Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Hastings Dunn, Professor of International Politics in the Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham

As a former reality TV star, Donald Trump often gives the impression of playing the part of a US president rather than conducting the business of leading a government seriously. Nowhere has this been more apparent than in his recent summit with Russia’s Vladimir Putin in Alaska, where the two leaders met to discuss ending the war in Ukraine.

The theatre of the occasion had been meticulously planned. Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin and organised a military flypast, while there were multiple choreographed photo opportunities. Yet what resulted was no peace deal and no prospect of the war ending any time soon.

The very act of meeting and the nature of the interaction were such that the summit instead did considerable damage to the US and broader western position on Ukraine. At the same time, it strengthened Russia’s stance considerably.

Russia used the summit to its strategic advantage, coming away with more concessions than it could have hoped for. Trump’s calls for a ceasefire in Ukraine are now gone and the prospect of additional sanctions on Russia have evaporated. Moscow now has the US president advocating for Ukraine to cede additional territory to Russia over and above the amount it has already taken by force.

The diplomatic mechanism of summitry, which is always a risky endeavour, delivered all this to Putin. I put this down to apparent poor preparation on the US side, including no preconditions, and skilful statecraft by the Russians.

Ending Putin’s isolation

Embracing Russia on equal terms with all the accoutrements of a state visit not only ended Putin’s isolation internationally. It immediately rehabilitated him on the world stage.

The symbolism of this was best demonstrated by the joint statement the two leaders delivered to the media. Putin spoke first and for longer with a well crafted speech. This contrasted sharply with Trump’s short ramble.

By recreating the theatre of a cold war summit, Trump indulged and actively reinforced Putin’s own nostalgic fantasies about Russia being a superpower with hegemonic geopolitical entitlements.

In an interview with Fox News after the summit, Trump said: “It’s good when two big powers get along, especially when they’re nuclear powers. We’re number one, they’re number two in the world.”

Trump’s statement exalted and exaggerated Russia’s position in the international system, while diminishing and sidelining the wealth and interests of European powers.

Putin hinted at future “superpower summits” to come, providing Trump with other opportunities for theatrical photo opportunities and to play the role of peacemaker.

He also suggested that US and Russian investment and business cooperation has tremendous potential “in trade, digital, high tech and space exploration” as well as the Arctic. And ahead of the summit, Putin indicated that he wants to pursue a new nuclear weapons agreement with Trump.

By bringing his treasury and commerce secretaries, Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick, to Alaska, Trump had clearly taken the bait that there are lucrative opportunities on offer for the US if only the troublesome issue of Ukraine can be quickly settled and moved beyond. This framing was evident in Trump’s assessment that the summit went well and that there was much that the two sides agreed on.

A considerable setback

Trump’s love of the limelight, particularly when it garners the world’s attention, has been a feature of his two presidencies. His meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un during his first administration had all the pomp and performativity of previous summits. Trump left without any agreement or real improvement in relations.

It did, however, succeed in ending the damaging social media spats between the leaders that had unnecessarily escalated real-world tensions. The meeting in Alaska is likely to have the opposite effect.

For Russia, it has reinforced the nostalgic fantasy that it is a superpower with a right to a sphere of influence. Given that Europe has been arguing for three years that it is the Russian mindset that is the problem, not just its current aggression in Ukraine, this is a considerable setback.

Putin was given the opportunity to flatter Trump’s ego about the 2020 election, which the US president claims was rigged, and suggest that the war would never have happened if Trump had been in charge. Now, Ukraine is once again being seen by Trump as the obstacle to peace.

The Russians, by persuading Trump to give up his demand for an immediate ceasefire, have bought themselves more time to make further advances on the battlefield. They have also stalled any further pressure from Washington while they pretend to negotiate seriously.

The only positive outcome of the encounter may be the realisation of European leaders that well prepared summit meetings with Trump are an open opportunity to move the dial back in their direction.

David Hastings Dunn has previously received funding from the ESRC, the Gerda Henkel Foundation, the Open Democracy Foundation and has previously been both a NATO and a Fulbright Fellow.

– ref. How Russia emerged as the clear winner from the Alaska summit – https://theconversation.com/how-russia-emerged-as-the-clear-winner-from-the-alaska-summit-263322

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jason Hickel, Professor at the Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, Autonomous University of Barcelona

Data from the World Bank suggests that extreme poverty has declined dramatically over the past four decades, from 47% of the world’s population in 1981 to around 10% today.

This narrative is based on the World Bank’s method of calculating the share of people who live on less than US$3 per day in 2021 prices. This is adjusted for general price differences between countries (what’s known as purchasing power parity, or PPP).

But a growing body of literature argues that the World Bank’s PPP-based method has a major empirical limitation. The problem is that it does not account for the cost of meeting basic needs in any given context. Having more than US$3 PPP does not guarantee that a person can afford the specific goods and services that are necessary for survival in a particular location.

In recent years, scholars have developed what they argue is a more accurate method for measuring extreme poverty. This is done by comparing people’s incomes to the prices of essential goods (specifically food, shelter, clothing and fuel) in each country.

This approach is known as the “basic needs poverty line” (BNPL), and it more closely reflects what the original concept of extreme poverty was intended to measure. There is robust data from household consumption surveys and consumer prices covering the period from 1980-2011.

The BNPL data indicates that the story of global poverty over the past few decades is more complex – and troubling – than the World Bank narrative suggests.

This data indicates that between 1980 and 2011, the global extreme poverty rate declined by only six percentage points, from 23% to 17%. During the same period, the number of people in extreme poverty actually increased, from 1.01 billion to 1.20 billion.

What’s more, the alleviation of poverty has not been steady. In the 1980s and 1990s, an additional one billion people were thrown into extreme poverty. This occurred during the period when market reforms were implemented across most of the global south (developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America), often under pressure from western-controlled financial institutions. There was improvement throughout the 2000s, but progress has ultimately been slow and shallow.

