Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sevrine Sailley, Senior Scientist, Marine Ecosystem Modelling, Plymouth Marine Laboratory

Climate change is reshaping fish habitats. Some fish are winners, others are losing out.

Fish already face plenty of pressure from overfishing and pollution. Climate change is adding more: warmer waters and shifting food supplies cause what’s known as a predator-prey mismatch. This means prey and predator are not in the same place at the same time, which not only affects our diets but also fishing industries and ocean health more widely.

As the ocean heats up, fish try to stay in the conditions they’re best suited to. Some species will move, but others can’t relocate so easily – for example, if they need to live in a certain habitat at a particular life-stage, such as in kelp that offers shelter for breeding. So, depending on the species and location, climate change could create new fishing opportunities for some countries, and big losses for others.

Fisheries managers typically group fish into “stocks”. These are populations of the same species in a defined region, often based on national borders. But those human-made boundaries don’t matter to fish. As they shift in response to climate change, managing their populations will become more complex and will need to be flexible and responsive.

By 2050, waters around the UK are expected to warm by about 1°C if we follow a “moderate” emissions path. If emissions continue to rise unchecked, the increase could reach 2-3°C by the end of the century. At the same time, the food that fish eat (such as tiny plankton) could drop by as much as 30%.

My team and I used advanced computer modelling to predict how 17 key commercial species such as mackerel, cod, plaice, tuna and sardines might respond to two future climate scenarios. Our results show a patchwork of winners and losers.

Take sardines and mackerel. These species live in the upper ocean and are sensitive to temperature. Both are expected to shift northward. This shift would be around 20 miles in the North Sea and up to 80 miles in the north-east Atlantic by 2100 under a moderate emissions scenario.

While sardines may thrive, with a 10% boost in Atlantic abundance, our model suggests mackerel could decline by 10% in the Atlantic and 20% in the North Sea. Consequently, the type and quantity of fish available will change.

Warm-water species like bluefin tuna may benefit within UK waters. Tuna is projected to shift only slightly (by approximately 4 miles) under the same scenario, but their abundance could rise by 10%, potentially bringing more of them into UK waters. That’s good news for fishers already targeting this high-value catch, or those looking to change their main target species.

But bottom-dwelling species like cod and saithe (pollock) face a tougher future. These fish prefer colder, deeper waters and have fewer options to escape warming seas due to depth limitations.

In the North Sea, they’re projected to shift southward by around 9 miles because that’s where the remaining cool, deep water is. But this won’t be enough to avoid a significant decline in their numbers: their populations are expected to drop by 10-15% under a moderate scenario by 2050.

---

Do the seasons feel increasingly weird to you? You’re not alone. Climate change is distorting nature’s calendar, causing plants to flower early and animals to emerge at the wrong time.

This article is part of a series, Wild Seasons, on how the seasons are changing and what they may eventually look like.

---

Changing tides

And if climate change accelerates, the declines become far more severe. By the end of the century, North Sea cod and saithe could fall by 30-40%, according to our model. Mackerel abundance could drop by 25% in the Atlantic, while sardines might see only a modest 5% increase, despite moving 155 miles northward. Bluefin tuna could see a 40% rise in numbers, shifting 27 miles further north.

We’ve estimated how species will shift their locations – but computer models can’t account for every interaction between marine species. For example, predator-prey relationships can be crucial in shaping an ecosystem. Bluefin tuna is a predatory species which hunts shoals of herring, mackerel and other fish.

Other predators including dolphins, seals and seabirds will all be influenced differently by climate change, with varying responses in terms of eating their favourite fish snacks.

Our projections also don’t account for continued fishing pressure – for example, 24% of north-east Atlantic fisheries are not sustainable. Further overfishing will compound the strain on fish populations.

To keep stocks healthy, fishery managers need to start planning for these changes now by factoring climate into their stock assessments. Industry regulators will also need to reconsider who gets to fish where as species move.

Fish don’t carry passports. Their shifting habitats will challenge longstanding fishing agreements and quotas. Nations that once relied on particular species might lose access. Others may find new, unexpected opportunities.

With smart management and serious action on climate, seafood can thrive in the future. Doing nothing now isn’t an option — unless we want familiar favourites like cod to vanish from our plates.

---

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

Sevrine Sailley receives funding from UKRI and Horizon Europe.

– ref. How climate change is making Europe’s fish move to new waters – https://theconversation.com/how-climate-change-is-making-europes-fish-move-to-new-waters-254650

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marcel Lukas, Senior Lecturer in Banking and Finance and Vice-Dean Executive Education, University of St Andrews

When Oasis returned to British stadiums this summer, hotel prices around venues jumped and flights filled fast. Commentators predicted that economic figures could show an “Oasis bump” – and indeed, air fares were the biggest driver of July’s inflation rise to 3.8% from 3.6% in June.

The idea is simple: a sudden wave of visitors meets fixed capacity, so prices rise. But, in truth, the more useful story is what this says about how people choose to spend, and how we should read one noisy month in the data.

Start with the mechanics. The UK consumer prices index is a weighted basket. Most of this “shopping basket” of things we all spend our money on – which includes things such as food, clothing and housing – moves slowly. A few small categories, such as accommodation and air travel, move a lot from month to month because they are priced in the month people travel.

Schedule a stadium show on a weekend during the school holidays and you get a tidy, temporary lift in those sub-indices. That can nudge the national figure for a month before easing back when the calendar quietens.

What did people actually spend? Industry and banking estimates suggest the Oasis tour drove very large ancillary outlays. Barclays anticipated total spend across the 17 UK dates would be roughly £1 billion, with an average around £766 per fan once tickets, travel, accommodation, food and drink, and merchandise are included.

