Johansen.se

Polls show that LGBTQ rights will likely factor into most Americans’ pick for president this November as they choose between former Republican President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, a Democrat.

A March 2024 survey by independent pollster PRRI found that 68% of voters will take LGBTQ rights into consideration at the polls. Fully 30% stated that they would vote only for a candidate who shares their views on the issue.

It is no coincidence, then, that LGBTQ rights issues feature prominently in the party platforms.

The Republican Party’s electoral promises include cutting existing federal funding for gender-affirming care and restricting transgender students’ participation in sports. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party platform proposes to outlaw discrimination against LGBTQ people, including passing the Equality Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in housing, health care and public accommodations.

As a legal scholar who has written extensively on the history of LGBTQ rights, I have seen that the clearest indication of how a politician will act once in office is not what they promise on the campaign trail. Instead, it’s what they have done in the past.

Let’s examine their records.

Trump restricted some LGBTQ rights

Trump and his running mate, U.S. Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, are both relatively new to politics, so their records on LGBTQ rights issues are slim.

Trump enacted two policies restricting LGBTQ rights early in his one term in office. The first was his 2017 executive order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty, which reinforced that federal law must respect conscience-based objections to comply with the First Amendment. This order indirectly imperiled LGBTQ rights because many LGBTQ rights battles are fought over whether conservative Christian businesses run afoul of anti-discrimination laws when they refuse to serve same-sex couples.

Trump at an election rally in Ohio on Aug. 4, 2024.
Scott Olson/Getty Images

A few months later, Trump banned transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. armed forces. He ultimately revoked the directive, implementing instead a new policy that allowed existing transgender soldiers to remain in the military but barred new transgender recruits from enlisting.

Vance has opposed trans rights

Vance, a one-term senator, has accrued a record of trying to roll back the rights of transgender Americans during his short time in public office.

Between 2023 and 2024, Vance introduced or sponsored five bills opposing trans rights. One seeks to restrict gender-affirming care for minors by imposing criminal sanctions on doctors who perform such surgeries; another aims to do the same by exposing physicians to civil liability for either prescribing gender affirming hormones or performing surgeries.

JD Vance has made rolling back the rights of transgender Americans a centerpiece of his short congressional career.
Christian Monterrosa/AFP via Getty Images

Another Vance bill would expand health care workers’ ability to make conscience-based objections to transgender rights. One more would amend Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex in education, to limit transgender student participation in athletics.

Vance has also tried to pass legislation that would stop the Department of State from issuing passports with an unspecified “X” gender designation, a policy that launched in 2021. Gender-neutral passports allow transgender, intersex and nonbinary individuals to carry identity documents that reflect their gender identity and avoid what can be significant problems getting through airport security with misgendered IDs.

Congress has not voted on any of these proposals.

A ‘legislative priority’ for Harris

Harris and her vice presidential pick, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, have both made LGBTQ rights a legislative priority throughout their long political careers.

Vice President Kamala Harris at a Pride Celebration on June 28, 2023, in Washington, D.C.
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for GLAAD

Harris initially took public office in 2003 as San Francisco’s district attorney. In that role, she established a hate crimes unit that prosecuted violence against LGBTQ youth in schools. She also trained prosecutors nationwide to counter the “gay panic” and “trans panic” defenses in court, which is when lawyers attempt to justify violence as a fear-based reaction to the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

Harris was elected California’s attorney general in 2011 and declined to defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriage when opponents challenged the law’s constitutionality before the U.S. Supreme Court. She also joined amicus briefs supporting transgender bathroom access after North Carolina barred transgender people from using bathrooms that did not match the gender on their ID.

Harris, however, did not unequivocally champion LGBTQ rights. In 2015, she opposed two prisoners’ request for urgent gender-confirmation surgery. She has since called for a “better understanding” of transgender health needs.

As a U.S. senator from 2017 to 2021, Harris sponsored bills proposing to better address distinct LGBTQ issues in health care and the criminal justice system. She also sponsored five Senate bills to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations. Other bills she sponsored focused on LGBTQ youth, aiming to prohibit discrimination in child welfare programs and barring federal funds from supporting so-called conversion therapy of LGBTQ teens.

The Senate did not vote on any of these bills.

As vice president, Harris has been part of what advocates describe as the most pro-LGBTQ administration in U.S. history.

Since 2021, President Joe Biden has issued multiple executive orders to combat discrimination against the LGBTQ community, including by eliminating the Trump-era restrictions on transgender military service. Biden also signed into law the Respect for Marriage Act, which changed the federal definition of marriage from “a man and a woman” to “two individuals.” The statute ensures that the federal government would continue to recognize same-sex unions if the Supreme Court ever reversed its decision to legalize marriage equality.

Walz: Ally in the statehouse

Harris’ vice-presidential pick has a similarly extensive record backing LGBTQ rights.

As a U.S. representative from 2007 to 2019, Walz supported efforts to grant federal benefits to same-sex couples before marriage equality became federal law. He also co-sponsored many of the House versions of the same bills as Harris.

As Minnesota’s governor, Walz has issued several executive orders promoting LGBTQ inclusion and equity and banned conversion therapy for minors. He also declared Minnesota as a “trans refuge state” that will not enforce laws interfering with children’s access to gender-affirming care.

Walz signs a law in 2023 that declares Minnesota to be a refuge for people traveling for gender-affirming medical care.
Glen Stubbe/Star Tribune via Getty Images)

Starkly different records

If elected, Trump has promised to cut federal funds for public schools that “push … gender ideology” and “keep men out of women’s sports.” Harris pledges to “defend the freedom to love who you love openly and with pride.”

As citizens head to the polls in November, they can be confident that, on this topic at least, the candidates mean what they say. Läs mer…

A sculpture of the Virgin Mary showing her giving birth to Jesus was recently attacked and beheaded. Called “Crowning” by the artist Esther Strauss, the sculpture had been part of a temporary exhibition of art outside the Catholic St. Mary Cathedral in Linz, Austria.

The sculpture was controversial for its explicit depiction of birth; an online petition seeking its removal received more than 12,000 signatures. Strauss’ work was part of a project that sought to look at gender equality and the role of women, designed to honor the 100th anniversary of the cathedral’s consecration to the Virgin Mary. The exhibition opened on June 27, 2024, and the statue was vandalized a few days later.

