Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emily Blackwell, Senior Lecturer in Animal Behaviour and Welfare, University of Bristol

Many cat owners don’t realise that just like humans, cats can suffer from dementia. A recent paper has even found many similarities between feline and human dementia, finding that cognitive impairment may develop in similar ways.

Some of the symptoms of dementia in cats are even similar to what we might see in humans – though not all of them, of course. Knowing what signs to look out for is important so you can provide your cat with the best care during this phase of its life.

Feline cognitive dysfunction syndrome (also known as feline dementia) is an age-related decline in a cat’s cognitive abilities. It’s generally characterised by behavioural changes that cannot be attributed to other medical conditions.

Feline dementia is thought to be very common in older cats. One study found that by 15 years of age, more than half of cats showed signs of dementia. However, some behaviour associated with the condition has also been identified in cats as young as seven. A separate survey of cat owners also found that around 28% of cats aged between 11 and 14 exhibited at least one behavioural change associated with dementia.

Behavioural changes are often the first indication that there may be something wrong. There are eight signs to look out for that might indicate your cat has dementia.

1. Unusual vocalisation: Your cat might start to vocalise excessively, or in new situations. A common example of this is meowing loudly at night.

2. Altered interactions: Cats with dementia sometimes seek attention more often or become “clingy”. Equally, cats with dementia might interact less than previously, appear irritable or seem not to recognise familiar people.

3. Sleep changes: You may notice changes in your cat’s sleeping habits – often becoming restless at night and sleeping more during the day.

4. House soiling: Changes in toilet habits can be a sign of several different conditions, but toileting outside the litter tray can be a common sign of dementia in cats.

5. Disorientation: Just like people with dementia, cats may show signs of confusion or wandering behaviour. This might appear as losing their bearings, staring blankly at walls, getting stuck behind objects or going to the wrong side of the door.

6. Changes in activity levels: A cat with dementia may be more or less active than usual. They may play less often or be less inclined to explore. You might also notice them spending less time taking care of themselves, for example grooming or washing themselves less.

7. Appearing anxious: A cat with dementia might show signs of anxiety in situations that they were previously confident with – such as around familiar people, places or sounds. An anxious cat might hide more often, going under the bed or on top of cupboards to escape.

8. Learning problems: Cats with dementia may be less unable to perform previously learned tasks, such as finding their food bowl, and may have difficulty learning new tasks.

Caring for your cat

There’s significant overlap between symptoms of feline dementia and other common conditions, such as arthritis and kidney disease . So if you see any of these behavioural changes in your cat, you should speak to your vet to rule out these other conditions.

Research into feline dementia is limited. Much of what we know about prevention and treatment is extrapolated from research into humans and dogs. And, as with these other species, there’s no cure for dementia in cats. But there are ways of limiting the impact of the disease.

Certain environmental modifications can help stimulate cats, activating their brains and causing nerves to grow. But the severity of your cat’s dementia must be considered before making any of these changes.

In healthy or mildly affected cats, promoting play or simulating hunting with interactive toys and encouraging exploration using hide and seek games is thought to delay the progression of cognitive dysfunction.

But in cats with severe cognitive impairment, changing their environment could lead to confusion and anxiety – worsening behavioural symptoms.

Diet changes – specifically the addition of supplements containing antioxidants (vitamin E and C) and essential fatty acids – may also help to reduce inflammation in the brain, slowing the disease’s progression.

However, only dog-specific supplements have been tested in scientific research and proven to enhance cognition in dogs. But if you do want to try giving these supplements to your cat, be sure you only give them supplements approved for felines. Dog supplements should not be given to cats as they may include substances that are toxic to cats – such as alpha lipoic acid.

Feline dementia is a condition both highly prevalent and challenging to manage. Knowing what symptoms to look out for can ensure your cat gets diagnosed earlier on. This will also ensure you’re able to make the necessary changes to its environment or diet that will ultimately improve its quality of life.

Emily Blackwell receives funding from Cats Protection, Zoetis, Defra and Waltham Petcare Science Institute.

Sara Lawrence-Mills receives funding from Zoetis.

– ref. Cats can get dementia too – here are the eight signs to look out for – https://theconversation.com/cats-can-get-dementia-too-here-are-the-eight-signs-to-look-out-for-263148

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Bale, Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of London

Thanks to the media interest in his election as leader of the Green party of England and Wales, there’s now plenty of information available about Zack Polanski, the so-called “eco-populist” who won a landslide victory over his arguably more moderate rivals.

But what do we know about the nearly 65,000 grassroots members who gave Polanski an overwhelming 85% of the vote, albeit on a turnout of just 38%? A survey we conducted of party members following the 2024 election sheds light on why he won so convincingly. It also gives us some idea of how easy Polanski will find it to achieve his goal of moving the party in a more radical, left-liberal direction.

As part of the Party Members Project, we’ve surveyed members of the country’s five most popular nationwide parties, including 732 people who belonged to the Greens.

The Greens had easily the most gender-balanced membership, coming in at a satisfyingly precise 50:50. However, in common with those of other parties, Green members are no spring chickens: fewer than one in 20 were in the 18-24 age group. The rest were evenly spread across the 25-49, 50-64 and 65+ groups.

And, like most other parties (Reform UK being a partial – but only a partial – exception) Green members are overwhelmingly middle class. Indeed, to use a commonly employed classification, some 83% of Green members we surveyed were ABC1s – meaning they come from one of the three higher (and generally better-off) social grades.

Geographically, they are rather more likely than the population as a whole to live in London, the south and the east of England rather than in the north or the Midlands.

How leftwing are Green members?

