Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Felle, Associate Professor of Journalism, University of Galway

The sudden departure of the BBC’s director general and head of news marks a moment of real consequence for British public service broadcasting.

Tim Davie and Deborah Turness’s resignations followed controversy over an inaccurately edited clip in a BBC Panorama documentary about Donald Trump. Opponents of the BBC seized on this as further evidence of widespread bias at the broadcaster. It has now become a flashpoint in the wider political and cultural battles surrounding the corporation.

The resignations come as the BBC enters a decisive period. The renewal of its royal charter in 2027 will define the corporation’s funding model and public purpose for the next decade. At the same time, the BBC faces a hostile political climate, sustained financial pressure and a rapidly fragmenting audience.

Recent controversies – from the Panorama edit to earlier disputes over social media conduct and political coverage – have reignited debate about the broadcaster’s duty of “impartiality”. Yet in today’s febrile information climate, it is fair to ask whether that duty remains fit for purpose.

Media regulator Ofcom defines impartiality as “not favouring one side over another”, but also as ensuring “due weight” is given to the evidence. That distinction matters: impartiality is not the same as neutrality. It demands that news be fair, accurate and proportionate – not that every claim be treated as equal.

Impartiality under pressure

The BBC’s crisis, as academic and commentator Adrian Monck observes, is not simply a matter of poor governance, but “the sinking of a ship of the twentieth century British state, dependent on conditions that no longer really exist”.

Impartiality as a professional norm took shape in the mid-20th century, when it became central to the BBC’s mission under its 1947 royal charter. It emerged in a period when there was still broad agreement on shared facts, and a civic space where citizens could reason together even when they disagreed.

---

Read more:
BBC has survived allegations of political bias before – but the latest crisis comes at a pivotal moment

---

This era has broken down over the past 20 to 25 years, with the rise of digital platforms and populist politics that eroded traditional journalistic gatekeeping. Today’s information environment is shaped by technology companies, populist leaders, political strategists and partisan media outlets. All have strong incentives to create confusion and distrust. When political figures deny evidence, distort facts or lie as strategy, reporting their claims as equal to verified facts is not neutrality or impartiality, it is distortion.

Davie understood this tension. Under his leadership, the BBC tried to clarify the meaning of impartiality, strengthen editorial standards and reinforce trust in its reporting.

Yet the organisation, like many news outlets worldwide, is caught in a bind: accused of bias from both the left and the right – and while in the past this might suggest a fair balance, in today’s climate it is often weaponised.

As the sociologist Niklas Luhmann has noted, the function of news is to create a shared reality, a minimal consensus about what exists and what matters. When that consensus collapses, the public sphere itself begins to fragment and journalism loses the ground on which democratic discourse depends.

Younger audiences, who are more likely to access news mediated through influencers they perceive as authentic and relatable, are less engaged with traditional news brands. A Reuters Institute study found that young people increasingly turn to personalities rather than established outlets, or avoid news altogether because they see it as untrustworthy or biased.

The broader global trend is unmistakable. Public service broadcasters in the US, Australia, Canada and across Europe are facing declining audiences, reduced funding, politicised attacks and competition from platforms that prioritise outrage and identity performance. The BBC is not unique in this struggle, but because of its scale and cultural importance, the stakes are higher.

Public service media under siege

The BBC is imperfect. It suffers from institutional caution, uneven performance and a reluctance at times to confront its own errors. Yet it remains one of the few media organisations in the world still committed to verification rather than performance.

Its public service mandate, however strained, is one of the last structural defences against the current media culture: one dominated by outrage merchants and ideological broadcasters whose business model is provocation rather than truth.

Once a public sphere is shaped primarily by rumour and outrage, it becomes almost impossible to restore a shared sense of reality. The alternative is visible already in GB News, Fox and Breitbart, where conflict and grievance have displaced evidence.

---

Read more:
Perfect storm of tech bros, foreign interference and disinformation is an urgent threat to press freedom

---

The question now is not whether the BBC should continue to defend impartiality, but which version of impartiality it intends to defend. If impartiality means placing all claims side by side regardless of evidential grounding, it becomes a mechanism for laundering falsehood into public discourse. But if it means rigorous truth-telling, proportionate scrutiny and transparency about what we know and how we know it, then it remains both viable and essential.

BBC chair Samir Shah has apologised for the Panorama edit, describing it as an “error of judgement”. But it has exposed how fragile impartiality has become as both a principle and a perception. In an environment where trust is brittle, even minor lapses are magnified into institutional political positions. Impartiality is now judged as much by perception as by practice.

The resignations at the top of the BBC make this moment all the more precarious. The next leadership will determine whether the BBC becomes a smaller, defensive organisation that avoids offence, or a confident public service broadcaster that accepts that truth-telling will sometimes be mistaken for taking sides. Only the latter approach offers any chance of sustaining public relevance.

---

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

---

Tom Felle 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. After resignations at the top, the BBC faces a defining test: what does impartiality mean now? – https://theconversation.com/after-resignations-at-the-top-the-bbc-faces-a-defining-test-what-does-impartiality-mean-now-269575

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Veronika Hinman, Deputy Director, Portsmouth Military Education Team, University of Portsmouth

The EU is considering a range of options as it tries to work out how to continue to fund Ukraine’s defence against Russia. There are three mechanisms presently under consideration. One is using Russia’s frozen assets to back a loan of €140 billion (£124 billion). Another is borrowing the money at interest, although this is not popular.

The third idea, which was proposed by Norwegian economists, is that Norway could use its €1.8 trillion sovereign wealth fund – the biggest in the world – to guarantee the loan. Their reasoning was that Norway, Europe’s biggest producer of oil and gas, has made an extra €109 billion from the rise in gas prices after Russia’s invasion.

The situation on the front has been largely static for months, although Russian forces have been making small gains in some key areas. The battles for the strategically important cities of Pokrovsk in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine and Huliaipole in the southern region of Zaporizhzhia are a good indication of the progress of the war in general.

