Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cathy Herbrand, Professor of Medical and Family Sociology, De Montfort University

Ten years after the UK became the first country to legalise mitochondrial donation, the first results from the use of these high-profile reproductive technologies – designed to prevent passing on genetic disorders – have finally been published.

So far, eight children have been born, all reportedly healthy, thanks to the long-term efforts of scientists and doctors in Newcastle, England. Should this be a cause for excitement, disappointment or concern? Perhaps, I would suggest, it could be a bit of all three.

The New England Journal of Medicine has published two papers on a groundbreaking fertility treatment that could prevent devastating inherited diseases. The technique, called mitochondrial donation, was used to help 22 women who carry faulty genes that would otherwise pass serious genetic disorders – such as Leigh syndrome – to their children. These disorders affect the body’s ability to produce energy at the cellular level and can cause severe disability or death in babies.

The technique, developed by the Newcastle team, involves creating an embryo using DNA from three people: nuclear DNA from the intended mother and father, and healthy mitochondrial DNA from a donor egg. During the parliamentary debates leading up to The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations in 2015, there were concerns about the effectiveness of the procedure and its potential side effects.

The announcement that this technology has led to the birth of eight apparently healthy children therefore marks a major scientific achievement for the UK, which has been widely praised by numerous scientists and patient support groups. However, these results should not detract from some important questions they also raise.

First, why has it taken so long for any updates on the application of this technology, including its outcomes and its limitations, to be made public? Especially given the significant public financial investment made into its development.

In a country positioning itself as a leader in the governance and practice of reproductive and genomic medicine, transparency should be a central principle. Transparency not only supports the progress of other research teams but also keeps the public and patients well informed.

Second, what is the significance of these results? While eight babies were born using this technology, this figure contrasts starkly with the predicted number of 150 babies per year likely to be born using the technique.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the UK regulator in this area, has approved 32 applications since 2017 when the Newcastle team obtained its licence, but the technique was used with only 22 of them, resulting in eight babies. Does this constitute sufficiently robust data to prove the effectiveness of the technology and was it worth the considerable efforts and investments over almost two decades of campaigning, debate and research?

As I wrote when this law was passed, officials should have been more realistic about how many people this treatment could actually help. By overestimating the number of patients who might benefit, they risked giving false hope to families who wouldn’t be eligible for the procedure.

The safety question

Third, is it safe enough? In two of the eight cases, the babies showed higher levels of maternal mitochondrial DNA, meaning the risk of developing a mitochondrial disorder cannot be ruled out. This potential for a “reversal” – where the faulty mitochondria reassert themselves – was also highlighted in a recent study conducted in Greece involving patients who used the technique to treat infertility problems.

As a result, the technology is no longer framed by the Newcastle team as a way to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disorders, but rather to reduce the risk. But is the risk reduction enough to justify offering the technique to more patients? And what will the risk of reassertion mean for the children born through it and their parents, who may live with the continuing uncertainty that the condition could emerge later in life?

As some experts have suggested, it may be worth testing this technology on women who have fertility problems but don’t carry mitochondrial diseases. This would help doctors better understand the risks of the faulty mitochondria coming back, before using the technique only on women who could pass these serious genetic conditions to their children.

This leads to a fourth question. What has been the patient experience with this technology? It would be valuable to know how many people applied for mitochondrial donation, why some were not approved, and, among those 32 approved cases, why only 22 proceeded with treatment.

It also raises important questions about how patients who were either unable to access the technology, or for whom it was ultimately unsuccessful feel, particularly after investing significant time, effort and hope in the process. How do they come to terms with not having the healthy biological child they had been offered?

This is not to say we shouldn’t celebrate these births and what they represent for the UK in terms of scientific achievement. The birth of eight healthy children represents a genuine scientific breakthrough that families affected by mitochondrial diseases have waited decades to see. However, some important questions remain unanswered, and more evidence is needed and it should be communicated in a timely manner to make conclusions about the long-term use of the technology.

Breakthroughs come with responsibilities. If the UK wants to maintain its position as a leader in reproductive medicine, it must be more transparent about both the successes and limitations of this technology. The families still waiting to have the procedure – and those who may never receive it – deserve nothing less than complete honesty about what this treatment can and cannot deliver.

