Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Millie Horton-Insch, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, History of Art Department, Trinity College Dublin

There was great excitement at the news this month that the Bayeux tapestry – the 11th-century embroidered epic depicting the conquest of England by William the Conqueror in 1066 – will go on display at the British Museum in 2026. However, the tapestry had already been in the news earlier this year, admittedly to much less fanfare.

In March, it was reported that a fragment of the Bayeux tapestry had been discovered in Germany in the Schleswig-Holstein state archives. To understand how it ended up there, we must turn to a troubling and little-known episode in the tapestry’s history: Sonderauftrag Bayeux (Special Operation Bayeux), a project operated by the Nazi Ahnenerbe, the SS regime’s heritage research group.

---

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.

---

It has often been observed that art seems to have been of disproportionate concern to the Nazis. However, their manipulation of visual and material culture should be understood as central to – not separate from – Hitler’s genocidal regime and its efforts towards global domination.

The Ahnenerbe, under the ultimate authority of Heinrich Himmler, was established to develop and disseminate histories in support of that mythology central to the Nazi regime: the supremacy of the Aryan race. To this end, the Ahnenerbe oversaw research that claimed to use unassailable scientific methods.

However, it has long been acknowledged that their projects consciously manipulated historical evidence to construct fabricated histories that would support racist ideologies. To achieve this, numerous research projects were conducted. These projects saw scholars travel across the globe in the pursuit of objects that could act as monuments to the mythologies of Aryan supremacy. Sonderauftrag Bayeux was one such project.

Nazi interest in the Bayeux tapestry may seem surprising to British people, where the tapestry is considered a symbol of a singularly significant moment in Britain’s history. However, just as politicians in modern Britain have found it tempting to reference the tapestry in the advancement of their political agendas, so too did the Ahnenerbe.

Sonderauftrag Bayeux aimed to produce a multi-volume study of the tapestry that would assert its inherently Scandinavian character. The objective was to present the tapestry as proof of the supremacy of the early medieval Norman people, whom the Ahnenerbe claimed as the ancestors of modern German Aryans and descendants of “Viking” northern Europeans.

By June 1941, work on Sonderauftrag Bayeux had begun in earnest. Among the team sent to Normandy to study the tapestry first hand was Karl Schlabow, a textile expert and head of the Germanic Costume Institute at Neumünster in Germany. Schlabow spent a fortnight in Bayeux, and it was he who removed a fragment of the tapestry’s backing fabric and brought it back to Germany when his research visit was complete.

Though initial reports suggested that Schlabow removed this fragment when the embroidery was later transferred by the Nazis to Paris, it is more likely that he did so during June 1941, when he and his fellow members of Sonderauftrag Bayeux were stationed in Bayeux.

In a sketch by Herbert Jeschke – the artist commissioned to create a painted reproduction of the tapestry – during this visit, Jeschke depicted himself with Schlabow and Herbert Jankuhn (the director of the project) hunched over the tapestry. The sketch is accompanied by the emphatic title, “Die Tappiserie!”, an expression of delight at their privileged viewing of this medieval masterpiece.

To join the Ahnenerbe, Schlabow, like others involved in the Sonderauftrag Bayeux, was inducted into the SS. He held the rank of SS-Unterscharführer (roughly the equivalent of a sergeant in today’s British army). After the second world war many members of the Ahnenerbe denied having sympathy for Nazi policies.

However, documents seized by US intelligence officers at the end of the second world war reveal that some were denied entry to the Ahnenerbe if they, for instance, had had Jewish friends or expressed sympathy towards communist ideas. They therefore had to (at least outwardly) appear sympathetic to Nazism to be inducted into its ranks.

Details of what exactly the Ahnenerbe project uncovered, or even hoped to uncover, from this study of the tapestry are opaque. It appears that, to a large extent, the act of producing an illustrated study and dispatching researchers to the original textile was enough to claim the object as a monument to Germanic Aryan supremacy. It is clear that perceived Scandinavian influence within the tapestry’s designs was to be central to the study’s conclusions, but the project was not completed before Germany’s defeat at the end of the war.

Like many other members of the Ahnenerbe, Schlabow returned to research after the war, working at the Schleswig-Holstein State Museum in Gottorf Castle.

The discovery of even the tiniest fragment of this remarkable medieval object is cause for much excitement. However, its recovery should be framed firmly in the context in which it was removed. It should come as no surprise that Schlabow felt empowered to steal this piece of the tapestry; the regime for which he worked claimed the object as a piece of his heritage, his birthright as an Aryan German.

This find is a timely reminder that the past is closer than we realise and that there is still much work to be done to explore the long shadows cast by previous practices in the histories we inherit. The recovered fragment is currently on display in Schleswig-Holstein, but will return to the Musée la Tapisserie de Bayeux in Normandy in time for the museum’s re-opening in 2027 when the two elements will be reunited for the first time since 1941.

Millie Horton-Insch receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust.

– ref. Why the Nazis stole a fragment of the Bayeux tapestry – https://theconversation.com/why-the-nazis-stole-a-fragment-of-the-bayeux-tapestry-260048

Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Hastings Dunn, Professor of International Politics in the Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham

At face value, Donald Trump’s announcement about his plans on Russia and Ukraine look like a major policy change. Speaking from the Oval Office on July 14, where he had been meeting with Nato secretary general Mark Rutte, the US president said he would send “top-of-the-line-weapons” to help Kyiv and – unless a ceasefire deal is agreed inside a 50-day time limit – the US would impose secondary sanctions on any countries dealing with Russia.

But while this represents a significant departure from Trump’s previous approach, it’s more of a step back towards the policy approach of his predecessor Joe Biden than the U-turn that some commentators are claiming.

For months Russia has stepped up its bombardment of Ukraine, buoyed by the fact that neither the US Congress nor the White House has authorised any new military aid to Kyiv. Moscow would have been aware of this lack of US action and its missile and drone attacks against Ukraine have aimed to run down the stocks of air defence missiles supplied by Biden while paying lip service to the idea of peace negotiations.

