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

Nature groups rebuke Reeves for ‘cynical’ 11th-hour planning bill changes

Chancellor accused of removing environmental protections to win short-term growth and save her budgetUK politics live – latest updatesLast-minute changes to the government’s landmark planning bill have sparked a furious backlash from nature groups who have mounted an attack on the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, over her plans to remove environmental protections.The changes to the legislation come as it enters its final stages before being signed into law. Continue reading...

Last-minute changes to the government’s landmark planning bill have sparked a furious backlash from nature groups who have mounted an attack on the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, over her plans to remove environmental protections.The changes to the legislation come as it enters its final stages before being signed into law.Promoted by Reeves, they are designed to make it easier for developers to side-step environmental laws in order to build major projects such as AI datacentres.They include new powers for the government to overrule local democracy if councils refuse developments based on environmental grounds, or on issues such as water shortages.But in outspoken attacks on the chancellor, charities including household names such as the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts say Reeves is seeking to grab short-term growth headlines to save her budget, rather than well-thought-out reforms to planning.Reeves is pushing for the planning bill to be passed before her budget on 26 November so that she is able to factor it into forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which could give her about £3bn extra breathing room against her own debt rules.The charities have spent months working with ministers in an attempt to forge the best planning bill to ensure growth and nature recovery go hand in hand.Dr James Robinson, the RSPB’s chief operating officer, said: “Dropping 67 amendments to the planning bill at the 11th hour isn’t just poor process, it’s legislative chaos. There’s no time for proper scrutiny, no clarity on the cumulative impact, and no confidence this is about good planning rather than political optics.“It looks like a cynical attempt to game a better forecast from the OBR, rather than a serious effort to fix the planning system.”The intervention by Reeves into the landmark bill comes after she was filmed boasting about her closeness to a major developer after she intervened to lift legal blocks to their housing plans.The objections to 21,000 homes being built in Sussex concerned water shortages and concerns over the amount of water being taken from rivers and wetlands in the Arun Valley, which risked affecting protected wildlife and local water resources. The MP for Horsham, John Milne has criticised the chancellor’s intervention, stating that it was top-down government at its worst.“This decision rides roughshod over the work that Horsham district council has been carrying out to find a balanced solution.”One amendment promoted by Reeves would allow more central government intervention in local decision making. It allows the secretary of state to overrule councils that refuse permission for projects, even if they have legitimate concerns on environmental grounds, or there are issues relating to water shortages.The amendment is designed to ease the path of major infrastructure projects, for example AI datacentres, which create vast amounts of CO2 and put huge pressure on water resources.Alexa Culver, an environmental lawyer from RSK Wilding, said: “For the first time, the secretary of state will be able to make orders that prevent refusals of planning permission by planning authorities.“This could direct authorities to ignore real-world infastructure and environmental constraints – like water shortages – to allow harmful development through that leaves local communities stranded.”Joan Edwards, director of policy and public affairs at the Wildlife Trusts, said Reeves was trying to grab headlines about growth measures before her budget.“The chancellor continues to fail to understand that a healthy natural environment underpins a healthy economy. These performative amendments represent neither a win for development or the economy, and promise only delay and muddle in planning and marine policy.”Richard Benwell, CEO of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said the government’s race to speed up planning decisions would fall flat on its face if it did not include the environment at its core.“Last-minute changes to the bill are being made in a hurried and piecemeal approach,” he said. “This kind of scattergun policymaking doesn’t give businesses or investors the certainty they need to drive growth, and it puts the UK’s irreplaceable natural environment at risk.”Government officials have said the amendments were required in part because an earlier watering down of the bill in the summer damaged investor confidence. However, no data has been provided to back this claim.The government said if passed, each of these “pro-growth changes” would accelerate the government’s “plan for change” to build 1.5m homes, achieve clean power by 2030 and raise living standards across the country.Steve Reed, the housing secretary, said: “Britain’s potential has been shackled by governments unwilling to overhaul the stubborn planning system that has erected barriers to building at every turn. It is simply not true that nature has to lose for economic growth to succeed.“Sluggish planning has real-world consequences. Every new house blocked deprives a family of a home. Every infrastructure project that gets delayed blocks someone from a much-needed job. This will now end.”

