Johansen.se

While Britain has for the most part had a strong commitment to free trade, it’s a very different story in the US, which has a long history of protectionism. This means that President Donald Trump’s tariff wars are playing out very differently politically on his side of the Atlantic. And there is no certainty that domestic opposition will be strong enough to curb his enthusiasm for using tariffs as a weapon.

Britain’s political economy is still shaped by the battle over free trade that took place nearly 200 years ago. The bitter debate over the Corn Laws, which put high tariffs on imported food to protect UK landowners, led to a political triumph for the new Liberal party. It also led to wide support among working people and manufacturers for a policy of free trade.

Britain’s domination of the world economy in the 19th century owed much to the triumph of free trade. And the British public still largely backs free trade today.

In contrast, many American politicians in the 19th century believed that US industry needed protection from its more efficient rivals. It was Alexander Hamilton, one of the authors of the US constitution and America’s first treasury secretary, who introduced tariffs in 1789. Hamilton cited the need to protect America’s “infant industries” from foreign competition.

By the end of the 19th century, US manufacturers had surpassed their British rivals. Protectionism, however, remained a cornerstone of American international economic policy. It was the expanding US domestic market and not exports to foreign countries that was driving the growth of America’s giant corporations – which were closely allied with the ruling Republican party.

Between 1861 and 1933, US tariffs on foreign imports averaged 50% – among the highest in the world. Tariffs also contributed nearly half of all government revenues. Federal income taxes were only introduced, after much opposition, in 1913.

The postwar turn

It was at the end of the second world war that the US moved to embrace free trade. But even then, political support was weak. In 1948 the US Congress rejected the proposed International Trade Organization, which would have regulated international trade. This had been part of the Bretton Woods negotiations that set up the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, and gave the dollar the leading role in the global economy.

The determining factor in the US endorsement of free trade was not economic gain, but political necessity. With the cold war in full swing, the US understood the need to help Europe and Japan’s economies flourish in order to resist the appeal of communism.

With American industry – greatly expanded by war – dominating the world economy, the political cost of allowing more foreign imports was low. And the potential benefits of selling more American goods abroad looked promising.

But this began to change in the 1970s, driven by the success of Japanese car manufacturers. In 1981 the US negotiated with Japan’s carmakers a voluntary cap on exports to the US of 1.68 million cars per year.

The WTO and after

Nevertheless, the US was still the driving force in trade liberalisation. Both Republicans and Democrats endorsed the benefits of globalisation, urging the spread of free trade and economic deregulation globally.

It was only in 1995, under President Bill Clinton, that the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created, giving full legal status to trade negotiations for the first time. But Clinton’s plan to host talks in Seattle in 1999 had to be cancelled after demonstrations by trade unionists and environmentalists paralysed the city.

The next meeting was held in 2001 in Doha, Qatar – where no protests were allowed – to launch talks that would widen trade liberalisation to cover agriculture and services. The most important result however was that China was admitted to the WTO, giving it full access to US and European markets.

It soon became clear that China’s manufacturing sector had a huge advantage over its US rivals. China’s trade surplus with the US soared (meaning it sold more to America than it bought from it), while US manufacturing jobs in the “rust belt” industrial regions fell into decline.

While economists could argue that overall, the benefits to US consumers of cheaper goods outweighed the costs to workers in some industries, this came at a a high political cost.

China surpassed the US to become a manufacturing powerhouse.
Jenson/Shutterstock

It was Trump who saw the opportunity this gave the Republican party to champion the white working class. These voters often felt deserted by the Democrats. Trump’s support of high tariffs, with the aim of restoring US manufacturing dominance and “reshoring” industry, may be unlikely to succeed in that aim. But that does not mean it is unpopular in those heartlands – the key swing states that Trump won in the 2024 election.

Attempts by the Biden administration to move in the same direction, including keeping Trump-era tariffs on Chinese imports and introducing subsidies for key manufacturing sectors, shows the way the political wind is blowing.

Of course, if the tariff wars cause a major recession in the US, this would be politically damaging. But the US is far less dependent on international trade than rivals like Japan, China and the EU.

Americans are doubtful about the value of expanding free trade. The issue is not high on the list of issues that most worry US voters, although there are sharp partisan divides on whether Trump’s higher tariffs will benefit or harm the US economy.

The Democrats are likely to fight the next election on domestic economic issues such as defending social security and boosting jobs and income. Meanwhile the WTO has effectively been rendered impotent, and we are unlikely to return to a world of globally agreed trade rules.

In fact, Britain, with one of the most open economies in the world, is particularly vulnerable. So, for the US, the political and economic cost of a trade war would be disproportionately felt overseas – something that the president will be well aware of. Läs mer…

Young people today face increasing levels of uncertainty. They’re navigating volatile job and housing markets and contending with a future that’s likely to be significantly marked by the climate crisis. Evidence also indicates that this generation is experiencing a sharp deterioration in mental health. Developing resilience is often hailed as the solution.

