Source: The Conversation – UK – By Athina Vlachantoni, Professor of Gerontology and Social Policy, University of Southampton

About two-thirds of people in the UK will become grandparents during their lifetime. Half of those grandparents will provide some form of care to their grandchildren. But who makes up that half depends on a number of factors. One of these is ethnicity.

Understanding the extent to which parents from different communities in society rely on other people – such as paid-for childcare or their own parents – for the care of their children is an important question from a number of perspectives.

It tells us about the demographic composition of society. It reflects embedded cultural norms and expectations about caring for young children in the family.

Our analysis of the UK’s largest household dataset, the UK Household Longitudinal Study, showed that parents from Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and African communities were less likely to use childcare provided by other people, including grandparents, than parents from white British communities. The reasons behind these differences are complex and could relate to other aspects of their lives.

To start with, employment rates among people – particularly women – from minority ethnic communities are lower on average than those of people from white British backgrounds. This could point to parents from minority ethnic communities being more likely to be available to provide care for their children, and having less need to rely on grandparents.

Nearly two-thirds of children in the white British group have a working mother, compared to 17% of children from Bangladeshi families. This means that white British mothers are more likely to depend on childcare, including from grandparents.

What’s more, the Office for National Statistics has shown that workers from Asian and Black communities were less likely than white workers to be managers, directors or senior officials. Workers from Black communities were more likely to work in caring, leisure and other service occupations.

This suggests that people from ethic minority backgrounds may have less disposable income to spend on paid childcare. They therefore may take time off work to look after children rather than looking to grandparents to fill in the gaps between periods of paid childcare.

However, these differences could also point to cultural norms within different communities. Our research shows that only Caribbean parents were more likely than white British parents to use childcare – defined as care for the child by anyone other than the parent or their partner. However, this care is less likely to be from grandparents than it is for white British and other ethnic groups.

Cultural reasons about who should care for young children could also interact with demographic and socio-economic factors to result in ethnic differences.

For example, our research also showed that 28% of white British children have no siblings, compared to 13% and 15% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi children. Having more children could lead to their mother spending more time looking after children at home, with less need to rely on grandparents.

Another explanation may relate to grandparents’ health. Research from the University of Southampton’s Centre for Research on Ageing has shown that – despite years of targeted governmental efforts – ethnic differences in health in later life remain.

For example, Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi men are between two and four times more likely to report their health as limiting their typical activities than white British men. Pakistani women are 11 times more likely to report limiting health than white British women.

This means that grandparents from ethnic minority backgrounds are less likely to be in good health. They may be physically less able to look after children than grandparents from white British communities.

However, in countries such as the UK, where the average cost of paid-for childcare is relatively high, the availability of grandparental childcare could form a pivotal way to allow working-age parents to enter and stay in the labour market for longer.

It’s also worth considering that providing childcare can take a toll on grandparents. It has a benefit for wellbeing for grandmothers, but only for the first grandchild.

Grandparental childcare is an important part of the caring ecosystem for many families in the UK. Closer attention to grandparent care and how it is experienced differently in different ethnic communities can offer a more nuanced understanding of healthy ageing, family bonds and labour market participation.

Athina Vlachantoni receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council.

Maria Evandrou receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

– ref. White British families more likely to depend on grandparents for childcare – our research explores why – https://theconversation.com/white-british-families-more-likely-to-depend-on-grandparents-for-childcare-our-research-explores-why-253177

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rahul Sidhu, PhD Candidate, Neuroscience, University of Sheffield

Alzheimer’s is a disease that robs people of their memory, and scientists have long sought ways to stop or reverse its effects. But the blood-brain barrier – the brain’s protective shield – has been both a friend and a foe. While it keeps harmful substances out, it also blocks many treatments from getting in.

Now researchers are trying a different approach. Rather than bypassing the barrier, they’re learning to work with it.

