Booker shortlist 2025: six novels (mostly) about middle age that are anything but safe and comfortable

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jenni Ramone, Associate Professor of Postcolonial and Global Literatures, Nottingham Trent University

The Times has described the 2025 Booker Prize shortlist as “revenge of the middle-aged author”“. If the phrase sounds derogatory, it isn’t meant that way: the review also describes the shortlist as “novels for grown-ups”, with the prize privileging “maturity over novelty” and supporting “unpretentious, old-fashioned literary fiction”.

This is reinforced by the Booker Prize website, which highlights the previous winner (Kiran Desai) and two previously shortlisted authors (Andrew Miller and David Szalay) on the list, while noting that all six authors have long-established literary careers.

A book prize should reward novelty, though – and the Booker is, after all, a book prize, not an author prize like the Nobel. But if novelty isn’t obvious from the authors themselves, it can be detected in their books.

Their ages should not be a big surprise. Several literary prizes focus on older writers, including the newly launched Pioneer Prize for female writers over 60, established by Bernardine Evaristo to “acknowledge and celebrate pioneering British women writers” in all genres. Evaristo notes that the prize intends to correct the problem that “older women writers tend to be overlooked” – 91-year-old Maureen Duffy was its first recipient.

Perhaps these prizes and Booker nominations respond in part to society’s emphasis on youth, reflected in publishing initiatives such as Granta’s best young novelists, Penguin’s authors under 35 to watch and previously, The New Yorker’s 20 under 40 list.

It will be interesting to see whether the Booker winner this year reflects the suggested trend of overlooking older women writers, or responds to it. Three of the shortlisted authors are women, and according to my students and the bookies’ odds, Desai’s The Loneliness of Sonia and Sunny and Susan Choi’s Flashlight are likely contenders for the prize, with Ben Markovits’ The Rest of Our Lives behind them.

My students were drawn to the specific historical context of Flashlight, which conveys the lives of several generations of a family beginning in 1940s Japan, then moving through suburban America and North Korea. They valued the less-documented migration story, and suggested the mystery fiction aspect added wide appeal.

Markovits’ The Rest of Our Lives was seen as a typical Booker shortlist by my students, who identified the extra-marital affair, the road trip across America, and the internal-monologue narration of the eloquent and thoughtful university lecturer protagonist as factors which might make the book very popular.

Beyond this, the plot shares with Flashlight a fundamental uncertainty, with characters feeling out of place in their own lives. In The Rest of Our Lives, Tom’s life is gradually unbuttoned when he and his wife decide to stay together until their youngest child leaves home, following her affair. Rather than a dramatic upheaval, the narrator decides to undertake a picturesque road trip.

An extra-marital affair is also at the centre of Miller’s The Land in Winter, in which the harsh winter of 1962-63 in England’s West Country forces two couples to confront their uncomfortable relationship dynamics, when they are forced to stay indoors to avoid the weather.

Disaster looms in the countryside through unpredictable people like Alison Riley, who is “the kind of person who might choose to bring the house down simply to find out what kind of noise it made”.

The uncertainty of individual identity, driven by unconventional and challenging family relationships, is the fundamental connecting factor between all six books, and Katie Kitamura’s Audition expresses this most directly.

Written in two parts, the novel considers the relationship between its protagonist and a younger adult male who may or may not be her son. The novel suggests, as the Booker judges note, that we play roles every day, like the actor protagonist of this novel – who first rejects the suggestion that the young man is her son, then later changes position to live alongside him as if he were.

But perhaps the novel that stands out most to me is Szalay’s Flesh. While this book likewise conveys the unravelling of life into uncertainty and risk, its plot concerns a 15-year-old boy in a relationship with a woman of his mother’s age. Flesh is written in lengthy dialogue, rendering the story sparse and sharp.

Having written about both of Desai’s previous novels as a scholar of post-colonial studies, I am eager to read The Loneliness of Sunny and Sonia, which was published on the day of the Booker shortlist announcement – an auspicious sign perhaps.

Only her third novel in a long career, it is described as a romance. Publishers have recently pointed to an upturn in the popular romance genre fiction, including subgenres like romantasy. This might offer favourable conditions for the book – helped by judge Sarah Jessica Parker’s association with romance, and a new wave of literary romance screen adaptations including Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights and a new Netflix series of Pride and Prejudice in 2026.

The Loneliness of Sunny and Sonia begins with a 55-year-old protagonist whose parents control minute details of her life, but is centrally concerned with the epic and transnational love affair of its two eponymous characters.

The novel maintains Desai’s trend of changing literary direction between novels. Having herself lamented Hullaballoo in the Guava Orchard as “exoticist”, she responds to that accusation in The Loneliness of Sunny and Sonia, where protagonist Sonia is accused of writing “orientalist nonsense”. In a Guardian interview, Desai explained that the character expresses her own concern about how to write about India for a western readership.

Desai’s second novel, The Inheritance of Loss, was set in the aftermath of violence resulting from the claim for a separate state in post-Partition India. It won the Booker Prize in 2006 when Desai was 35, then the youngest woman to win the award – in 2013, it went to an even younger Eleanor Catton. This statistic suggests the Booker winner, at least, tends to be an older author.

The novels in this year’s shortlist all convey the overwhelming impact of uncertainty and change, and privilege introspective responses to disruptions that are sometimes hidden for decades. While (mostly) stories about middle age, they are anything but safe and comfortable.


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.


