Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship will depend on its interpretation of one phrase

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Morgan Marietta, Professor of American Civics, University of Tennessee

When the justices weigh the arguments, they will focus on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, known as the citizenship clause. zimmytws/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Dec. 5, 2025, agreed to review the long-simmering controversy over birthright citizenship. It will likely hand down a ruling next summer.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order removing the recognition of citizenship for the U.S.-born children of both immigrants here illegally and visitors here only temporarily. The new rule is not retroactive. This change in long-standing U.S. policy sparked a wave of litigation culminating in Trump v. Washington, an appeal by Trump to remove the injunction put in place by federal courts.

When the justices weigh the arguments, they will focus on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, known as the citizenship clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Both sides agree that to be granted birthright citizenship under the Constitution, a child must be born inside U.S. borders and the parents must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. However, each side will give a very different interpretation of what the second requirement means. Who falls under “the jurisdiction” of the United States in this context?

As a close observer of the court, I anticipate a divided outcome grounded in strong arguments from each side.

Arguments for automatic citizenship

Simply put, the argument against the Trump administration is that the 14th Amendment’s expansion of citizenship after the eradication of slavery was meant to be broad rather than narrow, encompassing not only formerly enslaved Black people but all persons who arrived on U.S. soil under the protection of the Constitution.

The Civil War amendments – the 13th, 14th and 15th – established inherent equality as a constitutional value, which embraced all persons born in the nation without reference to race, ethnicity or origin.

One of the strongest arguments that automatic citizenship is the meaning of the Constitution is long-standing practice. Citizenship by birth regardless of parental status – with few exceptions – has been the effective rule since the time of America’s founding.

Advocates also point to precedent: the landmark case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. When an American-born descendant of resident noncitizens sued after being refused re-entry to San Francisco under the Chinese Exclusion Act, the court recognized his natural-born citizenship.

If we read the Constitution in a living fashion – emphasizing the evolution of American beliefs and values over time – the constitutional commitment to broad citizenship grounded in equality, regardless of ethnicity or economic status, seems even more clear.

However, advocates must try to convince the court’s originalists – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – who read the Constitution based on its meaning when it was adopted.

The originalist argument in favor of birthright citizenship is that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” was meant to invoke only a small set of exceptions found in traditional British common law. In the Wong Kim Ark ruling, the court relied on this “customary law of England, brought to America by the colonists.”

One exception to birthright citizenship covered by this line of rulings is the child of a foreign diplomat, whose parents represent the interests of another country. Another exception is the children of invading foreign armies. A third exception discussed explicitly by the framers of the 14th Amendment was Native Americans, who at the time were understood to be under the jurisdiction of their tribal government as a separate sovereign. That category of exclusion faded away after Congress recognized the citizenship of Native Americans in 1924.

The advocates of automatic birthright citizenship conclude that whether the 14th Amendment is interpreted in a living or in an original way, its small set of exceptions do not override its broad message of citizenship grounded in human equality.

Opposition to birthright citizenship

The opposing argument begins with a simple intuition: In a society defined by self-government, as America is, there is no such thing as citizenship without consent. In the same way that an American citizen cannot declare himself a French citizen and vote in French elections without consent from the French government, a foreign national cannot declare himself a U.S. citizen without consent.

This argument emphasizes that citizenship in a democracy means holding equal political power over our collective decisions. That is something only existing citizens hold the right to offer to others, something which must be decided through elections and the lawmaking process.

The court’s ruling in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 – just 16 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment – endorses “the principle that no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” By making entry into the United States without approval a federal offense, Congress has effectively denied that consent.

Scholars who support this view argue that the 14th Amendment does not provide this consent. Instead it sets a limitation. To the authors of the 14th Amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” conveyed a limit to natural citizenship grounded in mutual allegiance. That means if people are free to deny their old national allegiance, and an independent nation is free to decide its own membership, the recognition of a new national identity must be mutual.

Immigrants living in the United States illegally have not accepted the sovereignty of the nation’s laws. On the other side of the coin, the government has not officially accepted them as residents under its protection.

A seated man in a suit and tie signs a document.
President Donald Trump signs an executive order on birthright citizenship in the Oval Office on Jan. 20, 2025.
AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File

If mutual recognition of allegiance is the meaning of the 14th Amendment, the Trump administration has not violated it.

The opponents of birthright citizenship argue that the Wong Kim Ark ruling has been misrepresented. In that case, the court only considered permanent legal residents like Wong Kim Ark’s parents, but not residents here illegally or temporarily. The focus on British common law in that ruling is simply misguided because the findings of Calvin’s Case or any other precedents dealing with British subjects were voided by the American Revolution.

In this view, the Declaration of Independence replaced subjects with citizens. The power to determine national membership was taken away from kings and placed in the hands of democratic majorities.

For opponents of birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment does not take that power away from citizens but instead codifies the rule that mutual consent is the touchstone of admission. The requirement to be “subject to the jurisdiction” provides the mechanism of that consent.

Congress can determine who is accepted as a member of the national community under its jurisdiction. In this view, Congress – and the American people – have spoken: Current federal laws make entry into U.S. borders without permission a crime rather than a forced acceptance of political membership.

What might happen

The court will likely announce a ruling in summer 2026 before early July, just in time for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The court will ultimately decide whether the Constitution endorses the declaration’s invocation of essential equality or its creation of a sovereign people empowered to determine the boundaries of national membership.

The court’s three Democratic-appointed justices – Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – will surely side against the Trump administration. The six Republican-appointed justices seem likely to divide, a symptom of disagreements within the originalist camp.

The liberal justices need at least two of the conservatives to join them to form a majority of five to uphold universal birthright citizenship. This will likely be some combination of Chief Justice John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The Trump administration will prevail only if five out of the six conservatives reject the British common law foundations of the Wong Kim Ark ruling in favor of citizenship by consent alone.

America should know by July Fourth.

The Conversation

Morgan Marietta 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. Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship will depend on its interpretation of one phrase – https://theconversation.com/supreme-courts-decision-on-birthright-citizenship-will-depend-on-its-interpretation-of-one-phrase-271064

The Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship will depend on its interpretation of one phrase

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Morgan Marietta, Professor of American Civics, University of Tennessee

When the justices weigh the arguments, they will focus on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, known as the citizenship clause. zimmytws/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Dec. 5, 2025, agreed to review the long-simmering controversy over birthright citizenship. It will likely hand down a ruling next summer.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order removing the recognition of citizenship for the U.S.-born children of both immigrants here illegally and visitors here only temporarily. The new rule is not retroactive. This change in long-standing U.S. policy sparked a wave of litigation culminating in Trump v. Washington, an appeal by Trump to remove the injunction put in place by federal courts.

