This study reveals that current interventions against misinformation erode belief in accurate information. The authors argue that future strategies should shift their focus from only fighting falsehoods to also nurturing trust in reliable news.

Global health-related research and development continues to uphold colonialist structures, concentrating knowledge generation and innovation to high-income countries, thereby hindering global health equity. Therefore, in addition to engineering new technologies, bioengineers will need to try to engineer equitable relationships.

The debate about the negative impact of social media use is heated. Psychology research must avoid the noise and remain focused on improving adolescent mental health.

Whilst policymaking will always remain a highly political process, especially amidst crises, evidence-based pandemic management can benefit from adopting a socioecological perspective that integrates multi- and trans-disciplinary insights: from biology, biomedicine, mathematics, statistics, social and behavioural sciences, as well as the perspectives and experiences of non-scientific stakeholders. We make a case for an “integrated inter- and transdisciplinarity” that overcomes the typical additive nature of current interdisciplinary work and better captures the inherent complexity of public health and other public policy problems. We propose systems science and systems thinking approaches as a useful meta-theoretical, self-reflecting approach for such integration to take place. Enabled by systems thinking, the praxis of “integrated inter- and transdisciplinarity” allows for an understanding of public health crises in a human-centred socio-ecological perspective. This grounds more holistic policy responses, which by mobilising the whole of government and whole of society, put individuals, groups, governments and society at large in critical dialogue to co-produce and co-design interventions that address crises in all their physical, social, psychological, economic and political dimensions.

This commentary reflects upon the progress, limitations, and some of the pitfalls of one UK London-based HE institution’s development of a trans-disciplinary arts and sciences undergraduate degree programme specifically designed to build knowledge and confidence in students to both reflect upon and effectively respond in constructive and just ways to some of the ‘global challenges’ facing society. It does not challenge the importance and necessity of specialist expertise but sees the potential of a trans-disciplinary approach to education as not just complementary but increasingly valuable to a wider range of graduates. Graduates needed to lead systems change and facilitate wider appreciation and practical understanding of multidimensional problem-solving, the importance of stakeholder engagement and more holistic systems thinking, something that should not be limited to those who have the opportunity and means to study Masters or PhD degrees. As one of a few UK universities that offer inter-disciplinary or trans-disciplinary undergraduate degrees and with some added insights from a former colleague who now works on University College London’s (UCL) interdisciplinary BASc, we offer the following suggestions and advice for those interested in working towards developing trans-disciplinary provision. This includes the development of a financial model that allows students and staff to work between departments or faculties; an administrative structure that promotes communication and information sharing between different departments without compromising the requirements of data protection; the buy-in and support of senior leaders who both understand and can advocate for the benefits of a trans-disciplinary approach and explicit university-wide recognition of the staff who work on such programmes in terms of career progression and support for the trans-disciplinary research they undertake.

Speech technology offers many applications to enhance employee productivity and efficiency. Yet new dangers arise for marginalized groups, potentially jeopardizing organizational efforts to promote workplace diversity. Our analysis delves into three critical risks of speech technology and offers guidance for mitigating these risks responsibly.