Category: The Conversation – UK

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

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alison Clare, Senior Research Associate, Translational Health Sciences and Ophthalmology, University of Bristol

Gene therapies hold immense promise for treating sight loss. These therapies use a modified, harmless virus to deliver therapeutic genes directly to diseased cells, helping them to function normally again.

But numerous clinical trials have found that gene therapy causes serious side-effects in some patients because their immune system recognises the virus and attacks it.

So to improve safety and efficacy of gene therapy in the eye, my colleagues and I wanted to understand more about this immune response so we can someday prevent it from happening.

We discovered that old female mice were more vulnerable to experiencing a damaging side-effect from gene therapy, compared to both male mice and young female mice. This reaction was directly related to differences in the way the immune systems of old female mice functioned.

To conduct our study, we gave both male and female mice the gene therapy, which was delivered into the eye. The therapy was tested on young, middle-aged and old mice.

We found that in young mice, females had increased immune activation – even from a lower dose of gene therapy. A similar finding was also recently observed in human blood samples – with women’s immune cells exhibiting greater amounts of inflammation, a sign these immune cells were mounting an attack against the therapy.

Our research went on to show that age was also associated with a stronger inflammatory response to the gene therapy. This was true for both old male and female mice. The inflammatory response lasted longer in the older mice, too.

When we looked more closely at a specific type of immune cell that’s found in the brain and eye, we saw that in older female mice these cells showed signs of both an earlier stress response and stronger inflammatory reaction compared to younger mice and male mice. This reaction was also linked to signs of tissue degeneration.

Together, these findings suggest that women, particularly older women, could be at greater risk of harmful reactions to gene therapy – especially at the doses needed for these therapies to work.

Although our study was conducted in mice, it’s not the first research to show that immune response differences can affect the way men and women react to certain treatments.

Another research group also showed that female mice mounted a stronger response against a gene therapy – recognising it as foreign and removing it. This reduced the amount of therapy delivered successfully to females compared to males.

Treatments for conditions such as arthritis are another example of the way women’s immune response can affect how they respond to treatment. These immunotherapies work better in men compared to women. Some scientists believe this is because women’s immune systems are more likely to recognise the drug as foreign and remove it.

Sex differences and immune function

There’s one key reason men’s and women’s immune systems may respond differently to the same treatment. Women’s immune systems are generally more reactive than men’s to anything unfamiliar.

The types of immune cells that respond the strongest and fastest to a foreign substance are different for men and women. This is because sex hormones – primarily oestrogen for females and testosterone for males – directly affect the way these cells behave.

The X chromosome also plays a role in immune response, as it contains a greater number of immune-related genes compared to the Y chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes, while males have one X and one Y chromosome. These differences will affect how well men and women respond to treatments.

---

Read more:
How biological differences between men and women alter immune responses – and affect women’s health

---

Age further affects how the immune system acts – and how the body responds to different treatments.

As we get older, our immune cells lose their ability to recognise and remove foreign pathogens – though these cells still continue to stimulate inflammation. This leads to a persistent inflammatory state, which is thought to be involved in many age-related conditions – including cardiovascular disease and neurodegeneration.

Differences in immune cell function also become more evident for men and women after the age of 65.

In older men, their inflammatory immune cells are more active after the age of 65, while their adaptive immune cells (which coordinate the recognition and removal of foreign pathogens) are less active.

But as women age, their adaptive immune cell activity can stay the same. Having a stronger adaptive immune response increases the risk of autoimmune conditions – a condition that has been linked to certain neurodegenerative diseases.

These differences help explain why vaccines are less effective for older men because they have fewer functioning adaptive immune cells. They may also help to explain why the older female mice in our study had adverse reactions to the gene therapy, as their immune cells are more primed to attack.

Women have historically been underrepresented in biomedical research. Modelling everything on males has created a data gap in clinical translation, causing harm. For instance, women have nearly twice as many adverse reactions to a drug compared to men.

But studies like ours are helping to provide important insight into why certain medications are less effective in women – and how the immune system is implicated. Crucially, these findings can also help us identify new targets to explore for future treatments.

Alison Clare has received funding from the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council. Her position is currently funded by National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Center based at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology.

– ref. Gene therapy can be less effective in women – and my research in mice brings us one step closer to understanding why – https://theconversation.com/gene-therapy-can-be-less-effective-in-women-and-my-research-in-mice-brings-us-one-step-closer-to-understanding-why-258135

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Brian Brivati, Visiting Professor of Contemporary History and Human Rights, Kingston University

Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a peace framework in Washington on August 8 after nearly four decades of conflict. The two nations, long divided over territorial disputes, committed to end hostilities, normalise relations and respect each other’s territorial integrity.

Brokered by the US president, Donald Trump, it had all the glitzy appearance of a comprehensive peace agreement. But in reality, it is merely a move in that direction. There are still many ways it could break down.