For Trump the penny appears finally to have dropped as to what was happening. His frustration and disappointment in Putin is what has finally led to him calling this out. According to Trump, Putin “fooled a lot of people – Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden – he didn’t fool me. At a certain point talk doesn’t talk, it’s got to be action”.

The decision to send new supplies of defensive – and potentially even longer-range offensive missiles – to Ukraine (even if the Europeans pay for them) is an important signal to Russia. But so too is the threat of tariffs of 100% on countries, such as India and China, that sustain the Russian economy by buying its oil and gas at knockdown prices.

The US senate, led by Lindsay Graham, the influential Republican senator for South Carolina, has been itching to pass these secondary sanctions for months. Now that the Trump administration appears to have adopted this plan it is a significant policy instrument to pile the pressure on Russia.

The change in Trump’s approach may also mean that the $US8 billion (£6 billion) of frozen Russian assets in the US (and US$223 billion in Europe) could be released to aid Ukraine, which would provide a ready means to pay for the US arms transfers.

Limits to US support

What has not changed, however, is the goal of Trump’s policy towards the war in Ukraine. While the Biden administration called out the illegality of Putin’s unprovoked aggression and called for the restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty, Trump is merely calling for a ceasefire.

Trump may say he is “disappointed” with Putin, but he has not labelled him as the aggressor. In fact at one point he was blaming Ukraine for the invasion. And, significantly, he has not demanded that Russia give up the 20% of Ukraine that it currently illegally occupies.

The US president is also silent on what the US would commit to in terms of security and stability for Ukraine after the fighting stops. This is a much bigger question than Ukraine’s Nato membership. America’s European allies in Nato regard some sort of stability force on Ukrainian territory as necessary to deter any future Russian aggression.

Whether or not US troops would be involved (and all the signs are that they would not), some sort of US security “back-stop” or guarantee is still seen in Europe as key to its success – as would be US logistical and intelligence support for its operation.

But why the 50-day delay?

Another aspect of the change in Trump’s policy is the long lead time that Russia has been given to come to the table. A lot of Ukrainian civilians are likely to die during this period if the intense bombardment continues. On the battlefield, 50 days would give the Russians an extended window during a renewed summer offensive to make further territorial gains inside the occupied provinces.

So Trump’s proposals have to be viewed through the prism of his propensity to set deadlines that are then pushed back multiple times – as with the on-again, off-again tariffs, which have given Trump the nickname Taco (“Trump always chickens out”) on Wall Street.

Russian senator, Konstantin Kosachev, was certainly taking this view when he told the BBC after Trump’s announcement that, “if this is all Trump had to say about Ukraine today, then so far it’s been much ado about nothing”.

This sentiment was shared by the Russian stock market which rose 2.7% in the aftermath of Trump’s announcement. Analysts had expected much worse, so the long delay in the prospect of anything actually happening was clearly seen as a long way off and potentially subject to change or cancellation. Trump is seen by many as both inconsistent in his threats and unpredictable as to where policy will eventually settle.

The fact that Trump told BBC Washington correspondent Gary O’Donoghue that while he was “disappointed” with Putin, he was “not done with him” – and his clear reluctance to act quickly and decisively in sanctioning Russia – should be seen as an important counterpart to the apparent policy shift.

Like so many things with the 47th US president, it’s important not to react to the media appearances or the headlines they provoke, without also paying attention to the policy actions of his administration.

David Hastings Dunn has previously received funding from the ESRC, the Gerda Henkel Foundation, the Open Democracy Foundation and has previously been both a NATO and a Fulbright Fellow.

– ref. What Trump’s decision to send more weapons to Ukraine will mean for the war – https://theconversation.com/what-trumps-decision-to-send-more-weapons-to-ukraine-will-mean-for-the-war-261192

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gulshanara (Rumy) Begum, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition & Exercise Science, University of Westminster

Energy drinks are big business. Marketed as quick fixes for fatigue and performance dips, energy drinks are especially popular among young people, athletes, sports enthusiasts, and so-called “weekend warriors” – people who pack their workouts into the weekend instead of exercising regularly. Gamers are now a major target too.

But as the market grows, so do concerns about what’s actually in these drinks – and what these ingredients might be doing to our bodies.

Many energy drinks contain some combination of three familiar stimulants: caffeine, found naturally in coffee, tea and cacao; guarana, an Amazonian plant rich in caffeine; and taurine, a naturally occurring amino acid found in scallops, mussels, turkey and chicken.

Taurine, in particular, has drawn both hype and hope. It is credited with performance-enhancing properties and potential health benefits. But new research is raising important questions about how it behaves in the body – and when it might do more harm than good.

In May 2025, a study published in Nature sparked headlines and unease in equal measure. It found that taurine may fuel the progression of leukaemia, a group of blood cancers that begin in the bone marrow.

The study showed that while healthy bone marrow cells naturally produce taurine, leukaemia cells cannot. But they can absorb taurine from their surroundings and use it as a fuel source to grow and multiply. Research on mice and in human leukaemia cell samples demonstrated that taurine in the tumour microenvironment – the area around a tumour that includes blood vessels, immune cells and structural support – accelerated the progression of leukaemia.

Crucially, when researchers blocked taurine uptake by leukaemia cells (using genetic techniques), cancer progression slowed significantly. The authors suggest taurine supplements could potentially worsen outcomes in people with leukaemia and propose that developing targeted ways to block taurine uptake by cancer cells might offer a new treatment strategy.

Taurine: friend or foe?

Taurine is one of the most abundant free amino acids in the human body, found in especially high concentrations in the heart, muscles and brain. In healthy people, it’s mainly obtained through diet, but the body can also synthesise taurine from the amino acids methionine and cysteine, provided it has enough vitamin B6, which is found in foods such as salmon, tuna, chicken, bananas and milk.

Most people consuming a typical western diet take in 40mg–400mg of taurine a day from food alone. This figure refers only to taurine that is directly ingested, not including the additional amount the body can synthesise internally, which may vary depending on age, diet and health.

