Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary British History, Newcastle University

Despite his name – honouring Keir Hardie, the first leader of the Labour party – Keir Starmer is not known to be a student of political history. This apparent incuriosity helps define an indistinct political identity.

Asked which premier inspires him, Starmer cites Harold Wilson, an unusual choice – Attlee is much more revered in Labour – and superficially surprising. No politician was more political than Wilson: the moment a camera appeared his usual cigar and brandy was replaced with a pipe and a pint. But recent events have demonstrated that Starmer has reason to choose the man who was Labour prime minister twice in the 1960s and 1970s.

Wilson had been soft left, but in Downing Street was non-ideological, tricksy, and reactive. This was partly why he was subject to frenzied speculation about being toppled in office. Labour’s performance in the May 1968 local elections was catastrophic. The following day The Daily Mirror – Labour’s champion – extraordinarily called for Wilson’s removal: he had “lost all credibility: all authority”. Wilson was thereafter beset by rumours of coups. He was a suspicious person, and with reason.

When Anas Sarwar, leader of Scottish Labour, extraordinarily called for Starmer’s removal, the similarities were uncanny. Wilson was defiant: “I know what is going on; I am going on.” Starmer, too, went on, if without the wit.

Resignations and defenestrations

There have been 26 prime ministers since 1900. Nine were removed by voters: Arthur Balfour 1905, Stanley Baldwin 1929, Winston Churchill 1945, Clement Attlee 1951, Ted Heath 1974, James Callaghan 1979, John Major 1997, Gordon Brown 2010, and Rishi Sunak in 2024. Heath is the last to have won and lost power through general elections alone.

The British constitution requires nothing of a premier other than, effectively, that they can command a majority in the House of Commons. A century ago, the prime minister’s constitution was the issue. The Marquess of Salisbury in 1902, Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1908, and Andrew Bonar Law in 1923 retired on grounds of health: all died within a year. Standing down in 1935, Ramsay MacDonald survived for two. Anthony Eden in 1957, and Harold Macmillan in 1963, cited health but their infirmity was political. Both lived for decades.

David Cameron alone resigned on a point of principle (Brexit). Baldwin, who resigned in 1923 over trade policy, is the closest comparison (though he returned to No 10 twice, and, in 1937, was able to exercise that most rare act of political instrumentality and retire on his own terms). Part of Starmer’s definitional equivocacy is that it’s hard to imagine a point of principle on which he would resign.

Being toppled in office happened to Herbert Asquith in 1916, David Lloyd George in 1922, Neville Chamberlain in 1940, and Margaret Thatcher in 1990. Asquith and Chamberlain were casualties of wartime coalition politics (Conservatives would not serve under Asquith; Labour would not serve under Chamberlain; Asquith was the more upset).

The Conservatives simply withdrew from supporting Lloyd George. Their 1922 Committee, which was formed as part of this action, was in part, and in effect, an institutionalisation of toppling. These days MPs can submit letters of no confidence to the 1922 Committee, and a ballot is triggered when 15% of them have.

Thatcher, dominant for a decade, overnight was rendered mortal by the concerted action of discontented former colleagues. This failed but it provided the pretext for another – Michael Heseltine – to mount a challenge. Unlike Starmer’s Downing Street operation, Thatcher’s team was slow and complacent. She beat Heseltine, but too narrowly; she resigned.

John Major prevailed, and he, singularly, later invited toppling. After incessant speculation about his leadership of both party and country, in June 1995, he invited his critics to “put up or shut up”. They did the former but Major survived. Starmer is unlikely to repeat the escapade.

Major’s successor, Tony Blair, occupies an intermediate category, being pressured (by the unique power dynamic with his chancellor Gordon Brown) to offer a date – a year hence – when he would stand down. If political pressure becomes too great, this may be the precedent for Starmer. It offers the appearance of agency.

The era of short tenure

Toppling has of late become rather à la mode. Theresa May in 2019, Boris Johnson in 2022, Liz Truss 49 days later. Since Cameron no premier has lasted three years. Starmer looks unlikely to break that record. Yet although MPs are much more rebellious than they used to be, two factors increasingly act to discourage them from toppling.

The first is that Britain has a parliamentary, rather than a presidential, system. Prime ministers are not elected, as such. Oppositions always call for elections when the government changes leader – they chose not to do so when in office themselves (Baldwin again, in 1923, is the closest to an exception). But in an age of electoral disengagement, the idea of an MP moving into 10 Downing Street without the benediction of voters is becoming increasingly untenable.

The second factor is who chooses. There have been three stages as to which successor kisses the monarch’s hand: Asquith and Macmillan became prime minister merely by general party assent; Callaghan and Major after their MPs voted; today that decision ultimately is of party members. Thus Truss. Her experience – and the country’s – may act to concentrate the minds of MPs tempted to topple.

Labour, significantly, has never toppled a prime minister. It’s not in the culture of so cooperativist a party: there’s no equivalent of the 1922 Committee. And whenever it might have happened, the challenger blinked: Herbert Morrison with Attlee; Roy Jenkins with Wilson; David Miliband with Brown; Wes Streeting may have just joined the roster of the rueful. Wilson more than merely survived his near-death experience: he lived to lead Labour into three more general elections, winning two, before emulating Baldwin and retiring on his own terms, in 1976.

And so Starmer’s affinity becomes clearer. Above all, like Wilson, Starmer is dogged. There is however, a profound difference. Wilson, strategically ineffectual, was tactically brilliant. Starmer has demonstrated a propensity for only the former. May’s local elections are approaching. A Wilsonian prime minister aware of political history might know what the following day’s Mirror may reflect.

Martin Farr 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. From Harold Wilson to Liz Truss – what the fates of former prime ministers can teach Keir Starmer – https://theconversation.com/from-harold-wilson-to-liz-truss-what-the-fates-of-former-prime-ministers-can-teach-keir-starmer-276148

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mark Grabowski, Senior Lecturer of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University

Why don’t humans have tails anymore?