The Guardian view on Labour targeting nature: the problem isn’t snails, but a broken housing model | Editorial

Rachel Reeves’s drive to speed up development is beginning to treat wildlife and the environment as expendable. Voters want homes built, but not at any costIt began with gastropods. Last Tuesday, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told a conference of tech executives that she’d intervened to help a developer build about 20,000 homes in north Sussex that had been held up, she said, by “some snails … a protected species or something”. She added that they “are microscopic … you cannot even see” them.No one could miss the direction the chancellor was headed in. The snail in question, the lesser whirlpool ramshorn, is one of Britain’s rarest freshwater creatures, found in only a handful of locations and highly sensitive to sewage pollution. But Ms Reeves portrayed it as a bureaucratic nuisance. She then bragged that she’d fixed it – after a friendly developer gave her a call. It’s a bad look for a Labour politician, let alone the chancellor, to boast that green rules can be bent for chums. Continue reading...

It began with gastropods. Last Tuesday, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told a conference of tech executives that she’d intervened to help a developer build about 20,000 homes in north Sussex that had been held up, she said, by “some snails … a protected species or something”. She added that they “are microscopic … you cannot even see” them.No one could miss the direction the chancellor was headed in. The snail in question, the lesser whirlpool ramshorn, is one of Britain’s rarest freshwater creatures, found in only a handful of locations and highly sensitive to sewage pollution. But Ms Reeves portrayed it as a bureaucratic nuisance. She then bragged that she’d fixed it – after a friendly developer gave her a call. It’s a bad look for a Labour politician, let alone the chancellor, to boast that green rules can be bent for chums.The scheme was given the go-ahead a day before drought was declared in Sussex, potentially giving water companies cover to breach their licence obligations – including measures meant to protect the snails. Ms Reeves won’t like being compared to Liz Truss, but the analogy works. Three years ago, Ms Truss railed against an “anti-growth coalition” of environmentalists, lawyers and regulators who, she claimed, were blocking Britain’s path to prosperity. Ms Reeves is framing the issue the same way: growth is the priority, nature the obstacle.But the public don’t agree. Luke Tryl of More in Common told a Conservative conference fringe meeting that most Britons can’t be categorised as “nimby” or “yimby”. They want both: to build and also to protect the countryside. However, when asked whether wildlife should be protected even if it delays or raises the cost of infrastructure, every single voter group – including Labour, Conservative and Reform UK – chose wildlife. Among the general public, 62% prioritised nature protection while 18% sided with building at any cost.The Treasury reportedly plans to gut green rules with amendments to its planning and infrastructure bill – ditching the precautionary principle, slashing species protections and curbing legal challenges. The bill, currently in the Lords, already allows developers to bypass environmental obligations by paying into a fund to offset damage elsewhere. Under its “environmental delivery plans”, ministers could disapply environmental protections in exchange for vague promises of ecological improvement within 10 years.Labour, significantly, is turning its back on the work of the Dasgupta review. This argues that nature is not a constraint on growth but its foundation, a form of capital on which the economy depends. Labour is not only rejecting that view but deluding itself by claiming housebuilding will be accelerated by dismissing concerns around conservation. The Wildlife Trusts points out that more than a million homes already have planning permission since 2015, but remain unbuilt. The real barriers to housebuilding are skills shortages, hoarded land and slow delivery. They need sorting out. Blaming snails, it would seem, is easier.Many of Labour’s younger voters are already tempted by the Green party, which combines environmentalism and leftwing economics. Now, by mocking green protections and cosying up to developers, the chancellor is giving these voters more reasons to jump ship. The problem isn’t the planning system. It’s a broken, profit-driven housing model that banks land and starves supply. Scrapping nature protections won’t build 1.5m homes, it will just bulldoze public trust and the countryside.

Labor is close to a deal on environmental law reforms. There are troubling signs these will fall short

Labor is close to a deal on its environmental law reforms. Will they strong enough to protect nature?