The Conversation

Jenni Ramone 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. Booker shortlist 2025: six novels (mostly) about middle age that are anything but safe and comfortable – https://theconversation.com/booker-shortlist-2025-six-novels-mostly-about-middle-age-that-are-anything-but-safe-and-comfortable-266184

Jimmy Kimmel is back, but how much longer will late-night comedy last?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gregory Frame, Teaching Associate in Film and Television Studies, University of Nottingham

Champions of free speech will have breathed a sigh of relief when The Walt Disney Company returned Jimmy Kimmel Live! to air on its US broadcast network, ABC, on September 23. Disney claims to have made this decision for the “right reasons” – but it was also driven by reports that creatives and, perhaps more importantly, consumers would abandon it in droves if the late-night US TV host was not restored. As always, the economic considerations had as much weight as political ones – if not more.

In the short term, Disney’s change of heart was rewarded. Kimmel’s return created a roughly threefold bump in its ratings – this despite 70 of ABC’s affiliated networks, owned by Sinclair and Nexstar, refusing to broadcast it. While it’s just one show with considerable news currency behind it, this bucks a long-term trend that has seen the decline of late-night political comedy on US broadcast television.

Falling advertising revenue was CBS’s stated reason for not renewing Stephen Colbert’s contract to host the Late Show when it expires in June 2026. But Colbert has been a longstanding critic of Donald Trump, and his show’s cancellation in August 2025 occurred alongside the finalisation of a merger between CBS’s parent company, Paramount, and Skydance Media, which required the approval of the Trump administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

In an article about topical political comedy in the UK, we argued that the cancellation of BBC shows such as Mock the Week, The Mash Report and Frankie Boyle’s New World Order were driven by the UK’s public broadcaster desire to neutralise claims it was too left-wing or “woke” in the eyes of the right-wing press and the then-Conservative government.

But while this pressure remains real, these shows also fit uncomfortably in a television ecosystem dominated by streaming where the moment of broadcast is of rapidly diminishing importance. Topical comedy’s connection to a particular time and space means it struggles to capture attention from, and remain relevant to, audiences who are used to binge-watching and time-shifting.

So, while the return of Jimmy Kimmel Live! to ABC may be good news for those who fear the US’s descent into authoritarianism, we should consider what other factors may have been at stake in the decision.

For now, Disney cannot afford to offend the creative community that produces content for the more lucrative areas of its business, from Walt Disney Studios and Marvel to Star Wars. Nor can it alienate its consumers who subscribe to Disney+ or visit its theme parks every year. Many members of both groups are not fans of Donald Trump or Maga.

But in the medium and long term, Disney might question whether going all-in for late-night comedy hosts is worth it when this could harm other, more valuable parts of its business. For example, Disney is unlikely to sacrifice its ability to get FCC approval for future acquisitions – such as the rights to broadcast live sports on ESPN – for the sake of satirical critique of the Trump administration.

Free speech flourishes online

Tellingly, Kimmel’s opening monologue on his return broke records on YouTube, with more than 15 million views in its first 16 hours. There remains a significant audience for satirical political content, even if not through traditional linear broadcast. Whatever Disney decides in future about Jimmy Kimmel Live! or its ownership of ABC (which is not for sale at present), this trend is likely to continue.

In this age of political polarisation and cultural fragmentation, topical political comedy and satire in the US and beyond are arguably better suited to the online environment. This is – for now – a safe space outside the purview of Trump’s FCC, where commentators and other content creators can say the unsayable largely unencumbered by regulatory oversight on social media and YouTube.

Whatever the right-wing suggests, free speech is alive and well – for good or ill – online. Recommendation algorithms can find content for you whatever your political proclivities.

The Walt Disney Company does not want to be part of a culture war. It has sought to avoid it in these first months of Trump’s second term, from settling his defamation lawsuit against TV anchor George Stephanopoulos and ABC to the tune of US$15 million (£11.23 million) in December 2024, to erasing queer and environmentalist themes from Pixar’s Summer 2025 release Elio.

Despite taking meaningful steps towards diversity and inclusion in recent years, Disney has responded to the US’s rightward turn by concluding that politics is bad for business.

So while it is heartening that, in this instance, Disney has chosen to back free speech and liberal values against right-wing authoritarianism, it would be naive to think this portends a major sea-change in its approach. As former CEO Michael Eisner said in an internal memo in 1981: “We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective.”

The future of topical political comedy and satire on broadcast television will be decided by this cold, hard reality. Indeed, while this particular battle may have been won by Kimmel and his fans, the larger war may already be over.

The Conversation

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. Jimmy Kimmel is back, but how much longer will late-night comedy last? – https://theconversation.com/jimmy-kimmel-is-back-but-how-much-longer-will-late-night-comedy-last-266013

Trump’s love affair with crypto raises worries about presidential conflict and influence

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Thomas Gift, Associate Professor and Director of the Centre on US Politics, UCL

US president Donald Trump’s “meme coin” $TRUMP fell about 8% in five minutes in late September 2025, wiping millions off its value. Users can buy and sell this cryptocurrency, inspired by an internet meme, on the open market.

Shortly before retaking office, Trump had posted on X: “My NEW Official Trump Meme is HERE! It’s time to celebrate everything we stand for: WINNING!” Below the post was a drawing of Trump with the words “FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT” – an allusion to his assassination attempt.

Soon after that announcement came the creation of the $MELANIA coin, named after the first lady, which also slid on the markets in late September 2025.

There are concerns that these and other crypto businesses the president and his family are involved with are creating an unprecedented ethical minefield – blurring the line between private profit and public office.

The personal profit Trump might receive from these meme coins is unclear. The website gettrumpmemes.com suggests that while the product is endorsed by the president, it has “nothing to do with any political campaign”. The Trump Organization, a holding company for Trump’s business ventures, and Fight Fight Fight LLC own 80% of the coins, it states.

