In the run up to the launch of the latest series of The Kardashians, her new legal drama All’s Fair and the celebrations for her 45th birthday, Kim Kardashian made a very different kind of headline. She revealed that she had been diagnosed with a brain aneurysm.

Kardashian revealed her diagnosis in a teaser for The Kardashians Season 7, which includes footage of her undergoing an MRI scan believed to have identified the condition. So far, no details have been released about the type, size or location of the aneurysm, or whether it required treatment. It’s therefore unclear whether the finding represents a serious health threat or an incidental discovery; something that’s becoming increasingly common as more people undergo full-body scans or imaging for other reasons.

An aneurysm is a widening or bulging of any artery in the body. It most commonly occurs in the aorta (the body’s main artery), as well as in arteries of the limbs, neck and brain. When the swelling affects arteries in the brain, it is known as a cerebral aneurysm.

Brain aneurysms can have devastating effects. The nerve cells in the brain are not designed to come into direct contact with blood. To protect them, the brain has a natural defence system called the blood brain barrier, which carefully regulates what can and cannot pass from the bloodstream into brain tissue.

The largest risk factor of developing a brain aneurysm is being female. These aneurysms are around 60% more common in women than in men, and this increases further after menopause. Oestrogen helps to keep blood vessels flexible; when its levels fall after menopause, blood vessels become more vulnerable to damage.

A family history of aneurysms also increases risk. Someone who has two first-degree relatives – that’s parents, children or siblings – who have experienced a ruptured aneurysm has an 11% higher chance of developing one themselves. This is because genetic factors influence the structure and strength of blood vessel walls, making some people more vulnerable to weakness and damage.

This genetic link is also seen in several connective-tissue disorders which change the structure and function of artery walls, increasing the likelihood of an aneurysm. These include Ehlers Danlos syndrome, which causes overly stretchy skin and joints and weakens connective tissues, including those in blood vessels; Marfan syndrome, which often leads to long limbs, flexible joints and a higher risk of heart and blood vessel problems; Loeys Dietz syndrome, a rare condition that causes arteries to twist and widen; and Neurofibromatosis type 1, which causes non-cancerous growths along nerves and can weaken blood vessel walls.

Lifestyle factors can also play a role in increasing aneurysm risk. Current and former smoking are both strongly linked to weakened blood vessels. Quitting smoking reduces the risk, but it does not completely remove it when compared with those who have never smoked. High cholesterol can also damage blood vessels and raise the likelihood of an aneurysm.

In Kardashian’s case, she has mentioned stress as a contributing factor. Although stress itself does not directly cause aneurysms, it can increase blood pressure. Persistent high blood pressure, whether brought on by emotional stress or underlying health issues such as certain types of kidney disease, can weaken and damage blood vessel walls, making aneurysms more likely to develop.

Recreational drug use can also contribute to aneurysm risk, although there is no suggestion that this is relevant in Kardashian’s case. Cocaine raises blood pressure while narrowing blood vessels in the brain. These combined effects push pressure within the brain’s arteries even higher, increasing the chance of aneurysm formation and rupture. Amphetamine and methamphetamine have similar effects, altering blood vessel diameter, raising blood pressure and driving inflammation that weakens vessel walls. These processes contribute to aneurysm formation and an increased rate of progression and rupture.

When an aneurysm does form, its effects depend largely on where it develops and whether it ruptures, which can make symptoms unpredictable and sometimes difficult to recognise.

Ruptured cerebral aneurysms often begin with a small leak of blood that causes a sudden, severe headache, often described as “the worst headache of my life” or a thunderclap headache. This may serve as a warning sign of a larger rupture that could occur hours, days or even weeks later. Other symptoms can include uncoordinated movements, nausea, vomiting and sudden changes in consciousness.

Unruptured cerebral aneurysms tend to cause a wider range of symptoms because the effects depend on where the aneurysm is developing. Nerves responsible for vision, balance, hearing, swallowing and speech all run close to major blood vessels in the brain, so even a small change in pressure can have noticeable effects.

Vision problems are common, presenting as double or partial loss of sight. Eye pain or difficulty moving the eyes due to muscle weakness, a stiff neck and ringing in the ears may also occur. Less common symptoms include neck pain and difficulty swallowing.

Because these symptoms overlap with many other conditions, diagnosing an aneurysm can be challenging. Unruptured aneurysms often grow slowly and may not cause symptoms until they reach a certain size, while ruptured aneurysms appear suddenly and require emergency treatment.

Once discovered, aneurysms are measured and categorised. The smaller the aneurysm, the lower the risk of rupture. Those with a diameter under 7mm are least likely to rupture, those between 7mm and 12mm are considered medium, 12mm to 25mm are large, and anything over 25mm is classed as giant. The size and location of the aneurysm are key factors in determining its risk. Aneurysms on arteries at the base of the brain carry a higher chance of rupture.

