Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jamie Lewis, Lecturer in sociology, Cardiff University

It was the image that launched a cultural icon. In 1967, in the northern Californian woods, a seven foot tall, ape-like creature covered in black fur and walking upright was captured on camera, at one point turning around to look straight down the lens. The image is endlessly copied in popular culture – it’s even become an emoji. But what was it? A hoax? A bear? Or a real-life example of a mysterious species called the Bigfoot?

The film has been analysed and re-ananlysed countless times. Although most people believe it was some sort of hoax, there are some who argue that it’s never been definitively debunked. One group of people, dubbed Bigfooters, are so intrigued that they have taken to the forests of Washington, California, Oregon, Ohio, Florida and beyond to look for evidence of the mythical creature.

But why? That’s what sociologists Jamie Lewis and Andrew Bartlett wanted to uncover. They were itching to understand what prompts this community to spend valuable time and resources looking for a beast that is highly unlikely to even exist. During lockdown, Lewis started interviewing more than 130 Bigfooters (and a few academics) about their views, experiences and practices, culminating in the duo’s recent book Bigfooters and Scientific Inquiry: on the borderlands of legitimate science.

Here, we talk to them about their academic investigation.

What was it about the Bigfoot community that you found so intriguing?

Lewis: It started when I was watching either the Discovery Channel or Animal Planet and a show called Finding Bigfoot was advertised. I was really keen to know why this programme was being scheduled on what certainly at the time was a nominally serious and sober natural history channel. The initial plan was to do an analysis of these television programmes, but we felt that wasn’t enough. It was lockdown and my wife was pregnant and in bed a lot with sickness, so I needed to fill my time.

Bartlett: One of the things that I worked on when Jamie and I shared an office in Cardiff was a sociological study of fringe physicists. These are people mostly outside of academic institutions trying to do science. I was interviewing these people, going to their conferences. And that led relatively smoothly into Bigfoot, but it was Jamie’s interest in Bigfoot that brought me to this field.

---

The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.

---

How big is this community?

Lewis: It’s very hard to put a number on it. There is certainly a divide between what are known as “apers”, who believe that Bigfoot is just a primate unknown to science, and those that are perhaps more derogatorily called “woo-woos”, who believe that Bigfoot is some sort of interdimensional traveller, an alien of sort. We’re talking in the thousands of people. But there are a couple of hundred really serious people of which I probably interviewed at least half.

Many people back them. A YouGov survey conducted as recently as November 2025, suggested that as many as one quarter of Americans believe that Bigfoot either definitely or probably exists.

Were the interviewees suspicious of your intentions?

Lewis: I think there was definitely a worry that they would be caricatured. And I was often asked, “Do I believe in Bigfoot?” I had a standard answer that Andy and I agreed on, which was that mainstream, institutional science says there is absolutely no compelling evidence that Bigfoot exists. We have no reason to dissent with that consensus. But as sociologists what does exist is a community (or communities) of Bigfooting, and that’s what interests us.

Bartlett: One of the things that at least a couple of people reacted to once the book was published was the way we phrased that. On the blurb on the back of the book we say something along the lines of “Bigfoot exists if not as a physical biological creature then certainly as an object around which hundreds of people organise their lives”. A couple of people took that to be some kind of slight against them. It wasn’t.

Do these people have any sort of shared personality traits or other things that connected them?

Lewis: The community is very white, male, rural and blue collar – often ex-military. I think Bigfooting is growing among the female population, but there’s a sense of the kind of ‘masculine hunter in the dark’ persona.

Bartlett: In America, you find a lot more veterans in the general population. But I think there’s also the issue of how they like to present themselves, because when you’re dealing with witness testimony, you’ve got to present yourself as credible. If you can say something like, “I was in the service” or “I was in the armed forces”, then at least you’re not likely to be spooked by a moose.

What surprised you the most about them, did they challenge any stereotypes?

Lewis: Some were very articulate, which did surprise me a little. I guess that’s my own prejudice. I was also very surprised about how open people were; I expected them to not tell me about their encounters. But a fair few of them did. Many of them wanted to be named in the book. I was also surprised about how much empirical data they collect and how much they attempt to try and analyse and make sense of it. And how they were willing to admit that a certain idea was bunk or a hoax. I expected them to be defending bad evidence.

Bartlett: There are extracts of this in our book, people saying “I was fooled by these tracks for ages. I thought they were real and then I found this and that and the other out about it and I revised my opinion.” So that did surprise me too.

If they collect empirical evidence, does that make what they do science?

Bartlett: When you’re working in institutional science you’re working to get grants, you’re working to get good quality publications. You might want your name associated with particular ideas, but you do that through peer-reviewed papers and by working with PhD students who go off to other labs. In Bigfooting, you’ve got self-published books, you’ve got Bigfoot conferences, you’ve got YouTube channels, you’ve got podcasts and things like this, and they’re not necessarily a good way of making and testing knowledge claims. This is an aspect where Bigfooting is quite different to mainstream science.

It was interesting to study the fringe physicists and seeing where the common deviation from science was. And that’s a focus on individualism; the idea that an individual alone can collect and assess evidence in some kind of asocial fashion. The physicists I studied were quite clear that ideas like consensus in science were dangerous, when in reality consensus, continuity and community are the basis of most of science.

What is the most common form of evidence in this community?