It’s hard, amid the flood of disinformation, to accurately monitor from a distance the exact status of these two important battles. Each day brings fresh reports of multiple attacks and advances by Russian troops. There have also been reports that Russian units have captured Pokrovsk. This would be a serious blow for Ukraine, as it’s an important supply hub, with several roads and rail lines converging there.

But the US-based military think-tank the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), which uses geolocated footage on which to base its assessments, has determined that Russia is not yet in full control of Pokrovsk, having to date seized 46% of the city. ISW analysts say Russian military bloggers are “mounting a concerted informational campaign prematurely calling the fall of Pokrovsk, likely to influence the information space”.

The battle for Pokrovsk has raged for nearly 18 months now, without resolution – but with huge casualties on both sides.

Similarly, while the situation in Huliaipole is deteriorating for the Ukrainian defenders, “Russian forces will probably spend considerable time setting conditions for efforts to seize the settlement”, the ISW says.

It’s important to realise that Russian troops initially entered Huliaipole on March 5 2022 within weeks of its initial invasion the previous month, but were quickly pushed back by Ukrainian troops. Fighting has continued in the region ever since.

In other words while both sides have made some tactical gains, neither holds the strategic upper hand.

One thing is clear: despite the claims and counter-claims, both sides have suffered significant casualties. In June 2025, the UK Ministry of Defence estimated more than one million Russian troops have been killed or injured since the invasion in February 2022. But Russia still retains considerable reserves of troops to call on, and has not yet had to resort to full mobilisation.

Meanwhile Russia’s economy is holding up, despite western sanctions. The effect of the recent imposition of oil sanctions by the US has yet to be seen. At the same time, Russia’s continuing and thriving diplomatic, economic and military relationships with its “enabler ally” China, as well as others on the anti-west axis such as Iran and North Korea – which have been supplying Moscow with weaponry and troops, respectively – is helping it sustain its offensive efforts.

Financing Ukraine’s defence

Ukraine, meanwhile, is now almost entirely reliant on continued western support. Since Donald Trump took power in the US in January, the US stance towards Ukraine has shifted considerably and while Kyiv’s friends in Nato can continue to purchase US weaponry for Ukraine’s war effort, the US will not fund any of the purchases. Consequently, military aid to Ukraine has slowed considerably in the second half of 2025 – by up to 43% according to German research non-profit the Kiel Institute.

EU leaders voted in October to meet Ukraine’s “pressing financial needs” for another two years, but have yet to agree on a way of doing that. Using frozen Russian assets comes with a number of difficulties. These assets are held in Belgium by the securities depository Euroclear. But Brussels is wary of the move, arguing that a Russian lawsuit against the move, if successful, could leave Belgium liable.

The other obstacle is that it would need to be unanimously approved by EU member states, something that is thought highly unlikely. The idea of using frozen Russian assets has already been rejected by Hungary and Slovakia. And the recent victory of the populist ANO party in the Czech Republic could signal further isolation for Ukraine. One of the first gestures made by the new Czech government has been to remove the Ukrainian flag from the parliament building.

If Norway were willing to use its US$2 trillion sovereign wealth fund to guarantee a €160 billion loan to Ukraine, it would effectively bypass the need for EU unanimity. But the country’s finance minister, former Nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg, appeared to rule that out on November 12 when he said guaranteeing the whole amount was “not an option”.

What impact is this loan likely to make in the grand scheme of things? The funds supplied thus far have kept Ukraine from defeat, but have not enabled it to strike a decisive blow against Russia that would win the war or enable it to negotiate a just peace.

At the same time it is realistic to acknowledge that while a massive injection of funds would help Ukraine stabilise its economy and buy enough arms to give their troops a better chance on the battlefield, it cannot deliver the manpower, weapons or morale. In the end, this latest wave of aid may buy Ukraine time – but it’s unlikely to deliver victory.

Veronika Hinman 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. Kyiv’s European allies debate ways of keeping the cash flowing to Ukraine but the picture on the battlefield is grim – https://theconversation.com/kyivs-european-allies-debate-ways-of-keeping-the-cash-flowing-to-ukraine-but-the-picture-on-the-battlefield-is-grim-269541

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

Since the 1960s, scientists have been developing and honing models to understand how the earth’s climate is changing. These models help predict the phenomena that accompany that change, such as stronger storms, rising sea levels and warming temperatures.

One such pioneer of early climate modelling is Syukuro Manabe, who won the Nobel prize in physics in 2021 for his work laying the foundation for our current understanding of how carbon dioxide affects global temperatures. That same year, a seminal paper he co-published in 1967 was voted the most influential climate science paper of all time.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast,  we speak to Nadir Jeevanjee, a researcher at the same lab in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration where Manabe once worked. He looks back at the history of these early climate models, and how many of their major predictions have stood the test of time.

“ On one hand, we’ve gone way beyond Manabe in the decades since,” says Jeevanjee. “And on the other hand, some of those insights were so deep that we keep coming back to them to deepening our understanding.”

And yet, as climate negotiators gather in the Brazilian city of Belem on the edge of the Amazon for the Cop30 climate summit to hammer out new pledges on reducing carbon emissions and how to pay for climate adaptation, the data sources that climate scientists around the world rely on to monitor and model the climate are under threat from funding cuts by the Trump administration.

“We all do this work because we believe in its importance,” says Jevanjee. “And so the idea that the work isn’t necessarily valued by the present government, or that we wouldn’t be able to do it, or that somehow our lab and the models that it produces and all the science that comes out of it will be curtailed or shut, is alarming.”

Listen to the interview with Nadir Jeevanjee on The Conversation Weekly podcast, and read an article he wrote about five forecasts that early climate models by Suki Manabe and his colleagues got right.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Katie Flood, Mend Mariwany and Gemma Ware. Mixing by Eleanor Brezzi and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

Newsclips in this episode from CNN.