When the justices weigh the arguments, they will focus on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, known as the citizenship clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Both sides agree that to be granted birthright citizenship under the Constitution, a child must be born inside U.S. borders and the parents must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. However, each side will give a very different interpretation of what the second requirement means. Who falls under “the jurisdiction” of the United States in this context?

As a close observer of the court, I anticipate a divided outcome grounded in strong arguments from each side.

Arguments for automatic citizenship

Simply put, the argument against the Trump administration is that the 14th Amendment’s expansion of citizenship after the eradication of slavery was meant to be broad rather than narrow, encompassing not only formerly enslaved Black people but all persons who arrived on U.S. soil under the protection of the Constitution.

The Civil War amendments – the 13th, 14th and 15th – established inherent equality as a constitutional value, which embraced all persons born in the nation without reference to race, ethnicity or origin.

One of the strongest arguments that automatic citizenship is the meaning of the Constitution is long-standing practice. Citizenship by birth regardless of parental status – with few exceptions – has been the effective rule since the time of America’s founding.

Advocates also point to precedent: the landmark case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. When an American-born descendant of resident noncitizens sued after being refused re-entry to San Francisco under the Chinese Exclusion Act, the court recognized his natural-born citizenship.

If we read the Constitution in a living fashion – emphasizing the evolution of American beliefs and values over time – the constitutional commitment to broad citizenship grounded in equality, regardless of ethnicity or economic status, seems even more clear.

However, advocates must try to convince the court’s originalists – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – who read the Constitution based on its meaning when it was adopted.

The originalist argument in favor of birthright citizenship is that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” was meant to invoke only a small set of exceptions found in traditional British common law. In the Wong Kim Ark ruling, the court relied on this “customary law of England, brought to America by the colonists.”

One exception to birthright citizenship covered by this line of rulings is the child of a foreign diplomat, whose parents represent the interests of another country. Another exception is the children of invading foreign armies. A third exception discussed explicitly by the framers of the 14th Amendment was Native Americans, who at the time were understood to be under the jurisdiction of their tribal government as a separate sovereign. That category of exclusion faded away after Congress recognized the citizenship of Native Americans in 1924.

The advocates of automatic birthright citizenship conclude that whether the 14th Amendment is interpreted in a living or in an original way, its small set of exceptions do not override its broad message of citizenship grounded in human equality.

Opposition to birthright citizenship

The opposing argument begins with a simple intuition: In a society defined by self-government, as America is, there is no such thing as citizenship without consent. In the same way that an American citizen cannot declare himself a French citizen and vote in French elections without consent from the French government, a foreign national cannot declare himself a U.S. citizen without consent.

This argument emphasizes that citizenship in a democracy means holding equal political power over our collective decisions. That is something only existing citizens hold the right to offer to others, something which must be decided through elections and the lawmaking process.

The court’s ruling in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 – just 16 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment – endorses “the principle that no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” By making entry into the United States without approval a federal offense, Congress has effectively denied that consent.

Scholars who support this view argue that the 14th Amendment does not provide this consent. Instead it sets a limitation. To the authors of the 14th Amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” conveyed a limit to natural citizenship grounded in mutual allegiance. That means if people are free to deny their old national allegiance, and an independent nation is free to decide its own membership, the recognition of a new national identity must be mutual.

Immigrants living in the United States illegally have not accepted the sovereignty of the nation’s laws. On the other side of the coin, the government has not officially accepted them as residents under its protection.

A seated man in a suit and tie signs a document.
President Donald Trump signs an executive order on birthright citizenship in the Oval Office on Jan. 20, 2025.
AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File

If mutual recognition of allegiance is the meaning of the 14th Amendment, the Trump administration has not violated it.

The opponents of birthright citizenship argue that the Wong Kim Ark ruling has been misrepresented. In that case, the court only considered permanent legal residents like Wong Kim Ark’s parents, but not residents here illegally or temporarily. The focus on British common law in that ruling is simply misguided because the findings of Calvin’s Case or any other precedents dealing with British subjects were voided by the American Revolution.

In this view, the Declaration of Independence replaced subjects with citizens. The power to determine national membership was taken away from kings and placed in the hands of democratic majorities.

For opponents of birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment does not take that power away from citizens but instead codifies the rule that mutual consent is the touchstone of admission. The requirement to be “subject to the jurisdiction” provides the mechanism of that consent.

Congress can determine who is accepted as a member of the national community under its jurisdiction. In this view, Congress – and the American people – have spoken: Current federal laws make entry into U.S. borders without permission a crime rather than a forced acceptance of political membership.

What might happen

The court will likely announce a ruling in summer 2026 before early July, just in time for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The court will ultimately decide whether the Constitution endorses the declaration’s invocation of essential equality or its creation of a sovereign people empowered to determine the boundaries of national membership.

The court’s three Democratic-appointed justices – Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – will surely side against the Trump administration. The six Republican-appointed justices seem likely to divide, a symptom of disagreements within the originalist camp.

The liberal justices need at least two of the conservatives to join them to form a majority of five to uphold universal birthright citizenship. This will likely be some combination of Chief Justice John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The Trump administration will prevail only if five out of the six conservatives reject the British common law foundations of the Wong Kim Ark ruling in favor of citizenship by consent alone.

America should know by July Fourth.

The Conversation

Morgan Marietta 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. The Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship will depend on its interpretation of one phrase – https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-courts-decision-on-birthright-citizenship-will-depend-on-its-interpretation-of-one-phrase-271064

The world is facing a cancer crisis that’s hitting the most vulnerable hardest

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Vikram Niranjan, Assistant Professor in Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Limerick

Antonio Marca/Shutterstock

When I worked on the latest Global Burden of Disease cancer study, a global project that tracks cancer patterns and deaths across countries, I found myself pausing as the numbers loaded on the screen. Even as a scientist used to large datasets, the scale was hard to process.

Behind every line of code was a family who might lose a parent or child to a cancer that could have been prevented or treated earlier. The projections for South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa were especially stark.

It was clear that millions of people would be living and dying with avoidable cancers in the decades ahead unless something changed.

Infectious outbreaks or antimicrobial resistance are often labelled as global health crises. Yet a quieter crisis has been gathering force for decades. Cancer is rising across every region of the world, and the steepest increases are now occurring in countries with the fewest resources.