Rising food insecurity

Robust BNPL data does not exist after 2011. However, data from the UN Food and Agricultural Organization’s (FAO) surveys on food insecurity shows that the proportion of the world population without reliable access to food increased steadily during the past decade or so, going from 21% in 2014 to 30% in 2022.

This includes cases of severe food insecurity, which is associated with prolonged periods of hunger. The share of the world population suffering in this way has increased from 7.7% to 11.3%.

Given that secure access to food is central to the BNPL method, we may assume that post-2011 poverty trends have probably not improved much, if at all.

This has important implications for the United Nations’ millennium development goals. The first of these set out to halve the proportion of the world’s population living in extreme poverty between 1990 and 2015. But the data on basic-needs poverty and food insecurity indicates that this goal was probably not achieved.

Extreme poverty is not a natural condition, but a sign of severe dislocation. Data on real wages since the 15th century indicates that, under normal conditions, across different societies and eras, people are generally able to meet their subsistence needs except during periods of severe social displacement.

This includes crises like famine and war, and the institutionalised denial of resources to marginalised people, particularly under European colonialism.

What’s more, the BNPL data shows that many countries have achieved very low levels of extreme poverty, even where GDP per capita is not high. They have done this by using strategies such as public provisioning and price controls for basic essentials.

This is consistent with previous research that found that these strategies can enable better social outcomes at any level of income.

In fact, research shows that the world economy already has enough productive capacity to eliminate global poverty many times over. Indeed it is possible not only to eliminate extreme poverty, but also to eliminate deprivation at much higher thresholds.

With these levels of production, we could ensure universal access to healthcare, education, modern housing, sanitation systems, electricity, clean cooking stoves, refrigeration, mobile phones, internet, computers, transport, household appliances and other necessities for decent living standards, for more than eight billion people.

The fact that poverty persists at such high levels today indicates that severe dislocation is institutionalised in the world economy – and that markets have failed to meet the basic needs of much of humanity.

Ending extreme poverty is the first objective of the UN’s sustainable development goals. The world economy has the resources and productive capacity to realise this goal – and more. But achieving it will require organising production to guarantee universal access to the specific goods and services that people need to live decent lives.

Jason Hickel receives funding from European Research Council (ERC-2022-SYG reference number 101071647).

Dylan Sullivan receives funding from European Research Council (ERC-2022-SYG reference number 101071647).

Michail Moatsos receives funding from UKRI.

– ref. Has extreme poverty really plunged since the 1980s? New analysis suggests not – https://theconversation.com/has-extreme-poverty-really-plunged-since-the-1980s-new-analysis-suggests-not-261144

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sander van der Linden, Professor of Social Psychology in Society, University of Cambridge

Modern vaccines have saved over 150 million lives. Yet misinformation about them can still have deadly consequences. A gunman recently opened fire at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters, wrongly believing that the coronavirus vaccine had caused his depression.

Public health is increasingly being threatened by the spread of dangerous misinformation. In fact, there have been several recent cases of healthy unvaccinated children who died after contracting the highly contagious measles virus – including in July in Liverpool. Childhood vaccination rates in the UK are now at their lowest point in over a decade, well below the World Health Organization recommended threshold of 95% for herd immunity.

A key question for scientists and public health practitioners alike is how to design interventions that help reduce people’s susceptibility to health misinformation. To help accomplish this, we designed a free browser game, Bad Vaxx, that simulates social media and lets players step into the shoes of online grifters who peddle vaccine misinformation, using four common manipulation tactics.

In three experimental trials, we found that the game helps people discern significantly better between credible and misleading information about vaccinations, boosts players’ confidence in their judgments, and reduces their willingness to share vaccine-related misinformation with others.

Much research shows that once exposed, people often continue to rely on falsehoods despite having seen a debunk or fact-check. Fact-checks matter, but it’s difficult to get people to engage with science and to spread corrective information across an increasingly fractured media landscape.

Inoculating minds

Our new game draws inspiration from a more preemptive approach known as “prebunking”. Prebunking aims to prevent people from encoding misinformation into their brains in the first place.

The most common way to prebunk misinformation is through psychological inoculation – an approach that befittingly parallels the immunisation analogy. Just as the body gains immunity to infection through exposure to severely weakened doses of a viral pathogen (that is, the vaccine), so too can the mind acquire cognitive resistance to misinformation. This happens through exposure to weakened doses of the tricks used to manipulate people online, along with clear examples of how to identify and neutralise them.

One way to build immunity is to immerse people in a social media simulation. This is exactly what happens in our game, Bad Vaxx.

In a controlled setting, people are exposed to weakened doses of the main techniques used to deceive people on vaccination through humorous and entertaining scenarios where people interact with four shady characters. They include Ann McDoctal, who loves to float scary anecdotes about vaccines, Dr Forge, who fakes his expertise and gets traction by pumping out pseudoscience, Ali Natural, who promotes the naturalistic fallacy (“if it’s natural, it must be good”), and the conspiracy theorist Mystic Mac, who doubts all official narratives.

The player can choose between two competing perspectives: one, take on the role of an online manipulator to see how the sausage is made, or two, try to defeat the characters by reducing their influence.

Cognitive inoculation is thought to work, in part, by introducing a sense of threat to elicit motivation to resist propaganda, which both perspectives aim to achieve, albeit through different means. People were randomly assigned to either the “good” or “evil” version of our 15-minute game or a placebo group (who played Tetris).

We “pre-registered” our study, meaning we wrote down our hypothesis and analysis plan before collecting any data, so we couldn’t move the goalposts.

We measured effectiveness by asking people how manipulative they found vaccine misinformation embedded in social media posts, how confident they are in their judgments, and whether they intend to share the post with their networks.

We based the test on real-world misinformation that corresponded to each of the techniques featured in the game or a non-manipulative (neutral) counterpart. This was done to see if the game improves people’s ability to discern between misleading and credible content. For example, a conspiratorial post read: “Vaccine database wiped by government to hide uptick in vaccine injuries.”

