Model of bacteriophages. These are viruses that multiply inside bacteria and cause their death. In some cases they are used in the fight against bacteria instead of antibiotics.shoma81/Shutterstock
Bacteriophages, or phages, are viruses that infect and kill bacteria. These microscopic predators are found everywhere from soil and water to food and the human gut. Because they attack only specific bacteria, researchers are increasingly exploring them as tools for reducing harmful bacteria in humans and animals without disturbing helpful microbes.
That makes them especially interesting at a time of rising antimicrobial resistance. This is when bacteria evolve ways to survive drugs designed to kill them. It’s a global health threat driven in part by the overuse of antibiotics in medicine and agriculture. Unlike broad-spectrum antibiotics, which kill many different kinds of bacteria and can also disrupt helpful gut microbes, research has shown that phages may be able to remove harmful bacteria with less disruption to the wider microbiome.
This has led researchers to investigate phages both as nutraceuticals, dietary supplements intended to promote health, and as feed additives in livestock production. In both cases, the aim is similar: reduce harmful bacteria, support gut health and potentially cut reliance on antibiotics.
How phages work
Phages work very differently from antibiotics. Rather than killing a broad range of bacteria, each phage typically infects only particular bacterial species or closely related types of bacteria.
When a phage encounters its target bacterium, it attaches to the cell and injects its genetic instructions. The virus then replicates inside the bacterium until the cell bursts. This releases new phage particles that go on to infect other bacteria.
This precision is one reason phages are attracting attention as a possible way to fight harmful bacteria. Unlike broad-spectrum antibiotics, which can disrupt entire communities of microbes, phages may be able to remove particular harmful bacteria without the same wider effects on the microbiome, according to studies of phage-microbiome interactions and research on antibiotic-associated microbiome disruption.
That raises the possibility that phages could be used not simply to kill bacteria, but to shape communities of microbes in ways that support health. Researchers have explored their potential in food safety, agriculture and human health.
In recent years, researchers and biotechnology companies have begun exploring phages as dietary supplements for humans. The idea is that people could ingest phages to reduce harmful gut bacteria in the hope of restoring balance in the gut microbiome, the community of microbes that lives in the digestive system.
Early findings are encouraging, though still preliminary. For example, one human clinical study found that a commercially available phage product targeting E. coli reduced levels of the bacteria in the gut without causing major disruption to the rest of the microbiome.
Other work has examined phage products designed to support digestive health by targeting bacteria associated with digestive discomfort or dysbiosis, an imbalance in gut microbes. A randomised controlled trial of a phage-based supplement reported improvements in digestive symptoms among participants with mild digestive issues.
This is still an emerging field, and the evidence remains limited. But the results so far suggest phage-based nutraceuticals could eventually form part of diet-based approaches to improving gut health.
There are already signs of commercial interest. In the US, phage products have been approved for certain food safety uses, such as reducing bacterial contamination on foods. Phage-containing supplements are already on sale.
Public acceptance, however, may prove just as important as scientific progress. Because viruses are usually associated with disease, researchers and manufacturers will need to explain clearly why these “good viruses” are different. They occur naturally, they are highly specific and they target bacteria rather than human cells.
Improving animal health through feed additives
Phages may also have an important role to play in livestock production. Farm animals often carry disease-causing bacteria such as Salmonella, Campylobacter and harmful strains of E. coli. These bacteria can harm animal health and contaminate food products. They can contribute to food-borne illness in humans.
Phage-based feed additives are being developed to target these bacteria in livestock. By incorporating phages into feed or drinking water, farmers may be able to reduce harmful bacteria while preserving beneficial microbes that support digestion and the immune system.
Experimental studies have produced promising results. In poultry, phage supplementation has been shown to reduce the presence of Salmonella and Campylobacter, two of the most common causes of food-borne infection worldwide. Research in pigs has also found that phage treatments can reduce harmful E. coli infections, improving gut health and growth.
Phages are also being investigated as alternatives to antibiotic feed additives used to prevent diseases such as liver abscesses – pockets of infection in the liver – in cattle. Because phages replicate only when their target bacteria are present, their effects may naturally taper off once those bacteria are gone, making them a potentially useful way to control infection.
Despite promising research, bacteriophage supplements are not yet widely authorised as feed additives in the UK. Regulators require extensive evidence of safety, stability and effectiveness. Because phages are biological entities that can evolve alongside bacteria, agencies must also consider whether they remain genetically consistent over time and what effects they might have on other microbial communities in the environment.
Even so, regulatory progress is emerging elsewhere. Phage-based food safety products targeting disease-causing bacteria such as Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella have already been approved in several countries. This includes the US, where they are already being used in food safety applications.
More recently, European regulators authorised the first bacteriophage-based feed additive designed to reduce Salmonella in poultry. That marks an important step towards broader adoption of the technology.
Interest in bacteriophages reflects a wider shift in how microbes are understood in relation to health. If research continues to advance, and regulation keeps pace, phage-based nutraceuticals and feed supplements could become part of a new generation of more targeted ways to shape the microbiome, supporting both human health and more sustainable agriculture.
Tiny though they are, these bacterial viruses may end up playing a significant role in how we manage harmful bacteria.
Manal Mohammed 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Philip Murphy, Director of History & Policy at the Institute of Historical Research and Professor of British and Commonwealth History, School of Advanced Study, University of London
King Charles’s speech to the US Congress – only the second such address by a British monarch – demonstrates how much both the US and the UK have changed in the last three decades.
The first speech was in May 1991 during his mother, Queen Elizabeth II’s, third state visit to the US. The underlying purpose of both speeches was the same: to stress the enduring links between Britain and the US. But the circumstances in which they were delivered were very different.
The late queen’s speech came in the wake of joint action by US and British forces, along with other allies, to eject Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi troops from Kuwait. She referenced this in her speech as a concrete example of the strength of the Anglo-American alliance.
In 2026, the UK has pointedly refused to join the US-Israeli attack on Iran, angering President Donald Trump. Charles’s speech adroitly inverted the moral of this apparent diplomatic rift, suggesting that tensions in the past had always been overcome. Referring to the revolution of 1776 he noted: “Ours is a partnership born out of dispute, but no less strong for it”, because ultimately “our nations are in fact instinctively like-minded”.
A speech like this, voiced by the monarch, can serve at least two useful purposes. The first is to portray things that are, at heart, profoundly political, as being somehow above politics. The second is to place the transitory difficulties of day-to-day diplomacy within the much longer-term perspective of a dynasty that traces its lineage back to the Norman Conquest.
