Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Catherine Happer, Professor of Media Sociology, Director, Glasgow University Media Group, University of Glasgow

That trust in media is declining throughout the world is almost an unquestioned truth today. But researchers have found it hard to clearly demonstrate how we went from an era of high trust in 20th-century media to one of low trust in the digital age.

The ways people engage with media and where they go for trusted information are changing. From 2011 to 2024, my colleagues and I at the Glasgow University Media Group have charted these trends through a series of focus group studies.

Our findings, summarised in my book The Construction of Public Opinion in a Digital Age, suggest that many people feel journalism today represents the interests of the powerful and does not speak for them.

For audiences of 20th-century broadcasting and press, trust largely rested on what we might call a leap of faith. With only a small number of news outlets – and where organisations like the BBC were given exclusive access to politicians and experts – there were few alternatives for audiences to turn to for information. Most people didn’t have access to other sources or direct experience of what was reported in the news – though when they did, they trusted news reports less.

Traditional media outlets now rely on digital platforms to deliver their content, where it competes with an expanded range of alternative information sources. Mainstream news continues to be led by the perspectives of government, business and economic experts. But digital platforms also allow the voices of social media influencers, independent journalists, activists and everyday users to be heard. This gives audiences easy access to perspectives which directly and regularly challenge the narratives presented in news.

In this environment, journalists working for mainstream news outlets are expected to prove they best represent the interests of their audiences – it is no longer taken as gospel by readers, listeners and viewers.

Focus group participants told me and my colleagues over many hours of discussions that they see mainstream journalism as being bound up with a political system that is failing. For example, journalists may positively report percentage points of economic growth and demand sensible spending plans, but many people simply don’t believe things will get better.

In our most recent study, which analysed media content and audience reception in relation to the cost of living crisis (and will be published as a book in 2026), we found that journalists, in line with politicians, reported the crisis as a short-term shock, temporarily raising food and energy prices.

But our participants understood the crisis as one of long-term decline in their communities and standard of living. In other words, there is a disconnect between the priorities and beliefs of journalists and their audiences.

This disconnect was evident across all demographic groups studied – yet not all are affected to the same degree. Our findings point to a correlation between those most disaffected with the political system – particularly those really struggling – and the likelihood of investing trust in alternative “news” sources.

Where do you get your news?

With more choices than ever for where to get information, people now move between different platforms and devices depending on their needs and circumstances. During the pandemic, millions tuned in to the BBC for the latest health guidance. At other times, people follow algorithm-driven social media feeds for entertainment and news.

Our research indicates, however, that most people have a dominant mode of engagement they rely on to deliver trusted information. These fell largely into three categories in terms of preferences:

1. Mainstream sources

Older and highly-educated participants tended to rely on mainstream news. They invested trust in official forms of evidence and authoritative voices such as politicians and experts.

2. Non-mainstream sources

Lower-income participants were more likely to engage with sources which were seen as free of the mainstream “agenda”. Trust was often invested in partisan podcasters, independent outlets and bloggers – as well as social media posts more generally – who shared their scepticism of public institutions and establishment figures.

3. Mix of sources

Younger participants were more likely to filter news through aggregation apps like Google News, friend endorsements, or simply be led by platform algorithms. They decided who to trust by comparing multiple sources, often giving more credibility to social media influencers who were more relatable and seen to better represent their interests.

It is important to note that these these are generalised categories – it is not the case that all those on low incomes go to social media for their news, nor that young people don’t access mainstream outlets.

New information sources are emerging in the context of algorithm-driven platforms which push provocative content to users, as well as political groups which amplify and distort people’s frustrations.

The danger is that as greater numbers move away from traditional news towards information sources without any formal verification processes or proper scrutiny of political parties, uncertainty about who or what to trust may only deepen.

Interestingly, there was one source across our studies which held a unique position of being widely trusted across a broad range of groups. That was the website MoneySavingExpert and its founder, Martin Lewis. As a financial journalist who then set up his consumer website, Lewis brings his expertise to often personalised, everyday financial concerns.

At a time when mainstream journalists are seen to parrot political rhetoric, Lewis positions himself on the side of the public – most notably during the cost of living crisis, making an emotional appeal to politicians to “help people” live on TV.

If journalists want to re-engage with communities lost to online alternatives, the remedy may lie in lessons that can be learned from figures such as Lewis, and his innovative model of trust which seems to work so well for the digital generation.

Catherine Happer receives funding from UKERC, Avatar Alliance Foundation and the University of Glasgow.

– ref. What a decade of research reveals about why people don’t trust media in the digital age – https://theconversation.com/what-a-decade-of-research-reveals-about-why-people-dont-trust-media-in-the-digital-age-264222

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anna Walker, Senior Arts + Culture Editor, The Conversation

The winner of this year’s Booker prize, Hungarian-British writer David Szalay, has often been accused of overwriting. His earlier short story collections and novels sometimes lost readers in their ornate, over-detailed descriptions. It seems he’s taken that criticism to heart. After abandoning a novel he had been working on for nearly four years in 2020, Szalay has returned with Flesh – a book that, contrary to its title, strips the story right to the bone.

