvantaged area.

Public school fees can go towards buying resources for classrooms.
Bianca De Marchi/ AAP

Schools are struggling for funds

Other research also suggests many public schools are struggling for funds. In my co-authored 2024 study, public school principals spoke of how they need to apply for competitive government grants to prop up school funds and provide basic services and building maintenance.

As part of this, principals talked about how their schools no longer had the capacity to help families in their communities. As one Victorian primary school principal told us:

We don’t have the flexibility [in our budget] that we once had. Once upon a time we probably had more flexibility to cover those families that are in dire need.

Another 2024 study found NSW students are being asked to pay for core physical education lessons at public schools, which have to outsource these lessons due to teacher shortages.

Read more:
’Very frustrating’: for public school principals, applying for grants is now a big part of their job

The bigger picture

At a broader level, Australian schools are still not “fully funded”, according to the Gonski reforms more than a decade ago.

This is based on the “schooling resource standard”, whereby schools get funding based on the level of students’ needs. So far, only public schools in the ACT have had full funding allocations (for recurrent funding) under this model.

Funding for infrastructure or capital works is done separately, and is not tied to any needs-based measure.

Read more:
As more money is flagged for WA schools, what does ’fully funded’ really mean?

School fees create barriers

Some parents may be happy to pay voluntary school fees in a public school – seeing it as a way to support their children’s education and the local community. Voluntary payments mean schools can afford more resources, which benefit their students.

However, the bigger issue is public schools should be accessible to everyone. Any school fees create potential barriers and access issues for families who cannot afford to pay. They also create gaps between different public schools, with some schools having far more money than others.

The solution is to ensure public schools are not only funded adequately, but robustly. At the moment, our funding system is not meeting the bare minimum agreed targets, and therefore it is unsurprising costs are being passed to parents. Läs mer…

Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) has been met with dismay in the public health field.

Some have called one of the US president’s first executive orders “a grave error” and “absolutely bad news”.

What does the WHO do?

The WHO is a United Nations agency that aims to expand universal health coverage, coordinates responses to health emergencies such as pandemics, and has a broad focus on healthy lives. It does not have the power to enforce health policy, but influences policy worldwide, especially in low-income countries.

The WHO plays an essential coordinating role in surveillance, response and policy for infectious and non-infectious diseases. In fact, infectious diseases have the most pressing need for global coordination. Unlike non-communicable diseases, infections can spread rapidly from one country to another, just as COVID spread to cause a pandemic.

We have much to thank the WHO for, including the eradication of smallpox, a feat which could not have been achieved without global coordination and leadership. It has also played a leading role in control of polio and HIV.

Why does the US want to withdraw?

The reasons for withdrawing include:

mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic … and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.

The executive order also cites the disproportionately higher payments the US makes to the WHO compared to China. In 2024-25, the US contributed 22% of the organisation’s mandatory funding from member states compared to about 15% for China.

President Trump initiated withdrawal from the WHO over similar concerns in 2020. But this was reversed by President Biden in 2021.

What happens next?

The withdrawal may take a year to come into effect, and may need approval by the US Congress.

How this will play out is unclear, but it seems likely the WHO will lose US funding.

The US withdrawal may also be the final nail in the coffin for the WHO Pandemic Agreement, which faltered in 2024 when member states could not agree on the final draft.

Trump’s executive order states all negotiations around the pandemic agreement will cease. However, the order hints that the US will look at working with international partners to tackle global health.

The US Centers for Disease and Control (CDC) already has such international partners and could feasibly do this. It already convenes a global network of training in outbreak response, which could provide a model. But to move in this direction needs finessing, as another objective of the new US government is to reduce or cease international aid.

The WHO also convenes a range of expert committees and networks of reference laboratories. One among many network of laboratories is for influenza, comprising more than 50 labs in 41 member states. This includes five “super labs”, one of which is at the CDC. It’s unclear what would happen to such networks, many of which have major US components.

With the threat of bird flu mutating to become a human pandemic these global networks are critical for surveillance of pandemic threats.

Global networks are needed to keep an eye on pandemic threats, including the spread of bird flu.
riza korhan oztunc/Shutterstock

WHO expert committees also drive global health policy on a range of issues. It is possible for the WHO to accredit labs in non-member countries, or for experts from non-member countries to be on WHO expert committees. But how this will unfold, especially for US government-funded labs or experts who are US government employees, is unclear.

Another potential impact of a US withdrawal is the opportunity for other powerful member nations to become more influential once the US leaves. This may lead to restrictions on US experts sitting on WHO committees or working with the organisation in other ways.

While the US withdrawal will see the WHO lose funding, member states contribute about 20% of the WHO budget. The organisation relies on donations from other organisations (including private companies and philanthropic organisations), which make up the remaining 80%. So the US withdrawal may increase the influence of these other organisations.

A chance for reform

The Trump administration is not alone in its criticism of how the WHO handled COVID and other infectious disease outbreaks.

For example, the WHO agreed with Chinese authorities in early January 2020 there was no evidence the “mystery pneumonia” in Wuhan was contagious, while in reality it was likely already spreading for months. This was a costly mistake.

There was criticism over WHO’s delay in declaring the pandemic, stating COVID was not airborne (despite evidence otherwise). There was also criticism about its investigation into the origins of COVID, including conflicts of interest in the investigating team.

The WHO was also criticised for its handling of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa a decade ago. Eventually, this led to a series of reforms, but arguably not enough.