Chris Putnam/GettyThe Albanese government has hinted it is close to a deal with the Coalition over the long-awaited overhaul of Australia’s environment laws. Environment Minister Murray Watt plans to introduce new legislation to parliament in November. Can Watt deliver what is sorely needed to turn around Australia’s climate and nature crises? Or will we see a continuation of what former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry called “intergenerational bastardry”? However the bill is passed, the new laws must include substantial improvements. But with pressure from all sides – including the Opposition and minor parties, mining companies, green groups and big business – will the new laws be strong enough to protect Australia’s embattled environment? Here are some of the ways our environment laws should be reformed. Not fit for purpose Australia’s key national environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is 25 years old. Two major reviews, ten years apart in 2009 and 2020, criticised it variously as “too repetitive and unnecessarily complex” and “ineffective”. At the 2022 election the Albanese government promised to overhaul the laws. But most of its proposed reforms were abandoned in the lead up to the next election in 2025, citing a lack of parliamentary support. In 2022, Labor was talking up its plan to reform Australia’s broken environmental laws. A strong watchdog The success or failure of the reformed laws rests on developing well-defined National Environmental Standards – legally binding rules to improve environmental outcomes. These would apply to environmental decisions that affect nationally important plants, animals, habitats and places. Examples include land clearing in areas where threatened species occur, regional planning and Indigenous consultation. Alongside strong standards, we need a well-resourced and fearlessly independent Environment Protection Agency to assess proposals, such as applications for new gas wells or to clear native vegetation for mining. A strong EPA is essential for legal compliance. The Coalition doesn’t support an EPA and wants final approval powers to rest with the minister of the day. But if an EPA can be overruled by the minister, it could further reduce public confidence in the protection system, especially given recent examples of real or perceived industry pressure on government decisions. If the minister is given powers to “call in” proposals to assess them they should be very specific and restricted. For example, for responding to national disasters but not for purely economic purposes. The reasons for calling in a decision should be published and made public. The endangered southern black-throated finch is just one of many threatened Australian species. Geoff Walker/iNaturalist, CC BY-NC Habitats are homes for wildlife and need greater protection New laws should also clarify what are considered “unacceptable impacts” of new projects. For example, irreplaceable natural areas should be saved from destruction or damage by new developments. Destroying or damaging habitats that are home to rare and endangered species should be illegal. Protected, “no-go” areas could be recorded on a register to guide project decisions, as Watt has discussed. It is vital that environmental offsets, designed to compensate for unavoidable impacts from developments, are legislated as a last resort. Climate change The EPBC Act lacks a “climate trigger” that explicitly requires consideration of climate change impacts of greenhouse gas-intensive projects. At least ten previous attempts to introduce a climate trigger have not succeeded, and Watt has all but ruled it out in these reforms. Instead, Watt suggests “the existing Safeguard Mechanism as an effective way of controlling emissions”. The Safeguard Mechanism legislates limits on greenhouse gas emissions for Australia’s largest industrial facilities. But it only applies to the direct or scope 1, greenhouse gas emissions. It does not include emissions produced from Australia’s fossil fuel exports of coal, oil and gas. Nearly 80% of Australia’s contribution to global emissions comes from its fossil fuel exports. Even without a climate trigger, reforms to the EPBC Act must reflect the impact of climate change on Australia’s environments. They could require climate is taken into account in all decision making to achieve environmental outcomes under the Act, and prohibit development in places that offer refuge to native species during extreme events. First Nations to the front Environmental decision making must include genuine Indigenous engagement and a required standard should be part of the Act. A Commissioner for Country would help to ensure this expectation was adhered to. Furthermore, calls have been made by First Nations for new laws to include the protection of species based on their cultural significance. No more logging loopholes There must be an end to industry carve outs, including regional forestry agreements. A pact between the national government and certain states, these agreements define how native forests should be managed, harvested and protected. For decades, they have allowed the logging of forests that are home to endangered native species, including the koala and greater glider. In 2024, Victoria and Western Australia both ended the native forestry industries in their states. In August 2025, Watt confirmed that bringing regional forest agreements under the operation of national environment standards “remains our position”. But so far he has avoided questions about how that would work in practice. Clear targets If the Labor government is serious about delivering on its promise of “No New Extinctions” these reforms must include clear targets to better protect threatened animals, plants and their environments. Preventing further extinctions will take far greater, long-term funding than Australia currently provides. We need a better understanding of how endangered species and ecological communities are faring. The newly-created Environment Information Australia body will collect data and track progress against an agreed baseline, for example the 2021 State of Environment Report. Conservation leader not pariah Australia is known globally for its unique and much-loved wildlife, and its diverse and beautiful nature places. However, in the face of enormous pressure to enable increased development, we are gaining a reputation for our gross failures to care for and conserve this extraordinary natural heritage. Australia must step up as a global leader in nature conservation through strong environmental laws and biodiversity recovery strategies. As we bid to host the UN’s global climate summit COP31 next year, the eyes of the world will be on our environmental and climate ambition. Euan is a Councillor within the Biodiversity Council, a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and president of the Australian Mammal Society.Phillipa C. McCormack receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Natural Hazards Research Australia, the National Environmental Science Program, Green Adelaide, the North East NSW Forestry Hub and the ACT government. She is a member of the National Environmental Law Association and International Association of Wildland Fire and affiliated with the Wildlife Crime Research Hub.Yung En Chee receives/has received funding from the Australian Research Council. She also receives funding and research contracts from Melbourne Water through the Melbourne Waterway Research-Practice Partnership 2023-2028. Yung En is a member of the Society for Conservation Biology.