My research as a historian of art has shown me that there has never been only one way of depicting the birth of Christ.

Depiction of birth in early texts

Early Christian writings reveal that the birth of Christ was of keen interest and reflected ideas of the day.

A widely read text from the mid-second century, called the The Protoevangelium of James, gives details about the life of the Virgin and infancy of Christ. As women of that time gave birth with the aid of midwives, the text explained that the Mother of God also was helped in her labor. Sections 19-20 of the text give details about Joseph contacting two midwives.

One woman is said to have doubted the virgin birth. After she inserted her finger into Mary’s vagina, her hands withered. An illustration in a French prayer book from Paris dating to about 1490-1500 shows the midwife with missing hands. The story explained that her hands grew back after she touched the child Christ.

Menologion of Basil II, an 11th-century illuminated Byzantine manuscript with 430 miniatures depicting the Nativity of Christ, now in the Vatican library.
Via Wikimedia Commons

The representation of midwives, as seen in an 11th-century manuscript from Constantinople, is still common in the Eastern church.

Ideas change over time and place

New modes of spirituality in later centuries brought changes in art. St. Bridget of Sweden, who founded a new order of nuns, left a large body or writing, including what she believed were revelations from God. One of her revelations included a vision of Christ’s birth she experienced in Bethlehem in 1371–72.

Although Bridget had given birth eight times, she described Mary’s delivery as “in the twinkling of any eye.” Bridget said she “was unable to notice or discern how or in what member (Mary) was giving birth.” By “member” she may have meant that she did not know through what part of Mary’s body Jesus emerged. Many paintings between the 15th and 16th centuries adopted her vision and showed the child surrounded by light and the Virgin calmly worshipping him.

Hugo van der Goes’ ‘The Adoration of the Shepherds,’ 1476-79.
Florence Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence

A painting by Belgian artist Hugo van der Goes, in about 1475, follows Bridget’s vision of the birth. Instead of being “wrapped in swaddling clothes,” Christ lies naked, perfectly clean, in the “great and ineffable light” that Bridget described.

Each era and community produces art that speaks to its own priorities. Fifteenth-century Italy introduced traditions of a miraculous childbirth that were different from a realistic tradition cherished by early Christians of the second century. I would argue that “Crowning” is but one more example of such cultural change. Here, Mary is an inspiration for other women, physically strong and capable even in the difficult process of giving birth.

The sculpture, when intact, was barely 15 inches tall, a clear indication that it was not made for large-scale public veneration. It was a meditative image designed for a one-on-one encounter – for those who decided to engage. Läs mer…

The 2024 Nobel Prizes in physics and chemistry have given us a glimpse of the future of science. Artificial intelligence (AI) was central to the discoveries honoured by both awards. You have to wonder what Alfred Nobel, who founded the prizes, would think of it all.

We are certain to see many more Nobel medals handed to researchers who made use of AI tools. As this happens, we may find the scientific methods honoured by the Nobel committee depart from straightforward categories like “physics”, “chemistry” and “physiology or medicine”.

We may also see the scientific backgrounds of recipients retain a looser connection with these categories. This year’s physics prize was awarded to the American John Hopfield, at Princeton University, and British-born Geoffrey Hinton, from the University of Toronto. While Hopfield is a physicist, Hinton studied experimental psychology before gravitating to AI.

The chemistry prize was shared between biochemist David Baker, from the University of Washington, and the computer scientists Demis Hassabis and John Jumper, who are both at Google DeepMind in the UK.

There is a close connection between the AI-based advances honoured in the physics and chemistry categories. Hinton helped develop an approach used by DeepMind to make its breakthrough in predicting the shapes of proteins.

The physics laureates, Hinton in particular, laid the foundations of the powerful field known as machine learning. This is a subset of AI that’s concerned with algorithms, sets of rules for performing specific computational tasks.

Hopfield’s work is not particularly in use today, but the backpropagation algorithm (co-invented by Hinton) has had a tremendous impact on many different sciences and technologies. This is concerned with neural networks, a model of computing that mimics the human brain’s structure and function to process data. Backpropagation allows scientists to “train” enormous neural networks. While the Nobel committee did its best to connect this influential algorithm to physics, it’s fair to say that the link is not a direct one.

Proteins can now be quickly designed to counter viruses.
Radoxist Studio / Shutterstock

Training a machine-learning system involves exposing it to vast amounts of data, often from the internet. Hinton’s advance ultimately enabled the training of systems such as GPT (the technology behind ChatGPT), and the AI algorithms AlphaGo and AlphaFold, developed by Google DeepMind. So, backpropagation’s impact has been enormous.

DeepMind’s AlphaFold 2 solved a 50-year-old problem: predicting the complex structures of proteins from their molecular building blocks, amino acids.

Every two years, since 1994, scientists have been holding a contest to find the best ways to predict protein structures and shapes from the sequences of their amino acids. The competition is called Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP).

For the past few contests, CASP winners have used some version of DeepMind’s AlphaFold. There is, therefore, a direct line to be drawn from Hinton’s backpropagation to Google DeepMind’s AlphaFold 2 breakthrough.

David Baker used a computer program called Rosetta to achieve the difficult feat of building new kinds of proteins. Both Baker’s and DeepMind’s approaches hold enormous potential for future applications.

Attributing credit has always been controversial aspect of the Nobel prizes. A maximum of three researchers can share a Nobel. But big advances in science are collaborative. Scientific papers may have 10, 20, 30 authors or more. More than one team might contribute to the discoveries honoured by the Nobel committee.

This year we may have further discussions about the attribution of the research on backpropagation algorithm, which has been claimed by various researchers, as well as for the general attribution of a discovery to a field like physics.

We now have a new dimension to the attribution problem. It’s increasingly unclear whether we will always be able to distinguish between the contributions of human scientists and those of their artificial collaborators – the AI tools that are already helping push forward the boundaries of our knowledge.

In the future, could we see machines take the place of scientists, with humans being consigned to a supporting role? If so, perhaps the AI tool will get the main Nobel prize with humans needing their own category. Läs mer…

As I finished my PhD in 1992, the universe was full of mystery – we didn’t even know exactly what it is made of. One could argue that cosmologists had made little progress in our understanding of these basic facts since the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the afterglow of the Big Bang, in the 1960s.