These two elements featured in how both Elizabeth II and Charles’s speeches depicted the Anglo-American alliance. The latter was the basis of a joke by the king, who referred to the actions of the Founding Fathers “250 years ago, or, as we say in the United Kingdom, just the other day”.
Charles’s speech was beautifully crafted and delivered with a degree of warmth and conviction that was always beyond the range of his mother’s public oratory. That, in itself, was almost an implicit reproach to the president’s own rambling, undisciplined public pronouncements.
And in more than one way the address was pitched over the head of Trump. The lack of any immediate pushback from the president suggests that the subtlety of some of the messaging eluded him. But in a more significant sense, it was an appeal to causes that still resonate with much of the American political class if not with the Trump administration itself.
Charles stressed the value of Nato and the importance of “the defence of Ukraine and her most courageous people”. He made a sly reference to his proud association with the Royal Navy – an institution that has been the subject of some disparagement by Trump in recent weeks.
He emphasised the importance of protecting the environment, although couched in a Trumpian language of profit and loss: “We ignore at our peril the fact that these natural systems – in other words, Nature’s own economy – provide the foundation for our prosperity and our national security.”
Perhaps his most pointed remarks – and those that generated the loudest applause from some (although not all) in the hall – were directed at the US itself. He described Congress as “this citadel of democracy created to represent the voice of all American people”. He mentioned the role of Magna Carta in laying the foundation for the constitutional principle that “executive power is subject to checks and balances”. Trump’s opponents clearly enjoyed that.
Saving the special relationship
State visits by British monarchs to the US have been relatively rare, and state visits to London by US presidents are even rarer. Trump is unique in having made two. This in itself is a mark of the desperate attempts by British governments, both Tory and Labour, to find ways of managing relations with his administration. This desperation was also apparent in Keir Starmer’s reckless decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as British ambassador to Washington.
The king’s speech pushed in interesting ways at the boundaries of what a British monarch might be expected to have said in Trump’s America. Yet some of the sentiments in his mother’s 1991 address to Congress – considered uncontroversial at the time – could no longer be expressed without the risk of offending the current administration.
Queen Elizabeth noted: “Some people believe that power grows from the barrel of a gun. So it can, but history shows us that it never grows well nor for very long. Force, in the end, is sterile.”
That may be a lesson Trump will have to learn the hard way. But for the moment, he and his immediate circle seem to have an unwavering belief in the primacy of kinetic force, and have little interest in the objective Charles described of stemming “the beating of ploughshares into swords”.
The queen also commended “the rich ethnic diversity of both our societies”. Charles spoke instead about interfaith understanding. This is not quite the same thing – but is certainly more compatible with the Trump administration’s disturbingly relaxed approach to the rise of white-supremacist politics.
Perhaps the saddest feature of a comparison of the two speeches is the queen’s proud boast in 1991 that “Britain is at the heart of a growing movement towards greater cohesion within Europe, and within the European Community in particular”. If the US has changed since 1991, so has Britain. It would be nice to think that one day the monarch might give an equally generous speech about shared history and values in front of the UK’s European neighbours.
Philip Murphy has received funding from the AHRC. He is a member of the European Movement UK.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lucy Bray, PhD Candidate and Public Health Registrar, University of Southern Denmark
When we think about the causes of climate change, the usual suspects often come to mind: coal-fired power plants, traffic-choked roads, industrial agriculture. Rarely do we picture hospitals.
The far-reaching consequences of climate change are increasingly recognised as the greatest threat to human health in the 21st century.
Rising temperatures and environmental disruption are already harming on human health. Indeed, this can be seen in the increase in heart and lung disease, the spread of infectious diseases carried by insects, heat-related illness, injuries from extreme weather events and worsening mental health. And then there are issues of disrupted access to clean water, food and shelter.
This reveals an uncomfortable truth: healthcare is both a protector of health and a contributor to one of its greatest threats.
Inside hospital emissions
One of the most surprising aspects of healthcare’s carbon footprint is where most of the emissions come from. While hospitals themselves use large amounts of energy, most emissions – up to 70% – actually arise from the healthcare supply chain itself.
This includes the manufacture, transport and disposal of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, reusable equipment and single-use items such as gloves, masks and syringes.
Modern medicine depends heavily on these products and every item carries its own hidden environmental cost. This means that the carbon footprint of healthcare is not just tied to buildings and electricity use, but to the entire global network required to deliver care.
Individual surgical procedures can also have significant carbon footprints. For example, a heart bypass operation has been estimated to be roughly equivalent to driving 1,700 miles in a petrol car. And even a tonsil removal, a relatively simple operation, is estimated to be like driving 150 miles. When multiplied across the millions of procedures performed worldwide each year, these emissions quickly add up.
Even small, everyday treatments can have surprisingly large environmental impacts. Inhalers, for example, commonly used to treat asthma and other lung conditions, can contain extremely powerful greenhouse gases.
Some of these gases have a global warming potential up to 3,000 times greater than carbon dioxide – a key culprit of climate change. Indeed, inhalers account for over 3% of the total carbon footprint of the National Health Service (NHS) in England alone.
Healthcare emissions are also deeply unequal across the world. Wealthy, technologically advanced countries produce the majority of healthcare related greenhouse gases – with estimates indicating that they account for around 75% of the global total. While poorer countries, which contribute far less to the problem, often face the most severe health consequences of climate change.
Rethinking patient care
But despite the scale of the problem, it is possible to reduce emissions by using different treatments or approaches without compromising patient care.
Where appropriate, this can mean switching patients from high-emission pump inhalers to lower-impact alternatives such as dry powder or capsule-based devices. It could also include doing more procedures as day cases to avoid hospital admissions. Or opting for non-surgical treatment of common conditions instead of operating.
Actually changing clinical practice is, however, a challenge. One of the biggest barriers is that without understanding exactly where emissions occur, it is difficult to identify what changes need to be made and where they’d have the greatest effect.
This is why our team is in the process of measuring the environmental impact of different treatments – from physical training to pain medication, to surgery – to identify the processes responsible for the most emissions.
Although our initial focus will be on a single condition, knee osteoarthritis, our model will eventually be able to be applied more widely across the healthcare system, hopefully allowing real change to occur. This is important because ultimately, hospitals cannot fully protect human health while contributing to the environmental changes that threaten it.
This article was commissioned as part of a partnership between Videnskab.dk and The Conversation, where articles are also published in Danish.
Lucy Bray is affiliated with Læger for Klimaet (Doctors for the Climate).
Søren T. Skou 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Carlos Abrahams, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Assessment – Director of Ecoacoustics, Nottingham Trent University
Each May, nature lovers get out of bed early to experience the seasonal wonder of birds singing, as the sun rises above the horizon to take part in International Dawn Chorus Day.
