Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Luca Trenta, Associate Professor in International Relations, Swansea University

The US president, Donald Trump, signed a secret directive on August 8 authorising the Pentagon to use military force against some Latin American drug cartels. To longtime observers of US foreign policy in the region, his directive only came as a partial surprise.

During his most recent presidential election campaign, Trump proposed bombing Mexico – although, amid the flurry of claims and promises, this extreme posture almost went unnoticed. And Mexican national security analysts have been warning for the past few years that use of US military force against Mexico is becoming increasingly likely.

On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order designating cartels and some other criminal groups “foreign terrorist organisations”. For past US administrations, such a designation has often acted as a prelude to – and partial justification for – violence.

Trump’s executive order defined cartels as a “national security threat beyond that posed by traditional organised crime”. This, it added, is due to the cartels’ work with international networks, their complexity and engagement in insurgency and asymmetric warfare, and their “infiltration” of governments in the western hemisphere.

In its report on Trump’s secret directive, the New York Times highlighted how the unilateral use of military force in Latin America would represent a dangerous escalation in the region.

In the past, the US has often presented its use of military force against the cartels as support for law enforcement there. It has also relied on collaboration with local governments and militaries to conduct joint operations.

Brian Finucane, a former legal adviser at the US State Department, noted in the same New York Times article that any use of force would encounter domestic constraints in Washington. It would need congressional authorisations, and the US government is formally banned from attempting assassinations. This ban could only be circumvented, Finucane argued, in cases of self-defence.

However, at least since the 1980s, the ban on assassination has rarely constrained US foreign policy. The so-called “war on drugs” of successive administrations has often blended overt and covert uses of force, culminating in the killing of prominent drug traffickers.

Justifying assassination

The use of force and assassination featured in the first war on drugs, declared by then-US president Richard Nixon in 1971. Journalists working on the Watergate scandal, an investigation into the administration’s involvement in a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, revealed that Nixon and his assistants had considered using hit squads and the assassination of 150 leading drug traffickers.

But the self-defence exception first emerged under the administration of Ronald Reagan (1981–1989). The CIA’s then-director, William Casey, and its legal counsel, Stanley Sporkin, both argued that the ban on assassinations did not apply in cases of self-defence. Their argument found support in an administration that was developing a rhetoric and policies to pre-empt terrorism, similar to those established in the aftermath of 9/11.

In 1989, early in the George H.W. Bush administration, this precedent was enshrined in a memorandum of law: the Parks Memorandum. This stated that overt or covert uses of force ordered by the president in self-defence would not constitute assassination if they targeted “combatant forces of another nation, a guerrilla force or a terrorist, or other organisations whose actions pose a threat to the security of the US”.

By this time, drug trafficking had replaced terrorism as a key security concern in the US, and Medellín Cartel leader Pablo Escobar was enemy number one. In April 1989, the CIA established a counter-narcotics centre, and the National Security Council soon started working on a policy review on how to deal with drug traffickers.

Assassination and the use of force emerged as clear policy options. William J. Bennett, then chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), was a strong advocate of going after narcotraffickers. Bennett seemed to support the use of hit squads when he stated that same year: “We should do to the drug barons what our forces in the Persian Gulf did to Iran’s navy [during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s].”

Bush Sr also went back to another precedent set under Reagan. Starting in the mid-1980s, the Reagan administration had argued that a “marriage of convenience” had emerged between terrorists and drug traffickers. “Narcoterrorism”, then-secretary of state George Shultz suggested in 1987, should be considered a “shadow war”.

In this shadow war, assassination was seen as an available option – with some in the Bush Sr government proposing that if the ban on assassination did not apply to terrorists, it should not apply to drug traffickers either. Increasing violence by the Medellín Cartel at the time, alongside the Parks Memorandum and the administration’s declarations that cartels posed a national security threat, meant overt or covert use of force could be legitimised against the drug gangs too.

This became the legal rationale behind the so-called “kingpin strategy”, which involved the DEA, CIA, US armed forces and their local allies targeting and often killing drug lords and narcotraffickers. This included the leaders of the Medellín and Cali cartels. Escobar, for example, was killed by Colombian special forces in 1993, with extensive training and intelligence support from the US.

Covert and overt uses of force against “narcoterrorists” in the region continued under the following US administrations. This extended to leaders of rebel groups such as the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (Farc), who were involved in drug trafficking and thus considered a threat by the US and its allies. The US role here was largely providing the technology that facilitated cross-border assassinations.

So, the use of US force against drug traffickers is not without precedent. But the measures threatened by Trump would in my view represent a dangerous escalation at a time of unprecedented international crisis. They are certainly a challenge to the Mexican government, whose president, Claudia Sheinbaum, has unequivocally stated: “The US is not going to come to Mexico with the military.”

Several studies into the use of force in the many wars on drugs have shown that military force is not an effective tool to counter the activities of cartels. Militarisation has already contributed to more violence in Mexico, and the decapitation of cartel leadership has often only increased the degree and brutality of such violence.

Luca Trenta 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. US force has been used against drug traffickers before – but Trump’s plan is a dangerous escalation – https://theconversation.com/us-force-has-been-used-against-drug-traffickers-before-but-trumps-plan-is-a-dangerous-escalation-262921

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrea Maria Pelliconi, Lecturer in Human Rights Law, University of Southampton

Christopher Nolan, known for directing blockbusters like Memento, Interstellar and Oppenheimer, is facing public backlash for filming scenes of his new film, The Odyssey, in part of north Africa called Western Sahara.

The territory, formerly known as Spanish Sahara when it was administered from Madrid, was occupied by the Moroccan military in the 1970s and unlawfully annexed. It remains classified by the UN as a “non-self-governing territory” awaiting decolonisation.

The recent controversy concerns the filming of part of The Odyssey in Dahkla, a Western Saharan city on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean. It has brought attention to one of the most overlooked and protracted armed conflicts in the modern world, now 50 years old.

