Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jeremy Allouche, Professor in Development Studies, University of Sussex

Thirty years after the Pak Mun dam was built in Thailand, the traditional way of fishing in the Khong Chiam district has completely stopped as the dam blocks the seasonal migrations of a wide range of fish.

Many men have had to leave their homes to find work elsewhere because they couldn’t fish or farm locally anymore, while their wives are often left alone to look after their children. People with disabilities and the elderly have not been included in compensation and livelihood rehabilitation programmes, even though they are among the groups most affected by changes in mobility, access to water and food systems.

My team and I have been documenting the knock-on effects of this dam development by carrying out interviews with people living in these communities. My research highlights that if the environmental consequences of dam building had been better predicted and monitored, a lot of the ongoing disruption could have been avoided.

In 1982, a environmental impact assessment for the Pak Mun dam was prepared by a team of Thai engineering consultants. Environmental impact assessments are used to identify, predict and evaluate the possible consequences of a proposed project before it begins. They have been in use for many years, but some governments bypass their recommendations.

If completed more rigorously, this assessment for the Pak Mun dam could have anticipated these negative social and environmental consequences and might have influenced decisions about the building and maintenance of this dam. But according to research, this impact assessment was weak.

One study noted that the environmental impacts of the dam – mainly on fish – were either unquantified or understated. Another study noted that the site location had moved and that required a new assessment rather than replying one the first one. The limits of this assessment has led to ongoing contestation between the central and provincial government and the affected communities and activists.

This is far from the only example of a lack of consideration for the long-term knock-on effects of dams on communities and nature. In 2025, the Indian government allegedly fast-tracked the construction of the enormous Sawalkot hydropower project on the Chenab river without conducting any environmental and social impact assessment.

Large-scale projects like this affect millions of people and the environment around them. Without ample impact assessments, they proceed without establishing just what effect they will have on the surrounding landscape, nature and communities. As a result, any negative consequences are not easily avoided.

While this new political dynamic of circumventing impact assessments is worrying, social and environmental impact assessments are valuable if used appropriately. As part of my research, I have spoken to dozens of impact assessment consultants and academics to assess the status quo.

By 2033, the global market for environmental impact assessments could be worth an estimated US$5.8 billion (£4.3 billion). While the impact assessment process is seen as valuable by consultants and academics, some of our interviewees worried that costly recommendations often get lost in the process of project implementation once the document has been produced.

Ideally, impact assessments should be based on scientific knowledge and involve substantial public participation and situated community knowledge, especially by those who are at risk of adverse consequences, as well as clear accountability mechanisms.

In practice, there are problems. Impact assessment is a political process; it is not based purely on evidence and scientific facts. It is influenced by the economics of dam building. Dams are often also important symbols of nationalism, so they hold high political status.

Without ensuring systematic follow-up to an impact assessment, it can simply become a paper chase to secure a development permit. With more consideration, the “afterlife” of impact assessments can be much more effective.

Who is responsible?

Who, in terms of responsibility, should be held accountable for shortcomings in the implementation of impact assessment plans? Should it be the government that should be responsible for making sure the different regulations and norms are followed?

Should it be the commercial banks, development banks and bilateral donors (such as foreign aid provided by the UK government’s Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office) that fund projects who should monitor the requirements they had elaborated? Or should it be the private sector?

My research shows that the responsibilities lie with all of these parties.

In most countries, most of the information and data is controlled by the proponents of building the dam. Project managers and engineers may be suspicious of external impact assessor consultants, so they do not always share the relevant information.

Civil society, ranging from local campaign groups and activist to non-governmental organisations, have pushed for standards and laws that ensure rules are followed during and after any impact assessment. For this to work, impact assessments need to be dynamic so responses to possible changing consequences can change.

When environmental policy and tools like impact assessments are being questioned, it is even more important to create a policy process that ensures long-term accountability for impact assessments and prevent further losses and damages to the communities and the environment.

---

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

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

Jeremy Allouche receives funding from the British Academy, for the project, Anticipatory evidence and large dam impact assessment in transboundary policy settings: Political ecologies of the future in the Mekong Basin. The author would like to thank the other team members, Professor Middleton (Chulalongkorn University Thailand), Professor Kanokwan Manorom (Ubon Ratchathani University, Thailand), Ass. Professor Chantavong (National University of Laos) & Dr. Kanhalikham (National University of Laos) for their input

– ref. Dams can destroy lives and ecosystems. But it doesn’t have to be like this – https://theconversation.com/dams-can-destroy-lives-and-ecosystems-but-it-doesnt-have-to-be-like-this-270910

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christoph Randler, Professor, Department of Biology, University of Tübingen

There’s no question that being in nature is good for wellbeing. Research shows that experiencing nature and listening to natural sounds can relax us.

A key reason for these benefits may be because of the appeal of birds and their pleasant songs that we hear when in nature.

Studies show that people feel better in bird-rich environments. Even life satisfaction may be related to the richness of the bird species in an area.

My colleagues and I wanted to better study the relationship between wellbeing and birdsong. We conducted an experiment in which 233 people walked through a park – specifically the University of Tübingen’s botanical garden. The walk took about half an hour.

Participants filled out questionnaires on their psychological wellbeing both before and after their walk. We also measured blood pressure, heart rate and cortisol levels (in their saliva) to get a better understanding of the physiological effects the walk had on wellbeing. Cortisol is considered an important stress hormone that can change within just a few minutes.

In order to get a good understanding of the effect birdsong had on wellbeing, we also hung loudspeakers in the trees that played the songs of rare species of birds – such as the golden oriole, tree pipit, garden warbler or mistle thrush.

To decide which additional bird songs should be played by the loudspeakers, we looked at the results of a previous study we had conducted. In that study, volunteers listened to more than 100 different bird songs and rated them based on how pleasant they found them to be.

