Johansen.se

From Hermes to Smuckers to the fictional Waystar Royco of HBO’s “Succession,” family businesses often choose their CEOs from the ranks of kin. But is this a good business decision? As researchers who study entrepreneurship and management, we wanted to know whether keeping leadership in the family pays off for businesses. So we reviewed 175 studies on the topic to see whether family CEOs really are the best choice for family businesses. We found that the answer is yes – sometimes.

Our analysis, which looked at nearly 40 years of research, confirmed that family CEOs tend to prioritize a noneconomic goal: keeping the business in the family. This suggests that nonfamily CEOs – leaders brought in from the wider business community, selected based on characteristics such as past performance – may be more interested in prioritizing purely economic goals, such as boosting stock prices.

We also found that companies led by family CEOs tend to have more concern with corporate social responsibility but invest less in innovation and international growth. They also have more debt on average. All of these things could have important business implications. For example, investing less in research and development could lead to worse economic outcomes.

Does that mean that family CEOs are bad for business? Not at all. When looking directly at economic outcomes, we found mixed results – some studies showed that family CEOs had positive effects, and others showed negative ones. Based on our understanding of the literature, my colleagues and I think it all depends on the goals that family companies themselves pursue.

Why it matters

While researchers don’t always agree on what counts as a family company, we define them as businesses that are governed or managed by one or more families, that pursue goals set by a dominant leadership coalition, and whose leaders want to pass the enterprise on to future generations. By any definition, family businesses are extremely common: The majority of businesses around the world are owned or operated by families.

Nearly 90% of U.S. businesses are considered family operated, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, as are about 1 in every 3 Fortune 500 companies. Some of the most famous businesses in the world are family companies, such as Nike, Dell Technologies and LVMH. The leadership decisions at these businesses have ripple effects across the entire economy.

From an individual company’s perspective, the decision to appoint a family CEO – or not – is rarely easy. On the one hand, family companies often want to stay in business – and under family control – for generations. On the other hand, they often need to satisfy investors who expect strong economic outcomes over the shorter term.

We believe that one of the most important things a family company can do is to understand its own goals and priorities. While that’s easier said than done, if a business has ill-defined goals, that can set a new CEO up for failure – whether they’re in the family or not. That’s because they’re likely to pursue strategies that the family, the company or the company’s shareholders don’t really want.

What still isn’t known

The evidence on whether family CEOs are good for family companies’ bottom line is mixed, which suggests they’re sometimes effective and sometimes not. Researchers need to study how the combination of the characteristics such as age, education, political ideology and personality operate to influence family CEO performance in their family businesses.

Our team plans to conduct more research on family CEOs and their characteristics to understand when they’re good for business – and when family companies should opt for someone from outside.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work. Läs mer…

Hospitals across the country have long operated under the same federal law that says they must treat and stabilize all patients when they have a medical emergency.

But in states that now ban abortions and have limited or no health exceptions to these restrictions, medical providers face an impossible situation. They can administer a medically necessary abortion and violate state law, potentially facing jail time and losing their licenses, or they can decide not to provide the abortion and violate federal law, potentially resulting in the patient experiencing significant harm or even dying.

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on this legal conflict on April 24, 2024, when it considers Moyle v. United States. This case centers on the federal law, known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, which was designed to prevent hospital emergency rooms from refusing to treat patients who couldn’t pay.

It is the second abortion case that the Supreme Court will consider in 2024. In the first case, the court heard arguments about regulations that affect the nationwide availability of mifepristone, a pill used to induce abortion.

EMTALA requires hospitals that receive Medicare funding to provide stabilizing care to all patients if their health – or, for pregnant people, “the health of the woman or her unborn child” – is in “serious jeopardy.”

Almost all hospitals in the country get Medicare funding, so this law applies to nearly all of them.

As scholars of reproductive justice, we believe that this case has implications that stretch well beyond abortion and into other thorny issues, like the legal status of a fetus and the ability of state lawmakers to dictate medical care.

What led to the Supreme Court case over emergency abortions

Shortly after the Supreme Court overturned the federal right to get an abortion in June 2022 in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services reminded doctors that they must provide medical treatment if a pregnant person has an emergency medical condition. And if an abortion is the best “stabilizing treatment necessary” to help the pregnant person, they must offer it.

The letter emphasized that this federal requirement applies even if the physician is practicing in a state with an abortion ban that doesn’t include exceptions for the “life and health of the pregnant person.”

At least seven states, including Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Mississippi and North Dakota, currently have abortion bans that do not include a health exception.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland takes questions after he announced on Aug. 2, 2022, that the Justice Department has filed a lawsuit seeking to block Idaho’s abortion law.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images

EMTALA: Enforcement questions

In August 2022, the U.S. sued Idaho, challenging its abortion ban. Idaho criminalizes virtually all abortions except to save the life of the mother. It does not provide an exception to protect the pregnant person’s health.

But EMTALA requires emergency care in order to prevent serious harm to the individual’s health – not just to prevent death.

The U.S. argued that Idaho’s law “directly conflicts with” EMTALA. Idaho argued that EMTALA effectively required all states to provide abortions, even if the procedures conflict with state law. The district court decided that EMTALA’s requirement of emergency medical care overrode any contrary state law.

The case was appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately agreed on Oct. 10, 2023, to consider the case. In the meantime, it left the state law unaffected.

On Nov. 20, 2023, Mike Moyle, speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let the Idaho ban remain in effect. Idaho also asked the Supreme Court to consider the case.

In January 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether EMTALA can override state abortion bans when the two conflict. It also allowed the Idaho law to remain in effect while the case made its way through the courts.

