Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Do Scientists Make Good Presidents?

News Feed
Tuesday, June 11, 2024

This week, Mexico elected its first female president, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo — a politician with a background in physics and environmental engineering. Despite her scientific pedigree, not all researchers are confident that she will have their interests at heart, given that her mentor and predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, cut science budgets and had a sometimes antagonistic relationship with the Mexican science community.Speculation now abounds about whether Sheinbaum Pardo will prioritize evidence-based decision-making.To get a view of what might come, Nature talked to historians and policy experts about how five other scientists-turned-world-leaders fared in office, and whether their backgrounds in science were a benefit — or a detriment.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Some say science expertise is a double-edged sword. Researchers “know very well how to gather information from various actors in society”, says Sayaka Oki, a historian of science at the University of Tokyo. But at the same time, if they rely too much on their own intellect instead of listening to constituents, they can get “trapped in their own self-righteousness”, she adds.Herbert Hoover, US president, 1929–33Herbert Hoover studied geology in the 1890s at the then-fledgling Stanford University in California, and went on to earn a fortune as an international mining consultant. While living in London at the outset of the First World War, he achieved fame setting up a food-relief programme for German-occupied Belgium. Later, he was invited by Woodrow Wilson, US president at the time, to manage US food supplies for the remainder of the conflict.Hoover became US Secretary of Commerce in 1921 and quickly solidified his reputation as an able technocrat. But that same technocratic bias might also have blinded him to the larger social, cultural and political concerns that arose as the country stumbled into the Great Depression, says David Cole, president of the Science History Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. That recession, the worst in US history, began shortly after Hoover, a member of the Republican party, was elected president in 1929.Many of the government measures to create jobs and bring the country out of the depression were actually started under Hoover, Cole says. But he wasn’t able to sell his vision to the public, and voters ousted him after a single term. “Hoover worked himself almost to death trying to engineer the country out of the depression, but he was politically tone deaf,” Cole adds.Margaret Thatcher, UK prime minister, 1979–90Margaret Thatcher, who trained as a chemist, is probably one of the best-known and most divisive prime ministers that Britain has had. During her chemistry studies at the University of Oxford, UK, she spent a year investigating the structure of an antibiotic in the laboratory of Nobel prizewinning chemist Dorothy Hodgkin. Thatcher went on to work as a research chemist at a plastics company, and then at a food company, before quitting research for a life in politics.She led the United Kingdom’s right-wing Conservative party to electoral victory in 1979, following a wave of trade union strikes in which more than 4 million workers demanded pay rises higher than they were being offered. During her 11-year premiership, Thatcher privatized state-owned industries and public services — including water, gas and electricity — and cut spending on health care, education and housing. The funding cuts, along with surging unemployment, damaged her popularity. But her reputation got a boost in 1982, thanks to a UK victory against Argentina in a war over ownership of the Falkland Islands.Throughout her time in office, Thatcher did not seem to apply much of her scientific training to political leadership, says John Muellbauer , an economist at the University of Oxford. “She was a conviction politician, so she led by ideology and simple beliefs rather than evidence-driven policy,” Muellbauer says.A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, president of India, 2002–07Even before becoming president, Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen (A. P. J.) Abdul Kalam was a nationally recognized figure. As an aerospace scientist at the Indian Space Research Organisation, he oversaw the development of India’s first home-grown satellite launch vehicle, which in 1980 thrust the Rohini Satellite 1 into low-Earth orbit. “He did marvellous work,” says Venni Krishna, a science-policy researcher at the University of New South Wales, in Sydney, Australia. Kalam later moved to India’s Defence Research & Development Organisation, where he headed the country’s strategic ballistic missiles programme.In 2002, Kalam was elected India’s 11th president, with support from both the ruling and the opposition parties. The role of president in India is largely ceremonial — the prime minister is head of government — but Indian presidents have the power to reject bills passed by parliament. Kalam’s election was “hugely inspiring”, especially for young scientists, says Rohini Godbole, a particle physicist at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore.Kalam belonged to a generation of scientists who rose to prominence in an India that had become newly independent of British colonial rule. He had a vision of using home-grown science and technology to propel the country’s development, and injected “confidence in the scientific systems”, Godbole says.Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, 2005–21Trained as a quantum chemist, Angela Merkel was the first woman to become chancellor of Germany, when she was elected in 2005. By the time she left office as leader of the centre-right Christian Democrats, 16 years later, she had become Germany’s second-longest-serving head of government.Merkel obtained a PhD in quantum chemistry in 1986, studying reaction dynamics at the Academy of Sciences in Berlin–Adlershof, in what was then East Germany. As a political leader, she was known for her pragmatism in dealing with issues ranging from the European debt crisis to the phaseout of nuclear energy in Germany to the COVID-19 pandemic, says political scientist Matt Qvortrup at Coventry University, UK. “The way she approached political questions was by using a sort of scientific testing, seeing what theories might work and being willing to falsify them,” he says.Overall, her background in science “was definitely a virtue”, says Qvortrup, and it probably influenced her ability to work collaboratively. Her focus was on policy — how to solve a problem — rather than on politics, which is more about how to win an argument, he says, adding that as a result, she had high approval ratings among people in Germany.Yukio Hatoyama, prime minister of Japan, 2009–10Yukio Hatoyama’s time as the head of Japan’s government was short-lived, which some researchers attribute partly to an idealism that many scientists possess. Hatoyama, a leftist, was too “pure” and theoretical in his reasoning, says Oki at the University of Tokyo.Hatoyama received a PhD in industrial engineering from Stanford University. He worked as a researcher in applied probability, first at the Tokyo Institute of Technology and then at Senshu University in Tokyo, before launching his political career. Coming from a family of politicians, he was part of “a political genealogy”, says Yasushi Sato, who studies science policy at Niigata University in Japan.In September 2009, Hatoyama became Japan’s 93rd prime minister, following an election victory by his Democratic Party of Japan. The party immediately set to work cutting government spending, including funds for science programmes. But pushback from the scientific community preserved key projects, including a synchrotron radiation facility.Only eight months after taking office, Hatoyama resigned, having failed to fulfil his campaign pledge of relocating a controversial US military base from the island of Okinawa. Instead, he had agreed to move the base to a less crowded location on the island, which angered locals. Oki says public discourse at the time labelled Hatoyama as “naive” and lacking an understanding of the world.The upshot?Scientists who have succeeded in leading their countries tend to think first and foremost like politicians, says Mike Lubell, a physicist at the City College of New York, who tracks federal science-policy issues. With regard to Sheinbaum Pardo, he recommends that she draw on her scientific knowledge, but not depend on it. “Science is not the be-all and end-all in politics.”Many of Sheinbaum Pardo’s critics, including some scientists, worry about Mexican democracy, arguing that she has become too close to the increasingly powerful political machine built by her predecessor. “If I were advising her,” Lubell says, “I would say that making sure that Mexican democracy thrives is going to be essential to Mexico’s ability to advance in science and technology.”This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on June 6, 2024.

