Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

While the air and ground war in Ukraine grinds on, Moscow is increasing pressure on Kyiv’s western allies. Russian drone incursions into Poland in the early hours of September 10, and Romania a few days later, were followed by three Russian fighter jets breaching Estonian airspace on September 19.

And there has been speculation that drones which forced the temporary closure of Copenhagen and Oslo airports overnight are connected to the Kremlin as well.

While this might suggest a deliberate strategy of escalation on the part of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, it is more likely an attempt to disguise the fact that the Kremlin’s narrative of inevitable victory is beginning to look shakier than ever.

A failed summer offensive that has been extremely costly in human lives is hardly something to cheer about. Estimates of Russian combat deaths now stand at just under 220,000. What’s more, this loss of life has produced little in territorial advances.

Since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022, Russia has gained some 70,000 sq km. This means that Moscow has nearly tripled the amount of territory it illegally occupies. But during its most recent summer offensive, it gained fewer than 2,000 sq km. On September 1, 2022, Russia controlled just over 20% of Ukrainian territory, three years later it was 19% (up from 18.5% at the beginning of 2025).

Perhaps most telling that the Russian narrative of inevitable victory is hollow is the fact that Russian forces were unable to convert a supposed breakthrough around Pokrovsk in the Donbas area of Ukraine in August into any solid gains after a successful Ukrainian counterattack.

That Russia is not winning, however, is hardly of comfort to Ukraine. Moscow still has the ability to attack night after night, exposing weaknesses in Ukraine’s air defence system and targeting critical infrastructure.

The western response, too, has been slow so far and has yet to send a clear signal to the Kremlin what Nato’s and the EU’s red lines are. While Nato swiftly launched Eastern Sentry in response to the Russian drone incursion into Poland, the operation’s deterrent effect appears rather limited given subsequent Russian incursions into Estonia and undeclared flights in neutral airspace near Poland and Germany.

Subsequent comments by Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, threatened to “shoot down flying objects when they violate our territory and fly over Poland”. He also cautioned that it was important “to think twice before deciding on actions that could trigger a very acute phase of conflict.”

On the other side of the Atlantic, Donald Trump, the US president, has said little about Russia ratcheting up pressure on Nato’s eastern flank. Regarding the Russian drone incursion into Poland, he mused that it could have been a mistake, before pledging to defend Nato allies in the event of a Russian attack.

This is certainly an improvement on his earlier threats to Nato solidarity, but it is at best a backstop against a full-blown Russian escalation. What it is not is a decisive step to ending the war against Ukraine. In fact, any such US steps seem ever farther off the agenda. The deadline that Trump gave Putin after their Alaska summit to start direct peace talks with Ukraine came and went without anything happening.

Europe scrambles to replace US guarantees

As for Trump’s phase-two sanctions on Russia and its enablers, these have now been made conditional by Trump on all Nato and G7 countries, imposing such sanctions first.

Meanwhile, US arms sales to Europe, meant to be channelled to strengthen Ukraine’s defences, have been scaled down by the Pentagon to replenish its own arsenals.

At the same time, a longstanding US support programme for the Baltic states – the Baltic security initiative – is under threat from cuts. There are justified worries that it could be discontinued as of next year.

As has been clear for some time, support for Ukraine – and ultimately the defence of Europe – is no longer a primary concern for the US under Trump. Yet European efforts to step into the gaping hole in the continent’s security left by US retrenchment are painfully slow. The defence budgets of the EU’s five biggest military spenders – France, Germany, Poland, Italy and the Netherlands – combined are less than one-quarter of what the US spends annually.

Even if money were not the issue, Europe has serious problems with its defence-industrial base. The EU’s flagship Security Action for Europe programme has faced months of delays over the participation of non-EU members – including the UK and Canada, two countries which have significant defence-industrial capacity.

European defence cooperation, including the flagship Future Combat Air System, is threatened by national quarrels, including between the EU’s two largest defence players, France and Germany.

Thus far, muddling through has worked for Ukraine’s western allies. This is mostly because Kyiv has held the line against the Russian onslaught. It has done so by making do with whatever the west provided while rapidly innovating its own defence sector.

It has also worked because Trump has not (yet) completely abandoned his European allies. There is enough life – or perhaps just enough ambiguity – left in the idea of Nato as a collective defence alliance to give Putin pause for thought. For now, he is merely testing boundaries. But if unchallenged, he might keep pushing further into uncharted territory – with unpredictable consequences.

Western stop-gap measures may be fine for now. But the west’s responses to Putin’s challenges – which are likely to become more frequent and more severe in the future – will require the European coalition of the willing to focus on the here and now and raise its level of preparedness.

Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

– ref. Russian incursions into Nato airspace show Ukraine’s allied coalition needs to be ready as well as willing – https://theconversation.com/russian-incursions-into-nato-airspace-show-ukraines-allied-coalition-needs-to-be-ready-as-well-as-willing-265776

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Karen Roehr-Brackin, Reader, Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex

If you’ve always wanted to learn a new language, don’t let age put you off. People aged over 60 can be independent and flexible in how they learn a language – and successful, too.

There is ample evidence from decades of research that, as we age, some of our perceptual and cognitive abilities gradually decline. Our hearing and vision are not as sharp as they used to be, we process information less speedily, and our memory may not be as good as it was when we were younger. These are all known corollaries of healthy ageing which do not normally have a major adverse impact on daily life.