The decision of Armenia’s prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan, to pursue peace is politically risky. Armenian military defeats to Azerbaijan in 2020 and 2023, and the loss of the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region, left deep scars.

Many Armenians feared concessions would legitimise Azerbaijan’s military gains or erode national sovereignty. Diaspora voices warned of “rewarding aggression” and ignoring the rights of displaced Karabakh Armenians. Yet Pashinyan pressed ahead, arguing a diplomatic settlement was the only route to security and prosperity.

His pivot away from relying on Russia – a former security guarantor whose credibility in Armenia has crumbled after failing to stop Azerbaijan from seizing Nagorno-Karabakh – signals a profound geopolitical shift. The US is now the guarantor of security, ending the Minsk process that has been working to resolve the conflict since 1994.

Sovereignty secured

One of the thorniest issues was Azerbaijan’s demand for a land route across southern Armenia to connect with its Nakhchivan exclave. Armenians feared this could mean ceding control of national territory. The US-brokered agreement resolves the dispute.

Armenia retains full sovereignty and jurisdiction over any new route. All transport links will operate under Armenian law, with Armenian customs and security in place. This is a marked improvement on the vague “unimpeded” transit clause in the 2020 ceasefire, which left room for dispute.

By enshrining sovereignty in the text, Armenia can reassure its public that the corridor is not an extraterritorial carve-out, but a transport link it is hosting. However, the corridor runs close to the Iranian border. And the Iranians, also pushed out of their influential role in Armenia by this deal, have already rejected it.

Following its recent war with Israel, Iran is perhaps too weak to stop the project from starting. But it could represent a threat to the security of companies involved in the route’s construction.

The transit corridor, which connects Azerbaijan to Turkey as well as to Nakhchivan, will be named the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity. The US has secured a 99-year development lease for the route. Planned infrastructure includes highways, railways, pipelines and fibre-optic cables.

Armenia keeps legal control, but gains investment and transit revenue from these endeavours without bearing construction costs. Azerbaijan will gain faster, cheaper export routes for oil, gas and manufactured goods to Turkish and European markets. Armenia also stands to benefit from access to Turkey if the border reopens – the Turks closed it in 1993 in support of Azerbaijan.

Armenia and Azerbaijan have signed separate bilateral agreements with the US on energy, technology and infrastructure, signalling a parallel push to modernise their economies as they normalise relations. Georgia, traditionally the most pro-western and strategically vital state in the South Caucuses, has been sidelined by this arrangement. This is a consequence of its more pro-Russia stance.

---

Read more:
Georgia: how democracy is being eroded fast as government shifts towards Russia

---

The Washington summit has capped years of intermittent mediation attempts. What set this round apart was sustained, high-level US engagement. The Trump administration sent envoys repeatedly, kept negotiations focused on solvable issues, and re-framed the transit corridor as a shared commercial venture.

US involvement is also a built-in guarantee. By taking a long-term stake in the corridor’s development, Washington has an interest in ensuring the agreement is implemented and respected. For Armenia, US backing offers reassurance against renewed coercion from Azerbaijan backed by Turkey. And it opens the door for Azerbaijan to forge deeper ties with the west during a period of bad relations with Russia.

Hurdles ahead

Despite the celebratory signing, the peace deal faces significant hurdles. The agreement sidesteps the plight of Armenian prisoners of war and detainees still held in Azerbaijan. It also ignores the right of return for over 110,000 Armenian civilians who were forcefully expelled from Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenian opposition and diaspora groups have criticised the accord for “sidelining justice”.

Political challenges inside Armenia further cloud the deal’s future. Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham Aliyev, has demanded that Armenia amend its constitution to renounce any territorial claims – specifically removing the 1990 declaration of independence that implied Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Armenia. Baku insists this change is a prerequisite for a “final” peace treaty.

Such external pressure is deeply sensitive. Pashinyan has agreed in principle that Armenia needs a new constitution by 2027 to reflect post-war realities. But if the alterations are perceived as capitulation to Azerbaijani diktat, the domestic backlash could be intense.

The Armenian opposition – already angered by the loss of Karabakh – will likely seize on any constitutional concessions as evidence of national humiliation. With parliamentary elections on the horizon in 2026, Pashinyan’s rivals are positioning to campaign against the peace deal.

They argue that his western-leaning “peace agenda” endangers Armenia’s sovereignty and security. Some have hinted they would reject or renegotiate the agreement if they come to power. Pashinyan’s party was polling poorly earlier in 2025, and recent local elections saw gains for pro-Russian figures, suggesting a volatile electorate.

Armenia’s security services have warned of possible foreign interference and destabilisation efforts as the elections approach. Moscow, in particular, could covertly back Pashinyan’s hardline opponents or spread disinformation to sway the vote, hoping to install a more Russia-aligned leadership that might undermine the deal.

