Category: The Conversation – UK

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

Tonya Ugoretz, a top FBI intelligence analyst, was placed on administrative leave in June. The FBI has not said why. But the decision came around the time she refused to endorse what was reportedly a thinly sourced report accusing China of interfering in the 2020 US presidential election in favour of Joe Biden.

At the Bureau, loyalty tests and polygraph checks have also allegedly become routine as part of a crackdown on news leaks. When approached by the New York Times about the matter, the FBI declined to comment and cited “personnel matters and internal deliberations”.

The situation does not seem to be much different at the CIA. In May, agency director John Ratcliffe ordered a review of the intelligence community’s earlier conclusion that Russia had interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign on behalf of Donald Trump. The conclusion, Ratcliffe contends, was unwarranted and imposed by political pressure – a claim that has been rejected by one of the report’s leading authors.

The intelligence community has reportedly also been under pressure to substantiate Trump’s claims that the recent military strikes on Iran had obliterated its nuclear sites. This is despite mixed evidence regarding the extent of their success. These examples suggest a growing politicisation of intelligence and national security in the US.

Researchers and observers have highlighted the detrimental effect of this process. When intelligence is conducted by ideologues that are screened for loyalty, it often becomes more about pleasing the leader than collecting accurate information and preventing failure.

Less attention has been paid to the permissive attitude of Congress. Many Republicans in Congress have taken an unquestioning attitude toward the claims made by the president and other officials, allowing intelligence agencies to pursue Trump’s agenda unimpeded.

While Trump and Patel’s focus on personal loyalty when it comes to intelligence is new, partisan influence in congressional oversight is not. In fact, Congress has a long history of supporting the intelligence priorities of the governing administration.

For much of the cold war, Congress was not involved – and did not want to be involved – in matters of intelligence. This view was expressed by former CIA legal counsel, Walter Pforzheimer, during an interview in 1988. Reflecting on the early days of oversight, he stated: “It wasn’t that we were attempting to hide anything. Our main problem was we couldn’t get them [Congress] to sit still and listen.”

This quote isn’t entirely true. In research from 2023, I showed that Congress was more involved than was generally believed. The US-backed 1954 coup in Guatemala, which deposed the democratically elected president, Jacobo Árbenz, is a case in point. Leading members of Congress were “in the know” and others pushed Dwight Eisenhower’s administration to be even more aggressive.

But Congress took on a more active role in intelligence matters in the 1970s. Following a series of public revelations about the CIA’s behaviour, a select committee was established in 1975 and exposed abuses by intelligence agencies including the surveillance of US citizens, experiments with drugs and involvement in assassinations.

In the wake of this, Congress established intelligence committees with oversight duties. The idea was that the CIA would present a document signed by the president to notify congressional committees of its intentions.

However, the system ran into trouble in the 1980s, and partisanship and politicisation were part of the story. The Ronald Reagan administration’s support for the “contra” rebels in Nicaragua made intelligence a matter of severe partisan conflict.

Removing Nicaragua’s government

When Reagan took office in 1981, one of the primary foreign policy priorities for his administration was removing the Sandinista National Liberation Front from power in Nicaragua. The administration saw the Sandinistas as a threat to the region and – in Reagan’s black-and-white thinking – as puppets of Communist Moscow and Havana.

The administration sought to convince Congress that its aims were limited. The aim, or so CIA director William Casey told the intelligence committees, was to obstruct the transfer of weapons from Nicaragua to neighbouring El Salvador. Another left-wing guerrilla movement, the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front, was threatening the US-supported government there.

Initially, the policy received bipartisan support in Congress. The linchpin of this policy was the creation of an insurgent group in Nicaragua called the contras (contrarevolucionarios). It was made up of members of the previous regime’s brutal national guard, as well as other groups that had become disgruntled with the Sandinistas.

News stories soon made clear that the size of the contra army had radically expanded, from the 500 members discussed by Casey in his initial briefing to thousands. The contras’ stated goal of overthrowing the Sandinistas, which they ultimately failed to do, also contradicted the earlier Reagan administration’s statements to Congress.

Democrats in Congress pushed the leadership of intelligence committees to curtail the administration’s activities. Edward Boland, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, penned and helped to pass two amendments. The first prohibited any US government support for the purpose of overthrowing the Nicaraguan government.

When the administration found loopholes to circumvent this, Boland’s second amendment prohibited any US funds from being spent in support of the contras. This amendment is generally understood as a first step towards the so-called Iran-Contra scandal.

The Reagan administration illegally funded the contras behind Congress’s back by using the proceeds from secret arms sales to Iran – a state the US had been at loggerheads with since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

The Boland amendments also helped make an intelligence and covert operations issue a matter of public debate and – more importantly – congressional votes. Republicans in Congress abandoned their oversight duties and followed the administration’s guidelines.

Votes on contra aid became an opportunity for partisan controversy, vitriolic attacks, accusations of betrayal and large-scale influence campaigns. Instead of oversight, a deep partisan divide materialised.

Counting on Congress? Think again

The role of Congress is to conduct oversight. It is the role of the governing administration to keep Congress informed of intelligence matters, particularly covert operations. History shows this has often been hard to achieve.

Congress has been complacent, complicit and often too willing to follow the government’s lead. In some cases, Congress has acted but primarily in the aftermath of major scandals or media revelations. This is called “firefighting” behaviour.

But “firefighters” seem to now be in short supply. As much as domestic constraints on Trump’s power are decreasing, the same is happening in the context of intelligence and foreign policy.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Luca Trenta received funding from British Academy Grant SRG21211237.

