Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marie Inger Dam, Researcher, Biotechnology, Lund University

A single “sexy” gene could help us combat one of the world’s most destructive fruit pests. By deleting the gene that lets female moths produce their mating scent, colleagues and I created an “unsexy” moth – and showed one way to turn insect attraction into a powerful pest control tool.

You’ve probably seen moths flittering around a bright lamppost on a balmy summer night. Those same insects, in their larval form, are the worms that burrow into your apples and peaches, making them serious pests in agriculture.

Moths are usually controlled with chemical pesticides, but pests evolve resistance and these sprays also harm bees and other pollinators. We need new and more sustainable methods to protect important crops targeted by moth larvae, like apples, maize, tomatoes and rice.

In a new study published in the Journal of Chemical Ecology, colleagues and I have demonstrated a way to unravel sexual communication in insects and provide a more sustainable alternative to pesticides. It seems we can stop moths by using their natural instincts against them.

Moths find their mates through chemical communication. Female moths release a species-specific pheromone, which males can detect and follow over long distances.

Farmers have long used synthetic versions of these pheromones to lure male moths away from females so that they don’t reproduce. But the problem is, every species has its own unique blend of pheromones, and replicating the exact recipe in a factory can be costly.

To achieve pheromone-based control on a large-scale, we need to understand how insects make them in the first place – and find the genes responsible.

How we found the sexy gene

Our study focused on the oriental fruit moth (Grapholita molesta), a serious pest on peaches, apples and other fruit. We wanted to identify the gene responsible for making its pheromone.

Pheromones are made from fatty acids by a specific enzyme. To find the genetic material responsible for that enzyme, we needed to identify the fatty acid, the enzyme and eventually the gene.

The fatty acids from which moth pheromones are derived are the same ones that all organisms make in abundance – like the fats in cooking oils and butter.

We first found the small fatty acid that served as the raw material for the moths’ scent, using a technique called gas chromatography, which separates fatty acids based on their size. When we placed this particular fatty acid onto the moth’s pheromone gland, it was converted into the pheromone, confirming we had the right starting point.

Next, we needed to find the exact enzyme that turned that specific fatty acid into that specific pheromone. The key was a double bond between two carbon atoms – that’s a job done by enzymes called desaturases. Searching the moth’s DNA we found many desaturase genes, but only one that was active in females but not in males. This looked like the right gene.

Creating an unsexy moth

To test the gene’s function, we used Crispr – a precise gene-editing tool sometimes described as “genetic scissors” – to delete the suspected desaturase gene in moth eggs. When the moths grew into adults, females without the gene could no longer produce their pheromone, confirming it as the crucial link in their sexual communication.

Silencing this single gene meant we’d effectively created an “unsexy” moth – one that couldn’t hope to attract a mate. Our method can also be applied to different species, including other pest moths that make similar pheromones.

Pest control with insect genes

Chemical pesticides remain the main defence against crop pests, but resistance is spreading fast and pesticides are linked to soil contamination, pollinator declines and more.

Pheromone-based pest control avoids these problems. When synthetic pheromones are spread in a field or orchard, males become confused because they follow the synthetic trails instead of those made by the female moth, reducing their breeding success.

Our “unsexy” moths helped us identify the exact gene behind this mating signal. Knowing which gene produces the pheromone means we can now reproduce the pheromone outside the insect – for example, by inserting the gene into yeast or plants that act as “biofactories”.

These engineered organisms can then produce the pheromone naturally and cheaply, the same way we use genetically modified yeast to make medicines like insulin.

Our discovery connects lab research to real-world pest management: by decoding the moth’s love signal, we’ve taken a step towards greener, gene-based production of pheromones that could one day replace chemical pesticides.

Marie Inger Dam is a co-inventor on several patent applications relating to pheromone production.

– ref. We created an ‘unsexy’ moth that could be the key to greener pest control – https://theconversation.com/we-created-an-unsexy-moth-that-could-be-the-key-to-greener-pest-control-266312

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Neil Ward, Professor of Rural and Regional Development at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia

In 2022, six days before Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine and destabilised energy and food supplies, my colleagues and I started building a network of researchers, practitioners and policymakers to identify ways to create a more sustainable future for the UK food system. Three years later and this network has more than 3,000 members.

The UK’s food system is facing mounting pressures from the effects of climate change, increasing geopolitical instability and concerns about its impact on economic productivity and the environment. So how can we strengthen the resilience of our system when the future looks so uncertain?

Sticking with the status quo is not an option. Large-scale change is inevitable over the next two decades, especially as the effects of climate change continue to unfold.

We have developed four plausible scenarios for what the UK food system might look like in a net zero 2050, each with different socio-economic conditions.

What if Trump returned to power or not? What if geopolitics became more, or less, unstable? What would happen if the rule-based system of international trade broke down or was strengthened? We used these scenarios to stretch thinking beyond business-as-usual assumptions, and analysed the implications for food production, consumption and land use.

---

Read more:
By changing our diets now, we can avoid the food chaos that climate change is bringing

---

The food system accounts for about a quarter of the emissions produced within the UK. This proportion will grow in the coming decades as energy, transport and buildings steadily decarbonise.