In terms of attitudes and values, some 88% of Green members voted Remain in the 2016 Brexit referendum compared to just 5% who plumped for Leave. And when asked whether “the government should increase taxes and spend more on public services or cut taxes and spend less on public services?” agreement with the first option was near universal at 96%. This beats even the 89% of Labour and Lib Dem members who said the same.

When asked to place themselves on a left-right scale, some 27% of Green members labelled themselves “very left wing”, with 54% picking “fairly left wing” and 16% going for “slightly left wing”. This again suggests the Greens’ grassroots stand somewhere to the left of Labour’s membership.

More broadly, Green members are clearly at the far end of what political scientists sometimes refer to as the green alternative libertarian v traditional authoritarian nationalist, GAL-TAN scale. This appears, these days, to be as if not more important than its left-right equivalent.

Predictably enough, some 98% of Green members supported cutting emissions to get to net zero. On immigration only 18% thought it had been too high over the last decade, with 29% thinking it had actually been too low and 41% “about right”. Eight out of ten disagreed with the notion that men and women had different roles in society, and three quarters said they weren’t proud of this country’s history.

Were we betting people, then, all the above would have led us to put a fair bit of our spare cash on Polanski to win the Green party leadership – and to do so fairly easily. Our findings suggest, too, that he’ll have considerable support in his bid to take the party in a more radical direction.

We also, incidentally, asked party members what qualities they thought it important for a leader to possess, getting them to pick their top three from a list we gave them. For the Greens, having “a strong moral compass” came in at number one, selected by two thirds of members.

Second was being “a good communicator”, picked by just over half. Number three on their list, mentioned by just under half of Green members, was “the ability to empathise with others”.

Reading the portraits of him published since his big win, and judging by his media appearances both during and after the contest, Polanski would appear to be just the kind of leader the Green grassroots is looking for. Whether that’s also true of voters remains to be seen.

Tim Bale has received funding from the ESRC and Research England (via QMUL) to conduct research on party members.

Paul Webb has previously received funding from the ESRC to conduct research on political parties.

Stavroula Chrona 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. Our survey of Green party members suggests Zack Polanski has the mandate to take his party in a more radical direction – https://theconversation.com/our-survey-of-green-party-members-suggests-zack-polanski-has-the-mandate-to-take-his-party-in-a-more-radical-direction-264510

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Duncan Depledge, Senior Lecturer in Geopolitics and Security, Loughborough University

Earth’s average temperature rose more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels in 2024 for the first time – a critical threshold in the climate crisis. At the same time, major armed conflicts continue to rage in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and elsewhere.

What should be increasingly clear is that war now needs to be understood as unfolding in the shadow of climate breakdown.

The relationship between war and climate change is complex. But here are three reasons why the climate crisis must reshape how we think about war.

---

Wars and climate change are inextricably linked. Climate change can increase the likelihood of violent conflict by intensifying resource scarcity and displacement, while conflict itself accelerates environmental damage. This article is part of a series, War on climate, which explores the relationship between climate issues and global conflicts.

---

1. War exacerbates climate change

The inherent destructiveness of war has long degraded the environment. But we have only recently become more keenly aware of its climatic implications.

This follows efforts primarily by researchers and civil society organisations to account for the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from fighting, most notably in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as to record emissions from all military operations and post-war reconstruction.

One study, conducted by Scientists for Global Responsibility and the Conflict and Environment Observatory, has made a best guess that the total carbon footprint of militaries across the globe is greater than that of Russia, which currently has the fourth-largest footprint in the world.

The US is believed to have the highest military emissions. Estimates by UK-based researchers Benjamin Neimark, Oliver Belcher and Patrick Bigger suggest that, if it were a country, the US military would be the 47th-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. This would put it between Peru and Portugal.

These studies, though, rest on limited data. Sometimes partial emissions data is reported by military agencies, and researchers have to supplement this with their own calculations using official government figures and those of associated industries.

There is also significant variation from country to country. Some military emissions, most notably those of China and Russia, have proved almost impossible to assess.

Wars can also put international cooperation on climate change and the energy transition at risk. Since the start of the Ukraine war, for instance, scientific cooperation between the west and Russia in the Arctic has broken down. This has prevented crucial climate data from being compiled.

Critics of militarism argue that the acknowledgement of war’s contribution to the climate crisis ought to be the moment of reckoning for those who are too willing to spend vast resources on maintaining and expanding military power. Some even believe that demilitarisation is the only way out of climate catastrophe.

Others are less radical. But the crucial point is that recognition of the climate costs of war increasingly raises moral and practical questions about the need for more strategic restraint and whether the business of war can ever be rendered less environmentally destructive.

2. Climate change demands military responses

Before the impact of war on the climate came into focus, researchers debated whether the climate crisis could act as a “threat multiplier”. This has led some to argue that climate change could intensify the risk of violence in parts of the world already under stress from food and water insecurity, internal tensions, poor governance and territorial disputes.

Some conflicts in the Middle East and Sahel have already been labelled “climate wars”, implying they may not have happened if it were not for the stresses of climate change. Other researchers have shown how such claims are deeply contentious. Any decision to engage in violence or go to war is always still a choice made by people, not the climate.

Harder to contest is the observation that the climate crisis is leading militaries to be deployed with greater frequency to assist with civilian emergencies. This encompasses a wide range of activities from combating wildfires to reinforcing flood defences, assisting with evacuations, conducting search-and-rescue operations, supporting post-disaster recovery and delivering humanitarian aid.