– ref. Congress has a chequered history of overseeing US intelligence and national security – https://theconversation.com/congress-has-a-chequered-history-of-overseeing-us-intelligence-and-national-security-261120

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Giorgio Di Gessa, Lecturer in Data Science, UCL

Grandparents play a pivotal role in family life. They are often a vital part of the childcare puzzle, stepping in to look after their grandchildren while parents are at work or busy. And there’s a lot of grandparent care taking place.

In England, around half of all grandparents provide care for their grandchildren when the parents are not around. And the percentage of grandparents providing care is even higher when they have grandchildren aged 16 and under, who are more likely to require supervision, care, and support from an adult when the parents are busy at work or unavailable. In this case, 66% of grandparents help out.

I used data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, to analyse the caring roles of over 5,000 grandparents. I used data collected in 2016-17 to assess how often grandparents looked after their grandchildren, the activities they did with them, and why they helped out. I also discovered that there are clear gender and socioeconomic patterns. Further analysis of data from 2018-19 showed that providing care as a grandparent can affect wellbeing.

I found that in England, among grandparents who looked after grandchildren, 45% of grandparents spent at least one day a week looking after their young grandchildren. They did so consistently throughout the year, with 8% doing so almost daily. Approximately one in three grandparents provided care to their grandchildren during school holidays.

Around 25% of grandparents who looked after their grandchildren were still working. Most grandparents reported having overall good physical health.

And most grandparents who cared for their grandchildren also lived relatively close to them – less than half an hour away from their closest grandchild – and had at least one grandchild aged under six years old.

Most of the grandparents in the study who cared for grandchildren – 80% – mentioned that they played or took part in leisure activities with their grandchildren. Around half said that they frequently cooked for them and helped with picking them up and dropping them off from schools and nurseries. And although it was less common, grandparents also helped with homework and taking care of their grandchildren when they were not feeling well.

About three grandparents in four (76%) said that their motivation for helping out was to give their grandchildren’s parents some time out from childcare responsibilities. A similar percentage – 70% – said they wanted to provide some economic support, either by offering financial assistance or by allowing parents to go to work.

Just over half of grandparents (52%) said that being able to provide emotional support was what drove their motivation to provide grandchild care: they wanted to feel engaged with young people and help their grandchildren develop. But 17% say that they felt obliged to help out, and found it difficult to refuse.

The grandmother’s role

But while we tend to talk about “grandparents” as a group, grandmothers and grandfathers often experience and approach caregiving in distinctly different ways.

In particular, when examining the specific activities undertaken with their grandchildren, there are clear gender distinctions. I found that grandmothers were more likely than grandfathers to engage in hands-on tasks: preparing meals, helping with homework, caring for grandchildren when they are sick, and doing school pick-ups.

Grandfathers, while also involved, tended to participate less in these activities. This is the case even among grandparent couples who lived together and jointly cared for their grandchildren.

The role of wealth

The extent and nature of grandparental care is also closely linked to grandparents’ socioeconomic status. For example, grandparents with fewer financial resources tended to offer childcare more regularly than their wealthier counterparts.

Socioeconomic disparities also shape the nature of caregiving tasks. Less affluent grandparents were more likely to engage in hands-on activities, such as cooking meals and taking their grandchildren to and from school. In contrast, grandparents with more education were more likely than those with less education to help with homework frequently.

The reasons for providing care also varied according to grandparents’ socioeconomic status. Grandparents with greater financial resources and higher levels of education were more likely to report providing childcare to help parents manage work and other responsibilities, as well as to offer emotional support to their grandchildren. Conversely, those with fewer financial resources were more likely to feel obliged to help or to struggle to refuse caregiving duties.

Grandparent wellbeing

What grandparents do with their grandchildren and why they have an active role in caring for them can also affect their wellbeing in complex ways. Grandparents who often took part in fun or enriching activities with their grandchildren, such as leisure activities or helping with homework, tended to report higher wellbeing compared to their peers who did not look after grandchildren.

However, grandparents who cared for their grandchildren when they were sick or who had them stay overnight without parents tended to report, over time, lower wellbeing.

Motivations also matter for grandparents’ wellbeing. Grandparents had a higher quality of life if they cared for their grandchildren because they wanted to help them develop as people, or to feel engaged with young people. However, grandparents who felt obliged to help, perhaps due to family pressure or lack of alternatives, experienced lower wellbeing.

In short, these findings remind us that behind the broad label of “grandparenting” lies a diverse world of individuals whose involvement in caring for grandchildren – how often they care, what they do, and why – is closely linked to and varies with gender norms and socioeconomic status.

Also, the meaning behind grandparenting and the type of interactions shared with grandchildren seems to matter for grandparents’ wellbeing. Overall, these insights suggest that these caring responsibilities may contribute to the reinforcement or even deepening of existing gender, socioeconomic and health inequalities among older adults.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Giorgio Di Gessa 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. Grandparent care: women from poorer backgrounds help out most with childcare – https://theconversation.com/grandparent-care-women-from-poorer-backgrounds-help-out-most-with-childcare-253168

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Lawrence, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology, Cardiff Metropolitan University

Restrictive practices in mental health settings – such as physical restraint and seclusion – are meant to be a last resort, used only when patients pose a risk to themselves or others.

In 2021 and 2022 alone, NHS England reported that 6,600 mental health patients were subjected to physical restraint, and 4,500 to seclusion. Figures such as these have led numerous experts and policymakers to conclude that restrictive practices are overused in mental health inpatient settings.

The consequences can be devastating. Restrictive practices are associated with trauma, worsening mental health, and even death. For decades, clinicians, researchers and policymakers have called for their reduction. Progress, however, remains painfully slow.

For the past five years, I have been researching the use of restrictive practices in mental health services and exploring how to reduce them. My new research demonstrates the importance of using compassion to support staff to promote the dignity and wellbeing of patients as a priority.