In Europe you may hear blackbirds, chiffchaffs and nightingales. In the US, cardinals, chickadees and blue jays. In East Africa, morning thrush, hornbills and wood doves. Each with their own song.
There is no single dawn chorus, but the harmonies of hundreds of bird voices at first light change from place to place in a huge wave that surfs around the world as the planet rotates.
A dawn chorus is part of a wider soundscape – the interaction between biological sounds from birds and other animals (biophony), natural physical sounds such as wind or water (geophony) and human‑generated sounds like traffic (anthrophony). The dawn chorus is often the most prominent component of the soundscape at sunrise, but it never exists in isolation.
Scientists believe that birds structure their early morning singing in a way that prevents overlap and masking of each other’s vocalisations. They use different pitches and timings to partition and share the acoustic space. Birds in open landscapes such as grasslands use shorter, scratchier sounding song phrases, while birds in woodlands use longer whistling notes – each evolved to allow the best transmission of their song in their own habitat. So birdsong is filtered by trees, grasses, across water and through urban areas, to create a soundscape phenomenon that differs very clearly from region to region.
In the Caledonian pinewoods of northern Scotland, the first morning sounds are often geophonic: wind moving through tall pine canopies. Typically before first light, male western capercaillies gather together to vie for females. The males fan out their tail feathers, puff out their chests and produce a series of clicks, pops and wheezing notes. These are short‑range sounds, shaped by the open understorey and the resonant qualities of the forest.
Fieldwork in these woods has shown how these vocalisations are tied to group mating activity (known as lekking) and can be used to assess the populations of this rare and declining species. These sounds indicate a specialised habitat that has remained untouched for a long time? and without much human disturbance, where the secretive birds can go about their lives, while contributing to the distinctive acoustic character of the pinewoods.
Move to a lowland heath in southern England though, and the differences are immediate. The geophony shifts to the dry hiss of wind across heather and scattered gorse. The dawn biophony is dominated by an assemblage of species that are rare across Europe. The nightjar might have been producing its continuous churring since well before first light. Woodlarks add clear, falling song phrases, while Dartford warblers deliver rapid, scratchy calls from gorse clumps. Research on heathland species has shown how these calls are useful indicators of local habitat quality and structure.
In urban areas, birds have to compete with the noises made by people and their machines. Cars, motorbikes, trains. Sirens and alarms. Nightclubs and pubs. The urban architecture often makes this worse, with reflective hard surfaces bouncing these noises around the streets, instead of absorbing them as natural spaces would.
Birds have to adjust their behaviour around this. Some advance or delay the timing of their singing; others increase volume or shift pitch to higher frequencies. Large‑scale studies indicate that spring soundscapes across Europe and the US are becoming quieter and less varied, due to changes and declines in bird communities, linked to climate change and habitat loss.
Because many people hear birds more often than they see them, changes in soundscape complexity can be one of the earliest signs that local biodiversity is under pressure. Long‑term listeners of bird song – whether through formal monitoring or casual early‑morning walks – may be detecting real ecological change.
Listen up
Understanding soundscapes can help make sense of these changes. A chorus lacking high‑frequency elements may indicate the loss of particular warblers; reduced low‑frequency components may point to declines in larger bird species.
Changes in the geophony, such as increased wind noise in fragmented woodland, can alter how well birds communicate. And increasing man-made noise can mask quieter species entirely, leading to an impression of silence even where birds are still present.
In the UK, pinewoods and heaths both depend upon active vegetation management for conservation and long‑term habitat stability. Maintaining these landscapes means maintaining the conditions that support their characteristic sounds.
Paying attention to how different places sound at first light can be a reminder that biodiversity is something we can hear as well as see. You can even compare it with the sounds that accompany sunrise from other places. Arts cooperative SoundCamp’s Reveil project offers a 24‑hour broadcast that relays sunrise sounds from microphones around the world, allowing us to track the soundscape as the Earth rotates through one full day each spring.
A dawn chorus is more than an aesthetic experience: it is a summary of local ecology, habitat condition and the pressures shaping both.
Carlos Abrahams is director of Naturesound Ltd, an ecoacoustics consultancy. He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.
The EU formally unblocked a €90 billion (£78 billion) loan for Ukraine on April 23 after Hungary and Slovakia dropped their opposition. This move came over a week after defeat in parliamentary elections brought the 16-year tenure of Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, to an end. He will be replaced by Péter Magyar of the pro-Europe Tisza party.
But at a summit simultaneously taking place in Cyprus, EU leaders struggled to agree on a membership timeline for Ukraine. This is despite the exceptional pace of the war-torn candidate country’s accession-related reforms. The hesitation of EU member states also comes even though the bloc has prioritised its enlargement agenda since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.
Meanwhile, another candidate country, Montenegro, is making progress on joining the bloc. Ambassadors from all EU member states said on April 22 that they had decided to set up an “ad hoc working party” to draft an accession treaty for the Balkan nation. The president of the European Council, António Costa, described this as “a big step” towards membership.
Montenegro wants to become the EU’s 28th member by 2028, concluding a process that began when it applied nearly two decades ago. It is aiming to close formal negotiations by the end of 2026 so the accession treaty can then be adopted and ratified by each of the EU’s 27 member states.
However, despite this formal progress, there are reservations about the quality of the reforms Montenegro is carrying out to align with EU standards. These reservations relate to the country’s efforts to combat corruption, ensure judicial independence and guarantee a free and pluralistic media environment.
The accession treaty is thus expected to include extensive transitional arrangements, a period after accession during which a new member does not fully participate in certain EU programmes and policies. This will give Montenegro time to adapt.
Four frontrunners currently stand out in the EU membership queue: Montenegro, Albania, Moldova and Ukraine. European Union, 2025, CC BY-NC-ND
Formally, EU enlargement is a merit-based process driven by a candidate country’s compliance with political, economic and legal standards. But politics play a role, too. This is showcased by the contrasting progress Ukraine and Montenegro have made towards EU membership.
Montenegro’s small size and membership of Nato make consensus among member states on its accession relatively easy to achieve. The same cannot be said for Ukraine. Its larger size, wartime context and the scale of its potential accession make Ukraine a far more contentious decision for member states.
Politicisation of enlargement
The politicisation of the enlargement process, where individual member states shape the accession process in line with their domestic preferences, is perhaps the main factor explaining why the EU has struggled to replicate Montenegro’s progress across other candidate countries.
Despite their readiness to move forward with opening negotiations, Ukraine and neighbouring Moldova’s formal accession progress has been stalled for several months. Decisions related to Ukraine’s EU membership, in particular, have been vetoed multiple times by Orbán.