Reforms followed the Ebola epidemic in West Africa a decade ago. But were they enough?
Sergey Uryadnikov/Shutterstock

More changes needed

US public health expert Ashish Jha argues for reform at WHO. Jha, who is the dean of the Brown University School of Public Health and former White House COVID response coordinator, argues the organisation has an unclear mission, too broad a remit, poor governance and often prioritises political sensitivities of member states.

He proposes the WHO should narrow its focus to fewer areas, with outbreak response key. This would allow reduced funding to be used more efficiently.

Rather than the US withdrawing from the WHO, he argues the US would be better to remain a member and leverage such reform.

Without reform, there is a possibility other countries may follow the US, especially if governments are pressured by their electorates to increase spending on domestic needs.

The WHO has asked the US to reconsider withdrawing. But the organisation may need to look at further reforms for any possibility of future negotiations. This is the best path toward a solution. Läs mer…

“Motherhood,” the beleaguered stay-at-home mother of Nightbitch tells us in contemplative voice-over, “is probably the most violent experience a human can have aside from death itself”.

Increasingly depicted as a source of frustration, resentment and rage, the film sets out to show motherhood is also far more savage and feral than the anodyne images posted on social media by retrograde tradwives or mumfluencers would have us believe.

As Nightbitch puts it, it’s “fucking brutal”.

Adapted by Marielle Heller from Rachel Yoder’s 2021 novel of the same name, the film stars Amy Adams as Mother, an unnamed installation artist who places her career on hold to raise her young son.

Wrung out by the demands of motherhood and increasingly furious with the lack of support she receives from her incompetent and often absent Husband (Scoot McNairy), Mother starts to spiral out of control, morphing into a dog complete with tail, sharpened canines, extra nipples and a ravenous desire for raw meat.

This transformation places the film squarely within a long representational history of monstrous mothers.

Monstrous motherhood

Writing in 1993, feminist film scholar Barbara Creed famously declared

all human societies have a conception of the monstrous-feminine, of what it is about woman that is shocking, terrifying, horrific, abject.

Anxieties about women’s bodies and their sexuality permeate cultural products, ranging from Freudian jokes to the duplicitous femme fatale of film noir.

This is especially true for the reproductive female body, whose unsettling ability to transform and multiply simultaneously threatens and fascinates. The horror genre is rich with examples, which critic Erin Harrington has helpfully termed “gynaehorror”.

Nightbitch takes this fear literally, drawing on magic realism and horror tropes to show the visceral and psychological metamorphosis women undergo on becoming mothers (a phenomenon known as matrescence).

Mother starts to spiral out of control, morphing into a dog complete with tail.
Disney+

In one scene, Mother gouges into a cyst on her spine, releasing oozing, seeping pus before pulling out a tail. In another, she gluttonously devours cafeteria mac and cheese with her bare hands.

This surrealist turn promises to take us into the terrain of full feminist body horror (an experience that audiences are clearly up for, if the success of last year’s The Substance is anything to go by). But Nightbitch loses the courage of its convictions. By her own admission, Heller has an aversion to violence and the decision to dampen the gore was a deliberate one.

Unfortunately, this is to the detriment of the film. While it is unclear in Yoder’s absurdist novel whether Mother’s transformation is real or merely metaphorical allegory, the adaptation to film demands this be taken literally – at least at a visual level.

Heller’s refusal to lean into the body horror results in a neutered narrative with more bark than bite.

Death of the self

Nightbitch is the latest in a string of contemporary films and television series about motherhood and its discontents. Other titles include Tully (2018), The Let Down (2017–19), Working Moms (2017–23), Big Little Lies (2017–19) and the Bad Moms films (2016–17).

These texts put mothers front and centre. Stylistically different, and not without their individual problems, they are unified in their efforts to portray the messy reality of motherhood.

Adams’ portrayal of the invisibility and grief she experiences as a new mother will resonate with many viewers. An opening montage of Mother frying hashbrowns, reading bedtime stories and playing trucks ad nauseam deftly establishes the boredom and inertia of early motherhood. Sleep-deprived and terrified she’ll never be “smart or happy or thin ever again”, Mother has become unrecognisable to her pre-baby self.

When Husband asks in the middle of a fight “What happened to the girl I married?”, she replies, “She died in childbirth”.

The idea that motherhood is akin to a loss of selfhood isn’t revelatory or new; nor is Nightbitch’s approach. The film’s over-reliance on Adams’ voice-over to deliver lengthy didactic monologues is heavy-handed.

Nightbitch is quick to show us Mother is, in fact, a good mum.
Disney+

More unusual is Nightbitch’s suggestion that successful motherhood can also be depleting and a source of profound ambivalence.

Nightbitch is quick to show us Mother is, in fact, a good mum – playful, attentive and affectionate with her son. Warm, golden lighting infuses their scenes together creating an intimate private world shared by mother and child.

Mother, it would seem, is doing everything right.

Her guilty admission she is “not doing OK” comes in spite of this. Nightbitch teases us with the idea the problem lies not with Mother but with motherhood itself.

This is an important distinction maternal scholars have been championing since the publication of Adrienne Rich’s groundbreaking work Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution in 1976.

Once again, however, Nightbitch disappointingly fails to deliver.

Despite having laboured to show the corrosive impacts that rigid gender norms and societal expectations can have on mothers, Nightbitch offers an individualised solution to this systemic problem.