The Washington framework has opened a path to peace. But the coming months and years will determine whether pragmatic interests can triumph over entrenched mistrust.

To succeed, Armenia and Azerbaijan must navigate a minefield of unresolved disputes and political minefields at home, all under the gaze of regional powers uneasy about their changing environment. Washington and Brussels will need to remain engaged, to guarantee compliance and help deliver early economic gains that reinforce peace.

If either side reneges – be it through renewed demands, slow-rolling implementation or back-channel interference – hard-won progress could quickly unravel. This historic breakthrough thus marks not an endpoint but the start of a delicate balancing act.

Brian Brivati 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. Will Trump’s deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan lead to lasting peace? – https://theconversation.com/will-trumps-deal-between-armenia-and-azerbaijan-lead-to-lasting-peace-262889

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christina Pagel, Professor of Operational Research, Director of the UCL Clinical Operational Research Unit, UCL

Vaccines are one of the greatest public health success stories of all time. Over the past 50 years, they’ve saved an estimated 154 million lives. But in the US, both access to vaccines and public trust in them are being systematically undermined – not by conspiracy theorists online, but from within the highest levels of government.

In January 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr – long associated with vaccine misinformation – was confirmed as US health secretary. Despite being pressed during his Senate confirmation hearings, Kennedy insisted he was not anti-vaccine and pledged to maintain scientific standards.

Seven months later, his actions tell a different story.

Kennedy has launched a sweeping assault on the US vaccine infrastructure: gutting oversight committees, sowing doubt about settled science, politicising ingredient safety, limiting access to vaccines and halting funding for research. His strategy doesn’t involve outright bans. But the cumulative effect may prove just as damaging.

In the US, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) plays a central role in vaccine policy, offering evidence-based recommendations on schedules. Until recently, its members were respected experts in immunology, epidemiology and infectious disease – all vetted, conflict-checked and publicly accountable.

In May 2025, Kennedy overrode ACIP’s recommendation on COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant women and young children. The following month, he disbanded the 17-member committee, citing alleged conflicts of interest. In their place, Kennedy appointed a smaller panel that included people with well-documented anti-vaccine views.

This broke decades of precedent. For the first time, ACIP’s membership was handpicked by the health secretary without standard vetting, training or safeguards to ensure independence.

In July, the ousted ACIP members published a commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine, warning the recommendation process was facing “seismic disruption”. In August, Kennedy banned respected scientific societies from advising ACIP, claiming they were too biased. This removed yet another check on the panel’s independence.

Meanwhile, Kennedy has reopened long-closed debates. He has called for “reassessment” of the childhood vaccine schedule, standard vaccine ingredients, and reportedly even the thoroughly debunked claim that the MMR vaccine is linked to autism. The latter has been refuted by multiple peer-reviewed studies, including a meta-analysis involving over 1.2 million children.

At ACIP’s first meeting under new leadership, Kennedy’s panel reviewed thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative used in some flu vaccines. CDC scientists were scheduled to present their evidence but were dropped from the agenda. Instead, the only evidence came from Lyn Redwood, a vaccine critic and co-founder of the World Mercury Project, an initiative that preceded Kennedy’s own Children’s Health Defense group.

Her presentation appeared to include at least one non-existent study, yet ACIP went on to ban thimerosal from flu shots – a decision Kennedy later extended to all US vaccines.

Though thimerosal was already used in very few vaccines, the way it was removed – based on flawed evidence and limited expert input – sets a dangerous precedent.

Kennedy has also criticised aluminium hydroxide, used in many vaccines to boost the immune response. His review article contradicts a large body of peer-reviewed evidence that supports its safety. Aluminium salts are found in vaccines against hepatitis A and B, meningococcal disease and tetanus.

Restricting access and innovation

The ripple effects of Kennedy’s changes go beyond oversight. In July, ACIP announced it would review recommendations for childhood vaccines, hepatitis B at birth, and the MMRV combination vaccine — a single shot that protects against measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox).

These guidelines help determine what vaccines are covered by public insurers like Medicaid. Weakening them could make vaccines unaffordable for low-income families.

Kennedy has also targeted the Vaccine Compensation Program, which provides payouts for rare adverse effects while protecting vaccine supply from litigation. He is considering expanding eligibility to include autism, despite consensus refuting any link, and may allow more lawsuits. These changes could deter pharmaceutical companies from offering vaccines in the US.

Kennedy has insisted that all new vaccines must undergo new placebo-controlled trials, ignoring the fact that new vaccines already follow this standard. Only modified versions of approved vaccines – like annual flu shots – are currently exempt, for ethical reasons.