What is noted less frequently is the possibility that these effects need not be deficits in themselves, but may arise from a lifetime of accumulated knowledge and experience. The older we get, the more information we have to sort through, and this may slow us down. In this context, it is also important to highlight the fact that general and especially verbal knowledge can actually grow with increasing age.

In line with this, researchers have investigated language learning in late adulthood and shown that there is no age limit to our ability to learn a new language – we can do it at any point in our lives. However, it is less clear which approach to language learning and teaching works best later in life.

Research with younger adults indicates that an explicit approach which includes explanations of the target language and spells out grammar rules, for instance, is most effective.

At first glance, we may assume that this should apply to older adults too, or indeed that it should be even more true for them, given that it reflects a traditional approach to language instruction. Older adults may well have experienced exactly such an approach during their schooling and may therefore favour it.

To date, there is surprisingly little research that has put this assumption to the test. A recent study in the Netherlands found no evidence that late-life language learners would do better with an explicit approach.

Indeed, it did not matter whether instruction was explicit or implicit, that is, with or without any grammatical explanations. The senior volunteers did equally well, regardless of how they were taught.

Comparing approaches

In my new study with colleague Renato Pavlekovic, we compared an explicit with an incidental approach to language learning. In a small set of online lessons, 80 English-speaking volunteers aged between 60 and 83 learned the beginnings of Croatian – a language they were completely unfamiliar with.

In the explicit approach, a full explanation of the grammatical structure we targeted was given. In the incidental approach, there was no explanation, but additional practice exercises were available instead.

We found that learners did equally well regardless of the instructional approach they experienced. They first learned a set of vocabulary items and subsequently the targeted grammatical structure to a high level of success, achieving average scores of around 80% accuracy. This suggests that the teaching approach did not matter to these late-life learners – they could find their own way independently of how the learning materials were presented.

In this new study, we also explored the role of cognitive and perceptual factors as well as our volunteers’ self-concepts: that is, how they felt about their own health, happiness and abilities. In addition, we asked questions about their (former) occupations and prior language learning experience. Interestingly, we found a connection between the ability to learn implicitly (that is, picking things up from context without being aware of it), occupational status (whether someone was retired or still working) and self-concepts.

Specifically, people who reported a more positive self-concept showed better implicit learning abilities. Moreover, people who were still working at the time of the study showed better implicit learning abilities than individuals who were retired – something we had observed in a previous study too. Importantly, this effect was independent of age.

Superficially, a link between employment status, implicit learning ability and self-concept may not make much sense. There is arguably a common denominator, though: confidence could be at the centre of a self-reinforcing cycle. A person with strong implicit learning ability remains in the workforce for longer. This boosts their self-concept, which in turn makes them continue with their occupation for longer.

While in work, they need to take the rough with the smooth; they cannot only engage in activities they enjoy. This means that they continue drawing on their implicit learning ability, and so forth.

Taken together, the results of our study show that late-life language learners can be very successful. They seem to be sufficiently independent to choose the path that works best for them, so it does not matter so much which teaching approach is used. In addition, confidence is important; it appears to arise from a combination of ability and social status.

Karen Roehr-Brackin received funding from the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust (grant reference SRG23230787) which supported the research project reported here.

– ref. Your age shouldn’t put you off learning a new language – what the research says – https://theconversation.com/your-age-shouldnt-put-you-off-learning-a-new-language-what-the-research-says-263581

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joni Wildman, PhD Candidate in Mycology, University of Bath

A new European health survey shows that Candidozyma auris – a dangerous drug-resistant fungus – is spreading rapidly in hospitals across the continent. Cases and outbreaks are increasing, with some countries now seeing ongoing local transmission.

Here’s what you need to know about this deadly fungus.

What is C auris?

Scientists first isolated C auris from the ear of a Japanese patient in 2009. It has since spread to hospitals in over 40 countries.

C auris is a yeast species – single-celled microorganisms from the fungi kingdom. While yeasts contribute to a healthy microbiome and many people experience only mild yeast infections when microbial balance becomes disrupted, C auris is far more dangerous. The fungus usually causes only mild infections in healthy people, but in patients with weakened immune systems, it can prove deadly, particularly when it enters the bloodstream and vital organs.

The fungus primarily affects severely ill patients, spreading from the skin into the bloodstream and organs.

Why is it dangerous?

C auris causes severe organ infections when it breaches the body’s natural defences. Between 30% and 60% of patients with invasive C auris infections die. And patients who carry the fungus risk developing infections themselves and spreading it to others.

The fungus can be very difficult to treat because some strains are resistant to nearly all available drugs. C auris appears to evolve rapidly, with new drug-resistant strains emerging regularly.

How does it spread?

C auris spreads mainly in hospitals through direct contact with infected people or contaminated surfaces. The fungus produces proteins called adhesins that help it stick to surfaces, making it very hard to remove.

Why is it spreading so quickly?

C auris spreads quickly because hospitals struggle to detect and eliminate the fungus. People can carry it on their skin without symptoms, unknowingly bringing it into hospitals. And diagnosis is difficult. Standard laboratory tests misidentify C auris as more common yeasts. Hospitals need specialised methods to correctly identify it, so early cases go unidentified without access to these tools.

The fungus grows well at higher temperatures (optimally at 37-40°C), thriving on warm bodies. It also withstands routine disinfection. C auris forms biofilms – layers of microbial growth that prove extremely difficult to eliminate.

How common is it in Europe?

C auris has spread fast across Europe. Once limited to isolated cases, it now causes sustained hospital outbreaks. Between 2013 and 2023, there were over 4,000 cases, including 1,300 in 2023 alone.

