Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rachel Woods, Senior Lecturer in Physiology, University of Lincoln

Colostrum is often called “liquid gold” by lactation specialists, midwives and infant-health researchers. It’s the early milk produced in the first days after childbirth: thick, yellow and rich in antibodies, proteins and nutrients.

Newborn babies benefit greatly from it because their immune systems are not yet fully developed and their stomachs can only hold very small amounts. For babies, there’s no debate: colostrum is incredibly beneficial.

But some wellness brands are marketing colostrum to adults. Kourtney Kardashian Barker’s Lemme range sells it as sweet gummies and as a sugar-free liquid supplement and creamer.

The appeal is easy to understand. Colostrum has a powerful reputation in infant health. If it protects newborns, many assume it must offer something extraordinary for adults too – but does it?

Babies and adults have very different nutritional needs. A newborn’s stomach holds only a few millilitres, and their immune system is immature. Colostrum provides highly concentrated immune and nutritional factors that the baby needs in its first days of life.

Adults, by contrast, have fully developed digestive and immune systems and can obtain nutrients from a varied diet. An adult stomach holds around one to one-and-a-half litres and expands further after eating. What is essential for a baby is not automatically useful or necessary for an adult body.

While colostrum has undeniable benefits in early life, the versions sold to adults are processed, flavoured and taken in much smaller amounts. That’s why it’s important to look closely at what these products contain and what their marketing suggests they can do.

Colostrum-based supplements are often promoted using persuasive wellness language and health-related suggestions, but scientific evidence for their effectiveness in adults remains limited, early and often based on small studies involving specific groups rather than healthy people. Here’s a closer look at the ideas behind some of these marketing messages and what research actually tells us.

Gut health, digestion and reduced bloating

Some small studies suggest that bovine colostrum might reduce temporary increases in intestinal permeability, sometimes called “leaky gut”, where the lining of the intestine becomes less effective at keeping out bacteria and toxins. These changes can occur after intense exercise or when taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicines, drugs that can irritate the stomach and gut lining.

However, these studies involved only a small number of participants in specific contexts, not healthy adults in everyday life. The findings are considered preliminary and would require larger, well-designed clinical trials before any conclusions could be drawn about general digestive benefits.

The prebiotic fibres inulin and xylooligosaccharides, sometimes added to supplements, are much better studied. Inulin has been shown to increase levels of beneficial gut bacteria such as bifidobacteria, while xylooligosaccharides have been linked to greater bacterial diversity and small improvements in markers related to bowel health, obesity and type 2 diabetes in early research.

But these fibres are not unique to colostrum-based products. They also occur naturally in foods such as onions, garlic, leeks, bananas and chicory root and are widely available as standalone fibre supplements.

Immune system support

Colostrum helps newborns develop immunity by providing antibodies at a time when their immune systems are still forming. This does not mean that taking colostrum will strengthen a healthy adult’s immune system.

The idea of “boosting” immunity – a phrase used in promotional material for Kardashian Barker’s Lemme colostrum supplements – is common in wellness marketing, but it can be misleading. A healthy immune system doesn’t usually need boosting, and an overactive one can cause harm by attacking the body’s own tissues, as happens in autoimmune conditions such as type 1 diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis.

Some research has explored the potential of bovine colostrum in specific conditions, such as ulcerative colitis and travellers’ diarrhoea. But these studies are small, focus on people who are already unwell and cannot be generalised to the wider population. Anyone with health concerns should seek medical advice before taking any supplement.

In Lemme’s products, references to immune support appear to rely primarily on vitamin D. Vitamin D does help regulate the immune system and supports bone health, and low levels are common in winter or in people with limited sunlight exposure. However, vitamin D is inexpensive and widely available as a standalone supplement.

---

Read more:
Vitamin D deficiency is widespread – but overusing supplements can also be dangerous

---

“Full body wellness”

This is a broad phrase without a specific scientific definition. On the Lemme website, the company states that vitamin D supports healthy bones and teeth, which is accurate, but that benefit is not unique to its colostrum products.

“Glowing skin”

This phrase has appeared in some advertising coverage but not on the official product page. “Glowing skin” has no clinical definition and no standard method of measurement. There’s currently no evidence that colostrum, or any of the ingredients in these supplements, produces this effect.

How language influences trust

Lemme’s website includes the standard disclaimer found on most dietary supplements, stating that the products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.

The brand also describes its ingredients as “clinically studied.” This is not the same as “clinically proven.” The phrase typically means that an ingredient has been tested in some form of study, but it does not indicate whether the results were positive, significant or relevant to human health.

Research shows that consumers often confuse these terms. It sounds scientific but does not demonstrate proven efficacy.

Colostrum is extraordinary for newborns. Nature designed it to protect babies during their most vulnerable days. For adults, however, there is no strong evidence from large, well-designed trials that colostrum supplements improve skin, digestion or immunity in healthy individuals. Some ingredients in these products may show potential in specific medical conditions, but that is not the same as demonstrating general wellness effects.

Colostrum supplements primarily market the idea of something pure, powerful and natural. At present, the science does not fully support these suggestions.

Rachel Woods 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. Can colostrum supplements improve your skin, gut and immune system? A nutritionist explains – https://theconversation.com/can-colostrum-supplements-improve-your-skin-gut-and-immune-system-a-nutritionist-explains-269256

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Collins, Reader in American Studies and Chair of The British Association for American Studies, King’s College London

For legal reasons, David Adjmi and Will Butler’s play is absolutely not about the recording of Fleetwood Mac’s 1977 album Rumours. But like that famous album, it is a dizzying amalgamation of influences, mercurial talents and creativity that sits among the defining achievements of its generation. And like Fleetwood Mac, too, it is hard to pinpoint precisely what witchy alchemy makes Stereophonic work so well.

Suffice it to say that it does. The play is a masterpiece. A must-see by all accounts. The legendary 13 Tony Award nominations and smash-hit period on Broadway, followed by doubly-extended runs in London’s West End (where I saw it) are fully deserved.

The play follows a group of musicians in their recording studio in late-1970s California putting together an album that, once again, is expressly not Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours. For a play that is about a band on the verge of titanic artistic, critical and popular success, the principal theme of the work is failure. Or rather, how to learn and grow from it: how to cut a great track; when to cut and run from a toxic relationship; what to keep or cut from our chequered lives so that we can carry on living.