Olivia, 12 , the Netherlands.

Great question, and it gets to the heart of what we are as humans.

Think about your own family – do you have cousins? If so, you and your cousins share grandparents and these are your common ancestors.

Now imagine going back further in time. You and your more distantly related relatives also share common ancestors from longer ago, which you can see on your family tree. And when you look around the world, all living things also share a single common ancestor, which lived between 3 and 4 billion years ago.

---

Curious Kids is a series by The Conversation that gives children the chance to have their questions about the world answered by experts. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.com and make sure you include the asker’s first name, age and town or city. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we’ll do our very best.

---

Life on Earth is a really big family tree. That means dogs and cats are related, but also you and squirrels, you and fish, and you and the dinosaurs. Everything alive today and that ever was alive is descended from that same original ancestor.

Four billion years is not something we can really visualise in our heads. To give an idea of how long ago this was, a billion golf balls would fill a large train station. So think of four of these – that is a lot of golf balls, and a long time ago.

Zooming in to more recent times, we are apes. We share common ancestors with the other living apes – chimpanzees and gorillas, orangutans and gibbons. And while chimpanzees and gorillas have many features in common, chimpanzees and humans are sister species. This means we are more closely related to each other than any other living species.

This also means a lot has happened (evolution) in the human lineage since we shared this common ancestor. Our anatomy has changed substantially, allowing us to walk upright, use tools, speak, and other features that make us the successful species we are.

However, all apes including us are united by several features. All apes have large brains, for example, though ours is the largest. And all apes have a body plan that allows us to take an upright posture – our chests are much more vertical than a dog’s or even a monkey’s.

We also have a particular pattern of grooves in our lower molar teeth – the five bumps you can feel there are arranged in a Y-shape (known as Y-5 pattern). This is only found in apes.

Finally, all apes climb trees and suspend themselves from branches. We still have features of our arms and shoulders that allow us to do this safely.

We have these because we descended from a single common ape ancestor, probably around between 20 and 30 million years ago. Using
our golf ball image, a million golf balls would fit into a large bedroom, so imagine 30 large bedrooms of golf balls and you get some idea of how long ago that was.

Our current best evidence of what this common ancestor of apes looked like is based on fossils – the remains of once-living creatures that have been transformed into rock.

When we look at this current best evidence – such as in the extinct species Ekembo heseloni from Africa – we see a species that is actually fairly monkey-like. It climbed trees but may not have swung below branches – instead walking on top of them. This is quite surprising, as all living apes share features that allow us to swing from branches.

However, we know it was an ape because of two main features. First, it has that distinctive Y-5 pattern in its lower molars, just like you do. Second, it lacks a tail. Lacking a tail is a distinctive feature of all apes.

Why do all apes lack a tail?

We only have hypotheses (informed guesses) as to why our common ancestor didn’t possess a tail. This is because most other primate groups, both living and extinct, do have a tail.

One suggestion is that when the earliest apes shifted to more upright postures and other changes in the way they moved around in trees, their tail became less helpful. So perhaps evolution caused the muscles that had previously been used for tail attachments to instead become part of the pelvic floor.

The pelvic floor is made of the muscles at the base of the spine that help your internal organs resist gravity – keeping them inside your body rather than falling out. That is a pretty important function, as you can imagine.

Another suggestion is that tails disappeared from the earliest apes due to a genetic mistake. When a single short stretch of DNA found in humans and other apes, but not in other primates, was added to mice in a 2024 study, it caused the mice to develop only minimal or no tails.

So, despite how amazing having a tail would be to us now, our ancestors may have lost it due to them no longer needing it – or simply because of a chance mistake.

Mark Grabowski 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. Curious kids: why don’t humans have tails? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-dont-humans-have-tails-275716

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matt Jacobsen, Senior Lecturer in Film History in the School of Society and Environment, Queen Mary University of London

Horror cinema is enjoying a moment of mainstream recognition right now, with critically acclaimed films Sinners, Weapons and The Ugly Stepsister all receiving Oscar nominations from an academy that usually turns its nose up at the genre.

To my mind, the brilliant Sally Hawkins also deserved an Oscar nomination for her performance in the unmissable Bring Her Back, my personal favourite of an incredibly strong series of horror releases in 2025. Horror films generally come out around Halloween, but thanks to the current critical and public interest there’s a steady stream throughout 2026 – including Whistle.

A British-directed, Canadian-Irish co-production set in an American high school, Whistle is named for its focus on Aztec death whistles or ehecachichtli. Archaeologists believe these real objects were probably used in rituals to conjure the sound of the underworld. It is surprising that death whistles haven’t yet featured in a horror film, given their striking skull-shape designs and eerie shrieking sound.

Whistle is an example of the tried-and-tested sub-genre of horror films that has kids tinkering with supernatural artefacts they really should be leaving well alone. Think Talk to Me (2022), Ringu (1998) or Ouija: Origin of Evil (2016).

In this film, a group of American high school friends discover an Aztec death whistle and, for reasons best known to them, give it a blow at a party. This triggers the early deaths of those who hear the sound, killing them off in spectacular fashion. This is the main motivation for the film: the special effects team get to creatively imagine what it would look like for someone who, say, would have ultimately been hit by a train several years later suddenly and inexplicably exploding in a spray of gruesome injuries.

The bracing, disturbing Talk To Me used its story of high schoolers contacting the dead through a withered hand to engage meaningfully with themes of addiction and social media pressure. But Whistle shows little comparable interest in examining adolescence with nuance or empathy.

Whistle has no ambitions toward awards-season prestige or thematic complexity.
It is horror for its own sake, delivered with undeniable enthusiasm but lacking distinguishing qualities beyond imaginative CGI violence.