If Kennedy bans widely used ingredients like aluminium salts, companies may be forced to reformulate vaccines – triggering unnecessary full clinical trials (the multi-phase process typically required for entirely new vaccines) and delaying access to boosters.

In May, vaccine manufacturer Moderna withdrew its application for a combined COVID-flu vaccine, citing regulatory difficulties. Days later, Kennedy’s department cancelled US$700 million (£550 million) in funding for a Moderna bird flu vaccine, followed by cuts to HIV vaccine research and mRNA platforms for cancer prevention.

Other countries may continue vaccine research, but the US’s retreat leaves a major gap.

Destabilising global trust

Perhaps most troubling is the messaging. Kennedy has repeatedly questioned the need for childhood vaccines, spread misinformation, inflated the risks and downplayed the threat of measles.

He has also attacked medical journals as corrupt and threatened to bar government scientists from publishing in respected outlets such as The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine — two of the world’s most prestigious peer-reviewed journals. Instead, he has proposed state-run alternatives. His own review on Aluminium Hydroxide was published in a non-peer-reviewed outlet.

In just a few months as health secretary, Kennedy has reshaped vaccine policy and public trust in the US. He has repeatedly claimed that the scientific and medical establishment is corrupt and that consensus cannot be trusted. This rhetoric is especially dangerous at a time when vaccine uptake is already low and falling.

But the consequences don’t stop at national borders. When coverage drops in one country, the risk of disease outbreaks increases globally, as seen in the recent measles outbreak in Canada.

Kennedy has shown both determination and ingenuity in undermining vaccine science, often through methods that are complex, obscure, or hard to explain publicly. Without issuing a single ban, he has weakened the foundations of vaccine availability and trust in the US.

In the 19th century, the average life expectancy in the US was around 40 years . Many children died of infections that are now preventable. In an age when the deadly realities of diseases like measles have faded from memory, it’s chilling to consider the possibility of returning to a pre-vaccine era.

Christina Pagel receives funding from University College London to explore and document vulnerabilities of UK Arms Length Bodies to political interference.

She also founded and runs TrumpActionTracker.info , a website documenting actions of the Trump administration that fall within authoritiarian domains.

Sheena Cruickshank 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 RFK Jr is systematically undermining vaccines around the world – https://theconversation.com/how-rfk-jr-is-systematically-undermining-vaccines-around-the-world-262854

Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Murray, Senior Research Fellow, School of Environment, Earth and Ecosystem Sciences, The Open University

Every morning for the past 32 years, I have been counting earwigs. Here at Marshalls Heath, a small nature reserve in Hertfordshire, the only site where these nocturnal insects have been so systematically monitored for so long, the number of common earwigs has declined dramatically.

Using a light trap (equipment that entices nocturnal flying insects towards an artificial light and into a box until they can be counted and released in the morning), I found 282 earwigs in a single night in 1996. In 2024, only 31 adults were trapped in that entire year.

My new study, published in the Entomologist’s Record and Journal of Variation, indicates how this catastrophic decline appears to be due to very late frosts, with much higher numbers in the 1990s linked to runs of sunny, dry summers. I have had other anecdotal reports of declines in numbers in other parts of the UK, so this could be a more widespread phenomenon.

Most gardeners regard earwigs as a pest because they eat some leaves and flower petals. But their favourite foods also include woolly apple aphids, codling moth caterpillars and pear psyllid – these are all tiny insects that feed on apples and pears. In commercial orchards, earwigs are introduced to eat other insects and control apple and pear pests.

Like many insects, earwigs break down waste and decompose dead matter – this improves soil structure and helps create a healthy landscape. They also provide a source of food for some birds and small mammals.

A frosty decline

My research shows that the cause of the decline at Marshalls Heath is due to a number of factors. Years of exceptionally high numbers of earwigs were those when summer sunshine had been greatest and rainfall lowest in the two previous years, and when autumns had been cool and the springs dry – weather in the current year had no effect on numbers. But this does not explain their sudden drop in numbers in 2020.

A key part of the puzzle is how adult female earwigs behave towards their young. Unusually for an insect, studies dating back to 1941 have shown that the mother defends and incubates her eggs and cares for her newly-hatched young in an underground nest.

As the young earwigs (called nymphs) grow, they may accompany their mother when she forages at night on the ground outside the nest, always returning back to the underground nest during daylight hours. But as soon as the nymphs moult for the first time, when they are about 5mm long, the mother abandons them to fend for themselves.

---

Read more:
Earwigs are the hero single mothers of the insect world – and good for your garden too

---

This is a critical stage in the young insect’s life, and my new study shows that the earlier the nymphs reach this free-roaming phase, the higher are their chances of survival. A delay of one month can be fatal, since they are vulnerable to disease, starvation and predation by birds and small mammals.