The UK recorded 134 cases between November 2024 and April 2025 – a 23% increase compared with the previous six months.

In some European countries, the fungus has become endemic in hospitals, and true numbers may be higher because of limited testing.

Globally, C auris has reached every continent except Antarctica.

Scientists have identified distinct genetic groups that dominate in different regions, each varying in how easily they spread and how resistant they are to treatment, making control more difficult.

What are health authorities doing about it?

Health authorities recognise that they need to contain C auris and are taking action. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control has called for stronger surveillance, and the World Health Organization has placed C auris on its list of priority fungal pathogens.

In the UK, new guidance sets out practical steps for hospitals, highlighting the careful and responsible use of antifungal drugs as crucial for controlling the disease.

Can it be stopped?

Hospitals can stop or at least control C auris. Those acting quickly have successfully contained outbreaks. Experts stress that a critical window exists when rigorous measures can stamp out a single case or small outbreak. However, once C auris spreads widely in a hospital or region, it becomes extremely difficult to stop.

What’s being done about it?

Hospitals and governments need to act swiftly. Hospitals must strengthen their infection-control practices, while governments should mandate that every case of C auris is reported to health agencies so its spread can be tracked. Public health authorities can help by issuing clear guidance and expanding access to reliable tests, and specialised response teams should be ready to support hospitals during outbreaks.

What happens if it’s not contained?

If authorities allow C auris to spread unchecked, it could become a permanent healthcare menace, causing frequent outbreaks that mean higher costs, strained hospital capacity, and more illness and deaths.

We might also see C auris evolve even greater drug resistance through continued circulation. Scientists have already found some strains that resist all major antifungal drugs. This is why health authorities stress the need for immediate action while containing and limiting C auris remains possible. Without urgent action, this fungus could become a permanent fixture in hospitals, driving up infections,costs and deaths.

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

– ref. Deadly drug-resistant fungus spreading rapidly through European hospitals – https://theconversation.com/deadly-drug-resistant-fungus-spreading-rapidly-through-european-hospitals-265328

Source: The Conversation – UK – By George Kyris, Associate Professor in International Politics, University of Birmingham

The UK, France, Canada and Australia are among a group of nations that are moving to formally recognise the state of Palestine like most other states have done over the years. This move is a major diplomatic shift and turning point in one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. Here’s what it means.

What does it mean to recognise Palestine?

Recognising Palestine means acknowledging the existence of a state that represents the Palestinian people. Following from that, it also means that the recogniser can develop full diplomatic relations with representatives of this state – which would include exchanging embassies or negotiating government-level agreements.

Why have these countries moved together – and why now?

Diplomatic recognition, when done in concert, carries more heft than isolated gestures – and governments know this. A year or so ago, Spain tried to get European Union members to recognise Palestine together and when this was not possible opted to coordinate its recognition with Norway and Ireland only. Further away, a cluster of Caribbean countries (Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, the Bahamas) also recognised Palestine around the same time.

By acting together, countries amplify the message that Palestinian statehood is not a fringe idea, but a legitimate aspiration backed by a growing international consensus. This collective recognition also serves to shield individual governments from accusations of unilateralism or political opportunism.

This wave of recognition comes now because of concern that Palestinian statehood is under threat, perhaps more than ever before. In their recognition statements, the UK and Canada cited Israel’s settlements in the West Bank in their reasoning.

The Israeli government has also revealed plans that amount to annexing Gaza, the other area that ought to belong to Palestinians. This is after months of assault on its people, which the UN commission of inquiry on the occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel found amounts to genocide. Public sentiment has also shifted dramatically in support of Palestine, adding to the pressure on governments.

Why do some say recognition isn’t legal?

Israel and some of its allies argue that the recognition is illegal because Palestine lacks the attributes of a functioning state, such as full control of its territory or a centralised government. Legal opinion on whether Palestine meets the criteria of statehood is divided. But, regardless, these criteria are not consistently used to recognise states.

In fact, many states have been recognised well before they had complete control over their borders or institutions. Ironically, the US recognised Israel in 1948, refuting critics that this was premature due to the lack of clear borders. Recognition has, therefore, always been political.

But even if we take a more legal perspective, the international community, through numerous UN and other texts has long recognised the right of Palestinians to have a state of their own.

Does recognition ‘reward Hamas’, as Israel claims?

Recognising a state does not mean you recognise those who govern it. At the moment, for example, many states do not recognise Taliban rule, but this doesn’t mean they have stopped recognising the existence of Afghanistan as a state.

Similarly, the fact that Netanyahu is under arrest warrant of the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity has not resulted in states withdrawing their recognition of the state of Israel and its people. Recognising a state is not the same as endorsing a specific government.

Not only that but all of the states that recently recognised Palestine have explicitly said that Hamas must play no role in a future government. France said that although it recognises the state of Palestine it won’t open an embassy until Hamas releases the hostages.

Will recognition make a difference?

The past few years have laid bare the limits of diplomacy in stopping the horrific human catastrophe unfolding in Gaza. This doesn’t leave much room for optimism. And, in a way, states taking brave diplomatic steps are, at the same time, exposing their reluctance to take more concrete action, such as sanctions, to press the government of Israel to end its war.

Still, the recognition brings the potential for snowball effects that would enhance the Palestinians’ international standing. They will be able to work more substantively with those governments who now recognise their state. More states may now also recognise Palestine, motivated by the fact others did the same.