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

Nadir Jeevanjee works for NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, which is discussed in this podcast episode. The views expressed herein are in no sense official positions of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or the Department of Commerce.

– ref. Early climate models got global warming right – but now US funding cuts threaten the future of climate science data – https://theconversation.com/early-climate-models-got-global-warming-right-but-now-us-funding-cuts-threaten-the-future-of-climate-science-data-269639

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robert Dover, Professor of Intelligence and National Security & Dean of Faculty, University of Hull

In recent weeks, Donald Trump’s supporters have begun to align around the idea that a Democrat-led “grand conspiracy” – potentially involving former president Barack Obama – has been plotting against the US president since 2016. The narrative is that the 2016 Russia investigation, which resulted in the Mueller inquiry was part of this deep-state opposition to Trump, as was the investigation into the January 6 riot at the US Capitol.

The focus of the fightback by Trump’s supporters is in Miami, where a Trump-appointed US attorney, Jason A. Reding Quiñones, has begun to issue subpoenas to a wide range of former officials.

This has included former CIA director John Brennan, former FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok, former FBI attorney Lisa Page and former director of national intelligence James Clapper, all of whom were involved in the federal investigation into alleged links between Russian intelligence and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The way the so-called conspiracy is unfolding will feel familiar to anyone who has watched US politics closely in the past decade. There’s been a constant stream of allegations and counter-allegations. But the narrative from the Trump camp is that the powerful “deep state” forces have been arrayed against the president. The “two-tier” justice system that has persecuted Trump can only be rebalanced by pursuing those who investigated him in 2017 and 2021.

The Grand Conspiracy contains similarities with other prominent conspiracy theories and how they spread. The QAnon movement, whose most famous claim is of a global paedophile ring run out of a Washington pizza parlour involving senior Democrats, is one where disparate claims are sporadically and partially evidenced. The political potency of these claims does not sit in the individual pieces of evidence but in the overarching story.

The story is that hidden government and proxy networks manipulate the truth and judicial outcomes and that only through pressure from “truthers” (what many people in the US who believe conspiracy theories call themselves) will wrongdoers be brought to account. Once these ideas are popularised, they take on a momentum and a direction that is difficult to control.

Campaign of ‘lawfare’

Soon after his inauguration, Trump set up a “weaponization working group” within the Department of Justice. Its director, Ed Martin, said in May that he would expose and discredit people he believes to be guilty, even if the evidence wasn’t sufficient to charge them: “If they can be charged, we’ll charge them. But if they can’t be charged, we will name them. And we will name them, and in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are ashamed.”

In the US the norm has been to “charge crimes, not people”, so this modification fundamentally changes the focus of prosecutors.

The recent subpoenas in Florida show this principle at work, effectively making legal process into the punishment. Even without full court hearings on specific charges, being forced to provide testimony or documents creates suspicion around those who are targeted. Criticism from legal officials that this is a “indict first, investigate second” method suggests that this is a break from historical norms.

Lawfare, defined as “legal action undertaken as part of a hostile campaign”, doesn’t require a successful prosecution. It merely requires enough investigative activity to solidify a narrative of suspected guilt and enough costs and pressure to seriously inconvenience those affected by it. In the new era of digital media, it’s enough to degrade the standing of a political opponent.

In that way, political retaliation has become a prosecuting objective. This is clear from what the US president has indicated in his frequent posts on his social media platforms for his enemies, such as former FBI director James Comey, who investigated his alleged links to Russia, or Adam Schiff, the senator who led his impeachment in 2019.

Hardball politics or authoritarianism?

Political scientists argue that authoritarianism is something that happens little by little. Some of these steps involve using state power to target political opponents, degrading checks and balances and making loyalty a legal requirement.

There are reasons to believe that the US seems to be tracking this trajectory currently, certainly when it comes to using the Justice Department to harass the president’s political enemies and pushing back against court judgments while attacking the judges that have issued them.

Further slides towards authoritarianism are possible because of the political potency of contemporary conspiracy movements. The right-wing QAnon movement, for example, has been exceptionally agile. It has offered its followers identity, community spaces and a logic that encourages active participation, exhorting believers to “do your own research”, for example.

In the wake of the near daily addition of material from the investigations into the allegations that the late financier, Jeffrey Epstein, ran a sex trafficking ring, involving some influential US citizens, many American citizens have concluded as a general truth that their elites do hide things. This makes it far simpler for broader conspiracies to gain traction and more difficult for politicians and journalists to work out what is conspiracy and what is evidence. This is creating a problematic feedback loop – hints of wrongdoing fuel public suspicion, and public suspicion fuels the idea of a further need for investigation.

But to suggest that anyone has control over this would be wrong. These movements can just as easily consume those seen as supporters as they do those seen as enemies. Marjorie Taylor-Greene’s determination to release the full and unredacted Epstein files could well produce negative outcomes for some Maga supporters, including prominent ones.

So, the transformation of legal process into public spectacle in America is suggestive of a drift towards authoritarianism. America’s famous “constitutional guardrails” of separation of powers, independent courts, juries and counsels will be pivotal in preventing this. They will need to stand firm.

The grand conspiracy theory might be more about seeking to isolate, and financially and emotionally exhaust opponents, while at the same time destroying America’s system of checks and balances. It might work.

Robert Dover 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. First indictments issued as Donald Trump’s ‘grand conspiracy’ theory begins to take shape – https://theconversation.com/first-indictments-issued-as-donald-trumps-grand-conspiracy-theory-begins-to-take-shape-269542

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

The latest corruption scandal that has engulfed Ukraine could not have come at a worse time or in a more delicate sector of the economy for the increasingly embattled government of Volodymyr Zelensky.

Ukraine’s military is now clearly on the back foot in several key sectors of the frontline. Meanwhile, Russia’s campaign to devastate Ukraine’s energy sector is putting enormous pressure on the country’s infrastructure and bringing increasing hardship for ordinary Ukrainians as winter approaches.