In all our tests, we found that both versions of the game helped people get much better at spotting fake vaccine information. Players also became more confident in their ability to tell real from fake, and they made better decisions about what to share online. The version where you play as the “good guy” worked slightly better than the version where you play as the “bad guy”.

Boosting discernment without breeding cynicism

We also found that people became significantly better at spotting false and manipulative content without becoming sceptical of credible content that doesn’t use manipulation. In other words, players became more discerning.

Of course, the immunisation analogy should not be over-interpreted as effects of psychological interventions are generally modest and do wear off but epidemiological simulations show that when applied across millions of people, prebunking can help contain the spread of misinformation.

Although vaccination decisions are complex, much research has shown a robust link between exposure to misinformation and reduced vaccination coverage. Needless to say, misinformation about vaccines is not new. In the 1800s, anti-vaxxers falsely claimed that taking the cowpox vaccine against smallpox would turn you into a human-cow hybrid.

What’s different today is that the most influential misinformation is coming from the top, including prominent politicians and influencers, who spread thoroughly debunked claims, such as the myth that the MMR vaccine causes autism.

Empowering the public to identify pseudoscience, misdirection, and manipulation in matters of life and death is therefore crucially important. We hope that our easy-to-play, short prebunking game can be integrated into educational curriculums, used by public health officials, doctors and patients in medical settings, and feature as part of international public health campaigns on social media and beyond. After all, viruses need a susceptible host. If enough people are immunised, misinformation will no longer have a chance to spread.

Sander van der Linden has received funding from the UK Cabinet Office, Google, the American Psychological Association, the US Centers for Disease Control, EU Horizon 2020, the Templeton World Charity Foundation, and the Alfred Landecker Foundation. He has lectured and/or consulted for the WHO, UN, Meta, Google, the Global Engagement Center (US State Dept), and UK Defense and national intelligence.

Jon Roozenbeek has received funding from the UK Cabinet Office, the US State Department, the ESRC, Google, the American Psychological Association, the US Centers for Disease Control, EU Horizon 2020, the Templeton World Charity Foundation, and the Alfred Landecker Foundation.

During her time at Stanford University, Ruth Elisabeth Appel has been supported by an SAP Stanford Graduate Fellowship in Science and Engineering, a Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society PhD Research Fellowship, a Stanford Impact Labs Summer Collaborative Research Fellowship, and a Stanford Impact Labs Postdoctoral Fellowship. She has interned at Google in 2020 and attended an event where food was paid for by Meta. After completing her research at Stanford University, which forms the basis for this article, she joined Anthropic to research the economic and societal impacts of AI.

– ref. Can a game stop vaccine misinformation? This one just might – https://theconversation.com/can-a-game-stop-vaccine-misinformation-this-one-just-might-262468

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aaron Thierry, PhD Candidate, Social Science, Cardiff University

Despite decades of scientists’ warnings about climate and ecological breakdown, record-breaking heat and escalating environmental disasters have become commonplace. Science has been attacked, dismissed and politicised, and the world is accelerating in a terrifying direction.

To scientists this can feel particularly overwhelming. So what can we do?

Scientific knowledge alone hasn’t generated the urgent societal action many scientists expected. Therefore, to protect ourselves, future generations and countless other species, some scientists have started to reflect on their tactics. Not prepared to be neutral in the face of such an all encompassing threat, scientists like us have been asking what our role should be in an era when our planet’s life support systems are crumbling so rapidly, while governments and officials pour fuel on the flames.

Answering this question has led some of us to join social movements and take part in peaceful protests. Three years ago, a group of scientists were arrested in the course of protesting the UK government’s decisions to licence new oil fields. We were among the lab-coat wearing protesters who took the science to the government that day, pasting huge posters explaining the dangers of new fossil fuels onto the windows of the department that was committing us to them for decades to come.

It was a surreal experience, recently documented in the short film Plan Z: From Lab Coats to Handcuffs (2024) and a book called Scientists on Survival: Personal Stories of Climate Action (2025).

While taking a visible, public stand against harmful decisions can be a provocative and effective route for scientists to push for change, it isn’t the only way we can be effective advocates. Recent surveys reveal that there is a great appetite from scientists to be more involved in social movements, but many face barriers to participation and often don’t know where to start or how best to contribute.

In our recent article published in the journal npj Climate Action in collaboration with our colleague and science communicator Abi Perrin, we explore how scientists across all disciplines, backgrounds and career stages can get involved in activism in a range of practical ways. Whatever your strengths and limitations (depending on your status and which country you live), there are many positive ways to engage.

From silos to society

Currently scientific disciplines can be quite isolated from one another, and scientists generally aren’t very prominent in the public domain. We might feel restricted to speaking to our own very specific expertise but a scientist’s job involves understanding complex information, converting and communicating it into simpler, more useful forms.

Scientists can communicate about climate and nature, even without writing a PhD thesis on it. And we can be very powerful when we do: scientists are still widely trusted.

Politicians need to listen to scientists, not just the lobbyists. This is why engaging directly with MPs (or equivalents) is a route more scientists like us are taking. For instance, scientists in the UK have been important and prominent champions of the Climate and Nature Bill currently being debated in the House of Commons.

Social movements need scientists too. We can use our research and communication skills to inform and improve campaigns, bringing them to a wider audience. This support adds credibility to campaigns. We can also analyse what works to investigate, for example, the effectiveness of different activism strategies and targets in a range of contexts.

Academics have also supported activist campaigns against destructive infrastructure development by speaking at public hearings, as well as providing expert witness testimonies for activists in court for acts of protest.

Scientists can also push for cultural and policy change within our own institutions, including research institutions, science academies and professional bodies. This might include cutting ties to the fossil fuel industry, reorienting research and teaching to focus on sustainable development or accelerating the decarbonisation of campus activities.

We can support colleagues and students who engage in protests and encourage peers and leaders to do the same. It is easier to take action when you know you are not acting alone.

It’s more important than ever that our professional bodies and institutions are emboldened by their membership to advocate for the public good that science brings, and the need to defend academic freedom, recognising that often means speaking truth to power.

