Category: Academic Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Thomas Thurnell-Read, Reader in Sociology, Loughborough University

Recent figures from the British Beer and Pub Association show that pubs will close at the rate of one a day in the UK during 2025. This is just the latest chapter in a familiar story – more than a quarter of British pubs have closed since 2000.

The cost of running a pub has risen dramatically. The ingredients used to brew beer all cost more, as do the business rates, rents, duties, utilities and wages required to operate a welcoming venue in which to serve it. Some publicans have reported utility bills doubling in a matter of months.

Many pubs occupy prime locations and high-value buildings, which, coupled with larger floor space, mean business rates can be high relative to turnover and profit.

Meanwhile, food offerings which had provided many pubs with a profitable alternative to a drinks-only model have also been hit by rapid increases in costs. Supermarkets and delivery platforms now provide food and drink directly to consumers at prices few licenced venues can compete with. Even pubs that are economically viable are often more profitable converted into residential or retail space.

These economic challenges accompany wider cultural trends, such as the continued prevalence of home working, changes in drinking habits and competition from alternative forms of in person and online leisure.

We’ve researched pub closures in England and Wales to learn what the loss of pubs means for the communities who drink and gather in them.

When pubs closed temporarily during COVID-19 lockdowns, many people realised that what they missed about pubs was not alcohol but the social contact pubs provided. Pubs have a clear social value. They offer a space for people to meet and interact and have been shown to help tackling loneliness and social isolation.

Our research participants relayed stories of pub closure in relation to their own lives and communities:

I’ve been consoled in there, I’ve consoled friends in there. We’ve chopped up family issues, work issues. We’ve drunk for the sake of drinking in there.

Pubs help people feel connected to a local place. When they close, they can become sites of mourning, a painful reminder of change and decline. One resident of a former colliery village in Nottinghamshire said of the pub she had once worked in – now derelict, fire damaged and vandalised as it awaits redevelopment – that despite her wish that it had remained open it was now better to “knock it down” to “put us out of our misery”.

For many, pubs are a sort of bellwether for wider anxiety about social and generational change. The loss of pubs speaks to where “we” might be heading as a nation or as a community. Our recent analysis of how the British press has reported on pub closures since 2000 shows that a sense of national identity under threat is a recurring theme.

Both local and national newspapers have made repeated use of the word “our” in this context, warning readers of the grave threat to “our pubs” and “our heritage”, often invoking an idyllic image of rural life. However, much of this coverage has also praised the pub as a great leveller, as a place where people come together as a community to socialise despite their differences.

Can pubs be saved?

The Campaign for Real Ale, the leading consumer group for beer drinkers and pub goers, suggests changing planning and licensing laws to protect pubs at local and national levels, and more support and publicity for pubs to cater to changing markets.

Others have more directly lobbied for duty cuts that give pubs a fighting chance against supermarkets benefiting from economies of scale, VAT exemptions and convenience.

A hot meal served in a pub incurs a standard 20% rate of VAT, while a supermarket ready meal to be heated at home does not. The rationale for a tax cut to support pubs would rest on the social benefits they offer to communities, in contrast to supermarket-bought alcohol typically consumed at home.

The Localism Act 2011 gave communities the right to bid to take pubs into community ownership, designating them as assets of community value. Yet while there are some terrific examples of community-owned pubs becoming both thriving businesses and a revived focal point for communities, residents in poorer areas lack the resources to sustain viable campaigns.

In one village in our study, a pub listed as a going concern at £500,000 in fact sold as a development plot for over £660,000. A viability study suggested that an investment of £225,000, plus working capital of at least £20,000, would be needed to reopen the pub. The residents we spoke to all conceded that a purchase was far beyond the modest resources of the local community.

While the loss of so many pubs is shocking, it obscures the fact that when other licensed venues, such as bars, restaurants and licensed cafes are factored in, the downward trend is flattened – and even reversed in some areas. This suggests a long-term diversification of the sector – the pub is no longer the only option when going out for a drink.