Since Spain’s withdrawal in 1975, Western Sahara has been entangled in a territorial dispute involving an Algeria-backed national liberation movement called the Polisario Front, Morocco and, briefly, Mauritania. Amid serious human rights concerns, Morocco now occupies around 80% of the territory.

This is despite a landmark 1975 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion affirming that the indigenous Sahrawi people have the right to decide whether to join Morocco or form their own state in a UN-backed referendum.

The referendum, which has been repeatedly delayed, is intended to ensure the free expression of the will of the Sahrawi people. Known as the “people of the Sahara”, the Sahrawi are made up of numerous tribes with a shared culture. They are a distinct ethnic group from Moroccans.

Only part of the Sahrawi people continue to live in Western Sahara under Morocco’s control. Most have fled to Algerian refugee camps supported by the UN Refugee Agency.

It was from Algeria, in 1976, that the Polisario Front declared the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR). The Polisario Front claims to represent the Sahrawi people and is considered a legitimate interlocutor by the UN and EU.

The SADR is now a member of the African Union and has, over the years, been recognised (and sometimes un-recognised) by numerous states. Yet it is far from being universally recognised, and Morocco and Polisario continue to engage in armed hostilities for territorial control.

Only a referendum could determine whether the Sahrawi want to be Moroccans or have their own state. But five decades on from the ICJ’s advisory opinion, no such referendum has been held. Meanwhile, Morocco has entrenched its control of Western Sahara, or what it calls the “Southern Provinces”.

It has done so by changing the demographic composition of the population by civil and military means, and bolstering international support for its 2007 autonomy plan. The plan offers limited self-rule for Sahrawis under Moroccan sovereignty, and is harshly opposed by Polisario and Sahrawi groups.

Recognising Moroccan sovereignty

In 2020, under the first Trump administration, the US became the first major power to recognise the autonomy plan and Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. This was part of a diplomatic quid pro quo for Rabat’s normalisation of ties with Israel under the Abraham Accords. Washington has recently reaffirmed its position.

Other global players have followed suit. Spain endorsed the autonomy plan in 2022, despite maintaining an ambiguous policy of “active neutrality”. And France officially recognised Morocco’s sovereignty in 2024.

In June 2025, the UK stated that the autonomy plan represents “the most credible, viable and pragmatic basis for a mutually agreed and lasting solution to the Western Sahara dispute” in a joint communiqué with Morocco. This was despite affirming later that the territory remains of “undetermined” status.

Growing support for Morocco’s sovereignty claims is driven by several geopolitical interests. These include energy security, investment opportunities, counter-terrorism cooperation, migration management and regional influence.

Western Sahara is rich in phosphates, fisheries and potential offshore oil and gas reserves. Major infrastructure projects there, including water management, ports and renewables, are luring international investors.

More recently, Morocco has expanded its focus to tourism and transport development and, as seen with Nolan’s film and its plans to co-host the 2030 Fifa men’s World Cup, apparently also the entertainment industry.

Rabat seems to be using development as a means of domination. And its growing economic clout and regional influence are shifting the cost-benefit calculus of world powers to take Morocco’s side in this dispute. This has made support for legal principles politically inconvenient.

But legal principles matter and consistently support the Sahrawi position. In 2022, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights reaffirmed that Morocco’s continued occupation violates the Sahrawi people’s right to self-determination. This right is a “jus cogens norm” in international law, meaning it is binding on all states and cannot be derogated from.

The International Law Commission stipulates that third states must neither recognise situations arising from breaches of such norms nor assist in their maintenance. This position was reaffirmed by the ICJ in July 2024. In its advisory opinion on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, it reiterated that states and international organisations should not aid or assist the maintenance of illegal occupations.

This further implies that states should disengage from their investments in Western Sahara unless these have been agreed with the Sahrawi people. In October 2024, the EU’s Court of Justice annulled EU-Morocco trade and fisheries agreements where these applied to Western Sahara. It cited the lack of Sahrawi consent in violation of self-determination.

The growing diplomatic endorsement of Morocco’s autonomy plan risks legitimising an unlawful occupation under the veneer of pragmatism. The normalisation of occupation sets a troubling precedent for other territorial disputes around the world, from Ukraine and Palestine to Syria and Kashmir.

Some argue that Morocco’s autonomy plan represents a “realistic” solution to an intractable conflict. But decisions imposed without consent are not solutions, as they lead to further opposition and conflict. Privileging power over principle would betray the Sahrawi people and jeopardise international law.

Andrea Maria Pelliconi is a recipient of a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grant (2024 – 2026) to complete a study of demographic engineering and apartheid in Western Sahara.

I gratefully acknowledge the work of our two research assistants: Dr. Meriem Naili and Beya Mousli. For further information about our project please visit: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/nottingham-international-law-and-security-centre/research/western-sahara-project/western-sahara-project.aspx

Victor Kattan is a recipient of a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grant (2024 – 2026) to complete a study of demographic engineering and apartheid in Western Sahara.

– ref. Morocco using economic clout to strengthen grip on disputed Western Sahara territory – https://theconversation.com/morocco-using-economic-clout-to-strengthen-grip-on-disputed-western-sahara-territory-262763

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maria Pertl, Lecturer in Psychology, Department of Health Psychology, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences

By 2030, an estimated 47 million women worldwide will enter menopause each year. The transition through menopause can last several years and brings with it a host of physical, mental and brain changes. One of the most distressing symptoms reported by women is “brain fog”.

This umbrella term refers to difficulties with memory, concentration and mental clarity. Women may find themselves forgetting words, names or appointments, or misplacing items. While these symptoms can be alarming, they usually resolve after menopause and are not a sign of dementia.