I left the UK after my doctoral studies to begin a research career in the US, where I was lucky to be recruited to work on a new experiment called the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). This new survey embraced advances in digital technologies with the ambition of measuring the “redshifts” (how light becomes more red if a source appears to move away from you) of a million galaxies.

These redshifts were then used to measure distances, and allowed cosmologists to map the three-dimensional structure of the universe.

One cosmic puzzle in the 1980s, based on the pioneering CfA Redshift Survey of Margaret Geller and John Huchra, was the significant lumpiness of galaxies, and therefore matter, in our cosmic neighbourhood. Galaxies were clustered together across a wide range of scales, with evidence for coherent “superclusters” of galaxies spanning over 30 million light years in length.

This article is part of our series Cosmology in crisis? which uncovers the greatest problems facing cosmologists today – and discusses the implications of solving them.

It was important to know how such superclusters could have formed from the smooth CMB, as it would tell us the total amount of matter in the universe and, more intriguingly, what that matter was made of. That was assuming the only force in play was gravity.

By the end of the first phase of the SDSS, we had achieved our goal of a million redshifts. This data was used to discover many superclusters across the universe, including the amazing “Sloan Great Wall”, which remains one of the largest known coherent structures in the universe, over a billion light years in length.

Type 1A supernova remnant.
Nasa/CXC/U.Texas

I am lucky to have lived through this amazing era of cosmic discovery around the turn of the century. Surveys like SDSS, combined with new observations of the CMB and searches for distant exploding stars known as Type Ia Supernovae (SNeIa), coincided to deliver an emphatic answer to the question: “What is the universe made of?”

The discovery of dark energy

From 1999 to 2004, the cosmological community came together to agree that the universe was 5% normal (baryonic) matter, 25% dark matter (unknown, invisible matter), and 70% “dark energy” (an expansive force) – essentially a cosmological constant, which was first postulated by Einstein. The discovery that the universe was dominated by this constant energy shocked everyone, especially as Einstein had called the cosmological constant his “biggest blunder”.

Today, cosmologists still agree this is the most likely make-up of our universe. But observational cosmologists like me have refined our measurements of these cosmic variables significantly – reducing the errors on these quantities.

The latest numbers from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) indicate that 31.5% of the universe is matter (a combination of dark and normal), with the remainder being dark energy assuming a cosmological constant. The error on this measurement is just 3%.

Knowing these numbers to higher precision will hopefully help cosmologists understand why the universe is like this. Why would we expect to have 70% of the universe today as “dark” (can’t be seen via electromagnetic radiation) and not associated with “matter” like everything else in the universe?

The origin of this dark energy remains the biggest challenge to physics, even after 20 years of intense study.

Intriguing measurements

Like me, a few cosmologists have become distracted by other problems over the last two decades. However, 2024 could be the start of a new era of discovery. This year, cosmologists published new results based on two of our best cosmological probes.

The first probe consists of exploding stars dubbed “SNeIa”. As these stars have a narrow range of masses, their explosions can be well calibrated, giving cosmologists a predictable brightness that can be seen far away. By comparing the known brightness of these SNeIa to their redshifts, we can determine the expansion history of the universe. These objects were, in fact, critical for discovering that the expansion of our universe is accelerating.

The second probe works by looking at Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) – relics of predictable sound waves in the plasma (charged gas) of the early universe, before the CMB. These are now frozen into the large-scale structure of galaxies around us. Like SNeIa, their predictable size can be compared with their observed size today to measure the expansion history of the universe.

Recently, DES reported its final SNeIa results from over a decade of work, detecting and characterising many thousands of supernova events. While these SNeIa results are consistent with the orthodox view that the universe is dominated by a cosmological constant, they do leave open the tantalising possibility of new physics – namely, that the dark energy could be varying with cosmic time.

That said, scientists are trained to be sceptical, and there are many reasons to distrust a single experiment, single observation, or even a single set of cosmologists!

Cosmologists now go to extraordinary lengths to “blind” their results from themselves during analysis of the data, only revealing the answer at the last moment. This blinding is done to avoid unconscious human biases affecting the work, which could possibly encourage people to get the answer they believe they should see.

This is why repeatability of results is at the heart of all science. In cosmology, we cherish the need for multiple experiments checking and challenging each other.

The second result to turn heads was the first BAO measurements from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), successor to the SDSS. The first DESI map of the cosmos is deeper and denser than the original SDSS. Its first BAO results are intriguing – the data alone is still consistent with a cosmological constant, but with hints of a possible time-varying dark energy when combined with other data sources.

DESI in the dome of the Nicholas U. Mayall 4-meter Telescope at the Kitt Peak National Observatory.
wikipedia, CC BY-SA

In particular, when DESI analyses the combination of its BAO results with the final DES SNeIa data, the significance of a time-varying dark energy increases to 3.9 sigma (a measure of how unusual a set of data is if a hypothesis is true) – only 0.6% chance of being a statistical fluke.

Most of us would take such odds, but scientists have been hurt before by systematic errors within their data that can mimic such statistical certainty. Particle physicists therefore demand a discovery standard of 5 sigma for any claims of new physics – or less than a one in a million chance of being wrong!

As scientists will say: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Mindboggling implications

Are we entering a new era of cosmological discovery? If so, what would it mean?

The answer to my first question is probably yes. The next few years will be fun for cosmologists, with new data and results due from the European Space Agency’s Euclid mission. Launched last year, it is already scanning the sky with unprecedented accuracy.

Likewise, DESI will get more and better data, while the European Southern Observatory starts its own massive redshift survey in 2025. Then you have the Rubin Observatory in Chile coming online soon. Combining these datasets should prove beyond doubt if dark energy varies with cosmic time.

If it does, it implies there is less dark energy now than in the past. This could be caused by many things but, interestingly, it could signify the end of a present, accelerated phase of the expansion of the universe.

It also implies that dark energy is probably not a cosmological constant thought to be due to the background energy associated with empty space. According to quantum mechanics, empty space isn’t really empty, with particles popping in and out of existence creating something we call “vacuum energy”. Ironically, predictions of this vacuum energy do not agree with our cosmological observations by many orders of magnitude.

