Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

In an unexpected twist in the fight against cancer, humble kitchen bacteria and a plant best known for sweetening tea could one day help in treating one of humanity’s deadliest diseases, new research suggests.

A group of scientists in Japan has discovered that fermented stevia, a plant commonly used as a calorie-free sweetener, may hold intriguing anti-cancer properties. While these findings are early and need much more research, they hint at a potential future role for stevia in tackling pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most difficult cancers to treat. Symptoms typically appear only after the disease has spread, and conventional therapies like chemotherapy rarely result in a cure. The outlook is bleak: fewer than 10% of patients survive five years beyond diagnosis.

This urgent need for more effective and less toxic treatments has driven researchers to explore plant-based compounds. Many chemotherapy drugs already used today have botanical origins – including paclitaxel, derived from the bark of the Pacific yew tree, and vincristine, sourced from the Madagascar periwinkle – offering a proven pathway for discovering new cancer-fighting agents.

Read more:
Chemotherapy can be a challenging treatment – here’s how to deal with some of the side-effects

Stevia, a leafy plant native to South America, is widely known for its natural sweetness. It’s a familiar presence on supermarket shelves, but few think of it as a medicinal plant.

Stevia leaves are rich in bioactive compounds, some of which have shown hints of anticancer and antioxidant activity in previous research. The challenge has been harnessing this potential, as unfermented stevia extracts are only mildly effective in laboratory settings, often requiring high doses to affect cancer cells.

That’s where fermentation comes in. Known for creating yogurt, kimchi and sourdough bread, fermentation is more than a culinary technique. I’s a form of microbial alchemy that can transform plant compounds into new, bioactive molecules.

Researchers at Hiroshima University asked a simple but innovative question: what if stevia was fermented with the right bacteria? They experimented with a strain called Lactobacillus plantarum SN13T, a relative of a bacteria commonly found in fermented foods. Fermentation produced a compound called chlorogenic acid methyl ester (CAME), which showed much stronger anti-cancer effects than raw stevia extract.

In lab tests, the fermented stevia extract caused pancreatic cancer cells to die in large numbers but left healthy kidney cells largely unharmed. Further analysis revealed that CAME was responsible for this effect. It worked by blocking cancer cells at a specific phase of their life cycle, preventing them from multiplying and by triggering apoptosis, a natural process where cells self-destruct when damaged or no longer needed.

CAME seems to alter the genetic programming of cancer cells. It activates genes that promote cell death while simultaneously suppressing those that help cancer cells grow and survive. This double hit both slows cancer progression and encourages malignant cells to kill themselves.

The power of fermentation

Fermented stevia extract was also found to be a stronger antioxidant than its unfermented counterpart. Oxidative stress – an imbalance of potentially harmful moelcules known as free radicals in the body — is linked to cancer and other diseases. By neutralizing these free radicals more effectively, the fermented extract may offer extra protection for healthy cells.

This is not the first time fermentation has been shown to unlock hidden benefits. Fermented soy and ginseng have been found to offer enhanced health properties compared to their raw forms.

But the stevia findings stand out because of the compound’s selectivity. Killing cancer cells while sparing healthy ones is the holy grail for cancer researchers.

It’s important to note that these results come from lab-grown cells, not from animal or human studies. Many substances that look promising in petri dishes fail in clinical trials due to the complexity of the human body. Still, the discovery is exciting and warrants further exploration.

This research highlights the potential of everyday foods and their natural microbes as untapped sources of new medicines. It also reflects growing interest in “microbialbiotransformation” – using beneficial bacteria to create powerful compounds from plants.

In the case of stevia, a simple quest for a natural sweetener has evolved into something potentially far more profound: a stepping stone toward a cancer therapy that’s natural, targeted and cost-effective.