Collective action is crucial. We can all seek out allies, organise among peers and build powerful coalitions, rather than hoping science will passively translate into change. Time is of the essence.

---

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.

---

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.

Aaron Thierry receives funding from ESRC. He is affiliated with Scientists for Extinction Rebellion.

Tristram Wyatt is affiliated with Scientists for Extinction Rebellion.

– ref. How scientists can contribute to social movements and climate action – https://theconversation.com/how-scientists-can-contribute-to-social-movements-and-climate-action-261959

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Iris Mikulic, Research Assistant, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet

You have probably heard the phrase “follow your gut” – often used to mean trusting your instinct and intuition. But in the context of the gut-brain axis, the phrase takes on a more literal meaning. Scientific research increasingly shows that the brain and gut are in constant, two-way communication. Once overlooked, this connection is now at the forefront of growing interest in neuroscience, nutrition and mental health.

The gut–brain axis is a highly complex system of interconnected pathways that relay information through diverse signals. Previous research has suggested that gut inflammation may contribute to the development of dementia. This may occur through to the triggering of systemic inflammation and the disruption of the pathways between the gut and the brain.

While interest in the gut-brain axis has grown rapidly, there is still limited understanding of whether intestinal inflammation might accelerate cognitive decline in people who already have dementia.

IBD and dementia connection

Our study explored this under-researched question, aiming to expand understanding in this area and improve the care of those affected. We focused on people who had already been diagnosed with both dementia and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Dementia refers to a group of neurological disorders with different underlying causes, all characterised by progressive cognitive decline and increasing loss of independent function.

It is a growing global health concern, with the number of diagnoses rising steadily around the world. Older age remains the most significant risk factor for developing the condition.

In 2024, the FDA approved donanemab, a second novel drug aimed at slowing the progression of early-stage Alzheimer’s disease – the most common form of dementia. However, there is still no cure, and current treatments are primarily focused on managing symptoms.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a complex, chronic inflammatory condition affecting the gastrointestinal tract. It includes Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and IBD-unclassified (also called indeterminate IBD), which refers to cases where symptoms and clinical findings do not clearly fit the criteria for either Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis.

IBD is typically characterised by symptoms such as abdominal pain, diarrhoea and changes in bowel habits. However, because it can have systemic (extra-intestinal) effects, the condition can also affect other parts of the body, including the skin, eyes, joints and liver but can also cause general fatigue.

IBD should not be confused with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), which is a common functional condition of the gastrointestinal tract. IBS can cause similar symptoms – such as abdominal pain and changes in bowel habits – however, unlike IBD, there are no changes in gut tissue.

While there is currently no cure for IBD, except in ulcerative colitis, where, in some select cases, surgery may be curative, IBD can often be managed with (anti-inflammatory) medications and lifestyle changes.

IBD is a global health problem. Worldwide, between 1990 and 2021, new cases increased across all age groups, with the biggest jump seen in people aged 50 to 54. The smallest increase occurred in children under five. Importantly, IBD can be diagnosed from early childhood to later life, but in older adults, among others, symptoms can be mistaken for other conditions – potentially delaying diagnosis and treatment.

For our study, we used data from the Swedish Registry for Cognitive/Dementia Disorders (SveDem) – a comprehensive national quality registry that holds detailed medical information on people with various forms of dementia across Sweden. From this database, we identified people who were diagnosed with IBD after their dementia diagnosis. We then compared 111 people who had both dementia and newly diagnosed IBD with a control group of 1,110 people who had dementia but no IBD diagnosis. The two groups were closely matched for age, gender, type of dementia, other health conditions and medication use.

Measuring cognitive decline

To measure changes in cognitive function, we used the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score. The MMSE is a standardised test made up of 11 tasks, with a maximum score of 30 points. It is widely used by healthcare professionals to assess memory, attention, language and other aspects of cognitive performance, particularly when dementia is suspected. People without dementia typically score between 25 and 30, while those with dementia often score below 24.

In our study, we compared MMSE scores between the two groups. We also looked at changes in MMSE scores before and after the IBD diagnosis in people who had both dementia and IBD. Our results showed that those with both conditions experienced a significantly faster decline in cognitive function. This decline became more noticeable after the IBD diagnosis. On average, people with both diagnoses lost nearly one additional MMSE point per year compared to those with dementia alone. This level of decline is comparable to the difference seen between people with dementia who take the new Alzheimer’s drug donanemab and those who do not.

Our findings suggest that IBD – and the systemic inflammation it causes – may contribute to a faster worsening of cognitive function. This highlights the need for closer monitoring of people with both conditions. Managing IBD effectively through anti-inflammatory medications, nutritional support and in some cases surgery, might potentially help reduce neuroinflammation, thereby slowing the progression of dementia.

While our results indicate that cognitive decline was significantly faster in people with both dementia and newly diagnosed IBD, it is important to note that this was an observational study, so we cannot establish direct causality. The study also had some limitations. For instance, we lacked data on IBD severity and the specific treatments patients were receiving. We also did not explore differences by gender, dementia subtype, or IBD subtype.

Additionally, since dementia is typically diagnosed in older age, the elderly onset IBD cases may have been underdiagnosed. Finally, while SveDem is a valuable national registry, it does not yet include all newly diagnosed dementia cases in Sweden.

Understanding how IBD influences the brain could open the door to new strategies for protecting cognitive health in older adults. Furthermore, identifying whether specific IBD treatments can slow cognitive decline may benefit people living with both conditions and could help with the refinement of care for this vulnerable patient population.

Hong Xu receives funding from the Swedish Research Council (Starting grant#2022-01428) and the Center for Innovative Medicine Foundation (CIMED, FoUI-1002840).

Jonas F. Ludvigsson has coordinated an unrelated study on behalf of the Swedish IBD quality register (SWIBREG). That study received funding from Janssen corporation. Dr Ludvigsson has also received financial support from Merck/MSD for an unrelated study on IBD; and for developing a paper reviewing national healthcare registers in China. Dr Ludvigsson has also an ongoing research collaboration on celiac disease with Takeda.