And more recognition means better access to international forums, aid and legal instruments. For example, the UN’s recognition of Palestine as an observer state in 2011 allowed the International Court of Justice to hear South Africa’s case accusing Israel of genocide and the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu.

The implications for the Israeli government and some of its allies could also be significant. The US will now be isolated as the only permanent member of the UN Security Council not recognising Palestine. States that do not recognise Palestine will be in a dissenting minority and more exposed to critiques in international forums and public opinion.

This growing isolation may not force immediate changes and may not bother the current US administration, which often does not follow the logic of traditional diplomacy. Still, over time, the pressure on Israel and its allies to engage with a peace process may grow.

In the end, recognition from some of the world’s biggest players breaks their longstanding alignment with consecutive Israeli governments. It shows how strongly their public and governments feel about Israel’s threat to Palestinian statehood through annexation and occupation. For Palestinians, recognition strengthens their political and moral standing. For the government of Israel, it does the opposite.

But recognition alone is not enough. It must be accompanied by sustained efforts to end the war in Gaza, hold perpetrators of violence accountable and revive peace efforts towards ending the occupation and allow Palestinians their rightful sovereignty alongside Israel.

George Kyris 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. The UK, France, Canada and Australia have recognised Palestine – what does that mean? Expert Q+A – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-france-canada-and-australia-have-recognised-palestine-what-does-that-mean-expert-q-a-265790

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adaikala Antonysunil, Senior Lecturer in Biochemistry, School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University

A major new analysis is drawing fresh attention to the possible links between gestational diabetes and long-term brain health in both mothers and their children. The review, which combined data from 48 studies conducted over nearly 50 years, suggests that diabetes during pregnancy may have effects that extend well beyond childbirth, influencing memory, learning and mental health.

Gestational diabetes occurs when blood sugar rises during pregnancy, usually in the second or third trimester. Unlike type 1 or type 2 diabetes, it usually disappears after the child has been born. However, women who experience it are at greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes later in life.

The condition is also becoming more common worldwide, partly because more women begin pregnancy overweight and are having children at an older age. Current estimates suggest it now affects one in seven pregnancies.

The new research, which is yet to be peer reviewed, found notable differences in outcomes for children exposed to gestational diabetes in the womb.

On average, they were 36% more likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 56% more likely to develop autism and 45% more likely to have developmental delays compared with those whose mothers had normal blood sugar during pregnancy. They also scored lower on IQ tests – nearly four points less on average – with particular difficulties in verbal skills and accumulated knowledge.

For mothers, the differences were less striking but still measurable. Those who had gestational diabetes scored about 2.5 points lower on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, a widely used test of memory, attention and problem-solving. While this is only a modest drop, it suggests that even temporary changes in blood sugar during pregnancy could have subtle long-term effects on brain function.

Researchers also identified biological markers that may help explain these outcomes. Children born to mothers with gestational diabetes had lower levels of a protein called brain-derived neurotrophic factor, or BDNF.

This protein supports the growth and repair of brain cells and is vital for learning and memory. Reduced levels could point to slower or less resilient brain development, though the precise effect is still uncertain.

Why these links exist remains an open question. Scientists believe that high blood sugar during pregnancy may lead to inflammation and increased oxidative stress, both of which can damage cells. Changes in how the placenta works may also alter the supply of oxygen and nutrients to the developing baby. In addition, the high insulin levels often seen with gestational diabetes could influence how brain connections are formed.

Another area of focus is epigenetics – the chemical modifications that affect how genes are switched on or off. Diet during pregnancy can trigger such changes, potentially influencing how the baby’s metabolism and brain develop.

Studies suggest that vitamin B12, which plays an epigenetic role in DNA repair and gene regulation, may be especially important. Low levels of B12, often linked to diets high in ultra-processed food, have been associated with poorer outcomes in foetal development, though the evidence is not yet conclusive.

It is important to stress the limits of the research. All of the studies included in the analysis were observational, meaning they can show associations but cannot prove cause and effect. Many other factors – including genetics, family environment and wider health inequalities – also shape outcomes for both mothers and children.

The fact that no major structural brain differences were detected between exposed and non-exposed children suggests that any effects are subtle, perhaps confined to language, attention or memory.

Even so, the findings carry important implications for healthcare. They underline the value of careful glucose monitoring during pregnancy and of lifestyle approaches such as healthy diet and regular physical activity, which are proven ways of managing gestational diabetes. Medical treatment, where required, also plays a crucial role in reducing risks.

For mothers, the research suggests that support should continue after birth, not only to monitor blood sugar but also to keep an eye on cognitive health. For children, early developmental checks could help identify those who might benefit from extra support in learning or behaviour.

Not about blame

Researchers emphasise that these findings are not about blame. Gestational diabetes arises from a complex mix of biological, genetic and environmental factors, many of which are outside individual control. Rather, the analysis points to the need for broader public health strategies and improved support systems during and after pregnancy.

As one of the most comprehensive reviews of its kind, the study adds weight to the idea that gestational diabetes may have lasting consequences that extend beyond pregnancy itself. With prevalence rising worldwide, better understanding of these links is vital for protecting the wellbeing of both mothers and their children.

Future studies may help refine dietary and lifestyle recommendations, exploring how nutrients such as vitamin B12 interact with gestational diabetes. By deepening our understanding of these processes, researchers hope to develop more targeted ways to safeguard brain health across generations.

The findings suggest that gestational diabetes is not only a temporary disruption of blood sugar but may also be linked to subtle, lasting changes in cognitive outcomes. As awareness grows, so too does the importance of early care and sustained support for families affected by this increasingly common condition.

