Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matt Barlow, Lecturer International Political Economy, University of Glasgow

In March, the UK foreign secretary Yvette Cooper made a statement to parliament setting out the government’s international aid priorities. With an aid budget significantly smaller than it was five years ago, Cooper proposed which countries and programmes would receive support.

This was the first time MPs and the public heard any spending detail after the latest round of cuts to aid.

To allow more money for defence in an increasingly volatile world, in 2025 the UK cut its aid budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income (GNI). The cut now leaves international aid spending at £9.2 billion per year. It followed a similar reduction in 2021, when the government cited post-COVID financial pressures.

Conflict is a central theme in the government’s priorities, with support maintained for fragile and war-torn states: Palestine, Sudan, Ukraine and Lebanon (albeit only for this year for Lebanon due to the Israeli bombardment). It means that by 2028-29, 70% of UK aid spending will be spent in conflict zones.

So inevitably there were regions that were de-prioritised. Support for many African states has been reduced. Bilateral aid to the region is set to reduce by more than £800 million, or 56% by 2028-29.

And with 20% of the aid budget already designated for domestic refugee spending and housing – £2.8 billion was spent on this in 2024 – the amount of aid available to some of the world’s poorest countries is coming under increasing pressure. Unfortunately, this reflects a global trend.

Cooper argued that countries receiving aid do not want to be in a dependent relationship with the UK. Instead, she said the situation could be reimagined as “partnership not paternalism”. This is certainly an idea that responds to criticisms of aid as neocolonial, fragmented and of little use in addressing the root causes of poverty.

And with challenges remaining across developing economies even after decades of aid, this argument should not be discounted – even if evidence shows aid saves millions of lives every year.

Who should pay?

But across the world, talk has turned to the alternatives for developing countries to finance the processes of development. While the options are limited, there is some consensus.

Discussions have focused on how to plug the aid gap by supporting governments in recipient states to collect more tax domestically, while increasing private finance.

Raising taxation sustainably was already a central pillar of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. But the need to do so has gained momentum as development organisations push finance ministries to adopt more resilient “fiscal roadmaps”. Yet raising revenue through taxation is especially difficult for governments in poorer nations.

A major issue is the disconnect between policy and politics. Taxation is often seen as a technical challenge, when the reality is that it is deeply political. While wealth redistribution through taxation has reduced poverty and inequality in regions of the developing world, progressive taxation can be hampered by a lack of political will to implement it.

The ability of governments to tax is also undermined when those with the means to do so move their wealth across borders to pay less tax.

Negotiations are under way within the UN to create a more effective global system for taxation that will be fairer and reduce inequality across developing countries. Inevitably, these proposals face resistance from wealthy nations with large corporate bases.

Aside from tax reform, the need to attract private investment is high on the agenda. With this in mind, governments and development organisations have adopted increasingly creative means to make this attractive. It came as no surprise that Cooper referred to the UK government’s global role as an “investor” rather than just a donor, when wealthy and emerging economies have been moving in this direction for some time.

The moral case

But it is a shift that is not without social and political risks. First, the projects that are attractive to financiers rely on significant public subsidy, referred to as “blended finance”. This diverts public resources from other causes that may create greater social value but are considered less profitable for investors. There has been criticism of the impact on poverty and inequality from these developments in the spheres of education and health.

Second, there are few public scrutiny mechanisms for private investment. Financial information is treated as commercially sensitive, posing a severe challenge to effective governance and accountability.

And crucially, neither of these modes of financing offers a quick-fix solution to the aid cuts. Ultimately, what is key is rebuilding a moral case for aid that has been lost in recent years.

The UK government has made the case that rather than bilateral direct aid, international cooperation through institutions and joint initiatives such as Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance are critical to multiply the impact of the support. And there are many who would agree that aid in its current iteration is unsustainable. So a shift away from a traditional framework has support.

But there remains a moral case for aid – and the pace and scale of the cuts has caused concern. In fact, the UK foreign secretary acknowledged this in a newspaper column that accompanied the statement. In it, she argued that reducing aid to fund defence was not walking away from the Labour party’s values and responsibilities.