That means that no doctors in Idaho can perform an abortion in the case of a serious medical emergency, unless the pregnant person is on the verge of death.

What is at stake

How the Supreme Court ultimately rules in this case has implications with respect to abortion and beyond.

In the seven states where abortion bans conflict with EMTALA, patients may be denied appropriate emergency care they would have otherwise received. For example, if a woman experiences an ectopic pregnancy, in which the fertilized egg is growing outside of the uterus, health providers are limited in what kind of treatment they can provide.

Depending on the stage of pregnancy, ectopic pregnancies are typically terminated with medication or surgery. Ectopic pregnancies are never viable. But if they are not ended, the fertilized egg would develop outside the uterus, causing great risk to the pregnant person’s life and fertility.

Other pregnancy complications that may require an abortion include separation of the placenta from the uterus, as well as preeclampsia, eclampsia and heart or kidney conditions.

Physicians in states with abortion bans may fear steep criminal sanctions if they provide an abortion in these cases. Instead, they may decide the best way to avoid criminal liability is to wait until the patient is on the brink of death. But because it is impossible to measure precisely how close someone is to dying, this approach risks patient death or serious bodily harm, as well as loss of fertility.

The EMTALA case could also play an important role in the ongoing debate about whether fetuses are persons. Idaho, for example, argues that EMTALA requires the pregnant patient and “the unborn child” to be treated equally.

Another issue that may arise is whether a hospital’s moral or religious objection to abortion allows it to deny abortions, even when EMTALA would require one.

Finally, if the Supreme Court decides that EMTALA does not override state law, the ruling could open the door for states to try to limit other kinds of emergency medical care, like HIV treatments or mental health care.

Of course, the court could decide that EMTALA prevails over state law, allowing for abortions to protect the pregnant person’s health from serious jeopardy. Given the court’s holding in Dobbs, however, which returned the question of abortion to the states, that does not seem likely, in our view. Läs mer…

Within the last century, researchers’ understanding of genetics has undergone a profound transformation.

Genes, regions of DNA that are largely responsible for our physical characteristics, were considered unchanging under the original model of genetics pioneered by biologist Gregor Mendel in 1865. That is, genes were thought to be largely unaffected by a person’s environment.

The emergence of the field of epigenetics in 1942 shattered this notion.

Epigenetics refers to shifts in gene expression that occur without changes to the DNA sequence. Some epigenetic changes are an aspect of cell function, such as those associated with aging.

However, environmental factors also affect the functions of genes, meaning people’s behaviors affect their genetics. For instance, identical twins develop from a single fertilized egg, and as a result, they share the same genetic makeup. However, as the twins age, their appearances may differ due to distinct environmental exposures. One twin may eat a healthy balanced diet, whereas the other may eat an unhealthy diet, resulting in differences in the expression of their genes that play a role in obesity, helping the former twin have lower body fat percentage.

People don’t have much control over some of these factors, such as air quality. Other factors, though, are more in a person’s control: physical activity, smoking, stress, drug use and exposure to pollution, such as that coming from plastics, pesticides and burning fossil fuels, including car exhaust.

Another factor is nutrition, which has given rise to the subfield of nutritional epigenetics. This discipline is concerned with the notions that “you are what you eat” – and “you are what your grandmother ate.” In short, nutritional epigenetics is the study of how your diet, and the diet of your parents and grandparents, affects your genes. As the dietary choices a person makes today affects the genetics of their future children, epigenetics may provide motivation for making better dietary choices.

Two of us work in the epigenetics field. The other studies how diet and lifestyle choices can help keep people healthy. Our research team is comprised of fathers, so our work in this field only enhances our already intimate familiarity with the transformative power of parenthood.

Does “obesity beget obesity”?

A story of famine

The roots of nutritional epigenetics research can be traced back to a poignant chapter in history – the Dutch Hunger Winter in the final stages of World War II.

During the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands, the population was forced to live on rations of 400 to 800 kilocalories per day, a far cry from the typical 2,000-kilocalorie diet used as a standard by the Food and Drug Administration. As a result, some 20,000 people died and 4.5 million were malnourished.

Studies found that the famine caused epigentic changes to a gene called IGF2 that is related to growth and development. Those changes suppressed muscle growth in both the children and grandchildren of pregnant women who endured the famine. For these subsequent generations, that suppression led to an increased risk of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and low birth weight.

These findings marked a pivotal moment in epigenetics research – and clearly demonstrated that environmental factors, such as famine, can lead to epigenetic changes in offspring that may have serious implications for their health.

The role of the mother’s diet

Until this groundbreaking work, most researchers believed epigenetic changes couldn’t be passed down from one generation to the next. Rather, researchers thought epigenetic changes could occur with early-life exposures, such as during gestation – a highly vulnerable period of development. So initial nutritional epigenetic research focused on dietary intake during pregnancy.

The findings from the Dutch Hunger Winter were later supported by animal studies, which allow researchers to control how animals are bred, which can help control for background variables. Another advantage for researchers is that the rats and sheep used in these studies reproduce more quickly than people, allowing for faster results. In addition, researchers can fully control animals’ diets throughout their entire lifespan, allowing for specific aspects of diet to be manipulated and examined. Together, these factors allow researchers to better investigate epigenetic changes in animals than in people.

In one study, researchers exposed pregnant female rats to a commonly used fungicide called vinclozolin. In response to this exposure, the first generation born showed decreased ability to produce sperm, leading to increased male infertility. Critically, these effects, like those of the famine, were passed to subsequent generations.

