Kategori: News in English

The United States Food and Drug Administration has just approved the first-ever clinical trial that uses CRISPR-Cas13 RNA editing. Its aim is to treat an eye disease called wet age-related macular degeneration that causes vision loss in millions of older people worldwide.

This trial marks a new frontier in gene therapy – the process of treating or curing medical conditions by changing a person’s genes.

What makes it special is the fact the therapy targets RNA, instead of DNA. So, what does that mean, and why should we be excited?

What is gene editing and how is it used?

Genes are made up of DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid. Nearly all cells in your body have the same DNA, the material that makes your body uniquely yours. If anything goes wrong in your DNA, it can result in various diseases.

Thanks to recent advances, we now have the tools to directly change someone’s DNA – this has paved the way for gene editing as a type of gene therapy.

It is done using the CRISPR-Cas9 system, which was created after scientists discovered that bacteria defend against invading viruses by capturing their DNA and destroying it.

This makes gene editing highly useful when designing new treatments for genetic conditions where you need to correct faulty DNA.

Gene editing has already been trialled in people. Earlier this year, a successful clinical trial was done to test the safety of a new gene editing therapy for an inherited eye disease. Gene editing has also been trialled for a heart disorder called transthyretin amyloidosis, as well as blood disorders.

Gene editing causes permanent changes to a person’s genes, effectively rewriting parts of their DNA. But altering DNA comes with its own challenges and risks.

Care must be taken to avoid accidentally causing unintended but permanent changes to DNA elsewhere in the gene, which could lead to unwanted mutations.

Read more:
What is CRISPR gene editing, and how does it work?

What is RNA and how does RNA editing work?

One way to avoid the risks of editing DNA is to target RNA or ribonucleic acid instead.

RNA is also in all our cells, and plays a key role in their functions. One of its jobs is making proteins. If DNA is the set of genetic instructions, RNA is what reads and translates those instructions into making the proteins our cells need.

RNA editing, then, is also a type of gene therapy. Its goal is to change how RNA interprets genetic instructions to control how proteins are made. In most recent advancements, RNA editing uses the CRISPR-Cas13 system, a newer technique that was created specifically to help develop therapies that work with RNA.

DNA editing is permanent, which is needed to treat genetic diseases. RNA editing events, on the other hand, are transient in nature because RNA molecules are constantly being made and degraded in our cells.

RNA editing doesn’t permanently change a person’s DNA, but rather alters the steps that happen after the RNA molecule “reads” the DNA instructions.

This means it can be used to produce more targeted results by, for example, only altering how one specific protein is made. This also makes it a potentially safer option over DNA editing, with fewer unintended effects on other cells.

RNA editing also has an advantage where you can potentially control or reverse the therapy, providing a level of control DNA editing can’t provide.

This is an important factor to prevent over-treatment and makes it a versatile therapy for conditions where faulty DNA isn’t the cause of the disease.

So what is this first RNA editing trial going to do?

Age-related macular degeneration or AMD affects more than 200 million people worldwide and is predicted to grow to 300 million by 2040.

As the name suggests, age plays a role – it almost exclusively affects people older than 55 years. AMD affects the health of the macula, the central part of the retina, which processes what we see. It’s a leading cause of irreversible blindness around the world.

Wet AMD occurs when there is a build-up of fluid and new, leaky blood vessels underneath the macula, causing rapid and severe impact to a person’s central vision.

In wet AMD, leaky blood vessels grow beneath the macula, causing central vision loss.
The Conversation/Shutterstock

Currently, it’s treated with regular drug injections into the eye to control the growth of the leaky blood vessels. The drugs block VEGF, or vascular endothelial growth factor, a molecule that tells our bodies to make new blood vessels.

This is where RNA editing comes in. In the lab, scientists have proven that the delivery of the RNA editing therapy via a safe, engineered virus allowed for an effective reduction of VEGF levels to stop new blood vessel growth in the eye through a one-off injection. For treating wet AMD, it would mean no more monthly needles.

The FDA-approved clinical trial will now assess the safety of RNA editing therapy for wet AMD. It’s also the first-ever clinical stage trial for a CRISPR-Cas13 RNA editing therapy, marking a significant milestone for the field of research.

While it’s early days for the technology, the new trial shows RNA editing therapies have arrived. It will be yet another powerful tool in humanity’s arsenal to develop safe new therapies for various medical conditions. Läs mer…

Summer is nearly here. But rather than getting out the sunscreen, some TikTokers are urging followers to chuck it out and go sunscreen-free.

They claim it’s healthier to forgo sunscreen to get the full benefits of sunshine.

Here’s the science really says.

How does sunscreen work?

Because of Australia’s extreme UV environment, most people with pale to olive skin or other risk factors for skin cancer need to protect themselves. Applying sunscreen is a key method of protecting areas not easily covered by clothes.

Sunscreen works by absorbing or scattering UV rays before they can enter your skin and damage DNA or supportive structures such as collagen.

In this photo, I (Katie) am wearing sunscreen only on the right side of my face. Sunscreen absorbs and scatters UV light (right side) even when you can’t see it with the naked eye (left side). The right-hand photo also shows where clusters of sun damage are accumulating in the skin (dark spots) and where I’ve been careless about applying the sunscreen evenly – under my eye, on my cheek and missing my ear completely.
Author provided/UQ

When UV particles hit DNA, the excess energy can damage our DNA. This damage can be repaired, but if the cell divides before the mistake is fixed, it causes a mutation that can lead to skin cancers.

The energy from a particle of UV (a photon) causes DNA strands to break apart and reconnect incorrectly. This causes a bump in the DNA strand that makes it difficult to copy accurately and can introduce mutations.
NASA/David Herring

The most common skin cancers are basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Melanoma is less common, but is the most likely to spread around the body; this process is called metastasis.

Two in three Australians will have at least one skin cancer in their lifetime, and they make up 80% of all cancers in Australia.

Around 99% of skin cancers in Australia are caused by excessive exposure to UV radiation.

Excessive exposure to UV radiation also affects the appearance of your skin. UVA rays are able to penetrate deep into the skin, where they break down supportive structures such as elastin and collagen.

This causes signs of premature ageing, such as deep wrinkling, brown or white blotches, and broken capillaries.

Sunscreen can help prevent skin cancers

Used consistently, sunscreen reduces your risk of skin cancer and slows skin ageing.

In a Queensland study, participants either used sunscreen daily for almost five years, or continued their usual use.