A short, propulsive read, Flesh took the prize because of its singularity. The judging panel said: “Szalay has a talent for only telling the good parts. This is the story of a man’s life, from his youth to deep into adulthood, and yet there are gaps left in the protagonist’s life that Szalay leaves uncovered. He generously allows the reader to fill them in.”

For our reviewer, Tory Young, who researches 21st-century literature, the novel was “deeply affecting.”

Flesh is available in all bookshops now

---

Read more:
David Szalay’s Flesh wins the Booker prize – a deeply affecting novel about masculinity

---

Running men and trespassers

The 1987 adaptation of Stephen King’s The Running Man is one of many spandex-filled Arnold Schwarzenegger films my partner has made me watch. As far as Arnie movies go – and I do enjoy the occasional one (True Lies, for instance) – The Running Man is pretty dreadful. So, if not for the involvement of director Edgar Wright, I probably wouldn’t have been tempted to see the new adaptation.

Fortunately, Wright’s signature flair for fast-paced action and lead actor Glenn Powell’s undeniable charisma makes this version a winner. In fact, according to our reviewer, King expert Matt Jacobsen, it’s “the most fun you’ll have at the cinema this year”.

The Running Man is in cinemas now

---

Read more:
The Running Man is the most fun you’ll have at the cinema this year

---

As well as film recommendations, we like to share books in The Conversation office. The one that’s perhaps been passed around the most is Louise Kennedy’s masterful debut novel, Trespasses. It follows the relationship between Cushla, a young Catholic woman, and Michael, an older married Protestant man during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. No doubt we’ll all be tuning into the excellent new Channel 4 adaptation, starring Tom Cullen and Lola Petticrew.

Romances between Catholics and Protestants are still often controversial in Northern Ireland. Laura Smith, a researcher at the University of Liverpool, regularly interviews Northern Irish women in these mixed-denominational relationships. She found that the show’s themes of forbidden love still ring true for these couples.

Trespasses is available to watch on Channel 4 On Demand

---

Read more:
Trespasses: little has changed for couples dating across the religious and political divide in Northern Ireland

---

Brilliant women

Apple TV had me at “Emma Thompson” with their new drama Down Cemetery Road. Add Ruth Wilson to the mix, and I’ve been counting down the days to its release. Now that it’s here, it doesn’t disappoint.

Art conservator Sarah (Wilson) and private investigator Zoë (Thompson) uncover evidence that the UK government deliberately maimed its own soldiers during secret chemical weapons testing on the Afghanistan battlefield. The result is thrilling, but also sharp, funny and unexpectedly thoughtful – all set to a brilliant soundtrack featuring Björk, PJ Harvey and Billie Holiday.

Down Cemetery Road is available to watch weekly on Apple TV

---

Read more:
Down Cemetery Road: Emma Thompson and Ruth Wilson delight in this light conspiracy thriller

---

Also playing on my speakers this week is LUX, the stunning new album from Spanish singer-songwriter Rosalía. It’s a remarkable piece of work, with lyrics in 14 different languages, weaving together a tapestry of styles drawn from a rich variety of storytelling traditions and cultures.

If you’re wondering where to start, check out the music video for the lead single, Berghain (which also features Björk). In it, Rosalía goes about everyday tasks – ironing, visiting the doctor – while a full orchestra squeezes into the room, accompanying her haunting, operatic voice.

Our reviewer found that through its exploration of faith and courtly love, LUX evokes the tradition of the Spanish troubadour. No wonder Madonna has called Rosalía a “true visionary.”

---

Read more:
LUX: the tradition of the troubadour is at the heart of Rosalía’s songwriting

---

---

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.

---

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.

---

– ref. Trespassers and troubadours: what to watch and listen to this week – https://theconversation.com/trespassers-and-troubadours-what-to-watch-and-listen-to-this-week-269734

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Laura O’Flanagan, PhD Candidate, School of English, Dublin City University

Set in the Oxfordshire village of Ramsden in 1916, The Choral inhabits a world where the war is distant – yet its shadow lies over every street. Many of the young men are gone to the front, their names echoing through the church and village hall. Those left behind hover between waiting and pretending that life continues as before.

The film reunites Alan Bennett’s pen and Nicholas Hytner’s direction for their fourth film together (The Madness of King George, The History Boys, The Lady in the Van). Bennett’s eye for endurance and small absurdities, his distinct blend of humour and heartbreak, lends the story a warmth which threatens but never fully falls into sentimentality.