Whether the climate crisis will result in more violence and armed conflict in the future is impossible to predict. If it does, military force may need to be deployed more frequently. At the same time, if militaries are depended upon to help respond to the growing frequency and intensity of climate-related disasters, their resources will be further stretched.

Governments will be confronted with tough choices about what kinds of tasks should be prioritised and whether military budgets should be increased at the expense of other societal needs.

3. Armed forces will need to adapt

With geopolitical tensions rising and the number of conflicts increasing, it seems unlikely that calls for demilitarisation will be met any time soon. This leaves researchers with the uncomfortable prospect of having to rethink how military force can – and ought to be – wielded in a world simultaneously trying to adapt to accelerating climate change and escape its deep dependence on fossil fuels.

The need to prepare military personnel and adapt bases, equipment and other infrastructure to withstand and operate effectively in increasingly extreme and unpredictable climatic conditions is a matter of growing concern. In 2018, two major hurricanes in the US caused more than US$8 billion (£5.95 billion) worth of damage to military infrastructure.

My own research has demonstrated how, in the UK at least, there is growing awareness among some defence officials that militaries need to think carefully about how they will navigate the major changes unfolding in the global energy landscape that are being brought about by the energy transition.

Militaries are being confronted with a stark choice. They can either remain as one of the last heavy users of fossil fuels in an increasingly low-carbon world or be part of an energy transition that will probably have significant implications for how military force is generated, deployed and sustained.

What is becoming clear is that operational effectiveness will increasingly depend on how aware militaries are of the implications of climate change for future operations. It will also hinge on how effectively they have adapted their capabilities to cope with more extreme climatic conditions and how much they have managed to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.

In the early 19th century, the Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz famously argued that while war’s nature rarely changes, its character is almost constantly evolving with the times.

Recognising the scale and reach of the climate crisis will be essential if we are now to make sense of why and how future wars will be waged, as well as how some might be averted or rendered less destructive.

Duncan Depledge receives funding from the UK Economic and Social Research Council. He is an Associate Fellow of the London-based Royal United Services Institute and a Non-Resident Fellow of the Washington D.C.-based Center for Climate Security (part of the Council on Strategic Risks).

– ref. Three reasons why the climate crisis must reshape how we think about war – https://theconversation.com/three-reasons-why-the-climate-crisis-must-reshape-how-we-think-about-war-262469

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Soe Tjen Marching, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics, SOAS, University of London

Indonesians have taken to the streets over the past week to protest against elite corruption. The demonstrations began peacefully on August 25 with protests outside parliament in the capital, Jakarta. They soon spread across the country.

The Indonesian People’s Revolution, a group at the centre of the demonstrations, is demanding an investigation into corruption allegations involving the family of former president Joko “Jokowi” Widodo. Jokowi has strongly rejected these accusations, painting them as a smear campaign.

Protesters are also calling for the dissolution of parliament and the impeachment of the current vice-president, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, who is Jokowi’s son.

Gibran’s path to the vice-presidency was controversial. In Indonesia, presidential and vice-presidential candidates must be at least 40 years old, yet he was only 36 during the 2024 election. The constitutional court – led by Gibran’s uncle, Anwar Usman – changed the rules to grant an exception for regional leaders. Usman was dismissed from his post by an ethics council less than a month later.

The group’s demands resonate with wider public anger over the gulf between privilege and poverty in Indonesia. Parliamentarians pocket high salaries, while millions of workers scrape by on some of the lowest minimum wages in the world. News in mid-August that MPs had secured another pay rise only added fuel to the fire.

The protests have now erupted into violence in several areas of the country. The trigger for this came on August 28, when an armoured police vehicle struck and killed a motorcycle taxi driver in Jakarta, before fleeing the scene. Listyo Sigit Prabowo, Indonesia’s national police chief, issued an apology to the victim’s family and has confirmed the case is being investigated.

Indonesia’s current president, Prabowo Subianto, initially denounced demonstrators as “traitors” and “terrorists”, vowing decisive action against them. But he has now backtracked, pledging on August 31 to heed public demands and even cut lawmakers’ allowances.

In the days leading up to this abrupt reversal, echoes of a darker chapter in the nation’s history resurfaced – one marked by state-led violence and intimidation, the mobilisation of Islamist groups, and the scapegoating of minorities.

Indonesia prides itself on bhinneka tunggal ika, unity in diversity. But Prabowo has long relied on conservative Islamist groups to strengthen his power, push through hardline policies and help silence dissent. This includes the Islamic Defenders Front, which the Jokowi government banned in 2020.

Back in 2014, when Jokowi and Prabowo contested presidential elections, Islamist hardliners perpetrated smear campaigns against Jokowi, accusing him of being a communist agent. They also orchestrated the mass mobilisation that toppled Jakarta’s ethnic Chinese Christian governor, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, in 2017.

The alliance cooled after Prabowo entered Jokowi’s coalition at the end of 2019, but has seemingly been revived amid the current protests. On August 30, the president summoned 16 Islamic organisations to his private residence, reportedly urging them to work with the government to “guard security and peace”.

Meanwhile, racist threats targeting Chinese Indonesian women have flooded online platforms. Popular content creator Elsa Novia Sena, among others, have received rape threats from an account named @endonesaatanpacinak (“Indonesia without Chinese”). I too received rape threats online after criticising the government on X.

For many in Indonesia’s Chinese minority, the atmosphere is chillingly reminiscent of May 1998. That month saw hundreds of women brutally raped – some with sharp tools – in riots characterised by widespread looting and killing. Human rights activists say the 1998 riots were orchestrated or exacerbated by the military to divert public attention from anti-government demonstrations.

