Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Katie Crosson, Postdoctoral Research Associate (Curation), University of Exeter

Between 1970 and 1984, BBC1’s experimental drama strand Play for Today created what is now regarded as classic British drama. It launched myriad acting careers and showcased high-calibre writing in plays such as Mike Leigh’s Abigail’s Party and Blue Remembered Hills, Dennis Potter’s acclaimed play about lost youth. It was often challenging, often radical and always unpredictable, rotating directors, producers and writers each week to create unique one-off episodes.

The series covered a huge range of subject matter, across different genres and styles, and sought to reveal truths about contemporary life. By the mid-1980s, the BBC was reluctant to continue taking costly chances on new talent each week in an era of increasing competition, and Play for Today was canned.

Now, in 2025, it’s coming back. Channel 5 recently announced the return of the series, emphasising that the new Play for Today will provide a space to experiment for emerging creative talent, particularly those from low-income backgrounds. This development is welcome in an industry that fails to embrace working-class entrants.

In the chasm between 1984 and 2025, the structure of British society has changed beyond recognition. The class system itself has shape-shifted numerous times, with the erosion of many working-class trades and the increasing precarity of middle-class professions, with many affected by steep increases in the cost of living, high student debt and a housing crisis. All the while, the UK’s super-rich are richer than ever and inequalities are rising.

All of which increase the urgency for a strand like Play for Today, willing to respond to these issues. And while I remain hopeful that this new Channel 5 incarnation can be a success, my research into the original has informed nine non-negotiables required to fulfil its goals and earn the Play for Today name.

1. Represent resistance

Play for Today didn’t only amplify unheard voices, it also portrayed under-represented struggles. From female strikers in Leeds United! (1974) to occupiers on a development site during a rent-hike in United Kingdom (1981), Play for Today didn’t present characters as helpless victims, but people with agency engaged in resistance.

Channel 5 claims it wants to cover “thornier issues”. If it is serious about this, it could offer a unique space to explore marginalised voices, such as youth organisers involved in the ongoing fight for trans rights, and those speaking out against the alleged genocide in Palestine experiencing censorship and criminalisation.

2. Encourage critique

Play for Today critiqued the system, not just individuals. Destiny (1978) was an honest portrayal of the top-down, predatory nature of fascism. Its speech about “making the country great again” lay at the centre of an examination of the links between landlords and organisations like the National Front.

The Sin Bin (1981) offered a sobering portrayal of the lives of inmates in prison for the very worst of crimes. Play for Today asked its audience to extend their empathy, asking what we are willing to accept in the name of justice, and whether the criminal legal system is fit for purpose.

3. Be specific

The series represented specific times, towns and trades in detail. The lives of people in Hull in Land of Green Ginger (1973) and Morecambe in Sunset Across the Bay (1975) were examined without compromising their uniqueness by trying to universalise characters’ experiences.

The Bevellers (1974) and Not For The Likes of Us (1980) were built around portrayals of manual labour and working in a cinema. Far from making the programme inaccessible or irrelevant, millions tuned in each week: Play for Today was engaging precisely because it depicted lives and livelihoods little seen on screen.

4. Rotate creators

Held together by little more than a commitment to responding to the present moment, it is an essential feature of Play for Today that writers, actors, directors and producers rotate regularly, to ensure a variety of perspectives.

5. Foster innovation

It is important that Channel 5 doesn’t see the programme’s focus on social truths as something at odds with experimenting with form. From the raucous comedy of Bar Mitzvah Boy (1976) to the folk-horror of Penda’s Fen (1974), the agit-prop filmed theatre of The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil (1974) and the surrealism of The After Dinner Joke (1978), Play for Today was never confined to one stylistic box.

These examples deviate from the predictable style British audiences appear to be tiring of – a state of affairs made clear by the unprecedented appetite for the mini-series Adolescence, in which each episode was shot in one long single take.

6. Ensure creative freedom

If the new Play for Today is to be as distinctive and bold as its namesake, creators must be given proper creative control over what they’re making. Creativity flourished on the original series because creative control was the norm for these drama productions.