So, if we did discover that dark energy varies over time, it might explain why observations are at odds with quantum mechanics, which is an extremely well-tested theory. This would suggest the assumption in the standard model of cosmology, that dark energy is constant, needs a rethink. Such a realisation may help solve other mysteries about the universe – or pose new ones.

In short, the new cosmological observations coming this decade will stimulate a new era of physical thinking. Congratulations to my younger cosmologists: it is your era to have fun.

Read more:
The earliest galaxies formed amazingly fast after the Big Bang. Do they break the universe or change its age?

Read more:
Astronomers can’t agree on how fast the universe is expanding. New approaches are aiming to break the impasse

Read more:
The universe is smoother than the standard model of cosmology suggests – so is the theory broken?

Read more:
Cosmology is at a tipping point – we may be on the verge of discovering new physics Läs mer…

As I finished my PhD in 1992, the universe was full of mystery – we didn’t even know exactly what it is made of. One could argue that cosmologists had made little progress in our understanding of these basic facts since the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the afterglow of the Big Bang, in the 1960s.

I left the UK after my doctoral studies to begin a research career in the US, where I was lucky to be recruited to work on a new experiment called the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). This new survey embraced advances in digital technologies with the ambition of measuring the “redshifts” (how light becomes more red if a source appears to move away from you) of a million galaxies.

These redshifts were then used to measure distances, and allowed cosmologists to map the three-dimensional structure of the universe.

One cosmic puzzle in the 1980s, based on the pioneering CfA Redshift Survey of Margaret Geller and John Huchra, was the significant lumpiness of galaxies, and therefore matter, in our cosmic neighbourhood. Galaxies were clustered together across a wide range of scales, with evidence for coherent “superclusters” of galaxies spanning over 30 million light years in length.

This article is part of our series Cosmology in crisis? which uncovers the greatest problems facing cosmologists today – and discusses the implications of solving them.

It was important to know how such superclusters could have formed from the smooth CMB, as it would tell us the total amount of matter in the universe and, more intriguingly, what that matter was made of. That was assuming the only force in play was gravity.

By the end of the first phase of the SDSS, we had achieved our goal of a million redshifts. This data was used to discover many superclusters across the universe, including the amazing “Sloan Great Wall”, which remains one of the largest known coherent structures in the universe, over a billion light years in length.

Type 1A supernova remnant.
Nasa/CXC/U.Texas

I am lucky to have lived through this amazing era of cosmic discovery around the turn of the century. Surveys like SDSS, combined with new observations of the CMB and searches for distant exploding stars known as Type Ia Supernovae (SNeIa), coincided to deliver an emphatic answer to the question: “What is the universe made of?”

The discovery of dark energy

From 1999 to 2004, the cosmological community came together to agree that the universe was 5% normal (baryonic) matter, 25% dark matter (unknown, invisible matter), and 70% “dark energy” (an expansive force) – essentially a cosmological constant, which was first postulated by Einstein. The discovery that the universe was dominated by this constant energy shocked everyone, especially as Einstein had called the cosmological constant his “biggest blunder”.

Today, cosmologists still agree this is the most likely make-up of our universe. But observational cosmologists like me have refined our measurements of these cosmic variables significantly – reducing the errors on these quantities.

The latest numbers from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) indicate that 31.5% of the universe is matter (a combination of dark and normal), with the remainder being dark energy assuming a cosmological constant. The error on this measurement is just 3%.

Knowing these numbers to higher precision will hopefully help cosmologists understand why the universe is like this. Why would we expect to have 70% of the universe today as “dark” (can’t be seen via electromagnetic radiation) and not associated with “matter” like everything else in the universe?

The origin of this dark energy remains the biggest challenge to physics, even after 20 years of intense study.

Intriguing measurements

Like me, a few cosmologists have become distracted by other problems over the last two decades. However, 2024 could be the start of a new era of discovery. This year, cosmologists published new results based on two of our best cosmological probes.

The first probe consists of exploding stars dubbed “SNeIa”. As these stars have a narrow range of masses, their explosions can be well calibrated, giving cosmologists a predictable brightness that can be seen far away. By comparing the known brightness of these SNeIa to their redshifts, we can determine the expansion history of the universe. These objects were, in fact, critical for discovering that the expansion of our universe is accelerating.

The second probe works by looking at Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) – relics of predictable sound waves in the plasma (charged gas) of the early universe, before the CMB. These are now frozen into the large-scale structure of galaxies around us. Like SNeIa, their predictable size can be compared with their observed size today to measure the expansion history of the universe.

Recently, DES reported its final SNeIa results from over a decade of work, detecting and characterising many thousands of supernova events. While these SNeIa results are consistent with the orthodox view that the universe is dominated by a cosmological constant, they do leave open the tantalising possibility of new physics – namely, that the dark energy could be varying with cosmic time.

That said, scientists are trained to be sceptical, and there are many reasons to distrust a single experiment, single observation, or even a single set of cosmologists!

Cosmologists now go to extraordinary lengths to “blind” their results from themselves during analysis of the data, only revealing the answer at the last moment. This blinding is done to avoid unconscious human biases affecting the work, which could possibly encourage people to get the answer they believe they should see.

This is why repeatability of results is at the heart of all science. In cosmology, we cherish the need for multiple experiments checking and challenging each other.

The second result to turn heads was the first BAO measurements from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), successor to the SDSS. The first DESI map of the cosmos is deeper and denser than the original SDSS. Its first BAO results are intriguing – the data alone is still consistent with a cosmological constant, but with hints of a possible time-varying dark energy when combined with other data sources.

DESI in the dome of the Nicholas U. Mayall 4-meter Telescope at the Kitt Peak National Observatory.
wikipedia, CC BY-SA

In particular, when DESI analyses the combination of its BAO results with the final DES SNeIa data, the significance of a time-varying dark energy increases to 3.9 sigma (a measure of how unusual a set of data is if a hypothesis is true) – only 0.6% chance of being a statistical fluke.

Most of us would take such odds, but scientists have been hurt before by systematic errors within their data that can mimic such statistical certainty. Particle physicists therefore demand a discovery standard of 5 sigma for any claims of new physics – or less than a one in a million chance of being wrong!