Resilience is typically framed as overcoming adversity and this tends to mean conforming to social norms. Staying in school, holding down a job, persevering no matter what. It’s an individual virtue, which places an emphasis on personal responsibility and self-reliance.

But this conventional understanding of what it means to be resilient, and what we expect to see when we ask young people to be resilient, may be overlooking the hidden ways they adapt and survive. It dismisses alternative responses, such as resistance, disengagement or inaction.

By redefining resilience to include different ways of adapting and the importance of support from others, we can create a more practical approach to handling uncertainty.

My research with colleagues has explored the unconventional side of resilience. It is based on interviews with 92 young people across four European countries, as well as further focus group discussions. It was part of a larger a European study of young people facing disadvantage across ten countries.

To understand the experiences of these young people, we spent time with them in their own spaces. These included youth centres, protest groups and online communities.

We held one-on-one conversations where young people shared their personal experiences, thoughts and struggles. And we worked with them in creative ways, often within workshops or group discussions, so they could help shape the research.

Through this work, we found that actions by the young people that might ordinarily be dismissed as failures can actually be hidden, unconventional forms of strength and adaptation in their own right. They reveal broader, more nuanced versions of resilience.

Take Liam, a 15-year-old in the UK who had been in care and was serving a community sentence. For Liam, school was a toxic environment filled with conflict and pressure from his peers and teachers. Although he was keen to achieve some academic qualifications and saw it as a source of pride, Liam made the decision to stop attending.

By leaving school, Liam reduced his risk of becoming drawn into problematic peer groups and criminal behaviour. While some might see leaving school as giving up, from Liam’s perspective it was a way to protect himself.

Samantha, at 24 years old, had experienced neglect from her parents and a lack of support from social workers. She often felt unheard and judged unfairly by those in authority, such as her social workers and educators.

Instead of disputing what they said, which had the potential to cause her a lot of upset and conflict, Samantha would quietly remove herself from those conversations. This might involve physically leaving the room, redirecting the discussion to a neutral topic, or simply disengaging emotionally by remaining silent.

What might seem like giving up was, for her, a form of resilience that protected her from further harm in the face of a system that had repeatedly let her down.

Learning to navigate uncertainty

The idea of promoting resilience among young people is to enable them to cope with living in an uncertain world. But young people often face issues that are impossible for them to overcome through their own efforts.

These can include unequal, limited access to quality education or stable job opportunities. They may be living in poverty and unstable housing, experiencing discrimination within education settings, social care or the criminal justice system. They may face inadequate mental health support, or the challenges of leaving the care system, such as insufficient preparation for independent living.

This is often coupled with limited access to supportive resources such as a lack of youth-friendly spaces or programs in underfunded communities. There may be insufficient availability of mentorship or guidance in schools, restricted access to affordable extracurricular activities, and limited pathways to secure housing or financial aid for young people transitioning out of care. Navigating these challenges cannot be addressed solely through personal effort.

Resilience can be built through receiving help from a community.
SynthEx/Shutterstock

Supporting resilience, then, can mean creating environments where they can safely explore options on how to handle challenges in a way that feels realistic and sustainable, make mistakes and learn how to adapt without fear of judgement.

At 16, Paco, from Spain, found himself in a self-managed youth club where young people decide on the youth workers they employ, the activities offered and how to engage with the neighbourhood. It was aimed at supporting those who, like Paco, were not studying or in work.

The staff and his peers didn’t just tell him what to do but listened to his thoughts and ideas. Unlike other places where he felt judged, this place gave him a chance to explore his ideas without fear of unduly harsh criticism.

Rather than dictating what he should do or emphasising rigid goals, people involved in the program actively listened to Paco’s thoughts and ideas, creating a space where he felt genuinely heard.

This approach focused on building trust, empowering Paco to make incremental changes at his own pace. Paco was supported back into study – something that he felt much more enthusiastic about – and was confident in getting his life back on track.

Thinking of resilience in this more flexible way – one which allows for what might look like failure, or accepting help from a community – challenges an understanding of resilience seen in neoliberal thinking. This is a philosophy that champions individual responsibility and self-reliance and is often tied to economic productivity.

Instead of expecting young people to simply “bounce back” and thrive in times of adversity, we should support them in exploring sustainable, adaptive responses to life’s challenges.

To equip young people to navigate an uncertain and challenging world, we need to recognise the value of unconventional forms of resilience. It should be understood as a process that often arises in response to structural inequalities, rather than a one-size-fits-all ideal rooted in conformity and individual effort. Läs mer…

United States President Donald Trump recently announced the U.S. would establish a strategic cryptocurrency reserve of Bitcoin, Ether, Ripple, Solana and Cardano. This move, he said, would make the U.S. “the crypto capital of the world.”

Once a vocal crypto-skeptic, Trump now frames his support as an embrace of technologies that champion freedom and innovation.

However, the problem with Trump’s view is that it assumes crypto will lead to the elimination of financial intermediaries. By replacing trust with transparency, cryptocurrency promises to put individuals in charge of their monetary transactions.

Our research demonstrates that this is only a partial view. In reality, crypto is dependent on social practices behind the technology.