As monumental as these works are for shaping nutritional epigenetics, they neglected other periods of development and completely ignored the role of fathers in the epigenetic legacy of their offspring. However, a more recent study in sheep showed that a paternal diet supplemented with the amino acid methionine given from birth to weaning affected the growth and reproductive traits of the next three generations. Methionine is an essential amino acid involved in DNA methylation, an example of an epigenetic change.

The human body holds approximately 20,000 genes.

Healthy choices for generations to come

These studies underscore the enduring impact parents’ diets have on their children and grandchildren. They also serve as a powerful motivator for would-be parents and current parents to make more healthy dietary choices, as the dietary choices parents make affect their children’s diets.

Meeting with a nutrition professional, such as a registered dietitian, can provide evidence-based recommendations for making practical dietary changes for individuals and families.

There are still many unknowns about how diet affects and influences our genes. What research is starting to show about nutritional epigenetics is a powerful and compelling reason to consider making lifestyle changes.

There are many things researchers already know about the Western Diet, which is what many Americans eat. A Western Diet is high in saturated fats, sodium and added sugar, but low in fiber; not surprisingly, Western diets are associated with negative health outcomes, such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers.

A good place to start is to eat more whole, unprocessed foods, particularly fruits, vegetables and whole grains, and fewer processed or convenience foods – that includes fast food, chips, cookies and candy, ready-to-cook meals, frozen pizzas, canned soups and sweetened beverages.

These dietary changes are well known for their health benefits and are described in the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and by the American Heart Association.

Many people find it difficult to embrace a lifestyle change, particularly when it involves food. Motivation is a key factor for making these changes. Luckily, this is where family and friends can help – they exert a profound influence on lifestyle decisions.

However, on a broader, societal level, food security – meaning people’s ability to access and afford healthy food – should be a critical priority for governments, food producers and distributors, and nonprofit groups. Lack of food security is associated with epigenetic changes that have been linked to negative health outcomes such as diabetes, obesity and depression.

Through relatively simple lifestyle modifications, people can significantly and measurably influence the genes of their children and grandchildren. So when you pass up a bag a chips – and choose fruit or a veggie instead – keep in mind: It’s not just for you, but for the generations to come. Läs mer…

After refusing to give some students grades they hadn’t earned, high school chemistry teacher Toni Ognibene sued the Clovis Unified School District in California for allegedly retaliating against her. The lawsuit was filed in December 2023.

In 2020, Michael Ramsaroop, a teacher at the Academy of Hospitality and Tourism High School in Brooklyn, New York, sued his principal, his union and the city’s Department of Education after he was fired following a series of disputes that began when he refused to change his students’ grades.

In 2018, fifth grade teacher Sheri Mimbs sued Henry County Schools in Georgia. She claimed she was fired in 2017 for objecting to the assistant principal’s directive to change a number of zeroes she reported for students’ missing assignments. The district had a policy, she asserts, indicating that a failing grade of 60% is the lowest possible score a student can receive on any particular assignment or exam.

Ognibene, Ramsaroop and Mimbs are among a growing group of teachers rebelling against orders to change grades – and filing federal lawsuits to allege they’ve been disciplined for their refusals or protests.

They object to directives to ease grading standards, pass failing students and implement minimum grade policies – for example, policies requiring all students to receive a grade no less than a “D” or 60%. The educators assert that these are dishonest and unfair practices that misrepresent students’ true academic performance.

As a scholar of education who studies grading practices, I view these lawsuits as proof that some districts are undermining teacher autonomy and disregarding the importance of accurate grades. I’m also aware that in many cases, administrators are trying to correct unfair grading itself.

I believe the system needs serious reforms, and I have some ideas.

Lawsuits over ‘grade inflation’

Each of these lawsuits is alike despite differences in geography, subject matter and grade level.

Ognibene said she received a formal “Memorandum of Concern” after resisting pressure to raise students’ grades on multiple occasions. “I didn’t want to do it, but along with being against it for ethical and moral reasons, my credential was at risk,” Ognibene told the Sacramento Bee. Her lawsuit is pending.

Ramsaroop alleges that his refusal to inflate grades began a series of disputes that led to his 2017 termination. The principal “created a hostile work environment based upon his age and seniority at the Academy … in retaliation for his opposition to falsifying student grades,” the lawsuit claims. Ramsaroop’s lawsuit was dismissed in 2022.

Some teachers are going to court to fight efforts to ‘falsify’ grades.
Monashee Frantz via Getty Images

Likewise, in 2018, Mimbs alleged that she was fired for protesting an administrator directive to not give grades below 60%. The case, dismissed on technical grounds, was revived by the Georgia Supreme Court in 2022. It is still pending. Mimbs, meanwhile, says she hasn’t been able to find a teaching job since her firing.

If teachers give students grades they haven’t earned, “how do we know when kids are failing or when they’re doing well?” Mimbs asked WSB-TV in Atlanta.

It’s an important question. Grades remain the primary basis for making important decisions about students. They determine a student’s promotion, honor roll status and enrollment in advanced or remedial classes. They factor into special education services and college admissions. Parents turn to grades to reward their child or determine if support, such as tutoring, is needed.

Everyone involved – the school, the teacher, the specific student, their classmates and colleges – suffers harm when grades are inaccurate, inflated and unjustified.

Research shows bias, inequity in grading is real

Still, there are serious concerns with how grading works. As I wrote for The Conversation in March 2023, there is also a wave of litigation across the U.S. in which students and parents are suing schools over grading schemes they claim are unjust and inappropriate.

While teacher autonomy is a bedrock tradition in education, my research shows it also results in inconsistency, inequity and even unreliability. What one teacher considers a quality assignment or paper, for example, can differ greatly from another. Teachers often include aspects of students’ behavior, such as effort and participation, in the grades they assign.

