Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lukas Slothuus, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Global Studies, University of Sussex

In 2022, Sweden took a rare step: the country banned all fossil fuel production.

The quirk is that Sweden has never actually produced any fossil fuels. So why would a country with no fossil fuel production decide to ban such production?

In a newly published study, I explain the curious case of this ban – and how it boosted Sweden’s reputation as a global leader on climate issues.

Sweden is often praised for its ambitious climate policies and fast reductions in climate-damaging emissions. Its former centre-left government decided to ban all exploration and extraction of coal, oil and gas just a year after its neighbouring oil and gas producer, Denmark, had done so. This was part of a growing international effort to phase out the supply of fossil fuels.

My research into the Swedish government’s ban comes as more than 50 nations attend a major initiative to develop a roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels, hosted by the Colombian government. I interviewed 17 high-profile people in Swedish climate politics, including some of the main architects of the ban.

I found that a single driver can play a decisive role. The ban was largely the result of a concerted effort by the Green party, which had campaigned on this issue for several years and already included it in its national election manifesto in 2014.

The Green party called on the Swedish Geological Survey to conduct a study on the potential effects of a ban, which provided the necessary scientific basis. It then used its proposal as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the Social Democrats, when forming a coalition government after the 2018 election.

That study showed how much easier it is to implement new climate policy when there is no strong fossil fuel industry and associated lobbying. And because the government had already banned uranium mining in Sweden in an attempt to make future nuclear power production more difficult, it had a blueprint for how to ban fossil fuel extraction.

The ban was mostly symbolic – but it may also have helped prevent future fossil fuel production in Sweden. Technological advances and exploding oil and gas prices can make previously untenable resources attractive to exploit. That would, of course, have harmful consequences for the climate, so the ban does have a material dimension.

In contributing to global momentum against fossil fuels, the ban bolstered Sweden’s reputation as a leading country in climate negotiations. This proved important: several of my interviewees pointed out how Sweden was able to push the EU toward a more ambitious position in its Fit For 55 climate package – a set of laws aiming to cut the EU’s emissions by 55% by 2030 – in part due to the respect the country commands from others on decarbonisation.

Following the ban, Sweden also joined the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance of like-minded countries and regions working to encourage other countries to join the global movement for a phaseout.

The path to transition

Colombia’s government is now hosting the first global conference on the transition away from fossil fuels in collaboration with the Dutch government, in the city of Santa Marta.

Located on Colombia’s sun-kissed Caribbean coast, Santa Marta is at the heart of the country’s vast coal industry. As one of the world’s largest coal exporting countries, as well as a major oil and gas producer, the symbolism is clear: Colombia is not just talking the talk but walking the walk.

More than 50 countries including the UK, Brazil and Norway are gathering to agree a roadmap for the transition away from fossil fuels. This comes only months after the UN’s climate summit Cop30 in Brazil, where nations failed to agree to end reliance on fossil fuels and negotiations faltered in the face of powerful fossil fuel lobbying.

Rather than let laggards like the US or Saudi Arabia obstruct negotiations, this conference brings together a “coalition of the willing”. Ahead of it, experts are laying the scientific and academic foundations for the political need for a phaseout. My colleagues and I are presenting our research into the failures and successes of first-moving countries trying to phase out fossil fuel production.

The following questions will be at the heart of discussions in Colombia.
What kind of financing do developing countries need to phase out their production and consumption of fossil fuels? How can the legal obstacles be overcome? What does a just, equitable and fair phaseout look like? And crucially, what can be learned from existing attempts to phase out fossil fuels?

In Sweden, climate policies have been gradually rolled back by its current rightwing government, which is not sending any representatives to Santa Marta. Yet the fossil fuel ban still stands.

Sweden’s ban did not lead to any direct reduction in global fossil fuel production. But it did name the problem and show the way for other countries. It provided an alternative pathway where future investment goes into renewables and green technologies, rather than climate-damaging energy sources.

Now it’s up to the countries attending the Santa Marta conference to make further progress on this long, difficult path to transitioning away from fossil fuels.

Lukas Slothuus receives funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

– ref. Why Sweden’s ban on fossil fuel production matters, despite not producing any itself – new research – https://theconversation.com/why-swedens-ban-on-fossil-fuel-production-matters-despite-not-producing-any-itself-new-research-280399

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Fannie Frederikke Baden, PhD Candidate, Art History and Visual Studies, Lund University

Can we ever really understand Chernobyl? As a researcher in visual culture, I find myself returning to this question again and again as I examine films, TV shows, documentaries, visual novels and artworks.

We know that the explosion occurred on April 26 1986 at 1:23am due to a safety test gone wrong, and that the radioactive contamination spread across the exclusion zone and far beyond, reaching other parts of Europe. Beyond these facts, however, things get shaky. Although the official death toll was, according to the World Health Organization’s 2005 report, less than 50, the real number is considered to be much higher, with thousands affected by the long-term consequences of exposure.

Radioactive contamination is what made this technological disaster so extraordinary. While many people may not be interested in decay chains or wavelengths, popular culture renders radioactive pollution immediately legible.

At the same time, these representations often operate in the space between historical fact and dramatisation. Although many can be criticised for exaggerating an already fantastical disaster, that dramatisation is also part of what keeps audiences engaged and ensures that Chernobyl remains alive in our cultural awareness.

Here are five of my favourite pop culture depictions of the Chernobyl disaster, that I believe give a pretty good glimpse of what the disaster entailed.

1. Chernobyl (2019)

This series is one of the best ways to understand or be introduced to Chernobyl. Over the course of five episodes, HBO’s drama series brought viewers through the social, political and bureaucratic aspects of the disaster.

Following the scientist Valery Legasov (Jared Harris), as well as the story of firefighter’s wife Lyudmilla Ignatenko (Jessie Buckley), the series does a great job at narrating the disaster in compelling ways. It is visually well constructed with attention to every minor detail.