Determined to keep something of the village’s heart intact, the local choir opens its doors to all. The remaining boys – “fodder for the mill, fodder for the front” – join with nervous energy and untested voices. Around them unfold the small dramas of youth: crushes, jealousies, the thrill of being noticed – all under the dark cloud of war.

At times, the film recalls early Downton Abbey: the lightness of routine belying a deeper unease as the order of things begins to tremble. Hytner’s direction keeps the tone measured, his pacing unhurried, the village life unfolding in laughter across fields, flirtation in the lanes, and the faint hum of something approaching.

Ralph Fiennes, in superb form, is characteristically restrained as Dr Guthrie, the new choirmaster whose time in Germany prompts quiet gossip and complicates his loyalties. Dressed in tweed with a pocket watch gleaming, he brings calm authority tinged with sorrow. Alongside the enemy across the Channel, Guthrie sees the human faces behind the rhetoric of war, and thus he is both insider and outsider.

Beneath his composure runs a conviction that compassion itself has become a form of dissent. When Jacob Dudman’s traumatised soldier laments “life’s fucking shit”, Guthrie replies simply: “So, sing.” It becomes the film’s credo: music as both defiance and survival, a way to hold despair at bay. That spirit finds its fullest expression in Mary (Amara Okereke), whose voice lifts through the air with a brilliance that soars towards the transcendent.

Disappointingly, in a story otherwise so attuned to compassion, the film’s portrayal of women feels thin. The women of Ramsden are treated as narrative currency, their sexuality quietly commodified and offered as recompense for men’s suffering. The Choral would struggle to pass even the most forgiving version of the Bechdel test: the few conversations between women are framed by men’s absence or desire.

The film hints at a worldview in which women and sex are treated as rites of passage, experiences the young men are owed before war denies them adulthood. Yet for all the attentiveness to male sorrow, its compassion remains finely tuned to the loss which binds the village, finding moments of truth despite its blind spots.

While the choir scenes are wonderful and the climactic performance is deeply moving, the film is most affecting in its quietest moments. Jubilant farewells at the railway station are almost immediately shadowed by trains bringing home the wounded. The innocence of departure meets the silence of return, and in between lies everything the village will lose.

When a young woman rejects a soldier newly home, Hytner captures the moment with painful clarity: the war has already cut him off from the life he fought to reclaim. The village photographer (Mark Addy) records the last flicker of innocence, freezing faces that might have stepped from the stanzas of Philip Larkin’s poem MCMXIV “grinning as if it were all / An August Bank Holiday lark” – still radiant with a trust in life that history will soon betray.

The Choral is both elegy and celebration: a reminder that even in the quietest corners, song can sound like survival – the fragile note of hope that refuses to fade.

---

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.

---

Laura O’Flanagan 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 Choral: this moving first world war film reveals the power of music to transcend despair – https://theconversation.com/the-choral-this-moving-first-world-war-film-reveals-the-power-of-music-to-transcend-despair-269771

Source: The Conversation – UK – By James Brown, Associate Professor in Cancer and Cell Biology, University of Limerick

Cancer research is evolving, not just in the lab, but in who is leading it. Increasingly, patients, carers and members of the public are stepping into the research process itself, shaping what questions get asked and how answers are found.

This approach, known as patient and public involvement (PPI), brings people with personal experience of illness from the sidelines to the centre of scientific discovery. It ensures research is grounded in the realities of those it aims to help.

Rather than being passive participants, patients become collaborators. They contribute insights, challenge assumptions and help shape research that matters in the real world. When people affected by cancer are treated as equals in the research process, the result is a more compassionate, inclusive and effective body of evidence, one that improves treatment, care and outcomes for everyone.

Personal experience improves science

When someone with cancer speaks about treatment or research, people listen. They are also trusted advocates who can help make the complex and often overwhelming world of scientific research more accessible, not just for other patients, but for the wider community too.

Patients act as bridges, linking healthcare staff and scientists, clinical practice and community understanding, hard data and human meaning. They challenge researchers to think differently, to ask better questions and to consider the real-world consequences of their work. Patients make science personal, reminding researchers that behind every dataset is a life, a family, a story.

Their involvement also helps demystify science. When patients share what they have learned with friends, families and local networks, they help foster trust and counter misinformation about cancer and its treatments. At a time when false health claims spread fast online, this kind of authentic engagement is invaluable.

---

Read more:
Generative AI and deepfakes are fuelling health misinformation. Here’s what to look out for so you don’t get scammed

---

And PPI does not just change how research feels, it changes what research finds.

In one clinical trial for a new anti-cancer drug, patients described the treatment as feeling like ice being injected into their veins, painful and distressing. This side-effect had not appeared in early trials or lab studies. Because of patient feedback, researchers were able to adapt the trial protocol, adjusting the dose or delivery method to make the experience less traumatic.

That kind of insight can only come from experience. Without patient voices, research risks missing the mark.