The fact that the latest corruption scandal involves the energy sector is, therefore, particularly damaging to the government and public morale.

Ukraine’s independent anti-corruption agencies have just released the findings of Operation Midas, a 15-month investigation into Energoatom, which is the state-owned operator of all of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. With a total capacity of almost 14,000 megawatts, Energoatom is the largest electricity producer in Ukraine.

Anti-corruption investigators allege a large kickback scheme of between 10% and 15% of the value of supplier contracts, amounting to about US$100 million (£76 million). Raids were carried out in 70 locations around the country on November 10. Seven people have been charged and five are in custody.

The mastermind of the corrupt scheme is alleged to be Timur Mindich a businessman and film producer, who hastily fled Ukraine a day before the raids. What makes this very dangerous for Zelensky is that Mindich is the co-owner, with the Ukrainian president, of Kvartal 95 Studio. Kvartal is the media platform on which Zelensky established his pre-presidential fame as a comedian.

The scandal, therefore, once again involves very close allies of the president. It risks tainting by association. But it also leaves him open to questions of whether he could havacting sooner about the allegations.

But the way in which this latest scandal unfolded also indicates that it is the manifestation of a much deeper conflict going on behind the scenes between elite groups vying for control of the last valuable state asset – the energy sector.

Smear campaigns

It’s the latest in a chain of events that goes back to the summer months, when Zelensky’s Servant of the People parliamentary faction tried to terminate the independence of Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies. Mass protests by young Ukrainians forced the government to backtrack on the decision.

At this point, rumours about the existence of secretly taped conversations involving Mindich began to circulate in the Ukrainian media. However, no details of the content of the conversations were released at time, leaving any allegations of corruption to the realm of speculation.

As the government came under increasing pressure after massive Russian air strikes against the energy sector on October 10 which left Ukraine’s population without electricity for almost an entire day, mud-slinging began in earnest. Attention focused on Volodymyr Kudrytsky, the former head of Ukrenergo, the main operator of Ukraine’s electricity grid.

Kudrytsky, an outspoken figure in Ukraine’s pro-western and anti-corruption civil society, was detained on October 28 on suspicion of fraud relating to his alleged involvement in a 2018 plot to embezzle the equivalent of $1.6 million from state funds. The investigation against him was conducted by State Audit Service of Ukraine and State Bureau of Investigation, which are directly subordinate to Zelensky.

He has robustly defended his record against what he alleged were politically motivated attacks designed to shift the blame for the devastation of Ukraine’s energy grid by Russia’s air campaign away from the government.

While Kudrytsky has been released on bail, the case against him remains live.

Power struggle

Whatever their outcome in legal terms, the rumours circulating against Mindich and the attacks against Kudrytsky appear, for now at least, to be classic information campaigns aimed at assassinating reputations and damaging the people and agendas associated with them.

As they pit pro- and anti-Zelensky camps in Ukraine’s elites against each other, the latest corruption revelations reveal a power struggle over who controls the state’s most valuable assets and the levers of power in Ukraine. If Zelensky’s enemies cannot remove him from power, then his ability to rule can be severely constrained by targeting close allies like Mindich.

Another of Zelensky’s top advisers, justice minister (formerly energy minister) German Galushchenko has also been suspended as a result of Operation Midas.

This elite infighting, which is engulfing a sector that is critical to Ukraine’s ability to continue resisting Russia’s aggression, is astounding in its disregard of the existential crisis engulfing Ukraine. While its outcome, for now, is unclear, several important conclusions can already be drawn from it.

The return to a competitive political process with freedom of speech, media, and association, which was suspended as a result of the war, is vital. Fears of playing into the hands of Russian propaganda by revealing corruption in Ukraine simply enable the corrupt officials to further abuse their power and damage the country’s prospects of prevailing against Russia.

More direct involvement of the EU and the US is needed in fighting corruption in Ukraine. Corruption reduces funds allocated for the war. But it also fuels public pessimism in donor countries about the effectiveness of their continuing support.

---

Read more:
Ukraine war: why Zelensky’s corruption purge could be key to the outcome of the conflict

---

This corruption has been hugely damaging for recruitment to the armed forces. A recent survey found that 71% of Ukrainians believe the level of corruption has increased since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Monthly desertion rates from the army now stand roughly at the level of two-thirds of new recruits. That’s 21,000 deserters compared to 30,000 sign-ups. It’s not sustainable for Ukraine’s defence efforts – and is part of the reason for some of the recent setbacks at the frontline.

This is no longer about the country’s reputation and its prospects of European integration. Cleaning up Ukrainian politics – and being seen to do so – is now as essential for Ukraine’s survival as shoring up its air and ground defences against Russia.

Tolerating corruption is a luxury that Ukraine can no longer afford if it wants to survive as an independent country.

Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

Tetyana Malyarenko receives funding from the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University.

– ref. Ukraine: energy corruption scandal threatens to derail Zelensky’s government and undermine its war effort – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-energy-corruption-scandal-threatens-to-derail-zelenskys-government-and-undermine-its-war-effort-269437

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adam Taylor, Professor of Anatomy, Lancaster University

Every year, people around the world take an astonishing 3.8 trillion doses of medicine. Most of these medicines are swallowed rather than injected or inhaled, because the oral route is the easiest, safest and most familiar way to take a drug at home. But even something as routine as swallowing a pill can sometimes cause harm.

Pill-induced oesophagitis occurs when a tablet or capsule gets stuck in the narrowing at the lower end of the oesophagus, where it meets the stomach. If a pill lodges there and begins to dissolve, it can release its active ingredients directly onto the delicate tissue. These substances are often acidic or alkaline, and that chemical burn can quickly cause pain and inflammation. Although considered uncommon, studies suggest it has an estimated incidence of 3.9 per 100,000 population per year. It may be under-reported because mild cases often resolve without medical attention.