7. Offer a real vision of the working class

Ladies (1980) focused on the lives of female department-store workers spanning different ages and ethnicities. The Spongers (1978) explored the reality of living with disability in poverty, and Even Solomon (1979) featured the first transgender protagonist on British television. At its best, Play for Today portrayed a spectrum of working-class characters as diverse as real life, and it can again.

8. Show emotion

Play for Today presented issues in ways that elicited emotional as well as intellectual responses. Rocky Marciano is Dead (1976) focused on the importance of boxing to different communities, tenderly exploring the strained relationship between an ageing boxer and a squatter next door. At a time where social division is rife, we could benefit from being moved to look at the world and people around us in ways that promote understanding and empathy.

9. Be free to fail

Play for Today proved it’s possible to have both quality and quantity, but only through embracing failure. With 316 episodes made by different people, not all of Play for Today was pioneering. The same freedom that granted Play for Today its huge successes also granted its failures. The team behind Channel 5’s Play for Today would do well to accept that we cannot have one without the other, but look to the original, and enthusiastically and wholeheartedly take the risk.

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.

Katie Crosson received funding from TECHNE (AHRC) for her PhD on Play for Today.

– ref. Play for Today is back – nine ways Channel 5 can make it as successful as the original – https://theconversation.com/play-for-today-is-back-nine-ways-channel-5-can-make-it-as-successful-as-the-original-263954

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Heiko Balzter, Director of Institute for Environmental Futures, University of Leicester

Planting trees is seen as a cornerstone of efforts to avert climate breakdown. But a major new study in Science finds their potential has been drastically overstated – and relying on forests to offset carbon emissions could distract from the urgent need to cut fossil fuel use.

The researchers, a team of scientists mostly based in China, looked at both afforestation (creating new forests) and reforestation (restoring cleared ones). Unlike earlier studies, they carefully limited the land assumed to be available to avoid unintended consequences.

For instance, planting trees in snowy regions darkens the surface, since trees are darker than snow. This reduces reflectivity and can actually lead to further warming. Forests can also compete with grassland for water or threaten biodiversity.

Previous studies varied hugely in the area of land that they thought was suitable for planting trees, ranging from 200 million to 2,000 million hectares. Once those unsuitable areas are removed, the new study calculates just 389 million hectares worldwide were left suitable for forestation.

If this whole area was planted, the carbon absorbed by 2050 would amount to about 40 billion tonnes – much lower than previous estimates. But even out of this smaller land area, only about 120 million hectares are currently earmarked for forestation, reducing the climate benefit to only 12.5 billion tonnes of carbon by 2050. That’s a big number, but it’s only slightly more than a single year of global fossil fuel emissions.

Nature-based solutions such as tree planting can help, but they are
nowhere near enough to keep global heating below +1.5°C or even +2°C. Cutting emissions must remain the top priority.

Nevertheless, the authors argue that forestation incentives should be rolled out urgently in countries where the benefits are greatest – particularly Brazil, Colombia, China and India, where wet tropical conditions make trees grow fast. By contrast, in the US and Russia, colder weather and slower tree growth means much more land would be needed to have the same impact.

Implausible pledges

One of the most striking findings of this study is that across Africa, many governments have pledged far more land for forestation than the models consider suitable for tree planting.

For example, Ethiopia has committed to reforesting 10.2 million hectares but the study finds only 0.5 million hectares are actually suitable. Similar gaps are apparent in Cameroon, South Africa and other countries.

The gap arises because the new study only counts land that is naturally suited to forests, based on climate soils and existing vegetation. Many government pledges, by contrast, include ecosystems such as savannas or grasslands.
Across Africa, 70 million hectares of land committed to tree planting – an area the size of France – fall into this category.

Savannas are constrained by low rainfall, and trees are kept in check by hungry herbivores and frequent fires. The height that a woody plant in a savanna needs to reach to survive the regular burning is called the “fire trap” for a reason, as many saplings do not make it above that threshold. Planting forests here is not only unlikely to succeed, it also risks damaging unique ecosystems and biodiversity. And crucially, replacing natural savanna with plantations is not equivalent to restoring or protecting a tropical rainforest.

One limitation is that the new study did not include agroforestry – integrating trees into farmland – which could add more potential for carbon storage. But the bigger lesson from news that the climate potential of forests may have been exaggerated is that planting trees should complement, not replace, rapid emissions cuts.