As part of the Global Burden of Disease 2023 Cancer collaboration, a worldwide partnership of scientists who produce comprehensive estimates of disease and mortality, I co-authored a large study tracking cancer trends from 1990 to 2023 and projecting what the world could face by 2050.

For many years, cancer was widely viewed as a disease of affluence, concentrated in high income countries. Scientists now know that it affects all regions and that an increasing proportion of the burden falls on low and middle income countries.

Many of these countries are now experiencing rapid lifestyle and environmental changes along with ageing populations, but without the parallel development of screening, diagnostic or treatment capacity. Our analysis highlights how quickly this transition is unfolding.

In 2023, our analysis estimated 18.5 million new cancer cases and 10.4 million deaths across 204 countries. Nearly one in six global deaths was caused by cancer. More than two-thirds of these deaths occurred in low- and middle-income countries, reflecting the scale of the challenge in regions where access to screening, pathology and treatment remains limited.

In our study, 41.7% of cancer deaths in 2023 were attributable to modifiable risks. Tobacco, alcohol, unhealthy diets, high body mass index, air pollution and harmful workplace or environmental exposures all contributed.

Millions of cancers could be prevented each year if governments strengthened public health policies and made healthier choices easier. Prevention is not only about people’s actions. It is shaped by political decisions about what people can afford, breathe, eat and encounter in their environments.

Using more than three decades of data, we modelled future cancer trends. By 2050, the world could be facing 30.5 million new cancer diagnoses every year and 18.6 million annual deaths, almost double today’s figures.

Population growth and ageing play a part, but broader shifts in lifestyle, urbanisation, air quality and economic development are also increasing exposure to cancer risks. Without major interventions, these trends will continue.




Read more:
Fine particle air pollution is a public health emergency hiding in plain sight


Addressing this crisis requires more than isolated initiatives. By investing in early diagnosis, governments can proactively offer screening for cancers such as breast, cervical and colorectal cancer saves lives but remains rare in much of the world. Prevention must be treated as a global priority.

Tobacco control, air-quality regulation, obesity prevention and workplace protections are well evidenced and urgently need strengthening. Health systems also require significant expansion, from pathology labs and trained oncology staff to reliable access to affordable treatments. High-quality data is essential too. Countries cannot plan or measure progress without robust cancer registries.

Cancer is no longer a condition that mainly affects older adults. In many regions, younger people are increasingly diagnosed with cancers historically seen later in life. For them, the consequences ripple far beyond health.

Education, employment, relationships and financial stability can all be disrupted overnight. Cancer becomes a societal issue as well as a medical one. It already touches many families and, without action, will affect many more in the coming decades.

The future is not fixed. Our projections are warnings rather than certainties. Policymakers, communities and people still have the chance to influence what the world will face in 2050. The next 25 years are critical. We have the knowledge to change course. What we need now is the collective will to act.

The Conversation

Vikram Niranjan 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 world is facing a cancer crisis that’s hitting the most vulnerable hardest – https://theconversation.com/the-world-is-facing-a-cancer-crisis-thats-hitting-the-most-vulnerable-hardest-270862

Sweden’s mining industry is threatening the Indigenous Sami people’s way of life

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Georgia de Leeuw, Resercher, Lund University

“There is so much intrusion from all sides and corners,” a Sami reindeer herder tells me, reacting to a government decision to grant a mining permit in Gállok in the Sápmi region in Sweden’s far north.

Sápmi is the communal land of the Indigenous Sami people. Their land ranges through northern parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia.

This particular reindeer herding community in Sápmi has already been affected by expansion of huge levels of industry related to forestry and hydropower. And now there’s a planned iron ore project. A new mine and its associated infrastructure will place additional pressures on grazing lands and migratory routes.

The mining plans are a sign that history is repeating itself, another reindeer herder tells me. It is important to resist “for myself and for my children and everyone who comes after us who wants to live the life that I have lived”.

The plans to bring more industry into these lands are symbolic of how the Sami way of life has been ignored in the past. Over hundreds of years Sweden has seized land and resources in Sápmi.

Indigenous Sami land has historically, and continues to be, framed as the “land of the future”, a space that is presented as open for extraction and can be sacrificed for national development.

Industries such as mining, forestry, energy production, land intense green industry projects, and infrastructure expansion place cumulative pressure on Sami lands. In addition, the way that Sami people use land is also affected by climate change. As snow and weather conditions change, there is reduced access to pastures and lichen upon which reindeer feed.

Mining operations have been shown to displace livelihoods such as Sami reindeer herding, by cutting off animal migration routes and viable grazing lands. This threatens Indigenous cultural survival.

For instance, a freight train carrying ore that runs across reindeers’ west-east migration may pose risks to their lives or lead them away from their pastures. As a result, the land where the reindeer can graze is reduced and less accessible.

The benefits of mining to those who live in the north, where much of Swedish mining is located, is minimal. Locals report frustration about decades of failed promises that they will see significant local development from mining. They note that prominent mining towns such as Kiruna have had mines for generations in the hope of municipal development, but still do not have sufficient social service provisions. For instance, they lack access to maternity wards and other healthcare services.

Meanwhile, land disappears due to industrial expansion. For instance, in Malmberget in the high north, which is being dismantled due to the impact of mining.

What next?

Meanwhile, earlier this year a poster campaign appeared on the walls of Stockholm’s subway terminals, saying: “You are more mine than you think.” The campaign was organised by the information platform The Swedish Mine (Svenska Gruvan), which is a joint initiative by mining and processing companies to inform the public about the importance of mining in people’s daily lives.

Emma Härdmark, director of communications of Svemin (the Swedish Association for Mines, Mineral and Metal Production), said in an interview with a Swedish newspaper, Resumé, that the idea is to “move the mine closer to people”, by drawing parallels between the minerals and metals that are present in the human body and those extracted in the Swedish mines.

For instance, the calcium in our bones that we need to “move, stand up or give someone a hug” can also be obtained from limestone, which is needed for the cement and concrete used to build homes, schools, bridges and hospitals.

One of the lines in the campaign is that “without iron, both the body and society come to a halt”. Iron helps transport oxygen through the human body to help us “breathe, move and live”, it says. In the same way, iron also helps keep society alive, observers are told.

Stockholm commuters see posters saying that: “You have a heart of stone.” Since the human body resembles the materials we find in nature, “having a heart of stone may not be so bad after all,” it suggests to people in Stockholm. It is thanks to this stone heart, the campaign insists, that “you are more alive than ever before”.