Iris Mikulic 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. How inflammatory bowel disease may accelerate the progression of dementia – https://theconversation.com/how-inflammatory-bowel-disease-may-accelerate-the-progression-of-dementia-260904

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Graham Finlayson, Professor of Psychobiology, University of Leeds

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have become public enemy number one in nutrition debates. From dementia to obesity and an epidemic of “food addiction”, these factory-made products, including crisps, ready meals, fizzy drinks and packaged snacks, are blamed for a wide range of modern health problems. Some experts argue that they’re “specifically formulated and aggressively marketed to maximise consumption and corporate profits”, hijacking our brain’s reward systems to make us eat beyond our needs.

Policymakers have proposed bold interventions: warning labels, marketing restrictions, taxes, even outright bans near schools. But how much of this urgency is based on solid evidence?

My colleagues and I wanted to step back and ask: what actually makes people like a food? And what drives them to overeat – not just enjoy it, but keep eating after hunger has passed? We studied more than 3,000 UK adults and their responses to over 400 everyday foods. What we found challenges the simplistic UPF narrative and offers a more nuanced way forward.

Two ideas often get blurred in nutrition discourse: liking a food and hedonic overeating (eating for pleasure rather than hunger). Liking is about taste. Hedonic overeating is about continuing to eat because the food feels good. They’re related, but not identical. Many people like porridge but rarely binge on it. Chocolate, biscuits and ice cream, on the other hand, top both lists.

We conducted three large online studies where participants rated photos of unbranded food portions for how much they liked them and how likely they were to overeat them. The foods were recognisable items from a typical UK shopping basket: jacket potatoes, apples, noodles, cottage pie, custard creams – more than 400 in total.

We then compared these responses with three things: the foods’ nutritional content (fat, sugar, fibre, energy density), their classification as ultra-processed by the widely used Nova system – a food classification method that groups foods by the extent and purpose of their processing – and how people perceived them (sweet, fatty, processed, healthy and so on).

Perception power

Some findings were expected: people liked foods they ate often, and calorie-dense foods were more likely to lead to overeating.

But the more surprising insight came from the role of beliefs and perceptions. Nutrient content mattered – people rated high-fat, high-carb foods as more enjoyable, and low-fibre, high-calorie foods as more “bingeable”. But what people believed about the food also mattered, a lot.

Perceiving a food as sweet, fatty or highly processed increased the likelihood of overeating, regardless of its actual nutritional content. Foods believed to be bitter or high in fibre had the opposite effect.

In one survey, we could predict 78% of the variation in people’s likelihood of overeating by combining nutrient data (41%) with beliefs about the food and its sensory qualities (another 38%).

In short: how we think about food affects how we eat it, just as much as what’s actually in it.

This brings us to ultra-processed foods. Despite the intense scrutiny, classifying a food as “ultra-processed” added very little to our predictive models.

Once we accounted for nutrient content and food perceptions, the Nova classification explained less than 2% of the variation in liking and just 4% in overeating.

That’s not to say all UPFs are harmless. Many are high in calories, low in fibre and easy to overconsume. But the UPF label is a blunt instrument. It lumps together sugary soft drinks with fortified cereals, protein bars with vegan meat alternatives.

Some of these products may be less healthy, but others can be helpful – especially for older adults with low appetites, people on restricted diets or those seeking convenient nutrition.

The message that all UPFs are bad oversimplifies the issue. People don’t eat based on food labels alone. They eat based on how a food tastes, how it makes them feel and how it fits with their health, social or emotional goals.

Relying on UPF labels to shape policy could backfire. Warning labels might steer people away from foods that are actually beneficial, like wholegrain cereals, or create confusion about what’s genuinely unhealthy.

Instead, we recommend a more informed, personalised approach:

• Boost food literacy: help people understand what makes food satisfying, what drives cravings, and how to recognise their personal cues for overeating.

• Reformulate with intention: design food products that are enjoyable and filling, rather than relying on bland “diet” options or ultra-palatable snacks.

• Address eating motivations: people eat for many reasons beyond hunger – for comfort, connection and pleasure. Supporting alternative habits while maximising enjoyment could reduce dependence on low-quality foods.

It’s not just about processing

Some UPFs do deserve concern. They’re calorie dense, aggressively marketed and often sold in oversized portions. But they’re not a smoking gun.

Labelling entire categories of food as bad based purely on their processing misses the complexity of eating behaviour. What drives us to eat and overeat is complicated but not beyond understanding. We now have the data and models to unpack those motivations and support people in building healthier, more satisfying diets.

Ultimately, the nutritional and sensory characteristics of food – and how we perceive them – matter more than whether something came out of a packet. If we want to encourage better eating habits, it’s time to stop demonising food groups and start focusing on the psychology behind our choices.

Graham Finlayson has received funding from Horizon Europe, UKRI and Slimming World, UK.

James Stubbs consults to Slimming World UK. He receives funding from UKRI.

– ref. Ultra-processed foods might not be the real villain in our diets – here’s what our research found – https://theconversation.com/ultra-processed-foods-might-not-be-the-real-villain-in-our-diets-heres-what-our-research-found-261867

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Shooka Bidarian, Media and Journalism Fellow, Sustainability and Climate at United Nations University Institute of Water Health and Environment, United Nations University

From arid deserts and alpine meadows to dense wetlands and temperate forests, Iran’s natural landscapes give rise to rich native wildlife. This country is home to over 8,000 species of plants, nearly 500 bird species and 194 mammals. The UN has listed 13 special ecological areas, including salt lakes and marshlands, that support huge numbers of migratory birds.

But this rich natural heritage is under growing threat. The Asiatic cheetah, once widespread across west Asia, is now confined to desert reserves in central Iran, with fewer than 50 remaining.

