Source: The Conversation – UK – By Yolanda Lok Yiu Lau, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Dementia and Neurodegenerative Diseases, Queen Mary University of London

A ten-week online brain training programme helped older adults’ brains act as though they were a decade younger, a recent study has found.

Much like exercise for the body, regular mental workouts can help keep the brain in shape. As we age, brain processes that support memory, attention and decision-making can become less efficient. Keeping the mind active is thought to build a reserve that helps people cope better with these age-related changes.

Studies suggest that people who stay mentally, physically and socially active have a lower risk of developing dementia. For example, in a study involving 120 older adults, those who engaged in regular aerobic exercise had larger brain volumes and better cognitive performance than those who were less active, reversing age-related loss in brain volume over a couple of years.

Studies have also found that brain training can improve older adults’ cognitive performance.

The latest study adds to what we know by testing whether brain training programmes – BrainHQ, in this instance – can change the brain’s chemistry, offering biological clues about how brain training might work.

BrainHQ is a brain training app that offers short, game-like exercises that train cognitive skills such as attention, memory and brain speed. As users improve, the challenges get harder, pushing the brain to adapt – much like increasing the weights during a workout.

Ninety-two healthy adults from Canada, 65 and older, took part. Half of them completed brain training exercises using BrainHQ for 30 minutes a day, five days a week, over ten weeks. The other half, a comparison group, spent the same amount of time playing games designed just for entertainment, such as solitaire.

To see whether the programme made a difference to the brain, all participants had specialised scans before and after the ten weeks of training. These scans can detect tiny chemical changes in brain activity.

The researchers focused on a region called the anterior cingulate cortex, which plays an important role in attention, learning and memory. Those who completed the speed-based exercises showed stronger activity in this area compared to those in the comparison group. The change in brain chemicals seen is described by the researchers as equivalent to shaving ten years off their biological age.

Ageing and cognitive decline (including Alzheimer’s disease) are often linked to reduced activity in this part of the brain. Strengthening it may therefore help delay or reduce cognitive decline and lower the risk of developing dementia later in life.

Although the results look promising, we should be careful about how we interpret them. The study measured many different outcomes. Although the brain training group showed increased activity compared with their own baseline, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant.

Because the study looked at so many outcomes and involved only a small number of people, some of these changes may simply be due to chance rather than real effects of the training.

The bigger picture

This was a small study involving healthy, mostly white older adults, and it looked at one specific brain training app. The findings may not apply to people with memory problems or to other types of brain-training programmes, or to longer-term outcomes.

This intervention is relatively short. Research found that most interventions aiming to improve cognitive performance that are successful typically last at least four to six months. Longer-term participation is almost certainly key to achieving lasting improvement in brain health.

Studies like this rely on brain scans as early indicators of benefit, but it remains to be seen whether these biological changes translate into lasting improvements in functioning. Researchers are testing whether similar brain-training programmes can help people who show early signs of dementia. These studies will reveal whether boosting brain activity this way can slow cognitive decline in those already showing symptoms.

High-intensity interventions – such as the one tested that required two and a half hours of training per week – may not suit everyone.

For example, people with existing cognitive concerns who want to improve their cognitive wellbeing may struggle to access digital programmes. They may need more community-based, supportive and lower-intensity interventions. To be an effective dementia programme, recruitment needs to be inclusive, especially reaching people from underserved groups who are at the highest risk.

Cognitive ageing is shaped by many factors – including physical activity, social connection, healthy diet and mental wellbeing – so brain training is likely to be just one part of a broader approach to supporting brain health and dementia prevention. Keeping the mind active may not stop ageing, but it could help the brain stay younger for longer.

Yolanda Lok Yiu Lau 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 brain training really shave ten years off brain ageing, as a recent study suggests? – https://theconversation.com/can-brain-training-really-shave-ten-years-off-brain-ageing-as-a-recent-study-suggests-268904

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alix Dietzel, Senior Lecturer in Climate Justice, University of Bristol

The world’s most important climate summit – known this year as Cop30 – has begun in the Amazonian port city of Belém, Brazil. It promises to be contentious: key countries haven’t submitted new climate plans, and negotiations are held up by disputes over who should pay for climate action.

We attended a preliminary round of negotiations in June, which ended with very few concrete agreements. Many outcome documents were instead heavily caveated as “not agreed”, “open to revision”, or “without formal status”.

Those fractious pre-summit talks followed a disappointing Cop29 in Azerbaijan last year. This year, here are five key issues to watch – and why they matter.

Are countries keeping their Paris pledges?

Ten years after the Paris agreement, countries are due to submit their third round of national climate plans, or nationally determined contributions (NDCs) in the jargon. These are refreshed every five years and are supposed to present “best efforts” to scale up climate action.