The outgoing Hungarian prime minister leveraged bilateral disputes with Ukraine to justify blocking progress in accession talks. He linked concerns over energy security, as well as a disagreement over disrupted Russian oil supplies through Ukraine, to the country’s EU path. Orbán used these disputes to veto the opening of negotiations.
Even Montenegro may not enjoy a smooth path to EU membership if Croatia continues to link bilateral issues such as maritime disputes to enlargement. The disagreement between the two countries primarily concerns the Prevlaka peninsula. This is a strategically significant area, which controls access to Montenegro’s only deep-water bay and main naval base.
According to Zvezdana Kovač of the Centre for Civic Education, an organisation that monitors Montenegro’s progress towards joining the EU, Croatia is a “manageable risk” in Montenegro’s accession process. In a 2025 interview with the New Union Post website, she noted that Croatia’s responses “are not driven by a strategic desire to block Montenegro” and it retains “a clear interest” in having EU member states as its neighbours.
Vetoes driven by bilateral disputes have contributed to disillusionment in some candidate countries. In North Macedonia, which first applied for EU membership in 2004, Bulgaria’s continued veto over deep-seated language and identity disputes has helped bring to power a government led by Hristijan Mickoski that no longer prioritises accession at all costs.
The EU’s varied responses to protests and its contrasting relations with governments in Georgia and Serbia, two other candidate countries, have also alienated many particularly in Belgrade.
While the EU’s response to democratic backsliding in Georgia has been strict, targeting the ruling party by imposing visa restrictions for diplomatic passport holders, the approach to Aleksandar Vučić’s government in Serbia has been more cautious. Serbian opposition groups have reacted to this with dismay.
If the EU sees enlargement as central to its security, decisions cannot risk being derailed by one or two member states. Moving from unanimity to qualified majority voting in enlargement-related decisions would help speed up decision-making in the Council.
But, at the same time, the EU must ensure it does not admit countries that later fail to uphold its standards – a lesson drawn from Hungary’s increasingly authoritarian trajectory over the past 16 years of Orbán’s rule.
While Montenegro appears to be entering the final stage of its path to EU membership, disagreements over Ukraine’s timeline show that some member states have not fundamentally shifted their approach to using enlargement as a geopolitical tool.
For now, the EU is managing rather than overcoming politicisation in its accession process. This risks an enlargement policy that remains inconsistent and unreliable.
Iveri Kekenadze Gustafsson 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sofie Abildgaard Jacobsen, PhD Candidate in the Department of Clinical Medicine – Clinic for Functional Disorders, Aarhus University
Global figures estimate that around one in six women will experience sexual assault during their lifetime. These figures are not only high but also extremely concerning, given that sexual assault is a deeply traumatic experience for someone to go through.
But as we found in our recent study, survivors of sexual assault can often experience persistent physical symptoms across the entire body for many years after being attacked or assaulted.
These symptoms fall under what clinicians call functional somatic disorders. These are conditions with persistent physical symptoms that aren’t fully explained by other medical or mental health conditions. And they can cause significant distress and seriously affect a person’s daily life. These include conditions such as Fibromyalgia, ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome), and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).
Hidden trauma
As part of our recent research, we used data from a large Danish health study that followed thousands of adults over several years, looking for how many of those people had a functional somatic disorder at a given time, and how many would develop a functional somatic disorder over time.
What we found in our study was that people who had experienced sexual assault were 69% more likely to report or develop ongoing physical health problems compared to those who had not experienced sexual violence.
The risk of developing more widespread health problems (meaning several persistent and bothersome symptoms affecting different parts of the body) was six times higher among survivors of sexual assault in our data.
Overall, survivors reported more symptoms. And these symptoms were often more severe and affected multiple parts of the body.
Findings from our earlier study also found that the more severe the assault, the greater the risk of developing long-term physical health problems.
Persistent pain, fatigue, and other bodily symptoms can follow sexual violence. pexels polina zimmerman, CC BY
In our research we also found that sexual assault appeared to have a particularly strong impact compared to other forms of abuse, such as emotional and physical abuse. This is probably because sexual violence can activate several stress‑related systems in the body.
As our recent research shows, sexual assault is not only a severely traumatic experience for someone to go through. But it’s also an important public health issue. With potential long-lasting consequences for a person’s mental and physical health.
Indeed, these findings suggest that some people with unexplained pain or persistent somatic symptoms may carry a hidden history of trauma. Even if they do not disclose these experiences directly to a doctor.
It’s clear then that there needs to be a greater recognition of the connection between sexual trauma and physical symptoms within the medical system. At sexual assault referral centres, for example, professionals could make survivors of sexual assault aware of the possibility of long-term somatic symptoms as well as psychological ones.
This may help to normalise someone’s experience of sexual violence. It may also help to reduce shame and ensure that treatment encompasses the full spectrum of the trauma’s impact.
People working in healthcare should be aware that if they’re treating someone with a functional somatic disorder, there’s a possibility that person has experienced sexual violence. pexels/yankrukov, CC BY
On a wider level, sexual assault should be considered a significant risk factor for both mental and physical health difficulties. And more must be done to inform doctors and nurses in all areas of healthcare about the hidden health risks of sexual assault and rape.
Indeed, raising awareness and improving understanding would lead to more validation of survivors’ experiences and greater trust in healthcare systems for patients.
This is important because supporting someone after sexual violence means more than just treatment – it means care that understands trauma and that gives survivors the support they truly need.
This article was commissioned as part of a partnership between Videnskab.dk and The Conversation.
Sofie Abildgaard Jacobsen receives funding from The Danish Victims Foundation. She is affiliated with SundFornuft – Tænketanken for Sundhedspolitik (Common Sense – The Health Policy Think Tank).
The first modern mention of the Flemish painter Michaelina Wautier (1614–1689) introduces an artist who defies expectation. Referring to her monumental Triumph of Bacchus (1655–59), Gustav Glück, the first art historian to serve as curator of Vienna’s Kunsthistorisches Museum, wrote in 1903 that “even in an age of female emancipation, one would hardly wish to ascribe this picture, which shows a highly vigorous, almost coarse conception, to a woman’s hand”.
And thereby hangs the achievement of Wautier: she may have been able to paint “like a man”, but in most of her works, she does not feel the need to do so. Instead, Michaelina Wautier emerges as an artist with a distinctive style of her own.
The Royal Academy of Arts (RA) in London is currently host to the most complete representation of her work to date. It is a landmark exhibition that reintroduces an artist who in her day was highly successful and championed by the court and elite in Brussels; but, who subsequently almost disappeared from public and scholarly notice for close on 300 years.
