Why rural Coloradans feel ignored − a resentment as old as America itself

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kayla Gabehart, Assistant Professor of Environmental Policy, Michigan Technological University

Many rural Americans feel largely left out of American culture. Helen H. Richardson/Getty Images

Many rural Coloradans, especially in agricultural communities, feel looked down on by their urban counterparts. One cattle rancher I spoke to put it plainly. “It’s an attitude … we are the idiots … we are the dumb farmers … we don’t really matter.”

The sentiment is also portrayed in popular culture such as the hit TV show “Yellowstone.”

“It’s the one constant in life. You build something worth having, someone’s gonna try to take it,” says patriarch John Dutton. He was facing repeated threats by developers from “the city” to annex his land for a luxury hotel and resort development.

As a policy scholar, I’ve talked to and interviewed many dozens of people in rural areas in Colorado. I’ve also read hundreds of newspaper articles and watched hundreds of hours of legislative testimony that capture the sentiment of rural people being left behind, left out and snubbed by their urban counterparts.

Recently, I studied the divide between rural and urban Coloradans by looking at their responses to four statewide policies. A designated day to forgo eating meat, two political appointees and the ongoing wolf reintroduction.

These policies, while specific to Colorado, are symptoms of something larger. Namely, an ever-urbanizing, globalized world that rural, agricultural citizens feel is leaving them behind.

‘MeatOut’ or misstep?

My expertise doesn’t just come from my research – I’ve lived it.

I grew up in a rural community in Elbert County, Colorado, about an hour- and-a-half southeast of Denver.

In early 2021, Gov. Jared Polis declared via proclamation that March 20 would be a “MeatOut Day.” For health and environmental reasons, Colorado residents were encouraged to forgo meat for a single day.

Supported by the Farm Animal Rights Movement, MeatOuts have been promoted across the U.S. since the 1980s. Typically, gubernatorial proclamations, of which hundreds are passed each year and are completely ceremonial and devoid of any long-term formal policy implications, go largely unnoticed. And in Denver, Colorado’s metropolitan center, this one did too.

Not so in rural Colorado.

My neighbors in Elbert County promptly responded with outrage, flying banners and flags declaring their support for agriculture and a carnivorous diet.

One rancher from Nathrop painted a stack of hay bales to say, “Eat Beef Everyday.”

Communities all over the state, and even in neighboring states, responded with “MeatIns,” where they gathered to eat meat and celebrate agriculture and the rural way of life. They also coupled these events with fundraisers, for various causes, for which hundreds of thousands of dollars were raised across the state. While Polis backed off the MeatOut after 2021, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston has, just this year, supported a similar “Eat Less Meat” campaign, prompting similar rural outrage.

Did I mention there are nearly 36,000 cattle in Elbert County? This is relatively typical of a rural Colorado county, particularly on the Plains.

In Colorado, 2.7 million cattle are raised annually, with a value of US$4.5 billion. The industry is consistently the top agricultural commodity and the second-largest contributor to Colorado’s GDP, at about $7.7 billion per year.

In early March 2021, Polis declared March 22 “Colorado Livestock Proud Day,” in response to the backlash.

Other policies

This came on the heels of several policies supported by Polis prior to the MeatOut controversy that critics considered anti-agriculture.

In 2020, he appointed Ellen Kessler, a vegan and animal rights activist, to the State Veterinary Board. Kessler criticized 4-H programs, designed to educate youth on agriculture and conservation, on her social media, insisting they “don’t teach children that animal lives matter.” Kessler resigned in March 2022, just days before she was cited for 13 counts of animal cruelty. More recently, in May 2025, Polis appointed Nicole Rosmarino to head the State Land Board. Rosmarino has ties to groups that oppose traditional agricultural practices, historically a key component of Colorado State Land Board operations.

People sit in a room with stuffed deer heads in the background.
Community members gather at the Colorado Parks and Wildlife hunter education building in Denver. Colorado ranchers petitioned the state’s wildlife commission to delay the next round of wolf releases in September 2024. The petition was denied.
Hyoung Chang/Getty Images

Then came wolf reintroduction, passed by urban voters by just under 57,000 votes in the 2020 general election and supported by the governor. Those in support advocated for a return to natural biodiversity; wolves were hunted to extinction in the 1940s.

Rural residents voted decidedly against the initiative. Despite much legislative and grassroots action to oppose it, wolves were reintroduced in December 2023 in various areas along the Western Slope, in close proximity to many ranches. Several cattle have since been killed by wolves. Ever since, rural interests have been working to overturn wolf reintroduction on the 2026 ballot.

An American mess

Rural residents in Colorado have told me they feel excluded. This is not new or exclusive to Colorado, but a story as old as America itself.

University of Wisconsin political scientist Katherine J. Cramer wrote about this rural exclusion in Wisconsin, calling it “rural resentment.” Berkeley sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild called it “stolen pride.” In their book, Tom Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, and Paul Waldman, a longtime journalist, characterize it as “white rural rage.”

It’s a dynamic that descends from slavery. Isabel Wilkerson, in her book “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents,” demonstrates that while Black Americans have historically been relegated to the bottom of the hierarchy of an American caste system, poor white people are strategically positioned just above them but below white Americans of higher socioeconomic status. As Wilkerson explains, this is a durable system sustained by norms, laws and cultural expectations that feel “natural.” But they are entirely constructed and designed by the American upper class to intentionally exploit resentment of working-class white people.

The result is what sociologist Michael M. Bell calls a “spatial patriarchy” that characterizes rural America as dumb, incapable, racist, poor and degraded as “white trash.”

This spatial patriarchy is as old as industrialization and urbanization. One of the first policy iterations was rural school consolidation during the turn of the 20th century, designed to modernize schools and make them more efficient. Urban policymakers were influenced by eugenics and the assumption that rural schools “were populated by cognitively deficient children whose parents had not been smart enough or fortunate enough to leave the decaying countryside,” according to sociologist Alex DeYoung.

So, states around the country consolidated schools, the lifeblood of rural communities. Where a school closed, the town often died, as in small towns, schools are not just socioeconomic hubs but centers of cultural and social cohesion.