Rethinking the research process

Traditionally, cancer research was designed and led by academics and doctors. Patients provided samples and data, but rarely had a say in what questions were asked, how studies were run or how results were shared.

That is no longer enough. Science must be more collaborative, inclusive and responsive to the people it serves. That is where meaningful PPI comes in.

At the University of Limerick and University Hospital Limerick in Ireland, a new model of PPI is turning this principle into practice. Here, a patient-led steering group oversees all cancer research projects, ensuring every study is relevant, respectful and responsive to the needs of those affected.

Cancer patients join disease-specific panels and are matched with research teams based on shared goals or interests. These teams are made up of scientists, healthcare professionals and patients, working together as equals.

When patients lead, research stays grounded in what really matters: improving care, experience and outcomes.

To support participation in Limerick’s PPI programmes, the group provides accessible resources such as a plain language glossary of scientific and medical terms, continuing mentorship through regular meetings, and PPI training for academics through the independent national PPI Ignite Network.

Patients also help share research findings with their communities through social media, recruitment events and local meetings, bridging the gap between lab and life.

Cancer research is happening in hospitals, universities and research centres across the country. Because every cancer and every person is unique, researchers need a wide range of voices to guide their work.

You do not need a science background, just experience, curiosity and a willingness to share your perspective.

Search online for “patient and public involvement in cancer research” in your local area, or ask your healthcare team about local initiatives. Most researchers include a contact email on their institutional website and are happy to hear from potential collaborators.

Science is strongest when it listens. By bringing together patients, carers, researchers, doctors and the public as equal partners, we can make cancer research not only better, but more human.

James Brown has current funding from the Health Research Institute at the University of Limerick. He is affiliated with the University of Limerick, and is a member of the PPI steering committee.

– ref. How patients are helping cancer researchers to ask better questions – and find better answers – https://theconversation.com/how-patients-are-helping-cancer-researchers-to-ask-better-questions-and-find-better-answers-260640

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michelle Pace, Professor in Global Studies at Roskilde University, Roskilde University

When the British government recently announced its plan to emulate Denmark’s asylum and immigration system, it framed the move as a way to restore fairness and regain control. But for those who know how Denmark’s system actually works, the move raises serious ethical — and practical — questions.

This is not the first time the UK and Denmark have looked to each other for ideas on tough migration policies. In 2022, both considered schemes to send asylum seekers to Rwanda and for claims to be processed there.

In the end, neither country went ahead. Denmark paused its proposals and the UK’s scheme was blocked by the courts and then ditched after a change of government.

Denmark once prided itself on its liberal welfare state and human rights commitments. But it has spent the past decade turning itself into one of Europe’s toughest destinations for refugees.

Indeed, it is the only country in Europe to have revoked refugee protection on a large scale. And the first to reorient its laws away from integration and towards return.

I have spent years studying Denmark’s migration system and interviewing the refugees affected by it. My forthcoming book, Un-welcome to Denmark, traces the laws governing entry, residence and expulsion in Denmark’s Aliens Act, which has been amended more than 100 times over 36 years (1983–2019).

For context, that pace of change is unusually high, making Denmark’s immigration system one of the most frequently revised in Europe. And this has created near constant uncertainty for those living under it.

A tougher system

The turning point for Denmark’s asylum system came in 2015, when a change to the Aliens Act allowed authorities to revoke refugee status if conditions in someone’s home country had improved — even when those improvements were fragile or unpredictable.

Between 2017 and 2018, roughly 900 Somali refugees lost their residence permits. Then in 2019, just as the Social Democrats returned to power under Mette Frederiksen, parliament approved a package of legislation that has widely been described as a “paradigm shift” in Denmark’s asylum policy.

Under this tougher system, Syrian refugees who held temporary protection had their permits reassessed. In 2022 alone, nearly 400 Syrians left Denmark, fearing they would lose their refugee status and sought protection elsewhere in Europe.

Residencies were revoked, but refugees could not be deported, because Denmark had no diplomatic relations with the then Assad government. So people were placed in so called “departure centres” — facilities designed to house people expected to leave the country (and under stricter conditions than standard refugee shelters).

Some of the Syrians I spoke with, who were detained at these centres, described the experience as extremely unpleasant — a non-life — seemingly designed to push them to leave voluntarily.

A life in limbo

Denmark has become a pioneer in restrictive immigration policies. And this has come with serious legal, ethical and moral challenges.

The European Court of Human Rights has, for example, previously found that Denmark violated the right to family life under the European Convention on Human Rights due to a three-year waiting period for refugees with temporary protection.

Last year, the European Court of Justice accused Denmark of racial discrimination for planned mass housing evictions in previously so called “ghetto” neighbourhoods (now referred to as parallel societies, where a high proportion of residents are migrants.

Refugees I’ve spoken with have told me how they often feel that integration is pointless if they might still be deported. Social isolation and limited rights for asylum seekers are the norm. Families face long waiting times for reunification despite few cases and refugees face temporary permits that hinder long-term planning.