Lewis: Witness testimonies. Without those reported testimonies, Bigfooting would not exist. A large part of the work of a Bigfooter is to collect and make sense of these testimonies. They get upset when these testimonies don’t have much weight within institutional science. They’ll make the comparison to court and how testimonies alone can put someone on death row. So they don’t understand why testimonies don’t have much weight in science. Beyond the testimony, footprint evidence is probably the most famous and also the most pervasive sort of trace evidence.

Bartlett: One of the reasons footprints are so important is that there’s the legacy of the Yeti and footprint evidence which proved to be relatively persuasive, convincing some institutional scientists that there was something in the Himalayas. And then there was the fact that the sort of two major academic champions of Bigfoot were persuaded by the footprint evidence: the late Grover Krantz (around 1970) and Jeffrey Meldrum (in the 1990s).

Lewis: These days you also see camera traps, audio recorders even DNA testing of hairs and those sorts of things. They’re capturing anomalous sounds and often blurry images. Some believe that a Bigfoot communicates through infrasound, although that is certainly disputed within the community. So what you’re getting now is more and more different types of evidence.

How can you know whether an image or a sound really points to Bigfoot?

Bartlett: What they do is go out into the forest and record a sound, for example, and compare it to databases of birds and other animals. And they may find there is nothing that matches it. Is it something that doesn’t sound like a car or a person or a bear or a moose? In which case, there’s the space for Bigfoot. And it’s the same with images to some degree.

Would you say that this interpretation is the biggest weakness or contradiction in their evidence?

Lewis: It allows them to create space for Bigfoot. Because if you can’t match it to something else, what could it be? You have this absence and then from that absence you create a presence. They believe it’s a scientific argument. In fact, it’s kind of interesting how Bigfooters will always enrol other kinds of magical beasts to strengthen the case for Bigfoot. So, one sentence I hear quite a lot is “it ain’t no unicorn”.

What’s the hierarchy in this community? Who’s at the top?

Lewis: A-listers tend to be anyone associated with academia. So Andy’s already mentioned Jeff Meldrum, unfortunately he passed away very recently, but he was their route to contemporary academia. So in any conference, if Jeff Meldrum was speaking, he’d be last. Anyone who’s on TV, such as the Finding Bigfoot and the Expedition Bigfoot presenters would also be in the A-list category. And then you’ve got various different groups just below. For example, the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, which is probably the most well known group.

What could Bigfooters learn from scientists and vice versa?

Lewis: From reading books and from discussing it with people, there was a sense that Bigfooters are anti-science. We did not find that. What we argue in the book is that they’re not anti-science. In fact, I would say a lot of them are pro-science, but they’re counter establishment. I think academia should be thinking about these people as citizen scientists and what they’re doing as a kind of gateway into understanding your local area.

For example, they found an animal, I think it was a pine marten, on a camera trap that was not supposed to be in the area. So they are collecting lots of data. They are not irrational. It’s different from, for example, ghost hunting, because you don’t have to imagine there’s something entirely new in the world. It’s just an animal that exists out there that hasn’t been found. Implausible, yes. But not impossible. What they do lack, however, is academic discipline; anyone can be a Bigfooter.

Was there a specific encounter you heard about that was particularly compelling?**

Lewis: Did I get caught up in the moment? Sometimes, of course, you do, just as you do in a film. If you’re in the pitch dark night and you’re watching a horror film, you take it away with you for a while until you settle back down. I often went to bed buzzing, thinking I don’t know what I just heard; they were great stories at the end of the day. But I learned to separate the interview from my thoughts on the interview.

If you encountered Bigfoot in the woods, how would you go about convincing others?**

Lewis: A lot of Bigfooters would begin with qualifiers like, “My dad doesn’t believe in Bigfoot,” or “I have questioned myself for years thinking about this incident and what it was.” So, they would set themselves up as a rational, logical individual. That then created a connection between me and them. And of course, I’d probably be doing the same.

Bartlett: If I were to encounter Bigfoot, I would probably draw on all the techniques of proving that I’m a credible, hard-headed, rational person that we see in those witness encounters. I would expect to be disbelieved. And so therefore I would stress I was putting my credibility as an academic on the line here. So I’d deploy all those kinds of rhetorical techniques that are used by Bigfooters, aside from just the description of the encounter.

---

For you: more from our Insights series:

• Inside Porton Down: what I learned during three years at the UK’s most secretive chemical weapons laboratory
  

• Is time a fundamental part of reality? A quiet revolution in physics suggests not
  

• Our quest to find a truly Earth-like planet in deep space
  

• Sex machina: in the wild west world of human-AI relationships, the lonely and vulnerable are most at risk
  

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

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

– ref. ‘It ain’t no unicorn’: meet the researchers who’ve interviewed 130 Bigfoot hunters – https://theconversation.com/it-aint-no-unicorn-meet-the-researchers-whove-interviewed-130-bigfoot-hunters-274574

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kristin Skare Orgeret, Professor of Journalism and Media Studies, Oslo Metropolitan University

When the billionaire owner of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, bought the Washington Post from the Graham family in 2013, he promised a “golden era to come”. In February 2017, one month into Donald Trump’s first term as US president, the paper adopted the motto: “Democracy Dies in Darkness”, reflecting the perceived threat posed by Trump’s authoritarian leanings and the suggestion that Moscow had interfered in the 2016 election.

That motto was turned against Bezos last week when it was announced that the Post was laying off one-third of its editorial staff, including its sports section and several of its foreign bureaus. The news was greeted with dismay in America’s journalistic circles. Marty Baron, a celebrated former executive editor of the Post, called the layoffs “among the darkest days in the history of one of the world’s greatest news organisations”.