This may also reflect a feeling that other hospitality venues better cater to different people and groups who may feel less at home in traditional pubs. Some interviewees told us that they felt craft brewery taprooms were more welcoming and family friendly. Others found cafe-bars to have a more appealing mix of coffee, food and both alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks.

There’s a long history of pubs adapting to serve new needs and markets. Pub is the Hub, for example, has supported rural pubs to incorporate everything from village shops and libraries to pizza ovens and IT skills hubs. There have been promising experiments with fitting pubs for co-working and meeting space. And micropubs can continue to offer the benefits of a convivial social space, in a back-to-basics approach that reduces the costs of running bigger venues. Pubs can and must evolve.

Thomas Thurnell-Read receives funding from The Leverhulme Trust.

Robert Deakin 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. Consolation, community, national identity: what is lost when pubs close – and how they can be saved – https://theconversation.com/consolation-community-national-identity-what-is-lost-when-pubs-close-and-how-they-can-be-saved-260774

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Edward White, PhD Candidate in Psychology, Kingston University

One hundred years after a Tennessee teacher named John Scopes started a legal battle over what the state’s schools can teach children, Americans are still divided over evolution.

Scopes was charged with violating Tennessee law by teaching evolution, in a highly publicised July 1925 trial that led to national debate over evolution and education. The trial tested whether a law introduced that year really could punish teachers over evolution lessons. It could and did: Scopes was fined US$100 (£74).

But here’s the weird part: while Americans remain deeply divided about whether humans evolved from earlier species, our British predecessors largely settled this question decades before the Scopes trial.

According to thinktank Pew Research Center data from 2020, only 64% of Americans accept that “humans and other living things have evolved over time”. Meanwhile, 73% of Brits are fine with the idea that they share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. That nine-percentage-point gap might not sound like much, but it represents millions of people who think Darwin was peddling fake news.

From 1985 to 2010, Americans were in what researchers call a statistical dead heat between acceptance and rejection of evolution — which is academic speak for people couldn’t decide if we were descended from apes or Adam and Eve.

Here’s where things get psychologically fascinating. Research into misinformation and cognitive biases suggests that fundamentalism operates on a principle known as motivated reasoning. This means selectively interpreting evidence to reach predetermined conclusions. And a 2018 review of social and computer science research also found that fake news seems to spread because it confirms what people already want to believe.

Evolution denial may work the same way. Religious fundamentalism is what researchers call “the strongest predictor” for rejection of evolution. A 2019 study of 900 participants found that belief in fake news headlines was associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism and reduced analytic thinking.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

High personal religiosity, as seen in the US, reinforced by communities of like-minded believers, can create resistance to evolutionary science. This pattern is pronounced among Southern Baptists — the largest Protestant denomination in the US — where 61% believe the Bible is the literal word of God, compared to 31% of Americans overall. The persistence of this conflict is fuelled by organised creationist movements that reinforce religious scepticism.

Brain imaging studies
show that people with fundamentalist beliefs seem to have reduced activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex — the brain region responsible for cognitive flexibility and analytical thinking. When this area is damaged or less active, people become more prone to accepting claims without sufficient evidence and show increased resistance to changing their beliefs when presented with contradictory information. Studies of brain-injured patients show damage to prefrontal networks that normally help us question information may lead to increased fundamentalist beliefs and reduced scepticism.

Fundamentalist psychology helps explain the US position in international evolution acceptance surveys. In a 2006 study, of over 33,00 people from 34 countries from 34 countries, only Turkey ranked lower than the US, with about 27% accepting evolution compared to America’s 40% at the time. Among the developed nations surveyed, the US consistently ranks near the bottom — a pattern that persists in more recent international comparisons.

Research shows that political polarisation on evolution has historically been much stronger in the US than in Europe or Japan, where the issue rarely becomes a campaign talking point. In the US, anti-evolution bills are still being introduced in state legislatures.

In the UK, belief in evolution became accepted among respectable clergymen around 1896, according to church historian Owen Chadwick’s analysis of Victorian christianity. But why did British religious institutions embrace science while American ones declared war?