Restrictive practices have a long history that predates the development of asylums and psychiatry as a medical discipline. The use of legislation to detain people on the basis of their mental health in England, for example, dates back to at least the 14th century. Early examples of restrictive practices included patients being bound and beaten with rods in order to “restore sanity”.

During the first three decades of the 19th century, mechanical restraints such as straitjackets, chains and restraint chairs and confining patients in locked rooms were widely accepted methods of controlling violent people in British asylums. But in the 1830s, some clinicians recognised the moral and ethical problems with using such practices, and a campaign began to abolish them.

The UN has long recognised restrictive practices in mental healthcare as a human rights issue. In 2008, the UN’s special rapporteur on torture stated that methods such as solitary confinement violate articles 14 and 15 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which protect against arbitrary detention and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

This stance was reaffirmed in 2021 when the UN declared that restrictive practices breach the fundamental rights of patients. This underscores the urgent need for reform in mental healthcare systems worldwide.

Harmful effect

Research shows that restrictive practices may not only harm patients but contradict the goals of mental healthcare. Many mental health problems stem from traumatic experiences that leave people feeling powerless, unsafe and distressed. Using methods that reinforce these feelings can worsen the very issues services aim to address.

In extreme incidents, people have died as a result of restrictive practices use.

In my research, I have developed a theoretical model identifying core factors that perpetuate the use of restrictive practices in mental health services. These include the emotional challenges faced by staff working in high-stress environments, and how these challenges influence their decision-making.

Mental health wards can be highly stressful environments, with frequent incidents of aggression. In such settings, staff can often feel anxious and hyper-vigilant, which can make it harder for them to respond to patients with compassion.

Research shows that threat-based emotions like fear and anger are linked to a greater likelihood of using restrictive measures. So, this cycle perpetuates the use of these harmful practices.

Compassion may hold the key

Using restrictive practices to control or remove people who are perceived as a threat can provide staff with a sense of immediate safety, which may inadvertently reinforce their use. To address this, I wanted to explore whether supporting staff to manage their emotions more effectively could reduce their reliance on restrictive practices, and foster a more compassionate approach to care.

As part of my research, I introduced compassion-focused support groups for staff in several forensic mental health wards, advocating for a more empathetic and patient-centred approach. These groups tried to equip participants with skills to better manage challenging emotional experiences while fostering greater compassion for both themselves and the people in their care.

The aim was to help staff cultivate an inner sense of safety, reducing their reliance on restrictive practices as a means of managing their own feelings of threat. This intervention was encouraging, leading to reductions in the use of restrictive practices in some conditions – demonstrating the potential of using compassionate care for these purposes.

My study was the first of its kind – bur these initial results highlight the need for further research into how the emotional management of staff influences care decisions. The journey toward change is slow, but it is possible. Compassion may hold the key to addressing a deeply entrenched issue that has shaped the treatment of mental health patients for centuries.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Daniel Lawrence is affiliated with the Labour Party.

– ref. Physically restricting mental health patients can often harm them – my new study suggests compassion could change that – https://theconversation.com/physically-restricting-mental-health-patients-can-often-harm-them-my-new-study-suggests-compassion-could-change-that-244782

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cock Van Oosterhout, Professor of Evolutionary Genetics, University of East Anglia

Earth’s biodiversity is in crisis. An imminent “sixth mass extinction” threatens beloved and important wildlife. It also threatens to reduce the amount of genetic diversity – or variation – within species.

This variation in genes within a species is crucial for their ability to adapt to changes in the environment or resist diseases. Genetic variation is therefore crucial for species’ long term survival.

Traditional conservation efforts – such as protected areas, measures to prevent poaching, and captive breeding – remain essential to prevent extinction. But even when these measures succeed in boosting population numbers, they cannot recover genetic diversity that has already been lost. The loss of a unique gene variant can take thousands of years of evolution before it is recovered by a lucky mutation.

In a new paper in Nature Reviews Biodiversity, an international team of geneticists and wildlife biologists argues that the survival of some species will depend on gene editing, along with more traditional conservation actions. Using these advanced genetic tools, like those already revolutionising agriculture and medicine, can give endangered species a boost by adding genetic diversity that isn’t there.

Genetic engineering is not new. Plant breeders have used it for decades to develop crops with traits to boost disease resistance and drought tolerance. Around 13.5% of the world’s arable land grows genetically modified crops. Gene-editing tools such as Crispr are also being used in “de-extinction” projects that aim to recreate extinct animals.

The Dallas-based company Colossal Laboratory & Biosciences has attracted headlines for its efforts to bring back the woolly mammoth, dodo and dire wolf. In de-extinction, the DNA of a living relative species is edited (changed) to approximate the extinct species’ most charismatic traits.

For example, to “resurrect” a woolly mammoth, Colossal’s researchers plan to splice mammoth genes (recovered from ancient remains) into the genome of the Asian elephant to produce a cold-hardy, hairy elephant-mammoth hybrid. Colossal recently engineered grey wolf pups with 20 gene edits from the extinct dire wolf’s DNA.

The “Jurassic Park”-style revival of long-gone creatures has attracted considerable attention and funding, which has accelerated the development of genome engineering techniques. These same genome editing tools can be used for conservation of existing and endangered species. If we can edit a mouse to have mammoth hair, or edit a wolf to resemble a dire wolf, why not edit an endangered bird’s genome to make it more resilient to disease and climate change?

Museum specimens

Using DNA from historical specimens, scientists can identify important genetic variants that a species has lost. Many museums hold century-old skins, bones, or seeds – a genomic time capsule of past diversity. With genome editing, it is possible to reintroduce these lost variants into the wild gene pool.