Hormonal fluctuations, particularly declining oestrogen levels, are a key driver of cognitive changes during the menopause transition. But it’s not just hormones. Hot flushes, night sweats, poor sleep and low mood all contribute to cognitive difficulties. The good news? Many of the contributing factors are modifiable. That’s where lifestyle medicine comes in.

Lifestyle medicine is an evidence-based approach that uses lifestyle interventions to prevent and manage chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and dementia. It focuses on six pillars: sleep, physical activity, nutrition, stress management, social connection and avoidance of harmful substances. These same pillars can also support cognitive health during menopause.

Sleep is an underestimated factor in brain health — it is essential for memory consolidation and brain repair. Yet one in three women going through menopause experience significant sleep disturbance. Hot flashes, anxiety, and hormonal changes can all disrupt sleep, creating a vicious cycle that worsens brain fog.

Improving sleep hygiene can help. This includes avoiding caffeine late in the day, reducing screen time before bed, keeping a consistent sleep schedule and maintaining a cool bedroom. Physical activity during the day – especially outside in the morning – also supports better sleep.

Physical activity is one of the most powerful tools for brain health. It improves blood flow to the brain, reduces inflammation and increases the size of the hippocampus (the brain’s memory centre). It also helps regulate mood, improve sleep and support cardiovascular and metabolic health. For menopausal women, it has the added benefit of improving bone health, sexual function and maintaining a healthy weight.

The World Health Organization recommends at least 150–300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity per week, plus two sessions of muscle-strengthening exercises. Even brisk walking can make a difference.

Stress can make it difficult to think clearly and chronic stress may accelerate brain ageing through chronically elevated cortisol levels. Menopause can be a stressful time, especially when cognitive changes affect sleep, confidence and daily functioning.

Mindfulness, yoga, tai chi and breathing exercises can help reduce stress and improve focus. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), a form of talking therapy, is also effective in addressing negative thought patterns and improving coping strategies. Finding a hobby that brings joy or a sense of “flow” can also be a powerful stress reliever.

What we eat plays a crucial role in brain health. The Mediterranean diet — rich in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, olive oil and fish — has been linked to better memory and reduced risk of cognitive decline.

Omega-3 fatty acids, found in fatty fish and flaxseeds, are particularly beneficial for brain function. Avoiding ultra-processed foods, added sugars and trans fats can help reduce inflammation and stabilise energy levels.

Social connection is a powerful yet often overlooked pillar of lifestyle medicine that has substantial effects on physical, mental and brain health. During menopause, women may feel less able to participate in social activities and experience increased isolation or changes in relationships, which can negatively affect mood and cognition.

Strong social ties stimulate the brain, support emotional regulation, and buffer against stress. Quality matters more than quantity. Regular check-ins with friends, joining a club, volunteering, or even brief positive interactions can all make a difference.

Alcohol and other substances can have a circular effect on sleep, mood, and cognition. While alcohol may initially feel relaxing, it disrupts sleep quality and can worsen anxiety and memory issues.

Reducing alcohol and avoiding tobacco and recreational drugs can improve sleep, mood and cognitive clarity. If cutting back feels difficult, seeking support from a healthcare professional or support group can be a helpful first step.

Making lifestyle changes can feel overwhelming, especially when you’re already feeling tired or stressed. Financial pressures or personal circumstances can make lifestyle changes feel out of reach. Start small. Make just one change in one pillar, such as sticking to a regular bedtime or adding a short daily walk, and build from there. Small, consistent steps can make a big difference to clearing brain fog.

Menopausal brain fog is real, but it’s also manageable. By focusing on the six pillars of lifestyle medicine, women can take proactive steps to support their cognitive health and overall wellbeing during this important life transition.

Maria Pertl receives research funding from the Irish Cancer Society and the National Cancer Control Programme. She is a committee member of the Irish Society of Lifestyle Medicine.

Lisa Mellon co-founded the Irish Society for Lifestyle Medicine.

– ref. Menopause and brain fog: why lifestyle medicine could make a difference – https://theconversation.com/menopause-and-brain-fog-why-lifestyle-medicine-could-make-a-difference-261683

Source: The Conversation – UK – By William Perry, Postdoctoral Research Associate at the School of Biosciences, Cardiff University

Wild salmon are not just rarer than their farmed cousins – they’re better looking too. In a new study by my colleagues and I, we found that they are noticeably more symmetrical than those reared in captivity. In other words, they’re prettier (by human standards, at least). And that’s not just cosmetic.

The global sale of aquatic species reared in captivity (known as aquaculture) is worth more than US$300 billion (£225 billion) annually. That’s a huge figure that doesn’t even include the wholesale or retail markups and revenue generated from other industries such as processing or packaging.

Of all the cultured aquatic organisms, the Atlantic salmon is the most valuable but is seeing widespread declines in the wild.

To put salmon decline into perspective, in 2024 the aquaculture industry produced somewhere in the region of 3 million metric tonnes of Atlantic salmon for consumption, which is roughly 600 million fish (assuming a harvest weight of 5kg per fish). Yet, there are fewer than two million wild Atlantic salmon returning to rivers every year.

This has led to the Atlantic salmon being classified as endangered in Britain by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Some countries have turned to hatcheries as a way to boost wild numbers, releasing captive-bred fish into rivers to try to strengthen struggling populations.

But rearing fish in artificial hatchery environments changes elements of their biology, making them less likely to survive in the wild. Not only this, but when they are released into the wild, their genetics can pollute local gene pools.

So, while hatcheries seem to offer a solution to declining wild salmon populations, decades of research has shown that they largely have a negative effect on the populations they are trying to save. Despite these problems, hatcheries can sometimes be the only thing standing between a population and extinction.

We carried out our study on the Saimaa salmon in Finland, a critically endangered, landlocked population that’s been around since the last ice age. Once common in the wild, the Saimaa salmon would now go extinct in the wild if it were not for hatchery production sustaining the population. This is because the construction of hydropower stations and deforestation destroyed their natural spawning habitats in the 20th century.