Cathy Herbrand receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

– ref. Babies born with DNA from three people hailed as breakthrough – but questions remain – https://theconversation.com/babies-born-with-dna-from-three-people-hailed-as-breakthrough-but-questions-remain-261385

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

The majority of the world’s rechargeable batteries are now made using lithium-ion. Most rely on a combination of different rare earth metals such as cobalt or nickel for their electrodes. But around the world, teams of researchers are looking for alternative – and more sustainable – materials to build the batteries of the future.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to four scientists  who are testing a variety of potential battery materials about the promises they may offer.

When lithium-ion batteries emerged in the 1990s, they were a huge breakthrough, says Laurence Hardwick, a professor of electrochemistry at the University of Liverpool in the UK. He explains that lithium-ion batteries “ became commercialised at the same time as the mobile electronics industry really took off”. But their subsequent use in electric cars now presents “a challenge of scale”, given the use of rare earth minerals within their components.

Hardwick is director of the Stephenson Institute for Renewable Energy, named after the 19th-century engineer George Stephenson – builder of the world’s first inter-city rail link between Liverpool and Manchester, which passed close by to the University of Liverpool’s campus.

Hardwick’s work focuses on what other materials could be used either in conjunction with lithium, or on their own, to diversify battery manufacturing away from rare earth metals. Part of this includes research on solid-state batteries, which use ceramic plates rather than a solvents to conduct the ions that provide the charge. “ Solid-state batteries offer a lot of potential energy-gaining benefits and safety benefits,” he says.

Sodium-ion is also being touted as a potential alternative to lithium-ion batteries. Robert Armstrong, principal research fellow in chemistry at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, is part of a consortium of UK-based researchers working on questions around sodium-ion batteries, including what type of electrodes and electrolytes work best.

Like potassium-ion, which is also a potential battery candidate, sodium-ion is heavier than lithium-ion, but Armstrong says sodium is  fairly evenly abundant: “So you don’t have the supply issues that might affect lithium-ion, and you’re not like to see the same price volatility.”

Some Chinese manufacturers in China, such as BYD and CATL, are pushing ahead with sodium-ion batteries for cars, despite the fact they’re heavier than lithium-ion batteries. There’s also interest in sodium-based technology in countries in the Arabian Gulf that use desalination plants. “They’ve got all this sodium kicking around. Why not make use of it?” says Armstrong.

Batteries which biodegrade

Other researchers are looking at how to make batteries out of plant-based materials that are biodegradable. Bill Yen, a PhD candidate in electrical engineering at Stanford University, is part of a team who are developing Terracell, a type of battery that generates power using microbes in the soil.

Their inspiration was how to power environmental sensors in damp environments without leaving lots of electronic waste behind at the end of the battery’s life. Terracell won the energy category of the Prototypes for Humanity 2024 event in 2024 in Dubai, a  showcase for sustainable solutions to the world’s problems.

Also in Dubai was Ulugbek Asimov, a professor of mechanical and construction engineering at Northumbria University in the UK, who is developing BioPower Cells, a type of rechargeable battery made from waste products such as coffee which doesn’t contain any rare earth metals. “  And at the end of its lifespan, we drop it into boiling water and it will be turned into liquid ionic fertilizer,” Asimov said.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly to hear the conversations with these four scientists about their work and the batteries of the future.

Applications are now open for early career researchers to submit their projects for the Prototypes for Humanity 2025 awards and showcase in Dubai.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Gemma Ware with assistance from Mend Mariwany and Katie Flood. Mixing and sound design by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript of this episode is available on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Bill Yen has received funding for his work on Terracell from National Science Foundation, the Agricultural and Food Research Initiative and support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,VMware Research, and 3M. Laurence Hardwick has received funding from the Faraday Institution and is a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Ulugbek Asimoz has received funding from the Northern Accelerator Proof of Concept to develop certain stages of the BioPower Cells project, which will be a spinout company from Northumbria University in the future. Robert Armstrong has received funding from the Faraday Institution and funding from EPSRC and Leverhulme Trust.

– ref. What will batteries of the future be made of? Four scientists discuss the options – podcast – https://theconversation.com/what-will-batteries-of-the-future-be-made-of-four-scientists-discuss-the-options-podcast-261294

Source: The Conversation – UK – By William Barter, UKRI Future Leaders Fellow, University of Edinburgh

Why didn’t the universe annihilate itself moments after the big bang? A new finding at Cern on the French-Swiss border brings us closer to answering this fundamental question about why matter dominates over its opposite – antimatter.