Prabowo, an army general at the time, is suspected of being involved in human rights violations during the 1998 riots. He has rejected his alleged involvement in any acts of violence – but was discharged from the military over the allegations, and banned from entering the US for two decades.

Departure from the past

During the blackouts on August 31 in parts of Jakarta (which also occurred prior to the 1998 riots), looting broke out. Yet, in my opinion, something feels different this time. Protesters deliberately targeted the homes of four MPs accused of sneering at the public after securing a pay rise.

The house of Sri Mulyani, Indonesia’s finance minister, was also attacked. She is seen by many Indonesians as complicit in imposing draconian tax policies on ordinary people while sparing elite lawmakers. Sri has dismissed the accusation, stating that any laws are passed in an “open and transparent manner”.

No Chinese Indonesians have been attacked so far. A new slogan, “people looking after people”, has circulated on social media. Many insist the old trick of scapegoating Indonesia’s Chinese minority no longer works.

In May 1998, public anger against the then-president, Suharto, was driven by an economic crash. Indonesia’s ethnic Chinese population – seen as disproportionately successful in business – became convenient scapegoats. This time, however, many Indonesian people have turned against the army.

The protests are no longer only about economic grievances or corruption – they seem to be a stand against the authoritarian playbook of divide and rule. Many even suspect that some of the looters in the current demonstrations are soldiers in disguise.

In Surabaya, a city on the Indonesian island of Java, suspicions deepened when several police posts were torched. People online pointed out that the arsonist, caught in a viral photo, wore an outdated motorcycle taxi uniform paired with Adidas Terrex shoes worth millions of rupiah (hundreds of pounds). The caption asked: “Why would a taxi driver wear a uniform no longer in circulation and, if he really were one, how could he possibly afford such shoes?”

Prabowo may not have anticipated such a reaction from the Indonesian people, forcing him into a U-turn. But despite his gestures of appeasement, many remain unconvinced, dismissing his offers as merely cosmetic.

That scepticism appeared vindicated almost immediately. Late on September 1, the Islamic University of Bandung and Pasundan University came under attack as security forces fired tear gas and rubber bullets at student protesters.

The mass protests, which have spread to 32 provinces of Indonesia, are unlikely to subside soon. The question is whether the government can still weaponise fear and prejudice to cling to power – or whether ordinary Indonesians will stand firm and united against corruption and state violence in demanding justice.

Soe Tjen Marching 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. Indonesia violence: state response to protests echoes darker times in country’s history – https://theconversation.com/indonesia-violence-state-response-to-protests-echoes-darker-times-in-countrys-history-264374

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kristina van Kuyck, PhD Candidate in the School of History and Geography, Dublin City University

As I was photographing Soviet-era monuments in the Lithuanian port city of Klaipėda in May 2022, I heard a woman shout at me: “You are a young Nazi who wants to remove and destroy everything”. She was triggered by my presence, taking notes around the monuments and carrying a couple of professional-looking cameras.

I was in the middle of a research trip to document Soviet monuments in the Baltic states. The past few years had seen some former Soviet bloc countries debate the future of these monuments, many of which were originally erected to mark the role of Soviet forces in the second world war.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which began earlier in 2022, had accelerated these debates in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The debates were not new – questions about the presence of Soviet-era monuments had surfaced for decades. But concrete actions to remove them had been rare due to divided opinions over their meaning.

For many people in the Baltic states, Soviet-era monuments embodied occupation and served as reminders of repression imposed by a foreign regime. Yet for others, especially within ethnic Russian communities, they continued to represent Soviet wartime victories and functioned as sites of commemoration. Legal restrictions also prevented their removal, as many monuments were formally protected by law.

These monuments, once largely unquestioned features of the public space, were now being reevaluated against the backdrop of a new war and growing geopolitical tensions. And, as Russia’s aggression in Ukraine continued, the debates over the fate of these monuments intensified. This culminated in direct action.

The first actions often began with acts of vandalism. Monuments, including one in Ukmergė, Lithuania, which had been unveiled in 1982 to mark the 60th anniversary of the Soviet Union, were defaced. They were frequently covered in blue and yellow paint, reflecting the scale of public anger at the war and solidarity with Ukraine.

These spontaneous interventions were soon followed by more formal, centralised action. Local municipalities held meetings to discuss relocating monuments, while some took steps to remove them altogether.

Lithuania’s parliament passed a so-called desovietisation law in late 2022. This banned the commemoration or representation of people, symbols and information promoting totalitarian or authoritarian regimes and their ideologies. Latvia’s parliament also passed a law providing for the dismantling of sites glorifying Soviet and Nazi regimes.

Where decision-making stalled and legal restrictions prevented official action, local communities often took matters into their own hands. In some cases, such as in the Lituanian city of Telšiai, Soviet war memorials were covered with garbage bags. This deprived them of their symbolic presence without physically removing them.

Public opinion on the removal of monuments was far from uniform. A 2022 survey revealed that 50% of the Lithuanian population supported the removal of Soviet monuments (21% “fully support” and 29% “rather agree”), while 35% opposed it. Nevertheless, Soviet monuments rapidly disappeared from public spaces in the Baltic states following Russia’s invasion, leaving a visible mark on the urban landscape.

Documenting these monuments in 2022 proved challenging as removals were progressing at a rapid pace. In some cases, monuments were taken down without prior public notice to avoid disruption. Sometimes, I arrived at sites just too late. One of the first memorials to fall in Latvia was located in the south-eastern city of Jēkabpils, which I reached when dismantling was already underway.

In a few of the more high-profile cases, such as the monument in the Latvian capital Riga – to the Liberators of Soviet Latvia and Riga from German Fascist Invaders – sites were fenced off and monitored by police.