The central characters are likeable, led by rising star Dafne Keen, best known for playing Lyra in the BBC adaptation of Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials. Keen plays the new girl at school, who encounters the expected mix of jocks, geeks and misfits. She works hard to elevate a script that relies heavily on horror conventions.

---

Read more:
His Dark Materials: how the small-screen adaptation deals with the novel’s big ideas

---

Whistle’s British director Corin Hardy showed enormous promise in 2015 with his acclaimed first film The Hallow – an original, atmospheric story of deadly fairies in a deep, dark wood based on Irish folklore. The quality of this independent film led to a rapid move to the mainstream with a stint in Hollywood directing The Nun (2018), a bland and cliched spinoff of the popular The Conjuring series. After mixed reviews for his tenure as show-runner on the ultra-violent crime drama Gangs of London (2020), he returns here to a genre for which he has a clear passion.

There is obvious delight on the part of Hardy at the opportunity to make an American high school film in the manner of A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), Scream (1996) or Final Destination (2000). Fellow Brit Nick Frost puts in a serviceable impression of the grouchy high school teacher archetype, named Mr Craven after the celebrated director Wes.

A packet of cigarettes falls to the floor featuring the fictional brand Cronenberg’s after Canadian horror pioneer David. Moments like this tell the audience that Whistle is carved with the very best intentions to celebrate the genre and to entertain a core of genre enthusiasts.

The American director Nia Dacosta brought a nuanced outside perspective to the British landscape in the brilliant, visionary sequel 28 Days Later: The Bone Temple (2025), and here we have a British director working in a distinctly American setting, paying tribute to the films that shaped his youth.

It is not clear that Hardy has found a new perspective or approach to this kind of material however, and the film follows a disappointingly familiar and well-trodden path. While Whistle admirably centres around a lesbian romance, its characters remain broadly drawn, with little effort to subvert archetypes or complicate expectations.

So while Whistle brims with an infectious puppy dog enthusiasm for the (much better) films that it reverently evokes, this chaotic, unfocused film fails to inject sufficient vitality or originality into well-worn genre tropes.

---

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.

---

Matt Jacobsen 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. Whistle: Aztec death whistle horror is good fun, but offers few surprises – https://theconversation.com/whistle-aztec-death-whistle-horror-is-good-fun-but-offers-few-surprises-275969

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Qing Wang, Professor of Marketing and Innovation, Director, Marketing Innovation and The Chinese and Emerging Economies (MICEE) Network, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick

For more than a decade, China has been one of the most important growth engines for western luxury brands. From fashion and watches to fine wines and spirits, rising incomes and global exposure have fuelled an extraordinary appetite for premium products.

Scotch whisky has been a major beneficiary. Between 2019 and 2023, exports to China surged in value from under £90 million to more than £235 million. But sales have fallen for three consecutive years, while inflation, rising costs and trade tensions have squeezed margins. Now, exports may benefit once again after China halved tariffs on scotch from 10% to 5%.

The sales slowdown reflects a maturing market in which Chinese consumers are becoming more selective, more knowledgeable and more demanding. This is leading to a shift from volume to value, from older to younger consumers, and from conspicuous to considered consumption. These trends help explain both the recent downturn and the sector’s longer-term resilience.

After the height of the COVID pandemic, when economic confidence weakened in China, luxury consumption adjusted, with consumers buying fewer items but investing more carefully.

This pattern is clearly visible in whisky. While overall volumes have fallen, it continues to benefit from “premiumisation” – sustained interest in aged single malts, limited editions and iconic distilleries.

A young, educated whisky culture

Unlike western markets, where whisky has traditionally been associated with older drinkers, China’s core whisky consumers are young. The typical whisky drinker is gen Z: urban, affluent, well-educated and often well-travelled internationally.

A new generation has reframed whisky as a form of cultural capital, with tasting, collecting and investing in casks becoming increasingly common. Single-malt brands such as Glenfiddich and The Macallan have thrived in this environment, with data showing that their market share has tripled since 2019.

China is the ninth largest market for UK whisky exports. In 2024, the UK accounted for 85.6% of China’s whisky imports by value – most of this is scotch. For Chinese consumers, luxury has long been tied to authenticity and provenance. In premium spirits, this logic is particularly powerful.

In China, the value of most western luxury brands is underpinned by their history, heritage, craftsmanship and distinctive cultural narratives. Here, “country of origin” functions as a powerful source of authenticity and uniqueness.

This is especially pronounced in scotch whisky, where the product category is intimately associated with Scotland’s landscape, climate and production traditions. A stringent regulatory system legally defines where, how and under what conditions scotch can be produced, matured and bottled. For Chinese consumers seeking symbolic reassurance of quality and legitimacy, “Scottishness” itself operates as a brand asset.

Even as international firms invest in distilleries inside China, Chinese whisky has not displaced demand for imported scotch. Instead, it has sharpened distinctions between “original” and “localised” products. In business and social contexts, prestigious scotch still functions as a form of social currency, signalling trust, respect and global sophistication.

China’s wider luxury market has softened since 2023, with sales falling by up to 20% in some categories. Economic uncertainty exacerbated by geopolitics, a downturn in house prices and subdued consumer confidence have reshaped spending priorities for Chinese consumers.

At the same time, values are changing. Younger consumers are moving away from overt displays of wealth towards more subtle expressions of taste, focusing on experiences and cultural capital. In whisky, this is reflected in a “drink less, drink better” mindset. Consumers are trading down from ultra-premium bottles towards high-quality but more accessible options, mirroring broader shifts in China’s luxury landscape.

Whisky diplomacy

This recalibration of consumption is unfolding alongside renewed trade diplomacy. The deal to halve tariffs came during the UK prime minister Keir Starmer’s state visit to Beijing following nearly eight years of strained relations between the countries.