We used the bird songs that had been most liked by participants in that experiment. However, to avoid annoying the birds living in the garden, we only chose bird songs that did not disturb the environment. We also mapped all resident species in the area and avoided broadcasting their songs.

Participants were randomly split into five distinct groups. The first and second groups went for a walk through the garden with birdsong being played on loudspeakers. The second group was also instructed to pay attention to birdsong.

The third and fourth groups also walked through the garden, but this time they only heard natural birdsong – we did not have additional speakers playing birdsong in the area. The fourth group was also instructed to pay attention to the natural birdsong.

The fifth group was the control group. These participants went for a walk through the garden while wearing noise-cancelling headphones.

Benefits of birdsong

In all groups (even the control group), blood pressure and heart rate dropped – indicating that physiological stress was reduced after the walk. Cortisol levels also fell by an average of nearly 33%.

Self-reported mental wellbeing, as measured by the questionnaires, was also higher after the walks.

The groups who focused their attention on the birdsong saw even greater increases in wellbeing. So while a walk in nature had clear, physiological benefits for reducing stress, paying attention to birdsong further boosted these benefits.

However, the groups who went for a walk with the loudspeakers playing birdsong did not see any greater mental and physiological wellbeing improvements compared to the other groups.

This was a surprise, given previous studies have shown birdsong enriches wellbeing. Bird species diversity has also been shown to further improve restoration and relaxation.

One possible explanation for this finding may be that participants recognised the playback sounds as being fake – whether consciously or unconsciously. Another explanation could be that there might be a threshold – and having a higher number of bird species singing in an area does not improve wellbeing any further.

Appreciating birdsong

Our results show that a walk in nature is beneficial in and of itself – but the sounds of natural birdsong can further boost these wellbeing benefits, especially if you make a concerted effort to pay attention it.

You don’t even need to know a lot about birds to get these benefits, as our study showed. The positive effect was seen in everyone from casual birdwatchers through to bird nerds.

Our study’s results are a good message for everyday life. You don’t need a visit to bird-rich environments to make you happy. It seems more important to focus on the birds that are already there, listen to them and enjoy them.

The results also have implications for park design, showing that the sound of birdsong in general – rather than the number of species living there or how rare they are – is of key importance when it comes to wellbeing.

So even just a half hour walk outside while taking the time to notice birdsong could reduce your stress and improve wellbeing.

Christoph Randler 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. Paying attention to birdsong while walking in nature can boost wellbeing, my research shows – https://theconversation.com/paying-attention-to-birdsong-while-walking-in-nature-can-boost-wellbeing-my-research-shows-273165

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Neville Morley, Professor in Classics, Ancient History, Religion, and Theology, University of Exeter

In his speech to this year’s World Economic Forum at Davos, Canadian prime minister Mark Carney mourned the demise of international cooperation by evoking an authority from ancient Greece.

“It seems that every day we’re reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry, that the rules-based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must. And this aphorism of Thucydides is presented as inevitable, as the natural logic of international relations reasserting itself.”

Journalists and academics from Denmark, Greece and the United States have quoted the same line from the ancient Greek historian when discussing Donald Trump’s demand for Greenland. It is cited as inspiration for his adviser Stephen Miller’s aggressive foreign policy approach, not least towards Venezuela.

In blogs and social media, the fate of Gaza and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have been interpreted through the same frame. It’s clearly difficult to contemplate today’s world and not react as W.H. Auden did to the collapse of the old order in 1939: “Exiled Thucydides knew.”

The paradox of the “strong do what they can” line is that it’s understood in radically different ways. On the one hand, it’s presented as a description of the true nature of the world (against naive liberals) and as a normative statement (the weak should submit).

On the other hand, it’s seen as an image of the dark authoritarian past we hoped was behind us, and as a condemnation of unfettered power. All these interpretations claim the authority of Thucydides.

That is a powerful imprimatur.

Thucydides’ insistence on the importance of seeking out the truth about the past, rather than accepting any old story, grounded his claim that such inquiry would help readers understand present and future events.

As a result, in the modern era he has been praised both as the forerunner of critical scientific historiography and as a pioneering political theorist. The absence of anything much resembling theoretical rules in his text has not stopped people from claiming to identify them.

The strong/weak quote is a key example. It comes from the Melian dialogue from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. In 416BC, an Athenian force arrived at the neutral island of Melos and demanded its surrender. The Melian leaders asked to negotiate, and Thucydides presents a fictional reconstruction of the subsequent exchange.

The quote comes from the beginning, when the Athenians stipulated that they would not claim any right to seize Melos, other than the power to do so, and conversely would not listen to any arguments from principle. “Questions of justice apply only to those equal in power,” they stated bluntly. “Otherwise, such things as are possible, the superior exact and the weak give up.”

Within modern international relations theory, this is sometimes interpreted as the first statement of the realist school of thought.

Scholars like John Mearsheimer claim that Thucydides identified the basic principle of realist theory that, in an “anarchic” world, international law applies only if it’s in powerful states’ strategic interest, and otherwise might makes right. The fate of the Melians, utterly destroyed after they foolishly decided to resist, reinforces the lesson.

But these are the words of characters in Thucydides’ narrative, not of Thucydides himself. We cannot simply assume that Thucydides believed that “might makes right” is the true nature of the world, or that he intended his readers to draw that conclusion.

The Athenians themselves may not have believed it, since their goal was to intimidate the Melians into surrendering without a fight. More importantly, Thucydides and his readers knew all about the disastrous Athenian expedition to Sicily the following year, which showed the serious practical limits to the “want, take, have” mentality.

So, we shouldn’t take this as a realist theoretical proposition. But if Thucydides intended instead simply to depict imperialist arrogance, teach “pride comes before a fall”, or explore how Athenian attitudes led to catastrophic miscalculation, he could have composed a single speech.