In other words, most of the economic footprint sits in event tourism and hospitality rather than in the ticket itself. That is exactly where we see price spikes around concert weekends.

Do fans simply pay whatever it costs? Not quite. People do “pay up” for the event and associated expenses on the day, but most do not treat this as an impulse purchase. The pattern described in recent spending surveys and analyses is one of ring-fencing. Plan months ahead, set a budget, book early to manage risk and trim lower-priority items before and after the trip. Think of it less as a night out and more as a short break.

Three ideas help explain why this pattern holds. First, the economics of a rare event: stadium capacity is fixed and for dedicated fans a reunion is not easily substituted. So demand is less sensitive to price in the short term. That encourages dynamic pricing and a lively resale market, which can push some seat prices well above face value.

Second, the “experience economy”: many consumers now prioritise shared, memorable experiences over goods, and say they are willing to spend more for them.

Third, nostalgia: reviews framed these shows as a return to a formative time for many of the band’s fans from the first time around. Research on nostalgia and consumer choice suggests that nostalgia can lower how sensitive consumers are to prices because the purchase is tied to identity and memory, not just entertainment.

Demographics matter too. Oasis’s core audience is now mostly middle-aged: generation X and older millennials. They are in peak earning years, value convenience, and tend to bundle spend on travel, accommodation and eating out around a big night.

That mix increases certainty for venues and host cities, and it flattens the demand curve around the event itself. The result is a bigger, more predictable local footprint during the tour window, followed by a return to normal once the tour moves on.

Keep perspective

There are tensions though. Dynamic pricing can help artists capture value that would otherwise leak to resellers, yet it risks alienating fans if it feels opaque or unfair.

For host cities, the main effect is indirect. When shows sell out, pricing mostly changes who attends and when they book. Higher face values tilt audiences toward out-of-town, higher-spending fans, which pushes up hotel demand and average room rates, as well as lifting food and drink takings near venues.

Earlier ticket sales also let hotels set higher prices further in advance. Only if pricing deters enough buyers to shift the mix toward day-trippers – or leaves seats unsold – do you tend to see a smaller spike in accommodation and travel prices.

And we should be careful with “impact” headlines. Economic development researchers have long warned that some event-impact studies overstate benefits by ignoring substitution – money that would have been spent locally anyway – or by using multipliers that are too generous.

Even so, two features strengthen the case that large tours leave a visible mark. Many attendees travel from outside the host city, bringing in genuinely new money. And the price spikes in accommodation and air travel during event weekends are real enough to show up in the monthly statistics, even if only briefly.

So how should we read these statistics? Keep perspective. One month of higher services inflation such as air fares can reflect the calendar more than a change in underlying momentum. The data often show a partial “payback” in the following month as prices normalise.

For cities and businesses, the lesson is practical. Tours are scheduled long in advance. Planning for transport, staffing and clear pricing helps visitors spend well without overwhelming residents.

And for consumers, the advice is simple. If a special event matters to you, treat it like any other big purchase. Set a budget early, book with a plan and decide in advance what you will trim before or after. The evidence suggests most fans already do just that.

Will a reunion tour change the path of inflation? No. Will it show up as a blip for a month? Quite possibly. The deeper lesson is about how culture and money meet in 2025. Shared experiences carry a premium because people judge them to be “worth it” and plan around them. That is not reckless spending. It is the experience economy at work.

Marcel Lukas is a fellow of the ONS Economic Expert Working Group. He received funding from the British Academy, UKRI and Interface in the past. Marcel Lukas is Vice-Dean of Executive Education at the University of St Andrews. All opinions expressed are solely his own and do not express the views or opinions of his employers or the ONS.

– ref. Do big gigs alter economies? What the Oasis tour reveals about how we spend – https://theconversation.com/do-big-gigs-alter-economies-what-the-oasis-tour-reveals-about-how-we-spend-263474

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Sawyer, PhD Candidate, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol

Menstrual cycles are experienced by roughly half of the population for half of their lives. The experiences of menstruation on teenagers are incredibly important, especially as young people are starting periods earlier. Our research shows that this impact extends to their school attendance – and GCSE results.

Previous studies have reported that many young people take time off school and struggle to concentrate in school because of difficult experiences related to menstruation.

However, the role of specific period symptoms and their effect on exam performance and attainment are not well understood. Our recent study examined whether menstrual pain and heavy bleeding – an under-researched symptom – may have implications for school attendance and attainment.

Menstrual-related pain and heavy bleeding are commonly experienced menstrual symptoms. For many, these symptoms may be minor and have few consequences. For others they can be severe and have a significant impact on daily life.

Normalisation of these symptoms makes it difficult for people, especially young people, to identify whether their symptoms are problematic. Societal pressures to hide or conceal menstruation and menstrual stigma also foster feelings of shame, making it challenging to have conversations about periods or ask for help. As a result, many people struggle with menstrual symptoms that affect their health and wellbeing.

We conducted research using data from the Children of the 90s study, which has followed a group of children in the UK from birth into adulthood. In this study, 2,698 teenagers who experienced periods between the ages of 13 and 16 were asked about their experiences of heavy or prolonged bleeding and menstrual-related pain.

We linked this information with data from the Department for Education about the amount of school absences the young people in the study had in year 11. This is the final year of compulsory schooling in the UK, when 15- and 16-year-olds take their GCSE exams. We also linked it with their GCSE results.

Over a third of the teenagers (36%) reported heavy or prolonged bleeding. We found that participants reporting heavy or prolonged bleeding were absent from school 1.7 additional days across year 11. They scored roughly one grade lower in their GCSEs, and were 27% less likely to achieve five A*-C passes including maths and English compared to those without heavy bleeding.