Taurine is listed on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) generally recognised as safe (GRAS) database, and according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), it’s safe to consume up to six grams per day. By comparison, a serving of Red Bull or Monster contains around one gram – comfortably below that threshold.

Despite recent concerns about a possible link to blood cancer progression, taurine isn’t inherently harmful. In fact, some people may benefit from supplementation, especially those receiving long-term parenteral nutrition, where nutrients are delivered directly into the bloodstream because the gut isn’t working properly. People with chronic liver, kidney or heart failure may also have trouble producing or holding on to enough taurine, making supplementation helpful in specific clinical settings.

Ironically, some research suggests taurine may actually help reduce the side effects of chemotherapy in leukaemia patients – even as emerging studies raise concerns that it could also fuel the disease. This contradiction underscores how much context matters: the effects of taurine depend not just on dosage and delivery, but also on the patient’s underlying condition. What helps in one context, could harm in another.

But here’s the catch: taking taurine as a supplement for particular health reasons is very different from consuming large quantities through energy drinks, which often combine taurine with high levels of caffeine and sugar. This combination can put strain on the heart, interfere with sleep and increase the risk of side effects, particularly for people with underlying health conditions or those taking other stimulants.

The latest research raises important questions about whether taurine-heavy products could be harmful in some cases, especially for people with, or at risk of, blood cancers.

So, should you worry?

According to the current evidence, if you’re a healthy adult who occasionally sips an energy drink, there’s little cause for alarm. But moderation is key. Consuming multiple high-taurine drinks daily or taking taurine supplements (without prior professional consultation), on top of a taurine-rich diet might not be wise, especially if future research confirms links between taurine and cancer progression.

Until more is known, the safest approach would be to enjoy your energy boosts by consuming a nutritious diet rather than consuming energy drinks. If you have any underlying health conditions – or a family history of cancer – it’s always best to consult a healthcare professional before diving into taurine supplementation or consumption of energy drinks.

Gulshanara (Rumy) Begum 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. Taurine could power your energy drink – and maybe cancer cells too. Here’s what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/taurine-could-power-your-energy-drink-and-maybe-cancer-cells-too-heres-what-you-need-to-know-256957

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

Summer is synonymous with adventure, with millions flocking to exotic destinations to experience different cultures, cuisines and landscapes. But what happens when the souvenir you bring back isn’t a fridge magnet or a tea towel, but a new illness?

International travel poses a risk of catching something more than a run-of-the-mill bug, so it’s important to be vigilant for the telltale symptoms. Here are the main ones to look out for while away and when you return.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

---

Fever

Fever is a common symptom to note after international travel – especially to tropical or subtropical regions. While a feature of many different illnesses, it can be the first sign of an infection – sometimes a serious one.

One of the most well-known travel-related illnesses linked to fever is malaria. Spread by mosquito bites in endemic regions, malaria is a protozoal infection that often begins with flu-like symptoms, such as headache and muscle aches, progressing to severe fever, sweating and shaking chills.

Other signs can include jaundice (yellowing of the skin or eyes), swollen lymph nodes, rashes and abdominal pain – though symptoms vary widely and can mimic many other illnesses.

Prompt medical attention is essential. Malaria is serious and can become life threatening. It’s also worth noting that symptoms may not appear until weeks or even months after returning home. In the UK, there are around 2,000 imported malaria cases each year.

Travellers to at-risk areas are strongly advised to take preventative measures. This includes mosquito-bite avoidance as well as prescribed antimalarial medications, such as Malarone and doxycycline. Although these drugs aren’t 100% effective, they significantly reduce the risk of infection.

Aside from malaria, other mosquito-borne diseases can cause fever. Dengue fever, a viral infection found in tropical and subtropical regions, leads to symptoms including high temperatures, intense headaches, body aches and rashes, which overlap with both malaria and other common viral illnesses.

Most people recover with rest, fluids and paracetamol, but in some instances, dengue can become severe and requires emergency hospital treatment. A vaccine is also available – but is only recommended for people who have had dengue before, as it provides good protection in this group.

Any fever after international travel should be taken seriously. Don’t brush it off as something you’ve just picked up on the plane – please see a doctor. A simple test could lead to early diagnosis and might save your life.

Diarrhoea

Few travel-related issues are as common – or as unwelcome – as diarrhoea. It’s estimated that up to six in ten travellers will experience at least one episode during or shortly after their trip. For some, it’s an unpleasant disruption mid-holiday; for others, symptoms emerge once they’re back home.

Traveller’s diarrhoea is typically caused by eating food or drinking water containing certain microbes (bacteria, viruses, parasites) or their toxins. Identifying the more serious culprits early is essential – especially when symptoms go beyond mild discomfort.

Warning signs to look out for include large volumes of watery diarrhoea, visible blood in the stool or explosive bowel movements. These may suggest a more serious infection, such as giardia, cholera or amoebic dysentery.

These conditions are more common in regions with poor sanitation and are especially prevalent in parts of the tropics.

Some infections may require targeted antibiotics or antiparasitic treatment. But regardless of the cause, the biggest immediate risk with any severe diarrhoea is dehydration from copious fluid loss. In serious cases, hospital admission for intravenous fluids may be necessary.

The key message for returning travellers: if diarrhoea is severe, persistent or accompanied by worrying symptoms, see a doctor. What starts as a nuisance could quickly escalate without the right care.

And if you have blood in your stool, make sure you seek medical advice.

Jaundice

If you’ve returned from a trip with a change in skin tone, it may not just be a suntan. A yellowish tint to the skin – or more noticeably, the whites of the eyes – could be a sign of jaundice, another finding that warrants medical attention.

Jaundice is not a disease itself, but a visible sign that something may be wrong with either the liver or blood. It results from a buildup of bilirubin, a yellow pigment that forms when red blood cells break down, and which is then processed by the liver.

Several travel-related illnesses can cause jaundice. Malaria is one culprit as is the mosquito-borne yellow fever. But another common cause is hepatitis – inflammation of the liver.