Some of their rock-star lives seem like a lot of fun, but this really is play about work. The work of music and the work of life itself. Sure, the office might not be cubicles and water coolers. It is more like chez longues and gigantic communal bags of the cocaine (probably the hardest working prop currently on the London stage). Yet this is office politics all the same.

Writer Adjmi’s brilliance is that, for all their rockstar antics, the band in Stereophonic are genuinely labouring for the execution of their vision. At the expense of the health and wellbeing. The beleaguered recording engineer, Grover (Eli Gelb), is in almost every scene working tirelessly at the recording desk. He is the Sisyphus of the soundcheck.

The physical mass of the recording desk placed centre stage takes up much of the space typically reserved for the cast. They teeter tipsily around it. It recalls the omnipresence of the tape recorder driving Samuel Beckett’s play Krapp’s Last Tape (1958), a work with which Stereophonic has a surprising amount in common. Like Beckett, Adjmi is using recording technology to ruminate on the problem of time, which is where the play transcends its immediate setting and becomes most salient and meaningful.

The stage is split in half with upstage placed behind a glass screen. We can sometimes hear behind it and sometimes cannot. It is a wall. But it is also a stage of its own on which the characters perform. As a metaphor, the staging stands for how in their relentless rock theatricality the characters can’t always communicate. It asks, when does image or spectacle overtake the truth art seeks to reveal to the world?

All this (70s rock bands, heaps of cocaine, beige upholstery, unimpeded sexual license) could be put down to our cultural moment’s obsession with nostalgia – a sign of our being stuck politically and socially. But that would be to miss the point of Stereophonic wholly.

The London theatre scene is awash with jukebox musicals with ropey plots built around forcing famous songs into some weak narrative. These are mostly not musicals so much as tribute acts forced to do skits. Stereophonic channels the nostalgia in a different direction. The songs are not actual Fleetwood Mac songs – but so good is Will Butler’s (of Arcade Fire) score that they could be.

Some of the performances (really performed live by the actors) just soar. This is a nostalgia that does not dwell in the past alone but is pointing forward. It is more like what the late, great critical theorist (following Jacques Derrida) Mark Fisher called “hauntology”.

As the characters disappear from downstage to appear behind the glass wall of the recording booth, this ghostliness is referenced directly. The recording booth makes the actors unreachable. But so does fame and the process of becoming legend. When one of them speaks into the mic it is like someone communicating through the void from the other side.

What makes classic rock so appealing, and such a great subject for a play, is partly the bildungsroman (fiction focused on the growth and development of young people) and crisis central to its story. It’s almost religious. There was no autotuning available to them. There’s no possibility of endlessly recording and recording over. They try to do this, but there are material limits to their endeavours. They have to get it right.

Adjmi’s script suggests that magnetic tape and goodwill can, like a record label’s patience, like our youth itself, run out suddenly and painfully. One day all this hedonism and earthly pleasure will end for them. As it will for us all.

When the label gives the band more time half way through, it is like they have been granted immortality or a stay of execution. Adjmi manages to make the whole enterprise feel as high stakes as a family tragedy.

Indeed, family (found or otherwise) looms large in the minds of the musicians. Singer Holly and bassist Reg’s marriage is breaking down, drummer Simon misses the kids he has neglected for a year recording and boozing in Los Angeles, singer and guitarist Peter reveals the origin of his perfectionism in a conflict with his Olympic-swimmer brother.

The script works by transforming the musicians’ meaningless, very stoned, profusions of words into moments of sudden beauty and clarity. Their druggy murmurings come suddenly to resemble a stunning lyrical murmuration of form and idea.

This technique replays in microcosm the play’s engagement with the surprising human process of discovery and, let’s call it, genius, that happens within the fold of limited mortal time. This is not just a play about rock. It is so much more.

---

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

---

Michael Collins 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. Stereophonic: this play about an ailing rock band is a must-see masterpiece – https://theconversation.com/stereophonic-this-play-about-an-ailing-rock-band-is-a-must-see-masterpiece-269227

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Valdemar Brimnes Ingemann Johansen, PhD Fellow in the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen

For decades, we’ve been told that weight loss is a matter of willpower: eat less, move more. But modern science has proven this isn’t actually the case.

More on that in a moment. But first, let’s go back a few hundred thousand years to examine our early human ancestors. Because we can blame a lot of the difficulty we have with weight loss today on our predecessors of the past – maybe the ultimate case of blame the parents.

For our early ancestors, body fat was a lifeline: too little could mean starvation, too much could slow you down. Over time, the human body became remarkably good at guarding its energy reserves through complex biological defences wired into the brain. But in a world where food is everywhere and movement is optional, those same systems that once helped us survive uncertainty now make it difficult to lose weight.

When someone loses weight, the body reacts as if it were a threat to survival. Hunger hormones surge, food cravings intensify and energy expenditure drops. These adaptations evolved to optimise energy storage and usage in environments with fluctuating food availability. But today, with our easy access to cheap, calorie-dense junk food and sedentary routines, those same adaptations that once helped us to survive can cause us a few issues.

As we found in our recent research, our brains also have powerful mechanisms for defending body weight – and can sort of “remember” what that weight used to be. For our ancient ancestors, this meant that if weight was lost in hard times, their bodies would be able to “get back” to their usual weight during better times.

But for us modern humans, it means that our brains and bodies remember any excess weight gain as though our survival and lives depend upon it. So in effect, once the body has been heavier, the brain comes to treat that higher weight as the new normal – a level it feels compelled to defend.

The fact that our bodies have this capacity to “remember” our previous heavier weight helps to explain why so many people regain weight after dieting. But as the science shows, this weight regain is not due to a lack of discipline; rather, our biology is doing exactly what it evolved to do: defend against weight loss.

Hacking biology

This is where weight-loss medications such as Wegovy and Mounjaro have offered fresh hope. They work by mimicking gut hormones that tell the brain to curb appetite.

But not everyone responds well to such drugs. For some, the side effects can make them difficult to stick with, and for others, the drugs don’t seem to lead to weight loss at all. It’s also often the case that once treatment stops, biology reasserts itself – and the lost weight returns.