The inner surface of the oesophagus is lined with a thin, specialised mucosal layer that helps food pass smoothly into the stomach. By contrast, the stomach’s mucosa produces mucus to protect against acid, which is essential for digesting food and destroying microbes. When a pill dissolves too early, it exposes the unprotected oesophageal lining to caustic substances that it was never designed to handle, leading to irritation, inflammation and sometimes ulceration.

Symptoms can mimic heartburn or indigestion but are usually sharper and more localised, with pain felt behind the breastbone. Some people experience pain when swallowing, or a sudden hoarseness or change in voice. In rare and untreated cases, the damage can deepen, allowing ulcers to rupture through the oesophageal wall, leading to severe infection or even death.

Middle-aged women are most often affected, partly because they are statistically more likely to take regular medication, including treatments for bone health. Older adults are also at increased risk because age-related changes in oesophageal motility make it harder for pills to pass smoothly into the stomach. People with conditions that alter the shape or position of nearby organs — such as an enlarged heart or thyroid—may also be at higher risk.

Children are less commonly affected, but they have their own unique risk factors. Difficulty swallowing pills, smaller anatomy and inexperience can all increase the likelihood of a tablet becoming lodged.

Medications most likely to cause damage

Several well-known medicines can irritate or injure the oesophagus if they linger there. Bisphosphonates, used to treat osteoporosis, are a leading cause, and this may explain why women are more commonly affected. Around one in ten post-menopausal women in the UK are prescribed oral bisphosphonates.

Tetracycline antibiotics, used for a wide range of infections, carry similar risks. Aspirin and ibuprofen, two widely used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, can also induce oesophagitis, though they work differently by disrupting the protective barrier rather than causing a direct chemical burn.

Even over-the-counter so-called natural products, such as dietary supplements and vitamins, can cause problems. Caffeine tablets, potassium chloride supplements, L-arginine and high-dose vitamin C or vitamin E pills have all been linked to pill-induced oesophagitis.

Caffeine, in particular, can damage the gastrointestinal lining even without becoming stuck. Concentrated doses stimulate acid production and increase gut motility, which can weaken the protective mucosal barrier and lead to inflammation.

Potassium chloride is a mineral supplement that replaces potassium lost through illness or medication, but its large, dense tablets can physically irritate the oesophagus if they dissolve before reaching the stomach. L-arginine, an amino acid supplement, and vitamin C are chemically alkaline and acidic respectively, so both can burn or inflame the lining if trapped. Vitamin E, often packaged in smooth gel capsules, can also linger and leak irritating oils.

Gelatine-based soft capsules carry their own risk. Because gelatine is hygroscopic, meaning it absorbs moisture from its surroundings, it can soften and become sticky. This increases the chance that a capsule will cling to the oesophageal wall rather than pass smoothly into the stomach. When that happens, the capsule’s contents may be released directly onto sensitive tissue, causing local irritation or ulceration.

Prevention and treatment

The good news is that most mild cases resolve within a few days or weeks once the offending medication is stopped. Short courses of antibiotics, for instance, rarely cause lasting harm.

There are, however, simple steps to prevent oesophagitis from developing in the first place. Always take pills with a full glass of water – about 200 ml – to ensure they reach the stomach. Take them on an empty stomach if advised, and remain upright for at least 30 minutes afterward. This helps prevent regurgitation and gives the medication time to dilute in the stomach.

For drugs like bisphosphonates, your doctor may recommend switching to a different formulation or a non-oral route such as injections, which are more potent but can bring other side effects. If long-term treatment is necessary, additional medications may help protect the digestive tract. Proton pump inhibitors reduce stomach acid and support healing, while sucralfate forms a soothing barrier over irritated tissue.

If you take several medications that can cause oesophagitis, swallow them one at a time, and consider using a pill cutter to make larger tablets smaller. Above all, monitor any new or worsening symptoms, and seek medical advice promptly if you notice persistent pain or difficulty swallowing.

Pill-induced oesophagitis is a painful but preventable condition. Simple habits like drinking plenty of water, sitting upright and following medication instructions carefully can dramatically reduce the risk. If swallowing pills is difficult or discomfort develops, speak to a healthcare professional about alternatives. Sometimes the smallest change, like how you take a tablet, can make all the difference to your health.

Adam Taylor 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. Pill-induced oesophagitis: why your medication could be damaging your throat – and what to do about it – https://theconversation.com/pill-induced-oesophagitis-why-your-medication-could-be-damaging-your-throat-and-what-to-do-about-it-268430

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jess Davies, Chair Professor in Sustainability, Lancaster University

The UN climate summit, Cop30, is currently taking place in Belém, Brazil, a region with some of the most carbon-dense soils on Earth: the Amazonian dark earths. These deep, dark and exceptionally fertile soils are thought to have been intentionally enriched with carbon.

Ancient Indigenous communities likely spread ash and organic waste on the land to enhance fertility and support crop production. Now, some conservation groups like Conscious Planet are calling for countries to commit to intentionally enhancing soil carbon the world over as a key part of international climate action. As a soil carbon scientist, I’m here to explain why.

Soil is a vital component of the climate system. It is one of the largest stores of organic carbon on Earth – containing more carbon than both the atmosphere and vegetation combined. This makes soil both a climate risk and an opportunity.

While soils may not look that dynamic, they are constantly changing as they exchange carbon with the atmosphere and the plants and organisms living within them. As plants grow, their roots release organic compounds, adding carbon into the soils and exchanging it with other organisms like fungi. As plants and other organisms die, they add their organic matter to the soil, and decomposition of this material by microorganisms leads to the release of some of it as carbon dioxide and methane.

---

Read more:
Declining soil health is a global concern – here’s how AI could help

---

In natural conditions, these in and out flows may be well balanced, but human actions, such as deforestation and agriculture have disturbed these cycles, leading to the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is estimated that past land use change and soil degradation is responsible for about 15% of the global warming caused by greenhouse gases. However, reversing this trend can increase the amount of carbon stored in soils, helping to mitigate climate change.