As scientists will say: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Mindboggling implications

Are we entering a new era of cosmological discovery? If so, what would it mean?

The answer to my first question is probably yes. The next few years will be fun for cosmologists, with new data and results due from the European Space Agency’s Euclid mission. Launched last year, it is already scanning the sky with unprecedented accuracy.

Likewise, DESI will get more and better data, while the European Southern Observatory starts its own massive redshift survey in 2025. Then you have the Rubin Observatory in Chile coming online soon. Combining these datasets should prove beyond doubt if dark energy varies with cosmic time.

If it does, it implies there is less dark energy now than in the past. This could be caused by many things but, interestingly, it could signify the end of a present, accelerated phase of the expansion of the universe.

It also implies that dark energy is probably not a cosmological constant thought to be due to the background energy associated with empty space. According to quantum mechanics, empty space isn’t really empty, with particles popping in and out of existence creating something we call “vacuum energy”. Ironically, predictions of this vacuum energy do not agree with our cosmological observations by many orders of magnitude.

So, if we did discover that dark energy varies over time, it might explain why observations are at odds with quantum mechanics, which is an extremely well-tested theory. This would suggest the assumption in the standard model of cosmology, that dark energy is constant, needs a rethink. Such a realisation may help solve other mysteries about the universe – or pose new ones.

In short, the new cosmological observations coming this decade will stimulate a new era of physical thinking. Congratulations to my younger cosmologists: it is your era to have fun.

Read more:
The earliest galaxies formed amazingly fast after the Big Bang. Do they break the universe or change its age?

Read more:
Astronomers can’t agree on how fast the universe is expanding. New approaches are aiming to break the impasse

Read more:
The universe is smoother than the standard model of cosmology suggests – so is the theory broken?

Read more:
Cosmology is at a tipping point – we may be on the verge of discovering new physics Läs mer…

Sloths are more vulnerable to the rising temperatures associated with climate change than other mammals, due to their unique physiology.

In a new study, my colleagues and I found that sloths’ ability to adapt to warming temperatures varies between the cooler, high-altitude and warmer, low-altitude forests of Costa Rica.

Unlike most mammals, sloths do not actively regulate their body temperature. Like reptiles, they rely heavily on ambient temperature to do so. This affects all aspects of their survival, including digestion, metabolism and movement. Combined with their extremely low-calorie, relatively inflexible leaf-based diet, these traits mean sloths have much less energy at their disposal than most other mammals.

As sloth body temperatures become hotter with rising temperatures, their metabolic rate increases. But those with sharply increasing metabolic rates are at risk of lower survival rates when temperatures rise, compared with other sloths.

The author, Heather Ewart, returns a wild three-fingered sloth back to its point of capture following the application of a GPS tracking collar and accelerometer.
Heather Ewart, CC BY-NC-ND

Together with colleagues, including the founder of UK-based Sloth Conservation Foundation Rebecca Cliffe, I found that their degree of vulnerability depends on the altitude of the forests where each sloth originates from.

We calculated the metabolic rates of high- and low-altitude sloths across a range of temperatures using a method called respirometery. This involves putting a sloth in a large, closed box (comfortably) to measure how much oxygen it consumes at each temperature within an allotted time period.

Lowland sloths were able to slow their metabolic rate when temperatures became too hot. This is an important survival mechanism that may benefit these populations as climate change continues.

Highland sloths were unable to slow their metabolic rate, which increased with temperature and became critical above 32°C. Highland sloths are at another disadvantage – cooler, high-altitude forests tend to be smaller due to the slower growth rate of trees at higher elevations coupled with habitat loss. Highland sloths are therefore much less able to migrate and are more restricted than lowland sloths.

Sloths can’t adapt their metabolism quickly so are at risk from rising temperatures.
Rebecca Cliffe, CC BY-NC-ND

Sloths with higher metabolic rates use more energy, so they need to eat more food to produce more energy. However, due to their extremely slow rates of food intake and digestion, sloths take much longer to process food into energy than other mammals. Essentially, sloths cannot simply eat more food to match their energy requirements or achieve “energy balance” – the state where calories consumed equals calories burnt through physical activity.

Combined with inflexible migration options, the restricted metabolism of highland sloths makes them especially vulnerable to climate change. However, while lowland sloths appear to have more flexible metabolic responses to warming temperatures, they won’t be able to escape the effects of climate change if temperature increases are too extreme, putting their survival at risk as well.

There is a considerable lack of data on the current status and abundance of sloths. No comprehensive, long-term population monitoring has been conducted at a scale that reflects the true challenges sloths face.

Conserving cooler microclimates

My team of ecologists, who have been studying sloth behaviour and abundance across Costa Rica for 15 years, are concerned about how sloths are being affected by climate change. Areas once highly populated are now devoid of sloths, driven primarily by habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from extensive destruction of rainforests.

Costa Rica has transformed into a predominantly urban society over the past 40 years, with its urban footprint increasing by 112%. In the Talamanca province, where our team currently tracks wild sloths, urban sprawl has increased substantially with an estimated 3,000 sloths lost annually. Electrocution is one of the leading causes of admissions to wild animal sanctuaries in Costa Rica, partly because sloths use power lines to cross between fragmented forests in certain places.

A two-fingered sloth uses power lines over a busy road to move between trees.
Heather Ewart, CC BY-NC-ND

Both native sloth species of Costa Rica are now listed as conservation concerns. Globally, an estimated 40% of all sloth species are threatened with extinction. Climate change poses a serious threat – and sloth conservation efforts need to take this into account. We predict that rising temperatures will have devastating consequences for sloths’ ability to maintain their energy balance and survive.

Sloth conservation is crucial, as they play a vital role in keeping the rainforest ecosystem healthy. Sloths are herbivores (plant eaters) that help regulate plant growth and recycle nutrients. They are an integral part of the food web, hosting a diverse ecosystem of unique organisms in their fur and serving as prey for other animals, such as ocelots and jaguars.

Protecting sloths is an incredibly complex challenge. Right now, natural habitats must be preserved and restored to support cooler microclimates. Particularly in vulnerable high-altitude regions, remaining forest fragments should be reconnected by building wildlife corridors – strips of natural habitat that connect fragmented areas and allow animals to move more easily.