The series finds ingenious ways to visualise invisible radiation, while scientists’ struggle to force the truth into the open is heart-wrenching enough to hold the viewer through all five episodes.

2. Chernobylite (2021)

The horror indie video game Chernobylite allows players to wander freely around Chernobyl’s exclusion zone – one of the most radioactively contaminated areas on Earth.

With time and climate change, the structures and buildings within the zone are at increasing risk of disappearing from both wildfires or age that leaves buildings crumbling. In an effort to preserve the zone, the creators of Chernobylite began to 3D scan it. Left with a virtual map, they decided to turn their project into a video game.

In Chernobylite, players can roam freely and uncover the mystery of the zone. Although embellished with green glowing crystals and monsters, the game does offer a setting that allows you to walk around and experience the zone while scientists tell you information about the disaster.

This game is a wonderful way to experience the zone at a distance. It is photo-realistic and allows the players to really locate some of the famous landmarks of the zone (such as the Ferris wheel or the monument for the firefighters).

3. Chernobyl Abyss (2021)

This Russian disaster film follows fictional firefighter, Alexey Karpushin (Danila Kozlovsky) through some of the challenges in the immediate aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster.

To save his son from radiation poisoning, Karpushin agrees to become a “liquidator” in exchange for having him sent to a care facility in Switzerland. Around 600,000 military personnel were drafted as liquidators – sent to high-radiation zones (often wearing inadequate protection) to clear radioactive debris and manage contaminated waste.

While it’s not a perfect film, it gives a good impression of the emotional and individual toll of the disaster.

4. The Babushkas of Chernobyl (2015)

Amid the tragic and often action-driven representations of Chernobyl, this documentary feels hopeful rather than bleak. It portrays life in the exclusion zone (some people have returned to live on their generational land) in all its complexity.

More importantly, it’s a reminder that while the zone may be reduced to a story for those of us watching from afar, for the people who live there, it remains a home.

5. YouTube

Before the escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian war in 2022, the zone was frequently visited. In fact, after the release of HBO’s Chernobyl series, tourism allegedly increased by 40%.

In a space where souvenirs like a stone from the ground are illegal to pick up, many instead captured the zone through their camera lens. Viewing videos from tourists and “stalkers” (illegal explorers) on YouTube, offers one of the best ways to gain insights into how the Chernobyl disaster has affected the land.

Many of these tourists capture the samoesely (resettlers), wildlife and guides who talk about the zone and what the disaster means to them.

Fannie Frederikke Baden received funding from Lund University.

– ref. Chernobyl: the five best things to watch and play to understand the disaster – https://theconversation.com/chernobyl-the-five-best-things-to-watch-and-play-to-understand-the-disaster-281176

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Bamo Nouri, Honorary Research Fellow, Department of International Politics, City St George’s, University of London

Let’s begin with a simple question that rarely gets a straight answer: what would victory over Iran actually look like? In Washington and Jerusalem, the answers tend to sound definitive: eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability, break its regional power, perhaps even force political change at the top. It’s the language of decisive war, the kind with a clear endpoint.

But shift the perspective to Tehran, and the definition changes completely. Victory, for Iran, is survival. That asymmetry shapes the entire conflict. In wars like this, the side that needs less to claim success often has the advantage – and, right now, Iran needs far less.

There is no denying the military imbalance. The US and Israel can strike with extraordinary precision and reach. They have demonstrated that repeatedly – targeting infrastructure, leadership and strategic assets.

But tactical success has yet to translate into political outcome. Iran’s state hasn’t fractured. Its governing system remains intact, and its networks – military, regional, ideological – continue to function. Even its most sensitive capabilities, including nuclear expertise, remain resilient.

The deeper miscalculation lies in assuming Tehran is playing the same game as Washington. It isn’t. Iran is not trying to defeat the US or Israel outright. It is trying to outlast them, complicate their objectives and raise the cost of progress until it becomes unsustainable.

This logic is visible in how the conflict has unfolded. The battlefield extends beyond direct confrontation into shipping lanes, energy markets and regional alliances. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz are not incidental – they are pressure points with global consequences.

Iran’s strategy is not about dominance but entanglement. It doesn’t need battlefield superiority if it can draw its adversaries into a conflict that is too costly to resolve and too complex to conclude.

When wars stall, the instinct is to escalate: more bombing, strikes on energy infrastructure, even, in extremis, “boots on the ground”. The assumption is that more force will finally produce a different outcome.

But Iran is not a passive target. It has already shown a willingness to retaliate across the region, including against Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, as well as targets in Jordan and Iraq. Strikes on Iran’s energy systems would not stay contained – they would invite retaliation against these same states, widening the conflict.

There is another constraint: American is estimated to have already used up around 45% to 50% of key missile stockpiles, including roughly 30% of its Tomahawk missile inventory. So the stark reality is that escalation is no longer just about willingness, but capacity — and in any wider war, the question may not be how far the US can go, but how much it has left.

The consequences would also extend beyond the battlefield. Iran’s response would be sustained attacks on neighbouring countries, on their power, fuel, and water systems, rendering parts of the region increasingly unlivable as temperatures soar over summer. Huge numbers of people would be forced to leave, risking another large-scale displacement crisis.

Even then, the core reality remains unchanged. Iran is built for endurance – any ground campaign would likely become prolonged and attritional. More importantly, escalation misses the point – the problem is not a lack of force, but the absence of a political objective that force can realistically achieve.

Compounding the problem is a quieter but equally significant reality; the US and Israel do not appear to be fully aligned in their end goals. Israel’s posture suggests a pursuit of maximal outcomes – deep, possibly irreversible weakening of Iran’s system, if not outright regime collapse. The US, by contrast, appears to oscillate between coercion, containment and negotiation.