I contend that mixing students’ behavior with their academic performance distorts the meaning of grades and diminishes their academic accuracy. Students of color may get lower grades when teachers’ implicit biases influence how they consider behavioral factors when assigning grades, studies show.

Minimum grade requirements, then, are a way some schools address these issues. But multiple recent investigations show that report-card grades often don’t accurately reflect how students perform on tests at the end of the year.

Three ways to fix the problem

School leaders shouldn’t wait until a conflict arises to ensure grade integrity. Here are three practical steps administrators can take to head off problems in advance.

First, schools could conduct gradebook audits throughout each marking period to detect common issues like grade deflation, in which an overabundance of lower-than-expected grades or lack of grades are reported. A proactive intervention could avert headaches later.
Second, schools can create grade reports using a three- to five-point scale. This would provide a more accurate reflection of academic proficiency than a conventional 100-point scale. In a three- to five-point scale, a zero or low number wouldn’t excessively penalize a student for one missed assignment or poor performance early in a marking period. Students would still be able to recover from low scores, and this provides an incentive to try.
Finally, teachers could use grading rubrics that are explained to students at the start of the semester or when an assignment is given. As I have written, by establishing clear and detailed criteria for grading, teachers can be more transparent and lessen the potential for their own biases to affect how they grade.

Conflict over grades is a fixable problem. The teachers who are suing feel it’s a professional affront to be forced to alter grades, and families suing believe the grading systems are unfair. Both have important points and perspectives. If these three proactive solutions are implemented, many of the conflicts and legal challenges over grades can be averted. Läs mer…

MPs have recently voted to ban anyone in England born after 2009 from buying cigarettes, as part of the government’s plan to achieve a smoke-free generation.

Smoking is the single most important preventable cause of ill health and death globally. In England alone, around 64,000 people in England die each year from a smoking-related disease such as lung cancer, stroke and heart attacks.

There’s also the economic impact of smoking. Every year, around £14 billion is lost due to people being off ill or out of work as a result of smoking-related illnesses. Illnesses linked to smoking also cost the health and social care system around £3 billion per year. And, in 2022-2023, more than 400,000 hospital admissions could be attributed to smoking.

Research shows that most smokers start in their teens and become addicted for life. Many want to quit, but find it exceedingly difficult to do so because of their nicotine addiction. Indeed, one study noted that it may take thirty or more attempts before a smoker is successful in quitting.

Stopping smoking at any age is beneficial. But the effect is greatest if young people are prevented from smoking in the first place.

Public health benefits

Smoking rates in the UK have been falling over the last few decades, in part helped by tobacco control efforts during this time. In 2022, just under 13% of adults (around 6.4 million people) in England smoked cigarettes compared to nearly half the population in 1974.

Young adults are more likely to be smokers than older adults, partly due to tobacco marketing that targets them. However, it takes many years for the harms of smoking to manifest. Effectively banning young people from ever being able to start smoking cigarettes would have many benefits for public health.

Smoking causes countless preventable diseases. These include nine out of ten cases of chronic obstructive lung disease, seven out of ten cases of lung cancer, early heart disease, stroke, dementia, and diabetes, as well as numerous other cancers and medical conditions – such as stomach ulcers and severe asthma.

These diseases are often lethal. Indeed, smoking causes one in four of all UK cancer deaths, one in three deaths due to lung disease and one in nine circulatory disease deaths.

These harms are not limited only to smokers, either. Non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke also suffer increased risks of these harms. This is particularly a concern for children, babies and pregnant women. Pregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke are also at greater risk of stillbirth and congenital malformations, low birth weights and cot deaths.

The prevalence of smoking is also greater in poorer communities and is a major contributor to the difference in life expectancy between richer and poorer areas. Smoking-related diseases are more common in areas of deprivation, and lead to more hospital admissions and greater NHS pressures in those areas.

Banning cigarette sales to young people would have health benefits for both smokers and non-smokers.
1st footage/ Shutterstock

Notably, ill health and deaths due to smoking are avoidable. By reducing the number of people who can smoke cigarettes, this will have considerable public health benefits – both in the short-term and long-term, and for both smokers and non-smokers.

Other considerations

A ban on sales to youths on its own will not be enough to eliminate smoking.

First, if the ban is not enforced or adhered to it won’t be effective. Currently, it’s already illegal to supply cigarettes to young people under the age of eighteen. But one 2019-2020 survey found that a quarter of under-18s who were regular smokers reported getting their cigarettes from shops. Retailers complying with the ban may help reduce underage smoking.

Yet even if most mainstream retailers comply with the ban, there’s also the problem of illegal cigarette sales to young people. In 2021-2022, the illicit market was estimated to make up nearly 18% of all tobacco trade in the UK.

Public support is also needed for the legislation to be effective. While many people may support the government’s ambition to be smokefree by 2030, there will also be many who don’t support the ban. Numerous MPs have even been outspoken in their opposition to the ban – citing concerns that it may encourage an illicit tobacco trade, be difficult to enforce and that other measures could be more effective in preventing young people from smoking.

What’s needed to drive down smoking rates in young people is a comprehensive package of measures. Measures such as teaching young people on the harms of tobacco in schools, mass media campaigns and smoke-free policies in public spaces can all help to prevent the uptake of smoking and change society’s attitudes to its use.

Help for those who want to quit is also needed. Plain packaging of cigarettes, as well as tax increases on tobacco products to raise their prices, are also effective.

Vaping is safer than smoking and is another tool that may help people addicted to nicotine to stop smoking. However, it isn’t a solution to youth smoking rates as vapes are still highly addictive and can cause lung injury. Worryingly, youth vaping is on the rise – with one study finding that 24% of 16-to-19-year-olds in England having vaped in the past month.