At the end of five years, the daily-use group had reduced their risk of squamous cell carcinoma by 40% compared to the other group.

Ten years later, the daily use group had reduced their risk of invasive melanoma by 73%

Does sunscreen block the health-promoting properties of sunlight?

The answer is a bit more complicated, and involves personalised risk versus benefit trade-offs.

First, the good news: there are many health benefits of spending time in the sun that don’t rely on exposure to UV radiation and aren’t affected by sunscreen use.

Sunscreen only filters UV rays, not all light.
Ron Lach/Pexels

Sunscreen only filters UV rays, not visible light or infrared light (which we feel as heat). And importantly, some of the benefits of sunlight are obtained via the eyes.

Visible light improves mood and regulates circadian rhythm (which influences your sleep-wake cycle), and probably reduces myopia (short-sightedness) in children.

Infrared light is being investigated as a treatment for several skin, neurological, psychiatric and autoimmune disorders.

So what is the benefit of exposing skin to UV radiation?

Exposing the skin to the sun produces vitamin D, which is critical for healthy bones and muscles.

Vitamin D deficiency is surprisingly common among Australians, peaking in Victoria at 49% in winter and being lowest in Queensland at 6% in summer.

Luckily, people who are careful about sun protection can avoid vitamin D deficiency by taking a supplement.

Exposing the skin to UV radiation might have benefits independent of vitamin D production, but these are not proven. It might reduce the risk of autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis or cause release of a chemical that could reduce blood pressure. However, there is not enough detail about these benefits to know whether sunscreen would be a problem.

What does this mean for you?

There are some benefits of exposing the skin to UV radiation that might be blunted by sunscreen. Whether it’s worth foregoing those benefits to avoid skin cancer depends on how susceptible you are to skin cancer.

If you have pale skin or other factors that increase you risk of skin cancer, you should aim to apply sunscreen daily on all days when the UV index is forecast to reach 3.

If you have darker skin that rarely or never burns, you can go without daily sunscreen – although you will still need protection during extended times outdoors.

For now, the balance of evidence suggests it’s better for people who are susceptible to skin cancer to continue with sun protection practices, with vitamin D supplementation if needed. Läs mer…

In humans and other animals, ageing is generally associated with a decline in biological function. But scientists are now discovering older animals perform vital roles in populations and ecosystems.

Unfortunately, however, old animals can suffer the most from human activity such as over-fishing and trophy hunting. And the value of old, wise animals is not usually considered when we manage animal populations and seek to protect biodiversity.

Our new review, published today in Science, draws on evidence from around the world to argue for a new approach called “longevity conservation”.

The loss of old and wise animals has devastating global consequences. Clearly, more must be done to prioritise their survival.

Benefits of a long life

Cold-blooded (ectothermic) animals such as fish and reptiles tend to keep growing throughout their life. This means older individuals are generally larger than younger individuals.

Being bigger has benefits, especially when it comes to feeding and reproduction. It’s widely known the number of offspring increases with age in fish and many other ectotherms. But it’s only recently been discovered that older mothers of some fish and sea turtles produce exponentially more offspring as time goes on. Their young may also have better chances of survival.

Survival rates are can be higher in offspring from older mothers in other species too. For example, in birds older parents and their helpers often provide more food and better habitat for their chicks, improving fledgling survival rates.

Females from a range of species tend to select older males as mates. These males commonly assume crucial social roles, such as leading long distance movements like migration, and regulating social structures, such as reducing aggressive behaviour. These behaviours influence decision-making with direct consequences for group and offspring survival.

Large estuarine crocodiles like this one from Roper River, Northern Territory were hunted almost to extinction within Australia, but now they are a recovering conservation success.
Church Missionary Society Australia

With age comes wisdom

Some animals draw on experience accumulated over the course of their lifetime in order to make better decisions. In elephants, mothers and grandmothers are repositories of knowledge.

This “grandmother effect”, first studied in humans, also occurs in whales. Wise grandmother killer whales, which no longer reproduce, help their families find food when it is scarce and this benefits survival.

In a wide range of species, new research is showing how older individuals transmit their knowledge to others via a process called cultural transmission. The benefits of old age extend to animals such as migratory birds, pack-hunting carnivores, and even fish. For example, taking all the big fish from some populations has diminished their collective group memory often needed for migration and knowledge of spawning areas.

This family group of African elephants has been the subject of research into older animals.
Phyllis Lee

Examining the loss of older animals

Our research set out to build understanding of the ecology and conservation of old animals.

We assembled an interdisciplinary team of experts who work on different animals and diverse ecosystems. Our team included behavioural and wildlife ecologists as well as freshwater, marine and fisheries scientists.

We searched the literature and wrote a review. In addition, we used a machine learning topic model to delve into more than 9,000 peer-reviewed papers.

Most research has focused on the negative aspects of ageing, particularly in humans, and short-lived animal models such as fruit flies. Yet emerging evidence is showing how old wild animals contribute to populations and ecosystems.

Many of these functions benefit people too, but are being lost as old individuals are removed from the wild.

Fishing has caused a systematic decline in the abundance of old fish, with these aged individuals reduced in 79-97% of the ocean populations examined.

Old African elephants and other trophy animals are commonly poached or hunted, both legally and illegally.

But the loss of old individuals is not limited to large enigmatic species. Deep-sea coral and Antarctic sponges – which can live for thousands of years – are being harvested, damaged by fishing gear, and affected by climate change. These species cannot be replaced within our lifetime.

Species that live to advanced ages are often large, slow-growing, and slow to mature. These traits can make these species more vulnerable to extinction if older adults are killed by humans.

But when humans spare old individuals, these long-lived species are more resistant to environmental change and provide more stable ecosystem services, such as fisheries which supply protein to feed the world.

Retaining old animals tends to protect populations from poor environmental conditions such as drought and other extreme climate events, allowing species to persist against the odds. This buffering capacity is increasingly important in the face of global climate change.

Very old animals, like this 100+ year-old bigmouth buffalo, are declining because of over-harvesting and river regulation. This species is native to rivers of North America.
Alec Lackmann

Introducing ‘longevity conservation’

Old animals play vital roles in the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Yet harvest management and conservation practices tend not to focus on preserving age structures within populations. And the loss of old individuals is not yet recognised by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as a means of listing threatened species, or as a type of over-fishing.

To protect old individuals and maintain or restore the age structure of wild populations, we propose “longevity conservation” measures.