Adaikala Antonysunil receives funding from Diabetes Research Wellness Foundation, BBSRC, Rosetrees Trust and Society of Endocrinology.

– ref. Gestational diabetes linked to autism and ADHD in new study – https://theconversation.com/gestational-diabetes-linked-to-autism-and-adhd-in-new-study-265525

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Morgan Currie, Lecturer in Data & Society, University of Edinburgh

More than a decade of underfunding by successive governments has left the UK’s justice system in crisis. There is now a significant backlog in cases and court dates are being cancelled due to logistical problems.

Powerful voices in UK politics, including the Tony Blair Institute and Policy Exchange think tanks, have put their weight behind artificial intelligence (AI) as a potential solution to problems being experienced across the public sector. Some of those voices believe that AI could liberate staff from bureaucratic workloads and give them more time to concentrate on the human aspects of justice, such as face-to-face engagement with clients.

In January, the Labour government announced a plan to “unleash” AI across the UK in a bid to “turbocharge” growth, boost living standards and revolutionise public services.

So how might AI affect the UK’s justice system?

The current focus on AI has been largely driven by developments in large language models (LLMs). This is the technology behind AI chatbots such as ChatGPT. But automation, machine learning, and other AI tools are not novel features of the justice system.

Older tools such as Technology Assisted Review used a form of AI to help lawyers predict the probable relevance of documents to a particular case or matter. More controversially, risk-scoring algorithms have been used in probation and immigration cases.

Critics of the last example have warned that these systems entrench inequalities and affect people in life altering ways without their knowledge.

However, these automated risk scoring systems are substantially different in nature to the productivity tools based on LLMs that are aimed at streamlining administrative processes. The latter can draft statements as well as scheduling and transcribing meetings.

They can also retrieve and summarise sources for document reviews and case law. Apparent success stories include the Old Bailey saving £50,000 by using AI to process evidence overviews for court cases.

How and why these tools are implemented – the institutional context – matters enormously. When digital tools are used not to provide more space for the human aspects of justice, but instead to cut costs, the harms fall especially heavily on vulnerable clients.

This is because even these seemingly routine administrative uses of AI require human reviewers to catch plausible, but wrong, information produced by these tools and to exercise expert judgment.

Evidence from a small scale Home Office pilot scheme shows why this is important. The pilot scheme used LLMs to summarise asylum case documents and transcripts to support asylum decisions.

Some 9% of the results were found to be inaccurate and missing interview references. Another 23% of users testing the scheme did not feel fully confident in the summaries, despite significant time savings.

Justice and digitisation

In July 2025, the Ministry of Justice published its AI Action Plan for Justice. While Microsoft’s Copilot Chat is already available for judicial office holders, the strategy document promised to roll out AI tools to 95,000 justice staff by December.

The plan acknowledges the many limitations of AI. It also establishes a chief AI officer, creates AI guidelines and emphasises that AI should “support, not substitute” human judgment.

It emphasises a cautious method towards roll-out, including an effort to gather feedback from trade unions and the public. It also stresses transparency through a new website and ethics framework.

The plan continues to promote more controversial uses of the technology, including assessing a person’s risk of violence in custody. Nevertheless, it focuses more heavily on LLMs for time saving tasks in administration.

However, could the new strategy lead to the adoption of LLM tools by the justice system before there is a mature understanding of how they are best applied? Decisions based in part on AI generated evidence are likely to offer new grounds for complaints and challenges. This could add to, rather than reduce, the backlog in cases.

In June 2025, a senior UK judge warned lawyers against the use of LLM tools because of the potential for those tools to “hallucinate” – generate fictitious information. There have been a number of cases elsewhere in the world where fictitious AI-generated material has apparently been filed in court cases.

Given their limitations, any benefits of these tools will generally be seen in those parts of the system where resources and time for human oversight are at their highest. The risks will hit hardest where human time and resources are low and where clients have less money and time to challenge decisions.

This unequal access to justice is not solely an AI issue. Previous waves of digitisation used to reduce the bureaucratic load included allowing some guilty pleas to be lodged online and automatic online convictions for some crimes, which would otherwise have required a court hearing.

As Gemma Birkett, lecturer in criminal justice at City St Georges University, argues, these automated systems particularly affect marginalised women, who are far more likely to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit.

Papering over the cracks

There are powerful arguments to be made in favour of using bespoke, carefully developed technology to remove the administrative burden on justice system staff, so that they can concentrate on the aspects of their work best delivered by people.

But when the current system is struggling, adopting LLMs (or other forms of rapid digitisation) will not fix the deep underlying problems caused by years of austerity. Rather than reducing bureaucracy, they risk papering over the cracks in a dysfunctional system.

Ben Collier receives funding from the Scottish Institute for Policing Research and is the Chair of the Foundation for Information Policy Research.

Alexandra Ba-Tin and Morgan Currie 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. AI use by UK justice system risks papering over the cracks caused by years of underfunding – https://theconversation.com/ai-use-by-uk-justice-system-risks-papering-over-the-cracks-caused-by-years-of-underfunding-264749

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kokho Jason Sit, Senior Lecturer in Marketing; Associate Head (Global), University of Portsmouth

Virtual reality has been fashionable for a while now. So perhaps it was only a matter of time before fashion became virtual.

Instead of spending your money on actual clothes to wear on your actual body, you can now buy garments (and accessories) that you will never touch. Also known as digital fashion, this is a world where clothes are “worn” only in virtual spaces, such as online games or in the metaverse.