Three years on

Visiting the same sites in the summer of 2025, I observed several patterns in the changing urban landscape. Some former monument sites still bore traces of the Soviet legacy, leaving noticeable voids in the public space. In Ukmergė, for example, the monument itself had been removed, but the surrounding site remained largely untouched. In Narva, an Estonian border city, the obelisk topped with a five-pointed star had been taken down. This left only an empty plinth as a silent reminder of what once stood there.

Such cases are common in peripheral towns, where removals often occurred without follow-up plans or allocated funds for redevelopment.

Even after removal, some former sites continued to serve as places of memory for local Russian-speaking communities. In Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, a monument comprised of six granite statues of Soviet soldiers was taken down in late December 2022.

Yet the site still provides space for commemorations, with a lit candle and a wreath placed where the monument once stood. The statues have been relocated to Grūtas Park, a Soviet sculpture park in Lithuania, where they are placed in the parking lot with a lantern symbolising an eternal flame.

Other former Soviet-era monument sites reveal striking transformations. A park in Pärnu, south-western Estonia, and a public square in Daugavpils, south-eastern Latvia, now show no visible traces of the monuments that once occupied a space in the urban landscape there.

I had to return twice, circling the park in Pärnu, before I could recognise the spot where I had photographed the monument three years earlier. These monuments have slipped into a silent oblivion.

Many of the Soviet-era monuments were originally placed within military cemeteries where Soviet soldiers were buried. Usually, these cemeteries were maintained by Russian embassies. However, with the monuments gone – and their role as visual propaganda erased – many of the sites have been left neglected. Their upkeep is faltering alongside their symbolic power.

The war in Ukraine has triggered striking changes in the urban landscape across the Baltic states. These changes reveal not a uniform story of erasure but rather a fragmented landscape of memory.

My photographs show how some places are marked by absences, others are inscribed with different meanings, and many have fallen into neglect.

Kristina van Kuyck receives funding from the Irish Research Council Government of Ireland Postgraduate Scholarship
Project ID: GOIPG/2023/3686

– ref. Baltic states have torn down their Soviet past following Ukraine war – a photo essay – https://theconversation.com/baltic-states-have-torn-down-their-soviet-past-following-ukraine-war-a-photo-essay-263468

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rebecca Day, PhD Candidate in Bilingualism (Linguistics), Bangor University

Rett syndrome is a rare neurological condition that disrupts physical and linguistic development, affecting around one in 10,000 women and even fewer men. For decades, researchers assumed that people with the condition, many of whom lose speech during early childhood, were confined to a limited range of cognitive and linguistic abilities.

But in Wales, where many families are bilingual and speak both English and Welsh at home, our recent case study showed that access to two languages can help the linguistic growth of someone with the speech-limiting developmental condition Rett syndrome.

Rett syndrome is caused by a random genetic mutation in the MECP2 gene on the X chromosome in most cases. It usually manifests in early childhood, with most people showing typical development before a loss of skills at around 18 months of age. This process, known as “regression”, can lead to a loss of speech, mobility and the ability to use hands purposefully.

There are different variants of Rett syndrome. People with the preserved speech variant may keep the ability to produce speech after regression, develop speech after regression, or develop speech without experiencing regression.

As well as movement and language difficulties, Rett syndrome can also cause scoliosis (curvature of the spine), seizures, irregular heart rhythm, digestive issues and breathing problems. The severity of symptoms varies widely from person to person.

To communicate, many rely on methods such as body language, communication books, symbol charts, or high-tech devices to express themselves. These tools and techniques, known as augmentative and alternative communication, may replace or supplement speech.

While these strategies can be transformative, guidelines on communication methods for Rett syndrome have been based on research involving monolingual people. Until now, the possibility of bilingualism in people with Rett syndrome had not been formally explored.

Early researchers assumed that people with Rett syndrome would be limited to a cognitive ability of an 18-month-old, since this is the point where many experience a regression in skills. Recent research has started to show that this is not the case, with studies concluding that people with Rett syndrome show a range of cognitive abilities.

Bilingualism

In Wales, where 17.8% of the population speaks Welsh, bilingualism is a way of life for many families. Research has consistently shown that growing up with two languages benefits cognitive and linguistic development. For example, bilingual children often demonstrate more efficient thinking skills compared to their monolingual peers.

But parents of children with developmental conditions, like Rett syndrome, are sometimes advised to stick to one language. It often stems from a belief that bilingual exposure might hinder progress or cause confusion. This belief persists despite growing evidence to the contrary.

Studies involving children with other developmental conditions, such as Down’s syndrome, have shown that bilingualism is achievable and does not negatively affect cognitive or linguistic abilities. Moreover, depriving a child from a bilingual family of one of their languages can have social and cultural consequences, cutting them off from a vital part of their identity and community.

Prior to our research, there had been no studies focusing on bilingual development in Rett syndrome. Families had shared accounts indicating that many people with Rett syndrome are growing up in bilingual environments. Some research has explored parental perspectives on bilingualism in Rett syndrome, providing valuable insights into the cultural considerations of bilingualism.

Without research documenting language development itself, though, we had no evidence to show what is possible, or how to best support a bilingual person with Rett syndrome.

Our study focused on a teenage girl with the preserved speech variant of Rett syndrome. She had been exposed to both English and Welsh from birth. Using parental questionnaires, standardised tests and vocabulary diaries, we tracked her understanding and production of words in both languages over three years.

We found she could understand and produce words in both English and Welsh. Her vocabulary in both languages also expanded over time. This challenges long-held assumptions about the linguistic limitations of Rett syndrome. It also opens the door to new possibilities for supporting bilingualism in similar cases.