Our modelling yielded some inescapable home truths. We will need to change not just how we farm, but what farming produces and what we eat. And land use will need to change to strengthen carbon sequestration along with our ability to adapt to climate change. Three types of transformation are required.

First, strengthening the resilience of UK farming will require that farmers have a clear direction of travel, as they did after the second world war. Then, a technological revolution supported by guaranteed prices helped raised productivity. Now, adopting low-carbon technologies will only get us so far, and we will need to manage what is produced and consumed in a more joined up way, if we are to become less reliant on imports while freeing up some land for other vital uses.

Farm livestock production takes up 85% of agricultural land when growing animal feed is factored in. That limits the scope to strengthen the resilience of the system. Radically expanding horticultural production, for example, by growing more vegetables and salad crops could significantly improve our food self-sufficiency.

Second, farmers and landowners will be in the vanguard of sequestering carbon and helping the UK adapt to climate change through land use change – by planting trees and managing land to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The UK is much less wooded than the rest of Europe, but growing more native trees will bring benefits for farming, including shelter for animals and less soil erosion, and for rural economies through green jobs.

We need to more actively plan land-use change to better balance food production with other valuable environmental services from the land. For example, a more mixed and wooded farm landscape can reduce flood risk and water pollution. Smarter, more integrated land use means managing land for multiple benefits rather than narrow goals.

Third, encouraging dietary change can bring opportunities for growing and marketing new foodstuffs and help reduce the negative economic consequences of unhealthy diets. More fruit, vegetables and legumes are a win-win for people’s health and planetary sustainability, as the recent report from the EAT Lancet Commission demonstrated.

At a junction

Our network has produced a roadmap with phased measures through the 2020s, 2030s and 2040s.

In the two decades after the second world war, the UK food system transformed. Today, system-wide changes are happening in the energy and transport sectors. Now, it’s time to plan the transformation of our food system.

That starts with strengthening the resilience of our farming in the face of climate change and geopolitical uncertainties. Our three core transformations would bring social and economic benefits, improved public health and environmental quality – as well as a more diverse and attractive countryside.

---

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.

---

Neil Ward receives funding from UK Research and Innovation.

He is a member of the Labour Party and the National Trust.

– ref. Three ways to make the UK’s food system more resilient – according to new report by 150 experts – https://theconversation.com/three-ways-to-make-the-uks-food-system-more-resilient-according-to-new-report-by-150-experts-265603

Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Hastings Dunn, Professor of International Politics in the Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham

Following the Middle East summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Donald Trump’s Gaza ceasefire deal has been compared in the media to the Good Friday agreement which brought an end to the conflict in Northern Ireland and the Dayton accords which achieved a (so far) lasting peace in the Balkans. The fact is that Trump’s deal differs significantly from both.

It is largely imposed from the outside. It’s highly transactional in nature. And it lacks a clear blueprint as to what happens next.

But it’s worth noting that one of the defining things about the US president as a politician is the way that he will typically make an exaggerated claim about an achievement which then sets the framing for the rest of the world to react to. So he boasted of his ceasefire deal that it was “not only the end of war, this is the end of the age of terror and death”.

Others have run with the Good Friday agreement comparison. The Christian Science Monitor asserted on October 2, the day after the US president unveiled his 20-point plan: “Mr. Trump’s blueprint rests on the hope that what worked in Northern Ireland will work in Gaza, and on one assumption above all: that Israelis and Palestinians are ready to accept that continued violence won’t get either of them what they want.”

This, of course, is no small assumption, nor is there anything to suggest it has any foundation.

What has been agreed between Israel and Hamas is an end to the fighting and the release of prisoners and hostages. But serious obstacles remain. The disarmament of Hamas is by no means a done deal (in fact it looks less likely by the day).

Meanwhile the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza also looks to be a non-starter and the plan’s text remains very vague as to the extent the Israel Defense Forces will move out of Gaza, if at all. Questions of governance, the agreement of a process towards a Palestinian state and the cost of reconstruction have yet to be resolved.

But the most important hurdle in the way of this ceasefire deal holding firm is the profound lack of trust between the parties.

Set against these obstacles, the ceasefire and return of the hostages and release of Palestinian prisoners, momentous though these two things have been, represent the low-hanging fruit of any end to the conflict. They should be seen as the first steps on a difficult and uncertain diplomatic path that has been characterised by decades of setbacks and political failure.

By contrast the Dayton and Northern Ireland peace processes that led to those agreements were painstakingly negotiated between all the parties in advance through detailed diplomacy and resulted in complex power-sharing arrangements. They were guaranteed by intricate governing structures that addressed the long-standing sectarian divisions through detailed constitutional changes and new institutions.

Aspiration is not agreement

No such details are part of “The Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity”. This, it turns out, is a 462-word document signed in Egypt by a hastily arranged group of international leaders that notably did not include representatives from Hamas or Israel.

It states: “We, the undersigned, welcome the truly historic commitment and implementation by all parties to the Trump Peace Agreement, ending more than two years of profound suffering and loss – opening a new chapter for the region defined by hope, security, and a shared vision for peace and prosperity.”

While laudable, aspiration is no substitute for detailed agreement and at this point Trump’s claims appear to be a case of premature congratulation.