Scientists Are Uncovering the Secrets of How Fluffy, White Dandelions Spread Their Seeds

Their seed dispersal strategies have helped these ubiquitous plants flourish all over the world, new research suggests

Scientists Are Uncovering the Secrets of How Fluffy, White Dandelions Spread Their Seeds Their seed dispersal strategies have helped these ubiquitous plants flourish all over the world, new research suggests Sarah Kuta - Daily Correspondent October 6, 2025 2:50 p.m. Dandelions are strategic about when to disperse their seeds, new research suggests. Pixabay Chris Roh and his 4-year-old daughter have developed a sweet father-daughter ritual: Whenever they see a fluffy dandelion while they’re out walking, they pick up the flower and blow on it. But Roh is not just a dad, he’s also a fluid dynamicist at Cornell University. So this shared activity got him thinking: How, exactly, do dandelions disperse their seeds? Roh and his colleagues answer this question in a new paper published September 10 in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface, describing the mechanisms that enable the ubiquitous weed (Taraxacum officinale) to spread its white tufts on the breeze. Did you know? Dandelions of many names Dandelions have many nicknames around the world, from "Irish daisy" to "cankerwort." The weed is also sometimes called "wet-the-bed"—likely because of its diuretic effects. “How the seeds are attached to the parent plant, how they enable or prevent [detachment] based on environmental conditions—that moment is so important,” Roh says in a statement. “It sets the trajectory and governs a lot of how far they will go and where they will land,” he says, adding that the initial detachment process “is probably one of the most crucial moments in their biology.” For the study, scientists glued a force sensor to individual dandelion seeds. Then, they slowly tugged the seeds away from the stem in different directions, recording the force required to free them in each scenario. The scientists say this is the first time anyone has ever formally measured the force needed to detach dandelion seeds, per Science News’ Susan Milius. Pulling downward required nearly five times as much force to release the seeds from the plant than pulling upward, according to the researchers. The seeds were the most stubborn when the scientists pulled straight out from the seed head, requiring more than 100 times the force of pulling upward, per Phys.org’s Sanjukta Mondal. Next, the team looked at the plant under a microscope to see how the seeds were attached to the stem. The seeds are connected to the plant by a slender tether with a horseshoe-shaped structure providing support on one side, they discovered. The researchers theorize that when the wind blows the seed tuft toward the supported side of the horseshoe, it doesn’t budge. Only when the breeze blows the tuft toward the open side does the seed detach and float away. These findings won’t surprise anyone who has ever blown on a fluffy dandelion—only the closest tufts take flight, while those on the opposite side of the seed head remain firmly attached. Rotating the plant, while continuing to huff and puff, is the only way to free all the seeds. This asymmetrical arrangement is likely an adaptation to help ensure the plant’s seeds only detach when a wind gust is optimal for dispersal—that is, when the wind is poised to blow the seeds upward and away from the parent plant, instead of downward toward the ground. This, in turn, gives the species better chances of surviving and proliferating. “Seed dispersal over a wide area … offers seedlings the chance to thrive by avoiding being in close proximity to their relatives, which would limit resources for seedlings and the parent plant,” writes Mary Abraham for Nature News and Views. This unique, microscopic seed attachment architecture is likely a big reason why dandelions grow anywhere and everywhere—much to the chagrin of groundskeepers trying to maintain unblemished, manicured lawns. “Its seed dispersal strategies are at least partially responsible for its nearly worldwide distribution and evolutionary success,” the team writes in the paper. The researchers see dandelions as a model for other wind-dispersed plants, such as cotton and lettuce, so they hope their findings will have broader implications. Understanding the basic structural mechanics of dandelion seed dispersion could prove useful for scientists modeling plant and disease population dynamics, for instance, or for growers managing their fields. The findings may one day help improve “how crop seeds are distributed, especially in large-scale farming,” says study co-author Sridhar Ravi, an engineer at the University of New South Wales, Canberra, in Australia, in a statement. “It could lead to more efficient planting techniques that reduce waste and increase yield.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Beach lowering has begun across Cape Town: Why is the city pushing sand back into the sea?