Environmental impact

The same concept – that urban policymakers know better than rural Americans – is manifest in the modern environmental movement. Like with the MeatOut, rural communities also distrust environmental policies that, in their view, intentionally target a rural way of life. Rural communities take the position that they’ve been made to bear the brunt of the transformations of the global economy for generations, including those that deal with energy and the environment.

For example, environmentalists frequently call for lowering meat consumption and enacting livestock taxes to lower global greenhouse gas emissions.

But, there’s a huge, untapped potential for environmental policies that use language consistent with rural attitudes and values, such as ideas about conservation and land stewardship. Political scientists Richard H. Foster and Mark K. McBeth explain, “Rural residents perceive, probably correctly, that environmental ‘outsiders’ are perfectly willing to sacrifice local economic well-being and traditional ways of life on the altar of global environmental concerns.” They instead suggest “emphasizing saving resources for future generations” so that rural communities may continue to thrive.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations attribute between 18% to 24% of greenhouse gas emissions to agriculture, while the International Panel on Climate Change places the estimate closer to 10%. However, agricultural producers point out that, while they may be responsible for that 10%, just 100 companies, such as BP and ExxonMobil, have produced 70% of all emissions. Agricultural producers say policies such as livestock taxes would disproportionately impact small-scale farmers and intensify rural inequality.

Rural communities have the distinct feeling that urban America doesn’t care whether they fail or flourish. Nearly 70% of rural voters supported Trump in the 2024 presidential election. He won 93% of rural counties. Rural Americans feel left behind, and for them, Trump might be their last hope.

The Conversation

Kayla Gabehart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Why rural Coloradans feel ignored − a resentment as old as America itself – https://theconversation.com/why-rural-coloradans-feel-ignored-a-resentment-as-old-as-america-itself-260894

Exactly what is in the Ivy League deals with the Trump administration – and how they compare

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Brendan Cantwell, Professor of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education, Michigan State University

Brown University is one of the Ivy League universities that has recently made a deal with the White House to end the government’s inquiry into its treatment of Jewish students, among other practices, on campus. Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images

The Trump administration and Harvard University are reportedly close to reaching a settlement that would require Harvard to pay US$500 million in exchange for the government releasing frozen federal funding and ending an investigation into antisemitism on campus.

This follows similar deals the White House struck with Columbia University and Brown University in July 2025. Both of those universities agreed to undertake campus reforms and pay a large sum – more than $200 million in the case of Columbia and $50 million for Brown – in order to receive federal funding that the Trump administration was withholding. The White House originally froze funding after saying that these universities had created unsafe environments for Jewish students during Palestinian rights protests on campus in 2024.

As a scholar of higher education politics, I examined the various deals the Trump administration made with some universities. When Harvard announces its deal, it will be informative to see what is different – or the same.

I believe the Columbia and Brown deals can be used as a blueprint for Trump’s plans for higher education. They show how the government wants to drive cultural reform on campus by giving the government more oversight over universities and imposing punishments for what it sees as previous wrongdoing.

Here are four key things to understand about the deals:

Two young women wearing long light blue graduation robes walk past a row of police officers outside two large buildings on a gray day.
Columbia University students walk past police on commencement day on May 21, 2025, outside the campus on Broadway in New York.
Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images

1. Antisemitism isn’t a major feature of the agreements

The Trump White House accused Brown and Columbia of tolerating antisemitism during campus protests. But the administration neither followed federal standards for investigating antisemitism, nor did it dictate specific reforms to protect Jewish students.

Ahead of its deal, Columbia in March 2025 adopted a new, broader definition of antisemitism that was created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The United Nations and most European Union countries also use this definition.

Yet the school’s 22-page deal mentions antisemitism only once, where it says Columbia is required to hire an additional staff member to support Jewish students’ welfare.

Brown’s deal, meanwhile, did not involve the university adopting a particular definition of antisemitism. But Brown did commit to offering “research and education about Israel, and a robust Program in Judaic Studies.” Brown already hosts a Judaic Studies program, and it is unclear from the agreement’s text what additional measures are required.

The deals also extend well beyond antisemitism concerns and into questions of gender and the composition of student bodies.

Columbia agreed to provide “single-sex” housing and sports facilities, for example. The university has an optional Open Housing program that allows mixed-gender roommates and several gender-neutral restrooms.

This places the school in line with Donald Trump’s January executive order that says a person’s gender is based on their sex as assigned at birth.

Brown’s deal also requires single-sex sports and housing facilities. In addition, Brown committed to using definitions of men and women that match Trump’s executive order.

Columbia, which enrolls about 40% of its students from other countries, also agreed to “decrease financial dependence on international student enrollment.”

The Brown deal says nothing about international education.

2. Both deals are expensive but vague about financial details.

Columbia must pay a fine of more than $200 million to the federal government, while Brown will make $50 million in donations to Rhode Island workforce development programs.

In both cases, it is not clear where the money will go or how it will be used.

Congress passed The Clery Act in 1990, creating a legal framework for fining campuses that failed to protect students’ safety.

Since then, the government has reached different settlements with universities.

Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Virginia, was required to pay the federal government $14 million in 2024, for example, for failing to investigate sexual assault allegations.

But Columbia’s payment is far larger than any previous university and government settlement. Columbia will make three payments of about $66 million into the Treasury Department over three years, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. But it isn’t clear how the money will exactly be spent and what will happen after those three years, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported in August 2025.

Only Congress can legally decide how to spend Treasury Department funds. But Trump has ignored Congress’ appropriation directives on a number of occasions.

Brown, meanwhile, will not pay the government anything. Instead, its deal will go “to state workforce development organizations operating in compliance with anti-discrimination laws, over the ten years.”

The Brown deal doesn’t say what qualifies as qualified workforce development organizations.

3. Trump wants to influence university admissions.

While the Brown and Columbia deals have several differences, the agreements have nearly identical language giving the Trump administration oversight of the way they admit students.

The deals say that the universities must provide the government with detailed information about who applied to the schools and was admitted, broken down by grades and test scores, as well as race and ethnicity. The government could then conduct a “comprehensive audit” of the schools, based on this information.

This information could also be used to determine if universities are showing a preferences for students of color. Without providing evidence, conservative activists have alleged that selective colleges discriminate against white people and that this is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Experts have said that these reporting requirements appear to be intended to increase the number of white students admitted to Ivy League schools.