Following Mexico’s election of a woman with a scientific pedigree, Nature reviewed the legacy of well-known politicians with backgrounds in science and engineering.

This week, Mexico elected its first female president, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo — a politician with a background in physics and environmental engineering. Despite her scientific pedigree, not all researchers are confident that she will have their interests at heart, given that her mentor and predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, cut science budgets and had a sometimes antagonistic relationship with the Mexican science community.

Speculation now abounds about whether Sheinbaum Pardo will prioritize evidence-based decision-making.

To get a view of what might come, Nature talked to historians and policy experts about how five other scientists-turned-world-leaders fared in office, and whether their backgrounds in science were a benefit — or a detriment.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Some say science expertise is a double-edged sword. Researchers “know very well how to gather information from various actors in society”, says Sayaka Oki, a historian of science at the University of Tokyo. But at the same time, if they rely too much on their own intellect instead of listening to constituents, they can get “trapped in their own self-righteousness”, she adds.

Herbert Hoover, US president, 1929–33

Herbert Hoover studied geology in the 1890s at the then-fledgling Stanford University in California, and went on to earn a fortune as an international mining consultant. While living in London at the outset of the First World War, he achieved fame setting up a food-relief programme for German-occupied Belgium. Later, he was invited by Woodrow Wilson, US president at the time, to manage US food supplies for the remainder of the conflict.