But critics such as Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren worry that Trump could be leveraging the presidency to add to his family’s wealth. Norman Eisen, a former ethics adviser to President Barack Obama, has argued that Trump’s crypto dealings may be “the single worst conflict of interest in the modern history of the presidency”.

One inquiry by the New York Times into Trump’s budding crypto empire contended that it has “erased centuries-old presidential norms, eviscerating the boundary between private enterprise and government policy in a manner without precedent in modern American history”.

Eric Trump on the benefits of bitcoin.

In response to allegations that Trump has profited off interests while in the Oval Office, his assistant press secretary, Anna Kelly, released a statement saying his assets are “in a trust managed by his children”, and that there was not a conflict of interest.

In May, Democratic senator Jeff Merkeley (Oregon) introduced a bill for an end crypto corruption act, which would ban the president and other senior officials from “issuing, endorsing or sponsoring crypto assets”. The bill is pending with mostly Democrat support, so it is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled House and Senate.

A family affair

Trump’s forays into crypto are a family affair. His sons Don Jr, Eric and Barron founded World Liberty Financial (WLFI) in September 2024, months before Trump was inaugurated a second time.

The president was originally listed as its “chief crypto advocate”, although his title on the website has since changed to “co-founder emeritus”. The site states this happened when he took office.

Apart from his sons, WLFI includes in the team listed on its website Trump’s chief Middle East envoy and negotiator, Steven Witkoff, and Witkoff’s son Zach.

According to the Trumps, WLFI was founded as “the start of a financial revolution” destined to make crypto more user-friendly. Yet critics say it represents an opportunity for the president to benefit financially, because of his involvement with the firm.

More concerns were raised when its crypto coin, the WLFI token, started trading in September 2025, reaching a high of about 40 cents per coin – hugely expanding the Trump family’s wealth.

Eric Trump also recently founded American Bitcoin. According to a press release, this firm will mine and hoard the world’s most valuable cryptocurrency, bitcoin, as well as capitalise on “opportunistic bitcoin purchases”. Upon its stock debut, estimates were that the Trump sons’ stake in American Bitcoin totalled around US$1.5 billion (£1.12 billion).

Trump’s crypto history

Formerly a crypto sceptic, Trump once said he was “not a fan” of bitcoin. Yet just before re-taking office, he declared that he wanted to make the US “the crypto capital of the planet”.

An early sign of Trump’s interest in crypto came when he spoke to a standing-room only crowd at bitcoin’s annual conference in Nashville, Tennessee in July 2024, becoming the first major presidential candidate to do so.

As America’s chief law enforcement officer, Trump helps set and enforce crypto policy — precisely the arena where his family’s businesses now operate. According to one report, the Trump family’s wealth in crypto, at least on paper, has surpassed US$5 billion – a number that now exceeds Trump’s vast real estate portfolio.

The emoluments clauses were created in the US constitution in 1789 to protect presidents from corrupting influences, and prohibit US leaders from accepting gifts from foreign governments. But they are now considered by some to need updating.

This concern isn’t hypothetical. In May 2025, Freight Technologies (Fr8Tech), a Nasdaq-listed firm based in Mexico, announced it would raise as much as US$20 million to purchase $TRUMP meme coins.

Against the backdrop of the US raising tariffs on Mexico, Fr8Tech CEO Javier Selgas said the deal was both economically and politically advantageous, explaining: “We believe that the addition of the Official Trump tokens [is] an effective way to advocate for fair, balanced, and free trade between Mexico and the US.”

By purchasing Trump’s meme coin, a firm such as Fr8Tech can both support the Trump family’s financial interests and hope to gain favourable treatment on trade policy. More concerns were raised when Trump hosted a black-tie dinner at his club in Virginia for the largest $TRUMP holders.

Trump’s crypto credentials

Trump has been the most crypto-friendly president ever. In March, he signed an executive order to create a national bitcoin strategic reserve – a government stockpile of the asset he has framed as a symbol of US dominance in the digital asset space. Moreover, Trump’s AI and crypto czar, David Sacks, has presided over historic pronouncements to improve the regulatory “rules of the road” for cryptocurrencies.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission, an executive branch agency that regulates markets, has moved to being pro-crypto under Trump, casting aside the approach of the Joe Biden era. This has included dropping legal suits against high-profile crypto firms such as Coinbase.

But while the Trump family benefits financially from its rising investment in crypto, this could yet prove a Pyrrhic victory. If Democrats wrest control of the House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms, they could use it to scrutinise the president’s crypto entanglements – and highlight concerns about presidential conflicts of interest.

The Conversation

Thomas Gift holds shares in Bitcoin financial instruments.

ref. Trump’s love affair with crypto raises worries about presidential conflict and influence – https://theconversation.com/trumps-love-affair-with-crypto-raises-worries-about-presidential-conflict-and-influence-265029

Don’t cut them out: lymph nodes may be key to cancer treatment

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

Oleksandra Bolotina/Shutterstock.com

Removing lymph nodes during cancer surgery has saved countless lives in many tumour types. Yet recent research is challenging parts of this long-standing practice.

Imagine your body’s immune defences as a city, and lymph nodes as the hubs where police and firefighters gather fresh intel to launch their attack on criminals. What happens if you remove too many of these hubs? This is a new question at the centre of modern cancer surgery.

When surgeons remove lymph nodes, it’s usually for two reasons: to find out whether cancer has spread, and to prevent further spread to other organs. For decades, this approach represented the best standard of care.

If a tumour escapes its original site, cancer cells often travel through lymph vessels and settle in the nearest lymph nodes, which act as biological filters. Detecting cancer cells in lymph nodes signals that a patient’s disease may be more likely to return after treatment.

