• As part of National Science Week, James Fodor wrote about getting science communication right, and Elizabeth Dangerfield shared her personal experience with breast cancer and how it made her value science even more;
• Clare Heath-McIvor wrote about the challenges in leaving a cult;
• and David James reflected on the economic transformation taking place in the global economy. 

Andrew Leigh, who grew up in a religious family, may now be a self-described atheist, but he views religion through rose-coloured glasses. As he toured the country to discuss his ambitions for boosting philanthropy in recent years, the assistant minister for charities often quoted American social scientist Robert Putnam – to whom Dr Leigh was once an understudy – in claiming that being religious and going to church simply made people “nicer”.

Earlier this year, a father defended the attempted so-called ‘honour killing’ of his own daughter in South Australia’s Supreme Court with the chilling words – “she deserved it”. Incidents like this force us to confront a deeply unsettling question: How could any parent forsake their most fundamental instinct – the safety of their own child – in the name of ‘honour’? In a country where honour killings are often perceived as distant abominations, the fact that a crime like this happened in Australia should make us reflect on the realities of our modern society.

In geoeconomic and financial terms, the Earth has begun shifting on its axis. Triggered by the West’s proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, and America’s increasingly aggressive posture towards China, the shape of the world economy is being transformed. It is arguably the biggest repositioning in two centuries. The world economy is splitting into two parts, reminiscent of the divide between communism and capitalism during the Cold War. Globalised trade, and the disaggregation of large corporations’ production systems around the world, are likely to be reversed, replaced by an era of economic nationalism.

Science communication aims to describe scientific research and findings to the general public in a persuasive and comprehensive manner. But why does the public need to know about science? Many reasons have been advanced, including the importance of science knowledge for making informed decisions regarding voting, medical treatments, diet and exercise, avoiding pseudoscience-based scams or hoaxes. However, in this essay I will argue that all such reasons should be subsidiary to the primary goal of increasing scientific knowledge and curiosity about the world for its own sake.

There’s a lot they don’t tell you about leaving a cult, a high-control religion or toxic group. They don’t exactly warn you that you could freeze up in the cereal aisle at the supermarket, wondering if it’s really okay to buy that brand you’ve been told is tied up with a rival cult. Cereal and rival religions. Yes, you read that right. While the distress of leaving a cult might be predictable, the fraught nature of seeking much-needed support during this immensely stressful time is less so. Once the rose-coloured glasses of indoctrination shatter and you wise up to just how destructive your group is, “choice” doesn’t adequately describe the impetus to leave. It’s more like a fight for your soul’s survival, or a brutal push so you don’t pollute the group.