A new study shows that a single injection of specially designed nanoparticles can dramatically reduce levels of a toxic protein in the brains of mice. The protein, called beta-amyloid, is a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease. It forms sticky clumps that disrupt communication between brain cells and trigger damage.

The innovation doesn’t attack the protein head-on. Instead, it targets the brain’s blood vessels, essentially reprogramming their transport systems to carry the toxic protein out of the brain.

Scientists at the Institute for Bioengineering of Catalonia in Spain and Sichuan University in China, created tiny nanoparticles coated with a molecule called angiopep 2. This molecule latches onto LRP1, a protein that naturally helps move beta-amyloid out of the brain and into the bloodstream.

The key lies in precision. The researchers had to attach exactly the right number of angiopep 2 molecules to each particle. Too few, and nothing happens. Too many, and the LRP1 protein gets pulled inside cells and destroyed. Get it just right, and LRP1 guides beta-amyloid across blood vessel walls and out of the brain.

When tested in mice genetically engineered to develop Alzheimer’s-like changes, a single injection decreased beta-amyloid levels in the brain by 45% within two hours. At the same time, the protein surged in the blood, showing it was being actively transported out. Brain scans confirmed the shift.

The benefits went beyond just reducing toxic protein. Tests showed that treated mice performed as well as healthy mice on learning and memory tasks. They also regained interest in everyday activities like building nests and choosing sweetened water – subtle signs their brains were functioning better.

Microscope images revealed how the treatment worked. After injection, more LRP1 proteins appeared on blood vessel surfaces, and fewer were being sent to the cell’s “recycling bins”. Other proteins shifted to favour routes that carry materials across blood vessel walls. In essence, the brain’s natural clearance system was being restored.

Most Alzheimer’s treatments focus on breaking down plaques or preventing their formation. Antibody therapies like lecanemab and donanemab can slow cognitive decline modestly, but they require repeated doses and carry risks such as brain swelling.

Other approaches aim to protect neurons or reduce inflammation. But few target the blood vessels themselves. This new method doesn’t bypass the blood-brain barrier – it repairs and reprogrammes it. The barrier becomes part of the treatment, not just an obstacle.

However, there are important caveats. The experiments involved only a few mice, and some statistical analyses may not fully account for repeated measurements from the same animals. The mice also carried genes linked to a rare, inherited form of Alzheimer’s, which doesn’t reflect how the disease typically develops in humans.

Mouse brains and blood vessels aren’t identical to human ones. What works in mice doesn’t always translate to people. These results need repeating in larger studies, and significant research lies ahead before this approach could be tested in humans.

Conceptual shift

Despite the limitations, the research represents a conceptual shift. Rather than viewing the blood-brain barrier as a wall to overcome, scientists are learning to harness it. If similar strategies work in humans, they could offer a new way to slow or even reverse aspects of Alzheimer’s by focusing on the brain’s own transport systems.

It also opens broader possibilities. Many neurological conditions involve disruptions in blood vessels or blood-brain barrier function. Learning to work with blood vessels could have implications far beyond Alzheimer’s.

For patients, this offers a glimpse of a future where brain blood vessels aren’t passive tubes, but active partners in treatment. The study provides proof of concept for a potential new class of therapies. But translating success from a handful of mice to human patients will require much more work.

Rahul Sidhu 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. New nanoparticle treatment helps brain to clear toxic Alzheimer’s proteins in mice – https://theconversation.com/new-nanoparticle-treatment-helps-brain-to-clear-toxic-alzheimers-proteins-in-mice-267254

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Francesco Grillo, Academic Fellow, Department of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University

“The European green deal is something we owe to our children because we do not own this planet.” These words date back to a few days before Christmas 2019. They defined Ursula Von Der Leyen’s first presidency of the European Commission but belong to what now seems like a different era.

Now, six years later, after the COVID-19 pandemic and one (still ongoing) war in Europe, what is left of the European green deal? How can we fix what does remain of it? And why are European voters suffering “climate fatigue” if climate change is accelerating? These are some of the questions that a forthcoming conference in Venice will try to address.