His choice of dialogue shows that things are more complicated, and not just about Athens. He is equally interested in the psychology of the “weak”, the Melians’ combination of pleading, bargaining, wishful thinking and defiance, and their ultimate refusal to accept the Athenian argument.

This doesn’t mean that the Melian arguments are correct, even if we sympathise with them more. Their thinking can be equally problematic. Perhaps they have a point in suggesting that if they give in immediately, they lose all hope, “but if we resist you then there is still hope we may not be destroyed”.

Their belief that the gods will help them “because we are righteous men defending ourselves against aggression”, however, is naive at best. The willingness of the ruling clique to sacrifice the whole city to preserve their own position must be questioned.

The back and forth of dialogue highlights conflicting world views and values, and should prompt us to consider our own position. What is the place of justice in an anarchic world? Is it right to put sovereignty above people’s lives? How does it feel to be strong or weak?

It’s worthwhile engaging with the whole episode, not just isolated lines – or even trying to find your own way through the debate to a less bad outcome.

The English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, introducing his classic 1629 translation, noted that Thucydides never offered rules or lessons but was nevertheless “the most politic historiographer that ever writ”. Modern readers have too often taken isolated quotes out of context, assumed that they represent the author’s own views and claimed them as timeless laws. Hobbes saw Thucydides as presenting complex situations that we need to puzzle out.

It’s remarkable that an author famed for his depth and complexity gets reduced to soundbites. But the contradictions in how those soundbites are interpreted – the way that Thucydides presents us with a powerful and controversial idea but doesn’t tell us what to think about it – should send us back to the original.

---

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.

---

Neville Morley 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. Mark Carney invoked ancient Greek writer Thucydides at Davos – what people get wrong about his writing on power – https://theconversation.com/mark-carney-invoked-ancient-greek-writer-thucydides-at-davos-what-people-get-wrong-about-his-writing-on-power-274086

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matthew Flinders, Founding Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics, University of Sheffield

Public administration has never been the glitziest or most immediately attractive discipline to study. With this in mind, the government’s announcement that it intends to establish a new National School of Government and Public Services (NSGPS) – in-house training for civil servants – is easily overlooked as little more than administrative tinkering in a world beset by uncertainty and turbulence.

And yet to see this announcement as little more than peripheral politics would be wrong: it matters. Since the previous National School of Government was abolished in 2012 (and the Civil Service College abolished in 1995), the UK has struggled to ensure that its public service professional development and support structures are fit for the future.

This is necessary if the UK is to build an inclusive economy, deliver its industrial strategy, deal with its “productivity puzzle”, and manage those issues that now sit within the UK’s National Risk Register (such as the threat from extreme weather events). More generally, if it is to escape the dominant “broken Britain” doom-loop narrative, then it needs to radically rethink how it supports politicians and officials across different governments and at all levels of the UK to govern effectively. This is why the creation of a NSGPS matters.

The slight concern is the UK government’s plan to move quickly. A promise to “move fast and fix things” – as made in chief secretary to the prime minister Darren Jones’ speech introducing the measure – is only a good approach once you are clear what actually needs to be put in place to fix the problem. In some ways the creation of a new NSGPS is too important to rush, and a more moderated design and delivery plan is possibly needed.

Five questions could help take this discussion forward.

1. What does success look like?

The creation of an internationally recognised centre of excellence for training, supporting and nurturing politicians and public servants across the UK in an inclusive and positive manner that is responsive to changes in context, society and technology.

Critically, it should offer a capacity to identify and learn from successful public policies across the UK, and from different countries in the world. As Pat McFadden argued when he was chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in December 2024, public services needs to get better at learning from “things that have gone right”.

2. What does it need?

Stability. If the NSGPS is to flourish and thrive then it cannot be established based on short-term funding guarantees. Ideally it needs an endowment-based model of funding which is managed by an independent trust to facilitate innovation and flexibility. The churn and change that has defined reform in this area cannot continue. It’s a total waste of money.

3. What structure might it adopt?

A flexible one. Not a large country house but a hub-and-spoke model where different providers (universities, consultancies, professional associations) provide a patchwork of services which range from one-to-one mentorship and support right through to action-based learning opportunities and crucible-type initiatives that bring people from different specialisms together.

The Australian and New Zealand School of Government can provide information and inspiration but a bold and ambitious approach in the UK might look to go even further, especially as lots of relevant investments have already been funded.

4. What’s the USP?

Simple – the NSGPS must facilitate mobility. That is, the mobility of people, knowledge and talent across traditional professional, organisation, geographical and sectoral boundaries.

The “public services” dimension of the NSGPS signals a massive opportunity to connect and catalyse with leadership support structures in many sectors (local government, NHS, regional mayors). It cannot be focused on the civil service and must deliver policy learning by building relationships.

5. Where’s the pinch?

Culture. Any minister who is announcing a bold new training initiative for the civil service is almost bound to concede that they will work with the civil service to change the system. However, this creates an obvious risk in the sense that continuity may end up defeating the need for change. Social scientists have for some time recognised the disruptive value of “cultural strangers” – radical new thinking – and a NSGPS must somehow inject a degree of criticality and challenge.

The minister’s announcement that the NSGPS would be “a new centre for world class learning and development within the Cabinet Office” arguably jarred with the broader emphasis on innovation, connectivity and change. Where is the evidence from previous initiatives that the Cabinet Office possesses the capacity to facilitate the mobility of people, ideas and knowledge?

Despite these hurdles, thought, the government’s commitment to establish a new NSGPS matters because dangerous populist narratives are based on claims of governing incompetence. Public trust in political institutions and political processes are at worrying low levels.

Investing in the professional support systems that will help enable politicians and public servants at all levels of government to deliver on their commitments is long overdue. It provides an opportunity to focus not on specific issues or problems, but on systemic improvement and systems leadership based on the realities of working in a quasi-federal, multi-level governance system.