Decisive new policy and actions are needed to protect and restore the crucial ecological roles and services old, wise, and large animals provide. For example, formally recognising and avoiding “longevity overfishing” should be incorporated into fisheries management to help ensure the long-term sustainability of fisheries.

Biodiversity conservation and threatened species policies should protect age structure. This is particularly important in long-lived species that produce more offspring with age, or where migration, social networks and cultural transmission of knowledge are required for survival. Läs mer…

Earlier this year, a caver was poring over satellite images of the Nullarbor Plain when he came across something unexpected: an enormous, mysterious scar etched into the barren landscape.

The find intrigued scientists, including my colleagues and I. Upon closer investigation, we realised the scar was created by a ferocious tornado that no-one knew had occurred. We outline the findings in new research published today.

Tornadoes are a known threat in the United States and elsewhere. But they also happen in Australia.

Without the power of technology, this remarkable example of nature’s ferocity would have gone unnoticed. It’s important to study the tornado’s aftermath to help us predict and prepare for the next big twister.

Tornadoes are not just a US phenomena – they can occur in Australia, too.
Shutterstock

Australia’s tornado history

Tornadoes are violent, spinning columns of air that drop from thunderstorms to the ground, bringing wind speeds often exceeding 200 kilometres an hour. They can cause massive destruction – uprooting trees, tearing apart buildings and throwing debris over large distances.

Tornadoes have been reported on every continent except Antarctica. They most commonly occur in the Great Plains region of the United States, and in the north-east region of India–Bangladesh.

The earliest observed tornado in Australia occurred in 1795 in the suburbs of Sydney. But a tornado was not scientifically confirmed here until the late 1800s.

In recent decades, documented instances in Australia include a 2013 tornado that crossed north-east Victoria and travelled up to the New South Wales border. It brought winds between 250–300 kilometres an hour and damaged Murray River townships.

And in 2016, a severe storm produced at least seven tornadoes in central and eastern parts of South Australia.

It’s important for scientists to accurately predict tornadoes, so we can issue warnings to communities. That’s why the Nullarbor tornado scar was useful to study.

In 2013, a tornado crossed the Victoria-NSW border and damaged towns.
Dan Peled/AAP

A whirlwind mystery

The Nullarbor Plain is a remote, dry, treeless stretch of land in southern Australia. The man who discovered the scar had been using Google Earth satellite imagery to search the Nullabor for caves or other karst features.

Karst is a landscape underlain by limestone featuring distinctive landforms. The discovery of the scar came to the attention of my colleagues and I through the collaborative network of researchers and explorers who study the Nullarbor karst.

The scar stretches from Western Australia over the border to South Australia. It lies 20 kilometres north of the Trans-Australian Railway and 90 kilometres east-north-east of Forrest, a former railway settlement.

We compared satellite imagery of the site over several years to determine that the tornado occurred between November 16 and 18, 2022. Blue circular patterns appeared alongside the scar, indicating pools of water associated with heavy rain.

My colleagues and I then travelled to the site in May this year to examine and photograph the scar and the neighbouring landscape.

Our results have been published today in the Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems Science.

Map showing tornado events in Western Australia and South Australia between 1795 and 2014. The location of the tornado scar in the study is shown with a red dot.
Source: Severe Thunderstorm Archive/Australian Bureau of Meteorology

What we found

The scar is 11 kilometres long and between 160 and 250 metres wide. It bears striking patterns called “cycloidal marks”, formed by tornado suction vortexes. This suggests the tornado was no ordinary storm but in the strong F2 or F3 category, spinning with destructive winds of more than 200 kilometres an hour.

The tornado probably lasted between seven and 13 minutes. Features of the scar suggest the whirling wind within the tornado was moving in a clockwise direction. We also think the tornado moved from west to east – which is consistent with the direction of a strong cold front in the region at the time.

‘Cycloidal marks’ in the tornado scar, caused by multiple vortexes.
Google Earth satellite imagery

Local weather observations also recorded intensive cloud cover and rainfall during that period in November 2022.

Unlike tornadoes that hit populated areas, this one did not damage homes or towns. But it left its mark nonetheless, eroding soil and vegetation and reshaping the Earth’s surface.

Remarkably, the scar was still clearly visible 18 months after the event, both in satellite images and on the ground. This is probably because vegetation grows slowly in this dry landscape, so hadn’t yet covered the erosion.

A powerful thunderstorm swept across the Nullarbor Plain on the day the tornado occurred.
Matej Lipar

Predict and prepare

This fascinating discovery on the Nullarbor Plain shows how powerful and unpredictable nature can be – sometimes without us knowing.

Only three tornadoes have previously been documented on the Nullarbor Plain. This is likely because the area is remote with few eye-witnesses, and because the events do not damage properties and infrastructure. Interestingly, those three tornadoes occurred in November, just like this one.

Our research provides valuable insights into the tornadoes in this remote and little-studied region. It helps us understand when, and in what conditions, these types of tornadoes occur.

It also emphasises the importance of satellite imagery in identifying and analysing weather phenomena in remote locations, and in helping us predict and prepare for the next big event.

And finally, the results are a stark reminder that extreme weather can strike anywhere, anytime. Läs mer…

The ten-year anniversary of the death of much-loved Australian cricketer Phillip Hughes falls on November 27.

The 25-year-old’s life was tragically cut short in 2014 when a bouncer struck the back of his neck during a match for South Australia.

Despite wearing a helmet, Hughes never regained consciousness after the ball struck an unprotected area just below his left ear.

A decade later, another supremely talented batsman, Will Pucovski, is facing premature retirement due to concussion-related concerns.

With player safety such a high priority area in cricket, how have the rules changed over the past decade? And even if you only play cricket at a community level, what do you need to know to stay safe?

Managing risk in a dangerous sport

Batting is a daunting and dangerous activity: batters stand about 18 metres away from bowlers who can hurl a hard leather cricket ball at speeds exceeding 130 kilometres per hour for women and 150 km per hour for men.

At the inquest into the death of Hughes, the New South Wales coroner reinforced the innate danger of cricket.

The coroner also noted Hughes was not wearing a helmet that complied with the highest-level safety standards at the time. He said cricketers’ personal protective equipment was “essential if death and injury is to be minimised”.

He recommended Cricket Australia continue collaborating with developers and players’ associations to identify a neck protector that could be mandated for use in all first class cricket matches.

Cricket Australia changed the playing conditions for the 2023–24 season, and now all Australian players in international and domestic cricket must wear neck protectors.