The UK’s previous tobacco control efforts between 1998 and 2010 may have prevented 210,000 deaths. These included interventions such as the NHS’s Stop Smoking Services, which was set up to target disadvantage smokers. But around half a million more people will die from smoking by 2030 if action is not taken now. There are many more lives that can be saved. Läs mer…

In the early hours of April 15 2023, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) – a Sudanese paramilitary force – attacked the military airstrip in the town of Merowe and deployed troops across strategic locations in Sudan’s capital, Khartoum.

Within hours, fighting between the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) had begun. And by the afternoon, it was nearly impossible for civilians to flee Khartoum. It would take only a few days for the war to spread to other parts of the country.

The war between the two militaries has now gone on for a year. Khartoum is largely controlled by the RSF, and the government, which has been led by the SAF since 2021, has been forced to relocate to Port Sudan on the country’s Red Sea coast.

According to UN experts, around 25 million people – half of Sudan’s population before the war – are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance.

US and Saudi-led efforts to facilitate ceasefire talks in Jeddah have so far failed. And the civilian opposition to the regime of General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the leader of the SAF, has fragmented and proved unable to present a comprehensive coalition to engage in serious negotiations.

The current situation in Sudan is a result of flawed peacemaking attempts and the failure to respond to early signs of growing hostilities. The deadlock looks nearly impossible to break.

The two beligerents

The RSF’s history reaches back to the early 2000s when a military dictator called Omar al-Bashir ruled Sudan. The group is the successor of the so-called Janjaweed, a militia that fought on the side of Bashir’s Islamist regime against rebel groups. The Janjaweed became a more formalised military unit in the final few years of Bashir’s rule and, in 2013, it was renamed the RSF.

Read more:
Explainer: tracing the history of Sudan’s Janjaweed militia

In the years that followed, the RSF took control of the emerging Sudanese gold industry with the support of the Russian state-funded private military company, the Wagner Group. The RSF developed close contacts with the United Arab Emirates, whose primary interest was in agricultural land and curbing Islamist influence in the region.

The roots of the current war can be traced back to the Sudanese revolution in 2019. A popular uprising led to the fall of Bashir and the SAF and RSF were forced to accept a power-sharing arrangement with the Forces for Freedom and Change, a coalition of civilian and rebel groups that was then leading Sudan’s political opposition.

Sudanese people celebrating the anniversary of the Sudanese Revolution, in Khartoum, Sudan, December 2019.
Marwan Ali / EPA

But even with the framework in place, more than a dozen armed groups continued to operate in various parts of the country. Negotiations between these groups and the government resulted in the Juba Peace Agreement in October 2020, where the power-sharing arrangements were expanded to include most of these armed movements. The effect of this was to fuel already fierce competition for political influence and resources.

The peace agreement also required the integration of several armed groups into the SAF, including the RSF. This created tensions within the military establishment and the RSF, which was not interested in giving up the independent command structure that helped it secure business interests.

How not to deal with a military coup

The military-led government that was created following the 2019 uprising was to transition to a civilian body 21 months later. However, in October 2021, only a few months before the transition was due to take place, the military staged a coup. General Burhan, who acted as the transitional president, led the coup and cited chaos within the civilian parts of the government as the reason.

The African Union reacted by suspending Sudan’s membership. And the UN transition mission and other influential actors continued to engage with the SAF, aiming to reestablish the pre-coup order. However, UN-led consultations failed, not least because the civilian opposition forces fragmented significantly after the coup.

The Forces for Freedom and Change split into several factions. And the newly established pro-democracy Resistance Committees, the most vibrant civilian opposition against the Burhan’s regime, remained outside formal negotiations. Signatories to the Juba Peace Agreement in turn slowly sided with the SAF.

In the end, the requirement by the Juba Peace Agreement that all military groups should be integrated into the SAF proved unacceptable to the RSF. Relying on financial gains from their commercial activities and support from the United Arab Emirates, the RSF decided to take over the country militarily.

Sudanese army general and de facto ruler of Sudan, Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, speaks at the UN Headquarters in New York in September 2023.
Sarah Yenesel / EPA

Finding a solution

Moving forward, the push to renegotiate the agreement to amalgamate the SAF and RSF is bound to fail. All previous attempts to integrate the two powerful militaries under the leadership of the SAF have not led to any success. While the parties had previously agreed to this on paper, it has proven impossible to implement in practice.

The SAF leadership has repeatedly promised to fight until they have secured a military victory, an outcome that is far-fetched given the extent of the RSF’s current military strength. At the same time, civilian groups are unable to bridge their political differences that sometimes stretch back a long time.

An attempt to gather a majority of the opposition forces under a coalition named “Taqaddum” is ongoing. But it is unlikely to succeed as several influential groups remain on the fringes or oppose the initiative.

There is no way forward without bringing in a civilian third party to counter the strength of the SAF and RSF, and introduce new dynamics to the stalled negotiations. However, this appears unlikely at present. The fragmentation of the opposition forces remains a challenge for a peaceful resolution in Sudan. Läs mer…

Dogs come in all shapes and sizes. We’ve moulded some of them to have large protruding eyes, sloping backs and shortened legs through selective breeding.

What is increasingly clear is that some of the extremes of physical shape, size and appearance seen in many dog breeds damage their health. Despite this, many of these breeds, such as French bulldogs, continue to increase in popularity. In response, the Royal Veterinary College in the UK has issued guidance on ten extreme body shapes prospective dog owners should avoid.