Given how tentative the peace agreement is and the fact that October’s ceasefire looks remarkably similar to that which was agreed and then breached in January 2025, why is this being treated with such fanfare? Is it really, to quote Trump, “the historic dawn of a new Middle East”?

Beyond the obvious fact that Trump loves the adulation that has come with this peace process, there are also other political calculations in play. For the US to be openly and obviously committed to the peace process makes it more difficult for the opposing parties to reopen hostilities without the risk of incurring US displeasure for ruining their achievement.

The more it is hyped as part of this theatre the more violators might reap the wrath of a president who felt his achievement and chances of a Nobel peace prize had been undermined.

What’s in it for other leaders?

The presence of so many world leaders at Trump’s peace summit requires a different explanation. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, UK prime minister, Keir Starmer and Canada’s Mark Carney might be forgiven for wondering why their presence was required as extras in this performative political theatre.

Behind their smiles and applause, they must have been acutely aware that such optics are damaging to the way they are viewed by their domestic public and press – and that their presence there will be criticised as evidence of supplication to Trump’s adulation. The presence in Sharm el Sheikh of Hungary’s Victor Orban added to the impression that Trump had gathered what he considers his fan club to Egypt.

But why they were willing to attend is equally revealing. As well as being seen to be supportive of the peace process and being keen to add to its momentum to raise the cost of its failure, Carney, Macron and Starmer are also playing a longer game. They perhaps hope to nudge Trump in the direction of further acts of international leadership.

Most notably, they are keen for Trump to embrace his self-identification as a “peacemaker” in order to pressure the Russian president Vladimir Putin to end his aggressive war against Ukraine.

Like most second-term US presidents Trump is concerned for his legacy. If flattering his ego into directing his energies towards this end achieves this goal, then their part in this iteration of the Trump Show should probably be judged by history as worthwhile.

David Hastings Dunn has previously received funding from the ESRC, the Gerda Henkel Foundation, the Open Democracy Foundation and has previously been both a NATO and a Fulbright Fellow.

– ref. Egypt peace summit showed that Donald Trump’s Gaza deal is more showbiz extravaganza than the ‘dawn of a new Middle East’ – https://theconversation.com/egypt-peace-summit-showed-that-donald-trumps-gaza-deal-is-more-showbiz-extravaganza-than-the-dawn-of-a-new-middle-east-267472

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aimee Grant, Associate Professor in Public Health and Wellcome Trust Career Development Fellow, Swansea University

Around a third of autistic people – children and adults alike – are unable to share what they want using speech.

You may have heard the term “non-verbal” to describe them, but that’s nearly always inaccurate. Many people without reliable speech still make noises which those close to them can interpret. Others use a small number of words or phrases.

You may also have heard of the term “selective mutism”. It means being unable to speak in some situations, and isn’t limited to autistic people. The NHS says that it is linked to anxiety in children.

But the word “selective” can be misleading. It doesn’t mean someone is choosing not to speak. For many autistic people, speaking can be impossible, extremely difficult, or even exhausting. So called “selective mutism” also isn’t limited to childhood.

For this reason, experts and those impacted increasingly use the term “semi-speaking”. It covers a wide range of people, from those who can say a few words now and then, to those who can speak fluently most of the time but not always.

Speech ability can also change depending on the environment. For example, being in a loud and bright space like a hospital or being in pain, may make it harder to speak. Many autistic people find it harder – and more unpleasant – to speak on the telephone.

Being able to communicate is crucial, not least because it provides a way of sharing needs. Not having your needs met is associated with distress. In autistic people this can lead to meltdowns, and it can lead to “burnout” in the long-term, which is associated with a loss of skills.

Alternatives to speech

When speech is impossible or too tiring, a variety of augmentative and alternative communication tools can help. Sign languages, including simplified languages like Makaton, can be used. Although because they rely on a communication partner who understands the language, they can be ineffective.

Paper-based methods, such as “picture exchange”, use cards to represent concepts or objects, such as “food” or a specific object, such as “banana”. But these can be frustrating. Imagine having to sort through a pile of cards to find the right word before speaking, and knowing that someone else chose those words for you.

The advent of tablets and smartphones has revolutionised augmentative and alternative communication applications. These apps allow the user to press a button representing words, or type messages that the device reads aloud. Both Android and Apple offer simple versions built into their systems.

But some autistic people do not find any of these strategies accessible. They may need a communication partner to work with them using a letter board to spell out words. While some critics claim that partners may falsely attribute words to the autistic person, eye-tracking research suggests this is not true.

Research shows that alternative communication methods benefit autistic adolescents and adults. But the majority of autistic people who struggle to speak still lack access to effective communication tools. This is probably in part due to a lack of speech and language therapists who could support parents and carers to better facilitate communication.

A common misconception is that non-speaking autistic people don’t understand or have nothing to communicate. But a significant body of research shows these autistic people are literate and have thoughts. Studies with mothers of non-speaking children demonstrate that deep connections can exist without spoken words.

It’s essential that autistic people, regardless of age, have a way to communicate. Spoken words should not be valued above other methods, and alternative communication should never be taken away by parents, teachers, or caregivers. For many autistic people, using alternatives to speech is not a choice – it’s a lifeline.