Advances in obesity and metabolism research may mean that it’s possible for future therapies to be able to turn down these signals that drive the body back to its original weight, even beyond the treatment period.

Research is also showing that good health isn’t the same thing as “a good weight”. As in, exercise, good sleep, balanced nutrition, and mental wellbeing can all improve heart and metabolic health, even if the number on the scales barely moves.

A whole society approach

Of course, obesity isn’t just an individual problem – it takes a society-wide approach to truly tackle the root causes. And research suggests that a number of preventative measures might make a difference – things such as investing in healthier school meals, reducing the marketing of junk food to children, designing neighbourhoods where walking and cycling are prioritised over cars, and restaurants having standardised food portions.

Scientists are also paying close attention to key early-life stages – from pregnancy to around the age of seven – when a child’s weight regulation system is particularly malleable.

Indeed, research has found that things like what parents eat, how infants are fed, and early lifestyle habits can all shape how the brain controls appetite and fat storage for years to come.

If you’re looking to lose weight, there are still things you can do – mainly by focusing less on crash diets and more on sustainable habits that support overall wellbeing. Prioritising sleep helps regulate appetite, for example, while regular activity – even walking – can improve your blood sugar levels and heart health.

The bottom line though is that obesity is not a personal failure, but rather a biological condition shaped by our brains, our genes, and the environments we live in. The good news is that advances in neuroscience and pharmacology are offering new opportunities in terms of treatments, while prevention strategies can shift the landscape for future generations.

So if you’ve struggled to lose weight and keep it off, know that you’re not alone, and it’s not your fault. The brain is a formidable opponent. But with science, medicine and smarter policies, we’re beginning to change the rules of the game.

---

This article was commissioned by Videnskab.dk as part of a partnership collaboration with The Conversation. You can read the Danish version of this article, here.

Valdemar Brimnes Ingemann Johansen’s PhD studies are funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research.

Christoffer Clemmensen is a co-founder of Ousia Pharma, a biotech company developing therapeutics for obesity. He receives funding for his University research from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, Independent Research Fund Denmark, Innovation Fund Denmark. the European Research Council, the BioInnovation Institute.

– ref. The science of weight loss – and why your brain is wired to keep you fat – https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-weight-loss-and-why-your-brain-is-wired-to-keep-you-fat-266808

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Damian Bailey, Professor of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of South Wales

With each breath, four out of every five molecules we inhale are nitrogen. This colourless, odourless gas makes up nearly 80% of the air that sustains us – yet it plays no direct role in keeping us alive. This same inert gas is now being used to take life.

In the past year, several US states have adopted nitrogen gas as a method for inmate execution, and a nitrogen‑filled “Sarco pod” (short for sarcophagus) euthanasia device has made headlines in Switzerland. While both claim to offer a calm, painless death, the science tells a different story.

Nitrogen asphyxiation kills by replacing breathable air with pure nitrogen, starving the brain and body of oxygen. It is described by some commentators as humane – a supposedly peaceful fading into unconsciousness without pain or panic. But the physiological reality is far more disturbing.

As oxygen levels plummet, the body’s survival systems erupt into panic. People gasp, choke, thrash and experience terrifying air hunger as their cells suffocate. These are not the signs of a gentle passing but of a body desperately fighting for life.

What began as a speculative idea has now become practice. Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Mississippi have approved nitrogen executions, with several already carried out and more planned. Others, including Ohio and Nebraska, are considering legislation.

The shift has been driven by shortages of lethal-injection drugs and a search for seemingly “cleaner” methods. Yet eyewitness accounts from a recent execution reveal visible suffering lasting minutes before death: violent convulsions, heaving, gasping and desperate attempts to breathe.

Advocates claim that removing oxygen while keeping carbon dioxide levels low prevents panic – a claim rooted in misunderstanding. The body is exquisitely sensitive to oxygen deprivation. Tiny sensors in our neck, called carotid bodies, constantly monitor oxygen levels. When levels fall, they trigger powerful signals to breathe harder.

Air hunger

This response, known as air hunger, is one of the most distressing sensations humans can experience. Unlike drifting into unconsciousness under anaesthesia, oxygen starvation brings an overwhelming feeling of suffocation, panic and terror.

Even trained pilots, exposed to sudden oxygen loss at high altitude, describe severe breathlessness and confusion within seconds – that interval before incapacitating confusion constitutes a state known in aviation medicine as the “time of useful consciousness”.

At 50,000 feet, pilots have less than 12 seconds before confusion sets in – and those moments are anything but peaceful, equivalent to breathing almost pure nitrogen at ground level. The experience is so traumatic that military and commercial pilots undergo hypoxia recognition training precisely to avoid confusion and loss of control when oxygen fails.

In nitrogen executions, the situation is far worse. Prisoners are restrained, unable to expand their chest fully against straps that restrict breathing, amplifying the sense of suffocation. Witnesses have reported prolonged movements and vocalisations, consistent with the body’s involuntary struggle to breathe – unmistakable signs of physiological distress, not serene unconsciousness.

A similar claim of a “gentle” death has entered debates over assisted suicide. In Switzerland, the Sarco pod – a 3D‑printed capsule filled with nitrogen – has been marketed as an elegant, pain‑free way to die. Its inventor, Dr Philip Nitschke, has said users “drift off peacefully”. However, there is no substantial evidence to support this.

The first reported use in 2024 triggered a criminal investigation, and the lack of reported eyewitness accounts makes it impossible to know what the person experienced.

The notion that breathing pure nitrogen induces calm probably stems from confusion with nitrogen narcosis – the intoxicating effect deep‑sea divers feel under high pressure. Yet this “martini effect” occurs only when nitrogen is breathed at several times normal atmospheric pressure.

At sea level, nitrogen simply displaces oxygen, causing hypoxia and anoxia without any sedative properties. The result is not a blissful drift into unconsciousness, but a terrifying physiological fight for air.

Breathing pure nitrogen can cause loss of consciousness within about 20 seconds as blood oxygen falls below critical levels. But even in that brief window, there are several agonising seconds of confusion and suffocation. Death soon follows as the brain and heart are starved of oxygen. Far from being humane, this process resembles drowning without water – silent, invisible, yet equally violent.