Crypto-believers often blame greedy financiers as the cause of the Great Recession in 2008. But we argue that crypto is not immune to these same risks.

Replacing trust with transparency

Cryptocurrencies are a type of digital money that trades on a blockchain. A blockchain is a decentralized ledger technology that allows users to trade pseudo-anonymously.

Public blockchains operate on a distributed peer-to-peer network. This network provides each user a complete record of transactions that is updated in real time. Users can send digital cash between themselves without relying on a centralized authority.

Donald Trump speaks at the annual Bitcoin Conference in July 2024, in Nashville, Tenn.
(AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)

Since each user has a full record of transactions, the system promises full transparency. But our research demonstrates that public blockchains, and the cryptocurrencies that run on them, do not actually replace trust with transparency.

Speculation, manipulation and market crashes remain very real dangers, regardless of whether the financial system is centralized or decentralized.

Cryptocurrencies rely on people

We studied the communications between the founder of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, and the early Bitcoin community. We found the development and implementation of cryptocurrencies relies on negotiations between individuals. Who has a final say on which line of code will prevail depends on a social hierarchy dominated by insiders.

Centralization of power in the hands of insiders is still a major issue in the cryptocurrency space. This is particularly an issue for emerging cryptocurrencies like memecoins. Memecoins are a type of cryptocurrency named after internet memes or similar jokes. They draw their value entirely from speculation.

The Trump Organization recently launched memecoins $TRUMP and $MELANIA. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has concluded that memecoins do not qualify as securities, and therefore are outside its regulatory purview. Not only are memecoins risky, but they come with a significant risk of insider trading.

Read more:
$Trump and $Melania crypto tokens illustrate the risks posed by trendy meme coins

A recent case study on the memecoin $LIBRA shows how influencers, anonymous developers and centralized exchanges facilitate market distortions, often at the expense of retail investors.

When cryptocurrencies are outside the scope of regulation, individuals behind the technology can profit from insider information. This is less of a risk with widely traded cryptocurrencies like Ether and Bitcoin, but investors should be aware that any technology is reliant on the people who design the code and regulate its changes.

Personal views towards privacy, for instance, can impact governance decisions. These beliefs can have important implications for the value and usability of any technology, cryptocurrencies included.

Talking crypto into reality

Our research suggests cryptocurrency insiders can artificially inflate the value of their coins by talking them up, effectively creating value out of nothing.

By using economic and accounting language to describe Bitcoin, the early Bitcoin community effectively turned a string of zeroes and ones into something that could be measured, valued and recognized. Economists argue that even fiat currency is backed by a type of belief — trust in institutions.

A price chart on the Bybit website for the cryptocurrency Ethereum is seen on a computer screen in New York in February 2025.
(AP Photo/Patrick Sison)

Bitcoin, too, relies on belief, but a different kind. Its value is based users’ collective confidence in the technology and security of the network, a phenomenon known as the network effect. As more people adopt Bitcoin, its perceived value rises, creating a self-sustaining cycle of belief and value based on market demand.

Recently, American stockbroker and anti-crypto advocate Peter Schiff accused Trump of manipulating the cryptocurrency market following the announcement of the strategic crypto reserve. Schiff has called for a congressional investigation into Trump and his team to determine who may have profited from the announcement, which triggered a massive increase in crypto prices.

Given the volatility of cryptocurrencies, their values are highly susceptible to herd behaviour, and public sentiment has a significant effect on cryptocurrency returns.

Where does this leave investors?

Our research and other studies like it have shown that cryptocurrency is subject to important value changes based on announcements by a small group of influential individuals.

We caution anyone interested in investing in crypto to do their homework by examining the underlying economics of a coin, getting to know the team behind it and evaluating their risk tolerance before moving forward.

With thousands of cryptocurrencies in circulation, distinguishing between a promising investment, a speculative gamble or even scams is crucial.

Despite the uncertain and unpredictable nature of digital assets, one thing is certain: the conversation around crypto is far from over. Läs mer…

Blood donation is widely recognised as a life-saving act, replenishing hospital supplies and aiding patients. But could donating blood also benefit the donor?

Frequent blood donors may experience subtle genetic changes that could lower their risk of developing blood cancers, according to new research from the Francis Crick Institute in London. Alongside this, a growing body of evidence highlights a range of health benefits associated with regular donation.

As we age, our blood-forming stem cells naturally accumulate mutations, a process known as clonal haematopoiesis. Some of these mutations increase the risk of diseases such as leukaemia. However, the new Francis Crick Institute study has identified an intriguing difference in frequent blood donors.

The study compared two groups of healthy male donors in their 60s. One group had donated blood three times a year for 40 years, while the other had given blood only about five times in total. Both groups had a similar number of genetic mutations, but their nature differed. Nearly 50% of frequent donors carried a particular class of mutation not typically linked to cancer, compared with 30% of the infrequent donors.

It is thought that regular blood donation encourages the body to produce fresh blood cells, altering the genetic landscape of stem cells in a potentially beneficial way.