Deaths in cricket

The death of Hughes was not the first to occur in a cricket match. But it served as the catalyst for researchers to take a closer look and gather data on cricket-related fatalities.

One historical review found cricket-related fatalities in Australia date back to 1864, with 174 deaths related to the game – of those, 83 were in organised settings, such as club or school competitions. The others were in informal play such as in backyards and on beaches.

In organised cricket, the most common cause of death was a batter suffering “a ball to the head (temple, forehead or face), to the side of the head, below or behind the ear, or on the neck”.

Notably, these fatalities decreased significantly after the introduction and widespread use of helmets by batsmen from the 1980s.

Concussion and traumatic brain injury

Even with the protective equipment available to players today, batters, wicket-keepers and even umpires and bowlers are still at some risk of severe facial and skull fractures, concussion and traumatic brain injury.

A 2022 UK study involving about 2,300 mostly male cricketers found 10% of players experienced at least one concussion during their career.

In Australian elite male and female cricket players, concussions were the third most frequent injury (in terms of time lost to a sport) from 2015 to 2022.

These statistics are particularly concerning given the potential long-term negative effects of sports-related concussion.

The importance of helmets

The first cricketer reported to have worn a helmet was Englishman Dennis Amiss, who in 1977 wore a customised motorcycle helmet.

Closer to home, the collapse of Australian batsman David Hookes after being struck in the jaw in the same year was the catalyst for changing attitudes towards helmet use.

Over the past decade, the International Cricket Council (ICC) and many national members have supported the United Kingdom’s Loughborough University research to improve the design of helmets.

This research is used to improve many of the rules regarding helmet use, and concussion testing and management approaches.

Helmet design technology is continuing to develop. High-impact materials are being used to reinforce the hard outer shell of the helmet (including the face guard), with the protective inner shells being further refined to better distribute and absorb ball impact forces.

As observed by the coroner in the Hughes inquest, helmets must now comply with what is known as the British Standard.

Who needs to wear helmets?

At all levels of the sport, the ICC and Cricket Australia owe a duty of care to players and helmet rules now apply across all levels.

International level

At international level, the ICC issued a directive in 2015 making it mandatory for elite cricketers to wear a compliant helmet in ICC-sanctioned matches.

For example, in Test matches, a helmet must be worn by batters who are facing pace bowlers, wicket-keepers who are standing up to the stumps, and fielders who are close to the batter in front of the wicket.

The ICC states “the use of a neck protector when batting in international cricket is optional”.

National level

Since the 2019–20 season, Cricket Australia mandated players wearing British Standard-compliant helmets when batting, wicket-keeping up to the stumps and fielding close to the batter.

It changed the playing conditions for the 2023–24 season, making it mandatory for batters in all Cricket Australia-sanctioned competitions to wear neck protectors when facing fast or medium paced bowlers.

The 2023-2024 playing conditions also state the umpires are the sole judge of whether bowling is fast or medium-paced.

Community level

Cricket Australia developed simplified playing conditions to help community clubs navigate the rules and enforcement options.

These recommendations and resources reflect its administrator role as the custodian of the game of cricket in Australia.

On the use of helmets, Cricket Australia “strongly” recommends community club players use British Standard-compliant helmets when batting, wicket-keeping up to the stumps and fielding close to the batter.

Cricket Australia also strongly recommends participants wear neck protectors.

Some leagues are going above and beyond these recommendations in an attempt to make their competitions safer.

For example, in October, Cricket Gold Coast introduced a rule making helmets compulsory in all competitions.

Other leagues have also adopted extra precautions.

Future focuses

Cricket administrators at all levels are moving in the right direction in terms of helmets and player safety.

Whether neck guards for all international matches should be mandatory continues to be debated. Even if the risk of cricket related fatalities is rare, administrators still need to take precautions due to the greater knowledge around the dangers of head injuries.

The sport’s administrators need to remain vigilant by ensuring rules remain consistent with research evidence, are fit for purpose, and compliance is consistently enforced. Läs mer…

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader, Mohammed Deif. The court claims both sides have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes from the day Hamas attacked Israel on October 7 onwards.

Although a warrant was issued for Deif, Israel has said he was killed in an air strike in July. But Hamas has neither confirmed nor denied this claim. If they were ever to be judged at the ICC, a conviction is conceivable.

The charges of the court against Netanyahu are severe. The three-judge panel unanimously said that he and Gallant are “co-perpetrators for committing the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts”.

The judges also “found reasonable grounds to believe that they bear criminal responsibility” … “for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population”. The charges are also backed by the work of the International Court of Justice, which has found that it is “plausible” that Israel has committed acts in Gaza that violate the Genocide Convention.

If arrested, Netanyahu would go through a trial, and he could then be acquitted, or convicted. In the latter case, Netanyahu would join the ranks of leaders considered perpetrators of crimes against humanity, such as Charles Taylor of Liberia, Hissène Habré of Chad, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Augusto Pinochet of Chile, Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia, Radovan Karadžić of Serbia, Idi Amin of Uganda, Pol Pot of Cambodia, Joseph Stalin of the former Soviet Union, Mao Zedong of China, and Adolf Hitler of Germany.

The ICC has issued arrest warrants.

Next steps

The arrest warrants rely on ICC member states carrying them out. And this is by no means a foregone conclusion. Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has been wanted by the court since 2023 for his role in directing attacks at civilians in Ukraine and illegal deportation of Ukrainian children.

But Putin was not arrested on a recent visit to Mongolia, a state that is party to the ICC, after the Mongolian authorities had assured him he would be safe. That said, he was unable to travel to South Africa when leaders from the Brics economic bloc of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa met in Johannesburg in 2023.

This was due to the experience in South Africa of former Sudanese president, Omar Al-Bashir. Bashir, for whom the ICC granted arrest warrants in 2009 and 2010 for allegedly directing a campaign of mass killing, rape and pillage against civilians in Darfur, travelled to South Africa in 2015 to attend an African Union summit. But he had to leave abruptly for fear of arrest.

South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in 2016 that the government’s failure to arrest him was unlawful. And the ICC ruled against South Africa on its “shameful failure” to arrest Bashir the following year. He was also able to travel freely to other ICC member states, including Chad, Kenya and Jordan.

Bashir was overthrown in a military coup in 2019 and placed under arrest. He is now persona non grata in Sudan where he was convicted of corruption, sentenced to two years in prison, and is being investigated for his role in the coup that brought him to power.