Rebecca Riley receives funding from ESRC as Principle Investigator on the Local Policy Innovation Partnership Strategic Hub . She is affiliated with the Labour Party.

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

– ref. Why the establishment of a national school for civil servants matters – https://theconversation.com/why-the-establishment-of-a-national-school-for-civil-servants-matters-273938

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

Donald Trump’s concern about the strategic positioning of Greenland is rational. But the way the US president has approached the issue is not – and could still rupture Nato and cause enduring harm to North Atlantic political and economic relations. The question for those attending the World Economic Forum in Davos all week has been how to respond to Trump’s ambition for the US to own Greenland by hook or by crook.

His speech on January 21 – which appeared to concede that the US will not take Greenland by force – and his subsequent claim of having negotiated what he referred to as a “framework agreement” with the Nato secretary-general, Mark Rutte, have at least given the assembled heads of state something to work with.

But America’s allies are faced with a series of options. They could try to wait out the 1,093 days left in Trump’s term in the hope that nothing drastic happens. They could appease Trump by conceding to some of his demands. Or alternatively they could activate the economic “bazooka” threatened by the French president Emmanuel Macron – although this is now less likely due to Trump’s decision to row back back on his threat to impose additional sanctions on countries that opposed his Greenland plans.

Finally, they could try to actively resist US aggression towards Greenland. Although, thankfully, Trump appears to have backtracked – for now – on his threat to use force.

A key strategic location

The US president’s Davos speech pitched his interest in Greenland in strategic terms. The Pituffik space base (formerly Thule air base) is a prime location to monitor Russian and Chinese aerospace and maritime activities as well as being an early warning base for missile protection.
This is increasingly important, given Russian military activity and stated claims to the polar region and China’s reference to the Arctic in its “Polar Silk Road” strategy.

In economic terms, Greenland’s melting ice has revealed the world’s eighth-largest deposits of rare earth elements and an estimated 31 billion barrels of oil. These are important to the US, which is seeking to reduce its dependency on China and to exert its own mineral and energy dominance. In the Davos speech, Trump emphasised US energy requirements while claiming not to covet Greenland’s mineral wealth.

Melting ice has similarly opened up Arctic shipping routes. This has made Greenland a strategic location both for influencing global trade and for projecting military power.

Trump has framed his desire to acquire Greenland in terms of his ambition to provide security for the west as a whole. Owning Greenland, he told the WEF, would allow him to build the “greatest Golden Dome ever built” – a missile defence shield which he claims would provide security for the whole world.

His speech revealingly framed his intentions towards Greenland in existential terms which also had echoes of his real estate origins. He said: “And all we’re asking for is to get Greenland, including right, title and ownership, because you need the ownership to defend it. You can’t defend it on a lease.”

This, of course, is wrong. Denmark has made it clear that the US is welcome to grow its military presence on the island, pointing out that during the cold war it had tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Equally the US would be welcome to invest in mineral exploration and investment with Denmark’s blessing. And
the fact is that Denmark cannot sell Greenland without the consent of the 57,000 Greenlandic people.

But in turning the whole thing into a raw power struggle, the situation has become akin to the 19th-century “great game” played out by the colonial powers.

Stephen Miller, a senior Trump advisor throughout his time in office, said recently that the world has always been ruled by “strength” and “power”, not the “niceties of international law”. Trump has gone further, telling the New York Times in a two-hour interview published on January 11, “I don’t need international law”, and that he is only constrained by: “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me, and that’s very good.”

An American world?

If it comes down to it, Europe will find it very hard to resist America. Europe is almost inextricably intertwined – economically and militarily – with the US. A separation would have severe consequences, with military and intelligence capabilities compromised and access to modern computing and finance seriously curtailed. For the UK outside of the EU, since Brexit, the position is – if anything – even worse.

There is a dawning realisation that the US might be Europe’s adversary, not ally. The Belgian prime minister, Bart De Wever, commented in a panel discussion at Davos that a “number of red lines are being crossed” by Trump and Europe now appeared to be facing the loss of its self-respect: “Being a happy vassal is one thing, being a miserable slave is something else. If you back down now you’re going to lose your dignity.”

Much is being made of the contrast between the US president’s speech on January 21 and the speech delivered by the Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, the day before. Carney’s speech was hailed by many as being epoch-defining, in the words of one journalist on a par with Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech.

---

Read more:
One venue, two speeches – how Mark Carney left Donald Trump in the dust in Davos

---

Carney talked of “a rupture in the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of a harsh reality”. The rules-based order, Carney said, was “fading” and that the multilateral institutions on which the world depended were under serious threat from great power dominance. It was now up to the rest of the world to stop pretending and face up to the new harsh reality.

It is in this context that America’s Nato partners need to decide whether Trump should be appeased or resisted. Once we know more about his mooted “framework” for the future of Greenland, that choice should become clearer.

Robert Dover does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Trump at Davos marks the start of a new era in world affairs – https://theconversation.com/trump-at-davos-marks-the-start-of-a-new-era-in-world-affairs-274007

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mark Russell, NIHR Advanced Fellow, Rheumatology and Epidemiology, King’s College London

When COVID hit, healthcare systems around the world were turned upside down. Hospitals cleared beds, routine appointments were cancelled and people were told to stay at home unless it was urgent. In England, visits to family doctors and hospital admissions for non-COVID reasons fell by a third in the early months of the pandemic. Medical staff were redeployed, routine clinics were cancelled and diagnostic tests were postponed.

Against this backdrop, the number of people newly diagnosed with long-term health conditions fell sharply, as our new study, published in the BMJ, has found. My colleagues and I used anonymised health data for nearly 30 million people in England to evaluate what happened to new diagnoses across a wide range of chronic diseases.