Much of what we see in everyday life is made up of matter. But antimatter exists in much smaller quantities. Matter and antimatter are almost direct opposites. Matter particles have an antimatter counterpart that has the same mass, but the opposite electric charge. For example, the matter proton particle is partnered by the antimatter antiproton, while the matter electron is partnered by the antimatter positron.

However, the symmetry in behaviour between matter and antimatter is not perfect. In a paper published this week in Nature, the team working on an experiment at Cern, called LHCb, has reported that it has discovered differences in the rate at which matter particles called baryons decay relative to the rate of their antimatter counterparts. In particle physics, decay refers to the process where unstable subatomic particles transform into two or more lighter, more stable particles.

According to cosmological models, equal amounts of matter and antimatter were made in the big bang. If matter and antimatter particles come in contact, they annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. With this in mind, it’s a wonder that the universe doesn’t consist only of leftover energy from this annihilation process.

However, astronomical observations show that there is now a negligible amount of antimatter in the universe compared to the amount of matter. We therefore know that matter and antimatter must behave differently, such that the antimatter has disappeared while the matter has not.

Understanding what causes this difference in behaviour between matter and antimatter is a key unanswered question. While there are differences between matter and antimatter in our best theory of fundamental quantum physics, the standard model, these differences are far too small to explain where all the antimatter has gone.

So we know there must be additional fundamental particles that we haven’t found yet, or effects beyond those described in the standard model. These would give rise to large enough differences in the behaviour of matter and antimatter for our universe to exist in its current form.

Revealing new particles

Highly precise measurements of the differences between matter and antimatter are a key topic of research because they have the potential to be influenced by and reveal these new fundamental particles, helping us discover the physics that led to the universe we live in today.

Differences between matter and antimatter have previously been observed in the behaviour of another type of particle, mesons, which are made of a quark and an antiquark. There are also hints of differences in how the matter and antimatter versions of a further type of particle, the neutrino, behave as they travel.

The new measurement from LHCb has found differences between baryons and antibaryons, which are made of three quarks and three antiquarks respectively. Significantly, baryons make up most of the known matter in our universe, and this is the first time that we have observed differences between matter and antimatter in this group of particles.

The LHCb experiment at the Large Hadron Collider is designed to make highly precise measurements of differences in the behaviour of matter and antimatter. The experiment is operated by an international collaboration of scientists, made up of over 1,800 people based in 24 countries. In order to achieve the new result, the LHCb team studied over 80,000 baryons (“lambda-b” baryons, which are made up of a beauty quark, an up quark and a down quark) and their antimatter counterparts.

Crucially, we found that these baryons decay to specific subatomic particles (a proton, a kaon and two pions) slightly more frequently – 5% more often – than the rate at which the same process happens with antiparticles. While small, this difference is statistically significant enough to be the first observation of differences in behaviour between baryon and antibaryon decays.

To date, all measurements of matter-antimatter differences have been consistent with the small level present in the standard model. While the new measurement from LHCb is also in line with this theory, it is a major step forward. We have now seen differences in the behaviour of matter and antimatter in the group of particles that dominate the known matter of the universe. It’s a potential step in the direction of understanding why that situation came to be after the big bang.

With the current and forthcoming data runs of LHCb we will be able to study these differences forensically, and, we hope, tease out any sign of new fundamental particles that might be present.

William Barter works for the University of Edinburgh. He receives funding from UKRI. He is a member of the LHCb collaboration at Cern.

– ref. New discovery at Cern could hint at why our universe is made up of matter and not antimatter – https://theconversation.com/new-discovery-at-cern-could-hint-at-why-our-universe-is-made-up-of-matter-and-not-antimatter-261274

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Lord, Professor, Lever Chair of Urban Planning, University of Liverpool

Few issues ignite communities more fiercely than what to do with land. The prospect of releasing small portions of green belt land for housing developments, a windfarm proposal or plans for a new road can transform mild-mannered citizens into passionate advocates overnight.

This visceral connection between people and place perfectly illustrates the famous observation that “all politics is local”. In England, the principle that every citizen should be given the opportunity to “have their say” on planning matters is enshrined in law. Before any planning document is adopted, local authorities must give the public the chance to provide feedback.

The logic for this is based on a common-sense morality: before binding decisions are made about how an area might change, the local people who have to live with those decisions should be given the opportunity to endorse or reject that plan.