To reach this stage earlier, it appears that the fewer the late spring frosts, the better. In 2011, when nymphs moulted early, there were only eight ground frosts in April and May. In 2021, when adult numbers crashed, there were 32 late frosts, and according to the Met Office, it was the frostiest April since records began.

So what next? Trends over the past four years at Marshalls Heath show adult numbers of between 31 and 47 earwigs per year. In 2025 so far, I have only caught seven adults and nine nymphs.

So there is no sign of any revival in these numbers. However, the hot dry summer this year is just what might favour the survival of these insects in the years to come. If we have a cool autumn and a dry spring, followed by similar conditions next year, I’m hoping to record larger numbers in 2027.

---

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.

---

John Murray volunteers as warden for the Marshalls Heath nature reserve.

– ref. My daily surveys suggest British earwigs are declining drastically – https://theconversation.com/my-daily-surveys-suggest-british-earwigs-are-declining-drastically-262558

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emma Connolly, Research Fellow, Digital Speech Lab, UCL

By the time the next US election takes place in 2028, millennial and gen Z voters – who already watch over six hours of media content a day – will make up the majority of the electorate. As gen alpha (people born between 2010 and 2024) also comes of voting age, social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram or their future equivalents can play a role in political success – if political actors can capitalise on it.

On these platforms, politics mixes with entertainment, creating fertile ground for memes and viral content that shape public opinion in real time – particularly in the US. But going viral isn’t simple, as my new research shows, and political actors have so far have struggled to make the most of it. If content doesn’t feel authentic, isn’t accompanied by clear messaging, or adapted to different platforms, then it’s unlikely to be successful.

Also, viral content spreads quickly, sometimes unpredictably, and across platforms that all behave differently. The algorithms behind viral spread are specific to each platform – and not transparent. This makes the impact of viral activity difficult to measure and hard to track. This presents a challenge to politicians and campaigns looking to capitalise on it.

My recently published research investigated this. I mapped and visualised the “Kamala IS brat” phenomenon as it moved across X, Instagram and TikTok in the run-up to the 2024 US election. The aim of the research was to investigate the anatomy of a viral movement: what made it spread on each platform, how long did it last, and who was driving it.

I found that viral political content that emerges on X spreads by a mix of strategic communication, and letting the audience do the rest. It often spreads to TikTok through catchy adaptations, and moves slightly slower on Instagram, but “explainer” content with images, for instance – often from a mix of everyday users and mainstream media outlets keeps – it visible.

Viral content moves between platforms, adapting to the environment of each as it is transformed into audio and visual forms. My research found that using audio was particularly powerful: turning quotes into soundbites and superimposing dance trends onto political backgrounds made for hugely shareable combinations, and the more surreal, the better.

Most people think that going viral is short-lived, but this study – and other research – has found that digital content has a “long tail”: it pops up, resurges and re-emerges, days, weeks, or even months later, offering new chances to reconnect with audiences.

This was particularly apparent on X, where content was re-used and re-contextualised in satirical and humorous ways. This wasn’t always positive. In the data I analysed, Republican supporters used the phrase “Kamala IS brat” to try and switch the narrative into something negative but it’s likely that this increased visibility as views are driven by influential public figures and shared by meme accounts.

For politicians, this potential for re-emergence means that successful social media engagement is not just about strategic planning, it’s more about understanding how audiences remix and repost content in ways that can be hard to predict.

It’s not about rigidly tailoring content to each platform either, but about adapting to their styles. Effective digital strategists work with, not for, their audience, and make the most of moments that can’t always be planned in advance. Canada’s prime ministerial candidate, Mark Carney, for instance, embraced the hashtag #elbowsupCanada during his successful 2025 campaign.

The research also found that posting the right type of content is important – and short-form content works best. Social media platforms use a mix of recommender and social algorithms, that are politically intuitive. A high number of followers can still help to increase visibility, but getting the content right can extend viral reach, regardless of how many followers an account has.

TikTok’s algorithm in particular is set up for exploration, and Instagram’s Threads already pushes political content to users, not necessarily from accounts that they follow. Research suggests that users of any platform expect to see political content, whether they’re looking for it or not.

Given the potential for viral activity to reach a huge – and increasingly politically significant – audience, the challenge remains for political actors to turn social media engagement into electoral gain.

Many are trying, with varying levels of success. Harris’s digital-first strategy took an innovative approach – giving creative licence to a rapid response team of 25-year-olds. The digital campaign itself was considered a blueprint for PR success, but it ultimately failed to translate into votes. This was probably because it wasn’t accompanied by clear, concise messaging.

Other political hopefuls, such as Arizonan activist Deja Foxx and Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, are also capitalising on social media engagement. While Foxx recently lost in her bid to become the first gen Z woman to be elected to Congress, her approach, based on catchy content and influencer tactics, turned a long-shot candidacy into a very competitive campaign.