In premium alcohol markets, tariff changes like these are highly significant, directly affecting overall costs, distributor incentives and the price paid by the consumer.

But the visit mattered for more than economic reasons. For many Chinese consumers of British heritage brands, there is a strong emotional and cognitive appreciation of the country’s traditions, aesthetics and lifestyle – an expression of the UK’s soft power. However, political mistrust between the UK and China could chip away such “soft power” in the minds of Chinese consumers if it remains unresolved.

In this context, Starmer’s visit came to symbolise renewed mutual interest and long-term commitment. Such diplomatic signals can shape consumer sentiment, reinforcing perceptions of openness, legitimacy and stability. For British luxury brands, this symbolic reassurance may be almost as important as tariff reductions in sustaining the trust and loyalty of Chinese consumers.

More broadly, the agreement highlights why a constructive UK–China relationship matters for the scotch industry. Whisky supports distilling, agriculture, packaging, logistics, tourism and rural employment in the UK. Maintaining access to China’s premium segment is vital for sustaining investment and skills.

Following the boom years, China’s relationship with western luxury brands is entering a more stable and disciplined phase. For scotch whisky, rarity, provenance and authenticity remain powerful assets. As long as producers adapt to China’s more discerning consumers – and are supported by constructive trade relations – the long-term outlook looks positive. In a world of oversupply and shrinking margins, China’s cautious connoisseurs may yet prove to be among scotch’s most valuable allies.

Qing Wang 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. Heritage, desire and diplomacy: why China still values scotch whisky – https://theconversation.com/heritage-desire-and-diplomacy-why-china-still-values-scotch-whisky-275971

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Bassindale, Head of School, Biosciences and Chemistry, Sheffield Hallam University

A drug designed to help cancer patients rebuild wasting muscles has become one of the most contentious substances in elite sport – and the scientist who discovered it now spends more time trying to stop people using it than encouraging its medical use.

James Dalton, who developed ostarine in the early 2000s, recently told the New York Times: “I spend more time now trying to stop people from using it than trying to get people to use it.” His frustration highlights a growing crisis in anti-doping, where even innocent athletes are testing positive for a drug that can be transferred through sweat or contaminated supplements.

Ostarine belongs to a class of drugs called selective androgen receptor modulators, or Sarms. Dalton and his team created these compounds as a safer alternative to traditional steroids for treating muscle wasting, osteoporosis, frailty and other conditions linked to ageing. Unlike steroids, which must be injected, Sarms can be taken as tablets or capsules, making them far easier to use.

The appeal was obvious. Traditional anabolic steroids do build muscle – the anabolic effect – but they also trigger unwanted male sexual characteristics. These include body hair growth, aggression, male pattern baldness, acne and breast tissue development in men. Women who abuse steroids can experience voice deepening and menstrual changes.

Sarms were meant to deliver only the muscle-building benefits without these side-effects. Ostarine, also known as enobosarm, showed particular promise for lung cancer patients losing muscle mass. More recently, researchers have investigated whether it could prevent muscle loss in people taking weight-loss drugs like Wegovy, where significant muscle is often lost alongside fat.

Despite this potential, no Sarm has passed the clinical trials needed for medical approval. There are concerns the drugs may cause liver damage, as reported in some users. Ostarine remains unapproved for human use more than two decades after Dalton’s initial research was published.

This hasn’t stopped it reaching athletes. When Dalton’s team published their work, the chemical structure became public knowledge. Black market manufacturers seized the opportunity, packaging ostarine as a sports supplement. Because selling Sarms as supplements is illegal, they’re often labelled “for research purposes” or “not for human consumption” – a transparent attempt to skirt regulations.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) recognised the abuse potential early, adding Sarms to its prohibited list in 2008. On the 2026 Wada prohibited list, ostarine appears under “S1.2 Other Anabolic Agents”, banned at all times in all sports.

Complicated and unfair

The problem has escalated dramatically. Over the past two years, ostarine has become the most commonly detected Sarm in Wada laboratories, appearing in 114 athlete samples. But here’s where things get complicated – and deeply unfair – for many athletes.

Sport operates under strict liability. Athletes are responsible for any banned substance found in their samples, regardless of how it got there. Even unintentional contamination can result in a ban.

The quality control of many supplements is poor, meaning products can contain traces of ostarine without declaring it on the label. The US Anti-Doping Agency maintains a list of high-risk supplements, with ostarine appearing undeclared in 19 products.

Athletes hoping to challenge a positive test must have kept the supplement and pay for independent testing – an expensive process with no guarantee of success. Sports authorities strongly recommend athletes only use supplements batch-tested by Informed Sport or NSF Certified for Sport – organisations that verify products are free from contamination.

Ostarine can also transfer between people. Athletes have successfully argued their positive tests resulted from sharing equipment. In one recent case, an athlete proved ostarine could transfer through a sweaty neoprene support shared with another athlete. Officials accepted the transfer explanation and dropped the charges.

Other cases have shown the drug can pass through bodily fluids like saliva.

This creates a profound dilemma for anti-doping authorities. Modern laboratory equipment is extraordinarily sensitive, capable of detecting minute quantities of drugs. But a urine test cannot distinguish between someone who deliberately took a large dose, someone who unknowingly consumed a contaminated supplement, or someone who absorbed traces through contact with another person’s sweat.

The burden of proof falls entirely on the athlete. They must explain why a banned substance is in their system, often at considerable personal expense. This same problem affects all Sarms, not just ostarine.

Dalton himself is now trying to solve the mess his discovery helped create. As co-chair of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Partnership for Clean Competition, he’s funding research into sports drug testing. The group’s priority is finding ways to differentiate between contamination and deliberate doping.

The hope is to identify marker compounds in urine that could definitively show whether a positive test resulted from intentional use or inadvertent contamination. Such a breakthrough would spare innocent athletes the ordeal of proving their innocence while still catching genuine cheaters.