In practice this is a hugely cumbersome process. Local authorities have to make sense of thousands of comments. This prompted my colleagues and I at the University of Liverpool to begin thinking about how AI could be used to make this process more efficient.

Once a local authority publishes the relevant local planning document, every citizen, company, public, private or third sector organisation has the right to submit a written response. These may address the entire document or focus on a specific issue.

In all cases, the local authority is obliged to collate, comprehend and concisely summarise all public submissions. They will then decide whether the document requires amendments or if further evidence is needed to justify the proposals.

This creates an overwhelming burden for planning departments up and down the country. In high-development areas, submissions often number in the tens of thousands. And individual submissions range from a few sentences to over 100 pages.

Planners must read, absorb and synthesise all this information into a final report which will be used to make a decision. This report must fairly represent the aggregate views across all submissions.

Beyond the sheer volume of responses, human cognitive limitations and biases further complicate the process. Some submissions may be given greater emphasis than others. Recently read submissions are likely to have a greater influence on the reader than those reviewed earlier.

A digital solution

These challenges prompted us to explore alternatives. We partnered with Greater Cambridge Shared Planning – the planning authority for Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils – to develop an AI-powered solution. Our tool, Plan AI, would read and summarise public submissions to the planning process.

In 2025, my colleagues and I conducted a real-world experiment. Three live public consultation exercises were processed in parallel – once by planners and once by Plan AI.

It took a planning officer just over 60 hours in total to download and process 320 submissions. Eighteen hours of this time was used to summarise each submission – a task that took Plan AI only 16 minutes. In that time, the AI tool was also able to create comprehensive reports identifying key themes, referenced sources and geographic analysis of the submissions.

A subsequent qualitative assessment found there to be no discernible difference in the quality of the summaries produced by the human planning officer and those by Plan AI. In fact, the general overview document produced by Plan AI is a significant addition to what would normally be produced. It included a geographic analysis of the origins of submissions – crucial information for planners to understand which communities and demographic groups were participating in the consultation.

The future of planning

The UK government has set out a vision for local authorities to embrace AI for reducing administrative burden and improving the efficiency of government. For example, it recently rolled out an AI tool, developed with Google DeepMind, to digitise planning records.

The implications of experiments like these are far reaching. Planners can focus on their core expertise – assessing applications and supporting government priorities for housing, new towns and infrastructure renewal – rather than spending countless hours processing public comments.

AI can process vast amounts of text more consistently and comprehensively than humans. It can also identify connections between submissions that might otherwise be missed.

With the administrative burden drastically reduced, local authorities could potentially consult citizens more frequently across a wider range of planning issues, making planning even more democratic. Planners freed from paperwork could also dedicate more time to meaningful public engagement.

Of course, one danger with AI is that it could be used on the other side of the consultation, to generate a large volume of submissions in an attempt to over-amplify a particular point of view. However, AI tools could be used to defend against this.

PlanAI or similar programmes can generate an immediate summary of a comment submission, an ideal opportunity to insert a verification check that the submitter is indeed human. Putting the human back in the loop in this way reduces the potential for AI to be used to skew consultations.

By building the right tools and systems, we can create planning processes that are both more efficient and more responsive to citizen input – a win for democracy and effective governance alike.

PlanAI was developed under a paid contract with Greater Cambridge Shared Planning. At the time of publication, it is not sold or marketed to other governments or authorities, but may be so in the future. Alex Lord and the other researchers involved received funding from the UK government’s PropTech initiative and Greater Cambridge Shared Planning.

– ref. The government wants local authorities to embrace AI – here’s one way it could work in practice – https://theconversation.com/the-government-wants-local-authorities-to-embrace-ai-heres-one-way-it-could-work-in-practice-258449

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Laudan Nooshin, Professor of Music, School of Communication and Creativity, City St George’s, University of London

One of the first things to greet visitors at the V&A’s new Design and Disability exhibition is a striking blue bench by artist Finnegan Shannon titled, Do You Want Us Here Or Not? This exhibit is a response to the often inadequate seating in museums, which not only acts as a barrier to accessibility for many people, but is more widely symptomatic of ableist approaches to museum and exhibition design.

In this case, the invitation to “Please sit here!” sets the tone for the whole exhibition, which also includes a large sensory map of the layout (located at wheelchair level), a tactile map, and QR codes that link to audio description for blind and partially sighted visitors, and also British Sign Language interpretation.