The answer lies in different approaches to intellectual challenges. British Anglicanism has a centuries-old tradition of seeking a “via media” — a middle way between extremes — that allowed church leaders to accommodate new ideas without abandoning core beliefs. Historian Peter documented how British religious leaders actively worked to reconcile science and religion, developing theological frameworks that embraced scientific discoveries as revealing God’s methods rather than contradicting divine authority.

Anglican bishops and scholars tended to treat evolution as God’s method of creation rather than a threat to faith itself. The Church of England’s hierarchical structure meant that when educated clergy accepted evolution, the institutional framework often followed suit. A 2024 paper argued that many UK church leaders still view science and religion as complementary rather than conflicting.

A different approach

The British experience proves it’s possible to reconcile science and faith. But changing American minds requires understanding that evolution acceptance isn’t really about biology — it’s about identity, belonging, and the fundamental question of who gets to define truth. People don’t reject evolution because they’ve carefully studied the evidence. They reject it because it threatens their identity. This creates a context where education alone can’t overcome deeply held convictions.

Misinformation intervention research suggests that inoculation strategies, such as highlighting the scientific consensus on climate change, work better than debunking individual articles. But evolution education needs to be sensitive. Consensus messaging helps, but only when it doesn’t threaten people’s core identities. For example, framing evolution as a function of “how” life develops, rather than “why it exists, allows for people to maintain religious belief while accepting the scientific evidence for natural selection.

People’s views can change. A review published in 2024, analysed data which followed the same Gen X people in the US over 33 years. It found that, as they grew up, people developed more acceptance of evolution, though typically because of factors such as education and obtaining university degrees. But people who were taught at a private school seem less likely to become more accepting of evolution as they aged.

As we face new waves of scientific misinformation, the century since the Scopes trial teaches us that evidence alone won’t necessarily change people’s minds. Understanding the psychology of belief might be our best hope for evolving past our own cognitive limitations.

Edward White is affiliated with Kingston University.

– ref. Why many Americans still think Darwin was wrong, yet the British don’t – https://theconversation.com/why-many-americans-still-think-darwin-was-wrong-yet-the-british-dont-260709

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Martin, Lecturer in Urban Design and Planning, University of Sheffield

Children play everywhere. Yet their right to play – protected by a UN convention – is constantly challenged by adults.

Play is crucial to support children’s holistic development in cognitive, emotional, physical and social skills. Likewise, we know children’s environments significantly influence their health and wellbeing, for better or worse.

But across cities, young people are let down by a built environment that fails to appropriately consider their needs.

Places where children commonly used to play, such as streets and local neighbourhoods, have been transformed into car-only spaces where traffic and parking take priority. Likewise, city spaces frequently “design out” children by prohibiting skateboarding, ball games and other kinds of play.

Over time, urban planning has confined children’s opportunities for play to dedicated playground spaces only.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

However, children don’t have equal access to these formal play spaces. In the largest study of playgrounds in England, my colleagues and I found substantial inequalities in access to play. Children in the most deprived areas needed to travel further to their nearest playground.

In new research, I’ve explored four international examples of how children and play can be promoted in less likely urban spaces. My findings show how play can be promoted in cities to support children’s right to play anywhere – but also that there is widespread hostility to children’s right to use urban spaces for play.

Power of play

In Sydney, a pedal park installation with temporary jumps, ramps and a pump track was set up in different car parks for the duration of the winter. In Paris, a play street was created in central Paris by closing road traffic on Friday afternoons in autumn and spring.

In Belfast, temporary play equipment and playful street furniture was set up in the Cathedral Gardens public space.

In Milan, a community-led design involved children in creating a colourful grid, planters, growing beds and games in a school car park, which went on to inspire a new municipal programme of temporary school streets and piazzas.

These play spaces allowed children to play freely, play with objects, play pretend, play games with rules, and play physically – the core pillars of play. What’s more, they enabled children to develop new connections with their community by appropriating urban spaces to promote relaxation and fun. This was vital following the trauma of the global pandemic – all the projects were active during COVID-19 outside of lockdown.