But this is a difficult sell when the alternatives take time to implement and there are questions about why increased funding of defence should come at the expense of the aid budget. Taxing those with the broadest shoulders more could better exemplify the values Cooper argued for. It could be said there is a moral case for that.

Matt Barlow and Benjamin Hunter are project leads for The State of Development Aid and What Comes Next, which received funding from the Scottish Council on Global Affairs.

– ref. The UK is spending more on defence – but is raiding the aid budget the best way to pay for it? – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-is-spending-more-on-defence-but-is-raiding-the-aid-budget-the-best-way-to-pay-for-it-280220

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robert Lawson, Associate Professor in Sociolinguistics, Birmingham City University

Louis Theroux’s recent Netflix documentary Inside the Manosphere shines a spotlight on masculinity influencers and the dangers of online misogyny, conspiracy theories and anti-feminist ideologies. Responses to the documentary have ranged from outrage to disbelief, criticising how the manfluencers treat the women in their lives and discussing the importance of role models in countering manosphere influences.

But what has been less talked about is how it reveals the relentless pursuit of financial gain driving these “manfluencers” and the language they use to normalise their views.

Amid a cost of living crisis and a declining job market, Theroux shows why “manfluencers” resonate so strongly with their target audience of boys and young men. Theroux meets four key figures in the manosphere, all of whom sell a carefully curated lifestyle based on conspicuous consumption, hypersexuality and an “alpha masculinity” mindset to their millions of followers.

Although this may seem like a tempting lifestyle to some, the main effect is to reinforce a sense of inadequacy and failure among their audiences. Do this enough times, then you can sell the solution to become a “real man”.

Read more:
How boys get sucked into the manosphere

In Theroux’s documentary, two fans of a manosphere influencer suggest that “life as a man, you’re born without value. We have to build that value. You have to work for every penny”.

The language used in the manosphere is the language of financial markets, with discussion of optimisation, levelling up and marginal gains. Phrases like “sexual market value”, “high/low value man” and “maxxing” convert intimacy into a market and the body into an asset class. Manosphere guidance encourages young men to inspect themselves from the outside, as if conducting a performance review. Men’s bodies are seen as measurable assets and an index of “masculinity”.

Read more:
The pseudoscientific attractiveness scale that grew out of incel forums and is now making money for looksmaxxing influencers

Glow-ups, routines, hacks, looksmaxxing, courses, tips and videos on “ways to increase your value” are deployed as strategies to help fans unlock the secret of being a “real man”. In these spaces, the broader system that turns masculinity and relationships into metrics is never the problem. Instead, men are told that failure lies in their inability to increase their own “market value”. These discourses of “self-improvement” are, in reality, damaging forms of self-surveillance.

Manosphere adherents end up caught in a loop of aspiration and self-loathing: improve, compare, fail, repeat. In this context, the language of “levelling up” becomes especially insidious. Although it sounds playful and empowering, this mindset traps fans in a permanently unwinnable game. There is always another goal to strive for, another skill to master, another level to unlock.

The dating market

The consequences of this mindset for both men and women is most evident in the language around dating and the idea of the “sexual market”. Attraction is viewed as quantifiable (“high/low value”), competitive (“winners/losers”) and impersonal (“it’s just sex”). Women and men are both consumers and products competing for scarce demand. Rejection is “market feedback”.

These metaphors reduce a deeply social and emotional sphere of life down to a superficial economic reality. By treating people and relationships as metrics, it becomes easier to view them only in instrumental terms. Framing relationships as one-dimensional, transactional and based on hierarchy has negative effects for both men and women.

In Inside the Manosphere, one influencer reveals that he filmed a woman performing a sex act on him for “clout”. Theroux shows a clip from one influencer’s social media arguing that women are “subordinate” to men and should always make themselves sexually available. In one of the most discussed scenes from the documentary, one man advocates for “one-sided monogamy”, where he sleeps with other women while his wife stays at home as the main caregiver.