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

Justin Stebbing 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. From sweetener to cancer fighter? Fermented stevia shows promise in pancreatic cancer study – https://theconversation.com/from-sweetener-to-cancer-fighter-fermented-stevia-shows-promise-in-pancreatic-cancer-study-261599

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Noelia Noël, Senior Lecturer, School of Mathematics and Physics, University of Surrey

Every night, as telescopes around the world open their domes to study the cosmos, astronomers are forced to contend with an unexpected form of pollution: bright white streaks slicing across their images.

These luminous trails are caused by satellites. Specifically, the growing number of “megaconstellations” launched into low Earth orbit (LEO). These mega-constellations consist of many, sometimes hundreds, of satellites. They are intended to work as a system, providing services such as global internet access. Commercial companies that operate mega-constellations include SpaceX, Amazon and OneWeb.

The streaks in astronomy images aren’t just cosmetic. They can corrupt sensitive astronomy data, generate false signals, and even trigger alerts for events that never happened.

There may now be a partial solution to the luminous trails vexing astronomers. An ultra-black coating could be applied to the satellites themselves, dimming the trails that they leave in images. This material, called Vantablack 310, absorbs more than 99.99% of visible light.

Modern astronomical observations rely on long exposure imaging, collecting faint light from distant galaxies, exoplanets, or supernovae over several minutes or hours. When a satellite crosses the field of view during that time, it reflects sunlight into the telescope, creating a saturated streak across the image.

The impact is already substantial. Researchers at the Vera C Rubin Observatory in Chile – a flagship survey telescope set to revolutionise our understanding of the Universe – estimate that over 30% of the telescope’s twilight images already contain at least one satellite trail. And it’s not only visible light astronomy that’s at risk.

Radio telescopes, infrared detectors, and even gravitational wave observatories are reporting increasing interference from satellites – including reflected light, unwanted radio emissions, and other forms of contamination. The ultra-black coating won’t alleviate these issues, of course. Other solutions will need to be found for these other forms of interference.

Read more:
Could the first images from the Vera Rubin telescope change how we view space for good?

A crowded sky

With more than 16,000 active satellites already in orbit and tens of thousands more planned, the skies are becoming increasingly congested. While these constellations offer enormous benefits, including global internet access, disaster response, agricultural monitoring, and climate surveillance, they also threaten the clarity of astronomical observations.

Satellites in low Earth orbit (typically 500km-600km altitude) are often visible to the naked eye shortly after sunset or before sunrise. For sensitive telescopes, they can be ten to 100 times brighter than the recommended limits set by the International Astronomical Union.

I am one of a team of researchers at the University of Surrey that is exploring Vantablack 310 as a next generation coating to reduce satellite brightness. The trials are being carried out by UK scientists in partnership with the Surrey Space Centre, and materials innovators Surrey NanoSystems.

Originally developed for high-contrast optical systems – such as instruments that need to spot faint signals next to very bright ones – the coating absorbs more than 99.99% of visible light.

In 2026, Vantablack 310 will be tested in orbit for the first time aboard Jovian 1, a CubeSat – a small satellite about the size of a cereal box. It was developed at the University of Surrey and launched as part of the UK’s Jupiter programme, a university-led initiative that trains students in real-world satellite design, testing and operations, while supporting cutting-edge space research.

The mission will assess how the coating performs under the harsh conditions in space, such as temperature swings, ultraviolet radiation, and micro-meteoroid impacts. If successful, it could significantly reduce how bright satellites appear to telescopes – making the streaks they leave behind much fainter and easier to remove from astronomical images.

Ultra-black coatings will not make satellites invisible. Even the darkest object in orbit will reflect some light. But the goal is not invisibility – it is compatibility. Reducing satellite brightness below key thresholds ensures that scientific observations remain viable.

What’s at stake is more than just clean astronomical data. The night sky is one of humanity’s oldest shared resources – a source of scientific insight, cultural heritage, and spiritual meaning across time and geography. From the star lore of indigenous people to ancient navigation systems, the night sky has always helped us understand our place in the universe.