But in the years since Bezos acquired the Post it has become a symbol of a global wave of democratic backsliding in the US which accelerated as the prospect of a second Trump presidency grew through 2024. After an initial period of investing in the Post and hiring more reporters, he has now overseen a long period of decline.

Political concerns began seriously to mount in 2024 when, in the run up to that year’s presidential election, the newspaper broke a 36-year precedent by refusing to endorse a candidate (which most readers, given the paper’s traditionally liberal leanings, had assumed would be Democrat Kamala Harris).

Since Trump has returned to the White House further evidence of this backsliding at the Post includes suppression of a cartoon critical of Trump’s relationship with US tech oligarchs by the Pulitzer Prize winning artist Ann Telnaes and a refocusing of the opinion pages to centre them on “personal liberties and free markets”. The changes have reportedly cost the Post many thousands of subscribers.

But the malaise in US journalism is a much broader story than just the travails of the Washington Post. There’s a sustained campaign of cultural and structural violence against a profession that is under economic and political strain, yet essential to democracy.

Trump’s hostility toward certain sections of the press is not new. During his first term he used non-journalistic platforms to brand mainstream media outlets “the enemy of the people”. His hostility was directed at both institutional and personal level, launching attacks against individual journalists and their employers (the “failing New York Times”, his clash with CNN’s Jim Acosta, etc).

In his second term this hostility has intensified, its impact often obscured by the rapid pace of news emanating from the White House. We’re seeing press freedom in the US under attack on three distinct fronts: restricted access to information, threats to the safety of journalists and use of legal pressure to discourage dissenting voices.

Controlling the message

Restrictions began as soon as Trump was inaugurated for his second term in January 2025. Within a month, the Associated Press lost access to the Oval Office and Air Force One (in other words, to direct contact with the president) after refusing to adopt an executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America”.

Accreditation rules soon tightened. In October, the newly minted secretary of war Pete Hegseth announced that henceforth journalists reporting from inside the Pentagon would be allowed to only report official government pronouncements. Many mainstream reporters handed back their Pentagon accreditation in protest. In response, Hegseth announced what he called the “next generation of the Pentagon press corps”, mainly comprising journalist from far-right outlets.

Meanwhile the president’s verbal attacks on journalists have escalated, particularly targeting women and especially women of colour. Incidents such as the “quiet Piggy” remark (directed at Bloomberg journalist Catherine Lucey) exemplify a broader pattern of public humiliation of female journalists. Research suggests that such conduct contributes to the normalisation of hostility toward female journalists, who were already disproportionately quitting journalism.

Journalists covering protests also face heightened risks. During the “no kings” demonstrations in October 2025, multiple incidents were reported in which police used force against accredited reporters. In November 2025 the White House escalated the pressure, launching a “Hall of Shame” site naming journalists and outlets it said had misrepresented the administration.

‘Lawfare’

The Trump administration has also brought considerable legal pressure to bear on the news media over the first year of its second term. The US president has filed multiple lawsuits alleging bias on the part of one or another media organisation that had attracted his disfavour.

In July, Paramount reached a US$16 million (£11.69 million) settlement over a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris in 2024 that the president accused of bias. At stake was a US$8.4 billion merger that required approval from the Federal Communications Commission, a public body headed by Trump loyalist Brendan Carr.

The president also has active suits against the Wall Street Journal and the BBC (an episode which led to the resignation of director general, Tim Davie, and its head of news, Deborah Turness). By the middle of 2025, Axios reported that Trump-related media and defamation suits had already matched the annual historical record.

---

Read more:
Why has the BBC’s director general resigned and what could happen next?

---

Democratic backsliding

Taken together, these developments reflect a broader pattern of institutional stress affecting US democratic structures. The pressure on these established media organisations has created a situation in which they manage to survive with their independence eroded.

Comparative research consistently demonstrates that journalists are among the first actors targeted in such processes because of their frontline work. Control over information remains central to the success of an authoritarian government.

What, then, should journalists and media organisations do? Standing together matters. We saw that in 2018, when about 350 American newspapers jointly defended press independence against Trump’s “fake news” attacks. This prompted the US Senate to adopt a resolution supporting a free press and declaring that “the press is not the enemy of the people”.

But the danger is that this structural violence against the news media and its attempt to hold power to account becomes normalised. If the Trump administration’s contempt for the fourth estate continues to percolate through to the public at large, a population already struggling to tell truth from lies will be further blindfolded and darkness will fall over American democracy.

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

– ref. Democracy dies in broad daylight: the Trump administration’s frontal assault on the free press – https://theconversation.com/democracy-dies-in-broad-daylight-the-trump-administrations-frontal-assault-on-the-free-press-275629

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Vivek Soundararajan, Professor of Work and Equality, University of Bath

For a long time, the deal for a wide range of careers has been simple enough. Entry-level workers carried out routine tasks in return for mentorship, skill development and a clear path towards expertise.

The arrangement meant that employers had affordable labour, while employees received training and a clear career path. Both sides benefited.

But now that bargain is breaking down. AI is automating the grunt work – the repetitive, boring but essential tasks that juniors used to do and learn from.

And the consequences are hitting both ends of the workforce. Young workers cannot get a foothold. Older workers are watching the talent pipeline run dry.

For example, one study suggests that between late 2022 and July 2025, entry-level employment in the US in AI-exposed fields like software development and customer service declined by roughly 20%. Employment for older workers in the same sectors grew.

