Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Georgios Karyotis, Professor of Security Politics, University of Glasgow

Recent protests at asylum hotels in Epping, Essex, have prompted calls from the hotel’s residents for something rare in UK migration debates: understanding. This is something that has been clearly lacking in the conversations fuelling anti-immigrant protests, from Southport in summer 2024 to Ballymena in Northern Ireland and Essex this year.

Protesters denounce asylum seekers as “criminals”, while authorities dismiss protests as “mindless violence” and “thuggery”. These labels stick because neither side really understands the other.

Our recent study illustrates this, showing how far imagination outruns knowledge when it comes to migration. People tend to overestimate refugees’ negative feelings and underestimate their positive feelings.

We asked Britons what they thought Syrian refugees in the UK felt. But only 15% of Britons guessed that “hopeful” – not “afraid”, “desperate” or “angry” – was their most commonly reported emotion.

That mismatch between reality and perception is what researchers call an “empathy gap”: our inability to accurately recognise the emotions of people outside our own group. This gap is where fear and misinformation can take hold. But a new way of thinking about empathy could help close it.

The trouble with empathy

Empathy is often celebrated in liberal democracies as vital towards peaceful coexistence between groups, critical to democratic functioning and conflict resolution.

Evidence suggests that empathy can promote more inclusive behaviour toward refugees by making citizens more aware of refugees’ experiences. Similarly, training that emphasises the importance of empathy in police officers has been shown to reduce the risk of confrontation between protesters and officers.

Empathy research often asks people to imagine another’s feelings and then rate their own level of concern. However, self-reported empathy measures are prone to socially desirable responding and gender biases. They also assume we know what “others” feel without ever checking with them. This means that what we record as “empathy” may, in fact, be inaccurate guesswork – filtered through our own biases – rather than a genuine understanding of the other’s reality.

How can we be sure that the version of the world we see through another’s eyes is valid, if we haven’t asked the “other” in the first place how they see the world?

Instead, we propose the concept of “intersubjective empathy”. This approach is about accurately recognising how others feel, as reported by them. It is a cognitive ability, not a moral badge, necessitating that we first ask others what they feel, rather than assume it.

This boils the empathy exercise down to just two short questions: The out-group is asked: “How do you feel?” The in-group is asked separately: “How do you think the out-group feels?” Comparing these responses gives us a similarity score – our measure of empathic accuracy.

We surveyed 1,534 British citizens and 484 young Syrian refugees (aged 18-32) in 2017, shortly after the Brexit referendum and the peak of Europe’s refugee crisis.

The results showed that British citizens significantly underestimated the positive emotions refugees reported – especially happiness and hope – and overestimated their negative emotions.

Is this really a problem, you might ask? Surely it’s enough to feel that someone is going through a difficult time? But this paternalistic empathy – imagining a group as being worse off than they are – can produce negative stereotypes of the pitied group and be deeply disempowering. Accurate emotion recognition is important.

Our analysis shows that intersubjective empathy can indeed help dispel public fears over immigration. We found that people with higher levels of intersubjective empathy (greater understanding of the other group’s emotions) were not only less likely to see refugees as threatening, but also more likely to be motivated to care for them.

But empathy, even the accurate kind, has limits. At very high levels of empathic accuracy (high intersubjective empathy), support for helping refugees actually declined. Why? One possibility is that people concluded refugees were coping well and didn’t need help. Another is that high empathy triggered a sense of competition or resentment – perceiving refugee wellbeing as coming at the expense of one’s own group.

While the belief that refugees are benefiting while locals lose out does appear in the current protests, we know that this can be fuelled by misinformation, partial truths or far right ideology, not understanding. Intersubjective empathy means recognising a group’s complex and diverse realities, without reducing refugees to either helpless victims or undeserving beneficiaries.

Us v them

In a polarised society, empathy must go beyond imagining suffering and recognise people’s real experiences. That includes recognising refugees not just as victims, but as people with resilience, agency and emotional complexity. This should involve amplifying refugee voices and agency in all their diversity.

But it also means listening to those who express fear or anger about immigration, without rushing to moral judgement. Automatically branding protesters as racist or far-right thugs, without seeking to recognise their emotions, may only shift the divide from “citizens v migrants” to “good v bad citizens”.

If we want to move beyond the current (and seemingly permanent) conflicts around migration, we need tools that help reduce fear without scapegoating anyone. Intersubjective empathy is one such tool, usable in schools, policy and community work. Sometimes, the most important thing we can do isn’t feel for others, but to truly hear and understand them.

Georgios Karyotis was the Principal Investigator for the project ‘Building Futures: Aspirations of Syrian Youth Refugees and Host Population Responses in Lebanon, Greece & the UK’, funded jointly through the ESRC and AHRC, Forced Displacement Urgency Call, Global Challenges Research Fund, (ES/P005179/1).

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

– ref. A new way of thinking about empathy could cool Britain’s migration rows – https://theconversation.com/a-new-way-of-thinking-about-empathy-could-cool-britains-migration-rows-259490

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Laura Roden, Professor in Chronobiology, Coventry University

Many people find that their sleep and moods are linked to the seasons. Those living in temperate zones may feel like hibernating in winter and staying out all night in summer, though even those in the tropics can be affected by changing seasons. That’s because we are seasonal animals and adjust our behaviour according to cues from the environment.

Now, it turns out that our ancient adaptation to the seasons also affects our ability to adjust to modern lifestyle factors such as shiftwork – and probably jet lag, too.