Aimee Grant receives funding from The Wellcome Trust, MRC and ESRC.

– ref. Why some autistic people don’t speak – https://theconversation.com/why-some-autistic-people-dont-speak-263244

Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Flint, Professor of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield

Between 2007 and 2010 Southwark council licensed 76 films to be shot on the high-rise Heygate estate in London’s Walworth area, providing a gritty backdrop for dramas of poverty and crime. This “theatre of stigma”, a term coined by historian of modern Britain Holly Smith, had come to dominate the narrative of high-rise social housing.

But it didn’t chime with the reality of those who live in these places. A decade earlier in Liverpool, mostly elderly residents from the city’s high-rise tower blocks attempted to “challenge perceptions of high-rise living” through the creation of Tenantspin television productions.

The slippery relationship between the representation and reality of high rises and their residents is one that Smith identifies from the earliest case study in her book Up in the Air:
A History of High-Rise Britain.

The history of the social housing high-rise has seen them exist in many forms, with varying designs and organisational structures. She also offers a nuanced account of the many contradictions in the high-rise, which “has signified modernity and decay, community and exclusivity, privilege and disadvantage, luxury and privation”.

Even during the boom periods of construction of social housing between 1945 and 1976, flats made up only a fifth of the dwellings built and the majority were in buildings of four storeys or less. Given how few high-rises exist, it is remarkable how these buildings became such a powerful symbol of social progress and of the problems and evolution of the welfare state.

There have always been those who romanticised high-rise living. For instance, the French architect Le Corbusier called it a “flirtation with the stars”. However, such sentiments were always offset by the pragmatic necessities of local authorities.

High-rise housing was seen as a crucible for forging a new welfare state offering radical new ways of living. The book illustrates how demolished tower blocks came to be seen by some commentators as the tombstones or ruins of this dream.

Smith makes the important point that it is not the high-rise’s design that is inherently broken, but the projections that we put on it. She contrasts, for example, the popular cultural denigration of high-rise council housing with New Labour’s portrayal of new, lavish, expensive and overwhelmingly private sector high-rise housing. These buildings became emblematic of thriving cities in a prosperous Britain.

A key contribution of the book is to get “within the walls” of high-rise Britain and document the lives of its residents. Smith documents their feelings about these complex buildings, which range from affection to ambivalence, to aversion.

One tenant reminds us how these towers were much-loved homes full of memories and friends, where individuals and families were powerfully invested, despite their frustrations and limitations: “During 35 years you become attached to the four walls even if they’re not very good walls.”

As Smith argues, the major failures in high-rise construction and management were also a devaluing of the lives and voices of their residents.

Smith avoids romanticising high-rise council housing, and tackles issues such as racism and a “welfare nationalism”, which is the prioritising of housing allocations for white British nationals.

However, one of her main goals is to debunk the myth, perpetuated by Margaret Thatcher and others, that high-rise housing resulted in passive tenants lacking initiative. Instead, she documents how local and national action by tenants was consistently creative, resourceful and visionary, leading to forms of democratisation, participation and cooperation.

Tragedy in towers

The failure to understand this is tragically illustrated in the two disasters that powerfully bookmark a key period in this history. The first is the partial collapse of the Ronan Point tower block in east London in 1968 only two months after it opened, which killed four people. The second is the Grenfell Tower fire in central London in 2017 in which at least 72 people lost their lives.

These disasters were the product of state neglect, corporate wrongdoing and inadequate regulation. There are depressing parallels between them and how the state responded each time.

In 1968, the investigation into what went wrong at Ronan Point found that a gas explosion had been able to blow out three load-bearing precast concrete wall panels. This triggered the catastrophic collapse of a corner of the tower.

The minister of housing, Anthony Greenwood, directed that the inquiry’s “terms of reference should be carefully considered to ensure that they implied no blame on the part of the local authority”. And, despite the incident exposing the vulnerability in the design, the government continued to approve the precast panels so as to cause no alarm to residents living in similar buildings.

The Ministry of Housing and Local Government told tenants to “leave the worrying to us”. Smith describes years of tenants raising concerns about potential future disasters. Tenant banners stating that “we live in fear” were a chilling foretelling of what was to come at Grenfell and after.

That is the key message from this book: that there are lessons from the history of high-rise housing in Britain about safety, investment, dispossession and the perspectives of tenants, that still have not been fully learned.

Delivering good quality, suitable and affordable accommodation for all has always been daunting. It remains to be seen whether we can collectively rise to the challenge.

Up in the Air:A History of High Rise Britain will be published by Verso Books on October 28 2025

---

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.

---

John Flint is not currently receiving funding from an organisation. He has previously received research funding from the UKRI, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Nuffield Foundation, a number of UK Government Departments, the Scottish Executive/ Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and local authorities He is a Trustee of the Housing Studies Charitable Trust.

– ref. How the high-rise tower block came to symbolise the contradictions of modern Britain – https://theconversation.com/how-the-high-rise-tower-block-came-to-symbolise-the-contradictions-of-modern-britain-267047

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Julia Shaw, Research Associate, Criminal Psychology, UCL

After years of trying to understand the minds of people who hurt others, I have recently turned my attention as a criminal psychologist from violent crimes to the less well-known world of green crime.