This man reduces women to an “attractiveness score”, saying that if a man isn’t tall but is physically fit, muscular and makes money, “Maybe [he doesn’t] come to Miami and pull Miami 10s, but I’ll be damned if [he] can’t pull a couple of 8s or 9s in a small town in America”.

Some of this corporate language is used to make misogynistic ideas sound neutral, data-driven and common sense. While recording a podcast, one man uses his “female delusion calculator” to draw attention to the unrealistic expectations a female guest has of a prospective partner. Although presented as a mathematical model based on demographic data, its primary function is to highlight what he claims is the “irrational” nature of women in the contemporary dating scene, and conclude that women “overinflate [their] own sense of self-worth”.

By framing this commentary as a form of objective analysis, it makes hierarchy seem an everyday and commonplace part of life and hides its misogynistic underpinnings.

Influencers in the manosphere often pronounce that they are seeking to elevate the position of men through the language of empowerment. The self-improvement narratives are compelling, but they don’t stand up against the evidence that these men are very much in it for themselves.

The documentary highlights how the manfluencers’ central goal is ultimately self-enrichment, often at the expense of their followers. Theroux “invests” £500 into an interviewee’s trading platform, only to see it whittled away over the course of a few weeks, with the influencer taking his cut. Fans of one influencer pay to have their comments read out live on air. Another influencer courts conspiracy theories to create viral content, describing those in the manosphere as “trying to make a buck” by selling ideologies.

There is a sense that compromising the social contract doesn’t matter, so long as you have a Rolex on your wrist, a Lamborghini to drive and a fancy apartment to hide away in. The ideologies promoted by the manfluencers in the documentary are rooted in misogyny, sexism, violence and exploitation – and there is clearly a market ready and willing to buy them.

Robert Lawson is a Research Fellow in the Institute for Research on Male Supremacism.

– ref. From ‘market value’ to levelling up, the manosphere is shaped by a financial mindset – https://theconversation.com/from-market-value-to-levelling-up-the-manosphere-is-shaped-by-a-financial-mindset-278565

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christopher R. Hill, Professor of History, Faculty of Business and Creative Industries, University of South Wales

“The Ministry of Defence has always maintained that it never rained,” said Ken McGinley, founder of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association (BNTVA). “I’m sorry, you’re liars … I was there!”

McGinley, who was a royal engineer, gave this interview in January 2024, shortly before his death, as part of our Oral History of British Nuclear Test Veterans project.

McGinley was present during the Grapple nuclear weapons test series, conducted by the UK on the central Pacific island of Kiritimati (also known as Christmas Island) in the late 1950s. At the time, this remote atoll was inhabited by 250 villagers as well as thousands of British servicemen.

For decades, many of those present during this and other above-ground British nuclear weapons tests have argued they were harmed by radioactive fallout. McGinley founded the BNTVA in 1983 to “gain recognition and restitution” for the veterans who took part in British and American nuclear tests and clean-ups between 1952 and 1965.

Rain became a key symbol in their argument as one of the only tangible signs of fallout taking place. The nuclear physicist Sir Joseph Rotblat described these alleged post-blast showers as “rainout”, a phenomenon whereby rain and mushroom clouds interact, leading to the contamination of rain droplets by harmful radionuclides.

In almost all cases, any link to subsequent health issues has been denied by the UK government because of lack of evidence of widespread radioactive contamination. However, a review of the evidence – written in 2014 by anonymous government scientists in response to freedom of information requests – was recently leaked by whistleblowers.

It reveals that post-blast radiation readings increased by a factor of up to seven on the island, compared with the normal background level. In our view, this would be more than enough to satisfy the “reasonable doubt” that tribunals require for veterans to receive a war pension due to illness or injury related to their service, as stated in the Naval, Military and Air Forces (Disablement and Death) Services Pension Order.

The top secret review, first revealed publicly by the Mirror newspaper on March 14 2026, also contains new evidence of radioactive contamination of fish in the island’s waters.

The repeated dismissal of veterans’ testimony in court cases and pension appeals caused stress and trauma for many. The majority died insisting they were not deceitful or forgetful – and that it did indeed rain while they were living on Kiritimati.