And that pattern makes sense. AI currently excels at administrative tasks – things like data entry or filing. But it struggles with nuance, judgment and plenty of other skills which are hard to codify.

So experience and the accumulation of those skills become a buffer against AI displacement. Yet if entry-level workers never get the chance to build that experience, the buffer never forms.

This matters for organisations too. Researchers using a huge amount of data about work in the US described the way that professional skills develop over time, by likening career paths to the structure of a tree.

General skills (communication, critical thinking, problem solving) form the trunk, and then specialised skills branch out from there.

Their key finding was that wage premiums for specialised skills depend almost entirely on having those strong general foundational skills underneath. Communication and critical thinking capabilities are not optional extras – they are what make advanced skills valuable.

The researchers also found that workers who lack access to foundational skills can become trapped in career paths with limited upward mobility: what they call “skill entrapment”. This structure has become more pronounced over the past two decades, creating what the researchers described as “barriers to upward job mobility”.

But if AI is eliminating the entry-level positions where those foundations were built, who develops the next generation of experts? If AI can do the junior work better than the actual juniors, senior workers may stop delegating altogether.

Researchers call this a “training deficit”. The junior never learns, and the pipeline breaks down.

Uneven disruption

But the disruption will not hit everyone equally. It has been claimed, for example, that women face nearly three times the risk of their jobs being replaced with AI compared to men.

This is because women are generally more likely to be in clerical and administrative roles, which are among the most exposed to AI-driven transformation. And if AI closes off traditional routes into skilled work, the effects are unlikely to be evenly distributed.

So what can be done? Well, just because the old pathway deal between junior and senior human workers is broken, does not mean that a new one cannot be built.

Young workers now need to learn what AI cannot replace in terms of knowledge, judgment and relationships. They need to seek (and be provided with) roles which involve human interaction, rather than just screen-based tasks. And if traditional entry-level jobs are disappearing, they need to look for structured programmes that still offer genuine skill development.

Older workers meanwhile, can learn a lot from younger workers about AI and technology. The idea of mentorship can be flipped, with juniors teaching about new tools, while seniors provide guidance and teaching on nuance and judgment.

And employers need to resist the urge to cut out junior staff. They should keep delegating to those staff – even when AI can do the job more quickly. Entry level roles can be redesigned rather than eliminated. For ultimately, if juniors are not getting trained, there will be no one to hand over to.

Protecting the pipeline of skilled and valuable employees is in everyone’s interest. Yes, some forms of expertise will matter less in the age of AI, which is disorienting for people who may have invested years in developing them.

But expertise is not necessarily about storing information. It is also about refined judgment being applied to complex situations. And that remains valuable.

Vivek Soundararajan 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. AI could mark the end of young people learning on the job – with terrible results – https://theconversation.com/ai-could-mark-the-end-of-young-people-learning-on-the-job-with-terrible-results-275352

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Belinda Zakrzewska, Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of Birmingham

After days of controversy in which Donald Trump complained about the acts and said he would not attend, and alternative “all-American” entertainment was lined up, Puerto Rican rapper Bad Bunny took to the stage of the much-hyped halftime show of Sunday’s Super Bowl.

Expectations were high, a fact reflected in the unprecedented number of viewers who tuned in. Bad Bunny’s show surpassed 135.4 million views, exceeding Kendrick Lamar’s 133.5 million in 2025 and Michael Jackson’s 133.4 million in 1993.

---

Read more:
Bad Bunny is the latest product of political rage — how pop culture became the front line of American politics

---

Media coverage framed the event primarily as a celebration of diversity, fuelling a backlash from Donald Trump supporters and conservative commentators. The criticism targeted Bad Bunny not only for his outspoken opposition to the Trump administration, but also for claims that he was “not an American artist” – ignoring Puerto Rico’s status as a US territory. Bad Bunny’s performance demonstrated how authenticity can be produced through anti-colonial activism.

While authenticity is often regarded as something real, true or genuine, it is defined by a relational quality that can emerge through a person’s behaviour in three ways: through connections to people or place; conformity to, or disruption of, conventions, and consistency between message and action. We look at how Bad Bunny displayed all three at the Super Bowl.

1. Authenticity as connection

This was evident in the presence of sugar cane on stage, a crop that shaped the colonial economies of the Caribbean. Plantations were owned by colonisers and sustained through the violent exploitation of Indigenous people and transatlantic enslaved Africans. By foregrounding sugar cane, the performance exposed the foundations of colonial wealth and reclaimed a symbol of oppression as historical truth rather than romanticised memory.

The presence of Puerto Rican icon Ricky Martin strengthened this sense of connection when he performed Bad Bunny’s Lo Que Le Pasó A Hawaii. Through its lyrics, the song cautions Puerto Ricans against relinquishing their cultural identity amid pressure to assimilate into the influence of the US. Martin’s performance underscored the message, highlighting cultural preservation as an essential form of anti-colonial resistance

Lady Gaga added a powerful layer of symbolism to the performance. Her light blue dress referenced the original 1895 design of the Puerto Rican flag before its shade was darkened to align with the US flag. She adorned it with a red hibiscus, a national emblem of pride and resistance, alongside white flowers. Together, these elements echoed the colours of the Puerto Rican flag. Gaga embodied respect, participation and solidarity rather than segregation or erasure.

2. Authenticity as conformity

Artists often simultaneously conform to and break rules, and Bad Bunny mastered that tension. As a Puerto Rican artist rising within an industry that frequently pressures performers to abandon their roots, he instead created a hybrid cultural space: a Spanish-language Super Bowl halftime show. He operated within the system while disrupting assumptions and expectations that English must dominate and that mainstream icons should fit a narrow cultural mould.