In humans, facial symmetry is often associated with beauty. It’s no coincidence that stars like Zendaya and Harry Styles, whose features exhibit remarkable symmetry, are held up as icons of attractiveness.

In fish, symmetry is associated with low environmental stress. So, it can be a valuable tool for understanding how effective hatcheries are in producing more natural fish.

To understand how hatchery conditions shape fish development, we photographed Saimaa salmon from both sides and compared their features. Some fish had spent a year in tanks, others just a few days before being released into a river. We then measured their symmetry as an indicator of stress.

What we found was striking. Even fish reared in captivity for just one year showed clear signs of asymmetry. And efforts to enrich their lives, such as by adding shelters and fluctuating water flows, did not prevent asymmetry.

The only technique that prevented asymmetry was releasing the fish into a natural river after they had just hatched, minimising their exposure to the hatchery environment.

Fish released into the wild after hatching also had larger pectoral fins and lower jaws, relative to body size, when compared to those reared in captive environments. These traits may be beneficial in the wild where there are more complex river flows and diets. They were reduced in those fish who had spent most of their life in the hatchery.

Letting nature lead

Our research suggests that the hatchery environment – no matter how carefully managed – is no substitute for nature. While hatcheries can act as a stopgap for critically endangered populations like the Saimaa salmon, they are not a long-term fix for species in decline.

If hatcheries must be used, our study show it’s vital to get fish into natural conditions as early as possible. But ultimately, if we want wild salmon to not just survive but thrive, we have to fix the problems that caused their decline in the first place.

Humanity often tries to engineer its way out of environmental crises. But nature isn’t easily replaced. Sometimes, the best solution is to give it the space to recover on its own.

William Perry 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. Wild salmon are the Zendayas of the fish world – what that tells us about conservation – https://theconversation.com/wild-salmon-are-the-zendayas-of-the-fish-world-what-that-tells-us-about-conservation-262268

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nerys M. Astbury, Associate Professor, Health Behaviours, University of Oxford

Around one in five women of childbearing age are living with [obesity], defined by the World Health Organization as having a body mass index (BMI) over 30 kg/m². Compared with women in the healthy BMI range (18.5–24.9 kg/m²), those living with obesity are three times more likely to experience fertility problems and nearly twice as likely to have a miscarriage. Many turn to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in the hope of having a baby.

Women with obesity who are planning a pregnancy are already advised that losing weight can improve their chances of conceiving. Our research suggests that structured weight loss support may also improve outcomes for those seeking IVF.

Our study analysed data from 12 international trials involving 1,921 women living with obesity, all planning IVF. It compared those offered a weight loss programme before IVF with those receiving standard care, which typically does not include such support.

Women who took part in a weight loss programme had a 21% higher chance of becoming pregnant overall – whether naturally or through IVF. The biggest difference was in natural conceptions: the likelihood of getting pregnant without IVF rose by 47%, meaning some women avoided fertility treatment altogether.

However, despite these higher pregnancy rates and no increase in miscarriage risk, there was no clear evidence of an effect on live birth rates. This may be because many of the included studies didn’t track live birth outcomes – even though this is the result that matters most to patients.

IVF access paradox

In the UK, publicly funded IVF is restricted to women with a BMI under 30. Similar weight-based eligibility rules exist in many other countries. These policies disproportionately affect women from more deprived backgrounds and some ethnic groups, who are more likely to be living with obesity.

The paradox is clear: women with obesity are more likely to need IVF, but less likely to be eligible for it.

Some can afford private weight loss programmes to meet the BMI requirement. Others resort to unproven or unsafe methods to lose weight quickly, risking their health in order to access fertility care.

Our research findings suggest that offering structured weight loss programmes to women with obesity who are otherwise ineligible for IVF could help more women become pregnant – and in some cases avoid IVF altogether.

This approach could also make fertility treatment more equitable. Since the cost of weight loss support is relatively low compared with IVF, including it in the treatment pathway might offer better value for healthcare providers.

Weight loss options before IVF

The most effective non-surgical option for significant weight loss is a class of medications called GLP-1 receptor agonists – such as Wegovy or Mounjaro – which have been shown to lead to substantial weight reduction.

However, these drugs should not be used during pregnancy, while trying to conceive, or while breastfeeding, as there’s little safety data in humans – and animal studies suggest potential harm to foetal development. Anyone who becomes pregnant while taking GLP-1 drugs should stop immediately and consult a healthcare professional.

For women planning to conceive soon, there are other safe and effective options, including structured support groups and low-energy diet programmes. The problem is that such services are not offered as part of standard IVF care.

While some NHS weight management programmes exist, access is limited, waiting lists can be long, and most are aimed at people with obesity-related health conditions rather than those seeking fertility treatment. In many other countries, insurance coverage for weight loss support is similarly patchy, meaning these services must often be funded privately – a cost that can put them out of reach for those who could benefit most.

The message from this research is clear: targeted, supportive weight loss programmes before IVF don’t just improve pregnancy chances – they could also reduce the need for IVF, promote fairer access to fertility treatment, and save healthcare resources. The challenge now is making sure they’re available to everyone who needs them, not just those who can afford to pay.

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

– ref. Weight loss support before IVF could boost pregnancy chances – and reduce the need for treatment – https://theconversation.com/weight-loss-support-before-ivf-could-boost-pregnancy-chances-and-reduce-the-need-for-treatment-260544

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Rovatsos, Professor of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh

OpenAI claims that its new flagship model, GPT-5, marks “a significant step along the path to AGI” – that is, the artificial general intelligence that AI bosses and self-proclaimed experts often claim is around the corner.

According to OpenAI’s own definition, AGI would be “a highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work”. Setting aside whether this is something humanity should be striving for, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s arguments for GPT-5 being a “significant step” in this direction sound remarkably unspectacular.