The slow rise of soil in climate policy

Soil first gained attention on the UN climate summit stage in 2015, when France launched the 4 per 1000 initiative during Cop21 in Paris. The idea: if global agricultural soils increased their carbon stocks by just 0.4% per year, it could offset nearly all annual greenhouse gas emissions.

While questions were subsequently raised about the feasibility of this rate of carbon gain, the target was intended as an aspirational one and the initiative has been important in putting soils on the climate and agricultural agendas. Also, putting carbon back into agricultural soils is not only about climate mitigation. Increasing the amount of organic matter, and in turn organic carbon, stored in soils means improving water holding capacity and nutrient cycling, helping to increase the sustainability and resilience of crop production and global food security.

The 4 per 1000 initiative has had good buy-in: 41 nations have signed up as members, along with hundreds of other regions, environmental charities, research institutions and businesses. At subsequent UN climate summits, focus on soils has grown, with soil featured more heavily in land use and climate finance initiatives.

Yet in most national climate pledges, soil still appears only indirectly according to a new global analysis, with vague references to “soil health” embedded in other sectors like agriculture or adaptation, rather than as a clear mitigation strategy with explicit carbon targets.

This gap matters because those pledges (known as nationally determined contributions) drive government actions. If soil carbon targets are not explicitly named, they probably won’t be funded or prioritised.

My group’s research has shown how important soils could be to national climate action – even for high-emitting countries with relatively little land per capita, such as the UK. Our modelling work suggested that reasonable levels of afforestation and grassland restoration could deliver up to 7% of the cuts in emissions needed by 2050 in the UK. This would be a substantial contribution, and other soil-focused actions, like the peatland restoration would deliver further emissions savings.

Concrete commitments

Cop30 in Brazil – a global hotspot for both nature and agriculture – provides an excellent opportunity to ensure soils feature strongly in pledges and implementation plans.

Pledges to invest in nature will feature highly. For example, the Tropical Forests Forever Facility is a new global fund supporting tropical forest conservation. It’s important that soils are robustly considered as part of this.

While soil is a potentially powerful ally for climate mitigation and adaptation, nothing can replace rapid cuts to fossil fuel emissions. In a warming world, rising temperatures and extreme weather threaten the very ecosystems that store carbon. Our research suggests that soils can only remain a net carbon sink under optimistic climate scenarios.

Put simply, stronger and more specific soil carbon targets could help us on the road to better climate outcomes, but only if we act fast to protect soils and other carbon rich ecosystems, while cutting emissions across our economies.

---

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 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

Jess Davies receives funding from the UK Research and Innovation Councils and she is a scientific panel member of the United Nations Environment Programme International Resources Panel.

– ref. How soil could help us reach climate targets – https://theconversation.com/how-soil-could-help-us-reach-climate-targets-269533

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jasper Kenter, Professorial Research Fellow, Deliberative Ecological Economics, Aberystwyth University

The UK budget is usually a story of growth forecasts, borrowing levels and fiscal discipline. But ahead of this month’s high-stakes event, growth has been slower than expected. At the same time, as households struggle with living costs, the climate crisis intensifies and inequality persists, growth might seem like too narrow a focus.

Conventional economics – with its reliance on GDP growth – cannot respond to the global “polycrisis”. This is the overlap between climate change, biodiversity loss, energy and food insecurity and extreme inequality – all amplified by geopolitical instability.

Recent research my colleagues and I conducted shows that a “new economics” is needed in the face of these challenges. Drawing on hundreds of sources across 38 schools of thought, we distilled ten principles focused on wellbeing, justice and ecological resilience that could offer a way to rethink national economic strategies.

New economic principles are not a luxury that we can ignore at times of fiscal constraint. They are a necessity because orthodox economic thinking has been a key reason for the polycrisis.

---

The Conversation and LSE’s International Inequalities Institute have teamed up for a special online event on Tuesday, November 18 from 5pm-6.30pm. Join experts from the worlds of business, taxation and government policy as they discuss the difficult choices facing Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her budget. Sign up for free here

---

Mainstream economics thinks of individuals as selfish “rational maximisers”. That is to say, their decisions are about creating optimal outcomes for themselves. It also assumes that markets allocate resources efficiently, and that GDP growth is the surest path to progress.

But these assumptions look increasingly out of step with reality. Growth has often come with rising inequality, precarious work and environmental degradation, and is increasingly difficult to attain. The COVID pandemic showed that global supply chains are optimised for efficiency but not resilience. The war in Ukraine highlighted the risks of dependence on fossil fuels and authoritarian regimes.

Meanwhile, the ecological and climate crises show that endless GDP growth on a finite planet is a dangerous illusion. What is required now is a transformation of the values and institutions that underpin economic life.

Transformation becomes more plausible in moments of crisis. These expose the weaknesses of existing systems and open up political space for alternatives. Governments can act quickly – as the UK did with furlough and other COVID interventions.

Ten principles for a ‘new economics’

The “new economics” movement is a collection of many approaches. This diversity is a strength, but also a challenge. The core narrative of traditional economics around free markets and growth has been repeated so many times that it may seem like there is no alternative. But our research identifies ten cross-cutting principles that give the new economics movement coherence.

1. Wellbeing for people and planet: economies exist within societies and ecosystems, and their purpose should be to support both human and planetary wellbeing

2. Recognising complexity: no single discipline has all the answers. Economics must integrate insights from ecology, sociology, philosophy, indigenous knowledge and other fields

3. Limits to growth: we cannot assume endless economic expansion on a planet with finite resources

4. Nature is irreplaceable: “natural capital” (for example, soil, forests and water) cannot simply be swapped for human-made substitutes

5. Design focused on regeneration: economic systems should be circular and restorative rather than continuing to extract resources from the planet

6. Holistic views of people and values: people are not just self-interested consumers; perspectives should be based on human dignity and enhance people’s opportunities to achieve the lives they value

7. Equity and justice: reducing inequality must be a central economic goal, not an afterthought

8. Relationality: economies should nurture trust, reciprocity and community, rather than erode it

9. Participation and cooperation: businesses and policymakers should involve citizens directly, through discussion and collaboration

10. Post-capitalism and decolonisation: be open to models beyond the dominant approach focused on the endless accumulation of wealth.