Yet as of November 2025, only 79 countries – covering 64% of global emissions – have submitted their NDCs. Countries not submitting include some of the highest emitters, such as India, while the US has (once again) left the Paris agreement and will not have high-level representatives at Cop30.

This is a big deal because these plans give us a snapshot of how countries’ planning matches up to global goals, including keeping temperature changes to below 1.5°C, which is looking increasingly unlikely (even if every country fulfilled its pledges, we’re still on course for nearly 3°C).

Who pays for this?

At Cop29 last year, countries agreed to pledge US$300 billion (£227 billion) a year by 2035 to help developing countries. While this was three times higher than the previous goal, it is barely a dent in the US$1.3 trillion developing countries requested – an amount now sidelined as “aspirational”.

Several countries, including India and Nigeria accused the Cop29 host Azerbaijan of forcing through a deal without consensus. Disappointment still lingers, and the fallout delayed agreement on an agenda for Cop30.

The question of who pays for climate change remains unresolved. Without agreement talks risk further breakdown, potentially stalling both adaptation and mitigation efforts worldwide.

What does a ‘just transition’ actually mean?

If the switch from a high to low-emissions world is to be successful it must be fair and inclusive, with no one left behind. This is known as the “just transition”.

Just transition talks have been fraught since Cop28, where richer countries insisted that it focus narrowly on finding new jobs for workers in fossil fuel industries. Various developing and middle-income countries, including China and some of the most climate-vulnerable nations, were more radical and ambitious. In their view, a just transition involves systemic change, arguing that “business as usual” perpetuates inequality.

This would have meant an overhaul of how we approach climate change. However, the wealthier countries eventually got their way in the final agreement, as the text was watered down to focus on the energy and labour sector. The broader ambition was effectively erased. This short-term win for the wealthier countries led to long-term fallout: negotiations collapsed at last year’s Cop29.

At this year’s preliminary meeting in Bonn, Germany, committee chairs enforced strict timekeeping and repeatedly urged delegates to focus on moving forward the text, at one point openly saying, “we already know everyone’s positions, let’s get down to brass tacks, let’s stop with general statements”. This approach seemed to work, as the working group did end up submitting an informal note (rather than a fully-fledged agreement), heavily caveated as not being final.

Unfortunately, as a result, the UN process still lacks agreement on what “just transition” really means or how to achieve it. Without clarity, the term risks becoming empty rhetoric rather than a roadmap for fair and inclusive climate action.

Saving tropical rainforests

The summit’s Amazonian setting has turned attention to tropical forests. Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has proposed a bold initiative – the Tropical Forest Forever Facility – that aims to raise US$125 billion to reward countries for preservation efforts. Yet the UK, for instance, has already opted out of contributing to the forest facility, despite reports detailing its alarming global deforestation footprint.

The Amazon stores up to 20 years of global CO₂ emissions, holds 10% of terrestrial biodiversity, and supports billions of dollars
in ecosystem services. Its destruction endangers Indigenous sovereignty and the planet’s climate stability. If Cop30 can meet its aim to protect rainforests, it stands a real chance of making a difference.

Inequity at the negotiations

Cop30 may be turn out to be one of the least equitable climate talks in recent memory. Belém’s astronomical accommodation costs mean many low-income countries and marginalised communities will struggle to attend, exacerbating longstanding UN issues.

Around 3,000 Indigenous representatives are expected, but so are thousands of fossil fuel lobbyists – a record number attended last year. However, as reports continually show, people linked to fossil fuels continue to participate – even in the main formal negotiations – without needing to disclose their affiliation.

If Cop30 could centre Indigenous rights, ensure equitable discussion, and limit lobbyist influence, it could restore some legitimacy to the process. Otherwise, it risks deepening the divide between rhetoric and reality in global climate governance.

The summit is set to be anything but technocratic and boring. We expect to see a tumultuous and controversial set of negotiations that will likely have repercussions well into the future.

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. Five key issues at the UN climate summit in Brazil – and why they matter to you and the planet – https://theconversation.com/five-key-issues-at-the-un-climate-summit-in-brazil-and-why-they-matter-to-you-and-the-planet-269216

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Colleen Murrell, Full Professor in Journalism, Dublin City University

Just when the BBC should have been basking in its success at the record 12 million viewers who watched the Celebrity Traitors finale, the corporation has been brought to its knees. Tim Davie, BBC director general, and Deborah Turness, the CEO of news, resigned following a leaked memo concerning alleged bias in BBC programming.

The memo, written last May by Michael Prescott, then independent advisor to the BBC’s editorial standards committee, raised a number of concerns about alleged bias in the BBC’s coverage of transgender issues, and alleged anti-Israel bias in the BBC Arabic service.