The Persian onager, a wild ass native to Iran’s deserts, struggles on with just 600–700 animals remaining, displaced by both water scarcity and livestock. And the Siberian crane, once a seasonal visitor, has vanished from the Iranian landscape entirely. The last known individual, a male named Omid, was last spotted over three years ago.

Iran’s accelerating biodiversity crisis is a warning sign, but it does not exist in isolation. The country’s ecosystems are under siege not only from species loss, but also from deeper, systemic environmental pressures.

Chief among these is a worsening water crisis. This is now widely recognised by researchers as a case of “water bankruptcy”, where unsustainable demand has long outstripped the country’s renewable water resources.

Due to the Iran-Iraq war, international isolation and sanctions since the 1980s, the government has driven policies to make the country’s food system more self-sufficient. They have promoted growing crops such as wheat and rice, which are water-intensive and ill-suited to Iran’s arid climate.

Today, more than 90% of Iran’s water is allocated to agriculture, primarily to grow these water-hungry crops in some of the driest parts of the country. The consequences have been stark: land degradation, the erosion of rural livelihoods and a deepening cycle of poverty and environmental decline.

Poor water governance and inappropriate farming have driven the depletion of aquifers (underground layers of porous rock saturated with groundwater) and the drying out of rivers and wetlands. This has placed mounting stress on communities and local economies.

These challenges are compounded by entrenched interests and fragmented institutions’ oversight, and bureaucracies that are competing for control of the limited water supplies. In such a landscape, meaningful reform and equitable distribution become difficult, if not impossible.

Poverty, migration and dysfunctional institutions are causing widespread food insecurity. Without coherent, transparent governance and a long-term vision for environmental stewardship, Iran’s water crisis threatens to undermine both public welfare and national economic stability.

Environmental advocacy in Iran faces formidable legal and political barriers. Civil society organisations have confidentially told us they often struggle to formally register due to restrictive state permitting systems. This limits their ability to operate independently or engage in effective community mobilisation. Meanwhile, independent conservation efforts have come under increasing scrutiny by the Iranian government.

In 2018, several conservationists from the Persian Wildlife Heritage Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation, were arrested on national security charges, despite no credible evidence. This move was widely condemned by international human rights organisations.

These arrests were central to the documentary Tears of Extinction (written and presented by one of us, Shooka Bidarian) that highlighted how, without these conservation efforts, the Asiatic cheetahs would face extinction within a few years.

From challenge to reform

The prosecutions and prolonged detentions have contributed to a chilling effect, discouraging other scientists and conservation organisations from engaging in environmental work due to fears of surveillance and reprisal. This concern was publicly echoed by Issa Kalantari, then vice-president and head of Iran’s Department of Environment, who stated that “if we knew they were spies, we would have treated them differently” and admitted the arrests caused environmental activities across the country to freeze.

Despite the severity of Iran’s environmental challenges, experts from the United Nations University and colleagues have outlined actionable reforms. These range from modernising irrigation systems and adjusting water pricing to enhancing data transparency and embracing participatory, decentralised governance.

Long-term resilience also requires adaptive planning that integrates climate variability and social vulnerability into national water strategies. These aren’t radical ideas. These approaches have been proven to work well in other water-stressed regions such as Australia.

To protect Iran’s ecosystems and ensure their survival for future generations, the country needs new approaches to environment governance. This needs to include sustained, science-led conservation, supported by international collaboration and local participation.

---

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.

---

Shooka Bidarian is affiliated with United Nations University and The Climate Reality Project

Mark Maslin is Pro-Vice Provost of the UCL Climate Crisis Grand Challenge and Founding Director of the UCL Centre for Sustainable Aviation. He was co-director of the London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership and is a member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group. He is an advisor to Sheep Included Ltd, Lansons, NetZeroNow and has advised the UK Parliament. He has received grant funding from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, DFG, Royal Society, DIFD, BEIS, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Research England, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust, CIFF, Sprint2020, and British Council. He has received funding from the BBC, Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD, HP and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.

– ref. Iran’s nature is under threat – here’s how better environmental stewardship can save it – https://theconversation.com/irans-nature-is-under-threat-heres-how-better-environmental-stewardship-can-save-it-260458

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Fletcher, Professor of Ocean Policy and Economy, University of Portsmouth

The latest round of negotiations for a UN global plastics treaty has ended without a deal. After more than three years of talks, deep divisions remain. Agreement is only marginally closer than before talks began. For many countries, campaigners and observer organisations, the outcome is deeply disappointing.

After the final intense meetings which went through the night in Geneva, the chair of the intergovernmental negotiating committee that governs the treaty discussions formally closed the session on August 15 without agreement on the treaty text. This is not the end. The process has not collapsed.

However, there is no confirmed date or venue for the next round of negotiations and no mandate for formal intersessional activities. Many delegates called for a period of reflection and even a reset of the process to allow for a refreshed approach.

As in previous negotiation rounds, progress was slow. Talks were hampered by procedural ambiguity, deliberate delay tactics from fossil fuel and petrochemical countries opposing an ambitious treaty, and the sheer complexity of the issues on the table. Time ran out before a consensus could be reached.

As the talks wrap up, we reflect on three aspects that contributed to this ongoing deadlock:

1. Chair’s efforts fell short

Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso took a more active role than in earlier sessions, pushing the pace and producing two draft treaty texts to focus debate. The first draft omitted key provisions, including limits on plastic production, global rules for regulating plastic products, controls on harmful chemicals and strong financing arrangements.

Many high-ambition countries pushing for strong measures and outcomes, rejected the first draft as imbalanced, unambitious and unfit for further discussion. A second draft, issued just before 1am on the final night after intense consultations, included some improvements but still left out these core elements. Many nations again saw it as one-sided, tilted towards the demands of lower-ambition countries and petrostates.

2. Entrenched positions remain

Throughout the negotiations, lower-ambition states gave little ground. They refused to compromise on their “red lines” while expecting others to give up on theirs.