But dogs aren’t the only animals who have suffered the consequences of selective breeding.

Humans have selectively bred animals for centuries. For animals linked to agriculture, selection has resulted in high milk-yielding dairy cows, chickens that lay eggs far more frequently than their forest-dwelling ancestors ever would have, and sheep that grow wool to excess.

The reality for many animals is that intense genetic selection for specific characteristics, whether physical or behavioural can result in serious unintended consequences.

Dairy cows often suffer from crippling lameness. Laying hens have a limited egg output and their life span is substantially less than it otherwise naturally would be – both because selective breeding has reduced their lifespan and they are often slaughtered when their high egg output slows.

Designing dogs

For our dogs and other pets, including cats, rabbits, small rodents and even some reptiles, human wants and preferences also lead to selection for aesthetic appeal. This is typically linked to a desire for rare, novel and baby-like features.

Sadly, the human desire to seek novelty in another sentient being is harming their health and their natural abilities, welfare and longevity.

This is rather ironic, especially for dogs who were traditionally bred for functional reasons. These include guarding, herding, hunting and protecting, as well as companionship.

Dogs, cats and even rabbits have been bred to have short muzzles (brachycephalic). This affects their dental health and ability to eat normally. Brachycephalic cats have a severe risk of health problems ranging from breathing issues to neurological disorders.

But the popularity of these animals is surging.

Although brachycephalic breeds are not a recent creation, (pugs were imported to Europe from China in the 16th century, and Persians are one of the oldest known cat breeds), modern versions are much more extreme.

Pugs aren’t a new breed but they’re not getting healthier.
220 Selfmade studio/Shutterstock

For many flat-faced dogs, breathing problems prevent them from exercising. They also often struggle to sleep well because of difficulty breathing when relaxed.

Other physical characteristics such as shortened legs and long backs as seen in dachshunds can lead to spinal issues.

Giving birth can be dangerous for many dog breeds, such as those with wide shoulders. Nearly all English bulldogs need a caesarean section.

Redesigning

To raise awareness of the health problems many dogs experience as a result of their physique, dog welfare group the International Collaborative on Extreme Conformations in Dogs (ICECDogs) is encouraging dog lovers to choose companion dogs with more moderate, natural attributes.

ICECDogs wants people to prioritise health, welfare and temperament over appearance.

This does not necessarily mean banning certain breeds, although in Germany, a draft bill is seeking to develop legislation to prevent people from breeding dog in a way that results in “pain, suffering or damage”.

In Norway, the breeding of Cavalier King Charles spaniels has been banned. The breed suffers from several health problems including heart conditions and syringomyelia, where the brain effectively protrudes from the base of the skull – an extremely painful and debilitating condition.

Aficionados of many dog breeds are now devising strategies to address their welfare. These include genetic and other testing schemes to identify healthy dogs to include in breeding programmes to move towards a healthier population.

Awareness of genetic health conditions in other animals is growing, too. Reptile and amphibian enthusiast group the International Herpetological Society has banned the sale of spider royal pythons in their shows. The genetic mutation that results in the snake’s beautiful markings is also linked to a nervous system disorder that makes their heads wobble.

Move towards moderate

If you’re thinking about adding a dog or cat to your family, choose one with a moderate appearance.

This means avoiding extreme characteristics such as short legs, unusual colours (many extremes are linked with neurological issues), flattened faces, excessively muscular bodies or long backs.

How animals are represented in the media is also important. The British Veterinary Association strongly recommends that animals represented in advertising, films and TV are free from exaggerated characteristics and should exemplify good health and wellbeing.

By changing public perception about the welfare realities of extreme physical features, we might start reducing the demand for pets bred for exaggerated appearance.

After all, supply will always meet demand. Läs mer…

To say that the Labour party is flying high in the polls is something of an understatement. But despite its consistent lead against the Tories, the opposition finds itself in a rather odd position: on the cusp of power but without a clear transformative vision of what it will actually do in office.

The risk is that Labour will win but also lose the next general election. It may win in the sense of gaining a large majority, but it may also quickly lose public support due to the absence of any defining vision and associated policy programme capable of transforming people’s lives.

A win under this scenario is effectively by default. A disillusioned public appears to be ready to vote for the other side because they think the party of government has run out of puff. But that public can quickly become disillusioned with Labour if it fails to address the structural weaknesses that blight people’s lives. To stay in power, Labour needs to deliver quickly.

Labour has five missions as its election pledge but no real vision of how it will achieve these goals. “Getting the NHS back on its feet” or “breaking down barriers to opportunity” means addressing deeply embedded systemic inequalities with transformative “big thinking”.

A wealth of research shows just how much change is needed. The economy is damaged, pressures on households are immense and basic public services are in crisis. The value of work has declined relative to the value of wealth, with the economic security of those in work reducing as costs of housing, energy and food have increased.

People recognise that the uncontrolled costs of essential goods are now the greater threat to spending power than small tax rises, and yet employment models have become increasingly precarious. Disaffection with democracy among young people is understandably high.

Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, has promised that Labour “will embracesecuronomics” as a response to what economist Guy Standing in 2018 labelled “the rise of the precariat”. Reeves argued that “no democratic government can be content with a lack of decent work, falling wages and the dimming of people’s hope for a better life.”

The shadow chancellor has also called for a “fundamental course correction” when it came to economic policy making. There is every reason to agree – the current course is not working and Liz Truss’s period in office tested to destruction taking that course to its logical conclusion with further tax cuts for the wealthy.

Yet Labour has rejected substantive tax and spend policies and it’s this policy myopia that arguably explains its vision void.