Treatment depends on individual circumstances, and not all aneurysms require intervention. In fact, many people live healthily with small aneurysms without ever realising they have them. There are growing detection rates as imaging becomes more common and less invasive, and AI is also being used to improve accuracy. Small, symptom-free aneurysms are often monitored with regular imaging scans, especially in people with few additional risk factors. Treating underlying conditions such as high blood pressure can reduce the risk of rupture.

Those cerebral aneurysms that rupture or are at high risk of rupture require surgical intervention. The two most common procedures are clipping and endovascular repair. Clipping is a more invasive operation that involves opening the skull to access the aneurysm directly, and it is better suited to certain aneurysm locations.

Endovascular repair is less invasive and involves inserting a catheter through a blood vessel in the leg, guiding it into place and delivering a coil that prevents blood from entering the aneurysm. These coils are usually made of platinum and measure between half the width of a human hair to twice the width.

Because aneurysms are often silent until they reach a critical point, any sudden or unexplained neurological symptoms should always be assessed by a medical professional.

Adam Taylor, Professor of Anatomy, Lancaster University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Brendan Walker-Munro, Southern Cross University

When we think of spies, we may go to images of people in trench coats and dark glasses, trying to steal government papers. Or someone trying to tap the phone of a senior official.

The reality of course can be much more sophisticated. One emerging area of concern is how countries protect their university research from foreign interference. And how we safely do research with other countries – a vital way to ensure Australia’s work is cutting edge.

This week, research security experts including myself will meet in Brussels to talk about how to conduct free and open research in the face of growing security risks around the world.

What does Australia need to do to better protect its university research?

What is research security?

Research security means protecting research and development (R&D) from foreign government interference or unauthorised access. It is especially important in our universities, where the freedom to publish, collaborate, and work together is seen as a virtue.

Australia’s universities face escalating, deliberate efforts to steal commercially or militarily valuable research, repress views critical of foreign regimes, and database hacking.

As my July 2025 report found, adversaries are no longer just stealing data or cultivating informal relationships. We’re seeing deliberate efforts to insert malicious insiders, target researchers and exploit data and cyber vulnerabilities.

ASIO head Mike Burgess has stressed there is an incredible danger facing our academic community from spies and secret agents.

In 2024, Burgess warned of an “A-team” of spies targeting academia:

leading Australian academics and political figures were invited to a conference in an overseas country, with the organisers covering all expenses […]. A few weeks after the conference wrapped up, one of the academics started giving the A-team information about Australia’s national security and defence priorities.

But Australia can’t just stop collaborating with foreign nations. Some are far more scientifically advanced than we are, and we risk cutting ourselves off from developments in the latest technology.

In other cases, we might be unfairly discriminating against researchers from other countries.

The international research landscape is changing

Since January, US President Donald Trump has slashed university funding, banned foreign students and orchestrated a campaign of lawsuits and investigations into campus activities.

This has a huge flow-on effect to Australia, as we have tied ourselves strongly to the US for science and technology funding.

So Australia is looking to the EU as a more reliable and sustainable funding partner.

It has reactivated talks to join the €100 billion (A$179 billion) Horizon Europe fund. Australia abandoned its original attempt in 2023 citing “potential cost of contributions to projects”.

Horizon Europe isn’t just a massive pot of money for Australian researchers. It’s also a way to bring Australia closer to the EU on other initiatives, like the EU Science Diplomacy Alliance, which ensures scientific developments are pursued for the safety, security and benefits for all people.

Yet if Australia wants to join Horizon Europe, it will need to prove it takes research security as seriously as other EU nations. In April 2024, Australia and the EU agreed to strengthen research security and

measures to protect critical technology and to counter foreign interference in research and innovation.

Australia does not have an adequate policy

But Australia does not have a proper national policy on research security. It also does not have a proper guide for our 43 universities in how they should approach it or what the minimum standards are.

The guidelines we have for “countering foreign interference” are entirely voluntary, and not centrally monitored for compliance in any way.

A 2022 federal parliamentary report detailed a litany of attempts by foreign agents to get access to our universities. It made 27 recommendations about improving that situation. To date, the federal government has not yet acted on about three quarters of these.

These included a recommendation to ban involvement in “talent recruitment programs”, where academics are offered vast sums of money or other benefits to duplicate their research in countries like China.

The EU approach

Australia’s approach is in stark contrast to the EU, which has made research security a priority.

In May 2024, the European Commission directed all 27 member states to adopt laws and policies to “work together to safeguard sensitive knowledge from being misused”.

Germany has since adopted “security ethics committees” – modelled on human and animal ethics committees – to scrutinise potential projects for dangerous or high-risk research.

The Netherlands, Denmark and United Kingdom all set up government contact points to help academics answer questions about research security practices.

It will take more than just policies

Australia needs clearer, stronger national policies for research security. But if we are going to take this seriously, we need more than just policy guidance.