Hoover became US Secretary of Commerce in 1921 and quickly solidified his reputation as an able technocrat. But that same technocratic bias might also have blinded him to the larger social, cultural and political concerns that arose as the country stumbled into the Great Depression, says David Cole, president of the Science History Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. That recession, the worst in US history, began shortly after Hoover, a member of the Republican party, was elected president in 1929.

Many of the government measures to create jobs and bring the country out of the depression were actually started under Hoover, Cole says. But he wasn’t able to sell his vision to the public, and voters ousted him after a single term. “Hoover worked himself almost to death trying to engineer the country out of the depression, but he was politically tone deaf,” Cole adds.

Margaret Thatcher, UK prime minister, 1979–90

Margaret Thatcher, who trained as a chemist, is probably one of the best-known and most divisive prime ministers that Britain has had. During her chemistry studies at the University of Oxford, UK, she spent a year investigating the structure of an antibiotic in the laboratory of Nobel prizewinning chemist Dorothy Hodgkin. Thatcher went on to work as a research chemist at a plastics company, and then at a food company, before quitting research for a life in politics.

She led the United Kingdom’s right-wing Conservative party to electoral victory in 1979, following a wave of trade union strikes in which more than 4 million workers demanded pay rises higher than they were being offered. During her 11-year premiership, Thatcher privatized state-owned industries and public services — including water, gas and electricity — and cut spending on health care, education and housing. The funding cuts, along with surging unemployment, damaged her popularity. But her reputation got a boost in 1982, thanks to a UK victory against Argentina in a war over ownership of the Falkland Islands.

Throughout her time in office, Thatcher did not seem to apply much of her scientific training to political leadership, says John Muellbauer , an economist at the University of Oxford. “She was a conviction politician, so she led by ideology and simple beliefs rather than evidence-driven policy,” Muellbauer says.

A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, president of India, 2002–07

Even before becoming president, Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen (A. P. J.) Abdul Kalam was a nationally recognized figure. As an aerospace scientist at the Indian Space Research Organisation, he oversaw the development of India’s first home-grown satellite launch vehicle, which in 1980 thrust the Rohini Satellite 1 into low-Earth orbit. “He did marvellous work,” says Venni Krishna, a science-policy researcher at the University of New South Wales, in Sydney, Australia. Kalam later moved to India’s Defence Research & Development Organisation, where he headed the country’s strategic ballistic missiles programme.

In 2002, Kalam was elected India’s 11th president, with support from both the ruling and the opposition parties. The role of president in India is largely ceremonial — the prime minister is head of government — but Indian presidents have the power to reject bills passed by parliament. Kalam’s election was “hugely inspiring”, especially for young scientists, says Rohini Godbole, a particle physicist at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore.

Kalam belonged to a generation of scientists who rose to prominence in an India that had become newly independent of British colonial rule. He had a vision of using home-grown science and technology to propel the country’s development, and injected “confidence in the scientific systems”, Godbole says.

Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, 2005–21

Trained as a quantum chemist, Angela Merkel was the first woman to become chancellor of Germany, when she was elected in 2005. By the time she left office as leader of the centre-right Christian Democrats, 16 years later, she had become Germany’s second-longest-serving head of government.

Merkel obtained a PhD in quantum chemistry in 1986, studying reaction dynamics at the Academy of Sciences in Berlin–Adlershof, in what was then East Germany. As a political leader, she was known for her pragmatism in dealing with issues ranging from the European debt crisis to the phaseout of nuclear energy in Germany to the COVID-19 pandemic, says political scientist Matt Qvortrup at Coventry University, UK. “The way she approached political questions was by using a sort of scientific testing, seeing what theories might work and being willing to falsify them,” he says.

Overall, her background in science “was definitely a virtue”, says Qvortrup, and it probably influenced her ability to work collaboratively. Her focus was on policy — how to solve a problem — rather than on politics, which is more about how to win an argument, he says, adding that as a result, she had high approval ratings among people in Germany.