‘Financial competence’

Labour’s wish not to spook the markets is understandable. It is adopting a fiscally conservative position to allay longstanding concerns about economic competency. But at the same time tying its own hands so tightly risks undermining the ability of any future Labour government to deliver transformative change.

As many studies show, simply focusing on “more growth” is too simple, because the benefits tend not to trickle down effectively to large parts of society. When it comes to transforming society there are no cheap solutions that avoid tax and spend.

Labour can afford to be more ambitious with its economic policy.
Alamy

Labour’s lack of vision is, from this perspective, perplexing. Reeves states that the first error of economic policymaking in recent year has been a “fundamental under-appreciation of the role of government” – an error which “dictated that a government’s primary economic imperative should simply be to get out of the way of free enterprise”.

Yet Labour remains resolute in not committing to tax increases beyond closing some tax loopholes for the super rich. The risk the party is taking is that by emphasising financial competence with the markets it sacrifices visionary potential with the public.

A chance to be bold

In the wake of COVID, Brexit and now the cost of living crisis, a window of opportunity has opened which does allow the Labour Party to be far bolder. People recognise exposure to increased risk of destitution in light of insecure employment and disappearing health and social safety nets. The part played by government in securing people’s lives and livelihoods during the pandemic reminded citizens that the state can intervene effectively to mitigate risk.

There is reason to believe those intending to vote Labour and a significant block of around 17% of the public who are still undecided on their voting intentions express extremely high levels of support for policies that require tax and spend.

Evidence on this is mounting. In a forthcoming book, the cross-party Common Sense Policy Group present a body of demographic, socioeconomic and public opinion evidence from a survey of 1,052 national and 851 red wall constituency voters. The book sets out a policy programme, including nationalisation of public utilities and a green new deal, that is consistent with Labour’s commitment to achieving economic stability, but requires major public investment.

The underpinning data indicate that annual progressive wealth taxes on those with assets over £2 million, increasing corporation tax to German levels, taxing carbon and fossil fuel production and removing a tranche of reliefs (collectively producing additional yields of over £340 billion per year), as a package, has an average approval rating of 72.6%

This includes approval of 66% among those who don’t yet know how they will vote this year and 76% among those intending to vote Labour. Approval is 70.8% in the red wall, including 61.7% among people in the region who voted Conservative in 2019 and 82.8% among those who voted Labour.

This supports the notion that tax and spend, done openly and strategically, and without significantly increasing income tax on low-middle earners, has the support of the British public.

With this public support for major public investment running high, Labour has an opportunity to deal with its vision void and set out a more ambitious economic policy. Läs mer…

Earth’s atmosphere maintains a constant level of oxygen, whether it is a wintry, rainy day or hot summer. Across the ocean, oxygen concentrations vary enormously between different places and over time. Sometimes oxygen levels change within the course of a day, while in some deep parts of the ocean, oxygen concentrations remain constant. In certain places, there’s no oxygen at all but life still thrives.

Marine species respond to ocean deoxygenation (the decrease of oxygen levels in seawater) differently depending on where they live. With seas under threat from climate change and pollution, both of which contribute to deoxygenation, some marine species are at greater risk than others.

As a marine ecologist, I research how changes in oxygen availability affect marine animals’ resistance to climate change. My studies show that coastal marine species exposed to the daily variability of oxygen are more resistant to spikes in deoxygenation than creatures living in the deep that are adapted to consistent oxygen levels.

Oxygen levels in seagrass meadows vary enormously on a daily basis.
Marco Fusi, CC BY-ND

By the coast

For coastal creatures like cuttlefish, sea stars or crabs living in seagrass, kelp forests or mangroves, daily life is an oxygen rollercoaster. During the day, photosynthesis by algae and plants is triggered by the sunlight and produces a massive amount of oxygen. This leads to oxygen supersaturation, a state where so much oxygen is produced that bubbles of oxygen are released into the water.

Coastal ecosystems like seagrasses, kelp, corals and mangroves help provide a buffer to deoxygenation because this supersaturation boosts the metabolism of marine life living there – with more available oxygen, animals can produce more energy and cope more easily with slight deoxygenation.

At night, without any sunlight, coastal algae and plants do not photosynthesise. Instead, they take in oxygen through the process of respiration – just as animals breathe, the leaves of plants respire and take oxygen into their cells. So animals there are exposed to a low-oxygen environment on a daily basis.

Algae on the forest floor of mangroves at high tide release oxygen bubbles as a result of supersaturation.
Marco Fusi, CC BY-ND

These marine animals have evolved to cope with fluctuating levels of high and low oxygen in seawater by exploiting oxygen supersaturation during the day to protect themselves from rising temperatures and pollution. Then, during the night when oxygen is scarce, they switch to other anaerobic metabolism processes like fermentation – just as our muscles produce lactic acid during intense anaerobic exercise. Predatory crabs, for example, actively hunt in mangroves during the night with very limited oxygen.

But coastal animals adapted to short-term oxygen depletion cannot cope well with long periods without much oxygen. So problems arise when daily fluctuations of oxygen are disrupted by global warming and human-caused pollution, causing low oxygen conditions to persist for days or weeks. For sea urchins, this makes them slower and less able to escape from predators. For other animals, this might result in slower feeding rates or reduced growth.

In the deep ocean

At depths of between 200 to 1500 metres, in what is known as the “oxygen minimum zone”, oxygen is at the lowest level of saturation. Here, some deep sea animals, especially fish, are well adapted to these extremely low-oxygen conditions. While these fish won’t be directly affected by deoxygenation because they already thrive in this habitat, it’s more likely that deoxygenation will expand this low-oxygen zone, potentially affecting fish nearby that cannot tolerate further deoxygenation.