‘Factually inaccurate’

Kiritimati was monitored for fallout by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) after each detonation over the island – the largest of which, Grapple Y, was 200 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

In 1993, environmental monitoring data was collated into a report by a team at the MoD’s Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE). Known as the Clare report, this informed the UK’s official position on fallout: namely, that none occurred over populated areas and that veterans would need to prove otherwise to secure redress.

However, the 2014 review of fallout data concluded the Clare report was “incomplete and, in some cases, factually inaccurate”.

Despite this review being passed on to the MoD, however, it was kept secret for more than a decade. Following its release, the legal implications could be gamechanging. According to the 2014 review: “The instrument readings could potentially be used to challenge the validity of statements made by MoD and UK government regarding … fallout on Christmas Island.”

Read more:
‘Our nuclear childhood’: the sisters who witnessed H-bomb tests on their Pacific island and are still coming to terms with the fallout

In a recent House of Commons debate on the issue, the UK minister for veterans and people, Louise Sandher-Jones, confirmed her commitment “to the nuclear test veterans and their fight for transparency … They have had a very long fight, and I really recognise how difficult it has been for them, and I want them to understand that I am committed to them.”

What Merlin reveals

Behind the scenes, the release of newly declassified archival material in the publicly accessible Merlin database has added to calls for government accountability about the nuclear tests.

Compiled by the treasury solicitor during a class action against the MoD between 2009 and 2012, the database was stored at AWE until the journalist and author Susie Boniface discovered it held information about the medical monitoring of servicemen and Indigenous people. Her work led to its release in 2025.

Holding over 28,000 files, Merlin was commissioned by the MoD in response to the compensation claims made by almost 1,000 veterans from 2009. Its contents include official reports and communications, photographs, maps, safety guidelines and health monitoring information. Video footage includes the Grapple X test in November 1957.

A University of Liverpool team based in The Centre for People’s Justice and the Department of History is working with Boniface and campaign group Labrats International to catalogue and analyse the contents of Merlin – combining it with other sources, including personal testimony. Recently released files indicate nuclear fallout in the island’s ground sediment and rainwater, and heightened radioactivity in its clams.

Evidence has also emerged of radioactive waste being dropped from aeroplanes into the sea off Queensland in 1958 and 1959. Although dumping radioactive waste was surprisingly common during the cold war, this revelation raises questions about how risk and danger was understood and managed during Britain’s nuclear test programme.

The files also show workers without protective clothing around a plutonium pit at Maralinga in South Australia, site of seven British atmospheric nuclear tests in 1956-57.

The Merlin releases have galvanised claims that not so long ago may have been interpreted as conjecture. The recent releases suggest that servicemen and islanders were exposed to radioactive fallout – not just from rain showers, but from the fish they ate and the water they drank.

While a causal link with subsequent health conditions would be hard to prove, we believe it is time for the UK government to get behind a public inquiry into the full impact of Britain’s nuclear weapons testing programme.

Christopher Hill was Principal Investigator of ‘An Oral History of British Nuclear Test Veterans’, a two-year project funded by the UK Office for Veterans’ Affairs.

Jonathan Hogg receives funding from Research England’s Policy Support Fund to support research into the Merlin database. He was Co-Investigator on ‘An Oral History of British Nuclear Test Veterans’, a two-year project funded by the UK Office for Veterans’ Affairs. The final report can be viewed here: https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/humanities-and-social-sciences/research/projects/nuclear-test-veterans/

– ref. What secret report reveals about impact of UK nuclear programme on veterans who claimed they were harmed by the fallout – https://theconversation.com/what-secret-report-reveals-about-impact-of-uk-nuclear-programme-on-veterans-who-claimed-they-were-harmed-by-the-fallout-280189

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Manal Mohammed, Senior Lecturer, Medical Microbiology, University of Westminster

Antibiotic resistance is often associated with hospitals and the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture. Both are genuine problems, but new research suggests another potential culprit that many people haven’t considered – droughts caused by climate change.