Yukio Hatoyama, prime minister of Japan, 2009–10

Yukio Hatoyama’s time as the head of Japan’s government was short-lived, which some researchers attribute partly to an idealism that many scientists possess. Hatoyama, a leftist, was too “pure” and theoretical in his reasoning, says Oki at the University of Tokyo.

Hatoyama received a PhD in industrial engineering from Stanford University. He worked as a researcher in applied probability, first at the Tokyo Institute of Technology and then at Senshu University in Tokyo, before launching his political career. Coming from a family of politicians, he was part of “a political genealogy”, says Yasushi Sato, who studies science policy at Niigata University in Japan.

In September 2009, Hatoyama became Japan’s 93rd prime minister, following an election victory by his Democratic Party of Japan. The party immediately set to work cutting government spending, including funds for science programmes. But pushback from the scientific community preserved key projects, including a synchrotron radiation facility.

Only eight months after taking office, Hatoyama resigned, having failed to fulfil his campaign pledge of relocating a controversial US military base from the island of Okinawa. Instead, he had agreed to move the base to a less crowded location on the island, which angered locals. Oki says public discourse at the time labelled Hatoyama as “naive” and lacking an understanding of the world.

The upshot?

Scientists who have succeeded in leading their countries tend to think first and foremost like politicians, says Mike Lubell, a physicist at the City College of New York, who tracks federal science-policy issues. With regard to Sheinbaum Pardo, he recommends that she draw on her scientific knowledge, but not depend on it. “Science is not the be-all and end-all in politics.”

Many of Sheinbaum Pardo’s critics, including some scientists, worry about Mexican democracy, arguing that she has become too close to the increasingly powerful political machine built by her predecessor. “If I were advising her,” Lubell says, “I would say that making sure that Mexican democracy thrives is going to be essential to Mexico’s ability to advance in science and technology.”

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on June 6, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Labor to rule out controversial ‘national interest’ exemption for coal and gas if Greens back nature laws

Exclusive: Concession follows fierce criticism of the workaround but may not be enough to convince minor partyGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastLabor would prevent a contentious “national interest” exemption being used to approve coal and gas projects if the Greens agreed to support its nature laws, Guardian Australia can reveal.The offer follows a groundswell of criticism about the discretionary power, including from the author of the review that inspired the new laws, Graeme Samuel, and the former treasury secretary Ken Henry. Continue reading...