Mamdani has had more tangible success. His effective use of social media visuals, and multilingual engagement expanded his reach, and were credited with helping him win New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary in June.

So, if politicians can get it right, there is growing evidence that capitalising on going viral can influence political success.

Social media won’t win an election on its own, but looking ahead to 2028, it’s increasingly likely to be a part of a winning campaign. Young voters are far from a monolith, but what they do have in common is where they spend their time: on social media. TikTok remains the fastest-growing platform among this age group. Far from just providing entertainment, many use it to get their news, and engage in politics. Campaigns can’t afford to ignore it.

Emma Connolly 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. Politicians are using social media to campaign – new research tells us what works and what doesn’t – https://theconversation.com/politicians-are-using-social-media-to-campaign-new-research-tells-us-what-works-and-what-doesnt-261509

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nicolas Forsans, Professor of Management and Co-director of the Centre for Latin American & Caribbean Studies, University of Essex

When thousands of residents took to the streets of Mexico City in July chanting “Gringo, go home”, news headlines were quick to blame digital nomads and expats. The story seemed simple: tech-savvy remote workers move in, rents go up and locals get priced out.

But that’s not the whole tale. While digital migration has undeniably accelerated housing pressures in Latin America, the forces driving resentment towards gentrification there run far deeper. The recent protests are symptoms of several structural issues that have long shaped inequality in the region’s cities.

Long before digital nomad visas became policy buzzwords after the pandemic, Latin America’s cities were changing at speed. In 1950, around 40% of the region’s population was urban. This figure had increased to 70% by 1990.

Nowadays, about 80% of people live in bustling cities, making Latin America the world’s most urbanised region. And by 2050, cities are expected to host 90% of the region’s population. Such rapid urbanisation has proved a magnet for international investors, tourists and, more recently, digital nomads.

In Latin America, gentrification has often involved large-scale redevelopment and high-rise construction, driven by state policies that prioritise economic growth and city branding over social inclusion.

Governments have re-branded entire working-class or marginalised areas as “innovation corridors” or “creative districts”, as in the La Boca neighbourhood of Buenos Aires, to attract investment. Neighbourhood re-branding has fostered resentment among locals and, in Buenos Aires, policies supporting self-managed social housing.

The introduction of integrated urban public transport systems has, while improving city access for marginalised communities, also triggered property speculation in once-isolated communities. In the Colombian city of Medellín, for instance, this has driven up prices and displaced long-time residents from hillside neighbourhoods like Comuna 13.

This is not an isolated case. A study from 2024 found that transport projects in Latin America are frequently leveraged by governments to attract private investment, effectively using mobility as a tool for urban restructuring rather than social equity.

Researchers call the urban development seen in Latin America “touristification”. This is a form of extractivism where – just like raw materials are removed from the earth for export – urban heritage, culture and everyday life are “mined” for economic value.

In the Barranco district of the Peruvian capital, Lima, heritage is marketed for tourism. But while the district’s bohemian and artistic identity has become a distinctive tourism asset, Barranco now faces challenges that threaten its sociocultural diversity and authenticity. The price of land there increased by 22% between 2014 and 2017, compared with just 4% in San Insidro, which is considered the wealthiest district of metropolitan Lima.

In Chile, the designation of Valparaíso’s historic quarter as a Unesco world heritage site in 2003 led to an increase in heritage-led tourism. Persistent outward migration of long-term residents from the city centre has led to a severe decline in the residential function of the world heritage area – and with it, the loss of vibrant local life.

Symptoms of deeper issues

Protests against high rents and displacement in Latin America are often framed as direct responses to gentrification. However, academic research and policy analysis suggest these protests are symptoms of much deeper structural issues.

Latin America is one of the most unequal regions in the world. Limited access to things like quality education and formal employment means many urban residents are already vulnerable before gentrification pressures begin. More than half of the current generation’s inequality in Latin America is inherited from the past, with estimates ranging from 44% to 63% depending on the country and measure used.

Cities in the region also have long histories of spatial and social segregation, with marginalised groups concentrated in under-resourced neighbourhoods. Gentrification often exacerbates this by pushing these populations further to the periphery.

Cartagena, a port city with roots in colonial-era divisions, possibly exemplifies the greatest urban segregation in Colombia’s history. Spaniards and other Europeans lived in the fortified centre, while enslaved people were confined to poorer neighbourhoods like Getsemaní outside the walls.

Recently, urban planning decisions have been taken there that favour certain groups over others. Only the colonial legacy linked to Europeans has been protected. Getsemaní, once populated with slaves’ homes and workshops, is now home to luxury hotels, restaurants and housing.

Finally, a large share of Latin America’s urban workforce is employed informally. Informality, where workers lack job security and social protections, is not just an unfortunate effect of economic development. It is an integral part of how global capitalism and urbanisation unfold in Latin America.