These are not just differences in emphasis – they are differences in strategy. Wars fought without a shared definition of victory rarely produce victory at all. What they produce instead is sustained military activity without strategic convergence – constant movement, but little progress toward resolution.

No conclusion in sight

At some point, it becomes necessary to describe things as they are. This is no longer a war moving toward a decisive conclusion. It is a conflict settling into a pattern – strikes followed by pauses, ceasefires that hold just long enough to prevent collapse, and negotiations that advance just enough to avoid failure.

And those ceasefires tell their own story. Their repeated extension reflects not progress, but constraint. Washington, under Donald Trump, has strong incentives to keep talks alive, avoid deeper escalation, and end the war sooner rather than later. The alternatives – regional war or global economic shock – are far harder to manage. That dynamic gives Tehran leverage. It does not need to concede quickly when delay itself strengthens its position.

Time, in this sense, is not neutral. The longer the conflict drags on, the more it intersects with the most sensitive pressure points of the global economy. Energy markets are stressed, with supply routes under strain and reserves tightening. Industries that depend on stable fuel flows – aviation, shipping, manufacturing – are increasingly exposed.

What began as a regional conflict has morphed into systemic risk. Even limited disruption can ripple outward, affecting prices, supply chains and political stability. The longer the stalemate persists, the greater the cumulative strain and the closer it edges toward a broader economic shock.

Who really holds the advantage?

In purely military terms, the answer is obvious: the US and Israel retain overwhelming superiority. But wars are not decided by capability alone. They are decided by how goals, costs, and time interact.

In that equation, Iran’s position is stronger than it appears. It has set a lower threshold for success, demonstrated a higher tolerance for prolonged pressure, and shown an ability to impose costs beyond the battlefield. Most importantly, it does not need to win. It only needs to prevent its adversaries from achieving their aims. So far, it has done exactly that.

Which brings us back to the original question: can the US and Israel win this war? If winning means forcing Iran into submission or fundamentally reshaping its strategic posture, the answer is increasingly difficult to avoid – they cannot.

What they can do is continue. Manage the conflict, contain its spread and shape its margins. But that is not victory. It is endurance.

The real danger is not defeat, but the persistence of a belief that just a little more pressure, a little more escalation, or a little more time will produce a different result. If that belief is wrong, then this is not a war on the verge of being won. It is a war that cannot be won at all. A forever war.

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. Middle East conflict looks increasingly like a war nobody can win – https://theconversation.com/middle-east-conflict-looks-increasingly-like-a-war-nobody-can-win-281253

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jo Adetunji, Executive Editor – Partnerships, The Conversation

We’re delighted to announce that The Conversation Prize for writers is back for another year.

This annual competition invites academics and researchers to bring their work to life for a wider audience. It’s an opportunity to turn your research, expertise and insights into a compelling longform story that also has the potential to be developed into a bestselling nonfiction book. Whether you’re exploring new findings, re-examining established ideas, or sharing unique perspectives from your field, the prize celebrates clear, engaging writing that connects specialist knowledge with the world beyond academia.

In addition to a £1,000 prize for the winning article and online publication with The Conversation Insights, our partners Faber and The Curtis Brown Group will again be offering mentorship to develop your book from a book editor and a literary agent.

In 2025, Brian Thornton won for his powerful article and book pitch on the systemic issues perpetuating miscarriages of justice. He said:

The Conversation Prize is an amazing opportunity to raise the profile of your research and access new audiences for your work. The support from the lovely people at Curtis Brown and Faber was amazing – they gave me fantastic practical advice on how to develop my work. If you’ve got an interesting idea, a new angle or a piece of research that deserves to be more widely known, this is the competition for you.

Yvonne Reddick, reader in English literature and creative writing at the University of Central Lancashire, and a runner up in the competition for Mountains of Fire – her moving account of what hillwalking with her father taught her about the origins of oil exploration – said:

Entering the writers’ prize was life-changing. I met my agents, Sabhbh Curran and Elliot Prior, and they have helped me to shape the project I know I was born to write. Sharing our research with a wide audience is increasingly important given today’s focus on impact, engagement and knowledge exchange – but the prize also brings the utter joy of sharing your work in The Conversation and beyond.

Nicholas Carter, lecturer in physical geography at the University of Oxford, and a runner up in the competition for his article on how lichens are bringing stones to life, said:

The writers’ prize proved pivotal in securing me both wonderful representation and a book deal for ‘Living Stone’ with Penguin Viking, while opening doors to other work opportunities along the way.

---

Submissions will be in the form of a 2,000-word article written for a non-academic audience and in the following subject areas: History, Arts + Culture, Business + Economy, Education, Environment, Health, Politics + Society, Science + Technology or World. As part of your submission, we’d also like you to include an idea for a trade nonfiction book on your article subject. Please pitch your proposed book idea in 350 words or less and explain why you’re the right person to write this book.

The competition will close on Sunday 5th July at 11.59pm BST.

---

To enter, please email your 2,000-word article, plus the following information, to uk-prize@theconversation.com:

Name

Institution

Country

Email

Telephone no.

Your book idea [max 350 words]
Please provide a brief summary of a trade nonfiction book idea based on your article. Tell us why this topic deserves a deeper dive and why it would appeal to an audience of non-academic readers.

---

About you [max 100 words]
Tell us a little about you – your current role, your area of expertise and any relevant research to your book idea. Why would you be the right author for this book?

---

Please disclose any conflicts of interest that should be mentioned in relation to your article or book idea.

---

[Pdf] – please read carefully.

You can find out more about what we’re looking for [Pdf].

– ref. Entries now open! The Conversation Prize for writers 2026 – in partnership with Faber and Curtis Brown – https://theconversation.com/entries-now-open-the-conversation-prize-for-writers-2026-in-partnership-with-faber-and-curtis-brown-280537

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Holly Joseph, Professor of Language and Literacy Development, University of Reading

This year marks the UK’s National Year of Reading, which aims to rebuild good reading habits and enjoyment as child and adolescent reading declines year on year.