The ethical implications are profound. In response to concerns, three major suppliers of medical‑grade nitrogen in the US have banned sales for executions. Yet some policymakers present the method as clean and clinical, even though medical evidence suggests the physical experience is far from peaceful. That is both scientifically and morally misleading.

Death by nitrogen is indeed invisible and silent in itself – no blood, no smoke, no residue. But that silence masks a violent physiological response from gasping and retching to brutal respiratory distress and convulsions.

To call this humane is to fundamentally misunderstand how the body works. As policymakers and the public confront these developments, decisions must be guided not by euphemisms or convenience but by evidence.

Science makes one fact clear: nitrogen itself may be quiet, but it most certainly is not kind.

If you’re struggling with suicidal thoughts, call Samaritans UK at 116 123.

Damian Bailey is supported by a Royal Society Wolfson Research Fellowship (Grant No. WM170007).

Damian Bailey is Editor-in-Chief of Experimental Physiology, Chair of the Life Sciences Working Group, member of the Human Spaceflight and Exploration Science Advisory Committee to the European Space Agency and member of the Space Exploration Advisory Committee to the UK and Swedish National Space Agencies. Damian Bailey is also affiliated to Bexorg, Inc. (USA) focused on the technological development of novel biomarkers of cerebral bioenergetic function and structural damage in humans.

David Poole receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and Is the Elizabeth Chapin Burke Chair for the College of Health and Human Sciences.

Vaughan Macefield receives funding fromThe National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) and the National Institutes of Health (USA)

– ref. Silent but not serene: what science says about nitrogen death – https://theconversation.com/silent-but-not-serene-what-science-says-about-nitrogen-death-267692

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Jacobs, Professor of Political Economy, University of Sheffield

It is easy to be cynical about the annual circus of UN climate negotiations that takes place at “Cop” – the Conference of the Parties to the UN’s climate convention.

As delegates gather in the Amazonian port of Belém, Brazil for this year’s Cop30, familiar complaints have returned: the summits are too big and bureaucratic, and aren’t making enough progress. After three decades of annual conferences, global emissions are still rising – and critics say the process is failing.

But that misses the point. Emissions are rising much more slowly now than they would have been without the UN regime. In 2009, climate scientists were warning that, if countries did not curb their emissions, the world would face up to 6°C of warming.

Before the Paris agreement in 2015, the “business as usual” forecast was down to around 4°C. Today, the UN projects that without additional policies, the world will warm by around 2.5°C.

This steady decline has happened because, contrary to popular belief, the world really is acting on climate change.

Over the past 15 years the dramatically falling costs of renewable energy, particularly solar and wind, have led to an astonishing rise in their use. This year or next, renewables will generate more electricity than coal for the first time.

The same rapid transition been happening with electric vehicles, which now represent more than a fifth of global car sales.

Sceptics say this is due to technological innovation, not UN conferences. But innovation doesn’t just “happen”: it is driven by policy which makes it profitable.

Over the past 20 years, governments all over the world have introduced fuel efficiency standards, renewable energy targets and subsidies that have spurred companies to improve the new technologies.

As prices have fallen – particularly since China started mass producing green technologies in the 2010s – the targets could be tightened, leading to still lower costs. It has been a virtuous circle: policy driving innovation and vice versa.

The quiet power of the Paris agreement

This is why the UN climate process matters. The Paris agreement obliges every country to produce ever-stronger climate targets and plans every five years.

Without this coordinated international framework, there would have been little chance that so many countries – with different political cycles and economic circumstances – would move simultaneously in the same direction. It is this global commitment that drives the growth of low-carbon markets.

But, continue the critics, the national plans are not enough. Around 2.5°C of warming may be better than 6°C, but it will still be catastrophic.

It is true that the Paris agreement has a fundamental (though politically necessary) flaw: it sets a global temperature goal, but then leaves it to each country to decide what they will do to meet it. When the new set of national pledges are added up, they don’t yet align with the 1.5°C-2°C target. The resulting “emissions gap” seems to prove the critics correct.

But that conclusion would be too hasty. The national pledges, known as “nationally determined contributions” or NDCs, are not forecasts.

Under a legally binding treaty, countries do not wish to set targets which unforeseen events mean they might not meet. But many, including China, see NDCs as floors not ceilings – a political statement of minimum intent.

China’s new NDC is a case in point. Many commentators described it as “disappointing”. But in announcing it, President Xi Jinping has explicitly said that the country would strive to exceed its targets. Its record over the past 15 years shows it tends to do just that.

---

Read more:
When China makes a climate pledge, the world should listen

---

Another reason for optimism is that developing countries still don’t know how much financial support they will receive. But that will become gradually clearer over the next few years. At Cop30, Brazil and last year’s host Azerbaijan will present the “Baku to Belém Roadmap”, a plan to raise US$1.3 trillion (£1 trillion) a year in international climate finance by 2035.

If even part of this is delivered, many emerging economies will be able to cut emissions faster (and do more to adapt to climate change) than their current plans suggest.

The summits have done their job

Finally, climate action is increasingly taking place outside the formal negotiations. The 2015 Paris agreement already established the architecture. Now, progress depends less on negotiating new rules and more on implementing them.

That’s why Brazil has described Cop30 as the “implementation Cop”, with a focus on the “real world” of economic development, poverty reduction, green technologies and investment finance. The conference is due to see announcements of major new initiatives in – among other areas – tropical rainforest protection, sustainable fuels, regenerative agriculture, carbon markets, methane emissions, combating wildfires, digital public infrastructure, airline ticket taxes and adaptation finance.

When critics attack the large numbers attending the summits, they miss the point that many of these attendees have a practical interest in these and other solutions to climate change.

In the future, Brazil and others hope, these big climate summits will be much more about such sectoral and financial initiatives than about the negotiation of ever-more detailed UN rules. Climate action is moving into a new era. And this is precisely the international regime working as it was designed: a framework to encourage ever-increasing ambition, coordination and accountability.

Of course, we cannot be complacent. As the US withdraws from the Paris agreement, its president is stepping up his counter-measures to boost fossil fuels and undermine renewables. Global climate policy has in this sense become a battle between alternative visions of our energy and industrial future, and it is now being waged in national governments and corporate boardrooms as much as in UN negotiating halls.