Bad Bunny further disrupted the dominant narrative that reduces “America” to the US, instead acknowledging the full geography of the Americas. After declaring “God bless America”, he proceeded to list countries from the southernmost to the northern regions of the continent.

By naming countries across the Americas, Bad Bunny also inverted the conventional geopolitical hierarchy. The gesture echoed Uruguayan artist Joaquín Torres-García’s famous painting América Invertida (Inverted America) and his assertion that “the south is our north”, challenging the idea that cultural or political legitimacy must flow from the so‑called north, and rejecting the aspiration to emulate it.

3. Authenticity as consistency

Consistency appeared through callbacks to Bad Bunny’s longstanding activism. The lamppost explosion before performing El Apagón directly referenced the 2022 song’s music video, which functions as a documentary critiquing infrastructure neglect and the privatisation of electricity by North American companies. This moment connected entertainment to colonial reality for Puerto Ricans, reinforcing how Bad Bunny refuses to separate his art from the colonial conditions affecting his homeland.

The brief appearance of El Sapo Concho, the unofficial mascot of his latest album, added another layer of symbolic continuity. Nearly driven to extinction through centuries of ecological disruption tied to colonial extraction of resources, the Puerto Rican crested toad has become a visual shorthand for survival against structural harm. Its presence, even for a moment, served as a reminder that colonialism’s impact is environmental as much as cultural, and invoked themes of survival and resistance against imposed systems.

The same idea emerged when Bad Bunny presented a Grammy to a younger version of himself, reinforcing his phrase: “If I’m here, it’s because I always believed in myself.” In a world where people from colonised nations face discrimination, exclusion, oppression and marginalisation, many came to view the culture of their colonisers as a path to transcend those barriers. Thus, Bad Bunny’s gesture reclaimed self-belief as an act of defiance. By centring identity rather than imitation, Bad Bunny asserted that authenticity, not mimicry, is the most powerful form of anti-colonial refusal.

This is America

At the end of the performance, a flashing billboard read: “The only thing more powerful than hate is love.” Bad Bunny held a football inscribed with the words “Together, We Are America”.

This proposed a pan-American ideal anchored in solidarity rather than domination, emphasising collaboration over hierarchy. Hate thrives on isolation, but this act created a unifying vision. Through symbols of collective resilience, Bad Bunny framed authenticity as anti-colonial activism grounded in love, memory and community.

Overall, these visuals were intentional, aligning with years of public statements, music and community engagement. Each element reinforced a consistent narrative of resistance, showing that authenticity is not just performance but the culmination of sustained anti-colonial activism.

By embedding history, symbolism and personal conviction into every moment, Bad Bunny demonstrated that art can be a deliberate vessel for political and cultural action grounded in love, tolerance and inclusion.

---

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.

---

Flavia Cardoso received funding from the Chilean Government (Fondecyt 2016) and the Luksic Foundation in 2022.

Belinda Zakrzewska and Jannsen Santana 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 Bad Bunny brought activism to the Super Bowl stage – https://theconversation.com/how-bad-bunny-brought-activism-to-the-super-bowl-stage-275599

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ravindra Jayaratne, Reader in Coastal Engineering, University of East London

More than 1,000 properties flooded in London in 2021, resulting in insurance losses of more than £281 million. Record-breaking floods continue to hit the UK.

In the capital, 13% of properties have been classed as having a high or medium risk of flooding. Danger-to-life warnings could soon become a reality, especially for people living in east London on low-lying land next to the river Thames.

Boroughs like Tower Hamlets, Newham and Hackney are built on former marshland. These areas would have originally absorbed water naturally, but have been used for urban development. More than 85% of London marshland was lost during the 20th century. London has lost the natural buffer that used to help water drain away. As the sea level rises and storm surges get more prevalent, chances of flooding are greater.

London is one of the most urbanised cities across the world with 78% of land being urban. With significant impermeable surfaces made of concrete, asphalt and rooftops, water is prevented from draining into the ground. Rapid surface water runoff overwhelms drainage systems and surface water runoff flooding is one of the greatest threats to east London.

Large-scale infrastructure like the Thames Barrier and tidal flood defences protect London from large-scale river flooding, but they cannot prevent surface water flooding from local storms. As these structures age, maintenance costs rise. Relying solely on them is a risky strategy for the future, especially as storm surges become more intense due to climate change.

---

Read more:
Britain is at bursting point and its flood barriers need to be updated

---

Specialist bodies like the Environment Agency monitor water quality in rivers to reduce infection risks when water is contaminated. However, many parts of east London have Victorian-era sewer systems designed for much lower rainfall, so they are easily overwhelmed. This means the chance of sewage contamination is heightened in these areas. Around 39 million tonnes of untreated sewage are estimated to be discharged into the Thames every year.

East London also faces high levels of deprivation. Many people lack the resources to cope with floods and possible water contamination, often due to being constrained by socioeconomic inequities. High child poverty rates in east London boroughs like Tower Hamlets (47%), Newham (45%) and Hackney (45%) mean that flood preparation is often overlooked.

Aside from strengthening infrastructure and physical barriers, there are natural ways to manage flood risk.

Our research shows that merging nature with urban infrastructure improves the protective capacities and flood resilience of an urban river like the Thames. And initial insights from our ongoing social research show that creative ways of communicating with people can help people better understand – and support – natural flood solutions.