Removing these nodes allows doctors to “stage” the disease accurately, and potentially increase the chances of eradicating all tumour cells – while also telling oncologists like me to treat the cancer more aggressively.

But lymph nodes are not just passive waystations. They play an active role in the body’s immune response, acting as meeting points for immune cells to share information about cancer. Recent scientific discoveries have led researchers to rethink how crucial these hubs are for sparking powerful, lasting immune reactions.

One of the newest studies shows lymph nodes help maintain a special type of immune cell called “CD8 positive T cells”, which can destroy cancer cells. These immune cells are primed and kept ready to act by the environment inside the lymph nodes.

Without these hubs, the body’s anti-cancer immune response, especially during immunotherapy treatment, may be weaker than previously imagined. The research shows how the specific cells in the lymph nodes make an initial anti-cancer burst of activity. However, this has only been demonstrated in the laboratory, not in humans as yet.

Removing lymph nodes is not without drawbacks. Patients can experience swelling (lymphoedema), increased risk of infection in the affected limb, and sometimes chronic pain or mobility problems. There’s also concern that removing lymph nodes, while reducing short-term risks of cancer spread, might inadvertently weaken the body’s long-term immune defences – especially as modern treatments increasingly rely on the patient’s natural immunity. This is in line with the new study findings.

How lymph nodes work.

Why do surgeons still remove lymph nodes, then?

For many types of solid tumour, the risk of metastatic spread remains high, and lymph node involvement is one of the best predictors of cancer recurrence.

Lymph node removal also provides vital information for choosing the most effective post-surgical treatments. In breast cancer, doctors often use a “sentinel node biopsy”. This means removing only the first lymph node that fluid from the tumour drains into. Checking just this sentinel node helps doctors see if the cancer has spread, while reducing the number of nodes removed and lowering the risk of side-effects.

Medical researchers are learning more about how lymph nodes work during long-term illnesses. The new study shows that lymph nodes aren’t just passive filters; they’re active training grounds where special immune cells grow, multiply and become powerful fighters. This is especially important during treatments that boost the immune system, such as checkpoint blockade treatments which are now used for many types of cancer.

These results suggest that taking out lymph nodes doesn’t just block cancer’s spread; it also removes important hubs where the immune system monitors the body and gets reactivated to fight disease.

Over the last decade, hospitals have adopted gentler, more targeted lymph node surgeries. Instead of removing all the nodes in a region, the focus is now on minimising disruption: taking only the nodes most likely to harbour cancer.

This approach reduces complications for patients and may help keep their immunity strong. Some patients with early-stage cancers may even avoid node removal altogether, instead relying on imaging and biopsies to monitor for spread.

For those worried about the consequences of major lymph node removal, emerging therapies offer hope. Immunotherapy drugs, targeted treatments and even cancer vaccines are being developed that can “re-educate” the immune system, even if some lymph nodes have been lost.

Still, there is growing evidence that patients do best when at least some hubs remain – preserving the body’s ability to mount and sustain a defence against lingering cancer cells.

In the future, cancer surgery may become even more personalised. By mapping the activity inside lymph nodes – tracking which ones are essential for immune function and which are most likely to seed new tumours – doctors can tailor surgery so each patient gets maximum benefit with minimum harm.

The recent discoveries challenge surgeons and oncologists to weigh every decision carefully: not just for what is removed today, but for the immunity and future defences left behind.

Is removing lymph nodes in cancer surgery a bad idea? The answer is complex. For many patients, it’s still a good idea and can be lifesaving. But new science teaches us that lymph nodes are more than just staging posts; they may be indispensable for long-term immune protection. The future promises smarter, more strategic surgery, keeping more of the body’s natural defence system intact while targeting cancer with precision.

The Conversation

Justin Stebbing 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. Don’t cut them out: lymph nodes may be key to cancer treatment – https://theconversation.com/dont-cut-them-out-lymph-nodes-may-be-key-to-cancer-treatment-265557

Andy Burnham’s leadership ambitions: what is the path to mounting a challenge against Keir Starmer?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Thomas Caygill, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Nottingham Trent University

Manchester mayor Andy Burnham has triggered a blazing row by telling the Telegraph that MPs want him to mount a leadership challenge against prime minister Keir Starmer.

Starmer’s poll ratings are dire and for some weeks, discussion within some sections of the Labour Party has turned to who is his most likely successor.

Up until early September, the assumption was that it would be Angela Rayner. But her resignation as deputy prime minister and deputy leader of the party over a financial scandal has made that less certain. Attention therefore turned to Burnham.

Burnham is popular within the party – and has been for a long time. A poll of party members conducted by Survation back in June for the website LabourList placed him just above Rayner as the top choice to be the next leader. He is also seen as plain-spoken and direct – a quality that Nigel Farage also has but which Starmer lacks.

However, he does face several hurdles if he does wish to become the leader of the labour party one day, whether through Starmer’s resignation or some other turn of events.

The first challenge is that you must be a Labour MP to stand for the leadership of the party – and Burnham is not an MP. For Burnham to become an MP before the next general election (expected in 2029), there will need to be a vacancy (ideally in his home region, Manchester) and currently there isn’t one. There have been suggestions that a sitting MP in Manchester could stand down triggering a by-election that Burnham could stand in, although none of those MPs currently seem keen.

Burnham would also then need to be shortlisted as a candidate for the seat, which will require approval from the national executive committee (NEC). Starmer currently has a majority on that committee. Given that Burnham is a former MP and the mayor of Greater Manchester, it would be odd if the NEC were to block him, but in theory it is possible. He would then need to win the shortlisting vote in the constituency Labour party where he stood. Again, I would imagine if he was standing in a Manchester seat, that the local party would approve him, but it is a further hurdle nonetheless.