There is no doubt that the clean energy transition is happening. But its pace – and therefore how far global warming can be slowed – depends on businesses confidence that it will continue. And that requires governments remaining committed to climate goals so that green investment and innovation will remain profitable.

Undermining that confidence by dismissing UN climate conferences as pointless risks slowing this progress. Cop critics like to think of themselves as brave tellers of truth to power. They may end up merely being Donald Trump’s unwitting accomplices.

---

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.

---

Michael Jacobs is Professor of Political Economy at the University of Sheffield and Visiting Senior Fellow at the thinktank ODI Global.

– ref. The UN climate summits are working – just not in the way their critics think – https://theconversation.com/the-un-climate-summits-are-working-just-not-in-the-way-their-critics-think-268953

Source: The Conversation – UK – By William Crozier, Duns Scotus Assistant Professor of Franciscan Studies, Durham University

During the 1240s, Richard Fishacre, a Dominican friar at Oxford University, used his knowledge of light and colour to show that the stars and planets are made of the same elements found here on Earth. In so doing he challenged the scientific orthodoxy of his day and pre-empted the methods and discoveries of the 21st-century James Webb space telescope.

Following the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, medieval physics affirmed that the stars and planets were made from a special celestial element – the famous “fifth element” (quinta essentia) or “quintessence”. Unlike the four elements found here on Earth (fire, water, earth and air), this “fifth element” is perfect and unchanging.

Fully transparent, it formed the basis of what were believed to be the nine concentric celestial “spheres” surrounding the Earth, as well as the various stars and planets attached to them. These, it was argued, were merely condensed versions of the “fifth element”, with each of the first seven spheres having its own planet, and the outermost eighth and ninth spheres containing the stars and heaven itself, respectively.

Colour, light and the stars

Lacking access to telescopes and rock samples, Fishacre – the first Dominican friar to teach theology at Oxford University – openly rejected the idea that the stars and planets were made from some special “fifth element”. In his opinion, they consisted of the same four elements found here.

His reason for asserting this position was his understanding of how colour and light behave.

Colour, Fishacre noted, is typically associated with opaque bodies. These, however, are always composite, meaning made up of two or more of the four terrestrial elements. When we look up at the stars and planets, however, we see that the light they emit often has a faint colour. Mars appears red, and Venus yellow, for example. This suggests, of course, that they are composite and thus made “ex quattuor elementis” – “out of the four elements”.

In Fishacre’s opinion the surest proof that the stars and planets were not made of some special “fifth element” came from the Moon. It has a very definite colour, and, crucially, every so often it eclipses the Sun. Were it made from the transparent fifth element – even a highly condensed version of it – then surely the Sun’s light would pass through it, just as it does a pane of glass. This, however, is not the case.

The Moon, Fishacre reasoned, must therefore be made of the same elements found on Earth. And if this was true of the Moon, which is the lowest celestial body, then it must also be true of all the other stars and planets.

A brave move

In arguing this, Fishacre knew that he was risking criticism. “If we posit this position,” he wrote, “then they, that crowd of Aristotelian know-it-alls (scioli aristoteli), will cry out and stone us”.

Sure enough, stones were thrown at Fishacre – and from high places.
In 1250, his teaching was denounced at the University of Paris by St Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, a Franciscan friar who ridiculed in his lectures those “moderns” like Fishacre who foolishly questioned Aristotle’s teaching on the celestial fifth element.

Contemporary astrophysics has, of course, vindicated Fishacre’s position. The stars and planets are not made of some special fifth element, but rather from many of the same metals and elements found here on our home planet. The James Webb space telescope, for example, recently established that the atmosphere of the Neptune-like exoplanet TOI-421 b, some 244 light years away, contains high quantities of water and sulphur dioxide.

Remarkably, how the James Webb space telescope established this – a process known as transmission spectroscopy – is very similar, at least in principle, to the method which Fishacre employed. It detected subtle variations in the brightness and colour of the light emitted by TOI-421 b which could only be caused by water and sulphur dioxide.

Given how much criticism his claims received, Fishacre would no doubt have been delighted to know that nearly 800 years after his death, contemporary astronomy, just like him, is using light and colour to show that far flung stars and planets are all made from the same elements.

---

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

---

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

– ref. How a medieval Oxford friar used light and colour to find out what stars and planets are made of – https://theconversation.com/how-a-medieval-oxford-friar-used-light-and-colour-to-find-out-what-stars-and-planets-are-made-of-262652

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anne Irfan, Lecturer in Interdisciplinary Race, Gender and Postcolonial Studies, UCL

The great Palestinian revolt, which began in 1936 and lasted three years, was a pivotal event in the modern history of both the Middle East and the British empire.

Often considered the biggest popular uprising in Palestinian history, it had far-reaching ramifications for Palestinian nationalism, Zionism and British colonialism. Despite this significance, it is typically absent from official accounts of British history. Few Britons today are aware of it.

In her latest film, Palestinian director Annemarie Jacir powerfully shows why this episode in history is so significant. The depiction of the revolt in Palestine 36 helps illuminate events in modern-day Palestine, including Israel’s recent assault on Gaza, which a UN human rights council commission of inquiry said amounts to genocide.

By 1936, the British had occupied Palestine for 18 years. The British army had first entered the country in 1917, the same year the British government declared its support for the Zionist movement’s campaign for a Jewish state in Palestine in the Balfour Declaration.

Five years later, Britain was granted a mandate to govern Palestine by the League of Nations, precursor to the UN. The text of the mandate incorporated the Balfour declaration, making the creation of a Jewish state part of its objectives. For this purpose, the British regime empowered a Zionist organisation subsequently known as the Jewish Agency and supported large-scale Jewish immigration to Palestine.

Unsurprisingly, these policies caused rising tensions with the Palestinians, whose own nationalist movement had been growing during the later years of the Ottoman empire that had previously ruled the country. By the 1930s, Palestinians were increasingly concerned about Zionist state-building and settlements in the country.

In 1936, the newly formed Arab Higher Committee called for a general strike. It was widely observed across the country and brought much of the economy to a standstill. Palestine 36 depicts the impact of the strike and the subsequent armed uprising in rural villages, alongside political debates among Palestinian elites in Jerusalem. We also see the brutal British repression of the uprising, as the mandate regime imports ruthless counterinsurgency tactics from elsewhere in the empire, including India and Ireland.