Natural barriers

Planting suitable wetland species alongside rivers and roof tops helps delay surface water runoff by up to 90%. Plants absorb water and release it over several hours rather than releasing it immediately like impermeable surfaces such as concrete and tarmac. This slows down the flow of water into the drainage system and reduces the risk of overwhelming the sewers and pollution spills.

In the Netherlands, there are hundreds of green roofs on bus stops. Data shows that each square metre green of roof cover absorbs 20 litres of water, reducing how much water enters the drains. More natural solutions like these can also improve air quality, attract pollinators and provide shade (which prevents the sun from heating up buildings or walkways).

Green roofs on bus stops are now a common sight in some UK cities, including Brighton and Cardiff. Introducing them to east London would be a good first step.

One charity-led initiative, East London Waterworks Park, involves rewilding a former depot. By converting land covered by concrete into swimming ponds, with reedbeds for filtration, this project provides more space to hold floodwater and a place for the local community to socialise and engage with nature.

At the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London, an area that used to be a depository for building rubble has been transformed into a large-scale sustainable urban drainage system. This involves the creation of open spaces interspersed with natural features like reedbeds, wetlands and swales (marshy channels) that slow down runoff.

This helps slow down the flow of water into rivers, especially during intense rainfall. Studies show that improved water management at the park has saved 4,000 homes from flood risk since it opened in 2014.

London’s population is increasing. This constrains its resources and exacerbates the effects of increased urbanisation. Socioeconomic inequities raise the level of vulnerability of London’s population. Flood risk is a national security threat, not just an environmental issue.

Including nature in urban resilience plans helps reduce risk and empower people. But policymakers need evidence of which solutions are more effective before they’ll act.

---

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.

---

Ravindra Jayaratne receives funding from the Royal Society, UK.

Maciej Pawlik is affiliated with the Green Party of England and Wales.

– ref. East London is at high risk of extreme flooding – here’s how to limit the damage – https://theconversation.com/east-london-is-at-high-risk-of-extreme-flooding-heres-how-to-limit-the-damage-275238

Source: The Conversation – UK – By George E. Barreto, Associate Professor in Cell Biology and Immunology, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Limerick

As dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases become more common worldwide, researchers are searching urgently for ways to protect the brain as we age. One area attracting growing attention is hormones, particularly the role of hormone therapy during and after menopause.

This interest is partly driven by the fact that women develop Alzheimer’s disease more often than men, especially after midlife, suggesting that hormonal changes around menopause may influence long-term brain health.

Our research has focused on tibolone, a synthetic form of hormone therapy prescribed to relieve menopausal symptoms such as hot flashes and poor sleep. While it is commonly prescribed to ease menopausal symptoms, our findings suggest tibolone may also offer important protection for the brain.

In laboratory studies, tibolone helped brain cells survive under stressful conditions. These included reduced glucose use (glucose is the brain’s main fuel) and the build-up of saturated fats such as palmitic acid, which is often higher in people with obesity. Both reduced glucose use and excess saturated fat are known risk factors for cognitive decline and neurological diseases.

Tibolone appears to protect brain cells in several ways. It activates protective proteins, reduces inflammation and limits damage from free radicals. Free radicals are unstable molecules produced during normal energy production or when the body is exposed to pollution or cigarette smoke. They behave like tiny sparks inside cells, damaging structures unless neutralised.

Why women are at higher risk

Alzheimer’s disease affects women far more than men, by roughly three to one. Even after accounting for women’s longer life expectancy, their risk remains around 12% higher.

This gap likely reflects a combination of genetic, hormonal and social factors. Certain genes, including the APOE ε4 variant, a version of a gene linked to how the brain processes fats and clears harmful proteins, are associated with a higher risk of Alzheimer’s. Other genes on the second X chromosome may also contribute. Differences in reproductive history, number of pregnancies and access to education and healthcare also play a role, because these factors influence lifelong brain health, cardiovascular risk and how early cognitive problems are detected and treated.

However, hormonal changes around menopause appear to be especially important. When menstruation ends, levels of estradiol (the main form of oestrogen) fall sharply, while follicle-stimulating hormone rises. Both changes are linked to cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease.

Many women experience the everyday effects of these shifts: forgetfulness, difficulty concentrating, slower thinking, low mood, poor sleep and reduced motivation. Estradiol normally helps brain cells use energy efficiently. When levels drop, the brain uses glucose less effectively, producing a metabolic pattern similar to that seen in early Alzheimer’s.

---

Read more:
Horrific, bizarre, lonely: how women going through the menopause describe their experiences

---

Estradiol also helps regulate fat distribution and cholesterol. When it declines, women often gain visceral fat around the abdomen. This type of fat releases inflammatory chemicals that can damage blood vessels and the brain. The loss of estradiol’s natural anti-inflammatory effects further increases the risk of metabolic syndrome (a cluster of conditions including high blood pressure and insulin resistance), cognitive decline and dementia.

Can hormone therapy help?

These findings have led researchers to ask whether hormone therapy might offset some of this risk.

Hormone therapy usually combines oestrogen and progesterone and is widely prescribed to relieve hot flashes, insomnia and mood changes. It can also improve mood and reduce depression, which indirectly supports cognitive health.

Until the early 2000s, millions of women used hormone therapy and reported benefits. Then, in 2002, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) trial reported a higher risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular events in women taking combined hormones. Headlines warning that hormone therapy “increases cancer risk” led many women to stop treatment or avoid it altogether.