Reading enjoyment is at its lowest level for two decades, according to the National Literacy Trust’s annual survey. This matters because books expose children to a broader and richer vocabulary than everyday conversation, giving them access to words and language patterns they are less likely to hear.

Researchers do not point to a single cause for the decline, but studies suggest a mix of competing activities, weaker reading motivation and limited access to books that match children’s interests. This decline brings with it a sense of urgency, but also a risk because quick fixes often do not align with research.

We do have strong evidence about one crucial ingredient. Children need to learn how print represents speech sounds and practise decoding until word reading becomes accurate and fluent. That’s why phonics – the teaching of letter-sound relationships to help children sound out written words – is embedded in early literacy instruction. Phonics isn’t the whole of reading (comprehension is also key), but it is a necessary foundation. Importantly, it isn’t a shortcut: it takes time, practice and good teaching.

So where do shortcuts come in? Alongside the teaching methods we know help children to read, parents and teachers are often encouraged to try commercial products, online trends and social media campaigns that promise faster progress. But do they work? Here are five popular shortcuts and what the research suggests.

1. Bypassing phonics: an unhelpful avoidance strategy

When phonics isn’t working for a child, a common suggestion is an “alternative”: memorising whole words, relying on pictures or guessing from context cues (multi-cueing). However, when children are encouraged to bypass decoding words, they are not developing a reliable method for reading new words independently.

Reviews of intervention research indicate phonics training can improve decoding and word reading for poor readers. In other words, if a child is struggling with learning to read, the answer is usually more explicit teaching and guided practice in matching sounds to letters, not strategies that avoid it.

2. Coloured overlays: comfort is not the same as improved reading

Coloured overlays are transparent coloured sheets placed over a page and are often promoted as a way of reducing “visual stress” and making reading easier, especially for children with dyslexia. However, numerous studies and a systematic review have shown that the research does not support coloured lenses/overlays as a treatment for reading difficulty.

This doesn’t mean visual discomfort should be ignored. Headaches, glare sensitivity or unusual visual symptoms merit clinical attention. But it does mean overlays shouldn’t be treated as a primary intervention for decoding, fluency or comprehension, and there is no good evidence of meaningful improvements in reading outcomes for dyslexic children.

3. Turn on the subtitles: exposure isn’t the same as practice

Turning on subtitles while watching TV gives additional exposure to print that we might expect to improve reading. However, a recent study with year 2-3 children showed that six weeks of TV viewing with subtitles did not result in gains in reading fluency beyond the improvement seen in children generally.

One likely reason is that children who are not yet fluent readers often don’t look at the subtitles when they are watching TV enough for them to function as reading practice. Why would you look at the text at the bottom of the screen if you can’t make sense of it? But even when they do, “book language” includes rarer vocabulary and more complex grammar than everyday speech, so books still add something extra.

4. Specialist fonts: spacing can help, ‘dyslexia fonts’ less so

Dyslexia-friendly fonts are specially designed typefaces that aim to make letters easier to tell apart, often by changing their shape, weight or spacing. They are appealing because they’re easy to implement. But when studies measure reading objectively, specialist typefaces typically don’t deliver the improvements implied.

Research comparing specialist and standard typefaces (while controlling spacing between words and letters) tends to find little or no meaningful advantage for word or passage reading. Formatting such as larger print, more generous spacing and shorter line lengths can sometimes make text easier to navigate visually and therefore more comfortable to read.

But this should not be viewed as a substitute for instruction that builds decoding and fluency. And specialist typefaces have no impact on comprehension either – which, after all, is the ultimate goal of reading.

5. ‘Bionic’ reading: bold claims, weak evidence

Bionic reading (bolding the beginnings of words) has spread rapidly online with claims that bolding helps guide readers’ eyes to the relevant part of a word which “lets the brain centre complete the word”, which in turn increases reading speed. However, research doesn’t support these claims: bionic formatting does not reduce reading times compared with standard text in well-controlled experiments, nor does it improve comprehension. Some readers may prefer the format of bionic reading, but preference is not evidence of improved reading skill.

So what does work?

The key distinction is between changes that make reading feel easier and changes that make reading better. Adjustments such as font, spacing or subtitles may support access or enjoyment for some children, but they don’t replace the slow and necessary work of building fluent word reading.

For children struggling with decoding or reading accuracy, we have known what works best for many years now. Teach decoding explicitly, practise it in texts that match what’s been taught, build fluency with short frequent practice, and teach spelling alongside reading. And if progress is slow, increase the dose (more time, more guidance) rather than looking to alternative methods.

This is a particularly difficult message for parents of children with dyslexia or other reading difficulties, who desperately want to help their child with what they find hardest. But it is crucial that we don’t promote myths or interventions that are not backed up by evidence.

As a rule of thumb, if it seems too good to be true, it most likely is. Learning to read in English is really hard and it takes time. As much as we might wish otherwise, there’s no quick fix.

Holly Joseph 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. Reading shortcuts for children may be popular, but the research doesn’t back them up – https://theconversation.com/reading-shortcuts-for-children-may-be-popular-but-the-research-doesnt-back-them-up-280609

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kersten Hall, Author and Honorary Fellow, Centre for History and Philosophy of Science, University of Leeds

Whether through TV crime dramas or cinema blockbusters about dinosaur theme parks, DNA is a staple of modern popular culture – its double-helix structure one of science’s most iconic visualisations.

Yet remarkably, the young Swiss scientist who discovered DNA in the first place is largely forgotten.

Born in Basel in 1844, Friedrich Miescher only began his career as a researcher after developing a hearing impairment that forced him to shelve plans to be a doctor like his father. Working in the medieval castle that overlooks the old German town of Tübingen, Miescher’s aim was a grand one – to uncover the chemical nature of life itself.