The film, which was selected as Palestine’s entry for the Academy Awards, intersperses archival footage with dramatised scenes by an ensemble cast. Real historical figures like Charles Tegart (Liam Cunningham) and Orde Wingate (Robert Aramayo) are depicted alongside fictionalised characters.

Yusuf (Karim Daoud Anaya) is a villager who begins working in Jerusalem and becomes politicised as he witnesses colonial machinations close up. Kholoud (Yasmine Al Massri) is a journalist and nationalist who writes under the pen name Ahmed Canaani. Kholoud’s husband Amir (Dhafer L’Abidine) colludes with the Jewish Agency (called the Zionist Commission) in the film while professing outward support for the Palestinian national cause.

One of the film’s most instructive elements is its clear depiction of the British mandate’s operations. The regime laid many of the foundations for the Israeli state, but has often avoided culpability in contemporary conversations.

In Palestine 36, we see the regime’s brutality alongside its contradictions and double standards. British officers violate Palestinian property while serving an empire that otherwise venerates ideals of private ownership. The mandate regime condemns Palestinian militancy while drawing its own power from deploying violence with impunity.

Early on, a British official implores Palestinian villagers to acquiesce to a new land registration system or risk losing everything. Nearly a century on – as Palestinians face similar pressures to comply with foreign demands – the viewer knows that acquiescence will provide no real protection.

It is one of many long-term continuities shown in the film, and Jacir largely avoids heavy handedness in how she depicts them. Wingate’s typically colonial tactics, including the designation of Palestinian villages as “good” or “bad”, the endorsement of collective punishment and disproportionate retaliation, and the control of movement via transit permits, checkpoints and curfews, are all practices that the Israeli state continues to deploy today.

Scenes showing Palestinians being incarcerated behind barbed wire and denied water will inevitably remind viewers of contemporary testimonies from Gaza and the Sde Teiman detention camp.

---

Read more:
Israeli doctors reveal their conflicted stories of treating Palestinian prisoners held in notorious ‘black site’ Sde Teiman

---

At the same time, many of the Palestinian slogans and symbols from 1936 remain resonant. The film depicts protesters chanting “Palestine is not for sale” outside the office of High Commissioner Wauchope (Jeremy Irons). And later on, Kholoud discusses the British ban on the keffiyeh (the traditional headdress made from a chequered scarf, which has become a symbol of Palestinian resistence). This was a move replicated by institutions in the US, Germany and Australia in the 2020s.

At the same time, the portrayal of Palestine before the establishment of Israel is an important rejoinder to ongoing denials of Palestinian national history. Jacir’s film shows a Palestine characterised by widespread agricultural village life before what is known as the Nakba forced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into overcrowded and urbanised refugee camps.

Palestine 36 doesn’t shy away from the internal divisions of Palestinian society. The Jerusalem elites condescend to the fellahin (farmers), represented by Yusuf. Amir happily collaborates with the Zionist leadership in the hope of becoming mayor.

The film closes with continuing Palestinian insurrection, juxtaposed with intensifying British brutality. The informed viewer will know that by the end of the revolt, mandate repression had executed, wounded, imprisoned or expelled one in ten Palestinian men.

The fallout would have fatal repercussions for the Palestinians a decade later. As such, it is incomplete to survey Palestinian history since 1948 without taking account of the pivotal events of 1936. It’s a far too common oversight that Jacir’s film goes a long way to correcting.

---

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

---

Anne Irfan 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. Palestine 36 tells a forgotten story of revolt – and how the legacy of colonialism endures in Palestine – https://theconversation.com/palestine-36-tells-a-forgotten-story-of-revolt-and-how-the-legacy-of-colonialism-endures-in-palestine-269052

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Claire Hughes, Professor of Psychology, Deputy Director of the Centre For Family Research, University of Cambridge

Generation Alpha is the largest generation ever. Totalling two billion children, it encompasses anybody currently aged 0-15 years old – those born between 2010 and 2025.

This is the first fully digitally native generation, with many children already achieving unprecedented levels of digital literacy. It is predicted they will become the most educated generation in history: 90% are expected to complete secondary school worldwide, compared with 80% of gen Z.

However, gen Alpha children also inherit an increasingly precarious world, characterised by global uncertainties, housing shortages and climate change. It’s such a radical departure from what came before that this generation takes its name from the first letter of the Greek alphabet – unlike the gen Xs, Ys and Zs, whose letters come from our own (Latin) alphabet.

As developmental psychologists, we might ask what this new world means for gen Alpha’s psychological development. How might it influence their experiences, interests and values?

A good starting point is to look at their parents: the millennials (gen Y). From these 30- and 40-somethings, the gen Alphas are inheriting support for values such as inclusivity, adaptability and digital confidence, but also the tendency in some areas to boycott people whose words or actions are deemed offensive.

Millennials also report poorer mental health than previous generations, and at least in many western countries they are facing in some ways a more challenging financial situation.

Facing this adversity may mean that millennial parents are uniquely well placed to build their children’s resilience. Encouragingly, millennial fathers show unprecedented levels of commitment to being involved in parenting, challenging gender stereotypes.

On the other hand, stressed parents often struggle to cope with everyday tasks, while their children can exhibit behavioural problems such as aggression, and emotional difficulties like social withdrawal and anxiety.

Technology has also introduced challenges as millennials have widely adopted personal devices. Roughly half of parents in the UK say they are addicted to their phones, for example.

The distractions of digital devices can make parenting more difficult. This “technoference” is again associated with child behaviour problems, which could have knock-on effects later in life.

One additional technological challenge that gen Alphas experience is “sharenting”, where parents share photos and videos of them online, sometimes in [excessive or inappropriate ways]. We lack good data on the scale and impact of this trend, so researchers urgently need to map the risks.

Millennials’ own challenges with technology may at least put them in a better position to help their children navigate things like screentime and social media. Today’s digital world also means that gen Alpha’s parents have a huge amount of parenting information at their fingertips, as well as access to parenting forums and digital communities, which may reduce feelings of stress and isolation. Today’s psychologists and health professionals can also provide parents with rigorous evidence-based guidance.