The drop in diagnoses during the early pandemic was most pronounced for conditions that usually rely on routine tests or specialist review for diagnosis. New diagnoses of asthma fell by over 30% in the first year of the pandemic, while diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) dropped by more than half. Both conditions depend on breathing tests that were widely disrupted during the pandemic, causing large backlogs in testing.

Similarly affected were skin conditions such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. While some people may have delayed seeking medical attention for these conditions during a time of unprecedented disruption, others will have been affected by delays in referral for specialist review and diagnosis.

For many conditions, delays in diagnosis matter. Osteoporosis is a common condition in which bone thinning can lead to serious fractures. There are highly effective drugs that can prevent fractures from osteoporosis, but they are usually only prescribed after the condition has been diagnosed.

New diagnoses of osteoporosis fell by a third early in the pandemic and did not return to expected levels for almost three years. As a result, more than 50,000 fewer people than expected were diagnosed with osteoporosis in England between March 2020 and November 2024.

Patterns of recovery

As the immediate disruption during the early pandemic eased, diagnosis rates for many conditions slowly recovered. The differences in recovery patterns across different diseases have been striking, however. Two conditions stand out: depression and chronic kidney disease.

New diagnoses of depression fell by nearly 30% in the first year of the pandemic. Rates then partially recovered, but have dropped again considerably since 2022. This does not necessarily mean that fewer people are experiencing symptoms of depression. A doubling in the number of disability claims for mental health conditions in England between 2020 and 2024 suggests otherwise.

Several factors could help explain this disconnect. Continuing pressure on healthcare services may mean that people are waiting longer for formal diagnoses.

People may also be accessing healthcare services differently. In 2022, guidelines for depression management in England were updated to recommend talking therapies (such as cognitive behavioural therapy) as an initial treatment for mild depression, rather than antidepressants.

In England, people can refer themselves directly for talking therapy without needing to see a doctor first. As a result, some people receiving support for depression symptoms may never receive a formal diagnosis in their medical records, giving the impression that diagnosis rates are falling.

Changes in disease classification may also be playing a role. While depression diagnoses have declined, new diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder have risen sharply in England. This may reflect a shift in how overlapping symptoms are being interpreted and labelled, rather than sudden changes in how common they are.

Chronic kidney disease shows a very different pattern. Diagnosis rates have doubled since 2022, making it one of the few conditions in the study to have increased above pre-pandemic levels. There are several different ways of interpreting this finding.

The recent increase in diagnoses might result from improved detection of undiagnosed kidney disease. Recommendations in England were updated in 2021, recommending routine testing for kidney disease in people at higher risk, such as those with diabetes or high blood pressure.

Importantly, new treatments for chronic kidney disease mean that earlier detection can improve outcomes for patients.

Another possibility is that the pandemic itself has contributed to an increase in chronic kidney disease, directly or indirectly. COVID infection has been linked to lasting reductions in kidney function in some people. Delayed diagnosis and treatment of other conditions, including diabetes, may also have had knock-on effects on kidney-related complications from these diseases.

One of the most important messages from the study is that it is now possible to detect changes in disease patterns far earlier and more comprehensively than was previously imaginable. Until recently, data often became available years after events had already unfolded. By the time patterns were recognised, opportunities to respond had often passed.

Secure, anonymised analysis of medical records allows researchers to track diagnoses and treatments in near real time, revealing the effects of disruptions, recoveries, and new guidelines as they happen. While the findings highlight ongoing challenges for healthcare, they also show that timely data can help guide more effective responses.

And so, while many of the findings from this study are sobering at a time when healthcare systems remain under enormous strain, they also point to a new opportunity. The pandemic may have disrupted care, but it has also driven innovations that have revealed patterns that would once have taken years to detect.

Mark Russell receives research funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR).

– ref. The pandemic’s hidden toll: millions of chronic conditions left undiagnosed – https://theconversation.com/the-pandemics-hidden-toll-millions-of-chronic-conditions-left-undiagnosed-273418

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mark Shanahan, Associate Professor of Political Engagement, University of Surrey

The meeting and venue were the same, but the style and tone of the two most anticipated keynote speeches at the World Economic Forum in the Swiss town of Davos could not have been more different. On Tuesday, January 20, Canadian prime minister Mark Carney addressed the assembled political and business leaders as one of them: a national leader with deep expertise in finance.

He spoke about a “rupture” in the world order and the duty of nations to come together through appropriate coalitions for the benefit of all. It was a paean to multilateralism, but one that recognised that the US would no longer provide the glue to hold alliances together. Carney never mentioned the US by name in his speech, instead talking of “great powers” and “hegemons”.

Carney’s quiet, measured and evocative case-making demonstrated his ability to be the leader France’s Emmanuel Macron would like to be and the UK’s Keir Starmer is too cautious to be. He was clear, unequivocal and unafraid of the bully below his southern border. In standing up to the US president, Donald Trump, he appeared every inch the statesperson.

Then, on January 21, Trump took the stage. There was none of Carney’s self-awareness and nor did he read the room recognising the strengths, talents and economic power of the audience. Trump started with humour, noting he was talking to “friends and a few enemies”.

But he quickly shifted to a riff on the greatest hits of the first year of Trump 2.0 with the usual weaving away from his script down the rabbit holes of his perceived need for vengeance. Joe Biden still takes up far too much of Trump’s head space, but the next hour could be summed up as: “Trump great: everyone else bad.”

The president is the most amazing hype man for his own greatness, but it’s a zero-sum game. For him to win, others must lose, whether that’s the UK, Macron or the unnamed female prime minister of Switzerland whom he mocked for the poverty of her tariff negotiation skills. It’s worth noting Switzerland has no prime minister and its current president is a man.

While Carney was at pains to connect with his audience of allies, Trump exists happily in his own world where support – and sovereign territory – can be bought, and fealty trumps all. As ever, Trump played fast and loose with facts, wrapping real successes, aspirations and his unique view of the truth into a paean to himself.