Few approaches embody all ten principles, but each offers part of the picture. For example, ecological economics stresses environmental limits, while feminist economics centres on justice and care.

So what does this look like?

Crucially, this is not just academic debate. The UK has already experimented with elements of new economics, for example, through the Welsh Wellbeing of Future Generations Act. The act is an example of embedding new economic thinking into law, though there are challenges in enforcing it.

Welsh public bodies must work towards seven wellbeing goals, including prosperity, resilience, equality and global responsibility. This shifts policymaking from short-term growth to longer-term wellbeing.

And cities like Amsterdam have adopted so-called “doughnut economics” to guide planning. The city set targets for meeting residents’ needs (the inner ring of the “doughnut”) while staying within planetary boundaries (the outer ring). Initiatives include sustainable construction standards, reducing food waste and promoting inclusive housing.

Similar experiments are gathering momentum. The Wellbeing Economy Governments initiative connects countries pursuing post-growth strategies. Costa Rica’s ecosystem-based development, Bhutan’s “gross national happiness” measure, and New Zealand’s living standards framework are all innovative approaches that look beyond GDP growth.

By drawing on the ten principles in the budget and beyond, UK chancellor Rachel Reeves could build on these experiments. This would mean embedding wellbeing, justice and sustainability into her economic strategy.

Ultimately, applying these principles could mean that infrastructure spending could be guided by the limits of the planet. And other investments could support nature recovery, community food systems and the circular economy. Wellbeing and environmental indicators could be a central part of future budgets. And citizen assemblies could give people a voice in the economic decisions that affect them.

These changes would not discard fiscal responsibility. But they would broaden its meaning, making it about sustainability and fairness as well as balance sheets.

Economics is not a neutral science but a set of choices about the future we make possible. Governments could continue with a model that prioritises growth at all costs, leaving people vulnerable to crises and inequality. Or they could be guided by principles that put wellbeing, fairness and ecological resilience at the core.

In the run up to the budget, we should be asking not just how fast our economy can grow, but whether it is helping us to thrive within the planet’s limits.

---

The Conversation and LSE’s International Inequalities Institute have teamed up for a special online event on Tuesday, November 18 from 5pm-6.30pm. Join experts from the worlds of business, taxation and government policy as they discuss the difficult choices facing Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her budget. Sign up for free here

---

Jasper Kenter is Principal Investigator for the Global Assessment for a New Economics (GANE), Honorary Fellow of the University of York and former Lead Author for the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). GANE has received funding from the Leverhulme Trust, the Laudes Foundation and the University of York. Jasper Kenter has received further relevant funding from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).

– ref. Why the UK should look beyond growth to a ‘new economics’ that works for all – https://theconversation.com/why-the-uk-should-look-beyond-growth-to-a-new-economics-that-works-for-all-267378

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Bamo Nouri, Honorary Research Fellow, City St George’s, University of London

Iraqis went to the polls on November 11 to vote in parliamentary elections. Preliminary results put the coalition of Iraq’s prime minister, Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, in the lead. But no bloc has won anything close to a governing majority in the 329-seat parliament.

The country’s next government will be, as has been the pattern since the fall of longtime dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003, assembled over the coming months through elite bargaining rather than a clear voter mandate. Elections in Iraq have turned into a ritual of continuity rather than a vehicle for change.

For the first time in years, officials celebrated what appeared to be a rise in voter participation. Iraq’s electoral commission announced a turnout of just over 55% of registered voters – a sharp jump from around 36% in the last parliamentary election in 2021. However, this figure masks a more sobering truth.

Many of Iraq’s 32 million eligible voters did not register. Only 21.4 million Iraqis updated their information and obtained a voter card, a decrease from 24 million in 2021. This narrower registry automatically inflated turnout.

More than 1.3 million Iraqis – mostly soldiers, police and displaced people – also cast early ballots. The electoral commission announced that turnout in the early voting process was 82%. Counting these figures first gives the impression that overall turnout was far healthier than the public mood suggests.

In fact, voter turnout in Iraq has fallen steadily over the past two decades. More than 79% of registered voters turned out in elections in December 2005, the first to be held after the US-led invasion of 2003. This fell to about 62% of voters in elections in 2010, while just 44% of voters cast ballots in 2018. Voter turnout dropped again in 2021.

Each election has recycled the same elite faces, the same sectarian bargains and the same patronage networks. For most Iraqi citizens, voting no longer feels like participation – it feels like performance.

A key part of Iraq’s electoral theatre is a simple exchange: jobs in return for votes. The country’s oil-based economy funds a vast public payroll of around 4 million employees, making the state the largest employer in the country and the main source of income.

The International Labour Organization estimates that nearly 38% of Iraq’s workforce (3.3 million people) is employed in the public sector, while between 600,000 and 700,000 more receive their salaries from state-owned enterprises kept afloat by federal subsidies.

There are also 3.1 million pensioners in Iraq and about 1.5 million households that collect monthly social protection stipends. Against this backdrop, the 12 million ballots cast in the 2025 election represent a workforce whose income, benefits or family security largely depend on government payrolls.

In such a system, the boundary between voter and employee blurs – making the ballot as much a mechanism of compliance as of choice.

Political parties in Iraq also control ministries as private fiefdoms, distributing jobs and contracts to supporters. Public servants know that salaries, promotions and transfers often depend on party affiliation.

Iraq’s former prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, captured this dynamic bluntly in a pre-election interview in October. He said that Iraqi elections had become a process of “buying votes”.

Politics of exhaustion

In 2019, Iraq experienced the largest protest movement in its post-2003 history. Thousands of young Iraqis demanded an end to sectarianism and corruption, briefly rekindling faith in change. But that hope was crushed when security forces responded to the demonstrations violently, killing more than 600 protesters.