Acting to ensure the planet is habitable for our children is undoubtedly a moral imperative. However, for the EU it is one that requires at least two distinct (albeit connected) strategies.

The first is reducing greenhouse emissions in Europe. The second is convincing the rest of the world to do something with the 94% of the CO₂ emissions that are produced outside Europe.

The history of the last ten years shows relative success on the former but far less on the latter. This may go some way to explaining why European voters are becoming frustrated – they feel they are doing their part and yet find themselves exposed to a crisis that is largely generated elsewhere.

Since the Paris agreement, which promised net zero CO₂ emissions by 2050, the world has increased its pollution by 10%. In that time, the EU has cut its own by 13%. That said, Europe had started down this path long before it was binded into action by the Paris agreement. It had already cut emissions by 20% between 1990 and 2016.

Much of this progress is due to Europe’s comparatively weak economic growth and the pressure on European industries to avoid the costs of energy imports. According to a recently published paper the EU has done better than anybody else (if we consider the last 25 years) in terms of raising the percentage of energy consumption coming from renewables – even if it lags behind China on electrification.

This is a strong result but the EU has missed a number of important innovation trends that would aid the transition and reshape its economy in the process. China is still the greatest polluter but it is dominating parts of the renewables supply chain.

The EU dominates the ranking when it comes to the share of energy consumption coming from renewables. And yet it is China that dominates the supply of both solar panels and wind turbines.

Climate leadership

More worryingly, the EU has done very little to influence the speed at which the rest of the world is dealing with emissions. It should have made more of its emissions successes as a diplomacy tool to urge others to speed up their own transitions but it continues to struggle to find its place in a rapidly changing world.

Europe has often aligned itself with its greatest ally, the United States – such as in debates around the creation of the fund meant to compensate developing countries for “loss and damages” from climate change.

With the US now disengaging, Europe will be forced to find new partners at the next COP – and it does not appear to have come to terms with this challenge. In a recent example, Wopke Hoekstra, the EU climate commissioner, hit out at China for failing to set sufficiently ambitious climate targets while the EU has failed to set out its own.

Climate change doesn’t divide the world into good and bad – it separates the innovators from the defenders of the status quo. EU policymakers have mistakenly viewed climate change as merely a bill to pay rather than a chance to change. It focuses on regulations that companies and citizens need to comply with rather than the investments needed for creating endogenous industries and technologies.

This approach has backfired. Recent elections appear to have punished green parties and rewarded climate sceptics. However, European climate fatigue is at least not about denying climate change itself so much as questioning the approach being taken. That is something to work with. But Europe needs new ideas – and they may have to come from outside the Brussels bubble.

Francesco Grillo is affiliated with Vision, the think tank.

– ref. Climate change divides the innovators from the defenders of the status quo – Europe must decide which it wants to be – https://theconversation.com/climate-change-divides-the-innovators-from-the-defenders-of-the-status-quo-europe-must-decide-which-it-wants-to-be-267355

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aviva Guttmann, Lecturer in Strategy and Intelligence, Aberystwyth University

When Israel launched its attacks on Iran in the early morning of June 13, many news reports marvelled at the quality and ingenuity of its intelligence agencies in enabling the Israel Defense Forces to strike with such precision. But one element was not talked about in any detail: Israel’s network of relationships with other countries’ intelligence agencies and their contribution to these covert operations.

This cooperation, while critical, can come with a price. It inevitably means a degree of reliance on other countries. Intelligence partners can decide to stop cooperation at any point, which would leave Israel vulnerable to geopolitical shifts that could threaten these relationships and limit its striking capacities.

June’s surgical military interventions against Iran concluded a round of successes against its regional foes. These included the pager attack against Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as assassinations of top Hamas officials, including its political chief Ismail Haniyeh in Iran in July 2024.