He actually returned to his script to make the case for taking Greenland. The case is built on a notional need for “national and international security”, underscored by pointing out the territory is “in our hemisphere”. As so many commentators have said, collective security will do the job Trump insists that only the US can – and won’t require Denmark to cede territory. But Trump is sounding ever-less the rational actor.

Contrasting visions

The coming year is one of inflection for Trump’s presidency. His Republican party may well lose control of the House and possibly the Senate in the November midterms, which would severely curtail his ability to impose his will unfettered.

Trump is focused on his legacy and demands he’s up there with former US presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, James Polk and William McKinley, expanding the American empire and its physical footprint. This may be a step too far, even for a president with such vast economic and military power.

Carney’s speech played well both at home and around the world. His line, “If we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu,” clearly resonated with his fellow western leaders. His vision for how “the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong if we choose to wield them together”, also offered a positive vision in a dark time.

Trump told the audience that he would not use “excessive strength of force” to acquire Greenland. But, ever the real estate developer, he demanded “right, title and ownership” with an ominous threat: “You can say no – we will remember.”

As Trump laid out his grand vision of protecting and cherishing the rich and aligning nations to do America’s bidding, it was in stark contrast to Carney. The hyperbole and self-aggrandising, the insults and threats, and the singular vision of seeing the world only through the personal impact it has on him mark the US president out as remarkable, even exceptional.

But is this the exceptionalism the US wants? Is America about more than the strongman politics of economic and military coercion?

The immediate reaction in the US was relief, jumping on the line that Trump won’t take Greenland by force. It will be telling to look at the commentary as the country reflects on the president’s aim of lifting America up, seemingly by dragging the rest of the world down.

One leader donned the cloak of statesmanship at Davos this week. It wasn’t Donald Trump.

Mark Shanahan has a new edited collection of essays, Trump Unbound, due for publication by Palgrave Macmillan in October 2026.

– ref. One venue, two speeches – how Mark Carney left Donald Trump in the dust in Davos – https://theconversation.com/one-venue-two-speeches-how-mark-carney-left-donald-trump-in-the-dust-in-davos-274062

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Prachi Agarwal, Research Fellow in International Trade Policy, ODI Global

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to ease economic pressures on households and restore US economic strength. Central to that promise was the claim that tariffs would revive manufacturing and rebalance trade in America’s favour. Once in office, the second administration quickly made trade policy – especially tariffs – a central pillar of its economic agenda.

The introduction of a sweeping tariff regime on April 2, framed as “reciprocal tariffs”, became the signature economic intervention of the administration’s first year in power – and it appears we have not heard the last of it.

The tariffs were not a single event but a sequence of trade actions launched immediately after Trump’s inauguration. In January, the administration announced the “America first” trade policy. This prioritised reductions in the US trade deficit to revitalise domestic manufacturing and promised tougher economic relations with China. Sector and country-specific tariffs followed.

While Trump’s so-called “liberation day” in April set the stage as he announced a range of tariffs to levy against various countries with which the US was running a trade deficit, the implementation was delayed until August, creating prolonged uncertainty for firms and trading partners.

The tariff regime pursued three objectives: raising government revenue, reducing the US trade deficit, and compelling changes in China’s trade behaviour. But one year into Trump’s second term, has this strategy worked?

What worked

On revenue, the policy has delivered. Customs revenue rose sharply by US$287 billion (£213 billion), generating additional fiscal revenue outside the normal congressional appropriations process. In headline terms, the tariffs achieved what they were designed to do: they raised money – but mainly (96%) from American buyers.

Progress on the trade balance (exports minus imports) has been far less convincing. Despite a modest depreciation of the US dollar and stronger export growth during much of 2025, the total US trade balance (goods and services) fell by US$69 billion. While the deficit on the goods trade balance (without services) at times narrowed, there is no evidence that this will be a sustained trend.

Addressing the trade imbalance with China is at the core of the Trump’s tariff strategy. According to trade data from the US Department of Commerce, during the first ten months of 2025, US imports from China declined by 27% – the largest of all US trading partners bilateral decline observed. Tariffs on Chinese products were imposed immediately, without the transition periods granted to most other trading partners. On paper, this aligns with the administration’s objective of curbing Chinese market access.

But this contraction must be placed in context. US imports from China had already fallen by 19% between 2022 and 2024 amid rising geopolitical tensions and earlier trade restrictions. More importantly, China continues to post large global trade surpluses and has diversified both its export destinations and its product composition, reducing reliance on the US.

Rather than weakening China’s trade position, the tariff regime has accelerated supply-chain reconfiguration, as trade is now being trans-shipped through other countries before arriving in the US. Additionally, China has also increased trade with other countries that has replaced the reduction in US-China trade.

---

On January 20 2025, Donald Trump was sworn in as the 47th president of the United States. His first year in office has seen profound changes both in his own country and across the globe. In this series, The Conversation’s international affairs team aims to capture the mood after the first year of Trump’s second term.

---

As imports from China fell, US trade diversification intensified due to the uneven application of tariffs across countries. US imports from Vietnam increased by 40% and Taiwan by 61%, while imports from Mexico grew modestly by 5%. Imports from Canada declined, largely reflecting lower oil prices rather than tariff exposure. Overall, several economies increased their share of US imports, pointing to a reshuffling of suppliers rather than a reduction in US import dependence.

What did not work

The uneven rollout of the tariffs, coupled with limited data available through October 2025, complicates assessment of its impact. It is also possible that the January 2025 tariff announcements prompted US firms to bring forward imports ahead of the August implementation date, temporarily distorting trade patterns.

Nonetheless, the domestic price effects are clearer.

Evidence suggests tariff costs have largely been passed through to wholesale and retail prices, contributing to higher consumer prices of everyday goods rather than easing inflationary pressures.