Read more:
Climate change is depleting deep sea oxygen, but tides are helping to keep the ocean healthy

In the abyss, at depths of more than 3000 metres, animals are used to living in conditions where oxygen levels never fluctuate. Sunlight doesn’t ever reach the deepest parts of the seafloor and so photosynthesis cannot happen. Here, oceanic currents bring down a constant supply of oxygen but climate change is affecting the dynamics of these currents.

Even the slightest reduction in oxygen levels could be catastrophic for marine life here. In certain scenarios, deep sea mining could release large amounts of organic matter from the sediment. This could react with any available oxygen and further deplete it, resulting in the death of living creatures.

On the briny seabed

In some locations including the Red Sea, very salty brine pools or submarine lakes on the seabed are bursting with life, despite there being no oxygen. Bacteria, crabs, mussels and eel-like fish have evolved in these deoxygenated seas and won’t be affected at all by further deoxygenation.

Across the ocean, deoxygenation can exacerbate other threats like ocean acidification (the reduction in the pH of the ocean) or sudden increases and decreases in salinity. Together, these changes can be lethal for marine species that survive in very specific conditions.

So persistent low-oxygen conditions will pose different threat levels to animals in different habitats. Coastal habitats that produce oxygen, like seagrass beds, must be protected and restored. The oceanic current that brings oxygen down to the deep sea is vital too, and the best way to conserve that is to slow global warming as quickly as possible.

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 30,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far. Läs mer…

The UK’s farming landscape has changed dramatically since Brexit. Agricultural policy has been adjusted, and EU subsidies, which funded UK farming for decades, are no more.

Before the split, those subsidies helped British farmers to the tune of nearly £3 billion a year, which for some, made up 90% of their annual income. That system is now being phased out, in a move which the UK government claims will be more environmentally sustainable.

Central to this new approach are “environmental land management schemes”, designed to encourage farmers to produce what are known as “public goods” – things like soil health and wildlife habitats – with financial payment levels dependent on which of these goods are attained. Defra aims for 70% farmer participation by 2028, with 11,000 farmers in England already enrolled.

But its appeal and practicality remain contentious. And the new way of doing things comes with profound implications for the farming community.

Money is tight, and the future is scarily uncertain.

Our work investigates the constraints and challenges facing farmers in the UK and abroad. Recently, we explored the constraints encountered by farmers since Brexit, specifically focusing on upland farms in England. We found that the focus on environmental sustainability, though commendable, overlooks critical economic and social dimensions.

The transition threatens to marginalise traditionally minded farmers, lose cultural heritage and weaken the rural community’s social fabric. And it’s a transition which doesn’t just affect the farmers themselves. The farming and food industries are valued at over £120 billion to the British economy.

Speaking to upland farmers (who work in hilly and mountainous regions) across four English counties (Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cumbria and Devon), we discovered that many are extremely concerned about the future of the farms they look after. Farms that for some, have been in their families for generations.

One 70-year-old farmer from Lancashire commented bluntly about the future of his 250-acre beef and sheep farm: “We’re not going to be viable.”

He added: “I might as well stop farming and diversify into holiday lets.”

Another farmer, aged 50, who keeps Herdwick sheep in the Lake District, highlighted the critical role of EU subsidies, noting that their planned removal by 2027 would severely limit their farm’s finances and their ability to pursue environmental initiatives.

She said: “With that basic payment taken out of the business, it’s really difficult. We can make about £10,000 profit, but our basic payment is more than that. So that’s going to take us into a situation where we’re not making any money.”

There were also concerns expressed about how difficult it is to understand the new farming policy in the UK. Four in ten UK farmers are aged over 65, and information laid out in the 150-page “Sustainable Farming Incentive” document can be overwhelming. Many traditional farmers do not use mobile phones, and are unfamiliar with the online world.

Farms and forms

One farmer told us: “In my porch I’ve got like a thousand leaflets stacked up that [Defra] just sent me to take out to people because a lot of the farmers that I’m working with are not online. They haven’t heard about a lot of this stuff.”

She added: “I went to a farm last week, which is only accessible with a 4×4. Nobody’s been there to talk to them about schemes and stuff ever.”

Another said farmer, aged 72, said: “All the form filling is too damn difficult. I don’t even bother with these newer schemes because I don’t understand it.”

Food producer or holiday let?
Nella/Shutterstock

And while new schemes may be complex, many of the farmers we spoke to were very clear about the risks to the future of British farming. Overall, they seemed worried that farms, skills and knowledge that have been passed down through generations would be lost during this transition to more sustainable farming.

One said: “If farming isn’t going to be supported in the way it has been in the past, we’re going to lose an awful lot of farmers who have been on farms [for generations]. Their skill set and instinct will be gone, and it’ll be enveloped by agribusiness. That’s perhaps what [the government] want.”

Another explained: “If we lose the older generation that’s a massive loss.

”What used to happen with tenancies is people would work together, like me and my son. And then one would gradually step back and the other would gradually take over. It’s a gradual process.”

Overall, we found that for the more traditional farmers we spoke to, the future seemed pretty bleak. There was also a strong sense that while the farms they operated may not be hugely profitable, or provide the strongest environmental benefits, the work they do still had social and cultural value – which risks being lost forever.

Read more:
Why are farmers up in arms? The view from Wales

And as England navigates the complexities of post-Brexit agricultural policy, the balance between environmental goals and the preservation of traditional farming practices remains precarious. Many of the farmers we met felt that they were being pushed away from their traditional role as producers.

As one farmer put it: “If you’re taking productive land out of production for your tree planting or diversification of whatever kind, then where’s our food coming from?” Läs mer…