It reflects the failure of state and market systems to meet the needs of the majority. Rising rents and living costs driven by gentrification disproportionately hurt those who have few resources to absorb such shocks.

Protesters in Mexico aren’t just angry at an influx of remote workers sipping flat whites. They are responding to decades of urban inequality, neglect and exclusion. What is emerging is a continent-wide battle over who gets to live in, profit from and shape the future of Latin American cities.

The region’s urban future doesn’t have to mirror its past. But getting there means moving beyond simplistic narratives about foreign renters or digital workers, and tackling the structural issues that have long shaped inequality in Latin America’s cities.

Nicolas Forsans 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. Mexico’s tourism protests are a symptom of longstanding inequality in Latin American cities – https://theconversation.com/mexicos-tourism-protests-are-a-symptom-of-longstanding-inequality-in-latin-american-cities-261634

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Hamed Rajabi, Director of Mechanical Intelligence (MI) Research Group, London South Bank University

Watch Boston Dynamics’ Atlas robot doing training routines, or the latest humanoids from Figure loading a washing machine, and it’s easy to believe the robot revolution is here. From the outside, it seems the only remaining challenge is perfecting the AI (artificial intelligence) software to enable these machines to handle real-life environments.

But the industry’s biggest players know there is a deeper problem. In a recent call for research partnerships, Sony’s robotics division highlighted a core issue holding back its own machines.

It noted that today’s humanoid and animal-mimicking robots have a “limited number of joints”, which creates a “disparity between their movements and those of the subjects they imitate, significantly diminishing their … value”. Sony is calling for new “flexible structural mechanisms” – in essence, smarter physical bodies – to create the dynamic motion that is currently missing.

The core issue is that humanoid robots tend to be designed around software that controls everything centrally. This “brain-first” approach results in physically unnatural machines. An athlete moves with grace and efficiency because their body is a symphony of compliant joints, flexible spines and spring-like tendons. A humanoid robot, by contrast, is a rigid assembly of metal and motors, connected by joints with limited degrees of freedom.

To fight their body’s weight and inertia, robots have to make millions of tiny, power-hungry corrections every second just to avoid toppling over. As a result, even the most advanced humanoids can only work for a few hours before their batteries are exhausted.

To put this in perspective, Tesla’s Optimus robot consumes around 500 watts of power per second for a simple walk. A human accomplishes a more demanding brisk walk using only around 310 watts per second. The robot is therefore burning nearly 45% more energy to accomplish a simpler task, which is a considerable inefficiency.

Diminishing returns

So, does this mean the entire industry is on the wrong path? When it comes to their core approach, yes. Unnatural bodies demand a supercomputer brain and an army of powerful actuators, which in turn make robots heavier and thirstier for energy, deepening the very problem they aim to solve. The progress in AI might be breathtaking, but it leads to diminishing returns.

Tesla’s Optimus, for instance, is smart enough to fold a t-shirt. Yet the demonstration actually reveals its physical weakness. A human can fold a t-shirt without really looking, using their sense of touch to feel the fabric and guide their movements.

Optimus, with its relatively rigid, sensor-poor hands, relies on its powerful vision and AI brain to meticulously plan every tiny motion. It would likely be defeated by a crumpled shirt on a messy bed, because its body lacks the physical intelligence to adapt to the unpredictable state of the real world.

Boston Dynamics’ new, all-electric Atlas is even more impressive, with a range of motion that seems almost alien. But what the viral acrobatics videos don’t show is what it can’t do. It could not walk confidently across a mossy rock, for instance, because its feet cannot feel the surface to conform to it. It could not push its way through a dense thicket of branches, because its body cannot yield and then spring back.

This is why, despite years of development, these robots mostly remain research platforms, not commercial products.

Why aren’t the industry’s leaders already pursuing this different philosophy? One likely reason is that today’s top robotics firms are fundamentally software and AI companies, whose expertise lies in solving problems with computation. Their global supply chain is optimised to support this with high-precision motors, sensors and processors.

Building physically intelligent robot bodies requires a different manufacturing ecosystem, rooted in advanced materials and biomechanics, which is not yet mature enough to operate at scale. When a robot’s hardware already looks so impressive, it’s tempting to believe the next software update will solve any remaining issues, rather than undertaking the costly and difficult task of redesigning the body and the supply chain required to build it.

Autonomous bodies

This challenge is the focus of mechanical intelligence (MI), which is being researched by numerous teams of academics around the world, including mine at London South Bank University. It derives from the observation that nature perfected intelligent bodies millions of years ago. These were based on a principle known as morphological computation, meaning bodies can perform complex calculations automatically.

A pine cone’s scales open in dry conditions to release seeds, then close when it’s damp to protect them. This is a purely mechanical response to humidity with no brain or motor involved.