Sloth conservation is challenging.
Katarzyna Przygodzka/Shutterstock

Sloth conservation can only be achieved by addressing the root issue: climate change. A global, coordinated effort is required, with strict adherence to international climate accords such as the Paris agreement to limit global warming to below 1.5°C and prevent irreversible damage to rainforests.

If climate change continues unchecked, sloths won’t be able to migrate like other species. Once their environment becomes too hot, their survival is unlikely. Sloth conservation is directly linked to the actions humanity now takes to preserve our planet.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 35,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far. Läs mer…

Pennsylvania has many slogans and nicknames. “The Keystone State.” “State of Independence.” “Home of beer, chocolate, and liberty and Taylor Swift.” And now: “centre of the political universe”.

According to recent analysis by political statistician Nate Silver, how Pennsylvania swings on November 5 is likely to determine the next leader of the free world. If Kamala Harris wins the state, her odds of taking the White House reach 91%. If Trump wins, his odds skyrocket to 96%.

That’s how much Pennsylvania’s 19 electoral votes matter (270 are needed to win the Electoral College), and how much the state is a bellwether nationally for how each candidate is performing with “must-win” voters.

Nearly every statewide poll conducted in Pennsylvania (PA) in the last month shows a statistical tie in the presidential contest. FiveThirtyEight forecasts in its simulations that Harris would win the state 54 times out of 100 elections and Trump 46 times, meaning the state is a virtual toss-up.

In 2016, Trump pulled off a narrow upset in PA, defeating Democrat Hillary Clinton 48.2 to 47.5%. The victory cracked the crucial “Blue Wall,” alongside Michigan and Wisconsin, which paved Trump’s path to the White House. In 2020, President Joe Biden, thanks partly to touting his family’s roots in the working-class city of Scranton, beat Trump in Pennsylvania 50 to 48.8%. In the last 10 elections, Pennsylvania has selected the eventual occupant of the Oval Office eight times.

iliya Mitskovets / Alamy

The world is watching as the US election campaign unfolds. Sign up to join us at a special Conversation event on October 17. Expert panellists will discuss with the audience the upcoming election and its possible fallout.

Beyond the race for the White House, arguably there’s nowhere else with a more high-stakes race. Most notably, incumbent Democratic Senator Bob Casey has been exchanging barbs with Republican challenger Dave McCormick in an election that could tip the balance of the US Congress.

Bellwether state

Democratic political strategist James Carville once quipped that Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between. Today, one could say it’s the Land of Walmart, Tractor Supply Co. and Fox News v the Land of Starbucks, Lululemon stores and MSNBC.

Zooming out, an electoral map of the state looks a lot like that of the country: vast swaths of Republican red in the rural, central parts of the state, and dashes of Democratic deep blue in the east and the west denoting its population centres.

Pennsylvania reflects the political realignment of both the Democratic and Republican parties in the last decade plus. Predominantly white, blue-collar Americans have gravitated to the Republican party. Meanwhile affluent urbanites have remade the Democratic party, formerly a base for the working class, into the party of the college educated and those who are less likely to be religious. But the Democrats still pick up 49% of the non-college educated and their share of the suburban vote has been rising.

Trump support banners on the street in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.
Author, Author provided (no reuse)

Neither presidential candidate, however, is writing off key constituencies in PA. The Harris team has opened up 50 headquarters across Pennsylvania in an effort to make inroads in conservative, rural communities. Meanwhile, Trump has made a major play for Black voters and had looked like he was on track to win the highest support from Black voters of any Republican presidential candidate in history.

Particularly up for grabs are moderate suburbanites, such as those on Philadelphia’s “Main Line” (an area of well-off suburbs) and in upscale outskirts of the state capital of Harrisburg, who tend to be more liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues.

Democrats have a slight edge in overall registration numbers in PA, at 44% compared to Republicans at 40% (12% of Pennsylvanians identify as independents). However, the registration advantage for Democrats is the thinnest it’s been in decades.

Big spending and big issues

As 2024’s biggest electoral prize, no state has been bombarded with more cash and attention than PA. Harris and Trump have criss-crossed the state for months at locations such as the Pennsylvania Farm Show Complex (a huge agricultural showground) and at union rallies.

Harris and her allies have spent US$21.2 million (£16.9 million) on political ads in Pennsylvania (that’s three times what they’ve spent in Georgia, twice what they’ve spent in Michigan and 18 times what they’ve spent in North Carolina). To match, Trump and his allies have doled out $20.9 million in PA (twice what they’ve spent in Georgia, three times than they’ve spent in Michigan and eight times what they’ve spent in North Carolina).

Dollars have funnelled into negative ads galore on the many issues that Americans more broadly face, including inflation and the cost of living crisis, crime, abortion and immigration. The war in Ukraine has featured as an especially central issue for Pennsylvania’s large Polish community in an attempt by the Democrats to harness historic fears about Russia.

No topic, however, has sparked more controversy than fracking, the process of extracting oil and gas from underground rock. PA has become a national leader in fracking, triggering outrage among environmentalists, even as advocates tout the industry as an enormous wealth and job creator for the state.

Harris, who declared as a Democratic presidential primary candidate in 2019 that: “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking,” now says “let me be absolutely clear, as I’ve been when I said it back in 2020, I will not ban fracking”. Trump has unequivocally championed fracking as part of his “drill, baby, drill” message on lowering prices and creating domestic energy independence.

What’s in store

If Pennsylvania’s presidential race is anywhere near as tight as the polls suggest, a winner might not be announced in Pennsylvania, or the country, on election night. With the counting of absentee and overseas ballots (and the possibility of a recount), the process could drag on for days, if not weeks.

That’s one reason why both sides are already “lawyered-up” in anticipation of litigious combat. In 2020, the US Supreme Court declined to intervene in a case in Pennsylvania that tested rules surrounding the timing of when mail-in votes could still be counted. However, other aspects of electoral protocols or the integrity of ballots could again be challenged.