To make the most of forests, the world needs better science-based guidelines for where trees will thrive, and stronger commitments to act quickly. The clock is ticking.

Heiko Balzter receives funding from UK Research and Innovation, the European Space Agency, and Defra. He is affiliated with the Labour Party and is a member of Friends of the Earth.

– ref. Trees alone won’t save us: new study says forestation has less potential to fix the climate than hoped – https://theconversation.com/trees-alone-wont-save-us-new-study-says-forestation-has-less-potential-to-fix-the-climate-than-hoped-264236

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ahmed Elbediwy, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Biochemistry / Cancer Biology, Kingston University

For years, health authorities have warned against red meat consumption, with the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm classifying it as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. But a controversial new study challenges that position, suggesting that animal protein might protect against cancer deaths rather than cause them.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the WHO, has long classified red meat, including beef, pork, lamb and mutton, as probably carcinogenic. And processed meats such as bacon and sausages are classified as definite carcinogens. This judgment reflects multiple studies linking red meat to colorectal cancer, forming the basis of dietary advice to limit intake.

Yet the new research by Canada’s McMaster University suggests the opposite: that people who consume more animal protein may actually have lower cancer mortality rates. But, before you rush out to buy a pack of sausages, there are some important points you should note.

The study’s methods contain important nuances that complicate its headline-grabbing conclusions. Rather than examining red meat specifically, the researchers analysed consumption of “animal protein”, a broad category that includes red meat, poultry, fish, eggs and dairy products. This distinction matters significantly because fish, particularly oily varieties such as mackerel and sardines, are associated with being cancer-protective.

By grouping all animal proteins together, the study may have captured the protective effects of fish and certain dairy products rather than proving the safety of red meat.

Dairy products themselves present a complex picture in cancer research. Some studies suggest they reduce colorectal cancer risk while potentially increasing prostate cancer risk. This mixed evidence underscores how the broad “animal protein” category obscures important distinctions between different food types.

The study, which was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, America’s primary beef industry lobbying group, contains several other limitations. Crucially, the researchers didn’t distinguish between processed and unprocessed meats – a distinction that countless studies have shown to be vital.

Processed meats such as bacon, sausages and deli meats consistently show higher cancer risks than fresh, unprocessed cuts. Additionally, the research didn’t examine specific cancer types, making it impossible to determine whether the protective effects apply broadly or to particular cancers.

Interestingly, the study also examined plant proteins, including legumes, nuts and soy products such as tofu, and found they had no strong protective effect against dying of cancer. This finding contradicts previous research suggesting that plant proteins are linked to decreased cancer risk, adding another layer of complexity to an already confusing picture.

These findings don’t diminish the established health benefits of plant-based foods, which provide fibre, antioxidants and other compounds associated with reduced disease risk.

Not a green light

Even if the study’s conclusions about animal protein prove accurate, the study shouldn’t be interpreted as a green light for unlimited meat consumption. Excessive red meat intake remains linked to other serious health conditions, including heart disease and diabetes. The key lies in moderation and balance.

The conflicting research highlights the complexity of nutrition science, where isolating the effects of individual foods proves remarkably difficult. People don’t eat single nutrients in isolation – they consume complex combinations of foods as part of broader lifestyle patterns. It’s more important to focus on overall dietary patterns rather than fixating on individual foods.

A balanced plate approach, featuring a variety of protein sources, plenty of vegetables and fruits, and minimally processed foods, remains the most evidence-based path to optimal health.

While this latest study adds a new dimension to the meat debate, it’s unlikely to be the final word. As nutrition science continues to evolve, the most prudent approach remains the least dramatic: moderation, variety and balance in all things.

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

– ref. Can meat really protect against cancer-related deaths, as a new study indicates? – https://theconversation.com/can-meat-really-protect-against-cancer-related-deaths-as-a-new-study-indicates-264088

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Francesco Rigoli, Reader in Psychology, City St George’s, University of London

Ukraine and its western allies are losing ground in the war against Russia. A possible Russian victory will be costly and is likely to be followed by years of exhausting low-intensity conflict while the country remains ostracised from the western economic system.