Until then, a drug designed to help the sick continues to threaten the careers of athletes who may never have chosen to take it – and the scientist who created it remains caught in the middle, fighting against the unintended consequences of his own research.

Tom Bassindale 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. Ostarine: the performance-enhancing drug giving anti-doping agencies a headache – https://theconversation.com/ostarine-the-performance-enhancing-drug-giving-anti-doping-agencies-a-headache-275353

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Katie Edwards, Commissioning Editor, Health + Medicine and Host of Strange Health podcast, The Conversation

You are not alone in your own skin. Millions of microscopic creatures live there too.

Our skin is home to entire ecosystems of microscopic life. Bacteria and fungi get most of the attention, but mites are there too. Among the most common are demodex mites, tiny eight-legged relatives of spiders that live inside hair follicles and pores, especially on the face. Almost all adults carry them.

Despite their reputation, they are not invaders. Scientists often describe them as symbionts, organisms that live alongside us as part of a shared biological system. They feed on skin oils and dead cells, spend most of their lives tucked inside pores and come out at night to move across the skin and mate before laying eggs.

Most people never notice them at all.

In the latest episode of the Strange Health podcast, we explore what these microscopic housemates are actually doing on our bodies and why the idea of them can feel so unsettling. If mites are normal, when do they become a problem?

To find out, we spoke to Alejandra Perotti, professor of invertebrate biology at the University of Reading, who studies the relationship between mites and humans.

As Perotti explains, the presence of mites is not a sign that something has gone wrong. Human skin is not a sterile barrier. It is a habitat. That balance can shift, though. In some people, demodex populations increase dramatically, particularly if the immune system is compromised or the skin barrier is disrupted. This has been linked to conditions such as rosacea and blepharitis, which can cause redness, irritation and inflamed eyelids. Even then, the mites themselves may not be the main driver. The immune response to them, or to the microbes associated with them, may be what produces symptoms.

---

Read more:
Invisible skin mites called Demodex almost certainly live on your face – but what about your mascara?

---

Other mites live alongside us in different ways. Dust mites, for example, inhabit bedding, clothing and carpets, feeding on fungi that grow on shed skin. They do not bite, but their waste products can trigger allergic reactions in some people, contributing to asthma, eczema and hay fever symptoms.

Then there are mites that cause disease. Scabies is caused by a species that burrows into the skin to lay eggs, triggering intense itching and inflammation. Cases have been rising in parts of the UK and Europe, particularly in places where people live in close contact such as care homes, schools and student accommodation.

Despite its reputation, scabies has nothing to do with cleanliness. It spreads through prolonged skin-to-skin contact and is treatable with prescribed creams and coordinated treatment of close contacts. The stigma attached to it often causes more distress than the condition itself.

Head lice are often grouped into the same conversation, but they are not mites at all. They are insects that spread through head-to-head contact and are common among children, regardless of hygiene.

So why does the idea of mites provoke such a visceral reaction? Partly because they trigger our disgust response, which evolved to help us avoid disease. But that instinct can blur the line between normal biology and genuine medical problems.

The reality is less dramatic. Humans are not solitary organisms but ecosystems. Most of the microscopic life on our skin is either harmless or beneficial. Only a small number of species cause disease, and when they do, the issue is medical rather than moral.

Listen to Strange Health to find out which mites are simply part of everyday biology, which ones cause real problems – and why understanding them matters more than fearing them.

Strange Health is hosted by Katie Edwards and Dan Baumgardt. The executive producer is Gemma Ware, with video and sound editing for this episode by Sikander Khan. Artwork by Alice Mason.

In this episode, Dan and Katie talk about a social media clip via TikTok from prettyspatricia.

Listen to Strange Health via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript is available via the Apple Podcasts or Spotify apps.

Katie Edwards is commissioning editor of health and medicine at The Conversation in the UK. Alejandra Perotti has received funding from BBSRC.

Dan Baumgardt 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. You are covered in mites – and most of the time that’s completely normal – https://theconversation.com/you-are-covered-in-mites-and-most-of-the-time-thats-completely-normal-275865

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matthew Holland, Postdoctoral Researcher, Medicinal Chemistry, University of Oxford

A team of Romanian scientists drilled a 25-metre ice core from the Scǎrișoara Cave in search of clues for developing new medicines. The 5,000-year-old ice yielded samples of ancient bacteria.

Laboratory analysis revealed something remarkable. These bacteria, undisturbed for thousands of years, were able to grow in a variety of harsh environments. They thrived in extreme cold and high salt levels; settings that would normally prevent bacterial growth.

The scientists also discovered that the ancient bacteria were resistant to ten modern antibiotics, including powerful broad-spectrum treatments such as ciprofloxacin – drugs designed to kill many types of bacteria. In other words, the antibiotics that would normally kill bacteria or halt their growth were largely ineffective against this strain.

How can bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics long before scientists have created them or doctors have prescribed them?

The answer to this apparent conundrum lies in the fact that all modern antibiotics trace their origins back to nature. For billions of years, bacteria have been engaged in an evolutionary struggle with each other. They have produced formidable chemical attack-and-defence mechanisms as a result.

A deeper understanding of these mechanisms has the potential to help scientists discover new antibiotics to treat dangerous infections. The natural environment is densely packed with bacteria and other microbes. There is strong competition for the limited space and nutrients it provides.

Many species produce chemical compounds that kill or suppress nearby rivals. This gives them an advantage in the struggle for these resources. But the defensive chemicals they generate drive adaptation. Bacteria must protect themselves from their own toxins. Meanwhile, competitors evolve ways to withstand them.

Over billions of years, this arms race has generated an enormous reservoir of resistance genes and antimicrobial compounds.

The number of biological processes inside bacteria that antibiotics can target is limited. Yet the diversity of this natural resistance is so great that some scientists argue genes capable of resisting all future antibiotics may already exist in the environment.