The assassination of Safaa al-Mashhadani, a Sunni parliamentary candidate, ahead of the election in October 2025 shows how dangerous dissent remains. Al-Mashhadani was killed in a car bombing in a town north of Baghdad after publicly criticising Iranian-backed militias, in what analysts described as a targeted attack intended to weaken Sunni and reformist voices ahead of the election.

For many Iraqis, especially young people, such risks make participation feel futile. Research shows that 46% of young people in Iraq now want to emigrate, seeing politics not as a pathway to influence or opportunity, but as something that exposes them to danger and intimidation.

Elections persist, but belief has gone. Iraq’s democracy endures as choreography – maintained for legitimacy, emptied of conviction.

The 2025 election reveals a crisis deeper than disillusionment. Iraq’s problem is the internalised belief that nothing will ever change. Psychologists call this state “learned helplessness”, when repeated disappointment teaches people that their actions make no difference.

Breaking this cycle will require substantial reform. Economically, Iraq needs to reduce its dependency on oil revenues and shrink the clientelist public sector. As I recently argued elsewhere, Iraq needs a genuine free-market more than ever. Politically, Iraq requires accountability that reaches those at the top.

Until these changes are made, Iraq’s elections will remain hollow rituals. The oil will flow, salaries will be paid and the ballots will be counted. But beneath the choreography of democracy lies the silence of a society that has forgotten how to hope.

Bamo Nouri 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. Iraq’s 2025 elections reveal a democracy without belief – https://theconversation.com/iraqs-2025-elections-reveal-a-democracy-without-belief-269553

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emily MacLeod, Honorary Senior Research Fellow in Education, UCL

It is well known that more teachers are needed in England. A shortage of teachers affects young people’s attainment at school and puts pressure on the existing education workforce. There are two key reasons for this teacher shortage. Not enough people are signing up to become teachers, and too many teachers are leaving the profession each year.

Politicians often refer to the need to improve teacher recruitment and retention, putting both factors together. Underpinning this approach is an assumption that policies aimed at motivating people to stay in teaching – early-career bursaries, for instance – might simultaneously attract new teachers into the profession.

But my research with aspirant teachers indicates that the reasons teachers leave teaching are not the same as the reasons people choose not to become teachers. It makes sense, then, that these issues should be considered separately – and that they require different approaches to counter them.

My recent research used data from a research project that surveyed more than 47,000 young people over ten years. With colleagues, I used this data to examine children’s aspirations to become a teacher over time.

I found that one-third of young people surveyed by the project had an interest in teaching. This finding suggests that a far greater number of young people between the ages of 10 and 21 are interested in becoming a teacher than the number who actually end up becoming teachers.

In further research, I carried out interviews with 13 young people in England who wanted to become teachers. I followed them over 11 years, between the ages of ten and 22. All had expressed an interest or aspiration to become a teacher at least once during their education. This in-depth work is rare in education research and gives a unique insight into people’s pathways into and away from teaching.

By the time of their final interviews at age 22, six of the 13 aspirant teachers in the study had gone as far as applying to teacher education. But only three of the 13 aspirant teachers were actually in initial teacher education and actively pursuing a career in teaching.

The other ten were pursuing non-teaching careers and pathways. Two of those who applied to become science teachers had withdrawn their applications and instead chose to pursue different careers – one in scientific research and another in patent law. Another young person in the study had their application to become a science teacher rejected and chose not to apply again. At the time of my final interview with them this person had graduated from their science degree and was working as a cleaner while looking for other work opportunities.

My research explored why these young people had moved away from their ambition to become teachers. They didn’t mention the things that current and former teachers have said push them out of teaching: the profession’s high workload, stress and poor wellbeing.

Instead, they told me that they had changed their minds because they no longer saw teaching as a respected career, or they no longer viewed it as a “low-risk” career option – meaning that they no longer saw teaching as easy to access or a secure career option. Teaching no longer held status or safety.

Teaching’s lost status is demonstrated in the attitudes of the research participants who studied science at university. Almost all questioned the degree to which teaching was a highly educated profession compared with non-teaching careers in science. For instance, some reported that it would feel like “giving up” on science to become a teacher.

Most considered a postgraduate teaching qualification to be less valuable than a postgraduate science qualification such as a master’s degree in science. One said that becoming a science teacher would be “almost a waste of a science degree”.

The young people in the study who felt that teaching was no longer a safe career option found it to be more and more risky over time. For instance, one participant who had previously described teaching as “almost guaranteed work” which was “very secure, and very stable” decided against becoming a teacher after having their first initial teacher education application rejected.

Another participant who earlier considered teaching to be easy to access in their childhood turned away from teaching after realising that teaching required a degree. Because no one in their family had been to university, they did not feel that they could afford to take on the tuition fee costs of a degree and they instead chose to pursue a non-graduate career.

Recruitment and retention are separate

These findings demonstrate that while policies which focus on improving teacher workload and wellbeing might improve retention, they are unlikely to improve recruitment. Likewise, short-term financial incentives aimed at attracting more people into the career do not tackle the issues faced by people who are already teaching. Continuing to combine the issues of recruitment and retention may risk not improving either issue.

This issue is especially important because, while teacher shortages can have an impact on all young people, the negative effects are worse in schools serving disadvantaged communities, meaning that students receiving free school meals are worst hit.

My research with aspirant teachers suggests that highlighting the professional education required to become a teacher in England – and otherwise working to present teaching as a professional or high-status career – could improve recruitment. Politicians must also consider whether the costs associated with some teacher education routes could be deterring some aspirant teachers from pursuing a career in the classroom.

Emily MacLeod receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

– ref. Teacher recruitment and retention are separate issues – they need tackling in different ways – https://theconversation.com/teacher-recruitment-and-retention-are-separate-issues-they-need-tackling-in-different-ways-267168