Gen Alpha digital immersion

The digital world has amplified gen Alpha’s exposure to ideas and cultural practices from peers and other adults. So while some are likely to spend longer living at home than previous generations, they may actually be less susceptible to parental influence. This could be liberating, but also introduces new risks.

We’ve seen how social media can exacerbate peer pressure and has introduced cyber-bullying. Influencer trends risk inculcating unrealistic body image ideals, which can contribute to body dysmorphia.

Excessive use of video games can result in sleep deprivation, reduced physical activity and impaired school performance. It may be that the increasing availability of VR games makes these risks more pronounced for gen Alpha.

Gen Alpha also risk being more exposed to potentially harmful content such as pornography or sites promoting self-harm or eating disorders. While they may not be as gullible as is often assumed, young children often lack effective strategies for identifying trustworthy information, putting them at more risk than adults.

In 2010, the cognitive anthropologist Dan Sperber coined the phrase “epistemic trust” to describe the idea that we view others as trustworthy sources of information. Growing up surrounded by misinformation may instead lead gen Alpha to adopt the opposite stance – epistemic mistrust – with potential negative consequences like depression and anxiety, for instance

The digital space isn’t entirely negative for children’s psychological development. It’s much easier for gen Alpha to access information online about mental health, as well as professional psychological support, while also participating in virtual communities.

Technology also offers far greater access to educational resources and tools, something which AI may increase. There’s even emerging evidence that AI may enhance learning outcomes and increase student motivation, for instance. The big challenge will be to democratise learning without succumbing to adverse effects on human cognitive abilities from over-relying on AI for writing and thinking.

A diversity of experiences

Amid all this, it’s important to remember that gen Alpha’s psychological development is not following one monolithic trajectory.

The pandemic both highlighted and exacerbated inequality in many areas of childrens’s lives from education to home stability. For some older gen Alphas, school closures and online teaching left long-term scars – as evidenced by surging school absenteeism in many countries that appears difficult to reverse.

School closures during the pandemic meant the loss of a safe space for children who might be at risk of neglect or maltreatment at home. One consequence was a global rise in violence against children. Even younger Alphas who were not born at the time may be affected indirectly by their older brothers and sisters’ experiences.

More generally, experience will differ greatly depending on where members of gen Alpha live. For example, in east Asia ultra-low fertility has led to emptying classrooms, while children in smaller families endure more academic pressure from parents. Understanding the experiences of children in the global south is particularly important, not least because they represent the majority of gen Alpha.

Gender will also affect in new ways how this generation experience the world. For instance, boys appear more prone to gaming addiction while girls are more likely to become addicted to social media. Girls also report seeing more online content that creates appearance pressure, while boys are more likely to see misinformation – no doubt sometimes promoting potentially harmful views about masculinity and women.

What are gen Alpha’s own views of this new world? Despite adult fears about their exposure to misogyny, xenophobia and polarisation, today’s children are concerned about a wide range of progressive issues. These include resource inequality, sexuality, climate justice and animal rights.

This might be youthful idealism that will be shed in adulthood. Yet we know, for instance, that millennials commonly express values that differ from preceding generations.

Gen Alpha have also already been found to instil pro-environmental attitudes in their parents. So at least some of these progressive values are likely to endure and potentially ripple through to wider society.

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. The psychology of generation Alpha – https://theconversation.com/the-psychology-of-generation-alpha-268500

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kate Whitman, Research Fellow, Ethical Consumption, Revolution Plastics Institute, University of Portsmouth

Every week, the average UK household throws away dozens of pieces of plastic packaging. When people actually start counting them, they’re often shocked to discover just how much there is. And unfortunately, most of this plastic cannot be reused, refilled or recycled.

That’s one of the main findings from our new research on the Big Plastic Count, a nationwide citizen science campaign organised by social enterprise Everyday Plastic in collaboration with environmental campaign charity Greenpeace. Involving more than 160,000 UK households, it’s one of the largest efforts ever to track household plastic waste in the world.

Our analysis combined the Big Plastic Count data with an attitude survey of more than 8,000 plastic count respondents and an experiment on public engagement. It showed that taking part in “citizen science”, research carried out with the public rather than on the public, can do much more than generate data. It can bring a sense of urgency to an environmental problem, change behaviour, and even mobilise political action.

People tend to overestimate the positive environmental impact of recycling. Many participants began the project confident they were already making environmentally friendly choices, for example buying recyclable packaging. But when they actually counted their weekly plastic waste, the results told a different story.

The typical household generated 20-30 items of plastic in just one week, mostly soft plastics such as film lids, crisp packets and food wrappers. These items, despite often carrying positive environmental messages, are impossible to reuse or refill, and are rarely recycled in practice.

This gap between perception and reality, what we call “plastic blindness”, reveals a crucial barrier to tackling plastic pollution. People simply don’t see how much plastic they use or misunderstand, or perhaps are misled as to what happens to it after disposal.

This blindness was especially pronounced among online shoppers, who tended to underestimate their plastic consumption the most. Having packaging arrive neatly at the door seems to obscure the sheer volume of waste produced in the process. This suggests the need for more visible waste information – and better ways to help consumers choose lower waste options.

When we see it, we care more

The act of counting plastic waste had a powerful psychological effect. Participants who tracked their own waste reported feeling more aware and more concerned about the plastic waste they were generating – and more open to alternatives such as refill and reuse systems.

These models, where customers use their own containers or borrow returnable ones, are widely seen as essential to a circular economy. Yet their success depends, along with supportive policies, on public understanding of why recycling and other waste management strategies are not enough to tackle plastic pollution.

By making the invisible visible, citizen science can help close that understanding gap. Participants who saw their plastic waste laid out in front of them were far more likely to express concern about pollution and to support stronger policies on plastic reduction.

Citizen science can spark action

We found that awareness translated into political engagement. Participation in the Big Plastic Count coincided with a significant increase in signatures on a Greenpeace petition launched at the same time, calling for stronger action in the ongoing global plastics treaty negotiations.

This suggests that citizen science isn’t just a way to collect data. It can also mobilise public support for policy change. When people see clear evidence of a problem that they have limited control over, they’re more motivated to demand systemic solutions.