A recent study published in the journal Nature Microbiology found that when soil dries out, it can speed up the natural processes that create and spread antibiotic resistance. This doesn’t mean drought directly creates superbugs in hospitals, but it suggests climate change could make the problem worse.

This matters a lot for the UK. The Met Office predicts that summers will get hotter and drier, with longer droughts if emissions stay high. Meanwhile, the NHS is already struggling with antibiotic-resistant infections, which are harder to treat and keep patients in hospital longer. When standard antibiotics stop working, doctors are sometimes forced to use powerful alternatives that are kept in reserve precisely because overusing them risks making those resistant too. These are known as “drugs of last resort”.

So what’s actually happening in the soil? Soil is teeming with bacteria, and many of them naturally produce antibiotics to kill off rivals. Other bacteria carry genes that make them resistant to those attacks.

An arms race in the soil

In normal, moist soil, bacteria live in a relatively stable environment. But when soil dries out, water gets squeezed into tiny, isolated pockets. Bacteria get crowded together, nutrients become scarce and competition turns brutal. In these conditions, bacteria produce more antibiotics to attack each other, and more resistance genes emerge to help them survive. It’s an arms race fuelled by drought.

Here’s why that’s relevant to human health: bacteria can swap genes with each other through a process called horizontal gene transfer – think of it like sharing a video game cheat code. This means resistance genes from soil bacteria can be picked up by bacteria that infect humans. In fact, some resistance genes found in soil bacteria have already been spotted in bacteria that infect people, hinting at a long evolutionary connection between the two.

Some large studies have found that drier regions of the world tend to report higher levels of antibiotic-resistant infections in hospitals, even when taking differences in wealth and healthcare quality into account. However, these studies show correlation, not direct cause and effect. Other factors like how infections are tracked or how easy it is to access healthcare could also explain this pattern.

Some of the soil bacteria linked to this problem are close relatives of hospital pathogens like Klebsiella pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which belong to a group called Eskape, responsible for many of the world’s hardest-to-treat infections. Again, this doesn’t mean these bugs come from soil, but it does show how connected environmental and clinical bacteria really are.

Antibiotic resistance already causes millions of infections every year worldwide. Most efforts to tackle it have focused on cutting unnecessary antibiotic use in medicine and farming, which is still vital. But this research suggests the environment itself, and how climate change is reshaping it, also plays a role we can’t afford to ignore.

This is where the idea of One Health comes in. One Health is the idea that human, animal and environmental health are all closely linked. Antibiotic resistance, seen through this lens, isn’t just a medical problem, it’s an ecological one too.

As droughts become more common in the UK and around the world, scientists will need to keep a much closer eye on what’s happening beneath our feet.

Manal Mohammed 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. Drought could be making antibiotic resistance worse, scientists say – https://theconversation.com/drought-could-be-making-antibiotic-resistance-worse-scientists-say-280393

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jacqueline Boyd, Senior Lecturer in Animal Science, Nottingham Trent University

If you live with a pet, you might feel like you can almost read each other’s minds.

You might even have experienced your pet responding to your emotional state. Animals seem to have impressive skills at detecting our state of health too.

However, new research suggests that many dog owners are not skilled in recognising pain in their pets as they might like to think. This could have significant consequences for the behaviour, health and welfare of our pets.

As a migraineur, I am amazed at how my dogs cope with me when a migraine hits. They seem to recognise the pain, distress and incapcacity that comes along with a migraine and respond with more gentle interactions than usual. I hope that when the situation is reversed and they are unwell or in pain, that I too can recognise it.

So, how can you recognise if your pet is in pain and what should you do if you think they are?

Signs of pain

It is easy to assume that an animal in pain will make some noise about it and show obvious physical signs. This might be the case if they are in acute pain as the result of severe injury for example. However, animals often disguise pain as a survival mechanism, and many signs of pain show only as subtle changes in behaviour.

Humans do seem to be able to recognise basic animal emotional states such as anger, fear or joy, through facial and body expressions. But we are less good at linking these cues to more complex emotional states including pain, anxiety and frustration.