Manufacturing output rose by a meagre 1% in 2025, a muted response given the scale of protection introduced. Industrial growth has also been held back by labour shortages caused by tighter immigration rules, even with strong trade protection in place.

Development impacts

Some of the significant unintended impacts of the tariff regime have been felt beyond the US. Analysis by London-based thinktank ODI Global highlights the extreme vulnerability of low- and middle-income countries caught in the crossfire with high export dependence, lack of other trade partners, and constrained fiscal space.

Combined with cuts to international aid, US higher tariffs could reduce export earnings for many of these countries by up to US$89 billion annually – about 0.7% of GDP on average. In effect, the cost of US protection has been pushed onto other countries.

Beyond this combined exposure of aid cuts and tariff increases, least developed countries (LDCs) face other economic risks. The tariffs were based on bilateral US trade deficits rather than the ability of partner countries to adapt to changes in US tariff policy. This design penalised economies that were highly dependent on the US market, and relied on labour-intensive manufacturing sectors such as clothing and footwear for employment and foreign exchange.

Women make up a large share of workforce in these sectors and have been hit harder than men by the tariff measures.
The tariff shocks transmitted quickly through reduced orders, factory closures, and unemployment, despite the absence of strategic intent to target these economies.

Looking ahead

This tariff experiment now rests in the hands of the US supreme court, with a ruling expected within days. If the reciprocal tariffs are overturned, other options remain available, including a flat 10% tariff on most countries. Under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, tariffs against trade imbalances could be imposed, but only up to 15% and for a maximum of 150 days.

At the same time, the administration has signalled potential new tariffs linked to geopolitical disputes, such as Greenland. This raises the risk of widening trade conflicts.

One year on, China’s global trade position remains resilient and US trade balances show no sustained improvement. Instead, the costs of adjustment have been unevenly distributed across countries, sectors and households. In short, the tariffs may not have made America any greater, but have certainly created economic hardship for others.

Bernardo Arce Fernandez, ODI’s research officer, assisted with the research for this article.

Jodie Keane and Prachi Agarwal 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. After a year of Trump, who are the winners and losers from US tariffs? – https://theconversation.com/after-a-year-of-trump-who-are-the-winners-and-losers-from-us-tariffs-273925

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gerard Dooly, Assistant Professor in Engineering, University of Limerick

Plastic pollution is one of those problems everyone can see, yet few know how to tackle it effectively. I grew up walking the beaches around Tramore in County Waterford, Ireland, where plastic debris has always been part of the coastline, including bottles, fragments of fishing gear and food packaging.

According to the UN, every year 19-23 million tonnes of plastic lands up in lakes, rivers and seas, and it has a huge impact on ecosystems, creating pollution and damaging animal habitats.

Community groups do tremendous work cleaning these beaches, but they’re essentially walking blind, guessing where plastic accumulates, missing hot spots, repeating the same stretches while problem areas may go untouched.

Years later, working in marine robotics at the University of Limerick, I began developing tools to support marine clean-up and help communities find plastic pollution along our coastline.

The question seemed straightforward: could we use drones to show people exactly where the plastic is? And could we turn finding the plastic littered on beaches and cleaning it up into something people enjoy – in other words, “gamify” it? Could we also build on other ways that drones have been used previously such as tracking wildfires or identifying shipwrecks.

Building the technology

At the University of Limerick’s Centre for Robotics and Intelligent Systems, my team combined drone-based aerial surveillance work with machine-learning algorithms (a type of artificial intelligence) to map where plastic was being littered, and this paired with a free mobile app that provides volunteers with precise GPS coordinates for targeted clean-up.

The technical challenge was more complex than it appeared. Training computer vision models to detect a bottle cap from 30 metres altitude, while distinguishing it from similar objects like seaweed, driftwood, shells and weathered rocks, required extensive field testing and checks of the accuracy of the detection system.

The development hasn’t been straightforward. Early versions of the algorithm struggled with shadows and confused driftwood for plastic bottles. We spent months refining the system through trial and error on beaches around Clare and Galway so the system can now spot plastic as small as 1cm.

We conducted hundreds of test flights across Irish coastlines under varying environmental conditions, different lighting, tidal states, weather patterns, building a robust training dataset.

Ireland’s plastic problem

The urgency of this work becomes clear when you look at the Marine Institute’s work. Ireland’s 3,172 kilometres of coastline, the longest per capita in Europe, faces a deepening crisis.

A 2018 study found that 73% of deep-sea fish in Irish waters had ingested plastic particles. More than 250 species, including seabirds, fish, marine turtles and mammals have all been reported to ingest large items of plastics.

The costs go beyond harming wildlife, and the economic impact can be significant.

Our drone surveys revealed that some stretches of coast accumulate plastic at rates five to ten times higher than neighbouring areas, driven by ocean currents and river mouths. Without systematic monitoring, these hotspots go unaddressed.

Making the technology accessible

The plastic detection platform accepts drone imagery from any source, such as ordinary people flying their own drones.

Processing requires only standard laptop software. Users upload footage and receive GPS coordinates showing detected plastic locations. The mobile app, available free on iOS and Android, displays these locations as an interactive map.

Community groups, schools and individuals can see nearby plastic pollution and find it, saving a lot of time.

It has already been tested with five community groups around Ireland with positive results, averaging 30 plastics spotted per ten-minute drone flight, varying by location.

Working through the EU-funded BluePoint project, which is tackling plastic pollution of coastlines around Europe, we’ve distributed over 30 drones to partners across Ireland and Europe, including county councils and environmental organisations.

The technology has been deployed in areas including Spanish Point in County Clare, where the local Tidy Towns group (litter-picking volunteers), were named joint Clean Coast Community Group of the Year 2024.