This is the conclusion of a recent paper studying about 3,000 US medical interns wearing health trackers on their wrists for a year. The study also found significant differences between participants, which it linked to variations in a specific gene called SLC20A2.

On average, the medical interns’ daily step count and the time they spent awake were both higher in summer than in winter. Yet some participants showed little to no difference in their step counts between summer and winter, while some even showed opposite patterns to the main group.

The authors used heart-rate data collected via the health trackers to calculate each person’s internal time, in other words what time it “feels like” to their body. This is determined by our circadian rhythm, the “body clock” which also affects everything from body temperature to hormone levels. The authors then compared this to participants’ activity patterns to look at to what extent their bodies were disrupted by night shifts.

Participants who showed the greatest seasonal difference in step count also showed the most disruption from winter night shifts to their sleep-wake cycle – when and how long they sleep. They were not disrupted in the same way after summer night shifts.

The researchers then looked at how these findings related to the SLC20A2 gene, since previous work had shown that the gene is involved in seasonality in mice. This gene is responsible for encoding a protein embedded in our cell membranes that allows the movement of ions (electrically charged atoms or molecules) in and out of cells. The protein is very active in neurons in the brain, where this movement of ions is important in generating the electrical signals which form the basis of all brain functions.

The researchers found thousands of differences in the sequence of the SLC20A2 gene in the participants they studied. They focused on five differences called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and how different combinations of those SNPs (or genotypes) influenced participants’ behaviour in summer and winter. Using mathemetical modelling, they were able to show that having a particular genotype influenced participants’ circadian rhythms, physical activity and adaptability to shiftwork in winter.

Circadian rhythms and the seasons

The most reliable feature of seasons, at least in temperate countries, is the change in the proportion of light in a day (the photoperiod). Seasonal changes in plants and animals such as when they mate and migrate are thought to be a way of responding to changes in the availability of food to increase their chances of surviving and reproducing. Even humans, particularly males, demonstrate seasonality in reproductive hormones, with higher levels of testosterone in spring and summer. This is despite the fact that we do not tend to reproduce seasonally.

Light exposure via our eyes synchronises our circadian rhythms to the environment every day. A model proposed by biologists Colin Pittendrigh and Serge Daan almost 50 years ago suggests that humans’ and many other animals’ circadian rhythms are governed by two internal clocks which are coupled to each other: one that responds to dawn and one that responds to dusk. The idea is that these separately control the transitions into daytime (active phase) and into nighttime (resting phase). Biologists still use the model as a framework to explain how living things adjust to the changing length of days across the seasons.

Light signals are transmitted from the eyes to a collection of neurons in the brain called the suprachiasmatic nuclei (SCN) which communicate that information to the rest of the brain and body. The cells in the SCN are arranged in clusters that co-operate differently in response to different day lengths. Research has shown that in mice and rats, SCNs signal in synchrony in shorter days (winter), and out of phase with one another in longer days (summer).

The intensity of how synchronised these cells are leads to differences in how they transmit information about light. This contributes to individual differences in our body’s response to changes in day length, as well as to other things like shiftwork and jet lag. Also, we also all experience different amounts of natural sunlight and indoor electrical light. The amount of light you’ve been exposed to recently can affect how you adapt to the changing seasons. This is another reason not to expect yourself to adapt to these changes in the same way as other people

Night-shiftwork is also associated with poor health such as weight gain and low quality sleep. Understanding the biological basis of people’s adaptation to shiftwork will help us to mitigate this by developing personalised strategies to shift-workers’ health. And it could help people understand whether they need more rest when jet-lagged or as the seasons change.

Laura Roden receives funding from the Wellcome Trust.

– ref. Can’t sleep? Your ability to adapt to shiftwork and the changing seasons may be determined by your genes – https://theconversation.com/cant-sleep-your-ability-to-adapt-to-shiftwork-and-the-changing-seasons-may-be-determined-by-your-genes-257749

Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Benton, Professor Emeritus (Human & Health Sciences), Medicine Health and Life Science, Swansea University

Robert F. Kennedy Jr has spent years railing against food additives, framing them as part of a broader threat to public health. Now, as the US health secretary, his views have taken on new weight.

Plans are now afoot to start phasing out eight synthetic food dyes in the American food supply, with claims they are harmful and are linked to ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). This has reignited a long-running debate around this subject.

Food additives have been treated with suspicion for years. Nearly 20 years ago in the UK, the Daily Mail ran a “ban the food additives” campaign. In 2017, research by the Food Standards Agency found that 29% of people in the UK thought that synthetic chemicals posed a risk to health.

Earlier this year, Arizona and New York state already went as far as removing additives from school meals. But is there convincing evidence to support this, or should we be looking elsewhere?

ADHD is a developmental condition whose symptoms include inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity. There’s no single cause of ADHD. Risk factors include genetics, prenatal substance exposure, toxins like lead, low birth weight and early neglect.

Hyperactivity itself isn’t exclusive to ADHD. It can also be a response to anxiety, excitement, sleep problems or sensory overload. In 2021 the Californian Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment concluded that food dyes can also stimulate hyperactivity in sensitive children. That is, not all children were affected, but it may aggravate symptoms in those with a pre-existing problem or biological predisposition.

The effects tend to be small, often only observed through subjective reporting (such as observations by parents), rather than more objective measures. Some experts question whether these findings are clinically significant.