While researching for my new book, Green Crime: Inside the Minds of the People Destroying the Planet and How to Stop Them, I wanted to understand those who pose a threat to us on a much larger scale, at times even an existential level. Why do people choose to destroy the Earth and what can we do to stop them?

When I tell people that I am interested in environmental crimes, they often query two things. First, some ask whether I’m talking about environmental activists. No, people who take to the streets to raise awareness for the planet, even those who commit crimes like vandalising a building, are committing crimes for the environment, not against it. It is a problem that so many people think of the protesters who want to protect the planet before they think of those destroying it.

Second, people often conflate environmental crime and environmental harm. In other contexts, we understand that not all harms are crimes. For example, we know the difference between an aggressive argument and murder. Both are harmful, but only one is a crime. The same goes for environmental issues. There are many things that a company or person can legally do that are harmful to the Earth but are not crimes. Often it is only the most serious forms of environmental harm that are criminalised.

An environmental crime is when someone breaks a law related to destroying or contaminating our earth, air or water, or killing off biodiversity like trees and animals. These green crimes include acts like burning down a protected nature reserve, poaching an endangered species, or releasing toxic untreated water into rivers and lakes that makes people sick.

Alberto Ayala, executive director at the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, exposed what is alleged to be one of the biggest corporate fraud and environmental crime cases of all time: the dieselgate scandal in 2015 when diesel cars were found to be emitting far more toxic air pollution on the roads than when they passed regulatory tests.

When I interviewed him, Ayala made it clear to me that we need people to check that companies aren’t poisoning our air, or selling us things that make us sick or that might explode. Industry has repeatedly proven that it isn’t always going to have our, or the planet’s, best interests in mind. Regulators make sure there are guardrails.

It’s also not just companies we need to pay attention to. A lot of large-scale environmental crime is committed by organised crime syndicates. Some are armed and murder people in the process of committing environmental crimes.

Undercover agents, like those working with the Environmental Investigation Agency (a charity based in London and New York), infiltrate these organised crime networks. Agents gain the criminals’ trust, catch them on hidden cameras, and give evidence bundles to local police or Interpol so they can further investigate and press charges. Environmental lawyers then make sure those charges are turned into convictions.

Once these environmental criminals are caught, there are researchers who help shed light on their mindsets and motivations. Examples include Vidette Bester, who studies illegal miners, and Ted Leggett, who has led research for the UN’s report into world wildlife crime.

Six pillars

By synthesising research like theirs with wider work from the social sciences, I have developed a psychological profile of environmental criminals. I call it the six pillars model. The profile helps to show that their motivations are more nuanced, and at times relatable, than it first appears.

People commit green crimes because they feel it is easier to do something illegal than to do it legally (ease), because they feel they will get away with it (impunity), and because they take more than they need – and take it away from others (greed). Environmental criminals also convince themselves that what they are doing isn’t that bad (rationalisation) and that everyone else is doing it too (conformity). Feeling like there is no other option, either because the person is destitute or because they feel incredibly pressured at work, is also an important factor (desperation).

By understanding these factors we can hopefully recognise the moments when we are at risk of becoming environmental criminals ourselves, or of making other harmful decisions. In the fight for nature, it remains important to reduce our environmental footprint by choosing more plant-based meals, avoiding unnecessary flying, buying vintage rather than new, and insulating our homes.

I do all of these things because I know that not only do they help reduce the harm to nature I personally contribute to, but also because I want to normalise these behaviours in my own social circle. That being said, I also know that me doing these things won’t make nearly as much difference as catching environmental criminals.

We need to include green crime in conversations about how to save our planet. And we need to better acknowledge, and celebrate, the people who are holding environmental criminals accountable.

This article features reference to a book that has been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on the link and go on to buy something from bookshop.org, The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

---

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.

---

Julia Shaw 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. Criminal psychologists are profiling a different kind of killer – environmental offenders – https://theconversation.com/criminal-psychologists-are-profiling-a-different-kind-of-killer-environmental-offenders-262633

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joseph Mellors, Research Associate in Management and Marketing, University of Westminster

If you ask an AI service like ChatGPT or Google Gemini to recommend a destination for your next summer holiday, it will happily provide you with a list of attractive destinations. But many of them will be very familiar.

Paris, Venice, Santorini and Barcelona are all likely to feature, because the AI algorithm is nudging you towards the same old places. The illusion of personalised advice is what makes people less likely to question it – and why AI risks intensifying overtourism.

And the use of AI for holiday inspiration is growing fast. A recent survey found it has doubled in the past year, with uptake strongest among younger travellers. Nearly one in five Britons aged 25–34 now turn to AI tools to plan their trips.

In my own research, I analysed ChatGPT’s travel recommendations and found that it gravitates towards the most visited destinations by default. Lesser-known or more sustainable locations only tend to appear when travellers explicitly ask for them.

This could easily exacerbate the overtourism which is already testing the limits of many residents in highly visited places. In Mallorca, locals are demanding limits on flights and holiday rentals, while Venice introduced a day-tripper fee in an attempt to manage visitor pressure.