As work begins at four key beaches, this coastal management practice reveals a delicate balance between infrastructure and nature. The post Beach lowering has begun across Cape Town: Why is the city pushing sand back into the sea? appeared first on SA People.

With Capetonians in a fuss about the recently announced beach lowering programme, many are asking the obvious question: Why are bulldozers pushing sand back into the ocean at Fish Hoek, Muizenberg, Gordon’s Bay, and Bikini Beach? Aren’t we supposed to protect our beaches, not remove sand from them? The confusion is understandable. As the annual programme kicked off this October, the sight of heavy machinery on beloved beaches naturally raises concerns. But the answer lies in understanding Cape Town’s unique coastal challenge: the relentless power of wind-blown sand during the Mother City’s notorious summer winds. The Problem Cape Town’s coastal areas exist in what officials call “highly altered coastal systems”: urban coastlines where infrastructure sits close to dynamic natural forces. During winter, sand accumulates naturally. But when summer arrives with the infamous southeaster winds, this sand becomes a moving threat. “The lowering of beach sand levels enables greater areas of the beach to become wet during high tides, therefore limiting the potential for wind-blown sand to inundate adjacent roads and infrastructure,” explains Alderman Eddie Andrews, the City’s Deputy Mayor. Without intervention, wind-blown sand can smother parking areas, block stormwater outlets, and threaten electrical infrastructure. At Hout Bay, a giant dune once endangered key facilities. The Science Beach lowering is different from simply removing sand. The City pushes sand from the upper beach to the low-water mark, where wave action transports it back into the coastal circulation system. “Beach lowering mimics a natural scour event which is common on our shorelines, and puts the sand back into the sea where it returns to circulation within the oceanic system,” the City notes. By lowering the beach profile, more surface area becomes wet during high tides. Wet sand is significantly heavier than dry sand and far less susceptible to wind transport, effectively anchoring it in place during the windy season. Environmental Balance Beach manipulation raises important environmental questions. Research worldwide has identified both benefits and concerns. On the positive side, the practice maintains natural sediment circulation, protects infrastructure without hard structures like seawalls, preserves beach access and tourism, and represents a reversible intervention. Potential concerns include temporary disruption to beach organisms, short-term water turbidity during work, and disturbance to shorebirds during operations. Cape Town’s approach minimises impacts by scheduling work between 1 October and 8 November, before peak summer season and bird nesting periods. Critically, sand isn’t removed from the coastal system entirely but returned to natural ocean circulation. Why Not Just Build Walls? Hard structures like seawalls might seem simpler, but they accelerate erosion on adjacent properties, reflect wave energy, permanently alter natural processes, and prove inflexible as sea levels rise. Beach lowering represents a “soft” engineering approach that preserves the beach as a natural, dynamic feature while managing wind-blown sand. Looking Forward As sea levels rise and extreme weather intensifies, Cape Town’s approach of minimal intervention offers lessons for coastal cities worldwide. “Our intention is to intervene as little as possible,” says Gregg Oelofse, head of the City’s Environmental Policy and Strategy. “We have learnt that the more you intervene, the more you mess the situation up.” The mechanical work runs through early November, completing before summer winds intensify. Beaches remain accessible, though visitors should stay clear of machinery. For most beachgoers, results will be largely invisible. Beaches won’t look dramatically different, they’ll simply function better with less sand blowing onto infrastructure. The sand being pushed back into the sea isn’t wasted. It’s being returned to its natural home, to be redistributed by the forces that brought it ashore. Sometimes the best solution is working with nature rather than against it. A Sandy Perspective For South Africans living abroad, particularly in the UK, Cape Town’s beach challenges offer an interesting contrast. British beaches are often rocky affairs, frequently backed by concrete seawalls built to hold back the sea. When the weather is actually good enough for a beach day, you’re more likely to find pebbles than sand. Cape Town’s problem isn’t a lack of beaches but managing an abundance of sand that wants to go where it shouldn’t. It’s a uniquely South African coastal challenge, and one that makes those sprawling False Bay beaches all the more precious. Beach lowering runs from 1 October to 8 November 2025, weather dependent. For updates, visit the City of Cape Town’s official website. The post Beach lowering has begun across Cape Town: Why is the city pushing sand back into the sea? appeared first on SA People.

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.