More than half (56%) of the teenagers reported menstrual pain. We found that those with pain were absent from school 1.2 additional days in year 11. They were 16% less likely to achieve five A*-C passes compared to those without pain. These relationships were observed after accounting for other possible causes including ethnicity, socioeconomic position, childhood adversity, age at first period, mother and child mental health, body mass index and intelligence quotient (IQ).

Wider implications

The results from this study fit with many previous studies that have shown menstrual issues can result in more absences and difficulties focusing and concentrating. They also provide further evidence that qualifications can be affected. This shows that menstrual difficulties can restrict the ability of young people to reach their full potential, with possible implications on access to further education or employment prospects.

A recent report from the Higher Education Policy Institute, a higher education thinktank, has found similar effects on absences at university: it estimates that an average student could miss up to six weeks across a three-year university course.

Other studies have shown these effects can persist in the workplace, including a large-scale study in the Netherlands and research on endometriosis by the Office for National Statistics.

The findings that those with heavy or painful periods, on average, were absent from school more and scored lower in their GCSEs are not due to different capabilities among these teenagers. Better treatments and support are needed for people who suffer with these symptoms, as they can lead to issues such as worse sleep quality, fatigue and iron-deficiency anaemia. This can make it more challenging to attend and perform well in school.

Society in general is also not designed to provide enough support to those who menstruate, especially those who suffer with problematic symptoms. Menstrual health literacy is generally low in teenagers. However, this also persists in adults and even medical professionals.

This means it is challenging for young people to identify symptoms. If they do identify them and seek help, they may often be met with attitudes that invalidate their symptoms, discouraging them from continuing to seek help.

Teenagers can face challenges managing menstruation at school. These may include restrictions on when they can go to the toilet, or inaccessibility of period products.

This can lead to many feeling that school is not a safe and supportive environment when menstruating. They may end up missing school entirely, or struggling to concentrate if they do attend school due to worries about managing and coping with menstruation and associated symptoms. Better support is needed for young people who menstruate and who struggle with problematic menstrual symptoms, so they are able to achieve their full academic potential.

Gemma Sawyer is supported by a Wellcome Trust PhD studentship in Molecular, Genetic and Lifecourse Epidemiology (ref: 218495/Z/19/Z). The funders had no role in study design or analysis.

Gemma Sharp receives funding from the Medical Research Council (MR/Z504634/1).

– ref. Period pain and heavy bleeding linked with lower school attendance and GCSE results – new study – https://theconversation.com/period-pain-and-heavy-bleeding-linked-with-lower-school-attendance-and-gcse-results-new-study-262761

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gianni Lo Iacono, Senior Lecturer in Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey

In his 1941 novel The Library of Babel, Jorge Luis Borges imagines a universe made entirely of books – every possible 410-page combination of 22 letters, a period, a comma and a space. Somewhere within are all the meaningful works ever written, but the vast majority are nonsense.

That’s how it felt when our team began a systematic evidence map on antibiotic resistance, screening over 13,000 manuscripts to find the few relevant ones to our scope. All solid research, but it was a number that could make even our most enthusiastic collaborators go pale. We were wandering our own virtual Babel.
The scale reflects the urgency of tackling antimicrobial resistance (AMR) – a global threat to human health, food security and agriculture that could cause 10 million deaths annually by 2050, outstripping cancer’s current toll of 8.2 million.

The long fight against resistance

Focusing on antibiotics, Nobel laureate Selman Waksman defined them as “a compound made by a microbe to destroy other microbes”. Humans have understood and used this principle for millennia, from applying mouldy bread poultices to wounds to the antibiotic “golden age” of the 1940s–1960s, when an explosion of new drugs fuelled optimism that infectious diseases might soon be a relic of the past in high-income countries.

This was the era that spawned the much-repeated (and much-misquoted) declaration attributed to US Surgeon General Dr William Stewart: “It is time to close the book on infectious diseases and declare the war against pestilence won.” In truth, Stewart never claimed infectious diseases were “conquered”. He was urging greater attention to chronic illnesses, a sensible priority at the time. But with AMR rising, perhaps the balance must shift again.

Antibiotic resistance is often described as an arms race. When a new antibiotic is deployed, disease rates initially drop, until bacteria evolve resistance. Old threats reappear, while our supply of new antibiotics dwindles.

Agriculture faces a similar battle. Overused pesticides and insecticides, even disease-resistant crop varieties, all lose their effectiveness as pathogens adapt. This leads to “boom and bust” cycles that force the creation of stronger chemicals or new crop varieties.

Researchers are exploring alternative strategies, including ways to harness natural epidemic fluctuations to push harmful species toward collapse. AMR researchers (including me) and agricultural scientists could learn a great deal from one another.

Beyond misuse: the environment’s role

While the misuse and overuse of antibiotics remain major drivers of AMR, environmental factors – from wastewater discharge and pollution to pesticides, fertilisers, industrial proximity and climate – also play a role. The picture is complicated by differences in what is tested (river water, soil, air) and the type of contamination, such as wastewater and heavy metals. Drawing meaningful conclusions from such scattered evidence is daunting. The first step is to gather, organise and share it through a rigorous mapping process.

---

Read more:
How to detect more antimicrobial resistant bacteria in our waterways

---

Our own evidence map revealed surprising gaps. Of the 738 studies reviewed, only 16 examined the atmospheric environment. Airborne microbes are harder to detect than those in water or soil, but the imbalance still raises questions. Most research focused on freshwater, probably because it is easier to access and more directly linked to human and agricultural use.

This prompts a provocative question: do scientists sometimes choose research topics not purely for their societal relevance, but because of logistical ease or publishing pressures that make “safe” studies more appealing than riskier or inconclusive ones?