The next hurdle is the need to win the by-election. While Manchester is a Labour stronghold and remains so, given the support for Reform UK in the polls, victory is not guaranteed. Parties can pour resources into by-elections as there is only one vote taking place (as opposed to 650 taking place on the same day in general elections) so activists can be bussed in and campaign finance is not so thin on the ground. You can guarantee that Reform UK will throw the kitchen sink at any by-election where they have a chance of victory, regardless of whether Burnham is standing or not.

If he clears all these hurdles, a further one remains. Currently to challenge Starmer for the leadership of the party, any challenger would need the backing of 80 MPs. This is a high threshold, as we have seen during the deputy leadership election and again there is no guarantee that enough MPs would back him. There has been some backlash to his criticism of Starmer and the party, particularly as the labour party annual conference approaches. Starmer’s allies (and investors) have also been quick to point out that his suggestion to borrow more to fund increased public spending would trigger a similar run on the pound that we saw during Liz Truss’ time as prime minister.

It is for these reasons that a challenge to Starmer from Burnham is unlikely at least in the short term. However, if Labour’s poll ratings do not improve over the course of the next 12 months, discussion of succession will only ramp up further.

Any challenge to Starmer’s leadership in the short term will likely come from within the parliamentary Labour party. The next key moment of danger will be after the 2026 local elections (in England) and devolved parliamentary elections (in Scotland and Wales). However, we should note that Labour is not as regicidal as the Conservative party. It has far less of a history of toppling even unpopular leaders.

Labour MPs should also remember the public’s reaction to the Conservative party going through three leaders in the last parliament – it did play a part in their defeat last year.


Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.


The Conversation

Thomas Caygill has previously received funding from the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust and the Economic and Social Research Council.

ref. Andy Burnham’s leadership ambitions: what is the path to mounting a challenge against Keir Starmer? – https://theconversation.com/andy-burnhams-leadership-ambitions-what-is-the-path-to-mounting-a-challenge-against-keir-starmer-266160

Could your urine predict your dementia risk?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Hong Xu, Assistant Professor at Division of Clinical Geriatrics, Karolinska Institutet

My Stockers/Shutterstock.com

A simple urine test could reveal your risk of developing dementia decades before symptoms appear, a new study shows. For the study, my colleagues and I tracked 130,000 people and found that protein in the urine may act as an early warning sign for memory problems.

Our research showed that people with higher levels of protein leaking into their urine – a condition known as albuminuria – had a significantly greater chance of developing dementia. The association was strongest for vascular dementia, the second most common form after Alzheimer’s, and mixed dementia, which combines features of both types.

Crucially, this connection held true regardless of how well participants’ kidneys were functioning overall. In other words, protein in urine appears to predict dementia risk independently, even when standard kidney tests appear normal.

Our findings highlight how closely the kidneys and brain are connected. Both rely on networks of tiny, delicate blood vessels to function properly. When these vessels are damaged – by high blood pressure, diabetes, or other factors – the same damage that causes protein to leak into urine can also reduce blood flow to the brain.

Your kidneys act like filters, keeping useful proteins in your blood while filtering out waste. When those filters are damaged, albumin protein starts leaking through.

The brain has its own protective barrier – the blood-brain barrier – made of tightly packed cells that prevent harmful substances from entering brain tissue. Just as damaged kidney filters become leaky, a compromised blood-brain barrier allows toxins and inflammatory molecules to pass through, potentially triggering the brain changes that lead to dementia.

This discovery opens exciting possibilities for prevention. Several medications already used to protect kidneys may also protect memory. Ace inhibitors and Arbs, blood pressure drugs that reduce protein leakage, could potentially do double duty for brain health.

Even newer drugs show promise. GLP-1 drugs such as semaglutide (better known as Ozempic) and SGLT2 inhibitors such as dapagliflozin were originally developed for diabetes but also reduce protein in urine. Whether they prevent dementia remains to be proved, but early signs are encouraging.

While we cannot yet prove that treating kidney problems will prevent dementia – that would require following participants for decades in controlled trials – the biological pathway makes sense, particularly given how blood vessel damage affects both organs.

Gloved hands holding a urine sample and a dipstick.
One day, a simple urine test might predict dementia.
Lothar Drechsel/Shutterstock.com

An ounce of prevention

So when should you start caring about this? Vascular damage accumulates over years, so earlier intervention is better. For most people, focusing on kidney and heart health from middle age onwards is sensible, especially if you have diabetes, high blood pressure, kidney disease, obesity, or a family history of these conditions.

Currently, doctors mainly test urine protein in people with diabetes or high blood pressure. But our findings raise questions about whether everyone over 50 should be screened, particularly those with multiple risk factors. That is a public health question requiring more research and policy discussion.

The good news is that you do not need to wait for new guidelines to take action. Lifestyle changes that protect kidneys also benefit the brain. Quitting smoking, controlling blood pressure and blood sugar, eating a balanced diet and exercising regularly can reduce your risk of both kidney disease and dementia.




Read more:
Poor sleep may nudge the brain toward dementia, researchers find


If confirmed by future studies, urine protein testing could become a standard part of dementia risk assessments. It is cheap, non-invasive and can be performed with simple dipstick tests in any doctor’s office.

While there is still no cure for dementia, early detection and prevention remain our best tools. By recognising that protein in urine signals more than just kidney trouble, we may be able to identify and protect those at risk long before memory problems begin. Sometimes the most important clues about your brain’s future health are found in the most unlikely places.

