Easing the Hardest Moment: How Brain Stimulation Is Transforming Care for People with Opioid Use Disorder

We often take our bodies for granted, treating them as vehicles to get us through the day or as objects to manage and control. But author and Jungian Analyst Barbara Holifield's book Being with the Body in Depth Psychology challenges this view, arguing that the body is the foundation of our sense of self and the lens through which we encounter the world. Depth psychology has seldom treated the body as an intrinsic aspect of our psychology, and when it has, it rarely delves into the body as experienced. Through in-depth case studies, Holifield’s two important chapters - Chapter 2, Sensing the Self, Sensing the World, and Chapter 4, Attaining Embodiment: A Developmental Perspective - explore how we come to feel at home in our bodies and why this matters for both psychological health and human growth.

In the world of opioid addiction treatment, the hardest moment often arrives precisely when hope begins to emerge. It is the moment someone chooses to stop using opioids. That decision, courageous and life-changing, almost immediately collides with one of the most punishing physiologic syndromes known in medicine: opioid withdrawal. Withdrawal brings waves of nausea, sweats, shaking, cramps, insomnia, anxiety, and extremely intense cravings. For countless individuals, this moment is a seemingly inescapable stumbling block that can be the undoing of their recovery. They want to stop, they mean to stop, but withdrawal can become an insurmountable barrier.

In today’s world, the internet is more than a tool. It can be a place where friendships are built, identities are explored, and young people find connection. For teenagers, digital spaces are a huge component of their lives. However, the way we talk about online safety often feels like it belongs to another era, one rooted in adult fears rather than young people’s lived experiences. A project led by the Young and Resilient Research Centre at Western Sydney University, in partnership with the PROJECT ROCKIT Foundation with funding from Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, set out to bridge this disconnect. Instead of telling young people how they “should” behave online, the researchers conducted a survey of 104 young people and workshops with 31 young Australians aged 12 to 17 which asked them directly: What does online safety mean to you? What do you wish adults understood? What would your ideal online world look like? How do you want to learn about online safety? The results were eye-opening and led to the development of a framework to reimagine how online safety education for young people is designed and delivered

Research from Assistant Professor Ligeia Quackelbeen at Tilburg University examines how international criminal courts categorize cultural practices such as forced marriage, revealing issues with current legal approaches. Using a landmark case as a primary example, the analysis demonstrates how judges rely on rigid checklist-based reasoning that fails to adequately consider cultural contexts. The research examines the benefits of adopting prototype theory from cognitive science to enable more culturally sensitive legal interpretations that better understand local practices rather than applying generic Western-centered definitions.

Step into a natural history museum, sometimes called a ‘dead zoo’, and you will find yourself surrounded by silence. Behind glass cases and inside drawers lie animals long gone: the Tasmanian tiger, the quagga, birds that no longer take flight, creatures whose skins and bones now carry only the weight of memory. These preserved remains are meant to represent care - careful handling, careful storage, and careful cataloguing, in a tribute to the long dead and sometimes extinct. But as Dr Katrina Schlunke, from the University of Potsdam and Sydney, argues, the care offered by museums is not so simple. It is bound up with histories of colonialism, extinction, and exclusion, which are typically not explored or acknowledged in the displays we encounter.

Science diplomacy, meaning the use of scientific collaboration to strengthen international relations and address shared global challenges, has long been hailed as a force for good. Yet, as Dr. Rasha Bayoumi of the University of Birmingham Dubai and her colleagues argue in their Editorial for a special issue in the journal Frontiers in Public Health, this optimism often masks uncomfortable realities. The practice of science diplomacy has too often reproduced the very inequalities it aims to dismantle, operating within frameworks that privilege powerful nations and institutions while marginalizing voices from the Global South.

Professor Michael Saward from the University of Warwick examines how Tate Liverpool's Democracies exhibition used curatorial methods to explore democracy in ways that fundamentally differ from traditional academic approaches. By analyzing several artworks displayed between 2020 and 2023, and how the exhibition was presented by the gallery, Saward reveals how art galleries can generate knowledge, challenging democratic theorists to reconsider their methodologies and pay greater attention to embodiment, visceral experiences, and situated actions.

Across the world, scientists are still trying to answer one of medicine’s most difficult questions: how can we safely and effectively treat brain cancers such as glioma? Despite decades of effort, outcomes for people diagnosed with high-grade glioma remain bleak. Current treatments, including surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, can slow the disease, but rarely stop it. The GlioLighT consortium, a multidisciplinary European research team funded by the European Innovation Council, has come together to explore a novel approach based on direct light therapy. Being in a very early stage, the project doesn’t promise an immediate cure; instead, it sets out to answer a very fundamental question: can light itself trigger biological processes that might form the basis of a safe and targeted brain tumor therapy?

For centuries, malaria has been one of the deadliest diseases on the planet. Nearly half of the world remains at risk of malaria with more than half a million deaths each year, most of them in children. While some progress has been made in controlling malaria and developing a vaccine, this has stalled recently, with a growing number of deaths since 2019. At the heart of the challenge is the lack of non-invasive and rapid diagnostic technologies for malaria, which are urgently needed, especially in remote or low-resource areas with limited healthcare infrastructure. Happily, a new frontier in medical technology is offering hope, in the form of the Cytophone, a revolutionary device that can detect malaria through the skin without drawing a single drop of blood. This innovation, developed by a team led by Prof. Vladimir Zharov at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and licensed to Cytoastra for further commercialization, represents a leap forward not just in malaria diagnostics, but in how we might monitor disease altogether.

Modern environmental science faces a curious paradox. We have more data than ever, but less certainty. For scientists, policymakers, and the public alike, the sheer volume of studies, each with its own assumptions, experimental conditions, and interpretations, can be overwhelming. Which studies are trustworthy? Which deserve more weight when making decisions about environmental safety? This question has haunted environmental toxicologists who were trying to determine whether pesticides were harming pollinators such as honeybees. Some studies could show significant impacts while others may show minimal effects. Such inconsistencies can fuel the debate over insecticides like neonicotinoids and lead to public confusion. To address this, Professor Keith Solomon, an environmental toxicologist at the University of Guelph, and colleagues set out to bring structure and clarity to the field. Their goal was not to silence debate, but to create a rigorous, transparent, and quantitative framework for evaluating scientific evidence. The result was a methodology called the Quantitative Weight of Evidence, or QWoE.