This repeated familiar arguments over the purpose and scope of the treaty, despite these having been outlined in the UN mandate to deliver the treaty three years ago. Many believe a different approach is needed that focuses more time on points of disagreement, rigorously tests opposing arguments, and actively seeks areas of compromise.

3. Reluctance to vote

The process still relies on consensus for decision-making. In the final plenary, many delegates, particularly those with economic interests in plastics, stressed that consensus is essential. Yet over the past three years, some delegations have urged the chair to break deadlocks by moving to a vote – a rule of UN negotiations that must be applied when consensus cannot be reached.

Voting is seen as politically explosive, with serious implications for multilateralism. So far, the chair has resisted calling a vote, and higher-ambition countries have not pressed for it either, despite their repeated statements about urgency and ambition. Beyond rejecting treaty texts they considered weak, many did not use the tools available to them to push for a stronger outcome. As a result, stalemates have persisted.

The road ahead

The intersessional period – the time between now and the next formal meeting – is critical. Without a fixed date for the next stage of the process, this is the time to reset and prepare for decisive progress. One key focus must be to bridge political divides. High-ambition countries need to build broader alliances and find shared ground with those who may not fully back their vision but are open to stronger action.

Key details such as financing mechanisms, monitoring and reporting systems, and legal models for compliance should be developed now, outside formal negotiations, to save time later. And higher-ambition nations such as those in the EU, Panama, Colombia, Australia, the UK and small island states should coordinate more closely and be willing to use procedural tools such as voting when needed, even if politically uncomfortable.

The goal set by the UN in 2022 to end plastic pollution across its full life cycle is still achievable. But it will require governments to use the coming months to regroup, have frank political discussions and commit to a more decisive approach when they next meet.

The world cannot afford another round lost to procedural deadlock. The plastics crisis is worsening. The science is clear. The solutions are well known. What is missing is not knowledge, but the will to match words with binding action.

---

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.

---

Steve Fletcher receives funding from the World Economic Forum, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Aquapak Ltd, Defra, and the Flotilla Foundation. He is a member of the United Nations International Resource Panel and is the NERC Agenda Setting Fellow for Plastic Pollution.

Antaya March receives funding from the Flotilla Foundation, Defra, World Economic Forum, and the British Academy.

– ref. Three reasons plastic pollution treaty talks ended in disagreement and deadlock (but not collapse) – https://theconversation.com/three-reasons-plastic-pollution-treaty-talks-ended-in-disagreement-and-deadlock-but-not-collapse-261327

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rahul Sidhu, PhD Candidate, Neuroscience, University of Sheffield

Alzheimer’s disease steals memories and devastates lives. Yet despite an abundance of research, the earliest brain changes that trigger this disease still remain unclear, making it challenging to find effective treatments.

But could lithium – a metal most of us know better for its use in batteries or as a treatment for mood disorders – play a role in cognitive health? New research shows that this mineral may play a key role in protecting against Alzheimer’s disease.

Alzheimer’s is linked to the buildup of two harmful proteins: amyloid-beta and tau. Amyloid-beta clumps outside brain cells (neurons), forming sticky plaques that block communication. Tau twists into tangles inside cells, disrupting their structure and function. Together, they damage the delicate network of neurons that supports memory and thinking.

But for nearly a decade now, scientists from Harvard University have also been uncovering lithium’s unexpected importance in the brain.

Lithium is naturally present in small amounts in the brain. This lithium comes from our diet, where it’s transported through the bloodstream to the brain’s cells. But researchers have found that as people move from mild cognitive impairment – a stage often seen as a warning sign for Alzheimer’s – to full Alzheimer’s disease, their lithium levels drop. This loss of lithium appears to set off the cascade of changes that lead to memory loss and confusion.

This recent study now helps to explain why a loss of lithium is linked with Alzheimer’s disease. The study showed that lithium acts as a natural defender – helping to keep amyloid and tau in check. When lithium levels fall, the brain becomes more vulnerable to these toxic proteins.

Researchers uncovered this connection by conducting postmortem examinations of brain tissue taken from people who had been in different stages of cognitive health. Those with mild cognitive impairment had noticeably less lithium in their brains compared to those who had been in good cognitive health. Levels were even lower in Alzheimer’s patients.

Interestingly, they found that the lithium doesn’t just disappear. Much of it becomes trapped within amyloid plaques, which lock it away from the brain cells where it’s needed most. This means even if total lithium levels don’t drop drastically, brain cells may still be starved of its protective effects.

So to explore what happens when lithium is missing completely, the scientists then studied mice – both healthy mice and mice that had been genetically engineered to develop Alzheimer’s symptoms. They cut the mice’s dietary lithium by 50% and observed the results.

The effects were striking. Mice with reduced lithium showed faster amyloid and tau buildup, more brain inflammation and lost connections between neurons – all crucial for learning and memory. The genetically engineered mice also performed worse in memory tests.

At the core of this process is an enzyme called GSK3β. Lithium normally keeps this enzyme under control. But when lithium is low, GSK3β becomes overactive, encouraging tau to behave abnormally and form tangles that damage neurons. This enzyme acts like a switch, tipping brain cells toward disease if unchecked.

The good news is the study didn’t stop at identifying the problem. Researchers treated mice with lithium orotate, a form of the mineral that’s less likely to get trapped by amyloid plaques. This treatment prevented the harmful buildup of amyloid-beta and tau, reduce inflammation, preserved neuron connections and improved memory.

Lithium’s importance

This research recasts lithium as more than a forgotten trace mineral. It appears to be a vital guardian of brain health, protecting neurons and maintaining cognitive function throughout life. Disrupting lithium balance might be one of the earliest steps toward Alzheimer’s – even before symptoms show.

Lithium’s protective role isn’t entirely new. It’s been used in psychiatry for decades, particularly to manage bipolar disorder where it stabilises mood. But medicinal doses are much higher than the tiny amounts naturally present in the brain. This study is the first to reveal that even these small, natural levels have a crucial protective function.