Viral hepatitis comes in several forms. Hepatitis A and E are spread via contaminated food or water – common in areas with poor sanitation. In contrast, hepatitis B and C are blood-borne, transmitted through intravenous drug use, contaminated medical equipment or unprotected sex.

Besides jaundice, hepatitis can cause a range of symptoms, including fever, nausea, fatigue, vomiting and abdominal discomfort. A diagnosis typically requires blood tests, both to confirm hepatitis and to rule out other causes. While many instances of hepatitis are viral, not all are, and treatment depends on the underlying cause.

As we’ve seen, a variety of unpleasant medical conditions can affect the unlucky traveller. But we’ve also seen that the associated symptoms are rather non-specific. Indeed, some can be caused by conditions that are short-lived and require only rest and recuperation to get over a rough few days. But the area between them is decidedly grey.

So plan your trip carefully, be wary of high-risk activities while abroad – such as taking drugs or having unprotected sex – and stay alert to symptoms that develop during or after travel. If you feel unwell, don’t ignore it. Seek medical attention promptly to identify the cause and begin appropriate treatment.

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

– ref. Just back from holiday and not feeling well? Here are the symptoms you should take seriously – https://theconversation.com/just-back-from-holiday-and-not-feeling-well-here-are-the-symptoms-you-should-take-seriously-260013

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Shelley Galpin, Lecturer in Culture, Media and Creative Industries, King’s College London

In my former life as a teacher, I once had a job interview in which I was asked how I dealt with the problem of teaching Jane Austen to boys.

Having had experience of this situation, I confidently told my interviewer (a maths teacher) that the “problem” they were assuming didn’t actually exist, and that it was perfectly possible to teach Austen’s novels to mixed-sex classes with successful results. My answer was met by barely veiled scepticism – and suffice to say, I didn’t get the job.

But where did this popular perception come from? Austen’s genius has been recognised from the earliest days of the development of a canon of English literature, and has never really fallen out of fashion. So it might seem odd that the suitability of her work for a co-educational class is the subject of genuine debate.

---

This article is part of a series commemorating the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth. Despite having published only six books, she is one of the best-known authors in history. These articles explore the legacy and life of this incredible writer.

---

The increasingly intertwined associations of Austen’s literature with the many (often excellent) adaptations of her work may not help the matter, with screen retellings often foregrounding the love stories and losing much of the ironic tone that characterises Austen’s narrative style.

The myriad repackaged editions of her novels that adorn bookshelves with pastel-toned floral designs, or images of anonymous portraits of passive young women, also do little to challenge the popular perception of these books as stories for women and girls.

Finally, and perhaps most troublingly, is the still-commonly held notion that stories with a female protagonist do not have wide-ranging appeal and must be consigned to a “niche interest” bracket. Male-led stories, in contrast, have long been considered to hold universal relevance for audiences.

This last point is a bigger issue concerning the publishing and entertainment industries, so I will largely park this one. But I will point out that, as others have argued in relation to Austen’s work, the classroom is an excellent place to start countering the assumptions of the “everyman” male experience, in contrast to the “special interest” attitude to female perspectives.

With regards to the teaching of Austen’s novels, drawing on my experiences both as a scholar and as a teacher, I believe her novels can speak to young readers of different genders and from diverse backgrounds.

Money, power and inequality

Addressing the ways in which Austen’s novels tend to be packaged, I asked my students, typically aged 16-18, to explore the ideas at the heart of the novels by redesigning the book covers to better reflect these themes.

The flowers and passive young women were gone. The redesigned book covers often focused on the idea of wealth, through pictures of differing piles of money, or power, such as the image of imbalanced scales to symbolise the unequal societies inhabited by Austen’s characters.

Because, as much as they are love stories, Austen’s heroines typically achieve their “happy endings” against a backdrop of money worries, power struggles, familial tension and gendered social hierarchies. While her novels are rightly celebrated for highlighting the unequal treatment of the sexes during her lifetime, it is reductive to see this as their sole contribution to social commentary.

Take Austen’s last completed novel, Persuasion. Here, Anne Elliot – over the hill at the ripe old age of 27 – begins the novel by rueing her broken engagement to Captain Wentworth, which she had been persuaded to break off eight years earlier due to his lack of fortune.

While the narrative focus is on Anne, who is left to regret her choice and wonder whether she will ever be able to escape her odious father and siblings, the broken-hearted Wentworth, who reappears in Anne’s life shortly after the start of the novel, is at least as much a victim of the situation as Anne herself.

At its heart, this is a story of a young woman who allowed herself to be persuaded to make a bad choice, and a young man who, through no fault of his own, was deemed not good enough due to his lack of wealth. The experiences of these characters, although they are older than the average school student, are highly relatable and sympathetic to many teenagers, who may well have experienced meddling family members or unfair judgments of their own.

Take also Northanger Abbey, in which fanciful Catherine Morland mixes fact and fiction and imagines the titular abbey to be a site of gothic intrigue, only to discover that the real horror derives from a controlling patriarch and his sexually predatory oldest son.

Here again, the novel cleverly makes the point that social inequalities, and the choices of those motivated by their love of money and power, are the real darkness at the heart of Austen’s society.

In my experience, students of all genders have been able to appreciate and relate to Northanger Abbey’s depictions of the loss of innocence, class inequality, and the experience of being subject to the sometimes obscure decisions of more powerful individuals.

Austen’s works, far from being the simple love stories of popular perception, are also razor-sharp satires of social and gendered inequalities. Full of witty observations and universally relatable experiences, there is a reason for the consistent popularity of her writing 250 years after her birth.

To fail to recognise this in the classroom is to do a disservice to all our students, as well as to Austen herself.

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

– ref. Why Jane Austen is definitely not just for girls – https://theconversation.com/why-jane-austen-is-definitely-not-just-for-girls-259193

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Long, Professor of International Relations, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick

In 1867, the world’s most powerful statesmen, including Austria’s Emperor Franz Josef, France’s Napoleon III and US secretary of state, William H. Seward, petitioned the Mexican government to spare the life of a condemned man.