Publicly funded observatories in lower income countries – where many of the world’s darkest skies still exist – are also disproportionately affected, despite those countries having little say in the decisions that affect their skies.

Framing the issue solely as a technical inconvenience for elite institutions misses the point. This is also about equity, access, and environmental justice. Who gets to access the sky, and who decides how it is altered, are global questions that demand inclusive solutions.

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

This project was funded with six months of support from the Research England Development Fund (UKRI), focusing on mitigating satellite light pollution, including the in-orbit testing of ultra-black coatings.

– ref. An ultra-black coating for satellites could stop them spoiling astronomy pictures – https://theconversation.com/an-ultra-black-coating-for-satellites-could-stop-them-spoiling-astronomy-pictures-259171

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

Russia and Ukraine met in Istanbul on July 23 for a third round of talks since face-to-face negotiations resumed in May. Expectations were low. Two previous rounds have yielded very few concrete results, apart from agreements on prisoner exchanges the return of the bodies of soldiers killed in action.

The latest meeting was the shortest yet, lasting just 40 minutes. The negotiating teams were led by former Ukrainian defence minister Rustem Umerov and Vladimir Medinsky, a senior aide to Russian president Vladimir Putin. They agreed on another exchange of prisoners and on setting up three working groups on political, military and humanitarian issues to engage online rather than in face-to-face meetings.

But if the talks have achieved very little, they have demonstrated two things. First, that the two sides remain very far apart on what they would consider acceptable terms for a ceasefire, let alone a peace agreement. And, second, that neither side is prepared to walk away from the negotiations, worried about incurring the wrath of the US president, Donald Trump.

A fourth round of negotiations has not been ruled out, but it is unlikely to involve either Vladimir Putin or Volodymyr Zelensky, given that their negotiating positions still offer little hope of a deal ready to be signed at a leaders’ summit.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

The latest round of talks, however, took place in a different context to the earlier two meetings. Earlier in July, Trump set a deadline of 50 days, ending on September 2, for the fighting to stop.

After this if there’s no progress towards a ceasefire, the US president will consider imposing hefty secondary sanctions on Russia’s remaining trade partners. The aim would be to starve Moscow’s war economy of crucial foreign income, principally from heavily discounted sales of oil and gas to willing buyers including India and China.

The first ten days of this 50-day ultimatum have now passed. While the talks in Istanbul might be seen as a sign that Kyiv and Moscow are taking Trump seriously, the lack of tangible results suggests otherwise. There is no indication that either Russia or Ukraine have moved from their maximalist demands.

Russia keeps insisting on the recognition of its illegal occupation in Ukraine, on future limits to Ukraine’s military strength, and on a denial of the country’s accession to Nato. Ukraine meanwhile asks for its territory to be restored and its sovereignty – including its ability to determine its alliance arrangements – to be respected.

Playing for time

Developments on and around the battlefields in Ukraine don’t offer any signs that Moscow or Kyiv are ready even for a ceasefire either. Russia continues to make incremental gains along the 1,000km of frontlines in Ukraine.

It also keeps pounding Ukrainian cities, including the capital Kyiv, with nightly drone and missile attacks. These have taken place at unprecedented scales of hundreds of drones that have repeatedly overwhelmed Ukraine’s already stretched air defence systems.

Yet, Ukraine has been buoyed by the promise of more US arms deliveries – paid for by other Nato allies – and the continuing commitments by its international partners to support the country. These include those made at the recent Nato summit in The Hague and the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Rome.

Add to that Trump’s apparent pivot away from Putin and his recently more constructive relationship with Zelensky, and it becomes clear why Kyiv – like Moscow – thinks that time is on its side.

Both may be proved wrong. Zelensky’s latest efforts to consolidate his power – a large-scale cabinet reshuffle and a decree to curb the independence of two of Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies – have caused alarm among EU officials in Brussels. More importantly, they have also triggered rare public protests against the government in Kyiv and other major Ukrainian cities, including Dnipro, Lviv and Odesa.