Having a high intake of additives correlates with a high intake of ultra-processed food – usually a diet high in sugar and fat, while low in fibre, protein, vitamins and minerals. So, why assume that additives are the problem, and not the rest of the diet?

Eating ultra-processed food – and therefore additives – is more common among low-income families, who are also at greater risk of ADHD. To some extent ADHD may be an indication of poverty, and a generally poor diet, reflecting the financial need to eat cheaper ultra-processed foods.

Studying people with ADHD also tells us little about the rest of the population. One of the largest UK studies to look at children more broadly was carried out in 2007, on the Isle of Wight off the south coast of England. Researchers gave a mix of additives to a range of children.

The European Food Safety Authority examined the findings and concluded there was only “limited evidence of a small effect on activity and attention in some children” from eating additives. The effects were inconsistent, and individual additives couldn’t be identified as harmful.

An Irish study in 2009 found that the doses of additives used in the Isle of Wight study had been much greater than are consumed in normal diets. This was an important observation, as consuming some substances in too high a dose can have an adverse reaction. Water and oxygen are examples of this.

Some experts argue that there is sufficient evidence to justify regulation of some additives, or at least adding details to food labels to help children with ADHD, although other experts disagree.

Out of precaution, since 2010 any food or drink in both the UK and EU containing any of the colour additives has had to carry a warning. Even though there was no scientific justification, it was considered better to be safe than sorry – especially when the colours have no nutritional value.

Natural = good?

There’s a common assumption that natural chemicals are good, while synthetic ones are bad. But what matters isn’t how a chemical is made but how the body responds.

Morphine and cocaine come from plants, for instance, and their dangers are well known. Recently in Australia, three people were fatally poisoned by death cap mushrooms that had been added to their meal. It’s estimated that 5% to 20% of all plants are toxic to humans. So, while “natural” sounds wholesome, it’s no guarantee of safety.

The total number of unique chemicals in the human diet exceeds 26,000, but our present understanding of how diet influences health reflects only 150 of these. The remainder are “nutritional dark matter” which have unknown effects.

To better understand the link between diet and hyperactivity, researchers have experimented with what’s known as the oligoantigenic diet (or a “few foods” diet). Children are given a very limited menu, then foods are gradually reintroduced to see what triggers a reaction.

The first study using this method was carried out in London in 1985. It found that at least one of the children reacted adversely to 48 of the foods in their diet with signs of hyperactivity.

With cows’ milk this was true for 64% of children in the study. For grapes it was 49%, hens’ eggs 29%, fish 23%, apples 13% and tea 10%. These are not ultra-processed foods, but we need to explore whether they contain chemicals that influence the biology of some individuals.

As many as 79% of children reacted to a preservative and a colouring, although the doses used were greater than would be normally consumed. And as no child reacted only to these additives, and different children reacted to different foods, only removing additives wouldn’t eliminate symptoms.

All the children in the study also had a history of allergic reactions, so their responses to food may reflect a biological predisposition. This is important, as it has been found consistently that a reaction to an additive occurs in a minority of children.

A 2017 review concluded “there is convincing evidence for the beneficial effect of a few-foods diet on ADHD”. It suggested the diet offered a “treatment for those with ADHD not responding to, or too young for, medication”.

For parents concerned about their child’s ADHD, it’s worth remembering that food additives are unlikely to be the sole cause. If a child’s behaviour seems linked to diet, keeping a food diary can help identify patterns. But any elimination diet should be approached with care and expert advice, to avoid doing more harm than good. Ultimately, every child is different, and what works for one may not work for another.

David Benton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Do food additives cause symptoms of ADHD? It’s more complicated than you think – https://theconversation.com/do-food-additives-cause-symptoms-of-adhd-its-more-complicated-than-you-think-261431

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Zoe Wimshurst, Senior Lecturer of Sport Psychology, Health Sciences University

As the Premier League season kicks off, fans will debate their new kits almost as much as new signings. But could shirt colour actually give teams a performance edge? Science suggests they can.

One of the most studied colour effects in sport is that of red kits leading to greater success. In the Premier League era, more than half of all champions have worn red home kits, and a study looking at the 2004 Olympic Games found that in combat sports, where the colours of red and blue are randomly assigned, athletes wearing red were more likely to win.

These effects have also been shown in Rugby League and esports (video game competitions).

But why is this? It has been suggested that from both a cultural and biological perspective, red is associated with dominance and aggression. Wearing red has been shown to boost players feelings of dominance whereas an opponent who is wearing red is perceived as more threatening.

Research has also shown that taekwondo referees award more points to fighters in red than blue – even when digital manipulation allows them to view exactly the same fight with just the colours reversed. Studies on football players have also found that strikers score fewer goals when facing a goalkeeper wearing red.

There are other useful colours, too. The gold selected by Crystal Palace is a strong contender as it offers high visibility under both daylight and flood lights. Lighter colours which will offer a high contrast against the pitch, such as the whites chosen by Chelsea and Nottingham Forest, will also stand out.

Psychologists call these “colour singletons”, hues that are unique in the visual scene. Studies show that our attention is automatically drawn to them. Unusual colours that are unlikely to match those found on the pitch or advertising boarding will make players easier to detect at a glance.

Patterns matter too. High-contrast blocking or stripes can help separate a moving object from its background. Bournemouth’s striped away kit should be more visible than a plain mid-tone shirt. The contrast between the luminous top half of Fulham’s away shirt and the relatively dark shorts should also enhance detection.