Restoring Wautier to a place in the artistic canon through an exhibition in the Royal Academy of Arts seems especially apt for an artist who defies expectation. The RA was the first institution to provide professional training for artists in Britain. Wautier’s work and the RA’s presentation of it shows clear evidence of the sort of training that was at the time the exclusive prerogative of male artists.
The point on her training is made straight away through the image that opens the show, a graceful and confident Study of the Medici Ganymede Bust (1654). The drawing depicts the famous ancient Roman sculpture, which was at the time in Rome. Drawing competently was a much valued skill and the Ganymede suggests not only a meticulously trained artist, but one whose work is up-to-date and reflects contemporary trends.
Many will be questioning where she sits in relation to the titan of Baroque painting and her contemporary, Artemisia Gentileschi (1593–1654) – the favourite subject of feminist art history. Both women disappear from view after the 1650s, both worked with close relatives (Wautier with her brother, Gentileschi with her father), both were championed by high-ranking patrons. But this is where the similarities end.
Gentileschi’s violent personal history has often overshadowed the discussion of her consummate skill and mastery of her craft. For instance, works like the Beheading of Holofernes (1612) are frequently interpreted as responses to her experience of sexual violence.
In Wautier’s case, however, there just isn’t much known about her life beyond bare facts such as who her parents were, that she shared a studio with her brother in Brussels and that she never married. This lack of information is partially due to the artist’s will going up in the flames of the French bombardment of Brussels in 1695.
So where for Gentileschi it feels as if we can’t separate the art from the biography; in Wautier’s case, there is nothing but the art. And, what wonderful art it is too.
Wautier excelled in portraiture, with her elegant palette and her mastery of textures – be it hair or textiles. In her portraits, especially in the depiction of children, she is vivacious and lively and so observant of quirks and foibles. You can see this in her Five Senses (1650) series. For instance, Smell features a little blond boy clutching a rotten egg in one hand and pinching his nose shut with the other, recoiling from the egg’s stench.
Despite their brilliance, however, she never signed her portraits. She did, however, sign two large-scale religious paintings, a Mystic Marriage of Saint Catherine of Alexandria and an intriguing and unusual panel depicting the Education of the Virgin. Both panels centre around educated, confident, elegant female protagonists, defined by their actions.
These paintings defy contemporary ideas that women artists excelled at imitation but lacked the capacity to imagine and create a subject from scratch. Wautier signs these paintings “invenit et fecit”, which translates as “invented and executed”. Here she is staking her claim to possessing the imagination to execute significant work at large scale. She attests to be a master of her craft, and this is nowhere more apparent than in the centrepiece of the Royal Academy’s exhibition, her immense Triumph of Bacchus.
Here, Wautier tackles the epitome of artistic mastery: a large-scale mythological subject that featured in the work of her most significant contemporaries, such as Andrea Mantegna, Titian and of course the artist who dominated the market in Flanders and the Netherlands, Peter Paul Rubens.
Wautier’s Triumph of Bacchus is larger than that of her male competitors, and she combines in her image the fleshiness of the central male nude with the grace and the elegance of Titian. She presents the viewer with a powerful image of a flabby Bacchus reclining in a wheelbarrow, surrounded by his followers. Wautier’s skill in painting a variety of male nudes in a range of poses looks effortlessly competent, with the Bacchus becoming the work that firmly places her within art history, a masterpiece designed to defy the challenge that a woman can not paint like a man.
This one can, but she takes the challenge up a notch with the intriguing inclusion of a self portrait. Wautier depicts herself as an elegant, bare-breasted Bacchante, a female follower of Bacchus, clad in a striking robe of salmon-pink, looking out at the viewer, the only person to do so in the array of figures depicted. Wautier’s Bacchante stands tall and proud, inviting the viewer to look at her. But it’s Wautier who controls this gaze; in the painting, a sallow-skinned faun attempts to grab the Amazonian, composed woman. She shrugs off his leering, and ignores him grabbing her hair. She is in charge.
Michaelina Wautier is on at The Royal Academy in London until June 21, 2026
Gabriele Neher 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.
I recently appeared on the BBC radio show Woman’s Hour to discuss my research on homicides committed by women. Just before my segment, singer-songwriter Katherine Priddy spoke about her song Matches, inspired by the feminist phrase “women, not witches”. It reframes witch trials as the persecution of women rather than the pursuit of the supernatural. One lyric lingered with me: “They weren’t burning witches; it was women on those fires.”
In England, Wales and their former North American colonies, that claim needs nuance. There, women were not burnt for witchcraft; they were hanged. Witchcraft was a felony under English common law, and felons were executed at the gallows. Elsewhere, the story was different. On the continent and in Scotland, witchcraft was heresy, and heretics were burnt at the stake.
In England and its colonies, no one was burnt at the stake during witch hunts: not at Pendle, not at Salem and not under the campaigns of the “witchfinder general”, Matthew Hopkins. The image of the burning witch is powerful, but in this context, it is largely a myth. If we want to understand why women were burnt in England and Wales, we need to look elsewhere – towards a different crime, and a different kind of fear.
Matches by Katherine Priddy.
In 1359 at York Castle, a woman named Alice of Tunstall was brought before the court. She was not accused of witchcraft. There were no whispers of spells or dealings with the devil. Alice stood charged with killing her husband. She was found guilty of petty treason and sentenced to be burned at the stake.
Petty treason applied to those wives and servants who “owed faith and obedience” to a social superior. A wife who killed her husband committed a rebellion against the social order itself; a husband who killed his wife had not. Husbands, and even male servants who killed their master, were hanged; women were burnt.
The logic of the law was explicit. Fire destroyed the body, denied burial and made the crime a public spectacle. It was punishment as both correction and warning. Petty treason made female disobedience visible, violent and unforgettable.
Centuries later, the law’s gendered logic persisted. In 1789, Catherine Murphy and her husband were convicted of the same crime: making counterfeit coins – a type of high treason. He was hanged like other male offenders; she was burnt at the stake.
At Newgate Prison, Catherine was led past the hanging body of her husband. She was strangled until she was dead. Only then were bundles of sticks piled and lit around her body, following the post-1652 custom of ensuring the condemned was no longer alive. Even in this modified execution, Murphy’s punishment was far harsher than that of the men she had worked with, reflecting centuries of legal gender inequality.