So, all parties fighting in Ukraine need badly a diplomatic solution. The meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska has reopened this possibility. Yet many in the west remain wary that a viable solution can be reached. What motivates this scepticism? An important reason is that many western leaders simply don’t trust the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. They believe that whatever agreement is reached to end the fighting in Ukraine, Putin will breach it when this suits his interests.

Many western analysts fear that stopping the fight in Ukraine will allow Russia to replenish its offensive capabilities to be better placed to relaunch an attack soon. Meanwhile, many reason that continuing the war will weaken Russia while giving European countries the time to rearm, boosting their deterrent power and – in the eventuality that Russia launches attacks on other European countries – allowing Europe to react energetically.

These strategic considerations are important. Yet there are also profound emotional factors that lead many politicians and journalists – backed by big chunks of public opinion – to be wary or sceptical of any deal with Putin.

This attitude stems from the moral principle that compromising with an evil person is deeply wrong. Putin is perceived by many in the west as the quintessential incarnation of a bloodthirsty tyrant. The former USA president Joe Biden repeatedly referred to Putin in these terms, calling him variously a “monster”, a “crazy SOB”, and – even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine – a “killer” with “no soul”. European leaders have often echoed this judgement, like the French president, Emmanuel Macron, who recently called Putin a “predator” and an “ogre at our doorsteps”.

As psychological research has shown, the prospect of striking a deal with people deemed to be evil often triggers strong moral repulsion. Any potential compromise is perceived as morally disgusting, since it signals that appeasers are willing to sacrifice their moral integrity in exchange for material benefits. Most recently, this moral stance has driven various commentators to blame the US president, Donald Trump, for giving Putin a red-carpet welcome to their recent summit in Alaska.

It is common to draw a historical parallel between Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler. The option of compromising with Hitler, as Europe’s leading statesmen did in the now notorious Munich conference in 1938, is regarded today not only as strategically naïve, but also as morally deplorable.

Incarnations of evil such as Hitler, the argument goes, do not leave space for compromise – only for complete destruction and unconditional surrender. Since, according to this view, Putin and Hitler are of the same stock, the only acceptable result for the war in Ukraine is Putin’s unconditional surrender – or something as close as possible to this outcome.

Both sides need to listen

The moral drive to avoid compromises with evil people is part of human nature. Yet rigidly applying this principle to geopolitical conflicts like the war in Ukraine is dangerous. A well-established rule in the conflict resolution literature is that the path to peace requires that the opposing parties abandon rigid views of good and evil and accept that the adversary’s perspective is at least worth listening to. So far, the west has made little effort in this direction when it comes to Russia’s motives for making war on Ukraine.

It’s hard to see what the west expect by continuing to paint Putin as some kind of devil, while Russian elites, for their part, express similar views about western leaders. Something akin to the endemic conflict between Palestinians and Israeli is a worrying, but not unrealistic, scenario. In that case, too, many view the enemy as an incarnation of evil to be annihilated, portraying any compromise as morally intolerable.

The west’s stance on this, to some extent, may even be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Depicting Putin as Hitler risks being interpreted by Russians as signalling that, for westerners, destroying Putin is the only option available. This may lead Russians to conclude that the west is not serious about diplomacy and that, if an agreement is struck, the west will continue to harbour the desire to smash Putin, thus being ready to breach the agreement at will.

Russian leaders may in turn downplay diplomacy and be ready to cheat if any agreement emerges. So, it cannot be ruled out that, in part, Putin is devious on Ukraine because he sees how the west is accustomed to portraying him.

The west can rightly blame Putin for his intransigent approach. But if Putin has left little room for reconciliation, the west has not done much in this respect either. Western leaders should consider whether adopting a more nuanced portrayal of Putin in their public discourse could help. Abandoning an excessively moralistic attitude towards Putin would signal to Russians that the west believes that an agreement is possible and is committed to respect it.

This, in turn, may encourage Russians to follow the same path. While building mutual trust is going to be hard and take time, it may be the only viable solution for an enduring peace in Ukraine and Europe. Building mutual trust will require to acknowledge that reaching an agreement with Putin is not morally wrong.