The recently published study assessed how good people are at recognising signs of pain in dogs. This was carried out via an online questionnaire completed by 530 dog-owners and 117 non-owners. Participants were given a list of 17 types of dog behaviour. The study participants were asked to rank how likely they thought these behaviour types were to indicate pain, based on their prior knowledge and experience. In reality, all 17 types of behaviour listed suggest a dog is in pain.

The signs of pain provided included obvious behavioural changes such as hesitant paw lifting, reduced play behaviour and changes in personality. Participants were good at recognising these prominent behaviour changes were linked with pain. However, they didn’t realise more subtle indicators such as yawning, lip and nose licking and changes in facial expressions including looking away and increased blinking. These are all warnings that a dog may be suffering.

Notably, participants without dogs were actually more likely to recognise that freezing or turning the head or body away are associated with pain than dog owners. This suggests that dog owners may become complacent in their observations of their dog’s behaviour.

The link between pain and behaviour

The study participants were also asked to assess the potential relevance of pain in three written canine behaviour cases. The participants were not told this, but two were suffering from painful conditions, one outwardly obvious, and one more subtle. The third case was not linked to a painful condition.

Dog owners noted that pain was likely in the case with obvious signs of movement problems – hopping and lifting of legs. This was higher for dog owners than non-owners. In the case where pain signs were more subtle (night restlessness and “shadowing” family members), there was no difference in the ability of dog-owners and non-owners to identify the behaviour as signs of pain.

However, the dog owners with previous experience of pets with a painful condition seemed to be better at recognising signs of suffering. This applied to overt changes in movement as well as body language. This suggests that prior experience can be valuable in developing skills when its comes to pet behaviour.

What is interesting from this study is that there were some discrete differences between dog-owners and non-owners in recognising signs of pain. However, owning a dog was no guarantee that someone would be better able to identify subtle pain indicators.

Previous studies have shown animal species may show pain in different ways. For example rabbits often freeze, which might be considered a fearful response. Facial grimace scales are also increasingly being used to assess pain for a range of species including cats and horses. These assessment tools track minute muscular movements in the face such as tightening eyes.

What should you do if you think your pet is in pain?

Recognising signs of pain in your pet is critical so you can respond quickly. This may also help reduce the risk of dog bites which are often linked to the dog struggling with chronic pain.

Pain can lead to increased noise reactivity too, where dogs flinch or bark loudly in response to sudden, unusual or loud noises.

If you suspect your pet might be in pain because of a sudden change in their behaviour or movement, seek veterinary advice. Soreness can manifest outwardly such as lameness, lethargy or a lack of desire to exercise or play, but it can be easy to miss more subtle signs such as altered blinking, momentary pauses or freezing.

Research indicates that dog owners should be alert to altered sleep patterns, restlessness, clinginess and unusual licking or chewing their body. Even changes in a dog’s ear position, coat quality, texture, or how their coat lies on their skin can indicate underlying discomfort. Reluctance to being touched in specific areas of a dog’s body might also be a sign of discomfort that needs veterinary investigation.

So if you think your dog needs training or a session with a behaviourist because of a gradual or sudden alternation in their behaviour, it’s worth ruling out whether your pooch is acting strangely because they’re in pain first.

In addition to her academic affiliation at Nottingham Trent University (NTU) and support from the Institute for Knowledge Exchange Practice (IKEP) at NTU, Jacqueline Boyd is affiliated with The Royal Kennel Club (UK) through membership, as advisor to the Health Advisory Group and member of the Activities Committee. Jacqueline is a full member of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT #01583). She also writes, consults and coaches on canine matters on an independent basis.

– ref. How to tell if your dog is in pain (and what to do if they are) – https://theconversation.com/how-to-tell-if-your-dog-is-in-pain-and-what-to-do-if-they-are-279864

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Mycock, Chief Policy Fellow, University of Leeds

Surnames shape our identity. They can be a point of reflection, especially if the surname is rare, has a unique meaning, or holds special sentimental value. They often spark curiosity about family history or the need to carry on a legacy.