The system is clearly designed to discourage settlement through restrictive living conditions and a lack of control over daily life, which creates a huge amount of stress and fear for those living under such rules.

Harsh and destabilising

Denmark’s asylum system shows how far a (supposedly) centre-left government can go in tightening migration policies while maintaining political support. The Social Democrats inherited a strict framework and have continued to apply it, including temporary protection, reassessment of refugee status and the use of departure centres.

For the UK, which is now considering adopting similar policies, the Danish experience offers cautionary lessons. These measures may reduce asylum numbers, but they come at a human and legal cost. Families are left in uncertainty, long-term planning is impossible and life in departure centres can be harsh and destabilising.

Any government looking to copy this approach should look beyond the statistics and consider the real experiences of the people affected. Denmark’s story is a reminder that migration policy is not just about managing numbers — it is also about the lives that are shaped by those policies.

---

This article was commissioned by Videnskab.dk as part of a partnership collaboration with The Conversation. You can read the Danish version of this article, here.

Michelle Pace received funding from the Carlsberg Foundation for her forthcoming monograph entitled Un-welcome to Denmark. The Paradigm Shift and Refugee Integration (MUP, December 2025). (Details here: https://www.carlsbergfondet.dk/en/what-we-have-funded/cf21-0519/). She is also an Associate Fellow, Europe Program, at Chatham House.

– ref. Why the UK should think twice before copying Denmark’s asylum policies – https://theconversation.com/why-the-uk-should-think-twice-before-copying-denmarks-asylum-policies-269660

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephanie Horsted, PhD Candidate, Pain management in the transgender community, Department of Research and Graduate Studies, Health Sciences University

Transgender people can encounter significant obstacles and barriers within healthcare systems that may hinder access to care or affect the quality of treatment they receive. These challenges vary widely, but together they can create environments that feel less supportive than they should be.

A 2025 report found that, in the UK, 52% of transgender people surveyed had a negative healthcare experience. The effect of such experiences, which can be due to prejudice, discrimination or simply a lack of knowledge among healthcare staff, can be profound. It forces many to live with health problems without seeking medical attention.

One of the most common problems encountered by transgender people in healthcare is misgendering. This occurs when a health professional uses incorrect names or pronouns, for example referring to someone as “he” instead of “she,” or using a former name – known as deadnaming – either through lack of knowledge or an unwillingness to acknowledge a patient’s gender identity.

For many transgender people, being misgendered is a denial of who they are, even if it’s not intended. Studies show that frequent misgendering can lead transgender and non-binary people to feel invisible, invalidated and emotionally distressed. This kind of miscommunication can leave patients feeling disrespected or dismissed, reinforcing existing inequalities in care.

---

Read more:
How inclusive language can help to reduce birth trauma

---

The impact of misgendering trans people goes far beyond emotional discomfort. According to US charity the Trevor Project’s 2024 national survey on LGBTQ+ youth mental health, transgender and nonbinary young people whose pronouns were respected all or most of the time had around half the suicide attempt rate of those whose pronouns were rarely or never respected.

This doesn’t mean pronoun use alone prevents suicide, but that it signals something larger: affirmation, safety and belonging. Misgendering, by contrast, reinforces rejection and invisibility. The psychological strain of being misgendered, combined with the stress of untreated health issues, can make healthcare settings feel unsafe and discourage people from seeking support.

Research indicates that these experiences contribute to deeper mistrust of healthcare professionals and reduce engagement with medical services. Over time, that mistrust can make people reluctant to return for follow-up care, even when they are unwell. Evidence shows that transgender people who delay seeking healthcare because of anticipated discrimination experience poorer physical and mental health outcomes.

Exclusion from routine screening

Another widespread issue is the lack of inclusion in standard health screenings. Many medical protocols, from cervical smear tests to prostate exams, have been historically designed with cisgender patients in mind.

“Cisgender” refers to people whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth. This traditional focus has created serious gaps in preventive care for transgender people, particularly those who have transitioned or whose bodies do not align neatly with conventional gender categories.

Research shows that transgender people are significantly less likely to receive recommended cancer screenings than cisgender patients. A large US primary care study found that transgender people were screened at far lower rates for cervical (56% v 72%), breast (33% v 65%) and colorectal cancer (55% v 70%) than cisgender people.

Similarly, a systematic review reported that trans men were less likely to attend cervical and breast screening, while trans women had lower rates of prostate cancer screening than cisgender men.

These disparities are not simply a matter of personal choice. Administrative systems in many countries still match screening invitations to gender markers rather than anatomy. As a result, some patients are automatically called for irrelevant tests while others are excluded from ones they need.

This can delay early detection and leave treatable conditions undiagnosed. Experts note that such oversights reflect a healthcare model that still operates around a rigid gender binary rather than one based on a person’s medical need and anatomy.