Camouflage effect

Despite this evidence, not a single Premier League club has chosen red for an away kit this season. Instead, there are some novel choices such as lilac, cream and turquoise. A previous example of a novel kit choice not working so well was in 1996 when Manchester United’s infamous grey away kit was scrapped mid-game after gong 3-0 down to Southampton.

The manager, Alex Ferguson, claimed players couldn’t see each other clearly. It wasn’t just an excuse, the grey was a near perfect match for the concrete of the stadium and blended into the blur of the crowd.

Camouflage effects like this are well documented in biology. Indeed, animals depend on them to make detection by predators harder. In a stadium, muted greys or browns can do the same. Brentford’s new brown away kit risks a similar problem, especially in overcast conditions or with concrete-backed stands. Black kits can also fade into the background, particularly in low light conditions where there is reduced contrast.

This season, Tottenham Hotspur*, Manchester City and Aston Villa have all selected black away shirts which could lead to lower visibility of teammates.

Camouflage is not limited to dull colours. Newcastle’s green away kit, while bright, is likely to merge with the turf, particularly in players peripheral awareness where the human visual system is not designed to see colours clearly.

Another subtle visual trap is “countershading”, a gradient that goes from dark to light found in many animals to make them less detectable. In football, a dark shirt with pale shorts could break up a players outline in bright sunlight. This is great for a deer-avoiding predators, less helpful if you are trying to spot your striker in space.

So why don’t clubs use this science to select kits? The answer is most likely commercial. Away kits are as much about selling shirts as improving performance. Novelty colours create buzz, drive sales and help clubs stand out on the high street, even if they blend in on the pitch.

Colour is not just fashion. It is also linked to psychology, perception and physics. The right shade can make you unmissable, the wrong one can make you disappear. In elite sport, with such fine margins between success and failure, kit colour is an area which should not be overlooked.

Zoe Wimshurst is the owner of Performance Vision Ltd, a company specialising in visual training and consultancy services.

– ref. Premier League: from red success to grey failure – how kit colours appear to impact performance – https://theconversation.com/premier-league-from-red-success-to-grey-failure-how-kit-colours-appear-to-impact-performance-263062

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Roger Prudon, Lecturer in Economics, Lancaster University

There are more than 1 million people on NHS waiting lists for mental healthcare in the UK. Many of them have to wait weeks or months before treatment can begin for conditions such as depression and anxiety.

And according to recent figures from the BBC, there are 12 times more patients waiting longer than 18 months for mental health treatment compared to those with physical conditions.

My research suggests that being on these waiting lists can have a detrimental impact not just on a person’s mental health, but also on their employment prospects and financial security.

This is because every extra month that a patient has to wait for treatment significantly increases the total amount of care they will need. And it also increases the likelihood that they will end up losing their job because of their condition.

The majority of those who lose their job after languishing on a waiting list remain unemployed for years. Many never return to work.

Among those who become unemployed, I found that approximately half end up receiving disability benefits. The other half will rely on different kinds of state benefits such as income support or depend financially on family members.

So providing speedier access to mental healthcare could have a significant economic impact, personally, and for the state. In the Netherlands where I collected my data (it’s not openly available in the UK), I calculated that a one-month reduction in average waiting time would save that country more than €300 million (£261 milllion) each year in unemployment related costs, such as benefits payments and income taxes.

For the UK, with its larger population, this would translate into an annual saving of more than £1 billion.

Recruitment savings

My calculations also show that approximately 3,000 additional full-time psychiatrists and psychologists would be needed to reduce the NHS mental healthcare waiting list by one month. With annual salaries coming to less than £300 million, this would leave £700 million to spend on recruitment and training.

The NHS knows it needs to do something about these waiting lists. Health minister Stephen Kinnock has commented: “For far too long people have been let down by the mental health system and that has led to big backlogs.”

And there is a plan to hire more mental healthcare professionals and increase training opportunities, which could substantially shorten waiting times for mental healthcare in the long run.

In May 2025, the government said it would be opening specialist mental health crisis centres. Starting off with six pilots centres throughout the UK, these are meant to alleviate pressure from A&E departments and treat individuals in acute mental distress.

But while ensuring timely access to care for those with the most severe and acute mental health problems, these plans are unlikely to reduce waiting times for those waiting for non-emergency pre-planned care. Total funding for the new crisis centres is budgeted at £26 million, thereby increasing the NHS mental healthcare budget of around £18 billion by less than 0.2%.

Concerns have also been raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has stated that the new plans are unlikely to benefit the majority of patients as many of them also suffer from physical health problems. These people require fully integrated services, rather than separate mental health crisis centres.

Reducing the waiting lists for mental healthcare will not be easy and will come at a considerable financial cost. But my study shows that an economic case can be made for the increased investment.

Shorter waiting lists will speed up care and help more people to remain in work. The potential benefits, in terms of both health and economics would be substantial, helping patients, the healthcare system and society as a whole.

Roger Prudon receives funding from the Dutch Research Council
(NWO).

– ref. How cutting waiting lists for mental healthcare would save money – and people’s jobs – https://theconversation.com/how-cutting-waiting-lists-for-mental-healthcare-would-save-money-and-peoples-jobs-258352

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Georgios Karyotis, Professor of Security Politics, University of Glasgow

Recent protests at asylum hotels in Epping, Essex, have prompted calls from the hotel’s residents for something rare in UK migration debates: understanding. This is something that has been clearly lacking in the conversations fuelling anti-immigrant protests, from Southport in summer 2024 to Ballymena in Northern Ireland and Essex this year.