AI will quickly add to that pressure if millions of holiday makers make plans using the same online filters and tips. These algorithms are trained on what’s most visible online – reviews, blogs and social media hashtags – so quickly focus on what’s already popular.

And if travellers simply accept the defaults, the result will be more of the same, and more strain on places already under pressure.

But consumers aren’t entirely powerless. With a bit more intent, AI research can yield different and fascinating destinations.

My research suggests that discerning travellers need to start by asking better and more searching questions. Generic prompts such as “the best beaches in Europe” or “beautiful city” lead straight to the same results.

Instead, try something like: “Which towns are reachable by train but overlooked in most guides?” Or maybe: “Where can I go in July that’s not a major tourist hotspot?”

Push the system, ask follow-up questions and scroll past the first few results. That’s where the surprises often lie.

You could also change your timings. AI tends to focus on peak season because that’s when the most online reviews are posted and the most travel content is published.

Asking about off-peak months is a simple way to beat this built-in bias, so perhaps specify the Italian lakes in October or the Greek islands in May.

Or ask AI to dig a little deeper for its source material. AI draws heavily on English-language content, which favours international hot spots, but is also capable of finding independent travel blogs or local tourism cooperatives.

Type in something like “Spanish-language blogs about Asturias” or “community-run agritourism in Slovenia” and you could unearth something rewarding and off the beaten track. This is the kind of thing that can really unearth the vast potential benefits of AI and its capabilities.

The road less travelled

It could also easily help you to compare the costs and timings of various travel options, and assess the carbon footprint of your journey. It just requires a little bit of digging to get past the surface layer.

After all, these systems are designed to serve up the most obvious and well-documented suggestions, not what’s diverse or sustainable. (Although the same technology could just as easily be coded slightly differently to show rail travel before air for example, or to prioritise locally run independent businesses.)

So while the convenience of AI is seductive, it can also be predictable. If your holiday plans could be copy-pasted from Instagram, any sense of adventure can easily get left behind.

Consider using AI as a starting point, not the final word. Guidebooks, local media and conversations with residents restore the unpredictability that makes travel memorable.

By asking sharper questions, shifting their timing, checking footprints and seeking local voices, travellers can use AI as a tool for discovery rather than congestion. Every prompt is a signal to the system about what matters.

The next time you ask ChatGPT where to go, make it work a bit harder. Test it, argue with it and use its extraordinary capabilities to find somewhere new – or settle for the same crowded itinerary as everyone else.

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

– ref. How to use AI to guide your holiday plans – by a tourism expert – https://theconversation.com/how-to-use-ai-to-guide-your-holiday-plans-by-a-tourism-expert-267277

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Colleen Murrell, Chair of the Editorial Board, and Full Professor in Journalism, Dublin City University

The world’s media are currently busy recording the tales of released Israeli hostages, freed Palestinian prisoners and their families after a ceasefire came into effect for the war in Gaza. But they are doing so while still being held at a distance from the centre of the story.

Foreign journalists have been banned by Israel from entering the Gaza Strip independently since the start of the war. And senior members of the international media are not optimistic that access to Gaza will change any time soon.

I asked Phil Chetwynd, global news director at Agence France-Presse (AFP), why he thought Israel was so insistent at keeping out external reporters. He told me:

Any situation where independent media are kept out or targeted gives rise to questions about the motivation. We are told it is because of our safety, but we have been covering wars non-stop for the past 100 years. We are ready to assume the risks. Given the extraordinary high death toll of journalists in Gaza, we have to presume it is a deliberate attempt to stop media revealing the full impact of the war and the Israeli military campaign.

---

Read more:
How Israel continues to censor journalists covering the war in Gaza

---

He reflected on how AFP would like to plan its coverage.

Our Palestinian journalists have done an amazing job, but all our Gaza staff journalists were evacuated over a year ago. They would like to return. The Palestinian freelancers who work for us have also done incredible work, but they are absolutely exhausted after two years of conflict. So we need journalists to be able to enter the Gaza Strip – I do not make a distinction between Palestinian and international.

He added:

I think it is important to have fresh eyes on the situation on the ground. I would also say it is sometimes easier for international journalists to report more freely on the activities of Hamas.

Reporting on Gaza

For the past two years, the only access Israel has provided for foreign media to enter Gaza has been under embedded conditions with the Israeli military. In the weeks following the October 7 Hamas attacks in 2023, a number of British reporters including from the BBC and Channel 4 News did avail of this restricted coverage. American correspondents and news agencies have also taken up offers.

But this access has been sporadic and has favoured Israeli journalists. In August 2025, an ABC Australia team managed to secure an “embed” trip to the Kerem Shalom aid site in southern Gaza after repeated requests were turned down.

In his report, ABC’s Matthew Doran pointed out that embeds are “highly choreographed and controlled”. However, Doran explained that he accepted the trip as “an opportunity to gain access to a site Israel is using to prosecute its case it is trying to feed the population of Gaza – an argument the humanitarian community, and world leaders, argue is full of holes”.

Doran noted that the small embed trip included an Israeli media outlet, an Israeli writer and “a handful of social media influencers”, all eager to post pro-Israeli sentiments. Israel has consistently accused the international media of succumbing to Hamas propaganda.