This campaign differs from other mining and industry narratives which commonly aim to convince viewers of the remoteness of mining relative to people and nature. Previous information videos produced by mining companies such as LKAB, or Svemin, an association representing about 70 mining and production companies, make use of imagery of unspoiled nature, the sky reflecting in tranquil lakes, and a fisherman strolling through a meadow, for instance.

In these information videos the camera often shifts between undisturbed nature and mining tunnels, suggesting harmonious coexistence of extraction, alongside but unnoticed by, nature and people.

Sami people are not often visible in mining literature. However, in Q&A sections of the Swedish Mine and Svemin homepages, it is stated that the mining industry works to reach solutions for coexistence with Sami communities and minimal impact on land use interests such as reindeer herding.

Sami people question this claim to coexistence. A Sami artist reflects in an interview with me on the threat to Indigenous livelihoods when faced with extractive industrial expansion: “It’s almost as if you have a reindeer in a paddock and then you put a wolf in the paddock and tell them, you are supposed to get along and coexist. In the end, the one will eat the other.”

While Swedish mining is commonly presented as environmentally and socially benign, harms from extraction are numerous. Information about where mining takes place and who is living close to its negative impacts are often left out of campaigns like these. Meanwhile, Stockholm, where the poster campaign is taking place, is unaffected by the negative impact of mining. Those who have to deal with the daily realities of mining are hundreds of miles away.


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 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


The Conversation

Georgia de Leeuw received funding from Forskraftstiftelsen Theodor Adelswärds Minne, the Lars Hierta Memorial Foundation, the Royal Swedish Agricultural Academy, and Letterstedtska föreningen for fieldwork during her PhD.

ref. Sweden’s mining industry is threatening the Indigenous Sami people’s way of life – https://theconversation.com/swedens-mining-industry-is-threatening-the-indigenous-sami-peoples-way-of-life-268344

Can entrepreneurship be taught? Here’s the neuroscience

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Victor (Vik) Perez, Associate Professor of Practice, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University

SiljeAO/Shutterstock

Despite countless programmes and initiatives, rates of entrepreneurial intention — a marker of how willing people are to start new ventures — remains stagnant. But what if the secrets to entrepreneurial success lie not in textbooks but within the brain itself?

Imagine an approach that doesn’t just teach the mechanics of entrepreneurship but actively enhances the skills that make aspiring entrepreneurs successful? We know these include focus, creativity, resilience, cognitive flexibility, emotional regulation and an ability to make decisions under uncertainty.

And what if these critical abilities of the entrepreneurial mindset could be nurtured through neuroscience? This concept is at the core of a shift proposed in my recent book Entrepreneurship and neuroscience: researching brain-driven entrepreneurship.

By integrating advanced neuro-technologies into the research, teaching and practice of entrepreneurship, our work presents an alternative framework for fostering entrepreneurial behaviour from the ground up.

Entrepreneurship research has evolved through several distinct phases. The economic era (1870–1940) examined how entrepreneurs influenced markets. Meanwhile, the social and psychological era (1940–1970) focused on uncovering the traits and motivations that drive them. More recently, the managerial era (1920-2022) framed entrepreneurship as a structured, step-by-step process.

I and others are now proposing the “brain-driven” era of entrepreneurship education. This focuses on reshaping how we understand and support entrepreneurial success. Unlike previous approaches, this new perspective places entrepreneurial cognitive enhancement at its core, leveraging insights from neuroscience.

For example, researchers including myself have identified electroencephalography (EEG) and structured cognitive training protocols — grounded in neuroscience — as promising tools for assessing mental states. They are also key to enhancing cognitive functions linked to entrepreneurial success.

EEG headcaps can measure electrical activity in the brain.
EEG headcaps can measure electrical activity in the brain.
villemel/Shutterstock

While conventional tools such as interviews, questionnaires and behavioural observation capture surface-level behaviour and self-reported experiences, EEG goes deeper – measuring the brain’s electrical activity. This makes it possible to explore attention, working memory, cognitive workload and emotional regulation in more detail.

A study at the University of Kobe indicates that EEG can detect the subtle interplay between emotions and entrepreneurial decision-making. In the experiment, participants were briefly shown emotionally charged words — such as “joyful” or “awful” — before making decisions in a risk-based game. The aim was to test whether emotional cues might subtly shift risk-taking behaviour.

While their choices didn’t change in statistically clear ways, the brain data told a different story. Participants with higher entrepreneurial intention showed distinct patterns of neural activity in response to emotional cues.

This was particularly in areas associated with attention and making meaning of things. This suggests that even when behaviour appears unchanged, the brain may be processing emotional information in ways that shape how decisions are made under uncertainty.

Brain activity in the frontal and parietal areas also revealed that those with stronger entrepreneurial intentions responded more efficiently to emotional cues. This suggests their brains may be wired to handle emotionally charged decisions differently.

While cognitive functions such as sustained attention, emotional regulation and cognitive flexibility are increasingly recognised as essential for entrepreneurial success, EEG enables us to observe how these abilities operate in real time. These capacities are central to navigating uncertainty, adapting to changing conditions and making rapid, high-stakes decisions.

Brain-aligned cognitive training

Emerging “brain-aligned methods” shed light on how to gently train the brain to support entrepreneurial development. These approaches focus on strengthening core cognitive functions increasingly associated with entrepreneurial performance.

At Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University’s recent Technopreneurship Summer School, we let students take part in cognitive training. This included exercises such as maintaining focus on moving visual stimuli to strengthen sustained attention. This involved engaging in short design challenges like building a simple robot prototype and reflecting aloud on their mental processes.

This application of neuroscience within entrepreneurship education has also sparked innovation beyond classroom-based interventions. While the field is still emerging, studies in music neuroscience suggest that specific sound patterns and frequencies can influence attention, mood and cognitive performance.

A development called cognitive performance music
offers an early glimpse into how music might complement cognitive training. This is basically music designed to sharpen cognitive focus, sustain deep motivation and strengthen the cognitive dimensions of an entrepreneurial mindset.

A well-recognised example is Steve Reich’s minimalist composition Piano Phase, which has been shown to foster neural synchronisation and sustained attentional engagement across listeners. The world’s first album in this genre, Take the Leap, was produced using a proprietary neuro-algorithm developed through my ongoing work on brain-driven approaches to entrepreneurial learning.