By restoring genetic variation, species can be fortified against emerging diseases and environmental change. A sharp decline in population numbers is called a “bottleneck”. During a bottleneck, inbreeding and genetic drift lead to the random loss of genetic diversity. Harmful mutations can also increase in frequency. Such “genomic erosion” compromises the health of individuals and can make populations more prone to extinction.

If we can pinpoint a particularly damaging mutation that has become widespread in the population or a variant that has been lost, we could replace it in a few individuals using gene editing. Aided by natural selection, the healthy variant would gradually spread in the population.

If a threatened species lacks genes that it desperately needs to survive new conditions, why not borrow them from a close relative that already has those traits? Known as facilitated adaptation, this could help wildlife cope with threats such as climate change.

In agriculture, such cross-species gene transfers are routine. Tomatoes have been engineered with a mustard plant gene to tolerate cold, and chestnut trees got a wheat gene for disease resistance. There is no reason why such techniques cannot be expanded to animals.

These genetic interventions can complement, but never replace traditional conservation measures. Habitat protection, control of invasive predators, captive breeding programmes, and other on-the-ground action remain absolutely necessary. Importantly, gene editing only makes sense if the target population has recovered in numbers enough (often through conservation), to allow natural selection to do its job.

Measuring the risk of extinction

Gene-edited animals or plants wouldn’t have a chance if released into a barren habitat or a poaching hotspot. Genomic tools can give an extra edge to species that are already being saved from immediate threats, equipping them for adaptive evolution in the future.

Climate zones are shifting, new diseases are spreading, and once-isolated populations are cut off in small fragments of habitat. Without intervention, even intensive habitat management might not prevent a wave of extinctions.

However, a strategy of gene editing also comes with significant risks and unknowns. One technical concern is off-target effects – Crispr and other gene-editing techniques might make unintended DNA changes in addition to the intended edit. In other words, you attempt to insert a disease-resistance gene, but accidentally disrupt another gene in the process. Similarly, a gene may have more than one function, which is known as pleiotropy.

Especially in less-well studied species, we may not be aware of all those functions or pleiotropic effects. Regulatory inertia and public scepticism may also present big obstacles – these issues have historically limited the rollout of genetically modified (GM) organisms, particularly in agriculture.

There are also evolutionary and ecological uncertainties. A deliberate gene edit might have knock-on effects on how the species evolves over time. For instance, if one individual is given a highly beneficial gene that spreads rapidly, it could replace all the other gene variants at that location in the genome (the full complement of DNA in the organism’s cell). This is known as a “selective sweep”, and it inadvertently reduces the genetic diversity in that region of the genome.

Some critics argue that the narrative of a genetic quick fix could distract from the root causes of biodiversity loss. If people believe we can simply “edit” a species to save it, will that undermine the urgency to protect habitats or cut carbon emissions? Portraying extinction as reversible might seed false hope and reduce the motivation for tough environmental action.

Conservation efforts, strong environmental policies and legal protections remain indispensable. So do habitat restoration, climate action and reducing the impact made on the environment by humans.

Nevertheless, genome engineering is a new tool in the conservation toolbox. It’s one that –given the right assistance and environmental encouragement – can help save species from extinction.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Cock Van Oosterhout receives funding from the Royal Society for conservation genomics work on threatened bird species in Mauritius, and a donation by the Colossal Foundation for conservation genomic research on the pink pigeon. He is member of the Conservation Genetics Specialist Group of the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature).

– ref. Gene editing technology could be used to save species on the brink of extinction – https://theconversation.com/gene-editing-technology-could-be-used-to-save-species-on-the-brink-of-extinction-261419

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Douglas Schulz, Lecturer in Sociology and Criminology, University of Bradford

Ozzy Osbourne’s death is not just the passing of another rock star. It marks the end of an era – the fading of a figure who helped shape an entire music genre and subculture.

Both as a member of Black Sabbath and as a solo artist, Osbourne’s legacy lies not only in music history but how we understand performance, rebellion, and the expressive power of sound itself.

Despite a long battle with Parkinson’s disease and several health setbacks over the years, the news of his death was a shock to the whole metal community. Just weeks before his death on July 22, Osbourne delivered his final performance with Black Sabbath in the place it all began – Villa Park in Birmingham.

In the hours following the announcement of his death, countless bands and musicians flooded their social media channels to pay their respects.

Osbourne’s life was a testament to reinvention, grit, and the power of artistic authenticity – going from a working-class kid in Aston to the biggest name in heavy metal, writing the soundtrack to so many people’s lives. His distinctive voice, theatrical presence, and sheer will and determination shaped heavy metal music – inspiring generations of musicians and fans.

---

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

---

When Black Sabbath emerged in the early 1970s, they played a role in making rock music more menacing, grittier and heavier. The Birmingham band didn’t just turn up the amplifiers and played louder guitars – they introduced a new aesthetic. They were known for their doomy riffs and lyrics about war, madness and the occult. Osbourne, with his uncanny voice and stage presence, was at the front and centre.

This sound was destined to become the blueprint for heavy metal. But Osbourne’s contribution went beyond his voice. He gave the genre its face, theatricality – and above all, its spirit of defiance.

Whether he was biting off the head of a bat on stage, stumbling through reality television with absurd but relatable quotes, or delivering genre-defining performances, Osbourne embodied contradictions. He was a mix of menace and mischief, tragedy and comedy, myth and man.

Heavy metal music has existed in tension with mainstream culture ever since its emergence in the UK in the late 1960s. It has been regarded as too aggressive, too loud, too weird. But Osbourne’s presence forced metal into the public discourse – whether through moral panics in the 1970s and ’80s, or through his television appearances in the 2000s. The Osbournes, a reality show following the family which aired on MTV, was a huge hit in the US and around the world, making Ozzy famous to a whole new audience.