In laboratory experiments, these mutations behaved differently from those commonly associated with leukaemia, and when injected into mice, stem cells from frequent donors were more efficient at producing red blood cells. While these findings are promising, further research is needed to determine whether donating blood actively reduces cancer risk.

Each time a person donates blood, the body quickly begins the process of replacing lost blood cells, triggering the bone marrow to generate fresh ones. This natural renewal process may contribute to healthier, more resilient blood cells over time.

Some evidence even suggests that blood donation could improve insulin sensitivity, potentially playing a role in reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes, though research is still underway.

For years, scientists have speculated about a possible link between blood donation and cardiovascular health. One of the key factors in heart disease is blood viscosity — how thick or thin the blood is. When blood is too thick, it flows less efficiently, increasing the risk of clotting, high blood pressure and stroke. Regular blood donation helps to reduce blood viscosity, making it easier for the heart to pump and lowering the risk of cardiovascular complications.

There is also growing evidence that blood donation may help regulate iron levels in the body, another factor linked to heart disease. While iron is essential for oxygen transport in the blood, excessive iron accumulation has been associated with oxidative stress and inflammation, both of which contribute to heart disease. By shedding iron through donation, donors may be reducing their risk of these iron-related complications.

Some studies have even suggested a potential link between blood donation and lower blood pressure, particularly in people with hypertension. Though not a substitute for medication or lifestyle changes, donating blood may be another way to assist overall cardiovascular health.

Donors may not realise it, but every time they give blood, they receive a mini health screening. Before donation, blood pressure, haemoglobin levels and pulse are checked, and in some cases, screenings for infectious diseases are performed. While not a replacement for regular check-ups, it can serve as an early warning system for potential health issues.

As a bonus, you’ll get a free mini health checkup.
freedomz/Shutterstock

Correlation or causation?

Of course, an important question remains: do these health benefits arise because of blood donation itself, or are they simply a reflection of the “healthy donor effect”? Blood donors must meet strict eligibility criteria. People with chronic illnesses, certain infections or a history of cancer are usually not allowed to donate. This means that those who donate regularly may already be healthier than the general population.

Regardless of whether blood donation confers direct health benefits, its life-saving effect on others is undeniable. In the UK, NHS Blood and Transplant has warned that blood stocks are critically low, urging more people to donate.

If future research confirms that donating blood has measurable advantages for donors as well, it could serve as an even greater incentive for participation. For now, the best reason to donate remains the simplest one: it saves lives. Läs mer…

Recent shifts in US foreign policy – particularly regarding tariffs and the war in Ukraine – have sparked debate over what is driving the Trump administration’s decisions. Some of those decisions have appeared so odd that media commentators and even some European officials have wondered out loud if the US government may now even be serving Russian interests.

It’s more likely that US actions simply reflect an aggressive pursuit of what the Trump administration perceives to be America’s interests. Such policies may help rebuild US manufacturing and reorient its military for future tensions with China.

Yet former Trump official Anthony Scaramucci, now co-host of the popular The Rest is Politics US podcast and a bitter opponent of his former boss, has a different take. He argues the US president isn’t – as is sometimes claimed – playing “four-dimensional chess” but acting on “whims” and “eating the chess pieces”.

This raises the possibility that some of Trump’s policies are simply spiteful rather than strategic. My book Spite, published in 2020, examines spite’s psychological roots and its evolution and social impact in citizens, leaders and policy makers. It offers insights into what may now be unfolding on the world stage.

Spite is where we act to harm another person – even at a cost to ourselves. While spiteful actions can be strategic, helping your long-term self-interest, they are often damaging to everyone in both the short- and long-term. Understanding whether spite is involved in US policy decisions is crucial for the world’s ability to respond effectively.

Cooperation — working together for mutual benefit — is humanity’s superpower. We cooperate with people outside our families in a way that other species do not. After the second world war, cooperative alliances, trade agreements and global institutions fostered some degree of shared prosperity.

Yet cooperation (I win, you win) is just one of four basic behaviours, alongside altruism (I lose, you win), selfishness (I win, you lose) and spite (I lose, you lose). Trump often frames US cooperation as altruism, claiming America gives and gets nothing in return, making it unfairly exploited.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

His “America first” policy embraces selfishness, treating international relations as a zero-sum game where there can only be one winner. However, by recasting cooperation as unfair, Trump’s resulting anger may be driving him beyond selfishness into counterproductive spite.

When the US has imposed tariffs on countries, they have generally retaliated in kind with their own tariffs. The result? Everyone suffered. In Trump’s first term, US consumers bore most of the costs of tariffs, while retaliatory tariffs also reduced real incomes abroad.

Economist and former US labour secretary Robert Reich argues Trump’s tariffs are meant “to show the world that he’s willing to harm smaller economies even at the cost of harming the US’s very large one”. This is textbook spite.

Similarly, after tensions between Trump and the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, US actions seemed more focused on punishing Ukraine than advancing US interests. Some argue this hurt US national security as well as Ukrainian security.

The costs and benefits of spite

International relations scholars offer different views on spite. Realists see spite as a rational tool for maintaining power. They emphasise that as long as the US loses less than its rival, it makes a relative gain.