An older white man with a beard, flanked by two men in suits, bumps fists with a young person in a crowd.
Harvard President Alan Garber greets graduating students at Harvard’s commencement on May 29, 2025, in Cambridge, Mass.
Rick Friedman/AFP via Getty Images

4. The deals could open more doors to federal intrusion.

Claire Shipman, Columbia’s acting president, said in July that the deal would allow the university’s “research partnership with the federal government to get back on track.”

Christina Paxson, Brown’s president, also defended the agreement in a statement, writing that it “enables us as a community to move forward after a period of considerable uncertainty in a way that ensures Brown will continue to be the Brown that our students, faculty, staff, alumni, parents and friends have known for generations.”

But the deals could invite more scrutiny from the federal government.

Both deals spell out the government’s right to open new investigations against Brown and Columbia, or to reopen old complaints if the administration is not satisfied with how the universities are implementing the agreement.

Trump is now pressuring Harvard, UCLA and other universities to strike deals, also based on similar antisemitism allegations.

The White House announced on Aug. 8 that it could seize the research patents, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, that Harvard holds. Since 1980, universities have been able to legally hold, and profit from, patents resulting from federally funded research.

The federal government has long influenced higher education through funding and regulation. But the government has never tried to dictate what happens on campus before now.

Higher education experts like me believe that political goals now drive the way the government approaches higher education. Some of Trump’s conservative allies are now urging the president to go even further, saying “we have every right to renegotiate the terms of the compact with the universities.”

Given these and other pressure tactics, academics who study the law and government warn that the university deals indicate encroaching authoritarianism.

The Conversation

Brendan Cantwell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Exactly what is in the Ivy League deals with the Trump administration – and how they compare – https://theconversation.com/exactly-what-is-in-the-ivy-league-deals-with-the-trump-administration-and-how-they-compare-262912

Crowdfunded companies are ‘ghosting’ their investors – and getting away with it

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Andrew A. Schwartz, DeMuth Chair of Business Law, University of Colorado Boulder

Imagine you invest US$500 to help a startup get off the ground through investment crowdfunding. The pitch is slick, the platform feels trustworthy and the company quickly raises its target amount from hundreds of people just like you. Then – silence. No updates, no financials, not even a thank-you.

You’ve been ghosted – not by a friend, but by a company you helped fund.

This isn’t just an unlucky anecdote. It’s happening across the United States. And while it may violate federal law, there’s little enforcement – and virtually no consequences.

Thanks to a 2012 law, startups can raise up to US$5 million per year from the general public through online platforms such as Wefunder or StartEngine. The law was intended to “democratize” investing and give regular people, not just the wealthy, a chance to back promising young companies.

But there’s a catch: Companies that raise money this way are required to file an annual report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and post it publicly. This report, intended to show whether the business is making progress and how it is using investor funds, is a cornerstone of accountability in the system.

As a professor of business law, I wrote the book on investment crowdfunding. And in my recent research, I found that a majority of crowdfunded companies simply ignore this rule. They raise the money and go silent, leaving investors in the dark.

In most cases, I suspect their silence isn’t part of an elaborate con. More likely, the founders never realized they had to file, forgot about the requirement amid the chaos of running a young business, or shut down entirely. But whether it’s innocent oversight or deliberate avoidance, the effect on investors is the same: no information, no accountability.

This kind of vanishing act would be unthinkable for public companies listed on the stock market. But in the world of investment crowdfunding, limited oversight means that going silent, whatever the reason, is all too easy.

It’s not just 1 or 2 victims

When startups go dark, they don’t just leave their investors behind – they undermine the entire crowdfunding model.

Investment crowdfunding was meant to be an accessible, transparent way to support innovation. But when companies ghost their backers, the relationship starts to look less like an investment and more like a donation.

It’s not just unethical – it’s illegal. Federal law requires at least one annual update. But so far, enforcement has been almost nonexistent.

Concerned state attorneys general have encouraged the SEC to ramp up enforcement actions. This could work in theory, but it’s unrealistic in practice, given the SEC’s limited resources and broad mission.

If nothing changes, the crowdfunding experiment could collapse under the weight of mistrust.

Incentives work − let’s use them

Fortunately, there’s a low-cost solution.

I propose that crowdfunding platforms hold back 1% of the capital raised until the company files its first required report. If it complies, it gets the funds. If not, it doesn’t.

It’s a small but powerful incentive that could nudge companies into doing the right thing, without adding bureaucratic complexity.

It’s the same principle used in escrow arrangements, which are common in finance. In a home sale, for example, part of the money goes into a neutral holding account – escrow – until the seller meets certain agreed conditions. Only then is it released. Applying that approach here, a small slice of crowdfunding proceeds would stay in escrow until the company files its first annual report. No report, no release.

Unfortunately, crowdfunding platforms are unlikely to adopt this voluntarily. They compete with one another for deal flow, and any rule that makes fundraising slightly harder at one platform could send startups to a rival site.

However, the SEC has the legal authority to update its rules, and this change would be easy to implement – no new laws, no congressional fights, just a bit of regulatory will. I’ve even drafted a proposed rule, ready-made for the SEC to adopt, and published it in my recent article, Ghosting the Crowd.

The idea behind investment crowdfunding remains powerful: Open the door to entrepreneurship and investment for everyone. But if that door leads to silence and broken promises, trust will disappear – and with it, a promising financial innovation.

A tiny tweak to the rules could restore that trust. Without it, investors will keep getting ghosted. And the market might ghost them right back.

The Conversation

Andrew A. Schwartz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Crowdfunded companies are ‘ghosting’ their investors – and getting away with it – https://theconversation.com/crowdfunded-companies-are-ghosting-their-investors-and-getting-away-with-it-261346

The paradox of pluralism: How college shapes students’ views of other religions

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Ilana Horwitz, Assistant Professor of Jewish Studies and Sociology, Tulane University

Religious pluralism means more than living around people of different faiths. Thai Noipho/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Students at elite universities tend to talk a good game when it comes to religious pluralism. Many of them show up on day one already saying all the right things about respecting different faiths.

But here’s the paradox: They don’t grow from there, according to our research published in The Journal of Higher Education. Students at less selective colleges, meanwhile, do develop more pluralistic attitudes. And by their fourth year, they participate in interfaith activities, such as taking courses about different religions or joining in interfaith dialogues, just as much as anyone else.