Heller’s refusal to lean into the body horror results in a neutered narrative with more bark than bite.
Disney+

Fed up with Husband’s ineptitude, Mother initiates a separation, bonds with her fellow mum-friends, takes up running and throws herself back into her art. Apparently, all she really needed to do was find her pack and carve out some “me time”. Although Yoder’s book likewise concludes with Mother channelling her rage into her art, the separation and subsequent reconciliation subplot with Husband is an addition to the film.

This curious pivot shuts down the film’s articulation of maternal ambivalence and perinatal depression, as well as its critique of the weaponized incompetence exhibited by straight men in their romantic and family relationships.

Nightbitch’s ending certainly feels weird and surreal – just not in the way audiences might hope.

Nightbitch is streaming on Disney+ in Australia and New Zealand from today. Läs mer…

Whether improving your flexibility was one of your new year’s resolutions, or you’ve been inspired watching certain tennis stars warming up at the Australian Open, maybe 2025 has you keen to focus on regular stretching.

However, a quick Google search might leave you overwhelmed by all the different stretching techniques. There’s static stretching and dynamic stretching, which can be regarded as the main types of stretching.

But there are also some other potentially lesser known types of stretching, such as PNF stretching. So if you’ve come across PNF stretching and it piques your interest, what do you need to know?

What is PNF stretching?

PNF stretching stands for proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation. It was developed in the 1940s in the United States by neurologist Herman Kabat and physical therapists Margaret Knott and Dorothy Voss.

PNF stretching was initially designed to help patients with neurological conditions that affect the movement of muscles, such as polio and multiple sclerosis.

By the 1970s, its popularity had seen PNF stretching expand beyond the clinic and into the sporting arena where it was used by athletes and fitness enthusiasts during their warm-up and to improve their flexibility.

Although the specifics have evolved over time, PNF essentially combines static stretching (where a muscle is held in a lengthened position for a short period of time) with isometric muscle contractions (where the muscle produces force without changing length).

PNF stretching is typically performed with the help of a partner.

There are 2 main types

The two most common types of PNF stretching are the “contract-relax” and “contract-relax-agonist-contract” methods.

The contract-relax method involves putting a muscle into a stretched position, followed immediately by an isometric contraction of the same muscle. When the person stops contracting, the muscle is then moved into a deeper stretch before the process is repeated.

For example, to improve your hamstring flexibility, you could lie down and get a partner to lift your leg up just to the point where you begin to feel a stretch in the back of your thigh.

Once this sensation eases, attempt to push your leg back towards the ground as your partner resists the movement. After this, your partner should now be able to lift your leg up slightly higher than before until you feel the same stretching sensation.

This technique was based on the premise that the contracted muscle would fall “electrically silent” following the isometric contraction and therefore not offer its usual level of resistance to further stretching (called “autogenic inhibition”). The contract-relax method attempts to exploit this brief window to create a deeper stretch than would otherwise be possible without the prior muscle contraction.

The contract-relax-agonist-contract method is similar. But after the isometric contraction of the stretched muscle, you perform an additional contraction of the muscle group opposing the muscle being stretched (referred to as the “agonist” muscle), before the muscle is moved into a static stretch once more.

Again, if you’re trying to improve hamstring flexibility, immediately after trying to push your leg towards the ground you would attempt to lift it back towards the ceiling (this bit without partner resistance). You would do this by contracting the muscles on the front of the thigh (the quadriceps, the agonist muscle in this case).

Likewise, after this, your partner should be able to lift your leg up slightly higher than before.

The contract-relax-agonist-contract method is said to take advantage of a phenomenon known as “reciprocal inhibition.” This is where contracting the muscle group opposite that of the muscle being stretched leads to a short period of reduced activation of the stretched muscle, allowing the muscle to stretch further than normal.

What does the evidence say?

Research has shown PNF stretching is associated with improved flexibility.

While it has been suggested that both PNF methods improve flexibility via changes in nervous system function, research suggests they may simply improve our ability to tolerate stretching.

It’s worth noting most of the research on PNF stretching and flexibility has focused on healthy populations. This makes it difficult to provide evidence-based recommendations for people with clinical conditions.

And it may not be the most effective method if you’re looking to improve your flexibility in the long term. A 2018 review found static stretching was better for improving flexibility compared to PNF stretching. But other research has found it could offer greater immediate benefits for flexibility than static stretching.

At present, similar to other types of stretching, research linking PNF stretching to injury prevention and improved athletic performance is relatively inconclusive.

PNF stretching may actually lead to small temporary deficits in performance of strength, power, and speed-based activities if performed immediately beforehand. So it’s probably best done after exercise or as a part of a standalone flexibility session.

Static stretching may be a more effective way to improve flexibility over the long-term.
GaudiLab/Shutterstock

How much should you do?

It appears that a single contract-relax or contract-relax-agonist-contract repetition per muscle, performed twice per week, is enough to improve flexibility.

The contraction itself doesn’t need to be hard and forceful – only about 20% of your maximal effort should suffice. The contraction should be held for at least three seconds, while the static stretching component should be maintained until the stretching sensation eases.

So PNF stretching is potentially a more time-efficient way to improve flexibility, compared to, for example, static stretching. In a recent study we found four minutes of static stretching per muscle during a single session is optimal for an immediate improvement in flexibility.

Is PNF stretching the right choice for me?

Providing you have a partner who can help you, PNF stretching could be a good option. It might also provide a faster way to become more flexible for those who are time poor.