Another example is structured frameworks like the WNYLE Method, a pioneering brain-based entrepreneurial training approach designed to enhance the cognitive and emotional capacities that drive entrepreneurial actions. It draws on neuroscience, cinematic storytelling, thematic music and guided mental exercises. Ultimately, the method follows a carefully designed sequence that mirrors how the brain processes attention, emotion and reflection for deeper learning.

These innovations highlight the potential of neuroscience to enhance how students cultivate essential skills that can be of use both inside and outside the classroom.

As neuroscience moves from the lab to the lecture hall, a new frontier is emerging — one where cognitive optimisation becomes a core component of entrepreneurial readiness.

We have long known that learning reshapes the brain’s structure and function. This underscores the strength of neuroscience to enhance entrepreneurship education. It isn’t just about imparting knowledge, but by developing the cognitive agility needed to thrive in an unpredictable world.

And perhaps the most exciting part? This is only the beginning.

The Conversation

Victor (Vik) Perez 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. Can entrepreneurship be taught? Here’s the neuroscience – https://theconversation.com/can-entrepreneurship-be-taught-heres-the-neuroscience-250695

Nasa robot rover shows that sparks fly in dust storms on Mars

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Fullekrug, Reader, Department of Electronic & Electrical Engineering, University of Bath

Sometimes you get a small electric shock from touching your car door handle on a dry summer’s day.

The source of these shocks is a spark discharge, occurring between your body and the body of the car. These sparks happen from accumulation of static electric charge – often arising from two different materials rubbing together. This process – named triboelectric charging – was discovered in ancient Greece, where it was observed that some materials are attracted by amber when rubbed.

Triboelectricity is commonly demonstrated in classroom experiments: by rubbing plastic sticks with cat fur, or by rubbing a balloon on your hair.

Now we know that, if you were returning to a parked car on Mars, you could experience a similar shock. A new study has, for the first time, directly demonstrated electrical discharges on the red planet.

The same triboelectric process operates in volcanic eruptions on Earth, where charge is accumulated by ash particles colliding. In volcanic plumes, the build up of charge can initiate very large lightning discharges – the big cousin of smaller spark discharges. Lightning discharges are even more common in thunderstorms, however, where interactions between soft hail (graupel) and ice crystals cause charge separation.

On Earth, dust storms and dust devils – a relatively short-lived whirlwind formed from rising columns of warm air – are known to substantially electrify, through collisions between dust particles. Typically, sufficient electrification to lead to spark or lightning discharges is not achieved, owing to the ~1 bar pressure at the surface. Conversely, on Mars, the lower pressure (about 1-10% of that on Earth) means that spark discharges are likely at lesser levels of electrification.

For several decades, it has been thought that dust devils on Mars may be able to produce spark discharges. Many lab experiments shaking sand around in a low-pressure carbon dioxide atmosphere, like that of Mars, have recorded highly charged dust and discharges.

However, until now, there have been no direct observations of Martian discharges. There have been several clues to the existence of charging in the Martian atmosphere, such as dust stuck to the wheels of a Nasa rover, for example.

Nasa's Perseverance rover.
The data comes from instruments on Nasa’s Perseverance rover.
Nasa/JPL/Caltech

The new – and genuinely serendipitous – observations published in Nature show that electrical discharges are present in the Martian atmosphere.

These results stemmed from a small loop in the wire connecting a microphone on the Perseverance rover to the on-board electronics. This wire, and the microphone system connected to it, proved to be an unexpectedly effective accidental lightning detector. The SuperCam microphone was intended to observe the acoustic environment of Mars, however, small electrical transients were also detected.

In investigating the source of these transient events, it was found that some of them were followed by sounds. The authors convincingly showed that the transients were caused by spark discharges, with electromagnetic signals picked up by the coil being followed by acoustic signals from the microphone. These observations are similar to seeing a flash of light and later hearing the subsequent thunder.

From investigating the time difference between the acoustic and electrical signals, the authors find that the spark discharges occur in the vicinity of the Martian lander – just a few metres away. Further, it was found that these occurrences were more common during dust storms, or when dust devils sweep over the rover.

Generally, two independent sources of corroborating information are considered necessary for unambiguous evidence of a new phenomenon. For example, lightning at Saturn is supported by separate observations from both spacecraft and Earth. When the discharges are weak, however, detection at a distance is much less achievable or even impossible. For these weak events on Mars, in-atmosphere detection is needed. Although the same signal system was used to detect them, the electrical and acoustic signals were conveyed in very different ways.

An analogous situation might be a radio broadcast made from near a thunderstorm. The effect of a lightning strike might cause a crackle of interference to be picked up by an analogue (not internet) radio, shortly before you heard thunder on the broadcast. The same radio provides these two signals, however they would seem to be observed independently.

The finding that electrical discharges occur on Mars has various implications. Atmospheric electricity can cause chemical reactions, such as the formation of complex molecules, perhaps linked to the origins of life. There are also practical applications for future space missions.

Dust was a significant problem during the Apollo missions landing on the lunar surface, as it easily penetrates any mechanical systems. Dust protection is an important part of planning for human travel to Mars. All these problems are exacerbated when the dust creates sparks, as it could result in electronic circuits malfunctioning.

Fortunately, you won’t have to worry much when a dust devil approaches during your next road trip on desert tracks; you can just drive through it, although the experience might remind you that on Mars you might see some sparks in the dust.

The Conversation

Blair McGinness has previously received funding from STFC.

Karen Aplin receives funding from the UK Space Agency,

Martin Fullekrug 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. Nasa robot rover shows that sparks fly in dust storms on Mars – https://theconversation.com/nasa-robot-rover-shows-that-sparks-fly-in-dust-storms-on-mars-270985

Why China is watching Trump’s Venezuela campaign closely

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Harper, Lecturer in International Relations, University of East London

Donald Trump’s campaign against Venezuela escalated recently with the US president announcing that the country’s airspace should be considered “closed”. This is a move that has preceded US military interventions in the past, perhaps most notably in Iraq in 2003.

It remains to be seen whether Trump’s declaration will be followed by military action or is just a means of raising the pressure on the Venezuelan leader, Nicolás Maduro, in an attempt to force him from office. But regardless of what happens next, what has been notable is the reaction of China.

In a December 3 briefing, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said that closing Venezuelan airspace would violate international norms and infringe on national sovereignty. Jian added that China rejects interference in Venezuela’s internal affairs “under any pretext” and called on all parties to keep Latin America a “zone of peace”.