The Conversation

Hong Xu receives funding from the Swedish Research Council .

ref. Could your urine predict your dementia risk? – https://theconversation.com/could-your-urine-predict-your-dementia-risk-265262

Sauna competitions have gone from dangerous endurance to therapeutic showmanship

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Brayson, Lecturer, Life Sciences, University of Westminster

When the British Sauna Society promises “multisensory theatre and dazzling skills” at the national Aufguss championships, you might wonder what on earth they’re talking about. The German word Aufguss means “infusion”, but don’t let that fool you into thinking this is some gentle aromatherapy session.

The idea of a sauna “championship” is likely to conjure visions of stubborn people engaging in dangerous endurance contests. Thankfully, Aufguss is nothing like that. Instead, it’s more akin to figure skating than speed skating – a choreographed performance where infusion masters compete to create the most immersive sauna experience.

These Aufguss meisters combine carefully selected essential oils, which they aerosolise on hot stones, with music and light shows while skilfully manipulating the steam using towels and body movements.

Their ten-to-20-minute performances are judged on professionalism, heat distribution, waving techniques, fragrance usage, theme implementation, atmosphere and team spirit – yes, audience participation is expected.

But is this theatrical sweating actually good for you? The health benefits are surprisingly substantial. Sauna use is a form of passive heat therapy that typically involves multiple sessions of five to 20 minutes followed by cooling activities. Studies often report reduced blood pressure and lower cardiovascular disease risk, along with decreased inflammation throughout the body.

The reason lies in how repeated heat exposure challenges our cardiovascular system in a similar way exercise does. When we’re exposed to extreme temperatures, our bodies redistribute blood from core organs to the extremities, such as the arms and legs, where the increased surface area helps dissipate heat more effectively. Blood vessels in our skin dilate to bring heat closer to the surface, while our hearts work harder to pump blood around this expanded network.

There’s even evidence that regular sauna use prepares us for our warming planet. Heat acclimatisation increases blood volume, creating a sweat reserve we can access at lower core temperatures, promoting better cooling through evaporation – a handy adaptation given the inevitable increase in heatwaves we’ll face, thanks to the climate crisis.

The aromatherapy element adds another layer of benefit. While often dismissed as fringe medicine, there’s growing evidence that essential oils like lavender can be beneficial for mental health by reducing depression and anxiety. Music, too, has demonstrable mood-altering effects, with certain frequencies shown to reduce blood pressure and slow heart and breathing rates.

However, nature gives with one hand and takes with the other. Recent research shows that while heat exposure makes us resilient, it also accelerates biological ageing. Still, this seems a reasonable trade-off compared to the alternative.

UK Aufguss championship 2023.

Old-school sauna championships were less salubrious

The alternative, sadly, was demonstrated at the old competitive sauna world championships. Unlike today’s artistic Aufguss competitions, these events tested pure endurance – whoever stayed longest without collapsing won. This dangerous format inevitably ended in tragedy when a finalist died and another nearly perished at the 2010 championships. Unsurprisingly, it was the last time such an event was held.

The difference is crucial. Our bodies constantly generate heat through metabolism, and in normal temperatures we lose it through radiation, conduction, convection and evaporation.

In extreme heat, most of these mechanisms become ineffective, except evaporation – hence, sweating becomes critical. Curiously, one rule of the old endurance competitions forbade wiping sweat away, essentially sabotaging the body’s primary cooling method.

When heat exposure continues beyond our cooling capacity, core temperature rises above 40°C. Here, the body is on a point of no return as heat generated by metabolism increases. The chemical reactions keeping our cells alive begin breaking down, leading to organ failure and ultimately death.

Which brings us back to the choice between two very different types of competitive sauna. One celebrates skill, artistry and the therapeutic benefits of controlled heat exposure, combined with aromatherapy and music. The other was a deadly test of stubborn endurance that rightfully belongs in the dustbin of history.

I know which type of competitive sauna I prefer.

The Conversation

Daniel Brayson has received funding from The British Heart Foundation and Muscular Dystrophy UK. He was previously on the board of Trustees of the Physiological Society.

ref. Sauna competitions have gone from dangerous endurance to therapeutic showmanship – https://theconversation.com/sauna-competitions-have-gone-from-dangerous-endurance-to-therapeutic-showmanship-265349

Why scientists may be fearful of speaking out about Trump’s autism claims

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Padraig Murphy, Associate Professor in Communications, Dublin City University

“Are you making good health decisions?” reads one Robert F. Kennedy Jr. meme on social media, a slogan printed against an image of a smiling US health secretary. Such social media posts invariably invite lively comments beneath them, but the situation is deadly serious.

On 22 September, Donald Trump and RFK Jr. publicly proposed a link between paracetamol – commonly referred to in the US by the brand name Tylenol – and autism. The paracetamol link has also been shown, through rigorous research, to be false.

It’s far from the first falsehood about science to be presented at the highest levels of the US government. While RFK Jr. denies being anti-vaccination, he has repeatedly stated debunked claims about supposed vaccine harm.

The highly politicised nature of such claims and the current political environment may lead to a reluctance among some scientists to speak out publicly. But it’s imperative that they continue to defend science in the public arena.

With wall-to-wall coverage of such issues, it is easy for the considered views of experts to get drowned out – and headlines rarely lead with the perspectives of researchers. The speed of the news cycle can also mean that the story has moved on by the time they are in a position to comment.

Science communicators weigh up the published evidence on a topic of controversy, factoring in multiple perspectives. They also talk about when science gets it wrong – and when retractions of journal articles are needed.

Toxic environment

But online toxicity and hostility on social media have increased to the extent that both scientists and, indeed, science journalists have a real fear of writing about topics even where they have strong expertise. And with the US government making major cuts to research funding and targeting politicised areas such as climate science in particular, some may be inclined to stay quiet or self-censor to avoid losing their grants.