Even when screenings are offered, they can be uncomfortable or traumatic. Procedures such as pelvic or breast exams are often not designed with transgender bodies or experiences in mind.

For example, trans men may still have internal reproductive organs that are associated with the female anatomy, but experience heightened distress or gender dysphoria, a feeling of discomfort or anxiety caused by a mismatch between their gender identity and physical anatomy, during pelvic exams. Research shows that this can make routine care feel invasive or emotionally painful.

Trans women may find breast or prostate examinations distressing or triggering (they can provoke anxiety, fear or memories of past discrimination) if staff are unfamiliar with gender-affirming care, which emphasises respectful communication, consent and understanding of diverse anatomies. In settings where these practices are lacking, patients may fear being judged, misgendered or asked insensitive questions.

Equipment, clinic environments and communication styles are often based on cisgender assumptions, which presume that all patients’ bodies and identities align with the sex they were assigned at birth.

This can heighten anxiety and discomfort, making medical visits feel unsafe. Consequently, many transgender people postpone preventive screenings, reinforcing a cycle in which missed appointments lead to later diagnoses and poorer health outcomes.

“Trans broken arm syndrome”

A particularly common phenomenon in transgender healthcare is known as “trans broken arm syndrome”. The term describes how healthcare professionals sometimes overlook or minimise a transgender person’s immediate medical needs by focusing disproportionately on their gender identity or transition history, even when unrelated to the presenting issue.

For instance, a transgender person might attend an emergency department with a broken arm but find that clinicians focus on hormone therapy or surgical history rather than the injury, leading to misdiagnosis, delays in treatment or inappropriate care.

The cost of fear

The combined impact of misgendering, exclusion from essential screenings and “trans broken arm syndrome” often drives transgender people to avoid healthcare altogether. Many delay seeking medical help because they expect to be disrespected or mistreated.

The fear and anticipation of stigma can become so overwhelming that it outweighs the need for care, leading to worsening physical and mental health over time.

That so many transgender people continue to endure preventable suffering because they fear discrimination or practices that make them feel uncomfortable because of a lack of training reveals a persistent problem within healthcare systems. These disparities are not only the result of individual prejudice but also of structural inequities in medical education, screening protocols and institutional design.

Without a cultural shift towards inclusion and respect, transgender people will continue to face inequities in access to healthcare, with potentially serious consequences for their physical and mental wellbeing.

Stephanie Horsted 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 misgendering to missed diagnoses: the barriers that can keep trans people from safe healthcare – https://theconversation.com/from-misgendering-to-missed-diagnoses-the-barriers-that-can-keep-trans-people-from-safe-healthcare-269427

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mark Sutton, Honorary Professor in the School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh

For decades, Ukraine was known as the breadbasket of the world. Before the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022, it ranked among the top global producers and exporters of sunflower oil, maize and wheat. These helped feed more than 400 million people worldwide.

But beyond the news about grain blockades lies a deeper, slower-moving crisis: the depletion of the very nutrients that make Ukraine’s fertile black soil so productive.

While the ongoing war has focused global attention on Ukraine’s food supply chains, far less is known about the sustainability of the agricultural systems that underpin them.

Ukraine’s soil may no longer be able to sustain the country’s role as one of the major food producers without urgent action. And this could have consequences that stretch far beyond its borders.

In our research, we have examined nutrient management in Ukrainian agriculture over the past 40 years and found a dramatic reversal of nutrient levels.

During the Soviet era, Ukraine’s farmland was excessively fertilised. Nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were applied at levels far beyond what crops could absorb. This led to pollution of the air and water.

But since independence in 1991, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. Fertiliser use, especially phosphorus and potassium, plummeted as imports fell, livestock numbers declined (reducing manure availability) and supply chains collapsed.

By 2021, just before the full-scale invasion, Ukrainian soil was already showing signs of strain. Farmers were adding much less phosphorus and potassium than the crops were taking up, around 40–50% less phosphorus and 25% less potassium, and the soil’s organic matter had dropped by almost 9% since independence.

In many regions, farmers applied too much nitrogen, but often too little phosphorus and potassium to maintain long-term fertility. Moreover, although livestock numbers have declined significantly over the past decades, our analysis shows that about 90% of the manure still produced is wasted. This is equivalent to roughly US$2.2 billion (£1.6 billion) in fertiliser value each year.

These nutrient imbalances are not just a national issue. They threaten Ukraine’s long-term agricultural productivity and, by extension, the global food supply that depends on it.

The war has sharply intensified the problem. Russia’s invasion has disrupted fertiliser supply chains and damaged storage facilities. Fertiliser prices have soared. Many farmers deliberately applied less fertiliser in 2022-2023 to reduce financial risks, knowing that their harvests could be destroyed, stolen or left unsold due to blocked export routes.