This stance is no great surprise. China has developed strong relationships with several Latin American countries, including Venezuela, as part of a broader strategy to expand its presence in regions long dominated by the US. Trump’s threats of military action could jeopardise the influence China has built there.

China has been involved in Latin America for centuries. But its ties to the region have grown rapidly over the past 25 years or so, with China becoming an indispensable partner to many Latin American countries. Brazil is a clear example of this indispensability.

The election of Jair Bolsonaro’s right-wing government in 2018 led to expectations that Brazil would tilt towards Washington. However, such expectations were soon dampened due to China’s role as a major consumer of Brazilian goods. By 2020, China was Brazil’s largest trading partner, accounting for over 30% of total exports from the country.

Ties between Brazil and China have only deepened under Bolsonaro’s successor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. This has been helped by the intensification of the US-China trade war, which has seen Brazil become a crucial alternative source of agricultural products such as soybeans that China has historically imported from the US.

This relationship has enabled China to exert economic pressure on the US. Brazil’s large soybean exports to China have increased the global supply, which has suppressed prices for all suppliers – including those in US.

China has been a similarly indispensable partner to Venezuela since the days of Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, who took power in the Latin American state in 1999. Chávez was a keen advocate of a multipolar international order, a concept that has gained traction as Beijing’s political and economic power has grown.

Over the years, China has become the main destination for Venezuelan oil. In 2024, China bought around 268,000 barrels of oil from Venezuela on average every day – a figure that, in reality, is likely to be higher as Venezuelan oil is routinely mislabelled to bypass US sanctions.

Venezuelan oil is key for China. Beijing has been attempting to diversify its sources of natural resources in recent years as part of efforts to retain its global advantage in cheap manufacturing and wean itself off a dependency on Middle Eastern oil. Trump’s threats to intervene militarily in Venezuela may, at least in part, be aimed at challenging Chinese interests.

Indeed, the White House issued an official statement on December 2 affirming the Trump administration’s commitment to the Monroe Doctrine. Signed in 1823, the doctrine said the US would reject other countries’ influence in Latin America. A new “Trump Corollary” to the doctrine states that “the American people – not foreign nations nor globalist institutions – will always control their own destiny in our hemisphere”.

Xi Jinping shaking hands with Hugo Chávez.
Xi meeting Chávez on a state visit to Venezuela in 2009.
Harold Escalona / Shutterstock

Challenging Chinese influence

Any US military action in Venezuela will probably increase paranoia across the region. Trump warned recently that any country he believes is making illegal drugs destined for the US is vulnerable to a military attack, and singled out Colombia.

On December 2, Trump told reporters at the White House that he “heard” Colombia was “making cocaine”. “They have cocaine plants”, he added. The Colombian president, Gustavo Petro, hit back immediately on social media, saying: “To threaten our sovereignty is to declare war”.

But China is unlikely to step in militarily to defend countries in Latin America from US aggression. While China has used its developmental influence there to pursue some political objectives – most notably persuading El Salvador, the Dominican Republic and Honduras to renounce diplomatic recognition of Taiwan in recent years – its engagement with Latin America has largely been transactional.

China’s strategy in Latin America is driven primarily by economic considerations, and Beijing has generally been reluctant to enter into formal alliances with states there. This hesitance to commit to defending its partners could strain relations with countries in the region that may expect Beijing to support them in the event of a crisis.

However, Trump’s Latin America campaign does provide China with some opportunities. Just as European countries concerned about Russia’s expansionist intentions have become a key market for American arms, it’s possible that Latin America becomes a lucrative destination for Chinese weaponry.

Venezuela is already buying Chinese arms, varying from riot control equipment to missiles and – possibly in the future – fighter jets. China has also sold military equipment to Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador.

The US appears to be taking an increasingly active interest in Latin America. As outlined in its recently published National Security Strategy, the Trump administration is looking to readjust the US’s “global military presence to address urgent threats” in the western hemisphere.

Having carefully built up its influence in Latin America over many years, China’s leadership will be keeping a keen eye on how events unfold there in the months ahead.

The Conversation

Tom Harper 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. Why China is watching Trump’s Venezuela campaign closely – https://theconversation.com/why-china-is-watching-trumps-venezuela-campaign-closely-271229

Wood-burning stoves face new restrictions – but a loophole from Britain’s smog years is fuelling the problem

Source: The Conversation – UK – By James Heydon, Associate Professor, Environmental Criminology, University of Nottingham

terekhov igor / shutterstock

Wood-burning stoves are booming in the UK, a cosy response to high energy prices and cost of living pressures. But this comes with a hidden cost.

So-called domestic burning is now a leading source of one of the most harmful forms of air pollution, and the UK government’s new environment improvement plan acknowledges the scale of this problem. Yet the tools the UK relies on to control stove emissions were built for a different era – and may not be up to the job.

In the new plan, domestic burning – the use of wood to heat homes – is recognised as a primary contributor to particulate matter pollution, particularly PM2.5.

PM2.5 is considered highly dangerous as the particles are so small – less than 2.5 micrometres across – that the body has difficulty keeping them out. Once inhaled, they penetrate deep into the lungs, pass into the bloodstream and enter nearly every organ, contributing to heart and lung disease. Crucially, experts generally agree that a “safe” level of exposure has yet to be determined.

Although domestic burning features prominently in the new plan, the UK already has one of the world’s longest-standing regimes for controlling stove emissions. The Clean Air Act 1956, introduced after lethal London smogs killed more than 12,000 people in three months, enabled local authorities to create smoke control areas (SCAs) to restrict which appliances and fuels could be used.

Despite some alterations, this system has barely changed in almost 70 years. In fact, SCAs cover very little of England, Wales and Scotland, and enforcement is extremely difficult. Only a fraction of public complaints ever result in a fine.

More importantly, even perfect enforcement would not solve the core problem. SCAs were designed to reduce visible smoke, not invisible PM2.5. Modern “Defra-approved” and “EcoDesign” stoves are exempt because they emit less visible smoke.

But even under ideal operating conditions, they still emit significant levels of PM2.5 – more than 300 times that of a gas boiler. Since 2010, more than 2,500 stove models have been exempted from SCA rules, steadily widening the loophole and gradually weakening the system’s ability to control PM2.5.

This is particularly concerning as wood burning is becoming more popular. The share of UK households using solid fuel increased from 8% in 2018-19 to 11.7% in 2022-23. Installations are also increasing, with the proportion of newly inspected homes containing a stove growing from 7% in 2009 to just over 10% by 2024.