We’ve also seen government scientists removed from their positions by the Trump administration. In June 2025, RFK Jr. removed all 17 members of a committee that issues official government recommendations on immunisations.

In August 2025, the director of the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, Susan Monarez, was fired for what she says was refusing to dismiss vaccine policy officials. The health secretary says it was because he didn’t trust her.

Political decisions such as these and others can have a chilling effect on scientists and the media, where commentators may feel the need to tread carefully. Yet this makes it all the more urgent that everyone involved in communicating science to the public ups their game and defend expertise.

Nevertheless, when the politics are combined with the toxicity of debate in the public sphere, particularly on social media, it can make conveying expert opinions very challenging. Science communicators have often developed valuable and thoughtful methods to put the message across to the public.

Platforms like Bluesky, which give users greater control over their interactions, have been one such attempt for a civil space to discuss science. Yet, on other platforms, it is easy to see how valuable efforts such as these could sour amid the kinds of vitriolic attacks come from anonymous sources who seem to act with impunity online.

There is arguably a place to fight fire with fire, including with the use of ridicule. Examples include California governor Gavin Newsom’s mockery of Trump tweets or South Park satirising the US administration in the basest of fashions.

The longer-term goals in controlling false scientific statements involve increasing media literacy, prebunking– debunking myths and conspiracy theories before they spread rapidly – and setting out “nudge” effects, where there are several choices offered to people that eventual lead to a change of behaviour, as happens in advertising.

If a scientific or innovation programme has the resources, subvertising techniques – where spoofs and parodies of corporate ads are created to critique their messages – have been used effectively against the tobacco lobby and oil companies.

It may help for professional bodies, universities and other institutions involved in communicating science to maintain vigilance on contentious claims so that they are well prepared when these topics blow up in the media. The tylenol-autism claim is not something that had been widely shared in mainstream publications before now. But science communicators should be ready for the next time it comes up.

The Conversation

Padraig Murphy 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. Why scientists may be fearful of speaking out about Trump’s autism claims – https://theconversation.com/why-scientists-may-be-fearful-of-speaking-out-about-trumps-autism-claims-265985

Not all diabetes is about sugar – understanding diabetes insipidus

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dan Baumgardt, Senior Lecturer, School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol

RA fotografia / Shutterstock.com

Diabetes mellitus – known to many as type 1 and type 2 diabetes – gets all the attention with its rising global prevalence and connection to lifestyle and autoimmunity. Meanwhile, its lesser-known relative – diabetes insipidus – more quietly affects hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, but is an altogether different condition, unrelated to blood sugar.

Both forms share the same defining symptom: excessive urination. The word diabetes comes from ancient Greek meaning “passing through”, which perfectly captures what happens to newly affected patients.

In the more-familiar diabetes mellitus, sugar builds up in the blood because the body either doesn’t make enough insulin or can’t use it properly. When this happens, extra sugar enters the urine, and that sugar pulls water out of the body along with it.

People with diabetes may notice that they need to urinate more often and in larger amounts than usual. Sometimes, the urine can even have a sweet smell. Legend has it that Hippocrates, the “father of medicine”, used to taste his patients’ urine to make the diagnosis. Thankfully, we now use dipstick tests instead.

Diabetes insipidus is very different from diabetes mellitus. It has nothing to do with blood sugar. Instead, the problem is with a hormone called arginine vasopressin (AVP), also known as anti-diuretic hormone (ADH), which normally helps the body control how much water it keeps or loses.

This chemical messenger, produced by the pituitary gland at the base of your skull, acts like your body’s water conservation system. When you need to hold on to fluid – say, when you’re dehydrated – AVP tells your kidneys to reabsorb water rather than letting it escape in urine.

When this system breaks down, the results are dramatic. Without enough AVP, or when the hormone fails to function properly, your kidneys lose their ability to conserve water. No matter how much you drink, you remain perpetually thirsty and dehydrated, producing large volumes of pale, diluted urine. It’s a frustrating cycle that affects around 2,000 to 3,000 people in the UK alone.

The most common culprit is AVP-deficiency (formerly called central diabetes insipidus), where the problem lies in AVP production itself. It’s actually made in a brain region called the hypothalamus before being transported to the pituitary gland, from where it is released.

Brain tumours can damage this delicate system, as can head injuries or brain surgery. Genetics sometimes plays a role, and neurological infections like syphilis or tuberculosis can also disrupt hormone production. In some cases, however, doctors are unable to identify a clear cause.

Pregnancy brings its own unique version called gestational diabetes insipidus. The growing placenta produces an enzyme that breaks down AVP in the bloodstream before it can do its job. Fortunately, this rare condition typically resolves after birth.

For AVP-deficiency, treatment is more straightforward. Patients can take desmopressin, a synthetic version of AVP available as tablets, injections, or even a nasal spray. This replacement therapy effectively restores the body’s ability to conserve water.

Things get trickier with AVP-resistance (formerly called nephrogenic diabetes insipidus), where the kidneys themselves fail to respond to AVP.

Sometimes present from birth, this form can also develop later due to kidney damage from electrolyte imbalances or certain medications. Lithium, commonly used to treat bipolar disorder, is one such example. Since the problem is the kidneys’ inability to respond to AVP, different medications are used. Low-salt diets and careful attention to staying hydrated are also key.

When thirst goes wrong

Perhaps most puzzling is dipsogenic diabetes insipidus, where the brain’s thirst centre goes haywire.

Also located in the hypothalamus, this control centre can be damaged by tumours, trauma, or infections, leading to an insatiable urge to drink water. The excessive fluid intake then suppresses AVP production, creating a vicious cycle. Dangerously, it can dilute blood sodium levels, causing headaches, confusion and even seizures.