However, if you’re about to perform any activities that require strength, power, or speed, it may be wise to limit PNF stretching to afterwards to avoid any potential deficits in performance. Läs mer…

Among the blizzard of executive orders issued by Donald Trump on his first day back in the Oval Office was one titled Restoring Names that Honor American Greatness. It unilaterally renamed “the area formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico” as the “Gulf of America”.

The order was justified by this maritime space having long been an “integral asset” to the United States, with its “bountiful geology” yielding around 14% of US crude oil production, “vibrant American fisheries”, and it being “a favourite destination of American tourism”.

The gulf was also characterised as “an indelible part of America” that would continue to play “a pivotal role in shaping America’s future and the global economy”.

But while it’s undoubtedly important to the US, this part of the Atlantic Ocean washes against other countries, too. So, can the president really rename it? Sure! At least as far as the US is concerned, anyway.

Naming rights

The relevant federal body is the Board on Geographic Names (BGN), established in 1890 with the mission to maintain uniform geographic name usage.

Specifically, Trump’s executive order instructs the secretary of the interior to take “all appropriate actions” to change the name to the Gulf of America, ensure all federal references reflect the renaming, and update the Geographic Names Information System.

The BGN has usually been reluctant to change generally accepted geographic names. However, the executive order clearly signals that the composition of the board may change in order to ensure the proposed renaming happens.

But whatever the US decides to call the gulf, it doesn’t mean other countries will pay any heed. Indeed, Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo promptly suggested the US might itself be renamed Mexican America.

She was referring to a 17th-century map showing that name for much of the area that now makes up the US, and asserted Mexico and the rest of the world would continue to use the name Gulf of Mexico.

Donald Trump signing executive orders in the Oval Office, January 20, including one to rename the Gulf of Mexico.
AAP

Disputed histories

The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) publishes a volume called Limits of Oceans and Seas, covering the names of seas and oceans around the world, including the “Gulf of Mexico”.

But the study is explicit that these limits “have no political significance whatsoever” and are “solely for the convenience” of hydrographic offices preparing information for mariners.

It has not been published since 1953 – precisely because of a dispute over the geographic name of the body of water between Japan and Korea. Japan prefers to call it the Sea of Japan (as most know it) but South Korea has long campaigned for it to be named the East Sea or East Sea/Sea of Japan.

A revised edition of the IHO volume was submitted to member states in 2002 but dealt with the issue by omitting coverage of the East Sea/Sea of Japan. It remains a working document only.

The issue is taken so seriously by South Korea that an ambassador-level position was created to deal with it, and a Society for the East Sea was established 30 years ago.

That this deadlock has prevented a new edition of an IHO publication for more than 70 years shows not only the difficulty of changing generally well-recognised geographic names, but also the importance countries place on these matters.

Dangerous ground

Place names – known as toponyms – are sensitive because they show that any country changing a name has the right to do so, which implies sovereignty and possession. Names therefore carry historical and emotional significance and are readily politicised.

This is particularly true where past conflicts with unresolved legacies and current geopolitical rivalries are in play. For example, the Sea of Japan/East Sea dispute goes back to Japan’s 1905 annexation of Korea and subsequent 40-year colonial rule.

Similarly, the disputed sovereignty of the Falkland Islands/Las Malvinas, over which Britain and Argentina went to war in 1982, remains a perennial source of diplomatic dispute.

But the South China Sea case is hard to beat. All or parts of this body of water are simultaneously referred to as the South Sea (Nan Hai) by China, the West Philippines Sea by the Philippines, the North Natuna Sea by Indonesia, and (another) East Sea (Biển Đông) by Vietnam.

To further complicate things in that same area, what in English are generally known as the Spratly Islands are known in Chinese as the Nánshā Qúndǎo, the Kepulauan Spratly in Malay, and in Vietnamese as the Trường Sa.

All the individual islands, rocks and cays in this highly disputed zone also carry names, individually or collectively, in multiple languages. Even the names of entirely and permanently submerged features have proved controversial. Early British Admiralty cartographers were arguably most accurate in naming the area simply “Dangerous Ground”.

Demonstrators in the Phillipines celebrate the 8th anniversary of a court ruling that invalidated China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea, locally called West Philippine Sea, 2024.
AAP

Political gulfs

Globally, there have been moves to replace colonial references with original indigenous names, something very familiar to Australians and New Zealanders.

In the same executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico, Trump also changed the name of the highest peak in North America (in Alaska) from Denali back to Mount McKinley (named after the 25th president, William McKinley, in 1917).

This simultaneously attacked the legacy of former president Barack Obama, who renamed the peak Denali in 2015, and spoke to Trump’s war on perceived “woke” politics.

That said, the change was tempered by the fact the national park area surrounding the mountain will retain the name Denali National Park and Preserve.

Ultimately, Trump can rebadge the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, but only from a strictly US perspective. It is unlikely to matter much to the rest of the world, save for those wishing to curry favour with the new administration.

Most of the world will likely continue to refer to the Gulf of Mexico. And the Gulf of America may yet be consigned to history in four years’ time. Läs mer…

Would you give up your sense of smell to keep your hair? What about your phone?

A 2022 US study compared smell to other senses (sight and hearing) and personally prized commodities (including money, a pet or hair) to see what people valued more.

The researchers found smell was viewed as much less important than sight and hearing, and valued less than many commodities. For example, half the women surveyed said they’d choose to keep their hair over sense of smell.

Smell often goes under the radar as one of the least valued senses. But it is one of the first sensory systems vertebrates developed and is linked to your mental health, memory and more.