Throughout his long career, Osbourne helped shift heavy metal from the margins into the mainstream, without ever diluting its transgressive edge.

A symbol of inspiration

Osbourne’s stage persona carved out space for other artists to follow. His willingness to be ridiculous, to speak openly about his addictions, health struggles and family dysfunction made him oddly relatable. It is that relatability that allowed Osbourne to be metal’s court jester and elder statesman in one.

Over time, bands like Slipknot, Ghost, Sleep Token, as well as more introspective bands like Deftones or Gojira, owe much to the groundwork Osbourne and Black Sabbath laid: a template for authenticity, theatricality, and emotional openness wrapped in spectacle and distortion. They helped define the core rhythms, riffs, themes and aesthetics that generations of metal bands followed.

But Osbourne’s cultural influence cannot be measured only in record sales (although those were plenty), Grammy wins, or his induction into the US Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. His influence lies in how his image, sound and attitude reshaped music scenes across continents.

In countries where metal is censored or underground, Osbourne was a symbol of resistance. In places where metal was accepted, he was the genre’s most unpredictable ambassador.

The Prince of Darkness, as he was known, may have left the stage but his legacy will live on. His music is still looped on Tiktok videos, and memes still make rounds on social media.

Young metal-heads will continue to emulate his style and irreverence. As long as people pick up guitars and look for a way to scream back at the world, Ozzy will be there – in spirit, in sound, and in spectacle.

Douglas Schulz 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. Ozzy Osbourne’s spirit of defiance changed music forever – https://theconversation.com/ozzy-osbournes-spirit-of-defiance-changed-music-forever-261775

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matt Warren, Managing Director, Universal Impact, The Conversation

We believe in the power of research to change the world for the better. But we also understand that research needs to be shared – effectively and accessibly – if it is to have its greatest impact.

As the Conversation UK’s specialist communications subsidiary, Universal Impact’s mission is to enable researchers to communicate their work, in a targeted way, to a wide range of different audiences. Which is why we’re currently working with Prototypes for Humanity. This Dubai-based academic forum and event promotes innovative scientific solutions and enables international research collaboration.

In April, we blogged about how the forum was seeking applicants for its Professors’ Programme. But applications to join this year’s Prototypes for Humanity annual gathering are now open to current university students on any undergraduate or postgraduate course – as well as graduates who completed their qualifications within the past two years.

The key is that your work potentially offers a tangible solution to a real world problem.

That’s you? Apply now…

Participation is free and successful applicants will showcase their innovative solutions at the Jumeirah Emirates Towers, Dubai, from November 17 to 20, 2025. Flight and accommodation costs are covered by the organiser.

There is also a US$100,000 prize fund to help the best projects roll out in the real world – and the opportunity to connect with a wide range of potential partners, funders and collaborators.

The evaluation criteria are threefold, stating that the successful applicants will be able to show:

Positive impact on people, communities or the planet: Whether addressing social issues, environmental concerns, or community development, demonstrating the project’s potential positive impact will be a crucial factor.

Rigour of academic research: We are seeking projects that demonstrate a deep understanding of the challenges addressed, and the students’ ability to propose meaningful and innovative solutions through structured research.

Application of technology: Innovative and effective use of technology (High-tech or Low-tech) is key, whether incorporating cutting-edge advancements or utilising simple yet efficient solutions.

More than 2,700 entries landed in The Prototypes for Humanity programme’s inbox last year. And researchers from 800 universities, many members of The Conversation’s international network, applied.

---

Read more:
Prototypes for Humanity showcases solutions-based projects from universities around the world – in Dubai

---

More than 100 projects were chosen to present at that event – and a similar number will be selected for this November’s showcase. The Conversation UK’s editor, Stephen Khan was at the 2024 event and blogged afterwards:

For The Conversation, it was an introduction to some projects that I expect you’ll hear and read more about in our content in the months to come.

While we rightly assess and explain events as they happen, delivering information about new research, and particularly innovative solutions that are born in the labs, studios and seminars of our partner universities is also a central element of our mission as we strive to be the comprehensive conveyor of academic knowledge.

Indeed, two researchers who presented their work – on sustainable batteries – at the 2024 event recently featured on The Conversation Weekly’s award-winning podcast. We expect many more to write about their work for The Conversation down the line.

---

Read more:
What will batteries of the future be made of? Four scientists discuss the options – podcast

---

You can submit research projects as an individual or group, or ask your professor to submit on your behalf. You can find the application link here and more information on the programme here. The deadline is July 31, 2025.

Good luck.

---

Universal Impact is a commercial subsidiary of The Conversation UK, offering specialist training, mentoring and research communication services and donating profits back to our parent charity. If you’re a researcher or research institution and you’re interested in working together, please get in touch – or subscribe to our weekly newsletter to find out more.

– ref. Calling university postgrad and undergrad students – apply to showcase your big ideas in Dubai – https://theconversation.com/calling-university-postgrad-and-undergrad-students-apply-to-showcase-your-big-ideas-in-dubai-261706

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Felicia Liu, Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Sustainability, University of York

Throughout history, people have viewed seasons as relatively stable, recurrent blocks of time that neatly align farming, cultural celebrations and routines with nature’s cycles. But the seasons as we know them are changing. Human activity is rapidly transforming the Earth, and once reliable seasonal patterns are becoming unfamiliar.

In our recent study, we argue that new seasons are surfacing. These emergent seasons are entirely novel and anthropogenic (in other words, made by humans).