Mexico’s ragtag army and militias had just humbled France, then Europe’s preeminent land power. The costly six-year campaign drained the French treasury and eroded Napoleon III’s domestic support. Napoleon’s ambition to transform Mexico into a client empire under a Vienna-born, Habsburg archduke, crowned Maximilian I, ended in spectacular failure.

After his defeat, Maximilian was brought before a Mexican military tribunal. European monarchs regarded the prisoner as their peer, but Mexican liberals convicted him as a piratical invader, usurper and traitor. Despite indignant appeals from European courts, President Benito Juárez refused to commute his sentence. The would-be emperor was executed by firing squad.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

---

The controversy went beyond one monarch’s fate. It crystallised a clash between opposed visions of global order — as Peru’s president Ramón Castilla said at the time, it was a “war of the crowns against liberty caps”.

Today, world politics are in flux. The so-called liberal international order, nominally grounded in multilateralism, open markets, human rights and the rule of law, is facing its gravest crisis since the second world war. Former advocates such as the United States now openly flout international law and undermine the very norms they once championed. China remains ambivalent, while Russia unabashedly hastens the order’s unravelling.

More broadly, the old post-second world war order appears out of step with the global south and with widespread anger over double standards exposed by the wars in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran.
Amid today’s crises, a world order arranged for and by the great powers looks both insufficient and doomed to lack legitimacy. Reordering will require support from diverse actors, including states across the global south.

1860s: a turbulent decade

The 1860s were a turbulent, although often overlooked, moment of global reordering. Technological shifts – the telegraph, electricity, steamships and railways – appeared as disruptive then as AI does today. Combined with shifting power dynamics, these transformations accelerated imperial expansion. Yet the rules of the emerging order remained uncertain, even among the imperial powers themselves.

In Europe, networks of dynastic rule still carried weight in international politics. Under growing pressure, the ancien régime sought to reinvent and reassert itself. The old empires often justified their expansion by promising to bring order and progress to supposedly backward peoples. But that “civilising mission” clashed with a worldview emerging from Spanish America – where countries had thrown off colonial rule to establish independent republics.

As we wrote in a recent article in American Political Science Review, Spanish American diplomats articulated a republican vision of international order centred on the protection of weaker states from domination by great powers.

Fending off Europe’s empires

Divided by civil conflict, Mexico became an easy target for European empires. Mexico’s Liberal party had regained power but faced internal dissent and crippling foreign debt. Britain, France and Spain formed a coalition to invade and demand repayment. France, however, had more ambitious designs.

Exploiting the distraction of the US civil war, Napoleon III dreamed of transforming Mexico into a Latin stronghold against Yankee expansion. Best of all, Napoleon thought the scheme would turn a profit. A stable Mexican empire could repay the costs of the intervention – with interest – by increasing production from the country’s famed silver mines. Meanwhile, France would gain a receptive market for its exports and a grateful geopolitical subordinate.

Maximilian, a young Austrian prince of the house of Hapsburg, somewhat naively accepted the offer to rule a distant and unfamiliar land. He dreamed of regenerating Mexico through a liberal monarchy while reviving his family’s declining dynasty.

Led by Juárez, Mexico’s liberals fiercely resisted Maximilian’s rule. While militarily Juárez was consistently on the defensive, he remained diplomatically proactive. The Juaristas encouraged US sympathies that proved decisive after the end of the civil war. They also enjoyed solidarity – though limited material support – from other Spanish American republics. Although the monarchies of Europe all recognised Maximilian as Mexican emperor, Juárez’s defiance became a rallying point for liberals and republicans in Europe.

Vision of a new order

Beyond stoking sympathies, Juárez and his followers offered trenchant critiques of unequal international rules and practices cloaked in liberal guise.

First, the “republican internationalism” of Mexico’s Juaristas stood in direct opposition to European liberals’ “civilising mission”. Latin American republicans rejected the notion that progress could be imposed on their countries from abroad – though some echoed civilising rhetoric toward their own non-white populations, who like in the US were subject to campaigns of violence and dispossession that stretched from northern Mexico to the Patagonia. Many Latin American liberals likewise remained silent about empire elsewhere.

Second, the Juarista vision placed popular sovereignty, not dynastic ties, at the heart of legitimate statehood. These ideas drew on Mexico’s independence tradition and the principles enshrined in the 1857 constitution. European intervention, in this view, aimed to suppress popular rule in the Americas and extend the reaction against the failed revolutions of 1848, which had seriously threatened the old order when they raged across Europe.

Third, popular sovereign states were equal under international law, regardless of power, wealth, or internal disorder. Sovereign equality also underpinned Latin America’s strong commitment to non-intervention. Liberal writer and diplomat Francisco Zarco, a close confidante of Juárez, condemned frequent European economic justifications for intervention as the work of “smugglers and profiteers who wrap themselves in the flags of powerful nations”.

Finally, Mexican liberals called for an international system premised on republican fraternity, drawing on aspirations for cooperation that went back to liberator Simón Bolívar. The independence leader and committed republican convened a conference in 1826, hoping that a confederation of the newly independent Spanish American states would “be the shield of our new destiny”.

Similar arguments for an international order that advances non-domination still resonate in the global south today. The Mexican experience also underscores that the architects of international order have never come exclusively from the global north – and those who shape its future will not either.

Tom Long receives support from UK Arts and Humanities Research Council grant AH/V006622/1, Latin America and the peripheral origins of the 19th-century international order.

Carsten-Andreas Schulz receives support from UK Arts and Humanities Research Council grant AH/V006622/1, Latin America and the peripheral origins of the 19th-century international order.

– ref. How 1860s Mexico offered an alternative vision for a liberal international order – https://theconversation.com/how-1860s-mexico-offered-an-alternative-vision-for-a-liberal-international-order-260228

Source: The Conversation – UK – By James Weber, Lecturer in Atmospheric Radiation, Composition and Climate, University of Reading

An estimated 4.2 million deaths can be attributed to poor air quality each year. Poor air quality is the largest fixable environmental public health risk in the world.