But the key issue appears to have been in the editing of a 2024 Panorama documentary titled Trump: A Second Chance? In the documentary, two different sections from President Donald Trump’s speech on the day of the January 6 2021 riots had been spliced together into one clip, which could have led viewers to conclude that Trump was calling on protesters to carry out the riot. Trump is now threatening to sue the corporation.

In the past week, the Telegraph has repeatedly accused the BBC of institutional bias. The broadcasters’s lack of public response, other than to declare that it did not comment on leaked information, was totally inadequate in the face of such an onslaught.

But while BBC supporters looked on aghast, internally, BBC news staff were attempting to respond. According to Today presenter Nick Robinson, BBC news executives had “agreed the wording of a press release” explaining that the programme should have made clear an edit had been made, but that at no point was there any “intention to mislead the audience”.

The BBC board refused to sign off on this statement, and the BBC was left looking like it was keeping schtum for possibly nefarious purposes.

The BBC’s chairman, Samir Shah, has now finally delivered a statement apologising for an “error of judgement”. He said that the BBC had discussed the corporation’s US election coverage and: “We accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action.”

Meanwhile, BBC journalists in Washington had to front up at the White House where Trump has declared that BBC journalists “are very dishonest people”.

Trump has now threatened to sue the BBC for $1 billion if they do not retract the documentary. As Shah has noted, Trump is “a litigious fellow”.

In July, Paramount settled a prospective lawsuit for US$16 million (£12.1 million) after Trump made a “false editing” accusation against 60 Minutes over an edit on a Kamala Harris interview headline during the last election campaign. Last year he also secured a US$15 million payment from ABC News as part-settlement in a defamation case against that network.

It is hard to imagine a scenario where the BBC would settle a dispute with the US government for cash. But with Trump, one never knows if his posturing might lead a media company to fold. For the BBC, this is a decisive own goal.

Internal politics

Arriving at the BBC this morning, Turness acknowledged the mistake in the Trump edit, but was clear that the BBC was not institutionally biased.

Some critics, however, have pointed the finger at the BBC’s own internal political challenges. Among them is David Yelland, a former editor of the Sun who now presents a BBC podcast. He called Turness and Davie’s resignations a “coup”, attributing it to alleged political bias on the BBC board.

Alongside this drama, BBC journalists such as Nick Robinson, David Sillito and Katie Razzall are carrying out a thorough job of examining the chaos. But a less-reported fact is that it is yet again an outsourced independent production programme that has led to the BBC’s current problems.

October Films Ltd made the film for BBC Panorama, just as it was HOYO Films that made the documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone. That film was narrated by the 13-year-old son of a Hamas deputy minister of agriculture, something that wasn’t explained to viewers, leading to an Ofcom sanction last October.

However, outsourcing production to an independent company doesn’t outsource the editorial checking, which should have been exhaustive in the case of this Panorama programme.

Read more:
BBC Gaza documentary: how an editorial blame game overshadowed an important film and destroyed trust

What’s next?

The BBC must now recruit two high-level executives, just as it should be readying for its 2027 royal charter renewal (major talks over the broadcaster’s future and funding). According to the Today programme, the top contenders are three women: Apple’s Jay Hunt, former Channel 4 CEO Alex Mahon and former BBC chief content officer Charlotte Moore. But these are early days.

Some commentators will no doubt call for a “BBC cleanskin” so as to not be tainted by present controversies. But is this wise when the person will be called on to lead such a vastly complex and sprawling media organisation? Tim Davie had no background in journalism before becoming director general, and Deborah Turness had never worked for the BBC before.

The new broom may have to handle similar disputes to those over Gary Lineker’s social media posts or Bob Vylan’s anti-Israel Defense Forces chants at Glastonbury. Perhaps this should be the role of a deputy director, a post that used to exist at the BBC until recently.

It is worth remembering that the most important commodity in journalism is trust. To that end, the BBC continues to top the charts in the UK, according to the annual Reuters Digital News Report. The BBC houses some of the best journalists and news programming available today. The poor handling of this crisis puts all of their reputations at stake.

Colleen Murrell receives has received funding in the past from Irish regulator Coimisiún na Meán for the Reuters Digital News Report Ireland. She is chair of The Conversation’s UK editorial board.

– ref. Why has the BBC’s director general resigned and what could happen next? – https://theconversation.com/why-has-the-bbcs-director-general-resigned-and-what-could-happen-next-269408

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kirsten Roberts Lyer, Chair, Human Rights Program, Associate Professor, Central European University

Recent accusations that China pressured a UK university into pausing research on alleged human rights violations have raised questions about the state of academic freedom.