---

Read more:
Why being bilingual can open doors for children with developmental disabilities, not close them

---

We are preparing to publish further findings that reinforce these results and explore how bilingualism can be supported in people with Rett syndrome. Future research will be crucial to developing evidence-based recommendations for bilingual language development. This may help to ensure that every person with Rett syndrome has the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Language is more than a tool for communication. It’s a gateway to connection, culture and identity. For people with Rett syndrome, the ability to engage with multiple languages can enrich their lives and strengthen their bonds with their families and communities. Our study is a small but important step towards understanding and supporting this potential.

Rebecca Day works with the charity Rett UK. She has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council’s Welsh Graduate School for the Social Sciences.

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

– ref. Bilingualism possible in people with rare genetic condition that normally limits speech – https://theconversation.com/bilingualism-possible-in-people-with-rare-genetic-condition-that-normally-limits-speech-244858

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Poornika Ananth, Assistant Professor in Strategy and Organisations, School of Management, University of Bath

Regardless of how you spent the final days of summer, the return to work can mean coming face to face once again with any sticky problems you pushed aside previously. Now though, they’re looming and demanding fresh solutions.

This may be a good time to try something different. Whatever the nature of the problems that come with your job – production or staffing issues, a difficult product launch or disgruntled customers – instead of focusing all your efforts on coming up with solutions, it may be helpful to spend some time understanding the problems better.

As Albert Einstein is quoted as saying: “If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions.” But why is it so important not to simply jump to quick solutions?

Similarly, scholars who have studied problem-solving have found that workplace problems can be complex and ill-defined, and their underlying causes can be difficult to determine at first glance. In these circumstances, the solutions we develop are based on surface-level understanding or assumptions. As such, they may do little to address the true problem – and could even create new issues further down the line.

For instance, if you are struggling with a tricky product launch, it might look like the issue is a flaw in the item. But in reality the problem could be weak distribution or poor marketing reach. Clearly, focusing on the product design in this case is unlikely to resolve the issue.

To get through this, it is important to develop a more thorough understanding of the problem. This is known in management studies as a “problem representation” – that is, a simplified model of the problem, including the symptoms that characterise it as well as the root causes that explain it.

My colleagues and I have reviewed the literature on problem representations. Our research, published in the Journal of Management, has found key insights about how best they can iron out problems in the workplace.

Take your time

The first and most important insight is that representing complex problems is not a one-time event, but a process that involves three distinct but overlapping steps. The first step is “problem finding”, which involves recognising early or obvious symptoms that point to the existence of a problem. This could be missing a production deadline or a sales target, for example.

The second step is “problem framing”, which involves looking out for and identifying other related symptoms. During this step you may find that in addition to missing your production deadlines your colleagues have also been working more overtime. Or it could be that you are missing sales targets despite positive reactions from focus group tests of the product. To get this more comprehensive picture you will probably need the perspectives of people at various levels of the organisation.

The final stage is “problem formulating”, which is where you work out the root causes that underlie and explain the symptoms. Here workers need to truly understand why they arose in the first place. The key is to ensure that the root causes really do represent the spectrum of symptoms. This may help you understand, for instance, that production issues are due to problems with a new part. Alternatively, a sales issue could be because the marketing channels are not reaching the right consumers.

Our review also found that a problem representation can help with solving the issue in more than one way. Crucially, getting to the root causes can give rise to solutions that target the problem more effectively and completely. It can also enhance the creativity behind problem-solving by getting people to break away from obvious, surface-level answers.

An additional benefit that we uncovered in our review is that developing a problem representation can help with implementing the solutions. We found that there are two reasons for this.

First, there may be fewer snags or glitches that arise during implementation if the solution is more considered, and more relevant to the problem. Second, people may be more invested in implementing the solution if they have taken the time to consider the problem and believe that the solution can address it for them in the long term.

But our review also revealed that representing a problem can be a challenging process, fraught with traps and issues of its own. These could be participants not properly understanding the process, cognitive biases – particularly solution bias (the tendency to jump to solutions) – and bad actors who claim to be engaged in the process but end up derailing it.

However, if done well, this process can really help you tackle problems and develop and implement genuinely useful solutions. And this approach can help with problems at all kinds of workplaces and in all kinds of roles.

Poornika Ananth 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. Different day, same problems? Why it’s a bad idea to rush into solutions for tricky work issues – https://theconversation.com/different-day-same-problems-why-its-a-bad-idea-to-rush-into-solutions-for-tricky-work-issues-264090

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Katie Crosson, Postdoctoral Research Associate (Curation), University of Exeter

Between 1970 and 1984, BBC1’s experimental drama strand Play for Today created what is now regarded as classic British drama. It launched myriad acting careers and showcased high-calibre writing in plays such as Mike Leigh’s Abigail’s Party and Blue Remembered Hills, Dennis Potter’s acclaimed play about lost youth. It was often challenging, often radical and always unpredictable, rotating directors, producers and writers each week to create unique one-off episodes.

The series covered a huge range of subject matter, across different genres and styles, and sought to reveal truths about contemporary life. By the mid-1980s, the BBC was reluctant to continue taking costly chances on new talent each week in an era of increasing competition, and Play for Today was canned.

Now, in 2025, it’s coming back. Channel 5 recently announced the return of the series, emphasising that the new Play for Today will provide a space to experiment for emerging creative talent, particularly those from low-income backgrounds. This development is welcome in an industry that fails to embrace working-class entrants.