Such decisions can skew research priorities toward what is convenient to study rather than what is most urgent, biasing the evidence base toward positive findings and leaving critical gaps — particularly in regions hardest hit by antibiotic resistance. For example, researchers might favour easily accessible freshwater sites over remote or politically unstable regions, even if the latter face greater threats, simply because fieldwork there is cheaper, safer, and more likely to produce publishable results.

Inequality in research

We also found a stark imbalance in where AMR research is led. The countries most vulnerable to resistance – low- and middle-income nations – accounted for only a small fraction of studies. Limited surveillance, less-regulated antibiotic use, higher disease burdens and poorer waste management all play a role.

Around 91% of research came from high-income countries, with nearly half led by scientists in China and the US. In recent years, China and India – the world’s biggest antibiotic producers – have published far more AMR-related research than their research and development spending alone would predict. This suggests a strategic emphasis on AMR that goes beyond budget size, perhaps reflecting the countries’ manufacturing dominance, national health priorities, and recognition that antibiotic resistance has direct economic and public health consequences at home.

Few studies have explored how climate change interacts with AMR, though this is now an accelerating field of inquiry. Recent evidence suggests the link is growing stronger. Similarly, until 2021, almost no research examined the role of microplastics in spreading resistance – but interest is now growing rapidly, with new studies investigating how these tiny plastic particles can act as surfaces for bacteria to exchange resistance genes and travel through water, soil and food chains.

---

Read more:
Scientists reviewed 7,000 studies on microplastics. Their alarming conclusion puts humanity on notice

---

Borges’ library may, in theory, hold a perfect index to every meaningful book. But no one will ever find it. An evidence map is less romantic, but far more useful: it organises what we know, exposes the gaps, and highlights the patterns. In the fight against antibiotic resistance, it’s a way to bring order to chaos, guiding the next chapters of research and policy.

Gianni Lo Iacono receives funding from from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme under grant agreement No 773830: One Health European Joint Programme (FED-AMR project) and the European Union’s Horizon Europe Project 101136346 EUPAHW.

– ref. Environmental antibiotic resistance unevenly addressed despite growing global risk, study finds – https://theconversation.com/environmental-antibiotic-resistance-unevenly-addressed-despite-growing-global-risk-study-finds-262819

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chris Proudman, Professor of Veterinary Clinical Science, University of Surrey

Chasemore Farm stretches across 340 acres of leafy Surrey countryside just outside London. On a warm midsummer day, small groups of foals and their mothers graze peacefully in the sunshine, flicking their tails lazily at flies. It’s an idyllic scene – but these aren’t just any foals. Bred for speed, stamina and glory, they’re future competitors in some of the world’s most prestigious horse races, where the stakes are high and the prize money even higher.

Like elite human athletes, these young thoroughbreds face significant health risks as part of their sporting careers. So, what exactly are the key risks for racehorses – and how can they be minimised?

1. Bones, joints and muscles

It’s no surprise that the health of bones, joints, and muscles is critical for a racehorse, especially one built to run fast and jump far. Injuries to these systems are the most common threat to their performance, often limiting their careers or ending them entirely.

Bone, in particular, plays a central role – and it’s far more dynamic than many people realise. It isn’t inert; it adapts constantly to the forces it encounters. Modern training programmes for horses reflect this, delivering short bursts of maximal strain followed by low intensity exercise, allowing time for the bone to adapt before subjecting it to the intense demands of racing.

There’s also strong evidence supporting the early introduction of exercise in young horses. Bone and muscle adapt best during early growth. Starting gentle activity in foals can significantly strengthen bones and tendons, reducing the risk of injury later in life.

2. Respiratory infections

Like children in nursery school, young foals often pick up coughs and colds. Their immature immune systems and the close contact with other young horses make respiratory infections common. The consequences can be serious: disrupted training schedules and lingering lung issues can compromise their athletic potential.

Fortunately, coordinated efforts in vaccination and disease surveillance have been highly effective in controlling these infections. International cooperation has helped prevent major outbreaks of equine influenza, safeguarding horse populations around the world.

3. Irregular heartbeats

Irregular heart rhythms, caused by electrical disturbances in the heart, are another concern for racehorses. They can reduce performance and, in rare cases, lead to collapse or sudden death. To address this, screening and treatments adapted from human sports medicine are being deployed, and cutting-edge technologies are being developed to aid early detection. Understanding the underlying causes of these irregularities could unlock more effective prevention strategies.

4. Microbiome and performance

Every racehorse – like every human – is home to trillions of gut bacteria. These microbial communities are increasingly linked to overall health, and now, to future performance. New research from the University of Surrey has found associations between foals’ gut microbiota and their later risk of respiratory and musculoskeletal disease.

While this study didn’t prove a direct cause, the connections are compelling. Perhaps most strikingly, the gut microbiome of a foal at just one month old appears to be critical in shaping future health outcomes.

The research also uncovered links between gut bacteria and future athletic performance, reinforcing the idea of a “gut-muscle axis” – a biological relationship between the microbes in our intestines and the development of muscle tissue.

More than genes?

For over 300 years, the thoroughbred breeding industry has focused on genetic potential: the fastest, strongest, healthiest horses come from elite bloodlines. But this research hints at another form of inheritance that may have been overlooked. A foal inherits much of its gut bacteria from its mother – so microbiota, too, could be a predictor of future performance.

Back in the fields of Chasemore Farm, the foals bask in the sun, unaware of their potential. What they’ve inherited isn’t just good genes – but perhaps good gut bacteria, too. And that invisible inheritance could be just as valuable in the making of a champion.

Chris Proudman consults to The Jockey Club. He receives research funding from the Horserace Betting Levy Board and Hong Kong Jockey Club Equine Welfare Research Foundation.

