In a new paper, scientists of the Earth Commission argue how today’s scenarios are falling short of providing solutions to the climate crisis. They call for a rethink that puts justice, diverse knowledge, and systemic change at the heart of modelling.

Climate change is widely understood as an environmental and economic threat, but new research from the University of Sydney shows it is also a growing social crisis, weakening the relationships people rely on to survive.

In a large survey of laboratory mouse strains held by major research repositories, Fernando Pardo Manuel de Villena and colleagues found that nearly half of the samples showed discrepancies between their reported identities and their actual genetic profiles, revealing a critical gap in genetic quality control (GQC). While many inconsistencies were relatively minor, some had the potential to undermine experimental validity and reproducibility by introducing hidden genetic variables that could alter biological outcomes. According to the authors, an improved GQC process could help address these inconsistencies and ensure that laboratory mouse models are consistent, reliable, and reproducible in biomedical research. “True replication studies require an exact match with the materials, methods, and design used in the original study,” write the authors.  “Laboratory mouse–based replication studies that lack proper GQC of the mice used in both the original report and the replication study should be treated with caution.”

In this Policy Article, Pardo Manuel de Villena et al. used the sophisticated and standardized GCQ system known as MiniMUGA (Mouse Universal Genotyping Array) to genotype 611 samples from 341 mouse model strains held by Mutant Mouse Resource and Research Centers (MMRRCs) to determine whether the animals’ reported identities accurately matched their genetic makeup. Although the expected engineered mutation was generally present, the authors found that half of the samples contained discrepancies between their official strain names and their actual genomic profiles. Most inconsistencies involved mismatches between the reported and detected substrains, incorrect classification of strain type, or failures to indicate the presence of important genetic constructs. In some cases, strains proved to be genetically more uniform and reproducible than their names suggested, while others contained unexpected genetic variation that could significantly affect experimental outcomes. Particularly concerning were hidden genetic elements that could alter biological results and compromise the rigor and reproducibility of studies. In practice, only about 20% of the examined strains fully met the expectations associated with their names. To address this, Pardo Manuel de Villena et al. propose a standardized, high-resolution GQC framework and call for coordinated efforts among repositories, journals, and funders to improve quality and consistency. “The lack of consistency and low rate of expectations met as presented here are not due to fundamental failures of past research but are the consequence of the unavailability heretofore of widely applicable, cost-effective, and accessible tools for mouse GQC,” Pardo Manuel de Villena et al. write. “The process highlighted here addresses this knowledge gap.”

The cuts to USAID (the United States Agency for International Development) in early 2025 are associated with significant increases in violent conflict in regions covering most of the African continent, a new study reports. “The obvious temptation is to read the findings … as evidence that more aid reduces conflict,” writes Axel Dreher in a related Perspective. “That would be misleading. What the authors identify is the effect of a sudden and unexpected disruption. Abrupt withdrawal removes resources, but it also interrupts contracts, staffing, procurement, and expectations. It can leave local governments, intermediaries, and citizens confronting not just scarcity but broken commitments. The effect may therefore reflect institutional disruption as much as the absence of aid itself and be much different from gradual reductions in aid.” USAID was one of the world’s largest providers of foreign assistance, operating in more than 100 countries and supporting initiatives ranging from public health, and agriculture to education, disaster relief and democratic institutions. However, less than a week after its inauguration, the second Trump administration issued sweeping cuts to USAID, marking a dramatic shift in more than 60 years of U.S. foreign policy. Emerging medical research has already linked these cuts to severe humanitarian consequences, including potentially millions of additional deaths. Yet the consequences of the sudden removal of foreign aid on political instability and different types of violence, such as armed clashes, protests and riots, or attacks on civilians, aren’t fully understood.

To address this gap, Dominic Rohner and colleagues examined the impact of USAID funding cuts on conflict across 870 subnational regions covering most of the African continent. Rohner et al. combined two detailed datasets for their analysis: the Geocoded Official Development Assistance Dataset (GODAD), which tracks foreign aid disbursements and project locations worldwide, and the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), which records violent events. By merging these two sources, the authors were able to link patterns of past aid distribution to subsequent patterns of violence and assess whether areas that had previously received more USAID support experienced more or different types of conflict after the aid was withdrawn. The findings show that the withdrawal of USAID is associated with significant increases in violent conflict, armed clashes, protests, and riots – particularly in regions that received substantial U.S. aid. These effects appeared immediately after USAID removal and persisted for months. What’s more, Rohner et al. found that local institutional strength further impacted these effects – weaker states experienced more pronounced increases in conflict following aid cuts, while stronger institutions more substantially mitigated the harms.

For reporters interested in topics of research integrity, Dominic Rohner notes: “Science integrity is of key importance, and now with AI it becomes cheaper to produce papers, some of which may not meet scientific standards. The role of the academic community and of leading scholarly journals is to screen between cutting-edge work and outputs of lower quality. The progress of humanity hinges on sound scientific knowledge. Widely available sound information and knowledge are not only the preconditions for government accountability but allow our economies to flourish. In economics, the leading journals have now embraced rigorous open data and replication requirements, which aims to foster scientific integrity.”