---

Read more:
Busting brain myths: The evolving story of menopause hormone therapy and cognitive health

---

The WHI memory studies also found that starting hormone therapy at age 65 or older did not protect cognition and was linked to a higher risk of dementia. Later analyses revealed an important nuance: timing matters.

Lower lifetime exposure to oestrogen is linked to faster cognitive decline and greater build-up of Alzheimer’s-related changes in the brain. Women who enter menopause early (before about age 45 to 50) face higher risks of Alzheimer’s and more pronounced memory loss. Surgical menopause, caused by removal of both ovaries, leads to a sudden drop in oestrogen and can trigger noticeable problems with memory and attention, particularly in younger women.

Growing awareness of the link between menopause and brain health is beginning to shape public policy.

In a landmark move, Ireland introduced a programme in June 2025 providing hormone therapy free of charge. Removing cost barriers allows women to start treatment earlier and continue it consistently, conditions that may maximise its benefits.

Elsewhere in Europe, access varies. In England, women who do not qualify for free NHS prescriptions can purchase an annual hormone therapy prepayment certificate for £19.80. Prescriptions are free in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, while France and Spain partially reimburse costs through national insurance.

---

Read more:
Menopause: our study revealed how it affects the brain, cognition and mental health

---

Given tibolone’s protective profile, reducing financial barriers could improve access and support larger clinical trials to test its effects on brain health.

Hormone therapy is not a guaranteed way to prevent dementia. The strongest protection still comes from a broad approach: managing menopausal symptoms effectively, possibly with hormone therapy, while also controlling blood pressure, cholesterol and diabetes, staying physically active, sleeping well and avoiding smoking.

Women face a higher lifetime risk of Alzheimer’s because of intertwined genetic, hormonal and social factors. Hormone therapy, particularly when started around menopause, may help protect cognitive function as well as relieve symptoms. Alongside a healthy lifestyle, it offers one promising tool for supporting brain health and narrowing the gender gap in dementia risk.

George Barreto receives funding from Research Ireland.

Miguel G. Borda 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. Menopause, hormones and the brain: how hormone therapy could help protect against Alzheimer’s – https://theconversation.com/menopause-hormones-and-the-brain-how-hormone-therapy-could-help-protect-against-alzheimers-264623

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Stern, Visiting Professor of Management Practice, Bayes Business School, City St George’s, University of London

Having survived what looked a lot like a coup attempt, Prime Minister Keir Starmer now needs to decide how to move forward. One of the biggest problems in the immediate term is what to do with his health secretary, Wes Streeting.

Streeting has long been named as a contender to replace Starmer – and has made no secret of his personal ambitions. Like every other cabinet minister, he made a statement in support of Starmer after the Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar publicly called for his resignation. However, Streeting’s has been singled out for its tepid tone.

Now Starmer has a man who openly wants his job in his top team at a moment when he is trying to steady the ship. Might the PM find some inspiration about what to do from the private sector?

There is an old joke in the corporate world which states that when you take over as a new chief executive, your first task is to search the business high and low to find your natural successor – and then destroy them.

That is one (bleak) view of the rat race, or what is sometimes called “tournament theory”, the acknowledgement that within organisations there will always be a battle to get to the top. A more far-sighted approach to succession planning would look different. It would involve making sure that a range of senior people are developing their skills and experience, ready to take on the top job when it becomes vacant, as it inevitably will do some day. Ideally a company’s succession plan should contain a list with more than just one name on it.

In Westminster, however, discussions over the future leadership of the country are rather less dignified and rather more frenzied. Politics and business are different. This is a tournament all right, but the rules are less than clear. And they are subject to sudden change. Leadership in the political world is a far cry from what we call leadership in businesses and organisations.

Starmer, it seems, has survived a perilous moment. Still, as they say in Scotland, his coat is hanging on a shoogly nail.

Starmer looks around his top team, the cabinet, and sees several potential rivals staring back at him. Streeting denies that he is plotting to challenge Starmer, but few in Westminster believe him. A bad result in the byelection in Gorton and Denton this month or a collapse in support for Labour in the May local elections and Scottish parliamentary and Welsh Senedd elections, could prove the trigger for Streeting to act.

How should a leader look on the threat of a close colleague who is also a rival? Few are as generous or imaginative as Abraham Lincoln, who famously brought defeated candidates for the US presidency into his cabinet, as described by the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin in her book “Team of Rivals”.

Tony Blair survived as prime minister for ten years with his closest rival, Gordon Brown, at his side the whole time. Blair used to say, with apparent nonchalance, that it was not an “ignoble ambition” for Brown to want to succeed him. Blair seemed to hope, however, that another candidate might emerge to prevent Brown from getting the top job.

A confident and effective leader need not worry about having capable potential successors in their top team. On the contrary. Leadership is not a solo endeavour. A good leader will want to delegate tasks to talented people and draw on their advice. This is what is sometimes called “distributed leadership”.

---

Read more:
How much longer can Keir Starmer survive?

---

Starmer has already revealed his insecurity by making sure that Andy Burnham, the mayor of greater Manchester, could not stand in the Gorton and Denton byelection. And hardened Westminster watchers will tell you that the prime minister could not have afforded to have Burnham back in parliament, preparing his own leadership challenge.

But Starmer could instead have been inspired by the ghost of Abraham Lincoln. Why not welcome Burnham back to Westminster, after winning a byelection that would have slowed his opponents’ momentum (in this case the Greens and Reform)?