Our new study presents analysis of the UK-wide trends for three major pollutants – nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), ozone (O₃) and tiny particulate matter known as PM₂.₅ – between 2015 and 2024 to calculate how often air quality targets were breached.

Both nitrogen dioxide and PM₂.₅ showed robust decreases over the period 2015-2024, declining on average by 35% and 30% respectively. In 2015-2016, the average Defra monitoring site exceeded the nitrogen dioxide target on 136 days per year. By 2023-2024, this had dropped to 40 days per year.

For PM₂.₅, the number of days the average Defra site breached the target went from 40 to 22 days per year. While this is an improvement, the World Health Organization advises that these targets should not be breached on more than four days per year.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

---

To examine the sources of pollution, we studied how pollutants were influenced by factors including time of day, day of week, wind direction and origin, location of monitoring station and even interactions between pollutant. Nitrogen dioxide concentrations are highest at monitoring sites located next to busy urban roads, lower at urban background sites (which are located at sites further from traffic such as parks) and much lower in rural sites.

Profiles over 24-hour periods show strong nitrogen dioxide peaks coinciding with the morning and evening rush hours and clear decreases at weekends. This all points to local traffic emissions being the major source. While PM₂.₅ is also higher in urban than rural locations, it exhibits more muted rush hour peaks and is more consistent between the week and weekend, suggesting traffic plays a smaller role.

We explored how wind direction and origin influenced nitrogen dioxide and PM₂.₅ by running a weather forecast model backwards for three UK locations: Reading, Sheffield and Glasgow. While nitrogen dioxide showed only a weak correlation with wind origin, PM₂.₅ was much more dependent.

For example, the probability of PM₂.₅ breaching air quality targets on a given day exceeded 15% only when the air had come from continental Europe and, for Sheffield and Glasgow, passed over much of the UK too.

While nitrogen dioxide and PM₂.₅ showed clear improvements, ozone exhibited a less positive picture. Ozone increased in 115 of the 121 sites considered, growing by 17% on average. A similar trend was observed across much of northern Europe. The average number of days ozone exceeded the World Health Organization target doubled from seven to 14 per year.

This may seem modest at present, but several factors are conspiring to drive ozone higher. In much of the UK, the relatively high levels of nitrogen dioxide effectively suppress ozone: as a result, ozone is higher in rural rather than urban areas and, as nitrogen dioxide decreases, ozone will increase further.

Unless, that is, we also target nitrogen dioxide’s partner in crime, volatile organic compounds (VOCs). VOCs are critical to the production of ozone and are emitted from human sources such as traffic and industry, plus certain types of vegetation like oak trees. While emissions of nitrogen dioxide fell by 20% between 2015-2024, human-driven VOC emissions declined by only 1%.

Ozone also increases in periods of hot weather due to elevated VOC emissions from vegetation and greater mixing of air from higher up in the atmosphere into the layer closest to the surface. Incidents of hot weather are only going to become more frequent in the UK, making it even more critical to crack down on human-driven VOC emissions to limit ozone pollution.

Up in the air

In the UK, considerable efforts have been made to improve air quality. Its importance has been enshrined in law for nearly 70 years. An extensive network of air quality monitoring sites is maintained by the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) plus devolved and local authorities.

Local authorities are required to monitor air quality and develop air quality management areas in places where targets are unlikely to be met. Clean air or low emission zones have been introduced as a result.

However, air quality policy must be designed to reflect the complex nature of each pollutants’ drivers. Nitrogen dioxide is dominated by local sources, PM₂.₅ by transport from further afield and ozone by a combination of both.

Local and national policies that cut traffic emissions by incentivising the replacement of older cars with newer, cleaner vehicles, retrofitting buses and restricting entry of the most polluting vehicles into towns and cities will probably reduce nitrogen dioxide further.

But, if nitrogen dioxide decreases are not accompanied by reductions to VOC emissions, locally and internationally, ozone will continue to rise, especially with more frequent hot weather.

By contrast, most PM₂.₅ comes from sources further afield, including industry and agriculture from other parts of the UK and beyond, so reductions hinge on stronger national and global policies that target emissions at source rather than just local efforts.

Air pollution doesn’t respect borders and while the technologies to facilitate continued improvements exist, they must be deployed in joined-up, international efforts.

---

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 Weber 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. UK air quality is improving but pollution targets are still being breached – new study – https://theconversation.com/uk-air-quality-is-improving-but-pollution-targets-are-still-being-breached-new-study-260961

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sandra Lucas, Senior Lecturer, School of Health Sciences, University of the West of Scotland

For generations, chicken soup has been a go-to remedy for people feeling under the weather. It holds a cherished place in many cultures as a comforting treatment for colds and flu. But is there any real science behind the idea that soup can help us recover from respiratory infections?

Alongside colleagues, I conducted a systematic review to explore this question, which examined the scientific evidence on the role of soup in managing acute respiratory tract infections, such as the common cold, influenza and COVID-19.

Out of more than 10,000 records, we identified four high-quality studies involving 342 participants. These studies tested a variety of soups, including traditional chicken broth, barley soup and herbal vegetable blends. While still early-stage, the evidence was promising.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

---

One study found that people who ate soup recovered up to 2.5 days faster than those who didn’t. Symptoms such as nasal congestion, sore throat and fatigue were milder. Some participants also showed reduced levels of inflammation-related markers: substances in the blood that rise when the immune system is fighting an infection.

Specifically, levels of IL-6 and TNF-α – two proteins that help trigger inflammation – were lower in those who consumed soup. This suggests that soup may help calm an overactive immune response, potentially making symptoms less severe and recovery more comfortable.

However, none of the studies examined how consuming soup influenced everyday outcomes of acute respiratory tract infections, such as whether people took fewer days off work or were less likely to end up in hospital. That’s a major gap in the evidence, and one that future research needs to address.