He claims GPT-5 is better at writing computer code than its predecessors. It is said to “hallucinate” a bit less, and is a bit better at following instructions – especially when they require following multiple steps and using other software. The model is also apparently safer and less “sycophantic”, because it will not deceive the user or provide potentially harmful information just to please them.

Altman does say that “GPT-5 is the first time that it really feels like talking to an expert in any topic, like a PhD-level expert”. Yet it still doesn’t have a clue about whether anything it says is accurate, as you can see from its attempt below to draw a map of North America.

It also cannot learn from its own experience, or achieve more than 42% accuracy on a challenging benchmark like “Humanity’s Last Exam”, which contains hard questions on all kinds of scientific (and other) subject matter. This is slightly below the 44% that Grok 4, the model recently released by Elon Musk’s xAI, is said to have achieved.

The main technical innovation behind GPT-5 seems to be the introduction of a “router”. This decides which model of GPT to delegate to when asked a question, essentially asking itself how much effort to invest in computing its answers (then improving over time by learning from feedback about its previous choices).

The options for delegation include the previous leading models of GPT and also a new “deeper reasoning” model called GPT-5 Thinking. It’s not clear what this new model actually is. OpenAI isn’t saying it is underpinned by any new algorithms or trained on any new data (since all available data was pretty much being used already).

One might therefore speculate that this model is really just another way of controlling existing models with repeated queries and pushing them to work harder until it produces better results.

What LLMs are

It was back in 2017 when researchers at Google found out that a new type of AI architecture was capable of capturing tremendously complex patterns within long sequences of words that underpin the structure of human language.

By training these so-called large language models (LLMs) on large amounts of text, they could respond to prompts from a user by mapping a sequence of words to its most likely continuation in accordance with the patterns present in the dataset. This approach to mimicking human intelligence became better and better as LLMs were trained on larger and larger amounts of data – leading to systems like ChatGPT.

Ultimately, these models just encode a humongous table of stimuli and responses. A user prompt is the stimulus, and the model might just as well look it up in a table to determine the best response. Considering how simple this idea seems, it’s astounding that LLMs have eclipsed the capabilities of many other AI systems – if not in terms of accuracy and reliability, certainly in terms of flexibility and usability.

The jury may still be out on whether these systems could ever be capable of true reasoning, or understanding the world in ways similar to ours, or keeping track of their experiences to refine their behaviour correctly – all arguably necessary ingredients of AGI.

In the meantime, an industry of AI software companies has sprung up that focuses on “taming” general purpose LLMs to be more reliable and predictable for specific use cases. Having studied how to write the most effective prompts, their software might prompt a model multiple times, or use numerous LLMs, adjusting the instructions until it gets the desired result. In some cases, they might “fine-tune” an LLM with small-scale add-ons to make them more effective.

OpenAI’s new router is in the same vein, except it’s built into GPT-5. If this move succeeds, the engineers of companies further down the AI supply chain will be needed less and less. GPT-5 would also be cheaper to users than its LLM competitors because it would be more useful without these embellishments.

At the same time, this may well be an admission that we have reached a point where LLMs cannot be improved much further to deliver on the promise of AGI. If so, it will vindicate those scientists and industry experts who have been arguing for a while that it won’t be possible to overcome the current limitations in AI without moving beyond LLM architectures.

Old wine into new models?

OpenAI’s new emphasis on routing also harks back to the “meta reasoning” that gained prominence in AI in the 1990s, based on the idea of “reasoning about reasoning”. Imagine, for example, you were trying to calculate an optimal travel route on a complex map. Heading off in the right direction is easy, but every time you consider another 100 alternatives for the remainder of the route, you will likely only get an improvement of 5% on your previous best option. At every point of the journey, the question is how much more thinking it’s worth doing.

This kind of reasoning is important for dealing with complex tasks by breaking them down into smaller problems that can be solved with more specialised components. This was the predominant paradigm in AI until the focus shifted to general-purpose LLMs.

It is possible that the release of GPT-5 marks a shift in the evolution of AI which, even if it is not a return to this approach, might usher in the end of creating ever more complicated models whose thought processes are impossible for anyone to understand.

Whether that could put us on a path toward AGI is hard to say. But it might create an opportunity to move towards creating AIs we can control using rigorous engineering methods. And it might help us remember that the original vision of AI was not only to replicate human intelligence, but also to better understand it.

Michael Rovatsos has received funding from the Cisco University Research Program Fund that supports research involving Large Language Models (LLMs), in-kind contributions in the form of cloud credits from Google to use LLMs they provide, and public funding from UK Research and Innovation and the European Commission. He has also provided consultancy to UK government departments. He is a member of the Scottish Government’s Tech Council and affiliated with the Alan Turing Institute.

– ref. GPT-5: has AI just plateaued? – https://theconversation.com/gpt-5-has-ai-just-plateaued-262963

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Giacomo Melli, PhD candidate in sociology, University of Oxford

Imagine society as a ladder with ten rungs. Where would you place yourself? That answer reflects your subjective social status – where you see yourself in society. Importantly, this is not necessarily reflective of where you actually are. Subjective social status matters as it shapes what you believe, how you behave, and, as my new study shows, how much you care about economic inequality.

These days, economic inequality is hard to ignore. In the UK, the richest 10% of households holds nearly half of all wealth, while millions struggle to make ends meet.

My research asked: why do some people support reducing inequality while others don’t?

Take two middle class professionals with similar jobs and incomes. One supports higher taxes on the wealthy, the other doesn’t. Why the difference? It’s not just their actua class position. What matters is where they feel they stand in society – their subjective social status.

My research analysed survey data on more than 51,000 people from 25 countries where respondents placed themselves on a ten-rung ladder representing society. This simple question – about how people feel they rank socially – turns out to be a powerful predictor of support for redistribution, such as progressive taxation or government efforts to reduce income inequality.