And why not salute Streeting for his energy and dash? And Angela Rayner for her talents too while he is about it? Confident leaders want to have the best people around them. For a government that is seen to be struggling it would arguably make sense to put the best players on the pitch, and encourage them to perform. Leadership should not be a selfish ego trip. It is about them, not you.

Starmer has had a “clear the air” chat with Streeting and has, at least, not sacked him, yet. Starmer’s allies concede that the prime minister is not currently in a strong enough position to move against him in any case. Perhaps the cabinet will now pull together and prove they can get along.

Such thoughts will be dismissed as naïve and unrealistic by the inhabitants of London SW1. And, in that context, perhaps they are. But if so it tells you a lot about how far the practice of modern politics has departed from what many would regard as healthy and benign leadership.

---

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

---

This article contains references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and this may include 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.

Stefan Stern 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. What should Keir Starmer do about Wes Streeting? A leadership expert on how to handle rivals in your team – https://theconversation.com/what-should-keir-starmer-do-about-wes-streeting-a-leadership-expert-on-how-to-handle-rivals-in-your-team-275689

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Viren Swami, Professor of Social Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University

About a decade ago, author Mandy Len Catron wrote an essay for the New York Times about “36 questions that lead to love”. The idea suggests that two people can grow closer – and even fall in love – by answering a series of increasingly intimate questions.

Catron described how in 2014 she and an acquaintance went on a date together. During the evening, they took turns asking and answering 36 questions. Before that meeting the pair both admitted to a slight mutual attraction, but the exercise changed this fairly dramatically.

Within weeks they had developed strong feelings for each other. The following year they moved in together, had children in 2021 and in 2025, more than a decade after their first date, they got married – and the 36 questions were included in a bowl at the reception bar.

The idea behind the 36 questions is simple enough – that by answering a series of intimate questions, two people become vulnerable and develop a close connection. But can the 36 questions really cause two people to fall in love?

In the 1990s, US psychologist Arthur Aron and his colleagues developed a sharing game that could be used to develop feelings of closeness between strangers. They wanted to provide researchers with a fast track to developing closeness in the lab, for studies involving participants who didn’t know each other.

The task is simple. Two strangers sit across from each other and take turns asking and answering 36 questions arranged in three sets. The task takes about 45 minutes to complete, with the questions becoming increasingly intimate and personal.

One question from the first set asks the strangers to describe their perfect day, while a question from the final set asks them to describe whose death they would find most disturbing.

Why does it work?

The main mechanism that helps build closeness in the 36 questions is reciprocal self-disclosure. This is when sharing intimate information about oneself prompts the other person to share similarly intimate information about themselves.

Reciprocal self-disclosure is an important part of relationship development. When people engage in reciprocal self-disclosure, they signal to each other that they’re willing to be responsive and share their vulnerabilities. In turn, this process helps to build mutual trust and liking, leading to greater feelings of closeness and intimacy.

Imagine that, over the course a conversation, I share with you that I’ve been struggling with my mental health. In sharing this information, you infer that I trust you and that I want to have an authentic, honest and meaningful relationship with you. This, in turn, might encourage you to share something intimate about your own mental health, which encourages deeper trust and connection between us.

What about romantic love?

But can the 36 questions really cause people to fall in love? In the original study, Aron and his co-researchers suggested that the 36 questions – sometimes called the “fast friends procedure” – could create real feelings of “interpersonal closeness” between strangers.

To test this, they randomly assigned strangers to take part in the fast friends procedure or to a small-talk exercise, which also included 36 questions but that did not increase in intensity over the sets. In a series of studies, Aron and his fellow researchers found that participants who’d completed the fast friends task felt closer to each other than those who had engaged in small talk.

A 2021 study found that participants engaging in the fast friends task not only felt closer than those who engaged in small talk, but also felt greater liking for their partners, believed their partners were more responsive, enjoyed the interaction more and had more fun.

However, Aron and his co-researchers also cautioned that the fast friends procedure does not produce feelings of loyalty, dependence or commitment between strangers – key ingredients for love. The procedure also does necessarily produce respect for the other person, which takes time to develop, nor does it produce feelings of passion, romance and physical and sexual attraction.

Although the fast friends procedure might not cause strangers to fall in love, it could help existing couples maintain their feelings for each other.

In studies where existing couples take part in the procedure with other couples they haven’t met before, the participants later report greater closeness to the couples they interacted with. But they also report greater closeness to and passionate love for their own partners.

The procedure could actually help foster loving relationships of all kinds. One group of researchers adapted the 36 questions to make them suitable for children aged eight to 13 and their parents. When the researchers asked parents and their children to take turns asking and answering the question, the children seemed to end the task feeling more loved.

The fast friends procedure also shows promise in developing closeness outside the lab and in different circumstances. In educational settings such as schools and universities, the task seems to be both an effective ice-breaker and a way to promote closeness and friendship formation. There’s even some evidence that tasks that promote closeness could increase productivity and creativity among team members working together.

The fast friends procedure could also be used to reduce prejudice and stigmatising views. In a 2015 study, heterosexual people took part in the fast friends task with a stranger who revealed they were gay or a lesbian.

These heterosexual participants reported stronger feelings of closeness and lower sexual prejudice at the end of the task compared to the start. Other studies have suggested that the procedure could also reduce racial prejudice and ageism.

So don’t let romantic couples usurp the 36 questions. If you’re spending Valentine’s day with friends, it could be a great way to deepen your bond.

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

– ref. Can 36 questions really change your love life? – https://theconversation.com/can-36-questions-really-change-your-love-life-273611