This raises the risk of what researchers call the “dematerialisation fallacy”, where
efficiency gains in individual appliances are cancelled out by growing overall use. Labelling appliances as “cleaner” can unintentionally accelerate this trend by giving the impression that modern stoves are environmentally benign.

New air quality targets

The Environment Improvement Plan introduces two different PM2.5 targets. The first aims to cut annual average concentrations by 46% by 2030, while the second seeks a 30% reduction in the amount of particulates people actually breathe, compared with 2018 levels.

This is intended to maximise public health benefits, since the first target could technically be met by cleaning up a small number of hotspots, while leaving many still exposed to harmful pollution.

These stricter air quality standards bring the UK more in line with EU and World Health Organization targets. However, as the UK’s Air Quality Expert Group recently noted, their achievement will require more “overt” intervention in people’s everyday lives. The plan’s success therefore hinges on wider public engagement and effective communication of air quality issues.

Barriers to cleaner air

Unfortunately, air quality remains relatively low on the public agenda and can become embroiled in wider political disagreements – while domestic burning is often deeply valued.

In a 2024 UK government survey of over 600 people who had burned solid fuels at their property in the past 12 months, 61% considered burning to be a “right everyone should enjoy”.

Of indoor burners, 52% considered it a “necessity” – despite most (99% in England) living in homes connected to mains gas or electricity. What’s more, 39% did not consider burning to be a significant source of air pollution, and 53% did not worry about the potential health impacts.

Economic justifications have also become more pronounced. Household energy bills are much higher today than they were just a few years ago, and the increased cost of living has eroded incomes.

In the same survey, 62% of burners cited financial reasons, while almost half (48%) gave aesthetic reasons for burning. Research from 2020 – when energy and living was cheaper – had these motivations reversed, highlighting how changing circumstances can shift burning justifications.

Comparing the cost of wood burning with central heating is not straightforward. Prices vary depending on the type of wood, the efficiency of the stove, how much of the home is heated, and whether fuel is bought in bulk or sourced for free. What is considered costly also differs between households.

However, recent modelling indicates wood burning is generally more expensive than central heating. Only when most wood is obtained at little or no cost does burning become cheaper, with gas and heat pump systems remaining the more cost-efficient choice in most scenarios.

In this context, the environment improvement plan has its work cut out. While it doesn’t explain how it will achieve the new targets, the plan does commit to consulting on new interventions – a much-needed step, given the limitations of the SCA regime.

Much rests on this consultation. The UK is far from alone in grappling with domestic burning, and a wide range of interventions is available beyond the much-needed reform of the SCAs. These include advertising controls, installation restrictions within certain areas, burn bans during high pollution or low wind episodes, public awareness campaigns, educational resources for schools, and wider access to cleaner heating technologies for those without alternatives.

Ultimately, the complexity of the issue means no single intervention will solve the problem. The environment improvement plan holds much potential, but its success will depend on what comes next.

Cutting emissions from domestic burning requires helping people to understand the health risks, challenging the idea that modern stoves are harmless, and providing practical alternatives for those who rely on burning.

If the government is serious about meeting its new air quality targets, it must treat behaviour, information and public engagement seriously as central pillars of its strategy.

The Conversation

James has previously received funding from Welsh Government’s Local Air Quality Management Fund. He is a member of the Welsh Government Clean Air Advisory Panel, and Promoting Awareness of Air Quality Delivery Group. James also sits on the Scottish Government’s Air Quality Advisory Group.

ref. Wood-burning stoves face new restrictions – but a loophole from Britain’s smog years is fuelling the problem – https://theconversation.com/wood-burning-stoves-face-new-restrictions-but-a-loophole-from-britains-smog-years-is-fuelling-the-problem-271165

Why we need weird stories for a warming world

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Trang Dang, Visiting Lecturer in English Literature, Nottingham Trent University

jose_xeraco86/Shutterstock

For centuries, nature has been the backdrop to human drama: a stage humanity dominates, exploits, or saves. But what if the planet isn’t just a setting, but a character in its own right – sometimes collaborator, sometimes adversary, sometimes utterly indifferent?

This is the kind of question explored in New Weird fiction, a genre where ecosystems mutate, landscapes rebel and the line between human and nonhuman dissolves. It’s a form of storytelling that asks us to look again at the world we think we know and to question where we fit within it.

The roots of the “weird” go back to the late 19th and early 20th century, to writers like H. P. Lovecraft, Arthur Machen and M. R. James. Their unsettling tales explored incomprehensible forces and cosmic horror. The “Old Weird”, as it’s now known by researchers, borrows from horror, fantasy and science fiction, refusing to stay within the boundaries of any one genre. These writers were fascinated by the limits of human understanding and by realities beyond reason.

The New Weird, which emerged in the 1980s, revived this fascination but with a contemporary twist. Its unruly mix of styles and ideas reflects the complexity – and confusion – of living through today’s ecological crisis.


The climate crisis has a communications problem. How do we tell stories that move people – not just to fear the future, but to imagine and build a better one? This article is part of Climate Storytelling, a series exploring how arts and science can join forces to spark understanding, hope and action.


In the same way that the weird unsettles genre boundaries, it also unsettles the human perspective. Where classic stories centre on human mastery over nature, New Weird fiction turns that hierarchy inside out. It imagines worlds where the human is no longer in control, where the nonhuman acts with agency and where our categories – living or dead, organic or artificial, natural or unnatural – start to blur.

This sense of disorientation isn’t just a stylistic choice. It mirrors the reality of the climate crisis, which has exposed the limits of our ability to understand or predict the world. When wildfires create their own weather systems, or melting permafrost releases ancient viruses, we are reminded that nonhumans don’t follow the rules we’ve set for them. The New Weird invites readers to experience that loss of control not as failure, but as a way to think differently about coexistence.

The ecology of the unknown

One of the most striking examples of New Weird fiction is Jeff VanderMeer’s Southern Reach trilogy. Its first award-winning volume, Annihilation (2014), describes “Area X” – a mysterious wilderness that appears on the US coast. Despite years of investigation by a government agency, the Southern Reach, no one can explain what it is or how it works. The more they study it, the stranger – and more powerful – it becomes.

In Area X, fungi glow, animals behave with eerie intelligence and the landscape seems to rewrite itself. It’s as if the ecosystem has decided to evolve on its own terms. Humans who enter the area are transformed in bizarre and often disturbing ways, blurring the boundary between observer and environment.