These short-term projects invited children to enjoy urban life in new ways. In fact, they bolstered civic access for people of all generations. In Sydney, the closure of the car park fostered a new sense of community. Caregivers, grandparents and residents were able to connect with each other in a whole different setting.

Politics of play

But despite the positives, over time, the projects faced protest and tension. In Milan, fears from residents emerged on play being used as a tool to displace poorer communities. This was in response to the area having long been earmarked for regeneration. In Sydney, Paris and Belfast, people actively targeted and sabotaged the informal play spaces.

In Sydney, to park their cars, older citizens successfully lobbied local councillors to reduce the total amount of space for play, from the entire car park to one aisle of parking. In Paris, local businesses were exasperated by the presence of children. Collectively they threatened project initiators and staged a protest, claiming that “play streets kill local shops”. In Belfast, the pop-up play space was set on fire, multiple times. By summer 2022, much of the park had been destroyed.

The outcomes demonstrate the politics that children, and their play, were exposed to. Because of a range of aggressive behaviour from adults, children’s use of streets and public spaces were consistently restricted. A common statement from dissenters was “children can go elsewhere”. The reality is they can’t.

In tracking informal play projects through the pandemic and subsequent years, two additional factors hampered their longer-term success. For the council projects in Sydney and Belfast, council officers hoped to direct more resources to urban play, but the lack of a specific local policy to support play was a significant constraint. By comparison, the community projects in Paris and Milan placed an unsustainable pressure on volunteers to ensure prolonged success.

Lessons from previous crises highlight how tensions and conflict can affect innovative uses of space, often diluting their progressive purpose. Ultimately, children’s play in recovery from the pandemic experienced a similar fate.

This is worrying because Unicef research has shown children’s wellbeing has continued to suffer after COVID-19.

Places that allow for children’s play can create dynamic neighbourhoods, intergenerational encounters, and meaningful participation in urban spaces – if only we let it happen.

Michael Martin 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. How to give children the freedom to play all across the city – not just in playgrounds – https://theconversation.com/how-to-give-children-the-freedom-to-play-all-across-the-city-not-just-in-playgrounds-260444

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Millie Horton-Insch, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, History of Art Department, Trinity College Dublin

There was great excitement at the news this month that the Bayeux tapestry – the 11th-century embroidered epic depicting the conquest of England by William the Conqueror in 1066 – will go on display at the British Museum in 2026. However, the tapestry had already been in the news earlier this year, admittedly to much less fanfare.

In March, it was reported that a fragment of the Bayeux tapestry had been discovered in Germany in the Schleswig-Holstein state archives. To understand how it ended up there, we must turn to a troubling and little-known episode in the tapestry’s history: Sonderauftrag Bayeux (Special Operation Bayeux), a project operated by the Nazi Ahnenerbe, the SS regime’s heritage research group.

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.

It has often been observed that art seems to have been of disproportionate concern to the Nazis. However, their manipulation of visual and material culture should be understood as central to – not separate from – Hitler’s genocidal regime and its efforts towards global domination.

The Ahnenerbe, under the ultimate authority of Heinrich Himmler, was established to develop and disseminate histories in support of that mythology central to the Nazi regime: the supremacy of the Aryan race. To this end, the Ahnenerbe oversaw research that claimed to use unassailable scientific methods.

However, it has long been acknowledged that their projects consciously manipulated historical evidence to construct fabricated histories that would support racist ideologies. To achieve this, numerous research projects were conducted. These projects saw scholars travel across the globe in the pursuit of objects that could act as monuments to the mythologies of Aryan supremacy. Sonderauftrag Bayeux was one such project.

Nazi interest in the Bayeux tapestry may seem surprising to British people, where the tapestry is considered a symbol of a singularly significant moment in Britain’s history. However, just as politicians in modern Britain have found it tempting to reference the tapestry in the advancement of their political agendas, so too did the Ahnenerbe.

Sonderauftrag Bayeux aimed to produce a multi-volume study of the tapestry that would assert its inherently Scandinavian character. The objective was to present the tapestry as proof of the supremacy of the early medieval Norman people, whom the Ahnenerbe claimed as the ancestors of modern German Aryans and descendants of “Viking” northern Europeans.