Beyond Alzheimer’s, lithium supports brain growth, shields nerve cells, and calms inflammation, all important for healthy ageing. Keeping lithium levels stable could have wider benefits in preventing dementia and supporting brain resilience.

One reason lithium hasn’t featured prominently in Alzheimer’s research before is its simplicity. It doesn’t target one molecule but acts like a conductor, balancing multiple brain processes. This makes it harder to study but no less important.

The discovery that lithium deficiency worsens Alzheimer’s damage opens new possibilities. Unlike current treatments focusing on removing amyloid plaques or tau tangles, lithium replacement could boost the brain’s defences.

---

Read more:
Alzheimer’s drug approved in the UK, but it won’t be available on the NHS – here’s why

---

Lithium orotate is especially promising because it doesn’t get trapped by amyloid and delivers lithium where neurons most need it. Lithium salts have long been used safely in medicine, so this approach could be easy and accessible for older adults.

Still, it’s unclear why lithium levels fall in some people. Is it due to diet, genetics or another cause? Could differences in the natural levels of lithium in drinking water worldwide influence Alzheimer’s risk? These puzzles invite future research.

It’s also important to note that much of this work was done in mice. While animal models offer valuable insights, human brains are more complex. Clinical trials will be needed to see if lithium orotate can safely prevent or slow Alzheimer’s in people.

We also don’t yet know how supplements or diet might affect brain lithium levels over time, or if this would be practical as treatment.

Still, the idea that a simple mineral could delay or prevent one of the world’s most devastating diseases is both exciting and hopeful.

Rahul Sidhu 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. Alzheimer’s disease: lithium may help slow cognitive decline – new research in mice – https://theconversation.com/alzheimers-disease-lithium-may-help-slow-cognitive-decline-new-research-in-mice-262880

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maria Stuart, Course leader, Illustration & Children’s Book Illustration, School of Arts and Media, University of Lancashire

I’m greeted at the Lowry by Roald Dahl’s grinning Enormous Crocodile, who looks a bit too happy to see me and the toddler in a pushchair watching his father snapping his arms open and shut while making crocodile noises. We are both delighted by this, and eager, it seems, to see this new Quentin Blake and Me exhibition, a collection of original illustrations by Britain’s best-known children’s book illustrator.

Now aged 92, Quentin Blake has been illustrating and writing books for more than 70 years and has hundreds of titles under his belt.

So many of us have grown up with Blake’s work, an important part of our formative years. His many books have seen him working with some of the greatest children’s authors including Dahl, Joan Aiken, John Yeoman, Elizabeth Bowen and Michael Rosen. He has also written books himself and animated versions of his work, bringing his storytelling to new generations.

The Lowry exhibition extends an invitation to consider what Blake and his work means to each of us. This makes perfect sense as every visitor is a child or has been at some stage, and each feels connected to their own special memories of these wonderful books.

This is an important point to understand about the practice of illustrating picture books. As a lecturer working with children’s book illustration students, I encourage them to channel and engage with their four-year-old self.

By revisiting this part of ourselves we can understand not only how to capture the right tone, but recognise what makes children laugh, or what intrigues them, the discoveries and places they would enjoy, and who and what they might be scared by. This is evident in all of Blake’s work, about which he once said: “It’s not about knowing about children, but [that] you be them.”

As Blake demonstrates, the picture book illustrator is not just making pictures of the text – an illustrator can bring everything vividly to life using their skills and imagination. I overheard a parent as she pondered Mr Magnolia and his one boot, saying: “He makes it look so easy”. And indeed Blake does.

There is a fluidity and immediacy to his illustrations that make them appear effortless; a rough draft is placed on a light box and Blake draws his final image using this as a guide. This process allows him to work with pen and ink as if drawing the picture for the first time, capturing the expressiveness of an initial idea.

He conjures scenarios on the page that are compelling – nothing is contrived, so it all feels authentic. Readers young and old will go on any journey that Blake wishes to take them because of his genuine warmth and humour, his delightful imagination captured in drawing and painting that is full of energy and charm. This is the magic of illustration.

The exhibition is just as joyful and playful as the work on display. Original illustrations from a range of Blake’s books that span his career are framed and exhibited low enough for children to be able to view them easily. Adults have to stoop a little, ensuring they are on the same level.

Early on in the exhibition some of the Mr Magnolia illustrations are squished into a little V-shaped corner, which made me think of reading a picture book as a child, sitting on the floor wedged between the wall and the side of my bed.

Blake’s books are so cleverly illustrated ensuring that even if you can’t read yet, you can still understand not only the narrative but all the little visual jokes and special surprises that he regularly delivers. Never talking down to children or over explaining things, these are books that help to cultivate a sophisticated and discerning young reader.

The characters of each of the books featured escape from the pages and charge around the walls of the exhibition, taking up every available space. Here the BFG (Big Friendly Giant) towers over children having their photograph taken, and there the fine feathered creatures from Up With Birds swing around the gallery ceiling along with their glorious balloons.

It is fascinating to see Blake’s development work in notebooks, early roughs of book spreads as well as thumbnail plans – all evidence of the hard work that goes in to creating his books.

There are opportunities for children to dress up with The Boy In The Dress, and peep-holes in a wall reveal Blake’s studio set-up. There are also activity sheets and prompts for children to write and draw their own stories. Materials are set up in front of the “Monsters” wall so that visitors can join in creating illustrations. I can’t resist and add my own.

This is a wonderful exhibition that reveals the power of imagination, inspiring creativity, activity and reading in little ones. And those who are no longer children can tap into a delightful sense of nostalgia and revisit distant days of carefree reading and the flamboyant adventures of Blakes’s beautifully drawn characters.

Quentin Blake And Me is on at The Lowry, Manchester until January 4 2026. Admission is free.

---

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.

---

Maria Stuart 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. Quentin Blake and Me at the Lowry: the magic touch of Britain’s best-loved children’s illustrator – https://theconversation.com/quentin-blake-and-me-at-the-lowry-the-magic-touch-of-britains-best-loved-childrens-illustrator-262744