The protests may not get enough traction to pose a real danger to the government. But they indicate that support for Zelensky is not unconditional.

This is something that the Ukrainian president appeared to acknowledge when he outlined his plans to submit an additional bill to parliament to protect the independence of the embattled anti-corruption agencies. What is widely seen as a power grab by the president’s inner circle also has the potential of undermining public morale at a critical time in the war.

All of this also feeds into a Russian narrative of Zelensky as an illegitimate leader of his country who Russia cannot negotiate with. But it would be a mistake to assume that Russia can simply wait until Ukrainians are simply too exhausted to continue resisting Russia’s invasion or when western support will stop keeping Ukraine in the fight.

Even if Europeans become disillusioned with Zelensky, Russia’s war against Ukraine is too much of an existential question for European security that they will abandon Kyiv just because they do not agree with its anti-corruption policies.

It’s also not clear how long Russia can sustain the intensity of its ground and air campaigns against Ukraine or how long these will provide even the kinds of incremental gains that they currently achieve. Trump’s new plan for arming Ukraine by selling arms and ammunition to European Nato allies who would then deliver them to Kyiv is likely to blunt the effectiveness of the Russian air campaign and stymie its ground offensive.

So playing for time is unlikely to get either Moscow or Kyiv any closer to achieving their war aims. But preventing the other side’s victory – whether that’s on the battlefield or at the negotiation table – may well be enough for now for both Putin and Zelensky.

At the moment, continuing their war of attrition is the second-best solution that both presidents can agree on. The outcome of the third round of talks between their negotiators indicates that they may have reached such an implicit understanding already.

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

Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

– ref. Russia-Ukraine talks: both sides play for time and wait for Donald Trump’s 50 days to run out – https://theconversation.com/russia-ukraine-talks-both-sides-play-for-time-and-wait-for-donald-trumps-50-days-to-run-out-261793

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

Israel has never officially confirmed or denied having nuclear weapons and has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Instead, even as evidence has emerged about its nuclear capabilities, Israel has maintained a policy of nuclear ambiguity.

The origins of this opacity lie in a secret deal forged in a one-on-one meeting between Israeli prime minister, Golda Meir, and the US president, Richard Nixon, at the White House in September 1969.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to Avner Cohen, professor of non-proliferation studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterrey in the US, about that 1969 deal and why it has endured for more than 50 years. Cohen is the author of Israel and the Bomb, considered the definitive work on Israel’s nuclear programme, and has been interrogated by the Israeli state for his research.

Cohen tells us that the understanding between Meir and Nixon meant the US accepted Israel as a special kind of nuclear weapon state. In turn, Israel committed to restraint, not to test nuclear weapons, and not to be the first to introduce them to the region. Neither side has confirmed the existence of a deal, and there are only hints at it in the historical record. Cohen explains:

 Once you realise that there is actually a deal, it explains a great deal of the situation. Why the US [is] looking the other way, why the issue is determined to be removed from the diplomatic agenda, and why many other countries, especially in the west, prefer not to see the Israeli nuclear issue.

Listen to the conversation with Avner Cohen on The Conversation Weekly podcast.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Mend Mariwany and Gemma Ware with assistance from Katie Flood and Ashlynne McGhee. Mixing and sound design by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

Newclips in this episode from CNN, AP Archive, BBC News and ABC.

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

Avner Cohen 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. Origins of Israel’s nuclear ambiguity lie in a secret deal forged between Richard Nixon and Golda Meir – podcast – https://theconversation.com/origins-of-israels-nuclear-ambiguity-lie-in-a-secret-deal-forged-between-richard-nixon-and-golda-meir-podcast-261789

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dylan Ryan, Lecturer in Mechanical & Energy Engineering, Edinburgh Napier University

Solar power is the fastest growing source of electricity globally. Normally, anyone wanting to tap into it would have to rely on roof-mounted panels. But in many parts of Europe, people have found a simple alternative in the form of “plug-in panels” that can be arranged on balconies.