Examples include “haze seasons” in the northern and equatorial nations of south-east Asia, when the sky is filled with smoke for several weeks. This is caused by widespread burning of vegetation to clear forests and make way for agriculture during particularly dry times of year.

Or there is the annual “trash season”, during which tidal patterns bring plastic to the shores of Bali, Indonesia, between November and March.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

---

At the same time, some seasons are disappearing altogether, with profound consequences for ecosystems and cultures. These extinct seasons can encompass drastically altered or terminated migratory animal behaviour, such as the decline of seabird breeding seasons in northern England.

Climate change is also calling time on traditional winter sport seasons by making snow scarcer in alpine regions.

Nature’s new rhythms

Perhaps more common are “syncopated seasons”. The changes are akin to new emphases on beats or off-beats in familiar music that capture the listener’s attention.

Syncopated seasons include hotter summers and milder winters in temperate climates, with increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather that exposes more people and ecosystems to stress.

The timings of key seasonal events, like when leaves fall or certain migratory species arrive, are becoming more unpredictable. We coined the term “arrhythmic seasons”, a concept borrowed from cardiology, to refer to abnormal rhythms which include earlier springs or breeding seasons, longer summers or growing seasons, and shorter winters or hibernating seasons.

Changing seasonal patterns throw the interdependent life cycles of plants and animals out of sync with each other, and disrupt the communities that are economically, socially and culturally dependent on them.

In northern Thailand, human activity has reshaped nature’s rhythms and affected the supply of water and food in turn. Communities along the Mekong river’s tributaries have relied on the seasonal flow of rivers to fish and farm for generations.

At first, upstream dams disrupted these cycles by blocking fish migration and preventing the accumulation of sediment that farms need for soil. More recently, climate change has shifted rainfall patterns and made dry seasons longer and rainy seasons shorter but more intense, bringing fires and further uncertainty to farmers.

Let’s rethink time

How we react to changing seasonal patterns can either worsen or improve environmental conditions. In south-east Asia, public awareness of the “haze season” has led to better forecasting, the installation of air filters in homes and the establishment of public health initiatives.

These efforts help communities adapt. But if society only uses adaptive fixes like these, it can make the haze worse over time by failing to tackle its root causes. By recognising this new season, societies might normalise the recurrence of haze and isolate anyone who demands the government and businesses deal with deforestation and burning.

Powerful institutions like these shape narratives about seasonal crises to minimise their responsibility and shift blame elsewhere. Understanding these dynamics is crucial to fostering accountability and ensuring fair responses.

The shifting seasons require us to rethink our relationship with time and the environment. Today, most of us think about time in terms of days, hours and minutes, which is a globalised standard used everywhere from smartphones to train timetables. But this way of keeping time forgets older and more local ways of understanding time – those that are shaped by natural rhythms, such as the arrival of the rainy season, or solar and lunar cycles, rooted in the lives and cultures of different communities.

Diverse perspectives, especially those from Indigenous knowledge systems, can enhance our ability to respond to environmental changes. Integrating alternative time-keeping methods into mainstream practices could foster fairer and more effective solutions to environmental problems.

Seasons are more than just divisions of time – they connect us with nature. Finding synchrony with changing seasonal rhythms is essential for building a sustainable future.

---

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.

---

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

– ref. Farewell to summer? ‘Haze’ and ‘trash’ among Earth’s new seasons as climate change and pollution play havoc – https://theconversation.com/farewell-to-summer-haze-and-trash-among-earths-new-seasons-as-climate-change-and-pollution-play-havoc-260765

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Majdi Faleh, Academic Fellow & Lecturer in Architecture and Cultural Heritage, Nottingham Trent University

Nestled in the southern Mediterranean, off the south-east coast of Tunisia, lies the island of Djerba. With a rich cultural and religious history, it has been a crossroad of many civilisations, including the Phoenicians, Romans, Byzantines and Arabs, and is home to many unique architectural sites. These include the Sedouikech underground mosque, St Joseph’s Church and the El Ghriba Synagogue.

But, for many years, Djerba’s cultural heritage has been in danger. This is due to a combination of over-tourism, environmental change and human neglect.

By the 1990s to early 2000s, when Djerba was at the height of its popularity, the island was attracting between 1 million and 1.5 million visitors each year. It is one of Tunisia’s most popular tourist areas, with more hotels than any other destination in the country.

Tourism has resulted in excessive tourist traffic in Djerba, particularly during the summer. It has also contributed to other problems such as water stress and waste generation. According to figures from 2020, hotels alone generate between 35% and 40% of all the waste on the island.

But the development of tourism has, above all, altered Djerba’s cultural landscape. In some areas of the island, Djerba’s traditional housing – houmas, menzels and houchs – have given way to more modern tourist infrastructure.

This has accelerated since Tunisia’s 2011 revolution, when long-time dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was ousted. Weak institutional oversight has led to vandalism, illegal construction on archaeological sites and unauthorised demolitions.

The development of tourism on Djerba has also eroded traditional ways of life. The island has experienced significant changes due to tourism, with the development of roads, ferries, an airport and the internet leading to a decline in traditional activity. Livelihoods like agriculture, fishing and artisanal crafts have declined and are often now showcased only in tourist areas.

Climate change has worsened Djerba’s problems. Rainfall patterns have changed across the island over recent decades, with models suggesting that annual precipitation rates could drop 20% by the end of the century. More frequent and prolonged droughts are expected.

At the same time, rising sea levels and increasingly common storm surges are affecting the island. Research from 2022 found that 14% of Djerba’s beaches are now highly vulnerable to submersion and coastal erosion.

Several historical monuments on Djerba have already experienced periodic flooding and saltwater intrusion. The ruins of Sidi Garous and the shrine of Sidi Bakour are now entirely underwater and have been replaced by memorials.