Here are five fascinating facts about your olfactory system.

1. Smell is linked to memory and emotion

Why can the waft of fresh baking trigger joyful childhood memories? And why might a certain perfume jolt you back to a painful breakup?

Smell is directly linked to both your memory and emotions. This connection was first established by American psychologist Donald Laird in 1935 (although French novelist Marcel Proust had already made it famous in his reverie about the scent of madeleines baking.)

Odours are first captured by special olfactory nerve cells inside your nose. These cells extend upwards from the roof of your nose towards the smell-processing centre of your brain, called the olfactory bulb.

Smells are first detected by nerve cells in the nose.
Axel_Kock/Shutterstock

From the olfactory bulb they form direct connection with the brain’s limbic system. This includes the amygdala, where emotions are generated, and the hippocampus, where memories are created.

Other senses – such as sight and hearing – aren’t directly connected to the lymbic system.

One 2004 study used functional magnetic resonance imaging to demonstrate odours trigger a much stronger emotional and memory response in the brain than a visual cue.

2. Your sense of smell constantly regenerates

You can lose your ability to smell due to injury or infection – for example during and after a COVID infection. This is known as olfactory dysfunction. In most cases it’s temporary, returning to normal within a few weeks.

This is because every few months your olfactory nerve cells die and are replaced by new cells.

We’re not entirely sure how this occurs, but it likely involves your nose’s stem cells, the olfactory bulb and other cells in the olfactory nerves.

Other areas of your nervous system – including your brain and spinal cord – cannot regenerate and repair after an injury.

Constant regeneration may be a protective mechanism, as the olfactory nerves are vulnerable to damage caused by the external environment, including toxins (such as cigarette smoke), chemicals and pathogens (such as the flu virus).

But following a COVID infection some people might continue to experience a loss of smell. Studies suggest the virus and a long-term immune response damages the cells that allow the olfactory system to regenerate.

3. Smell is linked to mental health

Around 5% of the global population suffer from anosmia – total loss of smell. An estimated 15-20% suffer partial loss, known as hyposmia.

Given smell loss is often a primary and long-term symptom of COVID, these numbers are likely to be higher since the pandemic.

Yet in Australia, the prevalence of olfactory dysfunction remains surprisingly understudied.

Losing your sense of smell is shown to impact your personal and social relationships. For example, it can mean you miss out on shared eating experiences, or cause changes in sexual desire and behaviour.

In older people, declining ability to smell is associated with a higher risk of depression and even death, although we still don’t know why.

Losing your sense of smell can have a major impact on mental health.
Halfpoint/Shutterstock

4. Loss of smell can help identify neurodegenerative diseases

Partial or full loss of smell is often an early indicator for a range of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases.

Patients frequently report losing their sense of smell years before any symptoms show in body or brain function. However many people are not aware they are losing their sense of smell.

There are ways you can determine if you have smell loss and to what extent. You may be able to visit a formal smell testing centre or do a self-test at home, which assesses your ability to identify household items like coffee, wine or soap.

5. You can train your nose back into smelling

“Smell training” is emerging as a promising experimental treatment option for olfactory dysfunction. For people experiencing smell loss after COVID, it’s been show to improve the ability to detect and differentiate odours.

Smell training (or “olfactory training”) was first tested in 2009 in a German psychology study. It involves sniffing robust odours — such as floral, citrus, aromatic or fruity scents — at least twice a day for 10—20 seconds at a time, usually over a 3—6 month period.

Participants are asked to focus on the memory of the smell while sniffing and recall information about the odour and its intensity. This is believed to help reorganise the nerve connections in the brain, although the exact mechanism behind it is unclear.

Some studies recommend using a single set of scents, while others recommend switching to a new set of odours after a certain amount of time. However both methods show significant improvement in smelling.

This training has also been shown to alleviate depressive symptoms and improve cognitive decline both in older adults and those suffering from dementia.

Just like physiotherapy after a physical injury, olfactory training is thought to act like rehabilitation for your sense of smell. It retrains the nerves in your nose and the connections it forms within the brain, allowing you to correctly detect, process and interpret odours. Läs mer…

On his last day in office, outgoing United States President Joe Biden issued a number of preemptive pardons essentially to protect some leading public figures and members of his own family from possible retaliation by Donald Trump. It was a novel and innovative use of the presidential pardon power.

Among others, the preemptive pardons were for:

retired General Mark Milley (former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff),
Anthony Fauci (Biden’s former chief medical advisor)
members of the House committee that investigated the January 6 2021 insurrection of the US Capitol, including Trump critic Liz Cheney (a former House member from Wyoming)

five members of his family, including his siblings.

The pardons for Fauci, Milley and Biden’s family members specifically cover any “offences against the United States” that may have been committed from January 1 2014 through to the date of the pardon.

At various times in recent years, Trump has indicated his intention to go after those he believes had crossed or criticised him, either during his previous presidency or following the insurrection of the Capitol.

Presidential pardons are usually issued to provide relief to those who have been convicted of an offence and have served all or part of a prison sentence. There is usually also a justifiable reason for doing so.

The novelty of Biden’s use of the pardon power is that none of those covered by his preemptive pardons had committed or been charged with any offence. Nor had they been accused of wrongdoing, apart from comments made by Trump or his supporters. This has concerned some on both the left and right.

Rather, Milley, Fauci, Cheney and the others are protected from any potential future criminal charges that could be brought by the Trump administration.