Like virtual travel where you never leave your sofa, or a virtual bungee jump without risk of injury, virtual fashion is convenient and accessible. It is also getting more popular, with some sources forecasting that this particular side of the fashion industry could soon be worth tens of billions of dollars every year.

The growth potential predominantly comes from fashion brands using virtual products to advertise and innovate, and ultimately generate more sales. They can use digital clothes to experiment, gauge interest and explore new markets.

Vans, for example, created a virtual skatepark in collaboration with the game developer Roblox where users could practice their online skating skills, and buy exclusive clothing, shoes and other gear. A backpack here would cost 400 Roblox units of online currency, equivalent to around £5.

Meanwhile, the luxury brand Gucci created a virtual gallery (also with Roblox) where visitors could view, “try on” and buy digital items using blank, genderless, humanoid mannequin avatars.

The gallery had different themed rooms from which the avatars would absorb certain visual elements. Users could then screenshots to share on social media.

Zara has collaborated with Zepeto, a South Korean metaverse platform, to do something similar.

All these companies have seen how e-fashion can serve as a useful strategy to engage with consumers and promote imaginative products – and ultimately drive brand awareness and sales.

---

Read more:
3D printing in fashion promises to be huge – so what’s holding us back?

---

Elsewhere, some have previously argued that e-fashion could actually help to make the fashion industry more sustainable by eliminating some of the environmental issues associated with the industry like waste and carbon footprints.

The theory was that if people spent most of their working day in the virtual world, then digital fashion could be a more sustainable alternative to real-world fashion. You could effectively wear the same old jeans and hoodie day after day, while dressing in the latest trends online.

But ideas of a fully immersive digital world have so far not materialised, and fashion’s issues with sustainability remain, driven by the widespread impulse to keep up with the latest fashion, dress cheaply and dispose of items quickly.

The real-world presents digital fashion with further hurdles in its bid to become mainstream.

Some critics would argue that e-fashion lacks “touch authenticity” – the chance to feel and try a design before buying. Others, more simply, would point out that the biggest problem with digital clothes is that you can’t actually wear them.

And our research suggests that the market for e-fashion remains relatively niche. So far, it appeals mostly to hardcore enthusiasts who enjoy exploring new shopping experiences.

These consumers, often passionate about fashion, expression and technology, are the ones most likely to pay for and use e-fashion. They see it as a fun and effective way to combine their interests.

With a few clicks, they can “try on” e-fashion items, personalise them, and then capture and share the results, enjoying a creative outlet for their desire to try new clothes, styles and colours. And it provides brands and designers a way of trying out new ideas, some of which may be impossible to produce in the real world.

Kokho Jason Sit is affiliated with the Chartered Institute of Marketing (UK).

Giovanni Pino and Marco Pichierri 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. Running out of wardrobe space? Maybe you should follow the growing trend for clothes you can’t actually wear – https://theconversation.com/running-out-of-wardrobe-space-maybe-you-should-follow-the-growing-trend-for-clothes-you-cant-actually-wear-255338

Source: The Conversation – UK – By James Edward Brereton, PhD student, Nottingham Trent University

What’s lurking in your freezer: a lasagne or deep-frozen pizza? Conservationists rely on freezers too – but they run much cooler than your model, with the thermostat set to a frosty -196°C, the temperature of liquid nitrogen. You won’t find any burgers in there.

Conservationists use these freezers, known as “biobanks”, to store animal cells including oocytes (egg cells), sperm and somatic cells (for example, skin cells). In the future, lost genetic diversity could be safeguarded in this way. This could be vital for the preservation of endangered species – and species that are not yet endangered, but soon could be.

Over the last 50 years, tissues of many animals have been frozen, including tigers, pandas and rhinos. But many other species have never been archived in this way, including some of the most threatened species on the planet, such as mountain gorillas. The consequences of not banking key species could well be their extinction.

A recent collaboration between researchers at Chester, Dublin and Toronto zoos and Nottingham Trent and York St Johns Universities has investigated the priorities for biobanking wildlife species. My supervisors and I worked with colleagues at these zoos to address the long-held assumption that wildlife organisations prioritise endangered species as the most important species for biobanking.

We found that several prioritisation methods are used for selecting cell types and species. The local availability of cell samples was a key factor, as was the extent of reproductive science knowledge about a species.

---

Read more:
‘Return’ of the dire wolf is an impressive feat of genetic engineering, not a reversal of extinction

---

In the 20th century, the most common priorisation method was to select endangered species. But conservationists would also prioritise the sampling of species that were local to them (for example, in a zoo), as well as sampling opportunistically – for instance, when an animal was undergoing veterinary care.

We tend to think of biobanking as a futuristic, science fiction concept, but these techniques have been developed over many decades. The earliest paper we found was from 1975 on wildlife cryopreservation.

In terms of species and material, cells from mammals were the most frequently biobanked throughout the study period, mirroring the pervasive taxonomic biases in conservation efforts globally.

It’s also more straightforward to bank samples from, say, a gaur (a wild buffalo) because they are physiologically similar to domesticated cattle, which we know a lot about. A rare insect would be a different story.

Historically, biobanking efforts concentrated on saving sperm samples, which made sense as scientists could draw on generations of livestock husbandry methods to use the samples for artificial insemination. But that only captures part of the genetic picture, even for well-represented species.

Today, other cell types, such as somatic cells (body cells, such as skin cells or fibroblast cells that form connective tissue), are becoming increasingly valuable, as they capture a lot more genetic information.