In early November 2025, it was reported that Sheffield Hallam University had paused Professor Laura Murphy’s research on Uyghur forced labour in China, later apologised, and restarted the work. Media outlets linked the pause to pressure from Chinese authorities. South Yorkshire Police have referred the allegations on to counter-terrorism police as they are thought to fall under the National Security Act.

A spokesperson for Sheffield Hallam said the pause arose from insurance and other procedural issues and denied any China-related commercial motive.

“We have apologised to Professor Murphy and wish to make clear our commitment to supporting her research and to securing and promoting freedom of speech and academic freedom within the law,” the spokesperson said.

Academic freedom is “the human right to acquire, develop, transmit, apply, and engage with a diversity of knowledge and ideas through research, teaching, learning, and discourse.” When scholarship is restricted or politically steered, the public loses access to evidence and the means to hold power to account.

Academic freedom is a measure of democratic health, and tracks closely with the quality of democratic institutions. Declines often appear before other signs of democratic erosion. Global datasets such as the Academic Freedom Index and V-Dem show a decade of decline across much of the world.

Scholars at Risk, a non-governmental organisation supporting threatened academics, reports similar patterns. Their findings of 395 attacks on scholars, students, and institutions in 49 countries and territories between July 2024 and June 2025 are “indicative of deteriorating global conditions for academic freedom”.

How pressure on academic freedom happens

Pressure on academic freedom is rarely dramatic. In domestic cases, where a government puts pressure on academics in its own country, it often accumulates through policies and decisions that narrow intellectual space and encourage self-censorship.

A familiar playbook targets institutions, academics and students. It includes politicised appointments, selective funding or budget cuts, legal intimidation through strategic lawsuits and travel and conference bans.

Alongside domestic pressures, transnational repression is a rising threat. This is intimidation, surveillance or coercion directed from outside a country’s borders. This is what is alleged in the Sheffield Hallam case.

Transnational repression increasingly targets civil society organisations, journalists, and academia. It undermines democratic life, and reminds us that universities are part of the infrastructure of scrutiny and accountability.

Human rights organisations Freedom House and Amnesty International have documented the experiences of scholars and students from China, Hong Kong, Iran, Russia and elsewhere working abroad. These scholars have reported monitoring, online harassment and even contact by domestic authorities with family members back home after campus events.

Pressure on academic freedom is a democratic problem first. Wherever it originates, the effect is the same: less evidence in the public sphere.

A societal right

Academic freedom is increasingly recognised as a human right, grounded in article 15 (the right to science) of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. This is an important connection. It underscores the societal importance of freedoms in research, teaching and academic debate.

Its connection to international human rights standards also means that states and institutions have duties to respect, protect and fulfil the right. They must refrain from unlawful interference and prevent third-party pressure. They should take positive measures so teaching and research can proceed without fear.

In England, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 places duties on universities to protect lawful speech. The Office for Students confirms the main duties took effect on 1 August 2025.

Where intimidation on UK soil is state linked, the National Security Act 2023 includes offences of assisting a foreign intelligence service and foreign interference. The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme adds further levers.

For example, it requires the disclosure of political influence directed by foreign powers. It is important that these frameworks are used to enable, not chill, teaching, research, campus debate and external engagement.

What universities can do

The following three steps reflect emerging international standards. Universities need clear policy, structured protection, and transparent escalation, creating workable defences they can implement.

1. Adopt a clear policy on academic freedom and transnational repression

Universities should commit to non-interference in research and teaching. They should have a single confidential reporting channel for intimidation, and protection for diaspora and exiled communities. Make these rules visible in staff and student guidance.

2. Build a protection pipeline

Universities should assess risks for sensitive research or fieldwork, including digital and family exposure. They should assign a case lead, provide legal and security advice, and, where needed, relocate or host threatened scholars. They should embed funding rules that are neutral towards different viewpoints and insert academic freedom clauses in all partnerships.

3. Document and escalate threats

Universities should keep an anonymised log of interference attempts. They should publish funding and partnership registers, and report credible threats to the appropriate authorities.

They should train staff to spot red flags such as pressure through consulates, funders or foreign institutions. University staff responding to threats should act in line with their country’s human rights obligations to protect human rights defenders, including exiled academics.

Academic freedom keeps evidence and ideas in public view. When institutions or authorities yield to pressure, whether foreign or domestic, the loss extends beyond academia. Protecting scholars’ freedom to inquire protects the public’s freedom to know.

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

– ref. Why threats to academic freedom are growing – and how universities can respond to intimidation – https://theconversation.com/why-threats-to-academic-freedom-are-growing-and-how-universities-can-respond-to-intimidation-269121