Protesters denounce asylum seekers as “criminals”, while authorities dismiss protests as “mindless violence” and “thuggery”. These labels stick because neither side really understands the other.

Our recent study illustrates this, showing how far imagination outruns knowledge when it comes to migration. People tend to overestimate refugees’ negative feelings and underestimate their positive feelings.

We asked Britons what they thought Syrian refugees in the UK felt. But only 15% of Britons guessed that “hopeful” – not “afraid”, “desperate” or “angry” – was their most commonly reported emotion.

That mismatch between reality and perception is what researchers call an “empathy gap”: our inability to accurately recognise the emotions of people outside our own group. This gap is where fear and misinformation can take hold. But a new way of thinking about empathy could help close it.

The trouble with empathy

Empathy is often celebrated in liberal democracies as vital towards peaceful coexistence between groups, critical to democratic functioning and conflict resolution.

Evidence suggests that empathy can promote more inclusive behaviour toward refugees by making citizens more aware of refugees’ experiences. Similarly, training that emphasises the importance of empathy in police officers has been shown to reduce the risk of confrontation between protesters and officers.

Empathy research often asks people to imagine another’s feelings and then rate their own level of concern. However, self-reported empathy measures are prone to socially desirable responding and gender biases. They also assume we know what “others” feel without ever checking with them. This means that what we record as “empathy” may, in fact, be inaccurate guesswork – filtered through our own biases – rather than a genuine understanding of the other’s reality.

How can we be sure that the version of the world we see through another’s eyes is valid, if we haven’t asked the “other” in the first place how they see the world?

Instead, we propose the concept of “intersubjective empathy”. This approach is about accurately recognising how others feel, as reported by them. It is a cognitive ability, not a moral badge, necessitating that we first ask others what they feel, rather than assume it.

This boils the empathy exercise down to just two short questions: The out-group is asked: “How do you feel?” The in-group is asked separately: “How do you think the out-group feels?” Comparing these responses gives us a similarity score – our measure of empathic accuracy.

We surveyed 1,534 British citizens and 484 young Syrian refugees (aged 18-32) in 2017, shortly after the Brexit referendum and the peak of Europe’s refugee crisis.

The results showed that British citizens significantly underestimated the positive emotions refugees reported – especially happiness and hope – and overestimated their negative emotions.

Is this really a problem, you might ask? Surely it’s enough to feel that someone is going through a difficult time? But this paternalistic empathy – imagining a group as being worse off than they are – can produce negative stereotypes of the pitied group and be deeply disempowering. Accurate emotion recognition is important.

Our analysis shows that intersubjective empathy can indeed help dispel public fears over immigration. We found that people with higher levels of intersubjective empathy (greater understanding of the other group’s emotions) were not only less likely to see refugees as threatening, but also more likely to be motivated to care for them.

But empathy, even the accurate kind, has limits. At very high levels of empathic accuracy (high intersubjective empathy), support for helping refugees actually declined. Why? One possibility is that people concluded refugees were coping well and didn’t need help. Another is that high empathy triggered a sense of competition or resentment – perceiving refugee wellbeing as coming at the expense of one’s own group.

While the belief that refugees are benefiting while locals lose out does appear in the current protests, we know that this can be fuelled by misinformation, partial truths or far right ideology, not understanding. Intersubjective empathy means recognising a group’s complex and diverse realities, without reducing refugees to either helpless victims or undeserving beneficiaries.

Us v them

In a polarised society, empathy must go beyond imagining suffering and recognise people’s real experiences. That includes recognising refugees not just as victims, but as people with resilience, agency and emotional complexity. This should involve amplifying refugee voices and agency in all their diversity.

But it also means listening to those who express fear or anger about immigration, without rushing to moral judgement. Automatically branding protesters as racist or far-right thugs, without seeking to recognise their emotions, may only shift the divide from “citizens v migrants” to “good v bad citizens”.

If we want to move beyond the current (and seemingly permanent) conflicts around migration, we need tools that help reduce fear without scapegoating anyone. Intersubjective empathy is one such tool, usable in schools, policy and community work. Sometimes, the most important thing we can do isn’t feel for others, but to truly hear and understand them.

Georgios Karyotis was the Principal Investigator for the project ‘Building Futures: Aspirations of Syrian Youth Refugees and Host Population Responses in Lebanon, Greece & the UK’, funded jointly through the ESRC and AHRC, Forced Displacement Urgency Call, Global Challenges Research Fund, (ES/P005179/1).

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

– ref. How a new way of thinking about empathy could cool Britain’s migration rows – https://theconversation.com/how-a-new-way-of-thinking-about-empathy-could-cool-britains-migration-rows-259490

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Winnie Courtene-Jones, Lecturer in Marine Pollution, Bangor University

Negotiators from around the world are gathered in Geneva, Switzerland, for the final UN intergovernmental session to hammer out a legally binding global treaty on plastics pollution.

The conference began on August 5, but after a week and a half of intense discussions, progress has been insufficient. Despite more than two years of negotiations, the same political disagreements that have stalled talks before remain unresolved.

With less than 48 hours to go, the window for action is closing. Negotiators must now show courage if the world is to get a treaty capable of protecting people and the planet.