Other archaeological sites located near the coast like Haribus, Meninx, Ghizene and Edzira, some of which date back to the Roman era (eighth century BC to fifth century AD), are now partially or fully submerged. Studies by Tunisia’s National Institute of Heritage suggest that many of these sites have been lost permanently to the encroaching sea.

World heritage site

Significant portions of Djerba’s cultural heritage have already been erased by sea-level rise and coastal erosion. Future losses could be even more severe. The island’s cultural heritage will only grow more precarious without meaningful preservation and climate adaptation efforts.

However, many of Djerba’s monuments, historical buildings and traditional dwellings have suffered from years of neglect. A chronic lack of local and international funding, as well as weak institutional frameworks for heritage management, mean some of the island’s historic structures have been abandoned. Many other buildings have deteriorated due to a lack of protective measures and maintenance.

Community organisations such as the Association for the Safeguarding of the Island of Djerba have tried to step in to fill the void left by weak institutional frameworks. Their work ranges from delivering public awareness campaigns to local young people to efforts like re-purposing ancient rainwater tanks to manage periods of drought.

But these grassroots efforts alone are not enough to stop Djerba’s cultural heritage from deteriorating at its current pace.

In September 2023, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) announced that it was adding Djerba to its list of world heritage sites. Tunisia’s culture ministry welcomed the decision. It followed years of efforts by local groups and government officials to add Djerba to the list.

Djerba’s inclusion offers hope for the long-term preservation of the island’s heritage. A world heritage site designation increases global recognition and enables improved access to sources of funding.

And since Djerba’s classification, there has been some progress. The culture ministry has established a task force to monitor the construction of buildings and other infrastructure, collect data on designated protected areas, and prepare projects to preserve heritage sites.

But Djerba’s cultural heritage remains in danger. Improved preservation of these sites will require continuous funding and stringent regulation of tourism and construction activities.

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

– ref. Popular Tunisian island’s cultural heritage at risk due to tourism, neglect and climate change – https://theconversation.com/popular-tunisian-islands-cultural-heritage-at-risk-due-to-tourism-neglect-and-climate-change-223612

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

If something online promises to cure everything, it’s probably too good to be true. One of the most dangerous examples? Chlorine dioxide is often marketed under names like “Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS)” or “aerobic oxygen”, buzzwords that hint at health and vitality.

But in reality, these products can make you violently ill within hours – and in some cases, they can be fatal.

Despite what the name suggests, MMS is not just bleach. Bleach contains sodium hypochlorite, whereas MMS contains sodium chlorite – a different but equally toxic chemical.

When ingested, sodium chlorite can cause methemoglobinemia, a condition where red blood cells lose their ability to carry oxygen. It can also trigger haemolysis (the rupture of red blood cells), followed by kidney failure and death.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

---

When sodium chlorite mixes with acid (such as stomach acid), it converts into chlorine dioxide, a bleaching agent. This compound has strong antimicrobial properties: it can kill bacteria, fungi and even viruses like SARS-CoV-2. For that reason, it’s commonly used in sanitising dental equipment and hospital tools like endoscopes. Its effectiveness at killing over 400 bacterial species makes it useful in cleaning – but not in humans.

While the mouth and oesophagus are lined with multiple cell layers, offering some protection, the stomach and intestines are far more vulnerable. These organs have a single-cell lining to absorb nutrients efficiently – but this also means they’re highly sensitive to damage.

That’s why ingesting chlorine dioxide often leads to nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhoea. In extreme cases, the chemical can burn through the gut lining, leading to bowel perforation – a medical emergency with a high risk of death.

Using MMS as an enema is equally dangerous. Chlorine dioxide can trigger an overproduction of reactive oxygen species – unstable molecules that damage cells and contribute to chronic gut conditions. This cellular stress may explain both the immediate symptoms and the long-term injuries seen in reported cases.

It doesn’t make a good mouthwash, either

Some sellers claim MMS can be used safely in the mouth because it’s found in dental cleaners. But clinical trials show it’s no more effective than other mouthwashes, and its oxidising power doesn’t distinguish between harmful microbes and healthy cells.

Yes, it may temporarily reduce bad breath, but it also disrupts protein synthesis, damages cell membranes, and harms the gut microbiome – the collection of helpful bacteria we rely on for digestion and immune health.

Chlorine dioxide doesn’t just attack the gut. It also affects the cardiovascular system. Documented risks include low blood pressure, fainting, and cardiac damage – including stroke and shock.

In some cases, it causes a dangerous blood disorder called disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). This condition causes abnormal clotting, followed by severe bleeding and potential organ failure, stroke and death.

Chlorine dioxide is also a respiratory irritant. Inhalation can inflame the nose, throat and lungs, and in severe cases, cause respiratory distress – particularly with repeated exposure in workplaces.

Studies of factory workers show that even low doses can lead to nasal inflammation, coughing and breathing difficulties. And some patients who drank chlorine dioxide to “treat” COVID-19 ended up with severe chemical lung injuries.

Risks to the brain, hormones and skin

Animal studies suggest chlorine dioxide can harm the nervous system, causing developmental delays, reduced movement, and slower brain growth. It also appears to affect the thyroid, potentially causing hormonal disruptions and delayed puberty.

It doesn’t stop there. Some people who consume chlorine dioxide also develop cerebral salt wasting syndrome, a condition where the kidneys lose too much sodium, leading to excessive urination, dehydration and dangerously low blood volume.

Skin contact isn’t safe either. Chlorine dioxide can irritate the skin, and lab studies show it can kill skin cells at high concentrations. People who’ve used it to treat fungal infections have ended up with chemical dermatitis instead.