I have what many might think is an unfortunate or embarrassing surname – Mycock. It has powerfully shaped my personal and professional life. Having my surname is a daily trial, eliciting a range of responses from suppressed to open laughter and unsolicited comments. But I am also aware of the joy my surname brings and how it can break down barriers when meeting people. This has opened up space for me to consider the potential of comedy as a form of research communication.

The Mycock surname originates from the rural communities around the market town of Buxton in Derbyshire. There, it is relatively common and stimulates little comment. When I left this refuge to go to university in Salford during the mid-1990s, my life changed. The daily tribulations of having this unfortunate surname led me to avoid using it in public whenever possible.

Gaining a doctorate opened a new strand of jokes – being Dr Mycock has not been easy. I rarely wear conference badges and avoid using my name on PowerPoint title slides. My students have taken delight in being lectured by Mycock, and shown great creativity in citing my research in their essays.

About two years ago I began doing comedy shows about living with my surname, largely in response to suggestions from friends and work colleagues. These shows have proven far more successful than I ever could have envisaged. I have sold out gigs across the north-west of England and Scotland over the past couple of years.

I deliver my shows like a lecture (in the style of comedian Dave Gorman), using my teaching experience to mix comedy with educational content in an engaging way.

Comedy as research communication

My experience as an academic researcher has allowed me to explore not only the origins and importance of surnames, but also why people laugh at my surname. This includes a consideration of how the phallus has grown as an increasingly resonant symbol of protest in democratic politics, particularly at the ballot box. Research in the US also indicates that anxieties about penis length and perceptions of masculinity appear to correlate with voter choice.

I’ve also drawn on research to explore the effect of having an unfortunate surname including on self-esteem, anxiety, job interview and career chances, meeting a partner and even a greater likelihood to commit crime.

In the show, I also discuss the travails of having an unfortunate surname in the digital world. I explore research on the so-called Scunthorpe problem, whereby automated internet content filters mistakenly block innocent words, emails, or usernames because they contain a sequence of letters that match a prohibited profanity.

To my surprise, I have also been commissioned to make a programme for the BBC Radio 4 Illuminated series called Andy Mycock: Named, Unashamed. It explores my journey to coming to love my surname and engagement with the broader community of the unfortunately named. This has been a deeply rewarding experience. I worked closely with my producer Olivia Swift to develop the script and content for a non-academic audience. It has drawn strongly on my experience of engagement with different forms of broadcast media over the past two decades and also encouraged me to adapt my often too-academic style of presentation.

I am by no means the first to recognise the potential of comedy to help researchers build novel connections with the public. The Bright Club, established by UCL, has run comedy nights since 2009 where staff and students perform short sets about aspects of their research or teaching.

The Science Showoff brings together researchers and comedians to host comedy nights in London and is staging the UK Science Comedy Festival in July this year. In Scotland, The Provocateurs are a group of academics and university public engagement professionals who host comedy shows at the Edinburgh Fringe festival and elsewhere to promote research through comedy.

Humour – when appropriate – has the potential to enrich the educational experience for students and reach public audiences in novel and engaging ways. Gaining experience of using comedy to engage with the public has encouraged me to reflect on the utility of the academic skills and experiences I have accrued as an educator and a researcher over the past 25 years of my career. They have provided a solid basis to further develop my approach to public engagement as an academic and open up new avenues which connect my personal and professional life.

Comedy has also allowed me to come to like my surname; it brings some light-relief in an increasingly dark world. I no longer see it as unfortunate but now realise that it has allowed me to build unique connections with students and colleagues across academia and beyond. No one forgets when they met Dr Mycock.

Andrew Mycock 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. My surname makes people laugh – so I turned it into a research communication tool – https://theconversation.com/my-surname-makes-people-laugh-so-i-turned-it-into-a-research-communication-tool-280495

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Salma Al Arefi, Senior Lecturer in Renewable Energy, University of Leeds

Energy bills in the UK are still expected to rise in the coming months, putting more pressure on household budgets despite the shaky ceasefire in the Gulf.

Meanwhile, use of solar power is growing across the UK, achieving 22 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity from nearly 2 million installations, by February 2026.