Liberals prioritise absolute gains — arguing that cooperation leads to mutual benefits, even if some gain more than others. They see spite as damaging trade and alliances that ultimately strengthen the US.

Constructivists, who argue that state actions depend on context and perceptions, emphasise that spite’s impact will vary. Spite directed against a major rival may be useful. Yet, spite against smaller allies can undermine trust and long-term cooperation.

Spiteful US tariffs may force weaker allies such as Canada into making concessions. But scholars warn that China, which has far greater economic depth, has both the will and resources to “play a dangerous game of mutual pain and destruction with the United States”.

Ultimately, constant trade wars suggest a desire to dominate and punish rather than pursue strategic self-interest, escalating conflicts rather than solving them. Research on human cooperation shows that winners don’t punish, and that losers “punish and perish”.

The psychology of spite

Spite may be be shaping US policy because Trump’s perceptions, environment and personality are encouraging spitefulness. Spite often results from feeling treated unfairly. The US president has manufactured a sense of unfairness and repeatedly asserts that allies are treating the US “very, very unfairly”.

Donald Trump’s fiery White House exchange wtih Volodymyr Zelensky, February 28 2025.

As China grows, the world is becoming more competitive. Research suggests that increased competition encourages spite. And, in an era of strongman politics, leaders may seek dominance. Spite is one way to dominate others.

Possessing the dark triad of personality traits — psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism — increases your risk of being spiteful. Researchers have argued that Trump scores highly on such traits (although, if true, this is not necessarily bad as narcissism has been linked to some elements of presidential success).

Spitefulness is more common in people who struggle to control their emotions. Trump has been accused of temper tantrums. Even one of his own attorneys is said to have deemed Trump “incapable of testifying because he could not control himself, his emotions”.

Spite isn’t always bad. It can force fairness, boost competitive performance and is linked to creativity. But when spite destroys cooperation – humanity’s superpower – it becomes human kryptonite.

How to prevent spite from shaping policy

To stop spite influencing foreign policy, it’s necessary to address its triggers. This means challenging perceptions of unfairness. Leaders must emphasise the mutual benefits of cooperation. The trust on which cooperation is based must also be rebuilt.

There is also a need to resist dominance-seeking. In hunter-gatherer societies, those who seek dominance are often restrained by the group. International institutions, as well as checks and balances in the US system, need to prevent reckless dominance-seeking from escalating. Reactions to spite must be firm but measured, rather than risking a race to the bottom.

Overall, America’s apparent use of spite to unnecessarily reduce the living standards of its adversaries as well as some allies and even its own citizens is deeply troubling. Yet, were the US to refuse to wield spite against its adversaries it risks allowing a new global power – one potentially hostile to liberal democracy and human rights – to shape the world order.

Aristotle argued that the virtuous person gets angry for the right reasons, at the right time, in the right way. America must learn to do the same. Läs mer…

Hospitals around the world generate millions of tonnes of plastic waste annually. Much of this waste comes from single-use items such as face masks, surgical gloves, syringes, IV tubes and sterile packaging materials.

What’s worse is that many of these medical plastics aren’t biodegradable. This means they can persist in landfills or oceans for centuries. Eventually they break down into micro- and nano-sized particles, which pose many risks to the environment and our health — including endocrine disruption and cell damage.

Incinerating plastic medical waste also releases harmful chemicals into the atmosphere. This contributes to poor air quality and potentially even global warming.

But there’s a growing push to find eco-friendly alternatives to traditional plastics. Bioplastics, such polylactic acid (PLA), may be promising alternatives to the plastics used in medical products.

Bioplastics can be made from plants or algae. This means they can be broken down when the temperature, pH levels and moisture conditions are right, and they don’t create any toxic byproducts over time.

Natural fibres, such as bamboo and hemp, are also being researched to replace synthetic materials, as they’re strong yet biodegradable. And unlike traditional plastics, many biodegradable alternatives are designed to break down without releasing harmful chemicals.

Bioplastics in medicine

Biodegradable plastics are already being used in medical devices — including in heart valves, wound dressings and drug delivery systems.

Because bioplastics come from natural sources, an advantage of using them in medical devices is that they can be reabsorbed during the healing process — so a second surgery wouldn’t be required to remove an implant, for example. They’re also capable of passing through biological barriers, such as the blood-brain barrier, so they can target specific tissues.

Innovations such as 3D-printing using biodegradable polymers are also opening new doors for sustainable medical applications. 3D-printed bioplastics are being investigated for use in replacing load-bearing cartilage, repairing heart chambers, performing wound grafts and acting as artificial membranes for kidneys.

Cellulose stands out as a bioplastic because it’s non-toxic and does not cause any side-effects when used as a medical device. While mechanically strong and waterproof — two attributes needed for medical packaging — it also breaks down efficiently when buried in soil for composting. This makes it ideal for medical use.

Our review of bioplastic alternatives for medical settings also identified the biodegradable polymers polycaprolactone (PCL) and polylactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) as promising options. This is due to their safety and compatibility with medical applications.