Not arresting criminals inflicts damage on the ICC, which already has a weak record of prosecutions. For example, after former president of Ivory Coast, Laurent Gbagb, was charged then acquitted. But it also takes away a major opportunity to achieve justice for victims of serious crimes.

Dramatic political implications

The likelihood of Netanyahu, who has become the first ever leader of a western country to be charged by the ICC, appearing at the Hague is low. But the political implications of the arrest warrants for Netanyahu are, at any rate, dramatic.

Netanyahu knew the ICC would be able to hold him to account for his political decisions, and this is exactly why he disapproved of Palestine joining the ICC in 2015.

In practice, Netanyahu might lose even more legitimacy in his own country than he has done already with some groups. Civil society groups in Israel are following the work of the ICC very closely.

B’Tselem, a Jerusalem-based non-profit organisation that documents human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territories, has said that the ICC intervention and ICJ rulings “are a chance for us, Israelis, to realise that … upholding a regime of supremacy, violence and oppression necessarily involves crimes and severe violation of human rights”.

Netanyahu will also be limited in his travels, and viewed as a pariah in many of the 124 states that are party to the ICC. This is a view that would be shared by most leaders of European states, including Germany. In May, a spokesperson for the German government hinted that Germany would arrest Netanyahu should warrants be issued.

The EU is, for the moment, unlikely to be able to use its global human rights’ sanctions regime against Netanyahu, which allows targeted measures against foreign nationals who are deemed responsible for gross violations of human rights. This is because unanimity across the bloc is necessary, and some states such as Austria, Czechia, Hungary and Germany could be reluctant to agree to this. Even the French foreign ministry spokesperson said: “It’s a point that is legally complex.” But the EU is a strong supporter of the ICC, so there will be pressure in governments of all EU states to act against Netanyahu.

The political implications of this decision are not isolated to Netanyahu. Pro-Palestinian protest activity has taken place at over 500 US colleges since October 7. And the UK has now joined most EU states in supporting Netanyahu’s arrest.

The US is now very much isolated among western countries in its lack of support for international law. The ICC, on the other hand, is becoming increasingly visible in its quest for international justice for victims. Läs mer…

It may sound strange, but future Nobel Prizes, and other scientific achievement awards, one day might well be given out to intelligent machines. It could come down just to technicalities and legalities.

Swedish chemist Alfred Nobel established the prestigious prizes in his will, written in 1895, a year before his death. He created a fund whose interests would be distributed annually “to those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind”.

Nobel explained how to divide those interests in equal parts, to be given, “one part to the person who made the most important discovery or invention in the field of physics… the most important chemical discovery… the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine”.

He also created prizes for the person responsible for the most outstanding work of literature and to the person who did most to advance fellowship among nations, oppose war and promote peace (the peace prize).

What should we draw from the use of the term “person” in Alfred Nobel’s will? The Nobel peace prize can be awarded to institutions and associations, so could it include other non-human entities, such as an AI system?

Whether an AI is entitled to legal personhood is one important question in all this. Another is whether intelligent machines can make scientific contributions worthy of one of Nobel’s prestigious prizes.

Grand challenge

I do not consider either condition to be impossible and I am not alone. A group of scientists at the UK’s Alan Turing Institute has already set this as a grand challenge for AI. They have said: “We invite the community to join us in… developing AI systems capable of making Nobel quality scientific discoveries.” According to the challenge, these advances by an AI would be made “highly autonomously at a level comparable, and possibly superior, to the best human scientists by 2050”.

Such a milestone may be closer than we think. But it will depend on what we are prepared to consider as worthy scientific contributions. These can range from standard data analysis to generating whole new scientific explanations for observed phenomena. There is a whole spectrum in between these two conditions, which is already being explored.

In a few weeks, the computer scientists Demis Hassabis and John Jumper of Google DeepMind will be presented with their Nobel medals (they won this year in the chemistry category). The prize was awarded for the development of AI that can predict the structures of proteins from the order, or sequences, of their molecular building blocks, called amino acids.

This had been a notoriously difficult problem in biology, with a history going back to at least the 1970s. But, in 2020, Hassabis and Jumper unveiled an AI system called AlphaFold2, which has enabled researchers to predict the structures of virtually all the 200 million proteins that have so far been identified.

The success of AlphaFold2 is no isolated case; there are analogous situations in other sciences.

In 2023, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) used AI to discover a novel class of compounds that can kill drug-resistant bacteria. Then, in 2024, major archaeological discoveries – in South America and in the Arabian Peninsula – were made using machine intelligence.

Also this year, a study at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) tested the impact of AI in materials science research. It concluded that “AI-assisted researchers discover 44% more materials, resulting in a 39% increase in patent filings and a 17% rise in downstream product innovation”. The study found that these new materials possess relatively novel chemical structures and lead to more radical inventions.

There is even recent evidence that drug candidates discovered by AI may be of better quality than those discovered by traditional means.

Should we consider these as “scientific contributions”? AI generally makes such discoveries through a process of systematic screening of different possibilities. It’s a highly structured process that’s just the kind of thing we would assume machines are good at. But humans come up with scientific breakthroughs through the kind of innate creativity that a machine can’t emulate, right?

Well, without trying to diminish the roles of great scientists, systematic screening – this time carried out by humans – was involved in the discovery of artemisinin as an important antimalarial treatment, and the discovery of prontosil – a crucial antibiotic. These also led to Nobel prizes. So we should remember that tasks such as screening can make important contributions to science and are not something carried out only by machines.

So, can we imagine a machine going one step further, generating scientific hypotheses with a high degree of autonomy? Hypotheses are preliminary explanations for natural phenomena that can be tested by means of experiments. A hypothesis is a key stage in the scientific method, a kind of educated guess pending evidence from real testing. Furthermore, could the AI then go on to test its hypothesis and present the results to us in our own language?

It may surprise you to know that his has been attempted already, within the domain of computer science research. In August, an international research group demonstrated an AI system that was able to carry out a scientific investigation, and even write a scientific paper describing the results.

It seems very likely that AI will one day take an active part in scientific investigations. But will it be able to compete for Nobel prizes, perhaps as junior partners to humans? That remains to be seen.

Even if a machine could one day win one of the science prizes, the literature prize should remain safely in the hands of humans. Or will it too be opened up to artificial intelligence? A recent scientific study compared human reactions to poetry generated by machines and poetry produced by humans. Its main finding was that people cannot distinguish between them, and “AI-generated poems were rated more favourably in qualities such as rhythm and beauty”.