From agoutis to acropora coral

There is a diverse array of species featuring in the biobanking literature. Previous studies cover species ranging from agoutis (a small rodent native to the rainforests of Central and South America) to acropora corals, harpy eagles to hellbender salamanders. For these species, tissue is therefore effectively saved for use in future conservation work.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature, an organisation dedicated to assessing wildlife threat status, established its Animal Biobanking for Conservation specialist group in 2022. This network aims to foster cooperation a broader approach to biobanking, which has until now been carried out on an individual, organisational basis.

Enabling scientists to coordinate their efforts internationally could help cryobanking organisations be more strategic about acquiring genetic material, avoiding duplicating samples and identifying species at risk of being left out.

Researchers also need to think about species that aren’t critically endangered right now but might become so, such as partula snails (tropical tree snails native to Polynesia). By the time a species becomes endangered, the genetic diversity of the population has already significantly reduced.

Even if we do save their gametes and somatic cells, there will still be a genetic bottleneck among the remaining live animals. This can lead to reproductive and health issues in already small populations, further reducing the likelihood of the species’ survival.

If we take samples from animals that are not yet critically endangered, those samples are likely to become valuable in the future. Ultimately, we need a unified plan so we don’t let bias and a lack of strategy shape which species we see in the future – and which we lose.

---

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

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

James Edward Brereton 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. Animals on ice: how conservationists use freezers to ‘biobank’ wildlife – https://theconversation.com/animals-on-ice-how-conservationists-use-freezers-to-biobank-wildlife-263363

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dafydd Townley, Teaching Fellow in US politics and international security, University of Portsmouth

Following the shooting of his political ally, the far-right activist and commentator Charlie Kirk, on September 10, Donald Trump has signalled his intention to pursue his political enemies – what he refers to as the “radical left”. In the days following Kirk’s assassination, the US president took to social media to announce he was planning on designating the antifa movement a terrorist organisation.

Calling antifa a “SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER”, Trump also threatened to investigate any organisations funding antifa. And when Kirk’s widow, Erika, said she forgave the person who has been arrested for the murder, Trump said he did not. “I hate my opponent,” he told people at a memorial event for Kirk at the weekend.

But Trump’s decision to target his ideological opponents faces significant legal and constitutional issues.

It’s not the first time that Trump has threatened such action. In 2020, he threatened the same thing on social media in response to the widespread protests following the death of George Floyd. But just as is the case in the present day, there was no legal process to designate any domestic group as a terrorist organisation.

Trump also appears to have misunderstood what antifa is. He represents it as a defined organisation, when it is more like a broad ideology. Mark Bray, a historian at Rutgers University, New Jersey, described the movement as similar to feminism. “There are feminist groups, but feminism itself is not a group. There are antifa groups, but antifa itself is not a group,” he said.

Antifa is shorthand for “anti-fascist”. It has no centralised leadership or defined structure. Despite being able to mobilise to oppose far-right groups with protests and counter-demonstrations, the movement’s dispersed character hampers efforts to classify it as an organisation of any formal kind.

Plans to use Rico laws

One of the laws Trump has suggested that US attorney-general Pam Bondi could use against antifa is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (Rico) Act of 1970. This was passed by Richard Nixon to tackle organised crime, but its application has since been extended to investigate various other organisations and individuals. This has included Donald Trump himself, over alleged irregularities in Georgia during the 2020 presidential election.

Although it would be challenging, the Trump administration might try to use Rico laws to break up antifa’s network if the movement is classified as a terrorist organisation. Authorities could argue that specific individuals are engaged in a series of racketeering activities, including any acts of violence or other criminal behaviour linked to the movement. But this method would undoubtedly face considerable legal challenges.

If the US government finds a way to define antifa as a group and identify people as members – it’s not clear at the moment whether this might be possible – it would then be possible to seek out and attempt to prosecute anyone who facilitates their activities or gives them funds. But as David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University, North Carolina, told the BBC this week: “Under the First Amendment, no one can be punished for joining a group or giving money to a group.”

Nevertheless, antifa activists may be subject to increased surveillance if the movement is proscribed. Such actions would mirror the FBI’s extra-legal counterintelligence programme (Cointelpro) that targeted the new left in America during the 1960s. Civil rights groups and Democrats would inevitably raise serious questions concerning executive overreach and possible violations of civil liberties.

Power grab

Labelling antifa as a terrorist group would allow the federal government to circumvent state-controlled law enforcement. It may seek to do so especially in Democrat states and cities where authorities might be hesitant to act against liberal or left-wing demonstrators. Federal agencies such as the FBI and Department of Homeland Security might be drafted in to lead investigations and prosecutions, superseding state authorities.

This consolidation of power would create further legal and political difficulties. While the Posse Comitatus Act is supposed to bar the use of federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement, there are exceptions. If the president invokes the Insurrection Act of 1807 it would give him the power to deploy troops to restore order.

Antifa’s classification as a terrorist organisation could have profound effects on the first amendment rights of large numbers of law-abiding US citizens. It would be a serious danger to American democracy if US citizens were unable to voice their protest and exercise their right to free speech because of this classification.

A decision to vilify anti-establishment rhetoric would set a dangerous precedent for silencing dissent and infringing fundamental constitutional rights in the US during the 21st century.

The administration’s position on domestic extremism has changed significantly with Trump’s plan to label antifa as a terrorist organisation. The political consequences are far-reaching, potentially setting important precedents for the balance between civil liberties and US national security. This could shift the focus more toward security and potentially harm individual freedoms.

