Category: The Conversation – UK

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

Donald Trump’s newly launched “Board of Peace” presents itself as a bold attempt to break with what its founders describe as decades of failed international diplomacy. Its charter opens with a declaration that few would openly dispute: “Durable peace requires pragmatic judgment, common-sense solutions, and the courage to depart from approaches and institutions that have too often failed.”

It is true that the world urgently needs to overcome decades of inertia to reform its international organisations. It is true that new institutions are needed to solve global problems rather than merely managing never-ending crises.

This is perhaps why Donald Trump decided to hold the signing ceremony for his new board on the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos. Here, more than any other place, is where results-oriented global business leaders supposedly gather. At the signing of the charter, a jubilant Trump was among 20 heads of state and prime ministers (of the 60 who had been invited).

The “most prestigious board ever formed” so far includes the presidents of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and the prime ministers of Mongolia, Armenia and Pakistan. Rightly, representatives of the governments more directly involved in the “Gaza peace plan” are also present, including Israel, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.

From south-east Asia we have Indonesia and Vietnam and from South America, President Javier Milei from Argentina. Hungary, Bulgaria and Kosovo are the only European countries to join so far.

The board’s charter goes on to set out a “partnership” that would be even less accountable than the old United Nations security council and even less democratic than any publicly listed company whose CEO is attending Davos.

It has potential as an instrument for building peace in Gaza, but risks failure if its scope becomes too diluted. And Davos itself risks losing credibility as a place where people “make sense of global challenges and move the world forward together”, if the search for a new world order becomes the celebration of one single man.

I have been to Davos several times. It’s certainly not one of the most prestigious ski resorts of the Swiss Alps. And this year, more than ever, I have felt increasingly sceptical about its capacity as a forum for generating the ideas that the world desperately needs to make sense of those global challenges.

Out of about 3,000 delegates, less than one out of ten seems to be under 30, to my eye. The gender balance is not good either. There are lots of Americans and most pay expensive attendance fees. It’s a world in which power lines are not clearly drawn unless you are in the know.

The Board of Peace is far more transparent when it comes to asserting where the power lies. Trump is expressly nominated by the charter as the chairman for life. He is the only one who can invite states to become members – and revoke their membership. He alone nominates his successor. He holds a veto over any decision.

At the security council, this is a power held by the five nations that won the second world war. Trump may continue to serve even if he is no longer president of the US. Nobody may, of course, seek to dismiss the chairman, although the charter graciously acknowledges that a removal may happen in case of “incapacity” of the supreme leader, if the other members of the board agree unanimously.

This is more power than most modern dictators can claim. Putin has to win elections, and Xi Jinping is nominated by a party. It is more power than even Roman emperors, who were formally designated by the senate (and in reality chosen by the army). Trump has proposed a document that hands him powers of which Augustus himself could not even dream.

What is striking is that most EU member states are “considering” the invitation to join. Some are even said to be trying to work out how they would navigate conflicts such a move would present with their own national constitutions or with the EU treaties (it should be obvious to any student of law that there is no such possibility for a self-declared liberal democracy).

It would be catastrophic if they did. They would be agreeing that an international organisation based on the unaccountable leadership of one single individual could be a starting point for constructing a new world order.

Trump’s advisers are right when they write in the charter that “too often the approaches to most of the global problems foster perpetual dependency, and institutionalise crisis rather than leading people beyond it”. We need to make sure that international organisations are rewarded according to their ability to solve problems and not just manage them endlessly. Yet this requires more accountability and participation – not less. We need proposals that are creative but serious.

I am sure that many have doubts about the World Economic Forum becoming the stage for the never-ending show of the producer of The Apprentice.

Francesco Grillo is affiliated with Vision, the think tank

– ref. Donald Trump’s Board of Peace signed at Davos – key points I took away from my visit to the ski resort – https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-board-of-peace-signed-at-davos-key-points-i-took-away-from-my-visit-to-the-ski-resort-274140

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Richardson, Professor of Animal Development, Leiden University

Over the past few years, studies have suggested that plastic particles from bottles, food packaging and waste have been detected in human blood, lungs, placentas, arteries and even the brain. But a recent investigation by the Guardian suggests that some of these claims may be less robust than they first appeared.