Religious pluralism goes beyond tolerance or diversity, which are simply coexisting with people of different faiths. Pluralism involves actively seeking to understand other traditions, talking with people from other backgrounds and working with them toward common goals.

As scholars of religion and education, we worked with sociologist of education David Shuang Song to study how students’ attitudes and actions change over time. We examined data from more than 3,100 students at 112 colleges, using the Interfaith Diversity Experiences and Attitudes Longitudinal Survey. Our study tracked students for four years, measuring two things: their attitudes about appreciating different faiths, and their actual participation in interfaith activities.

Our study revealed three findings.

First, freshmen at highly selective schools – institutions that typically admit fewer than 1 in 5 applicants – often start with stronger support for religious pluralism. Compared with freshmen at less selective schools, they are more likely to agree with questions like “I respect people who have religious or nonreligious perspectives that differ from my own,” though the difference was modest.

Second, fourth-year students at less selective schools showed more pluralistic attitudes than at the start of college. In contrast, students at elite institutions maintained their high initial attitudes without any measurable change.

Third, students at all types of institutions participated in more interfaith activities by the end of college, on average, with less selective schools showing slightly larger gains. That might mean attending services of different faiths, taking courses about other religions or joining dialogue groups.

The bottom line: At less selective colleges, students tended to develop stronger attitudes about religious pluralism, and they also increased their interfaith activities. At elite colleges, students increased their activities, but their attitudes more often remained flat.

Why it matters

The United States is growing more religiously diverse – with growing numbers of non-Christian and nonreligious adults – and more divided across religious lines. Antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents have surged over the past few years, including on college campuses. All of this makes it especially urgent that colleges prepare students to bridge divides.

Our findings reveal an interesting paradox: Elite institutions admit students who already express strong support for religious pluralism on surveys. On average, however, students’ attitudes don’t deepen during college, although their interfaith activities do increase somewhat.

And students’ answers to questions about pluralism don’t necessarily demonstrate genuine commitment. For example, these attitudes may be part of how some elite students learn to seem culturally sophisticated – voicing ideals they associate with being open-minded, cosmopolitan and educated.

The findings may challenge assumptions about where meaningful education about diversity occurs. On average, less selective institutions, which educate most college students, begin with students less inclined toward pluralism. Yet in general, we found that these schools successfully foster growth in both attitudes and behavior – particularly when interfaith programs are integrated into everyday campus life and curriculum. All colleges can challenge students through experiences like interfaith events, research projects or internships.

What’s next

Today’s college students are tomorrow’s civic leaders, educators, policymakers and professionals. If institutions are struggling to cultivate the skills students need to have conversations and collaborate with people from diverse religious backgrounds, the cultural divides that already fracture our democracy are at risk of deepening.

We believe colleges must go beyond performative pluralism to foster the habits of curiosity, humility and collaboration. Pluralism isn’t just a campus value. It’s a civic necessity.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

The Conversation

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. The paradox of pluralism: How college shapes students’ views of other religions – https://theconversation.com/the-paradox-of-pluralism-how-college-shapes-students-views-of-other-religions-261901

Maths is most popular A-level again – more students should get the opportunity to take their study further

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Neil Saunders, Senior Lecturer in Mathematics, City St George’s, University of London

Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

In 2025, more young people than ever have opened their A-level results to find out how they did in their maths exam. Once again, maths has been the most popular A-level subject, with 112,138 entries in 2025.

This is up by more than 4% compared with 2024. Entries in further maths, an A-level that expands on the maths curriculum, have also risen – an increase of 7% since 2024, with over 19,000 entries this year.

As a professional mathematician this is pleasing news. Some of these students will be happily receiving confirmation of their place to study maths at university.

The joy I experienced when I discovered in my maths degree that many of the subjects I studied at school – chemistry, biology, physics and even music – are woven together by a mathematical fabric, is something I’ve never forgotten.

I’m excited by the idea that many young people are about to experience this for themselves. But I am concerned that fewer students will have the same opportunities in the future, as more maths departments are forced to downsize or close, and as we become more reliant on artificial intelligence.

There are a number of differences between studying maths at university compared with school. While this can be daunting at first, all of these differences underscore just how richly layered, deeply interconnected and vastly applicable maths is.

At university, not only do you learn beautiful formulas and powerful algorithms, but also grapple with why these formulas are true and dissect exactly what these algorithms are doing. This is the idea of the “proof”, which is not explored much at school and is something that can initially take students by surprise.

But proving why formulas are true and why algorithms work is an important and necessary step in being able discover new and exciting applications of the maths you’re studying.

Student writing on whiteboard
Maths degrees involve finding out why mathematics works the way it does.
Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

A maths degree can lead to careers in finance, data science, AI, cybersecurity, quantum computing, ecology and climate modelling. But more importantly, maths is a beautifully creative subject, one that allows people to be immensely expressive in their scientific and artistic ideas.

A recent and stunning example of this is Hannah Cairo, who at just 17 disproved a 40-year old conjecture.

If there is a message I wish I knew when I started studying university mathematics it is this: maths is not just something to learn, but something to create. I’m continually amazed at how my students find new ways to solve problems that I first encountered over 20 years ago.

Accessiblity of maths degrees

But the question of going on to study maths at university is no longer just a matter of A-level grades. The recent and growing phenomenon of maths deserts – areas of the country where maths degrees are not offered – is making maths degrees less accessible, particularly for students outside of big cities.

Forthcoming research from The Campaign for Mathematical Sciences (CAMS), of which I am a supporter, shows that research-intensive, higher tariff universities – the ones that require higher grades to get in – took 66% of UK maths undergraduates in 2024, up from 56% in 2006.

This puts smaller departments in lower-tariff universities in danger of closure as enrolments drop. The CAMS research forecasts that an additional nine maths departments will have fewer than 50 enrolments in their degrees by 2035.

This cycle will further concentrate maths degrees in high tariff institutions, reinforcing stereotypes such as that only exceptionally gifted people should go on to study maths at university. This could also have severe consequences for teacher recruitment. The CAMS research also found that 25% of maths graduates from lower-tariff universities go into jobs in education, compared to 8% from higher tariff universities.

Maths in the age of AI

The growing capability and sophistication of AI is also putting pressure on maths departments.