By June 1941, work on Sonderauftrag Bayeux had begun in earnest. Among the team sent to Normandy to study the tapestry first hand was Karl Schlabow, a textile expert and head of the Germanic Costume Institute at Neumünster in Germany. Schlabow spent a fortnight in Bayeux, and it was he who removed a fragment of the tapestry’s backing fabric and brought it back to Germany when his research visit was complete.

Though initial reports suggested that Schlabow removed this fragment when the embroidery was later transferred by the Nazis to Paris, it is more likely that he did so during June 1941, when he and his fellow members of Sonderauftrag Bayeux were stationed in Bayeux.

In a sketch by Herbert Jeschke – the artist commissioned to create a painted reproduction of the tapestry – during this visit, Jeschke depicted himself with Schlabow and Herbert Jankuhn (the director of the project) hunched over the tapestry. The sketch is accompanied by the emphatic title, “Die Tappiserie!”, an expression of delight at their privileged viewing of this medieval masterpiece.

To join the Ahnenerbe, Schlabow, like others involved in the Sonderauftrag Bayeux, was inducted into the SS. He held the rank of SS-Unterscharführer (roughly the equivalent of a sergeant in today’s British army). After the second world war many members of the Ahnenerbe denied having sympathy for Nazi policies.

However, documents seized by US intelligence officers at the end of the second world war reveal that some were denied entry to the Ahnenerbe if they, for instance, had had Jewish friends or expressed sympathy towards communist ideas. They therefore had to (at least outwardly) appear sympathetic to Nazism to be inducted into its ranks.

Details of what exactly the Ahnenerbe project uncovered, or even hoped to uncover, from this study of the tapestry are opaque. It appears that, to a large extent, the act of producing an illustrated study and dispatching researchers to the original textile was enough to claim the object as a monument to Germanic Aryan supremacy. It is clear that perceived Scandinavian influence within the tapestry’s designs was to be central to the study’s conclusions, but the project was not completed before Germany’s defeat at the end of the war.

Like many other members of the Ahnenerbe, Schlabow returned to research after the war, working at the Schleswig-Holstein State Museum in Gottorf Castle.

The discovery of even the tiniest fragment of this remarkable medieval object is cause for much excitement. However, its recovery should be framed firmly in the context in which it was removed. It should come as no surprise that Schlabow felt empowered to steal this piece of the tapestry; the regime for which he worked claimed the object as a piece of his heritage, his birthright as an Aryan German.

This find is a timely reminder that the past is closer than we realise and that there is still much work to be done to explore the long shadows cast by previous practices in the histories we inherit. The recovered fragment is currently on display in Schleswig-Holstein, but will return to the Musée la Tapisserie de Bayeux in Normandy in time for the museum’s re-opening in 2027 when the two elements will be reunited for the first time since 1941.

Millie Horton-Insch receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust.

– ref. Why the Nazis stole a fragment of the Bayeux tapestry – https://theconversation.com/why-the-nazis-stole-a-fragment-of-the-bayeux-tapestry-260048

Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Hastings Dunn, Professor of International Politics in the Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham

At face value, Donald Trump’s announcement about his plans on Russia and Ukraine look like a major policy change. Speaking from the Oval Office on July 14, where he had been meeting with Nato secretary general Mark Rutte, the US president said he would send “top-of-the-line-weapons” to help Kyiv and – unless a ceasefire deal is agreed inside a 50-day time limit – the US would impose secondary sanctions on any countries dealing with Russia.

But while this represents a significant departure from Trump’s previous approach, it’s more of a step back towards the policy approach of his predecessor Joe Biden than the U-turn that some commentators are claiming.

For months Russia has stepped up its bombardment of Ukraine, buoyed by the fact that neither the US Congress nor the White House has authorised any new military aid to Kyiv. Moscow would have been aware of this lack of US action and its missile and drone attacks against Ukraine have aimed to run down the stocks of air defence missiles supplied by Biden while paying lip service to the idea of peace negotiations.