The idea that tiny fragments of plastic might be accumulating in human bodies is unsettling. This concern stems largely from evidence that nanoplastics – the very smallest plastic fragments – can harm animal embryos and human cells grown in the laboratory. Slightly larger particles, called microplastics, are not known to be as harmful to living things when ingested. At least, we are not aware of any studies to this effect.

The Guardian report found that some scientists think that these reports of plastics in the human body may be false alarms. They are not suggesting any scientific misconduct. Rather, they suggest that the tissue samples were unintentionally contaminated in the laboratory or, in another example, that natural body fat in the samples produced readings that looked like plastic.

For instance, in February 2025, the journal Nature Medicine published a paper in which the authors suggested “a trend of increasing MNP [microplastics and nanoplastics] concentrations in the brain and liver”. But in November 2025, the same journal published a letter from another group of scientists criticising the methods used in that original paper.

Controversies such as this raise an awkward question: are small plastic particles really present throughout the human body, or is the science still too uncertain to support such claims?

Plastic pollution in our environment is not in dispute. Small plastic particles are everywhere, and so exposure is inevitable. However, detecting these particles, especially nanoparticles, in human tissue is no easy task and typically requires advanced analytical tools.

Most studies follow a similar path. A biological sample, such as blood or tissue, is collected as a biopsy during surgery or at a postmortem. The sample is then analysed using sensitive instruments designed to identify plastics based on their chemical fingerprints.

Contamination is a major challenge. Plastic fibres and fragments are everywhere: in laboratory air, operating theatres, clothing and equipment. Most problematically, plastic particles are probably in disposable labware, such as syringes, pipettes and centrifuge tubes – the very equipment used to process the tissue samples.

Even tiny amounts of plastic contaminants can overwhelm a signal when researchers are looking for extremely small particles in equally small numbers.

Standard practice in analytics is to run blank samples alongside real ones, or use tissue samples that are less likely to contain plastics (such as chicken embryos sealed inside the egg) to show how much background contamination is in the laboratory. Critics argue that some studies did not always compare the human samples with such “controls”.

We have to remember that the studies criticised by some scientists in the Guardian article were sincere attempts to answer an urgent question in a rapidly growing field. Regardless of the particular debate over each study criticised, the issues raised highlight that the entire field of detecting microplastics inside the human body is still very new, and many teams are working hard to find the best analytical techniques.

Disagreement and correction are part of how science works, and controversies are to be expected — especially when a topic attracts such intense public attention.

Scientists may be studying the wrong type of plastic particle

As noted earlier, small plastic particles fall into two broad categories: microplastics (typically the size of pollen grains) and the much smaller nanoplastics (the size of some viruses). Microplastics are fairly easy to detect, but nanoplastics are so small that only the most advanced techniques can identify them.

Most studies reporting plastic particles in the human body have focused on microplastics because they are easier to detect. Yet nanoplastics may be far more relevant to human health. Nanoplastics can cross biological barriers, are toxic to human cells grown in petri dishes and, in studies we have conducted, have been shown to harm developing embryos in animal studies.

Nanoplastics can also be taken up by cells, causing cellular damage or cell death. By contrast, microplastics are mostly too large to be taken up into cells.

This does not mean that microplastics are harmless, however. It is at least possible that they are recognised as foreign by the immune system and cause inflammation, although more research is needed to explore this possibility. Microplastics can also act like tiny sponges, soaking up toxic chemicals, such as persistent organic pollutants, from the environment and potentially carrying them into the body.

Controversies about the true risks posed by small plastic particles may create the false impression that the entire field is in question – which it is not. That is why researchers who work on measurement methods have been especially vocal about the need for higher standards. The good news is that those standards are improving quickly.