The symptoms of this condition sometimes overlap with psychogenic polydipsia, where mental health disorders – particularly schizophrenia – drive compulsive water drinking. The consequences can be severe, as seen in one documented case where a young patient suffered complications after consuming an astounding 15 litres of water per day.

These extreme examples of pathological water intake stand alongside wellness trends promoting excessive hydration as part of a healthy lifestyle. NFL quarterback Tom Brady has famously recommended drinking around two gallons daily – nearly eight litres.

Tom Brady wearing a football helmet.
Tom Brady recommends drinking two gallons of water a day.
Steve Jacobson / Shutterstock.com

While we’re often told to drink more water to avert dehydration, constipation, kidney stones and the like, there’s clearly a dangerous level. Sustained or unexplained high water consumption is not only toxic to the body but may be a sign of an underlying health problem.

Diabetes insipidus reminds us that the term “diabetes” encompasses more than blood sugar problems. This other diabetes may be less common, but for those affected, the consequences of leaving the condition untreated may prove severe. Anyone experiencing persistent excessive thirst, water consumption, and urination should seek medical attention promptly. The cause may turn out to be sugar, hormones, or something else entirely.

The Conversation

Dan Baumgardt 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. Not all diabetes is about sugar – understanding diabetes insipidus – https://theconversation.com/not-all-diabetes-is-about-sugar-understanding-diabetes-insipidus-265108

Why the EU has no choice but to respond to Donald Trump’s bullying on tech regulation with a coercion investigation

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Francesco Grillo, Academic Fellow, Department of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University

Back in November 2023 – a time when it wasn’t even clear that Donald Trump would be allowed to run in the upcoming presidential primaries – the European Union approved a tough new “anti-coercion instrument”.

This stated: “Economic coercion exists where a non-EU country applies or threatens to apply a measure affecting trade or investment in order to prevent or obtain the cessation, modification or adoption of a particular act by the EU or a Member State, thereby interfering in the legitimate sovereign choices of the EU or a Member State”.

At the time, the threats were all coming from Russia, which stood accused of interfering in election campaigns, and undermining trust in liberal democracy.

Yet that regulation now seems a perfect fit for the US under a president who is threatening “substantial additional tariffs” against countries he deems to be imposing unfair laws against tech companies. Europe, where those digital regulations were literally invented, is now the clear target of Trump’s ire. Although I would argue that the EU’s approach to regulating in this area has some serious problems, it should not risk bowing to US pressure. The union would lose credibility if it showed that it does not believe in its own rules.

In just eight years, European institutions have approved ten laws in the digital space. The legislation spans 591 articles and covers 1,091 pages. This would have been a monumental effort, with each regulation stemming from the work of potentially hundreds of lawyers, experts and policymakers. That’s even before the EU’s three different institutions (commission, parliament, and council) all had their say.

The problem, though, is that the more articles you have regulating interconnected activities, the more likely you are to find contradictions among them. Paradoxically, the firms that may be more damaged by the necessity to comply tend to be European start-ups, which are generally too small to afford the fees needed to pay lawyers who can help them make sense of such complex legislation.

Added to this is the fact that the phenomena we are trying to govern is extremely radical and unprecedented (especially large language model artificial intelligence). We therefore don’t yet know what the impact of digital change will be and whether the regulations in place are the right ones. Indeed, it’s almost inevitable that such detailed regulation contains what will eventually turn out to be mistakes as circumstances change.

But while EU digital regulation is far from perfect, the bloc cannot allow a third party to bully its way to changing the rules. EU regulation is suboptimal but it is not targeting “incredible American tech companies”, as Trump suggests.

True, elements of the Digital Service Act only apply to “very large platforms” (with over 45 million users in the EU), but while the majority of the 19 giants meeting this threshold are American, the list also includes three Chinese, one Canadian and three European companies.

In fact, some of the comments made by the US president arguably meet the description of actions that the Anti-Coercion Instrument is designed to sanction.

Fighting fire with fire

Trump has put in the bluntest terms that “digital taxes, legislation, rules or regulations are all designed to harm, or discriminate against, American technology”. He has said: “unless these discriminatory actions are removed, I, as President of the United States, will impose substantial additional Tariffs”. This is “threatening a measure affecting trade or in order to obtain the cessation of a particular act by the Union”. Not to open a case to investigate the US on these points would send a dangerous message that competitors (or former allies) can meddle in European sovereign affairs.

The activation of countermeasures would require a qualified majority at the European Council which would not be impossible to reach: 55% of the member states (15 out of 27 would be enough) representing 65% of the population (the sum of Germany and France is one third of the total). In any case, even if a qualified majority is not reached, the exercise is still worthwhile. It would be helpful to know which member states are still serious about being part of a (sovereign) union and which of them would rather go for a union “à la carte”. This latter option is not, logically, good enough for times that require the EU to react quickly to crises.

Trump has taken a similar approach to the EU’s renewable energy policy, calling for member states to dismantle their wind turbines.

The times in which we are living will soon force Europe into a make or break decision. This is what Mario Draghi, former Italian prime minister and author of the report currently guiding the EU’s competitiveness, hinted saying recently when he said: “we have been reminded, painfully, that inaction threatens not only our
competitiveness but our sovereignty”. Europe cannot afford to give the impression that it has lost faith in its ability to be free.

The Conversation

Francesco Grillo is affiliated with Vision, the Italian think tank.

ref. Why the EU has no choice but to respond to Donald Trump’s bullying on tech regulation with a coercion investigation – https://theconversation.com/why-the-eu-has-no-choice-but-to-respond-to-donald-trumps-bullying-on-tech-regulation-with-a-coercion-investigation-265618