If there is a limit to what AI can achieve in what had been exclusively human fields of endeavour, we’re currently struggling to find it. Läs mer…

In an ever-more uncertain world, one thing you can say with a degree of confidence is that, right now in global affairs, all roads lead to Donald Trump. Trump’s re-election to the US presidency – while widely anticipated (especially by the bookmakers) – has kicked off something of a chain reaction.

Whether it’s his track record in his first term in office from 2017 to 2021, comments he made on the campaign trail, comments he has made since the election, his cabinet picks or comments his cabinet picks have made, the prospect of Trump assuming arguably the most powerful office in world politics in just a few weeks time is making its own weather around the globe.

In Ukraine, where the war has just passed its 1,000th day and Russia continued to advance slowly but steadily, the prospect that next year will see a ceasefire brokered by the Trump administration, followed by negotiations at which Vladimir Putin would hold many of the cards, looks to be the new reality.

The idea, cherished by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, that Ukraine’s defenders would be able to force Russian troops back beyond the borders as established at the end of the cold war in 1991 – a notion in which he was wholeheartedly supported by his western allies – now appears to be a non-starter. All indications point to a frozen conflict, with each side holding the territory it now occupies (although one can imagine Ukraine will have more of a problem holding on to the 600 or so square kilometres of Russian soil it presently controls in the Kursk region).

Now, more than ever, it’s vital to be informed about the important issues affecting global stability. Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs briefing from the UK newsletter. Every Thursday we’ll you expert analysis of the big stories making international headlines.

But, of course, there was already a frozen conflict in eastern Ukraine after Russia’s incursions in 2014. And – as Stefan Wolff, an international security expert from the University of Birmingham, points out – the Minsk accords on Ukraine of September 2014 and February 2015, which were supposed to maintain some degree, at least, of security and stop the fighting in the region turned out not to be worth the paper they were written on.

There’s very little chance that Trump will allow US troops to be sent to Ukraine as peacekeepers or combatants. So, Wolff surmises, it’ll be down to Europe to step up. The Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, said as much before the US election and Margus Tsahkna, Estonia’s foreign minister, has explicitly said this week that Europe must be prepared to underpin a peace deal.

Europe must ensure it is intimately involved in any peace negotiations, Wolff concludes: “In negotiations involving Trump, Putin and Zelensky alone, Ukraine would be the weakest link and European interests would probably be completely ignored… After 1,000 days of the most devastating military confrontation on European soil since the second world war, it is time to accept that nothing about Europe should be without Europe.”

Read more:
Ukraine: after 1,000 days of war, Europe must prepare for a Trump-brokered peace deal by asserting its own interests

As you might expect, Trump’s victory has also been focusing the mind of the man who is currently sitting behind the Resolute desk. And on day 998 of the conflict, Joe Biden, gave Zelensky the go-ahead to use US-supplied long-range Atacms (army tactical missile system) against targets inside Russia, something the Ukrainian president has been begging for over pretty much the duration of the war.

Ukraine immediately took Biden at his word, launching eight missiles at targets in Bryansk, a Russian region bordering Ukraine. The following day the UK government formally signed off on Ukraine using its Storm Shadow long-range missiles in the same way, and Ukraine used them to attack targets in the Kursk region.

Many commentators believe that one of the epitaphs for Biden’s handling of the war in Ukraine will be too little, too late. This week he also gave permission for Ukraine to deploy anti-personnel mines (APLs) in Ukraine, of the sort that are shunned by 164 countries that are signatories to the Ottawa convention banning such ordnance. Which, of course, means he might have another epitaph as the US leader willing to use weapons almost universally condemned as a horrific scourge “already contaminating more than 70 countries”.

It’s worth noting, though, that neither the US nor Russia is a signatory to the convention. Ukraine is – but that hasn’t prevented it becoming one of the most mine-contaminated countries in the world.

The reason that Ukraine is so keen to get their hands on these APLs, writes David Galbreath of the University of Bath, an expert in military technology, is that it needs to find a way to stall Russian infantry as they continue to advance.

Galbreath describes how the success of Ukrainian drones at targeting Russian armoured vehicles had forced the Russians to change tactics and advance on foot. Ukraine had been finding their anti-tank weapons ineffective for forcing enemy infantry into their lines of fire, hence the need for anti-personnel mines, no matter how dirty a weapon they might be.

Read more:
US decision to supply Kyiv with hated anti-personnel mines is both controversial and a depressing sign of the way the war is going

On Putin’s side of the ledger, meanwhile, the main issue is that Russia’s advantage in the field has always depended on the asymmetric advantage provided by the imbalance in troops numbers. Put simply, the Russian military has always been able to call on more bodies to throw into battle than Ukraine.

But there are suggestions that Putin’s reservoir of manpower might be shallower than he’d like. His decision to deploy North Korean troops in the Kursk region, the emptying of prisons to send convicts to the frontline and, more recently, the recruitment and training of troops from the occupied parts of Ukraine all hint that filling Russia’s quota of 20,000 new troops each month has not been plain sailing.

Russia is now pressing along much of the frontline in eastern Ukraine and is making daily advances.
Institute for the Study of War

Natasha Lindsteadt, an expert in authoritarian regimes from the University of Essex, gives us an in-depth look at how Russia fills its ranks. She surmises that, just quietly, Putin might be as keen as Donald Trump to bring this conflict to a speedy conclusion: as long as it favours his side, of course. Because Putin is quickly running out of people he can send to the front lines.

Read more:
Russia needs a peace deal soon as it is running out of soldiers

The view from Israel

Back in Washington, Trump’s senior foreign policy choices are coming in for a degree of bemused scrutiny. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will be considerably buoyed by the news that Trump wants former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee as his ambassador to Israel.

Huckabee, whose CV also acknowledges his stint as a talk-show host, an evangelical Baptist minister and contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 and 2016 (when Huckabee called the president-elect a “car wreck”), is known for his outspoken views on Palestine. Namely that it doesn’t exist.

Huckabee is on the record for saying, after witnessing the inauguration of n illegal settlement on the West Bank, that: “There is no such thing as a West Bank. It’s Judea and Samaria [the territory’s biblical name]. There’s no such thing as a settlement. They’re communities, they’re neighbourhoods, they’re cities. There’s no such thing as an occupation.”

Clive Jones, a professor of regional security at Durham University with a particular interest in the Middle East, believes that Trump could take the brakes off Israel’s campaign in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and even against Iran.