Delegations have spent the past week in a mix of formal contact group sessions and informal consultations. Core discussions have focused on chemicals of concern, production, product design and protecting human health.

Delegates are also debating financial mechanisms to help countries implement the treaty. But in the final days, closed-door informal consultations dominate, leaving observers like us and our colleagues with little visibility, or transparency in decisions being made.

Halfway through the session, the Ecuadorian ambassador to the UK, Luis Vayas, held a plenary to review progress. Based on the assembled text (essentially a draft treaty that brings together all the ideas countries have put forward so far), negotiators have ballooned the draft rather than streamlining it. This makes any agreement harder.

It’s a situation which mirrors previous rounds, including the last round of negotiations in Busan, South Korea, in November 2024. Resistance largely comes from a bloc of countries with strong petrochemical industries and interests, such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, unwilling to compromise or pursue ambitious measures.

The latest draft treaty text presented today demonstrates these disagreements clearly. While it could serve as a starting point for further talks, it currently weakens several important issues significantly, including measures on chemicals, plastic production and human health that were carefully negotiated for two and a half years years. Throughout the text, legally-binding obligations give way to lighter encouragement for countries to take action.

Ambitious states and observers now look to negotiators to forge a path forwards.

The science is undeniable

Plastic pollution harms human and environmental health, as confirmed by decades of international research.

Exposure to plastics and plastic chemicals affects everyone, starting in the womb and continuing throughout life. The health effects and economic costs of plastics pollution are substantial and growing as global plastics production increases.

The costs of the health effects are substantial. Deaths due to chemicals used in plastics cost the US alone between US$510 billion (£376 billion) and US$3.4 trillion a year.

Global plastic production continues to soar, however. We make more than 460 million tonnes of plastics every year. Without intervention, that figure could triple by 2060. The evidence leaves no room for delay.

These negotiations are a rare opportunity to protect people, the planet and the economy. Acting boldly now could prevent ongoing future harm.

Taking action

Ten years after the Paris agreement, a legally binding international treaty on climate change, multilateralism is under severe pressure. National protectionist measures and declining trust in institutions make global cooperation difficult. Yet recent months show there is still reason for hope.

In June, during the UN oceans conference, 95 countries signed the “Nice declaration”. This supports a strong global plastics treaty with measures across the full plastics lifecycle, including global targets to reduce plastics production and consumption.

The establishment of the science policy panel on chemicals, waste and pollution in June, similar to panels for climate change and biodiversity, builds momentum for the need of science-based decision-making to tackle global challenges.

And a recent groundbreaking ruling by the International Court of Justice calls on states to take binding action on climate change to prevent environmental harm, a ruling that provides a powerful precedent that could strengthen the plastics treaty.

---

Read more:
A new global ruling shows states are legally responsible for tackling climate change

---

However, progress in Geneva shows ambition is slipping. From where we are sat, it looks like countries that were initially committed are softening their positions, while less ambitious states have not stepped up. Compromise is coming from only one side.

With the complex challenge of plastics pollution, the world cannot afford half measures. States must seize this opportunity, remaining courageous and ambitious in their efforts to secure an effective treaty and safeguard a healthy planet for present and future generations.

---

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.

---

The authors are unpaid members of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Treaty; an International network of independent scientific and technical experts contributing robust scientific evidence to the Treaty process.

The authors are unpaid members of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Treaty; an International network of independent scientific and technical experts contributing robust scientific evidence to the Treaty process. Noreen O’Meara is also a member of the International Science Council’s expert group on plastics pollution, and is a British Academy Mid-Career Fellow.

– ref. We’re witnessing last-ditch talks to secure a global plastic pollution treaty – https://theconversation.com/were-witnessing-last-ditch-talks-to-secure-a-global-plastic-pollution-treaty-263133

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jack Ashby, Assistant Director of the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, University of Cambridge

One day in August, 1875, a greyish-blue parrot was shot on a small island in the Indian Ocean near Mauritius. It was the last time a Rodrigues parakeet was known to be seen alive.

That bird was one of only two ever preserved. Exactly 150 years on, both rest under our care at the University Museum of Zoology in Cambridge, England. Aside from a few fossilised fragments, they represent the only physical evidence the species ever existed.

For many extinct animals, museums are now their last remaining habitat. Without these collections, we wouldn’t just have lost the creatures themselves – we’d have lost the very knowledge that they existed at all. This can be thought of as double extinction.

As I explore in my recent book, Nature’s Memory: Behind the Scenes at the World’s Natural History Museums, those of us working in museums take seriously the responsibility of safeguarding the proof of what species we have shared our planet with, and how that diversity has changed over time. Our collections are constantly being used to learn lessons from past losses and this role has only ever increased over time.

Extinction and sex bias

There are a few enigmatic accounts of green and blue parrots by sailors marooned on Rodrigues in the 1700s, but a specimen wasn’t collected until 1871. That was when the British colonial administrator on Mauritius, Edward Newton, received a female bird that had never before been scientifically described. (Scientists must write a formal “description” of a new species for it to be officially recognised).

Newton sent the preserved parakeet on to his brother Alfred Newton – 19th century Britain’s most eminent ornithologist and the University of Cambridge’s first professor of zoology – who described the new species in print.

This makes it something of a rarity: only a quarter of bird species are described using female specimens, meaning that in most cases the male form is effectively considered the standard representation of its species, while the female is considered the “other”.