There are several reasons soup may help. It’s warm, hydrating and typically nutrient-rich. Ingredients like garlic, onion, ginger and leafy greens have anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, and immune-supportive properties. The warmth can also help loosen mucus, soothe sore throats and promote overall comfort during illness.

Not just nourishment

There’s also a strong cultural and behavioural aspect to food-based self-care: when people use food not just for nourishment, but as an intentional part of managing illness and promoting recovery.

In many households, food becomes medicine not only because of its ingredients, but because it symbolises care, routine and reassurance.

My previous research found that parents, in particular often turn to traditional remedies, like soup, as a first line of defence when illness strikes, often well before seeking professional medical advice.

This reflects a growing interest in home remedies and the importance of culturally familiar treatments: remedies that feel safe, trusted and emotionally resonant because they’re part of a person’s upbringing or community norms. These kinds of treatments can increase confidence and comfort when self-managing illness at home.

Food-based self-care may become increasingly important as pressure on healthcare systems continues to grow. With rising concerns about antimicrobial resistance, overstretched services, and lingering trauma from global pandemics, simple, evidence-informed home treatments can play a crucial role.

They help people manage mild illness, reduce unnecessary antibiotic use and avoid placing additional strain on GPs or emergency departments for minor ailments that can be safely treated at home. Even a simple phone message about the common cold – “Most common colds get better in a few days and don’t need treatment from your GP” – has been shown to reduce appointment demand by 21%, highlighting how low-cost, home-based care could ease pressure across the system.

The Local Government Association (LGA) reports that GPs handle approximately 57 million cases of minor conditions such as coughs and colds annually, costing the NHS over £2 billion a year. It argues that educating people about effective self-care could help save GPs an hour a day on average.

Soup fits the bill

So chicken soup is easy to prepare, affordable, safe for most people and widely recognised as a comforting, familiar home remedy for minor illness.

Still, our review highlighted a clear need for more research. Future studies could examine standardised soup recipes and investigate whether particular combinations of nutrients or herbs work best: does chicken soup have the same effect as barley broth or vegetable potage? Is there a difference if it’s homemade versus canned?

Just as importantly, future research needs to measure meaningful outcomes: how quickly people return to work or school, how well they sleep during illness, how they rate their comfort and energy levels, for example.

Soup isn’t a replacement for medicine. But alongside rest, fluids and paracetamol, it might offer a simple way to ease symptoms and help people feel better.

Sandra Lucas 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 soup might soothe symptoms and support recovery from colds and flu – new research – https://theconversation.com/how-soup-might-soothe-symptoms-and-support-recovery-from-colds-and-flu-new-research-260960

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

Despite the glorious arrival of summer, there’s definitely a sting in the season’s tail – quite literally. Even in the UK, it’s not just sunburn we need to watch out for. From nettles to jellyfish, summer brings a full cast of prickly, buzzing, biting villains.

My own back patio is armed with an arsenal of citronella candles and incense sticks to fend them off – not just a lifestyle choice, but a survival strategy for someone as jumpy as me around insects.

Let’s break down the main culprits.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

---

Plant-based stings: nettles

First up, the humble but mighty common nettle, which thrives in hedgerows and gardens, often reaching impressive heights of up to two metres by midsummer. Their sting comes from tiny hairs called trichomes, which inject histamine and other irritants into the skin as a form of defence.

Histamine causes the classic signs of inflammation: redness, swelling, heat and pain – all of which are evident in the raised, red rash known as urticaria (or hives). Unsurprisingly, the Latin name for the nettle family is urtica, meaning “to sting.”

And what about that old remedy of rubbing a dock leaf on the sting? Honestly, good luck identifying one among the 200-plus species. While the sap might offer a mild soothing effect, there’s no strong evidence of an active compound that reduces symptoms.

If it works for you, great, but calamine lotion or over-the-counter antihistamines are far more reliable. And use some form of protection in the first place – if you’re clearing them from your garden, or foraging to make nettle pesto, wear gloves and proceed carefully.

Insects: bees, wasps and horseflies

As temperatures rise, so do the number of stinging insects like bees and wasps, not to mention the dreaded horseflies. While most don’t sting unless provoked (a mantra I repeat to myself regularly), when they do, it can be unpleasant.

Most stings cause local irritation – simple pain relief and antihistamines usually do the trick here. But sometimes, either the original sting or subsequent scratching can cause infections.

Cellulitis is a deeper skin infection that can spread quickly if untreated. While milder cases may clear up with oral antibiotics, some infections can be serious – even life threatening – and require hospital care.

If a sting site or the surrounding skin becomes red, warm, painful or swollen, seek urgent medical advice. And if you feel unwell with symptoms like fevers, chills or a racing heart, treat it as an emergency.

Insect stings can also trigger anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction. In the UK, stings account for around ten deaths per year: a small, but very sobering figure. Always take anaphylactic symptoms like facial swelling, difficulty breathing or dizziness seriously – and call 999 immediately.

Ticks: small bites, big risks

Tick bites are also more common in summer, thanks to more exposed skin and time spent in tall grass or woodlands. Ticks are tiny – often smaller than a poppy seed – and can be easily missed until they become engorged with blood.

They’re usually harmless, but some ticks carry diseases like Lyme disease, a bacterial infection that can cause fatigue, joint pain and, if untreated, serious complications affecting the nervous system or heart.

Ticks can also spread tick-borne encephalitis, a viral infection that can lead to inflammation of the brain, though it’s very rare in the UK. Watch out for the telltale bullseye rash and flu-like symptoms after a bite – and seek urgent medical advice if they appear.

To remove a tick, use fine-tipped tweezers, gripping as close to the skin as possible and pulling steadily. Don’t twist. You want the whole tick out, legs and all. And don’t squeeze its body, as this can force potentially infected fluids into your bloodstream, raising the risk of conditions like Lyme disease, among others.

Marine stings: jellyfish and friends

And finally, the unexpected seaside sting. Coastal waters can play host to a range of jellyfish, from the mildly irritating to the impressively painful.