We also found that implants using the bioplastic PHA (polyhydroxyalkanoate) are shown to degrade naturally in the body. This could eliminate the need for removal surgeries. Surgical sutures that use PLA can dissolve over time. This may reduce infection risks.

PHA pellets, which can be used to make biodegradable medical bioplastics.
AP Photo/Jeff Dean

Challenges to roll-out

The transition to biodegradable alternatives is not without challenges.

Although many consumers would prefer more products were made out of bioplastics because they’re good for the environment, there are still many challenges in introducing them more widely in medical care. Sterilization, safety and regulatory approvals are all hurdles that need to be overcome. The high costs and limited availability of bioplastics also remain key concerns.

Medical bioplastics can be up to 50 per cent more expensive than oil-based plastics — despite their potential to reduce the medical sector’s environmental footprint.

Our review also found that regulatory hurdles and high production costs remain key obstacles in a wider roll-out of bioplastics in medical care. Other major challenges researchers face in developing medical bioplastics is ensuring that biodegradable materials meet stringent safety and sterility standards required for medical applications.

Life cycle assessments will also need to be conducted of current and future bioplastic products. A life cycle assessment evaluates the environmental impact of a product from raw material extraction to disposal — helping identify sustainability improvements and reduce waste. Publishing more life cycle assessments on bioplastic products will help decision-makers weigh the pros and cons of adopting bioplastics into medical systems.

Still, the potential benefits of bioplastics are huge. Moving away from single-use plastics could significantly reduce the waste burden of health-care systems while also protecting ecosystems and human health from the dangers of micro-plastic pollution. Some bioplastics can even reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 25 per cent.

Change will not happen overnight. But by investing in biodegradable alternatives, the health-care sector can significantly reduce its plastic footprint. Läs mer…

In the middle of a trade war with the United States, Canadians have started showing strong support for their country by changing their consumer habits. Shoppers have begun shunning all sorts of American products and rallying behind the “Buy Canadian” movement.

By snubbing American products and purchasing Canadian ones, shoppers are engaging in acts of “political consumerism.”

Political consumerism is the idea that people make purchasing decisions based on political reasons. There are two main forms of political consumerism: boycotting, which is avoiding the purchase of certain products and services for political reasons, and buycotting, which involves purchasing certain products and services due to political reasons.

For example, labour issues, animal rights, racial or sexual discrimination, the environment and religion are all political issues that may cause a person to change their purchasing habits. The reasons a person may participate in an act of political consumerism will also differ depending on the country they live in and their political ideology.

A review of 66 survey-based studies that a colleague and I conducted found that the people who participate in acts of political consumerism tend to have left-wing or liberal views. However, this finding may be due to the questions that survey participants were asked — such as focusing on boycotting and primarily listing left-wing motives as reasons to participate in political consumerism.

Those on the left may be motivated to participate in political consumerism due to moral issues, such as concerns about harm and fairness. At the same time, those on the right may engage in political consumerism due to issues of authority, loyalty and purity.

In the context of the U.S.-Canada trade war, those on the right may be particularly motivated to participate in political consumerism due to their loyalty to group identities — such as patriotism for their country. On the other hand, left-wing consumers may be motivated to participate as they may consider the tariffs to be unfair.

Boycotting and buycotting

In January 2023, a colleague and I conducted a survey of five countries — including the U.S. and Canada. The survey’s aim was to examine participation rates in political consumerism based on a sample that matched each country’s official statistics for age, gender and education.

A total of 1,500 participants were surveyed separately in Canada and the U.S. About half of respondents in both Canada and the U.S. reported participating in boycotting and buycotting. Around 55 per cent of Americans participated in buycotting compared with 46 per cent of Canadians.

A comparison of the per cent of American and Canadian survey respondents who participated in acts of political consumerism.
Shelley Boulianne, Author provided (no reuse)

Those who purchased products and services for political reasons (buycotted) were asked about the importance of pride in one’s country as a motive. Americans were slightly more likely to report pride as an important motivation to buycott compared to Canadians.

Contrary to previous studies, the survey also found that boycotting and buycotting were more common among right-wing Americans, who rated national pride as their motivation for buycotting more often than moderates or left-wing Americans.

In Canada, left-wing respondents were more likely to report boycotting. There were no ideological differences in who was most likely to buycott. But, like Americans, right-wing Canadians were more likely to report pride as a motive to buycott compared to moderates or left-wing Canadians.

While the data was gathered before the U.S.-Canada trade war, the findings suggest that Americans and Canadians will participate in the calls to buy American or Canadian goods, respectively. Pride will likely be a strong motivation for those on the right, especially for Americans.

Taking a stand

Since the start of the trade war, Canadian citizens have increasingly been encouraged to buy Canadian products to show their support for their country’s position.

Some retailers are adding ‘Made in Canada’ labels to products.
(Shutterstock)

In some grocery stores, U.S. produce is being left to wilt — with Canadians instead choosing to purchase fruits and vegetables grown either in Canada or in other countries. Some retailers have also started adding stickers next to Canadian-made products.