In the chasm between 1984 and 2025, the structure of British society has changed beyond recognition. The class system itself has shape-shifted numerous times, with the erosion of many working-class trades and the increasing precarity of middle-class professions, with many affected by steep increases in the cost of living, high student debt and a housing crisis. All the while, the UK’s super-rich are richer than ever and inequalities are rising.

All of which increase the urgency for a strand like Play for Today, willing to respond to these issues. And while I remain hopeful that this new Channel 5 incarnation can be a success, my research into the original has informed nine non-negotiables required to fulfil its goals and earn the Play for Today name.

1. Represent resistance

Play for Today didn’t only amplify unheard voices, it also portrayed under-represented struggles. From female strikers in Leeds United! (1974) to occupiers on a development site during a rent-hike in United Kingdom (1981), Play for Today didn’t present characters as helpless victims, but people with agency engaged in resistance.

Channel 5 claims it wants to cover “thornier issues”. If it is serious about this, it could offer a unique space to explore marginalised voices, such as youth organisers involved in the ongoing fight for trans rights, and those speaking out against the alleged genocide in Palestine experiencing censorship and criminalisation.

2. Encourage critique

Play for Today critiqued the system, not just individuals. Destiny (1978) was an honest portrayal of the top-down, predatory nature of fascism. Its speech about “making the country great again” lay at the centre of an examination of the links between landlords and organisations like the National Front.

The Sin Bin (1981) offered a sobering portrayal of the lives of inmates in prison for the very worst of crimes. Play for Today asked its audience to extend their empathy, asking what we are willing to accept in the name of justice, and whether the criminal legal system is fit for purpose.

3. Be specific

The series represented specific times, towns and trades in detail. The lives of people in Hull in Land of Green Ginger (1973) and Morecambe in Sunset Across the Bay (1975) were examined without compromising their uniqueness by trying to universalise characters’ experiences.

The Bevellers (1974) and Not For The Likes of Us (1980) were built around portrayals of manual labour and working in a cinema. Far from making the programme inaccessible or irrelevant, millions tuned in each week: Play for Today was engaging precisely because it depicted lives and livelihoods little seen on screen.

4. Rotate creators

Held together by little more than a commitment to responding to the present moment, it is an essential feature of Play for Today that writers, actors, directors and producers rotate regularly, to ensure a variety of perspectives.

5. Foster innovation

It is important that Channel 5 doesn’t see the programme’s focus on social truths as something at odds with experimenting with form. From the raucous comedy of Bar Mitzvah Boy (1976) to the folk-horror of Penda’s Fen (1974), the agit-prop filmed theatre of The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil (1974) and the surrealism of The After Dinner Joke (1978), Play for Today was never confined to one stylistic box.

These examples deviate from the predictable style British audiences appear to be tiring of – a state of affairs made clear by the unprecedented appetite for the mini-series Adolescence, in which each episode was shot in one long single take.

6. Ensure creative freedom

If the new Play for Today is to be as distinctive and bold as its namesake, creators must be given proper creative control over what they’re making. Creativity flourished on the original series because creative control was the norm for these drama productions.

7. Offer a real vision of the working class

Ladies (1980) focused on the lives of female department-store workers spanning different ages and ethnicities. The Spongers (1978) explored the reality of living with disability in poverty, and Even Solomon (1979) featured the first transgender protagonist on British television. At its best, Play for Today portrayed a spectrum of working-class characters as diverse as real life, and it can again.

8. Show emotion

Play for Today presented issues in ways that elicited emotional as well as intellectual responses. Rocky Marciano is Dead (1976) focused on the importance of boxing to different communities, tenderly exploring the strained relationship between an ageing boxer and a squatter next door. At a time where social division is rife, we could benefit from being moved to look at the world and people around us in ways that promote understanding and empathy.

9. Be free to fail

Play for Today proved it’s possible to have both quality and quantity, but only through embracing failure. With 316 episodes made by different people, not all of Play for Today was pioneering. The same freedom that granted Play for Today its huge successes also granted its failures. The team behind Channel 5’s Play for Today would do well to accept that we cannot have one without the other, but look to the original, and enthusiastically and wholeheartedly take the risk.

---

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.

---

Katie Crosson received funding from TECHNE (AHRC) for her PhD on Play for Today.

– ref. Play for Today is back – nine ways Channel 5 can make it as successful as the original – https://theconversation.com/play-for-today-is-back-nine-ways-channel-5-can-make-it-as-successful-as-the-original-263954

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Heiko Balzter, Director of Institute for Environmental Futures, University of Leicester

Planting trees is seen as a cornerstone of efforts to avert climate breakdown. But a major new study in Science finds their potential has been drastically overstated – and relying on forests to offset carbon emissions could distract from the urgent need to cut fossil fuel use.

The researchers, a team of scientists mostly based in China, looked at both afforestation (creating new forests) and reforestation (restoring cleared ones). Unlike earlier studies, they carefully limited the land assumed to be available to avoid unintended consequences.

For instance, planting trees in snowy regions darkens the surface, since trees are darker than snow. This reduces reflectivity and can actually lead to further warming. Forests can also compete with grassland for water or threaten biodiversity.

Previous studies varied hugely in the area of land that they thought was suitable for planting trees, ranging from 200 million to 2,000 million hectares. Once those unsuitable areas are removed, the new study calculates just 389 million hectares worldwide were left suitable for forestation.

If this whole area was planted, the carbon absorbed by 2050 would amount to about 40 billion tonnes – much lower than previous estimates. But even out of this smaller land area, only about 120 million hectares are currently earmarked for forestation, reducing the climate benefit to only 12.5 billion tonnes of carbon by 2050. That’s a big number, but it’s only slightly more than a single year of global fossil fuel emissions.