– ref. Four key health risks for racehorses – and how they can be minimised – https://theconversation.com/four-key-health-risks-for-racehorses-and-how-they-can-be-minimised-262684

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marc Hudson, Visiting Fellow, SPRU, University of Sussex Business School, University of Sussex

When Donald Trump recently claimed, during what was supposed to be a press conference about an EU trade deal, that wind turbines were a “con job” that “drive whales loco”, kill birds and even people, he wasn’t just repeating old myths. He was tapping into a global pattern of conspiracy theories around renewable energy – particularly wind farms. (Trump calls them “windmills” – a climate denier trope.)

Like 19th century fears that telephones would spread diseases, wind farm conspiracy theories reflect deeper anxieties about change. They combine distrust of government, nostalgia for the fossil fuel era, and a resistance to confronting the complexities of the modern world.

And research shows that, once these fears are embedded in someone’s worldview, no amount of fact checking is likely to shift them.

A short history of resistance to renewables

Although we’ve known about climate change from carbon dioxide as probable and relatively imminent since at least the 1950s, early arguments for renewables tended to be seen more as a way of breaking the stranglehold of large fossil-fuel companies.

The idea that fossil companies would delay access to renewable energy was nicely illustrated in a classic epidode of The Simpsons when Mr Burns builds a tower to blot out the sun over Springfield, forcing people to buy his nuclear power.

Back in the real world, similar dynamics were at play. In 2004, Australian prime minister John Howard gathered fossil fuel CEOs help him slow the growth of renewables, under the auspices of a Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group.

Meanwhile, advocates of renewables – especially wind – often found it difficult to build public support wind, in part because the existing power providers (mines, oil fields, nuclear) tend to be out of sight and out of mind.

Public opposition has also been fed by health scares, such as “wind turbine syndrome”. Labelled a “non-disease”
and non-existent by medical experts, it continued to circulate for years.

The recent resistance

Academic work on the question of anti-wind farm activism is revealing a pattern: conspiracy thinking is a stronger predictor of opposition than age, gender, education or political leaning.

In Germany, the academic Kevin Winter and colleagues found that belief in conspiracies had many times more influence on wind opposition than any demographic factor. Worryingly, presenting opponents with facts was not particularly successful.

In a more recent article, based on surveys in the US, UK and Australia which looked at people’s propensity to give credence to conspiracy theories, Winter and colleagues argued that opposition is “rooted in people’s worldviews”.

If you think climate change is a hoax or a beat-up by hysterical eco-doomers, you’re going to be easily persuaded that wind turbines are poisoning groundwater, causing blackouts or, in Trump’s words, “driving the whales loco”.

Wind farms are fertile ground for such theories. They are highly visible symbols of climate policy, and complex enough to be mysterious to non-specialists. A row of wind turbines can become a target for fears about modernity, energy security or government control.

This, say Winter and colleagues, “poses a challenge for communicators and institutions committed to accelerating the energy transition”. It’s harder to take on an entire worldview than to correct a few made-up talking points.

What is it all about?

Beneath the misinformation, often driven by money or political power, there’s a deeper issue. Some people – perhaps Trump among them – don’t want to deal with the fact that fossil technologies which brought prosperity and a sense of control are also causing environmental crises. And these are problems which aren’t solved with the addition of more technology. It offends their sense of invulnerability, of dominance. This “anti-reflexivity”, as some academics call it, is a refusal to reflect on the costs of past successes.

It is also bound up with identity. In some corners of the online “manosphere”, concerns over climate change are being painted as effeminate.

Many boomers, especially white heterosexual men like Trump, have felt disorientated as their world has shifted and changed around them. The clean energy transition symbolises part of this change. Perhaps this is a good way to understand why Trump is lashing out at “windmills”.

Marc Hudson was employed as a post-doctoral researcher on two occasions on projects funded by the UKRI-funded Industrial Decarbonisation Research and Innovation Centre.

– ref. Why wind farms attract so much misinformation and conspiracy theory – https://theconversation.com/why-wind-farms-attract-so-much-misinformation-and-conspiracy-theory-262192

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Julie Taddeo, Research Professor, History Affiliate Faculty, School of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures, University of Maryland

To mark the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth, we’re pitting her much-loved heroines against each other in a battle of wit, charm and sass. Seven leading Austen experts have made their case for her ultimate heroine, but the winner is down to you. Cast your vote in the poll at the end of the article, and let us know the reason for your choice in the comments. This is Jane Austen Fight Club – it’s bonnets at dawn…

Elinor Dashwood, Sense and Sensibility

Championed by Julie Taddeo, research professor of history, University of Maryland

At just 19, Elinor Dashwood is wise beyond her years – and she must be. Like many of Austen’s young women, she suffers the consequences of a father’s careless disregard for his daughters’ futures.

Sensible and reserved, Elinor may seem less exciting than her emotional younger sister, Marianne, but who would you trust in a crisis? A drama queen who nearly grieves herself to death over an unworthy lover, or her sister who quietly endures heartbreak with maturity and grace? When Elinor believes she must accept “the extinction of all her dearest hopes”, we realise that she loves as deeply as Marianne but chooses restraint. She is, in fact, both sense and sensibility.

When Marianne marries the dependable Colonel Brandon, we suspect she believes she has “settled”. Elinor, by contrast, is rewarded with the man she has loved all along (although whether Edward truly deserves Elinor is the subject of a separate debate).

---

This article is part of a series commemorating the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth. Despite having published only six books, she is one of the best-known authors in history. These articles explore the legacy and life of this incredible writer.

---

Emma Woodhouse, Emma

Championed by James Smith, senior lecturer in literature and theory, Royal Holloway University of London

Emma nonchalantly insists that reality conform to her intentions, however outlandish or arbitrary. For one, she is determined to arrange a noble marriage for her friend Harriet Smith, despite her lack of high birth. She hilariously attributes reality’s disappointing deviations to a vulgar lack of decorum – “of judgement, of knowledge, of taste”.