Instead of having to be wired into the house, you can feed the power generated by these panels into an inverter and a standard plug. Is this something that might catch on in the UK? Let’s investigate.

First, solar installations usually come under “permitted development” with regard to planning permission. But you still might need to apply, particularly if you live in a shared development or a listed building.

For example, some apartment blocks are insured collectively; if solar panels are going to affect the building’s insurance, it’s going to affect the whole block. There may also be rules regarding what you can put on your balcony, so consult your building manager.

The UK government is promising to ease restrictions on solar balconies, but we shall have to see how it addresses these issues.

There are also safety concerns. The power generated by the panel has to be balanced with consumption. Which, in practice, may restrict their use to a circuit that only connects to low-power devices (lights, TVs or computers are fine, but not ovens or kettles).

So you need to be aware of what the panels are connected to, particularly if you have an older home which may have been built before modern electrical safety standards. Also, to connect the panels, you would need a weatherised external plug, which not all flats have.

How much power could you get?

As luck would have it, I have a south-facing balcony, so let us run the numbers.

I came across a 800W system online that sells for £499 (with supports that would allow me to mount it). It has an area of 3.95m² and is made of a thin photovoltaic film (about 10-12% efficient).

The optimum angle for a solar panel in Edinburgh where I live is 37.6 degrees. Mounting them vertically (draped over the railing of a balcony, as is often the case) will reduce performance, with typical losses of 30-45%. My balcony is also completely shaded for half of the day due to a neighbouring building, so a panel will generate little power at those times.

The position of the sun varies as it moves across the sky during the day, as well as seasonally, as does the solar energy received. We can input this data plus our location into an online calculator, which will account for hourly and seasonal variations.

This estimates output for a vertically mounted panel at 132 kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr). Assuming electricity costs of £0.24/kWh, that means a payback period of 15.7 years (thin film solar systems typically last between ten and 20 years).

If we could orientate the panel at the optimum angle of 37.6° (tilt them out from the edge of the balcony), the power generated would rise to 182 kWh/yr (a payback period of 11.4 years, although this could fall foul of planning rules).

Free from the shading of my neighbour on the top floor and angled optimally, output from a plug-in panel could rise to 370 kWh/yr (payback 5.6 years). But this is for south-facing balconies. An east- or west-facing balcony would produce 30% less power and a north-facing panel, half as much or less.

Is it worth it?

Another issue is that you can only use the generated electricity when you are in the house. If, for example, I’m out half the time the panels are generating power (which is likely), the payback period doubles – so they will probably never pay for themselves. A battery could help store power for use later, but that adds costs plus the hassle of wiring everything up.

Let’s look at a monocrystalline panel (these last longer than film and are more efficient) that is roof-mounted at the optimum angle (so it’s clear of any obstructions) and wired up to feed into the grid so any power you don’t use, you can sell it to the network.

Assuming a 4kW monocrystalline array at an installation cost of £5,500, the online calculator estimates generation of 2,970 kWh/yr for a payback period of 7.7 years (on a system that will last 25-30 years). And that’s not even considering any possible grants that you might be eligible for.

Whether or not balcony solar is feasible is going to be very site-specific. If you have a balcony with an uninterrupted view south and you are not going to fall foul of any planning or electrical issues, it might be worth it.

If you face north, or there’s another building in the way, or your fuse box looks like a prop from Downton Abbey, less so. In many cases, a solar generator mounted at an optimum angle and exporting electricity to the grid might be a better idea, even if the initial installation costs are higher.

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

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

Dylan Ryan 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. Plug-in solar panels are the latest green energy trend – here’s what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/plug-in-solar-panels-are-the-latest-green-energy-trend-heres-what-you-need-to-know-260467