With Open AI’s claim that their recently released GPT-5 is like having “a team of PhD-level experts in your pocket”, the temptation to overly rely on AI poses further risks to the existence and quality of future maths degrees.

But the process of turning knowledge into wisdom and theory into application comes from the act of doing: doing calculations and forming logical and rigorous arguments. That is the key constituent of thinking clearly and creatively. It ensures students have ownership of their skills, capacities, and the work that they produce.

A data scientist will still require an in-depth working knowledge of the mathematical, algorithmic and statistical theory underpinning data science if they are going to be effective. The same for financial analysts, engineers and computer scientists.

The distinguished mathematician and computer scientist Leslie Lamport said that “coding is to programming what typing is to writing”. Just as you need to have some idea of what you are writing before you type it, you need to have some idea of the (mathematical) algorithm you are creating before you code it.

It is worth remembering that the early pioneers in AI – John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Claude Shannon, Alan Turing – all had degrees in mathematics. So we have every reason to expect that future breakthroughs in AI will come from people with mathematics degrees working creatively in interdisciplinary teams.

This is another great feature of maths: its versatility. It’s a subject that doesn’t just train you for a job but enables you to enjoy a rich and fulfilling career – one that can comprise many different jobs, in many different fields, over the course of a lifetime.

The Conversation

Neil Saunders is a supporter of The Campaign for Mathematical Sciences.

ref. Maths is most popular A-level again – more students should get the opportunity to take their study further – https://theconversation.com/maths-is-most-popular-a-level-again-more-students-should-get-the-opportunity-to-take-their-study-further-263060

Botox: unlicensed injections are increasingly being linked to serious illness in the UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adam Taylor, Professor of Anatomy, Lancaster University

A confirmed 41 cases of botulism have been reported in the UK between June and August of this year. Prostock-studio/ Shutterstock

Botox is the most common non-surgical procedure performed globally – with nearly 9 million procedures estimated to take place each year. In the UK alone, around 900,000 Botox injections are carried out each year.

But with a the growing popularity of this procedure comes an increase in risks and unwanted outcomes.

The UK Health Security Agency has recently reported a significant rise in clinically confirmed cases of botulism – a rare illness that can cause symptoms ranging from fatigue, headaches and dizziness to difficulty breathing. Between June 4 and August 6 2025, 41 cases have been confirmed in the UK. While these cases appear to be linked to the use of unlicensed products which are much more potent than Botox, even licensed products can sometimes come with risks.

Botox is short for botulinum toxin. It’s the most lethal toxin known to man. Even just a small fragment of botulinum toxin – weighing a fraction of the weight of a grain of salt – can be enough to kill a human. This is a key reason why only approved Botox products should be used, as their ingredients and strength have been carefully scrutinised.

Botox is produced by a bacterium called Clostridium Botulinum, which is usually found in water, soil and the intestinal tracts of animals. These bacteria can produce seven distinct types of toxin. Only types A and B are used clinically, though Botox type A is the one most commonly used in cosmetic procedures.

Botulinum toxin acts as a neurotoxin – meaning it impacts nerve function. It specifically inhibits the function of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine which is found in the neuromuscular junction between the nerve and muscle. A variety of nerves use this neurotransmitter – including those involved in key bodily functions such as digestion, breathing and movement.

Botox works cosmetically by inhibiting the function of the neuromuscular junction, which paralyses the nerve. This means the muscle doesn’t contract, limiting the overlying skin’s ability to wrinkle. This same function is also the reason Botox is used to treat eye twitches, chronic migraines, neck spasms, excess sweating, overactive bladder and crossed eyes.

It can take a few days after injection for the full effect of the Botox to occur. From here, the body begins breaking it down. After around three to four months its effects have fully diminished, which is why follow-up treatments are required.

Botox and botulism

As with any procedure, Botox comes with risks.

The most common side-effects people experience are some initial bruising and swelling and tenderness around then injection site.

An older man receives a Botox injection into his forehead from a woman who is wearing scrubs and organ surgical gloves.
Even licensed Botox products can come with risks.
Tijana Simic/ Shutterstock

But the more concerning side-effect is the risk of botulism. This is a rare complication that can cause symptoms ranging from mild to severe. It isn’t known how common botulism is in people who get Botox, but up to 25% of people who receive cosmetic Botox have complications. Botulism symptoms usually appear the day after receiving botox – but in some cases, they can manifest as many as 36 days later.

Mild symptoms include fatigue, headaches, dropping eyelids and visual disturbances. Moderate symptoms involve mild symptoms and difficulty swallowing.

In the worst case scenario, botulism can lead to anaphylactic shock and respiratory failure. Around 5-10% of untreated botulism cases result in death.

Thankfully, if identified early, treatments are available and effective. But it’s important to note that these treatments cannot reverse any damage that has already been done. They only work to halt further damage. Recovery from botulism can take months.

Botuslism can sometimes be mistaken for myasthenia gravis or Guillain-Barre syndrome, two autoimmune conditions that have overlapping symptoms. This is why it’s important to tell your doctor if you’ve had Botox, as there’s no immediate test for the toxin and those tests that show its presence take several days to produce results.

Staying safe

A few key factors can increase your risk of developing botulism from Botox.

Improper administration increases the likelihood of Botox spreading away from the injection site. This increases the risk of experiencing side-effects – including botulism.

Exceeding the maximum dose is another factor that increases your risk of botulism. This can happen through basic calculation errors and injecting the wrong amount for the injection site. For instance, men require a higher dose than women due to their increased muscle mass. Not accounting for this could easily result in a dosing error.

Repeated Botox use can also lead to Botox resistance, where a patient has built antibodies against the toxin or metabolises the Botox very quickly. This means they wouldn’t get the required Botox effect. It may mean that a patient would request a higher dose – potentially above recommended administration levels – to get any effect.

This can be dangerous and also counterproductive as increasing amounts of Botox runs the risk of increasing antibody production and further reducing the effectiveness of Botox. It also increases the risk of botulism.

Unlicensed Botox products also come with the risk of botulism. The recent spike of botulism cases in the UK have been linked to two unlicensed products, Innonox and Toxpia. Both are illegal to supply and use in the UK because their safety hasn’t been assessed by regulatory bodies.