While Joe Biden has maintained steadfast support for Israel and the government of its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, he has privately urged caution. He recently attempted to put a deadline on Israel ensuring more food and humanitarian supplies get into Gaza where people are starving.

But, as Jones notes here, Trump’s pick for secretary of state, Marco Rubio, while mainly known as a China hawk, is on the record as being against a ceasefire in Gaza. He told journalists recently that: “I want them [Israel] to destroy every element of Hamas they can get their hands on. These people are vicious animals who did horrifying crimes.”

With elements of Netanyhu’s government urging the annexation of the West Bank and signs that they might also have designs on northern Gaza and a US administration that looks set to back Israel to the hilt, things are looking bleak for the Palestinian people, concludes Jones.

Read more:
Gaza: outlook for Palestinians bleak under a Trump presidency that looks set to go ’all the way’ with Netanyahu

There has been a major personnel change in Netanyahu’s cabinet, too. Earlier this month he unceremoniously dumped his defence minister, Yoav Gallant. If Biden attempted to be a brake on Netanyahu from the White House, perhaps Gallant was the nearest thing to someone attempting to moderate the behaviour of the prime minister from within his own government.

Gallant has long called for a ceasefire and a hostage deal. He also wanted universal conscription and an end to the exemption of ultra-Orthodox men from military service. And, perhaps, most significantly, his was a strong voice calling for an immediate state inquiry into the causes of the October 7 Hamas-led attacks – something his critics say he is desperate to avoid.

John Strawson, of the University of East London, who writes regularly about Israeli politics here, believes that Netanyahu might act against other powerful military voices in the weeks to come. He believes that the Israeli prime minister is “to reshape Israel in his own political image. That means not only diminishing the role of the judiciary, but also undermining the influence of the IDF and the security establishment.”

In what appears a sinister corollary to Gallant’s dismissal and the appointment of Huckabee as US ambassador to Israel, Netanyahu has nominated a far-right firebrand, Yechiel Leiter, as the new Israeli ambassador to Washington. Leichter, who came up via the now outlawed Kahanist movement in the US, is known to favour annexation of the West Bank.

He’ll soon be back in America sharing his vision with the Trump administration.

Read more:
Israel: Yoav Gallant’s sacking could have devastating consequences both for Palestinians and Israelis

World affairs briefing, from the UK
is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get our updates directly in your inbox. Läs mer…

The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants on Nov. 21, 2024, for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defense minister and one leading Hamas official. Those named in the action are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity relating to the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by the Palestinian militant group and the subsequent ongoing siege and bombing of Gaza by the Israel Defense Forces.

In May 2024, ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan sought arrest warrants for three senior Hamas leaders, accusing them of extermination, murder, taking hostages and committing rape and other acts of sexual violence. Two of those Hamas leaders, Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh, have since been killed by Israeli forces. It has been reported that a third leader, Mohammed Deif, had also been killed by Israeli forces in August. But the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber still issued an arrest warrant for Deif, explaining that his death has not been confirmed.

Allegations against Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant include starving Palestinians in Gaza, “intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population,” as well as persecution and “willful killing.”

The ICC, an independent tribunal based in The Hague, Netherlands, prosecutes genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes – the latter being a legal term that includes attacking civilians and committing other wartime violations, such as blocking humanitarian aid.

The arrest warrants, which the Israeli government in a statement rejected “with disgust,” mean, in theory, that those accused could face arrest should they travel to one of the ICC’s 124 member states. Israel is not a member state of the court, but the “State of Palestine” has been a party to the Rome Statute, which set up the court, since 2015.

As a scholar of human rights and international courts, I think it is important to emphasize that the arrest warrants do not mean that those accused will necessarily face arrest or trial.

The ICC, in line with other contemporary international criminal tribunals, lack any enforcement powers of their own. That means in the Israel-Hamas situation, the ICC may never be able to arrest suspects or bring them to trial.

These international courts therefore have a mixed record of holding senior political and military leaders accountable for their crimes. It’s only if and when political leaders fall from power that there is any chance that their governments will arrest and hand them over to international courts for prosecution.

Palestinians walk amid the rubble of destroyed buildings in Nuseirat, Gaza, on April 29, 2024.
AFP via Getty Images

The challenge for international courts

Take the example of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, since March 2023, has defied an ICC arrest warrant for allegedly committing war crimes during the Ukraine war. As long as Putin remains in power, there is practically no prospect of his arrest.

International criminal tribunals such as the ICC have a twofold problem. First, these tribunals do not have an actual international police force to carry out arrests.

Second, governments implicated in their leaders’ alleged crimes often try to obstruct international tribunals by not turning over suspects and by seeking to attack the tribunals as biased.

The enforcement problem, as my scholarship has shown, can allow the leaders of a powerful country such as Israel or an entity like Hamas to evade arrest warrants from international courts – as long as the suspects remain within their country or territory.

Because Israel is not an ICC member state, it never agreed to abide by court rulings or arrest warrants and does not otherwise accept the court’s jurisdiction. The U.S. and other countries, including Qatar, which in recent years has hosted a number of senior Hamas members, are also not ICC members and do not face a legal obligation to make arrests.

As such, Netanyahu and Gallant could still travel to meet with U.S. leaders in Washington, D.C., without fear of arrest. But they will now likely avoid travel to European Union countries, all of which are part of the ICC and would be obliged to arrest Netanyahu.

All of this may also contribute to Israel’s further international isolation and pressure over its wartime conduct.

Issuing arrest warrants for the Hamas leaders also threatens to stigmatize Hamas internationally.

The U.S., which at times has strongly opposed the ICC but has also supported the court on an ad hoc basis, as has happened in the ICC’s Ukraine situation, has previously warned that issuing arrest warrants for Israeli leaders could compromise a potential cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas.

Milosevic’s fall from power

Not all arrest warrants fail.

The trial of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic in the mid-2000s illustrates how international tribunals might be able to prosecute alleged war criminals once they fall from power.

In 1993, as the war in Bosnia was still being fought, the United Nations Security Council set up a special court, called the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, to address crimes committed during the regional wars.

This court indicted Serbian nationalist leader Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes and crimes against humanity in 1999 during the ongoing Kosovo war. Milosevic’s alleged crimes in Kosovo included a massive ethnic-cleansing campaign waged against Kosovar Albanians, the largest ethnic group there. Milosevic later faced additional charges for alleged crimes in Bosnia and Croatia.

But Milosevic was still in power when the indictment was issued, and his government shielded him from arrest. Milosevic lost a presidential election in late September 2000 and, after widespread protests, stepped down.