Already in 2024, Pennsylvania has been politically consequential. The first assassination attempt of Trump occurred in the tiny town of Butler, PA. Harris’s decision to snub popular state governor Josh Shapiro as her running mate also raised concerns, and could lead to considerable second-guessing if she loses PA and the presidency. Pennsylvania also hosted the one (and likely only) debate between Harris and Trump.

Whether Harris or Trump ends up as president will depend on whether their political stars align. Either way, those stars revolve around Pennsylvania, the centre of the political universe. Läs mer…

The Middle East is perilously close to all-out war. In the year since the October 7 Hamas-led attacks on Israel, millions of people have been displaced from their homes in Gaza, Israel, the West Bank and now Lebanon, and tens of thousands killed.

After Israel killed Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Iranian-backed militia Hezbollah, Iran launched a barrage of ballistic missiles against Israel on October 1. As the world waits to see how Israel will retaliate, Israel’s military continues to attack Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and in Beirut.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to two experts from the Middle East, Mireille Rebeiz and Amnon Aran, to get a sense of the strategic calculations being made by both Israel and its neighbours at this frightening moment for the region.

Mireille Rebeiz is the chair of Middle East studies at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania in the US and an expert on Hezbollah. She says that since launching its manifesto in 1985 Hezbollah has always positioned itself “in opposition to the existence of the state of Israel”.

It affirmed the dedication to the Palestinian cause. It affirmed its commitment to the Iranian revolution and the Shi’ite ideology.

Rebeiz says Iran’s military goals are completely aligned with Hezbollah’s and traces them back to the US’s destabilisation of Iraq.

When Iraq fell into a full chaos and war (it) allowed for Iran to meddle into Iraq and gave a big voice to the Shiite conservative voices.

Then followed the 2011 Syrian civil war, in which Hezbollah stepped in to defend the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

It’s a domino effect – it’s expansion from Iran to Iraq to Syria to Lebanon. And this is clearly visible in Iran’s military goals, which is ultimately the expansion of the Iranian ideology in the region. Honestly, at this point, I would say there is an attempt to hide behind the Palestinian cause to achieve that goal.

Israel’s choices

Amnon Aran is a professor of international relations at City St George’s, University of London, in the UK, and an expert in Israeli foreign policy. Aran says that for Israel, the past 12 months have been described as an “existential moment”, which has informed the war in the Gaza Strip and now Lebanon.

When the question came about how to respond to this existential threat, it was very much from the prism of what I called elsewhere, a form of entrenchment, which really means that Israel only makes peace in exchange for peace. Any diplomatic arrangement has to be dependent upon and subordinate to a military advantageous balance of power towards Israel and that the Palestinians in the West Bank, and now in the Gaza Strip, would remain under Israeli occupation for the foreseeable future.

Aran says there is fierce debate in Israel about what to do now. One side follows the line of thinking of the former Israeli prime minister, Nafthali Bennett, who took to X in early October to say that: “Israel now has its greatest opportunity in 50 years to change the face of the Middle East.” This camp is arguing that with Hezbollah weakened, this is the moment to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

On the other side, Aran says, are those in the military establishment arguing against attacking Israel’s nuclear facilities and instead focus on weakening Hezbollah as much as possible. This camp’s reasoning is that:

After a year of being in a prolonged and very difficult conflict, the next question is you are actually starting a war presumably on five or six fronts, including a very vast country, 90 million people, Iran, with a very rich history, and you are actually entering into a very new phase, which could become very prolonged.

To hear the full interviews with Mireille Rebeiz and Amnon Aran, listen to The Conversation Weekly podcast.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was produced by Mend Mariwany. Sound design was by Michelle Macklem, and our theme music is by Neeta Sarl. Gemma Ware is the executive producer.

You can find us on Instagram at theconversationdotcom or via email. You can also subscribe to The Conversation’s free daily email here.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. Läs mer…

Angry, accusatory partisan exchanges over the Middle East war have dominated federal politics this week. But for most ordinary voters the issue remains “over there”.

Apart from the minorities for whom it has an immediate impact – Jewish people frightened by antisemitism, the Muslim community, those with families in Lebanon and elsewhere – it’s a tragedy without tangible relevance to their day-to-day lives.

On Thursday however, Treasurer Jim Chalmers warned the foreign crisis could feed directly into the domestic cost-of-living crisis, via the price of oil.

Midway through this week, oil was trading 11% lower than it was a year ago, but 7% higher than a week-and-a-half ago, Chalmers told a news conference.

Treasury estimates that if prices were 10% higher for an entire year, this would reduce Australia’s GDP by 0.1% and increase the consumer price index by 0.4 percentage points.

Nothing is certain about the coming months but the potential implications are obvious. Consumers would feel the effects at the petrol pump of the higher oil prices.

ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb and Treasurer Jim Chalmers at a press conference on Thursday.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

The Reserve Bank will also be watching the possible trajectory of oil prices, together with all the other indicators relevant to its decisions on interest rates. This is against the background of the government’s desperation for a rate cut (or two) before the election.

Although an increase in fuel prices (hitting businesses as well as families) would not be the government’s fault, it would be blamed.

According to Labor, at present there’s a disconnect between, on the one hand, the partisan political heat the Middle East war is generating and, on the other, the public’s lack of engagement with the issue.

Voters not concentraing on the Middle East

Labor sources say focus group research this week, done with swinging voters, found most people aren’t closely following Middle East events.

Beyond that, they are generally satisfied with the government’s stand and don’t think the crisis is distracting it from the cost of living (which is separate from how they think the government is handling the cost of living).

This accords with this week’s Essential poll, in which 56% said they were satisfied with the government’s response on the Israel-Gaza war. Another 30% thought the government had been too supportive of Israel; 14% thought it had been too harsh on Israel.

Except among some of those directly invested, the Middle East crisis is not likely to be a vote changer.

In the domestic political battle, Dutton is trying to use the conflict to paint Albanese as weak. That’s a long bow on the issue itself, although more generally the prime minister and his government have come to be seen as having lost their way.

While Dutton is trying to define Albanese negatively, Albanese is attempting to make Dutton a bigger target.

NBN sale a distraction

Thus on Wednesday the prime minister, shortly before he jumped on his plane to attend the ASEAN-Australia summit in Laos, personally introduced legislation that would ensure the NBN remained in public hands.