For Trump the penny appears finally to have dropped as to what was happening. His frustration and disappointment in Putin is what has finally led to him calling this out. According to Trump, Putin “fooled a lot of people – Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden – he didn’t fool me. At a certain point talk doesn’t talk, it’s got to be action”.

The decision to send new supplies of defensive – and potentially even longer-range offensive missiles – to Ukraine (even if the Europeans pay for them) is an important signal to Russia. But so too is the threat of tariffs of 100% on countries, such as India and China, that sustain the Russian economy by buying its oil and gas at knockdown prices.

The US senate, led by Lindsay Graham, the influential Republican senator for South Carolina, has been itching to pass these secondary sanctions for months. Now that the Trump administration appears to have adopted this plan it is a significant policy instrument to pile the pressure on Russia.

The change in Trump’s approach may also mean that the $US8 billion (£6 billion) of frozen Russian assets in the US (and US$223 billion in Europe) could be released to aid Ukraine, which would provide a ready means to pay for the US arms transfers.

Limits to US support

What has not changed, however, is the goal of Trump’s policy towards the war in Ukraine. While the Biden administration called out the illegality of Putin’s unprovoked aggression and called for the restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty, Trump is merely calling for a ceasefire.

Trump may say he is “disappointed” with Putin, but he has not labelled him as the aggressor. In fact at one point he was blaming Ukraine for the invasion. And, significantly, he has not demanded that Russia give up the 20% of Ukraine that it currently illegally occupies.

The US president is also silent on what the US would commit to in terms of security and stability for Ukraine after the fighting stops. This is a much bigger question than Ukraine’s Nato membership. America’s European allies in Nato regard some sort of stability force on Ukrainian territory as necessary to deter any future Russian aggression.

Whether or not US troops would be involved (and all the signs are that they would not), some sort of US security “back-stop” or guarantee is still seen in Europe as key to its success – as would be US logistical and intelligence support for its operation.

But why the 50-day delay?

Another aspect of the change in Trump’s policy is the long lead time that Russia has been given to come to the table. A lot of Ukrainian civilians are likely to die during this period if the intense bombardment continues. On the battlefield, 50 days would give the Russians an extended window during a renewed summer offensive to make further territorial gains inside the occupied provinces.

So Trump’s proposals have to be viewed through the prism of his propensity to set deadlines that are then pushed back multiple times – as with the on-again, off-again tariffs, which have given Trump the nickname Taco (“Trump always chickens out”) on Wall Street.

Russian senator, Konstantin Kosachev, was certainly taking this view when he told the BBC after Trump’s announcement that, “if this is all Trump had to say about Ukraine today, then so far it’s been much ado about nothing”.

This sentiment was shared by the Russian stock market which rose 2.7% in the aftermath of Trump’s announcement. Analysts had expected much worse, so the long delay in the prospect of anything actually happening was clearly seen as a long way off and potentially subject to change or cancellation. Trump is seen by many as both inconsistent in his threats and unpredictable as to where policy will eventually settle.

The fact that Trump told BBC Washington correspondent Gary O’Donoghue that while he was “disappointed” with Putin, he was “not done with him” – and his clear reluctance to act quickly and decisively in sanctioning Russia – should be seen as an important counterpart to the apparent policy shift.

Like so many things with the 47th US president, it’s important not to react to the media appearances or the headlines they provoke, without also paying attention to the policy actions of his administration.

David Hastings Dunn has previously received funding from the ESRC, the Gerda Henkel Foundation, the Open Democracy Foundation and has previously been both a NATO and a Fulbright Fellow.

– ref. What Trump’s decision to send more weapons to Ukraine will mean for the war – https://theconversation.com/what-trumps-decision-to-send-more-weapons-to-ukraine-will-mean-for-the-war-261192

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gulshanara (Rumy) Begum, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition & Exercise Science, University of Westminster

Energy drinks are big business. Marketed as quick fixes for fatigue and performance dips, energy drinks are especially popular among young people, athletes, sports enthusiasts, and so-called “weekend warriors” – people who pack their workouts into the weekend instead of exercising regularly. Gamers are now a major target too.