But though much of the research on political consumerism focuses on boycotting and buycotting consumer products, there are other ways to participate.

Read more:
Does cancelling a trip to the U.S. really send a political message, or is it just hurting local tourism?

In particular, citizens may choose to forego travel to a certain country, as tourism is an important dimension of political consumerism. Reports suggest this is already happening, with the number of Canadians travelling to the U.S. already down. Some Canadian citizens have also designed apps to identify products originating in their home country — as observed in the ongoing trade war.

While some may question the efficacy of boycotting and buycotting campaigns, these activities are one of the few ways for citizens to engage in politics on a daily basis. There are also few opportunities for the average person to engage with politics at an international level. This makes political consumerism an important activity.

Some scholars discount political consumerism as a form of political participation because it’s not connected to the government. However, amid the current U.S.-Canada trade war, political consumerism may be directly linked to government decisions. Citizens can use the marketplace to influence the outcome of the trade war. Läs mer…

Dinosaurs have captured people’s imagination ever since their bones and teeth were first scientifically described in 1822 by geologist and palaeontologist Gideon Mantell in England.

Dinosaur bones have taught us a great deal about these animals from the “age of dinosaurs”, the Mesozoic Era, which stretched from approximately 252 million years ago to 65 million years ago. However, there’s something especially appealing about a different kind of dinosaur fossil: their tracks, which show researchers what the animals were doing while they were alive.

Ichnology is the study of tracks and traces and, since 2008, the Cape South Coast Ichnology Project has documented more than 370 vertebrate tracksites on South Africa’s southern coast. These sites are from the Pleistocene Epoch, which stretched from approximately 2.6 million years ago to 11,700 years ago, much more recent than the Mesozoic.

We knew that this coastline contained Mesozoic sedimentary rocks, some of which include non-marine sediments that could potentially preserve dinosaur tracks. We are both familiar with dinosaur tracks from our research in Canada, so we decided to investigate the possibility of tracks in South Africa’s Western Cape.

We found some – and, once we knew what to look for, it was evident that the tracks were not rare. In a new paper published in the journal Ichnos, we describe our findings in detail, presenting evidence of tracks of sauropods (enormous plant-eating dinosaurs) and possibly ornithopods (another group of large herbivorous dinosaurs).

The tracks were found in a rugged, remote, breathtakingly spectacular coastal setting. They were made by dinosaurs in a variety of estuarine settings. Some were walking on sandy, inter-tidal channel bars. Others walked on the bottom of tidal channels, their feet sinking down into soft mud forming the bed of the channel. Other vague “squishy” structures were formed by dinosaurs wading, or even wallowing in the muddy fill of abandoned channels.

These tracks are around 140 million years old, from the very beginning of the Cretaceous period when the African and South American tectonic plates were starting to pull apart. Southern Africa has an extensive record of Mesozoic vertebrate fossils, but that record ends at around 180 million years ago in the Early Jurassic with the eruption of voluminous lava flows. To the best of our knowledge, all the southern African dinosaur tracks known until now are from the Triassic and Jurassic periods, so they pre-date these eruptions.

That means these tracks are not only the first from the Western Cape. They also appear to be the youngest – that is, the most recent – thus far reported from southern Africa.

Knowing where to look

After deciding to hunt for potential dinosaur tracks, we visited a few likely sites on the Cape south coast in 2022, choosing areas with non-marine deposits of the appropriate age, mostly in the eastern coastal portion of the Western Cape. We found a few promising spots on that visit and, in 2023, undertook a dedicated examination.

Large horizontal bedding surface exposures in this area are very rare. We knew that, if we were to find dinosaur tracks, they would be evident mostly in profile in vertical cliff exposures.

Read more:
Footprints take science a step closer to understanding southern Africa’s dinosaurs

In the public imagination a dinosaur trackway extends across a level surface and toe impressions are visible. Some may also know that the infill of dinosaur tracks can occur on what are today the ceilings of overhangs or cave roofs. However, there are also distinctive features that allow tracks to be identified in profile. That’s because the animals’ footfalls deformed underlying layers in a distinctive manner.

The problem is that other mechanisms, such as earthquakes, are capable of generating broadly similar deformation structures.

The deposits we were examining had probably also been affected by seismic activity. The challenge was for us to differentiate between the two types of deformation.

The Early Cretaceous rocks that we examined had been studied and reported on decades ago, and the deformation structures had been attributed to origins such as earthquakes rather than living organisms. Since then, however, scientists have developed a better appreciation of what dinosaur tracks look like in profile.

After careful examination, our conclusion was straightforward: both dinosaur-generated and earthquake-generated types of deformation were present in the Cretaceous rocks.

One of the sauropod tracks identified by the researchers. Scale bar is 20 cm.
Guy Plint, CC BY-NC-ND

Further evidence that we were looking at dinosaur tracks comes from the region’s bone fossil record. Cretaceous bone material has been reported from the region, mostly in the Kirkwood area in the Eastern Cape province. Two dinosaur bones have also been reported from the Knysna area in the Western Cape. One of these, a theropod tooth, was found – and correctly identified – by a 13-year-old boy.