Francesco Rigoli 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 west’s image of Vladimir Putin as an untrustworthy ‘monster’ is getting in the way of peace in Ukraine – https://theconversation.com/the-wests-image-of-vladimir-putin-as-an-untrustworthy-monster-is-getting-in-the-way-of-peace-in-ukraine-264204

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Craig Jackson, Professor of Occupational Health Psychology, Birmingham City University

They have been promoted as a remedy for anxiety and sleeplessness, with celebrities and influencers swearing by their calming effects. Weighted blankets – heavy throws filled with glass beads or plastic pellets – have gone from a niche therapeutic tool to a mainstream wellness must-have, promising better sleep and reduced stress for anyone struggling to unwind.

But do they deliver on these bold claims, or are we simply paying premium prices for an expensive placebo?

Occupational therapists have used weighted blankets since the 1970s to help children with autism and adults with sensory processing disorders. They became commercially available in the 1990s, but remained largely within special needs communities.

That changed dramatically in recent years when companies began targeting what they call the “casually anxious” – essentially, anyone struggling with modern life’s stresses. The marketing worked: Time magazine even named the weighted blanket one of the top 50 “inventions” of 2018.

The concept behind weighted blankets is appealingly simple. Typically weighing between two and 13 kilograms (experts recommend choosing one that’s 10% of your body weight), they use what occupational therapists call “deep pressure stimulation”. The gentle, even pressure across your body mimics the sensation of being held or hugged.

What the science says

The research picture is more nuanced than the marketing suggests. Several studies do show promising results, but with important qualifications.

A study of 120 psychiatric outpatients found that weighted blankets improved insomnia symptoms over four weeks in people with major depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety and ADHD. The researchers concluded they were “a safe and effective intervention for insomnia in patients with some mental health disorders”.

Smaller studies have shown similar patterns. One found that 63% of adults reported lower anxiety after just five minutes under a weighted blanket, while another study of psychiatric inpatients found 60% experienced reduced anxiety during their hospital stay.

However, these studies all focused on people with diagnosed mental health conditions, not the general population that companies are now targeting.

This is where the science diverges from the marketing: reviews of the research consistently show that benefits for healthy people are much harder to prove. While weighted blankets may help people with clinical anxiety or sleep disorders, there’s insufficient evidence that they benefit casual users without existing mental health conditions.

Also, about half the research on weighted blankets doesn’t meet quality standards for robust scientific evidence – a significant problem given the confident health claims found on product websites and glowing reviews in lifestyle magazines.

Who might benefit?

This doesn’t mean weighted blankets are entirely useless for healthy people. Shift workers, who must sleep during daylight hours when their brains are naturally alert, might find them helpful for combating the known health effects of irregular schedules. Healthcare workers, firefighters and pilots who rely on strategic power naps could benefit from faster sleep onset.

The placebo effect also shouldn’t be dismissed. If a weighted blanket helps you feel calmer and sleep better, even if the mechanism isn’t what manufacturers claim, that’s still a positive outcome, provided you understand what you’re buying.

Weighted blankets do carry some risks. They shouldn’t be used by anyone who cannot easily move beneath their weight, including young children. People with diabetes, asthma, sleep apnoea, COPD, circulation problems, high blood pressure or claustrophobia should consult their GP before opting to use one.

No studies have reported serious harms, but common sense suggests checking with a healthcare provider if you have underlying health conditions.

As a low-risk intervention that might complement good sleep hygiene and regular sleep cycles, weighted blankets aren’t inherently problematic. The issue lies in overselling their capabilities.

If you’re considering buying one, be realistic about your expectations. You’re not buying a miracle cure for modern anxiety but rather a potentially comforting sleep aid that might help you feel more settled at bedtime. For many people struggling with sleep, that gentle pressure and sense of security could be worth the investment, even if the science behind it isn’t quite as solid as the marketing suggests.

The real question isn’t whether weighted blankets work, but whether they work for you, and whether the premium price is justified for what might ultimately be an expensive hug.

Craig Jackson 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. Do weighted blankets work for anxiety? Here’s what the evidence shows – https://theconversation.com/do-weighted-blankets-work-for-anxiety-heres-what-the-evidence-shows-263591