Laboratories are becoming more aware of contamination risks. Multiple analytical techniques are increasingly being used on the same samples to cross-check results. Hopefully, researchers will be able to develop standard operating procedures for analysing microplastics in human tissues and other biological samples.

If you have read alarming headlines about small plastic particles, the current state of knowledge calls for caution rather than panic. There is no clear evidence yet that large amounts of plastic are building up in human organs, or that reported increases over time reflect real biological trends rather than methodological errors.

At the same time, it may be sensible to reduce everyday exposure to plastic particles where practical. We can try to avoid food and drink that has come into contact with plastic packaging or containers, improve indoor ventilation, and use simple water filtration, such as charcoal filters, to reduce exposure.

The intense debate about these studies may feel unsettling, but it reflects an emerging scientific field finding its footing. As methods improve and human tissues are tested more rigorously, the picture will become clearer. What matters most is that claims about plastics in the human body are backed by robust evidence.

Michael Richardson receives funding from Nederlands Wetenschappelijk Organisatie (Duch Government Funding Agency).

Le Yang receives funding from China Scholarship Council and Nederlands Wetenschappelijke Organisatie (Dutch Government Funding Agency) .

– ref. Questions are being raised about microplastics studies – here’s what’s solid science and what isn’t – https://theconversation.com/questions-are-being-raised-about-microplastics-studies-heres-whats-solid-science-and-what-isnt-273511

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

In the summer of 1959, a group of American soldiers began carving trenches in the Greenland ice sheet. Those trenches would become the snow-covered tunnels of Camp Century, a secret Arctic research base powered by a nuclear reactor.

It was located about 150 miles inland from Thule, now Pituffik, a large American military base set up in north-western Greenland after a military agreement with Denmark during world war two.

Camp Century operated for six years, during which time the scientists based there managed to drill a mile down to collect a unique set of ice cores. But by 1966, Camp Century had been abandoned, deemed too expensive and difficult to maintain.

Today, Donald Trump’s territorial ambitions for Greenland continue to cause concern and confusion in Europe, particularly for Denmark and Greenlanders themselves, who insist their island is not for sale.

One of the attractions of Greenland is the gleam of its rich mineral wealth, particularly rare earth minerals. Now that Greenland’s ice sheet is melting due to global warming, will this make the mineral riches easier to get at?

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we talk to Paul Bierman, a geologist and expert on Greenland’s ice at the University of Vermont in the US. He explains why the history of what happened to Camp Century – and the secrets of its ice cores, misplaced for decades, but now back under the microscope – help us to understand why it’s not that simple.

Listen to the interview with Paul Bierman on The Conversation Weekly podcast. You can also read article by him about the history of US involvement in Greenland and the difficulty of mining on the island.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Mend Mariwany and Gemma Ware. Mixing by Michelle Macklem and theme music by Neeta Sarl. Gemma Ware is the executive producer.

Newsclips in this episode from New York Times Podcasts, the BBC and NBC News.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript of this episode is available via the Apple Podcasts or Spotify apps.

Paul Bierman receives funding from the US National Science Foundation and the University of Vermont Gund Institute for Environment

– ref. What a US military base lost under Greenland’s ice sheet reveals about the island’s real strategic importance – https://theconversation.com/what-a-us-military-base-lost-under-greenlands-ice-sheet-reveals-about-the-islands-real-strategic-importance-274067

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is a powerful imprimatur.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

– ref. Mark Carney invoked Thucydides at Davos – what people get wrong about this ancient Greek writer’s take on power – https://theconversation.com/mark-carney-invoked-thucydides-at-davos-what-people-get-wrong-about-this-ancient-greek-writers-take-on-power-274086

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is responsible?

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is a powerful imprimatur.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benefits of birdsong

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appreciating birdsong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Five questions could help take this discussion forward.

1. What does success look like?

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

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

2. What does it need?

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

3. What structure might it adopt?

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

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

4. What’s the USP?

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

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

5. Where’s the pinch?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A key strategic location

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An American world?

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patterns of recovery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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