Nature-based solutions such as tree planting can help, but they are
nowhere near enough to keep global heating below +1.5°C or even +2°C. Cutting emissions must remain the top priority.

Nevertheless, the authors argue that forestation incentives should be rolled out urgently in countries where the benefits are greatest – particularly Brazil, Colombia, China and India, where wet tropical conditions make trees grow fast. By contrast, in the US and Russia, colder weather and slower tree growth means much more land would be needed to have the same impact.

Implausible pledges

One of the most striking findings of this study is that across Africa, many governments have pledged far more land for forestation than the models consider suitable for tree planting.

For example, Ethiopia has committed to reforesting 10.2 million hectares but the study finds only 0.5 million hectares are actually suitable. Similar gaps are apparent in Cameroon, South Africa and other countries.

The gap arises because the new study only counts land that is naturally suited to forests, based on climate soils and existing vegetation. Many government pledges, by contrast, include ecosystems such as savannas or grasslands.
Across Africa, 70 million hectares of land committed to tree planting – an area the size of France – fall into this category.

Savannas are constrained by low rainfall, and trees are kept in check by hungry herbivores and frequent fires. The height that a woody plant in a savanna needs to reach to survive the regular burning is called the “fire trap” for a reason, as many saplings do not make it above that threshold. Planting forests here is not only unlikely to succeed, it also risks damaging unique ecosystems and biodiversity. And crucially, replacing natural savanna with plantations is not equivalent to restoring or protecting a tropical rainforest.

One limitation is that the new study did not include agroforestry – integrating trees into farmland – which could add more potential for carbon storage. But the bigger lesson from news that the climate potential of forests may have been exaggerated is that planting trees should complement, not replace, rapid emissions cuts.

To make the most of forests, the world needs better science-based guidelines for where trees will thrive, and stronger commitments to act quickly. The clock is ticking.

Heiko Balzter receives funding from UK Research and Innovation, the European Space Agency, and Defra. He is affiliated with the Labour Party and is a member of Friends of the Earth.

– ref. Trees alone won’t save us: new study says forestation has less potential to fix the climate than hoped – https://theconversation.com/trees-alone-wont-save-us-new-study-says-forestation-has-less-potential-to-fix-the-climate-than-hoped-264236

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ahmed Elbediwy, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Biochemistry / Cancer Biology, Kingston University

For years, health authorities have warned against red meat consumption, with the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm classifying it as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. But a controversial new study challenges that position, suggesting that animal protein might protect against cancer deaths rather than cause them.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the WHO, has long classified red meat, including beef, pork, lamb and mutton, as probably carcinogenic. And processed meats such as bacon and sausages are classified as definite carcinogens. This judgment reflects multiple studies linking red meat to colorectal cancer, forming the basis of dietary advice to limit intake.

Yet the new research by Canada’s McMaster University suggests the opposite: that people who consume more animal protein may actually have lower cancer mortality rates. But, before you rush out to buy a pack of sausages, there are some important points you should note.

The study’s methods contain important nuances that complicate its headline-grabbing conclusions. Rather than examining red meat specifically, the researchers analysed consumption of “animal protein”, a broad category that includes red meat, poultry, fish, eggs and dairy products. This distinction matters significantly because fish, particularly oily varieties such as mackerel and sardines, are associated with being cancer-protective.

By grouping all animal proteins together, the study may have captured the protective effects of fish and certain dairy products rather than proving the safety of red meat.

Dairy products themselves present a complex picture in cancer research. Some studies suggest they reduce colorectal cancer risk while potentially increasing prostate cancer risk. This mixed evidence underscores how the broad “animal protein” category obscures important distinctions between different food types.

The study, which was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, America’s primary beef industry lobbying group, contains several other limitations. Crucially, the researchers didn’t distinguish between processed and unprocessed meats – a distinction that countless studies have shown to be vital.

Processed meats such as bacon, sausages and deli meats consistently show higher cancer risks than fresh, unprocessed cuts. Additionally, the research didn’t examine specific cancer types, making it impossible to determine whether the protective effects apply broadly or to particular cancers.

Interestingly, the study also examined plant proteins, including legumes, nuts and soy products such as tofu, and found they had no strong protective effect against dying of cancer. This finding contradicts previous research suggesting that plant proteins are linked to decreased cancer risk, adding another layer of complexity to an already confusing picture.

These findings don’t diminish the established health benefits of plant-based foods, which provide fibre, antioxidants and other compounds associated with reduced disease risk.

Not a green light

Even if the study’s conclusions about animal protein prove accurate, the study shouldn’t be interpreted as a green light for unlimited meat consumption. Excessive red meat intake remains linked to other serious health conditions, including heart disease and diabetes. The key lies in moderation and balance.

The conflicting research highlights the complexity of nutrition science, where isolating the effects of individual foods proves remarkably difficult. People don’t eat single nutrients in isolation – they consume complex combinations of foods as part of broader lifestyle patterns. It’s more important to focus on overall dietary patterns rather than fixating on individual foods.

A balanced plate approach, featuring a variety of protein sources, plenty of vegetables and fruits, and minimally processed foods, remains the most evidence-based path to optimal health.

While this latest study adds a new dimension to the meat debate, it’s unlikely to be the final word. As nutrition science continues to evolve, the most prudent approach remains the least dramatic: moderation, variety and balance in all things.

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

– ref. Can meat really protect against cancer-related deaths, as a new study indicates? – https://theconversation.com/can-meat-really-protect-against-cancer-related-deaths-as-a-new-study-indicates-264088