These products also work differently to Botox. For instance, Innonox is also a “ready-made solution”, which means it can be injected without having to be dissolved in saline. This could lead to an increased risk of dosing errors if a practitioner is not used to the product or switches between using licensed Botox products and unlicensed ones.

Using a reputable and qualified practitioner is the best way to avoid contracting botulism. They will know how to properly inject Botox, which dose is safe for you and will only use products that are approved for cosmetic use.

The Conversation

Adam Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Botox: unlicensed injections are increasingly being linked to serious illness in the UK – https://theconversation.com/botox-unlicensed-injections-are-increasingly-being-linked-to-serious-illness-in-the-uk-262398

Edinburgh Festival: ten of the best art shows to see this summer

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Katarzyna Kosmala, Chair in Culture Media and Visual Arts, University of the West of Scotland

Edinburgh is once again joyfully alive with creativity and originality as the UK’s largest arts event returns. Staged in the oak grove of the city’s Botanical Gardens, the opening night of the 2025 Edinburgh Art Festival presented a sensory explosion that set the tone for the entire run.

British artist Linder’s dazzling, genre-defying performance spectacle fused Holly Blakey’s visceral choreography, Maxwell Sterling’s haunting soundscapes and Ashish Gupta’s flamboyant fashion, showcasing an eerie synthesis of body and nature.

This year – the 21st edition – offers a rich celebration of memory, identity and imagination, and with 82 exhibitions across 45 venues, it’s the biggest yet. Here’s our pick of the best from a visual feast for lovers of contemporary art.

1. Linder: Danger Came Smiling

This exciting show is a retrospective spanning five decades of fearless, boundary-pushing art. From punk and feminist photomontages to surreal fashion interventions and video work, Linder dissects our cultural obsessions with feminism, fairytales, flora and the human form. A rich tapestry of provocation and enchantment, this is a show not to be missed.

Royal Botanic Garden, Arboretum Place until October 19 2025, free

2. Who Will Be Remembered Here

Lewis Hetherington and CJ Mahony present a powerful, poetic film connecting queer lives across Scottish heritage sites. Developed in collaboration with Historic Environment Scotland, this is a deeply moving multilingual tribute to silenced histories and a comment on the erasure of cultures and identities. Personal stories are performed with passion in English, Scots, Gaelic and BSL. The show features places imbued with personal meaning, such as the industrial ruins of Biggar gasworks and the 2000-year-old Machrie Moor stone circle on Arran.

EAF Pavilion, 45 Leith Street until August 24 2025, free

3. Drama 1882

The UK premiere of Egyptian artist Wael Shawky’s exhibition explores the Anglo-Egyptian war through film installation featuring puppetry, drawings and historical narrative. Visually stunning and politically resonant, Shawky narrates religious wars, the Crusades and events leading up to the British occupation of Egypt from an Arab perspective. The show embraces lesser known and contradictory accounts to represent the making of history from an alternative perspective.

Talbot Rice Gallery, South Bridge until September 28 2025, free

4. Fire on the Mountain, Light on the Hill

Buenos Aires-based artist Mercedes Azpilicueta’s monumental tapestry weaves stories of protest and political expression in a vibrant collage of archival and contemporary imagery. Referencing war, food economies, collective action and women-led rights movements, this is a powerful and insightful commentary on overlooked histories. August 22 marks Azpilicueta’s live performance exploring themes of the struggles and resistance of women – real and fictional – across time.

The Collective Gallery, City Observatory at Calton Hill until September 7 2025, free; live performance on Calton Hill, August 22, free

5. Humpty Dumpty

British artist Mike Nelson has appropriated the Fruitmarket’s Warehouse space to recreate a haunting labyrinth of a derelict housing estate in his latest show. Unable to put things back together again, the installations arise from two sets of photographs documenting the condemned Heygate council estate in London, and new infrastructure building plans in Mardin, a city in eastern Turkey, near the Syrian border. The work captures cities in flux, commenting on construction and destruction, global politics and people’s struggle against regeneration, gentrification and social cleansing.

Fruitmarket Gallery, 45 Market Street until October 5, 2025, free

6. Give Light And People Will Find The Way (Ella Baker)

Scottish-Pakistani artist Rabiya Choudhry joins Chloe Reith (The Common Guild) and Martha Burns (National Library of Scotland) in conversation to discuss her new installation. Drawing on the legacy of African-American civil rights activist Ella Baker, it merges her powerful and inspiring words with Andrew Carnegie’s flaming torch – a symbol of enlightenment and public access to knowledge.

The illuminated work, representing collective strength, resilience and the power of learning, finds its permanent home at Craigmillar Library, a civic space rooted in community. The unveiling coincides with Dear Library, a new exhibition celebrating the centenary of the National Library of Scotland, and reflecting the role of libraries as beacons of hope and empowerment.

Craigmillar Library, 101 Niddrie Mains Road; Dear Library in-conversation event with Rabiya Choudhry, National Library of Scotland, George IV Bridge, August 14, 5.30pm, free

7. Resistance

Curated by British artist and filmmaker Steve McQueen, this striking show explores how countercultures and acts of protest have shaped life across the UK, and the powerful role of photography in documenting and driving change. It features renowned photographers such as Paul Trevor, Fay Godwin, Vanley Burke, John Deakin and Tish Murtha alongside lesser-known names. Underrepresented and marginalised voices are highlighted in this compelling exploration of overlooked histories.

Modern Two, National Galleries of Scotland, 73 Belford Road until January 4 2026, £14 (£2-£12 concession)

8. The Edinburgh Seven Tapestry

This extraordinary piece of work designed by Scottish artist Christine Borland and created by the city’s Dovecot Studios, commemorates the first women to enrol at Edinburgh University to study medicine. In 1870, the Surgeons’ Hall riot saw student and public protesters attempting to block the seven women from sitting an anatomy exam. Although the riot proved unsuccessful, the women’s fight to qualify as doctors eventually led to the Medical Act of 1876, legally permitting women to practise medicine.

The tapestry was created using a combination of traditional and modern materials and techniques. Borland’s organic shapes are ingeniously based on cellular structure in motion, with magenta and cyan hues representing the dyes that were used in both textiles and the scientific staining of human cells in the 19th century.