But his working environment was rather different to today’s molecular biology laboratories. The University of Tübingen’s conversion of the castle kitchens into laboratories appears to have involved little more than swapping pots and pans for beakers and alembics used for distillation.

Working in what he likened to the laboratory of a medieval alchemist, the first stage of Miescher’s research was the unsavoury task of scraping pus from discarded surgical bandages, obtained from the local hospital.

Pus offered him a rich source of white blood cells, which were much easier to isolate and prepare than cells from solid human tissue. So, they were particularly well suited for analysing what molecules human cells are made of.

Over the winter of 1868-9, Miescher discovered a novel cellular substance with properties unlike anything else known at that time. Its chemical behaviour was significantly different to proteins, which were by then understood to be key structural and functional components of cells.

Unlike proteins, Miescher’s substance was rich in the element phosphorus. Observing that it was found almost exclusively within each cell’s nucleus, he called it “nuclein” – a term that was largely retained within its modern name of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA.

Little was known about the functions of the cell’s nucleus at the time, although several biologists suspected it to be central to cell growth and division. Miescher was convinced that nuclein must be closely involved in these processes.

He announced the discovery of DNA in 1871 in a paper titled On the Chemical Composition of Pus Cells. While it hardly sounded (or indeed read) like a page-turner, his studies of pus would prove a landmark moment in the history of science.

Nearly a century later, it led to the Nobel-winning discovery of DNA’s double-helix structure. The date of that landmark paper by James Watson and Francis Crick is now marked each year on April 25 as DNA Day. Yet Miescher’s contribution is largely unacknowledged.

From pus to salmon

The Swiss scientist’s move back to his home town in 1871 brought him a rich new source of nuclein that meant no longer having to scrape pus from old bandages.

Each year, salmon swim from the North Sea to their breeding grounds in the upper Rhine river, where the city of Basel is located. In preparation for mating, the male salmon’s testes grow massively and become laden with DNA.

Rising in the dark and cold of a winter morning, Miescher would walk down to the banks of the Rhine to catch salmon, then extract their DNA in his laboratory. This image gave us the title of our biography of Miescher, The Dawn Fisherman, to be published in June 2026.

---

This series is dedicated to lesser-known, highly influential scientists who have had a powerful influence on the careers and research paths of many others, including the authors of these articles.

---

The intensity with which Miescher carried out his research was formidable. One of his students recalled that, on the day of Miescher’s wedding, friends had to drag him from his lab bench to attend the church.

His commitments grew. As well as researching Rhine salmon for the local fishing industry, Miescher worked for the Swiss government to improve the diets of prison inmates. And after founding Basel’s first institute of anatomy and physiology in 1885, there were the growing administrative burdens of being its director.

All these commitments brought a growing sense of frustration that he was spending less time on DNA. Looking to classical mythology for images of futility and despair, Miescher compared himself to rolling the boulder of Sisyphus up the mountain.

These strains took their toll on his health. In 1890, having contracted tuberculosis, he became a resident at a sanatorium in the alpine resort of Davos.

A second great insight

But during the final years of his life there, Miescher had his second great insight. Citing Charles Darwin’s speculations about the mechanism of heredity, Miescher proposed that the variation in biological traits of all living organisms might arise through variation in the physical structure of a large molecule – which he thought was most likely to be a protein.

Limited by the concepts and methods of his time, Miescher did not make the connection that nuclein (DNA) was, in fact, this very molecule.

He died in 1895 aged 51, burdened by a painful sense of failure and opportunities missed. “I will never know the happiness that belongs to the man who has lived up to their station in a harmonious way to the satisfaction of themselves and others,” Miescher wrote.

But his former mentor, the distinguished physiologist Carl Ludwig (1816-1895), was more confident that the achievements of his protégé would one day be recognised. “However often the cell will be studied and examined during the centuries to come,” he assured Miescher as he lay in the Davos sanatorium, “the grateful descendants will remember you as the ground-breaking researcher”.

Ludwig’s prediction turned out to be only partly accurate. DNA-based technologies have certainly transformed what we understand about life and disease. Yet Miescher is scarcely acknowledged as the scientist whose pioneering work led to them.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

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. Our unsung hero of science: Friedrich Miescher, the man who discovered DNA – https://theconversation.com/our-unsung-hero-of-science-friedrich-miescher-the-man-who-discovered-dna-281202

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adam Taylor, Professor of Anatomy, Lancaster University

During pregnancy, a mother’s body undergoes vast structural and functional changes. But what many might not know is that the after-effects of these changes can last long after giving birth – and can even result in the development of new health conditions.

Here are just a few of the common conditions a mother can develop after giving birth:

1. Gallstones

One common condition that arises after pregnancy is gallstones. Approximately 12% of women are affected.

Gallstones are hard deposits commonly made of cholesterol that form in the gallbladder (an organ that releases bile to help the body digest fats). If these stones leave the gallbladder and become stuck in the ducts connecting the gallbladder and intestines, they can cause intense, sharp pain under the ribs (usually on the right-hand side) which may radiate into the back and shoulder. Gallstones can also cause vomiting and darkened urine.

During pregnancy, a mother’s gastrointestinal system slows down so that as many nutrients as possible can be delivered to the developing baby.

This gastrointestinal slowdown also slows bile leaving the gallbladder. Combined with the increase in cholesterol that happens in order to support foetal tissue development, this creates the perfect environment for gallstones to form.

But after giving birth, digestive motility increases again. This can sometimes force any stones that have formed to be flushed out the gallbladder.

Stones may need to be dissolved or the gallbladder removed in cases of severe symptoms.