You might assume that views on redistribution boil down to income: those struggling financially want the government to help reduce inequality, while those who are doing well want to keep things as they are. But what really matters is where people feel they stand compared to others, regardless of their actual income or job.

As the sociological theory known as the Thomas theorem puts it: “If people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” These consequences can also affect politics – how people perceive their social standing can shape what policies (and parties) they support.

Where do you think you are?

My research found that people who feel at the bottom of the social ladder tend to support income redistribution, regardless of how unequal their country actually is. That might seem obvious.

But what’s striking – and what the research also shows – is how often people’s perceptions don’t match their economic reality. One in five who place themselves in the top third are in fact working class, while one in five people who see themselves in the bottom third of society are actually high income earners in their country. People’s perceptions of where they stand often don’t match reality because they rely on personal background, upbringing and comparisons with peers or social circles.

You might expect those who feel near the top of society to oppose redistribution, especially in countries where inequality is high. Yet the evidence tells a different story. People behave very differently depending on how unequal their society is.

In countries where income inequality is high, those who feel privileged are often more supportive of redistribution. This doesn’t happen in countries where inequality is low. My findings show that, for example, someone who feels near the top in the US (an unequal country) is 31% more likely to support government action to reduce inequality than their counterpart in more equal Denmark.

This suggests that “wealthy” people’s attitudes aren’t just about protecting their own interests. Something else is at play.

Fear and altruism

One possible answer lies in two feelings: fear and altruism. Those who feel socially well off don’t live in a vacuum, they notice when inequality is high around them. Whether out of fear for their own safety, altruism for those struggling or both, these feelings can lead even the privileged to support government efforts to reduce inequality.

Why should those who feel at the top of society in low-inequality countries worry? They think they are doing well, and they can see that society around them is also functioning reasonably well.

People respond not only to their material conditions, but to how they see themselves and the context around them. Even those who feel they’re doing well may support redistribution if they believe growing inequality could threaten the system.

This research reveals something crucial about how politics works in democratic societies. Politics is about how people see themselves, not just their income or class. This matters beyond redistribution. It also affects populist attitudes, electoral participation and support for far-right parties.

This insight helps explain why some middle-class voters might back policies that don’t seem to benefit them, and why opinions vary so much between similar countries. As inequality keeps shaping political debates worldwide, understanding these feelings becomes key to making sense of contemporary politics. At the end of the day, it’s perception, not just reality, that drives the politics we see.

Giacomo Melli 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. Where you think you are in society (not where you actually are) matters for how you think about inequality – https://theconversation.com/where-you-think-you-are-in-society-not-where-you-actually-are-matters-for-how-you-think-about-inequality-259715

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Harriet Fletcher, Lecturer in Media and Communication, Anglia Ruskin University

Twenty-two years after Lindsay Lohan and Jamie Lee Curtis first swapped bodies in the teen classic Freaky Friday, the beloved duo returns. This time there’s twice the chaos in an ambitious four-person body swap comedy dripping in noughties nostalgia. This sequel successfully recaptures the unapologetic girlish silliness that made the first film so beloved.

The timing couldn’t be better. Curtis is fresh from her Oscar win for Everything Everywhere All at Once, while Lohan is in the midst of her romcom renaissance in Netflix movies like Falling For Christmas (2022), Our Little Secret (2024) and Irish Wish (2024).

The film opens with a daydreaming Anna (Lohan), now in her late thirties, tearing it up on the electric guitar. It immediately recalls 2003 when Lohan first played the rebellious teen and aspiring rock star. Then reality hits.

This time, rebel Anna hasn’t swapped bodies with her mother – she’s become her mother. She’s a single mum working a busy job as a music producer, having shelved her rock-star dreams to raise her teenage daughter Harper (Julia Butters). Picking up where the last film left off, Anna’s mum Tess (Curtis) is still a successful therapist and author – though her latest foray into podcasting isn’t exactly going as planned.

The plot quickly sets up Anna’s new romance with fellow single-parent Eric (Manny Jacinto). He’s a charming British restaurateur who – much to Harper’s dismay – happens to be the father of her high-school nemesis Lily (Sophia Hammons). Ironically, the couple’s meet-cute in the principal’s office is incited by the girls’ feuding antics, including a science experiment that goes horribly wrong and an all-out food fight in the school yard.

At Anna’s bachelorette party, her and Tess are dragged into a palm reading by “Madame Jen” – a pushy but incompetent psychic and all-round grifter, comically played by SNL’s Vanessa Bayer. Harper and Lily are drawn into a separate reading and given a mysterious prophecy.

All four experience what feels like an earthquake, leading them to wake up with a rather unwelcome surprise: Anna and Harper have swapped bodies, as have Tess and Lily. Over the course of the film, Anna and Tess try to track down the elusive Madame Jen to undo the spell, while Harper and Lily use their new identities to sabotage their parents’ wedding.

While this ambitious four-person body swap is a little confusing at first (I often had to remind myself who was playing who), it hits its stride when the pairs go off on their respective capers. The concept is at its best when Harper and Lily (in Anna and Tess’s bodies) make a disastrous attempt to seduce Anna’s high school boyfriend (Chad Michael Murray), and when Anna and Tess in the teens’ much younger bodies bond over their newfound love of e-scooters.

As well as being “freakier” than its 2003 predecessor, this sequel packs a bigger emotional punch by revisiting themes of grief and blended families. Newcomer Lily is the surprising emotional core of the film – a young girl grieving the loss of her mum, homesick for her life in London, and struggling to find her place in a new family. The most poignant moments come through her unlikely bond with Tess.

That said, it’s a curious omission that Anna (Lohan) – who also lost a parent when she was younger – doesn’t share any meaningful moments with Lily. Curtis (as both Tess and Lily) does a lot of heavy lifting on this front.