Incidentally, although women have always played a major role in natural history, only 8% of birds named after people are named after women. This is one of the reasons why I refer to this species as “Rodrigues parakeet”, named after its home island, in preference over its other name, Newton’s parakeet (though ironically in this specific case the island also happens to be named after a man).

In a further display of the human social gender biases underlying much of natural history, having been offered the opportunity to publish an illustration of the specimen alongside his description, Alfred Newton wrote that “as it is unluckily that of a female bird, I refrain from giving one”. He was holding out for a male.

Due mainly to deforestation for agriculture on Rodrigues, over the course of a century, the once common parakeet’s population had crashed. When further searches for the bird were unsuccessful, Newton eventually provided an illustration of the species – still based on that lone female.

That same year, when one was shot on August 14, 1875, Edward Newton was finally able to send his brother the male he desired. None was ever seen again, and it is quite possible that it was the true endling: the last living member of its species.

Precious little remains

Many extinction tales, and indeed the natural history museums that tell them, are intertwined with colonialism. Dodos, from nearby Mauritius, became the ultimate icons of extinction partly because they are relatively common in museums worldwide.

Edward Newton again played a role: he was the islands’s colonial official in 1865 – almost 200 years after the dodo’s extinction – when Indian indentured labourers were ordered to extract hundreds of dodo bones from a Mauritian swamp, feeling for them in the mud with their bare feet. This is the origin of almost all dodo bones in museums today.

However, countless other lost species, like the Rodrigues parakeet, are represented only by one or two specimens. Without museums preserving these precious remains, we could never comprehend what has been lost. Beyond scientific research, these specimens provide museum visitors with a tangible connection to the permanent reality of extinction.

Found, lost, described

This isn’t just a 19th century story. In 2000, for instance, a single snake-eyed lizard was collected during fieldwork on a wooded plateau in northwest India. It was preserved in the vast collections of the Bombay Natural History Society, before being described as a new species 20 years later: Ophisops agarwali.

But when researchers returned to its habitat, they could not find the lizard again. They have concluded that it is probably extinct, most likely because of traditional forest burning practices.

The lizard was caught just in time to be recognised – but not in time to be saved.

Why these losses matter now

Like the lizard, the Rodrigues parakeet’s story isn’t just a quirk of natural history – it’s a warning. Across the world, species are being lost far faster than we can name them. It’s a sad truth that there are undescribed species in museum storerooms which can no longer be found in their wild habitats. Some become extinct in the window between collection and description.

When we preserve those fragments, we keep more than a specimen. We keep a record of what the planet once held.

If that single lizard had not been caught in 2000, or if those parakeets had not been stored in 1875, the existence of their species would never have been recognised and nor would its loss. We are both richer and poorer for that knowledge.

Jack Ashby is affiliated with the Natural Sciences Collections Association.

– ref. The Rodrigues parakeet’s last day: what one extinct bird tells us about the role of museums – https://theconversation.com/the-rodrigues-parakeets-last-day-what-one-extinct-bird-tells-us-about-the-role-of-museums-263086

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Zoe Wimshurst, Senior Lecturer of Sport Psychology, Health Sciences University

As the Premier League season kicks off, fans will debate their new kits almost as much as new signings. But could shirt colour actually give teams a performance edge? Science suggests they can.

One of the most studied colour effects in sport is that of red kits leading to greater success. In the Premier League era, more than half of all champions have worn red home kits, and a study looking at the 2004 Olympic Games found that in combat sports, where the colours of red and blue are randomly assigned, athletes wearing red were more likely to win.

These effects have also been shown in Rugby League and esports (video game competitions).

But why is this? It has been suggested that from both a cultural and biological perspective, red is associated with dominance and aggression. Wearing red has been shown to boost players feelings of dominance whereas an opponent who is wearing red is perceived as more threatening.

Research has also shown that taekwondo referees award more points to fighters in red than blue – even when digital manipulation allows them to view exactly the same fight with just the colours reversed. Studies on football players have also found that strikers score fewer goals when facing a goalkeeper wearing red.

There are other useful colours, too. The gold selected by Crystal Palace is a strong contender as it offers high visibility under both daylight and flood lights. Lighter colours which will offer a high contrast against the pitch, such as the whites chosen by Chelsea and Nottingham Forest, will also stand out.

Psychologists call these “colour singletons”, hues that are unique in the visual scene. Studies show that our attention is automatically drawn to them. Unusual colours that are unlikely to match those found on the pitch or advertising boarding will make players easier to detect at a glance.

Patterns matter too. High-contrast blocking or stripes can help separate a moving object from its background. Bournemouth’s striped away kit should be more visible than a plain mid-tone shirt. The contrast between the luminous top half of Fulham’s away shirt and the relatively dark shorts should also enhance detection.

Camouflage effect

Despite this evidence, not a single Premier League club has chosen red for an away kit this season. Instead, there are some novel choices such as lilac, cream and turquoise. A previous example of a novel kit choice not working so well was in 1996 when Manchester United’s infamous grey away kit was scrapped mid-game after gong 3-0 down to Southampton.

The manager, Alex Ferguson, claimed players couldn’t see each other clearly. It wasn’t just an excuse, the grey was a near perfect match for the concrete of the stadium and blended into the blur of the crowd.