The samples recovered from the Romanian ice cave offer a powerful example of this idea. The bacteria had been sealed off from the outside world for 5,000 years. Yet they were still able to demonstrate resistance to several important modern medicines. This included those used to treat severe and potentially fatal infections like tuberculosis.

There is no evidence that the microbes from the cave are harmful to humans. But bacteria do not exist in isolation. They have a remarkable ability to share useful traits with one another by exchanging small pieces of DNA, even between unrelated bacterial species. This means that resistance genes preserved in environmental bacteria do not necessarily stay there. There is a risk that if these genes pass to disease-causing bacteria, existing drugs could become less effective.

Rising temperatures are accelerating the melting of global land ice. There is a danger that long-dormant microorganisms and their genetic material could be released into the soil and water systems.

If resistance genes that have been preserved for thousands of years re-enter modern microbial communities, they could contribute to the spread of global antibiotic resistance. This would make the treatment of both common and serious bacterial infections much more difficult.

Nature’s hidden pharmacy

However, the same evolutionary pressures that drive resistance also lead microbes to produce molecules capable of killing rival bacteria.

In laboratory tests, chemicals produced by the ice cave samples were able to kill or inhibit 14 different types of bacteria known to cause human disease. This included several that are on the World Health Organization list of high-priority pathogens.

These compounds could provide starting points for the development of new antibiotics. They could help overcome existing drug resistance in harmful bacteria.

Many of today’s antibiotics were originally discovered by studying natural microbes. Penicillin is one example.

Most bacteria preserved in ancient environments remain unstudied. They may represent an important and largely untapped source of new antimicrobial compounds.

The ice cave bacteria’s DNA also contains numerous genes with no clearly identified role. These unknown sequences may represent biochemical capabilities that have never been characterised.

They offer potential not only in medicines discovery, but also in areas as diverse as industrial biotechnology. For example, enzymes that enable the bacteria to function in extreme cold could be adapted for use in industrial processes that run at lower temperatures. This could improve energy efficiency and reduce costs.

The bacteria preserved in Romanian ice illustrate how deeply rooted antibiotic resistance is within the natural world. They also demonstrate how much of nature’s chemical diversity remains unexplored.

Ancient microbes may contain potentially harmful antibiotic resistance genes that warrant careful global monitoring. But they also contain a vast store of biochemical tools that could provide us with new medicines.

As antimicrobial resistance continues to rise worldwide, understanding these ancient microbial systems may prove increasingly important.

Matthew Holland receives funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the Ineos Oxford Institute.

– ref. Ancient bacteria from 5,000-year-old ice reveals clues to fighting superbugs – https://theconversation.com/ancient-bacteria-from-5-000-year-old-ice-reveals-clues-to-fighting-superbugs-275579

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jordan Beaumont, Senior Lecturer in Food and Nutrition, Sheffield Hallam University

Weight-loss injections have rapidly moved from specialist clinics to social media feeds and high-street pharmacies. Known as GLP-1 medications, they were originally developed to support those with type 2 diabetes but are now widely used to support weight loss.

These medicines mimic a hormone called glucagon-like peptide-1, which helps regulate appetite and blood sugar. By slowing digestion and increasing feelings of fullness, they often lead people to eat less and lose weight.

Evidence suggests they can support weight loss, at least in the short term. But as use has grown, so have questions about possible unintended effects on nutrition and overall health.

A recent review of evidence suggests that some people taking GLP-1 medications may not be getting enough key nutrients. These include vitamins A, C, D, E and K, dietary fibre and minerals such as iron, calcium, magnesium, zinc and copper.

Nutritional deficiencies occur when the body does not receive enough of a nutrient to function properly. Estimates of how common these deficiencies are in those using GLP-1 medications vary widely. Some research suggests that more than 20% of people may be at risk within the first year of starting GLP-1 medications, while other studies indicate the impact may be much smaller, affecting less than 1% of users.

---

Read more:
Five things I wish people knew about supplements – by a nutritionist

---

As concern about potential deficiencies has grown, so has a new market. Supplement companies are launching “GLP-1 support” products that claim to offset side-effects such as muscle loss and vitamin deficiencies by providing the “right” nutrients for people using these medications.

But do people taking GLP-1 medications actually need these supplements?

The use of vitamin and mineral supplements has long been debated in nutrition science. Evidence supporting their benefits in generally healthy people who already eat a balanced diet is limited. Supplements can be helpful for people who are deficient in a specific nutrient.

For example, many people in the UK are at risk of vitamin D deficiency during the winter months because there is less sunlight, which the body needs to produce vitamin D. However, if someone already gets enough of a nutrient from their diet, taking extra supplements usually has little or no additional benefit.

---

Read more:
Vitamin D: everything you need to know about this supplement – from when to take it, to how much you really need

---

Much of the research linking GLP-1 medications to nutrient deficiencies is observational. These studies studies look for patterns and associations in data but cannot prove cause and effect. In other words, they can show that two things occur together but cannot confirm that one causes the other. This means we cannot yet say for certain that GLP-1 medications directly cause nutrient deficiencies.

Even so, the concern is reasonable. GLP-1 medications often lead to reduced food intake. Eating less food can also mean consuming fewer essential nutrients, which increases the risk of deficiencies over time.

So can these potential deficiencies be addressed without expensive specialist supplements? Often, yes. Small dietary changes may be enough. Eating a range of nutrient-dense whole foods, including fruit and vegetables, whole grains, nuts and seeds, dairy or fortified alternatives, and lean or plant-based proteins, can help maintain adequate nutrient intake.

If supplements are needed, standard vitamin and mineral products available on the high street are often sufficient. There is rarely any need to pay premium prices for products marketed specifically for GLP-1 users. The evidence used in marketing for these products is often weak.