Edinburgh Futures Institute, 1 Lauriston Place until December 31 2025, free

9. Ring of Truth

A rare fusion of art, music and ancient philosophy makes up this collaboration between artists, musicians and historians. The show explores cosmic harmony and mysticism inspired by the Music of the Spheres manuscripts – ancient Coptic compositions from 5th and 6th-century Egypt. It features the work of Nurah Farahat, Haroon Mirza, Jack Jelfs, Craig Coulthard, Luke Fowler, David Maclean, Julie Johnstone, Edward Summerton, Alan Grieve and William Voelkle.

Blackie House, 6 Wardrop’s Court until August 24, free

10. Let Me Show You Who I Am

Created to be shown on billboards across the city, Alice Rekab’s arresting work delves into themes of diaspora, migration, queer identity and mixed heritage. The artworks have been created through a dynamic series of workshops exploring Black and Irish legacies of community activism and creativity across the UK. The artist’s explorations of Irish, Sierra Leonean, and Syrian family histories create powerful visual narratives of belonging.

Across Edinburgh until August 24, free


Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.


The Conversation

Katarzyna Kosmala does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Edinburgh Festival: ten of the best art shows to see this summer – https://theconversation.com/edinburgh-festival-ten-of-the-best-art-shows-to-see-this-summer-262748

The Materialists: a sadly conservative view on marriage

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sarah Louise Smyth, Lecturer in Department of Literature Film and Theatre Studies, University of Essex

This article contains spoilers for The Materialists

The Materialists purports to be a romantic comedy with a cynical and pragmatic look at romantic relationships. Its protagonist, Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a professional matchmaker, insists that a successful partnering is all about pairing the right numbers: salary, assets, height, weight, age. The man should be tall, the woman should be young and slim; both need to be rich.

This is a world of traditional gender norms, so the film does not concern itself with queer relationships. That is beyond one gag when Lucy interviews a woman who wants to find a Republican lesbian.

As the film goes on, Lucy’s matchmaking philosophy is tested when she becomes acquainted with Harry (Pedro Pascal) – tall, slim, handsome, wealthy, single (what the matchmaking business in the film calls “a unicorn”). At the same time, she runs into her ex-boyfriend John (Chris Evans), who, despite also being tall, slim and handsome, is poor and living in a squalid apartment with dysfunctional flatmates (all reasons they broke up the first time around). The film hinges on the question: what will Lucy choose, love or money?

As an expert in romantic comedies, I can tell you they have long been concerned with the marriage of romance and money, even if economics are tastefully relegated to the background.

Ground zero for the romance plot was Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, which set the template. Elizabeth Bennet fell in love with Mr Darcy – and it was a wonderful coincidence that he just so happened to be rich.

Since then, this plot has repeated in Pretty Woman (1990), Sex and the City (1998-2004), Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001), You’ve Got Mail (1998) and Crazy Rich Asians (2018), to name a few. In these romances, a key part of the fantasy is not only that the woman (for it is always a woman) is saved from abject singledom, but that she enters the upper echelons of society through her partner’s wealth.

The Materialists attempts to puncture this fantasy by foregrounding the role of money in relationships. A delicious scene occurs early on when Lucy is summoned to a bridal suite where her client is having cold feet about the man she is marrying. The suite looks expensive and the bride is beautiful.

Lucy asks the bride why, in her darkest moments, she wants to marry her fiancé. The bride sheepishly replies that it makes her sister jealous. Her fiancé is better looking, taller and richer than her sister’s husband. A flash in Lucy’s eyes suggests she can work with this. This is about being valued, Lucy reassures the bride, you want to be seen and to get what you deserve.

The stakes of this world are made clear: a good match is about perception and prestige and the emotional implications that come with it can be manipulated to justify these standards.

However, the burgeoning love triangle between Lucy, Harry and John confuses these insights. Director and writer Celine Song’s beautiful, tender and restrained debut, Past Lives (2023), also explored a love triangle. While the romantic entanglements of this film were nuanced, the emotional stakes were always clear eyed. This is less true in The Materialists.

Lucy insists that marrying someone wealthy is non-negotiable for her but then breaks up with Harry for no discernible reason. Just before the breakup scene, the film reveals a strange twist in the story. Harry got painful and invasive leg lengthening surgery, enabling him to reach the critical height of six foot. Lucy is insistent that this is not the reason she breaks up with Harry and the film seems to believe her, so the role of this storyline is unclear. Is it that, in this world, women (except for Lucy, perhaps) are as shallow as men?

Lucy then gets back together with John despite no clear indication of what he offers her emotionally or financially, especially as there has been no change in his circumstances. And this is to say nothing of a sexual assault storyline that is uncomfortably shoe-horned in, or the role of race and ethnicity in matchmaking.

Like queer sexuality, race is introduced as a joke by a white character who only wants to date other white people. Also, the role of Harry’s heritage (Pascal is Latino) was not mentioned as a potential problem for the wasps (white Anglo-Saxon protestants) who make up the majority of New York’s elite.

Ultimately, The Materialists suggests that people should stay in their lane. Lucy and Harry come from different worlds, while Lucy and John’s are very similar. As they admit to each other, as well as coming from modest backgrounds, they are both smokers, come from “shitty families” and support left-wing politics. The Pride and Prejudice plot may be a crass fantasy of social mobility, but The Materialists appears all the more conservative. If it is not clear whether Lucy and John marry for love nor money, what do they marry for?


Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.


The Conversation

Sarah Louise Smyth does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. The Materialists: a sadly conservative view on marriage – https://theconversation.com/the-materialists-a-sadly-conservative-view-on-marriage-263136

From bees doing maths to fish driving cars: teaching animals irrelevant skills can help unlock the secrets of cognition – podcast

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

Scientists can get animals to do the strangest things. They’ve taught goldfish to drive cars, primates to perform calculations with Arabic numerals and giraffes to do statistical reasoning. But what’s the point?

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, biologist Scarlett Howard from Monash University in Australia – who has taught bees to tell the difference between odd and even numbers – defends the importance of these seemingly ecologically irrelevant experiments.

She argues that they can help us understand the secrets of animal cognition, and even potentially unlock future technological developments for humanity too.

Howard got hooked on working with bees when she realised it was possible to train individual bees using sugar water as a reward. “We work with a single bee for hours and hours at a time and she comes back and forth from the hive to the experimental area,” she says.

She began wondering what bees’ cognitive boundaries were, which led to experiments exploring how bees count and tell the difference between pictures with odd and even numbers of objects.