Read more:
Dinosaur tracksite in Lesotho: how a wrong turn led to an exciting find

Clearly, dinosaurs were present in the Western Cape area. That means our discovery of ichnological evidence of their presence is not entirely surprising, but it is still extremely exciting.

Keep exploring

Our team plans to keep exploring deposits of suitable age in the region for evidence of more dinosaur tracks. We also hope that our discovery will inspire a new generation of dinosaur trackers to continue the quest and keep exploring. Läs mer…

Last year, South Korea made headlines around the world for two reasons. The first was writer Han Kang’s celebrated Nobel prize for literature win in October; the second was far less positive. Late in the evening of December 3 2024, the country’s President Yoon Suk Yeol unexpectedly declared martial law – the first time it had happened since the country became a democracy in 1987.

Protestors and lawmakers rushed on to the streets to resist Yoon’s decree, and martial law was annulled early the next morning at 1am.

The ensuing chaos ended on January 26, with Yoon’s arrest. Protests and counter protests continue and the constitutional court of South Korea is yet to deliver its ruling on Yoon’s impeachement, leaving the country’s political horizons uncertain.

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

On December 6 2024, 54-year-old Kang appeared at a press conference at the Nobel Museum, in Stockholm. Her remarks on the unfolding events in South Korea were ultimately hopeful: “I, too, watched as individuals tried to stop tanks with their bare hands, embraced armed soldiers to de-escalate, and stood firm against approaching troops … these moments revealed their courage and sincerity.”

This contradiction, between acts of violence and those of love, lies at the heart of Kang’s work. Her novels offer an important lens for understanding Korean history and politics, and explaining the grief and strength of the Korean people.

Human Acts: The Gwangju Massacre

In her Nobel lecture, Kang describes finding a photobook of the Gwangju massacre in her home, as a child. The discovery left her with lasting questions: “How are humans this violent? And yet how is it that they can simultaneously stand opposite such overwhelming violence?”

Yoon’s recent act echoed military dictator Chun Doo Hwan’s instigation of martial law 44 years earlier. On May 18 1980, the military brutally suppressed a university protest. But the people of Gwangju fought back, seizing weapons and forming a citizen’s army that pushed the soldiers out of the town.

For ten days, people held control of Gwangju, until the soldiers returned, killing students and workers with clubs, bayonets and guns. Those who were imprisoned were tortured; many bodies have never been recovered.

Spanning 23 years, Human Acts tells the story of Gwangju from different perspectives, portraying not only the events of the uprising, but its afterlife in the bodies and minds of participants. For many South Korean citizens, the memory of military repression is still fresh in their minds and is what propelled them on to the streets last December.

The Vegetarian: Violence against women

Kang’s best-known novel in the UK, The Vegetarian, also uses multiple viewpoints to tell the story of Yeong-hye, a woman who decides first to stop eating meat, then to stop eating completely.

The Vegetarian poses complex questions about suffering and complicity. Along the way, the effects of Korea’s patriarchal society play out in the often-abusive actions of Yeong-hye’s husband, brother-in-law and father.

Despite its rapid economic growth, South Korea remains a deeply patriarchal and misogynistic country with a widespread culture of discrimination, harassment and violence against women in the workplace, the home and online.

Yoon exploited these gender wars during his 2022 campaign, running on a platform that denied that inequalities between the genders existed, and threatening to abolish the ministry of family and gender equality. It’s no surprise that women have been at the forefront of protests against Yoon and martial law.

We Do Not Part: the Jeju uprising

Kang’s third novel interweaves the story of the Jeju uprising with the present-day story of Kyungha, a writer who travels from Seoul to Jeju island at the behest of her friend, Inseon. Hospitalised after an accident, Inseon sends Kyungha to care for her beloved pet bird. Once there, Kyungha embarks on a ghostly exploration of the island’s violent past.

In the fraught period between the Japanese occupation and the Korean war, the citizens of Jeju protested the division of the country. Police and soldiers adopted a scorched-earth campaign against anyone suspected of being involved with the Worker’s party of Korea.

Inhabitants of Jeju waiting to be executed in 1948.
Wikipedia

An estimated 25,000-30,000 people died – one tenth of the island’s population. The uprising and ensuing massacre wasn’t acknowledged by the government until President Kim Dae-jung commissioned an investigation in January 2000.

The injustice and tragedy of these events cannot adequately be expressed. But even in the crushing bleakness of Kang’s novels, hope sparks in the actions of ordinary people. As Yeong-hye sinks deeper into her illness in The Vegetarian, her sister In-hye cares for her.

In Human Acts, the mother of slain teenager Dong-ho finds solace in her memory of him as a child, saying: “Why are we walking in the dark, let’s go over there, where the flowers are blooming.”

The tender descriptions of birds in We Do Not Part remind us of both the fragility and strength of life. In Kang’s work, hope and resilience dwell in our bond with others. This is how we go on “living after all in this brief, violent world”. Läs mer…