Labor would prevent a contentious “national interest” exemption being used to approve coal and gas projects if the Greens agreed to support its nature laws, Guardian Australia can reveal.The offer follows a groundswell of criticism about the discretionary power, including from the author of the review that inspired the new laws, Graeme Samuel, and the former treasury secretary Ken Henry.The concession alone may not be enough to win over the Greens, who demand protections for native forests and consideration of the climate impacts of projects in exchange for backing the proposed overhaul of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.With the government desperate to pass the laws in parliament’s final sitting of the year, the environment minister, Murray Watt, is locked in negotiations with the Greens and Coalition in the hope of landing a deal next week.Neither side supports the bill in its current form, putting the onus on Labor to cough up concessions if it wants to avoid the long-awaited reform collapsing for the second time in 12 months.The opposition leader, Sussan Ley, is willing to support the laws if Labor agrees to gut environment protections and strip back the powers of its proposed environment protection agency (EPA).Sign up: AU Breaking News emailA senior government source confirmed to Guardian Australia that, under a potential deal with the Greens, it would rewrite the proposed “national interest” test to prevent it being used to approve fossil fuel projects.Critical minerals projects could still be approved.Under the provision, which Samuel initially supported in his 2020 review of the EPBC Act as a “rare exception”, the minister would be able to ignore environmental standards and greenlight a project if it was deemed in the “national interest”.While Watt has stressed the provision was intended for projects related to defence, national security and emergencies, the level of discretion written into the legislation has left him unable to rule out the possibility of exemptions for coal and gas.The Labor MP Ed Husic previously warned a future Coalition minister could misuse the power while Henry and Samuel both predicted a “conga line” of developers would lobby for special carveouts.Labor’s grassroots environmental action group also called for the power to be axed or at least subject to parliamentary oversight.As of Friday afternoon, the Greens environment spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, and the shadow environment minister, Angie Bell, were still waiting for Labor’s options for a potential deal.The amendments would need to put forward in coming days to give both sides time to get a deal through their respective party-rooms early next week.The EPBC bills are listed for debate in the Senate on Wednesday. Parliament rises for the year on Thursday.Eucalypt forest at Waratah Gully in NSW’s South East Forest national park. Photograph: Auscape/Universal Images Group/Getty ImagesHanson-Young on Friday reiterated that the Greens wouldn’t support the legislation without extra protections for forests and the climate.Labor cast the Greens as perpetual “blockers” in the previous term of parliament, but Hanson-Young said the party wasn’t feeling pressure to cave to the government’s demands.“What plays on my mind is not allowing this government off the hook when they’re pushing for laws that will fast-track coal and gas,” she said.Ahead of Friday’s hearings, an alliance of major environment groups, including the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society and the legal firm Environmental Justice Australia, urged major changes to a bill that it warned “[does] not protect nature”.Among its suggested changes, the alliance called for the removal of new discretionary powers for the minister, the closing of loopholes for native forest logging, better engagement with First Nations communities, scrapping or limiting a proposed “restoration contributions” fund, consideration of climate impacts and reversing the decision to delegate decisions under the so-called “water trigger” to the states.The alliance also wants the federal EPA to be the main decision-maker on projects, with the minister only allowed to intervene in “exceptional circumstances”.Under the government’s model, which critics note is not genuinely independent, the minister would either make decisions or delegate that responsibility to an EPA official.“We call on the Labor government to substantially improve the bills and negotiate in good faith with members of the Senate that care about nature and a vibrant, healthy Australia,” the groups said.At Thursday’s round of inquiry hearings, the celebrated environmentalist and former Greens leader Bob Brown said the laws were an “insult to the environmental conscience of Australia”.He said the absence of a requirement for decision-makers to consider a project’s greenhouse gas emissions – known colloquially as a “climate trigger” – was analogous to stripping a treasurer of powers over taxation.“And I say that must be taken seriously, because that’s how the situation is,” he said.

Sea level rise threatens thousands of hazardous sites: Study

Rising sea levels could flood thousands of hazardous sites in marginalized communities mostly across seven states by 2100 should greenhouse gases continue to build up in the atmosphere, a study published Thursday in Nature Communications warns. Flooding could strike 5,500 sites and release contaminants should flood waters hit these sites. Eighty percent of the sites...

Rising sea levels could flood thousands of hazardous sites in marginalized communities mostly across seven states by 2100 should greenhouse gases continue to build up in the atmosphere, a study published Thursday in Nature Communications warns. Flooding could strike 5,500 sites and release contaminants should flood waters hit these sites. Eighty percent of the sites at the greatest risk of severe flooding are located in Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, California, New York and Massachusetts. The study suggests that if destabilized, these hazardous sites could harm neighborhoods that researchers identified as “Hispanic, households with incomes below twice the federal poverty line, households without a vehicle, non-voters, and renters.” “Racial residential segregation and the inequitable distribution of stormwater infrastructure further contribute to racialized patterns of flood risk across U.S. cities,” researchers said. More than half of these sites could start to face severe flood risks much sooner, as early as 2050, the study stated. This is due to extreme coastal flooding that is expected to double by that year. Researchers studied hazardous sites in Puerto Rico and 23 states with a coastline. Using historical sea level measurements, they then analyzed sea level rises based on low- and high-level emission scenarios. The low-level scenario showed that 11 percent of sites were at risk. “Under the high emissions scenario, over a fifth of coastal sewage treatment facilities, refineries and formerly used defense sites, roughly a third of power plants, and over 40% fossil fuel ports and terminals are projected to be at risk by 2100,” researchers wrote. Rising flood waters could also bring health risks if industrial animal farms or sewage treatment plants are struck, University of Maryland professor Sacoby Wilson told The Associated Press. People near these waters could be exposed to bacteria like E. coli, while flooded industrial sites could expose chemicals that cause rashes, headaches, fatigue and burning of the eyes. “For folks who are vulnerable, maybe have an underlying health condition, those health conditions could be exacerbated during those flood events,” Wilson, who was not behind the new study, told the AP. The goal of the study is to “get ahead of the problem by looking far out into the future,” Lara J. Cushing, associate professor in the University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, told the AP at a press conference Wednesday. “We do have time to respond and try to mitigate the risks and also increase resilience,” added Cushing, who co-authored the paper. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Shein pressed over sale of "childlike sex dolls" by bipartisan representatives