Chlorine dioxide can be useful for disinfecting hospital tools, dental equipment and water supplies. But that doesn’t mean it belongs in your body. Many of its supposed “benefits” come from lab studies or animal research – not from safe, approved human trials.

There’s no evidence that drinking it cures any disease. There’s overwhelming evidence that it can harm or kill you.

So, if you’re tempted by a product that promises miracles with science-y language and zero regulation, take a step back. The risks are very real – and very dangerous.

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

– ref. From ‘MMS’ to ‘aerobic oxygen’, why drinking bleach has become a dangerous wellness trend – https://theconversation.com/from-mms-to-aerobic-oxygen-why-drinking-bleach-has-become-a-dangerous-wellness-trend-260761

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Ford, Professor of Biology, University of Portsmouth

England’s privatised water industry may one day be considered a textbook case study of failed corporate responsibility, regulation and governance. The Cunliffe review, the recent report into England’s privatised water industry, concluded that the financial regulator, OfWat, needs to be disbanded and a new water regulator will be introduced.

For that to work effectively, better pollution monitoring and more clearly defined pollution incident criteria are essential. While politicians and water companies have claimed to be reducing pollution incidences, they might not strictly be tackling sources of pollution, so communications must be carefully scrutinised for disinformation.

The UK’s environment minister Steve Reed MP has described the water industry as “broken”. The public have rising water bills. Water companies owe over £60 billion in debts and have left the country with uncertain water security in the face of climate change.

The Environment Agency (EA) in England recently announced that serious pollution incidents in 2024 rose by 60% to 75 from 47 in the previous year. The EA classifies pollution incidents using a four-point scale called the common incident classification scheme. Trained EA officers consider the evidence reported via their incident hotline to assess its credibility and severity.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

---

Category 1 is for major incidents, 2 for significant, 3 for minor incidents and 4 for no impact. Category 1 and 2 typically involve visible signs of dead fish floating. For salmon, if more than 10 adult or 100 young fish are dead, this is category 1. With fewer than ten adult and 100 young fish dead, it’s category 2.

No dead fish, no serious problem? The EA can also record damage on protected habitats as “pollution incidents” but these are harder to substantiate without investigative research that takes time and money.

Last year, more than 450,000 sewage discharges were recorded by event duration monitors. These are devices fitted to the end of overflow pipes that indicate when and for how long they have been discharging.

These discharges represent 3.6 million hours of untreated sewage going into our rivers and coasts. These contain chemical contaminants including pharmaceuticals, detergents and human pathogens. Only 75 incidents were recorded as serious or significant in 2024. Another 2,726 were classed as minor.

So lots of sewage discharges are not being classified as pollution incidents, despite containing pollutants. The EA advises its investigating officers to “record substantiated incidents that result in no environmental impact, or where the impact cannot be confirmed, as a category 4”.

The EA has been criticised for turning up late to 74% of category 1 and 2 pollution incidents and for being pressured to ignore low-level pollution – all claims that they have denied. However, they admit they are constrained by finances. Any new regulator must be adequately resourced and independent.

In their recent report into pollution incidences, the EA states that they respond to all category 1 and 2 (serious and significant) water industry incidents and will be increasing their attendance at category 3 (minor) incidents. They highlight that more inspections will identify more issues. This shows some acceptance that the more incidents they attend, the more would be substantiated or recorded appropriately.

Most sewage discharges would not have been reported to, or recorded by, the EA as pollution incidents because they were permitted discharges from combined stormwater overflows. Water companies are allowed to discharge untreated wastewater under exceptional rainfall or snowfall conditions to prevent sewage backing up through the pipes.

Extra water flow in rivers from rainfall is meant to dilute chemical contaminants in wastewater. However, some discharges can last days or weeks. The EA is currently investigating whether water companies have been breaching their permits and discharging untreated wastewater when there is low or even no rainfall.

What counts as pollution?

The UN classifies pollution as “presence of substances and energy (for example, light and heat) in environmental media (air, water, land) whose nature, location, or quantity produces undesirable environmental effects”. This definition differs markedly from the EA’s working definition of pollution incidents.

Many sewage discharges containing low concentrations of pollutants won’t kill fish but might still be harmful to fish larvae or small insects, for example.

However, the broad picture from EA data is that invertebrate communities at least are in a better state than they were three decades ago before wastewater treatment plants were upgraded following the EU’s Urban Wastewater Directive.

Some pollutants bioaccumulate through the food chain, so they become concentrated in top predators such as orcas. Some chemicals mimic reproductive hormones even in low concentrations and can feminise fish, for example. High levels of nutrients from agriculture and sewage in rivers can cause fungal diseases in seagrass meadows.

Other families of chemicals build up in wildlife and people, such as persistent “forever chemicals”, much of which comes from wastewater discharges. Continued discharges of antibiotics into waterways might not be classified as pollution incidents but still pose a substantial risk to human and ecosystem health through bacteria developing antibiotic resistance.

The government has just committed to cut sewage pollution by 50% by December 2029 based on 2024 data. But it’s not yet clear whether these involve cutting the frequency of discharges, the duration or both.

This data could also be manipulated so that a large number of small discharges can be consolidated into one official discharge event. Currently, the volume of discharges from stormwater overflows isn’t known. Without this vital data we can’t ascertain the risk posed by their contaminants.

---

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.

---

Alex Ford receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), EU, charities and industry including water companies.

– ref. No wonder England’s water needs cleaning up – most sewage discharges aren’t even classified as pollution incidents – https://theconversation.com/no-wonder-englands-water-needs-cleaning-up-most-sewage-discharges-arent-even-classified-as-pollution-incidents-261502