Who can be pardoned?

The pardon power was written into the US Constitution when it was drafted in 1787. It gives the president the power

to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

The only constitutional limitations on the president’s pardon power are that it cannot include those who have violated a state law (it only covers federal offences) and it cannot absolve anyone who has been successfully impeached.

Beyond these two limitations, it is the only presidential power that is not subject to the usual array of checks and balances on which the Constitution is built.

As such, Congress cannot override a presidential pardon and the Supreme Court would have no grounds for declaring a presidential pardon unconstitutional.

This is because the Constitution doesn’t say anything about the grounds on which a president can grant a pardon. It also says nothing about the reasons why he can’t issue one.

In a case heard back in 1886, the Supreme Court declared the pardon power was unlimited and has generally held to that position ever since.

Is there precedent for Biden’s action?

Biden has now expanded and extended the scope of the pardon power by issuing preemptive pardons.

There is some precedent. In 1974, President Gerald Ford pardoned his predecessor, Richard Nixon, following Nixon’s resignation over the Watergate scandal. However, Nixon had not been charged or convicted of any criminal offence at the time. And, of course, he escaped likely impeachment by resigning.

Essentially, Ford pardoned Nixon for offences he may have committed or may be charged with in the future. Ford’s purpose, of course, was to attempt to end the damaging consequences of Watergate and restore some normality to government.

President Gerald Ford testifies on his pardon of former President Richard M. Nixon before the House Judiciary subcommittee on criminal justice on Capitol Hill in October 1974.
AP

Biden is taking this power further, using the pardon to constrain and limit the actions of his successor, who has clearly indicated his intention to pursue legal action where there is no apparent justification for doing so.

Biden’s action is therefore intended to protect innocent individuals from prosecution, as well as the massive costs entailed in defending themselves in a court of law.

In defending his action, Biden said:

These are exceptional circumstances and I cannot in good conscience do nothing.

The pardons, however, will not stop Trump or a Republican-led Congress from initiating investigations of these individuals. But they go a long way to thwart Trump’s stated intentions of bringing criminal proceedings against those who have upset him merely by performing their public duties.

The real problem

Biden has been praised by some for his actions, while others have worried about the precedent it sets.

However, the real problem lies not with Biden but with the pardon power itself because of how broadly it’s written. It’s open to interpretation by any president.

It is also locked into a Constitution written 238 years ago by men who could not have foreseen the circumstances that led Biden to use the power in this way to constrain his successor. Their broad grant of the pardon power might warrant some examination now, but amending the Constitution is immensely difficult and requires extraordinary majorities in both houses of Congress and among the 50 US states.

And given today’s polarised politics, this certainly isn’t going to happen. Läs mer…

On his first day back in office as United States president, Donald Trump gave formal notice of his nation’s exit from the Paris Agreement – a vital global treaty seeking to rein in climate change.

Before signing the order, Trump declared his reasons to an arena of cheering supporters, describing the global agreement as an “unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip-off”.

Of course, this is not the first time Trump has withdrawn the US from the Paris deal – he did it in 2017, during his first term in office.

On one hand, Trump’s move is a huge blow to efforts to global climate action. The US is the world’s second-biggest emitter of greenhouse gas pollution, after China. The country is crucial to the global effort to curb climate change.

But given Trump’s climate denialism, it’s actually better that the US absent itself from international climate talks while he is in power. That way, the rest of the world can get on with the job without Trump’s corrosive influence.

This is not the first time Trump has withdrawn the US from the Paris deal.
Ben Curtis/AP

A quick refresher on the Paris Agreement

Signed by 196 nations in 2015, the Paris Agreement is the first comprehensive global treaty to combat climate change.

Its overall goal is to hold the increase global temperatures to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C.

Scientists say meeting the more ambitious 1.5°C target is crucial, because crossing that threshold risks unleashing catastrophic climate change impacts, such as more frequent and severe droughts and heatwaves.

Under the agreement, each nation must make national plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help reach the global temperature goals. These plans are known as “nationally determined contributions”.

Meeting the more ambitious 1.5°C goal is crucial to preventing more severe droughts.
Rural Aid

What Trump’s withdrawal means

Under Trump’s last presidency, the US was only out of the Paris deal for four months, due to the time it took for the retreat to take effect. President Joe Biden rejoined the agreement in early 2021.

This time, the US withdrawal will become official more quickly – after a year. Then, the US will join Iran, Libya and Yemen as the only United Nations countries not party to the agreement.

The US can keep participating as a party to the Paris agreement until January 2026. That means it may try to negotiate at the COP30 climate change conference in Brazil this year.

COP30 is a big deal. It is when each country is due to present its new nationally determined contributions. The US withdrawal means it is unlikely to bring a new contribution to the meeting – if it attends at all.

Should the US show up, its presence would potentially destabilise negotiations. That’s why removing Trump-backed negotiators from the climate talks going forward is a good outcome.

If the US stayed in the tent under Trump, its negotiators could, for example, agitate to weaken any deals struck at the meeting. We saw such tactics from Saudi Arabia at COP29 in Baku. The oil state repeatedly disrupted the talks and in one instance, sought to alter important text in the agreement without full consultation.

With the US out of the way, the other parties to the Paris agreement have a better chance of progressing climate negotiations.

At this stage, it doesn’t appear other countries party to the Paris Agreement are preparing to follow Trump out the door. This is despite controversy at the COP29 talks when Argentinian president Javier Milei ordered his negotiators to withdraw only a few days in. Milei had previously described the climate emergency as a “socialist lie”.