2. Vision changes

The eyes can also be affected after pregnancy. The most common issues are blurry vision and dry eyes. These problems are caused by hormonal changes in the immediate period after delivery – namely the sharp drop in the hormones oestrogen and progesterone.

During pregnancy, changing oestrogen and progesterone levels cause fluid retention. This causes many tissues to swell – including the eyes. It also causes the eyes to gradually change shape.

But when hormones levels return to normal after pregnancy, any visual changes that have occurred can become more noticeable. Usually, these self-resolve – though for some the vision changes can remain as near- and far-sightedness.

In very rare cases, sight loss can even occur post-pregnancy – something which recently happened to one British mum. This was probably caused by optic neuritis, a condition where the protective layer of the optic nerve is attacked by the body’s own immune system.

During pregnancy, the maternal immune system is modified so it doesn’t attack and reject the foetus. But once the baby is born, mum’s immune system goes back to its pre-pregnancy state. In some, this results in the immune system over-reacting and attacking its own tissues.

Optic neuritis can be treated using corticosteroids which can restore vision. But in this mum’s recent case, these didn’t work.

She ended up having a plasma exchange – a procedure where the body’s plasma (the blood’s liquid component which carries hormones, nutrients and blood cells) is removed and replaced with donor plasma. Once she recieved the new plasma, her vision was mostly restored.

3. Postpartum thyroiditis

Another condition affecting around 10% of postpartum mums is postpartum thyroiditis. In mums with diabetes, as many as 20% may be affected.

This condition affects the thyroid. This gland produces hormones that help control metabolism, growth, energy levels and development. The thyroid is affected by the immune system’s postpartum rebound.

Postpartum thyroiditis first causes the thyroid to become overactive (hyperthyroidism), leading to weight loss, anxiety, heat intolerance and tremors due to the thyroid hormones’ overstimulating effect on the nervous system.

This is then followed by underactivity (hypothyroidism) where mothers feel cold, low mood and tiredness.

The reason the thyroid is initially overactive is because it releases the hormonal stores it has built up. Once these stores are depleted, it’s function is reduced.

Both conditions can be treated with prescription drugs. Many mums can stop taking these after a few months, once inflammation in the thyroid has decreased.

4. Postpartum pre-eclampsia

One of the more life-threatening post-pregnancy conditions is postpartum pre-eclampsia. This condition can affect as many as 27% of mums and is characterised by high blood pressure after birth. It can happen anytime from hours after birth to six weeks after delivery.

For many, symptoms are mild and may even be unnoticed. But it can also present as severe headaches, shortness of breath, abdominal pain and vision changes, which represent the more severe symptoms.

The condition can happen both in mums who had pre-eclampsia during pregnancy and those that didn’t. If left untreated, it can lead to brain damage, stroke or even death.

Postpartum pre-eclampsia can be effectively managed with antihypertensive medications, which lower your blood pressure.

5. Blood clots

Pulmonary embolism (a blood clot in a major artery in the lungs) is a rare but dangerous postpartum condition. It’s one of the leading overall causes of maternal death and has a sixty-fold increase in risk compared to non-pregnant women.

This condition tends to present up to six weeks after birth. It causes shortness of breath, heart palpitations and potentially coughing up blood.

During and after pregnancy, a mother’s body is in a “hyperclotting” state to reduce blood loss after delivery. This hyperclotting state can subsequently cause blood clots to form elsewhere in the body, such as veins in the legs. These clots can become dislodged, travelling to the major arteries in the lungs and blocking them.

Clotting risk can be managed with various therapies, such as with injectable anti-coagulant drugs.

Pregnancy makes large-scale changes to a mother’s body. But as soon as the baby is delivered, these changes usually reverse back to baseline – often quicker than they happened during pregnancy. This sometimes means the body fails to adapt, leading to various health conditions.

If you’re a mother who has recently given birth and feel something isn’t right, it’s best to see your GP.

Adam Taylor 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. Five health conditions mothers can develop after giving birth – https://theconversation.com/five-health-conditions-mothers-can-develop-after-giving-birth-280183

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nick Ilott, Senior Researcher and Lead Bioinformatician, The Oxford Centre for Microbiome Studies, University of Oxford

Through the air we breathe and the food we eat, we can’t help but inhale and ingest tiny bits of plastic every day.

These microplastics, as they’re known, have been found in many parts of the human body – including the lungs, placenta and blood vessels. Research has even linked the presence of microplastics to cardiovascular disease and poor health in humans.

Evidence also shows that microplastics can interact with the gut microbiome – and their presence could contribute to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Microplastics are microscopic fragments of plastic that are smaller than 5mm long (and as small as 0.001mm) – and they’re everywhere. Some microplastics are created intentionally, glitter and confetti being obvious everyday examples. Others are created when larger plastic items are worn down (such as when plastic pollution in the ocean or environment is eroded).

Nevertheless, whether they’re shed from plastic chopping boards, in our drinking water or inadvertently added to processed food products, we could consequently be consuming up to 5g every week.

However, we don’t currently know the exact quantities of microplastics a single person may have in their body at any one time. Getting precise measurements of microplastics in human samples can be difficult. This is because other small fragments (such as some fats) in bodily samples can look like plastic to scientific instruments.

While scientists are sure that we’re eating microplastics, there’s also still some debate around their ability to enter our bloodstream and build up in body tissues.

Nevertheless, the fact that we consume them at all is enough for microplastics to meet our metabolic organ – the gut microbiome. Current research suggests that these encounters can reduce the good bacteria in our gut to contribute to IBD.

Microplastics and gut health

Our gut is home to trillions of microorganisms – known as the gut microbiome. Some 500 to 1,000 different microbial species work together in harmony to keep our gut healthy.

A major function of the microbiome is to take what we eat, chew it up and spit out breakdown products. These products are called metabolites and are critical for gut health.

A well-studied group of metabolites are short-chain fatty acids. Short-chain fatty acids garnered attention around a decade ago, when they were found to be produced by good gut bacteria and could help prevent IBD.