Selective science

While there is some evidence to support the use of certain supplements in specific situations or for certain groups, many GLP-1 support supplements contain ingredients that are not clearly linked to the needs of people taking these medications. These products are often described as “science-backed” or “evidence-based,” but the research behind these claims is frequently selective. Much of it has not been carried out in people using GLP-1 medications at all.

For instance, many GLP-1 support supplements include biotin, a vitamin often promoted for improving hair and skin health. However, the evidence supporting this claim is weak. There is also no strong research showing that biotin offers specific benefits for people taking GLP-1 medications. Most people already get enough biotin from their everyday diet. This means there is no clear evidence that adding more through supplements will help.

Nutritional and lifestyle support for people using GLP-1 medications should be tailored to personal needs and goals. This approach is often described as personalised care. It recognises that people differ in their diets, health status and risk of deficiency. Guidance suggests that support should be personalised to meet individual needs to meet specific needs, ideally with advice from a qualified healthcare professional such as a registered dietitian or nutritionist. This is particularly important for anyone at higher risk of nutrient deficiency.

Where deficiencies are identified or likely, support may include small dietary changes or the use of standard supplements. However, this does not justify the routine use of expensive GLP-1 support supplements. These products are unlikely to offer benefits beyond those provided by basic, affordable supplements. A higher price does not guarantee higher quality or effectiveness.

The key message is simple. Supplements are most useful when someone has a confirmed deficiency or cannot meet their nutritional needs through diet alone. Taking supplements without a clear need is unlikely to provide any benefit and may simply be a waste of money.

Jordan Beaumont receives funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). He is affiliated with the Association for the Study of Obesity and the Faculty of Public Health.

– ref. Weight-loss drug ‘support supplements’: do they address nutrient deficiencies, or are they just another fad? – https://theconversation.com/weight-loss-drug-support-supplements-do-they-address-nutrient-deficiencies-or-are-they-just-another-fad-275525

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex

When the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, delivered a speech at Europe’s biggest security conference in the German city of Munich on February 14, leaders from across the continent were relieved by its content. In contrast to the previous year, when US vice-president J.D. Vance had launched a scathing attack on European-style democracy, Rubio’s tone was far more friendly and conciliatory.

He described the US as a “child of Europe”, assuring European leaders that his country was intent on building a new world order together with what he called “our cherished allies and our oldest friends”. The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said she was “very much reassured” by these remarks.

However, Rubio also repeated several of the Trump administration’s familiar criticisms of Europe’s approach to immigration and climate action, cautioning that the US is prepared to chart its new path alone. And while he claimed his country wants to reinvigorate the transtlantic alliance, Rubio questioned Europe’s will and capacity to do so.

The speech underscored the balance Rubio must strike between aligning himself with the political priorities of Donald Trump and reassuring European partners. Unlike much of the Trump administration, the secretary of state understands that the US needs to be more diplomatic with Europe to achieve its foreign policy objectives.

This isn’t the case with Vance. One year ago, he chastised Europe for its migration policies and accused its governments of suppressing free speech and populist parties. He claimed that the greatest threat to Europe’s security came “from within”, rather than Russia. According to Vance, Europe had become too politically correct, abandoning fundamental values in the process.

Vance’s speech came as a shock to European leaders in the audience. They were not completely prepared for such a blistering attack, having thought he would focus his address largely on the war in Ukraine. The speech drew praise from Moscow, including from former Russian president and prime minister Dmitry Medvedev, and triggered a year of turmoil in transatlantic relations.

In his speech, Vance echoed Trump’s view of Europe – but it’s a view that matches his own. The vice-president has never really respected Europe. This was made clear in a series of leaked messages between Vance and other US national security officials in March 2025.

When Vance discussed plans for a military strike against Houthi forces in Yemen, which he noted posed a larger threat to European shipping than American trade, he lamented: “I hate bailing out Europe again.” Though he wrote in his 2016 memoir that visiting the UK was a childhood dream, Vance had become a Euro sceptic.

This contrasts with Rubio, who has traditionally been a strong supporter of Europe and the transatlantic alliance. Although ideologically hawkish in foreign policy, he has never been an isolationist – and has consistently backed traditional collective security institutions such as Nato.

In 2015, Rubio declared that the US must make a tough response to any Russian aggression against its Nato ally Turkey. And in 2019, he was part of a bi-partisan effort to prevent any US president from leaving the Nato alliance. He said: “It is critical to our national security and the security of our allies in Europe that the United States remain engaged and play an active role in Nato.”

This stance initially put Rubio at odds with Trump. But after Trump’s election defeat in 2020, Rubio recalibrated and slowly gained his trust. And since entering Trump’s inner circle, he has thrived. Rubio now serves as the president’s national security advisor as well as secretary of state, and has gained tremendous influence in foreign affairs.

Rubio’s delicate balance

To gain so much power, Rubio has had to be ideologically flexible. In Latin America, where his hardline stance against socialist regimes strongly aligns with Trump’s foreign policy goals, Rubio is in the driver’s seat and has largely determined what the US’s interests are. This has included pressing for the ouster of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, taking a tough stance on Cuba, and pressuring Panama to push out Chinese influence.

But outside of Latin America, Rubio has adopted a more measured communication style. He has engaged in damage control while ultimately clarifying and reinforcing Trump’s positions.

Trump prefers a world where the US acts unilaterally and ignores the rules-based international order. This has been illustrated by the US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites in 2025, as well as the more recent capture of Maduro and threats to take control of Greenland from Denmark.

Rubio tried to defuse tensions with Denmark in January, claiming the US merely wanted to purchase Greenland rather than intervene militarily. He has also toned down his hawkishness on Russia, a country Trump has sought to forge closer relations with. In 2016, Rubio had stated that the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, posed the biggest threat to global security.