At this stage, Trump has not withdrawn from the Paris Agreement’s parent convention, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. So after it withdraws from the Paris deal, the US can still attend COP meetings, but only as an observer.

With the US out of the way, other parties to the Paris agreement have a better chance of progress. Pictured: COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev, left, with an unnamed woman, listens during a closing session.
Rafiq Maqbool/AP

Onwards and upwards

Of course, there are downsides to the US withdrawal from the Paris deal.

Leaving the Paris agreement means the US is no longer required to provide annual updates on its greenhouse gas emissions. This lack of transparency makes it harder to determine how the world is tracking on emissions reduction overall.

Under the Biden administration, the US contributed funding to help developing nations adopt clean energy and cope with climate change (albeit delivering less than it promised). Trump is expected to slash this funding. That will leave vulnerable nation states in an even more precarious position.

While the US was technically only out of the Paris deal for a short period last time, the process was destabilising. It weakened what was an unprecedented show of international solidarity on climate action and sent a damaging message about the importance of climate action.

Trump’s latest withdrawal is a similar blow to morale. Its particularly galling for Americans fighting for climate action, and those struggling with its devastating effects – most recently, the unthinkable fires in Los Angeles.

Americans are struggling with the devastating effects of the Los Angeles fires.
Allison Dinner/EPA

But Trump’s withdrawal can easily be reversed by a new US president. And we can expect other parties to Paris, such as China and the European Union, to continue to play a leadership role, and others to fill the vacuum.

What’s more, as others have noted, Trump cannot derail global climate action. Investment in clean energy is now greater than in fossil fuels. When Trump last pulled out of Paris, many US state and local governments pressed ahead with climate policy; we can expect the same this time around.

And the vast majority of the rest of the world is still pursuing emissions reduction efforts.

So overall, the US exit from Paris is probably the best of a bunch of bad options. It mutes Trump’s capacity to destabilise international climate action, allowing others to step into the breach. Läs mer…

In one of his first moves as the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump announced a new US$500 billion project called Stargate to accelerate the development of artificial intelligence (AI) in the US.

The project is a partnership between three large tech companies – OpenAI, SoftBank and Oracle. Trump called it “the largest AI infrastructure project by far in history” and said it would help keep “the future of technology” in the US.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk, however, had a different take, claiming without evidence on his platform X that the project’s backers “don’t actually have the money”. X, which is not included in Stargate, is also working on developing AI and Musk is a rival to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.

Alongside announcing Stargate, Trump also revoked an executive order signed by his predecessor Joe Biden that was aimed at addressing and controlling AI risks.

Seen together, these two moves embody a mentality common in tech development that can best be summed up by the phrase: “move fast and break things”.

What is Stargate?

The US is already the world’s frontrunner when it comes to AI development.

The Stargate project will significantly extend this lead over other nations.

It will see a network of data centres built across the US. These centres will house enormous computer servers necessary for running AI programs such as ChatGPT. These servers will run 24/7 and will require significant amounts of electricity and water to operate.

According to a statement by OpenAI, construction of new data centres as part of Stargate is already underway in the US state of Texas:

[W]e are evaluating potential sites across the country for more campuses as we finalise definitive agreements.

US President Donald Trump speaking at the White House alongside Softbank CEO Masayoshi Son, Oracle chief technology officer Larry Ellison and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.
Julia Demaree Nikhinson

An imperfect – but promising – order

The increased investment into AI development by Trump is encouraging. It could help advance the many potential benefits of AI. For example, AI can improve cancer patients’ prognosis by rapidly analysing medical data and detecting early signs of disease.

But Trump’s simultaneous revocation of Biden’s executive order on the “safe, secure and trustworthy development and use of AI” is deeply concerning. It could mean that any potential benefits of Stargate are quickly trumped by its potential to exacerbate existing harms of AI technologies.

Yes, Biden’s order lacked important technical details. But it was a promising start towards developing safer and more responsible AI systems.

One major issue it was meant to address was tech companies collecting personal data for AI training without first obtaining consent.

AI systems collect data from all over the internet. Even if data are freely accessible on the internet for human use, it does not mean AI systems should use them for training. Also, once a photo or text is fed into an AI model, it cannot be removed. There have been numerous cases of artists suing AI art generators for unauthorised use of their work.

Another issue Biden’s order aimed to tackle was the risk of harm – especially to people from minority communities.

Most AI tools aim to increase accuracy for the majority. Without proper design, they can make extremely dangerous decisions for a few.

For example, in 2015, an image-recognition algorithm developed by Google automatically tagged pictures of black people as “gorillas”. This same issue was later found in AI systems of other companies such as Yahoo and Apple, and remains unresolved a decade later because these systems are so often inscrutable even to their creators.

This opacity makes it crucial to design AI systems correctly from the start. Problems can be deeply embedded in the AI system itself, worsening over time and becoming nearly impossible to fix.

As AI tools increasingly make important decisions, such as résumé screening, minorities are being even more disproportionately affected. For example, AI-powered face recognition software more commonly misidentifies black people and other people of colour, which has lead to false arrests and imprisonment.

Faster, more powerful AI systems

Trump’s twin AI announcements in the first days of his second term as US president show his main focus in terms of AI – and that of the biggest tech companies in the world – is on developing ever more faster, more powerful AI systems.