Our findings add to growing evidence that recycling alone cannot solve the plastic problem. In the UK, the Everyday Plastic study showed that only around 17% of household plastic waste is actually recycled, while most ends up being incinerated, exported or put into landfill.

Policies that focus solely on end-of-life solutions ignore the need to reduce plastic production at its source. That’s why policy must look upstream. The global plastics treaty, a United Nations initiative aiming to reduce plastic pollution worldwide, could commit countries to legally binding limits on virgin plastic production and enforce stronger requirements for reuse and refill systems.

The results of the Big Plastic Count show that when people are given the opportunity to see their own contribution to the plastic problem, they want to see change – and they expect policymakers to lead it.

Quite simply, we can’t fix what we can’t see. Plastic pollution is often hidden in plain sight – behind positive “eco” or “recyclable” labels, messages such as adverts normalising single-use plastic use, within supply chains and under the convenience of online shopping.

Citizen science initiatives such as the Big Plastic Count help to lift that blindfold, empowering citizens not just to count plastic, but to count in the movement for change.

---

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.

---

Cressida Bowyer receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), the Medical Research Council (MRC), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Wellcome Trust, the Sustainable Manufacturing and Environmental Pollution Programme (SMEP) and the Flotilla Foundation. She is a member of the British Plastics Federation Sustainability Committee.

Steve Fletcher receives funding from the World Economic Forum, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Aquapak Ltd, Defra, and the Flotilla Foundation. He is a member of the United Nations International Resource Panel and is the NERC Agenda Setting Fellow for Plastic Pollution.

Kate Whitman 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. Huge amounts of plastic waste goes unnoticed – here’s what to do about it – https://theconversation.com/huge-amounts-of-plastic-waste-goes-unnoticed-heres-what-to-do-about-it-268702

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jeremy Howick, Professor and Director of the Stoneygate Centre for Excellence in Empathic Healthcare, University of Leicester

Artificial intelligence has mastered chess, art and medical diagnosis. Now it’s apparently beating doctors at something we thought was uniquely human: empathy.

A recent review published in the British Medical Bulletin analysed 15 studies comparing AI-written responses with those from human healthcare professionals. Blinded researchers then rated these responses for empathy using validated assessment tools. The results were startling: AI responses were rated as more empathic in 13 out of 15 studies – 87% of the time.

Before we surrender healthcare’s human touch to our new robot overlords, we need to examine what’s really happening here.

The studies compared written responses rather than face-to-face interactions, giving AI a structural advantage: no vocal tone to misread, no body language to interpret, and unlimited time to craft perfect responses.

Critically, none of these studies measured harms. They assessed whether AI responses sounded empathic, not whether they led to better outcomes or caused damage through misunderstood context, missed warning signs, or inappropriate advice.

Yet even accounting for these limitations, the signal was strong. And the technology is improving daily – “carebots” are becoming increasingly lifelike and sophisticated.

Beyond methodological concerns, there’s a simpler explanation: many doctors admit that their empathy declines over time, and patient ratings of healthcare professionals’ empathy vary greatly.

Inquiries into fatal healthcare tragedies – from Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust to various patient safety reviews – have explicitly named lack of empathy from healthcare professionals as contributing to avoidable harm. But here’s the real issue: we’ve created a system that makes empathy nearly impossible.

Doctors spend about a third of their time on paperwork and electronic health records. Doctors must also follow pre-defined protocols and procedures. While the documentation and protocols have some benefits, they have arguably had the unintended consequence of forcing the doctors to play the bot game. Therefore, we shouldn’t be surprised when the bot wins.

The burnout crisis makes this worse. Globally, at least a third of GPs report burnout – exceeding 60% in some specialties. Burned-out doctors struggle to maintain empathy. It’s not a moral failing; it’s a physiological reality. Chronic stress depletes the emotional reserves required for genuine empathy.

The wonder isn’t that AI appears more empathic; it’s that human healthcare professionals manage any empathy at all.

What AI will never replicate

No carebot, however sophisticated, can truly replicate certain dimensions of human care.

A bot cannot hold a frightened child’s hand during a painful procedure and make them feel safe through physical presence. It cannot read unspoken distress in a teenager’s body language when they’re too embarrassed to voice their real concern. It cannot draw on cultural experience to understand why a patient might be reluctant to accept certain treatment.

AI cannot sit in silence with a dying patient when words fail. It cannot share a moment of dark humour that breaks the tension. It cannot exercise the moral judgment required when clinical guidelines conflict with a patient’s values.

These aren’t minor additions to healthcare; they’re often what make care effective, healing possible and medicine humane.

Here’s the tragic irony: AI threatens to take over precisely those aspects of care that humans do better, while humans remain trapped doing tasks computers should handle.

We’re heading toward a world where AI provides the “empathy” while exhausted humans manage technical work – exactly backward. This requires three fundamental changes.

First, we must train doctors to be consistently excellent at empathic communication. This cannot be a brief module in medical school. It needs to be central to healthcare education. Since AI already matches humans in many technical skills, this should free doctors to focus on genuine human connection.

Second, redesign healthcare systems to protect the conditions necessary for empathy. Dramatically reduce administrative burden through better technology (ironically, AI could help here), ensure adequate consultation time, and address burnout through systemic change rather than resilience training.

Third, rigorously measure both benefits and harms of AI in healthcare interactions. We need research on actual patient outcomes, missed diagnoses, inappropriate advice, and long-term effects on the therapeutic relationship – not just whether responses sound empathic to raters.

The empathy crisis in healthcare isn’t caused by insufficient technology. It’s caused by systems that prevent humans from being human. AI appearing more empathic than doctors is a symptom, not the disease.

We can use AI to handle administrative tasks and free doctors’ time and mental space, and even provide tips to help healthcare professionals boost their empathy. Or we can use it to replace the human connection that remains healthcare’s greatest strength.

The technology will continue advancing, regardless. The question is whether we’ll use it to support human empathy or substitute for it – whether we’ll fix the system that broke our healthcare workers or simply replace them with machines that were never broken to begin with.

The choice is ours, but the window is closing fast.

Jeremy Howick receives funding from the Stoneygate Trust.

– ref. AI is beating doctors at empathy – because we’ve turned doctors into robots – https://theconversation.com/ai-is-beating-doctors-at-empathy-because-weve-turned-doctors-into-robots-269108