If the Coalition didn’t vote for the bill, that would show it would sell the NBN, Labor claimed. It was a crude attempt at scare politics, easily seen through. The Coalition is not suggesting it would sell the NBN and if it did, would most people care? Anyway, originally Labor planned for the NBN to be privatised. Dutton ridiculed the tactic.

As we look to election year, the 2025 parliamentary sitting calendar came out this week. It has a fortnight sitting in February and pencils in a budget for March 25, which would set up a May poll. Of course this doesn’t rule out an earlier (March) election although Albanese has said more than once he plans a pre-election budget.

Regardless, we are already in the election campaign. At caucus on Tuesday Albanese was, for the second time recently, talking about the second term agenda.

Announcements like confetti

Announcements are raining down like confetti especially related to cost-of-living issues. Supermarkets are being heavily targeted. Launching his merger reform legislation on Thursday, Chalmers said every supermarket merger would be screened, regardless of whether it fell under the new arrangements.

Present polls are showing the most likely election result, to be delivered by sour voters, is a hung parliament with a minority Labor government.

Albanese told caucus he was focused on winning majority government. Dutton knows that if the Coalition can’t win, the more crossbenchers it can force Labor to need to rely on, the more unstable a second-term Labor government would be.

Both sides have a great deal of bedding-down to do before the actual campaign.

Key items on Labor’s legislative agenda aren’t just not introduced, they are unseen – for instance, on gambling advertising, social media restrictions for young people, electoral funding.

Major bills are stuck in the parliament – notably on housing, where the Greens may eventually do a deal but are stringing out the pain.

On the other side, the Coalition has released minimal policy. On its controversial nuclear power plan, it has put out minimal details, in particular refusing to produce costings. It can’t hold back everything until the last moment.

Will the campaign even matter?

When the formal campaign comes, how much will it matter?

There is the old saying “you can’t fatten the pig on market day”. In other words, the election result may be decided well before the actual campaign.

What do the last three elections (2016, 2019, 2022) tell us about the importance of the formal campaign? In each case, the result was narrow, a matter of a handful of seats.

In 2022, there was probably nothing Morrison could have done in the last weeks to salvage the situation – to use another farm metaphor, his goose was cooked. In the event, he ran a bad campaign.

In 2016 prime minister Malcolm Turnbull just scraped home; Turnbull’s flawed campaigning maximised the number of seats he lost.

In 2019, when it seemed Bill Shorten was almost certain to take Labor to victory, its defeat may have been sealed in the campaign itself, although its heavy policy load always put it in a precarious situation.

In 2022 Albanese was judged a poor campaigner. Aware of this, Labor strategists will be doing everything to make sure he is fully prepared for “gotcha” questions (on which he faltered last time) and the other hazards that can arise spontaneously.

Dutton’s forte is negativity, his natural style is the attack. But in those final weeks, more will be needed.

One challenge in leaving policy releases late is that holes can slip through, inviting slip ups.

Dutton has far from established himself as a rounded alternative prime minister. Indeed his current approach on the Middle East, completely lacking nuance, raises questions about how he would handle the complexities of foreign policy generally. It has not been reassuring. Läs mer…

On Thursday, federal Education Minister Jason Clare introduced a school funding bill to parliament.

The bill aims to set a new “floor” for how much the federal government contributes towards public school funding in Australia.

It would mean the Commonwealth has to contribute at least 20% of the schooling resource standard (how much funding a school needs to meet students’ educational needs) for public schools each year in all states and territories from 2025.

Clare argues it will provide “certainty” to schools, but it also comes in the middle of a standoff between the federal government and some states over school funding policy.

What’s in the bill?

The bill proposes to change the current arrangement, under which the Commonwealth contributes 20% to the schooling resource standard of public schools. As the government explains:

This means the 20 per cent will become the minimum, not the maximum, the Commonwealth contributes to public schools.

The Albanese government says the bill will increase “transparency and accountability” and ensure funding cannot go backwards.

But it cannot be certain of parliamentary support – Greens and independent senators are among those pushing for the government to provide more funding for public schools than is currently on the table.

The bill will remove a 20% cap on federal funding for public schools.
Bianca De Marchi/AAP, CC BY

The bigger picture

The bill also comes as the federal government is still trying to sign off new deals with some of the states and territories about their public school funding for next year.

The current agreements will run out at the end of the year. While the new proposed arrangements would increase the federal contribution, it’s not by as much as some states want.

So far, Clare has made agreements with Western Australia and Tasmania to increase the federal contribution from 20% to 22.5%. For the Northern Territory it will increase funding to a 40% contribution by 2029.

So far, it has not signed deals with New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and South Australia, which are pushing for a federal contribution of 25%.

The Australian Capital Territory is also yet to sign, despite its public schools receiving at least 100% of the schooling resource standard (via both federal and its own funds) for several years now.

Clare set a deadline of September 30 for the holdout states to sign on for the 2.5% funding boost, or risk losing an extra A$16 billion in funding. But that has passed without any compromise from either side.

Progress and politics

At the very least, the introduction of the bill to federal parliament is symbolically significant, particularly in light of the Commonwealth’s willingness to increase its contribution to the school resource standard of public schools.

But politics is never far away in school funding policy. Critics could argue the bill is more of a box-ticking exercise, rather than substantive reform. Indeed, the change in wording to a 20% minimum was inevitable given the specifics of the funding agreements already signed with Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory.

Critics might also point out national school funding policy is currently a bit of a mess, with four of the five most populous Australian states ignoring the government’s new funding deal. And they could remind us this agreement has already been delayed by a year. The previous one expired at the end of 2023 and was extended for 12 months by the Albanese government.

School funding has been beset with disagreement between the federal government and the states.
Dean Lewins/AAP

What happens to schools next year?

The bill does nothing to bring the holdout states any closer to signing on to the new funding agreement.

But this does not mean the federal government will withdraw its funding when school starts next year. Instead, the current funding arrangements will continue for another 12 months. This is why Clare says $16 billion in “additional investment” is on the table for public schools.

With a federal election due next year, it is even possible there will be no resolution before Australians go to the polls. This continues the fight over the schooling resource standard funding for public schools, which has has been ongoing since the so-called Gonski Review was made public in 2012. Läs mer…