If we compare an AI system with a car, this is like developing the fastest car possible while ignoring crucial safety features like seat belts or airbags in order to keep it lighter and thus faster.

For both cars and AI, this approach could mean putting very dangerous machines into the hands of billions of people around the world. Läs mer…

Australia has been unique in the anglosphere for decades, as its independent publishers have resisted the forces of conglomeration and remained privately owned – often by their founders. But this week the third independent publisher in less than six months has merged with a multinational.

Text Publishing, founded in 1990 by Eric Beecher and Di Gribble, and run for decades by Michael Heyward and Penny Hueston, is now an imprint of Penguin Random House Australia.

Text joins Pantera Press, which was acquired by Hardie Grant in September 2024, and Affirm Press, which described its acquisition by publishing giant Simon & Schuster in August 2024 as “plugging into” the company’s “vast operational scale”.

Doubtless, each of these mergers would have been the product of individual decisions and negotiations, but to see the third independent publisher making this move in a such a short period points to an emerging pattern.

A substantial legacy

Text Publishing has built up a substantial reputation. It has championed established writers, such as Helen Garner and Michelle de Kretser, and published the debuts of Jennifer Down and Clare Wright, who went on to win the Miles Franklin Literary Award and the Stella Prize respectively.

Text also publishes an extensive series of Australian classics. These titles are often previously out-of-print books, saved from obscurity. With a relatively small population and limited interest from overseas publishers in local titles, Australia’s literary heritage is at great risk of disappearing without the efforts of publishers such as Text.

Unusually in Australian publishing, the company has also invested in translations. It brought award-winning Taiwanese author Wu Ming-Yi’s novel The Stolen Bicycle to English readers. Hueston’s translations of Marie Darrieussecq and Nobel Prize-winner Patrick Modiano have attracted international acclaim.

Australian publishers have long subsidised their operations by selling local editions of international bestsellers, such as Barack Obama’s Dreams of My Father. Text’s early acquisition and fervent support of Elena Ferrante’s bestselling Neapolitan Quartet generated significant revenue for the company.

Independence and literary culture

Mergers are not a new phenomenon in Australian publishing. Indeed, this is not the first time that a publisher co-founded by Di Gribble has joined Penguin. McPhee Gribble – the first home of Tim Winton and Helen Garner – was acquired by Penguin in 1989.

In the press release, Heyward describes the agreement with Penguin Random House as guaranteeing Text will “retain full publishing control as we continue our work of acquiring, editing, curating, designing, marketing, publicising and selling rights in our books”.

But history shows that mergers often result in the dissolution of the smaller imprint. To take just one example, Penguin no longer publishes books under the McPhee Gribble imprint. It is precisely the question of which readerships the merged version of Text will cater to that will worry Australian readers and supporters of independent publishing.

Literary prize lists are regularly dominated by books from independent publishers. These houses also have a better track record of publishing authors from diverse backgrounds. Often literary authors will start with a small press, which supports their development, then move to a larger house once their audience reaches a critical mass.

Troubling industry insiders further is the effect of mergers on booksellers. Unlike the US and UK, Australia’s independent book retailing sector has largely weathered the consecutive shocks of ebooks, Amazon and COVID-19.

As I have argued elsewhere, the symbiotic relationship between independent booksellers and publishers is one of the forcefields shielding Australian publishing from the pressures affecting its international counterparts.

History shows publishing mergers often result in the dissolution of the smaller imprint.
T. Schneider/Shutterstock

Commercial pressures

Rising costs, declining sales and the drive for major corporations to maintain growth offer some explanation for mergers. How many jobs are cut and how the industry changes shape will only become clear with time.

There is one interpretation of this development that is potentially positive for local authors. Prior to its acquisition, Text Publishing, though an independent company, was renting warehouse space and using the sales force of Penguin Random House. This meant a significant portion of the recommended retail price for each book would have been swallowed before the publisher could start recording profits.

The benefits of verticalisation – in other words, one company controlling various aspects of the distribution process – might mean Text will have more margin to play with when determining whether or not to acquire a book.

Such a scenario is unlikely, however, since Penguin Random House is part of a publicly listed company, answerable to shareholders. Though there is an agreement about editorial independence, the business will necessarily be part of the broader strategies and decisions of Penguin Random House and its parent company, Bertelsmann.

Having resisted the temptations of conglomeration for so long, why is it that three publishers have acquiesced in quick succession? The answer may well be profit margins.

Recommended retail prices for books have been largely steady for 20 years. They have not reflected the rising costs of raw materials and logistics. The price of paper has grown significantly in recent years. In conjunction with increased costs throughout the supply chain, this has meant printing and shipping books is far more expensive than before COVID-19.

Compounding these concerns is feedback from booksellers, who are tracking their customers’ purchasing habits, some noting a downward trend during a cost of living crisis.

A further burden was the major shock in the book retail sector when Australian online retailer Booktopia went into administration last year. Although Booktopia is currently operating under new ownership, its position in the market has not returned to former levels.

There remain several privately owned and run publishers in Australia, including Allen & Unwin – which is by far the largest independent publisher in the country – and numerous small presses, such as NewSouth, University of Queensland Press, Scribe, Black Inc., Giramondo and Upswell.

What will worry authors and readers alike is the potential for more conglomeration, leading to greater homogenisation and an impoverished choice of local titles on offer. Barriers to entry for new publishers, including limited options for distribution and high production costs, may preclude the emergence of new players. If the trend continues, there will be more losses for local and international readers. Läs mer…