“ I wasn’t doing these experiments just flippantly,” she says. “There is a fun aspect to them, but I was also doing them because I thought they really had value to other areas of science.”

Howard argues that these kinds of experiments are important for the field of neuromorphic technology, computer systems inspired by animals. Learning about cognition from animals, and particularly how they do tasks very efficiently compared to their brain size, can help to develop “technology based on biological systems”, Howard says.




Read more:
Fish driving cars and chimps doing maths: what teaching animals ‘irrelevant’ skills reveals about our own minds


And she says that while these human-centric tasks may seem ecologically irrelevant to an animal’s species now, we may just not know yet. “Maybe one day we’ll find out that they choose flowers or remember flowers by looking at the petal number and remembering if it’s an even number, that’s a good flower,” she posits.

Listen to the conversation with Scarlett Howard on The Conversation Weekly podcast.


This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Katie Flood. Gemma Ware is the host and executive producer. Mixing and sound design by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript of this episode is available on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

The Conversation

Scarlett Howard currently has funding from the Australian Research Council and the Hermon Slade Foundation.

ref. From bees doing maths to fish driving cars: teaching animals irrelevant skills can help unlock the secrets of cognition – podcast – https://theconversation.com/from-bees-doing-maths-to-fish-driving-cars-teaching-animals-irrelevant-skills-can-help-unlock-the-secrets-of-cognition-podcast-262288

Why are westerners so reluctant to eat seaweed? Our new study reveals the social and psychological reasons

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steven David Pickering, Honorary Professor, International Relations, Brunel University of London

9nong/Shutterstock

Seaweed is one of the few foods that can credibly claim to be good for both people and the planet. So why don’t westerners eat more of it?

It’s rich in vitamins, minerals, omega-3 fatty acids and fibre. It grows without fertilisers, pesticides or fresh water, and requires no farmland. Some species even capture carbon from the atmosphere and help counter ocean acidification.

From an environmental and nutritional standpoint, seaweed seems like an obvious choice for a sustainable diet. Yet in much of the west, it remains a fringe ingredient, appearing far more often wrapped around sushi in a restaurant than in a household’s weekly meals.

My team has been investigating this gap between seaweed’s potential and its place in everyday diets. Our aim was to find out why people in some countries eat seaweed regularly and why others do not.

Even actor Samuel L. Jackson has recently been promoting the virtues of seaweed snacks sourced from reefs beneath offshore windfarms. But seaweed snacks are far from mainstream, especially in countries like the UK.

A recent windfarm promo featured actor Samuel L. Jackson sampling tasty seaweed snacks.

Some of my computational social science students worked with the Europe-wide seaweed association North Sea Farmers to develop a campaign to encourage people in the Netherlands to eat more seaweed. They quickly realised that before trying to persuade people to eat more, it was important to understand the reasons they might not be eating it already.

This question was the focus of our new study surveying people living in both the UK (where seaweed is rarely eaten) and Japan (where it is a daily staple). By comparing the answers, we could separate cultural familiarity from other social and psychological factors that might influence consumption.

We didn’t just ask whether people eat seaweed. We explored how often they eat it, how easy they think it is to buy, how likely they are to eat it in future, and how healthy they believe it to be.

We also looked at their education, gender, age, political orientation, willingness to take risks, ethnic background in the UK, and levels of trust in institutions. These factors are often linked to openness to new foods and could help explain differences between countries.

top shot of woman holding seaweed dish eating with fork
People in the UK and Japan have different views about eating seaweed.
Viktor Kochetkov/Shutterstock

Some results were not too surprising. Japanese respondents ate seaweed far more often than their British counterparts, found it easier to buy, and were more willing to eat it in the future. In both countries, people who were more willing to take risks, including trying unfamiliar foods, were more likely to eat seaweed.

But the really interesting differences lay in who those seaweed-eaters were. In the UK, consumption was higher among ethnic minorities and university graduates, and it tended to appeal more to those on the political left.

In Japan, it was more common among women and those on the political right, reflecting its place as a traditional food rather than an alternative one. Trust in government, scientists or social media played a smaller and less consistent role, and the patterns varied between countries.

In Japan, trust in government was linked with seeing seaweed as healthy, while in the UK there was no similar link. These contrasts probably reflect how seaweed is framed in each country’s media and cultural narratives.

The way forward

Seaweed is not simply another fashionable superfood. Its potential role in sustainable food systems is supported by strong evidence.

It has a low environmental footprint, can be cultivated at scale, and can improve the nutritional value of other foods when used as an ingredient. However, our research shows that making seaweed more available or promoting its health benefits will not automatically increase its use.

In the UK, familiarity is a major barrier. People may have access to seaweed products yet still avoid them if they do not feel part of their cultural food landscape. In Japan, where familiarity is high, the challenge lies in ensuring younger generations keep eating it as diets become more westernised.

For countries with little tradition of eating seaweed, our research suggests the way forward is to integrate it into familiar dishes, use clear labelling and recipe ideas, and present it as an attractive and approachable option.

Public figures, as Samuel L. Jackson has shown, can play a role in normalising it. In countries with a strong seaweed tradition, there is room for innovation to keep the ingredient relevant and appealing in changing diets.

Addressing global environmental challenges requires more than good science. It requires understanding people’s habits, values and motivations, and finding ways to work with them to create change.

If seaweed is to move from occasional novelty to a regular part of diets in countries where it is unfamiliar, the evidence suggests that cultural connection will be as important as nutritional value or environmental benefit.


Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


The Conversation

This research was led by Mana Iwasaki, Gadis Masita and Alexandra Roskam from the Computational Social Science programme at the University of Amsterdam. We are grateful to Alexia Nichifor, Clément Paitrault, Martin Ejnar Hansen and Yosuke Sunahara. It was funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS, grant reference JPJSJRP 20211704) and the UK Research and Innovation’s Economic and Social Research Council (UKRI-ESRC, grant reference ES/W011913/1). More information can be found at https://www.TrustTracker.org.

ref. Why are westerners so reluctant to eat seaweed? Our new study reveals the social and psychological reasons – https://theconversation.com/why-are-westerners-so-reluctant-to-eat-seaweed-our-new-study-reveals-the-social-and-psychological-reasons-263002