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is demanding answers from fast-fashion giant Shein related to the possible sale of dolls "with a childlike appearance" to U.S. consumers.The big picture: The rare cross-party scrutiny piles onto years of criticism the Chinese-founded online retailer has faced over its environmental and labor practices and comes as it faces new trade barriers to its sale of ultra-cheap goods.Driving the news: The letter, addressed to Shein's CEO, expressed deep concern that the company's website may have been used to sell "childlike sex dolls" to American customers.The lawmakers pointed to the company's 2024 Sustainability and Social Impact Report, which states sellers are prohibited from hawking products that promote "child abuse and exploitation."The letter reads, "There is no question as to whether these dolls encourage child abuse and exploitation."The Hill was the first outlet to report on the letter.Catch up quick: French officials recently threatened to cut off Shein from the country's market after the nation's consumer and anti-fraud watchdog reported the company over the dolls, saying the description of them "makes it difficult to doubt the child pornography nature of the content."A Shein spokesperson said in a statement to Axios that the e-commerce titan imposed "strict sanctions on sellers involved in the sale of child-like dolls" following the French report and that it implemented a "complete ban" on all sex-doll products.Donald Tang, the company's executive chairman, said the marketplace listings were from third-party sellers and that Shein was "tracing the source and will take swift, decisive action against those responsible."Zoom in: The lawmakers said that while they commended Shein for banning the sale of sex dolls, "it is unacceptable that these products were ever allowed to be sold on Shein's website."They imposed a December 20 deadline for the company to answer whether such dolls were ever available for sale in the U.S. via the Shein e-commerce marketplace and if they were sold to American customers, among other inquiries. What they're saying: "It is incredibly disappointing that a major global retailer allowed childlike sex dolls to be sold on its platform, products that are known to fuel pedophilia and endanger children," said Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), who led the letter alongside Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).In another bipartisan effort to crack down on the sale of such products, Buchanan introduced a bill in February with Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) to make it a crime to import, transport, buy, sell, distribute or possess a sex doll that resembles a child.The bill was introduced after a local South Florida station reported that a woman said her daughter's likeness had been stolen and used to create a sex doll that was for sale online.The bottom line: Wasserman Schultz said in a statement that "[w]e cannot end the sexual exploitation of children if these repulsive products are built, sold and shared."Go deeper: The biggest threat to Chinese e-commerce sites

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is demanding answers from fast-fashion giant Shein related to the possible sale of dolls "with a childlike appearance" to U.S. consumers.The big picture: The rare cross-party scrutiny piles onto years of criticism the Chinese-founded online retailer has faced over its environmental and labor practices and comes as it faces new trade barriers to its sale of ultra-cheap goods.Driving the news: The letter, addressed to Shein's CEO, expressed deep concern that the company's website may have been used to sell "childlike sex dolls" to American customers.The lawmakers pointed to the company's 2024 Sustainability and Social Impact Report, which states sellers are prohibited from hawking products that promote "child abuse and exploitation."The letter reads, "There is no question as to whether these dolls encourage child abuse and exploitation."The Hill was the first outlet to report on the letter.Catch up quick: French officials recently threatened to cut off Shein from the country's market after the nation's consumer and anti-fraud watchdog reported the company over the dolls, saying the description of them "makes it difficult to doubt the child pornography nature of the content."A Shein spokesperson said in a statement to Axios that the e-commerce titan imposed "strict sanctions on sellers involved in the sale of child-like dolls" following the French report and that it implemented a "complete ban" on all sex-doll products.Donald Tang, the company's executive chairman, said the marketplace listings were from third-party sellers and that Shein was "tracing the source and will take swift, decisive action against those responsible."Zoom in: The lawmakers said that while they commended Shein for banning the sale of sex dolls, "it is unacceptable that these products were ever allowed to be sold on Shein's website."They imposed a December 20 deadline for the company to answer whether such dolls were ever available for sale in the U.S. via the Shein e-commerce marketplace and if they were sold to American customers, among other inquiries. What they're saying: "It is incredibly disappointing that a major global retailer allowed childlike sex dolls to be sold on its platform, products that are known to fuel pedophilia and endanger children," said Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), who led the letter alongside Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).In another bipartisan effort to crack down on the sale of such products, Buchanan introduced a bill in February with Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) to make it a crime to import, transport, buy, sell, distribute or possess a sex doll that resembles a child.The bill was introduced after a local South Florida station reported that a woman said her daughter's likeness had been stolen and used to create a sex doll that was for sale online.The bottom line: Wasserman Schultz said in a statement that "[w]e cannot end the sexual exploitation of children if these repulsive products are built, sold and shared."Go deeper: The biggest threat to Chinese e-commerce sites