A number of initiatives have been tried over the past 24 months to enable external reporters access to Gaza. The Foreign Press Association (FPA) in Jerusalem has challenged the restrictions in Israel’s supreme court.

On September 11, the FPA noted that it had been a full year since it submitted its second petition to the court. But despite the urgency, it said “the court has repeatedly agreed to the [Israeli] government’s request for delays and postponed one hearing after another”.

---

Read more:
Gaza: high numbers of journalists are being killed but it’s hard to prove they’re being targeted

---

Petitions have also been sent to the Israeli authorities with the backing of international media organisations and groups such as Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). Both of these have coupled their campaigns with calls for an immediate end to the killing of Palestinian journalists in Gaza who have been the world’s only eyes on the conflict as witnessed by those under fire.

According to the CPJ’s Jodie Ginsberg, writing in the Guardian in August, more than 192 journalists and media workers have been killed in Gaza since the start of the war. This number includes 26 journalists whom the CPJ believes have been targeted deliberately in “the deadliest conflict for journalists that we have ever documented”.

Israel has denied targeting journalists, except in cases where it has accused particular Palestinian journalists of being terrorists. The CPJ has argued in return that Israel should stop “its longstanding practice of labelling journalists as terrorists or engaging in militant activity, without providing sufficient and reliable evidence to support these claims”.

As recently as September, the BBC along with AFP, Associated Press and Reuters launched a film calling on the Israeli authorities to allow the international press access to Gaza. It noted the media’s part in informing the world about the D-Day landings, the Vietnam war, the Ethiopian famine, the Tiananmen Square massacre, the Rwandan genocide, the Syrian refugee crisis and the current conflict in Ukraine.

David Dimbleby’s narration calls on Israel to allow international reporters in, “to share the burden with Palestinian reporters there so we can all bring the facts to the world”.

But looking at the current stalemate, a cynic might ponder if the the first open access to Gaza will be to the Washington press caravanserai that will surely be allowed in to document the rebuilding of Gaza into a Trump-envisioned riviera.

Colleen Murrell has received funding from Irish regulator Coimisiún na Meán (2021-4) for research for the annual Reuters Digital News Report Ireland.

– ref. Israel is still not allowing international media back into Gaza, despite the ceasefire – https://theconversation.com/israel-is-still-not-allowing-international-media-back-into-gaza-despite-the-ceasefire-267356

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Todd Landman, Professor of Political Science, University of Nottingham

How many people in the UK are victims of modern slavery? At present, we don’t actually know. There is no consensus on the answer to this question, despite the wide interest in finding it, and the tools and data to do so.

Over a decade ago, before the passage of the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, data analysts estimated that there were between 10,000 and 13,000 victims of modern slavery in the UK. Since then, there have been four further estimates between 2014 and 2023, ranging from 8,300 to 136,000.

Why such a huge range? Estimates use different indicators and definitions of modern slavery, as well as different estimation methods.

Several parliamentary inquiries have now been conducted focusing on how the UK can strengthen its response to modern slavery. Part of an effective response is understanding the nature and extent of the issue. And this understanding relies on better methods to produce statistically robust estimates of the scale of the problem.

The UK Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner asked our team of researchers at the University of Nottingham’s Rights Lab to carry out a scoping review of modern slavery estimates.

To do this, we reviewed 46 published studies and 57 data sources, conducted a survey and held workshops with public sector leaders. We identified several methods of estimating modern slavery prevalence in the UK. These can be used depending on the type (or types) of modern slavery and populations that are of interest.

Our report also details how the UK might use existing data in novel and innovative ways, such as producing detailed modern slavery risk and vulnerability maps.

‘Hard to find’ populations

Any robust and statistically sound attempt to estimate the number of victims of modern slavery in the UK confronts what methodologists call “the fundamental problem of unobservability”.

Victims and survivors are a seldom heard, often hidden population comprised of both UK and foreign nationals. The use of force, fraud and coercion that underpin modern slavery are often difficult to detect. They are practices that, while directly experienced, are often not easily observable.

Our review examined studies from around the world that address this problem of hidden populations. Most of the studies we examined carefully follow data collection and data analysis principles to produce robust prevalence estimations for the whole world, for specific countries and cities.

The remit of our review was not to produce a new estimate, but to identify promising methods of estimation. Our findings show that the best methods to date are either “multiple systems estimation”, which analyses multiple overlapping administrative lists of victims, or some combination of sampling and carefully designed surveys. Both involve collecting and analysing data, and draw careful inferences from the data in making their estimations.

For the UK, the original estimation from 2014 adhered most closely to standard principles of data collection and analysis. But since the passage of the Modern Slavery Act in 2015, the picture has changed. The number of offences that qualify as modern slavery has expanded considerably in that time and thus a new estimate is much needed.

While sampling and survey approaches used in other parts of the world produce sound prevalence estimations, no such study using these methods has been done in the UK.

Why counting matters

Official statistics from the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) – the UK government’s framework for identifying victims of modern slavery – show that there have been 21,285 potential victims identified between July 2024 and June 2025. However, these referrals are only for people who are known and have been formally identified. The true number, should a new estimation be produced, is likely to be much higher.