Whereas in other novels such as Don Quixote, Northanger Abbey, and Madame Bovary the principal character flaws are born of reading too much, Emma has been shaped by reading decidedly too little.

Does she feel guilt for her more outlandish whims, including convincing Harriet Smith to decline a real love match? Yes, Austen’s depiction of her mortification is a realistic masterpiece. Does reality get Emma in the end? Sure. She’s ashamed of the way she behaved and endeavours to right her wrongs.

But great comedies let us have it both ways: taking satisfaction in a conciliatory solution to the crazy discrepancies between dream and reality, while transgressively allowing us to feel as though the discrepancy is with us still.

Fanny Price, Mansfield Park

Championed by Emma Sweeney, senior lecturer in creative writing, The Open University

Jane Austen’s mother wrote off the heroine of Mansfield Park as “insipid”, and she’s been dismissed by countless readers since as mousy, unlovable and priggish. Sure, Fanny Price has none of Emma Woodhouse’s wit. She lacks Elizabeth Bennet’s charm. And yet, I’ve never rooted for any of Austen’s heroines as much as I root for Fanny: the Cinderella figure, the frightened child, the poor relation.

Fanny endures real cruelty and neglect. Her place in the Bertram household is genuinely precarious. Fanny cannot afford the jauntiness of life’s Emmas and Elizabeths. Despite having been taught always to consider herself “the lowest and last”, Fanny is the bravest and most subversive of all Austen’s heroines. She resists intense pressure to marry a wealthy suitor and even dares to question her plantation-owning uncle about slavery.

Fanny might have been deprived of a fire in her room, but she certainly has fire in her belly.

Lady Susan Vernon, Lady Susan

Championed by Leigh Wetherall Dickson, associate professor in 18th and 19th-century English literature, Northumbria University, Newcastle

Possessed of an “uncommon union” of beauty, brilliance and “captivating deceit,” Lady Susan
is the most audaciously amoral of all Austen’s characters. She pursues sexual gratification and financial security with equal vigour, while taking “exquisite pleasure” in making those “pre-determined to dislike, acknowledge one’s superiority”.

That she does so while wearing the full mourning apparel of “four months a widow” demonstrates a ruthless manipulation of social surfaces and expectations of behaviour.

To her public, Lady Susan “talks vastly well” to convince of an emotional sincerity that is revealed in private to her co-conspirator, Mrs Johnson, to be false. None of this is admirable but what makes Lady Susan worthy of admiration, a response all heroines must elicit, is how quickly her vexation when thwarted turns into brazen defiance of the forces that work against her.

We can’t help but cheer her resilience when it is declared in her rallying cry “I am again myself, gay and triumphant”.

Anne Elliot, Persuasion

Championed by Katherine Halsey, professor of English studies, University of Stirling

Austen herself called Anne Elliot “almost too good for me” in a letter to her niece, Fanny Knight, in March 1817 – just after she told Fanny that “pictures of perfection … make me sick and wicked”.

Anne isn’t a picture of perfection, but she is a delight, and of all Austen’s heroines, she’s my personal favourite. I love Austen’s description of Anne’s “elegant and cultivated mind”, as well as her occasional self-mockery. Anne is intelligent, loyal, self-aware and kind. She bears her considerable trials with fortitude and generosity, and she is, above all, quietly and steadfastly brave.

She has a strong sense of justice, advocating for what is right. She’s “on the side of honesty against importance”, as Austen puts it. And she knows how to survive suffering without becoming bitter. Anne epitomises grace under pressure, and is therefore a much-needed role model in today’s world.

Catherine Morland, Northanger Abbey

Championed by Victorina Gonzalez-Diaz, reader in English language, University of Liverpool

Catherine Morland is a heroine for every modern woman who has ever felt too ordinary for the spotlight. She isn’t exceptionally beautiful or comfortably wealthy like Emma. She doesn’t duel with language the way quick-witted Lizzy Bennet does.

Instead, Catherine is wonderfully average. No practising concertos, no embroidery tournaments, no long-winded diary entries: her chief accomplishments are a nosy naivety and a vivid imagination that can transform a draughty corridor into a murder mystery.

In the end, Catherine still bags herself Henry Tilney (one of the youngest Austenian heroes) and in Eleanor she gains a sister-in-law who keeps Henry’s verbal pedantry in check. Catherine shows that you don’t need riches, brilliance or carefully-catalogued talents to claim happiness: the best way forward is to be “nice” and wish for your life to be a never-ending gothic novel.

Elizabeth Bennet, Pride and Prejudice

Championed by Nada Saadoui, PhD candidate in English literature, University of Cumbria

Elizabeth Bennet’s wit is legendary, but her true power lies in her refusal to conform. She declines her cousin Mr Collins not with coyness but as a “rational creature”, asserting her right to choose. She speaks her mind, laughs at pretension, learns from error, and demands love founded on equality. She’s an “obstinate, headstrong girl” who best embodies Austen’s radical heart.

Elizabeth does not drift into gothic fantasy like Catherine Morland, nor does she suffer the destructive excesses of sensibility like Marianne Dashwood. Instead, she strides through Austen’s landscapes with perceptiveness, humour and growth. Her rejection of Mr Darcy’s first proposal is as revolutionary as her refusal of Collins – she demands respect, not rescue.

Flawed yet gloriously self-aware, Elizabeth moves with purpose, defying social expectations to forge her own path. In her, Austen crafted not just a spirited protagonist but a timeless symbol of thoughtful rebellion. Two centuries on, Lizzy remains unapologetically sharp, delightfully human and utterly unforgettable.