Coalition to help Labor rush through new nature laws if environmental protections dropped

Sussan Ley’s offer allows a clear path to pass laws to rewrite Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act in final sitting weekGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastThe Coalition has offered to help Labor rush through new nature laws if it agrees to gut environment protection, challenging Labor to side with business interests over green groups to implement the long-awaited changes.Environmental lawyers are urging the government against further weakening already flawed laws at the “behest of industry”. Continue reading...

The Coalition has offered to help Labor rush through new nature laws if it agrees to gut environment protection, challenging Labor to side with business interests over green groups to implement the long-awaited changes.Environmental lawyers are urging the government against further weakening already flawed laws at the “behest of industry”.The new offer from the opposition leader, Sussan Ley, gives Anthony Albanese a clear path to pass the laws to re-write the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act when parliament returns next week for the final sitting of the year.Sign up: AU Breaking News emailBut it would require ceding to the Coalition’s demands to water-down protection for nature and stripping back the powers of Labor’s proposed environment protection agency (EPA), risking a major backlash from environmentalist and potentially members of Labor’s backbench.After Guardian Australia revealed senior Liberals were optimistic about a deal, Ley confirmed the opposition would agree to overhaul the EPBC Act if Labor accepted its amendments while rejecting the Greens’ demands, which include new protection for native forests and measures to consider the climate impact of projects.The opposition wants changes to address seven points of concern, including the powers of the EPA, the requirement for large projects to disclose projected emissions upfront and threat of “excessive” financial penalties for breaches of nature laws and “stop-work” orders that could halt projects.The Coalition is also concerned about two provisions designed to protect nature: a new definition of “unacceptable impact” on the environment and a “net gain” test that is supposed to force developers to make up for damage and deliver an overall benefit for the environment.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Breaking News AustraliaGet the most important news as it breaksPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“The Coalition is seeking sensible amendments,” Ley said in a statement.“If they are adopted, then we will be supportive of legislation next week. However, if the government rejects sensible suggestions and chooses to put jobs at risk, then we will vote against them, with an open mind to revisit negotiations next year.”The environment minister, Murray Watt, remains open to striking a deal with either the Coalition or the Greens to get the laws through the Senate before parliament wraps up for 2025 next Thursday.On Thursday, Watt was adamant that the legislation would pass next week despite not yet having the support of either party.The Greens leader, Larissa Waters, said if Labor stitched up a deal with the Coalition then it wasn’t serious about protecting nature.“I think if the Labor government wants to do a deal with the climate denying, anti-science dinosaurs in the Liberal party that tells you everything that you need to know about what the government’s motivations are. It’s not the environment. It’s lining the pockets of big corporates,” she told ABC’s Afternoon Briefing.The warning came as the Environmental Defenders Office told a senate committee examining the government’s legislation that the bills, as drafted, risked making the failings of the current laws “worse”. EDO’s deputy director of policy and law reform, Rachel Walmsley, told the committee the parliament had three options: fail to pass the legislation and keep the failed EPBC Act in place for many more years, pass the bills as proposed or even weakened at the “behest” of industry or strengthen the bills and “actually deliver outcomes for nature”. “It has to be option three,” she said.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.