We also know that the referral process itself is highly skewed. Those who took part in our survey and workshops explained that identification varies considerably across police jurisdictions, nationalities and types of offence. These views are corroborated by a new report from the anti-slavery charity Unseen.

While providing a strong foundation, the NRM remains a “convenience sample” from which prevalence estimations and statistical inferences currently remain limited.

---

Read more:
Ten years after the Modern Slavery Act, why has this ‘world-leading’ legislation had so little impact?

---

Our review argues that a slight reform to how data is recorded in the case management system – multiple referrals for the same person should be maintained and not merged into the same record – would enable analysts to provide an up-to-date estimate using multiple systems estimation.

This, along with other studies that focus on particular modern slavery practices for specific subpopulations in the UK, would provide strong evidence on the true number of modern slavery victims. Such analysis would be of benefit to policymakers, law enforcement, academics, charities and survivors themselves.

Todd Landman received funding from the UK Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner (IASC) and from Research England via the Institute for Policy and Engagement at the University of Nottingham.

Vicky Brotherton received funding from the UK Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner (IASC) and from Research England via the Institute for Policy and Engagement at the University of Nottingham.

– ref. Why it is so hard to estimate the number of victims of modern slavery in the UK – https://theconversation.com/why-it-is-so-hard-to-estimate-the-number-of-victims-of-modern-slavery-in-the-uk-266711

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marie Inger Dam, Researcher, Biotechnology, Lund University

A single “sexy” gene could help us combat one of the world’s most destructive fruit pests. By deleting the gene that lets female moths produce their mating scent, colleagues and I created an “unsexy” moth – and showed one way to turn insect attraction into a powerful pest control tool.

You’ve probably seen moths flittering around a bright lamppost on a balmy summer night. Those same insects, in their larval form, are the worms that burrow into your apples and peaches, making them serious pests in agriculture.

Moths are usually controlled with chemical pesticides, but pests evolve resistance and these sprays also harm bees and other pollinators. We need new and more sustainable methods to protect important crops targeted by moth larvae, like apples, maize, tomatoes and rice.

In a new study published in the Journal of Chemical Ecology, colleagues and I have demonstrated a way to unravel sexual communication in insects and provide a more sustainable alternative to pesticides. It seems we can stop moths by using their natural instincts against them.

Moths find their mates through chemical communication. Female moths release a species-specific pheromone, which males can detect and follow over long distances.

Farmers have long used synthetic versions of these pheromones to lure male moths away from females so that they don’t reproduce. But the problem is, every species has its own unique blend of pheromones, and replicating the exact recipe in a factory can be costly.

To achieve pheromone-based control on a large-scale, we need to understand how insects make them in the first place – and find the genes responsible.

How we found the sexy gene

Our study focused on the oriental fruit moth (Grapholita molesta), a serious pest on peaches, apples and other fruit. We wanted to identify the gene responsible for making its pheromone.

Pheromones are made from fatty acids by a specific enzyme. To find the genetic material responsible for that enzyme, we needed to identify the fatty acid, the enzyme and eventually the gene.

The fatty acids from which moth pheromones are derived are the same ones that all organisms make in abundance – like the fats in cooking oils and butter.

We first found the small fatty acid that served as the raw material for the moths’ scent, using a technique called gas chromatography, which separates fatty acids based on their size. When we placed this particular fatty acid onto the moth’s pheromone gland, it was converted into the pheromone, confirming we had the right starting point.

Next, we needed to find the exact enzyme that turned that specific fatty acid into that specific pheromone. The key was a double bond between two carbon atoms – that’s a job done by enzymes called desaturases. Searching the moth’s DNA we found many desaturase genes, but only one that was active in females but not in males. This looked like the right gene.

Creating an unsexy moth

To test the gene’s function, we used Crispr – a precise gene-editing tool sometimes described as “genetic scissors” – to delete the suspected desaturase gene in moth eggs. When the moths grew into adults, females without the gene could no longer produce their pheromone, confirming it as the crucial link in their sexual communication.

Silencing this single gene meant we’d effectively created an “unsexy” moth – one that couldn’t hope to attract a mate. Our method can also be applied to different species, including other pest moths that make similar pheromones.

Pest control with insect genes

Chemical pesticides remain the main defence against crop pests, but resistance is spreading fast and pesticides are linked to soil contamination, pollinator declines and more.

Pheromone-based pest control avoids these problems. When synthetic pheromones are spread in a field or orchard, males become confused because they follow the synthetic trails instead of those made by the female moth, reducing their breeding success.

Our “unsexy” moths helped us identify the exact gene behind this mating signal. Knowing which gene produces the pheromone means we can now reproduce the pheromone outside the insect – for example, by inserting the gene into yeast or plants that act as “biofactories”.

These engineered organisms can then produce the pheromone naturally and cheaply, the same way we use genetically modified yeast to make medicines like insulin.

Our discovery connects lab research to real-world pest management: by decoding the moth’s love signal, we’ve taken a step towards greener, gene-based production of pheromones that could one day replace chemical pesticides.

Marie Inger Dam is a co-inventor on several patent applications relating to pheromone production.

– ref. We turned off moths’ sex signals – this could be the key to greener pest control – https://theconversation.com/we-turned-off-moths-sex-signals-this-could-be-the-key-to-greener-pest-control-266312