In March, solar panel sales in the UK rose sharply, with one renewable energy firm reporting a 54% increase in sales. While rooftop solar is often seen as the most effective way to reduce electricity costs , it is not an option for all households, especially those living in flats or rented homes.

The UK government has plans to expand the use of solar as part of a wider focus on energy security. And it has now said plug-in solar will soon by available in the UK.

These are small systems, typically around 800W, that can be installed on balconies or external walls and connected directly to a household socket, without needing an electrician. They could offer a more accessible option for households that cannot install on rooftops.

Although standards and safety guidance is yet to be set in the UK, these plug-in systems are already widely used in other parts of Europe. Some sources suggest there were around 4 million units being used in Germany in 2025.

Read more:
Why windfarms and electricity pylons have become a major issue in the Welsh election

How about plug-in solar?

The amount of electricity a plug-in solar system generates is relatively small.Performance can also vary
depending on where it is installed. Factors such as the direction a balcony faces, shading from nearby buildings and how the panels are positioned can all reduce how much electricity is produced.

A typical UK household uses around 2,700-3,000 kilowatt hours (kWH) of electricity each year. Using a basic online calculator, a small 800W plug-in solar system, when vertically mounted on a balcony, is likely to generate around 150-350kWh, depending on orientation and shading. This means the system can provide about 5-12% of the electricity a home uses over a year. This could help a bit with bills, but not hugely.

What makes more of a difference is the time you use your energy. Solar generates electricity during the day, but most households need more in the evening. So much of this energy may go unused if the home is unoccupied during the day.

Benefits of batteries

To benefit the most from solar, households need to consider how they use electricity.

One simple way to make better use of solar is to shift electricity use into the daytime when possible, such as running appliances or charging devices when solar power is available.

Another option is to use battery storage. Smaller plug-in batteries, typically around 1–2kWh and costing £500–£1,500, can store extra electricity for later use. However, because the amount of energy generated is quite small, the financial return on the battery is often limited, with payback periods of seven to ten years.

Daily savings can be estimated based on the difference between off-peak and peak electricity prices. In the UK, standard electricity prices are around 24–30p/kWh, according to Ofgem. This price difference means a small battery shifting around 1–2kWh per day could save roughly 25p–45p per day, equivalent to around £90–£160 per year. However, actual savings depend on usage patterns and seasonal variation.

Smart tariffs

A different approach is to combine battery storage with smart time-of-use tariffs. This technology, already established in the UK, allows batteries to be charged with cheaper off-peak electricity overnight from the grid and discharged during expensive peak periods.

One example already available is the EcoFlow Stream Ultra battery. A single unit can supply 250W–300W for appliances including fridges, routers and standby devices. It can discharge the power for approximately six to eight hours. In the future, a battery like this could potentially be charged from a solar panel.

To understand how this works in practice, consider a small battery of around 1.9kWh, costing approximately £1,500. If it is used only to store surplus solar energy from a balcony system, the financial return is relatively modest and will vary by season, with strong summer performance and lower winter output.

However, the savings change when the same system is used along with a smart time-of-use tariff. Instead of relying only on solar power, the battery can be charged overnight using cheaper electricity from the grid (typically 7–9p/kWh) and then used during the day when electricity is more expensive (often 30–35p/kWh). Typically, off-peak charges apply between midnight and 5am-6am.

This can lead to daily savings, usually around 25p–45p (up to around £1-£1.50 per day for larger batteries of around 5kWh), depending on usage and price differences. When these steady savings are combined with seasonal solar generation, total savings could reach £200-£300 per year.

This means the overall system could pay for itself in around five to six years. And for the larger battery systems, savings could be higher, reaching around £500–£650 per year.

Overall, solar will work best as part of a wider shift in households rethinking when and how to use energy.

Salma Al Arefi 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. Solar panels won’t slash energy bills on their own – an expert explains how to maximise savings – https://theconversation.com/solar-panels-wont-slash-energy-bills-on-their-own-an-expert-explains-how-to-maximise-savings-279781