The tendons in the leg of a running hare act like intelligent springs. They passively absorb shock when the foot hits the ground, only to release the energy to make its gait stable and efficient, without requiring so much effort from the muscles.

Think about the human hand. Its soft flesh has the passive intelligence to automatically conform to any object it holds. Our fingertips act like a smart lubricator, adjusting moisture to achieve the perfect level of friction for any given surface.

If these two features were incorporated into an Optimus hand, it would be able to hold objects with a fraction of the force and energy currently required. The skin itself would become the computer.

MI is all about designing a machine’s physical structure to achieve passive automatic adaptation – the ability to respond to the environment without needing active sensors or processors or extra energy.

The solution to the humanoid trap is not to abandon today’s ambitious forms, but to build them according to this different philosophy. When a robot’s body is physically intelligent, its AI brain can focus on what it does best: high-level strategy, learning and interacting with the world in a more meaningful way.

Researchers are already proving the value of this approach. For instance, robots designed with spring-like legs that mimic the energy-storing tendons of a cheetah can run with remarkable efficiency.

My own research group is developing hybrid hinges, among other things. These combine the pinpoint precision and strength of a rigid joint with the adaptive, shock-absorbing properties of a compliant one. For a humanoid robot, this could mean creating a shoulder or knee that moves more like a human’s, unlocking multiple degrees of freedom to achieve complex, life-like motion.

The future of robotics lies not in a battle between hardware and software, but in their synthesis. By embracing MI, we can create a new generation of machines that can finally step confidently out of the lab and into our world.

Hamed Rajabi 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. Today’s humanoid robots look remarkable, but there’s a design flaw holding them back – https://theconversation.com/todays-humanoid-robots-look-remarkable-but-theres-a-design-flaw-holding-them-back-262720

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maha Rafi Atal, Adam Smith Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow

Donald Trump’s new international trade tariffs have landed. Some are lower than others, some deals have been done, but overall they are the highest they have been in 100 years.

They are also unprecedented in the era of the rules-based trade system that has been in place since 1945.

So what happens next? That’s a tricky question to answer given that the US president has already pressed the pause button on this economic policy before.

But assuming that doesn’t happen again straight away, we can make some confident predictions about the consequences.

First off, the immediate economic effect will be felt by American consumers. JP Morgan, the biggest bank in the US, estimates that 60% of the cost of Trump’s tariffs will be passed directly on to his fellow citizens.

And that’s just the start. Most goods bought in the US, whether they’re electrical items, cars, medical devices, processed foods or makeup sets, are made up of dozens of components, sourced from multiple countries. A finished product may therefore be “tariffed” several times before it reaches the shelf, adding to the final price rise.

Medium-sized businesses are likely to feel the most pain. They have neither the global reach to reorganise their supply chains quickly nor the deep margins to absorb new costs. That means higher prices for the goods they produce.

As a result of all of this, things will get more expensive and consumer spending will fall. It’s too early to quantify the drop, but survey data shows that households are already cutting back.

Businesses will also cut or delay investment in new plants, staff and product lines, as more of their revenue goes on covering higher import taxes.

These effects will be inflationary, pushing prices up. They will also be “recessionary” – in other words, they could cause a recession by cooling demand and investment.

Trump card

The political irony here is striking. Trump’s election victory was fuelled in part by voter frustration over high inflation early in Joe Biden’s presidency.

By the time of the election in November 2024, inflation had eased – but the perception that Biden was linked to higher prices (often discussed with reference to the price of eggs in the grocery store) lingered.

Now Trump’s policy choices look set to drive up prices again, while also risking a significant economic downturn.

A US recession would have global consequences. Mexico, China, Canada, Germany and Japan – the countries which export the most goods to the US – are particularly exposed. Together with the US, these economies account for roughly half of global GDP. If US economic activity slows, and its key suppliers follow, that would be enough to trigger a global contraction.

There’s also the risk of renewed supply chain delays. Faced with uncertainty about demand, companies will slow or stop new orders.

Then, when consumers start buying again, the components needed may not be in stock, delaying production and pushing up costs further. These disruptions tend to cascade through multiple sectors, meaning the impact will be widely felt around the globe.

So how long can this tariff regime hold? In April, Trump’s so-called “liberation day” tariffs were rolled back within days under pressure from American businesses that were suddenly paying more for vital imports.

Since then, very few countries have signed deals with the US, and the ones that have secured broad agreements rather than binding treaties. That means the political backlash from businesses and consumers could once again force the administration to retreat.

For now, the US is testing how far it can push this experiment in protectionism. But the risks are clear: higher prices at home, slower global growth, and a political gamble that may prove costly.

Maha Rafi Atal 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. Trump’s tariffs have finally kicked in, so what happens next? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-tariffs-have-finally-kicked-in-so-what-happens-next-262843