But it’s unlikely that the Trump administration will be deterred by any constitutional considerations. This is an executive branch that has acted first and sought justification through the courts. There will be a lengthy legal process if Trump follows through on this. But by the time courts make their final decision, the damage will already have been done to the US political system.

Dafydd Townley 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. Going after ‘antifa’: Donald Trump’s plans to crush his political foes – https://theconversation.com/going-after-antifa-donald-trumps-plans-to-crush-his-political-foes-265686

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emma Long, Associate Professor of American History and Politics, University of East Anglia

Donald Trump is attempting to sue the New York Times. In a lawsuit filed on September 15 the US president charged that the paper, two Times journalists and also the publisher Penguin Random House committed libel and defamation against him in series of articles and a book discussing his business experience and time on The Apprentice TV show.

Trump claims the publications were designed to damage his business reputation, sabotage his candidacy in the 2024 election, and interfere with the election. According to the lawsuit, they were published in “bad faith, out of hatred and ill-will directed towards President Trump without any regard for the truth”.

A federal judge threw out the lawsuit on September 19, but did so on a legal technicality without addressing the content of the allegations. Trump’s lawyers have said they will refile so the issues involved remain active.

Trump’s lawsuit is governed by a 1964 Supreme Court ruling, New York Times v. Sullivan. One of the most celebrated of cases handed down by the court during the era known as the rights revolution, the ruling has provided the press in the US with one of the most protected spaces in the world in which to operate.

---

Read more:
The case that saved the press – and why Trump wants it gone

---

The Sullivan case

On March 29 1960, the New York Times published an advertisement funded by northern supporters of Martin Luther King. Headlined Heed Their Rising Voices, it described a number of actions the city government of Montgomery, Alabama had taken to thwart the civil rights movement’s anti-segregation protests and to punish those involved. The city’s police commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, sued the paper for defaming him, even though he was not mentioned by name.

His case rested on the fact there were a small number of factual inaccuracies in the advertisement and that it undermined his professional reputation. A southern jury, upholding Sullivan’s claim, awarded him damages of US$500,000 (£371,000) – roughly equivalent to US$5 million today.

Dismissing Sullivan’s claim, a unanimous Supreme Court established the key test that has governed US press freedom regarding public officials ever since. The “actual malice” test requires evidence that information was published “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”.

This means that by themselves, factual inaccuracies are not sufficient to make a case. And since most journalists and commentators seek to be diligent about the material they publish, the ruling has historically created an extremely high bar for litigants. This has granted the media in the US freedoms that extend well beyond those in many other nations.

In legal terms, then, Trump’s case is highly likely to fail.

Wider context

Sullivan also has important things to say in a country currently embroiled in debates about the scope of free political speech and press commentary.

Under pressure from Trump, broadcaster CBS cancelled The Late Show in July, hosted by frequent Trump critic Stephen Colbert, while ABC has now suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show. The latter move followed a furore over comments the host made about Trump’s reaction to the death of far right conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

The debates have also been driven by Trump’s history of lawsuits against those who disagree with him – including, most recently, the Wall Street Journal, and also against ABC and CBS over issues separate to the rows over their talkshow hosts. He has also launched an investigation into former special prosecutor Jack Smith and taken action to put pressure on law firms representing Trump critics as well as against Harvard University, among others.

In 1964, the Supreme Court understood the importance of the context in which the case had been brought, namely the civil rights movement. In the 1960s, libel suits were used by southern states to attempt to control news coverage of civil rights demonstrations. Officials knew that white southern juries would not find in favour of northern newspapers sympathetic to desegregation.

When the Supreme Court considered its judgment in Sullivan, the New York Times was facing 11 other libel suits in Alabama alone with a total of more than US$5 million at stake. CBS was defending five libel suits in southern states with a total cost of almost $2 million.

Fearful of unfavourable verdicts and monetary damages that risked bankruptcy, some media outlets limited or stopped outright coverage of civil rights protests, just as southern segregationists wanted. This was what the court called a “chilling effect … on First Amendment freedoms”. Fear of consequences can limit people’s willingness to speak out, and self-censorship takes the place of official regulation.

In such a context of intimidation, warned the court, “the pall of fear and timidity imposed upon those who would give voice to public criticism is an atmosphere in which the first amendment freedoms cannot survive”. Americans today of all political persuasions would be wise to pay attention. Good, effective political debate can only happen when participants do not fear or risk retaliation for critical commentary.

Politics was also no place for the thin-skinned, warned the justices in 1964. The commitment to first amendment freedoms meant debate “should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and […] it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials”. A public official, wrote Justice Arthur Goldberg in concurrence, “must expect that his official acts will be commented upon and criticised”.

While unlikely that they anticipated the type of vitriol increasingly familiar to us in the age of social media, the principle nevertheless remains: criticism of job performance is inherent in public roles. If you don’t like it, don’t get involved, and certainly don’t use the law of libel and defamation to seek redress for hurt feelings.

In its Sullivan judgment, the Supreme Court understood the dangers to free speech in a time of polarised debate. Its ruling contains important warnings for Americans that extend well beyond the latest Trump lawsuit.

Emma Long 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. New York Times v Sullivan: the 60-year old Supreme Court judgment that press freedom depends on in Trump era – https://theconversation.com/new-york-times-v-sullivan-the-60-year-old-supreme-court-judgment-that-press-freedom-depends-on-in-trump-era-265598