The wider waste story

This is part of a broader European effort to address plastic pollution. Partners such as the sports store Decathlon are exploring how to transform recovered beach plastics into new consumer products – sports equipment, textiles and components.

The challenge isn’t just collection. Beach plastics arrive contaminated with sand and salt, in mixed types and grades. Our ongoing research characterises what’s actually found on Irish coastlines, providing manufacturers with data to design appropriate sorting and recycling processes.

The open source software platforms and the drone technology have already been used in nine countries, engaging more than 2,000 people. Pilot programmes are running in France, Spain, Portugal, Brazil and the UK. What began as a question about making beach clean-ups more effective has evolved into a practical system connecting citizen action to environmental outcomes.

Community feedback from pilots has been overwhelmingly positive. Groups report that the drone-derived GPS coordinates transform clean-up work. One participating Tidy Towns group said that volunteers now head straight to flagged locations.

Groups have also reported increased participation, the gamification aspect appeals to families and participants who might not volunteer otherwise. Additionally, the data we’ve gathered so far is being used by local authorities to understand litter patterns and inform policy decisions around waste management and coastal protection.

Gerard Dooly works for the University of Limerick, Ireland. He receives funding under the BLUEPOINT project (EAPA_0035/2022), co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund through the Interreg Atlantic Area Programme.

– ref. I developed an app that uses drone footage to track plastic litter on beaches – https://theconversation.com/i-developed-an-app-that-uses-drone-footage-to-track-plastic-litter-on-beaches-272322

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Roberta Blake, Professor of Animal Performance Science, Anglia Ruskin University

Humans have long believed horses can “smell fear”. Nervous riders are often told to “relax, or the horse will feel it”. Until recently, though, there was little scientific evidence to show whether this was anything more than folklore.

A new study has found that this belief is no myth. Its results show that horses can detect chemical signals linked to human emotions, and that these signals can influence their behaviour and physiology.

Previous research has pointed to a form of emotional contagion between humans and horses. This is a phenomenon in which the emotional state of one person or animal influences the emotional state of another. But this is the first study to find evidence horses can detect human fear using their sense of smell.

Horses rely heavily on their sense of smell to understand the world around them. Their olfactory system is far more sensitive than ours, allowing them to detect subtle chemical differences in the environment.

There is scientific evidence that horses can select the most nutritious food by smelling it. A 2016 found that horses select foods based on nutrient content (such as protein), not just flavour, and that the way their body responds after eating influences future choices they make about food.

So how can horses smell our fear? Well, human emotions come with physiological changes. When people experience fear or stress, their body, face and voice changes. Their body also releases hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, heart rate increases, and their sweat composition changes. These changes alter the chemical profile of a person’s body odour, which can carry information about their emotional state.

The scent of fear

The new study found evidence horses not only detect but also respond to human emotional odours. Horses in the study were exposed to human body odours collected via cotton pads wiped under the armpits of people.

These research participants watched either an excerpt from the 2012 horror movie Sinister (to induce fear) or clips, like the Singing in the Rain’s dance scene (to induce joy). The researchers also collected control odours with no emotional association.

The horses showed distinct behavioural and physiological changes when exposed to fear-related odours through the cotton pads, which were secured by a nylon mask on the horses’ noses. They were more alert, more reactive to sudden events and less inclined to approach humans.

And they showed increases in maximum heart rate, which indicates stress, during the exposure to the fear smell from sweat. Crucially, these responses happened without any visual or vocal cues from humans displaying fear.

This finding shows that smell alone can influence a horse’s emotional state. Horses were not reacting to tense body language, facial expressions or nervous movements – they were responding to chemical signals carried in human scent.

Previous research has shown horses seem to be sensitive to humans’ emotional states. In a May 2025 study, horses were shown videos of humans expressing fear, joy or neutral emotions in their facial expressions and voice.

Researchers measured the horses’ heart rate, behaviour and facial expressions while they watched the videos. The horses showed increased heart rates when exposed to fearful or joyful human expressions compared with neutral ones, which indicates heightened emotional arousal.

Fearful expressions depicted in the videos were associated with alert postures in the horses, like holding their head high and pointing their ears back and stress-related facial movements, like wide eyes. Joyful expressions depicted in the videos were linked to patterns associated with positive emotional states, like relaxed nostrils and ears.

Together, these findings are consistent with emotional contagion. Emotional contagion has been documented between humans and dogs, for instance, and these results suggest horses may also be affected by human emotions.

What this does – and doesn’t – mean

These studies do not suggest that horses understand fear in the same way humans do, or that they know why a person is afraid. Instead, the evidence shows horses are highly sensitive to the chemical, visual and vocal cues associated with emotional states.

Smell is probably just one part of a broader physiological system. Horses are adept at reading human posture, muscle tension, breathing patterns, heart rate and movement – all of which change when a person is anxious. These cues shape how a horse perceives and responds to a human.

Understanding how horses perceive human emotions has important implications for welfare, training and safety. Riders, handlers and therapists working with horses may unintentionally influence an animal’s emotional state through their own stress or calmness.

More broadly, the research challenges outdated assumptions about animal perception. Horses are not passive responders to human commands, as equine professionals and researchers thought until recently. They are sensitive social partners, finely tuned to the emotional signals we give off.

Horses evolved as social prey animals living in large herds on open grasslands, where survival depended on detecting danger quickly. Although humans began domesticating horses around 5,500 years ago, this is evolutionarily recent, meaning modern horses still retain highly sensitive sensory systems adapted for vigilance and social awareness.

So, when people say horses can smell fear, science now suggests they may be closer to the truth than we originally thought. And next time you are close to a horse, try to relax, and make the interaction more enjoyable for both of you.

Roberta Blake 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. Horses really can smell fear, new study claims, and it changes their behaviour – https://theconversation.com/horses-really-can-smell-fear-new-study-claims-and-it-changes-their-behaviour-273652