The execution of Murphy helped prompt reform. In 1790, the MP Sir Benjamin Hammet raised the issue in the House of Commons, citing her death as evidence that burning women – even after they were dead – was a grotesque and unnecessary punishment. The Treason Act of 1790 abolished burning as a method of execution, substituting hanging, which was the punishment for men. Even then, it was not until 1828 that a wife’s murder of her husband was formally reduced to a felony.
From Alice of Tunstall to Catherine Murphy, these fires were not about magic – they were about control. They remind us that historically, under English law, female defiance of husbands or social hierarchy has been treated far more harshly than men’s crimes. The image of the burning witch obscures this reality. In truth, it was gender, not superstition, that lit the flames.
Stephanie Brown 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kartikeya Walia, Lecturer, Department of Engineering, Nottingham Trent University
A table tennis robot has outperformed elite players in recent evaluations. The robot, called Ace, marks a significant step toward artificial intelligence (AI) systems that can operate in fast, uncertain, real-world environments.
In the tests, the autonomous robot won three out of five matches against elite players – competitive athletes with over ten years’ experience and an average of 20 hours weekly training. The robot, developed by Sony AI, lost both matches against players in professional Japanese leagues, but did win a game against one of them. The system is described in detail in a recent paper published in Nature.
AI has spent decades mastering games. It has repeatedly outperformed the best humans in everything from complex video games like StarCraft II to chess – where modern programs now far exceed human ratings.
Landmark systems such as Deep Blue and AlphaGo have confirmed that, given clear rules and enough data, AI can achieve superhuman performance. But these victories all shared one key feature: they happened in controlled, digital environments.
At first glance, table tennis might seem like an unusual benchmark for artificial intelligence. In reality, it is one of the most demanding imaginable. The ball can travel faster than 20 metres per second, giving players less than half a second to react.
On top of that, spin introduces enormous complexity. A ball rotating at extreme speeds can curve mid-air and rebound unpredictably off the table. For humans, interpreting spin is largely intuitive. For robots, it has been a longstanding obstacle.
This robot can beat you at table tennis (Nature)
Earlier table tennis robotic systems such as Forpheus, developed by Japanese company Omron, addressed this by simplifying the game – using controlled ball launchers, limiting movement, or ignoring spin altogether. More recent iterations have aimed for interaction, but still operate under constrained conditions.
Ace does none of this. It plays with standard equipment, on a regulation table,
against human opponents who are free to use the full range of shots.
How Ace works
Ace’s performance relies on three key innovations: how it sees the world, how it
decides what to do, and how it carries out those actions. First, let’s deal with how Ace sees the world. Traditional cameras struggle with fast motion, often producing a blur or missing critical details.
Ace instead uses three “event-based” vision sensors, which detect changes in light rather than capturing full images at fixed intervals. These are complemented by nine high-speed cameras that track the environment, including the opponent and their racket.
Together, these systems enable high-speed gaze control (the technology that enables a robot to direct its sensors to focus on specific things) and allow the robot to follow the ball with exceptional real-time precision.
By tracking markings on the ball, where professional players can generate spin approaching 9,000 revolutions per minute (rpm), the system can estimate spin in real time, something that has long challenged robotic systems.
How Ace’s gaze control system works (Sony AI and Nature).
The second important innovation is how Ace decides what to do. Knowing where the ball is going is only half the problem; the robot must also respond instantly. Ace uses deep reinforcement learning, trained in simulation over millions of virtual rallies, including self-play.
It continuously generates movement commands for its multi-jointed robotic arm, recalculating trajectories every few tens of milliseconds while avoiding collisions with the table or itself.
The third innovation is how Ace how it carries out its actions. To match the speed of human elite players, the robot is built around a high-performance arm combining two prismatic (sliding) and six revolute (rotational) joints. This enables rapid sideways motion and precise striking. There is both a table tennis racket and a mechanism for ball handling, allowing one-armed serves.
Crucially, the system is engineered for high-speed interaction: lightweight structures and optimised actuation (the mechanisms in a robot that convert energy into mechanical force) allow Ace to return balls at speeds approaching 20 metres per second. This enables sustained, competitive rallies with skilled human players.
Ace makes a split section change when the ball hits the net (Sony AI and Nature).
What makes this particularly notable is the transition from simulation to reality. Many AI systems perform well in virtual environments but fail when exposed to real-world noise and uncertainty. Ace demonstrates that this “sim-to-real” gap can be
meaningfully reduced.
One moment during a rally with an elite player illustrates the way that Ace has leapt over this gap. When a predicted ball trajectory suddenly changed after clipping the net, Ace reacted almost instantly, returning the shot and winning the point. What makes Ace particularly significant is therefore not just its performance, but its ability to operate reliably under real-world uncertainty.
Why this matters beyond sport
A robot returning high-speed topspin shots may be entertaining, but the implications go far beyond table tennis. In manufacturing, for example, robots are typically confined to highly structured tasks.
The real challenge is adaptability, handling irregular objects, responding to variation. This is particularly relevant for next-generation robots operating in unstructured environments.
To function effectively in homes, hospitals or construction sites, robots must be able to predict, adapt and respond to constantly changing conditions. The same predictive and control capabilities that allow Ace to respond to unpredictable shots could enable more flexible, responsive automation.
Most industrial robots are kept behind safety barriers because they cannot respond to unexpected human behaviour. Zhu Difeng
There are also implications for human–robot interaction. Most industrial robots are
kept behind safety barriers because they cannot react quickly or reliably enough to
unexpected human behaviour. Ace operates at the edge of human reaction time,
suggesting a future where robots can safely collaborate with people in shared
spaces.
More broadly, this work represents a shift in what AI is expected to do. The next
frontier is not just intelligence in abstract problem-solving, but intelligence embedded in the physical world. The gap between simulations and reality needs filling, and this is a big step forward.
Professional players were still able to exploit Ace’s limitations – particularly in reach, speed, and the ability to handle extreme or highly deceptive shots. This highlights that intelligence is not just about prediction and control, but also about physical embodiment. Humans combine perception, movement and strategy in ways that remain difficult to replicate.
Interestingly, systems like Ace may end up enhancing human performance rather
than replacing it. As one former Olympic player observed after facing the robot,
seeing it return seemingly impossible shots suggests humans might be capable of more than previously thought.
Kartikeya Walia receives funding from Innovate UK, UKRI. He 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Brusatte, Chancellor’s Fellow in Vertebrate Palaeontology, University of Edinburgh
Exactly how did birds evolve from dinosaurs? It’s a mystery that has been with us for more than 150 years, and palaeontologists are still hunting for pieces of the puzzle today.
Among them is the University of Edinburgh’s Professor Steve Brusatte, whose latest book, The Story of Birds, tells the whole fascinating story. We caught up with him recently to find out more.