All three of Israel’s security agencies were involved: Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency; Shin Bet, its domestic intelligence agency; and Aman, Israel’s military intelligence division.

Media reports from specialist journalists have revealed some impressive technological advancements. These included using artificial intelligence (AI) to sift through and connect millions of data points to determine targets. Israeli intelligence analysts also used spyware to hack into the phones of the bodyguards of Iranian leaders.

Aman and Mossad have also been adept at recruiting commandos from within local opposition groups. It used these to knock out Iranian air defence installations in the early hours of the first day of the attack.

Israel’s intelligence services are also very good at letting people know just how accomplished they are. It all burnishes their reputation. But much of the time those accomplishments are earned with the help of intelligence from friendly services.

This is nothing new, as I discovered while researching my recent book about Operation Wrath of God. This was the campaign of retribution that followed the Black September murder of members of the Israeli Olympics team at the 1972 summer games in Munich.

While searching the Swiss national archives, I found a large cache of encrypted telegrams that had been shared in a network called Kilowatt. This network involved 18 countries and shared information such as the movements of specific Palestinian people identified as terrorists, including the safe houses and vehicles they used.

Mossad was part of Kilowatt and could use the intelligence it received from European partners to plan and carry out its targeted assassinations in Europe. There is also ample evidence in the cables that western governments knew what Mossad was using the intelligence for.

Israel’s global net of spy friends

The US has historically always been one of the closest intelligence partners of Israeli intelligence. According to studies by the Israeli investigative journalist Ronen Bergman and the American journalist Jefferson Morley, an expert on the CIA, this intelligence-sharing liaison dates back to the early 1950s.

There are numerous cases of Israel calling on US assistance in carrying out targeted assassinations. This relationship endures to this day. Most recently, immediately after the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, US intelligence dispatched a special unit to assist the IDF in the war in Gaza and established intelligence-sharing channels with Israel to help locate top Hamas commanders.

Mossad has also worked with Arab intelligence agencies over the years. Meir Dagan, the director of Mossad from 2002 to 2011, set up a highly effective regional spy network during his tenure. Bergman has documented how this network enabled Israeli intelligence to significantly extend its operational reach. This enabled Mossad and Aman to identify, track and strike at targets in Lebanon and Syria.

These relationships operate despite Arab countries often outwardly condemning the actions of Israeli governments at the UN. For example, the Washington Post recently reported Arab states actually expanded their security and intelligence cooperation with Israel.

While talking about “genocide” in Gaza, countries such as Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were sharing data. This relationship also involved cooperation with the Five Eyes intelligence partnership of the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

According to documents obtained by journalists, the partnership, which was named the “Regional Security Construct” by the US, began in 2022 and continued even after Israel began its military operation in Gaza. But Israel’s strike on Qatar in early September, in an attempt to kill senior Hamas representatives meeting there, threatened to disrupt the partnership.

It is thought that anger from Gulf states after the attack was a key factor in focusing US pressure on Israel to agree to make a deal in Gaza. Cooperating to combat the regional threat from Iran is clearly one thing. Threatening the security of Qatar, an important player and key US ally in the Gulf region, is quite another.

Israel’s much-vaunted intelligence capabilities have always relied on some help from its friends. That is unlikely to change. The critical question is the extent to which it can retain the trust of its covert allies. As the past has shown, even in a climate of condemnation and isolation, intelligence cooperation with Israel has remained unaffected.

Strong intelligence connections have often helped overcome moments of crisis. Informal intelligence-sharing arrangements with regional powers, which are kept entirely secret, plausibly denied, and minimally documented, are thus especially crucial now as the region looks to heal its wounds after two years of bitter conflict.

Aviva Guttmann 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. How Israel’s famed intelligence agencies have always relied on help from their friends – https://theconversation.com/how-israels-famed-intelligence-agencies-have-always-relied-on-help-from-their-friends-264818