Pure nostalgia

It could be argued that Freakier Friday didn’t need to retread the first film’s thematic ground at all. While the repetition does enable some degree of character development, it’s hard not to wonder what bolder risks could have taken after 22 years.

The film flirts with exploring teenage girls’ relationships with their bodies, including an over-the-top mirror scene where the teens recoil in horror at their older faces (despite Lohan and Curtis looking amazing), though mostly settles for cheap “old lady” gags.

Curtis groans about creaky knees, struggling to get off the floor and constantly needing to pee. These jokes feel out of place when she runs rings around her younger cast members and is undoubtedly the most dynamic presence in this film. At one point, Lily (in Tess’s body) overuses a lip plumper to absurd effect – a moment that hints at satirising beauty standards in the age of Botox and fillers but doesn’t dig much deeper than a surface-level punchline.

While Freakier Friday has some fun references to contemporary pop culture, from Love Island to The Great British Bake Off with a smattering of gen-Z lingo here and there, it is a self-aware throwback to noughties girlhood. The soundtrack features Britney Spears and the Spice Girls, Curtis rocks Baby Spice pigtails, and Lohan’s pink-tint shades look like they could have teleported straight from 2003.

Even Harper and Lily’s scheme to derail the wedding feels like an intentional nod to Lohan’s childhood film, The Parent Trap (1998) – a nod that’s underscored by a cameo from Elaine Hendrix, who co-starred in the film with Lohan.

Overall, the film delivers satisfying fan service, especially through the return of noughties heartthrob Murray, whose role is pure nostalgia for long-time fans.

---

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.

---

Harriet Fletcher 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. Freakier Friday: nostalgia-soaked sequel explores grief and blended families – https://theconversation.com/freakier-friday-nostalgia-soaked-sequel-explores-grief-and-blended-families-262969

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Graff, Senior Lecturer in Psychology of Relationships, University of South Wales

Love is Blind UK returns to Netflix on August 13. For those who haven’t seen it, the show describes itself as a “social experiment” in which single men and women look for love and some get engaged – all before meeting each other in person.

Participants spend the first ten days of the experiment entering various “pods” – small individual rooms containing a sofa and a shared wall with another pod, through which they talk to – but cannot see – their potential matches. If they feel after a series of dates that they have fallen in love with another participant, they can propose marriage.

If accepted, they can then meet their partner in the flesh. Engaged couples are all sent to a resort for a week in order to become more familiar, before moving in together and deciding whether to get married in the show’s final episode.

Some of the couples who met and married on the show have had success. Bobby and Jasmine, and Benaiah and Nicole from the last season of Love is Blind UK are still happily married. Lauren and Cameron from season one of Love is Blind US are currently expecting their first child. But, for many more couples, the show does not lead to lasting love.

The show’s ultimate test is whether people are able to establish an emotional connection strong enough to propose marriage before they have actually met in person. But is talking alone enough for people to really fall in love? Here’s what the research says.

A major component of romantic relationship development is what researchers call “reciprocal self-disclosure”. This basically means gradually revealing information about yourself to your partner, while listening to your partner reveal information about themselves.

Such disclosure initially involves the sharing of superficial information (what’s your favourite colour? Do you have any pets?) and progresses to disclosure of intimate and very intimate information. However, in interactions where we are unable to visually monitor the other person’s nonverbal feedback, we are unaware of subtle cues of approval or disapproval on disclosing information, which can cause misunderstanding.

One of the consequences of this is that an interaction may become more uninhibited. In the security of the Love is Blind pods, people may begin to reveal more intimate information about themselves at a faster rate than normal. Sharing intimate experiences early on in an interaction can actually expedite a degree of intimacy by creating a connection with the other person. But is this really love?

---

Dating today can feel like a mix of endless swipes, red flags and shifting expectations. From decoding mixed signals to balancing independence with intimacy, relationships in your 20s and 30s come with unique challenges. Love IRL is the latest series from Quarter Life that explores it all.

These research-backed articles break down the complexities of modern love to help you build meaningful connections, no matter your relationship status.

---

Whether or not Love is Blind’s cast become engaged or not may depend on their attachment styles. “Attachment style” refers to the way in which we became attached to our primary caregivers in infancy and continue that pattern on to later life, affecting the way we become attached to romantic partners.

The three principal styles of attachment are secure, avoidant or anxious. Participants on Love is Blind who have an anxious attachment style may feel increased pressure to settle for a partner than those more securely attached. When this is coupled with the time limit allowed for finding a partner it may result in some imprudent partner choices.

Furthermore, the lack of visual information afforded to Love is Blind participants means that they have to “fill in the gaps” regarding their date, which leads to a degree of imagining or fantasising.

One parallel to the love experienced by the show’s participants is the love victims report feeling for dating site scammers. Many victims say that they feel a sense of love for the scammer, which is why they part with money – although in reality they are merely experiencing a type of love illusion.

A person’s physical appearance, personality and habits, are never totally apparent until a first meeting. This leads to the possibility that people feel less satisfied than they expect on a first face-to-face encounter. This devaluing effect is caused by daters projecting their idea of their ideal partner on to the person with whom they have been talking. Sometimes they may not live up to expectations on first meeting.

---

Read more:
Looking for meaningful romantic relationships? Start by diversifying your friendships and forgetting your wishlist

---

We know from research that men rely mainly on physical appearance when evaluating a potential date more than women. Women are more likely to assess additional factors such as ambition and financial resources and also a willingness to invest in children – information which could potentially be ascertained through talking with dating partners.

Furthermore, women generally take longer to decide whether or not they are attracted to a potential date which is related to what has been termed “error management theory”. In essence it means that making an error in choosing the wrong person can be more costly to women. This is maybe why, in heterosexual couples, men are more likely than women to declare love first.