Most UK species cause minor rashes, but be wary of the lion’s mane and the occasional (though rare) portuguese men o’war – not technically a jellyfish, but still best avoided.

Even jellyfish washed up on shore can sting, sometimes for days. If stung, rinse the area with seawater (not fresh water), or soak in warm water. Avoid rubbing or using urine – yes, that scene in Friends is not medically sound. Peeing on a jellyfish sting can make things worse by triggering more venom release from stuck tentacles.

If tentacles are still stuck to the skin, use tweezers or the edge of a credit card to remove them gently. Don’t use your bare hand – you could end up stinging that too.

And like insect stings, jellyfish can rarely trigger anaphylactic shock. If someone shows symptoms, don’t hesitate to seek emergency help.

From the garden to the seaside, summer has plenty of sting — but being prepared can make all the difference. Whether it’s nettles, bees or ticks, the best approach is prevention (think gloves, repellent and awareness), followed by prompt treatment if needed.

Use calamine or antihistamines for rashes, and tweezers for tick or jellyfish tentacle removal. Keep a close eye out for signs of infection or allergic reaction and always seek medical advice if something doesn’t feel right.

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

– ref. Horseflies and wasps and jellyfish – how to stay safe from stings and bites this summer – https://theconversation.com/horseflies-and-wasps-and-jellyfish-how-to-stay-safe-from-stings-and-bites-this-summer-260670

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Catherine Meads, Professor of Health, Anglia Ruskin University

More women than ever are carrying babies conceived with someone else’s egg – but few are told that this might carry greater health risks.

Pregnancies involving an embryo that doesn’t share the pregnant woman’s DNA are becoming more common. For many, it’s a path to parenthood that would otherwise be closed.

But emerging evidence suggests that these pregnancies may come with higher rates of complications, including pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes and preterm birth, and that women are often not given the full picture before treatment.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

---

As the fertility industry expands and diversifies, it’s time to ask whether patients are being adequately informed about the risks of carrying another woman’s egg – and whether more caution is needed in how these options are presented.

There are three situations in which a woman may carry another woman’s egg in her uterus.

The most common is when a woman cannot produce her own eggs but has a functioning uterus. In this case, donor eggs and in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) offer the only route to pregnancy.

The other two situations involve fertile women carrying a donated egg on behalf of someone else. This happens in cases of gestational surrogacy, where a surrogate carries a baby genetically unrelated to her, or in reciprocal IVF, also known as ROPA or co-IVF. In the latter, one woman in a same-sex couple (or a trans man) donates her egg to her partner, so that both have a biological connection to the child.

In IVF, fertilisation occurs outside the body and the resulting embryo is transferred into the uterus. But what happens when the egg in the uterus has no genetic similarity to the woman carrying it? Could this cause complications for her or the baby?

To answer that question, we need to compare outcomes in these situations to pregnancies where the egg shares approximately 50% of the mother’s DNA, either through natural conception or own-egg IVF. Early evidence suggests that having someone else’s egg in the uterus is associated with a higher risk of obstetric complications, including pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes and preterm birth.

There are three key comparisons to make. First, donor-egg IVF v own-egg IVF. For infertile women using donor eggs, the most relevant comparison is IVF with their own eggs.

Second, gestational v traditional surrogacy. In gestational surrogacy, the surrogate carries a donor egg, while in traditional surrogacy, she uses her own. Outcomes can also be compared with the surrogate’s previous natural pregnancies.

Third, reciprocal IVF v own-egg IVF. In same-sex couples, reciprocal IVF can be compared to own-egg IVF to assess risks.

A review of 11 studies comparing donor-egg IVF to own-egg IVF found that donor-egg pregnancies had significantly higher rates of hypertensive disorders in the mother, as well as preterm birth and babies that were small for their gestational age.

A separate review focusing on pre-eclampsia in singleton IVF pregnancies found the condition occurred in 11.2% of donor-egg pregnancies, compared to 3.9% of own-egg pregnancies.

For women who can only become pregnant using a donor egg, these risks may be worth accepting. But it’s important that women are made aware of the potential complications, especially if carrying twins, which further increases risks.

Gestational surrogacy

With colleagues, I conducted a review of eight studies. The research suggests that gestational surrogacy (donor egg) is linked to higher rates of hypertensive disorders and gestational diabetes compared to traditional surrogacy (surrogate’s own egg) or previous natural pregnancies.

So why is gestational surrogacy often favoured by clinicians and intended parents alike? For some doctors, it can offer greater medical and ethical clarity; for some parents, it can reduce legal and emotional complications. A common assumption is that genetically related surrogates may be more likely to want to keep the baby – but research shows this is not the case. Surrogates rarely seek to retain custody, regardless of genetic connection.

Evidence on reciprocal IVF is even more limited. A 2022 study of 21 women who underwent reciprocal IVF found that hypertensive disorders occurred in 23.8%, compared to 12.9% of the 62 heterosexual women using their own egg, and gestational diabetes occurred in 9.5% v 1.6%.

The only study directly comparing reciprocal IVF to own-egg IVF in same-sex female couples is an unpublished conference abstract, which found a higher miscarriage rate (19% v 14%), but reported no maternal or infant outcomes.

Despite limited data, fertility companies often market gestational surrogacy and reciprocal IVF as reasonably safe options. However, much of the research comes from clinicians affiliated with fertility clinics.

Crucially, there is still no strong evidence showing that fertile women carrying another woman’s egg have better outcomes than infertile women undergoing the same. But a lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of safety.

In some cases, pregnancy using one’s own egg may still be possible. For example, fertile women in same-sex couples may only need sperm donation to conceive naturally, rather than going through IVF.

Women deserve full, unbiased information about the risks. That includes knowing that carrying someone else’s egg may increase the likelihood of pregnancy complications. They can then make informed decisions about whether the potential benefits outweigh the risks.

Catherine Meads 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. Donor-egg pregnancies may come with higher rates of serious complications – here’s what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/donor-egg-pregnancies-may-come-with-higher-rates-of-serious-complications-heres-what-you-need-to-know-259855