The U.S. promised the new democratic government in place in Serbia substantial economic assistance to speed its postwar recovery. This helped prompt the Serbian government to arrest Milosevic and then transfer him to the the international tribunal in June 2001.

Relatives and supporters of hostages held by Palestinian militants in Gaza chant during a demonstration calling for their release on April 27, 2024.
Jack Guez/AFP via Getty Images

A potential playbook for Israeli leaders

Milosevic’s trial was launched in February 2002, but he died in prison in 2006, shortly before the end of his trial.

His trial still shows that under specific circumstances, international courts can overcome their lack of enforcement powers and bring high-level suspects to trial. International political pressure and incentives often serve an essential role in this process.

As long as any political and military leaders facing potential arrest remain in power, it is likely that no amount of political pressure or promises will persuade Israel, Qatar or other countries to cooperate with an international court and turn over any leaders, if they are indicted.

And history also shows that even if Hamas leaders are overthrown or Israeli leaders lose elections, there’s no guarantee that potential suspects will ever stand trial at the ICC.

There is broad public opposition to the ICC in Israel.

Despite the fact that Khas, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, has also sought to prosecute Hamas leaders for the atrocities of Oct. 7, Israeli politicians have reacted to the court’s arrest warrants with outrage.

Moreover, at least in the short term, it is highly unlikely that the U.S., which announced that it “fundamentally rejects” the ICC’s actions against Netanyahu and Gallant, will apply the type of pressure against its close ally, Israel, that it successfully applied on Serbia for Milosevic’s arrest after his fall from power.

This story was updated from an article originally published on June 22, 2022. Läs mer…

Science fiction has long been a window into possible futures, often anticipating technological advancements and societal shifts with surprising accuracy.

While AI is now widely recognized for its practical uses — like natural language processing and pattern recognition — science fiction often brings more captivating and thought-provoking perspectives.

Movies and shows have depicted AI and robots both as harmonious and menacing, imagining futures where technology seamlessly integrates into daily routines. These stories spark important conversations about how AI might shape our world.

In a recent study with Carmela Cucuzzella, dean of the Faculty of Environmental Design at Université de Montréal, and Negarsadat Rahimi, a doctoral researcher examining the impact of façade design on sustainability and livability in the city, we explored how AI can be harnessed to raise environmental awareness and foster meaningful community dialogues.

AI for environmental education and action

Public spaces like streets, squares, transportation hubs and vehicles create ideal environments for fostering community interaction, raising awareness and promoting environmental action. One effective way to raise awareness and educate people in public spaces is through eco-art, which has a powerful emotional impact and can inspire individuals to adopt more eco-friendly behaviors.

Our study examined the potential real-world applications of AI and other futuristic technologies as represented in science fiction series like Black Mirror, Westworld and Altered Carbon.

Trailer for Season 1 of Westworld.

Sci-fi technologies seen on TV

We conducted a survey asking people how likely it is they would want to see various sci-fi technologies from these series become a reality. The survey included 30 participants from North America and Europe, recruited through social media platforms such as LinkedIn, Instagram and X.

The top two preferred technologies were smart screens and mirrors (grouped together as one category) and smart assistants with voice activation; self-driving cars and flying vehicles were among technologies which followed. This indicates a preference for safer, low-impact innovations.

In contrast, the least favoured technologies were simulated reality, AI-driven behavioural prediction, social media rating systems for human interaction and AI humanoids. These choices reveal a reluctance towards AI’s deeper involvement in social interactions often depicted in shows’ dystopic visions.

We also interviewed Ozgur Ozkan, CEO of Keymate.AI, who noted that popular culture influences tech innovation by driving public demand and investor interest, crucial for major developments. On AI’s environmental impact, he argued that while AI could be used to reduce waste, its energy demands and the push for cost reduction could undermine true sustainability — a problem also flagged by computing and energy researchers.

Environmental public communication

We developed two contrasting future scenarios related to how governments can communicate with people about the environment and sustainability. The first, scenario, “Participatory Communication in the Public Realm,” envisions safer technologies with a focus on individual control and strict regulations. AI would be used to enhance public spaces like parks and libraries to encourage community collaboration on environmental education. Data privacy is safeguarded by strong regulations, balancing technological progress with social welfare.

Read more:
Youth social media: Why proposed Ontario and federal legislation won’t fix harms related to data exploitation

In the second scenario, “AI-Operated Social Structure,” our society permits less regulated technologies, prioritizing surveillance. Minimal regulation would allow advanced AI to offer personalized services in urban areas, focusing on individual data harvesting to be leveraged for corporate profit. AI algorithms gather personal data from citizens, identify patterns and customize the environmental content to suit individuals’ needs and learning styles. However, privacy concerns arise due to the lack of data protection.

Policy choices will guide how individuals’ data can be leveraged for corporate profit.
(Shutterstock)

These scenarios are both plausible. The key question is: how can we design safe and inclusive public spaces to foster discussions on environmental issues and sustainability? Public spaces should be welcoming to diverse communities and promote a sense of belonging.

Technologies like virtual reality and augmented reality offer opportunities to create new digital spaces for interaction and collaboration, though they also pose challenges in maintaining meaningful human connections.

Environmental impact

AI technologies have the potential to support sustainable practices. But the substantial energy demands of advanced AI systems must be carefully managed to prevent undermining their environmental benefits.

Generative AI requires massive amounts of energy to even train the models, not to mention using them. Policy researchers suggest AI will intensify greenhouse gas emissions, consume increasing amounts of energy and demand bigger amounts of natural resources. Yet AI also offers opportunities for optimizing energy use. For example, AI can be used to track behavioural patterns to adjust energy use in buildings.

AI can be used to adjust energy use in buildings.
(Shutterstock)

We should do our best to use AI efficiently and for good causes. Stakeholders such as designers, architects, engineers, policymakers and educators should create sustainable solutions for its applications and use the technology in meaningful ways.

Energy-efficient AI?

New technologies are being developed to support energy-efficient use of AI. For example, a recent breakthrough from Massachusetts Institute of Technology introduces new “nanoscale” transistors that solve energy limitations of traditional silicon-based devices like smartphones. These transistors work efficiently at much lower voltages.

Implementing thoughtful policies and developing innovative energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable solutions matters for steering AI towards sustainable and ethical uses. Additionally, emphasizing the artistic and design elements of public space experiences can enhance their value and accessibility for everyone. Läs mer…