The modality switch

“Modality switching” is the research term for the moment the Love is Blind participants move from chatting in the pods to meeting face-to-face and it is important to understand what predicts success here.

Research from 2017 found that there are three key elements when moving from online dating to face-to-face dating. First, perceiving that a potential partner is similar, second overtly expressing this similarity to them and third the amount of information sought from a potential partner, which serves to reduce uncertainty about them on meeting face-to-face. The situation in Love is Blind is similar to an online date in as much as contestants have not yet met in person.

Love has been the subject of literature, poetry and music as well as the focus of psychological and biological research, and yet a conclusive definition and proper understanding of romantic love remains elusive. Some insight offered by psychologist Robert Sternberg’s “Triangular Theory of Love” suggests that true love comprises of intimacy, passion and commitment – all of which develop over time, not ten days in a pod.

Overall, the evidence suggests that though encouraging disclosure and fantasy combined with prompting a sense of urgency in finding a partner the show appears to facilitate romantic love, in most cases real love takes time together to develop.

---

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.

---

Martin Graff 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. Love is Blind returns – but is there truth to the show’s ‘social experiment’? Here’s what the research says – https://theconversation.com/love-is-blind-returns-but-is-there-truth-to-the-shows-social-experiment-heres-what-the-research-says-262557

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Julianne Megaw, Lecturer in Microbiology, Queen’s University Belfast

With conventional waste management systems falling short, many scientists are turning to nature for innovative solutions to the issue of plastic waste. One promising avenue is microbial degradation: harnessing the natural abilities of certain bacteria and fungi to break down plastics in ways that current technologies cannot.

These microbes produce specialised enzymes (proteins that carry out chemical reactions) capable of breaking the long, carbon-rich chains of molecules that form the backbones of many plastic polymers. They effectively use plastic as a food source.

Historically, scientists looking for plastic-degrading microbes have focused on plastic-polluted environments such as landfills and contaminated soils. These are logical starting points, as prolonged exposure to synthetic polymers may encourage the growth of organisms that are capable of using these materials as a food source. This trend has also been observed with other environmental pollutants including oil and pesticides.

This approach has led to the discovery of several promising candidate microbes that can degrade plastic. Among the most famous examples is Ideonella sakaiensis, a bacterium identified near a plastic bottle recycling facility in Japan.

It can completely degrade polyethylene terephthalate (PET), the plastic most commonly used in bottles and food packaging. It breaks PET into its (environmentally benign) building blocks. These can then be used as food by I. sakaiensis and other organisms.

But plastic-degrading microbes haven’t evolved this capability in response to plastic pollution. Instead, scientists are discovering and repurposing metabolic functions that already exist in nature. The potential for microbes to break down plastic long predates the invention of plastics themselves.

Many microbes already have the ability to decompose natural polymers such as cellulose (plant fibres), chitin (found in fungi and insects) and cutin (found on the surfaces of leaves). These naturally occurring materials share structural and chemical similarities with synthetic plastics. This overlap allows microbes to repurpose existing enzymes to tackle synthetic substances.

My team’s recent research, published in the journal Polymer Degradation and Stability, supports this idea. From unpolluted environments rich in natural polymers (a peat bog and domestic compost), we identified two bacterial strains, Gordonia and Arthrobacter, that degraded polypropylene and polystyrene by nearly 23% and 19.5%, respectively, in just 28 days. Crucially, this occurred without any pretreatment, which is often required to make plastics more susceptible to microbial attack.

While these numbers may seem modest, they are among the highest biodegradation rates ever recorded for these plastics. This suggests that we don’t have to stick to polluted sites. It’s possible that we could find microbes with excellent plastic-degrading potential anywhere.

This aligns with another fascinating study showing that waxworms (Galleria mellonella) can eat plastic bags, thanks to specific gut microbes. Waxworms do not naturally consume plastic, they are common pests in beehives where they feed on honeycomb. But, structurally, honeycomb is similar to polyethylene, the main component of plastic bags.

Drowning in plastic?

These advances are exciting because they show how nature can offer us tools to deal with the plastic problem we’ve created.

Plastic is one of the most pervasive materials on Earth. Lightweight, durable, cheap to produce and infinitely versatile, it permeates nearly every aspect of modern life. In critical applications such as medical devices and equipment, its presence is not just convenient but essential. Lives often depend on it.

But in the wrong context, the qualities that make plastics so useful and durable become their greatest flaw. Most plastics do not readily biodegrade, instead accumulating in natural environments, gradually fragmenting into microplastics that can persist for centuries. This poses a long-term threat to nature and human health.

Global plastic production now exceeds 460 million tonnes annually. Up to half of this is estimated to be single-use items, often used for only a few moments before being discarded.

While diligent users of recycling facilities might assume that most of our plastic is indeed recycled, the reality is sobering: the global recycling rate for plastics is only 9%.

Around half ends up in landfills, while around one-fifth is incinerated, and another fifth is mismanaged so it’s not recycled, incinerated or securely contained. That means it can end up in rivers, lakes and oceans. The result: a planet drowning in synthetic waste.

As plastic production and disposal continue to outpace our ability to manage it, the need for innovative, sustainable solutions is urgent. Recognising this, the UN’s ongoing negotiations for a global plastics treaty aims to build a more circular economy for plastics and end plastic pollution by 2040.

While challenges remain in enhancing the biodegradation capabilities of microorganisms to make them a viable solution for large-scale waste management and environmental remediation, progress is steadily being made.

Advances in microbial engineering, enzyme discovery and environmental microbiology are paving the way towards more efficient and scalable plastic biodegradation systems. With continued research and investment, what was once a distant possibility is now a realistic and promising component of a broader strategy to combat plastic pollution.

---

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.

---

Julianne Megaw 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 microbes could help solve the world’s plastic pollution crisis – https://theconversation.com/how-microbes-could-help-solve-the-worlds-plastic-pollution-crisis-262583