Of all the great dinosaur subjects, why this story?
I’ve always been fascinated by birds. They are all around us and there’s such a stunning diversity and variety. As a palaeontologist I specialised early in the theropod (two-legged) dinosaurs. This is the group that includes T.rex and Velociraptor – and gave rise to birds.
The more I studied theropods, the more I became more curious about the modern-day animals that descended from them. Back in the early 2010s my PhD was about the origin of birds. Its core involved building a big new family tree of theropod dinosaurs to understand where birds slot in, how they evolved from dinosaurs, and how their body features came together.
I wrote about the dinosaur bird connection in my first book, The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs (2018), but that was just one chapter. It made me think it would be really fun to do an entire book on the subject. That was how my new book, The Story of Birds, came together.
Is there still any debate about birds evolving from dinosaurs?
I think people have generally heard that birds descended from dinosaurs. In the newer Jurassic World films you even see feathers on some of them. And yet it hasn’t really broken through to the public consciousness that today’s birds really are dinosaurs. They are part of the dinosaur family tree. They just happen to be a peculiar group of dinosaurs that got small and evolved wings, took to the skies and have survived until today.
It was Charles Darwin’s great disciple, Thomas Henry Huxley, in the 1860s who first noted similarities between the skeletons of some dinosaurs starting to be found in Europe and those of modern birds. This was back before anybody knew what DNA was, for instance.
Huxley’s idea did enter the public consciousness, at least in Victorian Britain. Darwin added it to the later editions of On the Origin of Species. But then it went out of favour. This was the great era of exploration, especially in the US and Canada. The frontier was being pushed westwards, and all these new dinosaurs were being found – Stegosaurus, Brontosaurus and later Brachiosaurus and T.rex.
None look anything like birds. I think dinosaurs obtained this stereotype as giant reptilian monsters, and this still largely dominates the public consciousness today.
Yet there were also a lot of smaller dinosaurs. Many had feathers and wings, and many were very bird-like. It’s really only in the past few decades that the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs has become scientific consensus. The discovery of feathers on dinosaurs in the 1990s really sealed the deal on that.
What mysteries remain?
There are of course still things we don’t know, like how dinosaurs started to fly. How did they start to move their wings in a way that generated enough lift and thrust to get them airborne? Did they run on the ground and use their wings to defy gravity? Did they do it from the trees down, using these wings as a way to manipulate gravity? That’s one of the biggest mysteries.
Another area of uncertainty is which dinosaurs were the closest relatives of birds. The more fossils we find, especially feathered dinosaurs in China and other places, the more it’s clear there was a whole bunch of small dinosaurs with feathers. A lot had wings, some had wings only on arms, some on arms and legs. Some had wings of feathers. Some had wings of skin like a bat.
There was a huge diversity of them right around that point in the family tree where proper modern-style birds evolved with big arm wings that they flap to keep airborne. Each new fossil gives us more information but also another layer of complexity. It makes it just a little trickier to untangle the knot of exactly which dinosaurs were the closest rivals of birds. You still see new discoveries being made every year.
You say in the book that wings evolved not to fly?
The fossils tell us clearly that feathers evolved long before any of these animals were flying. Many dinosaurs had simple feathers; they looked like little strands of hair. In fact most dinosaurs probably had them – they just don’t normally preserve because they decay away so quickly. It’s in spectacular fossil sites where lots of dinosaurs were buried quickly, usually by volcanic eruptions, where you see a lot of these feathers (Liaoning province in north-eastern China is a good example).
But these feathers were not used for flying. There’s clear evidence from the fossil record that feathers evolved in a simpler form for other reasons. Our best hypothesis is they evolved for insulation, to help them stay warm – just like hair in mammals.
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
Later on, these feathers evolved on some dinosaurs into quills that made up wings. But the fossil record shows that the first wings that show up in dinosaurs between the sizes of sheep and horses. Those wings were only about the size of laptop screens, and by the laws of physics, those could not keep an animal of that size in the air.
That hints that wings probably also evolved for another reason and were only later co-opted for flying. We can tell a lot of these feathers had flamboyant colours and patterns, so one leading idea is that wings first evolved for display, to attract mates; to intimidate rivals. This is still true today, of course.
You can imagine if those wings got bigger over time, more flamboyant, more ornate, at some point the laws of physics would take over and they would generate some of those aerodynamic forces. It’s not like we have fossils of the exact dinosaurs that were the first to flap their wings, but that is at least what the fossil record is telling us.
Did dinosaurs have to get smaller for flying birds to evolve?
This is a big part of the story. Some dinosaurs, such as T.rexes, got bigger over time, but the dinosaurs that evolved into birds had been getting smaller for tens of millions of years. We don’t know why exactly, but there’s all kinds ecological niches where it pays to be small: it’s easier to hide, you can grow more quickly, and so on.
So it seems you had this group, that their bodies were getting smaller, and their wings were getting bigger. At some point you had a wing that was big enough to keep a body that was small enough in the air. At that point, natural selection could take over and start refining these dinosaurs into ever better flyers.
Is it an accident of evolution that flying creatures the size of elephants don’t exist?
Animals that need to flap wings to fly can’t be that big. The biggest flapping flyers today are wandering albatrosses, and their maximum wingspan is about 3.5 metres. We have fossils of birds that were bigger: the Pelagornithids were giant soaring birds that went extinct right before the ice age. They had wingspans that were something like 7 metres long. But beyond that, I think it would be very hard to flap wings to fly.
Largest wingspan today: the wandering albatross. Imogen Warren
It makes total sense to me that it was probably a crow-sized to lapdog-sized raptor dinosaur that first started to flap as opposed to some dinosaur the size of an albatross. It’s just that the stereotype of dinosaurs being huge makes it harder to envision some small dinosaurs flapping and flying.
How did birds survive the asteroid?
That was a big mystery for a long time. There were proper birds at least 150 million years ago, which means they lived alongside their dinosaur cousins for some 80 million years. Then the asteroid comes down around 66 million years ago and all the dinosaurs die except the birds – why is that?
The reality is that lots of birds went extinct at the same time as the other dinosaurs. Many birds were still quite primitive and would have looked a lot like their dinosaur cousins. The only ones to survive were very modern-style birds. They had beaks instead of teeth, big wings and large chest muscles, and could grow really quickly like birds today.
A lot of recent research has clarified why they survived. What it comes down to is: the asteroid was a shot out of the darkness of outer space, a six-mile wide rock that smashed into the Earth one day. It changed everything instantaneously. There were earthquakes and tsunamis and wildfires. There was dust blocking out the sun, giving rise to a nuclear-style winter that lasted several years. Natural selection can’t work on that timeframe, so when the asteroid hit, all the animals had to confront the situation with the features they already had.