But as the market grows, so do concerns about what’s actually in these drinks – and what these ingredients might be doing to our bodies.

Many energy drinks contain some combination of three familiar stimulants: caffeine, found naturally in coffee, tea and cacao; guarana, an Amazonian plant rich in caffeine; and taurine, a naturally occurring amino acid found in scallops, mussels, turkey and chicken.

Taurine, in particular, has drawn both hype and hope. It is credited with performance-enhancing properties and potential health benefits. But new research is raising important questions about how it behaves in the body – and when it might do more harm than good.

In May 2025, a study published in Nature sparked headlines and unease in equal measure. It found that taurine may fuel the progression of leukaemia, a group of blood cancers that begin in the bone marrow.

The study showed that while healthy bone marrow cells naturally produce taurine, leukaemia cells cannot. But they can absorb taurine from their surroundings and use it as a fuel source to grow and multiply. Research on mice and in human leukaemia cell samples demonstrated that taurine in the tumour microenvironment – the area around a tumour that includes blood vessels, immune cells and structural support – accelerated the progression of leukaemia.

Crucially, when researchers blocked taurine uptake by leukaemia cells (using genetic techniques), cancer progression slowed significantly. The authors suggest taurine supplements could potentially worsen outcomes in people with leukaemia and propose that developing targeted ways to block taurine uptake by cancer cells might offer a new treatment strategy.

Taurine: friend or foe?

Taurine is one of the most abundant free amino acids in the human body, found in especially high concentrations in the heart, muscles and brain. In healthy people, it’s mainly obtained through diet, but the body can also synthesise taurine from the amino acids methionine and cysteine, provided it has enough vitamin B6, which is found in foods such as salmon, tuna, chicken, bananas and milk.

Most people consuming a typical western diet take in 40mg–400mg of taurine a day from food alone. This figure refers only to taurine that is directly ingested, not including the additional amount the body can synthesise internally, which may vary depending on age, diet and health.

Taurine is listed on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) generally recognised as safe (GRAS) database, and according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), it’s safe to consume up to six grams per day. By comparison, a serving of Red Bull or Monster contains around one gram – comfortably below that threshold.

Despite recent concerns about a possible link to blood cancer progression, taurine isn’t inherently harmful. In fact, some people may benefit from supplementation, especially those receiving long-term parenteral nutrition, where nutrients are delivered directly into the bloodstream because the gut isn’t working properly. People with chronic liver, kidney or heart failure may also have trouble producing or holding on to enough taurine, making supplementation helpful in specific clinical settings.

Ironically, some research suggests taurine may actually help reduce the side effects of chemotherapy in leukaemia patients – even as emerging studies raise concerns that it could also fuel the disease. This contradiction underscores how much context matters: the effects of taurine depend not just on dosage and delivery, but also on the patient’s underlying condition. What helps in one context, could harm in another.

But here’s the catch: taking taurine as a supplement for particular health reasons is very different from consuming large quantities through energy drinks, which often combine taurine with high levels of caffeine and sugar. This combination can put strain on the heart, interfere with sleep and increase the risk of side effects, particularly for people with underlying health conditions or those taking other stimulants.

The latest research raises important questions about whether taurine-heavy products could be harmful in some cases, especially for people with, or at risk of, blood cancers.

So, should you worry?

According to the current evidence, if you’re a healthy adult who occasionally sips an energy drink, there’s little cause for alarm. But moderation is key. Consuming multiple high-taurine drinks daily or taking taurine supplements (without prior professional consultation), on top of a taurine-rich diet might not be wise, especially if future research confirms links between taurine and cancer progression.

Until more is known, the safest approach would be to enjoy your energy boosts by consuming a nutritious diet rather than consuming energy drinks. If you have any underlying health conditions – or a family history of cancer – it’s always best to consult a healthcare professional before diving into taurine supplementation or consumption of energy drinks.

Gulshanara (Rumy) Begum 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. Taurine could power your energy drink – and maybe cancer cells too. Here’s what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/taurine-could-power-your-energy-drink-and-maybe-cancer-cells-too-heres-what-you-need-to-know-256957