As recently as 2024, Rubio praised the bravery of Ukrainians in their fight against Russia. But in his Munich address, he barely mentioned Ukraine, on which Trump has been applying pressure to end the war. Rubio also did not appear at a gathering with European allies immediately before the conference to discuss the conflict in Ukraine, claiming there was a scheduling issue.

Later, he reportedly offered Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky some assurances of US commitment. Despite also warning that Ukraine would need to accept hard concessions to end the war, this was an improvement from Vance’s past questioning of why the US was spending millions of dollars defending a “few miles of territory”.

Ultimately, while Rubio’s speech in Munich was less divisive and shocking than Vance’s a year earlier, it does not resemble any significant change in US foreign policy under Trump. The US has some shared interests with Europe, but not shared values.

Natasha Lindstaedt 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. In his Munich speech, Marco Rubio balanced loyalty to Trump with reassurances to Europe – https://theconversation.com/in-his-munich-speech-marco-rubio-balanced-loyalty-to-trump-with-reassurances-to-europe-275983

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alicia Denby, Lecturer in Sociology and Criminology, Manchester Metropolitan University

Reports of widespread “dating burnout” and a cultural shift towards heteropessimism – a feeling of disappointment or despair at the state of relations between men and women – have caused panic in the media and dating apps.

Cultural debates have emerged around an alleged “rise of lonely single men” and what it means for society and future generations. Some have suggested that male singleness is a social problem partly caused by women’s supposed reluctance to “settle” in heterosexual partnerships.

For women, singlehood has largely been rebranded as a time for self-love and personal growth. The “single positivity” movement has removed much of the stigma around being a single woman (at least in one’s 20s). Women are allowed to embrace freedom and reclaim singlehood as a chosen identity.

My research on singlehood in Manchester found that single men had equally chosen to be single and were happily so. But they did not feel they could embrace this positivity. Instead, they remain polarised by harmful masculine ideals that misrepresent single men as either carefree bachelors or socially dysfunctional incels (involuntary celibates).

I interviewed ten men, aged 21-55, about their experiences of being single. Lamenting the lack of nuanced or positive portrayals, Simon, in his 40s, commented that single men are typically seen to be “having sex with half the town, or one rejection away from blowing up a school”.

From the playboy trope, characterised by Barney Stinson in How I Met Your Mother, to Theodore in the 2013 film Her, a divorcee who turns to AI for companionship, single men are represented in superficial terms. This can leave men feeling as though they must prove they are neither bachelor nor incel.

Bachelors and incels

Research on men and masculinity has long shown that young men are assumed to experience a period of sexual freedom before eventually “settling down”. Masculine ideals presume men commit to a monogamous relationship only once they have “sown their wild oats”.

On this basis, we might assume that young single men rarely face judgement for being single, and are instead celebrated for pursuing a liberated and carefree lifestyle.

However, in my research, men in their 20s spoke of the challenges they faced being single. Their singlehood was often assumed to be a result of “commitment-phobia” and a reluctance to settle down, rather than their lack of desire for an intimate relationship. In comparison, single women in their 20s did not face the same assumptions, with their singlehood rather understood as “a time to put themselves first” and enjoy freedom from being “tied down”.

Distancing himself from stereotypical representations of single men as “bachelors”, Harvey, in his mid-20s, explained:

You feel like you have to justify being single at times, and it’s because you have to differentiate that you’re not one of those stereotypes, you’re not one of “those guys” who mess girls around.

Several participants noted that masculinity and sexuality felt inescapably linked. Being in a sexual couple was understood as a key marker of masculinity. As a result, some young men worried that, if they were not visibly pursuing a relationship and not regarded as a “bachelor”, they would instead be questioned about their sexuality or desirability.

Stuart, in his early 50s, described how these pressures shaped his experiences in his 30s. He was content being single as it afforded him time to focus on his career and the ability to prioritise his friendships and hobbies. But Stuart’s friends questioned his sexuality and suggested he must be gay or asexual. This experience compelled him to participate in speed dating, not out of personal desire, but to demonstrate that he was “normal”.

Others preferred to remain single as a time to “find themselves” after experiencing difficult relationships, to accommodate caring responsibilities, or simply because they enjoyed their solitude. However, their reasoning was rarely accepted by peers, who failed to accept that their singlehood was by choice.

Pressures on women to couple up are often linked to the biological clock. But accounts in my research suggest that men, too, face age-related expectations.

The expectation for men to settle down in their 30s appears less tied to biology, and more to cultural norms that view coupledom and family life as markers of successful, responsible adulthood. According to my participants, settling down with a partner is seen as conducive to “growing up”.

---

Read more:
Why being single might feel empowering as a woman in your 20s, but not your 30s

---

Sexuality and masculinity

While men were expected to display sexual interest, being perceived as too sexually active beyond a certain age was also stigmatised. Evan described how he enjoyed the experimentation of singlehood in his early 20s, but by his late 20s felt that remaining single was no longer acceptable. He felt he was increasingly viewed by peers as “sad” or “desperate”, revealing the narrow norms governing masculinity.

When mainstream culture offers few credible or positive narratives about single men’s lives, the search for recognition and belonging can be redirected elsewhere – sometimes with harmful consequences.

Simon, 41, described joining the online group “Men Going Their Own Way” (MGTOW) in search of community with other men who were single by choice. He quickly became concerned by the group’s misogynistic orientation and its links to the broader manosphere, where MGTOW can act as a gateway to incel communities. However, while Simon recognised the risks and disengaged, he worried that younger men seeking belonging might not.

It’s time we challenged reductive stereotype of singlehood and asked: why is being single treated as a social problem? We must create space for nuanced portrayals of single men beyond the bachelor or incel.

Alicia Denby 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. Carefree bachelor or incel: men are judged for being single too – https://theconversation.com/carefree-bachelor-or-incel-men-are-judged-for-being-single-too-272479