Camouflage effects like this are well documented in biology. Indeed, animals depend on them to make detection by predators harder. In a stadium, muted greys or browns can do the same. Brentford’s new brown away kit risks a similar problem, especially in overcast conditions or with concrete-backed stands. Black kits can also fade into the background, particularly in low light conditions where there is reduced contrast.

This season, Tottenham Hotspur*, Manchester City and Aston Villa have all selected black away shirts which could lead to lower visibility of teammates.

Camouflage is not limited to dull colours. Newcastle’s green away kit, while bright, is likely to merge with the turf, particularly in players peripheral awareness where the human visual system is not designed to see colours clearly.

Another subtle visual trap is “countershading”, a gradient that goes from dark to light found in many animals to make them less detectable. In football, a dark shirt with pale shorts could break up a players outline in bright sunlight. This is great for a deer-avoiding predators, less helpful if you are trying to spot your striker in space.

So why don’t clubs use this science to select kits? The answer is most likely commercial. Away kits are as much about selling shirts as improving performance. Novelty colours create buzz, drive sales and help clubs stand out on the high street, even if they blend in on the pitch.

Colour is not just fashion. It is also linked to psychology, perception and physics. The right shade can make you unmissable, the wrong one can make you disappear. In elite sport, with such fine margins between success and failure, kit colour is an area which should not be overlooked.

Zoe Wimshurst is the owner of Performance Vision Ltd, a company specialising in visual training and consultancy services.

– ref. Premier League: from red success to grey failure – how kit colours appears to impact performance – https://theconversation.com/premier-league-from-red-success-to-grey-failure-how-kit-colours-appears-to-impact-performance-263062

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Zoe Wimshurst, Senior Lecturer of Sport Psychology, Health Sciences University

As the Premier League season kicks off, fans will debate their new kits almost as much as new signings. But could shirt colour actually give teams a performance edge? Science suggests they can.

One of the most studied colour effects in sport is that of red kits leading to greater success. In the Premier League era, more than half of all champions have worn red home kits, and a study looking at the 2004 Olympic Games found that in combat sports, where the colours of red and blue are randomly assigned, athletes wearing red were more likely to win.

These effects have also been shown in Rugby League and esports (video game competitions).

But why is this? It has been suggested that from both a cultural and biological perspective, red is associated with dominance and aggression. Wearing red has been shown to boost players feelings of dominance whereas an opponent who is wearing red is perceived as more threatening.

Research has also shown that taekwondo referees award more points to fighters in red than blue – even when digital manipulation allows them to view exactly the same fight with just the colours reversed. Studies on football players have also found that strikers score fewer goals when facing a goalkeeper wearing red.

There are other useful colours, too. The gold selected by Crystal Palace is a strong contender as it offers high visibility under both daylight and flood lights. Lighter colours which will offer a high contrast against the pitch, such as the whites chosen by Chelsea and Nottingham Forest, will also stand out.

Psychologists call these “colour singletons”, hues that are unique in the visual scene. Studies show that our attention is automatically drawn to them. Unusual colours that are unlikely to match those found on the pitch or advertising boarding will make players easier to detect at a glance.

Patterns matter too. High-contrast blocking or stripes can help separate a moving object from its background. Bournemouth’s striped away kit should be more visible than a plain mid-tone shirt. The contrast between the luminous top half of Fulham’s away shirt and the relatively dark shorts should also enhance detection.

Camouflage effect

Despite this evidence, not a single Premier League club has chosen red for an away kit this season. Instead, there are some novel choices such as lilac, cream and turquoise. A previous example of a novel kit choice not working so well was in 1996 when Manchester United’s infamous grey away kit was scrapped mid-game after gong 3-0 down to Southampton.

The manager, Alex Ferguson, claimed players couldn’t see each other clearly. It wasn’t just an excuse, the grey was a near perfect match for the concrete of the stadium and blended into the blur of the crowd.

Camouflage effects like this are well documented in biology. Indeed, animals depend on them to make detection by predators harder. In a stadium, muted greys or browns can do the same. Brentford’s new brown away kit risks a similar problem, especially in overcast conditions or with concrete-backed stands. Black kits can also fade into the background, particularly in low light conditions where there is reduced contrast.

This season, Tottenham Hotspur*, Manchester City and Aston Villa have all selected black away shirts which could lead to lower visibility of teammates.

Camouflage is not limited to dull colours. Newcastle’s green away kit, while bright, is likely to merge with the turf, particularly in players peripheral awareness where the human visual system is not designed to see colours clearly.

Another subtle visual trap is “countershading”, a gradient that goes from dark to light found in many animals to make them less detectable. In football, a dark shirt with pale shorts could break up a players outline in bright sunlight. This is great for a deer-avoiding predators, less helpful if you are trying to spot your striker in space.

So why don’t clubs use this science to select kits? The answer is most likely commercial. Away kits are as much about selling shirts as improving performance. Novelty colours create buzz, drive sales and help clubs stand out on the high street, even if they blend in on the pitch.

Colour is not just fashion. It is also linked to psychology, perception and physics. The right shade can make you unmissable, the wrong one can make you disappear. In elite sport, with such fine margins between success and failure, kit colour is an area which should not be overlooked.

Zoe Wimshurst is the owner of Performance Vision Ltd, a company specialising in visual training and consultancy services.

– ref. Premier League: from red success to grey failure – can kit colours really impact performance? – https://theconversation.com/premier-league-from-red-success-to-grey-failure-can-kit-colours-really-impact-performance-263062