IBD is an increasingly common disease, affecting around one in every 123 people in the UK. It can cause severe abdominal pain, diarrhoea, weight loss and fatigue.

One of the gut’s key short-chain fatty acids is butyrate, which is produced by bacteria when they break down dietary fibre. Butyrate has been found to be crucial for gut health, helping to boost immunity and preserve the gut barrier. However, if the gut microbiome is disturbed, microbes that produce butyrate are reduced and gut health is jeopardised.

The gut microbiome faces many challenges that now includes plastic pollutants.

Evidence for how microplastics influence the microbiome and gut health in humans is presently scarce, largely due to the previously mentioned difficulty in measuring microplastics in human samples. But work in mouse models has been more revealing, allowing us to observe the consequences of various types of microplastics in the gut.

A recently published study in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, showed that giving mice a group of polystyrene microplastics of various sizes makes the gut vulnerable to IBD. This happens because key members of the microbiome are reduced, stopping the production of butyrate and increasing the severity of inflammation.

Clearly microplastics are capable of inducing poor gut health. However, whether animal studies accurately capture levels of microplastics found in human tissues remains to be completely understood – something that will hopefully become possible with technological advances. It’s also still not clear exactly how microplastics do this.

Even with bans on intentionally produced microplastics, we still have to fight against those that are produced through wear and tear of plastic-containing materials.

What if we could use our bacteria to help us in this battle? There is some tantalising evidence that some bacteria found in human guts are capable of breaking down some types of microplastics. Although we don’t yet know if this breakdown happens in the gut (or whether it’s a good thing), there is a real, albeit distant, possibility that in collaboration with our microbiome we might be able to fend off some of the ill effects of microplastics.

With ever-growing technological advances, it is plausible that we could, in the future, harness the power of the microbiome to dispose of plastics outside, and inside, our guts.

Nick Ilott receives funding from The Kennedy Trust for Rheumatology Research, The Wellcome Trust, Guts UK, PSC Support and has received funding from Roche for a PhD project jointly with funding from the BBSRC as part of an iCASE DTP.

– ref. Microplastics have been found to interact with the gut microbiome – here’s what health effects they might have – https://theconversation.com/microplastics-have-been-found-to-interact-with-the-gut-microbiome-heres-what-health-effects-they-might-have-279372

Source: The Conversation – UK – By David J. Galbreath, Professor of War and Technology, University of Bath

Donald Trump’s deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face a renewal of American bombardment was due to expire this week, but was extended at the last moment, this time with no defined time limit. But the risk of renewed escalation remains real, as both sides continue to block traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important – and contested – waterways..

Yet, despite hardline rhetoric on both sides, diplomacy has not collapsed. In fact, several plausible off‑ramps exist that could allow Washington and Tehran to cool tensions without either side appearing to capitulate.

Research in conflict resolution suggests that warring parties will be more likely to come to an agreement when both sides can take away what they consider a winning result. Often, this comes in trade-offs between what you are willing to give away in order to gain elsewhere. Nevertheless, it’s axiomatic in conflict resolution that it’s much easier to start a war than to stop it.

The most viable pathway to a settlement remains a reset of the nuclear file broadly along the lines of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), albeit under a new political brand.

Iranian officials have proposed a staged arrangement that would cap uranium enrichment at 3.67%, well below the level needed for a nuclear weapon. Such an arrangement would return intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency inspections with the prospect of ultimately transferring stocks of higher‑enriched uranium out of the country in exchange for phased sanctions relief.

This would not represent a fundamental concession by Tehran. These were the parameters it accepted 11 years ago under the deal brokered by Barack Obama. But it would significantly lengthen Iran’s nuclear “breakout time” (the time it takes to produce enough weapons-grade uranium). It would also restore transparency that has been steadily eroded since the first Trump administration pulled out of the JCPOA in 2018.

For Washington, such a deal would fall short of longstanding demands for “zero enrichment” – but that position has so far proved unattainable. Even US officials now appear more focused on verifiable constraints than absolute prohibitions, understanding that China recognises the right to enrich uranium as a matter of sovereignty.

A capped and monitored programme would allow the US president to claim that Iran had been forced back under strict controls, while avoiding a further costly regional war. The irony is that this would largely put Iran back into an agreement that Obama agreed and which Trump, with considerable bluster, withdrew from in 2018. This appears to be a stumbling block for the US president.

A second and related off‑ramp concerns the duration rather than the existence of enrichment limits. Recent talks have stalled over US demands for a 20‑year moratorium on enrichment, which Iran has countered with proposals closer to five years. A compromise, such as a seven to ten-year limit with built‑in reviews, would give both sides something to sell domestically. It would represent long‑term risk reduction for Washington and for Tehran it would be a reaffirmation of Iran’s right to a nuclear future.

Time‑limited arrangements have precedent in arms control. They are known as confidence and security building measures and are often used in conflict prevention and resolution to build trust between parties while working towards a resolution. And they may be more politically durable than maximalist demands that are more likely to collapse as political conditions change.

Beyond the nuclear issue, the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as Iran’s most potent source of leverage. Roughly one-fifth of global oil passes through the waterway, and even limited disruption has sent energy prices climbing this year. Former Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev – a close ally of Vladimir Putin – recently described the strait as Iran’s “real nuclear weapon”. It’s a comment that captures how central maritime pressure has become to Tehran’s strategy.

An agreement guaranteeing the strait’s unconditional reopening without harassment, tolls, or threats, would provide immediate economic relief worldwide and give Washington a highly visible diplomatic win.

But Gulf states have expressed concern that such a bargain could end up managing rather than dismantling Iran’s leverage. It would effectively normalise – rather than remove – Iran’s ability to threaten shipping during crises.