Our new research shows alarming trends across the country. In 2023, harvested crops took up to 30% more nitrogen, 80% more phosphorus and 70% more potassium from the soil than they received through fertilisation, soil microbes and from the air (including what comes down in rain and what settles onto the ground from the air).

If these trends continue, Ukraine’s famously fertile soil could face lasting degradation, threatening the country’s capacity to recover and supply global food markets once peace returns.

Rebuilding soil fertility

Some solutions exist and many are feasible even during wartime. Our research team has developed a plan for Ukrainian farmers that could quickly make a difference. These measures could substantially improve nutrient use efficiency and reduce wasted nutrients, keeping farms productive and profitable, while reducing soil degradation and environmental pollution.

These proposed solutions include:

1. Precision fertilisation – applying fertilisers at the right time, place and amount to match crop needs efficiently

2. Enhanced manure use – setting up local systems to collect surplus manure and redistribute it to other farms, reducing dependence on (imported) synthetic fertilisers

3. Improved fertiliser use – applying enhanced-efficiency fertilisers that release nutrients slowly, reducing losses to air and water

4. Planting legumes (such as peas or soybeans) – including these in crop rotations, improves soil health while adding nitrogen naturally

Some of these actions require investment, such as better facilities for storage, treatment and better application of manure to fields, but many can be rolled out, at least partially, without too much extra funding.

Ukraine’s recovery fund, backed by the World Bank to help Ukraine after the war ends, includes support for agriculture, and this could play a key role here.

Why it matters beyond Ukraine

Ukraine’s nutrient crisis is a warning for the world. Intensive, unbalanced farming, whether through overuse, under use or misuse of fertilisers, is unsustainable. Nutrient mismanagement contributes to both food insecurity and environmental pollution.

Our research is part of the forthcoming International Nitrogen Assessment, which highlights the need for effective global nitrogen management and showcases practical options to maximise the multiple benefits of better nitrogen use – improved food security, climate resilience, and water and air quality.

In the rush to ensure cheap food and stable exports, we must not overlook the foundations of long-term agricultural productivity: healthy, fertile soils.

Supporting Ukraine’s farmers offers a chance not only to rebuild a nation but also to change global agriculture to help create a more resilient, sustainable future.

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.

Prof. Mark Sutton works for the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, based at its Edinburgh Research Station. He is an honorary professor at the University of Edinburgh, School of Geosciences. He receives funding from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) through its Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF), the UK Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). He is Director of the International Nitrogen Management System (INMS) funded by GEF/UNEP, and of the GCRF South Asian Nitrogen Hub. He is co-chair of the UNECE Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen (TFRN) and of the Global Partnership on Nutrient Management (GPNM) which is convened by UNEP.

Sergiy Medinets receives funding from UKRI, Defra, DAERA, British Academy, UNEP, GEF, UNDP and EU

– ref. Ukraine’s farms once fed billions but now its soil is starving – https://theconversation.com/ukraines-farms-once-fed-billions-but-now-its-soil-is-starving-269147

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor, The Conversation

This newsletter was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

---

Nightly, for months now, Ukraine’s cities have been pounded by relentless aerial attacks. In addition to its grinding and attritional ground offensives in the east and south of the country, since early summer, the Russian military has greatly expanded its air offensive against centres of population, looking to collapse morale and undermine the Ukrainian people’s will to fight on.

And as winter approaches, so those aerial bombardments have targeted Ukraine’s power infrastructure.

Repeatedly in recent weeks, whole cities have been plunged into cold darkness as power plants, transmission lines and regional and local substations are damaged or destroyed. Rolling power outages are now common, reportedly lasting up to 14 hours in some cases.

So the latest political scandal to hit the government of Volodymyr Zelensky could hardly have come at a worse time for his country. And to make matters worse, it revolves around Ukraine’s energy industry.

Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies this week released the findings of Operation Midas, an 18-month probe into Energoatom, the state-owned operator of all of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, investigating allegations of bribes and kickbacks said to amount to US$100 million (£76 million). Raids were carried out around the country and seven people have been arrested.

What makes this so dangerous for Zelensky is that one of the people named in the probe is a former business partner of his. Businessman Timur Mindich was the co-owner, with Zelensky, of Kvartal 95 Studio – the platform on which the Ukrainian president made his name as a comedian before he entered politics (ironically, under the circumstances, as an anti-corruption candidate).

Mindich is reported to have left the country, but he is said to have connections to several senior government ministers. The scandal risks tainting the already embattled Zelensky government by association.

What’s worse, as Stefan Wolff and Tetyana Malyarenko explain, is that only a few months before this scandal exploded, Zelensky tried to bring Ukraine’s independent anti-corruption agencies under the direct control of his government. He backed down in the face of huge demonstrations, but this latest corruption scandal is likely to weaken him further.