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.

Aiming to showcase the radical contributions of disabled, deaf and neurodivergent people to design history and contemporary culture from the 1940s until the present, the exhibition goes well beyond this, addressing an impressively wide range of issues around access, disability and exclusion. It also reveals how ableism operates across a range of exclusions, such as race, gender, class and more.

As the introductory notes point out: “Disabled people past and present have challenged and confronted the imbalance of design in society. This exhibition highlights disabled individuals at the heart of design history … It is both a celebration and a call to action.”

While the fight for disability justice goes back many decades – also documented in the exhibition – it’s only relatively recently that questions of access and equality have gone beyond the physical. These include a wide range of issues related to neuro-inclusion and sensory access, including calm spaces and sensory maps that indicate noisy areas.

My own interest in sound in museums has come partly out of research focusing on the role of acoustics in creating accessible spaces, and from my own experience of noise sensitivity conditions hyperacusis and misophonia. Inclusive sonic design seeks to address how sound operates as a factor of social inclusion and exclusion in places like museums.

The V&A exhibition comprises three sections: visibility, tools and living. Visibility focuses on design and art as fundamental tools of activism and includes work created as part of disability justice movements over many decades. This section is a stark reminder of the justice and rights that only come about through extensive struggles.

Tools highlight the extraordinary contribution to design innovation made by disabled people. Living explores stories of disabled people claiming space and imagining the worlds that they want to live in.

Sections two and three both advocate for the social model of disability in which people are rendered disabled by their environment, something that calls for design solutions (as opposed to the medical model in which people are required to navigate and find solutions to their “problem”).

The exhibition draws attention to a wide range of physical and sensory exclusions, both in the displays and the design of the space itself. The in-house design team includes staff with personal experience of disability who also worked closely with external partners living with disability.

There are plenty of exhibits that can be experienced through touch. For partially sighted visitors, there are strong visual contrasts in the wall colours and the edges of displays are lit up. And there are raised edgings on all exhibits for people using a cane – all of which help with navigation.

There are also quiet areas and plenty of seating. Some of these features are already being incorporated into gallery and exhibition design, and hopefully will soon become standard.

I particularly liked the way various issues intersect in the exhibition, in which a range of exclusions are set alongside one another: race, hearing impairment, youth exclusion and stammering, for example.

Other favourites included the B1 Blue Flame rattling football used for blind football, which visitors can pick up, feel, smell, shake and listen to. The Deaf Rave set and Woojer Vest are designed for deaf clubbers and performers and use vibrating tactile discs that amplify sound vibrations.

The beautiful blanket and pillow entitled Public S/Pacing by Helen Statford offers an invitation to rest, drawing attention to “crip time”, accepting “a different pace to non-disabled norms, challenging conventions of productivity, and resting in radical ways that would actually benefit society at large”.

The blanket highlights the failures of the design of public spaces to include disabled people, “challenging ableist assumptions with care and visibility”. The reverse of the blanket has a quotation from Rhiannon Armstrong’s Radical Act of Stopping (2016), embroidered by Poppy Nash.

The exhibition includes many examples of “disability gain” by which design aimed at a particular group of people unintentionally benefits others, too. An example is the smartphone touchscreen, based on technology developed by engineers Wayne Westerman and John Elias as an alternative to the standard keyboard, which Westerman was unable to use due to severe hand pain.

Initially marketed to people with hand disabilities, the technology was later sold to Apple where it revolutionised mobile phone technology.

The final panel of the exhibition is titled Label for Missing Objects, an imaginative and fitting way to mark the continuing story of designing a world that works for “every body and every mind”.

Design and Disability is a rich, thought-provoking and landmark exhibition. Kudos to the V&A, although its importance is so obvious, I wonder why it took this long to host a show dedicated to disabled artists and designers and the wider social impact of their work.

I very much hope there are plans for the exhibition to tour the UK and beyond, and to become a permanent gallery at the V&A, so that it can inform curation and design work in other museums.

Design and Disability at the V&A runs until February 15 2026.

Laudan Nooshin received funding from the AHRC for the project Place-making Through Sound: Designing for Inclusivity and Wellbeing (2023-24).

– ref. Design and Disability at the V&A is a rich, thought-provoking exhibition – https://theconversation.com/design-and-disability-at-the-vanda-is-a-rich-thought-provoking-exhibition-261135