Now the experts have made their case, it’s your turn to decide which of Austen’s heroines is her best. Vote in our poll below, and see if our other readers agree with you.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Emma Claire Sweeney received funding from Arts Council England to help with the research and writing of A SECRET SISTERHOOD: THE HIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS OF AUSTEN, BRONTE, ELIOT AND WOOLF.

James Smith, Julie Taddeo, Katherine Halsey, Leigh Wetherall Dickson, Nada Saadaoui, and Victorina Gonzalez-Diaz 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. Who was Jane Austen’s best heroine? These experts think they know – https://theconversation.com/who-was-jane-austens-best-heroine-these-experts-think-they-know-253085

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

When Jesse J, Christina Applegate and Katie Thurston spoke openly about their mastectomies, their candour did more than share private struggles. It highlighted a procedure that, while often life saving, is unevenly available depending on the genetic lottery into which someone is born.

A mastectomy – the surgical removal of breast tissue – is usually offered after a breast cancer diagnosis or when doctors consider a person’s inherited genetic risk so high that prevention becomes the safest option. For many, it can mean the difference between life and death. Yet who qualifies is dictated less by need than by which specific genes are affected. This disparity reveals deeper questions about genetics, prevention and medical equity.

The human body contains trillions of cells carrying out processes essential for survival. These processes are not flawless – billions of cells die each day as part of a system designed to limit damage. Central to this system is the copying and expression of DNA, the genetic script from which our bodies are built. Mistakes in this process sometimes lead to mutations.

Most are harmless, but some affect critical genes that control cell division. Tumour suppressor genes are particularly important: they are the brakes that keep cell division under control, guarding the integrity of our DNA. When they fail, cells can multiply unchecked, laying the groundwork for cancer.

Few gene families are as well known in this context as BRCA. Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are linked to particularly aggressive forms of breast and ovarian cancer.

These mutations can be inherited from either parent and confer a lifetime breast cancer risk of more than 60%. This knowledge has transformed cancer prevention over the past three decades, especially after the highly publicised decision by actress Angelina Jolie to undergo preventive surgery.

Jolie’s mother, Marcheline Bertrand, died of ovarian cancer, and genetic testing revealed Jolie carried a faulty BRCA1 gene. She chose a double mastectomy and later removal of her ovaries. Her openness about the decision is credited with an 80% increase in women undergoing BRCA testing.

British actress Kara Tointon also had a double mastectomy after genetic screening.

When the wrong mutation means fewer options

The ripple effect of these cases was profound: awareness of BRCA mutations soared, genetic testing became more common, and mastectomies became framed not only as treatment but also as a preventive strategy. Yet the focus on BRCA has obscured the broader picture.

Researchers now know that breast cancer can arise from mutations in a range of other moderate-risk genes, each of which raises risk two to fourfold. For patients carrying these mutations, however, mastectomy is rarely an option.

The barriers are both scientific and economic. Evidence remains limited on whether preventive surgery benefits people with moderate-risk mutations.

Clinical guidelines in the UK, developed primarily around BRCA and other high risk genes, do not include them. And cost is a powerful constraint.

Expanding mastectomy access would mean more operations, more reconstruction, more follow-up – a strain on health systems already under pressure. But the potential benefits are substantial.

One recent study suggested that if mastectomies were offered more widely, beyond the BRCA population, up to 11% of additional breast cancer cases could be prevented. The long-term savings, both in human suffering and in healthcare expenditure, could be significant.

This disparity exposes a fundamental inequity in cancer prevention. While people with BRCA mutations benefit from decades of research and the inclusion of their risks in clinical guidelines, others with equally worrying family histories but different genetic profiles are excluded. The result is a two-tier system: one group with access to the most aggressive preventive care, another left with surveillance and uncertainty.

The problem is only set to grow. As genetic testing becomes cheaper and more widely available, more people will learn that they carry moderate-risk mutations. Without updated research and revised guidelines, thousands will confront elevated cancer risks without the option of the same preventive measures as others. It is a dilemma that stretches beyond oncology – a test of whether medicine can deliver on the promise of personalised care.

For now, preventive mastectomy remains both a triumph of modern medicine and a reminder of its limits. It saves lives, but not equally. As one analysis concluded, true personalised care means ensuring all patients, regardless of which mutation they carry, can access the full range of preventive options. Until then, access to this life-saving surgery will depend not just on medical need, but on genetic chance.

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. Why preventive mastectomy isn’t offered to everyone at risk – https://theconversation.com/why-preventive-mastectomy-isnt-offered-to-everyone-at-risk-262249

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Styliani Panetsidou, Assistant Professor of Finance, Coventry University

Many of us check the weather forecast to plan our day – to decide whether to carry an umbrella, postpone a trip or work from home when snow is on the horizon. But weather alerts can influence more than just our personal routines. They can also move financial markets.

We have explored this phenomenon in our new research and our findings were both surprising and increasingly relevant in a world of climate change. It seems severe weather alerts can indeed move stock prices. This was unexpected, as alerts are simply warnings, not actual disasters. Yet they are enough to shift market values.

Using detailed UK data on weather alerts from 2015 to 2023 alongside the stock prices of firms with headquarters in affected areas, we showed that investors react negatively to severe weather warnings. On average, firms with headquarters in regions covered by severe weather alerts see their share prices drop by about 1%. It’s a seemingly small drop but it can actually wipe out millions in value for large companies.

This suggests that weather alerts, once considered mainly for their practical and safety implications, are now treated as market-moving information. Notably, the severity of the warning matters. Red alerts – the highest level issued by the UK Met Office, signalling real danger to life and infrastructure – trigger sharper market declines than amber alerts.