For neighbouring countries, stabilisation without broader de‑escalation risks entrenching a dangerous precedent. This makes it all the more important that any Hormuz‑focused deal be tied to wider commitments on restraint and established confidence-building measures.

Lowering the stakes

Process matters as much as substance. Increasingly, mediators such as Pakistan, Oman and China appear to favour “sequenced de‑escalation”. This is where limited reciprocal steps, including mutual adherence to ceasefire agreements, shipping guarantees and relaxation of both sides’ maritime blockades, are locked in before negotiations widen to sanctions relief and regional security.

This approach lowers the political stakes of any single concession and reduces the risk that talks collapse under the weight of unresolved disputes. However, this scenario would make it harder for the US administration to define the agreement as a victory.

Similarly, there is the question of political narrative. The US president has vacillated between threats of overwhelming force and signals of fatigue with the conflict. This suggests he has a strong desire for an exit that can be framed as victory.

A narrowly defined agreement that could be rebranded, front‑loaded with Iranian compliance and heavy on enforcement language may prove more acceptable than a comprehensive treaty – even if its substance closely resembles older Obama-era frameworks.

The problem is the Trump administration’s failure to maintain a consistent narrative of what it wants from Iran. This presents a challenge to the established research on conflict resolution. The US president, in particular, has made understanding the US position difficult. In years to come, this crisis may be a useful case study when it comes to exploring conflict resolution theory. But, right now, it makes a settlement very hard to envisage.

David J. Galbreath has received funding from the UKRI.

– ref. Middle East conflict: how the US and Iran could step back from the brink – https://theconversation.com/middle-east-conflict-how-the-us-and-iran-could-step-back-from-the-brink-281203

Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Smith, Lecturer, School of Applied Social Studies, Robert Gordon University

Incels – involuntary celibates – believe they have been unconditionally excluded from the dating market and are doomed to remain virgins. This has negative implications for their mood and self-esteem, as well as the women and girls they grow to resent.

For this reason, schools in England are now required to address incel communities, among other sources of online misogyny, in relationships, sex and health education. This is a challenging task when many teachers are already overstretched, and schools are increasingly expected to deal with problems that begin beyond the school gates.

Addressing gender based discrimination and violence requires experts who are well prepared and able to support discussion around these sensitive topics in a manner that does not further stigmatise young people.

Many young people worry about falling behind their peers socially and sexually. Sociological research shows this pressure is observable from high school onward, with pupils mocking each other if they do not appear sufficiently experienced or interested. Survey data finds inexperienced adults are seen as less desirable, even by those who share their inexperience.

Virginity and masculinity

Research in the US found that women were more likely to see their virginity as something to be shared with the right person, while men are more likely to see it as a source of shame to be opportunistically cast off. These sentiments reflect the traditional view of virginity in men as a sign of inadequacy.

Incels take this perception to the extreme, positioning themselves at the bottom of a natural male hierarchy because of women’s supposedly hardwired preferences for alpha males.

This is in contrast to other parts of the manosphere, populated by masculinity influencers. They start from a similar premise – that dating is unfair – but teach followers how to “game” the system. This may be through pseudoscience, body modification, coercion, dehumanisation and dominance.

Incels see their struggle to fit in with adulthood as something inflicted upon them by a combination of biology and social engineering. They envision the same sexual marketplace as the likes of Andrew Tate, but feel unable to compete in it. This perceived helplessness acts as a justification for their grievances. In this way, they outsource their sexual development, positioning women as gatekeepers to respectability and misogyny as transgressive rebellion.

Crucially, incels’ sense of exclusion goes beyond sexuality. An illustration of this was found in research which suggested that regional inequality is a predictor of incel activity on social media. In other words, economically unequal environments are associated with more incel sentiments. If young men can see “the good life”, but feel blocked from achieving it and their position at the bottom of a hierarchy is inescapable, it can make them feel trying is pointless.

It may seem counterintuitive that incels gravitate towards a philosophy that tells them their life cannot get any better. But this fatalistic worldview, that offers secret knowledge to explain romantic alienation as a scientific inevitability, offers temporary comfort. It absolves responsibility.

Incels often see themselves as rivals in a misery economy, where the goal is to be the most “trucel”: the person with the odds stacked most against them, who therefore has the best reason to be a virgin. But over time, the permanency of their position can become overwhelming as the sadness turns to rage. Most incels confine their anger to messageboards. But in extreme cases incel beliefs have inspired real-world violence including harassment, stalking and even acts of murder.

Research on the influence of “manfluencers” and incel culture in schools suggests that these online cultures do not remain confined to the internet. They spill into classrooms, shaping boys’ attitudes towards girls and women teachers. They normalise sexist behaviour, placing yet more responsibility on teachers to deal with the consequences. One outcome is that the Department for Education has seen a rising number of Prevent referrals related to inceldom.

Social media and video sharing platforms play a large role in both spreading and profiting from this material, so are being increasingly targeted by regulators such as Ofcom. This may well become a catalyst for stricter digital governance.

But at a local level, a meaningful response to these issues must include expanded access to mental health support. Young people also need healthier outlets, both on and offline, for openness and connection.

In schools, education on rejection, empathy, relationship dynamics, self-worth and social skills can play a vital role here. It requires a whole-school approach in which teachers are themselves supported and equipped to respond. A whole-school approach should also mean that individual staff are not left to carry the burden.

This begins with the identification of whole school guiding principles for education interventions. Some schools are supporting all staff to recognise and respond to incel terminology, to recognise the eco-system and appeal of influencers. Specific workshops and lesson plans are also being developed and tested.

Schools and teachers should not be left to tackle this issue alone. Parents are the first port of call for safeguarding young people and they require education and support in recognising and challenging harmful online influences at home.

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. Understanding incel culture – and how schools can address it – https://theconversation.com/understanding-incel-culture-and-how-schools-can-address-it-272566