For VanderMeer, this isn’t just horror for horror’s sake. The story suggests that nonhuman worlds are full of mysteries that exceed our comprehension. In a time when humans are destabilising the climate, Area X becomes a metaphor for the planet itself – reacting, mutating and asserting its presence. Like the climate system, it doesn’t offer neat explanations or resolutions. Readers, like the novel’s characters, are left searching for meaning in the face of overwhelming strangeness.

These unsettling narratives don’t comfort us with solutions. Instead, they ask us to sit with uncertainty – to feel the planet’s vitality and volatility. The lack of closure in stories like Annihilation keeps us questioning long after we finish reading, mirroring the ongoing and unresolved nature of ecological crisis.

Embracing the monstrous

The New Weird also distances itself from the prejudice of earlier writers, such as Lovecraft’s racism and misogyny. Where Lovecraft imagined difference as monstrous and terrifying, New Weird writers often treat the monstrous as something to be understood or even embraced.

In Acceptance, the final book of the Southern Reach trilogy, the Biologist – one of the main characters – comes to terms with her complex relationship to Area X. What others might see as a nightmare, she begins to understand in a new way. For her, the strange quality of the light and the teeming abundance of life in Area X evoke not fear, but ecstasy.

This vision suggests a different kind of relationship with the world, one that acknowledges the messiness, danger and beauty of ecological entanglement. In this way, the New Weird aligns with contemporary ecological thinkers such as Donna Haraway, Anna Tsing and Timothy Morton, who call for embracing uncertainty and complexity rather than seeking to control or purify the natural world.

Their ideas, like VanderMeer’s fiction, reject the fantasy of a harmonious, stable ecosystem existing for human benefit. Instead, they depict an Earth that is active, unpredictable and deeply interconnected, a place where beauty and horror coexist.

As the planet changes, perhaps our storytelling needs to change, too. The New Weird offers no easy answers, but it helps us practise a different kind of attention: one that accepts uncertainty, honours complexity and feels the pulse of a living, unpredictable Earth.

It reminds us that the world is stranger and more alive than we imagine, and that our old stories of control and mastery no longer serve us.


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.


This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

The Conversation

Trang Dang 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. Why we need weird stories for a warming world – https://theconversation.com/why-we-need-weird-stories-for-a-warming-world-269156

A brief history of mulled wine – from health tonic to festive treat

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sara Read, Lecturer in English, Loughborough University

When frost sparkles in the morning and our breath is visible as we venture outside, thoughts turn to winter warming treats like mulled wine – a drink full of ingredients that have become synonymous with Christmas.

Mulled wine is made by adding spices such as cinnamon, cloves, ginger, mace and nutmeg to sweetened red wine, which is then warmed gently. Across Europe and Scandinavia, it can be purchased in many pubs, bars and festive markets – while supermarket shelves groan with bottles of readymade mulled wines for you to heat at home.

There are many different English recipes out there, including some dating back to the 14th century – from a collection of manuscripts that later became known as The Forme of Cury. The beverage made by following this recipe would certainly have packed a punch, as it contains several spices from the ginger family including galangal, in addition to the more familiar ones.

And before wine was known as mulled, drinking wine flavoured with spices has a long history. There is a mention of drinking spiced wine in the biblical poem the Song of Solomon, which states: “I would give you spiced wine to drink.”




Read more:
Five historical hot cocktails that are perfect for cold weather


It is thought that spice-infused wine was introduced to Britain by the Romans. An older name for it was “hippocras”, although this was mainly taken as a health tonic – made from spice-infused red or white wine and taken hot or cold.

A man drinking wine.
An illustration from a medieval manuscript showing ‘ypocras’ being made.
Wikimedia

In The Merchant’s Tale from Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (1392), the wealthy, elderly knight January takes “ypocras, clarre, and vernage / Of spices hote, to encrese his corrage” (hypocras, clary, and vernage / of spices hot to increase his courage). January sups these three types of spiced wine to boost his virility on his wedding night for his young bride, May.

Diarist and civil servant Samuel Pepys also mentions taking “half-a-pint of mulled sack” – a sweetened Spanish wine – in an almost medicinal way to comfort himself in the middle of a working morning in March 1668, when things had been going wrong for him.

The name mulled wine comes from the Old English mulse – an archaic name for any drink made of honey mixed with water or wine, derived from the Latin word for honey (mel) and still used in modern Welsh as mêl. From mulse we get “musled”, which was used to describe anything that has been “mingled with honey”.

Before the growth of the global sugar trade, honey was the main way that food and drink was sweetened. Vin chaud, the French equivalent of mulled wine, is traditionally sweetened with honey. England imported spiced wine from Montpellier in large quantities from the 13th century, but only those of social status, like Chaucer’s knight January, would have been able to indulge in those days.

Warm sweet and spiced wine continued to be drunk for health and enjoyment throughout the centuries. But in the 18th century, mulled wine evolved again, as reflected in a recipe in Elizabeth Raffald’s The Experienced English House-keeper (1769) for a warm drink thickened with egg yolks:

Grate half a nutmeg into a pint of wine and sweeten to your taste with loaf sugar. Set it over the fire. When it boils, take it off to cool.

Beat the yolks of four eggs exceeding well, add to them a little cold wine, then mix them carefully with your hot wine a little at a time. Pour this backwards and forwards several times till it looks fine and bright.

Set it on the fire and heat a little at a time till it is quite hot and pretty thick, and pour it backwards and forwards several times.

Send it in chocolate cups and serve it up with dry toast, cut in long narrow pieces.

The result of this method is a frothy, velvety smooth confection, enjoyed with dipping toast or biscuits.

Our ancestors didn’t associate mulled wines with Christmas, so it seems likely that the pairing was popularised by Charles Dicken’s 1843 novella A Christmas Carol – like so much of what we now regard as a traditional Christmas.

After Mr Scrooge has seen the error of his miserly ways, he says to Bob Cratchit: “We will discuss your affairs this very afternoon, over a Christmas bowl of Smoking Bishop, Bob!” Smoking Bishop is a recipe for mulled wine that combines port in the wine and uses dried oranges for an added flavour note. The smoke refers to the steam rising from this hot drink.

So this year, as you cup your hands around the warm mug and inhale the fragrant steam coming off your mulled wine, think of the long history you are a part of.


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

Sara Read 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. A brief history of mulled wine – from health tonic to festive treat – https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-mulled-wine-from-health-tonic-to-festive-treat-271341