The market’s response isn’t spread evenly across all companies. Firms in weather-sensitive industries, such as energy and transport, tend to see sharper declines. For example, when heavy rain or snow threatens to halt trains or disrupt energy supply, it appears that investors quickly factor in the potential costs.

Smaller, high-risk businesses listed on the UK’s growth stock exchange – the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) – also face steeper selloffs. This could be because investors doubt their resilience to sudden shocks.

What’s striking is that these reactions are not just emotional selloffs. Investors appear to be making deliberate, strategic pricing decisions based on exposure to weather risks. Markets are, in effect, treating severe weather alerts as early warnings, not just for public safety but also for financial vulnerability.

Interestingly, one detail stood out to us – updates from the Met Office helped to calm investor nerves. When initial warnings are updated with more information, such as revised timings or affected areas for severe weather, the negative market reaction is smaller. It’s a lesson familiar to anyone who follows stock markets. Uncertainty can be more damaging than bad news, and timely information helps reduce it.

Why this matters

Over the past decades, extreme weather has become more frequent, more severe and more costly. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that the number of weather-related disasters has increased fivefold since 1970, leaving millions dead and causing trillions of dollars in economic damage.

Traditionally, financial research has focused on the aftermath of disasters – the wreckage from floods, hurricanes or wildfires. Our findings reveal something subtler but no less important. Markets are already adjusting when severe weather warnings are issued. That makes the alerts themselves a kind of financial signal.

For investors, this adds a new dimension of information to monitor. A weather alert may no longer be just a headline, it may contain material information that shapes market moves.

For firms, especially in sectors directly exposed to weather disruption, the research highlights the importance of building climate resilience and being transparent about weather-related risks. A company whose operations can grind to a halt at the first sign of heavy snow or extreme heat may find itself increasingly punished by the markets.

And this isn’t only about catastrophic storms or once-in-a-century floods. Our study shows that even amber alerts – for snowstorms, heatwaves or icy conditions – can ripple through markets. That should serve as a warning of its own. Climate volatility is becoming a day-to-day economic factor, not just a distant environmental concern.

Weather has always shaped how people live. Now it’s starting to shape how they invest. A storm warning, it turns out, can matter almost as much to the markets as the storm itself.

Styliani Panetsidou receives funding from the British Academy and the Leverhulme Trust.
.

Angelos Synapis receives funding from the British Academy and the Leverhulme Trust.

– ref. Extreme weather alerts can move markets – here’s what investors can learn from our new research – https://theconversation.com/extreme-weather-alerts-can-move-markets-heres-what-investors-can-learn-from-our-new-research-263400

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lyndon Simkin, Professor of Strategic Marketing, Manchester Metropolitan University

British businesses are under such strain that around 50,000 are on the brink of collapse according to a recent report. Retail is an especially vulnerable sector, with predictions that over 17,300 shops will close this year, costing 200,000 jobs.

Last year, the equivalent of 38 shops closed every day. A few re-opened, but most did not, fuelling a sense of economic decay on high streets across the UK where 15% of shops are now empty. In some particularly badly hit places, more shops are closed than open.

These include some still empty former premises of brands like BHS and Woolworths, which have been out of action for almost a decade. Every week, more closures are announced, with many driven by rising tax rates and operating costs.

Fashion retailer River Island recently announced 33 store closures, with more under threat. Now the fashion accessories chain Claire’s has gone into administration, putting 278 shops at risk of closure.

This is a far cry from the halcyon days of the 1980s, when an empty retail unit was rare, soon to be snaffled up by Dixons or Burton Group or a host of other expansion-hungry chains. But those days will not return. Online shopping has seen to that.

So if shopping habits have changed, so surely, must high streets. They need to be used differently – given a different purpose.

There is research which suggests that one good option is for city centres to develop an “experience economy”, where entertainment and leisure are the focus. Another viable path is to embrace more mixed use, where tourism, recreation, housing and education have a more prominent role, instead of everything being aimed at attracting shoppers.

Some towns and cities are already doing this. Former department stores are being redeveloped into a mixture of flats and offices, and retail space is being demolished to be replaced with hotels and housing.

In Cardiff for example, a new square is being planned with a former department store being demolished to be replaced with green space.

Over in Coventry, where retail footfall is down 55% from pre-pandemic levels, a large area of the city centre is being demolished and re-imagined with new street layouts and more open space. Buildings are being designed to offer leisure facilities, along with housing, offices, healthcare – and just a little retail – to breath much needed life into a struggling city centre.

Such mixed use re-developments and re-purposing are challenging. They require agreement from landlords, tenants, planners, local authorities and residents. And they demand considerable investment in new infrastructure and transport links.

Shopping around

They also require a fundamental economic and philosophical shift – to relinquish retail’s grip on the high street and city centre and let new ideas emerge and flourish. The UK needs more housing, and it needs more green open space. These were once banished from the heart of many towns, but there’s no reason for them not to return.

Unfortunately though, too few cities are acting like Cardiff or Coventry. The demoralising demise continues in many towns. One unwelcome consequence is that criminals have moved into cheap shop units to sell counterfeit goods and launder money.

The main challenge will be to achieve agreement around a vision for change. As various solutions emerge for repurposing retail space and buildings, there will be work to do that will be different in every town and city. After all, it is unlikely that only one model of land re-use will be the preferred solution everywhere.

But what is certain is that city centres must change their shape and purpose. The people who use them have already changed their behaviour. It’s time for high streets – and those who own and administer them – to catch up.

Lyndon Simkin 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. With over 17,000 shops in the UK expected to close this year, city centres must move on from retail – https://theconversation.com/with-over-17-000-shops-in-the-uk-expected-to-close-this-year-city-centres-must-move-on-from-retail-262736