He has already lost his justice minister, German Galushchenko, and energy minister, Svitlana Hrynchuk. And, as Wolff and Malyarenko point out, the last thing Zelensky needs while his European allies debate how to raise desperately needed funds to keep fighting is a whiff of corruption surrounding his administration.

---

Read more:
Ukraine: energy corruption scandal threatens to derail Zelensky’s government and undermine its war effort

---

Having spent the day debating how to raise the huge amounts of money Ukraine will need in 2026, it appears that the EU is closing in on a preferred option. The European Commission considered two main options. One plan is for either the EU to borrow €140 billion (£124 billion) using its long-term budget as collateral. Another is to use the frozen Russian assets as collateral for a loan to Ukraine, to be repaid after the war if Russia pays reparations to Kyiv.

An idea floated by Norwegian economists to use Norway’s €1.8 trillion sovereign wealth fund to guarantee the loan was quickly scotched by the country’s finance minister, former Nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg, who said that while Norway was happy to contribute, it could not be responsible for the entire amount.

The next move will be to assuage the fears of Belgium, which is where the assets are held by securities depository Euroclear, that a successful legal challenge by Russia could leave it liable for repayment. The Kremlin has already made noises to this effect.

Veronika Hinman, the deputy director of the University of Portsmouth’s military education team, believes that while the massive injection of funds will certainly enable Ukraine to continue to fight, it’s unlikely to be decisive. “It cannot deliver the manpower, weapons or morale,” she writes.

Hinman describes the fairly dire situation on the battlefield, where Russia is slowly but surely beating back the defenders outside key cities such as Pokrovsk and Huliaipole. The invaders continue to press for a breakthrough in these strategically important towns, which would allow them to make a push into central Ukraine.

Russia has been unsuccessfully trying to capture both Pokrovsk and Huliaipole for many months (its troops briefly entered Huliaipole on March 5 2022, only a couple of weeks after the invasion started, and were pushed back). But the fight appears to be increasingly lopsided, writes Hinman. Russia may have lost more than a million troops – killed or injured – but it has huge reserves and its retooled war economy appears to be bearing up reasonably well, despite US sanctions.

So the need for more money from the EU grows ever more critical, Hinman writes. But she worries that “in the end, this latest wave of aid may buy Ukraine time – but it’s unlikely to deliver victory”.

---

Read more:
Kyiv’s European allies debate ways of keeping the cash flowing to Ukraine but the picture on the battlefield is grim

---

Trump: lawfare and diplomacy

In the US, meanwhile, blows were struck in a different kind of war as a Florida prosecutor issued subpoenas to a range of officials that the US president believes are part of the “deep-state” opposition to his presidency.

When you look at the targets of these subpoenas, which include former CIA director John Brennan, former FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok, former FBI attorney Lisa Page and former director of national intelligence James Clapper, the thinking becomes clear. All of them were involved in the federal investigation into alleged links between Russian intelligence and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

As we know, under instruction from Trump, the Justice Department has already gone after several of the president’s enemies, including former FBI director James Comey, former national security adviser John Bolton and New York attorney general Letitia James.

It’s all part of what has become known as the “grand conspiracy”, writes Robert Dover, an expert in intelligence from the University of Hull. And it appears as if the Trump administration is gearing up for some serious lawfare.

As Dover observes, whether or not these investigations actually end up with anyone facing court is, while not immaterial, not the whole point of the exercise. In the US, these investigations can take a huge toll on their targets: emotionally, financially and health-wise.

Dover points to a new unit in the Department of Justice, the “weaponization working group”, whose director, Ed Martin, said his job was to expose and discredit people he believes to working against the president: “If they can be charged, we’ll charge them. But if they can’t be charged, we will name them.” This, writes Dover, is a complete inversion of the traditional approach of: “charge crimes, not people”.

It feels like another step on the road to authoritarian government, he observes.

---

Read more:
First subpoenas issued as Donald Trump’s ‘grand conspiracy’ theory begins to take shape

---

The incumbent of the Oval Office, meanwhile, received the (relatively) new leader of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa, this week. He’s the first Syrian leader ever to visit the White House and the visit represents a considerable rise to power and respectability for someone who, until a year ago, was leading an insurgent group against Syria’s Assad regime. His Hayat Tahrir al-Sham was, until July, proscribed by the US as a terrorist organisation.

But, as William Plowright, a Syria expert from Durham University, points out, as far back as 2015, former CIA director David Petraeus suggested that the US should consider working with the organisation which later became al-Sharaa’s group, Jabhat al-Nusra, against Islamic State.

As Plowright observes, there are upsides for both Trump and al-Sharaa in striking up a working relationship, not least of which is that it would deprive Iran of its closest ally in the region.

---

Read more:
How former jihadist Ahmed al-Sharaa ended up being welcomed to the White House

---

---

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.

---

– ref. Ukraine: battered by bombing and scarred by corruption – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-battered-by-bombing-and-scarred-by-corruption-269755