Most of the dinosaurs were big, and nothing bigger than a husky dog survived on land. With all these fires and acid rain and storms, simply being outside and exposed to the elements would have been bad. If you were smaller you could hide away more easily.
Also, modern-style birds had a bunch of features that turned out to be beneficial.
They grew to adult within year, so it didn’t take too long for them to nurture the next generation. They could fly away from danger. But crucially they also had beaks, which could have allowed them to eat seeds.
When the Earth went cold for many years, ecosystems collapsed. Plants did not have sunlight to photosynthesise. So plant-eaters died, which meant meat-eaters died. Seeds were probably the last foods that survived. If you could eat them, it could probably have got you through those lean years.
We have gut content of birds from the Cretaceous period (145 to 66 million years ago) and we can tell a lot of them did eat seeds. So the modern-style birds had a good hand of cards just as the world became this fickle casino and survival was a matter of the odds.
Which bird species appeared after the asteroid?
Bird fossils from the Cretaceous (meaning before the asteroid) are limited because it’s hard to fossilise birds. They’re small and their bones are really delicate. But we do know there’s birds like Vegavis and Asteriornis that lived in that period and were respectively members of the modern groups of ducks and chickens.
It doesn’t mean other modern species like owls or falcons weren’t there, but certainly they were not a major component of the ecosystems at the time. Then the asteroid hit and we start to see in the Paleocene (66 to 55 million years ago) fossils of things like penguins, mouse birds and multiple other modern groups.
Hawks are thought to be one of the species that evolved soon after the asteroid. Ram Jagan
Yet the really strong evidence about what happened is from the DNA of modern birds. Researchers are using whole genomes now. They can compare the similarities and back-calculate to predict when two groups would have diverged. When you do this, it predicts there was a big bang of bird evolution right around that time – including species like owls, parakeets, falcons and hawks.
It makes sense that if you have a mass extinction that kills 75% of species, there would have been abundant opportunity for whatever survived. But we’re still waiting for fossils to confirm this directly. It’s a real target for people doing fieldwork to confirm this story by finding the fossils of birds up to 5 to 6 million years after the asteroid.
You write that great birds have come and gone – talk us through some of those
There are more than 10,000 species of birds today, basically double the number of mammal species, so in that sense we’re still in a dinosaur world. But there are even more incredible extinct birds, some of which went extinct quite recently because of us, as we’ve spread around the world and changed the environment very quickly.
A lot of these fantastic birds got their start in the ecological vacuum after the asteroid. There were birds that became basically born-again T.rex and Triceratops – filling the top predator/top plant-eater role in a lot of ecosystems.
In South America were the “terror birds” (Phorusrhacidae). They stood taller than a person, had a head the size of a horse head and a massive hooked gnarly beak. They were the top predators there for tens of millions of years. South America was an island for lot of that time; only later did jaguars and big dogs arrive.
South America’s terror bird, once the apex predator on the continent. Harper Collins, CC BY-SA
In many places, birds were the biggest plant-eaters. Australia had birds called demon ducks (Dromornithidae) that lived for tens of millions of years. Think of the modern duck and super-size it by 100. Some were heavier than cows.
Elsewhere there was New Zealand’s moa and Madagascar’s elephant bird. Elephant birds were maybe the heaviest birds of all time. They laid eggs the size of watermelons. Many of these birds couldn’t fly. They gave up that ability as a trade-off to allow them to become really big.
The Pelagornithids also really fascinate me – the birds that were double the wingspan of an albatross. They lived for tens of millions of years, sailing the world’s thermals like giant kites. They would have been utterly spectacular animals.
Pelagornithids had twice the wingspan of the modern wandering albatross. Harper Collins, CC BY-SA
We only know about most of these birds because of fossils – except for some like the moas and elephant birds and demon ducks, which did meet humans but didn’t last long, unfortunately.
Is it surprising birds never became as intelligent as humans?
When I was growing up in the late 1980s and through the 1990s, it was an insult to say “you’re a bird brain”. It’s such an unfair biological slur, because birds are very smart.
It’s just that they have small brains – I don’t know how many hummingbirds could fit into the head of an elephant. But when it comes to the size of the brain relative to the size of the body, which is largely what matters for cognition, problem-solving and so on, birds are right up there with mammals.
Song birds learn intricate songs. Similar to a human language, they learn them from tutors, they babble when they’re young and make mistakes, then master their avian language later on.
Parrots can mimic human speech. And whereas plenty of animals use tools in a rudimentary way, some crows can make their own tools. It’s really only crows and humans and maybe some close primate relatives that do that. Crows take sticks and branches and twist and turn them. They make hooks out of them and use them to probe for food.
Since the asteroid, there were probably long stretches where it was actually birds that were the cognitive superstars. It was maybe only a few million years ago when some primates eclipsed birds in having the biggest brain relative to body size.
When did birds start singing?
Sound doesn’t fossilise, of course. But we can look at the family tree of modern birds. We can look at the songbird group and use DNA to predict when they would have originated. We can then look at the fossil record of the skeletons of birds, and see if they more or less match up with what the DNA suggests.
This tells us that song birds go back in Australia as long as 50 million years ago. Songbird evolution then probably went into overdrive about 27 million years ago. This was probably triggered by tectonic events such as little microplates, and islands moving around and forming new corridors and environments in South East Asia.
It’s only in the past 20 million years or so where you’ve had songbirds moving around the world. Nowadays, more than half of birds are song birds.
Anything else that is a priority?
The very first birds in the fossil record – proper flapping flight birds like Archaeopteryx – are from about 150 million years ago. Archaeopteryx had big feathered wings that could flap, but also teeth in its jaws, as well as big claws and a long tail. It’s the quintessential evolutionary link in transitional species, and has been known since the 1860s, when Huxley and Darwin wrote about them. Archaeopteryx was integral to their idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
We still haven’t discovered anything much older. We have some new fossils from China that are about the same age. Yet these birds must have had ancestors that were a bit more primitive, that could only fly in more of a rudimentary way. That’s one thing we’re waiting for, maybe from the Late Jurassic (162 to 143 million years ago) or even Middle Jurassic (174 to 162 million years). Those fossils would give us proper insight into how flapping flight really originated.
The Story of Birds US edition publishes on April 28, while the UK edition publishes on June 11 and is available for pre-order.
This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Stephen Brusatte publishes books with HarperCollins and Picador. He receives funding from the Swedish Research Council, European Research Council, National Geographic, and Leverhulme Trust.