To properly scrutinise and set up research, universities need time, support and information. This also means they need more funding.

In some universities there might be one person responsible for research security, and this may not be their sole job.

So we also need funding to give academics a way to identify and manage risks in research and support information sharing across institutions.

Through these measures we will be able to demonstrate to the world we are doing research securely – and it is safe to fund and work with Australia.

Brendan Walker-Munro, Senior Lecturer (Law), Southern Cross University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Graham Greenleaf, Macquarie University and Katharine Kemp, UNSW Sydney

Right now, more than 311,000 Australian Facebook users can apply for a slice of a A$50 million compensation fund from tech giant Meta – the largest ever payment for a breach of Australians’ privacy.

But the clock is ticking. Even if you’re eligible, you only have until December 31 2025 to make your claim. Similar payouts have already begun in the United States.

From who’s eligible, to how to make a claim, to how much the eventual payout might be: here’s what you need to know.

Why so many Australians can apply

The landmark settlement arose from Meta’s involvement in the Cambridge Analytica scandal: a massive data breach in the 2010s, when a British data firm harvested private information from 87 million Facebook profiles worldwide.

It led to a record-breaking US$5 billion penalty (about $A7.7 billion today) in the US against Meta as Facebook’s parent company, and the creation of a US$725 million (A$1.1 billion) compensation scheme for affected Americans.

Here in Australia, an investigation by the national privacy regulator – the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner – found Cambridge Analytica used the This Is Your Digital Life personality quiz app to extract personal information.

That investigation found just 53 Australian Facebook users installed the app. But another 311,074 Australian Facebook users were friends of those 53 people, meaning the app could have requested their information too.

In December 2024, the Information Commissioner announced she had settled a court case with Meta in return for an “enforceable undertaking”, including a record A$50 million payment program.

Claims opened on June 30 this year and close on December 31.

Who can apply?

You can apply if you:

• held a Facebook account between 2 November 2013 and 17 December 2015 (the eligibility period)
• were in Australia for more than 30 days during that period, and
• either installed the Life app or were Facebook friends with someone who did.

How to apply – but watch for scams

The Facebook Payment Program is being administered by consultants KPMG. (Meta has to pay KPMG to run it; that doesn’t come out of the $50 million fund.)

That website is where to go with questions or to lodge a claim.

Meta has sent all Australians it knows may be eligible this “token” notification within Facebook:

You may be entitled to receive payment from litigation recently settled in Australia. Learn more.

Try this link to see if the company has records of you or your friends logging into the Digital Life app. If there are, you should be able to use the “fast track” application.

If you didn’t get that notification but you think you were affected, you can make a claim using the standard process by proving:

• your identity, such as with a passport or driver’s licence
• you held a Facebook account and were located in Australia during the eligibility period.

But watch out for scammers pretending to be from Facebook or to be helping with claims.

Which payout could you be eligible for?

You need to choose to apply for compensation under one of two “classes”, requiring different types of proof.

Class 1: the harder option, expected to get higher payouts

To claim for “specific loss or damage”, you’ll need to provide documented evidence of economic and/or non-economic loss or damages. For example, this could include out-of-pocket medical or counselling costs, or having to move if your personal details were made public.

You’ll also need to show that damage was caused by the Cambridge Analytica data breach. For many people, proving extensive loss or damage may be difficult.

Class 1 claims will be decided first. There are no predetermined payout amounts; each will be decided individually.

If your class 1 claim is unsuccessful, but you’re otherwise eligible for a payout, you will be able to get a class 2 payout instead.

Class 2: the easier option, likely to get smaller payouts

Alternatively, you can choose to claim only for loss or damage based on “a generalised concern or embarrassment” caused by the data breach.

It’s a much easier process – but also likely to be a much smaller payment.

All class 2 claimants will receive the same amount, after the class 1 payouts.

These claimants only need to provide a statutory declaration that they have a genuine belief the breach caused them concern or embarrassment.

In Meta’s enforceable undertaking with the Information Commissioner, it states KPMG is able to apply a cap on payments to claimants. It also says if there is money left after all the payouts, KPMG will pay that amount to the Australian government’s Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Meta told The Conversation:

There is not a pre-determined cap on payments. The appropriate time to determine whether any cap should apply to payments made to claimants is following the end of the registration period [December 31].

So it’s not yet clear how much of the $50 million fund will go to Australian claimants versus how much could end up going to the federal government.

Payments are expected to be made from around August 2026.

How much are payouts likely to be?

Payouts from similar settlements by Meta elsewhere have been very small. For example, US Facebook users eligible for their US$725 million compensation scheme have expressed surprise at the size of their payouts. One report suggests the average US payment is around US$30 (A$45) each.

Here in Australia, a lot will depend on how many people bother to register between now and December 31.

Graham Greenleaf, Honorary Professor, Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University and Katharine Kemp, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law & Justice; Lead, UNSW Public Interest Law & Tech Initiative, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.